Tag: Redistricting

(From the diaries – promoted by DavidNYC)

This redistricting map has really been a long time coming, but trying to match up the 36,000 census blocks of NYC and the 20,000 blocks of Nassau County (among many, many others) with a precinct and creating a consolidated population-political data file tends to take a while. But unquestionably, I also think this is my best map yet. I used 2008 population estimates by city/town, projected forward to 2010. I also worked painstakingly hard for population equality, which I think is evident in that the total deviation for all 28 districts is 86, or 0.012% of a single district.

At a whopping 26-3, our NY delegation is already pretty maxed out. With the loss of a district in 2010, there’s a good opportunity to consolidate and create what could possibly be a 27-1 delegation. I chose to do this by eliminating John McHugh’s district and then employing some old-fashioned cracking of Nassau County to defeat Peter King. Side goals included strengthening Massa, Arcuri, Murphy, Hall, and McMahon, while preserving VRA districts for Meeks, Towns, Clarke, Velazquez, Rangel, and Serrano.

My district maps later. First, some eye candy:

I’m sure there’s enough in these maps to make for its own diary, but that’s for another time….

(Sidenote: Yes, I am sending my dataset to Dave and David, so hopefully this can be incorporated into DRA. I do have a ‘tutorial’ on how I do my redistricting where I used Wisconsin as an example that I will hopefully post shortly.)

Now, here’s my map:

Starting upstate:

As is the case with a lot of my districts, I took some inspiration from the districts of yesteryear (or… 1993-2003). This would still be Louise Slaughter’s district, recentered around Monroe County (with an arm to grab Geneseo out of Livingston County). The percentage drop seems daunting at first (down from 68.47%), and there’s not a good reason for Buffalo and Rochester to be packed into the same district. Anyways, Slaughter is familiar with the area and would be solid for any Rochester Democrat should Slaughter choose to retire.

I think a lot of times, we overestimate the Democratic strength of Brian Higgins’ district – he was only elected in 2004, and Obama only scored 54.19% here. I’ll admit, I shuffled around this district quite a bit, with it going from Buffalo north instead of south. We add all of Niagara and Orleans Counties, with a sliver of Monroe for population balancing, but we do retain all of Buffalo’s South District, which Higgins represented in the Buffalo Common Council before getting elected to Congress. From this we get slightly more than a 3% boost to 57.52%; this should be safe for a long time to come.

Granted, I shifted around Massa’s district quite a bit too, with it now going to Buffalo instead of Rochester. I did this in the interest of centering the 28th in Monroe County and leaving room for the sprawling 23rd. However, I think it retains its Southern Tier character (roughly 40%). The nastier bits of Steuben and Allegany counties are carved out. The Democratic boost from the remaining parts of Buffalo doesn’t hurt either, leaving this district 5 points better at 53.52%.

This district doesn’t substantially differ from Maffei’s current version, though I do take out a chunk of southern Onondaga county to make room for the 24th to pass through. Since we’re dismantling the current 23rd, the section of Oswego County begins to pick up some of the pieces. Still centered on Syracuse and DeWitt, this district has a marginal improvement of 0.2%, leaving it still a touch short of 56% Obama.

Tompkins County saved Arcuri from defeat in 2008, and this district helps on that front. It now incorporates all of Tompkins. Arcuri’s base in Utica remains as well, though the rest of Oneida County is surprisingly hostile to Democrats. Eastern Oswego and western Jefferson Counties are added, again to compensate for the elimination of the current 23rd. Overall, this district improves modestly to 52.08% from 50.33%. Obama only narrowly lost the district outside of Tompkins, but Ithaca is really what anchors the district.

I’ll be the first to say it, this district is pretty disgustingly drawn. Communities of interest went flying out the window – the only thing the parts of this district have in common are their Republican political dispositions. We go from the Buffalo suburbs (Clarence, Lancaster), across Western New York and the Southern Tier to near Binghamton, through to the Capital District (Schenectady, Saratoga) and also north to the Adirondacks and even parts of Rome. The 24th and its misshapen bird form was bad, but I really challenge you to tell me what the 23rd looks like.

With Ithaca out of the picture shoring up the 24th, and with the 23rd cutting off any access route, I had to scrounge for Democratic votes to keep Hinchey at a comparable level. We get a vaguely frog-like district (facing east), in my opinion. One leg is for Binghamton, another for the less-Republican areas not in the 23rd and for population balance. Retained is Hinchey’s base in Ulster and Sullivan counties, with arms for Newburgh and Middletown in Orange County. Also of note is the string along the Hudson in Dutchess County, from Red Hook through Poughkeepsie down to Beacon. The lack of Ithaca still shows, but with some effort, there’s only a 0.7% drop.

With problematic Schoharie County out of the way, Tonko’s 21st can look to some greener (bluer?) pastures. Mostly, this is just some housekeeping down in Otsego, Delaware, and Greene counties. Tonko’s residence in Amsterdam stays in, as well as the entirety of Albany County, and Rensselaer and Troy. The net is a very marginal (less than 0.1%) improvement.

You look at this district and you ask, can this really be called Scott Murphy’s and not Dede Scozzafava’s district? I say yes for two reasons. First, Murphy lives in the northern part of the current 20th, which is also included here. Second, slightly more than half the population is from the current 20th, including Saratoga Springs. Tedisco did quite well in Saratoga, but the more Republican parts are stripped out for the 23rd. For our efforts, we’re rewarded with a 2.5% boost to 53.2% from 50.7%.

We’re getting into Westchester now, so I’m guessing you’ll want a more detailed map:

John Hall’s district also gets quite the makeover. However, it retains Hall’s residence in Dover Plains and most of Dutchess County, as well as the Democratic-leaning parts of Putnam and Cortlandt/Peekskill in Westchester. There’s also an arm into Rockland, nabbing the heavily Democratic parts of Ramapo town. Notable removals include the heavily Republican towns of Monroe in Orange County (including Kiryas Joel village) and Carmel in Putnam County. In order to accomodate the 22nd, the 19th doesn’t get as much of a boost, only to 52.3%, up 1.6%.

To help Hall, Nita Lowey’s district picks up the eastern half of Putnam County. With Hall’s district shifted northward, most of Westchester gets put here, all the way from Somers to White Plains to New Rochelle and the Bronx line, with a nice arm into Yonkers to hold the Democratic percentage up. There’s still a 2.5% drop though, thanks to Carmel. Not that Lowey has to worry.

Finally, we’ve broken the city barrier. But first, the district takes in a lot of Rockland and Orange counties that didn’t get lumped into the 19th. There are some pretty Republican (or at least anti-Obama) pockets in the towns of Monroe and Ramapo – most likely owing to the Orthodox Jewish communities in Kiryas Joel, Monsey, and Viola. I do think there’s a good chance they’d vote for Engel, though. In Westchester, I kept the riverside villages of Hastings-on-Hudson, Dobbs Ferry, and Irvington whole (though the district still jumps the Tappan Zee). Yonkers and Mount Vernon are still here, as well as Wakefield and Woodlawn in the Bronx. Engel still lives here, though the district is less Bronx-centric (and yes, 10% less Democratic at 62.0%) than before.

Now that we’re in the city, here’s a map of the city districts.

She’s still Jenny from the Block, and this is pretty much the old 16th district centered on SoBro the South Bronx. More than 95% of the new and old 16ths overlap, and the result shows at 95% Obama. From Mott Haven through to Fordham, this district remains heavily Hispanic at 63.04%.

I’m not sure when the tradition of putting Rikers into the 15th was started, but it’s been that way since at least 1993, and I’ve kept it that way. Again, the vast majority of the district is the same, from Inwood to Washington Heights to Harlem, Spanish Harlem, and Morningside Heights. I tried for clean lines in the city: the border with the 14th remains straight on 96th street. The west side is a bit harder for population balancing. Still ridonkulously Democratic, giving the 16th a run for its money. (Note how Obama got 97.26% in the 70th Assembly District. That’s… almost Detroit-level.) Still plurality-Hispanic.

Again, not much different here either. Maloney keeps all of Central Park and the East Side of Manhattan through to Houston Street. Again, I tried for clean lines, with Central Park West/8th Ave., then 7th Ave. (with a bump-out in Midtown to balance population). On the Queens side, still essentially the same areas of Astoria and Ravenswood, though Long Island City/Hunters Point is shifted to the 12th. Again no news here, just a slight bump up from 78.2%.

McMahon keeps his Staten Island-centric district. I tried to make the Brooklyn parts as Democratic as possible, losing Dyker Heights, Bensonhurst, and Gravesend in favor of Democratic Coney Island. A 2.4% boost to 51.2% results, though I don’t think McMahon was really in any danger.

Really, nothing new here either, except we’ve shifted it from plurality to majority Hispanic. Same neighborhoods, from Sunset Park to Red Hook, Loisaida, Greenpoint, and Bushwick. A notable shift is that Chinatown is removed and Williamsburg is added, dropping Obama’s performance by 1% (to a still-astronomical 85%).

Not much new here either, still a central-Brooklyn based district for Yvette Clarke centered in Flatbush, Prospect Park, Park Slope, and Crown Heights. The district does move farther south into Ocean Parkway though, mostly to relieve stress on the 9th. Still majority-Black, though the southward shift lowers the Democratic percentage by 2 points.

Same story for Ed Towns, with an arcing district from Brooklyn Heights to Bed-Stuy, East New York, and south to Canarsie. Again a slight southward expansion to boost the 9th. Still majority Black, a slight drop to 88% Obama (oh the humanity).

Weiner was never in any danger, really, but it was just odd to have an only 55% Obama district in the city. (IMO, Staten Island doesn’t count.) The district becomes more Queens-centric, while retaining Weiner’s home in Forest Hills, as well as taking in Middle Village, Maspeth, Kew Gardens, parts of Ridgewood, and Ozone Park. Same deal in Brooklyn, keeping Gerritsen, Sheepshead Bay, and Brighton Beach. It does lose parts of Ocean Parkway and Borough Park, picking up slightly-less Republican Gravesend. The boost helps, bringing this to 59% Obama, up roughly 5%.

Nadler’s district, again, is mostly unchanged. Upper West Side, Chelsea, Greenwich Village, TriBeCa, SoHo, the FiDi, etc stay in the Manhattan parts. In Brooklyn, there’s Borough Park and Dyker Heights. Obama only scored 38% in the Brooklyn section. This is countered by the 84.8% Manhattan section, averaging out to 73.9% Obama (+0.2%).

Most of the creative districting in the city came in Queens, I think, and the 7th is a good example. The Bronx portion doesn’t change too much, except it stretches to the Hudson now that the 17th is more suburban. Otherwise, Co-op City, Pelham Bay, Soundview, and Parkchester stay in, jumping Long Island Sound at Throgs Neck. It takes in more suburban areas of Queens than before, including Whitestone and Beechhurst. Crowley does live in Woodside, but there’s an arm for that.

Gregory Meeks’ district gets quite the change as well, and becomes the first of three Nassau-Queens hybrid districts. The district remains centered on East Queens, though, from Jamaica and Ozone Park east to the Nassau line. In Nassau, we try to grab the most Republican parts in southwestern Hempstead, including Woodmere and Lawrence. Also of note is the shift of the entire Rockaway Peninsula (the western part of which is quite Republican) to the district. Broad Channel is also no longer split in two. Amazingly, the district is still majority-Black (just barely at 50.16% non-Hispanic-or-Latino Black). The Nassau parts do bring down the Democratic percentage 9.5% to 79.5%.

This district is pretty hideous, too. With a lot of suburban Queens in the 7th, the 5th can pick up more of the more-Democratic inner neighborhoods of Queens. So, we get a district that stretches from Elmhurst and Jackson Heights to Huntington. Again, harking back to the olden days, the district grabs out some choice precincts in Suffolk County, relieving pressure on the 1st and 2nd. In Nassau, it keeps Great Neck and Port Washington, but also adds Old Westbury, Syosset, and Glen Cove. In Suffolk, we avoid Huntington (the hamlet), since Steve Israel lives there, but we do get Cold Spring Harbor and Fort Salonga, all the way to the Huntingtown-Smithtown line. All this results in a 2% drop to 61.2% Obama, buoyed by the 74% Democratic section of Queens. Regardless, Ackerman will be fine.

Here’s the third of the Queens-Nassau districts. The current 4th gets its Democratic strength from Uniondale and Hempstead, but those would fit well in a newly Democratic 3rd district. Thus, two prongs into Queens, one into Briarwood and one into Flushing, which meet in Briarwood. In Nassau, this district includes closer-in Democratic areas like Elmont and Valley Stream balanced by swing areas like Mineola and extremely Republican Garden City. In total, the Queens section again anchors the district, leaving it at 58.2% Democratic, up 0.2%.

My favorite district, really. You might look at the map and say… is that really an improvement? Yes, Massapequa, Bethpage, and Levittown are still here, as Amityville, Copaigue, and West Islip. However, in picking up Uniondale, Hempstead, and Freeport in the Town of Hempstead, and parts of Syosset, Jericho, and Plainview, the Democratic performance improves quite a bit. It would have been higher had I not included the South Shore in Suffolk County and instead grabbed Plainview, but I wanted to hold the 2nd constant. All in all, up 6.6% to 54.0% Democratic. Perfect for someone like Dave Mejias who can keep the margins in Massapequa down.

