Ross has to pick up much of AR-1 to be safe

The Delta is where the Democrats are and that's what he needs. Otherwise, he has to lose Pine Bluff and take on Fort Smith, which could be problematic and Ross will have some say as the only Democrat in the delegation. AR-2 doesn't have to be tinkered with much, because the right Democrat can win it.

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

---

by: DrPhillips @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 20:21:10 PM UTC

*facepalm*

Why would losing a county that voted 62% for Obama and gaining one that went 66% for McCain help?

26, white male, TX-24, liberal-leaning independent

---

by: TDDVandy @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 02:50:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You misunderstood

If Ross doesn't get extended into the Delta, his district would have to pickup Fort Smith, which won't fit in AR-3 any longer. Since AR-1 is occupied by a Republican, there is no reason not to give Ross the strongly Democratic counties in the east.  

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

---

by: DrPhillips @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 03:05:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ah, okay

Yeah, it all depends on whether or not Arkansas Dems view the 1st as a lost cause.

26, white male, TX-24, liberal-leaning independent

---

by: TDDVandy @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 03:41:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Arkansas

Ark 3 will need to lose 70,000 or so, with Ark 1 and 4 picking up the population. Ark 2 will stay the same. Ark 3 being the most rep district, anyway you cut it, these new voters in Ark 1 and 4 will make them marginally more republican whitch means Crawford should be a little better off and Ross seat stays dem until he runs for gov. at whitch time a rep will be favored.

---

by: johndemetre @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 20:29:10 PM UTC

Redistricting Blog

Found this blog on redistricting, seems pretty informative!
Drawing The Lines http://russwalker.tumblr.com/

---

by: johndemetre @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 20:36:36 PM UTC

Thanks for posting these maps

and doing this thread.  Here's my quick take on these states.

AR:    AR4 picks up two Delta counties and becomes slightly more democratic.  AR2 stays more or less the same.  AR1 picks up two GOP leaning counties from AR3.  AR2 might still be winnable if a conservative democrat is nominated.  AR1 moves several % to the right and still could be had by a conservative democrat but its harder.  I personally think the GOP incumbents will be hard to beat in AR under any circumstance other then slicing up AR4.

AZ AZ7 will probably lose Yuma county and become more hispanic/democratic.  AZ8 will probably be slightly less democratic it sheds a few precincts to AZ7.  The New seat will probably be North Maricopa unless my idea of a Pinal/Rural/wee bit suburban  seat carved out AZ1 & AZ6 comes up.  Call me strange but I can't justify carving up Pinal county three ways.  

AL The 2002 plan by a democratic ploy to elect a democratic congressman in AL3.  I believe the previous plan-1990 version had a plunge into Montgomery county.  Ironically AL3 stayed democratic but AL2 did not.  I think we see the lines connecting Birmingham and Montgomery return in 2011.  I still look for 6-1 GOP

---

by: rdelbov @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 21:36:24 PM UTC

The commission

is allowed to carve up cities and counties into as many pieces as they please as long as the divisions make sense from a community of interest point of view. The divisions as drawn in 2000 (less so now because of population growth) made a lot more sense than just throwing the entire county together with east Mesa or White Mountains or whatever and calling it a day.

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.

---

by: Nico @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 21:44:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I know very little of the geography of AZ

and frankly I just view the counties as if the topography was flat.  I suspect, however, that Pinal county itself is not divided by mountain ranges or whatever so what is the rational for dividing it?  You have to attach it to something and I might add that AZ2 & AZ7 have rural & suburban/urban matchups.  In fact Pinal is already attached partially to Indian lands in AZ1.

What  counties are split in AZ except for Indian politics & VRA stuff?  Pinal is it.  Pima & Maricopa are split because they exceed the size of one district.  

To me Pinal is divided because of some whim on the part of the board.    

