How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission

[Torie]

Wait a minute.  The 50% HVAP rule that is an interpretation of Bartlett, rejected by the 9th circuit, which rejection the Commission sometimes followed, but not in Riverside.  Isn't that inconsistent?  Is there some case law, that you have to draw a 50% HVAP CD if it is compact enough, or a 50% HCVAP CD, if it is compact enough, whichever is greater?  One of course can speculate that the 9th Circuit is wrong, but for the moment it is governing law in CA.

The reason I ask, is that getting Riverside up to 50% HVAP violates other appropriate rules of redistricting in my view (at least in my map), and therefore, if no governing case law really supports the whichever is greater test, in my opinion, it is the Pubs job on the Commission to vote against a 50% HVAP CD in Riverside, if it creates more erosity, and hurts their cause, which it does here.

Yes, Lewis, if the Hispanic CD in LA County is to be moved west, that old CA-33 NW prong needs to go if at all possible. That is one of my goals. Hey, maybe it will bring the Beach Cities CD back into play - albeit remotely.

Mike, did you draw one more Hispanic CD in LA County now than I did (keeping CA-33 albeit elsewhere, and then drawing yet another from the northern part of CA-37?  Did you draw one more than the Commission did? If you drew two more, are they both 50% HCVAP - using the 63% HVAP proxy? What was the case again where you said it was 61.5% HVAP? Was that just in Fresno? Why was Fresno special again? 

[Torie]

Wait a minute.  The 50% HVAP rule that is an interpretation of Bartlett, rejected by the 9th circuit, which rejection the Commission sometimes followed, but not in Riverside.  Isn't that inconsistent?  Is there some case law, that you have to draw a 50% HVAP CD if it is compact enough, or a 50% HCVAP CD, if it is compact enough, whichever is greater? 

The reason I ask, is that getting Riverside up to 50% HVAP violates other appropriate rules of redistricting in my view (at least in my map), and therefore, if no governing case law really supports the whichever is greater test, in my opinion, it is the Pubs job on the Commission to vote against a 50% HVAP CD in Riverside, if it creates more erosity, and hurts their case, which is does here.

I don't know that the 50% HVAP rule has been considered by the 9th Circuit since Bartlett came down in 2009. Bartlett says VAP, but declined to say if CVAP is needed, because they didn't need to to decide the NC case. If I was a minority group that could have a 50% VAP district, but didn't get one, I'd be in court claiming Bartlett gives me standing to sue under section 2. I'd say that CVAP is fine to see how likely it is that the minority group could control the election (as in LULAC), but I should get an opportunity district in any case, even if below 50% CVAP. Bartlett says that the state may create of crossover district where some of the white majority join with the minority, and such districts may enhance minority voting rights.

"May" is not the same as "shall."  Sorry to keep bothering you Mike. I really need to read both cases myself. Does enhancing "minority voting rights" mean electing a white Democrat, because in Riverside, it is not going to be that white Dems help to elect a Dem Hispanic.

[Torie]

Lots of chops there with your Asian CD Mike.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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!  

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Torie]

Here's a reworked south side of LAC. There are no muni splits except for LA, Long Beach, and Commerce (and the Montebello nibble). All these districts are within 100 of the ideal population! If this looks at least as reasonable as my previous work, I could be convinced to switch. The BVAP in 34 should still equate to a CVAP over 50%. Here are the VAPs for groups over 10%.

CD 33 Downtown/South LA: 68.5% HVAP, 15.9% BVAP
CD 34 Inglewood/Compton: 44.9% HVAP, 43.3% BVAP
CD 35: Downey/Norwalk: 67.5% HVAP, 19.7% WVAP
CD 36: South Gate/Carson: 72.1% HVAP
CD 37: Torrance/Santa Monica: 55.4% HVAP, 20.7% HVAP, 16.5% AVAP
CD 38: Long Beach: 40.4% WVAP, 29.1% HVAP, 19.0% AVAP

Better map, but again, not so good in places from a COI standpoint: La Mirada being in an Hispanic CD, Palos Verdes not being in the beach CD, and the like. I like its compactness though.  I guess chops of unincorporated islands don't count as chops (e.g. the one there near Culver City).  Some of the cuts in of the beach CD are also kind of ugly, and again really not a good COI mix. But then, I know, you don't like the COI metric.

[Torie]

Do we like this version of a Silicon Valley cut better?  It is the white/Asian v. Hispanic chop.

[Torie]

Are we going to have a race-class based division of the Silicon Valley, or a geography based division?  You can't have both. Sure I can knock out CA-14 from San Jose, but then Mountain View goes back into CA-14, along with Campbell, and it will still be tight. CA-14 might have to go down to Morgan Hill over some crummy little mountain road to make it happen.

I am open here. I don't know the this part of CA very well at all (south of Palo Alto, and north of Los Gatos). How are we going to resolve this? I am getting "stereophonic" advice.

