Colorado 2020 U.S. House Redistricting Discussion

[Skill and Chance]

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. 

[Skill and Chance]

The new map basically looks like an R dummymander where they are assuming Biden's #'s were a one-off and trying for a majority of the seats.

[Skill and Chance]

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.

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).

[Skill and Chance]

So changes from previous draft map are that CO03 goes from Trump +4 to Trump +9 and loses a lot of ski counties making there still a moderate D trend but not as strong from 2016 >2020.
Co04 stays as a Safe R district.
Co08 goes from Biden +5 to Biden +7. Previous map was better for the GOP in 2022 with a relatively even chance I would say of a 4-4 result. This one I would say is a decent bit lower for 4-4 though.

This one is better for Dems in the short run, but it's more likely to lock in 5D/3R for the decade.  Version 2 could have easily gone 4D/4R in 2022 and then 6D/2R in 2024 or 26. 

[Skill and Chance]

6-2 was easily possible for the Colorado Democrats. The problem with Democrats is they have a trifecta in just some states, and in a lot of those states, they give it to independent commissions. I'm not saying it's a bad idea but the Democats should play harball instead of always taking the high road when the GOP does gerrymanders wherever possible. And in all honesty, even a 6-2 map wouldn't really be that much of a gerrymander. In any case they can do much better than 5-3, and I'm dissapointed they didn't go any farther. In particular, CO03 can probably be turned into a Biden district if its borders are played around with a bit. They can definitely do it if they've got a district that went to Biden by north of 60 points.

I don't think the legislature itself would have given up control of redistricting if there weren't already group(s) collecting signatures for amendments in 2018 that looked likely to be approved/enacted. the Democratic-led legislature figured if redistricting reform was going to end up on the ballot either way, it might as well be amendments that had been crafted with their input.

The problem for Democrats is that they control more critical states for redistricting with an initiative process than there are for Republicans. And even for the Republican-leaning states that do have such a process, those states aren't particularly worthwhile for reform - at least in terms of how many US House seats Democrats could shift back towards them by eliminating gerrymandering. And all of this is also complicated by the fact that Democrats are simultaneously trying to end the practice of gerrymandering nationally while also not trying to screw themselves by just giving up seats to the GOP while Republicans eagerly gerrymander their own states to win more seats.

Of the initiative states, doing a true commission amendment in FL would be by far the best remaining Dem opportunity (though it requires 60% to pass, the process has gotten stricter and adverse court rulings are likely, so this isn't a slam dunk).  OK, AR, and NE (especially with the state having EV-by-CD) would all be worth pursuing for Democrats.  Maybe MO, but a largely pro-Dem proposal was passed in 2018 and then repealed by another referendum in 2020 so IDK?  I don't think MS has initiatives anymore after a recent state supreme court ruling (it wasn't a strictly partisan ruling either- 6/3 with 4 conservatives and 2 liberals in the majority).

Republicans actually have more remaining opportunities for redistricting initiatives.  Illinois would obviously be the biggest one, but like with Dems in Florida, there have been adverse court rulings when trying to get it on the ballot.  Next would be Massachusetts, but the process requires the support of 25% of the legislature to go to the ballot.  MA R's don't even have 25% right now.  Oregon and Nevada would definitely be worth pursuing.  They can also repeal maps by referendum in NM and MD, though that just kicks it back to the legislature.  In the case of NM, they could plausibly flip the governorship and get a say in the new map if they did this in 2022. 

BTW the only place Dems explicitly gave up power was in VA, which required legislative approval to get it to the ballot.  Everywhere else involved initiatives.   

[Skill and Chance]

IIRC, there is already an initiative planned for Oregon that would essentially force map redraws in 2024 if it passes in 2022. They were trying to go for 2020, but COVID and court rulings not extending deadlines for initiatives ended that.

I recall OK and AR Dems were trying something similar at the beginning of 2020 but it failed due to COVID.  Maybe they will bring it back?

Now that I think about it, the single biggest remaining opportunity for Dems would be flipping the Texas Supreme Court over the course of the decade and doing a PA/NC there.  They run in statewide elections just like PA and NC, but they only have 6 year terms, so 3/9 seats are up every 2 years.

They could try the same thing in Georgia, but those are non-partisan judicial elections, so the incumbents basically never lose. 

[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?

[Skill and Chance]

So one of the Dem commissioners got way out ahead of their skis and basically alienated everyone else?

[Skill and Chance]

So lmao. Between CO and MI, independent commissions are doing a better job at drawing Republican gerrymanders than Republican legislators are.

Pretty much :-/

The good thing is the overall demographics for Republicans in Colorado are still horrible and the map could go 6-2 still by mid decade.

Sucks that dems have a pointless tossup race in 2022 though.

I would be surprised if the all-Colorado Springs CO-05 lasts the decade for R's, but where are you seeing a 6th opportunity?  The Plains CD is safe R forever, and CO-03 has basically all of the R-trending parts of the state (the plurality-Hispanic southern areas) in it.  Grand Junction is trending rapidly D, but not sure if it's big enough?  I don't think the Dem trend is that strong in CD-08 vs. statewide, so it's not like that one will become Safe Dem either. 

IMO the main takeaway so far is that R commissioners in Biden blowout states that were still close in the Obama era are going to insist on an even split by 2016 numbers. 

[Skill and Chance]

Given that the CO Supreme Court is unanimous Dem appointees, I do wonder if they will order some modifications to CO-08 and/or CO-03.  The legal justification would likely involve maximizing Hispanic opportunity districts.

[Skill and Chance]

Given that the CO Supreme Court is unanimous Dem appointees, I do wonder if they will order some modifications to CO-08 and/or CO-03.  The legal justification would likely involve maximizing Hispanic opportunity districts.

Oh FFS let it go. Just because Democrats do not like the map is not a reason for the Courts to overturn the commission on very tenuous grounds. Democrats will have to work a bit harder but this is still a 5-3 map.

I agree with you!  They should not second-guess the commission and it would set a terrible precedent if they did.

[Skill and Chance]

So the commission just approved its state legislative maps and it went very differently.  The new maps are likely Dem supermajorities in both chambers.  Weird.

[Skill and Chance]

So the commission just approved its state legislative maps and it went very differently.  The new maps are likely Dem supermajorities in both chambers.  Weird.

Definitely seems like the CO legislative commission went higher on "competitive districts"

CO seems like the only place so far where Dems lost vs. expectations at the congressional level but won vs. expectations at the legislative level?

[Skill and Chance]

I love how "independent" redistricting is basically a republican gerrymander across many states.

I don't agree with this.  The new CO legislative maps are very Dem- 2/3rds Dem majorities in both chambers in an average year.  The current CA and AZ maps are very Dem. 

[Skill and Chance]

I love how "independent" redistricting is basically a republican gerrymander across many states.

In Colorado, in fact, it ended as a Republican gerrymanderer for Congress, and a Democrat one for the State House and Senate.

The same thing happened in NJ in 2011, but they put politicians on the commission and use a single tiebreaker, so it's always a gerrymander for one side or the other depending on the tiebreaker.  It's really odd that this happened on a commission of private citizens with a supermajority requirement.