Balancing Population on the LRC Senate Draft
View Map on Dave's Redistricting (https://davesredistricting.org/join/6d79dbdf-7da6-4b3e-b97d-c56fe2151541)
Summary This proposed revision to the LRC Senate Preliminary Plan pursues improvement across a wide range of assessment criteria, partly through a reduced emphasis on protection of incumbent senators. In exchange for increasing the risk to a few incumbents, this proposal offers potential benefits in all of the following areas: Population equivalence Minority representation Compactness Jurisdictional splits Competitiveness Partisan bias and proportionality. Each of these topics is addressed in turn below. Lastly, because the impact on incumbents is clearly a concern for caucus leaders, I have included a detailed analysis of this topic. Population Equivalence A key objective in amending the LRC Draft was to narrow variations in population among districts and regions. Districts in the LRC plan vary nearly 5% in either direction from the target population, close to the maximum suggested by case law. Further, southwestern districts are collectively underpopulated relative to those in the southeast - a potential legal vulnerability in view of the concentration of minority voters in the region disadvantaged by this imbalance. The proposed changes reduce the overall deviation from 9.59% to 3.99%. The regional difference between southwest and southeast is reduced from 4% to 1%, and reversed. (The exact figures depend on which districts are counted in each region.) Notably, these reductions were accomplished in tandem with improvements in compactness, minority representation, and splits of jurisdictions (see below). As the Commission is aware, a gain in one of these areas typically involves sacrifices elsewhere. Minority Representation The DRA Minority Representation score improves from 51 to 60, reflecting modest enhancement in each component of this metric. Of particular importance, Hispanic voting age population in SD2 is optimized at 45.21%, compared to 34.05% in the LRC Draft. Although the district includes Sen.Tartaglione’s residence, the boundaries can easily be shifted to vacate the seat. Doing so could further augment the prospects for electing Pennsylvania’s first Hispanic senator, although Hispanic VAP would drop slightly. Compactness The DRA compactness score improves markedly, from 53 to 65. The “Know it When You See It” rating rises from 54 to 63. Reock and Polsby-Popper scores rise from .3669 and .3312 to .4027 and .3717 respectively. Most of the improvement stems from de-emphasizing protection of incumbents. This topic is addressed at length below. Jurisdictional Splits 20 counties are split a total of 40 times, reduced from 22 and 42 on the LRC Plan. These reductions raise the DRA splitting score by three points, from 63 to 66. The ten precinct splits on the LRC Draft are eliminated. Municipal splits were likely reduced as well, but these were not counted separately. Competitiveness Creating competitive districts was not a point of emphasis. Nonetheless, DRA’s competitiveness score rises from 22 to 28, based on the 2016-2020 Election Composite dataset. The reliability of this metric is controversial. I have included it for completeness, not as evidence of improvement. Partisan Bias and Proportionality Chair Nordenberg has shared his view of SCOPA’s 2018 League of Women Voters decision, suggesting that the Free and Equal Elections Clause requires some degree of proportionality. The changes proposed here do not pursue proportional representation as a priority. (For example, SD37 - a key inflection point for control of the chamber - remains a safe Republican seat.) Nonetheless, some reduction of bias is evident in the relevant metrics. Votes bias drops from 2.13% to 1.43%, and seats bias from 4.57% to 4.06%. Accordingly, DRA’s Partisan Bias score rises from 54 to 62, based largely on opportunities for Democratic gains in Dauphin, Lancaster and Erie. Impact on Incumbents This topic appears to be of keen interest to several Commissioners, and has profoundly shaped the Preliminary Plan, so I have chosen to address it in detail. I hope this information will support a candid public debate. Potential Primaries Between Incumbents The proposed changes would create three more clashes between Republican incumbents than the LRC Draft. Note, however, that two of the three have no partisan impact, as the vacated districts would retain heavy Republican majorities. SD50: Michele Brooks vs. Scott Hutchinson. Senators Brooks and Hutchinson reside in adjacent counties, Mercer and Venango. These counties have experienced population declines of approximately 8% and 10% respectively since the 2010 census, in a region that has lost population and appears further depleted