2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: California

[Oryxslayer]

Next district posting. So a few pages back I posted on how I was reinvigorated to fix what was once the worst part of my map, because I realized that there were other was of dealing with Corona. The resulting fix is now perhaps one of my favorite parts of the map, because of how clean everything is. Everything is compact. Everything can have both it's COI and be a HVAP seat. Such an alignment has positive cascading effect on the CA32 successor seat to west, enabling one to keep the seat fully inside LA and neatly inside the San Gabriel valley.Excluding the near unavoidable cut of Fontana, the only major municipality cut is Chino.



CA31 Successor: Identified COI - Communities along the I10. Secondary COI - Hispanics. This seat was once the worst on the map, now it is clean. 59% Hispanic, 48.5% by CVAP. Keeps Calimesa and Yucapia together which is a plus.

CA32 Successor: Identified COI - The San Gabriel Valley. Secondary COI - Hispanics. Keeps not just the Hispanics together, but also the whiter communities to the northof the main Covina-Pomona axis. 60% Hispanic, 53%by CVAP.

CA35 Successor: Identified COI - Gateway to the Inland Empire. Secondary COI - Hispanics on the West side of the Santa Ana river. This district loved to squiggle out, dropping Rancho or Taking in Loma Linda depending on how the VAP worked out. This version is compact and just works. 59% Hispanic, 51.5% by CVAP.

CA41 Successor: Identified COI - Riverside Hispanics, both in the great cities and the Hispanic towns in central Riverside. Yes, this seat needs to go into San Bernadino, two of the three communities grabbed are less Hispanic than the surrounding regions. They are also still connected by commuter links to Riverside, so the pairing is not just based on race. I didn't like putting Norco in this seat, but it ended up forced by the surrounding seat's pop demands. 57.5% Hispanic, 48% by CVAP.

All seats are obviously Safe Dem.

[Greedo punched first]

I redrew NorCal. I added Napa to the Santa Rosa-centered district to stabilize population. I also made the Sacramento districts more compact.

[Oryxslayer]

Okay, so here's my version of the valley seats, otherwise known as 'we're gonna keep cutting cities for the Hispanics.' The central Valley is where the commissions living standards/income provisions come into full force. Depending on the area in questions, Hispanics can be among the most impoverished demographics in the nation, whereas their neighbors are doping fine. Coupled with the VRA, things start to slide into place.



CA09 Successor: Identified COI - San Joaquin county. Secondary COI - Minority coalition seat.  San Joaquin's demographics are well interspersed so unless one pursues a massive carve-up, it's hard to get a seat over 50% for any demographic. It also is not a pure White/Hispanic duopoly like those areas to the south. Therefore, the county, which is near perfectly one 52-district CD, is the primary COI. 33.5% White, 40.5% Hispanic, 18% Asian, 9% AA. By CVAP it is 43.5% White, 30.5% Hispanic, 15% Asian, 8.5% AA. Clinton+13.6, D+5.3.



CA10 Successor: Identified COI - Hispanics. Secondary COI - Merced. I'm fairly confident this seat wouldn't be considered performing, but it still increases Hispanic opportunity and can be considered a Hispanic access seat. Modesto is cut in a way that satisfies neither party, since white areas favoring both parties are carved away in the split. Such a seat is possible because Fresno and the south valley will have enough Hispanics, if the projections are correct, to not need Merced or Madera city. 57.7% Hispanic, 31% White, 4% AA, 6.7% Asian. By CVAP it is 44% Hispanic, 43.5% White, 4.5% AA, 6% Asian. Clinton+9.7, D+3.15.



CA16 Successor: Identified COI - Hispanics. Secondary COI - Fresno County. Fresno city remains cut because there are some white areas that do not belong in a VRA seat, and some communities to the east of the City that do. Other than that, there isn't much to say besides the expected successor to Costa will be Hispanic. 61% Hispanic, 21.5% White, 6.7% AA, 11.3% Asian. By CVAP it is 49.3% Hispanic, 31.5% White, 7% AA, 10.3% Asian. Clinton+22.1, D+9.1.