Steve Israel’s district is mostly unchanged, still centered on the towns of Huntington, Islip, and Babylon, including Melville, Dix Hills, and Ronkonkoma. It also takes in a small section of Nassau (parts of Woodbury, Plainview, and Old Bethpage), keeping the Democratic performance up. Instead of Republican Smithtown, the district takes out Patchogue, Holtsville, and Farmingville from the town of Crookhaven. Democratic performance is essentially unchanged from 56.13%.

Lastly, we arrive at the 1st district, again, mostly unchanged. It contains the Hamptons, Southold, Riverhead, all of Smithtown, and most of Brookhaven. Obama’s performance is up just a tad to 51.52%.

And there we have it, my 27-1 plan for New York. Comments and questions (and witty remarks!) welcome, as always. (That tutorial is coming up, I promise!)

Virginia offers one of the most intriguing opportunities for redistricting after the 2010 census. The current map is based off of a Republican gerrymander, initiated after Republicans took firm control of both the House or Delegates and State Senate ahead of the 2001 redistricting. Thus Democrats stand to gain even under a bi-partisan or non-partisan scheme. Currently a numberof schemes are possible depending on the outcome of the 2009 state elections. Below I outline the likelihood of each scenario and an example of a redistricting scheme that could result from such a scenario.

NOTE: Current map can be accessed here: http://www.iqrealestate.com/Co…

Scenario 1. Bi-partisan or non-partisan redistricting

This is far and away the most likely outcome. Currently Democrats control the State Senate by a slim 21-19 margin. This control will prevent Republicans from enacting a gerrymandered scheme as long as Democrats do no suffer any mid-term retirements (an unlikely though not impossible sceneario as will be discussed in scenario 3). In addition, the political winds seem to be blowing against the Democrats in Virginia this year, so it seems almost equally unlikely that Democrats will gain control of both the governership and House of Delegates in 2009 and be able to enact a Democratic gerrymander. Therefore, the most likely outcome is that redistricting will occur either through a bi-partisan negotiating process, or a non-partisan panel (both have been discussed). Although there would be minor differences between the two outcomes, the sample map below is a good example of what either might look like since it both protects endangered incumbents and keeps similar “communities of interest” together. This sample map would likely maintain the current 6-5 Dem majority but could easliy support anything from a 7-4 Dem Majority to a 7-4 Rep majority in the long run

CD #1 (Dark blue) – This largely resembles the current incarnation of the district. It should be marginally more Republican as it’s lost majority-minority areas in Prince William County and Hampton Roads in exchange for more conservative areas of Fauquier County, Prince William, and the Northern Neck.

CD #2 (Green) – The GOP was too clever by half in it’s 2001 redistricting scheme. Because of demographic and political changes both district 2 and district 4 became politically competitve and were won by Obama in the 2008 election. The 2nd seeks a compromise by making the 2nd more dem friendly for Glenn Nye in exchange for making the 4th a strong Republican district to protect Randy Forbes. Under this map, majority African American areas of Chesapeake previous in the 4th have been given to the 2nd in exchange for extremely conservative areas of coastal Virginia Beach. (Also note that Rep-leaning areas of Hampton have been ceeded to the 1st).

CD #3 (Purple)- Bobby Scott’s district needed to expand as it primarily consists of urban African-American sections of Richmond and Hampton Roads that have not kept pace with the state’s population growth over the last 10 years. As part of the compromise to strenghten the 2nd while weakening the 4th, the 3rd takes overwhelming African-American Petersburg from Forbes’s district while leaving Nye with many majority African-American areas in Hampton Roads.

CD #4 (red)- See above for most changes. In addittion, Forbes’s district gaines almost all of heavily Republican Chesterfield county.

CD #5 (yellow)- Tom Periello’s district is currently quite precarious and will probably stay that way under any bi-partisan compromise. Unfortunately there’s no way to make the district radically stronger without serious gerrymandering (which will not be possible under a bi-partisan compromise) due to the lack of other strong Democratic areas in the vicinity of Charlottesville. However, the district should become marginally more friendly as it has not kept up with the states population growth over the past 10 years and therefore gains the swingy locality of Lynchburg.

CD #6 (teal)- Becomes even more strongly Rep-leaning as Republicans compromise by giving the Dem-leaning city of Roanoke to the slow growing 9th in exchange for heavily Rep areas of the Shenandoah valley that have to be shed from the fast growing 10th.

CD #7 (gray)- No significant changes, the 7th remains a staunchly conservative district that provides a comfortable home to Eric Cantor.

CD #8 (light purple)- District has to expand as inner-Nova’s growth has not been as dramatic as PW or Loudon counties. Takes in heavily dem areas of Fairfax county and remains the heavily Democratic home of Jim Moran.

CD #9 (light blue)- The most rural, and slow growing district of the state must expand and does so by taking in Dem leaning Roanoke in exchange for less populous areas around Covington and Martinsville. This district is marginally more Democratic and should continue to easily re-elect Rick Boucher. However, it will still be very difficult to fill the seat with a Democratic replacement upon his retirement

CD #10 (pink)- Outer Norther Virginia has both grown by leaps and bounds and become more Dem-friendly over the past few years. This bi-partisan compromise gives Wolf the most Rep-friendly district possible without sever gerrymandering (in exchange for Republican concessions on the 5th and the 9th). However, this new district will still be significantly more Dem-friendly than its current incarnation. While Wolf might continue to squeak by, the district will likely flip Democratic upon his retirement.

CD #11 (lime green)- Part of the compromise to protect Wolf is necessarrily to make the 11th even more strongly Dem leaning than it is currently. By picking up marority-minority areas of Eastern Prince William and losing Strong-Rep areas of Western Prince William the district move from having a strong Democratic lean to a heavily Democratic district that could not elect a Republican even under the most ideal circumstances.

The other two scenarios (a Republican or Democatic controlled gerrymander) are much less likely and as such will be discussed in less detail below.

Scenario 2 – A Democratic gerrymander

Given the high hill the Democrats would have to climb to reach a majority in the House of Delegates and the unfriendly political winds blowing against the Democrats this scenario is possibly the least likely of the three.  However, politics is, as always, unpredictable, and if the Democrats do recover steam in time for the 2009 elections they may be able to enact a gerrymander similar to the one envisioned below. This example map would likely create a 7-4 Dem Majority.

Notable differences from the bi-partisan scheme

1. In Northern Virginia:

   Frank Wolf’s 10th takes heavily Democratic Arlington and Falls Church making his reelection next to impossible. Although the 11th is less Dem friendly it is still majority-minority. All three NOVA districts are strongly Democratic and should return Dem reps for the next 10 years

2. In Hampton Roads and Richmond:

   Glenn Nye’s 2nd district takes on all the majority African-American areas of South Hampton Roads and becomes a majority minority district with whites and blacks exist in almost equal proportions. Not suprisingly it is very strong Dem district (Obama prob won by at least 20 points). Suprisingly Bobby Scott’s district can maintain it’s majority minority status (and keep Scott’s base in Newport News) by taking Petersburg and African-American heavy areas of Henrico and Chesterfield counties. Randy Forbes 4th becomes a staunchly Republican as it’s majority African American areas are raided to strengthen the 2nd.

3. In the Southside/SW Virginia

  Periello’s 5th is strengthened (but not radically changed) by the inclusion of heavily African-American areas of Lynchburg, and Southeast Virginia, in addition to the swingly college towns of Harrisonburg and Staunton, in exchange for the overwhelmingly Republican areas of Appomattox, Franklin and Pittsylvania Counties. The 9th becomes more dem friendly, losing heavliy Republican rural SW VA counties in exchange for Dem-friendly Roanoke and swingy counties along the WV border.

Scenario #3 – Republican gerrymander

 Although Republicans seem somewhat likely to take the Governorship and extremely likely to retain control of the House of Delegates, there will not be an election in the Dem controlled state Senate before the next redistricting scheme is encacted. However the current Democratic majority is potentially precarious as it could be disrupted by the retirement of 82 year-old Chuck Colgan who represents a marginal seat in Northern Virginia that could flip Republican in a special election. In addition one member of the Democratic caucus (Ralph Northam of Norfolk) nearly left to join the Republicans earlier in the year. If a 20-20 tie occurs it will be broken by the Lietenant Governor who, given the current political enviornment, could very well be Republican candidate Bill Bolling. Although these are not good signs, Democrats can take solace in that a victory by Republican candidate Ken Cucinelli in the Auttourney General’s race would trigger a special election to fill his Senate seat — a seat won by Obama by a 12 point margin in 2008 that could very well flip Dem in the election and restore Democratic contol over the chamber. Nonetheless, if the worst does happen the Republicans would likely draft a map that looks something like this. This example map would likely create a 7-4 Republican Majority.

Notable differences with the Bi-partisan plan

1. In NOVA

  Democratic Strength in the region is concentrated in the 8th and 11th, and consigned the the heavily Republican 1st. The 10th is left with all the Republican areas and a larger share of the Shenadoah valley, making it a more hospitable district for Wolf and future Republican successors

2. In Richmond/Hampton Roads

 By Bobby Scott’s taking over heavely African-American Petersburg, the 4th and afford to take strong AA areas from the 2nd in exchange for strongly Republican areas of Chesapeake and Suffolk. In addition the 1st cedes Poquoson (which McCain carried by 50 points in 2008) and similarly rock-ribbed Republican areas of York County to the 2nd. The new 2nd is not completely unwinnable for Nye, but will probably flip Republican as long as they can find a somewhat credible challenger.

3. In SW Virginia/Southside

  Periello’s 5th is eviscerated as his base in Charlottesville is added to the rock ribbed Republican 6th. Without heavily Dem Charlottesville/Albemarle the 5th becomes a very difficult climb for any Democrat and unwinnable for a relatively liberal Democrat like Periello. Although the 6th gains this Dem bastion it too is unwinnable for any Dem candidate, with the loss of Democratic Roanoke, and the addition of heavily Republican areas of the Shenandoah Valley and Northern Virginia. Republicans make minimal changes to the 9th and remain confident that the district will flip back to them upon Boucher’s retirement.

Suffice to say, a lot hangs on the results of the state elections in Virginia this Novemeber. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or observations.

I was so excited when I got online today and saw Dave had uploaded a map for Maryland (I was also pleasantly surprised to see he used voting districts instead of census tracts, since I think Maryland lawmakers use those when making maps). I just had to take the time to redistrict my home state today; I’ve always wanted to since I hate the current map with a passion – it’s gerrymandered beyond what’s necessary and it wastes a lot of Democratic voters in Montgomery County, Howard County, and Western Maryland.

My goal in this was to create a 7-1 split. I know people have drawn maps that are 8-0, but I really didn’t want this to be too gerrymandered (and I didn’t want to endanger any incumbents in the event of a “wave” year. Plus, I know this probably doesn’t matter to anyone else, but I like being able to look at a congressional map from a distance and easily see what is where, which is something you can’t do at all with current districts 2 and 3. So without further ado here’s what I came up with:

District 1 – Frank Kratovil (D) (blue)

This district keeps the Eastern Shore (minus part of Cecil County, which isn’t really on the Eastern Shore). The district also loses Bel Air and all the crazy conservative parts of Anne Arundel County. In their place, the district gets the most Democratic parts of Harford County from District 2, Annapolis and it’s suburbs from District 3, and parts of Prince George’s County from District 5. Only 55% of the district is actually on the shore, the other 45% is heavily-Democratic central MD, so should be safe for Kratovil (Obama probably won 53-47 here). District is 69% White, 23% black, 3% hispanic.

District 2 – John Sarbanes (I guess) (D) (green)

One of my goals was to untangle 2 and 3, since they were just too crazy. I knew someone would end up not living in their district, and it ended up being Sarbanes. This district uses Howard County as a base, and takes in the most Democratic parts of West and North Anne Arundel County along with parts of Montgomery County. This district probably will have an identity crisis since it is located kinda equidistant from Baltimore and DC. Obama probably got 65%-70% here, so it should be safe for any Democrat. Stats: Only 56% white!, 20% black, 11% Asian, 9% Hispanic.

District 3 – Elijah Cummings (D) (purple)

Baltimore gets a nice, compact district (yay!). I took out Howard County and gave Cummings Republican areas in North Anne Arundel and East Baltimore County (Idk if I’d call the Baltimore County parts Republican, they’re mostly just blue-collar racists, but regardless, nobody has to deal with them now). Obama probably got about 65-75% here. Stats: 43% white, 50% black, 2% hispanic, 2% Asian.

District 4 – Donna Edwards (D) (red)

Straightens up it’s Prince George’s County portion, and adds heavily Republican areas of Anne Arundel County so that nobody has to deal with them. Obama probably got 65-75% here. 31% white, 50% black, 4% Asian, 12% hispanic.

District 5 – Steny Hoyer (D) (yellow)

Keeps all of Southern Maryland and South Anne Arundel, changes course through PG to take in part of Montgomery so that Kratovil can have part of PG. Hoyer might not live in here, but we can redraw the lines if he has a fit. Obama probably got 65-75% here. Stats: only 47% white!, 36% black, 4% Asian, 9% hispanic.

District 6 – Roscoe Bartlett (R) (teal)

Takes away Democratic parts of Frederick and Hagerstown, adds Bel Air and north Cecil County. McCain probably got about 75% here (I wouldn’t be surprised). Stats: 91% white, 3% black, 1% Asian, 1% hispanic.

District 7 – Dutch Ruppersberger (D) (gray)

This district is kinda cool because it sorta follows the Beltway around Baltimore while taking in the Northwest part of the City. Much less gerrymandered than before. Obama got 57% in Baltimore county, and this district excludes the most Republican parts while taking in part of the City, so Obama probably got 65% here. Stats: 56% white, 34% black, 4% Asian, 3% Hispanic.

