Tag: reapportionment

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

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

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

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

– Zoom: Scrollbar replaces slider.

Here’s a link.

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

Enjoy.

First, let me say that I’m impressed by the many redistricting maps many of you have created recently. I’m happy that you have found my application useful. It’s been fun working on it and it makes it so worthwhile to see what you all are doing with it.

Today I uploaded an updated application with these new features, all of which are requests from those of you who have emailed me. They are…

— A button to assign all blocks according to the old CDs, so you can start your map with the current map and save time.

— Up to 500 CDs, so you can use the app for legislative districts, too. (Although there are no old LD polygons…yet.) The selection of #CDs is now a slider instead of a dropdown.

— Demographic info bar (at the bottom of the app’s screen) now has percentages, as well as the number of persons in each demographic group. Also, hover on the state population text block and get the demographics for the state.

Also, Pennsylvania is officially there now. (Actually the data has been there for a month; my apologies for not announcing sooner.)

Next up: adding NY and IL; and figuring out how to add partisan data. (DavidNYC has been assisting. Thanks!)

Lately there has been a lot of Debate over the number of Democratic Congressional Districts that Democrats could gerrymander out of the state of Michigan if they had complete control (right now they hold the Governorship and State House.  They stand a good chance at taking control of the State Senate while the Governor’s race is a tossup).  A few people, namely IHateBush, have said that it is possible to succesfully draw a map that would yield 12 Democratic seats and only 2 Republican seats.  I’ve been trying for several weeks to draw a 12-2 map, meanwhile protecting endangered incumbents (specifically Schauer) and I’ve determined that a 12-2 map would be far overeaching and in a neutral or Republican leaning year might end up 9-5 or worse. I think the best Michigan Democrats could do is create 11 safe or Democrat leaning districts and 3 strongly Republican districts.  I’ve drawn a map that I think does just that, although I still am not entirely confident that we could hold both of my “Thumb” districts in a Republican year.  But without further ado, here’s my map.

District 1 (Bart Stupak D):  Since this is my home district, and I couldn’t face the specter of Tom Casperson or some other Republican becoming my Congressman when Bart Stupak retires, I’ve gone to pretty great lengths to make this one safer.  I added the remainder of Bay County, Isabella County (home to CMU) Clare County, and Roscommon County, all counties that President Obama won.  I took out the Republican leaning counties of Charlevoix, Antrim, Crawford, Oscoda, Otsego, and Montmorency.  Overall Obama’s performance in this district goes from about 50% to about 53%.

District 2 (Vern Ehlers R) this is probably the most gerrymandered looking of all of my new districts, but it has to be if we are going to have a Democrat leaning district in Western Michigan.  It takes in the Dem leaning Counties of Leelanau, Benzie, Manistee, Lake, Mason, and Oceana along the Lake Michigan shore, the Strongly Democratic County of Muskegon, and then tentacles into Kent County and picks up the cities of Grand Rapids, Kentwood, East Grand Rapids, and Wyoming.  Barack Obama won this district 57.2-41.1 giving it a nice, healthy PVI of D+4.3. Vern Ehlers likely would not be reelected to this district.

District 3 (Fred Upton R + TBD [successor to Pete Hoekstra] R) I’ve combined the old 2nd and 6th districts to form this heavily Republican District.  It takes in Ottawa, Allegan, Van Buren, Northern Berrien, and suburban Kent Counties.  Whoever succeeds Pete Hoekstra next year would probably be favored in a Primary against Upton, who is somewhat too moderate for this very conservative district.

District 4 (Dave Camp R) another one of my heavily Republican districts, this one takes in some of the rural and conservative Counties in Northern and Central Lower Peninsula, but it is based in Midland and Traverse City (Grand Traverse County) Barack Obama only won 2 counties in this new district, Gratiot and Clinton.  Dave Camp’s home in Midland is preserved in the new 4th.

District 5 (Open, leans D)  The new 5th district is the one that I would be least confident of us holding in a Republican year, but still in a neutral year it favors us. It has a PVI of about D+2-3 and it includes the Democratic County of Saginaw, about 2/3 of staunchly Democratic Genesee county (minus the city of flint) the Dem leaning Shiawassee County, sparsely populated Republican Counties in “the Thumb” and Tossup St. Clair County. Luckily former Democratic Congressman James Barcia’s home in Bay City is not in this district, for we really could get a more progressive Congressperson from this district. (State Sen. John Gleason, perhaps?)

