How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission

[Torie]

Hey, it got rid of three muni chops in Orange County net, and almost got rid of a chop of Florence in LA County to boot (down to one dangling precinct to the south still in CA-33).  Aren't you proud of me Mike?

My map is now finalized - hopefully.

[Sbane]

My map is now finalized - hopefully.

Well, I don't really approve of you lumping in SJ Hispanics with the middle class district, but you can go ahead with your matrix chart since there are no partisan issues in the Bay Area.

[Sbane]

It's about 15,000 people it looks like? Putting it in and taking out more of San Jose north of Campbell leads to it becoming 45.4%AVAP.

But, as Torie has implied the WCVAP would be significant higher than the ACVAP. WCVAP increases by about 4/3 compared to WVAP. The Latino citizen rates are higher than the Asian rates in that area.

That's fine with me. It's an influence district but really it's mostly a division based on class.

One reason I mixed in Evergreen was to cement the influence. The citizen rate among voting age Asians in the lower valley is less than 80%, but it rises to 94% in Evergreen.

By lower valley do you mean the Asian areas right south of Milpitas? What about the Asian areas along the 101 (so a little farther from the hills) south of 680? Where are you getting this data from?

Similarly the Evergreen and areas south of 680 are in a commission district where the fractional dropoff in the CVAP fraction was much less.

Perhaps that is because the district also contains many Hispanics and so the drop from AVAP to ACVAP is not as great in this district because citizenship rates of Hispanics is even lower.

No the difference is in the Asian rates alone. The northern commission district I mentioned (17) has an ACVAP pop of 145,669 and AVAP pop of 267,863 or 54.3%. The district that includes Evergreen (19) has an ACVAP pop of 102,286 and AVAP pop of 143,387 or 71.3%. The populations are substantially different on their own.

That's pretty interesting but I still don't see any need to racially gerrymander the Silicon Valley. Did the commission find evidence of racially polarized voting? Otherwise I don't see why it would be necessary. If we can draw a rational district and get the Asian population up then that is great. That is what I drew out with your cut in Fremont/Newark. It was 45%AVAP. I don't see why we need to make it even more robust by creating that erose appendage into Evergreen.

[Torie]

My map is now finalized - hopefully.

Well, I don't really approve of you lumping in SJ Hispanics with the middle class district, but you can go ahead with your matrix chart since there are no partisan issues in the Bay Area.

I presume my CA-16 is more bourgeoise than my CA-15.  You disagree?  But yes, it is time to move on So many opinions, so little time.

[Sbane]

My map is now finalized - hopefully.

Well, I don't really approve of you lumping in SJ Hispanics with the middle class district, but you can go ahead with your matrix chart since there are no partisan issues in the Bay Area.

I presume my CA-16 is more bourgeoise than my CA-15.  You disagree?  But yes, it is time to move on So many opinions, so little time.

My problem with your map is that you split the lower middle class/working class area. CA-16 as you have drawn it is not a bourgeoise district. It is a middle class district with some working class areas. And the 15th is another middle class district with the Hispanic areas. I mean, unless your definition of bourgeoise is Westminster and Garden Grove, then no your 16th is not a bourgeoise district.

What I did with the 16th is keep the working class areas together, then append some middle class areas on towards the south end of the east side. And the 15th remains an exclusively middle class district. Anyways, I am tired of this.

[muon2]

It's about 15,000 people it looks like? Putting it in and taking out more of San Jose north of Campbell leads to it becoming 45.4%AVAP.

But, as Torie has implied the WCVAP would be significant higher than the ACVAP. WCVAP increases by about 4/3 compared to WVAP. The Latino citizen rates are higher than the Asian rates in that area.

That's fine with me. It's an influence district but really it's mostly a division based on class.

One reason I mixed in Evergreen was to cement the influence. The citizen rate among voting age Asians in the lower valley is less than 80%, but it rises to 94% in Evergreen.

By lower valley do you mean the Asian areas right south of Milpitas? What about the Asian areas along the 101 (so a little farther from the hills) south of 680? Where are you getting this data from?

Similarly the Evergreen and areas south of 680 are in a commission district where the fractional dropoff in the CVAP fraction was much less.

Perhaps that is because the district also contains many Hispanics and so the drop from AVAP to ACVAP is not as great in this district because citizenship rates of Hispanics is even lower.

No the difference is in the Asian rates alone. The northern commission district I mentioned (17) has an ACVAP pop of 145,669 and AVAP pop of 267,863 or 54.3%. The district that includes Evergreen (19) has an ACVAP pop of 102,286 and AVAP pop of 143,387 or 71.3%. The populations are substantially different on their own.

