How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission

[Torie]

You are not getting Coachella - period.

I still don't understand your issue with downtown San Diego. What partisan objective are you after in San Diego, just so I know what it is to reject. Thanks in advance.

[Torie]

Why are we arguing over this black v brown thing again?  It doesn't mean a damn from a partisan standpoint.

Because the district is ugly. Unequivocally unnecessarily ugly if the issue can be solved without diluting the Hispanic CD too far, unnecessarily from the point of view of its Black neighbor district no matter what. Certainly not for partisan reasons.

I still don't understand your issue with downtown San Diego. What partisan objective are you after in San Diego, just so I know what it is to reject.

Probably none, though I'm not entirely certain of that.

You are not getting Coachella - period.

Why not?

I recognize it would probably require wrenches to all of outer SoCal... is that the only reason?

You are not getting Coachella because 1) the Commission didn't do it, 2) it creates only a 56% HVAP CD in San Diego, and 3)  the Coachella CD will not hit 50.0% HCVAP.  What the commission did was reasonable, and the purpose of this exercise is not to reject their reasonable choices, but rather whether the Pubs were F'ed over. It appears that a fair amount of whatever F over happened however, is due to the VRA - as interpreted. That is becoming more and more apparent. There is still some remaining mischief to assess, but less than I initially thought, due to Mike's hard work on this.

I think I understand what your game is now however. You want the Hispanic CD to go into Coachella, in exchange for losing some, but not all of San Diego, in order to push everything else south, presumably making CA-50 and CA-53 more Dem. Why didn't you just say that nice and pithy like, like I just did?  Brevity is good the soul. Anyway, I think I finally got it. LOL.  No, sorry. 

You can draw your own map on the premise that the Commission gave the Pubs too much or something.

[Torie]

You are not getting Coachella because 1) the Commission didn't do it

'kay then, I suggest we're tossing the entirety of your map on the strength of that argument.

No, despite my best efforts, you just don't understand the purpose of my exercise, which is whether the Pub Commissioners were silly-buggered or not.  One reason I did what the Commission did, as I said many times before, was to better assess the balance of their map, and the choices made, without having a substantial twist of the clock, that made comparisons much more difficult. Granted, I was not creative enough, to fathom some avaricous Dem would want to go both into Coachella and San Diego, all in one CD!

As I guess you don't recall, way back when, I drew a 56% HVAP CD in San Diego, plus the 60.0% HVAP or so Hispanic CD in the Imperial Valley and Coachella, and Moreno Valley.  Then when I saw that the Commission did not do that, and better understood (although not as well as I do now), the Hispanic VRA thing, and retrogression, and all that horrible stuff, and decided a reasonable choice was made, I did what I did for the reasons outlined above.

[Torie]

Well, if you're starting with a blank assumption that must not ever be tested that they can't, possibly, in even any one area, have been the silly buggerers themselves (and that does seem to follow from your post, though not necessarily from the map you drew)... then that renders the exercise not worth 10% of the effort you put into it, I'm sorry to say. Because then, if your map shows a somewhat better outcome for Republicans than the Commission's, all that proves is that devious crafty Republicans didn't get the possible maximum out of their dumbwit Dem counterparts, not that they dumbwit Republicans were shafted in any way or form by devious crafty Democrats, which is what you said you want to prove. Right? It's a... damn, what's the scientific jargon word I'm looking for here? Somebody help me out.

I think the Commissioners followed their lawyers' advice actually. One of the things they noted, is that they tried to achieve all of their other worthy non-partisan goals, subject only to meeting the VRA.  Your little scheme, which I think I helped refine in your mind actually, of a Coachella, Imperial, and smaller bit of San Diego, CD, is not consistent with that. It won't help you (as in white Dems), as much as you hope anyway, but that is letting the cat out of the bag.  

You do know that the Commissioners all promise not to be partisan hacks don't you?  It is right there in the statute! And I don't think they were. If there was an issue, it was the Dem shills testimony via front persons, that the Pubs were too stupid or lazy to know for what it was, that was probably the problem, and it was the newspaper story to that very effect, which inspired my exercise. You, I don't think, would be a suitable Commissioner.  

Any more comments?  Mike?

[Torie]

At the comparison stage, I will use the Commissions numbers, noting what the old CD number was in parentheses on the matrix chart. In the meantime, I am ignoring their numbers, and using the old numbers, so I don't get confused as to which new CD best matches the old CD, for purposes of comparing how the partisan numbers changed.