District 8 – Chris Van Hollen (D) (purplish-blue)

Most of Montgomery County, with the most Democratic parts of Frederick and Washington Counties, not much needs to be said. Obama probably got 75% here. Stats: 66% white, 10% black, 11% Asian, 9% Hispanic.

So there you have it. I’m thinking I’ll do a state legislature map for Maryland next. Let me know what you all think.

I’ve just uploaded a change that allows the application to use voting districts in addition to block groups, as the building blocks for drawing redistricting maps. This is a step toward getting partison data (specifically the 2008 presidential vote) into the app, because voting district partisan data is available for many states. That will require a bit more work, but will be coming soon.

I’ve added 6 new states, all using voting districts: Alabama, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Mississippi and Virginia. I added voting districts to the existing state Georgia, so it supports both. If you have saved DRFs, you’ll need to keep using block groups on those files.

Check it out at Daves Redistricting. Enjoy.

This is my first diary since July 24th. This time, I am redistricting New York assuming the Democrats still control the New York State Senate. I drew this map assuming New York will lose one vote. I tried to create a 27-1 Democratic delegation. I decided 28-0 was too risky but I made the 1 Republican district competitive. I know 2010 should be a Republican year but 2012 will not be because Obama should be reelected. He will probably rebound like Bill Clinton did in 1995 and win reelection easily. Back to redistricting: even though the 6th district is no longer Black majority, I made two Hispanic majority districts. I also increased the 5th district’s minority population so a minority candidate will probably elected when Ackerman retires. In this diary, I am going to focus mostly on LI and Upstate Democrats because NYC Democrats are pretty safe. I gerrymandered Downstate New York a bit but in Upstate, I tried not to split counties except for population and contiguity. This is what my rankings mean: Safe means safe for the incumbent party, Likely means currently safe but possibly competitive, Lean means competitive but not a nail biter, Toss Up means a nail biter. Here are the maps.

District 1 Tim Bishop (D) (Dark Blue)

Even though Bishop has won easily recently, he could eventually face a real challenge. That is why I sent a finger to take in some heavily Hispanic areas. That should help protect him. Besides that, his district does not change much. Obama probably won 53% of the vote here. Racial stats are 5% Black, 13% Hispanic and 77% White. Status is Likely Democrat.

District 2 Steve Israel (D) (Green)

I weakened Israel a bit by adding the white northern and southern parts of Suffolk County. Unless he faces a tough challenger, he should win. Obama probably won 53% of the vote here. Racial stats are 7% Black, 13% Hispanic and 73% White. Status is Likely Democrat.

District 3 Peter King (R) (Purple on Long Island)

With the exclusion of white areas in northern Nassau County, the inclusion of heavily Democratic Hempstead and putting 8% of the district in Queens, this district appears to be unfavorable territory for King. Even though I include King’s base, the Democratic areas I included should offset margins from his base. I wonder if King will agree with me and run in the 2nd district instead of retiring. I bet Israel can hold off King. I know that I kept most of King’s base here but since I raised the minority population alot, King should still be in jeopardy. I am not too familiar with local candidates in Nassau County so if anyone can tell me about some, that would be great. I think Obama won 55%-56% of the vote here. Racial stats are 19% Black, 16% Hispanic and 60% White (down from 86% White in the old district.) Status is Likely Democrat if King retires, Lean Democrat if he runs.

.

District 4 Carolyn McCarthy (D) (Red)

I changed her district around a lot so King would think that her district is too Democratic to win. With the inclusion of some Queens neighborhoods, I am not too worried about McCarthy’s chances. Obama probably won 56%-58% of the vote here. Racial stats are 7% African American, 12% Hispanic, 11% Asian and 66% White. Status is Likely Democrat if King runs, Safe Democrat if he does not run.

District 5 Gary “Caroline Kennedy is no more qualified to be president than Sarah Palin” Ackerman (D) (Yellow)

Reducing the white population from 44% to 37% was partly motivated by my personal opinions and that minority groups will try to get more minorities elected to Congress. I had to remove white areas, put them in the 9th and snake the district closer to Manhattan. Unless Ackerman faces a strong challenge, he should keep his seat because whites are a plurality. To protect other districts such as the 7th and the 12th, I could not increase his minority population much more. Besides the Kennedy/ Palin issue, this guy is pretty Conservative. He submitted H.Con.Res.362; a bill which is basically declares war on Iran. Racial stats are 25% Hispanic, 30% Asian and 37% White. Status is Safe Democrat.

District 6 Gregory Meeks (D) (Teal)

Meeks’s district is no longer Black majority but they still make up the majority of the primary voters. Minority groups might sue but Charlie Rangel whose district is 30% Black seems pretty content with his district. Blacks are the definite plurality so Meeks has no worries. I sent his district into LI to weaken Peter King. Racial stats are 46% Black, 18% Hispanic, 12% Asian and 18% White. Status is Safe Democrat.

District 7 Joseph Crowley (D) (Gray)

Personally, I have no problem with Crowley but his district was the best suited to make Hispanic majority. Even though they do not make up the majority of the voters, this district will probably elect a Hispanic when he retires. Racial stats are 22% Black, 50% Hispanic, 8% Asian and 18% White. Status is Safe Democrat.

District 8 Jerrold Nadler (D) (Purple)

Nadler does not actually live in this district. He lives in the Upper West side but he will probably run here because it contains most of his old district. The Brooklyn parts of the district lean Democratic but the Manhattan part of this district raises its Democratic percentage. Racial stats are 9% Hispanic, 21% Asian and 65% White. Status is Safe Democrat.

District 9 Anthony Weiner (D) (Bright Blue along Jamaica Bay)

His district looks more convoluted now. It still stays the same politically: competitive at a national level but heavily Democratic at a local level. Racial stats are 5% Black, 15% Hispanic, 15% Asian and 62% White. Status is Safe Democrat.

District 10 Edolphus Towns (D) (Fuchsia)

The African American population drops but not nearly enough to alter the voting in this district. Racial stats are 53% Black, 21% Hispanic and 21% White. Status is Safe Democrat.

District 11 Yvette Clarke (D) Light Green

Not much change here either. Racial stats are 57% Black, 11% Hispanic, 5% Asian and 23% White. Status is Safe Democrat.

District 12 Nydia Velazquez (D) (Light Blue)

Velazquez seems safe but I made this district Hispanic majority so a Hispanic has an easier time getting elected when she retires. Racial stats are 8% Black, 50% Hispanic, 18% Asian and 21% White. Status is Safe Democrat

District 13 Michael McMahon (D) (Tan)

Since he was elected in 2008, I made his district solidly Democratic while keeping Staten Island within one district. With 30% of the district in Manhattan, McMahon’s only problem should be a very strong moderate Republican running here. Obama probably won 56% of the vote here. Racial stats are 8% Black, 14% Hispanic, 7% Asian and 68% White. Status is Likely Democrat depending on the challengers.

District 14 Carolyn Maloney (D) (Dirty Green)

She loses some Hispanic precincts to the 12th district and her district extends to the Hudson River. It is still heavily Democratic. Racial stats are 10% Hispanic, 11% Asian and 74% White. Status is Safe Democrat.

District 15 Charlie Rangel (D) (Orange)

It extends further south into Manhattan and into Riverdale. Minorities are still the overwhelming majority here. The Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee should be happy with this new district. I reduced the Hispanic population from 48% to 44% to strengthen Hispanic representation in the 7th and 16th districts. Even though the Hispanic turnout is not very high, there should be a close contest between a Black and a Hispanic when Rangel retires. The reason is that the Hispanic population will keep growing. Racial stats are 30% Black, 44% Hispanic and 20% White. Status is Safe Democrat.

District 16 Jose Serrano (D) (Light Green)

The district gets whiter and less Hispanic but Serrano should be safe. Racial stats are 27% Black, 58% Hispanic and 9% White. Status is Safe Democrat.

District 17 Eliot Engel (D) (Purple above New York City)

Due to population growth, I had to remove parts of Bronx and add in parts of Orange County. Heavily Democratic neighborhoods in the Bronx and Yonkers should keep this district in the Democratic column. Obama probably won 60% of the vote here. Racial stats are 22% Black, 15% Hispanic, and 55% White. Status is Safe Democrat.

District 18 Nita Lowey (D) (Yellow in Westchester County)

This district is now completely in Westchester County, extending all the way to the Putnam County border. Obama probably won 60% of the vote here. Racial stats are 8% Black, 16% Hispanic, 6% Asian and 67% White. Status is Safe Democrat.

District 19 John Hall (D) (Light Green)

Hall seems safe in his current district because he won 58% of the vote there in 2008 even though he was elected in 2006. I solidified his hold by extending his district into some heavily Democratic precincts in Westchester County. I also kept in the cities in Orange County while removing more rural areas. These changes should keep Hall safe. Obama probably won 55%-57% of the vote here. Racial stats are 10% Black, 16% Hispanic and 68% White. Status is Safe Democrat or Likely Democrat depending on the challengers.

District 20 Scott Murphy (D) (Light Pink along eastern New York border)

Murphy was elected to Congress against Republican State Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedisco by a hair. Democrats will probably remove Tedisco’s home in Saratoga County and send the district up to the Canadian border to take in some Democratic counties. Here are the vote totals for the district except for the chunks of Dutchess and Otsego Counties: Barack Obama 159,784 and John McCain 143,853. Obama won about 52% of the vote in this district including the Dutchess and Otsego County chunks. Obama’s percentage rose by one point but with Tedisco’s base removed and Murphy’s home base in the district, Murphy appears safe. Racial stats are 91% White. Status is Likely Democrat.

District 21 Paul Tonko (D) (Mahogany Brown)

To protect the 20th and 22nd district, I removed Democratic Schenectady and Troy while adding some marginal rural counties. The voting totals for this district except for Chenango County are Obama 182,927 and McCain 137,887. It should be about two hundred votes less for Obama and McCain because the 20th district contains 900 people in Otsego County. Obama won about 56%-57% of the vote in the district. Racial stats are 5% Black and 86% White. Status is Safe Democrat.

District 22 Maurice Hinchey (D)vs. Eric Massa (D) (Dirt Brown)

I made a few changes by removing Cornell University and adding Schenectady. Except for Broome and Steuben Counties, the vote totals for this district are Obama 154,312 and McCain 127,453. Hinchey is still safe. Massa is a freshman Democrat so he may run in the 25th district. Obama probably won 55% of the vote overall. Racial stats are 5% Black, 5% Hispanic and 85% White. Status is Safe Democrat.

District 23 Michael Arcuri (D) (Light Turquoise)

I eliminated Republican John McHugh’s vacant seat assuming a Republican wins it. Arcuri loses most of his old 24th district but keeps Oneida County. The numbers for the district excluding Onondaga County are: Barack Obama, 120,726 votes and John McCain with 116,679 votes. Yes, I know it is close but Onondaga has heavily Democratic and Arcuri splits the city with the 24th district. Obama only wins about 52% of the vote here but Arcuri will probably win his Oneida County home base. His Republican challenger in 2008 Richard Hanna gave him a close race but I removed his home from the district. Racial stats are 87% White. Status is Likely Democrat but could change to Lean in a Republican year.

District 24 Dan Maffei (D) (Purple in Upstate)

I move his district around a bit but with heavily Democratic areas in Broome and Onondaga Counties, Maffei should have no worries. Obama probably won 56% of the vote here. Racial stats are 6% Black and 86% White. Status is Safe Democrat.

District 25 Vacant (Pink but NOT the district in Rochester)

Except for Tompkins County (Cornell University,) this district is mostly Republican. Since Maffei has all the Democrats he needs, Cornell has to go somewhere and I wanted to split as few counties as possible. Excluding split counties (Steuben and Wyoming) Obama has 127,859 votes to McCain’s 127,339 votes. Yep, equally divided between the parties but McCain is the overall winner. Steuben and Wyoming Counties are heavily Republican so they would make McCain carry the district. Chris Lee, the Republican Congressman from the 26th does not live here but he may run here because his home is in the Democratic 27th. 2012 should be an Obama year so Tompkins County should have high turnout which could propel a Democrat into office. Lee seems to be a good campaigner so he would be the frontrunner. Eric Massa may run here even though the district tilts Republican. Racial stats are 91% White. Status is Lean Republican.

District 26 Brian Higgins (D) vs. Chris Lee (R) (Gray)

I put this district entirely in Erie County and increased the minority population. These changes strengthen Obama’s performance. Higgins’s only problem is Chris Lee who would probably run in the more Republican 25th. Higgins has won easily in 2006 and 2008 so he should be safe. Obama probably won 56% of the vote here. Racial stats are 9% Black and 82% White. Status is Safe Democrat if Lee does not run, Likely Democrat if Lee runs.

District 27 Louise Slaughter (D) (Light Green)

It gets less Democratic but with the inclusion of Rochester and Buffalo central cities, this district remains Democratic. Obama probably won 58% of the vote here. Racial stats are 17% Black and 74% White. Status is Safe Democrat.

District 28 Vacant (Pink District in Rochester)

I tinkered with the district a bit by including more of Monroe County (Rochester) and splitting Rochester with the 27th. Republican Wyoming, Genesee and Wayne Counties should not be enough to offset Democratic margins. Eric Massa is the current representative of the 29th. He does not live here but since it contains part of his current district and it is Democratic, he might take a run at it. A Democrat should win it anyway. Obama probably won 55% of the vote here. Status is Safe Democrat.

