2020 Census and redistricting: California

[I’m not Stu]

What might the new map look like for 2022?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Depends on if CA loses a seat or not.

[I’m not Stu]

Depends on if CA loses a seat or not.

What might a 52-seat map look like? What might a 53-seat map look like?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Depends on if CA loses a seat or not.

What might a 52-seat map look like? What might a 53-seat map look like?

Either way, the Bay Area, Central Coast, and Central valley should remain fairly unchanged. They won't lose a district and their districts can't change that much because of geography. The areas which have shrunk or stagnated are Far Northern California (because people are actively moving out) and the Gateway Cities in SE LA County (because of shrinking family sizes in this immigrant-heavy area). If a district is cut, it will come from one of these two places. If a district isn't cut, these areas will still be redrawn to have fewer districts, with lines moving south towards Sacramento (in the case of Far Northern California) or east towards the Inland Empire (in the case of the Gateway cities.) The nature of Southern California's geography, however, means that it's districts can be redrawn from scratch any number of ways and predicting how it all turns out is very, very difficult.

[I’m not Stu]

Depends on if CA loses a seat or not.

What might a 52-seat map look like? What might a 53-seat map look like?

Either way, the Bay Area, Central Coast, and Central valley should remain fairly unchanged. They won't lose a district and their districts can't change that much because of geography. The areas which have shrunk or stagnated are Far Northern California (because people are actively moving out) and the Gateway Cities in SE LA County (because of shrinking family sizes in this immigrant-heavy area). If a district is cut, it will come from one of these two places. If a district isn't cut, these areas will still be redrawn to have fewer districts, with lines moving south towards Sacramento (in the case of Far Northern California) or east towards the Inland Empire (in the case of the Gateway cities.) The nature of Southern California's geography, however, means that it's districts can be redrawn from scratch any number of ways and predicting how it all turns out is very, very difficult.

So that would mean the return of districts that cover both Orange and Riverside (Porter and Calvert’s districts getting merged?).

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Depends on if CA loses a seat or not.

What might a 52-seat map look like? What might a 53-seat map look like?

Either way, the Bay Area, Central Coast, and Central valley should remain fairly unchanged. They won't lose a district and their districts can't change that much because of geography. The areas which have shrunk or stagnated are Far Northern California (because people are actively moving out) and the Gateway Cities in SE LA County (because of shrinking family sizes in this immigrant-heavy area). If a district is cut, it will come from one of these two places. If a district isn't cut, these areas will still be redrawn to have fewer districts, with lines moving south towards Sacramento (in the case of Far Northern California) or east towards the Inland Empire (in the case of the Gateway cities.) The nature of Southern California's geography, however, means that it's districts can be redrawn from scratch any number of ways and predicting how it all turns out is very, very difficult.

So that would mean the return of districts that cover both Orange and Riverside (Porter and Calvert’s districts getting merged?).

It really depends. In the 6-county metro-Southern California Area, you need this many districts in a 52 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.2 (-0.
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.2 (+0.1)
San Bernadino: 2.8 (-0.1)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.2 (-1.0)

In the same area in a 53 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.4 (-0.6)
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.3 (+0.2)
San Bernadino: 2.9 (0.0)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.5 (-0.7)

In either case, Orange is just over 4 districts. Personally, I think Orange will have four, San Diego will have 3, Orange-San Diego will be 1, and the remaining 0.6 of San Diego pairs with 0.4 of Riverside. Imperial pairs with the Coachella Velley, the Victor Valley pairs with Mono, Inyo, and the Antelope Valley, leaving a perfect 4 districts in the Core Inland Empire. Los Angeles has 13 districts with the leftovers in the Antolope Valley pairing northward and Ventura's excess moves into the Santa Barbara based district. This is all speculation, of course, but I doubt there are any OC-IE pairings. I'd add that the non-VRA OC and LA districts will probably be completely redrawn, but we'll see. It's possible, for example, that OC gets an Asian VRA district.

[I’m not Stu]

Depends on if CA loses a seat or not.

What might a 52-seat map look like? What might a 53-seat map look like?

Either way, the Bay Area, Central Coast, and Central valley should remain fairly unchanged. They won't lose a district and their districts can't change that much because of geography. The areas which have shrunk or stagnated are Far Northern California (because people are actively moving out) and the Gateway Cities in SE LA County (because of shrinking family sizes in this immigrant-heavy area). If a district is cut, it will come from one of these two places. If a district isn't cut, these areas will still be redrawn to have fewer districts, with lines moving south towards Sacramento (in the case of Far Northern California) or east towards the Inland Empire (in the case of the Gateway cities.) The nature of Southern California's geography, however, means that it's districts can be redrawn from scratch any number of ways and predicting how it all turns out is very, very difficult.

So that would mean the return of districts that cover both Orange and Riverside (Porter and Calvert’s districts getting merged?).

It really depends. In the 6-county metro-Southern California Area, you need this many districts in a 52 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.2 (-0.
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.2 (+0.1)
San Bernadino: 2.8 (-0.1)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.2 (-1.0)

In the same area in a 53 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.4 (-0.6)
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.3 (+0.2)
San Bernadino: 2.9 (0.0)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.5 (-0.7)

In either case, Orange is just over 4 districts. Personally, I think Orange will have four, San Diego will have 3, Orange-San Diego will be 1, and the remaining 0.6 of San Diego pairs with 0.4 of Riverside. Imperial pairs with the Coachella Velley, the Victor Valley pairs with Mono, Inyo, and the Antelope Valley, leaving a perfect 4 districts in the Core Inland Empire. Los Angeles has 13 districts with the leftovers in the Antolope Valley pairing northward and Ventura's excess moves into the Santa Barbara based district. This is all speculation, of course, but I doubt there are any OC-IE pairings. I'd add that the non-VRA OC and LA districts will probably be completely redrawn, but we'll see. It's possible, for example, that OC gets an Asian VRA district.

No OC-IE districts? There’s currently one OC-IE district, CA-39 (LA-OC-San Bernardino, does San Bernardino get drawn out?). What happens to that? At least one OC-IE district has been the norm.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Depends on if CA loses a seat or not.

What might a 52-seat map look like? What might a 53-seat map look like?