---

by: rdelbov @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 01:40:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually, I think Arizona

has a good chance of ending up with another district that voted for Obama (or came extremely close in 2010). While it's secondary to communities of interest, commissioners are supposed to consider competitiveness to an extent. And while, yes, the most rapid growth has been in the Republican exburbs, the fact that Arizona is now only gaining one seat and that these exburbs are pretty far apart geographically means that purple/blue urban/suburban areas will be effected as well. A lot of people take for granted things like the fact that Obama won AZ-05 south of the Salt River (i.e. everything but Scottsdale, Fountain Hills & the rural areas), or that the mostly white parts of northern AZ-04 & southern AZ-03 are trending Democratic faster than almost anywhere in the state. Yes, it's definitely a Republican-leaning state, but the fundamentals for Republicans aren't always as strong as they appear at first glance.

Specifically, I think that if the current AZ-05 loses Scottsdale/Fountain Hills (a reasonable possibility) and picks up purple areas of western Mesa, Hispanic areas of downtown Mesa and the rest of Chandler to take population pressure off of AZ-06, then all of the sudden you have a compact, community-of-interest friendly 50-50 district.

Another possibility is that AZ-03 (or the new district, but Quayle would live here) is based in central Phoenix and eats up the white liberal parts of AZ-04 along with the Dem trending parts of AZ-03 south of the Phoenix Mountain Preserve (which is roughly the dividing line in the city of Phoenix proper between the parts of the city that feel urban in some sense and the parts that feel suburban and are only part of Phoenix and not independent suburbs because off Arizona's nutty annexation and incorporation laws).

Hard to say though, I think 6-3 is a reasonable prediction of where we'll be in 2012, it's just not the only possible one. As usually, Republican predictions that they're going to lock in all their gains and yet somehow still churn out a bunch of new seats is far-fetched.

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.

---

by: Nico @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 21:39:51 PM UTC

Having worked on Arizona quite a bit...

I find it unlikely that Pinal county would NOT be split among at least two, probably three districts.

AZ-1 will most likely be kept mostly rural.  This is somewhat more challenging than it may at first appear because of the layout of the population, native reservations (which will not be broken up), and the need to comply with the VRA.

AZ-2 will be mostly the same unless the Hopi and Navajo decide to drop their issues vis a vis federal representation, but it will lose some of its Easternmost areas within Maricopa Co.

AZ-7 COULD lose Yuma county, but I find it more likely that it would lose the part of the Western Phoenix metro that it has.  It will have to lose about 200K people to meet population equity, but it will also have to maintain majority minority population, so if anything, it's lines will shift to where the minority populations are in Tucson.

AZ-8 could potentially lose a majority of Cochise County while maintaining a majority of its population by keeping Sierra Vista.  I think it will extend further up into Pinal County and the Dems on the commission will probably work to secure Giffords with more of white/liberal central Tucson.

I think that AZ-3 will shrink down a bit and condense more into a Central/North Phoenix district that will be more competitive.

AZ-4 will also shrink and move slightly to the South.  This will have to maintain its majority minority status and should have no problem getting at least 60% Latino population.

I'm guessing that the commission will create a "rich people district" moving AZ-5 to include Paradise Valley, Scottsdale, Fountain Hills, Cave Creek, Carefree and some of the very far Northern reaches of Phoenix.

AZ-6 will encompass most of Mesa, Queen Creek and Apache Junction and possibly some of Gilbert.

The new district, AZ-9 will most likely be a lean Republican district that stretches from Gilbert/Chandler through the Salt River Res down to Casa Grande and up to Avondale and possibly Western Phoenix.

Of course these are just guesses, but two things are certain, Reservations will not be broken up and VRA districts will be kept majority minority.  If you can come up with a more realistic way of doing these things, please share.

