Dave's Redistricting App

[Sbane]

That district in northwest Orange County and overlapping parts of LA county would be very interesting. I think it would be a swing district with a slight republican lean. Good job joining the Chino hills area with northeast OC. Those areas are pretty similar.

[Sbane]

I know you made some changes to the Socal map, but did you make any changes to the Norcal map? My biggest concern here is that both Mcnerney and his challenger David Harmer don't live in CD-11 as drawn above. Any CD-11 that is drawn will have to include east bay suburbs. Either it's going to be Pleasanton (Mcnerney) or San Ramon (Harmer) depending on who wins in the fall.

[Sbane]

That map would make things much nicer for McNerney, right?

If the rural areas and small towns are taken out from the district and in it's place Dublin and Pleasanton are added, I think it would be a pretty good district for Mcnerney. Probably D+3 or 4. I would add the rural areas either into Stark's district, in place of the two cities I mentioned, or add them to CD-3 while adding more democratic parts of CD-3 into one of the outer east bay districts (probably CD-10 since Garamendi is from Sacramento County).

[Sbane]

This is a democratic gerrymander of what could happen if California loses a seat (I know it's unlikely this time around). I was afraid I wouldn't be able to get rid of a Republican seat without endangering a few Democrats. To my surprise not only did I get rid of a Republican district (Buck Mckeon's), I also put a few other pubbie incumbents in tough seats. I also put Jane Harman in a tougher district, but any uncorrupt Democrat should be able to carry it.

[Sbane]

[Sbane]

[Sbane]

[Sbane]

How many Hispanic-majority districts does this create?

15 Hispanic majority districts and 6 districts where they are greater than 40% of the population.

[Sbane]

Nice maps sbane. Too bad if the redistricting initiative passes (I can't imagine that it will not), it all will be totally illegal.   Plus, even if it does not pass, Governor Whitman would veto it.

Hmm, I don't see what's so wrong with my gerrymandering at all, besides not being visually pleasing enough for Xahar. I mean a district that includes both Long Beach and Compton makes a lot of sense doesn't it? Of course it also contains Seal Beach and Cypress. Or the district that joins Sunny hills in Fullerton to Huntington park. There's a lot of epic gerrymandering in there. I'm particularly fond of the central valley districts. I didn't know 3 Hispanic districts could be created there.

[Sbane]

A few thoughts on how I think the districts will vote:

