Bravo, you did it!

You found your inner Tom Delay. ;)

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 03:32:23 AM UTC

Or Phil Burton!

---

by: davybaby @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 05:42:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Say, any news

on what IL Dems on redistricting are planning?

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 03:36:15 AM UTC

probably not this map...

Too many incumbent Democrats in the Chicago area would not be happy with it.  And how much are these Kerry districts?  A 51-49 Kerry district is only D+3, hardly enough to guarantee in a state like Illinois, where you have a lot of independents and moderates, would elect a Democrat to congress.  After all, consider the current IL-10.

No, this smacks of a dummymander, although I do appreciate the work you put into it.  

---

by: jsramek @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 11:03:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It would be nice if

we had the electoral data in the app.  

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)

---

by: ndrwmls10 @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 13:59:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

it's ugly but def. not a dummymander ...

1.) Rush - keeps 75% of his existing black constituents; new district is solid Dem.

2.) Jackson - keeps 83% of his black constituents (and 80% of existing district overall); solid Dem.

3.) Lipinski - may be only exception here re. being happy; but in order to create new Hisp. seat, good part of Lipinski's current dist. has to be dismantled.  Nevertheless, Lipinski still gets to keep 1/3 of his constituents and new dist. is just a sliver less Dem. than the existing one (Lipinski won in 2010, btw, by 70-24, with Green Party getting 6).. guestimate for Kerry-Bush for new IL-3 is about 55-45.

4.) Gutierrez - keeps about 1/2 of his constituents (and almost all of his Puerto-Rican descent constituents) and I believe he would be in favor of a 2nd Hispanic seat in IL; district is solid Dem.

5.) Quigley - keeps 70% of current constituents; district becomes a bit less Dem. but at almost 70% Obama is more than safe (guestimate for Kerry-Bush here is about 62-38)

6.) New Hispanic seat; solid Dem.

7.) Davis - keeps 90% of his existing black constituents; new district is solid Dem.

8.) Safe Dem.; Obama percentage goes from 56.5 to 65.1 and Bean lost by a fraction last time, so the 8-9 point increase is more than enough (guestimate for Kerry-Bush here is about 53-47)

9.) Schakowsky - keeps 75% of current constituents; district becomes a bit less Dem. but at about 70% Obama is more than safe (guestimate for Kerry-Bush here is about 64-36)

10.) Should be Safe Dem.; Obama percentage goes from 61.5 to 65.3, which is enough as Dold won w/ 51% in a great GOP year (guestimate for Kerry-Bush here is about 57-43)

11.) Dist. goes from 54.2 Obama to 59.2 Obama.  Kinzinger won by 57-43 last time, but Halvorson won by 58-34 (7% for Green Party) in 2008 so def. a swing district (guestimate for Kerry-Bush here is about 51-49).  Kinzinger would only get to keep 19% of his constituents under new map, so his base would be gone and basically even playing field.  With college turnout (3 major universities in new dist.) Dem.
would be favored in 2012.

12.) Costello - Obama percent. goes up from 56.4 to 60.9.  Costello won in 2010 by 60-37, so math is easy here ...

14.) Foster lost in GOP year by 51-45 w/ 4% for Green, so basically 51-49 split conservative/liberal.  Obama percentage goes up from 55.6 to 62.4 and the lines are reconfigured so should be enough to put Foster or another Dem. over the top although dist. historically GOP and remains swingy (guestimate for Kerry-Bush here is about 52-48)

17.) Schilling loses most of his constituents and Obama percentage goes from 57.2 to 60.8.  The Kerry-McCain guestimate here is 53-47.  Hare was a poor candidate, so got beat easily, but I think most other Dems. would do well.  Still would classify as swing to lean Dem.

So, that's basically 11 solid Dem. seats above, and 3 more that lean Dem. (or I would say 3 more that are almost safe Dem. in a year where Obama on top of ticket, and lean slightly Dem. in other years)... which is guaranteed loss of 4 Republicans from the current map, and probable loss of 3 more ... & would not call it a dummymander.

---

by: silver spring @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 14:27:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

forgot Kerry-Bush guestimate ...

for IL-12 -- prob. around 57-43; the Kerry numbers for the 5 minority-majority districts here, btw, would be above 70% ...

