2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: California

[wbrocks67]

California could singlehandedly solve the Republican reign of terror by gerrymandering. 

Is that what we're expecting or does CA have some type of independent commission as well?

[S019]

California could singlehandedly solve the Republican reign of terror by gerrymandering. 

Is that what we're expecting or does CA have some type of independent commission as well?

It has a commission but one that is probably D favored. So we won’t see ugly gerrymanders but a 47-5 map or so is not out of the question.

[Skill and Chance]

California could singlehandedly solve the Republican reign of terror by gerrymandering. 

Is that what we're expecting or does CA have some type of independent commission as well?

It has a commission.  The commissioners were chosen on the basis of bios/essays they submitted, which are now public.  In addition to all of the D's, enough of the I and R commissioners to pass a map under the CA rules wrote explicitly woke personal statements.  While there are limits on what they can draw, expect a very Dem leaning map.

[lfromnj]

California could singlehandedly solve the Republican reign of terror by gerrymandering. 

Is that what we're expecting or does CA have some type of independent commission as well?

It has a commission.  The commissioners were chosen on the basis of bios/essays they submitted, which are now public.  In addition to all of the D's, enough of the I and R commissioners to pass a map under the CA rules wrote explicitly woke personal statements.  While there are limits on what they can draw, expect a very Dem leaning map.

Yeah the dividing line in Colorado between a locked in 5 3 and the 4 3 1 map was the Rs+ only indy without diversity statement in bio.

[Pedocon Theory is not a theory]

California could singlehandedly solve the Republican reign of terror by gerrymandering. 

Is that what we're expecting or does CA have some type of independent commission as well?

It has a commission.  The commissioners were chosen on the basis of bios/essays they submitted, which are now public.  In addition to all of the D's, enough of the I and R commissioners to pass a map under the CA rules wrote explicitly woke personal statements.  While there are limits on what they can draw, expect a very Dem leaning map.

Not to mention the registered Republican NRDC, NARAL and Planned Parenthood donor living in BERKELEY. Who happened to write about how important California's diversity is.

[Skill and Chance]

California could singlehandedly solve the Republican reign of terror by gerrymandering. 

Is that what we're expecting or does CA have some type of independent commission as well?

It has a commission.  The commissioners were chosen on the basis of bios/essays they submitted, which are now public.  In addition to all of the D's, enough of the I and R commissioners to pass a map under the CA rules wrote explicitly woke personal statements.  While there are limits on what they can draw, expect a very Dem leaning map.

Not to mention the registered Republican NRDC, NARAL and Planned Parenthood donor living in BERKELEY. Who happened to write about how important California's diversity is.

Holy ****

[Sestak]

California could singlehandedly solve the Republican reign of terror by gerrymandering. 

Is that what we're expecting or does CA have some type of independent commission as well?

It has a commission.  The commissioners were chosen on the basis of bios/essays they submitted, which are now public.  In addition to all of the D's, enough of the I and R commissioners to pass a map under the CA rules wrote explicitly woke personal statements.  While there are limits on what they can draw, expect a very Dem leaning map.

Not to mention the registered Republican NRDC, NARAL and Planned Parenthood donor living in BERKELEY. Who happened to write about how important California's diversity is.

That doesn't necessarily bode well for Democrats; this resume screams that this person is the type of feel-good Warren Democrat who would actually try to draw a fair/proportionality-inclined map. Not a positive in CA.

[MRS DONNA SHALALA]

California could singlehandedly solve the Republican reign of terror by gerrymandering. 

Is that what we're expecting or does CA have some type of independent commission as well?

It has a commission.  The commissioners were chosen on the basis of bios/essays they submitted, which are now public.  In addition to all of the D's, enough of the I and R commissioners to pass a map under the CA rules wrote explicitly woke personal statements.  While there are limits on what they can draw, expect a very Dem leaning map.

Not to mention the registered Republican NRDC, NARAL and Planned Parenthood donor living in BERKELEY. Who happened to write about how important California's diversity is.

That doesn't necessarily bode well for Democrats; this resume screams that this person is the type of feel-good Warren Democrat who would actually try to draw a fair/proportionality-inclined map. Not a positive in CA.

