How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission

[Torie]

Oh dear. You "solve" your little Santa Rosa thing, by chopping into Frisco from the south rather than the north of course, but you just love too much crossing that beautiful bridge I guess.

And you solve the Ojai reach (beautiful road to drive connecting Ojai to the balance of the CD that you drew by the way, nice and twisty (very twisty, with some frightening drops, so drive it while sober), and scenic), by going into Westlake in LA County of course. But given you don't have a chop there, but somewhere else presumably which I probably won't like, you did the best you could I guess, given that we want to avoid muni chops.

It seems to me that poor San Mateo is left as a the Rodney Dangerfield of counties. It's the one county larger than a district that everyone is willing to split. I just chose to defend it if I could. OTOH, someone could chop SF across the Bay Bridge (and I saw at least one plan formally submitted that did). You wouldn't want that, would you?

Since San Mateo is larger than a CD, of course it has to be chopped. You must mean that you don't want it tri-chopped. You see, your obsession with county chops leads you to those "poor choices." County chops don't mean much in areas where you have a sea of appended suburbs - one right next to the other, where what are really the best communities of interest involve an extra chop. Do you really think the good folks of Menlo Park, who are tied to the hip to Palo Alto, and shop there, and recreate there, and would live there, if there were any housing there much under a million dollars, where they can only afford $700,000, would be upset by being appended to Santa Clara County, rather than the more down market stuff to the north? And then there is well, gated Atherton (yes the whole town is gated, so you can't drive in to view the its splendid mansions), where the folks who own the the venture capital firms on Sandhill Road in Palo Alto live (unless they like horses, in which case they live in Woodside - also in San Mateo County as it happens, and where you can view the ranch houses on an acre or two lots, because it is not gated). Yes, I am sure they would be upset being severed from the balance of their county. Save the county obsession thing for states far less complex than CA is my best suggestion, but carry on with your exercise for a map that would get no votes on the Commission I suspect, unless you were on it, in which case it would get one vote.

By the way, how long do you think it takes to drive that connecting road you have to Ojai from Santa Paula?

[muon2]

I don't know what "the Roeck view" means, but I assume it means, break every piece of china in the kitchen if it gets to the right number, based on some rogue court's "scrivinings" (I assume that you will enlighten me), but yes, as to erosity, definitely.

There are about 50 different measures of compactness used by mappers. Roeck is one of the most common. It compares the area of the district to the area of the smallest circle that contains the district. It is used in the MI statutes and by the recent Ohio Competition. It disfavors districts with long protrusions, but doesn't mind wiggly lines.

You'd probably like Polsby Popper which compares the area of a district to the area of a circle with the same length perimeter as the district. I think AZ uses this measure. Wiggly boundaries take a big hit with this measure, but it can't distinguish between wiggly lines in urban areas and natural wiggles like rivers and mountain ranges.

[Torie]

Erosity is like pornography - you know it when you see it. That is from SCOTUS (the comment being about porn).

[muon2]

Erosity is like pornography - you know it when you see it. That is from SCOTUS (the comment being about porn).

No doubt. The problem is differentiating between use of man-made lines to gerry a result and natures own ragged edges. We know the difference, but it is hard, bordering on impossible, to establish a legal case based around compactness.

[Хahar 🤔]

That 17th district is an interesting exercise, but it's remarkably ugly, and it doesn't need to exist. The Chinese in Cupertino and the Vietnamese in East San Jose have very little in common.

[muon2]

That 17th district is an interesting exercise, but it's remarkably ugly, and it doesn't need to exist. The Chinese in Cupertino and the Vietnamese in East San Jose have very little in common.

Do they tend to vote the same way?