Either way, the Bay Area, Central Coast, and Central valley should remain fairly unchanged. They won't lose a district and their districts can't change that much because of geography. The areas which have shrunk or stagnated are Far Northern California (because people are actively moving out) and the Gateway Cities in SE LA County (because of shrinking family sizes in this immigrant-heavy area). If a district is cut, it will come from one of these two places. If a district isn't cut, these areas will still be redrawn to have fewer districts, with lines moving south towards Sacramento (in the case of Far Northern California) or east towards the Inland Empire (in the case of the Gateway cities.) The nature of Southern California's geography, however, means that it's districts can be redrawn from scratch any number of ways and predicting how it all turns out is very, very difficult.

So that would mean the return of districts that cover both Orange and Riverside (Porter and Calvert’s districts getting merged?).

It really depends. In the 6-county metro-Southern California Area, you need this many districts in a 52 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.2 (-0.
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.2 (+0.1)
San Bernadino: 2.8 (-0.1)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.2 (-1.0)

In the same area in a 53 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.4 (-0.6)
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.3 (+0.2)
San Bernadino: 2.9 (0.0)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.5 (-0.7)

In either case, Orange is just over 4 districts. Personally, I think Orange will have four, San Diego will have 3, Orange-San Diego will be 1, and the remaining 0.6 of San Diego pairs with 0.4 of Riverside. Imperial pairs with the Coachella Velley, the Victor Valley pairs with Mono, Inyo, and the Antelope Valley, leaving a perfect 4 districts in the Core Inland Empire. Los Angeles has 13 districts with the leftovers in the Antolope Valley pairing northward and Ventura's excess moves into the Santa Barbara based district. This is all speculation, of course, but I doubt there are any OC-IE pairings. I'd add that the non-VRA OC and LA districts will probably be completely redrawn, but we'll see. It's possible, for example, that OC gets an Asian VRA district.

No OC-IE districts? There’s currently one OC-IE district, CA-39 (LA-OC-San Bernardino, does San Bernardino get drawn out?). What happens to that? At least one OC-IE district has been the norm.

It could happen, but I don't see it as necessary. I certainly don't think there will be any OC-Riverside districts.

[I’m not Stu]

Depends on if CA loses a seat or not.

What might a 52-seat map look like? What might a 53-seat map look like?

Either way, the Bay Area, Central Coast, and Central valley should remain fairly unchanged. They won't lose a district and their districts can't change that much because of geography. The areas which have shrunk or stagnated are Far Northern California (because people are actively moving out) and the Gateway Cities in SE LA County (because of shrinking family sizes in this immigrant-heavy area). If a district is cut, it will come from one of these two places. If a district isn't cut, these areas will still be redrawn to have fewer districts, with lines moving south towards Sacramento (in the case of Far Northern California) or east towards the Inland Empire (in the case of the Gateway cities.) The nature of Southern California's geography, however, means that it's districts can be redrawn from scratch any number of ways and predicting how it all turns out is very, very difficult.

So that would mean the return of districts that cover both Orange and Riverside (Porter and Calvert’s districts getting merged?).

It really depends. In the 6-county metro-Southern California Area, you need this many districts in a 52 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.2 (-0.
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.2 (+0.1)
San Bernadino: 2.8 (-0.1)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.2 (-1.0)

In the same area in a 53 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.4 (-0.6)
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.3 (+0.2)
San Bernadino: 2.9 (0.0)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.5 (-0.7)

In either case, Orange is just over 4 districts. Personally, I think Orange will have four, San Diego will have 3, Orange-San Diego will be 1, and the remaining 0.6 of San Diego pairs with 0.4 of Riverside. Imperial pairs with the Coachella Velley, the Victor Valley pairs with Mono, Inyo, and the Antelope Valley, leaving a perfect 4 districts in the Core Inland Empire. Los Angeles has 13 districts with the leftovers in the Antolope Valley pairing northward and Ventura's excess moves into the Santa Barbara based district. This is all speculation, of course, but I doubt there are any OC-IE pairings. I'd add that the non-VRA OC and LA districts will probably be completely redrawn, but we'll see. It's possible, for example, that OC gets an Asian VRA district.

No OC-IE districts? There’s currently one OC-IE district, CA-39 (LA-OC-San Bernardino, does San Bernardino get drawn out?). What happens to that? At least one OC-IE district has been the norm.

It could happen, but I don't see it as necessary. I certainly don't think there will be any OC-Riverside districts.

I can’t imagine an Asian VRA district. An OC-Riverside district isn’t necessary, But I could imagine it happening. Are there any pictures of hypothetical maps?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Depends on if CA loses a seat or not.

What might a 52-seat map look like? What might a 53-seat map look like?

Either way, the Bay Area, Central Coast, and Central valley should remain fairly unchanged. They won't lose a district and their districts can't change that much because of geography. The areas which have shrunk or stagnated are Far Northern California (because people are actively moving out) and the Gateway Cities in SE LA County (because of shrinking family sizes in this immigrant-heavy area). If a district is cut, it will come from one of these two places. If a district isn't cut, these areas will still be redrawn to have fewer districts, with lines moving south towards Sacramento (in the case of Far Northern California) or east towards the Inland Empire (in the case of the Gateway cities.) The nature of Southern California's geography, however, means that it's districts can be redrawn from scratch any number of ways and predicting how it all turns out is very, very difficult.

So that would mean the return of districts that cover both Orange and Riverside (Porter and Calvert’s districts getting merged?).

It really depends. In the 6-county metro-Southern California Area, you need this many districts in a 52 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.2 (-0.
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.2 (+0.1)
San Bernadino: 2.8 (-0.1)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.2 (-1.0)

In the same area in a 53 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.4 (-0.6)
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.3 (+0.2)
San Bernadino: 2.9 (0.0)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.5 (-0.7)

In either case, Orange is just over 4 districts. Personally, I think Orange will have four, San Diego will have 3, Orange-San Diego will be 1, and the remaining 0.6 of San Diego pairs with 0.4 of Riverside. Imperial pairs with the Coachella Velley, the Victor Valley pairs with Mono, Inyo, and the Antelope Valley, leaving a perfect 4 districts in the Core Inland Empire. Los Angeles has 13 districts with the leftovers in the Antolope Valley pairing northward and Ventura's excess moves into the Santa Barbara based district. This is all speculation, of course, but I doubt there are any OC-IE pairings. I'd add that the non-VRA OC and LA districts will probably be completely redrawn, but we'll see. It's possible, for example, that OC gets an Asian VRA district.

