2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: California

[Greedo punched first]

Started shifting some things around in Ventura and ended up redrawing a big chunk of my map. Ended up with a 42D-6R map which includes 14 Latino districts, 2 AA districts, and 3 Asian districts.

What's Bakersfield doing in the rural San Bernardino district?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

What's Bakersfield doing in the rural San Bernardino district?

I don't like it much either. However, I really wanted to keep my Victor Valley/Eastern Sierra district on the far side of Cajon pass which made this a necessity. I could have it take in Palmdale/Lancaster instead, but then that forces me to do weird things with Santa Clarita and Ventura County.

[Greedo punched first]

My map creates many open seats. 45D-7R.

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

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

That CA-11 is quite unique.

[Greedo punched first]

That CA-11 is quite unique.

Marin-San Francisco?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

That CA-11 is quite unique.

Marin-San Francisco?

yeah.

[Greedo punched first]

That CA-11 is quite unique.

Marin-San Francisco?

yeah.

I just wanted to try something different.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

That CA-11 is quite unique.

Marin-San Francisco?

yeah.

I just wanted to try something different.

Nothing wrong there.

[Greedo punched first]

That CA-11 is quite unique.

Marin-San Francisco?

yeah.

I just wanted to try something different.

Nothing wrong there.

Who might take CA-15, the new San Jose seat; perhaps San Jose mayor Sam Liccardo or termed out State Senator Jim Beall?

[Oryxslayer]

Started shifting some things around in Ventura and ended up redrawing a big chunk of my map. Ended up with a 42D-6R map which includes 14 Latino districts, 2 AA districts, and 3 Asian districts.

I was really intrigued by the CA22 on this map, it opened up the potential for drawing the midcoast Hispanic seat something like this, grabbing all of SB's hispanics in Santa Maria and sticking them with the Salinas Valley:



Unfortunately, it's 50K over the threshold and if you can't put the SB hispanics in the seat then there is no reason for SLO to go with the Hispanic areas. It is an interesting concept though.

[Oryxslayer]

What's Bakersfield doing in the rural San Bernardino district?

I don't like it much either. However, I really wanted to keep my Victor Valley/Eastern Sierra district on the far side of Cajon pass which made this a necessity. I could have it take in Palmdale/Lancaster instead, but then that forces me to do weird things with Santa Clarita and Ventura County.

A problem that I found is that minorities groups are moving out en masse to the Imperial Valley, flipping cities and making areas more viable to base access seats around. The more access seats in a region, the more a region ends up needing a white seat to relieve pressure. Kern+Desert Bernadino isn't the best pairing, but it allows you to make almost all of it's neighbors into some variety of Hispanic seat.

[Oryxslayer]

Now, I'm going to suggest something different for those that are eager to cut SF. Now, it's not that SF shouldn't be cut - quite to the contrary. The present state house map reflects the fact that you can get a good Asian seat out of SF depending on the numbers. However if you are going to cut SF, I challenge you to try doing dual North/South Seats. The peninsula cities/suburbs are nice enough that you only need to cut South SF and Millbrae to get the 101 through from SF to the non-minority cities. Now, this is simply a proof-of-concept, so obviously a SF cut would respect the neighborhoods in both counties better. However, it is a proof that such a seat can work.



Now, why go south? Porbbaly because you are committing to make the white seat about tech, so you then would focus on those that ride Caltrain or take the cooperate buses to their place of work in the adjacent county.

Oh, I will get around to criticizing the map I was asked to evaluate - it's just been a busy few days.

[Greedo punched first]

My north-south seats of San Francisco. I didn't split South San Francisco or Millbrae.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

What's Bakersfield doing in the rural San Bernardino district?

I don't like it much either. However, I really wanted to keep my Victor Valley/Eastern Sierra district on the far side of Cajon pass which made this a necessity. I could have it take in Palmdale/Lancaster instead, but then that forces me to do weird things with Santa Clarita and Ventura County.

A problem that I found is that minorities groups are moving out en masse to the Imperial Valley, flipping cities and making areas more viable to base access seats around. The more access seats in a region, the more a region ends up needing a white seat to relieve pressure. Kern+Desert Bernadino isn't the best pairing, but it allows you to make almost all of it's neighbors into some variety of Hispanic seat.

So it is a decent "white sink"*.
*=coined this term years ago to describe seats packing white people for various reasons.

[Greedo punched first]

What's Bakersfield doing in the rural San Bernardino district?

I don't like it much either. However, I really wanted to keep my Victor Valley/Eastern Sierra district on the far side of Cajon pass which made this a necessity. I could have it take in Palmdale/Lancaster instead, but then that forces me to do weird things with Santa Clarita and Ventura County.

