Fair redistricting: Illinois

[cvparty]

PLAN A

featuring a Dem-favored Kansas River-centered district
1: D+3
2: R+15
3: R+14
4: R+26


PLAN B

1: R+4
2: R+10
3: R+14
4: R+26

[cvparty]

1: R+17
2: R+23
3: R+24
4: R+28
5: R+5

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Kansas Non-Partisan plan.

My nonpartisan redistricting plan for Kansas splits only one county.

District 1 R+25.56 - 30.1 - 68.1
District 2 R+09.19 - 45.8 - 52.2
District 3 R+03.64 - 48.8 - 49.9
District 4 R+14.92 - 39.9 - 58.3

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Oklahoma Non-Partisan plan.

My nonpartisan redistricting plan for Oklahoma splits only two counties.

District 1 R+16.96 - 36.1 - 63.9
District 2 R+23.58 - 34.2 - 65.8
District 3 R+25.32 - 29.3 - 70.7
District 4 R+23.25 - 31.0 - 69.0
District 5 R+09.10 - 41.0 - 59.0

[windjammer]

Kansas Non-Partisan plan.

My nonpartisan redistricting plan for Kansas splits only one county.

District 1 R+25.56 - 30.1 - 68.1
District 2 R+09.19 - 45.8 - 52.2
District 3 R+03.64 - 48.8 - 49.9
District 4 R+14.92 - 39.9 - 58.3

I have been following the Fair redistricting series for some times now and I must admit I m always fond of your maps

[Torie]

Kansas Non-Partisan plan.

My nonpartisan redistricting plan for Kansas splits only one county.

District 1 R+25.56 - 30.1 - 68.1
District 2 R+09.19 - 45.8 - 52.2
District 3 R+03.64 - 48.8 - 49.9
District 4 R+14.92 - 39.9 - 58.3

I believe I once drew this exact map. It's the BEST!

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Kansas Non-Partisan plan.

My nonpartisan redistricting plan for Kansas splits only one county.

District 1 R+25.56 - 30.1 - 68.1
District 2 R+09.19 - 45.8 - 52.2
District 3 R+03.64 - 48.8 - 49.9
District 4 R+14.92 - 39.9 - 58.3

I have been following the Fair redistricting series for some times now and I must admit I m always fond of your maps

Thank you for your most kind comments.

[cvparty]

1: D+22
2: R+3
3: R+16
4: R+25
5: D+5
6: R+14
7: R+23
8: R+21

[Torie]

Here is my Missouri effort. It has three county chops, with one macro-chop in St. Louis County.  It has no pack or cover penalties for multi county metro areas. The Pub Skew is 1.

Addendum. I modified the chop lines in Jefferson County. By doing that I avoided under the Muon2 rules an erosity penalty point, by having the county seat (Hillsboro) sit in MO-02 rather than MO-03, which avoided three road cuts from Hillosboro to the county seats of the two counties to the south, and St. Louis County to the north (which would have to leave MO-03, and go through MO-02 to get to MO-08, or MO-01, where the county seat of St. Louis County, Clayton, sits), while generating two road cuts to the county to the SW and to Franklin County to the west, for a net of one less road cut and penalty point. Another trick is that the population needed by MO-03 is about 35,000, which is a tad less than a macro-chop. So you want the chop to be in Jefferson County, rather than St. Louis County, which is already macro-chopped, and any new CD chopping into that county is also a macro-chop, no matter how small. Macro-chops generate a lot more erosity penalty points, because road cuts are counted for each sub-jurisdiction, typically generating multiple road cuts and penalty points.

So the Muon2 rules tend to force this kind of map, to minimize the erosity penalty points, and avoid cover and pack penalties. The excess population of the St. Louis metro area (in addition to the two CD's already nested in it) needs to be all in one CD (here MO-03), as is true with the Kansas City metro area, which forces, all things being otherwise equal, the CD that contains Kansas City to take in the entirety of the county to the south, to avoid that county, or part of it, being in a third CD, with the second CD taking in the two counties to the north.



 
 
 

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Missouri Non-Partisan plan.

My nonpartisan redistricting plan for Missouri splits only two counties. McCain won the 2nd district by only 289 votes.

