2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: California

[Oryxslayer]

Anyway, so this map started from that rotation that I showed a few pages back. However, I quickly discovered that I was rotating population the wrong direction and having CA27 get sucked deeper and deeper into Ventura and Santa Clarita didn't solve my problems. it just left too many whites in the hands of the my old CA32, who would swap roles with CA27 and now become the weird wealthy white strip. With that in mind, I sucked in my pride and decided to terminate the Antelope - Victor Valley pairing that works so well. Instead, I would rotate the seat west with it taking in population from Ventura that would push the white seats in LA to accommodate all necessary voters. Since so many voters were now freed up in San Bernardino, I also took to what someone said during that initial post and decided to have my districts follow the minority population out to the Inland Empire. Instead of having LA get greedy and forcing the cut upon CA08, I did the rational thing and cut CA43/44...but also made CA08 into the fifth performing HVAP seat out in the Imperial Valley+Inland Empire grouping.



So, individual district peculiarities. Even though I decided to keep the CA24 grouping, I was not going to keep the now very overpopulated Simi pairing, a pairing only connected by a neighborhood road at one point. Instead I followed the Highway and took in all the Hispanic communities of the Oxnard Plain. This avoids the whole controversy over Hispanic access in Ventura, since these voters are now being utilized to produce a true minority coalition seat. It also allows CA25, the main Ventura seat, to keep Simi and TO together. Like I said earlier, I don't really need to grab the tiny (but connected to their larger friends in Ventura) suburbs along the LA border for this seat, but it is a preferable pairing when compared to have CA24 cut into LA.



This orientation changes the white/high income seats when compared to the previous map. CA32 takes in whatever white suburbs along the coast that do not disrupt it's three main groupings. It has the heart of the South Bay, all the Beachs, and then nearly all of the West Side of LA. The minority neighborhoods are removed partially because they do not match the districts Income, partially because they are useful in the AA seats. CA27 Stops at the border of the West Side, but still needs to function as a white pack for Hollywood. This time though the Verdugo base is maintained and other connected communities like Studio city are inside. CA27 cuts Sherman Oaks between it and CA29, but that is preferable than putting Bel Air in CA27. I explictly wanted CA27 to end at the Beverly's and the Jewish neighborhoods and not go any farther. Nestled in between the two is the unchanging Hispanic seat.



Both AA seats are over 35% on the CVAP indicator. Eventually I came to a problem of population for the two seats. I didn't want either of the seats to go any further north than Slauson on the east side of the 110, which led to awkward neighborhood groupings with the Asian communities expanding out of Koreatown. So, I just gave CA36 Ktwon and made it into a multi-ethnic seat where AAs actually lead by CVAP.



Please don't find any fault in the Long Beach district, it's just too perfect when it comes to pop, the Harbor COI, and city lines. Barragan runs here given Lowenthal's age and a reasonable Hispanic voter pool.

I took the advice from last time and reworked the internal LA lines regarding the dual Hispanic seats in LA and the Hispanic neighborhoods to their east. However, with a Hispanic seat cut, it is now more pressing than ever to have equity in Hispanic percent between the seats in the region. So even though CA39 has more Hispanics than her neighbors, CA33 and CA37 are still 60% by CVAP.



A fairly normal configuration of the Asian and San Gabriel seats. However, since I am getting four Hispanic seats out of the Inland Empire, there is a 'push' from the east. This means a loss of Pomona from the Hispanic seat, which means a loss of El Monte from the Asian seat (still over 40% by pop, see it's easy), and then leads to the big NE-LA neighborhoods getting pairing with CA26.



Onto the Inland Empire. This entire configuration works because we have two neighboring white packs. The nature of the CA41 white pack is such that everything falls apart or gets too chaotic if CA41 doesn't cut Corona or remain entirely in Riverside. The end result is four seats that are all 47% Hispanic or higher. CA30 should really be CA08 and CA42 would be CA30 if this map kept following the last decades numbering conventions, but it was easier just to move the seat's number. It should go without saying that they are all Safe Dem. CA35 keeps messing with the Hemet region because its cleaner. The other option is keeping CA35 east of the mountains which then leads to all sorts of awkward lines to recover the 4 47%+'s.



North and central Orange county is fairly standard all things considered, and you already saw most of it. I followed opinion and went with map 4 for CA38, albeit with some cleanup in Garden Grove, Stanton, and a cut into Orange to prevent the Anaheim cut from getting too deep into the downtown city. Oh, and this CA38 is basically tied between Asians, Whites and Hispanics all around 32.5% or 244K by pop - fun!



