How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission

[Torie]

Watsonville would be a better fit for that Salinas district, but I guess it's too many people and would end up split? Also not happy about the 14th/15th arrangement, but something's got to give  - the 12th southern and 16th western perimeter look perfect to me, so it's either this or a trichop of San Jose. I'd maybe have to see what that would look like. (California is a bitch to load, and I don't know enough about LA to dare argue with you two there, so I'm not bothering loading it at all.)

Here is what the cut into Santa Cruz County would look like. Yes, CA-17 taking just Watsonville and nothing more would be ideal, but the cut goes into the Santa Cruz metro area, and that sucks really. So given that CA-17 already had Hollister, with Gilroy and Morgan Hill just up the road from it and being rather isolated from the Silicon Valley, and everything else for that matter, and agriculturally oriented, to me that was the better cut. Gilroy and Morgan Hill should not be in CA-14 in any event, which means one of the San Jose CD's would have to stretch down there, also not very attractive. So it was my judgement, that this was the best compromise. I went back and forth on this, and even tried to twist the clock to try to get to the Watsonville only "solution," but then you chop the city of SLO in exchange, and the twist creates other problems. So there was no escape really.

By the way, I am impressed with just how integrated the Bay area is. It is not like LA County, which is far more ethnically segregated. I don't think the VRA will rear its ugly head in the Bay area, which kind of surprises me.

[Torie]

Hey, that is perfect sbane - just perfect. Yes, the map looks a bit uglier, but the population numbers work almost perfectly - no muni cuts at all, other than a precinct or two rounding error. It doesn't increase the Asian percentage much in CA-15 (maybe 50 basis points), but keeping ethnic nodes together all things otherwise being equal, is typically desirable. Here you get not only that (not that the Asian areas here are all that Asian, but they are a substantial minority), but it largely loses a municipal cut to boot.

So your suggestion is hereby adopted.  



Oh, and here are the stats for CA-40:

[Torie]

You seem to have a trapped precinct in East San Jose.

Man, you have good eyes, Lewis.  It's gone now.

[Torie]

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

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

I'm not sure what Torie's HVAP numbers are for his CD 17, but I was expecting Watsonville to be with the Gilroy/Salinas/Hollister district. Then the question looms as to whether the district needs to extend into SJ and lose Monterrey to break 50% HCVAP.

You really are the King of racial gerrymanders, aren't you Mike?  

Anyhoo, one can't get to anywhere near 50% HCVAP for CA-17 (they are farm workers to a substantial degree), no matter how much you just trash the map to try to get there, ignoring every other factor.

I have 3 maps below, one my existing lines for CA-17, one that does an extra county chop, and ups the Hispanic percentage by about 3 points, and then finally, the cf  Hispanic max pack version excrescence going where no man has gone before. Which would you pick, Mike?  



 

[Torie]

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

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

 

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

[Torie]

Anyhoo, one can't get to anywhere near 50% HCVAP for CA-17 (they are farm workers to a substantial degree), no matter how much you just trash the map to try to get there, ignoring every other factor.

I have 3 maps below, one my existing lines for CA-17, one that does an extra county chop, and ups the Hispanic percentage by about 3 points, and then finally, the cf  Hispanic max pack version excrescence going where no man has gone before. Which would you pick, Mike?  

The second, I think. -_- Though my name is not Mike.

Opinionated little intermeddling Kraut, aren't you Lewis, and you have not even a lawyer.

We shall see what the rest of the crowd thinks, and why. Xahar is right about CA-14 not being able to get to Morgan Hill, so with this version, CA-15 would need to snake down to pick up Morgan Hill, going through an unpopulated zone to get there (a natural barrier, which we like to use as CD border country where possible), making it look like a bit of an elongated siphon. That is not the end of the world, but is it really worth those 3 extra Hispanic points?

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It isn't Mike, trust me. I drained the swamp dry. Nothing is left. The CVAP for this little VRA monster I bet is closer to something like 40%, maybe a tad higher - no more. You don't really think the courts would require this VRA monster to actually be drawn do you?

