You missed Nevada - they made “Hispanic pie” out of Las Vegas in order to have three non-Hispanic democrats, as opposed to an Hispanic democrat, a non-Hispanic democrat and a republican. Gain of plus one D for this.
In CD1, CD3, and CD4, Democratic win margins were 4-6 points. Those seem like competitive districts. It seems that least one of them could have gone Republican. I think it depends on what we imagine the low-water mark for Democrats would be.
However, according to Census QuickFacts, Las Vegas city is only 33% Hispanic, which is lower than the 37%+ that has been reported in one study by Moon Duchin to be enough to give a community its preferred candidate.. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/lasvegascitynevada
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).
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.
SUPERB! Much appreciated. Our process of electing single member legislatures at the national and state levels in a farce and disgraceful, esp. with FPP (as defined by the Elect.ReformSoc. out of UK). There are still far too many districts in which there is no semblance of a contest, as you sagely noted.
Arthur continues: "Ironically, a much larger House of Reps would not offend me BUT major reforms in its processes and elections would be required. Districts of 750K are simply not representative of very much. Cheers!"
"Basically, this map anticipated a red wave that would carry all the close districts. But in the end, the wave was no more than a mist. Democrats won in the 3rd and 13th districts by 5 points. The resulting delegation, 10 Republicans and 5 Democrats, is only one seat more than the Ohio constitution would mandate."
Great article, and I'm still reading through it right now, but I believe there was a small mistake in the excerpt above. The two districts that Democrats won last week in Ohio by 5 points were the 1st and 13th. The 3rd district is the Columbus seat that is very blue.
Sam, great analysis and I agree with almost all of your quantitative assessments, and you're right that FL's gerrymander has yet to deliver its full impact. I view Maryland's natural split (for a compact map) as 7-1 as there is about a half-chance of generating an R district in the extreme west and a half-chance of generating an R district on the Eastern shore. A few corrections for my state of Ohio: 1) Part of the mess is that the newly amended state constitution is unclear on what a fair split should be. Partisan symmetry and party-neutral expectations differ by nearly a full seat. 2) The Congressional map will hold for four years if the state Supreme Court (which like NC, has just moved to the right) reverses course and deems the current map constitutional. However, if the current court order is respected, in a new map is required for 2024 3) The ability of the Dems to pick up 3 competitive seats in Ohio is not a simple dummymander, but the combination of constitutional language, geography and political backlash to the Ohio legislature's original extreme proposal for 2022. In other words, IMO the mapmakers deemed it too politically risky to split Toledo, split Akron, and/or stuck with the legislature's scheme for Cincinnati, even though these could be done without violating technical no-split requirements. The creation of an excess of competitive districts became part of the cover story. Given the huge mess in legislative redistricting, a more extreme Congressional map would have surely triggered another referendum to establish an independent commission -- though that move is still being contemplated by the advocacy groups here.
Thank you for liking my comment. Both parties are basically competing Mafioso families and the primary system, coupled with no term limits and horrible gerrymandering, is undermining what is left of our Republican vitality. I fear we may lurch in to a South American type fiasco. A larger House of Reps elected mostly or largely on proportional bases (albeit I dislike the AVM used in NYC) , with run offs, is most salutary. In Maryland, e.g., many legislators win by small PLURALITIES with no run offs.....its a farce. The Electoral College should also end winner take all. I understand Sam's blog is focused on a different set of concerns and is astute, but so long as were are mooting reform here.........Cheers!
The NY map was a Republican gerrymander by the Special Master appointed by an Upstate Republican judge.
The special master put 10 Democrats into 5 districts. He didn’t do that to the Republicans. Republicans are only 23% of the electorate but the way the special master drew the maps he gave them at least 1/3 of the seats
Let me give an example of how clear his bias was.
In 2012 there was also a special master. He drew fair maps. For example.
The .Staten Island seat was a Republican seat normally. The historical maps had all of Staten Island and a part of Brooklyn. The Brooklyn part was more Democratic but initially not by much.
