US with Indian constituencies

[traininthedistance]

Jokelahoma.



Deviation 1756.  No metros split.

District 1: TULSA-EAST is 34.6% Obama, 48.6% Dem (har har har), 11% Native, and supa-safe R.
District 2: OKC-WEST is 34.1% O, 45.5% D (yeah right), and even safer R.

Whee.

Workin' on California, which is taking a while on account of CA being too big for DRA to really handle, bah.

[traininthedistance]

Kentucky. 



Deviations 476.  Metro areas and CSAs are not hewn to exactly; the southern bit of the Louisville-Elizabethtown CSA is split off, as well as one of the micropolitan areas that gets appended to Lexington, but I wanted compact lines with low deviation that kept 1 within the Bluegrass area, and KY is relatively rural, so that sort of natural geography split seemed better.

District 1- BLUEGRASS- is 45.8% Obama.  It's clearly the more urban of the districts, with Louisville, Lexington, and the Cincy burbs.  Despite said Cincy burbs, it's a good deal more Democratic, and this district is probably friendly enough to a Blue Dog that it's merely Lean R.
District 2- SOUTH AND EAST- is 35.9% Obama, and Safe R.

[traininthedistance]

Cali.  Blurgh.



Max deviation 2506 on account of Districts 1 and 2, which are underpopulated and whole-county.  And, incredibly, I haven't found any other sensible whole-county groups- with the exception that 3/4/5 could all be around 6K overpopulated if I gave it the rest of San Benito, but whatever.  I can't say I'm really satisfied with this, but I also can't say I'm going to struggle with DRA busting at its seams any more.

There are a lot of min-maj districts, and five of them have Hispanic pluralities, but only actually one has a Hispanic VAP majority.  VRA gerrymandering is obviously possible here to up that number, and if this wasn't goddamn California I'd do it as an alternate.



District 1: NORTHERN.  O 49.3%, D 46.6%.  75W/13H by VAP.  So, rural northern CA, the suburbs north and east of Sacramento, and some Sierra Nevada counties to the south of that.  Once can, in fact, make a district that keeps the Sacramento CSA whole, and does so in whole counties, but that would basically force this district into San Francisco, which I am going to say is worse than splitting the Sacramento area.  Lean R.

District 2: SACRAMENTO-STOCKTON-MID-CENTRAL VALLEY.  O 58.8%, D 56.7%.  45W/31H by VAP (40/35 by total population).  Basically, what it says here.  One of those districts that might need a VRA finagling; one could probably make a Hispanic-majority district between this and 7 (and would probably want to change some lines with 1 too).  Safe D.

District 3: SAN FRAN-BAY AREA PACIFIC. O 79.3%, D 73.3%.  55W/19H/21A.  Sonoma, Marin, San Fran, Santa Cruz, almost all of San Mateo. The Bay Area is almost perfectly three districts, and West Bay/East Bay/South Bay is the obvious thing to do.  You might want to put Napa here instead of Santa Cruz, but SC doesn't really fit with 5 either.  Safe D.

District 4: OAKLAND-EAST BAY AND NORTH.  O 73.5%, D 68.8%.  49W/12B/20H/18A.  Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, most of Alameda.  Safe D.

District 5: SAN JOSE- SOUTH BAY.  O 72.1%, D 65.4%.  35W/25H/33A.  San Jose, most of San Benito, parts of San Mateo and Alameda.  The decision to put Santa Cruz in 3 instead of here, while forcing this district further into the East Bay, allows for the wonderful and unique possibility of a district that is plurality-Asian by total population (32.4% to 31.8%).  Safe D.

District 6: CENTRAL COAST. O 58.0%, D 50.5%.  52W/35H.  Also includes the Antelope Valley for lack of a better place to put it (and a desire to not split the San Fernando Valley, or have this district encroach into the Central Valley).  Monterey, Santa Barbara, Ventura/Oxnard, all that jazz.  Lean D.

District 7: CENTRAL VALLEY SOUTH. O 45.9%, D 42.3%.  40W/47H.  Fresno, Bakersfield, farms.  Kern is the only split.  Yes, Safe R and Hispanic plurality (majority by total population, even).  CVAP is probably another story.



District 8: INLAND EMPIRE. O 57.3%, D 52.6%.  33W/48H.  Again, majority-Hispanic by total population.  Splitting both San Bernardino and Riverside with 14, and also not reaching to break the 50 percent Hispanic barrier, are both things that I'd consider justified due to CA's mountainous geography- you want to leave those peaks as barriers as much as possible.  I tried to hew to town lines, but the precincts don't always cooperate here. Lean D.

District 9: SAN FERNANDO VALLEY-HOLLYWOOD. O 69.5%, D 63.6%,  50W/32H/12A.  Again, going with natural geography here in the LA area.  First of three districts entirely within LA; only Whittier and LA are split within the county at least.  Safe D.

District 10: LONG BEACH-SOUTH BAY.  O 74.4%, D 69.4%.  31W/19B/35H/13A.  Hispanic-plurality again; this district is CA's best chance at electing a black representative.  Safe D.

District 11: CENTRAL LA-GATEWAY. O 76.8%, D 76.5% 13W/68H/12A.  Going with natural regions kind of makes this a Hispanic pack to rival South Texas, you could easily swap land with 12 at the very least to push that from plurality to majority as well.  Safe D, in the running with 3 for safest depending on which numbers you prefer.

District 12: SAN GABRIEL.  O 60.5%, D 55.8%.  28W/41H/27A.  The rest of LA County, a bit of San Bernardino, and whatever OC that 13 can't take.  Another heavily-Asian district, another Hispanic-plurality.  Safe D.

District 13: THE O.C.  O 48.2%, D 38.7%.  51W/27H/18A.  Only 47% white by total population.  Safe R, of course.

District 14: MOJAVE-COACHELLA-IMPERIAL-OCEANSIDE.  O 46.2%, D 40.8%.  55W/34H.  The desert leftovers, basically.  Death Valley, Coachella, El Centro, some San Diego outskirts, a bit of Kern for road and population.  Safe R.



District 15: SAN DIEGO AREA.  O 57.7%, D 49.5%.  50W/29H/13A.  Another one of those districts that is min-maj by total population.  As the only one to show a split between the Obama and the 2010 Governor numbers (which is the D average here)… erm, let's say Tossup.  Probably tilts D by a couple points, though.