What were the biggest mistakes both parties made in redistricting?

[Tekken_Guy]

What were the biggest mistakes each party made that hurt them in redistricting?

[Roll Roons]

NC Republicans: Trying to crack Guilford County between three safe R districts in their initial gerrymander.

I suspect that's the one of the main reasons the initial map got struck down, so they might have had a better map if they'd kept a safe D district there to begin with.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Democrats: Objectively NY. They were very greedy not only in terms of partisanship but also incumbent demands. I'd argue without things such as the snaky NY-10 or that mess in the Hudson Valley, and some cleaning around the edges, a lighter 22-4 map would be able to survive the court similar to the map DeSantis drew which whil is partisansly lopsided, doesn't have much objectionable about it from a COI, compactness, county splitting, or racial perspective.

Horoable mentions:

Maryland - Same situation as NY but on a smaller scale

Arizona - The 2 commissioners Dems put forwards were awful. One quickly developed a very toxic relationship with the tiebreaker while the other was obsessed about "Native American Rights" (keeping Native American tribes in a blue district) even long after it was clear that wouldn't happen. At the end they were too worried about their own narrow minded concerns rather than trying to squeeze a few extra points out of AZ-06 which was the last district to be finished.

Nevada - The Dem map is quite the gamble as all 3 of the Las Vegas seats have been shifting right to various degrees recently and are all less than Biden + 10. It's def a Vegas gamble.

Republicans: Underrated possibility, but TX-State House. Ik there are county rules and Dems have a pretty good distribution, but they could've made the germander much harder to crack simply by ceding an extra sink here or there. Originally, they were gonna try and make all the districts in Collin County R leaning but eventually ceded a weak pack. The median seat isn't much to the right of the state and basically all the seats Dems need for a majority are rapidly left shifting. There was more they could've done but didn't once again to make some incumbents happy.

Honorable mentions:

North Carolina - their original maps were too aggressive, but I think Rs knew that the court is likely to flip in 2022 and that the congressional replacement map is interim. Still, we at least in theory have fair state legislative maps for the decade but a more conservative state supreme court may try to make some weird argument against why those maps are illegitimate. If the maps stay Rs need to be on high alert as they could actually face electoral consequences for being too aggressive

Kansas - They really went over the top to vote on a map that maybe gives them a shot at KS-03 for another cycle or 2, and even then KS-03 will still likely be part of any Dem majority. For reference, they brought in a dude on a hospital bed to override Kelly's veto

Michigan - The Republicans on the commission isolated themselves from the rest of the commissioners and presented just some really bad maps. Ultimately both Congressional and State Legistlative maps passed with a combo of Dem and Independent support. Also I think Dems did good in the sense that one of the Independents was def a progressive “Bernie Bro” type and the other seemed like a classic example of educated anti-Trump suburban mom. They were both very vocal members and made a lot of D favorable decisions. Finally the emphasis on partisan fairness in a state where geographic favors Rs meant the commission really went out of their way to unpack Dems, especially in the state legislature

[Mr.Phips]

NC Republicans: Trying to crack Guilford County between three safe R districts in their initial gerrymander.

I suspect that's the one of the main reasons the initial map got struck down, so they might have had a better map if they'd kept a safe D district there to begin with.

Republicans should have just gone with a solid 9-5 map in NC with NC-01 being somewhat shaky (as it is now) for Dems.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Dumbass anti-gerrymandering initiatives that apparently only apply to blue states. Thanks NY and CA

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

There was nothing that could be done in NY. They would have even struck down a cleaner gerrymander. Thank Cuomo and NYS for those judges

In OH if Dems filed correctly the GOP would have been screwed like the NY dems

[Tekken_Guy]

There was nothing that could be done in NY. They would have even struck down a cleaner gerrymander. Thank Cuomo and NYS for those judges

In OH if Dems filed correctly the GOP would have been screwed like the NY dems

Given that the second map wasn’t struck down until July I don’t think they’d have been able to beat the clock there.

[ProgressiveModerate]

There was nothing that could be done in NY. They would have even struck down a cleaner gerrymander. Thank Cuomo and NYS for those judges

In OH if Dems filed correctly the GOP would have been screwed like the NY dems

Given that the second map wasn’t struck down until July I don’t think they’d have been able to beat the clock there.