Right, but that's the nominal Republican on the panel

[Хahar 🤔]

California could singlehandedly solve the Republican reign of terror by gerrymandering. 

Is that what we're expecting or does CA have some type of independent commission as well?

It has a commission.  The commissioners were chosen on the basis of bios/essays they submitted, which are now public.  In addition to all of the D's, enough of the I and R commissioners to pass a map under the CA rules wrote explicitly woke personal statements.  While there are limits on what they can draw, expect a very Dem leaning map.

Not to mention the registered Republican NRDC, NARAL and Planned Parenthood donor living in BERKELEY. Who happened to write about how important California's diversity is.

That doesn't necessarily bode well for Democrats; this resume screams that this person is the type of feel-good Warren Democrat who would actually try to draw a fair/proportionality-inclined map. Not a positive in CA.

Yeah. People assume that this map will be a Democratic gerrymander, but that's the sort of thing that politicians do, not good government activists.

[lfromnj]

California could singlehandedly solve the Republican reign of terror by gerrymandering. 

Is that what we're expecting or does CA have some type of independent commission as well?

It has a commission.  The commissioners were chosen on the basis of bios/essays they submitted, which are now public.  In addition to all of the D's, enough of the I and R commissioners to pass a map under the CA rules wrote explicitly woke personal statements.  While there are limits on what they can draw, expect a very Dem leaning map.

Not to mention the registered Republican NRDC, NARAL and Planned Parenthood donor living in BERKELEY. Who happened to write about how important California's diversity is.

That doesn't necessarily bode well for Democrats; this resume screams that this person is the type of feel-good Warren Democrat who would actually try to draw a fair/proportionality-inclined map. Not a positive in CA.

Yeah. People assume that this map will be a Democratic gerrymander, but that's the sort of thing that politicians do, not good government activists.

Democrats do send their maps through "Latino interest groups" like LULAC. See Colorado. However in Colorado there was one Indy who refused to see the western slope split and 2 Rs who were fairly knowledgeable hacks.

[Tintrlvr]

California could singlehandedly solve the Republican reign of terror by gerrymandering. 

Is that what we're expecting or does CA have some type of independent commission as well?

It has a commission.  The commissioners were chosen on the basis of bios/essays they submitted, which are now public.  In addition to all of the D's, enough of the I and R commissioners to pass a map under the CA rules wrote explicitly woke personal statements.  While there are limits on what they can draw, expect a very Dem leaning map.

Not to mention the registered Republican NRDC, NARAL and Planned Parenthood donor living in BERKELEY. Who happened to write about how important California's diversity is.

That doesn't necessarily bode well for Democrats; this resume screams that this person is the type of feel-good Warren Democrat who would actually try to draw a fair/proportionality-inclined map. Not a positive in CA.

Yeah. People assume that this map will be a Democratic gerrymander, but that's the sort of thing that politicians do, not good government activists.

It won't be a partisan map, but there will be a lot of "in order to maximize minority representation" decisions that ultimately favor the Democrats.

[Pedocon Theory is not a theory]

California could singlehandedly solve the Republican reign of terror by gerrymandering.  

Is that what we're expecting or does CA have some type of independent commission as well?

It has a commission.  The commissioners were chosen on the basis of bios/essays they submitted, which are now public.  In addition to all of the D's, enough of the I and R commissioners to pass a map under the CA rules wrote explicitly woke personal statements.  While there are limits on what they can draw, expect a very Dem leaning map.

Not to mention the registered Republican NRDC, NARAL and Planned Parenthood donor living in BERKELEY. Who happened to write about how important California's diversity is.

Slight correction: ALL the commissioners had to write one essay about the importance of California's diversity.

All commissioners must demonstrate an appreciation for California's diverse demographics and geography as set forth in 2 CCR §60805. Please describe your appreciation for California's diversity and provide any occupational, academic, volunteer, or other life experiences you have had that demonstrate this appreciation*:

Jane Andersen wrote this:

My children's preschool taught inclusion and respect in simple terms and led by example. When my oldest child went to elementary school, diversity was respected but not prioritized. Building on my experiences of seeing the benefit to the community when all voices are heard, I used the opportunity of my volunteer work to increase and support respect for diversity. My work has included adding: appreciation of all religions in class activities; an anti-bullying training into faculty and school curriculum; an acceptance of learning differences in college prep school; and a mandatory, all-inclusive family unit into curriculum. The family unit work evolved into a standing Diversity Committee and NIA, supporting students of color. I am pleased to say that for many years now, that same school has diversity as part of its mission.

