2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: California

[Brittain33]

I'm not on expert on the LGBT community in Long Beach and specific choices there for maps so I'm not going to defend or debate details.

[lfromnj]

I'm not on expert on the LGBT community in Long Beach and specific choices there for maps so I'm not going to defend or debate details.

Long Beach with OC beaches has long been discussed  as one of the hallmark moves for a commisionmander. Its harder to do it for the purpose of any racial diversity arguments as the city of long Beach is just evenly diverse but the OC beaches are quite white. Therefore you have to argue its for an LGBT purpose. It seems the commission  was not interested too much in that argument though. For someone wanting racial diversity Long Beach would obviously go with some very minority heavy areas of LA to preserve a Latino seat.

[Greedo punched first]

What’s the number of the Long Beach/Downey district?

[ProgressiveModerate]

What’s the number of the Long Beach/Downey district?

Biden + 45.8

[Greedo punched first]

What’s the number of the Long Beach/Downey district?

Biden + 45.8

I meant the district number.

[ProgressiveModerate]

What’s the number of the Long Beach/Downey district?

Biden + 45.8

I meant the district number.

42

[DrScholl]

Looking at the Assembly maps this is what I have managed to determine

Democrat Ken Cooley gets a district that goes from 55-42 Biden to 52-46 Biden. He has one term left before he terms out.

Republicans Frank Bigelow and Jim Patterson are double bunked. They each have one term left before terming out. Patterson probably has an advantage a Bigelow's seat was pretty much dismantled.

There is a new swing seat with parts of Stanislaus County and Merced County. It's 51-47 Biden and will surely end up being a contentious race.

Jordan Cunningham is the incumbent who got the worst out of this map. He goes from 54-43 Biden to a punishing 64-34 Biden. He over performed Trump by 12% and will surely over perform in SLO County again, but losing the elastic to conservative parts of Santa Barbara County for coastal Monterey County makes this a bridge too far.

In Orange County, Democrat Cottie Petrie-Norris' district went from 54-43 Biden to just 50-48 Biden. She barely won in 2020, so she will move to the new safe Democratic seat anchored on Irvine and Costa Mesa. Republican Laurie Davies gets put into a 52-46 Biden district that also includes Oceanside and Vista in San Diego County. Republican Steven Choi is probably left without a seat at the table unless he takes on Phillip Chen in the 50-48 Trump seat in Northern OC.

Republican Marie Waldron in San Diego County has been put into a 57-41 Biden district which is way to the left of her current district.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Looking at the Assembly maps this is what I have managed to determine

Democrat Ken Cooley gets a district that goes from 55-42 Biden to 52-46 Biden. He has one term left before he terms out.

Republicans Frank Bigelow and Jim Patterson are double bunked. They each have one term left before terming out. Patterson probably has an advantage a Bigelow's seat was pretty much dismantled.

There is a new swing seat with parts of Stanislaus County and Merced County. It's 51-47 Biden and will surely end up being a contentious race.

Jordan Cunningham is the incumbent who got the worst out of this map. He goes from 54-43 Biden to a punishing 64-34 Biden. He over performed Trump by 12% and will surely over perform in SLO County again, but losing the elastic to conservative parts of Santa Barbara County for coastal Monterey County makes this a bridge too far.

In Orange County, Democrat Cottie Petrie-Norris' district went from 54-43 Biden to just 50-48 Biden. She barely won in 2020, so she will move to the new safe Democratic seat anchored on Irvine and Costa Mesa. Republican Laurie Davies gets put into a 52-46 Biden district that also includes Oceanside and Vista in San Diego County. Republican Steven Choi is probably left without a seat at the table unless he takes on Phillip Chen in the 50-48 Trump seat in Northern OC.

Republican Marie Waldron in San Diego County has been put into a 57-41 Biden district which is way to the left of her current district.

How much of this was driven by more Dem parts of the state making relative gains in population %?

[DrScholl]

I'd say it was more driven by the fact that this commission maximized minority-majority seats particularly by CVAP. The new swing district in Stanislaus soaks up a lot of territory out of Assemblyman Adam Gray's old district so that his new district can have an improved Hispanic CVAP. Same thing with Cunningham, it appears that his district was extended up to soak up whiter areas of Monterey County so that Assemblyman Robert Rivas' district could be more Hispanic by CVAP. The Orange County districts were definitely drawn with increasing Asian CVAP numbers.