[minionofmidas]

Well, if you're starting with a blank assumption that must not ever be tested that they can't, possibly, in even any one area, have been the silly buggerers themselves (and that does seem to follow from your post, though not necessarily from the map you drew)... then that renders the exercise not worth 10% of the effort you put into it, I'm sorry to say. Because then, if your map shows a somewhat better outcome for Republicans than the Commission's, all that proves is that devious crafty Republicans didn't get the possible maximum out of their dumbwit Dem counterparts, not that they dumbwit Republicans were shafted in any way or form by devious crafty Democrats, which is what you said you want to prove. Right? It's a... damn, what's the scientific jargon word I'm looking for here? Somebody help me out.

I think the Commissioners followed their lawyers' advice actually. One of the things they noted, is that they tried to achieve all of their other worthy non-partisan goals, subject only to meeting the VRA.  Your little scheme, which I think I helped refine in your mind actually, of a Coachella, Imperial, and smaller bit of San Diego, CD, is not consistent with that. It won't help you (as in white Dems), as much as you hope anyway, but that is letting the cat out of the bag.  

You do know that the Commissioners all promise not to be partisan hacks don't you?  It is right there in the statute! And I don't think they were. If there was an issue, it was the Dem shills testimony via front persons, that the Pubs were too stupid or lazy to know for what it was, that was probably the problem, and it was the newspaper story to that very effect, which inspired my exercise. You, I don't think, would be a suitable Commissioner.  

Any more comments?  Mike?

You're reading me all wrong... but that's fine, really. Because I was doing the same with you, at least as a nagging suspicion (and you know where that originally came from? Good.)

Of course, at an initial point, before looking at a few data more closely, I thought something *somewhat like* what I would want could have been achieved even without the cut into Riverside, which I know now is clearly incorrect.
I still hold it makes a lot of sense on several levels (perhaps the biggest being: right now the district is rural hispanic farmworkers attached to an essentially urban district to bring it up to population. A more equitable split between the two related, but not identical, communities of interest is definitely positive. And the urbanization south of SD proper to the Mexican border, National City etc, has farmworking hispanic roots. And the other being, of course, the plight of poor rural Riverside subsumed into that district. Which I happen to care more about than Hispanics in the middle of suburbia. Which is a form of bias, actually, but not one that correlates well with the current American party system.), but I understand there's decent arguments against it as well. I'll let it pass.

[minionofmidas]

Yes, I understand sbane. I take your word for it about the black attitude (probably the second black incumbent is looking for a lifeboat, and was accommodated), I think the blacks are being short sighted about what their future is, but that is their problem. The Commission said they drew but one black CD in their text, but maybe something got lost in translation. And maybe Maldef will sue over this one too, assuming you have the numbers right. They should. This is one instance where I think they may have a pretty good case.

In the meantime, I am not changing my map, because of my own point of view about the legal exposure (I don't really think the CD looks all that bad myself - I have seen far worse racial gerrymanders), and because it doesn't matter for the purpose of my exercise, as you acknowledge. I can defend what I did without any embarrassment, if someone calls me on it.

What might help here is a Hispanic percentage map with your district's boundary overlayed with it. Just how Hispanic is that northwest extension, exactly?

[muon2]

There is another parameter I will probably use in So Cal from VRA cases. The Census Bureau has a disclaimer about use of CVAP for 2010 data since it is from an average of 2005-2009 statistics. That disclaimer was recognized by the CA commission in their report. In other circuits there has been recognition that 65% VAP can provide a controlling majority for a minority, and SCOTUS has accepted that from those circuits. If SCOTUS rules that the statistical nature of CVAP can't be relied upon, they may return to the supermajority 65% threshold. To play it safe, in areas where 50% CVAP may not be reachable, I will look for 65% VAP as a backup. For instance Anaheim/Santa Ana is one area where it will come into play for me.

I am not sure your comment has any nexus with mine, but OK. My Hispanic OC CD is 62.4% HVAP, and to hit 65% will either 1) be impossible, or 2) make an erose muni-chopping mess, and this for a CD which elects an Hispanic with no problem, and has despite determined, and well financed, runs at her. It's only 20% white, with the balance black (1.9%) or Asian (19.6%), the latter, particularly in this area, being a lower turnout group. The Commission's Hispanic OC CD is 60.88% HVAP btw.  So many little rules, so little time. Is Maldef bitching about this too?  Just curious.

