2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: California

[Oryxslayer]

but doesn't the current CA-49 only connect OC to SD via Pendleton?

Yeah, I5 along the coast works for connectivity between the two communities. Its the main artery from LA southwards. The road connections to the interior via the Pendleton precincts are very much inferior, but they are there.

I need help on what to do there. De Luz Heights is next to Fallbrook, but separating it from Oceanside would create an odd district shape. What should be done here?

The Pendleton road doesn't work?  I mean it's not that important.  Not so bad if a candidate has to drive 5 minutes out of the district.

Year-long road connectivity is required by California law.

Nothing in here about year round road access. Just connectivity and continuity which means road access. I suspect this is because year-round is hard to define in California, given the importance of some roads on their areas (like Highway 1) and how those roads can be closed for repairs or natural incidents.

Therefore I repeat myself so we are not talking past each other. Pendleton has roads other than I5 crossing it. I5 is the preferable crossing, but the others are there. If I5 isn't used than other COIs need to predominant so as to justify the inferior road. Reminder that the commission or at least its mappers are not beyond using these types of roads, the current CA25 for instance uses less relevant and stable roads than the ones highlighted below (all non I5 roads crossing the camp) to connect Simi to Santa Clarita since Granada Hills and its I5/118 connections are all in CA30. However, the district works because Simi Valley and Santa Clarita have a COI. CA26 is in a similar boat - connected by a tiny road across the San Gabriel reservoir, but this time lacks the COIs to justify everything.

[Greedo punched first]

How should I draw San Diego/Orange? I am only sold on my drawing of the VRA districts and Huntington Beach. I'm not sure what to do with the rest of San Diego Or Orange County.





Is this a good Central Valley map?

CA-19: 51% Clinton; 40% HCVAP
CA-20: 51% Clinton; 52% HCVAP
CA-21: 51% Clinton; 55% HCVAP

[SevenEleven]

Yeah that map looks good.

[Greedo punched first]

Yeah that map looks good.

What should I do with SD-OC-IE? I'm only convinced on my OC-SD VRA seats and the Asian Belt.

[Coastal Elitist]

How should I draw San Diego/Orange? I am only sold on my drawing of the VRA districts and Huntington Beach. I'm not sure what to do with the rest of San Diego Or Orange County.





Is this a good Central Valley map?

CA-19: 51% Clinton; 40% HCVAP


CA-20: 51% Clinton; 52% HCVAP
CA-21: 51% Clinton; 55% HCVAP

No the central valley is terrible district 18 is ridiculous

[SevenEleven]

How should I draw San Diego/Orange? I am only sold on my drawing of the VRA districts and Huntington Beach. I'm not sure what to do with the rest of San Diego Or Orange County.





Is this a good Central Valley map?

CA-19: 51% Clinton; 40% HCVAP


CA-20: 51% Clinton; 52% HCVAP
CA-21: 51% Clinton; 55% HCVAP

No the central valley is terrible district 18 is ridiculous

What is ridiculous about it? You can't keep Bakersfield whole due to the VRA seat, and the mountainous areas don't fit with the agricultural areas. You're just being partisan.

[Greedo punched first]

Updated the Central Valley again. Any ideas on OC-SD-IE with what I already have?

[Coastal Elitist]

Wow California could actually end up losing two house seats: https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/08/study-in-a-first-california-poised-to-lose-house-seats/

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Wow California could actually end up losing two house seats: https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/08/study-in-a-first-california-poised-to-lose-house-seats/

Prediction: the biggest losers from this would be Garamendi and Nunes.

[Brittain33]

Wow California could actually end up losing two house seats: https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/08/study-in-a-first-california-poised-to-lose-house-seats/

Prediction: the biggest losers from this would be Garamendi and Nunes.

The article says the Bay Area is the least likely area to lose a seat because of its growing population. It seems like it would be difficult to have both seats be lost from north of L.A. County without a vacuum pulling a seat north of the line.

[lfromnj]

Yeah Garamendi might actually still come out a winner as the CA 1 and CA 4 would have to expand south and west pushing Garamendi into the bay area.

[Idaho Conservative]

Wow California could actually end up losing two house seats: https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/08/study-in-a-first-california-poised-to-lose-house-seats/

[Coastal Elitist]

Here is my finished map. I ended up with 37 Democratic districts and 9 Republican with six deemed competitive within the 55-45 range. I tried my best to keep cities together. Also there's no reason to split Bakersfield and I was able to fit Kern County into two districts that are still Hispanic without having the CA-21 gerrymander.



Here's a zoomed in look at the Bay Area.


and a zoomed in look at Southern California


The competitive districts are 7, 16, 25, 41, 44 and 45

[SevenEleven]

That map is very, very not legal. And by that I mean very illegal.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Wow California could actually end up losing two house seats: https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/08/study-in-a-first-california-poised-to-lose-house-seats/

Prediction: the biggest losers from this would be Garamendi and Nunes.

The article says the Bay Area is the least likely area to lose a seat because of its growing population. It seems like it would be difficult to have both seats be lost from north of L.A. County without a vacuum pulling a seat north of the line.

In that case I guess LA County itself is poised to lose one.

