2020 Redistricting in Pennsylvania

[Sestak]

So, all estimates as of late in Pennsylvania losing a seat, and falling to 17 seats. In 2018, the old gerrymandered Pennsylvania map, passed by the Republican Legislature and Gov. Tom Corbett after the 2010 census, was struck down by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Subsequently, the still-Republican Legislature and Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf were unable to come to agreement on a new map, with Wolf vetoing the maps passed by the legislature. As a result, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court handed down the following map:



With Wolf holding the governorship until 2023 and the legislature looking almost certain to remain in Republican hands, odds are that we will see a similar impasse after the 2020 census, which would result in another court-drawn map. I don't expect the Court would largely change its criteria from 2018, meaning that the new map would probably somewhat resemble the current map. To see where the changes would be, we examine the population changes across the state.

(The following all uses 2010-2018 data)

From 2010 to 2018, the state as a whole grew 0.8%. Since Pennsylvania is falling from 18 to 17 seats, each congressional district thus grows in population by 1.008*18/17 = 1.0672 or 6.72%. The following map shows how much less (or more) than 6.72% each county has grown:

Formula: (County % change 2010-18) - 6.72%

This map clearly indicates that the largest part of the population falloff comes from the west and northwest parts of the state. In fact, the boundaries of the 15th Congressional district are almost visible as the deepest red section of the map.

Counties mostly/completely in CD 15 are shaded

The 15th district also is surrounded by other areas and districts which are losing a substantial share of their populations, which should make it even easier to carve up between its neighbors.

In addition to examining the county population change relative to the change in a congressional district, we can look at overall change in fraction of a congressional district (as in "how much less" of a congressional district a county counts for versus in 2010)

Doing this yields the following map:

Formula: (2018 County Pop.)/((2018 State Pop.)/17) - (2010 County Pop.)/((2010 State Pop.)/18)

From this, since the 2018 districts play very nicely on county lines, we can roughly add up how much of a district each of the current districts loses:

Bucks County/Dist 01: Loses 5.2% of a district

Philadelphia/Dists 02-03: Loses 6.0% of a district (avg each district loses 3%)

Montgomery County/Dist 04: Loses 3.4% of a district

Delaware County/Dist 05: Loses 4.2% of a district

Chester County/Dist 06: Loses 1.4% of a district

Lehigh and Northampton Counties/Dist 07: Loses 2.4% of a district

8th District Area (including all of Luzerne, Monroe): Loses 8.6% of a district

9th District Area (including all of Berks): Loses 6.4% of a district

10th/11th Districts Area (York, Lancaster, Dauphin): Loses 4.8% of a district (avg each district loses 2.4%)

12th District Area (including all of Centre, Montour, Northumberland): Loses 8.1% of a district

13th District Area (including all of Cumberland): Loses 5.7% of a district

14th District Area: Loses 9.8% of a district

15th District Area (including all of Cambria): Loses 10.7% of a district

16th District Area (including all of Butler): Loses 9.3% of a district

Allegheny and Beaver Counties/Dists 17-18: Loses 13.9% of a district (avg each district loses 7%)

(Split counties have been added to the area for the district which contains the largest part of it; the only counties in which the split is somewhat close are Cumberland and Centre, neither of which really contribute to the sum; in fact Cumberland is the only county that manages to barely gain in terms of districts, increasing by 0.017% of a seat.)


From this, again, the 15th is the district that loses the most and is the easiest choice to cut. The next largest losses come in the 14th and the 16th. I'm unsure about the prospect of carving the 14th, but I expect it'd be more difficult due to the fact that it's in a narrow corner with the two Allegheny based districts immediately to the north that would be unable to take too large of a fraction of a carved 14th.

Nixing the 16th, on the other hand, would force the 15th to move substantially to the west and take up, at the very least, most of the northern part of the former 16th, resulting in the 15th now being anchored in Erie and pretty much becoming more of a direct successor to the 16th, with the eastern part of the old 15th carved up by neighboring districts (most likely the 12th and 13th).