I don't suspect any MALDEF issue there. They suggested a 63% HVAP district so you are in better shape than the commission. It's an area I will look at, but since I tend to look at compactness from the Roeck view, I'm probably more tolerant of erosity than you.

I don't know what "the Roeck view" means, but I assume it means, break every piece of china in the kitchen if it gets to the right number, based on some rogue court's "scrivinings" (I assume that you will enlighten me), but yes, as to erosity, definitely. You can hit 63% no doubt with an extra or two muni chop. You might sever the north end of Santa Ana (that is where the OC gentry used to live once upon a time), and then do two more mini-muni chops - a net of three more muni chops, although maybe just two, if there is enough Hispanic action left in Fullerton, which I chopped, to suck up a couple of very heavily Hispanic, low hanging fruit precincts, albeit kind of large ones, so you don't have to chop into both Tustin and Costa Mesa, or Placentia or something. And no, it won't happen in my map.

So this is my offering for Anaheim/Santa Ana. The block groups are imprecise, but the intent is to use all of Santa Ana and Stanton and use none of Orange, Buena Park or Costa Mesa. The Tustin piece will be my only muni chop into the Irvine district from the west and is needed for population equality. Anaheim has to be split due to its long eastern leg, but all parts are either in this district or an Orange-based district which wraps around the north. Likewise, the Fullerton split will be shared between this district and the Orange one. I confess to a Placentia split, but at least the part included in this district decreases erosity.

The HVAP is 65.0%.

[Хahar 🤔]

That 17th district is an interesting exercise, but it's remarkably ugly, and it doesn't need to exist. The Chinese in Cupertino and the Vietnamese in East San Jose have very little in common.

Do they tend to vote the same way?

Not more than they vote the same way as their non-Asian neighbors. Asian legislators certainly have no difficulty being elected in Asian-minority districts.

[Torie]

There is another parameter I will probably use in So Cal from VRA cases. The Census Bureau has a disclaimer about use of CVAP for 2010 data since it is from an average of 2005-2009 statistics. That disclaimer was recognized by the CA commission in their report. In other circuits there has been recognition that 65% VAP can provide a controlling majority for a minority, and SCOTUS has accepted that from those circuits. If SCOTUS rules that the statistical nature of CVAP can't be relied upon, they may return to the supermajority 65% threshold. To play it safe, in areas where 50% CVAP may not be reachable, I will look for 65% VAP as a backup. For instance Anaheim/Santa Ana is one area where it will come into play for me.

I am not sure your comment has any nexus with mine, but OK. My Hispanic OC CD is 62.4% HVAP, and to hit 65% will either 1) be impossible, or 2) make an erose muni-chopping mess, and this for a CD which elects an Hispanic with no problem, and has despite determined, and well financed, runs at her. It's only 20% white, with the balance black (1.9%) or Asian (19.6%), the latter, particularly in this area, being a lower turnout group. The Commission's Hispanic OC CD is 60.88% HVAP btw.  So many little rules, so little time. Is Maldef bitching about this too?  Just curious.

I don't suspect any MALDEF issue there. They suggested a 63% HVAP district so you are in better shape than the commission. It's an area I will look at, but since I tend to look at compactness from the Roeck view, I'm probably more tolerant of erosity than you.

I don't know what "the Roeck view" means, but I assume it means, break every piece of china in the kitchen if it gets to the right number, based on some rogue court's "scrivinings" (I assume that you will enlighten me), but yes, as to erosity, definitely. You can hit 63% no doubt with an extra or two muni chop. You might sever the north end of Santa Ana (that is where the OC gentry used to live once upon a time), and then do two more mini-muni chops - a net of three more muni chops, although maybe just two, if there is enough Hispanic action left in Fullerton, which I chopped, to suck up a couple of very heavily Hispanic, low hanging fruit precincts, albeit kind of large ones, so you don't have to chop into both Tustin and Costa Mesa, or Placentia or something. And no, it won't happen in my map.

