2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: California

[Idaho Conservative]

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

The LA metro and Jefferson are the natural places to cut seats, since those areas are shrinking even as the state gains population. However, both areas have issues. CA01 is up against the border, so there will always have to be something like up there, and LA would be cutting a minority seat which has a bunch of problems around it. The solution to this issue appears to be to cut CA44 in LA and then create more Hispanic seats in the Inland Empire and the Valley, so that there is still a net gain in representation. Or you revive a tool of the days when the GOP actually had some say and cut Long Beach along racial lines, but that seems like a bridge too far.

In truth, CA is going to lose two/three seats in 2020, but gains one/two of them right back - just in different regions. The state is that big. CA05 or CA03 is going to have to become a Bay Oriented seat, there is just too little pop in the north to support four seats these days.

So, then could you also choose to cut a white seat in LA County, such as the 28th, 30th, or 33rd? As for the Inland Empire scenario, I guess the 52nd or 50th would change substantially. As for the valley, isn't it easier just to chop one white seat, rather than dismantle both the 28th and 30th to make what would seem to be only a minority coalition seat, this also doesn't address the issue that some of the Hispanics in these seats probably need to be added to the successor of the 29th to keep it as a Hispanic majority seat?

The 29th is plenty Hispanic. Ultimately the areas losing the most population in LA are the predominantly Hispanic gateway cities. It's best to just force Barragan and Lowenthal into the same district

Like this? Lowenthal like retires because of his age. CA-47 should be replaced by an Asian Belt seat like on my map.

What's the % asian of your ca-44?

[Idaho Conservative]

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

The LA metro and Jefferson are the natural places to cut seats, since those areas are shrinking even as the state gains population. However, both areas have issues. CA01 is up against the border, so there will always have to be something like up there, and LA would be cutting a minority seat which has a bunch of problems around it. The solution to this issue appears to be to cut CA44 in LA and then create more Hispanic seats in the Inland Empire and the Valley, so that there is still a net gain in representation. Or you revive a tool of the days when the GOP actually had some say and cut Long Beach along racial lines, but that seems like a bridge too far.

In truth, CA is going to lose two/three seats in 2020, but gains one/two of them right back - just in different regions. The state is that big. CA05 or CA03 is going to have to become a Bay Oriented seat, there is just too little pop in the north to support four seats these days.

So, then could you also choose to cut a white seat in LA County, such as the 28th, 30th, or 33rd? As for the Inland Empire scenario, I guess the 52nd or 50th would change substantially. As for the valley, isn't it easier just to chop one white seat, rather than dismantle both the 28th and 30th to make what would seem to be only a minority coalition seat, this also doesn't address the issue that some of the Hispanics in these seats probably need to be added to the successor of the 29th to keep it as a Hispanic majority seat?

The 29th is plenty Hispanic. Ultimately the areas losing the most population in LA are the predominantly Hispanic gateway cities. It's best to just force Barragan and Lowenthal into the same district

Like this? Lowenthal like retires because of his age. CA-47 should be replaced by an Asian Belt seat like on my map.

What's the % asian of your ca-44?

It's actually a white seat, but it can easily elect an Asian candidate. 50.1% white CVAP. Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Westminster and Fountain Valley go well together. The main demographics are Asians and working class whites. I didn't want all the coastal seats to be wealthy.

Working class whites?  I would've assumed that area would be quite educated.  That arrangement is definitely preferable to the current one, which  really cuts up that area bad. 

[Idaho Conservative]

I re-did NorCal.

Ew.  pull Roseville out of Placer than put in Yolo?  Also Yuba City metro should stay together and crossing the SF Bay is just dumb.  You said my map is bad?  HAHAHA

[Idaho Conservative]

Remember that list I posted a few pages back? Well, i'm going to add to it, since I forgot something. Legal COI priority goes:

- Local lines (counties, cities, neighborhoods)
- Ethnicity, Rage and it's correlating statistics
- Recognized cultural groupings of the previous two groups
- Partisan interests and competitiveness

In fact, the GOP is in a tight place when it comes to the ethnicity category. Since the state likes to maximize racial opportunity, GOP whites often end up as those unintentionally tossed in the minority districts to prevent packing. Thanks to the commission defining COIs as including living standards and income groups, this unintentionally (I believe..) legalizes and encourages the creation and preservation of white packs to facilitate more minority access. Those white packs are most likely to GOP packs.

