Dave's Redistricting App

[muon2]

Unfortunately I'm not savvy enough to figure out how to post the map I just made (the map2jpeg program provided is distorting my maps beyond repair).  So I guess I'll just describe it as best I can.  Using 26 districts and the 2008 data I was able to create the following:

A fairly close copy of the current CD-3 with some parts of Orlando dropped and a new stretch over to the black parts of Daytona Beach to create a 49% black district.

CD-11 remains compact in the Tampa area with a plurality of whites at 43% and an additional 24% Hispanics, 28% blacks, and 3% Asians.

I formed a second plurality white district in the Orlando area and made it the new CD-15.  The stats are 46% white, 14% black, 5% Asian, and 33% Hispanic.  The district takes up the southwest corner of Orange Co and the city of Kissimmee and is mostly territory from the current CD-8.  I remade CD-8 to be nearly all of Seminole Co and parts of northern Orange Co.  CD-24 is now all of Brevard and Indian River Cos. with some small segments of Orange and Volusia.  CD-12 is now Osceola Co minus Kissimmee and nearly all of Polk Co.

CD-26, the new district, is essentially all non-Tampa parts of Hillborough Co, plus all of Hardee and Desoto Cos, and parts of Manatee Co north and west of Bradenton.

I was able to mostly preserve CD-17 and CD-23 and they came out as 53% and 52% black respectively.  I removed the finger of CD-23 reaching up to Fort Pearce though.

I did some rearranging around CD-17 to create 4 Hispanic districts.  I added the northwestern corner of the current CD-20 to CD-21.  I then took the remainder of Miami and added it to CD-20 making it 59% Hispanic.  CD-21 drops everything south of Hialeah and is 62% Hispanic.  CD-18 picks up a large chunk of CD-25 in and around Homestead as well as most of the old CD-21's southern tail.  CD-18 ends up being 54% Hispanic.  CD-25 picks up all of Henry Co and almost all of Collier Co and winds up being 60% Hispanic.

So in short I came up with 4 Hispanic districts, 2 black districts + 1 plurality black district, and 2 plurality white districts.  With the exception of CD-3 and the surrounding mess associated with creating CD-23, the map looks fairly compact.  

The map generator in the app has been broken since the start of the year. A change in the district boundaries seems be be the cause. I made my map by taking two separate screen shots and putting them together in Paint.

[muon2]

I've been trying to gerrymander Louisiana with three majority black districts, but I figured out that it isn't quite possible with six districts without making the map completely ridiculous. However, it can be done with the current seven districts.



All less than 500 from ideal:

Blue: 85% White, 10% Black
Green: 54% Black, 43% White
Purple: 77% White, 13% Black, 5% Hispanic
Red: 74% White, 22% Black
Yellow: 50.3% Black, 46.5% White
Teal: 80% White, 15% Black
Gray: 61% Black, 31% White

Lousiana has actually had far more atrocious gerrymanders than this in the past.

I decided to see how ridiculous a 3 black of 6 CD gerrymander would be. The 2008 data was used and the maximum deviation is 7 persons from the ideal. CD's 2, 4, and 6 range from 52.0% to 53.1% black. The other three districts are all over 80% white. CD 3 connects across various bays, sounds, and lakes along the coast to remain contiguous.

[muon2]

Here's my try at NC:

Since NC will almost certainly be a Dem gerrymander I made all the marginal Dem seats stronger for Obama. I wasn't able to get NC-07 to be an Obama seat, very close now and I'm sure it can be done if I had more time, so that seat likely ends up an Obama one.

NC will be redrawn by the legislature, and that is looking up in the air at the moment. A new PPP poll puts the two parties at a virtual tie in the Nov elections with D over R by 43 to 42%. Republican are more energized, but the moderates look less favorably on the state GOP.

The underlying difficulty for the Dems is that once CD 1 and 13 are drawn as majority (or near majority) black seats, the remaining map is tilted to the GOP about 53% to 47%. Creating a third coalition seat tilts the remaining map even more.

[muon2]

Here's my try at NC:

Since NC will almost certainly be a Dem gerrymander I made all the marginal Dem seats stronger for Obama. I wasn't able to get NC-07 to be an Obama seat, very close now and I'm sure it can be done if I had more time, so that seat likely ends up an Obama one.

NC will be redrawn by the legislature, and that is looking up in the air at the moment. A new PPP poll puts the two parties at a virtual tie in the Nov elections with D over R by 43 to 42%. Republican are more energized, but the moderates look less favorably on the state GOP.