Okay, so as my first diary, I’m sure this is overly long, but I wanted to add a lot of data and analysis as I could because I am relentlessly geeky.

So read on, if you dare…

Shout-out: Dave’s Redistricting App.

Missouri Congressional districts Post-2010 Census

With Missouri most likely dropping a seat and with the redistricting authority evenly split between the Democratic Governor and Republican Legislature, incumbency protection and relatively even numbers of safe and swing districts should be considered priorities. Plus, with the political battles likely to be intense enough to be settled by an independent-ish panel, I figured that drawing geographically-sensical boundaries would also be important.

Therefore, I tried to keep each county in the same district (which I did successfully, barring the expected biggies–Kansas City’s Jackson and St. Louis city and county). This was done as a proxy for the “communities of interest” standard that seems to crop up when redistricting time rolls around, but I ain’t a lawyer and don’t know about no redistrictin’.  

An added bonus of this map is that each area is contiguous and geographically-sensible. Finally, in terms of population, each of the 8 districts clocks in around 739,000 using the awesome Dave App’s “Use New Pop Est” feature. The biggest variance is less than 5,000 + or – and I figure some changes from the estimate are to be expected, so some tussling around the edges should be expected. The counties of Gasconade, Crawford, Phelps, Dent, Iron, St. Francois, Montgomery and St. Clair could all be shifted between at least 3 Congressional districts to equalize populations and still be a part of pretty sensible, contiguous districts. So what I’m trying for is a good working template for starting negotiations.

Relevant recent races:

Governor – 2008 — Democrat Jay Nixon vs. Republican Kenny Hulshof 58.4-39.5

Longtime Attorney General Jay Nixon stomped the lackluster Hulshof (after Sarah Steelman weakened him severely in the primary). I use this as a sort of shorthand for what a reasonably strong Democrat could potentially do. (although some Congressmen like Ike Skelton defy the odds even further once they’re entrenched incumbents). Basically, a solid, local but new-to-a-seat Democrat could outpoll Nixon by a few points, perhaps, but not much more.

President – 2008 — Democrat Barack Obama vs. Republican John McCain 50-50

Missouri’s bellweather status ended when McCain took a 4,000 vote victory over Obama out of almost 3 million ballots cast (ftr, national average was 53-47-ish). It’s an interesting shorthand for outsiders, but its variance from the Nixon numbers is an important insight into the actual voters of a county.

With that, here we go….

St. Louis Close-Up

———–

Blue-District 1: Rep. Clay, D

Residence: St. Louis

Old Cook PVI: D+27

Gains: much of the city of St. Charles, plus that county’s eastern reaches

Loses: fairly small parts of St. Louis county & St. Louis proper

Keeps: Half of St. Louis proper, northeast chunk of St. Louis county

Analysis: As drawn, the massively-Dem PVI will shrink, but only modestly, probably to around D+16 or so. I would expect neighborhood tweaks because STL is the most densely-populated part of the state. Instead of black-majority, this district will be almost evenly matched, about 51% white to 42% black according to the app, but I’m going out on a limb and saying that shifts in population (ie-the inner suburbs getting more racially-mixed) will make this really, really close by the time the Census is held.

Effectively, St. Charles may tip the racial balance, but likely not the political one. Clay, one of MO’s two African-American Congressmen, should definitely be safe in this district, whatever its racial makeup. If the Voting Rights Act requires a black district, it should be easy enough to shift a few precincts on the margins (ie-losing parts of St. Charles, adding parts of STL) to bump it up to 50% black.

———————-

Green-District 2: Todd Akin, R

Old PVI: R+9

Residence: Town & Country

Gains: Montgomery County (pop. 12,000), Warren Co. (30,000), Franklin (100,000), Crawford (23,000), Washington (23,000), Iron (10,000), southwestern St. Charles county

Loses: Lincoln county (pop. 51,500), eastern St. Charles county

Keeps: Most of St. Charles county (though not St. Charles itself) and southwest St. Louis county

Franklin:   Obama-McCain 43-55, Nixon-Hulshof 51-47

Warren: Obama-McCain 43-56, Nixon-Hulshof 49-49

Washington:  Obama-McCain tie (5-vote margin), Nixon vs. Hulshof 67-31

Crawford: Obama-McCain 40-60, Nixon-Hulshof 52-46

Iron: Nixon-Hulshof 64-33, Obama-McCain 50-47

Analysis: Akin keeps most of his base in the western and southern sections of St. Louis county, but he loses part of St. Charles and picks up a set of rural-ish counties in return. Those rural-ish counties aren’t quite as Republican-friendly as he’d like–Obama won Washington & Iron, and stayed competitive in the rest, while Dem Gov. Nixon did very well in all of them.

The rural counties provide about 200,000 residents, while suburbanites (read: most of Akin’s base) make up the rest of this district. Akin is weakened, but only slightly. This should count as a “safe Republican” seat, especially because most of the St. Charles areas I removed are the swingiest parts of the county.

————

Purple-District 3: Russ Carnahan, D

Residence: St. Louis

Old PVI: D+7

Gains: A few more bits of St. Louis, plus St. Francois & Perry counties

–St. Francois county, pop. 63,000

Nixon-Hulshof 64-35

McCain-Obama won 51.5-47

–Perry county, pop. 18,800

Hulshof-Nixon 52-46

McCain-Obama 64-35

Loses: Not too much–a few St. Louis county and city neighborhoods where borders were tweaked.

Keeps: The aforementioned, Ste. Genevieve, Jefferson, southeastern bits of St. Louis county, roughly half of St. Louis proper

Analysis: The bits of urban St. Louis added to this district keep it from leaning too far right, and St. Francois is actually fairly moderate–Jay Nixon outperformed his statewide average here. Conservative Perry County is too small to have much effect. Carnahan should be able to hold this district.  

————-

Red-District 4: Ike Skelton, D

Residence: Lexington (Lafayette County)

Old PVI: R+14 (Obama 38-McCain 61)

Gains: Howard, Cooper, Boone, Callaway, Osage, Maries, Phelps, Gasconade, plus the south & eastern suburbs of Jackson County (Lee’s Summit, Blue Springs, Grain Valley, Lone Jack)

Loses: Barton, Vernon, Dade, Cedar, part of Polk, Dallas, Webster, Laclede, Pulaski, Camden, Ray

Keeps: Lafayette, Johnson, Henry, Pettis, Saline, Morgan, Moniteau, Cole

Analysis: This district sees some big changes to make it the probably the most swing-tastic of the new map. While Skelton can easily hold the old MO-4, it’s unlikely another Democrat could. The new MO-4 changes that to an extent, refocusing the district on the mid-section of Missouri, linking the Kansas City suburbs to Columbia and Jefferson City. In terms of community interests, it could be the “River District”, as it roughly follows the outline of the Missouri River through the middle of Missouri. But notice what else it is–an education/govt/services district. Behold….

Boone County (155,000): O-Mc 55-43, Nix-Hul 55-43  –>Columbia (MU, 30,000 students)

Cole (70,000): O-Mc 36-63, Nix-Hul 49-50  —> Jeff City (state capitol)

Johnson (50,000): O-Mc 43-55, Nix-Hul 54-43   —> Warrensburg (UCM, formerly CMSU, 10,000 students)

Phelps (43,000): O-Mc 38-60, Nix-Hul 53-44  —> Rolla (6500 students)

Pettis (40,000): O-Mc 38-60.5, Nix-Hul 55-43   —> Sedalia, state fair/services

Callaway (40,000): O-Mc 40-59, Nix-Hul 49-50 —> Fulton? Jeff City suburbs

Saline (24,000): O-Mc 48-50, Nix-Hul 57-33  —> Marshall, Missouri Valley College, 1500-ish students

Morgan (21,000): Nix-Hul 50-48

Cooper (17,000): Nix-Hul 46-52

Gasconade (15,000)

Moniteau (15,000)

Howard (10,000)

Maries (9,000)

——-

Yellow-District 5: Emanuel Cleaver

Residence: Kansas City

Old PVI: D+10

Gains: most of Cass county, all of Bates

Loses: Modest bits of southeastern suburbs of KC, like Lee’s Summit

Keeps: Most of Jackson County (Kansas City)

Analysis: Lost suburban bits compensated by swaps from northern suburbs, and the overwhelming urban tilt cancels the Cass/Bates suburban/rural tinge–no huge changes here and geographically it’s pretty similar, with mostly changes at the margins. Remains an urban district, perhaps now a smidge more conservative for a left-ish Dem like Cleaver, the former mayor of Kansas City, but still a pretty safe Dem seat.

Population centers: urban Kansas City, which went for Obama 78-21, is the majority of this district.

Cass County: Mc-O 60-40, Nix-Hul 52-46

Bates County: Mc-O 58-40, Nix-Hul 55-42

————

District 6: Sam Graves

Residence: Tarkio

Old PVI: R+7 (Bush-Kerry 57-43)

Gains: Practically every county in northern Missouri

Loses: Some Kansas City suburbs- wealthy Blue Springs and the closer-in Clay county districts

New PVI: Much more heavily Republican, probably R+15-20

Analysis: It’s the northern Missouri exurban-rural district, stretching from the northern Kansas City suburbs all the way to the outskirts of St. Louis. It becomes a blood-red district … Sam Graves is safe here as long as he wants. It’s perhaps not quite as ironclad as numbers might suggest–Nixon won a number of these counties, especially the ones that have higher populations (Buchanan, Platte, Clay). But the northeast is especially Republican and Sam Graves or a competent Republican should have no trouble holding this heavily-stacked district.

Main population centers: St. Joseph, Kansas City suburbs (Platte/Clay), rural northern Missouri

————

District 7: Roy Blunt (until the next election)

Old PVI: R+17

Gains: Barton, Vernon, Cedar, Dade, half of Taney

Loses: Polk

New PVI: Probably about the same, still heavily Republican

Analysis: It may not technically have the highest number of Republicans in terms of percentage of registered voters, but southwest Missouri is full of religious conservatives and this district will be safely, probably wingnuttily-Republican. But then again, it pretty much was before, so no major changes here. The borders expand modestly, but the flavor remains the same.

Main population centers are Joplin, Springfield and Branson (whose county, Taney, is now entirely in the 7th).

——–

District 8: Jo Ann Emerson, R

Residence:

Old PVI: R+15

Gains: Webster, Dallas, Polk, Hickory, Laclede, Benton, Camden, Miller, Pulaski, St. Clair

Loses: (other) Half of Taney, Washington, Iron, St. Francois, Perry, Phelps

Analysis: Jo Ann should like her new district–she loses the most Democrat-friendly parts (Washington, Iron, St. Francois) and picks up a slew of more conservative counties in south-central Missouri, stretching her district into the Ozarks. Although Emerson has been drifting gently toward the center (which basically means support stem cell research and uh…) since being elected in 1998, she’s still definitely conservative enough to represent this new district–after all, a lot of her new counties would be used to voting for Democrat Ike Skelton, so a center-right, but not far-right representative should do the trick.

“Main population centers” are…Cape Girardeau? Poplar Bluff?

Southern MO map:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/4…

———

District 9: Blaine Lueketmeyer

Residence: St. Elizabeth, Miller County

Old PVI: R+9

Disappeared!

His district is eaten by several others, and he now lives in Jo Ann Emerson’s new 8th. He has little chance to defeat her in primary as her base makes up the vast majority of this district.

But his previous district is now split between the new ones of Skelton, Akin and Carnahan, wi

So why would Republicans sacrifice ole Blaine?

Blaine will lose because he has the least seniority, other than whoever Blunt’s replacement is. But Blunt’s district makes sense–southwest Missouri–as opposed to Blaine’s crazy-shaped current 9th (“Little Dixie” …yeah, good try).

Why else dump Blaine? Because Republicans get a lot in return. Three totally safe districts, one mostly safe one, and they have a chance on at least one, if not two, of the “Democratic” districts. Democrats will like it because it’s a better balance and they may have a chance with Akin in the future. And with Skelton unlikely to make it another decade in Congress (though I hope and pray to God he does) they’re gonna lose one forever if they don’t agree to act now. Basically, you can gerrymander Missouri a lot worse.

Overall, despite its 2008 performance, Missouri is still the ultimate swing state, and having a 4-4 delegation (with one seat that could go to Republicans) seems right.

———

Other Missouri redistricting maps:

http://www.swingstateproject.c…

http://www.swingstateproject.c…

Source:

MO Gov Race – http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrMaps/…  (MO Sec. of State’s office)

I had three main goals in mind when thinking about redistricting California:

1.)  Make the new map less gerrymandered than the current one, keeping more communities together in the same district.  

2.)  Increase the number of Hispanic-majority districts in the state, while preserving all the current Hispanic-represented seats.  

3.)  Increase Democratic representation in the state delegation.

All three goals above are met by the proposed map.  Incumbent protection was a lesser goal.  Nevertheless, at least for Democratic Representatives, this goal was also met by this proposal.

Under the proposed plan, 44 districts are made to be Democratic, 7 to be Republican, and 2 to be swing districts (one of which, CA-4, would have certainly gone Democratic in the 2006 and 2008 Congressional elections if the proposed plan was in place, and the other, CA-48, could quite conceivably go Democratic in the near future).  

Bottom line: if these lines had been in effect during the 2008 elections, Democrats would have likely won 45 of the 53 districts

This diary is broken into three parts.  First, the maps.  Second, a discussion of my main goals.  Third, a discussion of individual districts.

