i know it's a lot of work

but could you put incumbents' names?

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 Feb 15, 2011 at 04:32:36 AM UTC

Always like seeing California maps

I would like to see that version of CA-3, it would make for some interesting elections.

The Central Valley will have to turn out different. I imagine one Hispanic district will be required, one that meets voting age population. The Bakersfield-Lancaster district would be problematic, because Lancaster and Palmdale should be in one district and neither have much in common with Bakersfield. Other than that, everything else looks good on this map.

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

---

by: DrPhillips @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 05:00:10 AM UTC

Kern-Desert

You're correct about Bakersfield & Palm-caster. East Kern i.e.  Everything east of the crest of the sierra's should be a desert based district. Think people are forgetting that the marching orders under props 11 & 20 is to keep communities of interest, countys and citys as unified as possible.

---

by: hankmeister @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 23:34:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nice from a community of interet standpoint, but

I'm pretty sure thus would violate the VRA.  For example, I think what you did in the Central Valley would be problematic.  Even though there is a Hispanic majority district, with an R+3 lean, they probably wouldn't be able to elect a candidate of choice.

Also, this map has only 10 Hispanic-majority districts, the same number as the current map, despite the large growth in Hispanic population over the past decade.  So, I think the panel will make at least a few more.

26, Male, Democrat, VA-08

---

by: M Riles @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 05:07:44 AM UTC

Interesting

I'm very close to posting another California map myself. Now you've given me an excuse to hold off at least a few days, so thanks!

Seriously though, I know how much work goes into making a California map, but it seems to me that there are a few potential problems with your mapping scheme that I feel the need to bring up.

1) Whatever your starting point, both CA-01 and CA-03 bypass nearby population centers in order to reach more distant populations for no apparent reason. This is expressly prohibited by the new guidelines. You can easily draw them to be far more compact.

2) Merced County is split between CA-18 and CA-19; Monterey County is split between CA-17 and CA-23. These are Section 5 preclearance counties and you've placed at least half of the Latino population in majority white districts. At best, that would be very dicey from a "retrogression" standpoint. Kings County is also a Section 5 preclearance county and it has gone from a 60%+ Latino district to a 53% Latino district.

3) What is the rationale for that weird CA-22 district? It is not a majority-minority district, so it cannot be justified under VRA guidelines, yet it doesn't appear to follow any traditional redistricting principles. Moreover, it seems to create a nearly-as-weird CA-25 district for no apparent reason.

4) I don't have a huge objection to your decision to go Imperial to Riverside vs Imperial to San Diego. However, if you do make that decision then there's no doubt that your CA-53 district could be closer to 60% Latino rather than 48% Latino. Now, I realize that the 'special data' map understates Latino population, but I can tell just by glancing at your CA-53 district that you are taking in heavily white coastal areas south of San Diego while excluding heavily Latino areas in east central San Diego. Especially since you have no preserved the San Diego city limits anyhow, I don't see how that'd fly.

I guess those are the big ones. I also wonder about the odds shape of CA-42 and the CA-25 dip into the San Fernando Valley, but I can see some rationale for why one might make those moves (though I personally don't find them persuasive).

Anyhow, sorry to be so critical, but that's the whole point of posting, right? There can never be enough California redistricting talk so far as I'm concerned!

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 05:08:58 AM UTC

I feel

 That everyone is doing California redistricting maps right now. I am working on one right now which should be up either this weekend or next week.  

for more election analysis, visit  http://frogandturtle.blogspot....

17, CA-06,  

---

by: Alibguy @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 05:24:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm personally waiting for political data

from Illinois. I don't want to bug jeff, but I think it will be a lot of fun to work with that state. I want to satisfy myself about whether 14-4 is possible.  

---

by: andgarden @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 05:41:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Me, too....

In the meantime, I am satisfying myself with answering a question that my gut says is in the negative: can the NY State GOP, without cheating (e.g., drawing state senate seats roughly equal in population as opposed to +/- 10% as in the last map), maintain their perilous majority of 32-30.  So far, I have been unable to bring the Western NY seats up to population parity and avoid eliminating a GOP seat upstate.  Now, I suppose it's possible they will just add a seat or two, and I have tried this.  But even when you throw in 64 seats (+2), you end up throwing a GOP State Senator under the bus.  

