2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Indiana

[voice_of_resistance]

Could an Ohio River COI be considered legitimate? Puts those Butternut Dems in a nicely-fitted arrangement that is pretty stable at 7-2. From a map purely based on COI and not incumbency, this is a decent configuration imo.

IN-01: D+5 (3 points more R), Mrvan
IN-02: R+10 (1 point more D), Walorski
IN-03: R+17 (1 point more D), Banks
IN-04: R+18 (1 point more R), Baird
IN-05: R+10 (1 point more R), Spartz
IN-06: R+16 (2 points more D), Pence
IN-07: D+11 (no change), Carson
IN-08: R+14 (1 point more D), OPEN
IN-09: R+14 (1 point more R), Bucshon/Hollingsworth

 

[TML]

Is it legal, or at least physically possible to draw a 9R-0D map in Indiana? It's legal to draw 18D-0R or 17D-0R maps in Illinois.

probably legal, definitely inadvisable.  Also Illinois can't do that.  3 black and 1 hispanic vra seat are mandated.  Once you take those out, IL is much less blue and an 18-0 map could massively backfire and republicans could win a majority in a midterm election.  Also it would be visually appalling.

Somebody supposedly created a 18D-0R VRA-compliant Illinois map with 3 AA and 1 Hispanic. What does a 9R-0D Indiana map look like?
https://twitter.com/BadElectionMaps/status/1212909359572881408

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/indiana/#GOP

[I’m not Stu]

I did a Republican gerrymander of Indiana. Check out my Garymander of Gary.

My 9R-0D Indiana GOP gerrrymander:



Indianapolis:



Gary:

[S019]

You can get away with splitting Gary, and I expect R's to do it, but splitting Marion is much riskier. Your 1st or 2nd could be vulnerable in a wave or with a bad candidate. 8-1 is a much safer play than 9-0. Plus this ugly map probably leads to calls for reform, which the INGOP doesn't want, you can split Lake in much cleaner ways than you did, as well. 9-0 is very unlikely for all of these reasons.

[I’m not Stu]

You can get away with splitting Gary, and I expect R's to do it, but splitting Marion is much riskier. Your 1st or 2nd could be vulnerable in a wave or with a bad candidate. 8-1 is a much safer play than 9-0. Plus this ugly map probably leads to calls for reform, which the INGOP doesn't want, you can split Lake in much cleaner ways than you did, as well. 9-0 is very unlikely for all of these reasons.

Look what I did to Gary on my 9R-0D map. Look at the purple district.

[Oryxslayer]

I did a Republican gerrymander of Indiana. Check out my Garymander of Gary.

My 9R-0D Indiana GOP gerrrymander:



Indianapolis:



Gary:

Ultimate snakemanders like this, or more famously the 27-0 2010 NY map, are not really realistic. I'm also not sure the way how they often use water continuity would be seen as legal, since there is no bridge or connecting identity between the two concerned areas. However, snakemanders serve a vital point, and that is to prove just how brutal a party could be if they threw not just the kitchen sink but every nearby appliance at denying the opposition power. They also help illustrate various geographic advantages, such as Wassermans WI pvi puzzle.

[voice_of_resistance]

Yeah, I doubt the IN GOP will actually remove IN-01, as it is still pretty heavily D. As my map did, they could weaken it to some degree but make it so that Mrvan could lose in a heavy R year. 7-2 is probably stable enough, if they really wanted to push their luck they could do 8-1, but 9-0 is probably a nonstarter.

[Idaho Conservative]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/f58221b3-1583-4e60-84c0-56143792c47c
I haven't seen anyone attempt a 9-1 splitting Indy so I'll try.  Here we pack NW IN and since Indy is central, it's easier to crack.  Pretty sure every red district is at least Trump+20, enough to be safe.  Even if Marion swings another 10 pts dem, the map would likely hold, most districts have small slices.  The red district is majority Marion, but contains inner city areas that are maxxed out and the south of the county which trended R in 2016.  Ik muh trends are popular on this forum, but all republican districts are to the right of the state and the district which I suspect is the only one that trended D in 2016 is R+14.  
To be clear, I prefer a 9-1 cracking Lake county, it is losing population and trending R.  Safer bet.  But I think this map would hold fine.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Yeah, I doubt the IN GOP will actually remove IN-01, as it is still pretty heavily D. As my map did, they could weaken it to some degree but make it so that Mrvan could lose in a heavy R year. 7-2 is probably stable enough, if they really wanted to push their luck they could do 8-1, but 9-0 is probably a nonstarter.

