2020 Redistricting in Arizona

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

So we can definitely kiss AZ-01 and AZ-02 goodbye with the inevitable Republican gerrymander. Dems will be confined to 2 seats in Phoenix and 1 in Tucson

At least 2 Dem seats i Phoenix are needed to avoid a dummmander.  3 is ideal.  A 6R-4D map is pretty fair anyways.

What about when Democrats are winning a majority of the statewide vote (which seems inevitable at this point)?

It should still be pretty easy to draw two Dem sinks in Maricopa County with the remaining seats being pretty strongly Republican. Something like two 70%+ Sinema seats and the rest 55% McSally or better.

[MAPZZ]

So we can definitely kiss AZ-01 and AZ-02 goodbye with the inevitable Republican gerrymander. Dems will be confined to 2 seats in Phoenix and 1 in Tucson

At least 2 Dem seats i Phoenix are needed to avoid a dummmander.  3 is ideal.  A 6R-4D map is pretty fair anyways.

What about when Democrats are winning a majority of the statewide vote (which seems inevitable at this point)?

It should still be pretty easy to draw two Dem sinks in Maricopa County with the remaining seats being pretty strongly Republican. Something like two 70%+ Sinema seats and the rest 55% McSally or better.

If it's so easy, please draw one that does that.

[Idaho Conservative]

So we can definitely kiss AZ-01 and AZ-02 goodbye with the inevitable Republican gerrymander. Dems will be confined to 2 seats in Phoenix and 1 in Tucson

At least 2 Dem seats i Phoenix are needed to avoid a dummmander.  3 is ideal.  A 6R-4D map is pretty fair anyways.

What about when Democrats are winning a majority of the statewide vote (which seems inevitable at this point)?

Still more fair than 8-2.  I'm saying do a tilt R map.

[Sol]

If I'm the AZGOP I might prefer adding a competitive district in Maricopa to having a bunch of Republican districts with 52-47 McSally-Sinema numbers, considering the absolutely collossal Democratic trends in even some hard R Phoenix suburbs. Especially since Arizona is gaining a seat.

That said, I'm not sure if we have reason to believe that the Arizona commission will do exactly what the state GOP would want. In 2010 a big part of the oddness of the commission's map was that the commission has a mandate to draw competitive seats. Perhaps we could see AZ-9 carved up and see something like a 5R-2D-3T map.

[Idaho Conservative]

So we can definitely kiss AZ-01 and AZ-02 goodbye with the inevitable Republican gerrymander. Dems will be confined to 2 seats in Phoenix and 1 in Tucson

At least 2 Dem seats i Phoenix are needed to avoid a dummmander.  3 is ideal.  A 6R-4D map is pretty fair anyways.

What about when Democrats are winning a majority of the statewide vote (which seems inevitable at this point)?

It should still be pretty easy to draw two Dem sinks in Maricopa County with the remaining seats being pretty strongly Republican. Something like two 70%+ Sinema seats and the rest 55% McSally or better.

If it's so easy, please draw one that does that.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/45380952-72e8-4c6c-9d96-606ce6f84395
Not possible.  The best I could do is 2 Phx vote sinks, 1 Trump-Sinema competitive seat (still leans R because Sinema overperformed being from the area) and the rest of the Phx suburban seats are at least McSally+10.  We really need 3 dem leaning seats in Maricopa so the suburbs are safe R.  Can be competitive D tho.

[Former President tack50]

Since the general consensus seems to be that the comission will draw some form of a soft R gerrymander that will at least somewhat keep COIs and what not, here is a map I drew.

To be honest, this seems to me almost more like an R dummymander or a barely R tilting map than a full on gerrymander but whatever.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/2ed75d67-e5d1-416d-b423-9002d7333a84



Phoenix inset:



AZ-01: Trump+6, Sinema+0, R+6 (23% Native by CVAP)
AZ-02: Trump+3, McSally+1, R+4
AZ-03: Clinton+32, Sinema+33, D+13 (49% Hispanic by CVAP)
AZ-04: Trump+18, McSally+10, R+11
AZ-05: Trump+23, McSally+15, R+14
AZ-06: Trump+17, McSally+8, R+12
AZ-07: Clinton+42, Sinema+47, D+19
AZ-08: Trump+25, McSally+19, R+16
AZ-09: Trump+1, Sinema+7, R+5
AZ-10: Clinton+20, Sinema+27, D+7

So basically, in theory the intent of this map is to have 4 Safe R (4, 5, 6, , 3 Safe D (3, 7, 10), 1 Lean D (9) and 2 R leaning tossups (1 and 2).

