2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: California

[cvparty]

It's strange that out of all the county crossings you make, San Bernardino and Riverside is where you refuse to cross, when they are the most similar overall. As you can see just by looking at the roads, Southern OC and Riverside really shouldn't be paired that way.

Does this make more sense?



Sorry about the North San Diego-El Cajon-East County thing, but it does make everything else very logical and tidy.

Also apologies to San Bernardino and the Victor Valley. Doesn't seem like there's a good place for the Victor Valley to go in general--too big for the Imperial County-Palm Springs-Mojave seat, most like the Antelope Valley but then prevents a really nice and attractive Antelope Valley and Santa Clarita seat.

The Riverside districts do look better, although I'd reiterate my suggestion to follow the highways, connecting eastern Riverside (and Temecula?) with Apple Valley feels very awkward, and what appears to be an attempt at drawing an Asian district linking Pasadena to Chino Hills is unnecessary and should be done more compactly--you can easily get around 44% just staying within the Western SGV.

What about this

just friendly pointers:
-Glendale does not belong in that district, it's effectively not contiguous because Griffith Park is in the middle of an unpopulated area of mountains. Glendale is part of a very high concentration of Armenians that stretches to Burbank and Sunland-Tujunga, so optimally that's what you want to pair Glendale with
-Lancaster and Palmdale are in the desert so crossing the LA County line isn't necessarily taboo
-Palos Verdes Peninsula should really be with Torrance and the beach cities
-DTLA preferably goes with the neighborhoods to the west like Koreatown and Echo Park but it's not an absolute requirement
-Might be boxing yourself in with trying to maximize the AA population in 32?
-Cerritos and Artesia should probably be with La Palma and the other nearby towns in OC
-Asian population between Hacienda Heights, Walnut and Chino Hills is cracked three ways
-36 honestly fundamentally doesn't make sense
-Even if it means more city splits, putting the western parts of Santa Ana with the rest of Little Saigon will make it more unified
-Most of Tustin fits more with Irvine
-Not a fan of bisecting Riverside
-San Diego County is odd, particularly how you split the Asian population in the northern part of the city
-Not the most important since it's only a few thousand people, but the Sonoran Desert extends into the easternmost parts of San Diego County!

[Pedocon Theory is not a theory]

It's strange that out of all the county crossings you make, San Bernardino and Riverside is where you refuse to cross, when they are the most similar overall. As you can see just by looking at the roads, Southern OC and Riverside really shouldn't be paired that way.

Does this make more sense?



Sorry about the North San Diego-El Cajon-East County thing, but it does make everything else very logical and tidy.

Also apologies to San Bernardino and the Victor Valley. Doesn't seem like there's a good place for the Victor Valley to go in general--too big for the Imperial County-Palm Springs-Mojave seat, most like the Antelope Valley but then prevents a really nice and attractive Antelope Valley and Santa Clarita seat.

The Riverside districts do look better, although I'd reiterate my suggestion to follow the highways, connecting eastern Riverside (and Temecula?) with Apple Valley feels very awkward, and what appears to be an attempt at drawing an Asian district linking Pasadena to Chino Hills is unnecessary and should be done more compactly--you can easily get around 44% just staying within the Western SGV.

What about this

Seconding some of the points in cvparty's post above, felt like elaborating a bit too:

-Glendale does not belong in that district, it's effectively not contiguous because Griffith Park is in the middle of an unpopulated area of mountains. Glendale is part of a very high concentration of Armenians that stretches to Burbank and Sunland-Tujunga, so optimally that's what you want to pair Glendale with

Santa Monica/Venice are way closer culturally to BH, Palisades, and Westwood/Brentwood than Malibu, shift Malibu into the Valley district. Keep Atwater Village, Eagle Rock and surroundings with Glendale.

-DTLA preferably goes with the neighborhoods to the west like Koreatown and Echo Park but it's not an absolute requirement

Everything south of the 10 (Santa Monica Freeway) should not go with downtown. South of the 10 and east of the river is primarily suburban, vs the more urban character of downtown and Ktown. Also do not split University Park, keep the area east of Normandie and south of the 10 together.

-Asian population between Hacienda Heights, Walnut and Chino Hills is cracked three ways
-36 honestly fundamentally doesn't make sense

Yeah, the SGV Asian population in 36/37/38 seems cracked to hell, definitely just put it all in one district and just let 36 naturally take in the Hispanic suburbs around Montebello - Whittier compactly. Put Diamond Bar and Walnut in 37 instead and rotate 38 counterclockwise to get Baldwin Park and Covina.

