2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Washington

[Oryxslayer]

Here is a mild Dem Gerrymander. This map basically does 3 things:

1: Shore up the 8th district while not harming any of the current other Dem districts
2: Turn the 3rd district into a true swing district
3: The 5th becomes marginally more Dem, but probably not enough to matter

All while mostly (but not fully) trying to keep COIs intact and what not. Not sure to what extent gerrymandering is possible tbh.



WA-01: Clinton+26; D+11
WA-02: Clinton+14; D+6
WA-03: Trump+2; R+1
WA-04: Trump+28; R+15
WA-05: Trump+10; R+7
WA-06: Clinton+11; D+6
WA-07: Clinton+76; D+36
WA-08: Clinton+10; D+4
WA-09: Clinton+33; D+13
WA-10: Clinton+12; D+5

https://davesredistricting.org/join/d4bbc6aa-8851-4f3e-bd6d-872d7ab9a506

I am sure you can be a lot more agressive, probably making the 3rd into a Dem district and not a tossup and possibly making the 5th into a tossup or even a Dem district. On paper the numbers are certainly there for 9-1, though you probably need snakes into Seattle to do it?

How connected are Pierce and Yakima though? IIRC there's a pass there but it probably makes more sense to cross the Cascades in the North or South.

This forum had this discussion last time, and the end result was that all Cascade cuts are going to be bad. All are inferior, and none have any pros over a different cut. I guess one could cross in the south, but the goal wouldn't be Yakima, it would be other, redder precincts to reinforce JHB. She's already rather solid, but solidifying her would be a trade for solidifying the 8th. Another option of course is going at Yakima from the north, which satisfies both parties concerns.

The only way one could create a worse map than the present is if you cut the Cascades twice, with the obvious exceptions of Skamania and Klickitat. Those could go in either side nicely, but their tiny population means you will still need to carve out more.

Something that I also expect is a reorientation in King. In 2010, the GOP used citizen concerns to get a majority-minority seat in WA09 that would protect WA08. In 2020, if there is any desire to keep such a seat, it would be shifted into the hands of the actual minority congresswomen. This makes WA01 more compact in northern King, and then towns get traded in the east.

[Oryxslayer]

Here is a weird fact: Chelan and Douglas are actually in the Seattle-Tacoma media market, though not Kittitas. I'm surprised nobody brought this up in the 2010 thread when the cross-cascade seat was argued about for pages and pages, the legislators certainly knew it. This is probably the only true serviceable community that crosses the mountains, and it is a point in favor of crossing the mountains in either Snoqualmie or Skykomish.

[Oryxslayer]

Washington's current map strikes me as needlessly messy. There are multiple incidents of two districts sharing the same county, not one district is fully contained within King County, and I don't think WA-01 is even contiguous by road. I don't know a lot of background info about dynamics of the last redistricting cycle there, but I would expect better from a commission.

Anyway, here's what I came up with:



1: Clinton +7
2: Clinton +36
3: Trump +8
4: Trump +23 (39% Hispanic)
5: Trump +13
6: Clinton +12
7: Clinton +77
8: Clinton +5
9: Clinton +40 (48% white)
10: Clinton +13

Not much change from a partisan standpoint, but a lot cleaner. Northern WA gets its own seat, as does Pierce County. All of Seattle is in the 7th, and the 9th is all-King County suburbs while still being minority-majority. As was mentioned, there's no good way to cross the Cascades, so I figured sticking with I-90 made the most sense. For all the oddities of the current map, I think the 8th district is about as sensible as it can be.

(I double-crossed 4 and 5 here because of the wacky precincts in Walla Walla, which is of course not necessary.)

Did you take into account incumbent residences? It looks like Larsen lives in your 1st (whereas according to Wikipedia, he doesn't live in his current seat) but I'm unsure if your 2nd reaches down far enough to take in DelBene's home.

I think you've also shifted Kilmer out of the 6th and obviously we don't know about the 10th yet, but that all seems like it would be fairly easy to fix.

I didn't consider incumbent homes, as I don't believe that truly fair maps should. I know California's commission is prohibited from considering them, but I'm not sure if Washington has the same rule or if they in fact actively consider them.

DelBene's tiny hometown is on the border of my 2nd but just outside of it in the 9th, so that could be changed with few implications. Kilmer is in my 10th, but could be put in the 6th while keeping all of the 10th in Pierce (perhaps by shifting the lines in Thurston).

Washington's commission is 100% legislative appointments, 1 from each majority and minority leader. Since it is an even number, there needs to be compromise. This not just tilts but slants maps towards incumbent protection, but last time one GOP appointee ran laps around the other 3. Therefore, the GOP got more of what they wanted from the protection.

