2030 redistricting predictions megathread

[ProgressiveModerate]

We're nearly half way through this decade - it's crazy, so I thought it'd be a good idea to just make some predictions we can all lol at in a few years.

Alabama: Assuming the state keeps all 7 seats, what happens here will likely depend largely on if SCOTUS changes anything with VRA. Given Alabama's black population has had solid growth, if nothing changes with the seat count or Section 2, then the map probably stays simillar to as it is now. If VRA is weakened or overturned completely we could get 6-1 or even 7-0.

Alaska: Stays at one seat.

Arizona: Arizona underperformed in the 2020 census an failed to gain a seat - I think it probably gains a 10th seat in 2030. I also think the current map will be a pretty solid 5D-4R by the end of the decade with AZ-01 and AZ-06 becoming D-leaning seats represented by Democrats - AZ as a whole remains a swingy-Lean D state. I think the new seat is a swingy-Dem seat added in western Pheonix, taking in the current awkward tails of AZ-07, AZ-08, and AZ-09 that don't really belong in their districts. This seat would also be Hispanic opporunity. The rest of the map roughly resembles the current map, meaning the map ends up being ~6D-4R in a neutral cycle.

Arkansas: Keeps all 4 of it's seats - I don't expect the configuration to dramatically change because I don't expect Republicans to have any real scare in AR-02 or AR-03 for the rest of the decade. However, I could see them marginally shoring both up - perhaps shedding Fort Smith from AR-03 in exchange for more Republican rurals and having AR-01 and/or AR-04 taking in more a little rock.

California: Probably loses seats, the question is how many. I think the seat losses mainly come from the more urban blue parts of the Bay Area and greater LA, while the inland and suburban SoCal seats hold there ground. Honestly this one is hard to predict because there's so many seats, so much variability in how many seats will be lost and what the commission will actually look like, so this deserves a longer analysis I won't give right now.

Colorado: Probably stays at 8 seats. I kind of don't expect the general configuration to change much, especially because CO-03 and CO-08 will both be increasingly seen as "Hispanic Opportunity Seats".

Connecticut: Probably stays at 5 seats with an outsized chance of losing the 5th. There are basically 2 cases here; first is Dems control redistricting by gaining legislative supermajorities and they honestly probably don't change much since the current map is pretty favorable to them and neither CT-02 or CT-05 seem to be shifting dramatically rightwards. The other option is they don't control the process which probably results in a least change court drawn map. If the court decides to just start from scratch we could get a competitive seat in northwestern CT, but by then it honestly might be D-leaning.

Delaware: Stays at 1 seat - chance it gains 2nd seat though in which case Democrats probably do a pretty ugly map where both seats are some sort of vertical north-south strips both taking in part of New Castle County.

Florida: Republicans probably continue to have control over redistricting, the question is how many seats does Florida gain and also do trends in the state allow them to rid of certain packs or add others. I think if Jacksonville grows enough and continues to be the one part of the state where Dems hold up strong, they may finally be compelled to create a Dem vote sink there. I think a Dem sink in Tampa stays even if it may be theoretically possible to crack. 2 Dem vote sinks in Orlando stay because even if Osceola County becomes Republican leaning, FL-10 likely ends up pretty overpopulated and hence will need something to take in the blue areas it sheds. Perhaps they make this new seat somewhat swingy though, but I don't think they can reduce Orlando Dems down to just 1 seat. I think 5 Dem seats stay in Miami but Republicans try to make 1 or 2 of them competitive (whatever the equivalent to FL-23 is next decade). So maybe a 21R-9D map with a few marginal seats on both sides. I think a big question is if FL Republicans try to keep the relatively "clean" nature of the current map or are willing to start drawing much uglier districts.

Georgia: Probably gains a seat - I could see both Republican control and split control. If Republicans have control, I think they basically just cede another Dem sink in Atlanta to shore up everything else, GA-02 stays as long as the VRA isn't completely gutted, and you get 9R-6D (assuming GA-02 stays D-leaning). If control is split, the court draws the map, makes GA-12 or it's equivalent into a swingy or D-leaning seat in addition to adding another D seat and one or two additional swing seats to metro Atlanta. This means you have the same 6 "safe D" seats you'd have in the Republican drawn map plus 2 or 3 swingy seats, and 6 "safe R" seats.

Hawaii: Stays at 2 and very little changes.

Idaho: Gains a seat - the Independent commission creates a new swingy-R-leaning seat around Boise so that ID-01 and ID-02 no longer have to split the Treasure Valley in 2.

