Google Ads


Site Stats

Illinois with 2 Hispanic* districts

by: sacman701

Sat Mar 26, 2011 at 3:29 PM EDT


This map is intended to favor Dems as they control both houses and the governor's office. I tried to avoid any egregious gerrymanders, and I suspect that some of the suburban Chicago districts could be made more favorable. The only really ugly districts are IL5 (Quigley) and IL9 (Schakowsky). IL5 had to take a pretty strained shape to get a voting-age Hispanic plurality, although it still isn't nearly as bad as the current Hispanic-majority IL4 (Gutierrez). IL9 had to pick up the vacated IL5 precincts that didn't have enough Hispanics, as IL7 (Davis) has just a 50.1% voting-age black majority and could not pick anything up.  
sacman701 :: Illinois with 2 Hispanic* districts
State map:

Photobucket

Chicago area map:

Photobucket

Notes on districts, with voting-age populations. w = Anglo, b = black, h = Hispanic, a = Asian.

IL1 (blue, Rush): 38.2w-52.1b-7.4h-1.2a. Underpopulated and has to expand to the west. Safe D.

IL2 (green, Jackson): 36.0w-50.8b-11.2h-0.9a. Underpopulated and has to expand to the south to pick up most of Kankakee. The southernmost area is Pembroke, an 85% black semi-rural area which is unusual outside the south. Safe D.

IL3 (purple, Lipinski?): 77.2w-6.1b-8.9h-6.6a. This district has more of the current IL13 (Biggert) than the current IL3, as it really had nowhere else to go. It's probably competitive. Tossup?

IL4 (red, Gutierrez): 31.3w-6.1b-58.3h-3.6a. One of the ugliest districts in the nation is now one of the cleanest. Safe D.

IL5 (yellow, Quigley): 43.2w-4.8b-44.4h-6.1a. I don't think it's possible to draw a second Hispanic-majority district without using really tortured lines. As is I think this proposed district as pushing it as far as "compact" goes, although obviously it isn't nearly as screwy as the current IL4. Safe D

IL6 (teal, Roskam): 73.3w-3.1b-11.4h-11.1a. It picks up the Palatine and Schaumburg areas, and loses its heavily Hispanic area in the east and some of its western end. It may be slightly more red now, but I know very little about the political leanings of Chicago suburbs. Tilt R?

IL7 (gray, Davis): 31.0w-50.1b-9.8h-7.5a. There probably will not be 3 black-majority districts after 2020. Black plurality, maybe. Safe D.

IL8 (blue-gray, Walsh): 69.2w-6.4b-18.1h-5.1a. Dumps its piece of reddish McHenry county and some Cook suburbs, and picks up Waukegan, much of swingy Kane county, and bluish DeKalb county. This is intended for Melissa Bean to return to DC. Walsh doesn't live here. Tilt D?

IL9 (toothpaste blue, Schakowsky): 73.1w-6.4b-10.0h-8.7a. Moves south and much more into Chicago proper. Safe D.

IL10 (pink, Dold!): 72.6w-4.1b-8.9h-12.9a. Moves south into IL9's vacated areas, taking most of the college town of Evanston along with neighboring suburbs that are heavily Asian. This would probably be one of the most Asian districts outside California or Hawaii. The intent is to ensure that Dold! serves one term! Likely D?

IL11 (pea soup green, Kinzinger): 80.1w-5.8b-11.3h-2.0a. Loses some of its eastern end including Kinzinger's house, picks up northwest Kendall county and some western rural areas. Lean R?

IL12 (light blue, Costello): 80.5w-14.7b-2.4h-1.2a. The St. Louis area district sheds most of its southern end but keeps the college town of Carbondale, and adds Macoupin county and the rest of Madison county. Obama got 57.3% of the two-party vote here. Lean D.

IL13 (pink-gray, Shimkus): 93.5w-3.6b-1.6h-0.5a. Renumbered from IL19. Downstate Republican sink. Safe R.

IL14 (brown-green, Hultgren): 61.4w-5.5b-24.1h-7.9a. Loses most of its western rural areas (which are actually swingy for the most part) and exurbs and picks up the Naperville and Hanover areas. Tossup?

