Maps we need to see!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Also creating three majority-Cuban seats in South Florida without making them look ridiculous is easy. Diaz-Balart is whining about nothing. Alcee Hastings might have more of a complaint as I was only able to create one majority black seat in South Florida, I had another that was only plurality white, but you can't preserve a seat like Hastings in any logical or sane map.

[minionofmidas]

coalition district

?

Much as I wish that every state in the union had an anti-gerrymandering law, this Florida amendment is a total mess. It doesn't actually establish an independent commission; the map is still drawn by the legislature, though they have to abide by the new guidelines. But the new guidelines are incredibly vague, and in particular don't say anything about how to adjudicate cases where two of the principles conflict, which they clearly do in the case of minority representation and compactness. So what I expect is:

1. The legislature draws a map that looks nice but is in fact very GOP-friendly, like the current Michigan map.

Seeing as the Michigan map was drawn under similar circumstances... probably so. Though the rules might still make another 19-7 style map impossible. Probably not going to be possible to deny the Democrats a second seat in the Tampa Bay.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

coalition district

?

Much as I wish that every state in the union had an anti-gerrymandering law, this Florida amendment is a total mess. It doesn't actually establish an independent commission; the map is still drawn by the legislature, though they have to abide by the new guidelines. But the new guidelines are incredibly vague, and in particular don't say anything about how to adjudicate cases where two of the principles conflict, which they clearly do in the case of minority representation and compactness. So what I expect is:

1. The legislature draws a map that looks nice but is in fact very GOP-friendly, like the current Michigan map.

Seeing as the Michigan map was drawn under similar circumstances... probably so. Though the rules might still make another 19-7 style map impossible. Probably not going to be possible to deny the Democrats a second seat in the Tampa Bay.

Well this is what I got:



Bill Young could possibly hang on in the olive district but would almost certainly flip without him, and since the dude is older than dirt anyway he might as well just retire in 2012. The light pink seat is certainly more winnable than any other seat in the area other than the current FL-11, but hardly a guaranteed win (since StatesRights lives there I'd really relish the thought of a Democrat winning it though)

[Verily]

coalition district

?

White plurality but minority-majority. The Supreme Court has ruled that states are not bound to gerrymander to create such districts, but they are also bound not to gerrymander to destroy such districts if they consist of reasonable communities of interest.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

BTW I'm pretty confident that unless the GOP can do something very tricky Webster is probably finished and a one-termer for sure, he's still a fundie nutjob even if Grayson took the "submit to me" line out of context. Not to mention the event he was speaking at where that line came from is crazy enough even if Webster's speech was relatively unoffensive.

[Brittain33]

Massachusetts: Barney Frank retires.

I did this one while protecting Keating and keeping the MA-8/MA-9 split in Boston coherent. What this means:

1. Still had to eliminate a district in western Mass. because of population splits. I didn't do a screen capture because I don't know the towns out there so it isn't interesting, but Springfield, the Berkshires, and most of the Pioneer Valley are in the 1st.

2. Gave Brookline to the 8th. Gave Taunton to the 9th.

3. Gave Newton to the 7th. This meant it could suck up some more conservative western suburbs while staying Democratic.

4. Dragged the 6th down Rt. 1 into Revere and Winthrop. This helps with population equality and makes the district slightly more Democratic in the long run. And it makes sense, geographically speaking.

5. Move the 5th west into the Fitchburg metro area.

6. Redesigned the 4th as a southeastern Mass. district that we really ought to have. Marc Montigny (Dem state senator) runs and wins. In an alternate universe, he'd have been running against Scott Brown. This district has some of the more Republican parts of the state but they get outhustled by the Dem organization in Bristol County cities.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'd assume that whoever runs against Scott Brown is the seat to go.

[Brittain33]

I'd assume that whoever runs against Scott Brown is the seat to go.

Capuano may run but they can't really get rid of the 8th.

