Tag: Redistricting

The partisan data is still not in the Application.  Nevertheless, I wanted to post this DRAFT map now that the Census numbers are out.

I feel that my first attempt 15-3 map was perhaps too ambitious, but I feel confident that 14-4 is VERY doable in Illinois — ofcourse, the lines will have to be ugly like this “Texas-style” map.

I had several goals:

1.) Keep all 3 black seats intact; not easy considering hundreds of thousands of blacks have left Chicago over the last decade.

2.) Create two Hispanic seats — ones that would be guaranteed to elect Hispanic representatives.

3.) Keep all currently Democratic-held seats at very high Democratic levels (this includes the minority-majority seats, ofcourse, as well as IL-3, IL-5, IL-9, and IL-12).

4.) Create seats where the incumbent Democrat would keep as much of his or her current constituents as possible.

5.) Create a map whereby there are only 4 Republican seats, the newly created Democratic seats must be at relatively high Democratic levels – ideally around 65% Obama or higher in the Chicago area and around 60% Obama or higher in downstate and/or 5 points more Democratic than the existing seat.

6.) As a finishing touch, create a map whereby Aaron Schock and Adam Kinzinger will basically not have a seat to run in.

Here’s the map:

Goal 1:  Preserving African-American seats – under this map, virtually all black-majority precincts in the Chicago area become parts of the 3 black-majority districts.  The reason the black percentage goes down in all 3 seats is because hundreds of thousands of blacks have left the area over the last decade.

New IL-1 is 51.3 black, 38.7 white (18+ pop. is 51.5 black, 40.1 white) – Rush gets to keep 53% of his current constituents, including 75% of his current black constituents.

New IL-2 is 51.8 black, 37.2 white (18+ pop. is 50.1 black, 40.5 white) – Jackson gets to keep 80% of his current constituents, including 83% of his current black constituents.

New IL-7 is 51.8 black, 34.8 white (18+ pop. is 50.1 black, 37.5 white) – Davis gets to keep 59% of his current constituents, including 90% of his current black constituents.

Goal 2:  Two Effective Hispanic seats

New IL-4 is 56.0 hispanic, 33.2 white (18+ pop. is 50.4 hispanic, 38.9 white) – these percentages are enough to elect a Hispanic Representative as IL-4 encompasses the mostly Puerto Rican-descent areas on the north side of Chicago where the Hispanics are all citizens.  It makes sense to me that Gutierrez would run here.

New IL-6 is 64.1 hispanic, 25.1 white (18+ pop. is 58.5 hispanic, 30.1 white) – this area encompasses the mostly Mexican-descent areas on the south side of Chicago where there’s a higher proportion of non-citizens, so I made the Hispanic percentage here noticeably higher in order to make sure that a Hispanic Representative is elected.

Goal 3:  Make sure all currently Democratic-held seats are safely Democratic.

My estimate is that the 3 new black-majority seats and the 2 new hispanic seats above are all in the 75-79 Obama range (ofcourse, there’s currently only one hispanic seat but I’m classifying IL-4 and IL-6 as “Dem-held” as Gutierrez currently represents roughly half of each district) …

For the other currently Democratic-held seats the partisan numbers (ESTIMATED Obama as a percentage of the 2-party vote) are as follows:

New IL-3 is 62.3 Obama (current district is 64.4 Obama)

New IL-5 is 68.3 Obama (current district is 73.9 Obama)

New IL-9 is 70.2 Obama (current district is 73.2 Obama)

New IL-12 is 60.9 Obama (current district is 56.4 Obama)

Goal 4:  Incumbent-protection

I already discussed above what percentage of their constituents the Democrats in the minority-majority seats would keep.  For the other Democratic incumbents the numbers are as follows:

New IL-3: Lipinski gets to keep 33% of his current constituents (that’s the lowest percentage of all incumbent Democrats but a good chunk of the new Hispanic-majority IL-6 comes out of territory that’s currently a part of IL-3).

New IL-5: Quigley gets to keep 70% of his current constituents

New IL-9: Schakowsky gets to keep 75% of her current constituents

New IL-12: Costello gets to keep 63% of his current constituents

Goal 5:  Get rid of 7 of the current 11 GOP members through re-drawing of lines.

– As already mentioned, IL-6 goes from a suburban GOP district to a Hispanic-majority Democratic district based in Chicago (ofcourse, Roskam can run in the new IL-16 which becomes sort of a Chicago-area GOP vote sink).

– New IL-8 is 65.1 Obama (current district is 56.5 Obama), so Walsh is history (or he can run in the new IL-16).  The new IL-8 should be friendly to Bean if she wants to make a comeback.

– New IL-10 is 65.3 Obama (current district is 61.5 Obama), plus the district has a lot of new territory, including the entire Lake Michigan shoreline — so Dold is history.

– New IL-11 is 59.2 Obama (current district is 54.2 Obama).  Only 19% of Kinzinger’s current constituents remain in IL-11 under the new lines, so his base basically disappears with this map.  Also, the new IL-11 includes 3 major university towns.  It’s likely that this district would flip back to the Democratic side in 2012.

– New IL-14 is 62.4 Obama (current district is 55.6 Obama).  Hultgren won here over Foster by 51-45 (with the Green candidate at 4%) in a major GOP year, so the 7-point Democratic increase should more than do the job.  (Hultgren can run in the new IL-16 ofcourse.)

– New IL-17 is 60.8 Obama (current district is 57.2 Obama).  The lines are scrambled here considerably (less than half of the population of the new IL-17 comes out of Schilling’s current constituency) and most of Rockford is now included.  I really believe that almost any Democrat other than Hare would have no trouble here in 2012.

– IL-19 no longer exists, so that’s also one less Republican (although Shimkus may want to run in the new IL-18 — see below).

By my estimate, John Kerry would have won all of the 14 Democratic seats created by this map.

The four GOP seats that remain:

– IL-13: now transferred to the southern reaches of the state but without an incumbent.  Although Republican, less so than the other 3 GOP seats, so perhaps a possibility that a moderate to conservative Democrat could win here.

– IL-15: Johnson gets to keep 67% of his current constituents under the new lines.

– IL-16: The most likely Republicans to run here include Manzullo, Walsh, Hultgren, Roskam and Biggert (not necessarily in that order) — yes, the map packs these 5 into one district, with a few Dold precincts also included !

– IL-18: designed more for Shimkus than for Schock — 29% of the new district’s population comes out of Shimkus’ current district, while only 20% comes out of Schock’s … which brings me to the last goal …

Goal 6:  Make it hard for Kinzinger and Schock

I already discussed Kinzinger a bit above.  Basically, the current IL-11 gets split as follows: 19% of Kinzinger’s constituents remain in IL-11; 30% go into the new IL-2; 22% into IL-1; 18% into IL-3; 6% into IL-15; and 5% into IL-18.

As far as Schock, his current district is likewise torn apart; the highest proportion of his current constituents (30%) goes to IL-15; the rest is divided among IL-11 (27%); IL-18 (20%); IL-13 (15%); IL-12 (7%); with a sliver going to IL-17.

