How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission

[Torie]

As I kind of suspected, but hadn't "proved" because I have not really studied the CA map, the Dems just ran circles around the Pubs in CA, with shill groups testifying for this and that, the Pubs not understanding the partisan implications of uniting this but not that, and the Pubs having no organized campaign to get their own self serving shills into the fray. It is a real, real, pity that I was not on that commission. Heck, just checking out the organizations on the internet, and at the CA Secretary of State website, I could have unmasked some of them as Dem fronts. And I would have known immediately what the partisan implications were of all of this disingenuous chatter. Sad.

Well, all is fair in love and war, and the Pubs just dropped the ball. But then CA Pubs have been dysfunctional since rocks cooled in CA. So 2 to 3 seats lost due to CA Pub incompetence, and Dem Machiavellian, but clever - and effective - tactics. Some of it has little echos of AZ, where I suspect similar shills paraded before the Commission, but there of course, the Commission was stacked, and in the end I kind of suspect, just had professional Dem operatives essentially draw the map for them, and then worked on how best to justify it. That was more a matter of just reverse engineering. But the Pubs not calling the Dems out on the phony partisan break even point at least was particularly pathetic in AZ.

[muon2]

From what I can tell the GOP was particularly weak at recognizing underlying bias in some neutral mathematical models. In AZ the GOP assumed that the blame was solely on the partisan chair, but even a neutral chair would have had a hard time overcoming the state competitiveness directive given the bias in the chosen elections.

In CA my sense was that the lack of understanding by the GOP of the impact of socioeconomic grouping as a preferred community of interest. The underlying math here works against the GOP as much as a maximally square grid with minimum area districts works against the Dems.

[Torie]

From what I can tell the GOP was particularly weak at recognizing underlying bias in some neutral mathematical models. In AZ the GOP assumed that the blame was solely on the partisan chair, but even a neutral chair would have had a hard time overcoming the state competitiveness directive given the bias in the chosen elections.

In CA my sense was that the lack of understanding by the GOP of the impact of socioeconomic grouping as a preferred community of interest. The underlying math here works against the GOP as much as a maximally square grid with minimum area districts works against the Dems.

Who chose the elections to use in AZ, and why were their not experts to opine on what they thought the break even points were?  Yes, the "class warfare" concept united Hancock Park with Palos Verdes in the LA area, taking in the heavy Dem Wilshire corridor along the way, put the beach cities CD out of reach for example. I am not sure how appending Westminster to Long Beach was justified yet.  Oddly, in the end, that CD was put just out of reach of the GOP too.  Maybe that was just a coincidence.

[Brittain33]

The examples they cited add up to one distict solidified for the Dems (McNerney), one kept from being made less safe (Sanchez), and one where the dispute was intra-party (Chu losing a Latino city.) Some of the developments south of San Joaquin were pretty unfriendly for Dems, giving then more uncertainty around Fresno, Bakersfield, and San Bernardino. It looks like the general factors muon identified in drawing the maps where what led to the Pubbie massacre there...

...although I would love to know if there's a dirty story associated with Simi Valley being sent to a solid R district.

[DrScholl]

The map is hardly a lot different that it would have been without any of this input, which was rather minor in the broad scope of things.

Republicans got to draw Pennsylvania, Ohio and North Carolina into a total mess, so them losing seats in California under a fair map is not really that big of a deal.

[freepcrusher]

As I kind of suspected, but hadn't "proved" because I have not really studied the CA map, the Dems just ran circles around the Pubs in CA, with shill groups testifying for this and that, the Pubs not understanding the partisan implications of uniting this but not that, and the Pubs having no organized campaign to get their own self serving shills into the fray. It is a real, real, pity that I was not on that commission. Heck, just checking out the organizations on the internet, and at the CA Secretary of State website, I could have unmasked some of them as Dem fronts. And I would have known immediately what the partisan implications were of all of this disingenuous chatter. Sad.

