2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: California

[Coastal Elitist]

This is my first time doing this and this is what I came up with for a 52 district map: https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::3f4e8b37-a2a7-400b-8587-91dff40799b1

I tried to just alter the current districts for the most part. Are the districts supposed to be similar in size because I made them that way which is why some look weird?

[Oryxslayer]

This is my first time doing this and this is what I came up with for a 52 district map: https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::3f4e8b37-a2a7-400b-8587-91dff40799b1

I tried to just alter the current districts for the most part. Are the districts supposed to be similar in size because I made them that way which is why some look weird?

I can't access your map, check the link. Either way, I can answer your Question: districts are supposed to be as close as possible to the same population numbers, usually maps in place are very near zero though they use precinct cuts which cannot be done on DRA. Districts should not be equal land size, land does not vote, people vote. Some districts will be tiny, others will be huge.

Since this is your first map, here's some beginner tips that people often aren't aware of. If you know this stuff, just ignore this.

- There are check boxes for counties and city lines in the lower left. You should be mindful of these if you are making fair or reasonable maps, especially in CA.
- Make sure you selected the 2018 data at the start. You can change the colors of your districts and the partisan data displayed anytime with the gear in the upper left, use it to your advantage.
- The VRA is a thing and accessibility districts are expected. Do your research beforehand and if a seat is not 50% white, chances are it should be kept that way. Also, especially in CA, you tend to get brownie points for making more minority districts and minority access districts where a minority can control a primary. Obviously VRA districts should be sensible, don't tentacle between communities just to get a high minority%.
- In certain states it pays to go on wikipedia and take notes of where incumbents live.
- Water continuity is illegal in 95% of circumstances. Similarly, a road connection between all parts of the district is necessary, be it by bridge, trail, highway, or pass. This sounds obvious, but sometimes neat county pairings are separated by a national park with no through roads.

[Coastal Elitist]

This is my first time doing this and this is what I came up with for a 52 district map: https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::3f4e8b37-a2a7-400b-8587-91dff40799b1

I tried to just alter the current districts for the most part. Are the districts supposed to be similar in size because I made them that way which is why some look weird?

I can't access your map, check the link. Either way, I can answer your Question: districts are supposed to be as close as possible to the same population numbers, usually maps in place are very near zero though they use precinct cuts which cannot be done on DRA. Districts should not be equal land size, land does not vote, people vote. Some districts will be tiny, others will be huge.

Since this is your first map, here's some beginner tips that people often aren't aware of. If you know this stuff, just ignore this.

- There are check boxes for counties and city lines in the lower left. You should be mindful of these if you are making fair or reasonable maps, especially in CA.
- Make sure you selected the 2018 data at the start. You can change the colors of your districts and the partisan data displayed anytime with the gear in the upper left, use it to your advantage.
- The VRA is a thing and accessibility districts are expected. Do your research beforehand and if a seat is not 50% white, chances are it should be kept that way. Also, especially in CA, you tend to get brownie points for making more minority districts and minority access districts where a minority can control a primary. Obviously VRA districts should be sensible, don't tentacle between communities just to get a high minority%.
- In certain states it pays to go on wikipedia and take notes of where incumbents live.
- Water continuity is illegal in 95% of circumstances. Similarly, a road connection between all parts of the district is necessary, be it by bridge, trail, highway, or pass. This sounds obvious, but sometimes neat county pairings are separated by a national park with no through roads.

Thanks. I did try to keep cities together. I'll be honest some of mine probably breaks the rules. Does this link work: https://davesredistricting.org/join/665b4ab7-db3a-4d59-870e-bd5087931ccb

[Lisa's voting Biden]

This is my first time doing this and this is what I came up with for a 52 district map: https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::3f4e8b37-a2a7-400b-8587-91dff40799b1

I tried to just alter the current districts for the most part. Are the districts supposed to be similar in size because I made them that way which is why some look weird?

I can't access your map, check the link. Either way, I can answer your Question: districts are supposed to be as close as possible to the same population numbers, usually maps in place are very near zero though they use precinct cuts which cannot be done on DRA. Districts should not be equal land size, land does not vote, people vote. Some districts will be tiny, others will be huge.

