I don't know why the Dems would agree to this

The three seats they have now are rather safe, there's need to make them safer.  They'd be better off with neutral non-partisan redistricting.

28, Unenrolled, MA-08

---

by: Marcus @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 16:56:16 PM UTC

I do not think the Dems will either

 I do not know if any Republicans will want to sacrifice any of their incumbents though. Perhaps there will be 3 safe D, 3 safe R and possibly one swing district.  

for more election analysis, visit  http://frogandturtle.blogspot....

17, CA-06,  

---

by: Alibguy @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 17:10:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

agree

I would agree to this map if I'm a Reep, but not if I'm a Dem. Perlmutter is safe as houses and does not need any help. He beat a credible opponent by 11.7 points in a Reep wave year. Gardner won by 11.1 and should be able to hold that district barring a big Dem wave, but Tipton won by just 4.3 and would likely lose to Salazar in a neutral environment. If I were a Dem I would be ok with Gardner and Perlmutter swapping some areas, but anything to help Tipton would be a deal-breaker.    

41, Ind, CA-05

---

by: sacman701 @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 19:38:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Absolutely

The Dems still have the upper hand whether or not this goes to the CO SC.  No way they roll over and let Tipton be secured.

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

---

by: LookingOver @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 19:47:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Looking to the numbers the work seems like a republican gerrymander but

but this is not cause of the work of Alibguy, I think this is cause of the current map of Colorado.

If we see for the seats with democratic incumbents:

CO-01
Current map: D+21 (74% Obama)
Alibguy map: 70% Obama

CO-02
Current map: D+11 (64% Obama)
Alibguy map: 66% Obama

CO-07
Current map: D+4 (57% Obama)
Alibguy map: 62% Obama

Here is not a big change from the old map. Alibguy make safer CO-07, and I agree, but less improvement is enough for me.

For the seats with republican incumbents:

CO-03
Current map: R+5 (47%Obama)
Alibguy map: 52% McCain

CO-04
Current map: R+6 (46% Obama)
Alibguy map: 52% McCain

CO-05
Current map: R+14 (38% Obama)
Alibguy map: 59% McCain

CO-06
Current map: R+8 (44% Obama)
Alibguy map: 52% McCain

Like we can see Alibguy give not improvements for the republicans. It is the current map, what is closer to a republican gerrymander than to a democratic gerrymander. Cause of this, I think the democrats would have less fear to go the court with the new map for Colorado.

I think the new map will have not big differences with the current map if the republicans can keep the control of the house. As minimum I would like to see the CO-03 more competitive than this year. Maybe R+2.

If the republicans have some trouble, the democrats would make easily D+ a couple of their four districts.

---

by: abgin @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 23:56:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

From a GOP perspective

This looks like a dummymander.

---

by: emilysdad @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 17:09:33 PM UTC

Since the process is split, it could go to court

Two of the seats Democrats hold are very safe and there other is moderately safe, so there isn't much need for more security.  Democrats get nothing out of an incumbent protection map, only Republicans would and with a really fair trade, the map will end up in court.

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

---

by: DrPhillips @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 17:31:05 PM UTC

incumbent protection

A lot of people seem to be assuming that split control means an incumbent protection map, but it doesn't make any sense for Dems to do that in Colorado or any other state when Reeps are at a likely high water mark. That just allows Reeps to lock in their gains when they're overextended. I can't imagine a case where the Dems would likely be better off if they agreed to protect any vulnerable Reep than they would be if they just let a court draw the lines.

41, Ind, CA-05

---

by: sacman701 @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 22:04:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is certainly true

as if the democrats were 4-3 they would be more anxious to lock in gains.  CO is facing the same issue as MN and numerous other states in split control situation.  

Do you settle or go to court. The joint commission mentioned above seems to indictate maybe a standstill plan.  

The population increase was greater in surburban areas and apparently the hispanic population jumped too.

Predictions are hard.  The key is CO3 plus the interplay between CO1 & CO7.  

You could make CO1 & CO7 both safely democratic but that's not what the commission chair seems to imply will happen?

who knows?

---

by: rdelbov @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 23:11:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

CO and MN redistricting

I noticed that Dave's application lacks partisan data for many states, including Minnesota.

If you have the precinct data, which corresponds to the polygons in each state, is there a way to combine the two?

---

by: Matthew Wintergarden @ Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 15:31:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Getting the partisan data is an ongoing project

Jeffmd is currently working on Illinois. I'm working on Michigan. I believe that there's a team working on finishing Virginia, as well. I don't know of any other state that is current in process.

