Colorado 2020 U.S. House Redistricting Discussion

[Stuart98]

Not getting all hate Democrats are giving this map on Twitter. It's a 4D-3R-1 lean D map and that seems about right to me. As long as Denver is kept as whole as possible (as it should under a commission map IMO) the median district is going to be to the right of the state as a whole. If Democrats can't win a Biden +4.6 district in a state that is likely to keep moving left then they have big problems.

Dems are mad because without the commission we'd get a 7-1 map and even this proportionally partisan map makes a lot of weird choices that deviate from COI.

[Brittain33]

Not getting all hate Democrats are giving this map on Twitter. It's a 4D-3R-1 lean D map and that seems about right to me. As long as Denver is kept as whole as possible (as it should under a commission map IMO) the median district is going to be to the right of the state as a whole. If Democrats can't win a Biden +4.6 district in a state that is likely to keep moving left then they have big problems.

Dems are mad because without the commission we'd get a 7-1 map and even this proportionally partisan map makes a lot of weird choices that deviate from COI.

How do you not end up with at least 2 R districts - one in Colorado Springs and one in the rurals?

[lfromnj]

Not getting all hate Democrats are giving this map on Twitter. It's a 4D-3R-1 lean D map and that seems about right to me. As long as Denver is kept as whole as possible (as it should under a commission map IMO) the median district is going to be to the right of the state as a whole. If Democrats can't win a Biden +4.6 district in a state that is likely to keep moving left then they have big problems.

The partisan numbers are actually quite similar to what I drew earlier on this thread. Its a bad map because Douglas is going with the Plains when Weld should be the plains seat really. The drawers gave too much attention to "Latino" Democratic hack consultants that were trying to draw 5 3 or 6-2 maps really but in the end didn't really draw a gerrymander. A lot of those maps depended on splitting El Paso and Denver which this commission at least so far has refused to do.

Along with that, there's no reason to split Boulder or Larimer county and one create a Western slope district instead of trying to gerrymander to force Pueblo into Boebert's district.

[Minnesota Mike]

Not getting all hate Democrats are giving this map on Twitter. It's a 4D-3R-1 lean D map and that seems about right to me. As long as Denver is kept as whole as possible (as it should under a commission map IMO) the median district is going to be to the right of the state as a whole. If Democrats can't win a Biden +4.6 district in a state that is likely to keep moving left then they have big problems.

Dems are mad because without the commission we'd get a 7-1 map and even this proportionally partisan map makes a lot of weird choices that deviate from COI.

Not an expert on CO communities of interest but it is tough to please everybody when redistricting. As for being mad about not getting a 7-1 map (6-2 more realistically) you can blame that on the voters who approved approved the commission. This map is fine for the system they have.

[lfromnj]

Not getting all hate Democrats are giving this map on Twitter. It's a 4D-3R-1 lean D map and that seems about right to me. As long as Denver is kept as whole as possible (as it should under a commission map IMO) the median district is going to be to the right of the state as a whole. If Democrats can't win a Biden +4.6 district in a state that is likely to keep moving left then they have big problems.

Dems are mad because without the commission we'd get a 7-1 map and even this proportionally partisan map makes a lot of weird choices that deviate from COI.

Not an expert on CO communities of interest but it is tough to please everybody when redistricting. As for being mad about not getting a 7-1 map (6-2 more realistically) you can blame that on the voters who approved approved the commission. This map is fine for the system they have.

The issue is they wanted to please Democratic Latino hack groups but didn't even please them because they didn't get the gerrymander they wanted. They actually did listen to public comments on a broad level but the ones they prioritized the most were generally the Democratic groups masquerading as Latino interests.

[Stuart98]

Not getting all hate Democrats are giving this map on Twitter. It's a 4D-3R-1 lean D map and that seems about right to me. As long as Denver is kept as whole as possible (as it should under a commission map IMO) the median district is going to be to the right of the state as a whole. If Democrats can't win a Biden +4.6 district in a state that is likely to keep moving left then they have big problems.

Dems are mad because without the commission we'd get a 7-1 map and even this proportionally partisan map makes a lot of weird choices that deviate from COI.

How do you not end up with at least 2 R districts - one in Colorado Springs and one in the rurals?

Colorado Rurals are empty, the R pack is mostly the R bits of Weld and El Paso.



