2020 redistricting Arkansas

[lfromnj]

https://www.ktlo.com/2020/07/06/petitions-submitted-for-arkansas-redistricting-initiative/

Turns out the petitions got submitted, its probably not enough as some signatures aren't counted but I think judges will be less restrictive.

Anyway theres 4 possible maps and the main focus of partisan contention is what to do with Little Rock. A GOP gerrymander would either split it or rather pair it with more rural counties. Anyway if the commision passes there are 3 maps I could see happening.

The first is a least change map. The main change is putting Pine Bluff with the delta, This makes the Delta seat move quite a bit left to Trump +16 and it might have even lasted for a while this decade. However it is Safe R now.


The Little Rock MSA is kept together perfectly with an extra 10k added. The red district is a bit of leftovers but the other 3 are very nice. The seat stays the same at Trump +10 so Likely R

Here is another map that advocates for keeping part of the Little rock metro together but also putting Pine Bluff. This is now Trump +4 and moderately trending left. Lean R. All the remaining districts are Safe R.


Finally the last choice is a "VRA" district which is either forced to split the Little rock metro 3 times or other ugly decisions have to be made.



This creates a district similar to VA 4th or so by splitting a metro and mixing it with rural AA's to create a relatively Likely/Safe D Clinton +10 district that elect a Black candidate of choice.



No idea what the commission will manage to finagle if it goes on ballot and passes but it should be one of these 3 maps or relatively similar.

[Idaho Conservative]

With 2 republicans needing to support it, and the fact the indies and dems might be right leaning, I find it unlikely they'd draw a map like either one of the bottom 2.  Clearly those are the most favorable maps that could be drawn for dems.  A fair map has 3 safe R and 1 likely R seat.  If the initiative doesn't pass or fails to make the ballot, then ofc all 4 districts will be safe. 

Scenario 1: no commission, 4 safe R districts, at least Trump+20.  1 county split, Pulaski ofc. 


Scenario 2: commission, 3 safe R districts, 1 likely R district (Little Rock based, Trump+11).  zero county splits.


 The initiative says cities and counties can't be split except to meet other criteria.  This map seems to meet the criteria, so no county splits should be needed.  Really, the main tangible difference between the initiative passing or not is whether AR keeps likely R seat or it gets made safe. 
https://arvotersfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/ARKANSAS-Final-Amendment-Language.pdf

[Idaho Conservative]

With 2 republicans needing to support it, and the fact the indies and dems might be right leaning, I find it unlikely they'd draw a map like either one of the bottom 2.  

Under the rules of the initiative, the two Dems and two Reps will be chosen by the legislative leaders...so there is approximately 0% chance that these two groups will not have selected committed partisans. In the Dems case, this probably means African Americans given the makeup of said legislature. I wonder if you ignored this part.

Now, the 3 independents are then selected by majority vote of the commissioners or random draft if they can't agree...which is the most likely option given the part about committed partisans. The pool should be R-leaning given the states demographics, but getting all three via random draft will be a stroke of good luck. We can expect, following the example other states that in 2020 had leader-appointed commissioners, that those four appointees will be in contact with their partisan handlers. If the GOP gets all 3 Indies then they will have the votes needed to draw a pretty map that protects everyone.  If they don't then gridlock ensues.

In the event of gridlock, our historical evidence from past partisan appointment commissions suggests that there are three easy outcomes. One, someone appeals to a higher power like the courts and gets their way. Two, the leading partisans accept the demands of whatever the swing commissioners want, as long as they don't demand everything. Three, one side accepts the others partisan map, and in exchange is given gains and limited authority over one or both of the legislative maps.

1. Approval of a final district map requires six or more
affirmative votes of the Commissioners, including at least two
affirmative votes from Commissioners selected from each of the
three pools.
The map must be bipartisan.  So dems won't agree to splitting Little Rock, and Reps won't agree to Little Rock-Pine Bluff

Also, it says they may strike 2 applicants from each pool, not select.  No I didn't ignore anything.

[Oryxslayer]

With 2 republicans needing to support it, and the fact the indies and dems might be right leaning, I find it unlikely they'd draw a map like either one of the bottom 2.  

