2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: South Carolina

[Schiff for Senate]

So I signed up for DRA a couple months back because of how they have more partisan data. However, I avoided using it too much because it was more complicated than Districtr. I know that it's better quality and has more data, but I still put off using it. Today, though, I made a congressional map of SC. Every precinct is assigned and it's all contiguous. I'm very proud of it. More to the point, since Districtr doesn't have partisan data for SC like DRA does, I was finally able to try and make a map for SC that focused on election results. I tried to maximize the number of blue seats. And let me just say my eyes were opened to how much the SC maps (even aside from Charleston) are unfair to the Democrats. Aside from Charleston, it's possible to draw 2 comfortably blue seats. And in Charleston, it's not at all difficult to create a Democratic-won district. So I came up with a map with 4 Trump and 3 Biden districts (one in Charleston that had a narrow margin; two with heavy black populations that went blue more comfortably). 4-3 required some wonky lines (particularly in SC05) and it naturally required for me to focus on partisanship and deliberately try and get 3 seats. So maybe 4-3 isn't fair (even if it's very proportional given SC's partisanship). At the very least there should be a 5-2 map in SC, not a 5-1 map with the last seat being GOP-leaning. The maps in SC really are unfair to Democrats, mainly because Clyburn's seat is a Democratic pack which could be divided into two blue seats (though neither would be massively blue). Then again, somewhere on here someone said that Clyburn himself insisted on a safe seat and that's one of the reasons there's only one black district in SC. What a fool. It's possible to have 2 black seats in SC, and for them to have decent margins for Democrats, but Clyburn just had to have an ultra-safe seat for himself.

Anyway, here's the 4-3 map in SC: https://davesredistricting.org/join/9bf5197b-e2c8-4f94-9567-45f8064e76af

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

So I signed up for DRA a couple months back because of how they have more partisan data. However, I avoided using it too much because it was more complicated than Districtr. I know that it's better quality and has more data, but I still put off using it. Today, though, I made a congressional map of SC. Every precinct is assigned and it's all contiguous. I'm very proud of it. More to the point, since Districtr doesn't have partisan data for SC like DRA does, I was finally able to try and make a map for SC that focused on election results. I tried to maximize the number of blue seats. And let me just say my eyes were opened to how much the SC maps (even aside from Charleston) are unfair to the Democrats. Aside from Charleston, it's possible to draw 2 comfortably blue seats. And in Charleston, it's not at all difficult to create a Democratic-won district. So I came up with a map with 4 Trump and 3 Biden districts (one in Charleston that had a narrow margin; two with heavy black populations that went blue more comfortably). 4-3 required some wonky lines (particularly in SC03) and it naturally required for me to focus on partisanship and deliberately try and get 3 seats. So maybe 4-3 isn't fair (even if it's very proportional given SC's partisanship). At the very least there should be a 5-2 map in SC, not a 5-1 map with the last seat being GOP-leaning. The maps in SC really are unfair to Democrats, mainly because Clyburn's seat is a Democratic pack which could be divided into two blue seats (though neither would be massively blue). Then again, somewhere on here someone said that Clyburn himself insisted on a safe seat and that's one of the reasons there's only one black district in SC. What a fool. It's possible to have 2 black seats in SC, and for them to have decent margins for Democrats, but Clyburn just had to have an ultra-safe seat for himself.

Anyway, here's the 4-3 map in SC: https://davesredistricting.org/join/9bf5197b-e2c8-4f94-9567-45f8064e76af

Tons of county splits, but it's hard to argue it doesn't produce the intended result.

[Schiff for Senate]

So I signed up for DRA a couple months back because of how they have more partisan data. However, I avoided using it too much because it was more complicated than Districtr. I know that it's better quality and has more data, but I still put off using it. Today, though, I made a congressional map of SC. Every precinct is assigned and it's all contiguous. I'm very proud of it. More to the point, since Districtr doesn't have partisan data for SC like DRA does, I was finally able to try and make a map for SC that focused on election results. I tried to maximize the number of blue seats. And let me just say my eyes were opened to how much the SC maps (even aside from Charleston) are unfair to the Democrats. Aside from Charleston, it's possible to draw 2 comfortably blue seats. And in Charleston, it's not at all difficult to create a Democratic-won district. So I came up with a map with 4 Trump and 3 Biden districts (one in Charleston that had a narrow margin; two with heavy black populations that went blue more comfortably). 4-3 required some wonky lines (particularly in SC05) and it naturally required for me to focus on partisanship and deliberately try and get 3 seats. So maybe 4-3 isn't fair (even if it's very proportional given SC's partisanship). At the very least there should be a 5-2 map in SC, not a 5-1 map with the last seat being GOP-leaning. The maps in SC really are unfair to Democrats, mainly because Clyburn's seat is a Democratic pack which could be divided into two blue seats (though neither would be massively blue). Then again, somewhere on here someone said that Clyburn himself insisted on a safe seat and that's one of the reasons there's only one black district in SC. What a fool. It's possible to have 2 black seats in SC, and for them to have decent margins for Democrats, but Clyburn just had to have an ultra-safe seat for himself.

