2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: California

[lfromnj]

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.

[lfromnj]

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?

[lfromnj]

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.

[lfromnj]

On to serious discussion


The California Redistricting Commission has selected the final 60 names: 20 of each pool from which the final commissioners will be selected. You can access the lists here:

Republicans
Democrats
Unaffiliated

With these fairly detailed lists, we can begin to discern the shape of the commission. The most common characteristic of everyone is their comfortable income. This is unsurprising - those most willing to participate in redistricting are stable enough to give up time to political activism.

Demographically, the ethnic distribution is what one would expect but with some exceptions. The democrats have more minorities than whites, and the opposite is true for the GOP. The biggest demographic standout is in the Indie group, which is very diverse. It also has a lot of Asians, and we know how that group has moved in the past 4 years. It leads on to potentially conclude that there are D-leaners in both the GOP group and especially in the Indie pool considering the nature of the coalitions. This however should be unsurprising given California's Trend.

The most interesting thing though are the cross-cutting geographic identities selected by the California commission. There are A LOT of Bay Area Republicans, and Los Angeles dominates the democratic pool. This has seems to have been done to temper partisan attachment to ones home region - Bay Area republicans have nothing to present for the GOP in the region, and LA democrats are surrounded by more democrats and will be more concerned with ethnic communities. The problem I am sensing though is that the playing field is not level; this is California and the California Democratic Party has more tools at their disposal. If the Republican contingency is dominated by NorCal, then they won't have the on-the-ground knowledge that would help them preserve Red opportunities in Orange and her environs. I you only have a birds eye view then you may just see a Blue OC and consider it lost.

You're making a lot of assumptions here. Don't you think that someone who signs up for a redistricting commission would know a lot about the state and be interested enough to know these things?

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-democrats-fooled-californias-redistricting-commission
Its mostly boomer retirees.

[lfromnj]

Oryxslayer, do you start at the top of the state and work your way down or how do you do it?

My maps tend to be longer projects because I don't start right from any one spot. First, I outline my goals. If it's incumbent protection, I immediately color all incumbent residencies. Then I search for sensible multi-county groupings in most parts of the state. Obviously this doesn't work in smaller states with few districts or in large counties like LA. For example, you will go back a few posts you will see I make note of the fact that a Bay Area+ group has nearly 11 districts exactly. In smaller fair district maps, I grab all multi or cross-county COIs first like say Lansing's 3 counties. In Incumbent protection plans, I start with incumbent bases of support be they counties or cities as the initial building blocks. In gerry's I start with the most necessary packs, like Milwaulkee in Wisconsin. From there I start building out, expanding usually within the bounds of established communties.

So, it's complex, but the truth is I start everywhere. For example, my CA-in process map started with me creating the northern, valley, and Bay Area groupings. I then added or removed from the groups when it was best. When I came to the valley, I needed to also needed to delineate the Imperial Valley and San Diego regions, since those effect the bottom of the valley.  

This is very time consuming, so you need a bunch of free time (surprise it's corona season which I why I am attempting CA) but it's how most of the redistricting firms view maps. A simpler option is just to retrain your preservative - don't think of one district as preceding another, think of each district on it's own and that it needs to stand independently. It's easy to tell who thinks in the former way and who in the latter, since the latter tends to have cascading county or community cuts from their initial starting position.

Texas is actually a better way to see the map like this
You can draw your individual metro areas and figure out what you want there then draw the rest of the rural districts connecting the metros. California is a hard state for a beginner along with Florida due to basically most of the state being urbanized. Texas lets you divide the state up into mini areas to work with first.  Meanwhile in California Los angeles is connected to the central valley etc .

[lfromnj]

Why wouldn't you just keep Sacramento county in exactly 2 districts?
It fits it exactly.

