US House Redistricting: North Carolina

[Miles]

Better still why not have CD 1 go into Raleigh as well as Durham and eliminate all those fingers into CD 3? This one reduces county chops to 7.

But that map pulls out of 8 or 9 Section 5 counties.

[Sol]

Under that scenario, you could give Johnston/Sampson Counties to CD3 instead of having it reach up to Franklin/Granville Counties:

I'm beginning to think a map like this is probably the best possible in Eastern NC.

Quick question: Which of these is preferable?

This:

Or This:


The first has a higher deviation and is less competitive, but is more compact.

[muon2]

Better still why not have CD 1 go into Raleigh as well as Durham and eliminate all those fingers into CD 3? This one reduces county chops to 7.

But that map pulls out of 8 or 9 Section 5 counties.

Yes, but only Section 2 is relevant now. Even then, if you caught the AL debates we had on this subject, it's not clear how much Section 2 requires any of these long fingers and what a geographically compact area with 50% VAP means in that context. In particular there was a lack of consensus about forced rural-urban links for a minority population.

[traininthedistance]

Better still why not have CD 1 go into Raleigh as well as Durham and eliminate all those fingers into CD 3? This one reduces county chops to 7.

But that map pulls out of 8 or 9 Section 5 counties.

Yes, but only Section 2 is relevant now. Even then, if you caught the AL debates we had on this subject, it's not clear how much Section 2 requires any of these long fingers and what a geographically compact area with 50% VAP means in that context. In particular there was a lack of consensus about forced rural-urban links for a minority population.

What is your Wake County if not a "forced rural-urban link"? That pendulous teardrop to grab blacks  is really the height of ugliness.  You may say that that going into Durham shouldn't be required, either, but you can do it in a much less ugly, and much closer-to-contiguous, way.

[muon2]

Better still why not have CD 1 go into Raleigh as well as Durham and eliminate all those fingers into CD 3? This one reduces county chops to 7.

But that map pulls out of 8 or 9 Section 5 counties.

Yes, but only Section 2 is relevant now. Even then, if you caught the AL debates we had on this subject, it's not clear how much Section 2 requires any of these long fingers and what a geographically compact area with 50% VAP means in that context. In particular there was a lack of consensus about forced rural-urban links for a minority population.

What is your Wake County if not a "forced rural-urban link"? That pendulous teardrop to grab blacks  is really the height of ugliness.  You may say that that going into Durham shouldn't be required, either, but you can do it in a much less ugly, and much closer-to-contiguous, way.

I agree and that was part of my point. If you must run a finger into Durham as the means to make a 50%+ BVAP CD, why not run one into both Raleigh and Durham and eliminate 4 other less populated fingers poking into small cities. Essentially I'm trading 4 chops for one and either way there's a rural-urban link.

On the other had there was the argument put forward by some in the AL thread that such a link isn't required. If so then there's no reason to force a link to Durham and a much more compact map can be drawn.

[traininthedistance]

Better still why not have CD 1 go into Raleigh as well as Durham and eliminate all those fingers into CD 3? This one reduces county chops to 7.

But that map pulls out of 8 or 9 Section 5 counties.

Yes, but only Section 2 is relevant now. Even then, if you caught the AL debates we had on this subject, it's not clear how much Section 2 requires any of these long fingers and what a geographically compact area with 50% VAP means in that context. In particular there was a lack of consensus about forced rural-urban links for a minority population.

What is your Wake County if not a "forced rural-urban link"? That pendulous teardrop to grab blacks  is really the height of ugliness.  You may say that that going into Durham shouldn't be required, either, but you can do it in a much less ugly, and much closer-to-contiguous, way.

I agree and that was part of my point. If you must run a finger into Durham as the means to make a 50%+ BVAP CD, why not run one into both Raleigh and Durham and eliminate 4 other less populated fingers poking into small cities. Essentially I'm trading 4 chops for one and either way there's a rural-urban link.

