how effective would a San Diego dempack be?

[freepcrusher]

The brown district gave Brown 69 percent of the vote in 2010 and would be Filner's seat and since he's giving his seat up for mayor, it would probably elect a borderline socialist such as himself

The red district only gave Brown 51 percent of the vote and could be won by an RMSP type.

Assuming the other three SD districts stay the same, how would this hold up?

[muon2]

Are you splitting the connection to Imperial?

[freepcrusher]

Are you splitting the connection to Imperial?

yes, Imperial would be in the Hunter district, which it was in the 80s and 90s.

[muon2]

The map I posted in the wine country thread might be better for your goals without trying.



CA 53 is 65.5% HVAP and voted 59.5% for Brown, and it includes Imperial but none of SD city. CA 52 is SD city plus Coronado and voted 61.2% for Brown. The rest of SD city is in CD 50 which was 45.4% Brown, while the eastern suburbs are in CD 51 which was 38.3% Brown.

That's a pretty firm split of the districts between the two parties.

Edit: I think I read your OP backwards. I was thinking you wanted to insure two solid D and you were going the other way to one D.

[Senator Napoleon]

Yeah but he is asking if Dems would be limited to just one San Diego area seat in his map. I say no, 51% Brown is probably 58% Obama or so down there. Likely Dem. Muon your map is a safer R choice, but not as cutthroat in maximizing opportunities.

[Torie]

Yeah but he is asking if Dems would be limited to just one San Diego area seat in his map. I say no, 51% Brown is probably 58% Obama or so down there. Likely Dem. Muon your map is a safer R choice, but not as cutthroat in maximizing opportunities.

It is hard to be too excited by it all, since the odds that there will ever be a GOP gerrymander in CA are effectively zero.

[Senator Napoleon]

I have drawn a solid pubmander for CA. The thing about Hispanics is, they are very Dem, but very poor at turning out (or, unable to, for other reasons). Obviously, it stretches the whole CoI thing to its extremes.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Of course the other people who live in areas where Hispanics do in California tend not to be Republicans except for the Central Valley, where you'd run into some VRA issues trying to dilute the vote. I suppose there's lots of Hispanics in Orange County, but they're not in the same areas as the most solidly Republican ones.

[freepcrusher]

also, which district of mine would contain the gay precincts? I've heard SD, for a city its size, has a decent sized gay population.

[Senator Napoleon]

Of course the other people who live in areas where Hispanics do in California tend not to be Republicans except for the Central Valley, where you'd run into some VRA issues trying to dilute the vote. I suppose there's lots of Hispanics in Orange County, but they're not in the same areas as the most solidly Republican ones.

Both Sanchez sisters could be eliminated, for example.

[Simfan34]

I have drawn a solid pubmander for CA. The thing about Hispanics is, they are very Dem, but very poor at turning out (or, unable to, for other reasons). Obviously, it stretches the whole CoI thing to its extremes.

Could we see this?

[Torie]

Of course the other people who live in areas where Hispanics do in California tend not to be Republicans except for the Central Valley, where you'd run into some VRA issues trying to dilute the vote. I suppose there's lots of Hispanics in Orange County, but they're not in the same areas as the most solidly Republican ones.

Both Sanchez sisters could be eliminated, for example.

That would be extremely difficult with the VRA in place. But it may be possible to make the OC CD rather marginal.  The VRA is not the Pub's friend in CA, and in general when it comes to Hispanics. The Pubs would probably prefer the VRA be limited to blacks.

[Senator Sbane]

Of course the other people who live in areas where Hispanics do in California tend not to be Republicans except for the Central Valley, where you'd run into some VRA issues trying to dilute the vote. I suppose there's lots of Hispanics in Orange County, but they're not in the same areas as the most solidly Republican ones.

Both Sanchez sisters could be eliminated, for example.

