US House Redistricting: Iowa

[Torie]

I'd guess the Democrats would be happy with that map; it looks like a 2D-1R map with a Dem-leaning IA-03.

Yup. Here are the 2004 numbers, assuming I coded all the counties right. I tried!

                                                            51.25%                                     
               Bush       Kerry        Total        Bush % 2004 GOP PVI
IA-01   161,235   193,385   354,620   45.47%   -5.78%
IA-02   192,150   212,034   404,184   47.54%   -3.71%
IA-03   179,870   181,875   361,745   49.72%   -1.53%
IA-04   218,702   154,604   373,306   58.59%    7.34%

Here are the old numbers by comparison. Not very good for the GOP. IA-04 disappears, and IA-03 moves 32 basis points towards the Dems.

                                                      51.25%     2004                                 
               Bush       Kerry        Total        Bush % GOP PVI   Change         
District 1   138,073   157,380   295,453   46.73%   -4.52%   -1.27%
District 2   135,991   171,561   307,552   44.22%   -7.03%   3.32%
District 3   154,919   154,652   309,571   50.04%   -1.21%   -0.32%
District 4   155,587   148,331   303,918   51.19%   -0.06%   NA
District 5   167,387   109,974   277,361   60.35%   9.10%   -1.76%

[Torie]

I'd guess the Democrats would be happy with that map; it looks like a 2D-1R map with a Dem-leaning IA-03.

Yup. Here are the 2004 numbers, assuming I coded all the counties right. I tried!

                                                            51.25%                                     
               Bush       Kerry        Total        Bush % 2004 GOP PVI
IA-01   161,235   193,385   354,620   45.47%   -5.78%
IA-02   192,150   212,034   404,184   47.54%   -3.71%
IA-03   179,870   181,875   361,745   49.72%   -1.53%
IA-04   218,702   154,604   373,306   58.59%    7.34%

I'm not sure that the Dem delegation would be pleased. Latham is in CD 3 with Boswell and would present a strong challenge there. Loebsack and Braley are both in CD 2, so presumably one would run in CD 1 and probably relocate as IA congressmen often do after redistricting.

Yes, assuming Latham has an even shot against whomever the Dem candidate is in IA-03, Latham causes the partisan body count tally for Iowa to be GOP -.5, rather than maybe -.75. But overall, the GOP is moving backwards, because they lost a marginal  seat in this round in Iowa (and safe in the hands of Latham). It is only the personality of Latham (and the weakness of Boswell) that at least in the short term, somewhat balances the books (if he wins).

As an aside, the GOP would be in worse shape if Marion County did not end up in IA-03. That is a Dutch influence county, and is the county from which many of the Dutch there decamped, when they heard the good news about Sioux County, and got in their covered wagons, and in a mad rush headed out to Sioux to claim it. It turned out to be a good move, because Sioux has the most expensive and productive farmland in Iowa (other than Scott County typically, where land values are pushed up a bit by being so close to Davenport, and thus having some modest development potential). Sioux has some very wealthy farmers.

[Torie]

Well Muon2's map 2 moves the ball 20 basis points in the wrong direction with respect to IA-03 (one needs to figure out how to get Story County out of IA-03 and keep Marion County in (in map 2 Marion County departed from IA-03, while Story stayed). 

However, map 2 does create an interesting situation in IA-01. Suddenly the most Dem CD in Iowa becomes but lean Dem, and the Dem incumbent there is an under-performer. That is what happens when you switch out a university for the Dutch among other things (Marion County was put in IA-01, while Johnson County was excised to IA-02).

It might be worth going for the gold on this.  20 basis points in exchange for a reasonable shot in IA-01 might just be worth it, particularly if Leach is still around. Plus, the university kids might be less hot for the Dems at the moment, since the Afghan war continues, and jobs are hard to find, and some of the Obama magic for the young might have waned a bit. Change may seem a bit more ominous, and a bit less exciting.

                                                          51.25%       GOP
              Bush         Kerry        Total        Bush %  2004 PVI
IA-01   155,905   163,772   319,677   48.77%   -2.48%
IA-02   194,064   231,036   425,100   45.65%   -5.60%
IA-03   182,947   186,515   369,462   49.52%   -1.73%
IA-04   219,041   160,575   379,616   57.70%    6.45%

[Torie]

...And the Dems would not be happy with that map.

Can the Dems then veto map 2, and we move on to map 3? LOL.

[Torie]

...And the Dems would not be happy with that map.

Can the Dems then veto map 2, and we move on to map 3? LOL.

Either chamber or the governor can reject the first or second map. In doing so, they may specify reasons consistent with the standards for IA redistricting. The next map will be prepared based on any reasons given for rejection. However, after the third map the matter goes to the courts. Presumably, the Dems could ask for even less population variation, though I don't think they have to give a reason. If there is a third map, it can be amended like any other bill.