So this is my offering for Anaheim/Santa Ana. The block groups are imprecise, but the intent is to use all of Santa Ana and Stanton and use none of Orange, Buena Park or Costa Mesa. The Tustin piece will be my only muni chop into the Irvine district from the west and is needed for population equality. Anaheim has to be split due to its long eastern leg, but all parts are either in this district or an Orange-based district which wraps around the north. Likewise, the Fullerton split will be shared between this district and the Orange one. I confess to a Placentia split, but at least the part included in this district decreases erosity.

The HVAP is 65.0%.

I would lose the Tustin chop and take the rest of west Anaheim, even if it reduces your HVAP percentage by a bit (it should not be that much).  Otherwise not bad from a chop standpoint. My CD did that, and went into Orange rather than Stanton and Placentia. You might be causing the Asian percentage in the north OC CD to drop some (my CA-40), as well as make CA-40 more erose of course. 

Garden Grove and Anaheim for this CD are "auto-chops" and really don't count as chops, so I consider that I did but one chop (Orange), plus the heist of those two precincts in Fullerton that were right next by and just so irresistible.

[muon2]

So this is my offering for Anaheim/Santa Ana. The block groups are imprecise, but the intent is to use all of Santa Ana and Stanton and use none of Orange, Buena Park or Costa Mesa. The Tustin piece will be my only muni chop into the Irvine district from the west and is needed for population equality. Anaheim has to be split due to its long eastern leg, but all parts are either in this district or an Orange-based district which wraps around the north. Likewise, the Fullerton split will be shared between this district and the Orange one. I confess to a Placentia split, but at least the part included in this district decreases erosity.

The HVAP is 65.0%.

I would lose the Tustin chop and take the rest of west Anaheim, even if it reduces your HVAP percentage by a bit (it should not be that much).  Otherwise not bad from a chop standpoint. My CD did that, and went into Orange rather than Stanton and Placentia. You might be causing the Asian percentage in the north OC CD to drop some (my CA-40), as well as make CA-40 more erose of course. 

Garden Grove and Anaheim for this CD are "auto-chops" and really don't count as chops, so I consider that I did but one chop (Orange), plus the heist of those two precincts in Fullerton that were right next by and just so irresistible.

This is how I fit that district into my plan version of OC. As we've all agreed Imperial stays with SD so that defines the population need at the south end of OC. The main feature of this plan is that it preserves the LA/OC line. My algorithm drove me this way, but there was a lot of testimony before the commission to preserve that separation, too.

Hopefully my justification of the chop of Tustin becomes clear. My CD 48 stops before it reaches Orange, Santa Ana, or Costa Mesa, with population to spare. To bring CD 48 back into line I would have to cut into Tustin, Tustin Foothills, Irvine, or Newport Beach. If I have to chop, why not go where it helps a neighboring district, to wit CD 46.

It may be hard to see, but Cypress and La Palma are supposed to all be in CD 47 while Buena Park and all those pieces of Anaheim and Fullerton are in CD 45. You may notice that CD 45 takes the road less traveled to reach Los Serranos by way of Carbon Canyon Rd. I'll explain that more when I get to the Inland Empire.

[Torie]

OK. I am not in love which your cuts in OC. Tustin and Tustin foothills should be in your CA-45, and CA-45 should take Costa Mesa, with CA-47 moving up into Buena Park. In other words, twist the clock, clockwise around the Hispanic CD. I could explain why if you want, but I assume that you trust me that I know the lay of the land in OC at least.

And of course, my OC cuts are the best. Really. And Irvine is a good city to split, both from a geographical, and demographic, standpoint. The way, you get the wealthy beach zone, the Asian tinged zone, and the white inland more socially conservative zone, more cleanly defined.

Addendum: Oh, and I would also cut Dana Point from CA-49 in exchange for taking more of Mission Viejo, for the reason stated in the above paragraph, and also because Laguna Niguel and Dana Point are so intertwined.

