CT Redistricting 2020

[Mr.Phips]

Dems were able to hold CT-05 even in 2010 and 2014 and generally have seen less drop off here in bad midterms than in other districts. Biden won here by 11 in 2020. I wouldn’t be surprised to see this a low to mid single digit race, but would be really shocked if it flipped.

There are plenty of districts of the kind you just described (held by the dominant party even in wave years for the other party) that nonetheless ended up flipping at some point (ME-2, MN-3, MN-7, TX-32, etc.) because national trends finally caught up with the dominant party in regions/seats which had withstood them before.

The problem with this reasoning is that CT-05 isn't trending Republican. It voted ~5 points left of the nation in 2012 and ~6 points left of the nation in 2020. Some will argue it's trending D, I'd argue it's generally flat given rural and suburban trends cancelling each other out.

CT-02, on the other hand, is going to be a problem in the long run.

Dems need to really hope Courtney doesn’t retire this year.

[Dan the Roman]

One thing worth considering is the degree to which partisanship in New England has transitioned from ideological to cultural to geographic. The GOP is seen as increasingly a foreign entity, which is a problem because it creates a massive split between "national GOPers" and "state Rs" which was evident in MA.

If that is the case, I don't think you can assume "issues" will have much if any impact among higher income MA/CT voters. It is not as if the GOP can claim to be the party of finance/high income suburbanites after SALT.

There is a distinct New Hampshire identity which allows the Republicans to present an alternative to the sort of MA/CT suburban elitism, but that IS the identity in CT-5.

It may actually make more sense to compare the region to California. Even in 2014 there were distinct limits to the GOP wave because the GOP was not seen as a legitimate or viable protest vehicle. 

Will Rs be picking up heavily white, Biden + 11 districts in CA? I mean conceivably but I think they would have more trouble than they did in 2014.

[beesley]

There's not going to be 5 "Safe Democrat" seats in Connecticut in 2022. At least one will be slightly competitive.

It’s honestly awful how this hack Drew Savicki has become the face of Election Twitter, especially around here. Classifying CT-5 as "Safe Democratic" in a heavily Republican environment is just lazy, and even the NRCC has identified CT-5 and CT-2 as target seats (initially they only had CT-5 on their list but then added CT-2 in November). No one is denying that these would be "heavy lifts" under normal circumstances or that Courtney is stronger than generic D (even if overrated), but of all the "heavy lifts", I’d argue that they are among the first to fall in a wave year (and CT-5 may not even require a big wave).

FTR, I don’t think there will be all that many upsets in 2022 given how efficiently/aggressively Democrats have been gerrymandering across the country (I think the GOP's absolute ceiling is a 25-30 seat gain, nothing remotely comparable to 2010), but I’ve always viewed CT-2 and especially CT-5 as prime targets for a 'surprise' flip, and the VA/NJ races somewhat confirmed my suspicion. Any Biden +<12 district in which there hasn’t been serious D gerrymandering compared to the current map, in which Democrats are extremely reliant on rural/small-town voters (even if they are culturally/socially more 'moderate'), and in which some GOP rebound in exurban-ish, heavily white, more affluent areas can be expected (I’d argue this is the case in CT) shouldn’t be considered completely safe. Like Sol, I think 'elasticity' if anything benefits the GOP here.

His UK takes are... Interesting. Anyway, I agree with the rest of your point. Of course in most fair maps (as in reasonably drawn ones) there would likely be a red CT-5 in 2022.

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/greggiroux/status/1483522935289745411?s=20

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://twitter.com/greggiroux/status/1483522935289745411?s=20

Meet the new map, same as the old map.

[BoiseBoy]

And it’s a wrap:

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1491852287077236745?s=20&t=Pf02ehux...

[ProgressiveModerate]

Kinda annoyed they didn’t shake it up a bit, but glad another one down.

[Torie]

Guess what? CT has an equal protection clause too! The Pubs should be suing in all states with an equal protection clause where they got the shaft.

"SEC. 20. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry or national origin."