A problem that I found is that minorities groups are moving out en masse to the Imperial Valley, flipping cities and making areas more viable to base access seats around. The more access seats in a region, the more a region ends up needing a white seat to relieve pressure. Kern+Desert Bernadino isn't the best pairing, but it allows you to make almost all of it's neighbors into some variety of Hispanic seat.

So it is a decent "white sink"*.
*=coined this term years ago to describe seats packing white people for various reasons.

My San Bernardino High Desert seat (CA-40) has many nearby Hispanic VRA or access seats (CA-19, VRA; CA-20, VRA; CA-37, access; CA-38, VRA; CA-39, VRA; CA-41, access; CA-52, access). I didn't need to draw it as a white sink to get more Hispanic seats.

[SevenEleven]

ERM how many minority seats does your map have? Mine has 38 (28 by CVAP).

[Greedo punched first]

ERM how many minority seats does your map have? Mine has 38 (28 by CVAP).

Not sure. All the seats I mentioned (19, 20, 37, 38, 39, 41, and 52) are majority-minority by CVAP. CA-44 is majority-white by CVAP, but it can easily elect an Asian candidate.

[SevenEleven]

ERM how many minority seats does your map have? Mine has 38 (28 by CVAP).

Not sure. All the seats I mentioned (19, 20, 37, 38, 39, 41, and 52) are majority-minority by CVAP.

The app tells you how many are CVAP.

[Greedo punched first]

ERM how many minority seats does your map have? Mine has 38 (28 by CVAP).

Not sure. All the seats I mentioned (19, 20, 37, 38, 39, 41, and 52) are majority-minority by CVAP.

The app tells you how many are CVAP.

26 by CVAP. CA-44 (OC northern coastal seat) is majority-white by CVAP, but can easily elect an Asian candidate.

[Oryxslayer]

I'm surprised nobody posted it here yet, but I think the 1990s map is a good resource to have on hand if California loses a seat. This was the last map that California had 52 seats, and there is a clear continuity between this map and the present map, almost as if the 2000-era map was a funny dream. Compared to today, LA and the Bay have both lost a district, in addition to the state gaining a seat. One seat went to Sacramento, one seat went to the Valley, and then one went to the inland empire.

Now obviously the demographics and partisanship of the regions were different, but the COIs in all but the most recent developments (like some south OC communities) are still the same. The judges who drew the lines either had a similar goal to the commission of today or just chanced in producing a map that respected COIs, both ethnic and local, and was competitive for its era. If you have a rough picture in your head of what the demographics of an area broadly were, then you can clearly see what was the intent of those with the pen.

You don't have to squint too hard to see the present districts. Now obviously things have changed demographically, for example the judges had to work to get a Hispanic seat out of the San Gabriel valley when now its hard to get a seat of the the region that isn't, and Imperial hadn't yet experienced the migrant boom that would change it's preferred COI.









There are only two present districts that don't have a counterpart on this map, after we account for those that changed regions of course. The first is the Asian seat in the intersection of the San Gabriel valley and Pasadena. In the 90s the demographic transformation of the region was just beginning so there was no recognized ethnic COI, instead there was a suburban white GOP one. By the time Schiff flipped the seat the new demographics were now clear, but there wasn't an Asian Incumbent so the region got cut to shreds to protect the various democratic legislators. It is remarkable Chu was able to flip a seat demographic representation in the first place - it probably helped that she was the only Asian democrat in that blanket primary.

The second district is the Long beach seat. In the past Long Beach, despite being a sizable COI on it's own, always as easier cut up than preserved. This is because there was a slice of the city filled with minorities, and a slice of the city with suburban (GOP at the time) whites. It would take a few decades for the GOP slice to shrink away into nothing, but there was still enough of it left for Rohrabacher to get a chunk in his gerrymandered seat in Harbor region. Once the third LA AA seat was deemed demographically nonviable, Long Beach became the overriding COI and finally go a seat.

All this is to say that the present views on ethnicity and community COIs have deep roots. It also shows that even as the state went from competitive to ocean blue the COIs have not really changed - except when ethnicity comes into play. 

[Greedo punched first]

I'm surprised nobody posted it here yet, but I think the 1990s map is a good resource to have on hand if California loses a seat. This was the last map that California had 52 seats, and there is a clear continuity between this map and the present map, almost as if the 2000-era map was a funny dream. Compared to today, LA and the Bay have both lost a district, in addition to the state gaining a seat. One seat went to Sacramento, one seat went to the Valley, and then one went to the inland empire.

Now obviously the demographics and partisanship of the regions were different, but the COIs in all but the most recent developments (like some south OC communities) are still the same. The judges who drew the lines either had a similar goal to the commission of today or just chanced in producing a map that respected COIs, both ethnic and local, and was competitive for its era. If you have a rough picture in your head of what the demographics of an area broadly were, then you can clearly see what was the intent of those with the pen.

