CA CD Wine Country Map Quest poll

[Torie]

That map's not bad if you just follow my fix to put CCC in the 3rd and most of the rest of Central Valley in the 3rd with the 5th picking up as much of Sonoma County as needed to get up to full population. That also basically resolves the issue dpmapper has of areas around the Bay Area being diluted by Bay Area votes.

That was my original map more or less, sbane. It causes CA-02 to suck up Shasta County. CA-02 crossing I-5 is a negative, and it gives CA-02 a non compact and wandering look to boot.  I-5 is a good connector highway to join together a lightly populated CD zone. So that is the cost for giving the class warfare theme a high priority. Is it worth it to you? 

By the way, not all of what CA-05 takes in CCC is that down market. It takes in a lot more than just Richmond, and I think Pinole is quite middle class. Perhaps only about half of the population in CA-05 in CCC is really sub-middle class. That is because it takes in more of CCC than my original map, because I kicked out CA-09 from CCC. Do you agree? I ask because that area is in your former neck of the woods.

Yeah, not all of that area is working class of course. But it doesn't really have any place with a median income above 80k, which is just above the median income of the Bay Area. And it really goes well with Fairfield and Vacaville in any case (or Concord, Pleasant Hill and Martinez within CCC). It just makes so much more sense than jumping the bay and putting it with upper class Marin which might care more about trees, global warming and buying fair trade whole foods for their vegan diet than "kitchen table" issues.

And all of that is worth appending Shasta to CA-02 I take it?  Mittens by the way gave a kick ass speech tonight. If you listen to it, some of it will sound like some of my posts.

Well, like I said most of Shasta County has a mountain feel to it, yes including Redding. Most of the agricultural areas start from Tehama County. It's not ideal but it will have to do in my mind. Maybe some ranchers from that area will be pissed off and want to shoot me in the face. I dunno.

A good Mitt speech, eh? So he went beyond saying he believes in America and that it is the greatest nation created since the big bang? Not saying that it isn't a bold statement, but did he go into more specifics than pointing out Obama might have once worked as a community organizer? I will check it out. Maybe not soon as I am studying for finals, and to procrastinate, redistricting. I'm still pissed at him (and Santorum I guess) for denying me the chance to analyze meaningful California results.

The best part of Mittens speech was asking just how it is "fair" that the "Richmond" folks are consigned to crap schools, with no realistic alternatives, government workers paid more than private sector workers doing the same job, union members against their will having their dues in part diverted to politicians and causes they don't support, running up the debt that future generations will have to pay off degrading their standard of living, regulations that make near zero economic sense, if you do a reasonable balancing test of the cost and the benefits (Mittens didn't say this, but some huge development was stopped in mid stream over some fox or something, while it is all studied some more), and so forth. It was prose poetry, and damn it, he's right!  Period.

Mittens in short threw Obama's "fairness" rhetoric right back in his face, in a nice way. It was a very carefully crafted speech, and Mittens delivered it extremely well. His speech coach obviously has worked with him, and he worked on it. The man has discipline. Discipline is a virtue in my little universe.

[Sbane]

Romney is lucky Obama is hated in "real" America, or else he would lose. He might pull this out but it will be hard for him to get anything done. Same with Obama too though.

[muon2]

If I stick to my Ventura subregion, here's the chance for human intervention. This is the other rotation that keeps splits of Ventura to one but splits SLO instead. Like the other plan this needs 13 K from LAC for pop balance.

That won't sell/work either Mike. Sorry. But by all means finish your algorithm map. I have decided to get more rigorous about this myself, and I will try to delete Chino Hills from the LA County Asian CD, unless the VRA precludes it, because it dilutes too much the Hispanic CD in SB County. SD County should have put one chop out of it, by the way.  Extra county chops beyond the VRA require another very good reason, like keeping a metro area together, or due to compelling geographic barriers, like between Kern and SLO or Ventura County for example.