-Palos Verdes Peninsula should really be with Torrance and the beach cities

PV doesn't go with Long Beach. That little stripe of the City of LA with San Pedro is pretty much a divider, don't go further than the Port of LA.

-Might be boxing yourself in with trying to maximize the AA population in 32?

Don't bother trying to maximize honestly, you can't draw a plurality-Black district in LA County any more. Just keep the cores together but don't fuss too much about the edges.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

They undid roughly 50% of my work and I had to work from scratch.

Thoughts on this?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Northern California

[ProgressiveModerate]

Here's my submission for a CA map that generally follows the commission while cleaning things up a lot.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/4bc23294-5049-4416-b503-27314060e423

Topline partisanship is simillar but quite a few districts change pretty significantly; namely central valley seats get redder, and some seats switch around a bit in SoCal. Really annoys me how messy much of the final map is; much of it might look gerrymandered to an outsider even though it's not and in urban areas they don't follow key highways or rivers but just do really jaggedy lines. They also took minority rights a bit too extremely in some places while still not applying that principle universally.

At the core I really don't think the commission's map is pretty good, it's just really rough around the edges and they really needed more time.

Below is shaded by 2020 Pres.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Question; do districts know North LA purposely take in a bit of rurals to the north just to keep the number of the districts the same as previously? All the districts have like half a precinct of rurals attached to an otherwise urban district when that seems a bit unnecessary and honestly they seem a bit random.

Also can anyone decipher the reasoning for what the commission did in San Jose? To me it looks terrible and like something a baby would draw.

And finally what was the logic behind CA-41? It seems like quite an odd marriage and a bit of a leftovers district. And yet they kept it nearly the same from the draft plan indicating they liked the district from the beginning as many others changed quite dramatically. Who’s idea was it to pair Palm Springs with Corona?

[Oryxslayer]

Question; do districts know North LA purposely take in a bit of rurals to the north just to keep the number of the districts the same as previously? All the districts have like half a precinct of rurals attached to an otherwise urban district when that seems a bit unnecessary and honestly they seem a bit random.

Honestly, I can't provide a absolute answer for this one. CA-28 obviously does it cause this Asian seat was used both last decade and this decade to take in the White foothill suburban parts of places like Glendora, leaving a remaining San Gabriel+Pomona Valley population that was ideal for majority Hispanic CVAP seats. The only reason for the rest I can give though is that rivers and road access is limited in that part of the world.

Also can anyone decipher the reasoning for what the commission did in San Jose? To me it looks terrible and like something a baby would draw.

Minority access combined with community lines. The commission desired a majority Hispanic CVAP seat using the Salinas Valley, which basically forced them to remove the Monterey portion and add in the downtown/eastern San Jose section. The Asian seat that previously was based out of Fremont and North San Jose was maintained, so this forced the previous San Jose seat (or central coast if you consider the new Hispanic seat the successor to the Lofgren seat) and the Silicon Valley seat to make weird adjustments given the distribution of ethnic communities in San Jose.

Now personally I think the focus on 50% here is lacking, and instead of looking to make the central coast seat much more Hispanic, you should have gone for two Asian seats with large pluralities. The resulting seats usually are more reasonable without their 50%-minority justifications. But that's just me.

And finally what was the logic behind CA-41? It seems like quite an odd marriage and a bit of a leftovers district. And yet they kept it nearly the same from the draft plan indicating they liked the district from the beginning as many others changed quite dramatically. Who’s idea was it to pair Palm Springs with Corona?

Yep, its an ethnic leftovers seat just collecting all the Whites in Riverside. Like above, they wanted a majority Hispanic CVAP seat out of the Coachella Valley + Imperial, and to finally make the San Diego Hispanic seat just San Diego. With 39's shape basically locked in, this became a leftovers seat.  Now because of the changes desired to San Diego and the Empire in terms of access, as well as the loss of a LA dem seat, some GOP seat in SoCal would see its lean shift heavily left. In an initial draft it was Issa's seat. But the Palm Springs drop basically ensured it would be CA-41 biting the bullet.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Anyone else like the orginal draft map much better than the final map? It just seems a lot cleaner and the districts make more sense. Like just look at how much better San Jose is?