MAPS:

DISCUSSION OF GOALS:

1.)  Make the new map less gerrymandered than the current one, keeping more communities together in the same district.  The map does just that.  (Btw, this plan assumes that the number of districts in the state will remain at 53.  The plan also accounts for different rates of growth within the state between 2000 and 2010 — coastal areas have generally grown 10% or less, while many inland areas have grown 20-30% since 2000.)

Under the current (2002) plan, 30 incorporated cities in California are split between two or more districts.  Under the proposed map, only 10 incorporated cities are split; they are:

Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose – must be necessarily split because they are too big for one district.  District boundaries in San Francisco change slightly.  Areas of San Jose constitute parts of three different districts under the new plan (as in the current plan, except one of the districts is not the same).  

San Diego is currently split among five districts, while under the proposed plan it is split among only four, as the CA-50 and CA-52 parts of the city of San Diego are combined into one district, CA-50 (with the new plan, the bulk of  San Diego’s population is actually split among only three districts, CA-50, CA-51 and CA-53; the Rancho Bernardo community in the extreme northern area of the city becomes part of another district but that area contains only about 1% of the city’s population).  

Under the current plan, parts of Los Angeles belong to 14 different districts; under the proposed plan, areas of LA are part of only 11 districts (and two of the 11 contain only very small portions of the city).

It should be noted that, in cities which are split among districts, I also tried to redraw the lines, where possible, so that distinct neighborhoods or city areas are not split between districts.  For example, the Van Nuys section of LA is currently split between CA-27 and CA-28; under the proposed plan all of it falls under CA-28.

Anaheim, Garden Grove, Bakersfield, Fresno – are split in order to preserve majority Hispanic districts in Orange County and the Central Valley.

Fremont – this is the only area not split under the current plan, but divided under the proposed map.  Population shifts in Alameda County and Fremont’s relatively large size in land area made it hard for me not to divide the city. (Area-wise, Fremont is bigger than either San Francisco or Oakland; the city was originally five smaller towns which merged in 1956.)

Long Beach – under the new plan, it’s almost all in one district ! (97% is in the new CA-37, with the remaining narrow coastal sliver — which exists under the current plan as well — connecting two parts of CA-46).

Additionally, when looking at unincorporated communities in California, under the current plan, 29 are split among one or more districts, while under the proposed plan only  seven are split.  Furthermore, many areas which remain split are “less” split under the proposed map.  For example, currently East LA is split among three different districts, while under the proposed plan, it is split only between two districts.

2.) The next goal was to increase the number of Hispanic-majority districts in the state, while preserving all the current Hispanic-represented seats.  The Hispanic population in the state has grown rapidly, and the new map reflects this reality.  All the Hispanic-represented seats remain intact, while four new Hispanic-majority seats are created – Districts 19, 26, 40 and 44.  

CA-35 also becomes Hispanic-majority.  Even according to the 2000 Census numbers, the current CA-35 was already 47.4% Hispanic, and only 34% African-American (even though among registered voters, the numbers may have been roughly reversed); the new district’s boundaries change slightly to encompass South Gate to the east of the current district, and, combined with Hispanic population growth within the area, the new district should be approximately 66% Hispanic.  Bottom line: once Maxine Waters retires, CA-35 is quite likely to elect a Hispanic representative.

3.) The third goal was to increase Democratic representation in the state delegation.  Under the proposed plan, 44 districts are made to be Democratic, 7 to be Republican, and 2 to be swing districts (one of which, CA-4, would have certainly gone Democratic in the 2006 and 2008 Congressional elections if the proposed plan was in place, and the other, CA-48, could quite conceivably go Democratic in the near future).  

What’s great here is that 44 Democratic seats can be created while making the map less gerrymandered than it is now (I can think of no reason for the way the 2002 map looks other than that it was intentionally gerrymandered — by Democrats no less — to intentionally help certain Republicans to survive, even as it attained the same goal for a number of Democrats; even a purely politically-neutral map would have resulted in more Democrats today).

Under the proposed plan, Obama wins the following 26 districts by at least a 24.0 point margin:

Districts # 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 44, 46, 51, 53

Needless to say, all of the above districts voted for John Kerry in 2004 (all but two were won by at least 8 points, while Kerry was losing the national vote by 2.5 points).  The Democratic margin here is something akin to “safe” Democratic when classifying districts.

Obama wins the following 16 districts by a 17.0 to 23.9 point margin:

Districts # 2, 3, 6, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 27, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 47, 50

All of the above districts also voted for John Kerry in 2004, except Districts 19, 40, 43, 47 and 50 which Bush won barely with percentages ranging from 49.6 to 50.9% of the vote.  The Democratic margin (and voting history in the case of many of these districts) suggests something akin to “likely” Democratic when classifying these.

Obama wins the following two districts by a margin of approximately 14 to 15 points:

Districts # 11 and 18.

In 2004, Bush received approximately 52-53% of the vote in both districts above.  The voting history here (discussed in detail later in this diary) though, suggests that these seats will stay in Democratic hands.  Conventional wisdom would classify these two as “lean” Democratic, though recent voting history in both suggests they could be on the cusp of “likely.”

The following two districts should be considered “toss-up” based on Democratic margin and voting history (again, the diary will discuss the reasoning):

CA-4 which Obama lost by 3.4 points.

CA-48, which Obama won by a 6.5 point margin.

 

Obama loses the following seven districts by a margin of 9.4 to 25.2 points:

Districts # 21, 22, 41, 42, 45, 49, 52

All of the above also voted for Bush over Kerry in 2004 by at least a 63/36 margin.  These are all destined to stay “safe” GOP (unless there’s a major, major scandal !).  Note the absence of any “likely” GOP or “lean” GOP districts under this proposal …. there are just way too many of those under the map currently in effect !

The point here is that you can indeed create this many Democratic seats — and add between 10 to 12 Democrats to California’s delegation — while keeping community lines intact.  One can imagine what you could do if the lines were tweaked just a bit more, and some district boundaries crossed irregularly across city/community lines.  An Obama +18 district could easily be turned into an Obama +20 district (it wouldn’t take much actually, and the districts would still look pretty compact; for an example re. how a district can be made more Democratic, see the entry under “District 48” in the body of the post).   However, my goal was to see if you could create both a more Democratic map, and a less gerrymandered one at the same time, and the answer clearly is yes.  Others certainly could take the template of this map and refine the lines further, whereby the Democratic seats became even more Democratic.

Note that not mentioned as one of the three goals above is incumbent protection.  I tried to match incumbents with their current districts, and, at least for Democratic members, was mostly successful.  The goal here was more long-term, looking down the whole decade, and the other considerations took precedence.

One last thing to remember here: if this plan were adopted, it would first come into effect in 2012 – coinciding with the next Presidential election.  Having President Obama on the ballot (in 2012, when candidates would first run for these new seats), thus, had an effect in my design of the districts here, including political considerations like coattails… the point is that if these lines had been in effect during the 2008 elections, Democrats would have likely won 45 of the 53 districts (the 26 “safe” ones above; 16 “likely” ones; 2 “lean” ones; and CA-4 with Charlie Brown as our nominee).  If there’s some sort of future GOP wave election, even some of the “likely” Democratic seats may not hold; but all things being (relatively) even, this plan  should result in a considerable increase in the number of Democrats in the state’s delegation for the next decade.

Now (finally !) to the discussion of individual districts:

District 1:

Incumbent: Mike Thompson (St. Helena)

Current District:  Obama 65.6%; McCain 31.7% (Obama + 33.9)

Proposed District:  Obama 63.1%; McCain 35.1% (Obama + 28.0)

Proposed District:  Kerry 56.6%; Bush 42.2%

This district combines parts of the current CA-1 (Napa and Yolo Counties) with San Francisco suburbs in Marin and Sonoma Counties and Sacramento suburbs in Sacramento and  Placer Counties.  Yolo is no longer split between districts, but Marin now is.  Placer is also split, but the western suburban part of the county is quite different from the central and eastern Sierra Nevada area.  Overall, it’s a pretty suburban to exurban district, with rural areas here and there.  The Democratic percentage goes down a bit, but it’s still a solidly Democratic district.

District 2:  

Incumbent: None

Current District:  Obama 42.6%; McCain 55.0% (McCain + 12.4)

Proposed District:  Obama 60.0%; McCain 37.4% (Obama + 22.6)

Proposed District:  Kerry 54.8%; Bush 43.4%

The new CA-2 includes only a small part of the current CA-2 – Siskiyou and Trinity Counties and part of Shasta Co. around Redding.  Most of the territory comes from the current CA-1, with parts from CA-4 and CA-6.  The new district becomes a true “north coast” district (unlike the old CA-1 which included only the coast north of Gualala), following the entire coast and redwood belt from the Golden Gate to the Oregon border (OK … I must admit this is my favorite part of California).  Overall, it’s a rural/small town district, with some suburban pockets in the far south.  Politically, it’s quite Democratic, and overall, leans towards the progressive side (against Prop. 8, anti-war, etc.).  This plan puts Lynn Woolsey in the new CA-6, but perhaps she would be more comfortable running here (?).  Her home is in Petaluma, just over the border, and the lines could be easily tweaked (substituting Petaluma for Rohnert Park for instance) without changing the overall political makeup of either CA-6 or CA-2.

District 3:  

Incumbent: Tom McClintock (Elk Grove – ultimate carpetbagger McClintock doesn’t even live in his current district, CA-4, after having just recently moved from southern California to Elk Grove in the current CA-3 !; CA-3 incumbent Congressman Dan Lungren – another former carpetbagger – is drawn out of his district under this plan).

Current District:  Obama 49.3%; McCain 48.8% (Obama + 0.5)

Proposed District:  Obama 58.1%; McCain 40.1% (Obama + 18.0)

Proposed District:  Kerry 49.3%; Bush 49.9%

The proposed CA-3 is made up of most of Sacramento County outside the city of Sacramento.  It also includes Pittsburg in Contra Costa Co., just across from the southern tip of Sacramento Co.  The district is more compact than the current CA-3, being mostly confined to just one county.  Additionally, many communities in Sacramento Co. are no longer split between districts – these include incorporated places like Elk Grove and Rancho Cordova as well as unincorporated areas like Arden-Arcade, Foothill Farms and North Highlands.  A Democrat should do well running here.  In 2008 Lungren only won the current district (Obama +0.5) by a 49.4 to 44.0 margin.  One can only imagine just how well a Democrat would do in an Obama +18 district !

District 4:  

Incumbents: Wally Herger (Chico); Dan Lungren (Gold River); also see entry under “District 3” above.

Current District:  Obama 43.8%; McCain 54.0% (McCain + 10.2)

Proposed District:  Obama 47.2%; McCain 50.6% (McCain + 3.4)

Proposed District:  Kerry 40.8%; Bush 57.7%

The new CA-4 follows the entire crest of the Sierra Nevada Mountains from Lassen National Park in the north to Mt. Whitney in the south.  At its southern end it also includes Death Valley.  The plan splits Placer and El Dorado Counties but puts parts of Butte Co., previously in two districts, back into one.  The proposed district is somewhat more Democratic than the current one – enough so that Charlie Brown would have very likely won under the current lines – both in 2006 and 2008 (Brown lost by a 3.4 point margin in 2006 and by 0.4 points last year; the new district becomes 6.8 points more Democratic — as measured by the Obama margin — which would have enabled Brown to win if he ran under the proposed lines, all other things being even).  Tom McClintock doesn’t live in the district as redrawn — but then again, he doesn’t live in the existing one either !

District 5:  

Incumbent: Doris Matsui (Sacramento)

Current District:  Obama 69.6%; McCain 28.4% (Obama + 41.2)

Proposed District:  Obama 61.4%; McCain 36.6% (Obama + 24.8)

Proposed District:  Kerry 52.9%; Bush 46.1%

CA-5 combines all of the city of Sacramento with GOP-leaning suburbs in Sacramento and Placer Counties (Citrus Heights, Orangevale, Rocklin, Granite Bay).   Almost exactly two-thirds of the population is in Sacramento, which sets the political tone of the district.

District 6:

Incumbent: Lynn Woolsey (Petaluma)

Current District:  Obama 76.0%; McCain 22.0% (Obama + 54.0)

Proposed District:  Obama 58.7%; McCain 39.1% (Obama + 19.6)

Proposed District:  Kerry 52.5%; Bush 46.0%

The new District 6 combines much of exurban — though very progressive — Sonoma County (approximately 45% of the new district’s population) with Lake County, part of the Sacramento River Valley and Lassen County, in the northeastern part of the state.  As mentioned under “District 2” above, perhaps Woolsey would be more comfortable running in the new CA-2; however, the new CA-6 contains much of her territory, population-wise, and is only slightly less Democratic than CA-2.  

District 7:

Incumbent: George Miller (Martinez)

Current District:  Obama 71.4%; McCain 26.4% (Obama + 45.0)

Proposed District:  Obama 65.1%; McCain 33.1% (Obama + 32.0)

Proposed District:  Kerry 59.8%; Bush 39.1%

The new CA-7 combines all of Solano County (no longer split among three different districts) with areas of north-central Contra Costa County — Martinez, Concord (no longer split between two districts), Clayton, Pleasant Hill, etc.  The district remains solidly Democratic.