[GALeftist]

Guess what? CT has an equal protection clause too! The Pubs should be suing in all states with an equal protection clause where they got the shaft.

"SEC. 20. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry or national origin."

To my knowledge they are. Obviously not in Connecticut since it's a court map but they're suing in states like NV, NM, MD on similar grounds.

[Torie]

Guess what? CT has an equal protection clause too! The Pubs should be suing in all states with an equal protection clause where they got the shaft.

"SEC. 20. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry or national origin."

To my knowledge they are. Obviously not in Connecticut since it's a court map but they're suing in states like NV, NM, MD on similar grounds.

No, you file a motion for reconsideration that the map the master drew was a denial of equal protection. The idea is to get Dem court after Dem court to say no it is not for erose maps that shut the Pubs out. And then the Dem rogue courts tossing Pub maps on such grounds are isolated. NYS also has an equal protection clause btw. Presumably the Pubs in their lawsuit mentioned that in addition to all the other more specific provisions the legislature blew off assuming the NYS court were on their team as hacks who don't give a damn about the law.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Guess what? CT has an equal protection clause too! The Pubs should be suing in all states with an equal protection clause where they got the shaft.

"SEC. 20. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry or national origin."

To my knowledge they are. Obviously not in Connecticut since it's a court map but they're suing in states like NV, NM, MD on similar grounds.

No, you file a motion for reconsideration that the map the master drew was an denial of equal protection. The idea is to get Dem court after Dem court to say no it is not for erose maps that shut the Pubs out. And then the Dem rogue courts tossing Pub maps on such grounds are isolated. NYS also has an equal protection clause btw. Presumably the Pubs in their lawsuit mentioned that in addition to all the other more specific provisions the legislature blew off assuming the NYS court were on their team as hacks who don't give a damn about the law.

Tbf similar to Massachusetts, Rs are distributed in a way that makes a Trump seat very difficult on 2020 numbers (narrowly possible on 2016 numbers in NW corner, but not necessarily natural). I still agree I’m disappointed they didn’t clean things up, but from a partisanship standpoint it’s the same way the WI court will likely do a 6-2 or 5-3 at best

[Torie]

Guess what? CT has an equal protection clause too! The Pubs should be suing in all states with an equal protection clause where they got the shaft.

"SEC. 20. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry or national origin."

To my knowledge they are. Obviously not in Connecticut since it's a court map but they're suing in states like NV, NM, MD on similar grounds.

No, you file a motion for reconsideration that the map the master drew was an denial of equal protection. The idea is to get Dem court after Dem court to say no it is not for erose maps that shut the Pubs out. And then the Dem rogue courts tossing Pub maps on such grounds are isolated. NYS also has an equal protection clause btw. Presumably the Pubs in their lawsuit mentioned that in addition to all the other more specific provisions the legislature blew off assuming the NYS court were on their team as hacks who don't give a damn about the law.

Tbf similar to Massachusetts, Rs are distributed in a way that makes a Trump seat very difficult on 2020 numbers (narrowly possible on 2016 numbers in NW corner, but not necessarily natural). I still agree I’m disappointed they didn’t clean things up, but from a partisanship standpoint it’s the same way the WI court will likely do a 6-2 or 5-3 at best

More is in play in CT than MA. There are three options here: 1) gerrymander as best one can to move towards a fair map based on the efficiency gap or proportionality ala Michigan, 2) you may not gerrymander to increase the efficiency gap or reduce the odds of getting a more proportional balance, or 3) you can so gerrymander to shut the minority party out, hiding behind least change, BS communities of interest propaganda, or whatever. The CT court went for option 3. It could at least have selected option 2. That would have moved CT 5 considerably closer to a swing CD. As to option 1, a mild Pub gerrymander could have created one or two competitive CD's, or more competitive. There is no excuse or explanation other than hack partisanship in CT. In NYS, with specific guidelines in addition to equal protection, if that map is upheld, the rule of law is dead, with no fig leaf to hide behind whatsoever, at least as to anything with partisan or ideological connotations.