One I didn't mention is there is a new Antelope Valley-Victor Valley district that is majority Hispanic and very Democratic. That comes at the expense of GOP Assemblyman Tom Lackey who ends up being placed in GOP Assemblyman Thurston Smith's district.

[StateBoiler]

This is interesting. They kept LGBT communities united in districts wherever possible.

https://www.eqca.org/big-wins-lgbtq-redistricting/

If LGBT qualifies as a COI, you can create a COI for literally any reason, thereby negating the practical power of the term.

If LGBT people don't fit your definition of a COI, I'd love to hear what does.

I'm saying if it fits as a community of interest geographically, what does not? I could create a rugby player COI in NorCal to maximize the number of rugby players inside one district and therefore maximize their influence. I can make a legitimate claim to it's a real COI because rugby players in my 14 years in the sport in this country are a cult of the brethren, and in NorCal would have high crossover with the Pacific Islander minority. Now I think everyone would think such a claim would be absurd and ridiculous because rugby players don't have a geographic base, but neither does the LGBT community. COI's in my opinion should be limited to political subdivisions - counties, cities, towns, wards - because those cannot be defined as partisan. If the LGBT community happens to be in higher numbers in a handful of wards that make up a district, so be it. But to not maximize the LGBT community in a few districts is no worse than not maximizing the Libertarian or Green Party vote in a few districts.

As with all things redistricting, people need to understand ulterior motives. So what's the ulterior motive for having a LGBT COI since it does not only affect the district with that COI but every other district that surrounds it?

[Tintrlvr]

This is interesting. They kept LGBT communities united in districts wherever possible.

https://www.eqca.org/big-wins-lgbtq-redistricting/

If LGBT qualifies as a COI, you can create a COI for literally any reason, thereby negating the practical power of the term.

If LGBT people don't fit your definition of a COI, I'd love to hear what does.

I'm saying if it fits as a community of interest geographically, what does not? I could create a rugby player COI in NorCal to maximize the number of rugby players inside one district and therefore maximize their influence. I can make a legitimate claim to it's a real COI because rugby players in my 14 years in the sport in this country are a cult of the brethren, and in NorCal would have high crossover with the Pacific Islander minority. Now I think everyone would think such a claim would be absurd and ridiculous because rugby players don't have a geographic base, but neither does the LGBT community. COI's in my opinion should be limited to political subdivisions - counties, cities, towns, wards - because those cannot be defined as partisan. If the LGBT community happens to be in higher numbers in a handful of wards that make up a district, so be it. But to not maximize the LGBT community in a few districts is no worse than not maximizing the Libertarian or Green Party vote in a few districts.

As with all things redistricting, people need to understand ulterior motives. So what's the ulterior motive for having a LGBT COI since it does not only affect the district with that COI but every other district that surrounds it?

I guess you're not going to be convinced if you think it's reasonable to compare LGBT identity to status as a rugby player or for that matter to membership in a political party (whether a fringe party or a major one).

But, for the record, it's basically the same reasons that LGBT identities are (or are sought to be, in some cases) protected under various anti-discrimination laws and regulations and status as a rugby player, or even political views, are not. Being a small minority that could never actually form a majority in or control the vote of a congressional district isn't relevant to the discussion.

For what it's worth, hopefully the Commission does avoid splitting up Pacific Islander communities where possible, even though they are an even smaller and maybe more dispersed minority in California that likewise could never control a district. That said, I doubt there is much in the way of concentration outside of perhaps a couple of precincts adjacent to one another here or there that are somewhat above average; certainly much less so than LGBT-heavy areas in San Francisco, West Hollywood and surrounds, etc.

[cvparty]

This is interesting. They kept LGBT communities united in districts wherever possible.

https://www.eqca.org/big-wins-lgbtq-redistricting/

If LGBT qualifies as a COI, you can create a COI for literally any reason, thereby negating the practical power of the term.

If LGBT people don't fit your definition of a COI, I'd love to hear what does.

I'm saying if it fits as a community of interest geographically, what does not? I could create a rugby player COI in NorCal to maximize the number of rugby players inside one district and therefore maximize their influence. I can make a legitimate claim to it's a real COI because rugby players in my 14 years in the sport in this country are a cult of the brethren, and in NorCal would have high crossover with the Pacific Islander minority. Now I think everyone would think such a claim would be absurd and ridiculous because rugby players don't have a geographic base, but neither does the LGBT community. COI's in my opinion should be limited to political subdivisions - counties, cities, towns, wards - because those cannot be defined as partisan. If the LGBT community happens to be in higher numbers in a handful of wards that make up a district, so be it. But to not maximize the LGBT community in a few districts is no worse than not maximizing the Libertarian or Green Party vote in a few districts.