CA21 Successor: Identified COI - Hispanics. I have spoken at length about how the south valley, despite having tons of Hispanics even by VAP, still needs this effective racial pack to get Hispanics to be a majority of the electorate. 72% of this districts 752K resents are Hispanic, or 541K. Of those, only 219K fall into the CVAP catergory, which shrinks to 379K. Then there are only 140K 2016 voters in the seat, 40K less than neighboring CA16 and 71K less than a seat with comparable Hispanic numbers in LA county. Such a seat is more or less needed to get Hispanic voters over 50%, since turnout rates are abysmal. However, changes in Bakersfield's demo's mean that there is no need for the Fresno cut anymore, only Bakersfield, Kings, and other farming towns. 72% Hispanic, 18% White, 5.5% AA, 5% Asian. BY CVAP it's 57.8% Hispanic, 29% White, 7% AA, 4.7% Asian. Clinton+15.2, D+5.05.

CA22 Successor: Identified COI - Valley Whites. Secondary COI - West side of Sierra Nevadas, including national/state parks, ski resorts, and their associating service towns. Carving out the whites all across the valley means that there is somewhere they need to go, and Nunes's seat ends up the beneficiary. Best part of this arrangement is that one can avoid the CA22/23 cut in Tulare. 53% White, 35% Hispanic, 3% AA, 7.7% Asian. By CVAP it's 62.7% White, 26.5% Hispanic, 2.5% AA, 6% Asian. Trump+19.1, R+12.

[SevenEleven]

You should try keeping CA-22 east of the 99.

[Oryxslayer]

You should try keeping CA-22 east of the 99.

I'm gonna make sure I got this right before changes: you want the 4K east of the 99 in Tulare (majority white) to be traded for probably Farmersville (overwhelming HVAP) into 21? because the rest of CA22 is east of the 99. The only other pop west of the 99 is Tulare city, and that has to remain with CA22 from it's present iteration. It's a a heavy city by population, but it's 40% white by VAP, meaning it has no place in a VRA seat.

[Greedo punched first]

Although I didn't do it, why shouldn't Inyo or Mono be paired with the Central Valley?

[Oryxslayer]

Although I didn't do it, why shouldn't Inyo or Mono be paired with the Central Valley?

I actually really like how grouping the Apple Valley and white parts of Bakersfield let the rest of the Inland Empire and San Joaquin Valley districts fall into place.

This is nice, but grouping Inyo and Mono with the Central Valley is NOT AN OPTION.

Only Inyo is.

What I mean to say is that the only reasonable pairing is connecting Inyo and Mono in to eastern Kern or San Bernardino county.

What's wrong with something like this?

I don't think there are year round road connections from Northern California to the Eastern Sierra without going through Nevada. The ties and road connections to Southern California are much stronger and with the tiny population, it shouldn't take much to move things around and attach it to your Victor Valley district.

This. The main connection for the region is the north/south 395, the deserts of Bernadino and Death valley belong together, there are mountains separating these guys from the west, and the pop is tiny so there shouldn't be any hassle with sticking them anywhere. There is a reason why the 2000 incumbent-mander had the desert paired first with Bernadino then with the Antelope Valley, even when the two counties could have been put in Nunes's seat without much hassle.

[SevenEleven]

You should try keeping CA-22 east of the 99.

I'm gonna make sure I got this right before changes: you want the 4K east of the 99 in Tulare (majority white) to be traded for probably Farmersville (overwhelming HVAP) into 21? because the rest of CA22 is east of the 99. The only other pop east of the 99 is Tulare city, and that has to remain with CA22 from it's present iteration. It's a a heavy city by population, but it's 40% white by VAP, meaning it has no place in a VRA seat.

It's 44k people and 69% Hispanic. See if you can move it to district 21.

[Greedo punched first]

At least my OC-Riverside district connects counties by two state highways. Is it fine that I put all the Channel Islands in the same district? I just decided to that for consistency of the islands.

