2020 Redistricting in Pennsylvania

[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. 

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.

yeah but even without the vra it would still be legally mandated by the courts.  If it weren't all you'd need is a majority in congress to overturn it, now you need an amendment.  There is also a constitutional issue as to whether congress is allowed to regulate redistricting, especially over non federal districts.  That's just a hypothetical though, courts have upheld the vra, except 1 part. 

But what's the enforcement mechanism in the vra anyways?  Is it enforced via conditions on federal funding that pertains to elections?  There has to be some teeth in it, otherwise stares would just do whatever they please.

[EastAnglianLefty]

I took a quick look at the State Senate to see what a court-drawn map might look like, using the 2016 population estimates.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/fa6d27d9-212b-4d48-aa36-348390abfa66

Drawn without looking at partisan data, except in Centre County where I used it as a quick way to work up which bits of the county the students were concentrated in.

I prioritised minimising county splits as much as possible (though in practice I suspect some of my groupings may be a little too large/small by 2016 given historical population trends), then keeping cities and their immediate urban areas together, then maintaining transport links, then compactness.

There are three black-majority districts in Philadelphia, plus another likely to be won by either a black or Hispanic candidate (W17 B30 H44) and a district in Delaware where the Democratic primary is likely black-majority (W 47 B40). The West Philadelphia district may not pass muster (it's 77% black) but if so that could easily be fixed by swapping territory with the Delaware opportunity district and making them both black-majority.

Somewhat to my surprise, Clinton and Trump both won 25 districts. Some of this is about the Republican vote being remarkably inefficient (outside SE PA, Trump got more than 60% in most Republican districts) and some of it is probably about a fair map making it harder to drown out the votes of major cities.

In practice, the Republicans still overperform enough in bits of suburban Philly that I suspect they would probably be favoured in an even year, at least for now. Key swing districts (defined here as neither Trump nor Clinton getting 50%) are the 8th (central Bucks), the 11th (north Montgomery), the 17th (Lancaster and environs), the 25th (Reading), the 27th (Northampton County), the 30th (Scranton) and the 50th (Erie).

[EastAnglianLefty]

The same thing, but for the State House: https://davesredistricting.org/join/b3d29cd2-dd3a-4e74-9022-da13ea437fd3

Interestingly, this one works out at 116-87 Trump-Clinton, so significantly less favourable for Democrats than the Senate even though I used the same methodology for drawing it. This is probably because the size of most cities means it's much easier for Democrats to get packed into a single city, especially when a VRA district is possible.

In practice there are enough ancestrally Democratic districts that still have Democrats representing them that the chamber might still be flippable, but the median seat still went from Trump over Clinton 51.6-44.8 so it's an uphill fight.

VRA districts:

2 in Allegheny (one black-majority, one black opportunity - 53W 40B)
1 possible coalition district in York (52W 19B 24H)
2 in Lehigh (one Hispanic majority, one Hispanic opportunity - 45W H41)
1 Hispanic-majority district in Berks
1 black plurality district in Dauphin (43B 32W 16H)
1 majority-minority district in Lancaster (44W B14 H37)
3 in Allegheny (1 black majority, two just short of 50%)
1 possible coalition district in Montgomery (53W B24 H15)
16 in Philadelphia (11 black majority, 2 Hispanic majority, 1 black plurality - 23W 40B 26H 9A, and two I can't predict at all - 34W 25B 23H 15A and 35W 35B 26H)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/d2df5ff8-8b9b-4591-86ea-f668ac0dcbe1

I made this map.
The cascading impact from larger district sizes forces the 4th to take all of the 5th's share of MontCo and even part of DelCo which in turn disturbs PA-06, forcing it north and west. This is also visible with more of Monroe being placed in the 7th. The 8th is forced to take in yet still more of Luzerne, which combined with the 6th's movements, in effect merging the old 9th and 12th. Farther west, the 14th gains the remainder of Westmoreland. Additionally the Erie CD is largely out of the reach of Dems, and has to move east. Conor Lamb's CD has to take territory from the SW PA CD and the Erie CD, moving it to the right, but this is countered by it having more of the deep blue areas just east of Pittsburgh. In the end it shifts 2 points to the right, still winnable for Conor Lamb and still competitive especially in the wake of Dem trends in traditionally R areas in Allegheny County.

Overall, you have 7 Clinton seats (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 17), and 10 Trump ones (6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16).
I'm not entirely sure if 6 voted for Trump or not, but the fact it is R+3 likely makes it too unlikely to be a Clinton district, notwithstanding the trends in Chester County - the most strongly D trending areas are probably placed in the 5th here anyway. But the margin would be too close for Rs to feel any comfort here.
Also Punxsutawney Phil is now in the 12th district but that doesn't really matter or anything.

