Tag: Redistricting

For “A Republican Connecticut” I’ve made not one but four interesting maps. There is also a bonus Democratic Connecticut for those interested. Redistricting in Connecticut, as I understand it, prohibits the splitting of towns for any reason other than to balance population. Therefore I have not split any towns in any of the maps and have kept population deviation within 1%; town splitting to accomodate the last couple of thousand people won’t change any numbers. As in only 29 of the 169 towns in Connecticut did a majority of voters vote for McCain over Obama, most by a slender margin, it was rather difficult to produce overly Republican districts. Edit: The colouring problems should now be resolved

Republican Connecticut (2-3)

We will start off with a messy looking map that should give Republicans a chance at both the R+1 1st and the D+3 2nd.

1st (Blue) 51.7% Obama

2nd (Green) 56.1% Obama

3rd (Dark Magenta) 70.9% Obama

4th (Red) 63.3% Obama

5th (Gold) 66.1% Obama

Republican Connecticut with Water Contiguity (2-3)

CD1 and CD2 are both close to toss-up districts with R+1/D+1 PVIs respectively. Districts four and, spectacularly, five both rely on water continuity. The water south of Darien in western Connecticut shouldn’t be coloured for this or future maps; it’s just a limitation in the application.

1st (Blue) 51.9% Obama

2nd (Green) 54.1% Obama

3rd (Dark Magenta) 68.8% Obama

4th (Red) 66.6% Obama

5th (Gold) 67.0% Obama

Republican Connecticut (1-4)

CD1 is the most Republican district I could make in Connecticut without splitting towns or using water contiguity, it doesn’t quite get under 50% Obama but it does achieve a R+2 PVI. Three democratic district are stacked on top of each other in the centre of the state (and one on the western edge) whilst the republican district wraps itself around them on three sides.

1st (Blue) 50.8% Obama

2nd (Green) 68.0% Obama

3rd (Dark Magenta) 61.9% Obama

4th (Red) 64.0% Obama

5th (Gold) 62.3% Obama

Republican Connecticut with Water Contiguity (1-4)

At last a Connecticut congressional district that voted for McCain! By the thumping margin of 575 votes! And all that needed to be done was sacrifice four out of the five districts and use water continuity for two of the districts.

1st (Blue) 49.9% Obama

2nd (Green) 66.5% Obama

3rd (Dark Magenta) 62.6% Obama

4th (Red) 69.4% Obama

5th (Gold) 60.2% Obama

Democratic Connecticut

Finally I made a bonus Democratic Connecticut that might be quite a good choice for redistricting if Democrats had free reign over the process. Only counties too large for their own congressional district are split and the current representatives remain in their own districts, though not Chris Murphy since he is running for senate (although he could be drawn back into the 5th easily enough if it were desired).

1st (Blue) 61.6% Obama

All of Litchfield county, most of northern Hartford county, Waterbury and Wolcott towns in New Haven county.

2nd (Green) 60.5% Obama

All of New London, Windham, and Tolland counties, south eastern Hartford County, and Enfield township.

3rd (Dark Magenta) 60.0% Obama

Western New Haven county and Northern Fairfield county.

4th (Red) 61.0% Obama

Southern Fairfield county.

5th (Gold) 62.8% Obama

Big change here. The district shifts east to encompass all of Chester county, southern Hartford county and western New Haven county.

Two articles out today talk about Daves Redistricting and how technology is changing redistricting. The WSJ mentions the ‘baconmander’ (abgin’s winning map in the Great Redistricting Contest a year ago. The USA Today talks about various efforts to get more people involved.

More on those below the fold.

Also, more states available in DRA: FL, GA, MN, ND, NM, TN. (CA was added last week).

And a new feature: you can save your work as a CSV, either by voting district or by CD. Saving by voting district gives you each voting district, it’s geoid, name, CD you put it in and all of the demographic and election data. Saving by CD gives you each CD and the demographic and election data you put in that CD.

The WSJ article mentions Zach Nelson’s work on Maryland and PA:

Mr. Nelson, who lives in Minnesota, has spent the wee hours in his studio apartment eliminating Pennsylvania’s mangled 12th House district, part of which resembles a deformed, backward capital “E.” He streamlined Maryland’s third district, a Democratic stronghold that starts north of Baltimore, works around the city center and snakes down to Annapolis, 40 miles south.

“It looks like some geographical Rorschach test,” he says. “You don’t need to make it like that.”

Of course, it’s not only progressives who are using the new tech:

“Dave’s Redistricting App,” has generated a zealous following on Internet message boards and politics blogs. Self-declared cartographers spend hours drafting and arguing over new legislative boundaries. Steve Dunn, 60, of Orange County, Calif., says on a few days he’s mapped for 10 hours straight.

Mr. Dunn set out to see if voters in Western Pennsylvania could be rearranged to help the GOP. He packed Democratic voters into Pittsburgh, creating a new district that starts in the city and extends tentacles along the city’s rivers to take in blue-collar Democrats.

“Look at the map,” Mr. Dunn, an attorney, said. “It’s just a gorgeous octopus.”

In December 2009, SwingStateProject ran a contest to redistrict NY with 28 districts.

One online contest called for mapping New York so that every congressional district would likely elect a Democrat. A popular solution: Cut the state into horizontal strips that dive along the state’s east coast and dip the Democratic voter-well of New York City. Mr. Miller calls it the “baconmander.”

“Those long skinny districts are not going to cut it,” one commenter said. Another said: “It looks like the state’s been sliced up like a bell pepper under the knife of a masterful chef!”

Contest Results here.

The USA Today article talks about a number of efforts. One is the contest the state of VA is having:

Kappert, working around the clock to meet a tight deadline, is using new software to draw an updated Senate district map – one he hopes will win his team a $2,000 top prize in a statewide competition when the winning maps are announced Tuesday. More important, he hopes the Virginia Legislature will consider his map as it adjusts political boundaries to the 2010 Census.

Across the USA, college students, citizen activists and political junkies are using similar software to break a mapmaking monopoly held for decades by state lawmakers.

At Columbia University, students are drawing maps:

Law students at Columbia University in New York City are attempting to draw districts for all 435 U.S. House seats at DrawCongress.org. “The educational component is for the students themselves, but also the general public,” says their professor, Nate Persily. “When the line drawers say something can’t be done, we can say ‘Look – we did it.’ “

And DRA gets some attention, too:

Dave Bradlee, a 55-year-old Seattle software developer, created DavesRedistricting.com. It’s sponsored by the liberal ProgressiveCongress.org, but Bradlee says activists of all stripes use it. “It can put power in people’s hands,” Bradlee says. “People can see how the process works, so it’s a little less mysterious than it was 10 years ago.”

Cross-posted at DailyKos.com. Dave’s Redistricting is a project of ProgressiveCongress.org. You can support the project with a tax-deductible contribution. Thank you.

In the last part of my redistricting California series, here is a map of what a 120-district unicameral legislature, the Senate and Assembly merged, might look like. I did this map at the same time as the Assembly map.

Majority-White: 54

Majority-Black: 1

Majority-Hispanic: 16

Majority-Minority: 49

Safe Dem: 56

Likely Dem: 13

Lean Dem: 6

Toss-Up: 10

Lean GOP: 14

Likely GOP: 11

Safe GOP: 10

Outer NorCal

LD-01: Humboldt County, Mendocino County, most of Sonoma County

Demographics: 78% White, 13% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 68%, McCain 29% (SAFE DEM: D+15)

LD-02: Most of southern Sonoma County

Demographics: 73% White, 18% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 74%, McCain 24% (SAFE DEM: D+21)

LD-03: Marin County, Petaluma in Sonoma County

Demographics: 78% White, 12% Hispanic, 5% Asian

2008 President: Obama 77%, McCain 21% (SAFE DEM: D+24)

LD-04: Del Norte County, Siskiyou County, Trinity County, Shasta County, Modoc County, Lassen County

Demographics: 83% White, 7% Hispanic

2008 President: McCain 60%, Obama 38% (SAFE GOP: R+14)

LD-05: Tehama County, Glenn County, Colusa County, most of Butte County

Demographics: 77% White, 15% Hispanic

2008 President: McCain 51%, Obama 47% (LEAN GOP: R+5)

LD-06: Sutter County, Yuba County, Sierra County, Plumas County, most of Nevada County, Oroville in Butte County

Demographics: 72% White, 15% Hispanic, 6% Asian

2008 President: McCain 52%, Obama 46% (LIKELY GOP: R+6)

LD-07: Lake County, Napa County, Vallejo in Solano County

Demographics: 58% White, 18% Hispanic, 10% Asian, 9% Black

2008 President: Obama 67%, McCain 31% (SAFE DEM: D+14)

LD-08: Yolo County, Vacaville and Winters in Solano County

Demographics: 60% White, 23% Hispanic, 8% Asian

2008 President: Obama 62%, McCain 36% (LIKELY DEM: D+9)

LD-09: Most of Solano County, southern and eastern Sacramento County

Demographics: 60% White, 16% Hispanic, 10% Asian, 9% Black

2008 President: Obama 56%, McCain 43% (LEAN DEM: D+3)

LD-10: Southern Sacramento

Demographics: 40% White, 20% Asian, 19% Hispanic, 15% Black

2008 President: Obama 65%, McCain 34% (SAFE DEM: D+12)

LD-11: Central Sacramento

Demographics: 50% White, 18% Hispanic, 15% Asian, 11% Black

2008 President: Obama 69%, McCain 29% (SAFE DEM: D+16)

LD-12: Northern Sacramento

Demographics: 61% White, 16% Hispanic, 9% Black, 8% Asian

2008 President: Obama 62%, McCain 36% (LIKELY DEM: D+9)

LD-13: Placer County, part of southern Nevada County

Demographics: 81% White, 11% Hispanic

2008 President: McCain 54%, Obama 44% (LIKELY GOP: R+8)

LD-14: Northwestern Sacramento County, southeastern Placer County

Demographics: 74% White, 10% Hispanic, 5% Black, 5% Asian

2008 President: McCain 50%, Obama 48% (LEAN GOP: R+3)

LD-15: El Dorado County, Citrus Heights and Folsom in Sacramento County

Demographics: 82% White, 10% Hispanic

2008 President: McCain 54%, Obama 44% (LIKELY GOP: R+8)

San Francisco/Oakland/East Bay

LD-16: Western San Francisco

Demographics: 50% White, 36% Asian, 6% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 82%, McCain 16% (SAFE DEM: D+29)

LD-17: Northeastern San Francisco

Demographics: 49% White, 24% Asian, 17% Hispanic, 7% Black

2008 President: Obama 86%, McCain 12% (SAFE DEM: D+33)

LD-18: Southeastern San Francisco, Daly City

Demographics: 41% Asian, 23% Hispanic, 22% White, 11% Black

2008 President: Obama 82%, McCain 16% (SAFE DEM: D+29)

LD-19: Martinez, Richmond

Demographics: 39% White, 21% Hispanic, 19% BLack, 17% Asian

2008 President: Obama 80%, McCain 18% (SAFE DEM: D+27)

LD-20: Berkeley, Emeryville

Demographics: 49% White, 22% Black, 16% Asian, 9% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 91%, McCain 7% (SAFE DEM: D+38)