---

by: silver spring @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 15:07:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

reason I say potential dummymander

is that you are going by presidential turnout.  What I have observed looking at 2010 congressional turnout, is that the wild swings in the suburbs have to do with dramatically lower turnout in Democratic suburban strongholds like Waukegan, Joliet, Dupage township in northern Will, Aurora, Elgin, Dekalb, etc.  Places like Aurora that were turning out 21k votes for Obama in 2004 and 17k for Kerry in 2004 turned out only 11k votes for Bill Foster in 2010.  When you consider the Republican vote in Aurora held steady these three cycles, this alarming.

Many of the suburban strongholds for Democrats that we would draw into seats aren't reliable to count on Obama numbers.  The swingy areas of Dupage and Will are full of fickle independents.

I am convinced you can draw 3 sure pickups in the suburban area, while drawing all the current incumbents out to make up for population loss.  Downstate is a bit dicier.  Rockford voted nicely for Obama in 2008 for example, but 4 years earlier Kerry only won the city by 6k and lost all the townships surrounding it.  And in 2010, Kirk carried even the city.  Peoria and Springfield might be better Democratic bets to add to Rock Island.

One more thing; Illinois does have a requirement in the 1970 constitution that districts be "reasonably compact."  Ten years ago, lawsuits were brought on the state legislative map that Democrats passed; Democrats were ordered by the courts to make fixes.  Your map would probably fall foul of the state constitution.  As somebody pointed out, Illinois aint Maryland.

That being said, I do appreciate the fact that a 14-4 map is theoretically possible.  I was convinced that a 13-5 was the upper theoretical limit because of population loss in Chicago.  I still think, though, when you consider that the Chicago 7 have a lot of say over their districts as well as Costello, that that will mean in the end of the day 10 Chicagoland Democrats (7 current ones, plus turning 8th, 10th, and 14th blue for good), Costello makes 11, a Rock Island seat makes 12, and probably a swingy seat downstate for 13.

---

by: jsramek @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 21:36:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The "compact and contiguous" requirement

applies only to legislative districts.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 21:45:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I must add one thing re. Chicago Dems ...

Under pretty much any map they may not be happy b/c w/ relative pop. "loss" (loss relative only to other parts of the state) in Chicago, their districts must necessarily expand outward somewhere (and can't expand into each others districts) ... so this map, like any other, would expand those districts outward -- it's just a matter of determining where they go ...

---

by: silver spring @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 15:16:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wow, just wow...

That is the most atrocious looking map I have ever seen (and believe me, I've seen some quite atrocious maps on this site). silver spring, you have my deepest-held respect for how brutally effective this map is.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

---

by: DGM @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 03:41:44 AM UTC

Indeed, very powerful.

And this is just the US Congress.  Imagine what is possible for the State Legislature, where pop. deviations are much more lenient.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 03:43:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The power of redistricting

is especially illuminating when looking at states where both parties each gerrymander one house of their state legislature.  Such as New York, where Republicans struggle to hold on to 1/3 of the state Assembly, yet are favored in at least half of the state Senate.

---

by: skaje @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 08:03:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not sure how effective it would be

You have to discount the Obama numbers in Illinois.  I am still painstakingly proceeding with 2010 congressional numbers, 2008 presidential, and 2004 presidential as my 3 types of elections likely to be seen in this next decade (Obama reelect, 2014 depressed turnout and 2018 possibly), 2016 and 2020 normal presidential turnouts in an even year.  Perhaps a bit pessimistic, but I would rather have a rock-solid 12 Democratic delegation with a chance for a 13th seat, then risk something like this which I don't think is sturdy at all.  

In the suburban districts I have created - 3 near guaranteed Democratic pickups (8th, 10th, and 14th), there is about a 10-12 swing between 2004 and 2008 and back to 2010.  Obama numbers are pie in the sky.

---

by: jsramek @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 11:08:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

probabilities ?

"I would rather have a rock-solid 12 Democratic delegation with a chance for a 13th seat"

This map has rock-solid 11 Dem. seats with a very good chance for 3 more, so I would take it over 12 solid w/ only 1 more possible ...

---

by: silver spring @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 14:59:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Modern art!

The only concern I have is that the crazy lines might serve as a hook for a racial gerrymander claim.

