How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission

[muon2]

Well, the dirty deed is done, and like Lady Macbeth, I have nightmares even while awake that I many never be able to cleanse the noisome stain from my sanguinary deed off of my hands. I really hated to do this. The map of Kern and Tulare is truly disgusting. CA-21 is 66.2% HVAP, and I got CA-20 up to 60.0% HVAP by nipping it into Merced County (to grab Dos Palos), while CA-21 in turn nips into Fresno County to pick up a few rather Anglo precincts (in lieu of Coalinga).  

Is everyone "happy" with the map now? Any more comments? If not, we shall commence to prepare the matrix grid charts.

I'm afraid I'm still worried about the CV. Merced is one of the section 5 counties and it seems like you've put all of it in an Anglo district. I think you'll have to link Merced to the Hispanic portion of Fresno to solve both Merced's section 5 issues as well as Fresno's section 2 situation. 61.5% HVAP gets it to a safe legal status. The commission thinks you'd be fine with anything over 50% HVAP, but MALDEF disagrees.

The best plan with the least splits is to take Merced and link it to Madera city and only split Fresno city. My version of that has 62.0% HVAP.

[muon2]

Why in this context is 61.5% HVAP "safe?" You are deleting from the Fresno Hispanic CD a bunch of Hispanic precincts, and then going to Merced County to make them up. Under Section 5 (which may not be long for this world, having read the transcript of the Perez oral arguments, but I digress), Merced Hispanics need to be represented by Hispanics, even at the cost of Fresno Hispanics being represented by an Anglo, and no additional Hispanic CD is created?  For what it is worth, the old Merced based CD per the Almanac of American Politics was 46.7% Hispanic population, so not remotely in an Hispanic CD.

In looking at the Commission numbers, where in their map Merced is appended to Fresno Hispanics like you did, I see that there CD is 58.01% Hispanic population, while my Fresno based Hispanic CD, which goes south rather than north, is 64.6% Hispanic population. The numbers in the southern valley Hispanic CD are almost the same as mine (my CA-21), 70.6% Hispanic population, while mine was 71.3% Hispanic population. So are we supposed to substantially dilute an Hispanic CD so that it takes in Merced per Section 5, or chop Merced along with everything else (which the Commission didn't really do), shoving some Fresno Hispanics into an Anglo CD?

The idea that it might be legally safe was by using the HVAP to HCVAP numbers from the MALDEF plan. I concluded that 61.5% HVAP results in 50.0% HCVAP. That's going to be fine for the polarized voting in Fresno under section 2.

Merced is now in a district that is 47.2% HVAP according to the 2010 Census. Reducing that number would be a red flag for section 5. The commission chose to up it to 52.9%, but also placed the Hispanics in southern Fresno county in the Kings district with a 65.9% HVAP. It follows the similar pattern as the current districts and I presume is intended to avoid any vote dilution claims.

MALDEF advocated for a more aggressive plan which put Merced with central Modesto and Stockton at 48.5% HVAP. That covers section 5 there, and left room for two additional CV districts that exceeded 50% HCVAP - one with Madera and Fresno and one with Kings and Bakersfield.

You see that both plans decided to increase the HVAP for Merced to meet section 5 and both got an opportunity district for at least part of the Fresno Hispanic population to meet section 2. Given the shape of you map, I thought your easiest out was to meet both standards in a single district that represents an improvement on the 2000 map for the populations concerned.

I see a similar type of thinking has gone into section 5 concerns in Monterey. The current district is 44.2% HVAP and the commission made sure to exceed that in their district. Their commentary makes clear that they even took a slice of Gilroy, splitting the community, just to make the new district 44.4% HVAP.

[muon2]

Thank you for your comments, Mike. They were quite helpful.

Does this map make you happier Mike?  CA-20 is now 63.2% HVAP, with the Hispanic Merced folks now "liberated."  I strongly doubt that in exchange for eschewing  an extra 3 Hispanic points, that keeping Merced whole and not shoving a bunch of Fresno Hispanics into an Anglo CD in Fresno, and making a further hash of the map (including slashing municipalities here, there and everywhere), is required under Section 5 (or that the DOJ would demand it), but I understand, it is not the Commission's job to take a legal risk that is more than remote. I am reasonably confident that SCOTUS will rule that at the end of the day, Section 5 does not trump Section 2, and whether the map is ultimately found legal, will turn on Section 2, with the role of the DOJ considerably more truncated procedurally. The conservative 5 seem to be going in that direction. But that remains to be seen.

