Southern California redistricting

[I’m not Stu]

What might this hypothetical San Diego district look like?

[Kevinstat]

At ends of a state, a hypothetical 1/54th of a state (population-wise) could be very similar to a 1/53rd of a state, just 1.85% smaller (on average, or assuming the growth of this area is the same as the state as a whole, or comparing a 54-seat model to a 53 seat-model with everything else being the same was the same).  Such a district would be only 3.70% smaller than a district comprised of 1/52nd of a state, and a district if California loses a seat would be just 1.92% larger that if California remained at 53 seats (from what I've heard, California is seen as more likely to lose a seat in the coming reapportionment than to gain one).

[I’m not Stu]

What would it look like, presumably being near the Mexican border?

[Kevinstat]

If you're asking where the district (if exactly one) would be that clearly wasn't a successor district to any of the existing ones, I couldn't tell you.  The mention of San Diego led me to think at first that you were curious about that area, but you may have just been going by the fact that the current district with the largest number for it's name is in San Diego.

It's by no means certain in that scenario that each of the 53 existing districts will have one clear successor district (each different from all the other successor districts) with one district that is "new."  It's also by no means certain that if California loses a seat, 52 of the 53 existing districts will have one clear successor district (each different from all the other successor districts) with a single district "disappearing."

[I’m not Stu]

All I know is that it would be a neighboring district to CA-51, CA-52, and CA-53. What would such a map even look like?

[Kevinstat]

What would it look like, presumably being near the Mexican border?

Okay, so you were asking about the San Diego area (or the Mexican border) specifically.  It's actually California's 51st congressional district now that covers at least most (and I think all) of California's Mexican border.  If the "new" district were somewhat further north, the "neo-51st" district in Imperial County and the southern border and the "neo-52nd" and "neo-53rd" districts in the city of San Diego (the current 52nd district seems to include more of the city, with the 53rd stretching to the east and southeast) could all remain similar to what they are now, just losing or gaining a little bit of territory if California were to gain or lose a seat.

I'm sure others would be able to give some specifics, but I just wanted to point out that there might not be one "new" district right there, any more than there would be along the Oregon border (except perhaps that the southern part of California may be growing faster, and respecting the Sierra Nevada as a natural barrier seems to be a thing to some extent).

[I’m not Stu]

Where would the newly created district most likely be?

[Kevinstat]

Where would the newly created district most likely be?

I'll leave it to others who now more about California's growth patterns, current districts (and obvious areas "calling out for" a new district) and likely proclivities of California's redistricting commission to attempt an answer there.

Even after the plan is out, it might not be obvious which single district is either "new" (assuming California goes up to 54 seats) or eliminated (if California goes down to 52).  Even if California remains as 53 districts, there could be a district that is essentially new and another district that's essentially eliminated.  But again, it might not be indisputable whether a district is a successor district to an existing one or essentially new.  So trying to predict what will happen when it might not be clear in those terms what has happened even after it's happened (say that three times fast ) may be difficult.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

This is really hard to predict, because CA-54 isn't happening before 2030 at the earliest, and there will presumably be a lot of growth between now and then. Presumably, San Diego wouldn't get changed around that much but just get renumbered as the fastest growing bits of the state are the Bay Area and Inland Empire, so they would see the new district.

Before drawing this on a map, you'd have to predict county-by-county growth. To get a 54th district in 2020, California will need to hit about 44,100,000 people out of an American population of 354,300,000 people. If you want to answer that question, you have to pick where the homes for 4 million new Californians are going to go.

