How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission

[Torie]

After I read the cases, if I am satisfied that a 50% HVAP Riverside CD need not be drawn as a legal imperative, then if to draw it involves as it appears more erosity, it is my opinion that the GOP members should have vetoed it, and that is how I would vote. In other words, in my mind, Riverside is back in play. I might withdraw my gift to the Dems here.   You do the minimum to satisfy the VRA if it otherwise violates appropriate redistricting principles, if it hurts your party.  To me that is rather basic.


My Asian tiger CD has no muni chops at all.

[Sbane]

What is the HVAP number for that 40th district? I think putting Yucaipa into that district really lowers the Hispanic %, but I could be wrong. I think splitting the SBD-Riverside line in the exurban areas is probably a better idea than in the desert. That way you can avoid chopping into LA county and deliver two 50% HVAP districts in SBD and Riverside in addition to the 65% HVAP. Might be worth playing with. I of course hold that the choice I made in including Pomona in the really Hispanic district is the correct one, but not feasible with your algorithm.

[muon2]

What is the HVAP number for that 40th district? I think putting Yucaipa into that district really lowers the Hispanic %, but I could be wrong. I think splitting the SBD-Riverside line in the exurban areas is probably a better idea than in the desert. That way you can avoid chopping into LA county and deliver two 50% HVAP districts in SBD and Riverside in addition to the 65% HVAP. Might be worth playing with. I of course hold that the choice I made in including Pomona in the really Hispanic district is the correct one, but not feasible with your algorithm.

The HVAP for CD-40 is only 36.6% so the HCVAP is probably around 30%. Moving Yucaipa isn't going to get it anywhere near 50%. I already have a fully compliant section 2 district in the county as CD-41, so there is no obligation to try to form CD-40 into an opportunity district.

The problem for me wasn't where to split the SBD-Riverside line, but how to cross the SBD mountains from the north. I don't like crossing them just to grab some population and the piece I grab seems out of place compared to the rest of the high desert district. Keeping more of the eastern desert together seems like a much better fit. My move makes CD-43 more compact as well without changing CD-39 compactness much.

[muon2]

After I read the cases, if I am satisfied that a 50% HVAP Riverside CD need not be drawn as a legal imperative, then if to draw it involves as it appears more erosity, it is my opinion that the GOP members should have vetoed it, and that is how I would vote. In other words, in my mind, Riverside is back in play. I might withdraw my gift to the Dems here.   You do the minimum to satisfy the VRA if it otherwise violates appropriate redistricting principles, if it hurts your party.  To me that is rather basic.


My Asian tiger CD has no muni chops at all.

... except for Montebello.

In the meantime I'll see how smooth I can make a Riverside district. I'm still concerned that Riverside meets the Gingles test and something will have to be done there to answer to the VRA.

[Torie]

After I read the cases, if I am satisfied that a 50% HVAP Riverside CD need not be drawn as a legal imperative, then if to draw it involves as it appears more erosity, it is my opinion that the GOP members should have vetoed it, and that is how I would vote. In other words, in my mind, Riverside is back in play. I might withdraw my gift to the Dems here.  You do the minimum to satisfy the VRA if it otherwise violates appropriate redistricting principles, if it hurts your party.  To me that is rather basic.


My Asian tiger CD has no muni chops at all.

... except for Montebello.

In the meantime I'll see how smooth I can make a Riverside district. I'm still concerned that Riverside meets the Gingles test and something will have to be done there to answer to the VRA.

Yes, one precinct. I forgot that one.  "Answering the VRA" means a current legal mandate, and it appears that there is none for a mere 50% HVAP CD based on our chat. Moreover, since the 9th Circuit decision interpreted Gingles, it is the law, unless Bartlett changed it. Did Bartlett change it? I suggest not, although Kennedy as is sometimes his wont, when not grandiloquent, can be vague and imprecise. For example from Bartlett we have this schizophrenic gem. Given the policy thrust of the prose, as to whether at least theoretically, a minority if unanimous can elect they own candidate without anyone else's help, I see nothing that reverses the 9th circuit decision, and indeed it kind of goes there itself.  