[dpmapper]

Your east is very similar to what I posted here:

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=353932.msg7125474#msg7125474

I don't think Lebanon should be attached to the rural north, though.  It belongs with either Dauphin or Lancaster.  You can detach the western end of Cumberland and put that with the 13th. 

I also don't like the 16th crossing the Allegheny River northeast of Pittsburgh.  That seems like a natural border that you don't need to break multiple times.  The 17th can take all of Pittsburgh, everything in Allegheny County between the Allegheny and the Monongahela, plus whatever else is necessary to make population. 

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Not crossing the Allegheny River would have made the map too R-friendly, and would have made the 16th hard for Dems. Not to mention its predecessor already crosses the river in that same area.
I'm also unwilling to alter the arrangements for Lebanon because 1) it being placed in with Lancaster makes a rational arrangement with the rest of York impossible and 2) it can't go with Dauphin because doing so destroys any competitive element in PA-10. Doing either also forces an additional county split.
Lebanon also, as far I recall, already is in the 9th. The only thing that changed now was it being more of a southern appendage of a more rural district due to PA-06 drifting north, but such things ought to be expected when seats get merged.

[dpmapper]

I'm going by cleanest lines and COIs, not trying to engineer any outcomes (unlike the PA supremes who made the current map).  To me, the rivers in Allegheny give the most natural dividers; that's all there is to it.  Let the chips fall where they may. 

Lebanon is clearly more connected to Lancaster and Dauphin than it is to Lycoming etc., so if you're just going by COI and not trying to put a finger on the scale for Dems, that's where it should go.  I don't know what you mean by a "rational arrangement" with York; it worked pretty well in my map. 

Cumberland+Dauphin+York+Lancaster is not going to end up being exactly 2 districts, so you're going to have that extra county split once the final numbers come in anyway. 

[Mr.Phips]

You’d think now would be a perfect time for non-partisan redistricting in Pennsylvania.  Republicans should be afraid of being wiped out in the legislature in the 2020s due to a Dem controlled apportionment board (through the Supreme Court) and Democrats should be a afraid of potentially losing the governorship and legislature again in 2030 right before the 2031 redistricting.  Seems like it would be something both sides would see as in their best interest.

[Sol]

Here's my 'let's keep things relatively nonpartisan and least change' map.





Basically not too much change. Lamb's and Houlahan's districts get a lot redder, as does Perry's. I Cartwright's maybe does too? In any case that's pretty inevitable on a fair map, especially one which resembles the current map. Boyle's district also becomes plurality Black.

[Torie]

This map might actually be something like what we end up with.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This map might actually be something like what we end up with.

Nah, Wolf should (and presumably would) veto that. 

[Idaho Conservative]

This map might actually be something like what we end up with.

Nah, Wolf should (and presumably would) veto that. 

It's pretty fair, losing a district just happens to really hurt Dems.

[lfromnj]

This map might actually be something like what we end up with.

Nah, Wolf should (and presumably would) veto that. 

It's pretty fair, losing a district just happens to really hurt Dems.

Well it cuts a GOP district but every other D district has to move right besides the Buck district which is R held

[Idaho Conservative]

This map might actually be something like what we end up with.

Nah, Wolf should (and presumably would) veto that. 

It's pretty fair, losing a district just happens to really hurt Dems.

Well it cuts a GOP district but every other D district has to move right besides the Buck district which is R held

then cut a dem district?  That's the issue, the only way Dems could do well is an explicit Dem gerrymander.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This map might actually be something like what we end up with.

Nah, Wolf should (and presumably would) veto that.  

It's pretty fair, losing a district just happens to really hurt Dems.

Not our problem what a "fair" map would look like.  Wolf should veto any map that isn't at least a mild Democratic gerrymander.  We have the PA Supreme Court, so if it gets punted to them, we can just draw whatever map we want

[Torie]

I turned the western CD's counterclockwise to get rid of a chop of Beaver County to the west of Pittsburgh. So my map above has been changed a tiny tad. Below is the existing map.

 

I think Wolff would be hard pressed to veto a map that eliminates a Pub CD, and hews to good redistricting principles, without savaging a Dem incumbent.

A map that does savage a Dem incumbent is this one:



As I told the boys at RRH who disliked what I did by not putting Schuylkill with the northern part of Chester, it is a thought crime to combine the richest bit of PA with a rural fossil fuel rust belt county, and the howls would drown out everything else. Less is more, even for Pubs sometimes.

[Idaho Conservative]

I turned the western CD's counterclockwise to get rid of a chop of Beaver County to the west of Pittsburgh. So my map above has been changed a tiny tad. Below is the existing map.

 

I think Wolff would be hard pressed to veto a map that eliminates a Pub CD, and hews to good redistricting principles, without savaging a Dem incumbent.

