Illinois Redistricting Megathread

[Sol]

If Newman is the rep who gets the last scraps, and if there's a desire to draw a second Latino district, why not keep the earmuffs and give Newman a plurality Latino district, with Chuy Garcia keeping as many SW side Latinos as possible?

[Sol]

I'd imagine as far as downstate goes, whatever Bustos wants she'll get--possibly to the partisan detriment of the other downstate D seat or Underwood.

[Sol]

Illinois is an incredibly corrupt state and I have no doubts that they will draw a very nasty map but I doubt they'll take a black Chicago district out to Peru.

[Sol]

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but since drawing 3 black-majority districts here this time seems difficult to impossible, which of the districts is likely to become only plurality black? Geography would suggest Davis's 7th, especially since Kelly and Rush will probably nibble more deeply into Republican parts of Will County--but is there someone who the Establishment likes more?

[Sol]

Tried to optimize the downstate IL gerrymander posted upthread by others; not actually sure if that the case.



Here's the link.

I tried to squeeze every possible bit of Democratic juices out of downstate Illinois, wriggling along the Mississippi to Carbondale and Cairo and sliding over to Danville from Champaign. Bustos's new district, IL-14, voted 51-40 for HRC and is more Democratic downballot; the open seat IL-16 voted 51-42 for Clinton. If Bustos needs more shoring up she can probably steal some of Decatur from IL-16.

I also tried to set it up so that the Chicagoland suburb districts have more room to manouver; Underwood might get historically swingy but Trump friendly territory in the NW rather than super Republican areas in the center. I kind of cheekily pulled LaSalle-Peru out as well; the segments of Bureau, Putnam, and LaSalle not included in the 14th voted for Clinton by a few points. Underwood won't have a safe seat in all likelihood but she'll hopefully have a swing district which she'll be able to hold okay.

[Sol]

I finished up the map I posted above (link)





There were a few tricky points, so I'd appreciate feedback. The first is that Democrats are a bit over-represented in Chicagoland with multiple incumbents in Republican PVI districts. The solution I decided on was cutting Newman--a full Illinois machine gerrymander probably would screw her over before any other Democrat. Of course Democrats make up her seat in downstate.

The other tricky element was handling VRA districts in the city. lfromnj will like that Kelly continues to hold territory in Kankakee. I decided to draw two majority Black districts and then draw one district with a weak but extant Black plurality--Danny Davis should be fine even though his district is about 40% Black. More potentially troubling is Quigley's district; it's now plurality Hispanic though Whites are probably still the largest group of voters. I don't know what Quigley's relationship with the Latino community is like, or really very much about him at all. If this is a major issue you could probably revive the earmuffs but I imagine the Democrats will want to satisfy the Latino community?

The VRA districts in Cook kind of wall off the White liberals from being put into Casten's district. I decided to give Casten a swingy but still winnable district--I think it voted narrowly for Romney but firmly for Clinton. Underwood gets a more Democratic district actually though not in 2016 since she takes in some rural territory which swung to Trump. There's probably a way to optimize this further though tbh it would be even uglier than what I did above.

Schakowsky and Krishnamoorthi trade territory so that Krishnamoorthi doesn't have to worry about competitive elections if the suburbs spring back.

So basically this is an 11-4-2 map, but in most years it'd be 13-4.

[Sol]

That's a good map lfromnj! Obvs. we have our differences on sending the VRA districts to rural IL, but IMO if you're doing that you should put Danville in the southernmost Dem district instead and take out some of the GOP precincts on the outskirts of Springfield to compensate. Adding Cairo+Carbondale is useful too because it lets you abandon more R turf.

[Sol]

Here is a reasonable map of Illinois which of course will never be drawn. Presumably something grotesque will become law to screw the Pubs out of two or three seats, that are competitive in this map.

I have this fantasy of states forming a compact, so if Illinois does its thing and takes away 2 Pub seats in erose slice and dice, then Ohio and NC retaliate in kind and down the road we go to hell, in a game that maybe in the end will not net either party overall much of anything at all, attended by some more than usual dummymander risk given how unstable  the party coalitions are at the moment. All sound and fury, with bodies strewn on the landscape, signifying no gain, only pain. The Fruited Plain is a very flawed place. Who knew?

IMO Bureau, LaSalle, and Putnam belong in the same district--LaSalle-Peru is a metro area and a pretty obvious community.

[Sol]

Carrying forward the all sound and fury theme   :

?

[Sol]

Chuy is DSA-adjacent right? I can't imagine the white voters in Pilsen or wherever are really going to go against him in a primary, especially since IIRC the Latino pop. is growing in outer parts of the district.

[Sol]

Putnam is not a county with more than two or three precincts of population. You wish in other words could be easily accommodated. If you respect your elders, perhaps I may twist the clock to move Putnam from one safe pub CD to another on this map. It will require, pari passu, a larger chop of another county by about 6K in population, but I think the planet can survive that.

I wasn't just suggesting Putnam; LaSalle ought to go with Bureau too.

[Sol]

Apparently it's still possible to draw 3 Black majority districts in Illinois.

Clearly this is totally mandated by the VRA.

Just kidding lol

[Sol]

I'm trying my hand at a fair map presently and have a couple of questions:

1. Should I try to prioritize city lines or township lines, or both? Which should take precedence?

2. Considering the loss of a district and the decline in population in Chicago, you sort of have to lose one of the Black majority districts, and because of geography it seems like the 7th is the obvious choice. The trouble is is that the 1st thus ends up overpacked with the Black community and needs to be unpacked to give Black voters to make the 7th a coalition district. Is it better to send the 1st to SW Cook or to the North Side?