LD-21: Oakland

Demographics: 31% Black, 26% Hispanic, 20% White, 18% Asian

2008 President: Obama 87%, McCain 11% (SAFE DEM: D+34)

LD-22: South San Francisco, San Mateo, Pacifica

Demographics: 52% White, 21% Hispanic, 21% Asian

2008 President: Obama 73%, McCain 25% (SAFE DEM: D+20)

LD-23: Most of San Mateo County, small part of northwestern Santa Clara County

Demographics: 58% White, 22% Hispanic, 12% Asian

2008 President: 74% Obama, 24% McCain (SAFE DEM: D+21)

LD-24: Silicon Valley

Demographics: 52% White, 29% Asian, 13% Hispanic

2008 President: 75% Obama, 23% McCain (SAFE DEM: D+22)

LD-25: Pleasant Hill, Lafayette, Orinda

Demographics: 72% White, 12% Hispanic, 10% Asian

2008 President: Obama 67%, McCain 31% (SAFE DEM: D+14)

LD-26: Eastern Contra Costa County

Demographics: 56% White, 23% Hispanic, 9% Black, 8% Asian

2008 President: Obama 64%, McCain 35% (SAFE DEM: D+11)

LD-27: San Ramon, eastern Alameda County

Demographics: 76% White, 10% Asian, 9% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 59%, McCain 39% (LIKELY DEM: D+6)

LD-28: San Leandro

Demographics: 40% White, 26% Hispanic, 18% Asian, 10% Black

2008 President: Obama 75%, McCain 23% (SAFE DEM: D+22)

LD-29: Hayward, Union City, Fremont

Demographics: 35% White, 34% Asian, 20% Hispanic, 5% Black

2008 President: Obama 73%, McCain 25% (SAFE DEM: D+20)

LD-30: Milpitas, Santa Clara

Demographics: 42% White, 35% Asian, 16% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 70%, McCain, 28% (SAFE DEM: D+17)

LD-31: Northern San Jose

Demographics: 35% Hispanic, 29% Asian, 29% White

2008 President: Obama 73%, McCain 25% (SAFE DEM: D+20)

LD-32: Eastern San Jose

Demographics: 44% Hispanic, 33% Asian, 16% White

2008 President: Obama 70%, McCain 29% (SAFE DEM: D+17)

LD-33: Downtown San Jose

Demographics: 62% White, 16% Hispanic, 15% Asian

2008 President: Obama 67%, McCain 32% (SAFE DEM: D+14)

LD-34: Palo Alto, Cupertino, Monte Sereno, western Stanislaus County

Demographics: 62% White, 18% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 63%, McCain 35% (SAFE DEM: D+10)

LD-35: Santa Cruz County, Gilroy

Demographics: 61% White, 31% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 76%, McCain 22% (SAFE DEM: D+23)

Central

LD-36: Turlock, Merced County

Demographics: 44% White, 42% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 52%, McCain 46% (TOSS-UP: R+1)

LD-37: Lodi, Tracy, Escalon, Ripon

Demographics: 57% White, 27% Hispanic, 8% Asian

2008 President: McCain 50%, Obama 48% (LEAN GOP: R+4)

LD-38: Stockton

Demographics: 34% White, 33% Hispanic, 18% Asian, 10% Black

2008 President: Obama 64%, McCain 34% (SAFE DEM: D+11)

LD-39: Lathrop, Manteca, Modesto

Demographics: 58% White, 27% Hispanic, 6% Asian

2008 President: Obama 52%, McCain 46% (TOSS-UP: R+1)

LD-40: Eastern Central Valley, eastern Stanislaus County, eastern Madera County

Demographics: 74% White, 18% Hispanic

2008 President: McCain 55%, Obama 43% (LIKELY GOP: R+9)

LD-41: Western Madera County, northern Fresno

Demographics: 51% White, 36% Hispanic, 5% Asian

2008 President: McCain 52%, Obama 47% (LIKELY GOP: R+6)

LD-42: Southern Fresno

Demographics: 47% Hispanic, 28% White, 13% Asian, 9% Black

2008 President: Obama 64%, McCain 35% (SAFE DEM: D+11)

LD-43: San Benito County, Salinas

Demographics: 48% Hispanic, 37% White, 7% Asian

2008 President: Obama 67%, McCain 31% (SAFE DEM: D+14)

LD-44: Most of Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties

Demographics: 70% White, 22% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 57%, McCain 41% (LEAN DEM: D+4)

LD-46: Western Fresno County, eastern Fresno

Demographics: 45% Hispanic, 42% White, 6% Asian

2008 President: McCain 53%, Obama 46% (LIKELY GOP: R+7)

LD-47: Eastern Fresno, Visalia

Demographics: 47% Hispanic, 45% White

2008 President: McCain 57%, Obama 41% (SAFE GOP: R+11)

LD-48: Most of Tulare, all of Inyo, Ridgecrest in Kern County

Demographics: 47% Hispanic, 44% White

2008 President: McCain 57%, Obama 41% (SAFE GOP: R+11)

LD-49: Kings County, northwestern Kern County

Demographics: 46% Hispanic, 40% White, 6% Black

2008 President: McCain 58%, Obama 40% (SAFE GOP: R+12)

Outer SoCal

LD-45: San Luis Obispo, Pismo Beach, Santa Maria, Lompoc

Demographics: 58% White, 32% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 49.1%, McCain 48.9% (LEAN GOP: R+3)

LD-50: Bakersfield

Demographics: 44% Hispanic, 42% White, 8% Black

2008 President: McCain 50%, Obama 49% (LEAN GOP: R+3)

LD-51: Central and eastern Kern County

Demographics: 59% White, 29% Hispanic

2008 President: McCain 62%, Obama 37% (SAFE GOP: R+16)

LD-52: Santa Barbara, Ojai, Ventura

Demographics: 60% White, 32% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 69%, McCain 29% (SAFE DEM: D+16)

LD-53: Northern and eastern Ventura County

Demographics: 72% White, 19% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 50%, McCain 48% (LEAN GOP: R+3)

LD-55: Santa Clarita

Demographics: 63% White, 22% Hispanic, 6% Asian, 6% black

2008 President: McCain 50%, Obama 48% (LEAN GOP: R+4)

LD-56: Lancaster, Palmdale, Adelanto, Victorville

Demographics: 50% White, 31% Hispanic, 12% Black

2008 President: Obama 51%, McCain 47% (TOSS-UP: R+2)

LD-57: Hesperia, Victorville, Barstow, California City

Demographics: 61% White, 25% Hispanic, 7% Black

2008 President: McCain 57%, Obama 41% (SAFE GOP: R+11)

LD-92: Redlands, Yucaipa

Demographics: 68% White, 20% Hispanic, 5% Black

2008 President: McCain 55%, Obama 43% (SAFE GOP: R+10)

LD-107: Temecula, Desert Hot Springs

Demographics: 67% White, 23% Hispanic

2008 President: McCain 51%, Obama 47% (LEAN GOP: R+5)

LD-108: Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Indio

Demographics: 50% Hispanic, 44% White

2008 President: Obama 52%, McCain 46% (TOSS-UP: R+1)

LD-120: Blythe, Imperial County, eastern San Diego County

Demographics: 56% Hispanic, 36% White

2008 President: McCain 51%, Obama 47% (LEAN GOP: R+5)

Los Angeles/San Bernardino

LD-54: Oxnard, Camarillo

Demographics: 50% White, 39% Hispanic, 6% Asian

2008 President: Obama 58%, McCain 41% (LEAN DEM: D+5)

LD-58: Western San Fernando Valley

Demographics: 52% White, 28% Hispanic, 13% Asian

2008 President: Obama 63%, McCain 35% (SAFE DEM: D+10)

LD-59: Southeastern San Fernando Valley

Demographics: 50% Hispanic, 33% White, 8% Asian

2008 President: Obama 73%, McCain 25% (SAFE DEM: D+20)

LD-60: San Fernando

Demographics: 57% Hispanic, 26% White, 9% Asian

2008 President: Obama 69%, McCain 29% (SAFE DEM: D+16)

LD-61: Far southeastern San Fernando Valley

Demographics: 47% Hispanic, 37% White, 7% Asian, 5% Black

2008 President: Obama 75%, McCain 23% (SAFE DEM: D+22)

LD-62: Burbank, Glendale

Demographics: 53% White, 28% Hispanic, 11% Asian

2008 President: Obama 63%, McCain 35% (SAFE DEM: D+10)

LD-63: South Pasadena

Demographics: 46% Hispanic, 29% White, 17% Asian

2008 President: Obama 73%, McCain 25% (SAFE DEM: D+20)

LD-64: San Gabriel, El Monte, Baldwin Park

Demographics: 57% Hispanic, 28% Asian, 12% White

2008 President: Obama 66%, McCain 32% (SAFE DEM: D+13)

LD-65: South El Monte, Industry, La Habra Heights

Demographics: 56% Hispanic, 20% Asian, 19% White

2008 President: Obama 62%, McCain 36% (LIKELY DEM: D+9)

LD-66: Covina, Walnut, Diamond Bar

Demographics: 41% Hispanic, 26% White, 25% Asian, 5% Black

2008 President: Obama 59%, McCain 39% (LIKELY DEM: D+6)

LD-67: Port Hueneme, Malibu, Santa Monica

Demographics: 65% White, 22% Hispanic, 7% Asian

2008 President: Obama 69%, McCain 29% (SAFE DEM: D+16)

LD-68: West Side L.A.

Demographics: 65% White, 15% Hispanic, 12% Asian

2008 President: Obama 74%, McCain 24% (SAFE DEM: D+21)

LD-69: Beverly Hills, West Hollywood

Demographics: 73% White, 10% Hispanic, 9% Asian

2008 President: Obama 75%, McCain 23% (SAFE DEM: D+22)

LD-70: Inglewood

Demographics: 47% Black, 35% Hispanic, 7% White, 7% Asian

2008 President: Obama 91%, McCain 7% (SAFE DEM: D+38)

LD-71: Culver City, Hawthorne

Demographics: 45% Hispanic, 26% Black, 16% White, 9% Asian

2008 President: Obama 82%, McCain 16% (SAFE DEM: D+29)

LD-72: South Central L.A., Compton

Demographics: 52% Black, 45% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 95%, McCain 4% (SAFE DEM: D+42)

LD-73: Downtown L.A. (yellow)

Demographics: 50% Hispanic, 25% White, 17% Asian

2008 President: Obama 82%, McCain 15% (SAFE DEM: D+29)

LD-74: Downtown L.A. (yellow green)

Demographics: 76% Hispanic, 9% Asian, 7% Black, 6% White

2008 President: Obama 82%, McCain 16% (SAFE DEM: D+29)

LD-75: Downtown L.A. (pink)

