How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission

[Sbane]

In CA my sense was that the lack of understanding by the GOP of the impact of socioeconomic grouping as a preferred community of interest. The underlying math here works against the GOP as much as a maximally square grid with minimum area districts works against the Dems.

Yeah, this is why the GOP got screwed. Except for that Long Beach to Garden Grove district, everything else is justifiable. Especially Mcnerney's district. I would have switched out Lodi for Tracy though, but overall it's a Bay Area exurban district. Huge amounts of commuters come into the Bay Area from San Joaquin county. As someone who has driven on I-580 in the tri valley a good bit, I know this for a fact. Same with people in eastern Contra Costa who also have long, ridiculous commutes. A gas tax or an increase in vehicle registration fees would not be popular in these parts.

If we look at the Santa Clarita to Simi Valley district, one has to ask where the extra people would come from if not from Simi Valley. I think dipping into the San Fernando valley would have caused more of an outrage. If we look at the San Gabriel Valley, obviously it's not perfect, but I fail to see the vast left wing conspiracy. South El monte got put in a latino district based primarily in the gateway cities. Oh well. The article states it was put in a less Latino district and a more affluent district. If it got put in the SGV latino district, it would have been the same case. I do wonder why Rowland Heights, Walnut and Diamond Bar weren't added to the Asian district, as opposed to Glendora, Claremont and Upland. The partisan lean wouldn't have changed much mind you, but it would have made more sense. The maps aren't perfect, but I fail to see the controversy....except for the Long Beach to Garden Grove district. Even there you could argue it was just the odd man out once all the Hispanic districts were drawn. It would have been nice if a Republican district could have been drawn in OC with a high Asian influence. Just add Cerritos, Buena Park and Fullerton to the Vietnamese areas and you almost have a district.

It doesn't really matter too much. Dems are still vulnerable to losing seats in a wave election under the new lines.

I agree with this. Of course the Republicans have to reform themselves. I just heard some California Republican legislator lambast Latinos. These people need to stop living in the 80's.

[Sbane]

And just to follow up on my response to redcommander, I think CA republicans are comfortable with the current situation where they can do whatever they want with more than 33% of the chamber. That is why they are so up in arms over this map, since their guaranteed seats are vanishing. They don't care there are going to be more Dems who can be targeted since they are not interested in actually winning an election and controlling the chamber. They still want to hold views more appropriate for Oklahoma instead of actually competing in California.

[Sbane]

Here is how I would draw my map. First of all I adjoined Imperial county to SD.  Adding it to the Palm Springs area does not make sense since you need to go into Perris or Moreno Valley to get enough Hispanics. A map like that makes sense for the AD map since you don't need to cross over into LA exurbia. Then I only crossed over from SD county into Riverside County and not at all into Orange County, so only one county split there. In SBD and Riverside counties I drew two swing districts, with a dem lean. They both voted for Obama by about 16 points. Both districts voted for Brown by 7 points, but I bet Fiorina won both by a hair's breadth. Unlike most of urban California, in the IE Fiorina performed better than Whitman. Or it was more a case of Boxer being disliked more than Brown. The Riverside based district is 51% Hispanic and the SBD district is 53% Hispanic making them both Latino influence districts.

In OC I drew an Asian influence district at 36% Asian VAP. It's safe Republican and voted for Mccain by 2 points. Then I stretched the 37th into Huntington Beach. There is no way around it since OC has enough population for more than 4 districts. But before you start decrying it as a Democratic gerrymander, note that it actually voted for Whitman by about a point. Look closely and you will see Lakewood is included in the district and the ghetto parts of Long Beach are excluded.

In LA I drew the Asian district but did not include Glendora, which is not really that Asian, and it's not really the sort of place Asians will move to with it's mostly 50's and 60's housing stock. Instead I included the via verde neighborhood in San Dimas. I did not include Chino Hills to cut down on the county splits, but putting it in the Asian district certainly makes sense. It voted about 20 points for Obama. I also made one Black vs Hispanic district in the 35th and a Black district in the 33rd. Now the big question that remains is which district crosses over from LA county into Ventura. Do I do what the commission did and add Simi valley to the Santa Clarita district, or do I add parts of Thousand Oaks into the westside high SES zone district? Neither will make Republicans happy, but the positioning of Republicans in Ventura county is very inconvenient from a Republican perspective.

[Sbane]

It looks like you "lost" a 60% plus Hispanic CD in LA County, sbane.  I have six of them in LA County. Am I confused? 

I would have to see the whole map of LA County to comment. I was very careful to follow communities of interest lines, and class lines, and racial lines, with the VRA in mind. I did the best I could, and let the chips fall where they may. The Beach Cities CD slipped away, when it had to take all of Venice, and some Hispanic, Bohemian, Hollywood wanna-be, UCLA grad student, and independent minded undergrads who don't like dorm living precincts, just to the east of Santa Monica - a little pocket of left wing un-wealth. It was gone. Better areas for it had to go into the Hispanic CD down south. The end. It is amazing how that Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena, La Canada, La Crecenta CD has become solid Dem now. It would have been Pubbie wonderland when I was a kid. But the, CA-30 would have been marginal - then (e.g., even then, West Hollywood was gay ).

