How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission

[minionofmidas]

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.

[minionofmidas]

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.

I recall the district, though not that the Hispanic CD in San Diego was that low. It was a lot like Muon's draft he keeps repeating here, though I recall it as more erose. I didn't like that idea then, and I do not now. And yeah, I guess there may actually be (at least if Republicans get a very good lawyer and a very friendly court) a retrogression issue with my proposal, seeing as most of that SD area was included in the district so far. Yeah, I had that thought for a fleeting moment while making the long rant post, too. In which case I guess it is not possible. A commission is required to follow the law. Including the case law. It can't, not possibly, play "let'em sue" games. (Of course, it can be sued anyways, and lose anyways. Such is the nature of case law.)

[minionofmidas]

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?

You're reading me all wrong... but that's fine, really. Because I was doing the same with you, at least as a nagging suspicion (and you know where that originally came from? Good.)

Of course, at an initial point, before looking at a few data more closely, I thought something *somewhat like* what I would want could have been achieved even without the cut into Riverside, which I know now is clearly incorrect.
I still hold it makes a lot of sense on several levels (perhaps the biggest being: right now the district is rural hispanic farmworkers attached to an essentially urban district to bring it up to population. A more equitable split between the two related, but not identical, communities of interest is definitely positive. And the urbanization south of SD proper to the Mexican border, National City etc, has farmworking hispanic roots. And the other being, of course, the plight of poor rural Riverside subsumed into that district. Which I happen to care more about than Hispanics in the middle of suburbia. Which is a form of bias, actually, but not one that correlates well with the current American party system.), but I understand there's decent arguments against it as well. I'll let it pass.

[minionofmidas]

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?

[minionofmidas]

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.

So not that Hispanic really. Population very much on the upper end of the range into which I'd have cautiously guessed though, which may be a problem in trying to cautiously reduce the erosity.
If I were trying to defend your map, I'd say that the extra Hispanic CD packed high enough to elect an Hispanic, being possible, was necessary and the Black pack just happened naturally.

[minionofmidas]

Hey, my Riverside CD is over 50% HVAP - now - too, materially increasing the odds the it will elect an Anglo Dem in lieu of an Anglo Pub.  It won't be electing an Hispanic. God bless the VRA!  If Maldef wants more, they will have to go to court. When they lose, hopefully this sort of thing won't "have" to be done in the future.

Okay, I have to ask even though I think the answer is likely "no". (And if the reply seems to be an unsweated flat "no, I don't wanna try", you get the old problems of me not fully believing you!) Is there any way this district can be semi-reasonably connected with East Riverside - basically the old Imperial & Coachella & random points west concept, but without Imperial?

[minionofmidas]

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?

God, no. Would be a bit silly given that no truly dependable data on the question even exist.
muon's looking at benchmarks for what no one could possibly sue against. But how can you know what figure that is if you can't even legally take incumbents / likely candidates into consideration? (Since clearly whether MALDEF would sue does depend on whether they think it's clear the CD will be dependably carried on Hispanic votes... and they can and do take potential candidates into account.) So if you think you can't take any risk and can't go against any of the internally inconsistent body of case law, you raise the threshold higher and higher, though only as long as it's possible to draw such a version that is reasonably compact, and this is as high as it's currently gone. (Cause I can totally see the SC raising it again and again, all to keep from either striking down the VRA or effectively court-ordering the retirements of three Texas Republican congressmen.)

[minionofmidas]

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.

It should come down as a) the non-Hispanic non-citizen percentage comes up b) the residence duration of the Hispanics there comes up - poor Hispanic pockets on the affluent outer edges of suburbia tend to have just about the lowest citizenship rates of all. Those are the people building those new houses.

[minionofmidas]

Here's an updated map with all four south LAC Latino districts safely in compliance with section 2. I've drawn them for compactness, but Torie or sbane can say what pieces should be swapped.

East LA/Koreatown (yellow; goes up to the edge of Glendale and Pasadena): 64.5% HVAP
Downtown/South LA (green): 68.5% HVAP
South Gate/Paramount (peach): 75.3% HVAP
Downey/Norwalk (magenta): 67.5% HVAP.

Wait, and what happens to the corridor here?

[minionofmidas]

The Long Beach district is the only undersized district?

[minionofmidas]

Here's another option. I picked up the Asian areas right adjacent to Milpitas for the 15th. I can go down and pick up Evergreen too and get rid of Campbell and areas adjacent to it..... It's up to 40% AVAP BTW.

This maps "unites" bourgeoisie whites/Asians, with dirt poor Hispanics it looks like in CA-16. Where or where shall the SJ Hispanics go?

What happens if you move Los Altos, Palo Alto, Stamford to the orange so that brown spills into the bay (as opposed to ocean) side of things exclusively through Los Gatos Canyon, trichopping SJ hard? (Am I talking about the area exchanged for Campbell or about a counterclockwise shift? Why, I've no idea. Whichever makes more sense.)

[minionofmidas]

Newark instead of southeast Fremont looks reasonable and from sbane's description sounds reasonable. Can we hear why Torie drew it the wayhe did (and why nobody raised it before seeing as SJ was discussed before)?

[minionofmidas]

What is the population of the huge Newark-surrounding precinct, and where do they presumably live - in its southeastern part? Maybe we could have our cake and eat it too in regards to issues of de facto and, as it were, de jure erosity as well? (Though the part angling around to beyond the bridge would always look ugly.)