2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: California

[MAPZZ]

Finished my map: https://davesredistricting.org/join/5180a8ee-d24e-48b4-8e6f-83d0f5a041d9


Recommendations welcome, I know that the 10th is ugly, mostly because it was my leftover seat, also the Inland Empire mess is to try to draw more minority access seats.

The 4th is an abomination that should be destroyed in it's entirety, the 13th should drop Half Moon Bay, the 3rd should go all the way to Del Norte County, the 32nd should drop either Long Beach or Venice/Mar Vista, the 26th needs to drop Claremont and Glendora, and the 35th, 41st, 46th, and 48th should be drawn over again from scratch. You don't need to do these insane pairings to get sufficient minority access.

I mostly made these changes but given Claremont and Glendora are in the current 27th, which is basically my 26th, I'm unsure where exactly they belong and which cities I should exchange for them.  The 9th was my leftover seat, and some advice on how to fix that would be helpful, also I'd like to know if the 35th could still use some cleaning up. Made all of the other changes that you suggested.


Map link: https://davesredistricting.org/join/5180a8ee-d24e-48b4-8e6f-83d0f5a041d9

This is better, but you still have some work to do.

1. Inyo and Mono counties can only attach to San Bernardino or Kern. This is literally mandated by California state law and any map which connects them west or north is a non-starter. You'll just have to live without that white sink.

2. Pasadena to Glendora to Claremont without including Monrovia/Azusa/San Dimas is also a no go. Just push your 31st district into Monrovia and Claremont and drop precincts in El Monte and Monrovia to compensate.

3. Don't split Long Beach. Just don't.

4. Santa Monica, Sawtelle, Pacific Palisades, Brentwood, and Venice should all be in the same district which should under no situation connect to Burbank and Glendale.

5. Your pairings in Orange County are very awkward.

6. As a general rule, your district borders are very messy. Try to follow straight lines or natural borders for the most part. You have a tendency to excessively create minority access districts at the expense of logical neighborhood and city pairings.

I think this should address 1-4, I'm unsure how to fix 5, also most of these fixes probably worsened my lines, so some feedback on that would be helpful

Southern LA County:



Eastern CA:



Link to map: https://davesredistricting.org/join/5180a8ee-d24e-48b4-8e6f-83d0f5a041d9

Further feedback is also welcome, as well as feedback as to whether these changes have addressed the concerns.

Lots of aesthetic complaints I could make here, but the one that really stands out is the massive Victorville-to-Roseville district. Surely you can make something a hair more compact.

[MAPZZ]

This configuration is more traditional. I don't want to connect Marin and Contra Costa. Maybe CA-01 shouldn't go this far inland ideally, but Garamendi's district is the easiest to eliminate in NorCal. My CA-01 is very similar to many other Atlasian maps of that district. My CA-03 (CA-04 equivalent) fits very well with my CA-22 (CA-23 equivalent). Are compact double digit Clinton districts sufficient for the two Central Valley VRAs?

Central Valley VRA districts:
CA-19, Fresno: Clinton +11
CA-20, Bakersfield: Clinton +13

Really like your take on NorCal so far. Marin + and the remainder of Sonoma county will be the perfect size for another district too.