That's pretty interesting but I still don't see any need to racially gerrymander the Silicon Valley. Did the commission find evidence of racially polarized voting? Otherwise I don't see why it would be necessary. If we can draw a rational district and get the Asian population up then that is great. That is what I drew out with your cut in Fremont/Newark. It was 45%AVAP. I don't see why we need to make it even more robust by creating that erose appendage into Evergreen.

From what I read, the commission didn't look at the question there, and with two significant minority populations it surprises me. They did go ahead and make a 50% AVAP district, similar to mine but with Cupertino instead of Evergreen. My original plan used Cupertino as well, but I didn't like the split of the west side, requiring a road link back to Santa Cruz.

Here's my final revision (I think) to match the Commission's AVAP. There are minor shifts in Fremont and in Evergreen and along the 101.

[Sbane]

It's about 15,000 people it looks like? Putting it in and taking out more of San Jose north of Campbell leads to it becoming 45.4%AVAP.

But, as Torie has implied the WCVAP would be significant higher than the ACVAP. WCVAP increases by about 4/3 compared to WVAP. The Latino citizen rates are higher than the Asian rates in that area.

That's fine with me. It's an influence district but really it's mostly a division based on class.

One reason I mixed in Evergreen was to cement the influence. The citizen rate among voting age Asians in the lower valley is less than 80%, but it rises to 94% in Evergreen.

By lower valley do you mean the Asian areas right south of Milpitas? What about the Asian areas along the 101 (so a little farther from the hills) south of 680? Where are you getting this data from?

Similarly the Evergreen and areas south of 680 are in a commission district where the fractional dropoff in the CVAP fraction was much less.

Perhaps that is because the district also contains many Hispanics and so the drop from AVAP to ACVAP is not as great in this district because citizenship rates of Hispanics is even lower.

No the difference is in the Asian rates alone. The northern commission district I mentioned (17) has an ACVAP pop of 145,669 and AVAP pop of 267,863 or 54.3%. The district that includes Evergreen (19) has an ACVAP pop of 102,286 and AVAP pop of 143,387 or 71.3%. The populations are substantially different on their own.

That's pretty interesting but I still don't see any need to racially gerrymander the Silicon Valley. Did the commission find evidence of racially polarized voting? Otherwise I don't see why it would be necessary. If we can draw a rational district and get the Asian population up then that is great. That is what I drew out with your cut in Fremont/Newark. It was 45%AVAP. I don't see why we need to make it even more robust by creating that erose appendage into Evergreen.

From what I read, the commission didn't look at the question there, and with two significant minority populations it surprises me. They did go ahead and make a 50% AVAP district, similar to mine but with Cupertino instead of Evergreen. My original plan used Cupertino as well, but I didn't like the split of the west side, requiring a road link back to Santa Cruz.

Here's my final revision (I think) to match the Commission's AVAP. There are minor shifts in Fremont and in Evergreen and along the 101.

Well, I still don't agree with the Evergreen split but I will try to work with it. At least remove the parts of the Asian district that crosses the 101 (or US-101 as Xahar might prefer to say) and if possible get it east and south of Capitol Expressway as well. To make up the population you should pick up those areas right south of where your CD-17 stops in Evergreen and pick up the population there up to the 101 and stop there.

[muon2]

From what I read, the commission didn't look at the question there, and with two significant minority populations it surprises me. They did go ahead and make a 50% AVAP district, similar to mine but with Cupertino instead of Evergreen. My original plan used Cupertino as well, but I didn't like the split of the west side, requiring a road link back to Santa Cruz.

Here's my final revision (I think) to match the Commission's AVAP. There are minor shifts in Fremont and in Evergreen and along the 101.

Well, I still don't agree with the Evergreen split but I will try to work with it. At least remove the parts of the Asian district that crosses the 101 (or US-101 as Xahar might prefer to say) and if possible get it east and south of Capitol Expressway as well. To make up the population you should pick up those areas right south of where your CD-17 stops in Evergreen and pick up the population there up to the 101 and stop there.

The area across 101 is 58% AVAP. The area south of my border in Evergreen drops to 37% AVAP, so that doesn't work. I could take a small area in SJ between Santa Clara and I-280, but that doesn't strike me as all that attractive. I am able to chop up Fremont with some more erosity and meet my goals in the map below. Let me know if that is more acceptable.