Illinois: Loses a seat or two. Ds probably maintain control but keep the 3 Republican vote sinks meaning any elimination is eliminating D seats, probably in Chicago land. There also is the possibility IL-17 shifts R and becomes underpopulated, which would make it more of a swing seat. As for what Chicagoland seats are cut, it might heavily depend on which Dem incumbents are on the best standing with the state party and if anyone is retiring - I feel like IL-06 could be eliminated to help VRA seats nearby take in more population (IL-01, IL-02, IL-03, IL-04, and IL-07) are probably all pretty underpopulated. Overall, probably get something like 12D - 1T - 3R.

I have to go now but will continue this exercise later.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Indiana: Stays at 9 seats - Republicans maintain control. I think IN-01 shifts right enough that they don't feel the need to aggressively crack it. They might try and shore IN-05 up a bit by splitting Hamilton County between 2 districts. IN-07 basically stays as is and no serious attempt is made to crack it.

Iowa: Republicans continue with something similar to the current set up. Making a Des Moines Dem "sink" doesn't make sense because IA-04 isn't vulnerable under any configuration and it doesn't help shore up IA-01 or IA-02 (which probably shift further right throughout the decade anyways). Since Polk County must stay whole, there will probably be 1 competitive district with the other 3 being R seats.

Kansas: If Republicans control redistricting again they probably just make KS-03 a Dem vote sink after the current map utterly failed. There is a small window for split control if Dems control the governorship and Republicans lack a state legislative majority which probably still results in a 3R-1D map with one of the R seats being slightly vulnerable.

Kentucky: Republicans control redistricting - the 2 questions are if they try to crack KY-03 (Louisville) and if they try to shore up KY-06 (Lexington). If both KY-03 and KY-06 get bluer throughout the decade, Republicans may just leave KY-03 and focus on shoring up KY-06. Still KY likely remains deep red so Republicans could crack KY-03 if they really wanted to, but it may make a lot of incumbents unhappy.

Louisiana: Like Alabama, this is heavily dependent on if VRA survives, but I think it's unlikely Rs go full 6R-0D in the case VRA is fully overturned for a variety of reasons.

Maine: Probably split control again (legistlative supermajorities are needed for partisan control), which probably results in a pretty similar map to what we have now - ME-02 is likely underpopulated and gets a point bluer in the process of taking in some of ME-01.

Maryland: Democrats finally have full real control of redistricting and actually make a serious ploy at a 8D-0R map. How ugly it is largely depending on how the panhandle and Annapolis shift - we could actually end up with a pretty clean map if Panhandle + Annapolis is enough to sustain a pretty reliable D leaning district.

Massachusetts: Stays a 9D-0R and I kind of doubt much changes from the current map. Will be interesting to see if Dems have any sort of scares in MA-01 or MA-09 at all this decade enough to make Dems shore things up.

Michigan: May or may not lose a seat. If MI keeps all it's seats, the MI Commission probably draws something simillar to the current map accounting for population changes - perhaps Grand Rapids has grown enough that MI-03 no longer needs the arm to Muskegon for instance. We'll also have to see how Detroit's black population holds up, but there's a chance they may try to consolidate the black population to one district. If MI loses a seat, it's anyone guess what happens. The issue with the current map is there's no "obvious" seat to eliminate - my best guess would be MI-08 becomes the butchered seat with it's remaning cities being sorted between the remaining districts. They could also just draw something completely out of left field too.

Minnesota: May or may not lose a seat - the 8th seat survived by a squeaker in 2020. Split, Democratic, and Republican control are all realistic possibilities. If it's split control with 8 seats, we probably see a least change court drawn map that pulls seats further into metro MSP which is expected to grow faster than the state at large. If it's split control and we lose a seat, then a court probably merges 6 and 7 and so we get a 4D-3R map with MSP not actually being that overpopulated due to strong growth. If Dems control the process and we don't lose a seat, my guess is they go for 5D-3R - Minnesota is a pretty tough state for Democrats to gerrymander because of how concentrated most of their votes are in MSP and how Republicans don't self-pack super well. We probably get a "tentacle" map splitting up MSP. If the state loses a seat and Dems have control, then they may just settle with a solid 4D-3R map trying to make one of the R seats (perhaps MN-01's successor) as competative as possible perhaps by connecting some of these smaller Dem cities like Rochester and Mankato. If Republicans gain control and MN keeps it's 8 seats then they probably try for a 5R-3D map pushing MN-02 out of the metro enough so it becomes R leaning (though probably not safe). If MN loses a seata and Rs have control, then they go 4R-3D cutting MN-02.

