Illinois Redistricting Megathread

[Tintrlvr]

Bustos retiring should make this interesting!

Does it really? The Dems don't really benefit for trying a new combination than the combination already used. Underwood can be shored up easily without using Rockford, and none of the other Chicago area Dems need to take in land half-way across the state. The Dems still largely have the incentive to draw a Rock Island/Rockford/Peoria district, just like they have right now. Otherwise, the Dems are losing out, since instead of a tossup/tilt D district, an R sink is made when there does not need to be.

Agreed. The only change that's likely to be made is possibly extending the district out to Bloomington/Normal to shore it up a bit further.

[Canis]

Thank you, king! No independent maps in Illinois until we have them nationwide.

I don't like it, It undercuts democrat's credibility on being for fair maps if they gerrymander their own maps just on principle all maps should be fair and drawn up by an independent commission or AI.

[Tintrlvr]

Bustos retiring should make this interesting!

Indeed. I'd like to play with putting Rockford in IL-14 and creating a new Dem district along I-74 from the Quad Cities south.

Once you are past Peoria and Bloomington, what makes more sense? East to Champaign or south to Springfield?

Champaign probably makes more sense for a Peoria-Bloomington-Davenport seat b/c it lets you run your East St. Louis district up to Springfield.

You can run an ESL district all the way to Champaign, no problem.

[Mr. Illini]

Thank you, king! No independent maps in Illinois until we have them nationwide.

At best Congress can mandate them for congressional districts, but not for state legislative districts. Since Pubs in their supermajority states say the same thing, your statement is equivalent of saying no independent maps for the state ever. The irony is that in states like IL an independent map is unlikely to affect the Dem control of the state, but would probably put a number of incumbents at risk in primaries or general elections with ungerrymandered districts.

Nope, I would be fine with fair maps on the state level. My comment was chiefly about federal districts, in which our congressional seats will sit alongside those of all other states. I see no reason for the Illinois legislature to take away its own power to control the drawing of our federal districts while Republican states with large delegations (TX, FL) continue to gerrymander their states into oblivion.

Unfortunately, it seems that many Democratic states are very happy to cede ten more years of Republican control of the House so they can stand on principle. People are so quick to forget how badly the gerrymandered 2010 maps impeded Democratic legislation during the last decade.

The structure of the Senate is already slanted in favor of Republicans. I'd rather the House not be the same.

[lfromnj]

I don't see a full 13-4 happening but I can buy a 13-1-3 if incumbent demands force Underwood to take Rockford. I can also see the usual 14-3 if IL dems are happy with seats in Chicagoland without Underwood taking Rockford.

After that you can draw a 13th Likely D seat downstate from either East St.louis to Champaign or Champaign to Rock Island. Then a swing seat can either come from Champaign to McClean or Carbondale to Decatur.

Also for the East. St louis swing/ Likely D seat, Andy Manar wouldn't be a bad recruit. He's a fairly standard Democrat(voted for the Fair tax stuff) on every issue besides some gun stuff.

[Brittain33]

I'm working in DRA and because Underwood lives in Naperville, it is easier to shore up her district far from Rockford. I'm connecting Rockford to Waukegan along the north to free up Lake County blue areas for other reps.

[Nyvin]

I kinda like a simpler approach, but I'm pretty sure IL Dems are gonna be more nasty with the map.







https://davesredistricting.org/join/2b0341b9-976f-4289-9059-3fb07aad3415

I'm 100% convinced only 3 R sinks are needed downstate,  a 4th helps the map look nicer, but isn't required.

[Brittain33]

Light blue voted 8.6% Dem in 2012/16 composite. Purple voted 7.1% Dem.
For 2016 only, light blue was 0.6% Republican, purple was 7.9% Dem (so actually swung D.)

Ignore Cook County. I'm not done yet. Khaki is Lauren Underwood's district. Turquoise is closest to Sean Casten but he lives south of it.  

[Mr. Illini]

Light blue voted 8.6% Dem in 2012/16 composite. Purple voted 7.1% Dem.
For 2016 only, light blue was 0.6% Republican, purple was 7.9% Dem (so is actually trending D.)

Ignore Cook County. I'm not done yet. Khaki is Lauren Underwood's district. Turquoise is closest to Sean Casten but he lives south of it.  

With the light blue district, I think Dems will be more comfortable with a +5 district or something like that that is a little more compact. I'm not sure the few votes you get down in Carbondale is worth how bad it looks, lol

[Brittain33]

With the light blue district, I think Dems will be more comfortable with a +5 district or something like that that is a little more compact. I'm not sure the few votes you get down in Carbondale is worth how bad it looks, lol

Both districts look absolutely hideous, I agree. I almost went down to Cairo. I'd feel bad if the downstate districts in 2002-2010 didn't look as bad.