To briefly sum up my map:

1.) Democratic; black-majority; Rush

2.) Democratic; black-majority; Jackson

3.) Democratic; 62.3 Obama; Lipinski

4.) Democratic; hispanic-majority; Gutierrez

5.) Democratic; 68.3 Obama; Quigley

6.) Democratic; hispanic-majority; new Hispanic representative (?)

7.) Democratic; black-majority; Davis

8.) Democratic; 65.1 Obama; Bean (?)

9.) Democratic; 70.2 Obama; Schakowsky

10.) Democratic; 65.3 Obama; new Dem. representative (?)

11.) Democratic; 59.2 Obama; new Dem. representative (?)

12.) Democratic; 60.9 Obama; Costello

14.) Democratic; 62.4 Obama; Foster (?)

17.) Democratic; 60.8 Obama; new Dem. representative (?)

13.) Republican; new GOP Rep. (?)

15.) Republican; Johnson

16.) Republican; Manzullo, Hultgren or Walsh most likely to win here

18.) Republican; Shimkus

This is first in a series of diaries looking at redistricting in the Michigan State House. I’m not totally sure how many parts there will be yet. The current diary is focused on Wayne County, home of Detroit, and the county with the worst numerical net loss of population over the last ten years of any in the country — just short of a quarter million.

The upshot here is that Wayne County currently possesses 23 state house districts; with the population loss, it’s going to drop to 20. All three seats loss are Detroit-based.

Michigan has a 110-member state house. In 2010, the Republicans gained nineteen seats while losing none, to take control of the chamber by a 63-47 margin.

I haven’t done a full map yet, so I don’t know for sure where those seats are going, but I have to assume that the loss of three safe seats in Detroit is going to make the task of regaining the chamber even more difficult for the Democrats.

Maps and more after the jump.

Note: ideal district size is now 89,851 people. The allowed deviation is 5%, I believe, which translates to 4492 people.

Old Districts

Here’s an approximation of the current districts based solely or partially in Detroit in Dave’s App:

Notice how under-populated the Detroit-based districts are. HD-01 (Grosse Pointes) is majority white; HD-12 (Southern Detroit) is majority Hispanic (total population, just short on VAP); the rest are majority African American. HD-01 is the only competive district, going 54-46 Democratic in 2010. The rest are safely Democratic.

Here’s the approximation of the rest of the county’s districts:

I lightened the colors to make the locality boundaries stand out. This obscures, to my vision, one of the district boundaries. The boundary between HD-14 (Northern Downriver) and HD-22 (Romulus/Taylor) is the Taylor/Allen Park city line.

Surprisingly, to me, there are actually four districts that are overpopulated; three of which are outside the allowable deviation. HD-21 is going to have to be broken up — that’s a really significant positive deviation.

Republicans hold three of these seats: HD-19 (Livonia), HD-20 (Plymouth/Northville), and HD-23 (Southern townships). Of the remaining seats, only HD-21 is competitive. The Democrats held on in 2010 by 51%-49% – about 900 votes. All of these seats should be winnable by the right Democrat in the right environment — I’m pretty sure, for example, that Obama carried every Wayne County district. Also, I’m reasonably certain that HD-20 would have the most Republican PVI, and it was a 2010 pickup for them.

Collectively, the Wayne County districts are 246k underpopulated. The twelve Detroit-based districts account for all but .8k of that shortfall. (That is, the number of non-Detroit-based districts is the same. All of the districts lost in Wayne County will be Detroit-based.)

New Districts

Michigan redistricting standards encourage linedrawers to maintain the integrity of localities where possible. This is the arrangement that I came to while redistributing the eleven non-Detroit-based districts within the limits of that guideline, while trying to protect the three Republican incumbents.

HD-23 (Southern townships) and HD-13 (Southern Downriver) are the only truly clean districts, with Gibraltar having been swapped from the former to the latter.

HD-21 needs to be broken up. Plymouth, Plymouth Twp, Northville, Northville Twp, Canton and Wayne combine to within 4k of the ideal for two districts. A real Republican plan would take into account how best to split Canton to their advantage; my selection of precincts to end up in HD-20 and HD-21 was arbitrary. HD-21, however, should end up more Republican than before: Van Buren Twp and Belleville together are both more Democratic and larger than Wayne.

Livonia and Dearborn are each slightly too large to be single district. I maintained Livonia’s current donation to HD-17, Dearborn ends up donating into HD-14 (Northern Downriver) instead of into Detroit. This is because HD-14 was too large with River Rouge (which therefore ends up in a Detroit-based district) but worked with the donation from Dearborn.

With Van Buren/Belleville bounded on the north by HD-21 and on the south by HD-23, the only place for them to go was into HD-22 to the east. This required Romulus and Taylor to split. I ended up combining Romulus/Van Buren/Belleville with Inkster and enough of Westland to connect them (the portion south of Garden City and east of Merriman Rd), thereby creating an African-American opportunity district. (It’s W 46.8, B 44.9 by total pop; W 50.7, B 42.4 by VAP.) Taylor then combines with the portion of Dearborn Heights south of Ford Road to make HD-16.

The final two districts are then HD-18 (Garden City and the portion of Westland west of Merriman Rd) and HD-17 (Redford, the part of Livonia not in HD-19, the part of Dearborn Heights not in HD-16, and the part of Westland not in HD-18 or HD-22).

The Detroit-based district here are more representative than predictive. I don’t know enough about the incumbent representatives to know which the Republicans might favor or disfavor through redistricting. But you can see in general terms what Detroit looks like with three fewer districts than before.

HD-01 is still majority white, although slightly less so. (It should therefore become less competive for the Republicans.) HD-12 is no longer majority Hispanic. It previously contained every heavily-Hispanic precinct it could; its necessary growth diluted the Hispanic percentage down to 44.5% by total population and 39.2% plurality by VAP.

Conclusion

Republicans could potentially net as many as four state House seats in Wayne County from their control of the redistricting process: the three that are disappeared from Detroit (depending on where they end up) and HD-21, a competitive seat that will be somewhat less Democratic than before.

Yesterday I created lists of the biggest gainers and losers among congressional districts over the period of 2000-10, but only hinted at the changes in racial composition that were underlying the overall population changes. A longer post about the racial composition (analogous to this one I did a year and a half ago) changes is in the works, but as part of that I conceived of this table… which really would have worked better with yesterday’s piece, so I’m giving it its own home here. It shows the numeric change in each district, broken down by the numeric change among each race in each district.

What should stand out here is that among the 25 biggest gainers, in most of the districts, the combined non-white gains exceeded the (non-Hispanic) white gains. Among the few that didn’t, some are districts that are either heavy on retirees (AZ-02, FL-05), some have a large Mormon population (AZ-06, UT-03), with a few a little harder to classify (GA-09 is sort of the exurban white flight receptacle from the rest of the Atlanta area, and ID-01 is a mix of a lot of Mormons and a lot of white flight from southern California). As always, as I’ve cautioned many times before, these districts aren’t an immediate panacea for Democrats and look to stay fairly red for the short term; with most of these districts full of kids (kids who aren’t likely to grow up to be Republicans, though!), gains at the ballot box are going to unfold slooooowly.