SNIP

1. Approval of a final district map requires six or more
affirmative votes of the Commissioners, including at least two
affirmative votes from Commissioners selected from each of the
three pools.
The map must be bipartisan.  So dems won't agree to splitting Little Rock, and Reps won't agree to Little Rock-Pine Bluff

Also, it says they may strike 2 applicants from each pool, not select.  No I didn't ignore anything.

LOL. I was reading a outdated and wrong redistricting amendment. Several drafts were submitted this year and the one that I was reading proposed a AZ style commission that would be much more partisan with parliamentarian appointments. The version potentially on the ballot looks like a mirror of the CA process. I will delete the above post because it horrendously makes bad assumptions considering its outdated info.

Now, on the actual potential commission. Since party ID is a lagging indicator, we therefore should expect the commission to be a bit more conservative than actual party vote, once again mirroring CA. OTOH, the considerations for racial and geographic diversity, along with those for near parity between present congressional districts could lead to sizable AA voting blocks who want AA access. We don't know. Until everyone is potentially selected. Redistricting commissions have not been attempted in the South so far, and the demographics there are different from those in the North or West from 2010. So, not much to go on and no assumptions should be made in my eyes about the commission until other than it's respect for COIs.

I think the most interesting part is that the amendment allows for 3% deviation in population between districts. That should be enough to never have to cut a county.

[Idaho Conservative]

With 2 republicans needing to support it, and the fact the indies and dems might be right leaning, I find it unlikely they'd draw a map like either one of the bottom 2.  

SNIP

1. Approval of a final district map requires six or more
affirmative votes of the Commissioners, including at least two
affirmative votes from Commissioners selected from each of the
three pools.
The map must be bipartisan.  So dems won't agree to splitting Little Rock, and Reps won't agree to Little Rock-Pine Bluff

Also, it says they may strike 2 applicants from each pool, not select.  No I didn't ignore anything.

LOL. I was reading a outdated and wrong redistricting amendment. Several drafts were submitted this year and the one that I was reading proposed a AZ style commission that would be much more partisan with parliamentarian appointments. The version potentially on the ballot looks like a mirror of the CA process. I will delete the above post because it horrendously makes bad assumptions considering its outdated info.

Now, on the actual potential commission. Since party ID is a lagging indicator, we therefore should expect the commission to be a bit more conservative than actual party vote, once again mirroring CA. OTOH, the considerations for racial and geographic diversity, along with those for near parity between present congressional districts could lead to sizable AA voting blocks who want AA access. We don't know. Until everyone is potentially selected. Redistricting commissions have not been attempted in the South so far, and the demographics there are different from those in the North or West from 2010. So, not much to go on and no assumptions should be made in my eyes about the commission until other than it's respect for COIs.

I think the most interesting part is that the amendment allows for 3% deviation in population between districts. That should be enough to never have to cut a county.

Yeah, we don't really know exactly how it would go, assuming it happens at all.  But the Republicans have literally no reason to agree to a map with a tossup or blue congressional seat, nothing worse could be drawn from their perspective.  But maybe a deal that helps black legislators could be made. 

[lfromnj]

Anyway the commission did not get on ballot, so if the GOP is feeling good government they could just keep the MSA map I kept above, otherwise they will either split Pulaski or keep it whole but drag it to North Central AR unless Democrats pass a really aggressive VRA in 2021.

[Sol]

What happens if French Hill loses?

[lfromnj]

What happens if French Hill loses?

I mean the GOP has 3/4's super majorities right? Don't see any reason they would throw the Dems a bone and put the Delta or even just Pinebluff in the district. The most logical COI based district would just follow the Census MSA and the GOP could just draw that. They could also just gerrymander it further because a 4-0 map is easy.

[lfromnj]

Heres a Indiana style map that the GOP could pass. Still Keeps Little Rock and fully unites the Delta and Pine Bluff . Still keeps most incumbents with the majority of their base so everyone should be happy.

[Idaho Conservative]

Heres a Indiana style map that the GOP could pass. Still Keeps Little Rock and fully unites the Delta and Pine Bluff . Still keeps most incumbents with the majority of their base so everyone should be happy.

numbers on the Little Rock district?

