US House Redistricting: Arizona

[Sbane]

The Tucson district should have been even more Democratic if you ask me! But I guess the Mexicans need their district. And the Phoenix district shouldn't have been dipping in and out of Mesa and Chandler but I guess they wanted a more Dem swing district up there. So Mccain won the Tuscon district by 3 points then? Have you drawn the Phoenix swing district or the 1st yet?

[Sbane]

So it seems like the second map, with the Phoenix area undrawn was better for the pubbies? Because the Dems seems like they got what they wanted in Phoenix, didn't they? I would love to see the Obama numbers in that 9th district. And in Tucson, they barely made the district more Republican, by putting those Republican precincts in the north in CD-1. And CD-1 probably stays about the same, or becomes a click more Democratic due to picking up West Sedona, and the Native reservation in Pinal, as well as losing parts of Cochise, though that might be lean Rep territory, I am not too sure. Oh, and don't count on exurban growth in the 1st either. This is not the 2000's. There will not be a housing boom in this decade, and it certainly won't be happening in Phoenix. The population may still rise, but they will be filling the houses that already have been built. Unless there are a lot of vacant houses, or half built houses in the Pinal part of CD-1, the population won't rise much. I wouldn't count on too much more new construction.

The pubbies got screwed. They should have just stopped complaining. Even Grijalva is safer in this map! Wow. Maybe the pubbies in California should learn a lesson from this. They have a decent map now, considering all the constraints of the VRA. They will get something worse from the Dem legislature and Brown, even if they act like children and hold up the budget to get something favorable to them. They should understand that. One only needs to look at the Obama numbers in the current Rep districts in California to realize what a favorable map they have currently. And they have a chance to knock over some Dem incumbents like Capps for example. They should set their aims higher instead of just trying to protect their ass.

[Sbane]

I was looking at the senate districts, which is where the pubbies are really worried/angry about, and some of them should be competitive with the right candidate. The Morgan Hill to SLO district or the Pasadena to Upland district. If they don't win those sorts of districts, they will get stuck at 13 and below the 1/3 threshold. But there are enough competitive districts that they could win the senate with good candidates and luck/move towards the Republicans in California.

[Sbane]

Just calculated the 9th and it's 51.5-47.2 Obama. The dems got exactly what they wanted in Phoenix.

[Sbane]

Just calculated the 9th and it's 51.5-47.2 Obama. The dems got exactly what they wanted in Phoenix.

That's weak safe Dem.  That is supposed to be "competitive?"  LOL. They sure did get what they want!  I wonder if the Pubbies will get another referendum up. They must be as mad as hell.

I wouldn't put the words safe in front of it, but certainly would say it is a lean dem swing district. About D+3.

[Sbane]

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.)

It's looking like WA Republicans will be getting a pretty great map, though...

Don't Democrats get another seat though?

[Sbane]

I'm trying to figure out CD-1 right now. I will report back soon. Then we can decide how f'ed the pubbies were. But it's only relative. The f'in isn't so bad in these non partisan maps as in the really ugly gerrymanders out there.

[Sbane]

CD-1= 51.1-47.8 Mccain. Though they split so many precincts that I am not sure it is accurate. If anyone can get the official presidential numbers that would be awesome. From the looks of it, you got a lean Republican swing district here. Though not as Republican as the district in Phoenix is Democratic. Not a huge difference of course but it all adds up....And the Tucson district is basically dead even between Obama and Mccain, which give it a very, very slight dem lean. Giffords will win it, but not sure about others.

[Sbane]

CD-1= 51.1-47.8 Mccain. Though they split so many precincts that I am not sure it is accurate. If anyone can get the official presidential numbers that would be awesome. From the looks of it, you got a lean Republican swing district here. Though not as Republican as the district in Phoenix is Democratic. Not a huge difference of course but it all adds up....And the Tucson district is basically dead even between Obama and Mccain, which give it a very, very slight dem lean. Giffords will win it, but not sure about others.

