2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: California

[Greedo punched first]

I made a more compact Visalia seat.

[Idaho Conservative]

This alignment is better IMO. You can play with splitting Visalia to even out districts 21 and 22 if you prefer.

CA-22 64.8% Hispanic/51.6% CVAP/49.6% Clinton
CA-21 71.0% Hispanic/56.7% CVAP/52.9% Clinton
CA-16 53.6% Hipsanic/42.0% CVAP/54.1% Clinton
CA-10 46.9% Hispanic/34.6% CVAP/48.3% Clinton

Splitting Visalia right down the middle puts both CA-21 and CA-22 at 54% Hispanic CVAP and 51% Clinton.

such a gerrymander lol

[Greedo punched first]

On my map 20 is 54% Clinton and 19 is 51% Clinton.

[Idaho Conservative]

On my map 20 is 54% Clinton and 19 is 51% Clinton.

Could 22 be kept within Kern?  Seems not many precincts would have to move.

[Greedo punched first]

On my map 20 is 54% Clinton and 19 is 51% Clinton.

Could 22 be kept within Kern?  Seems not many precincts would have to move.

No. Tulare County is needed for the population to fit. It actually contains many precincts. Tulare County also serves as a white sink to keep CA19 more Hispanic. I added more white sinks with CA-18.

[lfromnj]

Here
There are 2 districts in Tulare/King and Kern.
Make one a Lean/likely D hispanic district
Make the other a Safe R district.
Then make one Safe D hispanic district in Fresno West and Merced and use Touloumne/Mariposa/Madera/East Fresno to create a Likely R district.
Then if you want you should have most of Stanilaus create a 3rd Hispanic district out of Stanislaus and Joaquin or just make a Stanislaus +part of Joaquin county district.

[Greedo punched first]

Here
There are 2 districts in Tulare/King and Kern.
Make one a Lean/likely D hispanic district
Make the other a Safe R district.
Then make one Safe D hispanic district in Fresno West and Merced and use Touloumne/Mariposa/Madera/East Fresno to create a Likely R district.
Then if you want you should have most of Stanilaus create a 3rd Hispanic district out of Stanislaus and Joaquin or just make a Stanislaus +part of Joaquin county district.

That is an illegal racial gerrymander. A lean or likely D Hispanic seat might not perform.

[lfromnj]

Here
There are 2 districts in Tulare/King and Kern.
Make one a Lean/likely D hispanic district
Make the other a Safe R district.
Then make one Safe D hispanic district in Fresno West and Merced and use Touloumne/Mariposa/Madera/East Fresno to create a Likely R district.
Then if you want you should have most of Stanilaus create a 3rd Hispanic district out of Stanislaus and Joaquin or just make a Stanislaus +part of Joaquin county district.

That is an illegal racial gerrymander. A lean or likely D Hispanic seat might not perform.

Its an opportunity district not a guarantee.


Anyway here's my basic idea. Between 1 and 2 switch precints if you want to make it more ugly but make 1 more Hispanic. 4 and 3 should precinct swap till desired Hispanic CVAP population is reached. Not sure about the metro with 5 and 6. That can be cleaned up as 5 is only 37% Hispanic by CVAP.

[Greedo punched first]

Is it better to put Inyo with San Bernardino or Kern?

[SevenEleven]

Lfromnj, there is no way the commission is going to gerrymander a Republican-favoring map by diluting the minority vote and breaking up COIs.

[lfromnj]

Lfromnj, there is no way the commission is going to gerrymander a Republican-favoring map by diluting the minority vote and breaking up COIs.

What district is Republican favoring here?
There is no dilution of the minority vote lol. The only question is district 6 and 5 which I said I am unsure of for the county pairing. If you want to clean that up feel free.

[SevenEleven]

Lfromnj, there is no way the commission is going to gerrymander a Republican-favoring map by diluting the minority vote and breaking up COIs.

What district is Republican favoring here?
There is no dilution of the minority vote lol. The only question is district 6 and 5 which I said I am unsure of for the county pairing. If you want to clean that up feel free.

2 and 3.

Also, you really should avoid double cutting into counties. You did it with Tulare and San Joaquin.

[lfromnj]

There are still 2 hispanic seats, the double cuts can be fixed up anyway and it keeps the districts in a nice county pairing. The Likely D was Clinton +10 and the Safe D was 60% Clinton. Its absolutely a partisan gerrymander to run a mega sink R district from Bakersfield to Valley springs in a region which voted for Trump and then have 3 Clinton districts.

[Oryxslayer]

I don't understand why there is this fascination among a few people for keeping Madera whole. The county has been split for a while on multiple levels because everyone recognizes that it's COIs are better served split rather than whole. The NE of the county has more in common with the rest of the Sierra foothill counties, and the SW of the county is part of the agricultural valley. Keeping the county whole either cracks the foothills, because you paired the it all with the Valley, or you sink Hispanics into what will be a white seat.

