2020 Oregon Redistricting

[Stuart98]

Here is a good way to draw OR-02 if you are looking for what is best for the Dems. Rest of state is Clinton + 20.7.

Is there a road connection between Bend and the rest of the state? (that doesn't pass through your OR-02)

[Stuart98]

Here is a good way to draw OR-02 if you are looking for what is best for the Dems. Rest of state is Clinton + 20.7.

Is there a road connection between Bend and the rest of the state? (that doesn't pass through your OR-02)

Nope. There are no highway connections between Eugene and Bend that stay entirely within Lane and Deschutes Counties.

That's what I thought; this map is illegal.

[Stuart98]

Here is a good way to draw OR-02 if you are looking for what is best for the Dems. Rest of state is Clinton + 20.7.

Is there a road connection between Bend and the rest of the state? (that doesn't pass through your OR-02)

Nope. There are no highway connections between Eugene and Bend that stay entirely within Lane and Deschutes Counties.

That's what I thought; this map is illegal.

Only as illegal as SCOOR wants it to be.
And I am fairly sure that SCOOR is controlled by Democrats.

I'm not sure why Democrats would send an illegal map to the SCOOR in the hopes that they'll ignore the law when not only can they send a legal 5-1 map instead, they could even send a legal 6-0 or 5-0-1 map.

[Stuart98]

Oregon Republicans should count themselves lucky that they aren't getting this map instead:

[Stuart98]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1433881526534561799
If this passes I will be so annoyed

Most likely it will pass since independent commissions are very popular with the public literally everywhere, even solid R states.

The public at large completely hates partisan gerrymandering.

Democratic leadership probably needs to start sending clear signals to their voters that it's counterproductive to push for more state-run commissions. We're probably maxed out in terms of where we can get them in Republican run states and with the existing commission states already skewing Democratic any more commissions will lead to further unilateral disarmament. Messaging needs to be that gerrymandering will continue until we get nationally mandated fair redistricting (and whatever that looks like, it should probably make more use of existing federal bureaucratic structures rather than the gameable state-level political appointee commissions that we're already seeing fail in several states).

[Stuart98]

If the measure does look it will make to ballot, Democrats should probably draw up their own measure based on a partisan "fairness" measure rather than competiveness

Competitiveness usually favors Democrats in D-trending states, partisan fairness would be more likely to favor Republicans.

[Stuart98]

Looks like the courts aren't going to find the map a partisan gerrymander.

Link to the special master's tentative report.

Gotta love the Bend residents on pages 38-41 saying how much they like being with Clackamas.

The democratic witnesses presented interesting (misleading) arguments that have convinced the special master.

Pages 63-67 summarize the testimony of Dr. Jonathan Katz.

• Katz says that "partisan symmetry" is the premier way of evaluating partisan bias in political science.
• Claims efficiency gap cannot measure partisan fairness.
• Claims efficiency gap is inaccurate in states with fewer than 7 districts (how convenient!).
• Admits that the efficiency gap for the plan favors democrats.
• Says that his partisan symmetry model gives democrats 3.86 seats and republicans 2.24.
• Accounting for incumbency, that becomes 4.16-1.84.
• Claims this shows no statistically significant bias.
• Says lack of proportionality does not indicate unfairness.

Pages 68-71 summarize the testimony of Dr. Paul Gronke.

• Gronke says that disproportionality does not demonstrate a gerrymander.
• Gronke considers EG, Declination, Partisan Symmetry, and Mean-Median differences in evaluating the map.
• Gronke compares how the enacted map compares to historical maps under these measures.
• Finds the EG to be well within the historical range.
• Says declination is better than in recent post 1990 plans.
• Claims PS and MMd show a small pro-Republican skew.
• Concludes that the map gives democrats at most a "half-seat advantage" which can be credited to geography rather than intentional bias.
• Claims that a "completely neutral plan" could not be feasibly drawn due to geography.

Pages 71-74 summarize the testimony of Dr. Devin Caughey.

• Caughey says he evaluated the map using partisan symmetry.
• Caughey compares a scenario where Democrats win 58% of the vote with one where Democrats win 50% of the vote.
• Under the former scenario, the bias is 8% in favor of democrats, the smallest possible.
• Under the latter scenario, there's a two seat difference (17%) in favor of Republicans.
• Claims a 50-50 split in the vote is plausible in Oregon, using row office elections (including 2016 SoS) as examples, and claims Democrats' recent advantage is likely to dissipate in the future.
• Says that in a tied election, Republicans have a 68% chance of winning more CDs.
• Goes over MMd, declination, and EG.
• MMd shows a very small pro-republican bias.
• Declination shows a very small pro-democratic bias.
• EG is 8.5% in favor of Democrats, which he characterizes as "a moderate bias".
• Claims the EG may not give a durable advantage to either party, and the EG will shrink the closer the statewide vote-share gets to even.
• Says that the four indicators are split as to which party they favor, and says that whichever the direction, the bias in the map is "unusually small".

Pages 75-77 criticize the testimony of the Republican witness, Dr. Thomas Brunell, who was apparently very bad at his job.

• Brunell says he copied figures he presented from counsel and does not know where figures he presented came from.
• Brunell presented an alternative map but says he knows little about it, including whether it complied with statute or the purpose of features of it.
• Brunell both said that county splits indicate COI violations while also saying counties are poor COI proxies.
• Brunell said compactness was a good measure before later saying stressing compactness is a mistake.
• Brunell said the map was a likely 5-1, but could not quantify that likelihood.
• Brunell complained about the map's disproportionality, but stated that disproportionality is common in the electoral system.
• Brunell did not cite academic or peer-reviewed sources.
• Brunell failed to state the limitations of his conclusions, such as that the EG is volatile in states with only six seats.
• Brunell's initial finding of a nearly 20% EG was only based on presidential results, and when looking at all statewide results the finding was far smaller, at only 7.8%.

Pages 77-78 discuss the alternative map the petitioners propose.

• Petitioners have not provided evidence the alternative is constitutional.
• Petitioners have not presented evidence their districts are connected by transportation links, or that their map doesn't unnecessarily divide COIs beyond a look at counties and cities.
• Katz claims the alternative map has a significant Republican bias.
• Katz says the alternative map would require Democrats to win more than half the vote to get a 3-3 split.

Seems the Republicans got greedy with their alternative map and chose an incompetent witness. Democrats found a bunch of EG skeptic witnesses and Republicans didn't counter. Dems are gonna get away with it.

[Stuart98]

Legislative maps upheld: https://mobile.twitter.com/dirquez/status/1462822556721766400