No OC-IE districts? There’s currently one OC-IE district, CA-39 (LA-OC-San Bernardino, does San Bernardino get drawn out?). What happens to that? At least one OC-IE district has been the norm.

It could happen, but I don't see it as necessary. I certainly don't think there will be any OC-Riverside districts.

I can’t imagine an Asian VRA district. An OC-Riverside district isn’t necessary, But I could imagine it happening. Are there any pictures of hypothetical maps?

You're right regarding Asian VRA. For some reason I thought it would work out. Anyway, this is basically what I described:

[Oryxslayer]

Depends on if CA loses a seat or not.

What might a 52-seat map look like? What might a 53-seat map look like?

Either way, the Bay Area, Central Coast, and Central valley should remain fairly unchanged. They won't lose a district and their districts can't change that much because of geography. The areas which have shrunk or stagnated are Far Northern California (because people are actively moving out) and the Gateway Cities in SE LA County (because of shrinking family sizes in this immigrant-heavy area). If a district is cut, it will come from one of these two places. If a district isn't cut, these areas will still be redrawn to have fewer districts, with lines moving south towards Sacramento (in the case of Far Northern California) or east towards the Inland Empire (in the case of the Gateway cities.) The nature of Southern California's geography, however, means that it's districts can be redrawn from scratch any number of ways and predicting how it all turns out is very, very difficult.

So that would mean the return of districts that cover both Orange and Riverside (Porter and Calvert’s districts getting merged?).

It really depends. In the 6-county metro-Southern California Area, you need this many districts in a 52 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.2 (-0.
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.2 (+0.1)
San Bernadino: 2.8 (-0.1)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.2 (-1.0)

In the same area in a 53 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.4 (-0.6)
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.3 (+0.2)
San Bernadino: 2.9 (0.0)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.5 (-0.7)

In either case, Orange is just over 4 districts. Personally, I think Orange will have four, San Diego will have 3, Orange-San Diego will be 1, and the remaining 0.6 of San Diego pairs with 0.4 of Riverside. Imperial pairs with the Coachella Velley, the Victor Valley pairs with Mono, Inyo, and the Antelope Valley, leaving a perfect 4 districts in the Core Inland Empire. Los Angeles has 13 districts with the leftovers in the Antolope Valley pairing northward and Ventura's excess moves into the Santa Barbara based district. This is all speculation, of course, but I doubt there are any OC-IE pairings. I'd add that the non-VRA OC and LA districts will probably be completely redrawn, but we'll see. It's possible, for example, that OC gets an Asian VRA district.

No OC-IE districts? There’s currently one OC-IE district, CA-39 (LA-OC-San Bernardino, does San Bernardino get drawn out?). What happens to that? At least one OC-IE district has been the norm.

It could happen, but I don't see it as necessary. I certainly don't think there will be any OC-Riverside districts.

I can’t imagine an Asian VRA district. An OC-Riverside district isn’t necessary, But I could imagine it happening. Are there any pictures of hypothetical maps?

You're right regarding Asian VRA. For some reason I thought it would work out. Anyway, this is basically what I described:

And even that is essentially still the 2010 map just dropping Imperial from CA53.

[I’m not Stu]

Depends on if CA loses a seat or not.

What might a 52-seat map look like? What might a 53-seat map look like?

Either way, the Bay Area, Central Coast, and Central valley should remain fairly unchanged. They won't lose a district and their districts can't change that much because of geography. The areas which have shrunk or stagnated are Far Northern California (because people are actively moving out) and the Gateway Cities in SE LA County (because of shrinking family sizes in this immigrant-heavy area). If a district is cut, it will come from one of these two places. If a district isn't cut, these areas will still be redrawn to have fewer districts, with lines moving south towards Sacramento (in the case of Far Northern California) or east towards the Inland Empire (in the case of the Gateway cities.) The nature of Southern California's geography, however, means that it's districts can be redrawn from scratch any number of ways and predicting how it all turns out is very, very difficult.

So that would mean the return of districts that cover both Orange and Riverside (Porter and Calvert’s districts getting merged?).

It really depends. In the 6-county metro-Southern California Area, you need this many districts in a 52 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.2 (-0.
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.2 (+0.1)
San Bernadino: 2.8 (-0.1)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.2 (-1.0)

In the same area in a 53 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.4 (-0.6)
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.3 (+0.2)
San Bernadino: 2.9 (0.0)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.5 (-0.7)

In either case, Orange is just over 4 districts. Personally, I think Orange will have four, San Diego will have 3, Orange-San Diego will be 1, and the remaining 0.6 of San Diego pairs with 0.4 of Riverside. Imperial pairs with the Coachella Velley, the Victor Valley pairs with Mono, Inyo, and the Antelope Valley, leaving a perfect 4 districts in the Core Inland Empire. Los Angeles has 13 districts with the leftovers in the Antolope Valley pairing northward and Ventura's excess moves into the Santa Barbara based district. This is all speculation, of course, but I doubt there are any OC-IE pairings. I'd add that the non-VRA OC and LA districts will probably be completely redrawn, but we'll see. It's possible, for example, that OC gets an Asian VRA district.

No OC-IE districts? There’s currently one OC-IE district, CA-39 (LA-OC-San Bernardino, does San Bernardino get drawn out?). What happens to that? At least one OC-IE district has been the norm.

It could happen, but I don't see it as necessary. I certainly don't think there will be any OC-Riverside districts.

I can’t imagine an Asian VRA district. An OC-Riverside district isn’t necessary, But I could imagine it happening. Are there any pictures of hypothetical maps?

You're right regarding Asian VRA. For some reason I thought it would work out. Anyway, this is basically what I described:

And even that is essentially still the 2010 map just dropping Imperial from CA53.

Actually CA-51. I noticed that map there splits up Santa Ana, eliminating Correa’s district. That would mean Porter and Cisneros would represent Santa Ana. Who would replace Lowenthal in the new theoretical district (in green) that would represent mostly Asian and white voters in Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, and Cypress?

[Oryxslayer]

Depends on if CA loses a seat or not.

What might a 52-seat map look like? What might a 53-seat map look like?

Either way, the Bay Area, Central Coast, and Central valley should remain fairly unchanged. They won't lose a district and their districts can't change that much because of geography. The areas which have shrunk or stagnated are Far Northern California (because people are actively moving out) and the Gateway Cities in SE LA County (because of shrinking family sizes in this immigrant-heavy area). If a district is cut, it will come from one of these two places. If a district isn't cut, these areas will still be redrawn to have fewer districts, with lines moving south towards Sacramento (in the case of Far Northern California) or east towards the Inland Empire (in the case of the Gateway cities.) The nature of Southern California's geography, however, means that it's districts can be redrawn from scratch any number of ways and predicting how it all turns out is very, very difficult.

