2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Kansas

[Oryxslayer]

Here's what I think would come from Kansas. There are a lot of things pointing at Incumbent Protection here, or at least some from of mutual cooperation. Dems control the courts. The traditional-radical split in the KS GOP means a low chance of a successful veto override - and that's if Dems don't break the supermajorities in 2020. Watkins wants to lose Douglas.

The only downside I see in hindsight to a map like this is that certain districts might not want to have voters in stranded in certain media markets, so here is a version that cleans up media markets. Such action busts up other COIs in the 2nd.

[Oryxslayer]

There's a non-zero chance Watkins loses his primary. Would LaTurner winning the primary make a meaningful difference to what map was preferred?

LaTurner is from the SE corner, so it probably changes very little. Him winning would banish the chance of the Joplin-Pittsburgh market getting cut, and the market would need to be in the second. There is a low chance that one might stick the SE corner in the fourth and make the second into a NE seat centered on Topeka and Manhattan, but that low chance becomes 0 with LaTurner.

[Oryxslayer]

The likelist imo is a 3-1 incumbent protection. Dems will want to shore up KS-03, and Rs will have to make a deal thanks to Kelly being Governor.

Map:

Stats:

KS-01:
Trump +43.5
Kobach +12.5

KS-02:
Trump +28.2
Kobach +3.6

KS-03:
Clinton +14.8
Kelly +34.0

KS-04:
Trump +28.6
Kobach +2.2

Two issues that I have comments before to someone just copying the 538 map:

Davids lives in Shawnee and Watkins in Topeka. Both are drawn out.

Once you correct for this, it becomes easier to link Lawrence through Johnson than cut Leavenworth.

Doing both of these things produces maps similar to the ones I posted above, depending on the communities you prefer to observe.

[Oryxslayer]

Here's what I think would come from Kansas. There are a lot of things pointing at Incumbent Protection here, or at least some from of mutual cooperation. Dems control the courts. The traditional-radical split in the KS GOP means a low chance of a successful veto override - and that's if Dems don't break the supermajorities in 2020. Watkins wants to lose Douglas.

I think the odds of this are low. As somebody who grew up in Wichita, it makes zero sense to split Harvey or Kingman counties from Sedgwick. While Reno has Hutchinson, Harvey and Kingman are decidedly more in the Wichita bubble. So if you're talking communities of interest, they should be with Sedgwick County.

Well, it is an incumbent protection map first and a COI map second. I bet you can therefore guess why Reno was preferred over Harvey. Harvey almost voted against the GOP in the special, which is ground for it being sunk in the Big First. The 4th should be safe GOP in all circumstances, and since you shouldn't be cutting counties west of Lawrence....

It also voted for Kelly, but tbh that shouldn't be seen a sin. Her win had good geographic spread and it's hard to make KS04 and KS02 into anything more than marginal Kobach wins. Her win will not be replicated in any meaningful capacity, only when the KSGOP screw up their potential future statewide nominees.

[Oryxslayer]

Here's what I think would come from Kansas. There are a lot of things pointing at Incumbent Protection here, or at least some from of mutual cooperation. Dems control the courts. The traditional-radical split in the KS GOP means a low chance of a successful veto override - and that's if Dems don't break the supermajorities in 2020. Watkins wants to lose Douglas.

I think the odds of this are low. As somebody who grew up in Wichita, it makes zero sense to split Harvey or Kingman counties from Sedgwick. While Reno has Hutchinson, Harvey and Kingman are decidedly more in the Wichita bubble. So if you're talking communities of interest, they should be with Sedgwick County.

Well, it is an incumbent protection map first and a COI map second. I bet you can therefore guess why Reno was preferred over Harvey. Harvey almost voted against the GOP in the special, which is ground for it being sunk in the Big First. The 4th should be safe GOP in all circumstances, and since you shouldn't be cutting counties west of Lawrence....

It also voted for Kelly, but tbh that shouldn't be seen a sin. Her win had good geographic spread and it's hard to make KS04 and KS02 into anything more than marginal Kobach wins. Her win will not be replicated in any meaningful capacity, only when the KSGOP screw up their potential future statewide nominees.

