How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission

[jimrtex]

Section 5 is the pre clearance, and Section 2 is what the courts go by, is that correct?  Suppose per Section 5, the DOJ demands a minority CD, but it is not required under Section 2, where it is a percentage rather than an outcomes game apparently. Will the court reverse the DOJ, or does Section 5 take precedence over Section 2, and what we have are two different legal standards, with potentially different final legal outcomes?  Can someone help me with this? What are the 4 Section 5 counties in CA?

Can someone help a confused old man me with this?

The confused old men (and women) of the SCOTUS will explain it (the most confused of all, Justice Kennedy will provide the definitive explanation).

This is the CATO Institute amicus brief which addresses the conflict between the two sections

http://tinyurl.com/d9uuh8t

[krazen1211]

Here is a pretty good summary of what SCOTUS is facing in the Perez case. I don't see anything though about the differing legal standards between Section 2 and Section 5,and what the end game is. It seems more to involve procedural stuff.

This is the exact line from the DC court.



In a ruling critical for Travis County - and Lloyd Doggett - the panel distinguished section 2 cases, holding that states are not obligated to draw crossover districts, with protection of existing crossover districts under section 5:



[F]reedom from an obligation to create a crossover district under Section 2 does not equate to freedom to ignore the reality of an existing crossover district in which minority citizens are able to elect their chosen candidates under Section 5.

And the San Antonio court.

Further, under the more stringent
requirements of Section 5, the presence of such districts is relevant for the Section 5
retrogression analysis. See id. at 1249 (citing LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 446 (2006)
(Kennedy, J.) (noting that the presence of districts “where minority voters may not be able to
elect a candidate of choice but can play a substantial, if not decisive, role in the electoral
process” is relevant to the Section 5 analysis). In keeping with the goals of maintaining the
status quo and complying with Section 5 in drawing this map, the Court has preserved district
25 as a crossover district.




The concept of crossover districts was dissolved for the purposes of S2. It should now be dissolved for the purposes of S5.

[jimrtex]

Kings
Merced
Yuba
Monterey

All four of these had military bases.  In the case of Monterey (Fort Ord) and Merced (Castle AFB) the military bases were BRAC'ed a decade ago.

California had a literacy test.  At the time the test for Section 5 coverage was made, the California Supreme Court had enjoined use of the literacy test since it was in English only, and California repealed the law soon after.

Because most of the soldiers were young and temporarily resident they did not vote in those counties, if at all, nor bother with the goofy procedure of faxing to the Census Bureau proof that they had voted elsewhere.  The four counties failed the participation test (based on turnout vs. CVAP).  This didn't happen in San Diego and Orange County, since while the military bases are quite large, they are not as relatively large to the overall population.

Merced County may have missed meeting the threshold because the census bureau overestimated the CVAP (by assuming that all migration was by citizens).

Twenty years later, Monterey County was considering deliberately including Fort Ord and Soledad Prison in a Salinas Valley commissioners district, because the soldiers still did not vote and those in the prison could not vote, but they would pump up the total population and also make the minority population share higher.

Now Section 5 is used as a cudgel to derail other elections, including the 2005 special statewide election, and the special election to replace Abel Maldonado - in that case there was a deliberate attempt to deny the Central Coast senate representation during passage of the budget.  So much for voting rights.

Section 5 is based on:

(1) Presumption of guilt - covered States and entities must prove their innocence;
(2) Corruption of blood - covered States and entities are designated based on elections nearly 50 years ago (while in hellholes like Hawaii, Washington, and Minnesota relative voter participation by minorities is much worse than for Anglos)
(3) Infringement of State sovereignty.

[Torie]

In oral arguments on Perez, Kennedy does not like Section 5, and Roberts complained about the Hobson's choice presented in a law, that frankly is just a mess at this point. The article really gives no clue as to how the conservative 5 plan to drain the swamp, or whether they will drain it at all.  They clearly hate this case.  I sympathize.

[jimrtex]

In oral arguments on Perez, Kennedy does not like Section 5, and Roberts complained about the Hobson's choice presented in a law, that frankly is just a mess at this point. The article really gives no clue as to how the conservative 5 plan to drain the swamp, or whether they will drain it at all.  They clearly hate this case.  I sympathize.

