2020 Oregon Redistricting

[Mr.Phips]

A priority for Dems should be to unpack the 3rd district and use some Portland precincts to fortify the 5th district and as a Dem base in the new 6th.

[Mr.Phips]

The key is unpacking the 3rd district.  That district should get about eight points more Dem in order to give some more of downtown Portland to the 5th and new 6th districts.

[Mr.Phips]

Is this a pure Dem free-for-all?  Most Western states have either fully independent commissions or strict rules now.  Is OR an exception?

There is a rule that there must be roads linking all of a district.

[Mr.Phips]

Republicans should deny the Dems a quorum if they try something egregious.  3-1-2 is fair, but a 4-2 is tolerable. 

OK, so you are obviously fine with Democrats doing this in Texas, Georgia, and Florida if Republicans draw unfair lines?

[Mr.Phips]

Here is my take on a map that I've done by "thinking outside the box" and crossing the cascades once, but heading towards rural Douglas county instead of Medford or Ashford. I thought that'd make the map a slight D gerrymander but apparently there is little difference (as long as you keep things clean at least):



OR-01: Clinton+12, D+4
OR-02: Trump+26, R+15
OR-03: Clinton+64, D+23
OR-04: Clinton+3, D+2
OR-05: Trump+1, R+2
OR-06: Clinton+11, D+4

Overall, it seems to me that it will be nearly impossible for Dems to draw a 5-1 map and that they'll need to concede 1 swing district at the very least, or possibly even 2 swing districts or one Safe R district (depends on how things go)

OR-03 is waaaaay too Dem.  That should be brought down to D+15 at most.

[Mr.Phips]

Here is my take on a map that I've done by "thinking outside the box" and crossing the cascades once, but heading towards rural Douglas county instead of Medford or Ashford. I thought that'd make the map a slight D gerrymander but apparently there is little difference (as long as you keep things clean at least):



OR-01: Clinton+12, D+4
OR-02: Trump+26, R+15
OR-03: Clinton+64, D+23
OR-04: Clinton+3, D+2
OR-05: Trump+1, R+2
OR-06: Clinton+11, D+4

Overall, it seems to me that it will be nearly impossible for Dems to draw a 5-1 map and that they'll need to concede 1 swing district at the very least, or possibly even 2 swing districts or one Safe R district (depends on how things go)

OR-03 is waaaaay too Dem.  That should be brought down to D+15 at most.

Why? It is a compact Portland district? I guess you can move it around slightly but splitting Portland would be too obvious of a gerrymander?

If Republicans are going to continue to gerrymander in Georgia, Texas, Florida, and other states where they have control, Democrats need to do it in the few states they have control in.

[Mr.Phips]

On that note, I'm going to float this 5-1 map.


Link: https://davesredistricting.org/join/0c03f33d-33fc-4f36-8089-55830e9ac0b9

Partisanship
1st: Clinton +20.9, D+8 (1 point right of current iteration)
2nd: Trump +26.4, R+15 (6 points right of current iteration)
3rd: Clinton +24.2, D+13 (22 points right of current iteration)
4th: Clinton +14, D+7 (14 points left of current iteration)
5th: Clinton +21.2, D+9 (17 points left of current iteration)
6th: Clinton +12, D+6 (1 point left of state)

This is a very secure 5-1 map that utilizes the coastal district concept - personally, I've found that without a coastal district that's shored up with Portland, a 5-1 is basically impossible (as DeFazio's 4th is forced to pick up much of conservative Southern Oregon, capping it out at Clinton +2-3 max). DeFazio's district, which picks up swingy Polk County and Salem while losing most of its Southern Oregon part, moves significantly to the left, and is likely safe for the decade. Likewise, Schrader's district moves into Portland and becomes Titanium D. The new seat includes the Oregon Coast, the Medford-Grants Pass-Ashland triad, and West Portland (plus St. Johns), and has a partisan makeup roughly equal to that of the state. The new seat is also the most vulnerable, but is extremely unlikely to flip. Meanwhile, Blumenauer's district gets expanded significantly but remains Safe, while Bonamici's district sheds its part of Portland and the Columbia River region, while Rep. Elect Bentz's seat is pushed into uber-red Douglas County.