White packs could benefit the GOP now.  1 in eastern SD, Inland/South OC, SW Riverside, and rural/edurban san bernardino.  Also 3 white packs in the central valley to then draw 3 minority electorate seats (3-3 is fair, the valley voted Trump).  

[Idaho Conservative]

Why wouldn't you just keep Sacramento county in exactly 2 districts?
It fits it exactly.

Because West Sac being part of the City of Sacramento district is more important than keeping Arden Arcade and Elk Grove together.

Strongly disagree.  As someone who is quite familiar with this region, the Sac county suburbs are definitely a COI.  Plus, Yolo is kind of its own thing.  West Sac is right by the wetlands, a Yolo/Solano, eastern Contra Costa district would be a nice delta area district.  

[Idaho Conservative]

Remember that list I posted a few pages back? Well, i'm going to add to it, since I forgot something. Legal COI priority goes:

- Local lines (counties, cities, neighborhoods)
- Ethnicity, Rage and it's correlating statistics
- Recognized cultural groupings of the previous two groups
- Partisan interests and competitiveness

In fact, the GOP is in a tight place when it comes to the ethnicity category. Since the state likes to maximize racial opportunity, GOP whites often end up as those unintentionally tossed in the minority districts to prevent packing. Thanks to the commission defining COIs as including living standards and income groups, this unintentionally (I believe..) legalizes and encourages the creation and preservation of white packs to facilitate more minority access. Those white packs are most likely to GOP packs.

White packs could benefit the GOP now.  1 in eastern SD, Inland/South OC, SW Riverside, and rural/edurban san bernardino.  Also 3 white packs in the central valley to then draw 3 minority electorate seats (3-3 is fair, the valley voted Trump).  

You aren't getting that Inland/South OC district unless you do something ridiculous like connecting Yorba Linda to San Clemente. Also, any republican SD district will be in North County, not East County. Where is your third valley seat coming from? Your districts should be something like white Bakersfield (GOP), Latino Bakersfield (Dem), Fresno (Dem), Clovis/Visalia/Foothills (GOP), Merced (Dem), and Modesto (Dem).

Yorba to San Clemente isn't any more ridiculous than the current map which puts SD suburbs with OC and Temecula.  Plus it's only fair.  OC deserves at leas 1 GOP seat.  My 3rd valley GOP  district takes part of Harder's district and puts it with the mountains, and then pairs minority stanislaus areas with Stockton to create a 3rd minority seat in the valley.  3-3 is fair, the valley voted Trump overall.

[Idaho Conservative]

Why wouldn't you just keep Sacramento county in exactly 2 districts?
It fits it exactly.

Because West Sac being part of the City of Sacramento district is more important than keeping Arden Arcade and Elk Grove together.

Strongly disagree.  As someone who is quite familiar with this region, the Sac county suburbs are definitely a COI.  Plus, Yolo is kind of its own thing.  West Sac is right by the wetlands, a Yolo/Solano, eastern Contra Costa district would be a nice delta area district.  

You really think putting West Sac which is basically an extension of Downtown Sac in with Vallejo makes more sense than spinning off some of the indistinguishable sprawl east of the city into the Tahoe district? I really don't see why Citrus Heights belongs more with Natomas, for example, than Roseville or Folsom.

Natomas is in the city of Sacramento, whic should be 1 district. 

[Idaho Conservative]

Remember that list I posted a few pages back? Well, i'm going to add to it, since I forgot something. Legal COI priority goes:

- Local lines (counties, cities, neighborhoods)
- Ethnicity, Rage and it's correlating statistics
- Recognized cultural groupings of the previous two groups
- Partisan interests and competitiveness

In fact, the GOP is in a tight place when it comes to the ethnicity category. Since the state likes to maximize racial opportunity, GOP whites often end up as those unintentionally tossed in the minority districts to prevent packing. Thanks to the commission defining COIs as including living standards and income groups, this unintentionally (I believe..) legalizes and encourages the creation and preservation of white packs to facilitate more minority access. Those white packs are most likely to GOP packs.

White packs could benefit the GOP now.  1 in eastern SD, Inland/South OC, SW Riverside, and rural/edurban san bernardino.  Also 3 white packs in the central valley to then draw 3 minority electorate seats (3-3 is fair, the valley voted Trump).  

