How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission

[muon2]

Here's a reworked south side of LAC. There are no muni splits except for LA, Long Beach, and Commerce (and the Montebello nibble). All these districts are within 100 of the ideal population! If this looks at least as reasonable as my previous work, I could be convinced to switch. The BVAP in 34 should still equate to a CVAP over 50%. Here are the VAPs for groups over 10%.

CD 33 Downtown/South LA: 68.5% HVAP, 15.9% BVAP
CD 34 Inglewood/Compton: 44.9% HVAP, 43.3% BVAP
CD 35: Downey/Norwalk: 67.5% HVAP, 19.7% WVAP
CD 36: South Gate/Carson: 72.1% HVAP
CD 37: Torrance/Santa Monica: 55.4% HVAP, 20.7% HVAP, 16.5% AVAP
CD 38: Long Beach: 40.4% WVAP, 29.1% HVAP, 19.0% AVAP

[Sbane]

I always figured Morgan Hill was named after the prominent hill next to the town, but apparently that's called El Toro, not Morgan Hill. Now I know.

Morgan Hill certainly can't be in a Santa Cruz district; there's no usable road through the mountains there, and to get from Morgan Hill or Gilroy to Santa Cruz you need to go through either Watsonville or San Jose.

Cupertino has more in common with Los Altos or Saratoga than it does with San Jose, whereas Campbell would fit better with the San Jose district than with the richer areas to its south. Demographically, Cupertino now has a large Asian majority, but income is probably a better indicator of communities of interest in the South Bay than race would be. It would be nice to simply switch Campbell with Cupertino (and the districts would look cleaner, too), but unfortunately Cupertino is significantly larger.

 

Do you like this version of CA-15 better, Xahar, with its chop of Cupertino?  Yes, you are right, Cupertino has twice the median income of Campbell (140K versus 70K).  But it does not help the Asian "cause," because CA-15 is more Asian than CA-14 of course. The Asian VAP percentages with this chop are 17% for CA-14, 29.5% for CA-15 (down from 32% with my version), and 42.7% for CA-16. But in addition to furthering along the class warfare metric, the Cupertino chop also makes the map less erose. I am inclined to accept Xahar's suggestion, unless someone changes my mind. When it comes to the Bay area, I do listen more than when it comes to my neck of the woods in Socal (where I think I know next to everything).

I am fine with this map. Lowers the Asian % even more though, but that's not hugely important. Mike Honda would easily get through a primary here. And this creates a middle class district in the Silicon Valley. Then again the other district contains Mountain View, which has a similar income to Sunnyvale and Santa Clara. If we drop the pretense of having a high Asian % district, you can just add Mountain view to the 15th, and get rid of the chop in Cupertino, add the parts of SJ adjacent to Cupertino (similar incomes I think) to the 14th as well as the Almaden Valley. That would create a better middle of the road district though the 14th would still have all of Santa Cruz so it can't be a wholly upper class district in any case. The map you drew might just be a compromise of all these variables.

Ideally a chop of Cupertino wouldn't be necessary, but if it is, that's where it should be. I like sbane's idea of putting Mountain View in with the 15th in exchange for Cupertino and Almaden. That knob in the westernmost part of San Jose that juts out south of Cupertino and north of Saratoga is where I live; if all of Cupertino and Saratoga are to be in one district, that part of San Jose should be there also.

It's interesting that sbane's suggestion would essentially make one district running along 280 and 85 and another more generally aligned with 101. I think that makes sense.

Sorry I'm coming late to this thread (and this post)..but since I live in the same general area as Xahar, I thought I'd respond.

If I were redistricting this particular area, I'd try to get as much of northern Mountain View and Sunnyvale running along 101 with Santa Clara as possible, but would include Downtown and much of East San Jose in that district, too. Then, I would connect Evergreen in the East with much of South San Jose (similar demographics) and Los Gatos, maybe some of West San Jose and Campbell in there too. Finally, I would put Saratoga, Cupertino, and the southern half of Sunnyvale in the same district as Los Altos and southern Mountain View.

Those are my (very rough) thoughts right now, feel free to comment.