At this point, for much of the state, I have only a vague understanding of what the Commission did - which was deliberate. I wanted to start fresh - after looking at what the Commission did with the Hispanic SD CD, which was a major issue and decision in my mind. 

I think I have worn Lewis out, and don't have much interest in spending more time on the black v brown thing in LA County. So let me know Mike, if you see any other issues with my map, which might cause it to be subject to "valid" non partisan criticism.

[Torie]

OK, I will commence with the matrix chart then, but not today.

I see as your map evolves, that so far the Dems are not going to like it much. They will like mine better.

[Torie]

For all their acclaim at being such brutally aggressive redistricters, Republicans really aren't that good at it. They haven't done the work that has occurred on the left to form an intellectual movement for ah I guess you could call it "progressivism" in redistricting. Most of that seems to have occured in the last decade in response to PA-TX-MI. The Republicans on the other hand, are good at legislative redistricting and manipulating the rules in MI to suit there purposes, but they aren't at a level in which they could compete toe to toe intellectually in CA or understand the implications of what choice of partisan data to use in AZ. Washington is one notable exception, primarily because of Gorton. Florida will be interesting to see both at the legislature and in the courts.


Now can anyone link me to a numbered map of the districts as adopted by the commission somewhere on the forum? Preferably one that I can actually load, so if it is on a page with 10 others maps, that won't work. I can't load the commission site.

Try this. I found it yesterday. Unlike the map available on the Commission's site, it shows the county lines, without which the map is hard to read - and evaluate.

[Torie]

Mike, the class warfare concept seems to have got lost in the Silicon Valley in your map (although erosity certainly has not been eschewed ). Yes I know, you didn't list $$$$$ as part of your list of parameters, I understand.

You didn't do some ugly chop in Sonoma County did you? Or did you avoid a muni chop, but not a metro chop in Santa Rosa? Or are you trying to hide what you did there, since you didn't do a zoom, after which upon my beady little eyes feasting upon it,  I could say, hey, you see how well these little mechanistic rules are working out for you?  

Yes, I know, lawyers are aholes - almost all of them. Hey, that's why we're lawyers!

[Torie]

OK, I will commence with the matrix chart then, but not today.

I see as your map evolves, that so far the Dems are not going to like it much. They will like mine better.

There is another parameter I will probably use in So Cal from VRA cases. The Census Bureau has a disclaimer about use of CVAP for 2010 data since it is from an average of 2005-2009 statistics. That disclaimer was recognized by the CA commission in their report. In other circuits there has been recognition that 65% VAP can provide a controlling majority for a minority, and SCOTUS has accepted that from those circuits. If SCOTUS rules that the statistical nature of CVAP can't be relied upon, they may return to the supermajority 65% threshold. To play it safe, in areas where 50% CVAP may not be reachable, I will look for 65% VAP as a backup. For instance Anaheim/Santa Ana is one area where it will come into play for me.

I am not sure your comment has any nexus with mine, but OK. My Hispanic OC CD is 62.4% HVAP, and to hit 65% will either 1) be impossible, or 2) make an erose muni-chopping mess, and this for a CD which elects an Hispanic with no problem, and has despite determined, and well financed, runs at her. It's only 20% white, with the balance black (1.9%) or Asian (19.6%), the latter, particularly in this area, being a lower turnout group. The Commission's Hispanic OC CD is 60.88% HVAP btw.  So many little rules, so little time. Is Maldef bitching about this too?  Just curious.

[Torie]

Yes, I understand sbane. I take your word for it about the black attitude (probably the second black incumbent is looking for a lifeboat, and was accommodated), I think the blacks are being short sighted about what their future is, but that is their problem. The Commission said they drew but one black CD in their text, but maybe something got lost in translation. And maybe Maldef will sue over this one too, assuming you have the numbers right. They should. This is one instance where I think they may have a pretty good case.

In the meantime, I am not changing my map, because of my own point of view about the legal exposure (I don't really think the CD looks all that bad myself - I have seen far worse racial gerrymanders), and because it doesn't matter for the purpose of my exercise, as you acknowledge. I can defend what I did without any embarrassment, if someone calls me on it.

By the way, in oral argument in Perez, one of the Justices noted that this racial coalition stuff just doesn't hunt, as either legally required, or as a substitute for a majority, minority CD. In practicality, your numbers really result in a zero influence Hispanic CD.

[Torie]

Oh dear. You "solve" your little Santa Rosa thing, by chopping into Frisco from the south rather than the north of course, but you just love too much crossing that beautiful bridge I guess.