CD 1- Wh: 68%, Bl: 2%, Nat: 2%, Asn: 5%, Hisp: 21%, Other: 3%
This district takes in Napa and parts of Sonoma county and then goes north through rural areas whilst picking up Willits, Ukiah, Eureka as well as Arcata. It then takes in democratic parts of Siskiyou county and then goes south picking up the college and downtown area of Chico whilst going to it’s end in Yolo county, including the hyper democratic city of Davis. It might be slightly more Republican than the current 1st district, but it can be easily held by a Democrat.
CD 2- Wh: 70%, Bl: 3%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 7%, Hisp: 17%, Other: 3%
I ended up switching CD2 and 4 so Mclintock would probably run from this district. At first I wanted to eliminate this district, but I was unable to. It ended up being much easier to draw Democratic districts in Socal. This district takes in the more conservative parts of San Joaquin County and the Sacramento suburbs. Safe R.
CD 3- Wh: 66%, Bl: 4%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 7%, Hisp: 19%, Other: 3%
Mostly conservative Sacramento county suburbs. I got rid of more minority parts of south Sacramento from the district, thus making it safer for Lungren.
CD 4: Wh: 75%, Bl: 2%, Nat: 2%, Asn: 4%, Hisp: 14%, Other: 3%
Conservative rural areas of northern California. It’s more or less the same district as before, but without the Sacramento suburbs. Safe R.
CD 5: Wh: 42%, Bl: 12%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 18%, Hisp: 24%, Other: 4%
Inner Sacramento district. Mostly the same as before and safe D.
CD 6: Wh: 68%, Bl: 4%, Nat: 2%, Asn: 6%, Hisp: 18%, Other: 3%
This district takes in more of rural California than the previous district which makes it less safe. Yet it’s still a safe D district.
CD 7: Wh: 37%, Bl: 16%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 15%, Hisp: 28%, Other: 4%
Similar to the current district, but it takes in some rural areas in northern California. Still a safe D district.
CD 8: Wh: 48%, Bl: 6%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 29%, Hisp: 14%, Other: 2%
Same district as before. Very safe D.
CD 9: Wh: 38%, Bl: 18%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 27%, Hisp: 13%, Other: 3%
For the inner east bay I tried to create as Hispanic a district as possible. This means that CA-9 is basically everybody except for the more heavily Hispanic areas. Safe D obviously.
CD 10: Wh: 59%, Bl: 5%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 12%, Hisp: 20%, Other: 3%
This district is more or less the same in Contra Costa county but it does not go into Alameda to take in Livermore. Instead I took the district into Sacramento county to take in some democratic areas there and Garamendi is from the area anyways. It also contains Vacaville and West Sacramento. It might be slightly less Democratic than the current district but can be easily held by a Democrat. Lean D.
CD 11: Wh: 47%, Bl: 6%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 14%, Hisp: 30%, Other: 3%
This has been made much safer for Mcnerney. In San Joaquin county it excises the conservative rural areas as well as the non Hispanic areas of Stockton and Manteca. It becomes a lean D district as opposed to the true swing district that it is currently.
CD 12: Wh: 42%, Bl: 3%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 32%, Hisp: 20%, Other: 3%
My goal in San Mateo and Santa Clara county was to create as white a district as possible. This district got the rest of the precincts. Safe D.
CD 13: Wh: 24%, Bl: 10%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 23%, Hisp:40%, Other: 3%
So this was my attempt at creating a Hispanic majority district in Alameda county. I failed miserably. I even had to go into San Mateo county to pick up East Palo Alto and Redwood city to make it at least 40% Hispanic.  Safe D.
CD 14: Wh: 38%, Bl: 3%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 36%, Hisp: 21%, Other: 2%
I tried to make a white and Hispanic district in Santa Clara county. This is the rest of the county. Safe D .
CD 15: Wh: 23%, Bl: 2%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 17%, Hisp: 55%, Other: 2%
I suppose I could have made a Hispanic district totally within Santa Clara county, but I instead chose to go south and take in Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Salinas and small hyper Hispanic farm towns south of Monterey. Safe D.
CD 16: Wh: 70%, Bl: 2%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 14%, Hisp: 11%, Other: 3%
This is my white district of the south bay. I had to go down south to take in Monterey and the Carmel valley to make it so. It’s a lean to safe D district, but if Republicans start doing better with culturally liberal whites, this district could be in play. Very unlikely though.
CD 17: Wh: 45%, Bl: 2%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 16%, Hisp: 34%, Other: 2%
Pretty crazy district stretching all the way from Fremont in the bay area to Oxnard in Ventura county. It’s major population areas are parts of the east bay and south bay, conservative parts of SLO and SB counties and democratic parts of Ventura county. It’s less safe than the current district but it should be held by a Democrat. Lean D.

[Sbane]