[Torie]

BTW I'm pretty confident that unless the GOP can do something very tricky Webster is probably finished and a one-termer for sure, he's still a fundie nutjob even if Grayson took the "submit to me" line out of context. Not to mention the event he was speaking at where that line came from is crazy enough even if Webster's speech was relatively unoffensive.

At this juncture, BRTD, I get the sense that you are switching out Opebo in favor of Grayson as the primary object of your affections.  How is Opebo handling his demotion? 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Playing around with California I've figured out a few things:

-McNerney is almost certainly going to get safer (that was kind of a given), but in kind of an odd way, most Bay Area districts will expand out and push his further out. I have him losing all of Santa Clara county. This won't hurt him because he'll also likely lose some of the rural areas in San Joaquin and gain much of Stockton proper. In additional it's not that difficult to dump a slice of Oakland in his district, though I'm not sure if the new commission would do something like that.
-CA-10 will almost certainly get more Republican, though I doubt that'll affect it much or make it winnable, I guess it might become a bit of a fool's gold type seat.
-CA-03 will get more Dem. This is one that'll probably flip at some point, not necessarily 2012, but there's only so long the GOP can hold out demographically here, especially as Lungren doesn't seem to have much of a personal vote. Not too different from what CA-11 was like last decade.

Haven't got to SoCal yet though.

[Torie]

The strictures as to how districts are drawn in CA are tighter than a drum BRTD. You can't just say hey, wouldn't it be neat to drop a chunk of Stark's favorite precincts in  Alameda County into CA-11, just to make it fair?

[Sbane]

The strictures as to how districts are drawn in CA are tighter than a drum BRTD. You can't just say hey, wouldn't it be neat to drop a chunk of Stark's favorite precincts in  Alameda County into CA-11, just to make it fair?

Actually that is a problem for the Republicans in CA-11. Without the district snaking around to pick up farm towns like Lodi, or Escalon, the results wouldn't still be up in the air. I suspect the district Mcnerney will get is most of the tri-valley, with Walnut Creek and everything north and west of that in CA-10. Livermore gets put into the 11th, from the 10th. He will get Tracy, Manteca, Lathrop and Ripon. And he should get a good chunk of Stockton as well. Even if you excise out all the most Democratic areas of Stockton (which I don't see why the redistricting commission would do) you get a district that voted 57-41 Obama. A moderate Republican could win this district though, but are those still on the endangered species list or totally extinct?

CA-3 on the other hand should only be 50-48 Obama, assuming 2 districts are drawn within Sacramento county. Lungren should be able to hang on for now, but with demographic changes who knows. It's Calvert who is in huge trouble. He barely won Riverside county by 4 points in an environment like this. And his new district should more or less be what is in Riverside county currently, minus the Orange county portion. There has been a lot of growth in that area. That gives us a 53-45 Obama district and most definitely one Calvert would lose.

Another district that may not exist as currently is CA-1. How stringent are they going to be about splitting counties? I guess you could try and send it towards Napa and Yolo after you get to the Sonoma county border (if CA-1 is extended down into it only about half of the county is used) but I don't know if they would do that. Rather they might add Siskiyou, Shasta and Tehama into the district. That would create a swing district, with it being a battle of the coast vs inland. Or can CA-1 be preserved close to how it is using the "communities of interest" argument?

[Skill and Chance]

Do we have any idea which party is expected to make net gains under the independent redistricting scheme in CA? 

[Sbane]

I suspect it will end up creating more swing districts, than shifting seats the other way. And then things like candidate quality kick in, meaning Calvert in CA-44 is much more vulnerable than Drier in CA-26, even though they will likely get districts with a similar partisan makeup. Wave elections might finally get interesting in California.

[Skill and Chance]

I'd really like to see what Malloy and company could do to shore up Connecticut.  Does anyone have maps for this?  I assume they will try to shift GOP leaning areas to the Hartford and New Haven districts in order to keep all 5 of the incumbents safe, but they could go for a rock solid 4-1 map if they know Chris Murphy will run for senate in 2012. 