So we need to define geographic barriers with some rigor so it is clear when it permits the violation of other rules. I made my suggestion based on types of highway connection, do you have one to offer?

My notion of county splits would include three levels. One is for de minimis splits of under 0.5% of a district required to satisfy OMOV. The next is for minor splits that are less than 5% of a district and less than 20% of a county. Finally there are major splits that exceed 5% on both pieces. My preference is for lesser splits. Districts entirely within a county do not count as a split.

So applying this to the southern wine county of Santa Barbara, my first offering has a minor split of the remainder of Ventura and a minor split in LAC. The second offering removes the spit from Ventura and replaces it with a major split of SLO. Using neither of these but keeping the wall around the north of this subregion requires at least a return to the minor split of Ventura and two major splits in LAC (not counting the inevitable split on the east).

BTW I find that even with Chino Hills I get a 63.1% HVAP CD entirely in SB.

[Torie]

Reasonable questions Mike, of which I am fully aware, and have been, and will continue to ponder. It helps to draw a zillion maps to refine one's thinking on this. The goal is to write a paper, so we offer up that thinking to the public square, tough agonizing thinking which if one is susceptible, would bring on migraine headaches. But just like porn, which you know it when you see it, you know it when you see a map like your past couple of maps, in my little arrogant opinion. No rules should force anyone to do that sort of thing - ever. Sure it is a tough task, but we need and must do better.  We are not there - yet. Maybe there needs to be California specific rules, in recognition of its rather unique complexity. Maybe, I don't know that either - yet.

And maybe after rules are written, they could be violated with a supra majority, just as an escape hatch. There already is that in the statute, but obviously it failed. So maybe the process part requires having more out of the closet politically savvy members involved. Maybe the politicians should pick a couple of members from each party (so if the three non hack members from each party are not persuaded by the hacks, they will be outvoted, but will still have input), out of the 5 from each party, or 4 out of the 14 Commission members. That way, more of the games will be called out by one set of political "hacks" or the other. So we should address process as well. And maybe the process should call for a written explanation in some detail, when the "rules," whatever they are, are violated, with the statute clear that it requires clear and convincing evidence. Maybe.

Hopefully you agree. If not, you are even more stubborn than I am, which is pretty frightening.

[muon2]

That won't sell/work either Mike. Sorry. But by all means finish your algorithm map. I have decided to get more rigorous about this myself, and I will try to delete Chino Hills from the LA County Asian CD, unless the VRA precludes it, because it dilutes too much the Hispanic CD in SB County. SD County should have put one chop out of it, by the way.  Extra county chops beyond the VRA require another very good reason, like keeping a metro area together, or due to compelling geographic barriers, like between Kern and SLO or Ventura County for example.

So we need to define geographic barriers with some rigor so it is clear when it permits the violation of other rules. I made my suggestion based on types of highway connection, do you have one to offer?

My notion of county splits would include three levels. One is for de minimis splits of under 0.5% of a district required to satisfy OMOV. The next is for minor splits that are less than 5% of a district and less than 20% of a county. Finally there are major splits that exceed 5% on both pieces. My preference is for lesser splits. Districts entirely within a county do not count as a split.

So applying this to the southern wine county of Santa Barbara, my first offering has a minor split of the remainder of Ventura and a minor split in LAC. The second offering removes the spit from Ventura and replaces it with a major split of SLO. Using neither of these but keeping the wall around the north of this subregion requires at least a return to the minor split of Ventura and two major splits in LAC (not counting the inevitable split on the east).

BTW I find that even with Chino Hills I get a 63.1% HVAP CD entirely in SB.

This is the remaining chop of Ventura that makes any sense with my regional walls to reduce county splits. As I alluded to, it requires the unpleasant chop into Lancaster (with a chop of 124K, most of the city goes to Kern). If you think this is better than the first two options, I need to know how to recognize this as an appropriate time to bend the algorithm to human input.

