Talk Elections

General Politics => Political Geography & Demographics => Topic started by: Landslide Lyndon on November 17, 2010, 05:35:46 PM



Title: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on November 17, 2010, 05:35:46 PM
From Swing State Project, a map that conforms to the realities of non-partisan redistricting and compact districts.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/8028/redistricting-california (http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/8028/redistricting-california)

Overall, that would be almost a net gain of 6 for the Democrats, just from drawing more compact districts. In reality, it will probably be 4 or 5, because I'm sure the Central Valley will turn out a bit differently than I had it, but there will nonetheless be another swing district up no matter how they draw it.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on November 18, 2010, 02:50:16 AM
The GOP will lose seats in CA. I doubt it will be that many (given the Dem trend in  California in the last decade, what was once a pretty square incumbent protection deal, became in effect a GOP gerrymander - not way out there - call it a GOP gerrymander light to medium). The issue is how many new majority minority CD's the commission wants to create, and there will be a lot of pressure to maximize them, particularly if it helps the Pubbies as a side effect. It will be a complex exercise to get a handle on what the choices of the commission really are, given the very tight constraints under the new law as to how districts are drawn. It would probably take me a solid week to even begin to get a handle on it. It is that complicated.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on November 18, 2010, 12:15:13 PM
I really don't see how the GOP is going to hold onto the current CA-03 just for starters. Maybe if they had a solid incumbent but a guy who just barely broke 50% in a wave year clearly isn't such an example.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on November 18, 2010, 12:35:31 PM
CA-44 as well. Calvert barely won the Riverside county portion of his district in this wave year, and actually lost it in 2008 (when his opponent basically had no money iirc). He will likely only get the Riverside portion this time around, and that should be enough due to high population growth in that area. Calvert better hope his district follows I-15 down from Corona to Murrieta, and even that probably won't have enough population, and is much less logical than a Hwy 91 based district that takes in Riverside.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on November 18, 2010, 01:09:08 PM
Congress will be a better place without Calvert's fat corrupt ass in it in any event.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: muon2 on November 18, 2010, 08:16:47 PM
The SSP map in the OP link seems to focus too much on counties and compactness then it looks at partisan balance. I don't see any analysis of Hispanic representation. I think that may be more of a factor than many are giving thought towards. When I looked this summer (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=97085.780) using criteria from the commission I found that I could create 18 Hispanic-majority districts, 15 of which exceeded 60% Hispanic.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on November 23, 2010, 11:04:07 AM
The SSP map in the OP link seems to focus too much on counties and compactness then it looks at partisan balance. I don't see any analysis of Hispanic representation. I think that may be more of a factor than many are giving thought towards. When I looked this summer (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=97085.780) using criteria from the commission I found that I could create 18 Hispanic-majority districts, 15 of which exceeded 60% Hispanic.

Maybe the Obama DOJ won't insist so much in California if there is a better chance for the Democrats to score gains without too many VRA districts.
If they want to appease Hispanics they can do that by demanding 3 new Hispanic majority districts in Texas and a second one in Arizona.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on November 23, 2010, 11:07:13 AM
The SSP map in the OP link seems to focus too much on counties and compactness then it looks at partisan balance. I don't see any analysis of Hispanic representation. I think that may be more of a factor than many are giving thought towards. When I looked this summer (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=97085.780) using criteria from the commission I found that I could create 18 Hispanic-majority districts, 15 of which exceeded 60% Hispanic.

Maybe the Obama DOJ won't insist so much in California if there is a better chance for the Democrats to score gains without too many VRA districts.
If they want to appease Hispanics they can do that by demanding 3 new Hispanic majority districts in Texas and a second one in Arizona.

Well Arizona and Texas are actually pre-clearance states under the VRA. California isn't and the DOJ has basically no say there.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: jimrtex on November 23, 2010, 12:10:01 PM
The SSP map in the OP link seems to focus too much on counties and compactness then it looks at partisan balance. I don't see any analysis of Hispanic representation. I think that may be more of a factor than many are giving thought towards. When I looked this summer (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=97085.780) using criteria from the commission I found that I could create 18 Hispanic-majority districts, 15 of which exceeded 60% Hispanic.

Maybe the Obama DOJ won't insist so much in California if there is a better chance for the Democrats to score gains without too many VRA districts.
If they want to appease Hispanics they can do that by demanding 3 new Hispanic majority districts in Texas and a second one in Arizona.

Well Arizona and Texas are actually pre-clearance states under the VRA. California isn't and the DOJ has basically no say there.
4 counties in California are pre-clearance jurisdictions, so California has to get preclearance for any change that affects those counties specifically or in general.  They have to still get preclearance to switch congressional redistricting placed under the jurisdiction of the redistricting commission, and will have to get preclearance for each redistricting plan.

Moreover, anybody can challenge a redistricting plan under Section 2 of the VRA.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: redcommander on December 22, 2010, 01:24:43 AM
I will be the optimist and hope the GOP picks up seats. They will need a strong game plan and excellent candidate recruitment. BTW Doesn't VRA only apply to Southern states?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 22, 2010, 01:32:10 AM
I will be the optimist and hope the GOP picks up seats. They will need a strong game plan and excellent candidate recruitment. BTW Doesn't VRA only apply to Southern states?

The VRA applies to certain counties in California (Monterey comes to mind, though there are others), and since the redistricting affects every county in the state, it is subject to the VRA.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: redcommander on December 22, 2010, 01:34:54 AM
I will be the optimist and hope the GOP picks up seats. They will need a strong game plan and excellent candidate recruitment. BTW Doesn't VRA only apply to Southern states?

The VRA applies to certain counties in California (Monterey comes to mind, though there are others), and since the redistricting affects every county in the state, it is subject to the VRA.

Ah I see thanks for the info.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on December 22, 2010, 02:25:10 AM
Congress will be a better place without Calvert's fat corrupt ass in it in any event.

Definately. Any chance Jerry Lewis loses his seat as well?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: redcommander on December 22, 2010, 02:52:06 AM
Congress will be a better place without Calvert's fat corrupt ass in it in any event.

Definately. Any chance Jerry Lewis loses his seat as well?

Probably no unfortunately, unless he retires. Swing State who usually leans to the left in political analysis doesn't even see a significant PVI change to the Democrats with the independent commission.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Brittain33 on December 22, 2010, 09:01:46 AM
Congress will be a better place without Calvert's fat corrupt ass in it in any event.

Definately. Any chance Jerry Lewis loses his seat as well?

Probably no unfortunately, unless he retires. Swing State who usually leans to the left in political analysis doesn't even see a significant PVI change to the Democrats with the independent commission.

Yes, there's certainly going to be one Republican district near San Bernardino.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on December 22, 2010, 11:15:07 AM
Anyone agree Lungren is probably done?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on December 22, 2010, 04:02:51 PM
I don't know the terrain well enough up there yet, and how the minority-majority thing will impact it.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: DrScholl on December 22, 2010, 05:31:54 PM
I drew that map, glad it got some discussion going here.

Lungren will almost certainly have his seat contained to Sacramento County and may end up facing Garamendi, who would very likely defeat him. Even with another opponent, he'd be the underdog.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 22, 2010, 05:43:26 PM

I'd say it's more likely than not that he's bounced, particularly in a presidential year.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on December 22, 2010, 10:46:31 PM
I think Lungren will end up with a seat that a strong incumbent Republican could hold, but not someone who could only pull 50% in a wave year. The writing is on the wall for the guy, much like similar Republicans who went down in 2006/08 and some Democrats in 2010.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: muon2 on December 22, 2010, 10:58:15 PM
A lot will depend on how the commission sets its communities of interest. Of the geographic measure required by the constitution, that is the most nebulous. As the commission starts to define that, the effect on the map should become clear.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on December 23, 2010, 03:21:03 AM
Lungren will get a Sacramento County district. There are no Hispanic districts to be drawn there, so 2 districts will be drawn within the county, which works out almost perfectly. Lungren could still hold that district though, but it will be hard if Obama is winning in 2012 and Lungren has a well financed challenger.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: cannonia on December 23, 2010, 08:12:41 AM
I really don't see how the GOP is going to hold onto the current CA-03 just for starters. Maybe if they had a solid incumbent but a guy who just barely broke 50% in a wave year clearly isn't such an example.

There was no wave this year in Sacramento County.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: freepcrusher on January 23, 2011, 12:12:41 AM
one thing that needs to be drawn is a black majority district in LA. It can be done. According to a 1978 article, it said that Augustus Hawkins represented a 59 percent black district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on January 23, 2011, 12:48:01 AM
one thing that needs to be drawn is a black majority district in LA. It can be done. According to a 1978 article, it said that Augustus Hawkins represented a 59 percent black district.

While I am sure it may be possible (though it may be possible in 2010, I will guarantee you that district won't be majority Black by the next census), I doubt that it will be required. Rather Blacks will get a couple of districts where they can elect their own representatives.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: freepcrusher on January 23, 2011, 12:57:47 AM
what makes you think it wouldn't be majority black by next decade? In L.A. blacks are to mexicans what Native Americans are to whites in 1870s Montana.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: krazen1211 on January 23, 2011, 01:26:49 AM
The SSP map in the OP link seems to focus too much on counties and compactness then it looks at partisan balance. I don't see any analysis of Hispanic representation. I think that may be more of a factor than many are giving thought towards. When I looked this summer (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=97085.780) using criteria from the commission I found that I could create 18 Hispanic-majority districts, 15 of which exceeded 60% Hispanic.

Maybe the Obama DOJ won't insist so much in California if there is a better chance for the Democrats to score gains without too many VRA districts.
If they want to appease Hispanics they can do that by demanding 3 new Hispanic majority districts in Texas and a second one in Arizona.

Well Arizona and Texas are actually pre-clearance states under the VRA. California isn't and the DOJ has basically no say there.

Nobody is going to submit to the DOJ if they decide to be partisan hacks about it. It'll go to the district court instead.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: DrScholl on January 23, 2011, 10:34:43 AM
one thing that needs to be drawn is a black majority district in LA. It can be done. According to a 1978 article, it said that Augustus Hawkins represented a 59 percent black district.

Those parts are becoming more and more Hispanic, many Blacks have moved out to places like the Antelope Valley and Inland Empire, so it's not easy to do a compact black district. A black representative can still get elected, because the political bench and structure there still is mostly black.



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on January 23, 2011, 12:40:45 PM
what makes you think it wouldn't be majority black by next decade? In L.A. blacks are to mexicans what Native Americans are to whites in 1870s Montana.

Black LA neighborhoods (save for the middle class/rich areas) are rapidly becoming Latino. Compton is already Latino majority and so is Inglewood according to the latest ACS estimate. But like I said, Blacks don't need a majority to elect their own leaders since Latinos vote at a much lower rate, and many aren't eligible to vote to begin with.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on February 11, 2011, 11:38:20 AM
Well I have commenced the massive, problematical,  unpredictable and legally complex task of redistricting my own state. I have drawn, tentatively, the first five CD's. CA-51 is 57% Hispanic, CA-45 is 61% Hispanic, CA-53 looks to me like a marginal CD politically, with CA-50 and CA-52 GOP.  CA-53 is all in the City of San Diego, except for picking up upper middle class Anglo Coronado. Because of population constraints, unfortunately CA-50 and 52 need to split some city of San Diego precincts at its far northern end.  

I am not sure what will happen with CA-49 (it is on my map, but at this point, is used just to define the perimeters of CA-50), but it looks to me like it will end up all in Riverside County, with Oceanside and Fallbrook in San Diego County appended to my CD, CA-48 in Orange County (making it an uber GOP CD). So Darryl Issa, who lives in Vista, has been drawn into CA-50. I don't think he will be running against Bilbray in CA-50. He certainly won't be moving to CA-48 to run against my Congressman, John Campbell. So it looks like his only real option is to run against Bono in an all Riverside County CA-49 (since Bono's CA-45 has gone Hispanic - and Dem - on her). That should be an interesting contest. :)

So CA-53 has gone from Dem to marginal (that is my guess, although it could be lean Dem), and the Pubbies have lost CA-45. That is my tally sheet so far: Pubbies minus .5 seats. I am guessing the Pubbie body count when finished will be around 3 seats, plus or minus 1 seat. We shall see. It will also be interesting to see how many marginal CD's we come up, with would never be drawn with the mouse clutched in the fingers of a partisan, but probably will this time with the mouse in other hands.  

With this state, the only way to do it I think is to start in one corner of the state and go from there, since otherwise one runs the risk of having to undo what one did before, when one hits a corner, and finds the territory that is left just won't work. And I suspect that in general, one will need to draw the minority CD's first, where they are in play, so one knows what is left for the Anglo CD's. That is why I drew CA-45, before touching CA-49, and drew CA-51 first, just to see if an all San Diego County Hispanic CD could be created, which it can. The Hispanic population in the city of San Diego, and Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, and National City, has really shot up over the last decade. Even Lemon Grove is about 50% Hispanic now, although that city is not in CA-51.

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on February 11, 2011, 01:11:57 PM
Are you using the ACS numbers and thus don't have the partisan data?

Also your CA-44 is a pipe dream. :P It should instead take in Perris or Moreno Valley. :)

Also Moreno Valley is only 51% Hispanic (ACS numbers), so is it really necessary to draw that appendage?

Edit: Or are those the old districts I am looking at?(noticed you were drawing the 42nd in the same way, which won't happen either, even though it will remain a safe R district)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on February 11, 2011, 01:39:42 PM
I am using the ACS numbers, sbane, and do not have partisan data, which might be a good idea to in fact not have, since the commission is not supposed to use partisan data. That way, one is less tempted to cheat, although particularly for Socal, I tend to know from memory where the Pubbies and Dems are, anyway, but whatever.

I have only drawn the 5 CD's so far, and CA-44 is not one of them (nor is CA-49, although it looks like I drew it, since it has the right population, but  all the white space on my map representing the Anglo zone of the Coachella Valley needs to be filled in, and CA-49 is probably the CD that will do that). I just have the software draw the existing CD's first, since it makes it easier then to redraw the lines, because the existing lines sometimes follow municipal boundaries, and sometimes follow ethnic boundaries, so it speeds the process up (it is also important, where partisans draw the lines, since one needs to be aware of who is getting new territory, and who is losing it, but that consideration does not obtain here obviously). And yes, Moreno Valley is the only Hispanic zone within reach of CA-45 really. It is otherwise boxed in by Anglo zones. Plus Highway 60, I believe it is, which goes through the Moreno Valley, and then over the "badlands" into Beaumont, does create a nice connection. I drive through the Moreno Valley to get to the desert from OC. I am also trying to avoid splitting counties, and cities, unless really necessary.

In any event, the good news is that this may be Issa's last term potentially. :P


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Brittain33 on February 11, 2011, 02:22:42 PM
This is lovely. Thank you for doing and sharing.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sam Spade on February 11, 2011, 02:30:18 PM
Tough work, especially since it's non-partisan.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on February 11, 2011, 02:43:03 PM
I can't even get California to work on my computer; it takes forever to load, is incredibly slow to move around, and generally causes my browser to lock up.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on February 11, 2011, 03:07:45 PM
I can't even get California to work on my computer; it takes forever to load, is incredibly slow to move around, and generally causes my browser to lock up.

Yes, it's hell, but for some reason, once you get a map up and running, and then saved on your computer, it opens up faster and works better thereafter. Don't ask me why. In addition, the loading factor just to move your map on the screen is slow, and sometimes your CA map just won't move, but instead you find that you are coloring precincts in the wrong color. So now, I make sure that the CD where my mouse is doing the drag, matches which CD button is pushed, so an unwanted color is not introduced. Such is life.

It is also a pity that the map on Bradlee's 2.0 software (which has the updated population numbers  - critical for a state like California), does not show the municipal boundaries (which are critical often to follow given the CA law), so you have to have up a second map with boundaries, and trace by the look of the eye, and since the 2.0 map with the updated intra county population figures has block groups rather than precincts, sometimes the lines of the two maps do not match exactly, and well, you get the idea.

This endeavor is clearly not for timid or lazy. :)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: freepcrusher on February 11, 2011, 04:42:48 PM
i noticed that Mary Bono's district had the most excess population. The eastern part of the district I absorbed into CA 51.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on February 11, 2011, 05:36:51 PM
OK, two more CD's have been drawn, CA-49, and my own CA-48.

47% of CA-49 is from Issa's old CA-49, and 53% is from Bono's CA-45.  That should be barn burner of a contest I think between the two of them, both ideologically and geographically. However, storm clouds are on the horizon. First, my Congressman Campbell has been drawn out of his CD. He lives in Irvine. Second, the only town that used to be in CA-48 was mine - Laguna Niguel. Other than that, CA-48 has all new territory. So either Campbell moves to Laguna Niguel, and runs in a new CD, or he runs in a primary, probably against Dan Rorbacher, whose CD is going to lose most of its LA County salient. The storm cloud is that Issa may move to Oceanside, and run - and win - in my CA-48, and become my new congressman. About 40% of CA-48 used to be in CA-49.  The balance was in CA-44, the Calvert CD jutting all the way down from Riverside to San Clemente (ludicrous but it was), and CA-42. The F'ee in other words, may well be Campbell and not Issa. What have I wrought? :(

As to the stats of CA-48, it became at once more GOP and much poorer than it now is. It lost uber high income Newport Beach and Laguna Beach, generally upper middle class Irvine, and some upper middle class to wealthy territory in the inland hills. Suddenly my town of Laguna Niguel becomes the third wealthiest town in the CD, after gated Coto de Caza, and San Juan Capistrano, I suspect.

I spent about 10 minutes trying to figure out if one census tract was in Laguna Beach (and thus in CA something or other (right now it is white space), or Laguna Niguel, and thus in CA-48. After turning down the opacity to next to nothing, and then searching for where the 1200 in population was (most of the census block/tract is the unpopulated canyon between Laguna Niguel and Laguna Beach down which Aliso Creek goes to the sea in south Laguna Beach that is a park and unincorporated territory), I finally found out where the folks lived. The tract slipped over the top of the ridge of the canyon and into my own precinct, taking in the homes at or near the top of the hill on the Laguna Niguel side of the canyon; I am one of the 1200! Fancy that. I could not recognize my very own census tract. :P

So far, I think there really is but one map to draw, and I have drawn it. I would be surprised if the commission does anything that is materially different. Later on there will be key choices to make, that might be more of a tossup, which then means I guess, drawing alternative maps. But not so far in my opinion.

()




Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on February 11, 2011, 06:09:49 PM
What do you plan to do with Irvine? Why not put Campbell in that district and perhaps f over Gary Miller. He already lives in Diamond Bar...just draw him into an LA County district. And north OC goes to Royce obviously.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on February 11, 2011, 06:24:06 PM
What do you plan to do with Irvine?

Don't know, but depending on how the population plays out, the Dana Rohrbacher CD, CA-46, will probably end up primarily as a coastal CD running from Laguna Beach up perhaps into Naples Island and Belmont Shores and Heights in Long Beach (high income Anglo, although with lots of gays and it leans Dem I think), taking in Irvine (and probably Lake Forest too, unless Irvine ends up being split, which I doubt), Newport Beach, Costa Mesa (maybe excluding some Hispanic precincts, the Anglo portion of Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Seal Beach, Los Alamitos. I need to figure out what to do with the Asians (primarily Vietnamese) in the North OC zone as well. Dump them all into Loretta Sanchez's CD, or does she need to go elsewhere to take in more Hispanics, so that the Asians join the Anglo zone?

The other issue is just which CD in OC on the north or north eastern OC boundary crosses over into another county to equalize population. It will be only one, unless there is a good reason to make it more (which would probably only be due to the constraints in generating majority (or close to it), minority CD's).


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on February 11, 2011, 06:34:35 PM
What do you plan to do with Irvine? Why not put Campbell in that district and perhaps f over Gary Miller. He already lives in Diamond Bar...just draw him into an LA County district. And north OC goes to Royce obviously.

I am trying to do what the commission will do, and they by law cannot care a wit about what happens to incumbents. So doing splits and the like for partisan or incumbency reasons, are out. Diamond Bar might be slated to join an Asian CD that runs from there to Monterey Park, sucking up Alhambra, San Marino (yes, Mr. Drier, San Marino is Asian now and you can't have it anymore), and so forth.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: DrScholl on February 11, 2011, 06:46:04 PM
Bilbray will probably end up with a less favorable district, something encompassing the coast, close to the 1990 version, but expanded out a bit more. Davis would be pushed inland.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on February 11, 2011, 06:58:54 PM
Why not add some of Royce's western appendage into Rohrbacher's district (but no municipal splits of course), and have it take in everything up to Laguna Beach by the coast, but leave Irvine, Lake Forest and anything else to it's east you have left for Campbell's district. Then Campbell's district takes in Tustin, Orange, Villa Park and as much of the Anaheim hills as necessary to get enough population. Then the rest of OC goes to Royce, and perhaps extending into Chino Hills and even Chino depending on how much more population is needed. I definitely think the map could be drawn that way. I certainly don't see CA-40 surviving in it's current u-shaped form.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on February 11, 2011, 07:17:37 PM
Why not add some of Royce's western appendage into Rohrbacher's district (but no municipal splits of course), and have it take in everything up to Laguna Beach by the coast, but leave Irvine, Lake Forest and anything else to it's east you have left for Campbell's district. Then Campbell's district takes in Tustin, Orange, Villa Park and as much of the Anaheim hills as necessary to get enough population. Then the rest of OC goes to Royce, and perhaps extending into Chino Hills and even Chino depending on how much more population is needed. I definitely think the map could be drawn that way. I certainly don't see CA-40 surviving in it's current u-shaped form.

Well assuming that the die is cast that CA-48 dips into San Diego County, taking up close to 300,000 residents, that leaves 375,000 or so folks to include  in CA-48 in OC (actually it is 420,000 - just checked by whiting out the OC portion of CA-48). Irvine has about 218,000 folks (http://articles.ocregister.com/2010-04-30/cities/24636689_1_finance-report-population-estimates-irvine-business-complex). How is this going to work again? You have but 200,000 people, to use to connect San Diego County to Irvine. How can one do that, and make it look kosher - meaning that there is a reason to do it, other than save Campbell's ass?  I might add that OC south of the Y really is a community of interest, with the residents thinking of themselves that way, including inter alia, in general hating Newport Beach (who wanted, inter alia, to put a f'ing airport in our backyard, flying right over my house).

The commission will hear testimony saying exactly that.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on February 11, 2011, 07:24:52 PM
I would keep CA-48 as you have drawn it. I would just give Campbell another district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on February 11, 2011, 07:31:29 PM
I would keep CA-48 as you have drawn it. I would just give Campbell another district.

Whom do you propose to be the Pubbie F'ee in OC then? No, Loretta Sanchez isn't going anywhere. :P


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on February 11, 2011, 08:02:41 PM
Gary Miller of course! Isn't a majority of his CD within OC?

Edit: Are Mission Viejo and Rancho Santa Margarita in your new CD-48?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on February 11, 2011, 08:21:22 PM
Gary Miller of course! Isn't a majority of his CD within OC?

Edit: Are Mission Viejo and Rancho Santa Margarita in your new CD-48?

Yes. Everything south of the Y, except Laguna Beach, Lake Forest, Laguna Woods (aka Seizure World coined by John McCain actually), and a bit of Laguna Hills cut off from the rest of Laguna Hills by Seizure World, is in CA-48.

Yes, CA-42 is probably slated for extinction I now see (amazingly enough, I was not aware just how F'ed up the CD's were in OC until just today - I just thought of Campbell, Rohrbacher, Royce, Sanchez, and a bit of south OC being in CA-49, and called it a day, not aware that Miller - and Calvert of all people, were also feeding at the OC Pubbie trough). There will be but one Pubbie CD in the San Gabriel Valley, not two. Milller and Drier will probably need to chat. By the way, I just found (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd) a fantastic nationwide CD map utility. You might wish to bookmark it.

I doubt if it will fly to separate Irvine from Newport Beach however. They are joined at the hip - as you well know. But we will have to see how the population numbers play out. Maybe Irvine does need to be split, and Campbell's home will be on the inland side. But if he lives in Turtle Rock - forget it. Campbell had a car dealership, so I doubt he lives in Woodbridge, or some lesser SES zone in Irvine.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: DrScholl on February 11, 2011, 08:27:56 PM
()

I merged Miller's portion with Royce, while bringing Issa up a bit more. Rohrabacher can stay completely within Orange County and Sanchez keeps a majority Hispanic district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on February 11, 2011, 08:35:06 PM
One needs to start at the Mexican border and move north to do this map stuff. That will tell you exactly how much of OC will go to a CD that is also in San Diego County. The Commission is just not going to do that ridiculous appending of Imperial County to San Diego. That is DOA - especially since an Hispanic CD can be carved out of south San Diego, and another inland taking in Imperial County. And it makes no sense for CA-49 to go into Riverside County, given the Coachella Valley chop that is necessary to create an Hispanic CD, an Hispanic CD that might well be dictated by the VRA in fact.



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on February 11, 2011, 09:25:53 PM
()

Something like this might be drawn. Mind you these are not the ACS figures so it's not 100% accurate, just some ballpark figures. I wanted to draw something up quickly, and didn't want to deal with version 2.0.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on February 11, 2011, 10:00:04 PM
Looks reasonable actually, sbane, except I don't like that red snake thing much as a facial matter, without any other thought whatsoever.

In any event, I just go where my mouse leads me, and having not begun to draw anything yet, had no firm as opposed to speculative preconceived notions about central and northern OC. There is indeed a choice between one long coastal CD, and the zebra look that you drew. The fun thing, is that given that it is my own county, I should have some "inside" knowledge" about what the testimony, etc., will be. There is however, a coastal versus inland divide after one gets north of the Y. Different social sets migrate to one or the other, even if they have the same income levels - up to a point. But I don't like dividing cities (yes of course Anaheim will be chopped, and maybe Santa Ana north of 17th St. still, and the far southeastern bit of Santa Ana I notice has some fancy new condos, so it may have gone Anglo/Asian), unless I have a clear reason to do that in my mind (folks are quite city oriented in OC), and that can push the mouse in other ways.

By the way, here is a fun question. Of the 7 CD's that I have drawn so far, which has the lowest Hispanic percentage, and by a clear margin?  No, it's not CA-45.  :P


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on February 11, 2011, 11:09:14 PM
Looks reasonable actually, sbane, except I don't like that red snake thing much as a facial matter, without any other thought whatsoever.

 

Another option might be to just give it Diamond Bar and surroundings, thus requiring a primary, but it will make the district look nicer. Though the 40th as I have drawn it more or less follows the 91...except for the SBD county portions, which is what looks odd in any case.



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: cinyc on February 12, 2011, 02:24:48 AM
One needs to start at the Mexican border and move north to do this map stuff. That will tell you exactly how much of OC will go to a CD that is also in San Diego County. The Commission is just not going to do that ridiculous appending of Imperial County to San Diego. That is DOA - especially since an Hispanic CD can be carved out of south San Diego, and another inland taking in Imperial County. And it makes no sense for CA-49 to go into Riverside County, given the Coachella Valley chop that is necessary to create an Hispanic CD, an Hispanic CD that might well be dictated by the VRA in fact.



Why shouldn't Imperial County be appended to San Diego County?  It would seem to have very little in common with the Palm Springs area and more major transportation ties to San Diego County.  Does the new California law require racist gerrymandering be considered before all other considerations be taken into account?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on February 12, 2011, 10:48:36 AM
Imperial County is more connected to the Coachella Valley than to San Diego. You just drive up the valley from the Mexican border, all irrigated desert with Hispanic farm workers, right up to Indio and La Quinta.  Then the Hispanic work force changes to service personnel for the Anglo geezers living or snow birding in the Coachella Valley. It is all pretty seamless. You have to drive over mountains that are empty to get to the Imperial/Coachella Valley from San Diego. There is basically nothing there other than migrating illegals. :)  By the way, arguably the Coachella Valley presents one of the most extreme examples of wealth and poverty in the world - side by side. The city of Coachella is a very dreary place. Another little faclet, is that perhaps close to half of CA-45 is below sea level. It would disappear, along with my desert houses, if that little 50 foot high berm created by the Colorado River that keeps the Gulf of California out of the valley, collapsed in an earthquake - perhaps one of the greatest disasters in human memory if it ever occurs. Fancy that.

Do you want Hunter's district, CA-52, to go to the Imperial Valley or something, dropping a bunch of San Diego suburbs?  The Imperial Valley would have been connected to San Diego if necessary to create an Hispanic CD there. It wasn't. It is necessary to create a Coachella Valley Hispanic CD however, one that I think is quite arguably mandated by the VRA. It would almost certainly be litigated, if not drawn.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: freepcrusher on February 12, 2011, 11:20:36 AM
one idea I had was to draw a "republican depository" district in orange county. It basically takes in all of the CD 42 portion of it (except for La Habra), takes in the most republican areas of CD 40 (Villa Park, city of Orange), and the most republican areas of CD 48 (like Lake Forest). The district probably gave McCain 58 percent,and Bush around 65 percent.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: minionofmidas on February 12, 2011, 12:27:20 PM
There is basically nothing there other than migrating illegals. :)
Which merge seamlessly into both the National City etc area of SD, and Imperial County, of course. :P
Seriously, I would not consider something somewhat like the current district "dead on arrival". A little unlikely, yes, but certainly not to be dismissed out of hand. It has problems but also a certain logic.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: DrScholl on February 12, 2011, 12:37:05 PM
Imperial County was attached to CA-52 in the 1990 round of redistricting, it looks cleaner on the map if it's done like that.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: cinyc on February 12, 2011, 02:12:37 PM
Imperial County is more connected to the Coachella Valley than to San Diego. You just drive up the valley from the Mexican border, all irrigated desert with Hispanic farm workers, right up to Indio and La Quinta.  Then the Hispanic work force changes to service personnel for the Anglo geezers living or snow birding in the Coachella Valley. It is all pretty seamless. You have to drive over mountains that are empty to get to the Imperial/Coachella Valley from San Diego. There is basically nothing there other than migrating illegals. :)  By the way, arguably the Coachella Valley presents one of the most extreme examples of wealth and poverty in the world - side by side. The city of Coachella is a very dreary place. Another little faclet, is that perhaps close to half of CA-45 is below sea level. It would disappear, along with my desert houses, if that little 50 foot high berm created by the Colorado River that keeps the Gulf of California out of the valley, collapsed in an earthquake - perhaps one of the greatest disasters in human memory if it ever occurs. Fancy that.

Do you want Hunter's district, CA-52, to go to the Imperial Valley or something, dropping a bunch of San Diego suburbs?  The Imperial Valley would have been connected to San Diego if necessary to create an Hispanic CD there. It wasn't. It is necessary to create a Coachella Valley Hispanic CD however, one that I think is quite arguably mandated by the VRA. It would almost certainly be litigated, if not drawn.