"Unlike any of the standards proposed to allow crossover-district claims, the majority-minority rule relies on an objective, numerical test: Do minorities make up more than 50 percent of the voting-age population in the relevant geographic area? That rule provides straightforward guidance to courts and to those officials charged with drawing district lines to comply with § 2. See LULAC, supra, at 485 (opinion of SOUTER, J.) (recognizing need for "clear-edged rule"). Where an election district could be drawn in which minority voters form a majority but such a district is not drawn, or where a majority-minority district is cracked by assigning some voters elsewhere, then — assuming the other Gingles factors are also satisfied — denial of the opportunity to elect a candidate of choice is a present and discernible wrong that is not subject to the high degree of speculation and prediction attendant upon the analysis of crossover claims. Not an arbitrary invention, the majority-minority rule has its foundation in principles of democratic governance. The special significance, in the democratic process, of a majority means it is a special wrong when a minority group has 50 percent or more of the voting population AND could constitute a compact voting majority but, despite racially polarized bloc voting, that group is not put into a district. [*1246]" (emphasis added)

You see, the thrust here is 50% VAP, that is also 50% voting VAP, or at least eligible to vote, to wit, CVAP. Kennedy while  bouncing erratically in his prose  from population to voters, when he gets down to brass tacks refers to a "compact voting majority." "Voting majority" means "voting majority." not voting age population majority. In other words, folks not eligible to vote don't count. They ain't voters. How can you have a "voting majority," if it is illegal for you to vote?

Kennedy is just a mess isn't it - and in more ways than one.

The 50% HVAP CD in Riverside is dead in my map, unless you think I missed something Mike. The Romero 9th circuit decision is still the governing law, interpreting Gingles, without dilution. Sure drawing a 50% HVAP CD would be legal, but given that it violates other redistricting principles, e.g. going down to Perris, and f's the Pubbies, it needs to be vetoed. Why on earth would the Pubs vote for it? And doesn't it violate your own good redistricting principles, which are while more mechanistic than mine, similar to mine, which is that you do erosity and chops to and only to the extent the VRA demands it? And surely it is not appropriate to alter the shape of CD's on the assumption that  Romero will be reversed (highly unlikely it appears from Kennedy's Bartlett prose) is it?

[muon2]

After I read the cases, if I am satisfied that a 50% HVAP Riverside CD need not be drawn as a legal imperative, then if to draw it involves as it appears more erosity, it is my opinion that the GOP members should have vetoed it, and that is how I would vote. In other words, in my mind, Riverside is back in play. I might withdraw my gift to the Dems here.  You do the minimum to satisfy the VRA if it otherwise violates appropriate redistricting principles, if it hurts your party.  To me that is rather basic.


My Asian tiger CD has no muni chops at all.

... except for Montebello.

In the meantime I'll see how smooth I can make a Riverside district. I'm still concerned that Riverside meets the Gingles test and something will have to be done there to answer to the VRA.

Yes, one precinct. I forgot that one.  "Answering the VRA" means a current legal mandate, and it appears that there is none for a mere 50% HVAP CD based on our chat. Moreover, since the 9th Circuit decision interpreted Gingles, it is the law, unless Bartlett changed it. Did Bartlett change it? I suggest not, although Kennedy as is sometimes his wont, when not grandiloquent, can be vague and imprecise. For example from Bartlett we have this schizophrenic gem. Given the policy thrust of the prose, as to whether at least theoretically, a minority if unanimous can elect they own candidate without anyone else's help, I see nothing that reverses the 9th circuit decision, and indeed it kind of goes there itself.  

"Unlike any of the standards proposed to allow crossover-district claims, the majority-minority rule relies on an objective, numerical test: Do minorities make up more than 50 percent of the voting-age population in the relevant geographic area? That rule provides straightforward guidance to courts and to those officials charged with drawing district lines to comply with § 2. See LULAC, supra, at 485 (opinion of SOUTER, J.) (recognizing need for "clear-edged rule"). Where an election district could be drawn in which minority voters form a majority but such a district is not drawn, or where a majority-minority district is cracked by assigning some voters elsewhere, then — assuming the other Gingles factors are also satisfied — denial of the opportunity to elect a candidate of choice is a present and discernible wrong that is not subject to the high degree of speculation and prediction attendant upon the analysis of crossover claims. Not an arbitrary invention, the majority-minority rule has its foundation in principles of democratic governance. The special significance, in the democratic process, of a majority means it is a special wrong when a minority group has 50 percent or more of the voting population AND could constitute a compact voting majority but, despite racially polarized bloc voting, that group is not put into a district. [*1246]" (emphasis added)