Mississippi: Should stay 3R-1D as long as VRA isn't completely gutted - even if it is I'm not convinced Republicans would go full 4R-0D - I could see them making MS-02 somewhat competative though. Especially if we see black voters start to shift right these next few years they could draw a tossup MS-02 they're counting on shifting R in the long run (simillar to Rs with the current NC-01).

Missouri: We'll either have a commission or Republican control. If we have Republican control, the map probably doesn't change much - MO-01 is probably underpopulated and will have to take in some of MO-02 which makes MO-02 a bit easier to shore up. They could try cracking Kansas City but I think incumbent demands and intra-party fighting may block that again. If we have a commission, then we may finally get a true tossup MO-02 configuration along with MO-01 and MO-05 remaining as comfortable safe D seats.

Montana: I expect the commission to keep the current east-west config. I think the only question is how does MT-01 shift throughout the decade - does it start to become genuinely competative?

Another break - be back soon!

[TML]

In terms of KY-03, it should be noted that KY’s own redistricting guidelines, as adopted in 1991, explicitly requires that “communities of interest” be kept as intact as possible. I think any attempt to redraw KY-03 into multiple R-leaning districts will likely not survive court challenges due to the aforementioned guideline.

In terms of Maryland, someone posted elsewhere on this forum that drawing a 8D-0R map would likely jeopardize Steny Hoyer in a primary.

[Sol]

In terms of KY-03, it should be noted that KY’s own redistricting guidelines, as adopted in 1991, explicitly requires that “communities of interest” be kept as intact as possible. I think any attempt to redraw KY-03 into multiple R-leaning districts will likely not survive court challenges due to the aforementioned guideline.

In terms of Maryland, someone posted elsewhere on this forum that drawing a 8D-0R map would likely jeopardize Steny Hoyer in a primary.

An underreported story as far as Kentucky goes is that trends for Republicans are actually kind of bad in the Lexington area, enough that they felt obliged to put Frankfurt in KY-01 and got kind of messy in the state leg. maps. If these trends continue (massive "if" here), Republicans might already have to make things fairly ugly in Lexington and may not want to go full throttle on Louisville.

[Tekken_Guy]

In terms of KY-03, it should be noted that KY’s own redistricting guidelines, as adopted in 1991, explicitly requires that “communities of interest” be kept as intact as possible. I think any attempt to redraw KY-03 into multiple R-leaning districts will likely not survive court challenges due to the aforementioned guideline.

In terms of Maryland, someone posted elsewhere on this forum that drawing a 8D-0R map would likely jeopardize Steny Hoyer in a primary.

An underreported story as far as Kentucky goes is that trends for Republicans are actually kind of bad in the Lexington area, enough that they felt obliged to put Frankfurt in KY-01 and got kind of messy in the state leg. maps. If these trends continue (massive "if" here), Republicans might already have to make things fairly ugly in Lexington and may not want to go full throttle on Louisville.

The smart thing would be to pull KY-06 down to the blood red rurals by the Tennessee border.

[Bernie Derangement Syndrome Haver]

Great analysis!

The northwestern Connecticut district probably won't be much more D than it is now. Although there are blue rurals in the district (especially up along the MA and NY border), and some suburbs of Hartford in the district like Simsbury shifting leftwards, the main source of the Republican vote in the district is the Naugatuck Valley in the greater Waterbury area. This region is very, very Trumpy and held up better for Trump in 2020 than many other parts of New England that saw a strong Trump-curious swing in 2016. I don't expect this area to snap back to Democrats, but rather it will continue to drift away. That said, the Danbury region does have a strong D trend. I think this district at most moves 2-3 points left over the decade.

Jahana Hayes's district barely went blue last time due to the fact that it snakes east to grab New Britain and Meriden instead of grabbing more Republican parts like greater Torrington, Bristol/Southington/Berlin, and southern parts of the Naugatuck Valley. And yes, she did poorly because CT-05 got swept up in the NYC media market red wave. But under a fair map, she would have lost in 2022.

It isn't too difficult to draw a true competitive/Republican-leaning CT-05 just by swapping territory with three other districts:

-Cede Simsbury, Avon, Farmington, and New Britain to CT-01 (the Hartford district). CT-05 gains Bristol, Southington, Berlin, the rest of Torrington, and a few rural Republican towns near Torrington from CT-01.

-Cede Meriden and Cheshire to CT-03 (the New Haven district) and gain Naugatuck, Prospect, Beacon Falls, etc. from CT-03.

