Would you accept this AZ map as a compromise, or urge your team fight on?

[Torie]

The purpose of this map is what Lewis?  Just asking. 

[minionofmidas]

The purpose of this map is what Lewis?  Just asking.  

I would accept it. (Incidentally, while I admit to being biased in favor of Northeast Arizona, the perfect Dem map there happened partly as an accident, the Indian Rezzes in NE Maricopa being the nearest thing to the right kind of population I needed.


Oy vey, Lol. I just notice something about the map... Page. I drew that at one point trying to see if I could get it balanced that way, but I thought I'd undone it. Later on it would have been continuously offscreen. I'll see if I can change that.

EDIT: Ah, I see now. I undid Page but not the rural precincts west of the river. Make a degree of sense, actually, and besides it avoids the annoying (in the pet peeve sense) issue of Kaibab not being its own precinct.

[minionofmidas]

Alternate version. Better for Republicans (1st 51.3, 2nd 52.0, 8th still 50.0.)

[Torie]

I wouldn't accept it. See you in court Lewis.

[minionofmidas]

I wouldn't accept it. See you in court Lewis.

You think there would have been an impeachment if Republicans didn't suspect they'll be laughed out of court? I don't.
It's why Brewer "had to act" (actual quote!) before the map was finalized.

[Sbane]

I wouldn't accept it. See you in court Lewis.

Would you accept what Krazen drew, or would you see him in court too?

[Torie]

I wouldn't accept it. See you in court Lewis.

Would you accept what Krazen drew, or would you see him in court too?

Maybe as a political deal, yes, but it certainly isn't anything like a court would draw. His basically gets creates a CD in Phoenix that is one point more Dem than mine, and gets close to ceding a CD to the Dems in Tucson of course, in exchange for everything else being put totally out of range. There is no way the Dems would get as favorable a Tucson seat as his map has, but his CD in Phoenix could well be drawn by a court, and he does take the northern CD off the table for the Dems. His coming up with that Phoenix CD for the Dems which does not divide any municipalities is kind of a boon for the Dems, because it makes the drawing of such a CD more likely than if that option was not there. It makes me a tad more flexible than before in other words. You porked the pooch krazen!  

[Torie]

I wouldn't accept it. See you in court Lewis.

You think there would have been an impeachment if Republicans didn't suspect they'll be laughed out of court? I don't.
It's why Brewer "had to act" (actual quote!) before the map was finalized.

No, I an assuming that the court draws the map, because the commission never draws one in time. Anyway, that is the default option, pending finding out what the new commissioner will do. That is why my little exercise is relevant, and for no other reason.

[muon2]

Let me add a potential table for all to accept or reject. I'll use the Torie PVI which I understand is the McCain fraction of the two party vote minus 52.3%. The districts are ordered from most D to most R. Help me out by explaining the reason for rejection.

A: -16.4%, HVAP 58.1%
B: -11.1%, HVAP 59.1%
C: -2.2%
D: +2.2%
E: +3.2%
F: +4.7%
G: +5.9%
H: +7.0%
I: +9.4%

[Torie]

Let me add a potential table for all to accept or reject. I'll use the Torie PVI which I understand is the McCain fraction of the two party vote minus 52.3%. The districts are ordered from most D to most R. Help me out by explaining the reason for rejection.

A: -16.4%, HVAP 58.1%
B: -11.1%, HVAP 59.1%
C: -2.2%
D: +2.2%
E: +3.2%
F: +4.7%
G: +5.9%
H: +7.0%
I: +9.4%

I like it from a partisan standpoint. Which map is this? Is it supposed to be a compromise map to which the commission would agree, or an anticipated court drawn map, or both?

[muon2]

Let me add a potential table for all to accept or reject. I'll use the Torie PVI which I understand is the McCain fraction of the two party vote minus 52.3%. The districts are ordered from most D to most R. Help me out by explaining the reason for rejection.

A: -16.4%, HVAP 58.1%
B: -11.1%, HVAP 59.1%
C: -2.2%
D: +2.2%
E: +3.2%
F: +4.7%
G: +5.9%
H: +7.0%
I: +9.4%

I like it. Which map is this?

