US House Redistricting: Arizona

[minionofmidas]

Actually, it looks like the line is actually where I have the second set, which puts a lot more blue into AZ-01 if I'm right - even more than Lewis has.

Nope, Torie. Look again. Summit is included. You got the right east-west line on the second try.

As to "absurd and won't see the light of day" - well that and your personal Tucsonwank makes two of them. You could easily amend this map to increase the Hispanic share in Tucson without changing the Dem shares much, by the way.
There's probably just two possible outcomes here. 1) (more reasonable, more likely, but by no means certain) Giffords' district ends up barely changed. 2) Tucson is split three ways, as in the current grid iteration.

[minionofmidas]

Here's what Democrats should fight for, without hope of actually getting it of course.



You're not going to get those ridiculous third and fourth districts, and you're not going to get the little grab at Chandler's barrio section (since you can easily exchange it for the remainder of Mesa), but otherwise it's not a bad map actually. Apart from the obvious.



1st 52.6% McCain, 54.0% White, 21.6% Native
2nd 63.1% McCain
3rd 61.1% McCain
4th 52.0% McCain, 60.0% White
5th 64.8% Obama, 65.0% Hispanic, 20.6% White
6th 52.0% McCain, 60.9% White
7th 60.9% McCain
8th 55.3% Obama, 57.0% Hispanic, 31.6% White, 51.9% Hispanic VAP
9th 49.8% McCain, 68.3% White

Changing the third and fourth to at least not split as many municipalities (adding northern Glendale to the 3rd in exchange for Paradise Valley, the 4th' share of Scottsdale, and a couple of Phoenix precincts) makes for an odder-looking boundary and shares of 60.5% and 52.5%.
Eliminating the split of Mesa and cleaning up that of Chandler makes for 53.1% and 59.9%.

[minionofmidas]

Pubbie Hispanics like those on the "wrong" side of the mountain in Phoenix next to Pinal County to boot.

I've no idea what you're talking about. The part of Phoenix on the wrong side of the mountain (Ahwatukee) is 72% White, 51% McCain, and not included in a Hispanic district in any plan that any Democrat is ever going to devise - they'll want that marginal neighborhood to go with Tempe, thank you very much. (Though part of it is in Pastor's district in the initial grid.)

[minionofmidas]

A realistic Republican (near-)best case. Also my most grid-based map yet. Favored in 7 of the districts, though several of them are marginal enough that 6-3 may be the likelier outcome on balance.
Numbers follow the grid, for once, as I guess they will.

1 63.7% White, 55.4% McCain. Division of Tucson proper is exactly as at current, btw, but gets rural territory instead of the marginal northern suburbs.
2 69.0% White, 57.4% McCain. Not going to be popular with anybody, but something like it is in the amended grid for now.
3 59.2% Hispanic (53.5% VAP), 60.4% Obama. The only Dem voters Grijalva loses are in Tolleson/West End, and they go to Pastor. Grab of Eloy (the only area added compared to current) maybe doesn't happen.
4 64.3% White, 17.6% Native, 54.5% McCain. There is a certain logic to assuming that the current 4th is the least metro district, so it will be the non metro district. Yuma split and requirement to not split Navajo pretty much defined the boundary (esp. the complete withdrawal from Maricopa).
5 73.2% White, 54.0% McCain. Pretty ugly. You could split Mesa instead of Chandler, don't think it matters much. Paradise Valley grab and Northern reach around are naked R gerries, of course - "justified" by not splitting Central Phoenix three ways.
6 66.9% White, 60.2% McCain. Not much to see here. Boundary with 2nd could be drawn a number of different ways.
7 65.8% Hispanic, (59.6% VAP), 66.2% Obama. Follows the current 4th quite faithfully but does take Tolleson and drop some Whiteleaning, Demleaning Central Phoenix blocs.
8  66.2% White, 59.4% McCain
9 68.0% White, 54.8% McCain. So I found a way to broadly preserve the current 3rd.

[minionofmidas]

I assume people know the color scheme of the DRA by heart.

