US House Redistricting: Arizona

[minionofmidas]

You do understand that your split of the Navajo Nation along the grid line has a 0.1% chance of happening, do you Torie?

[minionofmidas]

Your tan district is also highly unlikely. You'll probably have to cut the entire western portion out.

[minionofmidas]

No. Not if he gets any sort of primary challenge. You drew his district out from under his feet.

[minionofmidas]

Last time the Commission hewed to the grid quite well

Lolwut. There's scarcely a line they didn't change.

[minionofmidas]

It would be interesting to know that the 2001 grid map looked like.

Here's the initial grid:



Here's the draft map based on the grid:

And the final map:



There is a community of interest requirement, and the commission is not dominated by Phoenix Suburban Republicans. Either of these would be sufficient to mark your little wank there as DOA without the other. There will probably be a northern Arizona district much like the current in the end - probably excising Pinal, possibly excising parts of Yavapai, possibly taking in parts of Mojave, possibly taking in Cochise, but substantially the same district - not because it's there right now but because nothing else makes sense. Safford pretty much must by law remain united with the remainder of LDS Nonmetro Arizona (Snowflake, Holbrook etc) and thus can't be used to crack Giffords, as you're doing. The Navajo Nation can't go into a district dominated by exurbs if there are any viable alternatives. There's neither an even remotely compelling excuse for creating two Maricopa-to-Northern-Boondogs seats, nor even much of an incentive for the players involved (rules or no rules, this is still a bipartisan gerrymandering exercise. The GOP wouldn't have sued to get a particular operative onto the commission if there were any doubts about that.) Etc. There are just more problems with your map than... well... things that aren't problems.
There *are* potential legal issues with retiring Grijalva's district from metro Maricopa, actually ("retrogression"), but I agree that it's likely to happen anyways - though I would take even odds that he'll retain Gila River as it belongs with Tohono O'odham and there's no real compelling reason not to ("I can draw a cleaner-looking gerry of Tucson then" isn't one. "Casa Grande needs to go with Mesa while rural Pinal should remain in the northern district" might be one, though, as that along with a different home for the West Maricopa hispanics would make it impossible for the Southern Hispanic seat to reach Gila River.) It does mean that the grid can't stand in Maricopa either, though (apart from Pastor's district). It'll have to be rotated around it - you can't draw a district spanning parts southwest and southeast of town like your tan one, thanks to that geography rule.

[minionofmidas]

Do you have a drf file of the grid? Even though you need to change everything that needs to be changed - ie, almost everything - it's still what you need to start from.

[minionofmidas]

Community of Interest. Rural Arizona, pretty much anywhere, doesn't have one with Maricopa.
You'll notice the grid's "northern" district had a sizable bit of Maricopa. The draft had it almost excised in exchange for Yavapai (the southwestern tip there is a reservation) and then after that they figured that rural Pinal (a very different place in 2000 than it is today) was a better fit than Lake Havasu City, and threw even that remainder out because the areas in Pinal had more people.
The "not very many people" are all in excess of 10% of districts... and they are what makes your GOP gerrymander.

Oh btw. Just noticed you fixed my "tan" complaint already before I reiterated it.

[minionofmidas]

Have you had a look at voting patterns of rural Arizona? The deep south does have deeper divisions, but apart from that?

While I hope the Hopi ridiculousness falls by the wayside, btw, the reason it got special treatment is due to the arcana of US constitutional law, which means that tribes don't have standing in certain kinds of suits, I forget what kind, and the tradition that Representatives serve as standins for them. Whoever represented AZ-1 would have had to sue (as the Hopi Nation) himself (as the Navajo Nation) on some particular upcoming matter. Yeah, it's bizarre. I may also be getting some details wrong.

The grid is not a map of congressional districts. It is not intended to be one. Suburbs-to-rural districts are pubbie gerrymanders usually, and certainly would be in this case - both districts' Republican safeness is anchored in their suburban portion. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... And in the case of the Navajo, we're talking about just about the remotest, not to mention thirdworldish habitations in the lower 48 here.