Well, all is fair in love and war, and the Pubs just dropped the ball. But then CA Pubs have been dysfunctional since rocks cooled in CA. So 2 to 3 seats lost due to CA Pub incompetence, and Dem Machiavellian, but clever - and effective - tactics. Some of it has little echos of AZ, where I suspect similar shills paraded before the Commission, but there of course, the Commission was stacked, and in the end I kind of suspect, just had professional Dem operatives essentially draw the map for them, and then worked on how best to justify it. That was more a matter of just reverse engineering. But the Pubs not calling the Dems out on the phony partisan break even point at least was particularly pathetic in AZ.

aren't you a lawyer? You could have testified at the hearings.

[Torie]

As I kind of suspected, but hadn't "proved" because I have not really studied the CA map, the Dems just ran circles around the Pubs in CA, with shill groups testifying for this and that, the Pubs not understanding the partisan implications of uniting this but not that, and the Pubs having no organized campaign to get their own self serving shills into the fray. It is a real, real, pity that I was not on that commission. Heck, just checking out the organizations on the internet, and at the CA Secretary of State website, I could have unmasked some of them as Dem fronts. And I would have known immediately what the partisan implications were of all of this disingenuous chatter. Sad.

Well, all is fair in love and war, and the Pubs just dropped the ball. But then CA Pubs have been dysfunctional since rocks cooled in CA. So 2 to 3 seats lost due to CA Pub incompetence, and Dem Machiavellian, but clever - and effective - tactics. Some of it has little echos of AZ, where I suspect similar shills paraded before the Commission, but there of course, the Commission was stacked, and in the end I kind of suspect, just had professional Dem operatives essentially draw the map for them, and then worked on how best to justify it. That was more a matter of just reverse engineering. But the Pubs not calling the Dems out on the phony partisan break even point at least was particularly pathetic in AZ.

aren't you a lawyer? You could have testified at the hearings.

I don't think being a lawyer here gives me some special access in this venue - surprising I know, since typically, given that we essentially write the laws, we are a very cosseted guild indeed.

Yes, I could have made this my all consuming hobby, but I guess I thought the pros were competent, and anyway I am too busy being an aging playboy, and running my "real estate empire," and annoying the youngs around here with my little old man perspective on life, and whatnot. Yes, I do feel sort of bad I did not get more involved. I guess I was demoralized when I was chopped off the applicants considered with the first cut. They thought they found about 500 more folks more qualified than I, I guess, who survived the first chop. I was just so hurt! 

[BigSkyBob]

From what I can tell the GOP was particularly weak at recognizing underlying bias in some neutral mathematical models. In AZ the GOP assumed that the blame was solely on the partisan chair, but even a neutral chair would have had a hard time overcoming the state competitiveness directive given the bias in the chosen elections.

In CA my sense was that the lack of understanding by the GOP of the impact of socioeconomic grouping as a preferred community of interest. The underlying math here works against the GOP as much as a maximally square grid with minimum area districts works against the Dems.

In Arizona, the game was over the minute the Democratic mapping firm was picked. Inevitably, there were in a position to equate "strongly leans Democratic" with "competitive." That is why Mathis went to great lengths to intimidate/bribe the Republican commissioners into going along with a unanimous vote to select the Democratic firm. She wanted the inevitable Democratic gerrymander to have a veneer of "bipartisanship."

[redcommander]

It doesn't really matter too much. Dems are still vulnerable to losing seats in a wave election under the new lines.

[Хahar 🤔]

It doesn't really matter too much. Dems are still vulnerable to losing seats in a wave election under the new lines.

There's no evidence that there will ever be such an election.

[BigSkyBob]

It doesn't really matter too much. Dems are still vulnerable to losing seats in a wave election under the new lines.

There's no evidence that there will ever be such an election.

Real unemployment above 15%, a fifteen trillion dollar deficit, a war going on longer than any in American history, Solyndra, and the list continues.

[redcommander]

It doesn't really matter too much. Dems are still vulnerable to losing seats in a wave election under the new lines.

There's no evidence that there will ever be such an election.