So that would mean the return of districts that cover both Orange and Riverside (Porter and Calvert’s districts getting merged?).

It really depends. In the 6-county metro-Southern California Area, you need this many districts in a 52 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.2 (-0.
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.2 (+0.1)
San Bernadino: 2.8 (-0.1)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.2 (-1.0)

In the same area in a 53 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.4 (-0.6)
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.3 (+0.2)
San Bernadino: 2.9 (0.0)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.5 (-0.7)

In either case, Orange is just over 4 districts. Personally, I think Orange will have four, San Diego will have 3, Orange-San Diego will be 1, and the remaining 0.6 of San Diego pairs with 0.4 of Riverside. Imperial pairs with the Coachella Velley, the Victor Valley pairs with Mono, Inyo, and the Antelope Valley, leaving a perfect 4 districts in the Core Inland Empire. Los Angeles has 13 districts with the leftovers in the Antolope Valley pairing northward and Ventura's excess moves into the Santa Barbara based district. This is all speculation, of course, but I doubt there are any OC-IE pairings. I'd add that the non-VRA OC and LA districts will probably be completely redrawn, but we'll see. It's possible, for example, that OC gets an Asian VRA district.

No OC-IE districts? There’s currently one OC-IE district, CA-39 (LA-OC-San Bernardino, does San Bernardino get drawn out?). What happens to that? At least one OC-IE district has been the norm.

It could happen, but I don't see it as necessary. I certainly don't think there will be any OC-Riverside districts.

I can’t imagine an Asian VRA district. An OC-Riverside district isn’t necessary, But I could imagine it happening. Are there any pictures of hypothetical maps?

You're right regarding Asian VRA. For some reason I thought it would work out. Anyway, this is basically what I described:

And even that is essentially still the 2010 map just dropping Imperial from CA53.

Actually CA-51. I noticed that map there splits up Santa Ana, eliminating Correa’s district. That would mean Porter and Cisneros would represent Santa Ana. Who would replace Lowenthal in the new theoretical district (in green) that would represent mostly Asian and white voters in Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, and Cypress?

I'm just assuming that the map presented above is a 'preliminary design' so to speak. Since the map cuts a bunch of localities in half, doesn't really take account of minority rules, and has lots of 'straight line' edged districts, this tells me the map is not intended to be final. Which is fine. CA is so large that everything starts with a preliminary map to base where districts should go.

[I’m not Stu]

Depends on if CA loses a seat or not.

What might a 52-seat map look like? What might a 53-seat map look like?

Either way, the Bay Area, Central Coast, and Central valley should remain fairly unchanged. They won't lose a district and their districts can't change that much because of geography. The areas which have shrunk or stagnated are Far Northern California (because people are actively moving out) and the Gateway Cities in SE LA County (because of shrinking family sizes in this immigrant-heavy area). If a district is cut, it will come from one of these two places. If a district isn't cut, these areas will still be redrawn to have fewer districts, with lines moving south towards Sacramento (in the case of Far Northern California) or east towards the Inland Empire (in the case of the Gateway cities.) The nature of Southern California's geography, however, means that it's districts can be redrawn from scratch any number of ways and predicting how it all turns out is very, very difficult.

So that would mean the return of districts that cover both Orange and Riverside (Porter and Calvert’s districts getting merged?).

It really depends. In the 6-county metro-Southern California Area, you need this many districts in a 52 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.2 (-0.
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.2 (+0.1)
San Bernadino: 2.8 (-0.1)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.2 (-1.0)

In the same area in a 53 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.4 (-0.6)
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.3 (+0.2)
San Bernadino: 2.9 (0.0)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.5 (-0.7)

In either case, Orange is just over 4 districts. Personally, I think Orange will have four, San Diego will have 3, Orange-San Diego will be 1, and the remaining 0.6 of San Diego pairs with 0.4 of Riverside. Imperial pairs with the Coachella Velley, the Victor Valley pairs with Mono, Inyo, and the Antelope Valley, leaving a perfect 4 districts in the Core Inland Empire. Los Angeles has 13 districts with the leftovers in the Antolope Valley pairing northward and Ventura's excess moves into the Santa Barbara based district. This is all speculation, of course, but I doubt there are any OC-IE pairings. I'd add that the non-VRA OC and LA districts will probably be completely redrawn, but we'll see. It's possible, for example, that OC gets an Asian VRA district.

No OC-IE districts? There’s currently one OC-IE district, CA-39 (LA-OC-San Bernardino, does San Bernardino get drawn out?). What happens to that? At least one OC-IE district has been the norm.

It could happen, but I don't see it as necessary. I certainly don't think there will be any OC-Riverside districts.

I can’t imagine an Asian VRA district. An OC-Riverside district isn’t necessary, But I could imagine it happening. Are there any pictures of hypothetical maps?

You're right regarding Asian VRA. For some reason I thought it would work out. Anyway, this is basically what I described:

And even that is essentially still the 2010 map just dropping Imperial from CA53.

Actually CA-51. I noticed that map there splits up Santa Ana, eliminating Correa’s district. That would mean Porter and Cisneros would represent Santa Ana. Who would replace Lowenthal in the new theoretical district (in green) that would represent mostly Asian and white voters in Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, and Cypress?

I'm just assuming that the map presented above is a 'preliminary design' so to speak. Since the map cuts a bunch of localities in half, doesn't really take account of minority rules, and has lots of 'straight line' edged districts, this tells me the map is not intended to be final. Which is fine. CA is so large that everything starts with a preliminary map to base where districts should go.

I can’t see a similar map happening, one that abolishes the Hispanic VRA district. I live in the green hypothetical district, which would elect either an Asian or white candidate.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Depends on if CA loses a seat or not.

What might a 52-seat map look like? What might a 53-seat map look like?