Safford is a rural LDS town and votes like one. Its inclusion in the former AZ-8 is what creates your safe(ish) GOP seat there (we're talking 30,000 people in the conurbation, giving John McCain 74% of their votes). It got excised between the grid and the first draft the last time, no reason to assume it won't be this time.

And yeah, I'm drawing a map for you as we speak. Will probably not get it to presentability today. But because of my "didn't start from the grid" caveat, I wouldn't call it my prediction of what will actually happen. Though I did take Vazdul's suggestion that they seemed to be drawing a Tucson-to-Pinal seat (though I assume he just meant Casas Grandes), something I had never considered before. Though as of current, I still have Buckeye in the southwestern seat... ideally, I'll find a way to remove that without pushing it below 50.1 or doing anything else I don't want to do, but I'm leaving it for now.

[minionofmidas]

Yes. Yes, it would be more useful. But I'm too lazy to go dig for the best map of the grid I can find, then enter it manually into the DRA, when I'm then going to change it all right after that. (Oh, and did you read through the (publically available part of the) 2001 commission's deliberations? Mad kudos in that case. Or did you just make that up on the spot?) Old AZ-1 wasn't forced to move anywhere at all by population changes, of course. It's just barely above target and only "wants" to lose some new exurbs in Pinal. Though I understand that because of the Commission's rules it's drawn anew from spot, leading to more change than if the Commission were working from the old map.

[minionofmidas]

So... with immense caveatting and as only one option etc pp...







The numbering scheme right now is sort of wild here, (small) part grid, (some) part previous district, (mostly) just random. It's obviously going to be vaguely grid-based in actuality (5 of the 8 2000 districts bear the number of the closest draft map district, though 1-3 were changed.)

1 - the northeastern district. Once you got Safford to Sedona (which goes where Flagstaff goes. As a matter of course. County line be damned.) together, you of course need to pick up some areas with more quasi-suburban (but not actually suburban) patterns. Cochise got added here and rural Pinal excised mostly because I was trying to see what the Tucson-to-Pinal district might end up like, and it forces that. The far north of Mojave is FLDS Polygamists and Indians and belongs (belonged in 2000 too, really.) I didn't want to split the Prescott Valley, and that's what forced the split of "real" Mojave (Kingman and Bullhead included, Lake Havasu not). Seligman is of course onI40 between Flagstaff and Kingman and not in any way accessible from Prescott, hence that further split of Yavapai in the north.
53.6-45.0 McCain, 56.6-17.9 White, 21.1 Native. Over 60% White on VAP though. Vague lean R partly because the Dem coalition is hard to hold together - as was true of the old district. Exchanging the remainder of Yavapai for Cochise (so, redrawing the Tucson seat, Pinal, etc pp) and Bullhead City brings McCain up to 55.2, btw. Of course, if the commission'd be doing that it'd move Kingman out as well and add some rural Pinal, bringing your McCain figure down again to about 54.1. That then is almost like the minimum change alignment (other than Hopi and FLDS stuff.)

2 - the part-Phoenix metro seat. There must be one. And there will be exactly one. Unless they do funny keep-districts-alike stuff for Grijalva. As they shouldn't. Sun City and points west (including some Hispanic suburbs around Goodyear, getting drowned out in this district though), Prescott, La Paz, Lake Havasu City.
61.5-37.2 McCain, 71.7-20.3 White

3 - is the grid's number for the Yuma seat. Still with Tucson Hispanics and all the Indians it can find, but now without actual Phoenix suburbs. Except one precinct (Tonopah) that isn't even Hispanic. Just noticed that right now. It does include Green Valley and the fast-growing posh R suburb of Maricopa (in Pinal county) for compactness reasons.
55.4-43.5 Obama, 56.1-33.4 Hispanic, 4.7 Native. 50.2% Hispanic on VAP.

4 - South Phoenix Hispanics. Includes Tolleson and Avondale, but nothing in Glendale.
66.5-32.3 Obama, 65.1-20.2 Hispanic, 8.8 Black. Some people might consider this packing, obviously, but mostly only people trying to construct a gerry for White Dems.