[lfromnj]

I don't understand why there is this fascination among a few people for keeping Madera whole. The county has been split for a while on multiple levels because everyone recognizes that it's COIs are better served split rather than whole. The NE of the county has more in common with the rest of the Sierra foothill counties, and the SW of the county is part of the agricultural valley. Keeping the county whole either cracks the foothills, because you paired the it all with the Valley, or you sink Hispanics into what will be a white seat.

Fair enough for the split of Madera. It looks like a smart logical split.
4 has a CVAP of 53.5% with the split of Madera and is Clinton +18
2 is 56.5% and Clinton +9
blue is Trump +9 and purple is Trump +24

[SevenEleven]

There are still 2 hispanic seats, the double cuts can be fixed up anyway and it keeps the districts in a nice county pairing. The Likely D was Clinton +10 and the Safe D was 60% Clinton. Its absolutely a partisan gerrymander to run a mega sink R district from Bakersfield to Valley springs in a region which voted for Trump and then have 3 Clinton districts.

The Central Valley did not vote for Trump.

Throwing the mountains in with largely Latino agricultural areas is beyond insane. Better to give the mountainous areas their own district and then append the excess population of Bakersfield after creating your Latino districts in order to shore up the population, as Bakersfield's only other option is to go into San Bernardino County (or Antelope Valley).

[Idaho Conservative]

Lfromnj, there is no way the commission is going to gerrymander a Republican-favoring map by diluting the minority vote and breaking up COIs.

What district is Republican favoring here?
There is no dilution of the minority vote lol. The only question is district 6 and 5 which I said I am unsure of for the county pairing. If you want to clean that up feel free.

Your map isn't republican favoring.  7️⃣ is full of it.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I don't understand why there is this fascination among a few people for keeping Madera whole. The county has been split for a while on multiple levels because everyone recognizes that it's COIs are better served split rather than whole. The NE of the county has more in common with the rest of the Sierra foothill counties, and the SW of the county is part of the agricultural valley. Keeping the county whole either cracks the foothills, because you paired the it all with the Valley, or you sink Hispanics into what will be a white seat.

Fair enough for the split of Madera. It looks like a smart logical split.
4 has a CVAP of 53.5% with the split of Madera and is Clinton +18
2 is 56.5% and Clinton +9
blue is Trump +9 and purple is Trump +24

That's perfectly a reasonable map. However, it might break down once you fit it into the larger map. It's very hard to make the Central Valley look nice without doing some weird things in the Bay Area and Los Angeles.

[lfromnj]

I don't understand why there is this fascination among a few people for keeping Madera whole. The county has been split for a while on multiple levels because everyone recognizes that it's COIs are better served split rather than whole. The NE of the county has more in common with the rest of the Sierra foothill counties, and the SW of the county is part of the agricultural valley. Keeping the county whole either cracks the foothills, because you paired the it all with the Valley, or you sink Hispanics into what will be a white seat.

Fair enough for the split of Madera. It looks like a smart logical split.
4 has a CVAP of 53.5% with the split of Madera and is Clinton +18
2 is 56.5% and Clinton +9
blue is Trump +9 and purple is Trump +24

That's perfectly a reasonable map. However, it might break down once you fit it into the larger map. It's very hard to make the Central Valley look nice without doing some weird things in the Bay Area and Los Angeles.

This is why I avoid California . If this was say a close up in Texas of say the Dallas metro it wouldn't really affect the rest of the map. Also I find working through all the VRA seats in LA a boring chore. And I am not really drawing a full on commission map but rather my own map, for example I would happily cut a black seat in LA as it is due time to cut a black seat. Even if blacks are 3.64 seats of the population they are spread out enough that isn't really realistic to give African Americans 3 black seats.

[SevenEleven]

I don't understand why there is this fascination among a few people for keeping Madera whole. The county has been split for a while on multiple levels because everyone recognizes that it's COIs are better served split rather than whole. The NE of the county has more in common with the rest of the Sierra foothill counties, and the SW of the county is part of the agricultural valley. Keeping the county whole either cracks the foothills, because you paired the it all with the Valley, or you sink Hispanics into what will be a white seat.

Fair enough for the split of Madera. It looks like a smart logical split.
4 has a CVAP of 53.5% with the split of Madera and is Clinton +18
2 is 56.5% and Clinton +9
blue is Trump +9 and purple is Trump +24

That's perfectly a reasonable map. However, it might break down once you fit it into the larger map. It's very hard to make the Central Valley look nice without doing some weird things in the Bay Area and Los Angeles.

This is why I avoid California . If this was say a close up in Texas of say the Dallas metro it wouldn't really affect the rest of the map. Also I find working through all the VRA seats in LA a boring chore.