[Sbane]

Meh, Torie's map in his sig (and iirc I had a similar map) is much preferable to that. And between the two options you posted, I would say they are equally flawed (or good).

[Torie]

Meh, Torie's map in his sig (and iirc I had a similar map) is much preferable to that. And between the two options you posted, I would say they are equally flawed (or good).

Quite, but with the SLO/Monterey wall, your map is the best one can do I think. That chop of Lancaster is a killer though.  But then that it is what the Commission did; that act by it will be one of the sharpest "j'accuses in the White Paper (a Brit term for you there )

I have been meaning to ask my "source" about just how it came about that the SLO/Monterey wall was decided upon, which makes such a hash out of everything.

[muon2]

Meh, Torie's map in his sig (and iirc I had a similar map) is much preferable to that. And between the two options you posted, I would say they are equally flawed (or good).

Quite, but with the SLO/Monterey wall, your map is the best one can do I think.

By that do you mean my first one with the Kern-Ventura link? That's the one most consistent with the algorithm.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's why I avoided it until my first two maps with links to northern Ventura were treated so unkindly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I assumed that it was the easiest path to meet section 5, keeping the district largely as is. I'm curious to see what you find out.

[Torie]

Meh, Torie's map in his sig (and iirc I had a similar map) is much preferable to that. And between the two options you posted, I would say they are equally flawed (or good).

Quite, but with the SLO/Monterey wall, your map is the best one can do I think.

By that do you mean my first one with the Kern-Ventura link? That's the one most consistent with the algorithm.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's why I avoided it until my first two maps with links to northern Ventura were treated so unkindly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I assumed that it was the easiest path to meet section 5, keeping the district largely as is. I'm curious to see what you find out.

If the Hispanic percentage were upped in a CD in which Monterey is wholly contained from what it was, how could adding a slice of SLO to it raise a section 5 issue?  My new Monterey County CD clocks in at a 46.3% Hispanic VAP population. The previous CD was at 44.3% per the DRA utility's numbers.

[muon2]

I have been meaning to ask my "source" about just how it came about that the SLO/Monterey wall was decided upon, which makes such a hash out of everything.

I assumed that it was the easiest path to meet section 5, keeping the district largely as is. I'm curious to see what you find out.

If the Hispanic percentage were upped in a CD in which Monterey is wholly contained from what it was, how could adding a slice of SLO to it raise a section 5 issue?  My new Monterey County CD clocks in at a 46.3% Hispanic VAP population. The previous CD was at 44.3% per the DRA utility's numbers.

I would agree with your interpretation, and I did much the same thing in my January plan. That was also the basis for the Merced split in this month's offering. I just wonder if the commission had advice the drew them towards keeping the sect 5 counties whole to minimize any DOJ issue.

[muon2]

Here is LAC for the plan with the Kern-Ventura connection. The purple CD is 50.9% AVAP (Brea is almost completely intact in the CD). The medium blue CD is 43.3% BVAP. There are 6 CDs with >50% HCVAP. There are only 2 CDs that span the county line and in both cases a part of the split makes up less than 5% of a CD.

[jimrtex]

I have been meaning to ask my "source" about just how it came about that the SLO/Monterey wall was decided upon, which makes such a hash out of everything.

I think that the central coast is really close to two representatives, and also 1 and 1 uf you split at the county line.  But since you can't be exact, you could try to set the northern line at Sta Clara-Sta Cruz, be a little bit off at Monterey-SLO, and a lot off at Sta Barbara-Ventura, or reverse it.

If you start at Monterey-SLO, then you can be a little bit off at both ends.   Monterey is not easy to split on a north-south basis.  Not a lot of people live around Big Sur, and you probably don't want to be chopping the Salinas Valley - which may raise VRA concerns.

They might have been conscious of how ugly the Sta Barbara coastal district is (at least on a political map).  It could even be considered a poster child for why the commission exist.