You aren't getting that Inland/South OC district unless you do something ridiculous like connecting Yorba Linda to San Clemente. Also, any republican SD district will be in North County, not East County. Where is your third valley seat coming from? Your districts should be something like white Bakersfield (GOP), Latino Bakersfield (Dem), Fresno (Dem), Clovis/Visalia/Foothills (GOP), Merced (Dem), and Modesto (Dem).

Yorba to San Clemente isn't any more ridiculous than the current map which puts SD suburbs with OC and Temecula.  Plus it's only fair.  OC deserves at leas 1 GOP seat.  My 3rd valley GOP  district takes part of Harder's district and puts it with the mountains, and then pairs minority stanislaus areas with Stockton to create a 3rd minority seat in the valley.  3-3 is fair, the valley voted Trump overall.

Pairing San Diego suburbs with San Clemente or Temecula isn't ideal, but it's literally unavoidable because San Diego doesn't have the population for a perfect four congressional districts. It's quite easy, on the other hand, to avoid pairing cities at literal opposite ends of Orange County, and OC deserving a GOP district isn't valid redistricting rationale.

Can you show me a map of what you did with Harder's district?

It is a few pages back.  And a Yorba-South OC pairing is one of the few thing republicans should insist on.  Since there are so few red seats there isn't much else to fight for lol.

[Idaho Conservative]

Remember that list I posted a few pages back? Well, i'm going to add to it, since I forgot something. Legal COI priority goes:

- Local lines (counties, cities, neighborhoods)
- Ethnicity, Rage and it's correlating statistics
- Recognized cultural groupings of the previous two groups
- Partisan interests and competitiveness

In fact, the GOP is in a tight place when it comes to the ethnicity category. Since the state likes to maximize racial opportunity, GOP whites often end up as those unintentionally tossed in the minority districts to prevent packing. Thanks to the commission defining COIs as including living standards and income groups, this unintentionally (I believe..) legalizes and encourages the creation and preservation of white packs to facilitate more minority access. Those white packs are most likely to GOP packs.

White packs could benefit the GOP now.  1 in eastern SD, Inland/South OC, SW Riverside, and rural/edurban san bernardino.  Also 3 white packs in the central valley to then draw 3 minority electorate seats (3-3 is fair, the valley voted Trump).  

You aren't getting that Inland/South OC district unless you do something ridiculous like connecting Yorba Linda to San Clemente. Also, any republican SD district will be in North County, not East County. Where is your third valley seat coming from? Your districts should be something like white Bakersfield (GOP), Latino Bakersfield (Dem), Fresno (Dem), Clovis/Visalia/Foothills (GOP), Merced (Dem), and Modesto (Dem).

Yorba to San Clemente isn't any more ridiculous than the current map which puts SD suburbs with OC and Temecula.  Plus it's only fair.  OC deserves at leas 1 GOP seat.  My 3rd valley GOP  district takes part of Harder's district and puts it with the mountains, and then pairs minority stanislaus areas with Stockton to create a 3rd minority seat in the valley.  3-3 is fair, the valley voted Trump overall.

Pairing San Diego suburbs with San Clemente or Temecula isn't ideal, but it's literally unavoidable because San Diego doesn't have the population for a perfect four congressional districts. It's quite easy, on the other hand, to avoid pairing cities at literal opposite ends of Orange County, and OC deserving a GOP district isn't valid redistricting rationale.

Can you show me a map of what you did with Harder's district?

This is his map😂


He is literally only here to troll just like the Virginia thread

Ergh. That's bad. Regarding the Central Valley specifically, putting Mono County, Elk Grove, and parts of Stockton/Modesto/Merced in one district is....wrong. I'd really like to look at that with a map underlay to see what is happening in San Joaquin/Stanislaus Counties but the general groupings north of Fresno are weird AF.

Elk Grove is in Sacramento county.

[Idaho Conservative]

Took the advice of Blairite and Oryx. I'm not happy with district 18 at all, but I think it's a little better than the one on Blairite's map. I'm also a little bothered by some of the groupings for CA-14... I'm open to making some more changes as needed.

CA-12 is plurality Asian, as is CA-17. CA-14 is majority Asian, and CA-15 is plurality Hispanic, but plurality Asian by CVAP (fairly evenly distributed between White, Asian, and Hispanic).