As with all things redistricting, people need to understand ulterior motives. So what's the ulterior motive for having a LGBT COI since it does not only affect the district with that COI but every other district that surrounds it?

LGBT people aren't a COI per se, but there are very many legitimate communities with a high concentration of queer people (Palm Springs, Wilton Manors, Boystown, WeHo, Hell's Kitchen, Lavender Heights, etc.) typically forming historically as a haven for solidarity/against discrimination. Likening it to rugby players is pretty disingenuous? Gay villages are quite small and concentrated to the extent that any preservation of them is usually incidental, especially on a congressional level, and that's pretty much what's described in the EQCA article. There's no foul play here with respect to LGBT COIs (race on the other hand is a different story)

[Brittain33]

StateBoiler, may I ask how old you are? Someone in their 30s or older would understand intuitively why LGBT communities have specific political concerns and fears that, say, rugby players don't. But I realize that for younger people, it may feel like all battles have been won and it's non-political now.

[Meatball Ron]

Do we think 42-10 is the most likely outcome here?

GOP wins:
*The Issa seat
*The Calvert seat
*The Obernolte seat
*The McCarthy seat
*The McClintock seat
*The LaMalfa seat
*The open CA-5 bordering the bluer seat that Harder's gonna run in
*The new competitive seat where Steel is running (CA-45)
*The new competitive seat where Kim is running (CA-40)
*And the blue seat that Valadao holds but routinely over-performs in by a lot

While Dems hold all the safe blue seats, take down Garcia in his now even bluer seat, and the Biden +lowdoubledigit seats where Porter, Harder, Levin will run

For a net outcome of R-1, D+0

[Mr.Phips]

Do we think 42-10 is the most likely outcome here?

GOP wins:
*The Issa seat
*The Calvert seat
*The Obernolte seat
*The McCarthy seat
*The McClintock seat
*The LaMalfa seat
*The open CA-5 bordering the bluer seat that Harder's gonna run in
*The new competitive seat where Steel is running (CA-45)
*The new competitive seat where Kim is running (CA-40)
*And the blue seat that Valadao holds but routinely over-performs in by a lot

While Dems hold all the safe blue seats, take down Garcia in his now even bluer seat, and the Biden +lowdoubledigit seats where Porter, Harder, Levin will run

For a net outcome of R-1, D+0

I’m guessing 41-11 with Garcia surviving.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Do we think 42-10 is the most likely outcome here?

GOP wins:
*The Issa seat
*The Calvert seat
*The Obernolte seat
*The McCarthy seat
*The McClintock seat
*The LaMalfa seat
*The open CA-5 bordering the bluer seat that Harder's gonna run in
*The new competitive seat where Steel is running (CA-45)
*The new competitive seat where Kim is running (CA-40)
*And the blue seat that Valadao holds but routinely over-performs in by a lot

While Dems hold all the safe blue seats, take down Garcia in his now even bluer seat, and the Biden +lowdoubledigit seats where Porter, Harder, Levin will run

For a net outcome of R-1, D+0

Valadao, Garcia, and Steel probably all lose

[Tekken_Guy]

Do we think 42-10 is the most likely outcome here?

GOP wins:
*The Issa seat
*The Calvert seat
*The Obernolte seat
*The McCarthy seat
*The McClintock seat
*The LaMalfa seat
*The open CA-5 bordering the bluer seat that Harder's gonna run in
*The new competitive seat where Steel is running (CA-45)
*The new competitive seat where Kim is running (CA-40)
*And the blue seat that Valadao holds but routinely over-performs in by a lot

While Dems hold all the safe blue seats, take down Garcia in his now even bluer seat, and the Biden +lowdoubledigit seats where Porter, Harder, Levin will run

For a net outcome of R-1, D+0

Valadao, Garcia, and Steel probably all lose

Steel likely holds on in 2022. and Valadao is more likely than not to survive as well. Garcia though could go either way.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Do we think 42-10 is the most likely outcome here?

GOP wins:
*The Issa seat
*The Calvert seat
*The Obernolte seat
*The McCarthy seat
*The McClintock seat
*The LaMalfa seat
*The open CA-5 bordering the bluer seat that Harder's gonna run in
*The new competitive seat where Steel is running (CA-45)
*The new competitive seat where Kim is running (CA-40)
*And the blue seat that Valadao holds but routinely over-performs in by a lot

While Dems hold all the safe blue seats, take down Garcia in his now even bluer seat, and the Biden +lowdoubledigit seats where Porter, Harder, Levin will run

For a net outcome of R-1, D+0

Valadao, Garcia, and Steel probably all lose

Steel likely holds on in 2022. and Valadao is more likely than not to survive as well. Garcia though could go either way.