The new Borrego Springs Cut is added to the list of cuts that better serve COIs doing the cut rather than maintaining county lines. Unlike Truckee and West Sacramento though, Borrego Springs is paired because of the principle of exclusion rather than inclusion. All the towns main roads go east, and there are natural barriers in other directions. If we are to do the Coachella/Salton seat, the Borrego cut is advisable.



This is where the map could use some assistance. CA48 takes most of the beating and has to have most of the OC South Hills. CA41 can't cut into SD for the back hills like it should, and nobody should really be splitting Temecula and Murrieta again by sending CA49 north. With all exits from SD blocked, rural and suburban SD has to get their seat, unless I revive that South Hills - Rural SD pairing. CA50 is clean, and CA52 is shoved Northwards.

In this region, SD and South OC, I wouldn't mind tips. Perhaps keeping CA48 entirely to the coast - both in OC and SD? I could send it to Escondito instead of Oceanside (which was put in the seat because of it's connections to Pendleton), but that in turn would mean CA49 cutting SD proper. Decisions...

Partisan wise, there are some competitive seats, but it's still only 7 Trump seats overall. Instead of CA08 the GOP now has the heir to CA49, but that seat is marginally Trump and I don't like the lines, so who know how long that lead lasts.

[Greedo punched first]

My OC south hills-SD seat stays out of the San Diego suburbs. Temecula and Lake Elsinore get a new seat. The Ontario-Riverside seat is a VRA seat. Asian areas of San Bernardino County are added to CA38.



Buena Park is added to my Asian Belt seat and Costa Mesa is removed to shore up the Asian vote.



Simi Valley is not shared with Santa Clarita. Santa Clarita is in an LA County-only seat.



Asian areas of San Bernardino County are added to CA38 to shore up the Asian vote. Pomona is in an exclusively SGV seat instead of an IE seat.

[SevenEleven]

A few thoughts:

1. Yes, the Long Beach is perfect like that. There's no excuse for drawing it any other way.

2. Blairite will probably scold you enough for your downtown LA district. I'll let him do that.

3. I'm starting to like that split of Ventura County, but the new map has definitely done the IE dirty. I don't like that district 30 at all.

4. The Borrego Springs cut is fine, but I think it should be taken a step further and follow the mountains entirely.

This way you can keep Hemet and San Jacinto together, as San Jacinto does nothing for this district as is. You can now make your Chula Vista district more compact.

5. I don't understand dividing Oceanside and Carlsbad at all. Seems like this was done purely out of convenience, when a better solution could be found. Why are you so opposed to the SD-Riverside connection? Riverside and San Bernardino are fairly nebulous as is. They're diverse enough to have multiple competing interests, similar enough to where the county line separating them is borderline irrelevant, and despite being a large metro, so tied to the "Greater LA" region that many places here lack a distinct identity. You're already splitting Corona, it's easy enough to move the I-15 corridor district south into San Diego County and the Imperial district west and be able to clean up San Diego districts.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

This is where the map could use some assistance. CA48 takes most of the beating and has to have most of the OC South Hills. CA41 can't cut into SD for the back hills like it should, and nobody should really be splitting Temecula and Murrieta again by sending CA49 north. With all exits from SD blocked, rural and suburban SD has to get their seat, unless I revive that South Hills - Rural SD pairing. CA50 is clean, and CA52 is shoved Northwards.

In this region, SD and South OC, I wouldn't mind tips. Perhaps keeping CA48 entirely to the coast - both in OC and SD? I could send it to Escondito instead of Oceanside (which was put in the seat because of it's connections to Pendleton), but that in turn would mean CA49 cutting SD proper. Decisions...

Trading Laguna Niguel for Lake Forest would definitely be appropriate. If you don't mind splitting Mission Viejo, putting Laguna Beach and Aliso Viejo in with the OC-SD seat would clearly be more appropriate.

Three other things stand out:

1. The Inland Empire is really awkward. I don't like crossing Cajon pass and I don't like splitting Corona. There has to be a better way of doing things, even if it means rotating population through SD.

2. Downtown LA, Pico-Union, and USC belong in CA-33. CA-39 can take in Commerce/Montebello/East LA to compensate. Hell, I'd even start cutting Boyle Heights if necessary.

3. Pacific Palisades and Brentwood belong in CA-32. Take it up to Mulholland and move things around. The populations aren't that large so it shouldn't shift too much.

[Greedo punched first]

This is where the map could use some assistance. CA48 takes most of the beating and has to have most of the OC South Hills. CA41 can't cut into SD for the back hills like it should, and nobody should really be splitting Temecula and Murrieta again by sending CA49 north. With all exits from SD blocked, rural and suburban SD has to get their seat, unless I revive that South Hills - Rural SD pairing. CA50 is clean, and CA52 is shoved Northwards.

