Sol's 50-state Redistricting Library

[lfromnj]

I don't see how you get a Trump seat from that area. Linn and  Benton will cancel out and Salem will at least match its 2 counties across the river. Usually I do keep the coastal counties there so its a point or 2 more D friendly.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I don't see how you get a Trump seat from that area. Linn and  Benton will cancel out and Salem will at least match its 2 counties across the river. Usually I do keep the coastal counties there so its a point or 2 more D friendly.

Fair points. I was assuming that given how marginal it is, there were probably some ways in which you might a Trump district there, through differing choices elsewhere.
Playing with it more in DRA, it's surprisingly hard actually getting there. Very hard. I tend not to rule out possibilities unless I know they can't happen. Even going out of the box fails to produce a Trump district.

[Sol]

Sakartvelo.

link



GA-01: Your coastal GA seat. Frustratingly just outside of the window of competitiveness for Democrats at 53-45% Trump.

GA-08: Rural South-central GA. Safe R of course.

GA-02: Majority Black SW GA district, plurality Black (49.2) on VAP. Sorry about the mess around Macon and Houston County, but it gets everything within population while keeping everything in GA-03 above the fall line except around Warner Robbins. Likely D at 56-43 Biden.

GA-03: Exurbaniest exurbs of Atlanta, and suburbs of Macon, and rurals in the middle. Safe R of course.

GA-12: Augusta, Athens, and the eastern Black Belt. A true swing seat at 50-49 Biden (but a win for Trump 2016 and Kemp 2018). If John Barrow wants to return to politics this seat belongs to him. I wanted to put Milledgeville here but I couldn't make it fit, alas.

GA-09: Pleased with having whole counties here. About as Republican as you can get.

GA-14: More hard R exurbs and Appalachia. MTG oughta be fine here.



GA-04: Majority Black district in the eastern suburbs of Atlanta. Safe D ofc lol. Mostly runs along the I-20 corridor, but also takes in southern Gwinnett and the diverse but high plurality Latino area along the Buford Highway, and loses Newton due to population. Tbh I'm a little divided about the boundary between this district and GA-07; part of me wants to put northern DeKalb in GA-07 to keep the Latino community in one seat (and thus probably put Walton in GA-04).

GA-05: The heart of metro Atlanta. Manages to be narrowly majority Black on both total pop. and CVAP. Super duper D though somehow Abrams outperforms Biden here (?!). Rapidly gentrifying; it probably won't be majority Black in a few years.

GA-06: The ritzy northern suburbs of Atlanta. Takes in a large Korean community in Johns Creek and western Gwinett. More Republican than I think people would assume based on #trendz; it voted 51-48% Trump and is consequently lean R.

GA-07: Gwinnett County, super diverse and rapidly moving Democratically. Walton County is a big anchor on Dem margins here, it votes like the flipside of GA-06 at 52-47% Biden, so lean D. Walton is a weird county, and I don't have a good sense if it's more like Gwinnett or like the counties to the south.

GA-10: Southern burbs of Atlanta, majority Black (and the most Black in the state). Safe D of course.

GA-11: Majority Black district in the western suburbs, safe D. It gets Villa Rica in Carroll County, which is more oriented towards the metro than the rest of the district. For whatever reason, demographic shifts here don't seem to get as much attention as elsewhere in the metro, but Villa Rica, western Douglas County, and Paulding County (which ofc is not in this district) are undergoing really dramatic demographic change.

GA-13: Exurban western burbs. Safe R but maybe could get close in like 2028.

[cvparty]

Gwinnett’s eastern borders seem really stark, so I would probably avoid crossing it? Walton seems similar to counties like Barrow, Jackson and Hall as outlying areas east of Atlanta. Also don’t think Cherokee pairs well with Paulding

[Sol]

Gwinnett’s eastern borders seem really stark, so I would probably avoid crossing it? Walton seems similar to counties like Barrow, Jackson and Hall as outlying areas east of Atlanta. Also don’t think Cherokee pairs well with Paulding

What about this? Not sure where the optimal place for Paulding is; it doesn't pair too well will anywhere other than Cobb, but most of Cobb has to go in the 11th.

[cvparty]

yeah I think it only goes well with Cobb, but not sure how to do that without significantly changing your general configuration

[Sol]

Did Idaho. Probably the easiest state to redistrict; there's basically no choice involved since combining the panhandle with the eastern part of the state is borderline non-contiguous and anyway is a CoI trainwreck. Tried to keep it neat anyway.

link



ID-01: Safe R lol, no use bothering with the numbers. Gets the panhandle and most of the Boise suburbs (including all of Owyhee). It's really striking how Republican this district is; in the recentish past large chunks were competitive but now it's fair to say that this seat is basically the epitome of a Republican district.

