2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: California

[SevenEleven]

CA-10 above 50% Hispanic
CA-16 at 54.5% Hispanic.
CA-21 at 70% Hispanic.
CA-22 above 58% Hispanic.

[Oryxslayer]

My personal issue with your 10 is that you are destroying a potential Hispanic opportunity seat, and like has been explained earlier, the commission has a hard on for minority access seats thanks to their overlapping criteria. Similarly, your 20 is probably not performing. Taking in San Benito ends the opportunity for a 'Strawberry Fields' Hispanic seat along the coast, unless one is ready to traumatize San Jose - and that's before we start talking about crossing the Coast Range. I'll play around with it and see what is possible, but I get the feeling one is going to need to trade my 10 for your south valley, and the commission prefers minority access over more natural COIs as seen in CA53, CA27, SD12....

The current CA 53 is a product of Imperial County being covered under Section 5 of the VRA, which was struck down in Shelby v. Holder. This is also why Kings County can now be maneuvered with.

SD 12 is kind of just a "leftovers" district that they were able to make Hispanic majority.

Obviously, there is room to trade some Hispanic voters into district 10, but it will lower CVAP, which is probably fine. I'll mess around a little bit with it.

Current CA-21 is 71% and CA-16 is 58%, so those would be good baselines.

Your thinking specifically. Ever district flows with it's neighbors. The commission has explicit guidelines that unintentionally favor the creation of minority districts. Preclearence effects very little of this big picture besides where specific populations end up. The commission has in it rules that it must follow the VRA and provide opportunity for minorities to elect candidates of their choice. More important, part of the COI definition includes "common social and economic interests." Outside of a few areas like Baldwin Hills, minorities have different living standards than whites. This, layered on top of the CVRA provides incentives to create minority districts whenever possible. For example, Kings had to be in a Hispanic senate district, but guidelines pushed for two Hispanic senate districts in the valley. Therefore, to get both seats to perform, the commission broke it's normal COI requirements and cross the coast range. If the commission can get a third Hispanic seat out of the valley in some capacity without weakening present seats ability to elect Hispanics, then they will. I am currently exploring if there is a way to square this circle. Of course, normal COI guidlines should try to be observed so, there are multiple squares to circle at the same time. Everything flows togeather.

SNIP

CVAP?

[SevenEleven]

My personal issue with your 10 is that you are destroying a potential Hispanic opportunity seat, and like has been explained earlier, the commission has a hard on for minority access seats thanks to their overlapping criteria. Similarly, your 20 is probably not performing. Taking in San Benito ends the opportunity for a 'Strawberry Fields' Hispanic seat along the coast, unless one is ready to traumatize San Jose - and that's before we start talking about crossing the Coast Range. I'll play around with it and see what is possible, but I get the feeling one is going to need to trade my 10 for your south valley, and the commission prefers minority access over more natural COIs as seen in CA53, CA27, SD12....

The current CA 53 is a product of Imperial County being covered under Section 5 of the VRA, which was struck down in Shelby v. Holder. This is also why Kings County can now be maneuvered with.

SD 12 is kind of just a "leftovers" district that they were able to make Hispanic majority.

Obviously, there is room to trade some Hispanic voters into district 10, but it will lower CVAP, which is probably fine. I'll mess around a little bit with it.

Current CA-21 is 71% and CA-16 is 58%, so those would be good baselines.

Your thinking specifically. Ever district flows with it's neighbors. The commission has explicit guidelines that unintentionally favor the creation of minority districts. Preclearence effects very little of this big picture besides where specific populations end up.

Right, but pre-clearance has caused communities of interest to be broken up, such as with Imperial County and the aforementioned Kings County, while also creating roadblocks for other COIs.

SNIP

CVAP?

CA-10: 38.5% (43.8% white CVAP)
CA-16: 41.9% (42.4% white CVAP)
CA-21: 55.5%
CA-22: 46.4% (39.3% white CVAP)

[Oryxslayer]

I'm just going to be completely level with you here: do you think the original map posted would be fine if Porterville and Tulare switched districts? Or Tulare and Hanford? Because that is a very easy solution to what is expanding into a big conundrum.

