US House Redistricting: California

[Sbane]

I highly doubt you need to make Riverside so damn ugly just to eek out an Asian district in LA. Put the eastern appendage of CA-44 into CA-41. It is basically the same sort of area as CA-41, is adjacent to the bulk of it's population, and just down the road on I-10. Then add the eastern appendage of CA-42 which is in Riverside, to CA-44 as required to get enough population. Or you can't because you think CA-44 will be mandated to be a Hispanic district? I would wait on doing this till the official data is put up. Hopefully it's soon.

An Asian influence district is enough in LA I would think. You don't need that extention into Hacienda Heights through to Diamond Bar. Just the Rosemead to Arcadia area is enough.

[Sbane]

Why are you so sure they will draw that appendage though? Why not just add Pasadena and other areas closer by instead? And why are you so sure they won't do that? That they won't just be satisfied with a 30% Asian district. And it's not even as if Asians are a monolithic group, so I really wouldn't be so sure it will happen. Don't the Chinese near Monterey Park and surroundings tend to be from the mainland while I know for a fact that Rowland Heights and Hacienda Heights is a heavily Taiwanese community.

[Sbane]

Why are you so sure they will draw that appendage though? Why not just add Pasadena and other areas closer by instead? And why are you so sure they won't do that? That they won't just be satisfied with a 30% Asian district. And it's not even as if Asians are a monolithic group, so I really wouldn't be so sure it will happen. Don't the Chinese near Monterey Park and surroundings tend to be from the mainland while I know for a fact that Rowland Heights and Hacienda Heights is a heavily Taiwanese community.

They get along fine, and all speak Mandarin. Pasadena is Asian light for some reason. Anglos really like to live in Pasadena now. We shall see how it plays out, when the final population numbers come out. I am not going to do anymore CA drawing, until the final numbers are imputed into Bradlee's software. The issue is always whether or not doing one thing, causes a problem elsewhere or not, which can be due to a variety of factors.  And where should Diamond Bar and Hacienda Heights go anyway? One possibility is a grab bag CD running along the Orange County line perhaps, right up from Belmont Heights in Long Beach to Diamond Bar. But somehow I doubt that will happen. Another is adding it to Drier's CD, but we shall see whether he "needs it" or not.

Are you concerned that my little extension might make the Asian CD too GOP?  The Commission is not supposed to worry about such mundane matters.

Instead of CD 42 twisting around Riverside county, it could take in Diamond Bar, Rowland Heights and Hacienda Heights. That would of course depend on how much territory CD 44 needs in Riverside Co. after you take out it's eastern extention, so a bit of CD 42 might still be in Riverside. It's quite possible those precincts of Corona will be needed in CD 42 after the final numbers are put in. In any case if the numbers allow for a Riverside city based Hispanic district as well as a San Bernardino based Hispanic district, it will be drawn, and that will affect the shape of CD 42 as well. I just don't know if they will be so meticulous to draw ugly district just to bump up the VAP numbers from 50 to 52%.

As for the Asian district, adding that extention in will actually make it an "optimal" Democratic district, voting about 61-63% for Obama, so it's beneficial not to add it in from a GOP perspective.

[Sbane]

I think the problem is with it snaking around to those precincts south of Riverside. Corona and Norco, or at least parts of it, being in the 42nd do make sense.

[Sbane]

Looking at the San Diego part of your map, I have no idea why you seem to think you have eliminated a Dem CD there, Torie. Explain?

The Anglo city of San Diego CD looks marginal to me, that's why. So the Dems lose half a point. We shall see what the PVI is, when the partisan numbers become available, but that is my guess. Yes, it could also be a weak Dem CD, with maybe a Dem PVI of 2 or 3. We shall see.

I don't see why. You barely changed the current CA-53, just dropped Lemon Grove and added some marginal areas to the north. True, that will drop the PVI slightly, but I would be somewhat surprised if your CA-53 were under D+10. (The current one is D+14.)

There are a lot of liberal Anglos in the city of San Diego. After all, the current CA-53 is 51% non-Hispanic white and 68% Obama.

I tried to draw it approximately how Torie drew it, and it came out to be about 63% Obama.

[Sbane]

OK sbane and verily, my CA-53 is 61.1% Obama, with a Dem PVI of 8.53% (because it is 62.2% Obama of the two party vote, which is the way I calculate the baselines, just using the two party splits and ignoring 3rd party votes). So the Dems don't lose any partial points for this CD. Isn't it fun to show up the old man?

And not only is it 61% Obama, that area didn't experience the extreme swing your neighborhood did. It was greater than the national swing, but about the same as the California swing, so about 14 points. And this is for both the old 53rd as well as the 50th, portions of which are in the new 53rd as you have drawn it.