ID-02: Safe R but a good 10 points more D on account of Boise. Has Boise and Garden City out of the Boise metro plus the Snake River Valley and Eastern ID. Although Boise is split, this is actually not terrible CoI, since the Boise metro is reasonably well connected along the Snake Valley (unlike the metro's horrifically weak connections to the north.) Some of the counties between Twin Falls and Pocatello are actually pretty Latino, not that it matters electorally.

[Sol]

Arkansaw.

link



The state lends itself well to two urban and two rural districts; one in the southern and eastern lowlands and one in the western and northern highlands.

AR-01: Safe R, despite being a third Black. May be one of the most racially polarized districts in the country, since Dems probably have less that 10% of the white vote.

AR-02: The Little Rock district. Likely R. I would have loved to put Pine Bluff in here, but metro Little Rock is too big to fit it in.

AR-03: Safe R, despite promising trends in the extreme NW. This district is growing a lot; maybe next cycle it will be too populous to put NWA and Fort Smith together.

AR-04: Safe R of course, with basically no Democratic areas outside of small, fairly Black towns in the SW of the district. Despite the odd shape, it has a logic to it as this is the highland areas of the state.

[Sol]

Rhode Island.

link



RI-01: Safe D (69-29% Biden), and actually quite non-white at only 54% of the total population. Providence and its inner, industrial suburbs, plus the rather affluent communities in the East Bay.

RI-02: 53-46% Biden,  47-46% Trump 2016. The western suburbs and exurbs of Providence, plus Woonsocket and the West Bay communities. Lean D--Trump 2016 was a real GOP high water mark in this sort of place--but Allan Fung would likely have won last year. Probably the most Italian district in the country, or close to it.

[Torie]

Arkansaw.

link


The state lends itself well to two urban and two rural districts; one in the southern and eastern lowlands and one in the western and northern highlands.

AR-01: Safe R, despite being a third Black. May be one of the most racially polarized districts in the country, since Dems probably have less that 10% of the white vote.

AR-02: The Little Rock district. Likely R. I would have loved to put Pine Bluff in here, but metro Little Rock is too big to fit it in.

AR-03: Safe R, despite promising trends in the extreme NW. This district is growing a lot; maybe next cycle it will be too populous to put NWA and Fort Smith together.

AR-04: Safe R of course, with basically no Democratic areas outside of small, fairly Black towns in the SW of the district. Despite the odd shape, it has a logic to it as this is the highland areas of the state.

FWIW, here is my version of the state following the Muon2 rules (so thus two metro area CD's hewing to the MSA boundaries are mandated, similar to what you did). One goal was to minimize the size of the county cuts, and two of them are under 500 people, and the third is about 2,000, so it would be legal under SCOTUS law to lose them all.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/cd33fca7-d3b8-46ef-a0f8-6529c03af21a

[Sol]

Arkansaw.

link


The state lends itself well to two urban and two rural districts; one in the southern and eastern lowlands and one in the western and northern highlands.

AR-01: Safe R, despite being a third Black. May be one of the most racially polarized districts in the country, since Dems probably have less that 10% of the white vote.

AR-02: The Little Rock district. Likely R. I would have loved to put Pine Bluff in here, but metro Little Rock is too big to fit it in.

AR-03: Safe R, despite promising trends in the extreme NW. This district is growing a lot; maybe next cycle it will be too populous to put NWA and Fort Smith together.

AR-04: Safe R of course, with basically no Democratic areas outside of small, fairly Black towns in the SW of the district. Despite the odd shape, it has a logic to it as this is the highland areas of the state.

FWIW, here is my version of the state following the Muon2 rules (so thus two metro area CD's hewing to the MSA boundaries are mandated, similar to what you did). One goal was to minimize the size of the county cuts, and two of them are under 500 people, and the third is about 2,000, so it would be legal under SCOTUS law to lose them all.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/cd33fca7-d3b8-46ef-a0f8-6529c03af21a

Makes sense to me--I'm curious though why you did the rural districts NE-SW rather than NW-SE, which matches up better to topographical and cultural patterns.



It might be technically more 'erose' but the difference between the lowland areas and Ozarks/Ouachitas is pretty quantifiable imo.

[Torie]

Arkansaw.

link


The state lends itself well to two urban and two rural districts; one in the southern and eastern lowlands and one in the western and northern highlands.

AR-01: Safe R, despite being a third Black. May be one of the most racially polarized districts in the country, since Dems probably have less that 10% of the white vote.

AR-02: The Little Rock district. Likely R. I would have loved to put Pine Bluff in here, but metro Little Rock is too big to fit it in.

