2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: California

[SevenEleven]

Oof, yeah, Sacramento County got violated by that map lol.

Personally, I like putting Morgan Hill/Gilroy/Hollister with the Central Valley. It moves the map better for the more upstate districts.

[SevenEleven]

I'm working on my first map. Am I supposed to stay close to the listed target population?

I try to keep three digit differential or less.

[SevenEleven]

I'm working on my first map. Am I supposed to stay close to the listed target population?

I try to keep three digit differential or less.

It’s super tough. Is it better to go over or under?

It doesn't matter either way, just try to stay balanced so that you don't run into more population problems later on.

[SevenEleven]

The latter map better represents COI, so that one. Long Beach and Huntington Beach do not belong in the same district. There's simply no justification. And "being Asian" is not a valid COI,



Here is a map with 3 heavily Asian districts that still respects COI.

[SevenEleven]

There's simply no justification. And "being Asian" is not a valid COI,

Here is a map with 3 heavily Asian districts that still respects COI.

I mean this map carves up the San Gabriel communities like they are butter, without much care for the municipal lines. It also probably would produce headaches for the Hispanic seats in that reason. Therefore, it only works as a demonstration map. However, I get what you are saying.

The commission is not going to care much about municipal lines, especially in a major metropolitan area. The Hispanic seats worked out perfect, you get to connect East LA and downtown, and the gate way cities cluster together perfectly.

What do you think should be done with the San Gabriel Valley? I don't think anything is much worse than what the current map did.

It should be remembered though that the commission has a hard on for ethnic communities (partially because of it's guidelines) and shared ethnicity will decide most LA districts.

While true, respect for ethnic communities shouldn't really equate to treating Chinese, Indian, and Vietnamese as a singular group.

[SevenEleven]

The commission is not going to care much about municipal lines, especially in a major metropolitan area.

I'm sorry, but this is perhaps one of the most ill-informed sentences I have ever read about redistricting. If you actually believe this statement then let me state some obvious facts.

Community, city, or neighborhood lines are perhaps the most well known COIs any citizen ever comes in contact with. Even if a person is totally disconnected and doesn't care about govt they know where they bought/rented their home or where they were raised. These community lines are the building blocks of the commission. It is up to the commission to pair said communities.

There are only really ever two times when the commission breaks this rule of thumb. 1 - population sometimes gives citizens the middle finger. 2 - when ethnic communities are more powerful than municipal lines, such as the Hispanic v White relationship in the Central Valley or the AA community in West La county, and those assume precedence. The most obvious community cuts are in Fresno and Bakersfield, both cases where the Hispanics got their own seat.

In such a populous county with different interests like LA it is MOST CRITICAL community lines are preserved. Here's some evidence:

Look how often the Black (municipal lines) and Red (CDs) coincide. And when they don't it is mostly because the district is inside the massive LA City where neighborhoods have more predominance or are carving across empty precincts.

You misunderstand me, or perhaps I wasn't very clear. The commission is not going to rank municipal lines over more important criteria. For example, there is absolutely nothing wrong with splitting Anaheim Hills from the rest of Anaheim, or even splitting the white section of Santa Ana off (both of which I did). When I have computer access I can show you how my map follows municipal lines really well.
Ultimately, you're going to have to make some cuts, which are easier to do the larger the city is. There was no reason for the commission to split Torrance, for example.

[SevenEleven]

The commission is not going to care much about municipal lines, especially in a major metropolitan area.

I'm sorry, but this is perhaps one of the most ill-informed sentences I have ever read about redistricting. If you actually believe this statement then let me state some obvious facts.

Community, city, or neighborhood lines are perhaps the most well known COIs any citizen ever comes in contact with. Even if a person is totally disconnected and doesn't care about govt they know where they bought/rented their home or where they were raised. These community lines are the building blocks of the commission. It is up to the commission to pair said communities.

There are only really ever two times when the commission breaks this rule of thumb. 1 - population sometimes gives citizens the middle finger. 2 - when ethnic communities are more powerful than municipal lines, such as the Hispanic v White relationship in the Central Valley or the AA community in West La county, and those assume precedence. The most obvious community cuts are in Fresno and Bakersfield, both cases where the Hispanics got their own seat.

In such a populous county with different interests like LA it is MOST CRITICAL community lines are preserved. Here's some evidence:

Look how often the Black (municipal lines) and Red (CDs) coincide. And when they don't it is mostly because the district is inside the massive LA City where neighborhoods have more predominance or are carving across empty precincts.