I can probably ditch the majority Asian district to clean up the map from a COI standpoint. I don't think any districts here are VRA protected per Gingles, as there is no demonstrated bloc voting in the bay. Asian isn't even a good grouping, as East Asians and South Asians arent a unified group at all.

Monterrey county doesn't need to be split wtf.

[Idaho Conservative]

You can definitely make an R district in Orange County by taking in mostly coastal OC towns and it makes sense to do this. Avoiding city splits I took in Los Alamitos, Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, Dana Point, San Juan Capistrano, San Clemente and Aliso Viejo. It also packs in whites and is 55R-45D. Then you can have a Riverside district and a San Diego district. So you can definitely get 3 fair R districts in Socal.

We agree on 9 gop seats, but I think the 9th should be a 4th socal seat, not a 3rd in norcal.

[Idaho Conservative]

Remember that list I posted a few pages back? Well, i'm going to add to it, since I forgot something. Legal COI priority goes:

- Local lines (counties, cities, neighborhoods)
- Ethnicity, Rage and it's correlating statistics
- Recognized cultural groupings of the previous two groups
- Partisan interests and competitiveness

In fact, the GOP is in a tight place when it comes to the ethnicity category. Since the state likes to maximize racial opportunity, GOP whites often end up as those unintentionally tossed in the minority districts to prevent packing. Thanks to the commission defining COIs as including living standards and income groups, this unintentionally (I believe..) legalizes and encourages the creation and preservation of white packs to facilitate more minority access. Those white packs are most likely to GOP packs.

White packs could benefit the GOP now.  1 in eastern SD, Inland/South OC, SW Riverside, and rural/edurban san bernardino.  Also 3 white packs in the central valley to then draw 3 minority electorate seats (3-3 is fair, the valley voted Trump).  

You aren't getting that Inland/South OC district unless you do something ridiculous like connecting Yorba Linda to San Clemente. Also, any republican SD district will be in North County, not East County. Where is your third valley seat coming from? Your districts should be something like white Bakersfield (GOP), Latino Bakersfield (Dem), Fresno (Dem), Clovis/Visalia/Foothills (GOP), Merced (Dem), and Modesto (Dem).

Yorba to San Clemente isn't any more ridiculous than the current map which puts SD suburbs with OC and Temecula.  Plus it's only fair.  OC deserves at leas 1 GOP seat.  My 3rd valley GOP  district takes part of Harder's district and puts it with the mountains, and then pairs minority stanislaus areas with Stockton to create a 3rd minority seat in the valley.  3-3 is fair, the valley voted Trump overall.

Pairing San Diego suburbs with San Clemente or Temecula isn't ideal, but it's literally unavoidable because San Diego doesn't have the population for a perfect four congressional districts. It's quite easy, on the other hand, to avoid pairing cities at literal opposite ends of Orange County, and OC deserving a GOP district isn't valid redistricting rationale.

Can you show me a map of what you did with Harder's district?

This is his map😂


He is literally only here to troll just like the Virginia thread

Ergh. That's bad. Regarding the Central Valley specifically, putting Mono County, Elk Grove, and parts of Stockton/Modesto/Merced in one district is....wrong. I'd really like to look at that with a map underlay to see what is happening in San Joaquin/Stanislaus Counties but the general groupings north of Fresno are weird AF.

Elk Grove is in Sacramento county.

It's very hard to tell where certain suburbs are on your map without transparency reduced, your map overlay turned on, and your county lines turned on. If you'd post a new screenshot with all of this, it would be much appreciated.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/14c07950-05ff-4f60-92d9-61d9f07870c0

[Idaho Conservative]

Going back a few posts, if you have to draw OC without an OC-SD split, I'd go for something like this. It destroys the Asian opportunity district (which is nice to have but not a requirement) and splits part of Fullerton around to Irvine, but at least it doesn't have districts connecting two disparate built-up areas (for example, Oceanside and San Clemente or Yorba Lina and Corona). For the record, the South OC district is Trump+1 (so likely D) and the Irvine-Yorba Linda district is Clinton+3 (so safe D).



Edit: I could bring Huntington and Newport into the South OC seat, move Mission Viejo and Ladera Ranch into the Irvine seat, and push Yorba Linda into the Fullerton seat to restore the Asian Belt district, but I'm unconvinced Coastal OC is a stronger COI than South OC. I think in many ways, Lake Forest, Rancho Santa Margarita, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Niguel, and Newport Beach belong together more strongly than San Clemente and Huntington Beach. It is easy to view Irvine as a sort of barrier separating South OC from the rest of the county. Thoughts?

