Likely next US districts after 2020

[jimrtex]

So apparently:
- OH , MI, MN, RI, WV, IL, PA, AL and NY are going to lose 1 seat
-AZ, OR, CO, NC are going to win 1 seat seat
- FL 2 seats
- TX 3 seats

Anyone interested of drawing potential new maps for that? (or democratic or republican gerrymanders if you want to do so).
I truly wonder if republicans would be able to reduce even more the number of democratic seats in the already republican gerrymandered maps.

RI, -1 D

NY, seat will be upstate. Downstate the 3 R seats are solid. The Long Island seats will probably have to move to the west, so NY-3 probably can't be flipped. Slaughter is ancient, and barely won in 2014.

Districts with an anchor city (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany) are protected. Also seats in corners are protected. So either NY-22 or NY-23 are the eliminated seats. I would choose NY-23. NY-25 and NY-26 take from NY-27, which in turn grabs a big chunk of western NY-23. NY-22 and NY-24 grab the remainder. The position of NY-19 depends on whether a whole district is lost upstate. If the current 18:9 split changes to 17.8:8.2 then NY-19 moves northward.

So either -1 R, or -1 D if NY-25 is flipped.

PA, -1 R, unless Republicans go eliminate PA-17.

WV, -1 R.

OH, -1 R. The Democratic sinks are well placed. Conceivably, a NW Ohio seat could neutralize Toledo and let OH-5 become a Cleveland seat. Alternatively, you can expand NY-5 in the Cleveland area, in an attempt to knock off Kaptur in a primary.

MI, -1 R. MI-5 could be flipped to go south from Flint.

IL, -1/2 R, -1/2 D. IL-10 gets eliminated as Democrats protect their other incumbents.

MN this could be transformational. It becomes a 4:3 split as St.Cloud is moved out. The outstate districts could all flip as they take in outer suburbs.

If Minneapolis-St.Paul are combined in a single district. Democrats may be able hold on to inner suburban districts. Much safer to keep them separate and add inner suburbs, and two Republican suburban seats. +2R, -3D.

NC, +1 R

FL, +2 R with the seats added in SW and Central Florida. If Polk is taken from FL-9, it pushes FL-7 northward and flips it back R. FL-13 will also expand northward.

So +2 R minimum, to +4 R, -2D maximum.

AL, -1 R

TX, +2R, +1D

CO, CO-4 gets split, but CO-6 becomes vulnerable. +1R

AZ, +1R

OR, if OR-4 is pushed north far enough, it provides an opportunity to create a district in southern Oregon. OR-2 may expand into Clackamas to get enough population. +1 R.

Total about 3.5 to R.

[jimrtex]

NY-25 won't be flipping even though it might move a point or two in the Pub direction by taking in the balance of Monroe County, plus a bit of Ontario, unless the Pub trend upstate continues, so to me the odds are pretty high that a Pub seat will be lost upstate. The seat that will be blown apart into pieces is almost certainly going to be mine, NY-19, as I have discussed (and shared with Will Yandik, but I digress). But there is a Pub seat to be had there in south Brooklyn, and perhaps a tossup seat if one is drawn that takes in Rockland, Orange and Sullivan counties (the old Gilmore seat reborn). So the ultimate result is uncertain.

In MN, when I played with the maps, MN-07 is gone, and the new northern MN-08 is about the same as it is now as to PVI, but that was before the big Pub trend this year, which if it hold, will flip it to Pub. The rest of the CD's don't change much in PVI, although I guess MN-02 could move a bit more Pub.

Districts in the corner don't get blown apart. NY-19 is in the southeastern corner of upstate.

2015 estimate of the split is:

18.234 : 8.766

Double the gain for 2020

18.467 : 8.533

Then rescale to 26 districts.

17.783 : 8.217

So NY-19 needs to shift 0.217 districts (about 165K) south.

This means that NY-19 gives up 0.53 to NY-20.

And NY-22 gives up 0.381 to NY-19; 0.096 to NY-21; and 0.101 to NY-24

(0.578 total to the east).

