2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: California

[cvparty]

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

not quite. biden would've carried it by ~2 points due to gaining in the rest of the district

[Stuart98]

Made a (bad?) California map.  Didn't look at partisanship until after I was finished. Nunes' district is functionally the eliminated district.

LA metro inset:

Tried to create an asian plurality OC district, which screwed with the rest of it and caused weird things like two districts crossing between OC and Riverside. I'm much more happy with LA county. The 27th is just under 50% asian by CVAP, and is just over 50% by total population. The 29th ceases being a majority hispanic (or majority minority at all) district, while the 25th is 65% hispanic by total population (55% by CVAP). The 23rd is a plurality hispanic district by total population, while the 26th is narrowly majority hispanic by total population. Putting Santa Barbara into the 26th turned the 24th into a narrow (<1 point) Trump district.

San Francisco metro inset:

The 14th is plurality asian (38%) by total population, though it's narrowly plurality white by CVAP. The 17th is majority asian by total population (60%) and CVAP (51%). The 6th, a bit north of the inset, is reconfigured into a highly competitive Clinton+4 suburban district.

[Sol]

Have been playing a little bit with California. Gotta say, redrawing CA is pretty intensive--so apologies if this isn't up to par. Just have NorCal, the Bay, and the Valley done thus far. link







CA-17, CA-22 are majority Latino by CVAP, while CA-21 is majority Latino (but not by CVAP).

CA-16 and CA-15/CA-19 are majority and plurality Asian, respectively.

CA-10 and CA-11 are both plurality Latino. You could just as easily switch turf between the two to create a Latino influence district but it probably wouldn't (?) be fully performing due to CVAP disparities.

[Sol]

Here's an improved version.

[SevenEleven]

I'm fairly certain that you're Central Valley alignment is in violation of the VRA, and I'm not sure what's going on up in Sacramento...

My advice for CA is to start at the bottom of the map and work your way up.

[Sol]

I'm fairly certain that you're Central Valley alignment is in violation of the VRA, and I'm not sure what's going on up in Sacramento...

I can trade territory in Bakersfield in exchange for Tulare if you're not happy with the amount of Latino control in 22, though it is majority Latino by CVAP.

I split Placer/Nevada/El Dorado because the population map is such that there has to be a split, and I figured I ought to keep the Lake Tahoe area in one seat and Sacramento exurbs in the other.

Why start at the bottom?

[SevenEleven]

I'm fairly certain that you're Central Valley alignment is in violation of the VRA, and I'm not sure what's going on up in Sacramento...

I can trade territory in Bakersfield in exchange for Tulare if you're not happy with the amount of Latino control in 22, though it is majority Latino by CVAP.

I split Placer/Nevada/El Dorado because the population map is such that there has to be a split, and I figured I ought to keep the Lake Tahoe area in one seat and Sacramento exurbs in the other.

Why start at the bottom?

Starting from the bottom gives you more control over your VRA districts. I was mostly looking at that yellow district in Sacramento. As for the Central Valley, simply being a certain percentage Latino is not enough, the district must be constructed such that Latinos are empowered to elect their "candidate of choice". Basically, you have to draw a heavily Latino, heavily Democratic district.

[Sol]

Starting from the bottom gives you more control over your VRA districts.

How so? I'm not sure I understand.

What's the problem with the yellow seat? It's Sacramento suburbia+Davis basically, and Davis is kind of already in the Sacramento sphere of influence.

[SevenEleven]

Starting from the bottom gives you more control over your VRA districts.

How so? I'm not sure I understand.

What's the problem with the yellow seat? It's Sacramento suburbia+Davis basically, and Davis is kind of already in the Sacramento sphere of influence.

My problem with it is largely just the shape, i.e. non-compactness.

Anyway, by starting from the top you've locked some areas off. For example, you're district 8 may eat too deep into the IE, putting stress on the Latino districts. By only having room to push east or south from LA, you may end up with districts that are leftover scraps instead of CoIs after you draw the VRA districts. So that's why I prefer to start from the bottom.

Basically, it's easier to build and then build around the VRA districts if you leave more options open.

[Sol]

Starting from the bottom gives you more control over your VRA districts.

