2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: California

[cvparty]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/9bde2f0f-d655-4548-990f-0e03bba14587
thoughts on this CA map? It is partially done.

I would prefer to get the Latino VAP to at least 55% in Juan Vargas' district. It also doesn't make sense to have La Habra in the Santa Ana district. I also don't like OC-SD splits, unless they prevent LA-OC splits. LA-OC splits are fine if they prevent OC-SD splits. Will the OC-SD split If Aguilar is CA-40, Takano is CA-45, and Cisneros is CA-42; who takes CA-41?

how is an orange-riverside district better than OC-LA or OC-SD

[cvparty]

It is quite funny how me, Oryx, and ERM all ended up with fairly similar CA maps.

Yes, But I have no LA-OC or OC-SD splits (I have OC-Riverside). I have Altadena in the Santa Clarita-Antelope Valley district. I don't have Mono County in the rural San Bernardino district, only Inyo. I also managed to keep both the North Coast and Jefferson completely whole without a single county split. My OC Asian Belt district does not include Cerritos (it instead takes in Fountain Valley). I split Huntington Beach into that district and the Newport Beach one. I also have all the Channel Islands, including Catalina, in the Santa Barbara district (because of this, the district covers Santa Barbara, Ventura, and LA counties).

i think you should try to draw districts without as big an emphasis on county lines. the whole-county districts you have won't even hold up due to the two years of population change between 2018 and now (*cough* camp fire) so there isn't really a point to it. also, locking yourself in with counties results in some funky districts (rancho murieta to colusa?). not to mention there are less than 50 counties for a state of nearly 40 million people. also, many communities transcend county lines, and one needs to be mindful of road connections and population distribution

[cvparty]

Should I consider my CA map perfected? y/n

the beverly hills-malibu-canoga park-agoura hills district makes me uncomfortable as someone from LA. crossing the santa monica mountains is iffy

[cvparty]

?!

[cvparty]

snip

maybe like...focus less on partisan vote because the outlines of republican/democrat areas are way too clear. ex. democratic districts clearly stop at the county lines of del norte, trinity and colusa; laguna beach and irvine are conveniently not in that barely contiguous OC seat that stretches from san clemente to brea; palmdale district that stretches through the san gabriel mountains to capture glendora. also the number of skinny districts that seem to represent no clear COI that isn't having republicans/democrats (lake tahoe-colusa, san diego-indio, manhattan beach-bellflower[?] and the ten other snake districts in LA county)

[cvparty]

snip

maybe like...focus less on partisan vote because the outlines of republican/democrat areas are way too clear. ex. democratic districts clearly stop at the county lines of del norte, trinity and colusa; laguna beach and irvine are conveniently not in that barely contiguous OC seat that stretches from san clemente to brea; palmdale district that stretches through the san gabriel mountains to capture glendora. also the number of skinny districts that seem to represent no clear COI that isn't having republicans/democrats (lake tahoe-colusa, san diego-indio, manhattan beach-bellflower[?] and the ten other snake districts in LA county)

The SD seat going to the Coahella valley opens up a minority opportunity seat in SD and allows San Diego county to only be split once.  Yuba and Colusa are both farm areas just like placer.  Tahoe area has a small pop, I won't rip up Placer for that.  As for LA, I don't like it either, but the VRA with hispanics is hard to work with.  Without the snake districts, a hispanic seat would be lost instead of CA-39.  

i like how u only try to defend like half of them lol. wouldn’t it make more sense to put nevada county with placer instead? (well we know why you didn’t)...
similarly laguna beach is definitely part of the south county COI, even if its residents are liberal. irvine is way closer to tustin than mission viejo/san clemente are
you can create a second minority seat in SD without branching into the sonoran desert. and frankly the county split is a poor excuse when socal has 20m+ people in less than ten counties. plus when you’re creating another split in riverside anyway and splitting the coachella valley that’s not any better
snake districts are just not necessary and violate compactness and COIs which you claim to prioritize. i’m just pointing out it’s clear that you prioritized partisanship over actual geography and communities. we all kind of know that in states like wisconsin and michigan you wouldn’t have the same energy to help democrats’ geographic disadvantage

[cvparty]

snip

maybe like...focus less on partisan vote because the outlines of republican/democrat areas are way too clear. ex. democratic districts clearly stop at the county lines of del norte, trinity and colusa; laguna beach and irvine are conveniently not in that barely contiguous OC seat that stretches from san clemente to brea; palmdale district that stretches through the san gabriel mountains to capture glendora. also the number of skinny districts that seem to represent no clear COI that isn't having republicans/democrats (lake tahoe-colusa, san diego-indio, manhattan beach-bellflower[?] and the ten other snake districts in LA county)