You misunderstand me, or perhaps I wasn't very clear. The commission is not going to rank municipal lines over more important criteria. For example, there is absolutely nothing wrong with splitting Anaheim Hills from the rest of Anaheim, or even splitting the white section of Santa Ana off (both of which I did). When I have computer access I can show you how my map follows municipal lines really well.
Ultimately, you're going to have to make some cuts, which are easier to do the larger the city is. There was no reason for the commission to split Torrance, for example.

Yeah, you weren't very clear, sorry about that. I think we agree here. Keep to the building blocks unless there are other more overriding factors, in which case it might be best to treat it as 2+ blocks like in Anaheim. That's a community which is divided in way more ways than it's politics. The best example of this is not in CA, but in MS. There the court carved up both Madison and Hinds between the wealthy white suburbs and the AA's because the two had clear divergent interests. This is despite the fact that partisanship and overall district demographics wouldn't have been affected by leaving both counties whole.

Also...there's a white part of Santa Ana

The very southern part has a lot of whites and Asians.  You can see it on my map; the commission actually did the same thing last time, as that section of Santa Ana is in Ca-48 (the horizontal lines that cuts back at Irvine)

[SevenEleven]

I've begun an Assembly map. Tell me why it's garb.

[SevenEleven]

I've begun an Assembly map. Tell me why it's garb.

I don’t see Catalina Island on the map (LA County is otherwise complete). Where should I go with CA-42 on my map?

Corona and Norco

[SevenEleven]

I've begun an Assembly map. Tell me why it's garb.

I don’t see Catalina Island on the map (LA County is otherwise complete). Where should I go with CA-42 on my map?

Corona and Norco

Obviously, but where other than Corona and Norco should I go with it?

Lake Elsinore.

I'd try to get San Diego County done first, though.

[SevenEleven]

I did Lake Elsinore. Where should I start in San Diego County?

Chula Vista

[SevenEleven]

Texas is actually a better way to see the map like this
You can draw your individual metro areas and figure out what you want there then draw the rest of the rural districts connecting the metros. California is a hard state for a beginer along with Florida due to basically most of the state being urbanized. Texas lets you divide the state up into mini areas to work with first.

That's definitely true, although California isn't the hardest. I always start with Los Angeles and Orange Counties, because it's a huge metro area with some VRA seats you have to do but a lot of ways to play around with the borders. Then I do the Bay Area, which is pretty easy because it's broken down into different counties and sort of draws itself given the barrier the bay provides. Then I fill in everything else.

Anyway, I adjusted my CA map in three ways. I dropped a LA/Ventura split and moved things around, dividing Ventura County into three natural areas (Oxnard Plain, Thousand Oaks/Simi Valley, and Santa Clara River Valley). I made a Tahoe/Gold Country seat which cleans up Sacramento a bit. Finally, I attached Pittsburgh/Antioch, Tracy, and Modesto to avoid splitting the Stockton urban area. Pretty happy with how it looks now, although I always appreciate criticism:

Is this map allowed because of the Supreme Court's recent VRA rulings? Central Valley looks like a MALDEF suit waiting to happen.

[SevenEleven]

Texas is actually a better way to see the map like this
You can draw your individual metro areas and figure out what you want there then draw the rest of the rural districts connecting the metros. California is a hard state for a beginer along with Florida due to basically most of the state being urbanized. Texas lets you divide the state up into mini areas to work with first.

That's definitely true, although California isn't the hardest. I always start with Los Angeles and Orange Counties, because it's a huge metro area with some VRA seats you have to do but a lot of ways to play around with the borders. Then I do the Bay Area, which is pretty easy because it's broken down into different counties and sort of draws itself given the barrier the bay provides. Then I fill in everything else.

Anyway, I adjusted my CA map in three ways. I dropped a LA/Ventura split and moved things around, dividing Ventura County into three natural areas (Oxnard Plain, Thousand Oaks/Simi Valley, and Santa Clara River Valley). I made a Tahoe/Gold Country seat which cleans up Sacramento a bit. Finally, I attached Pittsburgh/Antioch, Tracy, and Modesto to avoid splitting the Stockton urban area. Pretty happy with how it looks now, although I always appreciate criticism:

Is this map allowed because of the Supreme Court's recent VRA rulings? Central Valley looks like a MALDEF suit waiting to happen.

I'm not entirely sure. Is there a certain Latino threshold that needs to be hit for these seats?

Usually around 60+% voting pop

I don't know if the current standard is CVAP or VAP but the commission is likely to maintain a Hispanic district no matter what.