And yes, I try to balance geography and the minimize chops thing, and race and class where I can. And I focus more on communities, so the net Asian percentage in a CD is not the key, for example, but rather within a community that needs to be chopped. I mean Miltpitas and Fremont are heavily Asian, but have been chopped from now more Asian designed CA-16 from just a San Jose standpoint. Hispanics have been shoved into CA-15 in SJ, yet because Morgan Hill and stuff has to be in CA-16, the Hispanic percentage between the two CD's does not vary too much.

In sum, one cannot minimize chops of SJ, and do the class and race based metric here at the same time. One must choose. My prior map focused more on geography, but not entirely, since I still tri-chopped SJ, just more modestly. And that little jut of SJ to the west south of Cupertino, which looks to be a similar demographic, I am inclined to leave in CA-14, even if it represents a third CD moving into SJ. And CA-14 taking Campbell, which would also be necessary to keep it out of SJ, creates its own erosity (while taking those handful of SJ precincts south of Cupertino, reduces erosity).

So again, how will we resolve this?

Oh, the southern end of CA-16 is unchanged. Gilroy was chopped long ago. We have already had that discussion. And the east-side extension of CA-15 in this version is Hispanic, uniting SJ Hispanics.



Anyway, here is another version, which makes CA-16 40.5% AVAP.

[Torie]

Looks OK to me sbane (no sorry, Mike I don't like your map), but you chop the Hispanics in SJ - and the Asians north of SJ, from those to the south. I am looking for some consensus here, pretending we are all commissioners negotiating. There is no right or wrong answer here.

All I know about the area east of Campbell in SJ is that it is lily white. I would assume it is middle class too. I have absolutely no reason to believe it has much of a upper middle class component, but like you, I have zero idea as to the "truth."

[Torie]

This rectangle is solidly Hispanic. Surprising - but true.

[Torie]

Here's another option. I picked up the Asian areas right adjacent to Milpitas for the 15th. I can go down and pick up Evergreen too and get rid of Campbell and areas adjacent to it..... It's up to 40% AVAP BTW.

This maps "unites" bourgeoisie whites/Asians, with dirt poor Hispanics it looks like in CA-16. Where or where shall the SJ Hispanics go?

Would not it be better to "dump" them into CA-15, and have CA-16 pick up some more middle class white areas in the Campbell and farther east areas, at least to the extent necessary, with Campbell going either way?

The solution? I think Mountain View needs to go back into CA-14. This maximizes the CA-15 ACVAP to boot, combining lower income Asians with Hispanics.

[Torie]

I put up another map in my post above, and then three more posts intervened. Assuming we do a SJ tri-chop (I just can't get off on Mike's maps here, they are too damned erose for starters, and of course are based on his overall CA map design (in this case I think due to the SF chop coming from the north rather than the south), which varies from mine as we all know to boot, and that circle simply cannot be squared), is that a reasonable "chop" of the Gordian knot?

[Torie]

I think you need to work with my map, and the CA-14, 15 and 16 merry-go-round Mike, or we will be talking past one another. I am not going to trash my entire NoCal map design. Given the outer perimeters of those three districts as drawn, how do you divvy up the spoils? That is the question with my map. But yes, that aside, we are getting closer.

I will happy to do the same working with your map design, although given your very tight metrics, there really aren't many choices out there, are there? The computer drives your map, with mere humans having relatively few choices. Am I wrong about that?

[Torie]

I think you need to work with my map, and the CA-14, 15 and 16 merry-go-round Mike, or we will be talking past one another. I am not going to trash my entire NoCal map design. Given the outer perimeters of those three districts as drawn, how do you divvy up the spoils? That is the question with my map. But yes, that aside, we are getting closer.

I will happy to do the same working with your map design, although given your very tight metrics, there really aren't many choices out there, are there? The computer drives your map, with mere humans having relatively few choices. Am I wrong about that?

Your challenge is fair and I accept. I'll do analysis of your map to see if there are a reasonable set of options to choose among.

I have constructed the following map to illustrate my analysis. I begins by following the 48 K chop out of Alameda, so it should be compatible with the Torie plan.



The lime green area is what seems to be the consensus core of CD 15. The only variable might be how far south to extend from Milpitas. I used the natural division that occurs where the Hispanic population dominates, and without breaking Alum Rock or East Foothills. This core area has a pop of 450 k with 48.8% AVAP. Adding the 48 K from Alameda gives a population that requires an additional 205 K to complete the district.

I can identify three basic choices to complete CD 15, two of which are shown in the map. The purple area is downtown and the Hispanic core of SJ including Alum Rock which wraps around some of those core blocks. This area is 56.7% HVAP and seems like it should stay together in a single district. The yellow areas sit between the CD 15 core and the CD 14 core shown in red. The third option would be to extend south from East Foothills into the heavily Asian areas, but that is a non-starter in Torie's plan.