Here and here are primers on how to get the partisan data into the App.

The polygons in the app for most states are either the 2000 Census block groups or the 2000 election precincts. The partisan data that's currently the standard for the app is the 2008 presidential race. (Jeffmd is planning on using an average of all statewide 2010 races in Illinois to avoid the Obama "favorite son" effect in Illinois.)

If you have well-formatted 2008 election data that going to map well onto 2000 block groups/2000 precinct maps, then getting creating a partisan data file for a state should be pretty straightfoward. If not, the more work you have to do to get the data to fit, obviously the longer it will take. I've been working on Michigan for not quite two months now (I think), and I'm about halfway done. (Although a good part of that is because I'm also changing the names of the Michigan precints from a 14-digit long code to natural language.)

For your reference, here's how the states break down in Dave's App:

2000-election precinct maps available, no partisan data yet: AL, AR, CO, CT, GA, HI, ID, IN, IA, KS, LA, ME, MA, MN, MS, MO, NE, NV, NJ, OK, RI, SC, TN, WA, WV

2000-census block groups maps only, no partisan data: AZ, FL, KY, OH, OR, WI

2000-election precinct maps with 2008-presidential-election data forced on: MD, NC, NM, PA

2008-election precinct maps created by jeffmd: CA, NY, TX

States that are in process (to the best of my knowledge): IL, MI, VA

States that the App doesn't support: NH (functionally, only the cities are drawn in, not towns) and all of the single-representative states (AK, DE, MT, ND, SD, VT, WY)

If you'd like more information on getting partisan data in to the app, you can email me at [myusername] at gmail. I'd be happy to share what I've learned while working on Michigan. Respond here first, because it's a secondary email I don't check much.

30, male, MI-11 (previously VA-08). Evangelical, postconservative, green.

---

by: borodino21 @ Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 16:30:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

High water mark?

Republicans did hold 5 of the 7 seats earlier this decade. 4-3 for either side is fair and reflective of its status as a swing state. I just can't see the commission weakening Tipton--how is it a compromise if an incumbent sees his seat loosened up? If Democrats accept three super-safe districts and a CO-03 that favors Tipton but is in reach, they will have the benefit of never having to spend another dime in defense. They had to spend $200K on Perlmutter this year.  

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

---

by: MassGOP @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 23:41:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am sort of wishy washy

on these matters and your point is good.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 23:44:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I wanted to say also

that since so much of the democratic vote is packed into Denver & Boulder 5R-2D is not not so weird.

Yes we saw 5D-2R but it seemed a little odd.  McCain still carried 4 CD's in CO in 2008.

The fairest redistricting plan would be to weaken Perlmutter-Gardner and Tipton.  Its not quite fair to say lets keep CO7 the same but make CO4 & CO3 less republican.  I might add population wise the republican districts more over then under.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 23:50:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

200k

$200k is chump change compared to what some seats cost.

The Reeps are at a high water mark nationally. As you say they were up 5-2 in CO at one point but they won't realistically get back there as the Denver area is trending blue. The state has one true swing district as long as Perlmutter and Salazar are both around. I don't see the Dems agreeing on any plan that makes the 3rd district more red, and I don't see the Reeps agreeing to anything that makes it more blue. I think they'll either agree on a status-quo map, or throw it into the courts who would probably produce something much like a status-quo map.

41, Ind, CA-05

---

by: sacman701 @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 23:54:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That seems like the likeliest scenerio

a partisan draw.  Keep all the % of voters in the 7 CD's  the same.  

I do have  a notion-can't quite shake it.  

For you VRA guys.

There is a district that is 49% white and another that is 60% white.  This split is acheived by dividing  the minority communities into the two districts.  The heaviest concentration of AA's & Hispanic voters in CD7 border near or next to CO1.  There are over 500K hispanics in Denver area.

We got a state that is over 20% hispanic and we are splitting the hispanic communities in the Denver area CD's. 20% of 7 looks a lot like one to me.

---

by: rdelbov @ Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 01:13:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

County Lines

I don't know the rules (maybe it's just from the judge) but there are very few county lines split in the current map, and a good VRA district would have to pick up parts of 3 counties.

Also, the "20% of 7" is kind of misleading.  There's probably 10% Hispanic in basically every county in the state, which is useless for making a VRA district.  Just using Denver and Adams Co, I got a 46% white/41% Hispanic district, which probably isn't much better from a VRA perspective.