I'm with you on section 5. I'm watching the TX case as that may put it to bed. But, until then, ...

Now that I have the software running, it seems only fair that I put an offering out for criticism as well. As you may have noted I think that commissions need constraints, and that a generic community of interest is not sufficient. I also think that the rules should be out before the map. So here's what I would use.

Districts must have equal population which means that they must be within 500 on the DRA.
The VRA must be followed as currently construed.
County splits should be minimized.
    -Counties larger than a district should have as many whole districts as possible.
    -Split counties should have no more than two districts not counting districts entirely within the county.
    -Smaller split counties should preserve the majority of the county in one district.
    -County splits should minimize municipal splits.
    -County splits should not reduce compactness of districts, nor create bizarrely shaped districts.

I have an algorithm that furthers the above goals.
    -Divide the state into regions of whole counties that are each within 0.5% of a whole number of districts.
    -Divide regions into subregions of whole counties that are each within 5% of a whole number of counties.
    -Divide each subregion into districts.

[muon2]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Incredible what a difference in appearance one precinct can make sometimes. This is entirely superficial, but using the more southerly connector precinct looks so much worse.

That's part of why I drew it the way I did. Once I had achieved my goal for the VRA, I didn't push it. For example I didn't cut into Visalia, because it wasn't needed to create the ability district.

[muon2]

You are going to draw an entirely new map of CA Mike?  Man, that will be a project, but I salute you!

Please use screen shots, with municipal lines, and voting districts not hidden, so I can read and evaluate your maps more easily. I sometimes have trouble with that.

One other thing. In CA, geography/topography/water matters as much as county lines, and I suspect that if you follow your algorithm religiously, that your map will be flawed, and not really hew to communities of interest. Subjectivity cannot be entirely exorcised from this exercise. So a computer will not be able to draw your map after your input your constraints as it were. I would also keep Imperial appended to Hispanic San Diego, so we can get a better comparison with the Commission's map. Where it made a major decision, affecting the whole map, that is reasonable, I think it should be followed.

I overlooked my rules for contiguity which addresses some of the mountain and water issues.

Whole counties at the regional and subregional stages are considered contiguous if their county seats are connected by numbered state and federal roads without crossing into another county. Split county pieces are contiguous if the census block groups are contiguous by local roads and not point contiguous. A road that makes a border of a block district can provide contiguity for areas on either side of the road.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

According to the commission the maps are still under DOJ review. After the DOJ issues an opinion groups will decide if they want to file VRA litigation. Until then I as a mapper remain cautious.

[muon2]

Are you using the block group DRA data base or the voting district data base? If the former, our maps will not "match."  What per your criteria prevents the north coastal CD from zipping into the Central Valley, which if you do, will just not fly no matter what other constraints you are using. That is an example of my skepticism that such an approach will prove workable. And sometimes doing an extra chop or two serves the greater good (beyond feeding the VRA monster). Presumably the requirement that the map get votes from both parties constrains play partisan games, assuming the members are not flying under false partisan flags, and are reasonably competent (the charge here being that the Pub members were not). Are you also going to trash all my LA County CD's? 

I'm using the block groups, in part because that was what you originally had sent me for socal. They also tend to be smaller units than voting districts.

The northern end is an interesting problem. Reading the debate here and looking at past maps and public submissions leaves me with multiple opinions. If the Coast Range must be crossed the Humboldt to Shasta link seems as valid as one from Mendocino to Colusa. I can find advocates for both among Californians, and the commission didn't make the crossing. I'm trying to find proxies for communities of interest and taking sides on that one is not where I want to go in advance.

That same thinking applies to the cut of SF. I'm not going to preclude a link across the Golden Gate if that's where the path leads. In LA I have the advantage of the aforementioned districts from your file, and since they are generally within one county, made of whole municipalities and not bizarrely shaped, I expect that I will find myself drawing them in a similar way.

[muon2]

How did you manage to get the CA DRA software to start working for you?  I was never able to load the block group data myself.  Hey, there is one Hispanic voting district in San Jose with 70,000 people.

You must have had it working at one time, since the file you sent just after Christmas for SoCal loaded as a block group file. In any case, I found that part of the problem is finding the right wifi location. Once I found one where it would load, it's been fine at other locations that previously wouldn't load. I assume that it has to do with the files that go onto the specific computer. Of course I still save frequently as the map will freeze at inopportune times forcing a reload.

[muon2]

So here's the first step in my algorithm.