Sure thing. Democrats are going to continue to win elections in California, and Californians are going to continue to put up with all the craziness the loons who dominate the party put into law. The redistricting gives Republicans excellent shots of making net gains in the Congressional delegation and State Assembly.

[Хahar 🤔]

It doesn't really matter too much. Dems are still vulnerable to losing seats in a wave election under the new lines.

There's no evidence that there will ever be such an election.

Sure thing. Democrats are going to continue to win elections in California, and Californians are going to continue to put up with all the craziness the loons who dominate the party put into law. The redistricting gives Republicans excellent shots of making net gains in the Congressional delegation and State Assembly.

It's been that way since the election of 1996. Last year, in the midst of a huge Republican wave, the California Republicans made no gains whatsoever. You tell me when it's coming.

[redcommander]

It doesn't really matter too much. Dems are still vulnerable to losing seats in a wave election under the new lines.

There's no evidence that there will ever be such an election.

Sure thing. Democrats are going to continue to win elections in California, and Californians are going to continue to put up with all the craziness the loons who dominate the party put into law. The redistricting gives Republicans excellent shots of making net gains in the Congressional delegation and State Assembly.

It's been that way since the election of 1996. Last year, in the midst of a huge Republican wave, the California Republicans made no gains whatsoever. You tell me when it's coming.

This is the reason no wave hit last year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_congressional_districts#2002:_Bipartisan_gerrymandering

[Sbane]

In CA my sense was that the lack of understanding by the GOP of the impact of socioeconomic grouping as a preferred community of interest. The underlying math here works against the GOP as much as a maximally square grid with minimum area districts works against the Dems.

Yeah, this is why the GOP got screwed. Except for that Long Beach to Garden Grove district, everything else is justifiable. Especially Mcnerney's district. I would have switched out Lodi for Tracy though, but overall it's a Bay Area exurban district. Huge amounts of commuters come into the Bay Area from San Joaquin county. As someone who has driven on I-580 in the tri valley a good bit, I know this for a fact. Same with people in eastern Contra Costa who also have long, ridiculous commutes. A gas tax or an increase in vehicle registration fees would not be popular in these parts.

If we look at the Santa Clarita to Simi Valley district, one has to ask where the extra people would come from if not from Simi Valley. I think dipping into the San Fernando valley would have caused more of an outrage. If we look at the San Gabriel Valley, obviously it's not perfect, but I fail to see the vast left wing conspiracy. South El monte got put in a latino district based primarily in the gateway cities. Oh well. The article states it was put in a less Latino district and a more affluent district. If it got put in the SGV latino district, it would have been the same case. I do wonder why Rowland Heights, Walnut and Diamond Bar weren't added to the Asian district, as opposed to Glendora, Claremont and Upland. The partisan lean wouldn't have changed much mind you, but it would have made more sense. The maps aren't perfect, but I fail to see the controversy....except for the Long Beach to Garden Grove district. Even there you could argue it was just the odd man out once all the Hispanic districts were drawn. It would have been nice if a Republican district could have been drawn in OC with a high Asian influence. Just add Cerritos, Buena Park and Fullerton to the Vietnamese areas and you almost have a district.

It doesn't really matter too much. Dems are still vulnerable to losing seats in a wave election under the new lines.

I agree with this. Of course the Republicans have to reform themselves. I just heard some California Republican legislator lambast Latinos. These people need to stop living in the 80's.

[Sbane]

And just to follow up on my response to redcommander, I think CA republicans are comfortable with the current situation where they can do whatever they want with more than 33% of the chamber. That is why they are so up in arms over this map, since their guaranteed seats are vanishing. They don't care there are going to be more Dems who can be targeted since they are not interested in actually winning an election and controlling the chamber. They still want to hold views more appropriate for Oklahoma instead of actually competing in California.