---

by: andgarden @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 03:48:27 AM UTC

oof

Most of those districts would be in contention for "ugliest district in the country". Especially district 10, which would disappear at high tide. The map would work, but I don't think they would go that far. Even states that have put together really shameless gerrymanders in the past (PA, MD, CA, NC, TX) have shown a little more restraint.  

41, Ind, CA-05

---

by: sacman701 @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 04:03:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What Georiga Dems did for 2002

wasn't far off!

---

by: andgarden @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 04:06:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

GA-8, GA-11 and GA-13 ..

on the 2002 maps were arguably worse !

---

by: silver spring @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 14:53:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And if the Dems had run ANYONE else

in the 12th and done just a little bit better in the 11th, they would have taken a majority of the delegation.

And even with the worst political winds for Democrats imaginable, they took two new seats.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 15:15:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

After around 30 minutes of looking at that map,

I finally understood what was going on.

They were aiming for a 7-6 Democratic map, from a 3-8 Republican advantage previously. That was the byproduct, ironically, of a 1990s gerrymander which aimed to get a 11-0 Democratic advantage by getting rid of Newt Gingrich - and which backfired disastrously as rural Georgia moved Republican.

The Democratic districts are GA-2, GA-3, GA-4, GA-5, GA-11, GA-12, and GA-13.

GA-1 works by taking in Republican southeast Georgia, and stretches an arm to the Republican stronghold in Houston County.

GA-2 is essentially Bishop's district today and takes in black rural Democrats.

GA-3 was an attempt to get another Democratic district out of rapidly reddening rural Georgia (it benefits from losing Houston County). It actually worked; Marshall was able to hold that seat all the way until 2010, even after Republicans tore it apart into a Republican seat.

GA-4 and GA-4 are black VRA districts in Atlanta.

GA-6 and GA-7 are a rock-red Republican districts in Atlanta's suburbs. I still don't entirely understand why they were made so messy.

GA-8 is a Republican district out of the Republican area south of Atlanta. It tries to pack as many Republican as possible. The district makes a lot more sense if you look at Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential victory in Georgia. You know it's supposed to pack Republicans because it contains almost all of Fayette County, which gave George H.W. Bush his third-strongest margin in 1992 (when Bill Clinton actually won Georgia).

GA-9 and GA-10 are deep red Republican districts in northern Georgia. I still don't fully understand why GA-10 reaches an arm into Gwinnett County.

GA-11 is an attempt at another Democratic district out of rapidly reddening rural Georgia. It doesn't make sense looking at either Obama or Gore's election, because all the counties it has are deeply Republican now. But in Bill Clinton's 1992 victory the counties it has vote Democratic. Perhaps they counted on those places voting Democratic locally (a stupid idea, in my opinion). It also reaches an arm into Cobb County to take black Democrats there.

GA-12 is Barrow's district: a Democratic district carved from black support in rural eastern Georgia. It takes an arm to reach Democratic Athens.

GA-13 is an atrocious-looking VRA black district in Atlanta. The current GA-13 reaches into Cobb and Douglas County to get blacks. But Democrats put those in GA-11, to make it Democratic. So they made GA-13 unlock blacks in normally Republican places elsewhere.

http://mypolitikal.com/

---

by: Inoljt @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 21:25:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As an aside

It'd be really nice if somebody could post big maps of the 1990s Democratic dummymander and explain how the districts were theoretically supposed to elect Democrats.

http://mypolitikal.com/

---

by: Inoljt @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 21:27:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Georgia in the 1990s

Ask and you shall receive:

Georgia 1992:

http://i1178.photobucket.com/a...

Georgia 2000:

http://i1178.photobucket.com/a...

Though nothing will ever touch what the Texas Dems did in Dallas in 1992:

http://i1178.photobucket.com/a...

http://i1178.photobucket.com/a...

---

by: curiousgeorge @ Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 20:45:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wow, trying to turn

a 3-8 disadvantage into a 11-0 was insane!  No wonder it horribly failed.  

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 21:29:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Woops, misread.

Still, the 90's gerrymander was insane.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 21:32:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The 1990s story is much more complicated

than you present. The Democrats were forced to pass a map with two new "max black" districts by the Republican DOJ. The effect of this was to create a map whose districts were otherwise quite favorable to the GOP. You can trace the evolution of the numbers at polidata (scroll to the bottom). That map was struck down by Miller v. Johnson and replaced by a court drawn map that left only two solidly Democratic seats.