The underlying difficulty for the Dems is that once CD 1 and 13 are drawn as majority (or near majority) black seats, the remaining map is tilted to the GOP about 53% to 47%. Creating a third coalition seat tilts the remaining map even more.

Following up on this comment, I've put together a GOP-oriented map. All districts are within 100 of the ideal. There are two majority and one plurality black districts.



CD 1: 52% Black, 67% Obama
CD 2: 60% McCain
CD 3: 59% McCain
CD 4: 63% Obama
CD 5: 59% McCain
CD 6: 56% McCain
CD 7: 40% Black, 65% Obama
CD 8: 57% McCain
CD 9: 56% McCain
CD 10: 59% McCain
CD 11: 55% McCain
CD 12: 52% Black, 67% Obama
CD 13: 49.8% Obama - 49.2% McCain (probably could be flipped if drawn at the block level)

[muon2]

The erose lines of CD 3 look a bit embarrassing, Muon2. Are you embarrassed? 

Not at all. Since NC has section 5 counties, I took the existing CD 1 as a way to meet DOJ review. All I did was extend the same pattern down the coast as I created a crossover/coalition district in CD 7. CD 3 is simply what is left from the created minority districts.

[muon2]

I posted this one earlier this year with the 2008 data. It has a more compact Hispanic-majority district, CD 1, at 50.3%.

[muon2]

Muon2, what are the pvi's of your Colorado CD 3 and CD 4?  The rest of the districts look pretty lopsided from a partisan standpoint. Well maybe CD 7 is close. What is the pvi of that one?  Thanks.

Other than look at the Hispanic population I drew the map for compactness and county integrity, so I hadn't looked at the partisanship. I don't know the exact PVI's, but I can estimate the two party split using an average of '04 and '08 presidential vote. CD 3 is 23% Hispanic and would be about 53-47 in favor of R. CD 4 and 6 would be about 55-45 R. CD 7 is about 57-43 D. The other districts are all over 60% to one party. That makes a 4-3 split for the GOP the most likely result.

[muon2]

Colorado isn't a VRA state, so there is no requirement. And even if it was the VRA doesn't require that majority minority districts be specifically drawn, just that heavily minority areas can't be diluted preventing them and that existing ones can't be removed if the population can still support one.

Section 2 of the VRA does apply to CO as it does to every state. The application is generally governed by the Gingles conditions: a minority group
1) is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district,
2) is politically cohesive, and
3) in the absence of special circumstances, bloc voting by the White majority usually defeats the minority’s preferred candidate.

It is likely that the existing Hispanic representative would be used to show the inapplicability of the 3rd condition. That would prevent CO from having to create a Hispanic-majority seat.  However, CO could still choose to create one, to reduce any potential challenge.

[muon2]

Since we are talking about MD, I thought I would add my version from last year.

I had put together a map of MD a couple of years ago based on 2010 projections. I adapted it to the 2008 data on the App to get the following map.



The districts are all within 100 persons of the ideal number, and were designed to minimize the number of split counties. There are Two majority Black districts. Using the voting data on the App, here's how they come out with the percentage of the two-party 2008 presidential vote:

CD-1 (blue) R+16
CD-2 (green) R+9
CD-3 (purple) R+3
CD-4 (red) D+41
CD-5 (yellow, 67% Black) D+73
CD-6 (teal) D+2
CD-7 (gray, 63% Black) D+76
CD-8 (lavender) D+48

[muon2]

Just so you know, the D+XX and R +XX numbers refer to how much above the national average Presidential candidates got in that district.  So in a district that went 63% for Obama, the rating would be D + 10.

a D + 76 District would mean Obama got roughly 129% there, which sounds about right for a North Korean election, but not an American one.

Your definition is specifically for the Cook PVI. That measure requires a comparison to the nation as a whole. Many districts do not swing as much, or swing more, than the nation as a whole. I like to see how a district would perform in the specific election (or composite of elections) independent of the national average.

The definition I've used is a straight competitiveness measure. My definition refers to the difference between the two party vote expressed as a percentage of the two party vote. This measure does show up in some application. For instance, last year's Ohio Redistricting Competition used the d-r% definition to measure the competitiveness of a district in their contest.

In any case one can convert between the two by shifting my numbers by the 2008 presidential winning margin of 7% then dividing by two.

