2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Indiana

[Idaho Conservative]

3 Potential maps:
7R-2D Incumbent protection map. Every R district is at least R+14.  https://davesredistricting.org/join/af569b09-a05a-4fae-bfe6-d5307c7f82d2

8R-1D Indianapolis to Lake County Pack.  Every R district is at least R+11. (best bet for the GOP) https://davesredistricting.org/join/ff97355d-01d9-4dc1-8f18-f9ace6dcf929

8R-1D Crack Lake County.  Every R district is at least R+8. (some dummymander risk) https://davesredistricting.org/join/bdea785e-cc11-4720-b27f-5155dbd86090

[Idaho Conservative]

This is a state where it appears to be possible to make all 9 districts strongly R-leaning:

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

Does anyone think this map could come to pass?

Nope, because the trends are clear on every level in Indianapolis. They just have to look at Ohio who tried this in 2000 and got burned, and that was before Colombia became a Sapphire. Like I said above, Pence gave Trump his VP bounce here, which masks a slightly more Dem baseline in regards to PVI, which 538 used exclusively.

True, but an 8-1 map is quite feasible.  Like I drew.

[Idaho Conservative]

This is a state where it appears to be possible to make all 9 districts strongly R-leaning:

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

Does anyone think this map could come to pass?

Nope, because the trends are clear on every level in Indianapolis. They just have to look at Ohio who tried this in 2000 and got burned, and that was before Colombia became a Sapphire. Like I said above, Pence gave Trump his VP bounce here, which masks a slightly more Dem baseline in regards to PVI, which 538 used exclusively.

True, but an 8-1 map is quite feasible.  Like I drew.

The most common response (is it on this thread too?) is that Republican congressmen would prefer not to have to deal with Lake County or Gary and leave them their own district.

If Indiana had to lose a district, they might feel differently.

Well I packed the most dem portions of lake, but it's true that concerns are more than just about the partisan makeup of the delegation, also wishes of congress members. But on my map, Lake is only split 2 ways, between IN-1  (now r+11) and IN-7 (now D+25).  No incumbent R would be forced to run in Lake County.  Just a new R candidate for a newly republican seat. https://davesredistricting.org/join/ff97355d-01d9-4dc1-8f18-f9ace6dcf929

[Idaho Conservative]

This is a state where it appears to be possible to make all 9 districts strongly R-leaning:

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

Does anyone think this map could come to pass?

Nope, because the trends are clear on every level in Indianapolis. They just have to look at Ohio who tried this in 2000 and got burned, and that was before Colombia became a Sapphire. Like I said above, Pence gave Trump his VP bounce here, which masks a slightly more Dem baseline in regards to PVI, which 538 used exclusively.

True, but an 8-1 map is quite feasible.  Like I drew.

The most common response (is it on this thread too?) is that Republican congressmen would prefer not to have to deal with Lake County or Gary and leave them their own district.

If Indiana had to lose a district, they might feel differently.

Well I packed the most dem portions of lake, but it's true that concerns are more than just about the partisan makeup of the delegation, also wishes of congress members. But on my map, Lake is only split 2 ways, between IN-1  (now r+11) and IN-7 (now D+25).  No incumbent R would be forced to run in Lake County.  Just a new R candidate for a newly republican seat. https://davesredistricting.org/join/ff97355d-01d9-4dc1-8f18-f9ace6dcf929

I think this map might be vulnerable to challenge on VRA grounds for over-packing black voters.

My Dem pack is only 40% black tho.  R's would just have to be clear it was done for partisan reasons, not racial.  Also, while the federal courts won't throw out all the requirements for vra districts, more conservative courts will be more likely to uphold districts like these which don't eliminate black districts.  Packing is easier to justify than cracking.  R's won't get away with destroying AL-7 or TX-34, but conservative judges might allow them to get away with higher minority percentages.

[Idaho Conservative]

This is a state where it appears to be possible to make all 9 districts strongly R-leaning:

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

Does anyone think this map could come to pass?

Nope, because the trends are clear on every level in Indianapolis. They just have to look at Ohio who tried this in 2000 and got burned, and that was before Colombia became a Sapphire. Like I said above, Pence gave Trump his VP bounce here, which masks a slightly more Dem baseline in regards to PVI, which 538 used exclusively.

True, but an 8-1 map is quite feasible.  Like I drew.

The most common response (is it on this thread too?) is that Republican congressmen would prefer not to have to deal with Lake County or Gary and leave them their own district.

If Indiana had to lose a district, they might feel differently.

Well I packed the most dem portions of lake, but it's true that concerns are more than just about the partisan makeup of the delegation, also wishes of congress members. But on my map, Lake is only split 2 ways, between IN-1  (now r+11) and IN-7 (now D+25).  No incumbent R would be forced to run in Lake County.  Just a new R candidate for a newly republican seat. https://davesredistricting.org/join/ff97355d-01d9-4dc1-8f18-f9ace6dcf929

I think this map might be vulnerable to challenge on VRA grounds for over-packing black voters.

My Dem pack is only 40% black tho.  R's would just have to be clear it was done for partisan reasons, not racial.  Also, while the federal courts won't throw out all the requirements for vra districts, more conservative courts will be more likely to uphold districts like these which don't eliminate black districts.  Packing is easier to justify than cracking.  R's won't get away with destroying AL-7 or TX-34, but conservative judges might allow them to get away with higher minority percentages.

