2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: California

[Oryxslayer]

Latest congressional map on DRA.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/0ca7a547-bca4-4731-bbff-bb24443a0920

So it looks like not much has changed. Levin's seat is shored up a bit, going from D+7.9 to D+11.4. The district numbers have shifted a little too.

The other major change is that the Uber-Coast seat was dropped in favor of the previously proposed shorter version that does not go all the way to Daly City. Also the White SD seat gets real long now and should really have been pushed deeper into the city, which would push 51 back into a handful of the suburbs.

[BoiseBoy]

Latest congressional map on DRA.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/0ca7a547-bca4-4731-bbff-bb24443a0920

So it looks like not much has changed. Levin's seat is shored up a bit, going from D+7.9 to D+11.4. The district numbers have shifted a little too.

The other major change is that the Uber-Coast seat was dropped in favor of the previously proposed shorter version that does not go all the way to Daly City.

Ah, I see that now. I'm still not a fan of the way the district is shaped. I get that it's to separate the white and Hispanic areas of those counties, but God it looks ugly.

[Oryxslayer]

Looking around, it seems possible that a few of these districts become new "IL-04"s: districts citied as examples of gerrymandering for the wrong reasons. There aren't any obvious partisan gerrymanders on this map, but there are plenty of legal oddities created to increase minority access, oddities that may not make sense to the average viewer.

[lfromnj]

Looking around, it seems possible that a few of these districts become new "IL-04"s: districts citied as examples of gerrymandering for the wrong reasons. There aren't any obvious partisan gerrymanders on this map, but there are plenty of legal oddities created to increase minority access, oddities that may not make sense to the average viewer.

IL04 was kept in that manner in 2010 to perhaps help IL03 just incase, and many of these districts were clearly drawn by Latino interest groups who as we see in Colorado care foremost about electing Democrats. They were mostly helped by Sara Sadhwani who is the obvious hack. The rest of the commision other than Toledo is more or less ignorant rather than malicious.(Which is the key difference between what happened in CO/CA where in CO there were some relatively knowledgeable Republicans who knew what a Dem gerrymander was and refused to accept it.

[Tekken_Guy]

They're really trying to screw over Katie Porter huh?

No Porter is in 47 double bunked with Steel. Biden +11

Ah. So that leaves that R-leaning NE OC district as an open seat?

Yup. I suppose Young Kim could run there, but she lives closer to the plurality asian seat(Clinton +13, Biden +6)

If they are smart, Kim will run in the North OC R pack and Steele will run in the Asian seat. But they both might want the Asian seat since it contains both of their bases. This though may be foolish since such a seat will likely attract Democratic challengers connected to at least one section of the OC Asian community, nullifying any potential incumbent advantages.

The North OC seat would be the easiest to hold without an R incumbent. Perhaps Mimi Walters will go for a comeback if neither Kim nor Steel run in it.

[BoiseBoy]

The commission seems to be voting to pass its maps for Assembly, Senate, Congress, and BoE after it takes a round of public comment.

[Oryxslayer]

Looking around, it seems possible that a few of these districts become new "IL-04"s: districts citied as examples of gerrymandering for the wrong reasons. There aren't any obvious partisan gerrymanders on this map, but there are plenty of legal oddities created to increase minority access, oddities that may not make sense to the average viewer.

IL04 was kept in that manner in 2010 to perhaps help IL03 just incase, and many of these districts were clearly drawn by Latino interest groups who as we see in Colorado care foremost about electing Democrats. They were mostly helped by Sara Sadhwani who is the obvious hack. The rest of the commision other than Toledo is more or less ignorant rather than malicious.(Which is the key difference between what happened in CO/CA where in CO there were some relatively knowledgeable Republicans who knew what a Dem gerrymander was and refused to accept it.

I know that and you know that. But that didn't stop IL-04 appearing on redistricting reform advocates images of 'bad districts' along with ones in TX, OH, MD, etc. The Riverside seat, among others, seems ripe for this sort of thing.

