Dave's Redistricting App

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Another in the Jim Crow series, Louisiana this time:



Nice, clean lines, huh? Teal district is 35% AA, purple and yellow are 34%, blue is 32%, green is 28%, and red is 24%.

[Padfoot]

Given the results of the 2008 election I wonder if VRA districts are really even necessary in some parts of the country.  I'd wager that in most places a minority candidate wouldn't have too much trouble getting elected in a 35% minority district.  If the minority votes as a bloc for their candidate it would take less than 25% of the white vote to reach 50%.  I honestly think we've reached a point where VRA districts don't really need to be majority-minority districts anymore.  Perhaps 35% is a little optimistic but I think we could realistically move the "requirement" from 50% to 40% and there would be no decrease in the number of minority Congresspeople.  In fact, I would be slightly surprised if there wasn't an increased number of minorities in Congress if states were permitted to draw their districts that way.  Instead of packing all the minorities into one district they could be spread a little thinner giving them more opportunities for success.

[Verily]

Given the results of the 2008 election I wonder if VRA districts are really even necessary in some parts of the country.  I'd wager that in most places a minority candidate wouldn't have too much trouble getting elected in a 35% minority district.  If the minority votes as a bloc for their candidate it would take less than 25% of the white vote to reach 50%.  I honestly think we've reached a point where VRA districts don't really need to be majority-minority districts anymore.  Perhaps 35% is a little optimistic but I think we could realistically move the "requirement" from 50% to 40% and there would be no decrease in the number of minority Congresspeople.  In fact, I would be slightly surprised if there wasn't an increased number of minorities in Congress if states were permitted to draw their districts that way.  Instead of packing all the minorities into one district they could be spread a little thinner giving them more opportunities for success.

But it would decrease the level to which such seats are fiefdoms, and you can bet the CBC would oppose it tooth and nail.

[muon2]

Given the results of the 2008 election I wonder if VRA districts are really even necessary in some parts of the country.  I'd wager that in most places a minority candidate wouldn't have too much trouble getting elected in a 35% minority district.  If the minority votes as a bloc for their candidate it would take less than 25% of the white vote to reach 50%.  I honestly think we've reached a point where VRA districts don't really need to be majority-minority districts anymore.  Perhaps 35% is a little optimistic but I think we could realistically move the "requirement" from 50% to 40% and there would be no decrease in the number of minority Congresspeople.  In fact, I would be slightly surprised if there wasn't an increased number of minorities in Congress if states were permitted to draw their districts that way.  Instead of packing all the minorities into one district they could be spread a little thinner giving them more opportunities for success.

That may be true but the SCOTUS ruled otherwise this spring in Bartlett v Strickland. There's no obligation to protect districts with less than 50% of a minority group within. If there is 50% or more available the need to protect them is subject to the Gingles test. The test is such that most states will assume that the test applies and create districts that will pass the VRA with that test. With the Bartlett decision, that will mean 50% or more in a district.

The maps I created for IL, AL, and MS on this thread have all been consistent with my understanding of the VRA since Bartlett.

[Padfoot]

Given the results of the 2008 election I wonder if VRA districts are really even necessary in some parts of the country.  I'd wager that in most places a minority candidate wouldn't have too much trouble getting elected in a 35% minority district.  If the minority votes as a bloc for their candidate it would take less than 25% of the white vote to reach 50%.  I honestly think we've reached a point where VRA districts don't really need to be majority-minority districts anymore.  Perhaps 35% is a little optimistic but I think we could realistically move the "requirement" from 50% to 40% and there would be no decrease in the number of minority Congresspeople.  In fact, I would be slightly surprised if there wasn't an increased number of minorities in Congress if states were permitted to draw their districts that way.  Instead of packing all the minorities into one district they could be spread a little thinner giving them more opportunities for success.

That may be true but the SCOTUS ruled otherwise this spring in Bartlett v Strickland. There's no obligation to protect districts with less than 50% of a minority group within. If there is 50% or more available the need to protect them is subject to the Gingles test. The test is such that most states will assume that the test applies and create districts that will pass the VRA with that test. With the Bartlett decision, that will mean 50% or more in a district.

The maps I created for IL, AL, and MS on this thread have all been consistent with my understanding of the VRA since Bartlett.

Although I see how these rules were necessary historically, it is unfortunate that they are still being enforced in the same ways today.  I can't see any kind of reform making it through Congress in the near-term though.  Perhaps another 50 years and a few more minority presidents, senators, and governors and people will finally be able to admit that the VRA is outdated.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Illinois with 18 districts:



Click to embiggen.

