CA: Population by CD

The crown jewel of the 2010 Census is out: California. The nation’s largest state is, well, even larger than before, at 37,253,956, up from 33,871,648. Divide that out among 53 districts (it was the first time in ages that California didn’t gain a House seat, despite gaining more than 3 million residents… it gained at a rate close to the country as a whole), and you have a target of 702,905, which is up from about 639K in 2000.

It may not come as a surprise, but much of the state’s growth is Hispanic. Since 2000, the state’s Hispanic population grew 27.8%, while the state’s non-Hispanic population was almost stagnant, growing only 1.5%. (The Asian population grew 31.5%, but that’s a fairly small subset of the overall population.) In 2000, California was 46.7% non-Hispanic white and 32.4% Hispanic, but in 2010, it had drawn much closer: 40.1% non-Hispanic white and 37.6% Hispanic.

Looking at the table, you’ll notice that a large number of districts have moved from white pluralities to Hispanic pluralities over the last ten years: the Democratic-controlled 17th, 23rd, and 27th, and the Republican-controlled 21st, 44th, and 45th. (The latter two were also the state’s two fastest growing districts, both in Riverside County to the east of Los Angeles.) Two more GOP-held seats in the greater Los Angeles area are also dancing close to the edge of a Hispanic plurality: the 25th, and the Orange County-based 40th. Of course, that doesn’t presage an immediate change in voting patterns; given lower Hispanic voter participation rates and the fact that much of the Hispanic population is under 18, changes will be slow to happen. Case in point: the 20th, where incumbent Jim Costa had a close call in 2010 despite it being a 70% Hispanic district! (One other bit of trivia: Pete Stark’s 13th moved from a white plurality to an Asian plurality, the only Asian-plurality district outside of Hawaii.)

One other thing you’ll notice: despite the fact that California didn’t lose a seat, there is going to be substantial reconfiguration of districts, with boundaries moving from west to east. The Bay Area gained little population, and will need to give most of a seat to the Central Valley; likewise, Los Angeles County proper gained little, and will need to give most of a seat to the Inland Empire (San Bernardino and Riverside Counties). Although the Central Valley and Inland Empire tend to be Republican areas in general, most of the growth in those places has been Hispanic, to the extent that “new” seats are probably going to wind up being Hispanic VRA seats carved out of the general overlay of red; on the other hand, the Bay Area and LA proper are already Dem strongholds and have nothing but Dems to lose, so the overall effect is likely to be a wash. Of course, given that this is the first year that California switches to an ostensibly impartial commission, which has no compunction to preserve the incumbent protection intent of the 2000 map and may actually place a premium on compactness, we could see all manner of scrambling that goes well beyond what I’m describing.

While we aren’t going into as much detail as we did with Texas, we’re adding a few details to California that most states haven’t received: each district’s representative (as it’s well nigh impossible to keep track of which district number is what when there are 53 of them), and the district’s racial composition in both 2010 and 2000. The four categories expressed as overall percentages, left to right, are non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic African-American, non-Hispanic Asian, and Hispanic.

