2020 Redistricting in Pennsylvania

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

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 triangle seat is interesting, what are the election #s on that?

Also, I wonder if it might be possible to similarly have a Harrisburg-Reading-Lancaster triangle seat (alternatively to the more obvious possibility of a Harrisburg-York-Lancaster triangle seat, which IIRC there is probably not quite population for).

[Oryxslayer]

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 triangle seat is interesting, what are the election #s on that?

Also, I wonder if it might be possible to similarly have a Harrisburg-Reading-Lancaster triangle seat (alternatively to the more obvious possibility of a Harrisburg-York-Lancaster triangle seat, which IIRC there is probably not quite population for).

Harrisburg-York-Lancaster works, it was on one of the democrats proposed maps from last time, and the central PA region is growing the fastest when compared to the rest of the state. You just need to grab extra areas from the suburbs of Harrisburg to make it work out. Howver, such a seat complicates things the the west, and only really has a shot at existing if Democrats get a trifecta (lol) or if they take  the seat this year and put everything on keeping the seat blue in redistricting.

Harrisburg-Lancaster-Read doesn't work because it screws over SEPA and the seat has to pass through the densest parts of rural Lancaster county; the N/NW.  

This triangle is 52.6/43.1 Clinton. Fairly safe considering the blue bits of the seat are only getting bluer, as shown by the 2018 elections, in relation to the state baseline of course. In 2018 it was 62.2/37.8 Wolf (discounting indies), meaning that the seat was roughly 3-4% to the left of the state's baseline. McGinty even won this seat in 2016 as well, suggesting that the dem votes are rather solid here.

[Oryxslayer]

it should be noted that every post that I have made in these 2020 redistricting forums (excluding non-serious ones like hypotheticals or scenario-maps), are made using Occams Razor and Game Theory to deduce likely positions. This is why in GA I consistently see Bishop's seat getting carved up, because the GOP's position suggests this move. Here in PA, it's easy to see the Dems as being on top. The dems will make rational demands to protect their 2020 seats (dems may may gain or lose various seats here), demands that are rational within the confines of COI's, present districts, and all that. They do not have the luxury of holding a position that can ignore these more rational rules. The GOP can agree to those demands, at which point they and the dems can set about to working on the rest of the map so not to leave the republicans with nothing. Or the GOP can say no, and they get nothing as the maps are tossed upstairs to a court who appears to be happy to correct for the states geographic bias.

[Idaho Conservative]

it should be noted that every post that I have made in these 2020 redistricting forums (excluding non-serious ones like hypotheticals or scenario-maps), are made using Occams Razor and Game Theory to deduce likely positions. This is why in GA I consistently see Bishop's seat getting carved up, because the GOP's position suggests this move. Here in PA, it's easy to see the Dems as being on top. The dems will make rational demands to protect their 2020 seats (dems may may gain or lose various seats here), demands that are rational within the confines of COI's, present districts, and all that. They do not have the luxury of holding a position that can ignore these more rational rules. The GOP can agree to those demands, at which point they and the dems can set about to working on the rest of the map so not to leave the republicans with nothing. Or the GOP can say no, and they get nothing as the maps are tossed upstairs to a court who appears to be happy to correct for the states geographic bias.

You overestimate the leverage of the Dems.  The PA supreme court didn't draw an explicit Dem gerrymander last time, more of a Dem tilting map like your maps tend to be, and there's no reason they would draw a more brazen map.  Both sides have an incentive to cooperate, especially Dems because so many of their seats are competitive.  Of course the court theoretically could start cutting up counties and making tendrils to favor Dems, but that just isn't a likely event!  It would jeopardize their reelections and even risk mid decade redistricting if it were too brazen.

[Sol]

it should be noted that every post that I have made in these 2020 redistricting forums (excluding non-serious ones like hypotheticals or scenario-maps), are made using Occams Razor and Game Theory to deduce likely positions. This is why in GA I consistently see Bishop's seat getting carved up, because the GOP's position suggests this move. Here in PA, it's easy to see the Dems as being on top. The dems will make rational demands to protect their 2020 seats (dems may may gain or lose various seats here), demands that are rational within the confines of COI's, present districts, and all that. They do not have the luxury of holding a position that can ignore these more rational rules. The GOP can agree to those demands, at which point they and the dems can set about to working on the rest of the map so not to leave the republicans with nothing. Or the GOP can say no, and they get nothing as the maps are tossed upstairs to a court who appears to be happy to correct for the states geographic bias.

Why would you assume that? Parties don't necessarily act in a perfectly rational manner, and incumbents, local interests, etc. often act as complicating factors in drawing maps. You can clearly see this in the 2010 maps, as discussed in the threads from last cycle.

[windjammer]

I guess one GOP district is going to be eliminated, but screwing up the dem holding a Trump district as it is going to become even more republican.