Alicia Fernandez, 31-year civil servant and also a registered Republican, wrote this:

We need representation to match the demographics of Californians. For example, the school district I represent was over 50% Hispanic yet they had never been represented during my decades in the area. In my opinion their needs weren't being addressed as the board members didn't understand their struggles which in turn led to decisions being made without being appropriately educated about all of their students' needs. As such, I ran against the incumbent and won. It was truly a grass roots effort as we canvassed each community. This was a rewarding process as I gained a better understanding and appreciation for each community. Instead of thinking I would be educating them, they educated me in understanding we all wanted the best for our students and children. Also, by my being able to educate my fellow board members on the struggles and challenges of the migrant and low income population, in my opinion, we made better decisions by understanding the needs of our diverse district.

As I learned, even in a small area there is diversity, and on a bigger level, the diversity is compounded. The importance is understanding the differences and making decisions based on that knowledge.

And that isn't all; Russell Yee, "lifelong Republican", wrote this on his ability to be impartial:

At my former church, where I was the pastor, we spent a whole year on a big decision about which Christian denomination to join. It was a tough process with many very strong thoughts and feelings shared. In the end we all agreed on a choice that I had not initially preferred but came to fully support.

Some years ago I was a juror in a nine-week(!) murder trial. We deliberated the several charges at great length. As we debated the final count, I found myself a "holdout" on one point. After further consideration I eventually conceded, deciding I could live with the majority view. When we did finally reach unanimous verdicts it felt like justice had truly been served. That experience gave me great faith in the jury system.

I served as the first board secretary of the East Bay chapter of Habitat for Humanity. There were many strong personalities on that board and many decisions meeting after meeting. I remember prevailing in my advocacy for one particular family to be chosen for a house. I also remember conceding to the majority over one particular fund-raising effort. It was all a very positive experience doing important and challenging work together.

I've also sat in innumerable leadership meetings for other non-profits. I've had endless opportunities to practice listening to different sides, speaking my own convictions, and coming to decisions even with imperfect and incomplete data. I've led many meetings where deep disagreements were aired. While I don't enjoy leading in contentious moments, I'm fully motivated to serve well, and have been told I lead effectively.

At my church I'm probably in the political minority. I chose to be in a place where I can learn from those who see things differently from me. While I'm a lifelong Republican I regularly vote for candidates of various parties. I have close friends and family of different parties, some apolitical and some strong partisan activists. I've learned a lot from different sides and have changed my own opinions on various issues over the years (e.g., after the Great Recession, I'm pro-financial regulation).

Being impartial is a way of acknowledging that none of us has the whole take on truth and all of us need to genuinely consider those we disagree with. Also, by culture, upbringing, and personality, I'm given to put shared needs above my personal desires.

I'm a married man with two daughters, so I compromise and "give in" all the time! In all seriousness, marriage and family life is a long exercise in putting the common good before personal wants. Earlier this year I had to mediate my family's decision about where to go for a vacation. There were deep disagreements. In the end I had to not only compromise on my own preferences but also had to motivate my wife and daughters to each make her own compromises so that we could all finally agree. And in the end we had a great trip!

Of course, all this could very well just be coincidence, but it's awfully interesting how some of these commissioners come off in a certain light lmao

[S019]

I’ll also note Democrats were able to get somewhat decent maps out of the 2012 cycle, by managing to manipulate community input, etc., a quick glance through the public comments indicates a similar dynamic at play. Also for all of the talk of CO’s bad map, it was heavily influenced by public input, I’ve had a glance through it (CA) before and there were numerous comments calling for Simi Valley with Ventura and an elimination of the 50th’s arm into Riverside, either one would be very bad news for Republicans.