[I’m not Stu]

I would imagine CA-54 would then be what CA-51 is now, represented by Juan Vargas (CA-01 northernmost, CA-54 southernmost). If the Bay Area has the most growth, would the new district be centered in San Jose?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Well, to hit the growth numbers needed for a 54th district, California is going to need zoning reform similar to SB-50 to pass, which would redirect growth towards the urban counties with slow growth but extremely high property values. The Inland Empire is only growing because LA County isn't. With this new housing dynamic, expect enormous growth on LA's Westside, Coastal Orange County, Santa Barbara, Marin, San Mato, etc., not necessarily higher growth in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. To hit the threshold required for 54 districts, I anticipate county populations looking something like this in 2030:

California: 44,100,000

Southern California--25,650,000
Los Angeles--11,230,000
San Diego--3,720,000
Orange--3,570,000
Riverside--2,790,000
San Bernardino--2,450,000
Ventura--890,000
Santa Barbara--500,000
San Luis Obispo--310,000
Imperial--190,000
         
Greater Bay Area--13,920,000
Santa Clara--2,160,000
Alameda--1,890,000
Sacramento--1,700,000
Contra Costa--1,290,000
San Francisco--990,000
San Mateo--880,000
San Joaquin--860,000
Stanislaus--590,000
Sonoma--520,000
Solano--490,000
Monterey--480,000
Placer--460,000
Merced--310,000
Santa Cruz--310,000
Marin--300,000
Yolo--250,000
El Dorado--210,000
Napa--150,000
San Benito--80,000
         
San Joaquin Valley--3,090,000
Fresno--1,080,000
Kern--960,000
Tulare--500,000
Madera--380,000
Kings--170,000
         
Far Northern California--1,250,000
Butte--220,000
Shasta--190,000
Humboldt--140,000
Sutter--100,000
Nevada--100,000
Yuba--90,000
Mendocino--90,000
Tehama--70,000
Lake--70,000
Siskyou--40,000
Glenn--30,000
Del Norte--30,000
Colusa--20,000
Lassen--20,000
Modoc--10,000
Plumas--10,000
Sierra--10,000
Trinity--10,000
         
Gold Country--160,000
Calaveras--50,000
Tuolumne--50,000
Amador--40,000
Mariposa--20,000
         
Eastern Sierra--40,000
Inyo--20,000
Mono--10,000
Alpine--10,000

If you want to work out maps with these county population figures, then be my guest.

[I’m not Stu]

If a zoning reform bill is passed, what might a new map look like?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

If a zoning reform bill is passed, what might a new map look like?

Well, you'd get a perfect 30 districts in Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Imperial, Inyo, and Mono counties for a start. You'd get 24 in the rest of the state, from San Luis Obispo and Kern north. This compares against 30.4 in the Southern California region today with 53 districts and 29.9 if we drop to 52 districts. Basically, the implication of this is that if we jump from 52 to 54 districts in 2030, both the districts go to Northern California and if we jump from 53 to 54, the new district goes to Northern California and half of a Southern California district gets shifted from South to North as well.

That doesn't mean there won't be significant shifts within Southern California alone. Orange and San Diego would get 9 district all to themselves, an increase from today or from 52 districts, so you can play around with a 9 district OC-SD map to speculate. Los Angeles should get half a new district. If you take away the Antelope Valley and Santa Clarita and attach them on to new districts, the core of the county should have a perfect 13 districts, similar to today. However, Downtown/Wilshire/Hollywood/West LA should gain at the expense of the Gateway Cities and SGV, with perhaps 3 full districts north of the 10, south of the Hollywood Hills, and west of the LA River.

Rounding out the rest of Southern California, you have 3.5 districts in the core Inland Empire, and 4.5 including Imperial County; the Victor, Coachella, Antelope, and Santa Clarita Valleys; Ventura County; and Santa Barbara County.

I haven't bothered to look closely at the northern part of the state yet, although that's probably more interesting as they can expect to get more congressional districts.

[I’m not Stu]

Is it more likely California stays at 53 or loses a district?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

If a zoning reform bill is passed, what might a new map look like?

Well, you'd get a perfect 30 districts in Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Imperial, Inyo, and Mono counties for a start. You'd get 24 in the rest of the state, from San Luis Obispo and Kern north. This compares against 30.4 in the Southern California region today with 53 districts and 29.9 if we drop to 52 districts. Basically, the implication of this is that if we jump from 52 to 54 districts in 2030, both the districts go to Northern California and if we jump from 53 to 54, the new district goes to Northern California and half of a Southern California district gets shifted from South to North as well.