District 6 (Mark Schauer D) I increased the Democratic performance in this district by drawing strongly Democratic Kalamazoo County out of Upton’s district and into this one.  I also added tossup county Cass and the Democrat leaning portions of Berrien County.  I took out Jackson and Lenawee County as well as the portion of Washtenaw that was in this district.

District 7 (Open, Democrat) It’s high time that Lansing is put into a Democratic district again, and that’s just what I’ve done.  This new district is L shaped and contains Ingham, Jackson, Hillsdale, Lenawee, and Monroe Counties.  Barack Obama won all these counties, except Hillsdale. Obama won the district 56.4-41.9 giving it a 2008 PVI of D+3.5.  If I had to guess what Democrat might win this district, I’d say State Rep. Barb Byrum (daughter of 2000 candidate Diane Byrum), State Sen. Gretchen Whitmer (distinction of being the “most liberal” Senator), or Lansing mayor and Former state Senator Virg Bernero.

District 8 (Gary Peters D) I’ve made this one a bit more Democratic by removing the cities of Rochester and Troy while adding Berkley, Southfield, and the rest of Waterford Township.  Removing the city of Troy also removes a potential future challenger to Peters, State Rep. Marty Knollenberg (son of Joe Knollenberg).  This district should be safe for Peters or a future Democrat if he runs for higher office.

District 9 (Candice Miller R + Dale Kildee D)  In 2002, Republicans drew David Bonior’s (D) Congressional District http://factfinder.census.gov/s… much more Republican, forcing him to retire or face certain defeat at the hands of their preffered candidate, Secretary of State Candice Miller.  It’s payback time.  I’ve drawn the most Democratic parts of Macomb County, including Miller’s home, into a district with exurban Republican Lapeer County, as well as the 90-10 Obama city of Flint, and other staunchly Democratic portions of Genesse County.  This includes Dale Kildee’s home, but he’ll be in his eightees by 2012 so he probably won’t be the one running against Miller, if Miller runs at all.

District 10 (Mike Rogers R) The last Republican district that I drew, the 10th includes fast growing and largely Republican Livingston County (home to Mike Rogers), Northern and Western Oakland County, and Shelby township in Macomb County. I considered drawing Livonia (Thad McCotter’s home) into this district as well, but I don’t want there to be any chance that he returns to Congress

District 11 (Sander Levin D) This distric largely reverts to it’s pre-2002 boundaries.  It now would contain all of Sterling Heights, Warren, Troy, Clawson, and Royal Oak, along with the most Democratic south Oakland Suburbs.  This district would be safe for Levin’s successor (hopefully state Rep. Ellen Cogen Lipton).

District 12 (Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrict D) Doesn’t change much except that it moves farther south and includes all of Dearborn.  It’s still majority African American and very strongly Democrat.  The only problem with the configuration of this district is that John Dingell lives in Dearborn.  If he is still serving in 2012 (which I doubt) a tendril can be drawn from the 14th District to pick up his home so that he wouldn’t be drawn into Kilpatrick’s district.

District 13 (John Conyers D + Thad McCotter R) Contains all of Northern Detroit and also reaches all the was west to include Redford Township, Livonia, Northville and Plymouth.  There’s no way Thad McCotter could win this majority African American Detroit District.  Safe for Conyers and his successors.

District 14 (Open D) This one looks very much like Lynn River’s old district http://factfinder.census.gov/l… and would probably elect an Ann Arbor Democrat (State Sen. Liz Brater, fmr. State Rep. Chris Kolb, who would be the first openly gay congressman from Michigan, or maybe even Rivers if she wants to get back into politics.) Also includes a large portion of Suburban Wayne County taking in the Democratic cities of Canton and Westland. If John Dingell is still serving and runs for re-election in 2012, then a tendril will have to be drawn to include his home in Dearborn, but when he finally retires it will probably elect someone more progressive.  Obama won this district 64.5-32.6.

What does everyone think of my map? Suggestions, corrections, questions, comments? I want to hear them.

I decided to try redistricting in my home state of Colorado a while back, and after many many tries, I was able to put this together.  I know its been done, but mine is a little different.  

I used the 2007 estimates to put it together, since the 1st, 7th, 3rd, and 2nd won’t have enough people as they are to remain intact anyway.  

This map is assuming democrats continue to control both houses and the governor’s mansion, luckily its not likely that we lose any of the three.

