Likely next US districts after 2020

[krazen1211]

My fair and balanced Texas maps.

State.




Dallas. New district out west of Tarrant County. TX-12 moves into Tarrant County.





Austin. New district in blue between Bexar and Travis County. TX-35 moves into Travis County.





Houston. New district in SE Harris County. TX-29 is relocated slightly but still in Harris County. Great news!



South Texas, fair and balanced.

[jimrtex]

NY-25 won't be flipping even though it might move a point or two in the Pub direction by taking in the balance of Monroe County, plus a bit of Ontario, unless the Pub trend upstate continues, so to me the odds are pretty high that a Pub seat will be lost upstate. The seat that will be blown apart into pieces is almost certainly going to be mine, NY-19, as I have discussed (and shared with Will Yandik, but I digress). But there is a Pub seat to be had there in south Brooklyn, and perhaps a tossup seat if one is drawn that takes in Rockland, Orange and Sullivan counties (the old Gilmore seat reborn). So the ultimate result is uncertain.

In MN, when I played with the maps, MN-07 is gone, and the new northern MN-08 is about the same as it is now as to PVI, but that was before the big Pub trend this year, which if it hold, will flip it to Pub. The rest of the CD's don't change much in PVI, although I guess MN-02 could move a bit more Pub.

Districts in the corner don't get blown apart. NY-19 is in the southeastern corner of upstate.

2015 estimate of the split is:

18.234 : 8.766

Double the gain for 2020

18.467 : 8.533

Then rescale to 26 districts.

17.783 : 8.217

So NY-19 needs to shift 0.217 districts (about 165K) south.

This means that NY-19 gives up 0.53 to NY-20.

And NY-22 gives up 0.381 to NY-19; 0.096 to NY-21; and 0.101 to NY-24

(0.578 total to the east).

NY-27 gives up 0.077 to NY-26, and 0.064 to NY-25 (total 0.141)

NY-23 gives up 0.226 to NY-27 (start at Chautauqua and head east)

NY-22 gives up 0.328 to NY-24 (0.328 to the west).

NY-19 gets shifted west, perhaps gaining Utica.


Minnesota will go from 5:3 (Metro+St.Cloud):Outstate to 4:3 Metro:Outstate

MN-6 disappears.

[jimrtex]

Also I really have a hard time seeing the NC GOP drawing an 11-3 map after the lawsuit that went through earlier this year.  

They drew the 10-3 map in response to the lawsuit.

BTW, the SCOTUS heard the appeal of the NC case.

It was great fun to read the argument about whether NC-12 was a racial gerrymander or a political gerrymander, since the snake version doesn't exist any more, and the Democrats were arguing that the bad Republicans were packing blacks from Greensboro.

[Gass3268]

Also I really have a hard time seeing the NC GOP drawing an 11-3 map after the lawsuit that went through earlier this year.  

They drew the 10-3 map in response to the lawsuit.

BTW, the SCOTUS heard the appeal of the NC case.

It was great fun to read the argument about whether NC-12 was a racial gerrymander or a political gerrymander, since the snake version doesn't exist any more, and the Democrats were arguing that the bad Republicans were packing blacks from Greensboro.

I have a hard time seeing how they could draw a completely safe 11-3 map that wouldn't run foul with the courts. To me it wit would make sense to draw 4 Dem packs in order to make the other 10 seats safe.

[Figueira]

Ugh, Texas is still mushrooming?

Yes.  At some point, Dems just need to accept reality and take their strategy where the people are.

Still only two Senators.

[Nyvin]

Also I really have a hard time seeing the NC GOP drawing an 11-3 map after the lawsuit that went through earlier this year.  

They drew the 10-3 map in response to the lawsuit.

BTW, the SCOTUS heard the appeal of the NC case.

It was great fun to read the argument about whether NC-12 was a racial gerrymander or a political gerrymander, since the snake version doesn't exist any more, and the Democrats were arguing that the bad Republicans were packing blacks from Greensboro.

Yes, but add yet another Safe R district in a state that votes *at best* 45D-55R?   There is no way that all those Dems can be that packed without drawing crazy shaped districts similar to the map pre-lawsuit.

[Mr.Phips]

Also I really have a hard time seeing the NC GOP drawing an 11-3 map after the lawsuit that went through earlier this year.  

They drew the 10-3 map in response to the lawsuit.

BTW, the SCOTUS heard the appeal of the NC case.