District	Rep.	Total change	White change	Black change	Asian change	Hispanic change
NV-03	Heck (R)	378,510	108,587	40,011	71,132	136,127
AZ-02	Franks (R)	331,404	171,702	20,194	14,194	110,853
AZ-06	Flake (R)	330,373	183,522	18,103	23,727	89,920
TX-10	McCaul (R)	329,844	81,819	49,129	31,182	159,747
FL-05	Nugent (R)	289,814	178,699	27,165	10,496	65,238
CA-45	Bono Mack (R)	275,656	56,706	17,886	22,645	170,850
GA-07	Woodall (R)	272,680	10,327	123,993	47,477	80,659
TX-26	Burgess (R)	263,279	112,403	20,457	21,450	100,522
TX-22	Olson (R)	259,220	10,994	66,263	64,288	112,521
TX-31	Carter (R)	250,233	108,700	24,991	16,193	89,632
NC-09	Myrick (R)	232,672	96,914	62,615	15,404	47,784
VA-10	Wolf (R)	225,723	58,443	19,165	65,737	71,862
UT-03	Chaffetz (R)	221,687	116,807	4,236	7,233	79,400
FL-14	Mack (R)	219,658	99,639	23,344	7,121	85,608
AZ-07	Grijalva (D)	214,773	31,852	14,353	7,048	154,255
NC-04	Price (D)	207,446	95,066	30,678	30,282	43,656
CA-44	Calvert (R)	205,748	15,323	8,961	36,006	142,532
CA-25	McKeon (R)	205,552	– 11,603	33,418	23,554	156,518
TX-21	Smith (R)	205,024	69,035	13,983	15,086	102,114
FL-12	Ross (R)	202,103	38,827	46,963	8,079	101,630
TX-28	Cuellar (D)	200,565	25,648	3,741	3,060	166,375
TX-23	Canseco (R)	196,502	36,500	8,704	8,756	139,265
TX-04	Hall (R)	194,642	93,402	19,450	12,972	60,583
GA-09	Graves (R)	193,905	116,666	8,550	9,842	53,801
ID-01	Labrador (R)	193,008	141,065	2,289	3,448	39,020

The following map was drawn to resemble the potential product of a possible non-partisan independent redistricting commission which has been proposed but unlikely to be implemented in North Carolina.  The goals I had for drawing the districts consisted of geographic compactness, relevant communities of interest without regard to incumbency, and maintaining a VRA-protected black majority district in northern/eastern NC.  Only 13 counties were split, 6 of which were done to draw a VRA district, and I tried to avoid splitting towns where possible.

NC-01 (Blue)     (Open)

70.2% Obama     50.0% Black, 38.8% White

The first district is VRA protected and hence was my starting point since it needed to gain around 100,000 people from its current configuration.  The major change is that the 1st now includes the heavily black portions of Durham and Raleigh and recedes from the coast to avoid splitting counties.  The black voting age population could likely be increased a couple percentage points with precinct level data since the Wake county voting districts are quite large.  This was also the only district which required double-crossing counties, but it is still far more compact than the current version.

Politically, this district is still very heavily Democratic, and although it no longer contains G.K. Butterfield’s home of Wilson he would probably run here.

Safe Democratic

NC-02 (Green)     Renee Ellmers (R-Dunn)

55.2% McCain     70.9% White

The second district becomes much more compact by shredding its arms into Fayetteville and Sampson County and settling around suburban Wake County.  Ellmers would probably like this district since it’s much more Republican, however she is representing a large amount of new territory.  Suburban Wake County was also home to a large amount of the region’s explosive growth as people moved into North Carolina, and the district will likely experience substantial change over 10 years. The same disclaimer for NC-01 goes here though: the Wake County voting districts contain very large amounts of people so precinct data would make the 2nd Whiter since it could trade black population to the 1st.

Safe Republican

NC-03 (Purple)      Walter Jones (R-Farmville) / G.K. Butterfield (D-Wilson)

54.1% McCain     68.6% White, 24.6% Black

As the second part of the map I drew, the 3rd is essentially a complement to the 1st by absorbing its tendrils towards the coast.  The most major changes to the 3rd are that it no longer includes Onslow County and Camp Lejeune while including New Bern and Wilson since it is intended to be a district for the northeastern coast and Outer Banks.  While both Jones and Butterfield live here, Jones would be heavily favored and fairly lucky that he didn’t get drawn into NC-01.  While moderate-to-conservative white Democrats have historically done well in eastern NC, the Democratic primary would contain a large minority voting base which could increase the chances of nominating a minority candidate or someone viewed as too liberal.  Furthermore, Jones has a fair amount of crossover support, likely due to his father’s long tenure as a Democratic rep and his own somewhat heterodox positions.  Lastly, state Dems suffered heavy losses here in 2010, which could signal the rise of more party polarization among whites.

Safe Republican

NC-04 (Red)     David Price (D-Chapel Hill) / Brad Miller (D-Raleigh)

61.1% Obama     70.4% White, 14.2% Black

The 4th district trades large amounts of Wake County among neighboring districts so that it contains the rest of Raleigh and Durham, in addition to Chapel Hill and most of Cary.  Like the 2nd, this district contains some of the highest-growth parts of the state, but unlike the second would have a very large proportion of white liberals.  A Democrat is virtually guaranteed to win here, but since both Price and Miller have a large part of their base in the district it would be interesting to see who would emerge from a primary, although it is possible that Price would retire instead.

Safe Democratic

NC-05 (Yellow)     Virginia Foxx (R-Banner Elk)

59.1% McCain     84.1% White

The 5th is largely unchanged from the current district but on the whole moves slightly westward to accommodate the changes to the 10th.  It still contains about half of Winston-Salem which only makes up a fifth of the total district.  Unfortunately, this means that Virginia Foxx could and would win here.

Safe Republican

NC-06 (Teal)     Larry Kissell (D-Biscoe)

60.6% McCain     79.2% White

The 6th was drawn to constitute represent small town/rural central NC and therefore loses its large portions of Guilford County.  The largest city in the new 6th is now Burlington with 50,000 people and the next two largest cities are around half that size.  While Kissell is drawn into the district, it’s much more likely that he would run in the neighboring 8th if he ran at all and that Howard Coble would run here since it contains a decent portion of his current district.  In the event that Coble retired, a Republican would have little trouble holding this seat.

Safe Republican

NC-07 (Gray)     (Open)

54.7% McCain     72.4% White, 17.6% Black

The new 7th was drawn to include the southernmost portion of the NC coast and as a result contains Wilmington, Jacksonville, and then Goldsboro at the northern end since I thought it more appropriately belonged to eastern NC than to a Raleigh metro area district.  Mike McIntyre might consider running here since he already represents Wilmington and over half the total district. Like the 3rd, this district contains areas which have been friendly to conservative white Democrats, so McIntyre wouldn’t be completely screwed, but would still be facing a very difficult challenge.

Likely Republican

NC-08 (Slate)     Mike McIntyre (D-Lumberton)

55.8% Obama     48.2% White, 32.3% Black, 8.8% Native, 7.3% Hispanic

The 8th district changes significantly by losing Charlotte and becoming anchored around Fayetteville and Robeson County, which contains McIntyre’s home of Lumberton.  This district forms a better community of interest for inland southeastern NC and also has a significant minority presence due to a large black and Native American population.  Mike McIntyre wouldn’t stand a chance here though since he’s far too conservative for a 56% Obama district and would likely face a challenge from a minority/liberal Democrat.  Larry Kissell on the other hand might be able to win here since it contains a majority of the current 8th and Kissell probably has more credibility to move to the left than McIntyre would.  Regardless of who wins the eventual primary barring a Coakley repeat, Democrats would be heavily favored.