The intrigue behind the 2000s map is fascinating and well-exlained in the Larios v. Cox litigation (even though it mostly concerned the legislative maps).

---

by: andgarden @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 21:41:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Max Black"?

How could the DOJ mandate this?  Was this before the threshold for VRA compliance was lowered?

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 21:45:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

From Abrams v. Johnson:

[T]he State was subjected to steady Justice Department pressure to create the maximum number of majority-black districts, and there is considerable evidence the State was predominantly driven by this consideration even in developing its 1991 plan. In support of their position, appellants rely on broad assertions in the State's brief in this Court in Johnson v. Miller that the original plan "was not perceived as a "racial gerrymander.''' Brief for Miller Appellants in Miller v. Johnson, O.T.1994, No. 94-631, p. 49. Against these assertions, appellees point to the testimony of Ms. Meggers, Director of Reapportionment Services for the Georgia General Assembly, that the second majority-black district was originally designed as a concession to the Justice Department's max-black policy. After being presented with a proposed map of the Eleventh District, " [t]he initial response in our office was that's ridiculous.'' "It was said that it doesn't make any sense and I said maybe not, but . . . we may get in trouble with the Justice Department if we don't draw [it] . . . like that and I think that was . . . the main reason'' it was originally drawn. Tr. 431-432 (Oct. 30, 1995). Ms. Meggers referred to an "understanding'' between the leadership in the legislature and the black caucus that a second majority-black district would be created. Id., at 431. The testimony of several legislators indicated that any such understanding was arrived at in the shadow of the Justice Department's max-black goal, and that all other policies were to give way to this racial consideration. Robert Hanner, chairman of the House Reapportionment Committee, so indicated in his testimony. Id., at 74-75. Sonny Dixon, a member of the House Reapportionment Committee, confirmed this account and said legislators felt pressure from the Justice Department in 1990 to create all possible majority-black districts. Id., at 81. Thomas Murphy, Speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives in 1990 and now, said in his deposition that the initial 1991 reapportionment plan was based on "what we at least perceived to be the direction and instructions of the Justice Department.''

---

by: andgarden @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 21:51:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I hope Roguemapper sticks around

because he's much better qualified to answer the rest of your question. The short version is: it's complicated.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 21:52:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bush, Sr. DOJ was notorious for that.

I see what you mean.  They tried to trip over Dems in NC by mandating a second VRA district even though to do so would take a racial gerrymander.

Their was also this GOP strategist who implemented a strategy of racial packing.  His name was Benjamin something-or-other.  I heard of him because the NJ GOP redistricting team hired his help in drawing their map.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 21:55:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ben Ginsburg

---

by: andgarden @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 21:57:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bingo!

BlueJersey got a photo of him conversing with Senator Tom Kean, Jr. on redistricting strategy.  Yet another reason I'm glad the GOP map went down in flames.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 22:02:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, I should have included that.

The Georgia story is so complicated and hard-to-follow.

But I think that even with 2 or 3 majority-black districts, the Democratic Party believed they could go 11-0 and drew a map to that effect.

If that's true, it'd be nice for somebody to tell me how exactly they thought it could be done, and why it went wrong.

http://mypolitikal.com/

---

by: Inoljt @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 22:55:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, they had an impossible choice:

there were lots of incumbent Democrats that they wanted to give favorable districts to. Their biggest mistake was in attempting to take-out Newt Gingrich.

But at the end of the day, unless they were willing to hand over many more seats, they weren't going to keep a majority of the delegation after 1994.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 22:59:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

parts of current PA & MD ..

are arguably worse (see PA-12 and MD-1,MD-2,MD-3) ...

Generally, good GOP gerrymanders don't have to be as convoluted as good Dem. gerrymanders b/c of the way partisan voters are concentrated ...

NC had a district in the early 1990's that was non-contiguous !  (wish I had a map of it ) ...

US Supreme Court ruled in Vieth-Jubelirer (2004, re. PA plan) that partisan gerrymanders OK (as long as race is not primary factor), although the decision left open the door to revisit "egregious" (not necess. their wording) partisan gerrymanders ... if the Court were to revisit a partisan Dem. gerrymander like this, then some of the GOP ones would prob. also be on the table -- which is fine, as I think all Dems. want is a level playing field in this process ...