About 1% Dem for AZ-01. Even is 52.15% McCain, 47.85 % Obama. Sure it is not an exact science, but that is my best estimate. I am not backing off it, absent a numerically based basis which I missed. Toss-up anyway, which the Pubbie should hold in 2012 if competent, and I assume that he is.

5 points Mccain is even...I don't think so. AZ is a swing state?

Mccain by 2 is my dead even point. CD-1 has a Republican lean.

[Sbane]

Republicans will do anything to win. Their mamas didn't teach them to play fair!

Stop complaining pubbies, just stop. If you had complained less, you would have got a better map before. Seriously, try to win a few swing seats. Morons.

[Sbane]

Republicans will do anything to win. Their mamas didn't teach them to play fair!

Stop complaining pubbies, just stop. If you had complained less, you would have got a better map before. Seriously, try to win a few swing seats. Morons.

You have the gall to so characterize those Pubbie pussies on the Commission? Please!  If I were on the Commission we would be in court already, and have a transcript a hundred pages long, and have had a host of whore experts testifying before the commission about just how lawless they were, and how cooked their numbers were, and hopefully obtained some helpful admissions, and been whining to the press on a daily basis,  and on and on. In a word, I know how to play, and they don't. Period.

Anything else you want to get off your chest sbane?  Think of me as your therapist.

I have been looking at the OH map too much!

[Sbane]

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.

Yes, the law does not say that after you meet the VRA, then gerrymander to make it "fair."  And the reason, putting aside the cooked data, that it is "semi "fair," as muon2 with his little formula noted, is precisely that.  Darn it, if that is the law in AZ, it should be the law in MA! 

Should be the law in Texas too.

[Sbane]

California's Commission has 5 Dems, 5 Reps and 4 Indies, and requires at least 3 votes from each bloc for passage. (It passed 12-2 with both nays being Republicans, by the way, so it got the bare minimum of minority consent.) Similarly, you could make the final passage in Arizona require four votes.

That would help. Of course the Pubbies on the CA commission were pathetic too, but I really can't get too angry over that map, and a lot of CD's are close enough, that I kind of like the incentive it offers to Pubbies to stop being way out there in never-never land.  In a word, I fantasize it might strengthen a bit my little microscopic wing of the party. But hey, here on this forum, my wing is close to half the party! No doubt, that is in part due to my inspired "leadership."

So you don't think at least one Republican in Socal was F'ed? Calvert or Miller's district was finished. Unless you think dumping a bit of OC into a Riverside district is "fair". Drier's case is more complicating. In the end the VRA constraints are what screwed him. Can you draw a better district for him? While drawing a VRA hispanic district in SBD county and the SGV as well as giving an Asian heavy district to Chu?

And do you think Gallegly and Capps should switch portions of their districts so they can both be safe and live happily ever after? The point of the redistricting commission was to NOT draw an incumbent gerrymander!

Also do you have any concerns in Norcal? I want to really find out what you consider to be so unfair about the map. Costa's district is only 54-45 Obama. OMGZ UNFAIR!!!!!!!

[Sbane]

Post from the east coast!

As for the Coachella valley, Bono Mack gets another district that is a perfect Republican gerrymander. Just look at the partisan numbers. Not that I don't think it makes sense, but it is what it is. The problem for the Republicans is that they lost the state 61-37 in 2008. And if you really think the Republicans did as well in California as they did nationwide in 2010(I am of the opinion the wave didn't reach California, but can under different circumstances), then you pubbies have more to worry about than some maps.

I agree with you about the LGB-Westminster CD as you already know, but the Drier district seems like it needed to be drawn. I will look more into the Highland exclusion thing though.

And yeah Simi Valley needed to be taken out of Ventura county. Or you push the Santa Clarita district into the SFV, thus putting Thousand Oaks into a Dem district. You cannot have a Rep gerrymander in Ventura County, sorry!