[Oryxslayer]

You should try keeping CA-22 east of the 99.

I'm gonna make sure I got this right before changes: you want the 4K east of the 99 in Tulare (majority white) to be traded for probably Farmersville (overwhelming HVAP) into 21? because the rest of CA22 is east of the 99. The only other pop east of the 99 is Tulare city, and that has to remain with CA22 from it's present iteration. It's a a heavy city by population, but it's 40% white by VAP, meaning it has no place in a VRA seat.

It's 44k people and 69% Hispanic. See if you can move it to district 21.

Did you ignore everything I said about how turnout rates are abysmal in the south valley and how the current district (and this successor) is drawn to be uber-Hispanic since that is that only way to get it to 50% Hispanic by voters? Adding Tulare, a city 40% white by CVAP and majority white by Voters, in exchange for areas that are majority Hispanic by Voters is going to negatively effect the districts potential to select the Hispanic communities candidate of choice.

[Greedo punched first]

On my map, both CA-19 and CA-20 are majority-HCVAP.

[SevenEleven]

You should try keeping CA-22 east of the 99.

I'm gonna make sure I got this right before changes: you want the 4K east of the 99 in Tulare (majority white) to be traded for probably Farmersville (overwhelming HVAP) into 21? because the rest of CA22 is east of the 99. The only other pop east of the 99 is Tulare city, and that has to remain with CA22 from it's present iteration. It's a a heavy city by population, but it's 40% white by VAP, meaning it has no place in a VRA seat.

It's 44k people and 69% Hispanic. See if you can move it to district 21.

Did you ignore everything I said about how turnout rates are abysmal in the south valley and how the current district (and this successor) is drawn to be uber-Hispanic since that is that only way to get it to 50% Hispanic by voters? Adding Tulare, a city 40% white by CVAP and majority white by Voters, in exchange for areas that are majority Hispanic by Voters is going to negatively effect the districts potential to select the Hispanic communities candidate of choice.

Lol, I really don't think you want to be lecturing me about this part of the state. If you want to boost the Hispanic% you shouldn't be going through Kings County in the first place. You can get above 70% and up to 60% CVAP going through Visalia County instead.

[Greedo punched first]

You should try keeping CA-22 east of the 99.

I'm gonna make sure I got this right before changes: you want the 4K east of the 99 in Tulare (majority white) to be traded for probably Farmersville (overwhelming HVAP) into 21? because the rest of CA22 is east of the 99. The only other pop east of the 99 is Tulare city, and that has to remain with CA22 from it's present iteration. It's a a heavy city by population, but it's 40% white by VAP, meaning it has no place in a VRA seat.

It's 44k people and 69% Hispanic. See if you can move it to district 21.

Did you ignore everything I said about how turnout rates are abysmal in the south valley and how the current district (and this successor) is drawn to be uber-Hispanic since that is that only way to get it to 50% Hispanic by voters? Adding Tulare, a city 40% white by CVAP and majority white by Voters, in exchange for areas that are majority Hispanic by Voters is going to negatively effect the districts potential to select the Hispanic communities candidate of choice.

Lol, I really don't think you want to be lecturing me about this part of the state. If you want to boost the Hispanic% you shouldn't be going through Kings County in the first place. You can get above 70% and up to 60% CVAP going through Visalia County instead.

You mean Tulare County?

[SevenEleven]

You should try keeping CA-22 east of the 99.

I'm gonna make sure I got this right before changes: you want the 4K east of the 99 in Tulare (majority white) to be traded for probably Farmersville (overwhelming HVAP) into 21? because the rest of CA22 is east of the 99. The only other pop east of the 99 is Tulare city, and that has to remain with CA22 from it's present iteration. It's a a heavy city by population, but it's 40% white by VAP, meaning it has no place in a VRA seat.

It's 44k people and 69% Hispanic. See if you can move it to district 21.