1 - Tucson E & points north
2 - Tucson suburbs to just outside Mesa
3 - Grijalva
4 - northwest
5 - ugly yellow thing
6 - Mesa, Gilbert, part of Chandler
7 - Pastor
8 - West Valley
9 - North Phoenix

[minionofmidas]

I have only one quibble with that map. Why is Sedona/Camp Verde not grouped with Flagstaff? That's where it belongs transportationwise etc, and in Sedona's (but not Camp Verde's) case also regarding voting patterns / Dem designs on CD1. You could then excise more Pinal exurbs that don't belong in this district at all. (For a completed non-ridiculous Dem gerry, add Salt River / Fort McDowell and Colorado City - it doesn't vote Dem but it doesn't vote much at all.)
Otherwise, this is the one of about two-and-a-half reasonable ways to draw it that makes sense for Democrats.
AZ-3 is way too close to the old AZ-7, of course, meaning it still has the West End etc area which really doesn't belong in it, but once the debate turned to "retrogression" that was to be expected. The continuous bloc of territory that belongs in the Central Phoenix seat just is too large for one seat.

[minionofmidas]

What was your purpose here? 4-3-2 (4 R, 3 D, 2 tossup seats)? That yellow would certainly be a pure tossup, rather than merely winnable in a good year against a weak incumbent as its predecessor was.

[minionofmidas]

Did you change the orange Hispanic CD, which presumably is a done deal, unless of course Mathis decides the Dems need more help? Do you agree with me that anything Obama carried in AZ is a lean Dem CD or not?  An dead even CD to me would be one which McCain carried by about 4% (52-48) as a wild guess. Or 3% perhaps. The AZ bias towards McCain was pretty strong.

Compared to what would have happened without him on the ballot, certainly. Compared to congressional election results, perhaps not so much - Maricopa is traditionally Republican territory, and the "McCain bias" is basically "Obama not overperforming, like he did in similar places everywhere else" rather than Obama actually underperforming. Rural (East and South) Arizona is a different matter, though.


A general thought here, one I had a long time ago but perhaps not actually posted. In the selection of the independent commission member, Republicans had one objective - preventing one particular candidate despite being the obviously qualified guy (he worked for the last commission in a leading capacity) because he was obviously an IINO. Most of the selection discussion was apparently held non-publically (I recall someone saying they felt it was actually against the rules). Seems like Pubbies had to agree to Dems' second choice with Mathis.

The other issue is, of course - what are Republicans trying to achieve with their dubious lawsuit etc? Are they perhaps actually giving up on this map and trying to prepare the ground to repeal districting-by-Commission? I assume that would require a referendum?

[minionofmidas]

Yeah, I don't know either. I just wanted to throw it out there.

[minionofmidas]

Ah, I just resolved my confusion about the "current" "orange" "Obama" district you were referring to. I hadn't looked at the link with the full map before, only the one with the partial map, though I understand it's voted down and only the outstate+South Phoenix map is tentatively approved?
It's quite the nice mean little gerry, I must say.

[minionofmidas]

Ah, I just resolved my confusion about the "current" "orange" "Obama" district you were referring to. I hadn't looked at the link with the full map before, only the one with the partial map, though I understand it's voted down and only the outstate+South Phoenix map is tentatively approved?
It's quite the nice mean little gerry, I must say.

No, the Hispanic CD in Phoenix has been "finalized," unless and until Mathis gets further "instructions" at least.  It's not part of the "donut hole."

Details might still get changed at the end. If a transfer of a couple of Glendale precincts for a couple of Phoenix precincts makes it possible to avoid another municipal split, for instance. IIRC it happened last time too (though maybe they only actually did it with the state lege districts?)

[minionofmidas]

Does the orange 9th district still take in parts of Mesa and Chandler? And from the looks of it, the 1st district becomes even more Democratic as it loses parts of Cochise and picks up West Sedona and what looks like marginal areas of Pinal?

And loses Payson. And picks up the Pinal reservations. And some bits of North Tucson inner suburbs. Looks a normally Democratic district, actually. Giffords' goes back into highly competitive territory in exchange.

[minionofmidas]

Anyways, not what I would have drawn as a map, but at 4-2-3 probably identical in outcome.

[minionofmidas]

Anyways, why is Salt River still in the sixth? It's on the road from Mesa to Payson goddammit, the overspill slightly elevated native percentages are in bordering precincts of Mesa, not Scottsdale, and it's totally wasted and outvoted in that district.

Meanwhile, that fourth district is a right abomination. Eastern Exurbs with Western Rural (often de facto quasi exurban) areas? Wtf?

[minionofmidas]

The only other districts worth calculating are probably the 1st and 9th.

[minionofmidas]

Definitely not. That would have resulted in a 3-3-3 map, not 4-2-3 or 4-3-2 (whichever we define this thing as). This map seems to be suffering from "too many objectives" syndrome.

We are going to court!  And my team will probably lose. The end.