Either way, the Bay Area, Central Coast, and Central valley should remain fairly unchanged. They won't lose a district and their districts can't change that much because of geography. The areas which have shrunk or stagnated are Far Northern California (because people are actively moving out) and the Gateway Cities in SE LA County (because of shrinking family sizes in this immigrant-heavy area). If a district is cut, it will come from one of these two places. If a district isn't cut, these areas will still be redrawn to have fewer districts, with lines moving south towards Sacramento (in the case of Far Northern California) or east towards the Inland Empire (in the case of the Gateway cities.) The nature of Southern California's geography, however, means that it's districts can be redrawn from scratch any number of ways and predicting how it all turns out is very, very difficult.

So that would mean the return of districts that cover both Orange and Riverside (Porter and Calvert’s districts getting merged?).

It really depends. In the 6-county metro-Southern California Area, you need this many districts in a 52 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.2 (-0.
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.2 (+0.1)
San Bernadino: 2.8 (-0.1)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.2 (-1.0)

In the same area in a 53 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.4 (-0.6)
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.3 (+0.2)
San Bernadino: 2.9 (0.0)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.5 (-0.7)

In either case, Orange is just over 4 districts. Personally, I think Orange will have four, San Diego will have 3, Orange-San Diego will be 1, and the remaining 0.6 of San Diego pairs with 0.4 of Riverside. Imperial pairs with the Coachella Velley, the Victor Valley pairs with Mono, Inyo, and the Antelope Valley, leaving a perfect 4 districts in the Core Inland Empire. Los Angeles has 13 districts with the leftovers in the Antolope Valley pairing northward and Ventura's excess moves into the Santa Barbara based district. This is all speculation, of course, but I doubt there are any OC-IE pairings. I'd add that the non-VRA OC and LA districts will probably be completely redrawn, but we'll see. It's possible, for example, that OC gets an Asian VRA district.

No OC-IE districts? There’s currently one OC-IE district, CA-39 (LA-OC-San Bernardino, does San Bernardino get drawn out?). What happens to that? At least one OC-IE district has been the norm.

It could happen, but I don't see it as necessary. I certainly don't think there will be any OC-Riverside districts.

I can’t imagine an Asian VRA district. An OC-Riverside district isn’t necessary, But I could imagine it happening. Are there any pictures of hypothetical maps?

You're right regarding Asian VRA. For some reason I thought it would work out. Anyway, this is basically what I described:

And even that is essentially still the 2010 map just dropping Imperial from CA53.

Actually CA-51. I noticed that map there splits up Santa Ana, eliminating Correa’s district. That would mean Porter and Cisneros would represent Santa Ana. Who would replace Lowenthal in the new theoretical district (in green) that would represent mostly Asian and white voters in Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, and Cypress?

I'm just assuming that the map presented above is a 'preliminary design' so to speak. Since the map cuts a bunch of localities in half, doesn't really take account of minority rules, and has lots of 'straight line' edged districts, this tells me the map is not intended to be final. Which is fine. CA is so large that everything starts with a preliminary map to base where districts should go.

I can’t see a similar map happening, one that abolishes the Hispanic VRA district. I live in the green hypothetical district, which would elect either an Asian or white candidate.

Green is evenly split between asians, whites, and latinos. Purple is majority latino and would probably be represented by Correa (Cisneros would take a LA County seat). This is preliminary but it demonstrates how it isn't necessary to pair any OC-IE and OC-LA seats in a future 52 district scenario.

[I’m not Stu]

Depends on if CA loses a seat or not.

What might a 52-seat map look like? What might a 53-seat map look like?

Either way, the Bay Area, Central Coast, and Central valley should remain fairly unchanged. They won't lose a district and their districts can't change that much because of geography. The areas which have shrunk or stagnated are Far Northern California (because people are actively moving out) and the Gateway Cities in SE LA County (because of shrinking family sizes in this immigrant-heavy area). If a district is cut, it will come from one of these two places. If a district isn't cut, these areas will still be redrawn to have fewer districts, with lines moving south towards Sacramento (in the case of Far Northern California) or east towards the Inland Empire (in the case of the Gateway cities.) The nature of Southern California's geography, however, means that it's districts can be redrawn from scratch any number of ways and predicting how it all turns out is very, very difficult.

So that would mean the return of districts that cover both Orange and Riverside (Porter and Calvert’s districts getting merged?).

It really depends. In the 6-county metro-Southern California Area, you need this many districts in a 52 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.2 (-0.
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.2 (+0.1)
San Bernadino: 2.8 (-0.1)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.2 (-1.0)

In the same area in a 53 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.4 (-0.6)
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.3 (+0.2)
San Bernadino: 2.9 (0.0)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.5 (-0.7)

In either case, Orange is just over 4 districts. Personally, I think Orange will have four, San Diego will have 3, Orange-San Diego will be 1, and the remaining 0.6 of San Diego pairs with 0.4 of Riverside. Imperial pairs with the Coachella Velley, the Victor Valley pairs with Mono, Inyo, and the Antelope Valley, leaving a perfect 4 districts in the Core Inland Empire. Los Angeles has 13 districts with the leftovers in the Antolope Valley pairing northward and Ventura's excess moves into the Santa Barbara based district. This is all speculation, of course, but I doubt there are any OC-IE pairings. I'd add that the non-VRA OC and LA districts will probably be completely redrawn, but we'll see. It's possible, for example, that OC gets an Asian VRA district.

No OC-IE districts? There’s currently one OC-IE district, CA-39 (LA-OC-San Bernardino, does San Bernardino get drawn out?). What happens to that? At least one OC-IE district has been the norm.

It could happen, but I don't see it as necessary. I certainly don't think there will be any OC-Riverside districts.

I can’t imagine an Asian VRA district. An OC-Riverside district isn’t necessary, But I could imagine it happening. Are there any pictures of hypothetical maps?

You're right regarding Asian VRA. For some reason I thought it would work out. Anyway, this is basically what I described:

And even that is essentially still the 2010 map just dropping Imperial from CA53.

Actually CA-51. I noticed that map there splits up Santa Ana, eliminating Correa’s district. That would mean Porter and Cisneros would represent Santa Ana. Who would replace Lowenthal in the new theoretical district (in green) that would represent mostly Asian and white voters in Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, and Cypress?

I'm just assuming that the map presented above is a 'preliminary design' so to speak. Since the map cuts a bunch of localities in half, doesn't really take account of minority rules, and has lots of 'straight line' edged districts, this tells me the map is not intended to be final. Which is fine. CA is so large that everything starts with a preliminary map to base where districts should go.

I can’t see a similar map happening, one that abolishes the Hispanic VRA district. I live in the green hypothetical district, which would elect either an Asian or white candidate.

