I think that Arizona also falls into the "petite gerrymander" territory. In a pretty evenly divided state, the 5D/4R Congressional delegation went to 6R/3D. And in particular CD2 was adjusted enough to take out Rep. O'Halleran, a pretty popular Congressman. Election deniers largely lost at the statewide level, but given the new boundaries this was not true for the Congressional delegation.
In Arizona, the margins this year are smaller this year in CD1 (R+0.9%) and CD6 (R+1.5%). That map appears to be 4 R, 2 swing, 3 D, consistent with pre-election estimates as seen at davesredistricting.org. In 2024, there is a possibility of those two seats being won by either party. That would make a range of 5 D, 4 R to 6 R, 3 D.
Generally I think that one should distinguish between an extreme gerrymander and one in which there is some tilt in the map.
Perhaps. I wouldn't have a problem with calling it a tilt; I agree it wasn't an extreme gerrymander. Having watched virtually all of the AIRC meetings, I did see the majority pretty consistently vote in a "tilted" way (IMHO), and absent a couple of very questionable decisions they made, it probably would have been 5 to 4 one way or the other, which would be a better match to statewide results. But yes, not extreme.
I think that Arizona also falls into the "petite gerrymander" territory. In a pretty evenly divided state, the 5D/4R Congressional delegation went to 6R/3D. And in particular CD2 was adjusted enough to take out Rep. O'Halleran, a pretty popular Congressman. Election deniers largely lost at the statewide level, but given the new boundaries this was not true for the Congressional delegation.
Is that really a Republican gerrymander?
In Arizona, the margins this year are smaller this year in CD1 (R+0.9%) and CD6 (R+1.5%). That map appears to be 4 R, 2 swing, 3 D, consistent with pre-election estimates as seen at davesredistricting.org. In 2024, there is a possibility of those two seats being won by either party. That would make a range of 5 D, 4 R to 6 R, 3 D.
Generally I think that one should distinguish between an extreme gerrymander and one in which there is some tilt in the map.
Perhaps. I wouldn't have a problem with calling it a tilt; I agree it wasn't an extreme gerrymander. Having watched virtually all of the AIRC meetings, I did see the majority pretty consistently vote in a "tilted" way (IMHO), and absent a couple of very questionable decisions they made, it probably would have been 5 to 4 one way or the other, which would be a better match to statewide results. But yes, not extreme.