2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: California

[Greedo punched first]

I was wondering is it possible to keep CA-16 as 52%+ Hispanic VAP with 2018 population if you just use Merced, Madera, and Fresno city in Fresno, because it doesn't seem so, and you can't expand west into Fresno County, because those Hispanic precincts are needed for CA-21, so I'm interested as to how you guys got around this, unless you took the seat apart or just changed it into a minority coalition one.

I got Merced and Fresno (without Madera) with 52+% HCVAP in CA-19. I got 54% HCVAP in CA-21.
   

[SevenEleven]

So one thing that needs noted is that not only are 2020 numbers practically guaranteed to have higher Hispanic%, these areas also we're the most underestimated pre-2010 census and I believe much of that was due to Hispanic population growth.

[Greedo punched first]

I decided to change my map again.

1: Mike Thompson, 2: Doug LaMalfa, 3: Tom McClintock, 4: Doris Matsui, 5: Ami Bera, 6: Jerry McNerney, 7: Eric Swalwell, 8: Tim Grayson?, 9: Jared Huffman, 10: Nancy Pelosi, 11: Barbara Lee, 12: Jackie Speier, 13: Anna Eshoo, 14: Ro Khanna, 15: ?, 16: Zoe Lofgren, 17: Josh Harder, 18: Devin Nunes, 19: Jim Costa, 20: Kevin McCarthy, 21: TJ Cox, 22: Jimmy Panetta, 23: Salud Carbajal, 24: Julia Brownley, 25: Brad Sherman, 26: Tony Cardenas, 27: Adam Schiff, 28: Mike Garcia/Christy Smith, 29: Judy Chu, 30: Jimmy Gomez, 31: Karen Bass, 32: Andre Quintero?, 33: Maxine Waters, 34: Ted Lieu, 35: Nanette Barragan, 36: Linda Sanchez, 37: Ed Hernandez?, 38: Norma Torres, 39: Pete Aguilar, 40: Jay Olbernolte/Christine Bubser, 41: Mark Takano, 42: Ken Calvert, 43: Gil Cisneros, 44: Diedre Nguyen?, 45: Lou Correa, 46: Harley Rouda, 47: Mike Levin, 48: Georgette Gomez/Sara Jacobs, 49: Scott Peters, 50: Juan Vargas, 51: Darrell Issa/Ammar Campa-Najjar, 52: Raul Ruiz

[Coastal Elitist]

Here's my state senate map. It's dumb that California hasn't increased the size of our assembly or senate. It's ridiculous that nearly a million people are represented by one person in the state senate.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/f5c1404b-24d0-4e44-bb92-1a101565fd17

[Greedo punched first]

My map has many open seats. Are my guesses on who might take them good guesses?

[Oryxslayer]

Here's my state senate map. It's dumb that California hasn't increased the size of our assembly or senate. It's ridiculous that nearly a million people are represented by one person in the state senate.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/f5c1404b-24d0-4e44-bb92-1a101565fd17

I honestly think a ballot initiative to give the senate the 80 district map and make the house 160 districts (at minimum) would get near unanimous support if put to the people.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

My Bay Area map. CA-06 and CA-14 are open seats. CA-14 is a new San Jose seat.



My Orange County map. Plurality-Asian CA-44, Lowenthal’s old district, is an open seat. CA-47, Cisneros’ seat, loses LA and San Bernardino counties and extends further south. CA-45, Rouda’s seat, extends further inland and loses parts of Huntington Beach.

You're really going to attach Redwood City to Hollister? Bad choice.

[Greedo punched first]

Pairing Imperial is a pain. Should it go with Riverside, National City, or East County?

My updated Orange County map. CA-44, Lowenthal's old seat, is now plurality-Asian. It loses all of Long Beach, Lakewood, and every other part of LA County. It takes in Seal Beach, Fountain Valley, and parts of Huntington Beach. CA-43, Cisneros' district, home of Cal State Fullerton, loses LA County and extends further south. CA-46, Rouda's seat, loses parts of Huntington Beach and extends further inland. CA-42, Calvert's district, is the only OC district that shares with another county.

[Greedo punched first]

My Bay Area map. San Jose gets a fourth seat because of population growth.

[Oryxslayer]

Okay so time to post my Cali map in full. Like I said earlier, my guidelines for this map were to preserve and increase minority representation whenever possible. I assumed that this would be the commissions modus operandi, since minorities are near guaranteed to outnumber whites, and this will lead to similar outcomes like last time. As I have made clear, 47%ish was my guidelines for the Hispanic seats outside of the south valley. With this out of the way I now need to say that I did not set out to cut one of the 7 remaining GOP seats, however that is what happened. It makes sense though when one thinks about those initial guidelines. I essentially forbade myself from cutting a seat in LA, and you cannot cut a seat in the north where it also makes sense given population change. What happens then is LA keeps pushing seats outwards until it hits the hinterlands where there are no minority seats and the population isn’t increasing exponentially like Riverside. Numbers are similar to the 2010 map for simplicities sake, even though they will obviously be changed because of CA law.

[Oryxslayer]

Jefferson-NorCal:

I showed this off earlier when we were discussing the north coast, and nothing has seriously changed. I like how the Monterrey to Solano plus San Joaquin grouping comes close to several full CDs, so close in fact that a single cut to grab to Sacramento estuary like presently fills it up. This doesn’t exactly force the 2+3 alignment as pictured, but it makes things easier. Siski gets thrown in with two as part of the greater Triangle COI. Keep Yuba City, west and east Sacramento, and the Tahoe towns united, that is imperative.



CA01: Identified COI: Rural NE, aka Jefferson. Additional COIs: Yuba City. 71% White, 17% Hispanic, 3% AA, 6.3% Asian. By CVAP its 77.8% White, 11.8% Hispanic, 2.3% AA, 4.4% Asian. R+10.63. 55.8/37 Trump.

CA02: Identified COI: Greater Emerald Triangle and Redwood coast. Additional COIs: California North Coast. 71.4% White, 17.1% Hispanic, 2.5% AA, 5.4% Asian. By CVAP its 80% White, 10% Hispanic, 2.1% AA, 4% Asian.  D+20. 67.2/25.1 Clinton.

