Redistricting victims next cycle.

[Mr.Phips]

How will the South Carolina GOP handle SC-01? I guess Cunningham’s got an uphill climb for re-election, but if he gets lucky a second time, is there a way the legislature could make SC-01 redder without putting the other Republican seats at risk?

I'm really not sure.  There are not a whole lot more black precincts in Charleston that are not already in the sixth district, while taking Horry county from the 7th puts that district at risk.

[Oryxslayer]

So, with all the changes in governors and legislatures, anyone want to amend their picks for redistricting victims?  

It should be interesting to see what IL Dems do now that they have a 13-5 advantage and literally control their hand-crafted R vote sink in the Chicago suburbs. With IL expected to lose a seat, I’m curious to see how Democrats force Republicans to take the hit while combining the Democratic areas of IL-12 and IL-13 into one seat. I think 14-3 is a definite dummymander unless they get very creative with Chicago.

Personally, I think it’s probably safer to go 13-4. We can easily shore up IL-06 and IL-14. It’s a lot harder to shore up IL-17. I know Cheri Bustos is a strong incumbent, but I don’t trust a district like that. But short of moving into Chicagoland, it’s going to be a tortured monstrosity that might even shame Maryland Dems.

I think they will shore up IL-06 and IL-14 by stretching them into chunks of Chicago proper (both IL-01 and IL-07 can spare plenty).  

If you merge IL-12 and IL-13 there are more downstate votes left you can give to IL-17 to keep it with a Dem PVI. But there is really nothing you can do to keep the seat from going competitive sooner or later. I still though think that 13-4 is the likely outcome, but its IL-14 taking the hit, unless Chicago gets weird.

How will the South Carolina GOP handle SC-01? I guess Cunningham’s got an uphill climb for re-election, but if he gets lucky a second time, is there a way the legislature could make SC-01 redder without putting the other Republican seats at risk?

I'm really not sure.  There are not a whole lot more black precincts in Charleston that are not already in the sixth district, while taking Horry county from the 7th puts that district at risk.

I think SC-01 is already as Pub as its going to get. The seats shape is already determined by the 6th, and there are not many more Blue precincts left to lose. Pubs I hink just have to hope the PVI goes their way sooner or later.

I think TX might have a lot more victims then we once thought, especially if the dems take the state house and force a fairer map.

Also Oklahoma. Pubs are finally going to need to do a gerrymander and crack Tulsa and OKC considering the gov results there were more dem then statewide, and OFC dems won OK-05.

[politicallefty]

So, with all the changes in governors and legislatures, anyone want to amend their picks for redistricting victims?  

It should be interesting to see what IL Dems do now that they have a 13-5 advantage and literally control their hand-crafted R vote sink in the Chicago suburbs. With IL expected to lose a seat, I’m curious to see how Democrats force Republicans to take the hit while combining the Democratic areas of IL-12 and IL-13 into one seat. I think 14-3 is a definite dummymander unless they get very creative with Chicago.

Personally, I think it’s probably safer to go 13-4. We can easily shore up IL-06 and IL-14. It’s a lot harder to shore up IL-17. I know Cheri Bustos is a strong incumbent, but I don’t trust a district like that. But short of moving into Chicagoland, it’s going to be a tortured monstrosity that might even shame Maryland Dems.

I think they will shore up IL-06 and IL-14 by stretching them into chunks of Chicago proper (both IL-01 and IL-07 can spare plenty).  

If you merge IL-12 and IL-13 there are more downstate votes left you can give to IL-17 to keep it with a Dem PVI. But there is really nothing you can do to keep the seat from going competitive sooner or later. I still though think that 13-4 is the likely outcome, but its IL-14 taking the hit, unless Chicago gets weird.

Ironically, this map was designed for a 13-5 D majority., but not this way. We were supposed to keep and maintain IL-12 and IL-13 and Rs were supposed to be sunk into IL-06 and IL-14. Dems can get creative with Chicago and we’ve made huge gains in historically Republican suburbs like DuPage County. The thinking was that we could’ve won a downstate district and shored it up by letting another go. Personally, I think we need to give up on that. Any Dem plan for the next decade needs to shore up the incumbents we have now (assuming they all win in 2020).

