2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: California

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Made this 51 seat map in one go.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/a3d57aa3-1d03-485d-805a-055343ea10ca
One thing is clear from this map: Kern County is a mess in a 51 seat map.

Here is what I got to earlier: https://davesredistricting.org/join/6ad2d237-ddd7-4621-abb6-8605215c0c17

The first thing that stands out to me on your map is the split of Inglewood. I don't think that should ever be done. It seems like maybe you were trying to keep two AA districts, but there just isn't enough population to do that.

I like that you went San Diego-OC, I think it loosens up the IE a bit. I tried to make an Asian district in OC but it makes a poor earmuffs shape.

Your central valley districts actually look pretty decent but I've really come to think that there needs to be two VRA districts there given how easy it is to draw two compact Hispanic districts (20 and 21 on my map).

The Hollywood split...I'd prefer not to talk about.

I tried to maintain 2 AA seats. I think 57H 30B is a black seat in practice.
A big problem is that there isn't enough AAs for 2 seats and too many for 1.

[SevenEleven]

Made this 51 seat map in one go.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/a3d57aa3-1d03-485d-805a-055343ea10ca
One thing is clear from this map: Kern County is a mess in a 51 seat map.

Here is what I got to earlier: https://davesredistricting.org/join/6ad2d237-ddd7-4621-abb6-8605215c0c17

The first thing that stands out to me on your map is the split of Inglewood. I don't think that should ever be done. It seems like maybe you were trying to keep two AA districts, but there just isn't enough population to do that.

I like that you went San Diego-OC, I think it loosens up the IE a bit. I tried to make an Asian district in OC but it makes a poor earmuffs shape.

Your central valley districts actually look pretty decent but I've really come to think that there needs to be two VRA districts there given how easy it is to draw two compact Hispanic districts (20 and 21 on my map).

The Hollywood split...I'd prefer not to talk about.

I tried to maintain 2 AA seats. I think 57H 30B is a black seat in practice.
A big problem is that there isn't enough AAs for 2 seats and too many for 1.

Yeah, the View Park/Ladera Heights/Inglewood area should be kept together. Its a good anchor for a 45-50% AA district while using other AA precincts to create an opportunity or influence district still. Some of these areas are gentrifying and others are simply being outpaced by Hispanic growth. I think Maxine Waters' current district is only like 20% AA anyway.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

My first thought reaction to that 51 district map is that it splits Northern and Southern California rather weirdly. The one big upside of a 51 district configuration is that the state splits cleanly along the Ventura/Santa Barbara line and the Tehachapi Mountains. To the North are 22 districts. To the south, 29. There's no good reason to cross this line:

[Coastal Elitist]

Made this 51 seat map in one go.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/a3d57aa3-1d03-485d-805a-055343ea10ca
One thing is clear from this map: Kern County is a mess in a 51 seat map.

Here's the 51 district map I'm working on: https://davesredistricting.org/join/a93828ff-1d09-4cef-ad7b-05e933b0eec8

To avoid splitting Kern County that many times you really need to keep your 23rd district like the current 8th. Also there's no reason to get rid of the Emerald Coast district and in the Bay Area don't pair the Tri-Valley with San Jose it's only connection is a two lane mountain road. No reason to cross the mountains there. I'm also not sure why you're intent on slicing up San Diego with the suburbs around it and Irvine does not need to be split

[SevenEleven]

Using Blairite;s recommendation, 51 seats doesn't end up too poorly after all.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/29c03349-12f2-4300-97cf-eb6852d36178

[kwabbit]

Is it worth to cut up San Francisco to make another Asian district at around 45%? Or is that too gruesome?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Is it worth to cut up San Francisco to make another Asian district at around 45%? Or is that too gruesome?

It's not worth it. SF is just too obvious of a COI. You can strategically cut the city to make an Asian opportunity district based in San Mateo, though. Just try and get two Asian plurality seats in Santa Clara and one in Los Angeles. Bonus points for one in Orange as well.

[kwabbit]

35, 36, 28, 41, and 51 are majority Hispanic. 27, 42, 21, 52, 38, 34, 33, and 19 are plurality Hispanic. A lot more are 35>%

31 is majority Black.

11, 39, 12, and 44 are plurality Asian. 14 and 38 are >35%.

Hopefully that's enough VRA wise, but I don't know. I made some ugly borders trying to boost Asian percentage. California is a really hard to state to draw a map for. Hopefully some CA experts in this thread can tell me where I messed up lol.

[SevenEleven]

Was this drawn specifically to be a GOP gerrymander?

[kwabbit]

Was this drawn specifically to be a GOP gerrymander?

