2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Washington

[The Invincible Brent Boggs]

One of my more clever districts, IMO. This "islands & ferries" based district transforms the old tenth. It actually drops the most D parts of Whidbey Island for Anacortes + the San Juans + all of Mt. Vernon. It also loses the heavily R Snohomish part of the district, except for the partial precinct that connects Camano to the rest of the district. It would look even cleaner if they'd ever resume ferry service between Coupeville and Camano - then I'd put Camano in the 24th and this would be a further 2-3% D. This seat swung nicely to Biden.

74% White, 16% Hispanic, 5% Asian

'16 President: 50.7% D - 41.2% R
'16 Governor: 52.2% D - 47.8% R
Leans D

Old District '16 President: 46.9% D - 45.1% R (District is now more D)

I can't see the image of your actual district lines here (not enough posts yet) but I don't understand why you have to split Whidbey to make this sort of district. You could instead make a 10th district with Island and San Juan counties, and western Skagit county, plus a tiny piece of Snohomish for road contiguity. Then, the rest of Whatcom and Skagit has exactly enough population for 2 districts. IMO, this configuration works out really well.

[The Invincible Brent Boggs]

One of my more clever districts, IMO. This "islands & ferries" based district transforms the old tenth. It actually drops the most D parts of Whidbey Island for Anacortes + the San Juans + all of Mt. Vernon. It also loses the heavily R Snohomish part of the district, except for the partial precinct that connects Camano to the rest of the district. It would look even cleaner if they'd ever resume ferry service between Coupeville and Camano - then I'd put Camano in the 24th and this would be a further 2-3% D. This seat swung nicely to Biden.

74% White, 16% Hispanic, 5% Asian

'16 President: 50.7% D - 41.2% R
'16 Governor: 52.2% D - 47.8% R
Leans D

Old District '16 President: 46.9% D - 45.1% R (District is now more D)

I can't see the image of your actual district lines here (not enough posts yet) but I don't understand why you have to split Whidbey to make this sort of district. You could instead make a 10th district with Island and San Juan counties, and western Skagit county, plus a tiny piece of Snohomish for road contiguity. Then, the rest of Whatcom and Skagit has exactly enough population for 2 districts. IMO, this configuration works out really well.

Sure - but the split is not really about the 10th - it's about ensuring the 24th has enough population without having to take in Gray's Harbor county or more of Mason county AND so the new 39th is as competitive as possible and that the D vote in Mt.Vernon isn't wasted in the 42nd (basically the old 39th).

I previously had the 10th stop around Fort Ebey, which makes sense to me, with the rest of Whidbey in the 24th and Camano in the 39th... but taking it out of the 39th makes it ~2 points more D. Hence the weird boundary around Oak Harbor. As for splitting Whidbey, I think there's a case for it. There's a big cultural difference between NAS-dominated Oak Harbor and the rest of the island (significantly more rural). If anything, it makes sense to pair Oak Harbor and Fidalgo, since there's also a significant officer presence in parts of the Anacortes.

I could probably clean things up by overpopulating surrounding districts slightly so that the 10th can seep further into Oak Harbor and make a nicer border, but I'm still limited by where the 24th picks up population from. There's not much further it can reach in Mason County without cutting off the 19th, due to the geography of the roads. It's not that I didn't prioritize COIs - I really did try to with a mind for creating a D-favored map - it's that WA's geography forces unseemly lines somewhere. I guess I could sacrifice the 39th....

To the first point, you could also have the 24th cross the Hood Canal Bridge and pick up Northern Kitsap county (although without seeing your map I don't know how much that would help).

To the second point, I see what you're saying. My suggestion from the previous post would pretty much doom the 39th (which I didn't care about because I wasn't trying to make a D-leaning map). I think the 42nd could be made competitive but only by drawing some pretty strange lines in Whatcom County.

[The Invincible Brent Boggs]

One of my more clever districts, IMO. This "islands & ferries" based district transforms the old tenth. It actually drops the most D parts of Whidbey Island for Anacortes + the San Juans + all of Mt. Vernon. It also loses the heavily R Snohomish part of the district, except for the partial precinct that connects Camano to the rest of the district. It would look even cleaner if they'd ever resume ferry service between Coupeville and Camano - then I'd put Camano in the 24th and this would be a further 2-3% D. This seat swung nicely to Biden.