Green is evenly split between asians, whites, and latinos. Purple is majority latino and would probably be represented by Correa (Cisneros would take a LA County seat). This is preliminary but it demonstrates how it isn't necessary to pair any OC-IE and OC-LA seats in a future 52 district scenario.

Then Cisneros would represent a district centered in Hacienda Heights?  Yellow would be Porter representing Santa Ana?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Depends on if CA loses a seat or not.

What might a 52-seat map look like? What might a 53-seat map look like?

Either way, the Bay Area, Central Coast, and Central valley should remain fairly unchanged. They won't lose a district and their districts can't change that much because of geography. The areas which have shrunk or stagnated are Far Northern California (because people are actively moving out) and the Gateway Cities in SE LA County (because of shrinking family sizes in this immigrant-heavy area). If a district is cut, it will come from one of these two places. If a district isn't cut, these areas will still be redrawn to have fewer districts, with lines moving south towards Sacramento (in the case of Far Northern California) or east towards the Inland Empire (in the case of the Gateway cities.) The nature of Southern California's geography, however, means that it's districts can be redrawn from scratch any number of ways and predicting how it all turns out is very, very difficult.

So that would mean the return of districts that cover both Orange and Riverside (Porter and Calvert’s districts getting merged?).

It really depends. In the 6-county metro-Southern California Area, you need this many districts in a 52 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.2 (-0.
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.2 (+0.1)
San Bernadino: 2.8 (-0.1)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.2 (-1.0)

In the same area in a 53 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.4 (-0.6)
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.3 (+0.2)
San Bernadino: 2.9 (0.0)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.5 (-0.7)

In either case, Orange is just over 4 districts. Personally, I think Orange will have four, San Diego will have 3, Orange-San Diego will be 1, and the remaining 0.6 of San Diego pairs with 0.4 of Riverside. Imperial pairs with the Coachella Velley, the Victor Valley pairs with Mono, Inyo, and the Antelope Valley, leaving a perfect 4 districts in the Core Inland Empire. Los Angeles has 13 districts with the leftovers in the Antolope Valley pairing northward and Ventura's excess moves into the Santa Barbara based district. This is all speculation, of course, but I doubt there are any OC-IE pairings. I'd add that the non-VRA OC and LA districts will probably be completely redrawn, but we'll see. It's possible, for example, that OC gets an Asian VRA district.

No OC-IE districts? There’s currently one OC-IE district, CA-39 (LA-OC-San Bernardino, does San Bernardino get drawn out?). What happens to that? At least one OC-IE district has been the norm.

It could happen, but I don't see it as necessary. I certainly don't think there will be any OC-Riverside districts.

I can’t imagine an Asian VRA district. An OC-Riverside district isn’t necessary, But I could imagine it happening. Are there any pictures of hypothetical maps?

You're right regarding Asian VRA. For some reason I thought it would work out. Anyway, this is basically what I described:

And even that is essentially still the 2010 map just dropping Imperial from CA53.

Actually CA-51. I noticed that map there splits up Santa Ana, eliminating Correa’s district. That would mean Porter and Cisneros would represent Santa Ana. Who would replace Lowenthal in the new theoretical district (in green) that would represent mostly Asian and white voters in Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, and Cypress?

I'm just assuming that the map presented above is a 'preliminary design' so to speak. Since the map cuts a bunch of localities in half, doesn't really take account of minority rules, and has lots of 'straight line' edged districts, this tells me the map is not intended to be final. Which is fine. CA is so large that everything starts with a preliminary map to base where districts should go.

I can’t see a similar map happening, one that abolishes the Hispanic VRA district. I live in the green hypothetical district, which would elect either an Asian or white candidate.

Green is evenly split between asians, whites, and latinos. Purple is majority latino and would probably be represented by Correa (Cisneros would take a LA County seat). This is preliminary but it demonstrates how it isn't necessary to pair any OC-IE and OC-LA seats in a future 52 district scenario.

Then Cisneros would represent a district centered in Hacienda Heights?  Yellow would be Porter representing Santa Ana?

Yep, although the bult of Santa Ana is in purple. I could see Correa going for green and leaving purple for Cisneros, though. Regardless, at least one person in SE LA County is going to lose their seat.

[I’m not Stu]

Depends on if CA loses a seat or not.

What might a 52-seat map look like? What might a 53-seat map look like?

Either way, the Bay Area, Central Coast, and Central valley should remain fairly unchanged. They won't lose a district and their districts can't change that much because of geography. The areas which have shrunk or stagnated are Far Northern California (because people are actively moving out) and the Gateway Cities in SE LA County (because of shrinking family sizes in this immigrant-heavy area). If a district is cut, it will come from one of these two places. If a district isn't cut, these areas will still be redrawn to have fewer districts, with lines moving south towards Sacramento (in the case of Far Northern California) or east towards the Inland Empire (in the case of the Gateway cities.) The nature of Southern California's geography, however, means that it's districts can be redrawn from scratch any number of ways and predicting how it all turns out is very, very difficult.

So that would mean the return of districts that cover both Orange and Riverside (Porter and Calvert’s districts getting merged?).

It really depends. In the 6-county metro-Southern California Area, you need this many districts in a 52 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.2 (-0.
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.2 (+0.1)
San Bernadino: 2.8 (-0.1)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.2 (-1.0)

In the same area in a 53 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.4 (-0.6)
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.3 (+0.2)
San Bernadino: 2.9 (0.0)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.5 (-0.7)

In either case, Orange is just over 4 districts. Personally, I think Orange will have four, San Diego will have 3, Orange-San Diego will be 1, and the remaining 0.6 of San Diego pairs with 0.4 of Riverside. Imperial pairs with the Coachella Velley, the Victor Valley pairs with Mono, Inyo, and the Antelope Valley, leaving a perfect 4 districts in the Core Inland Empire. Los Angeles has 13 districts with the leftovers in the Antolope Valley pairing northward and Ventura's excess moves into the Santa Barbara based district. This is all speculation, of course, but I doubt there are any OC-IE pairings. I'd add that the non-VRA OC and LA districts will probably be completely redrawn, but we'll see. It's possible, for example, that OC gets an Asian VRA district.

No OC-IE districts? There’s currently one OC-IE district, CA-39 (LA-OC-San Bernardino, does San Bernardino get drawn out?). What happens to that? At least one OC-IE district has been the norm.