CA03: Identified COI: Northern Agriculture. Pairs Wine Country with the north valley fields. 55.3% White, 31.6% Hispanic, 3% AA, 8.8% Asian. By CVAP its 67.9% White, 20.1% Hispanic, 2.3% AA, 7.3% Asian.  D+16.42. 64.3/28.7 Clinton.

CA04: Identified COI: Sacramento Exurbs/Far suburbs. Additional COIs: Tahoe towns and vacation communities. 74.2% White, 15.2% Hispanic, 2.1% AA, 7.1% Asian. By CVAP its 80% White, 11% Hispanic, 1.7% AA, 5.1% Asian.  R+10. 53.6/39.7 Trump.

Sacramento:

I also described these seats in my northern post. However, in case people forgot, a big positive of my northern alignment was one’s ability to rework the Sacramento region to better reflect population patterns. CA06 focuses on Sacramento city, while taking in the suburbs closest or most congruent for population. CA07 meanwhile can take in all the connected suburbs, leaving only the unincorporated land and disconnected cities for the exurban fourth. CA05 stays most in the estuary, but needs to grab a tiny bit more for population equity.



CA06: Identified COI: Sacramento city and West Sacramento. Additional COI: communities west of highway 80. 37% White, 27.7% Hispanic, 15% AA, 19% Asian. By CVAP it’s 45% White, 20.8% Hispanic, 14.7% AA, 16.3% Asian. D+19.87. 68.1/25.5 Clinton.

CA07: Identified COI: Sacramento county suburbs. 52.7% White, 18% Hispanic, 10% AA, 19% Asian. By CVAP its 59.7% White, 14% Hispanic, 8.8% AA, 14.6% Asian. D+3.58. 53.2/39.9 Clinton.

[Oryxslayer]

Bay Grouping:

Now, time for newer stuff, or at least stuff that hasn’t been discussed before in detail.



The thing about the bay is that the first two districts to always be delineated are the peninsula seats, since crossing the bay is something one hopes to avoid, even with a bridge. The problem with the peninsula seats is that the natural peninsula political groupings do not break down in a way beneficial for mappers. The three most encompassing groups are the resident homeowners, who have been on the peninsula since the 90s or earlier, the techies who have moved in for Silicon Valley work, and the clustered lower-income minority neighborhoods. No group is uniformly one demographic, but the residents are the whitest, and the clustered minorities the most diverse (rather than uniformly one group). The issue is the three groups are unconnectable easily. The older residents are in the west and north of SF, but their compatriots on the peninsula are further south in the mid-peninsula. It is the same for the techies, who are downtown in SF and then all the way at the other end of the peninsula. The most of the clustered minorities are near each other on the two counties borders, but this is not enough for a CD and it would cut off SF from the rest of the peninsula. Therefore, we must settle for inferior groupings. SF sticks to it’s counties, but drops a good chunk of the Excelsior to pair with their minority compatriots. SF therefore is more a fight between the older residents and the techies. The peninsula seat is made into a minority coalition seat that is going to be a fight between the clustered minorities in the north and scattered neighborhoods like East Palo Alto, and older residents in the middle of the 101. The techies are cut out for their own seat.



Moving over to the expanded East Bay, everything is more or less driven by ethnic opportunity seats. CA05, really the successor to CA03, turns inward towards the Bay Area as a result of Northern pop loss. The north cannot sustain it’s present seats, and the Solano seat is now a bay area minority coalition seat. In a similar fashion, CA09 keeps the county lines since that is the best COI that works with the minority demographics. One has to really reach in there to add San Joaquin’s Hispanics to CA10, and carving out the eastern whites would put pressure on the bay and then LA in a circuitous motion. Unfortunately, the Solano-Alameda-Contra Costa grouping is not neat when it comes to population, and needs to either drop some to the south bay or cross the bay for some reason. This orientation of the Alameda seats preserves the most municipality lines while getting the most bang for your buck minority-wise. We don’t cut Fremont, or any of the northern towns in Contra Costa. The tradeoff though is that the successor to Lofgren’s seat (since CA15 is Asian seat #2) is connected by Mines road and CA route 130, producing a parallel cut, which isn’t the best road link but isn’t the worst. This orientation also forces the ancient Lofgren’s retirement, since Swalwell would be running here and Khanna in the 15th, making the Silicon Valley Asian seat the open one.



The South Bay is 100% decided by demographic COIs. The region features a continuation of the Present CA18, which through carful community selection is now visibly the white seat. It is the first of the “it’s not a white gerrymander if everything around it is a minority seat and you all share similar standards of living” seats that the community has to create in specific areas. However, we can still preserve some other COIs like the pairing of UCSC and Stanford. Through the collection of whites, we get the Asian seat in Silicon Valley and San Jose’s North Valley, and the Hispanic 20th to the south of the city. The 19th remains diverse, taking in most of the Hispanic neighborhoods in San Jose and the Asian community cut off from the minority seats in Evergreen. I’m confident I only cut the downtown neighborhood, keeping the other groups intact albeit separate since San Jose is a large sprawling city.
 


CA05: Identified COI: Solano county. Additional COIs: Minority Access, North Bay cities and Highway 80. 35% White, 29% Hispanic, 16.2% AA, 20.3% Asian. By CVAP its 43% White, 19.6% Hispanic, 16.6% AA, 18% Asian. D+22.03. 70.2/24.2 Clinton.

CA09: Identified COI: San Joaquin county. Additional COIs: Minority Access. 33.4% White, 40.6% Hispanic, 9% AA, 18% Asian. By CVAP its 43.8% White, 30.5% Hispanic, 8.6% AA, 14.8% Asian. D+5.32. 54/40.5 Clinton.

CA11: Identified COI: Inland Contra Costa county. Additional COIs: Whites, Walnut Creek-Concord-Pleasanton, Pittsburgh-Bay Point-Antioch. 50.3% White, 24% Hispanic, 9.5% AA, 16.6% Asian. By CVAP its 59% White, 17% Hispanic, 8.5% AA, 13.5% Asian. D+15.73. 66.1/27.9 Clinton.