The thing is, it's likely some parties will prefer to play it safer for fear of getting their map stuck down and have a court draw a map that's quite unfavourable to them.

Then the legislature could redraw it to meet the court criteria.

[Idaho Conservative]

Although I hope that the IN GOP doesn't draw out the 1st, I think it's maybe wishful thinking to imagine that they'd sacrifice a seat just because having Gary in the seat of a Republican would be so undesirable. Republicans did similar things to Lansing and Columbus, for example. And Jim Baird is pretty new in Congress and can probably be f[inks]ed around with.

Probably the biggest obstacle to destroying the 1st honestly is the general historical swinginess of Indiana. Although it is definitely a right-wing state voters here are still more persuadable than in Kentucky or Tennessee, and it was only a little over 10 years ago that Obama won the state. Coalitions inevitably realign and Midwesterners tend to be swing voters. Whether or not that awareness is enough to stop the cracking of the 1st, idk. But I wouldn't want to do it if I were an Indiana Republican.

It's possible to draw a map where Lake County is only split 2 ways, half in the Indianapolis district and half in the new r+10 IN-1.  So no current gop incumbent would have to represent it.

[Idaho Conservative]

Hmmm... I would say it's about 50/50 whether they draw 8R/1D.  TN is probably 75/25 in favor of drawing out Cooper and KY 25/75 against trying to draw out Yarmuth due to the state courts there.

KY is really 0/100 due to the nature of the state constitution, which obliges the creation of a district entirely in Louisville should the numbers exist for it.

Do they have the votes to amend the state constitution?

[Idaho Conservative]

Hmmm... I would say it's about 50/50 whether they draw 8R/1D.  TN is probably 75/25 in favor of drawing out Cooper and KY 25/75 against trying to draw out Yarmuth due to the state courts there.

KY is really 0/100 due to the nature of the state constitution, which obliges the creation of a district entirely in Louisville should the numbers exist for it.

Do they have the votes to amend the state constitution?

Yes, barely in the State House, easily in the Senate (it's 60% in each chamber).

But all that would do is put it on as a ballot question in the next legislative election (Nov 2020).

darn

[Idaho Conservative]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/67f8d84a-8291-49b5-b1b2-24dedd78c824
non-partisan IN map based off of 2016 block groups

Wow I didn't realize how badly NW IN was losing population, that district is expanding rapidly into rural IN, making it easier to crack.  Also at the very least the Marion district is moving north.  Dems should push for a map that gives R incumbents super safe and desirable seats in exchange for keeping 2 Dem seats.  Dems have little leverage however.

[Idaho Conservative]

7 safe R, 1 lean R, 1 safe D
https://davesredistricting.org/join/c6524a5e-27f8-47c5-8b4f-ff159dd9e1fc

[Idaho Conservative]

8 safe R  1 safe D

[Idaho Conservative]

8-1 that keeps incumbents in their districts, doesn't endanger anyone too much, shores up IN-5, and looks pretty clean despite all that.  IN-1 isn't safe R, but is very R leaning, especially considering Dems are maxed out in Gary. 
IN-1 R+6 
IN-2 R+9 
IN-3 R+11
IN-4 R+11
IN-5 R+17
IN-6 R+16
IN-7 D+17
IN-8 R+15
IN-9 R+13

[Idaho Conservative]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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. 

[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. 

[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

[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.

9-0 is doable. I don't care about incumbent protection. See my California maps.

Levin is drawn out (replaced by Democratic Escondido seat); Issa/Campa-Najjar also drawn out (replaced by OC south hills, Oceanside, and wine country seat):



Porter is drawn out (OC gets fewer seats due to fewer county splits and Irvine is moved into a coastal seat); Lowenthal is drawn out but might retire anyway (Lowenthal's seat loses Long Beach and Lakewood, turning it into a coastal OC Asian seat with Huntington Beach):



Garamendi is drawn out:

CA is drawn by an independent commission.  IN is drawn by the legislature, they will protect Republican incumbents. 

[Idaho Conservative]

Yes, but I pointed out that I personally don't care about protecting incumbents when I draw maps. My California and Indiana maps both draw out incumbents. My Indiana map is safe from Democratic waves.
[/quote]

Depends on Trump margin.

[Idaho Conservative]

Could a possible future IN-05 consist of the northern chunk of Marion County, Hamilton County, Madison County, Delaware County, and the Town of Zionsville (located in Boone County)?

As in a fair map?
Sure
The GOP has to put northern Indy in the indy sink now though as northern indy zoomed left in 2016.

So basically to save IN-05 long term the orientation basically changes so northern Indianapolis goes into the Dem sink while Southern Indianapolis (which is trending slower and is more republican) goes into one of the R districts?

South Marion is R+14.  If republicans do nothing else, moving the Indy district north is what I guarantee happens.  Also, the Lake County district either takes in South Bend or gets cracked.  That will depend on how Walorski does in 2020 and hhow in general IN performs relative to 2016.  If dems lose more ground in NW IN, definitely gets cracked. 

[Idaho Conservative]

Might Gary end up with an all-Republican delegation?

yeah, if they crack it.  One district might be competitive but leaning r.  No chance Indianapolis gets cracked tho. 

[Idaho Conservative]

None of the seats of my gerrymander are competitive.

yeah but IN won't draw a map that ugly.