District Rep. Population Deviation 2010 Race 2000 Race
CA-01 Thompson (D) 704,012 1,107 63/2/6/24 71/1/4/18
CA-02 Herger (R) 708,596 5,691 70/1/4/19 76/1/4/14
CA-03 Lungren (R) 783,317 80,412 62/6/11/16 74/4/6/11
CA-04 McClintock (R) 774,261 71,356 78/1/4/12 84/1/2/9
CA-05 Matsui (D) 700,443 (2,462) 36/14/16/27 43/14/15/21
CA-06 Woolsey (D) 664,468 (38,437) 69/2/4/21 76/2/4/15
CA-07 Miller (D) 655,708 (47,197) 35/15/15/30 43/16/13/21
CA-08 Pelosi (D) 666,827 (36,078) 42/6/31/16 43/8/29/16
CA-09 Lee (D) 648,766 (54,139) 35/20/18/22 35/26/15/19
CA-10 Garamendi (D) 714,750 11,845 53/7/13/21 65/6/9/15
CA-11 McNerney (D) 796,753 93,848 50/5/14/26 64/3/9/20
CA-12 Speier (D) 651,322 (51,583) 41/2/33/18 48/2/29/16
CA-13 Stark (D) 665,318 (37,587) 26/7/36/25 38/6/28/21
CA-14 Eshoo (D) 653,935 (48,970) 51/2/22/21 60/3/16/17
CA-15 Honda (D) 677,605 (25,300) 37/2/36/21 47/2/29/17
CA-16 Lofgren (D) 676,880 (26,025) 26/3/28/40 32/3/23/38
CA-17 Farr (D) 664,240 (38,665) 39/2/5/50 46/3/5/43
CA-18 Cardoza (D) 723,607 20,702 29/6/9/53 39/5/9/42
CA-19 Denham (R) 757,337 54,432 50/4/5/37 60/3/4/28
CA-20 Costa (D) 744,350 41,445 16/6/5/70 21/7/6/63
CA-21 Nunes (R) 784,176 81,271 37/2/7/51 46/2/5/43
CA-22 McCarthy (R) 797,084 94,179 54/6/4/32 67/5/3/21
CA-23 Capps (D) 695,404 (7,501) 41/2/5/49 49/2/5/42
CA-24 Gallegly (R) 681,622 (21,283) 60/2/6/29 68/2/4/22
CA-25 McKeon (R) 844,320 141,415 42/10/6/39 57/8/4/27
CA-26 Dreier (R) 691,452 (11,453) 43/5/19/31 52/4/15/24
CA-27 Sherman (D) 684,496 (18,409) 38/4/12/42 45/4/11/36
CA-28 Berman (D) 660,194 (42,711) 30/3/7/58 31/4/6/56
CA-29 Schiff (D) 642,138 (60,767) 40/5/28/25 39/6/24/26
CA-30 Waxman (D) 662,319 (40,586) 72/3/11/10 76/2/9/8
CA-31 Becerra (D) 611,336 (91,569) 11/4/15/68 10/4/14/70
CA-32 Chu (D) 642,236 (60,669) 10/2/22/64 15/3/18/62
CA-33 Bass (D) 637,122 (65,783) 22/25/13/37 20/30/12/35
CA-34 Roybal-Allard (D) 654,303 (48,602) 9/5/6/79 11/4/5/77
CA-35 Waters (D) 662,413 (40,492) 9/28/6/54 10/34/6/47
CA-36 Vacant 659,385 (43,520) 44/4/16/32 48/4/13/30
CA-37 Richardson (D) 648,847 (54,058) 14/21/12/49 17/25/11/43
CA-38 Napolitano (D) 641,410 (61,495) 9/3/11/75 13/4/10/71
CA-39 Sanchez, Li. (D) 643,115 (59,790) 16/5/10/66 21/6/9/63
CA-40 Royce (R) 665,653 (37,252) 39/2/20/35 49/2/16/30
CA-41 Lewis (R) 797,133 94,228 51/6/5/35 63/5/4/23
CA-42 Miller (R) 667,638 (35,267) 45/2/20/29 54/3/16/24
CA-43 Baca (D) 735,581 32,676 15/10/4/69 23/12/3/58
CA-44 Calvert (R) 844,756 141,851 41/5/8/43 51/5/5/35
CA-45 Bono Mack (R) 914,209 211,304 41/6/4/45 50/6/3/38
CA-46 Rohrabacher (R) 648,663 (54,242) 56/2/19/20 63/1/15/17
CA-47 Sanchez, Lo. (D) 631,422 (71,483) 12/1/17/68 17/1/14/65
CA-48 Campbell (R) 727,833 24,928 58/1/19/18 68/1/13/15
CA-49 Issa (R) 797,428 94,523 48/4/5/39 58/5/3/29
CA-50 Bilbray (R) 753,135 50,230 59/2/14/22 66/2/10/19
CA-51 Filner (D) 757,891 54,986 15/7/12/62 21/9/12/53
CA-52 Hunter (R) 673,893 (29,012) 64/4/7/19 72/4/5/14
CA-53 Davis (D) 662,854 (40,051) 48/6/10/32 51/7/8/29
Total: 37,253,956 40/6/13/38 47/6/11/32

82 thoughts on “CA: Population by CD”

  1. I posted some of this in the daily digest thread but I thought I would repost it here.

    51% of the under 18 population is Hispanic

    27% of the under 18 population is non Hispanic White.

    10% of the under 18 population is non Hispanic Asian.

    6% of the under 18 population in non Hispanic Black.

    Hispanics under 18 are far more likely to have been born in the US than Hispanics over 18 so the number of Hispanic eligible voters is going to explode over the next couple of decades.  

  2. I just crunched these exact numbers for all 53 districts before seeing that SSP posted just as I finished.

    Anyway, the commission is very likely to draw new seats in the Central Valley and Inland Empire, at least one of which will have an Hispanic majority (the CV already has two VRA-protected Hispanic seats, three if you count Nunes, but the IE only has Baca). Democratic incumbents in the Bay Area and L.A. will be eliminated, and since the commission can’t consider seniority, folks like George Miller, Pete Stark, Howard Berman, and Henry Waxman should be worried. (Though I guess in absolute pop numbers, Jackie Speier and Adam Schiff are in more trouble, but they are also both young enough to seek another office without ruffling too many feathers).

    California will be one of the first states to finish its redistricting process, with an August 15 deadline, so we will probably be seeing serious map proposals sometime this summer.

  3. Most of the GOP districts are slightly or WAY over population. It may be harder to dismantle districts if they’re over population, and the Dem parts of these districts will be added to make up for Dem population in their districts. That’s just my take.