And since the commissioners were classified by region during their selection process, they might have done an initial apportionment based on that.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The map below, which I thought sbane drew in a degraded state, but you did I see, Mike. If you are going to cross the River Styx by using the the SLO/Monterey wall, that is the best one can do I think. But those who place the wall there will not be going to heaven. The best they can hope for is limbo.

We need wall placement rules. Put that on the list.

[muon2]

We need wall placement rules. Put that on the list.

I think I have firm rules for walls. Walls exist around regions of whole counties that are nearly equal to a whole number of districts. By nearly equal I would use population deviations that have stood up before SCOTUS. Perhaps we'll get a better idea of their view on deviations from the WV case. In any case we can predict what range one should get given the number of regions and counties in a state. If the result is statistically close to that deviation then the regions can be considered.

For CA with 58 counties the predicted ranges for different numbers of regions are
2 regions, range 45
3 regions, range 229
4 regions, range 723
5 regions, range 1767
6 regions, range 3665

For the purposes of forming regions counties in a region must be connected. Two counties are connected if one can travel from the county seat of one county to the count seat of the other county on US or state highways without passing through another county.

[Torie]

Yes, but if a wall location ends up creating a nasty Lancaster chop, or forces stuff to go where it should not go, that is a problem.  And there may be crossings that should be "disfavored."  Having some statistical limits like you suggested might work, which can be violated under certain circumstances. Or maybe we have defined regions, in which there may be only one chop out unless the VRA demands otherwise, or to unite a city that is already mostly in one CD. And Sacto taking W. Sacto, or uniting Yuba City and Marysville, perhaps should not count as a chop for example. 

[muon2]

Yes, but if a wall location ends up creating a nasty Lancaster chop, or forces stuff to go where it should not go, that is a problem.  And there may be crossings that should be "disfavored."  Having some statistical limits like you suggested might work, which can be violated under certain circumstances. Or maybe we have defined regions, in which there may be only one chop out unless the VRA demands otherwise, or to unite a city that is already mostly in one CD. And Sacto taking W. Sacto, or uniting Yuba City and Marysville, perhaps should not count as a chop for example. 

But can you describe exceptions a priori so that we don't have map makers coming up with rules a posteriori to suit their needs? Iowa has learned to live with some unusual pairings because they trust their rules to prevent mischief. Could other states do the same?

[Torie]

I am thinking we should go with the Michigan rules, with wall placement up to the Commission unless it ends up chopping a metro area. If it does, that wall has to go. I think that horrible SLO /Monterey wall forces a chop of the Santa Cruz metro area. Now that I got rid of the Chino Hills chop, I think my map now has the minimum chops of counties other than two chops forced by the VRA, and after I massaged the black CD, there should be a minimum of city chops (other than as forced by the VRA).  I shaved CA-35 down to a minimum 50% CVAP to minimize the chop into San Bernardino City (I only had to take about 10 precincts or something).

If you think I have an extra county chop, let me know. The idea is that each CD generates two chops, except one CD with which you start (CA-01 here), unless a county can hold at least three CD's, and then at least one most be wholly contained in that county. Interior walls that make one CD a one chopper, forces another CD to be a three chopper (e.g., in my map, CA-04). At least that is my way to try to break through the fog of chop counts, which itself gives one a headache. Let me know your thoughts.

I am still unclear why your map itself uses the SLO/Monterey wall btw. Surely you don't find favor with it do you? Not if it produces maps that are well, like the Commission's - or yours.

[muon2]

I am thinking we should go with the Michigan rules, with wall placement up to the Commission unless it ends up chopping a metro area. If it does, that wall has to go. I think that horrible SLO /Monterey wall forces a chop of the Santa Cruz metro area. Now that I got rid of the Chino Hills chop, I think my map now has the minimum chops of counties other than two chops forced by the VRA, and after I massaged the black CD, there should be a minimum of city chops (other than as forced by the VRA).  I shaved CA-35 down to a minimum 50% CVAP to minimize the chop into San Bernardino City (I only had to take about 10 precincts or something).