On the other had there was the argument put forward by some in the AL thread that such a link isn't required. If so then there's no reason to force a link to Durham and a much more compact map can be drawn.

If you're going to have a majority-rural VRA district, I think that it would make more sense to prefer fingers into those small cities on the grounds that they really are more contiguous than your Wake salient is, not just in terms of shape but in terms of trying to represent cohesive populations, since "small-town" is probably more like rural than it is like Raleigh.

There is still, of course, the Durham part to contend with, but there's a very good reason that most 50%+1 iterations of NC-1 use it instead of Raleigh, and that's because it is much easier to connect to the rural AA bulk of the district with a minimum of erosity, without wandering through white exurbs (or breaking up potential all-Wake districts). 

I do wonder if it would be possible/permissible to do an all-rural/small-town NC-1 that is still black-plurality, and argue that it's good enough due to crossover voting, a la GA-2.  That would probably still be a horrible jigsaw between NC-1 and NC-3, but I agree it would do better justice to metro contiguity, and likely community sentiment in general.

[Miles]

Yeah, I knew ya'll were discussing that but I didn't follow it as well as I should.

How bout something like this? Its similar to muon's version but the connection into Raliegh is less awkward. CD13 would just take whats left of Wake, Franklin and Granville.

[Sol]

A black majority district 1 can be drawn much more prettily.

[Miles]

Wow; thats pretty good. With mine, the next obstacle was getting CD2 to be a coherent district. Thats what I'm trying to iron out now. I think the remainder of Durham County should be kept with Orange County and I was having trouble with that.

As for CD11, I like your first version better, mostly because it more compact.

[krazen1211]

Oh look, isn't this nice. Another lawsuit challenging CDs 1 and 12.

Wonderful News!

Your celebration is curious. The North Carolina general assembly has reserved for itself the sole power to reapportion the state, and has expressly written that any judge must give the general assembly ample time and authority to reapportion any defects before imposing a renegade substitute plan. This law was written of course, when the 2002 legislative plans were found to be grossly unconstitutional.

They were crafty folk.

[Miles]

Hmm, I'm still working with those map and my main issue what to do with CD2.

I usually have to take it into Durham (but in a separate district from Chapel Hill, which I don't like) or go into the Piedmont, e.g into Randolph or Moore Counties. There are precedents for both, but I'm not big on them.

[krazen1211]

Under that scenario, you could give Johnston/Sampson Counties to CD3 instead of having it reach up to Franklin/Granville Counties:

Better still why not have CD 1 go into Raleigh as well as Durham and eliminate all those fingers into CD 3? This one reduces county chops to 7.

Population movements suggest a 2022 double drop like this, as long as the Bartlett v Strickland standard requires a 50% VAP district.

[muon2]

This attempt involves the urban county cluster model. Urban clusters are made from counties in an MSA that have over 40% population in an urbanized area (or have 25K urbanized population). Minority clusters are contiguous counties that are over 40% BVAP. The map shows the UCCs in pink and the MCCs in green. The number in the circle is the minimum number of CDs it takes to cover the UCC.



For this plan UCCs and MCCs are each covered with the fewest number of CDs. Only Mecklenburg and Wake are chopped, and 4 microchops are used to keep all CDs within 0.5% of the population quota. There is no forced linking of the urban minority populations in Raleigh or Durham with CD 1, so it is left with only 40.3% BVAP. However, CDs 1, 3, 4 and 13 could be rearranged to provide a 50% BVAP CD without changing the rest of the map.

[Torie]

Where did this 40% in an urbanized area county concept come from again, and how does one define "urbanized area?"

[RedSLC]

Where did this 40% in an urbanized area county concept come from again, and how does one define "urbanized area?"

Generally, "urbanized area" is used to refer to an area defined by the US census bureau as a densely populated area of at least 50,000 people (probably close to what most people would consider "urban").