The map is road-contiguous, and is reasonably compact (even accounting for the coast district). The only bad splits are the three-way cuts of Douglas County, Marion County, and Portland - though all are done pretty neatly with city lines mostly intact, and in Portland's case, along logical lines.

Edit: It's of note that the Douglas County split can be eliminated by 1) having the 2nd bite into Josephine instead or 2) giving the 2nd the 4th's share of Douglas while moving the 6th further into Jackson. Both have the side affect of making the 6th more vulnerable (option 2 far more than option 1), however.

This is the map that should be drawn.

[Mr.Phips]

Not a map per say, but here is an article from The Oregonian published today.

It's a subscriber exclusive, so unless you have a subscription (like I do) it's behind the paywall unless you want to pay a few $$$ to get a "new subscriber discount".

Don't want to exceed guidelines when it comes to copywrite articles but here's one item which stood out from what is a very well written article:

Communities of interest

This time around, lawmakers will base the maps on 2020 population data the Census Bureau plans to release Thursday. It will show which areas of the state have grown and shrunk in population and provide some information about the “communities of interest” Salinas referenced, a broad term in Oregon law that can be interpreted as neighborhoods, school districts, unincorporated communities and other ties that connect people.

One such tie Democrats will be eyeing is race and ethnicity, particularly among the state’s fast-growing number of Latinos who are citizens of voting age. While Latinos make up an estimated 13% of the state’s population, just one House district, corresponding to less than 2% of the 60 House seats, has a majority Latino population. That is House District 22, centered on Woodburn and held for a third term by Rep. Teresa Alonso León, who immigrated to the U.S. as a child with her migrant farmworker parents.

In addition to overall population counts, the census information will show the race and ethnicity of voting-age adults and of children. The census does not ask people about their party registration or preferences, but party registration by address is available from the state elections office....   

....Salinas said population estimates in recent years have shown significant population growth in parts of Washington County — Portland State University’s modeling predicted a countywide increase from the 2010 census to 2020 census of more than 73,000 people. And, if the actual census population count bears that out, Salinas said it could make sense to “start there to see where our sixth congressional district is.” The university’s population modeling showed a still larger increase of 79,000 residents in Multnomah County.

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2021/08/oregon-lawmakers-prepare-to-draw-new-congressional-legislative-districts.html

I read it using a paywall bypass and it says they plan to release drafts on September 3rd. Also lots of signs that the Democrats will indeed pursue a fair map which likely dooms DeFazio and probably isn't good news for Schrader or Dem prospects in the new seat, either

If Dems allow the new seat to be Republican, they need to make sure both OR-04 and OR-05 are shored up.

[Mr.Phips]

Why the heck would OR Dems agree to Plan B?   They're guaranteed three safe D districts in the Portland metro in any map that's made.   What do they get out of Plan B?

Plan B almost looks like the perfect map for Republicans,  it's a complete loss for OR Dems.

"Compromise" needs to include both parties,  it's not just one side getting everything they want.

They’d be morons to agree to that map.  The worse they should agree to is a 4-2 map where the four Dem seats are waveproof.

[Mr.Phips]

2 Safe R, 3 Safe D, one Likely D (Clinton +8):

I think Dems should be fine with this.

[Mr.Phips]

2 Safe R, 3 Safe D, one Likely D (Clinton +8):

I think Dems should be fine with this.

I feel like Democrats don’t understand the urgency of maximizing their advantage during this process. These maps last 10 years and Republicans in Texas, Florida, Ohio, etc, are going to be ruthless. One seat can make a difference in the balance of power.

5-1 or bust in Oregon. 14-3 in Illinois.

5-1 won’t happen unless Dems refuse to compromise, which would result in a walkout. 

[Mr.Phips]

2 Safe R, 3 Safe D, one Likely D (Clinton +8):

I think Dems should be fine with this.