[Former President tack50]

Ok, so here is a quick map I have just drawn with 17 districts roughly based on the current ones and deleting the 15th district. I think it uses 2010 estimates which means the population distribution is probably wrong but whatever. Opinion?

I don't really like splitting big cities, but Pittsburgh is just perfectly designed to be split 3 ways along the rivers in the town Plus it doesn't change the partisanship of the 3 districts anyways (one solid D, one tossup and one solid R; though the solid D district goes to more like Likely D)

Numbers are 2016 election numbers



Pittsburgh closeup



Philadelphia closeup



From what I can tell this map would be something like this?

4 Safe D
2 Lean D
2 Tossup
9 Safe R (maybe 2 would be Likely R?)

So probably not a fair map and a bit of an R gerrymander, though I guess the beyond titanium D 2nd and 3rd districts sink the chances of Democrats here?

[UncleSam]

Idk I don’t think there’s much justification to split Pittsburgh three ways. I think there’s a lot more Lean / Likely R districts om that map than your ratings suggest, so it’s probably overall pretty fair and emphasizes competitiveness. A fair map of Pennsylvania is never going to give Dems as many seats as their vote counts would suggest because of how packed in the Philadelphia districts necessarily are.

Even so, I’ll bet Dems can get something kinder to them through the process than that map. I’d expect their final map will be aiming for a 9 R - 8 D split fairly reliably, although don’t rule out the possibility of gerrymandering efforts if Dems gain total control over the redistricting process.

[OBD]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/9836d218-548c-4db3-8950-06d8813ebefe
Here's my take on a potential Democratic gerrymander of Pennsylvania, though it's unlikely they'll be able to seize all the levers of power. Clinton won 10 of these districts in 2016, and one of the districts she lost was Cartwright's.

Notable Points (moving from west to east) (2016 numbers from the NYT article on PA's new districts):
- Conor Lamb's district, formerly Trump +3, is now Clinton +2.9 after taking in some parts of Pittsburg proper. The Pittsburg-based 14th district (regaining it's pre-2017 number) does get more competitive, but it's still Clinton +20. Lamb, who we already know has significant crossover appeal, should easily be able to hold the new 17th into the 2030s.
- Mike Kelly's district shifts from Trump +20 to Trump +25. This district is bound to shift right in any reasonable scenario and is pretty much gone for Dems.
- Cartwright's new district stretches from State College to Scranton and is actually only Trump +3.3, a major shift in favor of the Democrats. It'll probably flip during a GOP wave in the latter half of the 2020's though.
- The 10th is gerrymandered to be a Harrisburg-York-Lancaster district, and is Clinton +3.2, a 12-point shift leftward. Lancaster is trending left, so Democrats should be competitive here for a while. Tossup district.
- The 6th district, now Clinton +5.1, is the main weakness of this map (4 points more Republican). It does take in all of Reading and Coatesville, and loses the swingier southern half of Chester to the 5th district, but also gains a little too much conservative territory outside of and west of Reading. It's possible to shore it up at the expense of the 4th district, though, if the 6th is seen by party leadership as too much of a flight risk.
- The 5th district becomes less compact and more conservative (It's a Clinton +17.4 district, about a 11-point shift right) but it's still Safe D. Yawn.
- The 4th district is basically the same (It's Clinton +18.5, about the same as its predecessor) and takes up pretty much the same areas. Now that I consider it more, moving the 6th to about a Clinton +7-8 district (and thus moving the 4th to a Clinton +15-16 district) is a good idea - just trade parts of rural Berks for parts of suburban Philly.
- The Allentown-based 7th district also doesn't change much, picking up the population-equality mandated territories in Monroe County as well as taking a small slice of Berks. It moves from Clinton +1 to Clinton +2.4 though, so Susan Wild should remain viable here for a while.
- The 1st district grabs parts of Philadelphia County, but it's still just Clinton +3.4 (a one-point improvement over the old 1st). Fitzy should be fine here, but the extra liberal tidbits might just tip the scale in a Democratic wave election. Frankly, not much else the Dems can do here without endangering the 4th district.
- Not much to say about the inner Philly districts. The 2nd gets a little whiter, but the 3rd is still majority-black, so it should be alright by the VRA.

Taken all together, this is a 5-6-6 map (though Democrats can shore up the 17th and 6th districts with the 14th and 4th districts). In a 2022 Trump midterm, Democrats have a good shot at an 11-6 majority, but Cartwright and Wild's seats will increasingly come into danger as time progresses. Over time, this could settle into a 10-7 or 9-8 map (after Cartwright retires), but if the Republicans make significant progress here it could morph into a 7-10 map quickly.

If Democrats aren't feeling confident, they could move Lancaster into the 6th, sacrificing the 10th for peace of mind. That said, I think the rest of the districts in this map are pretty ideal for Dems.

