Colorado 2020 U.S. House Redistricting Discussion

[patzer]

Does anyone think Denver will get a VRA majority minority district? I think it'll need to.

I made a map including such a VRA district, which seems to be 2D-1R-5 swing at first but is probably 7D-1R given the swing of Colorado lately... I can't post it here yet as I don't have enough messages for image posting, but will do later.

A Denver VRA district is something like 43% Hispanic, 38% white, 12% black.

[patzer]

Here's my attempt at maximizing competitive districts.
3 safe D, 1 safe R, and 4 swing that could really go either way depending on the year.

I made the new 8th district in the northern Fort Collins/Greeley area; expanded the 4th into Centennial; transferred eastern Colorado to the 6th; and northwestern Colorado to the 2nd.

This is 5R-3D by 2012-18 average (which is what's pictured in the map), but it's 6D-2R by 2018 gubernatorial (and the 4th district was just three points off flipping in the 2018 gubernatorial). Incumbents who've changed districts: Boebert is now in the 2nd, Buck is now in the 8th, Crow is now in the 4th, and I believe everyone else stays in the same place.

[patzer]

Here's my attempt at maximizing competitive districts.
3 safe D, 1 safe R, and 4 swing that could really go either way depending on the year.

I made the new 8th district in the northern Fort Collins/Greeley area; expanded the 4th into Centennial; transferred eastern Colorado to the 6th; and northwestern Colorado to the 2nd.

This is 5R-3D by 2012-18 average (which is what's pictured in the map), but it's 6D-2R by 2018 gubernatorial (and the 4th district was just three points off flipping in the 2018 gubernatorial). Incumbents who've changed districts: Boebert is now in the 2nd, Buck is now in the 8th, Crow is now in the 4th, and I believe everyone else stays in the same place.

Map link? that smells of dummymander in 2020 president.

Here you go: https://davesredistricting.org/join/2c2da2a6-3c3e-4197-9fdf-6b931b60f43f

Given the trend of Douglas County it wouldn't surprise me if that map went for Biden 7-1 in 2020. n.b. I made it on 2018 population, which is why the population isn't quite equal for each district.

[patzer]

Given the complaints about Pueblo, I thought I'd have a go at seeing how easy it would be to make the 4th more Hispanic by tweaking the proposed map.

This is what I came up with- the 4th here is 52.1% white, 42.3% Hispanic. Stats are Governor 2018.

It's hard to make it much more Hispanic than that, thanks to the relative lack of Hispanic people outside the Denver district.



Edit... Having said that, it is possible to create a VRA (majority-minority) 4th that's around 48% white, 46% Hispanic- but you would have to cut into Denver a bit. While I couldn't ordinarily imagine them deciding to actually cut into Denver, if there was enough desire for a VRA district it's worthwhile to point out that it can certainly be done while keeping Denver mostly intact. Stats are again 2018 Gubernatorial.

[patzer]

It's essentially impossible to create a proper minority-influence district outside of metro Denver, which makes me wonder if there are ulterior partisan motives at play here. Either it would be a safe R district where all the Democrats are Hispanics but their candidates can't win, or it would be a swing district with a much smaller Hispanic minority where the Democratic primaries are controlled by ski country McGovernites. It makes much more sense to draw a Hispanic district in Denver and Adams County than to try this proposal.

It's possible to make a southern Hispanic-opportunity Dem-leaning district that's over 30% Hispanic. Here's my map of that; in this case, Hispanic voters would likely dominate the Dem primaries, there aren't as many ski towns. (My map also has a 40% Hispanic district north of Denver; it's very much possible to have both)



Data is 2020 presidential

[patzer]

Now, here's a Democratic gerrymander. 7-1, all of the Democratic districts except the Hispano one in the south are more than Biden+10. The southern seat is Biden+4 but also does have Democratic history in some areas (though also some new areas for the Democrats, like a lot of the Colorado Springs parts of the district). I think this is quite clean for such an aggressive gerrymander, too, and doesn't even crack Denver.

Yeah, Biden winning in 2020 for sure isn't a sign of a safe district. For instance, it's possible to modify my last map a bit to make all eight districts Biden 2020 ones (and incidentally increasing the 8th to 43% Hispanic too)- however, four of the eight voted Trump in 2016, and three of the others were all won by Clinton by less than 9 points...

So, this map looks a gerrymander- and would be if Dem success in CO keeps improving- but on the other hand could easily function as a "maximum competitive districts" map.

