How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission

[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).

[minionofmidas]

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.

[muon2]

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, no matter how much you just trash the map to try to get there, ignoring every other factor.

I am very sensitive to where VRA attacks on a map might emerge. I was curious to see that the CA Commission didn't ask about racially polarized voting in the Salinas area. The population is certainly enough to get well above 50% HVAP, and in some areas of the state upper 50's translates to a CVAP majority, but I don't know if 50% CVAP is in reach there. In any case the issue of whether 50% HCVAP is needed to elect a candidate of choice if there is sufficient control in the primary is an unanswered question on the national stage.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My concept was most similar to your map 3. I would leave a corridor along the coast, since I wouldn't want to mess up your nice work down south by creating a barrier between Monterey and Santa Cruz.

[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.

[minionofmidas]

I still stand by this comment, of course:

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.

[minionofmidas]

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?

There would also be the question whether the most hispanic sections of San Jose are any sort of CoI with Watsonville and the Salinas Valley, as opposed to other parts of that I believe fairly integrated city.

[muon2]

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.

[minionofmidas]

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.

[muon2]

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.

[Sbane]

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

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

 

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

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

[muon2]

I see the Commission really screwed up the CD numbering system too. So many districts get new numbers - needlessly. Sigh.

The constitution requires that districts be numbered north to south.  The commission interpreted this to mean that districts are numbered based on the latitude of their northernmost point¹.  But if you are searching a map you tend to concentrate on the center of the district. 

There is one district (CD-8) that extends northward through the Owen Valley, but with most of the population in San Bernardino County, including 29 Palms is "north" of San Francisco and Oakland, and almost as far north as Sacramento.

Part of San Francisco County is in the bay almost to the San Rafael-Richmond bridge, so that San Francisco is "north" of Berkeley.

I have been told that someone pointed out that California has a northernmost point and indeed it is all District 1.

I assume that a perfectly valid interpretation would use the geographic center or center of population as the point to determine latitude. If so, the geographic center makes more sense than the northernmost point. As CA-8 illustrates, using an extremum of the district as the point of measurement can result in unexpected outcomes due to long extensions in the preferred direction.

[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.

[Sbane]

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.

This is one way to do it. The other way is the one I posted on page 5. That one has less county splits. This might do a better job of keep communities of interest together. It also leads to a split of Oakland (though it's not a lot of people) while the other map doesn't.

[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.

[muon2]

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.

[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.

[Sbane]

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.

[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?

[jimrtex]

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.

This is the opinion of the DC district court in the Texas preclearance trial as to what the standard for measuring retrogression under Section 5 is:

http://tinyurl.com/74ppdvv

[Sbane]

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?

No, you need to add Pittsburg, which is northeast of CA-10 to the district and take it out of the Brentwood area. And you can add Hispanics and Blacks too, not just Whites and Asians......

[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?

[Sbane]

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?

There's not going to be a Hispanic district out there, or at least I'd like to see how it is. No need to put central valley areas into a suburban district just because those areas aren't as Hispanic.

[minionofmidas]

Chopping down to Monterey is butt-ugly, and I'd avoid it if I could. Seems like Morgan Hill (which, hilariously, is not named for a hill named for a guy whose surname was Morgan, but instead is named for a guy whose first name was Morgan and whose surname was Hill ) is much more of a common suburb these days, and is just 34% Hispanic (versus 58% in Gilroy and 82% in Watsonville), so I suppose I prefer the arrangement that puts it in the 16th.

Seems I wasn't too clear by what I meant by trichop of San Jose. Oh well. If noone else can even see my issue with the 14th as drawn, then it probably isn't that important. Consider that objection withdrawn.