[Sbane]

California's Commission has 5 Dems, 5 Reps and 4 Indies, and requires at least 3 votes from each bloc for passage. (It passed 12-2 with both nays being Republicans, by the way, so it got the bare minimum of minority consent.) Similarly, you could make the final passage in Arizona require four votes.

That would help. Of course the Pubbies on the CA commission were pathetic too, but I really can't get too angry over that map, and a lot of CD's are close enough, that I kind of like the incentive it offers to Pubbies to stop being way out there in never-never land.  In a word, I fantasize it might strengthen a bit my little microscopic wing of the party. But hey, here on this forum, my wing is close to half the party! No doubt, that is in part due to my inspired "leadership."

It would be a lot better to let ordinary decent citizens draw the maps, rather than trying to form panels of impartial experts chosen based on their partiality.

I was thinking about that. Pick up some teenaged girls from a TRL taping (is that still going on?) and let them draw pretty shapes on the map.

[Sbane]

So a new commission gets put in place and a new map drawn Or is it possible the courts draw it?

Maybe they should just use my map. A more Republican 9th in the Phoenix area and a more Democratic Tucson district. And Grijalva is told to keep his mustachioed face shut.

[Sbane]

Bottom line, Republicans just aren't going to get as many safe seats as they like, not with any makeup of the commission. As it stands, there are only 2 D+ PVI districts on the map, which is hardly a Democratic gerrymander. No party owns the congressional seats, so it's a bit ridiculous for the governor to claim the map is "thievery". Sometimes you just have to get over it, that's what Democrats in many states have to do.

They don't have to get over it when they have the power to boot the commission.

Meaning the members or the whole thing? I don't think a proposition to overturn fair redistricting will be overturned. It just won't. Maybe if they played it more safe and only had a proposition to overturn the current map. I don't even know how that would work though.

[Sbane]

It's just kind of dumb how the parties get to choose who draws the map. The process needs to be taken out of their hands. Let amateurs do it. Even if the Republicans try to find some sort of ulterior motive in the California map, it just isn't there when one looks at the big picture. Almost everything can be explained due to different constraints. Hell even that LGB-Westminster district can be explained from a race/income basis, if not partisanship. And the commission wasn't even supposed to take partisanship into account. If you are talking about the Drier district, Highland was probably excluded to cut down on the city splits, unless Rialto was also split. The Coachella Valley district just didn't make sense if it had to go pick up Perris or Moreno Valley. It did make sense for an assembly map, and exactly that was drawn. I could go on and on.

Basically what I am saying is that it was much, much more preferable to this arrangement where I do believe the commissioners had a motive of trying to create a Phoenix Dem district, even if it meant the Tucson district became more of a swing district.

[Sbane]

Welp.

Is this game over?

No, they can throw Mathis out again.

How so? Wouldn't the supreme court just say no again?

[Sbane]

Welp.

Is this game over?

No, they can throw Mathis out again.

How so? Wouldn't the supreme court just say no again?

More to the point, they said that Brewer's power to oust a commissioner is limited to situations of substantial neglect of duty or gross misconduct.





They merely have to satisfy these criteria with detailed articles of impeachment detailing the situations of substantial neglect of duty.

So what was not used in court against her that will be used this time, is the question. Presumably all the evidence was presented and the Supreme court decided it didn't meet the standard of substantial neglect of duty or gross misconduct?

[Sbane]

Well, since some think the map passed by the commission is a democratic gerrymander, instead of one designed to get a Phoenix area dem elected, I think posting this map is in order. Maybe Mathis should just approve this map!




4th district: Obama 55%, Mccain 43%
5th district: Obama 54%, Mccain 43%
7th district: Obama 53%, Mccain 44%
8th district: Obama 54%, Mccain 44% (this is the Tucscon district, with a different color than the DRA color scheme)
9th district: Obama 50%, Mccain 48%

The rest are republican districts.