If you think I have an extra county chop, let me know. The idea is that each CD generates two chops, except one CD with which you start (CA-01 here), unless a county can hold at least three CD's, and then at least one most be wholly contained in that county. Interior walls that make one CD a one chopper, forces another CD to be a three chopper (e.g., in my map, CA-04). At least that is my way to try to break through the fog of chop counts, which itself gives one a headache. Let me know your thoughts.

I am still unclear why your map itself uses the SLO/Monterey wall btw. Surely you don't find favor with it do you? Not if it produces maps that are well, like the Commission's - or yours.

If it's to be MI rules, then there has to be something to replace the constraints of the MI townships, or it still seems a bit loose. What you really want is something that generates a wall between LAC and both Kern and Ventura, and I'm not sure how you get that without a Torie on the Commission. I prefer that wall myself, but I'm looking for a model that might lead in that direction. For instance should one consider the magnitude of a county (or city) chop?

On VRA districts how did the Asians fare? Does section 5 really force 3 chops for the Salinas district? That seems hard to justify in your methodology. To break the M-SLO wall one should contain the northern chop to only SCruz or SClara.

[Torie]

On Section 5, there is enough ambiguity that diluting the Hispanic percentage or chopping a Section 5 county that the chop may be justified. Any VRA chop should require a written legal opinion that without doing it, the risk of a Section 5 (or a Section 2 violation for that matter) is more than remote. I would no problem getting rid  of that chop into Gilroy, although it does force a Monterey CD shave into the Santa Cruz suburbs (or if you go into Santa Clara instead, a shave into the Silicon Valley). However, hewing to a clear chop rule is more bright line, and should trump the metro shave consideration, where the two are in conflict.

As to the type of chop, I have been pondering some sort of percentage limitations, and am thinking that the statute should have some preferred guidelines, which if violated require a written finding by the Commission justifying breaking the guidelines. That at least should concentrate the minds of those there that are just dialing it in. However, for very small cities (say 15,000 or less, maybe 10,000 or less), sometimes they might need to be chopped more severely to avoid a map looking grotesque. For larger ones, a 20% guideline might be reasonable. I think in fact I hewed to such a guideline throughout the state, except for Vallejo. I would sign off on a written finding on that one I think. Obviously, that was the toughest part of the state to map.

The same concept might be stated for the separation of CD's along the Sierra-Techachpi line in the south, keeping CD's from crossing in and out of the Central Valley, and keeping CD's not in a metro area from nibbling in (the Santa Cruz thing).  

It might also be good to require staff to draw up alternative maps hewing to all these guidelines. I think if the Commissioners could see a group of well done alternatives, they might have done a better job. And of course, the partisan numbers should be revealed. I suspect that some knew the numbers, and some of the dial it inners did not.

It is kind of interesting that in the end, my obsession with Michigan gave me some "training" for this exercise. One never knows where things will lead sometimes, does one?  I doubt a year ago I could do what I can do now. I think I maybe have a new skill.

Oh, as to the Asians, since the rule in the 9th Circuit is 50% CVAP, no Asian CD's are required. However, an Asian CD should have been drawn like we did in LA County, because it can be drawn without violating other guidelines. But that is a judgment call. In the Silicon Valley, one can go either the Asian route or the class warfare route (one can't get to 50% AVAP anyway up there without violating other guidelines, much less 50% ACVAP of course). That to me is a fairly close call.

[muon2]

On Section 5, there is enough ambiguity that diluting the Hispanic percentage or chopping a Section 5 county that the chop may be justified. Any VRA chop should require a written legal opinion that without doing it, the risk of a Section 5 (or a Section 2 violation for that matter) is more than remote. I would no problem getting rid  of that chop into Gilroy, although it does force a Monterey CD shave into the Santa Cruz suburbs (or if you go into Santa Clara instead, a shave into the Silicon Valley). However, hewing to a clear chop rule is more bright line, and should trump the metro shave consideration, where the two are in conflict.