I actually think Valadao is the most likely of the three to go down

[Ritz]

I'd think it's Valadao > Garcia > Steel in terms of winning re-election.
Steel's electoral track record is mediocre, and her district barely overlaps. The part that does also happens to be where she underperformed Trump.

[Meatball Ron]

Do we think 42-10 is the most likely outcome here?

GOP wins:
*The Issa seat
*The Calvert seat
*The Obernolte seat
*The McCarthy seat
*The McClintock seat
*The LaMalfa seat
*The open CA-5 bordering the bluer seat that Harder's gonna run in
*The new competitive seat where Steel is running (CA-45)
*The new competitive seat where Kim is running (CA-40)
*And the blue seat that Valadao holds but routinely over-performs in by a lot

While Dems hold all the safe blue seats, take down Garcia in his now even bluer seat, and the Biden +lowdoubledigit seats where Porter, Harder, Levin will run

For a net outcome of R-1, D+0

Valadao, Garcia, and Steel probably all lose

Steel likely holds on in 2022. and Valadao is more likely than not to survive as well. Garcia though could go either way.

I actually think Valadao is the most likely of the three to go down

I'd think it's Valadao > Garcia > Steel in terms of winning re-election.
Steel's electoral track record is mediocre, and her district barely overlaps. The part that does also happens to be where she underperformed Trump.

Turned this dialogue into its own thread since this one is more about district lines: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=477463.0

[StateBoiler]

This is interesting. They kept LGBT communities united in districts wherever possible.

https://www.eqca.org/big-wins-lgbtq-redistricting/

If LGBT qualifies as a COI, you can create a COI for literally any reason, thereby negating the practical power of the term.

If LGBT people don't fit your definition of a COI, I'd love to hear what does.

I'm saying if it fits as a community of interest geographically, what does not? I could create a rugby player COI in NorCal to maximize the number of rugby players inside one district and therefore maximize their influence. I can make a legitimate claim to it's a real COI because rugby players in my 14 years in the sport in this country are a cult of the brethren, and in NorCal would have high crossover with the Pacific Islander minority. Now I think everyone would think such a claim would be absurd and ridiculous because rugby players don't have a geographic base, but neither does the LGBT community. COI's in my opinion should be limited to political subdivisions - counties, cities, towns, wards - because those cannot be defined as partisan. If the LGBT community happens to be in higher numbers in a handful of wards that make up a district, so be it. But to not maximize the LGBT community in a few districts is no worse than not maximizing the Libertarian or Green Party vote in a few districts.

As with all things redistricting, people need to understand ulterior motives. So what's the ulterior motive for having a LGBT COI since it does not only affect the district with that COI but every other district that surrounds it?

I guess you're not going to be convinced if you think it's reasonable to compare LGBT identity to status as a rugby player or for that matter to membership in a political party (whether a fringe party or a major one).

I believe drawing any districts based on some kind of identity or demographic is not only gerrymandering, it is segregationist. It's why I roll my eyes at all the gerrymandering talk. The people that are anti-gerrymandering believe that we should draw districts specifically for certain groups. Last I checked, that is gerrymandering when you draw districts to ensure or encourage certain results, and anyone that believes that is okay while on the same hand is anti-gerrymandering is a hypocrite full of sh*t plain and simple. I'll say that with my hand on a Bible, I'll say that hooked up to a lie detector. I'll say it in a courtroom sworn to an oath. COI's not based on natural political subdivisions are just another way of doing gerrymandering on the sly.

California went to a "nonpartisan commission" system and suddenly all these COI's start popping up to influence district line mapmaking. Anyone that thinks that is just a coincidence and not connected is quite frankly not intelligent enough to discuss redistricting on this board and their opinions should not be taken seriously on the subject.

[coloradocowboi]

This is interesting. They kept LGBT communities united in districts wherever possible.

https://www.eqca.org/big-wins-lgbtq-redistricting/

If LGBT qualifies as a COI, you can create a COI for literally any reason, thereby negating the practical power of the term.

If LGBT people don't fit your definition of a COI, I'd love to hear what does.