[lfromnj]

Light blue voted 8.6% Dem in 2012/16 composite. Purple voted 7.1% Dem.
For 2016 only, light blue was 0.6% Republican, purple was 7.9% Dem (so is actually trending D.)

Ignore Cook County. I'm not done yet. Khaki is Lauren Underwood's district. Turquoise is closest to Sean Casten but he lives south of it.  

With the light blue district, I think Dems will be more comfortable with a +5 district or something like that that is a little more compact. I'm not sure the few votes you get down in Carbondale is worth how bad it looks, lol

The votes in Carbondale are necessary to filling up the district. The only other option is 70% R territory.

[lfromnj]

Bustos retiring should make this interesting!

Indeed. I'd like to play with putting Rockford in IL-14 and creating a new Dem district along I-74 from the Quad Cities south.

Once you are past Peoria and Bloomington, what makes more sense? East to Champaign or south to Springfield?

Champaign probably makes more sense for a Peoria-Bloomington-Davenport seat b/c it lets you run your East St. Louis district up to Springfield.

An East St.Louis seat needs to either start from Carbondale to Decatur or East.StLouis to Champaign for it to be winnable by Ds.

[Sol]

link

Nasty little gerrymander of downstate. Both Dem districts are around 50%D-42%R on 2016 numbers, light blue is marginally more Dem.

[Virginiá]

Thank you, king! No independent maps in Illinois until we have them nationwide.

I don't like it, It undercuts democrat's credibility on being for fair maps if they gerrymander their own maps just on principle all maps should be fair and drawn up by an independent commission or AI.

It does, you'll see many Democrats arguing that unilaterally disarming is only going to hurt the long-term goal of ending gerrymandering nationwide. That is because Republicans will continue to take every last seat they can for themselves in states they control, while Democrats effectively give up seats to the GOP they would have otherwise received, thus making it harder for Democrats to win and keep House majorities in the first place - a necessary level of power to pass HR1.

Given current circumstances, the best option for Democrats is really an all-or-nothing approach. But, obviously left-leaning activists and other good government groups don't see it that way and will continue to push reform ballot initiatives where they can, which in the future will probably be Dem states, as Republicans in relevant states are busy piling restrictions on the initiative process to prevent activists and the general electorate from passing any policies that ruling Republican officials don't like.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

here's a more compact downstate IL arrangement with 3 GOP vote sinks. Bustos' current seat moves one point to the left, while the successor to Rodney Davis' current seat moves three to four points to the left.
Ignore the district numbers, they don't matter.
I've also drawn Underwood's new district, running from Rockford to Naperville.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/8fc16eaf-d287-4180-aa85-7437a64c8cea

[Torie]

That Bustos seat mess is worth it for one f'ing point? Tim!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Light blue voted 8.6% Dem in 2012/16 composite. Purple voted 7.1% Dem.
For 2016 only, light blue was 0.6% Republican, purple was 7.9% Dem (so actually swung D.)

Ignore Cook County. I'm not done yet. Khaki is Lauren Underwood's district. Turquoise is closest to Sean Casten but he lives south of it.  

This is the downstate map the IL Dems should draw

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Thank you, king! No independent maps in Illinois until we have them nationwide.

At best Congress can mandate them for congressional districts, but not for state legislative districts. Since Pubs in their supermajority states say the same thing, your statement is equivalent of saying no independent maps for the state ever. The irony is that in states like IL an independent map is unlikely to affect the Dem control of the state, but would probably put a number of incumbents at risk in primaries or general elections with ungerrymandered districts.

Dems probably lose the IL State House in 2014 with nonpartisan maps due to the states geography bias. Remember, Reps already came very close to winning the statewide popular vote in the chamber as is that year.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Thank you, king! No independent maps in Illinois until we have them nationwide.

At best Congress can mandate them for congressional districts, but not for state legislative districts. Since Pubs in their supermajority states say the same thing, your statement is equivalent of saying no independent maps for the state ever. The irony is that in states like IL an independent map is unlikely to affect the Dem control of the state, but would probably put a number of incumbents at risk in primaries or general elections with ungerrymandered districts.

Nope, I would be fine with fair maps on the state level. My comment was chiefly about federal districts, in which our congressional seats will sit alongside those of all other states. I see no reason for the Illinois legislature to take away its own power to control the drawing of our federal districts while Republican states with large delegations (TX, FL) continue to gerrymander their states into oblivion.

Unfortunately, it seems that many Democratic states are very happy to cede ten more years of Republican control of the House so they can stand on principle. People are so quick to forget how badly the gerrymandered 2010 maps impeded Democratic legislation during the last decade.

The structure of the Senate is already slanted in favor of Republicans. I'd rather the House not be the same.

Independent maps at the State Legislative level most definitely is a form of unilateral disarmament that we cannot accept. What if we lose the legislature of many states because of it, therefore giving Republicans more power in congressional redistricting over the next decade?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

That Bustos seat mess is worth it for one f'ing point? Tim!