Demographics: 64% Hispanic, 17% Asian, 13% Black

2008 President: Obama 83%, McCain 15% (SAFE DEM: D+30)

LD-76: South Central, Vernon

Demographics: 74% Hispanic, 24% Black

2008 President: Obama 92%, McCain 7% (SAFE DEM: D+39)

LD-77: Commerce, Maywood, Bell

Demographics: 90% Hispanic, 5% Asian

2008 President: Obama 82%, McCain 16% (SAFE DEM: D+29)

LD-78: Montebello, Pico Rivera, Whittier

Demographics: 68% Hispanic, 16% Asian, 12% White

2008 President: Obama 70%, McCain 28% (SAFE DEM: D+17)

LD-79: El Segundo, Beach Cities

Demographics: 47% White, 25% Hispanic, 16% Asian, 8% Black

2008 President: Obama 61%, McCain 37% (LIKELY DEM: D+8)

LD-80: Palos Verdes, Torrance

Demographics: 50% White, 24% Hispanic, 18% Asian

2008 President: Obama 54%, McCain 44% (TOSS-UP: D+1)

LD-81: Carson, part of Long Beach

Demographics: 46% Hispanic, 21% White, 15% Black, 15% Asian

2008 President: Obama 74%, McCain 24% (SAFE DEM: D+21)

LD-82: South Gate, Paramount, Lynwood

Demographics: 80% Hispanic, 10% Black, 5% White

2008 President: Obama 83%, McCain 15% (SAFE DEM: D+30)

LD-83: Downey, Bellflower, Signal Hill

Demographics: 43% Hispanic, 32% White, 11% Black, 11% Asian

2008 President: Obama 63%, McCain 35% (SAFE DEM: D+10)

LD-84: Artesia, Norwalk, Lakewood, La Mirada

Demographics: 43% Hispanic, 28% White, 21% Asian, 5% Black

2008 President: Obama 58%, McCain 40% (LEAN DEM: D+5)

LD-85: La Canada Flintridge, Pasadena

Demographics: 34% White, 30% Hispanic, 21% Asian, 11% Black

2008 President: Obama 69%, McCain 29% (SAFE DEM: D+16)

LD-86: Monrovia, Glendora, San Dimas

Demographics: 45% White, 31% Hispanic, 16% Asian

2008 President: Obama 52%, McCain 46% (TOSS-UP: R+1)

LD-87: Claremont, Upland, Rancho Cucamonga

Demographics: 54% White, 28% Hispanic, 8% Black, 7% Asian

2008 President: Obama 51%, McCain 47% (TOSS-UP: R+2)

LD-88: Pomona, Montclair, Chino Hills

Demographics: 51% Hispanic, 27% White, 11% Asian, 8% Black

2008 President: Obama 60%, McCain 38% (LIKELY DEM: D+7)

LD-89: Chino, Ontario, Fontana

Demographics: 59% Hispanic, 25% White, 8% Black

2008 President: Obama 62%, McCain 36% (LIKELY DEM: D+9)

LD-90: Rialto, Colton

Demographics: 56% Hispanic, 23% White, 14% Black

2008 President: Obama 69%, McCain 29% (SAFE DEM: D+16)

LD-91: San Bernardino, Loma Linda, Grand Terrace

Demographics: 44% Hispanic, 32% White, 14% Black

2008 President: Obama 62%, McCain 36% (LIKELY DEM: D+9)

LD-93: Calimesa, Beaumont, Banning

Demographics: 63% White, 27% Hispanic

2008 President: McCain 53%, Obama 45% (LIKELY GOP: R+8)

LD-103: Corona, Norco

Demographics: 49% White, 37% Hispanic, 5% Asian, 5% Black

2008 President: Obama 49%, McCain 49% (LEAN GOP: R+4)

LD-104: Riverside

Demographics: 43% Hispanic, 42% White, 7% Black

2008 President: Obama 56%, McCain 42% (LEAN DEM: D+3)

LD-105: Moreno Valley

Demographics: 38% White, 35% Hispanic, 16% Black, 8% Asian

2008 President: Obama 61%, McCain 38% (LIKELY DEM: D+8)

LD-106: Perris, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta

Demographics: 58% White, 29% Hispanic, 6% Black

2008 President: McCain 54%, Obama 45% (LIKELY GOP: R+8)

Orange County

LD-94: Long Beach, Seal Beach

Demographics: 50% White, 27% Hispanic, 12% Asian, 8% Black

2008 President: Obama 57%, McCain 41% (LEAN DEM: D+4)

LD-95: Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa

Demographics: 62% White, 21% Hispanic, 12% Asian

2008 President: McCain 51%, Obama 47% (LEAN GOP: R+5)

LD-96: Newport Beach, Irvine

Demographics: 74% White, 13% Asian, 9% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 51%, McCain 47% (TOSS-UP: R+2)

LD-97: Anaheim

Demographics: 51% Hispanic, 30% White, 13% Asian

2008 President: Obama 55%, McCain 43% (TOSS-UP: D+2)

LD-98: Garden Grove, Stanton

Demographics: 33% Hispanic, 33% Asian, 30% White

2008 President: McCain 52%, Obama 46% (LIKELY GOP: R+6)

LD-99: Santa Ana

Demographics: 78% Hispanic, 11% White, 7% Asian

2008 President: Obama 68%, McCain 30% (SAFE DEM: D+15)

LD-100: Cypress, Buena Park, Fullerton

Demographics: 45% White, 31% Hispanic, 19% Asian

2008 President: Obama 49%, McCain 49% (LEAN GOP: R+4)

LD-101: Placentia, Yorba Linda, Brea

Demographics: 63% White, 20% Hispanic, 12% Asian

2008 President: McCain 57%, Obama 41% (SAFE GOP: R+11)

LD-102: Orange, Tustin

Demographics: 55% White, 25% Hispanic, 15% Asian

2008 President: McCain 50%, Obama 48% (LEAN GOP: R+5)

LD-109: Rancho Santa Margarita, Laguna Niguel

Demographics: 74% White, 13% Hispanic, 9% Asian

2008 President: McCain 55%, Obama 44% (LIKELY GOP: R+9)

LD-110: San Juan Capistrano, Dana Point, San Clemente, Camp Pendleton, Oceanside

Demographics: 63% White, 26% Hispanic

2008 President: McCain 55%, Obama 43% (SAFE GOP: R+10)

San Diego

LD-111: Vista, Carlsbad

Demographics: 63% White, 24% Hispanic, 5% Asian

2008 President: McCain 50%, Obama 48% (LEAN GOP: R+5)

LD-112: Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar

Demographics: 71% White, 13% Hispanic, 11% Asian

2008 President: Obama 52%, McCain 46% (TOSS-UP: R+1)

LD-113: San Diego (purple)

Demographics: 64% White, 19% Asian, 11% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 59%, McCain 39% (LIKELY DEM: D+6)

LD-114: San Diego (red), Lemon Grove

Demographics: 54% Whtie, 21% Hispanic, 11% Asian, 8% Black

2008 President: Obama 61%, McCain 38% (LIKELY DEM: D+8)

LD-115: San Diego (gold)

Demographics: 49% White, 32% Hispanic, 10% Black, 6% Asian

2008 President: Obama 72%, McCain 26% (SAFE DEM: D+19)

LD-116: Coronado, Imperial Beach, San Diego (teal)

Demographics: 41% Hispanic, 23% White, 17% Asian, 15% Black

2008 President: Obama 63%, McCain 36% (SAFE DEM: D+10)

LD-117: National City, Chula Vista

Demographics: 53% Hispanic, 27% White, 13% Asian

2008 President: Obama 61%, McCain 38% (LIKELY DEM: D+8)

LD-118: Santee, Poway

Demographics: 65% White, 26% Hispanic, 5% Asian

2008 President: McCain 57%, Obama 42% (SAFE GOP: R+11)

LD-119: El Cajon, La Mesa

Demographics: 71% White, 17% Hispanic, 5% Black

2008 President: McCain 53%, Obama 46% (LIKELY GOP: R+7)

Now that I’ve been working on redistricting Nevada for some time, I figured it was time to branch out and see how Congressional maps might change next door. So I’m heading to Arizona today to explore how their map might change.

Unlike Nevada, Arizona’s redistricting isn’t done by the state legislature. Rather, an independent commission draws the lines. However that commission isn’t free of controversy, and speculation is already heating over where the new district will go.

Here’s my attempt at guessing what happens.

AZ-01 (Royal Blue)

Population: 710,180

63.6% White (68.7% VAP), 20.5% Native American (17.8% VAP)

This district stretches across most of Northern Arizona, including The Grand Canyon, Flagstaff, Sedona, and Navajo Territory. AZ-01 is currently represented by “tea party” Republican Paul Gosar, but from 2009 to 2010 Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick represented this district.

In redoing AZ-01, I was presented with a bit of challenge. How do I preserve the integrity of Northern Arizona while finding enough voters to meet the population requirement? And keep it at least relatively competitive?

So I added most of Mohave County (just Lake Havasu City was left out) to AZ-01, and shifted Pinal, Graham, and Greenlee Counties into the new AZ-09 district. (More on that later.) And thankfully, I was able to keep the Native American population above 20% here.

Sorry, but I just didn’t have the time to pore over the Arizona Secretary of State’s archaic precinct archives. Over the weekend, I just eyeballed county level election results and voter registration stats to estimate PVI and voting trends. And here, I’d peg the new AZ-01 at close to R+10, with Obama getting about 42-44% of the vote here in 2008. But remember, Arizona PVI figures are deceiving, as John McCain overperformed in his home state (compared to the other Southwestern states) in 2008. And since Ann Kirkpatrick won with similar partisan hurdles in 2008, it probably isn’t impossible for a Democrat to win this district again.

Early Race Rating: Likely Republican

AZ-02 (Army Green)

Population: 710,023

68.4% White (73.8% VAP)

AZ-02 now starts in Lake Havasu City in Southern Mohave County, then takes in heavily Republican La Paz County, then jumps into Maricopa County to take in the Western Phoenix Suburbs mostly covered by Legislative Districts (LDs) 4, 9, and 12. LD 4 is heavily Republican, and the GOP has just over an 11% registration edge in LD 9. In LD 12, however, Republicans only have a 5% registration edge, and Independents outnumber both parties.

Still, Trent Franks probably has nothing to worry about here… At least for now, as older white Republicans continue to flock to the retirement communities here.

Early Race Rating: Safe Republican

AZ-03 (Magenta)

Population: 709,789

78.6% White (81.6% VAP)

At first glance, this should be a district Ben Quayle will be quite happy with. The new AZ-03 overlaps with most of LDs 6, 7, 8, 10, and some of LD 11, with all but LD 10 sporting huge GOP registration advantages.

However, there’s a little kink here. While North Scottsdale and Fountain Hills are heavily Republican, they’re currently represented by Republican David Schweikert in AZ-05. With Schweikert moved to AZ-03 under this map, will Arizona Republicans prefer him representing this district over the more controversial Quayle, who only scored 52% as other Arizona Republicans romped to easy victories last year? Will David Schweikert, a more seasoned Phoenix area pol viewed as more mainstream, be seen as a safer bet in a seat that the GOP really shouldn’t lose? Or will North Phoenix be happy enough with Ben Quayle to keep him in place?

Early Race Rating: Safe Republican (but safe for whom?)

AZ-04 (Deep Red)

Population: 710,184

64.3% Latino (57.8% VAP), 21.7% White (27.7% VAP)

Not much changes here, as the mostly Latino urban heart of Phoenix is kept intact, along with the more Latino heavy neighborhoods of Glendale. This seat is most likely Ed Pastor‘s for as long as he wants it.

Early Race Rating: Safe Democratic

AZ-05 (Bright Yellow)

Population: 710,453

63.1% White (68.1% VAP)

This district overlaps with most of LDs 11, 17, and 20, along with parts of LDs 8, 15, 16, and 18. It combines rich, Republican heavy Paradise Valley with brainy, Democratic leaning Tempe, along with some diverse Central Phoenix neighborhoods and increasingly Latino heavy West Mesa precincts.

Basically, this is your quintessential swing district. Most likely this district will have about even PVI come 2013. Even “Native Son” John McCain couldn’t muster any more than 51% in its current incarnation, which includes more GOP dominant North Scottsdale and Fountain Hills.