How so? I'm not sure I understand.

What's the problem with the yellow seat? It's Sacramento suburbia+Davis basically, and Davis is kind of already in the Sacramento sphere of influence.

My problem with it is largely just the shape, i.e. non-compactness.

Anyway, by starting from the top you've locked some areas off. For example, you're district 8 may eat too deep into the IE, putting stress on the Latino districts. By only having room to push east or south from LA, you may end up with districts that are leftover scraps instead of CoIs after you draw the VRA districts. So that's why I prefer to start from the bottom.

I mean, that 8th is basically a miniscule number of people--I could transfer it to the 3rd pretty easily if necessary, and take the excess off of either the 23rd or 21st.

[SevenEleven]

Starting from the bottom gives you more control over your VRA districts.

How so? I'm not sure I understand.

What's the problem with the yellow seat? It's Sacramento suburbia+Davis basically, and Davis is kind of already in the Sacramento sphere of influence.

My problem with it is largely just the shape, i.e. non-compactness.

Anyway, by starting from the top you've locked some areas off. For example, you're district 8 may eat too deep into the IE, putting stress on the Latino districts. By only having room to push east or south from LA, you may end up with districts that are leftover scraps instead of CoIs after you draw the VRA districts. So that's why I prefer to start from the bottom.

I mean, that 8th is basically a miniscule number of people--I could transfer it to the 3rd pretty easily if necessary, and take the excess off of either the 23rd or 21st.

You may or may not run into the issues I've mentioned, I wasn't trying to criticize, just share some advice as someone who's drawn many, many CA maps. The LA area and the Central Valley tend to be the toughest areas to settle.

[cvparty]

Here's an improved version.

California is difficult because of its sheer size and lack of geographic anchors, but a few pointers:

-12 contains several precincts from Pittsburg, Antioch and Brentwood, separating them from the rest of their respective cities. You should keep these cities whole and instead take from Martinez/Vine Hill for more continuous districts. Also, there are a few Tri-Valley precincts in 16 that should be in 12

-San Jose is divided rather crudely; in particular, the boomerang configurement of 18 is essentially the NorCal version of combining Irvine and Little Saigon, and also results in the unfortunate chopping up of the Latino community

-17 seems like an unnecessarily long leftovers district. I think you were trying to make the central coast district as Hispanic as possible, but it's neither worth it nor feasible as long as SLO exists in 21

-24 isn't really contiguous. If you can, try to swap Santa Clarita (better fit with Simi Valley/Thousand Oaks) with Oxnard/Ventura. If those two cities are too populous for 24, try removing the eastern portion of Kern from 23 and then perform a counter-clockwise rotation

[Sol]

Wrt: the yellow district, is it ok to not have an Asian seat in San Jose? The Green district is only plurality. I know the California metrics are pretty aggressive about making minority districts. (FYI, it's very hard to make a majority asian Green district without some population shifted out of the central valley.)

The other points are well taken and I'll shift the districts--though unfortunately in the case of the Salinas district that probably means it will no longer be majority Latino.

I'll be happy if I never have to look at Contra Costa County ever again--it seems like every precinct splits three cities and has an ugly shape.

[cvparty]

Wrt: the yellow district, is it ok to not have an Asian seat in San Jose? The Green district is only plurality. I know the California metrics are pretty aggressive about making minority districts. (FYI, it's very hard to make a majority asian Green district without some population shifted out of the central valley.)

The other points are well taken and I'll shift the districts--though unfortunately in the case of the Salinas district that probably means it will no longer be majority Latino.

I'll be happy if I never have to look at Contra Costa County ever again--it seems like every precinct splits three cities and has an ugly shape.

I'm not sure, but there's a better way to draw a majority Asian CD while preserving COIs. Here's one example of a Bay Area configuration that has compact districts, a majority Asian by VAP (CD16) as well as a plurality one (CD15), a majority Hispanic one (CD18, albeit only by total population), and recognizes the different natures of the Asian populations (wealthy and more Chinese in the west, and middle- and lower-class Vietnamese and Filipino in the east). Also, if you're trying to make a Tri-Valley district, it should more or less be like the 11th here, even if the other districts are different

[Sol]

Here's what I've been playing with--the tricky thing then is that it requires a massive chop of Kern, but that seems ok?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Here's what I've been playing with--the tricky thing then is that it requires a massive chop of Kern, but that seems ok?

