Swing State Project

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.

I don’t want to bury the lede, so just check this out from Republican Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser:

As the deeply divided state Supreme Court wrestled over whether to force one member off criminal cases last year, Justice David Prosser exploded at Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson behind closed doors, calling her a “bitch” and threatening to “destroy” her. …

“In a fit of temper, you were screaming at the chief; calling her a ‘bitch,’ threatening her with ‘…I will destroy you’; and describing the means of destruction as a war against her ‘and it won’t be a ground war,'” [Justice Ann Walsh] Bradley wrote in a Feb. 18, 2010, e-mail to Prosser and others.

Prosser acknowledged his outburst, but said he was justified – and then proceeded to blame it on the woman he had verbally assaulted:

“I probably overreacted, but I think it was entirely warranted…. They (Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley) are masters at deliberately goading people into perhaps incautious statements. This is bullying and abuse of very, very long standing.”

Ordinarily, a state supreme court race would be a bit too down in the weeds even for SSP, but the April 5th contest between Prosser and JoAnne Kloppenburg has special resonance. Prosser is part of the court’s 4-3 conservative bloc – a bloc whose control over the court could be erased with a Kloppenburg victory. While the election is officially non-partisan, I haven’t hesitated to pin party labels on Prosser: He was a Republican member of the state Assembly for almost two decades, and even served as Speaker for a time. He’s been a consistent right-wing vote on the court, and went so far as to say he deserved re-election because he’d be a Scott Walker lackey:

Our campaign efforts will include building an organization that will return Justice Prosser to the bench, protecting the conservative judicial majority and acting as a common sense compliment [sic] to both the new administration and legislature.

The “new administration and legislature” Prosser is referring to of course means Walker and the Republican-controlled state Senate and Assembly. Walker’s union-busting legislation will ver likely come before the high court, and Prosser recently went even further and accused his opponents of wanting “someone on the Court who will be an almost automatic vote against anything that comes out of the new legislature” – which of course can only suggest he thinks he’s just the opposite.

Kloppenburg is relying on public financing, which means she cannot accept monetary donations. Fortunately, third-party groups are springing into action, including the liberal Greater Wisconsin Committee, which is up with an ad hitting the themes I’ve discussed here:

Prosser himself is already on the air, and right-wing groups are sure to fire back (the Club for Growth spent $321K during the primary). This will be a hard race to win, but it’s an important one to focus on.

P.S. One site you should definitely be following for this race is Illusory Tenant.

I was working on an extended redistricting of Texas, but I accidentally closed out the file! I had saved it using an .RTF, but I don’t know how to open it (can anyone help with that??). But anyway, I did take a photoshot of Southern Texas before I closed out, and I think it might be worthwhile to examine what redistricting will look like along the border.

I used the 2010 Census numbers for this, so all follow the VRA. I also plugged in the partisan data for TX-23 and found that if you attach the district to San Angelo, you get a Obama 44% district and VAP of 59% Hispanic. Pretty cool!

I drew an extra fajita strip (purple) that went about 49% for Obama, while being around 60% VAP. The other Hispanic districts (TX-15, 20, 28, 35) are all around 70% VAP. The new TX27 (green) is safe for Farenthold (back-of-the-envelope calculations say that it went 41% for Obama).

Also, as you can see, McCaul is significantly safer, it’s now a 38% Obama district. However, and this is important, the estimations under the partisan data are wildly different than the actual Census numbers: the district is actually far more Hispanic under the 2010 numbers. In fact, it’s only 60% white VAP, and less so with the total numbers. Austin is far more Hispanic that one would imagine.

Also, Carter is made a lot safer in his district by removing Killeen to the super-duper red TX-11.

So tell me what you think! Sorry I don’t have the rest available–I will if someone helps me out. I do think this is what’s going to happen, though.

By: Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

The black vote is one of the most reliably Democratic constituencies out there. Blacks commonly give Democratic candidates more than 90% of the vote; Democratic presidential candidates in 2000, 2004, and 2008 won 90%, 89%, and 95% of blacks respectively.

Blacks were as reliably Democratic as ever in the 2010 midterm elections. The black vote undoubtedly saved many a Democrat from defeat. Exit polls indicate that 89% of blacks nationwide voted for a Democratic congressman.

In California, however, blacks seemed to have been quite a bit more Republican than this.

More below.

The table below indicates the black support, according to exit polls, gained by Republicans in California’s statewide races:

2010   Black Vote	Democratic	Republican
Nationwide   (House of Representatives)	89	9
California   Governor	77	21
California   Senator	80	17

This can be graphed as below:

Now, a word of caution before analyzing these results: exit polls are notoriously unreliable. It is entirely possible that a bad sample skewed these results (although since it appears that the polls for the two California races were separately done, this may be less likely).

If the exit polls prove correct, however, California blacks voted significantly more Republican than blacks elsewhere in the nation. Generally speaking, it is quite a feat for a Republican to get more than 15% of the black vote.

Yet in 2010 Republican candidates in California did this twice. These were not especially impressive candidates; both lost pretty badly. Nevertheless, they got a degree of black support one would only expect Republican to pull during a landslide victory.

Whether this degree of black support is something recent, or  whether blacks in California have  always voted this way, is hard to  tell. According to exit polls, in 2008 they gave 94% of the vote to the Democratic candidate. In 2004 they gave 86% of the vote for Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer (this   was an election she won by a landslide). On the other hand, in 2004 a relatively paltry 70% voted for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides (who lost by a landslide). To round these numbers up, Senator John Kerry got 81% of the black vote that year.

Looking at the results does seem to indicate that blacks in California have been consistently more Republican than blacks nationwide, if not to the extent they were in 2010.

There are several reasons why this might have happened. Several years ago a blogger named dreaminonempty did a fascinating analysis, in which (s)he found that the blacks living in extremely non-black states tended to support Democrats less. For instance, blacks residing in states with higher black populations were more disapproving of President George W. Bush. This was the graph the blogger created:

Califonia is a state with a relatively low black population. Moreover, blacks in California are unusually integrated and getting more so. Places traditionally associated with the black community are rapidly diversifying. For instance, today Oakland is barely more than one-fourth black and Compton is less than one-third black.

California, then, constitutes a good example of dreaminonempty’s hypothesis. Its relatively racially integrated communities may have something to do with a less monolithically Democratic black vote.

Republicans should not start celebrating yet, however. Their relative strength amongst the black vote has very little to do with Republican success at appealing to minorities, and much more to do with the characteristics of California’s black community. If the party is ever to regain competitiveness in California, it must begin reaching out to minorities. Judging by the 2010 election results, this is still a challenge the party has yet to overcome.

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.

Not that it’s any surprise, but it’s sure taken long enough:

Democratic leaders in New York’s 26th district will officially nominate Erie County Clerk Kathy Hochul on Sunday evening, according to a knowledgeable source.

Hochul will face state Assemblywoman Jane Corwin (R) in the special election to replace ex-Rep. Chris Lee (R), who resigned after he allegedly contacted a woman on Craigslist that wasn’t his wife.

The deadline to submit signatures for independents is Monday, and the election is May 24th. I also find it interesting that while the original Gawker story about Lee’s attempt to meet a woman on Craig’s List has been accepted into the official bloodstream, the follow-up story about Lee’s interest in transgendered women from the same publication never seems to get recounted in “mainstream” sources.