In this region, SD and South OC, I wouldn't mind tips. Perhaps keeping CA48 entirely to the coast - both in OC and SD? I could send it to Escondito instead of Oceanside (which was put in the seat because of it's connections to Pendleton), but that in turn would mean CA49 cutting SD proper. Decisions...

Trading Laguna Niguel for Lake Forest would definitely be appropriate. If you don't mind splitting Mission Viejo, putting Laguna Beach and Aliso Viejo in with the OC-SD seat would clearly be more appropriate.

Three other things stand out:

1. The Inland Empire is really awkward. I don't like crossing Cajon pass and I don't like splitting Corona. There has to be a better way of doing things, even if it means rotating population through SD.

2. Downtown LA, Pico-Union, and USC belong in CA-33. CA-39 can take in Commerce/Montebello/East LA to compensate. Hell, I'd even start cutting Boyle Heights if necessary.

3. Pacific Palisades and Brentwood belong in CA-32. Take it up to Mulholland and move things around. The populations aren't that large so it shouldn't shift too much.

Did you know that Mission Viejo is split on the current real map?

[SevenEleven]

How much should we be looking at chopping an AA seat in Los Angeles?

[Idaho Conservative]

How much should we be looking at chopping an AA seat in Los Angeles?

The seats seem to fit pretty easily, and eliminating Waters or Bass might require splitting up black areas, which might get a lawsuit.  Cutting Lowenthal seems smart. The Orange remnant can be absorbed into an OC Vietnamese seat and the Long Beach part can go to Barragan

[Greedo punched first]

How much should we be looking at chopping an AA seat in Los Angeles?

The seats seem to fit pretty easily, and eliminating Waters or Bass might require splitting up black areas, which might get a lawsuit.  Cutting Lowenthal seems smart. The Orange remnant can be absorbed into an OC Vietnamese seat and the Long Beach part can go to Barragan

Yes. Lowenthal probably retires anyway because of old age.

Barragan takes Long Beach in CA-36.



An Asian candidate replaces Lowenthal in CA-44.

[Oryxslayer]

A few thoughts:

I'll just answer 5 here since its the only one that is questioning. I like your 4 suggestion since that would be mostly a white for white trade, would open up more options in Riverside, and it deals with the ugly problem of Rural SD - an area with few people yet a bulbous addition to any seat.

So the problem comes not from my personal opposition but from math. The only way to get all the Hispanic seats from the Empire was to grab as much whites as possible. Now, there are a few voting Hispanics in CA41 in Lake Elsinore and Hemet but utilizing them leads to problems elsewhere. Since I also don't want to split Temecula and Murrieta, problems ensue if it starts dropping cities in Riverside to pick up connecting areas in SD. I think I have demonstrated in this thread that I'm not opposed to Riv-OC, in fact my original 53 map from last year put the full Hemet region in with the SD hills, it just always becomes a math problem with all the minority seats under 52.

Three other things stand out:

1. The Inland Empire is really awkward. I don't like crossing Cajon pass and I don't like splitting Corona. There has to be a better way of doing things, even if it means rotating population through SD.

2. Downtown LA, Pico-Union, and USC belong in CA-33. CA-39 can take in Commerce/Montebello/East LA to compensate. Hell, I'd even start cutting Boyle Heights if necessary.

3. Pacific Palisades and Brentwood belong in CA-32. Take it up to Mulholland and move things around. The populations aren't that large so it shouldn't shift too much.

2. I don't disagree with you here. This grouping is almost too perfect to be ignored. (the weird border south of downtown here is just to balance out the pop for demonstration purposes)




Except...well...it's illegal.

 

The CA33 as described while bordering the CA39 as described would be ruled unconstitutional under racial packing guidelines. So we have a South Florida or South Texas situation where seats need to be stripped in order to compensate. With the understanding that both seats must run east-west, are there any recommendations would you suggest?

3. Actually, there are a lot of people there. 65K to be precise if we include Bel Air which is also part of the west side and would be cut off by just removing PP and Brentwood. And I don't exactly disagree with you. So here is the million dollar question: what gets replaced, because I couldn't answer that question, so I ended up with this product. The first thing that would be removed is Del Ray, since there are actually some AAs there, but that only gets us 29.5K out of the hole. From there we have a bunch of bad options. Mar Vista is the next most diverse community, but it is A: Large, B: also on the west side, C: still majority middle-income White, D,: lacks AAs, and E: kinda crucial in connecting the whole West Side together on a geographic level. I have already cut all the minorities from Westchester, if I were to follow the present CA33 it would be a case of dropping wealthy whites. finally there is the case of cutting Torrance...which only really makes sense you you are cutting the coastal strip from to connect with Palos Verdes and putting the bult of the suburb elsewhere. If we are axing CA44 then there is no need to put Torrance in an AA seat when there aren't even 8K in the entire city.

