Utah 2020 Redistricting

[politicallefty]

But you cited the exact perfect alignment - Davis-Weber-Box Elder-Cache-Rich is a perfect seat. Being 328 people above ideal just means a teeny-tiny split into Davis from Salt Lake (if you are actually going for perfect population equality, outside of maybe Iowa you'll always have to split counties) - or, alternatively, accepting districts that are very close in population but not 100% equal: There's no legal basis on which a 328-person deviation could ever be challenged.

Instead, the maps tend to rely on weird violations of what you cited above. For example, there are multiple commission maps that mostly look reasonable but put Tooele with the northern counties for no good reason (e.g., Orange 3-3, the best one IMO, or Purple 4-1 and Purple 2-3 (both of these have other weird stuff going on too)).

Purple 3-3 is the only one that draws a basically sane rendition of northern Utah, but then does weird things with the southern two districts. (I sort of understand; they seem to be trying to keep suburban Salt Lake County and Utah County in separate districts, presumably to favor incumbents.)

I drew the same district you're talking about in my map on page 4 of this topic almost two years ago. The map I drew had only two county splits, which is very good for a 4-district state. One of the splits was necessary on account of the county being significantly larger than a single district (Salt Lake). The other split was Utah County, which allowed for a compact urban/suburban Republican seat consisting of the leftovers of Salt Lake County and most of Utah County. I'd have to agree with you that a deviation of 328 would be sufficient to avoid any constitutional challenges considering that SCOTUS has permitted very small deviations when there is a strong rationale (such as avoiding county splits). In this case, the deviation is less than 0.04%.

[Oryxslayer]

But you cited the exact perfect alignment - Davis-Weber-Box Elder-Cache-Rich is a perfect seat. Being 328 people above ideal just means a teeny-tiny split into Davis from Salt Lake (if you are actually going for perfect population equality, outside of maybe Iowa you'll always have to split counties) - or, alternatively, accepting districts that are very close in population but not 100% equal: There's no legal basis on which a 328-person deviation could ever be challenged.

Instead, the maps tend to rely on weird violations of what you cited above. For example, there are multiple commission maps that mostly look reasonable but put Tooele with the northern counties for no good reason (e.g., Orange 3-3, the best one IMO, or Purple 4-1 and Purple 2-3 (both of these have other weird stuff going on too)).

Purple 3-3 is the only one that draws a basically sane rendition of northern Utah, but then does weird things with the southern two districts. (I sort of understand; they seem to be trying to keep suburban Salt Lake County and Utah County in separate districts, presumably to favor incumbents.)

I drew the same district you're talking about in my map on page 4 of this topic almost two years ago. The map I drew had only two county splits, which is very good for a 4-district state. One of the splits was necessary on account of the county being significantly larger than a single district (Salt Lake). The other split was Utah County, which allowed for a compact urban/suburban Republican seat consisting of the leftovers of Salt Lake County and most of Utah County. I'd have to agree with you that a deviation of 328 would be sufficient to avoid any constitutional challenges considering that SCOTUS has permitted very small deviations when there is a strong rationale (such as avoiding county splits). In this case, the deviation is less than 0.04%.

I personally would agree with you as well. But unless the specific legislature has previously received the OK to go a tiny bit above 0 deviation, states don't want to. Basically, because the 5-county grouping just slightly doesn't work, its a problem. Mappers prefer to avoid microscopic-cuts when possible for the issue of representation seen in VA-07 and Albemarle. So the typical mapper then seeks to expand their cut, in this instance probably into Davis, in exchange for another community, in this instance probably Summit.

And thats just the simplest example of roads screwing with things.

[Nyvin]

Utah has some gigantic congressional districts.   Here's a map with only two very small municipality splits.   There is a road from Morgan into Weber county for the 328 people needed to be removed from UT-1 too.

At least this map is better than splitting Millcreek 4 ways.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/a24ff97e-2a11-4d25-8c8c-4a4f2a899371

[politicallefty]

But you cited the exact perfect alignment - Davis-Weber-Box Elder-Cache-Rich is a perfect seat. Being 328 people above ideal just means a teeny-tiny split into Davis from Salt Lake (if you are actually going for perfect population equality, outside of maybe Iowa you'll always have to split counties) - or, alternatively, accepting districts that are very close in population but not 100% equal: There's no legal basis on which a 328-person deviation could ever be challenged.

