How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission

[muon2]

Muon2, I think the 2010 election districts will load, and I had the same problem and switched to those. Check it out.  

The cut into Riverside County by CA-41 is tiny by the way.  Something has to cut into it, since the only other cut is CA-48 into the middle class white part of Corona, and that cut is also mandatory, since CA-48 is walled in indirectly by the Seal Beach, OC County line, the Asian CD CA-32, and the Saddleback Mountains between OC and Riverside County, with the pass and the Freeway being where I cut into Corona. CA-43 and CA-26 can switch out precincts to make CA-43 more Hispanic, but it means another municipal cut into Ontario, and I wouldn't do it, but maybe it should be done. I will draw an alternative map that way. That will make CA-26 more GOP.  

The way I drew the map, I don't think another Hispanic CD is possible, without cutting into Riverside, and I agree with the commission that that should not be done. It not legally mandated, and enough is enough.

I drew two more CD's by the way. They are drawn about the only way they can be drawn given the VRA and the mountains, unless one does not mind erosity and more chops, and I do mind. CA-20 is 59.8% Hispanic VAP.

Unfortunately the 2010 VTDs don't load for me either.

If you are going to preserve the San B - Riverside county line (and I like that you do). Then I think you will have to beef up your Latino districts. The commission report indicates that there is racially polarized voting in the Inland Empire and they had to go to 64% HVAP in the San B district to get CVAP over 50%. In the Riverside district they brought the HVAP over just 50%, which seems like a reasonable compromise between county integrity and Latino community interests. I still think it should be possible to slide some blocks and get 41 out of Riverside - if only my DRA worked.

I'm also concerned about attaching San Benito to CD-17. The commission didn't seem to check on whether racial polarized voting exists in the San Jose area, but it might, and if so then I think San Benito has to go with San Jose. San Benito isn't that populous and could be replaced by some extra folks from Santa Cruz in CD-17.

[muon2]

I thought I would go into a little more detail on the methods I mentions above.

I divide the state into regions, each roughly equal to a whole number of CDs. In most states I would try to get the regions within 0.5% of the ideal population, but with so many high population counties and natural barriers between regions my tolerance was quite a bit higher.

My goal is to place the districts largely within their region. As I divide each region into districts I look to avoid unnecessary county and municipal splits while complying with the VRA. The purpose of this is to create a starting point that minimizes external influence towards a partisan outcome.

Here are my CA regions, the number of districts, and the deviation from ideal population.

North Coast (2) +4968
Upper Sacramento (2) +4658
Lower Sacramento (6) -51670
San Fransisco Bay (7) -49467
Central Coast (3) +85547
Central Valley (4) +33896
Los Angeles (14) -22065
Inland Empire (6) +40169
South Coast (9) -46072

[Хahar 🤔]

I would say that Contra Costa County has far more in common with Alameda County than any of the counties to its east; if possible, it would be best to keep the East Bay together.

[muon2]

I would say that Contra Costa County has far more in common with Alameda County than any of the counties to its east; if possible, it would be best to keep the East Bay together.

I would agree if this method were only bout communities of interest. This method relies on a first step of creating regions that are nearly a whole number of CDs. Contra Costa has the size for one and a half districts and shifting it would create regions that were not nearly a whole number of districts. In any case Contra Costa plus Solano is just over two districts in population, so my division of the region would create one district entirely within Contra Costa and one that is split between Contra Costa and Solano.

[Sbane]

Below is my completed map for the southern half of the state. I invite comments. I am not going to put up the partisan stats, least they bias one. Tell me where the flaws are from a VRA, community of interest and compactness standpoint, with minimum county and municipal chops, and how a superior product can be created. I think at the moment the map is flawless, and frankly inspired genius. Tell me how I am delusional about that.   Thanks in advance.

Oh yes, all Hispanic CD's are at least 60% Hispanic VAP - the lowest being 61.9% Hispanic VAP (CA-33). Addendum: Oh, I take that back.  CA-31 is 57.4% Hispanic VAP, and can be beefed up by trading territory with 75.6% Hispanic VAP next door CA-34, but it will break through some municipal lines and empty quarters, and make the map uglier and cross communities of interest. 57.6% Hispanic should be enough given that 22.8% are low voting Asians (they are low voting in that neighborhood), but I guess that could be discussed. The incumbent Becerra runs reasonably well with Anglos anyway (he went to Harvard Law School, and a lawyer friend of mine knew him quite well - he gets hit up for contributions by him all the time ), and should have no problem at all winning a Dem primary there (that CD is not in play in the General  ).

