Dave's Redistricting App

[Verily]

Looking at California, it might be possible to construct an Asian-majority district in the San Gabriel Valley as well as one in the San Jose area. Anyone want to try?

Already done, back on page 18.

That's not the San Gabriel Valley. The San Gabriel Valley is east of LA. It might not be possible. I've been working on it, and I currently have a 47% district that is still about 200,000 people undersized.

Also, there is a plurality Native American block group in Northeast LA, just outside of Chinatown (!!!, but probably a transposition of Asian and NA).

Another edit: Okay, 51% Asian right now with full population. The district connects the main hub of Chinese around Monterey Park to three other areas: Cerritos near the border with OC and a few heavily Asian areas right over the border in OC (mixed Chinese/Korean), the Asian neighborhoods around Rowland Heights, Walnut and Diamond Bar (mixed and wealthy), and LA's Chinatown. The racial split is 51% Asian, 27% Hispanic, 19% white. I'll post a map soon.

Map:

[Verily]

Looking back at it, dropping the Cerritos extension may be possible. There are a lot of moderately Asian (25-40%) precincts around the main bulb in the western San Gabriel Valley, and relatively few of the Cerritos-area precincts are overwhelmingly Asian, just 40-50% (and the precincts connecting them to the rest contain few Asians at all, making it overall maybe 35% Asian in the extension).

I also missed a few of the majority Asian block groups around the eastern extension.

Worth trying, anyway, when I have the time.

[Verily]

How high of an Asian percentage can you get in NYC, assuming you can use the East River to connect areas in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens.

The Asian enclaves in Brooklyn are not large enough to justify extending to them; the cost in non-Asian population is too great. But muon demonstrated earlier that a 50% Asian map was possible by connecting Flushing to Woodside, Elmhurst and Chinatown. I doubt you could do much better, maybe 51-2% by fiddling at the edges. Conveniently, the Asian areas form a fairly continuous line across Queens, although you do have to dart through Sunnyside, Williamsburg and Greenpoint to get into Chinatown.

[Verily]

I suspect that Judy Chu will insist on having the above district drawn for her in 2012, so it actually is interesting to construct. (In her current district, she is perpetually in danger of a primary challenge from a Hispanic politician who actually has union connections.)

[Verily]

I suspect that Judy Chu will insist on having the above district drawn for her in 2012, so it actually is interesting to construct. (In her current district, she is perpetually in danger of a primary challenge from a Hispanic politician who actually has union connections.)

Which town is her base?

These Asian-majority districts become interesting as well if CA passes the initiative to include congressional redistricting with their commission. The commission will probably be swayed by linking communities of interest, and I would not be surprised to see a pan-Asian COI promoted.

She's from Monterey Park, which is in the Asian-majority district already. IIRC, Monterey Park is the most Asian municipality in the country outside of Hawaii.

[Verily]

You're missing obvious opportunities with that Oregon map. The clear correct choice is to connect as much of Southern Oregon to Eastern Oregon as possible. This is made much easier if you connect Bend to eastern Multnomah County through Jefferson, Wasco and Hood River counties. Wasco certainly should not be in the packed Republican seat; it was more Democratic than many of the counties you left in the Democratic districts.

I'm not sure quite how well this works on a six-seat map. On a five-seat map, it works wonders: Southern Oregon (everything south of Lane County) plus Eastern Oregon sans Bend (so dropping Jefferson, Deschutes, Wasco and Hood River Counties from the current OR-02) is almost exactly one district and packs nearly all of the Republican counties in together; to reach the requisite district size, you just need to pick up a few parts of rural Deschutes County (that weird eastern panhandle is a nice place to start).

Then all you need to do is connect the Bend/Hood River corridor to eastern Portland along the Columbia, connect southern Portland through Clackamas County to Salem, connect western Portland to the northwestern areas, including parts of Republican Yamhill County, and lump the rest of the Republican and swing areas in with Eugene and Corvallis to outvote them. That creates four solidly Democratic seats.

Here's a map:



(Note: The splits of Marion and Clackamas Counties were to preserve transit links; the northwestern corner of Clackamas County is most accessible from Wasco County and Multnomah County, not the main areas of Clackamas County, while the river along the Marion/Linn county line is awkward because the road runs along the northern bank in Marion County but the little towns are all on the southern bank in Linn County. The towns have bridges to reach the main road, and they all have no other land connection to the rest of Linn County. The split of Yamhill County was strictly to ensure equal population, while the split of Polk County kept all of Salem together.)

