No, Partisan Gerrymandering Did Not Cost Democrats Seats in the House of Representatives: A State-by-State Analysis

Many commentators have claimed that the current Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, or much of it, is the result of gerrymandering.  Recently, for example, the Associated Press prepared an “analysis” that purported to show that Republicans won 22 additional House seats due to gerrymandering. The key piece of evidence cited for this claim is that Democrats won have won a higher share of the popular vote than seats in the House. For example, in 2016, the Republicans won 49.1% of House votes (to 48% for Democrats), but won 55.4% of House seats (to 45.6% for Democrats). Because Republicans controlled redistricting in more states than Democrats (the argument goes), the redistricting process is responsible for most of the Republican’s majority in Congress.

The competing argument is that “clustering” is responsible for these anomalies. That is, Democrats tend to be clustered in urban areas that typically vote over 70% for Democrats in contested elections.  Republicans, by contrast, tend to live in suburban and rural/small city areas that favor Republican candidates reliably, but not as overwhelmingly as urban areas favor Democrats.  Thus, under single-member district maps that are drawn to maximize compactness (i.e., that keep urban areas within a single district and do not extend from urban areas out into the countryside), Republicans will have an advantage in U.S. House elections.

In addition, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act guarantees that minorities will have the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice, where minority voters are sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district.  Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, this will typically mean that a state must draw districts according to the “minority-majority” concept—a single minority group that engages in bloc voting must account for over 50% of the voting age population within a given single-member district. Because minorities tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, maps that comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act will group minorities together, typically making surrounding districts safe for a Republican candidate.

I have decided to test these competing hypotheses by going state-by-state and drawing districts that comply with traditional redistricting criteria, and judging whether the changes would have made any difference in the outcome in House elections.  I have found that the net changes, when adjusting for departures from neutral criteria, would have elected more Republicans. That is, gerrymandering probably cost Republicans 5 or so seats in the House.

How is this so? Democrats had two of the most successful gerrymanders of this cycle (Illinois and Maryland). Those two states netted the Democrats about eight seats, when compared to neutral districts. Further, supposedly non-partisan commissions in Arizona and California produced Democrat-friendly maps that shifted five seats to the Democrats. Meanwhile, in the two largest states were Republicans were in complete control of the process (Florida and Texas), Republicans faced hurdles in gerrymandering to the extent of their desires. Florida’s Fair Districts Amendment, enforced via state court review, meant that Democrats gained four seats from the Florida redistricting process, with Republicans losing two seats. In Texas, a Voting Rights Act lawsuit stopped Texas’s attempt to allocate all four of Texas’s additional seats to the Republicans, and the two additional seats were split 2-2. In Virginia, a federal court lawsuit also undid part of a Republican gerrymander, handing an additional seat to the Democrats. Republicans certainly did gerrymander in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, but these states were trending Republican anyway (they were the key parts of the Trump coalition). Gerrymandering in these states probably netted Republicans three seats or so.  Add that to Republican gerrymanders in Texas, Virginia, Utah and North Carolina (8 seats total shifting partisan control), and you have a net of 11 seats or so for Republicans from gerrymandering alone. That is only 5 seats more than Democrats secured via gerrymandering in Maryland and Illinois. Clean up jagged lines in Connecticut, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey and New York, and you end up with a +8 Democratic advantage from redistricting.

My analysis confirms the “clustering” hypothesis. Democrats are concentrated disproportionately in urban areas. Any allocation of seats that respects “neutral redistricting criteria” (i.e., communities of interest, not breaking county and city boundaries, obeying the Voting Rights Act) was going to yield substantial Republican majorities in the House in the years 2012-2018.

Under the lines below, Republicans would have won 238 seats in 2012 (a gain of 4), 245 seats in 2014 (a loss of 2), and 249 seats in 2016 (a gain of 8).

“Neutral Districting Criteria”

It is notoriously difficult to define what is “neutral redistricting criteria.”  It is not impossible, however.  In descending order of importance, I have attempted to: maintain equal population in each district; comply with the Voting Rights Act;  respect county lines and other municipal boundaries; ensure that each district is compact and has regular-looking boundaries; group together “communities of interest”; and preserve the cores of existing districts.  With the exception of adherence to the equal population and compliance with the VRA, I have not mechanistically favored one criteria over the other.  Nor do I think it makes sense to do so: there are too many factors at play in the process.  Courts and commissions that have attempted to draw non-partisan maps have similarly refused to follow a strict order-of-operations.  I maintain, however, that all of the resulting districts could have been drawn by a neutral body (such as a court or an independent commission) that was forced to explain its reasoning for choosing various boundaries in non-political terms.

Alabama

My Alabama districts are below. I have mostly cleaned up the lines prepared by the Alabama legislature.  My map splits only 4 counties and eliminates the three-way split of Montgomery. It is theoretically possible to draw a second African American majority district, but this would require creating a splitting Mobile– that is, creating an additional gerrymander. The 7th district had to add about 70,000 people, and the most logical place to go, for community-of-interest purposes, was Montgomery. The result is a 6-1 Republican split, and no change.

NET CHANGE: NONE

Alabama map

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 683103 63.5% 34.1% 61.8% 37.4% 68.5% 25.6% 2.5% 1.3% 1.1%
2 683243 66.5% 31.4% 64.5% 34.8% 68.0% 26.4% 2.8% 1.3% 0.5%
3 682391 64.8% 32.8% 61.8% 37.3% 72.0% 22.6% 3.1% 0.9% 0.4%
4 682478 80.7% 17.1% 75.1% 23.7% 86.5% 7.7% 3.8% 0.4% 0.7%
5 683019 64.7% 31.3% 63.9% 34.9% 76.1% 16.3% 3.9% 1.6% 0.7%
6 682507 66.7% 30.2% 70.2% 28.8% 75.4% 17.7% 4.2% 1.7% 0.2%
7 682995 30.7% 67.7% 29.2% 70.3% 39.3% 56.7% 2.4% 0.7% 0.2%

Arizona

Arizona gained a seat in redistricting, and the process was controlled by an independent commission.  But Arizona’s redistricting commission, in taking “competitiveness” into account in drawing districts, essentially produced a Democratic gerrymander, with its ostensibly non-partisan chairperson siding with commission Democrats in drawing the new maps.

Removing politics from the process would have resulted in a very different map.  For example, in the enacted map, Yavapai, Mohave, Gila, Pinal and Yuma counties are unnecessarily split between districts; in my map, each county of those counties is kept intact.  In the enacted map, Tucson’s Pima County is split between three different districts; in my map, it is split between only two districts.  The Commission’s Ninth District (drawn to be competitive between the parties) awkwardly combines Tempe, western Mesa and Chandler with precincts in Scottsdale and Phoenix via an arm-like appendage; in my map, the Maricopa County districts have much more regular shapes. This district has been held by Democrat Kyrsten Sinema since 2012.

In drawing my plan, I preserved the core of each of the eight previously-existing districts. In order to keep Pinal in one district, I split Flagstaff from the rest of Coconino County. I maintained two Hispanic-majority districts. I made the Seventh more compact by removing Yuma and extending it further into Phoenix. I also maintained a substantial Native American population in my First District.

The net result would be two additional districts for Republicans, for a split of 7-2. Adding the rest of Pinal County and removing Flagstaff from the First District means it would have been won by a Republican, if not in 2012 then in 2014. These lines mean a Republican would have been elected in place of Kyrsten Sinema in 2012.

NET CHANGE: R +2 

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 710110 58.9% 34.1% 61.2% 36.5% 71.5% 1.1% 22.5% 1.2% 2.4%
2 709982 56.7% 36.8% 61.2% 37.4% 73.8% 3.7% 17.4% 3.0% 0.7%
3 710452 54.0% 39.4% 61.6% 36.7% 80.5% 2.2% 11.6% 3.6% 0.8%
4 710322 22.9% 69.7% 27.5% 70.7% 29.8% 9.0% 54.4% 2.9% 2.4%
5 710332 39.9% 51.3% 49.4% 48.3% 68.2% 4.0% 19.3% 4.4% 2.4%
6 710246 55.5% 36.2% 62.9% 35.5% 75.9% 2.9% 14.6% 4.5% 0.8%
7 709921 26.5% 66.7% 30.8% 67.5% 36.2% 4.5% 52.2% 2.6% 3.1%
8 710561 47.8% 44.9% 53.9% 44.4% 72.9% 3.1% 18.9% 2.9% 0.7%
9 710091 52.0% 40.5% 53.0% 44.9% 55.5% 2.6% 18.8% 1.5% 20.4%

Arkansas

I have simply cleaned up the Arkansas’s legislatures lines below. This does not yield a change in partisan makeup.

Arkansas Map

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 729463 65.3% 29.9% 61.3% 36.0% 80.4% 15.6% 2.2% 0.5% 0.4%
2 729192 52.4% 41.7% 54.7% 42.9% 70.3% 19.6% 4.0% 1.4% 0.4%
3 728805 61.9% 30.5% 65.5% 31.6% 82.1% 2.2% 9.9% 2.9% 1.3%
4 728458 63.9% 31.6% 61.5% 36.2% 74.4% 19.3% 4.1% 0.6% 0.6%

California

California did not gain or lose any of its seats in 2012, and, for the first time in its history, its lines were drawn by a non-partisan Citizens’ Redistricting Commission.  As documented by ProPublica, Democratic operatives were able to covertly influence the workings of the Citizens’ Commission by creating sham “citizen’s groups” to push for districts favored by Democrats.

The revised map below splits fewer cities and counties, and yields districts with more regular shapes. It would have resulted in a net gain of 2 Republican seats in 2012: the 7th district, previously held by Republican Dan Lungren, the 35th, much of which was previously represented by Republican David Dreier, and the 52d, previously held by Brian Bilbray. In 2014 and 2016, it probably would have yielded 3 additional seats.