That would be extremely difficult with the VRA in place. But it may be possible to make the OC CD rather marginal.  The VRA is not the Pub's friend in CA, and in general when it comes to Hispanics. The Pubs would probably prefer the VRA be limited to blacks.

Well, you could probably attach Orange and maybe Placentia to Anaheim and split Santa Ana to make a marginal district. The question really is how Hispanic does it have to be without violating the VRA. BTW, a 50% HCVAP is impossible in OC. Too many recent immigrants/illegals.

BTW BRTD, there are plenty of areas in California besides the Central Valley where the non-hispanic population votes Republican. Certain neighborhoods in Garden Grove and Anaheim with a mix of Hispanics and Vietnamese. Some areas of south SD county are possibilities and the biggies of course are Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Lots of Hispanics, and also a ton of Republican whites living in the same neighborhoods. Riverside in particular has many of these neighborhoods.

[Senator Napoleon]

I believe I kept Santa Ana whole- tried not too chop municipalities too much. When I have access to that file, I will upload it. Monday or Tuesday work?

Linda has I think a 56 % Obama district- she would lose to a moderateish Republican but the right Democrat could make it close too.

[freepcrusher]

my idea is to lock in the dem gains in otherwise gop areas. I think they should have drawn a 73% Obama district in San Diego (which is how the brown district above voted); a 61% Obama district in Central Orange County, a 70% Obama district in San Bernardino County, a Riverside County district where he got in the low 60s, a 71% Obama Sacramento seat and a Fresno seat where he got in the mid to high 50s.

[muon2]

Of course the other people who live in areas where Hispanics do in California tend not to be Republicans except for the Central Valley, where you'd run into some VRA issues trying to dilute the vote. I suppose there's lots of Hispanics in Orange County, but they're not in the same areas as the most solidly Republican ones.

Both Sanchez sisters could be eliminated, for example.

That would be extremely difficult with the VRA in place. But it may be possible to make the OC CD rather marginal.  The VRA is not the Pub's friend in CA, and in general when it comes to Hispanics. The Pubs would probably prefer the VRA be limited to blacks.

Well, you could probably attach Orange and maybe Placentia to Anaheim and split Santa Ana to make a marginal district. The question really is how Hispanic does it have to be without violating the VRA. BTW, a 50% HCVAP is impossible in OC. Too many recent immigrants/illegals.

It would take about 69% HVAP to exceed 50% HCVAP. However, if the CD was split and I was a Latino group, I'd take the case to SCOTUS. Even though the 9th Circuit uses CVAP, other circuits look at past electoral performance to determine the necessary minimum to elect candidates of choice. Clearly CA-47 has consistently elected a Latino candidate of choice, so I would put the question to SCOTUS to recognize that 50% HCVAP can be too demanding of a threshold.

[Torie]

Even though the 9th Circuit uses CVAP, other circuits look at past electoral performance to determine the necessary minimum to elect candidates of choice.

Some Circuits use a Section 5 standard in applying Section 2?

[muon2]

Even though the 9th Circuit uses CVAP, other circuits look at past electoral performance to determine the necessary minimum to elect candidates of choice.

Some Circuits use a Section 5 standard in applying Section 2?

The 7th historically uses election data to show the ability of a minority to elect a candidate of choice in section 2 cases. They rejected a MALDEF claim in 2008 that would use a threshold of 65% VAP to model CVAP as arbitrary. In the 2011 IL congressional suit they referenced a benchmark of 59.2% HVAP as that was the number in 1991 IL-4 that has elected the candidate of choice for the last 20 years.

[Torie]

Even though the 9th Circuit uses CVAP, other circuits look at past electoral performance to determine the necessary minimum to elect candidates of choice.

Some Circuits use a Section 5 standard in applying Section 2?