[Tintrlvr]

So... here's the two republican map



The North is exaxtly the same as my previous post. This is really closer to a 49-2-1, but hey that's better.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/ac39ba52-77a8-4c90-b5b6-0a93267ea798

If I gave it another pass I could probably make it neater/safer

I'd probably be inclined to concede a third R seat in the Orange/Riverside area in order to ensure that all of the other seats in the area are safe, especially from accidental R-R runoffs, as you're relying on Hispanic Democrats to turn out in the primary and not splinter in a bunch of those seats; I think this map still risks three or four Rs being elected in that zone.  But maybe that's too conservative and you'd just end up with a Chicago suburbs situation by 2030 anyway.

Otherwise this is very impressively done.

[I’m not Stu]

Doesn't California ban the use pf partisan data for redistricting?

[Non Swing Voter]

California could singlehandedly solve the Republican reign of terror by gerrymandering. 

Is that what we're expecting or does CA have some type of independent commission as well?

It has a commission but one that is probably D favored. So we won’t see ugly gerrymanders but a 47-5 map or so is not out of the question.

I would love to believe this, but do we really think it will be that good?  I mean that's almost as close to a max Dem gerrymander as you can get (which people here say is 49-3).

[S019]

California could singlehandedly solve the Republican reign of terror by gerrymandering.  

Is that what we're expecting or does CA have some type of independent commission as well?

It has a commission but one that is probably D favored. So we won’t see ugly gerrymanders but a 47-5 map or so is not out of the question.

I would love to believe this, but do we really think it will be that good?  I mean that's almost as close to a max Dem gerrymander as you can get (which people here say is 49-3).

well I'll start by saying you need a minimum of 4 GOP seats without doing ugly spirals (1, 4, 23, 42), a legislative map would probably move to eliminate two of those, but with a commission it's practically impossible, especially since going after say 4 or 42 would endanger neighboring seats. Now with those 4 out of the way, we face a bunch of issues, namely seats like CA-07 and CA-10 which need to expand into surrounding red turf, and if we get through that without making a Trump seat, we end up with the tricky area of SoCal, if the choice is made to pull the 50th out of Riverside, yes it'd make the 50th bluer, but where would it go? It can't really go south since the southern seats are all squeezed between 50 and the Mexican border, so you turn north, where surprise, surprise, there turns out to be a sizably Republican (though less so now than in 2020) chunk of towns collectively known as south OC. Democrats got very lucky that this area got split in 2012, it seems unlikely they can have that happen again and get the favorable 50th configuration. So imo the 5th GOP seat comes from SoCal, though as I showed we could very well get 6 or 7 GOP seats, you absolutely need 4 though, the ugly gerrymanders required to eliminate LaMalfa or McCarthy are not happening, and as you see in Calamity and leecannon's maps, eliminating Calvert and McClintock is particularly ugly and very unlikely. best you can hope for is 4 Trump seats, though realistically it's more like 6-8 probably. It should be noted this is still very D favorable (as is CA geography), Trump won 34% of the vote in CA in 2020, I challenge someone to draw me a clean map where he wins 34% of the seats (18 seats). Geography hurts Democrats in many states (WI and MI come to mind), but it is their friend in CA.

[I’m not Stu]

California could singlehandedly solve the Republican reign of terror by gerrymandering. 

Is that what we're expecting or does CA have some type of independent commission as well?

It has a commission but one that is probably D favored. So we won’t see ugly gerrymanders but a 47-5 map or so is not out of the question.

What is the most extreme gerrymander that can be done when not using partisan data? The commission bans the use of partisan data.

[Non Swing Voter]

California could singlehandedly solve the Republican reign of terror by gerrymandering.  

Is that what we're expecting or does CA have some type of independent commission as well?

It has a commission but one that is probably D favored. So we won’t see ugly gerrymanders but a 47-5 map or so is not out of the question.

I would love to believe this, but do we really think it will be that good?  I mean that's almost as close to a max Dem gerrymander as you can get (which people here say is 49-3).