---

by: powera @ Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 05:02:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The 1990 & 2000 VRA

redistricting cycles mainly focused on AA seats.  The one major exception was in Texas 2004.  I see the key issue for the 2010 redistricting-as regards VRA-to be the Hispanic population.  There are has been a huge increase in growth in this community.

I have had several posters here tell me several times that if you can create a majority/minority seat with compact lines "you are required to under VRA".  I suspect the DOJ will follow that line. Well in CO you have 750K in AA-hispanic / hispanic mix  population in CO1 & CO7.  If VRA requires you to create a second AA majority seat in LA SC AL what about a majority /minority seat in CO?  The only way not to get a majority minority seat in the Denver area is to divide the hispanic population out between two seats.

Here's another example.  Clark county Nevada has 190K in AA population and 570K in hispanic population.  You could draw a majority/minority seat without too much trouble in Clark county.  In fact the only way not to draw a majority/minority seat is to split the hispanic community two or three ways.

VRA has to be applied fairly and equally.  You can't have one standard when it might help create a democrtic seat and then another when it might help the GOP.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 13:21:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Colorado is not under the same requirements as LA, SC, AL

There is no preclearance by the Justice Department needed in Colorado under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  

The other states you list (Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama) do require preclearance, for a very specific reason.  

---

by: DCal @ Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 15:54:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

pre-clearance

is the only exceptance to VRA.  States that do not have to be pre-cleared are also still under all the other aspects of VRA.  If you reguired to draw a majority/minority seat in SC under the same circumstances you are required to in CO & NV.

You have to pre-clear but if you covered by one aspect of the law in one state you are covered another.  

In CO you would not the DOJ start a lawsuit but rather citizens who felt like they were descriminated against by a redistricting plan.  

The DOJ as the defender of the VRA would likely get involved at that point.

At least that is my understanding of the VRA.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 17:41:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Colorado will have a 10-member redistricting committee.

It will be have an equal number of Democrats and Republicans as well as 5 members each from the state senate and state house.

This was announced on Thursday, December 16.

One goal in setting up this committee is to avoid another court battle.

http://www.coloradoan.com/arti...

 

---

by: DCal @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 22:53:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That article also concedes that

Dems still have the upper hand.

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

---

by: LookingOver @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 23:35:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for posting this map

I appreciate the work on it.

I think something similar to this will be approved.  CO3 will be improved a bit--CO4 will stay about the same or a bit more GOP.

On the flipside CO7 will be made secure for the democrats.  In an open seat situation or a wave CO3 & CO4 could go democratic.  

The only crazy thing that someone might suggest would be a majority/minority combo of CO1/CO7.  CO1 is only 50% white now and your map makes no attempt to consolidate hispanic and AA city and suburban voters in one seat. There are lot urban white voters in CO1 that could be swapped out to CO7 for hispanic and AA voters in CO7.  You keep both seats democratic but create a minority seat?  Not sure.

Not to beat a dead horse but CO1 & CO2 are seats that are very safe democratic seats.  Denver has had  a black and an hispanic Mayor but the Boulder and Denver based  congressional seats have stayed lilly white.  

I think we see a compromise map improving the status of all 7 incumbents but you might see the GOP propose a majority/minority seat for CO1.

---

by: rdelbov @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 17:46:40 PM UTC

Dems hold

the State Sen. and the governorship, so they have the upper hand.  I say they go after Tipton and clear the way for a Salazar comeback there and leave Gardner alone.

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

---

by: LookingOver @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 19:07:00 PM UTC

Here's the way the dance

starts in CO and it will be replayed over and over again.

1. The Democratic senate will propose a map with Tipton being slightly weaker.  The district is little unpopulated so it gains  Eagle & Summit county plus Chafee & Lake. It gives up Jackson county or some sort of arrangement.  You play around a bit and CO4 is weakened a bit and CO7 is improved for the D's. This the democratic try for 5-2 or at least 4-3.

2. Then the GOP house introduces a bill that puts Pitkin in CO2 and gives Fremont to CO3. C04 swaps Boulder area for Weld county plus takes a piece of Adams.  This plan has stacks a ton of democrats in CO1 to create a majority/minority seat.  CO7 is quite a bit weaker as the GOP goes for 5-2.

After each bill is introduced and the incumbents stop freaking out talks are started.  The keys are Perlmutter and Tipton.  I think Cory Gardner looks strong enough to hold his seat.  Plus if how if you GOP area of his to CO7 or CO3  that's counterproductive to going after Tipton or helping Perlmutter.