[SevenEleven]

I'm just going to be completely level with you here: do you think the original map posted would be fine if Pottsville and Tulare switched districts? Because that is a very easy solution to what is expanding into a big conundrum.

I mean you could do that and the map would look cleaner. But creating two white San Joaquin Valley districts is effectively diluting the Latino vote here.

Probably the main difference between what I'm doing and what you're doing is that I didn't cut further than the Coachella Valley into Riverside County for my CA-36.

[Oryxslayer]

I'm just going to be completely level with you here: do you think the original map posted would be fine if Pottsville and Tulare switched districts? Because that is a very easy solution to what is expanding into a big conundrum.

I mean you could do that and the map would look cleaner. But creating two white San Joaquin Valley districts is effectively diluting the Latino vote here.

I didn't mean Pottsville, that was a derp. Check the edits.

[SevenEleven]

I'm just going to be completely level with you here: do you think the original map posted would be fine if Pottsville and Tulare switched districts? Because that is a very easy solution to what is expanding into a big conundrum.

I mean you could do that and the map would look cleaner. But creating two white San Joaquin Valley districts is effectively diluting the Latino vote here.

I didn't mean Pottsville, that was a derp. Check the edits.

Well, I was surprised that you had mentioned making CA-10 a minority district but I made it work. CA-22 is the obvious choice for a Latino district in the valley, I believe it was drawn 46% last round and is probably close to 50% now with it's current boundaries, so there's a very natural population base to create dual Latino majority districts here, which is what I did. But you can bolster CA-10 at the same time without really creating any holes in CA-16.

My map got way better when I took CA-36 up into SB County.

[SevenEleven]

What I did was create a 200 district map to organize my identified COIs and areas that belong together, which gives me those population totals and demographics, then I start with VRA districts and put the puzzle together from there.

I also don't stress too much about the exact Hispanic% in non-VRA districts as they will inevitably be higher with 2020 numbers due to more accurate response rates and natural population growth.

[Greedo punched first]

What I did was create a 200 district map to organize my identified COIs and areas that belong together, which gives me those population totals and demographics, then I start with VRA districts and put the puzzle together from there.

I also don't stress too much about the exact Hispanic% in non-VRA districts as they will inevitably be higher with 2020 numbers due to more accurate response rates and natural population growth.

How should I draw the Bay Area? It's such a pain. I have more trouble there. Is it fine that I like to put Catalina with all the Channel Islands?

[SevenEleven]

What I did was create a 200 district map to organize my identified COIs and areas that belong together, which gives me those population totals and demographics, then I start with VRA districts and put the puzzle together from there.

I also don't stress too much about the exact Hispanic% in non-VRA districts as they will inevitably be higher with 2020 numbers due to more accurate response rates and natural population growth.

How should I draw the Bay Area? It's such a pain. I have more trouble there. Is it fine that I like to put Catalina with all the Channel Islands?

I usually fill the Tri-Valley, Palo Alto-Mountain View-Sunnyvale, and central San Jose districts first. Then I max the Asian areas of Fremont and Milpitas and build from there.

[Greedo punched first]

What I did was create a 200 district map to organize my identified COIs and areas that belong together, which gives me those population totals and demographics, then I start with VRA districts and put the puzzle together from there.

I also don't stress too much about the exact Hispanic% in non-VRA districts as they will inevitably be higher with 2020 numbers due to more accurate response rates and natural population growth.

How should I draw the Bay Area? It's such a pain. I have more trouble there. Is it fine that I like to put Catalina with all the Channel Islands?

I usually fill the Tri-Valley, Palo Alto-Mountain View-Sunnyvale, and central San Jose districts first. Then I max the Asian areas of Fremont and Milpitas and build from there.

What's the Tri-Valley?

[SevenEleven]

What I did was create a 200 district map to organize my identified COIs and areas that belong together, which gives me those population totals and demographics, then I start with VRA districts and put the puzzle together from there.