Two majority minority districts, one of which is going to be majority hispanic by the end of the decade. The Springs/Pueblo district was Trump +3 in 2016 but it was Hick +5 in 2018, Hick +3 last year and Biden +6 while quickly trending left so it'd be reliable enough for Dem's purposes.

[If my soul was made of stone]

I have no idea what this commission's obsession with Greeley is. Is there a Democrat from there on the commission who's taken with the idea of not being represented by Ken Buck?

This was my attempt at a nonpartisan map, including the north Denver/Adams Hispanic opportunity seat that I alluded to earlier in the thread:


Larimer + Boulder + Grand + Gilpin + Clear Creek is a perfect district (population deviation of less than 1,000), and I'm not sure why the commission hasn't discovered this yet.

[Oryxslayer]

I have no idea what this commission's obsession with Greeley is. Is there a Democrat from there on the commission who's taken with the idea of not being represented by Ken Buck?

Spoilers for everyone, the commission only slightly cares about partisanship. Instead, it cares about Communities of individuals and so it follows the directives of those who spoke up:

- Keep the city of Denver 99% whole, the city is a community of residents. TBH, I don't think the GOP commissioners would agree to a cut anyway.
- Keep the city of Aurora whole in one seat, despite it's sprawl. This almost certainly means centennial also must be included, cause a bit of Aurora is encased in the city.
- Keep the city of Colorado Springs whole, and nest it's CD in El Paso.
- Try to provide for Hispanic's while observing the previous three. This has been defined a few times to mean keeping Pueblo and the Southern counters equal to about 280K in one seat, and draw a district north into the Hispanics in Southern Weld. We can't cut Denver so thats the best we can get out of the metro.
- Try one's best to avoid paring disparate cities like Fort Collins and Castle Rock, Grand Junction and Boulder, or Greely and Pueblo.
- No RUrban seats like Aurora-High plains.
- Try ones best to observe the boarders of local polities, even if they cross county borders or squiggle.

[Thunder98]

I was able to make 1 36% Hispanic opportunity seat by having taking the Hispanic part of Aurora and the area just north of Denver. Boebart gets pulled into a deep blue Boulder seat.  The map is 5D-3R based on the 2020 Prez map. Kind of an unusual map I guess. 

https://davesredistricting.org/join/bab1ace6-3640-4925-bd6d-fef49c1a4786

[lfromnj]

Finished my fair Colorado map. Kept the San Luis valley + Pueblo together. Aurora district is the most diverse in the state if you guys care about that. The blue one is the swingiest at Biden +4.1 and Gardner +2.5. Western district is Trump +6.8. A bit of that is because I took Manitou springs from the Colorado springs district and kept Eastern El Paso in that one. I at first just did this to keep the Hispanic areas together but IMO Eastern El Paso actually belongs with Colorado springs because there seem to be a lot of airfields in that area and everyone should understand how important the air force is to that region. It does make the El Paso district a bit more red than most typically done but its marginal.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/dc5982d1-a120-42a3-908c-9362766ba4ae
This map is a good example of how sparsely populated rural CO is in comparitive terms.

[Sol]

Splitting El Paso from the west rather than the east looks ugly af but tbh I kind of get it--Manitou Springs is a ski and tourist town like a lot of CO-03. Still not sure if that's better than an eastern split btu I see the rationale.

I'm still kind of sympathetic to a Teller+El Paso district with a slightly deeper cut of El Paso.

[lfromnj]

Splitting El Paso from the west rather than the east looks ugly af but tbh I kind of get it--Manitou Springs is a ski and tourist town like a lot of CO-03. Still not sure if that's better than an eastern split btu I see the rationale.

I'm still kind of sympathetic to a Teller+El Paso district with a slightly deeper cut of El Paso.

Main reason was just other population stuff really. Didn't want to split the valley really.

[Antonio the Sixth]

These maps just look ugly, honestly. It's hard to believe that they represent meaningful COIs when the lines look so unnatural, although I'd obviously defer to people who know the state better than I do.

It's also pretty bizarre that the 4th most Democratic district under this plan would be LESS Democratic than the 4th most Dem under the current map, even when we go from 4/7 to 4/8. A state like CO feels like it should have at least 5 seats that lean clearly to the left, but all these plans have delivered just 3 or 4 of those.

