2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: California

[Oryxslayer]

SNIP

I mean I also obsesses over municipality cuts if there isn't an ethnic community in play. I think what we view differently is the LA city as a whole. Since LA is larger than a district, I view it as inevitably cut and therefore if a seat cuts into it, it is fine as long as they obeserve the neighborhoods.

Also...is that 26 even connected? There are three highways out of Santa Clarita to my knowledge: one west to the Oxnard Plain, on east to the Antelope Valley, and one north-southeast to LA and Bakersfield.  All other roads head some combination of north or east.  

Is my split of Hawthorne fine (majority-white western Hawthorne is with Manhattan Beach in Lieu's district and the rest of the city is in Waters' district)?

Please excuse the Riverside split on my CA-48 because it actually makes sense because it shares the same CoI as Fallbrook and rural Escondido.

Imperial cannot go with the white areas. Needs to be with other Hispanics, even if the seat is not performing. This is in effect my SD alignment, except I put the east of the county in a white seat.

[Greedo punched first]

SNIP

I mean I also obsesses over municipality cuts if there isn't an ethnic community in play. I think what we view differently is the LA city as a whole. Since LA is larger than a district, I view it as inevitably cut and therefore if a seat cuts into it, it is fine as long as they obeserve the neighborhoods.

Also...is that 26 even connected? There are three highways out of Santa Clarita to my knowledge: one west to the Oxnard Plain, on east to the Antelope Valley, and one north-southeast to LA and Bakersfield.  All other roads head some combination of north or east.  

Is my split of Hawthorne fine (majority-white western Hawthorne is with Manhattan Beach in Lieu's district and the rest of the city is in Waters' district)?

Please excuse the Riverside split on my CA-48 because it actually makes sense because it shares the same CoI as Fallbrook and rural Escondido.

Imperial cannot go with the white areas. Needs to be with other Hispanics, even if the seat is not performing. This is in effect my SD alignment, except I put the east of the county in a white seat.

Don't be fooled by the East County core because it's still a Democratic district (Note: this pairing actually existed on the 1990s map in a GOP district. At least this pairing now leans Democratic). What's a performing seat? Is my map pairing Imperial with Riverside better?

[SevenEleven]

So in effect, LA is trapped right now by it's ethnic COIs. Microchange is possible between San Gabrial, the Asian seat, and their neighbors, but them and the San Fernando valley are locked under this pop arrangement unless I get some way to cycle pop from one side of LA to another.

It's really not. The only decision that needs made is whether you want one or two AA-based seats. By looking at the population statistics we know which area is losing a seat. Putting El Monte with Fullerton, or Beverly Hills with Burbank, or Santa Clarita with Oxnard, these aren't viable solutions.

[Greedo punched first]

So in effect, LA is trapped right now by it's ethnic COIs. Microchange is possible between San Gabrial, the Asian seat, and their neighbors, but them and the San Fernando valley are locked under this pop arrangement unless I get some way to cycle pop from one side of LA to another.

It's really not. The only decision that needs made is whether you want one or two AA-based seats. By looking at the population statistics we know which area is losing a seat. Putting El Monte with Fullerton, or Beverly Hills with Burbank, or Santa Clarita with Oxnard, these aren't viable solutions.

I have one plurality-AA seat (CA-31) and another AA access seat (CA-33).

[SevenEleven]

So in effect, LA is trapped right now by it's ethnic COIs. Microchange is possible between San Gabrial, the Asian seat, and their neighbors, but them and the San Fernando valley are locked under this pop arrangement unless I get some way to cycle pop from one side of LA to another.

It's really not. The only decision that needs made is whether you want one or two AA-based seats. By looking at the population statistics we know which area is losing a seat. Putting El Monte with Fullerton, or Beverly Hills with Burbank, or Santa Clarita with Oxnard, these aren't viable solutions.

I have one plurality-AA seat (CA-31) and another AA access seat (CA-33).

What are the numbers?

[Greedo punched first]

So in effect, LA is trapped right now by it's ethnic COIs. Microchange is possible between San Gabrial, the Asian seat, and their neighbors, but them and the San Fernando valley are locked under this pop arrangement unless I get some way to cycle pop from one side of LA to another.

It's really not. The only decision that needs made is whether you want one or two AA-based seats. By looking at the population statistics we know which area is losing a seat. Putting El Monte with Fullerton, or Beverly Hills with Burbank, or Santa Clarita with Oxnard, these aren't viable solutions.