CD 18: Wh: 33%, Bl: 3%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 5%, Hisp: 56%, Other: 2%
Hispanic district in the northern San Joaquin valley. This is probably a swing district with a Democratic lean. Quite similar in partisanship to the current district, I think.
CD  19: Wh: 65%, Bl: 3%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 5%, Hisp: 23%, Other: 2%
White areas of the northern San Joaquin valley and also takes in the conservative suburbs of Fresno.
CD 20: Wh: 22%, Bl: 5%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 8%, Hisp: 63%, Other: 1%
A huge chunk of Fresno is in this district. It also takes in parts of Kings and Tulare counties. This is a safer Democratic district than either the current 18th or 20th CD’s.
CD 21: Wh: 29%, Bl: 5%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 3%, Hisp: 61%, Other: 1%
This is one of those safe R districts that I put into contention. It’s mostly the Hispanic areas of Kern, Kings and Tulare counties.  Although I made this into a very Hispanic district, I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush carried this district twice (narrowly). Nunes should be able to hold onto it, but a good challenger could beat him.
CD 22: Wh: 62%, Bl: 4%, Nat: 2%, Asn: 3%, Hisp: 27%, Other: 2%
Very Republican district consisting of Bakersfield, Lancaster and eastern California up to South Lake Tahoe.
CD 23: Wh: 48%, Bl: 2%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 5%, Hisp: 43%, Other: 2%
Similar district to the current one. Safe D.
CD 24: Wh: 64%, Bl: 4%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 7%, Hisp: 23%, Other: 2%
Conservative parts of Ventura County + Santa Clarita + Palmdale = Safe R.
CD 25: Wh: 23%, Bl: 7%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 10%, Hisp: 58%, Other: 2%
This is the district I eliminated. I actually used this color for what is the current 51st CD. This majority Hispanic south SD district should be safely held by a Democrat.
CD 26: Wh: 35%, Bl: 7%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 8%, Hisp: 47%, Other: 2%
Another Republican district that has been put into contention. It takes in marginally Republican areas like Chino, Rancho Cucamonga and Upland and joins them with Democratic areas like parts of Pomona and Montclair. It also takes in a chunk of unincorporated Riverside county. Can’t say how this area votes but it may determine how the district votes overall. Bush probably won this district in 2004, but overall it has a slight lean towards Democrats. Drier should be able to hold onto this seat unless he gets a really good challenger. An open seat election would be won by a Democrat though.
CD 27: Wh: 44%, Bl: 4%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 11%, Hisp: 39%, Other: 2%
Central San Fernando valley district. Safe D.
CD 28: Wh: 34%, Bl: 3%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 8%, Hisp: 52%, Other: 2%
Eastern parts of the San Fernando valley as well as the city of San Fernando, Burbank and La Canada Flintridge. Safe D.
CD 29: Wh: 35%, Bl: 6%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 14%, Hisp: 42%, Other: 3%
Glendale, Pasadena and out to Azusa. Safe D.
CA 30: Wh: 63%, Bl: 3%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 12%, Hisp: 20%, Other: 2%
Similar to the current district. Safe D.
CA 31: Wh: 9%, Bl: 3%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 8%, Hisp: 78%, Other: 1%
Very Hispanic  downtown/east LA district. Safe D.
CA 32: Wh: 18%, Bl: 2%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 47%, Hisp: 31%, Other: 1%
This was my attempt at a majority Asian district in the San Gabriel valley. If I tried harder I could have probably made it majority Asian. Oh well. Trying to make it more Asian also led it to become a less safe district for Democrats. It’s still a strong Democratic district though.
CA 33: Wh: 24%, Bl: 20%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 14%, Hisp: 21%, Other: 2%
West LA district. Safe D.
CA 34: Wh: 3%, Bl: 32%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 5%, Hisp: 59%, Other: 1%
This district has the greatest black population of the LA districts. It used to be a Hispanic heavy district in east LA. Now it’s primarily a south LA district. I put a lot of Blacks into this district so I could put Waters into a less primary friendly district. This is quite a safe D district.
CA 35: Wh: 25%, Bl: 15%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 15%, Hisp: 43%, Other: 2%
A radically different district from the old one. I created it so that Waters could be primaried. This district takes in most of the northern parts of Long Beach, Lakewood, Los Alamitos and stretches north to Paramount. It’s still a pretty safe D district but nothing close to the D+31 district that it is currently.
CA 36: Wh: 49%, Bl: 6%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 17%, Hisp: 26%, Other: 2%
A very similar district to the current one except the Republican parts of the Palos Verdes peninsula has been added into the district and parts of Culver City taken out. This makes it a more Republican district but it’s still a lean D district.