IL-01 (dark blue, Bobby Rush - D) - Extends southwest to Will County, but remains majority-black, if only just barely (52%).
IL-02 (dark green, Jesse Jackson Jr. - D) - Same as IL-01, except it takes in more of Will County and is 53% black.
IL-03 (dark purple, Dan Lipinski - D and Judy Biggert - R) - Extends into the DuPage County suburbs, taking in Judy Biggert's home. The population is still centered in Cook County, so Lipinski should be safe, but it's a more appropriate district for his moderate views.
IL-04 (dark red, Luis Gutierrez - D) - Somewhat of a gerrymander still, but much less so than before. I hope Gutierrez doesn't live in the old northern part of the district. 70% Hispanic.
IL-05 (yellow, Michael Quigley - D) - Didn't change this one much. It's only 54% white.
IL-06 (teal, Pete Roskam - R) - Now stretches up from DuPage around to take in some Republican parts of northern Cook and Lake Counties. Probably somewhat more Republican now.
IL-07 (grey, Danny Davis - D) - I had a hell of a time getting three black-majority districts out of Illinois. This one is 52% black. I think we'll be seeing the loss of one of the black-majority districts and gaining another Hispanic-majority district in Illinois either in 2010 or 2020.
IL-08 (light purple, Melissa Bean - D) - Reconfigured the district to drop McHenry and add more of northwestern Cook County. Should be more Democratic.
IL-09 (very light blue, Jan Schakowsky - D) - Pretty unchanged, solidly Dem district.
IL-10 (magenta, Mark Kirk - R) - Pretty much unchanged, so it should still be a Democratic district. If only a Democrat can win it in 2010.
IL-11 (very light green, Will County-based district, Debbie Halvorson - D) - Shrunk this district to just Will and Kendall Counties. Should be easy for Halvorson to hold.
IL-12 (very light purple in the southwest, Jerry Costello - D) - More or less unchanged, added some swing counties in the north of the district and dropped some Republican parts in the southeast.
IL-13 (pink, John Shimkus - R) - Formerly the 19th district, pretty much all Republican territory in the south of the state.
IL-14 (brown, Bill Foster - D) - Replacing the phallic old district, IL-14 now stretches from Foster's home base of Aurora/Batavia, through DuPage and up to Rockford. Should be more Democratic now.
IL-15 (orange, Timothy Johnson - R) - Created a slightly Republican-leaning district that should be competitive in an open seat, but Johnson probably wouldn't break a sweat holding.
IL-16 (light green district in the northwest corner, Don Manzullo - R) - Takes in all the swingy and Republican territory in the northwest, should be safe for Manzullo.
IL-17 (purple district with spidery tendrils, Phil Hare - D) - Still a gerrymander but much less ridiculous; shouldn't change the partisan composition much.
IL-18 (yellow, Aaron Schock - R) - Takes in all the Republican territory in the middle of the state. Safe Republican.

[muon2]

Illinois with 18 districts:



Click to embiggen.

IL-01 (dark blue, Bobby Rush - D) - Extends southwest to Will County, but remains majority-black, if only just barely (52%).
IL-02 (dark green, Jesse Jackson Jr. - D) - Same as IL-01, except it takes in more of Will County and is 53% black.
IL-03 (dark purple, Dan Lipinski - D and Judy Biggert - R) - Extends into the DuPage County suburbs, taking in Judy Biggert's home. The population is still centered in Cook County, so Lipinski should be safe, but it's a more appropriate district for his moderate views.
IL-04 (dark red, Luis Gutierrez - D) - Somewhat of a gerrymander still, but much less so than before. I hope Gutierrez doesn't live in the old northern part of the district. 70% Hispanic.
IL-05 (yellow, Michael Quigley - D) - Didn't change this one much. It's only 54% white.
IL-06 (teal, Pete Roskam - R) - Now stretches up from DuPage around to take in some Republican parts of northern Cook and Lake Counties. Probably somewhat more Republican now.
IL-07 (grey, Danny Davis - D) - I had a hell of a time getting three black-majority districts out of Illinois. This one is 52% black. I think we'll be seeing the loss of one of the black-majority districts and gaining another Hispanic-majority district in Illinois either in 2010 or 2020.
IL-08 (light purple, Melissa Bean - D) - Reconfigured the district to drop McHenry and add more of northwestern Cook County. Should be more Democratic.
IL-09 (very light blue, Jan Schakowsky - D) - Pretty unchanged, solidly Dem district.
IL-10 (magenta, Mark Kirk - R) - Pretty much unchanged, so it should still be a Democratic district. If only a Democrat can win it in 2010.
IL-11 (very light green, Will County-based district, Debbie Halvorson - D) - Shrunk this district to just Will and Kendall Counties. Should be easy for Halvorson to hold.
IL-12 (very light purple in the southwest, Jerry Costello - D) - More or less unchanged, added some swing counties in the north of the district and dropped some Republican parts in the southeast.
IL-13 (pink, John Shimkus - R) - Formerly the 19th district, pretty much all Republican territory in the south of the state.
IL-14 (brown, Bill Foster - D) - Replacing the phallic old district, IL-14 now stretches from Foster's home base of Aurora/Batavia, through DuPage and up to Rockford. Should be more Democratic now.
IL-15 (orange, Timothy Johnson - R) - Created a slightly Republican-leaning district that should be competitive in an open seat, but Johnson probably wouldn't break a sweat holding.
IL-16 (light green district in the northwest corner, Don Manzullo - R) - Takes in all the swingy and Republican territory in the northwest, should be safe for Manzullo.
IL-17 (purple district with spidery tendrils, Phil Hare - D) - Still a gerrymander but much less ridiculous; shouldn't change the partisan composition much.
IL-18 (yellow, Aaron Schock - R) - Takes in all the Republican territory in the middle of the state. Safe Republican.