Either way, I think the 15th seat is the easiest to eliminate and carve up, which each of the other districts in the western and northern parts of the state) expanding substantially in area while most of the SEPA seats stay the same, only expanding slightly.

Am curious to know if the rest of you agree that the 15th is the likeliest to fall, or is there another viable alternative?

[politicallefty]

There is already a topic on Pennsylvania, albeit a bit different: here.

I know this was brought up in another topic that wasn't the one I mentioned above, but I'd first thought PA-12 is likely to be eliminated. Actually, based on the geography and population trends, it's easiest to shift everything a bit and eliminate PA-09. It'd be sort of a merger of PA-09 and PA-12.

[Skill and Chance]

Related question: How exactly does legislative redistricting work in PA?  I believe there is a commission formed with an equal number of members from both parties that historically always deadlocks and then the PA Supreme Court appoints a tiebreaker?  Historically, the process has resulted in de facto Republican control within certain limitations for at least the last 2 cycles.

The PA Supreme Court is currently 5D/2R and historically quite partisan.  4 of the 5 Dems are not up for retention election until at least 2025, so a Dem majority seems assured for the next redistricting cycle.  Does this mean to expect soft Dem control of the state legislative process after the 2020 census (again, within some significant constitutional limitations, similar to GOP control in FL or NC)?

[Oryxslayer]

Related question: How exactly does legislative redistricting work in PA?  I believe there is a commission formed with an equal number of members from both parties that historically always deadlocks and then the PA Supreme Court appoints a tiebreaker?  Historically, the process has resulted in de facto Republican control within certain limitations for at least the last 2 cycles.

The PA Supreme Court is currently 5D/2R and historically quite partisan.  4 of the 5 Dems are not up for retention election until at least 2025, so a Dem majority seems assured for the next redistricting cycle.  Does this mean to expect soft Dem control of the state legislative process after the 2020 census (again, within some significant constitutional limitations, similar to GOP control in FL or NC)?

Yes. However, my PA insider last summer suggested at least at that time that the GOP was willing to cut deals with dominant Dems to avoid the courts having sole authority on all maps. This would be a scenario with some hints of incumbent protection, but it would be protection limited by the natural barriers of geography. This would mean no absurd squiggles, and some weird local seats from last time have to be cut. However, this was last summer, things may have changed recently or could change in the 2020 elections.

[Idaho Conservative]

What will be interesting is cutting a seat could threaten multiple dem seats with close margins.  Maybe they could draw something similar to Wolf's proposed 2018 remedy map.  The irony is, his map was better for R's than the court map lol.

[voice_of_resistance]

I've drawn up a few maps of 17-seat PA in DRA, and it's not pretty for a lot of the suburban-Philadelphia Dems, since they have nowhere to expand except north and west into Pennsyltucky. PA-06 and PA-07 would both go from Lean D to Tossup with the additional territory, without performing extra gerrymandering. In short, geography is a bitch for Dems in PA, especially since rural NE PA Dems have basically collapsed outside of Scranton itself.

[Nyvin]

Not that I realistically expect the PA State Supreme Court would do anything at all like this,  but tendrils into both Lancaster and Reading cities would work:



https://davesredistricting.org/join/2864d3fc-b901-4226-b7c9-9734274a3dfd

All the districts are winnable for Democrats.

Edit - If the Chester district has to go into either Lancaster or Berks and not the other,  then I would actually choose Lancaster based on recent trends.   If Dems don't win it in 2022 then they'd have a good chance by 2024 or 2026.

I think Cartwright is doomed no matter how the Scranton district is drawn.

[Idaho Conservative]

Not that I realistically expect the PA State Supreme Court would do anything at all like this,  but tendrils into both Lancaster and Reading cities would work:



https://davesredistricting.org/join/2864d3fc-b901-4226-b7c9-9734274a3dfd

All the districts are winnable for Democrats.

Edit - If the Chester district has to go into either Lancaster or Berks and not the other,  then I would actually choose Lancaster based on recent trends.   If Dems don't win it in 2022 then they'd have a good chance by 2024 or 2026.