In present form the West Side has about 52% of the current seat so dominates, even though it would be repp'ed by Leiu of Torrance.




All suggestions in regards to San Deigo have been appreciated and will be explored when I get to editing in the future.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

2. I don't disagree with you here. This grouping is almost too perfect to be ignored. (the weird border south of downtown here is just to balance out the pop for demonstration purposes)




Except...well...it's illegal.

 

The CA33 as described while bordering the CA39 as described would be ruled unconstitutional under racial packing guidelines. So we have a South Florida or South Texas situation where seats need to be stripped in order to compensate. With the understanding that both seats must run east-west, are there any recommendations would you suggest?

Ideally, you'd keep that perfect Downtown district and change around the various districts in the Gateway Cities. Barring that, my first instinct is to give the Montebello/Huntington Park district Boyle Heights and push the Downtown district as far into South Central as needed to compensate. If the numbers still don't work, I'd swap NELA precincts for Huntington Park and use the LA River as more of a dividing line. Regardless, it seems inappropriate to wrap around Downtown.

3. Actually, there are a lot of people there. 65K to be precise if we include Bel Air which is also part of the west side and would be cut off by just removing PP and Brentwood. And I don't exactly disagree with you. So here is the million dollar question: what gets replaced, because I couldn't answer that question, so I ended up with this product. The first thing that would be removed is Del Ray, since there are actually some AAs there, but that only gets us 29.5K out of the hole. From there we have a bunch of bad options. Mar Vista is the next most diverse community, but it is A: Large, B: also on the west side, C: still majority middle-income White, D,: lacks AAs, and E: kinda crucial in connecting the whole West Side together on a geographic level. I have already cut all the minorities from Westchester, if I were to follow the present CA33 it would be a case of dropping wealthy whites. finally there is the case of cutting Torrance...which only really makes sense you you are cutting the coastal strip from to connect with Palos Verdes and putting the bult of the suburb elsewhere. If we are axing CA44 then there is no need to put Torrance in an AA seat where there aren't even 8K in the entire city.

I would try rotating population from CA-29 through CA-28, CA-27, CA-33, CA-37, and CA-46 to Palos Verdes and Torrance. Of course, it isn't ideal to cut Palos Verdes from the rich white communities to its north but the map will be imperfect and I assume you could maintain all your performing minority districts. It might actually help out with the Latino packs in the Gateway Cities.

[SevenEleven]

The LA map gets a lot better if you condense the AA districts into one heavily plurality district.

Note: this iteration of CA-40 still has a higher AA percentage than the current CA-43. Even though CA-44 has shed the most population, LA's AA population has been declining for a long time now, losing a seat nearly every redistricting cycle. It makes more sense to merge a majority Hispanic seat with an influential AA component, I think, while protecting the other AA seat from ten years of potential demographic changes.

[Oryxslayer]

Now the money question - the Empire. The goal here is to get a fourth performing Hispanic seat out of the region, since we are following the suburbanization of minorities. Reminder the preforming means protected seat because a majority of the electors share a demographic group and will be selecting a candidate who best suits the interests of their group. This 4th seat is to compensate for cutting a Hispanic seat in LA. All told, my aim is to get between 16 and 18 seats where Hispanics have domination of the electoral process, and are not just one of many actors a total number of seats that lines up with Hispanic CVAP% statewide.

The borders in Riverside and between the seats can change because of what ends up happening in San Diego. This should be stated in advance.

So with that out of the way lets talk about the four. The biggest problem appears to be the Victor Valley. Victor Valley is better paired with the Imperial valley, I agree with that 100%. However, I don't want west LA getting sucked into Santa Clarita and Ventura to the tune of 350ishK because that's how we end up with odd white packs or minority districts that cannot preform. If I was to restore the old CA08 in some capacity then that wouldn't elect a minority candidate, the desert's too white. It's also not like the commission minds using I15 to connect a district or drawing something weird in the region. Crossing the mountains here using the eastern Artery is just as fine as using the western one to link Santa Clarita to the Antelope Valley, if that is one's discretion. With that in mind then, the Victor Valley needs to stay within the grouping of four, but it doesn't need to be paired with SB city.

Now, there are some changes that I can make to the grouping of four. When changes come to SB, they will bring changes to CA35. For example, Yucapia/Calimesa and the Arrowheads are only in the group because of connections or pop, I would trade them for Apple Valley in a heartbeat. So if I was to adjust how the four districts were obtained from this region, what would people like to see? How would you like to see the communities paired?

[Greedo punched first]

What's considered an illegal racial pack?

[Oryxslayer]

What's considered an illegal racial pack?

