I'd make the argument that if Democrats did gerrymander the CA map in 2010, they would've been better off with a fair one in 2016...fully 7 R-held districts are only marginally Republican (one is fully lean Dem) with only 7 R vote sinks.
Meanwhile the Democrats really only hold 4 marginal seats with all other 35 being pretty safe.
If they originally gerrymandered Ed Royce, Jeff Denham, and Steve Knight as "vote sinks" then those gerrymanders are basically doing nothing but protecting them now.
In other words - If California has a Dem Gerrymander, it turned out to be a dummymander.
It's not that. I just don't think Democrats could've predicted how the decade unfolded. California voted almost 2-1 for Hillary over Trump, a margin not seen since 1936 (just like her victory in Orange County being the first in said time). The fact is that when you get to those statewide margins, the majority party is going to dominate disproportionately to its overall percentage.
There are only 5-6 districts in California I'd say are more or less impossible for Democrats: CA-01, CA-04, CA-08, (maybe CA-22), CA-23, and CA-50. A Democratic gerrymander could easily pull in CA-04. The Sacramento suburbs are moving leftward fast, but it's taking some time in Placer County. I think an overt Democratic gerrymander could take 48-49 seats if it was done right.