Safe Democratic

NC-09 (Cyan)     (Open)

59.6% McCain     77.5% White

The 9th changes significantly by moving out of almost all of Charlotte proper and instead forms around the suburbs and exurbs to the east and north of the city.  As drawn, this district had the most growth of any over the past 10 years and will probably continue to see significant growth as the Charlotte metro area grows.  Sue Myrick technically lives in Charlotte, but she would probably have no trouble running and winning here despite half the territory being new.

Safe Republican

NC-10 (Magenta)     Patrick McHenry (R-Cherryville)

62.3% McCain     81.9% White

The biggest change to the 10th is that it now includes all of Gastonia and Appalachian territory to the 5th and 11th.  The core of the district is a bit more southwestern Piedmont NC now than Appalachian, but still contains elements of both.  Like with Virginia Foxx, McHenry is essentially still representing his own seat due to geographic constraints.

Safe Republican

NC-11 (Chartreuse)     Heath Shuler (D-Waynesville)

52.2% McCain     88.9% White

The 11th undergoes the least change of all the districts since it is tucked into a corner.  The only changes include the addition of Mitchell County and more of Rutherford County.  As a result, this district stays fairly swingy, but Shuler should have a strong advantage due to his incumbency and conservatism.

Likely D with Shuler

Tossup/Tilt R if Open

NC-12 (Steel Blue)     Mel Watt (D-Charlotte) / Sue Myrick (R-Charlotte)

66.4% Obama     48.1% White, 33.5% Black, 11.7% Hispanic

Nearly everyone who’s learned of gerrymandering in civics class in the last 20 years knows of the infamous NC-12 (though usually in the context of it helping Democrats… yeah, I’m not sure how that still happens either).  Well fear no more, the arm up I-85 is gone!  The 12th is not a legally mandated VRA district and thus can avoid worrying about retrogression.  The district now contains almost all of Charlotte proper in addition to the western edge of Mecklenburg County.  It’s still majority minority, but plurality white.  However, this district grew significantly from 2000-2010 and went from 55.9% to 44.2% white by total population.  Anyway, Mel Watt should be pretty well situated to win here if he can avoid a primary challenge; only 1/3rd of the district is currently in the 12th, but it consists mostly of black Democrats who form Watt’s base.

Safe Democratic

NC-13 (Salmon)     Howard Coble (R-Summerfield)

57.6% Obama     58.3% White, 31.0% Black, 6.5% Hispanic

The 13th is essentially a different district, and here it gives the Triad its own district since the 12th is now removed.  Since I wanted to make the 5th and 6th as compact as I could without having them surround the 13th, I ended up splitting Winston-Salem and giving the more minority heavy parts to the 13th.  An alternative drawing places all of Winston, High Point, and Greensboro in the 13th and has the 5th and 6th readjust to take in Rockingham and Caswell counties plus rural/suburban Guilford, but I felt that this was too much of a gerrymander and it also splits another county.  In any event, Coble stands no chance here and probably calls it quits, but since he has supposedly forsworn his House pension and retirement benefits, he might run in the 6th instead.  Democrats should easily hold this version of the 13th.

Safe Democratic

Alternate NC-5/6/13:

NC-05 62.3% McCain

NC-06 60.2% McCain

NC-13 60.3% Obama

The likely result:  5D – 7R – 1(Shuler)

Summary:

Overall the district lines have become much cleaner, especially in eastern NC.  All but 3 of the seats are practically safe for the incumbent party, and the likely partisan change in the near-term results in Republicans picking up the 7th district.  From a compactness standpoint, the districts correlate fairly clearly to distinct communities of interest, especially in Eastern NC, and Charlotte and the Triad get their ‘own’ seats.  Again, the black % of the 1st can be increased with a more precise mapping tool since the Wake County voting districts are huge.

What I really liked about this map was the division of southeastern and coastal NC since they constitute pretty coherent communities of interest.  Additionally, both the 7th and 3rd contain areas where moderate to conservative Democrats performed fairly well, although Dems lost several statehouse seats there in 2008, but the partisan numbers for Obama/McCain are somewhat misleading since he significantly underperformed Kay Hagan in 2008.  Therefore, Dems would have a decent chance to win the 7th with a strong moderate candidate in the right environment, but barring a McIntyre upset in 2012, and thus continued incumbency, would still be the definite underdogs.  Regardless, the coastal area is likely a region where Democrats are losing their influence due to increasing ideological and race-based voting polarization.

Lastly, this map goes to show how even an independent or non-partisan map still has its obvious downside since it’s very easy to pack in Democrats in urban areas, and is among other reasons why I think it’s preferable to have some mix of proportional representation.  An independent commission wouldn’t pass the General Assembly either since Republicans now have full control of the process, but it is nonetheless interesting to create a theoretically commission-drawn map.

UPDATE:

Per suggestions by user displacedyankdem I redrew the map to feature a rural NC-01 that doesn’t include any of Raleigh or Durham… and it ends up being pretty ridiculous, which leads me to think that it would have to contain either Durham or Raleigh.  But here it is with two different configurations for Fayetteville:

In both versions the 4th is now a Chapel Hill, Durham, Chatham County/Southern Wake County district, while the 13th is Raleigh and Cary.  The Triad is now the 8th due to that district being eliminated.  The 1st also meanders down the entire eastern interior of the state to find black voters, and it’s still only 50% VAP black.  The 3rd is now the entire coast north of Wilmington.  For these districts, the major change is that the 3rd becomes significantly whiter and more Republican while the Dem friendly district based in the southeast moves to form a third Dem district further north.

The variation between these two maps comes from Fayetteville; I had wanted to draw the 7th as a New Hanover, Robeson, and Cumberland County based district, but Fayetteville had too much population for that so in the first version it’s split while in the second it’s all given to the 2nd district.  The split version makes the 7th 51.7% Obama and the 2nd 58.8% McCain, while the second version the 7th is 53.7% McCain and the 2nd is 52.1% McCain.  Mike McIntyre would probably be all right in the version where his district contains Fayetteville, but would likely have a tough time in the other version.

Anyway, this all goes to show how difficult it is to draw a VRA district without including one of the major cities since North Carolina’s black population is so diffuse.

New Hampshire currently has two districts that have changed hands a total of four times in the last five years. Whilst it is probably a good thing to have competitive districts, a question we could ask about New Hampshire is what might the map look like if there was bipartisan agreement to split the congressional districts between the parties?

CD 1 (Blue): 48.9% Obama

CD 2 (Green): 60.5% Obama

With the Census Bureau having completed its gradual rollout of data from all the states last week, I’ve finally gotten around to assembling data from all the various congressional districts into one place. While the actual population gain or loss in each district isn’t as important a number, for SSP purposes, as the number of people each district will need to shed or gain as part of the redistricting process (which you can see in the various posts we did as each state’s data came out), the overall gain and loss is an important part in the overall picture of where people are moving to and from (and where they’re being born). Just the numbers of people moving in or out isn’t as helpful as knowing who exactly these people are, and we’ll delve a little more deeply into the changing racial compositions of the CDs in the next day or two… but for now, here are the overall population change numbers.