by prisoner reallocation. The LRC Draft keeps these incumbents separate by extending SD50 and SD21 to the south. In this way, the Draft pushes the main effects of population trends into Allegheny County, where all five districts are underpopulated, and into the middle of the state, toward the vacated SD34. The simpler solution is to shift Venango into SD50. There is no partisan impact, as SD21 moves south and remains a solidly red district comprising Butler and Armstrong Counties. As SD21 is odd-numbered, the LRC may wish to reverse these district assignments. SD30: Wayne Langerholc vs. Judy Ward. Senators Langerholc and Ward reside in adjacent counties, Cambria and Blair. These counties have experienced population declines of approximately 11% and 5% respectively since the 2010 census, in a region that has lost population and is further depleted by prisoner reallocation. The LRC Draft keeps these incumbents separate by extending SD30 and SD35 east, into territory of the vacated SD34. A far more elegant solution is to simply combine Cambria and Blair into a single district. The partisan impact of this change depends on where and how the other district is drawn. In this version, the consolidated district is SD30, with the two incumbents in line for a primary in 2022; SD35 moves to Lancaster County. Alternatively, SD30 could move, in which case Sen. Langerholc could serve out his term in SD35. Either way, a special election might be needed in the relocated district. SD32: Joe Pittman vs. Pat Stefano Of the three envisioned primary clashes, this one is easiest to obviate. The overlap of SD32 and SD41 results from a combination of population trends in the southwest and the ripple effect from the five Allegheny County districts drawing needed population from Washington County. The proposed solution, extending SD32 north into Indiana county, offers population balance, reasonable compactness, and respect for school districts as communities of interest. It is possible, although awkward, to shift Senator Pittman to territory vacated by SD34. In either case, there is no direct partisan impact, as SD32, SD34, and SD41 remain solidly Republican, with either SD34 or SD41 moving into deep red territory farther east. SD20: Lisa Baker vs. John Yudichak This conflict is included for completeness. Sen. Yudichak became an independent in 2019 and joined the Republican caucus. The LRC Draft has already moved his district, SD14, to the Lehigh Valley, and he appears unlikely to oppose Sen. Baker in a primary. Potential General Elections Between Incumbents No such clashes are envisioned on the proposed map. Contested General Elections Involving Incumbents SD10: Steve Santarsiero Resectioning Bucks County into Lower, Central and Upper districts substantially narrows Sen. Santarsiero’s margin. SD11: Judy Schwank Replacing Kutztown and Spring with redder sections of Berks County puts Sen. Schwank at risk. This change could be reversed, with adverse impact on compactness of adjacent districts. SD14: Pat Browne The LRC Draft protects Sen. Browne by dividing Allentown to keep him in SD16. Consolidating Allentown in SD14 puts him severely at risk. SD15: John DiSanto The current SD15 is heavily gerrymandered. Redrawing it to comprise only southern Dauphin County puts Sen. DiSanto in distinct jeopardy. SD18: Lisa Boscola Sen. Boscola benefits from the reunification of Bethlehem in SD18. She might still face a challenge, but this change expands her comfort margin. SD20: Lisa Baker Removing the “collar” portion of SD20 and adding Wilkes-Barre makes the district less favorable for Senator Baker, but she still appears safe. Overall, the changes in NEPA are more likely to help Republicans, as Sen. Flynn would face greater difficulties than Sen. Baker. SD22: Marty Flynn On the LRC Draft, SD22 intrudes into Luzerne County to secure Sen. Flynn’s seat with blue-leaning areas of the Wyoming Valley. Replacing the Wilkes-Barre area with most of Wayne County could put SD22 within reach for a Republican challenger. SD35/36: Ryan Aument [As described above, SD30 could replace SD35 here.] These districts were drawn to optimize county splits and population variance, and to avoid a primary clash between Sen. Aument and Sen. Regan. The result, however, is a very difficult general election for Sen. Aument, as well as an awkward river crossing in SD36 that does not include the Columbia Bridge. Note that Sen. Regan can be returned to SD31 by extending that district across the border from Cumberland County. Sen. Aument would then shift back into a safe SD36 - which would cross the river at Columbia ... [Out of space on form. See full document at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CG9DuMGXuOc4aGCalYx-k83lR7Dj9g9kY0wAzxNyEyE/edit?usp=sharing]