Since this is your first map, here's some beginner tips that people often aren't aware of. If you know this stuff, just ignore this.

- There are check boxes for counties and city lines in the lower left. You should be mindful of these if you are making fair or reasonable maps, especially in CA.
- Make sure you selected the 2018 data at the start. You can change the colors of your districts and the partisan data displayed anytime with the gear in the upper left, use it to your advantage.
- The VRA is a thing and accessibility districts are expected. Do your research beforehand and if a seat is not 50% white, chances are it should be kept that way. Also, especially in CA, you tend to get brownie points for making more minority districts and minority access districts where a minority can control a primary. Obviously VRA districts should be sensible, don't tentacle between communities just to get a high minority%.
- In certain states it pays to go on wikipedia and take notes of where incumbents live.
- Water continuity is illegal in 95% of circumstances. Similarly, a road connection between all parts of the district is necessary, be it by bridge, trail, highway, or pass. This sounds obvious, but sometimes neat county pairings are separated by a national park with no through roads.

Thanks. I did try to keep cities together. I'll be honest some of mine probably breaks the rules. Does this link work: https://davesredistricting.org/join/665b4ab7-db3a-4d59-870e-bd5087931ccb

Works for me. Your CA-01 is almost identical to how I draw mine. A few districts are a little messy but it looks good otherwise.

[Oryxslayer]

Question for other mappers: is it possible the court goes for a second Asian majority/near majority seat in the south bay? The numbers are there, if you use all of Union City, Fremont, and  Newark, while selectively removing precincts with the Palo Alto white seat and the Monterrey 'Strawberry Fields' Hispanic seat. The issue though is that too much population ends up south of Union City, 160K to be precise. The only way to continue to remove precincts is either release pressure on the peninsula by having the present CA15 cross the Hayward bridge or use the massive Pacific Coast Range precinct and connect CA15 via the small Calveras road - both bad options.

If one was to say no to the asian seats and go for the more natural alignments with one asian seat, the results are also bad. SF+San Mateo+the remainders of Santa Cruz don't take in enough population, and the Monterrey+San Benito seat doesn't help. You end up about 80K over the dual district threshold, which necesitates an ugly cut of Fremont of the Livermore/Pleasanton COI. The current map does just such an ugly cut of Fremont. 27.5K can be removed using the SLO+SB seat if you want to cut Monterrey from the south and grab the wealthy coastal white precincts on the way up towards Pebble Beach, but that still doesn't deal with the problem in totality.

Here's a summery of the situation: The present version in Blue and described alternatives in Red.

[I’m not Stu]

This is my first time doing this and this is what I came up with for a 52 district map: https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::3f4e8b37-a2a7-400b-8587-91dff40799b1

I tried to just alter the current districts for the most part. Are the districts supposed to be similar in size because I made them that way which is why some look weird?

I can't access your map, check the link. Either way, I can answer your Question: districts are supposed to be as close as possible to the same population numbers, usually maps in place are very near zero though they use precinct cuts which cannot be done on DRA. Districts should not be equal land size, land does not vote, people vote. Some districts will be tiny, others will be huge.

Since this is your first map, here's some beginner tips that people often aren't aware of. If you know this stuff, just ignore this.

- There are check boxes for counties and city lines in the lower left. You should be mindful of these if you are making fair or reasonable maps, especially in CA.
- Make sure you selected the 2018 data at the start. You can change the colors of your districts and the partisan data displayed anytime with the gear in the upper left, use it to your advantage.
- The VRA is a thing and accessibility districts are expected. Do your research beforehand and if a seat is not 50% white, chances are it should be kept that way. Also, especially in CA, you tend to get brownie points for making more minority districts and minority access districts where a minority can control a primary. Obviously VRA districts should be sensible, don't tentacle between communities just to get a high minority%.
- In certain states it pays to go on wikipedia and take notes of where incumbents live.
- Water continuity is illegal in 95% of circumstances. Similarly, a road connection between all parts of the district is necessary, be it by bridge, trail, highway, or pass. This sounds obvious, but sometimes neat county pairings are separated by a national park with no through roads.