---

by: jsramek @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 07:14:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

In my view

it is hugely important that we do not even let them try. Democrats will bitch and moan about a court drawn map (especially in the Assembly), but taking control of the senate is worth it. Republicans need a designer map to even dream of keeping a foothold on power in New York.  

---

by: andgarden @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 07:28:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree...

And perhaps I will try what a neutral, communities-of-interest Assembly map might look like.  Any idea when the census data for NY will come out (or how close to probable actual numbers, demographic info, etc., the redistricting site is)?

---

by: jsramek @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 19:14:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Really good map

 I like how you were able to carve out a few more Democratic districts and I like how you handled LA county. It is a pretty hard shell to crack there.

A few quibbles: I am not a big fan of the 20th not following the VRA strictly enough. Also, I am not a big fan of connecting Livermore with the 16th district. I think that belongs in the 13th or the 11th district. I also think that although there is now an African American majority seat, the VRA will not be happy because 2 of the 3 LA African American representatives could be primaried out.  

for more election analysis, visit  http://frogandturtle.blogspot....

17, CA-06,  

---

by: Alibguy @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 05:29:49 AM UTC

Race of the Representative

doesn't really matter for the VRA.  For example, it's not problematic that Steve Cohen, who's white, represents a district with a majority of black voters because thats who they want.  So, as long as the districts don't otherwise violate the VRA, the fact that Maxine Waters might lose doesn't matter.  

26, Male, Democrat, VA-08

---

by: M Riles @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 05:39:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

and maxine waters

losing a primary would be a good thing in general for america. provided somebody more ethical replaces her

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 Feb 15, 2011 at 07:04:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Every iteration of these maps

just convinces me that Democrats have little to fear (and much to gain) from the commission).  

---

by: andgarden @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 05:44:03 AM UTC

I don't know.

I'd like to eventually see a couple gerrymandered-maps-that-could-have-been under our Dem trifecta control in CA if it weren't for Prop 20.
And compare it with the bi-partisan commission's map in August. Then we'll know how many House seats Prop 20 likely cost us.

---

by: homerun @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 07:12:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why?

Why do you assume that the Dems would draw anything besides a pure incumbent-protection map again, as they did in 2001?

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 07:16:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

including also the 19 republican representatives?

I'm not optimistic about this, I think the commission will cost us some seats.

And this will be in a bad moment... in a moment of intense republican gerrymander in many states.

---

by: abgin @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 13:59:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agree it doesn't help team blue

It is clearly going to cost team blue seats. It will likely be an overall upgrade of say 3-5 seats but a true Democratic gerrymander could very well have netted 5-8 seats. Not only that but a Democratic gerrymander could have targeted specific odious Representatives. I personally haven't drawn a map but this map does a great job and likely burns Gallegy, Dreier, Lewis, Bono-Mack and Billbray but puts Cardoza in trouble. A specific gerrymander would have been able to pick and choose WHO to target and WHO to fortify.  Again I haven't drawn a map but I have seen diaries and discussions and imagine if it was a true Democratic gerrymander and you could target Lungren/Dreier/Gallegy/McKeon/Billbray (reasonably easy targets), McCarthy (who is in leadership but that is a harder target),  Hunter/Issa (likely wishful thinking but one of their districts could be moved into a swing district and neither of them are moderates). You could even make someone like Bono-Mack much stronger who isn't odious with the intention of screwing someone else.  

28, Male, Democrat VA-08  

---

by: Cool_Arrow @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 17:13:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think the current map has still many elements what come from the olf republican gerrymanders

I draw a map finding the limits for California (like for New York and some other state) as exercice for see the limits. It is a 53-0 map with at least 59% Obama districts. It is a extreme democratic gerrymander of California. You can see it in my diary.

Since this extreme map you can go down for draw more compact district looking a little better. I think we can be able for draw a gerrymandered map looking so nice with less than 5 districts for the republicans. Californian in Texas draw here a pretty looking map with 12 seats for the republicans.

Ballotpedia tell this about the new commission for redistricting California.