It's not posted yet. I'm looking for comments before people lock into the visuals.

[jimrtex]

I guess I had better read De Grandy. It is your understanding muon2 that De Grandy throws communities of interest and compactness out the window, or is it a mush and unclear?  As to the surname bit, the incumbent down there was the choice of Hispanics. So Lulac is met it seems to me. Am I missing something?

What happened in Texas was South Texas had one congressional district (TX-15).  After the OMOV decisions, and Texas finally getting around to creating districts for the two representative added in 1962, created another district, TX-23, which ran east west from Laredo to southeast of San Antonio, and included part of Bexar County.  The new congressman was from Laredo (Chick Kazen - of Lebanese descent).  

In the 1980s redistricting, TX-27 was created along the coast between Brownsville and Corpus Christi.  This forced TX-15 westward, and somewhat northward, and TX-23 to take a lot more of Bexar County.  Kazen was beaten in  the primary and Laredo got stuck with a representative from the big city to the North.

In the 1990s. Albert Bustamante who had beat Kazen was building a mansion in northwest San Antonio, and asked that the area be added to his district, which the Ann Richards-Martin Frost gang obliged him with, as they were adding TX-28 which took part of Bexar County.  This was when TX-23 was swung out to the west to El Paso.  The area which was added was full of Republicans and Bustamante was caught up in the House banking scandal, and was beaten by Henry Bonilla, who had been a popular newscaster in San Antonio in 1992 (by 21 points in a district carried by Clinton).  Bonilla went to Congress and Bustamante to federal prison.

Henry Cuellar challenged Bonilla in 2002, and nearly beat him.  Cuellar took 85% of the vote in Webb County vs. Bonilla's 76% in Bexar County.  Since Webb County is 95% Hispanic this was later used to "prove" that Bonilla was not the Hispanic candidate of choice,

When the Texas legislature redistricted in 2003 for the first time following the 2000 Census, another district, TX-25 was created running from McAllen to Austin, which had a majority Hispanic VAP,  This shifted TX-28 and TX-23 west and north, with TX-23 and TX-28 splitting Webb County.  Henry Cuellar defeated the incumbent in TX-28, Ciro Rodriguez, in the primary.  Cuellar carried Webb County with 84% of the vote, and Rodriguez carried Bexar County with only 80% of the vote.  So Cuellar was likely the Hispanic candidate of choice.

In the general election Bonilla was re-elected with a 69% majority (beating a Democrat with the last name of Sullivan), and Bonilla had a 58% majority in the Webb County part of TX-23 (ie he went from 15% to 59% in Webb County when running against Sullivan rather than Cuellar).

Unfortunately, the Anglo incumbent in TX-25 won election over a Hispanic challenger, by piling up a massive 88% vote in his home county, vs. 52% in the rest of the district.  The US Supreme Court later ruled that TX-25 was not a Hispanic opportunity district since it combined Hispanics with disparate interests on the basis of race.  They ruled that it was legal to do this for political reasons, but not for VRA compliance.  So they then looked at TX-23 which was no longer a Hispanic opportunity district because it had been changed to re-elect Bonilla, and they looked at the results from 2002 vs Cuellar, rather than 2004 vs. Sullivan.  You will have to explain why there should be statewide proportionality, if you can't create an opportunity district in the southern part of the state?

In the special election, held concurrently with the 2006 general election, Bonilla barely missed the majority needed to avoid the runoff, and then lost narrowly to Ciro Rodriguez in the runoff, based on some very strong turnout in south Texas - a couple of counties had more votes in a special election runoff, than the general election with a gubernatorial and senate election on the ballot.  In 2010, Rodriguez was beaten.

TX-23 had to take about 50,000 persons from TX-16 in El Paso County, and had its own surplus.  The district had to shift west, but this allowed creation of a new Hispanic opportunity district running from San Antonio to Austin.  The Hispanic CVAP increased in the district, but these Hispanic citizens are supposedly not "mobilized", apparently meaning that they are less like to choose the Hispanic candidate of choice than other Hispanic.

As Eric Holder's DOJ argues, you just can't look at percentages, you have to see whether they will vote for the Democratic candidate.