[muon2]

Here's a Republican map of Pennsylvania, losing a district from the current map. Tried not to overreach too much; concentrated on protecting incumbents and watering down a couple of districts, rather than trying to maximize Republican seats.



Click for bigger.

PA-01 (blue Philly district, Bob Brady - D) - Expands to take in more of Delaware County, uber-safe for the Dems.
PA-02 (green Philly district, Chaka Fattah - D) - Mostly unchanged; still majority-black. Obviously uber-safe.
PA-03 (purple NW corner district, Kathy Dahlkemper - D) - Pushes east instead of south, taking in some heavily-Republican counties. Should make the district more Republican.
PA-04 (red SW district, Jason Altmire - D) - Takes in all of the Dem-leaning areas outside of Pittsburgh. Should be safe for Altmire.
PA-05 (orange central district, Glenn Thompson - R) - Takes in a bunch of the Philly suburbs in Westmoreland County instead of the NW counties, which shouldn't change the partisan balance much.
PA-06 (teal SE PA district, Jim Gerlach - R) - Tried to make this district as safe as possible, so it takes in all the Republican parts of Montgomery and Bucks now. Should be a Republican-leaning district now.
PA-07 (grey SE PA district, open) - Pushed west in order to make it less Democratic. Still a swing district, but should be more favorable to the Republicans.
PA-08 (purple SE PA district, Patrick Murphy - D) - Takes in all the Dem parts of Bucks, and parts of Montgomery and Philadelphia. Safe Dem seat.
PA-09 (light blue SW PA district, Bud Shuster - R and Mark Critz - D) - Swallows parts of Critz's district, which tilts the district from "overwhelmingly Republican" to just "very Republican". Shuster would prevail in a matchup with Critz.
PA-10 (magenta NE PA district, Chris Carney - D) - Carney's district is completely reconfigured as a safe Dem district, taking in all of Lackawanna along with Bethlehem, Scranton, and part of Allentown.
PA-11 (green NE PA district, Paul Kanjorski - D) - Turns Kanjo's district (since he's probably going to lose to Barletta) into a pretty Republican one. Shouldn't be hard for Barletta to hold in 2012.
PA-12 (light purple SE PA district, Todd Platts - R) - Takes in Harrisburg, which makes the district a little less Republican, but it shouldn't be hard for Republicans to hold.
PA-13 (pink SE PA district, Alyson Schwartz - D) - Heavily-Democratic MontCo-based district.
PA-14 (brown SW PA district, Mike Doyle - D) - Heavily-Democratic Pittsburgh district.
PA-15 (orange NE PA district, Charlie Dent - R) - With Bethlehem and most of Allentown gone, the district picks up some Republican-leaning counties that should make it easier for Dent to hold.
PA-16 (green SE PA district, Joe Pitts - R) - Mostly Lancaster County, takes in some Dem parts of Berks and Chester, but should remain Republican-leaning.
PA-17 (dark purple SE PA district, Tim Holden - D) - Getting rid of Tim Holden requires chopping up Schuylkill County, and also removes Harrisburg. Should be even more Republican now.
PA-18 (yellow SW PA district, Tim Murphy - R) - Takes in a bunch of Republican-leaning parts of SW PA. Maybe a little less Republican, but still Republican. Republican!

This reminds me a lot of what IL did in 2001 when the districts were designed for incumbent protection with one seat lost. If that's the case, I would expect that the loser is the one who lacks political support, happened to Phelps in IL. Is Critz the most likely loser? How much will it depend on the Gov next year?

[muon2]

I've also played around with Illinois to see who the loser will be. I think Schock and Shimkus end up in the same seat. Also shoring up Halvorson and Foster isn't too hard (especially Foster, just swap that swath of rural counties on the western tail of his district for Rockford.)

CD's 11 and 14 have excess population and will have to shed counties. CD 11 also gets pressed by the need for both Black CDs 1 and 2 to expand south to add the needed population and remain majority Black. CD 14 would be quite strange to link Kane and Winnebago counties, so I'm curious to see how you do it.

Don't forget to consider a second Hispanic seat for IL. Most projections show that it will be required to satisfy the VRA. If so, that splits the current CD 4 into natural north and south parts, and cuts big pieces out of CDs 3 and 5 to complete those Hispanic districts.

[muon2]

Here's a zoom-in of Chicago on the Illinois gerrymander I did a while ago. 1, 4, and 5 are majority black (with plenty to spare; 1 is only 50% black, but 4 is 60% and 5 is 54%), and 2 and 3 are majority Hispanic (heavily so, 64% and 57%). Lipinski is the one who gets screwed, and surely the Illinois Democrats would rather he be screwed than any other Democrat in the delegation.