Process
The California Citizens Redistricting Commission is responsible for redistricting. This is one of 13 commissions nationwide that is responsible for redistricting. This redistricting commission is comprised of 14 members, made up of the following:

5 Republicans
5 Democrats
4 Independents
Government Auditors selected 8 members from a pool of 60 voters, then the first 8 commission members selected chose the final 6 commissioners.

Each commissioner will be paid $300 per day worked during the process.[2]

Once the maps are drawn by the commission, it must be approved by at least 9 of the 14 members. Those 9 must also contain at least 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and 3 who are not affiliated with either party.[3]

If this is true, and a majority of the republicans in the commission must approve the map, the republicans have enough power for block every improvement for the democrats, then I'm pretty pessimistic about the result of the commission.

It would be pretty easy to improve the current map because is significantly pro-republican, but I'm not optimistic.

---

by: abgin @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 19:04:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think there's a fair chance the maps will be

wind up being drawn by a court (which is what will happen if the committee deadlocks).
Because as you note, it only takes 3 of the 5 Republicans on the 14 person committee to block final approval.
(Supposedly, the person picked as chairman is a progressive Democrat, and a several of the independents supposedly lean Dem.)

---

by: homerun @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 22:08:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

BTW, it seems that the commission be a pretty open process.

The CRC has a website http://www.wedrawthelines.ca.gov with a video archive and transcripts and handouts of the open meetings.
And there has already been turnover. One of the Dem commissioners resigned last month and has been replaced.

---

by: homerun @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 22:11:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Chair

The chair rotates and thus far there have been two Republicans to the one Democrat (though that's just an artifact of the fact that a Republican went first). My suspicion based on the hours of time I've spent watching the proceedings is that the final map will be nearly unanimous and will cause unanimous anger among leaders of both parties. The selection process was such that the members, across the political spectrum, are biased toward a good-government orientation (full disclosure, i share the basic belief that it's better to be in the right than to be in power if you have to choose). As for the indies, one is former GOP, the others seem to be former Dems disappointed with the rightward tilt of the party (associated with but not members of the Green and Peace & Freedom parties).

32, M, MI-6, Iconoclastic Leftist

---

by: octaviuz @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 00:29:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I understand that

it takes 9 votes to pass a plan.  At least 9 votes as 3 members from each group must vote yes.

I do forsee a bipartisan compromise plan where no one is completely happy. I have given my overall prediction over and over again so I will not go there but here's what will make people happy & unhappy.

1. We will see perhaps 1/4 of the incumbent's residences out of district.  Is it a good time to house shop in CA? I might add that one current congressman moved her real estate by foreclosure.

2. I think we could see as many as 10 competitive seats.  Incumbents love safe seats.  

3. I think we will see a shrinkage of the two major areas in CA. In the Bay area we will see one less seat of influence-more likely a 1/2 seat but a seat the less.  Plus we will see one less LA county seat.  It remains to see who which party will lose the LA county seat.

---

by: rdelbov @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 13:13:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If it is the CA Supreme Court

Then it is low likely to see improvements for the democratic side (obviously it is difficult go to worse). Except one, the rest of the members of the CA Supreme Court are appointed by republican governors.

---

by: abgin @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 09:56:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

California has turned deep blue over the decade

versus the light blue of 2001.  I think Democrats would be more aggressive...not to the point of trying to pack Republicans into 5 districts statewide or something like that, but we'd start racking up the wins just by nudging most of the GOP districts 5 points or so towards us.  The GOP doesn't have any ultra-red districts in California, in 2008 none of their representatives even broke 60% for re-election.  That indicates a real weakness and the fact that the CA GOP has become over-represented in the state.

So based on that, I'd think the Dems would be a bit more aggressive than 2001.

---

by: skaje @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 16:51:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In 2001,

my understanding is that CA Dems had just made nice gains and did an incumbent protection redistricting to lock in those new Dem. seats. So from a partisan standpoint, it was not a bad move (although in hindsight they gerrymandered the seats a bit too well).
Now in 2011, with holding the trifecta (with sizable majorities in both the assembly and state senate) there's not the same impetus for incumbent protection.  Rumors the past couple of years were that if we won the governorship back from the Repubs, redistricting by the Dems would not be another incumbent-protection deal. There would be no reason to settle for that.
Alas we'll never know how aggressive the 2011 map would have been, due to Prop 20 winning last Nov.