CA12: Identified COI: San Francisco city. 45.2% White, 13.8% Hispanic, 6.3% AA, 34.5% Asian. By CVAP its 50.5% White, 11% Hispanic, 6% AA, 31.2% Asian. D+37.02. 86/9 Clinton.

CA13: Identified COI: Historically AA communities in the East Bay. Additional COIs: East Bay Minorities. 35.4% White, 22.2% Hispanic, 20% AA, 23% Asian. By CVAP its 43.2% White, 14% Hispanic, 20% AA, 20.5% Asian. D+39.1. 86.3/7.8 Clinton.

CA14: Identified COI: Peninsula suburbs along the 101. Additional COIs: minority communities across the county lines in Daily City and the Excelsior, minority access. 32.8% White, 24.4% Hispanic, 3.7% AA, 39% Asian. By CVAP its 39.6% White, 18.3% Hispanic, 3.4% AA, 36.6% Asian. D+26.8. 76.8/18.3 Clinton.

CA15: Identified COI: East Bay Asian communities west of the mountains. Additional COIs: San Jose Suburbs, Berryessa. 18.7% White, 24.5% Hispanic, 7% AA, 49.4% Asian. By CVAP its 26% White, 20.7% Hispanic, 7.8% AA, 42.8% Asian. D+27.1. 75.8/19 Clinton.

CA17: Identified COI: Silicon Valley Asians. Additional COIs: San Jose Suburbs, San Jose Asian neighborhoods. 33.1% White, 17.5% Hispanic, 3% AA, 46.2% Asian. By CVAP its 44.5% White, 14% Hispanic, 3% AA, 37.3% Asian. D+24.57. 74.5/19.4 Clinton.

CA18: Identified COI:  Bay Area Whites. Additional COIs: East and main Palo Alto plus Menlo Park, large universities of Stanford and UCSC, south San Jose whites, Bay Area coastline. 53.6% White, 20.4% Hispanic, 3.8% AA, 21.4% Asian. By CVAP its 62.8% White, 15% Hispanic, 3.3% AA, 17% Asian. D+23.78. 73.5/20 Clinton.

CA19: Identified COI: South and East Bay diverse communities without clear majorities. Secondary COIs: Tri-Valley, San Jose Hispanics, San Jose central neighborhoods. 28.6% White, 31% Hispanic, 3.6% AA, 37% Asian. By CVAP its 37% White, 24.5% Hispanic, 3.5% AA, 33.3% Asian. D+20.26. 70.5/23.8 Clinton.

CA20: Identified COI: Salinas river valley agriculture and Hispanic farmworkers. Secondary COIs: Watsonville-Salinas pairing, Monterrey bay coastal whites around route 1, 101 communities in San Jose. 35% White, 54.5% Hispanic, 3% AA, 7.6% Asian. By CVAP its 50.8% White, 37% Hispanic, 3% AA, 7.1% Asian. D+18.62. 67/26.8 Clinton.

[Oryxslayer]

Central Valley and ‘Middle’ California Districts:

I have already written quite a bit on the central valley seats, (including some of their data, which is unchanged for majority-hispanic CA10 and CA16) and how the districts are utilized to maximize minority access. The data for those seats can be accessed at this post, though since CA21 and CA22 have changed a bit, they will also get demographic mentions down below.



So, the new version of CA08. Despite bearing the name of the Bernardino district for continuities sake, this district is a clear successor to McCarthy’s Kern seat. The meat and bones of the old CA08, places like Victorville and Yucaipa are paired with their neighbors to, once again, maximize minority access. It’s a white seat not just for Kern, but for the Inland Empire. Only 1/3 of the voters are in San Bernardino. It’s also clearly a white seat created from those areas with differing demographics from their minority neighbors. Overall, I really like how the Inland Empire turned out.



 

CA24’s successor is more or less the same seat as what it was before. SLO is too white to go with the Salinas Valley, and it is too disconnected from the Kern region to go east. Therefore, it goes south as far as it is needed.



CA21: 18.3% White, 71.5% Hispanic, 6% AA, 4.6% Asian. By CVAP its 29.3% White, 57.4% Hispanic, 7.3% AA, 4.4% Asian. D+4.24. 54/40.5 Clinton.

CA22: 52.6% White, 35.6% Hispanic, 3% AA, 8% Asian. By CVAP its 62.5% White, 26.7% Hispanic, 2.4% AA, 6.3% Asian. R+11.78. 56.5/38 Trump.

CA08: Identified COI: High Desert Whites. Additional COIs: CA route 58 settlements, rural desert towns. 55.5% White, 30.8% Hispanic, 7.2% AA, 5.3% Asian. By CVAP its 63.6% White, 24% Hispanic, 6% AA, 3.8% Asian. R+16.58. 61.6/32.5 Trump.

CA23: Identified COI: Central Coast agriculture and winemaking. Additional COIs: pairing of Cal Poly SLO and UCSB, Central Coast tourism, wealthy whites. 55% White, 35.8% Hispanic, 2.7% AA, 6.3% Asian. By CVAP it is 67.4% White, 23.3% Hispanic, 2.4% AA, 5.2% Asian. D+6.7. 56.5/36.7 Clinton.

[Oryxslayer]

SoCal: Los Angeles the Inland Empire Part 1

Okay, so there is a lot going on in SoCal. The first thing that needs to be stated above all else is that each seat has an ethnic identity. This rises above all else, and ensuring all groups have political access is the most important factor in deciding what goes where. Every seat is designed to enhance opportunity or elect a specific ethnic group with the exception of the Long Beach seat. Even then the Long Beach seat tries to assist the minority groups as best it can without taking in Huntington Beach, since people vetoed that potential pairing.



The first place to start is with CA24, the successor to CA25. As I explained earlier upthread, this version I think respects the High Desert COI the best. Santa Clarita is separate from the Antelope Valley cities – it is far whiter and more suburban than the rest of the seat. The Victor Valley is a better pairing for the Antelope cities than the LA suburban communities in both demographics and connections. While it is unfortunate Apple Valley gets separated from her connected cities, she is the whitest of the three by a longshot, and this new CA24 is also focused on Hispanic opportunity. Also, Edwards AFB’s land crosses county lines, and it is put with this seat rather than the Kern seat because CA23’s successor is not longer cutting into LA county like in 2010.