AR-03: Safe R, despite promising trends in the extreme NW. This district is growing a lot; maybe next cycle it will be too populous to put NWA and Fort Smith together.

AR-04: Safe R of course, with basically no Democratic areas outside of small, fairly Black towns in the SW of the district. Despite the odd shape, it has a logic to it as this is the highland areas of the state.

FWIW, here is my version of the state following the Muon2 rules (so thus two metro area CD's hewing to the MSA boundaries are mandated, similar to what you did). One goal was to minimize the size of the county cuts, and two of them are under 500 people, and the third is about 2,000, so it would be legal under SCOTUS law to lose them all.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/cd33fca7-d3b8-46ef-a0f8-6529c03af21a

Makes sense to me--I'm curious though why you did the rural districts NE-SW rather than NW-SE, which matches up better to topographical and cultural patterns.



It might be technically more 'erose' but the difference between the lowland areas and Ozarks/Ouachitas is pretty quantifiable imo.

More erosity, and as I recall, larger county cuts.

Addendum: I get to this point (https://davesredistricting.org/join/534f3940-27a1-4733-a8e0-c17a8ec33c85), and now what? Poinsett and Craighead are in the same MSA, so they cannot be divided. Any other cut is big and/or ugly.

[Sol]

snip

What about something like this?

[Sol]

Keeping the original CA map here to keep the flow of discussion, coalescing it to one post to avoid confusion.

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

California.

Have I mentioned how much I hate the stupid CA numbering system, which makes districts jump around the map? That, plus all the constraints of mountain passes and bays, etc. made it not a very enojyable state to redistrict. Unlike Texas, which is pretty fun because most places can be put together, California has all sorts of little walls of impassability that require chipping away to get the right population. Not fun.

link



CA-01: Your safe R northwestern district. Not much to see here. LaMalfa is safe enough.

CA-02: Your safe D northeastern district. Huffman actually lives in Marin apparently; he might run instead in CA-06 though it would be double-bunked with Thompson. Sorry for the bite out of Siskiyou, but it lets CA-01 work pretty well and has a certain logic.



CA-04: Exurban Sacramento. Likely R, maybe bordering on lean R. Kiley should be pretty safe here. Incidentally, why is Auburn so Democratic?

CA-05: The other Sacramento seat. There's not a great place to put Davis but here seemed like the best option given how other districts shaped up. Safe D, and a pretty strong contrast with denser CA-04. Double-bunks Bera and Garamendi, no clue who would win here.

CA-06: A pretty heterogenous North Bay district. Fairfield probably isn't a great fit here, but there aren't really better options available given where everything else should go. Thompson would run here.

CA-07: Sacramento. Safe D for Matsui. West Sacramento is here because it should be. Super diverse but plurality white. Did you know that the area between West Sacramento and Davis is unpopulated because it's a giant flood bypass?

CA-09: Vallejo, Richmond, Berkeley--this district has some of the most left-wing places in the entire country. The suburbs west of the Berkeley Hills drag it down to a shameful 81% Biden. If Garamendi doesn't want to run against Bera, this would be the obvious place as it's like his current seat. It's very diverse, but plurality white.

CA-10: The Contra Costa suburbs. Safe D, DeSaulnier should be good.

CA-12: San Francisco. Safe D, Pelosi should be good.

CA-13: Oakland and some suburbs immediately to the south. Safe for Lee of course. Probably actually the most left-wing district in America, idk.



CA-11: The last and most suburban East Bay district. Has Hayward and Fremont and then also the Tri-Valley and Tracey inland. Plurality Asian by a lot (41%) but actually plurality white by a fair bit on CVAP, a fact which is true of most of the districts in the South Bay. I don't know the Bay Area very well, but I get the sense this may be the most working class of the various suburban districts. It double bunks Swalwell and Harder, presumable Swalwell has enough clout (lol) to make Harder go back to the Valley.

CA-14: Northern and Western San Mateo, plus Santa Cruz and the Sunset District. The least Silicon Valleyish district in the South Bay. Mullin is fine in this safe D district.

CA-16: Northern and Eastern San Jose. If you yell at me enough about this district I'll redraw its boundary with 18. Majority Asian, even on CVAP, which is why it looks the way it does, though quite diverse, with some affluent areas in the west which couldn't quite fit in CA-17 and also the Little Saigon neighborhood. Ro Khanna's seat, safe D.

CA-17: The heart of Silicon Valley. Safe D, Eshoo should be good here.

CA-18: The rest of San Jose. Plurality white here actually, but Latinos are the second largest group and quite close. Lofgren should be good here. Also, the CA commission lines here are really weird; I assume they were trying maximize minority influence, but IMO they basically did the equivalent of NC-12 pre-2016 with how much they crossed over the mountains and cut up San Jose like a pizza.