I think that would lead to too many municipal splits. I understand why you want to split the cities, but it probably won't fly with a fair map unless there are VRA requirements. I would keep Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara together, and instead of going into East San Jose (lower income than these areas) I would go pick up Milpitas and the parts of Fremont as required. Not sure if that would create a whole district. Evergreen does get stuck in a East San Jose district, where it doesn't belong, but trying to connect it to another CD might make the map too erose, and force the East San Jose district to pick up neighborhoods with similar incomes to Evergreen which defeats the whole purpose of excluding Evergreen. Worth drawing and seeing how it works out.

[Torie]

Here's a reworked south side of LAC. There are no muni splits except for LA, Long Beach, and Commerce (and the Montebello nibble). All these districts are within 100 of the ideal population! If this looks at least as reasonable as my previous work, I could be convinced to switch. The BVAP in 34 should still equate to a CVAP over 50%. Here are the VAPs for groups over 10%.

CD 33 Downtown/South LA: 68.5% HVAP, 15.9% BVAP
CD 34 Inglewood/Compton: 44.9% HVAP, 43.3% BVAP
CD 35: Downey/Norwalk: 67.5% HVAP, 19.7% WVAP
CD 36: South Gate/Carson: 72.1% HVAP
CD 37: Torrance/Santa Monica: 55.4% HVAP, 20.7% HVAP, 16.5% AVAP
CD 38: Long Beach: 40.4% WVAP, 29.1% HVAP, 19.0% AVAP

Better map, but again, not so good in places from a COI standpoint: La Mirada being in an Hispanic CD, Palos Verdes not being in the beach CD, and the like. I like its compactness though.  I guess chops of unincorporated islands don't count as chops (e.g. the one there near Culver City).  Some of the cuts in of the beach CD are also kind of ugly, and again really not a good COI mix. But then, I know, you don't like the COI metric.

[Torie]

Do we like this version of a Silicon Valley cut better?  It is the white/Asian v. Hispanic chop.

[Sbane]

Do we like this version of a Silicon Valley cut better?  It is the white/Asian v. Hispanic chop.

Interesting. What I would have done is got rid of the Hispanic parts of the 15th basically east of CA-87 in exchange for the areas of the 16th northwest of Campbell, Campbell itself, and the areas to the east of it as much is needed. I think that would create a nice east side district.

[Хahar 🤔]

That map is rather uglier than the other one, but it does make sense.

[muon2]

Do we like this version of a Silicon Valley cut better?  It is the white/Asian v. Hispanic chop.

Interesting. What I would have done is got rid of the Hispanic parts of the 15th basically east of CA-87 in exchange for the areas of the 16th northwest of Campbell, Campbell itself, and the areas to the east of it as much is needed. I think that would create a nice east side district.

I don't see the COI in the east side extension of CD 15. Overall it looks like one Asian tiger (my preference) gives way to two Asian plurality districts. It's also hard to judge CD 16 without seeing the southern end. It looks like you'll be chopping Gilroy.

sbane's suggestion would leave neither district with an Asian plurality from what I see.

Is there any way to make a reasonable map that only splits SJ two ways?

[Torie]

Are we going to have a race-class based division of the Silicon Valley, or a geography based division?  You can't have both. Sure I can knock out CA-14 from San Jose, but then Mountain View goes back into CA-14, along with Campbell, and it will still be tight. CA-14 might have to go down to Morgan Hill over some crummy little mountain road to make it happen.

I am open here. I don't know the this part of CA very well at all (south of Palo Alto, and north of Los Gatos). How are we going to resolve this? I am getting "stereophonic" advice.

And yes, I try to balance geography and the minimize chops thing, and race and class where I can. And I focus more on communities, so the net Asian percentage in a CD is not the key, for example, but rather within a community that needs to be chopped. I mean Miltpitas and Fremont are heavily Asian, but have been chopped from now more Asian designed CA-16 from just a San Jose standpoint. Hispanics have been shoved into CA-15 in SJ, yet because Morgan Hill and stuff has to be in CA-16, the Hispanic percentage between the two CD's does not vary too much.

In sum, one cannot minimize chops of SJ, and do the class and race based metric here at the same time. One must choose. My prior map focused more on geography, but not entirely, since I still tri-chopped SJ, just more modestly. And that little jut of SJ to the west south of Cupertino, which looks to be a similar demographic, I am inclined to leave in CA-14, even if it represents a third CD moving into SJ. And CA-14 taking Campbell, which would also be necessary to keep it out of SJ, creates its own erosity (while taking those handful of SJ precincts south of Cupertino, reduces erosity).

So again, how will we resolve this?