You’re probably noticing, “Wow, that’s a lot of Republican districts.” That’s certainly true, but these are also districts that (as we’ll see when we talk about changing racial composition), for the most part, aren’t becoming more Republican; people tend to bring their values with them rather than undergoing some magical David Brooksian conversion experience once they move in from the city, the inner-ring suburbs, or another country. Some of these districts are ones where much of the gains are Hispanic (like NV-03 or TX-10, or just about any California district on the list); in the case of GA-07, it’s becoming more African-American. That isn’t to say that these are all on the verge of becoming blue, of course; with much of these districts’ non-white populations under 18, it’ll be a gradual process. And redistricting is likely to de-diversify at least some of these districts, with some of the closer-in suburban portions of these districts (note that many of these districts are the ones right on the cusp of suburb and exurb) to be given to lower-population urban districts that need to expand outward, with the remaining parts of the districts staying red. (GA-07, again, is a case in point; the innermost parts of Gwinnett County, which are pretty diverse today, probably will need to get added on to underpopulated GA-05, leaving the rest of the district in very Republican-friendly condition.)

You may recall I did this same thing a year and a half ago when the 2008 estimates came out; there’s been very little change to the list since then, although with some swapping of places. Despite its position at the absolute epicenter of the housing bubble, NV-03 moved up from 4th to 1st place, past the two Arizona districts and TX-10. Districts that fell out of the top 25 in 2008 include GA-06, TX-03, CO-06, FL-25, IL-14, and FL-06, replaced by VA-10, FL-12, TX-28, TX-23, TX-04, and ID-01.

District	Rep.	2000	2010	Change
NV-03	Heck (R)	665,345	1,043,855	378,510
AZ-02	Franks (R)	641,435	972,839	331,404
AZ-06	Flake (R)	641,360	971,733	330,373
TX-10	McCaul (R)	651,523	981,367	329,844
FL-05	Nugent (R)	639,719	929,533	289,814
CA-45	Bono Mack (R)	638,553	914,209	275,656
GA-07	Woodall (R)	630,511	903,191	272,680
TX-26	Burgess (R)	651,858	915,137	263,279
TX-22	Olson (R)	651,657	910,877	259,220
TX-31	Carter (R)	651,868	902,101	250,233
NC-09	Myrick (R)	619,705	852,377	232,672
VA-10	Wolf (R)	643,714	869,437	225,723
UT-03	Chaffetz (R)	744,545	966,232	221,687
FL-14	Mack (R)	639,298	858,956	219,658
AZ-07	Grijalva (D)	640,996	855,769	214,773
NC-04	Price (D)	619,432	826,878	207,446
CA-44	Calvert (R)	639,008	844,756	205,748
CA-25	McKeon (R)	638,768	844,320	205,552
TX-21	Smith (R)	651,930	856,954	205,024
FL-12	Ross (R)	640,096	842,199	202,103
TX-28	Cuellar (D)	651,259	851,824	200,565
TX-23	Canseco (R)	651,149	847,651	196,502
TX-04	Hall (R)	651,500	846,142	194,642
GA-09	Graves (R)	629,678	823,583	193,905
ID-01	Labrador (R)	648,922	841,930	193,008

And here are the biggest losers, looking every bit as heavily Democratic as the list of gainers is Republican. However, if you go through the list line by line, you’ll notice that very few of these districts are even remotely-considered as being on the chopping block. That’s partly because many of these are VRA seats, or otherwise set up by Republican legislatures as Democratic vote sinks (PA-14, for example). The most obvious exceptions up for elimination are PA-12, which almost everyone concedes is gone with the wind, OH-10, which is set to get mashed with OH-13, and possibly IL-17, ironically one of the few GOP-held seats on the list (although it might instead wind up getting turned into a significantly bluer district by the now-Dem-controlled Illinois legislature). Instead, as I mentioned earlier, many of these districts are going to wind up reaching out further into the suburbs… in many cases, expanding to follow the same constituents who just moved out of the city (for instance, all the Detroit residents who moved across 8 Mile into MI-12).

District	Rep.	2000	2010	Change
LA-02	Richmond (D)	639,048	493,352	– 145,696
MI-13	Clarke (D)	662,844	519,570	– 143,274
MI-14	Conyers (D)	662,468	550,465	– 112,003
OH-11	Fudge (D)	630,668	540,432	– 90,236
IL-01	Rush (D)	654,203	587,596	– 66,607
PA-14	Doyle (D)	645,809	584,493	– 61,316
IL-04	Gutierrez (D)	653,654	601,156	– 52,498
IL-02	Jackson (D)	654,078	602,758	– 51,320
MS-02	Thompson (D)	710,996	668,263	– 42,733
NY-28	Slaughter (D)	654,464	611,838	– 42,626
MO-01	Clay (D)	621,497	587,069	– 34,428
PA-12	Critz (D)	646,419	612,384	– 34,035
AL-07	Sewell (D)	635,631	603,352	– 32,279
OH-01	Chabot (R)	630,545	598,699	– 31,846
OH-10	Kucinich (D)	631,003	599,205	– 31,798
OH-17	Ryan (D)	630,316	600,111	– 30,205
CA-31	Becerra (D)	639,248	611,336	– 27,912
MI-05	Kildee (D)	662,584	635,129	– 27,455
MI-12	Levin (D)	662,559	636,601	– 25,958
NY-27	Higgins (D)	654,200	629,271	– 24,929
IL-09	Schakowsky (D)	653,117	628,859	– 24,258
NY-11	Clarke (D)	654,134	632,408	– 21,726
TN-09	Cohen (D)	631,740	610,823	– 20,917
IL-17	Schilling (R)	653,531	634,792	– 18,739
PA-02	Fattah (D)	647,350	630,277	– 17,073

Much more over the flip…

Now, let’s switch over to counties. Counties are a unit of analysis that don’t get talked about at SSP as much as congressional districts, despite the fact that they’re more useful for talking about historical trends because their boundaries (almost) never change over the decades; the rationale, I suppose, is that much of the nation’s population lives in huge counties that contain multiple (or in the case of Los Angeles County, more than a dozen) CDs, so in many cases it’s not as granular a sort (and conversely, counties turn into too-granular a sort if you’re interested in, say, Kansas or west Texas).

Still, looking at which counties gained the most population in raw numbers, it provides an interesting counterpoint to the biggest-gaining CDs. While you’d get the impression of impending utter Republican dominance by looking at the party IDs of which CDs have excess population to shed, looking at the nation’s largest counties shows that, when you balance out the parts and pieces that make up the various CDs, many of the counties have very swingy results at the presidential level. I was also planning to look at changes in racial composition by county as well as by CD in the coming days, so it’ll also become quite evident (if you hadn’t already mentally extrapolated from which CDs are in which counties) that much of the growth coming in these fastest-growing counties is coming from non-whites.