I feel like Democrats don’t understand the urgency of maximizing their advantage during this process. These maps last 10 years and Republicans in Texas, Florida, Ohio, etc, are going to be ruthless. One seat can make a difference in the balance of power.

5-1 or bust in Oregon. 14-3 in Illinois.

5-1 won’t happen unless Dems refuse to compromise, which would result in a walkout. 

If neither side can end up agreeing does the state SC draw the map?

That is correct, which is controlled by D appointees.

[Mr.Phips]

2 Safe R, 3 Safe D, one Likely D (Clinton +8):

I think Dems should be fine with this.

I feel like Democrats don’t understand the urgency of maximizing their advantage during this process. These maps last 10 years and Republicans in Texas, Florida, Ohio, etc, are going to be ruthless. One seat can make a difference in the balance of power.

5-1 or bust in Oregon. 14-3 in Illinois.

5-1 won’t happen unless Dems refuse to compromise, which would result in a walkout. 

If neither side can end up agreeing does the state SC draw the map?

That is correct, which is controlled by D appointees.

Then wouldn't it be better for Dems to ask the favorable SC to draw the maps rather than make a 3-3 map in a Biden + 16 state?

The map obviously won’t be 3-3.  If anything it will end up a strong 4-2.

[Mr.Phips]

2 Safe R, 3 Safe D, one Likely D (Clinton +8):

I think Dems should be fine with this.

I feel like Democrats don’t understand the urgency of maximizing their advantage during this process. These maps last 10 years and Republicans in Texas, Florida, Ohio, etc, are going to be ruthless. One seat can make a difference in the balance of power.

5-1 or bust in Oregon. 14-3 in Illinois.

5-1 won’t happen unless Dems refuse to compromise, which would result in a walkout.  

What would happen if the ORGOP does quorum bust? Ballotpedia seems to think it falls to the Secretary of State and the ORSC; obviously the SoS is a Democrat, and all the justices on the court were appointed by Democratic governors. Do Democrats have any incentive to compromise if the ORGOP is proposing stuff like Plan B and they likely have a favorable court anyway?

Basically same process as TX, Legislative goes to a statewide official while congressional goes to courts. Unlike the Texas Democrats the Oregon GOP actually knows that a quorum bust isn't a vacation time. Not sure how far said court goes. For example people can mention the PA court but they also didn't do stuff like split Bucks county. If you are restricted to a PA court style map you can keep Defazio about mostly the same at Clinton +0. and shore up Schrader to a Safe D district while leaving a new middle district at Trump +1 to 3. The best strategy for OR democrats is to offer a legislative compromise map that keeps the GOP at above 1/3 in exchange for a congressional gerrymander. Other than that they could push for a mid decade redistricting after accepting said court map/compromise map.

I don’t know if the Oregon constitution allows mid decade redistricting.  Few states do.

[Mr.Phips]

Does Oregon allow mid-decade redistricting? If a sub-optimal congressional map ends up drawn by the courts, couldn't they shore up a solid 5-1 map in time for 2024?

I suppose by that logic if the Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Minnesota Governor mansions flip next year then Republicans could hypothetically redraw a strong 5-3 Minnesota, 6-2 Wisconsin, 11-6 Pennsylvania map quite easily. If a single legislature seat in Nebraska flips I guess its 3-0 there as well? The downside risk for the democrats is too large to even consider this hypothetical as anyone would rather take the potential to mid decade gerrymander 34 seats in those combined states as opposed to a merely 6 in Oregon.

Can't in Wisconsin. State Constitution only allows it to happen once a cycle.

And the Dem controlled Supreme Courts in MN and PA would almost certainly block such a move by Republicans in those states.

[Mr.Phips]

No quorum at the moment.

So the Dem Secretary of State draws an aggressive Dem gerrymander of the legislature and the all Dem state Supreme Court now likely picks a congressional map resembling the first Dem proposal.  I’m not sure what the logic is here for Republicans.

[Mr.Phips]

Dems should do this in Texas now.