Then there is Ventura county. Ventura is more or less two distinct cultural COIs inside the county COI: the Oxnard Plain and the hills/valleys suburbs that flow into LA county from the west. One is primarily agricultural, the other has greenbelt style house developments. One is mostly white and swing/conservative, the other is mostly Hispanic and safe democratic. Now, the ideal pairing would be putting all the suburbs together and creating something like SD27 with the LA Hill suburbs, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, and Santa Clarita. The issue is that other communities are going to make such a paring impossible.

The white beach towns from Santa Monica southwards can more or less never be paired with the interior communities of LA. You can be increasingly selective and take in some certain areas like Torrance and Culver City, but eventually there is a demographic wall. The groups are too different ethnically and incredibly stark when it comes to incomes between the crammed minority neighborhoods and the beaches. The beach towns have to go with some white district, but the two LA white districts are based out of the opposite side of the county. Since the cross-county white suburban seat already borders Santa Monica, it is the best place to put the beach towns. Therefore, the new CA32, the successor to CA33, is encompasses two COIs not large enough for their own seat.



Drawing CA32 like I described above leaves one with only one option when looking at the Ventura seat – focus on the COIs of the Oxnard Plain, CA route 126, and the Santa Clara river. Pairing Santa Clarita with the San Fernando valley is an option but it is not a good one. The San Fernando valley is only a hair over two districts worth of population, and there are two very natural COIs for that region. One district is Hispanic, one district is white. Unfortunately, patterns of settlement dictate that certain white neighborhoods like Tujunga have to go in the Hispanic seat, but the two groups mostly sort themselves out. So therefore, we must look at the advantages of putting Santa Clarita with Ventura, and there is a big one. Santa Clarita is not majority white, and her sister suburbs in Thousand Oaks and Simi Valley have significant white majorities. Santa Clarita is too white for the Antelope Valley seat when compared to the majority-minority Victor Valley seats, but a plurality white suburb is better for a minority access seat than majority White suburbs. Make no mistake, this CA25 is a minority access seat under these lines, Hispanic percentages approach 50%, whites do not have a majority by CVAP, and the majority of those whites that vote are going to be choosing the GOP ticket in the blanket primary. It’s not enough for a VAP seat, but it is a clear access seat for whenever there isn’t an incumbent.

Moving eastwards are the two seats with a limited Hispanic presence. CA27 is majority white and majority high-income. There always must be a Hollywood/Beverly Hills seat, so this map takes the COI and pairs them to the whiter movie cities that separate the San Fernando Valley and the main LA basin. It doesn’t just go west to grab the hills; the seat also has room to take in the Jewish communities and their COI. There are less Jews and more hip youth in Fairfax these days, but Pico-Robertson and other communities in the region still preserve the Jewish character. Those youth around Fairfax are still mostly white, so it is fine to stick them in CA27. The San Fernando valley cut takes the bit of population leftover from the dual seats in the region via the neighborhoods of NoHo Arts, Toluca Terrace, and Toluca Woods. The main cut of LA starts in Atwater Village and Los Feliz, grabs the majority of the Hollywood neighborhoods, continues on to the Jewish Areas of Pico-Robertson and Beverlywood, and then finishes in the wealthy areas of Beverly Hills, Brentwood, and Bel-Air.



 CA26 is the Asian seat, and has a good plurality of Asians by both CVAP and population, enough to control the primary. The main fault lime would probably be the divisions between the Chinese and the Vietnamese. The only real downside is the cut of El Monte, but that made things so much easier number-wise. It also makes sense since the Asian parts of El Monte go in CA26, and the Hispanic parts go with the HVAP seats. Takes the entirety of the LA border neighborhoods (which have a nonzero number of Asian residents) of Garvanza, Arroyo View Estates, Hermon, and Monterey Hills.
CA33 and CA39’s lines are purely based off of their Hispanic residents. Well, maybe not entirely, but the I deemed it necessary to do parallel East-West seats rather than one seat based out of LA and the other based out of the cities to her east with a bit of LA to round it out. While the latter decision makes more sense from a traditional COI perspective, the ethnic COIs are all out of whack, and those are priority number one. If we were to do the alternative groupings, it would lead to a cities+LA seat that is something like 80% Hispanic and 70% by CVAP, whereas the LA seat would only be 60% Hispanic and 49% by CVAP. That is a poor distribution of Hispanic voters. The east-west version balances it out, getting both seats to over 70% Hispanic by residents and well over 50% when it comes to CVAP.

Regarding the dual grouping as a whole, the Rio Honda river which loosely separates cities like Montebello and Pico Rivera is as good a delineating line as any. CA39 starts with the cities south of Vernon and Commerce, and then takes up Downtown LA from the south through Florence. The district tops off its population with the mixed neighborhoods to the west of Downtown LA: Koreatown, University Park, Pico-Union, Windsor Square, and the rest. CA33 starts at the Rio Honda, and connects the Hispanic communities to the east with those to the north of Downtown LA and east of Central Hollywood through Boyle Heights.



I have already talked a bit about the San Gabriel valley, and it’s because the lines for this CA31 are near perfect in my eyes. Its boundaries are all clear and, in most cases, the best borders available. The eastern border is the county line, the western border is the Asian communities and their delineated seat, the northern border is the mountain range, and the southern border is Industry and the Asian greenbelt ‘ranching’ suburbs beyond. Only El Monte and minute adjustments in the borders between the two Asian areas and this Hispanic seat are available adjustments without weakening the COI delineations, which is the sign of a good seat. The COIs inside the seat are clear, and there are really two of them. There are the whiter suburbs along the ridgeline that still have a few republicans in them, and the Hispanic cities along the highway, anchored by the crown jewel of Pomona. It’s a seat that will elect a Hispanic representative once Napolitano retires.