IL15 (orange, Johnson):  80.5w-10.6b-3.0h-4.4a. This is my concept of the "midstate cities swing district" that jsramek mentioned on an earlier Illinois thread. It has Springfield, Decatur, Bloomington-Normal, Champaign, and Danville. Obama got 52.8% of the two-party vote in the 6 counties within the district, although it's missing some (probably red) rural and exurban areas within these counties. Toss up, but it would likely take a very strong candidate to beat Johnson.

IL16 (garden hose green, Manzullo): 85.9w-2.7b-8.4h-2.0a. The north state Republican "sink". It picks up the rest of McHenry and loses its western end and the bluest parts of Rockford. Walsh also lives here. Likely R?

IL17 (indigo, Schilling): 82.0w-9.6b-5.7h-1.5a. Moves north from its current fugly-mess configuration to take in purple or blue areas of the state's northwest, including Peoria and the bluest parts of Rockford. Obama got 58.2% of the two-party vote here without any of Rockford, so his overall share here was probably closer to 60%. Lean D/likely D.

IL18 (yellow, Schock): 94.1w-2.6b-1.9h-0.5a. Mid-state Republican sink. Schock actually lives in IL17 but would probably run here. Likely R/safe R.

Under this map, the Dems would easily hold districts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9. They should (finally) take 10 and retake 8 and 17, and Costello shouldn't have too much trouble in 12. Reeps will hold 13, 16, and 18. Then you have 3, 6, 11, 14, and 15 which appear to all be competitive and all of which could conceivably be held by Republicans. Given that 3, 6, 11, and 14 occupy a contiguous block of western and southwestern suburbs, I suspect it would be possible to draw them such that one of them is lean-R or even likely-R and the other 3 are tossup or tilt-D. (I would leave this for someone who knows more about Chicago-area politics.) As is, I would say this is a 10-3-5 map but probably 11-7 or 12-6.

Thoughts? In particular, thoughts about how the Dems might draw the lines in the western and southwestern Chicago suburbs?

Poll
As shown above, how many of districts 3, 6, 11, and 14 would you expect Dems to win in 2012?
0
1
2
3
4

Results

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Luis Gutierrez would not represent your 4th District
Luis Gutierrez is a liberal north side Puerto-Rican. The 4th CD you have drawn is on the southwest side and is mostly populated by conservative Mexican-Americans.

Also, Schakowsky's in your 10th
She could win it though.

Thanks for posting this map.
I suspect nearly every democratic incumbent would have an absolute fit over this map.  That's one reason I know its pretty good map for the D's.  In IL, however, there is what can be done and will likely be done.  Here's what my crystal ball says

1. Danny Davis AA CD7 would be happy enough with his seat.  I suspect, however, that Rush and Jesse Jr. would have a fit with this map.  Its not just the decrease in AA % but the increase in white voters plus there are suburban & rural conservative voters.  They might disagree with the idea that there is not enough AA voters as there are some left in CD3, CD4, CD5 and CD9.  I might add that Davis, Rush and Jackson jr. would all rather some these pockets of AA voters plus more hispanic voters then white conservative voters.  I don't see this configuration suiting them.  

2. As to hispanic legislators and Congressman G.  They would spit nails under this map.  58% hispanic VAP is not 50% of actual voters.  Plus high white voter turnout areas are in CD4. There are stray hispanic voters in CD3 but lipsinki has few D voters to spare and yes CD1, CD2 and CD7 has hispanic areas but that's aint't happening.  CD5 at 43% hispanic VAP is a joke.  The white voters there are twice as likely to vote.  There are some stray hispanics in CD7 & CD9 but I don't see that happening.  Plus Quigley is not losing a primary to a hispanic.  

3. I suspect Downstate legislators will not be thrilled as it appears to be they  lose a seat.  CD16 was mostly outstate and now its mostly suburban while CD14 loses its outstate influence.  CD11 is mostly downstate now.  Downstate lost a seat in 2001 and now it appears they have lost another.  

I don't mean this as criticism as its a great map but I think downstate legislators and some incumbents will balk at a map like this.  


2nd Majority Hispanic District
It's possible to to draw a 2nd Hispanic majority district that while I would not call it compact is still better than the current 4th. I drew a district that kind of looks like a sideways T that connects the Hispanic parts of Aurora, Elgin, and West Chicago with the Northern parts of the current 4th. It is 58.4% Hispanic (52.9% VAP).  