NET CHANGE: R +3

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 703037 56.9 36.0 56.8 40.0 75.5 1.3 14.0 4.6 1.8
2 703246 25.0 67.3 28.3 67.7 76.6 1.8 13.8 3.3 2.0
3 702680 32.5 61.2 36.4 61.0 47.0 9.2 22.8 16.8 0.5
4 702819 52.4 40.6 57.2 40.2 81.1 1.4 10.3 4.1 0.9
5 703030 23.1 70.4 26.3 70.9 57.8 6.1 21.8 11.2 0.6
6 703005 25.1 68.4 29.6 67.8 46.0 11.6 22.3 15.8 0.6
7 702588 49.1 43.9 52.4 45.1 70.8 4.4 13.9 7.3 0.8
8 702897 55.5 38.9 56.7 40.6 57.1 6.8 28.7 4.4 0.8
9 702600 33.8 60.7 34.8 63.1 39.7 9.3 33.2 14.4 0.5
10 703009 48.7 45.5 51.1 46.5 53.4 2.5 34.5 6.7 0.6
11 702816 22.8 71.3 29.8 67.8 53.6 8.4 21.3 13.6 0.3
12 703193 8.8 86.1 12.6 84.0 46.3 5.6 13.5 31.4 0.2
13 702820 6.8 87.3 8.9 87.6 37.4 18.9 17.9 22.1 0.3
14 702847 18.1 77.0 23.5 74.3 39.3 3.4 21.9 32.5 0.2
15 703304 24.2 69.9 29.8 68.0 40.8 6.4 21.0 28.3 0.3
16 702700 34.8 59.8 37.3 60.7 27.3 5.4 57.0 8.2 0.6
17 703016 20.4 74.0 25.4 71.8 30.0 2.4 15.9 48.9 0.2
18 703214 18.4 75.0 25.8 71.3 63.6 1.8 14.5 17.4 0.2
19 702789 20.0 74.4 25.2 72.5 31.3 3.2 35.5 27.6 0.3
20 703227 27.4 66.4 31.9 65.2 41.1 2.3 47.1 7.2 0.4
21 702734 49.3 45.3 53.6 44.5 32.7 4.0 57.3 4.0 0.6
22 703082 52.1 42.5 56.4 41.8 51.1 3.1 35.5 7.1 1.2
23 703191 54.3 39.9 57.5 40.1 49.3 6.6 37.2 4.1 0.8
24 702662 37.1 56.1 43.3 53.9 62.0 1.9 29.0 4.5 0.5
25 702652 44.7 49.2 50.8 46.7 50.9 7.9 30.8 7.8 0.3
26 702814 36.0 57.9 43.3 54.4 51.0 1.8 38.4 6.8 0.3
27 702848 28.6 65.8 34.8 62.8 20.9 1.4 35.4 41.0 0.1
28 702970 23.0 71.4 27.2 69.6 56.4 5.5 21.4 13.8 0.2
29 702663 18.8 75.7 22.5 75.0 23.0 3.6 63.4 8.3 0.2
30 702829 26.2 68.6 32.6 64.8 55.2 4.1 24.8 13.0 0.2
31 703216 28.4 66.0 31.0 66.8 23.4 10.9 58.8 4.9 0.4
32 702923 27.4 66.9 32.2 65.5 20.6 3.8 58.0 16.1 0.2
33 702554 18.2 76.8 25.6 71.8 68.3 3.3 12.0 13.2 0.1
34 702775 10.5 83.8 13.9 83.2 13.1 4.6 60.3 20.5 0.2
35 702797 39.0 55.7 44.8 53.2 35.6 7.2 43.2 11.9 0.3
36 702806 36.2 59.4 40.3 57.9 37.9 3.9 53.6 2.6 0.8
37 703048 8.9 86.6 10.7 86.9 16.5 29.6 41.0 10.2 0.2
38 702733 28.5 65.9 34.7 63.2 20.9 2.2 57.1 18.4 0.2
39 703130 48.4 45.9 56.6 41.3 49.4 3.0 30.3 15.2 0.3
40 702985 8.2 87.0 10.0 88.0 2.9 3.7 91.7 1.1 0.1
41 702850 32.2 62.0 34.7 63.1 29.1 9.8 50.9 7.9 0.4
42 702933 55.3 39.6 59.6 38.3 60.8 4.0 25.9 6.8 0.5
43 702761 31.1 62.6 40.8 56.6 44.3 4.4 28.8 19.8 0.2
44 703062 6.7 89.4 6.3 91.7 2.7 34.2 56.7 5.0 0.2
45 702677 41.6 52.5 51.6 46.2 59.9 1.4 16.7 19.3 0.2
46 703111 25.9 68.4 33.8 63.8 19.4 1.8 62.2 15.4 0.2
47 702616 25.8 67.9 30.9 66.6 33.2 11.1 34.0 19.0 0.3
48 703137 44.1 50.2 51.5 46.2 47.1 1.6 20.9 28.1 0.2
49 702756 48.6 45.4 57.8 40.3 62.9 2.5 24.1 7.9 0.4
50 703061 54.0 40.3 59.7 38.3 65.0 2.9 24.1 4.8 0.9
51 702742 25.4 69.3 32.3 66.0 20.4 8.4 53.8 15.0 0.3
52 702871 37.3 56.8 48.0 49.8 63.3 1.8 12.9 19.2 0.2
53 703130 28.6 65.5 35.4 62.4 60.9 6.0 20.5 9.4 0.4

Colorado

Colorado did not gain or lose any seats in 2012.  In Colorado, control of the legislature was split between the parties, and no agreement was reached on a map.  That meant the matter went to a federal district judge, who chose between a Republican-proposed map that made minimal changes in the districts and a Democratic map that made very significant changes to the districts with the goal of making the Sixth District, held by Republican Mike Coffman, more Democratic and hence more winnable.  Inexplicably, the judge chose the Democratic plan, based in part on the fact that it would make the Sixth District more competitive.  As in Arizona, then, consideration of “partisan balance” injected partisan politics into the redistricting process in Colorado.

The Democratic plan, however, would not have been produced by a commission or a court tasked with drawing the lines in the first instance on a non-political basis.  Colorado’s previous map was itself drawn by a federal court, and the resulting districts were compact, maintained the cores of existing districts, and preserved communities of interest. The previous map created an urban Denver district; two suburban Denver districts; a district combining Boulder with Denver suburbs and some rural mountain counties; a Colorado Springs district; a Western Slope district, and an Eastern Slope district.  Population changes during the 2000s did not require that the districts be significantly redrawn.

My map preserves the cores of the pre-2012 districts, while cleaning up some of the unnecessary county splits. So, Boulder County is entirely in the Second District; Weld County entirely in the Third District; and Adams County entirely in the Seventh District. The Seventh District loses its portion of Jefferson County and includes nearly all of Aurora, increasing the district’s Hispanic percentage significantly.

There would be no net partisan change, although the Sixth District would get much safer for Republican Mike Coffman.

NET CHANGE: NONE

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 718672 20.3% 72.0% 25.8% 72.0% 58.7% 9.6% 25.6% 3.6% 0.6%
2 718821 31.4% 60.2% 36.8% 60.6% 81.2% 0.9% 13.0% 3.2% 0.4%
3 718534 53.2% 38.9% 52.0% 45.6% 75.0% 0.9% 20.9% 0.7% 1.3%
4 718146 52.1% 38.8% 52.1% 44.6% 78.6% 1.2% 17.0% 1.5% 0.5%
5 718360 57.0% 33.4% 58.8% 38.6% 77.1% 5.1% 12.2% 2.8% 0.6%
6 718465 50.3% 41.1% 55.7% 42.3% 85.1% 2.1% 7.1% 4.0% 0.3%
7 718198 39.3% 52.0% 39.9% 56.9% 61.8% 5.8% 26.2% 4.1% 0.5%

Connecticut

Connecticut did not gain or lose any seats in 2012.  In Connecticut, a bipartisan commission that included politcos from both parties was not able to reach an agreement on redrawing the lines.  With the commission deadlocked, the Connecticut Supreme Court appointed a Special Master to draw new boundaries.  But in a reversal of the outcome in Colorado, the Supreme Court required the Special Master to draw a least-change map, as had been favored by Democrats, rejecting Republican calls to make significant changes.

Once again, the process in Connecticut resulted in a map that never would have been drawn by a court or commission.  The reason is that Connecticut’s previous congressional map, which the new map preserved almost entirely, was a blatant gerrymander, drawn as part of a bipartisan compromise in 2001.  With the state losing a congressional district, the Commission drew a map that attempted to create a “fair fight” Fifth District between a Democratic and Republican incumbent, while protecting the remaining incumbents.  The map extended the Fifth District, based in Northwestern Connecticut, into New Britain, outside of Hartford, because the Republican incumbent lived in New Britain.  So that the Fifth District could take in a significant part of the Democratic incumbent’s hometown of Waterbury, several small towns in Litchfield County were added to the Hartford-based First District.  The result was to give both the First and Fifth grotesque shapes and to split communities of interest.

By 2010, all of Connecticut’s representatives were Democrats, and the inclusion of heavily Democratic New Britain in the Fifth District benefitted Democrats.  With the Fifth District coming open due to incumbent Democrat Chris Murphy running for the U.S. Senate, Commission Republicans pushed to smooth out the lines, while Democrats sought, successfully, to preserve the 2001 gerrymandering of the First and Fifth Districts.

The map I have drawn better maintains communities of interest, avoids splitting towns, and results in more normally-shaped districts.  It keeps all of Litchfield County intact within the Fifth District.  Unlike the court-approved map, it does not split Waterbury between districts, and it loses its arm into New Britain (I also swapped in Bristol and swapped out Meriden to make the boundaries more compact).  Other than two precincts in Trumbull, no towns are split in my map.

As a result of the changes, the Fifth District becomes about 5-6% more Republican, and would have elected Republican Andrew Roraback over Democrat Elizabeth Esty (Esty won by 51%-49% in 2012, with her entire margin of victory coming from New Britain.) The other districts would not have changed partisan hands.

NET CHANGE: R +1

Connecticut Map

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 714455 33.2% 62.5% 34.2% 64.7% 65.3% 13.7% 15.0% 4.5% 0.1%
2 714974 45.9% 48.2% 42.4% 55.9% 85.8% 3.8% 5.7% 2.9% 0.4%
3 714636 38.4% 57.9% 35.1% 63.6% 72.1% 11.5% 11.1% 3.8% 0.2%
4 714942 33.7% 62.2% 41.8% 57.3% 63.2% 11.4% 18.4% 5.1% 0.1%
5 715090 52.0% 43.5% 49.7% 49.1% 84.3% 4.4% 7.9% 2.0% 0.1%

Florida

Florida passed the Fair Districts Amendment in 2010, which mandates that its congressional districts be compact, preserve minority voting strength, respect city and county boundaries where possible, and not favor or disfavor incumbents or political parties.  The Fair Districts Amendment severely limited what the Republicans could do to help themselves in redistricting Florida’s congressional seats (which had been subject to a Republican gerrymander in 2002). A subsequent ruling prior to the 2016 elections limited any gains further. It forced Republicans to draw the black-majority Fifth District as a Tallahassee-t0-Jacksonville district, as opposed to the previous Jacksonville-to-Orlando configuration. It also forced Republicans to redraw the St. Petersburg-based 13th District and Tampa-based 14th District. The changes resulted in the loss of three seats for the Republicans.

The new map passed in response to the court ruling, however, split Tallahassee to an unnecessary degree in order to maintain the black percentage in the Fifth District. It is fully possible to draw a VRA-compliant Fifth District without the grotesque split of Tallahassee. The new map also diluted the Hispanic percentage in the Ninth District for no clear reason. Finally, it unnecessarily split Polk County three ways; this map keeps it within a single county.

The map below corrects these issues while adhering to the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling and the VRA. Under this map, Republican Allen West would have won in the 18th District in 2012, and the Republicans would have held the Seventh District in 2016. The Florida delegation would have split 17-10 Republican after the 2012, 2014 and 2016 elections.