The two AA ‘access’ seats. I have already spoken a bit about the AA seats, but the basic summary goes something like this. Looking at the demographic breakdown of the potential commissioners, it is possible if not likely the AA community gets more representation that it should get by population percentage. Last time the commission, recognizing that CA’s AA community is dispersing and will be unable to elect a candidate of choice in many of the areas with respectable levels of AA settlement, decided to draw seats that the AA community could access, even though they were not close to the population or even CVAP thresholds. AAs vote at high rates compared to their Hispanic neighbors, and they still have control of many non-AA majority cities thanks to political inertia. 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. Of course, this didn’t happen and Hahn held the seat until the Hispanics could get their candidates elected via a Dem v Dem general election.



In 2020 I suspect the commission will do something similar EVEN THOUGH a natural or even partisan map would likely ax CA43. Waters is going to retire soon, so Dems would prefer to destroy her seat and spread her dem voters through cascades outwards to OC and fortify the dems there. However, the commission will protect those legacy AA local leaders who will speak before the commission. 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.

The Harbor Region and South Bay seats are rather inflexible once you commit to the twin AA seats. There are some Hispanic clusters that need to be part of a Hispanic seat, and Long Beach itself is a strong enough COI that you want to keep most or all of it in one seat. Unfortunately, I didn’t keep all of Long Beach in CA46 this time, since I decided that a cut for the northern Hispanic neighborhoods is the best available option. Other options include cuts of Cerritos or dropping Cerritos and taking in Seal Beach and a bit more from OC. Beyond that, CA46 is drawn to support the neighboring minority seats by taking in groups that are not consistent with those seats’ demographics, while maintaining a San Pedro Bay COI. For example, diverse Lakewood belongs with Long Beach, and the Asian Cerritos regions is best kept away from the Hispanic seats if it cannot go with the OC Asian belt. The seat does need to take in LA Harbor itself along with San Pedro to facilitate the connection to the Palos Verde Peninsula, which is a heavily Hispanic community. This community unfortunately needs to be in CA46 to boost the seats primary COI. This leaves room for CA43 to become a HVAP seat for the western gateway cities, with the additions of Carson, Harbor City, and Wilmington due to their Hispanic residents.

[Oryxslayer]

SoCal: Los Angeles the Inland Empire Part 2

CA37 is the eastern Gateway Cities seat, and it truly is a seat encompassing all parts of that gateway. This majority Hispanic seat follows I5 and CA route 72 into OC. CA37 is one of the four-ish seats that eat from the counties surrounding LA to relieve the pressure that comes from having more seats based out of the county than your population allows on a 52-district map. La Habra and La Habra heights belong together, that’s just simple COIs. Fullerton though is included instead of other areas because of its respectable number of Hispanics and comparatively few Asians when compared to the other alternatives. The cut along the I5 makes sense with COIs when compared to the other alternatives, mostly which involve something that breaks apart the SE San Gabriel Asian suburbs.



The Inland Empire trio is better than ever thanks to the growth in the region and minority settlement. I have already written a bit about the trio of seats in this post, however I love the way the three all work together. One seat for the west cities, one for San Bernardino and the I10, and one for Riverside and the Hispanic communities to the south. All three have been drawn in a way to ensure there are enough Hispanics to be considered performing in my book. This version also leaves enough Hispanic voters for CA35, CA36’s successor, to become a Hispanic opportunity seat at worst. That seat is described in this post. One of the best parts of the map.



So, we come to CA38, which has changed quite a bit in its form. CA38 and the Inland Empire trio were born from the realization that you can do more with Corona than stick it in CA42’s successor and be done with it. Corona is too white to justify putting it in any of the Hispanic seats, no matter how I contorted the lines. The only way that worked was with a cut of Corona, and I preferred not to do such a thing. Further south there is the desire to keep Temecula and Murrieta together, and preferably with the rest of the cities along the I15. The solution to this problem is to stick the city with CA38, since crossing OC and Riverside in the south is out of the question. I was already crossing the counties in the north because of the COI around the Asian-ish ranch style suburbs, and I was already going to go into Riverside for Eastvale. So throwing Corona in there is a viable option when considering the type of suburban community that makes up this COI. It’s also still 30% Asian by population because Corona has a reasonable number of Asian residents in the southern GOP side of the city. That said, this seat still somewhat serves as a leftovers seat that relives opposing pressure on LA and Riverside.



Such an orientation of CA38 allows the successor to CA42 to be the majority white by CVAP, exurban, I15 seat it should always be. The western side of the Hemet region is thrown in here since the city is too white for any of the HVAP seats, at least when compared to the eastern communities. Bounded by mountains, VRA seats, and county lines, this district is analogous to the previously described CA31, except republican and with more possible adjustments. If one was to throw Corona into the seat, you would probably remove Hemet plus a bit, giving those communities to the HVAP seats. Of course, they no longer would be performing Hispanic seats unless one was to return to contorted lines for the Imperial trio, leaving this grouping as the best available option.



CA24: Identified COI: Opposition to the LA metro. Additional COIs: High Desert cities, Edwards AFB, Antelope and Victor valleys, Hispanic desert communities, CA routes 138 and 18. 31.4% White, 49.8% Hispanic, 14.5% AA, 5% Asian. By CVAP its 39.8% White, 40.6% Hispanic, 14% AA, 4% Asian. R+0.45. 49.2/45.1 Clinton.

CA25: Identified COI: Oxnard Plain Greenbelt. Additional COIs: CA route 126 and Santa Clara River, Hispanic Agricultural communities, Oxnard & Ventura coastal pairing. 37.5% White, 48.7% Hispanic, 4.2% AA, 10% Asian. By CVAP its 48.3% White, 37.2% Hispanic, 3.8% AA, 9% Asian. D+6.15. 56.6/37.2 Clinton.

CA26: Identified COI: Asian (Chinese, Vietnamese, Taiwanese, Japanese) cities between the San Gabriel Valley and Los Angeles proper. Additional COIs: Pasadena & East Pasadena & South Pasadena.  21.4% White, 32.2% Hispanic, 5.5% AA, 41.2% Asian. By CVAP its 27.3% White, 27.9% Hispanic, 5.9% AA, 37.6% Asian. D+19.82. 70.1/24.2 Clinton.