In that event, the Dems will indeed drop your map 2 in the waste basket. The last thing they want is to put a reasonably safe Dem seat into play. So what is map 3, assuming the Dems pick the "reason" the fix for which just happens to be the most favorable to them (e.g. requiring that Johnson County be put back into IA-01, and Marion County be excised from IA-03)?  And do the courts have to follow the same law, and beyond following it (assuming it has to), are empowered to draw any map that they desire, without any further guidelines?

[Torie]

Boswell is old and not in good health, any Des Moines seat is going to be marginal. Dems won't stand against a 3 Kerry districts map.

You think the Dems will accept Map 2?

[Torie]

That looks fairly hideous. What does it do politically?

That I suspect would be the Dems' favorite map. Story, Marion, and Johnson look like they are where the Dems would want them. I won't have time today to crank the numbers. This map may be drawn by the courts.

[Torie]

I guess Johnson being in the Southern CD is not enough to keep it from going marginal.  That odd pink county thing dangling there in the NE is Waterloo eh? LOL. That would be the sort of thing I would do, say if Iowa were Indiana.   The only "problem" is that the Western CD suddenly has a PVI that is just a handful  of basis points GOP. In a bad year, the GOP could be zeroed out! Particularly given who the incumbent is. Mr. King is not a centrist.

[Torie]

That looks like a gift to the Republicans in the western half, at least--it cracks the 5th district's Republicans links Des Moines to conservative areas. I'll bet this makes Boswell even more vulnerable. I don't know if that district overlaps at all with the one he represented in the 1990s.

I like the map a lot. I would approve it in a heartbeat. Each party loses a seat in exchange for a marginal one with a GOP lean, probably one destined to grow over time. That seat will elect a Pubbie or house broken Dem. Perfect!  Oh, and that nutter King may be in trouble. Even better! 

[Torie]

That looks like a gift to the Republicans in the western half, at least--it cracks the 5th district's Republicans links Des Moines to conservative areas. I'll bet this makes Boswell even more vulnerable. I don't know if that district overlaps at all with the one he represented in the 1990s.

I like the map a lot. I would approve it in a heartbeat. Each party loses a seat in exchange for a marginal one with a GOP lean, probably one destined to grow over time. That seat will elect a Pubbie or house broken Dem. Perfect!  Oh, and that nutter King may be in trouble. Even better! 

Why is King a "nutter" but not 0 ACU score and 100 ACLU score, 100 AFL-CIO score, etc. uber-liberal David Loebsack?

I don't know Loebsack, but I have seen King on the tube, and in political terms, he's nuts - superficial, extreme, often factually errant, and pandering.  He is just not a serious politician. He's a male version of Bachmann. JMO.

[Torie]

That looks like a pretty optimal GOP gerrymander, actually, if you assume Latham>Boswell in CD-3.  CD-1 is a fantastic Dem vote sink with Iowa City plus most of the river cities (although Braley lives outside it, I think), King should be OK in CD-4, and CD-2 would be pretty competitive for a Cedar Rapids Republican to take on Loebsack.    

Except that IA-03 has Story County in it. It is probably more Dem than the IA-03 currently in place. And IA-03 is where the rubber meets the road. It should be a barn burner, with super high turnout, since Iowa may end up being the epicenter of the election, if Mittens can't get his Hispanic act together. Obama and Mittens will be flushing out every voter who is breathing.

[Torie]

At Red Racing Horses, they are now busy working at fantasizing on a Pub gerrymander of all places - Iowa! I suggested to the boys that to stay out of trouble they should focus on gerrymandering Vermont.

[Torie]

I tried to come up with a Pub gerrymander that was in the same universe as what the black box the technocrats use might create. This was about the best I could come up with after about an hour.

[Torie]

I was interested in how the legal parameters of Iowa redistricting are weighted, and did a substantial amount of research. Two things leapt out at me. First it is illegal to reject a map or enact a map for partisan reasons. A rejection of a map by the legislature or by a veto of the governor, for partisan reasons, is illegal, so a rejection on those grounds would be illegal, and would have to be masked by disingenuous BS.

Second, the reason I was doing the research, is that I was unclear how population equality and erosity are weighted vis a vis each other. Population equality is the primary concern, subject to not chopping counties with a 1% deviation standard. My research was not productive in finding an answer to that question, other than one squib I found regarding the 2011 Iowa map, which stated that a computer drew the map based solely on minimizing population inequality.

So, until the census numbers are out, drawing Iowa maps is well, a waste of time, and second trying to draw partisan maps is a waste of time no only for that reason, but because they are illegal.

It is possible  that if population equality rules all in Map 1, the legislature could tell the technocrats to draw a map 2 that has more population inequality but less erosity. In reality, since the technocrats have apparently reduced themselves to mindless robots, the Pubs in secret might see if there is a map out there using their own computer black box, that they like more that is less erose, with more population inequality. If there isn't, then they would accept the first map. If not, they tell the techs to draw a map with less erosity, knowing exactly what will come out of the black box before they ask.

