2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Virginia

[Skill and Chance]

https://twitter.com/samshirazim/status/1461097022551900164?s=20

I was actually discussing Sean Trende as a possible pick on discord a few days ago. He has a history (He just defended the Ohio legislative maps) but surprised because I am not sure how he gets paid enough.

Interesting.  Trende is pretty fair and has been notably anti-Trump.  He is more moderate than RCP as a whole.

[lfromnj]

https://twitter.com/samshirazim/status/1461097022551900164?s=20
I was actually discussing Sean Trende as a possible pick on discord a few days ago. He has a history (He just defended the Ohio legislative maps) but surprised because I am not sure how he gets paid enough.

I didn't know that Sean Trende was actually an R-aligned consultant. That explains a lot of things about RCP, and actually it changes my opinion of the site; I used to think it was a nonpartisan website that was annoyingly slanted to the right, but now it turns out that it is a partisan but rather mild R website.

However it does confirm that he has his thumb on the scale with his poll aggregator, something I've long suspected based on the lack of transparency over which polls are included and which aren't.

As far as I know he hasn't actually drawn any maps for a party yet. He has testified in defense of Republican maps or against Democratic lawsuits against gerrymandering.

https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=911845.pdf

Here is his recent defense of the Ohio maps.

Also Trende actually does have pretty good analysis even if you dislike the rest of RCP.

[Nyvin]

Are the VA GOP trying to goad the VASC to appoint Trende as the R master consultant by nominating two people that are completely unqualified for the role?  I noticed they did this strategy last time by nominating two partisans directly from the national party and then a third guy that was like, kinda sorta okay-ish.   

Basically pick two god awful nominees and then a C-rate nominee so the VASC has no real choice but to pick the C-rate (but still partisan) nominee?

[lfromnj]

https://twitter.com/cbseaman/status/1461116823974424590

[Oryxslayer]

Are the VA GOP trying to goad the VASC to appoint Trende as the R master consultant by nominating two people that are completely unqualified for the role?  I noticed they did this strategy last time by nominating two partisans directly from the national party and then a third guy that was like, kinda sorta okay-ish.  

Basically pick two god awful nominees and then a C-rate nominee so the VASC has no real choice but to pick the C-rate (but still partisan) nominee?

This is basically what they did the first time and the court said gtfo. Trende is on the surface more acceptable then their goaded pick from previously, but trying the same strategy twice might result in the same result twice only now they could be locked out through contempt.

[Devils30]

Are the VA GOP trying to goad the VASC to appoint Trende as the R master consultant by nominating two people that are completely unqualified for the role?  I noticed they did this strategy last time by nominating two partisans directly from the national party and then a third guy that was like, kinda sorta okay-ish.  

Basically pick two god awful nominees and then a C-rate nominee so the VASC has no real choice but to pick the C-rate (but still partisan) nominee?

This is basically what they did the first time and the court said gtfo. Trende is on the surface more acceptable then their goaded pick from previously, but trying the same strategy twice might result in the same result twice only now they could be locked out through contempt.

Trende would be a pretty fair pick, he's been R aligned but not pro-Trump. I could see a Biden +10 VA-2 as it would be the 6th Dem seat in a Biden +10 state and VA-7 becoming a Biden +2-5 type seat.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Are the VA GOP trying to goad the VASC to appoint Trende as the R master consultant by nominating two people that are completely unqualified for the role?  I noticed they did this strategy last time by nominating two partisans directly from the national party and then a third guy that was like, kinda sorta okay-ish.   

Basically pick two god awful nominees and then a C-rate nominee so the VASC has no real choice but to pick the C-rate (but still partisan) nominee?

This is basically what they did the first time and the court said gtfo. Trende is on the surface more acceptable then their goaded pick from previously, but trying the same strategy twice might result in the same result twice only now they could be locked out through contempt.

Trende would be a pretty fair pick, he's been R aligned but not pro-Trump. I could see a Biden +10 VA-2 as it would be the 6th Dem seat in a Biden +10 state and VA-7 becoming a Biden +2-5 type seat.

Trende's track record of actively defending Republican gerrymanders in Court absolutely disqualifies him as an acceptable special master.

[Skill and Chance]

Are the VA GOP trying to goad the VASC to appoint Trende as the R master consultant by nominating two people that are completely unqualified for the role?  I noticed they did this strategy last time by nominating two partisans directly from the national party and then a third guy that was like, kinda sorta okay-ish.  