[Sbane]

CA 37: Wh: 29%, Bl: 10%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 14%, Hisp: 45%, Other: 2%
U shaped district that starts from the harbor and goes through the heart of Long Beach and into Seal Beach and then Cypress in Orange county. It then turns back into LA county taking in Artesia, Bellflower, Lynwood and east Compton. It’s a safe D district.
CA 38: Wh: 24%, Bl: 3%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 11%, Hisp: 61%, Other: 1%
Hispanic district in the San Gabriel valley and eastern LA county. Safe to lean D.
CA 39: Wh: 11%, Bl: 7%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 5%, Hisp: 76%, Other: 1%
Very Hispanic district stretching from Huntington park, going through Southgate, Downey and La Mirada on the way to pick up the wealthier areas of Fullerton. Safe D.
CA 40: Wh: 55%, Bl: 3%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 9%, Hisp: 29%, Other: 2%
Safe Republican district stretching from Tustin and going through Orange, Yorba Linda, Brea, Norco, wealthier parts of Corona and down to the Temecula and Murrieta area.
CA 41: Wh: 55%, Bl: 7%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 4%, Hisp: 31%, Other: 2%
Pretty similar to the current district. It consists mostly of San Bernardino county exurbs. Safe R.
CA 42: Wh: 30%, Bl: 2%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 12%, Hisp: 54%, Other: 1%
This is a former Republican district that I have taken apart. This is a district I am definitely sure will not reelect the incumbent Republican. This is another U shaped district that takes in heavily Hispanic areas like Pico Rivera, Downey and Norwalk as well as more moderate areas like Whittier and Buena Park. It also takes in the more Hispanic parts of Fullerton and also the Republican city of Placentia. A good Republican incumbent would be able to hold this district, but not Gary Miller. Lean D.
CA 43: Wh: 21%, Bl: 10%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 4%, Hisp: 62%, Other: 2%
Very similar to the current district except it doesn’t contain a portion of San Bernardino and picks up some wealthier areas of Riverside. Safe D.
CA 44: Wh: 29%, Bl: 10%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 7%, Hisp: 51%, Other: 2%
This is a Republican district I didn’t have to tinker with too much to make majority Hispanic. I did take in Hispanic parts of Corona and all of Moreno Valley, Perris as well as most of Riverside. This is a lean Democratic district where a good Republican incumbent could easily hold on. But considering Calvert almost lost in 2008 in a much more Republican district, in this district he is toast. And considering he actually lost in the Riverside county portion of his district, which is also growing very fast, Calvert is going to be in big trouble come 2012.
CA 45: Wh: 27%, Bl: 5%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 4%, Hisp: 62%, Other: 1%
I put Bono Mack into a much tougher district. It first of all takes in a part of inner city San Bernardino, and then takes in Democratic parts of the Coachella valley including Palm Springs, Indio and Coachella. It also goes down to Imperial county and it contains a Hispanic part of Escondido. I think she could hold on, since she is a good incumbent, but against a good candidate she could lose. The mayor of Palm Springs is running against her this year and he will probably lose. But in this district he would have won.
CA 46: Wh: 50%, Bl: 1%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 25%, Hisp: 22%, Other: 2%
Coastal OC district as well as the Vietnamese parts. Safe R.
CA 47: Wh: 19%, Bl: 2%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 12%, Hisp: 67%, Other: 1%
Republicans always dream of taking back this district. Not going to happen in the district I have drawn. I took out the Vietnamese heavy parts of the district and added in some Hispanic areas of Costa Mesa as well as the UC Irvine area. Safe D.
CA 48: Wh: 68%, Bl: 1%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 13%, Hisp: 15%, Other: 2%
Safe Republican south OC district.
CA 49: Wh: 63%, Bl: 2%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 3%, Hisp: 29%, Other: 2%
This district includes exurban Riverside county, wealthy Coachella valley areas, Fallbrook, Escondido and rural parts of SD county. Safe R.
CA 50: Wh: 56%, Bl: 6%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 13%, Hisp: 25%, Other: 3%
I tried to create a third Democratic district in SD but it’s just not possible. I added in Hispanic areas in Oceanside and Vista and then stayed by the coast where more liberal whites live. This is definitely more Democratic than the current district and might be just slightly lean Democrat. But as an incumbent, Bilbray should be favored in this district.
CA 51: Wh: 41%, Bl: 9%, Nat: 1%, Asn: 12%, Hisp: 34%, Other: 3%
This is the old CD 53. It’s pretty similar to the original district, maybe just a tad more Democratic. Safe D.
CA 52: Wh: 72%, Bl: 2%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 9%, Hisp: 14%, Other: 3%
Basically the whiter and more conservative inland areas of SD are in this district. Safe R.

