US House Redistricting: California

[krazen1211]

The SSP map in the OP link seems to focus too much on counties and compactness then it looks at partisan balance. I don't see any analysis of Hispanic representation. I think that may be more of a factor than many are giving thought towards. When I looked this summer using criteria from the commission I found that I could create 18 Hispanic-majority districts, 15 of which exceeded 60% Hispanic.

Maybe the Obama DOJ won't insist so much in California if there is a better chance for the Democrats to score gains without too many VRA districts.
If they want to appease Hispanics they can do that by demanding 3 new Hispanic majority districts in Texas and a second one in Arizona.

Well Arizona and Texas are actually pre-clearance states under the VRA. California isn't and the DOJ has basically no say there.

Nobody is going to submit to the DOJ if they decide to be partisan hacks about it. It'll go to the district court instead.

[krazen1211]

One needs to start at the Mexican border and move north to do this map stuff. That will tell you exactly how much of OC will go to a CD that is also in San Diego County. The Commission is just not going to do that ridiculous appending of Imperial County to San Diego. That is DOA - especially since an Hispanic CD can be carved out of south San Diego, and another inland taking in Imperial County. And it makes no sense for CA-49 to go into Riverside County, given the Coachella Valley chop that is necessary to create an Hispanic CD, an Hispanic CD that might well be dictated by the VRA in fact.

Why shouldn't Imperial County be appended to San Diego County?  It would seem to have very little in common with the Palm Springs area and more major transportation ties to San Diego County.  Does the new California law require racist gerrymandering be considered before all other considerations be taken into account?

That's part of the problem with drawing California: If you start in 1 corner and move to the other, you come up with 'either this or that' decisions, that for the most part, people make based on their political biases.

I kind of think the better way would be to start with all the corners (district 1, 2, 8, 51). Plop down the noncontroversial stuff and go from there.

[krazen1211]

This comes to mind.


the supreme court should invent a term. A VRA district has to be one where hispanics make up a majority of REGISTERED VOTERS. In case a hack like freepcrusher starts drawing the maps, it can stop them from enacting them.

[krazen1211]

This comes to mind.


the supreme court should invent a term. A VRA district has to be one where hispanics make up a majority of REGISTERED VOTERS. In case a hack like freepcrusher starts drawing the maps, it can stop them from enacting them.

Is he even using the VRA to justify his districts? Just because a district is 52% Hispanic doesn't necessarily mean it is a VRA district, or that it has to be one.

 Really trying to understand what your problem is here. Someone can't draw a 40% Black or 50% Hispanic district because it hurts your party? You're such a little whiner.

Actually, I just cut and pasted one of his posts.

I just marvel at the sheer inconsistency. It's really funny to see California liberal whites cry about the lack of Texas Hispanic districts when California has many more seats, and less actual Hispanic representation in Congress.

That's how one can identify partisan hack Latino organizations that are really just fronts for the Democratic Party.

[krazen1211]

The VRA has to do with who the voters want, not the race of the candidate.

I of course would like a redistricting commission to draw the map in Texas (and Illinois). I am guessing you don't agree with that?

I was referring to exactly that. White liberals in California made sure that Hispanic voters have less opportunities to elect a candidate of their choice and that's why they have so few of 53 districts.

I only believe in consistency. Nothing more or less.

[krazen1211]

well regardless, krazen is almost as bad as timothyinmd in his blowhardedness

Considering that that was your own post, that's the pot calling the pot black.

[krazen1211]

Alright, you have done it now. Give me concrete examples.

For example, an Asian as well as a Hispanic district could be drawn in the San Jose area. That doesn't mean it will be drawn or it should be drawn. All 3 of those district would vote about the same and would elect the same damn candidates. Racial gerrymandering would be pointless there. As opposed to the central valley where Whites vote about 70% Republican and Hispanics vote about 65% Democrat. It's these sorts of areas the VRA was intended for. 

Congressional Districts 27 and 28.