Anyway, here's the 4-3 map in SC: https://davesredistricting.org/join/9bf5197b-e2c8-4f94-9567-45f8064e76af

Tons of county splits, but it's hard to argue it doesn't produce the intended result.

Yep. 20 out of SC's 46 counties are split.

As far as compactness generally, I concede that a lot of the districts (particularly SC05) aren't compact, but there are some bright spots. I'd say the SC02 of this map is roughly the equivalent of the real life SC06, and my SC02 is more compact than the real life SC06. And the Charleston district is reasonably compact as well.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

So I signed up for DRA a couple months back because of how they have more partisan data. However, I avoided using it too much because it was more complicated than Districtr. I know that it's better quality and has more data, but I still put off using it. Today, though, I made a congressional map of SC. Every precinct is assigned and it's all contiguous. I'm very proud of it. More to the point, since Districtr doesn't have partisan data for SC like DRA does, I was finally able to try and make a map for SC that focused on election results. I tried to maximize the number of blue seats. And let me just say my eyes were opened to how much the SC maps (even aside from Charleston) are unfair to the Democrats. Aside from Charleston, it's possible to draw 2 comfortably blue seats. And in Charleston, it's not at all difficult to create a Democratic-won district. So I came up with a map with 4 Trump and 3 Biden districts (one in Charleston that had a narrow margin; two with heavy black populations that went blue more comfortably). 4-3 required some wonky lines (particularly in SC03) and it naturally required for me to focus on partisanship and deliberately try and get 3 seats. So maybe 4-3 isn't fair (even if it's very proportional given SC's partisanship). At the very least there should be a 5-2 map in SC, not a 5-1 map with the last seat being GOP-leaning. The maps in SC really are unfair to Democrats, mainly because Clyburn's seat is a Democratic pack which could be divided into two blue seats (though neither would be massively blue). Then again, somewhere on here someone said that Clyburn himself insisted on a safe seat and that's one of the reasons there's only one black district in SC. What a fool. It's possible to have 2 black seats in SC, and for them to have decent margins for Democrats, but Clyburn just had to have an ultra-safe seat for himself.

Anyway, here's the 4-3 map in SC: https://davesredistricting.org/join/9bf5197b-e2c8-4f94-9567-45f8064e76af

Tons of county splits, but it's hard to argue it doesn't produce the intended result.

Yep. 20 out of SC's 46 counties are split.

As far as compactness generally, I concede that a lot of the districts (particularly SC03) aren't compact, but there are some bright spots. I'd say the SC05 of this map is roughly the equivalent of the real life SC06, and my SC05 is more compact than the real life SC06. And the Charleston district is reasonably compact as well.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/15237bab-554a-440d-9180-82d8befbd000
Thoughts on this?

[Schiff for Senate]

So I signed up for DRA a couple months back because of how they have more partisan data. However, I avoided using it too much because it was more complicated than Districtr. I know that it's better quality and has more data, but I still put off using it. Today, though, I made a congressional map of SC. Every precinct is assigned and it's all contiguous. I'm very proud of it. More to the point, since Districtr doesn't have partisan data for SC like DRA does, I was finally able to try and make a map for SC that focused on election results. I tried to maximize the number of blue seats. And let me just say my eyes were opened to how much the SC maps (even aside from Charleston) are unfair to the Democrats. Aside from Charleston, it's possible to draw 2 comfortably blue seats. And in Charleston, it's not at all difficult to create a Democratic-won district. So I came up with a map with 4 Trump and 3 Biden districts (one in Charleston that had a narrow margin; two with heavy black populations that went blue more comfortably). 4-3 required some wonky lines (particularly in SC03) and it naturally required for me to focus on partisanship and deliberately try and get 3 seats. So maybe 4-3 isn't fair (even if it's very proportional given SC's partisanship). At the very least there should be a 5-2 map in SC, not a 5-1 map with the last seat being GOP-leaning. The maps in SC really are unfair to Democrats, mainly because Clyburn's seat is a Democratic pack which could be divided into two blue seats (though neither would be massively blue). Then again, somewhere on here someone said that Clyburn himself insisted on a safe seat and that's one of the reasons there's only one black district in SC. What a fool. It's possible to have 2 black seats in SC, and for them to have decent margins for Democrats, but Clyburn just had to have an ultra-safe seat for himself.

Anyway, here's the 4-3 map in SC: https://davesredistricting.org/join/9bf5197b-e2c8-4f94-9567-45f8064e76af

Tons of county splits, but it's hard to argue it doesn't produce the intended result.

Yep. 20 out of SC's 46 counties are split.

