Fair redistricting: Texas

[jimrtex]

Here's my map. I think it's the only one drawn that both preserves 4 VRA districts, and also has a 7R-6D split in PVI. (red for Democrat, blue for Republican)

Drawing to a target is unconstitutional. NC-4 is particularly suspect.

[jimrtex]

This versions reduces the standard deviation to 0.08%, by linking in NC-1, NC-2, NC-11, and NC-13 by 4 small chops. NC-3 and NC-4 (Charlotte), NC-8 (Durham, Chapel Hill), and NC-12 (Coastal, Wilmington/New Bern) remain isolated whole county areas.



Note: Hyde is moved to NC-13.

McDowell: NC-1 38,549; NC-2 6,447.
Surry: NC-2 67,716; NC-5 5,956 (Wilkes is also possible)
Mecklenburg: NC-3 186,700; NC-4 732,928.
Guilford: NC-5 9,480; NC-6 383,166; NC-7 95,760.
Wake: NC-7 34,189; NC-8 733,836; NC-9 132,968.
Nash: NC-12 8,543; NC-13 87,928.
Cumberland: NC-10 3,591; NC-11 315,840.

NC-1 (Appalachian, Asheville) +0.05%, R+7.71
NC-2 (Western, Unifour) +0.05%, R+20.60
NC-3 (Charlotte suburbs) -0.08%, R+14.55
NC-4 (Charlotte) -0.08%, D+16.43
NC-5 (Charlotte/Winston-Salem/Greensboro suburbs) +0.05%, R+18.66
NC-6 (Greensboro/Winston-Salem) +0.05%, D+6.63
NC-7 (South Central) +0.05%, R+9.42
NC-8 (North, Durham/Chapel Hill) -0.21%, D+12.69
NC-9 (Raleigh) +0.05%, D+9.11
NC-10 (Raleigh suburbs) +0.05%. R+9.89
NC-11 (Southeast, Fayetteville) +0.05%, D+0.25
NC-12 (Coast, Wilmington/New Bern) -0.04%, R+10.80
NC-13 (Albermarle, Rocky Mount) +0.05%, D+2.08

[Strudelcutie4427]

I missed the deadline but this wouldve been mine

This map utilizes minimal county splits and winds up with a 8R 5D breakdown

1. D+4
2. R+6
3. R+11
4. D+9
5. D+14
6. D+8
7. R+18
8. R+5
9. R+12
10. D+17
11. R+9
12. R+18
13. R+18

[Crenton]

When will the team score the maps?

[Strudelcutie4427]

When will the team score the maps?

Most of us have already voted. I think we're waiting on one more or we have a vacancy or something. We're working on 4 threads at the same time but we should be done soon

[cvparty]

When will the team score the maps?

Most of us have already voted. I think we're waiting on one more or we have a vacancy or something. We're working on 4 threads at the same time but we should be done soon

TimTurner needs to respond to me idk what he's doin :/ honestly imma just move on to the next states by Friday cuz it's been like over a week and we need to move ON

[Strudelcutie4427]

When will the team score the maps?

Most of us have already voted. I think we're waiting on one more or we have a vacancy or something. We're working on 4 threads at the same time but we should be done soon

TimTurner needs to respond to me idk what he's doin :/ honestly imma just move on to the next states by Friday cuz it's been like over a week and we need to move ON

If we have 4 people who voted maybe we should just go off those for right now. We already have the necessary 1 R, 1 D, 1 I to approve maps so we can send it through to the next round. I've already started on the MS Paint map for this project but only NH and ME have been done so far

[cvparty]

There was a tie between cvparty and muon2 in Condorcet, so IRV was used to tiebreak. cvparty's map wins for North Carolina!

NOW WE ARE ON SOUTH CAROLINA!

edit: I calculated wrong. There was not a tie, cvparty's map won.

[jimrtex]

There was a tie between cvparty and muon2 in Condorcet, so IRV was used to tiebreak. cvparty's map wins for North Carolina!

How so?

[Crenton]

Can we see the rankings?

Are members of the ranking team allowed to vote for their own maps?

[catographer]

Here's my map. I think it's the only one drawn that both preserves 4 VRA districts, and also has a 7R-6D split in PVI. (red for Democrat, blue for Republican)

Drawing to a target is unconstitutional. NC-4 is particularly suspect.

What do you mean "a target?" You mean drawing to create maj-min districts intentionally? I don't think there's any other map on here that has at least 3.