Thanks. I did try to keep cities together. I'll be honest some of mine probably breaks the rules. Does this link work: https://davesredistricting.org/join/665b4ab7-db3a-4d59-870e-bd5087931ccb

Porter and Lowenthal have really ugly districts on this map.

[Oryxslayer]

This is my first time doing this and this is what I came up with for a 52 district map: https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::3f4e8b37-a2a7-400b-8587-91dff40799b1

I tried to just alter the current districts for the most part. Are the districts supposed to be similar in size because I made them that way which is why some look weird?

I can't access your map, check the link. Either way, I can answer your Question: districts are supposed to be as close as possible to the same population numbers, usually maps in place are very near zero though they use precinct cuts which cannot be done on DRA. Districts should not be equal land size, land does not vote, people vote. Some districts will be tiny, others will be huge.

Since this is your first map, here's some beginner tips that people often aren't aware of. If you know this stuff, just ignore this.

- There are check boxes for counties and city lines in the lower left. You should be mindful of these if you are making fair or reasonable maps, especially in CA.
- Make sure you selected the 2018 data at the start. You can change the colors of your districts and the partisan data displayed anytime with the gear in the upper left, use it to your advantage.
- The VRA is a thing and accessibility districts are expected. Do your research beforehand and if a seat is not 50% white, chances are it should be kept that way. Also, especially in CA, you tend to get brownie points for making more minority districts and minority access districts where a minority can control a primary. Obviously VRA districts should be sensible, don't tentacle between communities just to get a high minority%.
- In certain states it pays to go on wikipedia and take notes of where incumbents live.
- Water continuity is illegal in 95% of circumstances. Similarly, a road connection between all parts of the district is necessary, be it by bridge, trail, highway, or pass. This sounds obvious, but sometimes neat county pairings are separated by a national park with no through roads.

Thanks. I did try to keep cities together. I'll be honest some of mine probably breaks the rules. Does this link work: https://davesredistricting.org/join/665b4ab7-db3a-4d59-870e-bd5087931ccb

CA-45 is quite ugly extending into southern Riverside County.

If it's actually his first map then I'm cutting some slack.

[I’m not Stu]

I can't use DRA. I'm not signed up. I wish I could draw a map.

[MaxQue]

I can't use DRA. I'm not signed up. I wish I could draw a map.

Just create an account there instead of padding your post count saying inane things.

[I’m not Stu]

I just created an account. How do I know if my districts are legal?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Question for other mappers: is it possible the court goes for a second Asian majority/near majority seat in the south bay? The numbers are there, if you use all of Union City, Fremont, and  Newark, while selectively removing precincts with the Palo Alto white seat and the Monterrey 'Strawberry Fields' Hispanic seat. The issue though is that too much population ends up south of Union City, 160K to be precise. The only way to continue to remove precincts is either release pressure on the peninsula by having the present CA15 cross the Hayward bridge or use the massive Pacific Coast Range precinct and connect CA15 via the small Calveras road - both bad options.

If one was to say no to the asian seats and go for the more natural alignments with one asian seat, the results are also bad. SF+San Mateo+the remainders of Santa Cruz don't take in enough population, and the Monterrey+San Benito seat doesn't help. You end up about 80K over the dual district threshold, which necesitates an ugly cut of Fremont of the Livermore/Pleasanton COI. The current map does just such an ugly cut of Fremont. 27.5K can be removed using the SLO+SB seat if you want to cut Monterrey from the south and grab the wealthy coastal white precincts on the way up towards Pebble Beach, but that still doesn't deal with the problem in totality.

Here's a summery of the situation: The present version in Blue and described alternatives in Red.

It's easy to do an Asian majority and an Asian plurality seat in the South Bay:



CA-15 is 53% Asian and CA-12 is 40% Asian. If you want to try and shore that up and make some lines messier, there are heavily Asian precincts in Southeast San Jose but otherwise, I think something like this is the best you can manage.