So will David Schweikert decide to move here to continue representing AZ-05? Or as I suggested above, will he move to AZ-03 and opt for a safer seat? I’m sure the Arizona GOP doesn’t want to cede any seats in redistricting, but The East Valley has been trending more Democratic of late, and Ben Quayle did come fairly close to losing in a banner Republican year. And not to mention, The Independent Redistricting Commission will be under intense pressure to draw more competitive districts.

So the Arizona GOP may not have any other choice but to accept they’ll have to fight hard to keep AZ-05.

Early Race Rating: Tossup

AZ-06 (Teal)

Population: 709,964

67.3% White (71.7% VAP)

Even though Jeff Flake is now running for US Senate, the Arizona GOP need not worry about this district falling. AZ-06 is now entirely within Maricopa County, but it mostly overlaps strongly Republican LDs 18, 19, 21, and 22.

While Chandler and Mesa are slowly diversifying as more Latino and Asian-American families seek affordable housing there, the fast growing, affluent, and heavily Mormon suburb of Gilbert will probably remain strongly Republican enough to keep AZ-06 in GOP hands in the next decade. But over time, it will be interesting to see if this area becomes more competitive as the more close-in East Valley suburbs (like Tempe in AZ-05) grow more Democratic.

Early Race Rating: Safe Republican

AZ-07 (Silver)

Population: 710,696

59.3% Latino (53.5% VAP), 30.7% White (36.9% VAP)

Raul Grijalva had the political scare of his life last fall when he only mustered 50% against previously unknown teabagger darling Ruth McClung. Previously, his reelection campaigns were much easier… But then again, that was before Arizona started making political headlines in taking national immigration policy into its own hands. And perhaps as AZ-07 becomes more Latino and less rural under this map, Grijalva won’t be so vulnerable again in the future.

In this map, AZ-07 loses GOP heavy La Paz County, as well as a Republican leaning chunk of Pinal County. Instead, the district picks up more Latino and Democratic friendly precincts in urban Maricopa County, then turns south to Pima County, and now takes in all of Latino heavy and strongly Democratic Santa Cruz County. (Previously, some of Santa Cruz was in AZ-08.)

Depending on how long Arizona’s immigration controversy continues and how angry Arizonans remain at Raul Grijalva for his early support of an Arizona boycott over SB 1070, there may still be a possibility of future competitive races here. But as I said above, I suspect the possibility won’t be as high as the district becomes less white and less rural.

Early Race Rating: Likely Democratic

AZ-08 (Sky Blue)

Population: 710,510

65.6% White (70.1% VAP)

It was the bullet felt around the world. When Gabrielle Giffords was shot at a “Congress on Your Corner” event in January, discussion immediately began on the ramifications of the increasingly violent nature of American politics today.

Fortunately, Gabby Giffords survived and is now recovering from the near fatal attack that did happen to leave 20 other victims wounded and another 6 people dead. And today, there is even speculation on Giffords possibly running for higher office, such as US Senate, even as other Democratic Members of Congress recently held a fundraiser for Giffords’ AZ-08 2012 campaign.

Honestly, I have my doubts as to whether Giffords can recover in time to run for Senate. But should she be able to run for House again, she will probably have an easier time in this new AZ-08. For one, it’s now entirely within Pima County. (No more rural stretches of Pinal or Cochise Counties.) Also, it includes more urban and Democratic friendly neighborhoods in Tucson.

However AZ-08 probably still has an even or slightly Democratic PVI at best due to the number of more affluent and Republican Tucson suburbs and exurbs still in this district. Most of LDs 25, 26, and 28 are in this district, along with some of LDs 29 and 30. LDs 26 and 30 lean Republican, but LDs 25, 28, and 29 lean Democratic. So it won’t be a totally easy ride for Giffords, and it will probably be a little more difficult to hold if there’s another open seat election in the immediate future. But if the Arizona GOP shoots itself in the foot with another teabagger nominee, they can probably only do so much here.

Early Race Rating: Likely Democratic if Giffords runs again, Leans Democratic if Giffords retires or runs for another office

AZ-09

Population: 710,218

61.3% White (65.5% VAP)

So we end with the new district. With so much of Arizona’s phenomenal growth in the last decade occurring in increasingly exurban Pinal County, I decided to base AZ-09 here, add some exurban Maricopa County areas (like Queen Creek), and expand it to a small part of Gila County, and to all of Graham, Greenlee, and Cochise Counties. Now just remember, appearances can be deceiving.

This area may appear to be quite Republican, but voter registration remains close. (Republicans add up to a slight edge, but there’s a large number of Independent voters here.) John McCain carried this district by (likely mid-) double digits in 2008, but Janet Napolitano won by an even greater margin in 2006.

So I think the right Democrat can at least make this district competitive, especially as the Pinal and Maricopa portions mature and become more suburban and diverse. But until that happens, Republicans probably have the edge here.

Early Race Rating: Likely Republican

In all, I created 4 absolutely safe districts, with the other 4 at least holding the potential to become competitive races next year. Did I get it wrong? If you’re more of an Arizona expert than I, please feel free to critique me and let me know if there are items to be fixed and improved.

Previously, I created a 24R-12D map predicting Texas redistricting.  Since then, my reading of the tea leaves (mostly Aaron Pena’s party switch) has convinced me to revise my predictions somewhat.  At the very least we can expect the state to pass a more Republican friendly map, which will almost certainly be challenged in the courts.  Something close to the previously drawn map might be enacted if the state loses the court battle.  This map then is more of a prediction of what the state might pass before the court battle.  

The map has the following objectives:

1) Keep all incumbents with their base voters, except McCaul.

2) Draw a Republican safe district for McCaul.

3) Draw a new non-VRA Republican safe district for Farenthold in Corpus Christi.

4) Draw two new Republican safe districts in Harris and Johnson.

5) Draw two VRA swing districts for Canseco and Pena in south Texas.

6) Draw a new VRA Democratic safe district in DFW.

7) Draw a VRA Democratic safe district in Austin.

The data is based upon the 2010 census.  For the partisan data, I matched the precincts that matched the 2008 test data precincts, and then I used regression models based upon the county level voting and demographics for each of the parties on the remaining precincts.  Based upon residual analysis and validation data sets, this approach appears to be pretty accurate.  Here are the maps with the pretty colors.  (I used only nine colors that I duplicated each four times.)

The state.

Greater Houston.

DFW.

Central Texas.

The Valley.

El Paso.

CD 1: (Yellow) [31% Obama – 69% McCain, Wh 64%, Bl 18%, Hisp 15%] Tyler based district for Gohmert.

CD 2: (Brown) [42% Obama – 58% McCain, Wh 50%, Bl 22%, Hisp 15%] Northeast Harris/Jefferson based district for Poe.

CD 3: (Silver) [42% Obama – 58% McCain, Wh 52%, Bl 11%, Hisp 20%] Plano based district for Sam Johnson.

CD 4: (Indigo) [31% Obama – 69% McCain, Wh 69%, Bl 11%, Hisp 14%] Rockwall based district for Hall.

CD 5: (Blue) [41% Obama – 59% McCain, Wh 55%, Bl 15%, Hisp 26%] Dallas based district for Hensarling.

CD 6: (Red) [33% Obama – 67% McCain, Wh 65%, Bl 13%, Hisp 18%] Ellis County/Arlington based district for Barton.  

CD 7: (Violet) [45% Obama – 55% McCain, Wh 53%, Bl 9%, Hisp 26%] Houston based district for Culberson.  There is almost certainly a way to make this district safer than currently drawn.  

CD 8: (Silver) [24% Obama – 76% McCain, Wh 74%, Bl 6%, Hisp 16%] Montgomery County based district from Brady.

CD 9: (Silver) [71% Obama – 29% McCain, Wh 13%, Bl 29%, Hisp 43%] Houston based district for Al Green.

CD 10: (Brown). [40% Obama – 60% McCain, Wh 70%, Bl 4%, Hisp 22%] Austin/West Texas district for McCaul. Previously, I drew McCaul to Johnson County.  However, since I am no longer drawing West Texas districts for both Canseco and a VRA-protected Democrat, I had more real estate for McCaul to the West.

CD 11: (Yellow) [31% Obama – 69% McCain, Wh 60%, Bl 3%, Hisp 33%] Midland based district for Conaway that now helps crack Austin.

CD 12: (Blue) [39% Obama – 61% McCain, Wh 56%, Bl 8%, Hisp 32%] Fort Worth based district for Granger.

CD 13: (Gren) [24% Obama – 76% McCain, Wh 69%, Bl 6%, Hisp 21%] West Texas based district for Thornberry.  

CD 14: (Red) [36% Obama – 64% McCain, Wh 57%, Bl 11%, Hisp 28%] Galveston based district for Paul.

CD 15: (Silver) [67% Obama – 33% McCain, Wh 9%, Bl 0%, Hisp 89%] Hidalgo County based district for Hinojosa that now goes into Cameron.  In the previous 24-12 map, several comments noted that a similar district may be too Hispanic.  However, based upon my reading of Lulac v. Perry, this was not established.  If there is another court case that established that districts may not be too Hispanic, then please let me know.  

CD 16: (Red) [66% Obama – 34% McCain, Wh 13%, Bl 2%, Hisp 82%] El Paso based district for Reyes.

CD 17: (Orange) [37% Obama – 63% McCain, Wh 60%, Bl 15%, Hisp 21%] College Station/Waco based district for Flores that now goes East. Chet Edwards could make a comeback, but I doubt it.

CD 18: (Green) [84% Obama – 16% McCain, Wh 10%, Bl 45%, Hisp 40%] Houston based district for Jackson.

CD 19: (Violet) [27% Obama – 73% McCain, Wh 57%, Bl 5%, Hisp 36%] Lubbock based district for Neugebauer.

CD 20: (Violet) [65% Obama – 35% McCain, Wh 17%, Bl 6%, Hisp 74%] San Antonio based district for Gonzalez.

CD 21: (Red) [41% Obama – 59% McCain, Wh 52%, Bl 9%, Hisp 34%] San Antonio based district for Smith.

CD 22: (Orange) [40% Obama – 60% McCain, Wh 48%, Bl 13%, Hisp 24%] Sugar Land based district for Olson.

CD 23: (Indigo) [51% Obama – 49% McCain, Wh 28%, Bl 3%, Hisp 65%] North Bexar based district for Canseco.  As noted previously, this district is very similar to his current district, and Democrats will likely win it back before the end of the decade.

CD 24: (Yellow) [38% Obama – 62% McCain, Wh 59%, Bl 10%, Hisp 19%] Southlake/Coppell based district for Marchant. This district is significantly safer than his current district.

CD 25: (Orange) [64% Obama – 36% McCain, Wh 35%, Bl 11%, Hisp 50%] Austin based district for Doggett is now VRA protected.

CD 26: (Orange) [36% Obama – 64% McCain, Wh 67%, Bl 7%, Hisp 18%] Flower Mound/Denton based district for Burgess that no longer cracks the African American community in southeast Fort Worth.

CD 27: (Blue) [47% Obama – 53% McCain, Wh 31%, Bl 3%, Hisp 65%] New Hidalgo based VRA district for Pena.  This district is obviously the biggest case against this map, because it retrogresses the old CD 27 and split Nueces County. If not ruled out by the courts though, it would be a huge Democratic target that they would have an excellent chance of winning before the end of the decade.

CD 28: (Brown) [73% Obama – 27% McCain, Wh 6%, Bl 0%, Hisp 93%] Laredo based district for Cuellar.  Previously, I drew this one less safe.  However, if the Republicans are going to pack, then they will almost certainly pack with Cuellar, who is probably in good shape no matter what.  