And you solve the Ojai reach (beautiful road to drive connecting Ojai to the balance of the CD that you drew by the way, nice and twisty (very twisty, with some frightening drops, so drive it while sober), and scenic), by going into Westlake in LA County of course. But given you don't have a chop there, but somewhere else presumably which I probably won't like, you did the best you could I guess, given that we want to avoid muni chops.

[Torie]

OK, I will commence with the matrix chart then, but not today.

I see as your map evolves, that so far the Dems are not going to like it much. They will like mine better.

There is another parameter I will probably use in So Cal from VRA cases. The Census Bureau has a disclaimer about use of CVAP for 2010 data since it is from an average of 2005-2009 statistics. That disclaimer was recognized by the CA commission in their report. In other circuits there has been recognition that 65% VAP can provide a controlling majority for a minority, and SCOTUS has accepted that from those circuits. If SCOTUS rules that the statistical nature of CVAP can't be relied upon, they may return to the supermajority 65% threshold. To play it safe, in areas where 50% CVAP may not be reachable, I will look for 65% VAP as a backup. For instance Anaheim/Santa Ana is one area where it will come into play for me.

I am not sure your comment has any nexus with mine, but OK. My Hispanic OC CD is 62.4% HVAP, and to hit 65% will either 1) be impossible, or 2) make an erose muni-chopping mess, and this for a CD which elects an Hispanic with no problem, and has despite determined, and well financed, runs at her. It's only 20% white, with the balance black (1.9%) or Asian (19.6%), the latter, particularly in this area, being a lower turnout group. The Commission's Hispanic OC CD is 60.88% HVAP btw.  So many little rules, so little time. Is Maldef bitching about this too?  Just curious.

I don't suspect any MALDEF issue there. They suggested a 63% HVAP district so you are in better shape than the commission. It's an area I will look at, but since I tend to look at compactness from the Roeck view, I'm probably more tolerant of erosity than you.

I don't know what "the Roeck view" means, but I assume it means, break every piece of china in the kitchen if it gets to the right number, based on some rogue court's "scrivinings" (I assume that you will enlighten me), but yes, as to erosity, definitely. You can hit 63% no doubt with an extra or two muni chop. You might sever the north end of Santa Ana (that is where the OC gentry used to live once upon a time), and then do two more mini-muni chops - a net of three more muni chops, although maybe just two, if there is enough Hispanic action left in Fullerton, which I chopped, to suck up a couple of very heavily Hispanic, low hanging fruit precincts, albeit kind of large ones, so you don't have to chop into both Tustin and Costa Mesa, or Placentia or something. And no, it won't happen in my map.

[Torie]

Oh dear. You "solve" your little Santa Rosa thing, by chopping into Frisco from the south rather than the north of course, but you just love too much crossing that beautiful bridge I guess.

And you solve the Ojai reach (beautiful road to drive connecting Ojai to the balance of the CD that you drew by the way, nice and twisty (very twisty, with some frightening drops, so drive it while sober), and scenic), by going into Westlake in LA County of course. But given you don't have a chop there, but somewhere else presumably which I probably won't like, you did the best you could I guess, given that we want to avoid muni chops.

It seems to me that poor San Mateo is left as a the Rodney Dangerfield of counties. It's the one county larger than a district that everyone is willing to split. I just chose to defend it if I could. OTOH, someone could chop SF across the Bay Bridge (and I saw at least one plan formally submitted that did). You wouldn't want that, would you?

Since San Mateo is larger than a CD, of course it has to be chopped. You must mean that you don't want it tri-chopped. You see, your obsession with county chops leads you to those "poor choices." County chops don't mean much in areas where you have a sea of appended suburbs - one right next to the other, where what are really the best communities of interest involve an extra chop. Do you really think the good folks of Menlo Park, who are tied to the hip to Palo Alto, and shop there, and recreate there, and would live there, if there were any housing there much under a million dollars, where they can only afford $700,000, would be upset by being appended to Santa Clara County, rather than the more down market stuff to the north? And then there is well, gated Atherton (yes the whole town is gated, so you can't drive in to view the its splendid mansions), where the folks who own the the venture capital firms on Sandhill Road in Palo Alto live (unless they like horses, in which case they live in Woodside - also in San Mateo County as it happens, and where you can view the ranch houses on an acre or two lots, because it is not gated). Yes, I am sure they would be upset being severed from the balance of their county. Save the county obsession thing for states far less complex than CA is my best suggestion, but carry on with your exercise for a map that would get no votes on the Commission I suspect, unless you were on it, in which case it would get one vote.

