How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission

[minionofmidas]

Why are we arguing over this black v brown thing again?  It doesn't mean a damn from a partisan standpoint.

Because the district is ugly. Unequivocally unnecessarily ugly if the issue can be solved without diluting the Hispanic CD too far, unnecessarily from the point of view of its Black neighbor district no matter what. Certainly not for partisan reasons.

I still don't understand your issue with downtown San Diego. What partisan objective are you after in San Diego, just so I know what it is to reject.

Probably none, though I'm not entirely certain of that.

You are not getting Coachella - period.

Why not?

I recognize it would probably require wrenches to all of outer SoCal... is that the only reason?

[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.

[Torie]

Why are we arguing over this black v brown thing again?  It doesn't mean a damn from a partisan standpoint.

Because the district is ugly. Unequivocally unnecessarily ugly if the issue can be solved without diluting the Hispanic CD too far, unnecessarily from the point of view of its Black neighbor district no matter what. Certainly not for partisan reasons.

I still don't understand your issue with downtown San Diego. What partisan objective are you after in San Diego, just so I know what it is to reject.

Probably none, though I'm not entirely certain of that.

You are not getting Coachella - period.

Why not?

I recognize it would probably require wrenches to all of outer SoCal... is that the only reason?

You are not getting Coachella because 1) the Commission didn't do it, 2) it creates only a 56% HVAP CD in San Diego, and 3)  the Coachella CD will not hit 50.0% HCVAP.  What the commission did was reasonable, and the purpose of this exercise is not to reject their reasonable choices, but rather whether the Pubs were F'ed over. It appears that a fair amount of whatever F over happened however, is due to the VRA - as interpreted. That is becoming more and more apparent. There is still some remaining mischief to assess, but less than I initially thought, due to Mike's hard work on this.

I think I understand what your game is now however. You want the Hispanic CD to go into Coachella, in exchange for losing some, but not all of San Diego, in order to push everything else south, presumably making CA-50 and CA-53 more Dem. Why didn't you just say that nice and pithy like, like I just did?  Brevity is good the soul. Anyway, I think I finally got it. LOL.  No, sorry. 

You can draw your own map on the premise that the Commission gave the Pubs too much or something.

[minionofmidas]

You are not getting Coachella because 1) the Commission didn't do it

'kay then, I suggest we're tossing the entirety of your map on the strength of that argument.

[Torie]

You are not getting Coachella because 1) the Commission didn't do it

'kay then, I suggest we're tossing the entirety of your map on the strength of that argument.

No, despite my best efforts, you just don't understand the purpose of my exercise, which is whether the Pub Commissioners were silly-buggered or not.  One reason I did what the Commission did, as I said many times before, was to better assess the balance of their map, and the choices made, without having a substantial twist of the clock, that made comparisons much more difficult. Granted, I was not creative enough, to fathom some avaricous Dem would want to go both into Coachella and San Diego, all in one CD!

As I guess you don't recall, way back when, I drew a 56% HVAP CD in San Diego, plus the 60.0% HVAP or so Hispanic CD in the Imperial Valley and Coachella, and Moreno Valley.  Then when I saw that the Commission did not do that, and better understood (although not as well as I do now), the Hispanic VRA thing, and retrogression, and all that horrible stuff, and decided a reasonable choice was made, I did what I did for the reasons outlined above.

[minionofmidas]

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.

[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.

[minionofmidas]

As I guess you don't recall, way back when, I drew a 56% HVAP CD in San Diego, plus the 60.0% HVAP or so Hispanic CD in the Imperial Valley and Coachella, and Moreno Valley.  Then when I saw that the Commission did not do that, and better understood (although not as well as I do now), the Hispanic VRA thing, and retrogression, and all that horrible stuff, and decided a reasonable choice was made, I did what I did for the reasons outlined above.

I recall the district, though not that the Hispanic CD in San Diego was that low. It was a lot like Muon's draft he keeps repeating here, though I recall it as more erose. I didn't like that idea then, and I do not now. And yeah, I guess there may actually be (at least if Republicans get a very good lawyer and a very friendly court) a retrogression issue with my proposal, seeing as most of that SD area was included in the district so far. Yeah, I had that thought for a fleeting moment while making the long rant post, too. In which case I guess it is not possible. A commission is required to follow the law. Including the case law. It can't, not possibly, play "let'em sue" games. (Of course, it can be sued anyways, and lose anyways. Such is the nature of case law.)

[Torie]

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 Commissioners followed their lawyers' advice actually. One of the things they noted, is that they 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, that the Pubs were too stupid or lazy 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?

[Torie]

At the comparison stage, I will use the Commissions numbers, noting what the old CD number was in parentheses on the matrix chart. In the meantime, I am ignoring their numbers, and using the old numbers, so I don't get confused as to which new CD best matches the old CD, for purposes of comparing how the partisan numbers changed.

At this point, for much of the state, I have only a vague understanding of what the Commission did - which was deliberate. I wanted to start fresh - after looking at what the Commission did with the Hispanic SD CD, which was a major issue and decision in my mind. 