To be honest, since 9 is heavily trending D, this can be seen more as a fair map (in terms of partisanship at least, probably not in terms of COIs and what not) than anything else.

[OBD]

So we can definitely kiss AZ-01 and AZ-02 goodbye with the inevitable Republican gerrymander. Dems will be confined to 2 seats in Phoenix and 1 in Tucson

At least 2 Dem seats i Phoenix are needed to avoid a dummmander.  3 is ideal.  A 6R-4D map is pretty fair anyways.

What about when Democrats are winning a majority of the statewide vote (which seems inevitable at this point)?

It should still be pretty easy to draw two Dem sinks in Maricopa County with the remaining seats being pretty strongly Republican. Something like two 70%+ Sinema seats and the rest 55% McSally or better.

If it's so easy, please draw one that does that.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/45380952-72e8-4c6c-9d96-606ce6f84395
Not possible.  The best I could do is 2 Phx vote sinks, 1 Trump-Sinema competitive seat (still leans R because Sinema overperformed being from the area) and the rest of the Phx suburban seats are at least McSally+10.  We really need 3 dem leaning seats in Maricopa so the suburbs are safe R.  Can be competitive D tho.

That 9th district is only Trump +6, it's almost certain to flip sometime during the 2020s if current suburban trends continue.

TBH the best option for the AZGOP is to lock in a 6-4, which can be done easily - if you create a Tucson sink and 3 Phoenix sinks (one of which is a VRA), you can make the other suburban seats all at least McSally+13 and Trump+20, and make the 1st and 2nd (which shouldn't be trending left as aggressively, if at all) at least Trump +10. Here's a map that does that: https://davesredistricting.org/join/e382b695-9c53-40b4-9a50-ffb294c23045. The suburban seats should hold through the decade, and while the 2nd could plausbily fall, it's Trump +10 and would be an uphill climb.

Theoretical Map

[Idaho Conservative]

So we can definitely kiss AZ-01 and AZ-02 goodbye with the inevitable Republican gerrymander. Dems will be confined to 2 seats in Phoenix and 1 in Tucson

At least 2 Dem seats i Phoenix are needed to avoid a dummmander.  3 is ideal.  A 6R-4D map is pretty fair anyways.

What about when Democrats are winning a majority of the statewide vote (which seems inevitable at this point)?

It should still be pretty easy to draw two Dem sinks in Maricopa County with the remaining seats being pretty strongly Republican. Something like two 70%+ Sinema seats and the rest 55% McSally or better.

If it's so easy, please draw one that does that.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/45380952-72e8-4c6c-9d96-606ce6f84395
Not possible.  The best I could do is 2 Phx vote sinks, 1 Trump-Sinema competitive seat (still leans R because Sinema overperformed being from the area) and the rest of the Phx suburban seats are at least McSally+10.  We really need 3 dem leaning seats in Maricopa so the suburbs are safe R.  Can be competitive D tho.

That 9th district is only Trump +6, it's almost certain to flip sometime during the 2020s if current suburban trends continue.

TBH the best option for the AZGOP is to lock in a 6-4, which can be done easily - if you create a Tucson sink and 3 Phoenix sinks (one of which is a VRA), you can make the other suburban seats all at least McSally+13 and Trump+20, and make the 1st and 2nd (which shouldn't be trending left as aggressively, if at all) at least Trump +10. Here's a map that does that: https://davesredistricting.org/join/e382b695-9c53-40b4-9a50-ffb294c23045. The suburban seats should hold through the decade, and while the 2nd could plausbily fall, it's Trump +10 and would be an uphill climb.

Theoretical Map

I agree, that's like my first map.  I just made the other one to make a point

[Nyvin]

Do the Maricopa/Pinal reservations have to be included in AZ-1 or is it just the northeastern ones with San Carlos/Fort Apache?