The SD seat going to the Coahella valley opens up a minority opportunity seat in SD and allows San Diego county to only be split once.  Yuba and Colusa are both farm areas just like placer.  Tahoe area has a small pop, I won't rip up Placer for that.  As for LA, I don't like it either, but the VRA with hispanics is hard to work with.  Without the snake districts, a hispanic seat would be lost instead of CA-39.  

i like how u only try to defend like half of them lol. wouldn’t it make more sense to put nevada county with placer instead? (well we know why you didn’t)...
similarly laguna beach is definitely part of the south county COI, even if its residents are liberal. irvine is way closer to tustin than mission viejo/san clemente are
you can create a second minority seat in SD without branching into the sonoran desert. and frankly the county split is a poor excuse when socal has 20m+ people in less than ten counties. plus when you’re creating another split in riverside anyway and splitting the coachella valley that’s not any better
snake districts are just not necessary and violate compactness and COIs which you claim to prioritize. i’m just pointing out it’s clear that you prioritized partisanship over actual geography and communities. we all kind of know that in states like wisconsin and michigan you wouldn’t have the same energy to help democrats’ geographic disadvantage

My map still benefits dems drastically.  I did not compensate for a geographic disadvantage, just didn't maximize it like others do here.  Irvine is in the same district as Tustin, and Laguna Beach can fit just as well with Newport.  SD currently has 2 minority seats but one functions as a white lib district.

actually, your map erases the democratic advantage lol. clinton won CA by 32 points (two-party vote), which would suggest her winning 43/52 districts (which i believe is what your map has). and yeah you’re right ab tustin, it’s hard to see where exactly cities lie without more detail. but my point still stands, cities like villa park and yorba linda and brea are very far from dana point, san clemente, etc. your district that connects them is barely contiguous by road and conveniently skirts around blue irvine. it simply just does not represent any COI besides “orange county republicans.” and again, not splitting the coachella valley is way more important than making an already majority-minority seat slightly more non-white. your map isn’t a hardcore GOP gerrymander but it tends to represent COIs poorly and brazenly ignore the state’s geography (i will once again bring up the very questionable inclusion of glendora in CA-25)

[cvparty]

snip

maybe like...focus less on partisan vote because the outlines of republican/democrat areas are way too clear. ex. democratic districts clearly stop at the county lines of del norte, trinity and colusa; laguna beach and irvine are conveniently not in that barely contiguous OC seat that stretches from san clemente to brea; palmdale district that stretches through the san gabriel mountains to capture glendora. also the number of skinny districts that seem to represent no clear COI that isn't having republicans/democrats (lake tahoe-colusa, san diego-indio, manhattan beach-bellflower[?] and the ten other snake districts in LA county)

The SD seat going to the Coahella valley opens up a minority opportunity seat in SD and allows San Diego county to only be split once.  Yuba and Colusa are both farm areas just like placer.  Tahoe area has a small pop, I won't rip up Placer for that.  As for LA, I don't like it either, but the VRA with hispanics is hard to work with.  Without the snake districts, a hispanic seat would be lost instead of CA-39.  

i like how u only try to defend like half of them lol. wouldn’t it make more sense to put nevada county with placer instead? (well we know why you didn’t)...
similarly laguna beach is definitely part of the south county COI, even if its residents are liberal. irvine is way closer to tustin than mission viejo/san clemente are
you can create a second minority seat in SD without branching into the sonoran desert. and frankly the county split is a poor excuse when socal has 20m+ people in less than ten counties. plus when you’re creating another split in riverside anyway and splitting the coachella valley that’s not any better
snake districts are just not necessary and violate compactness and COIs which you claim to prioritize. i’m just pointing out it’s clear that you prioritized partisanship over actual geography and communities. we all kind of know that in states like wisconsin and michigan you wouldn’t have the same energy to help democrats’ geographic disadvantage

My map still benefits dems drastically.  I did not compensate for a geographic disadvantage, just didn't maximize it like others do here.  Irvine is in the same district as Tustin, and Laguna Beach can fit just as well with Newport.  SD currently has 2 minority seats but one functions as a white lib district.