Clinton+3 is safe D?

[Idaho Conservative]

Remember that list I posted a few pages back? Well, i'm going to add to it, since I forgot something. Legal COI priority goes:

- Local lines (counties, cities, neighborhoods)
- Ethnicity, Rage and it's correlating statistics
- Recognized cultural groupings of the previous two groups
- Partisan interests and competitiveness

In fact, the GOP is in a tight place when it comes to the ethnicity category. Since the state likes to maximize racial opportunity, GOP whites often end up as those unintentionally tossed in the minority districts to prevent packing. Thanks to the commission defining COIs as including living standards and income groups, this unintentionally (I believe..) legalizes and encourages the creation and preservation of white packs to facilitate more minority access. Those white packs are most likely to GOP packs.

White packs could benefit the GOP now.  1 in eastern SD, Inland/South OC, SW Riverside, and rural/edurban san bernardino.  Also 3 white packs in the central valley to then draw 3 minority electorate seats (3-3 is fair, the valley voted Trump).  

You aren't getting that Inland/South OC district unless you do something ridiculous like connecting Yorba Linda to San Clemente. Also, any republican SD district will be in North County, not East County. Where is your third valley seat coming from? Your districts should be something like white Bakersfield (GOP), Latino Bakersfield (Dem), Fresno (Dem), Clovis/Visalia/Foothills (GOP), Merced (Dem), and Modesto (Dem).

Yorba to San Clemente isn't any more ridiculous than the current map which puts SD suburbs with OC and Temecula.  Plus it's only fair.  OC deserves at leas 1 GOP seat.  My 3rd valley GOP  district takes part of Harder's district and puts it with the mountains, and then pairs minority stanislaus areas with Stockton to create a 3rd minority seat in the valley.  3-3 is fair, the valley voted Trump overall.

Pairing San Diego suburbs with San Clemente or Temecula isn't ideal, but it's literally unavoidable because San Diego doesn't have the population for a perfect four congressional districts. It's quite easy, on the other hand, to avoid pairing cities at literal opposite ends of Orange County, and OC deserving a GOP district isn't valid redistricting rationale.

Can you show me a map of what you did with Harder's district?

This is his map😂


He is literally only here to troll just like the Virginia thread

Ergh. That's bad. Regarding the Central Valley specifically, putting Mono County, Elk Grove, and parts of Stockton/Modesto/Merced in one district is....wrong. I'd really like to look at that with a map underlay to see what is happening in San Joaquin/Stanislaus Counties but the general groupings north of Fresno are weird AF.

Elk Grove is in Sacramento county.

It's very hard to tell where certain suburbs are on your map without transparency reduced, your map overlay turned on, and your county lines turned on. If you'd post a new screenshot with all of this, it would be much appreciated.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/14c07950-05ff-4f60-92d9-61d9f07870c0

Thanks. I really don't see how your Northern Sacramento Valley seats can be considered fair. For starters, Mono and Inyo have to stay together, by law. Nevada County obviously belongs in your Tahoe district and Colusa County in your Far North CA district, although shifting that won't change partisanship. I stand by what I said on West Sac and it isn't like Ami Bera is going to lose that CA-05 district anyway. Stanislaus and San Joaquin are where things really get messy. If you move Tracy in with an East Bay district, you can keep Stockton, Lathrop, Manteca, and Modesto completely intact and cut down on some awkward county splits. Fresno should not be split three ways and Merced shouldn't be split two.

Your Bay Area map is actually pretty clean, although I prefer to keep the 680 corridor intact rather than chopping it up and connecting it to the inner East Bay.

Finally, DO NOT CROSS THE SAN GABRIEL MOUNTAINS, EVER. It won't even change your partisanship much. Just don't do it. I'm not even going to touch LA, which is unnecessarily convoluted for seemingly no reason.

His Bay Area map is clean because there are no Republican areas to gerrymander.

Most of my districts are clean.  unlike yours.