But state Supreme Court could've struck it down earlier but didn't due to the technicality they said the previous case was setteled and a new case would have to be brought forwards, even though they implied the map was illegal.

[ProgressiveModerate]

There was nothing that could be done in NY. They would have even struck down a cleaner gerrymander. Thank Cuomo and NYS for those judges

In OH if Dems filed correctly the GOP would have been screwed like the NY dems

I agree that the NYS Supreme Court may have struck down a cleaner gerrymander, however, in that scenario there's less of a chance the case would've gotten to the State Supreme Court cause at both level of lower courts it seemed like the decision was pretty narrow so had those lower courts both ruled the map was fine, the NYS Supreme Court may have never overturned.

Considering Dems got a relatively favorable special master, things are def a lot better than they could've been for Dems. Maps such as Torie's or some of the R-aligned proposals would've been brutal for Dems whereas the special master just made more competitive seats and cleaned up a lot of mess from Dems gerrymander. There's still a good chance that 20 or 21 of the state's 26 seats will be to the left of the median House seat in 2022.

[Tekken_Guy]

There was nothing that could be done in NY. They would have even struck down a cleaner gerrymander. Thank Cuomo and NYS for those judges

In OH if Dems filed correctly the GOP would have been screwed like the NY dems

Given that the second map wasn’t struck down until July I don’t think they’d have been able to beat the clock there.

But state Supreme Court could've struck it down earlier but didn't due to the technicality they said the previous case was setteled and a new case would have to be brought forwards, even though they implied the map was illegal.

The most recent maps were passed in March. The maps weren’t struck down until July, and there’s no reason to think that had they field correctly the trial would be much shorter.

[ProgressiveModerate]

There was nothing that could be done in NY. They would have even struck down a cleaner gerrymander. Thank Cuomo and NYS for those judges

In OH if Dems filed correctly the GOP would have been screwed like the NY dems

Given that the second map wasn’t struck down until July I don’t think they’d have been able to beat the clock there.

But state Supreme Court could've struck it down earlier but didn't due to the technicality they said the previous case was setteled and a new case would have to be brought forwards, even though they implied the map was illegal.

The most recent maps were passed in March. The maps weren’t struck down until July, and there’s no reason to think that had they field correctly the trial would be much shorter.

The Supreme Court ruled all the way back in March, It's impossible to say what would've happened but that seems like a lot of time.

[Tekken_Guy]

There was nothing that could be done in NY. They would have even struck down a cleaner gerrymander. Thank Cuomo and NYS for those judges

In OH if Dems filed correctly the GOP would have been screwed like the NY dems

Given that the second map wasn’t struck down until July I don’t think they’d have been able to beat the clock there.

But state Supreme Court could've struck it down earlier but didn't due to the technicality they said the previous case was setteled and a new case would have to be brought forwards, even though they implied the map was illegal.

The most recent maps were passed in March. The maps weren’t struck down until July, and there’s no reason to think that had they field correctly the trial would be much shorter.

The Supreme Court ruled all the way back in March, It's impossible to say what would've happened but that seems like a lot of time.

Then why did it take until July to make their current ruling? The ruling should have come down in April then.

[ProgressiveModerate]

There was nothing that could be done in NY. They would have even struck down a cleaner gerrymander. Thank Cuomo and NYS for those judges

In OH if Dems filed correctly the GOP would have been screwed like the NY dems

Given that the second map wasn’t struck down until July I don’t think they’d have been able to beat the clock there.

But state Supreme Court could've struck it down earlier but didn't due to the technicality they said the previous case was setteled and a new case would have to be brought forwards, even though they implied the map was illegal.

The most recent maps were passed in March. The maps weren’t struck down until July, and there’s no reason to think that had they field correctly the trial would be much shorter.

The Supreme Court ruled all the way back in March, It's impossible to say what would've happened but that seems like a lot of time.

Then why did it take until July to make their current ruling? The ruling should have come down in April then.

Cause they had to refile a whole new case and go through the whole process of getting on the queue for the state supreme court.

[Tekken_Guy]

There was nothing that could be done in NY. They would have even struck down a cleaner gerrymander. Thank Cuomo and NYS for those judges

In OH if Dems filed correctly the GOP would have been screwed like the NY dems

Given that the second map wasn’t struck down until July I don’t think they’d have been able to beat the clock there.

But state Supreme Court could've struck it down earlier but didn't due to the technicality they said the previous case was setteled and a new case would have to be brought forwards, even though they implied the map was illegal.