[Sbane]

Nice maps sbane. Too bad if the redistricting initiative passes (I can't imagine that it will not), it all will be totally illegal.   Plus, even if it does not pass, Governor Whitman would veto it.

Hmm, I don't see what's so wrong with my gerrymandering at all, besides not being visually pleasing enough for Xahar. I mean a district that includes both Long Beach and Compton makes a lot of sense doesn't it? Of course it also contains Seal Beach and Cypress. Or the district that joins Sunny hills in Fullerton to Huntington park. There's a lot of epic gerrymandering in there. I'm particularly fond of the central valley districts. I didn't know 3 Hispanic districts could be created there.

3 Hispanics won't be elected though in the central valley. The most Hispanic county in California, Tulare, votes GOP like clockwork.

3 Hispanics will be elected from the central valley, since Nunes is a Hispanic, no? I agree the 21st CD I drew would be quite hard for a Democrat to take, especially against a good candidate like Nunes. But remember that this district is probably very poor and more likely to vote Democrat for congress as opposed to the presidency. And I am sure Obama carried the district comfortably.

On the other hand I made CA-20 safe, as opposed to the slightly Democratic leaning district it is today.

[Sbane]

CA 33: Wh: 24%, Bl: 20%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 14%, Hisp: 21%, Other: 2%
West LA district. Safe D.
CA 34: Wh: 3%, Bl: 32%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 5%, Hisp: 59%, Other: 1%
This district has the greatest black population of the LA districts. It used to be a Hispanic heavy district in east LA. Now it’s primarily a south LA district. I put a lot of Blacks into this district so I could put Waters into a less primary friendly district. This is quite a safe D district.
CA 35: Wh: 25%, Bl: 15%, Nat: 0%, Asn: 15%, Hisp: 43%, Other: 2%
A radically different district from the old one. I created it so that Waters could be primaried. This district takes in most of the northern parts of Long Beach, Lakewood, Los Alamitos and stretches north to Paramount. It’s still a pretty safe D district but nothing close to the D+31 district that it is currently.

Even if the Dems could draw the map to suit themselves, I don't think that they would want to invite a suit from the NAACP with this map. It dilutes Black votes too much, and since a majority-Black district is possible, the only way I would expect concurrence would be if there were two districts with strong enough Black populations to lock up up primary wins. Even then there could be VRA concerns.

My goal here was to specifically put Waters is a district she would lose her primary in. I don't think diluting the black vote helped the Democrats. I could easily move people around in West LA to make two 30% black districts and still keep every Democrat safe and keep all the Republicans I put in tough districts in such districts.

[Sbane]

Nice maps sbane. Too bad if the redistricting initiative passes (I can't imagine that it will not), it all will be totally illegal.   Plus, even if it does not pass, Governor Whitman would veto it.

Hmm, I don't see what's so wrong with my gerrymandering at all, besides not being visually pleasing enough for Xahar. I mean a district that includes both Long Beach and Compton makes a lot of sense doesn't it? Of course it also contains Seal Beach and Cypress. Or the district that joins Sunny hills in Fullerton to Huntington park. There's a lot of epic gerrymandering in there. I'm particularly fond of the central valley districts. I didn't know 3 Hispanic districts could be created there.

3 Hispanics won't be elected though in the central valley. The most Hispanic county in California, Tulare, votes GOP like clockwork.

I find it interesting that the three most Hispanic districts in the Central Valley are represented by members of Portuguese descent - Cardoza, Costa, and Nunes. Do their names help them? What percentage would it take to elect an Hispanic in that region?

Hmm, should have done a little research before I assumed they were hispanic. I am fairly sure their names help them rather than hurt them. I wouldn't be surprised if a large portion of the electorate think they are hispanic.

[Sbane]

Nice maps sbane. Too bad if the redistricting initiative passes (I can't imagine that it will not), it all will be totally illegal.   Plus, even if it does not pass, Governor Whitman would veto it.