On the other hand, the major highway in the Imperial Valley runs East-West into San Diego County, and those mountains don't just start in San Diego County.  Both San Diego and Imperial Counties are on the border and share common border issues than inland Riverside County doesn't. 

I don't want any one particular district to go anywhere.  What I do want is for congressional district boundaries to stop being drawn on arbitrary things like race.  Granted, that's not going to happen any time soon, but why is the goal maximizing Hispanic districts in a state without an ethnic majority?  What if the Census results show the state has more Hispanics than Anglos?  Do you start drawing Anglo opportunity districts?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on February 12, 2011, 02:41:37 PM
There is basically nothing there other than migrating illegals. :)
Which merge seamlessly into both the National City etc area of SD, and Imperial County, of course. :P
Seriously, I would not consider something somewhat like the current district "dead on arrival". A little unlikely, yes, but certainly not to be dismissed out of hand. It has problems but also a certain logic.

SD is very different from the Imperial valley though. That district may have been drawn in the past when there was no other way to draw a Hispanic district, but recently there has been large growth in the Hispanic population in SD (due to border restrictions after 9/11 I am guessing), as well as huge growth in Riverside County. Now two Hispanic districts can be drawn within those three counties, and I expect that will happen. And almost the only way to make it happen is by connecting Imperial to Riverside, or else it's basically impossible to draw a Hispanic district with enough VAP just within Riverside County.



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on February 12, 2011, 02:46:45 PM
one idea I had was to draw a "republican depository" district in orange county. It basically takes in all of the CD 42 portion of it (except for La Habra), takes in the most republican areas of CD 40 (Villa Park, city of Orange), and the most republican areas of CD 48 (like Lake Forest). The district probably gave McCain 58 percent,and Bush around 65 percent.

Does the district look fair? And another thing to consider is how easy is it to draw other district around it, once you have also drawn in the VRA mandated district in OC as well. Those things will determine whether the commission has a chance of drawing that district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on February 12, 2011, 04:35:37 PM
one idea I had was to draw a "republican depository" district in orange county. It basically takes in all of the CD 42 portion of it (except for La Habra), takes in the most republican areas of CD 40 (Villa Park, city of Orange), and the most republican areas of CD 48 (like Lake Forest). The district probably gave McCain 58 percent,and Bush around 65 percent.

Does the district look fair? And another thing to consider is how easy is it to draw other district around it, once you have also drawn in the VRA mandated district in OC as well. Those things will determine whether the commission has a chance of drawing that district.

I don't think the commission is interested in drawing "Republican depository" CD's, and in any event the GOP members of the commission would veto any such plan, since it among other things would violate the law governing what the commission is supposed to do. Now drawing Anglo depository CD's is another matter.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: krazen1211 on February 12, 2011, 05:36:26 PM
One needs to start at the Mexican border and move north to do this map stuff. That will tell you exactly how much of OC will go to a CD that is also in San Diego County. The Commission is just not going to do that ridiculous appending of Imperial County to San Diego. That is DOA - especially since an Hispanic CD can be carved out of south San Diego, and another inland taking in Imperial County. And it makes no sense for CA-49 to go into Riverside County, given the Coachella Valley chop that is necessary to create an Hispanic CD, an Hispanic CD that might well be dictated by the VRA in fact.



Why shouldn't Imperial County be appended to San Diego County?  It would seem to have very little in common with the Palm Springs area and more major transportation ties to San Diego County.  Does the new California law require racist gerrymandering be considered before all other considerations be taken into account?


That's part of the problem with drawing California: If you start in 1 corner and move to the other, you come up with 'either this or that' decisions, that for the most part, people make based on their political biases.

I kind of think the better way would be to start with all the corners (district 1, 2, 8, 51). Plop down the noncontroversial stuff and go from there.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: dpmapper on February 12, 2011, 08:13:26 PM
If you start in the Bay Area, this is what I get:

()

I think these districts make a lot of sense - obviously you have the SF district, then a blue-collar(-ish) peninsula district in cyan (41% white, 31% Asian, 21% Hispanic).  Next I drew the blue-gray district to be 55% Asian.  Fitting nicely around that is the pink district, which takes the heart of Silicon Valley from Menlo Park to Santa Clara and Los Gatos - very wealthy (other than East Palo Alto), 54% white, 22% Asian, 17% Hispanic.  The light green district takes in what's left of Santa Clara County, which essentially is all of the heavily Hispanic parts, plus some extras - not enough for a majority, but it's 41% Hispanic, 35% white, 19% Asian.  The coastal tan district goes down to Monterrey & Big Sur - it makes a lot of sense to stick Half Moon Bay in there rather than stick other parts of Santa Clara county in with a Central Valley district.  

The yellow district connects as much of the minority areas as possible in the East Bay without being ridiculous: 30 white 22 black  20 Asian 24 Hispanic. One East Bay district has to go inland, due to the numbers, so I made it the teal one.  


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on February 12, 2011, 08:21:57 PM
I doubt an Asian district will be required in the bay area, although you can certainly draw it. They don't vote that different from anglos or hispanics.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on February 12, 2011, 08:23:34 PM
The next thing I think I need to do, is check out the lay of the land for the minority CD's in LA County. That will set the perimeters as to what I do with the intervening space. Among other things, I need to see if I can draw an Asian CD in the San Gabriel Valley. If I can, that will box OC in along its northern frontier, with the Asians maybe picking up La Habra in OC.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on February 12, 2011, 09:53:16 PM
I doubt an Asian district will be required in the bay area, although you can certainly draw it. They don't vote that different from anglos or hispanics.

The issue is whether the commission will want to draw it, and whether the commission hears testimony from Asians who want the CD drawn, and not from Asians who do not. It will be hard to deny Asians their percentage share of CD's (2 or 3), if they push for it.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on February 13, 2011, 04:25:38 AM
I doubt an Asian district will be required in the bay area, although you can certainly draw it. They don't vote that different from anglos or hispanics.

The issue is whether the commission will want to draw it, and whether the commission hears testimony from Asians who want the CD drawn, and not from Asians who do not. It will be hard to deny Asians their percentage share of CD's (2 or 3), if they push for it.

But why would they push for it, and even if they did, would the commission take them seriously? Two Asians already serve in congress from California, and they didn't need Asian districts to get there. Perhaps Chu could get a primary challenge in her district, but Honda needs no protection at all. Racial gerrymandering in the Bay Area is pointless.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on February 13, 2011, 11:19:18 AM
Well bearing in mind what sbane said (again I think if the Asians push for it, it will be hard for the commission to shut them out), here is what turning CA-42 into an Asian CD (49% so far using old population numbers because that map shows me municipal boundaries, which I can use to trace on the 2.0 software with the updated population numbers), might look like. Whether I will really draw this remains to be seen. The green blob to the west represents a pretty solid set of cities that have a community of interest and will probably all hang together in a final draft map (the Asians have really cleaned out the middle to upper middle class WASPS in much of this portion of the San Gabriel Valley (this is where they primarily hanged out, along with parts of Pasadena and La Canada-Flintridge, with the Jews more oriented to the west) since I was a kid growing up in LA I must say), but the salient to Diamond Bar (even though the whole green swath is heavily Asian - each and every precinct - and there is next to no city splitting), is considerably more questionable.

The issue is what disadvantages this shape of the CD presents down the road vis a vis other CD's and other considerations, and as to that I have no clue yet. In addition, the erosity of the Diamond Bar salient may need to be justified by the VRA to be legal under the CA statute, and this CD is not mandated by the VRA (I need to check the precise language in the CA statute again).

This CD is interesting, because it is but lean Dem I strongly suspect. An Asian Pubbie might win it down the road perhaps. :)

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Verily on February 13, 2011, 11:27:31 AM
I've drawn a very similar district on the partisan version before. It's around mid-60s Obama, so somewhere between D+10 and D+15. Diamond Bar and Walnut are only lean D, but Monterey Park, etc. are strongly D.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on February 13, 2011, 11:35:31 AM
I've drawn a very similar district on the partisan version before. It's around mid-60s Obama, so somewhere between D+10 and D+15. Diamond Bar and Walnut are only lean D, but Monterey Park, etc. are strongly D.

Did you have San Marino and Arcadia in it?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: minionofmidas on February 13, 2011, 11:44:46 AM
How Hispanic is your CA-45? If there's one thing that stands out about Imperial, it's that it's the non metropolitan part of SoCal... if it doesn't belong with National City and Imperial Beach, it belongs with LA suburbs even less. So... if the populations and hispanic percentages at all allow it... why not take it further north into the Mojave Desert and Death Valley?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Verily on February 13, 2011, 12:10:45 PM
I've drawn a very similar district on the partisan version before. It's around mid-60s Obama, so somewhere between D+10 and D+15. Diamond Bar and Walnut are only lean D, but Monterey Park, etc. are strongly D.

Did you have San Marino and Arcadia in it?

Don't recall, it was a while ago. I was more fastidious about getting it to majority Asian, so I think I had municipal splits. At least parts of San Marino and Arcadia were in it, though.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on February 13, 2011, 12:22:02 PM
How Hispanic is your CA-45? If there's one thing that stands out about Imperial, it's that it's the non metropolitan part of SoCal... if it doesn't belong with National City and Imperial Beach, it belongs with LA suburbs even less. So... if the populations and hispanic percentages at all allow it... why not take it further north into the Mojave Desert and Death Valley?

It's 61% Hispanic. The Moreno Valley is not really an LA suburb, and a fair number of folks in Moreno Valley commute to the desert to work. I know that because I have met a fair number of them vis a vis my little construction projects in the desert. Nobody hauls ass from the Imperial County to San Diego to do anything except get out of the heat - and it's a long way. Moving north into San Bernadino County is a county split, and the north Mohave Desert, much less empty Death Valley, has nothing in common with anything that is in CA-45.  I am quite confident that CA-45 will be drawn, as I have drawn it. Plus anything less than 61%, and an Hispanic might not be elected here. If even half of the VAP Hispanics in this CD are citizens, color me amazed. Illegals are here, there and everywhere, in CA-45 as I have drawn it.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on February 13, 2011, 01:16:31 PM
How Hispanic is your CA-45? If there's one thing that stands out about Imperial, it's that it's the non metropolitan part of SoCal... if it doesn't belong with National City and Imperial Beach, it belongs with LA suburbs even less. So... if the populations and hispanic percentages at all allow it... why not take it further north into the Mojave Desert and Death Valley?

I dont think there is enough population up north in the Mohave desert for a district, not to mention a Hispanic district. A better way to draw the map would be to give perris to ca-45 and save "mo vall" for ca 44. It looks cleaner and perris is even less of a la suburb than the brown valley.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on February 13, 2011, 01:26:33 PM
How Hispanic is your CA-45? If there's one thing that stands out about Imperial, it's that it's the non metropolitan part of SoCal... if it doesn't belong with National City and Imperial Beach, it belongs with LA suburbs even less. So... if the populations and hispanic percentages at all allow it... why not take it further north into the Mojave Desert and Death Valley?

I dont think there is enough population up north in the Mohave desert for a district, not to mention a Hispanic district. A better way to draw the map would be to give perris to ca-45 and save "mo vall" for ca 44. It looks cleaner and perris is even less of a la suburb than the brown valley.

That assumes CA-44 is going to be an Hispanic CD. Maybe. Perris has far fewer people than the Moreno Valley. Still a switch out might make sense. We shall see. CA-45 can't really go much less Hispanic, without it become a chimera, given all those illegals. And the thing about the Moreno Valley, is that probably most of the Hispanics there are legal - it is in general lower middle class territory. 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on February 13, 2011, 03:46:47 PM
How Hispanic is your CA-45? If there's one thing that stands out about Imperial, it's that it's the non metropolitan part of SoCal... if it doesn't belong with National City and Imperial Beach, it belongs with LA suburbs even less. So... if the populations and hispanic percentages at all allow it... why not take it further north into the Mojave Desert and Death Valley?

I dont think there is enough population up north in the Mohave desert for a district, not to mention a Hispanic district. A better way to draw the map would be to give perris to ca-45 and save "mo vall" for ca 44. It looks cleaner and perris is even less of a la suburb than the brown valley.

That assumes CA-44 is going to be an Hispanic CD. Maybe. Perris has far fewer people than the Moreno Valley. Still a switch out might make sense. We shall see. CA-45 can't really go much less Hispanic, without it become a chimera, given all those illegals. And the thing about the Moreno Valley, is that probably most of the Hispanics there are legal - it is in general lower middle class territory. 

CA-44 won't be Hispanic majority if it consists of Corona, Norco, Riverside, Moreno Valley and the unincorporated northwest part of Riverside County. Though it would be something like 45-48% Hispanic, so perhaps two IE Hispanic districts will be drawn, with one consisting of a mix of Riverside and SBD County.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on February 13, 2011, 03:52:01 PM
If you start in the Bay Area, this is what I get:

()

I think these districts make a lot of sense - obviously you have the SF district, then a blue-collar(-ish) peninsula district in cyan (41% white, 31% Asian, 21% Hispanic).  Next I drew the blue-gray district to be 55% Asian.  Fitting nicely around that is the pink district, which takes the heart of Silicon Valley from Menlo Park to Santa Clara and Los Gatos - very wealthy (other than East Palo Alto), 54% white, 22% Asian, 17% Hispanic.  The light green district takes in what's left of Santa Clara County, which essentially is all of the heavily Hispanic parts, plus some extras - not enough for a majority, but it's 41% Hispanic, 35% white, 19% Asian.  The coastal tan district goes down to Monterrey & Big Sur - it makes a lot of sense to stick Half Moon Bay in there rather than stick other parts of Santa Clara county in with a Central Valley district.  

The yellow district connects as much of the minority areas as possible in the East Bay without being ridiculous: 30 white 22 black  20 Asian 24 Hispanic. One East Bay district has to go inland, due to the numbers, so I made it the teal one.  

I don't think that an Asian district that stretches from Cupertino to Hayward is more reasonable than a number of roughly 30% Asian districts that are more geographically compact. Certainly Asians have no trouble getting elected.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: minionofmidas on February 13, 2011, 04:00:26 PM
Are Asians even technically covered under the VRA Act - the way it's written? I wasn't sure, I had to look it up. It appears they are.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: muon2 on February 13, 2011, 06:24:14 PM
Are Asians even technically covered under the VRA Act - the way it's written? I wasn't sure, I had to look it up. It appears they are.

Asians are a covered minority under the VRA. However, to challenge a map under section 2, they would typically try to show they meet the Gingles test. The three parts are: a compact area including over 50% VAP for the single minority; tendency for block voting for a candidate of that minority's choice; tendency for block voting by the majority for a candidate other than the minority's choice. If Asians vote like Whites in the same area the test will fail.

An unresolved question is when the interests of two different minority groups collide. For example there might be an area where there are large numbers of Asians and Hispanics and there are sufficient of both for separate districts. A court in the coming decade may find that if their voting patterns are sufficiently different, there may be a section 2 claim for one of the minorities if it didn't get a district, but could have without diminishing the other qualified minority.

In any case the real question will come down to the Commission's view on communities of interest as Torie has suggested. If the Commission finds that a group of nearby Asian minorities constitutes a community of interest to be kept intact, then they may draw that district. My link towards the beginning of the thread for a map I made last year assumed such a conclusion by the Commission, so I drew one in Silicon Valley and another in San Gabriel.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on February 14, 2011, 11:29:01 AM
Quote
If Asians vote like Whites in the same area the test will fail.

I would guess in the CA-42 that I drew, that the Asians vote about 10% more Dem than the Anglos. Does that qualify as a sufficient differential?  The VRA would still not apply even if that qualifies as a sufficient differential, I don't think, because as has been noted, Anglos have little or no problem voting for Asians. A GOP Korean won CA-42 I think under the old lines, and a Dem Asian, represents much of the new CA-42 as I drew it in a less Asian incarnation.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: RI on February 14, 2011, 12:23:54 PM
Can we invoke the 'it would be cool' clause? Please?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: jimrtex on February 15, 2011, 03:20:18 PM
One needs to start at the Mexican border and move north to do this map stuff. That will tell you exactly how much of OC will go to a CD that is also in San Diego County. The Commission is just not going to do that ridiculous appending of Imperial County to San Diego. That is DOA - especially since an Hispanic CD can be carved out of south San Diego, and another inland taking in Imperial County. And it makes no sense for CA-49 to go into Riverside County, given the Coachella Valley chop that is necessary to create an Hispanic CD, an Hispanic CD that might well be dictated by the VRA in fact.

If you do a subapportionment, it will be easier when going north and west from LA and San Bernadino:

Based on July 2009 estimates:

San Francisco Bay: 10.011 (8 counties, including Solano and Sonoma, but not Napa).  You can start at the Golden Gate and go CCW.

Far North: 1.010 (Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehama, Trinity)

North Valley: 1.033 (Butte, Napa, Sutter, Yolo, Yuba)

North Mountains: 0.984 (Amador, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sierra)

Sacramento: 2.009

San Joaquin: 0.968

Total to here is 16.015

Central Coast: 2.001 (Santa Cruz to Santa Barbara, including San Benito).

Modesto-Merced: 1.084 (Merced, Stanislaus)

Central Valley: 1.912 (Alpine, Calaveras, Fresno, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Tuolumne)

These two will need to be handled together.   You could split between Modesto and Merced, but you would have to come pretty far south (to Madera) to get enough population, so it will be better to trim off some more remote areas of Merced and or Stanislaus).  You can draw a district right around Fresno (city), so you end up with a leftovers district.  If the commission decides to draw a Hispanic majority district, then you just draw the other two districts with what is left.  But I'm not sure that they will, since you still have large numbers of Hispanics in the "white" districts.

Total to here: 21.012

Central Leftovers: 1.817 (Inyo, Kern, Mono, Tulare)

Total to here: 22,829.

Lancaster and Palmdale together are too large to make up the deficit to get to 23 seats, so they either get split, or you try to piece together 120,000 people from the desert areas of San Bernadino Riverside, but there may not be enough population.  Kern has enough for its own district, but Tulare has enough for 3/5 of a district.  So Kern may get chopped up, but this could end up being in Bakersfield.  Or you end up with Visalia in a district with 29 Palms and Barstow.

Southern Coast: 23.992 (Ventura to San Diego). 

Incidentally, this is a loss of almost one whole district.

Ventura: 1.151
Los Angeles: 14.121
Orange: 4.340
San Diego: 4.379

So the LA-Orange district is about 1/4 in LA and the Orange-San Diego district is 3/5 in Orange.

Inland Empire: 6.180 (includes Imperial).

If the excess goes to Kern, then this is 6 districts, and would argue against significant border crossings between Los Angles-San Bernardino; Orange-Riverside; or San Diego-Riverside.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: jimrtex on February 15, 2011, 03:33:47 PM
Why shouldn't Imperial County be appended to San Diego County?  It would seem to have very little in common with the Palm Springs area and more major transportation ties to San Diego County.  Does the new California law require racist gerrymandering be considered before all other considerations be taken into account?
Salton Sea is partially in Riverside County, and runs directly into Coachella Valley.

That direct transportation link takes you into El Cajon which means that you end up with Imperial in a suburban San Diego district.  You can't actually get from Imperial County to Chula Vista except by using the road along the border fence.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on February 15, 2011, 05:58:47 PM
Great "travelogue" jimtex, and I seem so far to be on the right track. You are exactly right that CA-48 that I drew is three fifths in OC, and two fifths in SD.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on February 15, 2011, 06:10:18 PM
I think it might be better to give Napa County to the north coast district and give Glenn, Colusa, Tehama, Lassen and Modoc Counties to the north valley district. Or give Lassen and Modoc to the mountain district, and try to equalize population in the valley.

Just drew it. The north valley district lacks just 6,000 people, which it can get by dipping into some farmland or small town in a neighboring county.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on February 15, 2011, 06:52:18 PM
()

This is how I think the north will be drawn. Napa County is more similar to the coastal areas than it is to the central valley. Makes sense to include it in this district. The only area in the district that might not fit in is Redding, but one thing about Redding is that there is not much farming close to the city. You have to go south of Red Bluff before you really see a lot of farm areas. In that sense the 2nd as I have drawn it preserves that community of interest. The only area that doesn't fit into that district would be parts of Yolo County. But even that County has a lot of areas that are similar to the rest of the district. And Yolo County is certainly considered a part of the Central Valley, something that is not true of Napa County.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Verily on February 15, 2011, 07:12:02 PM
You have to consider how surrounding counties will be affected, too. Most notably, Marin and Sonoma Counties are more than one district together but are isolated from the rest of the state by your map. (I seriously doubt they would be connected across bridges to SF or Richmond.)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on February 15, 2011, 07:32:03 PM
A district from San Francisco would only need to pick up about 25,000 people from Marin. Sausalito, Tiburon and Marin City would be the only Marin cities in that district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Verily on February 15, 2011, 08:28:06 PM
A neater solution might put American Canyon (which really belongs with Vallejo anyway) in with whatever district Solano County goes in while taking some parts of northern Sonoma County in CA-01.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on February 15, 2011, 09:18:44 PM
A neater solution might put American Canyon (which really belongs with Vallejo anyway) in with whatever district Solano County goes in while taking some parts of northern Sonoma County in CA-01.

Yeah, that's probably better than crossing the Golden Gate.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: jimrtex on February 15, 2011, 10:23:53 PM
I think it might be better to give Napa County to the north coast district and give Glenn, Colusa, Tehama, Lassen and Modoc Counties to the north valley district. Or give Lassen and Modoc to the mountain district, and try to equalize population in the valley.

Just drew it. The north valley district lacks just 6,000 people, which it can get by dipping into some farmland or small town in a neighboring county.
I started out using the regions that the audit board had used in selecting members of the redistricting commission, which includes, Sonoma, Napa, and Solano.  It turned out that Napa had the right population to get the Bay Area to 10 seats.  It also happens that Sonoma-Marin is pretty close to the right size (a little high, so you can take a little excess and add it to Solano, and not really bypass Napa.

I'm pretty sure that I had Napa in a north coast district, and then moved it out.  I'm pretty sure that it has to do with Sacramento being perfect for 2 districts, and the foothill district which is really a Sacramento suburban district not having to come so far north.  It was probably when I realized that Yolo bordered on Napa that I decided that it wasn't too horrible.

So it was definitely a shift I made later on.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: jimrtex on February 15, 2011, 10:39:28 PM
You have to consider how surrounding counties will be affected, too. Most notably, Marin and Sonoma Counties are more than one district together but are isolated from the rest of the state by your map. (I seriously doubt they would be connected across bridges to SF or Richmond.)
But not very much (legislative district close). 

Solano and Contra Costa together have enough for about 2 districts, a little more.  I'd probably start in the east of Contra Costa, and then include a narrow connector to get to the bridges to Vallejo.  The whole district in Contra Costa might be kind of ugly going from Richmond inland.  And they might ignore counties at the point, so you could have two districts crossing between Alameda and Contra Costa.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: jimrtex on February 15, 2011, 10:50:17 PM
A district from San Francisco would only need to pick up about 25,000 people from Marin. Sausalito, Tiburon and Marin City would be the only Marin cities in that district.
That might work.  I had originally not considered going across the Golden Gate, because most of the population in Marin is further north, in the San Rafael area.  My thinking was that the only population near the bridge is in Sausalito and Tiburon and the like.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on February 15, 2011, 10:50:37 PM
You have to consider how surrounding counties will be affected, too. Most notably, Marin and Sonoma Counties are more than one district together but are isolated from the rest of the state by your map. (I seriously doubt they would be connected across bridges to SF or Richmond.)
But not very much (legislative district close).  

Solano and Contra Costa together have enough for about 2 districts, a little more.  I'd probably start in the east of Contra Costa, and then include a narrow connector to get to the bridges to Vallejo.  The whole district in Contra Costa might be kind of ugly going from Richmond inland.  And they might ignore counties at the point, so you could have two districts crossing between Alameda and Contra Costa.

There are two options with the Solano district. Either give the inland areas of Contra Costa County along Hwy 4 to it or continue along I-80 to the Alameda county line. It would also need to take in Martinez to get enough population if you continue down I-80.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on February 15, 2011, 10:52:46 PM
A district from San Francisco would only need to pick up about 25,000 people from Marin. Sausalito, Tiburon and Marin City would be the only Marin cities in that district.
That might work.  I had originally not considered going across the Golden Gate, because most of the population in Marin is further north, in the San Rafael area.  My thinking was that the only population near the bridge is in Sausalito and Tiburon and the like.

Sausalito, Tiburon and Marin City would be enough. Another way is to split Sonoma County and give enough of the rural areas to CD-1 to make a district fit in Sonoma and Marin. I don't know which is more likely.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: DrScholl on February 16, 2011, 12:34:19 AM
I think water continuity might be something the commission chooses to avoid when it comes to San Francisco County. If you compact the Silicon Valley districts just right, you leave enough of San Mateo County available for the San Francisco district to scoop up.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: freepcrusher on February 18, 2011, 10:48:35 PM
i for one think that Gary Miller needs to be drawn out of his seat. He was first elected in 98 in what was then a marginal district in LA County. In 2001, they decided to protect him by gluing his home of Diamond Bar to the most republican precincts from Chris Cox and Ron Packard's districts. How does he thank the redistricting people? By acting like a corrupt fatcat.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on February 19, 2011, 12:16:10 AM
A neater solution might put American Canyon (which really belongs with Vallejo anyway) in with whatever district Solano County goes in while taking some parts of northern Sonoma County in CA-01.

Yeah, that's probably better than crossing the Golden Gate.

Mark Leno's district crosses the Golden Gate. It's not a mortal sin.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: muon2 on February 19, 2011, 06:11:00 AM
A neater solution might put American Canyon (which really belongs with Vallejo anyway) in with whatever district Solano County goes in while taking some parts of northern Sonoma County in CA-01.

Yeah, that's probably better than crossing the Golden Gate.

Mark Leno's district crosses the Golden Gate. It's not a mortal sin.

But was that more to suit legislators, or due to real communities of interest? With the commission in charge, districts designed to keep incumbents happy may not fare so well.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: minionofmidas on February 19, 2011, 07:14:32 AM
The more rural parts of Sonoma don't belong into any district but the first by any measure, really.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: DrScholl on February 21, 2011, 01:46:54 AM

But was that more to suit legislators, or due to real communities of interest? With the commission in charge, districts designed to keep incumbents happy may not fare so well.

That was to give San Francisco two seats in the state senate, under fair lines, it would only have one.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on February 22, 2011, 01:48:07 AM
The more rural parts of Sonoma don't belong into any district but the first by any measure, really.

You mean north of Santa Rosa? How many live there?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on February 22, 2011, 02:19:09 AM
The more rural parts of Sonoma don't belong into any district but the first by any measure, really.

You mean north of Santa Rosa? How many live there?

Not many. Those areas are much more similar to Mendocino than to the Bay Area.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Verily on February 22, 2011, 08:46:44 AM
Also west of Santa Rosa, like Guerneville, Occidental, and that Sea Ranch development. Maybe Sebastopol, too, but it's really close to Santa Rosa.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on February 22, 2011, 04:20:29 PM
Healdsburg also. That area is mostly agricultural.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: freepcrusher on March 05, 2011, 10:45:20 PM
i kind of wanted to redistrict orange county and see if there was any differences between parts of the county. I divided the county into four quadrants. All of them were pretty 50-50 break even except for the northeast quadrant which gave McCain about 58% of the vote. Bush very well may have gotten close to 65% here. The communities here would be like Villa Park, Yorba Linda, parts of Orange and Placentia etc. What makes that part of the county so much more republican than the rest of the county?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Verily on March 05, 2011, 10:51:30 PM
i kind of wanted to redistrict orange county and see if there was any differences between parts of the county. I divided the county into four quadrants. All of them were pretty 50-50 break even except for the northeast quadrant which gave McCain about 58% of the vote. Bush very well may have gotten close to 65% here. The communities here would be like Villa Park, Yorba Linda, parts of Orange and Placentia etc. What makes that part of the county so much more republican than the rest of the county?

Richer and whiter. Sounds like you split the Democratic areas, which are in the center of the county, among the other quadrants, too.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on March 05, 2011, 11:20:36 PM
i kind of wanted to redistrict orange county and see if there was any differences between parts of the county. I divided the county into four quadrants. All of them were pretty 50-50 break even except for the northeast quadrant which gave McCain about 58% of the vote. Bush very well may have gotten close to 65% here. The communities here would be like Villa Park, Yorba Linda, parts of Orange and Placentia etc. What makes that part of the county so much more republican than the rest of the county?

Middle to upper middle class Anglo non Jewish socons with kids living in the house, and rather light on the professional class who like to live closer to the beach. The end. You just can't get more Pubbie than that, unless their Dutch or LDS.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on March 06, 2011, 04:23:26 PM
CA-46 and CA-47 are now done. Again, I think this is how the map will probably actually be drawn. CA-42 and CA-40 are works in progress. Both are still short of population by about 40,000 and 30,000 thousand folks, respectively. CA-40 will probably pick up Naples and Belmont Heights and Shore in Long Beach to round it out. It is a community of interest reasonably tied to Seal Beach in OC. We shall see. If CA-40 stays all in OC, it will have to split Fullerton, and under the law County lines do not trump municipal lines (both are given equal weight), so I see no reason to do that. CA-42 may be subject to more substantial changes.

Under the CA law, one needs a very good reason to split municipalities, so I was careful to minimize doing that. So Anaheim and Garden Grove were split (they have to be, but Anaheim only on the east, excising Anaheim Hills), and CA-47 picked up a few Hispanic precincts in Fullerton and Costa Mesa, and a couple from Orange that stick awkwardly across the 5 Fwy anyway) -  all justified by the VRA. The Vietnamese in Garden Grove were excised from CA-47, so Loretta Sanchez does not need to worry about them anymore. CA-46 is Lake Forest, Irvine, Tustin, Laguna Beach, Laguna Woods, a bit of Laguna Hills otherwise largely cut off from where most of it is in CA-48, Newport Beach, most of Costa Mesa, and Fountain Valley.

The shape and location of CA-47 kind of drives what else is going on in OC.

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on March 06, 2011, 05:12:04 PM
What is the Hispanic % in Ca-47?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on March 06, 2011, 10:43:40 PM
What is the Hispanic % in Ca-47?

70.3%, presumably VAP if VAP figures have been imputed for all states. Muon2 mentioned that he told Dave Bradlee that VAP was what mattered legally, Bradlee made the change.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on March 07, 2011, 11:41:14 AM
Here is the Long Beach extension round out of CA-40. It worked quite well in picking up what is a quite cohesive community, and what you are looking it is what I consider the coolest and most desirable place to live in Socal really, if it is within commuting distance of your work (but now the trolley runs from close to there right up to downtown LA). The tastefully landscaped and maintained housing nestled next to the beach (check out the beach volleyball games which go on all the time on the weekends, and the buffed bods of those leaping a around  trying to get to and slam back the ball), and the bay, and the lagoons, and the channels and the boats, is all there just waiting for you to enjoy.