By the way, how long do you think it takes to drive that connecting road you have to Ojai from Santa Paula?

[Torie]

Erosity is like pornography - you know it when you see it. That is from SCOTUS (the comment being about porn).

[Torie]

There is another parameter I will probably use in So Cal from VRA cases. The Census Bureau has a disclaimer about use of CVAP for 2010 data since it is from an average of 2005-2009 statistics. That disclaimer was recognized by the CA commission in their report. In other circuits there has been recognition that 65% VAP can provide a controlling majority for a minority, and SCOTUS has accepted that from those circuits. If SCOTUS rules that the statistical nature of CVAP can't be relied upon, they may return to the supermajority 65% threshold. To play it safe, in areas where 50% CVAP may not be reachable, I will look for 65% VAP as a backup. For instance Anaheim/Santa Ana is one area where it will come into play for me.

I am not sure your comment has any nexus with mine, but OK. My Hispanic OC CD is 62.4% HVAP, and to hit 65% will either 1) be impossible, or 2) make an erose muni-chopping mess, and this for a CD which elects an Hispanic with no problem, and has despite determined, and well financed, runs at her. It's only 20% white, with the balance black (1.9%) or Asian (19.6%), the latter, particularly in this area, being a lower turnout group. The Commission's Hispanic OC CD is 60.88% HVAP btw.  So many little rules, so little time. Is Maldef bitching about this too?  Just curious.

I don't suspect any MALDEF issue there. They suggested a 63% HVAP district so you are in better shape than the commission. It's an area I will look at, but since I tend to look at compactness from the Roeck view, I'm probably more tolerant of erosity than you.

I don't know what "the Roeck view" means, but I assume it means, break every piece of china in the kitchen if it gets to the right number, based on some rogue court's "scrivinings" (I assume that you will enlighten me), but yes, as to erosity, definitely. You can hit 63% no doubt with an extra or two muni chop. You might sever the north end of Santa Ana (that is where the OC gentry used to live once upon a time), and then do two more mini-muni chops - a net of three more muni chops, although maybe just two, if there is enough Hispanic action left in Fullerton, which I chopped, to suck up a couple of very heavily Hispanic, low hanging fruit precincts, albeit kind of large ones, so you don't have to chop into both Tustin and Costa Mesa, or Placentia or something. And no, it won't happen in my map.

So this is my offering for Anaheim/Santa Ana. The block groups are imprecise, but the intent is to use all of Santa Ana and Stanton and use none of Orange, Buena Park or Costa Mesa. The Tustin piece will be my only muni chop into the Irvine district from the west and is needed for population equality. Anaheim has to be split due to its long eastern leg, but all parts are either in this district or an Orange-based district which wraps around the north. Likewise, the Fullerton split will be shared between this district and the Orange one. I confess to a Placentia split, but at least the part included in this district decreases erosity.

The HVAP is 65.0%.

I would lose the Tustin chop and take the rest of west Anaheim, even if it reduces your HVAP percentage by a bit (it should not be that much).  Otherwise not bad from a chop standpoint. My CD did that, and went into Orange rather than Stanton and Placentia. You might be causing the Asian percentage in the north OC CD to drop some (my CA-40), as well as make CA-40 more erose of course. 

Garden Grove and Anaheim for this CD are "auto-chops" and really don't count as chops, so I consider that I did but one chop (Orange), plus the heist of those two precincts in Fullerton that were right next by and just so irresistible.

[Torie]

OK. I am not in love which your cuts in OC. Tustin and Tustin foothills should be in your CA-45, and CA-45 should take Costa Mesa, with CA-47 moving up into Buena Park. In other words, twist the clock, clockwise around the Hispanic CD. I could explain why if you want, but I assume that you trust me that I know the lay of the land in OC at least.

And of course, my OC cuts are the best. Really. And Irvine is a good city to split, both from a geographical, and demographic, standpoint. The way, you get the wealthy beach zone, the Asian tinged zone, and the white inland more socially conservative zone, more cleanly defined.

Addendum: Oh, and I would also cut Dana Point from CA-49 in exchange for taking more of Mission Viejo, for the reason stated in the above paragraph, and also because Laguna Niguel and Dana Point are so intertwined.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am not sure what the above means. You have chopped central city San Diego to bits. You have a few precincts in San Diego there next to the Harbor filled with high income whites in condo towers.  Those should be in the Coronado, Pt. Loma, Ocean Beach, Pacific Beach CD. Why did you dislike my version of San Diego County (other than perhaps the Chula Vista chop, where I followed the commission's lines)?  