[JohnnyLongtorso]

I'd really like to see what Malloy and company could do to shore up Connecticut.  Does anyone have maps for this?  I assume they will try to shift GOP leaning areas to the Hartford and New Haven districts in order to keep all 5 of the incumbents safe, but they could go for a rock solid 4-1 map if they know Chris Murphy will run for senate in 2012. 

The obvious thing would be to trade some territory between CT-05 and CT-01/CT-03. It shouldn't be that hard to up CT-05's PVI to D+6 or so without endangering either of the other two.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Here's what I see happening with CA-03:

-CA-06 needs to expand and can't go anywhere but north.
-CA-01 thus needs to expand and can't go anywhere but east.
-Ditto for CA-02.
-CA-04 might be above population ideal, but now has been pushed and needs to go south.

Thus CA-04 takes in many of the very Republican parts of CA-03. In addition CA-05 is far beyond ideal population and needs to contract, and CA-03 is the only seat that can take in those areas, So CA-03 needs to shed a lot of its outer territory and is more of an inner-ring metro Sacramento seat. A good competent Republican could probably hold that, but Lundgren doesn't appear to be that person. Demographically it's a time bomb, like CA-11 was, the GOP won't be able to hold it forever.

[jimrtex]

It's Mario who is suing, not Lincoln, FWIW.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/59532388/Corrine-Brown-Mario-Diaz-Balart-Lawsuit

Yeah, since Lincoln didn't seek re-election, he wouldn't have standing.

The basic claim that is being made that for minority communities to have an effective vote that they have to be able to keep electing someone with a lot of seniority ("legislative influence and leadership").

[silverpie]

OK, seems that I can't post links, and those seem to be the only way to show images on here, so what shall I do with the map I created for Tennessee?

[muon2]

OK, seems that I can't post links, and those seem to be the only way to show images on here, so what shall I do with the map I created for Tennessee?

You can't post links until you have 20 posts. If you post the url to the file in your post, I'll go ahead and activate it as an image.

[dpmapper]

Not sure I buy the notion that a more liberal 5th Representative is a good thing from the GOP point of view.    I do think that, given the margins that everyone won by (20+), they might consider going for it, but if Cooper is liable to be strong in rural areas as well then I guess waiting him out might be the better tactic.  

In the meantime, here's a partial map giving Texas a new Hispanic district along the Rio Grande (for a total of seven such districts outside of DFW and Houston)... three of which lean Republican:
 


Orange: Reyes's district, 80% Hispanic, 67-32 Obama.

Light teal: Canseco's 23rd, less heavily San Antonio, more rural (added San Angelo) instead.  54% Hispanic (slightly down from 55%) and now 52-47 McCain instead of 51-48 Obama.  I don't know if Canseco lives within these lines; might have to modify in San Antonio.  

Yellow: Gonzalez's 20th in San Antonio.  77% Hispanic, 71-27 Obama.

Pink: Cuellar's 28th.  56% Hispanic (down from 64.5%), and now 53-46 McCain.  He's not guaranteed to be ousted but it should be a tough hold.  

Purple: Hinojosa's 15th, now solely McAllen and outskirts.  88% Hispanic, 68-31 Obama.

Green takes up most of Farenthold's 27th, but I suspect he'd rather run in the new Blue district.  The two split up Corpus Christi so you can draw him into either one with a few edits.  

Green: 72% Hispanic, 56-43 Obama.  
Blue: 57% Hispanic, 54-45 McCain.  The previous 27th was 53-46 Obama and 68% Hispanic.  

If there needs to be a Hispanic district in DFW then that gives the Dems DFW (2), Houston (3), Austin (1 - I assume they'll stop trying to remove Doggett and just cede him all of Austin's Democrats), and 4-5 of these 7 (depending on whether Cuellar can hold on) for a total split of 26-10 or 25-11.  

[Brittain33]

Indiana.