well I'll start by saying you need a minimum of 4 GOP seats without doing ugly spirals (1, 4, 23, 42), a legislative map would probably move to eliminate two of those, but with a commission it's practically impossible, especially since going after say 4 or 42 would endanger neighboring seats. Now with those 4 out of the way, we face a bunch of issues, namely seats like CA-07 and CA-10 which need to expand into surrounding red turf, and if we get through that without making a Trump seat, we end up with the tricky area of SoCal, if the choice is made to pull the 50th out of Riverside, yes it'd make the 50th bluer, but where would it go? It can't really go south since the southern seats are all squeezed between 50 and the Mexican border, so you turn north, where surprise, surprise, there turns out to be a sizably Republican (though less so now than in 2020) chunk of towns collectively known as south OC. Democrats got very lucky that this area got split in 2012, it seems unlikely they can have that happen again and get the favorable 50th configuration. So imo the 5th GOP seat comes from SoCal, though as I showed we could very well get 6 or 7 GOP seats, you absolutely need 4 though, the ugly gerrymanders required to eliminate LaMalfa or McCarthy are not happening, and as you see in Calamity and leecannon's maps, eliminating Calvert and McClintock is particularly ugly and very unlikely. best you can hope for is 4 Trump seats, though realistically it's more like 6-8 probably. It should be noted this is still very D favorable (as is CA geography), Trump won 34% of the vote in CA in 2020, I challenge someone to draw me a clean map where he wins 34% of the seats (18 seats). Geography hurts Democrats in many states (WI and MI come to mind), but it is their friend in CA.

Interesting.  So which Republicans do you think are most at risk of being screwed over?  The Orange County ones?

[S019]

California could singlehandedly solve the Republican reign of terror by gerrymandering. 

Is that what we're expecting or does CA have some type of independent commission as well?

It has a commission but one that is probably D favored. So we won’t see ugly gerrymanders but a 47-5 map or so is not out of the question.

What is the most extreme gerrymander that can be done when not using partisan data? The commission bans the use of partisan data.

Biden did better in south OC than I thought, so you can get them down to 1 Republican south OC seat (Calvert) with pretty clean lines. Also they can't use partisan data yes, but the people providing public input can, and both parties are infamous for using this as a vehicle to get their supporters to argue for pairings that would help them.

[I’m not Stu]

California could singlehandedly solve the Republican reign of terror by gerrymandering.  

Is that what we're expecting or does CA have some type of independent commission as well?

It has a commission but one that is probably D favored. So we won’t see ugly gerrymanders but a 47-5 map or so is not out of the question.

I would love to believe this, but do we really think it will be that good?  I mean that's almost as close to a max Dem gerrymander as you can get (which people here say is 49-3).

well I'll start by saying you need a minimum of 4 GOP seats without doing ugly spirals (1, 4, 23, 42), a legislative map would probably move to eliminate two of those, but with a commission it's practically impossible, especially since going after say 4 or 42 would endanger neighboring seats. Now with those 4 out of the way, we face a bunch of issues, namely seats like CA-07 and CA-10 which need to expand into surrounding red turf, and if we get through that without making a Trump seat, we end up with the tricky area of SoCal, if the choice is made to pull the 50th out of Riverside, yes it'd make the 50th bluer, but where would it go? It can't really go south since the southern seats are all squeezed between 50 and the Mexican border, so you turn north, where surprise, surprise, there turns out to be a sizably Republican (though less so now than in 2020) chunk of towns collectively known as south OC. Democrats got very lucky that this area got split in 2012, it seems unlikely they can have that happen again and get the favorable 50th configuration. So imo the 5th GOP seat comes from SoCal, though as I showed we could very well get 6 or 7 GOP seats, you absolutely need 4 though, the ugly gerrymanders required to eliminate LaMalfa or McCarthy are not happening, and as you see in Calamity and leecannon's maps, eliminating Calvert and McClintock is particularly ugly and very unlikely. best you can hope for is 4 Trump seats, though realistically it's more like 6-8 probably. It should be noted this is still very D favorable (as is CA geography), Trump won 34% of the vote in CA in 2020, I challenge someone to draw me a clean map where he wins 34% of the seats (18 seats). Geography hurts Democrats in many states (WI and MI come to mind), but it is their friend in CA.

Interesting.  So which Republicans do you think are most at risk of being screwed over?  The Orange County ones?

Garcia and Steel.

[Non Swing Voter]

California could singlehandedly solve the Republican reign of terror by gerrymandering.  

Is that what we're expecting or does CA have some type of independent commission as well?

It has a commission but one that is probably D favored. So we won’t see ugly gerrymanders but a 47-5 map or so is not out of the question.

