2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: California

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

A few preferences of mine:
1. San Diego and Imperial really don't pair. Imperial should go with Palm Springs/Indio, even if it means a SD-Riverside Split.
2. Orange County has some natural communities of interest that you are chopping up weirdly. Oryx made a good map of them here:
 If you do a LA/OC split, it should be extending an Asian Belt district towards Cerritos, which is a sensible COI.
3. CA-27 should me a majority Asian VRA district. Drop Pasadena and Eagle Rock and shift it east a little bit,
4. The San Fernando Valley makes 2 CDs plus the Burbank/North Hollywood one, so you should really try to keep the 28th south of Mulholland. If this forces a new LA/Ventura split, the best place to do it is along the 101 corridor or from Santa Clarita-Ventura.
5. The Eastern Sierras should be paired with the Antelope and Victor Valleys. Northing should cross from the Central Valley.
6. The North Coast should be intact and separate from the Redding area. Santa Rosa-Crescent City should be one thing.
7. Ideally, Contra Costa/Solano splits should be avoided, and the western parts of Alameda and Contra costa should be looked at as a unit which is separate from the Walnut Creek/Livermore area, even if it forces more county splits.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

A few preferences of mine:
1. San Diego and Imperial really don't pair. Imperial should go with Palm Springs/Indio, even if it means a SD-Riverside Split.
2. Orange County has some natural communities of interest that you are chopping up weirdly. Oryx made a good map of them here:
 If you do a LA/OC split, it should be extending an Asian Belt district towards Cerritos, which is a sensible COI.
3. CA-27 should me a majority Asian VRA district. Drop Pasadena and Eagle Rock and shift it east a little bit,
4. The San Fernando Valley makes 2 CDs plus the Burbank/North Hollywood one, so you should really try to keep the 28th south of Mulholland. If this forces a new LA/Ventura split, the best place to do it is along the 101 corridor or from Santa Clarita-Ventura.
5. The Eastern Sierras should be paired with the Antelope and Victor Valleys. Northing should cross from the Central Valley.
6. The North Coast should be intact and separate from the Redding area. Santa Rosa-Crescent City should be one thing.
7. Ideally, Contra Costa/Solano splits should be avoided, and the western parts of Alameda and Contra costa should be looked at as a unit which is separate from the Walnut Creek/Livermore area, even if it forces more county splits.

What do you think of this map.

Generally a fan. The Inland Empire and desert districts are particularly good. There are 3 changes I personally would make:
1. Personally, I prefer to create an OC Asian Belt district and do an OC-SD split, but that's just personal preference.
2. That Southeast LA/North OC district seems a bit messy and I'd try and clean that up.
3. I would try and make the Westside district stay south of Mulholland and push east into Culver City instead.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

4 was kind of confusing, I would like it if you got in more detail in regards to it.

I like where you're going with this. Re #4, my point is that this area:



naturally makes two districts and absolutely should be kept together. If possible, you should make 2 core SFV+1 Burbank/NoHo district (which you already have) and keep the Santa Monica/Beverly Hills and Santa Clarita districts out of the San Fernando Valley.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

4 was kind of confusing, I would like it if you got in more detail in regards to it.

I like where you're going with this. Re #4, my point is that this area:

[snipped]

naturally makes two districts and absolutely should be kept together. If possible, you should make 2 core SFV+1 Burbank/NoHo district (which you already have) and keep the Santa Monica/Beverly Hills and Santa Clarita districts out of the San Fernando Valley.

I think the central SFV district on this map is a Hispanic district, though. You're not going to be able to draw just two districts in the SFV while creating a Hispanic opportunity district unless you make the white district wind around and almost totally encircle the Hispanic district, which is not going to be acceptable to anyone. I think it's more likely that you get one Hispanic opportunity district entirely within the SFV and then a bunch of other districts nibble the edges of the SFV.

This works:

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Tim and Seven Eleven, I ended up reconfiguring my whole Southern California map from what I showed you because that valley configuration (which is 52% Latino in the Sylmar/Canoga Park district) forced me to pair Santa Monica and Ventura, which I just didn't like.