-Cede Danbury and maybe Bethel and Newtown to CT-04 (Fairfield County-based district) and pick up Oxford, Monroe, Shelton, and Trumbull from CT-04.

I haven't run the exact numbers on this but these should be roughly equal exchanges.

What's interesting is that CT-05 exists as it is today mostly due to a decades-old incumbent-protection gerrymander for a Republican (!) - Nancy Johnson, who was from blue New Britain but needed to take in Republican territory to the west. Connecticut has been passing mostly least-change maps since then, but the district now favors Democrats due to shifts in the Hartford suburbs and greater Danbury. Because it inadvertently became a D gerrymander the legislature just went along with it. If anything I think they are more likely to shore her up more, which is also very easy to do.

Also, for Maryland did you mean the Eastern Shore?

[David Hume]

In terms of KY-03, it should be noted that KY’s own redistricting guidelines, as adopted in 1991, explicitly requires that “communities of interest” be kept as intact as possible. I think any attempt to redraw KY-03 into multiple R-leaning districts will likely not survive court challenges due to the aforementioned guideline.

In terms of Maryland, someone posted elsewhere on this forum that drawing a 8D-0R map would likely jeopardize Steny Hoyer in a primary.

This guideline is statutory, so can be simply overwritten by any new statue.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Continued!

Nebraska - Stays at 3 seats, control will either be split or functionally Republican. If control is split, we probably get something of a least change map - perhaps the legislature agrees to cede NE-02 to Dems in exchange for shoring up NE-01 by removing some of the swingier Omaha suburbs it takes in. Remember, NE-01 isn't all that red (Trump + 11 in 2020) and generally doesn't have great shifts for Rs taking in both Lincoln and Omaha suburbs, which may make it a liability for Republicans by the end of the decade.

If Republicans control redistricting, I think they either just cede NE-02 to Dems and divvy up the remainder between 1 and 3, or for a Kansas style gerrymander where they make NE-02 more vulnerable/swingy while keeping the other districts safe. I think a true 3R-0D map is pretty unlikely for a variety of reasons.

Nevada - Stays at 4 or gains a 5th seat - control will probably either be D or split, with an outsized chance of Rs having control.

A big question here is how Vegas shifts throughout the decade. If Dems have control and Rs gain in Las Vegas, the current 3 way split might not be suitable and Dems might actually try a district connecting Reno and Vegas. If Nevada gains a seat, it makes Democrat's job pretty easy because you could have 3 D leaning Vegas seats, a swingy/D-leaning Reno seat, and a pretty natural Republican pack that takes in all of rural Nevada and the more Conservative parts of Clark County.

With split control, I think it largely depends on if Rs hold any of the 3 Vegas seats and what general shifts are looking like alongside if Nevada gains a seat. For instance, if Rs have one of the Vegas seats, perhaps both parties agree to a 2-2 incumbent protection map, or if the GOP feels pretty good about the shifts in Vegas they might allow Dems to do another 3 way crack of Vegas in hopes it becomes a dummymander. If a seat is gained, both parties might agree to a new swing seat around Reno, and 2 safe D Clark seats, a swingy Clark seat, and a rurals seat.

With R control, you probably get 2-2 - it's pretty tricky to truly reduce Democrats down to just 1 seat in Vegas. Perhaps they do a 2-1-1 map though where Democrats only have 1 safe seat in Vegas with another swiny one. If Nevada gains another seat, Republicans probably try to crack Reno, create a rurals-Vegas seat, and another R-leaning seat in Clark County for a 3-2 map.

Again, lot of big questions around who controls redrawing, if Nevada gains a seat, and what greater Las Vegas looks like by the end of the decade so this is kind of a wild card.

New Hampshire - Stays at 2, again, split, D, and R control are all possible and I kind of feel like under any scenario we end up with a map pretty simillar to the current one creating 2 D-leaning seats.

New Jersey - Crazy process that will either result in a D gerry or an R gerry - the court here will choose a tiebreaker submitted by both major parties for the commission and I think it's more likely than not they choose the D-favorable tiebreaker. There's also an outsized chance both parties on the commission come to a compromise as what happened with the state legistlative maps this cycle.

New Jersey probably stays at 14 seats but there's an outsized chance it loses a seat. I kind of think the median outcome is pretty simillar to the map we have now to be honest with 2 R-leaning south Jersey seats (NJ-02 is probably pretty Safe R by the end of the decade), with the 10 other seats being D-leaning (NJ-07 is D-leaning by the end of the decade).