I think you're focusing too much on the county lines. For example, the desert portions of Kern can easily go with the rest of the Mojave Desert, the mountain counties and portions of Tulare, Fresno, and Madera can and should be grouped together.

The Central Valley is probably going to have to add another Latino district due to population growth. It's over 53% Hispanic and less than 32% White. Removing San Joaquin County from the equation (flexible as a sort of Bay exurb, and almost a full district on its own), the rest of the Central Valley is 56% Hispanic and 31% White. The new maps will have to be drawn to accommodate this, whether Republicans like it or not.

Instead of 2 Hispanic majority districts, only one of which is majority by CVAP, there must be three majority Hispanic districts, two of which ought to be majority by CVAP.

[lfromnj]

I don't understand why there is this fascination among a few people for keeping Madera whole. The county has been split for a while on multiple levels because everyone recognizes that it's COIs are better served split rather than whole. The NE of the county has more in common with the rest of the Sierra foothill counties, and the SW of the county is part of the agricultural valley. Keeping the county whole either cracks the foothills, because you paired the it all with the Valley, or you sink Hispanics into what will be a white seat.

Fair enough for the split of Madera. It looks like a smart logical split.
4 has a CVAP of 53.5% with the split of Madera and is Clinton +18
2 is 56.5% and Clinton +9
blue is Trump +9 and purple is Trump +24

That's perfectly a reasonable map. However, it might break down once you fit it into the larger map. It's very hard to make the Central Valley look nice without doing some weird things in the Bay Area and Los Angeles.

This is why I avoid California . If this was say a close up in Texas of say the Dallas metro it wouldn't really affect the rest of the map. Also I find working through all the VRA seats in LA a boring chore.

I think you're focusing too much on the county lines. For example, the desert portions of Kern can easily go with the rest of the Mojave Desert, the mountain counties and portions of Tulare, Fresno, and Madera can and should be grouped together.

The Central Valley is probably going to have to add another Latino district due to population growth. It's over 53% Hispanic and less than 32% White. Removing San Joaquin County from the equation (flexible as a sort of Bay exurb, and almost a full district on its own), the rest of the Central Valley is 56% Hispanic and 31% White. The new maps will have to be drawn to accommodate this, whether Republicans like it or not.

Instead of 2 Hispanic majority districts, only one of which is majority by CVAP, there must be three majority Hispanic districts, two of which ought to be majority by CVAP.

Currently there is CA 16 and CA 21. CA 21 is majority by CVAP while 16th is just by population.
Boost CA 21 to 50% CVAP and you have your increased Hispanic representation. 10 years of population growth does not mean a whole district and a half in a area with 4 districts especially when only 40% of the population is Hispanic CVAP.

[Idaho Conservative]

I don't understand why there is this fascination among a few people for keeping Madera whole. The county has been split for a while on multiple levels because everyone recognizes that it's COIs are better served split rather than whole. The NE of the county has more in common with the rest of the Sierra foothill counties, and the SW of the county is part of the agricultural valley. Keeping the county whole either cracks the foothills, because you paired the it all with the Valley, or you sink Hispanics into what will be a white seat.

Fair enough for the split of Madera. It looks like a smart logical split.
4 has a CVAP of 53.5% with the split of Madera and is Clinton +18
2 is 56.5% and Clinton +9
blue is Trump +9 and purple is Trump +24

That's perfectly a reasonable map. However, it might break down once you fit it into the larger map. It's very hard to make the Central Valley look nice without doing some weird things in the Bay Area and Los Angeles.

This is why I avoid California . If this was say a close up in Texas of say the Dallas metro it wouldn't really affect the rest of the map. Also I find working through all the VRA seats in LA a boring chore.

I think you're focusing too much on the county lines. For example, the desert portions of Kern can easily go with the rest of the Mojave Desert, the mountain counties and portions of Tulare, Fresno, and Madera can and should be grouped together.

The Central Valley is probably going to have to add another Latino district due to population growth. It's over 53% Hispanic and less than 32% White. Removing San Joaquin County from the equation (flexible as a sort of Bay exurb, and almost a full district on its own), the rest of the Central Valley is 56% Hispanic and 31% White. The new maps will have to be drawn to accommodate this, whether Republicans like it or not.

Instead of 2 Hispanic majority districts, only one of which is majority by CVAP, there must be three majority Hispanic districts, two of which ought to be majority by CVAP.

Getting 3 seats would require some interesting lines.  Maybe a Merced/Stanislus/Stockton combo.  You could probably make 3 hispanic seats and 3 white (by electorate)

[SevenEleven]

I don't understand why there is this fascination among a few people for keeping Madera whole. The county has been split for a while on multiple levels because everyone recognizes that it's COIs are better served split rather than whole. The NE of the county has more in common with the rest of the Sierra foothill counties, and the SW of the county is part of the agricultural valley. Keeping the county whole either cracks the foothills, because you paired the it all with the Valley, or you sink Hispanics into what will be a white seat.