HOWEVER the special master in 2022, while also adding a Brooklyn part to the Staten Island seat, he chose one of the FEW Republican enclaves in Brooklyn to add to that map.
That is a sign of bias and can be considered a judicial gerrymander via special master.
Second, if you mean pairing of 10 incumbents into 5 districts, that is often considered the opposite of gerrymandering because it is focused on voter communities and not the preferences of individual legislators. Incumbent pairing is rare when legislators draw lines for themselves or their friends.
The New York delegation-elect comprises 15 Democrats and 11 Republicans. Republicans won four of those districts by margins of 4 points or less, providing Democrats the opportunity to attain up to a 19-7 split in 2024.
I was talking about REGISTERED voters NOT who voted in this election.
Republicans are 23% pf registered voters..
Democrats are more than twice that
The rest are unaffiliated.
Who voted in a particular election is not the measure
And of course the special master did not have the after election numbers.
So he couldn't be hewing to them.
But he did have earlier elections where the percentage I cited between Republicans and Democrats are more or less following the registered voter numbers I cited
And if it i so wonderful to pit incumbents against each other then why didn't the special master do that to Republicans? Because incumbents have a better chance of being elected?
And I heartily disagree that ignoring where legislators live is to not favor them. Ignoring where they live is to actively disfavor them,...and more importantly the constituents they represent. It is the opposite of actually trying to serve the voters faithfully.
I testified at the hearings. First the constituents who spoke about the legislators who were representing them made it very clear that that these legislators knew their districts and they endeavored mightily to help them. So I think it is just a false platitude of redistricting that ignoring where legislators live is attentive to the needs of the community. It is really just the opposite.
This special master divided Manhattan north to south. Never in its entire history had this ever been done! It was always divided east by west. By the way he ignored and violated every criteria of communities of interest....subway lines, bus lines, school districts, police stations, water pipes, community boards... there is NO SUBWAY LINE GOING across Central Park. If 10% of the people in that new district thought that was good for them I would would be shocked. It also meant that one powerful and influential Democrat would lose a seat. That seemed to be feature and not a bug. And the rationale the special master gave amounted to "so what"
I do want to say that in testifying and the questions I was asked by the commissioners, especially the Republicans, made it clear they were not operating in good faith. They knew they could obstruct and delay and never have to compromise on a bipartisan map. Why Because unlike every other redistricting commission I know of...NY had an even number. of people....10 members. A commission designed for deadlock. The Republicans had all along planned to forum shop for an upstate Republican judge ( in NY judges are elected on party lines) to overturn the legislature's maps.
The remedial map is not a partisan gerrymander, and it replaces a partisan gerrymander. Today’s post is unconcerned with the horserace question of who gained seats from a court battle, so long as that process moved toward what a party-blind outcome would produce. There are metrics for this. New York scores as a zero-seat difference.
I'm not sure how you get that Republicans didn't gain any seats in Florida. Surely they at least gained Al Lawson's seat after DeSantis dismantled the VRA compliant 5th district. I'd also argue that if the 7th and 13th were more competitive Democrats might have made different choices and would have won at leats 1 of them.
This is already explained in the post. To add to that:
As stated above, Florida's map eliminates a Black opportunity district that was held by Rep. Lawson. The state Senate plan includes that district. When PGP's estimates of that map are shifted to match the actual statewide vote, the outcome is 8 D, 20 R seats, which is what happened. https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/redistricting-report-card/?planId=recjuAH6v3L1iPAgK Or to put it another way, if the opportunity district had been preserved, at least one resulting map would have eliminated a D-leaning district elsewhere.
You missed Nevada - they made “Hispanic pie” out of Las Vegas in order to have three non-Hispanic democrats, as opposed to an Hispanic democrat, a non-Hispanic democrat and a republican. Gain of plus one D for this.
Is that really a Democratic gerrymander?
In CD1, CD3, and CD4, Democratic win margins were 4-6 points. Those seem like competitive districts. It seems that least one of them could have gone Republican. I think it depends on what we imagine the low-water mark for Democrats would be.
