2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: California

[SevenEleven]

You said the VRA which is Federal was violated which it wasn't at the Federal level.

Federal VRA still applies to certain districts such as CA-21 and CA-46. Regardless, this is California, all appropriate statute must be followed.

I highly doubt the Federal courts would require a district like CA 21 if Bakersfield was drawn whole. Not sure about CA 46 but all 5 Republican judges would oppose CA 21 and I'd bet 1 or both of Kagan and Breyer wouldn't require it either.

That would require overturning Gingles. Regardless, California's maps won't be headed to the SCOTUS, so it's a moot point. I also doubt that all 5 conservative justices would willingly toss out Gingles; that's very presumptuous on your part.

[Coastal Elitist]

That map is very, very not legal. And by that I mean very illegal.

How?

For starters, total disregard of the VRA. Just from a glance, there's almost no chance of that CA-21 or CA-46 holding up. You need to use CVAP. CA-8 lacks a year round road connection from Alpine. District 27 doesn't look to be Hispanic enough.

There's also no reason to have 3! mountain crossing districts into the SFV. It seems like many districts were drawn using partisan data, as you break up COIs and bypass near areas for far areas. No viable CA map has 9 Trump districts.

No you're wrong I used CVAP. Both 46 and 27 are Hispanic enough. The 8th and 25th are pretty similar to how they are now. I don't know what you mean by bypassing near areas for far areas. I put like communities together white rurals are basically all republican so when you combine them you get R districts. I also made a coastal OC district that makes sense based on putting like communities together. If anyone's map is drawn only looking at partisan data it's yours. Where am I breaking up communities of interest and what exactly defines that?

COIs are defined by California law. Your CA-21 and CA-46 are completely unacceptable. Putting Corona with Hemet makes no sense at all.

When I say bypassing near areas for far areas I'm talking about districts like 32 that snake around for (seemingly) no reason. It's hard to judge exactly without seeing the municipal lines and ethnic data.

Compare your map to mine, which you called a gerrymander.


See how no districts snake around other districts and cities are kept whole as often as possible?

Theres no disregard for the VRA. That would be atleast a 7-2 at Scotus, it maybe a disregard for the California version of that.

VRA districts have to be able to elect a minority group's candidate of choice by law.

And they don't always need to be created especially if they fail to the Gingles Test. You can say it's illegal by California law but it would not be illegal by Federal law to keep Bakersfield whole.

I don't know if you noticed, but this is California redistricting. California law must be followed. CA-21 has been a protected minority district for literally decades now. Kern County has a particular eye on it already. MALDEF btfo of their last county supervisor map.

I did keep cities as whole as I could. 41 is like that so that way 43 is Hispanic. The 32nd is that way because I was making a black district. Yours splits Orange County way to many times plus there's no reason to put UC Irvine with the coast apart from partisan reasons. Your entire Orange County looks like a partisan gerrymander not to mention your ridiculous central valley district that goes from Bakersfield all the way to the Northern part of the state.

[SevenEleven]

I did keep cities as whole as I could. 41 is like that so that way 43 is Hispanic. The 32nd is that way because I was making a black district. Yours splits Orange County way to many times plus there's no reason to put UC Irvine with the coast apart from partisan reasons. Your entire Orange County looks like a partisan gerrymander not to mention your ridiculous central valley district that goes from Bakersfield all the way to the Northern part of the state.

You could put the San Jacinto valley with Moreno Valley instead of going into Redlands. Corona and Riverside together are a perfect district and COI as it is,a and as shown on my map.

And no, my map does not split OC too many times, but you can easily swap La Mirada and La Habra if you want, it doesn't affect any partisanship at all. The split is done from an ethnic and COI standpoint and doesn't affect anything else.

UC Irvine, likewise, does not affect the overall partisanship, splitting Irvine helps keep like communities together. Due to the nature of CA-46 there is no real way to avoid splitting Irvine due to population concerns.

And the district that pairs white Bakersfield with Clovis and the mountainous areas they vacation in and own cabins in is more of a COI than Kings County to frickin Ridgecrest is. My map keeps the Mojave Desert and the Central Sierras whole.

[lfromnj]

Lmao mountainous areas they vacation in. Let's connect the upper east side to Hamilton county next.

[SevenEleven]

Lmao mountainous areas they vacation in. Let's connect the upper east side to Hamilton county next.