Basically pick two god awful nominees and then a C-rate nominee so the VASC has no real choice but to pick the C-rate (but still partisan) nominee?

This is basically what they did the first time and the court said gtfo. Trende is on the surface more acceptable then their goaded pick from previously, but trying the same strategy twice might result in the same result twice only now they could be locked out through contempt.

Trende would be a pretty fair pick, he's been R aligned but not pro-Trump. I could see a Biden +10 VA-2 as it would be the 6th Dem seat in a Biden +10 state and VA-7 becoming a Biden +2-5 type seat.

I could see a Biden +10 VA-02 being part of the agreement, but it's very hard to keep VA-07 a Biden seat without it looking like an obvious gerrymander.  A map with 3 safe Dem inner NOVA seats and a narrow Biden->Youngkin outer NOVA seat is plausible, but the incumbents will not like it at all. 

[Dan the Roman]

Are the VA GOP trying to goad the VASC to appoint Trende as the R master consultant by nominating two people that are completely unqualified for the role?  I noticed they did this strategy last time by nominating two partisans directly from the national party and then a third guy that was like, kinda sorta okay-ish.   

Basically pick two god awful nominees and then a C-rate nominee so the VASC has no real choice but to pick the C-rate (but still partisan) nominee?

This is basically what they did the first time and the court said gtfo. Trende is on the surface more acceptable then their goaded pick from previously, but trying the same strategy twice might result in the same result twice only now they could be locked out through contempt.

Trende would be a pretty fair pick, he's been R aligned but not pro-Trump. I could see a Biden +10 VA-2 as it would be the 6th Dem seat in a Biden +10 state and VA-7 becoming a Biden +2-5 type seat.

Trende's track record of actively defending Republican gerrymanders in Court absolutely disqualifies him as an acceptable special master.

TBF Trende didn't defend them. He attacked the effiency gap which tbh he is 100% right on

1. It is ill-defined
2. Unworkable
3. Provides no easy cutoff point for what is and is not constitutional(ie. he concedes you could draw some sort of arbitrary line as with 10% population deviations but in that case states would game the system and every map would end up in court while confused judges listened to competing partisan statisticians producing gibberish) 

The embrace of the efficiency gap was a massive blunder by anti-gerrymandering advocates who should have focused instead on a separation of powers argument (ie. legislature can be checked by referendums but what if referendums require legislative approval? Governors elected by majority vote, but what if they have no veto? Basically argue that North Carolina is unconstitutional not because it is gerrymandered but because there is no recourse due to lack of gubernatorial veto, initiative process, etc . Would have appealed to the Court's preference for never mandating a single remedy)  It was the height of elitism to create a constitutional argument only those with calculus could understand and most of those who actually understood math thought was unworkable.

[lfromnj]

Are the VA GOP trying to goad the VASC to appoint Trende as the R master consultant by nominating two people that are completely unqualified for the role?  I noticed they did this strategy last time by nominating two partisans directly from the national party and then a third guy that was like, kinda sorta okay-ish.  

Basically pick two god awful nominees and then a C-rate nominee so the VASC has no real choice but to pick the C-rate (but still partisan) nominee?

This is basically what they did the first time and the court said gtfo. Trende is on the surface more acceptable then their goaded pick from previously, but trying the same strategy twice might result in the same result twice only now they could be locked out through contempt.

Trende would be a pretty fair pick, he's been R aligned but not pro-Trump. I could see a Biden +10 VA-2 as it would be the 6th Dem seat in a Biden +10 state and VA-7 becoming a Biden +2-5 type seat.

Trende's track record of actively defending Republican gerrymanders in Court absolutely disqualifies him as an acceptable special master.

TBF Trende didn't defend them. He attacked the effiency gap which tbh he is 100% right on

1. It is ill-defined
2. Unworkable
3. Provides no easy cutoff point for what is and is not constitutional(ie. he concedes you could draw some sort of arbitrary line as with 10% population deviations but in that case states would game the system and every map would end up in court while confused judges listened to competing partisan statisticians producing gibberish)  

The embrace of the efficiency gap was a massive blunder by anti-gerrymandering advocates who should have focused instead on a separation of powers argument (ie. legislature can be checked by referendums but what if referendums require legislative approval? Governors elected by majority vote, but what if they have no veto? Basically argue that North Carolina is unconstitutional not because it is gerrymandered but because there is no recourse due to lack of gubernatorial veto, initiative process, etc . Would have appealed to the Court's preference for never mandating a single remedy)  It was the height of elitism to create a constitutional argument only those with calculus could understand and most of those who actually understood math thought was unworkable.