You see, the thrust here is 50% VAP, that is also 50% voting VAP, or at least eligible to vote, to wit, CVAP. Kennedy while  bouncing erratically in his prose  from population to voters, when he gets down to brass tacks refers to a "compact voting majority." "Voting majority" means "voting majority." not voting age population majority. In other words, folks not eligible to vote don't count. They ain't voters. How can you have a "voting majority," if it is illegal for you to vote?

Kennedy is just a mess isn't it - and in more ways than one.

The 50% HVAP CD in Riverside is dead in my map, unless you think I missed something Mike. The Romero 9th circuit decision is still the governing law, interpreting Gingles, without dilution. Sure drawing a 50% HVAP CD would be legal, but given that it violates other redistricting principles, e.g. going down to Perris, and f's the Pubbies, it needs to be vetoed. Why on earth would the Pubs vote for it? And doesn't it violate your own good redistricting principles, which are while more mechanistic than mine, similar to mine, which is that you do erosity and chops to and only to the extent the VRA demands it? And surely it is not appropriate to alter the shape of CD's on the assumption that  Romero will be reversed (highly unlikely it appears from Kennedy's Bartlett prose) is it?

I've sat through a number of panels listening to legal minds debate this very point. The first part of the citation makes a clear standard as to when Gingles applies. It's 50% VAP, and he says it's to provide "guidance to the courts". The later part is almost a moral statement that decries a "special wrong" that occurs when a district is not formed for the voting population. It doesn't seem to me that that's the clear direction part, and he knew the difference because it's noted elsewhere.

Interestingly, I found that the Pubs on the panels generally argued for the strict VAP definition, while the Dems argued for a CVAP view. Both sides agreed that this question is going back to SCOTUS.

In any case, I again note that the commission did put a 50% VAP district there after citing the Gingles factors at work in Riverside county. I think they actually drew a pretty good district without chops. I missed it due to the mismatch between block group and muni lines. I think I can rework mine to look nice and meet my reading that the first part is the directive. I can't fault you if you read the other part as controlling, you are in good company.

[Sbane]

The 50% HVAP CD in Riverside is dead in my map, unless you think I missed something Mike. The Romero 9th circuit decision is still the governing law, interpreting Gingles, without dilution. Sure drawing a 50% HVAP CD would be legal, but given that it violates other redistricting principles, e.g. going down to Perris, and f's the Pubbies, it needs to be vetoed. Why on earth would the Pubs vote for it? And doesn't it violate your own good redistricting principles, which are while more mechanistic than mine, similar to mine, which is that you do erosity and chops to and only to the extent the VRA demands it? And surely it is not appropriate to alter the shape of CD's on the assumption that  Romero will be reversed (highly unlikely it appears from Kennedy's Bartlett prose) is it?

My map in Riverside is actually what we drew earlier. When did you decide to change it and go towards the commission's version? I drew two districts in the IE which were 50% Hispanic for the total population and of course the VRA district. And both those were with minimal muni chops, and the Riverside district just looked so perfect. I think what I have drawn in the IE (and what you drew before as well) is the right way to go.

[muon2]

Here's my revision for the IE. CD 42 has dropped to 51.2% HVAP, but all the chops are gone except a small part of Riverside city by Woodcrest (at least as far as block groups permit). Torie may note that Laguna Niguel is now apart from Irvine.

[Torie]

Laguna Niguel may be part of Irvine, but separated from Dana Point? LOL. No.

And Kennedy's bloviating is just some unnecessary moral statement in a paragraph setting for the legal standard? No, I think he is telling us that minority voter means voter, not some illegal minority of voting age who isn't a voter. So LOL again really. No, just no. And I don't think the Commission interprets Bartlett as undermining Romero, which has interpreted Gingles for us. So I don't think the Commission itself thinks a 50% VAP Riverside CD is legally necessary. They just did it, to do it, to appease interests hostile to Pub interests, or whatever, with the Pubs asleep at the wheel.