Did you ignore everything I said about how turnout rates are abysmal in the south valley and how the current district (and this successor) is drawn to be uber-Hispanic since that is that only way to get it to 50% Hispanic by voters? Adding Tulare, a city 40% white by CVAP and majority white by Voters, in exchange for areas that are majority Hispanic by Voters is going to negatively effect the districts potential to select the Hispanic communities candidate of choice.

Lol, I really don't think you want to be lecturing me about this part of the state. If you want to boost the Hispanic% you shouldn't be going through Kings County in the first place. You can get above 70% and up to 60% CVAP going through Visalia County instead.

You mean Tulare County?

Yes, doh. I meant Tulare County outside of Visalia, which would get paired with Clovis and the mountain communities. You could then go north from there or South to the whites in Kern County. Kings County belongs more with Fresno farming communities as it is. The only reason that wasn't done before was due to Kings County being subject to pre-clearance.

The main question is about what to do with the Kern whites and whether to split Fresno County into two districts or three districts.

[Oryxslayer]

You should try keeping CA-22 east of the 99.

I'm gonna make sure I got this right before changes: you want the 4K east of the 99 in Tulare (majority white) to be traded for probably Farmersville (overwhelming HVAP) into 21? because the rest of CA22 is east of the 99. The only other pop east of the 99 is Tulare city, and that has to remain with CA22 from it's present iteration. It's a a heavy city by population, but it's 40% white by VAP, meaning it has no place in a VRA seat.

It's 44k people and 69% Hispanic. See if you can move it to district 21.

Did you ignore everything I said about how turnout rates are abysmal in the south valley and how the current district (and this successor) is drawn to be uber-Hispanic since that is that only way to get it to 50% Hispanic by voters? Adding Tulare, a city 40% white by CVAP and majority white by Voters, in exchange for areas that are majority Hispanic by Voters is going to negatively effect the districts potential to select the Hispanic communities candidate of choice.

Lol, I really don't think you want to be lecturing me about this part of the state. If you want to boost the Hispanic% you shouldn't be going through Kings County in the first place. You can get above 70% and up to 60% CVAP going through Visalia County instead.

You mean Tulare County?

Yes, doh. I meant Tulare County outside of Visalia, which would get paired with Clovis and the mountain communities. You could then go north from there or South to the whites in Kern County. Kings County belongs more with Fresno farming communities as it is. The only reason that wasn't done before was due to Kings County being subject to pre-clearance.

The main question is about what to do with the Kern whites and whether to split Fresno County into two districts or three districts.

I'm sorry, maybe you arn't clear enough but I am struggling to follow this post. From my perspective, Tulare outside of Visalia means the white parts of Tulare...but Visalia is majority white by CVAP? Kings is presently paired with the Fresno farmers to the west of the city...but this post implies they arn't linked? I treid to go back and look at the map you drew of the south valley for guidance, but that didn't help.

[SevenEleven]

You should try keeping CA-22 east of the 99.

I'm gonna make sure I got this right before changes: you want the 4K east of the 99 in Tulare (majority white) to be traded for probably Farmersville (overwhelming HVAP) into 21? because the rest of CA22 is east of the 99. The only other pop east of the 99 is Tulare city, and that has to remain with CA22 from it's present iteration. It's a a heavy city by population, but it's 40% white by VAP, meaning it has no place in a VRA seat.

It's 44k people and 69% Hispanic. See if you can move it to district 21.

Did you ignore everything I said about how turnout rates are abysmal in the south valley and how the current district (and this successor) is drawn to be uber-Hispanic since that is that only way to get it to 50% Hispanic by voters? Adding Tulare, a city 40% white by CVAP and majority white by Voters, in exchange for areas that are majority Hispanic by Voters is going to negatively effect the districts potential to select the Hispanic communities candidate of choice.

Lol, I really don't think you want to be lecturing me about this part of the state. If you want to boost the Hispanic% you shouldn't be going through Kings County in the first place. You can get above 70% and up to 60% CVAP going through Visalia County instead.

You mean Tulare County?

