2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Washington

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

What a disaster. Dems should either scrap the committee or reform it into something less dysfunctional. The only other commission that just didn't work the way this one didn't is Virginia's, which was designed to fail, so I'm skeptical there aren't serious structural issues with this one.

This one has historically worked well, but Dems got outmaneuvered badly last time, so I guess they picked more partisan appointees which led to the deadlock.

Probably.

[The Invincible Brent Boggs]

Looks like 6-3-1,  bordering on 6-4

It's hard to tell with a blurry image, but this WA-08 is almost exactly the same partisan-wise as the previous. A bit less from the east and a deal more Seattle suburbs counteract the Peirce stuff. Similarly, basically the exact same WA-03. Not radical changes.  

I attempted to draw the 8th in DRA and found basically this. The 8th on that image appears marginally more Republican than the current 8th (by less than a percent). Of course, this may all go out the window, I'm not sure what happens now.

[The Invincible Brent Boggs]

Looks like 6-3-1,  bordering on 6-4

It's hard to tell with a blurry image, but this WA-08 is almost exactly the same partisan-wise as the previous. A bit less from the east and a deal more Seattle suburbs counteract the Peirce stuff. Similarly, basically the exact same WA-03. Not radical changes.  

I attempted to draw the 8th in DRA and found basically this. The 8th on that image appears marginally more Republican than the current 8th (by less than a percent). Of course, this may all go out the window, I'm not sure what happens now.

On the other hand, this person on twitter drew an 8th which is more Democratic than the current so who knows: https://twitter.com/buttbuttsneet/status/1460650708710137864
[/quote]

[GALeftist]

Why didn't the WAGOP negotiate in good faith during this process given that a deadlock would just get punted to the highly Democratic Supreme Court anyway? They didn't have much leverage to begin with and they seem to have squandered it by insisting on a 5-4-1 map or whatever.

[Crumpets]

If it turns out Walkinshaw and Sims were somehow secretly behind the delay because they knew they'd get a more favorable map from SCOWA I can kind of forgive them for that, but I can't forgive any of them for having an opportunity to actually draw a Washington state map - something anyone on here could do competently - with 7 weeks of prep time with proposed maps ready, pulling a ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯ when the deadline hits, and blaming late data and technical issues.

[Crumpets]

The Redistricting Commission is implying they may try to get the court to just approve their late map, or at least use it as a base map. I have no idea how feasible that is, but it doesn't sound outlandish, at least to me.

https://twitter.com/RedistrictingWA/status/1460840684542332929

https://twitter.com/RedistrictingWA/status/1460840687696433155

[Gass3268]

Hopefully the Court tells them to take a long walk off a short pier.

[Minnesota Mike]

Hopefully the Court tells them to take a long walk off a short pier.

Being late is pathetic but a commission drawn map is better than leaving it up to the courts. Courts should always be a last resort.

BTW here is a DRA link.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/1a9373ae-087e-48b5-a923-e4b499dfffa9

[Oryxslayer]

Hopefully the Court tells them to take a long walk off a short pier.

Being late is pathetic but a commission drawn map is better than leaving it up to the courts. Courts should always be a last resort.

BTW here is a DRA link.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/1a9373ae-087e-48b5-a923-e4b499dfffa9

Which is the least-change style map we saw earlier in the blurry screenshot.

[David Hume]

Looks like 6-3-1,  bordering on 6-4

Why the hell are Dems agreeing to a map that doesn’t shore up WA-08?  Schrier is gone in 2022 under this map.

What leverage do they have? Rs won't agree with anything less than a 6-3-1 map. I don't think the court is hawkish enough to go straight 7-3.

[Oryxslayer]

Looks like 6-3-1,  bordering on 6-4

Why the hell are Dems agreeing to a map that doesn’t shore up WA-08?  Schrier is gone in 2022 under this map.

What leverage do they have? Rs won't agree with anything less than a 6-3-1 map. I don't think the court is hawkish enough to go straight 7-3.

Their leverage was throwing it to the courts. We don't know what they would do, but given they are all Dem appointees, and some rather Progressive/Partisan ones at that, this is likely to be worse for the GOP than having any seat at the table at all. Yes the court is unlikely to gerrymander, but they could potentially throw aside the old lines draw their own map in its entirety, ignoring the interests of incumbents. Said option is unlikely to be beneficial for the GOP in any district.

Maybe it's misplaced leverage, but it's some the Dem mappers believed they had.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Looks like 6-3-1,  bordering on 6-4

Why the hell are Dems agreeing to a map that doesn’t shore up WA-08?  Schrier is gone in 2022 under this map.

What leverage do they have? Rs won't agree with anything less than a 6-3-1 map. I don't think the court is hawkish enough to go straight 7-3.

Considering that 7-3 actually fits Washington's natural geography better, I don't see what's so "hawkish" about it.

[RI]

I'm actually fairly happy with the maps the commission ended up drawing, even if they weren't approved in time.

[David Hume]

Looks like 6-3-1,  bordering on 6-4

Why the hell are Dems agreeing to a map that doesn’t shore up WA-08?  Schrier is gone in 2022 under this map.

What leverage do they have? Rs won't agree with anything less than a 6-3-1 map. I don't think the court is hawkish enough to go straight 7-3.