Yup, there will be two more Latino districts that will be drawn. One centered around downtown and of course the San Fernando valley.

I think the differences in our maps stem from you starting in LA, whereas I started in Imperial and SD. I'm trying to avoid pushing Socal districts into the central valley or the mountains. I think the only one that will be pushed outside Socal will be the coast district, which actually is fine from a communities of interest perspective.

[Sbane]

Here is the LA area completed. The gray district, the 26th, is a Hispanic district being 62% Hispanic VAP. The 35th that you can see in the previous map is also a Hispanic district with a Black influence. It's 54% Hispanic VAP and 21.1% Black VAP. Yes, your ugly u shaped district (sorry) probably does a better job of making the district more safer for a Hispanic, but at the expense of Black voters. Here I try to make everyone happy. The rest of the Latino districts in LA county are the 28th, 42nd, 34th and the 31st. So overall there are 6.

Turns out I didn't need to go that much into Ventura county. The 25th attains full population as long as you add all those areas north of the 118 freeway, and the 30th really should be a LA district, so the 27th has to go into Ventura County. The Ventura county district is a bit more Republican than what the commission drew and voted for Whitman by 5 points and Obama by 11 points. The city of Ventura is split and is added to the SB/SLO district, and about 50,000 people from SLO county will go into the Monterey county district. No districts split the northern county line of either LA or SBD county.

[Sbane]

Here is a redo. I still like what I drew before, and this new map does not really accomplish anything other than keeping Huntington Beach out of a LA district. The net result is that the 37th which actually voted for Whitman, becomes a Dem district. The Asian district gets a little more Republican, about 17 points Obama and 7 points Brown, and the Asian influence gets reduced in the OC district. I also have to cross the Riverside-Orange County line which imo is just as bad as putting Long Beach and Huntington Beach together. A good thing that happens though is the SBD swing district becomes more Hispanic, going from 53-56%.

You should add all of Arcadia to the Asian district and think about adding the south hills neighborhood of West Covina as well. That way you don't need to dip into Whittier and La Habra and split cities there.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Sbane]

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

[Sbane]

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.

Yes, that would be better. It might mess up the Latino influence district I drew though, which was about 45%VAP.

[Sbane]

My CA magnum opus map slowly continues to take shape. Silicon Valley and the Peninsula have now been drawn. So much of CA is a story of mountain ranges and Freeways (precinct lines tend to love following freeways, so using them makes for nice pretty lines). As always, comments are welcome.





By the way, I seriously played with the idea of CA-41 cutting into Kern, attempting to arrange matters, so that the Tulare CD was knocked out of Kern, to avoid a quad chop of Kern. It just doesn't work. The clock cannot be turned much counterclockwise, without generating a host of ancillary problems, including a nasty chop of Santa Cruz, or SLO, or messing up the Hispanic Fresno based CD, or all three. It just doesn't work. The clock in this map has stopped at about just the right place. CA just has too many mountain and ethnic barriers to have much flexibility in the end as to what to do.

And I got rid of the Riverside County chop! 



This was accomplished by using the Riverside-SB line as the hard line, rather than Seal Beach for the border of CA-37 and CA-40 and CA-46 (county lines in general should take precedence over municipal ones). So CA-37 takes gated geezer Rossmoor, and loses two Seal Beach precincts, and then you twist the clock (e.g., CA-48 taking more of Corona). The twist goes in the following order: CA 41-43-26-38-29-31-34-39-37-40-48-44-45-42. It is that laborious, because there are so many hard boundaries (muni lines, county lines, ethnic lines, mountain ridge lines) that cannot be crossed. Fun stuff.

Not a bad job with the south bay. I would try and not split Sunnyvale though. Keep Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Cupertino and the heavily Asian adjoining areas of San Jose together. In exchange you can grab more precincts along CA-85. Or pick up Campbell if you don't want to chop San Jose again. Though grabbing the Almaden Valley and putting it in the same district as Los Gatos and Saratoga would make a lot of sense.

I drew a more Asian district in the area, but it's not really necessary. The Vietnamese and Filipino heavy areas of eastern and southern San Jose don't go that well with the more upscale Asian areas of the western valley anyways.

I like your OC districts. What is the Asian VAP of the 40th?

As to what areas the 12th should take in SF, I think your chop may make more sense than what is there currently (and I am not sure how the commission drew it). I think those areas of SF might be more Filipino than Chinese, which is similar to Daly City. Though I am not familiar enough with the area to know for sure.

[Sbane]

Morgan Hill certainly can't be in a Santa Cruz district; there's no usable road through the mountains there, and to get from Morgan Hill or Gilroy to Santa Cruz you need to go through either Watsonville or San Jose.

Cupertino has more in common with Los Altos or Saratoga than it does with San Jose, whereas Campbell would fit better with the San Jose district than with the richer areas to its south. Demographically, Cupertino now has a large Asian majority, but income is probably a better indicator of communities of interest in the South Bay than race would be. It would be nice to simply switch Campbell with Cupertino (and the districts would look cleaner, too), but unfortunately Cupertino is significantly larger.