[Torie]

Let me add a potential table for all to accept or reject. I'll use the Torie PVI which I understand is the McCain fraction of the two party vote minus 52.3%. The districts are ordered from most D to most R. Help me out by explaining the reason for rejection.

A: -16.4%, HVAP 58.1%
B: -11.1%, HVAP 59.1%
C: -2.2%
D: +2.2%
E: +3.2%
F: +4.7%
G: +5.9%
H: +7.0%
I: +9.4%

I like it. Which map is this?

It's not posted yet. I'm looking for comments before people lock into the visuals.

Yeah, and I can just smell two of your CD's looking like the below.  You just love racial gerrymanders don't you? 

[muon2]

Let me add a potential table for all to accept or reject. I'll use the Torie PVI which I understand is the McCain fraction of the two party vote minus 52.3%. The districts are ordered from most D to most R. Help me out by explaining the reason for rejection.

A: -16.4%, HVAP 58.1%
B: -11.1%, HVAP 59.1%
C: -2.2%
D: +2.2%
E: +3.2%
F: +4.7%
G: +5.9%
H: +7.0%
I: +9.4%

I like it. Which map is this?

It's not posted yet. I'm looking for comments before people lock into the visuals.

Yeah, and I can just smell two of your CD's looking like the below.  You just love racial gerrymanders don't you? 

Only legal ones.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Let me add a potential table for all to accept or reject. I'll use the Torie PVI which I understand is the McCain fraction of the two party vote minus 52.3%. The districts are ordered from most D to most R. Help me out by explaining the reason for rejection.

A: -16.4%, HVAP 58.1%
B: -11.1%, HVAP 59.1%
C: -2.2%
D: +2.2%
E: +3.2%
F: +4.7%
G: +5.9%
H: +7.0%
I: +9.4%

As a Democrat on the Commission, I would likely reject this map in favor of Krazen's. His map gives us 4 winnable districts, you give us 3. Of course, I would have to see the map before committing to that decision.

[Sbane]

Let me add a potential table for all to accept or reject. I'll use the Torie PVI which I understand is the McCain fraction of the two party vote minus 52.3%. The districts are ordered from most D to most R. Help me out by explaining the reason for rejection.

A: -16.4%, HVAP 58.1%
B: -11.1%, HVAP 59.1%
C: -2.2%
D: +2.2%
E: +3.2%
F: +4.7%
G: +5.9%
H: +7.0%
I: +9.4%

I am more interested in making sure that Tucson is not cracked for partisan purposes. A Hispanic district in AZ has much better areas to pick up voters than 70% white precincts in Tuscon. If the areas west of Phoenix can't be touched, then it can pick up the Casa Grande area, which isn't far from Tuscon at all. And I don't see the problem of going into the Phoenix area in any case. It let's you form a heavily Hispanic district, and Maricopa needs about 30% of another district to come in and pick up population in addition to 5 that can be drawn wholly within it. Some district that would have nothing to do with the Phoenix area has to do this, so why not the Hispanic district? Especially when it let's you form a district that will for sure elect a candidate of the Hispanics choice. So in conclusion, if you make sure a district is drawn that is almost wholly in the Tuscon area, I will support it. Competitiveness in the Phoenix area is the last thing I would look at, and if it doesn't work out that is perfectly fine. The Tuscon area district must be drawn though.

[krazen1211]

I wouldn't accept it. See you in court Lewis.

Would you accept what Krazen drew, or would you see him in court too?

Maybe as a political deal, yes, but it certainly isn't anything like a court would draw. His basically gets creates a CD in Phoenix that is one point more Dem than mine, and gets close to ceding a CD to the Dems in Tucson of course, in exchange for everything else being put totally out of range. There is no way the Dems would get as favorable a Tucson seat as his map has, but his CD in Phoenix could well be drawn by a court, and he does take the northern CD off the table for the Dems. His coming up with that Phoenix CD for the Dems which does not divide any municipalities is kind of a boon for the Dems, because it makes the drawing of such a CD more likely than if that option was not there. It makes me a tad more flexible than before in other words. You porked the pooch krazen!  