---

by: homerun @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 21:35:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't want to start a fight or refight the same

old ground in CA. I see many of the same numerous problems that existed in previous CA maps.

1. There are two many urban-rural hybrid districts.  For some reason democratic mapmakers here love to attach democratic urban & surburban areas to republican rural areas.  The rational is always the same which is its just logical to do it that way or community of interest or something.  

2. Every twist and turn in this map, all very logical, favors the democrats.  I don't see a turn east or west or north or south that benefits the GOP. For whatever reason every community of interest move here favors the democrats.  The moves in this map favor the democrats in such an odd way that its like flipping a coin and coming up heads 17 times in a row.  

3. I don't want to another VRA discussion.  I will just say that this map have major retrogression issues.  CA has a doubling of hispanic population from 2000 to 2010 and this map appears to have lowered the number of hispanic seats with the 60% treshold.  This map does a very nifty job of dividing hispanics up to help elect white democrats.  Somehow I think either the DOJ or redistricting commission would object to it.

That being said thanks for posting this map.  Its an huge job to do it.  I very well may do a CA map after all the census data comes in.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 15:05:43 PM UTC

Just I see less than necessary urban-rural districts

I think this map is generous with the republicans in at least 17 districts :)

---

by: abgin @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 15:20:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You do a nice map

The map looks nice. I think some incumbent would find surprises.

Majority-minority with no one majority race: 18 (including the 2 districts that are 50% white; I wasn't sure if they were 50.1-50.4% or 49.6-49.9%)

For know the exact percentage you need only divide the white population by the total population of the district (and multiply by 100 if you wish). The application give the necessary data.

---

by: abgin @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 15:30:34 PM UTC

Hispanics seats need

60 to 65 percent to be minority majority.  Drawing a seat 50% hispanic is pointless when they vote at half the rate of similar population.

There are three or four seats in CA now with over 50% hispanic that are not held by hispanics. The map above like the current map divides the hispanic community up to their disdvantage.

Again in the map above we Sacremento split going North and then Sacramento going South.  Plus the minority community is split in Sacramento county.  Its a very similar pattern for maps here.  Attach suburban republican votes in one county, Sacramento to another set of republican suburb voters in San Jaoquin.  Then attach urban democrats, many minorities, to rural voters north of Sacramento. To everyone here those moves are very logical but since that county can neatly handle two seats why split it three ways-excess then the same excess. Community of interest indeed except when it helps democrats.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 16:04:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

good point re 60% hispanic ...

but I believe this map is using the 2000 numbers; looking at individual districts here, it appears that CA-18,29,30,31,39,44,47 which are all in the low-mid 50's hisp. here would be 60%+ or approaching 60% hisp. if you use 2006-2008 ACS numbers, and perhaps all over 60% hisp. if you had 2010 numbers - ?? (not yet out) .... CA-53 would prob. be at least mid-50's hisp. in 2010 numbers, but that's really the highest you can get it in SD Co. w/o including Imperial ...

---

by: silver spring @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 16:44:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You could be right on

2010 hispanic numbers.  I guess everyone, perhaps even myself, will keep an eye on the 2010 census data for CA.

Those 2010 census numbers will be a two edged sword because I believe, at least the way I read VRA, they set a retrogression standard for 2010.  For instance if CA53 is 60% minority or Filner's seat is 60% hispanic (its only 21% white 2001) then those minimum standards for those seats.  If Davis's seat is 40% white moving it up to 45% white would be diluting the minority vote while reducing Filner's hispanic numbers would also be dilution.  

I would be the 1st to say that CA's commission has a difficult task as they have a lot to balance.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 18:59:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

yes ... which is why Filner's district ..

may necessarily have to keep Imperial (?) ....  

---

by: silver spring @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 19:07:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't have the exact numbers

as the census data has come out yet but san Diego was estimated to have 900K hispanics in 2009 and probably came up with 950K in 2010.  The hispanics are the big upside surprise in 2010 census numbers.

I could see and have seen Imperial county going either way.  