As far as compactness generally, I concede that a lot of the districts (particularly SC03) aren't compact, but there are some bright spots. I'd say the SC05 of this map is roughly the equivalent of the real life SC06, and my SC05 is more compact than the real life SC06. And the Charleston district is reasonably compact as well.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/15237bab-554a-440d-9180-82d8befbd000
Thoughts on this?

Much more compact and efficient than mine. I applaud you.
And that's my point - it's clearly not that difficult to produce a 4-3 map in SC. So I'm honestly scandalized by the fact that the GOP is getting away with a 6-1 gerrymander and most of us (including, until now, myself) have considered it only a light gerrymander. SC, it appears, is a very gerrymandered state. It's obscured because the districts are all reasonably compact and there aren't many wonky lines, but it's a potent gerrymander nonetheless. I'd say a 4-3 or a 4-2 with one competitive seat is about fair - not the 6-1 the SCGOP has gotten away with (the Charleston district could flip in the next blue wave for sure, but until then, I doubt it does).

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

So I signed up for DRA a couple months back because of how they have more partisan data. However, I avoided using it too much because it was more complicated than Districtr. I know that it's better quality and has more data, but I still put off using it. Today, though, I made a congressional map of SC. Every precinct is assigned and it's all contiguous. I'm very proud of it. More to the point, since Districtr doesn't have partisan data for SC like DRA does, I was finally able to try and make a map for SC that focused on election results. I tried to maximize the number of blue seats. And let me just say my eyes were opened to how much the SC maps (even aside from Charleston) are unfair to the Democrats. Aside from Charleston, it's possible to draw 2 comfortably blue seats. And in Charleston, it's not at all difficult to create a Democratic-won district. So I came up with a map with 4 Trump and 3 Biden districts (one in Charleston that had a narrow margin; two with heavy black populations that went blue more comfortably). 4-3 required some wonky lines (particularly in SC03) and it naturally required for me to focus on partisanship and deliberately try and get 3 seats. So maybe 4-3 isn't fair (even if it's very proportional given SC's partisanship). At the very least there should be a 5-2 map in SC, not a 5-1 map with the last seat being GOP-leaning. The maps in SC really are unfair to Democrats, mainly because Clyburn's seat is a Democratic pack which could be divided into two blue seats (though neither would be massively blue). Then again, somewhere on here someone said that Clyburn himself insisted on a safe seat and that's one of the reasons there's only one black district in SC. What a fool. It's possible to have 2 black seats in SC, and for them to have decent margins for Democrats, but Clyburn just had to have an ultra-safe seat for himself.

Anyway, here's the 4-3 map in SC: https://davesredistricting.org/join/9bf5197b-e2c8-4f94-9567-45f8064e76af

Tons of county splits, but it's hard to argue it doesn't produce the intended result.

Yep. 20 out of SC's 46 counties are split.

As far as compactness generally, I concede that a lot of the districts (particularly SC03) aren't compact, but there are some bright spots. I'd say the SC05 of this map is roughly the equivalent of the real life SC06, and my SC05 is more compact than the real life SC06. And the Charleston district is reasonably compact as well.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/15237bab-554a-440d-9180-82d8befbd000
Thoughts on this?

Much more compact and efficient than mine. I applaud you.
And that's my point - it's clearly not that difficult to produce a 4-3 map in SC. So I'm honestly scandalized by the fact that the GOP is getting away with a 6-1 gerrymander and most of us (including, until now, myself) have considered it only a light gerrymander. SC, it appears, is a very gerrymandered state. It's obscured because the districts are all reasonably compact and there aren't many wonky lines, but it's a potent gerrymander nonetheless. I'd say a 4-3 or a 4-2 with one competitive seat is about fair - not the 6-1 the SCGOP has gotten away with (the Charleston district could flip in the next blue wave for sure, but until then, I doubt it does).

Thanks for the kind words.
Personally, I would consider the current map in SC to be a very much a cleaner-than-usual incumbentmander.

[Schiff for Senate]

So I signed up for DRA a couple months back because of how they have more partisan data. However, I avoided using it too much because it was more complicated than Districtr. I know that it's better quality and has more data, but I still put off using it. Today, though, I made a congressional map of SC. Every precinct is assigned and it's all contiguous. I'm very proud of it. More to the point, since Districtr doesn't have partisan data for SC like DRA does, I was finally able to try and make a map for SC that focused on election results. I tried to maximize the number of blue seats. And let me just say my eyes were opened to how much the SC maps (even aside from Charleston) are unfair to the Democrats. Aside from Charleston, it's possible to draw 2 comfortably blue seats. And in Charleston, it's not at all difficult to create a Democratic-won district. So I came up with a map with 4 Trump and 3 Biden districts (one in Charleston that had a narrow margin; two with heavy black populations that went blue more comfortably). 4-3 required some wonky lines (particularly in SC03) and it naturally required for me to focus on partisanship and deliberately try and get 3 seats. So maybe 4-3 isn't fair (even if it's very proportional given SC's partisanship). At the very least there should be a 5-2 map in SC, not a 5-1 map with the last seat being GOP-leaning. The maps in SC really are unfair to Democrats, mainly because Clyburn's seat is a Democratic pack which could be divided into two blue seats (though neither would be massively blue). Then again, somewhere on here someone said that Clyburn himself insisted on a safe seat and that's one of the reasons there's only one black district in SC. What a fool. It's possible to have 2 black seats in SC, and for them to have decent margins for Democrats, but Clyburn just had to have an ultra-safe seat for himself.