I think Cartwright is doomed no matter how the Scranton district is drawn.

That map could be achievable if it's a bipartisan gerry and dems concede somewhere else.  Maybe that in exchange for Fitzpatrick a safer seat?  Maybe dividing western PA like gov wolf's map did?

[Idaho Conservative]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/8ce72869-bc09-42d3-bfaf-79098e8d69b4
This is a compromise map.  Each side makes a concession.  The congressional district lost is a Republican one.  In exchange, Lamb's district gets more Republican, still less conservative than the one he originally won in the special election tho.  This map also shores up Perry, Kelly, Wild, and Cartwright.  2 vulnerable incumbents in each party.

[Oryxslayer]

Also it should be mentioned that one of the concrete parts of the rumor was that SWPA would be drawn to clean up what currently exists. Doyle, recognizing that his home was in a weird spot, would retire. This allows for a pure Pittsburgh+South Allegheny seat, which would be a 'gift' (to use the terms of my insider) to Lamb if he decides to stay at the congressional level. Then the present North Allegheny seat would be both open and pushed towards the center using the AA communities to the west of the city. It would essentially be drawn as a fair fight style seat. Butler of course is not going anywhere since that is Kelly's base - he actually wants the entire county reunified.

Something like what is shown below, but this is just my guess. Map just happens to be colored by 2018 Senate election.

[Idaho Conservative]

Also it should be mentioned that one of the concrete parts of the rumor was that SWPA would be drawn to clean up what currently exists. Doyle, recognizing that his home was in a weird spot, would retire. This allows for a pure Pittsburgh+South Allegheny seat, which would be a 'gift' (to use the terms of my insider) to Lamb if he decides to stay at the congressional level. Then the present North Allegheny seat would be both open and pushed towards the center using the AA communities to the west of the city. It would essentially be drawn as a fair fight style seat. Butler of course is not going anywhere since that is Kelly's base - he actually wants the entire county reunified.

Something like what is shown below, but this is just my guess. Map just happens to be colored by 2018 Senate election.

Not a great deal, unless it is traded for a concession somewhere else.  Even Wolf's proposed map was better than this. https://www.governor.pa.gov/newsroom/governor-wolf-submits-a-fairer-congressional-map-to-supreme-court/wolf-proposal/

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Also it should be mentioned that one of the concrete parts of the rumor was that SWPA would be drawn to clean up what currently exists. Doyle, recognizing that his home was in a weird spot, would retire. This allows for a pure Pittsburgh+South Allegheny seat, which would be a 'gift' (to use the terms of my insider) to Lamb if he decides to stay at the congressional level. Then the present North Allegheny seat would be both open and pushed towards the center using the AA communities to the west of the city. It would essentially be drawn as a fair fight style seat. Butler of course is not going anywhere since that is Kelly's base - he actually wants the entire county reunified.

Something like what is shown below, but this is just my guess. Map just happens to be colored by 2018 Senate election.

Not a great deal, unless it is traded for a concession somewhere else.  Even Wolf's proposed map was better than this. https://www.governor.pa.gov/newsroom/governor-wolf-submits-a-fairer-congressional-map-to-supreme-court/wolf-proposal/

Lamb's district on Oryx's map is still about R+2 PVI. For the Pennsylvania GOP, given the option, a bipartisan incumbent protection plan with the Dems that keep all the D seats safe and give all the R congressmen their own districts is better than a map drawn by the Dem controlled court which won't give any consideration to giving incumbent's their own districts while still drawing lines that increase competitive seats and generally lean Dem.

[Idaho Conservative]

Also it should be mentioned that one of the concrete parts of the rumor was that SWPA would be drawn to clean up what currently exists. Doyle, recognizing that his home was in a weird spot, would retire. This allows for a pure Pittsburgh+South Allegheny seat, which would be a 'gift' (to use the terms of my insider) to Lamb if he decides to stay at the congressional level. Then the present North Allegheny seat would be both open and pushed towards the center using the AA communities to the west of the city. It would essentially be drawn as a fair fight style seat. Butler of course is not going anywhere since that is Kelly's base - he actually wants the entire county reunified.