[Verily]

Oregon is too white for demographics to matter. OR-01 on that map is probably around 57-58% Obama while the rest should be over 60% Obama; OR-05 maybe just under 60%. You could increase the Democratic vote in OR-01 by moving more of rural Clackamas into OR-03 and more of SE Portland into OR-01.

[Verily]

Oregon is too white for demographics to matter. OR-01 on that map is probably around 57-58% Obama while the rest should be over 60% Obama; OR-05 maybe just under 60%. You could increase the Democratic vote in OR-01 by moving more of rural Clackamas into OR-03 and more of SE Portland into OR-01.

If OR-01 and maybe OR-05 are made more Democratic, this would be a great map. I heard that David Wu (OR-01) is a weak incumbent and campaigner and thus it would be nice to have a safer district for him.

His new district is OR-04 on this map, which is the safest one, probably around 65% Obama (due to dropping most of Yamhill and gaining NW Portland and the rest of SW Portland).

[Verily]

Oregon is too white for demographics to matter. OR-01 on that map is probably around 57-58% Obama while the rest should be over 60% Obama; OR-05 maybe just under 60%. You could increase the Democratic vote in OR-01 by moving more of rural Clackamas into OR-03 and more of SE Portland into OR-01.

If OR-01 and maybe OR-05 are made more Democratic, this would be a great map. I heard that David Wu (OR-01) is a weak incumbent and campaigner and thus it would be nice to have a safer district for him.

His new district is OR-04 on this map, which is the safest one, probably around 65% Obama (due to dropping most of Yamhill and gaining NW Portland and the rest of SW Portland).

All right, well that's good. However, I would still suggest making OR-01 and OR-05 more Democratic, just to increase the Demcorats' odds of retaining those seats in bad years.

The polarization in these seats makes the Republicans winning them basically impossible. Oregon does not have swing voters the way other states do.

[Verily]

Oregon is too white for demographics to matter. OR-01 on that map is probably around 57-58% Obama while the rest should be over 60% Obama; OR-05 maybe just under 60%. You could increase the Democratic vote in OR-01 by moving more of rural Clackamas into OR-03 and more of SE Portland into OR-01.

If OR-01 and maybe OR-05 are made more Democratic, this would be a great map. I heard that David Wu (OR-01) is a weak incumbent and campaigner and thus it would be nice to have a safer district for him.

His new district is OR-04 on this map, which is the safest one, probably around 65% Obama (due to dropping most of Yamhill and gaining NW Portland and the rest of SW Portland).

All right, well that's good. However, I would still suggest making OR-01 and OR-05 more Democratic, just to increase the Demcorats' odds of retaining those seats in bad years.

The polarization in these seats makes the Republicans winning them basically impossible. Oregon does not have swing voters the way other states do.

I would still reduce the risk and make these two seats more Democratic. Remember, a Republican winning a Senate seat in MA was considered practically impossible two months ago. Besides, if a Republican wins the Presidency in a landslide, they could definitely win Oregon and cause several of these congressional seats to flip. That's why it's a good idea to further strengthen these seats.

You'd need a Republican winning 55+% nationwide to win any of those seats, at which point any partisanship numbers have to be thrown out the window anyway because weird things will start to happen.

[Verily]

No, they couldn't win any of those seats with a 51-52% victory. Sorry.

Also, it quite simply is not possible to pack any more Republicans into Walden's district than I did.

[Verily]

I just drew a Michigan gerrymander that I think would go 13-1 Democratic right now, possibly 11-3 in a good year for Republicans but still intensely favoring the Democrats and mostly safe. Will post it later.

[Verily]

7 is definitely Safe D on that map. I'm not sure what you're thinking, Vepres. It contains about half of Denver, and its part of Arapahoe is marginally more Democratic than the whole county. White Denver is not much less Democratic than Hispanic Denver. It's at least 60% Obama.

[Verily]

I'll post the Michigan one in a bit. For now, here's a gerrymander of Arizona with ten districts. The goal was to make all Democratic incumbents safe while adding a new Hispanic-majority district (and a new solidly Republican district); I think I succeeded impressively.

AZ-01: This district loses the Mormon areas of Navajo County (Taylor/Snowflake) as well as various white rural areas. It becomes a coalition district at 49% white, 24% Native, 22% Hispanic, 3% black, 1% Asian, 1% Other. Should be safe for Ann Kirkpatrick provided she can keep the Natives and Hispanics voting (and the remaining white areas are the less conservative areas around Sedona and Flagstaff, where Kirkpatrick lives).