[Sol]

Do the Maricopa/Pinal reservations have to be included in AZ-1 or is it just the northeastern ones with San Carlos/Fort Apache?

I don't believe there are any requirements at all with the reservations in the 1st district--it's only 22% native, and the various groups in the area are distinct ethnic groups. The pre-2010 map looked like this:

[S019]

Do the Maricopa/Pinal reservations have to be included in AZ-1 or is it just the northeastern ones with San Carlos/Fort Apache?

I don't believe there are any requirements at all with the reservations in the 1st district--it's only 22% native, and the various groups in the area are distinct ethnic groups. The pre-2010 map looked like this:

I'm pretty sure that that occurred due to some conflicts between the native groups, and it was a very unusual arrangement.

So we can definitely kiss AZ-01 and AZ-02 goodbye with the inevitable Republican gerrymander. Dems will be confined to 2 seats in Phoenix and 1 in Tucson

At least 2 Dem seats i Phoenix are needed to avoid a dummmander.  3 is ideal.  A 6R-4D map is pretty fair anyways.

What about when Democrats are winning a majority of the statewide vote (which seems inevitable at this point)?

It should still be pretty easy to draw two Dem sinks in Maricopa County with the remaining seats being pretty strongly Republican. Something like two 70%+ Sinema seats and the rest 55% McSally or better.

If it's so easy, please draw one that does that.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/45380952-72e8-4c6c-9d96-606ce6f84395
Not possible.  The best I could do is 2 Phx vote sinks, 1 Trump-Sinema competitive seat (still leans R because Sinema overperformed being from the area) and the rest of the Phx suburban seats are at least McSally+10.  We really need 3 dem leaning seats in Maricopa so the suburbs are safe R.  Can be competitive D tho.

That 9th district is only Trump +6, it's almost certain to flip sometime during the 2020s if current suburban trends continue.

TBH the best option for the AZGOP is to lock in a 6-4, which can be done easily - if you create a Tucson sink and 3 Phoenix sinks (one of which is a VRA), you can make the other suburban seats all at least McSally+13 and Trump+20, and make the 1st and 2nd (which shouldn't be trending left as aggressively, if at all) at least Trump +10. Here's a map that does that: https://davesredistricting.org/join/e382b695-9c53-40b4-9a50-ffb294c23045. The suburban seats should hold through the decade, and while the 2nd could plausbily fall, it's Trump +10 and would be an uphill climb.

Theoretical Map

These gerrymandered maps aren't going to be drawn. AZ has a commission for a reason, it's not going to draw 6 solid seats for either party, also the AZ commission, in particular, seems to prioritize competitiveness, which makes the gerrymanders in this thread, even less likely.

[Idaho Conservative]

Each party makes a map and the independent is a tossup.  Could get a tilt R map.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

These gerrymandered maps aren't going to be drawn. AZ has a commission for a reason, it's not going to draw 6 solid seats for either party, also the AZ commission, in particular, seems to prioritize competitiveness, which makes the gerrymanders in this thread, even less likely.

The 2010 commission's left tilt did indeed result in them prioritising competitive districts at all costs, and resulted in maps which somewhat favoured Democrats. But the 2020 commissioners will all have to be vetted and approved by a court that Gov. Ducey has completely stacked in the Republicans favour, so it's logical to assume the maps for the next decade will prioritise Communities of Interest and Municipal Boundaries in such a way to somewhat favour the Republican Party.

[Sol]

Do the Maricopa/Pinal reservations have to be included in AZ-1 or is it just the northeastern ones with San Carlos/Fort Apache?

I don't believe there are any requirements at all with the reservations in the 1st district--it's only 22% native, and the various groups in the area are distinct ethnic groups. The pre-2010 map looked like this:

I'm pretty sure that that occurred due to some conflicts between the native groups, and it was a very unusual arrangement.