 

Do you like this version of CA-15 better, Xahar, with its chop of Cupertino?  Yes, you are right, Cupertino has twice the median income of Campbell (140K versus 70K).  But it does not help the Asian "cause," because CA-15 is more Asian than CA-14 of course. The Asian VAP percentages with this chop are 17% for CA-14, 29.5% for CA-15 (down from 32% with my version), and 42.7% for CA-16. But in addition to furthering along the class warfare metric, the Cupertino chop also makes the map less erose. I am inclined to accept Xahar's suggestion, unless someone changes my mind. When it comes to the Bay area, I do listen more than when it comes to my neck of the woods in Socal (where I think I know next to everything).

I am fine with this map. Lowers the Asian % even more though, but that's not hugely important. Mike Honda would easily get through a primary here. And this creates a middle class district in the Silicon Valley. Then again the other district contains Mountain View, which has a similar income to Sunnyvale and Santa Clara. If we drop the pretense of having a high Asian % district, you can just add Mountain view to the 15th, and get rid of the chop in Cupertino, add the parts of SJ adjacent to Cupertino (similar incomes I think) to the 14th as well as the Almaden Valley. That would create a better middle of the road district though the 14th would still have all of Santa Cruz so it can't be a wholly upper class district in any case. The map you drew might just be a compromise of all these variables.

[Sbane]

In other news, drawing Contra Costa County is an absolute nightmare. I suspect a Solano based CD will need to cross a couple of bridges in two separate salients into Contra Costa to make it work, while consuming that  long leg down river of Sacto County to "secure" the second bridge into eastern and rather rural Contra Costa.

This is one way to do it. The other way is the one I posted on page 5. That one has less county splits. This might do a better job of keep communities of interest together. It also leads to a split of Oakland (though it's not a lot of people) while the other map doesn't.

[Sbane]

The eastern parts of Contra Costa shouldn't be put in the 10th. It can rather pick up other areas closer to it like Bay Point or Pittsburg. Use the eastern parts of Contra Costa for a Bay Area exurban district. Connecting it to San Joaquin makes the most sense. Or to Solano depending on how many people you need in that district.

[Sbane]

The eastern parts of Contra Costa shouldn't be put in the 10th. It can rather pick up other areas closer to it like Bay Point or Pittsburg. Use the eastern parts of Contra Costa for a Bay Area exurban district. Connecting it to San Joaquin makes the most sense. Or to Solano depending on how many people you need in that district.

We shall see whether they are enough white/Asian people left near the Bay in the NW corner of Contra Costa, to excise the east CC salient from CA-10. If it isn't? It really needs to be all or nothing.

Addendum: and the answer is that there are not. We are 63,000 folks short, and cutting to the east along the Sacto River/SF Bay estuary enters heavily Hispanic territory. Now what?

No, you need to add Pittsburg, which is northeast of CA-10 to the district and take it out of the Brentwood area. And you can add Hispanics and Blacks too, not just Whites and Asians......

[Sbane]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I.E., slashing into Hispanic-dom, in lieu of all those white people in the eastern salient of CC? Why, sbane?

There's not going to be a Hispanic district out there, or at least I'd like to see how it is. No need to put central valley areas into a suburban district just because those areas aren't as Hispanic.

[Sbane]

I see you still have precincts in Antioch in the 10th. I would exchange them for the extreme western parts of the 11th. Did you do it because those precincts are relatively white for the area? Does this help you make a Hispanic influence district. What are the racial stats for the 11th?

Otherwise where you really need more robust Hispanic districts is in the Central Valley. What are the racial stats for the 20th, 21st and the 22nd?

[Sbane]

I see you still have precincts in Antioch in the 10th. I would exchange them for the extreme western parts of the 11th. Did you do it because those precincts are relatively white for the area? Does this help you make a Hispanic influence district. What are the racial stats for the 11th?

Otherwise where you really need more robust Hispanic districts is in the Central Valley. What are the racial stats for the 20th, 21st and the 22nd?

Good luck with that Sbane. CA-20 is the Hispanic CD, drawn to the max (about 60% VAP Hispanic). The other two are lower, but I don't know the exact figures, because my software crashed again.  Geography is a cruel mistress. I would be amazed if you can find an alternative which might actually be required by the VRA, and/or, is otherwise remotely desirable. Hispanics don't vote much in the Central Valley by the way. That is why Kern is 60% McCain, even though it is about 45% Hispanic or something. Tulare is the same story.

You can draw a more Hispanic district I think. You certainly are stranding Bakersfield Hispanics and they are being outvoted. What you need to do is have CA-19 get rid of Merced County (or at least the Hispanic parts) and put that in the 20th, freeing up more Hispanic precincts in Fresno County for another Hispanic district. Say we use CA-21 for that purpose, we can add the rural Hispanics in Fresno, Kings and Tulare with Bakersfield to create another Hispanic district. The map will get uglier, but if there is one area in California where the VRA actually serves a purpose, it's the central valley.

[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.