Yes, doh. I meant Tulare County outside of Visalia, which would get paired with Clovis and the mountain communities. You could then go north from there or South to the whites in Kern County. Kings County belongs more with Fresno farming communities as it is. The only reason that wasn't done before was due to Kings County being subject to pre-clearance.

The main question is about what to do with the Kern whites and whether to split Fresno County into two districts or three districts.

I'm sorry, maybe you arn't clear enough but I am struggling to follow this post. From my perspective, Tulare outside of Visalia means the white parts of Tulare...but Visalia is majority white by CVAP? Kings is presently paired with the Fresno farmers to the west of the city...but this post implies they arn't linked? I treid to go back and look at the map you drew of the south valley for guidance, but that didn't help.

I was talking about on your map. If your goal is to boost the Hispanic% of the South valley district you should pair Kings County with Fresno and pair the farming communities in Kern and Tulare counties with Bakersfield.

Visalia would be the surplus population, which you would pair with Clovis.

What my main dislike on your map was the cut in, cut out of Tulare County. The current map does this in districts 3 and 24 and I don't like it there either. I don't think voter turnout matters for these purposes, as CVAP is basically your eligible voters and it's not anyone else's fault that these people don't bother to show up to the polls.

[SevenEleven]

Basically I am saying that I disagree with your goal of trying to boost Hispanics to over 50% turnout instead of 50% CVAP, but if that is your goal then you should be going through Tulare and Kern, and kicking Kings over to Fresno. You can get up to 60% CVAP and no double-cutting.

Pairing Kings with Fresno then allows a more Latino district on the I-5 corridor, getting you to about 52% CVAP there.

[Oryxslayer]

SNIP

I don't think voter turnout matters for these purposes, as CVAP is basically your eligible voters and it's not anyone else's fault that these people don't bother to show up to the polls.

Neither do I, but the commission last time ordered CA21 explicitly to be 50% Hispanic by voters, recognizing that turnout and registration rates are abysmal. One should remember that the seat they produced in 2010 was a legitimate tossup based on the data they had available. Things have slightly shifted as more Hispanics have become voters through various routes, but the fundamentals remain unchanged. Therefore it's unlikely they change the specific order to the mappers, even if they change the districts shape. Similar to the dual AA seats in LA, the commission will have Latino members who will balk at lowing Hispanic opportunity, which is what such a move in the valley would entail.

Now, changing the dual-cut nature of CA21 into Tulare is easy, and that will be changed on the next map. I'll come up with something later for your main suggestion, doing a CA21 -> CA22 + CA23 -> CA16 -> Kings rotation of Kings 150K pop later and see what happens. 

[SevenEleven]

SNIP

I don't think voter turnout matters for these purposes, as CVAP is basically your eligible voters and it's not anyone else's fault that these people don't bother to show up to the polls.

Neither do I, but the commission last time ordered CA21 explicitly to be 50% Hispanic by voters, recognizing that turnout and registration rates are abysmal. One should remember that the seat they produced in 2010 was a legitimate tossup based on the data they had available. Things have slightly shifted as more Hispanics have become voters through various routes, but the fundamentals remain unchanged. Therefore it's unlikely they change the specific order to the mappers, even if they change the districts shape. Similar to the dual AA seats in LA, the commission will have Latino members who will balk at lowing Hispanic opportunity, which is what such a move in the valley would entail.

Now, changing the dual-cut nature of CA21 into Tulare is easy, and that will be changed on the next map. I'll come up with something later for your main suggestion, doing a CA21 -> CA22 + CA23 -> CA16 -> Kings rotation of Kings 150K pop later and see what happens. 

Where were you planning on putting the rest of Kern County? Antelope Valley or Victor Valley?

[Oryxslayer]

SNIP

I don't think voter turnout matters for these purposes, as CVAP is basically your eligible voters and it's not anyone else's fault that these people don't bother to show up to the polls.