CD 29: (Blue) [63% Obama – 37% McCain, Wh 12%, Bl 10%, Hisp 76%] Houston based district for Gene Green.

CD 30: (Indigo) [74% Obama – 26% McCain, Wh 21%, Bl 46%, Hisp 27%] Dallas based district for Eddie Bernice Johnson that now goes into the African American communities in East Arlington and Southeast Fort Worth.

CD 31: (Indigo) [44% Obama – 56% McCain, Wh 63%, Bl 7%, Hisp 22%] Williamson County based district for Carter.

CD 32: (Violet) [44% Obama – 56% McCain, Wh 59%, Bl 10%, Hisp 22%] North Dallas based district for Sessions.   Like CD 24, this district is significantly safer than his current district.

CD 33: (Green) [34% Obama – 66% McCain, Wh 64%, Bl 12%, Hisp 19%] New Johnson County based district for some Republican like Brian Birdwell.  

CD 34: (Green) [71% Obama – 29% McCain, Wh 15%, Bl 18%, Hisp 64%] New Dallas based VRA district for some Democrat like Royce West or Rafael Anchia.

CD 35: (Brown) [40% Obama – 60% McCain, Wh 45%, Bl 5%, Hisp 47%] Corpus Christi based district for Farenthold.  It is no longer a VRA district since it extends north.

CD 36: (Yellow) [35% Obama – 65% McCain, Wh 51%, Bl 11%, Hisp 28%] New Harris County based district for some Republican like Dan Patrick or Debbie Riddle.

Overall 24 R – 10 D – 2 Swing.

I imagine that there are several Democrats worried about such a map as this one, and they are hoping the Obama DOJ and/or Lulac is prepared to prosecute such a map. While I do hope such a map is prosecuted, since it clear cracks Nueces, I actually think that this may be Nietzsche map for Democrats.    In the previous 24-12 map, there was not a single swing district for Democrats to target, whereas in this 24-10-2 map there are two in South Texas.  I am sure most Democrats would prefer 2 safe districts rather than 2 swing districts, which is the net difference between the two maps.  However, Democrats would probably spend upwards of $2-$4 million every other year in South Texas on 2 districts that will likely turn Democratic eventually.  That could dramatically improve the local parties in Hidalgo and Bexar, which is necessary for the state to turn blue.  A similar example would be Martin Frost’s district.  Yes, Democrats lost one of their best congressmen.  However, many Dallas Democrats will point to the money spent on the 2004 CD-32 race as one of the reasons for Dallas turning solidly blue, which it is today.  Furthermore, Dallas Democrats are likely to get back a district similar to Frost’s old district in this round of redistricting anyway.  So, in the end, Dallas Democrats lost a powerful congressman for 6 years, while they rapidly built themselves into a powerful local party that claims most of the county positions.  Meanwhile Republicans gained a backbencher named Kenny Marchant.  Certainly having your backs up against a wall in swing districts is not the preferred method of party building.  However, there is no doubt that well-built turnout operations in Bexar and Hidalgo would pay dividends at the top of the ticket.

[UPDATE 1] I should have mentioned this originally.  I would be remiss in not giving lots of credit to Greg Wythe.  His posts on Lloyd Doggett and Aaron Pena were inspirations for CDs 25 & 27 on this map.  Also, rdelbov has been predicting a similar set of districts in South Texas for some time.

[UPDATE 2] I found this map at RRH, which is pretty similar but ever so slightly more friendly to Democrats.  In any case, it leads me to believe even more that this is something the Texas GOP might try.

[UPDATE 3] Thanks to Kuff and Greg for the links to this diary.  To those of you coming to this diary from their links, welcome.  

Dear all,

This is the first time I've tried using Dave's App and making a redistricting map. I'm hoping you could tell me what things I've done wrong. (For one, I've kept the population of each district very close to the target population, 3,000 off at most, because I didn't know just how close you have to keep it. Could I have been more flexible?)

This is the map, but please do read on:

First off, I had an idea with this map. Most of the redistricting maps here are drawn, with great expertise, to either create the most realistically (or unrealistically) Democratic-friendly map; or, in a know-your-enemy / worst-case-scenario kind of way, the most GOP-friendly map; or the map that best fits the current political realities of the state, trying to guess what the real map will end up being.

Since I have nowhere near enough expertise to weigh in, I've just been observing, with some awe. But, as a foreigner, I still have trouble getting over my initial incredulity at the whole American practice of gerrymandering in the first place. The kind of gerrymandering that yields these sometimes mindbogglingly contorted looking districts, tracing unlikely looking paths from, say, the suburbs of one city to those of another halfway across the state, often seemingly without regard to keeping communities together. It's one of the oddest and unhealthy looking aspects of the US political system, for an outsider.

I'm from a country where we don't have any districts at all (it's all PR), and both in my adopted home country and the big European countries I know best (Germany, the UK), nothing like this kind of gerrymandering seems to exist. And often when I see the draft maps here, I can't help fantasizing about what a redistricting map purely based on good governance would look like. (I'm really curious what the new CA and FL maps will look like!)

Continued beneath the fold … 

That said, among the many things I have learned about on SSP is the VRA, and I approve. I don't like the 60+% black/hispanic vote sinks that segregate the minority altogether and allow the VRA district incumbent practically guaranteed re-election. But I have totally embraced the need for districts in which minority group candidates are favoured, so minority groups are represented more proportionally in Congress. It's history's bill: it would be great if a black candidate stood as good a chance to be elected anywhere, but the reality is that in too many parts of the country, black/hispanic candidates will only be elected in black/hispanic-majority districts.

I wanted to draw my ideal "good governance" map for a state, the way it would look if there were no bothersome laws, legislative majorities or incumbencies to take account of.

I drew up these criteria:

1. The number of districts that lean one way or another politically should be roughly proportionate to the parties' general share of the vote. (E.g.: don't stack all the voters of one party into two districts so the other party can easily win in five, when the two parties get about equal amounts of votes altogether).
2. There should be a number of districts where a minority group candidate would be favoured roughly proportional to the group's share of the overall voting age population. However, districts in which a minority group makes up a small majority (<55%) or a mere plurality, and "coalition" districts in which minorities together outnumber whites should be preferred over segregating individual minorities in 60%+ vote sink districts.
3. There should be as many competitive districts as possible, both to avoid safe incumbents coasting to victory without having to worry about accountability; and to keep the number of those whose vote doesn't "count" because their party is irrevocably in opposition to a minimum.
4. Districts should be compact and keep communities of interest together.
5. While uniting communities of interest is good, it is not beneficial for public policy if the residents of cities and surrounding suburbs are pitted against each other. (A story that struck me was the fight, at a state level I imagine, over public transport in Atlanta, in which the residents of the suburbs managed to block the extension of the city's public transport system because they feared that it would just bring more blacks into their neighbourhoods.) The map should draw cities and surrounding suburbs into common districts where possible.

As you will recognize, but I didn't quite realize beforehand, some of these points make some of the others impossible. Applying point 2 in particular throws a spanner in the works when it comes to points 4 and 5. Creating that many minority-majority districts means contorted shapes, and splitting off black or hispanic city neighbourhoods. Since minority voters tend to vote Democratic, creating more minority districts also means creating more safe Democratic districts, so it's a problem with point 3 too.

Virginia turns out to neatly illustrate all this. My other problem is that I know little about Virginia, so it's hard for me to guess where communities of interest lie exactly in any case. (Any feedback much appreciated.)

(All these data from within Dave's app. I noticed that if you download the data on race by congressional district (18+ population, hispanic and non-hispanic by race) from the census site, there's slight variations, though never more than 1% up or down.

Here's maps with some more detail:

 

 

How does this stack up with my criteria?

1. Fulfilled: My redistricting map creates six Republican districts, four Democratic districts, and one Democratic-leaning district.
2. Fulfilled: The map creates two districts in which a minority group has a plurality (blacks in VA-3 and VA-4) and a third district in which the minority groups together outnumber non-hispanic whites (VA-11). (I tried to group together disproportionally hispanic towns and neighbourhoods in VA-11, so there’s at least one district where they make up as much as 23% of the VAP – as close to having a district of their own as possible.) That's three minority-favoured districts compared to one now. Pitfall: while non-hispanic whites make up no more than 45% of each of these districts' VAP, they are 43%-45% in each, meaning that disparate turnout rates could also end you up with no minority Congressmen at all. Unlikely in an Obama year, but a concern otherwise.
3. Failed: My redistricting map actually makes most districts less competitive. This is due to applying point 2. In order to create two more minority-favoured districts, I had to take black votes out of largely white districts, shoring up Republican majorities there. I also took some from the existing minority-majority VA-03, a Democratic vote sink – but that means that instead of having one D+38 district in the south, I ended up with two, still safe D+17-23 districts. Same in the north – by taking black and hispanic precincts from VA-8, I reduced that Democratic vote sink from D+32 to a still safe D+19, while creating an additional safe Democratic seat in VA-11 (D+18). All in all, I went from four arguably toss-up seats (VA-2, VA-4, VA-5 and VA-10) to one (VA-10).
4. Partial: In the Northeast and the Southeast, districts are pretty contorted looking because of heeding point 2 (though I did manage to cut VA-03 short of stretching all the way up into Richmond neighbourhoods). Elsewhere, some districts are reasonable compact (VA-05 and VA-09, as well as VA-10 up north), but VA-1 stretches a long way across the state… How could this be done better, and do these districts unwittingly split any communities of interest?
5. Partial: Creating three minority-favoured districts meant splitting a number of cities, in particular Richmond, but also Norfolk, Hopewell, Danville and Franklin – plus the agglomeration in NoVa.

Here's maps of each individual district:

VA-01

VA-02

VA-03

 

VA-04 (or as I like to call it, the dragonboat

 

VA-05

 

VA-06

VA-07 (the crab, or is it a lobster?)

 

VA-08

 

VA-09

 

VA-10

 

VA-11

Despite the colossal housing bust, Arizona ended the decade with a lot more people than it started with and thus earned a 9th congressional district. Here are the stats for the 8 current congressional districts. For the ethnic shares, W is Anglo, B is black, H is Hispanic, A is Asian, and N is Native American.

AZ1 (Gosar, R): 774.3k, 57.1W–1.5B–19.5H–0.9A–19.1N

AZ2 (Franks, R): 972.8k, 69.3W–3.5B–20.8H–2.5A–1.7N

AZ3 (Quayle, R): 707.9k, 70.7W–3.1B–19.3H–3.4A–1.3N

AZ4 (Pastor, D): 698.3k, 21.5W–8.6B–63.9H–2.2A–2.1N

AZ5 (Schweikert, R): 656.8k, 70.3W–3.8B–16.5H–4.4A–2.5N

AZ6 (Flake, R): 971.7k, 69.3W–3.1B–20.7H–3.6A–1.0N

AZ7 (Grijalva, D): 855.8k, 32.6W–3.7B–56.0H–1.8A–4.3N

AZ8 (Giffords, D): 754.3k, 68.2W–3.3B–22.7H–2.7A–0.8N  

The target population is about 710k, so AZ2 and AZ6 will have to lose more than 25% of their people. AZ7 will also have to shed a lot, and the AZ1 and AZ8 will have to shed a little. AZ5 needs to add people. The big question: where does the new 9th go? Most of the growth was on the edges of the Phoenix area so it seems natural to put the new district somewhere on the fringe, but it isn’t immediately obvious where it should go. The southeast valley and the southwest valley both saw explosive growth, but these two areas are separated by a lot of still-empty desert. Here I show four different possibilities, but these are just four among many. M Riles just drew a plausible map that looks very different from any of these. Anyway…

Map 1: AZ9 takes new exurbs on east and west sides

State map:

Phoenix closeup:

Tucson closeup (same in all 4 maps):

Here the new district is formed almost entirely from the areas of AZ2, AZ6, and AZ7 that were mostly empty 10 years ago and as such, almost every building in the state that stood 10 years ago will remain in its old district. This helps continuity, as the current reps will not have to get accustomed to new areas. A drawback: AZ9 is nice and compact but as mentioned above it has two densely populated areas separated by a lot of empty space. New ethnic numbers and notes for the districts:

AZ1 (blue): 61.0W–1.0B–15.6H–0.9A–19.9N Drops much of Pinal but retains the mining-dominated eastern parts. Picks up Kingman in Mohave county. Probably a bit more red now but still competitive.