You can be as dense as you choose to be. I would love to hear you justify Hanford to Ridgecrest. Your non sequitur has nothing to do with the redistricting process.

[Coastal Elitist]

Lmao mountainous areas they vacation in. Let's connect the upper east side to Hamilton county next.

You can be as dense as you choose to be. I would love to hear you justify Hanford to Ridgecrest. Your non sequitur has nothing to do with the redistricting process.

Hanford is in 21 it does not connect to Ridgecrest meanwhile you're connecting Bakersfield to Calaveras County which no one vacations to.

[SevenEleven]

Lmao mountainous areas they vacation in. Let's connect the upper east side to Hamilton county next.

You can be as dense as you choose to be. I would love to hear you justify Hanford to Ridgecrest. Your non sequitur has nothing to do with the redistricting process.

Hanford is in 21 it does not connect to Ridgecrest meanwhile you're connecting Bakersfield to Calaveras County which no one vacations to.

How is Ridgecrest not in 21? That seems impossible.

Also, the vacationing has little to do with it. The Sierras are kept whole and so is the Mojave Desert. Clovis and Bakersfield both have connections to the Sierras and do not fit in the minority districts so they have to go somewhere. You could try to put Clovis with Fresno but then that causes a ripple effect. It's not a matter of connecting Bakersfield to Calaveras. It boils down to "here is the desert and here are the mountains, now what else can we put here to make a sound district that doesn't violate any laws and maintains COIs and local integrity." So that's what I've done, there are other ways to do it but not your way as currently constructed.

Since the Bakersfield split is mandatory, that population has to go somewhere. You could try putting it with the Antelope Valley, but then you're splitting up another COI for seemingly no benefit. Whereas the district I drew keeps important geographic areas together and ties them to "leftover" communities that they do indeed share common interests with. Hanford and Ridgecrest do NOT share common interests. An odd take from someone who wants to handwring the location of UC Irvine specifically within a densely populated metro.

[Coastal Elitist]

Lmao mountainous areas they vacation in. Let's connect the upper east side to Hamilton county next.

You can be as dense as you choose to be. I would love to hear you justify Hanford to Ridgecrest. Your non sequitur has nothing to do with the redistricting process.

Hanford is in 21 it does not connect to Ridgecrest meanwhile you're connecting Bakersfield to Calaveras County which no one vacations to.

How is Ridgecrest not in 21? That seems impossible.

Also, the vacationing has little to do with it. The Sierras are kept whole and so is the Mojave Desert. Clovis and Bakersfield both have connections to the Sierras and do not fit in the minority districts so they have to go somewhere. You could try to put Clovis with Fresno but then that causes a ripple effect. It's not a matter of connecting Bakersfield to Calaveras. It boils down to "here is the desert and here are the mountains, now what else can we put here to make a sound district that doesn't violate any laws and maintains COIs and local integrity." So that's what I've done, there are other ways to do it but not your way as currently constructed.

Since the Bakersfield split is mandatory, that population has to go somewhere. You could try putting it with the Antelope Valley, but then you're splitting up another COI for seemingly no benefit. Whereas the district I drew keeps important geographic areas together and ties them to "leftover" communities that they do indeed share common interests with. Hanford and Ridgecrest do NOT share common interests. An odd take from someone who wants to handwring the location of UC Irvine specifically within a densely populated metro.

Meant to say that Hanford isn't in 21. Lol Bakersfield and Calaveras should not be connected just stop they share nothing in coming there's no COI their period.

[SevenEleven]

Lmao mountainous areas they vacation in. Let's connect the upper east side to Hamilton county next.

You can be as dense as you choose to be. I would love to hear you justify Hanford to Ridgecrest. Your non sequitur has nothing to do with the redistricting process.

Hanford is in 21 it does not connect to Ridgecrest meanwhile you're connecting Bakersfield to Calaveras County which no one vacations to.

How is Ridgecrest not in 21? That seems impossible.

Also, the vacationing has little to do with it. The Sierras are kept whole and so is the Mojave Desert. Clovis and Bakersfield both have connections to the Sierras and do not fit in the minority districts so they have to go somewhere. You could try to put Clovis with Fresno but then that causes a ripple effect. It's not a matter of connecting Bakersfield to Calaveras. It boils down to "here is the desert and here are the mountains, now what else can we put here to make a sound district that doesn't violate any laws and maintains COIs and local integrity." So that's what I've done, there are other ways to do it but not your way as currently constructed.

