Colorado 2020 U.S. House Redistricting Discussion

[Idaho Conservative]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/0e67ae47-147a-43bf-af1a-112973325418
4D-2C-2R map
Gives both sides something they'd want.  Majority-minority Denver seat and 2 other suburban seats have areas of Denver that make them safe D.  Boulder+Fort Collins seat safe D.  CO Springs and Eastern CO seats are safe R, and competitive seats in western CO and the southern suburbs of Denver.

[Idaho Conservative]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/0e67ae47-147a-43bf-af1a-112973325418
4D-2C-2R map
Gives both sides something they'd want.  Majority-minority Denver seat and 2 other suburban seats have areas of Denver that make them safe D.  Boulder+Fort Collins seat safe D.  CO Springs and Eastern CO seats are safe R, and competitive seats in western CO and the southern suburbs of Denver.

Firstly, given it's an independent commission it doesn't matter what both sides want. Secondly, given Colorado has a Democratic trifecta, why would the Republicans ever get anything they want in redistricting? Thirdly, your "competitive" seats are R+7 (6th) and R+9 (5th) so really you've just drawn a 4-4 map, or a light Republican gerrymander.

It's a bipartisan commission.  Also, PVI doesn't determine whether a district is competitive.  The western CO area is swingy and McCain only won it by 2.  Also the suburban seat is competitive in the post Trump area.  The map would either produce a 4D 4R map or a 5D 3R map in a decent dem year.  Given the political geography of CO, with dems being hyper concentrated in Denver and Boulder, a truly fair map would have only 2 safe dem seats and 2 lean/likely dem in the suburbs.  However by cracking Denver I drew 3 safe D and 1 likely D seat.  The other 4 are 2 safe R and 2 lean R.  On average Dems win maybe 4.5/8 seats if you look at how the state voted the past decade.  Very fair. 

[Idaho Conservative]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/0e67ae47-147a-43bf-af1a-112973325418
4D-2C-2R map
Gives both sides something they'd want.  Majority-minority Denver seat and 2 other suburban seats have areas of Denver that make them safe D.  Boulder+Fort Collins seat safe D.  CO Springs and Eastern CO seats are safe R, and competitive seats in western CO and the southern suburbs of Denver.

Firstly, given it's an independent commission it doesn't matter what both sides want. Secondly, given Colorado has a Democratic trifecta, why would the Republicans ever get anything they want in redistricting? Thirdly, your "competitive" seats are R+7 (6th) and R+9 (5th) so really you've just drawn a 4-4 map, or a light Republican gerrymander.

It's a bipartisan commission. 

It's as much of a bipartisan commission as Arizona has a "bipartisan commission"

Colorado's commission is a CA style commission. 12 Commissioners, 4  D, 4 R, 4 Indie. Any map needs 2/3s approval, and at least 2 indies need to be in that 2/3s. now, like I mentioned above, the indies could be stacked. However, the more commissioners there are, the lower chance  of this happening. AZ for instance has a simple majority to adopt their maps with a 5 member commission, putting all power in that single indie.

This is particularly likely to happen in Western states with a lot of "indies" who all lean one way, to the point where I would go in with the assumption of a soft Dem map in CO and AZ and a soft GOP map if e.g. the OK/NE commission initiatives succeed.  In, say, Michigan, I would be more confident that the independents on the commission have unique views not aligned with either party. 

Also some southern states with a lot of Republican voters who are still registered dem could have this issue if they were to get bipartisan commissions.  Like KY.

[Idaho Conservative]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/0e67ae47-147a-43bf-af1a-112973325418
4D-2C-2R map
Gives both sides something they'd want.  Majority-minority Denver seat and 2 other suburban seats have areas of Denver that make them safe D.  Boulder+Fort Collins seat safe D.  CO Springs and Eastern CO seats are safe R, and competitive seats in western CO and the southern suburbs of Denver.

Firstly, given it's an independent commission it doesn't matter what both sides want. Secondly, given Colorado has a Democratic trifecta, why would the Republicans ever get anything they want in redistricting? Thirdly, your "competitive" seats are R+7 (6th) and R+9 (5th) so really you've just drawn a 4-4 map, or a light Republican gerrymander.