74% White, 16% Hispanic, 5% Asian

'16 President: 50.7% D - 41.2% R
'16 Governor: 52.2% D - 47.8% R
Leans D

Old District '16 President: 46.9% D - 45.1% R (District is now more D)

I can't see the image of your actual district lines here (not enough posts yet) but I don't understand why you have to split Whidbey to make this sort of district. You could instead make a 10th district with Island and San Juan counties, and western Skagit county, plus a tiny piece of Snohomish for road contiguity. Then, the rest of Whatcom and Skagit has exactly enough population for 2 districts. IMO, this configuration works out really well.

Sure - but the split is not really about the 10th - it's about ensuring the 24th has enough population without having to take in Gray's Harbor county or more of Mason county AND so the new 39th is as competitive as possible and that the D vote in Mt.Vernon isn't wasted in the 42nd (basically the old 39th).

I previously had the 10th stop around Fort Ebey, which makes sense to me, with the rest of Whidbey in the 24th and Camano in the 39th... but taking it out of the 39th makes it ~2 points more D. Hence the weird boundary around Oak Harbor. As for splitting Whidbey, I think there's a case for it. There's a big cultural difference between NAS-dominated Oak Harbor and the rest of the island (significantly more rural). If anything, it makes sense to pair Oak Harbor and Fidalgo, since there's also a significant officer presence in parts of the Anacortes.

I could probably clean things up by overpopulating surrounding districts slightly so that the 10th can seep further into Oak Harbor and make a nicer border, but I'm still limited by where the 24th picks up population from. There's not much further it can reach in Mason County without cutting off the 19th, due to the geography of the roads. It's not that I didn't prioritize COIs - I really did try to with a mind for creating a D-favored map - it's that WA's geography forces unseemly lines somewhere. I guess I could sacrifice the 39th....

To the first point, you could also have the 24th cross the Hood Canal Bridge and pick up Northern Kitsap county (although without seeing your map I don't know how much that would help).

To the second point, I see what you're saying. My suggestion from the previous post would pretty much doom the 39th (which I didn't care about because I wasn't trying to make a D-leaning map). I think the 42nd could be made competitive but only by drawing some pretty strange lines in Whatcom County.

I wish you could see the images - maybe at 20 posts?

The current map has the following North Sound districts:
LD-40 (Safe D)
LD-24 (Likely D)
LD-42 (Tossup)
LD-10 (Tilt R/Tossup)
LD-39 (Safe R)

My goal was to transform the two tossup districts to be more D friendly. I do this by centering LD-40 in Bellingham/Ferndale/Blaine, which frees up Mt. Vernon/Anacortes/San Juans to be moved into the new LD-10. LD-42 is essentially eliminated and becomes a district similar to the existing 39th, sans Marysville. LD-24 takes Whidbey as we discussed (and loses all of Gray's Harbor) and the new 39th becomes a fast-growing exurban tossup Snohomish district based on Marysville/Lake Stevens/Arlington. It's politically similar to where LD-44 was in the 2000s and early 2010s - needs a Steve Hobbs-esque candidate. The new 42nd takes the heavily R rural leftovers in Snohomish, much as the current 39th does.

That leaves you with:
LD-40 (Safe D)
LD-24 (Likely D, and shored up with Whidbey instead of R-swinging Gray's Harbor)
LD-10 (Leans D)
LD-39 (Tossup, but swinging D in a way that the current LD-42 is not)
LD-42 (Safe R)

It turned out that I needed 15 posts to see the pictures. This has made reading the thread much easier I still think splitting Whidbey is a strange move, but looking at the map I can see why you've done it; it does rather effectively improve both the 39th and 24th. I am working on a fair map, but am not happy with all of it yet. I'll post it when I'm done; it will be interesting to compare.

[The Invincible Brent Boggs]

The 11th loses its Seattle appendage (this is to take in the home of State Senator Bob Hasegawa's home in Beacon Hill) and gains Newcastle.