[Sol]

Have been playing with a California map again and it seems like the crucial issue which a lot of SoCal comes down to is where you'll cross over into LA County from the Inland Empire. Is this district worth drawing? It's not too hard to do but basically forces an Inland Empire crossover in far north LA county.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Have been playing with a California map again and it seems like the crucial issue which a lot of SoCal comes down to is where you'll cross over into LA County from the Inland Empire. Is this district worth drawing? It's not too hard to do but basically forces an Inland Empire crossover in far north LA county.

What exactly is the COI of this district? Not rlly an expert on Cali geography tbh, but I’m not rlly grasping it.

[Sol]

What exactly is the COI of this district? Not rlly an expert on Cali geography tbh, but I’m not rlly grasping it.

Majority Asian-American (and mostly Chinese IIRC) seat in the San Gabriel Valley.

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

What exactly is the COI of this district? Not rlly an expert on Cali geography tbh, but I’m not rlly grasping it.

Majority Asian-American (and mostly Chinese IIRC) seat in the San Gabriel Valley.

I have an Alhambra + Arcadia centered Chinese district (#11), with the (East) Asian-heavy area near the borders with Orange and San Bernardino Counties split among a Downey-Hacienda Heights district (#50), a Covina-Pomona-Chino Hills [SB] district (#48), and the alternate version of Young Kim's district that stretches down to Irvine [Orange] (#12) in my SoCal D gerrymander/“whites in 4th place district with 2020 data” map. I love how DRA has a racial dots feature now with both VAP and general population options.

https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::5b7683e4-3262-4942-8387-f5593908e421

[Sol]

Playing around again with California.

Link to the map



Bay Area and Sacramento


Sorry about that Yellow San Jose district, I was trying to draw conservatively under the VRA but happy to divide San Jose east-west if yall think that's legal.

Central Valley



Los Angeles


Sorry for that split of Oxnard. Tried to make that Downtown-Koreatown-Echo Park thing work but it's challenging to push that over.

Orange County and the Inland Empire


Sorry about that orangey-salmon district. I know there's basically no connection between Murrieta and San Clemente. However, this is a very load-bearing crummy district, since it allows the Inland Empire, San Gabriel Valley, and Antelope Valley to all have very rational districts. At least both parts are somewhat connected to Oceanside.

San Diego

[ProgressiveModerate]

Snip

That border between 23 and 24 is rally satisfying.

On a more serious note though, i like this map overall from a variety of perspectives.

At first I thought the Sacramento config was weird but now that I look at it, all 3 districts have clear purpose. In a fair map, Sacramento should get 3 seats because 2 seats leaves leftover suburbs and as we know the commission did a weird pairing of outer Sacramento suburbs/exurbs with Lake Tahoe and Inyo County.

For the Central Valley, I don't understand why no one ever does a True Fresno/Clovis seat? The communities are very interconnected and even if it technically dips below 50% Hispanic CVAP, it would still be functionally Hispanic given how R whites in Clovis are.

The sorting between 22 and 23 is also a bit too much for my liking, but def better than what the commission did.

In the Bay Area, you did a good job at using County lines to guide the districts which actually nest quite nicely. Also thank you for not butchering apart San Jose in the name of "minority opportunity" like the commission did.

The split of Oxnard isn't great and while it looks funny, the Kern County portion of CA-24 doesn't make much sense. If possible, I would try and find a way to shift CA-31 northwards to take in all of Oxnard, CA-25 then shifts to take in SLO, and CA-20 can also shift up a little bit. Tbf it would force a slight redo of the bay area but I think it's doable.

I like the LA area config quite a bit. To me 33 seems like a bit much to get the extra Asian population. I would just have 33 take in El Monte which still has a decent Asian population and should make it Asian functional.

Some may try and argue 40 is an illegal Hispanic pack but I think trying to bacon strip out LA is a bit ridiculous so I think it's fine. It also means Long Beach actually gets it's own clear seat.

In OC, I think pairing Garden Grove with the coast is a mistake because it essentially splits OC's Asian community down the middle. CA-45 on the commission map is actually quite a good seat if it were just cleaned up a bit because it represents a lot of these first/second generation Asian communities which are geopolitically unique. Yeah, it sucks to pair Irvine with Newport beach ig, but I thought overall the commission handled OC quite well.

Also thank you for not doing whatever tf that CA-41 the commission drew was, and giving Palm Springs/Palm Desert/Indio it's own seat.

I'm not a huge fan of district 5. Firstly, it spans just way too far, connecting the heavily Hispanic communities along the southern border with ski communities like Inyo. And secondly, it sort of dilutes the point of a Hispanic seat if it's just barely over 50% Hispanic and also leans R.