---

by: silver spring @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 14:48:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

and forgot about the current IL map ! ...

parts of which are arguably uglier -- see IL-4 !

---

by: silver spring @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 14:50:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

re. racial gerrymandering ...

I think could really make good case that this is purely partisan (which it is !) b/c of the way the lines are drawn
... the minority-majority districts have to be preserved somehow anyways b/c of VRA (and 1 hisp. district added, b/c of great hisp. pop. growth in IL) ...

---

by: silver spring @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 15:12:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not sure how I feel about this map.

On one hand this map is pure genius. On the other I am more of a compact district kind of guy. Congrats on the effort.  

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

---

by: MinnesotaMike @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 03:50:23 AM UTC

Good work

Republicans would not like being concentrated mostly Downstate. You also effectively put together most of the Republican strength in Cook County and suburbs, very strategic. This guarantees that most GOP members would be very conservative, therefore having zero crossover appeal and no threat for statewide office.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.

---

by: DrPhillips @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 04:47:06 AM UTC

Wow

This map is absolutely hideous. I don't think the Democrats will go this far, but boy, if they want to, this shows 'em how to do it.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 05:08:27 AM UTC

Holy cow!

The Illinois Dems need to see this! Not because I think this would necessarily be a good idea, but they need to know the limits of what they can do! Great work.  

20, Democrat, KY-01

---

by: westkydem @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 05:12:52 AM UTC

Bravo, bravo!

I think we here at SSP need a person dedicated to getting all of the gerrymanders to the respective state legislatures. I mean, some of the map drawers for the leg are very tame. I think if nothing else, it would open their eyes to new possibilities, and at best we may even see one of our maps put more or less into reality!!

---

by: IndianaProg @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 07:04:00 AM UTC

fascinating work

It looks like Chinatown is kept more intact in your work than in the existing districts.  Since Gov. Quinn signed a bill claimed to improve the redistricting process for Chinatown and other minority neighborhoods, this would be worth factoring in the new boundaries.

http://www.wgntv.com/wgntv-gov...

The 10th district above is awesome.  I don't think high tide effects the shoreline much but sometimes Chicago gets bad seiches.  The district gets so narrow it is hard to see at one point.  Perhaps that is because the people living there are not on land but in boats at Montrose harbor?   ;)

Anyway, good work.

---

by: johnnyna @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 10:21:22 AM UTC

i felt that lake-shore dwellers ...

had to all be preserved together in one district as a "community of interest" when drawing the map !

---

by: silver spring @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 15:47:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lol

you know all those commonalities between people in Lincoln Park and the East Side! :P

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 22:19:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

.. and the northern end of the new IL-10 ...

that goes inland only does that to tie the lake-dwellers there together w/ the Lake Michigan people -- hence a good part of Lake Co. is included -- Lake Forest, Lake Bluff, Lake Villa, Round Lake, Fox Lake, Island Lake ... and in McHenry Co. - Crystal Lake, Wonder Lake, and, at the farther-most northwestern and most inland end of the district, Lake in the Hills !

---

by: silver spring @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 15:56:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Is a second Hispanic VRA seat needed?

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)

---

by: ndrwmls10 @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 16:41:30 PM UTC

Great map -thanks for posting

I enjoyed looking at it. I say this everytime I see an IL map here that there is the "possible" and then the "likely".  I think not  all would  but most of the incumbent freak out over this map. Plus  many democratic legislators, from outstate and suburban areas, would object to it.  That's just my opinion.

I am not sure about VRA for the hispanic seats.  50% VAP hispanic and even 58% VAP is close. The white % of 38 & 30% VAP also is a concern.  My general guidline is that hispanic turnout in VAP is 1/2 or so of white turnout.  
I defer to others and I look at these matters from a certain prespective.  My concern would be is if there are hispanic voters left in CD5, CD9 or CD3 that could bump it up that DOJ or the hispanic community would insist that more of Chicago or Cook county  be left in these hispanic seats. I add from a political standpoint suburban voters would be a lot less friendly then city voters.  I am sure you can use these hispanic seats as a drain for DuPage county voters.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 18:29:30 PM UTC

I agree that not "likely" ...

but wanted to show what's possible; on the other hand, IL has some crazy looking seats currently, so they may be more amenable to this than other states ?

the hispanic percentages certainly need to be high -- but i think it varies by district also -- good example here is the new IL-4 vs. new IL-6 (Puerto Rican-descent all citizens vs. Mexican-descent, less citizenship rates) .. same is true in CA where there's huge differences in voting rates among hispanics between for ex., parts of central LA and the Central Valley ...

as far as retrogression issues, the new IL-6 would be higher hisp. (I think ?) than the existing IL-4, so in that respect the new IL-4 would be just like an added "bonus" hisp seat ...