It was not, sadly. OC became sort of one when I tried to make an Asian plurality district there. Is the Sacramento Area one? DRA scores it a 95/100 on proportionality and Republicans are favored in 9/52 seats. They just won 11/53, so it doesn't seem too crazy.

My maps have always ended up with a GOP tilt when I try to make them fair because I like to keep cities whole if possible on COI grounds. So if medium sized cities like Sacramento are 'packed' then the effect is probably favorable to Republicans.

I drew it election data turned off per California law but then turned it on after the fact.

[SevenEleven]

So this is my version of a 51 district map, and as you can see city lines are followed almost to a T while maintaining CoIs about as well as can be done. You might notice the ugliness of districts 31 and 32, well, that's because the Central Valley has a Latino VRA district that must be included on any map.

So I'd say try to create actualy Latino majority districts when possible, there should be more than 5, and try to clean up the edges of your districts to maintain compactness. My 51 district map has 6 Latino majority districts with another 5 over 45% Latino, measured by CVAP.

[Coastal Elitist]

Was this drawn specifically to be a GOP gerrymander?

It was not, sadly. OC became sort of one when I tried to make an Asian plurality district there. Is the Sacramento Area one? DRA scores it a 95/100 on proportionality and Republicans are favored in 9/52 seats. They just won 11/53, so it doesn't seem too crazy.

My maps have always ended up with a GOP tilt when I try to make them fair because I like to keep cities whole if possible on COI grounds. So if medium sized cities like Sacramento are 'packed' then the effect is probably favorable to Republicans.

I drew it election data turned off per California law but then turned it on after the fact.

No that's not a gerrymander. If there's anything more than 5 Republican seats Sev will call it a gerrymander. You should not be pairing the Central Valley with San Jose though and Orange County should have a Hispanic seat that has Santa Ana and parts of Anaheim to get it as close to 50% Hispanic as you can.

[Nyvin]

Was this drawn specifically to be a GOP gerrymander?

It was not, sadly. OC became sort of one when I tried to make an Asian plurality district there. Is the Sacramento Area one? DRA scores it a 95/100 on proportionality and Republicans are favored in 9/52 seats. They just won 11/53, so it doesn't seem too crazy.

My maps have always ended up with a GOP tilt when I try to make them fair because I like to keep cities whole if possible on COI grounds. So if medium sized cities like Sacramento are 'packed' then the effect is probably favorable to Republicans.

I drew it election data turned off per California law but then turned it on after the fact.

It's hard to not see that CA-43 district being intentionally drawn for Republicans.

[kwabbit]

So this is my version of a 51 district map, and as you can see city lines are followed almost to a T while maintaining CoIs about as well as can be done. You might notice the ugliness of districts 31 and 32, well, that's because the Central Valley has a Latino VRA district that must be included on any map.

So I'd say try to create actualy Latino majority districts when possible, there should be more than 5, and try to clean up the edges of your districts to maintain compactness. My 51 district map has 6 Latino majority districts with another 5 over 45% Latino, measured by CVAP.

My borders were so ugly bc I tried to follow city lines but the cities were uneven size so the districts are weird to keep them whole while having population equality. Should I ignore municipal boundaries to maximize VRA districts?

Also is there a reason you do 51 instead of 52? Is it more likely to be 51?

[kwabbit]

Was this drawn specifically to be a GOP gerrymander?

It was not, sadly. OC became sort of one when I tried to make an Asian plurality district there. Is the Sacramento Area one? DRA scores it a 95/100 on proportionality and Republicans are favored in 9/52 seats. They just won 11/53, so it doesn't seem too crazy.

My maps have always ended up with a GOP tilt when I try to make them fair because I like to keep cities whole if possible on COI grounds. So if medium sized cities like Sacramento are 'packed' then the effect is probably favorable to Republicans.

I drew it election data turned off per California law but then turned it on after the fact.

It's hard to not see that CA-43 district being intentionally drawn for Republicans.

OC turned out favorable to Republicans bc I was trying to make an Asian district. That in turn packed Dems, but that was unintentional. I can redraw though bc a 38% Asian district probably isn’t worth causing a partisan advantage.

[SevenEleven]

So this is my version of a 51 district map, and as you can see city lines are followed almost to a T while maintaining CoIs about as well as can be done. You might notice the ugliness of districts 31 and 32, well, that's because the Central Valley has a Latino VRA district that must be included on any map.

So I'd say try to create actualy Latino majority districts when possible, there should be more than 5, and try to clean up the edges of your districts to maintain compactness. My 51 district map has 6 Latino majority districts with another 5 over 45% Latino, measured by CVAP.

My borders were so ugly bc I tried to follow city lines but the cities were uneven size so the districts are weird to keep them whole while having population equality. Should I ignore municipal boundaries to maximize VRA districts?