I mean the efficiency gap is just basic arithmetic by itself but yes what you said is correct. The best argument in his brief that Illinois's map would have been considered legal but Indiana was a egregious gerrymander that needed Federal court intervention.

However the other brief I posted was Trende defending the recently Ohio legislative maps as being not a gerrymander in certain locations(noticeably he didn't touch on Dayton )

Overall tough to find too much info on twitter about specific views.

[Skill and Chance]

Are the VA GOP trying to goad the VASC to appoint Trende as the R master consultant by nominating two people that are completely unqualified for the role?  I noticed they did this strategy last time by nominating two partisans directly from the national party and then a third guy that was like, kinda sorta okay-ish.   

Basically pick two god awful nominees and then a C-rate nominee so the VASC has no real choice but to pick the C-rate (but still partisan) nominee?

This is basically what they did the first time and the court said gtfo. Trende is on the surface more acceptable then their goaded pick from previously, but trying the same strategy twice might result in the same result twice only now they could be locked out through contempt.

Trende would be a pretty fair pick, he's been R aligned but not pro-Trump. I could see a Biden +10 VA-2 as it would be the 6th Dem seat in a Biden +10 state and VA-7 becoming a Biden +2-5 type seat.

Trende's track record of actively defending Republican gerrymanders in Court absolutely disqualifies him as an acceptable special master.

TBF Trende didn't defend them. He attacked the effiency gap which tbh he is 100% right on

1. It is ill-defined
2. Unworkable
3. Provides no easy cutoff point for what is and is not constitutional(ie. he concedes you could draw some sort of arbitrary line as with 10% population deviations but in that case states would game the system and every map would end up in court while confused judges listened to competing partisan statisticians producing gibberish) 

The embrace of the efficiency gap was a massive blunder by anti-gerrymandering advocates who should have focused instead on a separation of powers argument (ie. legislature can be checked by referendums but what if referendums require legislative approval? Governors elected by majority vote, but what if they have no veto? Basically argue that North Carolina is unconstitutional not because it is gerrymandered but because there is no recourse due to lack of gubernatorial veto, initiative process, etc . Would have appealed to the Court's preference for never mandating a single remedy)  It was the height of elitism to create a constitutional argument only those with calculus could understand and most of those who actually understood math thought was unworkable.

The efficiency gap was a transparent attempt to force Dem-optimized cracking of cities while maintaining all VRA seats.  It was way too much of a flex for the current court.  Dems probably assumed they would get to replace Scalia or Kennedy by the time it got to SCOTUS.  The 1st Amendment viewpoint discrimination argument from the Maryland R's was noticeably stronger.  You can see it was tempting for Kavanaugh. 

I agree the best approach was to argue that NC, et al. were not giving their residents a "republican form of government" because all power is effectively concentrated in the legislature.  The problem is that would have obviously implicated Maryland Dems (where the legislative maps cannot be vetoed, there is no initiative process, the legislature can block state court appointments, and they have drawn a consistent Dem supermajority for 100 years) and would threaten the Massachusetts and Illinois maps as well.   

Overall, the simple majority veto override/no initiative states do skew R so this still wouldn't have been a bad Dem strategy.  It doesn't fix the Midwestern R maps, though, which was the big focus in the 2010's. 

 

[lfromnj]

Are the VA GOP trying to goad the VASC to appoint Trende as the R master consultant by nominating two people that are completely unqualified for the role?  I noticed they did this strategy last time by nominating two partisans directly from the national party and then a third guy that was like, kinda sorta okay-ish.  

Basically pick two god awful nominees and then a C-rate nominee so the VASC has no real choice but to pick the C-rate (but still partisan) nominee?

This is basically what they did the first time and the court said gtfo. Trende is on the surface more acceptable then their goaded pick from previously, but trying the same strategy twice might result in the same result twice only now they could be locked out through contempt.

Trende would be a pretty fair pick, he's been R aligned but not pro-Trump. I could see a Biden +10 VA-2 as it would be the 6th Dem seat in a Biden +10 state and VA-7 becoming a Biden +2-5 type seat.