I have one plurality-AA seat (CA-31) and another AA access seat (CA-33).

What are the numbers?

34% (plurality in CVAP) AACVAP in CA-31 and 36% AACVAP in CA-33.

[Oryxslayer]

So in effect, LA is trapped right now by it's ethnic COIs. Microchange is possible between San Gabrial, the Asian seat, and their neighbors, but them and the San Fernando valley are locked under this pop arrangement unless I get some way to cycle pop from one side of LA to another.

It's really not. The only decision that needs made is whether you want one or two AA-based seats. By looking at the population statistics we know which area is losing a seat. Putting El Monte with Fullerton, or Beverly Hills with Burbank, or Santa Clarita with Oxnard, these aren't viable solutions.

We also know that statistically any map will not be passed without satisfying all minority groups, since they are going to be over-represented on the commission. So cutting a minority seat is out of the cards.

NYC is what happens when you should have cut a minority seat, but you couldn't because of laws. So things get weird. LA could start heading there, especially since CA minority populations will want more seats if they are growing, not less.

Like I said, find me some way to cycle pop either along the coast through the Bay, through the Antelope Valley and down into the Empire, or give me the okay to put even more of Orange with LA (likely Huntington Beach) and cycle pop around through the Empire. If I recall, HB-LB pairing was vetoed on page 7 or 8. If I can cycle pop then the entire LA region can change, but I'm exploring for a way and its hard without producing far more pain than the gains.

[Greedo punched first]

As long as its district isn't Republican, does it matter how Imperial County is paired?

[SevenEleven]

So in effect, LA is trapped right now by it's ethnic COIs. Microchange is possible between San Gabrial, the Asian seat, and their neighbors, but them and the San Fernando valley are locked under this pop arrangement unless I get some way to cycle pop from one side of LA to another.

It's really not. The only decision that needs made is whether you want one or two AA-based seats. By looking at the population statistics we know which area is losing a seat. Putting El Monte with Fullerton, or Beverly Hills with Burbank, or Santa Clarita with Oxnard, these aren't viable solutions.

We also know that statistically any map will not be passed without satisfying all minority groups, since they are going to be over-represented on the commission. So cutting a minority seat is out of the cards.

Why would any AA group be satisfied with what your map does to their communities? It's fairly obvious that you can either cut a black seat in LA, or a Hispanic seat in LA.

[Oryxslayer]

For example, here's the result of one test I did earlier if the pop could work:



Blue has two seats, not hard to get a Hispanic seat using SB and the Oxnard region and make the other the suburbs seat. This starts the cycle of SLO's pop from my original map.



New Midcoast. Red is HVAP, purple is white.



South Bay. Yellow has two seats, turquoise 2. I was surprised the thing didn't fall apart here and you could still get the minority asian seats working.



And here's where it falls apart. Three seats in Cyan. You either have to put part of Solano in the north, which via transfers ends up with too much free pop in Sac, leading to more districts in there than desired. or you send the pop east like pictured and San Joaquin gets wreaked.

The only positive is this cleaned up the groupings in the rest of the valley.

[SevenEleven]

I actually am fairly fond of the purple/red Monterey County districts.

You can't get a meaningful Hispanic seat out of SB.

[Oryxslayer]

So in effect, LA is trapped right now by it's ethnic COIs. Microchange is possible between San Gabrial, the Asian seat, and their neighbors, but them and the San Fernando valley are locked under this pop arrangement unless I get some way to cycle pop from one side of LA to another.

It's really not. The only decision that needs made is whether you want one or two AA-based seats. By looking at the population statistics we know which area is losing a seat. Putting El Monte with Fullerton, or Beverly Hills with Burbank, or Santa Clarita with Oxnard, these aren't viable solutions.

We also know that statistically any map will not be passed without satisfying all minority groups, since they are going to be over-represented on the commission. So cutting a minority seat is out of the cards.

Why would any AA group be satisfied with what your map does to their communities? It's fairly obvious that you can either cut a black seat in LA, or a Hispanic seat in LA.

The dominant community is race, as defined by LAW. CA Hispanics are projected to go up by 2% since 2010, but they still don't have the 2010 Hispanic majority districts to match even their CVAP. AA's have only gone down by a bit but still would be allotted 3 seats based on statewide pop, meaning there will once again be an incentive to draw 3 seats which can elect AA candidates. So LA must try to keep her seats and force them somewhere else. So lets try to cycle.