[Sol]

https://twitter.com/FrankCalabrese/status/1354523379836071936
Due to the Census Data Delay to July 31st
This would mean its basically 50/50 on who controls IL redistricting as it goes to a coint oss

I guess a bipartisan commission probably means something close to the status quo? Maybe throw Underwood to the wolves?

[Sol]

https://twitter.com/FrankCalabrese/status/1354523379836071936
Due to the Census Data Delay to July 31st
This would mean its basically 50/50 on who controls IL redistricting as it goes to a coint oss

I guess a bipartisan commission probably means something close to the status quo? Maybe throw Underwood to the wolves?

Nope what has happened so far the previous 2 times was a deadlock and it went to a coin toss for the tiebreaker. The GOP won both times and got to mostly  draw a favorable map to them. Although yes thats what I would guess happens with an actual bipartisan map. One Chicagoland D gets cut and Bustos maybe gets shored up with Champaign or something.

Lol that seems like the worst possible way to draw a map

[Sol]

Just in case you think my Pubmanders are bad, here is Wasserman's contribution to the public square. Yes, you guessed it, it is not a Pubmander. Not sure where Muon2 is dumped.

How wasteful! You can easily slide Carbondale, Cairo, and Danville into the 13th (and make it thinner)--it can then become a seat which Clinton won by 10 points.

[Sol]

Bustos retiring should make this interesting!

[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.

[Sol]

The IL Dems could also go for something like this, which gives your two fairly firmly Clinton voting downstate districts and leaves Rockford for Underwood.

link

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

[Sol]

Seems like this is mostly least change, outside of Newman and the southern IL seat? Obviously horrific though.

[Sol]

How much do you want to bet that whatever 5 minute online polemics about gerrymandering are made in the 2020s will look at this map and still use the earmuffs districts as the most egregious example of gerrymandering in the country?

In fairness the earmuffs are no longer needed to do a Latino seat--and haven't been since 2010.

[Sol]

Cross posting this here, because it strikes me as something a GOP-run State Supreme Court would draw. (It was drawn fairly on my end, of course.)

IL.

link



IL-01: 54% B, 29% W, 15% L. Southern Cook county and Eastern Will are fairly Black now, so you can do a Black-influence district which is firmly in the suburbs with just a little bit of the South side. Robin Kelly runs here despite the numbers

IL-02: 57% B, 22% W, 11% L. Has almost all of the South Side, plus the loop. Bobby Rush gets this seat.

IL-03: 69% L, 19% W. Southwest Chicago, plus some western suburbs. Sorry for the snakelike shape. Chuy Garcia runs here.

IL-04: 38% L, 32% B, 27% W. A coalition seat. Although Latinos are the largest group, it probably reelects Davis easily.

IL-05: 56% W, 20% L, 13% A, 10% B. The North Side is always a bit more diverse than I remember, even though this district is very white for a major city. Mike Quigley's seat I think.

IL-06: 64% W, 17% A, 13% L. The lakeshore suburbs of Cook plus a bit inland. Safe D ofc. Schakowsky runs here, though she's a bit liberal for this monied seat.

IL-07: 58% W, 23% L. Somehow manages to be less white than IL-06 despite being only in Lake and McHenry, I assume due to Waukegan? Would have been competitive like 15 years ago but Safe D now. Schneider's district.

IL-08: 70% W, 15% L. Has the NW exurbs and Rockford. Sort of the successor to Underwood's pre-2020 district, and is super competitive. Voted Biden very narrowly but quite Trump in 2016. Tossup, maybe lean R. An interesting seat in that Democrats's stronghold here are outside of the Chicago proper seats. Also interesting how Latino these affluent suburbs are. I guess Underwood would run here but it's not her seat.

IL-09: 55% W, 24% L, 15% A. NW Cook plus several Fox River cities. Safe D these days.

IL-10: 66% W, 17% L, 12% A. Inner Western suburbs. Safe D. Casten's seat.

IL-11: 55% W, 22% L, 12% A. Aurora and Naperville. Safe D, and actually more D than the suburbs closer to city (how common is this?). Foster runs her, Underwood could too because she lives here.

IL-12: 70% W, 17% L. SW Cook, most of Will, and exurban Grundy. Was 50-47 Trump in 2020, so pretty much likely R. Takes in the more Lipinski-ish suburbs. He could maybe run here, or maybe also Kinzinger, but I doubt either would win.



IL-13: 81% W. Has Peoria and LaSalle-Peru. Safe R ofc. LaHood's seat.

IL-14: 80% W, 10% B. Has Springfield and the Quad Cities. Safe R, not clear who'd run here.

IL-15: 74% W, 12% B. Has the colleges and Kankakee (which is surprisingly R given its status as a decently large city on the fringes of a world city) and Danville, so it's consequently the least R seat downstate. Still safe R, though could be vulnerable if Mary Miller runs here as she lives here.

(I switched the numbers for IL-16 and 17 after screenshotting, so teal is 16 and green is 17).

IL-16: 76% W, 16% B. The St. Louis metro area and surrounds. Safe R. Open seat, but Bost could run here since it's closer to his current seat and he wouldn't have to run against Miller.

IL-17: 86% W. Little Egypt, reaching up to Decatur for population. Safe R. It's the obvious successor to Miller's seat but she doesn't live here and Bost does.