[redcommander]

And just to follow up on my response to redcommander, I think CA republicans are comfortable with the current situation where they can do whatever they want with more than 33% of the chamber. That is why they are so up in arms over this map, since their guaranteed seats are vanishing. They don't care there are going to be more Dems who can be targeted since they are not interested in actually winning an election and controlling the chamber. They still want to hold views more appropriate for Oklahoma instead of actually competing in California.

I wouldn't say the party is as right as it is in Oklahoma, but I would say they aren't doing a good job at trying to expand themselves. The first thing they need to do is rebuild their bench in the next election. Start with shoring up any incumbents that are vulnerable from redistricting, and target the most marginal seats that they pick up from Democrats. That could possibly put them up to around 30-32 in the State Assembly. A poor performance still, but an improvement over the 28 they hold now. In the short term, the party just doesn't have a wide enough pool of potential candidates or strong enough registration numbers and GOTV support to make headway into LA and most of Northern California. If the party starts working towards improving upon that, perhaps by the end of the decade it will be a lot stronger. Republicans don't necessarily need to moderate their positions, but they do need to soften the rhetoric and fear mongering, and go out of their comfort zone to at least try and win over voters. It's necessary now for them to stop cowering in the corner with their safe gerrymandered districts disappearing, and learn how to compete again in the state.

[Napoleon]

Sorry red but that's a lot of coulda shoulda woulda. The base refuses to allow Republicans to even pretend to moderate themselves. The open primaries may help...or it may just be the shove that throws your party off the cliff for good. I don't expect the maps to help Democrats as much as some of my fellow Democrats do, though I underestimate our strength in California if that CA-36 election was any indicator. You might see what's left of the bench eliminated if Pubbies can't have an epiphany or two real, real soon.

[Хahar 🤔]

It doesn't really matter too much. Dems are still vulnerable to losing seats in a wave election under the new lines.

There's no evidence that there will ever be such an election.

Sure thing. Democrats are going to continue to win elections in California, and Californians are going to continue to put up with all the craziness the loons who dominate the party put into law. The redistricting gives Republicans excellent shots of making net gains in the Congressional delegation and State Assembly.

It's been that way since the election of 1996. Last year, in the midst of a huge Republican wave, the California Republicans made no gains whatsoever. You tell me when it's coming.

This is the reason no wave hit last year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_congressional_districts#2002:_Bipartisan_gerrymandering

I would accept that argument if the Democrats hadn't gotten over 54% of the vote for State Assembly last November. It's not about the boundaries; California voters just have no desire to vote Republican.

[CARLHAYDEN]

From what I can tell the GOP was particularly weak at recognizing underlying bias in some neutral mathematical models. In AZ the GOP assumed that the blame was solely on the partisan chair, but even a neutral chair would have had a hard time overcoming the state competitiveness directive given the bias in the chosen elections.

In CA my sense was that the lack of understanding by the GOP of the impact of socioeconomic grouping as a preferred community of interest. The underlying math here works against the GOP as much as a maximally square grid with minimum area districts works against the Dems.

Muon,

Of the legal criteria for redistricting, "competiveness" is the least important.

1. Districts shall comply with the United States Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act. 2. Both legislative and congressional districts shall be equal in population, to the extent practicable. This establishes a new strict population equality standard for legislative districts. 3. Districts shall be geographically compact and contiguous, as much as practical. 4. District boundaries shall respect "communities of interest," as much as practical. 5. District lines shall follow visible geographic features, and city, town and county boundaries and undivided "census tracts" as much as practical. 6. Political party registration, voting history data and residences of incumbents and other candidates may not be used to create district maps. 7. "Competitive districts" are favored if competitive districts do not significantly harm the other goals listed.

What the commission did on the congressional districts is violate rules 3 (compactness) 4 (communities of interest), 5 (geographical/political boundaries) and 6 (party history) in order to create as many Democrat friendly districts as possible.

The entire process from the time Mathis got appointed has been a charade, with the three Democrats (Mathis pretends to be an Independent, but is is fact a dogmatic Democrat) even picked the "Republican" legal counsel!