Instead, the maps tend to rely on weird violations of what you cited above. For example, there are multiple commission maps that mostly look reasonable but put Tooele with the northern counties for no good reason (e.g., Orange 3-3, the best one IMO, or Purple 4-1 and Purple 2-3 (both of these have other weird stuff going on too)).

Purple 3-3 is the only one that draws a basically sane rendition of northern Utah, but then does weird things with the southern two districts. (I sort of understand; they seem to be trying to keep suburban Salt Lake County and Utah County in separate districts, presumably to favor incumbents.)

I drew the same district you're talking about in my map on page 4 of this topic almost two years ago. The map I drew had only two county splits, which is very good for a 4-district state. One of the splits was necessary on account of the county being significantly larger than a single district (Salt Lake). The other split was Utah County, which allowed for a compact urban/suburban Republican seat consisting of the leftovers of Salt Lake County and most of Utah County. I'd have to agree with you that a deviation of 328 would be sufficient to avoid any constitutional challenges considering that SCOTUS has permitted very small deviations when there is a strong rationale (such as avoiding county splits). In this case, the deviation is less than 0.04%.

I personally would agree with you as well. But unless the specific legislature has previously received the OK to go a tiny bit above 0 deviation, states don't want to. Basically, because the 5-county grouping just slightly doesn't work, its a problem. Mappers prefer to avoid microscopic-cuts when possible for the issue of representation seen in VA-07 and Albemarle. So the typical mapper then seeks to expand their cut, in this instance probably into Davis, in exchange for another community, in this instance probably Summit.

And thats just the simplest example of roads screwing with things.

It also depends on what the constitution and laws of the respective state say as well. I don't actually know what that is for Utah. If they prioritize keeping municipalities intact, that would work in support of a very small deviation.

[GALeftist]

https://twitter.com/benwinslow/status/1679992717873647616?s=46&t=1L1DjzVkQVQ...

Haven’t seen anyone post this. Seems promising. I think it seems likelier than not that the map gets struck down, but we’ll see.

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://twitter.com/benwinslow/status/1679992717873647616?s=46&t=1L1DjzVkQVQ...

Haven’t seen anyone post this. Seems promising. I think it seems likelier than not that the map gets struck down, but we’ll see.

There's been quite a few suprises at the state court level recently, from KS's left-leaning supreme court upholding the current map, NY's left-leaning court striking down D's gerrymander, SCOTUS forcing AL to redraw to 2 black VRA seats, ect.

It seems like states where the courts have been most partisan on these matters of redistricting are ones where the justices are elected like NC and OH.

[Oryxslayer]

I don't intend to restart discussion by bumping this, but rather just wish to note that the UT Supreme Court has been letting this cook for a unusually long time. So  unusual, that a number of people have suspected that it is intentional, and they are waiting for the Special Election to be over so as to not potentially influence things. In which case, we may see some resolution the next time the court sits after the holidays.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

I made a 3-1 Utah map, I purposely made the Dem district look more rural than the GOP ones.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I made a 3-1 Utah map, I purposely made the Dem district look more rural than the GOP ones.

If rural eastern UT starts getting more Colorado, a map combining liberal parts of SLC with growing resort towns might not actually be a bad district. However, right now this isn't really the case. I would only see the argument for combining SLC and Summit Counties

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

I made a 3-1 Utah map, I purposely made the Dem district look more rural than the GOP ones.

This is the kind of absurdist map making I live for

[Arizona Iced Tea]

I made a 3-1 Utah map, I purposely made the Dem district look more rural than the GOP ones.

This is the kind of absurdist map making I live for

It's always fun when the Dem district is the largest.

[TML]

I made a 3-1 Utah map, I purposely made the Dem district look more rural than the GOP ones.

I hope you don't set your expectations too high regarding a map like this. Remember that the lion's share of commission maps had one district consisting only of SLC and its immediate environs - and I suspect that kind of configuration is what would likely be enacted in the event the current map is struck down.