New Mexico - Stays at 3 seats, D or split control. If Ds control will be interesting to see what they do - the current map is quite bold in creating 3 D seats and making the bluest seat the one with the seemingly best trends for Dems (NM-01). Perhaps Dems would try to give some of NM-01 to NM-02 and NM-03 to help shore them up. I think a big question is what happens to the state's topline partisanship throughout the decade; if it stays around D+10 in normal elections, Dems would probably feel pretty confident doing 3D-0R again but if Republicans stay to narrow the state, they might make one of the seats a swing seat or even R-leaning seat.

If control is split, might get a compromise map that gives Rs back NM-02 or a court drawn map that probably does the same thing anyways.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Probably, Nevada has a competitive gubernatorial race in 2030 and a D controlled legislature.
The environment in 2030 decides whether NV has a compromise map or a D gerrymander.

[Kevinstat]

Delaware: Stays at 1 seat - chance it gains 2nd seat though in which case Democrats probably do a pretty ugly map where both seats are some sort of vertical north-south strips both taking in part of New Castle County.

New Castle County has a majority of Delaware's population (57.65% as of the 2020 Census, down from 59.97% as of the 2010 Census but still likely a majority in 2030).  So both seats in a 2-seat scenario taking in part of New Castle County wouldn't be controversial.  What would evoke Republican outrage (but would likely happen, as you note) would be both districts taking in part of Kent County and possibly Sussex County as well.

The Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, the Delaware portion of which is entirely in New Castle County, divides Delaware much more evenly.  50.71% of Delaware's population lived north of that canal in the 2020 Census, but that was down from 54.13% the 2010 census so a majority of Delaware's population will likely live south of that canal by 2030 (maybe already).  Having only one district cross that canal (and having only one district cross the New Castle County - Kent County boundary) would make sense geographically, but for political reasons (especially considering what is done in many states where the other party has a majority) that would be unlikely to happen.  Of course, Delaware probably won't end up gaining a 2nd CD in the 2030 Census anyway, so this will all be moot.

By the way, I've enjoyed reading this thread and first looked at it over a week ago (when it was newer), so in case the author thought there was little interest in this, there may be more interest than was apparent based on the level of comments).

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Delaware: Stays at 1 seat - chance it gains 2nd seat though in which case Democrats probably do a pretty ugly map where both seats are some sort of vertical north-south strips both taking in part of New Castle County.

New Castle County has a majority of Delaware's population (57.65% as of the 2020 Census, down from 59.97% as of the 2010 Census but still likely a majority in 2030).  So both seats in a 2-seat scenario taking in part of New Castle County wouldn't be controversial.  What would evoke Republican outrage (but would likely happen, as you note) would be both districts taking in part of Kent County and possibly Sussex County as well.

The Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, the Delaware portion of which is entirely in New Castle County, divides Delaware much more evenly.  50.71% of Delaware's population lived north of that canal in the 2020 Census, but that was down from 54.13% the 2010 census so a majority of Delaware's population will likely live south of that canal by 2030 (maybe already).  Having only one district cross that canal (and having only one district cross the New Castle County - Kent County boundary) would make sense geographically, but for political reasons (especially considering what is done in many states where the other party has a majority) that would be unlikely to happen.  Of course, Delaware probably won't end up gaining a 2nd CD in the 2030 Census anyway, so this will all be moot.

By the way, I've enjoyed reading this thread and first looked at it over a week ago (when it was newer), so in case the author thought there was little interest in this, there may be more interest than was apparent based on the level of comments).

What would the hypothetical partisanship of a pure south of the canal district be?

[Roll Roons]

Delaware: Stays at 1 seat - chance it gains 2nd seat though in which case Democrats probably do a pretty ugly map where both seats are some sort of vertical north-south strips both taking in part of New Castle County.

New Castle County has a majority of Delaware's population (57.65% as of the 2020 Census, down from 59.97% as of the 2010 Census but still likely a majority in 2030).  So both seats in a 2-seat scenario taking in part of New Castle County wouldn't be controversial.  What would evoke Republican outrage (but would likely happen, as you note) would be both districts taking in part of Kent County and possibly Sussex County as well.

The Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, the Delaware portion of which is entirely in New Castle County, divides Delaware much more evenly.  50.71% of Delaware's population lived north of that canal in the 2020 Census, but that was down from 54.13% the 2010 census so a majority of Delaware's population will likely live south of that canal by 2030 (maybe already).  Having only one district cross that canal (and having only one district cross the New Castle County - Kent County boundary) would make sense geographically, but for political reasons (especially considering what is done in many states where the other party has a majority) that would be unlikely to happen.  Of course, Delaware probably won't end up gaining a 2nd CD in the 2030 Census anyway, so this will all be moot.