Fair enough for the split of Madera. It looks like a smart logical split.
4 has a CVAP of 53.5% with the split of Madera and is Clinton +18
2 is 56.5% and Clinton +9
blue is Trump +9 and purple is Trump +24

That's perfectly a reasonable map. However, it might break down once you fit it into the larger map. It's very hard to make the Central Valley look nice without doing some weird things in the Bay Area and Los Angeles.

This is why I avoid California . If this was say a close up in Texas of say the Dallas metro it wouldn't really affect the rest of the map. Also I find working through all the VRA seats in LA a boring chore.

I think you're focusing too much on the county lines. For example, the desert portions of Kern can easily go with the rest of the Mojave Desert, the mountain counties and portions of Tulare, Fresno, and Madera can and should be grouped together.

The Central Valley is probably going to have to add another Latino district due to population growth. It's over 53% Hispanic and less than 32% White. Removing San Joaquin County from the equation (flexible as a sort of Bay exurb, and almost a full district on its own), the rest of the Central Valley is 56% Hispanic and 31% White. The new maps will have to be drawn to accommodate this, whether Republicans like it or not.

Instead of 2 Hispanic majority districts, only one of which is majority by CVAP, there must be three majority Hispanic districts, two of which ought to be majority by CVAP.

Currently there is CA 16 and CA 21. CA 21 is majority by CVAP while 16th is just by population.
Boost CA 21 to 50% CVAP and you have your increased Hispanic representation. 10 years of population growth does not mean a whole district and a half in a area with 4 districts especially when only 40% of the population is Hispanic CVAP.

From Modesto to Bakersfield, there's four districts. From Stockton to Bakersfield, it's five. If you include the mountains, 5.5.

Since Hispanics are over 50% of the population, it makes sense to have at least 50% of the seats as Hispanic seats. Whites are less than one third of the population, so they get one seat. The other seats become coalition seats.

[lfromnj]

Heres a Stockton/Ceres 50.0% hispanic district.

The rest of Stockdown and Mercedo takes in Elk Grove in Sacramento and even then its absurd to require that many Hispanic seats when you count the number of voters there are.  One could even create a 50% hispanic district by total pop in Kern and say its a done job.

[Idaho Conservative]

I don't understand why there is this fascination among a few people for keeping Madera whole. The county has been split for a while on multiple levels because everyone recognizes that it's COIs are better served split rather than whole. The NE of the county has more in common with the rest of the Sierra foothill counties, and the SW of the county is part of the agricultural valley. Keeping the county whole either cracks the foothills, because you paired the it all with the Valley, or you sink Hispanics into what will be a white seat.

Fair enough for the split of Madera. It looks like a smart logical split.
4 has a CVAP of 53.5% with the split of Madera and is Clinton +18
2 is 56.5% and Clinton +9
blue is Trump +9 and purple is Trump +24

That's perfectly a reasonable map. However, it might break down once you fit it into the larger map. It's very hard to make the Central Valley look nice without doing some weird things in the Bay Area and Los Angeles.

This is why I avoid California . If this was say a close up in Texas of say the Dallas metro it wouldn't really affect the rest of the map. Also I find working through all the VRA seats in LA a boring chore.

I think you're focusing too much on the county lines. For example, the desert portions of Kern can easily go with the rest of the Mojave Desert, the mountain counties and portions of Tulare, Fresno, and Madera can and should be grouped together.

The Central Valley is probably going to have to add another Latino district due to population growth. It's over 53% Hispanic and less than 32% White. Removing San Joaquin County from the equation (flexible as a sort of Bay exurb, and almost a full district on its own), the rest of the Central Valley is 56% Hispanic and 31% White. The new maps will have to be drawn to accommodate this, whether Republicans like it or not.

Instead of 2 Hispanic majority districts, only one of which is majority by CVAP, there must be three majority Hispanic districts, two of which ought to be majority by CVAP.

Currently there is CA 16 and CA 21. CA 21 is majority by CVAP while 16th is just by population.
Boost CA 21 to 50% CVAP and you have your increased Hispanic representation. 10 years of population growth does not mean a whole district and a half in a area with 4 districts especially when only 40% of the population is Hispanic CVAP.

From Modesto to Bakersfield, there's four districts. From Stockton to Bakersfield, it's five. If you include the mountains, 5.5.

Since Hispanics are over 50% of the population, it makes sense to have at least 50% of the seats as Hispanic seats. Whites are less than one third of the population, so they get one seat. The other seats become coalition seats.

That's not not how it works.  Just leave, you know nothing about this.