[muon2]

OK. I am not in love which your cuts in OC. Tustin and Tustin foothills should be in your CA-45, and CA-45 should take Costa Mesa, with CA-47 moving up into Buena Park. In other words, twist the clock, clockwise around the Hispanic CD. I could explain why if you want, but I assume that you trust me that I know the lay of the land in OC at least.

And of course, my OC cuts are the best. Really. And Irvine is a good city to split, both from a geographical, and demographic, standpoint. The way, you get the wealthy beach zone, the Asian tinged zone, and the white inland more socially conservative zone, more cleanly defined.

I absolutely trust that you know OC better than I. However, it does us little good to draw maps from the same set of assumptions if we want to test the politics of the districts at the end. So, I'm letting myself be driven by geography more than sociology. That's what led to my version. My 48-49 line requires very little spillover across municipal lines and I can form nice compact districts for 47 and 48 that have very little in the may of split munis. CD 45 gets the leftovers.

As always if there are geographic items I've missed or other things that stay away from the squishy subject of communities of interest, I'm always game to refine my methods. Note that sbane's comments in Sacramento that led to a refinement have played out here as well. Mathematically there could be four districts entirely within OC, but my revised rule lets me back down from that to three as I keep the non-whole split pieces to two.

The rule also applies to SD county since it could have four districts, too. However, we want to link up Imperial and that leaves messy choices without the revision. This plan keeps three CDs entirely within the county. But my geographical treatment makes some changes.

In order to minimize municipal splits, CD 53 keeps Chula Vista whole (or would if I had block level controls) at the expense of the neighborhoods east of Balboa Park. That reduces the HVAP to 63.4 which is about 52.4% HCVAP, so it should be fine. I also let CD 50 follow the natural corridor from Escondido east to the Imperial line. That cuts CD 52 off on the east, which works well as it moves west to take up the parts of SD dropped by CD 53.

I had a choice for Encinitas vs Bonsall and Fallbrook. Either one could go with Escondido in CD 50 and the other would go with the coastal CD 49 into OC. You see my choice below based on my eyeballing the roads, but a reasonable argument could sway me the other way.

[muon2]

OK. I am not in love which your cuts in OC. Tustin and Tustin foothills should be in your CA-45, and CA-45 should take Costa Mesa, with CA-47 moving up into Buena Park. In other words, twist the clock, clockwise around the Hispanic CD. I could explain why if you want, but I assume that you trust me that I know the lay of the land in OC at least.

And of course, my OC cuts are the best. Really. And Irvine is a good city to split, both from a geographical, and demographic, standpoint. The way, you get the wealthy beach zone, the Asian tinged zone, and the white inland more socially conservative zone, more cleanly defined.

Addendum: Oh, and I would also cut Dana Point from CA-49 in exchange for taking more of Mission Viejo, for the reason stated in the above paragraph, and also because Laguna Niguel and Dana Point are so intertwined.

I'm somewhat averse to decisions based on the types of zones as they are usually proxies for specific political outcomes. I watched the Dems do that in IL last spring as they justified a whole host of gerrymanders on that type of logic. I recognize that VRA-based decisions also have political consequences, but that's in a different category for me.

To your addendum, it would work geographically to put Emerald Bay, Laguna Beach, and Laguna Niguel into CD 49 in exchange for the Rancho Santa Margarita area. It's nearly an even population swap and it doesn't impact the compactness of CD 48. Would that work for you?

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am not sure what the above means. You have chopped central city San Diego to bits. You have a few precincts in San Diego there next to the Harbor filled with high income whites in condo towers.  Those should be in the Coronado, Pt. Loma, Ocean Beach, Pacific Beach CD. Why did you dislike my version of San Diego County (other than perhaps the Chula Vista chop, where I followed the commission's lines)?  

Are you sure my OC suggestions result in more chops?  You have a couple of Laguna Niguel precincts in the wrong CD. When you see a precincts that cross a muni line, what I always do, is zoom in and see where the residential streets are. That usually gives me the answer as to what CD it should be in.