[Sbane]

Daves redistricting is now working for California, however, some of the districts contain over 50,000 people so the data is impossible to work with. Hopefully some block group figures will be released?

It's actually not that bad since they all follow municipality lines and redistricting in California requires it. It might be a bit harder to draw Hispanic districts, but I had no problems drawing one in SD, the Imperial valley/Palm Springs as well as the Riverside/Moreno Valley districts. I imagine the rest won't be too bad either. Central Valley could be a mess though. We shall see.

[Sbane]

Has anybody drawn the Central Valley using the final numbers? I think there can be 3 Hispanic districts drawn without having to dip into the Salinas area. And another one can be drawn from Salinas to San Jose? Is that what is likely to happen, 4 norcal Hispanic districts?

[Sbane]

CA-18 and 20 are both majority-Hispanic, according to the new Census figures, so they should be protected by the VRA.

The 20th has been; it was 63.1% Hispanic according to 2000 numbers. The 18th is majority-Hispanic now, barely, but almost certainly not majority-Hispanic by VAP so it wouldn't be protected.

It will if it can be adjusted up to 50% Hispanic VAP within a community of interest zone.

It's easy to create 3 Hispanic districts just in the central valley. One district has that hook echo in Kern County which also takes in most of Kings and Tulare Counties. There is a main Fresno based districts which also takes in the rural Hispanic areas to the south of the city. The western areas of Fresno County get put into the 3rd Hispanic district which then proceeds to take in the Hispanic parts of Madera, Merced and Stanislaus County. No need to jump over to Hollister/Salinas or to go up to Stockton, which means the 11th gets moved entirely into San Joaquin County.

[Sbane]

Definitely an illegal dilution of the Hispanic vote on that Orange County map. Remember Sanchez's district was 65% Hispanic in 2000 and quite marginal. That map is a recipe for four Republicans and no Hispanic Rep.

It seems like he is putting all of Garden Grove in that district. That needs to be avoided.

[Sbane]

I think most of Garden Grove is in the 46th district in that map although I'm not sure. I don't think the map would elect five republicans though. This map was meant to penalize Ed Royce and Gary Miller for speaking at that blatantly xenophobic anti-muslim rally by putting them in the same district. There would probably be an expensive primary and would deplete most of their resources leading to the winner of the primary losing re-election in the general.

I didn't notice you put Pomona in that district. Tricky. And while that district could elect a Republican, it certainly won't elect a xenophobe.

You could still give Sanchez a 65-70% Hispanic district and keep the Royce/miller district as you have drawn it. I think....

[Sbane]

Do Hispanic districts also need to be drawn for state maps? I wonder whether the congressional map will be racially gerrymandered but the state maps won't.

[Sbane]

This comes to mind.


the supreme court should invent a term. A VRA district has to be one where hispanics make up a majority of REGISTERED VOTERS. In case a hack like freepcrusher starts drawing the maps, it can stop them from enacting them.

Is he even using the VRA to justify his districts? Just because a district is 52% Hispanic doesn't necessarily mean it is a VRA district, or that it has to be one.

 Really trying to understand what your problem is here. Someone can't draw a 40% Black or 50% Hispanic district because it hurts your party? You're such a little whiner.

[Sbane]

DISTRICT 40 Joe Baca (D-Rialto)
69.3% Hispanic
I’m surprised one could make a suburban district this Hispanic. Safe Democrat

Haven't been to San Bernardino, eh?

[Sbane]

DISTRICT 26 Open
52.3% Hispanic
Obviously a safe dem. Does anyone know of any good democrats in the Legislature that could run here?

DISTRICT 25 Howard McKeon (R-Santa Clarita)
45.5% White
34.9% Hispanic
9.4% Black
6.9% Asian
2.9% Other
.3% Native
This district is probably an R+3 or something like that. He should be alright for now, but he may retire soon. This district could conceivably go dem when he does.

How much of Santa Clarita is in the 26th?

Also places like Palmdale and Lancaster might have a lot of Hispanics and Blacks, but the area overall votes quite similarly to the Inland Empire. Whites are strongly Republican there. I doubt the 25th as you have drawn it will go Democrat, barring a weak Republican candidate. And even then it would probably swing back in a midterm election.

[Sbane]

This comes to mind.


the supreme court should invent a term. A VRA district has to be one where hispanics make up a majority of REGISTERED VOTERS. In case a hack like freepcrusher starts drawing the maps, it can stop them from enacting them.

Is he even using the VRA to justify his districts? Just because a district is 52% Hispanic doesn't necessarily mean it is a VRA district, or that it has to be one.

 Really trying to understand what your problem is here. Someone can't draw a 40% Black or 50% Hispanic district because it hurts your party? You're such a little whiner.

