US House Redistricting: California

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Louisiana never changed its primary system for state elections, and it's going back to the jungle primary for federal elections next year. And yes, in California, there will be a general election regardless of whether or not a candidate receives a majority of the vote. In that respect, it's like Washington's system.

[minionofmidas]

Louisiana never changed its primary system for state elections

Yeah, I know that

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One would hope they do that in Louisiana as well, it solves the constitutional issue. I guess not, though?

[Free Palestine]

I like my new district. 

[Brittain33]

Lock and load, KO, etc.

[Napoleon]

I like my new district. 

Which district is it?

[redcommander]

http://www.nctimes.com/news/article_6515c121-eaa2-5180-ae05-ff7fd095bcd3.html

San Diego's districts are much more cleaner now, and oddly enough Duncan Hunter will have the most Republican district in the state now. You would think that it would be one up in the High Sierras or by the Oregon border.

[jimrtex]

The primary is now like Louisiana's, everyone runs on the same ticket and the top two advance. There will be several same party general election matchups.

Cajunifornia?

Louisiana doesn't have such primaries anymore, though. (Also, I assume you'll have a top two G.E. even if the first received a majority of the vote?)

Louisiana calls their first election the open primary, even though it is actually the general election, with a runoff.  They have switched back to the open primary for federal elections starting with 2012 (and any specials before then).

California will always have the Top 2 general election, since otherwise they would have to have the first round in November.

The last few special elections have been conducted using the same system, but it doesn't look that much different than the old special election system.  The old system was actually a blanket primary where the voters were choosing the nominees of each party, even though voters could vote for any candidate in the special primary.  If a candidate got the majority of the primary vote, they were elected, and the same would happen if all candidates were from the same party.  Otherwise the top votegetter in each party and any independents would advance to the special general election, where no majority was needed.

Now the special general will be a runoff between the top  regardless of party, unless there is a majority winner in the special primary.  In other words the same as special elections in Texas.

California is switching their presidential primary back to June, so it will be coincident with the first open primary.  The presidential primary will still be limited to party voters, unless each party opens it up to non-affiliated voters.  Because the Democratic presidential race will be non-competitive, and the Republican presidential race will probably be over several months earlier, the turnout could be really poor, which could make any races with paired candidates pretty interesting.

BTW, Edwin Edwards got married again this weekend.

[jimrtex]

One would hope they do that in Louisiana as well, it solves the constitutional issue. I guess not, though?

The constitutional issue was the date of the election.  Congress has set the election date for congressional elections to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

Louisiana has traditionally held their elections on a Saturday in mid-October, besides having state and legislative elections in odd years.  So they set the runoff for statewide elections in mid-November.

For congressional elections they set the primary for early October, with the runoff, if needed, on federal election day, when there could also be a presidential election.  But if no runoff was needed, the winner was formally considered elected - prior to the date set for election by be Congress.  And usually, there was no congressional runoffs.  In Foster v Love, the US Supreme Court held that Louisiana could not have a decisive election before November.

The legislature dilly-dallied because the House wanted to simply change the date, while Cleo Fields and the senate wanted to go back to the closed primary.  Eventually, federal the district court set the "general election" to November, with an early December runoff.  The Love party challenged this decision arguing that Louisiana should go back to the last lawful procedure from the 1970s, which was the closed partisan primary.  So apparently the goal was to overturn the open primary, and the federal courts just bit on the date.  The 5th Circuit upheld the change in date Foster v Love

A few years later, Louisiana decided they didn't like the December runoff, and so they tried to modify the calendar a bit.  If there were one or two candidates they would run in November, and there would be no runoff.  If there were 3 or more candidates, there would the primary, and possibly a runoff.  So there was slightly less chance of a premature election.

This system was challenged in daughter of Love v. Blanco, and a federal court overturned that version.  At that point Cleo Fields talked them into going back to the partisan primary.  But being Louisianans they had to have a primary runoff, so ended up with 3 rounds.  There were two special elections in 2008, both went to 3 rounds.  And then Hurricane Gustav struck, and messed up the schedule of the 3 rounds, which was why the Anh Cao-William Jefferson race was in December.  So even though they had changed it to get rid of the December election they ended up with a December election.  And because there were several independent candidates, they ended up with non-majority winners, despite having primary runoffs to ensure majority nominations.

So in 2010, they switched back.  This time they claimed that the reason was to save money.  But I think they like the jungle primary.

Washington and California will always have a November election, even if a candidate gets a majority in the primary.  This should presumably resolve the date issue, but it might eventually be challenged on that ground that the election is too early.

[Хahar 🤔]

If anyone has racial data, it would be nice to see. That district that stretches from Fremont to Cupertino (in which I live, just barely) looks like an Asian-plurality seat to me. I didn't think they would draw it like that. It is worth noting that that district is remarkably compact; despite being entirely suburban, it's not that much larger than Pelosi's district.

[minionofmidas]

http://www.mpimaps.com/wp-content/gallery/crc-july-28th-final-maps-congress/CD17.png

Almost a majority.