You can walk to 2nd street with its sidewalk cafes and other interesting shops (my favorite dispensary is on 2nd street), and people watch (sipping a morning cappuccino), and trust me, the people that you are watching are well worth watching. The area has a substantial gay minority - those who can afford it. If you are in the area, check out 2nd street and the hood. I suspect that you won't be disappointed. And to the west along the streets near the bay for a couple or three miles, is a lot of older construction, and some splendid and well maintained craftsman homes, and 1920's colonials and so forth. Downtown Long Beach has also made a big comeback. I just love the area.

And oh yes, the climate is great because this part of the CA coastline has a southern exposure which is rather protected (by the Palos Verdes Hills, which tend to block off some of the fog to its east along the coast), so you get the cooler temps (and cleaner air) of beach living without as much of the fog. It's one of the sunniest beach locals in all of Socal.

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: minionofmidas on March 07, 2011, 12:10:48 PM
Since the official data aren't out yet and you'll have to redo once they are... I'd put this on hold for now.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on March 07, 2011, 12:37:43 PM
Since the official data aren't out yet and you'll have to redo once they are... I'd put this on hold for now.

Have there been substantial discrepancies between the town estimates that became available about 6 weeks ago, and the final census numbers in other states with finalized numbers to your knowledge?  If so, yes, you are right. The only thing, is the county numbers are final, so the overall shape of what I drew so far will still hold (SD and OC counties basically, with the Hispanic CD in Riverside County that kind of draws itself, and can expand or contract a bit, and one other CD wedged in the SW corner of Riverside, which can easily expand or contract a bit). But starting to do LA County would indeed be insane, if the numbers are going to move much, I agree.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: minionofmidas on March 07, 2011, 12:51:19 PM
In Texas the statewide total was very near spot on but the distribution by region was different - sometimes very much so - in myriad, hard to summarize ways.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: cinyc on March 07, 2011, 07:12:33 PM
Since the official data aren't out yet and you'll have to redo once they are... I'd put this on hold for now.

Have there been substantial discrepancies between the town estimates that became available about 6 weeks ago, and the final census numbers in other states with finalized numbers to your knowledge?  If so, yes, you are right. The only thing, is the county numbers are final, so the overall shape of what I drew so far will still hold (SD and OC counties basically, with the Hispanic CD in Riverside County that kind of draws itself, and can expand or contract a bit, and one other CD wedged in the SW corner of Riverside, which can easily expand or contract a bit). But starting to do LA County would indeed be insane, if the numbers are going to move much, I agree.

I don't know about the town estimates released 6 weeks ago, but some of the 2009 ACS estimates have been wildly off.  Omaha, with a 2010 census population of about 408,000, was estimated at almost 455,000.  Chicago and Houston were also significantly overestimated.  And as Lewis said, some areas of Texas were more over- or underestimated than others, seemingly without any particular rhyme or reason.

Given that - and that Dave Bradlee's app generally distributes estimated county population gain uniformly across the county when otherwise not estimated, advice to hold off before assuming your districts are close to final is a good one.

Luckily for you, we get the 2010 California data tomorrow afternoon.

Edited to add: I don't know what data you are looking at from six weeks ago, but I don't think California's county numbers are final.  The 2009 ACS county estimates were off, but probably less so than city estimates.  For example, Sarpy County's (Omaha) actual population was only about 7,000 above the 2009 estimate.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on March 07, 2011, 07:55:27 PM
Bearing in mind what cinyc suggested in a nice way, that I may just be jacking off with no real consummation (I hate when that happens), here psephology fans is a really quite interesting development.

Can you discern where this is going? CA-42 becomes in essence an Anglo sink, and picks off the most Anglo precincts within reach in Riverside and San Bernadino Counties. All the middle to upper middle class Riverside precincts where the old Riverside bourgeoise live have been picked off and dumped into CA-42 along with the Anglo middle class precincts in Corona (connected by the main arterial between OC and Riverside County), housing Anglos with kids whose desperation for more housing square footage in a zip code with somewhat acceptable public schools, drives them out of OC and into Corona, often giving daddy a miserable commute back into OC along that Fwy arterial that is often as clogged as an old man who ate a lot of fatty meat all his life).

So CA-44 is now 52% Hispanic VAP. That makes it a marginal CD I suspect all things being equal, maybe with a Dem lean. It certainly isn't a CD that Calvert can hold. Yes, the bourgeoise Anglos are not in it, but Anglos in this neck of the woods are pretty conservative in general irrespective of income. Their neighborhoods are browning out, they feel screwed, and are not very happy.

So I am giving the Dems a half point, making the GOP net body count now one. Bono is gone, Calvert's pubbie replacement candidate is bifurcated (if Calvert is the GOP nominee, then it is Dem plus 1 rather than .5), but that Anglo city of San Diego CD which used to be Dem is now marginal I suspect, so minus a half bod for the Dems there, so 1 +.5 + -.5 = 1 net dead Pubbie.

And it does look like I can now map an Asian CD in LA County without screwing anybody else - except Anglos - and I fully suspect the Calif commission will do exactly that. Again the map is sort of drawing itself. CA-41 has the right population (I made it go up the Owens Valley all the way to and including Alpine County because the Sierra Nevadas are a wall that I am sure the commission will respect. But where its boundaries are vis a vis Hispanic CA-43  and the other two CD's to the west of it (Drier's and that Mormon guy who represents the Antelope Valley and other hideous places), remain to be seen). And CA-45 and CA-44 might exchange a few precincts to make it look prettier, but not if it makes CA-45 much less Hispanic, and I need to be careful if I split Moreno Valley, to have a good justification for it.

Addendum: It occurs to me that I could dump the far eastern Anglo precincts in CA-44 (20 or so maybe) into San Bernadino County based CA-41, and have CA-44 replace them with some Hispanic precincts from overpopulated San Bernadino Hispanic CA-43, making CA-44 a bit more Hispanic, pushing it closer to being out of reach of the GOP.

This is kind of fun. I have become a specialist in screwing Dems, but now ... :P

()



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: All Along The Watchtower on March 08, 2011, 12:33:12 AM
i kind of wanted to redistrict orange county and see if there was any differences between parts of the county. I divided the county into four quadrants. All of them were pretty 50-50 break even except for the northeast quadrant which gave McCain about 58% of the vote. Bush very well may have gotten close to 65% here. The communities here would be like Villa Park, Yorba Linda, parts of Orange and Placentia etc. What makes that part of the county so much more republican than the rest of the county?

What Torie said, though I'm a bit surprised that southern/southeast OC is not that Republican anymore. Not only is this area wealthy (places like Mission Vejo, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Rancho Santa Margarita), but it's also pretty white (like 70-80%).


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: will101 on March 08, 2011, 08:20:28 AM
i kind of wanted to redistrict orange county and see if there was any differences between parts of the county. I divided the county into four quadrants. All of them were pretty 50-50 break even except for the northeast quadrant which gave McCain about 58% of the vote. Bush very well may have gotten close to 65% here. The communities here would be like Villa Park, Yorba Linda, parts of Orange and Placentia etc. What makes that part of the county so much more republican than the rest of the county?
What Torie said, though I'm a bit surprised that southern/southeast OC is not that Republican anymore. Not only is this area wealthy (places like Mission Vejo, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Rancho Santa Margarita), but it's also pretty white (like 70-80%).
White and wealthy does not automatically mean conservative.  Look at the Bay Area.  Lots of whites, lots of money, and not a Republican to be seen (at least in elected reps).


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on March 08, 2011, 02:44:59 PM
I highly doubt you need to make Riverside so damn ugly just to eek out an Asian district in LA. Put the eastern appendage of CA-44 into CA-41. It is basically the same sort of area as CA-41, is adjacent to the bulk of it's population, and just down the road on I-10. Then add the eastern appendage of CA-42 which is in Riverside, to CA-44 as required to get enough population. Or you can't because you think CA-44 will be mandated to be a Hispanic district? I would wait on doing this till the official data is put up. Hopefully it's soon.

An Asian influence district is enough in LA I would think. You don't need that extention into Hacienda Heights through to Diamond Bar. Just the Rosemead to Arcadia area is enough.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on March 08, 2011, 03:04:00 PM
I highly doubt you need to make Riverside so damn ugly just to eek out an Asian district in LA. Put the eastern appendage of CA-44 into CA-41. It is basically the same sort of area as CA-41, is adjacent to the bulk of it's population, and just down the road on I-10. Then add the eastern appendage of CA-42 which is in Riverside, to CA-44 as required to get enough population. Or you can't because you think CA-44 will be mandated to be a Hispanic district? I would wait on doing this till the official data is put up. Hopefully it's soon.

An Asian influence district is enough in LA I would think. You don't need that extention into Hacienda Heights through to Diamond Bar. Just the Rosemead to Arcadia area is enough.

Well I noted above that the eastern leg of CA-44 is probably going to be added to CA-41, and CA-44 will pick up some nearby Hispanic precincts in San Bernadino County. That will probably push the Hispanic percentage up to 54% or something, and yes, the CD is probably required under the VRA (it clearly is a community of interest, and a rather compact and contiguous one to boot), and in all events the commission (I think about two thirds of its members are something other than Anglo by the way), and the Hispanic political community, will demand it. Every Hispanic CD that can be drawn, will be drawn, unless and until such time as they get a percentage share of the CD's that about equals their share of California's population. I doubt if it is really possible to hit that number by the way, so there isn't much danger of max out.

The Asian CD is pretty easy to defend (just zip east on the Pomona Fwy, and it is Asian almost continually along it, and it really has a nice geographic niche between the Anglo world and the Hispanic world. In short, it's a community of interest, far more than anything else that could be done. I think the commission will in fact draw it. This map exercise is a prediction of what will happen, not what I or anyone else want to happen. That is the way I play this game. What would I do, if whomever had the power to draw the lines, asked me to mouse it out as they agent? That is the only way to make this game fun, and in fact, to try to actually interject oneself in the drawing games with the powers that be (or dump on them if somebody is doing something self serving and dumb). The rest is just masturbation in my world. :)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on March 08, 2011, 03:11:29 PM
Why are you so sure they will draw that appendage though? Why not just add Pasadena and other areas closer by instead? And why are you so sure they won't do that? That they won't just be satisfied with a 30% Asian district. And it's not even as if Asians are a monolithic group, so I really wouldn't be so sure it will happen. Don't the Chinese near Monterey Park and surroundings tend to be from the mainland while I know for a fact that Rowland Heights and Hacienda Heights is a heavily Taiwanese community.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: cinyc on March 08, 2011, 03:17:46 PM
Why are you so sure they will draw that appendage though? Why not just add Pasadena and other areas closer by instead? And why are you so sure they won't do that? That they won't just be satisfied with a 30% Asian district. And it's not even as if Asians are a monolithic group, so I really wouldn't be so sure it will happen. Don't the Chinese near Monterey Park and surroundings tend to be from the mainland while I know for a fact that Rowland Heights and Hacienda Heights is a heavily Taiwanese community.

Hispanics aren't monolithic, either, but that hasn't stopped demands for VRA districts.  Puerto Ricans are not Dominicans are not Mexicans are not Colombians.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Verily on March 08, 2011, 03:19:07 PM
Looking at the San Diego part of your map, I have no idea why you seem to think you have eliminated a Dem CD there, Torie. Explain?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on March 08, 2011, 03:22:38 PM
Why are you so sure they will draw that appendage though? Why not just add Pasadena and other areas closer by instead? And why are you so sure they won't do that? That they won't just be satisfied with a 30% Asian district. And it's not even as if Asians are a monolithic group, so I really wouldn't be so sure it will happen. Don't the Chinese near Monterey Park and surroundings tend to be from the mainland while I know for a fact that Rowland Heights and Hacienda Heights is a heavily Taiwanese community.

They get along fine, and all speak Mandarin. Pasadena is Asian light for some reason. Anglos really like to live in Pasadena now. We shall see how it plays out, when the final population numbers come out. I am not going to do anymore CA drawing, until the final numbers are imputed into Bradlee's software. The issue is always whether or not doing one thing, causes a problem elsewhere or not, which can be due to a variety of factors.  And where should Diamond Bar and Hacienda Heights go anyway? One possibility is a grab bag CD running along the Orange County line perhaps, right up from Belmont Heights in Long Beach to Diamond Bar. But somehow I doubt that will happen. Another is adding it to Drier's CD, but we shall see whether he "needs it" or not.

Are you concerned that my little extension might make the Asian CD too GOP?  The Commission is not supposed to worry about such mundane matters. :P


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on March 08, 2011, 03:25:27 PM
Looking at the San Diego part of your map, I have no idea why you seem to think you have eliminated a Dem CD there, Torie. Explain?

The Anglo city of San Diego CD looks marginal to me, that's why. So the Dems lose half a point. We shall see what the PVI is, when the partisan numbers become available, but that is my guess. Yes, it could also be a weak Dem CD, with maybe a Dem PVI of 2 or 3. We shall see.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on March 08, 2011, 05:55:04 PM
Why are you so sure they will draw that appendage though? Why not just add Pasadena and other areas closer by instead? And why are you so sure they won't do that? That they won't just be satisfied with a 30% Asian district. And it's not even as if Asians are a monolithic group, so I really wouldn't be so sure it will happen. Don't the Chinese near Monterey Park and surroundings tend to be from the mainland while I know for a fact that Rowland Heights and Hacienda Heights is a heavily Taiwanese community.

They get along fine, and all speak Mandarin. Pasadena is Asian light for some reason. Anglos really like to live in Pasadena now. We shall see how it plays out, when the final population numbers come out. I am not going to do anymore CA drawing, until the final numbers are imputed into Bradlee's software. The issue is always whether or not doing one thing, causes a problem elsewhere or not, which can be due to a variety of factors.  And where should Diamond Bar and Hacienda Heights go anyway? One possibility is a grab bag CD running along the Orange County line perhaps, right up from Belmont Heights in Long Beach to Diamond Bar. But somehow I doubt that will happen. Another is adding it to Drier's CD, but we shall see whether he "needs it" or not.

Are you concerned that my little extension might make the Asian CD too GOP?  The Commission is not supposed to worry about such mundane matters. :P

Instead of CD 42 twisting around Riverside county, it could take in Diamond Bar, Rowland Heights and Hacienda Heights. That would of course depend on how much territory CD 44 needs in Riverside Co. after you take out it's eastern extention, so a bit of CD 42 might still be in Riverside. It's quite possible those precincts of Corona will be needed in CD 42 after the final numbers are put in. In any case if the numbers allow for a Riverside city based Hispanic district as well as a San Bernardino based Hispanic district, it will be drawn, and that will affect the shape of CD 42 as well. I just don't know if they will be so meticulous to draw ugly district just to bump up the VAP numbers from 50 to 52%.

As for the Asian district, adding that extention in will actually make it an "optimal" Democratic district, voting about 61-63% for Obama, so it's beneficial not to add it in from a GOP perspective.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on March 08, 2011, 06:02:46 PM
Don't worry, be happy, sbane. Putting aside the Asian extension, it will all look quite pretty in the end. CD-44 will be quite compact I think. Again, the point is to try to figure out what the commission will do in the end. The rest is noise. Now if Diamond Bar Chinese Asians make it clear in the hearings that they don't want to be associated with those Chinese Asian jerks in South Pasadena, or the snobs in San Marino, or the rather clannish Monterey Park crew, that of course could make a difference. But somehow I doubt that will happen.

As to CA-42, it may look a bit ugly, but it is a community of interest far more than if it included Diamond Bar. Folks go back and forth to work and to shop and whatnot from the OC CA-42 zone to the CA-42 Riverside zone all the time through that FWY pass (I think it's the 91). And those transportation patterns are specifically mentioned in the governing statute. I am quite confident that CA-42 will be drawn that way, unless it creates some other problem elsewhere.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on March 08, 2011, 06:54:30 PM
I think the problem is with it snaking around to those precincts south of Riverside. Corona and Norco, or at least parts of it, being in the 42nd do make sense.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: cinyc on March 08, 2011, 07:18:55 PM
Torie-

Just to follow up the overestimation/underestimation discussion, California's overall population was 0.79% higher than the 2009 ACS estimate (2010 population-2009 estimate)/(2009 estimate). 

The following of the top 20 cities were most overestimated, relative to the state as a whole (2010 City Population-2009 Estimated City Population)/(2009 Estimated City Population)-0.79:

Santa Ana: 5.4%
Oakland: 5.3%
San Jose: 2.7%
San Francisco: 2.0%
Los Angeles: 1.8%

And these of the top 20 cities were most underestimated:
Chula Vista: 8.2%
Bakersfield: 6.3%
San Bernardino: 5.0%
Oxnard: 4.7%
Fontana: 3.5%

Most county errors were smaller.  Among the overestimated:
San Francisco: 2.0%
Orange: 1.3%
Los Angeles: 1.1%
Santa Clara: 1.0%
San Mateo: 0.9%

And the underestimated:
Santa Barbara: 3.3%
Kern: 3.2%
Riverside: 2.2%
Tulare: 2.1%
Ventura: 1.7%


Note again that the errors are relative to the error for rest of the state, which is most relevant for Torie's purposes.   To compute the actual error, you need to subtract 0.79 from the underestimated and add it to the overestimated.   San Mateo County's estimate, for example, was pretty much dead on, and Santa Barbara County's population was actually underestimated by 4.1%.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Verily on March 08, 2011, 07:27:29 PM
Looking at the San Diego part of your map, I have no idea why you seem to think you have eliminated a Dem CD there, Torie. Explain?

The Anglo city of San Diego CD looks marginal to me, that's why. So the Dems lose half a point. We shall see what the PVI is, when the partisan numbers become available, but that is my guess. Yes, it could also be a weak Dem CD, with maybe a Dem PVI of 2 or 3. We shall see.

I don't see why. You barely changed the current CA-53, just dropped Lemon Grove and added some marginal areas to the north. True, that will drop the PVI slightly, but I would be somewhat surprised if your CA-53 were under D+10. (The current one is D+14.)

There are a lot of liberal Anglos in the city of San Diego. After all, the current CA-53 is 51% non-Hispanic white and 68% Obama.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 08, 2011, 08:48:05 PM
Yeah San Diego's conservative reputation comes from the suburbs mostly. Not surprising that all the white liberals in the area live in the city proper.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on March 08, 2011, 10:22:26 PM
Looking at the San Diego part of your map, I have no idea why you seem to think you have eliminated a Dem CD there, Torie. Explain?

The Anglo city of San Diego CD looks marginal to me, that's why. So the Dems lose half a point. We shall see what the PVI is, when the partisan numbers become available, but that is my guess. Yes, it could also be a weak Dem CD, with maybe a Dem PVI of 2 or 3. We shall see.

I don't see why. You barely changed the current CA-53, just dropped Lemon Grove and added some marginal areas to the north. True, that will drop the PVI slightly, but I would be somewhat surprised if your CA-53 were under D+10. (The current one is D+14.)

There are a lot of liberal Anglos in the city of San Diego. After all, the current CA-53 is 51% non-Hispanic white and 68% Obama.

I tried to draw it approximately how Torie drew it, and it came out to be about 63% Obama.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: jimrtex on March 08, 2011, 11:54:13 PM
These are updated based on the 2010 censuses.  I did not adjust the districts from my original distribution.  The 2010 census pushes the population more to the east, even relative to the 2009 estimates.

One needs to start at the Mexican border and move north to do this map stuff. That will tell you exactly how much of OC will go to a CD that is also in San Diego County. The Commission is just not going to do that ridiculous appending of Imperial County to San Diego. That is DOA - especially since an Hispanic CD can be carved out of south San Diego, and another inland taking in Imperial County. And it makes no sense for CA-49 to go into Riverside County, given the Coachella Valley chop that is necessary to create an Hispanic CD, an Hispanic CD that might well be dictated by the VRA in fact.

If you do a subapportionment, it will be easier when going north and west from LA and San Bernadino:

Based on July 2009 estimates:

San Francisco Bay: 10.011 (8 counties, including Solano and Sonoma, but not Napa).  You can start at the Golden Gate and go CCW.

2010: 9.979 the deficit of about 15,000 can be made up from northern California, north of Sacramento.  The Bay Area + 23 counties including Napa is equivalent to 12.9993 districts.

Starting at the Presidio:

The ideal population is 702,905, so figure 10% equals 70,000 and 1% equals 7,000.

San Francisco: 1.000
San Francisco: 0.146 + San Mateo 0.854
San Mateo: 0.166 + Santa Clara 0.834
(San Mateo is at 1.022, but to create its own district you would have to push about 100,000 San Franciscans across a bridge.  The northern and southern ends of San Mateo are probably more closely tied to San Francisco and San Jose than to each other, so the split is OK).
Santa Clara 1.000
Santa Clara 0.701, Alameda 0.299
(Or you could create two whole districts in Santa Clara and wrap a district around the southern tip of the bay: San Mateo 0.166, Santa Clara 0.535, Alameda 0.299).
Alameda 1.000
Alameda 0.850, Contra Costa 0.150
Contra Costa 1.000
Contra Costa 0.342 + Solano 0.589 + Napa(?) 0.021 + Sonoma 0.048
(the portion of Contra Costa that is placed in the Solano-majority district around 240,000 people would best come from areas south of the bridges near Vallejo.  So it could make sense to not have an eastern district entirely in Contra Costa, but have it come further south in the inland area of Alameda County (Livermore, etc.), which would push the other Alameda-Contra district further north.  Basically, choose the Contra Costa portion that goes with Solano; put the area along the coast through Richmond with a Berkeley, Oakland district, and the area to east (Walnut Creek, etc., extend south into Alameda County).
Sonoma 0.640, Marin 0.359

Far North: 1.010 (Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehama, Trinity)

2010: 1.009

North Valley: 1.033 (Butte, Napa, Sutter, Yolo, Yuba)

2010: 1.030 (or 1.009 if Bay Area deficit is made up in Napa).

North Mountains: 0.984 (Amador, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sierra)

2010: 0.981

As discussed before, this could be rearranged to create a North Coast district, but overall the northern counties have a collective 3 districts.

Sacramento: 2.009

2010: 2.018

San Joaquin: 0.968

2010: 0.975

Sacramento and San Joaquin collectively are at 2.993

Total to here is 16.015

2010: 15.993

Central Coast: 2.001 (Santa Cruz to Santa Barbara, including San Benito).

2010: 2.029 (most of this is in Santa Barbara which was 3.4% over the 2010 estimate)

The split here would be just north of the Montery-SLO line, so basically a Monterey-Santa Cruz-San Benito district, and a Santa Barbara-San Luis Obispo district.

Modesto-Merced: 1.084 (Merced, Stanislaus)

2010: 1.096

Central Valley: 1.912 (Alpine, Calaveras, Fresno, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Tuolumne)

2010: 1.927

These two will need to be handled together.   You could split between Modesto and Merced, but you would have to come pretty far south (to Madera) to get enough population, so it will be better to trim off some more remote areas of Merced and or Stanislaus).  You can draw a district right around Fresno (city), so you end up with a leftovers district.  If the commission decides to draw a Hispanic majority district, then you just draw the other two districts with what is left.  But I'm not sure that they will, since you still have large numbers of Hispanics in the "white" districts.

Total to here: 21.012

2010: 19.016 (but I left out the Central Coast, where the extra 20,000 or so can be taken from Santa Barbara and placed

Central Leftovers: 1.817 (Inyo, Kern, Mono, Tulare)

2010: 1.870 (Kern is up 3.2% over 2009 estimate)

Total to here: 22,829.

Total to here 20.886 (excluding Central Coast).

Lancaster and Palmdale together are too large to make up the deficit to get to 23 seats, so they either get split, or you try to piece together 120,000 people from the desert areas of San Bernadino Riverside, but there may not be enough population.  Kern has enough for its own district, but Tulare has enough for 3/5 of a district.  So Kern may get chopped up, but this could end up being in Bakersfield.  Or you end up with Visalia in a district with 29 Palms and Barstow.

2010: We are now only 80,000 short of the 21st  district, which can probably be picked up in the desert portions of San Bernardino, rather than the more populated areas of the Los Angeles High Desert (it may come down to how close you can come to creating a northern LA district (Santa Clarita, Palmdale, Lancaster, without dipping into the San Fernando Valley).

Southern Coast: 23.992 (Ventura to San Diego). 

2010: 23.826 (Los Angeles was 1.1% below the 2009 estimate, and Orange 1.4%, while Ventura and San Diego were up.  These weren't entirely due to bad estimates, since Los Angeles had already lost 0.774 seats from 2000 to 2009, so about 1/2 of the loss would just be a continuation of earlier trends.  With the continued loss in this area, we will need to make up about 100,000 additional persons, probably from San Bernardino (Ontario area).

Incidentally, this is a loss of almost one whole district.

Ventura: 1.151
Los Angeles: 14.121
Orange: 4.340
San Diego: 4.379

2010:

Santa Barbara: 0.029 (excess from Central Coast)
Ventura: 1.171
Los Angeles: 13.969
Orange: 4.283
San Diego: 4.404

So the LA-Orange district is about 1/4 in LA and the Orange-San Diego district is 3/5 in Orange.

2010: It is now 0.313 LA-0.687 Orange and 0.596 Orange-San Diego 0.404

Inland Empire: 6.180 (includes Imperial).

2010: 6.259

If the excess goes to Kern, then this is 6 districts, and would argue against significant border crossings between Los Angles-San Bernardino; Orange-Riverside; or San Diego-Riverside.

2010:  This is a significant excess, which would require some population going across the Los Angeles-San Bernardino line:

Alternatively, the excess is almost identical to the population of Imperial (0.248).  In addition, Riverside (3.115) and San Bernardino (2.895) are reasonably close to 3 districts each.  If one were wanting to roughly respect county boundaries, Imperial-San Diego-Orange (8.935), and Riverside-San Bernardino (6.010) are a better match.  

If you get the extra needed for a Kern County district from San Bernardino, then you would have to come across the Los Angeles-San Bernardino to include Pomona.

If I were advising a redistricting commission, I'd try both routes, placing Imperial with San Diego and Riverside, and drawing two sets of districts.  So you would have one path of districts coming up the coast, and another inland.  To see the full impact the two paths would continue into Los Angeles County (everything east of the city of Los Angeles).   And then choose the overall best alignment.  Whether Imperial County is a better fit with San Ysidro and Chula Vista or the Coachella Valley and Mareno Valley, or even a bad socioeconomic fit with El Cajon should not dictate the placement of 20+ districts in southern California.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on March 09, 2011, 12:15:16 AM
Looking at the San Diego part of your map, I have no idea why you seem to think you have eliminated a Dem CD there, Torie. Explain?

The Anglo city of San Diego CD looks marginal to me, that's why. So the Dems lose half a point. We shall see what the PVI is, when the partisan numbers become available, but that is my guess. Yes, it could also be a weak Dem CD, with maybe a Dem PVI of 2 or 3. We shall see.

I don't see why. You barely changed the current CA-53, just dropped Lemon Grove and added some marginal areas to the north. True, that will drop the PVI slightly, but I would be somewhat surprised if your CA-53 were under D+10. (The current one is D+14.)

There are a lot of liberal Anglos in the city of San Diego. After all, the current CA-53 is 51% non-Hispanic white and 68% Obama.

The partisan numbers are what they are, but my CA-53 is 65% Anglo (probably the most Anglo CD in Socal, with the possible exception of whatever "Hollyweird" CD is drawn), rather than 51%. The old version (having just looked at it) looks to me like a Dem gerrymander more or less (its erose lines on the northern edges are there for a reason, and that reason was that this CD in the deal the parties cut, was to be Dem). The new one isn't.   In any event, I wonder what the Bush 2004 numbers were as well. Like CA-48, I suspect there was a huge swing to Obama, which as you probably know, included yours truly. :)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on March 09, 2011, 01:01:33 AM
Looking at the San Diego part of your map, I have no idea why you seem to think you have eliminated a Dem CD there, Torie. Explain?

The Anglo city of San Diego CD looks marginal to me, that's why. So the Dems lose half a point. We shall see what the PVI is, when the partisan numbers become available, but that is my guess. Yes, it could also be a weak Dem CD, with maybe a Dem PVI of 2 or 3. We shall see.

I don't see why. You barely changed the current CA-53, just dropped Lemon Grove and added some marginal areas to the north. True, that will drop the PVI slightly, but I would be somewhat surprised if your CA-53 were under D+10. (The current one is D+14.)

There are a lot of liberal Anglos in the city of San Diego. After all, the current CA-53 is 51% non-Hispanic white and 68% Obama.

I tried to draw it approximately how Torie drew it, and it came out to be about 63% Obama.

How do you figure that out, sbane? It would be very laborious (probably take at least three hours, and that assumes that the precinct returns can be slapped on your excel spreadsheet in tabular form, so you can use the data sort function), unless you found some utility that did it automatically. Is there a Dave Bradlee utility that I missed somewhere?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Verily on March 09, 2011, 07:09:21 AM
Looking at the San Diego part of your map, I have no idea why you seem to think you have eliminated a Dem CD there, Torie. Explain?

The Anglo city of San Diego CD looks marginal to me, that's why. So the Dems lose half a point. We shall see what the PVI is, when the partisan numbers become available, but that is my guess. Yes, it could also be a weak Dem CD, with maybe a Dem PVI of 2 or 3. We shall see.

I don't see why. You barely changed the current CA-53, just dropped Lemon Grove and added some marginal areas to the north. True, that will drop the PVI slightly, but I would be somewhat surprised if your CA-53 were under D+10. (The current one is D+14.)

There are a lot of liberal Anglos in the city of San Diego. After all, the current CA-53 is 51% non-Hispanic white and 68% Obama.

The partisan numbers are what they are, but my CA-53 is 65% Anglo (probably the most Anglo CD in Socal, with the possible exception of whatever "Hollyweird" CD is drawn), rather than 51%. The old version (having just looked at it) looks to me like a Dem gerrymander more or less (its erose lines on the northern edges are there for a reason, and that reason was that this CD in the deal the parties cut, was to be Dem). The new one isn't.   In any event, I wonder what the Bush 2004 numbers were as well. Like CA-48, I suspect there was a huge swing to Obama, which as you probably know, included yours truly. :)

The northern edge is not drawn to favor Democrats in this seat. Rather, it is drawn to favor Republicans in CA-50, which is a much more marginal seat (R+3 against D+14 in CA-53) that needed to get the ultra-Dem parts of La Jolla, including UCSD, taken out (and CA-53 was the best place to put them). The southern edges of CA-50 that you put in CA-53 are still D-leaning, but not so much that they could not be balanced out in CA-50 by R-leaning places like Escondido.

Dave's redistricting still has the partisan data for California available. The demographic data on that version is less accurate, but not particularly different from the 2009 estimates.

Anyway, the swing in CA-53 was not particularly strong. Kerry won 61% of the vote in 2004, so the swing to Obama was about the same as the national swing.