Anyway, this is what I have now:



Annoyingly, this forces 3 LA/Ventura splits, which is excessive, but it allows a Latino SFV district (CA-25) and it doesn't make me do weird things in the LA/IE/OC areas. I also like keeping Santa Clarita and the Antelope Valley as their own separate unit. Finally, it lets me keep Bakersfield intact. Anyway, I just decided to push all the SFV districts west into Ventura along the coast (CA-27), 101/134 (CA-26), and Santa Clarita River (CA-24). In this way, I don't think it divides up any Ventura County COIs except Thousand Oaks, which is split three ways by freeways anyhow.

Anyway, now I have to actually finish this up and do NorCal.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Tim and Seven Eleven, I ended up reconfiguring my whole Southern California map from what I showed you because that valley configuration (which is 52% Latino in the Sylmar/Canoga Park district) forced me to pair Santa Monica and Ventura, which I just didn't like.

Anyway, this is what I have now:



Annoyingly, this forces 3 LA/Ventura splits, which is excessive, but it allows a Latino SFV district (CA-25) and it doesn't make me do weird things in the LA/IE/OC areas. I also like keeping Santa Clarita and the Antelope Valley as their own separate unit. Finally, it lets me keep Bakersfield intact. Anyway, I just decided to push all the SFV districts west into Ventura along the coast (CA-27), 101/134 (CA-26), and Santa Clarita River (CA-24). In this way, I don't think it divides up any Ventura County COIs except Thousand Oaks, which is split three ways by freeways anyhow.

Anyway, now I have to actually finish this up and do NorCal.

what is the Asian % in your CA-46?

It's 40% Asian, 33% Latino, and 23% white.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Tim and Seven Eleven, I ended up reconfiguring my whole Southern California map from what I showed you because that valley configuration (which is 52% Latino in the Sylmar/Canoga Park district) forced me to pair Santa Monica and Ventura, which I just didn't like.

Anyway, this is what I have now:



Annoyingly, this forces 3 LA/Ventura splits, which is excessive, but it allows a Latino SFV district (CA-25) and it doesn't make me do weird things in the LA/IE/OC areas. I also like keeping Santa Clarita and the Antelope Valley as their own separate unit. Finally, it lets me keep Bakersfield intact. Anyway, I just decided to push all the SFV districts west into Ventura along the coast (CA-27), 101/134 (CA-26), and Santa Clarita River (CA-24). In this way, I don't think it divides up any Ventura County COIs except Thousand Oaks, which is split three ways by freeways anyhow.

Anyway, now I have to actually finish this up and do NorCal.

what is the Asian % in your CA-46?

It's 40% Asian, 33% Latino, and 23% white.

That's great.
What about 45, 44, and 47?

45:
64% Latino
20% White
13% Asian

44:
49% White
27% Asian
21% Latino

47:
61% White
20% Latino
17% Asian

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Interesting but not too shocking to see the coastal OC seat be so heavily White.
In general I quite like your OC seats.
Is it possible to put La Habra in CA-46?

Coastal OC is very white, and crucially, probably the most white-liberal part of OC. While it is more GOP than some other OC districts, I expect the white population here votes rather in line with CA whites overall. It's possible to move La Habra into CA-46, but that seriously dilutes the Asian population and La Habra is arguably more closely linked to cities like Whittier and Norwalk anyway.

It doesn't look like you have an Asian district in the SFV, am I reading it wrong?

The Asian district is Garden Grove/Cerritos. The West SFV district is plurality white and is CA-26, not CA-46.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I meant SGV, oops.

CA-30 is 42% Asian but I can revisit it and make it stronger. After all, it's actually 45% Latino.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Finished my California map:



Bay Area Closeup:



Southern California Closeup:

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Any thoughts?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Any thoughts?

Is Cisneros in 37 and Torres in 38? Is Lowenthal's successor in 46?

Yes to all of the above.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Any thoughts?

Is Cisneros in 37 and Torres in 38? Is Lowenthal's successor in 46?

Yes to all of the above.

Are Waters and Bass merged into 32?

Yeah, but Bass probably runs in 28.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Any thoughts?

Is Cisneros in 37 and Torres in 38? Is Lowenthal's successor in 46?