Oh, the southern end of CA-16 is unchanged. Gilroy was chopped long ago. We have already had that discussion. And the east-side extension of CA-15 in this version is Hispanic, uniting SJ Hispanics.



Anyway, here is another version, which makes CA-16 40.5% AVAP.

[muon2]

Are we going to have a race-class based division of the Silicon Valley, or a geography based division?  You can't have both. Sure I can knock out CA-14 from San Jose, but then Mountain View goes back into CA-14, along with Campbell, and it will still be tight. CA-14 might have to go down to Morgan Hill over some crummy little mountain road to make it happen.

I am open here. I don't know the this part of CA very well at all (south of Palo Alto, and north of Los Gatos). How are we going to resolve this? I am getting "stereophonic" advice.

And yes, I try to balance geography and the minimize chops thing, and race and class where I can. And I focus more on communities, so the net Asian percentage in a CD is not the key, for example, but rather within a community that needs to be chopped. I mean Miltpitas and Fremont are heavily Asian, but have been chopped from now more Asian designed CA-16 from just a San Jose standpoint. Hispanics have been shoved into CA-15 in SJ, yet because Morgan Hill and stuff has to be in CA-16, the Hispanic percentage between the two CD's does not vary too much.

In sum, one cannot minimize chops of SJ, and do the class and race based metric here at the same time. One must choose. My prior map focused more on geography, but not entirely, since I still tri-chopped SJ, just more modestly. And that little jut of SJ to the west south of Cupertino, which looks to be a similar demographic, I am inclined to leave in CA-14, even if it represents a third CD moving into SJ. And CA-14 taking Campbell, which would also be necessary to keep it out of SJ, creates its own erosity (while taking those handful of SJ precincts south of Cupertino, reduces erosity).

So again, how will we resolve this?

Oh, the southern end of CA-16 is unchanged. Gilroy was chopped long ago. We have already had that discussion. And the east-side extension of CA-15 in this version is Hispanic, uniting SJ Hispanics.



Anyway, here is another version, which makes CA-16 40.4% AVAP.

I agree that it is a conundrum. Geography and demography are working at cross purposes in the SV. I was willing to go with a northern Asian tiger and let geography dictate the rest. Even so, in this edition I was left with a bit of SJ between Saratoga and Campbell that I couldn't help but put in a tri-chop. I didn't get a lot of support this year, though I would note that when I floated this concept in 2008 on the forum it got better reviews. I suspect we've gotten more sophisticated as we've watched the last year unfold. This was my original offering.

[Sbane]

Here is how I would draw it. First of all I kept the chops in Fremont and Gilroy as Torie has it. Then I kept Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara together and traveled down CA-237 to pick up Milpitas and the Fremont chop. I kept all of the east side of SJ together in CA-16. And CA-15 goes down to pick up Campbell and the areas to the east of it. I kept all of the parts of San Jose near Cupertino in the 14th west of Saratoga Avenue.

This is a class map, with no regard for racial stats. In fact for the total population, each of the districts ends up about 33% Asian. And I am fine with that unless you can show me evidence of racially polarized voting in the Silicon Valley. Did the commission find that? You have the 14th as the upper class district hugging the hills, the 15th picking up the middle of the road places in the valley and the 16th picking up the more working class east side. And yes, Asians here are working class as well with the exception of the Evergreen area. I guess I could have picked that area up with the 15th but it would have made the map more erose and it would have ended up being swapped for similar income areas in any case. BTW can anyone tell me how the area east of Campbell is? It's not a high income area is it? I have a feeling it's middle class but I don't know that area too well.

[Torie]

Looks OK to me sbane (no sorry, Mike I don't like your map), but you chop the Hispanics in SJ - and the Asians north of SJ, from those to the south. I am looking for some consensus here, pretending we are all commissioners negotiating. There is no right or wrong answer here.

All I know about the area east of Campbell in SJ is that it is lily white. I would assume it is middle class too. I have absolutely no reason to believe it has much of a upper middle class component, but like you, I have zero idea as to the "truth."

[Sbane]

Looks OK to me sbane (no sorry, Mike I don't like your map), but you chop the Hispanics in SJ - and the Asians north of SJ, from those to the south. I am looking for some consensus here, pretending we are all commissioners negotiating. There is no right or wrong answer here.

All I know about the area east of Campbell in SJ is that it is lily white. I would assume it is middle class too. I have absolutely no reason to believe it has much of a upper middle class component, but like you, I have zero idea as to the "truth."