It could happen, but I don't see it as necessary. I certainly don't think there will be any OC-Riverside districts.

I can’t imagine an Asian VRA district. An OC-Riverside district isn’t necessary, But I could imagine it happening. Are there any pictures of hypothetical maps?

You're right regarding Asian VRA. For some reason I thought it would work out. Anyway, this is basically what I described:

And even that is essentially still the 2010 map just dropping Imperial from CA53.

Actually CA-51. I noticed that map there splits up Santa Ana, eliminating Correa’s district. That would mean Porter and Cisneros would represent Santa Ana. Who would replace Lowenthal in the new theoretical district (in green) that would represent mostly Asian and white voters in Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, and Cypress?

I'm just assuming that the map presented above is a 'preliminary design' so to speak. Since the map cuts a bunch of localities in half, doesn't really take account of minority rules, and has lots of 'straight line' edged districts, this tells me the map is not intended to be final. Which is fine. CA is so large that everything starts with a preliminary map to base where districts should go.

I can’t see a similar map happening, one that abolishes the Hispanic VRA district. I live in the green hypothetical district, which would elect either an Asian or white candidate.

Green is evenly split between asians, whites, and latinos. Purple is majority latino and would probably be represented by Correa (Cisneros would take a LA County seat). This is preliminary but it demonstrates how it isn't necessary to pair any OC-IE and OC-LA seats in a future 52 district scenario.

Then Cisneros would represent a district centered in Hacienda Heights?  Yellow would be Porter representing Santa Ana?

Yep, although the bult of Santa Ana is in purple. I could see Correa going for green and leaving purple for Cisneros, though. Regardless, at least one person in SE LA County is going to lose their seat.

If Correa chooses green, that means he would represent little or none of Santa Ana, where his base is. I can’t imagine him abandoning his hometown. He takes pride in representing Santa Ana. So who else might run in green?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Depends on if CA loses a seat or not.

What might a 52-seat map look like? What might a 53-seat map look like?

Either way, the Bay Area, Central Coast, and Central valley should remain fairly unchanged. They won't lose a district and their districts can't change that much because of geography. The areas which have shrunk or stagnated are Far Northern California (because people are actively moving out) and the Gateway Cities in SE LA County (because of shrinking family sizes in this immigrant-heavy area). If a district is cut, it will come from one of these two places. If a district isn't cut, these areas will still be redrawn to have fewer districts, with lines moving south towards Sacramento (in the case of Far Northern California) or east towards the Inland Empire (in the case of the Gateway cities.) The nature of Southern California's geography, however, means that it's districts can be redrawn from scratch any number of ways and predicting how it all turns out is very, very difficult.

So that would mean the return of districts that cover both Orange and Riverside (Porter and Calvert’s districts getting merged?).

It really depends. In the 6-county metro-Southern California Area, you need this many districts in a 52 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.2 (-0.
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.2 (+0.1)
San Bernadino: 2.8 (-0.1)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.2 (-1.0)

In the same area in a 53 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.4 (-0.6)
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.3 (+0.2)
San Bernadino: 2.9 (0.0)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.5 (-0.7)

In either case, Orange is just over 4 districts. Personally, I think Orange will have four, San Diego will have 3, Orange-San Diego will be 1, and the remaining 0.6 of San Diego pairs with 0.4 of Riverside. Imperial pairs with the Coachella Velley, the Victor Valley pairs with Mono, Inyo, and the Antelope Valley, leaving a perfect 4 districts in the Core Inland Empire. Los Angeles has 13 districts with the leftovers in the Antolope Valley pairing northward and Ventura's excess moves into the Santa Barbara based district. This is all speculation, of course, but I doubt there are any OC-IE pairings. I'd add that the non-VRA OC and LA districts will probably be completely redrawn, but we'll see. It's possible, for example, that OC gets an Asian VRA district.

No OC-IE districts? There’s currently one OC-IE district, CA-39 (LA-OC-San Bernardino, does San Bernardino get drawn out?). What happens to that? At least one OC-IE district has been the norm.

It could happen, but I don't see it as necessary. I certainly don't think there will be any OC-Riverside districts.

I can’t imagine an Asian VRA district. An OC-Riverside district isn’t necessary, But I could imagine it happening. Are there any pictures of hypothetical maps?

You're right regarding Asian VRA. For some reason I thought it would work out. Anyway, this is basically what I described:

And even that is essentially still the 2010 map just dropping Imperial from CA53.

Actually CA-51. I noticed that map there splits up Santa Ana, eliminating Correa’s district. That would mean Porter and Cisneros would represent Santa Ana. Who would replace Lowenthal in the new theoretical district (in green) that would represent mostly Asian and white voters in Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, and Cypress?

I'm just assuming that the map presented above is a 'preliminary design' so to speak. Since the map cuts a bunch of localities in half, doesn't really take account of minority rules, and has lots of 'straight line' edged districts, this tells me the map is not intended to be final. Which is fine. CA is so large that everything starts with a preliminary map to base where districts should go.

I can’t see a similar map happening, one that abolishes the Hispanic VRA district. I live in the green hypothetical district, which would elect either an Asian or white candidate.

Green is evenly split between asians, whites, and latinos. Purple is majority latino and would probably be represented by Correa (Cisneros would take a LA County seat). This is preliminary but it demonstrates how it isn't necessary to pair any OC-IE and OC-LA seats in a future 52 district scenario.

Then Cisneros would represent a district centered in Hacienda Heights?  Yellow would be Porter representing Santa Ana?

Yep, although the bult of Santa Ana is in purple. I could see Correa going for green and leaving purple for Cisneros, though. Regardless, at least one person in SE LA County is going to lose their seat.

If Correa chooses green, that means he would represent little or none of Santa Ana, where his base is. I can’t imagine him abandoning his hometown. He takes pride in representing Santa Ana. So who else might run in green?

Janet and Diedre Nguyen?

[I’m not Stu]

Depends on if CA loses a seat or not.

What might a 52-seat map look like? What might a 53-seat map look like?

Either way, the Bay Area, Central Coast, and Central valley should remain fairly unchanged. They won't lose a district and their districts can't change that much because of geography. The areas which have shrunk or stagnated are Far Northern California (because people are actively moving out) and the Gateway Cities in SE LA County (because of shrinking family sizes in this immigrant-heavy area). If a district is cut, it will come from one of these two places. If a district isn't cut, these areas will still be redrawn to have fewer districts, with lines moving south towards Sacramento (in the case of Far Northern California) or east towards the Inland Empire (in the case of the Gateway cities.) The nature of Southern California's geography, however, means that it's districts can be redrawn from scratch any number of ways and predicting how it all turns out is very, very difficult.