In any event, if giving the Hispanics a 50% VAP pound of flesh (well actually the pound of flesh goes to white Dems, but I digress) does not hurt the Pubs cause by more than a few basis points, and the CD looks as good as yours does (which isn't bad, but still chops the Riverside metro area more in order to race down to distinctly non metro Perris, which is down a canyon and over a hill), I am open to it - provided I get something else in return. I don't give away freebies.

Sbane a fire fight broke out, as to whether a 50% HVAP CD was legally required in Riverside per the VRA. Mike and I went back and forth. I have now decided that it most probably isn't. It really makes no sense. To take an extreme example, just what is the point of drawing a 50% HVAP CD, if all the Hispanics are illegals?  It would be like drawing a CD for convicted felons serving their time who can't vote. That's ludicrous.

[muon2]

Laguna Niguel may be part of Irvine, but separated from Dana Point? LOL. No.

No it's apart from Irvine, but with Dana Point, Laguna Beach and Oceanside. Did I read the map on the app wrong?

[muon2]

In any event, if giving the Hispanics a 50% VAP pound of flesh (well actually the pound of flesh goes to white Dems, but I digress) does not hurt the Pubs cause by more than a few basis points, and the CD looks as good as yours does (which isn't bad, but still chops the Riverside metro area more in order to race down to distinctly non metro Perris, which is down a canyon and over a hill), I am open to it - provided I get something else in return. I don't give away freebies.

OK, so I peeked at the answers, ie the PVIs using your metric. Here's the question, do you want all three Riverside seats? The county as a whole is R+5 by the usual 2008 and 2004 average, but it's only R+2.5 by your metric. Trying to hold all a three district split is a dangerous game. In my map with your metric I get the districts at D+7, R+3 and R+9. I'm curious what your plan gives - does it still split 2-1 or do you get three R+2 or 3 districts?

[muon2]

So I don't think the Commission itself thinks a 50% VAP Riverside CD is legally necessary. They just did it, to do it, to appease interests hostile to Pub interests, or whatever, with the Pubs asleep at the wheel.

Count me as skeptical. The commission district is 50.21% HVAP. They put Lake Matthews with a split in the Riverside CD and left Woodcrest out, even though it has no good connection to the rest of the district. Had they flipped those two communities the HVAP drops below 50%. Hmm, a coincidence? You tell me.

[Torie]

So I don't think the Commission itself thinks a 50% VAP Riverside CD is legally necessary. They just did it, to do it, to appease interests hostile to Pub interests, or whatever, with the Pubs asleep at the wheel.

Count me as skeptical. The commission district is 50.21% HVAP. They put Lake Matthews with a split in the Riverside CD and left Woodcrest out, even though it has no good connection to the rest of the district. Had they flipped those two communities the HVAP drops below 50%. Hmm, a coincidence? You tell me.

No, I think it was done deliberately, but it is not legally necessary, and the Pubs should not have agreed to it. They fumbled the ball.  As to your point above, you having peeked at the PVI's, and I not, as I told you, all things being equal, and here they are more than equal in favor of it, competitive districts are good - not bad. Riverside is snapback country by the way. It is one of the yellow CD's in my chart. The more I learn, the more I think a 50% HVAP CD there is just wrong - from every perspective.

How did you get the Bush numbers by the way? I got them by using the old CD's of course, not the new ones.  Did you manually calculate the actual Bush percentages for the new CD's?

I will not have time to put up my matrix chart until this weekend, and I need to revisit LA county, although I doubt that will change anything much, as a partisan matter.

Using the McCain-Bush averages is just a bad idea for CA, after looking at the 2010 Senate race. In much of CA there is a real trend to the Dems as I noted above, and in other places, not.

And no, I don't like the north LA county CD chopping into the City of Los Angeles, moving down a canyon with no people, and over some hills. It doesn't even save a county chop does it (which in your metric trumps muni chops, even grotesque ones, apparently)?

However, it is all good. You have your map, and I have mine, and we can compare both in a matrix chart to the Commission's product, and decide what happened in sensitive areas, and maybe even secure an interview with one of the Pub Commissioners. Hopefully however, we can get a bit closer, but it doesn't look like that is going to happen much.   At the end of the day, I will list the areas where I disagree with you, and why in one place, for you to largely ignore, which has been the pattern so far. I feel just so inadequate as a lawyer here. It is as if I can't even persuade my dog to let me pet him.