AZ-02: This district drops its extension to the Hopi reservation and with that contracts into Glendale and environs. Still safely Republican.

AZ-03: Mostly unchanged but contracts towards Phoenix. Still safely Republican.

AZ-04: Less Hispanic than previously to accomodate the new AZ-10, but still 56% Hispanic. Safely Democratic.

AZ-05: Loses the most heavily Republican areas on the fringes and takes in some Hispanic areas previously over the border in AZ-06. Still potentially competitive but increasingly less so, and definitely safer for Mitchell. 56% white, 31% Hispanic.

AZ-06: Contracts a bit and loses some Hispanic areas to AZ-05, becoming even more solidly Republican.

AZ-07: Because I am loathe to waste Democratic votes in a gerrymander, this district now takes in the Hopi reservation by snaking along the Colorado River. Now 51% Hispanic, 38% white, 6% Native, enough to easily pass muster. Safely Democratic.

AZ-08: Loses some Republican areas of Pima and Cochise Counties to the new AZ-09. Now just Tucson and the border. 63% white, 27% Hispanic, and the new district may have voted for Obama. Safe for Giffords although potentially competitive without her.

AZ-09: The glorious gerrymander. Outer exurban Phoenix and all sorts of assortments of white areas in the desert and in small towns. Safely Republican and the glue that makes the map work.

AZ-10: New Hispanic-majority district in SW/S Phoenix. 55% Hispanic, 31% white, 9% black.

[Verily]

Here's the Michigan Democratic gerrymander.

MI-01: The UP and extending south all the way to Bay City. Somewhat more Democratic than currently although still marginal. Certainly safe for Bart Stupak.

MI-02: Flint plus some Republican/moderate areas to the northeast. Safely Democratic.

MI-03: Eastern Oakland County, excluding the most Republican areas of the county in the southwest. Lean Democratic, should be pretty safe for an incumbent.

MI-04: The Grosse Pointes plus east Macomb County and coastal St Claire. Safely Democratic.

MI-05: East Detroit plus Republican areas of north Macomb County. LOL. 51% black, safely Democratic.

MI-06: West Detroit plus Republican areas of southwest Oakland County. LOL again. 63% black, safely Democratic. (In theory equalizing MI-05 and MI-06 in terms of percent black should be possible, but it would involve a much more intricate gerrymander because the Republican areas of each are not adjacent.)

MI-07: Centered on Dearborn, Wayne County suburbs. Safely Democratic. Would be interesting to see Arab/Middle Eastern percentage (not available).

MI-08: Saginaw and extending up to Grand Traverse. Fairly marginal, only lean Democratic at best.

MI-09: Grand Rapids proper plus Muskegon and the Democratic areas along Lake Michigan. Safely Democratic.

MI-10: Ottawa County, Grand Rapids suburbs and various rural Republican areas. Safely Republican.

MI-11: Lansing, Jackson and some Republican rural areas. Safely Democratic.

MI-12: Kalamazoo and the Democratic areas of southwest Michigan. More solidly Democratic than Presidential results suggest. Safely Democratic.

MI-13: Ann Arbor, Republican-leaning Livingston County and outer Oakland County and some rural areas. Safely Democratic.

MI-14: Hispanic south Detroit, Wayne County suburbs and some moderate areas along the border. Safely Democratic.

[Verily]

I drew the map without considering current congressmen for the most part. Upton could definitely hold MI-12, but he'd lose in the first Democratic wave, and the seat wouldn't flip back.

[Verily]

Shut up, Rochambeau.

Here's a zoom-in of the Detroit metro. I made some changes along the edges of MI-06 when I realized how black Southfield was and put it into MI-03.

Without city labels, and then with:

[Verily]

Cool. Shows just how dominant Maricopa County is in Arizona politics.

Anyway, I tried to do a Republican gerrymander but got lost because I had no idea which white areas of the Phoenix metro were uber-Republican and which were moderate to Democratic (beyond some obvious things, like Mesa being a Republican stronghold). But I imagine a map with three Democrats and seven Republicans would be feasible, with all three Democratic seats being heavily Hispanic. It might not be possible to get rid of Giffords (because there isn't much you can do in Tucson, and any fiddling with the AZ-01 border makes either Giffords or Kirkpatrick safer), but you could make it impossible for the Democrats to hold her seat without her.

[Verily]

New features on the app: partisan data for California and Texas. Also, options to shade districts by partisan or demographic data.