As to the type of chop, I have been pondering some sort of percentage limitations, and am thinking that the statute should have some preferred guidelines, which if violated require a written finding by the Commission justifying breaking the guidelines. That at least should concentrate the minds of those there that are just dialing it in. However, for very small cities (say 15,000 or less, maybe 10,000 or less), sometimes they might need to be chopped more severely to avoid a map looking grotesque. For larger ones, a 20% guideline might be reasonable. I think in fact I hewed to such a guideline throughout the state, except for Vallejo. I would sign off on a written finding on that one I think. Obviously, that was the toughest part of the state to map.

The same concept might be stated for the separation of CD's along the Sierra-Techachpi line in the south, keeping CD's from crossing in and out of the Central Valley, and keeping CD's not in a metro area from nibbling in (the Santa Cruz thing).  

It might also be good to require staff to draw up alternative maps hewing to all these guidelines. I think if the Commissioners could see a group of well done alternatives, they might have done a better job. And of course, the partisan numbers should be revealed. I suspect that some knew the numbers, and some of the dial it inners did not.

It is kind of interesting that in the end, my obsession with Michigan gave me some "training" for this exercise. One never knows where things will lead sometimes, does one?  I doubt a year ago I could do what I can do now. I think I maybe have a new skill.

Oh, as to the Asians, since the rule in the 9th Circuit is 50% CVAP, no Asian CD's are required. However, an Asian CD should have been drawn like we did in LA County, because it can be drawn without violating other guidelines. But that is a judgment call. In the Silicon Valley, one can go either the Asian route or the class warfare route (one can't get to 50% AVAP anyway up there without violating other guidelines, much less 50% ACVAP of course). That to me is a fairly close call.

That may work for the chop rules. For walls I would suggest a page out of Iowa. If an initial set of walls creates a problem, the commission can send it back asking for a version with a specific requirement such as no wall between Monterey and SLO and at least no wall between at least one of either SCruz or SClara to insure a section 5 map. The walls can create regions according to the statistical tables above. Swaps between regions of counties can only occur in one county as with CDs for MI.

BTW what is your differential between AVAP and ACVAP?

[Torie]

Good suggestions. I got the differential for CA-35 from the Commission's numbers for its version of that CD, a 12.79% differential (so CA-35 needed to be 62.8% HVAP, which it is in my map). For the Asian CD's that the Commission drew (sort of in Chu's case), there is about an 11 point differential in the Silicon Valley, and about 7 points for Chu's CD in LA County.
 

[muon2]

As to the type of chop, I have been pondering some sort of percentage limitations, and am thinking that the statute should have some preferred guidelines, which if violated require a written finding by the Commission justifying breaking the guidelines. That at least should concentrate the minds of those there that are just dialing it in. However, for very small cities (say 15,000 or less, maybe 10,000 or less), sometimes they might need to be chopped more severely to avoid a map looking grotesque. For larger ones, a 20% guideline might be reasonable. I think in fact I hewed to such a guideline throughout the state, except for Vallejo. I would sign off on a written finding on that one I think. Obviously, that was the toughest part of the state to map.

I have been thinking about the chop rules and I agree that it makes sense to require specific justification for more than a "minor chop". I would stick to 20% of a county or city as a threshold. For the example you gave of a small city chopped to avoid a bizarre shape you can make that one of the possible findings. I would also explicitly allow any chop into a county where all other CDs in the county are wholly contained (eg SF).

I would however put an absolute upper limit on a minor chop size. Consider a CD spanning LAC and OC. A 20% county chop limit allows a completely free hand in crossing the border since a whole CD is less than 20% of LAC and just over 20% of OC. I think that much freedom in mapmaking is worth avoiding, so I will continue to advocate for an upper limit of 5% of a CD in a fragment to be considered a minor chop.