[cvparty]

Here's my SC map

1: R+4 (old R+10)
2: D+4 (old R+12)
3: R+18 (old R+19)
4: R+18 (old R+15)
5: R+14 (old R+9)
6: D+3 (old D+19)
7: R+10 (old R+9)

second map with less county splits

1: R+4.08
2: D+3.97
3: R+17.46
4: R+18.75
5: R+13.85
6: D+3.41
7: R+9.58

[cvparty]

Can we see the rankings?

Are members of the ranking team allowed to vote for their own maps?

yes (soon) and yes

[AustralianSwingVoter]

South Carolina plan 1 (VRA)

My first non-partisan redistricting plan for South Carolina, only 5 counties are split.

District 1 R+02.66 - 50.1 - 48.7
District 2 R+14.13 - 37.4 - 61.5
District 3 R+17.24 - 36.1 - 62.2
District 4 R+17.38 - 36.1 - 62.4
District 5 R+08.26 - 44.9 - 53.9
District 6 D+15.76 - 66.3 - 32.9 - 55.9 African American
District 7 R+11.65 - 42.6 - 56.2

[AustralianSwingVoter]

South Carolina plan 2 (non-VRA)

My second non-partisan redistricting plan for South Carolina, only 4 counties are split. All districts are Majority White, making this map VRA non-compliant.

District 1 R+03.84 - 48.6 - 50.1
District 2 D+00.20 - 50.6 - 48.4
District 3 R+17.78 - 35.7 - 62.7
District 4 R+17.62 - 35.8 - 62.7
District 5 R+06.46 - 46.9 - 52.0
District 6 R+04.19 - 48.5 - 50.5
District 7 R+06.74 - 47.3 - 51.7

[Crenton]

Can we see the rankings?

Are members of the ranking team allowed to vote for their own maps?

[Dr. MB]

South Carolina plan 2 (non-VRA)

My second non-partisan redistricting plan for South Carolina, only 4 counties are split. All districts are Majority White, making this map VRA non-compliant.

District 1 R+3.84 - 48.6 - 50.1
District 2 D+0.2 - 50.6 - 48.4
District 3 R+17.78 - 35.7 - 62.7
District 4 R+17.62 - 35.8 - 62.7
District 5 R+6.46 - 46.9 - 52.0
District 6 R+4.19 - 48.5 - 50.5
District 7 R+6.74 - 47.3 - 51.7

Hmm, I've created a 4-3 map while ignoring VRA?

[Strudelcutie4427]

Plan A

1. R+5 (284)
2. R+15 (-271)
3. R+18 (922)
4. R+17 (-429)
5. R+7 (-463)
6. D+15 (-307) 51% Black, 42% White
7. R+8 (226)

Plan B

1. R+10 (464)
2. R+3 (347)
3. R+13 (-223)
4. R+19 (420)
5. R+16 (-93)
6. D+13 (-223) 49% Black, 43% White
7. R+8 (690)

[jimrtex]

Drawing to a target is unconstitutional. NC-4 is particularly suspect.

What do you mean "a target?" You mean drawing to create maj-min districts intentionally? I don't think there's any other map on here that has at least 3.

You can not assign persons to voting districts based on race.

It appears that you had a target (i.e. we need more black people in this district). You did not establish the three prongs of the Gingles test,  Your NC-4 is particularly problematic in the way you linked Durham and eastern Raleigh.

NC-9 you would have to show that minorities vote cohesively.

Also Republican members of the panel would likely vote against your map because of NC-7.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

South Carolina plan 2 (non-VRA)

My second non-partisan redistricting plan for South Carolina, only 4 counties are split. All districts are Majority White, making this map VRA non-compliant.

District 1 R+3.84 - 48.6 - 50.1
District 2 D+0.2 - 50.6 - 48.4
District 3 R+17.78 - 35.7 - 62.7
District 4 R+17.62 - 35.8 - 62.7
District 5 R+6.46 - 46.9 - 52.0
District 6 R+4.19 - 48.5 - 50.5
District 7 R+6.74 - 47.3 - 51.7

What's spooky is that my current semi-VRA compliant map has the exact same 1st district.  My 6th is only black plurality, not black majority, and if I try to tweak my map to make the 6th black majority, I'll need to shift those few Darlington county precincts back to the 1st from my current 6th.