Yes to all of the above.

Are Waters and Bass merged into 32?

Yeah, but Bass probably runs in 28.

What about Schiff and Chu? Does Chu retire?

Schiff runs in 29 and Chu in 30.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Does Ruiz take in Imperial?

Yep.

What % Hispanic is district 20?

62%

Where does Sherman go?

Either 26 or 27 with Brownley taking the other. They'd probably work something out between them.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Is Lowenthal the only one other than Napolitano who doesn't have a district?

Basically, although I only cut one district. Lowenthal's was just really heavily shifted into OC. Some others don't resemble current districts at all though, particularly in the Central Valley.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Is Lowenthal the only one other than Napolitano who doesn't have a district?

Basically, although I only cut one district. Lowenthal's was just really heavily shifted into OC. Some others don't resemble current districts at all though, particularly in the Central Valley.

Would Lowenthal likely retire? He will be 82, and his district loses Long Beach to Barragan.

Definitely. I expect Napolitano and Lowenthal to retire, with a new OC based rep taking over the new Asian Belt district and the bulk of Napolitano's district becoming part of Cisneros'.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Is Lowenthal the only one other than Napolitano who doesn't have a district?

Basically, although I only cut one district. Lowenthal's was just really heavily shifted into OC. Some others don't resemble current districts at all though, particularly in the Central Valley.

Would Lowenthal likely retire? He will be 82, and his district loses Long Beach to Barragan.

Definitely. I expect Napolitano and Lowenthal to retire, with a new OC based rep taking over the new Asian Belt district and the bulk of Napolitano's district becoming part of Cisneros'.

What's the PVI of the district Lowenthal probably vacates?

The OC Asian belt one?
Clinton+21.

It's a safe Dem seat.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Cook PVI is pretty useless. If it's Clinton +21 it doesn't matter what the Romney vote was. If it's Clinton +5, it also probably doesn't matter if it was Romney +5.

Is current CA-47 Clinton +32?

Yes.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Finished my California map:

Did you draw out Khanna lol

Not intentionally. I assume he'd just run in that Hayward-Fremont-Milpitas district.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

It was also noted online that there are only two selected individuals from the Monterray/Central-Coast region: one Dem, one Unaffiliated - both Hispanic. The analysis noted that one of those two will likely be selected in order to ensure that region has a voice.

Glancing over the lists it also appears there are only two selected individuals from the 'Jefferson' part of the state: one Republican from Shasta and one Unaffiliated from Humboldt. One will probably be selected. Considering that unaffiliated voter is almost certainly a 'too hippy for the Democratic Party' (given Humbolt's tradition for this sort of thing) that's probably a vote of support against a Republican plans. This is what I mean by the CA dems having an unequal amount of resources and influence because of their size, meaning that a Bay Area GOP delegation might end up outplayed.

The GOP shouldn't have an equal voice simply because they exist (barely). There's a reason Democratic candidates have been getting between 60 and 100% statewide lately. The fact that they are even allowed to participate is a larger role than they would have had without the current commission.

Pass another ballot if you want to gerrymander 52-0 California.

I don't believe in gerrymandering.

So then what are you asking for?

There is no need for crocodile tears about the plight of the poor, disadvantaged Republicans.

So what's your solution to gerrymandering?
What do you want California to do.

I don't have a problem with the way California does things.

Yep. It produces fair maps and should be the norm nationwide.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Personally, I think something like this works better. It pairs the North Coast (blue) with Napa, non-Sac Yolo, Vacaville, and some of the Central Valley. That way, you can keep Santa Rosa and Marin together, which makes a very cohesive district. Sure, there is nothin tying Vacaville to Mendocino, but this map doesn't split any important COIs (sure, it would be nice to keep Vacaville and Fairfield together, but whatever) and lets you keep the North Bay intact.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

My preference on that alignment is to draw one district that is Marin and enough of Sonoma to reach a full district, then another district that is the Coast region, the rest of Sonoma, all of Napa and maybe extending to inland Solano (I don't recall exactly what is needed to reach full population). I think that respects communities of interest better than the current map, keeping one district that is wealthy SF suburbs and one district that is clearly rural/remote areas. That is, you start with drawing the Marin-Sonoma district and then you draw the Coast district around it.