It was great fun to read the argument about whether NC-12 was a racial gerrymander or a political gerrymander, since the snake version doesn't exist any more, and the Democrats were arguing that the bad Republicans were packing blacks from Greensboro.

I have a hard time seeing how they could draw a completely safe 11-3 map that wouldn't run foul with the courts. To me it wit would make sense to draw 4 Dem packs in order to make the other 10 seats safe.

I'm thinking Republicans will have to conceed Dems a Greensboro-Winston-Salem seat, which would be a minority influence seat.  Additionally, this would relieve the pressure on the NC-13, which is trending towards being more competitive as currently drawn.

[jimrtex]

Also I really have a hard time seeing the NC GOP drawing an 11-3 map after the lawsuit that went through earlier this year.  

They drew the 10-3 map in response to the lawsuit.

BTW, the SCOTUS heard the appeal of the NC case.

It was great fun to read the argument about whether NC-12 was a racial gerrymander or a political gerrymander, since the snake version doesn't exist any more, and the Democrats were arguing that the bad Republicans were packing blacks from Greensboro.

Yes, but add yet another Safe R district in a state that votes *at best* 45D-55R?   There is no way that all those Dems can be that packed without drawing crazy shaped districts similar to the map pre-lawsuit.

Sure there is. We simply need to solve for:

0.4 * 11 (GOP seats) + X * 3 (Dem Seats) = 0.45 * 14 (statewide)

X = 0.63 is not really packed.

If we increase the statewide to 0.47 D, that makes X = 0.73

If we increase the statewide D to 0.49, and keep X at 0.73

Y * 11 + 0.73 * 3 = 0.49 * 14

Y = 0.42.

NC has lots of small cities that aren't excessively Democratic that can be controlled by Republican rural areas.

In the NC trial, the map-drawer deliberately maintained NC-1 as black majority. But for NC-12 he simply added adjacent precincts that were 90% Democratic. Guilford County was the only Section 5 County for the district, so he checked that he was not dividing the black population. The District Court found that was a racial gerrymander.

When the legislature redrew NC-12 they were responsive to the federal court. You should be content with the new map.

[Virginiá]

When the legislature redrew NC-12 they were responsive to the federal court. You should be content with the new map.

Content based on the argument of racial gerrymandering or content with the map overall? Do you think a 10-3 delegation is representative of the state?

[Nyvin]

Yes, but add yet another Safe R district in a state that votes *at best* 45D-55R?   There is no way that all those Dems can be that packed without drawing crazy shaped districts similar to the map pre-lawsuit.

Sure there is. We simply need to solve for:

0.4 * 11 (GOP seats) + X * 3 (Dem Seats) = 0.45 * 14 (statewide)

X = 0.63 is not really packed.

If we increase the statewide to 0.47 D, that makes X = 0.73

If we increase the statewide D to 0.49, and keep X at 0.73

Y * 11 + 0.73 * 3 = 0.49 * 14

Y = 0.42.

NC has lots of small cities that aren't excessively Democratic that can be controlled by Republican rural areas.

In the NC trial, the map-drawer deliberately maintained NC-1 as black majority. But for NC-12 he simply added adjacent precincts that were 90% Democratic. Guilford County was the only Section 5 County for the district, so he checked that he was not dividing the black population. The District Court found that was a racial gerrymander.

When the legislature redrew NC-12 they were responsive to the federal court. You should be content with the new map.

The racial divides couldn't have possibly been the only complaint through the court,  the old map had county splits everywhere, while the new map has only 2-3 county splits per district.    I am not believing that the Republicans did that just by their good nature.  

If the county splits have to be kept down I don't see how the NC-4 pack will remain, and also NC-13 is bound to get pretty precarious with 14 districts.  

It looks like the population is concentrating into the Urban areas of the state (Wake and Mecklenburg counties alone were 46% of the growth from 2014 to 2015, most of the rest in their suburbs) and away from rural areas (which are almost all declining).    

It'll be interesting to see the NC district results from the 2016 pres race.   I'm pretty confident at bare minimum a 4th Dem pack district will be needed in 2022.

[jimrtex]

When the legislature redrew NC-12 they were responsive to the federal court. You should be content with the new map.

Content based on the argument of racial gerrymandering or content with the map overall? Do you think a 10-3 delegation is representative of the state?

The representatives are representative of their districts. Congress requires representatives to be elected by district.

