US House Redistricting: Kansas

[Torie]

Another good idea dpmapper, but I must say this KS-01 hit and run on Lawrence in all events is kind of offensive when one looks at a map. Once during the "Kansas War" was enough. I prefer the SE KS to KS-01 "solution" myself, an opinion which of course has zero practical meaning.

[Torie]

Map talk is heating up again.

The article mentioned that the neutralize KC from the western plains "solution" might have legal problems with the Kansas SC, which surprised me. I didn't know the legislature was leashed. So I did a google and came up with this. There apparently is some generalized language, which if really applied (that "compact" thing), would basically dictate the plan the State Senate passed it would seem. However, the legislature can change the criteria whenever it wants, so I am a bit confused how any plan could be nixed under state law unless the legislature is foolish enough to pass a plan without "clarifying" that it meets state requirements, leaving just federal law issues, which in the case of Kansas won't constrict at all.

If anyone can mitigate my confusion, it would be much appreciated.

[Torie]

Map talk is heating up again.

The article mentioned that the neutralize KC from the western plains "solution" might have legal problems with the Kansas SC, which surprised me. I didn't know the legislature was leashed. So I did a google and came up with this. There apparently is some generalized language, which if really applied (that "compact" thing), would basically dictate the plan the State Senate passed it would seem. However, the legislature can change the criteria whenever it wants, so I am a bit confused how any plan could be nixed under state law unless the legislature is foolish enough to pass a plan without "clarifying" that it meets state requirements, leaving just federal law issues, which in the case of Kansas won't constrict at all.

If anyone can mitigate my confusion, it would be much appreciated.

The committees adopted guidelines as part of their process. It doesn't appear to be statutory.

Under the guidelines, I am more convinced that moving SE KS is the best solution to the population deficit of the west. It is the least like the core of CD 2 and can be kept intact as a community of interest in the shift.

Except for the "compact" thing. The Senate plan has it all, if one wants to be a "guidelines" junkie. Guidelines are great as window dressing when not inconvenient, and one has all the power.  Except here, apparently nobody does.

[Torie]

The state senate committee on redistricting on a voice vote "without dissent," approved the map below yesterday, and it now goes to the floor.  It of course does not serve Pub interests, and kind of blows as a map qua map in any event. The prior Senate map was much better from a non partisan good mapping standpoint. Rather than this excrescence, where KS-01 roots around Topeka and Manhattan to pick up residents, instead go down to Pittsburg for heavens sake at least (see map at bottom). (The McCain-Obama vote in KS-02 is a pedestrian and enervating 51.6% McCain, 46.5% Obama.) And now the State Senate Pubs have managed to max Dem strength in KS-03 as well. Congratulations guys. You suck.

[Torie]

I  have no idea if the House will go for this sick puppy, or whether it will pass on the floor of the Senate. Our map looks like shear inspired genius compared to this thing, although part of "this thing" appears admittedly to have been a least change thing, but rather demonically, the map seems to have CA-01 suck up CA-02's most GOP counties, where there are a bit more Dem ones hanging like ripe low hanging fruit to pluck.

In other news, I have not forgotten CA, but was brooding about the 0.5% thing not counting as a chop where you have to minimize chops because that demands the micro chops, which leads straight into your little regional map thing (yes, I may have been born at night, but not last night  ). But I think there may be a procedural fix and way out here (which also affords some additional protection for dial it in or false flag Pubs on the Commission). You have staff draw up all the micro chop options, and while one of those maps can be picked in the normal way, to go with a map that ditches the micro chops for bigger chops, requires a supra majority. That way, say 4 out of 5 from each party will have to agree before the micro chop maps are ditched. I also want an out for any sized chop which avoids a chop of some magnitude of a metro area over a certain size I think (e.g., I want to do say a 25% chop of SLO to avoid a chop of metro Santa Cruz of some magnitude without having to get a supra majority, or not do a micro chop or whatever).  

[Torie]

Yes, it seems both sides think they will be better off if the court draws the State Senate map, with the issue being what the odds will be that some State Senate RINOS can be primaried and knocked out. Nobody seemed to give a sh*t really about the Congressional lines really.  In the end it was all about the State Senate 24/7.

So I suspect the Congressional map will be very much like the original State Senate map.

[Torie]

My impression is that Yoder is a quite talented politician, and pretty safe.  Jenkins could have a problem in a bad Pub year, particularly if the CD trends Dem, which is a distinct possibility. Pompeo's CD changes shape a bit, but as to population, not much was shifted. So that CD is pretty much status quo.

A thought that comes to me here, is that maybe the game is to go with the court maps this time, and then if enough of the State Senate RINO's can be knocked off, the true blue Pubs can proceed to draw their own maps after the election which will stand for the balance of the decade, replacing the court drawn maps, which they would not be able to do if the maps were legislatively drawn ones presumably. That might not be a bad strategy come to think of it.

[Torie]

Court has heard testimony for a couple of days, will likely draw its own Senate and Federal maps from scratch. (Though the Senate never voted on the House map, everyone agrees it's basically fine.)

What did the Court say that led you to that conclusion?

[Torie]

The CD map is just the first State Senate plan. Shocking!  However, the court picked up the extra 11K that KS-03 needed going south rather than north the way the State Senate plan did, which is worth an extra 20 Pub basis points. Thanks guys.

[Torie]

All that angst about keeping KSU in CD 2, and yet in the end the court takes it out. Given that it wasn't unreasonable for the court to do so, I remain amazed at the recalcitrance of the legislative leaders to avoid this.

They do get the award for the redistricting clowns of the nation. However remember, if the conservatives take control of the State Senate, they can redraw the maps next year, which may have been their game, which would not be the case if they signed off on some map. As to the business of the state senate districts, why can't the conservatives who want to primary the moderates, just move into the targeted districts by moving a few blocks (at least that is the case in one instance)?  What is the big deal?  That bit seems much ado about nothing.

[Torie]

Well the Pub Mods in the State Senate were purged, so maybe next year Kansas City will be appended to west Kansas in a CD redraw.

[Torie]

Well the Pub Mods in the State Senate were purged, so maybe next year Kansas City will be appended to west Kansas in a CD redraw.

Will they be as equally hostile to the incumbent Congresscritters as to incumbent legislators. As we saw, they were a big factor in the makeup of the map.

Well that O'Neill chap seemed happy with the incumbent House Pubs, having endorsed them and all - even that wet lady from the KC burbs.