As I say, state high courts are being exposed everywhere across the fruited plain as having no clothes. And unlike in the parable, I am going to keep pointing that out. The bulk of them it seems are a disgrace.

I will add a CT map or maps to this post in due course.

Below is a neutral metrics map that goes for compactness and minimizing the size of town splits that moves CT-5 a full 5 PVI points towards the Pubs, from D 2.32% to R 2.54%, making it a true swing CD, and moves CT-02 a tad towards the Pubs, from D 2.4% to D 1.66%. It took me 15 minutes. It was not hard.



https://davesredistricting.org/join/b1d67f4d-7ce3-426d-8aad-5c89e1d230b1

The erose mess that Persily drew is tossed in the garbage.

[lfromnj]

Well Persily didn't really draw it but merely made a least change as demanded by the court. As goes WI so goes CT. In both cases the maps are effectively bipartisan maps from 2000 that have undergone least change. In WI case there was a small bit of GOP tampering regarding WI03/WI07 but that works out to the Dem benefit by now. Also they switched Ozaukee and Dodge county which increased WOW influence.

[Torie]

Well Persily didn't really draw it but merely made a least change as demanded by the court. As goes WI so goes CT. In both cases the maps are effectively bipartisan maps from 2000 that have undergone least change. In WI case there was a small bit of GOP tampering regarding WI03/WI07 but that works out to the Dem benefit by now. Also they switched Ozaukee and Dodge county which increased WOW influence.

Does WI have an equal protection clause like CT and NC and NYS?

Apparently not, just the right to pursue happiness, and thus have lots of beer.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/constitution/wi/000227/000002

That is the point. Every state with an equal protection clause needs a lawsuit if the maps are not proportional. Every state needs to set a precedent. The ensuing chaos and "impeachment" of the state high courts with inconsistent rulings on the same copy and paste language from the US Constitution will cause the whole house of cards to come tumbling down in due course.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Guess what? CT has an equal protection clause too! The Pubs should be suing in all states with an equal protection clause where they got the shaft.

"SEC. 20. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry or national origin."

To my knowledge they are. Obviously not in Connecticut since it's a court map but they're suing in states like NV, NM, MD on similar grounds.

No, you file a motion for reconsideration that the map the master drew was an denial of equal protection. The idea is to get Dem court after Dem court to say no it is not for erose maps that shut the Pubs out. And then the Dem rogue courts tossing Pub maps on such grounds are isolated. NYS also has an equal protection clause btw. Presumably the Pubs in their lawsuit mentioned that in addition to all the other more specific provisions the legislature blew off assuming the NYS court were on their team as hacks who don't give a damn about the law.

Tbf similar to Massachusetts, Rs are distributed in a way that makes a Trump seat very difficult on 2020 numbers (narrowly possible on 2016 numbers in NW corner, but not necessarily natural). I still agree I’m disappointed they didn’t clean things up, but from a partisanship standpoint it’s the same way the WI court will likely do a 6-2 or 5-3 at best

More is in play in CT than MA. There are three options here: 1) gerrymander as best one can to move towards a fair map based on the efficiency gap or proportionality ala Michigan, 2) you may not gerrymander to increase the efficiency gap or reduce the odds of getting a more proportional balance, or 3) you can so gerrymander to shut the minority party out, hiding behind least change, BS communities of interest propaganda, or whatever. The CT court went for option 3. It could at least have selected option 2. That would have moved CT 5 considerably closer to a swing CD. As to option 1, a mild Pub gerrymander could have created one or two competitive CD's, or more competitive. There is no excuse or explanation other than hack partisanship in CT. In NYS, with specific guidelines in addition to equal protection, if that map is upheld, the rule of law is dead, with no fig leaf to hide behind whatsoever, and the rule of law is dead in NY as to anything with partisan or ideological connotations.

As I say, state high courts are being exposed everywhere across the fruited plain as having no clothes. And unlike in the parable, I am going to keep pointing that out. The bulk of them it seems are a disgrace.

I will add a CT map or maps to this post in due course.