BTW do I see a tiny chop into Pomona that I assume you could not avoid?

[Torie]

As to the type of chop, I have been pondering some sort of percentage limitations, and am thinking that the statute should have some preferred guidelines, which if violated require a written finding by the Commission justifying breaking the guidelines. That at least should concentrate the minds of those there that are just dialing it in. However, for very small cities (say 15,000 or less, maybe 10,000 or less), sometimes they might need to be chopped more severely to avoid a map looking grotesque. For larger ones, a 20% guideline might be reasonable. I think in fact I hewed to such a guideline throughout the state, except for Vallejo. I would sign off on a written finding on that one I think. Obviously, that was the toughest part of the state to map.

I have been thinking about the chop rules and I agree that it makes sense to require specific justification for more than a "minor chop". I would stick to 20% of a county or city as a threshold. For the example you gave of a small city chopped to avoid a bizarre shape you can make that one of the possible findings. I would also explicitly allow any chop into a county where all other CDs in the county are wholly contained (eg SF).

I would however put an absolute upper limit on a minor chop size. Consider a CD spanning LAC and OC. A 20% county chop limit allows a completely free hand in crossing the border since a whole CD is less than 20% of LAC and just over 20% of OC. I think that much freedom in mapmaking is worth avoiding, so I will continue to advocate for an upper limit of 5% of a CD in a fragment to be considered a minor chop.

BTW do I see a tiny chop into Pomona that I assume you could not avoid?

Your text confuses me a bit. You are saying for county chops, if less than 5% no written finding, if between 5%-20% just what again (?), and of course a written finding over 20%.  You could deal with the county size issue by having the 20% limit apply both to the percentage of the county and the percentage of the CD involved in the chop, no?  For a small county, having to justify a 5%-20% chop seems just silly (the answer is because the county is small!).

The Pomona chop is the CA-35 LA County chop out as it were (although most of the CD is in SB County, but that is LA County's escape route in any event). The Pomona area chop and the LA County chop into Seal Beach are the only two LA County involved chops on the map.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

. 

Yes of course. That (e.g., SF) is in effect a "walled" CD, so its existence automatically justifies a chop (you might notice in my chart above, that the 4 county chopping CA-05 "blames" walled SF for on of its excess chops, and walled CA-02 for the other).

[muon2]

As to the type of chop, I have been pondering some sort of percentage limitations, and am thinking that the statute should have some preferred guidelines, which if violated require a written finding by the Commission justifying breaking the guidelines. That at least should concentrate the minds of those there that are just dialing it in. However, for very small cities (say 15,000 or less, maybe 10,000 or less), sometimes they might need to be chopped more severely to avoid a map looking grotesque. For larger ones, a 20% guideline might be reasonable. I think in fact I hewed to such a guideline throughout the state, except for Vallejo. I would sign off on a written finding on that one I think. Obviously, that was the toughest part of the state to map.

I have been thinking about the chop rules and I agree that it makes sense to require specific justification for more than a "minor chop". I would stick to 20% of a county or city as a threshold. For the example you gave of a small city chopped to avoid a bizarre shape you can make that one of the possible findings. I would also explicitly allow any chop into a county where all other CDs in the county are wholly contained (eg SF).

I would however put an absolute upper limit on a minor chop size. Consider a CD spanning LAC and OC. A 20% county chop limit allows a completely free hand in crossing the border since a whole CD is less than 20% of LAC and just over 20% of OC. I think that much freedom in mapmaking is worth avoiding, so I will continue to advocate for an upper limit of 5% of a CD in a fragment to be considered a minor chop.

BTW do I see a tiny chop into Pomona that I assume you could not avoid?

Your text confuses me a bit. You are saying for county chops, if less than 5% no written finding, if between 5%-20% just what again (?), and of course a written finding over 20%.  You could deal with the county size issue by having the 20% limit apply both to the percentage of the county and the percentage of the CD involved in the chop, no?  For a small county, having to justify a 5%-20% chop seems just silly (the answer is because the county is small!).