With IL likely(?) losing a seat, we will need downstate cities to ensure a safe district for Bustos (not sure where she lives though). If IL were to hold at 18 seats, Dems would reconfigure IL-12 and IL-13 into one Likely D seat and one Safe R seat. Downstate IL is where the Dem gerrymander has failed.

[lfromnj]

So, with all the changes in governors and legislatures, anyone want to amend their picks for redistricting victims?  

It should be interesting to see what IL Dems do now that they have a 13-5 advantage and literally control their hand-crafted R vote sink in the Chicago suburbs. With IL expected to lose a seat, I’m curious to see how Democrats force Republicans to take the hit while combining the Democratic areas of IL-12 and IL-13 into one seat. I think 14-3 is a definite dummymander unless they get very creative with Chicago.

Personally, I think it’s probably safer to go 13-4. We can easily shore up IL-06 and IL-14. It’s a lot harder to shore up IL-17. I know Cheri Bustos is a strong incumbent, but I don’t trust a district like that. But short of moving into Chicagoland, it’s going to be a tortured monstrosity that might even shame Maryland Dems.

I think they will shore up IL-06 and IL-14 by stretching them into chunks of Chicago proper (both IL-01 and IL-07 can spare plenty).  

If you merge IL-12 and IL-13 there are more downstate votes left you can give to IL-17 to keep it with a Dem PVI. But there is really nothing you can do to keep the seat from going competitive sooner or later. I still though think that 13-4 is the likely outcome, but its IL-14 taking the hit, unless Chicago gets weird.

Ironically, this map was designed for a 13-5 D majority., but not this way. We were supposed to keep and maintain IL-12 and IL-13 and Rs were supposed to be sunk into IL-06 and IL-14. Dems can get creative with Chicago and we’ve made huge gains in historically Republican suburbs like DuPage County. The thinking was that we could’ve won a downstate district and shored it up by letting another go. Personally, I think we need to give up on that. Any Dem plan for the next decade needs to shore up the incumbents we have now (assuming they all win in 2020).

With IL likely(?) losing a seat, we will need downstate cities to ensure a safe district for Bustos (not sure where she lives though). If IL were to hold at 18 seats, Dems would reconfigure IL-12 and IL-13 into one Likely D seat and one Safe R seat. Downstate IL is where the Dem gerrymander has failed.

Even if Illinois loses a seat they still combine Il 12th and 13th. They are too far away from Bustos's district to actually gerrymander up there. If I had to guess for bustos they might keep a tentacle that goes from the northwest corner to Lake county to stave of the republican trend of the district.

[politicallefty]

So, with all the changes in governors and legislatures, anyone want to amend their picks for redistricting victims?  

It should be interesting to see what IL Dems do now that they have a 13-5 advantage and literally control their hand-crafted R vote sink in the Chicago suburbs. With IL expected to lose a seat, I’m curious to see how Democrats force Republicans to take the hit while combining the Democratic areas of IL-12 and IL-13 into one seat. I think 14-3 is a definite dummymander unless they get very creative with Chicago.

Personally, I think it’s probably safer to go 13-4. We can easily shore up IL-06 and IL-14. It’s a lot harder to shore up IL-17. I know Cheri Bustos is a strong incumbent, but I don’t trust a district like that. But short of moving into Chicagoland, it’s going to be a tortured monstrosity that might even shame Maryland Dems.

I think they will shore up IL-06 and IL-14 by stretching them into chunks of Chicago proper (both IL-01 and IL-07 can spare plenty).  

If you merge IL-12 and IL-13 there are more downstate votes left you can give to IL-17 to keep it with a Dem PVI. But there is really nothing you can do to keep the seat from going competitive sooner or later. I still though think that 13-4 is the likely outcome, but its IL-14 taking the hit, unless Chicago gets weird.

Ironically, this map was designed for a 13-5 D majority., but not this way. We were supposed to keep and maintain IL-12 and IL-13 and Rs were supposed to be sunk into IL-06 and IL-14. Dems can get creative with Chicago and we’ve made huge gains in historically Republican suburbs like DuPage County. The thinking was that we could’ve won a downstate district and shored it up by letting another go. Personally, I think we need to give up on that. Any Dem plan for the next decade needs to shore up the incumbents we have now (assuming they all win in 2020).