And in primaries, it does matter. You might get the same party winning a general election, but black Democrats have had very little success winning in white liberal districts. The same is true with Hispanic Democrats. Hard to say that they would elect the same damn candidates given the track record.

If you want to use the VRA as a front to create Democratic districts in Republican states, don't be surprised when people in Republican states are irritated when the opposite isn't reciprocated. Just look at Nevada or New Jersey, where the GOP drew a Hispanic plurality district in their plan, and Democrats whined. In New Jersey especially they intentionally cracked up the 1 district that had a majority of Hispanic REGISTERED VOTERS, as it was put.

Yet they expect other states to maximize the number of such seats....

[krazen1211]

That looks really tough for Dreier, Issa, Loretta Sanchez, and Costa.

Why is Fresno still carved up?

[krazen1211]

Gary Miller will be in that Asian district, no? It will be hard for him to hold on to that one. I am guessing Judy Chu also runs here?

As for Loretta, she will probably lose in all of those OC districts. Those districts cut the Hispanic population in half while taking care to leave the Vietnamese areas whole.

Well, she probably shouldn't have based the Vietnamese for trying to take her seat. They just went ahead and did it.

Probably a VRA violation though.

[krazen1211]

I don't see this making many competitive districts. Republicans have been pretty consistent in winning the existing 51% Obama districts. Democrats would be fine with anything 58% Obama or greater. I wouldn't be surprised if the 56-57% Obama districts ended up being the only competitive ones.

ONTPM      54.3       57.8
EVENT      51.4       57.6
SLOSB      50          57
RVMVN      53.3       56.9
MMRHB      48.4       55.9


Which 5 are these by number?

[krazen1211]

That has almost none of Bilbray's old district. Yes, it's not super-Democratic, but it's still D+3, and he'd be effectively running as a non-incumbent. I think he challenges Darrell Issa in the primary; the district in which they were both placed (http://www.mpimaps.com/nggallery/page-89/image/433/) contains about equal parts of each of their districts (Carlsbad and Encinitas from Bilbray, Oceanside from Issa), plus a bunch of territory that is new for both of them in Orange County, and Issa is a strange person and not a strong incumbent.

A big chunk of Bilbray's old district, the most Republican part, is also in Hunter's district, so I suppose he could run in the primary there, too.

"I will remain an effective representative for San Diegans in Congress in this proposed new district, which includes Poway and the city of San Diego. The new boundaries also include where I was born, Coronado," Bilbray said in a statement Friday night. "I intend to run for reelection in this district"


http://www.mpimaps.com/nggallery/page-89/image/448/

No, he's running in the vacant seat. He represented portions of this in the 90s. Should be an easy enough win; Republicans mostly dominated downballot here, and the GOP even has a voter registration advantage.

[krazen1211]

The full counts on the California districts

Under the current district maps, Gold said Hispanic voters have a fair chance of electing a candidate of their choice in seven of California's 53 congressional districts, based on population and other factors. There are 10 state Assembly districts, out of 80, where Hispanics hold more than 50 percent of the voting-age population and six of 40 state Senate districts where that is true.

The proposed maps do not increase the number of Hispanic-leaning congressional and Assembly districts despite the explosion in the Hispanic population and reduce the number of state Senate districts where Hispanics hold sway to four.




10% of state assembly districts, 10% of state senate districts, and 13% of Congressional districts. Sounds quite fair.

[krazen1211]

How competitive is the suburban Sacramento district?

Lundgrens I believe is Whitman 47%, Fiorina 53%.

Garamendi's? I believe is Whitman 46%; Fiorina 51%

[krazen1211]

I count 38 districts that both Obama and Brown won. If Brown could carry a district in 2010 of all years, then it at least Leans Democratic in even a poor or neutral year. The real swing districts are CA-10, CA-52 and CA-26, the latter of which being the most winnable for Democrats.

CA-52 is Bilbray's district. Brown lost it by 8 points.

http://www.mpimaps.com/wp-content/gallery/crc-july-28th-final-maps-congress/CD52.png