(Overall, this is huge Democratic gerrymander likely to have 14-16 Democrats and 3-5 Republicans, which is something along the lines of what I would expect the IL Democrats to draw.)

The minority districts may not be as strong as you think. The courts will use voting age population instead of total population to determine the 50% threshold. To get to 50% VAP for a Hispanic population may require a total population of at least 58 tom 60%. Black districts also need a couple of percent margin in the total population to clear 50% VAP.

[muon2]

For a rep NC, try swinging the 4th all the way West to Forysth County and Winston-Salem, giving the Black part of Raleigh to the 1st, Drawing the rest of the Democratic part of Raliegh into the 2nd, and swinging that one down to take the Democratic parts of the 7th and 8th.  Then swing the 12th west to take the Democratic parts of Asheboro.  I think you can get a pretty solid 9-4 Gerrymander that way

Here's my 9-4 GOP version. CDs 1 and 12 are majority Black with 54% and 52%. CD 7 is plurality (41%) Black and CD 4 is the other D district. All other districts would have voted at least 56% for McCain.

[muon2]

For a rep NC, try swinging the 4th all the way West to Forysth County and Winston-Salem, giving the Black part of Raleigh to the 1st, Drawing the rest of the Democratic part of Raliegh into the 2nd, and swinging that one down to take the Democratic parts of the 7th and 8th.  Then swing the 12th west to take the Democratic parts of Asheboro.  I think you can get a pretty solid 9-4 Gerrymander that way

Here's my 9-4 GOP version. CDs 1 and 12 are majority Black with 54% and 52%. CD 7 is plurality (41%) Black and CD 4 is the other D district. All other districts would have voted at least 56% for McCain.

You put Coble in NC-5 with Foxx, I believe.

I didn't consider the residences of the incumbents, only the partisan leaning of the districts. It wouldn't be hard to move, and technically most experts don't think district residency can be used as a requirement anyway.

[muon2]

Just to be even-handed, here's my version of NC for the Dems. All districts are within 100 of the ideal population and CDs 1 and 12 are just over 50% Black. Only CDs 3, 5, 8 and 10 voted for McCain, so based on the 2008 vote it's a 9-4 Dem map. I would note that CD 11 is only a 49% plurality for Obama, and CD's 7 and 9 are a competitive 51% for Obama. The concentration in the VRA districts makes larger D percentages difficult - especially at the coarse precinct level.

[muon2]

Some of these maps are awful! (gerrymandered)

I think that's the point. In most states, gerrymandering is legal to achieve political ends. Many of the maps posted explore the extremes that might be taken within some constraints. My two NC maps above are examples of the extremes each party could take the process to maximize their seats.

If it makes you feel better, here's a version of NC I did last year that used redistricting principles of compactness and county integrity with the constraint of two black-majority districts. It's much prettier, but it's unlikely given the political process for drawing districts in NC.

[muon2]

From what I've heard on SSP, they're waiting for the release of official 2010 census figures to start rolling out more states with partisan data.

I assume they will replace the shapefiles with 2010 boundaries and precincts. In IL it's hard to match political data with precincts that were changed after 2000. The demographic data will have to be resummed for the precincts, instead of using the official block group data.

[muon2]

I know you made some changes to the Socal map, but did you make any changes to the Norcal map? My biggest concern here is that both Mcnerney and his challenger David Harmer don't live in CD-11 as drawn above. Any CD-11 that is drawn will have to include east bay suburbs. Either it's going to be Pleasanton (Mcnerney) or San Ramon (Harmer) depending on who wins in the fall.

This version of CA was designed first to create appropriate minority districts then to minimize county fragments with equal population (within 100), then follow with compactness. No Cal doesn't have much in the way of required minority districts, so county integrity was the primary consideration there.

[muon2]

This is a democratic gerrymander of what could happen if California loses a seat (I know it's unlikely this time around). I was afraid I wouldn't be able to get rid of a Republican seat without endangering a few Democrats. To my surprise not only did I get rid of a Republican district (Buck Mckeon's), I also put a few other pubbie incumbents in tough seats. I also put Jane Harman in a tougher district, but any uncorrupt Democrat should be able to carry it.

How many Hispanic-majority districts does this create?