[lfromnj]

Looking around, it seems possible that a few of these districts become new "IL-04"s: districts citied as examples of gerrymandering for the wrong reasons. There aren't any obvious partisan gerrymanders on this map, but there are plenty of legal oddities created to increase minority access, oddities that may not make sense to the average viewer.

IL04 was kept in that manner in 2010 to perhaps help IL03 just incase, and many of these districts were clearly drawn by Latino interest groups who as we see in Colorado care foremost about electing Democrats. They were mostly helped by Sara Sadhwani who is the obvious hack. The rest of the commision other than Toledo is more or less ignorant rather than malicious.(Which is the key difference between what happened in CO/CA where in CO there were some relatively knowledgeable Republicans who knew what a Dem gerrymander was and refused to accept it.

I know that and you know that. But that didn't stop IL-04 appearing on redistricting reform advocates images of 'bad districts' along with ones in TX, OH, MD, etc. The Riverside seat, among others, seems ripe for this sort of thing.

It's a mix, not sure if they were smart enough to realize it but putting Palm Springs really does hurt Calvert a lot compared to some random diverse area west of the Coachella. Certainly has moderate partisan effects. I don't know who pushed it though. When I was drawing my Commisionmander, that is exactly what I did. to make the rest of Riverside blue after a Eastern San Diego/Riverside sink. Mine was around Clinton +3 or so though.



25 Would still be 53% VAP and 41 would be Trump +6.  If Sadhwani was the one behind this push I think we can obviously call this a partisan gerrymander for an opportunity seat.

[Oryxslayer]

Looking around, it seems possible that a few of these districts become new "IL-04"s: districts citied as examples of gerrymandering for the wrong reasons. There aren't any obvious partisan gerrymanders on this map, but there are plenty of legal oddities created to increase minority access, oddities that may not make sense to the average viewer.

IL04 was kept in that manner in 2010 to perhaps help IL03 just incase, and many of these districts were clearly drawn by Latino interest groups who as we see in Colorado care foremost about electing Democrats. They were mostly helped by Sara Sadhwani who is the obvious hack. The rest of the commision other than Toledo is more or less ignorant rather than malicious.(Which is the key difference between what happened in CO/CA where in CO there were some relatively knowledgeable Republicans who knew what a Dem gerrymander was and refused to accept it.

I know that and you know that. But that didn't stop IL-04 appearing on redistricting reform advocates images of 'bad districts' along with ones in TX, OH, MD, etc. The Riverside seat, among others, seems ripe for this sort of thing.

It's a mix, not sure if they were smart enough to realize it but putting Palm Springs really does hurt Calvert a lot compared to some random diverse area west of the Coachella. Certainly has moderate partisan effects. I don't know who pushed it though. When I was drawing my Commisionmander, that is exactly what I did. to make the rest of Riverside blue after a Eastern San Diego/Riverside sink. Mine was around Clinton +3 or so though.


25 Would still be 53% VAP and 41 would be Trump +6.  If Sadhwani was the one behind this push I think we can obviously call this a partisan gerrymander for an opportunity seat.

Your thinking too hard. This map's overall goal is clearly to significantly increase minority access. They wanted a Hispanic seat in the Coachella region, and when you are drawn Hispanic seats the preferred measure is CVAP. The district as drawn yanks out some 60-80% white cities from Palm Springs and tosses in Hemet and other Hispanic regions but is only 52.5% by CVAP. Swapping it around prevents a majority CVAP seat. So they went the ugly route and made CA-41 a white pack (relative ofc, and by CVAP) regardless of whether the whites voted for the same party.

A lot of the peculiarities on the map have similar demographic explanations. You can accept that or you cannot, but accessibility was clearly the goal at almost every point.

[lfromnj]

Looking around, it seems possible that a few of these districts become new "IL-04"s: districts citied as examples of gerrymandering for the wrong reasons. There aren't any obvious partisan gerrymanders on this map, but there are plenty of legal oddities created to increase minority access, oddities that may not make sense to the average viewer.