[Oryxslayer]

Question for other mappers: is it possible the court goes for a second Asian majority/near majority seat in the south bay? The numbers are there, if you use all of Union City, Fremont, and  Newark, while selectively removing precincts with the Palo Alto white seat and the Monterrey 'Strawberry Fields' Hispanic seat. The issue though is that too much population ends up south of Union City, 160K to be precise. The only way to continue to remove precincts is either release pressure on the peninsula by having the present CA15 cross the Hayward bridge or use the massive Pacific Coast Range precinct and connect CA15 via the small Calveras road - both bad options.

If one was to say no to the asian seats and go for the more natural alignments with one asian seat, the results are also bad. SF+San Mateo+the remainders of Santa Cruz don't take in enough population, and the Monterrey+San Benito seat doesn't help. You end up about 80K over the dual district threshold, which necesitates an ugly cut of Fremont of the Livermore/Pleasanton COI. The current map does just such an ugly cut of Fremont. 27.5K can be removed using the SLO+SB seat if you want to cut Monterrey from the south and grab the wealthy coastal white precincts on the way up towards Pebble Beach, but that still doesn't deal with the problem in totality.

Here's a summery of the situation: The present version in Blue and described alternatives in Red.

It's easy to do an Asian majority and an Asian plurality seat in the South Bay:



CA-15 is 53% Asian and CA-12 is 40% Asian. If you want to try and shore that up and make some lines messier, there are heavily Asian precincts in Southeast San Jose but otherwise, I think something like this is the best you can manage.

But you aren't solving the situation. Yes it is easy to do it, the numbers are there, that was the point of the opener. The solution you took though has cascading ripple effects which is what I am trying to avoid. Your version carvers up Monterrey really bad because of the pop fiasco, which in turn necessitates a cut in SB and then necessitates multiple cuts in Ventura... I'm not saying it's bad - I think if you clean up Monterrey and Santa Cruz like on the State House map you could get a better HVAP seat. Monterrey + San Benito + Watsonville + whatever grouping doesn't break 40% citizen Hispanics (though does break 50%).

The issues is that you succumbed to "for want of a neat Fremont, we cut Monterrey. For want of Monterrey...etc" This is something I would prefer to avoid.



In addition to the above two choices in my original post, there is also the choice of removing San Benito from the Strawberry seat and giving it to the valley, but that is probable a worse COI violation.

[Oryxslayer]

For example, I threw this together in 5 minutes, so don't criticize the chosen groupings. It just shows off what is possible in precinct numbers. However, if I was going to expand on your idea, I would transform the region into a far grander version of the current Yin-Yang State Legislative seats. CA-20 (purple) becomes a very white coastal seat. Then CA-19 becomes a very Hispanic seat using the Ag towns in both Santa Cruz and Monterrey, connecting them through San Benito, and then pairing them with San Jose Hispanics. This does clean up Fremont, but the 281K added to the Bay block would have it's over ripple effects either in Conta Costa or Solano, effects that I didn't bother to explore in the 5 minutes I threw this together.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

For example, I threw this together in 5 minutes, so don't criticize the chosen groupings. It just shows off what is possible in precinct numbers. However, if I was going to expand on your idea, I would transform the region into a far grander version of the current Yin-Yang State Legislative seats. CA-20 (purple) becomes a very white coastal seat. Then CA-19 becomes a very Hispanic seat using the Ag towns in both Santa Cruz and Monterrey, connecting them through San Benito, and then pairing them with San Jose Hispanics. This does clean up Fremont, but the 281K added to the Bay block would have it's over ripple effects either in Conta Costa or Solano, effects that I didn't bother to explore in the 5 minutes I threw this together.

I get what you are saying, but I think the COIs get a bit ridiculous at this point. I mean, you have a district going from Half Moon Bay to Pismo Beach connected via Big Sur. I think it's better to just have a series of districts stacked along the coast instead of trying to split them north/south, even if it means cutting Monterrey awkwardly. Separating Santa Maria from Santa Barbara and Oxnard/Ventura from Simi Valley/Thousand Oaks isn't a problem at all. I propose something like this:

[I’m not Stu]

I just signed up. I will soon add my map when I finish it.