CA-43 is 57.4% Hispanic, but it can't get much higher without crossing into Riverside County, and trading territory with CA-42 (which is great from a Pub standpoint, but is not something that I think is appropriate, and don't think required by the VRA, since it is not as if the heavy Hispanic precincts live right on the county line with San Bernadino).

In due course, we shall have a detailed compare and contrast of this map with the Commission's one, putting under the microscope what happened, and try to fathom why. 

Addendum 2: At the bottom I put up the ethnic stats. Pale green is the color of an Asian "influence" CD, and lighter brown the same for Hispanics. As to partisanship, I will give you a hint. Other than CA-17, they are listed in the order of partisan preference.  

And yes, the two "whitest of white" CD's are also the wealthiest of those that I have mapped (right up there near the top of the nation), even if of distinctly different partisan preference. In fact,  more and more in Socal, and considerably more so than in the nation at large, if you're white, you tend to be rather high income. Down-market whites have packed their bags, and split, replaced by Hispanics.

And yes, I have dropped the Pub baseline in CA by two points, down to 44.3% McCain, splitting the difference more or less with the 4% and something Dem trend for the state as a whole in 2008. That probably does not obtain in the Central Valley, and may understate things in the prime snapback areas in CA in 2010, but I think that it is the best number overall for the state. I feel there is some Dem trend in CA, but Obama really juiced it up, and for the marginal CD's,  with maybe one exception (not to be disclosed at this time, since this is a CD I have not yet drawn, and I am just speculating), I don't think using a single baseline number will change the partisan odds much from trying to get more customized.

Well, this map sure isn't inspired genius. That would be the map I posted.

One thing that immediately stands out is that 22nd district. It violates the VRA by diluting Hispanic voting strength in the Central Valley. Indeed looking at the maps you posted later, your map needs major work in the Central Valley.

You chose to go into OC from SD whereas I went into Riverside, which leads to some differences in our maps. I don't think Escondido goes well with a coastal SD CD. I think putting Fallbrook, Vista and Escondido with Temecula and Murrieta works fine. Anyways, that's not a big deal, just a choice on where to go. I like your cut from OC into Riverside better than mine actually, so going up into OC from SD makes that easier to do. I don't like how you split both Corona and Moreno Valley though. Couldn't you add all of Moreno Valley into the 42nd and transfer the rest of Corona into the 44th? This will also increase the Hispanic percentage in that district which is necessary.

I don't like how you use the outer SBD county district to take in the Owens valley. It also causes you to put Redlands into the 43rd, which unnecessarily lowers the Hispanic percentage. Better to not split the northern boundary of the Socal counties(and I will get to this again later). Also you might have to put Pomona into the other SBD county district like I did. This creates a real Hispanic opportunity district there and the SGV Hispanic district is still above 60% Hispanic. Claremont doesn't have a high Hispanic population, but San Dimas, La Verne and Glendora do, believe it or not. It's not as Hispanic as Pomona of course, but switching out those cities for Pomona doesn't drop the Hispanic percentage as much as you might think and it leads to another Hispanic opportunity district. And Pomona goes better with the IE than with the SGV.

The split of LA county into Kern County is absolutely ridiculous. I don't like the split the commission did, and I don't like what you did. Kern County has nothing in common with LA county. You should have gone into Ventura County. You already split that line, so why the Kern split in addition to that? I would not accept a map like that. You should put Porter Ranch and surrounding neighborhoods north of 118 into the 25th, and extend the 27th into Thousand Oaks. Also San Benito going with SJ might be necessary too, in order to create a Hispanic opportunity district. That's what Muon suggested and I drew it. I will post my Norcal map later.

[Torie]

Got to run off, but as to the Kern cut it's perfect. The division is the Tehachapi Mountain range, which divides the Central Valley from the desert (and only 30,000 people). It's a natural physical barrier. Sending CA-25 into Ventura is far less desirable, and it would go down that river and have to take Fillmore, with which it has nothing in common. CA-44 taking CA-48's share of Corona is fine, but 1) what does CA-48 take instead, and 2), that would only reduce the cut into the Moreno Valley, not eliminate it.  If CA-50 does not take Escondido, what does? I spent a long time thinking about communities of interest. That is what this map is all about. And in this neck of woods (less so in the Bay area), I know the hoods. I haven't done it, but I don't think you can create another Hispanic CD in the south end of the Central Valley.  