[lfromnj]

Heres a Indiana style map that the GOP could pass. Still Keeps Little Rock and fully unites the Delta and Pine Bluff . Still keeps most incumbents with the majority of their base so everyone should be happy.

numbers on the Little Rock district?

+17 Trump, sorry forgot to mention.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

I wanted to take my mind of earth rn so I made this blessed map

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I wanted to take my mind of earth rn so I made this blessed map

https://i.imgur.com/o9nG9U8.jpg

I am unironically very curious to see the partisan numbers of those districts.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

I wanted to take my mind of earth rn so I made this blessed map

https://i.imgur.com/o9nG9U8.jpg

I am unironically very curious to see the partisan numbers of those districts.

All of them are fairly safe republican seats

[Continential]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/59a5cae5-0972-4869-a726-7dd5eb59f0d9



So this is a map where the Democrats win the 1st Congressional district under the governors election in 2018.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/2911d9fd-6450-4062-bc45-ec86ea9de989
state house of reps, 2018 estimates

[muon2]

In the 2000 cycle AR drew CDs with whole counties. They drew an alternate plan with microchops to get exact equality if challenged in court. The whole county plan was not challenged, in part because the alternative would have been virtually the same.

In the 2010 cycle the Dems were still in charge but the Pubs were gaining fast. The big problem was the shrinking pop in CD 4 and growth in CD 3. In the end they ditched whole counties and created a lot of chops between CDs 3 and 4.

In light of Tennant v Jefferson County from WV, it seems that AR could easily go back to whole counties as they had until last cycle. There isn't the partisan threat that existed 10 years ago. Like WV they could agree on some criteria that preserve incumbents and the cores of the districts and then get the optimal whole-county plan that meets their criteria.

[Biden his time]

I tried my hand at a fair 4-district map of Arkansas.

Image Link

The Population Deviation is 0.10%, and it reflects 2015 - 2019 ACS Data.

57/100 on Dave's Proportionality Index
66/100 on the Compactness Index
100/100 on County Splitting
0/100 on the Minority Representation index (well, you really can't get that far in Arkansas)
10/100 on Dave's competitiveness index (once again, it's Arkansas)

The map above shows results from the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.

Check it out here and see county and municipality boundaries.


Partisan Breakdown by Election

Any election: 4R


Opinions?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

0/100 on the Minority Representation index (well, you really can't get that far in Arkansas)
10/100 on Dave's competitiveness index (once again, it's Arkansas)

Man: *rubs lamp*
Genie: Hello, you have 1 wish
Man: I want a map scoring 100 on the competitiveness index in Dave's Redistricting App for the state of Arkansas, that at the same time has a majority-minority district
Genie: Sorry, that's unrealistic. You wasted your one wish. I hope you were happy.

[perpetual_cynic]

I was going through the NCSL redistricting laws, are there really no general laws governing congressional districts for the state. It says there are lots of stringent requirements for state legislature districts, though.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Is this 0 county splits?

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Is this 0 county splits?

Yes

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Is this 0 county splits?

Yes

Me likey!

[muon2]

In the 2000 cycle AR drew CDs with whole counties. They drew an alternate plan with microchops to get exact equality if challenged in court. The whole county plan was not challenged, in part because the alternative would have been virtually the same.

In the 2010 cycle the Dems were still in charge but the Pubs were gaining fast. The big problem was the shrinking pop in CD 4 and growth in CD 3. In the end they ditched whole counties and created a lot of chops between CDs 3 and 4.

In light of Tennant v Jefferson County from WV, it seems that AR could easily go back to whole counties as they had until last cycle. There isn't the partisan threat that existed 10 years ago. Like WV they could agree on some criteria that preserve incumbents and the cores of the districts and then get the optimal whole-county plan that meets their criteria.

Following up on my post from Feb, here's a possible plan that follows the existing CDs using whole counties, but can have a version with microchops to equalize population as in 2000. The image shows the plan with microchops and CD 2 stats displayed. The whole county population deviations are:

AR 1: +262
AR 2: +714
AR 3: -1127
AR 4: +151