---

by: azpoljunkie @ Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 06:40:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think that's a viable possibility

The only big thing that I didn't see you account for is AZ-07's portion of Pinal County, which has changed dramatically in the last ten years, going from sparsely populated territory with a predominately Hispanic and American Indian population to a much more populous, mostly white exburban territory centered around the town of Maricopa. So I think well before the commission looks at excising Avondale or Yuma they have to make sure Maricopa is long gone.

Your AZ-09 is pretty good and probably has a good chance of happening (though I'm not in love with the swing into Avondale of all places; If Avondale doesn't wind up in AZ-07 then the most most logical place to put it is with other west valley cities). I think the question there is whether the commission views communities of interest in the East Valley as cutting north-south or east west. My model was East-West: Tempe, Western/Downtown Mesa, Ahwatukee, Chandler are all better educated than the state at large, dependent on high-tech and education as the major industries, and on the whole very much a swing area. Eastern Mesa, Gilbert, AJ are substantially much more LDS, wealthier and older than their counterparts to the immediate west. Your North-South division keeps classic political alliances such as Mesa-AJ and Chandler-Gilbert together. These are communities that have a history or working together towards similar goals even if different portions are quite different demographically, so that's appealing as well.

It's hard to say which division the commission would see as less divisible. In 2000 they paid very little attention to city and county lines (especially at the LD level; what good could it possibly serve to have John Nelson in Glendale-based LD-12 serve 500 people in one precinct in Phoenix and Robert Meza in Downtown Phoenix-based LD-14 serve 500 adjacent people in one precinct in Glendale?). With this commission, they could be considering this issue more and not want to draw a line down the middle of Mesa per my suggestion, even if they agree with me that western Mesa has more in common with Chandler than eastern Mesa.  

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.

---

by: Nico @ Fri Jan 07, 2011 at 01:21:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maricopa

In my most recent version the town of Maricopa and the Ak-Chin res were also in AZ-9.  AZ-7 only had the Tohono O'odham precinct in Pinal county.  In fact, I have Pinal County split 5 ways with AJ and Queen Creek going to AZ-6, Florence, Coolidge and Eloy forming the Northern end of AZ-8 and AZ-1 taking in the area from Superior to San Manuel (and also the Southern half of the Superstitions.

The reason I go from the East Valley to the West with AZ-9 is that the Salt River Reservation leads to it naturally.  Any district in which it is included will contain the entirety of it, so it's not too much of a stretch to connect those areas.  However I would agree that they're not necessarily a community of interest with Gilbert/Chandler.

I like your suggestion that the commission may throw Chandler, Tempe and Western Mesa together.  I'm going to try a map keeping that in mind and also with AZ-7 losing Yuma County.

---

by: azpoljunkie @ Fri Jan 07, 2011 at 21:54:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I've actually

usually been putting the Salt River reservation and rural eastern Maricopa Co. into AZ-01. The viability of that is debatable, but it's worked well when I've tried it.

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.

---

by: Nico @ Fri Jan 07, 2011 at 23:49:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I meant...

the Gila River Res.

I just tried a map with your ideas and I'm getting some pretty funky districts.  The problem with losing the town of Maricopa is that it is just south of the Gila River Res and just North of the Ak-Chin and TO reservations.  The TO will be in the 7th and I could see breaking the others (Gila and Ak-Chin) into another district or keeping them in the 7th, but I can't see the commission specifically drawing Maricopa out of whatever district has the Gila and Ak-Chin.  However, they could draw a line between the Gila and Ak-Chin reservations. Alas, that's where we hit the limitations of Dave's ap.

---

by: azpoljunkie @ Sat Jan 08, 2011 at 00:37:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think Democrats could come out with a 2-2 map for themselves

Protect Mike Ross, and create a district with Little Rock and Democratic parts of the 1st.

Actually, here's what I just scrounged up and put together:

So, a few points of blue towards Mike Ross. A district Obama won in Little Rock, without 2 highly conservative counties + some Obama counties to the east. And, I even put in Fayetteville to the first just in case that college town moves in a blue direction over the next 10 years. What do you think?