When there is enough Pop in a region to produce a certain number of districts, but you pack one seat to more than capacity to dilute the neighbors. This is best demonstrated in south texas, when the most rather orientation ends up with two uber-hispanic seats along the border and one barely Hispanic seat just to their north. It's very vague in description, but you know it when you see it.

Another good case study is Virginia. The GOP maintained a tentacle that went from Richmond to Norfolk grabbing AAs along the way and making her neighbors whiter. However, there was enough AA voters in the region to elect two candidates of their choosing, but they were being packed into one seat. So the court threw out map.

It's why the GOP in 2010 aimed for just under their states AA% in the south when drawing the number of AA seats on their maps at various levels, since then they could try to dodge this line of attack.

[Greedo punched first]

What's considered an illegal racial pack?

When there is enough Pop in a region to produce a certain number of districts, but you pack one seat to more than capacity to dilute the neighbors. This is best demonstrated in south texas, when the most rather orientation ends up with two uber-hispanic seats along the border and one barely Hispanic seat just to their north. It's very vague in description, but you know it when you see it.

Another good case study is Virginia. The GOP maintained a tentacle that went from Richmond to Norfolk grabbing AAs along the way and making her neighbors whiter. However, there was enough AA voters in the region to elect two candidates of their choosing, but they were being packed into one seat. So the court threw out map.

It's why the GOP in 2010 aimed for just under their states AA% in the south when drawing the number of AA seats on their maps at various levels, since then they could try to dodge this line of attack.

What percentage would count as illegal?

[Oryxslayer]

SNIP

I'm more concerned with how this map seemingly cuts both an AA seat (yes I undertsand what you are saying) and a Hispanic seat to create either a new white seat (or at best a weak plurality seat that would still elect a white) in LA. However, I'm not in the mood get sidetracked on LA ethnicity for the moment.

[Oryxslayer]

What's considered an illegal racial pack?

When there is enough Pop in a region to produce a certain number of districts, but you pack one seat to more than capacity to dilute the neighbors. This is best demonstrated in south texas, when the most rather orientation ends up with two uber-hispanic seats along the border and one barely Hispanic seat just to their north. It's very vague in description, but you know it when you see it.

Another good case study is Virginia. The GOP maintained a tentacle that went from Richmond to Norfolk grabbing AAs along the way and making her neighbors whiter. However, there was enough AA voters in the region to elect two candidates of their choosing, but they were being packed into one seat. So the court threw out map.

It's why the GOP in 2010 aimed for just under their states AA% in the south when drawing the number of AA seats on their maps at various levels, since then they could try to dodge this line of attack.

What percentage would count as illegal?

There is no clear percentage. It's a you know it when you see it kind of thing. A African American seat in Mississippi would be fine and legal with 62% of a district being AA, but that would be laughed out in Virginia who is good with something 20 points lower. In CA, the South Valley needs a 71% Hispanic seat (by Pop) to elect a candidate of choice because Hispanics don't vote, but in the Inland Empire you can get away with 58% or so. It's fluid.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

The LA map gets a lot better if you condense the AA districts into one heavily plurality district.

It's actually pretty easy to get a majority AA district (by CVAP), which is perhaps a more compelling rationale as a lot of 40% AA districts in LA are also 50% Latino.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

What's considered an illegal racial pack?

When there is enough Pop in a region to produce a certain number of districts, but you pack one seat to more than capacity to dilute the neighbors. This is best demonstrated in south texas, when the most rather orientation ends up with two uber-hispanic seats along the border and one barely Hispanic seat just to their north. It's very vague in description, but you know it when you see it.

Another good case study is Virginia. The GOP maintained a tentacle that went from Richmond to Norfolk grabbing AAs along the way and making her neighbors whiter. However, there was enough AA voters in the region to elect two candidates of their choosing, but they were being packed into one seat. So the court threw out map.

It's why the GOP in 2010 aimed for just under their states AA% in the south when drawing the number of AA seats on their maps at various levels, since then they could try to dodge this line of attack.

What percentage would count as illegal?

There is no clear percentage. It's a you know it when you see it kind of thing. A African American seat in Mississippi would be fine and legal with 62% of a district being AA, but that would be laughed out in Virginia who is good with something 20 points lower. In CA, the South Valley needs a 71% Hispanic seat (by Pop) to elect a candidate of choice because Hispanics don't vote, but in the Inland Empire you can get away with 58% or so. It's fluid.

If that's so, then are you sure that 80-soemthing % Latino district in the Gateway Cities qualifies? After all, the Downtown district is still majority Latino by CVAP, so it isn't hard to argue that both will elect Latino candidates and the Gateway Cities district therefore is not reducing the electoral influence of the Latino community.