Something like what is shown below, but this is just my guess. Map just happens to be colored by 2018 Senate election.

Not a great deal, unless it is traded for a concession somewhere else.  Even Wolf's proposed map was better than this. https://www.governor.pa.gov/newsroom/governor-wolf-submits-a-fairer-congressional-map-to-supreme-court/wolf-proposal/

Lamb's district on Oryx's map is still about R+2 PVI. For the Pennsylvania GOP, given the option, a bipartisan incumbent protection plan with the Dems that keep all the D seats safe and give all the R congressmen their own districts is better than a map drawn by the Dem controlled court which won't give any consideration to giving incumbent's their own districts while still drawing lines that increase competitive seats and generally lean Dem.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/a392b108-d3f2-4ebd-b906-69038eabd1f3
here's a better map, literally based off of a map Wolf supported https://www.governor.pa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/wolf-proposal.jpg 

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Also it should be mentioned that one of the concrete parts of the rumor was that SWPA would be drawn to clean up what currently exists. Doyle, recognizing that his home was in a weird spot, would retire. This allows for a pure Pittsburgh+South Allegheny seat, which would be a 'gift' (to use the terms of my insider) to Lamb if he decides to stay at the congressional level. Then the present North Allegheny seat would be both open and pushed towards the center using the AA communities to the west of the city. It would essentially be drawn as a fair fight style seat. Butler of course is not going anywhere since that is Kelly's base - he actually wants the entire county reunified.

Something like what is shown below, but this is just my guess. Map just happens to be colored by 2018 Senate election.

Not a great deal, unless it is traded for a concession somewhere else.  Even Wolf's proposed map was better than this. https://www.governor.pa.gov/newsroom/governor-wolf-submits-a-fairer-congressional-map-to-supreme-court/wolf-proposal/

Lamb's district on Oryx's map is still about R+2 PVI. For the Pennsylvania GOP, given the option, a bipartisan incumbent protection plan with the Dems that keep all the D seats safe and give all the R congressmen their own districts is better than a map drawn by the Dem controlled court which won't give any consideration to giving incumbent's their own districts while still drawing lines that increase competitive seats and generally lean Dem.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/a392b108-d3f2-4ebd-b906-69038eabd1f3
here's a better map, literally based off of a map Wolf supported https://www.governor.pa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/wolf-proposal.jpg  

And why exactly would the GOP agree to a map that draws 7/9 GOP congressmen out of their seats (all but Joyce and Perry)?
Oryx's map is what you'd expect of a compromise in the SW. Lamb gets a safe Dem seat, a vacant fair fight Tossup district is drawn, Mike Kelly gets a Safe Seat including his base in Butler, and Reschenthaler gets a Safe Seat with his base in Washington and Westmoreland.

[Brittain33]

WTF is Wolf’s map doing with that boomerang shaped district in north Allegheny country?

[dpmapper]

Here's what I'd do with eastern PA if I was trying go solely by clean lines and CoI:



The 6-county Philly metro is just shy of 6 districts.  Two Philadelphia districts.  Bucks County gets a strip of MontCo, per tradition.  Two other inner suburban districts based in Delaware and MontCo, respectively.  Berks is kept whole and paired with exurban Chester, a very natural match.  This seems the most sensible way of dividing the region into 6 pieces, and then we add a few thousand from Lancaster.  

Two more districts in the south-central, you can divide this however you like but they'll both be pretty safely GOP if the lines are clean.  Lehigh Valley is kept whole again, and Carbon is a natural fit along with a piece of Monroe.  The 9th and the 12th are fused, you can jiggle the lines in Luzerne to put Meuser in this district to go head to head vs Keller if you want.  

Partisan result: GOP loses one district but 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th all move rightward.  As noted above, all of them are pretty much guaranteed to do so under any fair map.  