Your version does less to trash the map overall, requiring major surgeries all over the place, but it does drop the Hispanic percentage by one or two points. What I drew was the  max pack, saying F it to everything else, just as a masturbatory exercise.

[Torie]

I took a peek at MALDEF's version for that area and they claim 45% HCVAP. Their map is pretty similar to mine, so I'm guessing I have about the same.

Here's the legal problem I see. SCOTUS said that you have to meet the Gingles test to claim a section 2 violation. That includes a majority minority in a compact area and racially polarized voting. In Bartlett they said that a majority meant a voting age majority of a single group. They punted on the citizen question. I see a door left open for a voting age majority in the area, yet a sub 50% amount in a specific district as long as the single group had the opportunity to elect a candidate of choice. The Dems made this type of case in their IL legislative map, and they prevailed in court last month. But you're the lawyer, so you tell me if a court would go there in CA.

I don't see these conditions met in the area. I'd content myself with drawing a (not VRA-mandated) "Hispanic influence" district... but even that does mean you don't let Watsonville lie just outside it without very very good reason.

I think there is a good possibility they would be met. There is a 50% HVAP population that can be placed in the district, as evidenced by both Torie's map and my own. Polarized voting was identified by teh Commission in the Central Valley as well as in LA county, so I think there is a reasonable expectation that it might be present here as well, though it was not tested. That would satisfy Gingles/Bartlett, and leaves only the question as to whether 45% HCVAP is sufficient elect a candidate of choice in a primary and then general election.

I have no special expertise when it comes to this VRA stuff really, lawyer though I am, sadly.  But there is nothing "compact" about racing into central city San Jose via a long pencil line along a Freeway, and I don't think any court in the world would require that. That is ludicrous. So we can't get to 50% HVAP, and that is not going to be enough to elect an Hispanic in any event. I am just not doing it. Sorry.

So then the issue is whether there is a significant risk a court would demand that a CA-17 as drawn below would be required. Absent someone persuading me that it is, I am not drawing it either. None of these maps are remotely justifiable absent a VRA requirement that they be drawn.



Moving right along, does the map below turn anyone on?  It tri-chops San Jose, but further facilitates the class warfare concept, while keeping erosity under control. The Asian percentage drops a point or so in CA-16, but the Hispanic percentage goes up a couple of percent, probably leaving about the same the percentage of Asians of the whole who actually vote in CA-16.



In other news, drawing Contra Costa County is an absolute nightmare. I suspect a Solano based CD will need to cross a couple of bridges in two separate salients into Contra Costa to make it work, while consuming that  long leg down river of Sacto County to "secure" the second bridge into eastern and rather rural Contra Costa.

[Torie]

Not all that different than mine, Sbane. As I said, it is cf city. I would post mine, but my Bradlee utility crashed again. It does so, more and more, as I complete more CD's in CA. When it is up again, I will put up my version, and we can discuss it further. Each of our versions has its merits and demerits. My version has a minor little chop into the town in which you grew up.

[Torie]

Not all that different than mine, Sbane. As I said, it is cf city. I would post mine, but my Bradlee utility crashed again. It does so, more and more, as I complete more CD's in CA. When it is up again, I will put up my version, and we can discuss it further. Each of our versions has its merits and demerits. My version has a minor little chop into the town in which you grew up.

Are you getting error messages when it crashes? I have been, and I'm curious if yours are the same as mine.

No it just freezes, sometimes corrupting my data file at the same time. It is just so much fun!

[Torie]

And here is my little East Bay effort. I will be reluctant to part with my shape of CA-09, which just maps so perfectly, but I am open here to good advice. There is no good solution to the Contra Costa mess. I did make sure there were roads connecting stuff, sometimes rather minor ones.  CA-10 is white middle class heaven, although it voted 65% Obama.  It sets up a Solano CD however, as potentially an Hispanic influence CD at least. The blacks seems to have largely decamped from the Bay area.

[Torie]

The eastern parts of Contra Costa shouldn't be put in the 10th. It can rather pick up other areas closer to it like Bay Point or Pittsburg. Use the eastern parts of Contra Costa for a Bay Area exurban district. Connecting it to San Joaquin makes the most sense. Or to Solano depending on how many people you need in that district.