My first goal was also making Markey safe, she’s a great representative, especially for such a traditionally red district, so wanted to pull her district out of the swingiest territory.  Second was changing the 3rd enough so that Obama would have won it, just shoring up Salazar some and keeping it really swingy, preventing most Colorado Republicans from winning there because they have moved so far to the right.  

With the 7th and 1st I wanted to make them more compact and make the 7th just safe no matter what, and wanted to dillute the blueness of the 2nd for the benefit of the 3rd.  

And then I tried to pack as many Republicans into the 5th and 6th as possible.

First the new 2nd would consist of all of Boulder county, retaining its center, Gilpin county, Broomfield county, the city of Thornton in Adams county, and the northern and western parts of Jefferson county that are not in the 7th.  On the western slope it would pull in Grand, Jackson, Routt, Moffat, Rio Blanco, and Garfield counties.  All of those except for Routt are generally red, and this would take those voters out of the 3rd, but the new 2nd would still be very blue with Obama getting about 63.6% of the vote.  

The new 3rd would retain its traditional base in Pueblo and the San Luis valley, and unfortunately I could not take out Mesa county, (the best suggestion I’ve gotten is to just let Utah have it) so I just tried bringing in other blue areas instead.  The counties added to the 3rd are: Clear Creek, Eagle, Summit, Lake, Baca, Crowley, the rest of Otero and most of Bent county.  Some of these are the eastern plains red areas but small enough or they vote for Democrats often enough to not make much difference.  In the new 3rd, Obama would have barely beaten mcCain with just 50.3% of the vote.

The new 4th is probably the most drastic change, and goes from a narrow Obama loss to a solid Obama win.  By losing all the rural plains counties as well as eastern Weld county, there is only the increasingly blue Larimer county and the bluing southwest Weld county, including Greeley.  What is added here is all of Adams county except for Commerce City, Westminster, and Thornton.  The result is a district where Obama received 54.4% of the vote.  

The new 1st and the new 7th are interesting, I had heard of an idea back in 2000 of splitting the city and coutny of Denver, so in this map I did that (to the best of my ability).  So the new 7th would contain all parts of Jefferson county that were in the old 7th with the addition of Westminster, the west side of Denver (including downtown), and the Adams county portion of Westminster.  The new 1st would contain the east side of Denver (including DeGette’s neighborhood), Commerce City, Aurora in Arapahoe coutny, Englewood, Cherry Hills Village, Glendale, and Littleton in Arapahoe county.  So the new 1st looks a little funky, but no more so than the city and county of Denver does anyway, and the new 7th is much more compact.  In the new 1st Obama received 68% of the vote and in the new 7th he received 64% of the vote.

The new 6th is much more republican and so out of our reach for the time being, but a 5-2 split was easier to protect than an attempt at a 6-1 split.  So the new 6th contains the rest of Arapahoe county, the rest of Jefferson county, and then Douglas county, Elbert county, and all the rest of the eastern plains counties, including eastern Weld county, and northeast Bent county.  In the new 6th Obama managed to get only 41.9% of the vote.

And the new 5th is almost identical to the old 5th, containing the counties of El Paso, Teller, Park, Chaffee, Fremont, and Custer.  Obama recieved 40.1% of the vote here.

So that’s what I came up with, with 3 solid blue districts, one leaning blue, one swing, and 2 solid red.

(From the diaries – promoted by DavidNYC)

The U.S. Census Bureau confirmed this week that Iowa will lose a Congressional district following the 2010 census unless we experience unprecedented (for Iowa) population growth in the next two years:

During the past eight years, Iowa has gained as many people – about 76,000 – as states like South Carolina and Virginia gained between 2007 and 2008 alone.

To retain the congressional seat, the state would have to gain nearly twice that number by 2010, according to projections by Election Data Services, a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that analyzes the impact of demographics on politics.

So, Iowa will be left with four Congressional districts. No one knows what the new map will look like, but it’s likely that the 2012 race in the new third district will determine whether Iowa Democrats (who now hold a 3-2 edge in U.S. House seats) gain a 3-1 advantage or have to settle for a 2-2 split.  

Note: A non-partisan commission draws up the new Congressional map after each census in Iowa, so Democratic gerrymanders will not take place, even if Governor Chet Culver wins re-election in 2010 and Democrats hold their majorities in the state House and Senate.

However, if the Democrats maintain control of the legislature, they have the option of rejecting the first and/or second map produced by the non-partisan commission. Republicans in the Iowa legislature rejected the first map proposed after the last census.