It's a bipartisan commission. 

It's as much of a bipartisan commission as Arizona has a "bipartisan commission"

Colorado's commission is a CA style commission. 12 Commissioners, 4  D, 4 R, 4 Indie. Any map needs 2/3s approval, and at least 2 indies need to be in that 2/3s. now, like I mentioned above, the indies could be stacked. However, the more commissioners there are, the lower chance  of this happening. AZ for instance has a simple majority to adopt their maps with a 5 member commission, putting all power in that single indie.

This is particularly likely to happen in Western states with a lot of "indies" who all lean one way, to the point where I would go in with the assumption of a soft Dem map in CO and AZ and a soft GOP map if e.g. the OK/NE commission initiatives succeed.  In, say, Michigan, I would be more confident that the independents on the commission have unique views not aligned with either party. 

Also some southern states with a lot of Republican voters who are still registered dem could have this issue if they were to get bipartisan commissions.  Like KY.

Very well could happen in Arkansas if their commission actually comes into existence. Every Dem would need to be a AA for the Dems to have any chance at pushing for an AA seat on the Congressional level. If not, then the Dems would probably be encouraged to trade GOP authority over the Congressional map for a greater amount of Dem seats on the State legislative maps. Oklahoma is also pushing for a commission, but if it successfully becomes law, Dems don't really have much to worry about on the Congressional level. Their only possible desire, keeping OKC whole, is fairly common sense and would occur under any fair map.

and it would be difficult to ensure every Democrat on the commission is black, AR isn't MS, there are many white Dems.  To explicitly reject all white people from Dem slots can only be described as one thing: racist

[Idaho Conservative]

And CO isn't required to do so. Whites in Colorado aren't uniformly opposed to electing a Hispanic candidate, so it would just be pure packing of minorities to dilute Democratic voting strength to create a Hispanic VRA seat there.

It doesnt really dilute Democratic voting strength, unless you're making tentacle districts out of Denver

If anything, Dems want the minority seat in this situation. It's being built out of an area that is already very blue, so no dems are getting cut. In exchange for slight packing, Dems get to seriously cut and spread out Denver, something that would normally only be possible under D-gerry rules.

cutting Denver doesn't hurt reps, as long as it isn't paired with exurban areas

[Idaho Conservative]

Here's a map with a majority-minority district.  I combined diverse areas of Denver, Adams, and Arapahoe to make a 34% white district.  Then combined the rest of Denver with the inner ring suburban areas or Arapahoe county.  This isn't the best from a COI perpective, but Dems will like Denver being cracked in 2.  Now there are 2 Titanium D seats in the Denver metro.  Next, Jefferson county is a pretty solid COI, and it is combined with a little bit of white Denver and Southern Arapahoe.   Likely D.  Then a 4th Denver metro seat forms pretty naturally out of the white areas remaining of Adams and Arapahoe+Douglas.  Likely R.  I like how I created 4 Denver and 4 non Denver seats, rather than mixing and matching.  Then a Boulder+Fort Collins district forms pretty naturally.  College town district, Safe D.  I drew a western CO resort district which is a bit more compact than the current one, Likely R.  Then a Colorado Springs district which nearly perfectly fits in El Paso County, Safe R.  Finally a rural east CO farming district, which also includes a lot of spanish southern CO, Safe R

[Idaho Conservative]

34% white still probably isn't a performing majority-minority district. I managed to draw one that was by population 34.2% white, 49.1% Hispanic and 11.7% black. By CVAP, it's 48.7% white, 34.0% Hispanic and 12.1% black. Given Clinton got just under 70% in it, amongst Democratic voters whites probably still have a decent plurality.

Your lines are slightly different from those I picked, so the exact figures may vary somewhat, but it's probably not enough to make it perform.

Well, that's the best than can be drawn.  I don't think it's possible to get a less white seat. Maybe a tiny bit with less clean lines, but wouldn't be too different.  This is more of a minority opportunity seat.