No, I made sure to pick up most of the Hispanic areas in SJ and put it in the 16th. Which area are you talking about specifically? As for Asians, I do split Milpitas and Fremont from east SJ Asians. Like I said only the evergreen area really goes with the middle class theme. The Vietnamese areas, which kind of overlap with the Hispanic areas, are not that high income. It is possible to substitute Evergreen for the areas east of Campbell and that will make the 15th more Asian and erose, but is it really necessary? Do Asians vote differently than other groups? Is there group voting in primaries? The commission found evidence of racially polarized voting in many parts of California, but was the Silicon Valley one of those areas?

[Sbane]

Here's another option. I picked up the Asian areas right adjacent to Milpitas for the 15th. I can go down and pick up Evergreen too and get rid of Campbell and areas adjacent to it..... It's up to 40% AVAP BTW.

[Torie]

This rectangle is solidly Hispanic. Surprising - but true.

[Torie]

Here's another option. I picked up the Asian areas right adjacent to Milpitas for the 15th. I can go down and pick up Evergreen too and get rid of Campbell and areas adjacent to it..... It's up to 40% AVAP BTW.

This maps "unites" bourgeoisie whites/Asians, with dirt poor Hispanics it looks like in CA-16. Where or where shall the SJ Hispanics go?

Would not it be better to "dump" them into CA-15, and have CA-16 pick up some more middle class white areas in the Campbell and farther east areas, at least to the extent necessary, with Campbell going either way?

The solution? I think Mountain View needs to go back into CA-14. This maximizes the CA-15 ACVAP to boot, combining lower income Asians with Hispanics.

[Sbane]

Here's another option. I picked up the Asian areas right adjacent to Milpitas for the 15th. I can go down and pick up Evergreen too and get rid of Campbell and areas adjacent to it..... It's up to 40% AVAP BTW.

This maps "unites" bourgeoisie whites/Asians, with dirt poor Hispanics it looks like in CA-16. Where or where shall the SJ Hispanics go?

Would not it be better to "dump" them into CA-15, and have CA-16 pick up some more middle class white areas in the Campbell and farther east areas, at least to the extent necessary, with Campbell going either way?

The south and southeast parts where there is a high Asian population isn't really that bourgeoisie. That would be Cupertino and adjacent parts of SJ. I guess they are middle class though, but with some working class elements for sure, especially south of I-680 and along US-101. You wouldn't say Garden Grove is bourgeoisie, would you? I think it would be best to keep the east side together, which is why I like my first map, rather than this second one which is a bit of a compromise trying to up the Asian % in the 15th.

[muon2]

Here's a version that avoids the tri-chop of SJ and keeps the east side Asian district together at 50.4% AVAP. The SJ Hispanic core areas are kept intact as well (Alum Rock is in though the muni lines make it hard to see. The west side corridor along Ca-85 is maintained. Muni boundaries are respected elsewhere.

 

[Хahar 🤔]

School leaves me without time at the moment to try a map of my own, but here are my priorities, listed in order:

1. Class
2. Eroseness
3. Race
4. Political boundaries

Communities of interest are primarily class-based, as I've mentioned before, to the extent that aesthetic appeal is more important than race. As for political boundaries, the county lines were drawn long before most of the Santa Clara Valley was settled, rendering them rather useless, and municipal boundaries are completely useless; thanks to the rabid pro-growth policy that San Jose followed until Norm Mineta was elected Mayor, San Jose is a leviathan that encompasses whatever it was able to grab, without regard to geographical location. Splitting San Jose is not undesirable in the slightest.

[Torie]

I put up another map in my post above, and then three more posts intervened. Assuming we do a SJ tri-chop (I just can't get off on Mike's maps here, they are too damned erose for starters, and of course are based on his overall CA map design (in this case I think due to the SF chop coming from the north rather than the south), which varies from mine as we all know to boot, and that circle simply cannot be squared), is that a reasonable "chop" of the Gordian knot?

[muon2]

I put up another map in my post above, and then three more posts intervened. Assuming we do a SJ tri-chop (I just can't get off on Mike's maps here, they are too damned erose for starters), is that a reasonable "chop" of the Gordian knot?

The challenge for erosity is dealing with the shape of the Latino core of SJ. Here's a more compact version that has the SJ tri-chop. How compact do you want?