How does it survive a court challenge? The map fails to create a second majority-Hispanic district in Chicago/Cook yet there are demonstrably enough Hispanic adults in close proximity to justify the creation of one under section 2 of the VRA.

I point this out because this is what puts the squeeze on CD-3 and 5. I'm curious to see your Dem gerrymander to protect those D-incumbents yet comply with the VRA. I went for compactness in my map below and didn't look at incumbent protection, but you could take it a different direction.

[Verily]

Quigley's district could be made Hispanic-majority with just a little bit of fiddling along the border with Gutierrez's district.

[muon2]

Quigley's district could be made Hispanic-majority with just a little bit of fiddling along the border with Gutierrez's district.

When I looked at it it took more than a little fiddling. As JL points out it's hard balancing 3 black and 2 hispanic districts. I agree that IL-5 becomes the second majority-hispanic district, but it probably needs that entire northern lobe of IL-4 to do it. That pushes IL-4 into IL-3 which is why I talked about a squeeze there.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

I just tried to play around with the borders of my map, and I managed to get Quigley's district up to 44% Hispanic before I gave up, because there's nowhere else I could take territory from except for IL-7, which would have ended up going under 50% black. So while it's possible to make another Hispanic-majority district, it's still difficult, and I doubt they'd enforce VRA in this case.

[muon2]

I just tried to play around with the borders of my map, and I managed to get Quigley's district up to 44% Hispanic before I gave up, because there's nowhere else I could take territory from except for IL-7, which would have ended up going under 50% black. So while it's possible to make another Hispanic-majority district, it's still difficult, and I doubt they'd enforce VRA in this case.

That's why I added my map - to show that it was possible without extreme gerrymandering. If a map is presented that does not create the five minority districts, there would be a court challenge. I can't find an argument that a federal judge would support allowing only four minority-majority districts.

I solved the IL-7 problem by taking it out to the western edge of Cook where there is a significant black population in Proviso township. But it looks like you use parts of Proviso to keep IL-3 sufficiently Democratic, and use the rest to keep IL-5 from moving to the north. I think the Dems have a real challenge to protect IL-3, since I think the VRA section 2 argument for IL-4 and 5 will be hard to overcome.

[nclib]

Does anyone want to take a stab at making a McCain district in New England or a white-majority Obama district in the Deep South.

[Brittain33]

Does anyone want to take a stab at making a McCain district in New England or a white-majority Obama district in the Deep South.

It might be possible in N.H. if you can draw a district linking the seacoast towns to the Connecticut River Valley via a very thin line up the Maine border and over Coos County. What's left in the middle and along the Mass. border could be a McCain district.

In Connecticut it's certainly impossible, and it's almost certainly impossible in Massachusetts.

[muon2]

In response to the Jim Crow series, here's an anti-Jim Crow map for SC. It uses the 2008 data to create 7 CDs since SC may gain one. All seven districts are within 100 of the ideal population. Both CD-6 (teal) and CD-7 (grey) have just over 50% black population.

[Joe Cooper]

Does someone have a special map for Joe Wilson in South Carolina?