You don't have to squint too hard to see the present districts. Now obviously things have changed demographically, for example the judges had to work to get a Hispanic seat out of the San Gabriel valley when now its hard to get a seat of the the region that isn't, and Imperial hadn't yet experienced the migrant boom that would change it's preferred COI.









There are only two present districts that don't have a counterpart on this map, after we account for those that changed regions of course. The first is the Asian seat in the intersection of the San Gabriel valley and Pasadena. In the 90s the demographic transformation of the region was just beginning so there was no recognized ethnic COI, instead there was a suburban white GOP one. By the time Schiff flipped the seat the new demographics were now clear, but there wasn't an Asian Incumbent so the region got cut to shreds to protect the various democratic legislators. It is remarkable Chu was able to flip a seat demographic representation in the first place - it probably helped that she was the only Asian democrat in that blanket primary.

The second district is the Long beach seat. In the past Long Beach, despite being a sizable COI on it's own, always as easier cut up than preserved. This is because there was a slice of the city filled with minorities, and a slice of the city with suburban (GOP at the time) whites. It would take a few decades for the GOP slice to shrink away into nothing, but there was still enough of it left for Rohrabacher to get a chunk in his gerrymandered seat in Harbor region. Once the third LA AA seat was deemed demographically nonviable, Long Beach became the overriding COI and finally go a seat.

All this is to say that the present views on ethnicity and community COIs have deep roots. It also shows that even as the state went from competitive to ocean blue the COIs have not really changed - except when ethnicity comes into play.  

I was influenced by the 1990s map for my Victor Valley-Inyo, OC south hills-Temecula-Oceanside, and Placer-Mono districts.

[SevenEleven]

The 1990s map was essentially a GOP gerrymander. However, since it was drawn by the court, there are some non-partisan elements involved, but by and large its purpose was to offer Republicans more opportunities than if Pete Wilson compromised with legislative Democrats.

My map does have a lot in common with this one, though. I always felt Burbank, Glendale, La Canada Flintridge, and Pasadena should go together, for example.

Ranchos Palos Verdes, the Beach Cities, and Torrance likewise are a natural grouping.

You can tell by how OC and Riverside are cracked to spread as many Republican votes around what the intentions here were, though.

[Greedo punched first]

The 1990s map was essentially a GOP gerrymander. However, since it was drawn by the court, there are some non-partisan elements involved, but by and large its purpose was to offer Republicans more opportunities than if Pete Wilson compromised with legislative Democrats.

My map does have a lot in common with this one, though. I always felt Burbank, Glendale, La Canada Flintridge, and Pasadena should go together, for example.

Ranchos Palos Verdes, the Beach Cities, and Torrance likewise are a natural grouping.

You can tell by how OC and Riverside are cracked to spread as many Republican votes around what the intentions here were, though.

Mine was influenced by the 1990s map, but with more majority-minority and access seats.

San Diego; see CA-47, CA-48, CA-49, and CA-50; At least I paired Imperial with Riverside:



Los Angeles; see CA-37:



Orange:



High Desert; see CA-40:



Central Valley:

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The 1990s map was essentially a GOP gerrymander. However, since it was drawn by the court, there are some non-partisan elements involved, but by and large its purpose was to offer Republicans more opportunities than if Pete Wilson compromised with legislative Democrats.

My map does have a lot in common with this one, though. I always felt Burbank, Glendale, La Canada Flintridge, and Pasadena should go together, for example.

Ranchos Palos Verdes, the Beach Cities, and Torrance likewise are a natural grouping.

You can tell by how OC and Riverside are cracked to spread as many Republican votes around what the intentions here were, though.

Mine was influenced by the 1990s map, but with more majority-minority and access seats.

San Diego; see CA-47, CA-48, CA-49, and CA-50; At least I paired Imperial with Riverside:



Los Angeles; see CA-37:



High Desert; see CA-40:

What is the partisanship of your CA-51?

[Greedo punched first]

The 1990s map was essentially a GOP gerrymander. However, since it was drawn by the court, there are some non-partisan elements involved, but by and large its purpose was to offer Republicans more opportunities than if Pete Wilson compromised with legislative Democrats.

My map does have a lot in common with this one, though. I always felt Burbank, Glendale, La Canada Flintridge, and Pasadena should go together, for example.

Ranchos Palos Verdes, the Beach Cities, and Torrance likewise are a natural grouping.

You can tell by how OC and Riverside are cracked to spread as many Republican votes around what the intentions here were, though.

Mine was influenced by the 1990s map, but with more majority-minority and access seats.

San Diego; see CA-47, CA-48, CA-49, and CA-50; At least I paired Imperial with Riverside:



Los Angeles; see CA-37:



High Desert; see CA-40:

What is the partisanship of your CA-51?

Don't be fooled by its East County core. It's a Democratic seat. D+4.