If you want to defend the old snakelike NC-12 go ahead.

[jimrtex]

Yes, but add yet another Safe R district in a state that votes *at best* 45D-55R?   There is no way that all those Dems can be that packed without drawing crazy shaped districts similar to the map pre-lawsuit.

Sure there is. We simply need to solve for:

0.4 * 11 (GOP seats) + X * 3 (Dem Seats) = 0.45 * 14 (statewide)

X = 0.63 is not really packed.

If we increase the statewide to 0.47 D, that makes X = 0.73

If we increase the statewide D to 0.49, and keep X at 0.73

Y * 11 + 0.73 * 3 = 0.49 * 14

Y = 0.42.

NC has lots of small cities that aren't excessively Democratic that can be controlled by Republican rural areas.

In the NC trial, the map-drawer deliberately maintained NC-1 as black majority. But for NC-12 he simply added adjacent precincts that were 90% Democratic. Guilford County was the only Section 5 County for the district, so he checked that he was not dividing the black population. The District Court found that was a racial gerrymander.

When the legislature redrew NC-12 they were responsive to the federal court. You should be content with the new map.

The racial divides couldn't have possibly been the only complaint through the court,  the old map had county splits everywhere, while the new map has only 2-3 county splits per district.    I am not believing that the Republicans did that just by their good nature.  

In reality, most of the splits were associated with NC-1 and NC-12, with some associated with NC-4.

NC-1 only has three splits now, and one was to keep Butterfield in the district.  There are only 10 significant county splits now. NC-12 is entirely in Mecklenburg County now.

[politicallefty]

When the legislature redrew NC-12 they were responsive to the federal court. You should be content with the new map.

Content based on the argument of racial gerrymandering or content with the map overall? Do you think a 10-3 delegation is representative of the state?

The representatives are representative of their districts. Congress requires representatives to be elected by district.

If you want to defend the old snakelike NC-12 go ahead.

That's rather disingenuous, don't you think? I know you're a lot smarter than that based on your posts. Can you really justify the NC gerrymander? What logic is there in not having a Winston-Salem/Greensboro district? County splits are a worthy consideration, but I don't see how they justify splitting a metro area to that point like in the redrawn NC map. I'm sure you've drawn a non-gerrymandered North Carolina map by now. If so, could you please point me to it?   

As for NC-12, I completely agree with you. There's absolutely no reason why a Congressional district cannot be completely within the city of Charlotte (let alone Mecklenburg County).

[Nyvin]

Yes, but add yet another Safe R district in a state that votes *at best* 45D-55R?   There is no way that all those Dems can be that packed without drawing crazy shaped districts similar to the map pre-lawsuit.

Sure there is. We simply need to solve for:

0.4 * 11 (GOP seats) + X * 3 (Dem Seats) = 0.45 * 14 (statewide)

X = 0.63 is not really packed.

If we increase the statewide to 0.47 D, that makes X = 0.73

If we increase the statewide D to 0.49, and keep X at 0.73

Y * 11 + 0.73 * 3 = 0.49 * 14

Y = 0.42.

NC has lots of small cities that aren't excessively Democratic that can be controlled by Republican rural areas.

In the NC trial, the map-drawer deliberately maintained NC-1 as black majority. But for NC-12 he simply added adjacent precincts that were 90% Democratic. Guilford County was the only Section 5 County for the district, so he checked that he was not dividing the black population. The District Court found that was a racial gerrymander.

When the legislature redrew NC-12 they were responsive to the federal court. You should be content with the new map.

The racial divides couldn't have possibly been the only complaint through the court,  the old map had county splits everywhere, while the new map has only 2-3 county splits per district.    I am not believing that the Republicans did that just by their good nature.  

In reality, most of the splits were associated with NC-1 and NC-12, with some associated with NC-4.

NC-1 only has three splits now, and one was to keep Butterfield in the district.  There are only 10 significant county splits now. NC-12 is entirely in Mecklenburg County now.

That's not true at all,  NC-9 split Iredell with NC-5, and NC-5 went into Hickery which was in NC-10 otherwise.   Cumberland (Fayetteville) was split up between 3 districts.   

The old map had county splits every which way and backward, they were everywhere.

[Nyvin]

When the legislature redrew NC-12 they were responsive to the federal court. You should be content with the new map.