Most of what’s now the fifth district, represented by Republican incumbent Steve “10 Worst” King, is likely to become the new fourth district. It makes no difference whether the new counties added to IA-04 come from the current third or fourth districts–that is going to be a safe Republican seat.

Given the voting trends in eastern Iowa, I assume the new first and second Congressional districts will still be relatively safe for Democrats. (Remember, fewer than 10 Republicans in the whole country represent districts with any kind of Democratic partisan lean.) Either Bruce Braley or Dave Loebsack may need to move if the new map throws Waterloo (Black Hawk County) in the same district as Mount Vernon (Linn County), but that should not present much of a problem.

The big question mark is what happens to IA-03. Polk County will remain the largest county in the district, but it won’t be as dominant in the new district as it is now. A majority of the votes in the current third district come from the county containing Des Moines and most of its suburbs.

In which direction will IA-03 expand? If the counties added to it come mostly from the southwest, Republicans will have a better chance of winning the district. One reason Greg Ganske beat longtime incumbent Neal Smith in the 1994 landslide was that Smith’s fourth district had lost Story and Jasper counties, and gained a lot of southwestern Iowa counties, following the 1990 census.

If IA-03 includes more counties from the southeast, Democrats would be better positioned to hold the seat, although it’s worth remembering that Ottumwa resident Mariannette Miller-Meeks carried seven southern counties in her unsuccessful challenge to Loebsack in IA-02 this year.

Speaking at an Iowa Politics forum in Des Moines last month, Miller-Meeks said she was leaving her ophthalmology practice at the end of 2008. She strongly suggested that she will run for office again. Whether that means another bid for Congress or a run for the state legislature was unclear.

Miller-Meeks has little chance of winning a district as strongly Democratic as IA-02, but I could easily see her taking on Leonard Boswell if Wapello County ends up in IA-03 after the next census. The Des Moines Register has endorsed Boswell’s challengers before and would back any credible Republican opponent against him.

The Republicans’ best chance in a third district stretching to the south, though, would be to run someone with strong Polk County connections to keep down the Democratic margins there. I don’t have any idea which Republicans have their eye on this race.

If IA-03 expands to the north, it’s good news and bad news for Democrats. Story County and Marshall County are reasonably strong territory for the party. On the down side, current fourth district incumbent Tom Latham lives in Story County. Latham is a mediocre Republican back-bencher; what else can you say about a seven-term incumbent whose big achievement on health care, according to his own campaign, was co-sponsoring a bill that never made it out of committee?

However, Latham has obviously used his position on the Appropriations Committee to build up a lot of goodwill in the district. He just won re-election by 21 points in a district Barack Obama carried by 8 percent, and he even carried Story County.

I don’t care to run Boswell or a non-incumbent Democrat (in the event of Boswell’s retirement) against Latham in a redrawn IA-03. I’m not saying Democrats couldn’t hold the seat in those circumstances, but I feel it would be a tough hold.

We would be better off electing a new, ambitious Democrat to Iowa’s third district in 2010, so we can run a rising star in the majority party against Latham, if it comes to that. Actually, we’d have been better off if Boswell had retired in 2008, allowing someone new to compete for this seat as a two-term Democratic incumbent in 2012. But what’s done is done.

Anyone think there’s a chance Boswell will reconsider his promise to run for re-election in 2010?

If Democrats still control the state legislature after 2010, should they reject the first new Congressional map suggested by the non-partisan commission if that map puts Story County in IA-03?

What kind of map would give Democrats the best chance of holding the third district?

I look forward to reading your absurdly early speculation about the 2012 races in the comments.

For those who are interested in the national implications of the post-census reapportionment, DavidNYC created a chart showing which states are likely to gain or lose Congressional districts.

Chris Bowers has already created a 2012 electoral college map, and even with one fewer electoral vote, Iowa will remain important to Obama’s re-election chances. You should click over and read the whole post yourself, but the good news is that Obama has a clear path to 270 electoral votes in 2012 even if he loses Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Indiana and North Carolina.

UPDATE: Iowa blogger John Deeth looked ahead to the 2012 Iowa races in this post last week. He concluded that in order to win three out of the four Congressional districts, Iowa Democrats will need to 1) beat Latham in 2010, and 2) get Boswell to retire in 2012. Click over to read how he reached that conclusion.  

Election Data Services has updated its projections (PDF) for Congressional re-apportionment after the 2010 census, taking into account population changes over the past year. (You can find a summary of EDS’s 2007 findings here.) The news is good in particular for the state of New York.