By the way, I've enjoyed reading this thread and first looked at it over a week ago (when it was newer), so in case the author thought there was little interest in this, there may be more interest than was apparent based on the level of comments).

What would the hypothetical partisanship of a pure south of the canal district be?

Trump +2. Though per DRA, if you use the canal as the dividing line, the northern district would have about 7000 more people than the southern one.

[ProgressiveModerate]

New York

A lot could happen here for a variety of reasons. First, do Democrats hold the supermajority needed to truly control redistricting? Secondly, how many seats (if any) does NY lose. And finally where does that loss come from - was NYC holding up surprisingly well in the 2020 census truly a fluke or indicative of a larger resurgence? It will also be interesting to see what NYC politics looks like by 2030, albiet the city overall will still be deep blue.

My guess would be NY loses at least 1 seat. The median outcome is 2 imo; I don't think NYC was quite as much of a fluke as many seem to think; a large part of the reason NYC did better than expected was because of gentrification communities right outside Manhattan having insane growth which I expect to continue as we see a general trend of walkable downtowns seeing rapidly increasing populations and NYC being the main walkable city nationally.

I think one good thing for Dems if they control Redistricting is NY-03 and NY-04 will probably be forced to be pulled further into NYC proper making them bluer - this might also make it possible to draw a more D-friendly NY-01 without having to do a weird arm. NY-11 also probably ends up being underpopulated which would make gerrymandering it by attaching to Park Slope and Gowanus area a bit easier. As for the safe D NYC seats, I think they generally stay simillar with stuff generally being pushed northwards, unless a city seat needs to actually be cut in which case it probably comes down to VRA and incumbency. I kind of think NY-10 might be the most likely to be cut because you could give some of it's remains to help gerrymander NY-11 and make NY-07 a bit whiter in exchange for shoring up the other minority seats. I think another question is how red does South Brooklyn get and do black voters swing right - it could start becoming a bit uncomfortable to crack the conservative parts of South Brooklyn.

Upstate, I think all the big cities retain seats based around them (NY-20, NY-22, NY-25, NY-26), NY-24 is split between NY-23 and NY-21. I'd be curious if Dems try to make NY-22 bluer at the expense of NY-19 by giving NY-22 Ithaca - it might depend on in large part if NY-19 has a D-incumbent by 2030. NY-17 and NY-18 stay D-leaning and are just pushed northwards - again are Dems willing to sacrifice NY-19 to make NY-17 and NY-18 bluer?

If it's a neutral map honestly really hard to say. I might do more NY analysis later.

North Carolina

Probably gains a seat. NC Rs probably control redistricting because they only need simple legistlative majorities to pass a map and the Governor has no veto - Dems flipping the State Court by the end of the decade would require close to a clean sweep in a state that tends to have a Republican tilt.

I think throughout the decade, the current NC-01 shifts right enough to become R-leaning they might not actually have to change it much from the current map. However, both metro Charlotte and Raleigh are likely to keep up insane growth and continue to shift left, making cracking them harder. The issue is I don't think either metro will need a whole new Dem vote sink, but you'd probably want to make another vote sink somewhere. Perhaps Rs try to draw a seat that connects Chapel Hill/Durham to Dem parts of Greeneville which leaves more rurals to crack the Charlotte suburbs with and allows overpopulated NC-04 to become more based in Wake County.

Will be interesting to see if the current NC-11 gives Rs enough of a scare at any point throughout the decade they feel the need to try and cracking Asheville somehow.

North Dakota

Stays at one seat, nothing changes.



Probably loses a seat but small chance it stays at 15. Control will either be R or Commission if ballot initiative is passed.

If Rs retain control and the state stays at 15 seats I think the map stays pretty similar to what we have now; perhaps they finally just cede OH-01 and make an effort to more aggressively crack the Columbus suburbs (OH-03 is probably overpopulated in this scenario). They may also more aggressively go after OH-13, especially if Skyes continues to win. OH-09 I think stays roughly as is because Kaptur is probably going to be retiring at some point soon anyways because of old age and that config is generally shifting right - likely underpopulation will also just allow it to naturally expand and become redder. If Turner retires in OH-10, perhaps they try to shore that up.