NY-27 gives up 0.077 to NY-26, and 0.064 to NY-25 (total 0.141)

NY-23 gives up 0.226 to NY-27 (start at Chautauqua and head east)

NY-22 gives up 0.328 to NY-24 (0.328 to the west).

NY-19 gets shifted west, perhaps gaining Utica.


Minnesota will go from 5:3 (Metro+St.Cloud):Outstate to 4:3 Metro:Outstate

MN-6 disappears.

[jimrtex]

Also I really have a hard time seeing the NC GOP drawing an 11-3 map after the lawsuit that went through earlier this year.  

They drew the 10-3 map in response to the lawsuit.

BTW, the SCOTUS heard the appeal of the NC case.

It was great fun to read the argument about whether NC-12 was a racial gerrymander or a political gerrymander, since the snake version doesn't exist any more, and the Democrats were arguing that the bad Republicans were packing blacks from Greensboro.

[jimrtex]

Also I really have a hard time seeing the NC GOP drawing an 11-3 map after the lawsuit that went through earlier this year.  

They drew the 10-3 map in response to the lawsuit.

BTW, the SCOTUS heard the appeal of the NC case.

It was great fun to read the argument about whether NC-12 was a racial gerrymander or a political gerrymander, since the snake version doesn't exist any more, and the Democrats were arguing that the bad Republicans were packing blacks from Greensboro.

Yes, but add yet another Safe R district in a state that votes *at best* 45D-55R?   There is no way that all those Dems can be that packed without drawing crazy shaped districts similar to the map pre-lawsuit.

Sure there is. We simply need to solve for:

0.4 * 11 (GOP seats) + X * 3 (Dem Seats) = 0.45 * 14 (statewide)

X = 0.63 is not really packed.

If we increase the statewide to 0.47 D, that makes X = 0.73

If we increase the statewide D to 0.49, and keep X at 0.73

Y * 11 + 0.73 * 3 = 0.49 * 14

Y = 0.42.

NC has lots of small cities that aren't excessively Democratic that can be controlled by Republican rural areas.

In the NC trial, the map-drawer deliberately maintained NC-1 as black majority. But for NC-12 he simply added adjacent precincts that were 90% Democratic. Guilford County was the only Section 5 County for the district, so he checked that he was not dividing the black population. The District Court found that was a racial gerrymander.

When the legislature redrew NC-12 they were responsive to the federal court. You should be content with the new map.

[jimrtex]

When the legislature redrew NC-12 they were responsive to the federal court. You should be content with the new map.

Content based on the argument of racial gerrymandering or content with the map overall? Do you think a 10-3 delegation is representative of the state?

The representatives are representative of their districts. Congress requires representatives to be elected by district.

If you want to defend the old snakelike NC-12 go ahead.

[jimrtex]

Yes, but add yet another Safe R district in a state that votes *at best* 45D-55R?   There is no way that all those Dems can be that packed without drawing crazy shaped districts similar to the map pre-lawsuit.

Sure there is. We simply need to solve for:

0.4 * 11 (GOP seats) + X * 3 (Dem Seats) = 0.45 * 14 (statewide)

X = 0.63 is not really packed.

If we increase the statewide to 0.47 D, that makes X = 0.73

If we increase the statewide D to 0.49, and keep X at 0.73

Y * 11 + 0.73 * 3 = 0.49 * 14

Y = 0.42.

NC has lots of small cities that aren't excessively Democratic that can be controlled by Republican rural areas.

In the NC trial, the map-drawer deliberately maintained NC-1 as black majority. But for NC-12 he simply added adjacent precincts that were 90% Democratic. Guilford County was the only Section 5 County for the district, so he checked that he was not dividing the black population. The District Court found that was a racial gerrymander.

When the legislature redrew NC-12 they were responsive to the federal court. You should be content with the new map.

The racial divides couldn't have possibly been the only complaint through the court,  the old map had county splits everywhere, while the new map has only 2-3 county splits per district.    I am not believing that the Republicans did that just by their good nature.  

In reality, most of the splits were associated with NC-1 and NC-12, with some associated with NC-4.