The fun part was when Roberts asked when the DC district court would issue its ruling on preclearance, and then asked when the Supreme Court would rule on the appeal of that order.

[Sbane]

Thank you for your comments Gentlemen.

1. CA-33 is an Hispanic CD (61% Hispanic), and has to drawn that way to get that Hispanic percentage.

2.  I way back when resisted tying Imperial to Hispanic San Diego, but if you excise it, 1) the San Diego Hispanic CD is only 56%-57% Hispanic (not enough really), and 2) the second Coachella Valley-Moreno Valley CD is butt ugly, and only 60% Hispanic, also not enough in that part of the world just packed with illegals to elect an Hispanic. So, I accepted what the Commission did here (I know more about what the commission did in this part of the state, and was wondering just how much the Pubbie pocket was picked, and thus this exercise).

Moreover, by going the way of the Commission on this, the remaining options become more similar. If you do a 150,000 person clockwise twist of the map, it is a whole new ballgame, and will make it harder to compare the choices made between "our" map, and the Commission's map.  We want to see just where the Dem operatives got their pound of flesh, through their front person shills, and just how egregious it was, if at all. Doing that big twist, will make that more difficult to assess, defeating the point of the exercise.

3. My shape of the South central valley CD's collectively is just about exactly the same as Muon2's. What Muon2 did is effect Sbane's desire to exchange precincts between Tulare and Kern to create another "Hispanic" CD. I will draw it, and we can further discuss if the VRA really requires it. If it doesn't, I just don't see why it should be done myself. It is not as if, one is cherry picking precincts to get the Hispanic percentage up was within a county or something also Fresno, but rather splitting two otherwise basically whole counties, taking on a lot of miles. I don't like it, and then the issue is if the Hispanic percentage is enough to elect a candidate of "their" choice, whatever that means. With Fresno, and a higher Hispanic voting incidence there, plus getting up to 60% Hispanic, that probably is enough to elect a candidate of their choice.

4. As I noted above, if CA-01 does not take Redding, it must go into the Central Valley, and that is a no-no. In fact, in 10 more years, there will probably be a great northern CA CD just like there will be in Minnesota. The population growth up in the far north is tepid. As it was, CA-01 needed to take all of Napa, to avoid going all the way to Lake Tahoe.

5. Muon2 didn't vote, but I will do the Antioch thing that you guys want. I really am ambivalent myself.

6.  CA-23 takes the northwest quadrant of Ventura County (Ventura and Ojai basically, all of SB County, and the southern half of SLO County). I will put up a zoom of it, along with Fresno (I meant to do the latter, but screwed up, and then my software crashed; to get it back up I have to reboot my whole computer, reload the DRA software for some reason, and then wait 10 minutes at least for my data to load if it does not freeze during the process, all of which takes time).

7. Lewis, if you ever get the map up, I urge you, like myself, not to look at the partisan numbers, until you have already made a firm decision as to where the lines should be. We both are just too partisan really to be "trusted" with such data as it were, and too clever not to think up rationalizations furthering our little partisan agendas, yes we are.

The commission map's Hispanic district from Imperial to SD is 50%HCVAP so it really should be drawn. The other option is to go into exurban Riverside County which is just as bad and probably doesn't even get you to 50%HCVAP in any case. So I think this is the right way to go.

I drew two Hispanic districts in the central valley, one that extends from Merced to Fresno at 59% HVAP and another with Bakersfield, all of Kings County and parts of rural Fresno as well as Tulare. That one is at 64%HVAP and probably 48-49%HCVAP. That can be boosted up to 50%HCVAP but at the expense of the other Hispanic district. This is not the same as the one I posted on page 5 though, and I would post it here but the app crashed before I could save it. Oh well.

I agree about the 1st having to take Redding and not going into the Central Valley. It's not ideal, but it's the best choice. Sort of like the Imperial-SD district.

[Sbane]

Here is what I drew in the Central Valley. The 20th is 65%HVAP and the 18th is 59%HVAP.

[Torie]

Sbane, you think a court would require that the southern Central Valley Hispanic CD be drawn, which isn't going to elect an Hispanic anyway? 