You can easily make CO7 secure but swapping a few precincts with CO1. If CO1-which is underpopulated takes the democratic parts of CO7 that seat becomes marginal-again.  

So does everyone talk or do they do the court thing?

I might add that the GOP will almost certainly do VRA attempt in Federal court-to take the matter of out state courts if no agreement is reached.  CO1 is 50% minority and CO7 is 35% minority and everything is within a mile or two so there is a risk of not reaching so sort of agreement.  

For those folks who say VRA requires a majority/minority seat to be drawn-if you can do it.  What's the situation in Denver & surrounding area?

I think Monty Hall opens up the curtains in CO and we make a deal at 4-3 GOP.  Nothing outrageous-something similar to the plan on this post where seats are compact.

---

by: rdelbov @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 19:53:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Eh...

I see them weakening Tipton and giving a bit more security to Gardner.  The GOP House (which will have the slimmest of majorities) will need to concede adding Dem-friendly land to Tipton because if no map is agreed to, the whole thing goes to the Dem-dominated CO SC so they have to concede something or get nothing.  I don't think the Dems will object to helping out Gardner a bit.  He's not the crazed loon like Marilyn Musgrave was.

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

---

by: LookingOver @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 20:01:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Furthermore

The CO SC is a 7 member body.  5 of those were nominated by a Dem Governor (Roy Romer) and 2 of them were nominated by a GOP Governor (Bill Owens).  So that should pretty clearly illustrate why the GOP can't afford to go for broke and risk the process falling into the hands of the SC.

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

---

by: LookingOver @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 20:03:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You very well

could be right.  In 2002 the state courts(actually one judge) picked a democratic plan that created a toss up seat (CO7) plus left CD3 & CD4 fairly competitive while keeping the other four seats 2D-2R.  

The courts are a wild card and as I mentioned there's no guarantee the Federal courts will not get involved.  

Its a crapshot.  

There's no guarantee as to how CO1 & CO7 will come out.

So that matter Tipton and Gardner are not even sworn in yet so its unclear whether they will be superman as congressman or superduds.  

Any bets on to whether they will be aggressive money raisers and very aggressive in trips back to CO?

Nothing is certain but I tend to think the odds slightly favor 4R-3D.

---

by: rdelbov @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 20:39:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Salazar is already

making waves about a rematch.  I think that a somewhat friendlier district in addition to it being 2012 will help make the final scenario 4D-3R.

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

---

by: LookingOver @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 20:52:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually

The current map is a bit of a Democratic gerrymander, which is why the GOP tried (unsuccessfully) to undo it after the 2002 elections.  That's why I think it is hard to improve upon without turning it into a dummymander; there are only so many Republicans that can be packed into the 5th and 6th...

---

by: curiousgeorge @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 22:55:54 PM UTC

The current map can not be a democratic gerrymander with 4/7 R+ districts

The current map is more close to a republican gerrymander than to a democratic gerrymander.

---

by: abgin @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 23:26:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

2000

Dems won the state senate, and forced the issue to the Courts, which chose the Democratic plan.  Even though the districts are reasonably compact, the Seventh was based in the inner suburbs, rather than the outer suburbs (as the GOP would have preferred).  Just because it doesn't look like Maryland or Pennsylvania (which was a GOP gerrymander that yielded Dem majorities for a large chunk of the decade) doesn't mean it wasn't a partisan draw.

---

by: curiousgeorge @ Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 02:03:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Redistricting Colorado (EVEN state)

I would draw easily a 5D-2R map for Colorado. As easily as I would draw a 5R-2D map. The current 4R-3D map is obviously closer to a republican gerrymander than to a democratic one.

Maybe the current map was proposed by the democrats since a weak position (only with the majority in the state senate) but that mean not we have a democratic gerrymander. Surely the democrats won in the court cause of send a map what give them less own benefits than the republicans.

For the current redistricting maybe the democrats be successful again in the court with a 3D-3R-1EVEN map. 1EVEN mean CO-03 as EVEN district. This would not be still a democratic gerrymander, this would be the perfect bipartisan map. I think the democrats have nothing for lose here.

I'm becoming a little more optimistic about the redistricting of Colorado. The republican majority in the state house is very weak this year.

---

by: abgin @ Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 13:13:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, having 4 McCain districts

in a state that voted 9 points for Obama is kind of ridiculous.

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 Dec 23, 2010 at 05:20:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

CO

I don't think its current map is a gerrymander at all. All the districts are compact and geographically sensible. The only weird stuff is between districts 1, 2, and 7, which are the 3 Dem-held seats.