[Greedo punched first]

What's considered an illegal racial pack?

When there is enough Pop in a region to produce a certain number of districts, but you pack one seat to more than capacity to dilute the neighbors. This is best demonstrated in south texas, when the most rather orientation ends up with two uber-hispanic seats along the border and one barely Hispanic seat just to their north. It's very vague in description, but you know it when you see it.

Another good case study is Virginia. The GOP maintained a tentacle that went from Richmond to Norfolk grabbing AAs along the way and making her neighbors whiter. However, there was enough AA voters in the region to elect two candidates of their choosing, but they were being packed into one seat. So the court threw out map.

It's why the GOP in 2010 aimed for just under their states AA% in the south when drawing the number of AA seats on their maps at various levels, since then they could try to dodge this line of attack.

What percentage would count as illegal?

There is no clear percentage. It's a you know it when you see it kind of thing. A African American seat in Mississippi would be fine and legal with 62% of a district being AA, but that would be laughed out in Virginia who is good with something 20 points lower. In CA, the South Valley needs a 71% Hispanic seat (by Pop) to elect a candidate of choice because Hispanics don't vote, but in the Inland Empire you can get away with 58% or so. It's fluid.

If that's so, then are you sure that 80-soemthing % Latino district in the Gateway Cities qualifies? After all, the Downtown district is still majority Latino by CVAP, so it isn't hard to argue that both will elect Latino candidates and the Gateway Cities district therefore is not reducing the electoral influence of the Latino community.

Is it fine to just get them under 80%?

[Oryxslayer]

What's considered an illegal racial pack?

When there is enough Pop in a region to produce a certain number of districts, but you pack one seat to more than capacity to dilute the neighbors. This is best demonstrated in south texas, when the most rather orientation ends up with two uber-hispanic seats along the border and one barely Hispanic seat just to their north. It's very vague in description, but you know it when you see it.

Another good case study is Virginia. The GOP maintained a tentacle that went from Richmond to Norfolk grabbing AAs along the way and making her neighbors whiter. However, there was enough AA voters in the region to elect two candidates of their choosing, but they were being packed into one seat. So the court threw out map.

It's why the GOP in 2010 aimed for just under their states AA% in the south when drawing the number of AA seats on their maps at various levels, since then they could try to dodge this line of attack.

What percentage would count as illegal?

There is no clear percentage. It's a you know it when you see it kind of thing. A African American seat in Mississippi would be fine and legal with 62% of a district being AA, but that would be laughed out in Virginia who is good with something 20 points lower. In CA, the South Valley needs a 71% Hispanic seat (by Pop) to elect a candidate of choice because Hispanics don't vote, but in the Inland Empire you can get away with 58% or so. It's fluid.

If that's so, then are you sure that 80-soemthing % Latino district in the Gateway Cities qualifies? After all, the Downtown district is still majority Latino by CVAP, so it isn't hard to argue that both will elect Latino candidates and the Gateway Cities district therefore is not reducing the electoral influence of the Latino community.

How do you know it doesn't though? The law assumes the worst without proof. Proof is easier obtained when there is a partisan divide between the groups. It's not just dems who need to abide by this - check out the Hispanic Percentage in each the Miami Hispanic seats. In the absence of proof, you must start with the must basic standards and work from there.

[SevenEleven]

What's considered an illegal racial pack?

When there is enough Pop in a region to produce a certain number of districts, but you pack one seat to more than capacity to dilute the neighbors. This is best demonstrated in south texas, when the most rather orientation ends up with two uber-hispanic seats along the border and one barely Hispanic seat just to their north. It's very vague in description, but you know it when you see it.

Another good case study is Virginia. The GOP maintained a tentacle that went from Richmond to Norfolk grabbing AAs along the way and making her neighbors whiter. However, there was enough AA voters in the region to elect two candidates of their choosing, but they were being packed into one seat. So the court threw out map.

It's why the GOP in 2010 aimed for just under their states AA% in the south when drawing the number of AA seats on their maps at various levels, since then they could try to dodge this line of attack.

What percentage would count as illegal?

There is no clear percentage. It's a you know it when you see it kind of thing. A African American seat in Mississippi would be fine and legal with 62% of a district being AA, but that would be laughed out in Virginia who is good with something 20 points lower. In CA, the South Valley needs a 71% Hispanic seat (by Pop) to elect a candidate of choice because Hispanics don't vote, but in the Inland Empire you can get away with 58% or so. It's fluid.

I'm not sure you are understanding the fundamentals of the southern Central Valley properly. David Valadao wasn't getting 57% in a 55% Obama district because Hispanics don't vote. How do you think Obama got 55% in CA-21 in the first place?