Are you sure my OC suggestions result in more chops?  You have a couple of Laguna Niguel precincts in the wrong CD. When you see a precincts that cross a muni line, what I always do, is zoom in and see where the residential streets are. That usually gives me the answer as to what CD it should be in.

Yes, I know your map has a different purpose, but the Commission's job was to tie communities of interest together, even if it resulted in an extra chop or two. The issue was whether their choices were reasonable - and non partisan.

[Torie]

OK. I am not in love which your cuts in OC. Tustin and Tustin foothills should be in your CA-45, and CA-45 should take Costa Mesa, with CA-47 moving up into Buena Park. In other words, twist the clock, clockwise around the Hispanic CD. I could explain why if you want, but I assume that you trust me that I know the lay of the land in OC at least.

And of course, my OC cuts are the best. Really. And Irvine is a good city to split, both from a geographical, and demographic, standpoint. The way, you get the wealthy beach zone, the Asian tinged zone, and the white inland more socially conservative zone, more cleanly defined.

Addendum: Oh, and I would also cut Dana Point from CA-49 in exchange for taking more of Mission Viejo, for the reason stated in the above paragraph, and also because Laguna Niguel and Dana Point are so intertwined.

I'm somewhat averse to decisions based on the types of zones as they are usually proxies for specific political outcomes. I watched the Dems do that in IL last spring as they justified a whole host of gerrymanders on that type of logic. I recognize that VRA-based decisions also have political consequences, but that's in a different category for me.

To your addendum, it would work geographically to put Emerald Bay, Laguna Beach, and Laguna Niguel into CD 49 in exchange for the Rancho Santa Margarita area. It's nearly an even population swap and it doesn't impact the compactness of CD 48. Would that work for you?

That sucks from a sociological standpoint, but is good from a geographic one, since there is an empty zone between Newport Beach and Laguna Beach.  In so much of CA freeways are the thing. They tend to define communities of interest. There is little reason for folks living inland from the 405 to cross it towards the beach, and visa versa.

I am sure that this communities of interest thing is abused for political purposes (of course it is!), but I assume that you believe me that I did not do that, and it is the commission's job to assess that, and evaluate the merits, and where a decision can reasonably go either way, probably go for the approach that makes for more competitive CD's. That is what I would do. Granted, I know some parts of the state better than others from an on the ground standpoint.

Anyway, in OC it makes no difference. All the CD's are safely GOP no matter how you draw them, after quarantining all those Hispanics in their little ghetto CD.

[Torie]

Yes, I understand sbane. I take your word for it about the black attitude (probably the second black incumbent is looking for a lifeboat, and was accommodated), I think the blacks are being short sighted about what their future is, but that is their problem. The Commission said they drew but one black CD in their text, but maybe something got lost in translation. And maybe Maldef will sue over this one too, assuming you have the numbers right. They should. This is one instance where I think they may have a pretty good case.

In the meantime, I am not changing my map, because of my own point of view about the legal exposure (I don't really think the CD looks all that bad myself - I have seen far worse racial gerrymanders), and because it doesn't matter for the purpose of my exercise, as you acknowledge. I can defend what I did without any embarrassment, if someone calls me on it.

What might help here is a Hispanic percentage map with your district's boundary overlayed with it. Just how Hispanic is that northwest extension, exactly?

The software does not allow that, but what I will do when I get home, is draw a "CD" that is just the NW extension of CA-33, and it will reveal the Hispanic percentage of that part of the CD.

By the way, Mike's map is really f'ing the Dems so far it looks like.  

[Torie]

Yes, Mike, CA is different. Higher income whites are much more Dem than in most places. But as in everything, it is a balancing test. Money is not the loadstar, nothing is the loadstar - you balance, and if you have smart persons of both parties on a Commission, acting in good faith, and having taken made a promise not to act in a partisan manner, not hewing to the appropriate metrics, you have the requisite checks and balances. If they get greedy and unreasonable, and can't compromise, or act in good faith, it goes to the Courts. I like that system. Fair point about chopping a bigger town in half, like Mission Viejo. That was a negative in my map, and I knew it at the time. It had its compensating virtues however.