5 - Glendale, Peoria, NW Phoenix.
58.6-40.2 McCain, 62.1-26.4 White. We're getting to the parts of the state I care diddly swat about. I understand I should observe municipal lines (which is why, of the major cities, only Phoenix is split. Though that is split four ways if we're counting the suburbs south of South Mountain.) and that it is a radial city and one should therefore avoid the temptation of creating a north central Phoenix / South Glendale seat and a northern Maricopa seat like the plague. Unless one were trying to draw a no-stops-pulled Dem gerry. Which is pointless. But that's about it.

6 - Uh, why is this number 6? Was that from the grid? Tucson and (southern) Pinal. Ugly line is due to precinct design and population balancing. Though the actual map needs to adhere to census tracts, not precincts.
50.3-48.5 McCain, 67.1-23.3 White
I'd prefer to get Florence and Coolidge in as well but it's 40,000+ people. Wreaks havoc to this surprisingly clean Maricopa map. And would drop the 3rd below 50% Hispanic. (Without excising anything in exchange, adding the area raises the McCain share to 50.5 btw.)

7 - Scottsdale, NE Phoenix.
55.6-43.3 McCain, 76.3-15.3 White. Yawn.

8 - Mesa, Tempe that bit south of South Mountain. Those two indian reservations thrown in for balance. I'd prefer if I hadn't had to do this, it smacks a tiniest bit of gerrymandering given that's it's a marginal seat.
54.7-43.9 McCain, 65.0-23.2 White
 
9 - Gilbert, Chandler, continuously built up parts in Pinal (Apache Junction, Queen Creek. You'll notice this got done between the grid and the draft last time around, too.) And a southern extension to Florence and Coolidge that makes the Maricopa map work.
59.1-39.9 McCain, 68.1-19.4 White.

I apologize if I messed up the municipal boundaries, btw. It's possible in some weird areas.

[minionofmidas]

No - see caveats - but it is beyond reasonable doubt closer than the bizarre thing you drew for all points outside the Phoenix metro. Oh, and Cochise. Because I'm not actually sure I'm buying that one yet. Though it does make some sense (unlike your map).
It's not a high standard. Your map couldn't possibly get any grade better than an F.

[minionofmidas]

Looks good thus far. Compared to the grid:

1. Obama 49+. McCain 49
2. Obama 50 McCain 49
3. McCain 59, Obama 40


The changes look to be favorable to the R's thus far with 2 districts moving in our favor. Even Lewis's map gives the R's a somewhat favorable situation in Maricopa

Well duh. That's how it should be. (You could gerrymander Maricopa for the Dems, but I don't see why one should do that given there's no point.)


Torie? D. In other words, far from optimal and probably not close to the end result, but fathomable.
Lots of obvious issues still, mostly with the blue district.


Vazdul - interesting. Are we to take it that that's their idea of what the southern Hispanic district should look like? Ie, that they'll keep it Tucson-to-West End? Interesting detail about getting Eloy in, most of the reason why I didn't was the precinct design wasn't kind to me.
That does look as if they'll eventually excise Tucson from that Chandler-Pinal district. Which of course would probably mean the old 8th probably remains much as is, though perhaps not. I can certainly see why Torie - and a certain R member of the Commission - is fascinated with the alternative.


I had a macchiavellian idea about the south this morning, but I see that's not the way it's headed. Which is probably a good thing. The idea was that you could, starting from the grid, have worked in the direction of a Nogales-to-Glendale Hispanic seat that doesn't actually touch Tucson proper, a Dem Tucson-and-points north seat, and a Rep Tucson-Cochise-and-points north seat. That would kinda satisfy the interests of both Dems and Reps on this peculiarly Sonoran commission (except that Grijalva would have been clean drawn out of his district.)

[minionofmidas]

Right, so all they did so far is redraw the 3rd to be over 50% VAP Hispanic, and that left a bit of Tucson in the (2nd, was it?) from the grid.