Also is there a reason you do 51 instead of 52? Is it more likely to be 51?

Compactness is probably a bit more important than municipal lines, but you should be able to achieve both. You can make an Asian district in OC without making messy boundaries. In fact, I can't even tell which district is supposed to be Asian but in OC you have to start with the Latino VRA district.

Here's a 52 district map of OC.



There is a Latino district (46) and a 38% Asian district (47) while following city lines and maintaining compactness.

[I’m not Stu]

Is 51 or 52 districts likely now for California?

[Brittain33]

Is 51 or 52 districts likely now for California?

California is projected to get 52, but could remain at 53. 51 is impossible since the Census is over and California would have needed a huge mass casualty event.

[I’m not Stu]

35, 36, 28, 41, and 51 are majority Hispanic. 27, 42, 21, 52, 38, 34, 33, and 19 are plurality Hispanic. A lot more are 35>%

31 is majority Black.

11, 39, 12, and 44 are plurality Asian. 14 and 38 are >35%.

Hopefully that's enough VRA wise, but I don't know. I made some ugly borders trying to boost Asian percentage. California is a really hard to state to draw a map for. Hopefully some CA experts in this thread can tell me where I messed up lol.

No, that is an illegal map. There's no Hispanic VRA district in Orange County on that map. Irvine and Garden Grove shouldn't be in the same district! Seal Beach belongs with Garden Grove, Cypress, and Westminster, not Laguna Beach or Long Beach. I like my CA-47 equivalent because it keeps all but two cities whole (the splits of Garden Grove and Anaheim are needed for VRA compliance). It's also compact. Why do blue avatars always draw illegal racial gerrymanders of California?

[S019]

35, 36, 28, 41, and 51 are majority Hispanic. 27, 42, 21, 52, 38, 34, 33, and 19 are plurality Hispanic. A lot more are 35>%

31 is majority Black.

11, 39, 12, and 44 are plurality Asian. 14 and 38 are >35%.

Hopefully that's enough VRA wise, but I don't know. I made some ugly borders trying to boost Asian percentage. California is a really hard to state to draw a map for. Hopefully some CA experts in this thread can tell me where I messed up lol.

No, that is an illegal map. There's no Hispanic VRA district in Orange County on that map. Irvine and Garden Grove shouldn't be in the same district! Seal Beach belongs with Garden Grove, Cypress, and Westminster, not Laguna Beach or Long Beach. I like my CA-47 equivalent because it keeps all but two cities whole (the splits of Garden Grove and Anaheim are needed for VRA compliance). It's also compact. Why do blue avatars always draw illegal racial gerrymanders of California?

From my CA experience, it’s tough to get the VRA seats right unless you draw them exactly as they are in the current map, given how sometime a large chunk of Hispanic votes supports 2 or even 3 50-60% Hispanic seats. That’s my tip generally for any states with VRA seats, draw them first and then do the rest of the map in a logical order, in CA’s case: north to south.

[kwabbit]

35, 36, 28, 41, and 51 are majority Hispanic. 27, 42, 21, 52, 38, 34, 33, and 19 are plurality Hispanic. A lot more are 35>%

31 is majority Black.

11, 39, 12, and 44 are plurality Asian. 14 and 38 are >35%.

Hopefully that's enough VRA wise, but I don't know. I made some ugly borders trying to boost Asian percentage. California is a really hard to state to draw a map for. Hopefully some CA experts in this thread can tell me where I messed up lol.

No, that is an illegal map. There's no Hispanic VRA district in Orange County on that map. Irvine and Garden Grove shouldn't be in the same district! Seal Beach belongs with Garden Grove, Cypress, and Westminster, not Laguna Beach or Long Beach. I like my CA-47 equivalent because it keeps all but two cities whole (the splits of Garden Grove and Anaheim are needed for VRA compliance). It's also compact. Why do blue avatars always draw illegal racial gerrymanders of California?

Because I saw someone issue a challenge to create an Asian district in Orange County. Which was dumb in hindsight because it screwed up the rest of OC and SoCal.

[I’m not Stu]

35, 36, 28, 41, and 51 are majority Hispanic. 27, 42, 21, 52, 38, 34, 33, and 19 are plurality Hispanic. A lot more are 35>%

31 is majority Black.

11, 39, 12, and 44 are plurality Asian. 14 and 38 are >35%.

Hopefully that's enough VRA wise, but I don't know. I made some ugly borders trying to boost Asian percentage. California is a really hard to state to draw a map for. Hopefully some CA experts in this thread can tell me where I messed up lol.