Neither do I, but the commission last time ordered CA21 explicitly to be 50% Hispanic by voters, recognizing that turnout and registration rates are abysmal. One should remember that the seat they produced in 2010 was a legitimate tossup based on the data they had available. Things have slightly shifted as more Hispanics have become voters through various routes, but the fundamentals remain unchanged. Therefore it's unlikely they change the specific order to the mappers, even if they change the districts shape. Similar to the dual AA seats in LA, the commission will have Latino members who will balk at lowing Hispanic opportunity, which is what such a move in the valley would entail.

Now, changing the dual-cut nature of CA21 into Tulare is easy, and that will be changed on the next map. I'll come up with something later for your main suggestion, doing a CA21 -> CA22 + CA23 -> CA16 -> Kings rotation of Kings 150K pop later and see what happens. 

Where were you planning on putting the rest of Kern County? Antelope Valley or Victor Valley?

I you have been following my GIS posts, it should be obvious the rest of Kern goes with Bernadino.

[Oryxslayer]

Okay, so I tried you suggestion, and if it is to work, things might need to get messy. The Valley is more or less a closed box with an allotted seat percentage, starting in Stanislaus and ending in Kern. So, following your suggestions, we rotate Kern into CA16 and drop less Hispanic turf in east Fresno to CA22.  CA21 is reoriented to a Tulare+Kern seat. However the problem is that CA22 has now 63K extraneous pop, more if we put in the full Tulare county. This means one of the following needs to happen: Kings is cut and then CA16 takes back some precincts from CA22, CA22 drops the Tulare part, eats 120K from other valley seats, and then pushes those valley seats to take in whiter turf in the south, or do a great rotation of 60k through the Bay Area and LA which would lead to more COI mess ups that originally.



And of course, there is always this weird map: All fields with Bakersfield, all Ag towns with the Whites, all of Fresno along the 99.

[SevenEleven]

This is the sort of configuration I've been playing with. Morgan Hill and Gilroy fit a lot better with San Benito, so you might instead cut up into San Joaquin or further into the mountains for district 10



I'm not wedded to the Monterey-San Benito pairing, so this diverse ag district appeals to me just fine.



If not, you could always do this and decide whether to cut toward Sacramento or grab those neighboring Contra Costa towns (probably the better option as these areas are increasingly intertwined).

This way you have no double cuts or unnecessary three-way small county splits.

I actually really like your bottom map. It's not pretty but it gets the job done.

[Oryxslayer]

My personal issue with your 10 is that you are destroying a potential Hispanic opportunity seat, and like has been explained earlier, the commission has a hard on for minority access seats thanks to their overlapping criteria. Similarly, your 20 is probably not performing. Taking in San Benito ends the opportunity for a 'Strawberry Fields' Hispanic seat along the coast, unless one is ready to traumatize San Jose - and that's before we start talking about crossing the Coast Range. I'll play around with it and see what is possible, but I get the feeling one is going to need to trade my 10 for your south valley, and the commission prefers minority access over more natural COIs as seen in CA53, CA27, SD12....

[SevenEleven]

My personal issue with your 10 is that you are destroying a potential Hispanic opportunity seat, and like has been explained earlier, the commission has a hard on for minority access seats thanks to their overlapping criteria. Similarly, your 20 is probably not performing. Taking in San Benito ends the opportunity for a 'Strawberry Fields' Hispanic seat along the coast, unless one is ready to traumatize San Jose - and that's before we start talking about crossing the Coast Range. I'll play around with it and see what is possible, but I get the feeling one is going to need to trade my 10 for your south valley, and the commission prefers minority access over more natural COIs as seen in CA53, CA27, SD12....

The current CA 53 is a product of Imperial County being covered under Section 5 of the VRA, which was struck down in Shelby v. Holder. This is also why Kings County can now be maneuvered with.

SD 12 is kind of just a "leftovers" district that they were able to make Hispanic majority.

Obviously, there is room to trade some Hispanic voters into district 10, but it will lower CVAP, which is probably fine. I'll mess around a little bit with it.

Current CA-21 is 71% and CA-16 is 58%, so those would be good baselines.

[Greedo punched first]

Can Kings County be maneuvered with? Does that comply with the CVRA?