Content based on the argument of racial gerrymandering or content with the map overall? Do you think a 10-3 delegation is representative of the state?

The representatives are representative of their districts. Congress requires representatives to be elected by district.

If you want to defend the old snakelike NC-12 go ahead.

That's rather disingenuous, don't you think? I know you're a lot smarter than that based on your posts. Can you really justify the NC gerrymander? What logic is there in not having a Winston-Salem/Greensboro district? County splits are a worthy consideration, but I don't see how they justify splitting a metro area to that point like in the redrawn NC map. I'm sure you've drawn a non-gerrymandered North Carolina map by now. If so, could you please point me to it?    

As for NC-12, I completely agree with you. There's absolutely no reason why a Congressional district cannot be completely within the city of Charlotte (let alone Mecklenburg County).

He might be intelligent, but that doesn't make him any less of a partisan hack.

He'll complain all day about the Arizona map Mathis made, but find a 11-3 delegation in a 48/52 vote state totally acceptable since the 11 is R.

[Virginiá]

The representatives are representative of their districts. Congress requires representatives to be elected by district.

If you want to defend the old snakelike NC-12 go ahead.

Come on jimrtex, you know exactly what I was saying. You really think the 10-3 delegation NCGOP has locked in for itself fairly represents the people of North Carolina? Or does it unfairly represent one party, whose own members literally stated that they drew it to increase their own representation?

So yes, you are right, "The representatives are representative of their districts," and Republicans have drawn a bunch of districts to ensure their voters and issues are represented above all else. My post was not crafted to draw a response inspired by rigid legal arguments from you, and I made that clear.

So again, not sure whether you're saying we should be content with the map based on arguments revolving around a couple districts, or that the map itself is a "fair deal" for Democrats?

[jimrtex]

In reality, most of the splits were associated with NC-1 and NC-12, with some associated with NC-4.

NC-1 only has three splits now, and one was to keep Butterfield in the district.  There are only 10 significant county splits now. NC-12 is entirely in Mecklenburg County now.

That's not true at all,  NC-9 split Iredell with NC-5, and NC-5 went into Hickery which was in NC-10 otherwise.   Cumberland (Fayetteville) was split up between 3 districts.   

The old map had county splits every which way and backward, they were everywhere.

I would not have written it if it were not true.

NC-1 split 20 counties on the old map. NC-12 split 6 counties. I mentioned NC-4.

NC-6 split no counties, except due to NC-1, NC-4, and NC-12, and a small split of Alamance.

NC-11 split Buncombe; NC-10 split Catawba; NC-5 split Iredell; NC-9 split Union, etc. They were all to equalize population.

[jimrtex]

When the legislature redrew NC-12 they were responsive to the federal court. You should be content with the new map.

Content based on the argument of racial gerrymandering or content with the map overall? Do you think a 10-3 delegation is representative of the state?

The representatives are representative of their districts. Congress requires representatives to be elected by district.

If you want to defend the old snakelike NC-12 go ahead.

That's rather disingenuous, don't you think? I know you're a lot smarter than that based on your posts. Can you really justify the NC gerrymander? What logic is there in not having a Winston-Salem/Greensboro district? County splits are a worthy consideration, but I don't see how they justify splitting a metro area to that point like in the redrawn NC map. I'm sure you've drawn a non-gerrymandered North Carolina map by now. If so, could you please point me to it?   

As for NC-12, I completely agree with you. There's absolutely no reason why a Congressional district cannot be completely within the city of Charlotte (let alone Mecklenburg County).

I don't recall drawing a North Carolina map. We had a lengthy discussion about which counties were connected. A lot of this involved the mountains and the areas around Pamlico and Albermarle sounds, and the Outer Banks. During the hearing before the SCOTUS, the defendants suggested that the plaintiffs should have been required to produce an example map in support of their claims - was there another way to draw the snake that was not racially discriminatory.

You are in effect arguing that you could produce a better map, but demanding that I draw it for you.

Greensboro and Winston-Salem are different metropolitan areas. Forsyth and Gulford are too large for a single congressional district, which probably result in the two counties being placed in different congressional districts.

[jimrtex]

He'll complain all day about the Arizona map Mathis made, but find a 11-3 delegation in a 48/52 vote state totally acceptable since the 11 is R.

My definition of "gerrymander" is result-oriented districting.

[Figueira]

He'll complain all day about the Arizona map Mathis made, but find a 11-3 delegation in a 48/52 vote state totally acceptable since the 11 is R.

