The Hispanic population is clustered on either side of I-15 in Vegas.
The old Cd-1 was coming in close to 50% Hispanic in the new census, [so / and] the dems split CD-1 and C-4 right through the middle of the Hispanic cluster just as Sam suggests.
I agree the dem's drew a map with 3 dem leaning competitive seats and 1 solid R, instead of 2 solid R, 1 dem Hispanic and 1 competitive. Is that a gerrymander? You guys can decide - but it sure is "cracking". Deliberately drawing your line right down the middle of the Hispanic cluster sure seems like a "bug in democracy" - which this blog is about. But the dems did this for three decades after the civil rights era with the Black communities too - until a GOP AG busted them (purely for selfish GOP purposes, of course).
and for now, census.gov has the old CD-01, which was 47% Hispanic by total population (though note only 41% by Voting Age Population - see DRA link below).
The Hispanic population is clustered on either side of I-15 in Vegas.
The old Cd-1 was coming in close to 50% Hispanic in the new census, [so / and] the dems split CD-1 and C-4 right through the middle of the Hispanic cluster just as Sam suggests.
This is an excellent graphic: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/Race_and_ethnicity_2010-_Las_Vegas_%285559885507%29.png
I agree the dem's drew a map with 3 dem leaning competitive seats and 1 solid R, instead of 2 solid R, 1 dem Hispanic and 1 competitive. Is that a gerrymander? You guys can decide - but it sure is "cracking". Deliberately drawing your line right down the middle of the Hispanic cluster sure seems like a "bug in democracy" - which this blog is about. But the dems did this for three decades after the civil rights era with the Black communities too - until a GOP AG busted them (purely for selfish GOP purposes, of course).
Hmm, that is interesting.
I wish Substack allowed comments to contain images.
Anyway, here is the Las Vegas area with current Congressional districts.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/116vDiNI3n0FU1W6TyeflsGTIgtL8OGql/view?usp=share_link
taken from Dave's Redistricting. https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::eb89e40d-595f-485f-9a43-d1bbdd6d0cb4
and for now, census.gov has the old CD-01, which was 47% Hispanic by total population (though note only 41% by Voting Age Population - see DRA link below).
https://www.census.gov/mycd/?st=32&cd=01
Will Dave’s let you see current Hispanic population with the current districts vs if they kept the old?
There is a way to compare plans, but I haven't used it. Generally each state has a list of plans of interest:
https://davesredistricting.org/maps#state::NV
From 2020, the old CD-1, with CD-3 to south and CD-4 to the north:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IsFf8S22i6cmuyLvEWIjwxbkD9wTmW1H/view?usp=share_link
Nevada 2020 plan: https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::43ac26c6-a829-4102-9d40-be3288998318
I would characterize the old map as 1 D (41% Hispanic), 2 swing, 1 R, and the new map as 3 D (32%, 31%, 19% Hispanic), 1 R.
If Utah is a gerrymander on account of splitting Salt Lake City, one might apply similar logic to Nevada here. hmm
I 100% think Utah is a gerrymander, but I am not quite sure if un-doing it would have Salt Lake elect a D.
For comparison, consider Nebraska. They have tried hard to give Omaha a fair shot, but that state is so red, it is only a swing.
There does seem to be a candidate-specific effect with Ben McAdams (D), who carried the old UT-04 despite its Republican strength.
I think this illustrates the difficulties of judging the fairness of a map when there are very few districts.