The most recent maps were passed in March. The maps weren’t struck down until July, and there’s no reason to think that had they field correctly the trial would be much shorter.

The Supreme Court ruled all the way back in March, It's impossible to say what would've happened but that seems like a lot of time.

Then why did it take until July to make their current ruling? The ruling should have come down in April then.

Cause they had to refile a whole new case and go through the whole process of getting on the queue for the state supreme court.

Isn’t that what they would have had to do anyway?

[Torie]

There was nothing that could be done in NY. They would have even struck down a cleaner gerrymander. Thank Cuomo and NYS for those judges

In OH if Dems filed correctly the GOP would have been screwed like the NY dems

I agree that the NYS Supreme Court may have struck down a cleaner gerrymander, however, in that scenario there's less of a chance the case would've gotten to the State Supreme Court cause at both level of lower courts it seemed like the decision was pretty narrow so had those lower courts both ruled the map was fine, the NYS Supreme Court may have never overturned.

Considering Dems got a relatively favorable special master, things are def a lot better than they could've been for Dems. Maps such as Torie's or some of the R-aligned proposals would've been brutal for Dems whereas the special master just made more competitive seats and cleaned up a lot of mess from Dems gerrymander. There's still a good chance that 20 or 21 of the state's 26 seats will be to the left of the median House seat in 2022.

It turned out that Cervas's arithmetic calculation of a fair division of the partisan spoils was not entirely accurate, and that together with factoring in Trump 2016 figures, caused the needle to move about 1.5 seats in the direction of the Dems. If I had started on  what I did a month earlier, and read Cervas's academic work earlier, I might have made a bit more progress. I definitely think Cervas in good faith tried to be fair, and was impressed with how faithful he was in avoiding chops.

[ProgressiveModerate]

There was nothing that could be done in NY. They would have even struck down a cleaner gerrymander. Thank Cuomo and NYS for those judges

In OH if Dems filed correctly the GOP would have been screwed like the NY dems

I agree that the NYS Supreme Court may have struck down a cleaner gerrymander, however, in that scenario there's less of a chance the case would've gotten to the State Supreme Court cause at both level of lower courts it seemed like the decision was pretty narrow so had those lower courts both ruled the map was fine, the NYS Supreme Court may have never overturned.

Considering Dems got a relatively favorable special master, things are def a lot better than they could've been for Dems. Maps such as Torie's or some of the R-aligned proposals would've been brutal for Dems whereas the special master just made more competitive seats and cleaned up a lot of mess from Dems gerrymander. There's still a good chance that 20 or 21 of the state's 26 seats will be to the left of the median House seat in 2022.

It turned out that Cervas's arithmetic calculation of a fair division of the partisan spoils was not entirely accurate, and that together with factoring in Trump 2016 figures, caused the needle to move about 1.5 seats in the direction of the Dems. If I had started on  what I did a month earlier, and read Cervas's academic work earlier, I might have made a bit more progress. I definitely think Cervas in good faith tried to be fair, and was impressed with how faithful he was in avoiding chops.

"chops"

I think the good thing about Cervas map is that it generally abided to least change where possible and wasn't necessarily about what HE wanted. Considering NY lost a seat, least change was not neccessarily the easiest thing and ofc some disrtricts would have to be changed no matter what.

Both of our maps were also in good faifth but more about what changes we wanted to see. Your map was good and maybe would've been better than Cerva's if the special master's goal was to draw from scratch, but I think it made too many (unnecessary) district changes to really be considered).

My map was problematic mainly because of how much revolved around the new NY-10 and had more splits than desirable in certain areas, especially upstate, in the name of "least change"

Ultimately though, I see elements of both of our maps reflected in the final map. Whether that is a coincidence or because he actually saw our maps and thought it was a good idea was impossible to say. Your NY-22 was nearly identical (but that was quite a natural district) plus he was considering a very simillar Long Island config till that got changed in his final map. Minus the South Brooklyn stuff, his NY config was pretty similar to mine especially in the Manhattan/Queens area, plus he ended up doing an "Albany corrdidor" district as I had proposed and argued for in my brief

[Schiff for Senate]

Nevada - The Dem map is quite the gamble as all 3 of the Las Vegas seats have been shifting right to various degrees recently and are all less than Biden + 10. It's def a Vegas gamble.

