US House Redistricting: California

[muon2]

The SSP map in the OP link seems to focus too much on counties and compactness then it looks at partisan balance. I don't see any analysis of Hispanic representation. I think that may be more of a factor than many are giving thought towards. When I looked this summer using criteria from the commission I found that I could create 18 Hispanic-majority districts, 15 of which exceeded 60% Hispanic.

[muon2]

A lot will depend on how the commission sets its communities of interest. Of the geographic measure required by the constitution, that is the most nebulous. As the commission starts to define that, the effect on the map should become clear.

[muon2]

Are Asians even technically covered under the VRA Act - the way it's written? I wasn't sure, I had to look it up. It appears they are.

Asians are a covered minority under the VRA. However, to challenge a map under section 2, they would typically try to show they meet the Gingles test. The three parts are: a compact area including over 50% VAP for the single minority; tendency for block voting for a candidate of that minority's choice; tendency for block voting by the majority for a candidate other than the minority's choice. If Asians vote like Whites in the same area the test will fail.

An unresolved question is when the interests of two different minority groups collide. For example there might be an area where there are large numbers of Asians and Hispanics and there are sufficient of both for separate districts. A court in the coming decade may find that if their voting patterns are sufficiently different, there may be a section 2 claim for one of the minorities if it didn't get a district, but could have without diminishing the other qualified minority.

In any case the real question will come down to the Commission's view on communities of interest as Torie has suggested. If the Commission finds that a group of nearby Asian minorities constitutes a community of interest to be kept intact, then they may draw that district. My link towards the beginning of the thread for a map I made last year assumed such a conclusion by the Commission, so I drew one in Silicon Valley and another in San Gabriel.

[muon2]

A neater solution might put American Canyon (which really belongs with Vallejo anyway) in with whatever district Solano County goes in while taking some parts of northern Sonoma County in CA-01.

Yeah, that's probably better than crossing the Golden Gate.

Mark Leno's district crosses the Golden Gate. It's not a mortal sin.

But was that more to suit legislators, or due to real communities of interest? With the commission in charge, districts designed to keep incumbents happy may not fare so well.

[muon2]

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

However, I am surprised that the pdf's don't have a demographic breakdown. Has anyone seen the Hispanic percentages?

[muon2]

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

However, I am surprised that the pdf's don't have a demographic breakdown. Has anyone seen the Hispanic percentages?

The maps that Johnny posted a link to on the last page back have them.

I'm still surprised that the commission doesn't have a master summary file.

[muon2]

My comment on the Hispanic stats (or lack thereof) may reflect on the commission's inattentativeness to Latino interests. Looking at the maps seemed to confirm this, and now I see that MALDEF has weighed in with concerns as well. They had suggested districts to the commission, but it looks like they were largely ignored. It will be interesting to see what adjustments the commission makes between now and Aug 15.

[muon2]

My first glance seems to still show that the districts are heavily weighted towards socioeconomic grouping without overly splitting counties. That's certainly a standard redistricting principle, but the natural tendency for socioeconomic groups to sort politically as well would tend to weaken competitiveness in such a plan. Is there a PVI analysis available online yet?

[muon2]

Which of these two versions of the CA-01-02-03-05 merry-go-round do you prefer, and why?  The CA-05 snake into Contra Costa follows with some changes the template of the Commission, and CA-03 doing the snake instead follows my original template. Is it half dozen one of the other, or is one clearly superior?  The question is framed in the context of a map which hews to best practice when it comes to generally accepted "good government" redistricting principles. Thanks.

I was most partial to CA-1 as on the left and CA-3 and 5 as on the right. From compactness, the left map sacrifices CA-2 to gain for the others, so it depends on whether compactness is by mean or median.

NW Contra Costa w/ Vallejo is the odd piece here. It doesn't really seem to go with either Napa or Fairfield as a community of interest. Keeping it with all of Solana makes sense from the goal of county integrity.

I don't like that cut of SF from the north, especially by the 2nd. Overall I like the map on the right. Davis is in the 3rd in both maps, correct?

No, SF is not cut in either map (SF is cut from the south - the north thing was a Muon2 "innovation" to max his algorithm).  

It also allows one to keep Redding with Chico. One problem is that the North Coast is short of population for two districts. Adding part of SF to a Marin-SR district is an alternative to Shasta Co in the north.

If you are considering all the rotations for that area, there is another. Marin + Richmond-Vallejo + Petaluma is just the right size and very compact. The rest of Sonoma + Napa + Lake and all but 10 K of Mendocino makes another compact district. Finally link Eureka to Redding and Chico to complete the north. A CV district similar to the left map CD-3 remains.

[muon2]

The Republican convention is poised to do a 180 on its lame anti-senate-map referendum and encourage its defeat.

http://t.co/ODhK9IfT

LOL they must have seen the results from June and realized the map isn't actually that bad unless they get blown out of the water. And while California did vote by 24 points for Obama and by similar margins for some statewide candidates, it hasn't voted more than about 16-17 points for the Dems for assembly and senate seats. Even in 2006 and 2008.

They may evolve to be like MA where there's a tendency to elect state officials from the GOP to keep the Assembly somewhat in check.