Overall very good job.

[MillennialModerate]

What are the odds depending upon SCOTUS rulings that California could be redrawn?

Couldn’t Dems put something on the ballot saying “Maps across the nation weaken our voice as a Dem heavy state - allowing us to draw maps that make our voice equal would help”

A potential California gerrymander would be a flip of around 16 seats. Making the map Dem friendly or fair at worst

[ProgressiveModerate]

What are the odds depending upon SCOTUS rulings that California could be redrawn?

Couldn’t Dems put something on the ballot saying “Maps across the nation weaken our voice as a Dem heavy state - allowing us to draw maps that make our voice equal would help”

A potential California gerrymander would be a flip of around 16 seats. Making the map Dem friendly or fair at worst

If as part of ISL SCOTUS dimantles commissions, the Cali commission would be one of the first to go since it entirely cuts out the legislature’s participation.

I guess in theory a ballot initiative undoing the commission could happen, but it would be phrased differently

[Sol]

Thanks for your kind words! That definitely means a lot, since California is truly unpleasant to redistrict given all the ways mapping is constrained by the topography.

At first I thought the Sacramento config was weird but now that I look at it, all 3 districts have clear purpose. In a fair map, Sacramento should get 3 seats because 2 seats leaves leftover suburbs and as we know the commission did a weird pairing of outer Sacramento suburbs/exurbs with Lake Tahoe and Inyo County.

Yeah Northern California is kind of the wrong fit and you kind of have to strain to get things to go right without screwing up the Bay/Central Valley. Don't love what I did here but it at least has a logic to it?

For the Central Valley, I don't understand why no one ever does a True Fresno/Clovis seat? The communities are very interconnected and even if it technically dips below 50% Hispanic CVAP, it would still be functionally Hispanic given how R whites in Clovis are.

That's fair enough. I was trying to color within the lines on VRA stuff (thus linking Santa Clara with Little Saigon)--once I have an improved edited version of this map I might make a "VRA loose, COI-compliant"
version that does this and also alters some of the lines in SoCal (cough cough City Heights). Though I will have to figure out where the population for CA-3 comes from.

The split of Oxnard isn't great and while it looks funny, the Kern County portion of CA-24 doesn't make much sense. If possible, I would try and find a way to shift CA-31 northwards to take in all of Oxnard, CA-25 then shifts to take in SLO, and CA-20 can also shift up a little bit. Tbf it would force a slight redo of the bay area but I think it's doable.

I'll have to play with this. This probably does entail some sort of nasty cut of Fairfield, or maybe putting Tracy in with the suburban Alameda district--the Bay area districts are pretty delicate, and that was why I put Mono, Inyo, and Eastern Kern in with SoCal.

I like the LA area config quite a bit. To me 33 seems like a bit much to get the extra Asian population. I would just have 33 take in El Monte which still has a decent Asian population and should make it Asian functional.

I'll play with that alternate split. I'm a bit of two minds to be honest about it, since IIRC most of the communities in that district are Chinese so it actually has a decent CoI argument in addition to the VRA? I don't know LA though so please correct me.

Some may try and argue 40 is an illegal Hispanic pack but I think trying to bacon strip out LA is a bit ridiculous so I think it's fine. It also means Long Beach actually gets it's own clear seat.

Yeah fajita-ing Eastern LA would be very hard since basically everything surrounding is also majority Latino, just less so. I can probably trade East LA with the 38th though.

In OC, I think pairing Garden Grove with the coast is a mistake because it essentially splits OC's Asian community down the middle. CA-45 on the commission map is actually quite a good seat if it were just cleaned up a bit because it represents a lot of these first/second generation Asian communities which are geopolitically unique. Yeah, it sucks to pair Irvine with Newport beach ig, but I thought overall the commission handled OC quite well.

I definitely need to work on OC more. It seems like doing that might present an issue though, insofar as it'll basically require linking the hilly north/northeast OC suburbs with Whittier. Is that okay?

I'm not a huge fan of district 5. Firstly, it spans just way too far, connecting the heavily Hispanic communities along the southern border with ski communities like Inyo. And secondly, it sort of dilutes the point of a Hispanic seat if it's just barely over 50% Hispanic and also leans R.

It definitely spans super far but it has a certain topographical logic imo. It's not really a Hispanic seat --it's Hispanic majority but Hispanic in the same way that the old CA-20 was--i.e. not a district designed to elect the candidate of choice. Basically the Victor Valley needed to go somewhere that wasn't the Antelope Valley or San Bernardino.