[Nyvin]

Actually this would work too:



https://davesredistricting.org/join/2864d3fc-b901-4226-b7c9-9734274a3dfd

Have Chester to it's own district then expand into Lancaster,  have the Delaware district expand into Montgomery, then the Montgomery district gets Reading.

This would be a lot cleaner than the other one.   PA-6 is Clinton +6.6% and PA-5 is Clinton +15.5%.

[Skill and Chance]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/8ce72869-bc09-42d3-bfaf-79098e8d69b4
This is a compromise map.  Each side makes a concession.  The congressional district lost is a Republican one.  In exchange, Lamb's district gets more Republican, still less conservative than the one he originally won in the special election tho.  This map also shores up Perry, Kelly, Wild, and Cartwright.  2 vulnerable incumbents in each party.

It's pretty likely either Cartwright or Perry or even both won't be in Congress in 2021.   

[Mr.Phips]

You’d think that PA would be the perfect state for both sides to agree to a non partisan partisan redistricting commission for Congress and State Legislative districts.

[Oryxslayer]

If the goal is to preserve the present lean of the eastern seats, then something like this is the ideal alignment. Colors are from the 2016 presidential contest. PA06 remains a Clinton-favoring competitive seat, but nowhere to the degree it is presently. PA08 slides further to the right. Both are casualties of the fact that a Red seat is cut.



Note, this is not guided by rumors, it is just personal thoughts on if the present seats are to be maintained.

[windjammer]

If the goal is to preserve the present lean of the eastern seats, then something like this is the ideal alignment. Colors are from the 2016 presidential contest. PA06 remains a Clinton-favoring competitive seat, but nowhere to the degree it is presently. PA08 slides further to the right. Both are casualties of the fact that a Red seat is cut.



Note, this is not guided by rumors, it is just personal thoughts on if the present seats are to be maintained.

Could you give the results by CD please

[Oryxslayer]

PA01: 50.1/48.7 Obama '12, 48.8/47.4 Clinton, 52.7/47.3 Toomey, 59./39.65 Wolf, 56.7/41.8 Casey

PA04: 57.1/41.8 Obama '12, 59.5/36.9 Clinton, 56.2/43.8 McGinty, 68.1/30.6 Wolf, 66.1/32.4 Casey

PA05: 58.8/40.2 Obama '12,  58.9/37.8 Clinton, 55.8/44.2 McGinty, 66.9/33.1 Wolf, 65.3/34.7 Casey

PA06: 50.2/48.5 Obama '12, 49.2/46.6 Clinton, 51.9/48.1 Toomey, 59.7/40.3 Wolf, 58/42 Casey

PA07: 54.4/44.4 Obama '12, 49.7/46.6 Clinton, 50.8/49.2 McGinty, 60.5/39.5 Wolf, 57.8/42.2 Casey

PA08: 52.4/46.2 Obama '12, 56.8/40.1 Trump, 53.7/46.3 Toomey, 53.6/46.4 Wolf, 50.9/49.1 Barletta

The other shown seats should speak for themselves. My data-set did not have indie votes except for presidential contests. The general theme, which should be obvious, is PA08 moves to the right of the state, PA07 is a bit to the  left, PA06 is moves right to left-of-center, and PA01 remains in it's current alignment.

[Idaho Conservative]

PA01: 50.1/48.7 Obama '12, 48.8/47.4 Clinton, 52.7/47.3 Toomey, 59./39.65 Wolf, 56.7/41.8 Casey

PA04: 57.1/41.8 Obama '12, 59.5/36.9 Clinton, 56.2/43.8 McGinty, 68.1/30.6 Wolf, 66.1/32.4 Casey

PA05: 58.8/40.2 Obama '12,  58.9/37.8 Clinton, 55.8/44.2 McGinty, 66.9/33.1 Wolf, 65.3/34.7 Casey

PA06: 50.2/48.5 Obama '12, 49.2/46.6 Clinton, 51.9/48.1 Toomey, 59.7/40.3 Wolf, 58/42 Casey