[Oryxslayer]

Whats the maximum deviation allowed for Washington?
Would a possible map just use rounding East and West of the cascades?

I'm not sure about the state legislature, but there will be an instant lawsuit which the state would probably lose, based on OMOV, if deviation is above 0.5% in either way (and most but not all maps aim for 0% div with cut precincts).

[Oryxslayer]

Congressional maps should be out any minute now...

They are out

[Oryxslayer]

First Glace:

Sims map is 7-3, Incumbent protection. Cleans up border between 2 and 1, 8 gets a bunch of the East suburbs.

Graves map is a balls to the walls R gerry. 1 takes the cross-cascades rurals along with the northern bits already, 8 reorients to the republican leadning south suburbs, 6 is made marginal Dem without Takoma.

Piñero Walkinshaw map does some major changes to the eastern seats, west remains incumbent Portect. CD 3 gets some of the R suburbs between Olympia and Takoma. Cleans up districts 1 and 2, 8/9 is more messy to make 9 compact.

Fain map is a R gerry, but tries some weird stuff in the south. 10 gets both Olympia and Takoma, so 6 gets more rurals. 8 gets all the far rurals of the north presently in exchange for suburbs. I think this is still 7-3 whereas Graves is 6-4.

https://twitter.com/LillianBelle2/status/1442932719319613442?s=20

[Oryxslayer]

Reminder that these maps are the starting points. The final map in 2010 was not one of the four proposed, it was pieced out from the four plans. With this in mind, the takeaway should be that the dem line is incumbent protection, and the Republican one is something a bit more but to what degree.

To this point, the GOP maps are not even equal in population.

[Oryxslayer]

Something to keep in mind for the Democrats is that the 3 R districts are all very distinct geographic areas and thus are rather hard to draw to be swingy or even lean Democrat. The D proposed maps are probably the best we could get while still keeping COI together and staying within the rules of the redistricting process regarding crossing city and county lines.

Especially since one of the D maps isn't happy with just the 7 safe seats and tries to make the Spokane seat a future target.

[Oryxslayer]

Washington seems like the type of state where city population growth would give Dems an opportunity for a pickup, but I guess not...  or Dems are just inept.

Where would it occur though? Two seats have to be east of the cascades, that's just demos. Dems can try to make one such seat a bit more competitive, which we see on plan 3. The third GOP seat is along the Oregon border, and everything including or south of Lewis county is basically enough for a third seat...but a GOP leaning one. You would have to carve up the Oregon border to get a reliably blue 8th seat.

Conversely though, you have to work to get the dems under 7, as we can see from the GOP maps. And it's very likely that if you follow community lines those 7 end up safe.

[Oryxslayer]

Washington seems like the type of state where city population growth would give Dems an opportunity for a pickup, but I guess not...  or Dems are just inept.

Where would it occur though? Two seats have to be east of the cascades, that's just demos. Dems can try to make one such seat a bit more competitive, which we see on plan 3. The third GOP seat is along the Oregon border, and everything including or south of Lewis county is basically enough for a third seat...but a GOP leaning one. You would have to carve up the Oregon border to get a reliably blue 8th seat.

Conversely though, you have to work to get the dems under 7, as we can see from the GOP maps. And it's very likely that if you follow community lines those 7 end up safe.

That's the one I was thinking.  Is that the Buetler one?  Is there an issue with carving up the Oregon border? 

If you are gerrymandering I don't think so, though the centers of democratic strength are a bit distant and the near ones like Olympia and Takoma are a bit small. However, such a proposal would never survive the Washington redistricting process, so discussion therefore remains hypothetical.

[Oryxslayer]

Yeah Democrats probably should have pushed for Yakima to be the split just as starting points in negotiations basically by stating to give Hispanics more influence. Main issue though is the 2 current counties are basically perfectly whole with only a few hundred people required to be split. Along with that I think Kittatis county has been rapidly growing as a somewhat super exurban of Seattle with something like 15% of its population now being these trans Cascade commuters. This would atleast make them the area with the most connection to the west if one is forced to do a Cascade split.

This debate happened in the 2010 redistricting. No one commutes from Kittitas County into King County. Someone set up a camera to monitor the Snoqualmie pass through rush hour and it was like 3 cars and 15 trucks over two hours.

It’s obvious right away if you look at a satellite image of, say, Easton or Cle Elum that they aren’t exurbs. There’s no suburban-style development of winding roads and new houses there at all, just a neat midcentury grid of old houses.