NC-1 only has three splits now, and one was to keep Butterfield in the district.  There are only 10 significant county splits now. NC-12 is entirely in Mecklenburg County now.

[jimrtex]

In reality, most of the splits were associated with NC-1 and NC-12, with some associated with NC-4.

NC-1 only has three splits now, and one was to keep Butterfield in the district.  There are only 10 significant county splits now. NC-12 is entirely in Mecklenburg County now.

That's not true at all,  NC-9 split Iredell with NC-5, and NC-5 went into Hickery which was in NC-10 otherwise.   Cumberland (Fayetteville) was split up between 3 districts.   

The old map had county splits every which way and backward, they were everywhere.

I would not have written it if it were not true.

NC-1 split 20 counties on the old map. NC-12 split 6 counties. I mentioned NC-4.

NC-6 split no counties, except due to NC-1, NC-4, and NC-12, and a small split of Alamance.

NC-11 split Buncombe; NC-10 split Catawba; NC-5 split Iredell; NC-9 split Union, etc. They were all to equalize population.

[jimrtex]

When the legislature redrew NC-12 they were responsive to the federal court. You should be content with the new map.

Content based on the argument of racial gerrymandering or content with the map overall? Do you think a 10-3 delegation is representative of the state?

The representatives are representative of their districts. Congress requires representatives to be elected by district.

If you want to defend the old snakelike NC-12 go ahead.

That's rather disingenuous, don't you think? I know you're a lot smarter than that based on your posts. Can you really justify the NC gerrymander? What logic is there in not having a Winston-Salem/Greensboro district? County splits are a worthy consideration, but I don't see how they justify splitting a metro area to that point like in the redrawn NC map. I'm sure you've drawn a non-gerrymandered North Carolina map by now. If so, could you please point me to it?   

As for NC-12, I completely agree with you. There's absolutely no reason why a Congressional district cannot be completely within the city of Charlotte (let alone Mecklenburg County).

I don't recall drawing a North Carolina map. We had a lengthy discussion about which counties were connected. A lot of this involved the mountains and the areas around Pamlico and Albermarle sounds, and the Outer Banks. During the hearing before the SCOTUS, the defendants suggested that the plaintiffs should have been required to produce an example map in support of their claims - was there another way to draw the snake that was not racially discriminatory.

You are in effect arguing that you could produce a better map, but demanding that I draw it for you.

Greensboro and Winston-Salem are different metropolitan areas. Forsyth and Gulford are too large for a single congressional district, which probably result in the two counties being placed in different congressional districts.

[jimrtex]

He'll complain all day about the Arizona map Mathis made, but find a 11-3 delegation in a 48/52 vote state totally acceptable since the 11 is R.

My definition of "gerrymander" is result-oriented districting.

[jimrtex]

He'll complain all day about the Arizona map Mathis made, but find a 11-3 delegation in a 48/52 vote state totally acceptable since the 11 is R.

My definition of "gerrymander" is result-oriented districting.

Lol...okay, please don't tell me you find the NC map non-result oriented?'

Greensboro and Winston-Salem are different metropolitan areas. Forsyth and Gulford are too large for a single congressional district, which probably result in the two counties being placed in different congressional districts.

Chapel Hill and Raleigh are two different Metro areas as well, that sure didn't stop the NC GOP from putting them in the same district of NC-4, how convenient for them (or result oriented, whichever you prefer).

Raleigh is larger than a district. Together the two metropolitan areas are roughly the equivalent of two districts.

[jimrtex]

He'll complain all day about the Arizona map Mathis made, but find a 11-3 delegation in a 48/52 vote state totally acceptable since the 11 is R.

My definition of "gerrymander" is result-oriented districting.

Lol...okay, please don't tell me you find the NC map non-result oriented?'

Greensboro and Winston-Salem are different metropolitan areas. Forsyth and Gulford are too large for a single congressional district, which probably result in the two counties being placed in different congressional districts.

Chapel Hill and Raleigh are two different Metro areas as well, that sure didn't stop the NC GOP from putting them in the same district of NC-4, how convenient for them (or result oriented, whichever you prefer).