The increased Anglo vote is interesting but not terribly notable as there are plenty of Dem Anglos in northern San Diego (and well to the north, in heavily Anglo Del Mar, Solana Beach and Encinitas)--not as Dem as the Hispanics downtown, but certainly not going to shift the seat to marginal.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on March 09, 2011, 09:54:33 AM
OK Verily. Just how the Commission will draw CD-53 at the northern edges is an open question. Plus I have some northern bits of the city of San Diego split between the two CD's to the north, CA-50 and 52. It is a bit of a mess. The final population numbers therefore might make a difference, and it is possible that CA-50 might take in La Jolla/UCSD (it has Del Mar and Solana Beach which are closely tied to it), and CA-53 take in some more inland territory. But Escondido will still be in CA-50 I would think, and I suspect the commission is more likely than not, not to do that, but we shall see.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on March 09, 2011, 02:46:21 PM
OK sbane and verily, my CA-53 is 61.1% Obama, with a Dem PVI of 8.53% (because it is 62.2% Obama of the two party vote, which is the way I calculate the baselines, just using the two party splits and ignoring 3rd party votes). So the Dems don't lose any partial points for this CD. Isn't it fun to show up the old man? :)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on March 09, 2011, 03:30:37 PM
OK sbane and verily, my CA-53 is 61.1% Obama, with a Dem PVI of 8.53% (because it is 62.2% Obama of the two party vote, which is the way I calculate the baselines, just using the two party splits and ignoring 3rd party votes). So the Dems don't lose any partial points for this CD. Isn't it fun to show up the old man? :)

And not only is it 61% Obama, that area didn't experience the extreme swing your neighborhood did. It was greater than the national swing, but about the same as the California swing, so about 14 points. And this is for both the old 53rd as well as the 50th, portions of which are in the new 53rd as you have drawn it.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: freepcrusher on March 09, 2011, 03:31:24 PM
What Torie said, though I'm a bit surprised that southern/southeast OC is not that Republican anymore. Not only is this area wealthy (places like Mission Vejo, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Rancho Santa Margarita), but it's also pretty white (like 70-80%).
[/quote]

Keep in mind that my southeast quadrant includes Irvine, which is surprisingly willing to vote democratic.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on March 10, 2011, 04:25:13 PM
Keep in mind that my southeast quadrant includes Irvine, which is surprisingly willing to vote democratic.

UC Irvine


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: freepcrusher on March 14, 2011, 11:13:23 AM
what's going to happen to Jim Costa? When the district was drawn in 2001, the 20th was supposed to be a "token democrat" district in the otherwise conservative San Joaquin Valley. It basically took in all the democratic precincts in Fresno and Bakersfield and connected them through I-5 and was supposed to help make Bill Thomas safer. The district is oddly shaped and Costa barely was re-elected in a D+5 district. If they draw a more compact district, he could be DOA.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on March 14, 2011, 11:40:59 AM
CA-18 and 20 are both majority-Hispanic, according to the new Census figures, so they should be protected by the VRA.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Horus on March 16, 2011, 12:33:28 PM
Daves redistricting is now working for California, however, some of the districts contain over 50,000 people so the data is impossible to work with. Hopefully some block group figures will be released?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: cinyc on March 16, 2011, 01:48:53 PM
Daves redistricting is now working for California, however, some of the districts contain over 50,000 people so the data is impossible to work with. Hopefully some block group figures will be released?

Block group and block figures have been released.  Dave's redistricting app doesn't handle them for 2010 as of yet.

California's redistricting file is so long that Excel can't easily handle it.  It has 1,072,087 lines of data.  I had to use a database program to open it.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on March 16, 2011, 09:44:50 PM
Daves redistricting is now working for California, however, some of the districts contain over 50,000 people so the data is impossible to work with. Hopefully some block group figures will be released?

It's actually not that bad since they all follow municipality lines and redistricting in California requires it. It might be a bit harder to draw Hispanic districts, but I had no problems drawing one in SD, the Imperial valley/Palm Springs as well as the Riverside/Moreno Valley districts. I imagine the rest won't be too bad either. Central Valley could be a mess though. We shall see.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on March 21, 2011, 01:50:19 PM
Has anybody drawn the Central Valley using the final numbers? I think there can be 3 Hispanic districts drawn without having to dip into the Salinas area. And another one can be drawn from Salinas to San Jose? Is that what is likely to happen, 4 norcal Hispanic districts?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Bacon King on March 22, 2011, 11:06:47 AM
CA-18 and 20 are both majority-Hispanic, according to the new Census figures, so they should be protected by the VRA.

The 20th has been; it was 63.1% Hispanic according to 2000 numbers. The 18th is majority-Hispanic now, barely, but almost certainly not majority-Hispanic by VAP so it wouldn't be protected.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on March 22, 2011, 11:11:33 AM
CA-18 and 20 are both majority-Hispanic, according to the new Census figures, so they should be protected by the VRA.

The 20th has been; it was 63.1% Hispanic according to 2000 numbers. The 18th is majority-Hispanic now, barely, but almost certainly not majority-Hispanic by VAP so it wouldn't be protected.

It will if it can be adjusted up to 50% Hispanic VAP within a community of interest zone.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on March 22, 2011, 11:22:15 AM
CA-18 and 20 are both majority-Hispanic, according to the new Census figures, so they should be protected by the VRA.

The 20th has been; it was 63.1% Hispanic according to 2000 numbers. The 18th is majority-Hispanic now, barely, but almost certainly not majority-Hispanic by VAP so it wouldn't be protected.

It will if it can be adjusted up to 50% Hispanic VAP within a community of interest zone.

It's easy to create 3 Hispanic districts just in the central valley. One district has that hook echo in Kern County which also takes in most of Kings and Tulare Counties. There is a main Fresno based districts which also takes in the rural Hispanic areas to the south of the city. The western areas of Fresno County get put into the 3rd Hispanic district which then proceeds to take in the Hispanic parts of Madera, Merced and Stanislaus County. No need to jump over to Hollister/Salinas or to go up to Stockton, which means the 11th gets moved entirely into San Joaquin County.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: freepcrusher on March 23, 2011, 03:45:28 PM
()

anybody like this map of Orange County?

The tan district is the new 39th district. This is an open seat and takes in Brea, Villa Park, Yorba Linda, Mission Viejo, Lake Forest, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente and other areas. This district is 62% white. If Bob Dornan is ever interested this is his chance to return to congress. LOL.

The Orange district around Irvine is District 48. 52 percent white district. This is John Campbell's district.

Ruby Red District is District 46. This is a 51 percent white district. This is Dana Rohrabacher's seat.


Lavender District is District 47.  This is a 59 percent hispanic district. Loretta Sanchez would run here.

Dark brown district is District 40. This is a hispanic plurality district at 46 percent. Ed Royce would face Gary Miller in the primary here.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: freepcrusher on March 26, 2011, 07:52:02 PM
btw, what is with all those precincts that contain 50,000+ people? In fact there was a precinct in Torrace that had over 100,000 people. Aren't there laws that state that precincts can't have more than a certain population? Imagine how crowded the polling station would be on election day.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Bacon King on March 26, 2011, 07:53:02 PM
btw, what is with all those precincts that contain 50,000+ people? In fact there was a precinct in Torrace that had over 100,000 people. Aren't there laws that state that precincts can't have more than a certain population? Imagine how crowded the polling station would be on election day.

They're not precincts, they're VTD's. For some states they're basically the same thing, but for other's they're very different.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: will101 on March 28, 2011, 08:15:37 AM
btw, what is with all those precincts that contain 50,000+ people? In fact there was a precinct in Torrace that had over 100,000 people. Aren't there laws that state that precincts can't have more than a certain population? Imagine how crowded the polling station would be on election day.

They're not precincts, they're VTD's. For some states they're basically the same thing, but for other's they're very different.
"VTD's"?  Sorry, but I'm kind of a newbie here, and never heard that one before.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Verily on March 28, 2011, 08:43:45 AM
Definitely an illegal dilution of the Hispanic vote on that Orange County map. Remember Sanchez's district was 65% Hispanic in 2000 and quite marginal. That map is a recipe for five Republicans and no Hispanic Rep.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on March 28, 2011, 09:17:16 AM
Definitely an illegal dilution of the Hispanic vote on that Orange County map. Remember Sanchez's district was 65% Hispanic in 2000 and quite marginal. That map is a recipe for four Republicans and no Hispanic Rep.

It seems like he is putting all of Garden Grove in that district. That needs to be avoided.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: freepcrusher on March 28, 2011, 12:42:29 PM
I think most of Garden Grove is in the 46th district in that map although I'm not sure. I don't think the map would elect five republicans though. This map was meant to penalize Ed Royce and Gary Miller for speaking at that blatantly xenophobic anti-muslim rally by putting them in the same district. There would probably be an expensive primary and would deplete most of their resources leading to the winner of the primary losing re-election in the general.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: minionofmidas on March 28, 2011, 12:47:22 PM
btw, what is with all those precincts that contain 50,000+ people? In fact there was a precinct in Torrace that had over 100,000 people. Aren't there laws that state that precincts can't have more than a certain population? Imagine how crowded the polling station would be on election day.

They're not precincts, they're VTD's. For some states they're basically the same thing, but for other's they're very different.
"VTD's"?  Sorry, but I'm kind of a newbie here, and never heard that one before.

Voting Tabulation Districts. In most states, that's precincts or approximations of precincts as built up from census blocks (since the census can't construct their populations entirely accurately if they don't follow block lines.)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on March 28, 2011, 02:04:21 PM
I think most of Garden Grove is in the 46th district in that map although I'm not sure. I don't think the map would elect five republicans though. This map was meant to penalize Ed Royce and Gary Miller for speaking at that blatantly xenophobic anti-muslim rally by putting them in the same district. There would probably be an expensive primary and would deplete most of their resources leading to the winner of the primary losing re-election in the general.

I didn't notice you put Pomona in that district. Tricky. And while that district could elect a Republican, it certainly won't elect a xenophobe.

You could still give Sanchez a 65-70% Hispanic district and keep the Royce/miller district as you have drawn it. I think....


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 28, 2011, 10:22:52 PM
So, Republicans fell to a record low of 30.9% of registered voters, while Democrats are holding steady at 44% of registered voters, and yet they each have 5 out of 14 commissioners. Obviously a fair number would be 4 for the Republicans and 6 for the Democrats. But guess who is whining about the commission being unfair? Yep, it's the Republicans.

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/03/28/3507915/california-redistricting-panel.html


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: freepcrusher on March 31, 2011, 01:47:38 PM
i've looked on ssp posts before about redistricting California. Is it true that you could draw a district where Obama only got 32%? It would basically take in the most GOP areas from the current 21st and 22nd districts. I know its an independent commission, but it would still be cool if they drew a map like that.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: JacobNC on April 02, 2011, 08:57:07 PM
I've been trying to load California on Dave's redistricting but it's moving extremely slow.  Does anyone know what I could do to make it load faster?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on April 03, 2011, 11:38:45 AM
Do Hispanic districts also need to be drawn for state maps? I wonder whether the congressional map will be racially gerrymandered but the state maps won't.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: freepcrusher on April 28, 2011, 03:32:50 PM
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: freepcrusher on April 28, 2011, 03:35:11 PM
DISTRICT 53 Duncan D. Hunter (R-Lakeside)
52.6% White
Obviously less safe with Imperial County added; but his dad always did OK when his district contained IC in the 80s and 90s.

DISTRICT 52 Bob Filner (D-San Diego)
54.7% Hispanic
He is rumored to be running for mayor in 2012. If that is the case, Ben Hueso may run here.

DISTRICT 51 Susan Davis (D-San Diego)
55.1% White
Obama probably got 65% here. That shocks me seeing as this district is over 55% white, and that San Diego has a conservative reputation.

DISTRICT 50 Brian Bilbray (R-Carlsbad)
57.1% White
Bilbray should be OK here, especially as he has a somewhat moderate voting record.

DISTRICT 49 Darrell Issa (R-Vista)
52.9% White
The PVI here is probably similar to his old district. Despite being a sociopath, Issa should be safe here.

DISTRICT 48 John Campbell (R-Irvine)
63.3% White
Campbell gets safer here taking in a lot of uber-gop precincts in Miller and Calvert’s district.

DISTRICT 47 Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach)
52.2% White
Basically a mix of rich republican neocons in the beach communities and Vietnamese republicans in other areas. Rohrabacher should be safe here.

DISTRICT 46 Loretta Sanchez (D-Anaheim)
61.4% Hispanic
Less Hispanic than the other district, but still probably about 58% Obama.










DISTRICT 45 Ed Royce (R-Fullerton)
43.8% White
36.7% Hispanic
15.3% Asian
2.3% Other
1.6% Black
.2% Native
This adds Yorba Linda and is probably an R+10 district. If this district could elect a nutcase like Bill Dannemeyer, Royce (who actually has a voting record similar to Dannemeyer) should keep winning here.

DISTRICT 44 Ken Calvert (R-Corona)
47.9% Hispanic
34.9% White
8.6% Asian
5.9% Black
2.3% Other
.4% Native
Under this map, Calvert would have won in 2010, but probably lost in 2008 as the OC precincts have been removed.

DISTRICT 43 Open
47.7% Hispanic
35.9% White
8.8% Black
4.6% Asian
2.5% Other
.5% Native
This is basically Bono Mack’s district with the eastern part chopped off. This has no incumbent. Gary Miller may run here.

DISTRICT 42 Mary Bono Mack (R-Palm Springs)
49.4% White
42.2% Hispanic
2.9% Black
2.5% Asian
1.8% Other
1.1% Native
Bono Mack gets safer here as she takes in Inyo and Mono counties as well as the redneck/methhead precincts from Lewis’ district.






DISTRICT 41 Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands)
41.7% White
40.2% Hispanic
9.8% Black
5.1% Asian
2.8% Other
.5% Native
Lewis should be safe here, though he should retire soon

DISTRICT 40 Joe Baca (D-Rialto)
69.3% Hispanic
I’m surprised one could make a suburban district this Hispanic. Safe Democrat

DISTRICT 39 David Dreier (R-San Dimas)
41.8% Hispanic
38.3% White
11.4% Asian
5.8% Black
2.5% Other
.3% Native
He can win here, but he will probably have some tough races over the next 5 cycles.

DISTRICT 38 Gary Miller (R-Diamond Bar)
59.6% Hispanic
Campbell and Royce all have safer districts at the expense of Miller. A Republican with a Bono-Mack like voting record could win here, but Miller wouldn’t. I could see him possibly carpet bagging to the new 43rd district.

DISTRICT 37 Judy Chu (D-Monterrey Park)
53.7% Hispanic She technically lives in the 35th, but most of her district is here. She should be safe in this district. I’m guessing it is probably a D+15.

DISTRICT 36 Adam Schiff (D-Burbank)
43.6% White
27% Hispanic
21.8% Asian
4.5% Black
3% Other
.1% Native
The white % here is surprisingly high. This is probably a D+teen district. Schiff should be safe




DISTRICT 35 Xavier Becerra (D-Los Angeles)
69.9% Hispanic
Safe Dem.

DISTRICT 34 Lucille Roybal Allard (D-Los Angeles)
87.4% Hispanic
Welcome to Tijuana. Roybal is obviously safe, but she may retire soon as she is almost 70.

DISTRICT 33 Grace Napolitano (D-Norwalk)
49.4% Hispanic
24.4% White
19.1% Asian
4.8% Black
2% Other
.2% Native
It does take in some of Orange County, but Napolitano or any dem should be okay. Napolitano is nearly 75 soon so she may retire.

DISTRICT 32 Linda Sanchez (D-Lakewood) vs Laura Richardson (D-Long Beach)
43.1% Hispanic
24.5% White
16.5% Black
12.9% Asian
2.7% Other
.3% Native
Time to get rid of Laura Richardson.

DISTRICT 31 whoever replaces Harman
37.5% White
33.2% Hispanic
19.2% Asian
6.6% Black
3.3% Other
.2% Native
This should be a lean dem district. Also home.

DISTRICT 30 Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) vs. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles)
34.3% Hispanic
30.8% White
24% Black
7.6% Asian
3.1% Other
.2% Native
Waters obviously has the seniority but she is also a corrupt b!tch. Hopefully this district gets rid of her
DISTRICT 29 Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles)
45.6% Hispanic
22.4% White
19.5% Black
9.7% Asian
2.7% Other
.2% Native
It is difficult redrawing this area as there are so many precincts with over 50,000 people. The racial percentages obviously piss Waxman off, but he should be ok. Waxman strikes me as someone like John Dingell meaning he will never retire.

DISTRICT 28 Howard Berman (D-North Hollywood)
45% White
31.7% Hispanic
16.8% Asian
3.8% Black
2.6% Other
.1% Native
Berman is safe here, but he may retire soon.

DISTRICT 27 Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks)
42.8% Hispanic
41.4% White
9.3% Asian
3.6% Black
2.7% Other
.2% Native
Sherman probably doesn’t like the racial percentages here, but he is still safe.

DISTRICT 26 Open
52.3% Hispanic
Obviously a safe dem. Does anyone know of any good democrats in the Legislature that could run here?

DISTRICT 25 Howard McKeon (R-Santa Clarita)
45.5% White
34.9% Hispanic
9.4% Black
6.9% Asian
2.9% Other
.3% Native
This district is probably an R+3 or something like that. He should be alright for now, but he may retire soon. This district could conceivably go dem when he does.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: freepcrusher on April 28, 2011, 03:36:11 PM
DISTRICT 24 Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley)
50% White
He technically lives in District 25, but he probably will run here. He should be OK here.

DISTRICT 23 Lois Capps (D-Santa Barbara)
54.5% White
Capps is over 70 and may retire soon. This is now probably a D+6 district as it is more compact. Whoever runs here should be somewhat safe unless there is another 2010 type holocaust soon.

DISTRICT 22 Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield)
48.1% Hispanic
39.6% White
5.3% Black
4.3% Asian
2% Other
.7% Native
Since Costa has a less safe district, guess where all the dem precincts went? The white % in this district is probably be alarming for him, but this is still probably an R+8 and the whites probably vote 70-30 republican and not all the Hispanics are old enough or registered.

DISTRICT 21 Devin Nunes (R-Tulare)
54.7% Hispanic
This district is now majority Hispanic, but it was also under 50% white when he was first elected, yet Nunes always seems to overperform here. Considering the whites here have redneck voting habits, Nunes should be safe.

DISTRICT 20 Jim Costa (D-Fresno)
58% Hispanic
Costa barely squeaked by in a safer district in 2010. He did however do much better his first three elections, so he may be okay here. It also helps that he, like Cardoza, is a true Centrist.

DISTRICT 19 Jeff Denham (R-Atwater)
43.6% White
43.4% Hispanic
6.8% Asian
3.1% Black
2.3% Other
.8% Native
Dennis Cardoza lives here but I doubt he wants to run here. Jeff Denham should be okay here for the time being, but the district is less than 50% White, so he may eventually have as tough race. It helps him that the whites here vote similar to Tennessee.


DISTRICT 18 Dennis Cardoza (D-Atwater)
45.1% White
41.8% Hispanic
6.3% Asian
3.2% Black
3% Other
.5% Native
Cardoza doesn’t live here, but he probably doesn’t want to face off against Denham. This is a marginal district, but Cardoza should be ok considering that he is the most conservative of the CA democrats.

DISTRICT 17 John Giramendi (D-Walnut Grove)
43.6% White
34.1% Hispanic
12.2% Asian
6.2% Black
3.2% Other
.7% Native’
Giramendi lives here, but I don’t think he wants to run here. The return of Richard Pombo?

DISTRICT 16 John Giramendi (D-Walnut Grove)
41.6% White
25.2% Hispanic
16.8% Asian
10.8% Black
5.1% Other
.4% Native
Technically this is an open seat, but Giramendi may carpetbag here. This should be safe democratic district

DISTRICT 15 Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento)
37.2% White
27.1% Hispanic
17% Asian
13.3% Black
4.8% Other
.6% Native
This is probably the most democratic district in the inland part of the state. Safe Dem

DISTRICT 14 Dan Lungren (R-Gold River)
66.4% White
This is basically a suburban Sacramento seat. Lungren always seems to underperform here and may eventually be unseated. It could however be won back by a better republican (see Marilyn Musgrave)

DISTRICT 13 Tom McClintock (R-Roseville)
72.5% White
McClintock is scum, but anyone with Placer County in their district should be okay.
DISTRICT 12 Wally Herger (R-Chico)
75% White
This area is similar to southern Oregon. I’m guessing the district is somewhat libertarian in their views. Safe Republican

DISTRICT 11 Mike Thompson (D-St Helena)
66.6% White
Wineries, Potheads, Environmentalists. Good luck Republicans.

DISTRICT 10 Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma)
54.8% White
This is a safe democrat district, but Woolsey may retire soon as she will be 75 in 2012.

DISTRICT 9 George Miller (D-Martinez)
54.5% White
If you can survive 1980, 1994, and 2010, you are pretty much safe for life. Next.

DISTRICT 8 Barbara Lee (D-Oakland)
34.9% White
21.2% Hispanic
19.9% Asian
19.3% Black
4.4% Other
.3% Native
Lee is a borderline Marxist, but that probably is a plus in this district. Obama easily got over 80% here. Safe Dem.

DISTRICT 7 Pete Stark (D-Fremont)
36.7% White
28.3% Asian
24.2% Hispanic
6.3% Black
4.2% Other
.3% Native
This is a safe district for Stark. He will either have retired or be dead (or both) between now and the next times the lines are redrawn.







DISTRICT 6 Jerry McNerney (D-Pleasanton)
40% Asian
34.4% Hispanic
19.6% White
3% Black
2.8% Other
.2% Native
McNerney gets a lot safer here as all the areas from the SJ Valley are excised out.

DISTRICT 5 Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose)
43.7% White
34.5% Asian
15.7% Hispanic
3.8% Other
2% Black
.2% Native
Safe Democrat. Nuff said.

DISTRICT 4 Mike Honda (D-San Jose)
39.9% White
34.6% Hispanic
20% Asian
2.9% Other
2.3% Black
.3% Native
Again, no republican save for Tom Campbell has a chance here. Honda may retire soon, as he too is almost 70.

DISTRICT 3 Sam Farr (D-Carmel)
49.3% White
39.5% Hispanic
6.3% Asian
3% Other
1.6% Black
.3% Native
Safe Dem. Farr may retire soon as he is almost 70 years old.

DISTRICT 2 Anna Eshoo (D-Atherton) vs Jackie Speier (D-Hillsborough)
Obama easily got above 70% here. The primary will be the real election here. I’m not sure who would win. Eshoo has far more experience, but she is also nearly 70 years old.
33.4% White
32.6% Asian
26.9% Hispanic
3.6% Other
3.5% Black
.2% Native

DISTRICT 1 Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco)
This is San Francisco so this is obviously a safe district. How long Pelosi stays in office depends on whether or not the dems regain power and if they do, if she will be voted back in as speaker.

46.2% White
30.7% Asian
13.5% Hispanic
5.7% Black
3.7% Other
.2% Native




Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: krazen1211 on April 28, 2011, 03:42:38 PM
This comes to mind.


the supreme court should invent a term. A VRA district has to be one where hispanics make up a majority of REGISTERED VOTERS. In case a hack like freepcrusher starts drawing the maps, it can stop them from enacting them.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: freepcrusher on April 28, 2011, 04:37:37 PM
I drew these districts as compact as possible (as the new law states). Districts 34, 35, and 40 were the only places where it was possible to draw a compact district where the majority of registered voters were hispanic


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: DrScholl on April 28, 2011, 04:51:38 PM
Less county splits will be done, but this a pretty rough idea of what might happen. Regarding CA-24, it looks about D+3 or D+4, which would be a climb for Gallegly.

And btw, if you start restricting the VRA to registered voters, you'd get very messy districts. I don't think judicial activism has any place in redistricting to game the system for one party.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: timothyinMD on April 28, 2011, 05:21:03 PM
Definitely an illegal dilution of the Hispanic vote on that Orange County map. Remember Sanchez's district was 65% Hispanic in 2000 and quite marginal. That map is a recipe for five Republicans and no Hispanic Rep.

Because all Hispanics are robots and are going to vote for the same candidate? A black or a white are not capable of representing hispanic constituents.

DOJ "preclearances" are institutionalized racism


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on April 28, 2011, 09:00:43 PM
This comes to mind.


the supreme court should invent a term. A VRA district has to be one where hispanics make up a majority of REGISTERED VOTERS. In case a hack like freepcrusher starts drawing the maps, it can stop them from enacting them.


Is he even using the VRA to justify his districts? Just because a district is 52% Hispanic doesn't necessarily mean it is a VRA district, or that it has to be one.

 Really trying to understand what your problem is here. Someone can't draw a 40% Black or 50% Hispanic district because it hurts your party? You're such a little whiner.



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on April 28, 2011, 09:12:18 PM

DISTRICT 40 Joe Baca (D-Rialto)
69.3% Hispanic
I’m surprised one could make a suburban district this Hispanic. Safe Democrat

Haven't been to San Bernardino, eh? :P



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: freepcrusher on April 28, 2011, 09:16:04 PM
krazen didn't specifically say whether he liked the districts or not. I don't see why he would dislike it. I think this map could possibly be a 31 Democrat 22 Republican map.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: krazen1211 on April 28, 2011, 09:21:06 PM
This comes to mind.


the supreme court should invent a term. A VRA district has to be one where hispanics make up a majority of REGISTERED VOTERS. In case a hack like freepcrusher starts drawing the maps, it can stop them from enacting them.


Is he even using the VRA to justify his districts? Just because a district is 52% Hispanic doesn't necessarily mean it is a VRA district, or that it has to be one.

 Really trying to understand what your problem is here. Someone can't draw a 40% Black or 50% Hispanic district because it hurts your party? You're such a little whiner.


Actually, I just cut and pasted one of his posts.

I just marvel at the sheer inconsistency. It's really funny to see California liberal whites cry about the lack of Texas Hispanic districts when California has many more seats, and less actual Hispanic representation in Congress.

That's how one can identify partisan hack Latino organizations that are really just fronts for the Democratic Party.



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on April 28, 2011, 09:39:18 PM
DISTRICT 26 Open
52.3% Hispanic
Obviously a safe dem. Does anyone know of any good democrats in the Legislature that could run here?

DISTRICT 25 Howard McKeon (R-Santa Clarita)
45.5% White
34.9% Hispanic
9.4% Black
6.9% Asian
2.9% Other
.3% Native
This district is probably an R+3 or something like that. He should be alright for now, but he may retire soon. This district could conceivably go dem when he does.


How much of Santa Clarita is in the 26th?

Also places like Palmdale and Lancaster might have a lot of Hispanics and Blacks, but the area overall votes quite similarly to the Inland Empire. Whites are strongly Republican there. I doubt the 25th as you have drawn it will go Democrat, barring a weak Republican candidate. And even then it would probably swing back in a midterm election.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on April 28, 2011, 09:40:52 PM
This comes to mind.


the supreme court should invent a term. A VRA district has to be one where hispanics make up a majority of REGISTERED VOTERS. In case a hack like freepcrusher starts drawing the maps, it can stop them from enacting them.


Is he even using the VRA to justify his districts? Just because a district is 52% Hispanic doesn't necessarily mean it is a VRA district, or that it has to be one.

 Really trying to understand what your problem is here. Someone can't draw a 40% Black or 50% Hispanic district because it hurts your party? You're such a little whiner.


Actually, I just cut and pasted one of his posts.

I just marvel at the sheer inconsistency. It's really funny to see California liberal whites cry about the lack of Texas Hispanic districts when California has many more seats, and less actual Hispanic representation in Congress.

That's how one can identify partisan hack Latino organizations that are really just fronts for the Democratic Party.


The VRA has to do with who the voters want, not the race of the candidate.

I of course would like a redistricting commission to draw the map in Texas (and Illinois). I am guessing you don't agree with that?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on April 28, 2011, 09:42:53 PM
krazen didn't specifically say whether he liked the districts or not. I don't see why he would dislike it. I think this map could possibly be a 31 Democrat 22 Republican map.

Yeah, your map definitely doesn't tend to favor any party. It makes more swing districts actually, which is what the result of the redistricting commission will be as well, imo. Not saying they will draw the map exactly as you have drawn it, plus they will have to pay more attention to the VRA and all that, but count on more competitive elections in California in the future.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: freepcrusher on April 28, 2011, 10:00:25 PM
well regardless, krazen is almost as bad as timothyinmd in his blowhardedness


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Napoleon on April 28, 2011, 10:11:23 PM
Ventura County should only have two districts.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: krazen1211 on April 28, 2011, 10:17:05 PM
The VRA has to do with who the voters want, not the race of the candidate.

I of course would like a redistricting commission to draw the map in Texas (and Illinois). I am guessing you don't agree with that?

I was referring to exactly that. White liberals in California made sure that Hispanic voters have less opportunities to elect a candidate of their choice and that's why they have so few of 53 districts.

I only believe in consistency. Nothing more or less.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: krazen1211 on April 28, 2011, 10:24:12 PM
well regardless, krazen is almost as bad as timothyinmd in his blowhardedness

Considering that that was your own post, that's the pot calling the pot black.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: DrScholl on April 28, 2011, 10:32:11 PM

I was referring to exactly that. White liberals in California made sure that Hispanic voters have less opportunities to elect a candidate of their choice and that's why they have so few of 53 districts.

I only believe in consistency. Nothing more or less.

You clearly do not know the makeup of the districts, the VRA is practically maxed out in California, at least by the standards of the 2000 Census. More VRA districts can be created, but it would mean that some Republicans would be out, here it doesn't do much to boost Republicans.

I see many Republicans saying that southern states shouldn't have VRA districts, so there's clear a double standard on the right too.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: phk on April 28, 2011, 11:20:32 PM
VRA is a form of gerrymandering and should be abolished.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Napoleon on April 28, 2011, 11:33:20 PM
VRA is a form of gerrymandering and should be abolished.

It restricts other forms of gerrymandering.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: DrScholl on April 28, 2011, 11:39:45 PM
Unless there is completely non-biased, commission based redistricting everywhere, the VRA needs to be followed strictly and even with fair districts, it would still need to be enforced some. The VRA is used so much because Republican cannot have safe districts without it packing voters in some places.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: jimrtex on April 29, 2011, 01:37:52 AM
VRA is a form of gerrymandering and should be abolished.

It restricts other forms of gerrymandering.

LOL


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on April 29, 2011, 02:06:11 AM
No he's right, that was the intended purpose. It's misleading to referred to gerrymandered monstrosities of majority-minority seats as "VRA districts", the VRA doesn't mandate such seats, it merely prohibits the diluting and splitting of heavily minority areas that could otherwise constitute a district. Districts like Corrine Brown's weren't being drawn until after 1990 Census.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Verily on April 29, 2011, 07:19:46 AM
No he's right, that was the intended purpose. It's misleading to referred to gerrymandered monstrosities of majority-minority seats as "VRA districts", the VRA doesn't mandate such seats, it merely prohibits the diluting and splitting of heavily minority areas that could otherwise constitute a district. Districts like Corrine Brown's weren't being drawn until after 1990 Census.