NET CHANGE: R +1

Florida map

Jacksonville area

Orlando area

Tampa area

Palm Beach and Broward

Miami-Dade

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 696535 66.8% 27.9% 68.5% 30.1% 77.6% 12.5% 4.5% 2.7% 0.8%
2 696072 69.4% 27.0% 66.4% 32.2% 78.0% 13.6% 5.5% 1.1% 0.5%
3 696125 56.8% 38.6% 58.9% 39.7% 75.9% 12.6% 6.6% 3.2% 0.3%
4 696671 59.7% 35.6% 64.9% 34.0% 74.5% 12.0% 7.0% 4.5% 0.3%
5 696213 35.5% 60.6% 35.2% 63.8% 50.3% 40.5% 5.3% 2.3% 0.3%
6 696274 54.6% 41.1% 51.6% 47.2% 78.2% 8.8% 9.7% 1.9% 0.3%
7 696155 54.4% 41.4% 54.7% 44.0% 73.8% 9.5% 12.6% 2.4% 0.3%
8 696728 58.2% 37.1% 56.9% 41.8% 80.7% 8.3% 7.5% 1.9% 0.3%
9 695942 33.3% 62.0% 37.3% 61.7% 44.6% 8.8% 39.3% 5.2% 0.2%
10 695986 36.4% 58.9% 40.9% 58.2% 50.9% 24.2% 18.2% 4.3% 0.2%
11 696622 63.6% 32.7% 57.1% 41.9% 86.0% 4.2% 7.3% 1.2% 0.3%
12 696423 54.4% 41.0% 54.5% 44.0% 79.5% 4.8% 11.1% 3.3% 0.2%
13 696574 45.8% 49.1% 43.9% 54.6% 77.8% 10.6% 7.1% 3.0% 0.3%
14 696307 35.6% 59.3% 37.9% 60.9% 49.2% 19.3% 26.3% 3.3% 0.3%
15 696498 55.8% 40.1% 53.6% 45.1% 68.7% 12.2% 16.1% 1.6% 0.3%
16 696013 53.7% 41.9% 54.8% 44.0% 76.0% 7.5% 13.4% 1.8% 0.2%
17 696249 59.6% 36.8% 56.3% 42.6% 80.6% 5.7% 11.4% 1.1% 0.3%
18 696383 53.9% 42.6% 52.6% 46.5% 75.7% 9.3% 12.0% 1.7% 0.2%
19 696292 60.3% 36.5% 61.0% 38.2% 79.3% 5.0% 13.4% 1.3% 0.2%
20 696033 20.6% 77.1% 18.4% 81.2% 33.2% 44.8% 17.6% 2.3% 0.2%
21 696442 38.0% 59.4% 38.2% 61.1% 65.3% 11.9% 19.2% 2.2% 0.1%
22 696096 40.7% 56.3% 43.2% 56.1% 66.8% 10.8% 17.4% 3.1% 0.1%
23 696693 35.2% 61.8% 38.3% 61.1% 48.0% 10.4% 36.5% 3.3% 0.2%
24 696621 14.0% 83.9% 12.6% 87.0% 11.3% 51.0% 33.9% 2.0% 0.1%
25 696336 48.8% 48.1% 53.5% 45.9% 20.0% 4.1% 74.2% 1.1% 0.1%
26 696103 40.9% 55.6% 46.0% 53.3% 18.7% 8.5% 70.1% 1.6% 0.1%
27 696043 37.9% 58.7% 45.4% 53.9% 22.1% 5.7% 69.4% 1.9% 0.1%

Georgia

Georgia redistricted mid-decade during the 2000s, after an extreme Democratic attempt at gerrymandering the state’s legislative and congressional districts was dismantled under court order.  In a good-government mood, Republicans redrew the congressional lines in a very fair manner.

In 2012, Georgia gained a seat, and the Republicans in control of redistricting implemented a somewhat more aggressive map. I smoothed the lines out and modified the districts around Atlanta.

NET CHANGE: NONE

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 692118 56.1% 41.2% 55.7% 43.2% 63.1% 28.4% 5.2% 1.7% 0.3%
2 692782 49.7% 48.4% 47.2% 52.2% 51.3% 41.7% 4.3% 1.4% 0.3%
3 691826 61.1% 36.1% 63.0% 35.9% 68.1% 24.7% 4.0% 1.8% 0.2%
4 691976 18.7% 78.4% 21.4% 77.8% 32.5% 51.7% 9.2% 4.9% 0.2%
5 692321 15.9% 80.8% 20.5% 78.4% 34.1% 54.0% 6.7% 3.4% 0.2%
6 691711 59.0% 36.6% 69.7% 28.6% 71.2% 9.2% 9.8% 8.3% 0.2%
7 692070 41.7% 54.5% 52.8% 45.7% 44.7% 22.8% 18.9% 11.8% 0.2%
8 692009 57.9% 40.0% 56.1% 43.0% 58.8% 33.7% 5.1% 1.3% 0.2%
9 691635 79.0% 18.2% 78.4% 20.2% 83.6% 5.4% 8.9% 1.0% 0.3%
10 692244 59.5% 37.6% 60.6% 37.9% 67.7% 25.0% 4.3% 1.9% 0.2%
11 691899 63.8% 31.7% 70.1% 28.4% 78.4% 9.7% 6.9% 3.4% 0.2%
12 691835 56.8% 40.7% 54.8% 44.2% 60.2% 32.8% 3.9% 1.8% 0.2%
13 692110 24.6% 72.9% 26.9% 72.3% 32.1% 51.9% 10.9% 3.3% 0.2%
14 692117 72.9% 24.1% 71.5% 27.0% 80.2% 10.3% 7.4% 0.9% 0.2%

Illinois

Illinois lost a seat in the 2012 reapportionment, and Democrats were in complete control of the redistricting process.  Democrats executed the most successful gerrymander of the 2012 congressional redistricting cycle in Illinois, meticulously packing areas of Republican strength into five of the state’s 18 districts, turning an 11-7 disadvantage into a 12-6 majority in congressional seats.

A group of affected Republican incumbents brought suit, alleging that the Illinois congressional map diluted the influence of Hispanic voters in the Chicago area by packing them into an earmuff-shaped Fourth District, instead of creating two seats with substantial Hispanic populations (a South Side district with a majority-Hispanic VAP, and North Side district where Hispanics would constitute a plurality of the VAP).  The suit also alleged partisan gerrymandering.

The claims were ultimately dismissed by a three-judge panel of a federal district court.  While the judges acknowledged that the Democrats’ map was a blatant partisan gerrymander, the Court held, like nearly every court to hear such claims after Vieth v. Jubelirer, that the plaintiffs had not proposed a judicially manageable standard for evaluating partisan gerrymandering. The Court also held that, while the legislature could have created a much more compact Hispanic-majority Fourth District, the legislature’s interest in incumbent protection was a sufficient reason for it not to have done so.

In sharp contrast to the Democrats’ gerrymander, the districts I have drawn are quite normally shaped, preserve the cores of the previous districts, grouping together communities of interest, and following county lines. In particular, I have broken apart the “earmuff” Fourth District, one of the most notorious gerrymanders in existence, creating a new Hispanic-influence Fourth District in the North Side of Chicago and a Hispanic-majority VAP Third District on the South Side. Breaking apart the Fourth District led to changes in other seats, with Chicago-area Republicans Dan Lipinski and Mike Quigley having their districts effectively eliminated. I have created a new, somewhat Democratic-leaning suburban district (the 5th) in Lake County, which has enough inhabitants for a congressional district but is split into three different districts under the current gerrymandered map.

The map I have produced would have resulted in a 10-8 Republican advantage in the delegation in 2012, with 9 of 11 incumbent Republicans winning reelection. While suburban Republicans Bob Dold (10th District) and Peter Roskam (6th District) would have been targeted, they probably would have survived under this map. Dold’s district is 5 points more Republican than the district in which he barely lost to Brad Schneider in 2012 and 2016. Roskam’s district trended strongly Democratic, but he’s consistently run well ahead of his party in the 6th District. The remaining Republican districts are more-or-less completely safe. Suburban Republicans Randy Hultgren (who represented the 14th District) and Judy Biggert (who represented the 13th) would have little problem winning reelection, normal shaped districts I have drawn. So too, outstate Republicans Don Manzullo (former representative of the 16th) and Bobby Schilling (former representative of the 17th) would have easily prevailed in the non-gerrymandered districts below, aided by the Republican trend downstate this decade.

While a 10-8 split may seem unfair in a state that is reliably Democratic at the national level, Democratic strength in Illinois is rather limited outside of Cook County. While the collar counties are closely split at the presidential level, these areas still typically vote Republican for other offices.   Under my map, Democrats would hold a 6-1 advantage in districts based in Cook, but lose 10 of the 11 seats outside of Cook (the previous congressional map, which reflected a bipartisan compromise, yielded similar results throughout the 2000s).    Again, the fact that Democratic strength is disproportionately concentrated in urban areas means that fairly-drawn congressional maps will often not yield a majority of congressman for the party that wins a majority of the votes.

NET CHANGE: R +4

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 713000 18.5% 77.7% 18.8% 80.3% 37.6% 51.7% 7.8% 1.7% 0.1%
2 712941 15.7% 80.8% 16.3% 82.9% 28.9% 54.6% 14.6% 0.7% 0.2%
3 712511 21.5% 73.1% 23.5% 74.5% 32.5% 5.6% 57.6% 3.6% 0.1%
4 712553 18.4% 75.7% 24.0% 73.8% 46.0% 3.4% 44.3% 4.9% 0.2%
5 713059 35.9% 56.7% 45.0% 53.6% 69.4% 6.3% 16.7% 6.2% 0.2%
6 712804 38.4% 54.0% 47.3% 51.0% 70.3% 4.0% 13.7% 10.9% 0.1%
7 712887 10.7% 84.7% 13.5% 85.5% 34.8% 48.4% 8.4% 7.0% 0.1%
8 712940 41.8% 51.2% 49.6% 48.8% 68.2% 4.1% 21.8% 5.0% 0.1%
9 713160 15.3% 78.5% 23.7% 74.6% 65.5% 9.1% 11.0% 12.3% 0.2%
10 712474 36.5% 56.7% 44.9% 53.7% 74.6% 1.9% 10.7% 11.7% 0.1%
11 713071 49.6% 42.5% 52.8% 44.7% 81.6% 8.4% 4.6% 4.1% 0.2%
12 712616 54.3% 39.5% 49.3% 48.3% 81.2% 14.3% 2.4% 0.9% 0.2%
13 712754 44.4% 48.6% 51.3% 46.9% 79.5% 5.2% 8.0% 6.3% 0.1%
14 712813 47.6% 44.8% 48.2% 49.7% 82.5% 4.3% 9.0% 3.2% 0.1%
15 712810 69.3% 25.4% 61.7% 35.9% 92.4% 4.3% 1.7% 0.7% 0.2%
16 713036 50.5% 42.5% 50.3% 47.6% 82.9% 5.5% 8.8% 1.9% 0.2%
17 712785 56.4% 36.9% 51.4% 46.3% 89.0% 5.8% 3.1% 1.0% 0.2%
18 712418 55.9% 37.0% 53.3% 44.6% 87.7% 7.6% 2.4% 1.3% 0.2%

Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Nebraska

 Each of these states produced a non-gerrymandered map for the 2012 that I could not have improved upon.  In Indiana, Republicans drew a map with aesthetically pleasing boundaries that yielded a 7-2 split in the delegation in their favor.  Iowa lost a seat in 2012, and its non-partisan commission, as usual, produced a map with compact districts that did not split any counties.

NET CHANGE: NONE

Kentucky

 As a last vestige of the state’s loss of a congressional seat in 1992, Kentucky’s 1st District contains an arm linking it to Republican counties along the Tennessee border.  This arm continues to exist because it keeps the 1st District even more heavily Republican than it otherwise would be.  I have produced a map that eliminates this and a few other quirks in Kentucky’s congressional boundaries, making the lines smoother.  The changes would not have altered the partisan split in the state’s House delegation.

NET CHANGE: NONE

Kentucky map

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 722831 69.5% 26.8% 63.5% 35.0% 90.0% 6.4% 2.0% 0.6% 0.2%
2 723458 70.2% 24.9% 66.0% 32.4% 90.3% 5.2% 2.3% 1.0% 0.3%
3 723579 39.9% 54.9% 42.8% 55.7% 73.6% 19.1% 3.8% 2.1% 0.2%
4 723188 65.0% 29.5% 63.2% 35.0% 92.6% 3.1% 2.3% 1.0% 0.2%
5 723228 78.8% 18.3% 74.2% 24.0% 96.6% 1.4% 0.8% 0.3% 0.2%
6 723078 55.9% 38.2% 57.0% 41.0% 85.0% 8.2% 3.8% 1.7% 0.2%

Louisiana

I have smoothed out the lines adopted by the state legislature. I also sought to maintain more of the Cajun Country within the Third District, instead of spreading it to districts based in New Orleans and Baton Rouge. The changes do not affect the state’s partisan split.

