US House Redistricting: California

[Meeker]

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.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Nichlemn]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[minionofmidas]

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.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Brittain33]

No one forget, the cardinal rule about redistricting is that everything is good news for Republicans, bad news for Dems.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

[BigSkyBob]

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."

[Torie]

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.

[cinyc]

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?

[Torie]

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.

[cinyc]

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.

[Torie]

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.

[Verily]

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.

[Verily]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Ownage.

[jimrtex]

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.

[Mr.Phips]

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.   

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[muon2]

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.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

[Sbane]

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.

[muon2]

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 as well. They had suggested districts 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.

[Mr.Phips]

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.