With IL likely(?) losing a seat, we will need downstate cities to ensure a safe district for Bustos (not sure where she lives though). If IL were to hold at 18 seats, Dems would reconfigure IL-12 and IL-13 into one Likely D seat and one Safe R seat. Downstate IL is where the Dem gerrymander has failed.

Even if Illinois loses a seat they still combine Il 12th and 13th. They are too far away from Bustos's district to actually gerrymander up there. If I had to guess for bustos they might keep a tentacle that goes from the northwest corner to Lake county to stave of the republican trend of the district.

I thought the same, but not in light of taking IL-14. I just don’t think a 14-3 map is realistic in IL. If someone can post a map proving otherwise, I’d be happy to see it. I think the best they do is try to string some Democratic areas together and maybe get a tilt-R district. I’m looking at this in terms of our current political paradigm where Trumpism is here to stay.

[lfromnj]

So, with all the changes in governors and legislatures, anyone want to amend their picks for redistricting victims?  

It should be interesting to see what IL Dems do now that they have a 13-5 advantage and literally control their hand-crafted R vote sink in the Chicago suburbs. With IL expected to lose a seat, I’m curious to see how Democrats force Republicans to take the hit while combining the Democratic areas of IL-12 and IL-13 into one seat. I think 14-3 is a definite dummymander unless they get very creative with Chicago.

Personally, I think it’s probably safer to go 13-4. We can easily shore up IL-06 and IL-14. It’s a lot harder to shore up IL-17. I know Cheri Bustos is a strong incumbent, but I don’t trust a district like that. But short of moving into Chicagoland, it’s going to be a tortured monstrosity that might even shame Maryland Dems.

I think they will shore up IL-06 and IL-14 by stretching them into chunks of Chicago proper (both IL-01 and IL-07 can spare plenty).  

If you merge IL-12 and IL-13 there are more downstate votes left you can give to IL-17 to keep it with a Dem PVI. But there is really nothing you can do to keep the seat from going competitive sooner or later. I still though think that 13-4 is the likely outcome, but its IL-14 taking the hit, unless Chicago gets weird.

Ironically, this map was designed for a 13-5 D majority., but not this way. We were supposed to keep and maintain IL-12 and IL-13 and Rs were supposed to be sunk into IL-06 and IL-14. Dems can get creative with Chicago and we’ve made huge gains in historically Republican suburbs like DuPage County. The thinking was that we could’ve won a downstate district and shored it up by letting another go. Personally, I think we need to give up on that. Any Dem plan for the next decade needs to shore up the incumbents we have now (assuming they all win in 2020).

With IL likely(?) losing a seat, we will need downstate cities to ensure a safe district for Bustos (not sure where she lives though). If IL were to hold at 18 seats, Dems would reconfigure IL-12 and IL-13 into one Likely D seat and one Safe R seat. Downstate IL is where the Dem gerrymander has failed.

Even if Illinois loses a seat they still combine Il 12th and 13th. They are too far away from Bustos's district to actually gerrymander up there. If I had to guess for bustos they might keep a tentacle that goes from the northwest corner to Lake county to stave of the republican trend of the district.

I thought the same, but not in light of taking IL-14. I just don’t think a 14-3 map is realistic in IL. If someone can post a map proving otherwise, I’d be happy to see it. I think the best they do is try to string some Democratic areas together and maybe get a tilt-R district. I’m looking at this in terms of our current political paradigm where Trumpism is here to stay.

It depends on what you mean by 14-3. the 2 downstates should be possible to combine for atleast a decade as some parts of donwstate are trending democrat. The question is basically Bustos. I think Bustos makes her seat Likely D if they add a bit of Chicago Land but in a wave she might go down but she is a pretty strong candidate.

[Oryxslayer]

Here a rudimentary 2020 map showing that you can still get two Blue seats out of downstate - as you can see I'm still working on Chicagoland. Both seats are between D+4 and D+5 PVI, and they can get more democratic. I wanted to keep my tentacles 'thick' and actually logical, but this adds pubs. If you connect the cites using thin bacon strips, you can hit D+5 or more.

A lot I feel depends on 2020 regarding Illinois. How democratic the collar counties get/stay/remain and whether IL-14 remains in dem hands determines if the seat needs to go Pub to shore up everyone else.