My definition of "gerrymander" is result-oriented districting.

I don't think there's such a thing as non-result-oriented districting.

[Nyvin]

He'll complain all day about the Arizona map Mathis made, but find a 11-3 delegation in a 48/52 vote state totally acceptable since the 11 is R.

My definition of "gerrymander" is result-oriented districting.

Lol...okay, please don't tell me you find the NC map non-result oriented?'

Greensboro and Winston-Salem are different metropolitan areas. Forsyth and Gulford are too large for a single congressional district, which probably result in the two counties being placed in different congressional districts.

Chapel Hill and Raleigh are two different Metro areas as well, that sure didn't stop the NC GOP from putting them in the same district of NC-4, how convenient for them (or result oriented, whichever you prefer).

[jimrtex]

He'll complain all day about the Arizona map Mathis made, but find a 11-3 delegation in a 48/52 vote state totally acceptable since the 11 is R.

My definition of "gerrymander" is result-oriented districting.

Lol...okay, please don't tell me you find the NC map non-result oriented?'

Greensboro and Winston-Salem are different metropolitan areas. Forsyth and Gulford are too large for a single congressional district, which probably result in the two counties being placed in different congressional districts.

Chapel Hill and Raleigh are two different Metro areas as well, that sure didn't stop the NC GOP from putting them in the same district of NC-4, how convenient for them (or result oriented, whichever you prefer).

Raleigh is larger than a district. Together the two metropolitan areas are roughly the equivalent of two districts.

[Nyvin]

He'll complain all day about the Arizona map Mathis made, but find a 11-3 delegation in a 48/52 vote state totally acceptable since the 11 is R.

My definition of "gerrymander" is result-oriented districting.

Lol...okay, please don't tell me you find the NC map non-result oriented?'

Greensboro and Winston-Salem are different metropolitan areas. Forsyth and Gulford are too large for a single congressional district, which probably result in the two counties being placed in different congressional districts.

Chapel Hill and Raleigh are two different Metro areas as well, that sure didn't stop the NC GOP from putting them in the same district of NC-4, how convenient for them (or result oriented, whichever you prefer).

Raleigh is larger than a district. Together the two metropolitan areas are roughly the equivalent of two districts.

Okay...so if it's not "results oriented" why not give Raleigh (Wake County) it's own district

[jimrtex]

He'll complain all day about the Arizona map Mathis made, but find a 11-3 delegation in a 48/52 vote state totally acceptable since the 11 is R.

My definition of "gerrymander" is result-oriented districting.

Lol...okay, please don't tell me you find the NC map non-result oriented?'

Greensboro and Winston-Salem are different metropolitan areas. Forsyth and Gulford are too large for a single congressional district, which probably result in the two counties being placed in different congressional districts.

Chapel Hill and Raleigh are two different Metro areas as well, that sure didn't stop the NC GOP from putting them in the same district of NC-4, how convenient for them (or result oriented, whichever you prefer).

Raleigh is larger than a district. Together the two metropolitan areas are roughly the equivalent of two districts.

Okay...so if it's not "results oriented" why not give Raleigh (Wake County) it's own district

Look at the two UCC involved, and explain how you are going to draw two districts in the two UCCs, and one entirely in Wake County. You might want to actually draw a map.

[Nyvin]

He'll complain all day about the Arizona map Mathis made, but find a 11-3 delegation in a 48/52 vote state totally acceptable since the 11 is R.

My definition of "gerrymander" is result-oriented districting.

Lol...okay, please don't tell me you find the NC map non-result oriented?'

Greensboro and Winston-Salem are different metropolitan areas. Forsyth and Gulford are too large for a single congressional district, which probably result in the two counties being placed in different congressional districts.

Chapel Hill and Raleigh are two different Metro areas as well, that sure didn't stop the NC GOP from putting them in the same district of NC-4, how convenient for them (or result oriented, whichever you prefer).

Raleigh is larger than a district. Together the two metropolitan areas are roughly the equivalent of two districts.

Okay...so if it's not "results oriented" why not give Raleigh (Wake County) it's own district

Look at the two UCC involved, and explain how you are going to draw two districts in the two UCCs, and one entirely in Wake County. You might want to actually draw a map.

Why is it needed to draw two districts inside the two UCCs?   They certainly didn't have two districts in the two UCCs in the previous map.