[Idaho Conservative]

Remember that list I posted a few pages back? Well, i'm going to add to it, since I forgot something. Legal COI priority goes:

- Local lines (counties, cities, neighborhoods)
- Ethnicity, Rage and it's correlating statistics
- Recognized cultural groupings of the previous two groups
- Partisan interests and competitiveness

In fact, the GOP is in a tight place when it comes to the ethnicity category. Since the state likes to maximize racial opportunity, GOP whites often end up as those unintentionally tossed in the minority districts to prevent packing. Thanks to the commission defining COIs as including living standards and income groups, this unintentionally (I believe..) legalizes and encourages the creation and preservation of white packs to facilitate more minority access. Those white packs are most likely to GOP packs.

White packs could benefit the GOP now.  1 in eastern SD, Inland/South OC, SW Riverside, and rural/edurban san bernardino.  Also 3 white packs in the central valley to then draw 3 minority electorate seats (3-3 is fair, the valley voted Trump).  

You aren't getting that Inland/South OC district unless you do something ridiculous like connecting Yorba Linda to San Clemente. Also, any republican SD district will be in North County, not East County. Where is your third valley seat coming from? Your districts should be something like white Bakersfield (GOP), Latino Bakersfield (Dem), Fresno (Dem), Clovis/Visalia/Foothills (GOP), Merced (Dem), and Modesto (Dem).

Yorba to San Clemente isn't any more ridiculous than the current map which puts SD suburbs with OC and Temecula.  Plus it's only fair.  OC deserves at leas 1 GOP seat.  My 3rd valley GOP  district takes part of Harder's district and puts it with the mountains, and then pairs minority stanislaus areas with Stockton to create a 3rd minority seat in the valley.  3-3 is fair, the valley voted Trump overall.

Pairing San Diego suburbs with San Clemente or Temecula isn't ideal, but it's literally unavoidable because San Diego doesn't have the population for a perfect four congressional districts. It's quite easy, on the other hand, to avoid pairing cities at literal opposite ends of Orange County, and OC deserving a GOP district isn't valid redistricting rationale.

Can you show me a map of what you did with Harder's district?

This is his map😂


He is literally only here to troll just like the Virginia thread

Ergh. That's bad. Regarding the Central Valley specifically, putting Mono County, Elk Grove, and parts of Stockton/Modesto/Merced in one district is....wrong. I'd really like to look at that with a map underlay to see what is happening in San Joaquin/Stanislaus Counties but the general groupings north of Fresno are weird AF.

Elk Grove is in Sacramento county.

It's very hard to tell where certain suburbs are on your map without transparency reduced, your map overlay turned on, and your county lines turned on. If you'd post a new screenshot with all of this, it would be much appreciated.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/14c07950-05ff-4f60-92d9-61d9f07870c0

Thanks. I really don't see how your Northern Sacramento Valley seats can be considered fair. For starters, Mono and Inyo have to stay together, by law. Nevada County obviously belongs in your Tahoe district and Colusa County in your Far North CA district, although shifting that won't change partisanship. I stand by what I said on West Sac and it isn't like Ami Bera is going to lose that CA-05 district anyway. Stanislaus and San Joaquin are where things really get messy. If you move Tracy in with an East Bay district, you can keep Stockton, Lathrop, Manteca, and Modesto completely intact and cut down on some awkward county splits. Fresno should not be split three ways and Merced shouldn't be split two.

Your Bay Area map is actually pretty clean, although I prefer to keep the 680 corridor intact rather than chopping it up and connecting it to the inner East Bay.

Finally, DO NOT CROSS THE SAN GABRIEL MOUNTAINS, EVER. It won't even change your partisanship much. Just don't do it. I'm not even going to touch LA, which is unnecessarily convoluted for seemingly no reason.

Why do Mono and Inyo have to be together?  Also maybe you're right about Tracy being with the bay.

[Idaho Conservative]

Updated. I paired Temecula with San Diego County while staying out of the San Diego suburbs. My new CA-48 respects San Diego suburb city lines. the CoI for CA-48 is rural areas. It largely stays out of the OC-SD suburbs.



San Diego:



Los Angeles:



Central Valley:



Bay Area:



Orange:



Emerald Coast and Jefferson:



High Desert:

Seems decent, but in the Sac area, it appears you put Antelope and Citrus Heights with the urban district, but an inner ring suburb would be a better pairing.  Also, is the Corona district basically a continuation of the current?  

[Idaho Conservative]

How much should we be looking at chopping an AA seat in Los Angeles?

