Illinois Redistricting Megathread

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/d3bb9d0d-d188-4fcc-876f-2d685e511ed2
How good is this as a Democratic gerrymander aimed towards compactness?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Good news! The Illinois State Legislature has solved the Census problem by using alternative data.

The census delay is causing havoc for several states, with some shifting map deadlines or election dates, or even suing the Census Bureau in an effort to get data earlier. But the Illinois Constitution’s deadline could not be changed in time to affect the mapmaking process this year.

The state constitution does not really hamper legislators from moving forward despite the census delays, however, because it does not require the use of federal census data in drawing maps, stating only that redistricting occur “following each federal decennial census year.”

That leaves an opening for Democrats to use other sources of population data, including estimates from the federal census’ American Community Survey or private vendor data, to draw map lines.

“It’s pretty clear that you can use estimates and I think if you were to look at case law from other states, you can see that,” said state Rep. Jay Hoffman, a member of both Democratic House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch’s leadership team and the House remap panel.

“You have to lay the groundwork that the estimates are accurate and I would venture to guess that the technology that exists today makes it much more sophisticated and accurate whether using the actual census tract or estimates in maps in the past that have been found constitutional,” said Hoffman, of downstate Swansea.

Hoffman said Democrats have yet to decide what data sources they’ll use for moving forward.

Source

Wonderful news!

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Here is my updated Illinois map drawn pursuant to neutral redistricting principles, which of course will never be drawn by the Dems.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/11b121cd-85fe-43cf-a562-928fa22c1562

And here is my quick attempt at a Dem downstate gerrymander. I am not sure it is really worth it for the Dems to go there without that much movement in the partisan numbers, but we shall see.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/5b52fadc-f977-46cc-babf-81008f957e7e

Thoughts on this more race-neutral map?
https://davesredistricting.org/join/00123e57-f799-4541-a47a-704a2d6ea26b

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Here is my updated Illinois map drawn pursuant to neutral redistricting principles, which of course will never be drawn by the Dems.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/11b121cd-85fe-43cf-a562-928fa22c1562

And here is my quick attempt at a Dem downstate gerrymander. I am not sure it is really worth it for the Dems to go there without that much movement in the partisan numbers, but we shall see.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/5b52fadc-f977-46cc-babf-81008f957e7e

Thoughts on this more race-neutral map?
https://davesredistricting.org/join/00123e57-f799-4541-a47a-704a2d6ea26b

That is a very well done map. I don't at least as an initial matter have any criticisms at all. But then I have a bias towards rectangular shapes. Were you cognizant of townships in Chicagoland? They matter in that part of the world. I remember people when I was at the U of Chicago saying they were from Maine Township. I would say what?

Townships are in fact my preferred building block, especially given the sheer erratic quality of cities and towns in many cases.
I took care to avoid any unnecessary township splits. Math forced the splitting of Winfield (DuPage) and Downers Grove (DuPage) townships, but I at least tried to make the splits have straight lines.
For me, townships have a consistency to them that is a very attractive to work with.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

here's a more compact downstate IL arrangement with 3 GOP vote sinks. Bustos' current seat moves one point to the left, while the successor to Rodney Davis' current seat moves three to four points to the left.
Ignore the district numbers, they don't matter.
I've also drawn Underwood's new district, running from Rockford to Naperville.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/8fc16eaf-d287-4180-aa85-7437a64c8cea

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

That Bustos seat mess is worth it for one f'ing point? Tim!

I tried to keep counties whole when I could. But a Democratic gerrymander is reliant on actually getting relatively more Democratic-voting areas in Democratic seats.
If you want an effective, 12-3-2, you can't waste Dem votes.
The map would look quite a bit cleaner if the Macon and Springfield were left to be stuck in GOP districts, but that also probably guarantees one additional GOP safe seat.
I know it's messy what I came up with, and I loathe what it does with counties, but it at least looks better than the 2003-2013 iteration of the Rock Island CD, and has some semblance of compactness. Even if it's not a high level.
The standards for keeping counties whole and things looking nice in the "effective Dem gerry of downstate IL" category are quite low.
And let's not kid ourselves. That one point improvement definitely is an improvement relative to what the seat is now, likely placing it in the Likely D category in case of an open seat.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

My take on a 3 GOP seats map.
IL-17 is kept pretty much where it is, 3 GOP vote sinks in downstate IL, all VRA seats in Chicago are preserved, Quigley and Schakowsky are provided for by seats running from white parts of Chicago into the suburbs, and IL-03 is eliminated. Underwood can stay in Naperville and run in (and likely win) a seat taking in all of DuPage and a bunch of sparsely populated counties, or a seat pairing still-R parts of the exurbs with heavily D areas in Cook and northeastern Kane. She could win in either of them.
There are 4 Trump districts and 5 Kirk districts.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/8c82aff8-7a49-4d2a-96b7-0caface06ca0

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Dems should go for the jugular. 15-2, all Dem districts are at least +4 except the downstate one, which is +3. Compactness isn't terrible either except for the central IL district. No attention paid to where any of the incumbents reside.