I didn't know why the 11th was shaped so strangely but that makes sense. It seems like the commission maps are pretty incumbent-friendly normally. It will be interesting to see how that plays out this time, especially in the congressional races since there are now reps from Medina, Bellevue, and Issaquah all in different districts.

[The Invincible Brent Boggs]

My congressional map:


https://davesredistricting.org/join/ad76ad9b-9241-4757-94fb-71839c7faffc

1st: Snohomish County/N King County suburbs
Clinton+36, D+15

2nd: NW Washington + Snohomish county exurban areas
Clinton+6, D+3

3rd: SW Washington
Trump+8, R+4

4th: SE Washington
Trump+21, R+13 (38% Hispanic)

5th: NE Washington
Trump+14, R+8

6th: Olympic Peninsula + Olympia
Clinton+12, D+5

7th: Seattle + Vashon Island
Clinton+77, D+37

8th: E King/Pierce counties + Kittitas and Chelan
Clinton+11, D+3

9th: S King County suburbs
Clinton+34, D+15 (47% White)

10th: Tacoma + W Pierce County suburbs
Clinton+12, D+6


I'm still not exactly sure how I prefer to divide eastern Washington. One alternative is the north/south division I laid out here. But, it is also possible to put Douglas, Okanogan, and the rest of Grant county into the 4th in exchange for Adams, Asotin, Garfield, Columbia, and Walla Walla counties (basically, the map Phil posted upthread). That would create more of an east/west division. An intermediate version is also possible (something like what Water Hazard drew). Yet another variation would put Whitman county in the 4th in exchange for some of Grant county. I haven't settled on one of these alternatives over the others.

[The Invincible Brent Boggs]

My attempt at a fair map



https://davesredistricting.org/join/821d43c3-221e-4e42-9920-03adb99c888c

WA-01: Clinton+36, D+15
WA-02: Clinton+6, D+3
WA-03: Trump+8, R+4
WA-04: Trump+21, R+12
WA-05: Trump+13, R+8
WA-06: Clinton+11, D+6
WA-07: Clinton+16, D+7
WA-08: Clinton+29, D+10
WA-09: Clinton+78, D+37!!!!
WA-10: Clinton+11, D+5

In theory this map should work as a fairly standard 7-3 map, with districts 2 and 3 being swingy but still clearly benefiting one side over the other. Districts 6 and 10 might flip if there is both a scandal and a big R wave but they are unlikely to do so.

Finally district 9 (coverin Seattle) is a Dem landslide that borders on comical

I've never seen an Eastern Washington quite like that. So novelty points there.
More generally, taken as a whole, overall this is a decent map.

Yeah the I-90 corridor east of the Cascades looks a bit gerrymandered considering how blue WA-08 and how red WA-04 are.

The Eastern WA section of District 8 does look a bit unusual, but is not gerrymandered imo. The 4th will be that red regardless and the partisanship of the 8th is largely determined by the lines on the west side. In this map, the westside portion of the 8th contains blue territory around Bellevue and Redmond, while the 7th takes in the redder areas to the south. Although the lines aren't what I would draw (the 7th and 10th do not appear to conform to typical COIs), the overall partisanship of the map seems fine.

[The Invincible Brent Boggs]

My attempt at legislative districts:



https://davesredistricting.org/join/18b3a452-a7e2-4632-995b-b02e0213a30c

Seattle area inset



I attempted to draw a fair map. My map is 31-18 Clinton and I believe 34-15 Biden. If I counted correctly, this means Ds would have won two less districts in each election than on Seattle's D-slanted map.

I tried to split the difference between the current SD15 (barely Hispanic-majority but Safe R) and Seattle's Hispanic-maximizing Safe D district. Mine is 64% Hispanic by total population, majority-minority but not quite plurality-Hispanic by CVAP, and blue-leaning but swingy. My SD-16 (like Seattle's SD-9) is majority-Hispanic by total population, but comfortably majority-white by CVAP and Safe R.