CA-08: Stockton, plus some areas around Modesto. You can tell that we aren't in the Bay area anymore despite the priced out long distance commuters, because this is only lean D (52-46 Biden). Plurality Latino, plurality white CVAP. Harder probably ends up here.

CA-15: Modesto, Merced, a bit of Fresno County. I wanted to put Mendota here but it's too big. It's majority Latino but very slimly white plurality. Lean D on paper, but very much at risk of a Duarte reelection performance, especially in off years, so more or less tossup to maybe even lean R.

Part of me considered cracking Stockton to make CA-15 majority Latino; in that scenario CA-08 is likely R and CA-15 is safe D.



CA-03: Talking about it here because the largest portion of the district is in Fresno County. A bit of a messy leftovers district; fringe mountain areas outside Sacramento, the Sierras, and white suburbs of Fresno. I guess Mclintock runs here? Safe R but a higher D number than you'd expect.

CA-19: Fresno, minus the white parts and plus Madera and various small ag towns. Majority Latino on all measures. Safe D, and the only Latino-majority district in this part of the state where that's true. Jim Costa reps this district for some reason.

CA-21: Visalia and western Bakersfield. Safe R. Kevin McCarthy's district.

CA-22: Eastern Bakersfield, King County, bits of Tulare and Fresno. On paper likely to safe D, at 55.9% Biden, but given how the Central Valley works it's more or less tossup. It's a bit more Democratic than the current seat but Valadao would have still won in 2022.

I'm really conflicted on the Central Valley to be honest; this is the hardest part of the map and I might go in and change it later. The differential turnout patterns in the Central Valley, plus the small but non-zero crossover vote that Republicans get means that you have to draw extremely ugly districts to make sure that Latino voters can elect their candidate of choice reliably. I tried to thread the needle as much as possible, and I think what I drew would be fine under current jurisprudence, but I'm not sure if the map I drew is appropriately ethical.

CA-20: The Central Coast district. Majority Latino but majority white CVAP; unlike the Central Valley this isn't a huge issue because Latinos can reliably elect their preferred candidate. Panetta is good here, safe D.

CA-24: San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura. The bougier section of the Central Coast. Carbajal should be good here, safe D.

CA-26: Southern Ventura County and the Conejo Valley area in LA County. Safe D but used to be more conservative. LA is so huge that it has giant suburbs no one has heard of, like Thousand Oaks or Simi Valley. Brownley should be pretty safe.

CA-25: The Antelope Valley, with little scrapings of the San Fernando Valley and far-flung exurbs in SE Kern County (absolutely necessary to make population work). On paper this is likely D, but Mike Garcia seems to have dug himself well in here and it's a full percentage point more Republican at 54-44 Biden. Extremely diverse, the Antelope Valley is a place where people who get gentrified out of the LA basin are forced to move to.



CA-28: The eastern part of the San Fernando Valley, with Burbank. Safe D and majority Latino district on population and CVAP. Cárdenas should be safe; Schiff technically lived here but this is not his base.

CA-29: The western San Fernando Valley. Safe D. Brad Sherman's seat. It's probably pretty clear by now that I don't know California as well as I should, so apologies when I say that I can think of nothing to distinguish this district whatsoever.

CA-30: North LA, Glendale, Pasadena, the Crescenta Valley. I assume Schiff would go for this district, though it's maybe not as Hollywood-oriented as he'd like. Safe D. Random question for LA people--are Pasadena and Glendale just big inner suburbs, or are they really the equivalents of Cambridge or Jersey City and basically function as city neighborhoods?

CA-32: North and west San Gabriel Valley, centered around the Covinas. Majority Latino on all measures. Safe D, repped by Grace Napolitano.

CA-33: The west and south of the San Gabriel Valley. The somewhat unattractive lines between this and CA-32 make them both pretty clearly VRA compliant; this is a heavily Chinese district which is nearly 50%  on both total pop. and CVAP.  Judy Chu reps this safe D seat.

CA-35: This is the real Hollywood district, taking in western neighborhoods of LA and the Hills and Malibu. Safe D. Actually an empty seat.

CA-36: DTLA, East LA, Koreatown. Safe D, majority Latino on all measures. Jimmy Gomez should be safe here. Btw, he seems to be quite left-wing, why do progressives keep challenging him? This is why East LA is in this seat, btw; it unpacks CA-41 but also ensures the Latino candidate of choice will win this district's fairly polarized top-twos.

CA-37: The eastern Gateway cities. Majority Latino, safe D. I assume Sánchez runs here--commission lines are weird in this part of the state too.

CA-38: The Beach cities. Safe D now, but in the recent past used to be a good bit more Republican. I miss Republican Palos Verdes. Lieu gets this one.