No, that is an illegal map. There's no Hispanic VRA district in Orange County on that map. Irvine and Garden Grove shouldn't be in the same district! Seal Beach belongs with Garden Grove, Cypress, and Westminster, not Laguna Beach or Long Beach. I like my CA-47 equivalent because it keeps all but two cities whole (the splits of Garden Grove and Anaheim are needed for VRA compliance). It's also compact. Why do blue avatars always draw illegal racial gerrymanders of California?

Because I saw someone issue a challenge to create an Asian district in Orange County. Which was dumb in hindsight because it screwed up the rest of OC and SoCal.

My CA-47 equivalent has a good chance of electing an Asian candidate. A VRA compliant plurality or majority-Asian district is too difficult to draw. A plurality-white Asian opportunity district centered in Huntington Beach is the most feasible. Garden Grove and Westminster belong with Seal Beach, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Rossmoor, Los Alamitos, and Huntington Beach. Laguna Beach and Huntington Beach should also be in different districts.

[kwabbit]

35, 36, 28, 41, and 51 are majority Hispanic. 27, 42, 21, 52, 38, 34, 33, and 19 are plurality Hispanic. A lot more are 35>%

31 is majority Black.

11, 39, 12, and 44 are plurality Asian. 14 and 38 are >35%.

Hopefully that's enough VRA wise, but I don't know. I made some ugly borders trying to boost Asian percentage. California is a really hard to state to draw a map for. Hopefully some CA experts in this thread can tell me where I messed up lol.

No, that is an illegal map. There's no Hispanic VRA district in Orange County on that map. Irvine and Garden Grove shouldn't be in the same district! Seal Beach belongs with Garden Grove, Cypress, and Westminster, not Laguna Beach or Long Beach. I like my CA-47 equivalent because it keeps all but two cities whole (the splits of Garden Grove and Anaheim are needed for VRA compliance). It's also compact. Why do blue avatars always draw illegal racial gerrymanders of California?

Because I saw someone issue a challenge to create an Asian district in Orange County. Which was dumb in hindsight because it screwed up the rest of OC and SoCal.

My CA-47 equivalent has a good chance of electing an Asian candidate. A VRA compliant plurality or majority-Asian district is too difficult to draw. A plurality-white Asian opportunity district centered in Huntington Beach is the most feasible. Garden Grove and Westminster belong with Seal Beach, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Rossmoor, Los Alamitos, and Huntington Beach. Laguna Beach and Huntington Beach should also be in different districts.

Where is Rossmoor and Los Alamitos? They're not showing up on the DRA background map. So I drew the Hispanic district in Anaheim and Santa Ana. Then Drew the Asian/White District in Huntington Beach, Garden Grove and Westminster. I then had an arm to grab all the Asian population in Cerritos, but that's in LA county.

[I’m not Stu]

35, 36, 28, 41, and 51 are majority Hispanic. 27, 42, 21, 52, 38, 34, 33, and 19 are plurality Hispanic. A lot more are 35>%

31 is majority Black.

11, 39, 12, and 44 are plurality Asian. 14 and 38 are >35%.

Hopefully that's enough VRA wise, but I don't know. I made some ugly borders trying to boost Asian percentage. California is a really hard to state to draw a map for. Hopefully some CA experts in this thread can tell me where I messed up lol.

No, that is an illegal map. There's no Hispanic VRA district in Orange County on that map. Irvine and Garden Grove shouldn't be in the same district! Seal Beach belongs with Garden Grove, Cypress, and Westminster, not Laguna Beach or Long Beach. I like my CA-47 equivalent because it keeps all but two cities whole (the splits of Garden Grove and Anaheim are needed for VRA compliance). It's also compact. Why do blue avatars always draw illegal racial gerrymanders of California?

Because I saw someone issue a challenge to create an Asian district in Orange County. Which was dumb in hindsight because it screwed up the rest of OC and SoCal.

My CA-47 equivalent has a good chance of electing an Asian candidate. A VRA compliant plurality or majority-Asian district is too difficult to draw. A plurality-white Asian opportunity district centered in Huntington Beach is the most feasible. Garden Grove and Westminster belong with Seal Beach, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Rossmoor, Los Alamitos, and Huntington Beach. Laguna Beach and Huntington Beach should also be in different districts.

Where is Rossmoor and Los Alamitos? They're not showing up on the DRA background map. So I drew the Hispanic district in Anaheim and Santa Ana. Then Drew the Asian/White District in Huntington Beach, Garden Grove and Westminster. I then had an arm to grab all the Asian population in Cerritos, but that's in LA county.

That's fine, although I prefer Buena Park in the Asian district because it has more in common with Cypress than Cerritos.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Using Blairite;s recommendation, 51 seats doesn't end up too poorly after all.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/29c03349-12f2-4300-97cf-eb6852d36178

Sev, is your CA-17 a Clinton-Trump district? It has Garden Grove and Westminster and they swung massively to Trump