Probably, yeah. After all, it's on record from the last time round that showing a better way to fulfill the commission's official objectives is not enough.

[minionofmidas]

The way Cochise and Yavapai and Gila and Pima precincts all don't line up with the map perfectly makes this a bitch, but the first is still about 51.0% McCain.

[minionofmidas]

Everybody except Raul Grijalva and whatshisface (Stentz? The hard-right commissioner from Tucson, anyways) would probably have been happier if they'd just moved Douglas and Bisbee into the 3rd.
It also helps from Giffords' perspective that SV is an army town. They can be quite incumbent friendly.

[minionofmidas]

No. This is a Dem hatchet job. You can draw R vote sinks in Arizona much as you can draw D vote sinks in other states, they just don't sink as far.

You're not going to get those ridiculous third and fourth districts, and you're not going to get the little grab at Chandler's barrio section (since you can easily exchange it for the remainder of Mesa), but otherwise it's not a bad map actually. Apart from the obvious.



1st 52.6% McCain, 54.0% White, 21.6% Native
2nd 63.1% McCain
3rd 61.1% McCain
4th 52.0% McCain, 60.0% White
5th 64.8% Obama, 65.0% Hispanic, 20.6% White
6th 52.0% McCain, 60.9% White
7th 60.9% McCain
8th 55.3% Obama, 57.0% Hispanic, 31.6% White, 51.9% Hispanic VAP
9th 49.8% McCain, 68.3% White

Changing the third and fourth to at least not split as many municipalities (adding northern Glendale to the 3rd in exchange for Paradise Valley, the 4th' share of Scottsdale, and a couple of Phoenix precincts) makes for an odder-looking boundary and shares of 60.5% and 52.5%.
Eliminating the split of Mesa and cleaning up that of Chandler makes for 53.1% and 59.9%.

[minionofmidas]

Arizona is our Washington...a trifecta state saddled with a crappy commission.

Well, yeah.

Washington is not decided... but it's pretty much decided that protecting all four Republicans will be the prime consideration.

(And yeah, Grijalva probably would have complained about the district I drew for him. Too little Tucson. Which would have knockon effects in the red district in Glendale probably. Still, there is no reason for a Dem gerry to concede four safe Republican districts in the state. If you're ready to draw competitive districts anyways.)

[minionofmidas]

The 4th district does have a logic to it, of course. Even if it's arguably insane troll logic. It includes all the areas that think they're sort-of-part-of-rural-Arizona-but-aren't-really (except those in Pinal and plus half of Yuma). And some outer suburbs. This way, it doesn't have to extend as deep into the Metro proper as it would have if it basically followed the old 2nd.

Of course, if that also makes an R vote sink and an open district (since Franks is in the 8th) that Dewar might even want to run to, I'm sure that's pure coincidence. [/whistles innocently]

[minionofmidas]

Actually Schweikert lives in Fountain Hills.

Lol, alright. Wouldn't have thought of checking that.

[minionofmidas]

Actually Schweikert lives in Fountain Hills which is barely in the district via an odd appendage. Hmmm...

Ah, my team has hope then!  

An odd appendage to the fourth, not the ninth. (Fountain Hills is right west of Fort McDowell Reservation... though I'm not sure the boundary between the two is passable except possibly on foot.)

EDIT: Yes. Yes it is. They built a road at some point over the past fifteen years. Or upgraded one or whatever.

[minionofmidas]

Actually Schweikert lives in Fountain Hills which is barely in the district via an odd appendage. Hmmm...

Ah, my team has hope then!  

An odd appendage to the fourth, not the ninth. (Fountain Hills is right west of Fort McDowell Reservation... though I'm not sure the boundary between the two is passable except possibly on foot.)

EDIT: Yes. Yes it is. They built a road at some point over the past fifteen years. Or upgraded one or whatever.

So AZ-09 is an open seat?  Of course, that is the best plan for the Dems, absent having the Quayle doll served up for them into which to stick pins.

It'd still have been preferrable if the fourth had been open as well. Ideally Quayle gets the weaker of six and eight and Franks and Schweikert battle it out in the primary for the stronger. Of course that was always going to be a difficult map to draw.

[minionofmidas]

Honestly looking at things from a non-partisan perspective I don't think this map is all that unfair.

4-2-3 is fair - fairest possible, in fact, and pretty much resulting unless you try to rule it out -  but cooking all three competitive districts to actually favor Democrats, with two of them pretty much bordering on secure D, is clearly not.