[Torie]

Here is my LA County fix. It's sad that my home turf of Silverlake had "Baja Silverlake" (yes, that is what it is called south of Sunset) severed from it along with its SE corner, but such is life. It could not be helped after CA-30 had to recede a bit to take indirectly some of the territory lost to my old CA-33 on the Westside, and sadly the Asians around Koreatown, got chopped too (but at least it was between rich and poor mostly, despite my best efforts), but yes, it is a better map. Hey, San Pedro is totally united now - isn't that grand? I will revisit Merced, and see if I can unite it, by having the Hispanic CD lose more of Fresno, and then I think I am close to done (well after looking at San Diego one more time, and seeing what the implications are of getting rid of the Chula Vista chop - and no I am not going to chop inner city San Diego to bits either - that is not an option). Oh, and I need to restore my Riverside CD to its former compact metro Riverside "wholeness." Thanks guys. Cheers.

[Sbane]

Here is my LA County fix. It's sad that my home turf of Silverlake had "Baja Silverlake" (yes, that is what it is called south of Sunset) severed from it along with its SE corner, but such is life. It could not be helped after CA-30 had to recede a bit to take indirectly some of the territory lost to my old CA-33 on the Westside, and sadly the Asians around Koreatown, got chopped too (but at least it was between rich and poor mostly, despite my best efforts), but yes, it is a better map. Hey, San Pedro is totally united now - isn't that grand? I will revisit Merced, and see if I can unite it, by having the Hispanic CD lose more of Fresno, and then I think I am close to done (well after looking at San Diego one more time, and seeing what the implications are of getting rid of the Chula Vista chop - and no I am not going to chop inner city San Diego to bits either - that is not an option). Oh, and I need to restore my Riverside CD to its former compact metro Riverside "wholeness." Thanks guys. Cheers.

That looks so much better! What is the Black and Latino VAP for the 33rd? You did the right thing putting all of San Pedro into the 33rd and getting it out of the 36th. You also didn't Santa Monica or Culver City. Gardena (I think it's Gardena?) seems to be split but that is probably due to racial reasons.

[Torie]

Here's my revision for the IE. CD 42 has dropped to 51.2% HVAP, but all the chops are gone except a small part of Riverside city by Woodcrest (at least as far as block groups permit). Torie may note that Laguna Niguel is now apart from Irvine.

I see you  chopped the BIG city of San Bernadino in half Mike. Nice Pub gerry!  

[Sbane]

Here's my revision for the IE. CD 42 has dropped to 51.2% HVAP, but all the chops are gone except a small part of Riverside city by Woodcrest (at least as far as block groups permit). Torie may note that Laguna Niguel is now apart from Irvine.

I see you  chopped the BIG city of San Bernadino in half Mike. Nice Pub gerry! 

Yes, I much prefer our version of the IE (once you fix your Riverside district back to it's original glory). It makes for two Hispanic influence districts in the IE, and the Riverside district becomes more logical.

[Torie]

I am at the office now, and  don't have access to my data base, but  CA-33 is something like 67% or 69% HVAP, and 15% BVAP I think.

[muon2]

Here's my revision for the IE. CD 42 has dropped to 51.2% HVAP, but all the chops are gone except a small part of Riverside city by Woodcrest (at least as far as block groups permit). Torie may note that Laguna Niguel is now apart from Irvine.

I see you  chopped the BIG city of San Bernadino in half Mike. Nice Pub gerry! 

Yes I write that off in the same category as the splits of Fresno and Bakersfield - the VRA made me do it. And I've checked that my Chino Hills split really does reduce county chops by one. I also need advice to get a better handle on Riverside PVI's. What would you suggest if all I have in the app are 2008 Pres and 2010 Gov?

BTW, this is area is my counterexample to your distaste for my passage from Santa Clarita into north LA. Why is that bad, when you so willingly make what my eyes see as the same sort of passage across the SBD mountains to get the Yucaipa area? I make the former hop but it lets me avoid the latter hop. Isn't that an even trade?