That doesn't mean there won't be significant shifts within Southern California alone. Orange and San Diego would get 9 district all to themselves, an increase from today or from 52 districts, so you can play around with a 9 district OC-SD map to speculate. Los Angeles should get half a new district. If you take away the Antelope Valley and Santa Clarita and attach them on to new districts, the core of the county should have a perfect 13 districts, similar to today. However, Downtown/Wilshire/Hollywood/West LA should gain at the expense of the Gateway Cities and SGV, with perhaps 3 full districts north of the 10, south of the Hollywood Hills, and west of the LA River.

Rounding out the rest of Southern California, you have 3.5 districts in the core Inland Empire, and 4.5 including Imperial County; the Victor, Coachella, Antelope, and Santa Clarita Valleys; Ventura County; and Santa Barbara County.

I haven't bothered to look closely at the northern part of the state yet, although that's probably more interesting as they can expect to get more congressional districts.

I assume this means that Imperial County gets added to a Riverside-based CD. What side effects would this have on the rest of the SoCal districts?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Is it more likely California stays at 53 or loses a district?

Loses, sadly. As such, I think it's pretty doubtful we jump to 54 in 2030, but if we get out sh!t together and legalize housing, we could get back to 53 in 2030 and get to 54 or 55 in 2040.

[I’m not Stu]

Is it more likely California stays at 53 or loses a district?

Loses, sadly. As such, I think it's pretty doubtful we jump to 54 in 2030, but if we get out sh!t together and legalize housing, we could get back to 53 in 2030 and get to 54 or 55 in 2040.

You don’t think staying at 53 is likely?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

If a zoning reform bill is passed, what might a new map look like?

Well, you'd get a perfect 30 districts in Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Imperial, Inyo, and Mono counties for a start. You'd get 24 in the rest of the state, from San Luis Obispo and Kern north. This compares against 30.4 in the Southern California region today with 53 districts and 29.9 if we drop to 52 districts. Basically, the implication of this is that if we jump from 52 to 54 districts in 2030, both the districts go to Northern California and if we jump from 53 to 54, the new district goes to Northern California and half of a Southern California district gets shifted from South to North as well.

That doesn't mean there won't be significant shifts within Southern California alone. Orange and San Diego would get 9 district all to themselves, an increase from today or from 52 districts, so you can play around with a 9 district OC-SD map to speculate. Los Angeles should get half a new district. If you take away the Antelope Valley and Santa Clarita and attach them on to new districts, the core of the county should have a perfect 13 districts, similar to today. However, Downtown/Wilshire/Hollywood/West LA should gain at the expense of the Gateway Cities and SGV, with perhaps 3 full districts north of the 10, south of the Hollywood Hills, and west of the LA River.

Rounding out the rest of Southern California, you have 3.5 districts in the core Inland Empire, and 4.5 including Imperial County; the Victor, Coachella, Antelope, and Santa Clarita Valleys; Ventura County; and Santa Barbara County.

I haven't bothered to look closely at the northern part of the state yet, although that's probably more interesting as they can expect to get more congressional districts.

I assume this means that Imperial County gets added to a Riverside-based CD. What side effects would this have on the rest of the SoCal districts?

Haven't bothered to work it all out, but I'm using this as a starting point, with 9 OC-SC districts and a Imperial-Coachella Valley pairing. Interestingly (although this is all speculative this far out), it reduces OC/SD/Riverside from 2 Trump districts to 1 because Southern Riverside becomes something of a sink and San Diego's potion alone of Hunter's district isn't GOP on it's own once you reconfigure the borders.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Is it more likely California stays at 53 or loses a district?

Loses, sadly. As such, I think it's pretty doubtful we jump to 54 in 2030, but if we get out sh!t together and legalize housing, we could get back to 53 in 2030 and get to 54 or 55 in 2040.