District 8:  

Incumbent: Nancy Pelosi (San Francisco)

Current District:  Obama 85.2%; McCain 12.4% (Obama + 72.8)

Proposed District:  Obama 85.5%; McCain 12.4% (Obama + 73.1)

Proposed District:  Kerry 84.6%; Bush 14.1%

The size of new district expands slightly as the southern end of City Supervisor District # 8 becomes part of CA-8 (all of that district is in CA-8 under the new lines); part of City Supervisor District # 7 (around Golden Gate Heights and Forest Hill) is also added.

District 9:  

Incumbent: Barbara Lee (Oakland)

Current District:  Obama 88.1%; McCain 9.9% (Obama + 78.2)

Proposed District:  Obama 82.6%; McCain 15.5% (Obama + 67.1)

Proposed District:  Kerry 79.5%; Bush 19.0%

Combines ultra-progressive areas in Oakland, Berkeley and adjoining smaller towns with (relatively) more conservative areas in Contra Costa County (Moraga, Orinda, Danville, Brentwood, etc.).

District 10:  

Incumbent: None currently (Ellen Tauscher has vacated seat)

Current District:  Obama 64.7%; McCain 33.1% (Obama + 31.6)

Proposed District:  Obama 64.2%; McCain 34.0% (Obama + 30.2)

Proposed District:  Kerry 58.4%; Bush 40.5%

Combines a central swath of Contra Costa Co. (from Richmond in the west to Bethel Island in the east) with parts of more inland California (northern San Joaquin Co.; Amador Co. and southern El Dorado Co.).  

District 11:  

Incumbent: Jerry McNerney (Pleasanton)

Current District:  Obama 53.8%; McCain 44.5% (Obama + 9.3)

Proposed District:  Obama 56.3%; McCain 42.0% (Obama + 14.3)

Proposed District:  Kerry 47.2%; Bush 51.9%

Combines suburban parts of Alameda Co. (Pleasanton, Dublin, etc.) with part of San Joaquin County (Stockton – no longer split between two districts; Tracy) and rural/small town areas in Stanislaus Co.  The new district becomes approximately 5 points more Democratic — at least as measured by the Obama margin — which should be a boost to McNerney’s future election chances.  (In 2006 McNerney won by 6.2 points, while last year he won by 10.6 points; all other things being even, if the Congressman ran under these lines his winning margin would have likely topped 11 points in 2006 and might have been 15 to 16 points in 2008).

District 12:  

Incumbent: Jackie Speier (Hillsborough)

Current District:  Obama 74.3%; McCain 23.9% (Obama + 50.4)

Proposed District:  Obama 73.9%; McCain 24.4% (Obama + 49.5)

Proposed District:  Kerry 70.6%; Bush 28.4%

Very similar to the current “Peninsula” district.  Boundaries in San Francisco shift a bit, while in San Mateo Co., Half Moon Bay is added from CA-14 as well as part of Redwood City (which is no longer split between two districts).

District 13:

Incumbent: Pete Stark (Fremont)

Current District:  Obama 74.4%; McCain 23.8% (Obama + 50.6)

Proposed District:  Obama 70.9%; McCain 27.2% (Obama + 43.7)

Proposed District:  Kerry 66.5%; Bush 32.2%

New district is focused mainly on Alameda County (Alameda, Hayward, San Leandro, Union City, Livermore, etc.), with a small part of Contra Costa attached (San Ramon).  Stark’s home in Fremont remains, though approximately 65% of the city becomes part of CA-15.

District 14:

Incumbent: Anna Eshoo (Atherton)

Current District:  Obama 73.1%; McCain 24.9% (Obama + 48.2)

Proposed District:  Obama 72.8%; McCain 25.2% (Obama + 47.6)

Proposed District:  Kerry 68.2%; Bush 30.5%

CA-14 becomes even more so the “Silicon Valley” district as the city of Santa Clara is added; other than that and the changes discussed under “District 12”, the boundaries stay quite similar.

District 15:  

Incumbent: Mike Honda (San Jose)

Current District:  Obama 68.4%; McCain 29.7% (Obama + 38.7)

Proposed District:  Obama 70.1%; McCain 28.3% (Obama + 41.8)

Proposed District:  Kerry 64.8%; Bush 34.3%

New district is still centered on San Jose; though the boundaries change in some places around the city.  The cities of Santa Clara and Gilroy are detached, while Newark and most of Fremont is attached, as the district shifts in a northern geographic direction.

District 16:  

Incumbent: Zoe Lofgren (San Jose)

Current District:  Obama 69.6%; McCain 28.8% (Obama + 40.8)

Proposed District:  Obama 66.4%; McCain 31.8% (Obama + 34.6)

Proposed District:  Kerry 60.2%; Bush 38.5%

The new CA-16 is centered on San Jose, as the current district.  Gilroy and Morgan Hill are added, while parts of northern San Jose are detached to form portions of the new CA-15 and CA-18.

District 17:

Incumbents: Sam Farr (Carmel); George Radanovich (Mariposa)                

Current District:  Obama 72.1%; McCain 25.8% (Obama + 46.3)

Proposed District:  Obama 61.0%; McCain 36.9% (Obama + 24.1)

Proposed District:  Kerry 54.6%; Bush 43.9%

The new district encompasses virtually the whole Monterey Bay littoral (from Santa Cruz to Carmel), then turns inland to include much of Merced Co. (except for the cities of Merced and Atwater), most of Madera Co. (except the city of Madera) and all of Mariposa, Tuolumne and Calaveras Counties.  Politically, the new boundaries preserve Sam Farr’s district while creating a new Hispanic-majority seat in the area at the same time (the new CA-19).  About 45% of the population of the new CA-17 is currently in Farr’s district; while approximately 29% is in Radanovich’s (the rest comes mostly out of the current CA-18).  Additionally, Farr’s old territory is relatively more partisan (77% for Obama in the Santa Cruz/Monterey area) than Radanovich’s base area (only 56% for McCain in that part).   End result: a pretty solidly Democratic district.

District 18:  

Incumbent: Dennis Cardoza (Atwater)

Current District:  Obama 59.2%; McCain 39.0% (Obama + 20.2)

Proposed District:  Obama 56.0%; McCain 42.1% (Obama + 13.9)

Proposed District:  Kerry 46.4%; Bush 52.9%

CA-18 remains similar to the current district in many respects.  The district is expanded in Stanislaus Co. (Modesto is no longer split between districts, but is now wholly within CA-18); parts of Merced Co. (including the cities of Merced and Atwater) and San Joaquin Co. also remain.  The part of Stockton currently in CA-18 is detached, and Hispanic-majority areas in San Jose are substituted.  The district remains plurality Hispanic (around 46%).  Perhaps the only concern with the new district is that it’s a bit less Democratic than the current one.  When Cardoza first ran here in 2002 he faced Republican Dick Monteith.  Blue Dog Cardoza won that race by 9 points (he has won subsequent elections by much higher margins).  Even if Cardoza had ran his initial race in the new, less Democratic (by approximately 6 points) district, he would still have won.  If these concerns are not allayed, the district can pretty easily be made more Democratic by tweaking the lines, especially around San Jose.

District 19:  

Incumbent: None.

Current District:  Obama 46.0%; McCain 52.1% (McCain + 6.1)

Proposed District:  Obama 57.7%; McCain 40.7% (Obama + 17.0)

Proposed District:  Kerry 49.5%; Bush 49.6%

CA-19 is a new Hispanic-majority district (at approximately 52% of the population) encompassing much of Monterey County (including Salinas), all of San Benito Co. — both previously part of CA-17 — and areas of Madera and Fresno Counties previously part of CA-19 and CA-18.  Bush won here by a hair in 2004, but in 2008 the area swung strongly for Obama.

District 20:

Incumbent: Jim Costa (Fresno)

Current District:  Obama 59.6%; McCain 38.7% (Obama + 20.9)

Proposed District:  Obama 60.8%; McCain 37.5% (Obama + 23.3)

Proposed District:  Kerry 51.8%; Bush 47.3%

The district remains very, very similar to the current one, with a few areas removed in Fresno and Kings Counties to account for population growth.  The district continues to include parts of the cities of Fresno and Bakersfield, and stays Hispanic-majority.  

District 21:  

Incumbent: Devin Nunes (Tulare)

Current District:  Obama 42.1%; McCain 56.3% (McCain + 14.2)

Proposed District:  Obama 42.0%; McCain 56.4% (McCain + 14.4)

Proposed District:  Kerry 33.6%; Bush 65.6%

The new district remains similar to the current one, encompassing parts of Fresno and Tulare Counties.  It should be noted that the area contained in the current lines has a Hispanic population of close to 50%; however, in this part of California the Hispanic population forms a relatively small part of the electorate, and the district remains a GOP bastion.

District 22:  

Incumbent: Kevin McCarthy (Bakersfield)

Current District:  Obama 38.3%; McCain 59.7% (McCain + 21.4)

Proposed District:  Obama 36.5%; McCain 61.7% (McCain + 25.2)

Proposed District:  Kerry 29.4%; Bush 69.7%

CA-22 remains politically similar to the current district (though geographically, perhaps appears more similar to the 1992-2002 version of this district, with the addition of a part of Tulare Co.).  The San Luis Obispo Co. interior areas are detached, while interior Santa Barbara County is added.  Surprisingly, interior Santa Barbara is more conservative than interior areas of SLO (probably due to the relatively high military presence around Vandenberg AFB), even though the coastal area of Santa Barbara is considerably more progressive than coastal areas of SLO.  The new CA-22 is politically the most conservative in California, and it’s super conservative on social issues; almost three-fourth of the voters here went for Prop. 8.

District 23:  

Incumbent: Lois Capps (Santa Barbara)

Current District:  Obama 65.3%; McCain 32.3% (Obama + 33.0)

Proposed District:  Obama 59.2%; McCain 38.7% (Obama + 20.5)

Proposed District:  Kerry 52.4%; Bush 46.1%

The new district encompasses all of San Luis Obispo County (no longer divided among two districts), the coastal area of Santa Barbara Co. (with Lompoc added, and a few precincts on the outskirts of Santa Maria detached) and all of the city of Ventura (no longer split between districts) in Ventura Co.  Oxnard is no longer in the district.  The Democratic percentage is reduced, but Capps or another Democrat in the future should have no trouble here.

District 24:

Incumbent: None.

Current District:  Obama 50.5%; McCain 47.7% (Obama + 2.8)

Proposed District:  Obama 61.0%; McCain 37.3% (Obama + 23.7)

Proposed District:  Kerry 54.0%; Bush 44.8%

The new district combines much of Ventura Co. (except Simi Valley and the city of Ventura) with parts of Los Angeles Co. (Malibu, Santa Monica, and a tiny portion of the city of Los Angeles).  Bottom line here in four steps: (1) Elton Gallegly almost retired from Congress during the 2006 election cycle.  (2) He lives in Simi Valley (made part of CA-30 under this plan).  (3) The Democratic margin goes up by over 20 points.  (4) The redrawing of this district will assure Gallegly’s retirement.  

District 25:  

Incumbent: Adam Schiff (Burbank – see entry under “District 29” below).

Current District:  Obama 49.5%; McCain 48.3% (Obama + 1.2)

Proposed District:  Obama 59.7%; McCain 38.2% (Obama + 21.5)

Proposed District:  Kerry 51.2%; Bush 47.5%

The new CA-25 is no longer the crazy version of the current CA-25 which runs from the city of Los Angeles almost to Reno, Nevada !  The new 25th is confined entirely to Los Angeles County, combining the northern part of the county (Palmdale, Lancaster – which is no longer split between two districts) with areas further south – Burbank (no longer split between districts), West Hollywood and parts of the city of Los Angeles (Hollywood, Beverly Crest, Griffith Park, Sunland, Tujunga, etc.).  Perhaps combining Lancaster and Palmdale with West Hollywood may seem crazy as well, but the new district appears quite compact, and who says northern Los Angeles Co. and West Hollywood should not be combined ?  The Obama margin jumps from a 1.2 advantage to a 21.5 point advantage.  Technically, Adam Schiff is the only incumbent residing in the district though he would likely seek reelection in the new CA-29 if this plan were adopted.  Howard McKeon resides in the new CA-27 under this plan, and he should think twice about running here (he won his last election by 15.6 points, in a district that has a 20.3 points less Democratic margin than the proposed one).

District 26:  

Incumbent: None

Current District:  Obama 51.0%; McCain 47.0% (Obama + 4.0)

Proposed District:  Obama 61.5%; McCain 36.7% (Obama + 24.8)

Proposed District:  Kerry 54.5%; Bush 44.4%

This new district has relatively little in common with the current CA-26.  Both the old and new CA-26 contain Claremont and LaVerne, but the bulk of the territory in the new district comes out of the current CA-32 (El Monte, Baldwin Park, Irwindale, Covina, etc.), with parts of CA-38 (Pomona) and CA-42 (Chino, Chino Hills) also attached.  CA-32 itself is preserved as a separate district.  The new CA-26 is a new Hispanic-majority district (approximately 62% Hispanic).

District 27:

Incumbents: Brad Sherman (Los Angeles); Howard McKeon (Santa Clarita)

Current District:  Obama 66.1%; McCain 31.7% (Obama + 34.4)

Proposed District:  Obama 60.6%; McCain 37.2% (Obama + 23.4)

Proposed District:  Kerry 53.6%; Bush 45.0%

The bulk of this district is made up of San Fernando Valley communities within the city of Los Angeles (Reseda, Northridge, Granada Hills, etc.) and within the current CA-27.  Also attached is Santa Clarita to the north.