[muon2]

CA 33: Wh: 24%, Bl: 20%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 14%, Hisp: 21%, Other: 2%
West LA district. Safe D.
CA 34: Wh: 3%, Bl: 32%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 5%, Hisp: 59%, Other: 1%
This district has the greatest black population of the LA districts. It used to be a Hispanic heavy district in east LA. Now it’s primarily a south LA district. I put a lot of Blacks into this district so I could put Waters into a less primary friendly district. This is quite a safe D district.
CA 35: Wh: 25%, Bl: 15%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 15%, Hisp: 43%, Other: 2%
A radically different district from the old one. I created it so that Waters could be primaried. This district takes in most of the northern parts of Long Beach, Lakewood, Los Alamitos and stretches north to Paramount. It’s still a pretty safe D district but nothing close to the D+31 district that it is currently.

Even if the Dems could draw the map to suit themselves, I don't think that they would want to invite a suit from the NAACP with this map. It dilutes Black votes too much, and since a majority-Black district is possible, the only way I would expect concurrence would be if there were two districts with strong enough Black populations to lock up up primary wins. Even then there could be VRA concerns.

[muon2]

Nice maps sbane. Too bad if the redistricting initiative passes (I can't imagine that it will not), it all will be totally illegal.   Plus, even if it does not pass, Governor Whitman would veto it.

Hmm, I don't see what's so wrong with my gerrymandering at all, besides not being visually pleasing enough for Xahar. I mean a district that includes both Long Beach and Compton makes a lot of sense doesn't it? Of course it also contains Seal Beach and Cypress. Or the district that joins Sunny hills in Fullerton to Huntington park. There's a lot of epic gerrymandering in there. I'm particularly fond of the central valley districts. I didn't know 3 Hispanic districts could be created there.

3 Hispanics won't be elected though in the central valley. The most Hispanic county in California, Tulare, votes GOP like clockwork.

I find it interesting that the three most Hispanic districts in the Central Valley are represented by members of Portuguese descent - Cardoza, Costa, and Nunes. Do their names help them? What percentage would it take to elect an Hispanic in that region?

[muon2]

Nice maps sbane. Too bad if the redistricting initiative passes (I can't imagine that it will not), it all will be totally illegal.   Plus, even if it does not pass, Governor Whitman would veto it.

Hmm, I don't see what's so wrong with my gerrymandering at all, besides not being visually pleasing enough for Xahar. I mean a district that includes both Long Beach and Compton makes a lot of sense doesn't it? Of course it also contains Seal Beach and Cypress. Or the district that joins Sunny hills in Fullerton to Huntington park. There's a lot of epic gerrymandering in there. I'm particularly fond of the central valley districts. I didn't know 3 Hispanic districts could be created there.

3 Hispanics won't be elected though in the central valley. The most Hispanic county in California, Tulare, votes GOP like clockwork.

Here's my version to maximize the Hispanic population for the three Central Valley districts. CDs 18 and 20 are 62% Hispanic and CD 21 is 64% Hispanic (as is CD 17 from Salinas to San Jose). I've tried to preserve county lines and keep municipalities intact where possible, but the minority districts were given priority. This would be consistent with the proposed Prop 20 for CA redistricting.

[muon2]

To follow up and extend from my LA and Central Valley maps, here's my redo of CA. I used the proposed Prop 20 as a guideline, though it's incomplete since I don't have community of interest data. If it passes here is the list of priorities for a map: 1) population equality; 2) VRA; 3) contiguous districts; 4) respect county and municipal boundaries (and communities of interest); 5) compact districts. Numbering generally reflects the core of the old district without regard to incumbent residence.



Here's the demographic details, with populations over 20% noted. There are 24 with a white majority, 8 with white plurality, 18 hispanic majority, 2 asian majority, and 1 black majority.