This first map creates four regions where each is within 1000 persons of a whole number of districts.
Northern: 10 districts (+940)
North Coast: 4 districts (-274)
Southern: 18 districts (-408)
South Coast: 21 districts (-257)



Very small shifts between regions in a single county are all that are needed to achieve exact equality. But, looking at this map, I fear a section 5 problem in Monterey. It would be largely combined with SLO which would almost exactly be a whole district, but the Hispanic percentage would drop compared with the current district. Courts might rule that its OK, but the commission map suggests that legal advice is to not diminish the Hispanic percentage. As pretty as the numbers are for this split, I'm going to head for a second plan.

As with the first plan I start with LA because it is the largest county. Picking up the southern counties leads to a 3-way split. The deviations are a bit larger, but still within the 0.5% rule. Monterey is in the same region as the other counties currently used to satisfy section 5, so there's good reason to believe that it will hold up through the rest of algorithm. I'm sure that Torie won't like the crossing into the northern CV, but given my rule about use of the VRA leads me to this plan. Of course if someone else has another region split to suggest I'd be happy to consider it.

Northern: 8 districts (-3178)
Coastal: 14 districts (+2158)
South Coast: 31 districts (-1019)

[muon2]

I don't think you are going to get any vote but yours for a plan that sets up that cut into the north central valley from the coast. You might rethink that. As I said, your constraints are just too tight.

The commission didn't go for a Humboldt to Shasta crossing and links from Lake to Colusa do exist in their version. As I noted other public submissions made the link all the way across Lake. I'm not convinced your plan gets more votes, but you can keep trying.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I could shift Alpine and stay within my 0.5% rule. I just couldn't resist the near equality it gave in that location. And shouldn't I try for more equality? I haven't gone the next step to see where the Owen's valley would attach in that plan. Remember, I'm a lot less concerned with arbitrarily defined communities of interest, since I think they can be played by either side. Any given decade we'll one side or the other try to take advantage, why not reduce the chance?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly one of the problems with the 4-region split is that it would prevent whole districts from being in either SF or San Mateo, and that would also lead me away from that plan. However my VRA constraint takes me to the 3-region plan, so it's not an issue. If I keep one CD in SF then we chop the same amount, so it's just a question of where.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hypothesis, experiment, analysis, refine and repeat.

[muon2]

One other thing occurs to me. LA gets the bulk of its water from the Owens Valley. To append Owens to water competing Kern, is just totally unacceptable for that reason alone. I don't think the Commission map impinged on the north central valley from the coast. In any event, the Commission eschewing that seems entirely reasonable to me, and to criticize them for not crossing the mountains to an area with which the north coast has nothing in common, seems entirely reasonable to me. The Central Valley has its own unique little issues and problems. So giving them demerits for taking that approach is just strange.

I'm not criticizing them, I'm just trying to establish a consistent reason to prefer one route over the Coast Range over the other. Failing that I leave both options equally open.

The 2011 commission map does not provide much guidance to answer my query, though they do extend west from the Valley to Lake. The 2001 Congressional plan links Humboldt to Yolo, while the 2001 Senate plan attaches Del Norte and Shasta to the Valley as far south as Sutter. That leads me to the conclusion that some Californians are not opposed to a link from the coast to the Valley. Therefore both options remain on the table for me.

[muon2]

No, the Central Valley that is otherwise whole slipping into the mountains (heck I did that in a minor way), is entirely different than a coastal based CD poaching into the Central Valley. The mountains themselves can go either way really. But the way I drew the map, the north coast CD was desperate for population, so it took all of the mountains (plus the Napa Valley), except those in the NE corner of the state.

I'm not objecting to the choice you made. Your justification for it is completely rational and it makes for a reasonable map. I'm saying there are other bases to make a choice and I don't see a neutral way of distinguishing them.

Let me again cite the current map. Someone drew CA-1 for some reason, and it is a coastal district that poaches the Central Valley around Davis. I'll concede that partisan considerations probably drove that choice, but it's a reason. The point is that the mountains are not the kind of psychological barrier that say the York-Lancaster line is in PA, preserved despite overt partisanship.

Another example is the submitted MALDEF plan which I've studied to understand their take on the VRA. The VRA doesn't generally figure into Norcal, but it's included as part of the statewide plan. In that plan county lines are generally followed throughout Norcal, but they expand the current reach from the coast into the CV for CA-1. The adherence to county lines for them was rational, but led to a different choice linking the coast and CV.