True--my point was to demonstrate that reservations don't have to be put together, and that the Gila River and Ak-Chin reservations weren't in the 1st district despite its goofy shape.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

So we can definitely kiss AZ-01 and AZ-02 goodbye with the inevitable Republican gerrymander. Dems will be confined to 2 seats in Phoenix and 1 in Tucson

At least 2 Dem seats i Phoenix are needed to avoid a dummmander.  3 is ideal.  A 6R-4D map is pretty fair anyways.

What about when Democrats are winning a majority of the statewide vote (which seems inevitable at this point)?

It should still be pretty easy to draw two Dem sinks in Maricopa County with the remaining seats being pretty strongly Republican. Something like two 70%+ Sinema seats and the rest 55% McSally or better.

If it's so easy, please draw one that does that.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/45380952-72e8-4c6c-9d96-606ce6f84395
Not possible.  The best I could do is 2 Phx vote sinks, 1 Trump-Sinema competitive seat (still leans R because Sinema overperformed being from the area) and the rest of the Phx suburban seats are at least McSally+10.  We really need 3 dem leaning seats in Maricopa so the suburbs are safe R.  Can be competitive D tho.

That 9th district is only Trump +6, it's almost certain to flip sometime during the 2020s if current suburban trends continue.

TBH the best option for the AZGOP is to lock in a 6-4, which can be done easily - if you create a Tucson sink and 3 Phoenix sinks (one of which is a VRA), you can make the other suburban seats all at least McSally+13 and Trump+20, and make the 1st and 2nd (which shouldn't be trending left as aggressively, if at all) at least Trump +10. Here's a map that does that: https://davesredistricting.org/join/e382b695-9c53-40b4-9a50-ffb294c23045. The suburban seats should hold through the decade, and while the 2nd could plausbily fall, it's Trump +10 and would be an uphill climb.

Theoretical Map

That would theoretically work best for them but you don't have road connectivity on the Tuscon-Yuma and Tuscon-Nogales districts. Is that allowed in Arizona?

[OBD]

So we can definitely kiss AZ-01 and AZ-02 goodbye with the inevitable Republican gerrymander. Dems will be confined to 2 seats in Phoenix and 1 in Tucson

At least 2 Dem seats i Phoenix are needed to avoid a dummmander.  3 is ideal.  A 6R-4D map is pretty fair anyways.

What about when Democrats are winning a majority of the statewide vote (which seems inevitable at this point)?

It should still be pretty easy to draw two Dem sinks in Maricopa County with the remaining seats being pretty strongly Republican. Something like two 70%+ Sinema seats and the rest 55% McSally or better.

If it's so easy, please draw one that does that.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/45380952-72e8-4c6c-9d96-606ce6f84395
Not possible.  The best I could do is 2 Phx vote sinks, 1 Trump-Sinema competitive seat (still leans R because Sinema overperformed being from the area) and the rest of the Phx suburban seats are at least McSally+10.  We really need 3 dem leaning seats in Maricopa so the suburbs are safe R.  Can be competitive D tho.

That 9th district is only Trump +6, it's almost certain to flip sometime during the 2020s if current suburban trends continue.

TBH the best option for the AZGOP is to lock in a 6-4, which can be done easily - if you create a Tucson sink and 3 Phoenix sinks (one of which is a VRA), you can make the other suburban seats all at least McSally+13 and Trump+20, and make the 1st and 2nd (which shouldn't be trending left as aggressively, if at all) at least Trump +10. Here's a map that does that: https://davesredistricting.org/join/e382b695-9c53-40b4-9a50-ffb294c23045. The suburban seats should hold through the decade, and while the 2nd could plausbily fall, it's Trump +10 and would be an uphill climb.

Theoretical Map

That would theoretically work best for them but you don't have road connectivity on the Tuscon-Yuma and Tuscon-Nogales districts. Is that allowed in Arizona?

Shoot, I wasn't thinking about that (not sure if it's required though). That said, a quick fix should be possible, given how the current 3rd is pretty similar to this one.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Does AZ law even require road contiguity? I'm yet to see evidence that would imply so.

[lfromnj]

https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2020/09/28/arizona-a-truly-fair-map/#comment-611272

Here's a decent map I see on RRH.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2020/09/28/arizona-a-truly-fair-map/#comment-611272

Here's a decent map I see on RRH.