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

VAP
If anyone care the VAP numbers of my sideways T district are 37.1% White, 52.9% Hispanic, 5.0% Black and 3.9% Asian.

BTW Sorry for not posting the Map. I am an old guy with limited Computer skills, I have no idea how to post it.

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


[ Parent ]
Based on my study and other
stuff that has been posted here.  In fact there was an excellent study on voting patterns in CA-you see hispanic vote in 50% range compared to white voters

Il4  2008 139546
IL10 2008 293117

There's some population growth is there but hispanic voting numbers are lower.  Folks here have access to votes per census block and they are more then welcome to say that I am wrong in this matter.  I picked a white suburban district which tends to vote in higher numbers then white inner city areas.  I am not saying that hispanic leaders would not want a 52% hispanic seat but two seats with 52% & 53% would likely mean holding the seats would be a problem.  If they are 37% white & 53% hispanic the majority of voters are white in both seats.   If you make the seat 53% hispanic, 20% AA, 5% asian and 22% white that would change the dynamics some but as the recent Mayor's race showed hispanics & AA's vote differently.  They don't often bloc vote plus there is no spare 20% AA voting bloc in Chicago area.  


[ Parent ]
If it is possible to create two Hispanic Majority Districts...
... I think it would be a tough sell for Democrats to only create one. IMHO if you create a district that is 50+% Hispanic and 60+% minority it is still likely you would have a Hispanic elected to that seat.  

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

[ Parent ]
I can't tell you
what the max % would be if you make two hispanics seat your over riding goal.  Mind you it can't conflict with  50% VAp for the AA seats.  

[ Parent ]
one other problem....
It is possible to string together Hispanics from Aurora and West Chicago to south-side Chicago to create a 64-65% Hispanic population seat (VAP much less though, and actual voters who are citizens even much much less).  It is also possible to create for Gutierrez a second VRA seat going into northeastern Dupage Hispanic areas, as well as Hispanic areas of suburban Cook.  I have gotten it to be around 57-58% Hispanic in various tests I have done.

Here's the several problems that I have now convinced myself that this won't be a) drawn by the Democrats in Springfield when the time comes - which is very soon; and b) won't be required under the VRA, although I do expect litigation.  First, you have the Gingles criteria of compactness and community of interest.  Aurora and parts of Chicago?  Northeastern Dupage and northern Chicago possibly, but I don't think you can make a case for the other one.

But the biggest reason is that while I suppose you could assume that a 65% Hispanic seat stretching from Aurora to Chicago is sufficiently Hispanic enough so that Hispanics can choose a candidate of their choice, I am not sure that the seat you give Gutierrez (at most that I have been to draw it would be around 58%) would be.  I understand that Puerto Ricans rather than Mexicans tend to live in the area of northern Chicago that Gutierrez is from.  Is that true of the Hispanics that have been populating the areas out in the suburbs that he would need to grab to maintain a district?  I am not really sure.  There is more that goes into drawing VRA Hispanic seats than simple raw percentage and the same reasons that led the Supreme Court to strike down the Texas map in 2006 I would think apply five years later here.

Third, Illinois just amended its redistricting statutes to prioritize, wherever possible and whenever consistent with the VRA, the creation of "coalition" districts.  The VRA does not require one of course, and the VRA would rule here rather than state law.  But assuming my 2nd point remains valid, might creating Lipinski a "coalition" district be the compromise?  I am thinking something kind of like the current NY-7, drawn to be roughly 45% White, 45% Hispanic, 10% Black or something like that.  Lipinski would get to keep his seat in congress for a while longer, there would be improvement over the current map, which makes Lipinski's seat only about 30% Hispanic if I recall, and Gutierrez's seat gets to be maintained at 65% Hispanic, levels that would pass VRA muster.  Because of the ethnic groups we are talking about who are Hispanics in Illinois, I don't think a 60% Hispanic population seat (not VAP, population) would pass VRA muster.


[ Parent ]
posting maps
I opened up an account on photobucket. Dave's app has a button for saving your maps as jpg files, which you can then upload to photobucket, and from there click on the option to embed the html code for your map, and paste it into your comment on this site.