County	08 Results	2000	2010	Change
Maricopa, AZ	44/54	3,072,149	3,817,117	744,968
Harris, TX	50/49	3,400,578	4,092,459	691,881
Riverside, CA	50/48	1,541,387	2,189,641	644,254
Clark, NV	58/39	1,375,765	1,951,269	575,504
Tarrant, TX	44/55	1,466,219	1,809,034	362,815
San Bernardino, CA	52/46	1,709,434	2,035,210	325,776
Bexar, TX	52/47	1,392,931	1,714,773	321,842
Los Angeles, CA	69/29	9,519,338	9,818,605	299,267
Collin, TX	37/62	491,675	782,341	290,666
San Diego, CA	54/44	2,813,833	3,095,313	281,480
Wake, NC	57/42	627,846	900,993	273,147
Orange, FL	59/40	896,344	1,145,956	249,612
Miami-Dade, FL	58/42	2,253,362	2,496,435	243,073
Fort Bend, TX	48/51	354,452	585,375	230,923
Hillsborough, FL	53/46	998,948	1,229,226	230,278
Denton, TX	37/62	432,976	662,614	229,638
Mecklenburg, NC	62/37	695,454	919,628	224,174
Gwinnett, GA	44/55	588,448	805,321	216,873
Travis, TX	64/34	812,280	1,024,266	211,986
Hidalgo, TX	69/30	569,463	774,769	205,306
Pinal, AZ	42/56	179,727	375,770	196,043
Sacramento, CA	58/39	1,223,499	1,418,788	195,289
King, WA	70/28	1,737,034	1,931,249	194,215
Palm Beach, FL	61/38	1,131,184	1,320,134	188,950
Kern, CA	40/58	661,645	839,631	177,986

The counties with the biggest numeric loss, on the other hand, are almost all Democratic ones with a few exceptions from the New Orleans suburbs. Some are Dem strongholds that are just intensifying (like Cook County, home of Chicago, whose blueness we kind of take for granted these days… Mike Dukakis won it only 56-43). Others are onetime solid Dem counties that have turned swingy as older ex-unionists die off and educated young voters book their tickets elsewhere (like the western Pennsylvania and West Virginia counties).

County	08 Results	2000	2010	Change
Wayne, MI	74/25	2,061,162	1,820,584	– 240,578
Cook, IL	76/23	5,376,741	5,194,675	– 182,066
Orleans, LA	79/19	484,674	343,829	– 140,845
Cuyahoga, OH	69/30	1,393,978	1,280,122	– 113,856
Allegheny, PA	57/42	1,281,666	1,223,348	– 58,318
Hamilton, OH	53/46	845,303	802,374	– 42,929
St. Bernard, LA	26/71	67,229	35,897	– 31,332
Erie, NY	58/40	950,265	919,040	– 31,225
Baltimore city, MD	87/12	651,154	620,961	– 30,193
St. Louis city, MO	84/16	348,189	319,294	– 28,895
Montgomery, OH	52/46	559,062	535,153	– 23,909
Jefferson, LA	36/62	455,466	432,552	– 22,914
Mahoning, OH	62/36	257,555	238,823	– 18,732
St. Louis, MO	60/40	1,016,315	998,954	– 17,361
Trumbull, OH	60/37	225,116	210,312	– 14,804
Lucas, OH	65/33	455,054	441,815	– 13,239
Fayette, PA	49/50	148,644	136,606	– 12,038
Washington, MS	67/32	62,977	51,137	– 11,840
Beaver, PA	48/50	181,412	170,539	– 10,873
Genesee, MI	65/33	436,141	425,790	– 10,351
Saginaw, MI	58/40	210,039	200,169	– 9,870
Essex, NJ	76/23	793,633	783,969	– 9,664
Hampton city, VA	69/30	146,437	137,436	– 9,001
Cambria, PA	49/48	152,598	143,679	– 8,919
Kanawha, WV	49/49	200,073	193,063	– 7,010

While looking at congressional districts by percentage of change isn’t that interesting (as they all start from a very similar baseline, giving you almost the same results as raw numeric change), it’s worth a deeper look with counties, because counties come in a wide variety of sizes and the fastest-gainers by population don’t dovetail much with the fastest-gainers by percentage. The percentage gainers tend to smaller counties that are poised at the very edge of metropolitan growth, making the transition from rural to exurban. Case in point: #1 Kendall County, which is where you wind up if you find already-exurban Kane County and then head south, to where Chicagoland meets the prairie. The bigger-name counties on this list, like Loudoun County, Virginia, Douglas County, Colorado, and Collin and Fort Bend Counties, Texas, are some of the archetypal exurbs of decades past, which are starting to diversify and make the stylistic transition from exurb to outer-ring suburb… and their voting patterns are starting to change too, with Loudoun turning light-blue and Douglas and Collin still pretty red but making sharp moves in 2008.

County	08 Results	2000	2010	Change Factor
Kendall, IL	53/46	54,544	114,736	2.10
Pinal, AZ	42/56	179,727	375,770	2.09
Flagler, FL	50/49	49,832	95,696	1.92
Lincoln, SD	42/57	24,131	44,828	1.86
Loudoun, VA	54/45	169,599	312,311	1.84
Rockwall, TX	26/73	43,080	78,337	1.82
Forsyth, GA	20/78	98,407	175,511	1.78
Sumter, FL	36/63	53,345	93,420	1.75
Paulding, GA	30/69	81,678	142,324	1.74
Sublette, WY	21/76	5,920	10,247	1.73
Henry, GA	46/53	119,341	203,922	1.71
Teton, ID	49/49	5,999	10,170	1.70
Williamson, TX	43/55	249,967	422,679	1.69
Fort Bend, TX	48/51	354,452	585,375	1.65
Union, NC	36/63	123,677	201,292	1.63
Douglas, CO	41/58	175,766	285,465	1.62
Dallas, IA	46/52	40,750	66,135	1.62
Newton, GA	50/49	62,001	99,958	1.61
Hays, TX	48/50	97,589	157,107	1.61
Collin, TX	37/62	491,675	782,341	1.59
Franklin, WA	37/61	49,347	78,163	1.58
Delaware, OH	40/59	109,989	174,214	1.58
Forest, PA	42/55	4,946	7,716	1.56
Osceola, FL	59/40	172,493	268,685	1.56
Montgomery, TX	23/76	293,768	455,746	1.55

Finally, here are the biggest losing counties by percentage. Unfortunately, beyond the obvious Orleans Parish (and several other smaller Louisiana parishes obliterated by hurricanes), it’s a bunch of counties that you’ve probably never heard of, most of which are very tiny. Beyond that, it tells us that blindingly-red western Kansas and western North Dakota are losing population, as well as the Texas and Oklahoma Panhandles… and also dark-blue, mostly-black rural counties in the Mississippi Delta, which was seen in MS-02’s population loss. The list continues on like that ad nauseam; the next county with a population over 100,000 is all the way down at #148: Wayne County, MI, which is 88% of its 2000 size. St. Louis city and Cuyahoga County, OH follow along at 92%.