[Sbane]

Well, it's close to 50%HCVAP. It doesn't matter if it's going to elect an Hispanic, but whether a candidate of their choice is elected. The commission did draw this map, and you would have to do the same to avoid a legal challenge. What the ultimate result of that legal challenge would be I cannot say. But it is clear that there is racially polarized voting in the Central Valley, most especially in the Bakersfield area, so if a district can be drawn that is 50%HCVAP or close to it, I would go ahead and do it.

Is there any evidence that Hispanics vote at a lower rate in the Central Valley, as opposed to just being more illegal or recent immigrants than the California average? It takes a 70% Hispanic district to get to 50%HCVAP here, whereas in most of Socal all you need is about 65-66%, and in the SGV just 62% suffices. That might be why you think Hispanics don't vote here. But if a 50%HCVAP district can be drawn, and being relatively compact like the one I have drawn, I see no reason not to draw it.

[Torie]

Well, it's close to 50%HCVAP. It doesn't matter if it's going to elect an Hispanic, but whether a candidate of their choice is elected. The commission did draw this map, and you would have to do the same to avoid a legal challenge. What the ultimate result of that legal challenge would be I cannot say. But it is clear that there is racially polarized voting in the Central Valley, most especially in the Bakersfield area, so if a district can be drawn that is 50%HCVAP or close to it, I would go ahead and do it.

Is there any evidence that Hispanics vote at a lower rate in the Central Valley, as opposed to just being more illegal or recent immigrants than the California average? It takes a 70% Hispanic district to get to 50%HCVAP here, whereas in most of Socal all you need is about 65-66%, and in the SGV just 62% suffices. That might be why you think Hispanics don't vote here. But if a 50%HCVAP district can be drawn, and being relatively compact like the one I have drawn, I see no reason not to draw it.

It deserves study.  I doubt your Kern based Hispanic CD is anyway near 50% HCVAP, and yes, the turnout levels are lower I strongly suspect. Or is your Kern CD the one that is 65% Hispanic VAP?  Maybe Muon2 has an opinion of the degree of legal risk. If he makes a reasonable case on that that the legal risk is more than remote, then you have your Pub vote anyway, and I guess "our" commission will end up drawing something (although hopefully not as ugly as your map). 

[Sbane]

Well, it's close to 50%HCVAP. It doesn't matter if it's going to elect an Hispanic, but whether a candidate of their choice is elected. The commission did draw this map, and you would have to do the same to avoid a legal challenge. What the ultimate result of that legal challenge would be I cannot say. But it is clear that there is racially polarized voting in the Central Valley, most especially in the Bakersfield area, so if a district can be drawn that is 50%HCVAP or close to it, I would go ahead and do it.

Is there any evidence that Hispanics vote at a lower rate in the Central Valley, as opposed to just being more illegal or recent immigrants than the California average? It takes a 70% Hispanic district to get to 50%HCVAP here, whereas in most of Socal all you need is about 65-66%, and in the SGV just 62% suffices. That might be why you think Hispanics don't vote here. But if a 50%HCVAP district can be drawn, and being relatively compact like the one I have drawn, I see no reason not to draw it.

It deserves study.  I doubt your Kern based Hispanic CD is anyway near 50% HCVAP, and yes, the turnout levels are lower I strongly suspect. Or is your Kern CD the one that is 65% Hispanic VAP?  Maybe Muon2 has an opinion of the degree of legal risk. If he makes a reasonable case on that that the legal risk is more than remote, then you have your Pub vote anyway, and I guess "our" commission will end up drawing something (although hopefully not as ugly as your map). 

Yes, the Kern CD is 65%HVAP and probably about 48% HCVAP. The commission map is 66%HVAP and 49%HCVAP. They contain roughly the same sort of areas, Bakersfield and rural areas but not Fresno proper. BTW, didn't Muon already draw something that is roughly similar to what I drew?