CA-40: Southern LA, Inglewood, Compton. Safe D. Majority Latino but plurality Black CVAP. Maxine Waters should be pretty safe here; Kamlager-Dove also lives here but she presumably doesn't have the clout here and decamps elsewhere, maybe to 35.

CA-41: The western Gateway cities. It's the most Latino district in the country. Barragan will win this seat.

CA-44: Long Beach and the Port of LA. A diverse but plurality Latino district on all metrics. The CA commission does the equivalent of Texas fajita districts to Long Beach to unpack the heavily Latino areas to the north; IMO that's probably not necessary to follow the VRA. Garcia should be good here.



CA-42: Orange County hills, Fullerton. Super diverse on total population but almost 50% white on CVAP. It's a swing seat; 51-47% Biden, but much more Republican downballot. Should be winnable for Young Kim and her notorious homophobia.

CA-45: Huntington Beach, Westminster, the westernmost parts of Orange County. Tries to keep the fairly coherent coastal CoI together while also uniting Vietnamese neighborhoods. Lean R; 49-48% Trump 2020 but was a Clinton seat. Steele should be fairly good here.

CA-46: Anaheim, Santa Ana. Majority Latino on all measures, Safe D. Correa's seat.

CA-47: Irvine and the various extremely rich southern OC exurbs. Katie Porter should be safe here; it's a couple shades better for both Clinton and Biden than her current district.

CA-48: The rest of coastal Orange County, plus Oceanside in SD and Murrietta and Temecula in Riverside. I know this is a bit of a weird hash district, but it's an absolutely load-bearing one, allowing for much better districts in the Inland Empire and San Gabriel Valley. 49-48 Trump 2020, so probably lean R. Probably tough sledding for Mike Levin, but could be a good fit for Darryl Issa if he wants to be able to vote for himself.


CA-27: San Bernardino and surrounds. Majority Latino on all measures. Safe D. Aguilar might actually live in 31 but this is the obvious successor to his seat.

CA-34: Ontario, Chino, Fontana. Safe D. Similarly, Norma Torres actually lives in 32 but would clearly run here. The double-split of Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana sucks but is necessary to make both 27 and 34 majority Latino on CVAP.

CA-31: San Gorgonio Pass, the Coachella Valley, and various mountain towns in Riverside County. Likely D, and Raul Ruiz would run here.

CA-39: Riverside and surrounds. Safe D. Mark Takano's seat. Just barely shy of majority Latino on CVAP.

CA-43: Corona, Menifee, Hemet, Lake Elsinore. Lean R at 50-48% Trump (though closer pre-rounding). Calvert's seat.

CA-23: The Victor Valley, the Mojave Desert, Imperial County. Plurality Latino on CVAP, but lean R at 50-47 Trump 2020. Similar issues to the Central Valley seats I suspect, but a different configuration, like the Coachella Valley with Imperial, creates other issues and forces an ugly Victor Valley-San Bernardino seat. Obernolte's seat.



CA-49: Eastern suburbs and exurbs of San Diego. Lean R at 52-46, bordering on likely. Technically Darryl Issa's seat. Btw, why exactly are the much closer-in suburbs like Santee or El Cajon so Republican compared to even further away suburbs like Escondido or Oceanside?

CA-50: Northern SD and the northern suburbs. Safe D, Peters's seat.

CA-51: Central SD and northern inner neighborhoods. Safe D, Jacobs's seat.

CA-52: Southeastern SD. Majority Latino on all numbers. Safe D, Vargas is good.

[Torie]

snip

What about something like this?

It has more erosity under the Muon2 rules (more red counties are next to more light blue counties, but that is about the best one can do if one considers flats versus hills as distinct COI's that should be given cognizance. COI's in my view outside the VRA ones and perhaps language groups tend to be a witch's brew when drawing lines. Granted here it does not make that much of a partisan difference.

Nice map of SoCal by the way. There topography has more meaning since we have mountains within counties, some so steep that no roads traverse them.

[Sol]

It has more erosity under the Muon2 rules (more red counties are next to more light blue counties, but that is about the best one can do if one considers flats versus hills as distinct COI's that should be given cognizance. COI's in my view outside the VRA ones and perhaps language groups tend to be a witch's brew when drawing lines. Granted here it does not make that much of a partisan difference.

I get where you're coming from. However, I think there's a difference between clearcut communities that have a fairly obvious and recognizable identity and the squishy "X is more like Y than Z because of reasons." My rough standard is that it's actionable in redistricting if it's notable enough for a Wikipedia page.