---

by: KainIIIC @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 22:35:39 PM UTC

Map

Interesting,
Not practical though! Reps one about every contested seat in the legislature, house is 55-45 senate 20-15, altering the current map this drastically would require huge dem majorities. Remember, the 2000 map was drawn by dem leg. and dem gov with much heavier dem majorities. If dems can't win Ark 1,2,4 as drawn their out of luck, plus as noted pop growth in ark 3 gives 70,000 plus voters to 1 and 4 which are heavily rep voters.

---

by: johndemetre @ Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 23:06:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ross is

certainly a couple points better off but I am not convinced this map is 2-2.  It still looks a lot like 3-1 to me.

I might add that AR has never split county lines in redistricting.  Their districts are out of wack with Baker V Carr but no one has sued as the deviation is minor.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 01:57:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

2000 map

Huckabee was Gov. at that time, so Dems didn't have complete control back then.

26, white male, TX-24, liberal-leaning independent

---

by: TDDVandy @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 02:53:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

the democrats were over 2/3 control in both

houses back then.  They have numeric control of house & senate.

I have commented before, however, that there is an informal conservative alliance that controls things in AR.

---

by: rdelbov @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 03:02:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sure

I'll readily admit to not knowing much about Arkansas politics, but you'd think that if Democrats control the governor's mansion and the legislature that there would be enough of them in one or both of those places who'd like to see a second Democrat elected to the House that they'd play with the lines to see to it that that's possible. I realize the status quo is powerful - but it's often put aside in favor of ambition.

---

by: armand @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 01:41:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It may or may not be effective

The blue district includes a lot of conservative territory, which drowns out the Democratic territory. Fayetteville already votes Democratic, but it wouldn't help much in a district like this. Arkansas doesn't split counties, everything is kept whole. A 2-2 map would be the best solution.

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

---

by: DrPhillips @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 02:25:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Either way

If you redraw it a little, take out the Fayetteville salient, but give the conservative areas of the 2nd to the 3rd or 4th, you can easily draw a 2-2 map. The question is, do the democrats want to go for a 3-1 map thinking they can win back both of the seats that they lost, or will they settle for 2-2?

---

by: KainIIIC @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 03:11:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's probably the point

as democrats is AR state house and senate are probably about 3-2 conservative.  The republicans who are 40% or so in both houses are conservative.  Why would the conservative majorities in AR house and senate create a US house that includes Pulaski county and the part of the Delta not in AR4.  That seat would likely elect a democrat much more liberal then the state as a whole plus more liberal then most democrats in AR.  Mike Ross voted for nearly nothing of the President's agenda in 2009-2010.  That's the type of democrat most Arkansas folks want.  

Right now AR4-AR1-AR2 are set up where they could likely elect a conservative democrat.  That's what Arkansas is-a conservative democrat state.  The democrat party nominated a liberal in AR2 & a moderate in AR1 in 2010.  They both lost.  If they had nominated the conservatives who had in the runoffs perhaps both seats would have stayed democratic. Now beating two incumbent republicans is a whole different ballgame then winnng an open seat.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 03:45:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

AR-1

Causey was/is rather conservative as well, so I wouldn't quite call him a moderate. He just seems moderate because his primary competitor was far-right. Causey probably would have been similar to Childers- voting more conservatively than most Democrats in Congress, but still fairly loyal and not eager to kneecap the party.

---

by: BWF_in_Nodak @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 05:18:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Generally agree

AR-1,2,4 were created with (generally) slightly right-of-center Democrats in mind (may be AR-2- a bit more liberal, but still - not especially liberal). I wouldn't call this type of Democrats "conservative" (keeping in mind really conservative Democrats of the past), but still - "somewhat conservative". Snyder was more liberal then his district is, but won rather easily because of personal qualities... In 2010 Democrats nominated slightly right-of-center candidate (who would win in normal year, but not in wave one) in AR-01. Wooldridge would, probably fare somewhat better, but in such year - would, most likely, still lose very narrowly (like Oliverio in West Virginia).