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

I made a Colorado map that takes the voting rights of Hispanics seriously. None of this "we can't split Denver" nonsense. No, we are not going to take that. There are Hispanics in Denver. Those Hispanics deserve to have political influence, not to be separated into different districts where they will be dominated by white voters. A majority Hispanic district in the northern half of Colorado CAN be drawn, and it MUST be drawn. Anything less than that is an infringement of Hispanic voting rights and is intolerable.



https://davesredistricting.org/join/fbb2df68-a4db-4dbc-86f7-2503cbdfb1c2


CO-08 is majority Hispanic (52.6% Hispanic, 32.7% White, 8.6% Black, 4.8% Native American, 4.7% Asian). It happens to have voted 66.5% for Biden, which from a Dem partisan perspective is sort of an unfortunate Dem pack. But we are not drawing maps for partisan purposes here, this is a good clean honest good government map that wants nothing more than to make sure Hispanic voting rights are protected.

Next, CO-03 is drawn as a Hispanic influence seat in southern CO. It is absolutely essential and non-negotiable that this seat should include Hispanics in Pueblo, Hispanics in all the southern rural counties with relatively high Hispanic populations, as well as in the western slope ski counties such as Eagle/Garfield/Lake etc. And - importantly, it also includes Hispanics in Colorado Springs, so as not to illegally disenfranchise them. Note that we use an expansive definition of "Hispanic" here, which includes basically any precinct in Colorado Springs that voted for Biden, even those that have very few Hispanics. Nevertheless, there are some Hispanics even in those precincts, and those Hispanics have rights which must be respected. Anything less than this - including anything that fails to put Colorado Springs Hispanics in a Hispanic influence district - is unacceptable and constitutes criminal dilution of Hispanic political influence, and will not be tolerated. CO-03 clocks in at 30.3% Hispanic and 53.2% Biden-43.9% Trump.

Once these two districts are drawn, the rest of the map comes together naturally, and there is basically no other way it can possibly be drawn.

CO-02 has to be drawn including Boulder and is forced - kicking and screaming, mind you, forced I say - to include the rest of the Western Slope areas not in CO-03. There is really nowhere else that Grand Junction etc can go. We had no choice, we had no choice. 57.6% Biden - 40.1% Trump.

CO-07 is then sandwiched south of that as basically a Jefferson County/West Denver suburbs/exurbs district, between CO-02, CO-03, and CO-08. 56.5% Biden-40.8% Trump.

CO-04 is then a nice compact good government southern Denver suburbs (and also part of southern Denver) district. 55.2% Biden - 42.3% Trump.

CO-06 then has to include the remaining part of Denver, and also Aurora etc. This again is unfortunate from a Dem partisan perspective, since it is 65.6% Biden-32.0% Trump. But hey, that just proves the point that we are not playing partisan games here. This is a fair map.

That leaves CO-05 to include the rest of Colorado Springs, the eastern rural plains and part of Weld County including the non-Hispanic portions of Greeley. 60.8% Trump - 36.0% Biden.

And then all that is left is CO-01, which is now a northern CO district pairing Larimer County/Fort Collins with the non-Hispanic parts of the north Denver suburbs. 55.5% Biden - 41.5% Trump.


Overall, it just so happens that Biden comfortably won 7 districts in this map and Trump only won 1, but that is just the way the cookie crumbles and is purely coincidental. This is map is really just all about Hispanic voting rights and good government. Nothing more, nothing less.


A map with anything less than this is full on anti-Hispanic racism, and will be overturned in court and replaced with this map. A Hispanic majority district MUST be drawn in the north, including Denver and Greeley Hispanics. And a Hispanic influence district MUST be drawn in the south with Pueblo, Ski resort Hispanics, rural Hispanics, and yes, also Colorado Springs Hispanics (really important not to forget them).

[Oryxslayer]

These maps just look ugly, honestly. It's hard to believe that they represent meaningful COIs when the lines look so unnatural, although I'd obviously defer to people who know the state better than I do.

I assume this is in reference to the lack of straight lines. Well here's the thing the commission has decided to respect the interests of localities over the sizable counties. The further west you go, the more this makes since cause the county size and population go up. However, Colorado still has some of zoning customs of the plains rather than the west, so suburbs sprawl and towns annex water reservoirs or other distant necessary points of interest. Congressionally this condition mostly comes into effect between Larimer/Boulder and Weld, where there are I believe six oddly shaped towns that cross the line , plus Broomfield's NW oddities.



This brings me to my main and separate post, which is trying to untangle the knot of the commissions unofficial rules posted here previously. This map accomplishes those goals, and most importantly accomplishes three secondary ones.