I also think Siskiyou could plausibly be put into the Coast district without issue. It's mountainous and not agricultural at all (more of a logging/fishing/hunting/tourism-type area, like the Northern Coast), thus very different from Redding and points south and fits as well into the Northern Coast COI as it does into the Northern Central Valley COI.

Doesn't that kind of cut weirdly across the terrain though? IIRC it does need a good bit of population, even if you have fairly generous allocations up north. (i.e. Trinity and Del Norte in the district)

See the map I just posted in my edit: It actually works out perfectly with Fairfield/Vacaville to leave Vallejo and the other Bay-adjacent parts of Solano available for an East Bay-based district.

Not totally ideal but Fairfield-Vacaville are pretty closely tied to Napa, which in turn is pretty closely tied to the Northern Coast. It's not totally ideal, but I think it's better than Marin with the Northern Coast, and there is no obvious alternative population-wise.

Considering there are other more vital COI's getting busted in your map (Sutter+Yuba, The Yolo bit of Sacramento and Sacramento City) it's probably better to keep CA02 going into Marin. even if the coastline COI is weak, it plus Wine County and the other two mentioned are better than the presented alternative.

West Sacramento is not going to go with Sacramento when you can draw two districts entirely within Sacramento County.

I agree on Sutter-Yuba but that's not an essential split; I did it because I prefer Placer with Davis.

Looking at it from a COI perspective, there isn't that strong a case to keep the various Sacramento County suburbs paired with each other instead of other suburban counties.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

My preference on that alignment is to draw one district that is Marin and enough of Sonoma to reach a full district, then another district that is the Coast region, the rest of Sonoma, all of Napa and maybe extending to inland Solano (I don't recall exactly what is needed to reach full population). I think that respects communities of interest better than the current map, keeping one district that is wealthy SF suburbs and one district that is clearly rural/remote areas. That is, you start with drawing the Marin-Sonoma district and then you draw the Coast district around it.

I also think Siskiyou could plausibly be put into the Coast district without issue. It's mountainous and not agricultural at all (more of a logging/fishing/hunting/tourism-type area, like the Northern Coast), thus very different from Redding and points south and fits as well into the Northern Coast COI as it does into the Northern Central Valley COI.

Doesn't that kind of cut weirdly across the terrain though? IIRC it does need a good bit of population, even if you have fairly generous allocations up north. (i.e. Trinity and Del Norte in the district)

See the map I just posted in my edit: It actually works out perfectly with Fairfield/Vacaville to leave Vallejo and the other Bay-adjacent parts of Solano available for an East Bay-based district.

Not totally ideal but Fairfield-Vacaville are pretty closely tied to Napa, which in turn is pretty closely tied to the Northern Coast. It's not totally ideal, but I think it's better than Marin with the Northern Coast, and there is no obvious alternative population-wise.

Considering there are other more vital COI's getting busted in your map (Sutter+Yuba, The Yolo bit of Sacramento and Sacramento City) it's probably better to keep CA02 going into Marin. even if the coastline COI is weak, it plus Wine County and the other two mentioned are better than the presented alternative.

West Sacramento is not going to go with Sacramento when you can draw two districts entirely within Sacramento County.

I agree on Sutter-Yuba but that's not an essential split; I did it because I prefer Placer with Davis.

Looking at it from a COI perspective, there isn't that strong a case to keep the various Sacramento County suburbs paired with each other instead of other suburban counties.

This would be the case if you could clearly draw three Sacramento-area districts, but because of the way Sutter County splits Yolo from Placer, this isn't really possible without extra county splits that would be frowned on. Even then I think Yolo-Placer + 2 Sacramento County districts would be the proper alignment. Your map is huge mess. Elk Grove out to South Lake Tahoe is not a COI, nor is Antioch-Galt. I'm sympathetic to putting northeastern Sacramento County with Placer, too, but it doesn't work with the rest of the map.