Since the Bakersfield split is mandatory, that population has to go somewhere. You could try putting it with the Antelope Valley, but then you're splitting up another COI for seemingly no benefit. Whereas the district I drew keeps important geographic areas together and ties them to "leftover" communities that they do indeed share common interests with. Hanford and Ridgecrest do NOT share common interests. An odd take from someone who wants to handwring the location of UC Irvine specifically within a densely populated metro.

Meant to say that Hanford isn't in 21. Lol Bakersfield and Calaveras should not be connected just stop they share nothing in coming there's no COI their period.

But Del Norte and Nevada County are?

There's no good reason to divide the Sierras or the Mojave Desert into 3 or 4 pieces as you have done. If you have one I would love to hear it. How does Madera go with Calaveras anymore than Bakersfield?

[Coastal Elitist]

Lmao mountainous areas they vacation in. Let's connect the upper east side to Hamilton county next.

You can be as dense as you choose to be. I would love to hear you justify Hanford to Ridgecrest. Your non sequitur has nothing to do with the redistricting process.

Hanford is in 21 it does not connect to Ridgecrest meanwhile you're connecting Bakersfield to Calaveras County which no one vacations to.

How is Ridgecrest not in 21? That seems impossible.

Also, the vacationing has little to do with it. The Sierras are kept whole and so is the Mojave Desert. Clovis and Bakersfield both have connections to the Sierras and do not fit in the minority districts so they have to go somewhere. You could try to put Clovis with Fresno but then that causes a ripple effect. It's not a matter of connecting Bakersfield to Calaveras. It boils down to "here is the desert and here are the mountains, now what else can we put here to make a sound district that doesn't violate any laws and maintains COIs and local integrity." So that's what I've done, there are other ways to do it but not your way as currently constructed.

Since the Bakersfield split is mandatory, that population has to go somewhere. You could try putting it with the Antelope Valley, but then you're splitting up another COI for seemingly no benefit. Whereas the district I drew keeps important geographic areas together and ties them to "leftover" communities that they do indeed share common interests with. Hanford and Ridgecrest do NOT share common interests. An odd take from someone who wants to handwring the location of UC Irvine specifically within a densely populated metro.

Meant to say that Hanford isn't in 21. Lol Bakersfield and Calaveras should not be connected just stop they share nothing in coming there's no COI their period.

But Del Norte and Nevada County are?

There's no good reason to divide the Sierras or the Mojave Desert into 3 or 4 pieces as you have done. If you have one I would love to hear it. How does Madera go with Calaveras anymore than Bakersfield?

They're both white rural mountainous areas. There's no good reasons to combine the mountains with the San Joaquin Valley. Madera and Calaveras are part of the Sierra Nevada

[SevenEleven]

Lmao mountainous areas they vacation in. Let's connect the upper east side to Hamilton county next.

You can be as dense as you choose to be. I would love to hear you justify Hanford to Ridgecrest. Your non sequitur has nothing to do with the redistricting process.

Hanford is in 21 it does not connect to Ridgecrest meanwhile you're connecting Bakersfield to Calaveras County which no one vacations to.

How is Ridgecrest not in 21? That seems impossible.

Also, the vacationing has little to do with it. The Sierras are kept whole and so is the Mojave Desert. Clovis and Bakersfield both have connections to the Sierras and do not fit in the minority districts so they have to go somewhere. You could try to put Clovis with Fresno but then that causes a ripple effect. It's not a matter of connecting Bakersfield to Calaveras. It boils down to "here is the desert and here are the mountains, now what else can we put here to make a sound district that doesn't violate any laws and maintains COIs and local integrity." So that's what I've done, there are other ways to do it but not your way as currently constructed.

Since the Bakersfield split is mandatory, that population has to go somewhere. You could try putting it with the Antelope Valley, but then you're splitting up another COI for seemingly no benefit. Whereas the district I drew keeps important geographic areas together and ties them to "leftover" communities that they do indeed share common interests with. Hanford and Ridgecrest do NOT share common interests. An odd take from someone who wants to handwring the location of UC Irvine specifically within a densely populated metro.

Meant to say that Hanford isn't in 21. Lol Bakersfield and Calaveras should not be connected just stop they share nothing in coming there's no COI their period.

But Del Norte and Nevada County are?