[muon2]

This is my updated map for the Bakersfield region. I followed Torie's lead and reduced the muni splits to Bakersfield and Tulare. I kept the HVAP at 65.2% (down from my previous 65.3%). That's the minimum in that area that still gives 50% HCVAP, needed as this is a section 5 and section 2 area.

[Torie]

This is my updated map for the Bakersfield region. I followed Torie's lead and reduced the muni splits to Bakersfield and Tulare. I kept the HVAP at 65.2% (down from my previous 65.3%). That's the minimum in that area that still gives 50% HCVAP, needed as this is a section 5 and section 2 area.

Is 65.2% based on something real, or just Maldef yammering? If it is real, I need to find 30 Hispanic basis points somewhere, probably involving another chop. This is a very interesting CD, by the way, but I digress.

[muon2]

This is my updated map for the Bakersfield region. I followed Torie's lead and reduced the muni splits to Bakersfield and Tulare. I kept the HVAP at 65.2% (down from my previous 65.3%). That's the minimum in that area that still gives 50% HCVAP, needed as this is a section 5 and section 2 area.

Is 65.2% based on something real, or just Maldef yammering? If it is real, I need to find 30 Hispanic basis points somewhere, probably involving another chop. This is a very interesting CD, by the way, but I digress.

That's the factor I get from MALDEF's table. I've checked their HVAP to HCVAP in other districts and it matches the commission's tables. They probably have the same data set for CVAP. I used MALDEF here because their district is much closer to the shape and area of ours.

[Sbane]

From what I read, the commission didn't look at the question there, and with two significant minority populations it surprises me. They did go ahead and make a 50% AVAP district, similar to mine but with Cupertino instead of Evergreen. My original plan used Cupertino as well, but I didn't like the split of the west side, requiring a road link back to Santa Cruz.

Here's my final revision (I think) to match the Commission's AVAP. There are minor shifts in Fremont and in Evergreen and along the 101.

Well, I still don't agree with the Evergreen split but I will try to work with it. At least remove the parts of the Asian district that crosses the 101 (or US-101 as Xahar might prefer to say) and if possible get it east and south of Capitol Expressway as well. To make up the population you should pick up those areas right south of where your CD-17 stops in Evergreen and pick up the population there up to the 101 and stop there.

The area across 101 is 58% AVAP. The area south of my border in Evergreen drops to 37% AVAP, so that doesn't work. I could take a small area in SJ between Santa Clara and I-280, but that doesn't strike me as all that attractive. I am able to chop up Fremont with some more erosity and meet my goals in the map below. Let me know if that is more acceptable.

Yes, the area across the 101 is pretty Asian but lower middle class or working class. The areas within Capitol expressway are similar and it would be better if you substituted them for those more affluent areas to the south of the appendage. How far would it drop the AVAP? And it's not as if you have to stick to any specific number since the VRA is not involved here.

[muon2]

From what I read, the commission didn't look at the question there, and with two significant minority populations it surprises me. They did go ahead and make a 50% AVAP district, similar to mine but with Cupertino instead of Evergreen. My original plan used Cupertino as well, but I didn't like the split of the west side, requiring a road link back to Santa Cruz.

Well, I still don't agree with the Evergreen split but I will try to work with it. At least remove the parts of the Asian district that crosses the 101 (or US-101 as Xahar might prefer to say) and if possible get it east and south of Capitol Expressway as well. To make up the population you should pick up those areas right south of where your CD-17 stops in Evergreen and pick up the population there up to the 101 and stop there.

The area across 101 is 58% AVAP. The area south of my border in Evergreen drops to 37% AVAP, so that doesn't work. I could take a small area in SJ between Santa Clara and I-280, but that doesn't strike me as all that attractive. I am able to chop up Fremont with some more erosity and meet my goals in the map below. Let me know if that is more acceptable.

Yes, the area across the 101 is pretty Asian but lower middle class or working class. The areas within Capitol expressway are similar and it would be better if you substituted them for those more affluent areas to the south of the appendage. How far would it drop the AVAP? And it's not as if you have to stick to any specific number since the VRA is not involved here.

I think I already have some working class areas by including Newark, so including the area within the Capitol Expy doesn't seem out of place. I understand that the VRA may not be involved, but I would feel more secure if the commission had made that finding. They didn't and they went ahead with a 50% AVAP district. I've taken a cautious approach in making VRA-related decisions, so I'm going to continue that approach here as well.

[Torie]

Since I know everyone is breathlessly waiting for the matrix chart, I thought I would give you a preview.

Did the Commission screw the Pubs?  Well assuming you believe my(our) map was an honest attempt to draw something in tune with non-Partisan redistricting principles, then at least as to Norcal, the answer is well - F no!  