The better argument in my eyes is that crossing the cascades at all is always going to be bad, so you have to make the least-bad option. In the past year I have come around to maps that preserve the northern crossing but do it via the Snohomish-King-Chelen and drop Kittitas. The reason for this is media markets: Chelten and Douglas are in the Seattle-Takoma market and Kittitas is not. It's a poor COI, but any linkage across the cascades, north or south, will be bad so there needs to be something to justify your choice.

The other advantage of crossing at the north is that you can reconfigure the eastern seats into a north-south arrangement rather than a east-west. This allows one to keep all the urban ag counties together separate from Spokane. Obviously this overall concept for the map is better in terms of regional identities rather than partisan advantages for any party.

[Oryxslayer]

Lately, a report was released suggesting that there would need to be a district that is majority-Latino by CVAP in order for the map to comply with the VRA (see this article https://patch.com/washington/seattle/proposed-wa-redistricting-maps-may-violate-voting-rights-act)

I tried editing my legislative map to satisfy that requirement, and came up with this:

Here's what I came up with: https://davesredistricting.org/join/7ba58930-5215-4466-9f0d-f71de289d475

The Yakima district isn't quite Hispanic majority by 2019 CVAP, but it's a secure enough plurality to control the Democratic primary. Where are the CVAP numbers from, anyway? They seem to suggest that less than a third of voting age Asians in Redmond are citizens and less than half in Sammamish, which seems suspiciously high, so I'm wondering if they tend to overestimate the white share of the electorate.

CVAP is based on 2019 ACS projections, which themselves are backwards looking and build on a foundation of the previous census. It is therefore an inaccurate indicator, given that we know the census at the margins differed from said projections - notably when it came to said Asian groups. It also falls apart in areas of extreme growth - for example there are a handful of precincts in GA that tripled/quadrupled in size from 2010 and have differing 2020 census/2019 CVAP numbers. However, it is the final DRA indicator and can be used to prove that even under a exclusionary measure you can draw 50%+ minority coalition/minority access seats in areas lacking in said access - like the Texas GOP map.

[Oryxslayer]

Who ever thought crossing the Cascade Range that far North was a good idea?? Admittedly that's a product of the last decade's redistricting, but still, WHY??

Who ever thought crossing the Cascade Range that far North was a good idea?? Admittedly that's a product of the last decade's redistricting, but still, WHY??

It contains two of the three most traveled Cascade crossings. It's not as coherent as crossing at the Columbia, but it's not that bad.

Also why does the 4th and 5th need to be split like that when North and South makes so much more sense ?

A lot of this is mainly holdover from the last map - radical changes should not be expected when the only people with the pen are partisan appointees.

I also personally like crossing using Highway 2, but that's my personal preference for the Seattle Media market (given there are no other cross-cascades COIs).

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.  

[Oryxslayer]

So what happens now? Does the buck pass to the legislature, or the Supreme Court? Or does the commission just keep trying until we get to the new election cycle?

The commission shall complete redistricting as soon as possible following the federal decennial census, but no later than November 15th of each year ending in one. At least three of the voting members shall approve such a redistricting plan. If three of the voting members of the commission fail to approve a plan within the time limitations provided in this subsection, the supreme court shall adopt a plan by April 30th of the year ending in two in conformance with the standards set forth in subsection (5) of this section.

Given that it's all Dem appointees across the state courts, perhaps expect them to either pick one of the the original two D plans or bring in a expert to do a full remap, which would be the only way we would get a south cascades split for those that desire such an action.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1487171342336237573?s=20&t=01NcCNU1...

By law these changes have to be small and require 2/3s votes. No map of edits currently to be found.

[Oryxslayer]

If it's a bipartisan bill, I assume it's a bunch of harmless tweaks?

That or marginal incumbent protection.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1491175795897036800?s=20&t=b0BZ_8Uo...

Done. A handful of precincts moved on the congressional map.

[Oryxslayer]

.

It looks like LD 14 could have a similar pattern to Central Valley California districts where presidential years are much more competitive for Democrats...

I mean that's cause at the end of the day the Yakima valley is a demographic extension of the CA Central Valley, or any other California agricultural region of which the Central Valley is the largest. People came to all of these areas for agricultural work and over time those who stayed built something lasting. You literally said it yourself: like in California turnout plummets quite easily if it's not a presidential year, giving Whites a oversized presence.

The one difference is that this district both geographically and demographically has a noticeable Native presence thanks to the Yakima Nation. To the point where I wouldn't be surprised if some Dem candidates come from that communtiy.