Hmm, I don't see what's so wrong with my gerrymandering at all, besides not being visually pleasing enough for Xahar. I mean a district that includes both Long Beach and Compton makes a lot of sense doesn't it? Of course it also contains Seal Beach and Cypress. Or the district that joins Sunny hills in Fullerton to Huntington park. There's a lot of epic gerrymandering in there. I'm particularly fond of the central valley districts. I didn't know 3 Hispanic districts could be created there.

3 Hispanics won't be elected though in the central valley. The most Hispanic county in California, Tulare, votes GOP like clockwork.

I find it interesting that the three most Hispanic districts in the Central Valley are represented by members of Portuguese descent - Cardoza, Costa, and Nunes. Do their names help them? What percentage would it take to elect an Hispanic in that region?

Hmm, should have done a little research before I assumed they were hispanic. I am fairly sure their names help them rather than hurt them. I wouldn't be surprised if a large portion of the electorate think they are hispanic.

They look like Whites.

They look Hispanic to me...Nunes especially.

[Sbane]

Generally, people of European descent who did not make a detour through Latin America on their way to the U.S. are not considered Hispanic or Latino.

Oh of course. But someone who just looks at their name and their pictures (especially Nunes) might assume they are Hispanic.

[Sbane]

How many hispanic districts does the VRA require in California?

[Sbane]

So which states have partisan data for now?

[Sbane]

California? It didn't work for me and I tried it with the test data selected and without it.

[Sbane]

Here is a map of California using the redistricting commission's guidelines with 53 districts.

[Sbane]

CD-1: Obama 65%, Mccain 33%
CD-2: Obama 42%, Mccain 56%
CD-3: Obama 51%, Mccain 48%
CD-4: Obama 44%, Mccain 54%
CD-5: Obama 69%, Mccain 29%
CD-6: Obama 75%, Mccain 23%
CD-7: Obama 72%, Mccain 27%
CD-8: Obama 85%, Mccain 13%
CD-9: Obama 87%, Mccain 11%
CD-10: Obama 64%, Mccain 34%
CD-11: Obama 57%, Mccain 41%
CD-12: Obama 74%, Mccain 24%
CD-13- Obama 72%, Mccain 26%
CD-14: Obama 71%, Mccain 27%
CD-15: Obama 68%, Mccain 30%
CD-16: Obama 70%, Mccain 28%
CD-17: Obama 64%, Mccain 34%
CD-18: Obama 58%, Mccain 42%
CD-19: Obama 45%, Mccain 53%
CD-20: Obama 56%, Mccain 43%
CD-21: Obama 44%, Mccain 55%
CD-22: Obama 38%, Mccain 60%
CD-23: Obama 62%, Mccain 36%
CD-24: Obama 49%, Mccain 50%
CD-25: Obama 49%, Mccain 49%
CD-26: Obama 53%, Mccain 45%
CD-27: Obama 66%, Mccain 32%
CD-28: Obama 72%, Mccain 26%
CD-29: Obama 66%, Mccain 32%
CD-30: Obama 73%, Mccain 25%
CD-31: Obama 80%, Mccain 17%
CD-32: Obama 72%, Mccain 26%
CD-33: Obama 88%, Mccain 10%
CD-34: Obama 86%, Mccain 12%
CD-35: Obama 85%, Mccain 14%
CD-36: Obama 61%, Mccain 37%
CD-37: Obama 62%, Mccain 36%
CD-38: Obama 65%, Mccain 33%
CD-39: Obama 62%, Mccain 36%
CD-40: Obama 51%, Mccain 47%
CD-41: Obama 43%, Mccain 55%
CD-42: Obama 46%, Mccain 52%
CD-43: Obama 67%, Mccain 31%
CD-44: Obama 58%, Mccain 40%
CD-45: Obama 54, Mccain 44%
CD-46: Obama 46%, Mccain 52%
CD-47: Obama 60%, Mccain 38%
CD-48: Obama 46%, Mccain 53%
CD-49: Obama 43%, Mccain 55%
CD-50: Obama 53%, Mccain 46%
CD-51: Obama 63%, Mccain 35%
CD-52: Obama 43%, Mccain 55%
CD-53: Obama 65%, Mccain 33%

[Sbane]

Yes, the discontinous parts were weird. Sometimes when I clicked on a certain block group, other ones away (not next to each other) from it also got highlighted and I couldn't always work around it. I didn't have this problem when I was working with the non-partisan data. But yes, they didn't make too much of a difference and usually didn't even contain a 1,000 people.