CA27: Identified COI: Rich, movie industry Whites. Additional COIs: Jewish Neighborhoods, Hollywood Hills, Burbank & Glendale, non-Hispanic Hollywood neighborhoods, white LA neighborhoods. 63.7% White, 16% Hispanic, 4.1% AA, 16% Asian. By CVAP its 67.7% White, 14.4% Hispanic, 3.8% AA, 12.8% Asian. D+21.68. 72.2/22.7 Clinton.

CA28: Identified COI: San Fernando Valley Hispanics. Secondary COIs: Interstate 5, San Fernando Valley LA neighborhoods. 20.7% White, 65.9% Hispanic, 4.1% AA, 9.5% Asian. BY CVAP its 30.3% White, 53.6% Hispanic, 5% AA, 10.4% Asian. D+24.8. 73.8/20.6 Clinton.

CA29: Identified COI: San Fernando Valley Whites. Additional COIs: San Fernando valley LA neighborhoods. 50.1% White, 29% Hispanic, 6.2% AA, 14.7% Asian. By CVAP its 58.2% White, 22.1% Hispanic, 6% AA, 12.6% Asian. D+19.17. 69.8/29.1 Clinton.

CA30: Identified COI: North-South I10 Communities and San Bernardino. Additional COIs: Hispanic Residents, Yucaipa & Calimesa. 25.1% White, 58.9% Hispanic, 10.9% AA, 6.2% Asian. By CVAP its 33.5% White, 48.5% Hispanic, 11.5% AA, 5% Asian. D+8.12. 57.2/37.3 Clinton.

CA31: Identified COI: San Gabriel Valley. Additional COIs: Hispanic residents along the I10, Covina & West Covina, whiter suburbs lining the mountains to the north of the Hispanic cities and suburbs. 18.7% White, 61% Hispanic, 4.4% AA, 16.5% Asian. By CVAP its 25.2% White, 53.7% Hispanic, 4.6% AA, 15.4% Asian. D+15.16. 64.7/29.4 Clinton.

CA32: Identified COI: Wealthy Whites. Additional COIs: Ventura and west LA county hill suburbs, Santa Monica Bay beach towns, CA route 1 corridor. 66% White, 17.2% Hispanic, 4% AA, 12.6% Asian. By CVAP its 71.7% White, 13.8% Hispanic, 3.4% AA, 9.6% Asian. D+10. 61.6/32.4 Clinton.

CA33: Identified COI: Northeast Los Angeles Hispanics. Additional COIs: East LA & Boyle Heights, Northeast LA neighborhoods. 12.6% White, 73.9% Hispanic, 2.3% AA, 11.8% Asian. By CVAP its 19.1% White, 64% Hispanic, 2.7% AA, 13.5% Asian. D+35.91. 83.9/10.6 Clinton

CA34: Identified COI: East-West I10 Communities west of Riverside and San Bernardino. Additional COIs: Hispanic residents, San Bernardino county and Santa Ana river. 23.8% White, 59.3% Hispanic, 7.5% AA, 10% Asian. 31.3% White, 51.5% Hispanic, 8% AA, 8% Asian. D+7.36. 57.4/37.3 Clinton.

CA35: Identified COI: Coachella Valley. Additional COIs: Hispanics in the SE of the state, Palm Spring metro area, I10 corridor, Salton Sea. 32.7% White, 59% Hispanic, 4.5% AA, 3.7% Asian. By CVAP its 44.5% White, 46.6% Hispanic, 4.5% AA, 2.8% Asian. D+7.47. 58.5/37.1 Clinton.

CA36: Identified COI: AA access in the LA westside. Additional COIs: LA neighborhood lines. 20% White, 43.4% Hispanic, 27% AA, 10% Asian. By CVAP its 26% White, 30.4% Hispanic, 33.2% AA, 9.2% Asian. D+38.6. 87/8.4 Clinton.

CA37: Identified COI: Gateway Cities. Additional COIs: Hispanics, Hispanic El Monte & South El Monte, La Habra Heights & La Habra, Whittier & South Whittier, I5 Asians in Buena Park and West Fullerton. 19% White, 63% Hispanic, 2.7% AA, 15.6% Asian. By CVAP its 25.8% White, 55.7% Hispanic, 2.4% AA, 14.7% Asian. D+13.19. 63.6/30.6 Clinton.

CA38: Identified COI: Ranch style Suburbs along the Chino Hills. Additional COIs: Asian opportunity, Greater Yorba Linda region of OC, Cross-county commuter highways. 31.6% White, 33.4% Hispanic, 5% AA, 30.2% Asian. By CVAP its 37.8% White, 29.2% Hispanic, 4.8% AA, 26.7% Asian. R+1.51. 49.9/44.8 Clinton.

CA39: Identified COI: Downtown LA Hispanics. Additional COIs: Downtown LA neighborhood grouping, Los Angeles neighborhood lines. 6.7% White, 71.3% Hispanic, 7.6% AA, 14.7% Asian. By CVAP its 12.9% White, 55.6% Hispanic, 13.1% AA, 17.3% Asian. D+38.04. 86.1/8.7 Clinton.

CA40: Identified COI: Riverside Hispanics. Additional COIs: Central Riverside Hispanic cites, CA highway 91 and I215 cities. 23.9% White, 57.5% Hispanic, 10.9% AA, 8% Asian. By CVAP its 31.7% White, 48% Hispanic, 11.5% AA, 7.3% Asian. D+11.44. 60.1/33.9 Clinton.

CA41: Identified COI: Riverside White exurbs. Additional COIs: I15 exurban corridor, Murrieta & Temecula, Riverside county itself. 45.8% White, 37.7% Hispanic, 7.4% AA, 9.2% Asian. By CVAP its 54.6% White, 29.4% Hispanic, 6,7% AA, 7.4% Asian. R+10.63. 55.4/39.3 Trump.