District 28:  

Incumbent: Howard Berman (Los Angeles)

Current District:  Obama 76.2%; McCain 22.0% (Obama + 54.2)

Proposed District:  Obama 75.6%; McCain 22.6% (Obama + 53.0)

Proposed District:  Kerry 70.4%; Bush 28.5%

This new district is quite similar to the current one, consisting of San Fernando Valley communities.  Borders are changed a little, partly in order to keep neighborhoods together within the same district.  The district remains majority Hispanic.

District 29:  

Incumbent: David Dreier (San Dimas)

Current District:  Obama 67.6%; McCain 30.4% (Obama + 37.2)

Proposed District:  Obama 61.1%; McCain 36.8% (Obama + 24.3)

Proposed District:  Kerry 53.4%; Bush 45.2%

Even though Adam Schiff lives in Burbank (part of the new CA-25), most of his current district is transferred to the new CA-29.  In fact, 56% of the new CA-29 is territory currently represented by Schiff (including Glendale and Pasadena), while only 34% is territory currently represented by Dreier.  I tried to avoid splitting communities between districts in drawing this plan, but the lines can be nevertheless easily tweaked here to include a part of Burbank in CA-29; under the current plan, eastern Burbank is in CA-29.

District 30:  

Incumbent: Henry Waxman (Los Angeles); Elton Gallegly (Simi Valley)

Current District:  Obama 70.4%; McCain 27.9% (Obama + 42.5)

Proposed District:  Obama 64.0%; McCain 34.4% (Obama + 29.6)

Proposed District:  Kerry 59.3%; Bush 39.7%

This westside LA district includes communities currently in CA-30 (like Beverly Hills, Bel Air, Brentwood, Pacific Palisades, Woodland Hills, Calabasas and Agoura Hills) as well as newly attached areas (Culver City, Chatsworth – which was previously spilt between CA-30 and another district, etc.).  Santa Monica and Malibu are taken out and attached to the neighboring CA-24.  The district remains a Democratic bastion, and a very progressive one at that (almost 2/3 of the vote went against Prop 8).

District 31:  

Incumbent: Xavier Beccera (Los Angeles)

Current District:  Obama 79.9%; McCain 18.3% (Obama + 61.6)

Proposed District:  Obama 78.9%; McCain 18.7% (Obama + 60.2)

Proposed District:  Kerry 75.6%; Bush 22.9%

This district consists of the entire current CA-31 territory plus, in order to reflect population shifts in the area, South Pasadena is added.  The district is majority-Hispanic.

District 32:  

Incumbent: Judy Chu (Monterey Park); Gary Miller (Diamond Bar)

Current District:  Obama 68.2%; McCain 29.8% (Obama + 38.4)

Proposed District:  Obama 61.4%; McCain 36.6% (Obama + 24.8)

Proposed District:  Kerry 55.9%; Bush 43.1%

The new CA-32 runs from a part of East Los Angeles through Monterey Park (now all in one district), Rosemead, San Gabriel, Temple City, San Marino, South El Monte, West Covina, La Puente, Walnut, Diamond Bar, Brea and other communities interspersed in between.  The new district remains majority Hispanic (barely) but also has a very high percentage of Asian-Americans (almost 40%).  Indeed, in some communities, the Hispanic and Asian population combined equals almost 100% of the total population.  Many Hispanic-majority areas of the current CA-32 are detached in order to create the new Hispanic-majority CA-26 just to the north and east of the new CA-32.

District 33:  

Incumbent: Diane Watson (Los Angeles)

Current District:  Obama 86.8%; McCain 11.7% (Obama + 75.1)

Proposed District:  Obama 84.2%; McCain 14.2% (Obama + 70.0)

Proposed District:  Kerry 80.0%; Bush 18.7%

The new CA-33 includes most of the current district (except Culver City and part of Griffith Park) as well as areas previously part of other districts (El Segundo and the Westchester area around LAX).

District 34:  

Incumbent: Lucille Roybal-Allard (Los Angeles)

Current District:  Obama 74.7%; McCain 23.2% (Obama + 51.5)

Proposed District:  Obama 75.2%; McCain 22.7% (Obama + 52.5)

Proposed District:  Kerry 68.8%; Bush 30.0%

The new district is very similar to the current one, including downtown LA, Downey, and everything in between, as well as new territory (El Sereno part of LA, Alhambra).  Some areas have been taken out (part of East LA, Bellflower) and attached to other districts. The district is majority-Hispanic

District 35:  

Incumbent: Maxine Waters (Los Angeles)

Current District:  Obama 84.4%; McCain 14.1% (Obama + 70.3)

Proposed District:  Obama 86.5%; McCain 12.0% (Obama + 74.5)

Proposed District:  Kerry 81.2%; Bush 17.7%

Most of the district is the same as before – the south-central area of Los Angeles.  Areas around LAX in the west are detached, while South Gate is added in the east.  A little history in a nutshell to summarize the political evolution in a part of this area: back in the 50’s and 60’s South Gate was almost all white while areas immediately to the west, like Watts, were almost all black, and a large degree of segregation existed.  Today Watts is over 70% Hispanic, while South Gate is over 90% Hispanic.  Overall, the district is about 66% Hispanic.  There’s a strong possibility that once Maxine Waters retires, this district will elect a Hispanic representative.

District 36:  

Incumbent: Jane Harman (Los Angeles)

Current District:  Obama 64.4%; McCain 33.5% (Obama + 30.9)

Proposed District:  Obama 62.0%; McCain 35.9% (Obama + 26.1)

Proposed District:  Kerry 57.0%; Bush 41.6%

The new CA-36 is similar to the current district hugging Santa Monica Bay. Some areas are detached (El Segundo) while others are attached (Palos Verdes Peninsula).  The Palos Verdes area was part of the district prior to 2002, contributing to the election of Republican Steve Kuykendall here in 1998 with a bare winning margin of 49% of the vote.  At first glance, the new district appears kind of similar to that old one – but in reality is significantly more Democratic.  One major difference is that high-population progressive areas of LA just east of Santa Monica (Mar Vista, etc.) are currently in the district — and remain in the new district — but were not a part of CA-36 when Kuykendall was elected.

District 37:

Incumbent: Laura Richardson (Long Beach)

Current District:  Obama 79.6%; McCain 18.7% (Obama + 60.9)

Proposed District:  Obama 60.7%; McCain 37.3% (Obama + 23.4)

Proposed District:  Kerry 53.1%; Bush 45.5%

The new district puts the parts of Long Beach previously in CA-37 and CA-46 into one district (except for a narrow coastal sliver connecting two parts of CA-46).  Approximately 97% of Long Beach’s population is now in CA-37.  The district also includes more conservative areas in Orange County to the immediate east (Los Alamitos, part of Garden Grove, Stanton, Fountain Valley and Westminster – the latter, no longer split between two districts).

District 38:

Incumbent: Grace Napolitano (Norwalk); Ed Royce (Fullerton)

Current District:  Obama 71.3%; McCain 26.6% (Obama + 44.7)

Proposed District:  Obama 58.5%; McCain 39.4% (Obama + 19.1)

Proposed District:  Kerry 51.0%; Bush 47.7%

This remains a majority-Hispanic district (approximately 63%) encompassing areas like Norwalk, Pico Rivera, part of East LA, Hacienda Heights and Montebello in Los Angeles County as well as La Habra, Fullerton and Placentia (the latter two no longer divided between two districts) in Orange County.

District 39:

Incumbent: Linda Sánchez (Lakewood)

Current District:  Obama 65.5%; McCain 32.4% (Obama + 33.1)

Proposed District:  Obama 57.6%; McCain 40.4% (Obama + 17.2)

Proposed District:  Kerry 50.4%; Bush 48.5%

This districts maintains many of the same parts of Los Angeles County currently included in CA-39, but does a better job at keeping communities intact (Whittier is no longer divided between districts) and also adds communities in Orange County (Cypress, La Palma, Buena Park, etc.)   The district remains majority Hispanic.  The new CA-39 now borders the new CA-47, the district of Linda’s sister Loretta Sanchez.

District 40:

Incumbent: None

Current District:  Obama 46.6%; McCain 51.1% (McCain + 4.5)

Proposed District:  Obama 59.7%; McCain 38.6% (Obama + 21.1)

Proposed District:  Kerry 49.3%; Bush 49.8%

California’s “Inland Empire” has had some of the state’s highest growth rate of the last decade, fueled largely by an increase in the Hispanic population.  The new CA-40 reflects that growth through the creation of a new Hispanic-majority district here (new district is approximately 57% Hispanic).  The new district includes the unincorporated extreme northwestern part of Riverside County as well as areas — mostly incorporated — in San Bernardino Co. (Ontario, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana).

District 41:  

Incumbent: None

Current District:  Obama 43.7%; McCain 54.2% (McCain + 10.5)

Proposed District:  Obama 41.4%; McCain 56.4% (McCain + 15.0)

Proposed District:  Kerry 34.9%; Bush 63.9%

This district includes most of San Bernardino Co. outside the southwestern population core, as well as parts of Riverside Co. (Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, etc.)  The current CA-41 incumbent Jerry Lewis lives in Redland, part of CA-43 under the new lines, but most of Lewis’ base is in the new CA-41 and it would make sense for him to run here.

District 42:

Incumbent: None

Current District:  Obama 44.9%; McCain 53.2% (McCain + 8.3)

Proposed District:  Obama 43.3%; McCain 54.9% (McCain + 11.6)

Proposed District:  Kerry 35.1%; Bush 63.9%

This is perhaps the stereotypical Orange County district – “conservative Nixon/Reagan country”.  The district runs from Yorba Linda (the birthplace of Richard Nixon) to the hills just above San Clemente (the site of Nixon’s “summer White House”).  San Juan Capistrano, in the district’s southern reaches, is no longer split between two different districts.  In its new form, CA-42 is a Republican stronghold, though this is no longer the most conservative area in California.  Furthermore, compared to other GOP districts in the rest of the country, the new CA-42 is (relatively) not that extremely conservative.  Current CA-42 incumbent Gary Miller lives in Diamond Bar, a part of CA-32 under the new lines.  However, politically, it would make much sense for Miller to run here.

District 43:

Incumbent: Joe Baca (Rialto); Jerry Lewis (Redlands; see entry under “District 41” above).

Current District:  Obama 68.0%; McCain 30.1% (Obama + 37.9)

Proposed District:  Obama 58.0%; McCain 39.9% (Obama + 18.1)

Proposed District:  Kerry 48.7%; Bush 50.1%

The new CA-43 consists of urban to exurban areas of San Bernardino Co., including all of the city of San Bernardino (which as previously split between CA-43 and CA-41), Colton (which was also split), Rialto, Loma Linda, Highland, Redlands, Adelanto, Victorville and other areas.  The new district remains majority-Hispanic.

District 44:  

Incumbent: Mary Bono (Palm Springs)

Current District:  Obama 49.5%; McCain 48.6% (Obama + 0.9)

Proposed District:  Obama 61.6%; McCain 36.6% (Obama + 25.0)

Proposed District:  Kerry 51.3%; Bush 47.6%

The new CA-44 is completely confined to Riverside County, and includes communities like Riverside, Moreno Valley, Perris, Cathedral City and Palm Springs.  Current CA-44 incumbent Ken Calvert doesn’t even live in the new CA-44, and even if he ran here, wouldn’t have a prayer under the new lines.  Mary Bono would have a hard time winning here also (the last two times she won by approximately 18 points in a district with about a 20 point less Democratic margin than the new CA-44), and it would make sense for her to run in the new CA-45.  The district is a new Hispanic-majority district (approximately 53%).

District 45:

Incumbent: None

Current District:  Obama 51.5%; McCain 46.9% (Obama + 4.6)

Proposed District:  Obama 44.5%; McCain 53.9% (McCain + 9.4)

Proposed District:  Kerry 35.8%; Bush 63.3%

The new lines here maintain the district wholly within Riverside County.  Much of Riverside Co. outside the (relatively) more suburban northwestern area is included here, including Menifee, which is now contained entirely within one district.  Mary Bono lives in Palm Springs (in the new CA-44), but most of Bono’s base is in the new CA-45, and the only logical thing for her to do would be to run here.

District 46:  

Incumbent: Dana Rohrabacher (Huntington Beach)

Current District:  Obama 47.9%; McCain 49.8% (McCain + 1.9)

Proposed District:  Obama 61.7%; McCain 36.5% (Obama + 25.2)

Proposed District:  Kerry 53.7%; Bush 45.0%

The new CA-46 combines parts of Los Angeles and Orange Counties — as does the district in its current form.  The OC part is somewhat similar to what’s contained in the current CA-46, with Huntington Beach and Seal Beach included but with Newport Beach substituted for Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley and Westminster.  The LA part is a bit different, with areas like Carson, Lynwood and Compton substituting for parts of Long Beach and the Palos Verdes Peninsula communities.  The new district is almost entirely suburban, with only a sliver of Los Angeles proper included.  Under these lines, Rohrabacher may finally experience “wipeout” conditions in his electoral prospects.  

Addendum: it’s interesting to note that the OC part of the new CA-46 voted for Prop. 8 by approximately 53%, while the LA part voted for Prop. 8 by a significantly higher 65%.