So why does this work? First, it answers the Pueblo question. Pueblo, when considered inseparable from her environs, is too populated for either district 3 or 4 to take on without losing territory that damages their previous community. Draft 1 CO-03 hinted at this end outcome with the southern seat, but to create such a districts results in the destruction of the Western Slope.

The answer therefore is to remove all other potential population centers from CO-04, because these are already scattered and better served by closer seats, and then add in Pueblo. This makes Pueblo the center of gravity for the ranching seat. Weld is carved up with the cross-border towns going in CO-02, and CO-08 reaching up to Greeley like done in Staff 2 and 3. The near Douglas suburbs go in the suburban seats, with Highlands Ranch in 7 and Parker in 6.

Secondary objective number two: A competitive CO-03. The desire to make this seat swing is partially what got us to this point, with Dems complaining about the ACS map adding Canon City and then CLLARO publishing not-gerrymanders that always make the seat marginal. Accomplishing this goal with Pueblo is hard cause you have to either remove the ski counties or do something weird like staff 2. Adding northern Larimer doesn't take in any of the cities that would destroy the CO02 community, nor does it shift the partisanship of either drastically, with the county portion at Biden+6. It arguable instead helps serve the ski/vacation COI of CO03, since everything added is structured around Estes and Rocky Mountain Parks. End result is a seat that is Trump+3.7, Stapleton+3.5.

Finally there is the recent tertiary goal of a partisan outcome that matches the states political trajectory. CO-07 here is Biden+15.5, Hick+10.1, and Polis+8.6. CO-08 is Biden+13.6, Hick+10.1, and Polis+10.3.

Five cities in total are cut statewide, one of which is Denver (unavoidable), and two are <700 pop border towns in El Paso/Teller and Jefferson/Clear Creek. Lone tree in Douglas and Commerce City in Adams are the only ones cut intentionally.

[lfromnj]

These maps just look ugly, honestly. It's hard to believe that they represent meaningful COIs when the lines look so unnatural, although I'd obviously defer to people who know the state better than I do.

It's also pretty bizarre that the 4th most Democratic district under this plan would be LESS Democratic than the 4th most Dem under the current map, even when we go from 4/7 to 4/8. A state like CO feels like it should have at least 5 seats that lean clearly to the left, but all these plans have delivered just 3 or 4 of those.

Its mostly because this plan the new seat is mostly created by "cracking" the current 7th district(biden 60-39) with 2 R regions(Weld county) and some random rurals West of the Front range. Honestly most of the other districts are are relatively similar to the current map.

[lfromnj]

https://mobile.twitter.com/EvanWyloge/status/1442926297408102400

Colorado to vote on final plan at 6 pm MT.

[BoiseBoy]

First tally for commissioner votes is split 5 (Staff Plan 3 Coleman Amendment), 1 (Tafoya Amendment 2), 5 (Headwaters Amended), 1 (Schell Moore Kelly Coleman Amendment).

8 votes including 2 unaffiliated votes are needed for a map to pass.

[Brittain33]

So if they can’t agree, the third staff plan goes to the Supreme Court to approve?

[BoiseBoy]

Tally for Round 2:

Staff Plan 3 Coleman Amendment - 7 votes
P.007.Tafoya ("Headwaters Amended") - 3 votes
Tafoya Workshop Adjusted - 2 votes

Looking like the Coleman Amendment map will be the final map.

[Thunder98]

So if they can’t agree, the third staff plan goes to the Supreme Court to approve?

Yep and all 7 judges are Dem.

[Skill and Chance]

Tally for Round 2:

Staff Plan 3 Coleman Amendment - 7 votes
P.007.Tafoya ("Headwaters Amended") - 3 votes
Tafoya Workshop Adjusted - 2 votes

Looking like the Coleman Amendment map will be the final map.

Is this the most recent one they published last week?

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

Hopefully the state Supreme Court takes this seriously and just nukes the commission's BS.

[BoiseBoy]

Tally for Round 2:

Staff Plan 3 Coleman Amendment - 7 votes
P.007.Tafoya ("Headwaters Amended") - 3 votes
Tafoya Workshop Adjusted - 2 votes

Looking like the Coleman Amendment map will be the final map.

Is this the most recent one they published last week?

The Coleman Amendment is a slight adjustment of the third staff plan.

3rd Staff Plan


Coleman Amendment Plan