[Oryxslayer]

Anyway, I found a cycle of about 422K. Allows me to redraw most of LA. The only predictable outcome of this cycle though is that the Burbank seat is going to take to north side of the Hollywood Hills and make the Sherman seat into an outer LA (Chatsworth, Granada Hills, West Hills, etc) and Suburbs seat. The downside is that sticking Lily white Malibu in the Ventura seat ends the chance of this becoming a Hispanic opportunity seat. Also cuts the TO-Simi grouping. Any objections before I peruse?

[SevenEleven]

So in effect, LA is trapped right now by it's ethnic COIs. Microchange is possible between San Gabrial, the Asian seat, and their neighbors, but them and the San Fernando valley are locked under this pop arrangement unless I get some way to cycle pop from one side of LA to another.

It's really not. The only decision that needs made is whether you want one or two AA-based seats. By looking at the population statistics we know which area is losing a seat. Putting El Monte with Fullerton, or Beverly Hills with Burbank, or Santa Clarita with Oxnard, these aren't viable solutions.

We also know that statistically any map will not be passed without satisfying all minority groups, since they are going to be over-represented on the commission. So cutting a minority seat is out of the cards.

Why would any AA group be satisfied with what your map does to their communities? It's fairly obvious that you can either cut a black seat in LA, or a Hispanic seat in LA.

The dominant community is race, as defined by LAW. CA Hispanics are projected to go up by 2% since 2010, but they still don't have the 2010 Hispanic majority districts to match even their CVAP. AA's have only gone down by a bit but still would be allotted 3 seats based on statewide pop, meaning there will once again be an incentive to draw 3 seats which can elect AA candidates. So LA must try to keep her seats and force them somewhere else. So lets try to cycle.

CA-44 is 63% Hispanic VAP 2010 and less than 20% AA VAP 2010 in its current iteration. I'm not sure that counts as an AA district at all.

My map has far more minority-majority and minority-access districts than the current map, and I'd not be surprised if it contains more than your map does.

[Oryxslayer]

CA-44 is 63% Hispanic VAP 2010 and less than 20% AA VAP 2010 in its current iteration. I'm not sure that counts as an AA district at all.

My map has far more minority-majority and minority-access districts than the current map, and I'd not be surprised if it contains more than your map does.

Applies face to hand. CA44 is a Hispanic seat, and no longer has any chance of AA access. The remaining three (one is in the east bay, remember that) though....

[SevenEleven]

CA-44 is 63% Hispanic VAP 2010 and less than 20% AA VAP 2010 in its current iteration. I'm not sure that counts as an AA district at all.

My map has far more minority-majority and minority-access districts than the current map, and I'd not be surprised if it contains more than your map does.

Applies face to hand. CA44 is a Hispanic seat, and no longer has any chance of AA access. The remaining three (one is in the east bay, remember that) though....

I was referring to comments you made earlier in the thread.

The commission was swayed not just to create two AA seats in west LA, but they also drew CA44 in a way that could facilitate an AA comeback at the start of the decade.

Maybe the commission will draw another CA44 where Hispanics have a sizable majority but AAs could get their candidate elected, but the creation of a new HVAP seat probably requires every HVAP seat in the LA area going East – West. I just preserved the seats as part of the decision to protect all the minority seats in LA.

[Oryxslayer]

CA-44 is 63% Hispanic VAP 2010 and less than 20% AA VAP 2010 in its current iteration. I'm not sure that counts as an AA district at all.

My map has far more minority-majority and minority-access districts than the current map, and I'd not be surprised if it contains more than your map does.

Applies face to hand. CA44 is a Hispanic seat, and no longer has any chance of AA access. The remaining three (one is in the east bay, remember that) though....

I was referring to comments you made earlier in the thread.

The commission was swayed not just to create two AA seats in west LA, but they also drew CA44 in a way that could facilitate an AA comeback at the start of the decade.

Maybe the commission will draw another CA44 where Hispanics have a sizable majority but AAs could get their candidate elected, but the creation of a new HVAP seat probably requires every HVAP seat in the LA area going East – West. I just preserved the seats as part of the decision to protect all the minority seats in LA.