On a random note, CO has a young delegation. None of the 7 reps (current or incoming) are older than 57. Even DeGette who is going into her 8th term is only 53.

41, Ind, CA-05

---

by: sacman701 @ Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 00:09:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Incumbent Protection != Bipartisan

A "bipartisan" map would be 3-3-1 or 4D-3R, considering the state's partisan makeup.  Just because Republicans won swing seats this year doesn't mean the bipartisan option is to make them safe R seats.

Besides, with Republican involvement hinging on 1 seat, it's likely they can peel off a few votes in exchange for some favorable State House / Senate lines for certain legislators.

In trying to draw the lines, on my first attempt I get CO-02 containing Boulder and Fort Collins (and none of Denver).  This allows for 3 Denver districts that don't contain any of Douglas County, and one rural district that doesn't contain any heavily R areas.  It shouldn't be hard to draw a pretty safe 5D-2R map.

---

by: powera @ Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 05:09:59 AM UTC

Also, the Dems have the upper hand in all of this.

The GOP will probably have to make Tipton less safe in exchange for shoring up Gardner and the Dems throwing in a few more State House seats into play to sweeten the deal for the GOP reps on this commission.  But if the GOP reps on this commission demand both Tipton and Gardner be secured, the Dems could block any agreement and just let it go to the CO SC, which will more likely than not favor the Dems' proposal.

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

---

by: LookingOver @ Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 05:14:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And yes

3-3-1 would be a fair compromise, but nothing less.

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

---

by: LookingOver @ Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 05:15:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am

 Going to update this map in a few days with a 3-3-1.  

for more election analysis, visit  http://frogandturtle.blogspot....

17, CA-06,  

---

by: Alibguy @ Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 14:59:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unless they really want to risk...

A judicial decision that ruffles all their feathers, both sides will have to agree to some sort of compromise that allows for 3 safe or likely Dem seats, 3 safe or likely GOP seats, and one "fair fight" swing seat. And most likely, this means Perlmutter and Gardner will get shored up while Tipton stays in the hot seat.

Also, someone upthread mentioned the VRA. That's another factor here. Colorado will need at least one majority-minority district.

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

---

by: atdleft @ Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 15:33:55 PM UTC

Hispanic majority district?

There is enough Hispanic population around Denver and in western Aurora and southwestern Weld Counties to create a Hispanic majority seat (http://i700.photobucket.com/albums/ww10/ncpete/co-05.jpg). Is there any chance that the VRA may require this, rather than just a seat that is less than 50% white?

---

by: possumtracker1991 @ Fri Dec 24, 2010 at 02:52:06 AM UTC

Picture link

---

by: possumtracker1991 @ Fri Dec 24, 2010 at 02:53:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

65%

you have to remember that Hispanics vote in such low numbers that you need to make a district at least 65% Hispanic in order for the Hispanic community to have enough influence - unless you can get to 60% or so in a way that isn't an illegal racial gerrymander (see 1990s North Carolina and Louisiana cases), then the VRA probably won't apply.

21, Male, Democrat, MD-02 (home/registered), MD-05 (college)

---

by: Rupper @ Fri Dec 24, 2010 at 09:11:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the Redo

That might be close to the agreeded compromise

Colorado is one of many states that the actual results are hard to really know.

---

by: rdelbov @ Fri Dec 24, 2010 at 03:39:54 AM UTC

I still think that

the final map will strengthen Gardner, weaken Tipton some, and maybe throw a State Leg. seat or two into play to seal the deal.  If you think the CO Democrats, despite having the upper house of the State Leg., the Governorship, and the upper hand in the CO SC will agree to a map that strengthens both Gardner AND Tipton, then I have a bridge in Colorado Springs to sell you.

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

---

by: LookingOver @ Fri Dec 24, 2010 at 03:48:32 AM UTC

You could be right

and I will save cyberspace by commenting on this new map and your comment.

Thanks for the new map--not sure the move into Weld county is needed.  I suspect grabbing the AA community in Denver plus 90% of hispanic community in Adams will get the seat to 50% hispanic and 15% AA & Asian. I think 35% White would qualify-could be wrong.

CO3 is the key but lets also be clear that map put forth so far here keeps CO7 the same or makes it more democratic.  It would be very easy to give CO1 the hispanic sections of CO7 and then make up the population difference by adding nearby GOP area.

So I see a standpat and with perhaps a modest decline in GOP support in CO3.

That being said incumbent security on our sides is never a surprise

---

by: rdelbov @ Fri Dec 24, 2010 at 13:16:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]