There's no good reason to divide the Sierras or the Mojave Desert into 3 or 4 pieces as you have done. If you have one I would love to hear it. How does Madera go with Calaveras anymore than Bakersfield?

They're both white rural mountainous areas. There's no good reasons to combine the mountains with the San Joaquin Valley. Madera and Calaveras are part of the Sierra Nevada

Madera the city has little to do with the mountains. Also, white and rural is not a legit COI. Del Norte belongs with the rest of the North Coast. Obviously there has to be give and take because not every district can be perfect. Your map combines the mountains and valley in a worse way than mine. Check your compactness ratings.

Look at your CV districts and tell me why Kings County is with Ridgecrest. It makes no sense.

[Coastal Elitist]

Lmao mountainous areas they vacation in. Let's connect the upper east side to Hamilton county next.

You can be as dense as you choose to be. I would love to hear you justify Hanford to Ridgecrest. Your non sequitur has nothing to do with the redistricting process.

Hanford is in 21 it does not connect to Ridgecrest meanwhile you're connecting Bakersfield to Calaveras County which no one vacations to.

How is Ridgecrest not in 21? That seems impossible.

Also, the vacationing has little to do with it. The Sierras are kept whole and so is the Mojave Desert. Clovis and Bakersfield both have connections to the Sierras and do not fit in the minority districts so they have to go somewhere. You could try to put Clovis with Fresno but then that causes a ripple effect. It's not a matter of connecting Bakersfield to Calaveras. It boils down to "here is the desert and here are the mountains, now what else can we put here to make a sound district that doesn't violate any laws and maintains COIs and local integrity." So that's what I've done, there are other ways to do it but not your way as currently constructed.

Since the Bakersfield split is mandatory, that population has to go somewhere. You could try putting it with the Antelope Valley, but then you're splitting up another COI for seemingly no benefit. Whereas the district I drew keeps important geographic areas together and ties them to "leftover" communities that they do indeed share common interests with. Hanford and Ridgecrest do NOT share common interests. An odd take from someone who wants to handwring the location of UC Irvine specifically within a densely populated metro.

Meant to say that Hanford isn't in 21. Lol Bakersfield and Calaveras should not be connected just stop they share nothing in coming there's no COI their period.

But Del Norte and Nevada County are?

There's no good reason to divide the Sierras or the Mojave Desert into 3 or 4 pieces as you have done. If you have one I would love to hear it. How does Madera go with Calaveras anymore than Bakersfield?

They're both white rural mountainous areas. There's no good reasons to combine the mountains with the San Joaquin Valley. Madera and Calaveras are part of the Sierra Nevada

Madera the city has little to do with the mountains. Also, white and rural is not a legit COI. Del Norte belongs with the rest of the North Coast. Obviously there has to be give and take because not every district can be perfect. Your map combines the mountains and valley in a worse way than mine. Check your compactness ratings.

Look at your CV districts and tell me why Kings County is with Ridgecrest. It makes no sense.

Yes it is now you're just making stuff up. What COI do you think makes up CA-1 now? Kings County and Ridgecrest are both in the same valley your explanation for combining Bakersfield to Calaveras makes no sense you're obviously doing a partisan pack which isn't allowed. I combined a statistical area and then had Kern County left so I took a part of that which is in the same region. Anyways I'm done with this conversation

[SevenEleven]

Lmao mountainous areas they vacation in. Let's connect the upper east side to Hamilton county next.

You can be as dense as you choose to be. I would love to hear you justify Hanford to Ridgecrest. Your non sequitur has nothing to do with the redistricting process.

Hanford is in 21 it does not connect to Ridgecrest meanwhile you're connecting Bakersfield to Calaveras County which no one vacations to.

How is Ridgecrest not in 21? That seems impossible.

Also, the vacationing has little to do with it. The Sierras are kept whole and so is the Mojave Desert. Clovis and Bakersfield both have connections to the Sierras and do not fit in the minority districts so they have to go somewhere. You could try to put Clovis with Fresno but then that causes a ripple effect. It's not a matter of connecting Bakersfield to Calaveras. It boils down to "here is the desert and here are the mountains, now what else can we put here to make a sound district that doesn't violate any laws and maintains COIs and local integrity." So that's what I've done, there are other ways to do it but not your way as currently constructed.

