2020 Redistricting in Arizona

[Sol]

Here's a quick and dirty Republican "fair" map of Arizona. (DRA link)





Tried to do something similar to the 2010 map but for the Republicans. A pretty strong 7-3 map, though the 6th, 10th and 2nd could be pickups in an excellent Democratic year.

I guess there might be some VRA issues with the 3rd? If so that just means switching some white liberals with the 2nd probably, which would make the 2nd a proper tossup. I doubt Grijalva minds the white progressives though.

[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.

[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:

[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.

[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.

[Sol]

courtmander doesn't mean total gerrymander, it means multiple small decisions pushed towards one party. The best case to show this in PA is how they switched the slice of Montgomery taken for the Bucks county district which was clean in the old map unlike the rest of SEPA. The GOP took an R leaning exurban slice and a GOP leaning court would have kept that if they somehow agreed to redraw the maps. The D court took an inner ring suburban slice to make the Bucks district a bit more D leaning. Simple decisions like that.

PA 10th is similar with a unique swing district created from central PA.



Similar example of a possible VA courtmander. It does still focus on generally keeping COI's together but it does tip the Richmond district back to firmly GOP leaning by taking different slices of Chesterfield county.

Ultimately stuff like this kind of appropriately complicates the notion of a gerrymander. There are a lot of decisions that happen in drawing maps where there are multiple equally good (or equally cruddy) prospects available, and the choice you make will have a clear partisan effect. I think conflating those choices with gerrymandering is a little misleading ultimately, because the PA Court Map is ultimately pretty fair--they make choices which favor Democrats but those choices are as reasonable as the Republican alternative.

Personally when I draw maps I try to evaluate reasonable choices by analyzing Communities of Interest--but if there's not anything obvious I'll usually go for the option which brings the state closer to an accurate reflection of its partisan balance.

[Sol]

courtmander doesn't mean total gerrymander, it means multiple small decisions pushed towards one party. The best case to show this in PA is how they switched the slice of Montgomery taken for the Bucks county district which was clean in the old map unlike the rest of SEPA. The GOP took an R leaning exurban slice and a GOP leaning court would have kept that if they somehow agreed to redraw the maps. The D court took an inner ring suburban slice to make the Bucks district a bit more D leaning. Simple decisions like that.

PA 10th is similar with a unique swing district created from central PA.



Similar example of a possible VA courtmander. It does still focus on generally keeping COI's together but it does tip the Richmond district back to firmly GOP leaning by taking different slices of Chesterfield county.

Ultimately stuff like this kind of appropriately complicates the notion of a gerrymander. There are a lot of decisions that happen in drawing maps where there are multiple equally good (or equally cruddy) prospects available, and the choice you make will have a clear partisan effect. I think conflating those choices with gerrymandering is a little misleading ultimately, because the PA Court Map is ultimately pretty fair--they make choices which favor Democrats but those choices are as reasonable as the Republican alternative.

Personally when I draw maps I try to evaluate reasonable choices by analyzing Communities of Interest--but if there's not anything obvious I'll usually go for the option which brings the state closer to an accurate reflection of its partisan balance.

Fair enough to describe it that way. Im just describing a courtmander as tipping the scales. Not going all out in messiness. Whats your opinion on the AZ legislative data I showed above?

Yeah, I agree that Arizona's current map is pretty biased and not optimal.

[Sol]

Link to map?

https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::aa0ac11a-d432-4b7c-947f-113fbc7ac6b2

The share link blairite not the link at top.

Woops.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/bcf5e2bc-6bdb-4cec-a16b-d5b0b699458e

FYI, you're splitting the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation.

[Sol]

Torie could you give the link for your map?

[Sol]

Ooof I do not think that Grijalva's district there is legal lol

[Sol]

Ooof I do not think that Grijalva's district there is legal lol

Neither is AZ-1

AZ01 is definitely not VRA protected. Just don't split those reservations.

It's not the VRA - There's rules the commission has to follow in regard to COI's and the Indian Reservations are quite heavily weighted in the rules.

I'm pretty sure Torie's map keeps individual reservations together--I don't think there's some requirement that all reservations have to be in the same district, or the 2000 map wouldn't've happened.

[Sol]

Ooof I do not think that Grijalva's district there is legal lol

Yes it is, and I am the lawyer, and you are not.

Anyway, I don't want to debate the point now too much. But there is nothing that requires a VRA CD that has to stretch over a 100 miles of empty desert, and the CD probably has a majority of Hispanic voters, or at least Hispanic CVAP (circa 5 years ago, 39.3% of the CVAP was Hispanic (probably higher now), and AZ has closed primaries), voting in a Dem primary, in any event. Moreover, Hispanics are becoming less of a distinctive voting block, and there is less and less white hostility to voting for them, as time goes by. I suspect Hispanics and the VRA are on its last legs at this point, but we shall see about that as time goes by.

Case dismissed. Next!

I mean, this is the tricky thing about the VRA right? There ought to be at least a pretty strong shot for the Latino candidate of choice to win both the primary and the general, and since Latino voters tend to be less politically unified that does require at least somewhat higher Latino percentages.

In any case it's definitely possible to have an at least slightly more Latino AZ-03 while still making AZ-02 more R (like this map I posted upthread) and if the GOP-dominated commission is trying to draw a fake fair map, I imagine they'd like to avoid controversy related to the VRA.

[Sol]

Don't think the first belongs in maricopa

[Sol]

Don't think the first belongs in maricopa

It has to go there for Fort McDowell and Salt River reservations anyway and it's one of the less ugly ways of handling the thing. The Maricopa portion of the district is 35.1% of its total population and is McSally +4 (compared to the rest of the district being Sinema +5.5)

It doesn't have to go in there lol, the 1st isn't really a native influence district presently--it has a large population but it's only 22%

[Sol]

AZ-02 seems questionable imo wrt: the VRA. Also, that map splits the O'odham reservation.

[Sol]

That new AZ-01/02 is hideous--why does that district have to go into Pinal?