Anyway, here's the 4-3 map in SC: https://davesredistricting.org/join/9bf5197b-e2c8-4f94-9567-45f8064e76af

Tons of county splits, but it's hard to argue it doesn't produce the intended result.

Yep. 20 out of SC's 46 counties are split.

As far as compactness generally, I concede that a lot of the districts (particularly SC03) aren't compact, but there are some bright spots. I'd say the SC05 of this map is roughly the equivalent of the real life SC06, and my SC05 is more compact than the real life SC06. And the Charleston district is reasonably compact as well.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/15237bab-554a-440d-9180-82d8befbd000
Thoughts on this?

Much more compact and efficient than mine. I applaud you.
And that's my point - it's clearly not that difficult to produce a 4-3 map in SC. So I'm honestly scandalized by the fact that the GOP is getting away with a 6-1 gerrymander and most of us (including, until now, myself) have considered it only a light gerrymander. SC, it appears, is a very gerrymandered state. It's obscured because the districts are all reasonably compact and there aren't many wonky lines, but it's a potent gerrymander nonetheless. I'd say a 4-3 or a 4-2 with one competitive seat is about fair - not the 6-1 the SCGOP has gotten away with (the Charleston district could flip in the next blue wave for sure, but until then, I doubt it does).

Thanks for the kind words.
Personally, I would consider the current map in SC to be a very much a cleaner-than-usual incumbentmander.

And the biggest problem with an 'incumbentmander' in SC is the fact that there are right now 6 GOP incumbents and 1 Democratic incumbent when there should be 5 GOP incumbents and 2 Democratic incumbents or maybe even 4 GOP incumbents and 3 Democratic incumbents.

EDIT: In fact, given all the ruckus over AL, I'd argue SC deserves much more. It's way easier to draw a 5-2 in SC than in AL, and it makes much more sense to do so. Also note that SC went for Trump by like 11 or 12 points and AL went for him by close to 25 if I remember correctly. So SC has not been given nearly enough attention and should most certainly be redrawn for more black/Democratic seats before AL. I'd argue 6-1 isn't all that unreasonable in AL, but in SC, it's a travesty. So the fact that AL's maps have gotten much more attention than SC's despite in actuality being less outrageous/unfair is kind of irking me now. The SCGOP has more or less gotten off scot-free despite having a potent gerrymander in place (and in contrast, though the ALGOP drew a map that I'd argue isn't all that much of a gerrymander - certainly not as bad as SC - it's gotten much more flak).

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

So I signed up for DRA a couple months back because of how they have more partisan data. However, I avoided using it too much because it was more complicated than Districtr. I know that it's better quality and has more data, but I still put off using it. Today, though, I made a congressional map of SC. Every precinct is assigned and it's all contiguous. I'm very proud of it. More to the point, since Districtr doesn't have partisan data for SC like DRA does, I was finally able to try and make a map for SC that focused on election results. I tried to maximize the number of blue seats. And let me just say my eyes were opened to how much the SC maps (even aside from Charleston) are unfair to the Democrats. Aside from Charleston, it's possible to draw 2 comfortably blue seats. And in Charleston, it's not at all difficult to create a Democratic-won district. So I came up with a map with 4 Trump and 3 Biden districts (one in Charleston that had a narrow margin; two with heavy black populations that went blue more comfortably). 4-3 required some wonky lines (particularly in SC03) and it naturally required for me to focus on partisanship and deliberately try and get 3 seats. So maybe 4-3 isn't fair (even if it's very proportional given SC's partisanship). At the very least there should be a 5-2 map in SC, not a 5-1 map with the last seat being GOP-leaning. The maps in SC really are unfair to Democrats, mainly because Clyburn's seat is a Democratic pack which could be divided into two blue seats (though neither would be massively blue). Then again, somewhere on here someone said that Clyburn himself insisted on a safe seat and that's one of the reasons there's only one black district in SC. What a fool. It's possible to have 2 black seats in SC, and for them to have decent margins for Democrats, but Clyburn just had to have an ultra-safe seat for himself.

Anyway, here's the 4-3 map in SC: https://davesredistricting.org/join/9bf5197b-e2c8-4f94-9567-45f8064e76af

Tons of county splits, but it's hard to argue it doesn't produce the intended result.

Yep. 20 out of SC's 46 counties are split.