Trump got less than 40% and Valadao still won in 2016.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

What's considered an illegal racial pack?

When there is enough Pop in a region to produce a certain number of districts, but you pack one seat to more than capacity to dilute the neighbors. This is best demonstrated in south texas, when the most rather orientation ends up with two uber-hispanic seats along the border and one barely Hispanic seat just to their north. It's very vague in description, but you know it when you see it.

Another good case study is Virginia. The GOP maintained a tentacle that went from Richmond to Norfolk grabbing AAs along the way and making her neighbors whiter. However, there was enough AA voters in the region to elect two candidates of their choosing, but they were being packed into one seat. So the court threw out map.

It's why the GOP in 2010 aimed for just under their states AA% in the south when drawing the number of AA seats on their maps at various levels, since then they could try to dodge this line of attack.

What percentage would count as illegal?

There is no clear percentage. It's a you know it when you see it kind of thing. A African American seat in Mississippi would be fine and legal with 62% of a district being AA, but that would be laughed out in Virginia who is good with something 20 points lower. In CA, the South Valley needs a 71% Hispanic seat (by Pop) to elect a candidate of choice because Hispanics don't vote, but in the Inland Empire you can get away with 58% or so. It's fluid.

If that's so, then are you sure that 80-soemthing % Latino district in the Gateway Cities qualifies? After all, the Downtown district is still majority Latino by CVAP, so it isn't hard to argue that both will elect Latino candidates and the Gateway Cities district therefore is not reducing the electoral influence of the Latino community.

How do you know it doesn't though? The law assumes the worst without proof. Proof is easier obtained when there is a partisan divide between the groups. It's not just dems who need to abide by this - check out the Hispanic Percentage in each the Miami Hispanic seats. In the absence of proof, you must start with the must basic standards and work from there.

I don't but the way you described it makes me think it only becomes a problem if drawing compact districts with an exceptionally high minority % is only a problem if it means minorities miss out on control of districts they would otherwise have. It doesn't seem so clear to me that margins matter as long as they're all majority Latino. For example, drawing that 85% Latino district seems like it would be okay since the Downtown district is over 50%, but if it dropped Downtown to 40%, then it would become a problem.

[Oryxslayer]

What's considered an illegal racial pack?

When there is enough Pop in a region to produce a certain number of districts, but you pack one seat to more than capacity to dilute the neighbors. This is best demonstrated in south texas, when the most rather orientation ends up with two uber-hispanic seats along the border and one barely Hispanic seat just to their north. It's very vague in description, but you know it when you see it.

Another good case study is Virginia. The GOP maintained a tentacle that went from Richmond to Norfolk grabbing AAs along the way and making her neighbors whiter. However, there was enough AA voters in the region to elect two candidates of their choosing, but they were being packed into one seat. So the court threw out map.

It's why the GOP in 2010 aimed for just under their states AA% in the south when drawing the number of AA seats on their maps at various levels, since then they could try to dodge this line of attack.

What percentage would count as illegal?

There is no clear percentage. It's a you know it when you see it kind of thing. A African American seat in Mississippi would be fine and legal with 62% of a district being AA, but that would be laughed out in Virginia who is good with something 20 points lower. In CA, the South Valley needs a 71% Hispanic seat (by Pop) to elect a candidate of choice because Hispanics don't vote, but in the Inland Empire you can get away with 58% or so. It's fluid.

I'm not sure you are understanding the fundamentals of the southern Central Valley properly. David Valadao wasn't getting 57% in a 55% Obama district because Hispanics don't vote. How do you think Obama got 55% in CA-21 in the first place?

Trump got less than 40% and Valadao still won in 2016.

Oh some Hispanics are voters, no sh**t, I'm not dumb. Valadao was good with a handful of crossover voters. But compared to other areas? Well....

Taking a look at DRA now, Lets use Corcoran in Kings as an example. All of it's precincts and the one surrounding the city come to 23.4K pop. It's about 69% Hispanic by pop. All told there are about 2.7K votes in the town. You can get that many votes from 10K pops worth of Hispanic precincts in LA. The truth is that Hispanics in the region are statically likely to be not voters.

Now, why are they not voters? Well, there's a whole lot of reasons which I probably don't need to explain to you ranging from citizenship to disconnection from government and outreach.

Maybe we are talking past each other here and both understand whats going on just using different language....

[SevenEleven]

What's considered an illegal racial pack?

When there is enough Pop in a region to produce a certain number of districts, but you pack one seat to more than capacity to dilute the neighbors. This is best demonstrated in south texas, when the most rather orientation ends up with two uber-hispanic seats along the border and one barely Hispanic seat just to their north. It's very vague in description, but you know it when you see it.