actually, your map erases the democratic advantage lol. clinton won CA by 32 points (two-party vote), which would suggest her winning 43/52 districts (which i believe is what your map has). and yeah you’re right ab tustin, it’s hard to see where exactly cities lie without more detail. but my point still stands, cities like villa park and yorba linda and brea are very far from dana point, san clemente, etc. your district that connects them is barely contiguous by road and conveniently skirts around blue irvine. it simply just does not represent any COI besides “orange county republicans.” and again, not splitting the coachella valley is way more important than making an already majority-minority seat slightly more non-white. your map isn’t a hardcore GOP gerrymander but it tends to represent COIs poorly and brazenly ignore the state’s geography (i will once again bring up the very questionable inclusion of glendora in CA-25)

Trump won almost 1/3 of the vote in Cali, my map has him win 17% of the seats.  The dem geographic advantage is still very much alive.  As for Glendora, it's substitute for Simi Valley.  Still a Clinton district btw.

that’s not how it works with FPTP/single-member district system lol. if a party gets x percent of vote statewide, they can expect twice that percent advantage in the number of districts they win. but maybe you should start benefitting democrats in states like missouri and SC, GA, AL if you actually believe in direct proportionality? it’s hard to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re acting in good faith when you stand by basically all the huge flaws that were pointed out

[cvparty]

I'm currently working on a map and was wondering which seat did you guys choose to cut?

i didn't "choose" a seat per se but it ended up being roughly CD-28, it just got squished out from all sides

[cvparty]

snip

maybe like...focus less on partisan vote because the outlines of republican/democrat areas are way too clear. ex. democratic districts clearly stop at the county lines of del norte, trinity and colusa; laguna beach and irvine are conveniently not in that barely contiguous OC seat that stretches from san clemente to brea; palmdale district that stretches through the san gabriel mountains to capture glendora. also the number of skinny districts that seem to represent no clear COI that isn't having republicans/democrats (lake tahoe-colusa, san diego-indio, manhattan beach-bellflower[?] and the ten other snake districts in LA county)

The SD seat going to the Coahella valley opens up a minority opportunity seat in SD and allows San Diego county to only be split once.  Yuba and Colusa are both farm areas just like placer.  Tahoe area has a small pop, I won't rip up Placer for that.  As for LA, I don't like it either, but the VRA with hispanics is hard to work with.  Without the snake districts, a hispanic seat would be lost instead of CA-39.  

i like how u only try to defend like half of them lol. wouldn’t it make more sense to put nevada county with placer instead? (well we know why you didn’t)...
similarly laguna beach is definitely part of the south county COI, even if its residents are liberal. irvine is way closer to tustin than mission viejo/san clemente are
you can create a second minority seat in SD without branching into the sonoran desert. and frankly the county split is a poor excuse when socal has 20m+ people in less than ten counties. plus when you’re creating another split in riverside anyway and splitting the coachella valley that’s not any better
snake districts are just not necessary and violate compactness and COIs which you claim to prioritize. i’m just pointing out it’s clear that you prioritized partisanship over actual geography and communities. we all kind of know that in states like wisconsin and michigan you wouldn’t have the same energy to help democrats’ geographic disadvantage

My map still benefits dems drastically.  I did not compensate for a geographic disadvantage, just didn't maximize it like others do here.  Irvine is in the same district as Tustin, and Laguna Beach can fit just as well with Newport.  SD currently has 2 minority seats but one functions as a white lib district.

actually, your map erases the democratic advantage lol. clinton won CA by 32 points (two-party vote), which would suggest her winning 43/52 districts (which i believe is what your map has). and yeah you’re right ab tustin, it’s hard to see where exactly cities lie without more detail. but my point still stands, cities like villa park and yorba linda and brea are very far from dana point, san clemente, etc. your district that connects them is barely contiguous by road and conveniently skirts around blue irvine. it simply just does not represent any COI besides “orange county republicans.” and again, not splitting the coachella valley is way more important than making an already majority-minority seat slightly more non-white. your map isn’t a hardcore GOP gerrymander but it tends to represent COIs poorly and brazenly ignore the state’s geography (i will once again bring up the very questionable inclusion of glendora in CA-25)

Trump won almost 1/3 of the vote in Cali, my map has him win 17% of the seats.  The dem geographic advantage is still very much alive.  As for Glendora, it's substitute for Simi Valley.  Still a Clinton district btw.

that’s not how it works with FPTP/single-member district system lol. if a party gets x percent of vote statewide, they can expect twice that percent advantage in the number of districts they win. but maybe you should start benefitting democrats in states like missouri and SC, GA, AL if you actually believe in direct proportionality? it’s hard to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re acting in good faith when you stand by basically all the huge flaws that were pointed out