Corrine Brown's district isn't a VRA district to begin with. It was a convenient way for the Florida Republicans to pack a bunch of Democrats in.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on April 29, 2011, 10:44:13 AM
The VRA has to do with who the voters want, not the race of the candidate.

I of course would like a redistricting commission to draw the map in Texas (and Illinois). I am guessing you don't agree with that?

I was referring to exactly that. White liberals in California made sure that Hispanic voters have less opportunities to elect a candidate of their choice and that's why they have so few of 53 districts.

I only believe in consistency. Nothing more or less.

Alright, you have done it now. Give me concrete examples.

For example, an Asian as well as a Hispanic district could be drawn in the San Jose area. That doesn't mean it will be drawn or it should be drawn. All 3 of those district would vote about the same and would elect the same damn candidates. Racial gerrymandering would be pointless there. As opposed to the central valley where Whites vote about 70% Republican and Hispanics vote about 65% Democrat. It's these sorts of areas the VRA was intended for. 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Brittain33 on April 29, 2011, 10:47:42 AM
The VRA has to do with who the voters want, not the race of the candidate.

I of course would like a redistricting commission to draw the map in Texas (and Illinois). I am guessing you don't agree with that?

I was referring to exactly that. White liberals in California made sure that Hispanic voters have less opportunities to elect a candidate of their choice and that's why they have so few of 53 districts.

I only believe in consistency. Nothing more or less.

Alright, you have done it now. Give me concrete examples.

The Hispanic majority in the San Fernando Valley was cracked in 2002 order to keep two Anglo Dems in power. One of the rep had a brother in the legislature who made it happen.

None of this justifies the leap from "one legislative insider" to "white liberals," most of whom know nothing about this kind of thing and don't support it, but whatever.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on April 29, 2011, 11:28:20 AM
The VRA has to do with who the voters want, not the race of the candidate.

I of course would like a redistricting commission to draw the map in Texas (and Illinois). I am guessing you don't agree with that?

I was referring to exactly that. White liberals in California made sure that Hispanic voters have less opportunities to elect a candidate of their choice and that's why they have so few of 53 districts.

I only believe in consistency. Nothing more or less.

Alright, you have done it now. Give me concrete examples.

The Hispanic majority in the San Fernando Valley was cracked in 2002 order to keep two Anglo Dems in power. One of the rep had a brother in the legislature who made it happen.

None of this justifies the leap from "one legislative insider" to "white liberals," most of whom know nothing about this kind of thing and don't support it, but whatever.

 Either ways those districts were going to be Democratic since the white areas one of the districts was joined with is the hollywood hills. So like you said, your generic "white liberal" wouldn't have cared at all if a Hispanic district was formed there. Insiders keeping insiders in power. I am shocked. ::)



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: krazen1211 on April 29, 2011, 11:44:54 AM
Alright, you have done it now. Give me concrete examples.

For example, an Asian as well as a Hispanic district could be drawn in the San Jose area. That doesn't mean it will be drawn or it should be drawn. All 3 of those district would vote about the same and would elect the same damn candidates. Racial gerrymandering would be pointless there. As opposed to the central valley where Whites vote about 70% Republican and Hispanics vote about 65% Democrat. It's these sorts of areas the VRA was intended for. 

Congressional Districts 27 and 28.

And in primaries, it does matter. You might get the same party winning a general election, but black Democrats have had very little success winning in white liberal districts. The same is true with Hispanic Democrats. Hard to say that they would elect the same damn candidates given the track record.

If you want to use the VRA as a front to create Democratic districts in Republican states, don't be surprised when people in Republican states are irritated when the opposite isn't reciprocated. Just look at Nevada or New Jersey, where the GOP drew a Hispanic plurality district in their plan, and Democrats whined. In New Jersey especially they intentionally cracked up the 1 district that had a majority of Hispanic REGISTERED VOTERS, as it was put.

Yet they expect other states to maximize the number of such seats....


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Linus Van Pelt on April 29, 2011, 01:23:13 PM
Krazen's line has already been attempted at SCOTUS, which ruled in Growe v. Emison that a majority black legislative district in Minnepolis was not required, on the grounds that one of the Gingles preconditions is that bloc voting by the majority usually defeats the preferred candidate of the minority, and there was no evidence of such bloc voting in Minneapolis.

The case contains the worst possible sentence for anyone hoping for a conservative overturn:

Quote
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

http://law.onecle.com/ussc/507/507us25.html


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on April 30, 2011, 01:26:39 AM
That's interesting because we have an almost majority black State House district (it probably is majority black now and almost certainly will be after redistricting) and it was roughly the same shape in the 1991 redistricting. It wouldn't be too hard to alter it a bit to get a majority black seat even back then. But I don't think most would want it, our House districts are based around neighborhoods and all and people care far more about that than race and wouldn't want weird tendrils and all that. I'm surprised it was ever controversial or an issue even in 1991.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Brittain33 on June 03, 2011, 10:52:06 AM
Some maps are coming out. Not sure what these "visualizations" are for.

http://wedrawthelines.ca.gov/meeting_handouts.html

Zipped PDF Files for CD Region I, II, III, and IV Visualizations (zip, 7.3MB, June 2, 2011)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 03, 2011, 10:59:13 AM
They're the starting point for the new maps.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on June 03, 2011, 11:46:09 AM
That OC map looks a little ridiculous... Are any of them VAP majority Hispanic?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: krazen1211 on June 03, 2011, 12:05:54 PM
That looks really tough for Dreier, Issa, Loretta Sanchez, and Costa.

Why is Fresno still carved up?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on June 03, 2011, 12:26:44 PM
Yeah, drier has a pretty ridiculous district as well. I mean Burbank to Upland? Santa Ana with Newport Beach?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: freepcrusher on June 03, 2011, 01:16:43 PM
what is with all that yellow sh**t? Its pretty annoying.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: freepcrusher on June 03, 2011, 01:31:59 PM
anyways in Orange County:

Royce's district probably stays the same. It cuts off some marginal areas in the SW part of the district but also adds Anaheim. It looks a lot like the 39th district in the 1980s. He may have to face off against Loretta Sanchez. 

John Campbell's district gets even more safe as it adds in Rancho Santa Margarita and Cota de Caza.

Rohrabacher's district is probably down to an R+2. Although it adds 58% McCain Newport Beach, it also adds 65% Obama Santa Ana.


I also notice how some precincts in Orange County are kidnapped into LA County. It probably makes Linda Sanchez's district less safe, but she should be okay.

Gary Miller of course is pretty much DOA as his district is now majority hispanic.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on June 03, 2011, 01:41:05 PM
Gary Miller will be in that Asian district, no? It will be hard for him to hold on to that one. I am guessing Judy Chu also runs here?

As for Loretta, she will probably lose in all of those OC districts. Those districts cut the Hispanic population in half while taking care to leave the Vietnamese areas whole.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: krazen1211 on June 03, 2011, 02:08:09 PM
Gary Miller will be in that Asian district, no? It will be hard for him to hold on to that one. I am guessing Judy Chu also runs here?

As for Loretta, she will probably lose in all of those OC districts. Those districts cut the Hispanic population in half while taking care to leave the Vietnamese areas whole.

Well, she probably shouldn't have based the Vietnamese for trying to take her seat. They just went ahead and did it.

Probably a VRA violation though.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on June 03, 2011, 02:15:55 PM
Gary Miller will be in that Asian district, no? It will be hard for him to hold on to that one. I am guessing Judy Chu also runs here?

As for Loretta, she will probably lose in all of those OC districts. Those districts cut the Hispanic population in half while taking care to leave the Vietnamese areas whole.

Well, she probably shouldn't have based the Vietnamese for trying to take her seat. They just went ahead and did it.

Probably a VRA violation though.

Even if this wasn't a VRA protected district, joining Santa Ana to the coast district would be ridiculous. Rather I would have have put Santa Ana in with Tustin, Costa Mesa and the Vietnamese cities like Garden Grove and Westminster. That might actually be Hispanic majority and would set up for interesting Hispanic Democrat vs Vietnamese Republican matchups. Much preferable to putting in working class cities with the coast.

Of course Anaheim will most probably be split and the heavily Hispanic parts get put in the Santa Ana district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Chancellor Tanterterg on June 03, 2011, 05:13:08 PM
What other incumbents are in trouble under these maps?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on June 03, 2011, 06:15:21 PM
Calvert won't win in that Riverside district, I don't think. Both Costa and Cardoza might be in trouble.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 03, 2011, 06:51:53 PM
Guys, these maps are just rough sketches from the commission to the actual map drawers. It's way too early to draw any conclusions.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Linus Van Pelt on June 03, 2011, 07:10:09 PM
The web site says the first round of actual maps will be posted June 10.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Dgov on June 03, 2011, 08:49:45 PM
That looks really tough for Dreier, Issa, Loretta Sanchez, and Costa.

Why is Fresno still carved up?

The requirements of the comission were to create districts by income ( I think), so the realtively wealthly White parts should be cut from the Barrio Hispanic parts.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on June 05, 2011, 10:23:53 AM
These maps look very odd to me, almost shocking. What on earth are they doing?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 05, 2011, 11:06:27 AM
These maps look very odd to me, almost shocking. What on earth are they doing?

They're very rough drafts, basically just initial instructions from the commission to the actual map drawers. The first real draft map is supposed to be released on the 10th.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: jimrtex on June 06, 2011, 08:48:43 PM
These maps look very odd to me, almost shocking. What on earth are they doing?

It was pretty obvious based on the commission makeup that race would be an important factor in drawing districts.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Capitan Zapp Brannigan on June 10, 2011, 10:30:30 AM
Maps come out today.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 10, 2011, 11:44:03 AM
Looks like they'll be posted here:

http://wedrawthelines.ca.gov/maps-first-drafts.html

Keep in mind this is still a first draft. The second draft will be released July 1, with the final maps on September 15.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 10, 2011, 12:17:39 PM
They're up. They've also posted shapefiles, so maybe someone GIS-savvy could get some data on them.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: minionofmidas on June 10, 2011, 12:33:57 PM
Kay, the North Coast and Yuba districts surprised me. Haven't looked at SoCal yet - probably would misread the LA maps anyhow.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: minionofmidas on June 10, 2011, 12:54:02 PM
Fairly conservative in a number of places - the R sink in northeast LA County (hugging the south slope of the hills) stays, Filner's district stays...


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Verily on June 10, 2011, 01:13:46 PM
Anyone want to calculate the partisanship of that Santa Rosa-to-Marysville abomination? Must be safely Democratic given that Sonoma County has to be around half of the district (with a lot in Napa and Lake as well), but still...


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Verily on June 10, 2011, 01:22:40 PM
Fairly conservative in a number of places - the R sink in northeast LA County (hugging the south slope of the hills) stays, Filner's district stays...

No, the new south slope of the hills district is very much not an R vote sink. It's a Democratic seat, probably solidly (maybe over 60% Obama). They put Altadena, most of Pasadena, and Burbank in there. It's good-bye, David Dreier if this map happens.

Filner's district I'm surprised survived. I thought they'd attach Imperial County to Palm Springs, which is a much more natural connection.

Also, there is no way that Orange County map is surviving a court challenge.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 10, 2011, 01:29:04 PM
Filner's district is majority-Hispanic. Unless they could draw a cleaner majority-Hispanic district, they couldn't really touch it.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Verily on June 10, 2011, 01:31:08 PM
But it was possible to create a majority Hispanic seat in San Diego without Imperial County AND use Imperial County to create another majority Hispanic seat in Riverside County (which they didn't do). And the OC map shows how little respect they had for the VRA anyway, as they ripped apart Loretta Sanchez's seat and cracked the OC Hispanics across three districts.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 10, 2011, 01:33:27 PM
Dave Wasserman opines:

Quote
First CA impression: Dems +4. Gallegly (R), Dreier (R), Miller (R), Bilbray (R) lose out, Loretta Sanchez (D) keeps winnable district

DKE thinks Ed Royce may be in trouble as well. Also, Pete Stark's district has been dismantled. They should have some partisan data computed fairly soon (perhaps later today, perhaps by Monday), since they did the same quickly with Texas.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Verily on June 10, 2011, 01:36:15 PM
Bilbray's seat is more competitive, but he could win reelection. Sanchez absolutely cannot win any of the OC seats, not sure why anyone would think otherwise. (She might have been able to if she weren't so antagonistic towards the Vietnamese, but as-is she's toast.) Gallegly, Miller and Dreier do indeed definitely lose on that map.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Meeker on June 10, 2011, 02:06:08 PM
What a wonderful map.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 10, 2011, 03:02:06 PM
Here we go, '08 and '10 numbers:

Congress
DISTRICT   Brown %      Obama %
IGWSG      90.1       90.4
OKLND      89.4       89.4
CRSLP      82.3       85.6
SF         78.1       84.9
HTGCC      82          83.6
ELABH      82          82.8
WLADT      73.1       77.5
SNMAT      70.9       75.1
SFVET      70          74.8
NOCST      65.9       72.6
SNMSC      67.7       72.3
MONT      65.2       72.3
SANJO      62.6       70.5
FRNWU      64.9       69.3
SAC         69.3       68.3
SNACL      65.1       67.7
COCO      61.5       67.5
SFVWC      58.9       67
LBPRT      60.8       66.8
IMSAN      65.3       66.3
DWWTR      63.8       66.2
COVNA      62.3       65.6
YOSON      63.5       65.4
SGMFH      57.8       64.7
PVEBC      56.5       64.6
SBRIA      63          64.1
YUBA      61.8       62.7
SGVDB      56.2       61.8
CHNCS      57.1       60.7
SNJOA      55          58.2
MRCED      54.2       58.1
ONTPM      54.3       57.8
EVENT      51.4       57.6
SLOSB      50          57
RVMVN      53.3       56.9
MMRHB      48.4       55.9
WESTG      50          52.3
KINGS      55.8       52.2
SACCO      51.8       51.3
AVSCV      43.1       51.3
COACH      46.7       50.8
STANI      47.7       50.6
CSTSN      41.1       50.2
OCCST      38.9        49.9
LHBYL      41           47.6
PRS         39.7        45.3
STHOC      35.1        44.7
FRSNO      37.8        42.7
INMSB      43.4        42.2
FTHLL      40.8        41.6
MTCAP      51.4        40.6
NESAN      36.5        39.5
KR         36.8        37


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 10, 2011, 03:18:50 PM
I don't see this making many competitive districts. Republicans have been pretty consistent in winning the existing 51% Obama districts. Democrats would be fine with anything 58% Obama or greater. I wouldn't be surprised if the 56-57% Obama districts ended up being the only competitive ones.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: krazen1211 on June 10, 2011, 03:43:42 PM
I don't see this making many competitive districts. Republicans have been pretty consistent in winning the existing 51% Obama districts. Democrats would be fine with anything 58% Obama or greater. I wouldn't be surprised if the 56-57% Obama districts ended up being the only competitive ones.



ONTPM      54.3       57.8
EVENT      51.4       57.6
SLOSB      50          57
RVMVN      53.3       56.9
MMRHB      48.4       55.9


Which 5 are these by number?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: minionofmidas on June 10, 2011, 04:06:17 PM
Can't tell you by number, at least not in all cases.

ONTPM      54.3       57.8 - Ontario, Pomona. I think this is new.
EVENT      51.4       57.6 - bulk of Ventura County - arguably CA-24, but considerably ungerrymandered. Excludes Simi Valley, has Oxnard and Ventura back in.
SLOSB      50          57 - CA-23, but considerably ungerrymandered mirroringly.
RVMVN      53.3       56.9 - Riverside, Moreno Valley. Is that Bono's district? I dunno.
MMRHB      48.4       55.9 - CA-53, but shifted northwards and taking in Poway.




Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: freepcrusher on June 10, 2011, 05:08:14 PM
my thoughts on each district:

Bay Area

Contra Costa (District 7): This should be George Miller's district. He is pretty much safe here as he has survived both 1980, 1994, and 2010

Fremont-Newark Union City (District 13): This should be Pete Stark's district. Jerry McNerney may move here and challenge him in the primary though. This could be reminiscent of Lowery vs Cunningham back in 92.

Oakland (District 9): Barbara Lee, despite her radical stances, should be safe here.

San Jose (District 16): Zoe Lofgren, safe democratic district.

San Francisco (District 8) Nancy Pelosi's seat. Obviously safe democrat.

South Santa Clara (District 15) Mike Honda. Safe democrat seat unless Tom Campbell runs and even then its an uphill climb.

San Mateo (District 12) Jackie Speier. Safe democrat

San Mateo-Santa Cruz-Santa Clara (District 14) Anna Eshoo. Safe democrat.

Yolo-Solano-Napa (District 10) John Garamendi. Safe democrat



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 10, 2011, 05:12:15 PM
Here we go, district-by-district maps and lots of data:

http://www.mpimaps.com/mapanalysis/crc-draft-congressional-plan/


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Brittain33 on June 10, 2011, 05:12:21 PM
Can someone explain the changes in San Diego? Where do they leave Susan Davis and does someone get a new district?

EDIT: thanks to the link above, it looks like Bilbray and Issa are in a primary and a new Republican district was created that covers the south coast.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 10, 2011, 05:18:09 PM
Can someone explain the changes in San Diego? Where do they leave Susan Davis and does someone get a new district?

Susan Davis is here:

http://www.mpimaps.com/nggallery/page-89/image/428/

Duncan Hunter is here:

http://www.mpimaps.com/nggallery/page-89/image/452/

Filner's district, open now since he's running for San Diego mayor:

http://www.mpimaps.com/nggallery/page-89/image/442/

This is an open district, which is fairly swingy; presumably Bilbray would move here and run:

http://www.mpimaps.com/nggallery/page-89/image/448/


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: freepcrusher on June 10, 2011, 06:08:40 PM
looks like a 36-17 map which sounds pretty good.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Verily on June 10, 2011, 08:36:30 PM
Can someone explain the changes in San Diego? Where do they leave Susan Davis and does someone get a new district?

This is an open district, which is fairly swingy; presumably Bilbray would move here and run:

http://www.mpimaps.com/nggallery/page-89/image/448/

That has almost none of Bilbray's old district. Yes, it's not super-Democratic, but it's still D+3, and he'd be effectively running as a non-incumbent. I think he challenges Darrell Issa in the primary; the district in which they were both placed (http://www.mpimaps.com/nggallery/page-89/image/433/) contains about equal parts of each of their districts (Carlsbad and Encinitas from Bilbray, Oceanside from Issa), plus a bunch of territory that is new for both of them in Orange County, and Issa is a strange person and not a strong incumbent.

A big chunk of Bilbray's old district, the most Republican part, is also in Hunter's district, so I suppose he could run in the primary there, too.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: freepcrusher on June 10, 2011, 09:01:15 PM
actually the D+3 district contains his home in Imperial Beach. He is still well liked there and was mayor there before being elected to the old 49th district (which covers a lot of this area) in 1994.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: krazen1211 on June 10, 2011, 09:11:09 PM
That has almost none of Bilbray's old district. Yes, it's not super-Democratic, but it's still D+3, and he'd be effectively running as a non-incumbent. I think he challenges Darrell Issa in the primary; the district in which they were both placed (http://www.mpimaps.com/nggallery/page-89/image/433/) contains about equal parts of each of their districts (Carlsbad and Encinitas from Bilbray, Oceanside from Issa), plus a bunch of territory that is new for both of them in Orange County, and Issa is a strange person and not a strong incumbent.

A big chunk of Bilbray's old district, the most Republican part, is also in Hunter's district, so I suppose he could run in the primary there, too.


"I will remain an effective representative for San Diegans in Congress in this proposed new district, which includes Poway and the city of San Diego. The new boundaries also include where I was born, Coronado," Bilbray said in a statement Friday night. "I intend to run for reelection in this district"


http://www.mpimaps.com/nggallery/page-89/image/448/

No, he's running in the vacant seat. He represented portions of this in the 90s. Should be an easy enough win; Republicans mostly dominated downballot here, and the GOP even has a voter registration advantage.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on June 10, 2011, 09:13:46 PM
Can someone explain the changes in San Diego? Where do they leave Susan Davis and does someone get a new district?

EDIT: thanks to the link above, it looks like Bilbray and Issa are in a primary and a new Republican district was created that covers the south coast.

Nah the south coast CD is mine, and seems to have been drawn to make it have the highest median income possible.  :P

It's CA-48, the John Campbell CD.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Verily on June 10, 2011, 10:14:05 PM
actually the D+3 district contains his home in Imperial Beach. He is still well liked there and was mayor there before being elected to the old 49th district (which covers a lot of this area) in 1994.

Homes are marked on the map; he lives in Issa's district. But, fair enough that he is running in the other seat. It certainly isn't all that safe for him, though, considering the close races he's run in a safer seat before. We'll see.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 10, 2011, 10:16:10 PM
Lots of info to browse through so I'll just ask: What type of seat did McNerney get?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Verily on June 10, 2011, 10:30:13 PM
Lots of info to browse through so I'll just ask: What type of seat did McNerney get?

He's either in a primary in a safe seat with Pete Stark, or he moves to Stockton (or Antioch) and runs in a seat that is maybe slightly more favorable than his current one. I suppose if he favors a challenge he could go for the open seat that contains Tracy as another alternative; it's winnable.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: redcommander on June 10, 2011, 11:25:59 PM
Democrats shouldn't necessarily be so confident in their chances. Even if Gallegly, Dreier, Miller, and Bilbray lose, there is a decent chance that Loretta Sanchez's district could go Republican, along with those of Harman, Capps, and the new district containing Lakewood and Paramount.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Lunar on June 11, 2011, 12:00:27 AM
Democrats shouldn't necessarily be so confident in their chances. Even if Gallegly, Dreier, Miller, and Bilbray lose, there is a decent chance that Loretta Sanchez's district could go Republican, along with those of Harman, Capps, and the new district containing Lakewood and Paramount.

The 2012 year will probably have better Hispanic turnout than 2010, fwiw.

It seems like the Dems have a lot more to smile about here, even if there are some risks of the GOP picking a couple off.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: BigSkyBob on June 11, 2011, 12:25:51 AM
Democrats shouldn't necessarily be so confident in their chances. Even if Gallegly, Dreier, Miller, and Bilbray lose, there is a decent chance that Loretta Sanchez's district could go Republican, along with those of Harman, Capps, and the new district containing Lakewood and Paramount.

The 2012 year will probably have better Hispanic turnout than 2010, fwiw.

Then again, if the economy continues to enter into a double-dip, housing prices continue to fall, unemployment persists at 9%,  and the Democrats in the state legislature and offices pass the tax increases they desire,  Democrats may will have fond memories of their previous districts.

Quote

It seems like the Dems have a lot more to smile about here, even if there are some risks of the GOP picking a couple off.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Lunar on June 11, 2011, 12:36:24 AM
I guess, I think that's an overly simplistic way of looking at things.

Here in New York, someone could have made a similar argument in 2010 saying something like "Yeah, but with Andrew Cuomo's giant popularity and a nutjob of a Republican nominee dragging down the ticket and poisoning the Republican brand, Republicans would be lucky to do well at all"

Although the statewide races were indeed huge victories for the Democrats, as predicted in this rhetorical hypothetical, they lost more Congressional seats than any other state in the whole country.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Verily on June 11, 2011, 07:28:12 AM
Democrats shouldn't necessarily be so confident in their chances. Even if Gallegly, Dreier, Miller, and Bilbray lose, there is a decent chance that Loretta Sanchez's district could go Republican, along with those of Harman, Capps, and the new district containing Lakewood and Paramount.

Harman? (Or, rather, her successor?) No. Santa Monica was put in that district. It's probably more Democratic than it was before.

Edit: Marginally. It went from 64.4% Obama to 64.6% Obama.

Also, the Long Beach district you're talking about was 66.8% Obama.

Capps and Sanchez are the only two Democrats really made vulnerable by this map, and Capps at least is still fairly solidly favored to win reelection.

Edit again: Forgot about the Central Valley seats. Those are just kind of crazy, lots of potentially competitive races in there.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: DrScholl on June 11, 2011, 12:02:57 PM
Sanchez's district is almost certain to change since the Hispanic VAP isn't majority. As for Capps, her district is the same one she won three times before and the area has grown more Democratic than it was back then, so she's fine there.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Holmes on June 11, 2011, 01:01:02 PM
Um. Is Watsonville no longer in state senator Blakeslee's district, or am I tripping balls?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: muon2 on June 11, 2011, 11:01:50 PM
I like the fact that there are no numbers. It takes away from the idea that a particular district belongs to a particular incumbent.

However, I am surprised that the pdf's don't have a demographic breakdown. Has anyone seen the Hispanic percentages?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Meeker on June 11, 2011, 11:06:39 PM
I like the fact that there are no numbers. It takes away from the idea that a particular district belongs to a particular incumbent.

However, I am surprised that the pdf's don't have a demographic breakdown. Has anyone seen the Hispanic percentages?

The maps that Johnny posted a link to on the last page back have them.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: BigSkyBob on June 11, 2011, 11:37:33 PM
I guess, I think that's an overly simplistic way of looking at things.

Here in New York, someone could have made a similar argument in 2010 saying something like "Yeah, but with Andrew Cuomo's giant popularity and a nutjob of a Republican nominee dragging down the ticket and poisoning the Republican brand, Republicans would be lucky to do well at all"

Economy up, Presidential party up, and economy down, Presidential party down, has had a considerable correlation over the years. "Coattail" arguments haven't shown the same correlation.


If the economy continues to weaken, the Democrats will regret not having the old gerrymandered, non-competitive districts currently in effect.

Quote
Although the statewide races were indeed huge victories for the Democrats, as predicted in this rhetorical hypothetical, they lost more Congressional seats than any other state in the whole country.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Nichlemn on June 12, 2011, 04:53:16 AM
I guess, I think that's an overly simplistic way of looking at things.

Here in New York, someone could have made a similar argument in 2010 saying something like "Yeah, but with Andrew Cuomo's giant popularity and a nutjob of a Republican nominee dragging down the ticket and poisoning the Republican brand, Republicans would be lucky to do well at all"

Economy up, Presidential party up, and economy down, Presidential party down, has had a considerable correlation over the years. "Coattail" arguments haven't shown the same correlation.


If the economy continues to weaken, the Democrats will regret not having the old gerrymandered, non-competitive districts currently in effect.

Quote
Although the statewide races were indeed huge victories for the Democrats, as predicted in this rhetorical hypothetical, they lost more Congressional seats than any other state in the whole country.

In such a scenario, all that will do is reduce the size of the Republican majority. It's far better for Democrats (in expectation) to increase their chances of winning the House in a even-ish year.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: minionofmidas on June 12, 2011, 05:14:12 AM
I like the fact that there are no numbers. It takes away from the idea that a particular district belongs to a particular incumbent.
I doubt they'll stay unnumbered. Unless that was part of the legislation? Anyways, unless they massively rename districts in 2020, this is a one-off effect.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: BigSkyBob on June 12, 2011, 11:23:42 AM
I guess, I think that's an overly simplistic way of looking at things.

Here in New York, someone could have made a similar argument in 2010 saying something like "Yeah, but with Andrew Cuomo's giant popularity and a nutjob of a Republican nominee dragging down the ticket and poisoning the Republican brand, Republicans would be lucky to do well at all"

Economy up, Presidential party up, and economy down, Presidential party down, has had a considerable correlation over the years. "Coattail" arguments haven't shown the same correlation.


If the economy continues to weaken, the Democrats will regret not having the old gerrymandered, non-competitive districts currently in effect.

Quote
Although the statewide races were indeed huge victories for the Democrats, as predicted in this rhetorical hypothetical, they lost more Congressional seats than any other state in the whole country.

In such a scenario, all that will do is reduce the size of the Republican majority. It's far better for Democrats (in expectation) to increase their chances of winning the House in a even-ish year.


In general, that would be true, but, in this particular case the new seats are up in 2012, and the winners in the marginal seats will have the opportunity to hold their seats for the entire decade.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Brittain33 on June 12, 2011, 12:03:04 PM
No one forget, the cardinal rule about redistricting is that everything is good news for Republicans, bad news for Dems.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 12, 2011, 12:19:12 PM
No one forget, the cardinal rule about redistricting is that everything is good news for Republicans, bad news for Dems.

But it's not a gerrymander either when Republicans drawn favorable maps for themselves.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: BigSkyBob on June 12, 2011, 01:17:55 PM
No one forget, the cardinal rule about redistricting is that everything is good news for Republicans, bad news for Dems.



The reality is that the history is clear enough: if the economy continues to weaken, 2012 is going to be a bad year for Democrats. That is, all bad economic news will result in more Republicans being elected in 2012, and all good economic news will result in more Democrats being elected in 2012.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: BigSkyBob on June 12, 2011, 01:19:49 PM
No one forget, the cardinal rule about redistricting is that everything is good news for Republicans, bad news for Dems.

But it's not a gerrymander either when Republicans drawn favorable maps for themselves.

I see your case is so intellectually weak you must resort to strawmen arguments. Some Republican maps are gerrymanders, in the sense of what Gerry did, and others are not, for example Indiana, which favors Republicans more than the current map does, and is not a "gerrymander."


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on June 12, 2011, 01:27:22 PM
Sanchez's district is almost certain to change since the Hispanic VAP isn't majority. As for Capps, her district is the same one she won three times before and the area has grown more Democratic than it was back then, so she's fine there.

I wonder how that will survive a VRA challenge. It is easy to create a majority VAP Hispanic CD with what is clearly a cohesive community of interest.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: cinyc on June 12, 2011, 01:47:23 PM
Sanchez's district is almost certain to change since the Hispanic VAP isn't majority. As for Capps, her district is the same one she won three times before and the area has grown more Democratic than it was back then, so she's fine there.

I wonder how that will survive a VRA challenge. It is easy to create a majority VAP Hispanic CD with what is clearly a cohesive community of interest.

Please explain why one minority group - Hispanics - should have a district drawn for them that inhibits another minority group living in the same area - Asians - from ever electing their candidate of choice, or the candidate of choice of a sizeable minority of Hispanics.  
 
Quite frankly, the anachronistic Voting Rights Act fails when one "special" minority group has to face off against another "special" minority group.   Given the demographics of the area, isn't it better to draw a competitive district where either group could theoretically elect a candidate of their choice?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on June 12, 2011, 01:59:41 PM
You can't create a majority VAP Asian CD in Orange County, so no other minority group would be a collateral screwee. But you can in LA County, and they did, which I consider appropriate.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: cinyc on June 12, 2011, 02:09:21 PM
You can't create a majority VAP Asian CD in Orange County, so no other minority group would be a collateral screwee. But you can in LA County, and they did, which I consider appropriate.