You don’t think staying at 53 is likely?

Census estimates don't think so, although it's definitely still possible.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

If a zoning reform bill is passed, what might a new map look like?

Well, you'd get a perfect 30 districts in Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Imperial, Inyo, and Mono counties for a start. You'd get 24 in the rest of the state, from San Luis Obispo and Kern north. This compares against 30.4 in the Southern California region today with 53 districts and 29.9 if we drop to 52 districts. Basically, the implication of this is that if we jump from 52 to 54 districts in 2030, both the districts go to Northern California and if we jump from 53 to 54, the new district goes to Northern California and half of a Southern California district gets shifted from South to North as well.

That doesn't mean there won't be significant shifts within Southern California alone. Orange and San Diego would get 9 district all to themselves, an increase from today or from 52 districts, so you can play around with a 9 district OC-SD map to speculate. Los Angeles should get half a new district. If you take away the Antelope Valley and Santa Clarita and attach them on to new districts, the core of the county should have a perfect 13 districts, similar to today. However, Downtown/Wilshire/Hollywood/West LA should gain at the expense of the Gateway Cities and SGV, with perhaps 3 full districts north of the 10, south of the Hollywood Hills, and west of the LA River.

Rounding out the rest of Southern California, you have 3.5 districts in the core Inland Empire, and 4.5 including Imperial County; the Victor, Coachella, Antelope, and Santa Clarita Valleys; Ventura County; and Santa Barbara County.

I haven't bothered to look closely at the northern part of the state yet, although that's probably more interesting as they can expect to get more congressional districts.

I assume this means that Imperial County gets added to a Riverside-based CD. What side effects would this have on the rest of the SoCal districts?

Haven't bothered to work it all out, but I'm using this as a starting point, with 9 OC-SC districts and a Imperial-Coachella Valley pairing. Interestingly (although this is all speculative this far out), it reduces OC/SD/Riverside from 2 Trump districts to 1 because Southern Riverside becomes something of a sink and San Diego's potion alone of Hunter's district isn't GOP on it's own once you reconfigure the borders.

Would you need any San Brenardino-LA crossover districts?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

If a zoning reform bill is passed, what might a new map look like?

Well, you'd get a perfect 30 districts in Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Imperial, Inyo, and Mono counties for a start. You'd get 24 in the rest of the state, from San Luis Obispo and Kern north. This compares against 30.4 in the Southern California region today with 53 districts and 29.9 if we drop to 52 districts. Basically, the implication of this is that if we jump from 52 to 54 districts in 2030, both the districts go to Northern California and if we jump from 53 to 54, the new district goes to Northern California and half of a Southern California district gets shifted from South to North as well.

That doesn't mean there won't be significant shifts within Southern California alone. Orange and San Diego would get 9 district all to themselves, an increase from today or from 52 districts, so you can play around with a 9 district OC-SD map to speculate. Los Angeles should get half a new district. If you take away the Antelope Valley and Santa Clarita and attach them on to new districts, the core of the county should have a perfect 13 districts, similar to today. However, Downtown/Wilshire/Hollywood/West LA should gain at the expense of the Gateway Cities and SGV, with perhaps 3 full districts north of the 10, south of the Hollywood Hills, and west of the LA River.

Rounding out the rest of Southern California, you have 3.5 districts in the core Inland Empire, and 4.5 including Imperial County; the Victor, Coachella, Antelope, and Santa Clarita Valleys; Ventura County; and Santa Barbara County.

I haven't bothered to look closely at the northern part of the state yet, although that's probably more interesting as they can expect to get more congressional districts.

I assume this means that Imperial County gets added to a Riverside-based CD. What side effects would this have on the rest of the SoCal districts?

Haven't bothered to work it all out, but I'm using this as a starting point, with 9 OC-SC districts and a Imperial-Coachella Valley pairing. Interestingly (although this is all speculative this far out), it reduces OC/SD/Riverside from 2 Trump districts to 1 because Southern Riverside becomes something of a sink and San Diego's potion alone of Hunter's district isn't GOP on it's own once you reconfigure the borders.