Yes, I know your map has a different purpose, but the Commission's job was to tie communities of interest together, even if it resulted in an extra chop or two. The issue was whether their choices were reasonable - and non partisan.

[Torie]

OK. I am not in love which your cuts in OC. Tustin and Tustin foothills should be in your CA-45, and CA-45 should take Costa Mesa, with CA-47 moving up into Buena Park. In other words, twist the clock, clockwise around the Hispanic CD. I could explain why if you want, but I assume that you trust me that I know the lay of the land in OC at least.

And of course, my OC cuts are the best. Really. And Irvine is a good city to split, both from a geographical, and demographic, standpoint. The way, you get the wealthy beach zone, the Asian tinged zone, and the white inland more socially conservative zone, more cleanly defined.

Addendum: Oh, and I would also cut Dana Point from CA-49 in exchange for taking more of Mission Viejo, for the reason stated in the above paragraph, and also because Laguna Niguel and Dana Point are so intertwined.

I'm somewhat averse to decisions based on the types of zones as they are usually proxies for specific political outcomes. I watched the Dems do that in IL last spring as they justified a whole host of gerrymanders on that type of logic. I recognize that VRA-based decisions also have political consequences, but that's in a different category for me.

To your addendum, it would work geographically to put Emerald Bay, Laguna Beach, and Laguna Niguel into CD 49 in exchange for the Rancho Santa Margarita area. It's nearly an even population swap and it doesn't impact the compactness of CD 48. Would that work for you?

That sucks from a sociological standpoint, but is good from a geographic one, since there is an empty zone between Newport Beach and Laguna Beach.  In so much of CA freeways are the thing. They tend to define communities of interest. There is little reason for folks living inland from the 405 to cross it towards the beach, and visa versa.

I am sure that this communities of interest thing is abused for political purposes (of course it is!), but I assume that you believe me that I did not do that, and it is the commission's job to assess that, and evaluate the merits, and where a decision can reasonably go either way, probably go for the approach that makes for more competitive CD's. That is what I would do. Granted, I know some parts of the state better than others from an on the ground standpoint.

Anyway, in OC it makes no difference. All the CD's are safely GOP no matter how you draw them, after quarantining all those Hispanics in their little ghetto CD.

[Torie]

Yes, I understand sbane. I take your word for it about the black attitude (probably the second black incumbent is looking for a lifeboat, and was accommodated), I think the blacks are being short sighted about what their future is, but that is their problem. The Commission said they drew but one black CD in their text, but maybe something got lost in translation. And maybe Maldef will sue over this one too, assuming you have the numbers right. They should. This is one instance where I think they may have a pretty good case.

In the meantime, I am not changing my map, because of my own point of view about the legal exposure (I don't really think the CD looks all that bad myself - I have seen far worse racial gerrymanders), and because it doesn't matter for the purpose of my exercise, as you acknowledge. I can defend what I did without any embarrassment, if someone calls me on it.

What might help here is a Hispanic percentage map with your district's boundary overlayed with it. Just how Hispanic is that northwest extension, exactly?

The software does not allow that, but what I will do when I get home, is draw a "CD" that is just the NW extension of CA-33, and it will reveal the Hispanic percentage of that part of the CD.

By the way, Mike's map is really f'ing the Dems so far it looks like.  

[muon2]

OK. I am not in love which your cuts in OC. Tustin and Tustin foothills should be in your CA-45, and CA-45 should take Costa Mesa, with CA-47 moving up into Buena Park. In other words, twist the clock, clockwise around the Hispanic CD. I could explain why if you want, but I assume that you trust me that I know the lay of the land in OC at least.

And of course, my OC cuts are the best. Really. And Irvine is a good city to split, both from a geographical, and demographic, standpoint. The way, you get the wealthy beach zone, the Asian tinged zone, and the white inland more socially conservative zone, more cleanly defined.

Addendum: Oh, and I would also cut Dana Point from CA-49 in exchange for taking more of Mission Viejo, for the reason stated in the above paragraph, and also because Laguna Niguel and Dana Point are so intertwined.