If Rs retain control and the state loses a seat, I think what I said above still stands but it makes their job of doing an effective gerrymander a bit easier - they may also be more inclined to try and split Cinci (but I kind of doubt it). Who is cut will be the interesting question and again may depend on who's retiring.

If we have a commission, we probably finally get a true Safe D Cinci Seat, a 2nd D Columbus seat, a swingy suburban Cleveland seat, and OH-13 staying roughly as is. I don't expect a commission to try and put Toledo in a D-leaning seat via some sort of snake. This would be true regardless of if OH gains a seat or not - if OH loses a seat the suburban Cleveland seat is probably a bit redder.

Oklahoma

Probably stays at 5, with Republican control and a very very outsized chance of a commission via ballot initiative.

If Rs retain control, stays as a 5R-0D perhaps with OK-05 being further shored up by OK-03 being pulled further into OKC. It'll be interesting to see if the GOP finally wants to do crack of Tulsa as well, perhaps having OK-02 take in some of suburban Tulsa as OK-01 takes in rurals in the northeastern portion of the state.

If we get a commission, then OK-05 becomes a true swingy OKC based seat with the rest of the map staying pretty simillar.

[kwabbit]

In New York, if things continue to degrade for Democrats, they can just pack the Orthodox and Soviet parts of South Brooklyn with Staten Island. I think it might be impossible to draw a clean no Zeldin-won seats map in NYC, but it's easy to draw one where Hochul won every seat easily except a SI sink. A fair map might become worse for Dems but there's so many 90+% D areas to dilute the GOP pockets with in a gerrymander.

[kwabbit]

For NJ, the parties have been alternating getting their preferred congressional and legislative maps. In 2010, the leg map was Dem and the congressional was GOP, then in 2020 the leg map was GOP and the congressional map was Dem. That might get thrown out and the Dems will have full control though.

[Sol]

Very cool stuff!

Greeneville which leaves more rurals to crack the Charlotte suburbs with and allows overpopulated NC-04 to become more based in Wake County.

I assume you mean Greensboro; Greenville is a small city out in the eastern part of the state.

Overall I think you're basically right on about NC. The big pain point is definitely the Triangle; even now the Republicans have to concede two vote sinks there and it's booming and moving leftward sufficiently to make that hard in 2030. A snake to Greensboro makes a lot of sense; they could also link the excess to the NE or Fayetteville too. Unlike Charlotte, you can't really crack the extra Democrats in that part of the world since there's relatively few ultra-republican areas in that section of the state.

They split Asheville in the 2010 cycle fwiw. That seat is annoyingly on the edge of being competitive, but is a bit more demographically and politically stagnant so the goons in the NCGA probably don't feel the need.

What would the hypothetical partisanship of a pure south of the canal district be?

Surprisingly not as Republican as I suspected; only 50-48 Trump, though with a massive swing from 2016. You'd still have to rate it lean R.

[Atlas Force]

If Hoyer is gone and he’s succeeded by a black Dem then they probably finally make MD-05 a black-majority district.

[ProgressiveModerate]

If Hoyer is gone and he’s succeeded by a black Dem then they probably finally make MD-05 a black-majority district.

Honestly there's a good chance the current config will be quite close by 2030; it went from 38.6% to 43.3% black from 2010 to 2020 census. The district will almost certainly be plurality black by 2030 and functional.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Very cool stuff!

Greeneville which leaves more rurals to crack the Charlotte suburbs with and allows overpopulated NC-04 to become more based in Wake County.

I assume you mean Greensboro; Greenville is a small city out in the eastern part of the state.

Overall I think you're basically right on about NC. The big pain point is definitely the Triangle; even now the Republicans have to concede two vote sinks there and it's booming and moving leftward sufficiently to make that hard in 2030. A snake to Greensboro makes a lot of sense; they could also link the excess to the NE or Fayetteville too. Unlike Charlotte, you can't really crack the extra Democrats in that part of the world since there's relatively few ultra-republican areas in that section of the state.

They split Asheville in the 2010 cycle fwiw. That seat is annoyingly on the edge of being competitive, but is a bit more demographically and politically stagnant so the goons in the NCGA probably don't feel the need.

What would the hypothetical partisanship of a pure south of the canal district be?

Surprisingly not as Republican as I suspected; only 50-48 Trump, though with a massive swing from 2016. You'd still have to rate it lean R.

Yep I meant Greensboro - thanks for pointing that out.

Also I really agree with your point about the Raliegh/Durham area not really having any good red rurals nearby to crack with meaning basically all blue suburbs have to end up in a D sink unless you want to transverse nearly the entire state.

