2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: California

[StateBoiler]

Saw this article with a redistricting consultant saying that CA is 50/50 on losing a second district: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-could-lose-a-seat-in-Congress-but-Bay-15734945.php

Also if illegals aren't counted we could lose three. Doubt that happens though

"Redistricting Consultant"

Ranks up there with "lactation consultant" for "that's a job?"

[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.

[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?

[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.