You can find a list of urbanized areas, with maps of their boundaries, here:

http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html

[jimrtex]

Where did this 40% in an urbanized area county concept come from again, and how does one define "urbanized area?"

Since the late 19th century, the census bureau has distinguished between the urban and rural population.  The urban population lived in cities and towns of over 2500 persons.  The rural population included everyone else (farms, villages, and small towns).   I'm using cities, towns, and villages informally to indicate the size of the population concentration.  The census bureau used officially defined (ie incorporated) places.

Beginning in 1950, the census bureau began defining Urbanized Areas, which included cities of over 50,000  and adjoining towns and unincorporated areas.  This recognized suburban development that was not always formally organized into towns, but was clearly "urban" as opposed to "rural."

The census bureau also defined Metropolitan Statistical Areas which were groups of counties that either contained Urbanized Areas or were linked to them economically, generally by commuting, but in the earliest versions by such things as number of phone calls.

Over time, the census bureau refined their definition of Urbanized Areas to permit them to be based on groups of cities with a population greater than 50,000, as well as Census Designated Places, which have the density and appearance of cities, but without any formal legal status.

1990 was the first census where the entire country was delineated into census blocks, and in 2000 changes how the urban population was defined.  Urban Areas (proper noun) are areas of continuous higher density population, based on blocks without regard to cities or other legal entities that have a population of greater than 2500.   Thus areas adjacent to small towns may now be urban, while undeveloped land inside city boundaries may now be rural.  So the new definitions continued the century-old classification of urban and rural, but based it on actual development patterns.

Urban Areas with a population greater than 50,000 are classified as Urbanized Areas, to maintain continuity with previous definitions, while those with less than 50,000 are classified as Urban Clusters.

The new definitions recognized that higher density development can occur along highways, and permits uses of "jumps" and "hops" to connect urban territory.  But this also results in huge agglomerations of urban territory - such as from Springfield, MA, through Hartford and New Haven, CT, through New York City, Trenton, NJ, Philadelphia, PA to Wilmington, DE.

So the census bureau decided that Urbanized Areas would be divided based on 1990 Metropolitan Statistical Areas.  And since Metropolitan Areas are based on counties, the division was done at or near county lines.  No such protection is provided for Urban Clusters, so Urbanized Areas may eventually absorb nearby Urban Clusters.

For 2010, the 2000 Urbanized Areas were preserved, so where they abut, a boundary is devised.

The 2000 census also extended the concept of metropolitan areas to less populous areas.  The areas are called Core-Based Statistical Areas (CBSA).   CBSA are based on a counties associated with a core Urban Area either by containing the Urban Area, or having significant commuting ties to the counties.   If the core Urban Area is an Urbanized Area (ie more than 50,000 persons) then the CBSA is designated a Metropolitan Statistical Area.  If the core Urban Area is an Urban Cluster with between 10,000 and 50,000 persons it is designated a Micropolitan Statistical Area.

Even though Metropolitian Statistical Areas are based on Urbanized Areas, there is not a one-to-one relationship between Urbanized Areas and Metropolitan Statistical Areas.  A Metropolitan Statistical Area may include all or parts of multiple Urbanized Areas.  Some counties in a Metropolitan Statistical Area may be quite rural.  Part-time farmers may be willing to commute 50 miles, while a small town will provide some jobs that don't need commuting.  The rural area may thus have a greater percentage of its population commuting.

In defining Urban County Clusters, we start with Metropolitan Statistical Areas which are defined on both a structural basis - they contain Urbanized Areas and an economic basis - commuting links.  We want to isolate the urbanized core.

If a majority (50%) of the population of an county lives in urbanized areas, it clearly is part of that core.  Around large cities, close to 100% of the population lives in urbanized areas.  But in smaller cities it may be somewhat lower.  There will be a fringe that economically depends on the city, but is physically separate, perhaps in urban clusters that don't quite connect, in farm houses, even if they aren't farming, in small clusters or homes, or perhaps large acreage lots.