[Torie]

Well, it's close to 50%HCVAP. It doesn't matter if it's going to elect an Hispanic, but whether a candidate of their choice is elected. The commission did draw this map, and you would have to do the same to avoid a legal challenge. What the ultimate result of that legal challenge would be I cannot say. But it is clear that there is racially polarized voting in the Central Valley, most especially in the Bakersfield area, so if a district can be drawn that is 50%HCVAP or close to it, I would go ahead and do it.

Is there any evidence that Hispanics vote at a lower rate in the Central Valley, as opposed to just being more illegal or recent immigrants than the California average? It takes a 70% Hispanic district to get to 50%HCVAP here, whereas in most of Socal all you need is about 65-66%, and in the SGV just 62% suffices. That might be why you think Hispanics don't vote here. But if a 50%HCVAP district can be drawn, and being relatively compact like the one I have drawn, I see no reason not to draw it.

It deserves study.  I doubt your Kern based Hispanic CD is anyway near 50% HCVAP, and yes, the turnout levels are lower I strongly suspect. Or is your Kern CD the one that is 65% Hispanic VAP?  Maybe Muon2 has an opinion of the degree of legal risk. If he makes a reasonable case on that that the legal risk is more than remote, then you have your Pub vote anyway, and I guess "our" commission will end up drawing something (although hopefully not as ugly as your map). 

Yes, the Kern CD is 65%HVAP and probably about 48% HCVAP. The commission map is 66%HVAP and 49%HCVAP. They contain roughly the same sort of areas, Bakersfield and rural areas but not Fresno proper. BTW, didn't Muon already draw something that is roughly similar to what I drew?

Yes, but that does not necessarily mean that he thinks it is legally necessary, or that he would draw it as a Pub on the Commission. Muon2 just gets his rocks off drawing these erose little racial gerrys.  Some of them have been just awe inspiring.

You cheated by looking at what the Commission did by the way. I have avoided doing that outside the LA ring, way back when.

[Sbane]

Nah I drew it then I looked. And of course I look to see just how Hispanic a district needs to be made to get it up to 50%HCVAP. Again I really don't see why this is more erose than that U shaped monstrosity you drew in LA County. If my district was going all the way into Salinas, then you could say it is erose. A Hispanic district based in the southern Central Valley is not what I would consider to be erose. Considering the level of racially polarized voting in the area, I don't see how you can justify not drawing two Hispanic districts here.

[phk]

Central Valley Hispanics have a heavy farm worker (and thus illegal) component to them.

[Sbane]

Central Valley Hispanics have a heavy farm worker (and thus illegal) component to them.

Indeed, which is why to get to a 50% HCVAP district, you need a 70%+ Hispanic district. In most of California it is closer to about 64-65%

[phk]

Central Valley Hispanics have a heavy farm worker (and thus illegal) component to them.

Indeed, which is why to get to a 50% HCVAP district, you need a 70%+ Hispanic district. In most of California it is closer to about 64-65%

Most of them probably don't even know about non-Presidential elections.

[Torie]

Nah I drew it then I looked. And of course I look to see just how Hispanic a district needs to be made to get it up to 50%HCVAP. Again I really don't see why this is more erose than that U shaped monstrosity you drew in LA County. If my district was going all the way into Salinas, then you could say it is erose. A Hispanic district based in the southern Central Valley is not what I would consider to be erose. Considering the level of racially polarized voting in the area, I don't see how you can justify not drawing two Hispanic districts here.

Inside a city, erosity bothers me less, and that particular CD's erosity (CA-33) was driven by the black pack CD in any event. CA-33 I think is mandated in fact by the VRA, even if the black pack CD might not. I could play with Carson, to make it look prettier (that is the key to the erosity), but that would hurt both the ethnic packs for both CD's if I did so. I tried to play with it, due to the matter to which you refer, and was forced to abandon the exercise. Plus we know that the black pack CD would continue to wane, while the Hispanic pack CD will continue to wax over the coming decade.

[muon2]

Well, it's close to 50%HCVAP. It doesn't matter if it's going to elect an Hispanic, but whether a candidate of their choice is elected. The commission did draw this map, and you would have to do the same to avoid a legal challenge. What the ultimate result of that legal challenge would be I cannot say. But it is clear that there is racially polarized voting in the Central Valley, most especially in the Bakersfield area, so if a district can be drawn that is 50%HCVAP or close to it, I would go ahead and do it.