To me this a lot like the debate on this site a year ago about WA. The problem was the new WA seat and the subsequent need for a crossing to pick up the excess population east of the Cascades. Most argued against the type of crossing eventually adopted for various community of interest reasons, yet that's what their commission drew.

[muon2]

It sounds reasonable to me. I'll proceed apace to explore what my constraints would do to the map.

The competitiveness question is highly dependent on getting the right mix of elections. There's also the parallel question of fairness. I'd like to apply my partisan bias factor to test the maps, but DRA only has 2008 data, not 2004. In a state like CA it's hard to estimate within the big counties. I'm hoping Torie's matrix will provide a useful conversion to estimate PVIs.

In any case, I can move on to my subregional plan. Here the three regions are further subdivided into whole counties where each subregion is a whole number of districts to within 5% of a district (about 35,000). The idea is that there should only be one county line crossing between regions and subregions, except where required by the VRA.



NORTH REGION
Upper Sacramento (2) -15,869
Lower Sacramento (4) +7,777
Central Valley (2) +4,914

COAST REGION
North Coast (3) +11,821
Central Coast (11) -9,662

SOUTH REGION
Bakersfield (2) +28,982
Los Angeles (14) -22,065
Socal (15) -5,900

The central coast is technically two subregions, since San Mateo is 2.2% over population for one district and the remainder is then 3.6% under, but it was easier to see the map without that single district county.

[muon2]

Here's my map for the north region. Due to performance issues with DRA, I'll just show one region at a time. Given that, it's a big help to me when the numbers are grouped by region.

Let me describe my numbering system, since I didn't try to match all the districts with existing ones. First the regions are oriented from north to south, and then subregions within each region, then the districts in each subregion. Numbering is based on the center of population for the area. Here are the number groups:

NORTH REGION
Upper Sacramento (CD 1-2)
Lower Sacramento (CD 3-6)
Central Valley (CD 7-8)

COAST REGION
North Coast (CD 9-11)
San Mateo (CD 12)
Central Coast (CD 13-22)

SOUTH REGION
Bakersfield (CD 23-24)
Los Angeles (CD 25-38)
Socal (CD 39-53)

This is the north region map using just the whole counties. CD 1 needs 2158 people and would add the two eastern block groups from Tehama. CD 7 needs 1019 people and would add one block group from Kings.



Here is the detail for Sacramento county. Two whole districts are within the county and municipalities are preserved to the extent block groups permit.



CD 7 is identical to the view I previously showed for the Merced/Madera/Fresno with 62.0% HVAP. I kept Merced together consistent with minimizing county splits.

[muon2]

So if I have Pres 2008 and Gov 2010 from DRA, how should I convert it to PVI?

[muon2]

Eh, really don't like the San Joaquin to Yolo district. If we can't have the San Joaquin district going into Contra Costa, then it should go into Sacramento County. This does create problems of course since either Sacramento is going to be split, or the 3rd is going to have to take in Yolo using the area just to north of Sacramento to connect the two areas. In return the San Joaquin district takes in the southern part of Sacramento County. If you insist on sticking with these subregions, that is probably the best option as I see it.

I'd like to stick to subregions, replacing them if only they clearly violate other rules. OTOH I could modify my rule to place as many whole districts within a county with one that prefers compactness once at least one district is entirely within the county. I can still require no more than two county fragments, and then I would get this map.

[muon2]

That district is an eyesore.

So, can we get this discussion back on track? A California map that the Commission might have drawn, if we were the Commissioners. I'm not signing off on Torie's map until my concerns regarding CA-33/37 and San Diego are adressed, or it's been proven to me they cannot be. If the map is fine with muon and sbane, I consider myself outvoted. I have no further objections to anywhere else, and am ready to help outvote anybody who raises objections anywhere else.

I explained CA-33 to you Lewis (it's a 61.5% Hispanic VAP CD), and you seemed satisfied when you realized that CA-35 was a black pack CD. I don't recall what your issue was with CA-37, or with San Diego - some chatter about making CA-53 more of an erose pencil, and moving out of San Diego City to take Escondido or something? What was it? CA-37 is safely Dem anyway (more-so than in the Commission's map), so perhaps there is no reason for you to fret too much.

I thought the issue in SD was whether or not to link to Imperial (correct me if I'm wrong Lewis). I put up a concept plan and you convinced me at the time that the percentages didn't warrant the split below.