In any case I think we also just have different values; I'm not too bothered by county chops if they aren't excessive or slightly unusual shapes if they have compelling rationales. I'm also just generally a bit more inclined towards looseness in terms of rules in general, since each redistricting situation is a bit more unique and in my opinion it's more of an art than a science.

Nice map of SoCal by the way. There topography has more meaning since we have mountains within counties, some so steep that no roads traverse them.

Thank you for the kind words! I spent most of my time drawing this map while staring at Google Maps's topographical filter lol

[Sol]

The currently finished states (color indicates whether a majority of seats are Biden 2020 or Trump 2020, green is ties).

[Sol]

New Jersey





NJ-01: Philly suburbs in SW Jersey, plus Cape May. 51-48% Biden, 48-49% Clinton. Lean D district in South Jersey. It's the closest successor to Van Drew's district, but is a bit more Democratic, in a way which would be genuinely difficult for him. Nevertheless it's a place that's moved a bit Republican in recent years; this would have been much more D under Obama.

NJ-02: Atlantic City, much of the Shore. Safe R of course, by quite a lot. Chris Smith is safe here.

NJ-03: Camden and the Northern Philly suburbs. This is the obvious successor to Kim's district, but Norcross is also here, and he would probably win given the machine. Super safe D.

NJ-04: Monmouth County and Lakewood. New Jersey for some reason hasn't really had a Monmouth County based seat, even on the 2010 Republican map where you'd expect they'd want one. Safe R, though not as much as NJ-02. Pallone lives here but would never be able to win here, he probably carpetbags to 6.



NJ-05: Trenton, Princeton, Southern Middlesex. Pretty well-optimized for Watson-Coleman. Safe D of course. Unfortunately, I couldn't keep the heavily Indian suburbs in one seat; it's too large and diffuse--this seat has about half of them.

NJ-06: New Brunswick, Perth Amboy, Plainfield. Very diverse seat. Safe D ofc. It's an open seat, though Pallone could pop over here. Kean lives here but will certainly not be running here.

NJ-07: Exurban NYC. 50-48% Trump 2020, 54-42% Trump 2016. Less Republican than you'd think; a lot Somerset is quite D now as is the area around Dover. Still, Kean should be pretty well entrenched.



NJ-08: Closer in NYC suburbs. Conversely, less Democratic than you'd expect; 51-47% Biden, 50-46% Trump 2016. This is Sherrill's seat, but IMO it's a tossup. Why exactly is Sopranos land so Republican, when suburbs further out vote more Democratic?

NJ-09: Black-influence district, based in Southwest Newark and inner suburbs in Essex, Union, etc. A very high plurality by CVAP. Very safe D of course. Payne should be good.

NJ-10: Latino-influence district, based in North/Ironbound Newark, Elizabeth, Passaic, and Patterson. Only plurality on CVAP. Safe D. Pascrell lives here and probably runs here too.

NJ-11: Jersey City and other urban areas west of the river. Extremely diverse but plurality Latino. Unfortunately, it's not possible to put all the heavily Korean towns in Bergen in this seat. Menendez runs here.

NJ-12: Bergen County. Josh Gottheimer's seat. Safe D, and probably a good fit for his particularly noxious brand of politics.

[Sol]

This is outdated, so spoilered.

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

SC-01: Charleston and the Lowcountry. 51-48% Biden, 48-47% Trump 2016. The swingiest seat in the state; Mace has a decent shot of getting entrenched here I suppose though Cunningham is an obvious challenger. Unless you want to draw a meme Myrtle Beach-Hilton Head district this is the best you can do; I used the Cooper River and the county lines as the divider and then added Hanahan for population.

SC-02: Columbia. Back in the day this might have been a swing seat but now in practice it's likely D, bordering on safe. Clyburn I think lives here but the 6th is closer to his current seat, so I'm not sure where he'd end up. Joe Wilson's career is over.

SC-03: The Savannah River Valley--Aiken, Anderson, Greenwood, etc. Safe R and a good seat for Duncan, though he doesn't live here. Unfortunately all of Upcountry SC can't fit in one seat, so this one gets the less urban portions, though tbh Anderson or Pickens counties are much more metropolitan than people assume.  

SC-04: Greenville-Spartanburg. Safe R, Timmons is safe. Maybe in 10 years this seat will be smaller and more interesting.

SC-05: Suburban Charlotte and assorted small towns in the Piedmont. Safe R. Duncan lives here but I assume this one goes to Norman.

SC-06: The rural center of the state, and likely D at 53-46% Biden (with basically identical 2016 numbers). I'm not sure if Clyburn runs here or in SC-02. If you want to beef this seat up, you can trade Southern Columbia for Camden.

SC-07: Myrtle Beach and Mount Pleasant. Safe R and safe Fry.