Another good case study is Virginia. The GOP maintained a tentacle that went from Richmond to Norfolk grabbing AAs along the way and making her neighbors whiter. However, there was enough AA voters in the region to elect two candidates of their choosing, but they were being packed into one seat. So the court threw out map.

It's why the GOP in 2010 aimed for just under their states AA% in the south when drawing the number of AA seats on their maps at various levels, since then they could try to dodge this line of attack.

What percentage would count as illegal?

There is no clear percentage. It's a you know it when you see it kind of thing. A African American seat in Mississippi would be fine and legal with 62% of a district being AA, but that would be laughed out in Virginia who is good with something 20 points lower. In CA, the South Valley needs a 71% Hispanic seat (by Pop) to elect a candidate of choice because Hispanics don't vote, but in the Inland Empire you can get away with 58% or so. It's fluid.

I'm not sure you are understanding the fundamentals of the southern Central Valley properly. David Valadao wasn't getting 57% in a 55% Obama district because Hispanics don't vote. How do you think Obama got 55% in CA-21 in the first place?

Trump got less than 40% and Valadao still won in 2016.

Oh some Hispanics are voters, no sh**t, I'm not dumb. Valadao was good with a handful of crossover voters. But compared to other areas? Well....

Taking a look at DRA now, Lets use Corcoran in Kings as an example. All of it's precincts and the one surrounding the city come to 23.4K pop. It's about 69% Hispanic by pop. All told there are about 2.7K votes in the town. You can get that many votes from 10K pops worth of Hispanic precincts in LA. The truth is that Hispanics in the region are statically likely to be not voters.

Now, why are they not voters? Well, there's a whole lot of reasons which I probably don't need to explain to you ranging from citizenship issues to disconnection from government and outreach.

Maybe we are talking past each other here and both understand whats going on just using different language....

Out performing Trump by 17 points is not a "handful of crossover votes" and shouldn't be handwaved.

It's true that many Hispanics do not or can not vote. That is a fact that can not be disputed. However, the number of Hispanics in the district being too low is not the reason that Democrats have failed to win some of these districts. Hillary didn't win by 15 points in CA-21 because Hispanics don't vote.

Before David Valadao was elected to the House in 2012, he served in the State Assembly. Now, if you look at that 2010 election you will notice it's a Republican hold. If you go back to 2008, you will see it won by Republican Danny Gilmore--a Republican gain. Yes, the Republicans actually gained a seat in California in 2008 of all years. You might also notice that Valadao won that seat in 2010 by over 20 points! In a year where California Democrats picked up two seats, one of which was the seat vacated by Juan Arambula, a Fresno Democrat who became an Independent in 2009. All of the aforementioned seats have consistently voted Democratic at the presidential level with pretty hefty margins.

Jim Costa almost lost his Berman-mander seat to Andy Vidak in 2010, a near unfathomable feat. The district was a 60% Obama district. He bailed on his previous district after the new maps were released and headed north to a less Hispanic district, a smart move. Andy Vidak went on to win a State Senate seat and hold it until 2018, with him and Valadao finally losing because Trump really didn't leave a good impression on Hispanics in a rather remarkable way.

Rudy Salas' Assembly district is about a point more Hispanic and about a point more Democratic than the current CA-21, yet he has held it pretty comfortably. A one point partisan difference is not going to turn a Democratic win into a 58% Valadao win. The problem with CA-21 is that it spans from Kern County to Fresno, taking in Kings, and there is no unifying theme besides "Latinos". Not all Latinos have the same interests, however. Much like what we see in Los Angeles, with pro-labor and pro-business Hispanics often facing each other in run-offs, with some fairly interesting results, the same phenomenon is noticable in the south Valley. Pro-labor, to these Hispanics, tends to mean pro-farming, pro-water, etc. A candidate like John Hernandez (Hispanic Chamber of Commerce) is not going to be received as well by these rather conservative Hispanics as an actual farmer, like Valdao or Vidak. Likewise, a pro-labor candidate such as Emilio Huerta is going to struggle heavily with those pro-business Hispanics. Add in a 40% or so block of inflexible white Republicans and it's a recipe for disaster.

The solution, as seen in Salas' Assembly district, is to keep it simple. Don't draw a district trying to make it as Latino as possible. Draw a locally-oriented district that respects COIs. CA-21 was a failure of the current map because it did not allow Valley Hispanics to elect a candidate of their choice. Not by virtue of having too few Hispanics, as the top-level results show, but because connecting groups that have no business being lumped together means a "candidate of choice" is literally impossible. IIRC, TJ Cox had the narrowest victory of any of the CA House pickups in 2018. A 55% Clinton district struggled more to elect a Democrat than some 55% Romney districts in Orange County.