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.
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.