I'm saying if it fits as a community of interest geographically, what does not? I could create a rugby player COI in NorCal to maximize the number of rugby players inside one district and therefore maximize their influence. I can make a legitimate claim to it's a real COI because rugby players in my 14 years in the sport in this country are a cult of the brethren, and in NorCal would have high crossover with the Pacific Islander minority. Now I think everyone would think such a claim would be absurd and ridiculous because rugby players don't have a geographic base, but neither does the LGBT community. COI's in my opinion should be limited to political subdivisions - counties, cities, towns, wards - because those cannot be defined as partisan. If the LGBT community happens to be in higher numbers in a handful of wards that make up a district, so be it. But to not maximize the LGBT community in a few districts is no worse than not maximizing the Libertarian or Green Party vote in a few districts.

As with all things redistricting, people need to understand ulterior motives. So what's the ulterior motive for having a LGBT COI since it does not only affect the district with that COI but every other district that surrounds it?

I guess you're not going to be convinced if you think it's reasonable to compare LGBT identity to status as a rugby player or for that matter to membership in a political party (whether a fringe party or a major one).

I believe drawing any districts based on some kind of identity or demographic is not only gerrymandering, it is segregationist. It's why I roll my eyes at all the gerrymandering talk. The people that are anti-gerrymandering believe that we should draw districts specifically for certain groups. Last I checked, that is gerrymandering when you draw districts to ensure or encourage certain results, and anyone that believes that is okay while on the same hand is anti-gerrymandering is a hypocrite full of sh*t plain and simple. I'll say that with my hand on a Bible, I'll say that hooked up to a lie detector. I'll say it in a courtroom sworn to an oath. COI's not based on natural political subdivisions are just another way of doing gerrymandering on the sly.

California went to a "nonpartisan commission" system and suddenly all these COI's start popping up to influence district line mapmaking. Anyone that thinks that is just a coincidence and not connected is quite frankly not intelligent enough to discuss redistricting on this board and their opinions should not be taken seriously on the subject.

You are making a “why don’t we have straight pride parade?” Arguments about political representation in order to suggest one of this country’s most oppressed minorities shouldn’t have an opportunity to elect one of their own to congress. The segregationist is you, homie. And the commission understands better than you do that representation is a cure for oppression, not that I think you care about that or my obvious community of interest anyway.

Which is why libertarianism is such a contradictory and nonsensical ideology. Gov’t should stay out of people’s lives! But this community whose sexuality has been regulated by gov’t shouldn’t have any interest in gov’t representation? What exactly do you believe lol?

[DrScholl]

From what I have read the White liberal areas of Bakersfield were added to Valadao's district and with conservative parts of Hanford being extracted that makes it hard for him to win. He would have lost the new district had it been used in 2020.

[Oryxslayer]

From what I have read the White liberal areas of Bakersfield were added to Valadao's district and with conservative parts of Hanford being extracted that makes it hard for him to win. He would have lost the new district had it been used in 2020.

Yes, he could have lost under these lines based on the precinct congressional vote analysis. But it isn't cause of White Liberals - those don't really exist in Bakersfield. Rather, he just lost a lot of rural Hispanic territory in Fresno and Hanford and gained urban Hispanics in Bakersfield, and Valadao is a rural overperformer.

Really its hard to say who of the 2020 CA GOP intake (excluding Kim) is most vulnerable. Garcia has the most reliably blue seat of the three now and lost his best areas, Steele represents very little of her bluer district and is facing another Asian American, and rural overperformer Valadao saw his seat get more urban and is facing Salas, the Bakersfield overperformer.

[DrScholl]

From what I have read the White liberal areas of Bakersfield were added to Valadao's district and with conservative parts of Hanford being extracted that makes it hard for him to win. He would have lost the new district had it been used in 2020.

Yes, he could have lost under these lines based on the precinct congressional vote analysis. But it isn't cause of White Liberals - those don't really exist in Bakersfield. Rather, he just lost a lot of rural Hispanic territory in Fresno and Hanford and gained urban Hispanics in Bakersfield, and Valadao is a rural overperformer.

Really its hard to say who of the 2020 CA GOP intake (excluding Kim) is most vulnerable. Garcia has the most reliably blue seat of the three now and lost his best areas, Steele represents very little of her bluer district and is facing another Asian American, and rural overperformer Valadao saw his seat get more urban and is facing Salas, the Bakersfield overperformer.

Someone from Bakersfield described to me that there is a cluster of liberal White voters in the city and there are some plurality white precincts that vote Democratic that were previously in McCarthy's district that got moved to Valadao's district.