[lfromnj]

Here a rudimentary 2020 map showing that you can still get two Blue seats out of downstate - as you can see I'm still working on Chicagoland. Both seats are between D+4 and D+5 PVI, and they can get more democratic. I wanted to keep my tentacles 'thick' and actually logical, but this adds pubs. If you connect the cites using thin bacon strips, you can hit D+5 or more.

A lot I feel depends on 2020 regarding Illinois. How democratic the collar counties get/stay/remain and whether IL-14 remains in dem hands determines if the seat needs to go Pub to shore up everyone else.

yeah this is probably the best map for democrats. It doesn't use up chicago land for the downstate districts and it keeps both downstate districts relatively Likely D. So Chicago land has 12 districts?
Im guessing Mike bost Davis and Skimkus all have to choose either the Likely D district or Skimkus's  far southern district.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Sanford Bishop, given his district is bleeding population and will get chopped up.

[Oryxslayer]

A couple thoughts in response.

Bishop is an interesting one, and one surrounded by uncertainty. GA has to have 4 VRA seats, and so Bishop's fate depends on if the coming new GA-06 pack, which will take to blue bits of 6, 7, and others to protect against growth, can be made 50% AA. If it can, he is DOA. If it cannot, then Bishop's seat extends across the black belt to keep it at an appropriate AA%.

Kaptur ain't gone, not with the new fair-ish amendment. If anything, dems probably gain a seat in Ohio, but her seat will get more competitive. They cannot crack Toledo like you probably imagine, plus some things would need to be left as crumbs for the commissions dems  so they approve another republican gerrymander.

Florida is another uncertain zone. Like right now, Texas probably does another Pub-mander. But what if dems flip the House in 2020. In Florida, this would be the Senate. The other big one might just be a true voting commission getting approved. The Florida Dems have failed at getting people elected, but they do have a good track record on dem-backed ballot initiatives. 

[Mr.Phips]

I made a 14-3 Illinois map a while back, but that was under the assumption of Hultgren holding on and mashing him up with Kinzinger. There were two snake-like downstate Democratic districts and 12 Chicagoland Hillary seats. All met VRA requirements and all were at least 55% Hillary (the 12 Chicagoland seats were all at least 58% Hillary). Could probably baconstrip out Chicagoland a little more for Lauren Underwood and try to get a 15-2.

Anyway, with Florida having a Republican Governor and Fair District FL likely getting completely ignored by the new courts, Stephanie Murphy and Charlie Crist probably get screwed over. The other Democratic seats are all either VRA required or are just gonna get a lot more D with time (DMP and Shalala). If they axe Murphy, she can just run against Rubio, so that's fine with me.

Sanford Bishop's seat is also a goner.

Marcy Kaptur is a goner.

If they get rid of Marcy Kaptor, where are they gonna put Toledo and all of the heavy Dem suburbs of Cleveland?  You can't try for just one Dem seat in Toledo/Cleveland without risking the mother of all dummymanders.  With Dems only having only four seats in Ohio, Republicans are gonna have to cut out one of their own with the state losing a seat.  With the new redistricting rules, they may even have to throw Dems a compact Cincinnati seat to keep them aboard for gerrymandering the rest of the state.

[GMantis]

Sanford Bishop, given his district is bleeding population and will get chopped up.

Isn't his district protected by the VRA?

[Mr.Phips]

Sanford Bishop, given his district is bleeding population and will get chopped up.

Isn't his district protected by the VRA?

It's 52% black, so yes. 

[lfromnj]

Sanford Bishop, given his district is bleeding population and will get chopped up.

Isn't his district protected by the VRA?

It's 52% black, so yes. 

yeah but they can just make a 4th atlanta VRA district (aka another vote sink as atlanta VRA district would be like 75% dem by now) and chop bishops district and that still leaves the same number of VRA districts. Backfire could be that courts do a virginia remake and force them to make a SW VRA district without touching the rest of the map but its still the best option as Atlanta needs 4 districts for dems by now.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

yeah but they can just make a 4th atlanta VRA district (aka another vote sink as atlanta VRA district would be like 75% dem by now) and chop bishops district and that still leaves the same number of VRA districts. Backfire could be that courts do a virginia remake and force them to make a SW VRA district without touching the rest of the map but its still the best option as Atlanta needs 4 districts for dems by now.