CD 15, 20, 28, 31, 32, 34, 38, 39, 43, 45, 47 and 51 are all Hispanic majority. With the exception of CD-39, they all have at least a 55% Hispanic population.

CD 18, 33, 35 and 44 have more than a 40% Hispanic population. I also have two black districts, both in LA, that have a 35% black population. There are also a bunch of other districts with more than a 30% Hispanic population, so Hispanic interest groups could complain that their votes are being "wasted". I made this map pretty quickly so I didn't try too hard to draw Hispanic districts. I certainly should have been able to make another one in the central valley. It was easier to draw Hispanic majorities around LA since the population is more compact and I have a better understanding of where the Hispanic population lives, thus I could quickly make the Hispanic districts. So do you think this map would be acceptable or do I need more Hispanic districts?

[Sbane]

Here is a map of California using the redistricting commission's guidelines with 53 districts.

Will more respect for county lines be required?  You have 4 districts crossing the Los Angeles San Bernadino county line.

CD 26 is all along I-210 and makes sense as a district, notwithstanding the different counties it is in. It's really just one metro area, the county lines don't matter much. CD 25 connects high desert semi-exurban communities that have commonalities. CD 38 joins West Covina/Pomona with Ontario/Chino in San Bernardino county creating a majority Hispanic district. These areas are more inland and could be considered a community of interest. CD 40 is a district that takes in more Anglo/Asian areas in LA county like Diamond Bar and Walnut as well as wealthy Chino Hills in San Bernardino county. This is joined with more Anglo/Asian areas like Fullerton and Buena park in OC. These areas are all close by and are quite similar to each other.

[Sbane]

Here is a map of California using the redistricting commission's guidelines with 53 districts.

Will more respect for county lines be required?  You have 4 districts crossing the Los Angeles San Bernadino county line.

CD 26 is all along I-210 and makes sense as a district, notwithstanding the different counties it is in. It's really just one metro area, the county lines don't matter much. CD 25 connects high desert semi-exurban communities that have commonalities. CD 38 joins West Covina/Pomona with Ontario/Chino in San Bernardino county creating a majority Hispanic district. These areas are more inland and could be considered a community of interest. CD 40 is a district that takes in more Anglo/Asian areas in LA county like Diamond Bar and Walnut as well as wealthy Chino Hills in San Bernardino county. This is joined with more Anglo/Asian areas like Fullerton and Buena park in OC. These areas are all close by and are quite similar to each other.

You have explained why you drew the districts that you did.  You did not explain why your districts complied with the California Constitution.

Communities of interest is one of the criteria looked at by the redistricting commission, which is what is relevant here. One of the districts would be mandated by the VRA. The rest of them are communities that are close to each other and are similar. It certainly makes more sense to put Chino Hills in a district with Diamond Bar and Walnut than in a district with Chino. Don't let the names confuse you. The communities along the 210 tend to be similar, slightly more anglo than usual and wealthier. The 26th district puts them together. I don't really think courts are going to be nitpick too much about county lines in a big metro area. Outside of LA and the bay area, I have tried to respect county lines as much as possible and still create Hispanic districts.

And lastly I have not made the districts in such a fashion to favor either party. Remember we had incumbent protection last time around, which meant Drier's district was drawn to include areas like La Canada Flintridge which wasn't even contiguous with the rest of the population in the district. That should be frowned down upon more than crossing some irrelevant county line. Anyone who has actually driven around the area and known people who live in the area (Pomona) can tell you that there isn't a huge difference between San Bernardino county and LA county as the districts have been drawn. Now whether the courts will decide county lines are more important or more homogenous districts, I can't say. But I don't think it is possible to draw districts in the LA area, trying to incorporate VRA mandated districts and communities of interest, and not cross county lines. If the final map doesn't have some districts going across county lines, I will eat my hat.