Trende's track record of actively defending Republican gerrymanders in Court absolutely disqualifies him as an acceptable special master.

TBF Trende didn't defend them. He attacked the effiency gap which tbh he is 100% right on

1. It is ill-defined
2. Unworkable
3. Provides no easy cutoff point for what is and is not constitutional(ie. he concedes you could draw some sort of arbitrary line as with 10% population deviations but in that case states would game the system and every map would end up in court while confused judges listened to competing partisan statisticians producing gibberish)  

The embrace of the efficiency gap was a massive blunder by anti-gerrymandering advocates who should have focused instead on a separation of powers argument (ie. legislature can be checked by referendums but what if referendums require legislative approval? Governors elected by majority vote, but what if they have no veto? Basically argue that North Carolina is unconstitutional not because it is gerrymandered but because there is no recourse due to lack of gubernatorial veto, initiative process, etc . Would have appealed to the Court's preference for never mandating a single remedy)  It was the height of elitism to create a constitutional argument only those with calculus could understand and most of those who actually understood math thought was unworkable.

The efficiency gap was a transparent attempt to force Dem-optimized cracking of cities while maintaining all VRA seats.  It was way too much of a flex for the current court.  Dems probably assumed they would get to replace Scalia or Kennedy by the time it got to SCOTUS.  The 1st Amendment viewpoint discrimination argument from the Maryland R's was noticeably stronger.  You can see it was tempting for Kavanaugh.  

I agree the best approach was to argue that NC, et al. were not giving their residents a "republican form of government" because all power is effectively concentrated in the legislature.  The problem is that would have obviously implicated Maryland Dems (where the legislative maps cannot be vetoed, there is no initiative process, the legislature can block state court appointments, and they have drawn a consistent Dem supermajority for 100 years) and would threaten the Massachusetts and Illinois maps as well.    

Overall, the simple majority veto override/no initiative states do skew R so this still wouldn't have been a bad Dem strategy.  It doesn't fix the Midwestern R maps, though, which was the big focus in the 2010's.  

  

Rucho also used the 1st amendment clause.
Well there were 2 parts to the lawsuits.

Is partisan gerrymandering illegal?

If it is illegal what should be used to stop it?
"Efficiency gap?
"I know it when I see it?"
other methods?

The plaintiffs somewhat had an argument that may have gotten Roberts/Kavanaugh's attention but it wasn't enough to establish it as illegal. However when it came to the so called tests Roberts flat out called them gobbledygook.

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/marcussimon/status/1461746307308134403?s=20

[Dan the Roman]

Are the VA GOP trying to goad the VASC to appoint Trende as the R master consultant by nominating two people that are completely unqualified for the role?  I noticed they did this strategy last time by nominating two partisans directly from the national party and then a third guy that was like, kinda sorta okay-ish.  

Basically pick two god awful nominees and then a C-rate nominee so the VASC has no real choice but to pick the C-rate (but still partisan) nominee?

This is basically what they did the first time and the court said gtfo. Trende is on the surface more acceptable then their goaded pick from previously, but trying the same strategy twice might result in the same result twice only now they could be locked out through contempt.

Trende would be a pretty fair pick, he's been R aligned but not pro-Trump. I could see a Biden +10 VA-2 as it would be the 6th Dem seat in a Biden +10 state and VA-7 becoming a Biden +2-5 type seat.

Trende's track record of actively defending Republican gerrymanders in Court absolutely disqualifies him as an acceptable special master.

TBF Trende didn't defend them. He attacked the effiency gap which tbh he is 100% right on

1. It is ill-defined
2. Unworkable
3. Provides no easy cutoff point for what is and is not constitutional(ie. he concedes you could draw some sort of arbitrary line as with 10% population deviations but in that case states would game the system and every map would end up in court while confused judges listened to competing partisan statisticians producing gibberish)  

The embrace of the efficiency gap was a massive blunder by anti-gerrymandering advocates who should have focused instead on a separation of powers argument (ie. legislature can be checked by referendums but what if referendums require legislative approval? Governors elected by majority vote, but what if they have no veto? Basically argue that North Carolina is unconstitutional not because it is gerrymandered but because there is no recourse due to lack of gubernatorial veto, initiative process, etc . Would have appealed to the Court's preference for never mandating a single remedy)  It was the height of elitism to create a constitutional argument only those with calculus could understand and most of those who actually understood math thought was unworkable.