They could just stick him in an D+1 or so district and hope he loses to a strong R challenger in the next wave. That wouldn't be a bad idea.

[I’m not Stu]

You can get away with splitting Gary, and I expect R's to do it, but splitting Marion is much riskier. Your 1st or 2nd could be vulnerable in a wave or with a bad candidate. 8-1 is a much safer play than 9-0. Plus this ugly map probably leads to calls for reform, which the INGOP doesn't want, you can split Lake in much cleaner ways than you did, as well. 9-0 is very unlikely for all of these reasons.

I don't care how cleanly Lake is split. I just wanted 9-0.

[Idaho Conservative]

Yeah, I doubt the IN GOP will actually remove IN-01, as it is still pretty heavily D. As my map did, they could weaken it to some degree but make it so that Mrvan could lose in a heavy R year. 7-2 is probably stable enough, if they really wanted to push their luck they could do 8-1, but 9-0 is probably a nonstarter.

They could just stick him in an D+1 or so district and hope he loses to a strong R challenger in the next wave. That wouldn't be a bad idea.

why not 8-1?  If 9-0 is plausible, 8-1 is easy.

[Idaho Conservative]

9-1 and IN-1 is R+7.  It's doable.

[Former President tack50]

Ok, here is an interesting map I made. This map is a Republican gerrymander where instead of making one of the Dem districts Safe R, instead I tried to make both tossup districts.

I also tried to make the districts look relatively normal and not absolutely disgusting so that the general public does not complain. The biggest part of this is keeping Lake County whole even if you are going to try to make that district a tossup.

Anyways here is the map:



https://davesredistricting.org/join/263e4e67-8dbf-4e0e-9c98-6ee3f394bda9

IN-01: D+1; 52D-48R
IN-02: R+10; 42D-58R
IN-03: R+13; 39D-61R
IN-04: R+10; 41D-59R
IN-05: R+12; 40D-60R
IN-06: R+9; 42D-58R
IN-07: R+2; 50D-50R
IN-08: R+14; 38D-62R
IN-09: R+14; 38D-62R

Surprisingly the Indianapolis seat is more winnable for Republicans than the Gary seat, though I suppose the former is trending D while the latter is trending R?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Yeah, I doubt the IN GOP will actually remove IN-01, as it is still pretty heavily D. As my map did, they could weaken it to some degree but make it so that Mrvan could lose in a heavy R year. 7-2 is probably stable enough, if they really wanted to push their luck they could do 8-1, but 9-0 is probably a nonstarter.

They could just stick him in an D+1 or so district and hope he loses to a strong R challenger in the next wave. That wouldn't be a bad idea.

why not 8-1?  If 9-0 is plausible, 8-1 is easy.

But I don't agree with either statement.

[Mr.Phips]

Ok, here is an interesting map I made. This map is a Republican gerrymander where instead of making one of the Dem districts Safe R, instead I tried to make both tossup districts.

I also tried to make the districts look relatively normal and not absolutely disgusting so that the general public does not complain. The biggest part of this is keeping Lake County whole even if you are going to try to make that district a tossup.

Anyways here is the map:



https://davesredistricting.org/join/263e4e67-8dbf-4e0e-9c98-6ee3f394bda9

IN-01: D+1; 52D-48R
IN-02: R+10; 42D-58R
IN-03: R+13; 39D-61R
IN-04: R+10; 41D-59R
IN-05: R+12; 40D-60R
IN-06: R+9; 42D-58R
IN-07: R+2; 50D-50R
IN-08: R+14; 38D-62R
IN-09: R+14; 38D-62R

Surprisingly the Indianapolis seat is more winnable for Republicans than the Gary seat, though I suppose the former is trending D while the latter is trending R?