[redcommander]

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/08/07/3820183/editorial-gop-has-buyers-remorse.html

The GOP needs to either put up or shut up about redistricting. They lost in a spectacular fashion last November, they pushed for the commission, they have done a sh@ty job at diversifying their party in the state, they have bled support to the Democrats for almost a decade now, and Del Beccaro and the rest of the leadership thinks that the redistricting process was unfair? No the reason it looks unfair is that you have allowed the party to stick its head in the ground since the early 2000's, and let the Democrats build up enormous strength in the Bay Area and LA. In other news, since 1998, Republicans have failed in 200 House elections to pick up a seat from the Democrats.

http://calcoastnews.com/2011/07/california-gop-now-0-for-200-since-1998/

[jimrtex]

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/08/07/3820183/editorial-gop-has-buyers-remorse.html

"But given that so much of California's population growth over the last decade has occurred in the south and along the coast, it is inevitable that some distant rural areas will have to be married with Sacramento's suburbs."

That part of the editorial is absolutely wrong.  The population growth was eastward in to the Inland Empire and Central Valley.  There was almost no north to south shift.

[nclib]

I like the fact that there are no numbers. It takes away from the idea that a particular district belongs to a particular incumbent.

I understand your point, but it will take a while to get accustomed to what areas the new numbers represent, esp. since the new numbers don't appear to be as geographically consistent. Can you (or someone) give a list of which districts are similar to an old district of a different number, and how such districts have changed electorally and racially?

[redcommander]

The maps have been finalized. I don't see any major changes from when the commission first announced them.

http://wedrawthelines.ca.gov/maps-final-drafts.html

[jimrtex]

The maps have been finalized. I don't see any major changes from when the commission first announced them.

http://wedrawthelines.ca.gov/maps-final-drafts.html

A referendum petition for the senate plan has been filed with the attorney general's office.

[whaeffner1]

"But given that so much of California's population growth over the last decade has occurred in the south and along the coast, it is inevitable that some distant rural areas will have to be married with Sacramento's suburbs."

That part of the editorial is absolutely wrong.  The population growth was eastward in to the Inland Empire and Central Valley.  There was almost no north to south shift.

It is possible to take some of Sacramento and put it with the most liberal parts of Fresno in order to create a heavy Dem district.  You can then take the rest of the area and put it with some parts of the Bay Area.  That would yield a result favorable for Republicans because it would create to very liberal districts instead of 2 lean Dem districts, thus shoring up GOP seats.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Not with the redistricting reform in place. That would be partisan gerrymandering.

[Brittain33]

Sacramento to Fresno is too far with too many people in between.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The Republican Party in CA is a mostly white, rural/exurban party in an urban, cosmopolitan, multicultural state. So of course it is having trouble in CA.

[redcommander]

The Republican Party in CA is a mostly white, rural/exurban party in an urban, cosmopolitan, multicultural state. So of course it is having trouble in CA.

Yes but the candidates that have announced so far for public office in 2012 are showing that the party is diversifying.

[Bacon King]

The Republican Party in CA is a mostly white, rural/exurban party in an urban, cosmopolitan, multicultural state. So of course it is having trouble in CA.

Yes but the candidates that have announced so far for public office in 2012 are showing that the party is diversifying.

Like who? (curious)

[Brittain33]

Presumably that S. Asian wunderkind running against McNerney.

[redcommander]

The Republican Party in CA is a mostly white, rural/exurban party in an urban, cosmopolitan, multicultural state. So of course it is having trouble in CA.

Yes but the candidates that have announced so far for public office in 2012 are showing that the party is diversifying.

Like who? (curious)

Well the State Assembly and Senate races haven't received that much publicity in terms of whose running yet, but Republicans recruited Melissa Melendez to run in the 69th assembly district in the Inland Empire, and she stands a good shot of being elected. Ricky Gill is competitive in the 9th congressional, and David Valadao is running in the 21st. Also Garamendi will face a competitive race against Colusa County Supervisor Kim Dolbow Vann if she makes it through the primary, which she seems likely of doing.

[redcommander]

Does anyone think the new 47th CD will become competitive? The commission drew it to include all of Long Beach, but it also includes the wealthy areas of Belmont, Naples, and Bixby Knolls, Los Alamitos (known for its military community), Cypress, Republican leaning parts of Garden Grove, and most of the Republican stronghold of Westminster. Plus Republicans recruited a top tier candidate in Gary DeLong who is a Long Beach Councilman.

[Torie]

Does anyone think the new 47th CD will become competitive? The commission drew it to include all of Long Beach, but it also includes the wealthy areas of Belmont, Naples, and Bixby Knolls, Los Alamitos (known for its military community), Cypress, Republican leaning parts of Garden Grove, and most of the Republican stronghold of Westminster. Plus Republicans recruited a top tier candidate in Gary DeLong who is a Long Beach Councilman.

Long Beach is  very Dem, including the wealthier bits (maybe less so Bixby Knolls, which is one or two precincts), and other than the Vietnamese community, not much of a Pubbie offset per your description. Since Long Beach is four times the size of the Vietnamese community, the Dem PVI must be up there, like 6% minimum, maybe more. So no, per your description of the district, absent a big gap in candidate quality, and another GOP wave of some sort.