I think San Diego has enough hispanics for one really concentrated seat and it will be up to the commission to go do a second minority/majority seat.  Filner's seat actually has stayed his because of the AA population.  The AA community voted strong for him against the last hispanic to oppose him.  Its only 9.4% AA but because its heavily democratic and they vote its disportional.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 19:33:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In not particular order here is my top ten

list of seats in this map that,  in my opinion,  are either partisan gerrymander ruls  or severe violations of the community interest/protect incumbent rules that the nonpartisan commission should  abide by.

#1 district #3.  Its the classic lets attach the northern part of the city of Sacramento to the rural area in the foothills of Sierra Nevada.  That's a nifty 100 northward connecting urban areas to various towns of 200 people each.  Why does this seat make sense?  Wait a minute it attaches a strong pool of democrats in an urban area to conservative rural areas.  Check that puppy off the list.

2. The solution is district #3 is to have two seats totally in Sacremento county.  Why not?  This leads to gerrymandered seat #2.  Your seat #10 attaches surburban Sacramento county to rural San Jaoquin county.  Yup lets connect republican parts of two counties that do not have anything in common with eachother except a common border.  One is suburban and on is agricultural.  Slice and dice time.

3. Next up is #11. I have seen several maps here and without fail there must be a seat that combines Contra Costa or Alameda county with San Jaoquin.  There must be some sort program flaw in Dave's app because every map on this site wants to connect the Bay area to rural San Jaoquin county.  Why now?  Why not keep the Bay area to itself instead of attaching urban areas to rural areas?

4. The answer to #3, of course, is Monterey county.  Say what?  If you do not attach district #11 to San Jaoquin county it starts a chain reaction in the bay area.  Sam Farr has to take in nearly all of Monterey county if you don attach San Benito county to his seat and attach some of San Jaoquin to a Bay area seat.  So #17 & #23 are the gerrymandered seats of Monterey county.  You have to split Monterery county to give Capps a safe D seat.  Try to do it without it?

5. The next seat on my list of gerrymandered seats is #24. Its the next seat down the coast from Capps seat.  Because of the splitting of Monterey county.  The Ventura based #24 must give up some of its population to LA county.  Naturally every map here has a West LA county taking the most GOP part of Ventura county.  Naturally why not?  well the butterfly that flaps its wings in West LA is the San Jaoquin lunge.  It sets in a motion a nifty division of Monterey and the attaching of the most GOP part of Ventura to a super safe D seat in LA county.  

6. Lets stay in west LA for seat #25. This seat is in the far western part of San Fernando Valley & has nearly all of the North county of LA plus part of SB county.  Can you say gerrmander or lack of community of interest?  I am not a betting man but I would take a bet that seat will not exist in 2012.

Well I am losing steam and this post is already too long.  I need to items on the Central valley and the suburban LA counties but that will have to wait for another day.  Don't take this post personal.  Its not a attack on your map making skills but rather pointing out decisions that you make are political and have one sided political benefits.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 20:54:46 PM UTC

#7 gerrymandered district

Bakerfield to Lancaster?  Need I say anymore?  Yet another split county line  split to pile republicans into a single district.

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 23:50:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kern split

Kern is going to have to be split. There are no two ways about it. The California Dept. of Finance Demographic Research Unit estimates the population at 844,642 on July 1 of 2010. Assuming the 704,566 people per Congressional district that the US Census estimates, that means 140,000ish people in Kern need to be moved to a district based in another county.
I'd suggest putting East Kern which is geographically in the Mojave Desert in an Inyo/San Berdo/Palm-caster district makes a lot of sense. It also makes western Kern (the San Joaquin valley portion) a lot more Democratic.  

---

by: hankmeister @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 18:52:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

VRA

I assumed for VRA purposes the the excess population would be taken care of by another arm reaching down to Bakersfield to grab Hispanics much as it does now.

32, M, MI-6, Iconoclastic Leftist

---

by: octaviuz @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 19:04:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

VRA

Look at the ACS data at block group level! The hispanic population of CD-22 is going to be WAY up. McCarthy is toast within 6 years if his district keeps changing.

Kern is not a VRA county. Only Kings, Monterey, Merced, and Yuba are VRA counties.

---

by: hankmeister @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 20:06:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

VRA rules still apply

The Central Valley needs a VRA district and Hispanic precincts in Bakersfield are likely to be used for it.