CA42: Identified COI: AA Access in Los Angeles Southside. Additional COIs: LA neighborhood lines. 15.6% White, 46.6% Hispanic, 22.2% AA, 16% Asian. By CVAP its 21.7% White, 34.7% Hispanic, 26.6% AA, 15.4% Asian. D+26.09. 75/19.8 Clinton.

CA43: Identified COI: Western Hispanic Gateway Cities. 7.4% White, 71.1% Hispanic, 13.3% AA, 8.3% Asian. By CVAP its 11.3% White, 61% Hispanic, 17.3% AA, 8.8% Asian. D+30.83. 79.7/15.6 Clinton.
 
CA46: Identified COI: LA Harbor region. Additional COIs: diverse residents, wealthy whites, Long Beach & Lakewood, Cerritos & Artesia. 32% White, 36.6% Hispanic, 11% AA, 21% Asian. By CVAP its 40.3% White, 28% Hispanic, 11% AA, 18.8% Asian. D+15.15. 65/28.7 Clinton.

[Oryxslayer]

Orange County

Let’s talk about the four Orange County seat, yes, four. Don’t be fooled by CA49’s shape, we will get to it later. Excluding the cross-county Yorba Linda pairing, the only subregion that is carved up is the coastline, already the weakest of OC’s subregion. Some of it goes with Irvine, Huntington Beach with the Asian belt, and the South Hills and Mid-Cities get their own districts. The Cities have to get their own seat because of the VRA, and those lines are somewhat static thanks to low Hispanic CVAP in the reason. With the cities seat decided, it shapes a lot of the surrounding districts. With the expectation and desire to remove Lowenthal from OC, there are now a large number of voters west of the Santa Ana and Anaheim. If is not an option to create a new seat in the region or have a different LA seat eat up what Lowenthal just dropped, CA48’s successor has to migrate northwards to fill in the vacuum. It is now an Asian Belt seat with Huntington Beach attached, clocking in at 32% Asian by population. With the northern seats decided, Irvine and everything south of it needs to be decided.

For central and southern OC, the best alignment keeps up the coastal cut and then uses the remainder to create a South Hills seat. The alternative is to maintain the current CA45 construct and pair a bunch of the south hills with Irvine. This decision though sends the south coast into San Diego, which leads to weirdness via cascading cuts and the rural east of the county. With CA44’s, CA45’s successors, borders decided by mostly local suburban lines with a scattering of additional white precincts from the cities, this leaves CA49 to head south into SD. However, it is still an OC seat. 60% of the voters are in OC, and 80% are north of Escondido. The east of the county is attached because once you rightly separate Imperial from OC, the coastal SD seats need to expand and there is only one direction to go – into the old CA50. Without Temecula and losing population to the coastal districts, the old CA50 must migrate into an exurban seat that satisfies OC’s demands. This is a pairing that keeps the whitest places with the whitest places. It’s also the kind of seat that will be perfect for Issa in the coming decade.





CA44: Identified COI: Irvine and central OC. Additional COIs: Orange County Coast, Tustin & North Tustin. 52.7% White, 18.7% Hispanic, 2.4% AA, 26% Asian. By CVAP its 62% white, 14.6% Hispanic, 2.1% AA, 20.3% Asian. R+1. 51.9/42.2 Clinton.

CA45: Identified COI: Hispanic OC Mid Cities. Additional COIs: I5 resorts.  18.2% White, 65.3% Hispanic, 2.3% AA, 14.4% Asian. By CVAP its 30% White, 49% Hispanic, 2.4% AA, 17.7% Asian. D+13.66. 65/29.2 Clinton

CA47: Identified COI: OC Asian Belt. Additional COIs: Huntington & Seal beaches, both sides of non-Hispanic Garden Grove, the Santa Ana river. 38.5% White, 26.7% Hispanic, 2.4% AA, 32% Asian. By CVAP its 46.7% White, 19.2% Hispanic, 2% AA, 30.2% Asian. R+0.86. 50.7/43.6 Clinton.

CA49: Identified COI: OC South Hills. Additional COIs: Exurban settlements in both OC and SD, OC and SD whites, SD county lines, OC & SD Hills. 64.4% White, 22% Hispanic, 2.6% AA, 10% Asian. By CVAP its 71.5% White, 16% Hispanic, 2.2% AA, 8.1% Asian. R+12.26. 54.8/39.6 Trump.

[Oryxslayer]

San Diego


There are four definitive San Diego seats on this map and they all have solid COIs. Remember that while CA49 is the successor to CA50, and it takes up a good chunk of SD’s geographic space, it’s a cross-county seat based around the OC South Hills and the north SD exurbs when we look at the population breakdown. Once I settled that CA49 was going to be a South Hills seat I focused on incorporating as much of the SD suburbs into the main for seats as possible and ensuring that as much unincorporated territory in the north is in CA49. This transfer leads to some nice natural delineations between CA48 and CA51, CA48 and CA49, and CA52 and CA49.

The first of the four SD seats is CA48, the direct successor to CA49. The San Diego city line is used for the districts south border, with Del Dios road and Lake Hodges serving as guide points for the unincorporated land. Every major urbanized suburb or city north of San Diego but still in the county is then inside the district, with a little bit of unincorporated territory here and there to connect the communities.

Then there are the three San Diego seats proper. Each seat has a role, and each one fulfills that role to the best of its ability. CA50 is the Hispanic seat, and it is able to get over 50% Hispanic voters by HVAP while observing the boundaries of San Diego’s internal neighborhoods. CA51 is the white seat, with it’s demographic anchors being the coastal and downtown San Diego white liberals. It preforms this job well when we take into account the student population at UCSD and the diversity of Mira Mesa, (Filipinos, Vietnamese, Hispanics, Chinese) two groups which cannot be easily removed from the seat geographically. Finally, there is CA52, the last seat on the map. It is a pairing of two main COIs: mixed minorities and the San Diego eastern suburbs. Now these two COIs do overlap, the suburbs have quite a lot of minority residents and San Diego in many places is built like a suburb. However, the district will no longer be as diverse as it was previously. This is partially because 180K voters worth of diverse precincts are now in the hands of the Hispanic seat, partially because of the general increase in population as part of the drop from 53 seats to 52, and partially because the unification of the east suburb COI raises the white percentage in the seat. Despite all this, the seat is still less than 50% white. All San Diego seats tried to observe San Diego neighborhood guidelines and I believe only Encanto and Tierrasanta were cut.