The efficiency gap was a transparent attempt to force Dem-optimized cracking of cities while maintaining all VRA seats.  It was way too much of a flex for the current court.  Dems probably assumed they would get to replace Scalia or Kennedy by the time it got to SCOTUS.  The 1st Amendment viewpoint discrimination argument from the Maryland R's was noticeably stronger.  You can see it was tempting for Kavanaugh.  

I agree the best approach was to argue that NC, et al. were not giving their residents a "republican form of government" because all power is effectively concentrated in the legislature.  The problem is that would have obviously implicated Maryland Dems (where the legislative maps cannot be vetoed, there is no initiative process, the legislature can block state court appointments, and they have drawn a consistent Dem supermajority for 100 years) and would threaten the Massachusetts and Illinois maps as well.    

Overall, the simple majority veto override/no initiative states do skew R so this still wouldn't have been a bad Dem strategy.  It doesn't fix the Midwestern R maps, though, which was the big focus in the 2010's.  

  

Rucho also used the 1st amendment clause.
Well there were 2 parts to the lawsuits.

Is partisan gerrymandering illegal?

If it is illegal what should be used to stop it?
"Efficiency gap?
"I know it when I see it?"
other methods?

The plaintiffs somewhat had an argument that may have gotten Roberts/Kavanaugh's attention but it wasn't enough to establish it as illegal. However when it came to the so called tests Roberts flat out called them gobbledygook.

The error was missing the clear signal that unless they provided a clear answer to the second question Roberts would never vote for the first. And in fact Kennedy said in Vieth exactly that. Namely that partisan gerrymandering might be subject to review, but only if there could be a clear standard that wouldn't simply result in judges drawing all maps.

They had a decade to meet that challenge and they kind of flubbed it. It was never going to be math, and it was never going to be an exact thing. This court pretty clearly hates writing policy. It likes telling states and the federal government what they can't do, not what they have to do. So the only way they were going to get anywhere was with a standard which was

1. Clear
2. Nonpartisan
3. Negative

Which is why I felt the "Republican Form of Government" was a very nice one which would provide a way for the Court to set "limits" on partisan gerrymandering, without taking over redistricting. Because the center of the court clearly was a combination of

1. Partisan Gerrymandering to some degree is not unconstitutional
2. There probably is a point beyond which it likely becomes so

Hence the court was favorable to limiting, not abolishing gerrymandering. Instead the plaintiffs demanded it be abolished.

[Sestak]

https://twitter.com/marcussimon/status/1461746307308134403?s=20

Rip any chance of half-decent maps. The laser eyes win another one.

[lfromnj]

Are the VA GOP trying to goad the VASC to appoint Trende as the R master consultant by nominating two people that are completely unqualified for the role?  I noticed they did this strategy last time by nominating two partisans directly from the national party and then a third guy that was like, kinda sorta okay-ish.  

Basically pick two god awful nominees and then a C-rate nominee so the VASC has no real choice but to pick the C-rate (but still partisan) nominee?

This is basically what they did the first time and the court said gtfo. Trende is on the surface more acceptable then their goaded pick from previously, but trying the same strategy twice might result in the same result twice only now they could be locked out through contempt.

Yeah Thomas Bryan was definetely acceptable from a credentialed point of view.  The other 2 were fairly joke picks. The difference between Trende and Bryan is that Bryan worked directy for the VA GOP which seemed too direct, while Trende has only testified for other state parties.

[Torie]

Trende was and is a brilliant choice foe the Pubs. He will kill in the crib any arithmetic hocus pocus voodo argumentation from the Dem expert in the name of making the map more "fair" for the Dems, and COI spin. Congrats to Sean.

[lfromnj]

https://twitter.com/SeanTrende/status/1461758918728769537

lol.

So seems like he wants to finish the maps quickly.

[Devils30]

https://twitter.com/SeanTrende/status/1461758918728769537

lol

Trende is a never Trumper type, I wouldn't bet on him being too kind toward Amanda Chase in VA-7.

[Antonio the Sixth]

https://twitter.com/SeanTrende/status/1461758918728769537

lol

Trende is a never Trumper type, I wouldn't bet on him being too kind toward Amanda Chase in VA-7.

A Republican hack is a Republican hack. They always choose party over principles.