County	08 Results	2000	2010	Change Factor
St. Bernard, LA	26/71	67,229	35,897	0.53
Issaquena, MS	61/38	2,274	1,406	0.62
Cameron, LA	16/81	9,991	6,839	0.68
Orleans, LA	79/19	484,674	343,829	0.71
Sharkey, MS	68/31	6,580	4,916	0.75
Chattahoochee, GA	50/49	14,882	11,267	0.76
Sheridan, ND	29/69	1,710	1,321	0.77
Kiowa, KS	18/80	3,278	2,553	0.78
Towner, ND	52/45	2,876	2,246	0.78
Cimarron, OK	12/88	3,148	2,475	0.79
Cottle, TX	27/72	1,904	1,505	0.79
Jefferson, MS	87/12	9,740	7,726	0.79
Tensas, LA	54/45	6,618	5,252	0.79
Monroe, AR	47/51	10,254	8,149	0.79
King, TX	5/93	356	286	0.80
Culberson, TX	65/34	2,975	2,398	0.81
Esmeralda, NV	24/69	971	783	0.81
McDowell, WV	53/45	27,329	22,113	0.81
Jewell, KS	20/78	3,791	3,077	0.81
Claiborne, MS	86/14	11,831	9,604	0.81
Washington, MS	67/32	62,977	51,137	0.81
Lane, KS	19/79	2,155	1,750	0.81
Quitman, MS	67/32	10,117	8,223	0.81
Greeley, KS	20/79	1,534	1,247	0.81
Swift, MN	55/42	11,956	9,783	0.82

Illinois is one of the few prizes for Democrats going into the 2010 round of redistricting.  Republicans currently control the delegation, having swung four sitting Democratic congressmen out of office in 2010.  There are only eight Democrats currently to 11 Republicans in the delegation, which must shrink by one.  But as luck would have it, Governor Quinn managed to narrowly become elected to a full first term, and Democrats managed to hold onto their majorities in both chambers of the state legislature.  Thus, Democrats get to draw the map and it will likely be a savage map toward the GOP.

Okay this much is known, and many people have drawn Democratic gerrymanders; indeed I am currently working on a 12-5-1 map myself that will be posted in a week or two once I tabulate all the precinct data (which is taking forever!).  

This, however, is a more focused diary.  It argues that Illinois is a land of massive swings between 2004, 2008, and 2010 and that only by drawing a map that survives these three cycles can one be really sure that they are drawing a Democratic map versus a dummymander.  Our base got energized in 2008 but did not turn out in 2010, and that was most pronounced in the suburbs where many of us want to draw new Democratic seats.  It is not that the GOP vote went up much, but rather that our vote plummeted, and plummeted more than probably elsewhere in the country given the home-state effect in 2008.  Kerry’s vote in 2004, although dated, shows us a neutral year and it should be read also as cautionary regarding the vote pluralities a Democratic candidate can expect.

One more thing: although I include Alexi numbers here, Illinois is a state without party registration and a state full of moderates and independents.  Really to be truly safe in a 2010 style election, I believe you must look in the weeds and look down-ballot at which lever voters were pulling for Congress rather than which one they were pulling for governor or senator.  Certainly I would imagine that politicians who have to win elections are doing just this thing right now as they contemplate how they want to carve up the state.  

To make these points, I look into the weeds of one district in my budding map, a new Democratic-leaning 14th to elect Bill Foster back into Congress, connecting Aurora, and Joliet along with Elgin and Dekalb.  I imagine that Lake County/northern Cook will show a similar pattern when I get there, as will Rockford, Peoria, Springfield, etc.  But for now let’s look at the new 14th that I am hoping will get drawn.

New District 14th (Hultgren is being drawn, along with Roskam and Biggert, into a super Republican vote sink starting in Republican areas of Kane and snaking through Dupage and ending in super Republican areas of Will).  Foster lives in Batavia so this would be “his” district unless a Joliet politician primaried him.

Racial data: 49.3% white, 33.5% Hispanic, 11.1% Black, 4.4% Asian, thus technically “majority-minority” which was unintended but fortuitous all the same.  Illinois just amended its redistricting statute to emphasize, wherever possible and consistent with the VRA, the creation of coalition districts.  Also, the more I think it through, and the politics of it, I find it hard to convince myself that Democrats in Springfield will actually draw a second Hispanic seat, or that doing so would be required.  Hispanics still don’t vote in any sizable numbers in Chicago (look at the wards that Gutierrez has now if you doubt this), so would 65% and 57% districts really give Hispanics sufficient VRA protection to be able to select a candidate of their choice?  I am increasingly dubious.  So, draw a coalition district like this, plus one probably for Lipinski and you have something that is a compromise.

2010 congressional ballot (aggregating Foster, Harper, and Halvorson votes for areas pulled from the current 14th, 13th, and 11th, assuming for the sake of argument that a Democratic vote for congressman/woman in one district is a generic Democratic vote in another).

Generic Dem-Generic Rep: 80,538-67,285 (54.48%)

Some notable areas:

Aurora: 11,932-6,691

Elgin: 10,220-8,767

Dekalb: 5906-4004

Joliet: 12,461-6,331

Alexi does a bit worse but still carries this district slightly 50.74% to 49.26%, so it suggests to me that it would have withstood the 2010 GOP tidal wave (just).  Without knowing at all what the next ten years will bring, but being a bit cautious-minded, this might model well for what a 2014 2nd Obama midterm election (assuming his reelection) might look like, or for that matter 2018.  Our voters are more prone not to show up in off-year elections whereas the GOP’s are; it is a huge problem, and one that that we ought to be very realistic about when we draw our maps.

Okay, let’s look at two years earlier when Obama romped to his 25 point landslide in his home state.

Obama 161,485 – McCain 85,174 (65.47%… look at the swing between the two years)

Notable areas:

Aurora: 21,472-7,444

Elgin: 20,394-9,858

DeKalb: 12,456-4,333

Joliet: 22,748-6,023

Notice an alarming pattern here?  While we carried all four of these reliably Democratic cities in both cycles, the all-crucial pluralities coming out of them simply plummeted.  The less Democratic areas in the seat used to connect the cities did swing from Obama to generic Republican between 2008 and 2010 but this doesn’t account for the swing so much as our voters simply not showing up.  

Now, finally, let’s look at what a 2016 election without an Illinoian at the top of the ticket might look like.  We know what this probably looks like because we have Kerry 2004 to look at.  Again, Kerry would have carried my district, and by a healthy 54-46% margin.  But the Obama 2008 turnout numbers were historic and probably cannot be counted on across an entire decade worth of political cycles.

(Caveat: Will County doesn’t have publicly-available precinct data going back before 2005, much to my annoyance.  What I did, therefore, was estimate what the likely vote share would have been for the part of Will in this district by extrapolating its 2008 numbers back onto 2004…. E.g., if 60% of Obama’s total 2008 vote came from this portion alone, I am assuming that 60% of Kerry’s county-wide total came from this portion as well.  A bit of an if given likely greater turnout in Joliet than elsewhere, but probably not affecting the topline total much).

119,000 Kerry – 101,000 Bush (~54%)

Notable areas:

Aurora: 17,249-13,057

Elgin: 14,359-14,486

DeKalb: 10,118-6,957

Joliet: probably 16-17,000 Kerry, 8-9,000 Bush

Having eyeballed the data for the rest of the state but not actually tallied it up precinct-by-precinct yet beyond some of the Chicagoland seats, I can vouch for this being repeated in loads of other places in the state other than Chicago.  Chicago turned out fine in 2010; it is why Governor Quinn was re-elected.  The rest of the coalition that adds up with Chicago to form 55-57% of the electorate most neutral years did not, and that is why we have Republicans representing Joliet, the Fox Valley, and Rock Island of all places.