This likely isn't a 15-2 map, as lfromnj pointed out - with the Quad Cities and Metro East districts probably being much more Republican than the composite (which uses 2012 and 2016 Senate data that is more favorable to Democrats downstate). I'll also add that some of these districts are spreading Democrats too thin that they wouldn't be immune from a bad cycle.

Thoughts on the map I posted upthread? (on this page)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Dems should go for the jugular. 15-2, all Dem districts are at least +4 except the downstate one, which is +3. Compactness isn't terrible either except for the central IL district. No attention paid to where any of the incumbents reside.

This likely isn't a 15-2 map, as lfromnj pointed out - with the Quad Cities and Metro East districts probably being much more Republican than the composite (which uses 2012 and 2016 Senate data that is more favorable to Democrats downstate). I'll also add that some of these districts are spreading Democrats too thin that they wouldn't be immune from a bad cycle.

Thoughts on the map I posted upthread? (on this page)

It's not terrible if this was strictly hypothetical, but there are several things here that I'm doubtful will happen in real life. If I have more time I'll go into more detail but basically (1) Newman getting drawn out is pretty unlikely and if she was it would be to make way for a second Hispanic opportunity seat. Also in trying to sink Newman you gave away a lot of Garcia's prime turf in Chicago. (2) Foster is not going to be happy with the arrangement of the Naperville area (he lives in your 14th while Underwood lives in your 11th). (3) An open exurban Kane/McHenry seat could elect a GOP representative given its down-ballot GOP tendencies/in a possible wave cycle, so that configuration would not be ideal if you're trying to maximize Democratic seats in Chicagoland (again this would be moot if your intent wasn't trying to create a D gerrymander).

The lines in that part of Illinois were actually to preserve the majority-black seats. I didn't target Newman just because (as much as I do dislike her), I did it so that AA seats could soak up white areas instead of more black areas. And in any case, if such a sacrifice did have to be made, it would be at the expense of the least senior member - aka Marie Newman.
While 2) is definitely very fair, it's also something that sounds hard to reconcile with an effective 3-GOP-seat map, as lines have to change to allow D seats has to soak up those blood red rurals.
3) is also quite fair but the map would probably have to become very, very nasty to preclude that possibility in any of the drawn-to-elect-a-Dem seats. I suppose one could also trade more territory between the NW Cook CD and that CD as well - though it would turn them into strings. It's worth noting that that seat was drawn for Underwood - encouraging her to run there. It even got an arm into heavily D parts of Cook, designed to shore her up. In case she does run in that exurban Kane-McHenry CD, it would seem the seat running from DuPage to rural Western Illinois might be the real problem seat, and that seat would indeed be open.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I like this one

https://twitter.com/umichvoter/status/1394350840345997320?s=20

that's a better 14-3 than my one.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Would this map likely cause any retirements?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Also if anyone is wondering why District 3 is a bit weird its because they wanted to keep circuit courts together.

That makes sense. I imagine that is important from a jurisdictional perspective or something.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Just realized that IL Dems could have produced a certain safe Dem majority by adding one or two new counties to the Cook district and making it a 4-seater.
EDIT: Apparently not, NVM.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Just realized that IL Dems could have produced a certain safe Dem majority by adding one or two new counties to the Cook district and making it a 4-seater.
EDIT: Apparently not, NVM.

Why would that not be allowed?

Illinois is divided under 5 districts for purposes of Supreme Court elections under the 1970 constitution.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Isn't Illinois early because it has particularly early filing deadlines?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Not sure if Amarillo to Denton is more crazy or Danville to Chicago.

It's probably more crazy, if only slightly.
But only because Danville to Chicago has literally never been done before.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

They seem to have followed an odd rule of keeping at least one whole county in each district outside of Chicagoland. Not sure exactly why; maybe as a fig leaf of not-gerrymandering? But it does seem a little bit non-ideal for the two outstate D districts. In particular, if they didn't insist on putting all of Macoupin County in IL-13, they might be able to extend it further down to take in Carbondale as well. IL-17 might be able to be optimized a bit more with Rockford suburbs instead of rural areas in Knox and Whiteside Counties, too.

When splitting counties left and right, it helps to have at least one whole one in every district. It makes the map more defendable in general.
Especially if few whole counties are going to be in your Downstate districts at all.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I could care less about Newman's political future. If she sinks, she sinks.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Great maps coming from IL.
We're winning so much we're gonna get sick of winning!

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Could Bobby Rush face primary trouble in this new IL-01?