[minionofmidas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Drew that map just for the heck of it.



Blue district does include Drexel Heights. Its Hispanic VAP proportion (50.6) is actually higher than its Obama share (50.0). Lol, I feel like I'm in Texas.
Some parts of the remainder come well together... not all though.

[minionofmidas]

AZ-07 was majority VAP Hispanic before, and was drawn in 2001 by the Commission that way overriding all other criteria to conform to the VRA, or what they thought was the VRA.  That is going to happen again.

Incorrect, by the way. As in, they drew it to not be majority VAP Hispanic back then despite (I think) being able to. They drew it to be barely majority Hispanic on total population.

[minionofmidas]

By the way, per the American Almanac, the old AZ-07 CD pre the 2010 census was 54.6% Hispanic population, so if it wasn't 50% Hispanic VAP, it was close. The VAP thing emerged from the courts post 2001.

It was 50.6% total population, 44.5% VAP as drawn in 2000. The share had risen to over 50% VAP by 2010. Maybe your Almanac has census estimates from somewhere near the end of the decade?
Yeah, if the VAP thing only fully emerged from the courts post 2001, that would help explain it. Anyways, it's so easy to draw two over 50% VAP seats without really cherry picking precincts (while still almost impossible to draw three) that I agree 100% that they will do it. Just pointing it out is all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well they have equal ranking to municipalities and features of geography in the law... so yeah, they can basically be safely ignored in many places of the state. Not all of course.

You're talking about the second map, right? It was just an exercise to see if a semireasoble map on that premise could be done, really. I did have the southeastern seat also include Winslow and the Apache rez initially, changed that later because it made for nicer splits in Maricopa.

So there's still no current map of "my map".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Presumably, yeah. Basically, they redrew the southwest seat to make it majority Hispanic, and haven't even started on taking communities of interest (and municipal and county boundaries etc) into account. So it will change further.
Probably relevant that they took the grid's Southwest Corner district, not the Tucson-Pinal district, as the starting point.

What's wrong with your map? Why, have you ever looked at your blue district? Starting with the minor issues - it has half of both large Apache rezzes; that'll really need to go of course. I can sort of see where you're coming from with Payson though I doubt anybody in Payson can (but hey, it's not impossible that they'll be told to suck it, what with it being inherited from the grid) but Globe has no business being in that district. Wherever rural Pinal goes, wherever Safford goes, the northern district are all much better options, though who knows.
 And of course you can't actually get from Scottsdale to Apache Junction except through Tempe and Mesa. You'll probably have to exchange it for Tempe (or rethink Maricopa entirely).
Oh, you also still have Gila River split.

Oh, and yeah, Torie, I mildly disapprove of that you don't just keep the standard color scheme. If you did, I'd just refer to your districts by their official numbers.

[minionofmidas]

Edit: I should read down, you already drew it. Hehe.

When I described it, I figured it'd work out without Drexel Heights. That'd probably make it a bit more Republican. But you can't without really cherrypicking your Phoenix precincts (both in which precincts go into the two Hispanic seats, and in the line between them to get them balanced). So i figured, ef it. I'm not going to that much work to create such an ugly fantasy map. The yellow district there is too much of a "Hispanic influence" district as is, anyways.
I also played with the notion of extending it to Bisbee and Douglas, but I never drew anything like that in the map.

[minionofmidas]

In the previous map, the Native legislative district included the Navajo and Flagstaff. Seems that's not working anymore. (The population on the reservation actually fell.)

[minionofmidas]

Cut out Yuma entirely maybe - it has a lot of Hispanics that don't vote Democratic enough? That would make that Colorado River district idea more workable, and at least the district doesn't switch (EDIT: Wait, what was I trying to say with that last clause? ). (And it would be a safe R district, of course.)
Oh wait, that retrogresses Yuma Hispanics... damn. So... take the current two districts and drop, as exclusively as possible, white-plurality R-voting precincts? That would, of course, be good for Republicans on the whole... though you can't swallow up further Tucson Libs that way. - nor Tempe ones, might I add. It would lead to that split of Yuma County.