That IN-07 would not be R+2 for very long and could jeopardize the 4th and 6th down the line.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Now, I still would not advise an 9R-0D given how risky it would be, but if one had to make as close as possible to one, this is how I'd do it.

This is not a 9R-0D map - this is a 8R-1Swing - but still this is the most R possible version of a clean, compact IN-01 in terms of PVI. And Andre Carson would have an uphill fight for re-election in any of the seats. (I suspect he'd run in the 7th, personally - almost half of it is in Marion County)
https://davesredistricting.org/join/ccda80fe-646a-41a4-a4da-2501dc5b5b69

[Sol]

Now, I still would not advise an 9R-0D given how risky it would be, but if one had to make as close as possible to one, this is how I'd do it.

This is not a 9R-0D map - this is a 8R-1Swing - but still this is the most R possible version of a clean, compact IN-01 in terms of PVI. And Andre Carson would have an uphill fight for re-election in any of the seats. (I suspect he'd run in the 7th, personally - almost half of it is in Marion County)
https://davesredistricting.org/join/ccda80fe-646a-41a4-a4da-2501dc5b5b69

The Bloody 8th makes its glorious return!

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Now, I still would not advise an 9R-0D given how risky it would be, but if one had to make as close as possible to one, this is how I'd do it.

This is not a 9R-0D map - this is a 8R-1Swing - but still this is the most R possible version of a clean, compact IN-01 in terms of PVI. And Andre Carson would have an uphill fight for re-election in any of the seats. (I suspect he'd run in the 7th, personally - almost half of it is in Marion County)
https://davesredistricting.org/join/ccda80fe-646a-41a4-a4da-2501dc5b5b69

The Bloody 8th makes its glorious return!

Indeed.
I could see that seat being Dem in 2018. It has a heavily D slice of Marion, as well as Bloomington and Vigo County. Together those are almost half of the CD.
If pro-D trends in Marion continue and Ds gain in the rural areas, it is quite close of a district.

[lfromnj]

Now, I still would not advise an 9R-0D given how risky it would be, but if one had to make as close as possible to one, this is how I'd do it.

This is not a 9R-0D map - this is a 8R-1Swing - but still this is the most R possible version of a clean, compact IN-01 in terms of PVI. And Andre Carson would have an uphill fight for re-election in any of the seats. (I suspect he'd run in the 7th, personally - almost half of it is in Marion County)
https://davesredistricting.org/join/ccda80fe-646a-41a4-a4da-2501dc5b5b69

The Bloody 8th makes its glorious return!

Indeed.
I could see that seat being Dem in 2018. It has a heavily D slice of Marion, as well as Bloomington and Vigo County. Together those are almost half of the CD.
If pro-D trends in Marion continue and Ds gain in the rural areas, it is quite close of a district.

Actually most of Marions D trend comes from the north side, the south side is more exurban and actually WWC and trending R, Indiana 7th actually swung 4 points right.

[Idaho Conservative]

Yeah, I doubt the IN GOP will actually remove IN-01, as it is still pretty heavily D. As my map did, they could weaken it to some degree but make it so that Mrvan could lose in a heavy R year. 7-2 is probably stable enough, if they really wanted to push their luck they could do 8-1, but 9-0 is probably a nonstarter.

They could just stick him in an D+1 or so district and hope he loses to a strong R challenger in the next wave. That wouldn't be a bad idea.

why not 8-1?  If 9-0 is plausible, 8-1 is easy.

But I don't agree with either statement.

Indiana is Trump+19, you can make a map where every district is at least double digits for Trump.  Risky, but it would likely end up working. 

[Oryxslayer]

Yeah, I doubt the IN GOP will actually remove IN-01, as it is still pretty heavily D. As my map did, they could weaken it to some degree but make it so that Mrvan could lose in a heavy R year. 7-2 is probably stable enough, if they really wanted to push their luck they could do 8-1, but 9-0 is probably a nonstarter.