Oh, no. There goes my time.

[Verily]

New features on the app: partisan data for California and Texas. Also, options to shade districts by partisan or demographic data.

I just pulled up a TX map, and loaded my old file, but I didn't see the partisan data. Is there something else that I need to do?

I think you need to click Use Test Data.

It looks like I can get the test data, or my already created districts, but not both.

I was frustrated by that, too.

Also, he rejigged the California voting districts in such a way that has created a ridiculous number of non-contiguous zones, making redistricting really tough. Annoying

[Verily]

Yes. There appear to be tiny gaps between all of the voting districts that are impossible to fill.

[Verily]

I drew a map with 15 Obama CDs out of 36, with none marginal like the version of Granger's district you have. It's also VRA-compliant. I haven't finished it yet because I need to work out how the area around Edwards's CD will be designed.

Basically, it consists of four Hispanic-majority CDs in South Texas, El Paso and stretching up the coast to parts of Corpus Christi; two Hispanic-majority CDs in metro San Antonio; two Democratic white-majority CDs in metro Austin (one Hays+SW Travis, the other NE Travis+SW Williamson); two black-plurality districts, a Hispanic-plurality district and a Hispanic-majority district in metro Houston; a black-plurality and a Hispanic-plurality district in metro Dallas; and a coalition district in metro Fort Worth. Plus Republican districts filling the surrounding space (including a district containing all of the San Antonio suburbs and completely enclosing the two San Antonio districts).

TX-01
Brownsville, Hispanic parts of Corpus Christi, coast in between
81% Hispanic, 62% Obama

TX-02
McAllen and environs
88% Hispanic, 68% Obama

TX-03
Laredo and the low-population areas of the Rio Grande Valley
86% Hispanic, 64% Obama

TX-04
El Paso and environs
76% Hispanic, 65% Obama

TX-05
SW Austin and Hays County
60% Obama

TX-06
NE Austin and SW Williamson County
61% Obama

TX-07
North San Antonio
61% Hispanic, 58% Obama

TX-08
South San Antonio
55% Hispanic, 58% Obama

TX-09
S/SW Houston and environs
38% black, 26% white, 25% Hispanic; 70% Obama

TX-10
Other black parts of Houston
43% black, 25% Hispanic, 17% white; 79% Obama

TX-11
Hispanic E Houston
60% Hispanic; 63% Obama

TX-12
Downtown Houston and environs
40% Hispanic, 38% white; 57% Obama

TX-13
SE Dallas and environs
44% black, 27% white, 27% Hispanic; 79% Obama

TX-14
W Dallas and Irving
47% Hispanic, 33% white, 14% black; 60% Obama

TX-15
SE Fort Worth, E Arlington and Grand Prairie
42% white, 26% Hispanic, 25% black; 63% Obama

The rest are McCain to various degrees, all strongly so.

[Verily]

You should be able to draw a 3-2 Republican map in Oregon with not that many changes. Or a 3-3 map if it gains a seat.

[Verily]

I have a wonderful Democratic gerrymander of Illinois, to be posted soon. 3 black-majority districts, 2 Hispanic-majority districts, and a 16-3 split in the congressional delegation (could go 14-5 in a very good year for the Republicans).

[Verily]

Chicagoland:



IL-1: 50% black, safe Democratic
IL-2: 64% Hispanic, safe Democratic
IL-3: 57% Hispanic, safe Democratic
IL-4: 60% black, safe Democratic
IL-5: 54% black, safe Democratic
IL-6: safe Democratic (D+15 or so)
IL-7: safe Democratic (D+8 or so)
IL-8: safe Democratic (D+12 or so)
IL-9: likely Democratic (D+6 or so)
IL-10: safe Democratic (D+10 or so)
IL-11: safe Democratic (D+8 or so)
IL-12: lean Democratic (D+2 or so)
IL-13: lean Democratic (D+2 or so)

The Democrats would probably want to make one of IL-12 and IL-13 a Republican-leaning marginal and the other one safe. However, I have no idea how to do that; DuPage County is very uniform, and I just worked off of the municipal data that Dave Leip has on his incomplete IL municipalities map.

Quad Cities/Peoria area:



IL-14: safe Republican (R+10 or so)
IL-15: safe Democratic (D+8 or so)


Central and Southern Illinois:



IL-16: safe Republican (R+12 or so)
IL-17: likely Democratic (D+5 or so)
IL-18: safe Republican (R+12 or so)
IL-19: safe Democratic (D+8 or so)