In the previous map, the Native legislative district included the Navajo and Flagstaff. Seems that's not working anymore. (The population on the reservation actually fell.)

I wonder if the D of J will have a cow if the native American minority is diluted in a district.

Arizona must draw a Native majority state lege district in the northeast. I don't think that's in the remotest piece of doubt. 'Specially given the decisions in SD last cycle.*
And preferably up the Native percentage as the last edition sometimes elected White Democrats. Adding the Apache probably does that. Though now the district won't be capable of electing White Dems but might be capable of electing White Pubs.

*as in, if push comes to shove, they'll have to break their own laws and draw two single-member seats for the state house one of which will be safe Navajo.

[minionofmidas]

The Hispanics' Phoenix seat is pretty much identical to what I drew two maps above, I think. EDIT: No it's not. I left Glendale alone and included Avondale. Still, southern, eastern and eastern half of northern perimeter should be identical.
Leaving some White Tucson Liberals for Grijalva, or what is that area at the northeast corner of the district's Tucson portion? The Pinal split and the inclusion of Gila River and Ak-Chin are as  they should be... which is by no means saying that that's where they'll indeed end up.
If Grijalva's 2010 showing is supposed to be such a legal concern, I guess the split of Yuma can be considered dried and dusted (it's not as if R members of the commission are going to go after him, either). Not something I'd do personally, though.
So Flagstaff's arguing for the first district to be left exactly as is plus Hopi minus Casas Grandes. Big surprise. -_- (It's what anybody effectively working from the old map and then looking at CoI would suggest. Which you aren't supposed to do, of course. And it helps Dems which is going to be a plus for Flagstaff line-drawers.) Lege map looks has some details that scream gerrymander to me. Some of those troublesome Mormons drawn out of the Navajo-Apache seat and dumped to where Flagstaff and Sedona can much more easily outvote them. Replaced, in the Navajo-Apache seat, with other Mormons 60% of whom are under age. Flip those two areas and the map makes sense.

[minionofmidas]

Well, the City of Flagstaff is run by Dems.  THey turned the grid on its head.  Their gerry looks very nice though.  

They just ignored it entirely and drew what they thought makes sense. It does make sense, too (after all, that's why it was drawn similarly last time), although the fact that what makes sense is good news for Ann Kirkpatrick cannot have escaped them.  (And of course, the northern two thirds of Mojave make just as much more sense as the remaining bit of Pinal... but are more Republican.)

Just noticed that Winslow is also in the lege seat they drew for themselves. Winslow is much the most marginal of the white towns in those two counties, and has a sizable Navajo presence.

[minionofmidas]

Well, the City of Flagstaff is run by Dems.  THey turned the grid on its head.  Their gerry looks very nice though.  

The Hispanic CD in Tuscon Lewis doesn't give Giffords the time of day Lewis. She's F'ed with that map.

I've mapped it. The remainder of Pima is 50.4% McCain and just 48k short of a district - not enough to take in Sierra Vista. They did their homework.
Of course, that also means that the northern seat takes Cochise. Which adds up with the Colorado River district.
Heh, it's only fair. If R's can wetdream about 7-2, D's can wetdream about 4-4-1. Cause that's what all these Dem propositions amount to. Neither will get what he wants, of course.

[minionofmidas]

50.3 actually, I misspoke. Precincts and census tracts don't align around Littlefield.

[minionofmidas]

The Flagstaff wet dream with its Colorado River CD does not take in Cochise by the way.  Did the Dems get their signals crossed?

Ah, the Flagstaff map as presented there doesn't align with the Colorado River idea at all - leaves far too few population by the Colorado, the remainder to come from the West Valley again presumably. I'm sure they wouldn't mind the "obvious" swap of Cochise for Prescott.

[minionofmidas]

You need to work on the bit below Lewis. That should up the McCain percentage as to the balance of Pima by a percent or so maybe.

? I have that. Just south of it is where precinct and census tract boundaries sadly diverge. Can't make any major difference, though.