That map is a blatant Republican gerrymander, if you want to see a genuinely fair map, take a look at Arizona’s current congressional district map.

[lfromnj]

https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2020/09/28/arizona-a-truly-fair-map/#comment-611272

Here's a decent map I see on RRH.

That map is a blatant Republican gerrymander, if you want to see a genuinely fair map, take a look at Arizona’s current congressional district map.

Btw the poster that created that map isn't even a Republican. He's just a Democrat on that site. Plenty of R's in the comments complain about that map. Anyway both sides are unhappy.

Show whats actually gerrymandered there?
Keeping Northern AZ whole?
The Pima county split is about the most favorable type of way to split Tucson for D's.  Do you have any problem with Maricopa? I guess yellow and blue could be made horizontal instead of vertically paralllel. This would create a Safe R and Likely D instead of a tossup and lean R seat.

It has 4 Clinton seats and 2 more Trump seats under 7 points.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2020/09/28/arizona-a-truly-fair-map/#comment-611272

Here's a decent map I see on RRH.

That map is a blatant Republican gerrymander, if you want to see a genuinely fair map, take a look at Arizona’s current congressional district map.

Btw the poster that created that map isn't even a Republican. He's just a Democrat on that site. Plenty of R's in the comments complain about that map. Anyway both sides are unhappy.

Show whats actually gerrymandered there?
Keeping Northern AZ whole?
The Pima county split is about the most favorable type of way to split Tucson for D's.  Do you have any problem with Maricopa? I guess yellow and blue could be made horizontal instead of vertically paralllel. This would create a Safe R and Likely D instead of a tossup and lean R seat.

It has 4 Clinton seats and 2 more Trump seats under 7 points.

The way the Tucson boundaries are drawn and especially the use of CVAP rather than VAP which, I believe is a departure from how it is generally currently done and if so, is simply inexcusable in anything claiming to be a fair map.  

Also, even if he’s a Democrat, RRH’s site rules forbid posts that so much as express pro-Democratic sentiments (IIRC, they say such posts “will not be tolerated”).  They’d *never* allow a thread for a user map that was anything short of an R gerrymander as a rule.  I mean, most RRH users think AZ and PA’s court maps were radical Democratic gerrymanders and that a fair map of Ohio would leave everything safe R except for two hyper-packed D seats  

[lfromnj]

https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2020/09/28/arizona-a-truly-fair-map/#comment-611272

Here's a decent map I see on RRH.

That map is a blatant Republican gerrymander, if you want to see a genuinely fair map, take a look at Arizona’s current congressional district map.

Btw the poster that created that map isn't even a Republican. He's just a Democrat on that site. Plenty of R's in the comments complain about that map. Anyway both sides are unhappy.

Show whats actually gerrymandered there?
Keeping Northern AZ whole?
The Pima county split is about the most favorable type of way to split Tucson for D's.  Do you have any problem with Maricopa? I guess yellow and blue could be made horizontal instead of vertically paralllel. This would create a Safe R and Likely D instead of a tossup and lean R seat.

It has 4 Clinton seats and 2 more Trump seats under 7 points.

The way the Tucson boundaries are drawn and especially the use of CVAP rather than VAP which, I believe is a departure from how it is generally currently done and if so, is simply inexcusable in anything claiming to be a fair map.  

Also, even if he’s a Democrat, RRH’s site rules forbid posts that so much as express pro-Democratic sentiments (IIRC, they say such posts “will not be tolerated”).  They’d *never* allow a thread for a user map that was anything short of an R gerrymander as a rule.  I mean, most RRH users think AZ and PA’s court maps were radical Democratic gerrymanders and that a fair map of Ohio would leave everything safe R except for two hyper-packed D seats  

Lol, I literally put my 14D-3R IL map up on RRH and they let it stay up and they enjoyed it. That is literally the most extreme D gerrymander possible.
https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2020/07/29/illinois-14d-3r/

They allow all redistricting discussion to stay up,(why I joined btw, for the redistricting discussion)
And if you just want to use VAP then you can just draw one seat in Tucson itself and make the rest Safe R. Using CVAP helps Democrats here as it allows you to create a white suburban seat.