Since the Bakersfield split is mandatory, that population has to go somewhere. You could try putting it with the Antelope Valley, but then you're splitting up another COI for seemingly no benefit. Whereas the district I drew keeps important geographic areas together and ties them to "leftover" communities that they do indeed share common interests with. Hanford and Ridgecrest do NOT share common interests. An odd take from someone who wants to handwring the location of UC Irvine specifically within a densely populated metro.

Meant to say that Hanford isn't in 21. Lol Bakersfield and Calaveras should not be connected just stop they share nothing in coming there's no COI their period.

But Del Norte and Nevada County are?

There's no good reason to divide the Sierras or the Mojave Desert into 3 or 4 pieces as you have done. If you have one I would love to hear it. How does Madera go with Calaveras anymore than Bakersfield?

They're both white rural mountainous areas. There's no good reasons to combine the mountains with the San Joaquin Valley. Madera and Calaveras are part of the Sierra Nevada

Madera the city has little to do with the mountains. Also, white and rural is not a legit COI. Del Norte belongs with the rest of the North Coast. Obviously there has to be give and take because not every district can be perfect. Your map combines the mountains and valley in a worse way than mine. Check your compactness ratings.

Look at your CV districts and tell me why Kings County is with Ridgecrest. It makes no sense.

Yes it is now you're just making stuff up. Kings County and Ridgecrest are both in the same valley your explanation for combining Bakersfield to Calaveras makes no sense you're obviously doing a partisan pack which isn't allowed. Anyways I'm done with this conversation

Kings County and Ridgecrest are not in the same valley. You have to cross either the Sierras or the Tehachapis. You can be done, but you're also wrong.

I recommend using Google Earth if you aren't familiar with California's geography.

[Coastal Elitist]

Lmao mountainous areas they vacation in. Let's connect the upper east side to Hamilton county next.

You can be as dense as you choose to be. I would love to hear you justify Hanford to Ridgecrest. Your non sequitur has nothing to do with the redistricting process.

Hanford is in 21 it does not connect to Ridgecrest meanwhile you're connecting Bakersfield to Calaveras County which no one vacations to.

How is Ridgecrest not in 21? That seems impossible.

Also, the vacationing has little to do with it. The Sierras are kept whole and so is the Mojave Desert. Clovis and Bakersfield both have connections to the Sierras and do not fit in the minority districts so they have to go somewhere. You could try to put Clovis with Fresno but then that causes a ripple effect. It's not a matter of connecting Bakersfield to Calaveras. It boils down to "here is the desert and here are the mountains, now what else can we put here to make a sound district that doesn't violate any laws and maintains COIs and local integrity." So that's what I've done, there are other ways to do it but not your way as currently constructed.

Since the Bakersfield split is mandatory, that population has to go somewhere. You could try putting it with the Antelope Valley, but then you're splitting up another COI for seemingly no benefit. Whereas the district I drew keeps important geographic areas together and ties them to "leftover" communities that they do indeed share common interests with. Hanford and Ridgecrest do NOT share common interests. An odd take from someone who wants to handwring the location of UC Irvine specifically within a densely populated metro.

Meant to say that Hanford isn't in 21. Lol Bakersfield and Calaveras should not be connected just stop they share nothing in coming there's no COI their period.

But Del Norte and Nevada County are?

There's no good reason to divide the Sierras or the Mojave Desert into 3 or 4 pieces as you have done. If you have one I would love to hear it. How does Madera go with Calaveras anymore than Bakersfield?

They're both white rural mountainous areas. There's no good reasons to combine the mountains with the San Joaquin Valley. Madera and Calaveras are part of the Sierra Nevada

Madera the city has little to do with the mountains. Also, white and rural is not a legit COI. Del Norte belongs with the rest of the North Coast. Obviously there has to be give and take because not every district can be perfect. Your map combines the mountains and valley in a worse way than mine. Check your compactness ratings.

Look at your CV districts and tell me why Kings County is with Ridgecrest. It makes no sense.

Yes it is now you're just making stuff up. Kings County and Ridgecrest are both in the same valley your explanation for combining Bakersfield to Calaveras makes no sense you're obviously doing a partisan pack which isn't allowed. Anyways I'm done with this conversation

Kings County and Ridgecrest are not in the same valley. You have to cross either the Sierras or the Tehachapis. You can be done, but you're also wrong.

I recommend using Google Earth if you aren't familiar with California's geography.