[patzer]

It does feel clear though that if Colorado’s trends continue, it’s a state that’s very easy to gerrymander thanks to the central nature of the cities in the states as well as the Dem counties dotted around the state.

This time, the Commission will likely make a 5-3 map whether or not it includes a southern district, but I bet if gerrymandering is still happening nationwide by 2030, they’ll not bother with a commission and just do a 8-0.

[patzer]

It’s an interesting map. It doesn’t look like a gerrymander- which is of course the intention- but when you look further in...

It looks like a 4-3-1, but in practice: the 8th should be easy enough to hold as the Hispanic population there steadily rises; and of the three Republican districts... the 3rd is close enough to quite easily be competitive, especially if Boebert stands in it; the 5th will flip whenever El Paso County does (likely in the middle of the decade), and the 4th is also racing left (Douglas County all staying in the 4th, as well as it gaining Fort Collins, helps).

In other words: the two most Republican seats have some of the areas that are going left most strongly, and there aren’t actually any R safe seats in this map if trends there continue for the next few years.

That’s a very good prospect for Dems from a map drawn specifically to be unbiased.

[patzer]

I'm reading this is actually a staff map that was presented to the commission, not a commission drawn map.

Yeah that's what happened last time. Still interesting to note in how it was heavily influenced by an obvious Democratic gerrymander proposal yet somehow managed to be not a major Democratic gerrymander. Its quite weird what the staff is doing.

This map is probably better for Republicans in the short run though, the median seat is now Biden+5 rather than Biden+9, there is potential long term benefit from the Democrats, but other than the Col. Springs seat, idk if any of the other GOP seats (i.e. the two slope ones) will trend D long term in a significant way.

CO03 was Romney +4 and Trump +4.4 . CO04 on the other hand is zooming left pretty hard thanks to Fort Collins being back in and keeping Douglas County also being half the district. CO08 trended left in 2020 but had overall a moderate R trend from 2012  to 2020.

*Trump 4.4 in 2020 after being Trump +10.2 in '16.

Who knows what happens there long term but given Colorado's overall swing plus Boebert...well, being Boebert, there could be some possibilities medium-term here. Buck seat is an obvious longterm play and overall this map seems like they're trying to squeeze longterm potential out of the map if they continue making gains across the state.

Agree if  2016>2020 trends continue its def going 8-0 by 2028 or something.  I just felt it was important to point out the 2012>2020 trend in this case.

Not even as far as 2028.

This is what happens if we extrapolate 2016-20 trends to 2020-24:

1: D +59.0 in 2016;  D +61.3 in 2020;  D +63.6 in 2024
2: D +20.7 in 2016;  D +27.6 in 2020;  D +34.5 in 2024
3: R +11.3 in 2016;  R +4.4 in 2020;   D +2.5 in 2024
4: R +18.3 in 2016;  R +8.3 in 2020;   D +1.7 in 2024
5: R +24.3 in 2016;  R +10.2 in 2020;  D +3.9 in 2024
6: D +14.9 in 2016;  D +24.4 in 2020;  D +33.9 in 2024
7: D +1.4 in 2016;   D +12.1 in 2020;   D +22.8 in 2024
8: R +1.4 in 2016;   D + 4.8 in 2020;   D +11.0 in 2024

Obviously expecting trends like that to repeat is ambitious, but it’s still at least conceivable that it could go for 8 Dems as soon as 2024.

[patzer]

Maybe nationally the Democrats realize they'll lose the House in 2022 and are planning redistricting for 2024 and beyond...?

Then why not just go with an  8-0 or 7-1 now that is more likely to hold into 2024 instead of relying on trends.

I mean, for a commission-made map that looks fair you’ve got to at least make it seem fair in current numbers. That’s what the commission is for. You’ve got to leave three currently-R districts really, the commission surely wouldn’t sign off on a 7-1.

So all you can do is try to make a map that advantages you on trends.

[patzer]

The thing is that Latino map had like 5 Biden Districts that were all solidly safe and 1 Trump +0 district.

That's probably the exact reason why the Commission didn't accept the Latino group's map as-is? Harder to defend a 5-2-1 map as fair.

If it were possible to get a way with a map like that, yeah, it'd be better.

What do gubernatorial numbers look like for these districts?

Here's the table from their website:

[patzer]

So I thought I'd have a go at making another map, inspired by the latest commission one and trying to fix its flaws. Points to note here:

1) The obvious issue of the inclusion of Fort Collins in the eastern plains district: I thought the best solution to this would be to have a single district for all the northern towns, as a community of interest. Except Greeley, which needs to be in the Hispanic district.