CD01 (royal blue, Redding): 76% white
CD02 (forest green, Chico): 62% white, 23% hispanic
CD03 (purple, Citrus Heights): 65% white
CD04 (red, Roseville) : 80% white
CD05 (yellow, Sacramento) : 39% white, 25% hispanic
CD06 (teal, Santa Rosa) : 71% white
CD07 (grey, Vallejo) : 38% white, 27% hispanic
CD08 (lavender, San Francisco) : 46% white, 29% asian
CD09 (baby blue, Oakland) : 34% white, 21% black, 21% asian, 20% hispanic
CD10 (magenta, Concord) : 58% white, 21% hispanic
CD11 (lime, Stockton) : 51% white, 29% hispanic
CD12 (periwinkle, San Mateo) : 45% white, 32% asian
CD13 (flesh, Hayward) : 43% white, 25% asian, 23% hispanic
CD14 (olive, Santa Cruz) : 57% white, 23% hispanic
CD15 (orange, Milpitas) : 52% asian, 26% white
CD16 (kelly green, San Jose) : 55% white, 20% hispanic
CD17 (midnight blue, Salinas) : 64% hispanic, 22% white
CD18 (lemon, Merced) : 62% hispanic, 25% white
CD19 (moss green, Modesto-Fresno) : 60% white, 25% hispanic
CD20 (pink, Fresno) : 62% hispanic, 23% white
CD21 (brick red, Visalia-Bakersfield) : 64% hispanic, 27% white
CD22 (brown, Lancaster-Victorville) : 59% white, 27% hispanic
CD23 (pale blue, Oxnard) : 53% hispanic, 37% white
CD24 (deep purple, Bakersfield) : 67% white, 23% hispanic
CD25 (mauve, Santa Clarita) : 57% white, 25% hispanic
CD26 (charcoal, Hesperia) : 58% white, 26% hispanic
CD27 (sea green, LA Northridge) : 53% white, 29% hispanic
CD28 (lilac, LA Van Nuys) : 65% hispanic, 22% white
CD29 (pale olive, LA Hollywood) 60% white
CD30 (peach, Thousand Oaks) : 70% white
CD31 (pale yellow, LA El Sereno) : 64% hispanic
CD32 (tangerine, El Monte) 66% hispanic
CD33 (blue, LA Central) 72% hispanic
CD34 (green, Downey) 71% hispanic
CD35 (violet, LA South LA) 52% black, 41% hispanic
CD36 (orange, Torrance) 42% white, 31% hispanic
CD37 (cornflower, Long Beach) 65% hispanic
CD38 (slate green, Alhambra) : 50% Asian, 28% hispanic
CD39 (beige, Norwalk) 72% hispanic, 20% white
CD40 (rust, Fullerton) 48% white, 21% asian, 27% hispanic
CD41 (light grey, Escondido) 59% white, 30% hispanic
CD42 (bright green, Ontario) 61% hispanic, 23% white
CD43 (hot pink, San Berardino) 60% hispanic, 21% white
CD44 (maroon, Riverside) 56% hispanic, 29% white
CD45 (cyan, Indio) 60% hispanic, 32% white
CD46 (orange, Huntington Beach) 55% white, 21% asian
CD47 (pale lilac, Santa Ana) 71% hispanic
CD48 (light orange, Irvine) 58% white, 22% hispanic
CD49 (dusty rose, San Clemente) 63% white, 23% hispanic
CD50 (sky blue, Oceanside) 57% white, 26% hispanic
CD51 (brown, Chula Vista) 58% hispanic
CD52 (army green, El Cajon) 66% white
CD53 (pale grey, San Diego) 63% white

[muon2]

How many hispanic districts does the VRA require in California?

We only have about 10 I think.  Though from pure percentages we should have around 15-18, mostly because they're either highly concentrated in Los Angeles County (were we have a couple that are over 70% Hispanic), or scattered across the rest of the state in too small of a concentration to actually form a Hispanic-majority district.

The answer is based in a number of SCOTUS cases. In Gingles a three part test was established: 1) it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district, 2) it is politically cohesive, and 3) in the absence of special circumstances, bloc voting usually defeats the minority’s preferred candidate. In Johnson v. DeGrandy the Court rejected a bright line standard of proportionality for majority-minority districts compared to the population, but instead sought to look at the totality of circumstances, specifically whether individual minority groups could elect candidates of their choice. In Bartlett last year a bright line of 50% of the voting age population was set to meet standard 1) of the Gingles test, but states are not barred from creating influence districts if they so choose.

Applying this to CA, I suspect that the Gingles test can be shown for the Hispanic population, and at least 17 districts can be drawn with sufficient VAP (My CD 23 at 53% might be too low for VAP). A lower number of districts might be permitted, but might be successfully challenged given the relatively few Hispanics in the CA delegation compared to the overall population. The Asian districts would not be required, since there are sufficient members in the delegation to show that they can elect candidates of choice, but creating them meets a community of interest standard, and protects the group from dispersal into other districts. No more than one Black district would be required under Bartlett, and I chose not to reduce the number of Hispanic districts to create more influence districts.