[lfromnj]

You can definitely make an R district in Orange County by taking in mostly coastal OC towns and it makes sense to do this. Avoiding city splits I took in Los Alamitos, Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, Dana Point, San Juan Capistrano, San Clemente and Aliso Viejo. It also packs in whites and is 55R-45D. Then you can have a Riverside district and a San Diego district. So you can definitely get 3 fair R districts in Socal.

My coastal district went for Clinton by less than 600 votes. I put Fountain Valley in the Asian district. You can make Republican districts but there is no reason to pursue that over other concerns outside of partisanship.

It takes in like communities, most precincts in Fountain Valley are majority white and I wanted to avoid city splits

I don't think adding Fountain Valley would change my district much outside of making the Irvine split uglier.

Let's face it, Republicans are going to get railroaded by this commission and it's going to be glorious. The composition and function of the commission is pretty unfavorable to Republicans given the current political geography. Republicans were handed a major win last time with that bullsh**t CA-47, that won't be the case this time. Population changes have really hurt the GOP. Democrats have no reason to compromise as the Supreme Court is now Democratic. At best, Dems will allow Nunes to stay for a 45-5-2 map.

So whats your goal here?
making a truly non partisan/fair map or is to make what you think the commission will lightly D gerrymander?

Im saying this everyone make your map's intentions clear when you draw it and the scenario it has.

[lfromnj]

What are the counties that are defined as part of the CV?, for the 2 performing seats.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[lfromnj]

Well you would agree then with that Stockton seat you have to push the rest of San Joaquin and Stanislaus into Sacramento county because there are aren't any roads left to the bay area.


So in exchange for Josh Harder becoming completely fortified, Mckerney takes a moderate hit assuming he runs in the red district but is still in a Clinton +8.5 district, on the other hand Ami Bera either has to go against Mckerney in a double bunk or run in the pink Trump +2 district that is trending left but still a Trump district. Mcclintock is still in a Trump +11 district although La malfa is now in danger in a wave in a Trump +13 district that includes Humboldt county(and when there is a 2 party race you can't vote green) So he might have lost in 2018 with this district.

The brown and blue districts in Fresno are 50% CVAP hispanic. There we go.

[lfromnj]

Why are you mapping with the partisan data turned on? California is not allowed to consider political affiliation or incumbency by law.

There's nothing wrong with pushing San Joaquin district into Sacramento. You're going to pull West Sacramento from Yolo anyway, so it's not a perfect two districts.

Then if you push 200k into Sacramento county where do you take the main suburban Sacramento district? Also just habit, as I switched from demographical data. I didn't look at the districts actual data really until after I made the district.

[lfromnj]

Finished my map: https://davesredistricting.org/join/5180a8ee-d24e-48b4-8e6f-83d0f5a041d9


Recommendations welcome, I know that the 10th is ugly, mostly because it was my leftover seat, also the Inland Empire mess is to try to draw more minority access seats.

How do we have a district that connects a northern Sacramento suburb to San Bernandino.

[lfromnj]

Shouldnt the commission adjust by CVAP?

[lfromnj]

I just read the applications of the three Republicans selected. I would be shocked if any of them voted for Donald Trump. Shocked.

Link?

[lfromnj]

I hope to bolster the public's belief in the process and confidence that, even if their voting districts have unusual shapes, the reason is to connect people of similar interests, not political gerrymandering.

This is from the Berkeley RINO

[lfromnj]

AA over-representation is much better for Republicans than Hispanic over-representation.  Inglewood, Compton, Richmond, and Oakland are not close to any red leaning areas.  Drawing a map favorable to blacks won't hurt republicans.   But drawing a latino friendly map could.  Of course, the map will be VRA compliant, but idk about a bunch of additional hispanic opportunity seats like some here hoped for. Good to see a central valley republican on there too. 

Ridiculous take. Favoring AAs means that Latino representation will have to be made up for elsewhere.

Ridiculous take. The gingles test doesn't work like that.

Well Scotus wouldn't say that but the California redistricting commission with 0 Trump voters will.

[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.

[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.