The goal was to reduce Democrats to the Lake Michigan and Indianapolis districts and drown Democratic-leaning counties in districts with Republican suburban counties.

All of the Republican incumbents are still in their districts. Todd Young is from Bloomington, Larry Buchson is from Evansville, Steve Buyer would run in the red district in the northwest. I moved Dem-voting LaPorte County out of IN-2 and replaced with Republican counties, making it harder for Donnelly to win. Terre Haute is fighting with Indy suburbs and farms. Muncie and Richmond, whose counties voted for Obama, are paired with Indy's north suburbs.

[??????????]

Much as I wish that every state in the union had an anti-gerrymandering law, this Florida amendment is a total mess. It doesn't actually establish an independent commission; the map is still drawn by the legislature, though they have to abide by the new guidelines. But the new guidelines are incredibly vague, and in particular don't say anything about how to adjudicate cases where two of the principles conflict, which they clearly do in the case of minority representation and compactness. So what I expect is:

1. The legislature draws a map that looks nice but is in fact very GOP-friendly, like the current Michigan map.
2. A lot of lawsuits ensue.
3.

The amendment's language on minorities is sufficiently similar to the VRA, though, that I kind of doubt that the courts will establish a whole new layer of requirements instead of just saying you can't violate the VRA for the sake of the other requirements.

Exactly why I voted against the amendment. Then I got a chorus of "Zomg you hate freedom" from some of the losers around here.

[??????????]

Wow, my district being even more GOP friendly would be awesome! The olive district would actually be more in play though without Lakeland.

[jimrtex]

Not sure I buy the notion that a more liberal 5th Representative is a good thing from the GOP point of view.    I do think that, given the margins that everyone won by (20+), they might consider going for it, but if Cooper is liable to be strong in rural areas as well then I guess waiting him out might be the better tactic.  

In the meantime, here's a partial map giving Texas a new Hispanic district along the Rio Grande (for a total of seven such districts outside of DFW and Houston)... three of which lean Republican:
 


Orange: Reyes's district, 80% Hispanic, 67-32 Obama.

Light teal: Canseco's 23rd, less heavily San Antonio, more rural (added San Angelo) instead.  54% Hispanic (slightly down from 55%) and now 52-47 McCain instead of 51-48 Obama.  I don't know if Canseco lives within these lines; might have to modify in San Antonio.  

Yellow: Gonzalez's 20th in San Antonio.  77% Hispanic, 71-27 Obama.

Pink: Cuellar's 28th.  56% Hispanic (down from 64.5%), and now 53-46 McCain.  He's not guaranteed to be ousted but it should be a tough hold.  

Purple: Hinojosa's 15th, now solely McAllen and outskirts.  88% Hispanic, 68-31 Obama.

Green takes up most of Farenthold's 27th, but I suspect he'd rather run in the new Blue district.  The two split up Corpus Christi so you can draw him into either one with a few edits.  

Green: 72% Hispanic, 56-43 Obama.  
Blue: 57% Hispanic, 54-45 McCain.  The previous 27th was 53-46 Obama and 68% Hispanic.  

If there needs to be a Hispanic district in DFW then that gives the Dems DFW (2), Houston (3), Austin (1 - I assume they'll stop trying to remove Doggett and just cede him all of Austin's Democrats), and 4-5 of these 7 (depending on whether Cuellar can hold on) for a total split of 26-10 or 25-11.  

If you include Tom Green, you've just wiped out a west Texas district.  The US Supreme Court  rejected an Austin-McAllen district as being a VRA district, saying just because it has a majority of brown folks does not make it a VRA districtt.  The District Court to some extent applied those criteria to San Antonio border districts.  You've got a Laredo-Austin district, and a McAllen-Houston district.

The Republicans have a 99:51 majority in the House, and a 19:12 advantage in the senate.  There is no way the legislature draws your plan.  If the USDOJ objects, they'll end up in court trying to explain to the US Supreme Court why their decision in 2006 was in error.