It's still a part of the San Joaquin Valley:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Joaquin_Valley#/media/File:California_San_Joaquin_counties.svg

I'm very familiar with California's geography I've visited nearly every county which is why I know your Bakersfield to Calaveras district is an obvious dummymander and that there is no COI there

[SevenEleven]

Lmao mountainous areas they vacation in. Let's connect the upper east side to Hamilton county next.

You can be as dense as you choose to be. I would love to hear you justify Hanford to Ridgecrest. Your non sequitur has nothing to do with the redistricting process.

Hanford is in 21 it does not connect to Ridgecrest meanwhile you're connecting Bakersfield to Calaveras County which no one vacations to.

How is Ridgecrest not in 21? That seems impossible.

Also, the vacationing has little to do with it. The Sierras are kept whole and so is the Mojave Desert. Clovis and Bakersfield both have connections to the Sierras and do not fit in the minority districts so they have to go somewhere. You could try to put Clovis with Fresno but then that causes a ripple effect. It's not a matter of connecting Bakersfield to Calaveras. It boils down to "here is the desert and here are the mountains, now what else can we put here to make a sound district that doesn't violate any laws and maintains COIs and local integrity." So that's what I've done, there are other ways to do it but not your way as currently constructed.

Since the Bakersfield split is mandatory, that population has to go somewhere. You could try putting it with the Antelope Valley, but then you're splitting up another COI for seemingly no benefit. Whereas the district I drew keeps important geographic areas together and ties them to "leftover" communities that they do indeed share common interests with. Hanford and Ridgecrest do NOT share common interests. An odd take from someone who wants to handwring the location of UC Irvine specifically within a densely populated metro.

Meant to say that Hanford isn't in 21. Lol Bakersfield and Calaveras should not be connected just stop they share nothing in coming there's no COI their period.

But Del Norte and Nevada County are?

There's no good reason to divide the Sierras or the Mojave Desert into 3 or 4 pieces as you have done. If you have one I would love to hear it. How does Madera go with Calaveras anymore than Bakersfield?

They're both white rural mountainous areas. There's no good reasons to combine the mountains with the San Joaquin Valley. Madera and Calaveras are part of the Sierra Nevada

Madera the city has little to do with the mountains. Also, white and rural is not a legit COI. Del Norte belongs with the rest of the North Coast. Obviously there has to be give and take because not every district can be perfect. Your map combines the mountains and valley in a worse way than mine. Check your compactness ratings.

Look at your CV districts and tell me why Kings County is with Ridgecrest. It makes no sense.

Yes it is now you're just making stuff up. Kings County and Ridgecrest are both in the same valley your explanation for combining Bakersfield to Calaveras makes no sense you're obviously doing a partisan pack which isn't allowed. Anyways I'm done with this conversation

Kings County and Ridgecrest are not in the same valley. You have to cross either the Sierras or the Tehachapis. You can be done, but you're also wrong.

I recommend using Google Earth if you aren't familiar with California's geography.

It's still a part of the San Joaquin Valley:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Joaquin_Valley#/media/File:California_San_Joaquin_counties.svg

I'm very familiar with California's geography I've visited nearly every county which is why I know your Bakersfield to Calaveras district is an obvious dummymander and that there is no COI there

You linked to a generic county map.

Ridgecrest is separated by two mountain ranges, the Tehachapis and the Sierras.

[Greedo punched first]

What should I do now?

[SevenEleven]

Do the Coachella Valley next.

[Greedo punched first]

Do the Coachella Valley next.

Is this fine so far? How should I do the Coachella Valley? I would like to pair it with Imperial and maybe parts of San Diego in a Hispanic access district.

[Idaho Conservative]

Do the Coachella Valley next.

Is this fine so far? How should I do the Coachella Valley? I would like to pair it with Imperial and maybe parts of San Diego in a Hispanic access district.

Blatant partisan gerrymander.  The valley is 50-50, but you pack R's in 1 seat and crack everywhere else.  Plus, it's ugly.

[Greedo punched first]

Do the Coachella Valley next.

Is this fine so far? How should I do the Coachella Valley? I would like to pair it with Imperial and maybe parts of San Diego in a Hispanic access district.

Blatant partisan gerrymander.  The valley is 50-50, but you pack R's in 1 seat and crack everywhere else.  Plus, it's ugly.

Cracking is needed for majority-minority districts. Fresno and many parts of Bakersfield vote Democratic. Other large Central Valley cities like Stockton vote Democratic. The large cities have most of the population. The Central Valley isn't 50-50. Its large cities vote Democratic overall. Mountains don't belong with farms.