It wouldn't surprise me actually. IMO Cochise county should be all into CD-8 or all out; and certainly not a convenient split like the Dems did. The Dems also of course pair Apache Junction and exurban Pinal County with Gilbert to create an uberpack.

Given the parameters of the commission; I don't see how the marginal Maricopa district should not contain either:

1. Tempe + Scottsdale + parts of Mesa (~53% McCain)
2. Tempe + Chandler + parts of Mesa (~52% McCain)

The main reason I complain about the actual proposed map is that they cheated and made a ~48% McCain district. But we would realistically be cheating if we did Tempe + Chandler + Gilbert as of course a GOP gerrymander would.

Lewis in his map of course places 4 districts inside Maricopa County rather than 5.

[Sbane]

I drew a district using Tempe, Chandler, the areas of Phoenix south of the mountain park and like 5-10,000 people from Mesa. It was about a 4 point Mccain district. I do think Scottsdale was split way to the north though, and it is ugly as hell. What Krazen drew earlier with Mesa instead of Scottsdale, and with about the same partisan breakdown, is the way to go. Along with the Tuscon district. I think both sides should be able to agree with that.

The Mathis map drew an actual Obama district in the Phoenix area. And it drew a northern AZ district that was only 6 points Mccain. What I am proposing and what Krazen drew is much more reasonable.

[muon2]

Let me add a potential table for all to accept or reject. I'll use the Torie PVI which I understand is the McCain fraction of the two party vote minus 52.3%. The districts are ordered from most D to most R. Help me out by explaining the reason for rejection.

A: -16.4%, HVAP 58.1%
B: -11.1%, HVAP 59.1%
C: -2.2%
D: +2.2%
E: +3.2%
F: +4.7%
G: +5.9%
H: +7.0%
I: +9.4%

I am more interested in making sure that Tucson is not cracked for partisan purposes. A Hispanic district in AZ has much better areas to pick up voters than 70% white precincts in Tuscon. If the areas west of Phoenix can't be touched, then it can pick up the Casa Grande area, which isn't far from Tuscon at all. And I don't see the problem of going into the Phoenix area in any case. It let's you form a heavily Hispanic district, and Maricopa needs about 30% of another district to come in and pick up population in addition to 5 that can be drawn wholly within it. Some district that would have nothing to do with the Phoenix area has to do this, so why not the Hispanic district? Especially when it let's you form a district that will for sure elect a candidate of the Hispanics choice. So in conclusion, if you make sure a district is drawn that is almost wholly in the Tuscon area, I will support it. Competitiveness in the Phoenix area is the last thing I would look at, and if it doesn't work out that is perfectly fine. The Tuscon area district must be drawn though.

Then you should be OK with my plan. I based the Tucson area on your comments, and pushed the McCain total for the Anglo-majority part lower than in either your map or Krazen's. My CD 8 is 49.4% McCain and 49.3% Obama. Here's the image, but if I had block-level control there would be no split communities in this area other than Tucson.



Torie can rest assured that he did get close to my CD 7, though I did some other things than he suspected for my CD 8.

[Sbane]

Interesting...looking forward to seeing the whole map. Why the need for putting Cochise in the 8th? I doesn't really affects the partisan numbers, but why not just put all of Pima in the 8th and the 7th?

[muon2]

Interesting...looking forward to seeing the whole map. Why the need for putting Cochise in the 8th? I doesn't really affects the partisan numbers, but why not just put all of Pima in the 8th and the 7th?

I have three reasons to put Cochise in CD 8.

1. Cochise is currently in CD-8, so this is consistent with the current districts.
2. I-10 is an appropriate corridor connecting Tucson with Cochise.
3. The Cochise-Pima boundary splits the community of Mescal, but there are no communities split by the Cochise-Graham boundary.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Since Arizona is a pre-clearance state, I don't see any reason why we should surrender on anything.

[muon2]

Since Arizona is a pre-clearance state, I don't see any reason why we should surrender on anything.

I doubt my plan would have any problems with pre-clearance. So, if the numbers aren't acceptable, what would make them acceptable?