[Nyvin]

IMO VA-1 and VA-7 are the only two districts that really matter.   VA-2 is going to be somewhere around tossup in any map that's made.

[Skill and Chance]

https://twitter.com/SeanTrende/status/1461758918728769537

lol

Trende is a never Trumper type, I wouldn't bet on him being too kind toward Amanda Chase in VA-7.

IIRC

1. He's really not into maps that split counties/municipalities more than absolutely necessary.
2. He's ideologically somewhere between Youngkin and Romney, definitely not a Trumpist.
3. He would likely prefer to draw more districts winnable for traditionalist outer suburbs R's vs. rural populists.

#1 would help D's significantly in the HoD because their college towns downstate are all currently cracked and help R's significantly in the State Senate, because there's a bunch of Fairfax to Loudoun/PWC/Stafford crossings in NOVA on the current map and D's got nowhere in outer NOVA narrow Biden seats in 2021.  Also the SWVA Dem seat is drawn to connect as many college towns as possible.  They are too small to control a district in the upper chamber, so if it becomes a compact Roanoke seat, it becomes Likely R.  

On the congressional level, he could be very tempted to do the all-Fairfax VA-11+all-PWC safe Dem seat+Loudoun to the mountains Lean R narrow Biden+yuge Youngkin seat.  Similarly, there could be a way to do a Trump+3/Youngkin +15 version of VA-07?

[Mr.Phips]

https://twitter.com/SeanTrende/status/1461758918728769537

lol

Trende is a never Trumper type, I wouldn't bet on him being too kind toward Amanda Chase in VA-7.

IIRC

1. He's really not into maps that split counties/municipalities more than absolutely necessary.
2. He's ideologically somewhere between Youngkin and Romney, definitely not a Trumpist.
3. He would likely prefer to draw more districts winnable for traditionalist outer suburbs R's vs. rural populists.

#1 would help D's significantly in the HoD because their college towns downstate are all currently cracked and help R's significantly in the State Senate, because there's a bunch of Fairfax to Loudoun/PWC/Stafford crossings in NOVA on the current map and D's got nowhere in outer NOVA narrow Biden seats in 2021.  Also the SWVA Dem seat is drawn to connect as many college towns as possible.  They are too small to control a district in the upper chamber, so if it becomes a compact Roanoke seat, it becomes Likely R.  

On the congressional level, he could be very tempted to do the all-Fairfax VA-11+all-PWC safe Dem seat+Loudoun to the mountains Lean R narrow Biden+yuge Youngkin seat.  Similarly, there could be a way to do a Trump+3/Youngkin +15 version of VA-07?

That’s three safe Dem seats in NOVA right?  Fairfax, PWC, Arlington, and Alexandria have enough population for 2.5 districts.

[Torie]

https://twitter.com/SeanTrende/status/1461758918728769537
lol.

So seems like he wants to finish the maps quickly.

30 days is a legal deadline.

[Torie]

https://twitter.com/SeanTrende/status/1461758918728769537
lol

Trende is a never Trumper type, I wouldn't bet on him being too kind toward Amanda Chase in VA-7.

IIRC

1. He's really not into maps that split counties/municipalities more than absolutely necessary.
2. He's ideologically somewhere between Youngkin and Romney, definitely not a Trumpist.
3. He would likely prefer to draw more districts winnable for traditionalist outer suburbs R's vs. rural populists.

#1 would help D's significantly in the HoD because their college towns downstate are all currently cracked and help R's significantly in the State Senate, because there's a bunch of Fairfax to Loudoun/PWC/Stafford crossings in NOVA on the current map and D's got nowhere in outer NOVA narrow Biden seats in 2021.  Also the SWVA Dem seat is drawn to connect as many college towns as possible.  They are too small to control a district in the upper chamber, so if it becomes a compact Roanoke seat, it becomes Likely R.  

On the congressional level, he could be very tempted to do the all-Fairfax VA-11+all-PWC safe Dem seat+Loudoun to the mountains Lean R narrow Biden+yuge Youngkin seat.  Similarly, there could be a way to do a Trump+3/Youngkin +15 version of VA-07?

On this one Trende is going to be a technocrat nerd who is not naive of the partisan games. What he will not do is gerrymander to make a map "fair," except where matters are otherwise close to equipoise. Trende and moi I suspect have the same kind of mindset on this stuff, for better or worse.