They could just stick him in an D+1 or so district and hope he loses to a strong R challenger in the next wave. That wouldn't be a bad idea.

why not 8-1?  If 9-0 is plausible, 8-1 is easy.

But I don't agree with either statement.

Indiana is Trump+19, you can make a map where every district is at least double digits for Trump.  Risky, but it would likely end up working. 

This applies to everyone who is drawing maps for states without an unbiased citizen-led commission: Partisanship is not the only concern when drawing districts, and is sometimes not the most important. Incumbents or legislative allies can and will level demands that oftentimes cannot be ignored without making enemies out of some faction of your caucus, who in time may enact their revenge. Mappers may have geographic or cultural biases and draw maps to those groups favor - as seen in Louisiana 2010 and the Northern-favoring state GOP leadership. Sometimes states fear outside action, be that citizen referendum or the DOJ back before Shelby, and maybe once again if a Biden trifecta creates modern section 4 guidelines for our data driven era.

The only real times when partisanship is the only factor in redistricting is when the mappers fear for their political lives - best seen in the last maps Georgia and Texas democrats put into law.

[Idaho Conservative]

Yeah, I doubt the IN GOP will actually remove IN-01, as it is still pretty heavily D. As my map did, they could weaken it to some degree but make it so that Mrvan could lose in a heavy R year. 7-2 is probably stable enough, if they really wanted to push their luck they could do 8-1, but 9-0 is probably a nonstarter.

They could just stick him in an D+1 or so district and hope he loses to a strong R challenger in the next wave. That wouldn't be a bad idea.

why not 8-1?  If 9-0 is plausible, 8-1 is easy.

But I don't agree with either statement.

Indiana is Trump+19, you can make a map where every district is at least double digits for Trump.  Risky, but it would likely end up working. 

This applies to everyone who is drawing maps for states without an unbiased citizen-led commission: Partisanship is not the only concern when drawing districts, and is sometimes not the most important. Incumbents or legislative allies can and will level demands that oftentimes cannot be ignored without making enemies out of some faction of your caucus, who in time may enact their revenge. Mappers may have geographic or cultural biases and draw maps to those groups favor - as seen in Louisiana 2010 and the Northern-favoring state GOP leadership. Sometimes states fear outside action, be that citizen referendum or the DOJ back before Shelby, and maybe once again if a Biden trifecta creates modern section 4 guidelines for our data driven era.

The only real times when partisanship is the only factor in redistricting is when the mappers fear for their political lives - best seen in the last maps Georgia and Texas democrats put into law.

I know there are other concerns.  My point is, 9=0 is mathematically possible, so the GOP should try for 8-1 or at the very least 7-1-1. But 8-1 is possible where the only R seat that's competitive is IN-1, incumbent homes staying  their districts, and it isn't extremely ugly.  Also, Pete Visclosky is retiring, so in 2022 Republicans would be running against a freshman dem (Frank Mrvan), who should be easier to defeat than an entrenched incumbent.  Especially if IN-1 trends R again in 2020, the seat is gone. 

[I’m not Stu]

Yeah, I doubt the IN GOP will actually remove IN-01, as it is still pretty heavily D. As my map did, they could weaken it to some degree but make it so that Mrvan could lose in a heavy R year. 7-2 is probably stable enough, if they really wanted to push their luck they could do 8-1, but 9-0 is probably a nonstarter.

They could just stick him in an D+1 or so district and hope he loses to a strong R challenger in the next wave. That wouldn't be a bad idea.

why not 8-1?  If 9-0 is plausible, 8-1 is easy.

But I don't agree with either statement.

Indiana is Trump+19, you can make a map where every district is at least double digits for Trump.  Risky, but it would likely end up working.  

This applies to everyone who is drawing maps for states without an unbiased citizen-led commission: Partisanship is not the only concern when drawing districts, and is sometimes not the most important. Incumbents or legislative allies can and will level demands that oftentimes cannot be ignored without making enemies out of some faction of your caucus, who in time may enact their revenge. Mappers may have geographic or cultural biases and draw maps to those groups favor - as seen in Louisiana 2010 and the Northern-favoring state GOP leadership. Sometimes states fear outside action, be that citizen referendum or the DOJ back before Shelby, and maybe once again if a Biden trifecta creates modern section 4 guidelines for our data driven era.