The seats seem to fit pretty easily, and eliminating Waters or Bass might require splitting up black areas, which might get a lawsuit.  Cutting Lowenthal seems smart. The Orange remnant can be absorbed into an OC Vietnamese seat and the Long Beach part can go to Barragan

[Idaho Conservative]

Now the money question - the Empire. The goal here is to get a fourth performing Hispanic seat out of the region, since we are following the suburbanization of minorities. Reminder the preforming means protected seat because a majority of the electors share a demographic group and will be selecting a candidate who best suits the interests of their group. This 4th seat is to compensate for cutting a Hispanic seat in LA. All told, my aim is to get between 16 and 18 seats where Hispanics have domination of the electoral process, and are not just one of many actors a total number of seats that lines up with Hispanic CVAP% statewide.

The borders in Riverside and between the seats can change because of what ends up happening in San Diego. This should be stated in advance.

So with that out of the way lets talk about the four. The biggest problem appears to be the Victor Valley. Victor Valley is better paired with the Imperial valley, I agree with that 100%. However, I don't want west LA getting sucked into Santa Clarita and Ventura to the tune of 350ishK because that's how we end up with odd white packs or minority districts that cannot preform. If I was to restore the old CA08 in some capacity then that wouldn't elect a minority candidate, the desert's too white. It's also not like the commission minds using I15 to connect a district or drawing something weird in the region. Crossing the mountains here using the eastern Artery is just as fine as using the western one to link Santa Clarita to the Antelope Valley, if that is one's discretion. With that in mind then, the Victor Valley needs to stay within the grouping of four, but it doesn't need to be paired with SB city.

Now, there are some changes that I can make to the grouping of four. When changes come to SB, they will bring changes to CA35. For example, Yucapia/Calimesa and the Arrowheads are only in the group because of connections or pop, I would trade them for Apple Valley in a heartbeat. So if I was to adjust how the four districts were obtained from this region, what would people like to see? How would you like to see the communities paired?

Not sure that is possible or justifiable.  The IE is half hispanic and the citizen VAP is 41% (the actual electorate is likely closer to 1/3 hispanic).  There are roughly 6 seats in the IE, 2/3 seats for 1/3 of the electorate sounds like a racial gerrymander to me.  Also it could be a vra dummymander where in a midterm, hispanic choice candidates fall like dominoes.  I think the best case would be 3 seats.  2 in San Bernardino, and I combining the Coachella valley and Perris.  And those would certainly perform.

[Idaho Conservative]

Visalia-Bakersfield Hispanic seat. I instead used a Bakersfield-Fresno connection for a white seat. CA-18 and CA-20 are both performing seats. Fresno is in CA-18, CA-19, and CA-21. Clovis and a tiny piece of Fresno proper are in CA-19.

Clinton margin in CA 20?

[Idaho Conservative]

This alignment is better IMO. You can play with splitting Visalia to even out districts 21 and 22 if you prefer.

CA-22 64.8% Hispanic/51.6% CVAP/49.6% Clinton
CA-21 71.0% Hispanic/56.7% CVAP/52.9% Clinton
CA-16 53.6% Hipsanic/42.0% CVAP/54.1% Clinton
CA-10 46.9% Hispanic/34.6% CVAP/48.3% Clinton

Splitting Visalia right down the middle puts both CA-21 and CA-22 at 54% Hispanic CVAP and 51% Clinton.

such a gerrymander lol

[Idaho Conservative]

On my map 20 is 54% Clinton and 19 is 51% Clinton.

Could 22 be kept within Kern?  Seems not many precincts would have to move.

[Idaho Conservative]

Lfromnj, there is no way the commission is going to gerrymander a Republican-favoring map by diluting the minority vote and breaking up COIs.

What district is Republican favoring here?
There is no dilution of the minority vote lol. The only question is district 6 and 5 which I said I am unsure of for the county pairing. If you want to clean that up feel free.

Your map isn't republican favoring.  7️⃣ is full of it.

[Idaho Conservative]

I don't understand why there is this fascination among a few people for keeping Madera whole. The county has been split for a while on multiple levels because everyone recognizes that it's COIs are better served split rather than whole. The NE of the county has more in common with the rest of the Sierra foothill counties, and the SW of the county is part of the agricultural valley. Keeping the county whole either cracks the foothills, because you paired the it all with the Valley, or you sink Hispanics into what will be a white seat.