[Verily]

Georgia has been on the app for a while, but it didn't have up-to-date population data available until some time recently. Without further ado, Georgia with 14 districts:



GA-01: Loses its remaining urban areas for more white rural areas. Ultra-Republican although historically Democratic.
GA-02: This district is more black than previously due to population changes, rising to 46% black (and 47% white). Therefore considerably more Democratic.
GA-03: Outer Atlanta suburbs to the west and rural western Georgia, safe Republican
GA-04: Remains just over 50% black, loses a lot of territory but expands into increasingly black areas of Gwinnett
GA-05: No longer black-majority despite containing the city of Atlanta, although still black plurality (this is combated below, when GA-13 rises to majority black and the new GA-14 is majority black). Takes in the most liberal whites in the state anyway, easily safely Democratic
GA-06: Atlanta suburbs to the north, very safe Republican
GA-07: Rearranges somewhat, now outer Atlanta suburbs to the south and east as well as rural white areas between Atlanta and the Black Belt. Safely Republican.
GA-08: Up to 37% black from 32.6% black, this district loses its extension to the Atlanta exurbs but gains Athens and some eastern Black Belt counties, making it more Democratic but still around R+4 at least (Edit: Actually, just did the calcs, and this district voted 51.16% for Obama, making it only about R+2. Not bad.)
GA-09: Contracts into the northeastern Atlanta suburbs, very safely Republican
GA-10: Loses Athens for more of rural northern Georgia, very Republican
GA-11: Shifts northward to get Dalton but mostly the same, northeastern exurban Atlanta and rural northeastern Georgia
GA-12: Gains the rest of Augusta and Savannah as well as Hinesville, loses some rural white areas (as well as couple of rural black areas), overall more Democratic than previous and moderately safe
GA-13: Shifts eastward to take in the expanding black population in the southern and southeastern Atlanta exurbs, now majority black at 51%
GA-14: A new district containing the black areas southwest and west of Atlanta, majority black at 50%

There's a bug with the voting districts in Cobb County, but GA-14 is definitely contiguous.

[RBH]

here's my ultra-VRA Mississippi map

MS-1: 73/22 white
MS-2: 72/24 black
MS-3: 66/28 white
MS-4: 70/23 white

[RBH]

Ultra-VRA Alabama




AL1 (pop 665985): 76/18 white
AL2 (pop 665935): 69/25 white
AL3 (pop 665972): 76/18 white
AL4 (pop 666057): 86/6 white
AL5 (pop 665961): 75/18 white
AL6 (pop 665796): 77/16 white
AL7 (pop 666194): 79/17 black

[muon2]

Ultra-VRA Alabama




AL1 (pop 665985): 76/18 white
AL2 (pop 665935): 69/25 white
AL3 (pop 665972): 76/18 white
AL4 (pop 666057): 86/6 white
AL5 (pop 665961): 75/18 white
AL6 (pop 665796): 77/16 white
AL7 (pop 666194): 79/17 black

Actually this is anti-VRA since it maximizes packing into 1 majority black district. Packing is generally disallowed when it prevents multiple minority districts from forming. Both Johnny Longtorso and I have versions with 2 majority black districts, and they presumably would have precedence under the VRA.

If you were to reduce the blue district to 51%-52% African-American, how might that tidy up the lines? Not that it isn't an impressively acceptable gerrymander as it is... Is there any way to trade the SE corner to that district so the yellow district doesn't extend that far south?

It's possible, but unfortunately my map didn't save in the app so I don't have it available to play around with.

My guess is that it would be hard to move the SE corner since Houston County is roughly 100 K. You would have to see what that does to your CD 2 percentages.

I took a look at the AL map on the App, and found a way to solve the SE corner issue, keep both black-majority CDs, and minimize county splits to make nicer district lines. All districts are within 200 persons of the ideal size. The Birmingham district is 57% black and the Montgomery-Mobile district is 52% black. CD 1 connects western Mobile County to the rest of the district through Dauphin Island and the ferry to Fort Morgan in Baldwin County.

[Bacon King]

Ultra-racial gerrymander of Georgia, using 2000 numbers.

Most districts are 60% white, a couple are 58% white. Nothing less than that. The peach one at the top is like 75%.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is just formidable. The man who invented this deserves a Nobel Prize.

[Hash]

This is just formidable. The man who invented this deserves a Nobel Prize.

He'd probably deserve it more than a lot of past recipients.

[Antonio the Sixth]

But why doesn't it save me the files when I ask it ?

[Joe Cooper]

I used a tool called "snipping tool" it to save the image in jpg.

Bring up in Paint, and I could write the district number on the image.

I tried to paste a printed number, but could not, so the district number was done freehand

Microsoft.

[muon2]

But why doesn't it save me the files when I ask it ?

Saving the files is not as straightforward as one would like. The saved files are not jpg and they are in an obscure directory. I followed the help info given by the app which includes the location of the files, and then I used the map2jpg tool to make the images.