CA48: Identified COI: Oceanside-Carlsbad metro. Additional COIs: Suburban and exurban SD Cities, CA route 76 corridor. 52.1% White, 35% Hispanic, 3.7% AA, 9.1% Asian. By CVAP its 63% White, 24.4% Hispanic, 3.3% AA, 7.5% Asian. D+0.41. 52/41.6 Clinton.

CA50: Identified COI: San Diego Urban Hispanics. Additional COIs: US-Mexico Border, San Diego neighborhoods. 18.2% White, 60.4% Hispanic, 8.3% AA, 14.4% Asian. By CVAp its 25.8% White, 50.5% Hispanic, 8.3% AA, 13.6% Asian.

CA51: Identified COI: San Diego coastal Whites. Additional COIs: San Diego neighborhoods. 57.6% White, 14.1% Hispanic, 4.4% AA, 24% Asian. By CVAP its 64.7% White, 12.2% Hispanic, 4% AA, 17.4% Asian. D+9.97. 61.7/32.1 Clinton.

CA52: Identified COI: San Diego diversity. Additional COIs: Minorities in San Diego city, Eastern San Diego suburbs, San Diego neighborhoods. 48.5% White, 28% Hispanic, 10.3% AA, 14% Asian. By CVAP its 55.7% White, 21.5% Hispanic, 9.2% AA, 11.6% Asian. D+7. 57/36.9 Clinton.

[SevenEleven]

That CA-27 might be the single most frustrating district I have ever seen.

[cvparty]

?!

[Oryxslayer]

That CA-27 might be the single most frustrating district I have ever seen.

DRA's ethnicity map


ACS Household income

I mean yeah, maybe I throw Hancock Park in the seat, but it would be dropping Central and Downtown Hollywood to do that, and we can't have the movie seat be without those two.

Reminder that the San Fernando valley is only 27K over two districts, and has two perfect COIs, so no whites can come from there other than the 27K.

[SevenEleven]

The two AA ‘access’ seats. I have already spoken a bit about the AA seats, but the basic summary goes something like this. Looking at the demographic breakdown of the potential commissioners, it is possible if not likely the AA community gets more representation that it should get by population percentage. Last time the commission, recognizing that CA’s AA community is dispersing and will be unable to elect a candidate of choice in many of the areas with respectable levels of AA settlement, decided to draw seats that the AA community could access, even though they were not close to the population or even CVAP thresholds. AAs vote at high rates compared to their Hispanic neighbors, and they still have control of many non-AA majority cities thanks to political inertia. 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. Of course, this didn’t happen and Hahn held the seat until the Hispanics could get their candidates elected via a Dem v Dem general election.



In 2020 I suspect the commission will do something similar EVEN THOUGH a natural or even partisan map would likely ax CA43. Waters is going to retire soon, so Dems would prefer to destroy her seat and spread her dem voters through cascades outwards to OC and fortify the dems there. However, the commission will protect those legacy AA local leaders who will speak before the commission. 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.

The Harbor Region and South Bay seats are rather inflexible once you commit to the twin AA seats.

At first, I thought this was perhaps where you went wrong, but I checked my map and I have a 46.5% AA seat by CVAP and was able to comfortably draw a 28% AA CVAP seat right next to it while preserving the Hispanic seats.

So I'm kind of thinking the reason you have LA butchered so badly (Beverly Hills with Burbank, El Monte with Norwalk, etc) is because you kept the LA city portion of the SFV intact. The district that should get the axe is CA-44, just like the last round of redistricting. Coming in over 100k short of a district and having no noteworthy of COI to represent makes this one an easy decision.

They might go for two AA districts, but they aren't going to settle for two that are that weak. And the NAACP will make sure of that.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

That CA-27 might be the single most frustrating district I have ever seen.

(snip)

I mean yeah, maybe I throw Hancock Park in the seat, but it would be dropping Central and Downtown Hollywood to do that, and we can't have the movie seat be without those two.

Reminder that the San Fernando valley is only 27K over two districts, and has two perfect COIs, so no whites can come from there other than the 27K.

That's fair until you realize you're pairing the rich white bits of four fundamentally different LA regions: The Westside, Arroyo Verdugo, SFV, and Central LA. They just don't belong together even if demographic metrics make that seem superficially sensible. If would be like attaching the white bits of Berkley to Marin via the San Rafael Bridge. It just doesn't work. There is a very, very obvious regional COI in Los Angeles which supersedes ethnic concerns: The Westside. It's its own region with exactly 760k people, and it has obvious barriers cutting itself off from other parts of the area: LAX Airport, the ocean, the Santa Monica Mountains, and the Baldwin Hills. La Cienega Boulevard acts as a final barrier of sorts between the richer areas to its west and poorer areas to its east. Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Malibu, Westwood, Century City, Brentwood, Venice, Marina Del Rey, Culver City, Mar Vista, and West LA just make sense together, even if it means putting the (not particularly large) South Bay beach cities in with their more diverse neighbors. No reasonable person would argue Santa Monica belongs more strongly with Redondo Beach than with Beverly Hills.

This should be the core of a district:

[SevenEleven]

If you're going for two AA seats, they should look something like this.

CA-43 is a 41.4% AA-plurality district. CA-37 is a 33.5% AA-plurality district. There's absolutely no justification for your highest AA% district being less than either of these districts.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

snip

If you're going for two AA seats, they should look something like this.

CA-43 is a 41.4% AA-plurality district. CA-37 is a 33.5% AA-plurality district. There's absolutely no justification for your highest AA% district being less than either of these districts.

I broadly agree, except in the pursuit of an intact Westside and an unbutchered Downtown I would propose something more like this:



Blue is 67% white.
Green is 37% black.
Purple is 39% black.

[SevenEleven]

The only problem with that layout is it'll force an ugly split of Long Beach