Below is a neutral metrics map that goes for compactness and minimizing the size of town splits that moves CT-5 a full 5 PVI points towards the Pubs, from D 2.32% to R 2.54%, making it a true swing CD, and moves CT-02 a tad towards the Pubs, from D 2.4% to D 1.66%. It took me 15 minutes. It was not hard.



https://davesredistricting.org/join/b1d67f4d-7ce3-426d-8aad-5c89e1d230b1

The erose mess that Persily drew is tossed in the garbage.

Ye that's definitely a better map than what we have currently, though seems a little "urban centric" with CT-02 and CT-05 being leftover "rurals". CT-02 is basically gonna be double digit for Biden no matter what; CT-05 is rlly the only district that can be truly competitive and ideally it should be, but I wouldn't call the new map a map drawn with aggressive partisan attempt to deny Rs any seats on the delegation.

I really do wish they just started over with the map as it is getting messy, but I don't think it's any more unfair than "neutrally" drawn maps with slight biases (Colorado, Arizona, Michigan).

[Torie]

I didn't know "urban-centric" was bad (keeping metro areas together), and don't find that erose mess to be anything similar to the maps that you describe, so we will have to disagree on that one. But I am making a legal point here, as I assume you are gleaning now. We either move towards proportionality in all states with an equal protection clause or we don't.  We don't just move towards proportionality if it generates more Dem seats under the identical legal language.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I didn't know "urban-centric" was bad (keeping metro areas together), and don't find that erose mess to be anything similar to the maps that you describe, so we will have to disagree on that one. But I am making a legal point here, as I assume you are gleaning now. We either move towards proportionality in all states with an equal protection clause or we don't.  We don't just move towards proportionality if it generates more Dem seats under the identical legal language.

The issue is the proportionality you desire is sometimes not practical in a lot of states. I'd argue in Wisconsin for instance, doing a 4-4 map or even 5-3 isn't worth it if it means breaking up COIs. Yes, as a Democrat I'll admit I personally hope for a 4-4 map, but rationally 6-2 generally does the best job at representing COIs.

Since the House is a national body, if every state drew a map where COI's were the number one priority over partisanship, most "natural" Dem and Rep leaning maps would cancel out anyways.

Just to be clear, I do think in a better map CT-05 would be closer, but that's more of a result of COIs rather than trying to achieve proportionality. A 3D-2R Connecticut is not possible nor practical (using 2020 Pres as baseline).

So while we both agree this is not an ideal map, you seem to be coming at it more from the lens of partisanship where I am coming at it more from COI standpoint (you still adress COI and messiness, to me it just comes off as a second priority).

When in reason, proportionality (curved) should try to be achieved, sort of like Michigan did, but it shouldn't come at the expense of COIs.

[Torie]

I didn't know "urban-centric" was bad (keeping metro areas together), and don't find that erose mess to be anything similar to the maps that you describe, so we will have to disagree on that one. But I am making a legal point here, as I assume you are gleaning now. We either move towards proportionality in all states with an equal protection clause or we don't.  We don't just move towards proportionality if it generates more Dem seats under the identical legal language.

The issue is the proportionality you desire is sometimes not practical in a lot of states. I'd argue in Wisconsin for instance, doing a 4-4 map or even 5-3 isn't worth it if it means breaking up COIs. Yes, as a Democrat I'll admit I personally hope for a 4-4 map, but rationally 6-2 generally does the best job at representing COIs.

Since the House is a national body, if every state drew a map where COI's were the number one priority over partisanship, most "natural" Dem and Rep leaning maps would cancel out anyways.

Just to be clear, I do think in a better map CT-05 would be closer, but that's more of a result of COIs rather than trying to achieve proportionality. A 3D-2R Connecticut is not possible nor practical (using 2020 Pres as baseline).

So while we both agree this is not an ideal map, you seem to be coming at it more from the lens of partisanship where I am coming at it more from COI standpoint (you still adress COI and messiness, to me it just comes off as a second priority).

When in reason, proportionality (curved) should try to be achieved, sort of like Michigan did, but it shouldn't come at the expense of COIs.