41, Ind, CA-05

[ Parent ]
44% Hispanic
It doesn't guarantee a Hispanic Congressman, but it will get their community listened to.

26, male, Dem, NJ-12

There is no doubt about it
but as I noted if the purpose was truely to maximize hispanic strength you could find spare hispanic voters in  CD3 and CD9. You could swap out more white precincts in CD4 & CD5 for precincts in those CDs on this map.

I did not mention CD1, CD2 and CD7 because they are AA majority seats and their hispanic populations are often side by AA populations.

This map has been drawn to maximize hispanic or AA populations in their seats because that would endanger white incumbents


[ Parent ]
I eagerly await
Roguemapper's map.  A 12-6 map should be the minimum Dems in IL should settle for, but they should aim for 13-5.

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


Dems should play hardball
everywhere they can.  As Aragorn said: "Show them no mercy, for they shall show you none in return."

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


[ Parent ]
No mercy tempered by caution
or expirence.  Unfortunely in redistricting showing no mercy is not always easy to see.  The Democrats had KY at 4D-3R in 1990 and tried for 5D-1R after the state had lost a seat.  They tried a no mercy map and in six years it was 5R-1D.  PA GOP tried no mercy map  in 2001 and was less then pleased in 2008 with that map.  

Ever seen Braveheart?  History is full of battle like the one in it when the England charge after the retreating Scots.  They are wanting to show no Mercy to their enemy but end up being ambushed in a trap.  



[ Parent ]
Maybe I overstated it
And you are right, tempered with caution, but not too much.  

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


[ Parent ]
risk reward -sometime caution is the right approach
I buy that.  I don't believe in living money on the table for no good reason but fools rush in.

Some risks have to be taken.  In redistricting for me I don't believe in either building your map around  helping a weak incumbent or trying to build your map around taking out a strong incumbent.  


[ Parent ]
Also
The "no mercy maps" backfired in more ways than just dummymanders. Democrats in Maryland, North Carolina and Georgia had passed gerrymanders but they were passed early. This inspired Republicans to draw those "no mercy" maps in Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan. Although those gerrymanders came undone, especially in Pennsylvania until 2010, going too far in Illinois may inspire Republicans to do the same in other states. Still, I do not see where the Republicans can go farther except in North Carolina.

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




17, CA-06,  


[ Parent ]
Unfortunately
It'll probably be next weekend before I get my map posted. In part, that's because this map has inspired me to make some major changes to my own mapping scheme. I have a super-busy week ahead of me, and I can't foresee having any time to rework my Illinois map until afterward.

I'm 95% sure that my map with be a 14-4 map, and I see no reason at this point why Dems shouldn't shoot for that. In short, so long as you don't have to weaken any of the first 13 Dem seats in order to carve out the 14th, however narrowly Dem, then I don't see why the Illinois legislature should want to hold back.


[ Parent ]
I await your map
I await your map but I highly doubt 14-4 is achievable.  I am digging into the weeds a bit with mine, going by Democratic congressional vote, tempered in some cases where our candidate sucked by cherry-picking precincts where a top line candidate of ours in 2010 (Quinn or Alexi) prevailed.  Obama 2008 numbers are not helpful in suburban Cook, Dupage, the collar counties generally, and even areas further out north of Springfield.  Kerry 2004 numbers, with the proviso that much demographically has changed in the suburbs since then, are more realistic.  

I think a stable 12-5-1 is what is most achieveable; it would still accomplish the election of at minimum 4 more Democrats than now represent Illinois, and the massacre of 5 Republicans.  To go further risks a dummymander.

But as I said, I await eagerly your map, used with political data that is not optimistic.


[ Parent ]
Partisan figures
The numbers that I've decided to use are Obama '08 minus 7.03% - the statewide difference between Obama '08 and Kerry '04.

I tested those in Lake County & Champaign County versus an Obama '08/Quinn '10 average, and found that the differences are trivial at the congressional district scale. So, I'm going with Obama-7.03 as the easier to calculate.

I also tested them versus Kerry numbers in DuPage, Peoria, and Winnebago, and found that they match up well, when accounting for demographic shifts.

So, my sense is that if a district is over 50% when taking the Obama '08 figures minus 7.03%, then it is safe to project it as Democratic - with the obvious caveat that the closer to 50% the swingier it is.