Once you start talking about the VRA, doesn't the concept of county lines fall out the window?  Even if it doesn't, you could create a CD in Orange County that would be more likely to elect the candidate the Asians in the area prefer.

To me, a truly competitive district where either group could elect the candidate of their choice should suffice.  The district is 53.4% Hispanic, anyway, albeit a few points lower than that in VAP (48.1%).  Hispanic CVAP percentage is much lower still (31.8%) - likely reflecting a large illegal alien population which can't legally elect anyone.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on June 12, 2011, 02:11:13 PM
You can't create a majority VAP Asian CD in Orange County, so no other minority group would be a collateral screwee. But you can in LA County, and they did, which I consider appropriate.

Once you start talking about the VRA, doesn't the concept of county lines fall out the window?  Even if it doesn't, you could create a CD in Orange County that would be more likely to elect the candidate the Asians in the area prefer.

To me, a truly competitive district where either group could elect the candidate of their choice should suffice.  The district is 53.4% Hispanic, anyway, albeit a few points lower than that in VAP (48.1%).  Hispanic CVAP percentage is much lower still (31.8%) - likely reflecting a large illegal alien population which can't legally elect anyone.

Well, you are now talking about the VRA not comporting with good  public policy, and on that one, you may have noticed that I called for the VRA's repeal. :)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Verily on June 12, 2011, 03:01:19 PM
Sanchez's district is almost certain to change since the Hispanic VAP isn't majority. As for Capps, her district is the same one she won three times before and the area has grown more Democratic than it was back then, so she's fine there.

I wonder how that will survive a VRA challenge. It is easy to create a majority VAP Hispanic CD with what is clearly a cohesive community of interest.

Please explain why one minority group - Hispanics - should have a district drawn for them that inhibits another minority group living in the same area - Asians - from ever electing their candidate of choice, or the candidate of choice of a sizeable minority of Hispanics.  
 
Quite frankly, the anachronistic Voting Rights Act fails when one "special" minority group has to face off against another "special" minority group.   Given the demographics of the area, isn't it better to draw a competitive district where either group could theoretically elect a candidate of their choice?

There's no reason Garden Grove, Westminster, et al. need to be in the Hispanic district. You could create a separate district that was around 30% Asian. The current (2000) map cracks the Vietnamese across Sanchez, Rohrabacher and Royce's districts in order to keep white Republicans safe from a primary challenge, but a replacement map certainly need not do so. The ideal map would concentrate the Hispanics in Sanchez's district and the Vietnamese (and maybe other Asians if you're willing to go into Cerritos) in Royce's district, where they wouldn't form a majority but would have a lot of influence in the Republican primary.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Verily on June 12, 2011, 03:45:20 PM
Sanchez's district is almost certain to change since the Hispanic VAP isn't majority. As for Capps, her district is the same one she won three times before and the area has grown more Democratic than it was back then, so she's fine there.

I wonder how that will survive a VRA challenge. It is easy to create a majority VAP Hispanic CD with what is clearly a cohesive community of interest.

Please explain why one minority group - Hispanics - should have a district drawn for them that inhibits another minority group living in the same area - Asians - from ever electing their candidate of choice, or the candidate of choice of a sizeable minority of Hispanics.  
 
Quite frankly, the anachronistic Voting Rights Act fails when one "special" minority group has to face off against another "special" minority group.   Given the demographics of the area, isn't it better to draw a competitive district where either group could theoretically elect a candidate of their choice?

There's no reason Garden Grove, Westminster, et al. need to be in the Hispanic district. You could create a separate district that was around 30% Asian. The current (2000) map cracks the Vietnamese across Sanchez, Rohrabacher and Royce's districts in order to keep white Republicans safe from a primary challenge, but a replacement map certainly need not do so. The ideal map would concentrate the Hispanics in Sanchez's district and the Vietnamese (and maybe other Asians if you're willing to go into Cerritos) in Royce's district, where they wouldn't form a majority but would have a lot of influence in the Republican primary.

Here. The district on the right is 61.7% Hispanic VAP. The district on the left is 36.7% Asian VAP (and 32.6% white VAP, 26.5% Hispanic VAP), and could definitely be made more Asian if the DRA data were broken down more manageably. This would guarantee a delegation representing the Orange County area MUCH more reflective of Orange County's diversity instead of packing the Hispanics and Asians into one seat and then cracking the remainder out to ensure that white (Republican, but that isn't so important here) politicians continue to dominate the scene.

Your argument is just absurd, cinyc, sorry.

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 12, 2011, 04:48:44 PM
Ownage.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: jimrtex on June 12, 2011, 08:01:35 PM
I like the fact that there are no numbers. It takes away from the idea that a particular district belongs to a particular incumbent.
I doubt they'll stay unnumbered. Unless that was part of the legislation? Anyways, unless they massively rename districts in 2020, this is a one-off effect.
The constitution dictates north to south numbering, but there are lots of ways to wander back and forth from inland to the coast.  They could also just go with the latitude of the center of population.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Mr.Phips on June 12, 2011, 08:25:50 PM
No one forget, the cardinal rule about redistricting is that everything is good news for Republicans, bad news for Dems.



The reality is that the history is clear enough: if the economy continues to weaken, 2012 is going to be a bad year for Democrats. That is, all bad economic news will result in more Republicans being elected in 2012, and all good economic news will result in more Democrats being elected in 2012.

Even if its a bad year for Democrats in 2012, Republicans have basically reached their ceiling in the House.  In this case, while they are likely to take the Senate and certainly the Presidency, they not going to be able to avoid losing at least 5-10 seats in the House no matter what.   


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on June 12, 2011, 10:45:05 PM
I like the fact that there are no numbers. It takes away from the idea that a particular district belongs to a particular incumbent.

However, I am surprised that the pdf's don't have a demographic breakdown. Has anyone seen the Hispanic percentages?

The numbering doesn't matter for Congress. However, it matters whether the State Senate district is odd or even. The idea of having half of the State Senate from the old districts, and half from the new districts is kind of bizarre.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: muon2 on June 12, 2011, 10:55:42 PM
I like the fact that there are no numbers. It takes away from the idea that a particular district belongs to a particular incumbent.

However, I am surprised that the pdf's don't have a demographic breakdown. Has anyone seen the Hispanic percentages?

The maps that Johnny posted a link to on the last page back have them.

I'm still surprised that the commission doesn't have a master summary file.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: BigSkyBob on June 13, 2011, 12:57:33 AM
No one forget, the cardinal rule about redistricting is that everything is good news for Republicans, bad news for Dems.



The reality is that the history is clear enough: if the economy continues to weaken, 2012 is going to be a bad year for Democrats. That is, all bad economic news will result in more Republicans being elected in 2012, and all good economic news will result in more Democrats being elected in 2012.

Even if its a bad year for Democrats in 2012, Republicans have basically reached their ceiling in the House.  In this case, while they are likely to take the Senate and certainly the Presidency, they not going to be able to avoid losing at least 5-10 seats in the House no matter what.   


It is a denial position to claim that Republicans have hit a "ceiling" in the number of seats they hold. There was just a "wave" election, and absent another "wave," or the effects of redistricting,  the par assumption is that the GOP will lose some of the marginal seats they won in the last election. But, if there is a second Republican wave in 2012, as there was a second Democratic wave in 2008, then the GOP could reasonably win more seats. In the last election, the wave was, basically, in flyover county. If the coasts become as sick of the Democrats in 2012 as the heartland was in 2010, a double digit gain is possible.


Of couse, if a Democratic wave occurs, the GOP could lose the House.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on June 13, 2011, 08:12:28 AM
I don't like what they did with Chu, Sanchez and Drier's districts, but I am a big fan of their linkage of Stockton with the Brentwood/Oakley area. Makes a lot of sense. Don't know whether Mcnerney moves here or just runs in the district which contains his hometown of Pleasanton. It's Stark's district as well though.

I will have to take a better look at the map when I get a chance.

The main thing they really need to do is get rid of Fountain Valley from Sanchez's district. That's a no brainer.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: muon2 on June 13, 2011, 09:35:21 AM
My comment on the Hispanic stats (or lack thereof) may reflect on the commission's inattentativeness to Latino interests. Looking at the maps seemed to confirm this, and now I see that MALDEF has weighed in with concerns (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304778304576377922152419928.html?mod=WSJ_Election_LEFTSecondStories) as well. They had suggested districts (http://www.maldef.org/assets/pdf/MALDEF_Final_Submission_052611_Narrative.pdf) to the commission, but it looks like they were largely ignored. It will be interesting to see what adjustments the commission makes between now and Aug 15.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Mr.Phips on June 13, 2011, 10:29:13 AM
No one forget, the cardinal rule about redistricting is that everything is good news for Republicans, bad news for Dems.



The reality is that the history is clear enough: if the economy continues to weaken, 2012 is going to be a bad year for Democrats. That is, all bad economic news will result in more Republicans being elected in 2012, and all good economic news will result in more Democrats being elected in 2012.

Even if its a bad year for Democrats in 2012, Republicans have basically reached their ceiling in the House.  In this case, while they are likely to take the Senate and certainly the Presidency, they not going to be able to avoid losing at least 5-10 seats in the House no matter what.   


It is a denial position to claim that Republicans have hit a "ceiling" in the number of seats they hold. There was just a "wave" election, and absent another "wave," or the effects of redistricting,  the par assumption is that the GOP will lose some of the marginal seats they won in the last election. But, if there is a second Republican wave in 2012, as there was a second Democratic wave in 2008, then the GOP could reasonably win more seats. In the last election, the wave was, basically, in flyover county. If the coasts become as sick of the Democrats in 2012 as the heartland was in 2010, a double digit gain is possible.


Of couse, if a Democratic wave occurs, the GOP could lose the House.

The Democratic wave in 2006 was not half as big as the Republican wave of 2010.  If Democrats had picked up 63 seats in 2006, they would have certainly lost seats in 2008 no matter what.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: BigSkyBob on June 13, 2011, 12:19:00 PM
No one forget, the cardinal rule about redistricting is that everything is good news for Republicans, bad news for Dems.



The reality is that the history is clear enough: if the economy continues to weaken, 2012 is going to be a bad year for Democrats. That is, all bad economic news will result in more Republicans being elected in 2012, and all good economic news will result in more Democrats being elected in 2012.

Even if its a bad year for Democrats in 2012, Republicans have basically reached their ceiling in the House.  In this case, while they are likely to take the Senate and certainly the Presidency, they not going to be able to avoid losing at least 5-10 seats in the House no matter what.   


It is a denial position to claim that Republicans have hit a "ceiling" in the number of seats they hold. There was just a "wave" election, and absent another "wave," or the effects of redistricting,  the par assumption is that the GOP will lose some of the marginal seats they won in the last election. But, if there is a second Republican wave in 2012, as there was a second Democratic wave in 2008, then the GOP could reasonably win more seats. In the last election, the wave was, basically, in flyover county. If the coasts become as sick of the Democrats in 2012 as the heartland was in 2010, a double digit gain is possible.


Of couse, if a Democratic wave occurs, the GOP could lose the House.

The Democratic wave in 2006 was not half as big as the Republican wave of 2010.  If Democrats had picked up 63 seats in 2006, they would have certainly lost seats in 2008 no matter what.

Had the Democrats won 63 seats in 2006,  they would have held about 263 seats. That is closing in on the total number of attainable Democratic seats. However, if in 2006, the Democrats had won 240 seats, they would have had a large enough pool of attainable seats to gain more seats in 2008.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Napoleon on June 16, 2011, 04:35:25 PM
It looks like only two of the four Jewish mans will be in Congress come 2013.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: All Along The Watchtower on June 16, 2011, 08:37:32 PM
I guess the GOP is dead in the Bay Area. Not even the San Ramon Valley is GOP anymore.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Verily on June 16, 2011, 09:49:18 PM
I guess the GOP is dead in the Bay Area. Not even the San Ramon Valley is GOP anymore.

Danville is still Republican. It's the only Bay Area city of note with a McCain majority, though.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on June 17, 2011, 02:15:47 AM
Danville didn't vote Republican in 2008. It did vote for both Whitman and Fiorina though. So certainly the Republicans aren't dead there.

San Ramon has seen a lot of growth over the last 10 years and it has consisted of a lot of Asians. Sure, in some years that will be good for Republicans, but not consistently.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Dgov on June 17, 2011, 02:55:55 AM
I guess the GOP is dead in the Bay Area. Not even the San Ramon Valley is GOP anymore.

Danville is still Republican. It's the only Bay Area city of note with a McCain majority, though.

Atherton and Hillsborough over here in the West Bay (San Mateo County) voted like 51% McCain i think, but they're the cities the Multi-Millionaires and their Liberal kids all live in.  Give them another few years and they'll vote D nationally too.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Verily on June 17, 2011, 03:08:19 PM
Atherton was about 55% Obama. Not sure on Hillsborough, but probably more Democratic than Atherton. I thought Danville voted for McCain, but maybe I'm wrong. Would have to open up DRA to check again.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Dgov on June 17, 2011, 05:02:14 PM
Atherton was about 55% Obama. Not sure on Hillsborough, but probably more Democratic than Atherton. I thought Danville voted for McCain, but maybe I'm wrong. Would have to open up DRA to check again.

You're right on the first two (Hillsborough and Atherton were both about 58%), but Danville isn't much better at 55% Obama. (according to DRA)

Though this means that not only did no major bay area cities vote for McCain, no major bay area cities even voted above average Republican.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: metalhead2 on June 22, 2011, 01:10:56 AM
I will provide a detailed analysis for each of the newly released congressional districts. Keep in mind that the districts are subject to change, however. When the final revised lines are released, I will be sure to make updates to this analysis.

Antelope Valley/Santa Clarita

This is Buck McKeon's district. His 25th district is an R+6 that went for Obama 49-48. %Hispanic has increased from 27% to 35%. The new lines give McCain a solid 51-45 edge. For some strange reason, Elton Gallegly and his home city of Simi Valley have been drawn into this district instead of remaining in the Ventura County-based district. This district stands out as one where partisan considerations may have had some influence in the line drawing. Gallegly could not defeat McKeon in a primary here and McKeon will hold this seat until he decides to retire, with George Runner being the likely successor. This district no longer contains the sparsely populated rural areas lying east.

San Diego/Chula Vista

This is Susan Davis' district. Her 53rd is a D+14 district that gave Obama 68% in 2008, which is reduced to only 59% under the new lines. This should still be enough to keep her safe. Bob Filner, who is more likely to run for Mayor than re-election to Congress, has ben drawn into this district that stretches from El Cajon to Chula Vista. No longer does this district straddle the coast to Imperial Beach, but the territory is Democratic enough to keep Susan Davis safe without adding enough Latinos to open her up to a potential primary challenge.

Palm Springs/Coachella Valley

This is Mary Bono Mack's district, soaking up most of what the current 45th district contains. The district moves slightly north and avoids taking in Moreno Valley, but becomes about 1 point more Republican. Mary Bono Mack wasn't too vulnerable in this R+3 district to begin with, but under these new lines it should be safer for her. If she decided to retire, however, it would be tougher for a Republican to hold; the district has grown from 50.1% White to being plurality Hispanic, with many Hispanic Democrats termed out of the state legislature aching to run. As the Latino population grows (and it will), expect the district to become more competitive down ticket.

Concord/San Ramon

This is what should be George Miller's district. A few points less Democratic, but still overwhelmingly so, it has been shifted southward away from Vallejo. There isn't anything significant to note here.

San Gabriel Valley- El Monte/Covina

David Dreier and his home town of San Dimas can be found in this district, but I wouldn't call it Dreier's district. It bears little resemblance to his gerrymandered district that pieced together the more Republican areas of suburban Los Angeles County and stretched out into Rancho Cucamonga. This new district has managed to break the 60% threshold for Obama, which should be enough to overwhelm Dreier, who holds a 51% Obama district. The district is an eye-popping 63% Hispanic (Dreier's current district is majority White). Assemblymember Anthony Portantino, who will be term-limited come 2012, has been gearing up for a Congressional bid and currently resides in Dreier's district. His home of La Canada Flintridge, though, is not in this district. Portantino may decide he wants to run here regardless of where the lines land him, as he has a nice shot at a Congressional seat if he runs here. Judy Chu may decide to run here since much of her current seat is contained in the new district, but her home is not. Dreier does say he intends to run for re-election, but his chances seem rather dim at this point.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: metalhead2 on June 22, 2011, 01:34:08 AM
looks like a 36-17 map which sounds pretty good.

Looks like a map with lots of flexibility to me. Republicans could win up to 23 seats on this map, and in 2010 they would have won 21 seats with these lines despite Democratic turnout being boosted by variables such as Prop 19 and Meg Whitman's disastrous spending spree. If Republicans don't solve their Latino problem reasonably soon, this map will end up causing some pain but if the economy continues to worsen and Republicans stay strong where they need to, they will do alright. Democrats are actually hurt by this map in the Republican strongholds of Orange County and the Central Valley. It's a trade-off: Republicans have risked security for possibility. It could gain, it could drain, but whatever happens will be better than maps cooked up by Brown and the Democratic legislature for them, and that is what really matters for California Republicans.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: krazen1211 on June 22, 2011, 01:00:06 PM
The full counts on the California districts

Under the current district maps, Gold said Hispanic voters have a fair chance of electing a candidate of their choice in seven of California's 53 congressional districts, based on population and other factors. There are 10 state Assembly districts, out of 80, where Hispanics hold more than 50 percent of the voting-age population and six of 40 state Senate districts where that is true.

The proposed maps do not increase the number of Hispanic-leaning congressional and Assembly districts despite the explosion in the Hispanic population and reduce the number of state Senate districts where Hispanics hold sway to four.




10% of state assembly districts, 10% of state senate districts, and 13% of Congressional districts. Sounds quite fair.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: DrScholl on June 22, 2011, 06:36:43 PM
Partisan data for the state is now available.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: metalhead2 on June 22, 2011, 10:20:50 PM
The full counts on the California districts

Under the current district maps, Gold said Hispanic voters have a fair chance of electing a candidate of their choice in seven of California's 53 congressional districts, based on population and other factors. There are 10 state Assembly districts, out of 80, where Hispanics hold more than 50 percent of the voting-age population and six of 40 state Senate districts where that is true.

The proposed maps do not increase the number of Hispanic-leaning congressional and Assembly districts despite the explosion in the Hispanic population and reduce the number of state Senate districts where Hispanics hold sway to four.




10% of state assembly districts, 10% of state senate districts, and 13% of Congressional districts. Sounds quite fair.

Hispanic votes count just as much as any other ethnic group's votes do. I truly fail to see how they can not elect the candidate of their choice in the same way that any other race would. I thought we were a "post-racial" society.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: metalhead2 on June 22, 2011, 11:28:31 PM
Western Los Angeles

Karen Bass' ridiculously Democratic district has few changes. Next.

Oceanside/Carlsbad

This would be Darrell Issa's district. The 49th district he currently holds is R+10 and creeps into Riverside County. This new district stretches along San Diego County's coast, absorbing coastal areas of Orange County as well. Sitting at 49% Obama, Issa should be able to hold this seat with no real worries, although fellow Republican Brian Bilbray has been drawn into the district. It makes more sense for Bilbray to run in a district covering more of his current territory, but since that district is more Democratic, nothing can be certain. Issa would be favored in a primary between the two.

Downey/Norwalk

Grace Napolitano's district has been transformed radically, cutting out Pomona and everything in between and being consolidated to densely populated minority communities in southern Los Angeles County. Safely Democratic, as one would expect, albeit less so than before. Just why they stuck La Mirada in there, I will never know. Culturally, it is different enough to merit being placed in an Orange County dominated district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 23, 2011, 09:40:06 AM
Thanks to the block groups with political data being added, it's easier to figure out the OC situation. You can easily draw a majority-Hispanic district in the Anaheim/Santa Ana area, and draw a 35% Asian district to the west of it. There, both minority groups are happy.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on July 16, 2011, 07:24:56 AM
The Republicans want to repeal the maps via referendum if they're similar to the "visualizations". (http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/jul/14/state-gop-chairman-assails-redistricting-panel/) Good luck with that.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: jimrtex on July 18, 2011, 05:15:04 PM
The Republicans want to repeal the maps via referendum if they're similar to the "visualizations". (http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/jul/14/state-gop-chairman-assails-redistricting-panel/) Good luck with that.
Previous redistricting maps were overturned in referendum.

500,000 signatures in 90 days would appear feasible.

If the petition drive is completed, then the plan is not implemented until after the next statewide election, the 2012 primary (unless the governor calls a special election).

The last time this happened, the legislative districts were conducted on existing boundaries, congressional elections were conducted based on the boundaries approved by the legislature, but that was only because the number of representatives had changed.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on July 18, 2011, 05:43:54 PM
The Republicans want to repeal the maps via referendum if they're similar to the "visualizations". (http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/jul/14/state-gop-chairman-assails-redistricting-panel/) Good luck with that.

Are they stupid or what? Do they prefer to be gerrymandered to oblivion by the Dem legislature and Brown?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: jimrtex on July 18, 2011, 06:40:54 PM
The Republicans want to repeal the maps via referendum if they're similar to the "visualizations". (http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/jul/14/state-gop-chairman-assails-redistricting-panel/) Good luck with that.

Are they stupid or what? Do they prefer to be gerrymandered to oblivion by the Dem legislature and Brown?


What does the legislature or governor have to do with redistricting in California?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: freepcrusher on July 28, 2011, 11:40:58 AM
the final draft is out. Minor changes to the 47th and 48th districts. Sanchez's districts becomes a hispanic vote sink and Campbell's district looks like the old 47th in the 1990s in the sense that it contains Villa Park and Orange. Difference is that the coastal areas are given to Rohrabacher


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: All Along The Watchtower on July 28, 2011, 12:03:44 PM
the final draft is out. Minor changes to the 47th and 48th districts. Sanchez's districts becomes a hispanic vote sink and Campbell's district looks like the old 47th in the 1990s in the sense that it contains Villa Park and Orange. Difference is that the coastal areas are given to Rohrabacher

Villa Park with Campbell makes sense. That area has several tracts that are over 70% white, and one that is 88% white.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on July 28, 2011, 12:47:40 PM
The San Diego county CD's are quite interesting. It will be interesting to see the partisan stats. The Sanchez CD in OC needed to be redrawn to comport with the voting rights act. The Beach cities CD in LA County was totally redrawn in a way that totally shuts the Pubbies out. It goes all the way to Hancock Park now. Has a competitive CD been drawn in the Bay area? One looks like it might be a candidate.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on July 28, 2011, 01:38:39 PM
The district that wraps around the SD Hispanic district is about 62% Obama and also 56% Jerry Brown. The Poway to Coronado district is about 56% Obama but voted for Whitman by 54-45. Now that district will most certainly have very interesting elections. The other one which will likely have very interesting elections is the Ventura County district. It voted 57% Obama and was 50-50 in the governor's race. The SLO-Santa Barbara district also has similar partisan stats.

The beach cities district not containing Torrance is weird. Definitely shuts out the Pubbies there. And which Bay Area district looks competitive to you? Neither of those two inland East Bay districts are competitive. One picks up Richmond and the other picks up Hayward. If an exclusive inland East Bay district was drawn, it could have been competitive, especially in good years for the Republicans.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on July 28, 2011, 03:12:12 PM
The district that wraps around the SD Hispanic district is about 62% Obama and also 56% Jerry Brown. The Poway to Coronado district is about 56% Obama but voted for Whitman by 54-45. Now that district will most certainly have very interesting elections. The other one which will likely have very interesting elections is the Ventura County district. It voted 57% Obama and was 50-50 in the governor's race. The SLO-Santa Barbara district also has similar partisan stats.

The beach cities district not containing Torrance is weird. Definitely shuts out the Pubbies there. And which Bay Area district looks competitive to you? Neither of those two inland East Bay districts are competitive. One picks up Richmond and the other picks up Hayward. If an exclusive inland East Bay district was drawn, it could have been competitive, especially in good years for the Republicans.

()

I was thinking of the CD to the right, but now I see with more magnification, that it has way too much of San Jose (and the downscale part to boot), to be competitive. However, the one to the left looks like it has a very high SES, very high. I wonder what it's partisan stats are. From where are you getting your partisan stats by the way sbane?  The Riverside city CD also looks like it might be marginal to lean Dem. The stats on that would be interesting too.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: DrScholl on July 28, 2011, 03:52:28 PM
In LA County, there was a lot of concern about an African-American seat being cut, so they put Torrance in with Compton to leave at least an opportunity district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on July 28, 2011, 06:30:29 PM
The district that wraps around the SD Hispanic district is about 62% Obama and also 56% Jerry Brown. The Poway to Coronado district is about 56% Obama but voted for Whitman by 54-45. Now that district will most certainly have very interesting elections. The other one which will likely have very interesting elections is the Ventura County district. It voted 57% Obama and was 50-50 in the governor's race. The SLO-Santa Barbara district also has similar partisan stats.

The beach cities district not containing Torrance is weird. Definitely shuts out the Pubbies there. And which Bay Area district looks competitive to you? Neither of those two inland East Bay districts are competitive. One picks up Richmond and the other picks up Hayward. If an exclusive inland East Bay district was drawn, it could have been competitive, especially in good years for the Republicans.

()

I was thinking of the CD to the right, but now I see with more magnification, that it has way too much of San Jose (and the downscale part to boot), to be competitive. However, the one to the left looks like it has a very high SES, very high. I wonder what it's partisan stats are. From where are you getting your partisan stats by the way sbane?  The Riverside city CD also looks like it might be marginal to lean Dem. The stats on that would be interesting too.

Dave has partisan data for California with the normal sized voting districts now, so you can basically draw the same maps as the commission. It's actually pretty easy since they usually just follow the city limits.

You are right that the west Silicon Valley district has a high income, but so does the current district. It's still safe Dem. These people want subsidies for college education, high speed rail, subsidies for research, reduced military spending etc. In exchange they are prepared to pay higher taxes for it, especially in that Palo Alto to Mountain View corridor. Of course this group is probably quite fiscally responsible and will vote Republican when they feel it's necessary, especially at the state level. I am sure Schwarznegger won this district with a huge margin in 2006.

The Riverside district is 60-39 Obama and 56-43 Brown. The SBD district is even more interesting at 58-42 Obama and 54-46 Brown. Boxer might have barely carried it, and I doubt Kerry did.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on July 28, 2011, 06:37:54 PM
More data on the new districts.

http://www.mpimaps.com/mapanalysis/crc-july-28th-final-maps-congress/


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on July 28, 2011, 07:41:39 PM
Caveat: some of the numbers don't look right. There are a few districts where Obama supposedly underperformed Brown and Boxer by high-single digits.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: bgwah on July 28, 2011, 07:54:46 PM
Okay, this probably isn't a big deal... but did they have to change the numbering so much? For example, I notice CA-08 is no longer San Francisco. Pelosi's district is now CA-12. I'm always annoyed by this sort of thing.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on July 28, 2011, 09:00:41 PM
Caveat: some of the numbers don't look right. There are a few districts where Obama supposedly underperformed Brown and Boxer by high-single digits.

The Long Beach district numbers are definitely not right.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on July 28, 2011, 09:07:01 PM
The Republicans want to repeal the maps via referendum if they're similar to the "visualizations". (http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/jul/14/state-gop-chairman-assails-redistricting-panel/) Good luck with that.
Previous redistricting maps were overturned in referendum.

500,000 signatures in 90 days would appear feasible.

If the petition drive is completed, then the plan is not implemented until after the next statewide election, the 2012 primary (unless the governor calls a special election).

The last time this happened, the legislative districts were conducted on existing boundaries, congressional elections were conducted based on the boundaries approved by the legislature, but that was only because the number of representatives had changed.


Such a proposition would obviously fail, and would just be a waste of time and money.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: redcommander on July 28, 2011, 11:44:21 PM
Is it possible for Republicans to pick up seats in the legislature and the House? Many people keep saying that Republicans are looking at losing seats.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on July 29, 2011, 12:01:18 AM
Costa is in trouble, that is for sure. Joe Baca's seat is a lean Dem tossup. Lois Capp's district is a tossup as well. Also one of the Bay Area dems has to contest the Yuba City to Solano county district. That is pretty much a perfect tossup. Lots of Republicans are in trouble as well though. 2012 should be an interesting year.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: redcommander on July 29, 2011, 01:52:32 AM
Costa is in trouble, that is for sure. Joe Baca's seat is a lean Dem tossup. Lois Capp's district is a tossup as well. Also one of the Bay Area dems has to contest the Yuba City to Solano county district. That is pretty much a perfect tossup. Lots of Republicans are in trouble as well though. 2012 should be an interesting year.

Definitely. It's hard to believe how many incumbents are being forced to run against each other. I just hope the Republicans make enough ground to start rebuilding their bench.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Napoleon on July 29, 2011, 02:20:21 AM
Sbane and redcomnander, what are your old and new districts?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on July 29, 2011, 05:23:24 AM
My old district was the 11th, now I am in the 15th district, which is either Stark's or Mcnerney's. So I go from a swing district to a safe Dem one.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: minionofmidas on July 29, 2011, 05:36:20 AM
They also fixed Northern California some.

Contrast

()

()

(draft) with (final)

()

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: minionofmidas on July 29, 2011, 05:42:20 AM
Wait, the coastal district now stretches all the way from Palos Verdes to Malibu?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Napoleon on July 29, 2011, 08:54:03 AM
Wait, the coastal district now stretches all the way from Palos Verdes to Malibu?

It is bad for Hahn.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: DrScholl on July 29, 2011, 09:51:10 AM
Costa will probably run in the new CA-16, leaving CA-21 open for someone like Dean Florez. It's such a heavy Hispanic district, I have a hard time seeing a Republican winning it, since they don't do well with Hispanics in California at all.

Republicans would need a moderate to win the Yuba to Solano County district, the lower portion of the district wouldn't vote for anyone too conservative. Garamendi is a good fit and can hold it.

Capps has won a district that looks like that three times before, when the area was points more Republican and on top of that, she does her job well.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Napoleon on July 29, 2011, 10:01:29 AM
Why would Costa run against Cardoza?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: DrScholl on July 29, 2011, 10:24:42 AM
For one thing, he lives in CA-16 and it's a safer option than CA-21.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: minionofmidas on July 29, 2011, 10:32:54 AM
For one thing, he lives in CA-16 and it's a safer option than CA-21.
Those two are like twins. They are not going to harm each other. If one has one option and the other has two, he will take the other one.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on July 29, 2011, 10:49:52 AM
So which district would Cardoza run in? The new San Joaquin County one?

Wait, the coastal district now stretches all the way from Palos Verdes to Malibu?

It is bad for Hahn.

Hahn doesn't live in that district anymore. She can run in the new 44th or the coastal district. But as you say, that is not where she is strong. Waxman should move and represent the coastal district. He's perfect for it.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Napoleon on July 29, 2011, 10:58:02 AM
For one thing, he lives in CA-16 and it's a safer option than CA-21.