PA07: 54.4/44.4 Obama '12, 49.7/46.6 Clinton, 50.8/49.2 McGinty, 60.5/39.5 Wolf, 57.8/42.2 Casey

PA08: 52.4/46.2 Obama '12, 56.8/40.1 Trump, 53.7/46.3 Toomey, 53.6/46.4 Wolf, 50.9/49.1 Barletta

The other shown seats should speak for themselves. My data-set did not have indie votes except for presidential contests. The general theme, which should be obvious, is PA08 moves to the right of the state, PA07 is a bit to the  left, PA06 is moves right to left-of-center, and PA01 remains in it's current alignment.

They should do a deal where PA 10 and PA 6 are both drawn to favor incumbents more. Take away York from PA 10 to make it safer and take away rural Berks county from PA 6 and give it Lancaster city.   

[Oryxslayer]

It should be remembered that the PA GOP is ironically in a similar situation to the PA Dems last cycle. Both parties were/appear  willing to cut deals to prevent a worse outcome for their party. In both situations, the dominant party can ignore the opposition if she wishes, however they want to get a seat at the table to get what crumbs are available.

Now, the GOP is destined to get a larger slice of the pie than the Dems in 2010 got. However, the situation is similar in that if the minority refuses to cooperate, the dominant party can ignore them. So the dominant party will get what they want, but the Dems demands have to be far far less than the GOP's octopus-like districts from 2010. If the Dems don't like what the GOP is putting up, they will throw the maps to the courts and let them give the  state bluer lines. This trump card is a far weaker trump card than the what the GOP had in 2010, so the demands are less demanding and the concessions are more numerous. The GOP's goal in this is to know when to concede, so that their incumbents shuffled around. There is therefore  less 'trading' and more 'demands.'

If incumbent protection comes into play, than one demand may be a "triangle" seat in Central PA that protects PA06. It's probably the safest seat for the region that makes both geographic sense and keeps the rest of the regional preferences intact. It all depends  upon what happens in 2020 of course.

[Idaho Conservative]

It should be remembered that the PA GOP is ironically in a similar situation to the PA Dems last cycle. Both parties were/appear  willing to cut deals to prevent a worse outcome for their party. In both situations, the dominant party can ignore the opposition if she wishes, however they want to get a seat at the table to get what crumbs are available.

Now, the GOP is destined to get a larger slice of the pie than the Dems in 2010 got. However, the situation is similar in that if the minority refuses to cooperate, the dominant party can ignore them. So the dominant party will get what they want, but the Dems demands have to be far far less than the GOP's octopus-like districts from 2010. If the Dems don't like what the GOP is putting up, they will throw the maps to the courts and let them give the  state bluer lines. This trump card is a far weaker trump card than the what the GOP had in 2010, so the demands are less demanding and the concessions are more numerous. The GOP's goal in this is to know when to concede, so that their incumbents shuffled around. There is therefore  less 'trading' and more 'demands.'

If incumbent protection comes into play, than one demand may be a "triangle" seat in Central PA that protects PA06. It's probably the safest seat for the region that makes both geographic sense and keeps the rest of the regional preferences intact. It all depends  upon what happens in 2020 of course.

The Supreme Count drew a map last time in which a majority of seats voted Trump, and produced a 50-50 delegation in a blue wave year.  Yet they still made decisions to favor Dems, but political geography is a huge obstacle.  There is no assurance the court would draw a map more favorable to Dems.  Most of the marginal seats are held by dems are are atrisk due to a seat being cut.  I disagree the governor won't have an incentive to compromise.  Also the map HE proposed in 2018 was actually more Republic friendly than the court map, hinting he would be open to a map that doesn't explicitly favor Dems.  You gerrymandered your map to protect Dem incumbents who should have more competitive seats due to a shrinking delegation.  Such a map can only be drawn IF Dems make concessions elsewhere.  That could be giving R's another safe seat in western PA or giving Fitzpatrick a safer seat in exchange for the Philly dems getting safe seats.