[Coastal Elitist]

This is my first time doing this and this is what I came up with for a 52 district map: https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::3f4e8b37-a2a7-400b-8587-91dff40799b1

I tried to just alter the current districts for the most part. Are the districts supposed to be similar in size because I made them that way which is why some look weird?

I can't access your map, check the link. Either way, I can answer your Question: districts are supposed to be as close as possible to the same population numbers, usually maps in place are very near zero though they use precinct cuts which cannot be done on DRA. Districts should not be equal land size, land does not vote, people vote. Some districts will be tiny, others will be huge.

Since this is your first map, here's some beginner tips that people often aren't aware of. If you know this stuff, just ignore this.

- There are check boxes for counties and city lines in the lower left. You should be mindful of these if you are making fair or reasonable maps, especially in CA.
- Make sure you selected the 2018 data at the start. You can change the colors of your districts and the partisan data displayed anytime with the gear in the upper left, use it to your advantage.
- The VRA is a thing and accessibility districts are expected. Do your research beforehand and if a seat is not 50% white, chances are it should be kept that way. Also, especially in CA, you tend to get brownie points for making more minority districts and minority access districts where a minority can control a primary. Obviously VRA districts should be sensible, don't tentacle between communities just to get a high minority%.
- In certain states it pays to go on wikipedia and take notes of where incumbents live.
- Water continuity is illegal in 95% of circumstances. Similarly, a road connection between all parts of the district is necessary, be it by bridge, trail, highway, or pass. This sounds obvious, but sometimes neat county pairings are separated by a national park with no through roads.

Thanks. I did try to keep cities together. I'll be honest some of mine probably breaks the rules. Does this link work: https://davesredistricting.org/join/665b4ab7-db3a-4d59-870e-bd5087931ccb

CA-45 is quite ugly extending into southern Riverside County.

If it's actually his first map then I'm cutting some slack.

Yes it is and what happened was I started at the top of the state and worked my way down, but as I was doing that I decided to do Orange County which was fine at the time. However when I got most of the way through Los Angeles I realized that my OC districts wouldn't fit and then when I got down to San Diego I didn't have enough population left to make the last district complete so I had to go back and adjust from the top to the bottom which produced some weird shapes.

Oryxslayer, do you start at the top of the state and work your way down or how do you do it?

[Oryxslayer]

Oryxslayer, do you start at the top of the state and work your way down or how do you do it?

My maps tend to be longer projects because I don't start right from any one spot. First, I outline my goals. If it's incumbent protection, I immediately color all incumbent residencies. Then I search for sensible multi-county groupings in most parts of the state. Obviously this doesn't work in smaller states with few districts or in large counties like LA. For example, you will go back a few posts you will see I make note of the fact that a Bay Area+ group has nearly 11 districts exactly. In smaller fair district maps, I grab all multi or cross-county COIs first like say Lansing's 3 counties. In Incumbent protection plans, I start with incumbent bases of support be they counties or cities as the initial building blocks. In gerry's I start with the most necessary packs, like Milwaulkee in Wisconsin. From there I start building out, expanding usually within the bounds of established communties.

So, it's complex, but the truth is I start everywhere. For example, my CA-in process map started with me creating the northern, valley, and Bay Area groupings. I then added or removed from the groups when it was best. When I came to the valley, I needed to also needed to delineate the Imperial Valley and San Diego regions, since those effect the bottom of the valley. 

This is very time consuming, so you need a bunch of free time (surprise it's corona season which I why I am attempting CA) but it's how most of the redistricting firms view maps. A simpler option is just to retrain your preservative - don't think of one district as preceding another, think of each district on it's own and that it needs to stand independently. It's easy to tell who thinks in the former way and who in the latter, since the latter tends to have cascading county or community cuts from their initial starting position.

[lfromnj]

Oryxslayer, do you start at the top of the state and work your way down or how do you do it?