Counties with no population (0%) in urbanized areas don't qualify, since they are purely linked by commuting rather than settlement.

Urbanized Areas may often just have a small finger into a county, and don't really characterize the population settlement of the county.  But if 25,000 persons live in an Urbanized Area, that is half the population needed to be classified as an Urbanized Area as opposed to an Urban Cluster.

If the county is fairly rural, a very small population in an Urbanized Area can represent a noticeable share of the population.  The 12K persons in the Winston-Salem Urbanized Area that live in Stokes County represent 24% of the population.  So there needs to be a somewhat high threshold chosen to exclude relatively small incursions.  40% is a reasonable value..  Though a majority of the population doesn't live in Urbanized Areas, a dominate share does, and there are likely proximate areas that just miss being included in Urbanized Area.

This map illustrates the concepts (right click to view larger image).



Urban County Clusters are shown in the light tints, including three that extend into neighboring states (Charlotte; Myrtle Beach, SC; and Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA).  Urbanized Areas within each are shown in a darker tone.  There is one Urbanized Area for each UCC, except that Charlotte UCC includes Charlotte UA, Concord UA, Gastonia UA, and Rock Hill, SC UA; and Greensboro-High Point UCC includes Greensboro UA and High Point UA.

The bright green areas (in North Carolina) are Urban Clusters (Urban Area with less than 50,000 population).  I didn't attempt to distinguish Urbanized Areas and Urbanized Clusters in other states, except in the Charlotte, Myrtle Beach, and Virginia Beach UCC.

Counties that are part of a Metropolitan Statistical Area, but not the corresponding UCC are shown in white.  The number is the population in thousands within Urbanized Areas, and the percentage of the county's population in Urbanized Areas.  The color of the numbers indicate the Metropolitan Statistical Area for the county.

[muon2]

Where did this 40% in an urbanized area county concept come from again, and how does one define "urbanized area?"

In the course of a couple of threads in July and August there was an emerging consensus that chopping a metro area should count as much as a chop of a county. There were a variety of Census Bureau definitions of metro areas and after looking at cases in a few states there was convergence on the concept of urban county clusters which are formed from metropolitan statistical ares. jimrtex has outlined the definition and I have now stickied the thread that he created showing all the qualifying UCCs in the US.

[TTS1996]

This is a quick attempt (a couple of hours or so) to do NC using British redistricting rules adapted to the US, along the lines of the following:

a) Don’t cross county borders unless you need to (it took me a while to work out precinct cross city borders in the US, how odd!) - but, don't be afraid to cross county borders if the alternative is "whole counties, but a gerrymander"
b) Try to obey physical features and local communities of interest
c) No splitting small towns (ie <300,000) if a district can be based on them. I may have ended up splitting villages/small towns because precincts cross them - really, precincting seems very odd in the rural/small town areas
d) Electorate as near to state-wide mean as it can be – but not stupid levels as it is in the US. A 2% deviation from the mean is perfectly acceptable. In Britain 5 or 10% from the county mean would not be considered awful if there were physical features in the way. I've tried to limit the differences.
e) Notional electoral results, and the homes of incumbents, can take no place in redistricting and these are to be ignored ruthlessly, insofar as one can ruthlessly ignore something.
f) The VRA doesn’t exist, because it is a truth universally acknowledged that just because two people share the same colour skin doesn’t mean they have any community of interest at all.
g) Overriding rule: take none of the above rules in extremis at the expense of the others, if to do so comes up with something that looks gerrymandered (in fact I’ve not been able to avoid this – if only because through non-American eyes a straight line in legislative redistricting does simply look gerrymandered – but hopefully nothing has been done deliberately).

I often think, when discussion of US redistricting reform comes up, that rule (g) is what gets ignored. It would be possible to come up with a gerrymander with fewer county splits than I have below, but it would still be a gerrymander if the other rules get ignored.