I'm somewhat averse to decisions based on the types of zones as they are usually proxies for specific political outcomes. I watched the Dems do that in IL last spring as they justified a whole host of gerrymanders on that type of logic. I recognize that VRA-based decisions also have political consequences, but that's in a different category for me.

To your addendum, it would work geographically to put Emerald Bay, Laguna Beach, and Laguna Niguel into CD 49 in exchange for the Rancho Santa Margarita area. It's nearly an even population swap and it doesn't impact the compactness of CD 48. Would that work for you?

That sucks from a sociological standpoint, but is good from a geographic one, since there is an empty zone between Newport Beach and Laguna Beach.  In so much of CA freeways are the thing. They tend to define communities of interest. There is little reason for folks living inland from the 405 to cross it towards the beach, and visa versa.

I am sure that this communities of interest thing is abused for political purposes (of course it is!), but I assume that you believe me that I did not do that, and it is the commission's job to assess that, and evaluate the merits, and where a decision can reasonably go either way, probably go for the approach that makes for more competitive CD's. That is what I would do. Granted, I know some parts of the state better than others from an on the ground standpoint.

Anyway, in OC it makes no difference. All the CD's are safely GOP no matter how you draw them, after quarantining all those Hispanics in their little ghetto CD.

As I said earlier, I have no problem with your cuts, per se, and they do well for your goals. But one thing you mention in the comment above is competitiveness. In other states I have looked at, groupings primarily by socioeconomic and cultural factors tend to produce more homogeneous districts and hence less competitive ones. By using municipalities as substitutes for communities of interest, some research has found that more competitive districts can emerge. Certainly my application of that to MN on that thread recently ended up with a healthy blend of competitive and noncompetitive districts. But is CA like MN? I'm curious to see.

So back to OC. My hypothesis is that by following municipal lines I should get a natural balance of districts. Your plan split Mission Viejo right down the middle. I'd like to avoid splits entirely, but if needed just nibble a smaller piece of a town. That led me to try different arrangements like my map and the alternate I described. Sometimes that leaves flexibility, sometimes it works against it.

[muon2]

Yes, I understand sbane. I take your word for it about the black attitude (probably the second black incumbent is looking for a lifeboat, and was accommodated), I think the blacks are being short sighted about what their future is, but that is their problem. The Commission said they drew but one black CD in their text, but maybe something got lost in translation. And maybe Maldef will sue over this one too, assuming you have the numbers right. They should. This is one instance where I think they may have a pretty good case.

In the meantime, I am not changing my map, because of my own point of view about the legal exposure (I don't really think the CD looks all that bad myself - I have seen far worse racial gerrymanders), and because it doesn't matter for the purpose of my exercise, as you acknowledge. I can defend what I did without any embarrassment, if someone calls me on it.

What might help here is a Hispanic percentage map with your district's boundary overlayed with it. Just how Hispanic is that northwest extension, exactly?

The software does not allow that, but what I will do when I get home, is draw a "CD" that is just the NW extension of CA-33, and it will reveal the Hispanic percentage of that part of the CD.

By the way, Mike's map is really f'ing the Dems so far it looks like.  

And I haven't even looked at the political data. I'll run my usual fairness test after the maps are done to see if it's so. I'll have your political matrix as a cross check.

[Torie]

Yes, Mike, CA is different. Higher income whites are much more Dem than in most places. But as in everything, it is a balancing test. Money is not the loadstar, nothing is the loadstar - you balance, and if you have smart persons of both parties on a Commission, acting in good faith, and having taken made a promise not to act in a partisan manner, not hewing to the appropriate metrics, you have the requisite checks and balances. If they get greedy and unreasonable, and can't compromise, or act in good faith, it goes to the Courts. I like that system. Fair point about chopping a bigger town in half, like Mission Viejo. That was a negative in my map, and I knew it at the time. It had its compensating virtues however.

