2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: New Jersey

[Former President tack50]

Ok, here is my take on how a "fair map" could look like, trying to keep districts relatively compact and what not

https://davesredistricting.org/join/ed1513f0-516d-45b7-885c-03508eed97a8

And for an image and summary (the labels are the ones in the image):



NJ-01: D+12
NJ-02: D+1
NJ-03: R+3
NJ-04: R+6
NJ-05: R+8
NJ-06: D+13 (49.5% white; 22.2% hispanic, 16.7% black; 12.4% asian)
NJ-07: D+7
NJ-08: D+21 (40.2% hispanic; 37.5% white, 16% asian)
NJ-09: D+4
NJ-10: D+35 (50.2% black; 25.8% white, 18.1% hispanic, 6.5% asian)
NJ-11: D+7
NJ-12: D+6

So basically it seems like there would be 2 Safe R districts, 7 Safe D districts and 3 swing districts of some sort? (though NJ-09 should be close to safe I assume?).

I imagine in a good year for Republicans they would get an 8-4 map and in a bad year they would get a 10-2 map; which is one seat more than they currently hold.

This map also creates a plurality Hispanic district, though I don't know if a hispanic candidate would win there or if a white one would. There is a third majority minority district but it is only borderline majority minority and with the minorities split so it does not really count.

[Former President tack50]

For fun, here is a Dem gerrymander map of New Jersey. In theory this should work as a 10D-2R-1S map, although you could argue the Dem districts are too risky and it is better to give a 3rd R sink?

All Dem incumbents except Bill Pascrell have their house inside their district

https://davesredistricting.org/join/153fd28e-6efe-4c0b-974d-d528bee15826



NJ-01: Clinton+17, D+9
NJ-02: Trump+17, R+6
NJ-03: Clinton+14, D+7
NJ-04: Trump+20, R+10
NJ-05: Clinton+1, R+2
NJ-06: Clinton+20, R+10
NJ-07: Clinton+11, D+3
NJ-08: Clinton+73, D+36 (48% Black CVAP)
NJ-09: Clinton+11, D+3
NJ-10: Clinton+46, D+24 (47% Hispanic CVAP)
NJ-11: Clinton+35, D+16
NJ-12: Clinton+10, D+4

[Former President tack50]

There are a million examples here of a compact 3rd Dem district in Wisconsin and none for a competitive Trump district in Mass. What this boils down to is you prioritize compactness and small shapes over proportionality, and I prioritize proportionality over compactness and small shapes. There's no guarantee any one formula will mirror the national popular vote exactly, but a focus on shapes certainly carries a big Republican bias, so I don't accept it as a neutral default.

Does a compact map carry a big Republican bias though? I certainly don't think it does?

Looking at the "538 Redistricting Atlas", the "Compact using an algorithm" map is 151D-104S-184R. The "Compact respecting county borders" is 155D-99S-181R. Both maps do have a very small R bias but it seems perfectly fine to me? Especilally given they'd have a lot more swing districts. For comparison, the 2010 map was 168D-72S-195R

Tbh if Democrats have a bad voter distrubution well too bad. PR would be a much better fix than deliberately gerrymandering imo?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/