That is a poor explanation for why a Congressman would run against his more popular friend in his friend's previous district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on July 29, 2011, 11:16:57 AM
So which district would Cardoza run in? The new San Joaquin County one?

Wait, the coastal district now stretches all the way from Palos Verdes to Malibu?

It is bad for Hahn.

Hahn doesn't live in that district anymore. She can run in the new 44th or the coastal district. But as you say, that is not where she is strong. Waxman should move and represent the coastal district. He's perfect for it.

Waxman may be a bit left for that CD. It has a very high income. That prong heading to Hancock Park and Larchmont Village is very bourgeoise. However, he does have good Hollywood connections. I wonder what its partisan stats are. 60% Obama?

One theme of the map overall it seems to me, is that it is very SES based. It is almost as if certain districts were drawn to maximize their median income. The CD that Silverlake was put in, for example, is part of another quite high income CD, that takes in Los Feliz, and then a very high income bit of Pasadena, and wealthy La Canada/Flintridge,  along with middle class (overall) Glendale and a bit of Burbank, and La Crescenta, and so forth. These CD's 40 years ago would have been Pubbie!  :)  My little CD hugging the coast of Orange County is probably one of the most wealthy in the nation.

It will be interesting to see if the Dems representing the these high income CD's tack a bit and become a bit more moderate on fiscal issues.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: DrScholl on July 29, 2011, 11:18:24 AM
That is a poor explanation for why a Congressman would run against his more popular friend in his friend's previous district.

You asked and I gave a reason. We all know politicians will run in districts that are safer in order protect their own interests, that's nothing new and it's not a poor explanation.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Napoleon on July 29, 2011, 11:35:41 AM
That is a poor explanation for why a Congressman would run against his more popular friend in his friend's previous district.

You asked and I gave a reason. We all know politicians will run in districts that are safer in order protect their own interests, that's nothing new and it's not a poor explanation.

Its a poor explanation. Costa has no chance in that primary. It isn't his district and he isn't as popular anyways.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: DrScholl on July 29, 2011, 11:44:43 AM

Its a poor explanation. Costa has no chance in that primary. It isn't his district and he isn't as popular anyways.

Whatever. These are all highly reconfigured districts and there's no guaranteed results in any of them, so we'll just wait and see what happens and see who is right then.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Napoleon on July 29, 2011, 12:10:01 PM
Will Berman really run in the Latino district?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on July 29, 2011, 12:17:49 PM
So which district would Cardoza run in? The new San Joaquin County one?

Wait, the coastal district now stretches all the way from Palos Verdes to Malibu?

It is bad for Hahn.

Hahn doesn't live in that district anymore. She can run in the new 44th or the coastal district. But as you say, that is not where she is strong. Waxman should move and represent the coastal district. He's perfect for it.

Waxman may be a bit left for that CD. It has a very high income. That prong heading to Hancock Park and Larchmont Village is very bourgeoise. However, he does have good Hollywood connections. I wonder what its partisan stats are. 60% Obama?

57-37 Obama according to the link JLT posted. 54-40 Brown.  Waxman is pretty good with the Hollywood crowd, but may struggle in the beach cities. Still, I think he should do better than Hahn, who actually lost in the beach cities.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Napoleon on July 29, 2011, 01:12:44 PM
So which district would Cardoza run in? The new San Joaquin County one?

Wait, the coastal district now stretches all the way from Palos Verdes to Malibu?

It is bad for Hahn.
Hahn doesn't live in that district anymore. She can run in the new 44th or the coastal district. But as you say, that is not where she is strong. Waxman should move and represent the coastal district. He's perfect for it.

She lives in a packed Latino district. That isn't a good fit either.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on July 29, 2011, 01:23:51 PM
So the Pubbies lose 4 safe seats in Socal (Drier, Miller, Calvert and Galleghly (sp), and get in exchange two tossup seats (one in the San Gabriel Valley, and one in Ventura county), with the lean GOP CD in San Diego (Bilbray), made slightly more Dem, and now a tossup CD.  The Santa Barbara seat (Capps) goes from safe Dem to tossup. Have I got this about right?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: RBH on July 29, 2011, 01:30:51 PM
So the Pubbies lose 4 safe seats in Socal (Drier, Miller, Calvert and Galleghly (sp), and get in exchange two tossup seats (one in the San Gabriel Valley, and on in Ventura county), with the lean GOP CD in San Diego (Bilbray), made slightly more Dem, and now a tossup CD.  The Santa Barbara seat (Capps) goes from safe Dem to tossup. Have I got this about right?

not sure I would say Capps seat is a tossup. It would be competitive when she leaves office. But it seems like a more Democratic version of the 1993-2003 district that Huffington/Seastrand/Capps represented


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Napoleon on July 29, 2011, 01:54:16 PM
So the Pubbies lose 4 safe seats in Socal (Drier, Miller, Calvert and Galleghly (sp), and get in exchange two tossup seats (one in the San Gabriel Valley, and one in Ventura county), with the lean GOP CD in San Diego (Bilbray), made slightly more Dem, and now a tossup CD.  The Santa Barbara seat (Capps) goes from safe Dem to tossup. Have I got this about right?

The old CA-20 is now lean GOP and the old CA-36 is probably lean Dem. IMO.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on July 29, 2011, 02:07:49 PM
So the Pubbies lose 4 safe seats in Socal (Drier, Miller, Calvert and Galleghly (sp), and get in exchange two tossup seats (one in the San Gabriel Valley, and on in Ventura county), with the lean GOP CD in San Diego (Bilbray), made slightly more Dem, and now a tossup CD.  The Santa Barbara seat (Capps) goes from safe Dem to tossup. Have I got this about right?

Where are you seeing the tossup district in the San Gabriel Valley? The numbers aren't right for the Upland and Glendora to Pasadena district. Check out the numbers for the Governor and Senate races and you will see what I am talking about.

Miller and Royce got put in the same, safe GOP district. Calvert got put into the GOP district in Riverside County. Drier is completely screwed. Elton Gallegly and Buck Mckeon also got drawn into the same district. Elton lives very close to the Ventura County swing district so it's possible he runs there. It voted for both Whitman and Fiorina so he could win there. Or he could primary Mckeon, but Mckeon represents the area and he doesn't. Not good odds.  


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on July 29, 2011, 02:12:34 PM
Quote
Where are you seeing the tossup district in the San Gabriel Valley?



Actually, what I "saw" was mere text. It was probably put up by some Pubbie hack however, so probably I was foolish to pay it any mind. :P

Quote
Joe Baca's seat is a lean Dem tossup.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Napoleon on July 29, 2011, 02:18:12 PM
Joe Baca's new district is probably safe despite the low Obama totals because of the Hispanic and black vote strength outweighing the white vote.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Brittain33 on July 29, 2011, 02:36:09 PM
How competitive is the suburban Sacramento district?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: DrScholl on July 29, 2011, 03:08:21 PM
I count 38 districts that both Obama and Brown won. If Brown could carry a district in 2010 of all years, then it at least Leans Democratic in even a poor or neutral year. The real swing districts are CA-10, CA-52 and CA-26, the latter of which being the most winnable for Democrats.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: krazen1211 on July 29, 2011, 03:12:13 PM
How competitive is the suburban Sacramento district?

Lundgrens I believe is Whitman 47%, Fiorina 53%.

Garamendi's? I believe is Whitman 46%; Fiorina 51%


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: krazen1211 on July 29, 2011, 03:16:00 PM
I count 38 districts that both Obama and Brown won. If Brown could carry a district in 2010 of all years, then it at least Leans Democratic in even a poor or neutral year. The real swing districts are CA-10, CA-52 and CA-26, the latter of which being the most winnable for Democrats.

CA-52 is Bilbray's district. Brown lost it by 8 points.

http://www.mpimaps.com/wp-content/gallery/crc-july-28th-final-maps-congress/CD52.png


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: DrScholl on July 29, 2011, 03:23:45 PM
I count 38 districts that both Obama and Brown won. If Brown could carry a district in 2010 of all years, then it at least Leans Democratic in even a poor or neutral year. The real swing districts are CA-10, CA-52 and CA-26, the latter of which being the most winnable for Democrats.

CA-52 is Bilbray's district. Brown lost it by 8 points.

http://www.mpimaps.com/wp-content/gallery/crc-july-28th-final-maps-congress/CD52.png

I know whose district it is and what the numbers are, thank you. Obama won this new version in 2008 by about 2 points than he did the old one, which shifts the PVI. It's fair to call it a swing district, since it has potential to shift in Dem year.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on July 29, 2011, 05:17:26 PM
Some numbers from Dave Wasserman.

• Garamendi (if he runs in the new 3rd) goes from 66.1% Obama to 56.2%
• Denham (if he runs in Modesto) goes from 46.9% Obama to 51.5%
• Lungren goes from 50.2% Obama to 52.9%
• McNerney's new seat goes from 54.7% Obama to 57.9%
• Dreier (if he stays in the SGV) goes from 52.1% Obama to 62.8%
• Baca drops from 69.3% Obama to 57.8%
• Gallegly goes from 51.4% Obama to 57.8%
• Capps goes from 66.9% Obama to 57.7%
• Bilbray (if he runs in N. San Diego) goes from 52.1% Obama to 54.8%
• Davis (if she runs in Chula Vista/National City) goes from 67.6% Obama to 64.5%


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on July 29, 2011, 05:33:32 PM
How competitive is the suburban Sacramento district?

It's a lean R seat imo, but Lungren has been running pretty weak lately so there is a good chance he would lose.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: redcommander on July 29, 2011, 09:53:40 PM
Can the Republicans please run a diverse list of candidates? Redistricting has given them the opportunity to add new blood to its ranks, and I'm really sick and tired of how much the Cal GOP keeps shooting themselves in the foot with minority voters.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: jimrtex on July 29, 2011, 10:07:20 PM

One theme of the map overall it seems to me, is that it is very SES based. It is almost as if certain districts were drawn to maximize their median income. The CD that Silverlake was put in, for example, is part of another quite high income CD, that takes in Los Feliz, and then a very high income bit of Pasadena, and wealthy La Canada/Flintridge,  along with middle class (overall) Glendale and a bit of Burbank, and La Crescenta, and so forth. These CD's 40 years ago would have been Pubbie!  :)  My little CD hugging the coast of Orange County is probably one of the most wealthy in the nation.

Quote from: California Constitution Article 21, Section 2(d)(4)

The geographic integrity of any city, county, city and county, local neighborhood, or local community of interest shall be respected in a manner that minimizes their division to the extent possible without violating the requirements of any of the preceding subdivisions.  A community of interest is a contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation.  Examples of such shared interests are those common to an urban area, a rural area, an industrial area, or an agricultural area, and those common to areas in which the people share similar living standards, use the same transportation facilities, have similar work opportunities, or have access to the same media of communication relevant to the election process.



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: minionofmidas on July 30, 2011, 03:45:04 AM
I count 38 districts that both Obama and Brown won. If Brown could carry a district in 2010 of all years, then it at least Leans Democratic in even a poor or neutral year. The real swing districts are CA-10, CA-52 and CA-26, the latter of which being the most winnable for Democrats.

CA-52 is Bilbray's district. Brown lost it by 8 points.

http://www.mpimaps.com/wp-content/gallery/crc-july-28th-final-maps-congress/CD52.png

I know whose district it is and what the numbers are, thank you. Obama won this new version in 2008 by about 2 points than he did the old one, which shifts the PVI. It's fair to call it a swing district, since it has potential to shift in Dem year.
Given the area'S traditions, Obama's strong perfomance there, incumbency etc, it's still a solidly lean R district. At least for now, it may well be headed down the drain in the mediumterm.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 30, 2011, 09:25:30 AM
How competitive is the suburban Sacramento district?

It's a lean R seat imo, but Lungren has been running pretty weak lately so there is a good chance he would lose.

It seems that every year since the mid 1990's, Lungren has been slowly declining in terms of his electability. One can hardly beleive that some even thought he was statewide material even way back in 1998.

I had thought it was a given that his seat would become far more Democratic, yet it seems that change (partisan wise I mean) was rather miniscule compared to the changes to say Drier and Gallegly for instance, who are now bascially DOA. Was the consensus wrong or just over emphasized?





Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: DrScholl on July 30, 2011, 09:49:45 AM
Lungren's seat goes from R+6, to maybe R+1 or R+0 and the suburbs are trending very Democratic.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on July 30, 2011, 12:23:59 PM
How competitive is the suburban Sacramento district?

It's a lean R seat imo, but Lungren has been running pretty weak lately so there is a good chance he would lose.

It seems that every year since the mid 1990's, Lungren has been slowly declining in terms of his electability. One can hardly beleive that some even thought he was statewide material even way back in 1998.

I had thought it was a given that his seat would become far more Democratic, yet it seems that change (partisan wise I mean) was rather miniscule compared to the changes to say Drier and Gallegly for instance, who are now bascially DOA. Was the consensus wrong or just over emphasized?

I never thought his seat would become that much more Democratic. I just knew it would get rid of the rural areas and just become a suburban Sacramento district. I believe in 2008, Lungren lost in those Sacramento County suburbs. If people have been talking up this seat so much, it is mostly due to the fact that Lungren performs so horribly. Even if a Democrat wins here, he will find it hard to hold on to it.

I always knew Drier, and one of either Royce, Miller or Calvert was f'ed. I didn't know Drier was in that much trouble though. I thought he might at least get a district that voted by say 10-15 points for Obama. I disagree that Gallegly is DOA. That Ventura county district is a perfect tossup. Both Whitman and Fiorina won here. Gallegly should be able to compete or he has no business being in congress.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 30, 2011, 12:32:23 PM
Yes, he can run in that seat, I was speaking in terms of the far less likely scenario of him running against McKeon, since that is where he was placed. Don't know why I did that that though since in CA, residency doesn't mean as much.

As for the Ventura seate, compete maybe, but he is not the type to give anyone confidence as swing seat material, wouldn't you agree?

I was really hoping it would be Calvert of the trio you listed.

Doesn't CA introduce that new primary system as well next year, making things even more uncertain?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: minionofmidas on July 30, 2011, 01:08:15 PM
What is that primary system like?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: DrScholl on July 30, 2011, 01:14:22 PM
Gallegly's home and base of Simi Valley being cut out of the district puts him at a big disadvantage, especially when the seat now takes on Oxnard. He's never run a competitive race and probably does not want to start now. He almost retired in 2006, so it's conceivable he may not run.

The primary is now like Louisana's, everyone runs on the same ticket and the top two advance. There will be several same party general election matchups.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: minionofmidas on July 30, 2011, 01:17:50 PM
Gallegly's home and base of Simi Valley being cut out of the district puts him at a big disadvantage, especially when the seat now takes on Oxnard. He's never run a competitive race and probably does not want to start now. He almost retired in 2006, so it's conceivable he may not run.
Right, I remember that. He only withdrew from retiring when he noticed it was too late to get his chosen successor on the primary ballot, and some unknown joke primary challenger would have become the Republican candidate.

Quote
The primary is now like Louisiana's, everyone runs on the same ticket and the top two advance. There will be several same party general election matchups.
Cajunifornia? 8)

Louisiana doesn't have such primaries anymore, though. (Also, I assume you'll have a top two G.E. even if the first received a majority of the vote?)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on July 30, 2011, 01:30:14 PM
Louisiana never changed its primary system for state elections, and it's going back to the jungle primary for federal elections next year. And yes, in California, there will be a general election regardless of whether or not a candidate receives a majority of the vote. In that respect, it's like Washington's system.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: minionofmidas on July 30, 2011, 01:46:19 PM
Louisiana never changed its primary system for state elections
Yeah, I know that
Quote
, and it's going back to the jungle primary for federal elections next year.
8)
Quote
And yes, in California, there will be a general election regardless of whether or not a candidate receives a majority of the vote. In that respect, it's like Washington's system.
One would hope they do that in Louisiana as well, it solves the constitutional issue. I guess not, though?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Free Palestine on July 30, 2011, 02:53:08 PM
I like my new district.  :D


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Brittain33 on July 30, 2011, 03:20:01 PM
Lock and load, KO, etc.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Napoleon on July 30, 2011, 03:26:57 PM

Which district is it?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: redcommander on July 31, 2011, 12:05:56 AM
http://www.nctimes.com/news/article_6515c121-eaa2-5180-ae05-ff7fd095bcd3.html

San Diego's districts are much more cleaner now, and oddly enough Duncan Hunter will have the most Republican district in the state now. You would think that it would be one up in the High Sierras or by the Oregon border.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: jimrtex on July 31, 2011, 01:04:51 AM
The primary is now like Louisiana's, everyone runs on the same ticket and the top two advance. There will be several same party general election matchups.
Cajunifornia? 8)

Louisiana doesn't have such primaries anymore, though. (Also, I assume you'll have a top two G.E. even if the first received a majority of the vote?)
Louisiana calls their first election the open primary, even though it is actually the general election, with a runoff.  They have switched back to the open primary for federal elections starting with 2012 (and any specials before then).

California will always have the Top 2 general election, since otherwise they would have to have the first round in November.

The last few special elections have been conducted using the same system, but it doesn't look that much different than the old special election system.  The old system was actually a blanket primary where the voters were choosing the nominees of each party, even though voters could vote for any candidate in the special primary.  If a candidate got the majority of the primary vote, they were elected, and the same would happen if all candidates were from the same party.  Otherwise the top votegetter in each party and any independents would advance to the special general election, where no majority was needed.

Now the special general will be a runoff between the top  regardless of party, unless there is a majority winner in the special primary.  In other words the same as special elections in Texas.

California is switching their presidential primary back to June, so it will be coincident with the first open primary.  The presidential primary will still be limited to party voters, unless each party opens it up to non-affiliated voters.  Because the Democratic presidential race will be non-competitive, and the Republican presidential race will probably be over several months earlier, the turnout could be really poor, which could make any races with paired candidates pretty interesting.

BTW, Edwin Edwards got married again this weekend.




Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: jimrtex on July 31, 2011, 01:45:34 AM
One would hope they do that in Louisiana as well, it solves the constitutional issue. I guess not, though?
The constitutional issue was the date of the election.  Congress has set the election date for congressional elections to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

Louisiana has traditionally held their elections on a Saturday in mid-October, besides having state and legislative elections in odd years.  So they set the runoff for statewide elections in mid-November.

For congressional elections they set the primary for early October, with the runoff, if needed, on federal election day, when there could also be a presidential election.  But if no runoff was needed, the winner was formally considered elected - prior to the date set for election by be Congress.  And usually, there was no congressional runoffs.  In Foster v Love, the US Supreme Court held that Louisiana could not have a decisive election before November.

The legislature dilly-dallied because the House wanted to simply change the date, while Cleo Fields and the senate wanted to go back to the closed primary.  Eventually, federal the district court set the "general election" to November, with an early December runoff.  The Love party challenged this decision arguing that Louisiana should go back to the last lawful procedure from the 1970s, which was the closed partisan primary.  So apparently the goal was to overturn the open primary, and the federal courts just bit on the date.  The 5th Circuit upheld the change in date Foster v Love

A few years later, Louisiana decided they didn't like the December runoff, and so they tried to modify the calendar a bit.  If there were one or two candidates they would run in November, and there would be no runoff.  If there were 3 or more candidates, there would the primary, and possibly a runoff.  So there was slightly less chance of a premature election.

This system was challenged in daughter of Love v. Blanco, and a federal court overturned that version.  At that point Cleo Fields talked them into going back to the partisan primary.  But being Louisianans they had to have a primary runoff, so ended up with 3 rounds.  There were two special elections in 2008, both went to 3 rounds.  And then Hurricane Gustav struck, and messed up the schedule of the 3 rounds, which was why the Anh Cao-William Jefferson race was in December.  So even though they had changed it to get rid of the December election they ended up with a December election.  And because there were several independent candidates, they ended up with non-majority winners, despite having primary runoffs to ensure majority nominations.

So in 2010, they switched back.  This time they claimed that the reason was to save money.  But I think they like the jungle primary.

Washington and California will always have a November election, even if a candidate gets a majority in the primary.  This should presumably resolve the date issue, but it might eventually be challenged on that ground that the election is too early.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on August 03, 2011, 11:44:37 PM
If anyone has racial data, it would be nice to see. That district that stretches from Fremont to Cupertino (in which I live, just barely) looks like an Asian-plurality seat to me. I didn't think they would draw it like that. It is worth noting that that district is remarkably compact; despite being entirely suburban, it's not that much larger than Pelosi's district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: minionofmidas on August 04, 2011, 03:43:01 AM
http://www.mpimaps.com/wp-content/gallery/crc-july-28th-final-maps-congress/CD17.png

Almost a majority.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: redcommander on August 08, 2011, 05:14:36 PM
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/08/07/3820183/editorial-gop-has-buyers-remorse.html

The GOP needs to either put up or shut up about redistricting. They lost in a spectacular fashion last November, they pushed for the commission, they have done a sh@ty job at diversifying their party in the state, they have bled support to the Democrats for almost a decade now, and Del Beccaro and the rest of the leadership thinks that the redistricting process was unfair? No the reason it looks unfair is that you have allowed the party to stick its head in the ground since the early 2000's, and let the Democrats build up enormous strength in the Bay Area and LA. In other news, since 1998, Republicans have failed in 200 House elections to pick up a seat from the Democrats.

http://calcoastnews.com/2011/07/california-gop-now-0-for-200-since-1998/


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: jimrtex on August 08, 2011, 06:51:04 PM
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/08/07/3820183/editorial-gop-has-buyers-remorse.html


"But given that so much of California's population growth over the last decade has occurred in the south and along the coast, it is inevitable that some distant rural areas will have to be married with Sacramento's suburbs."

That part of the editorial is absolutely wrong.  The population growth was eastward in to the Inland Empire and Central Valley.  There was almost no north to south shift.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: nclib on August 12, 2011, 03:37:04 PM
I like the fact that there are no numbers. It takes away from the idea that a particular district belongs to a particular incumbent.

I understand your point, but it will take a while to get accustomed to what areas the new numbers represent, esp. since the new numbers don't appear to be as geographically consistent. Can you (or someone) give a list of which districts are similar to an old district of a different number, and how such districts have changed electorally and racially?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: redcommander on August 15, 2011, 07:05:51 PM
The maps have been finalized. I don't see any major changes from when the commission first announced them.

http://wedrawthelines.ca.gov/maps-final-drafts.html


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: jimrtex on August 18, 2011, 03:21:18 AM
The maps have been finalized. I don't see any major changes from when the commission first announced them.

http://wedrawthelines.ca.gov/maps-final-drafts.html

A referendum petition for the senate plan has been filed with the attorney general's office.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: whaeffner1 on August 19, 2011, 08:55:09 PM

"But given that so much of California's population growth over the last decade has occurred in the south and along the coast, it is inevitable that some distant rural areas will have to be married with Sacramento's suburbs."

That part of the editorial is absolutely wrong.  The population growth was eastward in to the Inland Empire and Central Valley.  There was almost no north to south shift.


It is possible to take some of Sacramento and put it with the most liberal parts of Fresno in order to create a heavy Dem district.  You can then take the rest of the area and put it with some parts of the Bay Area.  That would yield a result favorable for Republicans because it would create to very liberal districts instead of 2 lean Dem districts, thus shoring up GOP seats.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 19, 2011, 09:13:35 PM
Not with the redistricting reform in place. That would be partisan gerrymandering.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Brittain33 on August 19, 2011, 11:36:02 PM
Sacramento to Fresno is too far with too many people in between.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: All Along The Watchtower on August 22, 2011, 12:01:47 PM
The Republican Party in CA is a mostly white, rural/exurban party in an urban, cosmopolitan, multicultural state. So of course it is having trouble in CA.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: redcommander on August 22, 2011, 10:10:40 PM
The Republican Party in CA is a mostly white, rural/exurban party in an urban, cosmopolitan, multicultural state. So of course it is having trouble in CA.

Yes but the candidates that have announced so far for public office in 2012 are showing that the party is diversifying.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Bacon King on August 23, 2011, 10:00:18 AM
The Republican Party in CA is a mostly white, rural/exurban party in an urban, cosmopolitan, multicultural state. So of course it is having trouble in CA.

Yes but the candidates that have announced so far for public office in 2012 are showing that the party is diversifying.

Like who? (curious)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Brittain33 on August 23, 2011, 11:05:44 AM
Presumably that S. Asian wunderkind running against McNerney.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: redcommander on August 23, 2011, 04:10:29 PM
The Republican Party in CA is a mostly white, rural/exurban party in an urban, cosmopolitan, multicultural state. So of course it is having trouble in CA.

Yes but the candidates that have announced so far for public office in 2012 are showing that the party is diversifying.

Like who? (curious)

Well the State Assembly and Senate races haven't received that much publicity in terms of whose running yet, but Republicans recruited Melissa Melendez to run in the 69th assembly district in the Inland Empire, and she stands a good shot of being elected. Ricky Gill is competitive in the 9th congressional, and David Valadao is running in the 21st. Also Garamendi will face a competitive race against Colusa County Supervisor Kim Dolbow Vann if she makes it through the primary, which she seems likely of doing.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: redcommander on August 23, 2011, 04:16:40 PM
Does anyone think the new 47th CD will become competitive? The commission drew it to include all of Long Beach, but it also includes the wealthy areas of Belmont, Naples, and Bixby Knolls, Los Alamitos (known for its military community), Cypress, Republican leaning parts of Garden Grove, and most of the Republican stronghold of Westminster. Plus Republicans recruited a top tier candidate in Gary DeLong who is a Long Beach Councilman.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on August 24, 2011, 12:41:46 AM
Does anyone think the new 47th CD will become competitive? The commission drew it to include all of Long Beach, but it also includes the wealthy areas of Belmont, Naples, and Bixby Knolls, Los Alamitos (known for its military community), Cypress, Republican leaning parts of Garden Grove, and most of the Republican stronghold of Westminster. Plus Republicans recruited a top tier candidate in Gary DeLong who is a Long Beach Councilman.

Long Beach is  very Dem, including the wealthier bits (maybe less so Bixby Knolls, which is one or two precincts), and other than the Vietnamese community, not much of a Pubbie offset per your description. Since Long Beach is four times the size of the Vietnamese community, the Dem PVI must be up there, like 6% minimum, maybe more. So no, per your description of the district, absent a big gap in candidate quality, and another GOP wave of some sort.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on August 24, 2011, 12:44:29 AM
Does anyone think the new 47th CD will become competitive? The commission drew it to include all of Long Beach, but it also includes the wealthy areas of Belmont, Naples, and Bixby Knolls, Los Alamitos (known for its military community), Cypress, Republican leaning parts of Garden Grove, and most of the Republican stronghold of Westminster. Plus Republicans recruited a top tier candidate in Gary DeLong who is a Long Beach Councilman.

Mill Valley laughs at the idea that wealthy areas in California are automatically Republican.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: redcommander on August 24, 2011, 01:28:29 AM
Does anyone think the new 47th CD will become competitive? The commission drew it to include all of Long Beach, but it also includes the wealthy areas of Belmont, Naples, and Bixby Knolls, Los Alamitos (known for its military community), Cypress, Republican leaning parts of Garden Grove, and most of the Republican stronghold of Westminster. Plus Republicans recruited a top tier candidate in Gary DeLong who is a Long Beach Councilman.

Mill Valley laughs at the idea that wealthy areas in California are automatically Republican.

Well Long Beach isn't exactly a Santa Monica or Brentwood, so it is reasonable to suspect that there are Republican portions of it. It's not as if the city doesn't elect Republicans, since there is at least one one the city council (DeLong like I mentioned). I know it would be difficult, but the commission did design the district it looks like to be potentially competitive. Otherwise they would have kept Long Beach in it, and added Carson or Lakewood in it, and left parts of Orange County out of it.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on August 25, 2011, 09:56:18 PM
The district will be competitive only if all the stars align, or there is a swing back among the Socal upper classes towards the Republicans. It's certainly not out of the question. It's not a safe Dem district, but I would think the Republicans are winning the popular vote by at least 8-10 points for this district to be competitive.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: DrScholl on August 25, 2011, 11:28:30 PM
Long Beach has Republican pockets, particularly closer to Orange County, but it's still quite blue. It weighs very heavily on the district as a whole, even with Republican leaning areas in Orange.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: muon2 on August 28, 2011, 08:47:00 AM
My first glance seems to still show that the districts are heavily weighted towards socioeconomic grouping without overly splitting counties. That's certainly a standard redistricting principle, but the natural tendency for socioeconomic groups to sort politically as well would tend to weaken competitiveness in such a plan. Is there a PVI analysis available online yet?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on August 29, 2011, 09:16:51 PM
Does anyone think the new 47th CD will become competitive? The commission drew it to include all of Long Beach, but it also includes the wealthy areas of Belmont, Naples, and Bixby Knolls, Los Alamitos (known for its military community), Cypress, Republican leaning parts of Garden Grove, and most of the Republican stronghold of Westminster. Plus Republicans recruited a top tier candidate in Gary DeLong who is a Long Beach Councilman.

Mill Valley laughs at the idea that wealthy areas in California are automatically Republican.

Well Long Beach isn't exactly a Santa Monica or Brentwood, so it is reasonable to suspect that there are Republican portions of it. It's not as if the city doesn't elect Republicans, since there is at least one one the city council (DeLong like I mentioned). I know it would be difficult, but the commission did design the district it looks like to be potentially competitive. Otherwise they would have kept Long Beach in it, and added Carson or Lakewood in it, and left parts of Orange County out of it.

The Commission should be ashamed of itself for drawing this non "communities of interest" cf, but here you go:  Dem PVI of about +6% - out of reach for the Pubbies absent unusual circumstances. I am about 18,000 residents short even though the block groups don't match the voting districts, and I spilled over the lines a bit where the voting districts were chopped, and still came up short, but it should not make much difference.

()

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on August 29, 2011, 09:19:58 PM
My first glance seems to still show that the districts are heavily weighted towards socioeconomic grouping without overly splitting counties. That's certainly a standard redistricting principle, but the natural tendency for socioeconomic groups to sort politically as well would tend to weaken competitiveness in such a plan. Is there a PVI analysis available online yet?

Yes, this might be coined the "class warfare" map. I was amazed how much economic segregation was emphasized really. In California class does not a community of interest make really. Malibu does not equal Hancock Park, and Silverlake/Los Feliz (gay young Hollywood hip) does not equal La Canada/Flintridge (Jet Propulsion Laboratory grayish haired brainiac nerd types), and on and on.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: jimrtex on August 30, 2011, 05:51:25 AM
My first glance seems to still show that the districts are heavily weighted towards socioeconomic grouping without overly splitting counties. That's certainly a standard redistricting principle, but the natural tendency for socioeconomic groups to sort politically as well would tend to weaken competitiveness in such a plan. Is there a PVI analysis available online yet?