So that would mean the return of districts that cover both Orange and Riverside (Porter and Calvert’s districts getting merged?).

It really depends. In the 6-county metro-Southern California Area, you need this many districts in a 52 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.2 (-0.
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.2 (+0.1)
San Bernadino: 2.8 (-0.1)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.2 (-1.0)

In the same area in a 53 district scenario (comparison to 2010):
Los Angeles: 13.4 (-0.6)
San Diego: 4.4 (0.0)
Orange: 4.2 (-0.1)
Riverside: 3.3 (+0.2)
San Bernadino: 2.9 (0.0)
Ventura: 1.1 (-0.1)
Imperial: 0.2 (0.0)
Total: 29.5 (-0.7)

In either case, Orange is just over 4 districts. Personally, I think Orange will have four, San Diego will have 3, Orange-San Diego will be 1, and the remaining 0.6 of San Diego pairs with 0.4 of Riverside. Imperial pairs with the Coachella Velley, the Victor Valley pairs with Mono, Inyo, and the Antelope Valley, leaving a perfect 4 districts in the Core Inland Empire. Los Angeles has 13 districts with the leftovers in the Antolope Valley pairing northward and Ventura's excess moves into the Santa Barbara based district. This is all speculation, of course, but I doubt there are any OC-IE pairings. I'd add that the non-VRA OC and LA districts will probably be completely redrawn, but we'll see. It's possible, for example, that OC gets an Asian VRA district.

No OC-IE districts? There’s currently one OC-IE district, CA-39 (LA-OC-San Bernardino, does San Bernardino get drawn out?). What happens to that? At least one OC-IE district has been the norm.

It could happen, but I don't see it as necessary. I certainly don't think there will be any OC-Riverside districts.

I can’t imagine an Asian VRA district. An OC-Riverside district isn’t necessary, But I could imagine it happening. Are there any pictures of hypothetical maps?

You're right regarding Asian VRA. For some reason I thought it would work out. Anyway, this is basically what I described:

And even that is essentially still the 2010 map just dropping Imperial from CA53.

Actually CA-51. I noticed that map there splits up Santa Ana, eliminating Correa’s district. That would mean Porter and Cisneros would represent Santa Ana. Who would replace Lowenthal in the new theoretical district (in green) that would represent mostly Asian and white voters in Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, and Cypress?

I'm just assuming that the map presented above is a 'preliminary design' so to speak. Since the map cuts a bunch of localities in half, doesn't really take account of minority rules, and has lots of 'straight line' edged districts, this tells me the map is not intended to be final. Which is fine. CA is so large that everything starts with a preliminary map to base where districts should go.

I can’t see a similar map happening, one that abolishes the Hispanic VRA district. I live in the green hypothetical district, which would elect either an Asian or white candidate.

Green is evenly split between asians, whites, and latinos. Purple is majority latino and would probably be represented by Correa (Cisneros would take a LA County seat). This is preliminary but it demonstrates how it isn't necessary to pair any OC-IE and OC-LA seats in a future 52 district scenario.

Then Cisneros would represent a district centered in Hacienda Heights?  Yellow would be Porter representing Santa Ana?

Yep, although the bult of Santa Ana is in purple. I could see Correa going for green and leaving purple for Cisneros, though. Regardless, at least one person in SE LA County is going to lose their seat.

If Correa chooses green, that means he would represent little or none of Santa Ana, where his base is. I can’t imagine him abandoning his hometown. He takes pride in representing Santa Ana. So who else might run in green?

Janet and Diedre Nguyen?

Maybe. Also maybe Josh Lowenthal (D) or Steve Jones (R). I think it would probably elect an Asian (probably Vietnamese) candidate because of Westminster, Garden Grove, and Huntington Beach. I’m surprised that OC only splits with San Diego in this map. It’s not necessary, but CA doesn’t prioritize keeping counties whole (CA splits counties at a high rate, which has been the norm in the state). I expect more splits, despite being unnecessary. What would a map with OC sharing districts with more counties look like?

[SevenEleven]

"this map" was created based on southern California and is merely a presentation. I suspect a more realistic map would take a top-down approach starting the Bay, and end up with an LA-OC district and an OC-IE district before going down to San Diego.

[I’m not Stu]

"this map" was created based on southern California and is merely a presentation. I suspect a more realistic map would take a top-down approach starting the Bay, and end up with an LA-OC district and an OC-IE district before going down to San Diego.

Do you think the possible OC-IE district is more likely to be Porter/Calvert, Cisneros/Calvert, or Levin/Calvert?

[SevenEleven]

"this map" was created based on southern California and is merely a presentation. I suspect a more realistic map would take a top-down approach starting the Bay, and end up with an LA-OC district and an OC-IE district before going down to San Diego.

Do you think the possible OC-IE district is more likely to be Porter/Calvert, Cisneros/Calvert, or Levin/Calvert?

Hard to say. I think Calvert is DOA regardless, but I think the Eastern foothills will be the split portion of the county. I think CA retains 53 districts.

Probably Cisneros.

[I’m not Stu]

"this map" was created based on southern California and is merely a presentation. I suspect a more realistic map would take a top-down approach starting the Bay, and end up with an LA-OC district and an OC-IE district before going down to San Diego.

Do you think the possible OC-IE district is more likely to be Porter/Calvert, Cisneros/Calvert, or Levin/Calvert?

Hard to say. I think Calvert is DOA regardless, but I think the Eastern foothills will be the split portion of the county. I think CA retains 53 districts.

Eastern foothills, who would that merge Calvert’s district with?

[SevenEleven]

"this map" was created based on southern California and is merely a presentation. I suspect a more realistic map would take a top-down approach starting the Bay, and end up with an LA-OC district and an OC-IE district before going down to San Diego.

Do you think the possible OC-IE district is more likely to be Porter/Calvert, Cisneros/Calvert, or Levin/Calvert?

Hard to say. I think Calvert is DOA regardless, but I think the Eastern foothills will be the split portion of the county. I think CA retains 53 districts.

Eastern foothills, who would that merge Calvert’s district with?

Most probably Cusneros, as I said. Although I think the commission is likely to keep most current districts intact and only focusing on population shifts.