NET CHANGE: NONE

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 755,704 66.2% 29.2% 68.4% 29.4% 70.4% 16.4% 8.6% 3.0% 0.4%
2 756,005 22.7% 74.1% 23.3% 75.3% 35.4% 56.8% 4.5% 1.9% 0.3%
3 755,163 69.7% 26.8% 68.4% 30.0% 72.4% 20.7% 3.2% 1.3% 1.3%
4 755,267 61.9% 35.3% 60.1% 38.6% 64.9% 29.1% 2.9% 1.2% 0.7%
5 755,522 63.5% 34.1% 61.0% 37.7% 63.8% 32.4% 1.8% 0.7% 0.5%
6 755,711 63.8% 32.0% 65.1% 33.0% 70.8% 23.4% 3.2% 1.4% 0.3%

Maryland

 Maryland did not gain or lose any seats, but it was the site of probably the most grotesque gerrymander of the 2012 cycle.  In the previous redistricting cycle in 2001 and 2002, Democrats in control of the process drew an aggressive gerrymander that succeeded in ousting two Republican incumbents, Bob Ehrlich of suburban Baltimore and Connie Morella of suburban Washington, D.C., for a 6-2 Democratic edge in the delegation.

In 2012, Democrats were in charge of the process again, and sought to build on their 2002 gerrymander to gain a 7-1 advantage.  Their main obstacle was geography.  Both Republicans, Andy Harris and Roscoe Bartlett, represented heavily Republican areas at the edges of Maryland (the Eastern Shore and Western Maryland, respectively) that would be difficult to parcel out to other districts.

Nonetheless, Democrats pushed ahead.  They tacked extreme Western Maryland to heavily Democratic portions of Montgomery County, in suburban Washington, D.C.  They then extended the existing Montgomery County-based 8th district out to heavily Republican parts of Carroll and Frederick counties.  The two African American majority districts, the 4th and the 7th, gained new, heavily Republican territory in Anne Arundel and Baltimore counties, respectively.  The crazy-quilt 3d District, represented by John Sarbanes of suburban Baltimore, got even more bizarre looking, becoming perhaps the most grotesque looking district in the country as it slithered from the northwest Baltimore County suburbs, through bits of Baltimore City and Howard County, and into Montgomery County, with a tentacle going into Anne Arundel to take in Annapolis (which Sarbanes said he wanted to continue to represent).

The enacted Democratic map is drastically unfair.  It continues to give the Baltimore area representation in excess of its population, as a full three districts continue to be based in the Baltimore area despite population losses relative to the Washington, D.C. suburbs.  The districts also brazenly ignore communities of interest, joining rural, impoverished, culturally conservative Western Maryland with suburban, wealthy, culturally liberal Montgomery County suburbs.  Baltimore City is now small enough population-wise to fit into a single district, yet it is split between three districts, with heavily African American areas siphoned off to help white Democrats in surrounding districts.  The Fourth District, which previously joined African American and Hispanic communities of interest in Montgomery and Prince George’s County, lost its portion of Montgomery, which was replaced with far-off parts of Anne Arundel County. The 7th District, based in urban West Baltimore, now extends outward to include exurban parts of Howard and Baltimore counties.

I sought to restore the pre-2002, non-gerrymandered lines to the greatest extent possible. The net result of dismantling the Democrats’ gerrymander would be a 5-3 split in Maryland’s congressional delegation.  Republican Andy Harris would prevail in the new Baltimore County-based 2d, which is reliably Republican.  A Republican also would have prevailed in the Eastern Shore-based 1st District, which voted solidly for McCain in 2008, Romney in 2012 and Trump in 2016.

A 5-3 split in Maryland is actually much fairer than the current 7-1 split.   While Democrats dominate Maryland elections, their margins of victory have typically come entirely from just three areas: Montgomery County, Prince George’s County, and Baltimore City.  If you remove those areas, Democrats would have lost most every statewide election of the past few decades.  The reason Democrats have needed to gerrymander Maryland so heavily is that, in order to win a supermajority of congressional seats in a diverse state, each district must have similar demographics to the state as a whole.  That, in turn, requires slicing and dicing cities and counties to an extreme extent.

NET CHANGE: R +2

Maryland map

Baltimore/Washington map

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 721504 52.5% 41.1% 53.2% 44.5% 79.5% 13.3% 4.0% 1.8% 0.2%
2 721324 54.5% 39.4% 55.4% 41.5% 80.8% 11.0% 3.1% 3.6% 0.3%
3 721647 27.3% 66.4% 31.4% 66.6% 53.3% 31.0% 5.4% 8.1% 0.2%
4 721751 9.9% 85.9% 13.2% 85.3% 24.8% 45.6% 19.8% 7.6% 0.2%
5 721913 26.8% 68.9% 24.9% 73.6% 39.4% 51.5% 4.0% 2.8% 0.4%
6 721640 56.7% 36.3% 57.6% 39.6% 85.7% 6.7% 3.6% 2.9% 0.2%
7 722047 14.2% 80.6% 15.5% 82.6% 37.6% 53.9% 3.8% 3.0% 0.3%
8 721726 20.7% 73.2% 28.8% 69.2% 56.7% 11.1% 14.8% 15.2% 0.2%

Massachusetts

Massachusetts lost a district in 2012, and Democrats controlled the redistricting process.  Massachusetts, the birthplace of the gerrymander, has long has some of the most unusual-looking congressional districts in the nation.  With slow population growth in Western Massachusetts, and the retirement of incumbent John Olver, the legislature chose to eliminate Olver’s district, drawing liberal college towns from Olver’s district into Jim McGovern’s Worcester-based 2d District in order to make the 2d District reliably Democratic for when McGovern retires.  The legislature also chose to maintain the unusual configuration of the 4th District, which runs from Brookline and Newton, inner-ring suburbs of Boston, down to Bristol County in southeastern Massachusetts, splitting the old industrial towns of Fall River (which is included in the 4th) and New Bedford (which is not).   To shore up the 9th District, which was won by freshman Bill Keating in a competitive race in 2010, the legislature removed Republican-friendly areas in the northern part of the district and added heavily Democratic New Bedford.  The legislature also changed the lines in the 7th district in the Boston area to make it minority-majority.

For my map, I kept all of Bristol County together in the same district, the 8th.  Bristol County has a distinctive economy and history, and the towns of New Bedford and Fall River, with their large Portuguese-American populations, form a clear community of interest.  Up through the present, Massachusetts congressional maps have split Bristol County, placing much of it in the Boston suburb-based districts, thereby aggrandizing the representation of the Boston suburbs.

Basing the 8th in Bristol County allows the 4th District to become much more compact, both geographically and from a communities of interest perspective. It also includes the inner-ring Boston suburbs west of the city, including Brookline, Newton, and Wellesley, as well as Cambridge and heavily white areas of North and West Boston. Only three towns are split in the entire state: Boston, Franklin and Millis.

All of these changes likely would have had no impact on the partisan makeup of the state’s congressional delegation, which would remain all-Democratic.

NET CHANGE: NONE

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 727708 31.8% 60.7% 30.4% 67.5% 78.8% 5.4% 11.9% 2.4% 0.2%
2 727437 40.4% 50.9% 43.4% 55.3% 85.1% 3.1% 6.6% 3.6% 0.2%
3 727448 35.8% 56.3% 43.3% 55.0% 76.8% 2.5% 12.4% 6.7% 0.1%
4 727420 20.5% 72.7% 29.0% 69.7% 77.4% 4.7% 5.4% 10.2% 0.1%
5 727108 28.3% 64.7% 36.5% 61.8% 79.6% 3.9% 5.2% 8.3% 0.1%
6 727765 37.0% 56.0% 42.6% 56.0% 84.1% 2.6% 9.1% 2.8% 0.1%
7 727392 15.9% 79.0% 20.6% 77.5% 47.2% 23.5% 16.9% 7.0% 0.2%
8 727583 43.4% 49.3% 42.6% 56.5% 89.3% 2.4% 4.0% 1.7% 0.2%
9 727768 39.9% 53.0% 46.1% 52.5% 89.2% 2.1% 1.9% 4.3% 0.3%

Michigan

Michigan was the only state to lose population during the last decade, and it lost one seat in 2012.  Republicans controlled the process completely.  Already holding a 9-6 advantage in the delegation, Republicans set out to eliminate one of the five Democratic incumbents from Metro Detroit while preserving two African American-majority Detroit districts and shoring up vulnerable GOP incumbents Thad McCotter, Tim Walberg, and Dan Benishek. The Republicans  came up with a map that split apart the Oakland County district of incumbent Democrat Gary Peters in suburban Detroit, combining its more Republican portions with the Republican parts of McCotter’s 11th District in western Wayne and western Oakland, and tacking its more Democratic areas (Farmington Hills, West Bloomfield and Pontiac) to the Detroit-based 14th District, which took on an unusual, serpentine shape as it combined some of the poorest and wealthiest parts of the Metro Detroit area.  To shore up Walberg, the legislature dropped Battle Creek, the home of Walberg’s 2010 opponent, Mark Schauer, from the 7th, replacing it with marginal Monroe County.  Benishek’s 1st District picked up Republican-leaning Traverse City from the 4th District, and lost its portion of Democratic-leaning Bay County to the 5th.

The gerrymandered lines worked as intended, producing a 9-5 split in the delegation. Peters chose to run in the 14th District, despite not living there, and beat freshman Rep. Hansen Clarke of Detroit.  Even though McCotter failed to qualify for the ballot, the Republicans managed to hold his 11th District with a weak candidate. All other incumbents survived comfortably.

I drew a map that undoes the Republican gerrymandering, producing a map that closely follows the lines that a federal court drew for the 1992 redistricting cycle.  Consistent with Michigan law, which mandates that county and township splits be minimized in redistricting, my map splits only eight cities and townships in the entire state.  In addition, my map only splits five counties outside of Metro Detroit.

As compared to the actual map, this map would have resulted in a gain of 1 seat for the Democrats. Gary Peters likely would have chosen to run in the 9th District, which contains most of his old district and is only a couple points more Republican than his previous district.

Otherwise, the partisan balance would not have shifted due to the changes. A Republican probably would have won the 9th in 2014 when Peters ran for the Senate. While Walberg might have had a tougher race in 2012, there is no way Democrats would have been able to hold the Seventh District in 2014 and 2016 given the pronounced GOP trend in his district.  Given the pronounced shift towards Republicans of Michigan outside of Metro Detroit, there was no need to gerrymander the Outstate Michigan districts to protect incumbents.