Oh that's hypothesizing on the usage of time as an ally to placate both parties. Make CA43 into a Hispanic seat, but have enough AAs to keep electing an AA candidate until like 2026 when it becomes performing. But that doesn't solve our dispute since it still doesn't cut an LA seat.

Anyway, the Ventura seat was plurality Hispanic by pop (49%) and plurality white by CVAP (48% White, 37% Hispanic), however since about half of the whites are taking the republican ballot in the blanket primary, this leaves Hispanics as the largest group taking D ballots. So it's an access seat, not a CVAP seat. However these types of seats are useful if they actually provide access, as seen in CA20 or in VA03/04.

[Greedo punched first]

I think my Riverside-Imperial is the best pairing I've done with Imperial.

[Oryxslayer]

I think my Riverside-Imperial is the best pairing I've done with Imperial.

Here's a tip to improve your visuals: leave all 0 pop water precincts empty unless you are using a bridge to cross the water or if the entire county is in the seat. It prevents the districts from having false 'arm' appearances when you post here.

other than that, looks as fine as it will get when looking at just the region and no other data.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Anyway, I found a cycle of about 422K. Allows me to redraw most of LA. The only predictable outcome of this cycle though is that the Burbank seat is going to take to north side of the Hollywood Hills and make the Sherman seat into an outer LA (Chatsworth, Granada Hills, West Hills, etc) and Suburbs seat. The downside is that sticking Lily white Malibu in the Ventura seat ends the chance of this becoming a Hispanic opportunity seat. Also cuts the TO-Simi grouping. Any objections before I peruse?

Seems like a generally good idea. I'd encourage is a complete rethinking of how you drew the Koreatown/Downtown/Historic South Central and the East Hollywood/NELA/Boyle Heights seat to pair South Central, Boyle Heights, and Downtown while keeping Koreatown, Pico-Union, Echo Park, and NELA together. It's cleaner and should still leave you with two Latino seats in the area. Second, I'd encourage you to ensure both the AA seats, regardless of their configuration, stay east of La Cienega and the Baldwin Hills which is the commonly accepted western border of South LA.

[SevenEleven]

CA-44 is 63% Hispanic VAP 2010 and less than 20% AA VAP 2010 in its current iteration. I'm not sure that counts as an AA district at all.

My map has far more minority-majority and minority-access districts than the current map, and I'd not be surprised if it contains more than your map does.

Applies face to hand. CA44 is a Hispanic seat, and no longer has any chance of AA access. The remaining three (one is in the east bay, remember that) though....

I was referring to comments you made earlier in the thread.

The commission was swayed not just to create two AA seats in west LA, but they also drew CA44 in a way that could facilitate an AA comeback at the start of the decade.

Maybe the commission will draw another CA44 where Hispanics have a sizable majority but AAs could get their candidate elected, but the creation of a new HVAP seat probably requires every HVAP seat in the LA area going East – West. I just preserved the seats as part of the decision to protect all the minority seats in LA.

Oh that's hypothesizing on the usage of time as an ally to placate both parties. Make CA43 into a Hispanic seat, but have enough AAs to keep electing an AA candidate until like 2026 when it becomes performing. But that doesn't solve our dispute since it still doesn't cut an LA seat.

Anyway, the Ventura seat was plurality Hispanic by pop (49%) and plurality white by CVAP (48% White, 37% Hispanic), however since about half of the whites are taking the republican ballot in the blanket primary, this leaves Hispanics as the largest group taking D ballots. So it's an access seat, not a CVAP seat. However these types of seats are useful if they actually provide access, as seen in CA20 or in VA03/04.

Yeah, I've spent the last few minutes playing around with different iterations of splitting Ventura County but I didn't find any that satisfied me in a way that justified splitting Oxnard. Unfortunately, Hispanics in Santa Maria are averse to citizenship...

[Greedo punched first]

Can Riverside be paired with Imperial without splitting San Diego with Riverside?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Can Riverside be paired with Imperial without splitting San Diego with Riverside?

Yep. Just look at Oryx's map on page 19.

[SevenEleven]

Can Riverside be paired with Imperial without splitting San Diego with Riverside?

Yep. Just look at Oryx's map on page 19.

I hate that district almost as much as the Burbank-Beverly Hills district.

[Greedo punched first]

Can Riverside be paired with Imperial without splitting San Diego with Riverside?

Yep. Just look at Oryx's map on page 19.

I saw it, but noticed it contains so many other odd splits. Is there any other way to do it?