We shall see whether they are enough white/Asian people left near the Bay in the NW corner of Contra Costa, to excise the east CC salient from CA-10. If it isn't? It really needs to be all or nothing.

Addendum: and the answer is that there are not. We are 63,000 folks short, and cutting to the east along the Sacto River/SF Bay estuary enters heavily Hispanic territory. Now what?

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I.E., slashing into Hispanic-dom, in lieu of all those white people in the eastern salient of CC? Why, sbane?

[Torie]

The balance of the CA map is done!  I got screen shots of Nocal, and the Bay-Sacto area before I hit the save-as button, and that caused my software to freeze. It does that often now when I try to save the data, presumably because the file is so big. Fortunately, except for a couple of minor things (including the CA-01 label sitting somewhere in Socal ).  

Comments as always are welcome. I have no real idea what the partisan numbers are. I can't see them unless I go to full screen, which causes crashes more often. It is probably best that way, anyway. We will look at the partisan numbers after we agree on a map, or agree to disagree. I have shown some flexibility, and thank Sbane, Muon2, and Lewis for their comments so far. They have been quite helpful. Keep them coming!

The constraints are very, very tight. It took a lot of work to avoid ugly chops - a lot of work. CA-01 and CA-02 are drawn the way they are, because I wanted to keep CA-01 out of the Central Valley. I wanted but one mountain-coastal CD to chop into the Central Valley, and that has to be CA-02 (more actually it chops into the mountain region, to round out its population). Contra Costa County was just a terrible headache to manage. I did the best I could.

All of the City of Sacramento is in CA-05 by the way. And the cut of CA-04 into Sacto County, is based on that cut almost perfectly taking but one town, the city of Citrus. Then I had CA-05 take the territory to the west of Citrus, and CA-03 take the territory to the east. One thing led to another.

I am using CD labels, which most closely match the old map CD numbers. I won't correct them until my charts are all done, so I know I am comparing apples to apples, as to what changed, even if the applies are of different varieties, as it were, because the lines changed of course.






OK, here are more zoom shots, showing the cuts. I did switch out couple of precincts involving CA-11, because I noticed that there was no road leading from San Joaquin to east Contra Coasta across the Sacto River estuary swamp, so I fixed it. That river delta region by the way that creates the barrier between San Joaquin and Contra Costa is great house boating country. You rent a house boat, turn on the motor, and chug along, with next to nobody around. You get a lot of peace and quiet and privacy, and nobody, but nobody, knows what you are doing on the house boast.  . That is my kind of vacation.

[Torie]

I see you still have precincts in Antioch in the 10th. I would exchange them for the extreme western parts of the 11th. Did you do it because those precincts are relatively white for the area? Does this help you make a Hispanic influence district. What are the racial stats for the 11th?

Otherwise where you really need more robust Hispanic districts is in the Central Valley. What are the racial stats for the 20th, 21st and the 22nd?

Yes, it is a race thing, and no, it does not create an Hispanic influence CD, as it turns out. It just unites middle class whites in Contra Costa, at the cost of some erosity, and "unites" the Sacto estuary as it were a bit more. I don't feel strongly about it. Do you want me to switch it out? It will make CA-11a bit  more Pubbie (I deliberately have no idea if CA-11 as I drew it is in partisan play in any event - I suspect not).  

[Torie]

I see you still have precincts in Antioch in the 10th. I would exchange them for the extreme western parts of the 11th. Did you do it because those precincts are relatively white for the area? Does this help you make a Hispanic influence district. What are the racial stats for the 11th?

Otherwise where you really need more robust Hispanic districts is in the Central Valley. What are the racial stats for the 20th, 21st and the 22nd?

Good luck with that Sbane. CA-20 is the Hispanic CD, drawn to the max (about 60% VAP Hispanic). The other two are lower, but I don't know the exact figures, because my software crashed again.  Geography is a cruel mistress. I would be amazed if you can find an alternative which might actually be required by the VRA, and/or, is otherwise remotely desirable. Hispanics don't vote much in the Central Valley by the way. That is why Kern is 60% McCain, even though it is about 45% Hispanic or something. Tulare is the same story.