Their leverage was throwing it to the courts. We don't know what they would do, but given they are all Dem appointees, and some rather Progressive/Partisan ones at that, this is likely to be worse for the GOP than having any seat at the table at all. Yes the court is unlikely to gerrymander, but they could potentially throw aside the old lines draw their own map in its entirety, ignoring the interests of incumbents. Said option is unlikely to be beneficial for the GOP in any district.

Maybe it's misplaced leverage, but it's some the Dem mappers believed they had.

But how much do they truly care if the court protect incumbents? Leg leaders who have the power to draw the maps may receive requests and pressures from incumbents. But for partisan commissioners, unless they have direct interests related, how much can congressional incumbents pressure them? If I am a party loyalist, I would prefer my party to have 4 seats, over protecting 3 incumbents.

Besides, they do not have the full power to draw the maps. So a natural excuse is "we have tried to protect you but dems are too hawkish". 

[Oryxslayer]

Looks like 6-3-1,  bordering on 6-4

Why the hell are Dems agreeing to a map that doesn’t shore up WA-08?  Schrier is gone in 2022 under this map.

What leverage do they have? Rs won't agree with anything less than a 6-3-1 map. I don't think the court is hawkish enough to go straight 7-3.

Their leverage was throwing it to the courts. We don't know what they would do, but given they are all Dem appointees, and some rather Progressive/Partisan ones at that, this is likely to be worse for the GOP than having any seat at the table at all. Yes the court is unlikely to gerrymander, but they could potentially throw aside the old lines draw their own map in its entirety, ignoring the interests of incumbents. Said option is unlikely to be beneficial for the GOP in any district.

Maybe it's misplaced leverage, but it's some the Dem mappers believed they had.

But how much do they truly care if the court protect incumbents? Leg leaders who have the power to draw the maps may receive requests and pressures from incumbents. But for partisan commissioners, unless they have direct interests related, how much can congressional incumbents pressure them? If I am a party loyalist, I would prefer my party to have 4 seats, over protecting 3 incumbents.

Besides, they do not have the full power to draw the maps. So a natural excuse is "we have tried to protect you but dems are too hawkish". 

Here's the bad assumption. Maximum partisan gain is only one of infinity+1 goals in redistricting, despite how much it comes up in discussions among outside observers. Arguably in these situations with those in power directly accountable to the state party, the input from the incumbents is the most important and has first priority.

[David Hume]

Looks like 6-3-1,  bordering on 6-4

Why the hell are Dems agreeing to a map that doesn’t shore up WA-08?  Schrier is gone in 2022 under this map.

What leverage do they have? Rs won't agree with anything less than a 6-3-1 map. I don't think the court is hawkish enough to go straight 7-3.

Their leverage was throwing it to the courts. We don't know what they would do, but given they are all Dem appointees, and some rather Progressive/Partisan ones at that, this is likely to be worse for the GOP than having any seat at the table at all. Yes the court is unlikely to gerrymander, but they could potentially throw aside the old lines draw their own map in its entirety, ignoring the interests of incumbents. Said option is unlikely to be beneficial for the GOP in any district.

Maybe it's misplaced leverage, but it's some the Dem mappers believed they had.

But how much do they truly care if the court protect incumbents? Leg leaders who have the power to draw the maps may receive requests and pressures from incumbents. But for partisan commissioners, unless they have direct interests related, how much can congressional incumbents pressure them? If I am a party loyalist, I would prefer my party to have 4 seats, over protecting 3 incumbents.

Besides, they do not have the full power to draw the maps. So a natural excuse is "we have tried to protect you but dems are too hawkish". 

Here's the bad assumption. Maximum partisan gain is only one of infinity+1 goals in redistricting, despite how much it comes up in discussions among outside observers. Arguably in these situations with those in power directly accountable to the state party, the input from the incumbents is the most important and has first priority.

I understand that protecting incumbents is benefiting the party. Yet, some incumbents ask too much and there are conflict of interest between them and the party. I remembered Maryland draw a extremely ugly 7-1 map instead of a clean 8-0 because of incumbents' request. I don't think that's the best for the party.

[Crumpets]

This should be fun in a scandalous government committee minutia kind of way.

https://twitter.com/Jim_Brunner/status/1461499930749517826

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This should be fun in a scandalous government committee minutia kind of way.

https://twitter.com/Jim_Brunner/status/1461499930749517826

Someone grab the popcorn.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

This should be fun in a scandalous government committee minutia kind of way.

https://twitter.com/Jim_Brunner/status/1461499930749517826

Someone grab the popcorn.

you rang?

[BoiseBoy]

https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1466540915619766275?s=21

[Mr.Phips]

https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1466540915619766275?s=21

I’m assuming they will just let the map that was agreed upon stand.  I have no idea why the Dems on the commission agreed to a map that didn’t make WA-08 basically safe for Dems.

[RI]

The Supreme Court lets the Commission's maps stand.

[Roll Roons]

Is there a DRA map?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Pathetic. Democrats in most states seem to have learned at least a little from 2010, but WA Dems are still as dumb as ever.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

anyway this map is egregious. As previous posters noted 7-3 would be most fair given the geography. But it goes to show that proportionality doesn't always benefit ds.