Addendum. Oh, CA-44 could take the share of Corona that CA-42 has. That might be good (although it makes things more erose), if that allows CA-42 to take all, or almost all, of Moreno Valley. Corona is really joined at the hip with Riverside, particularly after you get out of the Anglo zone next to the mountains, and kind of chops into the heart of the Riverside metro area, rather than the far edges (SE Moreno Valley). It is worth experimenting with though. Good thought.

[minionofmidas]

Minor issue, but what is there in desert San Diego besides Indian Reservations and in desert Riverside besides the Chuckwalla Pen? I'd like to see both placed in the 53rd if possible. (And Blythe might go into the 41st I guess.)

[Sbane]

Got to run off, but as to the Kern cut it's perfect. The division is the Tehachapi Mountain range, which divides the Central Valley from the desert (and only 30,000 people). It's a natural physical barrier. Sending CA-25 into Ventura is far less desirable, and it would go down that river and have to take Fillmore, with which it has nothing in common. CA-44 taking CA-48's share of Corona is fine, but 1) what does CA-48 take instead, and 2), that would only reduce the cut into the Moreno Valley, not eliminate it.  If CA-50 does not take Escondido, what does? I spent a long time thinking about communities of interest. That is what this map is all about. And in this neck of woods (less so in the Bay area), I know the hoods. I haven't done it, but I don't think you can create another Hispanic CD in the south end of the Central Valley. 

Addendum. Oh, CA-44 could take the share of Corona that CA-42 has. That might be good (although it makes things more erose), if that allows CA-42 to take all, or almost all, of Moreno Valley. Corona is really joined at the hip with Riverside, particularly after you get out of the Anglo zone next to the mountains, and kind of chops into the heart of the Riverside metro area, rather than the far edges (SE Moreno Valley). It is worth experimenting with though. Good thought.

I think a cut into thousand oaks by a western San Fernando valley district makes more sense than cutting into Kern or into the Fillmore area with the 25th. Thousand oaks has a lot in common with that area, as opposed to the other combos mentioned which make less sense.

Ca-48 should remain as is but if ca-44 and ca-42 can trade territories to eliminate the cut in Moreno valley, it should be done. And it results in a more Hispanic district which might be required of the map. Corona is  joined to the hip with Riverside but so is Moreno valley.

Escondido has to be put into Ca-50 if you cut into OC instead of riverside. You can put it, San Marcos and Vista into the 49th and in exchange the entire coast including camp Pendleton gets put in the 50th. Obviously won't work if you are going into OC from SD.

[Torie]

Got to run off, but as to the Kern cut it's perfect. The division is the Tehachapi Mountain range, which divides the Central Valley from the desert (and only 30,000 people). It's a natural physical barrier. Sending CA-25 into Ventura is far less desirable, and it would go down that river and have to take Fillmore, with which it has nothing in common. CA-44 taking CA-48's share of Corona is fine, but 1) what does CA-48 take instead, and 2), that would only reduce the cut into the Moreno Valley, not eliminate it.  If CA-50 does not take Escondido, what does? I spent a long time thinking about communities of interest. That is what this map is all about. And in this neck of woods (less so in the Bay area), I know the hoods. I haven't done it, but I don't think you can create another Hispanic CD in the south end of the Central Valley.  

Addendum. Oh, CA-44 could take the share of Corona that CA-42 has. That might be good (although it makes things more erose), if that allows CA-42 to take all, or almost all, of Moreno Valley. Corona is really joined at the hip with Riverside, particularly after you get out of the Anglo zone next to the mountains, and kind of chops into the heart of the Riverside metro area, rather than the far edges (SE Moreno Valley). It is worth experimenting with though. Good thought.

I think a cut into thousand oaks by a western San Fernando valley district makes more sense than cutting into Kern or into the Fillmore area with the 25th. Thousand oaks has a lot in common with that area, as opposed to the other combos mentioned which make less sense.

Ca-48 should remain as is but if ca-44 and ca-42 can trade territories to eliminate the cut in Moreno valley, it should be done. And it results in a more Hispanic district which might be required of the map. Corona is  joined to the hip with Riverside but so is Moreno valley.