Anyway here it is. I have no real knowledge of the US or of NC so please pull it apart.

s7 (dot) postimg (dot) org/4s9vmugux/NC1 (dot) jpg

(I can’t post images yet) fixed by the moderator; and now the image is gone

My one issue is that Charlotte is too big to draw a core district in, much as I tried to have (and this is very British) “Charlotte within the ring road” as a district. Really I should have had Charlotte East and Charlotte West (or North and South), and included the suburbs.


EDIT: perhaps an addendum to the rules above: a district is not contiguous if contiguous by a stretch of water. Because it isn't! I can understand why Staten Island has to share a district with Brooklyn and that's an exception, but in NC it's not necessary.

[Sol]

f) The VRA doesn’t exist, because it is a truth universally acknowledged that just because two people share the same colour skin doesn’t mean they have any community of interest at all.

The basic idea behind the VRA, particularly in NC and other Southern states is to assure that minorities aren't gerrymandered out of power. This is particularly important in the south because you often see racial block voting- whites voting overwhelmingly for Republicans (and vice-versa). In some parts of Mississippi, you can draw a 54% White, 45% black district that's pretty much safe R. Thus, blacks can be pretty easily disenfranchised.

Of course, in NC, it isn't that polarized, but there is definitely racial block voting.

Now, I do agree that a black majority district isn't necessary in NC. But NC-1 should probably be plurality black and whatever district is based in Charlotte should not have any racial group as a majority.

Otherwise, sounds good, although I can't see your image.

[JerryArkansas]

[Miles]

My map based on TTS1996's criteria:



1- Roanoke Rapids/Greenville/Wilson
2- Goldsboro/Smithfield
3- New Bern/Jacksonville
4- Durham
5- Winston-Salem
6- Greensboro
7- Wilmington/Fayetteville
8- Lumerton/Monroe
9- Concord/Salisbury
10- Gastonia/Hickory
11- Asheville
12- Charlotte
13- Raleigh

[RedSLC]

My map based on TTS1996's criteria:



1- Roanoke Rapids/Greenville/Wilson
2- Goldsboro/Smithfield
3- New Bern/Jacksonville
4- Durham
5- Winston-Salem
6- Greensboro
7- Wilmington/Fayetteville
8- Lumerton/Monroe
9- Concord/Salisbury
10- Gastonia/Hickory
11- Asheville
12- Charlotte
13- Raleigh

What are the PVI's for the districts?

[Torie]

Where did this 40% in an urbanized area county concept come from again, and how does one define "urbanized area?"

In the course of a couple of threads in July and August there was an emerging consensus that chopping a metro area should count as much as a chop of a county. There were a variety of Census Bureau definitions of metro areas and after looking at cases in a few states there was convergence on the concept of urban county clusters which are formed from metropolitan statistical ares. jimrtex has outlined the definition and I have now stickied the thread that he created showing all the qualifying UCCs in the US.

What I don't get specifically, is how you determine that an individual county is 40% or more "urbanized."  I don't think the census bureau chops counties that way, does it?

[RedSLC]

Where did this 40% in an urbanized area county concept come from again, and how does one define "urbanized area?"

In the course of a couple of threads in July and August there was an emerging consensus that chopping a metro area should count as much as a chop of a county. There were a variety of Census Bureau definitions of metro areas and after looking at cases in a few states there was convergence on the concept of urban county clusters which are formed from metropolitan statistical ares. jimrtex has outlined the definition and I have now stickied the thread that he created showing all the qualifying UCCs in the US.

What I don't get specifically, is how you determine that an individual county is 40% or more "urbanized."  I don't think the census bureau chops counties that way, does it?

The link to the census page also features a list of counties by urban population, which is further divided into both urbanized area population and urban cluster population, and listed by both the  number of people and the percentage of the county's population that it makes up.

[Miles]

What are the PVI's for the districts?

CD6 would have almost certainly flipped to Romney while CD1, and possibly CD7, would have swung to Obama.