NET CHANGE: NONE

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 705553 58.4% 36.0% 53.8% 45.1% 93.4% 1.4% 1.0% 0.6% 2.3%
2 706342 58.1% 35.7% 57.0% 42.1% 88.1% 4.3% 4.8% 1.2% 0.6%
3 706261 48.7% 44.5% 52.2% 46.6% 81.6% 7.9% 6.8% 2.1% 0.4%
4 706127 58.3% 35.6% 53.2% 45.8% 92.5% 2.6% 2.4% 0.9% 0.6%
5 705813 46.0% 49.2% 38.4% 60.6% 77.9% 16.1% 3.6% 0.8% 0.4%
6 706382 51.2% 42.8% 50.2% 48.8% 85.1% 7.6% 4.1% 1.3% 0.5%
7 706205 57.1% 37.2% 51.3% 47.7% 89.9% 4.8% 3.0% 0.8% 0.4%
8 706071 51.7% 42.5% 52.3% 47.1% 87.0% 4.8% 3.7% 2.9% 0.4%
9 706002 45.1% 50.2% 47.9% 50.9% 78.6% 10.5% 3.4% 6.0% 0.2%
10 705551 62.6% 32.6% 54.4% 44.6% 92.4% 3.1% 2.2% 1.1% 0.3%
11 705915 35.7% 59.4% 36.6% 62.0% 76.8% 11.0% 3.2% 7.0% 0.3%
12 706127 43.8% 51.3% 41.8% 57.3% 83.4% 8.0% 1.8% 5.0% 0.3%
13 705584 21.6% 75.3% 18.6% 81.0% 36.2% 52.6% 7.3% 2.0% 0.3%
14 705707 17.3% 79.7% 15.7% 83.8% 41.0% 53.5% 2.2% 1.1% 0.3%

Minnesota

In Minnesota, a federal court drew a least-change map that preserved most of the pre-existing, court-drawn map. I have modified that map to eliminate several county splits, including a major split of the St. Cloud area and the split of Washington County. The changes would have yielded an additional Republican seat in 2016.

NET CHANGE: R +1

Minnesota map

Twin Cities map

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 663084 54.0 37.0 48.5 48.7 91.3 1.7 3.9 2.1 0.3
2 662667 51.9 39.4 52.1 45.6 89.6 2.4 3.7 3.0 0.4
3 663045 40.9 50.3 48.8 49.6 84.3 5.4 3.0 5.8 0.3
4 663164 28.9 62.0 34.6 63.4 75.7 7.9 5.9 8.4 0.5
5 662883 18.3 73.0 24.0 73.5 71.0 12.9 7.5 5.3 1.1
6 663249 53.6 37.7 53.7 44.1 91.2 2.2 2.2 3.1 0.4
7 663074 60.8 31.5 53.9 43.8 93.6 1.1 2.3 1.0 1.2
8 662759 52.9 38.9 45.2 52.3 93.3 0.8 1.0 0.6 3.1

Mississippi

I changed the lines in order to reduce county splits and make the districts more compact. This map splits only one county in the entire state (Hinds), while achieving equal population between the districts.

NET CHANGE: NONE

Mississippi map

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 741965 65.4% 32.4% 61.9% 37.0% 71.5% 24.6% 2.5% 0.6% 0.2%
2 741845 36.2% 62.5% 34.1% 65.3% 36.5% 60.0% 2.1% 0.8% 0.2%
3 741541 61.7% 36.4% 60.4% 38.7% 63.6% 31.9% 2.2% 0.7% 1.0%
4 741946 68.0% 29.6% 66.2% 32.6% 71.9% 22.2% 3.1% 1.5% 0.3%

Missouri

Missouri lost a seat in 2012.  Republicans held the legislature; a Democrat, Jay Nixon, held the governorship.  The slow growth in St. Louis, plus the need to preserve the African American-plurality 1st District based in St. Louis, made the Democrat-held 3d District, anchored in the southern part of St. Louis, the obvious choice to be eliminated.  With the support of Missouri’s two African American members of Congress, Lacy Clay and Emmanuel Cleaver, the legislature was able to override Gov. Nixon’s veto and enact a map dismantling the 3d District.  There were some other partisan flourishes: Cleaver’s Kansas City-based 5th District picked up some traditionally Democratic rural counties to help neighboring Republican incumbents, and Jefferson County in suburban St. Louis, which had previously been in the 3d, was split between districts to ensure that the 3d District’s incumbent, Russ Carnahan, would not run against a Republican incumbent.  As it turned out, Carnahan lost in a primary to Clay, and all other incumbents were reelected, for a 6-2 split in favor of Republicans in the delegation.

I produced a version of the map that removes the partisan flourishes and keeps the lines regular, but otherwise preserves the districts in the actual map.

NET CHANGE: NONE

Missouri map

St. Louis map

Kansas City map

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 748774 19.4% 76.5% 19.4% 79.4% 47.7% 45.3% 2.7% 2.6% 0.2%
2 748450 54.4% 40.5% 57.8% 40.7% 88.8% 4.1% 2.2% 3.8% 0.2%
3 748585 64.9% 30.2% 60.4% 37.7% 94.2% 2.3% 1.5% 1.0% 0.3%
4 748661 65.0% 29.7% 60.9% 36.7% 89.6% 4.2% 2.8% 1.5% 0.5%
5 748787 39.2% 55.4% 40.1% 58.0% 68.6% 20.5% 6.8% 2.0% 0.4%
6 748775 65.1% 29.7% 60.0% 37.9% 91.6% 3.6% 2.5% 1.0% 0.3%
7 748484 70.4% 24.6% 67.6% 30.3% 91.6% 1.5% 3.3% 1.2% 0.9%
8 748411 75.6% 20.8% 66.3% 31.6% 92.5% 4.1% 1.3% 0.6% 0.4%

Nevada

Redistricting in Nevada fell to a court-appointed commission after the legislature failed to reach agreement with Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval.  Nevada gained a fourth seat after the 2010 census, and Sandoval pushed for a Hispanic VAP-plurality congressional district.  Democrats opposed this, as did many Hispanic groups sympathetic to Democrats.  In the end, the commission did not create a Hispanic-plurality seat, creating an urban Las Vegas 1st District, a Reno-based 2d District, a 3d District consisting of the southern Las Vegas suburbs and points south, and a new 4th District stretching from North Las Vegas to the Cow Counties.

From a communities of interest standpoint, urban North Las Vegas should not be in a district with the Cow Counties. Thus, I have created a map that creates two districts based in Las Vegas’s urban core, and a Third District that combines outlying parts of Clark County such as Henderson with the Cow Counties. The result would be two solidly Democratic districts and two solidly Republican districts.  The Fourth District (my First District) has changed partisan control in each of the past three election cycles, while the Third District has flipped from Republican to Democratic control in 2016. Thus, the result of these changes would be a gain of one seat for the Republicans in 2016; a loss of one in 2014; and no change in 2012.

NET CHANGE: R +1

Nevada map

Las Vegas map

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 675099 36.5% 57.7% 36.7% 61.3% 48.1% 13.0% 22.6% 13.2% 0.4%
2 674850 52.0% 39.7% 52.9% 44.8% 73.7% 1.7% 16.6% 4.3% 1.8%
3 675528 53.6% 40.4% 53.7% 44.5% 72.8% 5.6% 12.0% 6.7% 0.7%
4 675074 32.0% 62.2% 31.4% 66.7% 40.0% 9.9% 38.9% 8.4% 0.5%


New Hampshire

New Hampshire’s two congressional districts have had roughly the same boundaries since the 1880s, splitting the state’s two largest cities, Manchester and Nashua. However, the Merrimack Valley, including Manchester, Concord and Nashua, form a clear community of interest. Creating a compact First District centered around these towns and a Second District that includes all of rural New Hampshire better serves the values of compactness and preserving communities of interest.

These changes would result in the First District flipping firmly to Republican control.

NET CHANGE: R +1

New Hampshire map

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 658341 49.2% 44.3% 50.3% 48.1% 91.7% 1.3% 3.3% 2.5% 0.2%
2 658129 43.8% 49.3% 42.7% 55.6% 95.4% 0.6% 1.2% 1.6% 0.2%

New Jersey

After New Jersey’s tumultuous experience redistricting in the 1980s, when a Democratic attempt to gerrymander the congressional districts was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Karcher v. Daggett, New Jersey created a bipartisan commission to handle redistricting.  The commission features an equal number of Democratic and Republican partisans, with a tiebreaker chosen by agreement of the major parties.  The state lost a seat in the 2010 redistricting cycle, dropping it to 12 representatives.  Democrats argued that they should continue to have an edge in the state’s delegation (the state had previously had a 7-6 split in congressional representation in their favor), because the state usually votes for Democrats in presidential contests.  Republicans argued that the state’s slowest growth had been in urban northern New Jersey, an area represented by four Democrats.  Because the Voting Rights Act required that the districts of African American Democrat Donald Payne, Jr. of Newark and Hispanic Democrat Albio Sires of Hudson County must remain intact, Republicans contended that the slow-growing districts of Democrat Steve Rothman of Bergen County and Bill Pascrell of Paterson should be merged.  The tiebreaker, former Republican Attorney General John Farmer, chose the Republican plan, on the (correct) ground that population movement should trump political considerations.

The enacted New Jersey map contains features designed to protect incumbents that make the lines somewhat jagged in places. In my map, I have attempted to remove the incumbent-protection features of the map, make the districts more compact, and more closely follow county lines. Unlike the enacted map, I have kept all of Warren, Sussex, Camden, Mercer, Ocean and Monmouth counties whole.

This configuration would have cost the Republicans one seat in 2012 and 2014.

NET CHANGE: NONE

New Jersey map

Central New Jersey

New Jersey North

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 732388 36.9% 59.8% 34.6% 64.3% 69.7% 14.8% 9.7% 4.5% 0.2%
2 732862 49.1% 47.5% 44.0% 54.9% 69.8% 12.8% 12.3% 3.6% 0.3%
3 733014 60.3% 35.7% 55.8% 42.9% 87.3% 3.3% 6.2% 2.3% 0.1%
4 732640 53.0% 43.8% 51.4% 47.5% 77.6% 6.5% 8.7% 5.9% 0.1%
5 732233 54.8% 41.6% 56.5% 42.5% 81.9% 1.8% 8.5% 6.7% 0.1%
6 732556 32.8% 64.2% 31.3% 67.6% 45.7% 13.3% 20.6% 18.5% 0.1%
7 732766 51.9% 44.5% 55.4% 43.2% 80.8% 3.3% 8.4% 6.6% 0.1%
8 733103 34.2% 61.9% 37.3% 61.6% 55.7% 9.9% 26.6% 6.5% 0.1%
9 732773 38.1% 58.4% 38.9% 60.0% 58.9% 6.1% 17.2% 16.3% 0.1%
10 732618 12.1% 85.9% 10.8% 88.6% 23.0% 50.7% 17.9% 5.5% 0.2%
11 732663 22.2% 75.0% 21.5% 77.6% 31.9% 8.1% 48.0% 10.2% 0.1%
12 732278 31.9% 63.9% 32.4% 65.9% 58.6% 18.6% 10.3% 10.7% 0.1%

New Mexico

I have cleaned up the lines a bit in New Mexico. I also moved Clovis to the Second District from the Third District, as it forms a community of interest with other parts of Little Texas in the Second District. These changes would not have changed the outcome of any elections.

NET CHANGE: NONE

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 686212 35.0% 51.7% 39.5% 55.4% 46.2% 2.5% 43.6% 2.3% 3.9%
2 686455 52.5% 37.8% 54.6% 42.0% 48.4% 2.0% 46.1% 0.9% 1.5%
3 686512 35.1% 53.2% 36.4% 59.8% 41.4% 0.9% 37.1% 1.0% 18.4%

New York

New York lost two seats in the 2012 reapportionment cycle. New York’s congressional districts were drawn by a federal court, based mostly on a proposed map prepared by Common Cause. The federal court sought to embody a bipartisan consensus that the Brooklyn/Queens district of freshman Republican Bob Turner and the upstate district of retiring Democrat Maurice Hinchey should be the ones eliminated. As a result, Turner’s old Ninth District was carved up among several neighboring districts (mostly the districts currently held by black Democrats Hakeem Jeffries, Yvette Clarke and Gregory Meeks, which needed to gain substantial population).