But my map isn't even close to being proportional. Your argument falls flat.  I'm not arguing for proportional, just that my map gives republicans far fewer seats than the statewide vote, so I didn't compensate for the geographic disadvantage.  But the districts I drew don't exploit the geographic disadvantage like some maps here. 

i didn't say that it is? you're implying that your map doesn't give Rs 18 seats, so it's actually Dem biased. but in reality, proportionality isn't the nature of the single-member district system. but like i said before, my issue with your map isn't that it's a gerrymander (it isn't really), it's that it lacks COIs other than partisan vote/race. i already pointed out many of the issues, and now that you posted the map in detail i can actually point out a few more (rancho cucamonga/upland and redlands are not connected, central valley funkiness). i'm trying to help and give you advice about COIs, but it doesn't seem like you really care. you need to look at the state's population through a more nuanced lens

[cvparty]

In addition, the point of reworking the bay area is to avoid the ugly cut of Fremont...not make it worse. Also the essential West Sacramento and Truckee cuts.

The point was to eliminate the Marin-SF district, since everyone hated it, myself included. I re-did it again to not cut Fremont and I think it's better now. What about West Sacramento and Truckee?

he probably wants you to keep west sac with sac, and the lake tahoe area together

[cvparty]

Which pairings are you not particularly fond of?

pacific palisades with ventura isn't really right, if you do a clockwise rotation with 29 taking in tujunga that would be a lot better
45 is kind of eh, san clemente is pretty far from anaheim hills
OC asians without fountain valley is :((

[cvparty]

Which pairings are you not particularly fond of?

pacific palisades with ventura isn't really right, if you do a clockwise rotation with 29 taking in tujunga that would be a lot better
45 is kind of eh, san clemente is pretty far from anaheim hills
OC asians without fountain valley is (

Would you prefer an OC that keeps the coast in a single district?

IG that’d be better, would be pretty long though

[cvparty]

Using Blairite;s recommendation, 51 seats doesn't end up too poorly after all.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/29c03349-12f2-4300-97cf-eb6852d36178

Sev, is your CA-17 a Clinton-Trump district? It has Garden Grove and Westminster and they swung massively to Trump

not quite. biden would've carried it by ~2 points due to gaining in the rest of the district

[cvparty]

Here's an improved version.

California is difficult because of its sheer size and lack of geographic anchors, but a few pointers:

-12 contains several precincts from Pittsburg, Antioch and Brentwood, separating them from the rest of their respective cities. You should keep these cities whole and instead take from Martinez/Vine Hill for more continuous districts. Also, there are a few Tri-Valley precincts in 16 that should be in 12

-San Jose is divided rather crudely; in particular, the boomerang configurement of 18 is essentially the NorCal version of combining Irvine and Little Saigon, and also results in the unfortunate chopping up of the Latino community

-17 seems like an unnecessarily long leftovers district. I think you were trying to make the central coast district as Hispanic as possible, but it's neither worth it nor feasible as long as SLO exists in 21

-24 isn't really contiguous. If you can, try to swap Santa Clarita (better fit with Simi Valley/Thousand Oaks) with Oxnard/Ventura. If those two cities are too populous for 24, try removing the eastern portion of Kern from 23 and then perform a counter-clockwise rotation

[cvparty]

Wrt: the yellow district, is it ok to not have an Asian seat in San Jose? The Green district is only plurality. I know the California metrics are pretty aggressive about making minority districts. (FYI, it's very hard to make a majority asian Green district without some population shifted out of the central valley.)

The other points are well taken and I'll shift the districts--though unfortunately in the case of the Salinas district that probably means it will no longer be majority Latino.

I'll be happy if I never have to look at Contra Costa County ever again--it seems like every precinct splits three cities and has an ugly shape.

I'm not sure, but there's a better way to draw a majority Asian CD while preserving COIs. Here's one example of a Bay Area configuration that has compact districts, a majority Asian by VAP (CD16) as well as a plurality one (CD15), a majority Hispanic one (CD18, albeit only by total population), and recognizes the different natures of the Asian populations (wealthy and more Chinese in the west, and middle- and lower-class Vietnamese and Filipino in the east). Also, if you're trying to make a Tri-Valley district, it should more or less be like the 11th here, even if the other districts are different

[cvparty]

The commission has approved DRAFTS (not visualizations) of Assembly, Senate, Congressional, and BOE maps on a 14-0 vote.