AZ2 (green): 72.4W–2.8B–17.7H–2.4A–2.8N Picks up La Paz in all 4 maps. It’s dominated by retirees, ultra-red, and really doesn’t fit in AZ7. AZ2 is still deep red.

AZ3 (purple): 70.1W–3.2B–19.8H–3.6A–1.3N Loses part of east Phoenix to AZ5, picks up part of east Glendale from AZ2. Probably little impact.  

AZ4 (red): 21.7W–8.6B–63.7H–2.4A–2.1N Negligible changes. Safe D.

AZ5 (yellow): 70.6W–3.7B–16.5H–4.5A–2.4N Probably still lean R.

AZ6 (teal): 68.8W–2.8B–22.0H–3.2A–1.1N Loses Queen Creek and south end of Gilbert and Chandler to AZ9 but retains Apache Junction which is really an extension of east Mesa. Still safe R.

AZ7 (gray): 34.0W–2.6B–56.9H–1.8A–3.3N Losing both La Paz and most of its Maricopa piece is about a wash. Drops much of Pinal where Grijalva did poorly in 2010, but picks up some reddish parts of the northwest Tucson area. That may also be about a wash overall. Slightly more Hispanic now, but also slightly more white. Still likely D.  

AZ8 (blue-gray): 68.3W–3.4B–22.5H–2.8A–0.8N This district is the same in all 4 maps. I don’t expect Cochise to be broken up or thrown into AZ1 when it has historically been much more tied to Tucson. It loses its Santa Cruz piece and Pima sections west of I-10 and north of AZ-86 to AZ7. Its ethnic mix doesn’t change. Of the 15 lost Pima precincts it appears that Giffords won 4 and lost 11, so it may be slightly more blue now. Still tilt R overall.

AZ9 (toothpaste blue): 53.3W–5.6B–32.4H–3.9A–2.6N Its west valley section mostly went for Grijalva and should lean D, but its east valley piece should lean R. Overall it should be competitive, maybe tilt R. On the one hand it’s much less white than the swingy AZ1, AZ5, and AZ8, but on the other it doesn’t have a large public university like they do.  

Map 2: AZ9 in the east valley

Here the new district takes most of Pinal, all of Chandler, most of Gilbert, and Queen Creek. As a result AZ6 is forced to take Ahwatukee and west Mesa from AZ5, forcing AZ5 deep into Phoenix and AZ4 out into the west valley boom areas. Unlike map 1, I think this map creates 3 clearly blue districts so it might be less likely to be adopted. It’s hard to put AZ9 entirely in the east valley without endangering AZ5 and/or AZ3.

State map not shown, as everything outside Maricopa and Pinal is the same as in map 1.

Phoenix closeup:

AZ1: 61.0W–1.0B–15.6H–0.9A–19.9N No change from map 1.

AZ2: 72.4W–2.8B–17.7H–2.4A–2.8N No change from map 1.

AZ3: 70.3W–3.2B–19.6H–3.5A–1.3N Negligible change from map 1.

AZ4: 26.7W–8.9B–58.5H–2.7A–2.4N Not quite as Hispanic now but still very blue.

AZ5: 56.0W–4.4B–31.9H–3.3A–2.5N The white population here is fairly liberal with north Tempe and the older parts of Phoenix. The district is basically Scottsdale and a bunch of blue areas, and Schweikert would probably lose to Kyrsten Sinema in 2012.

AZ6: 67.5W–3.4B–21.8H–3.6A–1.6N Still safe R.

AZ7: 33.7W–2.5B–56.4H–1.6A–4.4N Keeps the Gila River rez in this version.

AZ8: 68.3W–3.4B–22.5H–2.8A–0.8N No change from map 1.

AZ9: 64.4W–4.2B–23.1H–4.6A–1.5N Probably at least likely R, but look what happened to AZ5.

Not shown here, but it would be possible to keep both AZ5 and AZ3 red by having AZ5 take the eastern part of AZ3, which would then take the eastern part of AZ2 (and probably Trent Franks’ house). In this case the chain reaction would push AZ2 into Yavapai, forcing AZ1 to take Cochise by elimination and pushing AZ8 into the bluer parts of Pima. This would likely make AZ1 a bit more competitive, and AZ8 very unfavorable for Republicans. I don’t like this because I think Cochise and its military base belong with Tucson, not with Flagstaff. In practice this would give the Reeps the best chance at a 6-3 map, because the district that’s getting weakened the most (AZ8) is already held by an entrenched Dem.

Map 3: AZ9 in the west valley

The west valley boom areas by themselves are not nearly big enough to sustain a district, so the new AZ9 pushes into AZ2 and deep into AZ4. This in turn pushes AZ3 well to the east and AZ5 deep into Pinal county. AZ2 keeps Kingman and is pushed into Yavapai, and AZ1 retains much more of Pinal here. Under this map only AZ7 would be above 50% Hispanic voting age population, but AZ4 would be at 43.4% and AZ9 at 44.7%. I doubt the Dems would object to this map: they should be favored in AZ4, AZ7, and AZ9 and the swing districts AZ1, AZ5, and (to a much lesser extent) AZ8 are all more Dem-friendly than their current versions. I didn’t try to rig this map to favor Dems, but it almost has to work out that way when you plop the new district entirely in the west valley and try to keep clean lines with communities of interest.

State map:

Phoenix closeup:

AZ1: 57.3W–1.3B–18.5H–0.9A–20.2N Loses a good chunk of Yavapai which is the real red base in AZ1. Gosar would have trouble here.

AZ2: 76.5W–2.0B–14.5H–2.3A–2.9N R+16 now?

AZ3: 78.6W–2.1B–12.6H–3.5A–1.4N Schweikert would wax Quayle in the primary here, and hold this as long as he wants.

AZ4: 35.4W–7.4B–50.4H–2.5A–2.5N Not nearly as Hispanic now but nearly as blue, as it picks up a lot of white liberals.

AZ5: 59.7W–4.9B–24.0H–5.7A–3.2N Scottsdale’s gone, replaced with swingier parts of Chandler, west Mesa, and Pinal. You want this back, Harry?

AZ6: 73.3W–2.7B–18.0H–3.0A–0.9N This is one r-e-d district.

AZ7: 34.0W–2.6B–56.9H–1.8A–3.3N Very similar to map 1.

AZ8: 68.3W–3.4B–22.5H–2.8A–0.8N No change from map 1.

AZ9: 36.9W–7.2B–49.9H–3.0A–1.0N Probably lean D to likely D. Not sure who the new rep would be, as the Dem state legislators from this area appear to have districts more liberal than the new AZ9 as a whole.

Map 4: AZ9 in the middle

The commission might just do what they did last time, and counterintuitively put the new district in the middle instead of on the fringe. The new districts last time were effectively AZ4 and AZ5. Here AZ9 ends up looking an awful lot like AZ5 from map 2, but with parts of north Phoenix and Glendale instead of Scottsdale.

State map:

Phoenix closeup:

AZ1: 61.0W–1.0B–15.6H–0.9A–19.9N No change from map 1.

AZ2: 71.1W–3.1B–18.9H–2.3A–2.8N Ho hum.

AZ3: 80.7W–1.9B–10.5H–3.7A–1.3N Pushed into Scottsdale again for Schweikert.

AZ4: 20.9W–8.9B–64.5H–2.6A–1.5N Pushed west again.

AZ5: 59.6W–4.8B–24.7H–5.4A–3.1N The reddest (Scottsdale) and bluest (north Tempe) areas are both gone, and what’s left is Ahwatukee, Chandler, south Tempe, little bits of Mesa and Gilbert, and most of Pinal. Probably still lean R, but swingy. And once again, no incumbent.

AZ6: 71.3W–2.7B–20.1H–2.8A–1.1N Safe R again.

AZ7: 34.8W–2.6B–56.4H–1.7A–3.2N Keeps more of Maricopa and less of Pinal than the other maps, which suits Grijalva just fine.

AZ8: 68.3W–3.4B–22.5H–2.8A–0.8N Still no change from map 1.

AZ9: 52.8W–5.4B–33.7H–3.4A–2.5N Don’t let the numbers fool you, this thing is blue. The white population here is mostly moderate to liberal. I suspect Pastor would run in the new AZ4 even if he lives here, so Sinema would likely hold this without too much trouble.

If the commission had to pick from these four maps, I suspect they might pick the first with its somewhat disjointed 9th district because it does the least to upset the current balance. The other three were all at least marginally favorable to Dems. I think that making the new district anything but an east-west mix will lead to this if the commission lets the other districts sort out into their most “natural” configurations, but in practice they might find it politically easier to sacrifice compactness and communities of interest a bit in order to keep the current balance of power.

Here are my maps of the California State Assembly and the Board of Equalization, the tax board. To make each BoE district, I colored over 20 Assembly districts.