Actually, I just cut and pasted one of his posts.

I just marvel at the sheer inconsistency. It's really funny to see California liberal whites cry about the lack of Texas Hispanic districts when California has many more seats, and less actual Hispanic representation in Congress.

That's how one can identify partisan hack Latino organizations that are really just fronts for the Democratic Party.

The VRA has to do with who the voters want, not the race of the candidate.

I of course would like a redistricting commission to draw the map in Texas (and Illinois). I am guessing you don't agree with that?

[Sbane]

krazen didn't specifically say whether he liked the districts or not. I don't see why he would dislike it. I think this map could possibly be a 31 Democrat 22 Republican map.

Yeah, your map definitely doesn't tend to favor any party. It makes more swing districts actually, which is what the result of the redistricting commission will be as well, imo. Not saying they will draw the map exactly as you have drawn it, plus they will have to pay more attention to the VRA and all that, but count on more competitive elections in California in the future.

[Sbane]

The VRA has to do with who the voters want, not the race of the candidate.

I of course would like a redistricting commission to draw the map in Texas (and Illinois). I am guessing you don't agree with that?

I was referring to exactly that. White liberals in California made sure that Hispanic voters have less opportunities to elect a candidate of their choice and that's why they have so few of 53 districts.

I only believe in consistency. Nothing more or less.

Alright, you have done it now. Give me concrete examples.

For example, an Asian as well as a Hispanic district could be drawn in the San Jose area. That doesn't mean it will be drawn or it should be drawn. All 3 of those district would vote about the same and would elect the same damn candidates. Racial gerrymandering would be pointless there. As opposed to the central valley where Whites vote about 70% Republican and Hispanics vote about 65% Democrat. It's these sorts of areas the VRA was intended for. 

[Sbane]

The VRA has to do with who the voters want, not the race of the candidate.

I of course would like a redistricting commission to draw the map in Texas (and Illinois). I am guessing you don't agree with that?

I was referring to exactly that. White liberals in California made sure that Hispanic voters have less opportunities to elect a candidate of their choice and that's why they have so few of 53 districts.

I only believe in consistency. Nothing more or less.

Alright, you have done it now. Give me concrete examples.

The Hispanic majority in the San Fernando Valley was cracked in 2002 order to keep two Anglo Dems in power. One of the rep had a brother in the legislature who made it happen.

None of this justifies the leap from "one legislative insider" to "white liberals," most of whom know nothing about this kind of thing and don't support it, but whatever.

 Either ways those districts were going to be Democratic since the white areas one of the districts was joined with is the hollywood hills. So like you said, your generic "white liberal" wouldn't have cared at all if a Hispanic district was formed there. Insiders keeping insiders in power. I am shocked.

[Sbane]

That OC map looks a little ridiculous... Are any of them VAP majority Hispanic?

[Sbane]

Yeah, drier has a pretty ridiculous district as well. I mean Burbank to Upland? Santa Ana with Newport Beach?

[Sbane]

Gary Miller will be in that Asian district, no? It will be hard for him to hold on to that one. I am guessing Judy Chu also runs here?

As for Loretta, she will probably lose in all of those OC districts. Those districts cut the Hispanic population in half while taking care to leave the Vietnamese areas whole.

[Sbane]

Gary Miller will be in that Asian district, no? It will be hard for him to hold on to that one. I am guessing Judy Chu also runs here?

As for Loretta, she will probably lose in all of those OC districts. Those districts cut the Hispanic population in half while taking care to leave the Vietnamese areas whole.

Well, she probably shouldn't have based the Vietnamese for trying to take her seat. They just went ahead and did it.

Probably a VRA violation though.

Even if this wasn't a VRA protected district, joining Santa Ana to the coast district would be ridiculous. Rather I would have have put Santa Ana in with Tustin, Costa Mesa and the Vietnamese cities like Garden Grove and Westminster. That might actually be Hispanic majority and would set up for interesting Hispanic Democrat vs Vietnamese Republican matchups. Much preferable to putting in working class cities with the coast.

Of course Anaheim will most probably be split and the heavily Hispanic parts get put in the Santa Ana district.

[Sbane]

Calvert won't win in that Riverside district, I don't think. Both Costa and Cardoza might be in trouble.

[Sbane]

I don't like what they did with Chu, Sanchez and Drier's districts, but I am a big fan of their linkage of Stockton with the Brentwood/Oakley area. Makes a lot of sense. Don't know whether Mcnerney moves here or just runs in the district which contains his hometown of Pleasanton. It's Stark's district as well though.

I will have to take a better look at the map when I get a chance.

The main thing they really need to do is get rid of Fountain Valley from Sanchez's district. That's a no brainer.