Escondido has to be put into Ca-50 if you cut into OC instead of riverside. You can put it, San Marcos and Vista into the 49th and in exchange the entire coast including camp Pendleton gets put in the 50th. Obviously won't work if you are going into OC from SD.

The cut into Kern is perfect. The desert there is the same as the desert as Lancaster, a flat plain, and indistinguishable from the landscape that Lancaster is in, and the folks who live there shop, and largely work - in Lancaster. It is indeed one community of interest. Simi Valley is over a little mountain range and a world of its own, although many do commute. Simi Valley would have to be chopped to boot, and chopping deeply big towns is bad, bad, bad to boot. The Kern chop is the superior one in every way for the 30,000 people involved.

I accept the change out of the balance of Corona for the balance of Moreno Valley, primarily because the change loses one municipal cut, with just Corona now being cut, rather than both Moreno Valley and Corona (albeit the cut is with two different CD's).  That is the decisive factor for me. The new map is below. It works well.

[Torie]

Does the below precinct exchange between CA-43 and CA-26, a late term "abortion" as it were,  which trashes every reasonable "good-government" parameter on the grounds that doing  racial gerrymandering  via just doing the  VRA deep on steroids, turn anyone on? It gets CA-43 up to 62.2% VAP Hispanic (up from 57.6% Hispanic). Isn't that exciting?

[muon2]

Does the below precinct exchange between CA-43 and CA-26, a late term "abortion" as it were,  which trashes every reasonable "good-government" parameter on the grounds that doing  racial gerrymandering  via just doing the  VRA deep on steroids, turn anyone on? It gets CA-43 up to 62.2% VAP Hispanic (up from 57.6% Hispanic). Isn't that exciting?

I still think that you would make it better by letting CA-43 jut into Riverside instead of CA-41. It can go pick up some Latino areas and you can rationalize the unavoidable cut, by claiming it is the will of the VRA. For reference 64.7% HVAP gives 51.9% CVAP in that area, so 62.2% would project to 49.4% CVAP, so some additional Latino areas would be useful.

I think your map would be improved if you follow the the lead of the commission and MALDEF and move 43 to the SW. They use Chino, Ontario, Rialto, and a bit of San B to get a solid Latino seat. That would let you preserve Ontario as an intact muni.

[Sbane]

Does the below precinct exchange between CA-43 and CA-26, a late term "abortion" as it were,  which trashes every reasonable "good-government" parameter on the grounds that doing  racial gerrymandering  via just doing the  VRA deep on steroids, turn anyone on? It gets CA-43 up to 62.2% VAP Hispanic (up from 57.6% Hispanic). Isn't that exciting?

I still think that you would make it better by letting CA-43 jut into Riverside instead of CA-41. It can go pick up some Latino areas and you can rationalize the unavoidable cut, by claiming it is the will of the VRA. For reference 64.7% HVAP gives 51.9% CVAP in that area, so 62.2% would project to 49.4% CVAP, so some additional Latino areas would be useful.

I think your map would be improved if you follow the the lead of the commission and MALDEF and move 43 to the SW. They use Chino, Ontario, Rialto, and a bit of San B to get a solid Latino seat. That would let you preserve Ontario as an intact muni.

Looking at my map again, my 43rd isn't actually that much more Hispanic than what Torie drew before, about 58% HVAP. I thought it was due to him putting Redlands in his Latino district, but that is not the case. Perhaps that isn't enough for MALDEF, but it makes the map messier. Maybe it needs to be done. Meh.

Torie, I just disagree with cutting the LA-Kern County line. I disagree with what the commission did, and I disagree with your map. I wouldn't split Simi Valley though, I would split Thousand Oaks. Like I said before, putting a part of the city in a western San Fernando district makes sense from a community of interest perspective. Of course it isn't desirable to split the city, but it's not desirable to split the LA-Kern county line either.

[Sbane]

CA-20 is 69.2% HVAP and CA-18 is 56.1% HVAP. CA-16, the San Jose to San Benito County district, is 42.1% HVAP and CA-17, the Monterey district, is 40.4% HVAP. I wonder if it wouldn't be a better idea to just combine the Hispanic areas there. The 15th, which takes in the highly Asian areas of Fremont and goes down to Milpitas, Asian parts of San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale and Cupertino is 52.6% Asian VAP.