Fair enough for the split of Madera. It looks like a smart logical split.
4 has a CVAP of 53.5% with the split of Madera and is Clinton +18
2 is 56.5% and Clinton +9
blue is Trump +9 and purple is Trump +24

That's perfectly a reasonable map. However, it might break down once you fit it into the larger map. It's very hard to make the Central Valley look nice without doing some weird things in the Bay Area and Los Angeles.

This is why I avoid California . If this was say a close up in Texas of say the Dallas metro it wouldn't really affect the rest of the map. Also I find working through all the VRA seats in LA a boring chore.

I think you're focusing too much on the county lines. For example, the desert portions of Kern can easily go with the rest of the Mojave Desert, the mountain counties and portions of Tulare, Fresno, and Madera can and should be grouped together.

The Central Valley is probably going to have to add another Latino district due to population growth. It's over 53% Hispanic and less than 32% White. Removing San Joaquin County from the equation (flexible as a sort of Bay exurb, and almost a full district on its own), the rest of the Central Valley is 56% Hispanic and 31% White. The new maps will have to be drawn to accommodate this, whether Republicans like it or not.

Instead of 2 Hispanic majority districts, only one of which is majority by CVAP, there must be three majority Hispanic districts, two of which ought to be majority by CVAP.

Getting 3 seats would require some interesting lines.  Maybe a Merced/Stanislus/Stockton combo.  You could probably make 3 hispanic seats and 3 white (by electorate)

[Idaho Conservative]

I don't understand why there is this fascination among a few people for keeping Madera whole. The county has been split for a while on multiple levels because everyone recognizes that it's COIs are better served split rather than whole. The NE of the county has more in common with the rest of the Sierra foothill counties, and the SW of the county is part of the agricultural valley. Keeping the county whole either cracks the foothills, because you paired the it all with the Valley, or you sink Hispanics into what will be a white seat.

Fair enough for the split of Madera. It looks like a smart logical split.
4 has a CVAP of 53.5% with the split of Madera and is Clinton +18
2 is 56.5% and Clinton +9
blue is Trump +9 and purple is Trump +24

That's perfectly a reasonable map. However, it might break down once you fit it into the larger map. It's very hard to make the Central Valley look nice without doing some weird things in the Bay Area and Los Angeles.

This is why I avoid California . If this was say a close up in Texas of say the Dallas metro it wouldn't really affect the rest of the map. Also I find working through all the VRA seats in LA a boring chore.

I think you're focusing too much on the county lines. For example, the desert portions of Kern can easily go with the rest of the Mojave Desert, the mountain counties and portions of Tulare, Fresno, and Madera can and should be grouped together.

The Central Valley is probably going to have to add another Latino district due to population growth. It's over 53% Hispanic and less than 32% White. Removing San Joaquin County from the equation (flexible as a sort of Bay exurb, and almost a full district on its own), the rest of the Central Valley is 56% Hispanic and 31% White. The new maps will have to be drawn to accommodate this, whether Republicans like it or not.

Instead of 2 Hispanic majority districts, only one of which is majority by CVAP, there must be three majority Hispanic districts, two of which ought to be majority by CVAP.

Currently there is CA 16 and CA 21. CA 21 is majority by CVAP while 16th is just by population.
Boost CA 21 to 50% CVAP and you have your increased Hispanic representation. 10 years of population growth does not mean a whole district and a half in a area with 4 districts especially when only 40% of the population is Hispanic CVAP.

From Modesto to Bakersfield, there's four districts. From Stockton to Bakersfield, it's five. If you include the mountains, 5.5.

Since Hispanics are over 50% of the population, it makes sense to have at least 50% of the seats as Hispanic seats. Whites are less than one third of the population, so they get one seat. The other seats become coalition seats.

That's not not how it works.  Just leave, you know nothing about this.

[Idaho Conservative]

Tracy can certainly go with the Tri-Valley, but doesn't have to.

And while that district 5 might appear ugly to the naked eye, I don't see any harm in creating a "delta" district. It makes sense.

That's true, but dealing with both Vacaville and Fairfield gets awkward. I am happy, though, that this allows me to keep all of Stockton intact.

Yeah splitting them sucks but there's going to have to be splits we don't like and this area is as good as any.

Del Norte-Humboldt-Mendocino-Sonoma is a perfect four three county district with COI relevance but we break that up to avoid San Francisco.

Not that your original post was wrong, but Marin-Sonoma is as perfect as it gets.

then have the Humboldt district go into Napa, like it used to.