Beyond Eastern WA, I did not make any special effort to make majority-minority districts. 4 Western WA districts (11, 30, 33, 37) are majority-minority by total population, of which only 11 is majority-minority by CVAP. District 37 is actually close to being plurality-Asian, which is interesting. It is probably possible to draw a plurality-Asian district in the area. But, WA hasn't historically been very aggressive with drawing majority-minority districts so I didn't feel obligated to try.

Also: random PSA that Skykomish (northeasternmost precinct in King County) is not road-contiguous with the rest of the county. To drive between the two requires going through Snohomish County, or through Chelan and Kittitas County. Just thought I'd point this out since some recent maps have missed it.

[The Invincible Brent Boggs]

Here's a nice Washington map--not exactly sure about the Tacoma area but I think everything else works well.





The Tacoma area is a little tricky to justify, but IMO it's just as much of a boondoggle as putting Tacoma's eastern suburbs into the 9th.

Putting Tacoma's eastern suburbs  into the 9th is not the only option. You could also put Tacoma into the 10th, put eastern Pierce into the 8th, then move some Eastside areas from the 8th to the 9th. I find that to be the best way to configure those three districts. The rest is almost exactly the way I'd draw a map with the 3rd crossing the Cascades.

[The Invincible Brent Boggs]

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.

A reliably blue 8th seat, yes, but actually population trends now allow for the Oregon border seat to be the Cascade-crosser without having to split the city of Yakima, which didn't used to be the case and would definitely be an arguable alternative to crossing the Cascades at Ellensburg. And crossing the Cascades along the Columbia is hugely advantageous for the Democrats as southern Yakima County is strongly Democratic (mostly Hispanic and Native). The Democrats on the Commission definitely should have been proposing the map below, which creates another Biden seat while leaving all of the Democratic incumbents safe (the parts north of Olympia don't really matter for this purpose; they could do them however they wanted re: incumbent protection but I went for logical COIs, minimal splitting of municipalities and road connections (e.g., Skykomish)).

The border seat is Biden+1; the remaining Democratic seats are Biden+10 (Olympia/Olympic peninsula), Biden+15 (Bellingham/Everett), Biden+20 (Tacoma) or more.

My split between the two eastern districts was intended to maximize the Hispanic population in the Tri-Cities/Yakima district, by the way, not that it really matters.



https://davesredistricting.org/join/bcdd0517-4570-467b-b3bb-a8ed3f174204

Edit: Improved the Tacoma-area map for the Democrats a bit.

I agree that this should have been the Democratic line. If the 3rd district is the one that crosses the Cascades, it is difficult to avoid making the 3rd and 8th both bluer. However, it's possible the the Ds on the commission thought voting out JHB was a lost cause. She definitely has a moderate reputation which the aftermath of 1/6 has bolstered. I'm pretty confident she would easily keep her seat on the map you've drawn.

[The Invincible Brent Boggs]

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.

I'm having trouble envisioning what this map would look like. It seems like it would be awkward to get enough population east of the Cascades without at least putting Klickitat into the 3rd.

[The Invincible Brent Boggs]

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.

I'm having trouble envisioning what this map would look like. It seems like it would be awkward to get enough population east of the Cascades without at least putting Klickitat into the 3rd.

Like this?

I interpreted Oryxslayer's message as saying that Kittitas would go with Eastern Washington, which makes it much more challenging to draw a map. Obviously, if Kittitas goes with Western Washington in the 8th, it is easy to do exactly what you just showed.

[The Invincible Brent Boggs]

Since this thread needs a bit more chaotic energy: here's an 8-2 gerrymander with a lot of county splits.


https://davesredistricting.org/join/b695aa36-c39f-4e37-8990-633faa7707c6

District 1 is Biden +6 and district 3 is Biden +5.2.

[The Invincible Brent Boggs]

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:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/994f4a7d-6000-438a-873c-4d8e76faae93

[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]

[The Invincible Brent Boggs]

The Redistricting Commission is apparently unwilling to mount a legal defense of their own maps, plus the chair resigned. Oof.

https://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/wa-redistricting-commission-wont-intervene-in-voting-rights-lawsuit-chair-resigns/article_20827ca1-24cc-539b-9015-395796869a9a.html