I see that CD1/CD4 might potentially split Hispanic communities: https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::eb89e40d-595f-485f-9a43-d1bbdd6d0cb4
However, according to Census QuickFacts, Las Vegas city is only 33% Hispanic, which is lower than the 37%+ that has been reported in one study by Moon Duchin to be enough to give a community its preferred candidate.. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/lasvegascitynevada
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 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.
SUPERB! Much appreciated. Our process of electing single member legislatures at the national and state levels in a farce and disgraceful, esp. with FPP (as defined by the Elect.ReformSoc. out of UK). There are still far too many districts in which there is no semblance of a contest, as you sagely noted.
Arthur continues: "Ironically, a much larger House of Reps would not offend me BUT major reforms in its processes and elections would be required. Districts of 750K are simply not representative of very much. Cheers!"
"Basically, this map anticipated a red wave that would carry all the close districts. But in the end, the wave was no more than a mist. Democrats won in the 3rd and 13th districts by 5 points. The resulting delegation, 10 Republicans and 5 Democrats, is only one seat more than the Ohio constitution would mandate."
Great article, and I'm still reading through it right now, but I believe there was a small mistake in the excerpt above. The two districts that Democrats won last week in Ohio by 5 points were the 1st and 13th. The 3rd district is the Columbus seat that is very blue.
Good catch on the 1st district, Brad. Thank you!
Sam, great analysis and I agree with almost all of your quantitative assessments, and you're right that FL's gerrymander has yet to deliver its full impact. I view Maryland's natural split (for a compact map) as 7-1 as there is about a half-chance of generating an R district in the extreme west and a half-chance of generating an R district on the Eastern shore. A few corrections for my state of Ohio: 1) Part of the mess is that the newly amended state constitution is unclear on what a fair split should be. Partisan symmetry and party-neutral expectations differ by nearly a full seat. 2) The Congressional map will hold for four years if the state Supreme Court (which like NC, has just moved to the right) reverses course and deems the current map constitutional. However, if the current court order is respected, in a new map is required for 2024 3) The ability of the Dems to pick up 3 competitive seats in Ohio is not a simple dummymander, but the combination of constitutional language, geography and political backlash to the Ohio legislature's original extreme proposal for 2022. In other words, IMO the mapmakers deemed it too politically risky to split Toledo, split Akron, and/or stuck with the legislature's scheme for Cincinnati, even though these could be done without violating technical no-split requirements. The creation of an excess of competitive districts became part of the cover story. Given the huge mess in legislative redistricting, a more extreme Congressional map would have surely triggered another referendum to establish an independent commission -- though that move is still being contemplated by the advocacy groups here.
Maryland: In 1 million computer simulations, most outcomes gave a 5-3 or 6-2 Democratic-Republican split. https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/redistricting-report-card?planId=rectT3e34TouwaqH0
Also note that a compact map in Dave's Redistricting gives a 5-3 split: https://davesredistricting.org/maps#state::MD
Thank you for liking my comment. Both parties are basically competing Mafioso families and the primary system, coupled with no term limits and horrible gerrymandering, is undermining what is left of our Republican vitality. I fear we may lurch in to a South American type fiasco. A larger House of Reps elected mostly or largely on proportional bases (albeit I dislike the AVM used in NYC) , with run offs, is most salutary. In Maryland, e.g., many legislators win by small PLURALITIES with no run offs.....its a farce. The Electoral College should also end winner take all. I understand Sam's blog is focused on a different set of concerns and is astute, but so long as were are mooting reform here.........Cheers!
The NY map was a Republican gerrymander by the Special Master appointed by an Upstate Republican judge.
The special master put 10 Democrats into 5 districts. He didn’t do that to the Republicans. Republicans are only 23% of the electorate but the way the special master drew the maps he gave them at least 1/3 of the seats
Let me give an example of how clear his bias was.
In 2012 there was also a special master. He drew fair maps. For example.
The .Staten Island seat was a Republican seat normally. The historical maps had all of Staten Island and a part of Brooklyn. The Brooklyn part was more Democratic but initially not by much.