That's why my map looks the way it does. Kings County is no longer under pre-clearance but there still has to be a Latino district.

[SevenEleven]

[SevenEleven]

[SevenEleven]

It looks like an Assembly map.

It is. I think it's a damn good one as well.

[SevenEleven]

You need to get LA done.

[SevenEleven]

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to do with CA25 there, other than revive to 2000 era incumbent-and-screw-hispanics-mander. I know you are adamant about certain things like OC, but you shouldn't fear, in fact you should be eager to go back and alter old districts to make new ones better.

In other news I finished my 52 district map and am now cleaning it up in GIS for presentation.

What? My map isn't incumbent protection at all (I eliminated Porter and Lowenthal's districts so I could split Orange and San Diego counties each no more than once; Lowenthal probably retires too). What's the 2000 era thing? I gave both Pete Aguilar and Norma Torres majority-Hispanic VAP districts (Aguilar's current real district is only plurality Hispanic). My IE map has two majority-HVAP districts (the current real IE map has just one).

I was just pointing out how your CA25 looks awfully like it's old 2000 era line under that map, and how the 2000 lines were drawn to protect white democrats, and by the end of the decade, more republicans than the state should have had.

The maps were drawn to protect incumbents of both parties and they worked. Shows how incompetent Richard Pombo was. Of course, those incumbents were a product of a map that was already basically a GOP gerrymander.

[SevenEleven]

ERM your maps are kind of highlighting the importance of an LA-OC district.

[SevenEleven]

ERM your maps are kind of highlighting the importance of an LA-OC district.

How? You mean my CA-25?

Yeah but more so I have issues with CA-38. Diamond Bar belongs with Yorba Linda or Pomona. No need to draw it all the way from Norwalk as if it's LA's last line of defense against OC.

[SevenEleven]

The other option of course is to give one AA seat the ax (it is the rational thing to do given AA decline, but the commission wont go against AA access) either to reorient it towards a different part of the state or make it the 53rd seat. In such case, LA county now feeds her neighbors.

Can you seriously argue that two districts which are 30%  AA (and like 60% Latino) are AA opportunity districts anymore? I think one has to be cut and a Baldwin Hills to Watts 40% AA (but 54% AA CVAP) district has to be drawn instead.

Karen Bass doesn't need 30% AA. Realistically though there is only one truly AA district in LA

[SevenEleven]

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

IMO it definitely isn't. To be fair, OC-SD isn't the greatest pairing but doing it allows for much better Orange County districts so I usually include it. However, northwest Orange County and southeast LA County absolutely blend together and should have splits concentrated there. IMO, districts which cross the hills (so OC to Riverside, San Bernardino, or LA's San Gabriel Valley) should always be avoided.

OC to SGV is actually a pretty well connected area, unlike OC to Riverside. Diamond Bar and Yorba Linda can pair just fine. And it Trump's putting Huntington with Long Beach or ceding too much to an SD county based district.

[SevenEleven]

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

IMO it definitely isn't. To be fair, OC-SD isn't the greatest pairing but doing it allows for much better Orange County districts so I usually include it. However, northwest Orange County and southeast LA County absolutely blend together and should have splits concentrated there. IMO, districts which cross the hills (so OC to Riverside, San Bernardino, or LA's San Gabriel Valley) should always be avoided.

OC to SGV is actually a pretty well connected area, unlike OC to Riverside. Diamond Bar and Yorba Linda can pair just fine. And it Trump's putting Huntington with Long Beach or ceding too much to an SD county based district.

There are plenty of road connections but hills are just such obvious divider of communities to ignore. I like my district lines to follow ridgelines and other clear borders (rivers, freeways, etc.) as much as possible. A similar example would be Studio City and Hollywood. They're very connected but the former obviously belongs with the Valley and the latter with the core of the LA Basin.

The more I think about it, the less I see the "Asian belt' district happening. What's the VAP on your OC Latino district?

At 66%, it is still under 50% CVAP. The commission is going to have to start here first, anything else is going to determined by how they draw the Hispanic district.

I think grouping the communities on each side of the hills makes sense and that's what they did last time, although that map is rather problematic in many ways.

[SevenEleven]

If you have something like this, you have to either cut into Irvine and push the coastal district deep into San Diego County, or you have to cross the hills into Corona.

[SevenEleven]

How should I draw the Central Valley?

Are you starting with the South San Joaquin Valley without cutting into Lancaster as the current map does?