District 1 D+27.88 - 79.5 - 19.6 - 49.3 African American
District 2 R+06.97 - 49.5 - 49.5
District 3 R+17.41 - 43.5 - 55.3
District 4 R+17.48 - 41.6 - 56.9
District 5 D+07.20 - 61.4 - 37.4
District 6 R+16.82 - 43.3 - 55.1
District 7 R+23.25 - 35.3 - 63.3
District 8 R+26.28 - 35.6 - 62.8

[catographer]

1st (St. Louis): D+23.33. White 49.8%
2nd (Overland): R+4.18. White 81.5%
3rd (Columbia): R+14.53. White 89.1%
4th (Jefferson City): R+27.04. White 91.9%
5th (Kansas City): D+7.27. White 64.7%
6th (Liberty): R+16.46. White 89.5%
7th (Springfield): R+21.67. White 89.4%
8th (Hillsboro): R+21.98. White 92.0%

[AustralianSwingVoter]

When are we moving onto Illinois?

[cvparty]

now i guess

[muon2]

This is my busy work season, so I had to drop off. However, I put IL together during my spring break and posted it elsewhere, so I'll put it in as my submission.

Here is the Chicagoland detail.

Here's a preview of my division of Chicago/Cook that I will use when cvparty gets to IL. 10 CDs fit into Cook+Dupage+Lake+McHenry, and all CDs are within 0.5% of the quota. The idea is that south and west Cook are used to build minority districts and then the remaining area is treated as if the townships are unchoppable units.



CD 1 is BVAP 53.9% and is 79% outside of Chicago and follows township lines in Cook.
CD 2 is BVAP 52.3% and is over 60% in Chicago.
CD 3 is HVAP 59.6% and is over 70% in Chicago.
CD 4 is minority-majority with BVAP 42.5% and is about half in Chicago.
CD 5 is HVAP 36.8% and is over 60% in Chicago.
CD 6 is entirely within Chicago.
CD 7-10 follow township lines for boundaries.

And here is how it fits into the whole state.

Here's the rest of my version of IL, with only Cook DuPage, Lake and Will chopped. Obama won 17 of 18 in 2008 and in 15 he exceeded his national percentage. Today the PVI is 9 D, 6 R, 3 even.

Here are the deets by CD:

CD 1: (-2611); D+30; BVAP 53.9%
CD 2: (-2880); D+28; BVAP 52.3%
CD 3: (-2433); D+27; HVAP 59.6% (exceeds the standards set by the 7th circuit for the VRA)
CD 4: (-1606); D+33; BVAP 42.5%
CD 5: (-264); D+22; HVAP 36.8%
CD 6: (+706); D+27
CD 7: (+236); D+15
CD 8: (+455); D+3.4
CD 9: (+2684); D+2.8
CD 10: (+1404); R+0.7
CD 11: (-2490); D+1.0
CD 12: (-2122); D+0.3
CD 13: (+1299); R+3.7
CD 14: (+2267); R+5.8
CD 15: (+3331); R+9.2
CD 16: (+1098); R+6.9
CD 17: (+478); R+5.5
CD 18: (+446); R+20

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Illinois Non-Partisan plan.

My non-partisan redistricting plan for Illinois doubles the number Hispanic VRA districts, while maintaining the number of African American VRA districts. Only 4 counties are split, of which only 2 were not required.

District 1 D+28.70 - 81.6 - 17.8 - 51.3 African American
District 2 D+28.03 - 79.7 - 19.6 - 51.0 African American
District 3 D+21.30 - 70.1 - 28.6 - 60.6 Hispanic
District 4 D+29.76 - 78.9 - 19.7 - 50.4 Hispanic
District 5 D+26.90 - 76.3 - 22.5
District 6 D+04.90 - 56.5 - 42.2
District 7 D+36.71 - 88.2 - 11.0 - 50.7 African American
District 8 D+06.20 - 59.1 - 39.7
District 9 D+03.72 - 56.2 - 42.5
District 10 D+06.26 - 59.5 - 39.4
District 11 D+01.36 - 55.7 - 43.1
District 12 R+05.47 - 54.7 - 43.8
District 13 R+11.85 - 48.2 - 50.2
District 14 R+05.23 - 51.4 - 47.2
District 15 R+19.12 - 44.6 - 53.6
District 16 R+04.60 - 53.1 - 45.1
District 17 R+03.52 - 54.0 - 44.5
District 18 R+06.94 - 50.1 - 48.2

[muon2]

ASV - are your racial/ethnic numbers population or voting age population (VAP)? They look like the former which are not used for VRA purposes. The VRA relies on the citizen VAP, which is close to the VAP for the black population. For Hispanics the non-citizen population is too high to use VAP directly. The courts have established 59.2% HVAP as sufficient to meet the VRA.