Speaking of LAC, I have taken your advice to reduce some muni splits on the Asian district. My split of Chino Hills required the addition of parts of West Covina. But I noticed that you had a chop of El Monte that I could eliminate by increasing my West Covina chop. We both have a Pomona chop, so I think that puts me with only one additional chop (Chino Hills) compared to your plan. The whole shift only costs me 0.1% so the AVAP is 51.9%.

[Torie]

Oh, I got rid of my El Monte chop long ago. The only chop for the red tiger is that one precinct in Montebello to equalize population. I also don't like the Chino Hills chop or an OC district going there. That is just too cute by half. Don't worry. The balance of Chino Hills has construction activity going on again, and you know who whom it is designed, with fancy mother-in-laws quarters with its own entrance and separate small kitchen? You guessed it - Asians!

Yucaipa v Chatsworth?  First, two wrongs don't make a right. Second going down the connector road from Big Bear to the valley to nip off a couple of whole towns, to which they often go to shop and stuff not available up on the mountain, is not the same thing as chopping San Bernadino in half.  Surely you know there is zero chance any commission would ever agree to that. I also doubt you would get much support for moving into LA City to an area unconnected with Santa Clarita. No my CA-25 should go north precisely where I sent it. It is by far superior, and the only sensible chop. The rest all suck really. This is a case where you need to throw your computer program out of the window, and that little parameter that putting aside the VRA, county chops are always worse than an extra muni chop, or a county chop to put together munis that belong together (our little Silicon Valley disagreement).

For that matter, when I get finished (well when I think I am finished, until the next complaint comes along ), I will send you my data file, and perhaps you can do the same for me, although I can't seem to reopen anything with a block data base, after I do my first save of it.

I see from my map, that I may have to play with my northern end of CA-33 a tad. I think I see an extra muni chop there that is unnecessary. A couple of three of the  munis up there have these odd little shapes, which is kind of irritating.  So I need to pay with it a little bit, while minimizing erosity.

[muon2]

Oh, I got rid of my El Monte chop long ago. The only chop for the red tiger is that one precinct in Montebello to equalize population. I also don't like the Chino Hills chop or an OC district going there. That is just too cute by half. Don't worry. The balance of Chino Hills has construction activity going on again, and you know who whom it is designed, with fancy mother-in-laws quarters with its own entrance and separate small kitchen? You guessed it - Asians!

Yucaipa v Chatsworth?  First, two wrongs don't make a right. Second going down the connector road from Big Bear to the valley to nip off a couple of whole towns, to which they often go to shop and stuff not available up on the mountain, is not the same thing as chopping San Bernadino in half.  Surely you know there is zero chance any commission would ever agree to that. I also doubt you would get much support for moving into LA City to an area unconnected with Santa Clarita. No my CA-25 should go north precisely where I sent it. It is by far superior, and the only sensible chop. The rest all suck really. This is a case where you need to throw your computer program out of the window, and that little parameter that putting aside the VRA, county chops are always worse than an extra muni chop, or a county chop to put together munis that belong together (our little Silicon Valley disagreement).

For that matter, when I get finished (well when I think I am finished, until the next complaint comes along ), I will send you my data file, and perhaps you can do the same for me, although I can't seem to reopen anything with a block data base, after I do my first save of it.

I see from my map, that I may have to play with my northern end of CA-33 a tad. I think I see an extra muni chop there that is unnecessary. A couple of three of the  munis up there have these odd little shapes, which is kind of irritating.  So I need to pay with it a little bit, while minimizing erosity.

I can respect your priorities to go with what some of the public see as communities of interest and use that to place muni integrity ahead of county lines. My more detached view is to look at factors that are harder to be manipulated. We can agree to disagree here.

It's interesting looking at the commission's maps, and what they were willing to vote for. For instance they did come into LA from Santa Clarita with what seems a far worse chop than I used, and that solely so they could hop to Simi Valley. So that kind of LA chop has received votes from commissioners.

Likewise, putting Chino Hills with northern OC is what the commission did as part of a larger tri-county district. Of course they didn't split it, but made a split of Upland that seems inconsistent with so many other borders they carefully followed. I'm not convinced it was the only way out, but they certainly voted for it.