I don't know about inside commission politics like AZ/MI and don't know about state legislative maps, but I absolutely agree with you on NV. This map is EXTREMELY dicey and could, for obvious reasons, backfire completely in a red wave (if the wave is big enough - not saying like this year, but if 2026 or 2030 are big GOP waves - instead of being 2-2 or, worst case, 3-1 R, it could now very plausibly end up being 4-0 R...especially since #trends in the Vegas area are not too great for the Democrats).

[Schiff for Senate]

Dumbass anti-gerrymandering initiatives that apparently only apply to blue states. Thanks NY and CA

a.) NY didn't actually require the commission map be adopted. The legislature, in practice, could draw the maps however they wanted - as gerrymandered as they want (and they did just that). They could just reject whatever the commission proposed, and draw their own maps. Here, the NY Democrats obviously did that, but they overreached, and the court struck it down as a gerrymander and ordered fair maps drawn. No different that what happened in, say, NC, except, perhaps relevantly, the NC Supreme Court is explicitly partisan, and has a Democratic majority, whereas (IIRC) the NY Supreme Court is not explicitly partisan, does not have a 'Democratic' or 'Republican' majority, and does not hold elections for supreme court seats.


b.) I, in practice as much of a Democratic partisan as yourself (and somebody who thought just the same way you did till I learned the facts), prefer the CA commission, flawed as it is, to its predecessor. By a whole lot. The common (?) misconception is that it was a powerful Democratic gerrymander that resulted in an independent commission, and/or that the legislature voted to create an independent commission. It was neither - it was a voter-created commission because the CA legislature was drawing bipartisan gerrymanders that cut both ways and made exactly zero competitive districts (out of over 50). The commission didn't dramatically change the overall partisan composition of the CD's to hurt the Democrats - rather, it just created more competitive, and less totally safe seats. If you don't believe me when I tell you just how un-competitive the districts were with the potent partisan gerrymander, here are some facts. Firstly, to quote the Wikipedia page of CA's congressional districts:

It was mutually decided by legislators that the status quo in terms of balance of power would be preserved - a so-called Incumbent Protection Plan. A bipartisan gerrymandering effort was done, and districts were configured in such a way that they were dominated by one or the other party, with few districts that could be considered competitive. In some cases this resulted in extremely convoluted boundary lines.

In the 2004 elections, a win by less than 55 percent of the vote was quite rare. This was seen in only five out of 80 State Assembly seats and two out of 20 State Senate seats up for election. The congressional seats were even less competitive than the state legislative districts - just three of the 53 districts were won with less than 60 percent of the vote in 2004.

Just crazy. No competitive districts, and again - it wasn't as if it *helped* the Democrats on net. On net, it was about even...the winners weren't Democrats, it was incumbent politicians of both parties, and the losers weren't the Republicans, but the voters, whose votes, in effect, meant nothing in most of the state's 53 districts. The Wiki excerpt already went over the 2004 elections (spoiler alert: no US House seats flipped!), but let's look at the wave years of 2006, 2008 and 2010 to illustrate my point. 2006: It was a blue wave nationally, of course. You'd think this'd flip a handful of districts blue. Just ONE district flipped. 2008, another blue wave, and the statewide PV for US House elections saw a solid leftward swing. Yet, ZERO out of 53 districts flipped. And, lastly, and, I think, most meaningful, 2010. The statewide PV swung ~13 points to the right. The GOP gained a whopping 63 seats nationally. CA had over 12% of the nation's congressional districts. So, just by simple math, that would be 12% of 63 = 8 districts flipping red, if it was the same proportion of seats flipping as national. Of course that's a flawed way of looking at it. Of course, eight seats flipping red is an unreasonable expectation even with fair maps. But six districts flipping red, maybe? Four? Two? No: zero. Yes, that's right: exactly zero of CA's congressional districts flipped red in 2010, as the GOP picked up 63 seats nationally. Why? Again: because all 34 of the districts (already a disappointingly low number of the Democrats - and, you'll note, much lower than the 42 seats they now hold, with fair maps...even with a fair map, Democrats may have been underplaying their hand) held by Democrats were massively blue, and wave-proof. So, even in a tidal wave like 2010, all of them remained blue. Just the same way 19 of 20 red districts survived the big blue wave of 2006, and all remaining 19 survived 2008. I think I've made my point.