I think you're again underrating the importance of quirky local interests. If Kansas' 2010 cycle tells us anything it's that the KSGOP is prone to infighting and will have to appease local concerns. That doesn't mean that they won't cut the counties like that, but not every state map drawers operate with the same careful ruthlessness as far as maximizing partisan advantage goes as you assume.

If one was to swap Reno and Harvey, you would end up filling the 4th's remaining pop requirements with rurals to the west so it would be a simple trade, just on that effects the seats partisan baseline.

To that end though, I think you are misunderstanding how incumbent protection maps work. In Kansas, the GOP will be unable to break said supermajority because of their infighting or because they lost it in 2020. the dems have the courts. If the GOP doesn't come to the table, they lose their seats by default. So both factions come to the table.

At this point one can only assume what types of demands will be leveled but here are the most common on incumbent protection plans:

-A Safer seat if said seat has any history of a competitive race
-A seat safe from a primary because it keeps your base whole (or adds more) and cracks bases of potential opponents. Sometimes this means grabbing other legislators homes via a arm.
 - Sometimes the opposite is true and a primary challenger has more collateral that the incumbent, and a seat is drawn to their advantage in a coming primary.
-A Seat that does not 'strand' populations in other media markets. You shouldn't have to go on the air for 20k people if it can be avoided. Even more important for districts with less voters than congressional seats.
-A seat that preserves a substantial percentage of the previous seats voters who know their representative as their incumbent.
-A seat with a specific shape. Either this is compact and rational because the incumbent has a base, or it is the opposite because the incumbent does not. Community lines though should try to be preserved. This is all because of voter outreach and constituent services - the more rational the district, the easier and cheaper these are.

NJ is the prototypical Incumbent protection, at least with 2008 data. MD is the prototypical state where incumbents levy their demands and the legislature must balance these out. In the end, Incumbent protection produces agreements that should only satisfy incumbents, anyone else is secondary.

[Oryxslayer]

Oryxslayer, your belief that legislators will draw perfectly optimized districts for whatever objective is silly. State legislators are swayed by things other than just perfectly meeting some benchmark of incumbent protection or gerrymandering. These can include local pressure, tradition, or simple ignorance. The country's maps are filled with cases where map drawers have "left things on the table" as it were.

There's no certainty in any of this, and to assume that Kansas's legislators will draw a perfectly optimized map incumbent protection map without at least considering local factors or tradition is a bit silly.

We are going to have to agree to disagree and end here. The job of a redistricting firm is to produce the most ideal map given the specifications of the politicians. If they don't earn their pay, then reputations sour and clients seek other vendors. Those specifications are often more than numerous depending on how many interest groups (partisans, incumbents, people, communities, etc depending on the state process) are laying demands before the public-facing front of redistricting. If something is not specifically detailed...well then...

[Oryxslayer]

We will likely see draft Kansas maps on January 18.

Realistically, there's 4 options. Least Change, Lawrence-Kansas City Dem pack that protects KS-02, swap parts of outer Johnson county for Red rurals to the north, and using the 1st to crack Kansas City. Dems would likely fight like hell to get power into the hands of a favorable Supreme Court, if its the last option.

[Oryxslayer]

Apparently the House submitted a fourth map, but I can't find it.

[Oryxslayer]

I didn't notice this earlier but GOP map 1 double-bunks Salinas-based Mann and Topeka based LaTurner.

[Oryxslayer]

I assume Kelly would veto this map, right? Does the GOP have the votes to override?

In theory, yes, if the full GOP stays together. In practice that may be no, we will see when a floor vote occurs. If it is a no, then this is all basically performative.

[Oryxslayer]

Senate appears to have the votes to sustainan  veto, the Ad Astra 2 plan passed 26-9. Party line vote (2 Ds 3 Rs absent) with the exception of GOP Senator Dennis Pyle.

[Oryxslayer]

Notably while the senate had a working supermajority - their additional votes were just absent - the state house does not. They lost several R's and are 5 votes short of an override. So this is likely the death of Ad Astra.

[Oryxslayer]

Anyway, assuming the veto override votes go as these votes have - if they occur, this House vote may just be seen as writing on the wall - there are now basically two options. One, get Dems on board probably via Lawrence-KC since that still helps both Davids and LaTurner. Or two, punt it to the liberal court and likely get a least change map.