The 7th historically uses election data to show the ability of a minority to elect a candidate of choice in section 2 cases. They rejected a MALDEF claim in 2008 that would use a threshold of 65% VAP to model CVAP as arbitrary. In the 2011 IL congressional suit they referenced a benchmark of 59.2% HVAP as that was the number in 1991 IL-4 that has elected the candidate of choice for the last 20 years.

So we have a circuit courts' trifecta: 50% CVAP, 50% VAP, and ala Section 5, a non bright line psephological analysis in lieu of a specific percentage hurdle. Do I have that right?

[muon2]

Even though the 9th Circuit uses CVAP, other circuits look at past electoral performance to determine the necessary minimum to elect candidates of choice.

Some Circuits use a Section 5 standard in applying Section 2?

The 7th historically uses election data to show the ability of a minority to elect a candidate of choice in section 2 cases. They rejected a MALDEF claim in 2008 that would use a threshold of 65% VAP to model CVAP as arbitrary. In the 2011 IL congressional suit they referenced a benchmark of 59.2% HVAP as that was the number in 1991 IL-4 that has elected the candidate of choice for the last 20 years.

So we have a circuit courts' trifecta: 50% CVAP, 50% VAP, and ala Section 5, a non bright line psephological analysis in lieu of a specific percentage hurdle. Do I have that right?

Yep. At conferences leading up to 2011 this was a frequent observation. The legal experts felt that it was one of the questions most likely to land in SCOTUS' lap.

[Senator Napoleon]

Here is CA-39 with all the numbers. R-Gerry


Someone like Don Knabe, as an example, would probably knock off Linda Sanchez here. It would be typically competitive I imagine.

[Senator Napoleon]

CA-40 and CA-47 here.



This R-Gerry made a few tweaks to the existing map to create a majority R-leaning seats. Sacrificed some safety for opportunity but this is basically a Republican dream map. There may be a few VRA hiccups here and there, CA-47 is 57% Hispanic but Royce's district is only 27% White.

[Senator Sbane]

Here is CA-39 with all the numbers. R-Gerry


Someone like Don Knabe, as an example, would probably knock off Linda Sanchez here. It would be typically competitive I imagine.

Looks like the district voted for Brown? What are the numbers?

[Senator Napoleon]

53-47 Brown (shows in pic )

I would estimate it voted 51-48 or so for John Kerry over George Bush in 2004. Splitting Santa Ana in CA-47 could free up some Republican votes, or packing OC Hispanics in CA-47. CA-46 and CA-42 are both over 60% for Meg.

edit: Take into consideration Meg's under performance in the lower class Hispanic areas of Whittier and Norwalk- Brown actually gets higher percentages than Obama in some of these neighborhoods- I would attribute it to the illegal maid causing some damage to Meg's reputation among recent immigrants/their families that can vote. Who knows if these are the type of people that even vote on the down-ballot races like that. It's probably a D+2.5 or so district.

LA County portion is 58.5 Obama/41.5 McCain.
Orange County portion is 48.5 Obama/51.5 McCain (and 58.2 for Whitman).

[muon2]

Even though the 9th Circuit uses CVAP, other circuits look at past electoral performance to determine the necessary minimum to elect candidates of choice.

Some Circuits use a Section 5 standard in applying Section 2?

The 7th historically uses election data to show the ability of a minority to elect a candidate of choice in section 2 cases. They rejected a MALDEF claim in 2008 that would use a threshold of 65% VAP to model CVAP as arbitrary. In the 2011 IL congressional suit they referenced a benchmark of 59.2% HVAP as that was the number in 1991 IL-4 that has elected the candidate of choice for the last 20 years.

So we have a circuit courts' trifecta: 50% CVAP, 50% VAP, and ala Section 5, a non bright line psephological analysis in lieu of a specific percentage hurdle. Do I have that right?

And if the House were to be successful in deleting the ACS, then there can be no CVAP unless citizenship is asked on the short form in 2020. That would seem to put pro-immigrant groups in a real box, since the fear is that question would suppress responses from a population already prone to undercounts.