[Sol]

Indiana.

link



IN-01: Chicagoland suburbs in Indiana. 53-45% Biden, so likely D despite "trends." Mrvan is a good fit for this seat and should be fine.

IN-02: South Bend, Elkhart, various mid-sized industrial towns. It's really astonishing the rapidity of the Democratic collapse in this seat. Yakym is fine in this safe R district.

IN-03: Fort Wayne, Muncie. Safe R for Banks. Indiana has a lot of industrial centers that are nonetheless pretty Republican. Did you know this area used to be a major swamp like the Everglades called the Limberlost?

IN-04: Small city North Indiana. Safe R of course, Baird gets to keep his seat.

IN-05: Ritzy northern Indy. 51-48% Biden, 50-43% Trump 2016. I have no idea what to make of that swing, which is quite insane and may be one of the largest in the country, certainly one of the biggest that isn't correlated with demographic change. My guess is that it sorts out as lean R in practice though I don't know how reliable it is for the somewhat extremist Hartzler.

IN-06: Indianapolis; safe D for Carson. Minority-majority technically but with a high white plurality (and majority CVAP).

IN-07: Southern burbs of Indianapolis, Bloomington, Columbus. The more blue-collar and exurban bit of metro Indy, and consequently pretty safe R for Pence.

IN-08: SW Indiana. The Bloody 8th is sadly no more, as this seat is safe R for Buchson.

IN-09: Suburban Louisville, Exurban Cincy, Richmond. Safe R obvs; Houchin is good.

[kwabbit]

Kim actually lives in your NJ-05. Bordentown I believe in north Burlington. If such a map was implemented, I’d imagine that Watson-Coleman would be given the hook by the NJ Dems given her age and Kim’s rising profile.

[Хahar 🤔]

Some thoughts on my part of the world:

CA-11: The last and most suburban East Bay district. Has Hayward and Fremont and then also the Tri-Valley and Tracey inland. Plurality Asian by a lot (41%) but actually plurality white by a fair bit on CVAP, a fact which is true of most of the districts in the South Bay. I don't know the Bay Area very well, but I get the sense this may be the most working class of the various suburban districts. It double bunks Swalwell and Harder, presumable Swalwell has enough clout (lol) to make Harder go back to the Valley.

Gosh, I don't like this district at all. It goes across...well, mountains wouldn't be quite the right word, but Hayward and the Tri-Valley area are separated by hills that are not populated and have few roads crossing them. The areas on either side of the hills are also quite different: Hayward is a postwar suburb, while the Tri-Valley grew somewhat later and is now notable as overflow housing for Silicon Valley. Dublin, for example, was 10% Asian in 2000 and majority Asian in 2020; the Asians there along I-680 are different than the Asians along I-880. The Union City-Hayward-San Leandro belt is heavily Filipino and Vietnamese, while the Tri-Valley region is Chinese and Indian. Median household income is $96K in Hayward compared to $145K in Pleasanton. Both of these areas can be combined reasonably with either their north or their south, but I wouldn't join them east-west. (For what it's worth, I think it's fine to toss in Tracy with whichever district you put Livermore in, since plenty of the commuter flow from Tracy is heading across the Altamont Pass anyway.)

CA-14: Northern and Western San Mateo, plus Santa Cruz and the Sunset District. The least Silicon Valleyish district in the South Bay. Mullin is fine in this safe D district.

Just for your knowledge, no part of this district is in the South Bay at all. The Peninsula is a separate thing. There's room for disagreement on whether Palo Alto is in the Peninsula or the South Bay, but certainly no part of San Mateo County is South Bay.

CA-16: Northern and Eastern San Jose. If you yell at me enough about this district I'll redraw its boundary with 18. Majority Asian, even on CVAP, which is why it looks the way it does, though quite diverse, with some affluent areas in the west which couldn't quite fit in CA-17 and also the Little Saigon neighborhood. Ro Khanna's seat, safe D.

CA-17: The heart of Silicon Valley. Safe D, Eshoo should be good here.

CA-18: The rest of San Jose. Plurality white here actually, but Latinos are the second largest group and quite close. Lofgren should be good here. Also, the CA commission lines here are really weird; I assume they were trying maximize minority influence, but IMO they basically did the equivalent of NC-12 pre-2016 with how much they crossed over the mountains and cut up San Jose like a pizza.

I'm not really going to argue with the way you drew the boundary between 16 and 18. It's stupid, but it's stupid in the way that the commission really likes. Correct me if my understanding of the legislation is wrong, but my own opinion is that the VRA shouldn't even come into consideration in this area except if you're trying to draw a Hispanic district, since there's no actual Asian community. I just don't think it makes any sense to suggest that Indians in Cupertino have more in common with Vietnamese in East San Jose, on the other side of the valley and in a different income bracket, than they do with whites in Los Altos. (Incidentally, I'm surprised that you were able to draw a CVAP Asian-majority district without having to grab Cupertino.)