My maps tend to be longer projects because I don't start right from any one spot. First, I outline my goals. If it's incumbent protection, I immediately color all incumbent residencies. Then I search for sensible multi-county groupings in most parts of the state. Obviously this doesn't work in smaller states with few districts or in large counties like LA. For example, you will go back a few posts you will see I make note of the fact that a Bay Area+ group has nearly 11 districts exactly. In smaller fair district maps, I grab all multi or cross-county COIs first like say Lansing's 3 counties. In Incumbent protection plans, I start with incumbent bases of support be they counties or cities as the initial building blocks. In gerry's I start with the most necessary packs, like Milwaulkee in Wisconsin. From there I start building out, expanding usually within the bounds of established communties.

So, it's complex, but the truth is I start everywhere. For example, my CA-in process map started with me creating the northern, valley, and Bay Area groupings. I then added or removed from the groups when it was best. When I came to the valley, I needed to also needed to delineate the Imperial Valley and San Diego regions, since those effect the bottom of the valley.  

This is very time consuming, so you need a bunch of free time (surprise it's corona season which I why I am attempting CA) but it's how most of the redistricting firms view maps. A simpler option is just to retrain your preservative - don't think of one district as preceding another, think of each district on it's own and that it needs to stand independently. It's easy to tell who thinks in the former way and who in the latter, since the latter tends to have cascading county or community cuts from their initial starting position.

Texas is actually a better way to see the map like this
You can draw your individual metro areas and figure out what you want there then draw the rest of the rural districts connecting the metros. California is a hard state for a beginner along with Florida due to basically most of the state being urbanized. Texas lets you divide the state up into mini areas to work with first.  Meanwhile in California Los angeles is connected to the central valley etc .

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Texas is actually a better way to see the map like this
You can draw your individual metro areas and figure out what you want there then draw the rest of the rural districts connecting the metros. California is a hard state for a beginer along with Florida due to basically most of the state being urbanized. Texas lets you divide the state up into mini areas to work with first.

That's definitely true, although California isn't the hardest. I always start with Los Angeles and Orange Counties, because it's a huge metro area with some VRA seats you have to do but a lot of ways to play around with the borders. Then I do the Bay Area, which is pretty easy because it's broken down into different counties and sort of draws itself given the barrier the bay provides. Then I fill in everything else.

Anyway, I adjusted my CA map in three ways. I dropped a LA/Ventura split and moved things around, dividing Ventura County into three natural areas (Oxnard Plain, Thousand Oaks/Simi Valley, and Santa Clara River Valley). I made a Tahoe/Gold Country seat which cleans up Sacramento a bit. Finally, I attached Pittsburgh/Antioch, Tracy, and Modesto to avoid splitting the Stockton urban area. Pretty happy with how it looks now, although I always appreciate criticism:

[Oryxslayer]

So I had what can only be described as a revaluation last night, staring at the awkward county connections I had going in south of the state. The South Hills of OC have a lot of people - it's the counties main source of growth since the north is mostly experiencing turnover. However, the problem was that there were no good pairings to get the South Hills all the way to a district. Irvine is too big, and Newport Beach doesn't finish the job meaning you need to cut another town like Huntingdon, Costa Mesa, or Irvine. However, I thought 'Why not just add Henderson? The military base is connected to the South Hills, and nobody should raise an argument to a small cut to SD that adds JUST the base.' Turns out the pop numbers are near perfect, so I think this is an ideal pairing.

[I’m not Stu]

I'm working on my first map. Am I supposed to stay close to the listed target population?

[SevenEleven]

I'm working on my first map. Am I supposed to stay close to the listed target population?

I try to keep three digit differential or less.

[I’m not Stu]

I'm working on my first map. Am I supposed to stay close to the listed target population?

I try to keep three digit differential or less.

It’s super tough. Is it better to go over or under?

[SevenEleven]

I'm working on my first map. Am I supposed to stay close to the listed target population?

I try to keep three digit differential or less.

It’s super tough. Is it better to go over or under?

It doesn't matter either way, just try to stay balanced so that you don't run into more population problems later on.

[Oryxslayer]

Question: Which OC alignment do people think is better? The former preserves cross-county COI's, the latter focuses on the county line between OC and LA. The former has a Asian Belt seat, the latter has to drop some of the belt in not just LA to take in Huntington Beach. I can vouch that Long Beach and Huntington do share some similarities and a pairing makes sense, even though their partisanship differs. But it's not a perfect grouping.