[Boomerberg2020]

One the fair/tilt republican maps I’ve drawn a thing you can easily do to keep fairness/cleanness is drawing a Berks/Leigh counties seat. I when I draw it almost always it’s Obama/Obama/Trump. So it’d be a pure toss up seat while at the sametime respecting both republicans and democrats. Also Luzerne/Lackawanna can/should also be put together.

[Idaho Conservative]

Let's try to keep these at least somewhat realistic.  Pittsburgh isn't getting split 3 ways, neither party wants that.  Also no tendril districts are getting drawn to the benefit of either party.  Sure, one party may get a map that is a bit more favorable to them, like how the current map slightly favors Dems, but there won't be an extreme gerrymander.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Let's try to keep these at least somewhat realistic.  Pittsburgh isn't getting split 3 ways, neither party wants that.  Also no tendril districts are getting drawn to the benefit of either party.  Sure, one party may get a map that is a bit more favorable to them, like how the current map slightly favors Dems, but there won't be an extreme gerrymander.

The above map was drawn with the specific framing of if by some miracle the Dems gain the General Assembly. If they did then a map like that would be exactly what would be drawn.

[Harry Hayfield]

Aside from the obvious rule that states that each state must have the number of congressional districts laid down by the rules, is there a rule stating that each district must have a minimum electorate / population?

[Oryxslayer]

Aside from the obvious rule that states that each state must have the number of congressional districts laid down by the rules, is there a rule stating that each district must have a minimum electorate / population?

Districts must have the exact same population, or as close to exact as possible. This is accomplished by getting as close as possible to +1/-1/0 as you can with precincts, and then cutting precincts to achieve this outcome. This is all basic stuff in US Redistricting.

Now at the state level, there can be different provisions. Sometimes districts are allowed larger divergence in Pop, usually a +/-5%. This is often accompanied by a provision for county nesting, keeping NE towns intact, or something of that nature. This provision about exact population is why everyone fusses about COIs, since if this was Westminster style Redistricting, COIs would take the forefront and population equity gets sidelined.

[Tintrlvr]

Aside from the obvious rule that states that each state must have the number of congressional districts laid down by the rules, is there a rule stating that each district must have a minimum electorate / population?

Districts must have the exact same population, or as close to exact as possible. This is accomplished by getting as close as possible to +1/-1/0 as you can with precincts, and then cutting precincts to achieve this outcome. This is all basic stuff in US Redistricting.

Now at the state level, there can be different provisions. Sometimes districts are allowed larger divergence in Pop, usually a +/-5%. This is often accompanied by a provision for county nesting, keeping NE towns intact, or something of that nature. This provision about exact population is why everyone fusses about COIs, since if this was Westminster style Redistricting, COIs would take the forefront and population equity gets sidelined.

It's not the case that federal districts have to have exactly the same population; the courts have stated that de minimis deviation (definitely deviations of less than 0.1%, and possibly deviations going up as high as 1-2% as the jurisprudence has not set a precise threshold) are acceptable as long as they serve some other purpose, like minimizing county or town splits or just for the sake of not splitting precincts. Some states have provisions that require even more equality than the federal courts have done under OMOV, and many legislatures and redistricting committees do go for exact equality, but it's not required.

[Orser67]

Let's try to keep these at least somewhat realistic.  Pittsburgh isn't getting split 3 ways, neither party wants that.  Also no tendril districts are getting drawn to the benefit of either party.  Sure, one party may get a map that is a bit more favorable to them, like how the current map slightly favors Dems, but there won't be an extreme gerrymander.

The above map was drawn with the specific framing of if by some miracle the Dems gain the General Assembly. If they did then a map like that would be exactly what would be drawn.

I would hope that, after striking down the Pennsylvania's gerrymandered districts in 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would strike down any egregious Democratic gerrymander as well.

[Idaho Conservative]

Aside from the obvious rule that states that each state must have the number of congressional districts laid down by the rules, is there a rule stating that each district must have a minimum electorate / population?

For federal districts the rule is 1% variation.  The constitution does not specify this however, the supreme court justices acted as they are kings and ruled by decree. 

[Oryxslayer]

Aside from the obvious rule that states that each state must have the number of congressional districts laid down by the rules, is there a rule stating that each district must have a minimum electorate / population?

For federal districts the rule is 1% variation.  The constitution does not specify this however, the supreme court justices acted as they are kings and ruled by decree. 

One man one Vote in the VRA actually makes this required/legal. Maybe not to the degree overseen by thee courts, but certainly required. This is a part of the VRA that has nothing to do with race, it had more  to do with the gross imbalances between districts of all sorts that existed before this piece of legislation. I happened to once have the fortune of looking at a congressional handbook on the districts (in a library) from that decade, and it is rather shocking how many states had to redraw  because they violated OMOV.