Raleigh is larger than a district. Together the two metropolitan areas are roughly the equivalent of two districts.

Okay...so if it's not "results oriented" why not give Raleigh (Wake County) it's own district

Look at the two UCC involved, and explain how you are going to draw two districts in the two UCCs, and one entirely in Wake County. You might want to actually draw a map.

[jimrtex]

He'll complain all day about the Arizona map Mathis made, but find a 11-3 delegation in a 48/52 vote state totally acceptable since the 11 is R.

My definition of "gerrymander" is result-oriented districting.

Lol...okay, please don't tell me you find the NC map non-result oriented?'

Greensboro and Winston-Salem are different metropolitan areas. Forsyth and Gulford are too large for a single congressional district, which probably result in the two counties being placed in different congressional districts.

Chapel Hill and Raleigh are two different Metro areas as well, that sure didn't stop the NC GOP from putting them in the same district of NC-4, how convenient for them (or result oriented, whichever you prefer).

Raleigh is larger than a district. Together the two metropolitan areas are roughly the equivalent of two districts.

Okay...so if it's not "results oriented" why not give Raleigh (Wake County) it's own district

Look at the two UCC involved, and explain how you are going to draw two districts in the two UCCs, and one entirely in Wake County. You might want to actually draw a map.

Why is it needed to draw two districts inside the two UCCs?   They certainly didn't have two districts in the two UCCs in the previous map.

They didn't have enough wisdom to utilize UCCs.

[jimrtex]

How about NC and VA?  Is 11R/3D viable in NC, or will the legislature have to concede the new seat?  I would presume 8R/3D is no longer viable in VA with what is happening in Richmond and outer NOVA.  If it meets court standards, Republicans would probably want to draw the second black opportunity seat from Richmond to Woodbridge along I-95 to shore up VA-10 and VA-07.

Of course not. Another 8/3 map could and would have been drawn if the Democrats had not adjourned the special session to do so this year. First order of business if a Republican is elected in 2017 would be to take back the stolen 4th district. The 2001 iteration of the 3rd and 4th districts were already cleared by the 4th circuit court in 2004.

They didn't adjourn a special session () the map was struck down by the courts, and then the VA legislature couldn't draw a map (due to GOP incompetence, not the dems...) and the courts ended up drawing the maps.

The special session met, and some story was concocted about McAuliffe making a recess appointment, they flipped one senator, and the Democratic Lieutenant Governor broke a tie for the Senate to adjourn.

The board of elections was the formal defendant. It declined to submit a map, and then endorsed the plan drawn by the special master, who went way out of bounds.

[jimrtex]

What happened? Virginia Democrats, and a single cuckservative, ended the special session! So when you say the VA legislature could not draw a map, it is because Democrats made it so by a 21-20 vote.

The Senate has 40 members, it was a 21-19 vote.

The vote to adjourn was 20-20, the Lieutenant Governor broke the tie.

[jimrtex]

And then 4th circuit judges appointed special masters to redraw the 3rd district, and while they did that, they stole the 4th district.

Maybe the Courts enacted the map because *gasp* it better represents the interests of the people of Virginia?  Maybe the court picked the more fair map?   Crazy thought huh? 

It is certainly not the job of a federal court to represent the interests of the people of Virginia.

They have a legislature for that.

[jimrtex]

It is certainly not the job of a federal court to represent the interests of the people of Virginia.

They have a legislature for that.

Mildred Loving might disagree with you on that one, Jim.

Nyvin is the one who is making the argument in favor of discrimination on the basis of race.

But you seem to be focusing on the state rather than the issue of redistricting. I will rephrase my statement:

It is certainly not the job of a federal court to represent the interests of the people of Virginia, or any other State, in the matter of redistricting. They each have legislatures to do that.

See Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25 (1993) and Perry v Perez 565 U.S. _____ (2012)

[jimrtex]

It was argued before the courts that it didn't properly represent the African American community, and the Republicans lost.

What do you mean by the word "community"?

Provide some examples.