The only real times when partisanship is the only factor in redistricting is when the mappers fear for their political lives - best seen in the last maps Georgia and Texas democrats put into law.

I know there are other concerns.  My point is, 9=0 is mathematically possible, so the GOP should try for 8-1 or at the very least 7-1-1. But 8-1 is possible where the only R seat that's competitive is IN-1, incumbent homes staying  their districts, and it isn't extremely ugly.  Also, Pete Visclosky is retiring, so in 2022 Republicans would be running against a freshman dem (Frank Mrvan), who should be easier to defeat than an entrenched incumbent.  Especially if IN-1 trends R again in 2020, the seat is gone.  

Updated my map. Every seat at least R+11. My map would likely hold up with no risk of backfiring. No seat is R+10 or less.

1: R+11, 2: R+11, 3: R+11, 4:R+11, 5: R+12, 6: R+20, 7: R+30, 8: R+24, 9: R+14

[Idaho Conservative]

Yeah, I doubt the IN GOP will actually remove IN-01, as it is still pretty heavily D. As my map did, they could weaken it to some degree but make it so that Mrvan could lose in a heavy R year. 7-2 is probably stable enough, if they really wanted to push their luck they could do 8-1, but 9-0 is probably a nonstarter.

They could just stick him in an D+1 or so district and hope he loses to a strong R challenger in the next wave. That wouldn't be a bad idea.

why not 8-1?  If 9-0 is plausible, 8-1 is easy.

But I don't agree with either statement.

Indiana is Trump+19, you can make a map where every district is at least double digits for Trump.  Risky, but it would likely end up working.  

This applies to everyone who is drawing maps for states without an unbiased citizen-led commission: Partisanship is not the only concern when drawing districts, and is sometimes not the most important. Incumbents or legislative allies can and will level demands that oftentimes cannot be ignored without making enemies out of some faction of your caucus, who in time may enact their revenge. Mappers may have geographic or cultural biases and draw maps to those groups favor - as seen in Louisiana 2010 and the Northern-favoring state GOP leadership. Sometimes states fear outside action, be that citizen referendum or the DOJ back before Shelby, and maybe once again if a Biden trifecta creates modern section 4 guidelines for our data driven era.

The only real times when partisanship is the only factor in redistricting is when the mappers fear for their political lives - best seen in the last maps Georgia and Texas democrats put into law.

I know there are other concerns.  My point is, 9=0 is mathematically possible, so the GOP should try for 8-1 or at the very least 7-1-1. But 8-1 is possible where the only R seat that's competitive is IN-1, incumbent homes staying  their districts, and it isn't extremely ugly.  Also, Pete Visclosky is retiring, so in 2022 Republicans would be running against a freshman dem (Frank Mrvan), who should be easier to defeat than an entrenched incumbent.  Especially if IN-1 trends R again in 2020, the seat is gone.  

Updated my map. Every seat at least R+11. My map would likely hold up with no risk of backfiring. No seat is R+10 or less.

1: R+11, 2: R+11, 3: R+11, 4:R+11, 5: R+12, 6: R+20, 7: R+30, 8: R+24, 9: R+14

Impressive, but draws incumbents out of their districts.  An 8-1 would be safer, cleaner, and satisfy incumbents.

[Idaho Conservative]

To all those insisting an 8-1 isn't doable, what's wrong with this map?  Protects incumbents, shores up IN-5, not ugly, and IN-1 is now lean R at worst.  Unless you think Baird, Banks, and Bucshon would object to representing R+12 districts Trump won by over 20 points......  Also, Hollingsworth gets a slightly safer district. 
1. R+6
2. R+11
3. R+12
4. R+12
5. R+12
6. R+19 (most of Hamilton county is now in the reddest district, this map can survive trends if they continue)
7. D+17
8. R+12
9. R+14