---

by: silver spring @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 20:15:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maryland Style

I'd say this is more "Maryland-style" than "Texas-style" myself. If Annapolis were redistricting Illinois instead of Springfield, this might be a decent approximation of what we might expect..

Anyhow, I just wanted to add that I'm reasonably confident that you can create a 14-4 Illinois map without going to such extremes. For one, the Kerry-Bush numbers are way to out-of-date. The correct numbers to use, in my view, are adjusted Obama-McCain numbers. The demographics in Illinois have simply changed way too much since 2004 for the Kerry-Bush numbers to be valid for much of the state.

In any case, thanks for the map! Gives me a few more ideas for my eventual 14-4 map. I'm finally wrapping up my partisan map (i.e., a map of DEM/GOP precincts) - I'll have the state outside Cook County done today, and Cook/Chicago done over the next few days. Then I'll be able to see precisely where to put the lines, and I'll be good to go!

---

by: roguemapper @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 20:52:14 PM UTC

To be clear

This was meant as a reply to the above post that brings up Kerry districts. It doesn't quite make sense posted on its own.. I realize these maps here are based on approximating the Obama figures.

---

by: roguemapper @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 20:58:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

would love to see your partisan map ..

did you get data for all the counties ??

---

by: silver spring @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 21:02:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not all

Sadly I am missing precinct level data for 15 counties, though the only one of consequence (i.e., that I might want to split) so far as I can tell is Kankakee County.

These are the counties I'm missing:

Alexander
Bond
Brown
Cass
Cumberland
De Witt
Hancock
Kankakee - I really want this one if anyone has it!
Mercer
Monroe
Morgan
Putnam
Richland
Scott
White

A number of these have 2010 data, so I could easily map them in using an adjustment on the Quinn numbers. The only problem, however, is if I did then want to split the county then I would need Obama/McCain numbers in order to make it consistent when projecting the Dem performance of proposed districts.

In short, if I have any reason to consider splitting one of the above counties, then I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. For now, I'm likely to make every effort to keep them whole, except perhaps Kankakee.

---

by: roguemapper @ Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 05:57:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Data...

I have Kankakee data, and also lots of county-level data that I'm looking for - perhaps we can trade?

Work's been absolutely owning me for the past two months...delaying my Illinois dataset, but email me at my site address if you're interested.

---

by: jeffmd @ Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 04:03:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

FYI

Just thought I'd mention that I sent an email about a data trade Thursday morning. Since I'm not sure I used the right address, let me know if you didn't get it & I'll try again. If you're too busy, then that's certainly understandable. Thanks either way!

---

by: roguemapper @ Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 06:44:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

yes .. more MD in how it looks, but like TX ..

in the effect the map has ... like I mentioned above, Dem. gerrymanders generally have to have more convoluted lines to achieve the same result that a GOP gerrymander achieves w/ less irregular lines ...

---

by: silver spring @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 21:06:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your district 10 is freaky.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 21:38:12 PM UTC

...holy crap.

And I thought 18 was bad...

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 21:53:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

what's good for

Texas is surely good anywhere else and for Dems, right??

---

by: 06STS @ Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 00:46:40 AM UTC

illinois 14D to 4R

This is the sexiest illinois redistricting map ever. The weakest democratic district is Obama 59%. For the love of god, somebody email this map to the dems in illinois.

---

by: mjdanish @ Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 20:25:33 PM UTC

Believe it or not...

but Obama 59 doesn't get you a safe seat in Illinois.  I have an Obama 60 seat that I drew up in the Lake County region that, when I crunched the numbers last night, gave me Kerry 48 Bush 51.  Hardly my idea of something I would run to the bank on.