Is there any evidence that Hispanics vote at a lower rate in the Central Valley, as opposed to just being more illegal or recent immigrants than the California average? It takes a 70% Hispanic district to get to 50%HCVAP here, whereas in most of Socal all you need is about 65-66%, and in the SGV just 62% suffices. That might be why you think Hispanics don't vote here. But if a 50%HCVAP district can be drawn, and being relatively compact like the one I have drawn, I see no reason not to draw it.

It deserves study.  I doubt your Kern based Hispanic CD is anyway near 50% HCVAP, and yes, the turnout levels are lower I strongly suspect. Or is your Kern CD the one that is 65% Hispanic VAP?  Maybe Muon2 has an opinion of the degree of legal risk. If he makes a reasonable case on that that the legal risk is more than remote, then you have your Pub vote anyway, and I guess "our" commission will end up drawing something (although hopefully not as ugly as your map). 

Yes, the Kern CD is 65%HVAP and probably about 48% HCVAP. The commission map is 66%HVAP and 49%HCVAP. They contain roughly the same sort of areas, Bakersfield and rural areas but not Fresno proper. BTW, didn't Muon already draw something that is roughly similar to what I drew?

Yes, but that does not necessarily mean that he thinks it is legally necessary, or that he would draw it as a Pub on the Commission. Muon2 just gets his rocks off drawing these erose little racial gerrys.  Some of them have been just awe inspiring.

You cheated by looking at what the Commission did by the way. I have avoided doing that outside the LA ring, way back when.

I finally have the 2010 CA data working on my computer!

I don't have CVAP data, but I can use MALDEF's plan to estimate the ratio between HVAP and HCVAP in the Central Valley. The draw two districts with over 50% CVAP. The Fresno district was 61.6% HVAP to get 50.1% HCVAP, and the Kings/Kern district was 65.2% HVAP to get 50.0% HCVAP. Their map is proof of principle that they can be drawn.

Kings and Merced are both section 5 so they will have preclearance hurdles for any districts that overlap them. In addition the commission found evidence of racially polarized voting and determined that the VRA would apply there. I think there must be two Central Valley districts that have the opportunity to elect candidates of choice for Hispanics.

I'll update my earlier offerings for that area with new data soon.

[Torie]

This isn't going very well for me is it?    And then the issue is given the HVAP CD's can be drawn, are they legally mandated? What are the legal risks? Can this excrescence be described an hewing together "compact" communities of interest? And suppose given my map design (I am not saying this is the case), we can't reach the 50% HVAP percentage? Do we then redraw the whole state to create one extra 50% HVAP CD? Even that percentage may well not be enough to actually elect an Hispanic. It may still elect an Anglo Pubbie. 

[Хahar 🤔]

I don't have anything to add (the southwestern part of Santa Clara County is the only part of the world that I know particularly well), but it amuses me that "erose" is a word that everyone uses now.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Anyone know the new PVI of CA-25?

[minionofmidas]

It deserves study. 

It's been studied. That's what we were trying to get through to you all along. Any other setup - except possibly upping the Hispanic percentage by splitting up Modesto as well - is DOA.

Can this excrescence be described an hewing together "compact" communities of interest?

Quite. Honestly so, even.

[muon2]

This isn't going very well for me is it?    And then the issue is given the HVAP CD's can be drawn, are they legally mandated? What are the legal risks? Can this excrescence be described an hewing together "compact" communities of interest? And suppose given my map design (I am not saying this is the case), we can't reach the 50% HVAP percentage? Do we then redraw the whole state to create one extra 50% HVAP CD? Even that percentage may well not be enough to actually elect an Hispanic. It may still elect an Anglo Pubbie. 

Here's my version of a Kings/Kern/Tulare district. It has 65.3% HVAP and should exceed 50% HCVAP based on MALDEF's calculations. As drawn it should withstand any section 2 or 5 challenge. I think ant HVAP over 65% in this area is likely to survive, and the commission recognized that. Less than 65% HVAP and there is significant legal risk IMO.

[Torie]

OK, I will draw the district. I have been beaten up enough! 

[Torie]

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.