A map that does savage a Dem incumbent is this one:



As I told the boys at RRH who disliked what I did by not putting Schuylkill with the northern part of Chester, it is a thought crime to combine the richest bit of PA with a rural fossil fuel rust belt county, and the howls would drown out everything else. Less is more, even for Pubs sometimes.

splitting Chester is a R gerrymander tho.

[lfromnj]

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.

Yup all that can be done with Bucks is whatever the remaining 150k of the district is, NE philly or Middle Montgomery or Exurban Montgomery or the red parts of the Lehigh valley.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I turned the western CD's counterclockwise to get rid of a chop of Beaver County to the west of Pittsburgh. So my map above has been changed a tiny tad. Below is the existing map.

 

I think Wolff would be hard pressed to veto a map that eliminates a Pub CD, and hews to good redistricting principles, without savaging a Dem incumbent.

A map that does savage a Dem incumbent is this one:



As I told the boys at RRH who disliked what I did by not putting Schuylkill with the northern part of Chester, it is a thought crime to combine the richest bit of PA with a rural fossil fuel rust belt county, and the howls would drown out everything else. Less is more, even for Pubs sometimes.

I mean, what does Wolf have to lose by playing hardball?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Annoyingly, a fair 17-district map in PA only produces 5 Safe D districts (2 in Philly, MontCo, DelCo, and Pittsburgh.) You may not like it (I certainly don't) but this is what peak fair map performance looks like:

[Torie]

Other than Wolf's reputation, if the Pubs draw a reasonable map, that can defended on its merits aside from the partisan implications at the margins arising from hewing to such principles, even though the Court is Dem controlled, it might be that a court that takes an oath to just follow the law, and not be partisan hacks, just maybe will not go for something that is clearly a Dem gerrymander. And it is not clear to me that it will end up in state rather than federal court in the context of a deadlock. In NY, with a deadlock, it ended up in federal court, which drew the lines. So there are risks associated with going for the max.

[lfromnj]

Honestly find a way to Chop Cartwright and give the best parts of Lackawanna to Wild while Fitzpatrick takes  the redder parts of the Lehigh Valley so Houlahan can keep more of Chester.  Everyone besides Cartwright should be pretty happy.



Here we go, Cartwright is effectively chopped as Mueser/Wild eat up his district.

Houlahan manages to keep a +5 D composite district while Fitzpatrick's district moves moderately to the right. Wild gets a pretty Safe district at +15 composit although probably only +8 Clinton although double digit Biden.

Dean takes a light hit but its still clearly Safe D even without Lower Merion.

[S019]

Honestly find a way to Chop Cartwright and give the best parts of Lackawanna to Wild while Fitzpatrick takes  the redder parts of the Lehigh Valley so Houlahan can keep more of Chester.  Everyone besides Cartwright should be pretty happy.



Here we go, Cartwright is effectively chopped as Mueser/Wild eat up his district.

Houlahan manages to keep a +5 D composite district while Fitzpatrick's district moves moderately to the right. Wild gets a pretty Safe district at +15 composit although probably only +8 Clinton although double digit Biden.

Dean takes a light hit but its still clearly Safe D even without Lower Merion.

This is a hideous map, as are several of the maps being posted in this thread

[lfromnj]

Honestly find a way to Chop Cartwright and give the best parts of Lackawanna to Wild while Fitzpatrick takes  the redder parts of the Lehigh Valley so Houlahan can keep more of Chester.  Everyone besides Cartwright should be pretty happy.



Here we go, Cartwright is effectively chopped as Mueser/Wild eat up his district.

Houlahan manages to keep a +5 D composite district while Fitzpatrick's district moves moderately to the right. Wild gets a pretty Safe district at +15 composit although probably only +8 Clinton although double digit Biden.

Dean takes a light hit but its still clearly Safe D even without Lower Merion.

This is a hideous map, as are several of the maps being posted in this thread

Its not a court map, its a bipartisan compromise that is made before a court can make a map.

[Mr.Phips]

Honestly find a way to Chop Cartwright and give the best parts of Lackawanna to Wild while Fitzpatrick takes  the redder parts of the Lehigh Valley so Houlahan can keep more of Chester.  Everyone besides Cartwright should be pretty happy.



Here we go, Cartwright is effectively chopped as Mueser/Wild eat up his district.

Houlahan manages to keep a +5 D composite district while Fitzpatrick's district moves moderately to the right. Wild gets a pretty Safe district at +15 composit although probably only +8 Clinton although double digit Biden.

Dean takes a light hit but its still clearly Safe D even without Lower Merion.

I think Wolf and Dems may be OK with something like this as long as PA-17 is also shored up for Lamb (giving him some Pittsburgh precincts).