The court carefully preserved the two white-majority Manhattan districts held by Jerrold Nadler and Carolyn Maloney, both of which now extend deep into the outer boroughs (Borough Park in Nadler’s case; Astoria, Long Island City and Greenpoint in Maloney’s). It expanded Charlie Rangel’s Northern Manhattan district into the Bronx. The court also left intact the unusually-shaped Hispanic-plurality district held by Nydia Velazquez, now numbered the 7th District, which combines Ridgewood, Bushwick, Sunset Park, and Manhattan’s Lower East Side.

I disagree with the decision to carve up Turner’s district, and not Maloney’s. Turner’s old Ninth District combined distinctive communities of interest: the heavily Orthodox and Russian Jewish neighborhoods of Midwood, Sheepshead Bay and Brighton Beach in Brooklyn, and several older white ethnic neighborhoods in Queens: Breezy Point, Howard Beach, Glendale, Ozone Park, Middle Village and Maspeth. Far from the bright lights and affluence of Manhattan, these downscale parts of the Outer Boroughs are frequently ignored by New York City politicians. Brooklyn has the largest Orthodox Jewish population anywhere outside of Israel. Of all the districts in the U.S., the Orthodox community could effectively elect its candidate of choice only in the former Ninth District. Moreover, the old Ninth District could easily have been expanded to meet the population requirement by adding Borough Park, thereby uniting most of Brooklyn’s vast Orthodox Jewish community in a single district.

Manhattan is only entitled by population to two districts. However, three different districts (the current 10th, 12th and 13th) are based in Manhattan. They only meet the population requirements by extending into adjoining boroughs. Moreover, the 10th District, in combining the secular, progressive Upper West Side with heavily Orthodox Jewish Borough Park in Queens, clearly does not unite communities of interest. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine two parts of New York City that are more dissimilar culturally and politically. The 10th combines these two far-flung regions across a narrow salient of the Brooklyn waterfront, violating principles of compactness.

My map keeps Turner’s old district (renumbered the 10th). The Harlem- based 13th District remains entirely within Northern Manhattan, as it had been prior to redistricting. Although it picks up more of the heavily white Upper West Side, it remains about 40% Hispanic and 25% African American, similar to the population mix pre-2012. In fact, the 13th would be far more likely to elect the candidate of choice of the African-American community without the extension into the Bronx. Rangel would have beaten Dominican-American primary opponent Adriano Espaillat more easily within these borders, and African-American Keith Wright would probably have beaten Espaillat in the 2016 primary within my lines.

The 10th and 12th Districts could then be combined into a single Manhattan district, with the Lower East Side and Chinatown reserved for the 7th District (as they were prior to 2012). The black-majority 9th District would then extend into Sunset Park which (like the 9th) is heavily populated by immigrants. The 8th District would take in Park Slope. The Seventh District would replace Sunset Park with Jackson Heights, which has a similar ethnic mix to Sunset Park, allowing the Seventh District to remain a Hispanic plurality district. The 14th would lose Jackson Heights, but would become even more heavily Hispanic by adding Corona and Hunts Point and losing heavily-white Whitestone and College Point. The 14th would also add Astoria and Long Island City. There would continue to be an Asian-plurality Sixth District in Queens. Thus, my map effectively swaps out Maloney’s district for the old Ninth District without affecting the ethnic mix of any of the other districts.

The changes in New York City eliminate six different county and borough splits. Seven of the 12 NYC districts are all or virtually all within a single borough, as opposed to just two under the current map. And there is no longer any awkward splitting of the Brooklyn waterfront.

I did not change the court’s map hardly at all upstate or on Long Island.

The net result from these changes would be a gain of one seat for Republicans by 2016. The 10th District that I have drawn would have voted solidly for Trump in 2016, and would have continued to elect a Republican to Congress. The Third District would also have likely gone Republican in 2016.

NET CHANGE: R +2

New York map

NYC Map

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 717373 54.5% 42.2% 49.1% 49.6% 79.9% 4.3% 11.2% 3.4% 0.2%
2 717848 53.0% 43.9% 47.2% 51.6% 68.8% 8.5% 18.6% 2.9% 0.1%
3 717347 47.7% 49.4% 50.4% 48.6% 75.6% 3.0% 10.4% 9.7% 0.1%
4 717643 41.1% 56.1% 40.1% 59.0% 58.9% 17.2% 17.4% 5.0% 0.1%
5 717988 10.8% 87.6% 7.2% 92.5% 12.4% 46.7% 19.5% 13.7% 0.5%
6 717777 32.3% 64.9% 31.2% 67.6% 37.8% 3.1% 16.2% 40.9% 0.1%
7 717756 10.6% 86.7% 10.5% 88.2% 27.9% 7.9% 43.1% 18.9% 0.2%
8 717935 5.8% 92.1% 5.1% 94.0% 26.8% 50.9% 16.1% 3.9% 0.2%
9 717706 7.6% 90.3% 7.0% 92.1% 17.2% 51.0% 18.2% 11.4% 0.2%
10 717934 52.1% 45.2% 53.4% 45.7% 67.4% 3.9% 14.6% 12.5% 0.1%
11 717814 53.7% 43.0% 47.1% 51.8% 64.7% 6.0% 14.1% 13.8% 0.1%
12 717627 13.1% 83.7% 21.1% 77.3% 73.7% 3.6% 8.3% 12.3% 0.1%
13 717747 7.0% 90.7% 6.2% 93.0% 29.6% 23.3% 39.8% 5.3% 0.2%
14 717863 11.8% 85.7% 10.3% 88.7% 24.6% 17.0% 46.5% 9.5% 0.2%
15 717337 5.8% 92.9% 3.9% 95.8% 5.0% 27.4% 63.3% 2.7% 0.2%
16 717532 21.7% 75.9% 24.7% 74.5% 39.9% 31.1% 22.0% 4.8% 0.2%
17 717424 38.8% 58.2% 42.5% 56.4% 66.4% 8.8% 17.8% 5.8% 0.1%
18 717726 49.1% 47.0% 47.2% 51.3% 73.9% 8.3% 13.5% 2.9% 0.2%
19 717669 50.9% 43.9% 46.0% 52.0% 87.9% 4.0% 5.4% 1.3% 0.2%
20 717397 40.4% 54.1% 38.7% 59.3% 82.6% 7.7% 4.2% 3.5% 0.2%
21 717983 54.0% 39.9% 46.2% 52.1% 92.1% 2.9% 2.4% 0.8% 0.8%
22 717775 54.8% 39.3% 49.2% 48.8% 90.8% 3.3% 2.5% 2.1% 0.3%
23 717750 54.5% 39.7% 49.6% 48.4% 91.1% 2.6% 2.6% 2.1% 0.5%
24 717322 45.3% 48.9% 41.1% 57.0% 86.2% 6.8% 2.9% 2.2% 0.6%
25 717894 39.1% 55.5% 39.4% 58.8% 75.9% 13.2% 6.0% 3.3% 0.2%
26 717833 38.0% 57.6% 34.3% 63.9% 75.2% 15.9% 4.3% 2.9% 0.5%
27 718041 59.7% 35.2% 55.3% 42.9% 93.4% 2.5% 1.8% 0.9% 0.7%

North Carolina

North Carolina has had the most tumultuous redistricting process of any state. The state was forced to draw two black-majority districts by the George H.W. Bush Department of Justice in the 1990s. Not wanting to endanger any of the state’s 7 white Democratic incumbents, the Democratic legislature drew the ultra-grotesque 12th District. In its original incarnation, the 12th was a thin line stretching from Gastonia to Durham, impossible to create without computer mapping technology. The state also created an only slightly-less grotesque 1st District in the eastern part of the state. The Supreme Court struck down the 12th District in the case of Shaw v. Reno, creating the Supreme Court’s modern racial gerrymandering jurisprudence. After several additional rounds of remapping and subsequent trips to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court upheld a somewhat modified version of the 12th District (stretching now from Charlotte to Winston-Salem to Greensboro). This time, the Court found that the 12th was a permissible political gerrymander, as race and voting behavior are closely correlated in the South.

The legislature remained under Democratic control for the next round of redistricting in 2002. The Democratic legislature drew a fairly successful gerrymander that yielded a 7-6 Democratic-Republican split in the state’s delegation by 2012. The Republicans controlled the process in 2012, and drew an aggressive map that yielded a 10-3 split in favor of the Republicans by 2014. This created three districts that were overwhelmingly Democratic, two of which (the 1st and 12th) were black-majority. The Fourth Circuit struck this map down, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The “political gerrymandering” defense accepted by the Court in Hunt v. Cromartie in 2001 had mysteriously vanished in the intervening 16 years, as Justice Alito pointed out in dissent. The legislature responded with a new map that yielded a 10-3 split, albeit with cleaner lines.

I have produced a non-gerrymandered map that follows county lines and protects communities of interest. There are four “crossover” (effective majority-minority districts) districts, two more than in the current map: the 1st in Durham and the neighboring black-majority counties; the 7th, which combines Fayetteville, the Sand Hill counties, and Robeson County (with its large Native American population); the 12th, based now entirely in Charlotte; and the 13th, based in Greensboro and Winston-Salem. Two of these districts are new, displacing districts drawn to elect Republicans. There is also a Research Triangle district that combines Chapel Hill and Raleigh. The remaining districts would be safe for Republicans. Heath Shuler might or might not have held the 12th District for the Democrats in 2012, but he would have been unlikely to have done so in 2014 and 2016 given the heavy trend towards Republicans in Western North Carolina.

NET CHANGE: D +2

Charlotte map

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 733833 27.8% 69.1% 29.5% 69.8% 44.9% 44.4% 6.7% 2.3% 0.7%
2 733453 54.1% 41.4% 57.0% 42.0% 71.0% 18.2% 8.0% 1.4% 0.5%
3 733213 57.5% 39.4% 57.0% 42.1% 68.1% 24.7% 4.9% 1.0% 0.3%
4 733379 29.0% 65.7% 35.9% 62.8% 64.1% 19.3% 8.3% 6.6% 0.3%
5 733523 67.3% 28.8% 64.2% 34.6% 87.4% 6.4% 4.3% 0.9% 0.2%
6 733313 63.3% 33.3% 62.0% 37.1% 76.7% 14.0% 7.1% 0.9% 0.5%
7 733197 58.3% 38.0% 56.8% 42.0% 73.4% 16.6% 6.9% 1.1% 0.8%
8 733868 48.2% 48.8% 44.5% 54.5% 51.1% 30.2% 6.7% 1.7% 8.6%
9 733586 58.6% 36.9% 61.5% 37.3% 78.6% 11.3% 6.7% 2.2% 0.3%
10 733422 66.6% 29.8% 63.9% 34.7% 80.9% 11.6% 5.0% 1.5% 0.3%
11 733785 56.1% 39.3% 54.8% 43.3% 89.0% 3.9% 4.2% 0.7% 1.2%
12 733704 28.0% 67.4% 31.3% 67.8% 46.6% 34.8% 12.1% 4.7% 0.3%
13 733207 37.0% 59.0% 39.5% 59.0% 56.6% 31.1% 7.6% 3.0% 0.4%

Ohio

Ohio was the site of one of the nation’s most aggressive Republican gerrymanders. All the intricate maneuvering reflected in that map only netted Republicans two seats, however. The map I have drawn no longer splits Cincinnati down the middle. It also unpacks the Toledo-to-Cleveland district designed to combine Democrats Marcy Kaptur and Dennis Kucinich, and does not split Akron or Canton.

The net result of this map would be three additional districts for the Democrats: the 2d, 12th and the 13th. This yields a 9-7 split in the delegation in favor of Republicans.