I would love to believe this, but do we really think it will be that good?  I mean that's almost as close to a max Dem gerrymander as you can get (which people here say is 49-3).

well I'll start by saying you need a minimum of 4 GOP seats without doing ugly spirals (1, 4, 23, 42), a legislative map would probably move to eliminate two of those, but with a commission it's practically impossible, especially since going after say 4 or 42 would endanger neighboring seats. Now with those 4 out of the way, we face a bunch of issues, namely seats like CA-07 and CA-10 which need to expand into surrounding red turf, and if we get through that without making a Trump seat, we end up with the tricky area of SoCal, if the choice is made to pull the 50th out of Riverside, yes it'd make the 50th bluer, but where would it go? It can't really go south since the southern seats are all squeezed between 50 and the Mexican border, so you turn north, where surprise, surprise, there turns out to be a sizably Republican (though less so now than in 2020) chunk of towns collectively known as south OC. Democrats got very lucky that this area got split in 2012, it seems unlikely they can have that happen again and get the favorable 50th configuration. So imo the 5th GOP seat comes from SoCal, though as I showed we could very well get 6 or 7 GOP seats, you absolutely need 4 though, the ugly gerrymanders required to eliminate LaMalfa or McCarthy are not happening, and as you see in Calamity and leecannon's maps, eliminating Calvert and McClintock is particularly ugly and very unlikely. best you can hope for is 4 Trump seats, though realistically it's more like 6-8 probably. It should be noted this is still very D favorable (as is CA geography), Trump won 34% of the vote in CA in 2020, I challenge someone to draw me a clean map where he wins 34% of the seats (18 seats). Geography hurts Democrats in many states (WI and MI come to mind), but it is their friend in CA.

Interesting.  So which Republicans do you think are most at risk of being screwed over?  The Orange County ones?

Garcia and Steel.

Not Young Kim?

[I’m not Stu]

California could singlehandedly solve the Republican reign of terror by gerrymandering.  

Is that what we're expecting or does CA have some type of independent commission as well?

It has a commission but one that is probably D favored. So we won’t see ugly gerrymanders but a 47-5 map or so is not out of the question.

I would love to believe this, but do we really think it will be that good?  I mean that's almost as close to a max Dem gerrymander as you can get (which people here say is 49-3).

well I'll start by saying you need a minimum of 4 GOP seats without doing ugly spirals (1, 4, 23, 42), a legislative map would probably move to eliminate two of those, but with a commission it's practically impossible, especially since going after say 4 or 42 would endanger neighboring seats. Now with those 4 out of the way, we face a bunch of issues, namely seats like CA-07 and CA-10 which need to expand into surrounding red turf, and if we get through that without making a Trump seat, we end up with the tricky area of SoCal, if the choice is made to pull the 50th out of Riverside, yes it'd make the 50th bluer, but where would it go? It can't really go south since the southern seats are all squeezed between 50 and the Mexican border, so you turn north, where surprise, surprise, there turns out to be a sizably Republican (though less so now than in 2020) chunk of towns collectively known as south OC. Democrats got very lucky that this area got split in 2012, it seems unlikely they can have that happen again and get the favorable 50th configuration. So imo the 5th GOP seat comes from SoCal, though as I showed we could very well get 6 or 7 GOP seats, you absolutely need 4 though, the ugly gerrymanders required to eliminate LaMalfa or McCarthy are not happening, and as you see in Calamity and leecannon's maps, eliminating Calvert and McClintock is particularly ugly and very unlikely. best you can hope for is 4 Trump seats, though realistically it's more like 6-8 probably. It should be noted this is still very D favorable (as is CA geography), Trump won 34% of the vote in CA in 2020, I challenge someone to draw me a clean map where he wins 34% of the seats (18 seats). Geography hurts Democrats in many states (WI and MI come to mind), but it is their friend in CA.

Interesting.  So which Republicans do you think are most at risk of being screwed over?  The Orange County ones?

Garcia and Steel.

Not Young Kim?

Steel might very well have Newport Beach and everything to its south removed from her district.

[Gass3268]

Nunes might end up in a Biden district.

https://twitter.com/AsInMarx/status/1448466780029128709?s=20

[It’s so Joever]

Good news short term, bad news long term for Democrats if that’s the case.