[Landslide Lyndon]

Seems like someone forgot to tell Brad Sherman, Howard Berman, Laura Richardson, Janice Hahn, John Garamendi and Lois Capps about this left-wing conspiracy.

[muon2]

From what I can tell the GOP was particularly weak at recognizing underlying bias in some neutral mathematical models. In AZ the GOP assumed that the blame was solely on the partisan chair, but even a neutral chair would have had a hard time overcoming the state competitiveness directive given the bias in the chosen elections.

In CA my sense was that the lack of understanding by the GOP of the impact of socioeconomic grouping as a preferred community of interest. The underlying math here works against the GOP as much as a maximally square grid with minimum area districts works against the Dems.

Muon,

Of the legal criteria for redistricting, "competiveness" is the least important.

1. Districts shall comply with the United States Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act. 2. Both legislative and congressional districts shall be equal in population, to the extent practicable. This establishes a new strict population equality standard for legislative districts. 3. Districts shall be geographically compact and contiguous, as much as practical. 4. District boundaries shall respect "communities of interest," as much as practical. 5. District lines shall follow visible geographic features, and city, town and county boundaries and undivided "census tracts" as much as practical. 6. Political party registration, voting history data and residences of incumbents and other candidates may not be used to create district maps. 7. "Competitive districts" are favored if competitive districts do not significantly harm the other goals listed.

What the commission did on the congressional districts is violate rules 3 (compactness) 4 (communities of interest), 5 (geographical/political boundaries) and 6 (party history) in order to create as many Democrat friendly districts as possible.

The entire process from the time Mathis got appointed has been a charade, with the three Democrats (Mathis pretends to be an Independent, but is is fact a dogmatic Democrat) even picked the "Republican" legal counsel!

As I understand it, the above goals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 are given equal priority in the AZ Constitution. Federal law elevates goals 1 and 2 as well as the contiguity part of goal 3. The compactness part of goal 3 has historically been given wide discretion by the courts. Item 6 in your list is not a goal, but a requirement during the initial phase of mapping, but is then relaxed in order to test the map against the goals. Specifically voting behavior is necessary for the voting rights act (1) and competitiveness (7).

My point is that any commission is faced after the initial phase with the task of balancing items 3, 4, 5, and 7 and that includes the use of voting data. Competitiveness is easier to objectively measure than communities of interest, but is sensitive to the underlying set of election data. Any commission stuck with slanted election data to test the goals, would be drawn towards districts like the purported swing districts in the AZ plan (see my analysis on the AZ thread).

A truly independent chair might not have been enough given the data used to test the goals. Had the election data been properly vetted, inherent biases in the map would be easier to expose regardless of the chair.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

The new map does make a few Democrats more vulnerable, but I would be surprised if they dropped below their current numbers in the House.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Muon,

Yes, the plans and data presented to the Commission were "slanted," but that was because Mathis and her fellow Democrats on the Commission retained a Democrat firm to present such "slanted" data and maps.

However, the slanted data was not the cause of the of the biased maps, but rather a deliberate, intentional, malicious and willfull distortion which would not have occurred if an honest-unbiased consultant had been hired.

Next, I agree that the authors of the ballot measure for the redistricting commission seemed to contradict themselves on items 6 and 7.

However, I must totally disagree with you that competitiveness is as important under Arizona law as any other criteria.  

Now, it is abundantly clear that the commission ignored compactness (3), communities of interest (4) geographic features/boundaries (5) in an attempt to create as many Democrat friendly districts.  There was NO attempt to comply with provisions 3,4 and 5 by the commission!  There was NO balancing whatsoever of the criteria, but merely an attempt to create as many Democrat friendly districts as possible.

Now, to me, slashing through smaller communities like Oreo Valley, Marana, etc. is easy to see while trying to obtain "competitiveness" is rather murky.

[Brittain33]

However, the slanted data was not the cause of the of the biased maps, but rather a deliberate, intentional, malicious and willfull distortion which would not have occurred if an honest-unbiased consultant had been hired.

The world hasn't been the same since thesaurus.com went live.