IL04 was kept in that manner in 2010 to perhaps help IL03 just incase, and many of these districts were clearly drawn by Latino interest groups who as we see in Colorado care foremost about electing Democrats. They were mostly helped by Sara Sadhwani who is the obvious hack. The rest of the commision other than Toledo is more or less ignorant rather than malicious.(Which is the key difference between what happened in CO/CA where in CO there were some relatively knowledgeable Republicans who knew what a Dem gerrymander was and refused to accept it.

I know that and you know that. But that didn't stop IL-04 appearing on redistricting reform advocates images of 'bad districts' along with ones in TX, OH, MD, etc. The Riverside seat, among others, seems ripe for this sort of thing.

It's a mix, not sure if they were smart enough to realize it but putting Palm Springs really does hurt Calvert a lot compared to some random diverse area west of the Coachella. Certainly has moderate partisan effects. I don't know who pushed it though. When I was drawing my Commisionmander, that is exactly what I did. to make the rest of Riverside blue after a Eastern San Diego/Riverside sink. Mine was around Clinton +3 or so though.


25 Would still be 53% VAP and 41 would be Trump +6.  If Sadhwani was the one behind this push I think we can obviously call this a partisan gerrymander for an opportunity seat.

Your thinking too hard. This map's overall goal is clearly to significantly increase minority access. They wanted a Hispanic seat in the Coachella region, and when you are drawn Hispanic seats the preferred measure is CVAP. The district as drawn yanks out some 60-80% white cities from Palm Springs and tosses in Hemet and other Hispanic regions but is only 52.5% by CVAP. Swapping it around prevents such possibilities.

A lot of the peculiarities on the map have similar demographic explanations. You can accept that or you cannot, but accessibility was clearly the goal at almost every point.

Minority Access was the excuse used by Sadhwani and Toledo to therefore persuade the rest of the commission. I don't know if they did it in the Coachella region though.  Either way these seats are still are racial gerrymanders that in the end also are effectively a partisan gerrymander so not sure what exactly is wrong with using them as an example of actual gerrymandering considering that is what they did.

[Tekken_Guy]

Katie Porter is running in the Biden+11 coastal seat.

[Minnesota Mike]

Katie Porter is running in the Biden+11 coastal seat.

Doesn't Michelle Steel live in that district too? I would guess if she does she moves to greener pastures.

[Gracile]

Katie Porter is running in the Biden+11 coastal seat.

Doesn't Michelle Steel live in that district too? I would guess if she does she moves to greener pastures.

CA-45, the Asian plurality, less Democratic district next door, seems like it would be a better fit for Steel if she wanted to move elsewhere.

[Tekken_Guy]

Katie Porter is running in the Biden+11 coastal seat.

Doesn't Michelle Steel live in that district too? I would guess if she does she moves to greener pastures.

CA-45, the Asian plurality, less Democratic district next door, seems like it would be a better fit for Steel if she wanted to move elsewhere.

I assume Young Kim will run in the Yorba Linda seat. right? It is the least Asian of the three competitive OC districts though.

[Minnesota Mike]

https://twitter.com/JeremyBWhite/status/1473156280466378753

[Roll Roons]

But they told me only Republicans would benefit from redistricting.

[BoiseBoy]

But they told me only Republicans would benefit from redistricting.

While Republicans will likely be fine in 2022 with this map, I'm more worried about how 2024 will look.

[Minnesota Mike]

So who all is double bunked?

[BoiseBoy]

So who all is double bunked?

According to the 538 map:

CA-19 has Eshoo and Lofgren in the same seat

CA-38 has Linda Sanchez and Young Kim in the same seat (Young Kim will likely run in the adjacent, and open, CA-45 seat which will be much more friendly for her)

CA-42 has Lowenthal and Roybal-Allard in the same seat (they're both retiring)

[Pedocon Theory is not a theory]

Final map:

SoCal zoom:


Swings in R/Close districts:
Swings:
1 (LaMalfa): Trump +21.8 -> Trump +19
3 (McClintock): Trump +7.8 -> Trump +1.6
5 (Open, Harder) Trump +15.1 -> Trump +12.3
20 (McCarthy): Trump +30.7 -> Trump +24.9
21 (Nunes, Open): Clinton +21.8 -> Biden +20.4
22 (Valadao): Clinton +16.1 -> Biden +10.8
23 (Obernolte): Trump +14.8 -> Trump +9.8
27 (Garcia): Clinton +9.8 -> Biden +12.4
40 (probably Kim): Trump +4.4 -> Biden +1.7
41 (Calvert): Trump +6.0 -> Trump +1.0
45 (probably Steel): Clinton +13.2 -> Biden +6.1
47 (Porter): Clinton +7.6 -> Biden +11.1
48 (Issa): Trump +19.9 -> Trump +12.3
49 (Levin): Clinton +5.6 -> Biden +11.4

40/41 are definitely big targets going into 2024/2026, and 3 is an absolute sleeper pick with how hard the Sac suburbs and Lake Tahoe areas are shifting. Central Valley isn't great but still plenty blue enough for pickups with good candidates. If only they'd drawn LB into one of the OC districts though, woulda really shifted the balance there.

Can't complain, they had to minimize municipality splits and managed to pack all 11 Rs into 6 safe seats anyway, even if Harder is a sacrificial lamb. Could very well be 47-5 in 2024/2026, possibly even 48-4 in a real good year assuming swings stay constant in the R districts.

[lfromnj]

Anyway changes overall

-1 D in LA County but Garcia's gets a few points more blue.

CA01 to Kevin McCarthy

Josh Harder and Ami Bera get safe seats along with Costa.
McCarthy gets super packed while Nunes gets a bit more red at the cost of McClintock.


Socal- Issa/Calvert have similar seats rn but they effectively trade to make one Safe R and the other tossup presidentially.

OC-
Steele kinda gets a bit weird, not sure where she would run, Kim has a solid seat for her to the east and is really the only Republican to win some points not at the expense of another Republican(Eg Issa/Calvert).

Porter stays the same while Levin is the only Democrat that gets hurt.

[BoiseBoy]

...while Levin is the only Democrat that gets hurt.

I wouldn't really say that. Harder is put in an R+12 district with this map, whereas Levin's seat doesn't really change enough to endanger him IMO (D+12.7 to D+11.4).

Harder is in for a world of hurt. He either chooses to run in this new seat and loses or he tries to primary Costa or McNerney, which will likely be unsuccessful.

[lfromnj]

...while Levin is the only Democrat that gets hurt.

I wouldn't really say that. Harder is put in an R+12 district with this map, whereas Levin's seat doesn't really change enough to endanger him IMO (D+12.7 to D+11.4).

Harder is in for a world of hurt. He either chooses to run in this new seat and loses or he tries to primary Costa or McNerney, which will likely be unsuccessful.

Nope harder got massively shored up.
Biden +10.. He still has an obvious CV seat to run in.

[BoiseBoy]

...while Levin is the only Democrat that gets hurt.

I wouldn't really say that. Harder is put in an R+12 district with this map, whereas Levin's seat doesn't really change enough to endanger him IMO (D+12.7 to D+11.4).

Harder is in for a world of hurt. He either chooses to run in this new seat and loses or he tries to primary Costa or McNerney, which will likely be unsuccessful.

Nope harder got massively shored up.
Biden +10.. He still has an obvious CV seat to run in.

I know Stanislaus was split but I thought Harder's home was now in the 5th district. 2/3 of Modesto seem to be in that seat. His congressional office is also in the new 5th.

[lfromnj]

...while Levin is the only Democrat that gets hurt.

I wouldn't really say that. Harder is put in an R+12 district with this map, whereas Levin's seat doesn't really change enough to endanger him IMO (D+12.7 to D+11.4).

Harder is in for a world of hurt. He either chooses to run in this new seat and loses or he tries to primary Costa or McNerney, which will likely be unsuccessful.

Nope harder got massively shored up.
Biden +10.. He still has an obvious CV seat to run in.

I know Stanislaus was split but I thought Harder's home was now in the 5th district. 2/3 of Modesto seem to be in that seat. His congressional office is also in the new 5th.

Fair enough but its an obvious seat for him