2) The northern Hispanic district (numbered 8th on my map) is 44% Hispanic, reaching round to take in a few mostly-Hispanic precincts of Aurora. Southern Hispanic district is 26% Hispanic.

3) The data here is 2016 presidential. I didn't look at the partisan data until the map was finished, then had a look, and of course it turned out to be 7-1 in 2020 for Biden. However, when discussing competitiveness the Republicans are bound to be ambitious and look to reverse some of those trends. From this viewpoint, when looking at the 2016 data (2 Dem, 1 Rep, 5 swing) it seems fair and maximizes competitiveness. (Of course it could very easily go 8-0 in reality, but if it does do so that's indicative that the Republicans in the state have failed anyway)

4) One slight disadvantage of this map is how different many of the districts on it are to their current configurations. Boebert's pretty evenly split between the 3rd and 4th; Neguse between the 2nd and 3rd; Buck between the 2nd, 8th, 6th, and 7th; and Perlmutter between the 3rd, 7th, and 8th.

[patzer]

This map just looks like a gerrymander with the spokes into Denver/Boulder metro.  Weirdly, it works out to be something closer to an R gerrymander despite the look, because they hold their 3 and can contest both 8 and 6 (depending on how much weight you put on Biden #'s of course).

Weird thing is that I put no thought of gerrymandering at all into it- it just ended up being a natural result of having one southern Hispanic district, one northern cities district, and one northern Hispanic district, in addition to the existing east and west ones.

Five districts with a border on the edge of Colorado and more inevitably go into the Denver area.

And yeah, I wouldn't really call it a gerrymander until we know how much trends stick. It's just volatile.

[patzer]

What would a hardcore 5R-3D under 2020 figures look like?

Best you can do is a dummymander. Each red district is at least Trump +5:



(you could get it up to Trump +6 by carving into El Paso County, but not beyond)

[patzer]

The four items in the congressional map that seem to be sacrosanct are keeping Denver whole, keeping Aurora whole (for the most part), a district entirely in El Paso, and a Hispanic opportunity district in Adams and Weld counties.

Also keeping Aurora with Centennial seems pretty sacrosanct. The most natural combination is Aurora with the eastern plains, but they seem to be doing all they can to avoid that and do less natural pairings such as putting the eastern slope with Fort Collins- presumably in an effort to keep that district safe R.

[patzer]

Why are both of their maps gerrymandering southern Colorado but still not splitting Denver?

Why is literally everyone notable allergic to splitting Denver when its boundaries are weird and you can get two MajMins out of it if you do so?

Exactly. It's not even hard to do so neatly- e.g. this map would have the 6th as 44% white, 33% Hispanic, and 15% black, whilst the 7th is 44% Hispanic, 42%, white, 7% black.
(And the 5th is 57% white, 31% Hispanic)




My only theory is that they think there might be more chance of a lawsuit succeeding if they don't want as major change? But that does still seem strange, as it's pretty common to split cities to make VRA districts in general.

[patzer]

It's likely some combination of:

- Wanting to preserve the Geographic communities of interest around Colorado's three largest cities. For example, when we starting this whole process one of the first comments frequently presented to the commission was to leave Aurora whole. When you do this, it becomes preferable to not link the city with the north suburbs across rural Adams or the airport, but with those to her south or west. The first draft plan, the one that wrenched Ft. Collins our of Larimar, was very similar to a CLLARO map, but one of the changes made was removing the Colorado Springs arm/cut.

It's quite possible to link Aurora with the north while still looking reasonable, imo (e.g. as in my map a few posts up)

- The commission is a multipartisan body and the views and votes of everyone must be taken into account. The commissions map also should try and reflect the partisan lean of the state, and carving up Denver usually leads to cascading issues that violate both points. At it's most simple, Taking all of Denver's minorities out - both those by the Airport and those in the SW - leaves the remaining district to be paired with Arapahoe and then Douglas, areas that gradually lose a shared identity with White urbanites. The ripple effects can leave a map that at times is gerrymandered for the Dems, so good luck getting a meaningful amount of commissioner votes for that.

This however does make a lot of sense and I wouldn't be surprised if it's a big factor- every map I see that involves splitting Denver significantly just naturally favours the Dems. Really you've got a situation where it can take a bit of effort to maintain three Republican seats thanks to the geography.