AZ-01 (Gosar): 57% White, 21% Native American, 18% Hispanic, 1% Black, 1% Asian – leans Republican but is winnable for Democrats

AZ-02 (Franks): 65% White, 28% Hispanic, 2% Black, 2% Asian, 1% Native American (connects Prescott with Yuma) – Safe Republican

AZ-03 (Quayle): 75% White, 16% Hispanic, 4% Asian, 3% Black, 1% Native American – Safe Republican

AZ-04 (Pastor): 56% Hispanic, 31% White, 6% Black, 3% Asian, 2% Native American (Hispanic VRA district) – Safe Democratic

AZ-05 (Schweikert): 49% White, 35% Hispanic, 6% Black, 4% Asian, 3% Native American (Tempe; connects a small Indian reservation with liberal whites) – Lean to Likely Democratic I think

AZ-06 (Flake): 81% White, 12% Hispanic, 3% Asian, 2% Black, 1% Native American – Safe Republican

AZ-07 (Grijalva): 53% Hispanic, 33% White, 5% Black, 5% Native American, 2% Asian (VRA District) – probably safe Democratic

AZ-08 (Giffords): 66% White, 25% Hispanic, 3% Black, 3% Asian, 1% Native American  – Safe for Giffords if she runs again; if she doesn’t the Republicans have a good chance of picking this seat up

AZ-09 (New Seat): 69% White, 20% Hispanic, 3.5% Black 2.5% Asian, 1% Native American – Safe Republican

Phoenix close-up (AZ-01 – Gray, AZ-02 – Light Pink, AZ-03 – Purple, AZ-04 – Light Gray, AZ-05 – Yellow, AZ-06 – Green, AZ-07 – Blue, AZ-08 – Neon Green, AZ-09 – Rose)

Tucson close-up

Everyone was aghast at the proposed map that came out of one of the houses of the Arkansas legislature recently. The consensus seemed to be that it was a dummymander, as likely to end up with a 4-0 Republican delegation as it was a 3-1 Democratic delegation. I would argue that  2-2 split would be the safest, and sanest, way to draw the map. So I’ve come up with a few maps that would likely give that split.

Map 1: A Bipartisan Compromise

AR-01 (blue) – 65 McCain, 32 Obama

AR-02 (green) – 51 McCain, 48 Obama.

AR-03 (purple) – 64 McCain, 34 Obama.

AR-04 (red) – 56 McCain, 41 Obama.

In this map, AR-01 is ceded to the Republicans, AR-02 is made more of a swing district, AR-03 remains pretty much the same, and AR-04 is made slightly more Democratic.

The problem with this one is that AR-04 remains vulnerable. With Ross exiting the seat in 2014 to run for Governor, it would be a tough seat to hold. On the other hand, AR-02 becomes easier to pick up.

Map 2: Let’s Make the White Democrats Unhappy

This map includes the Fayetteville tentacle from the proposed map. AR-02 is redrawn into a black-heavy Mississippi+Little Rock district. I don’t have numbers on this one handy, unfortunately, but AR-02 easily becomes an Obama district, probably around 55-44 Obama. AR-04 moves slightly to the Democrats, I’d guess it’s about 57-41 McCain.

This would please the black Democrats in the legislature; they’ve been pushing for a district that gives them a shot of electing one of their own to Congress. Of course, the white Democrats would not be happy with this arrangement, as many of them would be shut out of the chance to go to Congress.

Map 3: Let’s Make the Black Democrats Unhappy

AR-01 (blue) – 53 McCain, 45 Obama

AR-02 (green) – 66 McCain, 32 Obama

AR-03 (purple) – 64 McCain, 34 Obama

AR-04 (red) – 53 McCain, 45 Obama

Third and finally is a map designed to elect two Blue Dog type Democrats. In this map, Little Rock is added to Mike Ross’s district (putting Griffin in with him, but Griffin could just move to the safe Republican AR-02), while AR-01 is reconfigured by shedding some of the Crawford-friendly counties to the north and adding some Dem-friendly counties to the south. Ross would probably not be happy with Little Rock in his district, but he’s only got one more primary to get through until he can go run for Governor and be out of our hair. The advantage here is an open AR-04 would not be an almost-automatic flip to the Republicans; the Democrats would have a good shot at retaining the seat.

Now, as the white Democrats got the shaft in the last map, this map gives it to the black Democrats. AR-01’s VAP is only 28% black, and AR-04’s is 23% black, which would make it tough for one of the black legislators to win a primary in either district.

So there you go, three ideas, all of which are, in my opinion, better than the one proposed by the actual legislators.

Here’s an interesting proposal from some Seattle-area activists: a majority-minority district in the Seattle area.

That could be done, just barely, by combining Southeast Seattle with the suburbs south of the city, where the minority population has exploded over the past decade.

The Win/Win Network, a nonprofit group, drew up the potential “majority people of color” district and plans to submit it to the Washington State Redistricting Commission, the bipartisan panel charged with redrawing the state’s political map this year.

It isn’t as convoluted-looking as you’d think, but it would violate tradition (and usual redistricting commission policy) by splitting Seattle down the middle. (You can see the map at the link.) While north Seattle — maybe the likeliest place outside of Sweden to see a Volvo-on-Volvo traffic accident — is what makes Seattle one of the whitest major cities, south Seattle is very diverse and if you add in its close-in southern suburbs, you literally get to 50.1%. Whether this actually gets forced into being is a big VRA-related puzzle, though; while recent case law (like Bartlett v. Strickland) has dealt with districts where a minority’s share doesn’t reach 50%, I’m not aware of any cases on the issue of creating minority districts where the share tops 50% but it’s a tossed salad of all possible minorities. The implications of that issue could be huge, especially for redistricting California this year.

If you haven’t seen the New York Times’ newest version of its remarkable Census map (now updated with 2010 count data to replace ’05-’09 ACS data), the Seattle example is a neat place to start, especially if you’re having trouble conceiving of the Seattle area as diverse. Go to the dot-based racial distribution map, and find Census tract 281, just north of the airport. This may actually be the most racially balanced tract in the whole nation, more so than anything in Queens or the East Bay, based on my puttering around the map: it’s 26% white, 24% black, 19% Hispanic, and 22% Asian. In fact, here’s a challenge/rainy day activity for you all: if you can find anything more balanced, let us know in comments! (Sorry, no babka.)

This opens up a can of worms in terms of what’s most “balanced,” though, depending on how many races you want to talk about. Tract 919 in Flushing, Queens, is 27% white, 33% Hispanic, and 33% Asian (but only 4% black)… or if you want to go with a 5-way split, check out Tract 9603 (Nanakuli, on the west shore of the island of Oahu), which is 12% white, 18% Hispanic, 17% Asian, 30% multiracial, and 20% Native Hawaiian! I don’t want to limit how you define “balanced,” so feel free to point out any interesting tracts that you find.

UPDATE: I’ve found at least one that seems to beat that Seattle-area tract: it’s Census tract 355108 in Antioch, California (in Contra Costa County): 25% white, 24% black, 24% Hispanic, and 20% Asian.