That map is a blatant Republican gerrymander, if you want to see a genuinely fair map, take a look at Arizona’s current congressional district map.
Btw the poster that created that map isn't even a Republican. He's just a Democrat on that site. Plenty of R's in the comments complain about that map. Anyway both sides are unhappy.
Show whats actually gerrymandered there?
Keeping Northern AZ whole?
The Pima county split is about the most favorable type of way to split Tucson for D's. Do you have any problem with Maricopa? I guess yellow and blue could be made horizontal instead of vertically paralllel. This would create a Safe R and Likely D instead of a tossup and lean R seat.
It has 4 Clinton seats and 2 more Trump seats under 7 points.
The way the Tucson boundaries are drawn and especially the use of CVAP rather than VAP which, I believe is a departure from how it is generally currently done and if so, is simply inexcusable in anything claiming to be a fair map.
Also, even if he’s a Democrat, RRH’s site rules forbid posts that so much as express pro-Democratic sentiments (IIRC, they say such posts “will not be tolerated”). They’d *never* allow a thread for a user map that was anything short of an R gerrymander as a rule. I mean, most RRH users think AZ and PA’s court maps were radical Democratic gerrymanders and that a fair map of Ohio would leave everything safe R except for two hyper-packed D seats 
Lol, I literally put my 14D-3R IL map up on RRH and they let it stay up and they enjoyed it. That is literally the most extreme D gerrymander possible.
https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2020/07/29/illinois-14d-3r/
They allow all redistricting discussion to stay up,(why I joined btw, for the redistricting discussion)
And if you just want to use VAP then you can just draw one seat in Tucson itself and make the rest Safe R. Using CVAP helps Democrats here as it allows you to create a white suburban seat.
If you just wanted a Tucson+ Santa Cruz based seat this is what you get, This moves it to Trump +5 and Mcsally +3. Do you want that instead?
Or this, if you didn't want to use the CVAP. Trump +6, Mcsally +6.
I mean PA's map was merely just a D tilting map with some moderate decisions here and there although Mathis literally abused NY style 10% population deviation for state legislative maps which suggests she isn't really non partisan.
I won’t have time to play around with Dave’s redistricting app for a while yet, so I can’t really go around with you on this too much, but I find it hard to believe that this is the only other way to draw a VRA compliant Hispanic district in that area. Maybe it is, but I doubt it. And if it is, then VAP is better than CVAP (although really, a fair map would use total minority population instead of randomly switching to minority VAP or CVAP).
In other words, I still maintain that states should be using overall minority population rather than minority voting age population (although VAP is better than CVAP). And if we generally used total minority population rather than minority voting age population for the 2010s redistricting then any map for the 2020s redistricting that uses the latter to draw minority candidate of choice districts is an automatic non-starter in my book regardless of who it helps.
And I strongly disagree with RRH that the AZ congressional map was biased, that was an extremely fair map. As for PA, it was a slightly Democratic leaning map in a slightly Democratic leaning state. It was a fair map and calling it a courtmander as RRH regularly does is absurd imo. They generally think anything short of a pro-Republican gerrymander is a Democratic gerrymander. I’m glad they don’t auto-ban pro-Democratic maps though, that’s a small step in the right direction.