Would you need any San Brenardino-LA crossover districts?

Yes. Either in the Pomona Valley (less likely) or connecting the Victor and Antelope Valleys (more likely).

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

If a zoning reform bill is passed, what might a new map look like?

Well, you'd get a perfect 30 districts in Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Imperial, Inyo, and Mono counties for a start. You'd get 24 in the rest of the state, from San Luis Obispo and Kern north. This compares against 30.4 in the Southern California region today with 53 districts and 29.9 if we drop to 52 districts. Basically, the implication of this is that if we jump from 52 to 54 districts in 2030, both the districts go to Northern California and if we jump from 53 to 54, the new district goes to Northern California and half of a Southern California district gets shifted from South to North as well.

That doesn't mean there won't be significant shifts within Southern California alone. Orange and San Diego would get 9 district all to themselves, an increase from today or from 52 districts, so you can play around with a 9 district OC-SD map to speculate. Los Angeles should get half a new district. If you take away the Antelope Valley and Santa Clarita and attach them on to new districts, the core of the county should have a perfect 13 districts, similar to today. However, Downtown/Wilshire/Hollywood/West LA should gain at the expense of the Gateway Cities and SGV, with perhaps 3 full districts north of the 10, south of the Hollywood Hills, and west of the LA River.

Rounding out the rest of Southern California, you have 3.5 districts in the core Inland Empire, and 4.5 including Imperial County; the Victor, Coachella, Antelope, and Santa Clarita Valleys; Ventura County; and Santa Barbara County.

I haven't bothered to look closely at the northern part of the state yet, although that's probably more interesting as they can expect to get more congressional districts.

I assume this means that Imperial County gets added to a Riverside-based CD. What side effects would this have on the rest of the SoCal districts?

Haven't bothered to work it all out, but I'm using this as a starting point, with 9 OC-SC districts and a Imperial-Coachella Valley pairing. Interestingly (although this is all speculative this far out), it reduces OC/SD/Riverside from 2 Trump districts to 1 because Southern Riverside becomes something of a sink and San Diego's potion alone of Hunter's district isn't GOP on it's own once you reconfigure the borders.

Would you need any San Brenardino-LA crossover districts?

Yes. Either in the Pomona Valley (less likely) or connecting the Victor and Antelope Valleys (more likely).

What is the knock-off impact in LA county with Long Beach having a sistrict contained to just LA county?

[I’m not Stu]

Wouldn't Pomona Valley make sense (represented by Norma Torres)?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

If a zoning reform bill is passed, what might a new map look like?

Well, you'd get a perfect 30 districts in Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Imperial, Inyo, and Mono counties for a start. You'd get 24 in the rest of the state, from San Luis Obispo and Kern north. This compares against 30.4 in the Southern California region today with 53 districts and 29.9 if we drop to 52 districts. Basically, the implication of this is that if we jump from 52 to 54 districts in 2030, both the districts go to Northern California and if we jump from 53 to 54, the new district goes to Northern California and half of a Southern California district gets shifted from South to North as well.

That doesn't mean there won't be significant shifts within Southern California alone. Orange and San Diego would get 9 district all to themselves, an increase from today or from 52 districts, so you can play around with a 9 district OC-SD map to speculate. Los Angeles should get half a new district. If you take away the Antelope Valley and Santa Clarita and attach them on to new districts, the core of the county should have a perfect 13 districts, similar to today. However, Downtown/Wilshire/Hollywood/West LA should gain at the expense of the Gateway Cities and SGV, with perhaps 3 full districts north of the 10, south of the Hollywood Hills, and west of the LA River.

Rounding out the rest of Southern California, you have 3.5 districts in the core Inland Empire, and 4.5 including Imperial County; the Victor, Coachella, Antelope, and Santa Clarita Valleys; Ventura County; and Santa Barbara County.

I haven't bothered to look closely at the northern part of the state yet, although that's probably more interesting as they can expect to get more congressional districts.