District 47:  

Incumbent: Loretta Sanchez (Anaheim)

Current District:  Obama 60.1%; McCain 37.8% (Obama + 22.3)

Proposed District:  Obama 58.6%; McCain 39.5% (Obama + 19.1)

Proposed District:  Kerry 47.9%; Bush 50.9%

The new CA-47 is very similar to the current district.  Parts of Santa Ana which were previously in CA-46 and CA-48 are added to the bulk of the city that is already in the district, so that all of Santa Ana is now in CA-47.  Likewise, a small part of Fullerton is detached in the north so that it too can be all in one district.  However, Anaheim and Garden Grove remain split between this and other districts; this is necessary to maintain the viability of Hispanic representation in CA-47.

District 48:  

Incumbent: John Campbell (Irvine)

Current District:  Obama 49.3%; McCain 48.6% (Obama + 0.7)

Proposed District:  Obama 52.3%; McCain 45.8% (Obama + 6.5)

Proposed District:  Kerry 43.1%; Bush 55.8%

The new CA-48 runs along the coast of Orange and San Diego Counties, including all of Costa Mesa, Irvine, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Beach, Dana Point, San Clemente, Camp Pendleton and Oceanside.  Obama won the new district by 6.5 points.  This is an improvement on the current district which basically split 49/49 in the last election.  While this may initially appear not enough to flip the district to the Democratic side, I believe that with a good campaign, a Democrat can win here.  It bears watching how Beth Krom, the mayor of Irvine, does in the current CA-48 in 2010 if she is our nominee.  If she hits around 45% or more of the vote, it would appear that a Democrat would be well positioned under the new lines.  It should be noted that the area contained within the proposed CA-48 is progressive enough to have actually voted against Proposition 8 ! (by 51% to 49%).  It would not appear that such a district would elect someone like “birther” John Campbell forever.

Addendum:  this proposed district can easily be made even more Democratic by tweaking the lines.  Communities, of course would have to be broken up, but the subsequent district would still be compact enough to pass muster.  Please see the map below re. how CA-48 could go from the proposed +6.5 point Obama margin with communities completely intact to a +10.0 Obama margin district with some communities split among districts.  The top map here shows CA-48 as designed for this diary, with the nine constituent communities intact.  The bottom map shows that by adding all or parts of seven additional communities, while detaching parts of the first nine, you can come up with a district that voted 54.1 Obama – 44.1 McCain. (Btw, if you’re wondering why the large Camp Pendleton area is left alone, the reason is that the number of active voters there is relatively very small compared to other parts of the district, and so trying to gerrymander the lines in that area would have a minimal effect on the overall political composition of this district.)

District 49:

Incumbent: Darrell Issa (Vista); Ken Calvert (Corona).

Current District:  Obama 45.1%; McCain 53.0% (McCain + 7.9)

Proposed District:  Obama 41.2%; McCain 56.3% (McCain + 15.1)

Proposed District:  Kerry 32.0%; Bush 67.1%

The new CA-49 includes much of Darrell Issa’s current territory in San Diego and Riverside Counties and also parts of Ken Calvert’s territory in Riverside and Orange Counties (as well as Rancho Santa Margarita, currently part of CA-42).  The new district becomes an even bigger GOP bastion.

District 50:  

Incumbent: None

Current District:  Obama 51.3%; McCain 47.1% (Obama + 4.2)

Proposed District:  Obama 57.9%; McCain 40.3% (Obama + 17.6)

Proposed District:  Kerry 48.0%; Bush 50.7%

This district combines the San Diego city parts of the current CA-50 and CA-52 into one district.  The boundaries are then tweaked a bit so that parts of the city of San Diego currently in CA-53 (Hillcrest, Pacific Beach, Mission Beach, the area around UC-San Diego, etc.) become part of this district, while other areas now part of CA-50 (interior portion of La Jolla) become part of the new CA-53.  Also included in the new CA-50 are coastal communities just north of the city (Del Mar, Encinitas, Solana Beach); other than these communities, the new district consists entirely of the city of San Diego.  Brian Bilbray’s new home in Carlsbad is not included in the district.  Bilbray beat Nick Leibham here last year by exactly 5 points, while in the 2006 special election, Bilbray beat Francine Busby by 4.5 points.  The new CA-50 has a Democratic margin that’s 13.4 points higher than the old CA-50; you can do the rest of the math here re. Bilbray’s future electoral prospects under the new lines !

District 51:  

Incumbent: Bob Filner (San Diego)

Current District:  Obama 63.1%; McCain 35.5% (Obama + 27.6)

Proposed District:  Obama 63.1%; McCain 35.5% (Obama + 27.6)

Proposed District:  Kerry 55.1%; Bush 43.3%

The new district remains very, very similar to the current one.  The only changes are that a small part of San Diego as well as unincorporated communities to the north of Chula Vista are detached in order to meet population parameters of the new district.  The district remains majority Hispanic.

District 52:  

Incumbent: Duncan Hunter (Lakeside); Brian Bilbray (Carlsbad)

Current District:  Obama 45.0%; McCain 53.4% (McCain + 8.4)

Proposed District:  Obama 43.6%; McCain 55.4% (McCain + 11.8)

Proposed District:  Kerry 35.7%; Bush 63.3%

This district combines the non-San Diego parts of the current CA-50 and CA-52 into one district — 51% of the territory in the new district comes out of CA-50, while 46% comes out of CA-52 (also included is the  Rancho Bernardo part of San Diego, currently in CA-49).  The primary here between Bilbray and Hunter (if that was the result of these lines being adopted) would be quite interesting to watch.

District 53:  

Incumbent: Susan Davis (San Diego)

Current District:  Obama 68.2%; McCain 29.9% (Obama + 38.3)

Proposed District:  Obama 63.0%; McCain 35.4% (Obama + 27.6)

Proposed District:  Kerry 55.0%; Bush 44.0%

The new CA-53 is anchored by the city of San Diego, with smaller communities like Imperial Beach, Coronado, Lemon Grove, La Mesa and El Cajon also included.  The new district is a bit less Democratic than the current one, but Davis would have no trouble winning in a new “Obama +27.6 points” district.

With all the talk of redistricting around here, I wanted to let people know about an upcoming panel on the topic at Netroots Nation in Pittsburgh.  

The panel titled “Redistricting is Coming! Why Progressives Must Focus on the State Legislature in 2010 and How You Can Help” will be held on:

Thursday, August 13th at 4:30 p.m. in Rooms 301/302 at the Conference Center.

The panel will cover redistricting and recent history but will have a more intense focus on how Democrats can create a “permanent majority” beginning in 2010 at the state legislative level. The panel will look at what we can do to help ensure that redistricting happens in our favor, from finding key races to actively support across the country to running for office at a local level.  

The panel will feature blogger Matt Glazer from Burnt Orange Report, Matt Compton the DLCC Communications Director, Sam Bennett from the Women’s Campaign Forum, and State Rep. Chelsa Wagner (D-Pittsburgh. Christopher Massicotte, Director of Sales and Marketing for NGP, will moderate the panel discussion and interactive questioning. Join us for the event if you will be attending Netroots, the Facebook event is at http://bit.ly/qS1So.  

But even if you are unable to make it, you can follow the action @leftyngp on Twitter or submit your own questions by using the hashtag, #redistricting2010.

Hope to see you all in Pittsburgh, or at least get some great questions for what should be an interesting panel!

I made this map assuming New York will lose one seat, all incumbents will win in 2010 and Republicans will hold NY-23. I chose to assume Republicans would hold the 23rd district because it seemed easier to redistrict out the 23rd district than the 26th.  

NY-19 Hall	Obama	McCain	Total
Current 19th	50.7%	46.2%
Saratoga County	2151	1987	4217
Washington County	12741	12533	25714
Rensselaer County	39753	32840	73976
Columbia County	17556	13337	31403
Dutchess County	71060	59628	132246
Putnam County	21613	25145	47206
Total	164874	145470	314762
New 19th	52.4%	46.2%

With slow population growth and redistricting out the 23rd district, districts had to move East and North. Since I started in the West and making it more Democratic Hall’s district changed a lot but Dutchess and Putnam Counties account for over 50% of the district which are in his district now.

NY-20 Murphy vs Scozzafava	Obama	McCain	Total
Current 20th	50.7%	47.7%
St Lawrence County	23706	16956	41223
Franklin County	10571	6676	17495
Clinton County	20216	12579	33312
Essex County	10390	7913	18590
Warren County	16281	15429	32206
Schenectady County	38611	29758	69765
Saratoga County	54494	50868	107008
Total	174269	140179	319599
New 20th	54.5%	43.9%

The 20th’s new Make up is 40.9% from the old 20th, 37.7% from the old 23rd, and 21.4% from the old 21st. Every county voted for Obama.

NY-21 Tonko	Obama	McCain	Total
Current 21st	58.1%	40%
Lewis County	4986	5969	11129
Jefferson County	18166	20219	38847
Herkimer County	12904	14619	27176
Hamilton County	1225	2141	3408
Fulton County	9695	11709	21800
Montgomery County	9080	10711	20168
Ostego County	13570	12026	26094
Schoharie County	6009	8071	14381
Albany County	93937	50586	147110
Total	168762	136051	310113
New 21st	54.4%	43.9%

Pickes up area from the old 23rd and 24th to the North and West becomes less Democratic. Albany County makes up about half of the district.

NY-22 Hinchey	Obama	McCain	Total
Current 22nd	59.2%	39.3%
Delaware County	9462	10524	20384
Greene County	9850	12059	22287
Sullivan County	16850	13900	31153
Ulster County	52539	32527	86461
Orange County	69913	60951	132233
Total	158614	129961	292518
New 22nd	54.2%	44.4%

Becomes more compact and less Democratic by losing its finger that goes through Binghamton and to Tompkins County.

NY-23 Massa	Obama	McCain	Total
Current 29th	48.2%	50.5%
Monroe County	101751	82413	186379
Ontario County	17431	15978	33816
Wayne County	9803	13009	23150
Yates County	4890	5269	10264
Seneca County	7422	7038	14725
Schuyler County	3933	4542	8600
Chemung County	18888	19364	38693
Tioga County	10172	12536	23085
Steuben County*	5951*	8398*	14535*
Total	180241	168547	353247
New 23rd	51%	47.7%

The numbers for the 23rd and 26th are not exact numbers because I could not find political data for Steuben County so I split up the numbers based on population. I would assume Corning is less repulbican than Steuben County on a whole, but since I dont know the area and couldnt find information on it I just split Steuben up evenly.

The 23rd picks up more of the Rochester exurbs and loses its strong republican areas in the Southwest. Monroe County now makes up about half of the district.

NY-24 Arcuri	Obama	McCain	Total
Current 24th	50.3%	48%
Cayuga County	16536	13398	30463
Cortland County	11861	9678	21897
Broome County	47204	40077	88707
Chenango County	10100	10337	20847
Madison County	14692	14434	29774
Oneida County	32627	34555	68237
Tompkins County	29826	11927	42472
Total	162846	134406	302397
New 24th	53.9%	44.4%

After his close call in 2008 making Arcuri’s district safer was one of my main goals. Picks up the rest of Tompkins and Broome Counties making it more Democratic.

NY-25 Maffei	Obama	McCain	Total
Current 25th	55.7%	42.6%
Wayne County	8381	9230	17829
Onondaga County	129317	84972	218194
Oswego County	24777	23571	49249
Oneida County	10879	14701	26069
Total	173354	132474	311341
New 25th	55.6%	42.5%

Loses its area in Monroe County and parts of Wayne County. Picks up Oswego County and parts of Oneida County. Stays almost the exact same politicaly.

NY-26 Lee	Obama	McCain	Total
Current 26th	46.4%	52.2%
Niagara County	26003	27267	54148
Orleans County	1758	2714	4550
Monroe County	12813	15385	28593
Genesee County	10762	15705	26866
Wyoming County	6379	10998	17665
Livingston County	13655	16030	30112
Chatauqua County	29129	28579	58762
Cattaraugus County	14307	17770	32588
Ontario County	7762	9193	17186
Allegany County	7016	11013	18386
Steuben County*	11197*	15805*	27353*
Total	140781	170459	316181
New 26th	44.5%	53.9%

Lee would now live in the 27th but I assume he would run in the safer 26th. Becomes more republican after losing its areas in Erie County and picking up most of the heavy republican areas from the 23rd.

NY-27 Higgins	Obama	McCain	Total
Current 27th	54.2%	44%
Erie County	191229	125711	321941
New 27th	59.4%	39%

Loses Chautauqua County and becomes more Democratic by picking up the rest of Buffalo.

NY-28 Slaughter	Obama	McCain	Total
Current 28th	68.5%	30.3%
Erie County	65070	53104	119985
Niagara County	21300	19081	41014
Orleans County	4856	6994	12024
Monroe County	92661	46355	140630
Total	183887	125534	313653
New 28th	58.6%	40%

I kept the general earmuff shape of the district the same to allow the 23rd to pick up more of Monroe County. I also kept it pretty safe considering Slaughter would be 93 on election day 2022 most likely creating an open seat in the next decade. I also drew Slaughter out of her own district but I did it mainly to make it easier to calculate the results it wouldnt much diffrence to draw an finger out to Fairport like there is now.

Johnny beat the annoucement that New York is ready, with a great map. (Nice going!)

I’ve also made a couple of improvements to the software, prompted by working with New York:

– Thinner block lines, so you can see the tiny blocks.

– The slow work of Assign Old CDs now happens when you click the button instead of on load. (It took about 4 minutes for NY on my not too slow machine.)

– Zoom: Scrollbar replaces slider.

Here’s a link.

Note also: I am looking at partisan data, but it will take some time.

Enjoy.