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

---

by: DrPhillips @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 21:55:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wow

I should let you answer, that was much more concise. :-)

32, M, MI-6, Iconoclastic Leftist

---

by: octaviuz @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 22:04:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm a little unsure that the VRA would require any district with that kind of tail into Bakersfield

The VRA mandates drawing compact majority-minority districts. I think that a district that includes that tail would not count as compact. Also, from what I know, it seems like the right amount of majority-minority seats could be drawn without that tail. Of course the big question is citizen voting-age population, as that is what counts for VRA purposes, and from what I know Dave's app uses total population. Any idea how Hispanic a district would have to be to make it's CVAP majority-Hispanic? I'm guessing that in the central valley it's probably around 60%.

Male, VA-08

---

by: drobertson @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 01:39:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It could be a Fresno to Merced district instead to satisfy compactness

I'm not sure how that would work with VAP, but it's the alternative to going into Bakersfield.

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

---

by: DrPhillips @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 03:09:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

YES YES YES

Props 11 & 20 explicitly say that the commission needs to pay attention  city and county boundaries as well as communities of interest. A person doing this for real would need to look at actual population as well as turn out and registration numbers simultaneously. I thing that physical geography is going to play in to this reapportionment more than anybody currently realizes. I fully expect east Kern in CD-41 when this is all said and done.
The real show in California that' coming is going to be the slicing and dicing of school district boards and city councils that are elected at-large as a result of the CVRA.

I live in CD-22.

---

by: hankmeister @ Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 04:47:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Perhaps..

you misunderstand me, or the law. Every jurisdiction is covered by the Voting Rights Act, the few counties you mention merely get closer scrutiny. The issue isn't CD 22, it's CD 20 (or however the commission chooses to number it) which currently has a rather unsightly arm reaching down into Kern County to grab Hispanic residents of Bakersfield. While it might not look good, it serves a purpose of ensuring that the district has a sufficiently large minority population to elect a representative of their choice. Due to non-retrogression rules, I believe that will have to be continued in any new map. As an aside, Kevin McCarthy's district is going to be safe, precisely because most of those Hispanics you mention aren't going to be in his district.

32, M, MI-6, Iconoclastic Leftist

---

by: octaviuz @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 22:03:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No doubt

Kern will have to split but why go South to LA county?

Why not go North?  

Why does every map here have Sacramento going  Norht to Tehanama county?

Why is Monterey county split and attached to Capps seat?

Why is San Jaoquin split three ways?

Why is either Contra Costa or Alameda always attached to San Jaoquin county?

Why does a W LA seat always get attached to Simi Valley in Ventura county?  Is that like a state law in CA?  

I have seen 5 or 6 various democrat maps for CA and they all think the nonpartisan map makers will do the above moves.  I might add every move above benefits the democrats.  

The Monterey county move is uncanny because for years this county has never been split but now every D map here splits here.  In the 1950 to 2010 it has not  been split but now every map here splits it.  Amazing.

---

by: rdelbov @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 20:42:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kern Desert

Most of the jobs in Lancaster/Palmdale & East Kern are centered around Edwards AFB and China Lake Naval Weapons Center. It really is a community of interest.
Monterey IS a VRA county which is going to drive a lot of decisions there.

---

by: hankmeister @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 21:10:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am not sure about most as

I have often read about the two hour commutes to Downtown LA from Lancaster area. Is there is a community of interest there-certainly some.  Yet we see district that stretches right next to this seat that connects West LA and the high desert in San Bernandino county-a 150 mile drive I realize that community of interest was not what this map is about. Its about politics and gerrymandering.

Mind you anyone can draw a map of CA but when folks suggest thats its an attempt to do what the bipartisan commission will do that's a higher standard in my opinion.  Here are three things I believe the bipartisan commission will not do.

1. We will not see twisted seats, as in Riverside county, where you have to cross through one congressional seat to get to part of another.  

2. You will not see hybrid seats that connect urban areas to suburban areas to rural areas.  

3. You will not see so many seats clearly draw in the same configuration of current democratic seats.  Its funny how 33 of 34 seats held by democrats get similar configurations in this map while only 7 or 8 of 19 republicans get seats in similar configurations.  I think we will see a lot more incumbents displaced and it will be bipartisan.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 21:50:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]