AR-02 was utter and complete disaster. As i wrote then - to nominate very liberal black woman in such district would be an error in any year, even good Democratic one, but in wave Republican year - even more so. She won the sole county (Pulaski) in primary (heavily) and general (very narrowly). Willis would fare much better (at least 45%), though it's difficult for me to imagine him winning against generally credible Republican this year.

Redistricting in Arkansas will, most likely, be an "incumbent protection" deal: Democrats need to protect Ross, Republicans - 3 freshmen, 2 of which come from ancestrally Democratic, though now substantially more Republican, districts. 3rd will give neccessary Republicans to other districts and that's, basically, all what can be expected. May be some Delta counties will switch from AR-1 to AR-4 too..

---

by: smoltchanov @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 07:32:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am going to answer

both Arkansas comments right here if that's okay. 1st I do agree that Causey was conservative in many of the things he espoused.  I call him a moderate because he had Bill Clinton campaign for him.  I guess if I had to define the deference between a moderate and a conservative in AR in 2010 it would be whether they campaigned with Bill Clinton or not.  

Joyce Elliot in AR2 absolutely was historic in her primary win.  She was 55% in a democratic runoff against a well respected well financed white conservative male. AR2 is 20% AA so yes the progressive democrats really showed up in force to nominate Elliot.  It could be an historic sign that politics in AR has changed.  That being said in the GE many of the rural and suburban democrats voted republican.  She did well in Pulaski county but got swamped in the rest of the district.

Vic Synder very likely could have won re-election in 2012.  He is no Mike Ross in politics but always tended after his district.  You can't downplay having 6/7 district workers helping people with matters plus going to club meetings senior centers plus helping the locals with projects.  Compare Berry's votes with Synder's votes in 2009-2010 period.  Berry was more concerned with providing cover for Causey while Synder went whole hog for Obama agenda.  So yes I think Synder turned a bit to the left after he announced his retirement but he was always attuned to his district.

Crawford and Griffin are going to be tough to beat unless their seats are really chopped up.  I don't see that happening in redistricting.  I am not sure the DCCC even put them on the list of seats to persue in 2012?

---

by: rdelbov @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 14:05:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Griffin is beatable with the right candidate

Pulaski County will vote Democratic always, it even barely voted for Elliot. In a decent year, a strong Democratic candidate can lock down the necessary 60% in Pulaski County and not get completely crushed in the other counties, which equals a win.

As for Crawford, his fate depends on rather or not Ross gets protection. If Ross doesn't get the Delta and is rather given Sebastian County, then Crawford will have to take Jefferson County. In that configuration, Chad Causey would have won even in this year. Crawford will get the protection and Griffin's district will stay more or less the same, requiring him to hold it on his own merit.

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

---

by: DrPhillips @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 15:59:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is no doubt that Pulaski

county provides a base for any democrat in AR2. I might add that the swing voters in that county-when the last GOP congressman was there-voted for republican.  The urge to re-elect an incumbent can be strong.

I also wonder what type of nominee will be able to unite the two factions - progressives and conservaties -in Arkansas.  There are lots of open wounds among the democrats in AR.  

I would say AR2 is more likely then AR1 by a hair or two.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 19:03:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is no doubt that Pulaski

county provides a base for any democrat in AR2. I might add that the swing voters in that county-when the last GOP congressman was there-voted for republican.  The urge to re-elect an incumbent can be strong.

I also wonder what type of nominee will be able to unite the two factions - progressives and conservaties -in Arkansas.  There are lots of open wounds among the democrats in AR.  There is no doubt that conservative democrats sat on their hands and did not actively support Joyce Elliot.  So how will 2012 play out?

I would say AR2 is more likely then AR1 by a hair or two.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Sun Jan 02, 2011 at 19:43:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]