Majority-White: 37

Majority-Black: 1

Majority-Hispanic: 11

Majority-Minority: 31

Safe Dem: 35

Likely Dem: 9

Lean Dem: 3

Toss-Up: 12

Lean GOP: 7

Likely GOP: 8

Safe GOP: 6

Outer NorCal

AD-01: Rural North Coast, northern Sonoma County

Demographics: 75% White, 15% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 70%, McCain 28% (SAFE DEM: D+17)

AD-02: Marin County, southern Sonoma County

Demographics: 78% White, 13% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 77%, McCain 22% (SAFE DEM: D+24)

AD-03: Most of Sacramento Valley and Northern Mountains

Demographics: 79% White, 12% Hispanic

2008 President: McCain 59%, Obama 38% (SAFE GOP: R+13)

AD-04: Rest of Sacramento Valley

Demographics: 75% White, 13% Hispanic, 5% Asian

2008 President: McCain 49%, Obama 48% (LEAN GOP: R+3)

AD-05: All of Lake, Napa, and Yolo Counties; northern Solano County

Demographics: 63% White, 22% Hispanic, 7% Asian

2008 President: Obama 64%, McCain 34% (SAFE DEM: D+11)

AD-06: Southern Solano County; most of suburban Sacramento

Demographics: 55% White, 16% Hispanic, 12% Asian, 12% Black

2008 President: Obama 59%, McCain 39% (LIKELY DEM: D+6)

AD-07: Southern Sacramento

Demographics: 39% White, 20% Hispanic, 20% Asian, 14% Black

2008 President: Obama 67%, McCain 31% (SAFE DEM: D+14)

AD-08: Northern Sacramento

Demographics: 61% White, 16% Hispanic, 9% Black, 8% Asian

2008 President: Obama 64%, McCain 34% (SAFE DEM: D+11)

AD-09: Placer County, small parts of Sacramento and Nevada Counties

Demographics: 79% White, 11% Hispanic

2008 President: McCain 53%, Obama 45% (LIKELY GOP: R+7)

AD-10: All of El Dorado, Alpine, and Mono Counties; northwestern Sacramento suburbs

Demographics: 79% White, 10% Hispanic

2008 President: McCain 52%, Obama 46% (LIKELY GOP: R+6)

San Francisco

AD-11: Western San Francisco, Daly City

Demographics: 41% Asian, 39% White, 12% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 81%, McCain 17% (SAFE DEM: D+28)

AD-12: Eastern San Francisco

Demographics: 41% White, 26% Asian, 18% Hispanic, 10% Black

2008 President: Obama 86%, McCain 12% (SAFE DEM: D+33)

AD-13: Martinez, Richmond, Berkeley

Demographics: 44% White, 19% Black, 17% Hispanic, 16% Asian

2008 President: Obama 86%, McCain 12% (SAFE DEM: D+33)

AD-14: Oakland

Demographics: 30% Black, 28% White, 20% Hispanic, 18% Asian

2008 President: Obama 88%, McCain 10% (SAFE DEM: D+35)

AD-15: Most of San Mateo County

Demographics: 58% White, 19% Asian, 17% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 73%, McCain 26% (SAFE DEM: D+20)

AD-16: Silicon Valley

Demographics: 51% White, 22% Asian, 20% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 76%, McCain 22% (SAFE DEM: D+23)

AD-17: Northern Contra Costa County (Pittsburg, Concord, Antioch)

Demographics: 61% White, 19% Hispanic, 10% Asian, 6% Black

2008 President: Obama 68% McCain 30% (SAFE DEM: D+15)

AD-18: Southern Contra Costa County, eastern Alameda County

Demographics: 75% White, 10% Hispanic, 9% Asian

2008 President: Obama 59%, McCain 40% (LIKELY DEM: D+6)

AD-19: San Leandro, Hayward, Union City

Demographics: 37% White, 25% Hispanic, 24% Asian, 9% Black

2008 President: Obama 74%, McCain 24% (SAFE DEM: D+21)

AD-20: Newark, Milpitas

Demographics: 41% White, 34% Asian, 17% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 71%, McCain 27% (SAFE DEM: D+18)

AD-21: Eastern San Jose

Demographics: 35% Hispanic, 35% Asian, 22% White

2008 President: Obama 70%, McCain 29% (SAFE DEM: D+17)

AD-22: Western San Jose

Demographics: 49% White, 28% Hispanic, 16% Asian

2008 President: Obama 69%, McCain 29% (SAFE DEM: D+16)

AD-23: Santa Cruz County, southwestern Santa Clara County

Demographics: 66% White, 18% Hispanic, 11% Asian

2008 President: Obama 72%, McCain 26% (SAFE DEM: D+19)

AD-24: Eastern Santa Clara County, western Stanislaus County, Merced County

Demographics: 45% White, 42% Hispanic, 6% Asian

2008 President: Obama 55%, McCain 43% (TOSS-UP: D+2)

Central

AD-25: Northern San Joaquin County (Lodi, Stockton)

Demographics: 42% White, 31% Hispanic, 15% Asian, 7% Black

2008 President: Obama 56%, McCain 42% (LEAN DEM: D+3)

AD-26: Southern San Joaquin County, Modesto

Demographics: 58% White, 27% Hispanic, 6% Asian

2008 President: Obama 52%, McCain 46% (TOSS-UP: R+1)

AD-27: Eastern Stanislaus County, eastern Central Valley

Demographics: 64% White, 27% Hispanic

2008 President: McCain 55%, Obama 43% (LIKELY GOP: R+9)

AD-28: Fresno

Demographics: 39% Hispanic, 37% White, 11% Asian, 8% Black

2008 President: Obama 57%, McCain 41% (LEAN DEM: D+4)

AD-29: Most of Fresno County, all of Inyo County

Demographics: 46% White, 42% Hispanic, 5% Asian

2008 President: McCain 55%, Obama 43% (LIKELY GOP: R+9)

AD-30: Reedley, all of Tulare County

Demographics: 51% Hispanic, 41% White

2008 President: McCain 56%, Obama 43% (SAFE GOP: R+10)

AD-31: Monterey and San Benito Counties

Demographics: 46% White, 41% Hispanic, 6% Asian

2008 President: Obama 67%, McCain 31% (SAFE DEM: D+14)

AD-32: San Luis Obispo County, Santa Maria, Lompoc

Demographics: 64% White, 27% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 50%, McCain 49% (LEAN GOP: R+3)

AD-33: Kings County, most of Kern County

Demographics: 45% Hispanic, 43% White, 5% Black

2008 President: McCain 58%, Obama 40% (SAFE GOP: R+12)

AD-34: Bakersfield

Demographics: 51% White, 34% Hispanic, 7% Black

2008 President: McCain 57%, Obama 41% (SAFE GOP: R+11)

Outer SoCal

AD-35: Santa Barbara, Ventura, Oxnard

Demographics: 52% White, 38% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 68%, McCain 31% (SAFE DEM: D+15)

AD-36: Most of Ventura County

Demographics: 69% White, 22% Hispanic, 5% Asian

2008 President: Obama 51%, McCain 48% (TOSS-UP: R+2)

AD-37: Santa Clarita, Lancaster, Palmdale

Demographics: 57% White, 26% Hispanic, 10% Black, 5% Asian

2008 President: Obama 50%, McCain 48% (LEAN GOP: R+3)

AD-38: California City, Barstow, Victorville, northeastern L.A. County

Demographics: 60% White, 26% Hispanic, 8% Black

2008 President: McCain 56%, Obama 42% (SAFE GOP: R+10)

AD-61: San Bernardino, Big Bear Lake, Twentynine Palms

Demographics: 46% White, 34% Hispanic, 12% Black

2008 President: Obama 53%, McCain 45% (TOSS-UP: EVEN)

AD-62: Redlands, Hemet

Demographics: 62% White, 26% Hispanic

2008 President: McCain 53%, Obama 45% (LIKELY GOP: R+7)

AD-63: Corona, Moreno Valley

Demographics: 40% White, 39% Hispanic, 12% Black, 6% Asian

2008 President: Obama 57%, McCain 41% (LEAN DEM: D+4)

AD-64: Riverside, Norco

Demographics: 46% White, 38% Hispanic, 7% Black, 5% Asian

2008 President: Obama 53%, McCain 45% (TOSS-UP: D+1)

AD-65: Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Temecula

Demographics: 62% White, 26% Hispanic, 5% Black

2008 President: McCain 55%, Obama 43% (LIKELY GOP: R+9)

AD-66: Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Indio

Demographics: 51% White, 42% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 53%, McCain 46% (TOSS-UP: EVEN)

AD-80: Blythe, Imperial County, eastern San Diego County

Demographics: 50% Hispanic, 42% White

2008 President: McCain 51%, Obama 47% (LEAN GOP: R+5)

Los Angeles/Orange County

AD-39: Western San Fernando Valley

Demographics: 52% White, 27% Hispanic, 13% Asian

2008 President: Obama 64%, McCain 34% (SAFE DEM: D+11)

AD-40: Eastern San Fernando Valley (San Fernando)

Demographics: 63% Hispanic, 22% White, 7% Asian

2008 President: Obama 73%, McCain 25% (SAFE DEM: D+20)

AD-41: Burbank

Demographics: 45% Hispanic, 39% White, 8% Asian

2008 President: Obama 72%, McCain 26% (SAFE DEM: D+19)

AD-42: Glendale (Mike Gatto)

Demographics: 40% White, 37% Hispanic, 16% Asian

2008 President: Obama 68%, McCain 30% (SAFE DEM: D+15)

AD-43: San Gabriel, El Monte, Baldwin Park

Demographics: 55% Hispanic, 24% Asian, 17% White

2008 President: Obama 63%, McCain 35% (SAFE DEM: D+10)

AD-44: Covina, West Covina, Diamond Bar

Demographics: 47% Hispanic, 24% Asian, 22% White

2008 President: Obama 61%, McCain 37% (LIKELY DEM: D+8)

AD-45: Santa Monica, Malibu, Port Hueneme

Demographics: 65% White, 21% Hispanic, 8% Asian

2008 President: Obama 71%, McCain 28% (SAFE DEM: D+18)

AD-46: Beverly Hills, West Hollywood

Demographics: 70% White, 12% Asian, 11% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 76%, McCain 23% (SAFE DEM: D+23)

AD-47: Inglewood, Hawthorne

Demographics: 51% Black, 37% Hispanic, 6% White

2008 President: Obama 91%, McCain 8% (SAFE DEM: D+38)

AD-48: Culver City, Compton (I had to make this district snake around AD-47 to make that one majority-black)

Demographics: 47% Hispanic, 32% Black, 10% White, 8% Asian

2008 President: Obama 88%, McCain 11% (SAFE DEM: D+35)

AD-49: Downtown L.A.

Demographics: 53% Hispanic, 21% Asian, 18% White

2008 President: Obama 81%, McCain 17% (SAFE DEM: D+28)

AD-50: Downtown L.A.

Demographics: 74% Hispanic, 12% Black, 8% Asian, 5% White

2008 President: Obama 85%, McCain 13% (SAFE DEM: D+32)

AD-51: Vernon, Bell, Bell Gardens

Demographics: 80% Hispanic, 16% Black

2008 President: Obama 89%, McCain 10% (SAFE DEM: D+36)

AD-52: Monterey Park, Montebello, Whittier

Demographics: 74% Hispanic, 14% Asian

2008 President: Obama 73%, McCain 25% (SAFE DEM: D+20)

AD-53: Beach Cities, Torrance (Betsy Butler)

Demographics: 48% White, 24% Hispanic, 18% Hispanic, 6% Black

2008 President: Obama 59%, McCain 39% (LIKELY DEM: D+6)

AD-54: Palos Verdes, Carson, part of Long Beach

Demographics: 40% Hispanic, 31% White, 14% Asian, 11% Black

2008 President: Obama 66%, McCain 32% (SAFE DEM: D+13)

AD-55: South Gate, Downey

Demographics: 69% Hispanic, 13% White, 10% Black, 6% Asian

2008 President: Obama 76%, McCain 22% (SAFE DEM: D+23)

AD-56: Lakewood, Bellflower, Norwalk

Demographics: 42% Hispanic, 31% White, 18% Asian, 6% Black

2008 President: Obama 59%, McCain 39% (LIKELY DEM: D+6)

AD-57: La Canada Flintridge, Pasadena, South Pasadena, Monrovia

Demographics: 36% White, 29% Hispanic, 22% Asian, 9% Black

2008 President: Obama 65%, McCain 33% (SAFE DEM: D+12)

AD-58: Glendora, Claremont, Upland, Rancho Cucamonga

Demographics: 53% White, 30% Hispanic, 7% Asian, 6% Black

2008 President: Obama 50%, McCain 48% (TOSS-UP: R+3)

AD-59: Pomona, Chino, Montclair

Demographics: 53% Hispanic, 28% White, 9% Asian, 8% Black

2008 President: Obama 59%, McCain 39% (LIKELY DEM: D+6)

AD-60: Ontario, Fontana, Rialto, Colton

Demographics: 59% Hispanic, 22% White, 12% Black

2008 President: Obama 69%, McCain 29% (SAFE DEM: D+16)

AD-67: Long Beach, Seal Beach, Huntington Beach

Demographics: 56% White, 23% Hispanic, 11% Asian, 6% Black

2008 President: Obama 53%, McCain 45% (TOSS-UP: D+1)

AD-68: Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Irvine, Laguna Hills, Laguna Beach