[minionofmidas]

Given the parameters of the commission; I don't see how the marginal Maricopa district should not contain either:

1. Tempe + Scottsdale + parts of Mesa (~53% McCain)
2. Tempe + Chandler + parts of Mesa (~52% McCain)

Ahwatukee can't very well go anywhere else, so it's necessarily includes part of Phoenix. And I suppose technically two parts of Phoenix are not an additional municipal split at all... (That's not what I drew though. No, actually in the first iteration I have a couple of precincts there because it looked cleaner than going further north in Scottsdale, but in the second I removed that bug.)
Then, my map puts the split of Pinal in the most logical place. I don't see why that should be subordinate to the Maricopa municipalities, seeing as it's just one extra split there (Mesa and Scottsdale... and Scottsdale could theoretically be avoided by just including a ream of Phoenix instead, though that'll look drop-dead ugly.
The Commission map places Apache Junction in the wraparound though, in order to push some R territory out of the East Central Maricopa district into the far eastern one. That's how they got it down to the edge of strong lean D.

As to Muon... no, I don't think I'd agree with any three-way split of Pima County if it were down to me - not even as a feature of a Dem gerry (as in the Commission plan). It's a perfectly unnecessary thing to do. If Cochise is split at all, it should be as in my first map here, but not splitting it is preferable (and placing it wholly in the 1st makes for a Dem gerry of Tucson - Giffords then has to either take Hispanic parts of the city or outer Pinal.)

The numbers? Currently of the three expressly marginal districts, one was intended to tilt Dem (but didn't at all, as it turned out - the 1st), one to tilt R (5th) and one to be very very even (8th). Of course, that was when there was a larger difference between statewide and presidential voting patterns. I'm not sure I'd accept 52.3% McCain as even or use the same figure for everywhere, but it'll do I suppose... if you balance the three marginal districts (summed) to actually vote roughly that way. Two ~55% McCain districts in addition to four (so, one more than previously) safe R seats won't fly. That's not that much more Republican than mine are, of course, though it is a bit so.
Though I wouldn't sign off on any map after looking at partisan figures alone.

[muon2]

As to Muon... no, I don't think I'd agree with any three-way split of Pima County if it were down to me - not even as a feature of a Dem gerry (as in the Commission plan). It's a perfectly unnecessary thing to do. If Cochise is split at all, it should be as in my first map here, but not splitting it is preferable (and placing it wholly in the 1st makes for a Dem gerry of Tucson - Giffords then has to either take Hispanic parts of the city or outer Pinal.)

The numbers? Currently of the three expressly marginal districts, one was intended to tilt Dem (but didn't at all, as it turned out - the 1st), one to tilt R (5th) and one to be very very even (8th). Of course, that was when there was a larger difference between statewide and presidential voting patterns. I'm not sure I'd accept 52.3% McCain as even or use the same figure for everywhere, but it'll do I suppose... if you balance the three marginal districts (summed) to actually vote roughly that way. Two ~55% McCain districts in addition to four (so, one more than previously) safe R seats won't fly. That's not that much more Republican than mine are, of course, though it is a bit so.
Though I wouldn't sign off on any map after looking at partisan figures alone.

The impetus for my map came from various comments, but especially a dialog I had with jimrtex after his nodal analysis of Arizona.

His main map looked like this:



It calls for a northern edge CD-1, two southern edge districts CD-7 and 8, and a new CD 9 based in Pinal/Maricopa.

I went so far as to keep CD-1 out of metro Phoenix, so it provides a district that can represent interests outside of the main population center. This CD-1 also provides a respectable 18.8% NA-VAP. The commission draft has 20.6%, but that happens by wrapping around Phoenix to pick up the Gila River IR. I leave that in CD-7 as it is at present.

Other than that, I created two Hispanic districts that should withstand any amount of VRA scrutiny by having each over 58% HVAP. The HVAP in CD-7 along with the desire to not split any perimeter counties other than Pima gives rise to the third Pima split. Even so, the Pima split was helpful to maintain the community integrity of Catalina which straddles the county line, and it leaves only a minimal split of Pinal to keep the IRs together in CD-7. (4.5% NA-VAP).

Here's my state map drawn to a maximum deviation under 100 at the DRA precinct level. I'm working on a block version that will better align with community borders.