[Sol]

Here's an updated version, taking into account some of the feedback.

link

Bay Area:



You have to take population from the Central Valley to make up for returning California City to 23, and Tracy seemed the most logical as exurban priced-out commuterland for the Bay.

Central CA:



Pretty self explanatory. I left a little bit of Kern in 24 since IIRC that area is fairly like the Antelope Valley (and prevents a much uglier and deeper cut into San Joaquin County). CA-20 has inherited San Benito.

I upped the Biden percentage a little in 22. There's an plausible-ish VRA/CA commission argument that CA-22 should be as Democratic as possible to ensure that the actual Latino candidate of choice gets elected given the way turnout tends to drop. Regardless of the actual legal question (I assume under current jurisprudence the seat is fine), it certainly goes against the spirit of protecting minority voting rights. I didn't up that Dem vote but I couldn't resist making it at least on par with the current seat in 2020 vote.

LA core:



Oxnard is whole again, and I made the 30/32/33 border a little neater. I couldn't do the Orange County thing; it seems like it risks really doing something ugly, such as either splitting Irvine or doing some weird Frankenstein link of Brea through the mountains to Southern Orange county, as on the current map. At least my seat keeps the bulk of the Vietnamese community together, and gives them a seat where they're the fulcrum vote -- it's a Clinton-Trump seat.

Inland Empire:



Not too much change.

[Sol]

Redrew the boundary between 30 and 26 btw, so that both would majority Latino CVAP, though that requires splitting Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana.

[Skill and Chance]

What are the odds depending upon SCOTUS rulings that California could be redrawn?

Couldn’t Dems put something on the ballot saying “Maps across the nation weaken our voice as a Dem heavy state - allowing us to draw maps that make our voice equal would help”

A potential California gerrymander would be a flip of around 16 seats. Making the map Dem friendly or fair at worst

If as part of ISL SCOTUS dimantles commissions, the Cali commission would be one of the first to go since it entirely cuts out the legislature’s participation.

I guess in theory a ballot initiative undoing the commission could happen, but it would be phrased differently

Yes, if an ISL decision reaches redistricting commissions (I still doubt this), it would pose the greatest danger to AZ/CA/CO/HI/ID/MI/MT because legislators are not on the commission.  This list is extremely favorable to Democrats.

Those with a legislative override (IA/NY/UT) are somewhat safer from SCOTUS.

The commissions with legislators on them (OH/NJ/VA/WA) are probably going to be fine.

[ProgressiveModerate]

What are the odds depending upon SCOTUS rulings that California could be redrawn?

Couldn’t Dems put something on the ballot saying “Maps across the nation weaken our voice as a Dem heavy state - allowing us to draw maps that make our voice equal would help”

A potential California gerrymander would be a flip of around 16 seats. Making the map Dem friendly or fair at worst

If as part of ISL SCOTUS dimantles commissions, the Cali commission would be one of the first to go since it entirely cuts out the legislature’s participation.

I guess in theory a ballot initiative undoing the commission could happen, but it would be phrased differently

Yes, if an ISL decision reaches redistricting commissions (I still doubt this), it would pose the greatest danger to AZ/CA/CO/HI/ID/MI/MT because legislators are not on the commission.  This list is extremely favorable to Democrats.

Those with a legislative override (IA/NY/UT) are somewhat safer from SCOTUS.

The commissions with legislators on them (OH/NJ/VA/WA) are probably going to be fine.

CA and MI are the 2 where I think the legislature is the most removed from the process. Technically one could argue that in AZ at least the leaders get to each appoint a commissioner and such whereas CA and MI are literally just "ordinary" folks.

[Skill and Chance]

What are the odds depending upon SCOTUS rulings that California could be redrawn?

Couldn’t Dems put something on the ballot saying “Maps across the nation weaken our voice as a Dem heavy state - allowing us to draw maps that make our voice equal would help”

A potential California gerrymander would be a flip of around 16 seats. Making the map Dem friendly or fair at worst

If as part of ISL SCOTUS dimantles commissions, the Cali commission would be one of the first to go since it entirely cuts out the legislature’s participation.

I guess in theory a ballot initiative undoing the commission could happen, but it would be phrased differently

Yes, if an ISL decision reaches redistricting commissions (I still doubt this), it would pose the greatest danger to AZ/CA/CO/HI/ID/MI/MT because legislators are not on the commission.  This list is extremely favorable to Democrats.