Yes, this might be coined the "class warfare" map. I was amazed how much economic segregation was emphasized really. In California class does not a community of interest make really. Malibu does not equal Hancock Park, and Silverlake/Los Feliz (gay young Hollywood hip) does not equal La Canada/Flintridge (Jet Propulsion Laboratory grayish haired brainiac nerd types), and on and on.

It was one of the fixups that got added when they added congressional redistricting.

Before it just said "community of interest".  The added language included income, and some of the other interests are less measurable.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: redcommander on August 30, 2011, 01:10:08 PM
Does anyone think the new 47th CD will become competitive? The commission drew it to include all of Long Beach, but it also includes the wealthy areas of Belmont, Naples, and Bixby Knolls, Los Alamitos (known for its military community), Cypress, Republican leaning parts of Garden Grove, and most of the Republican stronghold of Westminster. Plus Republicans recruited a top tier candidate in Gary DeLong who is a Long Beach Councilman.

Mill Valley laughs at the idea that wealthy areas in California are automatically Republican.

Well Long Beach isn't exactly a Santa Monica or Brentwood, so it is reasonable to suspect that there are Republican portions of it. It's not as if the city doesn't elect Republicans, since there is at least one one the city council (DeLong like I mentioned). I know it would be difficult, but the commission did design the district it looks like to be potentially competitive. Otherwise they would have kept Long Beach in it, and added Carson or Lakewood in it, and left parts of Orange County out of it.

The Commission should be ashamed of itself for drawing this non "communities of interest" cf, but here you go:  Dem PVI of about +6% - out of reach for the Pubbies absent unusual circumstances. I am about 18,000 residents short even though the block groups don't match the voting districts, and I spilled over the lines a bit where the voting districts were chopped, and still came up short, but it should not make much difference.

()

()

If the district was under these lines in 2004, would it have voted for Bush?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Napoleon on August 30, 2011, 01:54:35 PM
Very unlikely since the Long Beach portion would be fiercely partisan.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Verily on August 30, 2011, 03:19:38 PM
Also, Vietnamese voters swung significantly to the right in 2008 due to McCain on the ticket (Vietnam veteran), and had been somewhat more D than usual in 2004 due to Kerry being a vet.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: BigSkyBob on August 30, 2011, 04:55:47 PM
Also, Vietnamese voters swung significantly to the right in 2008 due to McCain on the ticket (Vietnam veteran), and had been somewhat more D than usual in 2004 due to Kerry being a vet.

Republicans run better among Cubans and Vietnamese for the same basic reason: the Democratic party delivered their fellow countrymen into repressive dictatorships. During the war, Kerry de facto gave aid and comfort to those would-be dictators. Whatever the reason Kerry ran better in 2004 is, it is not his service in Vietnam.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on August 30, 2011, 05:13:51 PM
Long Beach swung at about the rate of the nation average - about 5% Dem from Kerry to Obama, and from about 65.6% Kerry to 71.0% Obama.  So not much trend in that town. It's about two thirds of CA-47 now.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: redcommander on August 30, 2011, 05:50:50 PM
Are there any other possibly competitive seats that no one has brought up yet? How blue is the new CA-36? What about CA-44? Sorry, I would look up the voting stats on the Dave's redistricting app, but my computer keeps crashing when I open the website up.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on August 30, 2011, 08:59:54 PM
Also, Vietnamese voters swung significantly to the right in 2008 due to McCain on the ticket (Vietnam veteran), and had been somewhat more D than usual in 2004 due to Kerry being a vet.

Are you sure about this? IIRC Garden Grove and Westminster swung pretty heavily towards Obama, as did the rest of Orange county of course. I could be wrong though, so let me know if I am.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: nclib on August 30, 2011, 09:12:33 PM
The old CA-47 swung strongly GOP in 2004 and DEM in 2008. IIRC, this CD has the most Vietnamese.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Napoleon on August 30, 2011, 10:48:17 PM
I expect the Long Beaches swing to be a result of increased Black turnout as opposed to actual swing voters.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: jimrtex on August 31, 2011, 04:15:03 AM
A proposed petition for a referendum on the congressional plan has been filed with the AG.  If sufficient signatures are gathered, the plan would be suspended until after the next statewide election at which the referendum would be voted on, presumably at the June 2012 primary.

If the plans are suspended, then the primaries can not be used to choose the 2 candidates who advance to the general election.

Maybe they will be held as special elections in November 2012, like has been done in Texas.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: redcommander on August 31, 2011, 05:47:31 AM
A proposed petition for a referendum on the congressional plan has been filed with the AG.  If sufficient signatures are gathered, the plan would be suspended until after the next statewide election at which the referendum would be voted on, presumably at the June 2012 primary.

If the plans are suspended, then the primaries can not be used to choose the 2 candidates who advance to the general election.

Maybe they will be held as special elections in November 2012, like has been done in Texas.

I seriously hope voters yet again keep Republicans on a lifeline by defeating that initiative. Sometimes I wonder if California Republicans actually want to win elections again. :P


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on August 31, 2011, 09:22:58 AM
I doubt if the petition will go anywhere.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: redcommander on August 31, 2011, 03:40:03 PM
http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.com/

http://elections.dailykos.com/

Rothenberg has a new analysis of possible candidates for the Dems and GOP in the California house races. Right now it's only open to subscribers though, but the Daily Kos has an outline listing of some of the candidate that Gonzales spoke about. Personally I hope Linda Parks runs in the 26th, seeing as she would bring much needed moderation to the congressional delegation if she won.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on September 02, 2011, 05:07:18 PM
CA-31 is a Dem lean marginal in case anyone is interested (+3.3% Dem PVI) . The City of Riverside/Moreno Valley/Perris CD is another +6% or so Dem PVI CD.

CA-31 is the seat Baca might run in against Lewis.  It is rated as toss-up/tilt  Dem by Rothenberg, which seems about right.

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on September 03, 2011, 02:44:30 PM
Yeah that district 31 is an interesting district. Another one of those swing districts. I more or less approve though San Bernardino and Colton would fit in better into the 35th.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: freepcrusher on September 16, 2011, 03:26:38 AM


()

had prop 20 not been passed here is what the central valley would look like IMO:

District 11 is the white areas of Stockton and Modesto connected by some mountain counties. This is 57 percent white, 53 percent McCain. Dick Pombo probably runs here.

District 18 is a Stockton, Modesto, Merced district. In all my dem districts I made sure not a single precinct had a white majority. District 18 is plurality hispanic (47 or 48 percent) and around 15 percent Asian. Obama got 64 percent there. This would be Cardoza's district.

District 19 is the white areas of Tulare, King, Fresno, and Madera and Mariposa counties. Devin Nunes and Jeff Denham have been drawn together in this 55 percent white, 60 percent McCain district.

District 20 is a Fresno/Madera district. It is around 60 percent hispanic and Obama got about 61 percent here. Jim Costa would represent this district.

District 21 takes in parts of Tulare, Kings, Kern, and small port of Fresno county. It is probably in the top 10 poorest districts in the country. It is around 72 percent hispanic and Obama won here by six points. Andy Vidak probably runs against Mike Rubio here.

District 22 takes in most of Bakersfield and parts of SLO County. It is 53 percent white and 60-61 percent McCain. McCarthy would run there.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on September 16, 2011, 12:58:25 PM
Nice gerrymander. I have a nice Dem gerrymander basically done that I will post soon. Hispanics probably wouldn't like it too much though.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on October 09, 2011, 05:23:22 PM
()

Since there was some complaining about the non VRA SBD district, I decided to see if it could be made a little more favorable to Republicans without radically changing it, which is not really possible, and not drawing a Republican gerrymander. The best thing the Republicans on the commission could asked for is no split of Upland. Make the 27th take in most of Montclair, instead of having it in the 35th, but now Montclair would need to be split instead of Upland though the vast majority would be in the 27th. Rialto still gets split, but to a lesser extent and the 35th just exchanges Latino areas in Montclair for Rialto so it still remains 50%+CVAP Latino. The Obama numbers barely move for the 31st even in this drawing, at 56% Obama instead of 57%. But most importantly the advantage in the governor's race in 2010 drop from a 8 point margin to only 3.

And picking up Highland would have been less beneficial. First of all those areas that seem to be painstakingly avoided are actually quite Democratic. But there are some suburban areas to the east of town that make up for it. If the map was made pretty and those areas added, in exchange for Rialto, I doubt the numbers would have moved much, especially not for the governor's race which is more important than Obama numbers (about 10,000 people in Highland would have to be kept in the desert district since Montclair is only about 40,000 people). And keeping all of Upland and Rancho Cucamonga together makes sense. If I was on the commission, I would have voted for this version.

Also the original version actually is barely majority Latino. That is why it takes in the southern part of Upland, which has a higher Latino population than the north. Of course that is the whole population and it drops to 35% CVAP, but I bet Latinos asked for that district. There is no vast left wing conspiracy! Who knew? :)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on October 09, 2011, 06:31:39 PM
And trying to draw the Long Beach district mostly within LA county will lead to a Latino district not being 50% CVAP.....



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: freepcrusher on November 14, 2011, 12:00:25 AM
update: who's running where

From What I Know:

1st Herger
2nd Open
3rd Garamendi
4th McClintock
5th Thompson
6th Matsui
7th Lungren
8th Lewis? He'd be an idiot not to run there
9th McNerney
10th Denham
11th Miller
12th Pelosi
13th Lee
14th Speier
15th Stark
16th Costa
17th Honda
18th Eshoo
19th Lofgren
20th Farr
21st Open
22nd Nunes
23rd McCarthy
24th Capps
25th McKeon
26th Gallegly? I've heard he may retire
27th Chu
28th Schiff
29th Berman
30th Sherman
31st Open
32nd Napolitano
33rd Waxman
34th Becerra
35th Baca?
36th Bono
37th Bass
38th Linda Sanchez
39th Royce or Miller. I've heard Miller might throw the towel in
40th Roybal
41st Open
42nd Calvert
43rd Waters
44th Hahn maybe? I don't see how she thinks she can win the primary in a minority district
45th Campbell
46th Loretta Sanchez
47th Richardson? She's too corrupt to hold a D+4 district so I hope she retires
48th Rohrabacher
49th Issa
50th Hunter
51st Open
52nd Bilbray
53rd Davis


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 14, 2011, 10:16:20 PM
Could you perhaps do the same thing only with the Obama numbers beside them instead of the candidates?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: jimrtex on November 23, 2011, 09:20:23 PM
A petition for a referendum on the senate districts has been filed:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/pending-signature-verification.htm#1499


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: nclib on December 21, 2011, 08:25:37 PM
What is the best site for election results and demographics of the new districts, in addition to which districts overlap well with a 2000-2010 district?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on April 20, 2012, 07:05:09 PM
Which of these two versions of the CA-01-02-03-05 merry-go-round do you prefer, and why?  The CA-05 snake into Contra Costa follows with some changes the template of the Commission, and CA-03 doing the snake instead follows my original template. Is it half dozen one of the other, or is one clearly superior?  The question is framed in the context of a map which hews to best practice when it comes to generally accepted "good government" redistricting principles. Thanks.

()



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on April 20, 2012, 08:34:12 PM
I don't like that cut of SF from the north, especially by the 2nd. Overall I like the map on the right. Davis is in the 3rd in both maps, correct?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on April 20, 2012, 08:48:37 PM
I don't like that cut of SF from the north, especially by the 2nd. Overall I like the map on the right. Davis is in the 3rd in both maps, correct?

No, SF is not cut in either map (SF is cut from the south - the north thing was a Muon2 "innovation" to max his algorithm). Or did you mean SR? SR is cut in both maps, but it is disconcerting for a Marin CD  to not take Santa Rosa, while moving up north to take Eureka. On the other hand, the map on the left makes CA-02 more compact, while CA-05 basically becomes an all  SF metro CD, while CA-02 is more rural, and Marin due to its hyper tight land use controls, almost has a bucolic feel itself (Santa Rosa does not). Meanwhile, in the left side map, CA-03 basically becomes mostly a Central Valley CD, rather than a hybrid one, while CA-05 unites the wine country plus down market to middle class Contra Costa CD via down market Vallejo. so the left map is arguably better from a uniting of the distinct regions perspective (putting aside the class warfare consideration). However, the left map chops Vallejo, although in a rather logical way, but it is still a nasty chop. Yes, Davis is in CA-03 in both maps.

I assume that you can outline the pros and cons of both maps. The issue is what weight to give to them.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: jimrtex on April 20, 2012, 11:48:35 PM
Which of these two versions of the CA-01-02-03-05 merry-go-round do you prefer, and why?  The CA-05 snake into Contra Costa follows with some changes the template of the Commission, and CA-03 doing the snake instead follows my original template. Is it half dozen one of the other, or is one clearly superior?  The question is framed in the context of a map which hews to best practice when it comes to generally accepted "good government" redistricting principles. Thanks.

()

I think the one on the right recognizes that Solano and Sonoma are contiguous and you shouldn't just arbitrarily cut across a county when it becomes convenient - even though Fairfield and Vacaville may not have that strong of tie to Vallejo.

Also, I'm not really fond of the coastal district coming all the way down into Marin.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: muon2 on April 21, 2012, 04:31:47 AM
Which of these two versions of the CA-01-02-03-05 merry-go-round do you prefer, and why?  The CA-05 snake into Contra Costa follows with some changes the template of the Commission, and CA-03 doing the snake instead follows my original template. Is it half dozen one of the other, or is one clearly superior?  The question is framed in the context of a map which hews to best practice when it comes to generally accepted "good government" redistricting principles. Thanks.

()



I was most partial to CA-1 as on the left and CA-3 and 5 as on the right. :P From compactness, the left map sacrifices CA-2 to gain for the others, so it depends on whether compactness is by mean or median.

NW Contra Costa w/ Vallejo is the odd piece here. It doesn't really seem to go with either Napa or Fairfield as a community of interest. Keeping it with all of Solana makes sense from the goal of county integrity.

I don't like that cut of SF from the north, especially by the 2nd. Overall I like the map on the right. Davis is in the 3rd in both maps, correct?

No, SF is not cut in either map (SF is cut from the south - the north thing was a Muon2 "innovation" to max his algorithm).  

It also allows one to keep Redding with Chico. One problem is that the North Coast is short of population for two districts. Adding part of SF to a Marin-SR district is an alternative to Shasta Co in the north.

If you are considering all the rotations for that area, there is another. Marin + Richmond-Vallejo + Petaluma is just the right size and very compact. The rest of Sonoma + Napa + Lake and all but 10 K of Mendocino makes another compact district. Finally link Eureka to Redding and Chico to complete the north. A CV district similar to the left map CD-3 remains.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on April 21, 2012, 01:26:05 PM
I don't like that cut of SF from the north, especially by the 2nd. Overall I like the map on the right. Davis is in the 3rd in both maps, correct?

No, SF is not cut in either map (SF is cut from the south - the north thing was a Muon2 "innovation" to max his algorithm). Or did you mean SR? SR is cut in both maps, but it is disconcerting for a Marin CD  to not take Santa Rosa, while moving up north to take Eureka. On the other hand, the map on the left makes CA-02 more compact, while CA-05 basically becomes an all  SF metro CD, while CA-02 is more rural, and Marin due to its hyper tight land use controls, almost has a bucolic feel itself (Santa Rosa does not). Meanwhile, in the left side map, CA-03 basically becomes mostly a Central Valley CD, rather than a hybrid one, while CA-05 unites the wine country plus down market to middle class Contra Costa CD via down market Vallejo. so the left map is arguably better from a uniting of the distinct regions perspective (putting aside the class warfare consideration). However, the left map chops Vallejo, although in a rather logical way, but it is still a nasty chop. Yes, Davis is in CA-03 in both maps.

I assume that you can outline the pros and cons of both maps. The issue is what weight to give to them.

On balance I prefer the map on the right. In Sonoma County it steers clear of Santa Rosa and maybe Windsor. If Windsor is in the 5th and not the 2nd, even better since that is the dividing line between urban and rural area up there. Napa County going with a coastal district also is fine with me. The only other place it could go is with a Marin/Sonoma based district but even there it's not a perfect fit, especially if the district then proceeds to take in the working class areas of west Contra Costa. In the map on the right, those areas in Contra Costa are kept with Vallejo, a place that is similar, as well as Fairfield. I suppose it's not ideal that Davis is in that district but it's not as if Davis has any obvious area it should be matched with. Redding being in the 2nd is not ideal either but on balance that is the better map in my opinion.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: All Along The Watchtower on April 29, 2012, 06:02:45 PM
I don't like that cut of SF from the north, especially by the 2nd. Overall I like the map on the right. Davis is in the 3rd in both maps, correct?

No, SF is not cut in either map (SF is cut from the south - the north thing was a Muon2 "innovation" to max his algorithm). Or did you mean SR? SR is cut in both maps, but it is disconcerting for a Marin CD  to not take Santa Rosa, while moving up north to take Eureka. On the other hand, the map on the left makes CA-02 more compact, while CA-05 basically becomes an all  SF metro CD, while CA-02 is more rural, and Marin due to its hyper tight land use controls, almost has a bucolic feel itself (Santa Rosa does not). Meanwhile, in the left side map, CA-03 basically becomes mostly a Central Valley CD, rather than a hybrid one, while CA-05 unites the wine country plus down market to middle class Contra Costa CD via down market Vallejo. so the left map is arguably better from a uniting of the distinct regions perspective (putting aside the class warfare consideration). However, the left map chops Vallejo, although in a rather logical way, but it is still a nasty chop. Yes, Davis is in CA-03 in both maps.

I assume that you can outline the pros and cons of both maps. The issue is what weight to give to them.

On balance I prefer the map on the right. In Sonoma County it steers clear of Santa Rosa and maybe Windsor. If Windsor is in the 5th and not the 2nd, even better since that is the dividing line between urban and rural area up there. Napa County going with a coastal district also is fine with me. The only other place it could go is with a Marin/Sonoma based district but even there it's not a perfect fit, especially if the district then proceeds to take in the working class areas of west Contra Costa. In the map on the right, those areas in Contra Costa are kept with Vallejo, a place that is similar, as well as Fairfield. I suppose it's not ideal that Davis is in that district but it's not as if Davis has any obvious area it should be matched with. Redding being in the 2nd is not ideal either but on balance that is the better map in my opinion.


You don't think UC Davis should be split up like it is now? :P


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: hopper on May 02, 2012, 04:26:32 PM
I see CA-03 is being talked about here. John Garamendi was a big loser in my opinion in redistricting going from a D+10 district to a D+1. His old district(well his current one) was in   the suburbs of San Fran I think with the town of Antioch being the base of the district. The current district looks like it is outside of the Sacramento suburbs on his campaign web site. The district looks like the shape of Texas.

I see CA-21 is still an open seat. Why doesn't Drier run there? Its an R+3 district which is the same PVI as his current district. It strikes me there is no Republican yet thats running there.

It seems to me the new California map the Republican districts got more Demoratic(Bilbray's) and the Dem districts got more Republican(Davis's.) Barbara Lee's new district has alot more black population(50%) than her current district(35%) I have heard though so therefore its more Democartic.

The new map could be a wash in my opinion except if you are Garamendi, Sherman or Berman(whoever wins there), or Laura Richardson. In a Republican Wave Year Garamendi is toast.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on May 02, 2012, 06:20:43 PM
In a Republican Wave Year Garamendi is toast.

One might have said the same thing about McNerney, but he held his seat in 2010.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on May 02, 2012, 06:46:31 PM

I see CA-21 is still an open seat. Why doesn't Drier run there? Its an R+3 district which is the same PVI as his current district. It strikes me there is no Republican yet thats running there.

You do realize that district is in the Central Valley, don't you? Also it looks like David Valadao is running in that district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on May 02, 2012, 07:08:43 PM

I see CA-21 is still an open seat. Why doesn't Drier run there? Its an R+3 district which is the same PVI as his current district. It strikes me there is no Republican yet thats running there.

You do realize that district is in the Central Valley, don't you? Also it looks like David Valadao is running in that district.



Not that I agree with the concept, but haven't multiple Republicans in CA, "gone northward" to take advantage of opportunities?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on May 02, 2012, 07:12:41 PM

I see CA-21 is still an open seat. Why doesn't Drier run there? Its an R+3 district which is the same PVI as his current district. It strikes me there is no Republican yet thats running there.

You do realize that district is in the Central Valley, don't you? Also it looks like David Valadao is running in that district.



Not that I agree with the concept, but haven't multiple Republicans in CA, "gone northward" to take advantage of opportunities?

Two, McClintock and Lungren, with the latter under a lot of stress, and the former an under performer. McClintock  just can't seem to cut it with the Grass Valley folks. CA-03 is polarized between very Dem Solano and Yuba, and the balance which is rather hyper Pub, but as in a few of the CD's, in the end the Dems tended to end up the presumptive top, and the Pubs the bottom.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Brittain33 on August 12, 2012, 09:35:11 AM
The Republican convention is poised to do a 180 on its lame anti-senate-map referendum and encourage its defeat.

http://t.co/ODhK9IfT


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: minionofmidas on August 12, 2012, 09:51:50 AM
The Republican convention is poised to do a 180 on its lame anti-senate-map referendum and encourage its defeat.

http://t.co/ODhK9IfT
Lol.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: greenforest32 on August 12, 2012, 12:11:46 PM
Quote
Republicans have feared that they could lose two of their 15 Senate seats this year, thus giving Democrats a two-thirds supermajority in the Legislature's 40-member upper house and enabling them to pass tax increase bills without GOP support.

Huff, however, told the committee that he now believes Repblicans can eke out 14 seats, thus denying Democrats a two-thirds majority, and under the new districts could pick up a seat or two in 2014. Therefore, he now wants the referendum to fail.

California Democrats will probably be able to reach 2/3+ in both chambers of the state legislature in the future, especially if that election-day voter registration bill passes this session and voter turnout (as a percentage of eligible voters, not registered) nears/hits 70% in presidential election years: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=154608.0

Tough times ahead for the California Republican party.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Torie on August 12, 2012, 02:08:09 PM
Quote
Republicans have feared that they could lose two of their 15 Senate seats this year, thus giving Democrats a two-thirds supermajority in the Legislature's 40-member upper house and enabling them to pass tax increase bills without GOP support.

Huff, however, told the committee that he now believes Repblicans can eke out 14 seats, thus denying Democrats a two-thirds majority, and under the new districts could pick up a seat or two in 2014. Therefore, he now wants the referendum to fail.

California Democrats will probably be able to reach 2/3+ in both chambers of the state legislature in the future, especially if that election-day voter registration bill passes this session and voter turnout (as a percentage of eligible voters, not registered) nears/hits 70% in presidential election years: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=154608.0

Tough times ahead for the California Republican party.

One might have a situation where the Dems in POTUS election years pass tax increases, and then they are repealed by referendum in off year elections. :P


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: greenforest32 on August 12, 2012, 02:39:45 PM
Quote
Republicans have feared that they could lose two of their 15 Senate seats this year, thus giving Democrats a two-thirds supermajority in the Legislature's 40-member upper house and enabling them to pass tax increase bills without GOP support.

Huff, however, told the committee that he now believes Repblicans can eke out 14 seats, thus denying Democrats a two-thirds majority, and under the new districts could pick up a seat or two in 2014. Therefore, he now wants the referendum to fail.

California Democrats will probably be able to reach 2/3+ in both chambers of the state legislature in the future, especially if that election-day voter registration bill passes this session and voter turnout (as a percentage of eligible voters, not registered) nears/hits 70% in presidential election years: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=154608.0

Tough times ahead for the California Republican party.

One might have a situation where the Dems in POTUS election years pass tax increases, and then they are repealed by referendum in off year elections. :P

Maybe Republicans will get a 3/4 supermajority requirement for tax increases on the ballot. I could see that passing...

It's the law in Arkansas and Oklahoma already: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/budget/legislative-supermajority-to-raise-taxes%E2%80%942008.aspx


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Sbane on August 12, 2012, 07:15:21 PM
The Republican convention is poised to do a 180 on its lame anti-senate-map referendum and encourage its defeat.

http://t.co/ODhK9IfT

LOL they must have seen the results from June and realized the map isn't actually that bad unless they get blown out of the water. And while California did vote by 24 points for Obama and by similar margins for some statewide candidates, it hasn't voted more than about 16-17 points for the Dems for assembly and senate seats. Even in 2006 and 2008.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: muon2 on August 12, 2012, 07:26:20 PM
The Republican convention is poised to do a 180 on its lame anti-senate-map referendum and encourage its defeat.

http://t.co/ODhK9IfT

LOL they must have seen the results from June and realized the map isn't actually that bad unless they get blown out of the water. And while California did vote by 24 points for Obama and by similar margins for some statewide candidates, it hasn't voted more than about 16-17 points for the Dems for assembly and senate seats. Even in 2006 and 2008.

They may evolve to be like MA where there's a tendency to elect state officials from the GOP to keep the Assembly somewhat in check.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on August 13, 2012, 10:28:59 AM
They may evolve to be like MA where there's a tendency to elect state officials from the GOP to keep the Assembly somewhat in check.

To be fair, Massachusetts is getting there, but it's not there yet. That's a state where the majority of state legislative seats actually go uncontested out of futility. And even more frustrating: Sometimes, even winnable seats go uncontested, because the GOP just isn't together enough to make sure these tiny, ~20K voter districts all have solid local candidates.

George W. Bush did better across Massachusetts than most local GOP candidates did, and that guy was effing hated.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: jimrtex on August 14, 2012, 04:14:49 PM
The Republican convention is poised to do a 180 on its lame anti-senate-map referendum and encourage its defeat.

http://t.co/ODhK9IfT
They should have gone for the equal protection angle based on the staggered senate terms.

Referendum on redistricting plans don't really work since the same plan can simply be re-enacted over and over.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: BigSkyBob on August 14, 2012, 05:32:35 PM
The Republican convention is poised to do a 180 on its lame anti-senate-map referendum and encourage its defeat.

http://t.co/ODhK9IfT
They should have gone for the equal protection angle based on the staggered senate terms.

Referendum on redistricting plans don't really work since the same plan can simply be re-enacted over and over.

That's certainly will be true in Maryland, But, in a state in which members of both parties must approve the final plan, any map that in retrospect seemed unfair to one political party might be rejected by the new commissioners of that party.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: Brittain33 on August 15, 2012, 09:05:56 AM
The Republican convention is poised to do a 180 on its lame anti-senate-map referendum and encourage its defeat.

http://t.co/ODhK9IfT
They should have gone for the equal protection angle based on the staggered senate terms.

Referendum on redistricting plans don't really work since the same plan can simply be re-enacted over and over.

In California, though, wouldn't it trigger a new commission process, where the results are unpredictable?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: jimrtex on August 16, 2012, 12:37:58 PM
The Republican convention is poised to do a 180 on its lame anti-senate-map referendum and encourage its defeat.

http://t.co/ODhK9IfT
They should have gone for the equal protection angle based on the staggered senate terms.

Referendum on redistricting plans don't really work since the same plan can simply be re-enacted over and over.

In California, though, wouldn't it trigger a new commission process, where the results are unpredictable?
The California Constitution provides that in cases where a popular referendum vetoes a plan by a redistricting commission that the Supreme Court appoint special masters to redistrict.   The special masters are required to apply the same criteria as the redistricting commission (and approval by the public is not one of the criteria).

The redistricting commission would argue that their plan does comply with the California Constitution, and though the special masters might be able to draw another plan, there would be no basis for them doing so.  In effect, the veto by the people would be considered populist bigotry, and disregarded.

If the commission had failed to produce a plan, then the special masters could craft a plan, though they might give deference to partial plans that had failed to be approved (approval required 3 affirmative votes from the 5 Democrats, 3 of 5 Republicans, and 3 of 4 others).

Special masters would also produce a map if the Supreme Court found a commission plan unconstitutional.  Possible challenges to the senate plan could include:

(1) Non-Compliance with nesting.
(2) Violation of the north-south numbering requirement.
(3) Consideration of the residence of incumbents or political candidates.

But the nesting criteria (10 senate districts per BOE, 2 assembly districts per senate district) is the weakest criteria ("o the extent practicable, and where this does not conflict
with the criteria above").

I doubt that a court would sustain a claim that just because the commission implemented the numbering scheme differently for congressional districts than it did senate districts that it violated the constitution.   And even though the commission deliberately did put as many voters (and potential candidates) who currently live in odd-numbered districts, into new odd-number districts as possible, it is unlikely a court would rule that this was taking into consideration the residence of anyone.

Once the referendum petition was successful, the senate redistricting plan was suspended.  At that point, the current plan would be remain in effect (it was as if a referendum against any other legislation had been lodged).   But it is impossible not to have senate elections.  The California Supreme Court decided that the current plan based on the 2000 census violated equal protection.  But the redistricting commission argued successfully that their plan was the only one readily available that could be implemented before the 2012 primary.

So currently California is using an interim plan imposed by the California Supreme Court which is identical to that crafted by the redistricting commission.  If the referendum fails, the identical plan crafted by the redistricting commission will go into effect.  If the referendum succeeds it is quite likely that the special master will draw the same plan the redistricting commission did.

If the challenge had been made on the basis of the stagger violating equal protection, then the decision might have been differently.  3.6 million California residents who happen to live in odd-numbered districts now, have been assigned through official state action to even-numbered districts.   The terms of the senators that represent them end in December, and they will have no senate representation for the next two years.  Voters in these areas will be treated no differently than if they were felons, aliens, minors, or feeble-minded.

Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court could have ordered the existing map to be used for 2012, with odd-numbered senators elected to two-year terms; or that the entire plan be put into effect immediately.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: greenforest32 on August 30, 2012, 10:36:17 PM
California Democrats will probably be able to reach 2/3+ in both chambers of the state legislature in the future, especially if that election-day voter registration bill passes this session and voter turnout (as a percentage of eligible voters, not registered) nears/hits 70% in presidential election years: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=154608.0

The election-day voter registration bill passed the legislature I think: http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/AB_1436/20112012/

Quote
08/27/12 - Assembly Floor: 50-29 (PASS)
08/23/12 - Senate Floor: 23-13 (PASS)

Brown is going to sign it right?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: California
Post by: greenforest32 on September 24, 2012, 03:50:45 PM
California Democrats will probably be able to reach 2/3+ in both chambers of the state legislature in the future, especially if that election-day voter registration bill passes this session and voter turnout (as a percentage of eligible voters, not registered) nears/hits 70% in presidential election years: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=154608.0

The election-day voter registration bill passed the legislature I think: http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/AB_1436/20112012/

Quote
08/27/12 - Assembly Floor: 50-29 (PASS)
08/23/12 - Senate Floor: 23-13 (PASS)

Brown is going to sign it right?


Yup: http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=17748

I don't think it will go in effect until 2016 because the database it relies on won't be updated till then but it will be interesting to see how much California's voter turnout increases from 2012 to 2016 and what that changes seat-wise under the existing House/state legislature maps.