HOWEVER the special master in 2022, while also adding a Brooklyn part to the Staten Island seat, he chose one of the FEW Republican enclaves in Brooklyn to add to that map.
That is a sign of bias and can be considered a judicial gerrymander via special master.
You are providing misleading information.
First, between 43 and 47% of the New York vote went to statewide Republican candidates. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/11/08/us/elections/results-new-york.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=election-results&context=election_recirc®ion=StateNavMenu
Second, if you mean pairing of 10 incumbents into 5 districts, that is often considered the opposite of gerrymandering because it is focused on voter communities and not the preferences of individual legislators. Incumbent pairing is rare when legislators draw lines for themselves or their friends.
The New York delegation-elect comprises 15 Democrats and 11 Republicans. Republicans won four of those districts by margins of 4 points or less, providing Democrats the opportunity to attain up to a 19-7 split in 2024.
I was not providing misleading information
I was talking about REGISTERED voters NOT who voted in this election.
Republicans are 23% pf registered voters..
Democrats are more than twice that
The rest are unaffiliated.
Who voted in a particular election is not the measure
And of course the special master did not have the after election numbers.
So he couldn't be hewing to them.
But he did have earlier elections where the percentage I cited between Republicans and Democrats are more or less following the registered voter numbers I cited
And if it i so wonderful to pit incumbents against each other then why didn't the special master do that to Republicans? Because incumbents have a better chance of being elected?
And I heartily disagree that ignoring where legislators live is to not favor them. Ignoring where they live is to actively disfavor them,...and more importantly the constituents they represent. It is the opposite of actually trying to serve the voters faithfully.
I testified at the hearings. First the constituents who spoke about the legislators who were representing them made it very clear that that these legislators knew their districts and they endeavored mightily to help them. So I think it is just a false platitude of redistricting that ignoring where legislators live is attentive to the needs of the community. It is really just the opposite.
This special master divided Manhattan north to south. Never in its entire history had this ever been done! It was always divided east by west. By the way he ignored and violated every criteria of communities of interest....subway lines, bus lines, school districts, police stations, water pipes, community boards... there is NO SUBWAY LINE GOING across Central Park. If 10% of the people in that new district thought that was good for them I would would be shocked. It also meant that one powerful and influential Democrat would lose a seat. That seemed to be feature and not a bug. And the rationale the special master gave amounted to "so what"
I do want to say that in testifying and the questions I was asked by the commissioners, especially the Republicans, made it clear they were not operating in good faith. They knew they could obstruct and delay and never have to compromise on a bipartisan map. Why Because unlike every other redistricting commission I know of...NY had an even number. of people....10 members. A commission designed for deadlock. The Republicans had all along planned to forum shop for an upstate Republican judge ( in NY judges are elected on party lines) to overturn the legislature's maps.
There is a lot to say about New York’s redistricting process and the problems it encountered. Review here: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/what-went-wrong-new-yorks-redistricting
The remedial map is not a partisan gerrymander, and it replaces a partisan gerrymander. Today’s post is unconcerned with the horserace question of who gained seats from a court battle, so long as that process moved toward what a party-blind outcome would produce. There are metrics for this. New York scores as a zero-seat difference.
I'm not sure how you get that Republicans didn't gain any seats in Florida. Surely they at least gained Al Lawson's seat after DeSantis dismantled the VRA compliant 5th district. I'd also argue that if the 7th and 13th were more competitive Democrats might have made different choices and would have won at leats 1 of them.
This is already explained in the post. To add to that:
As stated above, Florida's map eliminates a Black opportunity district that was held by Rep. Lawson. The state Senate plan includes that district. When PGP's estimates of that map are shifted to match the actual statewide vote, the outcome is 8 D, 20 R seats, which is what happened. https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/redistricting-report-card/?planId=recjuAH6v3L1iPAgK Or to put it another way, if the opportunity district had been preserved, at least one resulting map would have eliminated a D-leaning district elsewhere.