In Sacramento County I saw that it had population for a 2 districts and change. Since a split needed to happen, I decided to put West Sacramento with the Sacramento district and put all of the rural areas of Sacramento County into the 2nd. In San Joaquin County I did something similar and put most of the rural areas in the 19th. Ideally the city of Lodi and more areas in the north of the county would have gone in the 19th as well but that would have led to a very odd looking 1st or 2nd district and would have added to the county splits. I think this is a good compromise between community of interests and respecting city and county lines. In Contra Costa County the 11th picks up Brentwood and Discovery Bay. The rest of the eastern Contra Costa, including Oakley, gets put in the 7th district. This creates two exurban Bay area districts, and deservedly so since a lot of the growth in northern California has occurred in these areas.

[Sbane]

Look familiar? This leads to the 38th becoming 65.2% HVAP. The 43rd drops to 45.1% HVAP and it's 50.1% Hispanic for the total population. And this is superior to the commission map since it doesn't split Upland or Highland, and the 43rd doesn't contain Redlands. Another reason to not extend the SBD desert district into the Owens valley!

Another thing I should note about Pomona and the San Gabriel valley Hispanic district. If you don't add Pomona to that district, it becomes 58% HVAP. This is not enough to create a 50% HCVAP district in many areas but in the San Gabriel valley it does seem to be possible (probably due to more established Hispanics living in cities like San Dimas, La Verne, Glendora etc.). Just take a look at the racial stats of the 32nd district as drawn by the commission to see what I am saying. This is why I am comfortable with putting Pomona in the 38th district. That area does need a higher Hispanic population to get to 50% HCVAP. Refer to the 35th as drawn by the commission to see the stats.

[muon2]

Look familiar? This leads to the 38th becoming 65.2% HVAP. The 43rd drops to 45.1% HVAP and it's 50.1% Hispanic for the total population. And this is superior to the commission map since it doesn't split Upland or Highland, and the 43rd doesn't contain Redlands. Another reason to not extend the SBD desert district into the Owens valley!

Another thing I should note about Pomona and the San Gabriel valley Hispanic district. If you don't add Pomona to that district, it becomes 58% HVAP. This is not enough to create a 50% HCVAP district in many areas but in the San Gabriel valley it does seem to be possible (probably due to more established Hispanics living in cities like San Dimas, La Verne, Glendora etc.). Just take a look at the racial stats of the 32nd district as drawn by the commission to see what I am saying. This is why I am comfortable with putting Pomona in the 38th district. That area does need a higher Hispanic population to get to 50% HCVAP. Refer to the 35th as drawn by the commission to see the stats.

Thanks, that's exactly what I was suggesting. I only wish I could load CA 2010 into my computer.

OTOH, I agree with Torie about the cut into Kern. There's a very natural divide that separates the SE corner. I would attach it to Barstow, Inyo and Mono as a Mohave Desert district, but the point is the same. The Central Valley counties in my regional map were over the count of 4 CDs by 34 K, and that's just about exactly the number of people SE of the mountains in Kern.

I thought I would go into a little more detail on the methods I mentions above.

I divide the state into regions, each roughly equal to a whole number of CDs. In most states I would try to get the regions within 0.5% of the ideal population, but with so many high population counties and natural barriers between regions my tolerance was quite a bit higher.

My goal is to place the districts largely within their region. As I divide each region into districts I look to avoid unnecessary county and municipal splits while complying with the VRA. The purpose of this is to create a starting point that minimizes external influence towards a partisan outcome.

Here are my CA regions, the number of districts, and the deviation from ideal population.

North Coast (2) +4968
Upper Sacramento (2) +4658
Lower Sacramento (6) -51670
San Fransisco Bay (7) -49467
Central Coast (3) +85547
Central Valley (4) +33896
Los Angeles (14) -22065
Inland Empire (6) +40169
South Coast (9) -46072

[Torie]

Yes, the Kern cut stays. I do see that Pomona is part of an Hispanic area that is contiguous. We shall see what we can do. That is a rather compelling factor. I see more municipal cuts in LA County however. In my world, I would just live with the 57% Hispanic San Bernadino district, but I guess if the Hispanic voting habits are that different in the San Gabriel Valley, that is a very important factor. 

My cut of CA-41 into Riverside County is a grand total of 7,758 people. Getting rid of it "solves" nothing. And CA-41 just has too many  people to take Redlands.