I know that the exercise does not require VRA compliance, but we should probably quote the right stats.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

ASV - are your racial/ethnic numbers population or voting age population (VAP)? They look like the former which are not used for VRA purposes. The VRA relies on the citizen VAP, which is close to the VAP for the black population. For Hispanics the non-citizen population is too high to use VAP directly. The courts have established 59.2% HVAP as sufficient to meet the VRA.


I know that the exercise does not require VRA compliance, but we should probably quote the right stats.

I don't use the VAP solely because if I use it it takes even longer to load a state, and given that I use a 2012 MacBook Air you can probably imagine how glacial the loading already is.

[muon2]

ASV - are your racial/ethnic numbers population or voting age population (VAP)? They look like the former which are not used for VRA purposes. The VRA relies on the citizen VAP, which is close to the VAP for the black population. For Hispanics the non-citizen population is too high to use VAP directly. The courts have established 59.2% HVAP as sufficient to meet the VRA.


I know that the exercise does not require VRA compliance, but we should probably quote the right stats.

I don't use the VAP solely because if I use it it takes even longer to load a state, and given that I use a 2012 MacBook Air you can probably imagine how glacial the loading already is.

Here's what the comparison between pop and VAP is for my Cook CDs:

Here is the Chicagoland detail.

Here's a preview of my division of Chicago/Cook that I will use when cvparty gets to IL. 10 CDs fit into Cook+Dupage+Lake+McHenry, and all CDs are within 0.5% of the quota. The idea is that south and west Cook are used to build minority districts and then the remaining area is treated as if the townships are unchoppable units.



CD 1 is BVAP 53.9% and is 79% outside of Chicago and follows township lines in Cook. (Bpop 55.8%)
CD 2 is BVAP 52.3% and is over 60% in Chicago. (Bpop 53.5%)
CD 3 is HVAP 59.6% and is over 70% in Chicago. Hpop 65.2%
CD 4 is minority-majority with BVAP 42.5% and is about half in Chicago. (Bpop 45.5%)
CD 5 is HVAP 36.8% and is over 60% in Chicago. (Hpop 41.9%)
CD 6 is entirely within Chicago.
CD 7-10 follow township lines for boundaries.

Since your CDs largely overlap mine, it's probably a good assumption that the differences between the pop and VAP will be similar in your plan.

Illinois Non-Partisan plan.

My non-partisan redistricting plan for Illinois doubles the number Hispanic VRA districts, while maintaining the number of African American VRA districts. Only 4 counties are split, of which only 2 were not required.

District 1 D+28.70 - 81.6 - 17.8 - 51.3 African American (est 50.1% BVAP)
District 2 D+28.03 - 79.7 - 19.6 - 51.0 African American (est 49.1% BVAP)
District 3 D+21.30 - 70.1 - 28.6 - 60.6 Hispanic (est 55.0% HVAP)
District 4 D+29.76 - 78.9 - 19.7 - 50.4 Hispanic (est 45.3% HVAP)
District 5 D+26.90 - 76.3 - 22.5
District 6 D+04.90 - 56.5 - 42.2
District 7 D+36.71 - 88.2 - 11.0 - 50.7 African American (est 47.7% BVAP)
District 8 D+06.20 - 59.1 - 39.7
District 9 D+03.72 - 56.2 - 42.5
District 10 D+06.26 - 59.5 - 39.4
District 11 D+01.36 - 55.7 - 43.1
District 12 R+05.47 - 54.7 - 43.8
District 13 R+11.85 - 48.2 - 50.2
District 14 R+05.23 - 51.4 - 47.2
District 15 R+19.12 - 44.6 - 53.6
District 16 R+04.60 - 53.1 - 45.1
District 17 R+03.52 - 54.0 - 44.5
District 18 R+06.94 - 50.1 - 48.2

Only one of the three black CDs is probably over 50% BVAP, though given Chicago's politics all three would probably elect the choice of the black population. However, if the Dems didn't like the map they would probably challenge the lack of at least 2 CDs over 50% in a VRA case.

The 59.2% HVAP threshold for Cook Hispanic CDs is based on the performance of the current CD-4, considering the lack of HCVAP numbers. Since it successfully has elected Gutierrez over the last 20 years it is considered to have demonstrated the ability to elect the candidate of choice. However, Chicago has a lot of recent history of white candidates defeating Latinos in state and local districts with even higher HVAP. Both of your Hispanic CDs would likely be won by white candidates, though the Latinos would certainly be an important voting bloc.

[cvparty]

1: R+3
2: R+22
3: R+13
4: R+4
5: R+1
6: R+8
7: R+3
8: D+6
9: D+3
10: D+5
11: EVEN
12: D+29
13: D+3
14: D+30
15: D+11
16: D+44
17: D+36
18: D+31