[voice_of_resistance]

well if RBG/Breyer are gone and replaced with Amy Coney Barrett and Roy Moore types, we may see the VRA and Reynolds v Sims/Wesberry v Sanders/Baker v Carr gone entirely. In that cases, welcome to Philadelphia County having one district entirely.

[Skill and Chance]

well if RBG/Breyer are gone and replaced with Amy Coney Barrett and Roy Moore types, we may see the VRA and Reynolds v Sims/Wesberry v Sanders/Baker v Carr gone entirely. In that cases, welcome to Philadelphia County having one district entirely.

Not possible in PA.  Even if SCOTUS ruled the states can do whatever they want with CDs, Governor Wolf would veto it.  Dems also have de facto control of the 2020's state legislative maps through their control of the State Supreme Court (which is currently 5D/2R and 4 of the Dem seats are locked in through 2025).  If anything, the more likely outcome if equal population is no longer enforced would be Dems forcing through a map that massively overrepresents Philadelphia and Pittsburgh vs. the rest of the state.

[OBD]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/c172e644-d6e8-443e-be96-a9febbb2b260
Here's a fairer, incumbent protection map that could satisfy both parties. It's a 6-4-7 map that becomes 6-3-8 once Cartwright goes down. 
GOP Positives:
- The 1st district is safe for them now - it moves into Central PA to become Trump +22. I think Fitzy gets drawn out though, but there's enough of Bucks County in the district for him to move back in it. The same is true for the Erie County-based 16th - it moves about 3 points to the right.
- There's a lot of ripening fruit for them across the state. Matt Cartwright is clearly going the way of Petersen (his new district moves right to Trump +11.1, a marginal rightward shift), and the GOP could probably pick him off in the next wave midterm. Also, I believe Dan Meuser gets drawn into here because he lives in Luzerene County, so the GOP will have a credible challenger here. Conor Lamb's 17th is a plausible pickup if he retires or runs for higher office, and as the decade progresses Susan Wild's 7th will become more and more winnable for them. By 2028 or 2030, a 11-6 divide is possible for them if all goes well.
- Incumbent geography works out kind of well for them. If Meuser runs in the 8th, the primary problems are avoided, as each remaining representative has their own district. Guy Reschenthaler gets moved to the new 13th (he technically isn't in the district but he isn't in the current 14th either), Glenn Thompson could move across the county line into the 15th (or there could be a small gerrymander to move Oil City back into the district), John Joyce could move south into the 9th (or Altoona could be moved into the 9th), and Fred Keller should be able to keep his district. Avoiding these primary battles is a big win for the PA GOP.

Dem Positives:
- The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th districts are all solidly Democratic now (all voted for Clinton by over 60%). Also, the 6th district moves from Clinton +9 to Clinton +14.
- Susan Wild's district moves marginally to the left (Clinton +1 to Clinton +4) by shedding some conservative rurals ringing Allentown for parts of swingy Bucks County. I'm not entirely sure if this district could hold, though, so exchanging more of Bucks for some rural areas is possible at the expense of compactness (though these 1st and 7th districts are admittedly not compact to start - another possible edit is to move the eastern parts of Bucks from the 1st to the 4th),
- The Harrisburg-based 10th trades York for Lancaster and stays on the edge of competitiveness (Trump +7.4, a leftward shift). The trends are favorable enough here for a Democrat to have a chance in a wave year (or if a Democrat wins here in 2020, they will have a chance to hold on).
- Conor Lamb's district changes orientation but keeps a Trump +2.2 partisanship, so he should probably hold on here until he chases higher office. There might be problems once he leaves, though.
- The Pittsburg district is still safe.

Overall, this map likely results in a Democratic majority for the first half of the decade before continued GOP trends bring the 8th out of reach and endanger the 7th and 17th. There's stuff in here that satisfies both parties, so despite the Bucks County split it's not all that gruesome or implausible.

[Sol]

You can't split Bucks County!

[OBD]

You can't split Bucks County!

Oh, really?

Yikes...

[Sol]

You can't split Bucks County!

Oh, really?

Yikes...

I mean, you definitely can--but not splitting it is one of those weird gentleman's agreements in redistricting.

[Oryxslayer]

You can't split Bucks County!

Oh, really?

Yikes...

Well you can, it just that it hasn't since umm...has Bucks ever been cut to favor other counties? If you go way back you can find times that it had multiple seats in Bucks, but I'm not sure it has ever had to lend some of it's pop to other seats. Hell, before OMOV Bucks either was her own seat or was paired with one of her neighbors (Montgomery Lehigh), which may have been one of those 'overpopulated, but preserving local interests' districts. I stared at the GIS gif on this UCLA historical districts page for a good few minutes and never saw Bucks get cut.

So yes, while there are few absolutes in redistricting one of them is that PA will not cut Bucks, at least in 2020.