The column "Diff Comm PVI %" tells the tale. It is mostly in soothing earth-tones (more kind to the Pubs than my (our) map), including an extra 40 critical Pub basis points in the swing CD in the eastern Sacto suburbs (new CA-07), and in Stanislaus County (new CA-10). The one big oddity, because the Comm drew the north coast so odd, is that while the north coast CA-05 (old CA-01) slips from lean Dem to solid Dem, the Solano based CD (CA-03 - old CA-07), goes from solid Dem in my(our) map to but lean Dem, with the exchange giving the Pubs 1 percentage point net. I extra bolded and patterned the two cells to highlight the switch out. And the frosting on the cake is that old CA-11, now CA-09  (which was a major focus of the newspaper article where the Dems allegedly gamed the Commission), is well, 2.7 Pub points more GOP than in my (our) map. Fancy that.

So now we go on to SoCal, to see what the Commission wrought.

Facts matter don't they?  Facts are our friends.

[muon2]

It took a while, but I can now compare the two alternatives to the Commission's map. DRA only has the 2008 Pres and 2010 Sen data, and I wanted to build PVI's to compare the three plans to a known standard. I took the 2001 map and created PVIs using Atlas data to form a 2008 baseline for each area of the state. The two-party Dem base line varied from 52.1% in SF to 57.4% in Anaheim.

Then I matched up the plan districts to the core areas, so I could use an appropriate baseline to get a PVI. The long step was constructing the Commission's plan in DRA so I could compare it with our two plans. For each plan I counted the number of strong (PVI 6+), lean (PVI 2-5) and even (PVI 0-1) districts. As with other states I can get a partisan differential counting lean as half a point.

Commission: 27 SD, 9 LD, 1 E, 5 LR, 11 SR; Partisan differential +18.
Torie: 27 SD, 7 LD, 3 E, 4 LR, 12 SR; Partisan differential +16.5.
Muon2: 29 SD, 4 LD, 2 E, 8 LR, 10 SR; Partisan differential +17.

Based on the state PVI, an ideal fair map would be +8 and have 14 seats either lean or even. All three plans are suitably competitive, and one can see that the ideal partisan fairness isn't achieved due to the spread of Pubs across the state in a way that resists grouping in districts without gerrymandering (think MA as the extreme example). For reference, the bipartisan gerrymander in place now is +14.5, so any of these plans is more Dem by comparison.

[Torie]

I wish the DRA had the 2010 Senate data, but alas it has only the Gubernatorial data, which is largely useless.

And yes, overall, the Commission's plan was hardly a Dem hatchet job. The task is to zoom down, and see if in some instances, the work of the Commission can be criticized, and whether the Pubs took a punch that they could have just said no to. Riverside is one such instance, but that has the VRA issue in play, so there, the issue is why given the Commission's point of view was to not go beyond what the VRA demanded (which is in fact the law), just why did it in Riverside given the controlling Romero 9th Circuit decision, that makes clear you don't have to draw a CD that you would not otherwise draw to get up to 50% HVAP. So that CD will be on my list. I think my map of the SD area is the only reasonable one to draw (it just "works" so well), so if the Bilbray CD is more Dem, that would be added to the list too. And then there is the Ventura CD, and the San Bernadino CD to look at. The Chu CD is a disgrace in the Commission map, but that CD however drawn, is barely within reach of the Pubs anyway.

[Sbane]

Yes, the Riverside district and the Ventura district are the only ones that look a little suspicious to me. The San Bernardino district not really. That is what I drew and what you drew too I thought. It can't be more than a point here or there. But in the Riverside and Ventura districts, about 4-5 points were taken from the pubbies. In Ventura it was accomplished by cutting the Kern-LA county line, which is why I was so adamant against it earlier.

[muon2]

SD will be an interesting case study. SD + Imperial have a PVI of nearly 0. Together the population is 244 K less than 5 CDs and there are a number of identifiable interests that can be grouped together. Such an even starting point lends itself to different political results. Here's how we did on the 5 CDs.

The commission has R+5, R+15, D+11, D+1, D+8. Total R+0.
Torie has R+11, R+11, D+8, D+1, D+10. Total R+3.
Muon2 has R+5, R+10, D+8, D+8, R+3. Total R+2.

As a partisan on the commission, do you push for one of these outcomes over the others? Can you know the political tendencies? The total PVI for the five districts depends on the areas added. The third district on the above lists is potentially VRA, so do you push for a certain type of VRA district to help the surrounding ones?