And Lewis here are the stats for the NW quadrant of my CA-33 - 54% HVAP - with 210,658 people. And notice I minimized muni chops to boot, which I always try to do, absent a good reason not to. With more chops, I could have got it higher.

[Torie]

No, Encinitas is a beach town, and belongs in a coastal CD. On that much, we agree. In both of our maps, it is.

Yes, the trapping Hispanic precinct of 2,200 people needs to be redrawn, or excised from the Hispanic CD, because it traps the condo precinct of 6,500 people. Can you image the difference between the two precincts in actual voters?  I suspect I drew it the way I did, because the Commission did. Absent that, I would have excised the precinct, but what should really happen is that it should be redrawn.



You may have kept neighborhoods together in central San Diego, but you tri-chopped central San Diego, appending part of it to the suburbs. I don't get that bit at all. What was wrong with my map in that respect? Just what about my CA-53 offends you, putting aside the trapping Hispanic precinct issue? Notice that I used the Miramar Marine Air Station as a natural barrier on its northern end.

[Torie]

Torie, I have an LA question on your CD 31 and 34. In the early copy you sent 31 had an HVAP of about 57% and 34 had over 75%. It looks like 31 will have to get over 60 or 61% HVAP to break 50% HCVAP. Did you look at a swap between 31 and 34 at any point?

I got it up to 58.2% HVAP.  You could do a swap, but it would make the map a lot uglier, and violate natural lines and communities of interest. Is this HCVP 50% thing an absolute law, even if it is clear the CD will elect an Hispanic of their choice?  And the latter is only a Section 5 standard, not a Section 2 standard, correct, and Section 5 does not obtain here, or am I still confused on that one?

I doubt that CA-33 can get 210,000 54% HVAP out of the far north end of CA-37, but it deserves study. I took a look at it briefly the other day. Frankly it won't make it much less erose, since then it goes rather north from Long Beach, rather than doing an L thing.  It is the Carson thing that makes it look erose. I am not sure at the end of the day, it will fit any better into a circle with the same diameter, and all of that fun stuff.

[Torie]

Torie, I have an LA question on your CD 31 and 34. In the early copy you sent 31 had an HVAP of about 57% and 34 had over 75%. It looks like 31 will have to get over 60 or 61% HVAP to break 50% HCVAP. Did you look at a swap between 31 and 34 at any point?

I got it up to 58.2% HVAP.  You could do a swap, but it would make the map a lot uglier, and violate natural lines and communities of interest. Is this HCVP 50% thing an absolute law, even if it is clear the CD will elect an Hispanic of their choice?  And the latter is only a Section 5 standard, not a Section 2 standard, correct, and Section 5 does not obtain here, or am I still confused on that one?

I doubt that CA-33 can get 210,000 54% HVAP out of the far north end of CA-37, but it deserves study. I took a look at it briefly the other day. Frankly it won't make it much less erose, since then it goes rather north from Long Beach, rather than doing an L thing.  It is the Carson thing that makes it look erose. I am not sure at the end of the day, it will fit any better into a circle with the same diameter, and all of that fun stuff.

An HCVAP of 50% is what the 9th circuit has established to satisfy the first Gingles condition for a majority Latino population for section 2. That usually works out to from 60-65% HVAP depending on the part of LAC. I would guess that as the income goes up, the needed percent comes down.

I looked at the CA-33 neighbors, and I see a solution. CD-38 is overpacked, and it can give up the South Gate side in exchange for Norwalk and La Mirada and still exceed 73% HVAP. If you add South Gate, Bellflower and the part of Carson south of I-405 you can get a 68% HVAP district. It does force CD-37 west of the Harbor, but the result is two VRA-compliant districts.

Similarly, a swap between CDs 31 and 34 will be needed as well. CD 31 only needs to get to 60% if it picks up East LA.

Edit:

Here's a version that has a 73.8% HVAP district on the west and 68.3% HVAP on the east. That keeps Bellflower and Norwalk together if it makes more sense that way.

Is that 50% 9th circuit requirement an absolute one, or a safe harbor under Section 2?  What is the 9th Circuit case?   I guess I had better read it. I planned to review my map in this area anyway.

[Torie]

So under the 9th Circuit, if you can't get to a compact 50% HCVAP CD, you don't have to draw one at all? 

[Torie]

What is the HVAP percentage again for the San Diego-Imperial and OC districts that translates into 50% HCVAP again?  And I take it, under the 9th Circuit, there is no need to draw a 50% HVAP CD in Riverside. Is that correct?