Demographics: 68% White, 15% Hispanic, 13% Asian

2008 President: Obama 51%, McCain 48% (TOSS-UP: R+2)

AD-69: Anaheim, Stanton, Garden Grove

Demographics: 43% Hispanic, 32% White, 20% Asian

2008 President: Obama 51%, McCain 48% (TOSS-UP: R+2)

AD-70: Santa Ana

Demographics: 65% Hispanic, 15% Asian, 15% White

2008 President: Obama 60%, McCain 38% (LIKELY DEM: D+7)

AD-71: Northern Orange County (Cypress, Buena Park, Brea, Fullerton)

Demographics: 50% White, 28% Hispanic, 16% Asian

2008 President: McCain 51%, Obama 47% (LEAN GOP: R+5)

AD-72: Yorba Linda, Orange, Tustin

Demographics: 59% White, 22% Hispanic, 15% Asian

2008 President: McCain 53%, Obama 45% (LIKELY GOP: R+7)

AD-73: Rancho Santa Margarita, Laguna Niguel, San Juan Capistrano, Dana Point

Demographics: 74% White, 15% Hispanic, 7% Asian

2008 President: McCain 55%, Obama 44% (LIKELY GOP: R+9)

San Diego

AD-74: Camp Pendleton, Oceanside, Vista, Carlsbad

Demographics: 59% White, 27% Hispanic, 5% Asian, 5% Black

2008 President: McCain 51%, Obama 47% (LEAN GOP: R+4)

AD-75: Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar

Demographics: 66% White, 17% Asian, 11% Hispanic

2008 President: Obama 54%, McCain 44% (TOSS-UP: D+1)

AD-76: Northern San Diego, Lemon Grove

Demographics: 61% White, 18% Hispanic, 10% Asian, 7% Black

2008 President: Obama 60%, McCain 38% (LIKELY DEM: D+7)

AD-77: Southern San Diego

Demographics: 36% White, 35% Hispanic, 14% Black, 11% Asian

2008 President: Obama 72%, McCain 26% (SAFE DEM: D+19)

AD-78: Coronado Beach, National City, Chula Vista, Imperial Beach

Demographics: 49% Hispanic, 30% White, 13% Asian, 5% Black

2008 President: Obama 59%, McCain 39% (LIKELY DEM: D+6)

AD-79: Poway, El Cajon, Santee, La Mesa

Demographics: 73% White, 15% Hispanic

2008 President: McCain 56%, Obama 43% (SAFE GOP: R+10)

Board of Equalization

BOE-1: San Francisco and Sacramento Areas

Demographics: 51% White, 20% Hispanic, 17% Asian, 7% Black

2008 President: Obama 72%, McCain 26% (SAFE DEM: D+19)

BOE-2: Outer NorCal and Central

Demographics: 58% White, 29% Hispanic

2008 President: McCain 49%, Obama 49% (LEAN GOP: R+4)

BOE-3: Outer SoCal, Orange County, San Diego

Demographics: 49% White, 34% Hispanic, 9% Asian

2008 President: Obama 53%, McCain 46% (TOSS-UP: R+0)

BOE-4: Los Angeles

Demographics: 45% Hispanic, 29% White, 13% Asian, 10% Black

2008 President: Obama 70%, McCain 28% (SAFE DEM: D+17)

Here are two maps of Virginia I drew which are visual opposites. One is 7-4 in favor of Republicans with 3 majority minority districts for Dems with one in nova and the other two around Richmond and Hampton Roads, both of which are majority VAP black. The other is a ‘fair district’ map with compact districts designed to give the state a delegation more reflective of a purple state: 5 likely Dems after Frank Wolf retires, 5 likely Republicans, and 1 swing district. Since I don’t know as much about the political geography of Virginia as I do North Carolina this diary will be less extensive than the previous one.

First Map:

VA-01 (Blue)     Rob Wittman (R)

56.4% McCain

The 1st moves away from northern VA, westward, and loses some black voters to become a stronger R district.

Safe Republican

VA-02 (Green)     Scott Rigell (R)/ Randy Forbes (R)

56.5% McCain

The 2nd takes in Chesapeake and wraps west around Norfolk to create a solid R district, but pits both incumbents together, though Rigell would probably be favored since it contains most of the old 2nd.

Safe Republican

VA-03 (Purple)     Bobby Scott (D)

72.4% Obama     38.1% White/50.6% Black

The 3rd moves out of Richmond to become centered on Virginia Beach, Norfolk, and Hampton, while becoming slightly less black and democratic.

Safe Democratic

VA-04 (Red)     Open

68.9% Obama     41.5% White/50.4% Black

The 4th undergoes major changes to become a black majority district based on Richmond then extending its tentacles to draw in minority areas and giving Democrats a new fourth seat.

Safe Democratic

VA-05 (Yellow)     Rob Hurt (R)

56.3% McCain

The 5th moves westward some while ceding minority voter territory to the 4th, which makes the district considerably more Republican.

Safe Republican

VA-06 (Teal)     Bob Goodlatte (R)

57% McCain

The 6th cedes some territory to the neighboring 5th and 9th to shore them up, but also moves Roanoke to the 9th so that it can take in some more Democratic friendly territory from the 11th in NOVA and allow the 10th to become more gop friendly.  Although Goodlatte lives in Roanoke he still would represent a decent amount of his old district.

Safe Republican

VA-07 (Gray)     Eric Cantor (R)

59.1% McCain

Cantor’s district completely leaves the Shenandoah Valley to take in the remainder of Richmond and the surrounding area while in the process becoming a safer district for him.

Safe Republican

VA-08 (Slate Blue)     Jim Moran (D)

63.9% Obama

The 8th conforms more to the Potomac to allow the 11th to be majority minority, other than that there aren’t any significant political changes.

Safe Democratic

VA-09 (Cyan)     Morgan Griffith (R)

57.6% McCain

The 9th pretty much just needed to gain population, but I also wanted the 6th to absorb territory from NOVA, so I gave the 9th Roanoke and Salem which made it more Democratic.  However, it seems unlikely that Rick Boucher is itching for a rematch against Griffith, and even if he were, this district is still looking pretty favorable to Republicans.

Safe Republican vs. Generic D

Leans Republican vs. Rick Boucher

VA-10 (Magenta)     Frank Wolf (R)

51.2% McCain, 54.5% R

The 10th pivots to sprawl out west from Fairfax County rather than northwest while becoming considerably more Republican in the process, though with a good candidate and environment Dems could win this seat.  However, Frank Wolf would likely be heavily favored here until he retires.

Safe Republican with Frank Wolf

Likely Republican if open

VA-11 (Chartreuse)     Gerry Connolly (D)

65.6% Obama     41% White/17.7% Black/23.6% Hispanic/15% Asian

Connolly’s district changes significantly to become majority minority and much more heavily Democratic, though I might have drawn out the part of Fairfax in which he lives. Regardless, Connolly or any other Dem should have no trouble winning here.

Safe Democratic

Summary:

Republicans shore up the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 10th. Democrats pick up the 4th and shore up the 11th.

Second Map:

This map takes a fairly divergent view of the VRA than does the first by allowing the 3rd to simply be majority minority even though it’s not majority black, which probably would not hold up in court, but regardless, this map is designed to have ‘compact’ districts and give each party 5 safe or likely seats with one swing seat.

Districts 01-Wittman, 05-Hurt, 06-Goodlatte, 07-Cantor, and 09-Griffith are all over 55% Republican and are designed to be safe Republican districts, or likely at worst.  Cantor is the only Republican in the game of musical chairs who would have to relocate for his district since Richmond is now pretty Democratic.

Districts 03-Scott, 04-Open, 08-Moran, and 11-Connolly are all over 58% Obama districts and are pretty much safe for Dems.  The 3rd is now 49.8% White. The 10th (Wolf-R) is a 55.7% Obama district and contains about half of Wolf’s current territory and gives him a new half which Obama won with about 61%, so this should prompt him to retire allowing Dems to gain the seat.

The 2nd-Rigell(R)/Forbes(R) is a swing/lean R district at 50.5% McCain, 53.2% Republican.

Summary: Dems have districts centered on Hampton Roads, Richmond, and 2-3 in DC suburbs/exurbs depending on how Dems defeat or force retirement on Frank Wolf.  Republicans have 5 districts in the rural areas of the state. Virginia Beach is meant to be a competitive, slightly R leaning seat, so for the time being Scott Rigell would still probably hold it.

On a final note, the first map goes to show that it’s pretty difficult to draw and practically impossible for the DOJ to force Virginia to have 2 majority voting age black districts, but that it secures the partisan balance pretty well at 7-4.  The second map is merely meant to be an opposite view from the first map in terms of compactness since it would be highly unlikely to be passed even as a compromise map and possibly violates the VRA concerning retrogression.

In a previous diary, I showed what an Arizona redistricting plan with three majority-minority districts might look like. With the new census data for Arizona, it is actually possible to draw four majority-minority districts in the state.

1st district (blue):

46.1% W, 30.7% H, 19.0% N (18+ population only)

Because of low turnout rates among Native Americans and Hispanics, the electorate here is probably majority-white. But since Flagstaff has a lot of white Democrats, the district is probably pretty swingy. I would guess the PVI is something like R+1 or so, but I’m not sure.

2nd district (green):

82.9% W, 13.7% H

Trent Franks no longer lives in this district, so if this map were actually drawn I would expect him to run for senate. More than 60% of the district’s population now lives outside of Maricopa county, meaning that the state would have two districts not based in Phoenix or Tuscon.

3rd district (purple):

76.7% W, 14.5% H

Ben Quayle and Trent Franks both may or may not live here, but this is probably where both of them would run (assuming Franks doesn’t run for senate). I don’t think Quayle could make it through the primary here, but regardless it’s a safely red district.

4th district (red):

32.5% W, 8.3% B, 52.3% H

The only majority Hispanic district in the state under this map, and also the most Democratic.

5th district (gold):

69.5% W, 16.4% H, 6.6% A

This district mixes liberal Tempe with conservative Gilbert and Chandler. It probably leans republican, but if Democrats wanted to take a majority of the state’s districts this would be their primary target.

6th district (teal):

83.2% W, 10.2% H

David Schweikert would probably be this district’s representative. Ben Quayle may live here but I doubt he beats Schweikert in a primary. Schweikert would be much safer here than in his old district.

7th district (gray):

49.2% W, 40.0% H

A majority of the district’s electorate is probably white, but Tuscon has enough liberal whites that this district would be very Democratic.

8th district (slate blue):

77.2% W, 15.2% H

The demographics of the district are similar to what they were, but the whites in Pinal/Maricopa counties are much more conservative than the whites in Pima county, so it probably gets more Republican.

9th district (light blue):

45.2% W, 6.2% B, 40.9% H

Despite being majority-minority, this district probably leans Republican. It would undoubtedly be very competitive, however.

—-

Interestingly, there are only two really Democratic districts here, just like in the current map. Having four majority-minority districts isn’t exactly a Democratic gerrymander. This plan would certainly be better for Democrats than the current districts, but if I were to approach this from a Democratic standpoint the map would probably be pretty different.