US House Redistricting: California

[Torie]

Does anyone think the new 47th CD will become competitive? The commission drew it to include all of Long Beach, but it also includes the wealthy areas of Belmont, Naples, and Bixby Knolls, Los Alamitos (known for its military community), Cypress, Republican leaning parts of Garden Grove, and most of the Republican stronghold of Westminster. Plus Republicans recruited a top tier candidate in Gary DeLong who is a Long Beach Councilman.

Mill Valley laughs at the idea that wealthy areas in California are automatically Republican.

Well Long Beach isn't exactly a Santa Monica or Brentwood, so it is reasonable to suspect that there are Republican portions of it. It's not as if the city doesn't elect Republicans, since there is at least one one the city council (DeLong like I mentioned). I know it would be difficult, but the commission did design the district it looks like to be potentially competitive. Otherwise they would have kept Long Beach in it, and added Carson or Lakewood in it, and left parts of Orange County out of it.

The Commission should be ashamed of itself for drawing this non "communities of interest" cf, but here you go:  Dem PVI of about +6% - out of reach for the Pubbies absent unusual circumstances. I am about 18,000 residents short even though the block groups don't match the voting districts, and I spilled over the lines a bit where the voting districts were chopped, and still came up short, but it should not make much difference.

[Torie]

My first glance seems to still show that the districts are heavily weighted towards socioeconomic grouping without overly splitting counties. That's certainly a standard redistricting principle, but the natural tendency for socioeconomic groups to sort politically as well would tend to weaken competitiveness in such a plan. Is there a PVI analysis available online yet?

Yes, this might be coined the "class warfare" map. I was amazed how much economic segregation was emphasized really. In California class does not a community of interest make really. Malibu does not equal Hancock Park, and Silverlake/Los Feliz (gay young Hollywood hip) does not equal La Canada/Flintridge (Jet Propulsion Laboratory grayish haired brainiac nerd types), and on and on.

[Torie]

Long Beach swung at about the rate of the nation average - about 5% Dem from Kerry to Obama, and from about 65.6% Kerry to 71.0% Obama.  So not much trend in that town. It's about two thirds of CA-47 now.

[Torie]

I doubt if the petition will go anywhere.

[Torie]

CA-31 is a Dem lean marginal in case anyone is interested (+3.3% Dem PVI) . The City of Riverside/Moreno Valley/Perris CD is another +6% or so Dem PVI CD.

CA-31 is the seat Baca might run in against Lewis.  It is rated as toss-up/tilt  Dem by Rothenberg, which seems about right.

[Torie]

Which of these two versions of the CA-01-02-03-05 merry-go-round do you prefer, and why?  The CA-05 snake into Contra Costa follows with some changes the template of the Commission, and CA-03 doing the snake instead follows my original template. Is it half dozen one of the other, or is one clearly superior?  The question is framed in the context of a map which hews to best practice when it comes to generally accepted "good government" redistricting principles. Thanks.

[Torie]

I don't like that cut of SF from the north, especially by the 2nd. Overall I like the map on the right. Davis is in the 3rd in both maps, correct?

No, SF is not cut in either map (SF is cut from the south - the north thing was a Muon2 "innovation" to max his algorithm). Or did you mean SR? SR is cut in both maps, but it is disconcerting for a Marin CD  to not take Santa Rosa, while moving up north to take Eureka. On the other hand, the map on the left makes CA-02 more compact, while CA-05 basically becomes an all  SF metro CD, while CA-02 is more rural, and Marin due to its hyper tight land use controls, almost has a bucolic feel itself (Santa Rosa does not). Meanwhile, in the left side map, CA-03 basically becomes mostly a Central Valley CD, rather than a hybrid one, while CA-05 unites the wine country plus down market to middle class Contra Costa CD via down market Vallejo. so the left map is arguably better from a uniting of the distinct regions perspective (putting aside the class warfare consideration). However, the left map chops Vallejo, although in a rather logical way, but it is still a nasty chop. Yes, Davis is in CA-03 in both maps.

I assume that you can outline the pros and cons of both maps. The issue is what weight to give to them.

[Torie]

I see CA-21 is still an open seat. Why doesn't Drier run there? Its an R+3 district which is the same PVI as his current district. It strikes me there is no Republican yet thats running there.

You do realize that district is in the Central Valley, don't you? Also it looks like David Valadao is running in that district.

Not that I agree with the concept, but haven't multiple Republicans in CA, "gone northward" to take advantage of opportunities?

Two, McClintock and Lungren, with the latter under a lot of stress, and the former an under performer. McClintock  just can't seem to cut it with the Grass Valley folks. CA-03 is polarized between very Dem Solano and Yuba, and the balance which is rather hyper Pub, but as in a few of the CD's, in the end the Dems tended to end up the presumptive top, and the Pubs the bottom.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

California Democrats will probably be able to reach 2/3+ in both chambers of the state legislature in the future, especially if that election-day voter registration bill passes this session and voter turnout (as a percentage of eligible voters, not registered) nears/hits 70% in presidential election years: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=154608.0

Tough times ahead for the California Republican party.

One might have a situation where the Dems in POTUS election years pass tax increases, and then they are repealed by referendum in off year elections.