I disagree. South Lake Tahoe's strongest link to the rest of the world is the US-50 corridor, so an Elk Grove+Folsom+South Lake Tahoe district makes a lot of sense. Similarly, Nevada+Placer+that bit of NE Sacramento County makes one district. That leaves the North Coast-Wine Country-Davis/Vacaville District and the 10 county far northern California district. Sure, there's nothing tying Galt to Antioch, but it's as tied to Lodi and Stockton as it is to Elk Grove and Sacramento so it's necessary for population adjustment.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

My preference on that alignment is to draw one district that is Marin and enough of Sonoma to reach a full district, then another district that is the Coast region, the rest of Sonoma, all of Napa and maybe extending to inland Solano (I don't recall exactly what is needed to reach full population). I think that respects communities of interest better than the current map, keeping one district that is wealthy SF suburbs and one district that is clearly rural/remote areas. That is, you start with drawing the Marin-Sonoma district and then you draw the Coast district around it.

I also think Siskiyou could plausibly be put into the Coast district without issue. It's mountainous and not agricultural at all (more of a logging/fishing/hunting/tourism-type area, like the Northern Coast), thus very different from Redding and points south and fits as well into the Northern Coast COI as it does into the Northern Central Valley COI.

Doesn't that kind of cut weirdly across the terrain though? IIRC it does need a good bit of population, even if you have fairly generous allocations up north. (i.e. Trinity and Del Norte in the district)

See the map I just posted in my edit: It actually works out perfectly with Fairfield/Vacaville to leave Vallejo and the other Bay-adjacent parts of Solano available for an East Bay-based district.

Not totally ideal but Fairfield-Vacaville are pretty closely tied to Napa, which in turn is pretty closely tied to the Northern Coast. It's not totally ideal, but I think it's better than Marin with the Northern Coast, and there is no obvious alternative population-wise.

Considering there are other more vital COI's getting busted in your map (Sutter+Yuba, The Yolo bit of Sacramento and Sacramento City) it's probably better to keep CA02 going into Marin. even if the coastline COI is weak, it plus Wine County and the other two mentioned are better than the presented alternative.

West Sacramento is not going to go with Sacramento when you can draw two districts entirely within Sacramento County.

I agree on Sutter-Yuba but that's not an essential split; I did it because I prefer Placer with Davis.

Looking at it from a COI perspective, there isn't that strong a case to keep the various Sacramento County suburbs paired with each other instead of other suburban counties.

This would be the case if you could clearly draw three Sacramento-area districts, but because of the way Sutter County splits Yolo from Placer, this isn't really possible without extra county splits that would be frowned on. Even then I think Yolo-Placer + 2 Sacramento County districts would be the proper alignment. Your map is huge mess. Elk Grove out to South Lake Tahoe is not a COI, nor is Antioch-Galt. I'm sympathetic to putting northeastern Sacramento County with Placer, too, but it doesn't work with the rest of the map.

I disagree. South Lake Tahoe's strongest link to the rest of the world is the US-50 corridor, so an Elk Grove+Folsom+South Lake Tahoe district makes a lot of sense. Similarly, Nevada+Placer+that bit of NE Sacramento County makes one district. That leaves the North Coast-Wine Country-Davis/Vacaville District and the 10 county far northern California district. Sure, there's nothing tying Galt to Antioch, but it's as tied to Lodi and Stockton as it is to Elk Grove and Sacramento so it's necessary for population adjustment.

To Folsom makes sense, but not to Elk Grove. South Lake Tahoe more properly belongs with the rest of Lake Tahoe and/or other mountain areas. Combining with Placer and NE Sacramento County is not crazy as a result (though I think this doesn't work for population with the rest of the areas north of Sacramento/Davis), but diving that far into Sacramento County is not reasonable.

Other Mountain Areas is not a serious population base. Regardless, the bulk of the population is going to be in the Sacramento Metro, so you have to decide what parts are most appropriate to pair with Tahoe.

You can make a district with Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, Amador, and Alpine, but I'm not sure if you can make a case that Folsom is significantly more tied with Lincoln than Elk Grove. Regardless, I think the Sac suburbs don't have some natural grouping so I prefer to start with the city and go from there. So far as I'm concerned, the best map pairs West Sac and the City of Sacramento to start with, and then chops up the suburbs from there.