If you just wanted a Tucson+ Santa Cruz based seat this is what you get, This moves it to Trump +5 and Mcsally +3. Do you want that instead?



Or this, if you didn't want to use the CVAP.  Trump +6, Mcsally +6.

I mean PA's map was merely just a D tilting map with some moderate decisions here and there although Mathis literally abused NY style 10% population deviation for state legislative maps which suggests she isn't really non partisan.

[Stuart98]

My attempt at a 10 competitive district map based on the 2018 senate vote, though based on trends it might turn into a very stupid D gerrymander.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2020/09/28/arizona-a-truly-fair-map/#comment-611272

Here's a decent map I see on RRH.

That map is a blatant Republican gerrymander, if you want to see a genuinely fair map, take a look at Arizona’s current congressional district map.

Btw the poster that created that map isn't even a Republican. He's just a Democrat on that site. Plenty of R's in the comments complain about that map. Anyway both sides are unhappy.

Show whats actually gerrymandered there?
Keeping Northern AZ whole?
The Pima county split is about the most favorable type of way to split Tucson for D's.  Do you have any problem with Maricopa? I guess yellow and blue could be made horizontal instead of vertically paralllel. This would create a Safe R and Likely D instead of a tossup and lean R seat.

It has 4 Clinton seats and 2 more Trump seats under 7 points.

The way the Tucson boundaries are drawn and especially the use of CVAP rather than VAP which, I believe is a departure from how it is generally currently done and if so, is simply inexcusable in anything claiming to be a fair map.  

Also, even if he’s a Democrat, RRH’s site rules forbid posts that so much as express pro-Democratic sentiments (IIRC, they say such posts “will not be tolerated”).  They’d *never* allow a thread for a user map that was anything short of an R gerrymander as a rule.  I mean, most RRH users think AZ and PA’s court maps were radical Democratic gerrymanders and that a fair map of Ohio would leave everything safe R except for two hyper-packed D seats  

Lol, I literally put my 14D-3R IL map up on RRH and they let it stay up and they enjoyed it. That is literally the most extreme D gerrymander possible.
https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2020/07/29/illinois-14d-3r/

They allow all redistricting discussion to stay up,(why I joined btw, for the redistricting discussion)
And if you just want to use VAP then you can just draw one seat in Tucson itself and make the rest Safe R. Using CVAP helps Democrats here as it allows you to create a white suburban seat.


If you just wanted a Tucson+ Santa Cruz based seat this is what you get, This moves it to Trump +5 and Mcsally +3. Do you want that instead?



Or this, if you didn't want to use the CVAP.  Trump +6, Mcsally +6.

I mean PA's map was merely just a D tilting map with some moderate decisions here and there although Mathis literally abused NY style 10% population deviation for state legislative maps which suggests she isn't really non partisan.

I won’t have time to play around with Dave’s redistricting app for a while yet, so I can’t really go around with you on this too much, but I find it hard to believe that this is the only other way to draw a VRA compliant Hispanic district in that area.  Maybe it is, but I doubt it.  And if it is, then VAP is better than CVAP (although really, a fair map would use total minority population instead of randomly switching to minority VAP or CVAP).

In other words, I still maintain that states should be using overall minority population rather than minority voting age population (although VAP is better than CVAP).  And if we generally used total minority population rather than minority voting age population for the 2010s redistricting then any map for the 2020s redistricting that uses the latter to draw minority candidate of choice districts is an automatic non-starter in my book regardless of who it helps.  

And I strongly disagree with RRH that the AZ congressional map was biased, that was an extremely fair map.  As for PA, it was a slightly Democratic leaning map in a slightly Democratic leaning state.  It was a fair map and calling it a courtmander as RRH regularly does is absurd imo.  They generally think anything short of a pro-Republican gerrymander is a Democratic gerrymander.  I’m glad they don’t auto-ban pro-Democratic maps though, that’s a small step in the right direction.

[Sol]

The 2010 Arizona map was biased somewhat (though some of its bias was reinforced by trends; AZ-09 was considered competitive in 2012 iirc) but more crucially it was very strange. Putting portions of AZ-01 in Pima, the odd wraparound of AZ-04, etc.