I have been avoiding really looking at the Commission map, because it might bias me. But I did here. It's map is a mess in this area. I quite dislike it. Sbane's is better.  We shall see given the shape of my map elsewhere, which has very good reasons for doing what it did, what if anything can be done here, without making a hash of it.

I see the Commission really screwed up the CD numbering system too. So many districts get new numbers - needlessly. Sigh.

[RBH]

I see the Commission really screwed up the CD numbering system too. So many districts get new numbers - needlessly. Sigh.

#firstworldproblems

The same sort of complaints were made in Missouri after the judicial redistricting panel pretty much changed the district numbers of every State House district, outside of a few in STL. I just joked it was a concession to the business card printing lobby. But there were a few state house members openly unhappy about the number changes.

The CA US House districts didn't seem to be that huge of a problem and the same applies now.

[Torie]

Does this carve-up of the inland "empire" make everyone deliriously happy?  CA-38 is 61.4% Hispanic, CA-26 is 67% Hispanic, and CA-43 is 41.6% Hispanic. And Muon2 gets his f'ing Riverside County cut, which becomes more "convenient" with this map version - all 7,000 or so residents of it.

The key of course is the Pomona chop. We don't like to chop in half big towns like this, but the VRA is a harsh mistress - apparently. We also get a nice erose CA-43,and chop of a couple of more towns in LA County between CA-29 and CA-38.  Life is beautiful.

[muon2]

Does this carve-up of the inland "empire" make everyone deliriously happy?  CA-38 is 61.4% Hispanic, CA-26 is 67% Hispanic, and CA-43 is 41.6% Hispanic. And Muon2 gets his f'ing Riverside County cut, which becomes more "convenient" with this map version - all 7,000 or so residents of it.

The key of course is the Pomona chop. We don't like to chop in half big towns like this, but the VRA is a harsh mistress - apparently. We also get a nice erose CA-43,and chop of a couple of more towns in LA County between CA-29 and CA-38.  Life is beautiful.

A win-win-win can be a beautiful thing.

[Napoleon]

Can anyone draw a CA map with more than 25 <53% Obama districts? Mine has 25 with Ca-10 and Ca-36 about 55-56% Obama. Now on to my massive Dem gerrymander!!

[Sbane]

Does this carve-up of the inland "empire" make everyone deliriously happy?  CA-38 is 61.4% Hispanic, CA-26 is 67% Hispanic, and CA-43 is 41.6% Hispanic. And Muon2 gets his f'ing Riverside County cut, which becomes more "convenient" with this map version - all 7,000 or so residents of it.

The key of course is the Pomona chop. We don't like to chop in half big towns like this, but the VRA is a harsh mistress - apparently. We also get a nice erose CA-43,and chop of a couple of more towns in LA County between CA-29 and CA-38.  Life is beautiful.

A win-win-win can be a beautiful thing.

Yeah, not bad. If the Owens valley goes in the 41st then Redlands has to go in the 43rd, otherwise we end up with my map. Keeping Redlands and Yucaipa together is probably a good idea, and the Owens valley can be put in another district. . I Disagree about the Kern cut as well. The 25th to me is an exurban LA district. There are a lot of commuters who commute into either the Santa Clarita valley or into LA from Palmdale and Lancaster. Yes, those areas of Kern are high desert like those two cities but other than that they have very little in common.

[Sbane]

Can anyone draw a CA map with more than 25 <53% Obama districts? Mine has 25 with Ca-10 and Ca-36 about 55-56% Obama. Now on to my massive Dem gerrymander!!

I haven't done a Republican gerrymander of California yet. Probably wouldn't look so different from the current map. I did draw a Democratic gerrymander of California and IIRC I was able to keep the Republican districts in the single digits. Maybe 10 or 11. I lost that file though so I cannot tell you for sure.

[Napoleon]

My goal is 7.

[Sbane]

I doubt you can get to 7 without violating the VRA.

[muon2]

Yeah, not bad. If the Owens valley goes in the 41st then Redlands has to go in the 43rd, otherwise we end up with my map. Keeping Redlands and Yucaipa together is probably a good idea, and the Owens valley can be put in another district. . I Disagree about the Kern cut as well. The 25th to me is an exurban LA district. There are a lot of commuters who commute into either the Santa Clarita valley or into LA from Palmdale and Lancaster. Yes, those areas of Kern are high desert like those two cities but other than that they have very little in common.

That's why I put SE Kern with Barstow and Death Valley. It keeps the high desert together better IMO.