I think I have worn Lewis out, and don't have much interest in spending more time on the black v brown thing in LA County. So let me know Mike, if you see any other issues with my map, which might cause it to be subject to "valid" non partisan criticism.

[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.

[Torie]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

For all their acclaim at being such brutally aggressive redistricters, Republicans really aren't that good at it. They haven't done the work that has occurred on the left to form an intellectual movement for ah I guess you could call it "progressivism" in redistricting. Most of that seems to have occured in the last decade in response to PA-TX-MI. The Republicans on the other hand, are good at legislative redistricting and manipulating the rules in MI to suit there purposes, but they aren't at a level in which they could compete toe to toe intellectually in CA or understand the implications of what choice of partisan data to use in AZ. Washington is one notable exception, primarily because of Gorton. Florida will be interesting to see both at the legislature and in the courts.


Now can anyone link me to a numbered map of the districts as adopted by the commission somewhere on the forum? Preferably one that I can actually load, so if it is on a page with 10 others maps, that won't work. I can't load the commission site.

[Torie]

For all their acclaim at being such brutally aggressive redistricters, Republicans really aren't that good at it. They haven't done the work that has occurred on the left to form an intellectual movement for ah I guess you could call it "progressivism" in redistricting. Most of that seems to have occured in the last decade in response to PA-TX-MI. The Republicans on the other hand, are good at legislative redistricting and manipulating the rules in MI to suit there purposes, but they aren't at a level in which they could compete toe to toe intellectually in CA or understand the implications of what choice of partisan data to use in AZ. Washington is one notable exception, primarily because of Gorton. Florida will be interesting to see both at the legislature and in the courts.


Now can anyone link me to a numbered map of the districts as adopted by the commission somewhere on the forum? Preferably one that I can actually load, so if it is on a page with 10 others maps, that won't work. I can't load the commission site.

Try this. I found it yesterday. Unlike the map available on the Commission's site, it shows the county lines, without which the map is hard to read - and evaluate.

[Torie]

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!

[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.

[Torie]

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.

[Sbane]

You are going to cut an "Hispanic" CD down from 61.9% HVAP (close to if not at 50.0% HCVAP) to 54% HVAP? And cut the black CD to 38.9% BVAP down from 44.6% BVAP (percentages destined as to the blacks to continue to decline over time)? I don't think so. And get a bodyguard sbane, because Maxine Waters will be looking for you.

But hey, I can preserve the black CD at my percentages, and draw a more contiguous CD off to the west with a materially higher HVAP than your anemic number, while making the Beach CD materially more Pubbie. Interested? Pity that the legal risk seems rather high.

The commission drew two districts that were about 25% BVAP. I draw one which is more than that, thus protecting a Black district better than what the commission did, and one that is a bit less. And it looks just so nice and perfect, doesn't it? The real question is whether we need another Hispanic district or whether we need one that is a Black and Hispanic influence district. I am not pretending that my 35th is a bonafide Hispanic district. It is a district where they will have a lot of influence and so will Blacks. And to top it all off it won't look absolutely ridiculous like your district. I would only sign off on a ridiculous looking district if I knew there was legal risk in not drawing that. And even if we did draw that, Black groups would complain. You have it all wrong, Blacks would love my map and hate yours. Of course this does not have any partisan implications but that district is just damn ugly and reduces the number of districts Blacks have influence over.

[Torie]

Yes, I understand sbane. I take your word for it about the black attitude (probably the second black incumbent is looking for a lifeboat, and was accommodated), I think the blacks are being short sighted about what their future is, but that is their problem. The Commission said they drew but one black CD in their text, but maybe something got lost in translation. And maybe Maldef will sue over this one too, assuming you have the numbers right. They should. This is one instance where I think they may have a pretty good case.

In the meantime, I am not changing my map, because of my own point of view about the legal exposure (I don't really think the CD looks all that bad myself - I have seen far worse racial gerrymanders), and because it doesn't matter for the purpose of my exercise, as you acknowledge. I can defend what I did without any embarrassment, if someone calls me on it.

By the way, in oral argument in Perez, one of the Justices noted that this racial coalition stuff just doesn't hunt, as either legally required, or as a substitute for a majority, minority CD. In practicality, your numbers really result in a zero influence Hispanic CD.

[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.

[Torie]

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.

[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.

[Sbane]

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.

Your Ventura County is nicer than I feared looking at the earlier map you posted. Good job not splitting Santa Rosa as well. It would have been nice if you could have kept Windsor with Santa Rosa though, but it's not possible with your constraints.

[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?

[Torie]

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.

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. You can hit 63% no doubt with an extra or two muni chop. You might sever the north end of Santa Ana (that is where the OC gentry used to live once upon a time), and then do two more mini-muni chops - a net of three more muni chops, although maybe just two, if there is enough Hispanic action left in Fullerton, which I chopped, to suck up a couple of very heavily Hispanic, low hanging fruit precincts, albeit kind of large ones, so you don't have to chop into both Tustin and Costa Mesa, or Placentia or something. And no, it won't happen in my map.