Those with a legislative override (IA/NY/UT) are somewhat safer from SCOTUS.

The commissions with legislators on them (OH/NJ/VA/WA) are probably going to be fine.

CA and MI are the 2 where I think the legislature is the most removed from the process. Technically one could argue that in AZ at least the leaders get to each appoint a commissioner and such whereas CA and MI are literally just "ordinary" folks.

That’s a good point.  However, if the legislature choosing (some) of the commissioners counts, then wouldn’t the legislature choosing to create an initiative and referendum process (as in CA) count?  For the states admitted with I&R language already in their constitutions (AZ is one of them), one could argue congress approved of that when they admitted them.  Congress still gets to set federal election law and can override state legislatures under most interpretations of ISL.

[Sol]

So yeah, playing with it, moving Mono and Inyo is pretty easy, as is slicing San Jose a different way, but avoiding a district that links Hayward/Fremont etc. with the Tri-Valley is almost impossible without either splitting Oakland or completely overhauling the map (which might force an equivalent ugliness to the north). What do you think is preferable?

Yeah, that's rough. I think that there's a case for splitting out the Hispanic parts of Oakland in the south and putting them in with Hayward, but keeping Oakland whole is obviously pleasing and splitting the city would also have the side effect of splitting out its black population. On the other hand, the Hayward-to-Livermore district is really displeasing, so it might be worthwhile to try to change the map more broadly. (I'll admit that I don't know a lot about areas north of Oakland, so the effect might be ugliness there that I don't notice.)

I may be missing something but it seems that the only reasonable option if you want to avoid splitting Oakland or drawing that CA-11 is for the Antelope Valley to take a huge bite out of Kern County, and not just the area east of the Sierras--it also has to take in Tehachapi and some of the area around Onyx too. Arguably this is the best option depending on the number of people affected but it's still fairly rough. 



This kind of thing is what makes California especially unpleasant to draw imo; the sheer number of mountain ranges that wall off areas from each other means there's very little flexibility and you sometimes have to choose between several bad options.

Interested in folk's takes on this--is drawing the lines like this worth it to make the Bay Area better, or is it better to link Fremont to the Tri-Valley to avoid this?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

So yeah, playing with it, moving Mono and Inyo is pretty easy, as is slicing San Jose a different way, but avoiding a district that links Hayward/Fremont etc. with the Tri-Valley is almost impossible without either splitting Oakland or completely overhauling the map (which might force an equivalent ugliness to the north). What do you think is preferable?

Yeah, that's rough. I think that there's a case for splitting out the Hispanic parts of Oakland in the south and putting them in with Hayward, but keeping Oakland whole is obviously pleasing and splitting the city would also have the side effect of splitting out its black population. On the other hand, the Hayward-to-Livermore district is really displeasing, so it might be worthwhile to try to change the map more broadly. (I'll admit that I don't know a lot about areas north of Oakland, so the effect might be ugliness there that I don't notice.)

I may be missing something but it seems that the only reasonable option if you want to avoid splitting Oakland or drawing that CA-11 is for the Antelope Valley to take a huge bite out of Kern County, and not just the area east of the Sierras--it also has to take in Tehachapi and some of the area around Onyx too. Arguably this is the best option depending on the number of people affected but it's still fairly rough. 



This kind of thing is what makes California especially unpleasant to draw imo; the sheer number of mountain ranges that wall off areas from each other means there's very little flexibility and you sometimes have to choose between several bad options.

Interested in folk's takes on this--is drawing the lines like this worth it to make the Bay Area better, or is it better to link Fremont to the Tri-Valley to avoid this?

Personally, I'm fine with Fremont being linked with the Tri-Valley.

[Хahar 🤔]

Interested in folk's takes on this--is drawing the lines like this worth it to make the Bay Area better, or is it better to link Fremont to the Tri-Valley to avoid this?

Apologies for not responding earlier. Admittedly I'm not neutral in that one alternative involves an area that I know well and the other an area I've only been to a few times, but I think that linking the Antelope Valley with points northward is obviously better. The connection up to Ridgecrest doesn't involve crossing any mountains except to the extent that connecting Ridgecrest to anywhere involves crossing mountains. Similarly, Tehachapi is surrounded by mountains no matter which way you go, and it's not clear to me that aside from county lines there's a compelling argument that it needs to go with the southern San Joaquin Valley rather than the Antelope Valley.