I also don't stress too much about the exact Hispanic% in non-VRA districts as they will inevitably be higher with 2020 numbers due to more accurate response rates and natural population growth.

How should I draw the Bay Area? It's such a pain. I have more trouble there. Is it fine that I like to put Catalina with all the Channel Islands?

I usually fill the Tri-Valley, Palo Alto-Mountain View-Sunnyvale, and central San Jose districts first. Then I max the Asian areas of Fremont and Milpitas and build from there.

What's the Tri-Valley?

Livermore, Dublin, San Ramon, etc.

[Greedo punched first]

[Coastal Elitist]

How come you are all keeping the CA-21 gerrymander largely intact?

[Greedo punched first]

How come you are all keeping the CA-21 gerrymander largely intact?

I didn’t. my CA-21 is the Central Coast seat.

[Coastal Elitist]

How come you are all keeping the CA-21 gerrymander largely intact?

I didn’t. my CA-21 is the Central Coast seat.

The old CA-21 shape which I think is the 20th on your map.

[Greedo punched first]

How come you are all keeping the CA-21 gerrymander largely intact?

I didn’t. my CA-21 is the Central Coast seat.

The old CA-21 which I think is the 20th on your map.

Yes. I did it to create enough HCVAP seats. What does your map look like, if you have one?

[SevenEleven]

How come you are all keeping the CA-21 gerrymander largely intact?

You have to have a district here that can elect a candidate of choice for the Latino community.

[Greedo punched first]

How come you are all keeping the CA-21 gerrymander largely intact?

You have to have a district here that can elect a candidate of choice for the Latino community.

I made sure of that in the IE as well (I gave Torres and Aguilar majority-HCVAP seats as well). This is why I took Mono out of the Rural San Bernardino district and added Redlands to it.

[SevenEleven]

How come you are all keeping the CA-21 gerrymander largely intact?

You have to have a district here that can elect a candidate of choice for the Latino community.

I made sure of that in the IE as well (I gave Torres and Aguilar majority-HCVAP seats as well). This is why I took Mono out of the Rural San Bernardino district and added Redlands to it.

It's not as necessary to do that in places that already elect Latinos. The Central Valley has never sent a Latino to Congress.

[Oryxslayer]

How come you are all keeping the CA-21 gerrymander largely intact?

You have to have a district here that can elect a candidate of choice for the Latino community.

Yep, and since about half of the Hispanic population of Kern, Tulare, and Kings are not part of the CVAP eligible voter pool, you still need to get aggressive in order to ensure Hispanics have a seat that can elect a candidate of their choice. Like if more hispanic citizens voted and the 116K voters from 2012 doubled in subsequent years to match it's it's brethren in the rest of the state then maybe things wouldn't need to be so aggressive. However, only 20K voters were added in 2016, and things would need to change significantly in 2020 to adjust the inevitable trajectory.

[Greedo punched first]

CA-19: 52% HCVAP; CA-21: 54% HCVAP

[Libertas Vel Mors]

How come you are all keeping the CA-21 gerrymander largely intact?

You have to have a district here that can elect a candidate of choice for the Latino community.

I made sure of that in the IE as well (I gave Torres and Aguilar majority-HCVAP seats as well). This is why I took Mono out of the Rural San Bernardino district and added Redlands to it.

It's not as necessary to do that in places that already elect Latinos. The Central Valley has never sent a Latino to Congress.

Valadao?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

How come you are all keeping the CA-21 gerrymander largely intact?

You have to have a district here that can elect a candidate of choice for the Latino community.

I made sure of that in the IE as well (I gave Torres and Aguilar majority-HCVAP seats as well). This is why I took Mono out of the Rural San Bernardino district and added Redlands to it.

It's not as necessary to do that in places that already elect Latinos. The Central Valley has never sent a Latino to Congress.

Valadao?

He's Portuguese, not Latino.

[Greedo punched first]

Speaking of Valadao, why didn’t Costa stay in his original district in 2012? It barely changed. Did he want a whiter seat because he didn’t want to face a primary challenge?