Either the purple or yellow option would work with the CD 15 core, and both choices have AVAPs in the low to mid 20's. That means that CD 15 would be at best an Asian plurality district, and it brings up the issue of how to chop into Alameda. The Fremont chop in blue has a high Asian pop, but that doesn't seem relevant given the direction of the district as a whole. It is an erose peninsula, and the Asians in Fremont get split no matter how one cuts it. I would suggest consideration of the green chop instead. It has a lower AVAP, but make a less erose match to the rest of CD 15.

I think that resolving the shape of CD 15 first will lead more naturaly into the best division between CD 14 and 16.

Thanks Mike. It appears that your CA-15 core plus the purple zone (designed to try to unite Hispanics), is close to my last map, a modified version of which I post below. More will be added to this post in 15 minutes or so, so hang on.



Well I rather keeping working on this, rather than focus on the SC primary. The Pubs seem to have a death wish there.

On the class warfare theme, as we balance race and class and jurisdictional lines, and eroseness, I have concluded one bit of SJ has that "I know it when I see it" upper middle class feel to it, in its own little Shangra La little valley separated by a mini mountain from the SJ masses:



However this little salient of SJ does not.  It is just not up to Cupertino standards. It has more of the feel of Campbell.



To be continued.  There is a method to my madness.

[Torie]

I'm with you on your pics Torie. I saw the same thing in my analysis.

I'm confused on the extension SW of 87. There's a little pocket of Hispanics, sure, but it goes through so many Anglo areas the sum is only about 45% HVAP, and a significant piece of one of those chops into residents of Burbank. In exchange you could keep the Milpitas foothills intact as well as Alum Rock, since my satellite images of roads make me think those areas really do belong with the valley rather than a long link along the foothills to the south.

I also take it that you weren't interested in my Newark alternative, even with sbane's glowing endorsement.

I will eviscerate your most creative Newark option soon, very soon, but I need to cook the steaks for my guests now.

In the meantime, putting aside the 87 thing which I don't understand, and maybe the map below "solves" it, I think we are down to the class warfare theme, and the race warfare theme. I assume the class one gets the nod, since the chop of Sunnyvale is rather vicious, even though it gets rid of the SJ trichop. The class warfare map still takes in the SJ western salient, but that is because there are no upper middle class areas left to take, and that is the cut which reduces erosity.




  

[Torie]

I assume you mean the first map, and that little green jut there. Collectively it is only 49.5% Hispanic?  If so, I will find my Hispanics elsewhere.

[Torie]

How does this map look?  



Oh, I am aware of the SJ eastern foothills issue running north, both inside and outside of SJ, but it is just too white and rich to fit into the CA-15 theme. To append it would dilute the Hispanic and Asian percentages in CA-15, as heavily Hispanic or non-well-to-do Asian precincts down south would have to go in exchange. Race and class pushes it into CA-16 it seems to me. One can't have everything.

As to Newark v south Fremont, we have this:



So Newark is an ethnic grab bag, and its median income is about 40K - lower middle class/higher end working class. The S. Fremont bit has considerably more distinguished looking housing stock, just like right next door Mipitas (it's the "bourgeoisie" part of Fremont, and the Asian contagion has really caught on there).  Beyond that, picking up more Hispanics, disparate from Santa Clara County/Milpitas along a highway through an industrial zone with no people on one side, and salt flats on the other (in other words crossing a natural barrier), is not really the goal here. It is to max the ACVAP, while trying to keep to the extent possible the SJ Hispanics together. Finally, the jut north into S. Fremont is via a seamless string of housing tracts running  from beautiful downtown Milpitas straight north so that you have no real idea where the county line is from an aerial shot, with no natural barrier. That is why I did it in the first place, but now we have both ethnic and class reasons to boot.  

I assume everywhere agrees that the Newark option should be interred. Right?  Or are you all conspiring to harass me?  

[Torie]

So it would appear for Newark Sbane. Milpitas clocks in at 85K, and I suspect S. Fremont is about the same. The erosity thing is a function of ignoring the salt flats and water in-between. It creates "ersatz" compactness - which doesn't count in my book. Without that huge magnificent connecter precinct through Fremont covering vast acreages of salt flats and water and an industrial zone with no people living in it, the appearance of CA-15 would not look nearly so good. Newark just isn't part of the Santa Clara environment. It's more a proud member of the East Bay. I really think it is not a very good choice to go there.

Mike loved it because while it does not eliminate a muni chop, it chops just one connector precinct out of Fremont, and that to him is an irresistible loadstar - a veritable sun as to which he is hypnotically drawn inspired by Icarus's flight perhaps. I have a more complex game, which I know frustrates the heck out of him, but hey, I'm a mere human, and he's a computer genius.

As to the western SJ jut, I suspect its high test scores are more a function of its "Asianess"  than its wealth, but hey, it went into the "right" CD anyway, so it's all good no?  I don't dispute that it is solidly middle class.