We should swap files at some point, I was going off your old work when I thought El Monte was still cut, and my screen resolution didn't reveal the change. My bad. Meanwhile, I've done a major cleanup on my south LA area. I reduced the chops into Long Beach, kept the Torrance district out of the LA city corridor, and kept Gardena whole so only Hawthorne is split in that area.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I always figured Morgan Hill was named after the prominent hill next to the town, but apparently that's called El Toro, not Morgan Hill. Now I know.

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.

Ideally a chop of Cupertino wouldn't be necessary, but if it is, that's where it should be. I like sbane's idea of putting Mountain View in with the 15th in exchange for Cupertino and Almaden. That knob in the westernmost part of San Jose that juts out south of Cupertino and north of Saratoga is where I live; if all of Cupertino and Saratoga are to be in one district, that part of San Jose should be there also.

It's interesting that sbane's suggestion would essentially make one district running along 280 and 85 and another more generally aligned with 101. I think that makes sense.

Sorry I'm coming late to this thread (and this post)..but since I live in the same general area as Xahar, I thought I'd respond.

If I were redistricting this particular area, I'd try to get as much of northern Mountain View and Sunnyvale running along 101 with Santa Clara as possible, but would include Downtown and much of East San Jose in that district, too. Then, I would connect Evergreen in the East with much of South San Jose (similar demographics) and Los Gatos, maybe some of West San Jose and Campbell in there too. Finally, I would put Saratoga, Cupertino, and the southern half of Sunnyvale in the same district as Los Altos and southern Mountain View.

Those are my (very rough) thoughts right now, feel free to comment.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Here is my LA County fix. It's sad that my home turf of Silverlake had "Baja Silverlake" (yes, that is what it is called south of Sunset) severed from it along with its SE corner, but such is life. It could not be helped after CA-30 had to recede a bit to take indirectly some of the territory lost to my old CA-33 on the Westside, and sadly the Asians around Koreatown, got chopped too (but at least it was between rich and poor mostly, despite my best efforts), but yes, it is a better map. Hey, San Pedro is totally united now - isn't that grand? I will revisit Merced, and see if I can unite it, by having the Hispanic CD lose more of Fresno, and then I think I am close to done (well after looking at San Diego one more time, and seeing what the implications are of getting rid of the Chula Vista chop - and no I am not going to chop inner city San Diego to bits either - that is not an option). Oh, and I need to restore my Riverside CD to its former compact metro Riverside "wholeness." Thanks guys. Cheers.

Not very familiar with the LA area, but...what are the demographics of that area in the San Fernando Valley (or approximately) where a bunch of districts "meet"?

[muon2]

Oh, I got rid of my El Monte chop long ago. The only chop for the red tiger is that one precinct in Montebello to equalize population. I also don't like the Chino Hills chop or an OC district going there. That is just too cute by half. Don't worry. The balance of Chino Hills has construction activity going on again, and you know who whom it is designed, with fancy mother-in-laws quarters with its own entrance and separate small kitchen? You guessed it - Asians!

We should swap files at some point, I was going off your old work when I thought El Monte was still cut, and my screen resolution didn't reveal the change. My bad. Meanwhile, I've done a major cleanup on my south LA area. I reduced the chops into Long Beach, kept the Torrance district out of the LA city corridor, and kept Gardena whole so only Hawthorne is split in that area.

OK I'm looking at your image and I do still see an El Monte chop in te SW corner. Am I going blind from staring at too many of these maps?

[Torie]

Oh my bad, I was thinking of Monterey Park where I got rid of a chop, and forgot the one into El Monte. That one is a population equalizer too. I suppose there is a way to try to figure out how to get it down to one, by CA-32 taking two precincts in Montebello, and losing the one in El Monte, if the chock can be slightly turned without creating another chop.

OK, all fixed now. I got lucky. I found a crossover precinct, this one, , to make up the shortfall (and should have been in CA-32 anyway, because more of the population lives in its southern portion), and that made it easy.   Otherwise it's tough, because so many of the lines are hard, that the clock cannot be turned really. Just for full disclosure, my CA-32 to 50.3% AVAP. Oh the horror, the horror, Mike beat me - yet again, in the racial spoils game!  

I also fixed up the northern end of CA-33.