As I plow through the minority group submittals, I'm a bit worried. They were OK with a CD from SD to Imperial, but expected the Perris area to be in a section 2 district. They did that with a nasty looking CD from Perris to SanB. The commission found "strong evidence of racially polarized voting" in Riverside and that the Gingles conditions were met there. Curiously they only made a 50.1% HVAP district in Riverside, but comments from minority groups lead me to think that a section 2 challenge is not impossible there. I have conversion factors for CVAP from ADs in the various Socal areas, so I'm going to take a fresh look with real data.

[muon2]

I thought the issue in SD was whether or not to link to Imperial (correct me if I'm wrong Lewis). I put up a concept plan and you convinced me at the time that the percentages didn't warrant the split below.



As I plow through the minority group submittals, I'm a bit worried. They were OK with a CD from SD to Imperial, but expected the Perris area to be in a section 2 district. They did that with a nasty looking CD from Perris to SanB. The commission found "strong evidence of racially polarized voting" in Riverside and that the Gingles conditions were met there. Curiously they only made a 50.1% HVAP district in Riverside, but comments from minority groups lead me to think that a section 2 challenge is not impossible there. I have conversion factors for CVAP from ADs in the various Socal areas, so I'm going to take a fresh look with real data.

Using my concept districts with real 2010 data I can conclude the following. An Imperial-Perris district with over 50% HCVAP is possible, but an SD only 50% district is not. The best I could get there was about 45% HCVAP (56% HVAP).

The commission's legal analysis did not consider the Imperial-SD district a section 2 district, I presume due to the LULAC v Perry analysis that the communities are too widely separated to count as compact. SD is section 2 for the AD but not for a CD because the population doesn't reach 50% HCVAP. They might have drawn the same conclusion about an Imperial-Perris district. If that's true, then either of the links is equally valid from the VRA.

The commission recognized section 2, but drew a 50.1% HVAP district, implying a lack of population in a compact area to draw something more. The minority groups certainly wanted more, but Torie's district matches the commission numbers so its legal status should be no worse. I suspect MALDEF will go to court to contest a number of areas, so we'll see what the judges say.

[muon2]

I thought the issue in SD was whether or not to link to Imperial (correct me if I'm wrong Lewis).

My issue is/was with which nearby nonwhite areas I want included in the National City - Imperial district and which ones not, actually (as it can't take all of them), and with the character of the 53rd which in its current form is at least arguably a minority influence district. Two things are happening here -
one is an old pet peeve of mine carried over from the last map that the desert parts of Riverside, and definitely Coachella town and I guess Indio as well though it seems to be changing to the suburban, ought to have been in the Imperial district from the start. (And Blythe in the High Desert district really - though it's barely majority Hispanic now, one of the many things I've finally looked at just now, as well as once again failing to get Calif. to work for me.) It helps that a huge part of the Riverside high desert's population is a prison, of course. Such places belong in the low turnout neighboring district, if available. Basically none of these people are represented at all at current - they don't share much interest with the areas they're paired with. (The Hispanic minorities that exist in those areas never crossed my mind, really. Certainly I wasn't aware that there's a serious issue with Perris.) And because of my Native American fetish, I can't help of thinking of those little reservations that dot desert San Diego. Though I think they're outnumbered by the Whites in the area no matter how widely you define the eastern suburbs (which I certainly don't want the district to impede on.) That last is a very minor point though.