[Oryxslayer]

Kelly has unsurprisingly vetoed.

[Oryxslayer]

I had read that the KSGOP would try to override today, but haven't heard anything. Maryland was pretty quick; why the holdup?

Simple, the GOP possibly/likely lack the votes.

[Oryxslayer]

I had read that the KSGOP would try to override today, but haven't heard anything. Maryland was pretty quick; why the holdup?

MD Democrats have an overwhelming legislative supermajority and were more or less united around the plan. With KS, there are a few defectors/holdeouts, which is just enough to fall short of the required supermajority, since the KSGOP's supermajorities are very narrow.

Umm they’re almost the same - and actually Kansas Republicans have bigger numbers

Maryland

State House of Reps • 99 DEM - 42 GOP • (70% Dem)

State Senate • 32 DEM - 15 GOP • (68% Dem)

Kansas

State House of Reps • 86 GOP - 39 DEM • (68% GOP)

State Senate • 29 GOP - 11 DEM • (73% GOP)

My mistake (but then Phips' comment explains it, then - MD Democrats' majority comfortably clears the MD override threshold, whereas KS Republicans' majority clears the KS override threshold more narrowly).

A less meaningful but additional piece of the puzzle is that the smaller the chamber - and KS chambers are slightly smaller than MD - the more powerful a single legislators voice becomes.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1490807054025510920?s=20&t=XmuZ1nlsNIl...

https://twitter.com/Jason_Tidd/status/1490800245818761218?s=20&t=XmuZ1nlsNIl...

Apparently there is trouble even in the 'easier' chamber. There still isn't yet a 27th vote to override.  

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/jonshorman/status/1490830590584958976?s=20&t=XmuZ1nlsNIl...

Further updates - the Senate GOP is now losing votes because the caucus is getting tired of forced sitting around in the chamber waiting for someone to show up who likely wouldn't change the outcome. House schedule has delayed resumption until 8pm, which suggests they might or might not take up the vote depending on the senate.

[Oryxslayer]

Senate voted to adjourn for the day.

House to convene at 8pm. They could take it up or wait for the senate to give it another go tomorrow. There was some reporting that the body was following the Senate's lead. If it fails in the House then the senate probably doesn't pick it back up tomorrow.

[Oryxslayer]

If you are a GOP member of the state senate, why would you not override the veto?

Does anybody have any idea what these members are thinking?

One cited "good government." Another we knew defected based on the long wait. One no was the speaker of course, for legalistic reasons. But that is not all of them.

That though is just todays reasons. Whenever there are notable numbers of Kansas R's defecting from the majority votes, you can expect it traces backwards to the long term factional divides within the KS GOP in one form or another. Which is why we always expected a override to be a hurdle potentially too high to clear - though in the House not the Senate.

[Oryxslayer]

The easier chamber to override has now cleared their threshold, 27-11.

[Oryxslayer]

The easier chamber to override has now cleared their threshold, 27-11.

Chances that the House fails to do it? If they don't, the KS SC will surely strike the map down if it gets litigated to there. This is not a fight worth being in, what the f**k is the KS GOP's problem?

They didn't have the votes the first time, and apparently when they were whipping over the weekend 3 State Reps didn't even bother to return the calls - and they can only lose 2. We shall see, but there was never expected to be any trouble in the senate and yet their was, so there's a good chance there isn't the votes in the House.


House is adjourned to 11am tomorrow, so solid chance we see some rumors come out.

[Oryxslayer]

Reminder since there will be a vote today that R's can only lose 2 House votes and succeed. 84 votes are needed for an override and they have 86. They did not have this majority last time the vote came up, but some members were out. There are rumors they have the votes, and rumors they don't.

[Oryxslayer]

House is voting now over the veto.

Pls update a results i at school rn lol

There are some members not present, so it looks like we're going to have a repeat of the situation in the Senate from a few days ago.

Currently YES votes are at 80 out of 84 needed to override.

I think that means there are not the votes?

https://twitter.com/KatieJ_Bernard/status/1491472998947295232?s=20&t=hW1YyKl...

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/KatieJ_Bernard/status/1491484793267175424?s=20&t=HtbzIhP...

So something has to give for there to be a 84th.