Note that our grading system penalizes a map that gets an F in Competitiveness by lowering the Partisan Fairness score by 1 letter. So this map has a B in Partisan Fairness, but deflated by low competition. It has 17 competitive seats and it would take 25 to get a C.
A number of seats are just outside of the competitive range, so depending on turnout and candidates, control of the chamber could shift quite easily.
Also important to note is that we are using an election average, so each election could swing the makeup of the body quite a bit.
The map does a really good job preserving whole counties and respecting municipal boundaries.
It also has 8 districts with a BVAP over 50%, 4 with an HVAP over 50%, and 25 with an MVAP over 50%
Turning to the State Senate, we give the map an A, with an A in Partisan Fairness, a C in Competitiveness, and a C in Geography.
We'd expect an almost evenly split Senate, with around 25 D seats and 25 R seats, and 6 competitive districts.
The map gets a C in Geography for a weird reason - it gets an A for respecting county boundaries, but an F on Compactness. Part of this is because the metrics we use for Compactness struggle to handle some of the odder shaped county boundaries in Pennsylvania.
It has 4 districts with a BVAP over 50% and 5 districts with an MVAP over 50%.
Pennsylvania residents will have an opportunity to speak about these maps at public hearings in January.
We are aware that some of the district numbers don't line up with prior maps. Please use the ability to Zoom in on the map on our site to look at individual districts, rather than assuming that the number in the charts pairs with the number of a current district.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Note that the use of the ensemble to evaluate maps with four or fewer districts risks obscuring the influence that a single district change in either Partisan Fairness or Competitiveness can make to overall letter grades. (1/5)
And, more importantly, this matters to how residents who live in these states will experience these maps. Letter grades, in the cases of extremely low-district states, should be considered secondarily to other metrics provided. (2/5)
It is important, in these instances, for mapmakers to consider other criteria, such as Communities of Interest, Minority Composition, and state-specific criteria, in both line drawing and evaluation. (3/5)
It has three competitive seats that all lean R (OH-7 (Medina and Ashland), 10 (Dayton) and 14 (Youngstown)), but in certain years, could elect a Democrat.
It has one district with a BVAP over 40% (OH-11, Cleveland). OH-3 (Columbus) has an MVAP over 40%.
We have grades out for the Utah legislature's proposed maps. These maps are going to a public hearing on Monday, so folks in Utah should speak up about what they like and don't like in these maps.
It's important to emphasize that our ensemble is less useful in states with four or fewer districts - it's really important that folks look at other factors, including Communities of Interest, like those gathered by @Representable_ here: representable.org/map/ut/
We'd expect it to elect 33 R and 23 D, with the current Senate split 34R-22D. It would have only 1 competitive seat.
It has 16 districts with a BVAP over 40% and 1 with an HVAP over 40.
This map gets the same grades as the prior map draft, would elect the same number of Senators from each party, has the same number of competitive seats, and has roughly similar minority composition numbers.
The Michigan Independent Redistricting Commission continues its work, having released several new draft maps for public comment. They will be voting on these maps on December 30, so we encourage Michiganders to speak up about what they like and don't like in these drafts.
North Carolina's special session on redistricting continues and we've got report cards out for the latest iterations of the state house and state senate maps, as well as a reminder of our report cards for the Congressional map.