The chop of Kern isn't a problem at all and something like it is usually demanded for VRA purposes. Some of your other lines, however, are a bit wacky.

[Sol]

Here's what I've been playing with--the tricky thing then is that it requires a massive chop of Kern, but that seems ok?

The chop of Kern isn't a problem at all and something like it is usually demanded for VRA purposes. Some of your other lines, however, are a bit wacky.

Just to clarify--wrt: Kern I'm not talking about the split of Bakersfield, but slicing off the eastern and southern portions.

Which lines do you have an issue with, btw? I'm not a huge fan of my 18/21 line of course (though it's probably necessary for the VRA?) and the split of Santa Barbara is cruddy but probably necessary to avoid bad outcomes in the East Bay (and partly an effect of dumb precinct shapes).

[SevenEleven]

CA really is the place where bad redistricting takes start to show. I'm still looking at that yellow sacramento district and asking myself who in their right mind thought this was okay. "Suburbs" are not a CoI; I don't know how many times this point needs reiterated.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Here's what I've been playing with--the tricky thing then is that it requires a massive chop of Kern, but that seems ok?

The chop of Kern isn't a problem at all and something like it is usually demanded for VRA purposes. Some of your other lines, however, are a bit wacky.

Just to clarify--wrt: Kern I'm not talking about the split of Bakersfield, but slicing off the eastern and southern portions.

Which lines do you have an issue with, btw? I'm not a huge fan of my 18/21 line of course (though it's probably necessary for the VRA?) and the split of Santa Barbara is cruddy but probably necessary to avoid bad outcomes in the East Bay (and partly an effect of dumb precinct shapes).

Okay. There's nothing wrong with a tri-cut of Kern in principle--the part in the Mojave may as well be another county anyway--but I do find cutting the areas west of Mojave (Tehachapi, Maricopa, Taft, etc.) pretty awkward. Ideally, you'd move those into either CA-22 or CA-23. However, once you get into drawing Southern California, I think you may regret the tri-chop of Kern--not on fairness grounds, but because there's usually a half-district of population left over in the Antelope/Victor Valleys.

My biggest issues are with the Sacramento/Tahoe areas. Connecting Yolo County over to south/east Sacramento County is just awkward--especially since you can fit a suburban district in Sacramento County alone. Personally, I favor putting Yolo (and Colusa and Glenn) in with CA-01, giving Siskiyou to CA-02, and keeping all of Solano together.

[Sol]

CA really is the place where bad redistricting takes start to show. I'm still looking at that yellow sacramento district and asking myself who in their right mind thought this was okay. "Suburbs" are not a CoI; I don't know how many times this point needs reiterated.

lol

[Sol]

Here's what I've been playing with--the tricky thing then is that it requires a massive chop of Kern, but that seems ok?

The chop of Kern isn't a problem at all and something like it is usually demanded for VRA purposes. Some of your other lines, however, are a bit wacky.

Just to clarify--wrt: Kern I'm not talking about the split of Bakersfield, but slicing off the eastern and southern portions.

Which lines do you have an issue with, btw? I'm not a huge fan of my 18/21 line of course (though it's probably necessary for the VRA?) and the split of Santa Barbara is cruddy but probably necessary to avoid bad outcomes in the East Bay (and partly an effect of dumb precinct shapes).

Okay. There's nothing wrong with a tri-cut of Kern in principle--the part in the Mojave may as well be another county anyway--but I do find cutting the areas west of Mojave (Tehachapi, Maricopa, Taft, etc.) pretty awkward. Ideally, you'd move those into either CA-22 or CA-23. However, once you get into drawing Southern California, I think you may regret the tri-chop of Kern--not on fairness grounds, but because there's usually a half-district of population left over in the Antelope/Victor Valleys.

My biggest issues are with the Sacramento/Tahoe areas. Connecting Yolo County over to south/east Sacramento County is just awkward--especially since you can fit a suburban district in Sacramento County alone. Personally, I favor putting Yolo (and Colusa and Glenn) in with CA-01, giving Siskiyou to CA-02, and keeping all of Solano together.