[Torie]

I think you need to work with my map, and the CA-14, 15 and 16 merry-go-round Mike, or we will be talking past one another. I am not going to trash my entire NoCal map design. Given the outer perimeters of those three districts as drawn, how do you divvy up the spoils? That is the question with my map. But yes, that aside, we are getting closer.

I will happy to do the same working with your map design, although given your very tight metrics, there really aren't many choices out there, are there? The computer drives your map, with mere humans having relatively few choices. Am I wrong about that?

[minionofmidas]

Here's another option. I picked up the Asian areas right adjacent to Milpitas for the 15th. I can go down and pick up Evergreen too and get rid of Campbell and areas adjacent to it..... It's up to 40% AVAP BTW.

This maps "unites" bourgeoisie whites/Asians, with dirt poor Hispanics it looks like in CA-16. Where or where shall the SJ Hispanics go?

What happens if you move Los Altos, Palo Alto, Stamford to the orange so that brown spills into the bay (as opposed to ocean) side of things exclusively through Los Gatos Canyon, trichopping SJ hard? (Am I talking about the area exchanged for Campbell or about a counterclockwise shift? Why, I've no idea. Whichever makes more sense.)

[muon2]

I think you need to work with my map, and the CA-14, 15 and 16 merry-go-round Mike, or we will be talking past one another. I am not going to trash my entire NoCal map design. Given the outer perimeters of those three districts as drawn, how do you divvy up the spoils? That is the question with my map. But yes, that aside, we are getting closer.

I will happy to do the same working with your map design, although given your very tight metrics, there really aren't many choices out there, are there? The computer drives your map, with mere humans having relatively few choices. Am I wrong about that?

Your challenge is fair and I accept. I'll do analysis of your map to see if there are a reasonable set of options to choose among.

[muon2]

I think you need to work with my map, and the CA-14, 15 and 16 merry-go-round Mike, or we will be talking past one another. I am not going to trash my entire NoCal map design. Given the outer perimeters of those three districts as drawn, how do you divvy up the spoils? That is the question with my map. But yes, that aside, we are getting closer.

I will happy to do the same working with your map design, although given your very tight metrics, there really aren't many choices out there, are there? The computer drives your map, with mere humans having relatively few choices. Am I wrong about that?

Your challenge is fair and I accept. I'll do analysis of your map to see if there are a reasonable set of options to choose among.

I have constructed the following map to illustrate my analysis. I begins by following the 48 K chop out of Alameda, so it should be compatible with the Torie plan.



The lime green area is what seems to be the consensus core of CD 15. The only variable might be how far south to extend from Milpitas. I used the natural division that occurs where the Hispanic population dominates, and without breaking Alum Rock or East Foothills. This core area has a pop of 450 k with 48.8% AVAP. Adding the 48 K from Alameda gives a population that requires an additional 205 K to complete the district.

I can identify three basic choices to complete CD 15, two of which are shown in the map. The purple area is downtown and the Hispanic core of SJ including Alum Rock which wraps around some of those core blocks. This area is 56.7% HVAP and seems like it should stay together in a single district. The yellow areas sit between the CD 15 core and the CD 14 core shown in red. The third option would be to extend south from East Foothills into the heavily Asian areas, but that is a non-starter in Torie's plan.

Either the purple or yellow option would work with the CD 15 core, and both choices have AVAPs in the low to mid 20's. That means that CD 15 would be at best an Asian plurality district, and it brings up the issue of how to chop into Alameda. The Fremont chop in blue has a high Asian pop, but that doesn't seem relevant given the direction of the district as a whole. It is an erose peninsula, and the Asians in Fremont get split no matter how one cuts it. I would suggest consideration of the green chop instead. It has a lower AVAP, but make a less erose match to the rest of CD 15.

I think that resolving the shape of CD 15 first will lead more naturaly into the best division between CD 14 and 16.

[Sbane]

Excellent idea on the alternate chop in Fremont assuming the green part has the same population as the blue district. The green chop of Fremont and the city of Newark are distinctly middle class. The blue parts are completely upper middle class to upper class with a median income around 120-130k easily. If we are going with a class map, the green chop of the Fremont area is better.I also think the 15th should pick up the yellow areas instead of the purple Hispanic areas. I think the Hispanic areas go better with the areas to its south. The Asian areas to its south, especially north and west of Capitol expressway around US 101 are fairly working class.