So, my final map may be more accurately 12-4-2 (with 2 slightly Dem swing districts) but that's still better than 5 or 6 majority GOP districts.


[ Parent ]
not to give away the store, but...
What I am drawing involves taking Quigley and Schakowsky north into the swingy suburbs but keeping them sufficiently Democratic.  Then I trade 150k white Republican-leaning residents of eastern Dupage into Danny Davis's seat for the downtown whites he now represents around Navy Pier.  These whites are the heart of my idea because they get linked up the lake, via a narrow tendril to New Trier and then Republican areas of Lake.  These Republican areas aren't enough because even under pessimistic 2010 congressional vote totals (I am assuming, for the sake of argument that any vote for a Democratic candidate is a generic Democrat vote), a generic Democrat gets 56% of the two-party vote here.  I think I would call Dolt a one-term wonder here.... Democratic seats +1.

Then Melissa Bean gets a swingy seat for other candidates but one that she can do well in and doesn't include McHenry anymore... Democratic seats +2.

Then I would draw a super packed GOP sink hole in Dupage and parts of Kane, wrapped around that on the other side would be a revamped 14th, taking in Elgin, Aurora, going out with a tendril to DeKalb (but not the red rural townships) and then hooking up in the south to Joliet.... Democratic seats +3.

Rockford then will get hooked up with Rock Island and possibly Peoria... Bobby Schilling is toast.  Democratic seats +4.

Then to finish off at possibly +5, would be a swingy mid-cities district.  The problem with this seat, as I am sure you have figured out, is that U of I and Illinois State kids just don't vote in midterms.  Thus, Obama - 7% is fine in my opinion for a standard presidential turnout in Illinois, but I am not sure it works all that well for predicting what 2014 or 2018 might be.  So I think a 12-6 is the minimum that we can draw but if we can make a go at the mid-cities we ought to try.  There are nothing but GOP congressmen in that area of the state, we ought to at least try to draw a seat that Democrats can run in.  


[ Parent ]
Work in Progress
This is still very much a work in progress, but by my rough estimates the following mid-cities district should be about 52% Dem (roughly the same performance as IL-12).



[ Parent ]
yup that is very similar to how I have been drawing it....
Question, though: how Democratic (and reliable) is Danville compared to other cities you might add to it?  Also, Bloomington-Normal is not a really Democratic area - I wonder whether you could get better results drawing Peoria into the seat?  (Especially if Rockford gets thrown in with Rock Island and you add in the lean-Democratic counties that usually vote Democratic like Knox or the county that contains Macomb and Western Illinois University, etc.)

[ Parent ]
Danville
Is not very Democratic at all (much less reliably so); it's just more Democratic than surrounding areas. As of right now, I'm reserving Peoria for IL-17, but I may reconsider once I work up the statewide partisan figures. As I said, this is still very much a work in progress. Until I complete my partisan map, which is the all-important step 1, then all my projected districting is tentative at best.

[ Parent ]
I'll trade you one...
Photobucket

This is my collar and Chicago map thus far, with one Hispanic VRA seat (65%), three AA districts (all 52-53% range), and a coalition "minority-majority" district for Lipinski (44% white, 43% Hispanic, the rest black and Asian - I don't split Chinatown under this map).  Only started compiling the precinct data so the full map won't be up for a while.


[ Parent ]
districts to be chopped...
I guess since Illinois keeps the same district numbers unless you chop seats, that I am getting rid of the 11th (whose seat number will migrate south to Shimkus I believe) and the 13th (whose seat number will go to the vacant new open seat that I will create in the mid-cities area).

[ Parent ]
11th
I think your 11th would just have most of the blank areas on your Chicago map, as it does now. Johnson lives in Urbana if his wikipedia article is correct, so the midstate swing district would probably keep the number 15.

41, Ind, CA-05

[ Parent ]
No it can be more devious than that...
Johnson lives in Urbana township, not in Cunningham (which is Urbana city).  You can draw Urbana city and Champaign into the cities district, draw Johnson into the farmland district that loops above it, and drag that 15th north to the outer Chicagoland area, which is what I am thinking of doing.

[ Parent ]

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About the Site

SSP Resources

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox