CO

I don't see the CO Dems agreeing to anything that helps Tipton, who won by less than 5 points in a red wave year. Perlmutter is safe (he won by double digits) and does not need any help.

41, Ind, CA-05

---

by: sacman701 @ Mon Jan 03, 2011 at 21:07:50 PM UTC

I agree.

The Dems have the upper chamber and the Governorship and Republicans only hold the lower one by the smallest possible majority.  I think that they will weaken Tipton, strengthen Gardner, and probably throw a few State Leg. seats into the deal to seal it.  Remember that the Dems could obstruct a deal they do not like, sending it to the CO SC (which is 5/7ths composed of justices nominated by Democratic Governor Roy Romer).  The Dems have more leverage in this redistricting.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 07:30:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

hmm

If I'm the Reeps, I'd rather take my chances with the court that agree to something that will hurt Tipton.

41, Ind, CA-05

---

by: sacman701 @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 16:34:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nope

It's the CO Supreme Court, which has a Democratic-appointed majority that led to the current map last time around. Republicans will remember that. It's unlikely that they'd consent to that again, especially because the court is still D-controlled and only going to get more so with Dems in the Senate and Hickenlooper as the Governor. They'll strike the best deal they can and be done with it, imho.

That said thanks to term limits, creating safer seats for state reps as a bargaining tactic may not work all that well, so they may as well say "screw it" and see what the courts come up with if Democrats don't at least pretend to compromise.

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.

---

by: arealmlc @ Sat Jan 08, 2011 at 02:28:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A quick note on CT before

I have my CA say.  CT's redistricting has to be approved by 2/3 of each house.  The republicans have just enough to prevent democratic super majority in each house.  There a commission/committee from both parties that meet on redistricting. They present a plan to the legislative bodies.  In 2001 it worked fairly smoothly as the 5th district was a fair fight between incumbents.  Generally speaking the lines need to move Eastward a bit and only minor changes are needed.  I don't look for a lot of changes in CT or a prolonged battle. So I think there will still be three seats that could be competitive in 2012. Actually the same three that nearly went GOP in 2010.

Yes CA is the big whale of redistricting 2012.  The current map has probably helped the GOP during the 2002-2008 period but was a drag in 2010.  Generally speaking I think the GOP did okay in this redistricting plan considering where they were in 2001.  On the flip side democrats in CA have accumlated a ton of seniority in secure seats and have focused much of  their efforts on a national agenda.  Safe secure seats have their plus sides.

The big wild card this year in CA are the 14 commissioners.  They are a diverse crowd with only three white members compared to five Asian members.  I think I have those numbers right.  In my mind there are several major questions.

1. The creation of additional minority majority seats.  CA is now 41% white while the congressional delegation is 2/3 white.  The current map divides hispanics in the central valley--silicon valley area plus San Diego area.  The diverse makeup of the commission would lead one to think we would see more minority/majority seats.

2. Will the commission follow the current flow of seats?  For instance look at Northern California.  For years and years the seats have flowed North/South but when you talking 300 miles does it matter?  Why not East-West?  

3. How many times will counties  be split?  For instance should be Long beach be attached to Coastal Orange county or should it move North to communities in LA county that might not have the same community of interest?  I don't know.

4. What about those incumbents?  You could draw an LA county seat with three incumbents and perhaps the same in San Jose.  Will we see this commission draw nice neat non partisan lines that just happen to have a seat for every incumbent to run in?  

There are lots of questions.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Mon Jan 03, 2011 at 21:23:51 PM UTC

CT's un-gerrymander...

Although it was pretty mild, CT-2, CT-4, and CT-5 were modestly gerrymandered to be more Republican-leaning in 2000.  

Here's my idea of a de-gerrymander for the state.  The new borders all follow town/city lines, and wherever possible follow county lines.  

Overall, this should improve the Democratic performance in CT-4 significantly (Stratford is now in the district), CT-5 more modestly, and be a wash for CT-2.  

---

by: eschaton @ Mon Jan 03, 2011 at 21:33:39 PM UTC

2000 gerrymander wasn't that bad...

As those seats were all R-held as recently as 2006.

---

by: JimM @ Mon Jan 03, 2011 at 22:59:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Counties are pretty meaningless in New England

---

by: emilysdad @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 00:44:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I know that.

I grew up there after all.  I didn't even know county government existed anywhere until my early 20s.  

Still, given there is a unipartisan delegation, there is no reason to not have compact borders now.  

---

by: eschaton @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 00:49:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

California analysis somewhat off - sorry to say

I've been playing with California maps extensively, and plan to post the one that I think is closest to what's likely to result from the Commission process tomorrow (when I think my ability to post diaries will be enabled).

First of all, I reject the premise that "any semblance of certainty is out the window" and that "few solid predictions can be made at this point" - which I think is more a function of how tedious it is to map out a big state with 53 districts than anything else (it takes about 2 days for me to do a full map with Dave's app). We know where the people are at, we know where the partisans are at, and we know the rules that the Commission is supposed to follow. In many case, it hardly matters where the lines are at precisely; for instance, you're gonna end up with three solidly democratic seats in Santa Clara county no matter how you divide it up.

In any case, here are my comments on the points you raise, in no particular order:

1) The current map is clearly a GOP-favorable incumbent protection plan. Any attempt to play with the lines using routine redistricting rules (compactness, contiguity, communities of interest) immediately makes that readily apparent. I actually argued this extensively on political boards back in 2001, but few were willing to listen. With something like Dave's app I could've proven my point then.

2) You are overstating the number of "VRA protected minority seats"; California only has 4 counties that require preclearance: Kings, Merced, Monterey, and Yuba. This is actually an anachronistic anomaly dating from when a lot of Vietnam draftees were registered in those counties back in 1970 but weren't voting because they were fighting the war. In any case, by all my calculations the only likelihood that these four counties could significantly impact the map would favor Democrats (more below).

3) There is no way CA-11 (McNerney's seat) will be eliminated. If you apply compactness then the first thing that jumps out is that there will be no salient from the CA-01 district (D-Thompson) into the Sacramento area. What this means is that the seat that will 'shift' will be one of the northern California seats (CA-01, CA-02, CA-04) to the inland empire. The rules of compactness & not crossing county lines except when necessary also mandate that Sacramento gets two compact, adjoining seats. The current CA-11 seat was drawn to protect Pombo. If you compact it then it actually becomes more Democratic, not less. The place where you necessarily end up with a swingy district in the north-central region is in eastern Sacramento. The rest become solidly Dem.

4) The person who gets screwed in the Central Coast is clearly Gallegly, not Capps, unless you violate the rules of the Commision and go out of your way to create a competitive district. You have to anchor a district in Monterey Co and another in Santa Barbara Co, and then in both cases you need more people, but no matter which way you go you still end up with Democratic districts. The Monterey Co based district ends up being around 70% Dem while the Santa Barbara district ends up being around 58-60% Dem. This is somewhat less Dem than Capps current district (66%) but still solidly Dem. The Gallegly district necessarily gets pushed into Ventura Co, and goes from about 50/50 to 55% Dem.

5) Now, let's go over the so-called "VRA seats":

CA-09: Lee's district is super-Dem and also rather compact and virtually no mapping scheme changes its basic outlines, nor makes any meaningful difference elsewhere.

CA-31 & CA-34: Becerra's downtown LA district and Roybal-Allard's Huntington Park district only become slightly more Latino if you compact them. Shifting them doesn't much matter, because you end up with heavily Latino 70%+ no matter how you slice and dice it, and they are still heavily Dem, and again, where the lines are precisely has no political effect elsewhere.

CA-32 & CA-38: If you put compact districts in East LA (Chu & Napolitano) they will indeed be much less Latino (in my final map CA-32 (Chu) drops from 62% to 43% Latino while CA-38 (Napolitano) drops from 70% to 52% Latino. However, if you take it as a requirement of the VRA that they must be bumped up, then you simply take them from the neighboring heavily Dem districts above, and you still end up with 4 heavily Dem districts, just with less neat boundaries.

CA-35 & CA-37: These districts are not majority Latino, though they are certainly majority-minority. A compact CA-35 (Waters) district in Inglewood actually becomes more black and a compact CA-37 (Richardson) district in Compton becomes majority Latino.

CA-33 & CA-28: If you put compact districts in Hollywood and West LA (Santa Monica, Culver City, Beverly Hills) then one of them will no longer be majority-minority. However, the solution is again to create choppy lines with the neighboring districts noted above, and yet again, you end up with a set of heavily Dem districts regardless. (You didn't mention Berman's 28th, but it is majority Latino now).

CA-43: The San Bernardino based district represented by Baca remains majority Latino even if you compact it, and 60%+ Dem regardless.

Now, here's where things get interesting:

Jim Costa's CA-20 district will mainly be competing for voters with Denham's CA-19 and Nunes' CA-21 district. If you even out the lines, then you will end up with something like a 55% McCain district and two swing districts. If you push the Latinos into CA-20 for VRA reasons, then you will end up with something much as is the case now: a 55-60% Obama district, a slightly GOP district, and a more heavily GOP district. If the VRA has any effect in this area, it will almost surely be to the Dems advantage, for the obvious reason of concentrating Latino voters where they would otherwise be more spread out. The Central Valley districts are the most uncertain for this and other reasons.

CA-39 & CA-47: Between the two Sanchez's and Campbell (CA-48) you will end up with two Dem seats and a GOP seat, regardless. The only real issue is whether you distort the lines to create a majority Latino district (versus a majority-minority, but not majority-Latino, district) and whether you put a 2nd majority Latino district in this area by crossing county lines into LA County, or instead put another majority Latino district on the other side of LA, with a heavily-Latino (but not majority Latino) district in Irvine/Costa Mesa/Newport Beach.

6) The only plausible way that Calvert & Miller could be saved would be through a gerrymander. If you draw compact seats based in Riverside city and the Inland Empire parts of San Bernardino (Chino, etc) they will be Democratic seats (close to 60% Dem in the case of Riverside; around 53-55% Dem in San Bernardino, depending on which county lines you cross).

And, let me close with a general statement about the VRA. It's a virtual certainty that at least 4 serious VRA lawsuits will be filed over this cycle's redistricting: Florida, North Carolina, Texas, and California. In my view, what we may well be seeing is the swan song of the VRA in terms of redistricting. At least one of these cases is likely to be taken up by the Supreme Court, and there is little doubt that the current composition of the court is hostile to taking account of race in districting. The Supreme Court came very close to striking down all consideration of race in the 1993 Shaw v Reno case, with Sandra Day O'Connor clearly the one that pulled back. Anthony Kennedy has always expressed great hostility to the consideration of race in redistricting (and virtually anything else) and there's surely no one that thinks Alito will be more in favor of racial gerrymanders than was O'Connor.

There's an excellent chance that the Supreme Court will reject VRA challenges per se, and that it may very well go even further to ban any consideration of race in drawing up districts. Since one of these cases is already working through the courts (Florida) and the North Carolina GOP has all but served notice they expect to have their maps challenged and hope for a swift ruling, it should become clear sooner rather than later which way the wind is blowing on that, and there's a decent chance this will be before the California maps need to be passed.

---

by: roguemapper @ Mon Jan 03, 2011 at 21:44:57 PM UTC

Nice analysis

I look forward to seeing your map once you have diary-rights.

30, male, MI-11 (previously VA-08). Evangelical, postconservative, green.

---

by: borodino21 @ Mon Jan 03, 2011 at 22:05:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with you -for the most part on VRA issues

but under the commission rules they can draw a large number of compact minority/majority seats.  In fact you have to split communities of interest to avoid drawing new minority/majority seats.  I mentioned three obvious ones in the Central Valley--San Diego and Silicon valley.  Currently the hispanic communities are divided out to create safer seats for democratic congress people.  

As far as Congressman G.  There is plenty of GOP area in Ventura county re-elect him.  That county has enough population for one seat plus 100K leftover.  Its a matter what area is included and what area is excluded.  Santa Barbara clearly does not have enough people for a single district so it will have to be attached either North or South or even Eastward(unlikely).  I could draw a safe compact seat for Capps or one she would have trouble holding.  Its all in how the lines are drawn.  This point also goes back to my thinking on county lines.  How many times will they be crossed under the commission map?  

Someone earlier did a district analysis.  I believe the GOP seats are one million over in population while the democratic seats are under populated by a million.  That's an indication to me that a fair nonpartisan redistricting might improve the GOP's position.

As to the current map there are certainly numerous democratic seats that are carved out of republican leaning areas so while Calvert & Mack certainly have favorable seats but  so do Capps and others.  I think the GOP was fortunate to have this map because CA trended so strongely towards the democrats in 2002-2010 period but who saw that coming?  The democrats in 2001 apparently thought they were locking in at a high water point.  Hindsight is always 20-20.  I might add that the biggest reason for the democrat surge in CA has been the hispanic population surge.  They were 18% of voters in 2008 compared to less then 1/2 of that in 2000.  

As to Calvert & Miller.  Each of their districts needs to shed several hundred thousand people.  What part of Riverside county will they shed?  What about Imperial county?  Will it be attached to San Diego county or to Riverside county?  San Diego county has 200K in leftover people-after 4 seats are created-will that be attached to San Diego or Orange county?  

I think its way too early to make predictions on CA.

---

by: rdelbov @ Mon Jan 03, 2011 at 22:47:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I will post my maps as soon as I can...

...then I more than welcome the discussion. I don't want to hijack someone else's thread with my maps.

For the time being, here's the main point: By and large, when you start drawing a districting map, if you simply apply 2 rules then the contours of the map are fairly straightforward.

Rule #1: Cross county & city boundaries only when necessary.

Rule #2: Minimize subdivision of counties & cities.

So, by example, if you follow those rules, then it's reasonable to assume that Imperial County needs to be attached to San Diego County, not Riverside County. That's because if you attach it to Riverside County then one of Riverside, San Bernardino, or Orange counties will be subdivided once more than they would be if you attach it to San Diego County.

Also, it's much easier to maintain city boundaries throughout the area with Imperial going with San Diego County versus Riverside.

That said, does it matter? That's the point that I made above: In most cases, you're just moving blocks of voters around but ending up with the same results. Without the ability to slice & dice precincts for political purposes, most boundary shifts don't meaningfully change the overall partisan composition, they merely shift where the Dem or GOP districts are situated.

So, by taking my map and rotating the districts so that Imperial goes with Riverside instead of San Diego, here's the difference:

Imperial with San Diego

CA-51: 51% Obama - 47% McCain (weak D)
CA-45: 51% Obama - 48% McCain (weak D)
CA-44: 58% Obama - 40% McCain (strong D)
CA-40: 44% Obama - 55% McCain (strong R)
CA-42: 53% Obama - 45% McCain (moderate D)
CA-47: 43% Obama - 55% McCain (strong R)
CA-49: 46% Obama - 52% McCain (moderate R)
CA-50: 50% Obama - 48% McCain (weak D)

Total: 3 weak D; 1 moderate D; 1 strong D; 1 moderate R; 2 strong R (5 Dems to 3 Reps)

Imperial with Riverside

CA-51: 55% Obama - 43% McCain (strong D)
CA-45: 44% Obama - 55% McCain (strong R)
CA-44: 56% Obama - 42% McCain (strong D)
CA-40: 53% Obama - 45% McCain (moderate D)
CA-42: 45% Obama - 53% McCain (moderate R)
CA-47: 45% Obama - 53% McCain (moderate R)
CA-49: 50% Obama - 48% McCain (weak D)
CA-50: 50% Obama - 48% McCain (weak D)

Total: 2 weak D; 1 moderate D; 2 strong D; 2 moderate R; 1 strong R (5 Dems to 3 Reps)

In short, the differences are in the positioning of partisan districts, not in their numbering. Whatever base map you're working with, if you decide to take boundaries in one direction versus another, in most cases you will still end up with roughly the same political outcome. In the end, perhaps 1-3 seats will be truly affected statewide in such a way as to change the outcome.

And if you don't violate the rule against unnecessarily crossing boundaries or subdividing units, then most of the time it's obvious which way to go.

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 00:07:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Except that

The commission should be considering the question of communities of interest before they get into the math-y stuff about attaching it to which county will result in more splits.

So the question should be: Is Imperial more a community of interest with San Diego or Riverside? I would think the answer would clearly be San Diego... I mean, you can totally just look at how the freeways run, dude! For sure it should be attached to San Diego.

Fortunately, in this case, the math and the touchy-feely stuff point to the same answer, so BOOM, done. You're welcome, re-districting commission. :)

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.

---

by: arealmlc @ Sat Jan 08, 2011 at 02:48:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, I greatly appreciate your critique

I do think you are ignoring the likelihood of some Dem losses due to underpopulation in liberal areas, but in general your criticism is well-founded. I still think we are starting essentially at square one in California and very few solid predictions can be made. We'll have a better idea this summer how the commission's ideas are shaping up, and it seems pretty likely that both parties will see a few losses when all is said and done.

20 years old, male, GA-12 (home), GA-10 (school); previously lived in CA-29, CA-28, CA-23, IL-06, IL-14, GA-01.

---

by: Nathaniel90 @ Mon Jan 03, 2011 at 23:29:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks and one reason

I am clueless on how CA's redistricting comes out is that you have a starting point or perhaps several starting points.  Where you began Determines what your map looks like.

Say you believe San Francisco is the center of the universe in CA. Okay SF has room for Pelosi's district plus can give 110K or so to another district.  Do you go South or North?  Which ever way you go influences what your Map looks like.

Okay start at the Northern Coast and go South-Del Norte county then Humboldt and then Mendicino.  That's about 240K but now do you continue South or do you pick up Lake county?  Sonoma & those three counties are nearly a perfect size for a congressional seat.  Why go further?

With me so far?  You get a perfect congressional seat by taking the 4 Northern coastal counties intact.  The problem is you have to then attach Marin County (250K) to San Francisco (815K) .  You made a perfect congressional seat for the Coastal counties but now San Francisco is divided 460K and 350K between two congressional seats.  

This non-partisan redistricting commission stuff is not as easy and simple as it looks.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 00:21:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You attach what is left in San Franscisco to the San Mateo County district

Sonoma and Marin will stay in the same district, the geography dictates very strictly, plus it's an easy solution and water continuity is not going to be an option. Those north coast counties will have to be attached to some territory further interior.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.

---

by: DrPhillips @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 00:27:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well...

Except there are two issues:

1) If you put Marin Co. with S.F. you are crossing a geographic boundary (the Bay) which the rules supposedly rule out except when necessary.

2) Almost enough is not the same as enough. You still have to subdivide Sonoma, and now you've also had to divide S.F. almost in half (when you didn't have to before) and you now have to divide San Mateo as well as Santa Clara (or alternatively run a district from San Mateo down through Santa Cruz).

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 00:55:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

To be clear

You have to divide S.F. County, but you can either keep most of the city together in one district (CA-08) or split the city in half with the north half crossing the Bay to join Marin and the south half going with San Mateo.

The principle of not splitting cities any more than necessary and of holding together communities of interest as much as possible would clearly argue against the Marin Co. with north S.F. alternative.

In fact, this is the starting point of my own map.

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 01:04:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes & No

Yes, I am ignoring the underpopulation in liberal areas in the sense that I do not even look at the partisan breakdown of my districts until after all 53 districts were in place based on geographic principles.

No, I am not ignoring it in the sense that it's clear some current Democratic districts become marginal (CA-01, CA-20, CA-39, and CA-51). However, the Republicans are also fairly concentrated in their strongholds, and when you compact their districts, a number of those districts become more strongly Republican, while several tip over into the Democratic column.

If I had to guess right now I would guess that the Republicans will lose a net 5-7 seats in California from redistricting (brings to mind: be careful what you wish for). Yes, a couple of Democrats may well lose, but they will almost surely make up the numbers elsewhere.

In my original map, I actually had the Republicans losing 10 seats, but I also had 30,000 unassigned voters that had slipped by. When I comprehensively went through my steps again from start to finish, it cut down the GOP losses to a likely 6 (it's interesting how much of a ripple affect that had). My takeaway from that is that there's actually even more potential upside for the Dems than for the GOP.

It's very difficult to find much upside for the GOP without purposely distorting the maps for political reasons. The best argument is that some incumbents (e.g., Bono Mack) are likely to hold their districts even if they become less favorable, and that perhaps the GOP has better odds on the congressional level to win, say, 51-49 Obama/McCain districts (though that's rather questionable for a presidential year like 2012).

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 06:11:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

if you don't even look at the partisan data

might I suggest first doing your maps without using special/test data? Not only does it avoid lots of the messiness of the test data map (eg no clusterfuck of ugly voting districts in Santa Clara County), it also has racial data from recent estimates rather than 2000 data which is what the test data uses.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 06:20:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

good idea!

I'll definitely try that.

I am obsessed with geography far more than with politics, btw. Redistricting is about the only thing that would bring me out from under my rock on the blogs.

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 06:28:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

scratch that...

The voting blocks map is much more off from the actual census counts, and I can't place the districts as neatly on the map. Moreover, although I don't use it for mapping purposes, I do still want the partisan data when all is said and done, since that's the ultimate purpose.

I'd much rather edit out the Santa Clara ugliness on the jpeg. So, on that note!

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 07:18:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

One way I look at it....

Is by examining D and R held districts by PVI.

Democrats:

Weak (R+1 to D+9)CA11, CA18, CA20, CA47, CA51 - 5 seats total

Strong (D+10 and above) CA1, CA5, CA6, CA7, CA8, CA9, CA10, CA12, CA13, CA14, CA15, CA16, CA17, CA23, CA28, CA29, CA30, CA31, CA32, CA33, CA34, CA35, CA36, CA37, CA39, CA43, CA53 - 27 seats total

Republicans

Weak (R+3 to R+9) CA3, CA9, CA24, CA25, CA26, CA40, CA44, CA45, CA46, CA48, CA50, CA52 - 12 seats total

Strong (R+10 and above) CA2, CA4, CA21, CA22, CA41, CA42, CA49 - 7 seats total

As you can see, most Republican seats are only moderately Republican.  In contrast, very few Democratic seats are marginal. Thus, if the lines were adjusted enough to change the partisan breakdown of the delegation, it's likely significantly more "R" seats will flip to "D" than vice versa.  

---

by: eschaton @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 00:47:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't disagree with your analysis

say for instance in San Diego creating a minority/Majority seat (#53) could easily leave you with three republican seat.  

Depending on how you divide the bay area you could easily see a tossup to lean D seat in the foothills of Contra Costa & Alameda plus a marginal seat in the outer Santa Clara  county.  If you create a minority/Majority seat in San Jose city the outer suburbs would tossup land.  

If you create a minority majority seat in the central you could add either a marginal seat or a GOP seat.

GOP strength in Northern LA county is located in  CD25 / CD26 right now but quite a bit of GOP area is divided out in nearby seats. If you say LA county is 35% republican and it has 14 congressional seats you see how GOP areas are sliced and diced up.  A fair distribution of voters in North LA could lead to either a marginal seat or a lean republican seat.  

I would be so quick to assign the democrats +30 lean or strong D seats.  

There are a lot of 80% D seats (perhaps 12) in CA.  That accounts for the bulk of the democratic edge.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 02:40:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.

As for your first point, yes, by making CA-53 majority-minority, you would likely weaken CA-51 enough to make it into a swing, or even a Republican district.  But CA-51 is one of the few democratic districts which is somewhat swingy, so it's not surprising it would be potentially under risk.  

In the total Democratic delegation, only eight seats now have majority white populations, 1, 5 (barely), 6, 10, 11, 14, 30, and 53.  Thus there is really very room for further majority-minority districts hurting the Democrats, especially under the presumed nonpartisan rules.  

---

by: eschaton @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 03:18:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

One reason is

there is so little majority minority seats in CA is that minority communties are divided up.  Santa Clara 14th-15th & 16th districts divide San Jose proper.  Plus the Central Valley hispanics are divided to help two democrats as is San Diego.  

I am playing Devil's advocate here but the GOP has 19 seats plus those seats are one million over (nearly 1 1/2 seats) overpopulated so that's close to 21 seats.

CD 10 is weirdly designed to spread out GOP voters in two counties.  Three Valley districts are weirdly distorted and elect democrats.  Republican voters are weirdly divided and seperated into different congressional districts in LA and likewise in San Diego county.  

It looks like really smooth community driven lines could have the GOP with a shot at 27 or 28 seats.  That's my point and a lot of those seats could be open ones.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 03:57:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That actually...doesn't make sense

the current map maximizes the efficient distribution of GOP areas in LA County. There are five GOP districts that eat into LA County right now (22, 25, 26, 42, 46). 22 will likely pull out of LA County, 25 will be made compact (and can't really be called a GOP seat anymore as it voted for Obama), 26 is almost certain to be mixed with some Dem parts of 32 or 38, 42 is going to become an Inland Empire district most likely, and 46 will probably become OC based because there's no way the little strip of Long Beach connecting the Palos Verdes Peninsula to the rest of the district stays in place. Connecting the PVP to CA-36 will make Harman marginally weaker, but given where Cali is these days I doubt even Huykendall (or whatever his name is) could win such a district. After all is said and done, that probably means the only GOP districts in LA County will be 25 (with a good likelihood to go Dem if McKeon retires) and maybe leftovers of the county given to 42 or 46.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 04:23:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK, I can't resist

My map of LA County is below. I did not use the current districts in any way when making my maps, except to number each of my districts afterward based on the closest current district just so as to facilitate discussion.

The CA-25 district is cut off above, but it covers the rest of northern LA County and does not cross into any neighboring county. This is how my LA districts break down in the 2008 Obama-McCain vote, and who holds the current seat.

CA-25: 53% Obama - 45% McCain (R-McKeon)
CA-26: 58% Obama - 40% McCain (R-Dreier)
CA-27: 71% Obama - 27% McCain (D-Sherman)
CA-28: 80% Obama - 18% McCain (D-Berman)
CA-29: 69% Obama - 29% McCain (D-Schiff)
CA-30: 63% Obama - 49% McCain (D-Waxman)
CA-31: 80% Obama - 17% McCain (D-Becerra)
CA-32: 60% Obama - 32% McCain (D-Chu)
CA-33: 77% Obama - 22% McCain (D-Bass)
CA-34: 76% Obama - 22% McCain (D-Roybal-Allard)
CA-35: 88% Obama - 11% McCain (D-Waters)
CA-36: 59% Obama - 39% McCain (D-Harman)
CA-37: 84% Obama - 15% McCain (D-Richardson)
CA-38: 64% Obama - 34% McCain (D-Napolitano)

It should be self-evident that there is no fictitious motherlode of LA Republicans that will be revealed by compact districting. To the contrary, McKeon and certainly Dreier will be very hard-pressed to hold on to their districts under such a map.

In short, I obviously agree that every one of your predictions is correct, and that the person you are responding to is misguided.

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 05:08:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I should note

A couple things:

1) The current incumbents would not necessarily match the numbering and location of these districts. I obviously did not take incumbent residency into any account since the current rules prohibit that.

2) The few discontiguous bits are due to glitches in Dave's app and do not have any meaningful significance.

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 05:26:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm looking forward to your diary

...

32, M, MI-6, Iconoclastic Leftist

---

by: octaviuz @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 15:11:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your map very neatly

divides the republicans up along the Southern Coastal area and also does so in the northern fringe.  The Northern boundaries of CD 27-29-30 dip into democratic parts of the county and then extend Northward to GOP leaning areas.  That's a political division as you are drawing these lines that way while a commission could draw it another way.

I also believe that several seats that were hispanic majority are now no longer hispanic majority.  Your lines are very neat and very compact.  Unless they wipe several hispanic seats this map will have to be changed.  The heavily republican part of current CD42 could easily whip around CD38 to link up with your CD26.  Then as I suggested another seat in North LA county be draw from leftovers of CD30-CD27-CD29 if those communities got their own seat.  Right now they attached downtown LA seats.  That's the type of districts the commission may do away with?

Yes LA county is also nearly one seat sure of population so if the GOP holds its two seats that mostly in LA what happens--the democrats lose a seat.

Again I don't know what the commission will do but it maybe a democratic jackpot.  I might add that the 29% McCain number for districts is judging Ali by his fight with Larry Holmes.  Carly F. did 5 to 8% better in LA areas then McCain did.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 15:37:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The rules of engagement

ban the use of political data. Communities of interest might be able to serve as a proxy to a certain extent but if when Republicans sue they'll have to camouflage that aspect of their objections.
You are correct about using Obama-McCain numbers though. If kept together (and it will be) the Antelope Valley should be safe for the GOP, despite the Obama percentage.

32, M, MI-6, Iconoclastic Leftist

---

by: octaviuz @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 16:01:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Antelope Valley

I wish the CA SOS website had city-level results going back further than 2000. It seems as though Gore performed a bit better in the Antelope Valley relative to his statewide performance than Kerry, but Obama performed a lot better than Kerry and still significantly better than Gore. If the Democratic trend in the Antelope Valley is real, Republicans better get McKeon to stick around as long as possible and retire only in a year that looks like a potential 2010 repeat.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 16:25:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Antelope Valley is trending blue

There has been lots of growth up there, mainly minorities moving in for better jobs and housing.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.

---

by: DrPhillips @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 16:40:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So how come Kerry performed worse than Gore there

even percentage-wise, not just margin-wise? After all, Kerry did better than Gore percentage-wise in California, I believe, and similarly nationwide. The huge swing to Obama supports your point, but the Kerry slump is a bit weird.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 16:42:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's a good question

Hispanic voters did lean more Republican in 2004, so I think that accounts for some of Kerry's slump in many places.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.

---

by: DrPhillips @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 16:56:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You seem to have a pretty twisted view of communities of interest

most people would agree that, say, Arcadia goes well with Alhambra and Monterey Park, all being San Gabriel Valley suburban communities with high Asian populations. Except Alhambra and Monterey Park are Democratic and would cancel out Arcadia's Republican lean. No one loses in that case except Republicans, but I guess that's your issue with this map. (And most people agree that David Dreier is going to lose his gerrymander which grabs Republican suburbs but conveniently skips next-door Democratic ones, so chances are the only Republican-held district will be CA-25, which will probably be drawn to be a narrowly Obama-voting district as it is now.)

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 16:05:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well...

My map did nothing for political reasons because I did not look at the political data at all until my map was complete. Moreover, I live in North Carolina and have never been west of Denver, so I don't even know precisely where the Republicans live in LA County or anywhere else in California (I have a general sense, of course, that the cities are Dem and the more outlying areas are not, but that's about it). My point being, I don't know enough about the partisan distribution in California to even subconsciously divide LA County to favor Democrats.

What I did was start CA-25 at the northern border of the county and add sections horizontally across the map until I had the right population. Then I finished up Ventura County with CA-30 and added sections of LA County vertically until I had the right population. Then I started placing compact districts based on neighborhoods, running north to south.

The partisan/ethnic outcome was only evident to me afterward when I looked at the figures once the whole map was complete.

But, let's try this. I will modify my map as you propose, with the purposeful intent of putting together a compact Republican district in LA county as you describe it. I'll report back soon.

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 17:51:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

One final point-maybe my final point

is that move by CD30 into Ventura county is a political choice.  LA apparently will be a tad short of 14 whole seats so he needs to get a little more territory.

Why have CD30 go into Ventura?  Why not have CD25 go into Kern County?  That would even add more territory to the North county area for another GOP or lean GOP seat.

You can't expect every move that this citizen's commission makes will help the democrats?  

My basic premise is that if LA is 33 to 35% R in most elections to only get 2/14 seats means one must really slice and dice the republican vote up.  Notice how the current map has all these North /South districts in LA county.  That's because Central LA is divided up to maximize democratic votes.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 19:01:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, it's not

Starting CD-30 in Ventura County is necessitated by the principle of keeping districts compact further up the coast. If you put CD-08 in San Francisco, then put CD-12 in San Mateo, then put all of Santa Cruz & Monterey in CD-17, finish CD-17 in San Luis Obispo, start CD-23 with the rest of San Luis Obispo, add Santa Barbara, and finish it in Ventura, then start CD-24 in Ventura, you end up with that corner of Ventura left over, and it has to go somewhere, which is obviously LA County.

The reason to not have CD-25 go into Kern County is because my current map has Kern County neatly subdivided into 2 districts (one full district and part of CD-20). If you take CD-25 into Kern, you will have to divide at least 2 counties into more districts than would otherwise be the case.

I know you hate my maps for some reason, but how about you wait until I post my own thread. I will still attempt to create your other supposed GOP district in the San Fernando Valley. Other than that, let's carry this on once you can see my full mapping scheme, OK.

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 19:19:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you assume that LA county

only has one attachment to (because its not quite 14 seats) another county that means district #14 needs population from either Ventura-Kern-Orange or San Bernardino county.  There are community of interest points that radiant from LA county to our of these counties.

People do travel from Pomona to Ontario.  Your decision to extend CA30 into Ventura county is not the only way to break the LA county line.  I am not saying its not a valid way to do it but its your decision-a political decision and the commission might not make the same move.  

For that matter you could detach all the coastal part of CD30 -CD33 CD35 and CD36.  You radiate all of your districts in thatarea  southward from more urban and democratic areas  neatly dividing the higher income areas where you can find republican voters.  Why did you do this?
Do the Coastal communities not an area of interest?

I just note again that you have divided up LA county in a way to maximize the democratic vote. That's not a hit as the current lines are drawn that way.  The commission, however, may not divide the lines like you did.

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 20:41:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I will leave it at this for now

I did not district LA County in a vacuum. If it's not obvious enough yet, every decision reverberates elsewhere. To reiterate, my maps are drawn based on two principles:

1) Cross county/city lines only when necessary.

2) Minimize subdivision of counties/cities.

Period.

I began my map in San Francisco because it's the most obvious geographic starting point with water barriers on three sides which the rules dictate are not to be crossed. Everything else followed from there according to the two rules above.

The only juncture where I exercised a highly debatable judgment call in that regard was when I chose between dividing the city of Fresno or dividing Madera County. I chose to divide Madera County since the city of Fresno can comprise its own district.

And that has no bearing on the LA County districts regardless.

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 21:09:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I should correct myself

I certainly exercised more than one highly debatable judgment call - probably at least a dozen. LOL

What I really mean to say is that the only juncture where I exercised a highly debatable judgment call that would also have a significant partisan effect was in deciding whether to divide the city of Fresno or Madera Co.

In all cases where I could discern a reasonable question of which way to proceed, I went back and modified the map afterward to see whether the alternative would be likely to change the political equation. As I've already said repeatedly, in most places it makes no difference whatsoever. It merely affects the position of seats, not their overall composition.

The only part of the state where making different decisions seems to have a significant political impact is in the Central Valley, and my map favors Republicans as best I can tell. In every alternative that I tried you end up with either roughly the same outcome or with a stronger seat for Jim Costa.

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 21:49:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fair enough and let me double down

on that point.  There are probably more like 24 trip points or judgement calls that have to be made whereever you start.  It ain't easy and its not simple.

Start with Imperial county.  Does it attach to Riverside or San Diego?  You can argue that decision for two days. I see as much more of a community of interest with Riverside county.  I don't see it as having very much in common with the Exurbs of San Diego county.  

Every decision that the commission makes will and should be questioned.  I do suspect they will try to create more competitive seats-beyond that who can be sure of anything.

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 23:16:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He hates your maps because

they are not GOP-friendly enough, pretty much.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 03:50:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is no way to get a GOP district

   out of the San Fernando Valley nowadays. Maybe a small part of the SFV could be a part of a Santa Clarita and Antelope Valleys based seat (like the current CA-25) or a Ventura County based seat including Chatsworth (in the northwest SFV, the most conservative L.A. city council district) along with Simi Valley (home of the Reagan Library, one of the more GOP cities in Ventura County). Simi is "interesting" but I survived precinct walking there when my friend ran for Assembly in AD-38 a few years ago. AD-38 is a classic GOP gerrymander/dumping ground; half of Simi, part of the north SFV and Santa Clarita. I don't expect that district to survive the commission in anywhere near its current form.

  Most of the Valley is now way too Democratic to elect any Repubs; the southern edge of it is more affluent with lots of entertainment industry people, various professionals, Jews, Persians, academics (not far from UCLA) and so forth. The central and east SFV is more working class and Latino and Armenian. None of these groups in trending GOP these days. The Valley is becoming more of a Democratic powerhouse. Back in 1980 a GOP Representative was elected from the east Valley (Bobbi Fiedler R-CA) but not lately.

   By the way, I am impressed that someone who is not from CA would be interested in redistricting the Golden State. You are truly an amazing politics and geography geek!

52, male, disgruntled Democrat, CA-28

---

by: Zack from the SFV @ Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 05:42:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

CD30

CD30 should go into Ventura County rather than Kern County because:  There is a mountain range between Kern County and the bulk of Ventura County.  The coastal counties are more logically tied together than with any inland county because of that mounttain range.

In my map of the coastal counties, I started with the county boundary between Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties, which is in a fairly unpopulated area, and worked north and south, respectively.  This kept the 17CD safe D, since it went into super D Santa Cruz County or swingish San Benito [which is in the same drainage and commercial area as Monterey County.

Going south, this combined swingish San Luis Obispo County with supersafe D Santa Barbara City, making a likely D CD23 and A lean or likely CD24 [in Ventura County, depending on the exact areas, with the remainder in CD30, which is otherwise in super safe LA County.

An argument could be made for combining norther Ventura county with CD25, both being on the same side of the mountain range, but the numbers involved is minimal.


Joe Cooper

---

by: Joe Cooper @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 21:16:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was not suggested CD 30

go into Kern County.  Rather I was suggested that either CD25 could go into Kern county or CD26 could go into San Bernandino.  Those decisions impact matters.  In fact the way this map was drawn has CD46 come into LA county to grab a piece of Long Beach.  You could have it go into LA at a different spot or have it go into San Bernandino county.  

I personally think SF is a pretty spot to start your redistricting map.  I even suggested that.  I do note that whether you go North or South is strictly a political decision.  Marin county has been attached to San Francisco many times in redistricting over the last 100 years and if there is not a community of interest between Marin county and SF where is there one in CA?  The rules of the commission certainly do not forbid attaching those two counties together.

As I said its not a hit on your map.  Its a nice map but its not the only way to draw these seats.

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 21:31:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's an interesting argument.

I remember that somebody made a post a while ago in which he/she gerrymandered California to supposedly have only 4 safe Republican seats.

Said poster started by - guess what - sending the most Democratic parts of San Francisco north into Marin County.

http://mypolitikal.com/

---

by: Inoljt @ Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 05:45:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

CD42/CD32 or whatever

First of all, CA-42 on my map is a very compact district in the corner of San Bernardino County, along with Norco from Riverside County. If it 'whips around' anything to join CA-26 then it obviously needs to cross the LA County lines. However, my current configuration of Riverside County otherwise includes a fully contained CA-45 in the eastern 2/3 of the county (Palm Springs & San Jacinto), a fully contained CA-44 in Riverside and Moreno Valley, and CA-40 which picks up 15,000 people from the southeast corner of Orange County. Now, I could pull CA-40 out of Orange County and add 15,000 people from CA-42 instead, but that still leaves 84,000 people from Riverside County in CA-42. That means Riverside County would be subdivided into 5 districts instead of 4, LA County would be subdivided into at least one additional district (CA-42, obviously), and either San Diego County or LA County would need to be divided once more (because those 15,000 Orange County people need to go somewhere).

This would obviously be a severe perversion of the rules that the Redistricting Commission is supposed to follow.

Now, if you meant CA-32 instead, that is also a neat, compact East LA district on my map. There is certainly no way to 'whip it around' CA-38 to join CA-26 barring a blatant gerrymander. In any case, if you add every 'heavily Republican' part of eastern LA County to CA-26, and swap them with the most heavily Dem parts, it's still a 54% Obama to 44% McCain district, and this is what you end up with:

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 19:10:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

typo

The above should read:

That means either Riverside County would be subdivided into 5 districts instead of 4 and LA County would be subdivided into at least one additional district (CA-42, obviously), or San Diego County or LA County would need to be divided once more (because those 15,000 Orange County people need to go somewhere).

It's awkward wording anyhow, but the point is you would have to further subdivide at least a couple more counties if CA-42 crosses into LA County.

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 19:25:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

CD30/CD27/CD29

OK, this is the partisan view of these three districts on my map, centered on CA-27 in Burbank. If you can tell me where the supposed concentration of "northern fringe" Republicans that can be put into a compact district are at, then by all means do so. Failing that, I will attempt to create a gerrymandered Republican district here along with parts of CA-25 and wherever else I can scrounge up Republicans in western LA County. Let's see what happens. Be back soon...

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 20:11:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, I can't do it

If I put together the Republican areas of Glendale & Burbank, then start flailing around for more Republicans I still can't put together a district that's less than 54% Obama - not even with a map would embarrass a Pennsylvanian GOP legislator. I even tried threading down to pick up Republicans in Rancho Palos Verdes and over in Covina, but I still can't get below 54% Obama. No matter which way I go, there are just too many Democrats inconveniently in the way.

The only way to try and make a GOP district in LA County without crossing county boundaries is to take the CA-25 district on my map, cut out the Dem areas in the San Fernando Valley, and add GOP leaning districts from Burbank/Glendale and Covina. Even then, the best I can do is 49% Obama to 49% McCain (with McCain beating Obama by 200 votes).

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 21:01:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

LA County trended heavily Democratic

So it is just about impossible to pull off a district that is majority Republican. Even in more favorable years, a Republican LA County district would be lean at best.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.

---

by: DrPhillips @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 21:10:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

CA10

was designed to be for a fairly conservative Democrat, who specifiaclly asked for some relatively moderate/conservative areas.  It could have been made much more liberal with no problem, and less distortion of the district boundaries.

Joe Cooper

---

by: Joe Cooper @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 20:57:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

CA26

is one of those districts which depends on its GOP leaning only because of extremely careful gerrymandering.  If is was placed sequentially south of where it is, losing its tendrils further west to districts south of it, and expanding in the western part further south, it becomes lean or likely Democratic with no problem

Joe Cooper

---

by: Joe Cooper @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 20:53:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where is CA-27?

   With 53 seats it isn't hard to lose one. That is currently held by Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks). It is not as heavily Latino as Howard Berman's adjacent east SFV district but is one that will likely elect a Latino when the incumbent retires. Both are safe Democratic districts.

  Looking again I think you are missing another district since the numbers only add up to 51 not 53. CA-19?

52, male, disgruntled Democrat, CA-28

---

by: Zack from the SFV @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 04:30:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nuh-uh

Preclearance has to do with Section 5 of the VRA, which is voting laws. Redistricting is under Section 2, which covers every last jurisdiction in the country. That misconception needs to go far far away; someone repeats it at least once a week here.

So no, the Commission couldn't play fast and loose with current VRA seats if they want to as you suggest, unless they're replacing them with other seats because that create regression for minority voters. This isn't going to be some big supreme court case because it's already established law.

Also, I should point out that the DRA has a huge flaw that makes it practically unusable for California; it uses racial and ethnic demographic data from 2000 even while using population estimates from 2009, so any conclusions made on this subject from using the DRA are unfortunately not going to be based on reality.

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.

---

by: Nico @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 14:34:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Be that as it may...

California is one state the VRA currently helps Democrats far more than it hinders them.  So if anything, the results are going to be even better for Dems than his maps suggest.  

Looking at the breakdown of seats based upon Wiki demographics (which I think are from 2000), we see:

Democrats:
5 strong majority White districts: 1, 5, 6. 10. 14. 30. 53
1 weak majority White district: 11
7 strong majority Hispanic districts: 28, 31, 32, 34, 38, 39
3 weak majority Hispanic districts: 20, 47, 51
15 strong majority minority districts: 7. 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 23, 27, 29, 33, 35, 36, 37
1 weak majority minority district: 18

Republicans:
6 strong majority White districts: 2, 4, 22, 41, 42, 49
11 weak majority White districts: 3, 19, 24, 25, 26, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 52
1 strong minority majority district: 21
1 weak minority majority district: 40

As I said, this is 2000 data.  for the Dems, 5, and 53 are likely now majority minority, as could be up to five Republican districts.  The first point is it would be hard not to draw compact borders and not come up with a roughly equal number of majority-minority seats (although the majority Hispanic seats might take more work).  California is now majority-minority after all.  

Now, it's possible one could interpret that due to the lower rates of citizenship/voting among Latinos and Asians in California, you'd need more than just minority majority for VRA status.  Seats with white percentages in the 40s seem to act just like majority white seats.  But arguably this would mean packing minorities, and run afoul of the VRA act itself.  

---

by: eschaton @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 16:22:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clarification

The question at hand is majority-Latino seats versus majority-minority seats. According to the data available from Dave's app, my map has 9 majority-Latino seats versus 10 majority-Latino seats in the old map (but I am not counting 'influence' districts, which could be argued to go up). However, my map has 28 majority-minority districts versus 27 under the current map.

The main reason is because compact districts in East LA remain (or become) majority-minority but not majority-Latino. The large Asian populations in those areas become more concentrated.

So, to backtrack, I am essentially making two points:

1) The VRA does not protect individual districts per se (that's what I was disputing) but rather the overall political situation of minorities. There have been numerous maps upheld by the courts that were challenged for diluting the minority vote in one area yet upheld for creating a comparable district elsewhere.

2) If a map drawn on purely geographic principles needs to be modified for VRA purposes - and I can't stress this enough - it has no political effect anywhere except for the Central Valley. It merely makes the map uglier by exchanging heavily Democratic less minority precincts for heavily Democratic more minority precincts.

Oh, and another point about the VRA: Everyone seems to miss the third guidepost of vote dilution cases which is that the ethnic majority (i.e., whites) must vote in such a manner as to consistently deny the minority population the ability to elect the candidate of their choice. It would be very difficult in my view to validate such an argument with regard to LA even if a district went from, say, 60% Latino to 45% Latino.

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 17:40:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thoughts on California

As I see it, Stark will get the cut, the population growth in it has been almost non-existent. The 13th district can be easily divided up between Honda and McNerney, with Honda getting a plurality Asian district. That's the cleanest way of doing it. Cardoza might have the option of moving into a Stockon anchored seat and being fairly safe there. That is if Costa doesn't have Merced added to his district to keep the Hispanic percentage up, in which case we'd see a primary between the two.

There is little difficulty drawing VRA districts, so there isn't much harm for Democrats on that front. Just by making Dreier and Miller's districts compact, you can get districts that have good percentages for minorities.

The Republicans stand to lose at least 4 seats, Calvert, Dreier, Gallegly and Miller will no longer have safe seats. Capps can win a more compact seat, she did it three times previously and the new incarnation of the district will probably look like the one she initially ran in. The Republicans don't have much of a bench there, other than Abel Maldonado, whose brand isn't that high anymore. The seat that gets shifted will definitely be in the Inland Empire, in particular, Riverside County. Bono Mack would get a safe seat and a new Dem leaning seat would have her 2010 opponent Steve Pougnet's name on it.

And now that we have a top two primary system, we will see lots of same party battles. If Miller gets drawn in with Royce, which is a possibility, we'd see a general election between the two.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.

---

by: DrPhillips @ Mon Jan 03, 2011 at 22:01:40 PM UTC

i highly doubt

miller and royce would both out-perform a some dude d in a three way primary.

18, Dem, CA-14 (home) CA-09 (college, next year). social libertarian, economic liberal, fiscal conservative.   Everybody should put age and CD here. :)

---

by: jncca @ Mon Jan 03, 2011 at 23:12:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Perhaps not

I would imagine if they do end up in the same district, it would be conservative enough where it would be somewhat possible to have a two Republican general election.  

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.

---

by: DrPhillips @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 00:36:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stark

will move to take in the areas now owned by McNerney, leaving CD11 with no or only a nominal position in the SF Bay Area.  CD 11 should be centered on San Joaquin County, which almost has enough on its own to be a district on its own.

Stark will then have the privilege of contesting CD13  with McNerney, in a district which is much less liberal than his existing district.  I can see Stark having a preponderance of his old district, tho.

And remember, the rules for the primary have changed as of January 1st.  Now, the first two votegetters, even if of the same party, go the the general election.  So, the possiblilty exists that Startk and McNerney will share the ballot in November, 2012.

A scenario like this is much more likely, tho, in the much more heavily Democratic areas of central LA the City of San Francisco, and other similar areas with 75% more Obama vote.

Joe Cooper

---

by: Joe Cooper @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 21:27:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I like Pete Stark

but he'll be 80 this year...  

28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26

---

by: TheGradyDem @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 01:28:10 AM UTC

i like his voting record

and hate his rhetoric.  we can do much better

that he thought bush enjoys having soldiers killed was too much for me

18, Dem, CA-14 (home) CA-09 (college, next year). social libertarian, economic liberal, fiscal conservative.   Everybody should put age and CD here. :)

---

by: jncca @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 09:30:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yep. It's time for Stark to retire.

---

by: emilysdad @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 19:00:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]