[Coastal Elitist]

That map is very, very not legal. And by that I mean very illegal.

How? I maximized the number of minority districts.

[SevenEleven]

That map is very, very not legal. And by that I mean very illegal.

How?

For starters, total disregard of the VRA. Just from a glance, there's almost no chance of that CA-21 or CA-46 holding up. You need to use CVAP. CA-8 lacks a year round road connection from Alpine. District 27 doesn't look to be Hispanic enough.

There's also no reason to have 3! mountain crossing districts into the SFV. It seems like many districts were drawn using partisan data, as you break up COIs and bypass near areas for far areas. No viable CA map has 9 Trump districts.

[lfromnj]

Theres no disregard for the VRA. That would be atleast a 7-2 at Scotus, it maybe a disregard for the California version of that.

[Coastal Elitist]

That map is very, very not legal. And by that I mean very illegal.

How?

For starters, total disregard of the VRA. Just from a glance, there's almost no chance of that CA-21 or CA-46 holding up. You need to use CVAP. CA-8 lacks a year round road connection from Alpine. District 27 doesn't look to be Hispanic enough.

There's also no reason to have 3! mountain crossing districts into the SFV. It seems like many districts were drawn using partisan data, as you break up COIs and bypass near areas for far areas. No viable CA map has 9 Trump districts.

No you're wrong I used CVAP. Both 46 and 27 are Hispanic enough. The 8th and 25th are pretty similar to how they are now. I don't know what you mean by bypassing near areas for far areas. I put like communities together white rurals are basically all republican so when you combine them you get R districts. I also made a coastal OC district that makes sense based on putting like communities together. If anyone's map is drawn only looking at partisan data it's yours. Where am I breaking up communities of interest and what exactly defines that?

[SevenEleven]

Theres no disregard for the VRA. That would be atleast a 7-2 at Scotus, it maybe a disregard for the California version of that.

VRA districts have to be able to elect a minority group's candidate of choice by law.

[lfromnj]

Theres no disregard for the VRA. That would be atleast a 7-2 at Scotus, it maybe a disregard for the California version of that.

VRA districts have to be able to elect a minority group's candidate of choice by law.

And they don't always need to be created especially if they fail to the Gingles Test. You can say it's illegal by California law but it would not be illegal by Federal law to keep Bakersfield whole.

[SevenEleven]

That map is very, very not legal. And by that I mean very illegal.

How?

For starters, total disregard of the VRA. Just from a glance, there's almost no chance of that CA-21 or CA-46 holding up. You need to use CVAP. CA-8 lacks a year round road connection from Alpine. District 27 doesn't look to be Hispanic enough.

There's also no reason to have 3! mountain crossing districts into the SFV. It seems like many districts were drawn using partisan data, as you break up COIs and bypass near areas for far areas. No viable CA map has 9 Trump districts.

No you're wrong I used CVAP. Both 46 and 27 are Hispanic enough. The 8th and 25th are pretty similar to how they are now. I don't know what you mean by bypassing near areas for far areas. I put like communities together white rurals are basically all republican so when you combine them you get R districts. I also made a coastal OC district that makes sense based on putting like communities together. If anyone's map is drawn only looking at partisan data it's yours. Where am I breaking up communities of interest and what exactly defines that?

COIs are defined by California law. Your CA-21 and CA-46 are completely unacceptable. Putting Corona with Hemet makes no sense at all.

When I say bypassing near areas for far areas I'm talking about districts like 32 that snake around for (seemingly) no reason. It's hard to judge exactly without seeing the municipal lines and ethnic data.

Compare your map to mine, which you called a gerrymander.


See how no districts snake around other districts and cities are kept whole as often as possible?

Theres no disregard for the VRA. That would be atleast a 7-2 at Scotus, it maybe a disregard for the California version of that.

VRA districts have to be able to elect a minority group's candidate of choice by law.

And they don't always need to be created especially if they fail to the Gingles Test. You can say it's illegal by California law but it would not be illegal by Federal law to keep Bakersfield whole.

I don't know if you noticed, but this is California redistricting. California law must be followed. CA-21 has been a protected minority district for literally decades now. Kern County has a particular eye on it already. MALDEF btfo of their last county supervisor map.

[lfromnj]

You said the VRA which is Federal was violated which it wasn't at the Federal level.

[SevenEleven]

You said the VRA which is Federal was violated which it wasn't at the Federal level.

Federal VRA still applies to certain districts such as CA-21 and CA-46. Regardless, this is California, all appropriate statute must be followed. California has its own VRA and judicial rulings as well as specific commission guidelines to be followed. Also, California Supreme Court is where the maps go before federal court so good luck with that.

[lfromnj]

You said the VRA which is Federal was violated which it wasn't at the Federal level.

Federal VRA still applies to certain districts such as CA-21 and CA-46. Regardless, this is California, all appropriate statute must be followed.

I highly doubt the Federal courts would require a district like CA 21 if Bakersfield was drawn whole. Not sure about CA 46 but all 5 Republican judges would oppose CA 21 and I'd bet 1 or both of Kagan and Breyer wouldn't require it either.
Also your CA23 literally snakes around massively