And Lewis here are the stats for the NW quadrant of my CA-33 - 54% HVAP - with 210,658 people. And notice I minimized muni chops to boot, which I always try to do, absent a good reason not to. With more chops, I could have got it higher.

[muon2]

You have chopped central city San Diego to bits. You have a few precincts in San Diego there next to the Harbor filled with high income whites in condo towers.  Those should be in the Coronado, Pt. Loma, Ocean Beach, Pacific Beach CD. Why did you dislike my version of San Diego County (other than perhaps the Chula Vista chop, where I followed the commission's lines)?  

I spent some time looking at testimony about neighborhoods in central SD. I kept the neighborhoods together, but just attached them differently. After your comments I looked at MALDEF's border district, and saw that they also kept Chula Vista together and split the waterfront from areas east of I-805, so I assume they wouldn't sue over my map.

I noted your condo precinct in the file you sent, but it was boxed in by Hispanic areas and there was no bridge to connect to Coronado. I dislike water connections without bridges (or ferries) just like mountain connections without roads. I had to either lose the Hispanic areas by the bridge or add the condos to the border district.

On the east side of the county I look quite different, but I think that's because I didn't assume the historical district divide. The main east-west corridors are I-8 and CA-78. So I let CD-52 follow and I-8 until it ran into is the border district, and I let CD-50 follow CA-78. I won't object to a connection from El Cajon to Borrego Springs on someone's map, but getting there from Escondido looks much more natural.

I am sincere about advice for Encinitas. It's either part of a coastal district or it attaches to Escondido. I can make a case either way. It mirrors my choices at the other end of CD-49 in OC where I can hug the coast or shoot inland.

[Torie]

No, Encinitas is a beach town, and belongs in a coastal CD. On that much, we agree. In both of our maps, it is.

Yes, the trapping Hispanic precinct of 2,200 people needs to be redrawn, or excised from the Hispanic CD, because it traps the condo precinct of 6,500 people. Can you image the difference between the two precincts in actual voters?  I suspect I drew it the way I did, because the Commission did. Absent that, I would have excised the precinct, but what should really happen is that it should be redrawn.



You may have kept neighborhoods together in central San Diego, but you tri-chopped central San Diego, appending part of it to the suburbs. I don't get that bit at all. What was wrong with my map in that respect? Just what about my CA-53 offends you, putting aside the trapping Hispanic precinct issue? Notice that I used the Miramar Marine Air Station as a natural barrier on its northern end.

[muon2]

You may have kept neighborhoods together in central San Diego, but you tri-chopped central San Diego, appending part of it to the suburbs. I don't get that bit at all. What was wrong with my map in that respect? Just what about my CA-53 offends you, putting aside the trapping Hispanic precinct issue? Notice that I used the Miramar Marine Air Station as a natural barrier on its northern end.

Your map is fine, but I need to start with my assumption that Chula Vista stays together. That means that the area north of MLK and all of Bonita need to leave the Chula Vista district. If just move them in the natural way the downtown SD district is way too big and the El Cajon district is too small.

I noticed that you had chopped a piece of far northern SD onto CD 52 in what seemed like an unusual split. I had already determined that I wanted to try the CA-78 run east, so assembling all the areas between Escondido and Poway into the same district made sense. That meant shifting the CD-52 cut into SD from the northeastern part of the city down to the southeastern part of the city. I found that CD-52 became more compact as well with that shift.

That left the the downtown CD light on population. I didn't want to carve up the Mira Mesa neighborhood north of the base so I took that CD up the coast to Solana Beach. I could let the downtown CD pick up the area just east of Balboa Park and then drop the northerly boundary back to where you had it with the Escondido CD picking up the coastal communities. I do think it's worth thinking about the Escondido CD as an inland district, however.

[muon2]

Torie, I have an LA question on your CD 31 and 34. In the early copy you sent 31 had an HVAP of about 57% and 34 had over 75%. It looks like 31 will have to get over 60 or 61% HVAP to break 50% HCVAP. Did you look at a swap between 31 and 34 at any point?