They can be found here:
https://www.wedrawthelinesca.org/draft_maps

DRA map of the congressional draft if anyone wants to look...it's truly something
-Splitting Sacramento in half
-"Eastern California district" including half of the Lake Tahoe area, Modesto, Madera and Death Valley
-Bakersfield with Clovis
-La Crescenta-Montrose and Rancho Cucamonga in the same district
-Corona and Palm Desert in the same district
-Asian plurality district in OC that connects Fountain Valley and Brea
-Chino Hills with Mission Viejo without road connection
-Splitting the Coachella Valley in favor of taking in Hemet

[cvparty]

Christy Smith lost the current CA-25 by a razor-thin margin. She should be able to win a CA-25 nested within LA County with relative ease. (provided she is main Dem candidate)

It's only 3 points more D, I strongly doubt she would even win a Biden midterm

[cvparty]

This is interesting. They kept LGBT communities united in districts wherever possible.

https://www.eqca.org/big-wins-lgbtq-redistricting/

If LGBT qualifies as a COI, you can create a COI for literally any reason, thereby negating the practical power of the term.

If LGBT people don't fit your definition of a COI, I'd love to hear what does.

I'm saying if it fits as a community of interest geographically, what does not? I could create a rugby player COI in NorCal to maximize the number of rugby players inside one district and therefore maximize their influence. I can make a legitimate claim to it's a real COI because rugby players in my 14 years in the sport in this country are a cult of the brethren, and in NorCal would have high crossover with the Pacific Islander minority. Now I think everyone would think such a claim would be absurd and ridiculous because rugby players don't have a geographic base, but neither does the LGBT community. COI's in my opinion should be limited to political subdivisions - counties, cities, towns, wards - because those cannot be defined as partisan. If the LGBT community happens to be in higher numbers in a handful of wards that make up a district, so be it. But to not maximize the LGBT community in a few districts is no worse than not maximizing the Libertarian or Green Party vote in a few districts.

As with all things redistricting, people need to understand ulterior motives. So what's the ulterior motive for having a LGBT COI since it does not only affect the district with that COI but every other district that surrounds it?

LGBT people aren't a COI per se, but there are very many legitimate communities with a high concentration of queer people (Palm Springs, Wilton Manors, Boystown, WeHo, Hell's Kitchen, Lavender Heights, etc.) typically forming historically as a haven for solidarity/against discrimination. Likening it to rugby players is pretty disingenuous? Gay villages are quite small and concentrated to the extent that any preservation of them is usually incidental, especially on a congressional level, and that's pretty much what's described in the EQCA article. There's no foul play here with respect to LGBT COIs (race on the other hand is a different story)

[cvparty]

It's strange that out of all the county crossings you make, San Bernardino and Riverside is where you refuse to cross, when they are the most similar overall. As you can see just by looking at the roads, Southern OC and Riverside really shouldn't be paired that way.

Does this make more sense?



Sorry about the North San Diego-El Cajon-East County thing, but it does make everything else very logical and tidy.

Also apologies to San Bernardino and the Victor Valley. Doesn't seem like there's a good place for the Victor Valley to go in general--too big for the Imperial County-Palm Springs-Mojave seat, most like the Antelope Valley but then prevents a really nice and attractive Antelope Valley and Santa Clarita seat.

The Riverside districts do look better, although I'd reiterate my suggestion to follow the highways, connecting eastern Riverside (and Temecula?) with Apple Valley feels very awkward, and what appears to be an attempt at drawing an Asian district linking Pasadena to Chino Hills is unnecessary and should be done more compactly--you can easily get around 44% just staying within the Western SGV.

What about this

just friendly pointers:
-Glendale does not belong in that district, it's effectively not contiguous because Griffith Park is in the middle of an unpopulated area of mountains. Glendale is part of a very high concentration of Armenians that stretches to Burbank and Sunland-Tujunga, so optimally that's what you want to pair Glendale with
-Lancaster and Palmdale are in the desert so crossing the LA County line isn't necessarily taboo
-Palos Verdes Peninsula should really be with Torrance and the beach cities
-DTLA preferably goes with the neighborhoods to the west like Koreatown and Echo Park but it's not an absolute requirement
-Might be boxing yourself in with trying to maximize the AA population in 32?
-Cerritos and Artesia should probably be with La Palma and the other nearby towns in OC
-Asian population between Hacienda Heights, Walnut and Chino Hills is cracked three ways
-36 honestly fundamentally doesn't make sense
-Even if it means more city splits, putting the western parts of Santa Ana with the rest of Little Saigon will make it more unified
-Most of Tustin fits more with Irvine
-Not a fan of bisecting Riverside
-San Diego County is odd, particularly how you split the Asian population in the northern part of the city
-Not the most important since it's only a few thousand people, but the Sonoran Desert extends into the easternmost parts of San Diego County!