CA-03: Talking about it here because the largest portion of the district is in Fresno County. A bit of a messy leftovers district; fringe mountain areas outside Sacramento, the Sierras, and white suburbs of Fresno. I guess Mclintock runs here? Safe R but a higher D number than you'd expect.

As I've said before, I don't like trans-Sierra districts. Inyo and Mono belong with the counties to their south, not to their west; during winter, it's impossible to get from those counties to the western side of the Sierra Nevada without either going south or going through Nevada. (Between the Carson Pass, which goes to Nevada, and the Walker Pass, which is in Kern County, there are no year-round crossings.) Clearly, though, the commission disagrees, because it has no problem with separating Inyo from the south and connecting it to the west.

Incidentally, why is Auburn so Democratic?

No clue on this one! I think development does get a little lighter as you head northeast toward Auburn, which is to say that Auburn is a center of its own rather than just another Sacramento suburb, but it is very much within commuting range of Sacramento. The only real explanation I have is that Auburn is a significantly older and more historic city than, say, Rocklin. Maybe that draws a different kind of person? I don't know.

Did you know that the area between West Sacramento and Davis is unpopulated because it's a giant flood bypass?

This is the sort of thing that's surprising if you're looking at a map and extremely obvious if you pass through. When you drive the Causeway and look around, it's hard to imagine any person living in a place like that.

Random question for LA people--are Pasadena and Glendale just big inner suburbs, or are they really the equivalents of Cambridge or Jersey City and basically function as city neighborhoods?

I'm definitely not an Angeleno, but this is the only area in that half of the state that I really know anything at all about, so I'll say that they're definitely both clearly suburbs. Pasadena is just about the original suburb, having been where the rich lived even before the film industry. Glendale, as you probably know, is one of the two great Armenian cities along with Yerevan. Neither of them feel like Los Angeles (although, to be honest, it's not like Sylmar does to me, either).

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

Xahar's comment on your CA-11 makes complete and total sense to people like me who have never lived in the Bay Area. His points on CA-14 and the 3 San Jose districts are also self-evident.

Don't have a good sense of the socioeconomic profile of Santa Clara (the city) aside from probably being more bougie than East San Jose and having a notable concentration of Koreans. I get that you probably lumped it in with Milpitas due to population requirements, but it makes more sense for it to go with Cupertino and Palo Alto, so that CA-16 would be a more socioeconomically coherent (lower-middle class Chinese + Vietnamese + Filipino + Punjabi Sikh(?)) Asian VRA district, assuming the part of Fremont in the district is less PMC and H-1B ish.

Re: SoCal seats- I like your boundaries for CA-32 and CA-33, they line up nicely with suburban LA County municipal boundaries. You made the Judy Chu district more competitive than in OTL, although I'm not sure about Michelle Steele and Young Kim since it seems like you put the most R parts of OTL CA-45 in Kim's district. 

Fair Oregon.

I ended up prioritizing county integrity less here and CoIs more, since Oregon has large counties that often cross major topographical boundaries and metro areas.

Cooper Mountain should be in OR-1, not OR-5.

OR-01: The Washington County district, plus areas along the Columbia estuary and the Oregon coast. I could be persuaded to move the coastal counties to either 6 or to split them between 6 and 1; I don't know Oregon communities too well. I ended up doing this because it meant the split of Lane was very attractive and allowed really clean cuts of Yamhill and Marion. Safe D ofc.

OR-03: Portland seat, gets Milwaukie too. Super super safe D, Biden cleared 80%.

OR-05: 54-43% Biden. The Clackamas seat, plus various Portland hangers on that don't fit in 1 or 3. I put Gresham here because it seems like a similar place to a lot of Clackamas. It's likely D, bordering on safe.

So that's pretty crummy for Dems, as expected. 3D-1R-2 Tossup most years, with each party having an extremely remote shot at OR-02 and OR-05 in a huge landslide.

[Sol]

I'll add this and say more later--CA-11 is mostly forced by the Central Valley district shape; the alternative is probably splitting Oakland, which I'm not sure is preferable. I can play around with Inyo and Mono in 3; that might loosen up CA-11.

Yeah y'all are right about CA-18. You can put Santa Clara in 17 but IIRC it means that San Benito needs to go in 18, which seems somewhat worse that San Benito with Monterey. I assume the logical way to draw the CA-18/CA-16 boundary is NE/SW, but let me know if that doesn't make sense.

[Sol]

Cooper Mountain should be in OR-1, not OR-5.

Is this better?