I could also see them trying to connect to Fayetteville or the blackest parts of northeastern NC to Durham in an attempt to create a "black opportunity" seat, but Greensboro-Durham by itself accomplishes that goal and isn't quite as messy.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Pennsylvania

Probably loses a seat with an outside chance of keeping all its seats. Control could realistically be D, R, or split but some form of split control is probably the most likely and Republican pretty unlikely when you consider the state supreme court is favored to retain a liberal majority by 2030.

Honestly if the state loses a seat, a fair map is probably going to suck because there are just so many communities that end up being just too big/too small for x number of seats and there's no obvious seat to cut (whereas in 2020 cutting the old PA-12 between PA-09 and PA-15 was the logical choice). SEPA (Philly + Delaware + Bucks + Montgomery + Chester) will probably have the population for ~5.5 seats, but any pairing of outer parts of Bucks/Montgomery/Chester with somewhere else will be quite awkward. Also the Pittsburg area - a bit awkward to split between 2 seats but too big for just 1. And so on so forth.

If PA somehow retains all its seats a fair map actually works pretty nicely because the seats likely to be overpopulated (PA-04, PA-06, PA-10, PA-17) are the ones that could shed a little bit.

If Dems have control of the pen, they probably try to balance partisanship between the current PA-12 and PA-17 in the Pittsburg area, shore up the 6 Philadelphia area seats, make the bluest config possible of PA-10 possibly by connecting Harrisburg to Lancaster. The big question is would they try to keep both PA-07 and PA-08 or just make 1 D seat between them? This probably depends on if both seats still have D incumbents by 2030, general partisan shifts, and if PA loses a seat/how underpopulated they are.

If Rs have the pen, I think they reduce Dems to just 4 Philly area seats plus a swingy Bucks County seat (There's not a realistic way to put most of Bucks County into an R leaning seat, but if Fitzpatrick stays around he'd probably be able to continue to hold down something akin to the current seat). They also cede 1 Dem seat in Pittsburg. Outside that though, they make all of the 10 or 11 seats Republican leaning by cracking Harrisburg, letting PA-08 and PA-07 take in redder rurals, ect.

Rhode Island

Probably loses it's seat but if RI-02 somehow survives again we probably get something similar to the current map.

South Carolina

Probably stays at 7 but could gain an 8th with Republicans retaining control. Even if VRA is gutted, a SC-06 style Dem pack will stay in some form. The more interesting thing will be what happens to SC-01 especially if the Charleston area begins to shift left. The issue with SC-01 is it's pretty "trapped" and so hard to actually make pretty red - most stuff further inland is swingy and going north to Myrtle beach then forces the Beaufort area to be paired with something else which causes a cascade of other problems. Perhaps Republicans just draw the reddest reasonable config of SC-01 but still leaving it as somewhat competitive.

If SC gains another seat, I think Republicans will basically be forced to cede at least half a seat to Dems (making a swing seat) - creating a 7R-1D map is very difficult for geographic reasons.

I think one thing that's worth considering is that SC-03 is really the only current R seat that can afford to become significantly less red (perhaps SC-07 by the end of the decade too if Myrtle Beach continues to grow), but SC-01, SC-02, and SC-04 all seem like seats Rs will want to shore up.

One thing I'm sure of is a 7-0 or 8-0 map is not happening.

South Dakota

Stays at 1 seat

Tennessee

Will stay at 9 or gain a 10th seat with Republicans having control. It's honestly probably favored to gain a 10th seat, and if it does I think they might just cede it as a Nashville sink, especially if the Nashville area continues to shift left and have pretty insane growth. TN-09 almost certainly stays as well, even if VRA is gutted because Memphis is just too blue to crack, especially because it's trapped in the corner of the state. Only if VRA is gutted and Dems truly have a massive collapse with black voters would a TN-09 crack even be considered.

If TN stays at 9 seats I honestly think Republicans would try to shore up their current gerrymander without ceding a new Dem sink in Nashville - it would be really ugly though. The reason I think this is because creating a sink without gaining a seat means outright flipping a current R seat to be D leaning which is just not something I see being a popular idea in TN Republican circles, especially if it forces two Rs to double-bunk.

[Atlas Force]

We'll also have to see how Detroit's black population holds up, but there's a chance they may try to consolidate the black population to one district.

Also what happens with the Arab communities in the area? Do Dearborn and Hamtramck get put in the same district? (currently they are not) Maybe they draw an Arab-opportunity district that basically replaces the second black district.