NET CHANGE: D+3

Cincinnati map

Columbus Map

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 721553 63.5% 31.8% 62.9% 35.4% 86.7% 8.1% 2.4% 1.7% 0.2%
2 721465 41.6% 52.9% 45.8% 52.8% 71.9% 22.0% 2.1% 2.6% 0.2%
3 721444 52.9% 41.5% 52.9% 45.4% 79.3% 15.5% 1.8% 2.0% 0.2%
4 720872 65.6% 28.8% 61.0% 37.0% 90.4% 5.5% 1.5% 1.2% 0.2%
5 720533 51.4% 42.4% 45.1% 52.8% 81.9% 11.0% 4.5% 1.2% 0.2%
6 721199 68.1% 27.3% 56.8% 41.1% 94.9% 2.4% 0.8% 0.6% 0.3%
7 720723 49.9% 42.7% 54.3% 43.9% 86.9% 4.6% 2.5% 4.6% 0.1%
8 721466 26.3% 68.4% 29.2% 69.2% 62.6% 27.7% 4.4% 3.1% 0.2%
9 720819 59.2% 34.3% 50.7% 46.9% 91.2% 4.1% 3.0% 0.7% 0.2%
10 720993 64.1% 30.4% 54.1% 43.6% 94.5% 2.8% 0.8% 0.5% 0.2%
11 720671 60.8% 33.7% 54.2% 43.7% 93.0% 4.1% 1.1% 0.7% 0.2%
12 720699 44.2% 50.7% 41.5% 56.9% 86.9% 5.1% 5.0% 1.7% 0.2%
13 720977 47.8% 46.4% 45.8% 52.4% 85.9% 9.6% 1.3% 1.9% 0.2%
14 720850 17.9% 77.4% 17.0% 82.1% 44.1% 47.0% 4.6% 2.7% 0.2%
15 720904 55.3% 39.8% 42.6% 55.4% 88.6% 7.8% 2.1% 0.5% 0.2%
16 720336 54.3% 40.1% 49.7% 48.4% 92.9% 3.2% 1.7% 1.3% 0.1%

Oklahoma

I changed the lines slightly to make the districts more compact.

NET CHANGE: NONE

Oklahoma Map

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 750023 61.4 32.7 65.8 34.2 71.6 8.4 7.9 2.1 5.9
2 750307 72.9 22.8 67.8 32.2 70.9 3.5 3.2 0.5 15.9
3 750389 72.0 22.7 71.6 28.4 76.3 6.0 7.8 1.4 5.5
4 750588 66.9 27.2 67.9 32.1 78.9 4.7 4.6 1.9 6.2
5 750044 54.8 38.1 61.1 38.9 66.4 12.3 11.9 3.2 3.2

Oregon

I have redrawn the 5th District so it is more compact and normal-looking. This has the effect of making it much more Republican, to the point that it would have voted solidly Mitt Romney and Donald Trump for president. It also has the effect of flipping the district from Democratic to Republican control.

NET CHANGE: R +1

Oregon Map

Portland map

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 766199 33.4% 54.7% 41.7% 56.6% 78.9% 1.2% 10.2% 7.0% 0.6%
2 766269 54.7% 35.3% 56.8% 40.5% 85.3% 0.5% 9.5% 1.1% 1.8%
3 765827 17.5% 72.7% 19.9% 77.1% 76.5% 4.8% 8.5% 6.7% 0.8%
4 766113 42.8% 46.1% 43.4% 53.3% 88.0% 0.6% 5.3% 2.3% 1.2%
5 766666 48.5% 39.9% 52.1% 45.5% 81.4% 0.7% 12.3% 2.7% 1.0%

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania was also the site of a Republican gerrymander in 2012. The state’s geography favors Republicans. Democrats in Pennsylvania are ultra-concentrated in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and their close-in suburbs. Take away just three counties (Philadelphia, Montgomery and Allegheny), and the two-party vote in Pennsylvania was 58.7%-41.2% for Donald Trump, comparable to Louisiana, Mississippi and bright-red other parts of the Deep South and Great Plains. In areas outside metro Philadelphia and Pittsburgh where Democrats have historically been strong (Erie, Beaver and Lawrence County, Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, Allentown) their vote share has declined rapidly in the past 10-20 years.

The map below would likely have yielded a net of one seat for the Democrats (the 7th in suburban Philadelphia). Democrats might have attempted to target the suburban Philadelphia Republicans in the 6th, 7th or 8th districts, but the changes in partisan composition would not have swayed the outcome of any election this decade.

This map has an advantage over the court-ordered Pennsylvania map in that it preserves a significant African American population (34.5%) First District. The First has been represented by black congressmen in the past, and likely would have been again when incumbent Bob Brady retired. Alas, the new court ordered map fails to preserve a second African American influence district in Philadelphia.

NET CHANGE: D +1

Metro Philadelphia

Pittsburgh map

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 705724 13.9% 83.8% 12.6% 86.6% 37.0% 34.5% 18.8% 7.7% 0.2%
2 705394 9.4% 88.6% 10.8% 88.6% 36.0% 54.0% 3.0% 4.9% 0.3%
3 705803 37.7% 59.3% 38.9% 60.2% 78.6% 8.9% 4.9% 6.4% 0.1%
4 705628 46.8% 49.3% 48.2% 50.5% 87.3% 3.3% 3.5% 4.9% 0.1%
5 705468 47.0% 48.5% 45.7% 53.0% 79.7% 4.7% 11.9% 2.6% 0.1%
6 705980 51.3% 43.6% 51.2% 47.3% 84.9% 3.7% 8.6% 1.9% 0.1%
7 705609 38.2% 57.4% 42.8% 55.9% 79.8% 11.2% 2.9% 5.0% 0.1%
8 705743 52.5% 41.3% 55.3% 42.9% 84.5% 4.7% 7.9% 1.9% 0.1%
9 705902 61.6% 33.4% 60.1% 38.5% 90.1% 3.8% 3.9% 1.2% 0.1%
10 705619 58.0% 37.3% 56.8% 41.8% 85.9% 6.7% 4.1% 2.2% 0.1%
11 705396 66.6% 29.8% 57.7% 40.7% 92.8% 2.8% 3.0% 0.6% 0.1%
12 705519 54.6% 42.1% 44.5% 54.1% 89.3% 3.7% 4.7% 1.2% 0.1%
13 705780 70.7% 25.6% 64.4% 34.2% 94.4% 3.0% 1.4% 0.5% 0.1%
14 705827 63.8% 32.0% 58.6% 40.0% 94.1% 2.1% 1.4% 1.6% 0.1%
15 705582 58.6% 37.1% 52.7% 45.5% 93.0% 3.8% 1.5% 0.8% 0.1%
16 705990 57.6% 38.5% 58.8% 40.1% 95.0% 2.1% 0.8% 1.3% 0.1%
17 705541 29.9% 65.7% 31.3% 67.0% 75.2% 18.5% 1.6% 3.2% 0.1%
18 705874 58.6% 38.3% 55.1% 43.4% 93.8% 3.5% 0.9% 1.0% 0.1%

Rhode Island

I made Rhode Island’s two congressional districts more compact, by centering the First District around Providence and no longer splitting the state’s largest city.

NET CHANGE: NONE 

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 526411 31.2% 62.6% 29.2% 69.3% 67.9% 7.2% 17.2% 3.8% 0.4%
2 526156 45.0% 47.8% 40.4% 57.7% 91.4% 1.8% 3.3% 1.9% 0.3%

South Carolina

South Carolina’s 2012 redistricting witnessed a battle between Republicans in the State House who wanted to place the state’s new 7th District in the Pee Dee/Myrtle Beach area, and a potential bipartisan compromise map originating in the State Senate. The Senate’s compromise map would have placed the new 7th District in Beaufort and suburban Charleston. The Senate’s 7th District was much less safe for Republicans than the House’s plan. This was because it created a 7th District that had a higher black population. The legislature eventually went with the Pee Dee-based 7th District.

It is undeniable, however, that the bipartisan compromise map had more regular lines. This was because it did not split Charleston. Thus, it allowed the 6th District to become much more compact, while retaining its black majority.

I have produced a slightly modified version of the bipartisan State Senate map below. The proposed 7th District voted for John McCain in 2008, Mitt Romney in 2012 and Donald Trump in 2016. Like the rest of the Deep South, it trended even more Republican as the 2010s wore on. It would have likely been a safe seat for the Republicans at the congressional level.

NET CHANGE: NONE

South Carolina map

Charleston map

Columbia SC map

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 660548 53.7% 41.3% 54.8% 43.7% 71.8% 21.0% 4.7% 1.2% 0.3%
2 660461 56.4% 38.4% 59.1% 39.3% 70.3% 21.7% 4.9% 1.7% 0.3%
3 660438 66.8% 29.2% 64.3% 34.1% 76.9% 17.9% 3.5% 0.8% 0.2%
4 661084 60.3% 34.3% 62.5% 35.9% 72.8% 17.8% 6.3% 2.0% 0.2%
5 661287 58.3% 37.9% 55.7% 42.9% 69.2% 25.5% 3.0% 0.8% 0.7%
6 660806 35.4% 61.8% 33.9% 65.1% 43.3% 52.1% 2.3% 1.1% 0.3%
7 660740 52.6% 43.0% 52.6% 46.0% 62.6% 28.5% 5.8% 1.4% 0.4%

Tennessee

I have smoothed out the lines in Tennessee. This yields no partisan change: each of the 7 districts outside of Memphis and Nashville voted for Donald Trump by over 30 percentage points.

NET CHANGE: NONE

Tennessee Map

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 705329 76.5% 19.6% 72.2% 26.2% 94.1% 2.1% 2.2% 0.6% 0.2%
2 705216 64.9% 29.3% 67.8% 30.4% 88.7% 5.6% 3.0% 1.4% 0.3%
3 704956 64.9% 30.1% 64.0% 34.4% 83.8% 10.5% 3.2% 1.2% 0.3%
4 705228 74.9% 21.8% 66.9% 31.5% 92.7% 3.1% 2.5% 0.5% 0.3%
5 705138 38.2% 55.8% 42.5% 55.9% 65.2% 23.0% 7.5% 2.7% 0.3%
6 704832 67.2% 28.0% 66.6% 32.0% 85.5% 7.6% 4.0% 1.6% 0.3%
7 705256 66.0% 28.9% 65.5% 33.1% 83.6% 9.9% 3.5% 1.6% 0.3%
8 704861 66.0% 30.7% 65.7% 33.3% 75.8% 19.3% 2.3% 1.6% 0.3%
9 705289 20.8% 76.0% 22.1% 77.2% 31.5% 60.1% 5.6% 1.8% 0.2%

Texas

Texas has been the subject of a long-running Voting Rights Act lawsuit regarding its congressional districts since 2011. The legislature was ordered by a federal court to draw a minority-majority 33rd District in the Dallas area back in 2011. Further changes may be coming as a result of the suit.

The lines I have drawn below remove the gerrymandered elements of Texas’s districts. I have created a new, compact Hispanic-majority seat in the Dallas area; a new, compact Hispanic-majority seat in South San Antonio; and a new, compact district based in Austin. This required eliminating three Republican seats. I have rationalized the boundaries of the remaining Border districts, making them much more compact. I also redrew the lines where necessary to follow county lines and become more compact.

This map would have easily satisfied any Voting Rights Act concerns. It creates 8 Hispanic-majority districts (4 on the Border, 2 in San Antonio, and 1 each in Dallas and Houston), and 4 heavily African-American districts (2 in Houston, 2 in Dallas). Thus, a full one-third of the state’s delegation would come from black or Hispanic “opportunity to elect” districts. There also would be two white Democrats from Austin. The rest of the districts would be solidly Republican.