As far as compactness generally, I concede that a lot of the districts (particularly SC03) aren't compact, but there are some bright spots. I'd say the SC05 of this map is roughly the equivalent of the real life SC06, and my SC05 is more compact than the real life SC06. And the Charleston district is reasonably compact as well.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/15237bab-554a-440d-9180-82d8befbd000
Thoughts on this?

Much more compact and efficient than mine. I applaud you.
And that's my point - it's clearly not that difficult to produce a 4-3 map in SC. So I'm honestly scandalized by the fact that the GOP is getting away with a 6-1 gerrymander and most of us (including, until now, myself) have considered it only a light gerrymander. SC, it appears, is a very gerrymandered state. It's obscured because the districts are all reasonably compact and there aren't many wonky lines, but it's a potent gerrymander nonetheless. I'd say a 4-3 or a 4-2 with one competitive seat is about fair - not the 6-1 the SCGOP has gotten away with (the Charleston district could flip in the next blue wave for sure, but until then, I doubt it does).

Thanks for the kind words.
Personally, I would consider the current map in SC to be a very much a cleaner-than-usual incumbentmander.

And the biggest problem with an 'incumbentmander' in SC is the fact that there are right now 6 GOP incumbents and 1 Democratic incumbent when there should be 5 GOP incumbents and 2 Democratic incumbents or maybe even 4 GOP incumbents and 3 Democratic incumbents.

EDIT: In fact, given all the ruckus over AL, I'd argue SC deserves much more. It's way easier to draw a 5-2 in SC than in AL, and it makes much more sense to do so. Also note that SC went for Trump by like 11 or 12 points and AL went for him by close to 25 if I remember correctly. So SC has not been given nearly enough attention and should most certainly be redrawn for more black/Democratic seats before AL. I'd argue 6-1 isn't all that unreasonable in AL, but in SC, it's a travesty. So the fact that AL's maps have gotten much more attention than SC's despite in actuality being less outrageous/unfair is kind of irking me now. The SCGOP has more or less gotten off scot-free despite having a potent gerrymander in place (and in contrast, though the ALGOP drew a map that I'd argue isn't all that much of a gerrymander - certainly not as bad as SC - it's gotten much more flak).

How do you think redistricting would have gone on this year if Cunningham was re-elected in 2020?

[Schiff for Senate]

So I signed up for DRA a couple months back because of how they have more partisan data. However, I avoided using it too much because it was more complicated than Districtr. I know that it's better quality and has more data, but I still put off using it. Today, though, I made a congressional map of SC. Every precinct is assigned and it's all contiguous. I'm very proud of it. More to the point, since Districtr doesn't have partisan data for SC like DRA does, I was finally able to try and make a map for SC that focused on election results. I tried to maximize the number of blue seats. And let me just say my eyes were opened to how much the SC maps (even aside from Charleston) are unfair to the Democrats. Aside from Charleston, it's possible to draw 2 comfortably blue seats. And in Charleston, it's not at all difficult to create a Democratic-won district. So I came up with a map with 4 Trump and 3 Biden districts (one in Charleston that had a narrow margin; two with heavy black populations that went blue more comfortably). 4-3 required some wonky lines (particularly in SC03) and it naturally required for me to focus on partisanship and deliberately try and get 3 seats. So maybe 4-3 isn't fair (even if it's very proportional given SC's partisanship). At the very least there should be a 5-2 map in SC, not a 5-1 map with the last seat being GOP-leaning. The maps in SC really are unfair to Democrats, mainly because Clyburn's seat is a Democratic pack which could be divided into two blue seats (though neither would be massively blue). Then again, somewhere on here someone said that Clyburn himself insisted on a safe seat and that's one of the reasons there's only one black district in SC. What a fool. It's possible to have 2 black seats in SC, and for them to have decent margins for Democrats, but Clyburn just had to have an ultra-safe seat for himself.

Anyway, here's the 4-3 map in SC: https://davesredistricting.org/join/9bf5197b-e2c8-4f94-9567-45f8064e76af

Tons of county splits, but it's hard to argue it doesn't produce the intended result.

Yep. 20 out of SC's 46 counties are split.

As far as compactness generally, I concede that a lot of the districts (particularly SC03) aren't compact, but there are some bright spots. I'd say the SC05 of this map is roughly the equivalent of the real life SC06, and my SC05 is more compact than the real life SC06. And the Charleston district is reasonably compact as well.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/15237bab-554a-440d-9180-82d8befbd000
Thoughts on this?

Much more compact and efficient than mine. I applaud you.
And that's my point - it's clearly not that difficult to produce a 4-3 map in SC. So I'm honestly scandalized by the fact that the GOP is getting away with a 6-1 gerrymander and most of us (including, until now, myself) have considered it only a light gerrymander. SC, it appears, is a very gerrymandered state. It's obscured because the districts are all reasonably compact and there aren't many wonky lines, but it's a potent gerrymander nonetheless. I'd say a 4-3 or a 4-2 with one competitive seat is about fair - not the 6-1 the SCGOP has gotten away with (the Charleston district could flip in the next blue wave for sure, but until then, I doubt it does).

Thanks for the kind words.
Personally, I would consider the current map in SC to be a very much a cleaner-than-usual incumbentmander.

And the biggest problem with an 'incumbentmander' in SC is the fact that there are right now 6 GOP incumbents and 1 Democratic incumbent when there should be 5 GOP incumbents and 2 Democratic incumbents or maybe even 4 GOP incumbents and 3 Democratic incumbents.

EDIT: In fact, given all the ruckus over AL, I'd argue SC deserves much more. It's way easier to draw a 5-2 in SC than in AL, and it makes much more sense to do so. Also note that SC went for Trump by like 11 or 12 points and AL went for him by close to 25 if I remember correctly. So SC has not been given nearly enough attention and should most certainly be redrawn for more black/Democratic seats before AL. I'd argue 6-1 isn't all that unreasonable in AL, but in SC, it's a travesty. So the fact that AL's maps have gotten much more attention than SC's despite in actuality being less outrageous/unfair is kind of irking me now. The SCGOP has more or less gotten off scot-free despite having a potent gerrymander in place (and in contrast, though the ALGOP drew a map that I'd argue isn't all that much of a gerrymander - certainly not as bad as SC - it's gotten much more flak).

How do you think redistricting would have gone on this year if Cunningham was re-elected in 2020?

I'm honestly not sure. Not an expert on SC politics/redistricting by any means. But my guess is they might have made SC01 even redder to ensure his defeat in 2022.

[Tekken_Guy]

So I signed up for DRA a couple months back because of how they have more partisan data. However, I avoided using it too much because it was more complicated than Districtr. I know that it's better quality and has more data, but I still put off using it. Today, though, I made a congressional map of SC. Every precinct is assigned and it's all contiguous. I'm very proud of it. More to the point, since Districtr doesn't have partisan data for SC like DRA does, I was finally able to try and make a map for SC that focused on election results. I tried to maximize the number of blue seats. And let me just say my eyes were opened to how much the SC maps (even aside from Charleston) are unfair to the Democrats. Aside from Charleston, it's possible to draw 2 comfortably blue seats. And in Charleston, it's not at all difficult to create a Democratic-won district. So I came up with a map with 4 Trump and 3 Biden districts (one in Charleston that had a narrow margin; two with heavy black populations that went blue more comfortably). 4-3 required some wonky lines (particularly in SC03) and it naturally required for me to focus on partisanship and deliberately try and get 3 seats. So maybe 4-3 isn't fair (even if it's very proportional given SC's partisanship). At the very least there should be a 5-2 map in SC, not a 5-1 map with the last seat being GOP-leaning. The maps in SC really are unfair to Democrats, mainly because Clyburn's seat is a Democratic pack which could be divided into two blue seats (though neither would be massively blue). Then again, somewhere on here someone said that Clyburn himself insisted on a safe seat and that's one of the reasons there's only one black district in SC. What a fool. It's possible to have 2 black seats in SC, and for them to have decent margins for Democrats, but Clyburn just had to have an ultra-safe seat for himself.

Anyway, here's the 4-3 map in SC: https://davesredistricting.org/join/9bf5197b-e2c8-4f94-9567-45f8064e76af

Tons of county splits, but it's hard to argue it doesn't produce the intended result.

Yep. 20 out of SC's 46 counties are split.

As far as compactness generally, I concede that a lot of the districts (particularly SC03) aren't compact, but there are some bright spots. I'd say the SC05 of this map is roughly the equivalent of the real life SC06, and my SC05 is more compact than the real life SC06. And the Charleston district is reasonably compact as well.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/15237bab-554a-440d-9180-82d8befbd000
Thoughts on this?

Much more compact and efficient than mine. I applaud you.
And that's my point - it's clearly not that difficult to produce a 4-3 map in SC. So I'm honestly scandalized by the fact that the GOP is getting away with a 6-1 gerrymander and most of us (including, until now, myself) have considered it only a light gerrymander. SC, it appears, is a very gerrymandered state. It's obscured because the districts are all reasonably compact and there aren't many wonky lines, but it's a potent gerrymander nonetheless. I'd say a 4-3 or a 4-2 with one competitive seat is about fair - not the 6-1 the SCGOP has gotten away with (the Charleston district could flip in the next blue wave for sure, but until then, I doubt it does).

Thanks for the kind words.
Personally, I would consider the current map in SC to be a very much a cleaner-than-usual incumbentmander.

And the biggest problem with an 'incumbentmander' in SC is the fact that there are right now 6 GOP incumbents and 1 Democratic incumbent when there should be 5 GOP incumbents and 2 Democratic incumbents or maybe even 4 GOP incumbents and 3 Democratic incumbents.

EDIT: In fact, given all the ruckus over AL, I'd argue SC deserves much more. It's way easier to draw a 5-2 in SC than in AL, and it makes much more sense to do so. Also note that SC went for Trump by like 11 or 12 points and AL went for him by close to 25 if I remember correctly. So SC has not been given nearly enough attention and should most certainly be redrawn for more black/Democratic seats before AL. I'd argue 6-1 isn't all that unreasonable in AL, but in SC, it's a travesty. So the fact that AL's maps have gotten much more attention than SC's despite in actuality being less outrageous/unfair is kind of irking me now. The SCGOP has more or less gotten off scot-free despite having a potent gerrymander in place (and in contrast, though the ALGOP drew a map that I'd argue isn't all that much of a gerrymander - certainly not as bad as SC - it's gotten much more flak).

How do you think redistricting would have gone on this year if Cunningham was re-elected in 2020?

I'm honestly not sure. Not an expert on SC politics/redistricting by any means. But my guess is they might have made SC01 even redder to ensure his defeat in 2022.

They probably just draw the same district they did in real life, and Mace beats him in a rematch (or wins the open seat if he runs for governor).

[Schiff for Senate]

So I signed up for DRA a couple months back because of how they have more partisan data. However, I avoided using it too much because it was more complicated than Districtr. I know that it's better quality and has more data, but I still put off using it. Today, though, I made a congressional map of SC. Every precinct is assigned and it's all contiguous. I'm very proud of it. More to the point, since Districtr doesn't have partisan data for SC like DRA does, I was finally able to try and make a map for SC that focused on election results. I tried to maximize the number of blue seats. And let me just say my eyes were opened to how much the SC maps (even aside from Charleston) are unfair to the Democrats. Aside from Charleston, it's possible to draw 2 comfortably blue seats. And in Charleston, it's not at all difficult to create a Democratic-won district. So I came up with a map with 4 Trump and 3 Biden districts (one in Charleston that had a narrow margin; two with heavy black populations that went blue more comfortably). 4-3 required some wonky lines (particularly in SC03) and it naturally required for me to focus on partisanship and deliberately try and get 3 seats. So maybe 4-3 isn't fair (even if it's very proportional given SC's partisanship). At the very least there should be a 5-2 map in SC, not a 5-1 map with the last seat being GOP-leaning. The maps in SC really are unfair to Democrats, mainly because Clyburn's seat is a Democratic pack which could be divided into two blue seats (though neither would be massively blue). Then again, somewhere on here someone said that Clyburn himself insisted on a safe seat and that's one of the reasons there's only one black district in SC. What a fool. It's possible to have 2 black seats in SC, and for them to have decent margins for Democrats, but Clyburn just had to have an ultra-safe seat for himself.

Anyway, here's the 4-3 map in SC: https://davesredistricting.org/join/9bf5197b-e2c8-4f94-9567-45f8064e76af

Tons of county splits, but it's hard to argue it doesn't produce the intended result.

Yep. 20 out of SC's 46 counties are split.

As far as compactness generally, I concede that a lot of the districts (particularly SC03) aren't compact, but there are some bright spots. I'd say the SC05 of this map is roughly the equivalent of the real life SC06, and my SC05 is more compact than the real life SC06. And the Charleston district is reasonably compact as well.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/15237bab-554a-440d-9180-82d8befbd000
Thoughts on this?

Much more compact and efficient than mine. I applaud you.
And that's my point - it's clearly not that difficult to produce a 4-3 map in SC. So I'm honestly scandalized by the fact that the GOP is getting away with a 6-1 gerrymander and most of us (including, until now, myself) have considered it only a light gerrymander. SC, it appears, is a very gerrymandered state. It's obscured because the districts are all reasonably compact and there aren't many wonky lines, but it's a potent gerrymander nonetheless. I'd say a 4-3 or a 4-2 with one competitive seat is about fair - not the 6-1 the SCGOP has gotten away with (the Charleston district could flip in the next blue wave for sure, but until then, I doubt it does).

Thanks for the kind words.
Personally, I would consider the current map in SC to be a very much a cleaner-than-usual incumbentmander.

And the biggest problem with an 'incumbentmander' in SC is the fact that there are right now 6 GOP incumbents and 1 Democratic incumbent when there should be 5 GOP incumbents and 2 Democratic incumbents or maybe even 4 GOP incumbents and 3 Democratic incumbents.

EDIT: In fact, given all the ruckus over AL, I'd argue SC deserves much more. It's way easier to draw a 5-2 in SC than in AL, and it makes much more sense to do so. Also note that SC went for Trump by like 11 or 12 points and AL went for him by close to 25 if I remember correctly. So SC has not been given nearly enough attention and should most certainly be redrawn for more black/Democratic seats before AL. I'd argue 6-1 isn't all that unreasonable in AL, but in SC, it's a travesty. So the fact that AL's maps have gotten much more attention than SC's despite in actuality being less outrageous/unfair is kind of irking me now. The SCGOP has more or less gotten off scot-free despite having a potent gerrymander in place (and in contrast, though the ALGOP drew a map that I'd argue isn't all that much of a gerrymander - certainly not as bad as SC - it's gotten much more flak).