I may or may not submit that map, but it's spooky, tho not too spooky.  Anyone taking advantage of the fact the Trident has almost exactly 1 CD worth of population will have only a limited number of options for which precincts to shed.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

i'll be tweaking my current VRA and non-VRA maps, but both of them i'm pretty happy with, since columbia and charleston aren't filled with a bunch of squiggly lines and such. I should be posting them around 6pm unless my schedule suddenly changes.

[catographer]

Drawing to a target is unconstitutional. NC-4 is particularly suspect.

What do you mean "a target?" You mean drawing to create maj-min districts intentionally? I don't think there's any other map on here that has at least 3.

You can not assign persons to voting districts based on race.

It appears that you had a target (i.e. we need more black people in this district). You did not establish the three prongs of the Gingles test,  Your NC-4 is particularly problematic in the way you linked Durham and eastern Raleigh.

NC-9 you would have to show that minorities vote cohesively.

Also Republican members of the panel would likely vote against your map because of NC-7.

Isn't assigning people to a district based on race required to create VRA-mandated maj-min districts? Regardless, fair point. I think NC-4 failed Gingles, but otherwise the others come across as fair to me.

[jimrtex]

Drawing to a target is unconstitutional. NC-4 is particularly suspect.

What do you mean "a target?" You mean drawing to create maj-min districts intentionally? I don't think there's any other map on here that has at least 3.

You can not assign persons to voting districts based on race.

It appears that you had a target (i.e. we need more black people in this district). You did not establish the three prongs of the Gingles test,  Your NC-4 is particularly problematic in the way you linked Durham and eastern Raleigh.

NC-9 you would have to show that minorities vote cohesively.

Also Republican members of the panel would likely vote against your map because of NC-7.

Isn't assigning people to a district based on race required to create VRA-mandated maj-min districts? Regardless, fair point. I think NC-4 failed Gingles, but otherwise the others come across as fair to me.

See Cooper v Harris

[muon2]

Drawing to a target is unconstitutional. NC-4 is particularly suspect.

What do you mean "a target?" You mean drawing to create maj-min districts intentionally? I don't think there's any other map on here that has at least 3.

You can not assign persons to voting districts based on race.

It appears that you had a target (i.e. we need more black people in this district). You did not establish the three prongs of the Gingles test,  Your NC-4 is particularly problematic in the way you linked Durham and eastern Raleigh.

NC-9 you would have to show that minorities vote cohesively.

Also Republican members of the panel would likely vote against your map because of NC-7.

Isn't assigning people to a district based on race required to create VRA-mandated maj-min districts? Regardless, fair point. I think NC-4 failed Gingles, but otherwise the others come across as fair to me.

See Cooper v Harris

Cooper made an important clarification to Bartlett and the use of crossover districts. Bartlett said that crossover districts were not mandated when there was no 50% BVAP in a compact area - the first Gingles test. Copper said that evidence of sufficient crossover voting to regularly elect the minority candidate of choice was evidence that the white majority did not vote sufficiently as a bloc to defeat the minority-preferred candidate - the third Gingles test. Thus an area where a BVAP majority district could be drawn, need not be if a sufficiently strong crossover district was possible. By not forcing a performing crossover district into a 50% BVAP district, race would not become the predominant factor in drawing the district.

[muon2]

This is an updated map. This shifts Alamance into NC-7, and Caswell, Rockingham, and Stokes into NC-8. Franklin is shifted into NC-10. This is not depending on point contiguity, since NC-10 will take a substantial portion of Wake County along the eastern and southern borders. This is reasonably compact since it providing a partial donut around three sides of Raleigh. In addition NC-3 (Charlotte suburbs) is shown separate from NC-4 (Charlotte). Mecklenburg will be divided to connect the two parts of NC-3.

Mecklenburg, Guilford, and Wake will be divided.

Mecklenburg will be 732,928 in NC-4. and 186,700 in NC-3 (this could conceivably be a partial donut following the I-485 loop)

These show rough divisions of the split counties. In general, I was trying to make the Charlotte and Raleigh seats compact, rather than necessarily making the surrounding seats compact. I was also trying to avoid picking off areas that were largely black (avoid cracking black population). In Guilford, I ended up placing High Point in NC-7. You can bring in more white areas in the southwestern part of Greensboro, but then High Point stands out as prong down from the north, and looks more like race sorting.



Mecklenburg - Detail

The idea of following I-485 around makes sense if it starts around I-85 where it crosses the Catawba river from Gaston county. Connecting them across Lake Wylie without a bridge, seems akin to jumping across the Albemarle sound to connect Tyrrell to a district with Perquimans and Chowan county without including Washington county.