I assume this means that Imperial County gets added to a Riverside-based CD. What side effects would this have on the rest of the SoCal districts?

Haven't bothered to work it all out, but I'm using this as a starting point, with 9 OC-SC districts and a Imperial-Coachella Valley pairing. Interestingly (although this is all speculative this far out), it reduces OC/SD/Riverside from 2 Trump districts to 1 because Southern Riverside becomes something of a sink and San Diego's potion alone of Hunter's district isn't GOP on it's own once you reconfigure the borders.

Would you need any San Brenardino-LA crossover districts?

Yes. Either in the Pomona Valley (less likely) or connecting the Victor and Antelope Valleys (more likely).

What is the knock-off impact in LA county with Long Beach having a sistrict contained to just LA county?

I wrote about it here in the context of a 2022 52 seat California, so the numbers are off, but this map shows roughly what communities would go together. To account for the 54th district, the Santa Monica based district would drop it's Thousand Oaks component and take in Westwood/Venice/Culver City.

Well, this is the district map I have. Ignore the questionable district numbering.



CA-01: Cerritos, Cypress, Garden Grove. Open.
CA-02: Santa Ana, Anaheim, Fullerton. Lou Correa.
CA-02: Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Laguna Niguel. Harley Rouda
CA-04: Yorba Linda, Irvine, Lake Forest. Katie Porter vs Gil Cisneros.
CA-15: Long Beach, Carson, San Pedro. Alan Lowenthal vs Nanette Barragan.
CA-16: Torrance, Hawthorne, Manhattan Beach. Ted Lieu.
CA-17: Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Culver City. Karen Bass.
CA-18: Inglewood, Willowbrook, Compton. Maxine Waters.
CA-19: Downtown, Koreatown, Boyle Heights. Jimmy Gomez.
CA-20: Huntington Park, Downey, Bellflower. Lucille Roybal-Allard.
CA-21: Glendale, Eagle Rock, Pasadena. Adam Schiff.
CA-22: Pico Rivera, Norwalk, Whittier. Linda Sanchez.
CA-23: Monterey Park, El Monte, Arcadia. Judy Chu.
CA-24: Covina, Pomona, Diamond Bar. Open?
CA-25: Santa Monica, Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley. Julia Brownley.
CA-26: Northridge, Chatsworth, Sylmar. Brad Sherman.
CA-27: Van Nuys, North Hollywood, Burbank. Tony Cardenas.

The non-safe seats:
CA-01. This is an Asian opportunity seat, and I'd be curious to see who wins it.
CA-04. Porter would obviously win against Cisneros, but I'd expect Cisneros to carpetbag in CA-24 which arguably has more of his base in it anyway.
CA-15. This is, of course, your original matchup. I have no idea if Lowenthal or Barragan would win, and I'd expect it would be very competitive. Either they challenge each other in a primary or one of them would choose to run for something else entirely (LA County supervisors?). It's worth noting that Lowenthal will be 82 and might just retire and clear a path for Barragan.
CA-24. This area is represented by Grace Napolitano, although she lives some distance away in Norwalk. That said, she will be 85 come 2022 and I'd expect her to retire and let Cisneros run here.

There are a few other things, like Brad Sherman living in Cardenas's district in the new map, and Karen Bass possibly living in Maxine Waters', but I expect them to run in the open districts I assigned them to which contain many of their current voters anyway. Regardless, it looks like Cisneros/Napolitano/Porter and Barragan/Lowenthal will probably be the matchups, with a new district created in Orange County's Asian Belt. You were correct in pinpointing Barragan-Lowenthal as the key matchup from this cut, even though the area that is stagnating the most is along the I-5 corridor in SE LA County. It is convenient, however, that Lowenthal and Napolitano might just retire and clear things up.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Wouldn't Pomona Valley make sense (represented by Norma Torres)?

Maybe, except that would force a second Ventura/Los Angeles split or dividing up the Santa Clarita Valley.