This time, EDS offers five different models for projecting every state’s population two years hence. The column headers indicate the range of time used to come up with each projection.

As you can see, there isn’t a whole lot of difference between the models. Only four states aren’t uniform across the board: California, Florida, North Carolina, and Oregon. CA & OR apparently have seen a recent uptick in relative growth while FL and NC have experienced the opposite.

The bigger deal, though, are the changes compared to last year’s survey. The previous version of this study used three models rather than five, but all of them showed NY losing two seats. Now, all five EDS projections show NY losing just one seat. This might hardly seem like something to cheer about for a state which had 45 House seats just half a century ago, but I for one am glad.

So where does this seat probably come from? As it happens, it’s a state known for its sizable ex-New Yorker population. Three of the five current models (and all of them the shortest-term) show Florida dropping a seat while only one of three did in 2007. Meanwhile, Minnesota now looks pretty certain to lose a seat while South Carolina appears set to gain one.

Things could of course still change over the next two years. As EDS notes, the economic crisis has already reduced migration rates to their lowest level since the 1940s (when the government first started tracking this information). A worsening recession could cause even more people to stay put, changing these numbers yet again. We’ll just have to wait and see.

A company called Election Data Services has published a new study (PDF) of Congressional re-apportionment, based on newly-released Census data. EDS used three different models to project likely re-apportionment figures, which they explain as follows:

First, there is a “long-term” trend model that reflects the overall change that has occurred so far this decade; that is from 2000 to 2007, and projects it to 2010. Second, a “midterm” trend model uses the population change that has occurred from 2005 to 2007. Finally, a “short-term” trend model incorporates the change that has occurred in just the past year, from 2006 to 2007, and carries that rate of change forward to 2010.

The results:

State	Long-Term	Mid-Term	Short-Term
Arizona	2	2	2
California	0	-1	0
Florida	2	2	1
Georgia	1	1	1
Illinois	-1	-1	-1
Iowa	-1	-1	-1
Louisiana	-1	-1	-1
Massachusetts	-1	-1	-1
Michigan	-1	-1	-1
Minnesota	0	-1	-1
Missouri	-1	-1	-1
Nevada	1	1	1
New Jersey	-1	-1	-1
New York	-2	-2	-2
North Carolina	0	1	1
Ohio	-2	-2	-2
Oregon	1	1	1
Pennsylvania	-1	-1	-1
South Carolina	0	1	1
Texas	4	4	4
Utah	1	1	1

When it comes to matters of re-apportionment and re-districting, I know that Swing State readers don’t need any commentary from me about what this all might mean. So have at it!

The battle for redistricting and the reapportionment of House seats has been a hot topic at the Swing State Project for a while. A few days ago, we took a look at the fastest and slowest-growing House districts in the nation. It might be time to follow that up with Polidata’s projections (based on ’06 estimates) for the states that stand to gain and lose House seats after the 2010 Census:

State	Delegation	Change
Arizona	4R, 4D	+2
Florida	16R, 9D	+2
Georgia	7R, 6D	+1
Illinois	10D, 9R	-1
Iowa	3D, 2R	-1
Louisiana	5R, 2D	-1
Massachusetts	10D	-1
Michigan	9R, 6D	-1
Minnesota	5D, 3R	-1
Missouri	5R, 4D	-1
Nevada	2R, 1D	+1
New Jersey	7D, 6R	-1
New York	23D, 6R	-2
Ohio	11R, 7D	-2
Oregon	4D, 1R	+1
Pennsylvania	11D, 8R	-1
Texas	19R, 13D	+4
Utah	2R, 1D	+1
Washington	6D, 3R	+1

To recap, while many of the states that stand to lose seats are of a bluish hue, the net effect of these changes will be decided mostly by the Democrats’ strength at the redistricting table. The redistricting process varies from state to state, but the DLCC has an extremely handy chart here detailing how it’s done in all 50 states, along with the balance of power in each state legislature. (Note: this chart is not updated to reflect the Democratic gain of the Mississippi and Virginia state senates.)

With some artful redistricting, Illinois should be able to rid itself of a few GOP House incumbents, for instance. Michigan’s delegation is also out of whack, but the Dems will need to reclaim the state senate in order to get a total edge in the process. Republicans have already done some amazingly twisted things with the Texas map this decade, so it’ll be hard to see how they could squeeze four more pick-ups out of their new bounty. I have to imagine that one or possibly two of those new seats will be Latino-dominated.

Any other thoughts from our crack team of redistricting fans in the comments?