[Torie]

I see you still have precincts in Antioch in the 10th. I would exchange them for the extreme western parts of the 11th. Did you do it because those precincts are relatively white for the area? Does this help you make a Hispanic influence district. What are the racial stats for the 11th?

Otherwise where you really need more robust Hispanic districts is in the Central Valley. What are the racial stats for the 20th, 21st and the 22nd?

Good luck with that Sbane. CA-20 is the Hispanic CD, drawn to the max (about 60% VAP Hispanic). The other two are lower, but I don't know the exact figures, because my software crashed again.  Geography is a cruel mistress. I would be amazed if you can find an alternative which might actually be required by the VRA, and/or, is otherwise remotely desirable. Hispanics don't vote much in the Central Valley by the way. That is why Kern is 60% McCain, even though it is about 45% Hispanic or something. Tulare is the same story.

You can draw a more Hispanic district I think. You certainly are stranding Bakersfield Hispanics and they are being outvoted. What you need to do is have CA-19 get rid of Merced County (or at least the Hispanic parts) and put that in the 20th, freeing up more Hispanic precincts in Fresno County for another Hispanic district. Say we use CA-21 for that purpose, we can add the rural Hispanics in Fresno, Kings and Tulare with Bakersfield to create another Hispanic district. The map will get uglier, but if there is one area in California where the VRA actually serves a purpose, it's the central valley.

Go ahead and draw the map Sbane, exchanging precincts between  CA-22 and CA-21.  We will see what it looks like. If the VRA does not require it however, because it will be an erose mess, it won't be in my map. The VRA in my view, should be limited to what a court would actually require, when it otherwise trashes communities of interest. All the Hispanics in Fresno ( I racially chopped Fresno) have been used (Hispanics in Fresno actually vote more of course) to create the 60% Hispanic CA-20 CD. So they are not available for your little plan. They can't vote twice.   I might add that my modest little Tulare chop into Fresno in the Coalinga area is not all that Hispanic. That was deliberate, as part of my draw of Hispanic CA-20. Add that area to CA-20, and the Hispanic percentage will go down there.

And when you cut the Hispanics in Bakersfield out of CA-22, where will CA-22 get its precincts in exchange I wonder? Are you going to chop Tulare to shreds too? Draw the map, so that I can trash it!  

[Torie]

Thank you for your comments Gentlemen.

1. CA-33 is an Hispanic CD (61% Hispanic), and has to drawn that way to get that Hispanic percentage.

2.  I way back when resisted tying Imperial to Hispanic San Diego, but if you excise it, 1) the San Diego Hispanic CD is only 56%-57% Hispanic (not enough really), and 2) the second Coachella Valley-Moreno Valley CD is butt ugly, and only 60% Hispanic, also not enough in that part of the world just packed with illegals to elect an Hispanic. So, I accepted what the Commission did here (I know more about what the commission did in this part of the state, and was wondering just how much the Pubbie pocket was picked, and thus this exercise).

Moreover, by going the way of the Commission on this, the remaining options become more similar. If you do a 150,000 person clockwise twist of the map, it is a whole new ballgame, and will make it harder to compare the choices made between "our" map, and the Commission's map.  We want to see just where the Dem operatives got their pound of flesh, through their front person shills, and just how egregious it was, if at all. Doing that big twist, will make that more difficult to assess, defeating the point of the exercise.

3. My shape of the South central valley CD's collectively is just about exactly the same as Muon2's. What Muon2 did is effect Sbane's desire to exchange precincts between Tulare and Kern to create another "Hispanic" CD. I will draw it, and we can further discuss if the VRA really requires it. If it doesn't, I just don't see why it should be done myself. It is not as if, one is cherry picking precincts to get the Hispanic percentage up was within a county or something also Fresno, but rather splitting two otherwise basically whole counties, taking on a lot of miles. I don't like it, and then the issue is if the Hispanic percentage is enough to elect a candidate of "their" choice, whatever that means. With Fresno, and a higher Hispanic voting incidence there, plus getting up to 60% Hispanic, that probably is enough to elect a candidate of their choice.