Reading the public comments about the 2011 map was at once funny and sad. Almost all  of what they wanted changed, was illegal. The only request from the public that would/might be legal would be well, the balancing of population and erosity - maybe.

That said, before I knew the Iowa law, as it is structured as to the hierarchy of its requirements, and in practice, I drew the below. Whether it is a Pubmander, or dummymander, and/or a Torie brain fart, I have no idea. It does have a screen shot of the above referenced squib superimposed on it, for you cynics out there who suspect that I am writing fiction packaged as fact, or am too senile/demented/deranged, to be able to differentiate between the two.  .


And there you have it, or not. The Pubs here can go back to gerrymandering TX, and the Dems to drawing something as horrible looking as possible in Illinois and Maryland, where there are no rules, other than the federal ones.

[Torie]

Two maps for IA:
https://districtr.org/plan/33787
https://districtr.org/plan/33881

The first has a deviation of 0.38%.
The second has a deviation of 0.47%.

Both have similar enough districts:

FIRST - a western, and heavily Republican, district.
SECOND - a district based in North Iowa that voted for both Obama and Trump, the latter time convincingly.
THIRD - a Des Moines-centric district in Southern Iowa that voted for Obama in 2012 and then somewhat narrowly for Trump.
FOURTH - East Iowa. The Quad cities area, and the only Clinton district.

The black box the techs use will not be drawing lines with that degree of erosity.

Yes, after throwing the black box results in the trash 3 times, the Pubs can draw their own lines, but alas they have some constraints:

State law establishes the following criteria for both congressional and state legislative districts:[32]

   Districts must be "convenient and contiguous."
   Districts must "preserve the integrity of political subdivisions like counties and cities."
   Districts must "to the extent consistent with other requirements, [be] reasonably compact–defined in terms of regular polygons, comparisons of length and width, and overall boundary perimeter."

Conclusion:

Your maps will most likely be found by the court to be illegal.

[Torie]

I plugged Muon2’s map into the DRA. It makes IA-03 about 70 basis points more Dem (Trump lost the existing version by 10 basis points, and this iteration by 1.3%. The movement is about the same in the 2020 Senate race. Ernst was hurt by a Libertarian candidate running however, who pulled 3%. That guy is interesting. We are the same age, and both got MBA’s at the University of Chicago. His views basically parrot those of Milton Friedman, perhaps having been exposed to them there. (I actually chatted with Friedman a few times, and drove with his son David to a Libertarian convention in Philadelphia. I bet he would be a bit envious if I told him about that about that.    But he went there about 18 years after me, after having made a bunch of money owning a business, so Milton Friedman was no longer in the hood. His favorite book is James Joyce’s Ulysses. Interesting guy, with an obviously high IQ.  Ulysses is not an easy book to read, trust me. https://ballotpedia.org/Rick_Stewart#Campaign_themes

https://davesredistricting.org/join/81d2fbbb-9206-4e10-9ae4-05088ec9363b

[Torie]

This is kind of a dumb question, but I’m curious. It sounds like you guys are saying Iowa prohibits splitting counties. What happens when you have to? Like, let’s say for a second Polk county’s population goes to 890,000 next decade. You are going to have to split that. What then?

Because Iowa has so many counties of about the same size in area so logically arranged, with so many having relatively small populations, that there is about a zero chance that it would be impossible to draw a plan that cannot both avoid splitting counties and keep below a 1% deviation which is the max allowed by SCOTUS.

[Torie]

This is kind of a dumb question, but I’m curious. It sounds like you guys are saying Iowa prohibits splitting counties. What happens when you have to? Like, let’s say for a second Polk county’s population goes to 890,000 next decade. You are going to have to split that. What then?

Because Iowa has so many counties of about the same size in area so logically arranged, with so many having relatively small populations, that there is about a zero chance that it would be impossible to draw a plan that cannot both avoid splitting counties and keep below a 1% deviation which is the max allowed by SCOTUS.

You misread the post it seems, the question being asked was what would happen if a County was large enough on its own that it was bigger than the sum needed for a Congressional District all by itself.

I did indeed. That won't happen for a long time, but if it does, Polk will have to be split. SCOTUS trumps all. Is that a better answer?

[Torie]

I tend to doubt that the Pubs will be willing to concede a rather safe seat for the Dems unless they have to. Does anyone disagree?

[Torie]

I tend to doubt that the Pubs will be willing to concede a rather safe seat for the Dems unless they have to. Does anyone disagree?

Iowa is probably not Republican enough for a 4-0 map to work. They will probably go for 1 Dem sink and 3 seats for themselves if they end up gerrymandering things.

If Polk and Dallas have to be kept together like Muon2 said then that district can't possibly get more than like Trump+2 at the very worst, and trending D at that.

It is not clear to me that that that is a legal requirement. But the Pubs would have to reject maps to get there.