If I was confusing it's because there are two different criteria at play. A minor chop into a county or city is both a) less than 20% of the political jurisdiction and b) less than 5% of the CD. For small counties only part a) matters, so it matches your statement. Part b) is to address chops in large counties. The transition occurs when a county is larger than 25% of a CD.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah. I'll have to trace your tree of linkages in this latest map.

[Torie]

As to the type of chop, I have been pondering some sort of percentage limitations, and am thinking that the statute should have some preferred guidelines, which if violated require a written finding by the Commission justifying breaking the guidelines. That at least should concentrate the minds of those there that are just dialing it in. However, for very small cities (say 15,000 or less, maybe 10,000 or less), sometimes they might need to be chopped more severely to avoid a map looking grotesque. For larger ones, a 20% guideline might be reasonable. I think in fact I hewed to such a guideline throughout the state, except for Vallejo. I would sign off on a written finding on that one I think. Obviously, that was the toughest part of the state to map.

I have been thinking about the chop rules and I agree that it makes sense to require specific justification for more than a "minor chop". I would stick to 20% of a county or city as a threshold. For the example you gave of a small city chopped to avoid a bizarre shape you can make that one of the possible findings. I would also explicitly allow any chop into a county where all other CDs in the county are wholly contained (eg SF).

I would however put an absolute upper limit on a minor chop size. Consider a CD spanning LAC and OC. A 20% county chop limit allows a completely free hand in crossing the border since a whole CD is less than 20% of LAC and just over 20% of OC. I think that much freedom in mapmaking is worth avoiding, so I will continue to advocate for an upper limit of 5% of a CD in a fragment to be considered a minor chop.

BTW do I see a tiny chop into Pomona that I assume you could not avoid?

Your text confuses me a bit. You are saying for county chops, if less than 5% no written finding, if between 5%-20% just what again (?), and of course a written finding over 20%.  You could deal with the county size issue by having the 20% limit apply both to the percentage of the county and the percentage of the CD involved in the chop, no?  For a small county, having to justify a 5%-20% chop seems just silly (the answer is because the county is small!).

If I was confusing it's because there are two different criteria at play. A minor chop into a county or city is both a) less than 20% of the political jurisdiction and b) less than 5% of the CD. For small counties only part a) matters, so it matches your statement. Part b) is to address chops in large counties. The transition occurs when a county is larger than 25% of a CD.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah. I'll have to trace your tree of linkages in this latest map.

I will send you my file tonight after I cleanse the black CD of chops. I would appreciate your fly specking  it.

Got it on your formula. The 5% of a CD figure might be low. I mean, what is wrong with a chop that takes in an entire city on the border of a county part of a larger mass of tracts that has a population of say 85,000 (unless it is a county seat, which is one of the reasons that I decided that CA-04 should not take Yuba City (shearing a county of its major town and county seat seems wrong to me if it can be avoided), while W. Sacto is the not the main action in town for Solano County).  Also if the percentage is too low, you might have a map to goes from Victorville to S. Lake Tahoe, or something (absent a written finding to the contrary). No! 

Pending further discussion, go KISS baby, and have the same percentage for both - 20%. 

How about compactness and shape?  Compactness really only obtains for a couple of areas of California, but compactness was on my mind always when drawing CA-01 and CA-02. And that Palos Verdes to Hancock Park "class warfare" CD that the Commission drew is just an obscene sin.

And how about "unnecessary" sword cuts into a county sometimes over empty zone, when less of a sword cut crossing no empty zone was available (switch out the sword cut of the Commission into Ventura County from Simi Valley to the Thousand Oaks area), and get rid of that horrid Westminster sword cut into OC.

Should erosity and wanderlust and sword cuts require written findings justifying them in lieu of the alternative that would avoid that (assuming in both instances the chop rules are otherwise met)?