I understand all of that. My focus here is on legal consistency. My personal preference is to use neutral metrics, avoid COI's that are subjective, and only go towards  proportionality as a tie breaker, where there are two reasonable choices to be made. That happened in PA in the last cycle, where the court made two choices as to two CD's that favored the Dems,  that were reasonable choices to make, flip a coin, that moved the division of the spoils closer to proportionality. I am fine with that. But what I want or you want is beside the point as an ideal. In the meantime, I am concerned about the corruption of the courts, the rule of law, and the consistent application of the law. As to that matter, I have commenced a jihad as it were. It is a matter of the abuse of power actually.

That said, it seems that the doctrine or proportionality has only been applied so far to gerrymander in favor of the Dems. And there are at least some states where it can readily be applied as a practical matter to help the Pubs, including, obviously, inter alia, CT. I stipulate that it isn't possible in MA except perhaps to generate one swing CD with a horribly ugly and erose map. No thank you as to that.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I didn't know "urban-centric" was bad (keeping metro areas together), and don't find that erose mess to be anything similar to the maps that you describe, so we will have to disagree on that one. But I am making a legal point here, as I assume you are gleaning now. We either move towards proportionality in all states with an equal protection clause or we don't.  We don't just move towards proportionality if it generates more Dem seats under the identical legal language.

The issue is the proportionality you desire is sometimes not practical in a lot of states. I'd argue in Wisconsin for instance, doing a 4-4 map or even 5-3 isn't worth it if it means breaking up COIs. Yes, as a Democrat I'll admit I personally hope for a 4-4 map, but rationally 6-2 generally does the best job at representing COIs.

Since the House is a national body, if every state drew a map where COI's were the number one priority over partisanship, most "natural" Dem and Rep leaning maps would cancel out anyways.

Just to be clear, I do think in a better map CT-05 would be closer, but that's more of a result of COIs rather than trying to achieve proportionality. A 3D-2R Connecticut is not possible nor practical (using 2020 Pres as baseline).

So while we both agree this is not an ideal map, you seem to be coming at it more from the lens of partisanship where I am coming at it more from COI standpoint (you still adress COI and messiness, to me it just comes off as a second priority).

When in reason, proportionality (curved) should try to be achieved, sort of like Michigan did, but it shouldn't come at the expense of COIs.

I understand all of that. My focus here is on legal consistency. My personal preference is to use neutral metrics, avoid COI's that are subjective, and only go towards  proportionality as a tie breaker, where there are two reasonable choices to be made. That happened in PA in the last cycle, where the court made two choices as to two CD's that favored the Dems,  that were reasonable choices to make, flip a coin, that moved the division of the spoils closer to proportionality. I am fine with that. But what I want or you want is beside the point as an ideal. In the meantime, I am concerned about the corruption of the courts, the rule of law, and the consistent application of the law. As to that matter, I have commenced a jihad as it were. It is a matter of the abuse of power actually.

That said, it seems that the doctrine or proportionality has only been applied so far to gerrymander in favor of the Dems. And there are at least some states where it can readily be applied as a practical matter to help the Pubs, including, obviously, inter alia, CT. I stipulate that it isn't possible in MA except perhaps to generate one swing CD with a horribly ugly and erose map. No thank you as to that.

I would disagree that this CT map is about the corruption of the courts. Instead, it's more about them doing a least change rather starting anew and the map maker not making many significant changes. By and large, the courts aren't redistricting experts, and often would prefer to not get involved, so throw it over to a special master, and in CT's case they used the same one (which I think isn't the best move).

In other states like VA though this worked quite well as they completely reimagined the map rather than keeping the status quo to create a representative and fair outcome by most metrics.

[Torie]

The corruption in CT is a work in progress. The issue may not have even been brought to their attention. The corruption is if the outcome based on the same language is partisan. That said, if the CT holds that the CT equal protection clause is an inappropriate weapon to use in redistricting, and dissents from the NC courts use and abuse, I am OK with that. That puts more pressure on NC. Ditto for NYS. It can either join NC, or dissent from its use and abuse.

Nice chatting with you. I think we have beaten this drum until it has no sound.