NET CHANGE: D +3

Houston map

Austin map

San Antonio map

El Paso map

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 698425 71.7% 25.0% 71.6% 27.5% 68.2% 17.2% 12.4% 0.9% 0.4%
2 698756 57.4% 37.8% 67.2% 31.3% 54.9% 10.8% 23.8% 8.9% 0.3%
3 698411 55.6% 38.1% 65.2% 33.3% 66.4% 7.7% 13.3% 10.6% 0.4%
4 698596 75.2% 21.4% 74.0% 24.8% 77.5% 10.3% 9.4% 0.9% 0.8%
5 698333 69.4% 27.2% 70.0% 28.9% 68.0% 11.7% 17.4% 1.5% 0.4%
6 698623 30.3% 65.4% 31.5% 67.6% 31.6% 25.6% 35.8% 5.4% 0.3%
7 698481 46.0% 48.6% 58.6% 39.9% 53.7% 7.5% 28.7% 8.6% 0.2%
8 698254 70.1% 25.2% 77.0% 21.7% 71.9% 7.4% 17.2% 2.2% 0.4%
9 698623 19.6% 77.6% 22.2% 76.9% 14.1% 37.1% 34.7% 12.7% 0.2%
10 698815 61.9% 33.2% 65.6% 32.3% 60.1% 12.3% 23.3% 3.0% 0.3%
11 698683 76.0% 20.4% 78.2% 20.6% 61.0% 3.9% 33.0% 0.8% 0.4%
12 698374 64.3% 30.8% 68.9% 29.6% 74.6% 7.0% 14.0% 2.6% 0.5%
13 698439 77.9% 18.4% 79.6% 19.1% 67.8% 5.4% 23.6% 1.6% 0.6%
14 698190 59.9% 35.7% 64.4% 34.4% 58.5% 9.4% 26.0% 4.7% 0.3%
15 698566 27.4% 68.9% 28.5% 70.4% 9.2% 0.4% 89.0% 1.1% 0.1%
16 698487 26.6% 67.6% 33.5% 65.2% 16.8% 3.0% 77.9% 1.3% 0.3%
17 698460 73.0% 23.3% 73.1% 25.6% 72.7% 8.7% 16.3% 1.0% 0.4%
18 698642 18.3% 77.5% 21.0% 77.9% 20.8% 40.1% 32.9% 4.9% 0.2%
19 698314 74.8% 20.6% 75.3% 23.3% 68.2% 5.2% 23.8% 1.4% 0.4%
20 698505 34.3% 59.5% 39.7% 58.9% 27.7% 5.5% 62.3% 3.0% 0.2%
21 698963 61.9% 32.5% 68.2% 29.5% 69.8% 2.6% 23.8% 2.3% 0.3%
22 698156 56.2% 39.6% 65.4% 33.9% 52.7% 11.1% 21.6% 13.0% 0.3%
23 698796 36.9% 58.4% 38.5% 60.1% 26.9% 10.0% 60.6% 1.4% 0.2%
24 698220 57.2% 37.4% 65.8% 32.6% 65.9% 6.1% 17.7% 8.5% 0.4%
25 698148 33.1% 60.6% 36.1% 61.5% 41.2% 9.9% 45.1% 2.2% 0.3%
26 698820 57.7% 36.6% 65.6% 32.7% 67.9% 8.0% 15.7% 6.5% 0.5%
27 698358 32.8% 63.8% 34.2% 64.9% 14.3% 0.6% 84.1% 0.7% 0.1%
28 698178 37.4% 58.6% 36.6% 62.4% 16.7% 1.0% 81.2% 0.5% 0.3%
29 698317 23.7% 72.8% 29.6% 69.3% 13.9% 12.2% 71.3% 1.9% 0.2%
30 698544 19.9% 77.7% 20.8% 78.4% 21.9% 45.7% 29.5% 1.7% 0.3%
31 698799 55.2% 37.9% 61.0% 36.9% 63.1% 12.6% 18.2% 3.8% 0.4%
32 698448 45.7% 49.1% 56.6% 41.9% 58.9% 11.6% 19.3% 8.4% 0.3%
33 698162 29.3% 66.4% 35.9% 63.2% 28.9% 13.1% 52.5% 4.2% 0.4%
34 698796 32.6% 60.0% 43.0% 55.6% 68.3% 5.1% 16.8% 7.9% 0.3%
35 698464 60.4% 35.9% 60.7% 38.0% 46.4% 5.4% 45.7% 1.4% 0.3%
36 698408 66.5% 31.0% 64.7% 34.2% 64.6% 18.9% 13.5% 1.7% 0.4%

Utah

Utah’s congressional districts were drawn in order to eliminate the state’s one Democratic representative, Jim Matheson. This required splitting central Salt Lake City among multiple districts.

My map creates a compact Salt Lake City-based district that would likely have elected a Democrat to Congress throughout this decade. The remaining three districts are solidly Republican.

NET CHANGE: D +1

Utah map

Salt Lake City map

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 690868 47.6% 21.2% 78.4% 19.4% 85.5% 1.0% 9.8% 2.0% 0.5%
2 691224 27.1% 50.3% 51.0% 46.2% 73.4% 1.6% 17.3% 5.4% 0.8%
3 690490 44.9% 22.6% 78.8% 18.2% 85.0% 0.5% 9.6% 3.1% 0.4%
4 691296 60.7% 17.9% 82.2% 15.2% 87.4% 0.3% 8.0% 1.1% 2.2%

Virginia

Virginia was another state that was required to redraw its districts mid-decade to produce another effective minority-majority district. My map includes two districts that would have elected African-American candidates of choice. It cleans up the lines considerably by creating a new district in the Shenandoah Valley, a region which is now split among several other districts (this practice goes back to 1992, when the then-Democratic legislature wanted to eliminate the seat of then-congressman George Allen, and has been continued since then in order to benefit incumbents).

I felt it was necessary to keep the 10th District entirely within the Northern Virginia suburbs. The 10th District I have drawn would have been too heavily Democratic for Republicans to hold.

NET CHANGE: D +1

Virginia map

Tidewater map

Richmond, VA map

Northern Virginia map

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 726870 52.9% 41.5% 56.8% 41.4% 76.2% 14.9% 3.5% 3.8% 0.3%
2 727734 51.0% 43.4% 52.9% 45.6% 69.1% 18.5% 5.0% 5.2% 0.3%
3 727567 29.6% 65.6% 29.3% 69.3% 46.8% 42.6% 5.3% 2.8% 0.4%
4 727427 31.9% 64.1% 33.5% 65.9% 46.5% 45.3% 4.6% 1.8% 0.4%
5 727086 53.6% 42.2% 53.6% 44.8% 73.0% 21.3% 2.7% 1.8% 0.2%
6 727395 59.3% 35.3% 58.6% 39.4% 83.4% 10.7% 3.2% 1.4% 0.2%
7 727261 57.7% 37.1% 57.3% 42.2% 80.7% 10.1% 5.8% 1.8% 0.3%
8 727129 20.7% 73.8% 31.5% 67.2% 55.4% 12.8% 18.0% 11.5% 0.2%
9 727793 69.2% 27.0% 63.9% 34.7% 90.7% 5.6% 1.7% 1.1% 0.2%
10 727192 32.1% 62.1% 41.7% 57.0% 60.8% 6.5% 11.4% 18.9% 0.1%
11 727570 35.2% 59.4% 41.9% 56.5% 56.0% 14.2% 16.0% 11.3% 0.2%

Washington

As bipartisan redistricting commissions are wont to do, Washington’s bipartisan redistricting commission strove for partisan balance in the state’s congressional lines. Thus, it made changes to the state’s district lines that were designed to make the 1st District more competitive politically. It thus messed with the lines in service of achieving partisan competitiveness. However, the 1st District has continued to elect a Democrat to Congress.

I cleaned up the politically-oriented changes the Commission made to the 1st and 2nd Districts. I also redrew the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Districts so they would have more regular lines and split fewer cities and towns.  These changes do not affect the state’s partisan congressional delegation.

NET CHANGE: NONE

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 672698 31.8% 60.4% 37.4% 60.0% 76.2% 2.1% 6.4% 12.1% 0.6%
2 672321 41.0% 50.7% 43.8% 53.4% 82.7% 1.4% 7.6% 4.2% 1.8%
3 672226 49.9% 42.6% 49.5% 48.0% 86.3% 1.3% 5.9% 3.4% 1.0%
4 672506 57.9% 35.1% 59.7% 37.9% 64.1% 0.9% 29.5% 1.6% 2.3%
5 672569 52.2% 39.1% 53.5% 43.7% 87.9% 1.4% 4.4% 2.5% 1.6%
6 672515 39.9% 51.4% 41.6% 55.7% 84.0% 1.9% 5.0% 4.3% 2.0%
7 672291 9.4% 85.2% 15.0% 82.3% 69.3% 6.7% 5.8% 14.2% 0.7%
8 672495 48.1% 44.0% 50.7% 47.1% 80.9% 2.2% 7.9% 5.4% 1.0%
9 672814 26.5% 67.0% 34.0% 63.9% 61.5% 6.4% 9.4% 19.3% 0.5%
10 672105 37.0% 54.7% 38.5% 58.9% 68.1% 8.0% 8.8% 9.9% 1.2%

West Virginia

I cleaned up West Virginia’s lines a bit, mostly so the Second District would be more compact and the panhandle would not be split. The partisan impact is nil– the Second District, which saw the only close West Virginia congressional race this decade (in 2014), becomes slightly more Republican.

NET CHANGE: NONE

West Virginia map

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 620082 66.0% 28.4% 60.2% 37.5% 93.1% 3.3% 1.5% 1.0% 0.2%
2 614690 67.8% 27.4% 62.0% 36.0% 94.6% 2.9% 0.8% 0.6% 0.2%
3 618222 72.5% 23.3% 65.0% 32.8% 94.1% 3.7% 0.7% 0.5% 0.2%

Wisconsin

Wisconsin’s congressional lines were drawn with the intent of shoring up the state’s 5 incumbent Republicans. However, the protection wasn’t really needed, given Wisconsin’s Republican trend through the decade. I have drawn a map that follows county lines and generally follows the boundaries of the pre-2012 districts. Each of the state’s 5 Republican incumbents would have a safe district that voted for Trump and Romney.

NET CHANGE: NONE

Wisconsin map

Milwaukee Map

Population Trump Clinton Romney Obama White VAP Black VAP Hisp VAP Asian VAP Nat Amer VAP
1 710949 52.9% 40.9% 51.9% 47.1% 86.7% 4.4% 6.7% 1.1% 0.3%
2 710186 28.9% 64.5% 31.1% 67.7% 86.8% 3.8% 4.6% 3.4% 0.3%
3 711534 49.2% 44.1% 43.6% 55.0% 94.7% 0.9% 1.8% 1.5% 0.6%
4 710923 21.5% 73.0% 23.8% 75.3% 51.5% 30.4% 12.9% 3.2% 0.6%
5 710598 55.3% 38.0% 61.8% 37.2% 90.9% 1.8% 3.7% 2.6% 0.3%
6 711231 56.3% 36.9% 52.5% 46.4% 93.0% 1.4% 3.1% 1.5% 0.4%
7 710631 55.6% 38.2% 50.2% 48.5% 94.6% 0.5% 1.2% 1.3% 1.6%
8 710934 55.8% 38.3% 51.3% 47.6% 91.2% 0.9% 3.2% 1.6% 2.3%
Previous Post Next Post

No Comments

Leave Comment