According to previous SCOTUS precedent, you can't simply dismantle a VRA district in one part of the state and replace it with another one elsewhere. TX did that, dismantling TX-23 and trying to replace it with TX-25 instead. This was not allowed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_United_Latin_American_Citizens_v._Perry

However, Roberts dissented in this decision and said it was ok in his opinion for district 25 to replace 23. Roberts doesn't really care about the Voting Rights Act or the voting power of people who are not white, so the partisan GOP SCOTUS under Roberts might well allow GA to do the same thing that was previously ruled unconstitutional despite the precedent.

[Oryxslayer]

yeah but they can just make a 4th atlanta VRA district (aka another vote sink as atlanta VRA district would be like 75% dem by now) and chop bishops district and that still leaves the same number of VRA districts. Backfire could be that courts do a virginia remake and force them to make a SW VRA district without touching the rest of the map but its still the best option as Atlanta needs 4 districts for dems by now.

According to previous SCOTUS precedent, you can't simply dismantle a VRA district in one part of the state and replace it with another one elsewhere. TX did that, dismantling TX-23 and trying to replace it with TX-25 instead. This was not allowed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_United_Latin_American_Citizens_v._Perry

However, Roberts dissented in this decision and said it was ok in his opinion for district 25 to replace 23. Roberts doesn't really care about the Voting Rights Act or the voting power of people who are not white, so the partisan GOP SCOTUS under Roberts might well allow GA to do the same thing that was previously ruled unconstitutional despite the precedent.

It also might not be possible to get a 4th VRA seat out of Atlanta - Hispanics, White Dems, Asians, and GOP voters flipping have driven the north suburbs toward the dems. AAs have been moving in to the south and in Gwinett, into current VRA seat precincts.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Here a rudimentary 2020 map showing that you can still get two Blue seats out of downstate - as you can see I'm still working on Chicagoland. Both seats are between D+4 and D+5 PVI, and they can get more democratic. I wanted to keep my tentacles 'thick' and actually logical, but this adds pubs. If you connect the cites using thin bacon strips, you can hit D+5 or more.

A lot I feel depends on 2020 regarding Illinois. How democratic the collar counties get/stay/remain and whether IL-14 remains in dem hands determines if the seat needs to go Pub to shore up everyone else.

I made a 14-3 Illinois map a while back, but that was under the assumption of Hultgren holding on and mashing him up with Kinzinger. There were two snake-like downstate Democratic districts and 12 Chicagoland Hillary seats. All met VRA requirements and all were at least 55% Hillary (the 12 Chicagoland seats were all at least 58% Hillary). Could probably baconstrip out Chicagoland a little more for Lauren Underwood and try to get a 15-2.

It is very easy to draw a 14-3 for IL. The Democratic Party of Illinois should just go ahead and disband if they can't even manage to draw a 14-3 while Rs draw egregious maps in other states.

IL is a state where PVI including 2012 results is not really as informative as you would like. I don't think the suburban/rural trends are going away, and I think it sort of makes more sense to draw districts based on the 2016 vote more than PVI (many states are like this to some degree, but IL probably in particular).

I started trying to draw an IL map with 2016 PVI data, but it was too cumbersome and annoying to not have the Clinton-Trump numbers. So I made 2016 precinct result estimates for IL and used those instead as my basis for drawing districts. Since the only precinct results data directly accessible in the DRA files is unfortunately the 2008 results (PVI does not show up in the files that download to your computer, despite the fact that they obviously have it), so the 2016 estimates are made using 3 assumptions:

1) The distribution of turnout across precincts within each county was constant from 2008 to 2016 (basically, turnout increased by the same % in each precinct within the same county, but precincts within different counties went up by a different % than each other).
2) That within each county, each voter regardless of precinct had the same individual probability of switching from Obama to Trump, Obama to 3rd Party, or McCain to Clinton.

Estimating the precinct results is not as good as having the actual precinct results, obviously, but I think it is better than just having PVI. You can see there is a lot more deep red in rural downstate IL (which makes it easier to vote sink the Rs) and a lot more blue in suburban Chicagoland (which makes it much easier to draw Dem districts there). The numbers still display in the DRA interface as "President 2008," but you can see that the actual #s of votes match the 2016 results (Clinton getting 3.09 million votes and Trump getting 2.15 million, but the interface still displays them as "Oba" and "McC"):



I uploaded the estimates here in case anyone else wants to try using them here:

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=31184931103049287168



It is very annoying how they put the PVI data in to Dave's Redistricting App, because first of all you can't see it visually on the map, and secondly because it doesn't show the actual underlying data. You know that they have to have both the 2012 and 2016 precinct results in order to calculate PVI, but you can't see the results separately.

For districts where there is a large trend (like in both rural and suburban IL), if you are trying to draw a map that will be resistant against a continuation of the trend, it is much more helpful if you can separately see the Obama-Romney and Clinton-Trump numbers than if you can only see them mashed together into PVI.

Using 2016 results actually seems to make IL much easier to gerrymander than it was in 2010 or than it was with even 2016 PVI, because with 2016 data, polarization is stronger and Rs can be more easily packed into rural vote sinks. In general higher polarization makes it easier to gerrymander effectively, whereas it is harder if every precinct is 55-45.



Anyway, so here is a 14-3 map, which has 2 downstate Dem districts drawn in the obvious way and 12 Chicagoland districts. All Democratic incumbents should live in their districts (or else very nearby, so that they could be easily drawn in), and I tried to preserve as much of their current territory as reasonably possible.









Here are the stats for the districts. This includes the (estimated) Clinton 2016 vote, the PVI that averages 2016 and 2012, and as normal, and . I drew the districts basically entirely on the basis of the estimated Clinton vote. Since the 2016 data is just an estimate and is based on the geographical distribution of Dem votes within each county from 2008, the relationship between the estimated Clinton vote and PVI is not exact. In general it should be possible to draw districts with a similar Clinton vote as in this map, but the PVIs may be a bit different and the actual precincts include may differ a bit because of the fact that Dems have in reality gained more or lost more in certain areas within each county than others. I basically kept the inner Chicago area districts about the same as they are now, although if it were me making the map in reality I would probably want to add a second Hispanic district. But the 2020 population estimates (I am using the ones cvparty made) seem to underestimate the Hispanic population a bit as compared to current #s. If the Clinton vote on any of the suburban Chicago districts is not considered safe enough, it is pretty easy to gerrymander more because there are plenty of extra votes in Chicago, particularly in IL-05 and IL-09.

IL-01: Clinton 71.1% - Trump 24.1%, (D+21.7) [[Obama 77.4% - McCain 21.9%]], Majority African American
IL-02: Clinton 72.3% - Trump 23.1%, (D+24.4) [[Obama 77.3% - McCain 21.9%]], Majority African American
IL-03: Clinton 57.8% - Trump 38.4%, (D+4.6) [[Obama 57.4% - McCain 41.4%]]
IL-04: Clinton 79.6% - Trump 15.6%, (D+34.0) [[Obama 81.8% - McCain 16.9%]], Supermajority Hispanic
IL-05: Clinton 69.1% - Trump 26.1%, (D+19.6) [[Obama 70.1% - McCain 28.6%]]
IL-06: Clinton 55.1% - Trump 39.3%, (D+3.8 ) [[Obama 55.5% - McCain 43.2%]]
IL-07: Clinton 84.7% - Trump 10.8%, (D+36.1) [[Obama 87.5.5% - McCain 11.7%]], Majority African American
IL-08: Clinton 55.0% - Trump 39.8%, (D+3.1) [[Obama 57.5% - McCain 41.2%]]
IL-09: Clinton 64.6% - Trump 31.5%, (D+13.9) [[Obama 64.6% - McCain 34.2%]]
IL-10: Clinton 55.2% - Trump 38.8%, (D+4.5) [[Obama 58.8% - McCain 40.0%]]
IL-11: Clinton 54.7% - Trump 39.4%, (D+6.2) [[Obama 59.1% - McCain 39.8%]]
IL-12: Clinton 28.4% - Trump 67.2%, (R+17.6) [[Obama 44.8% - McCain 53.4%]]
IL-13: Clinton 50.3% - Trump 43.4%, (D+5.2) [[Obama 61.5% - McCain 36.9%]]
IL-14: Clinton 52.9% - Trump 40.8%, (D+3.8 ) [[Obama 58.3% - McCain 40.3%]]
IL-15: Clinton 27.0% - Trump 68.1%, (R+20.0) [[Obama 42.7% - McCain 55.6%]]
IL-16: Clinton 36.0% - Trump 58.1%, (R+11.0) [[Obama 47.4% - McCain 50.9%]]
IL-17: Clinton 49.5% - Trump 43.8%, (D+4.4) [[Obama 59.7% - McCain 38.7%]]



So I think this shows it is pretty easy to draw a 14-3 map. However, I think this most obvious way is probably not the *best* way to do so. Mainly this is because IL-13 and IL-17 both only voted for Clinton by about 6-7 points, and are vulnerable to potentially trending further Republican if Republicans continue to gain among white voters outside of major urban/suburban areas.

So, here is an alternative that tries to avoid that being a problem.

IL-13 is made significantly more Democratic by giving it the pick of Democratic precincts in Bloomington and Carbondale, in addition to East St. Louis, Springfield, Decatur, and Champaign which it already had in the previous map.

And IL-17 is sured up by drawing it into Chicagoland - specifically by dropping Peoria and Bloomington and instead drawing it in to Waukegan. Why Waukegan specifically? First, it is a pretty easy straight shot along the IL border from Rockford. And secondly, Waukegan is filled with lots and lots of non-whites. With the 2020 estimates from cvparty (I think they may be underestimates on the racial #s), that drops IL-17 all the way from to only 68% white, compared to the current real life IL-17 which is 83% white. So that makes Cheri Bustos far far less vulnerable to potential further GOP gains among white voters. Alternatively, you could maybe draw IL-17 into other areas with Dem voters like De Kalb, Elgin, or Auraura to achieve a similar effect. But I wanted to keep most of those for IL-14.

Since IL-17 no longer has Peoria, that leaves it up for grabs. Who gets it? In this case, IL-14. Springfield does actually have a decently sized African American population, and the way IL-14 is drawn in this map brings it down to 60% White and up to 9% African American. Since the real life current version of IL-14 is 86% White and only 3% African American, and since Lauren Underwood is African American, although she is clearly able to win over white voters, she probably won't complain too much about being given Peoria and bumping up the African American population a tad. Another way to look at it is that it gives her some downstate exposure to set her up for a statewide run later on if she wants to give that a try at some point.










IL-01: Clinton 71.1% - Trump 24.1%, (D+21.7) [[Obama 77.1% - McCain 22.1%]], Majority African American
IL-02: Clinton 72.3% - Trump 23.1%, (D+24.4) [[Obama 77.7% - McCain 21.4%]], Majority African American
IL-03: Clinton 57.8% - Trump 38.4%, (D+4.6 ) [[Obama 57.4% - McCain 41.4%]]
IL-04: Clinton 79.6% - Trump 15.6%, (D+34.0) [[Obama 81.8% - McCain 16.9%]], Supermajority Hispanic
IL-05: Clinton 69.1% - Trump 26.1%, (D+19.6 ) [[Obama 70.1% - McCain 28.6%]]
IL-06: Clinton 55.1% - Trump 39.3%, (D+3.8) [[Obama 55.5% - McCain 43.2%]]
IL-07: Clinton 84.7% - Trump 10.8%, (D+36.1) [[Obama 87.5.5% - McCain 11.7%]], Majority African American
IL-08: Clinton 54.2% - Trump 40.9%, (D+2.7) [[Obama 56.7% - McCain 41.9%]]
IL-09: Clinton 63.3% - Trump 32.7%, (D+12.4) [[Obama 63.4% - McCain 35.5%]]
IL-10: Clinton 54.0% - Trump 40.2%, (D+3.5) [[Obama 57.9% - McCain 40.9%]]
IL-11: Clinton 53.7% - Trump 40.4%, (D+5.0) [[Obama 58.2% - McCain 40.6%]]
IL-12: Clinton 29.0% - Trump 66.5%, (R+17.1) [[Obama 44.9% - McCain 53.3%]]
IL-13: Clinton 53.1% - Trump 40.0%, (D+7.8) [[Obama 63.5% - McCain 34.8%]]
IL-14: Clinton 53.5% - Trump 39.8%, (D+5.8) [[Obama 60.2% - McCain 38.3%]]
IL-15: Clinton 29.0% - Trump 65.8%, (R+19.0) [[Obama 42.3% - McCain 56.0%]]
IL-16: Clinton 32.8% - Trump 61.5%, (R+12.6) [[Obama 47.3% - McCain 51.0%]]
IL-17: Clinton 51.7% - Trump 42.1%, (D+4.9) [[Obama 60.7% - McCain 37.8%]]


If any of the Chicagoland districts are not considered to be safe enough, it is pretty easy to make them all safer by giving IL-09 some more of Lake County, etc. But as long as Dems continue to do well with suburban voters in Chicagoland, and the trend in the Trump era is not reversed, these districts should all be pretty safely Dem for the foreseeable future.



So, since 14-3 is clearly quite easy to do, what about 15-2? For that, it seems like you have to baconmander quite a bit more. I haven't played around with it enough to figure out the best way of doing it, but it is definitely possible. It is (probably) ugly though. Here is a partial attempt I made at 15-2 (which also adds a 2nd Hispanic district and draws Lipinski out to Peoria), but I gave up on it since it was both clear that it was possible to get to 15-2 but also clear that it would be ugly. But maybe someone can come up with a cleaner looking way of doing it. I also had to use touch point contiguity to have IL-15 cross through the tentacle of IL-12 that connects East St. Louis and Springfield:

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Bost and Davis are probably going to get the same treatment in 2022 that Altmire and Critz got in 2012.

[Mr.Phips]

I hope Illinois Dems and Madigan go for something as ugly as that. Especially since Democrats are going to be on the receiving end of that in Texas, NC and GA. The howling from Republicans would be something

I loved how Illinois Republicans tried to say that the Democrats were trying to "undo the 2010 election results" in 2012 with their redistricting.  Were those Republicans saying the same thing when their party did it to Democrats in Georgia and North Carolina?

[lfromnj]

damn what  an Illinois gerrymander. If I was a democrat id just go 14-3 as that touch point will be challenged. in a 15-2 who stays?
Skimkus and Lahood?

[Strudelcutie4427]

MA has pending legislation to get an independent commission. If that happens I think atleast 3 or 4 of the current delegation gets shafted by either double bunking (Kennedy, Lynch, Presley, Trajan?) or being drawn into more competitive districts (McGovern, Keating)

[lfromnj]

MA has pending legislation to get an independent commission. If that happens I think atleast 3 or 4 of the current delegation gets shafted by either double bunking (Kennedy, Lynch, Presley, Trajan?) or being drawn into more competitive districts (McGovern, Keating)

I think the commision might take into account incumbents like NJ does.

[Strudelcutie4427]

MA has pending legislation to get an independent commission. If that happens I think atleast 3 or 4 of the current delegation gets shafted by either double bunking (Kennedy, Lynch, Presley, Trajan?) or being drawn into more competitive districts (McGovern, Keating)

I think the commision might take into account incumbents like NJ does.

That might be difficult since 4 of them are in core Boston (Kennedy, Lynch, Presley, Clark). And the wording says that lines should respect municipal boundaries, and not be drawn to dilute voters of certain parties or race. So the 2 I most likely see are MA-2 becoming primarily a Central MA swing seat by taking Amherst/Northampton out and MA-9 becoming a south shore swing district taking New Bedford and Fall River out and adding The parts of Plymouth/E Norfolk that are in 8

[Oryxslayer]

SNIP

SNIP

Nice maps. Yeah, it shouldn't be hard for dems to extract a 14-3 from IL. Like here is my map from previously. I have much higher standards then most other mappers, only seeing seats above +7 PVI as wave-proof, respect the VRA, Keep incumbents residences in their seats, and I like to have tentacles more then one precinct wide/have a highway or major road through then. Even then might not last the full ten years partisan-wise. With that in mind, I completed my map  using PVI and created a 13-4...but one of those four was only R+2.5 (IL14) and Clinton obviously won it. So even then under my harsh rules, I probably got 14-3 clinton seats.

[politicallefty]

I haven’t played around with IL in awhile, but I am convinced 14-3 can work. I think anything further risks dummymander. It’s also necessary to ensure our incumbents are highly protected, especially Bustos. I’m not sure where she lives, but I’m sure she can win any D-leaning district drawn for her. She’s running for leadership, so her protection is a priority. Also, did you account for the fact that downstate districts are bleeding population? Those districts will have to expand to account for uneven population shifts.