Can that coincide with including West Sacramento in with Sacramento? It seems like a no-brainer to put the two together on CoI grounds.

Not really sure why it's preferable to go over the mountains to scoop up Glenn/Yolo/Colusa rather than Solano/Siskiyou.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Here's what I've been playing with--the tricky thing then is that it requires a massive chop of Kern, but that seems ok?

The chop of Kern isn't a problem at all and something like it is usually demanded for VRA purposes. Some of your other lines, however, are a bit wacky.

Just to clarify--wrt: Kern I'm not talking about the split of Bakersfield, but slicing off the eastern and southern portions.

Which lines do you have an issue with, btw? I'm not a huge fan of my 18/21 line of course (though it's probably necessary for the VRA?) and the split of Santa Barbara is cruddy but probably necessary to avoid bad outcomes in the East Bay (and partly an effect of dumb precinct shapes).

Okay. There's nothing wrong with a tri-cut of Kern in principle--the part in the Mojave may as well be another county anyway--but I do find cutting the areas west of Mojave (Tehachapi, Maricopa, Taft, etc.) pretty awkward. Ideally, you'd move those into either CA-22 or CA-23. However, once you get into drawing Southern California, I think you may regret the tri-chop of Kern--not on fairness grounds, but because there's usually a half-district of population left over in the Antelope/Victor Valleys.

My biggest issues are with the Sacramento/Tahoe areas. Connecting Yolo County over to south/east Sacramento County is just awkward--especially since you can fit a suburban district in Sacramento County alone. Personally, I favor putting Yolo (and Colusa and Glenn) in with CA-01, giving Siskiyou to CA-02, and keeping all of Solano together.

Can that coincide with including West Sacramento in with Sacramento? It seems like a no-brainer to put the two together on CoI grounds.

Yes it can and you absolutely should do that. Especially since the rest of Yolo is disconnected and not really a part of metro Sacramento at all. Start by drawing six districts (North Coast-Yolo, Marin/Sonoma, Shasta-Sacramento Valley, City of Sacramento, Sacramento Suburbs, Sacramento Exurbs/Tahoe.) These should be easy to lock down because you'll never need them to trade population if you reconfigure the Bay/Central Valley/Southern California.

[SevenEleven]

Wrt: the yellow district, is it ok to not have an Asian seat in San Jose? The Green district is only plurality. I know the California metrics are pretty aggressive about making minority districts. (FYI, it's very hard to make a majority asian Green district without some population shifted out of the central valley.)

No, it's absolutely not ok. You don't have to have an Asian majority to create an Asian district though. Even in Orange County, your Hispanic district there will only be around 48% by CVAP. However, you need to make major changes in the Central Valley to have a district that is VRA acceptable.

You should have "2.5" Asian districts in the Bay Area.

[Sol]

Wrt: the yellow district, is it ok to not have an Asian seat in San Jose? The Green district is only plurality. I know the California metrics are pretty aggressive about making minority districts. (FYI, it's very hard to make a majority asian Green district without some population shifted out of the central valley.)

No, it's absolutely not ok. You don't have to have an Asian majority to create an Asian district though. Even in Orange County, your Hispanic district there will only be around 48% by CVAP. However, you need to make major changes in the Central Valley to have a district that is VRA acceptable.

Have you looked at my updated map? The Kings-Tulare-Fresno-Kern County seat should be VRA compliant.

[SevenEleven]

Wrt: the yellow district, is it ok to not have an Asian seat in San Jose? The Green district is only plurality. I know the California metrics are pretty aggressive about making minority districts. (FYI, it's very hard to make a majority asian Green district without some population shifted out of the central valley.)

No, it's absolutely not ok. You don't have to have an Asian majority to create an Asian district though. Even in Orange County, your Hispanic district there will only be around 48% by CVAP. However, you need to make major changes in the Central Valley to have a district that is VRA acceptable.

Have you looked at my updated map? The Kings-Tulare-Fresno-Kern County seat should be VRA compliant.

Looks a lot better. 👍