[Coastal Elitist]

Do the Coachella Valley next.

Is this fine so far? How should I do the Coachella Valley? I would like to pair it with Imperial and maybe parts of San Diego in a Hispanic access district.

Blatant partisan gerrymander.  The valley is 50-50, but you pack R's in 1 seat and crack everywhere else.  Plus, it's ugly.

Cracking is needed for majority-minority districts. Fresno and many parts of Bakersfield vote Democratic. Other large Central Valley cities like Stockton vote Democratic. The large cities have most of the population. The Central Valley isn't 50-50. Its large cities vote Democratic overall. Mountains don't belong with farms.

You put mountains with farms...

[SevenEleven]

Do the Coachella Valley next.

Is this fine so far? How should I do the Coachella Valley? I would like to pair it with Imperial and maybe parts of San Diego in a Hispanic access district.

Blatant partisan gerrymander.  The valley is 50-50, but you pack R's in 1 seat and crack everywhere else.  Plus, it's ugly.

Cracking is needed for majority-minority districts. Fresno and many parts of Bakersfield vote Democratic. Other large Central Valley cities like Stockton vote Democratic. The large cities have most of the population. The Central Valley isn't 50-50. Its large cities vote Democratic overall. Mountains don't belong with farms.

You put mountains with farms...

Again, use Google Earth. You may also note the current map, where Bakersfield is the only part of the Central Valley paired with the Sierras.

[Greedo punched first]

Do the Coachella Valley next.

Is this fine so far? How should I do the Coachella Valley? I would like to pair it with Imperial and maybe parts of San Diego in a Hispanic access district.

Blatant partisan gerrymander.  The valley is 50-50, but you pack R's in 1 seat and crack everywhere else.  Plus, it's ugly.

Cracking is needed for majority-minority districts. Fresno and many parts of Bakersfield vote Democratic. Other large Central Valley cities like Stockton vote Democratic. The large cities have most of the population. The Central Valley isn't 50-50. Its large cities vote Democratic overall. Mountains don't belong with farms.

You put mountains with farms...

How should I do the Coachella Valley? Mountains with farms isn't completely avoidable with one person-one vote and the importance of majority-minority districts.

[Idaho Conservative]

Do the Coachella Valley next.

Is this fine so far? How should I do the Coachella Valley? I would like to pair it with Imperial and maybe parts of San Diego in a Hispanic access district.

Blatant partisan gerrymander.  The valley is 50-50, but you pack R's in 1 seat and crack everywhere else.  Plus, it's ugly.

Cracking is needed for majority-minority districts. Fresno and many parts of Bakersfield vote Democratic. Other large Central Valley cities like Stockton vote Democratic. The large cities have most of the population. The Central Valley isn't 50-50. Its large cities vote Democratic overall. Mountains don't belong with farms.

You can get minority districts without gerrymandering.  Draw 1 Kern+Tulare district, 1 Mountains+Clovis district, then the 2 others are hispanic seats.  Just stop pretending and admi you are a pure partisan.  You say no mountains with farms and then put Kern county with Yosemite.  What a COI!

[Greedo punched first]

Do the Coachella Valley next.

Is this fine so far? How should I do the Coachella Valley? I would like to pair it with Imperial and maybe parts of San Diego in a Hispanic access district.

Blatant partisan gerrymander.  The valley is 50-50, but you pack R's in 1 seat and crack everywhere else.  Plus, it's ugly.

Cracking is needed for majority-minority districts. Fresno and many parts of Bakersfield vote Democratic. Other large Central Valley cities like Stockton vote Democratic. The large cities have most of the population. The Central Valley isn't 50-50. Its large cities vote Democratic overall. Mountains don't belong with farms.

You can get minority districts without gerrymandering.  Draw 1 Kern+Tulare district, 1 Mountains+Clovis district, then the 2 others are hispanic seats.  Just stop pretending and admi you are a pure partisan.  You say no mountains with farms and then put Kern county with Yosemite.  What a COI!

I can't completely avoid a farm-mountain pairing. 18 is mountains, GOP Bakersfield, and a tiny piece of Fresno. 19 is agricultural Madera, Fresno, and Clovis. 20 is Merced, Fresno, Visalia, Hanford, and a tiny piece of Kern. 22 is Visalia and the urban core of Bakersfield.