-and the other was my impression, which after studying maps and all was only to, shall we say a clearly under 50% degree, correct, that Torie's map there was more aimed at whitewashing the 53rd (and, I suspected, trying hard to put it into play) than at improving Hispanic chances in the 51st. But actually, while he made the boundary there more erose in SD, it's not by all that much - the current district extends further north than I recollected. (The 51st's prong down the eastern edge of the 53rd's SD portion is new, though, and I suppose grabs some Whites.) And Coronado - I vaguely thought so but wasn't sure - and Imperial Beach - I never would have guessed. Actually, I didn't even know it was mostly White, or that Coronado is so unHispanic - were in the 51st til now. (So why did Torie move Imperial Beach in now? Reducing erosity? Ran out of easily grabbable Hispanic sections of downtown SD? No, this is not a rhetorical question, just a mix of a real question and, well, just a musing.)
Yes, I knew the 51st' current retiring Congressman is actually White. No, I didn't know nearly enough about his primary challenges, and might have been less certain then. (Fascinating. Though the conclusions they offer are rather mixed. Fun fact: in the 2006 grudgematch against Juan Vargas, Filner easily won Imperial, the county providing a sizable portion of his margin of victory, despite the spoiler third man in the race Danny Ramirez being from Calexico. But in 2008, when Ramirez was the only challenger, Filner crushed him in SD but actually lost Imperial. Juan Vargas is the early front runner for the seat now that Filner is running for mayor of SD, and appears to be an individual that should be kept as far from any legislative body as possible, though that's neither here nor there.)
It should be pointed out here that the 51st is 58.odd% Hispanic VAP as is, so probably not far off majority CVAP and definitely plurality CVAP by a comfortable margin, and actually needs to lose population, not gain. It needs to lose right about as much as the 53rd needs to gain, actually, 40oddK people. And the 53rd is not majority White total population now, though it was in 2000 and Torie's version seems to be, and is actually not so far off ceasing to be majority White in VAP, where Torie drove it all the way back up to 60%. A lot of the action in that respect must be on the borders with the other SD CD's, actually. I haven't looked at the Commission's maps of the area since just after they were created, but I remember being not impressed either.
So what I felt should happen, but knew I would need the app to see if it's really possible, is add those heavily Hispanic areas that exist outside the rural parts of the district (and Coachella is 97% Hispanic. There's really no excuse whatsoever for leaving it lie just outside a VRA district one part of it it has clear ties to), and whatever of the southern suburbs it can absorb - not Coronado, as I know now - and retreat as far as possible out of the central sections of SD, and create a still safely Hispanic 51st and an unequivocally minority influence, under 50% Anglo VAP, 53rd. And if that means Susan Davis safe forever and some other Hispanic than Vargas taking over from Filner, so much the better.

Meh. This whole post is an erose mess. And while I was typing five new replies have been posted.

If you take Imperial, eastern Riverside, and the Hispanic block groups in the Coachella Valley you get about 400K and that's what the commission used to make a 466K AD (AD 56 with 66.1% HVAP and 50.4% HCVAP). You need 240K more to make a CD. The choices are to head along the border to Chula Vista and SD or along I-10 to Moreno Valley and Perris. If you go to SD, you would want to lose half the population currently in the district there. That'll make it even more erose in all likelihood.

[muon2]

Here's the next piece of my geographically constrained map. I've used the rule revision suggested by sbane in Sacramento and it shows up here in Santa Clara and Alameda counties where only one district is wholly within those counties.

I also anticipate that I will work on matching numbers to other plans, but only after I'm complete. It's much easier for me to work with a set of consecutive numbers in a region in DRA. It occurs to me that since this has a substantially different concept than Torie's map it will give two independent views of the partisanship in the commission's plan. Torie, for that reason, shouldn't we both try to match the approved commission district numbers at the comparison stage?

This is the big picture map of CDs 9-22 for the coast region. 2158 people from eastern Tehama would shift to the north region, but the rest of the county lines are intact.



Here's the SF enlargement:



And the Silicon Valley enlargement:



Santa Clara has three partial districts instead of two in order to bring CD 20 up to 46% HVAP and comply with section 5. CD 17 is 52% Asian VAP.

[muon2]

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

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

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

Any more comments?  Mike?

I'm convinced that Imperial + SD is as good as it gets for the VRA, though I don't like the shape either. I'm still looking at western Riverside as part of my plan, but I can't find fault with your choice at this point.

[muon2]

OK, I will commence with the matrix chart then, but not today.

I see as your map evolves, that so far the Dems are not going to like it much. They will like mine better.

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

[muon2]

Mike, the class warfare concept seems to have got lost in the Silicon Valley in your map (although erosity certainly has not been eschewed ). Yes I know, you didn't list $$$$$ as part of your list of parameters, I understand.

You didn't do some ugly chop in Sonoma County did you? Or did you avoid a muni chop, but not a metro chop in Santa Rosa? Or are you trying to hide what you did there, since you didn't do a zoom, after which upon my beady little eyes feasting upon it,  I could say, hey, you see how well these little mechanistic rules are working out for you?  

Yes, I know, lawyers are aholes - almost all of them. Hey, that's why we're lawyers!

You are correct. I followed Santa Rosa's lines, but neighboring towns were separated. My map is an open book, and reasonable suggestions are welcome.



And see, here's Ventura as a bonus.

[muon2]

OK, I will commence with the matrix chart then, but not today.

I see as your map evolves, that so far the Dems are not going to like it much. They will like mine better.

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

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

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

[muon2]

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

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

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

[muon2]

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

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

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