Obama was an exceptionally strong candidate for Illinois; he won counties in some cases that were last won by LBJ.  I have to have to be the naysayer on this site, but going by the Kerry 04 and the 2010 congressional numbers gives one a far more sober reality-check on what can be drawn in Illinois (which is a lot, especially up in the Chicago area), and what cannot.  This map is a bit too aggressive and smacks of what the GOP did in PA 10 years ago, if not a bit more dummymander than that.  Unless you can show me 14 Kerry districts, I would not buy this map if I were a Democratic party that actually had to win these elections, especially in an era post-Citizens United.

---

by: jsramek @ Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 17:26:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Someone said that democgraphic

changes have made Bush/Kerry numbers irrelevant.  

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)

---

by: ndrwmls10 @ Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 19:35:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

*demographics

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)

---

by: ndrwmls10 @ Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 19:35:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Absolutely

As I stated before, the 2004 data is obsolete throughout much of Illinois due to demographic changes. So, for instance, let's take Lake County. Here are the comparative racial statistics between 2000 & 2010.

Clearly, the Kerry/Bush '04 figures would be based on the earlier end of this trendline. Localized variations can be even more dramatic, as there are now heavily minority townships in Illinois that were still majority white even as late as 2004.

Lake County, IL

2000 Population: 644,599
2010 Population: 703,462 +9.2%

2000 Latino: 14.38%
2010 Latino: 19.89%

2000 Asian: 3.89%
2010 Asian: 6.30%

2000 Black: 6.94%
2010 Black: 6.97%

2000 Total Minority: 25.21%
2010 Total Minority: 33.16%

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 22:02:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Might I add

The Kerry/Bush '04 numbers in Illinois (as in many areas) were very clearly stratified by racial composition. A 75% white locale would roughly be about 53% Bush. A 67% white locale would roughly be about 53% Kerry.

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 22:07:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

true to a point...

Then you come up against 2010 numbers which tell a similar story.  That same district that I drew last night - which I scrapped because I was unhappy with the outcome, would have voted GOP for congress last fall by a heartbreaking 51-49.

Sorry to be the person that rains on everyone's parade here (and for stating the obvious to all that are willing to consider that 2008 was an aberration for Illinois - no Democratic candidate other than Obama has ever won 61%).  But when you have a city like Waukegan go from giving about 15k votes in 2004 to Kerry to 19k to Obama to just shy of 10k for Dan Seals last fall - a pattern repeated in all the other suburban cities by the way - you have a variable that needs to be accounted for in a map.  I don't see that being done here.  

---

by: jsramek @ Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 02:27:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Umm..

I certainly recognize that 2008 was an aberration for Illinois. I didn't realize that was in question. Neither is it in question that 2010 was an aberration nationwide, and no less in Illinois.

If a district would've voted 51-49 GOP in 2010 then it is surely a Democratic leaning district. Embrace the sunshine..

PS. If you are mapping out such a tight district that includes part of Lake County (either IL-08 or IL-10 I presume) then you are surely doing something wrong. The map that I scrapped using Kerry numbers had Lake County divided between two 54% Kerry districts.

---

by: roguemapper @ Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 02:49:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

...holy shit.

This is too hilariously awesome.  Though I feel tempted to diss it for the reason "needs moar bacon".

Not that I'd support it in real life; I'm a compact-districts advocate.  But still...yeah.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 22:04:24 PM UTC

Compact districts are

reasonable only if they are implemented everywhere.

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)

---

by: ndrwmls10 @ Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 23:34:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Everywhere?

You mean statewide?  Easy.  Let a computer do it.

---

by: Chi-Town Jerry @ Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 15:06:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He means all 50 states.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 15:52:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

holy shit

That is like Tom DeLay on steroids.  Someone needs to send this to the legislature just to show them that anything they do can't possibly be as ugly as this, so they shouldn't hesitate to do anything that's semi-questionable.

CO-6; socially liberal, fiscally conservative

---

by: precut_bagels @ Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 03:37:02 AM UTC

Yikes! What an abortion!

Yup.. this map will guarantee you a trip to the Illinois courts, that's for sure!

And wouldn't it be funny if they said:  Let a computer do it.

---

by: Chi-Town Jerry @ Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 14:11:55 PM UTC

You sure do

enjoy that line. Let a computer do it. I'm afraid not darling! Only the partisan loves of Illinois will draw the new Mona Lisa.

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)

---

by: ndrwmls10 @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 03:10:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rockford to Effingham? Yeesh.

I guess this is one way to make people forget about the Lane Evans district.

---

by: hisgirlfriday @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 03:07:12 AM UTC