4. As I noted above, if CA-01 does not take Redding, it must go into the Central Valley, and that is a no-no. In fact, in 10 more years, there will probably be a great northern CA CD just like there will be in Minnesota. The population growth up in the far north is tepid. As it was, CA-01 needed to take all of Napa, to avoid going all the way to Lake Tahoe.

5. Muon2 didn't vote, but I will do the Antioch thing that you guys want. I really am ambivalent myself.

6.  CA-23 takes the northwest quadrant of Ventura County (Ventura and Ojai basically, all of SB County, and the southern half of SLO County). I will put up a zoom of it, along with Fresno (I meant to do the latter, but screwed up, and then my software crashed; to get it back up I have to reboot my whole computer, reload the DRA software for some reason, and then wait 10 minutes at least for my data to load if it does not freeze during the process, all of which takes time).

7. Lewis, if you ever get the map up, I urge you, like myself, not to look at the partisan numbers, until you have already made a firm decision as to where the lines should be. We both are just too partisan really to be "trusted" with such data as it were, and too clever not to think up rationalizations furthering our little partisan agendas, yes we are.

[Torie]

What suggestion of yours did I fail to comment upon Lewis?  I didn't mean to ignore you. 

[Torie]

What suggestion of yours did I fail to comment upon Lewis?  I didn't mean to ignore you.  

You edited that post while I was replying to it. Not that your reply on that point is particularly helpful.

Why is it a big no-no that the Napa Valley be in the same CD as the areas to its immediate east? I don't get it. Obviously getting the district go all the way to say Yuba City would be a lot worse than drawing Redding into it (this is from the point of view of Yuba City or Redding, really) - hence the question of how far it would have to go. I guess I could probably answer that myself without the DRA... and yeah, the big northern district, with Napa and Lake placed with Solano, might also be an alternative.

Because without Napa being in CA-01, then CA-01 has to go into the Central Valley, or go all the way to Lake Tahoe. I wanted to avoid that. You can call the southern salient of CA-01 the wine and cannabis CD if you like. Both the grapes and the bud up there are just excellent.

[Torie]

Here is the Antioch fix.



And here are zooms of CA-23 and CA-20.

[Torie]

Section 5 is the pre clearance, and Section 2 is what the courts go by, is that correct?  Suppose per Section 5, the DOJ demands a minority CD, but it is not required under Section 2, where it is a percentage rather than an outcomes game apparently. Will the court reverse the DOJ, or does Section 5 take precedence over Section 2, and what we have are two different legal standards, with potentially different final legal outcomes?  Can someone help me with this? What are the 4 Section 5 counties in CA?

Can someone help a confused old man me with this?

[Torie]

Section 5 is the pre clearance, and Section 2 is what the courts go by, is that correct?  Suppose per Section 5, the DOJ demands a minority CD, but it is not required under Section 2, where it is a percentage rather than an outcomes game apparently. Will the court reverse the DOJ, or does Section 5 take precedence over Section 2, and what we have are two different legal standards, with potentially different final legal outcomes?  Can someone help me with this? What are the 4 Section 5 counties in CA?

Can someone help a confused old man me with this?

This exact issue will be resolved today.

Travis County plaintiffs acknowledge that TX-25 is not a S2 district. Yet they are still claiming that it is a S5 district, thus making S5 a stronger standard than S2.


John Roberts will certainly be irate with that interpretation.

Here is a pretty good summary of what SCOTUS is facing in the Perez case. I don't see anything though about the differing legal standards between Section 2 and Section 5,and what the end game is. It seems more to involve procedural stuff.

[Torie]

In oral arguments on Perez, Kennedy does not like Section 5, and Roberts complained about the Hobson's choice presented in a law, that frankly is just a mess at this point. The article really gives no clue as to how the conservative 5 plan to drain the swamp, or whether they will drain it at all.  They clearly hate this case.  I sympathize.

[Torie]

Sbane, you think a court would require that the southern Central Valley Hispanic CD be drawn, which isn't going to elect an Hispanic anyway?