early look at gerrymanders in 2020

[muon2]

Also, does anyone have a guess at which states are likely to gain/lose seats?

Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2016 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 6 and a quarter year period between the Census and the estimate. I then applied the annual growth rate to the 2010 reapportionment population to get the 2020 projection. This accounts for the extra overseas population used in reapportionment but not for redistricting. Ten years is a long stretch for a simple model like this, but here are the projected changes.

AL -1
AZ +1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

There is only one change since my projections last year. CA stays unchanged at 53 instead of adding a seat and FL gains 2 instead of 1 up to 29. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are IL-17, TX-39, CA-53, AZ-10, and FL-29 (#435).
The next five in line are MT-2, AL-7, CA-54, VA-12, and MN-8.

An alternate projection could use just the last two years of estimates to determine the rate of growth for the rest of the decade. That model gives the same projection as the one above, with changes only in the order of the bubble seats.

[muon2]

Arkansas is going to be interesting.  The gerrymanders may come in the makeup of the primary electorates of each district come 2022.  If legislators in the Delta Region want to have a bigger say in Congress, they might just add all of the Delta to just one district, instead of dividing it between the two currently, which does dilute its influence. 

AR used to maintain whole counties, but ditched that in the last cycle. Do you see any chance they go back to a whole county plan?

[muon2]

Which district in West Virginia likely gets eliminated: Mooney's, Jenkins', or McKinley's?

By default, Mooney's (probably). It's sandwhiched between the other two CDs.

Especially if the WV leg decides to stick to the rationale that was successful in Tennant v Jefferson County. In that case they defended a whole county plan that minimized the number of people shifted between districts. If they apply that to 2020 and a reduction of one seat, they would divvy up the counties in WV-2 between the other 2 CDs and not shift anyone between CD 1 and 3.

[muon2]

Also in Illinois, it's much more likely the dems draw IL-6 as a dem seat,  it's pretty easy to do using 2016 numbers.

They have to be careful there. In 2011 they thought they drew IL-12 and IL-13 as Dem leaning seats, but that didn't work out as the decade unfolded. They relied too heavily on the 2008 race repeating in 2012 and incumbents holding those seats thereafter. If Trump runs in 2020, they will have to avoid putting too much weight on anti-Trump votes in 2021, otherwise they may repeat the error of counting too many pro-Obama votes that didn't carry down ballot.

[muon2]

Also in Illinois, it's much more likely the dems draw IL-6 as a dem seat,  it's pretty easy to do using 2016 numbers.

They have to be careful there. In 2011 they thought they drew IL-12 and IL-13 as Dem leaning seats, but that didn't work out as the decade unfolded. They relied too heavily on the 2008 race repeating in 2012 and incumbents holding those seats thereafter. If Trump runs in 2020, they will have to avoid putting too much weight on anti-Trump votes in 2021, otherwise they may repeat the error of counting too many pro-Obama votes that didn't carry down ballot.

Is this a good map? i.e. especially the form of IL-06 I have.

The Dems had other political goals in 2011 than just maximizing seats. They wanted to give Duckworth a seat without pairing her against any other Dem or against Roskam. Schakowsky did not want a CD that was primarily in Lake county. Also Gutierrez lives in the northern Hispanic CD (5 on your map), and that had to stay over 59% HVAP, which preserved the wraparound IL-4. See what happens when you impose those constraints.

[muon2]

Here's a version of OR I drew from neutral principles. It's an anti-gerrymander, but I'm curious to get an opinion from NOVA Green.



I projected the counties to 2020 from the 2016 estimates. As drawn here are the percent population deviations for the Beaverton and Salem CDs are less than 0.5% and wouldn't need any adjustment. The other CDs are all within 2.3% of the quota, and need minimal shifts to bring them to practicably equal. For example shifting all of the Warm Springs IR into the Gresham-Pendleton CD and the area north of Sexton Mtn Pass into the Eugene CD would be enough to probably meet standards for population equality.

[muon2]

Here's a version of OR I drew from neutral principles. It's an anti-gerrymander, but I'm curious to get an opinion from NOVA Green.



I projected the counties to 2020 from the 2016 estimates. As drawn here are the percent population deviations for the Beaverton and Salem CDs are less than 0.5% and wouldn't need any adjustment. The other CDs are all within 2.3% of the quota, and need minimal shifts to bring them to practicably equal. For example shifting all of the Warm Springs IR into the Gresham-Pendleton CD and the area north of Sexton Mtn Pass into the Eugene CD would be enough to probably meet standards for population equality.

It meets reasonable standards already. They are as equal as practicable using counties.

It is bozo logic that representatives elected from such districts would not be "chosen (...) by the people of [Oregon]"

As soon as SCOTUS determines that "as equal as practicable" is the same as "substantially equal" then I'll entertain the notion that a 10% range on CDs is acceptable. Until then I will assume that SCOTUS intends that the phrases be different and that "as equal as practicable" requires a stricter numerical standard than 10%. I use 1% for CDs since a range close to that has recently been upheld.