I tried to keep counties whole when I could. But a Democratic gerrymander is reliant on actually getting relatively more Democratic-voting areas in Democratic seats.
If you want an effective, 12-3-2, you can't waste Dem votes.
The map would look quite a bit cleaner if the Macon and Springfield were left to be stuck in GOP districts, but that also probably guarantees one additional GOP safe seat.
I know it's messy what I came up with, and I loathe what it does with counties, but it at least looks better than the 2003-2013 iteration of the Rock Island CD, and has some semblance of compactness. Even if it's not a high level.
The standards for keeping counties whole and things looking nice in the "effective Dem gerry of downstate IL" category are quite low.
And let's not kid ourselves. That one point improvement definitely is an improvement relative to what the seat is now, likely placing it in the Likely D category in case of an open seat.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Thank you, king! No independent maps in Illinois until we have them nationwide.

I don't like it, It undercuts democrat's credibility on being for fair maps if they gerrymander their own maps just on principle all maps should be fair and drawn up by an independent commission or AI.

It does, you'll see many Democrats arguing that unilaterally disarming is only going to hurt the long-term goal of ending gerrymandering nationwide. That is because Republicans will continue to take every last seat they can for themselves in states they control, while Democrats effectively give up seats to the GOP they would have otherwise received, thus making it harder for Democrats to win and keep House majorities in the first place - a necessary level of power to pass HR1.

Given current circumstances, the best option for Democrats is really an all-or-nothing approach. But, obviously left-leaning activists and other good government groups don't see it that way and will continue to push reform ballot initiatives where they can, which in the future will probably be Dem states, as Republicans in relevant states are busy piling restrictions on the initiative process to prevent activists and the general electorate from passing any policies that ruling Republican officials don't like.

In practice, gerrymandering is actually worse if one side isn’t doing it.

If you have for instance, two 50-50 states with 10 seats, and one draws a 7-3 mander, the map is more representative is the other side does the same in the other seat rather than drawing a 4-2-4 map so they can congratulate what fair minded independenty Mavericks they are.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

My take on a 3 GOP seats map.
IL-17 is kept pretty much where it is, 3 GOP vote sinks in downstate IL, all VRA seats in Chicago are preserved, Quigley and Schakowsky are provided for by seats running from white parts of Chicago into the suburbs, and IL-03 is eliminated. Underwood can stay in Naperville and run in (and likely win) a seat taking in all of DuPage and a bunch of sparsely populated counties, or a seat pairing still-R parts of the exurbs with heavily D areas in Cook and northeastern Kane. She could win in either of them.
There are 4 Trump districts and 5 Kirk districts.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/8c82aff8-7a49-4d2a-96b7-0caface06ca0

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Thank you, king! No independent maps in Illinois until we have them nationwide.

At best Congress can mandate them for congressional districts, but not for state legislative districts. Since Pubs in their supermajority states say the same thing, your statement is equivalent of saying no independent maps for the state ever. The irony is that in states like IL an independent map is unlikely to affect the Dem control of the state, but would probably put a number of incumbents at risk in primaries or general elections with ungerrymandered districts.

Democrats have a bill and almost unanimous support for legislation mandating fair maps(there's an argument that under the 14th amendment congress does have the right to mandate them for state legislative districts or at least allow them to be challenged if they are gerrymandered in courts). Republicans can support it or propose their own standalone bill banning gerrymandering if they wanted.

[JGibson]

I don't see a full 13-4 happening but I can buy a 13-1-3 if incumbent demands force Underwood to take Rockford. I can also see the usual 14-3 if IL dems are happy with seats in Chicagoland without Underwood taking Rockford.

After that you can draw a 13th Likely D seat downstate from either East St.louis to Champaign or Champaign to Rock Island. Then a swing seat can either come from Champaign to McClean or Carbondale to Decatur.

Also for the East. St louis swing/ Likely D seat, Andy Manar wouldn't be a bad recruit. He's a fairly standard Democrat(voted for the Fair tax stuff) on every issue besides some gun stuff.

Agreed with former State Sen. Andy Manar being a good choice for that ESTL seat. State Rep. Katie Stuart (D) could be another good option for it.

[S019]

Thank you, king! No independent maps in Illinois until we have them nationwide.

At best Congress can mandate them for congressional districts, but not for state legislative districts. Since Pubs in their supermajority states say the same thing, your statement is equivalent of saying no independent maps for the state ever. The irony is that in states like IL an independent map is unlikely to affect the Dem control of the state, but would probably put a number of incumbents at risk in primaries or general elections with ungerrymandered districts.

Democrats have a bill and almost unanimous support for legislation mandating fair maps(there's an argument that under the 14th amendment congress does have the right to mandate them for state legislative districts or at least allow them to be challenged if they are gerrymandered in courts). Republicans can support it or propose their own standalone bill banning gerrymandering if they wanted.

This is moot since Joe Manchin has said he won't support that bill.