How do you think redistricting would have gone on this year if Cunningham was re-elected in 2020?

I'm honestly not sure. Not an expert on SC politics/redistricting by any means. But my guess is they might have made SC01 even redder to ensure his defeat in 2022.

They probably just draw the same district they did in real life, and Mace beats him in a rematch (or wins the open seat if he runs for governor).

I really doubt Cunningham would ever run for governor if he was in Congress, especially not in a Biden midterm. Now he's doing it because he has nothing left to lose anyway and it can't hurt, but if he was still in Congress, I'm sure he'd run for reelection instead of seek the governorship. We all know his victory is a long shot. Since he doesn't hold any elected office right now anyway it can't hurt, but if he had a seat in Congress, I doubt he'd be willing to sacrifice that for a long shot bid for governor.

[BenjiG98]

Big news: federal judge strikes down SC-01 as a racial gerrymander and it must be redrawn by the end of March. Claims against the 2nd and 5th districts were dismissed.

https://twitter.com/marycaitlinbyrd/status/1611398377920512002

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Big news: federal judge strikes down SC-01 as a racial gerrymander

https://twitter.com/marycaitlinbyrd/status/1611398377920512002

[Nancy Mace disliked this]

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Big news: federal judge strikes down SC-01 as a racial gerrymander

https://twitter.com/marycaitlinbyrd/status/1611398377920512002

[Nancy Mace disliked this]

[Joe Cunningham liked this]

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Big news: federal judge strikes down SC-01 as a racial gerrymander

https://twitter.com/marycaitlinbyrd/status/1611398377920512002

[Nancy Mace disliked this]

[Joe Cunningham liked this]

#ScrantonCharlestonJoe4House2024

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Big news: federal judge strikes down SC-01 as a racial gerrymander

https://twitter.com/marycaitlinbyrd/status/1611398377920512002

[Nancy Mace disliked this]

[Joe Cunningham liked this]

#ScrantonCharlestonJoe4House2024

He’s actually a Kentucky native so it’s be Kuttawa Joe

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/f8864ff3-6b4f-4a71-9d05-b2850d3cc26d
Thoughts on this gerrymander I just drew?

[Coastal Elitist]

Racial gerrymander for the first how lol. They didn't change it that much. I would do this: https://davesredistricting.org/join/84de2478-7779-47fe-b372-80823d49312d

[BenjiG98]

Please temper your expectations and anticipate SCOTUS to stay the ruling on appeal.

[Tekken_Guy]

Please temper your expectations and anticipate SCOTUS to stay the ruling on appeal.

The rulings in AL and LA were stayed on the Purcell principle. This is a different scenario as we are over a year from the next elections.

[Nyvin]

SCOTUS will absolutely 100% squash this, but if this were to happen...

“The Court finds that race was the predominant factor motivating the General Assembly’s adoption of Congressional District No. 1,” the judges wrote.

They cited how the post-2020 census district lines resulted in moving more than 30,000 Black Charleston County residents out of a district that had historically been a Charleston-anchored seat.

30,000 blacks in Charleston County moved from SC-6 to SC-1 makes SC-1 almost a 50/50 district with 2020 pres numbers.  I'm assuming touching any other areas of the map will be a no-go.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/8bd2543f-398c-417c-9b0e-970c7dbb1e2a

[Tekken_Guy]

SCOTUS will absolutely 100% squash this, but if this were to happen...

“The Court finds that race was the predominant factor motivating the General Assembly’s adoption of Congressional District No. 1,” the judges wrote.

They cited how the post-2020 census district lines resulted in moving more than 30,000 Black Charleston County residents out of a district that had historically been a Charleston-anchored seat.

30,000 blacks in Charleston County moved from SC-6 to SC-1 makes SC-1 almost a 50/50 district with 2020 pres numbers.  I'm assuming touching any other areas of the map will be a no-go.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/8bd2543f-398c-417c-9b0e-970c7dbb1e2a

Is there any chance that SCOTUS will surprise and two or more conservatives side with the liberals? The Alabama map last year was thrown out by a panel of Trump judges.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Yeah, this won't come to fruition, but South Carolina courts overall have still been very surprisingly based lately.

[ProgressiveModerate]

How could a judge strike down *just* the first district? I would think 6 would be the bigger liability cause that's the clear racial sort and all the other districts are just constructed around it.

Long term though, Rs have a problem with SC-01 if greater Charleston continues shifting left because the district is geographically "trapped"; there's not much more you can do to get additional R votes.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/f8864ff3-6b4f-4a71-9d05-b2850d3cc26d
Thoughts on this gerrymander I just drew?

I endorse this as it puts my home county in a democratic district and away from Fry