  4. California gains over 3 million residents, and it doesn’t gain a seat, but Utah gains 500,000 people and it does?

    Can someone explain how this system makes sense again?

  5.  For the new census results in the Bay Area. Contra Costa County grew the fastest and about 8,000 people left Oakland, including 40,000 African Americans.  

  6. Right now the three most northern districts run north to south.  If the commission looks to run districts more east to west, the entire area is completely turned on its head… which makes me think they will start by making 01, 02, and 04 similar to how they are now and simply dump excess population southward, which will lead to 03 (Lundgren) getting a very different district that has to take in the northern population so has to slough off southerly territory.

    It would be easy to Dem gerrymander Lungren’s seat, but I’m afraid the commission will do the opposite, by following the current GOP-favoring configuration of splitting the two most Dem counties split between 02 and 04… and then dumping the most Dem areas of 03 back into the Sacramento/Bay Area population pool.  This would essentially be the gerrymander the GOP would do if they were in charge.

    On the other hand, if 01, 02, 03, 04, 05 and 06 are handled east to west, the GOP could plausibly be down to one seat.

  7. I’ve already seen data at block level that makes me question the validity of the data.

    i.e. empty farmland with 100s of people and 100s of housing units and urban blocks with zero population and zero housing units.

  8. Richardson, Linda Sanchez and Napolitano all need to pick up voters and are in oddly shaped districts who live close to each other (Richardson in Long Beach, Sanchez in Lakewood and Napolitano in Norwalk). It seems to me almost inevitable that Sanchez will probably have a primary fight on her hands. Do the map gurus here have any opinion about this possibility?

  9. A lot of the growth is from minority demographics.  Those two seats moved inland will likely be VRA as a result.  Besides, there will still be a few Republicans who won’t survive redistricting (likely Dreier and one other from southern California).

    Also, the trending of traditionally Republican areas towards the Democrats (such as San Diego and the Inland Empire) is also going to hurt.

  10. Just that is making these districts less republican. As example CA-11. Then… not as good new for the republicans.

  11. as GOP seats are over 900K in surplus (only 19 of them) while the 34 D seats are 900K short.

    Unless you extend the Bay area districts outward into rural areas(common to most maps here) there will be 1/2 less seat.  In essence the Bay area needs to lose its 1/2 part of CD11.  

    In LA county unless you extend the current D districts into Ventura county or Northward into the LA foothills you have to lose a seat. Most of the maps I have seen here have LA seats moving westward , eastward and Northward when the obvious solution is to have one less seat in Downtown LA. That’s where all the population loss has occured.  It makes little sense to the 13 seats in inner LA county at that number when they need 700K to be equal in population.  

  12. None of these fast-growing districts are 60-70% Republican, so growth in them is not as short-term disastrous as in places like suburban Houston, Utah’s Wasatch Front, or coastal South Carolina; they are all on the order of 55% Republican, and some are getting swingy (see how CA-11 moved from safe Republican in 2000 to Democratic-leaning by 2010). Mary Bono Mack and Ken Calvert will see their districts shrink and a new seat will be created in the Inland Empire at L.A.’s expense which, if the commission is as VRA-friendly as people expect, will be Hispanic-majority. Bay Area-to-Central Valley redistribution may be more painful for the Democrats, but that’s only because the Bay Area is among the most liberal-concentrated regions anywhere in the United States.

    The two eliminated Democratic incumbents will, obviously, be unhappy, as may those like Lois Capps who benefited from gerrymandering in 2001. But for every Capps there is a Dreier, Gallegly, or Bilbray.  

  13. That EVERY district is going to be effectively dismantled since the redistricting commission is going to be essentially starting fresh. Also, there is a HUGE amount of “wasted” Democratic votes in California, thanks to a bunch of districts that are over D+20. Now, some of those (urban San Francisco and much of LA, for example) are probably going to stay that way, but unlocking the potential of those votes means Republicans are going to be hard-pressed to not lose some seats or see some become much more competitive.  

  14. Most of the Republican districts that are overpopulated are gerrymanders and will be more compact. The parts that will be removed are the GOP portions that were put in to protect those incumbents in the last redistricting.

  15. Proportionally, that 3 million added to CA’s 37 million in 2000 is 8%. In utah, 500,000/2233169 is 22%. That’s how.

  16. the national population (308,745,538) and divide by 435 to find your national target: 709,760. California: 37,253,956/709,760 = 52.48 (which is why it barely avoided losing its 53rd seat). Utah: 2,763,885/709,760 = 3.89. (The way the Census Bureau does it is a little more complicated than that, but that’s the basic way of figuring it.)

  17. That’s why it didn’t gain a seat.  In other words, those three million votes were split between 53 districts, and served to keep them in population parity.

    Utah was very close to gaining a new district in 2000.  While its growth was less than a “district’s worth” of people, it was still enough to push it over the top.

  18. It only takes 3 Republican votes against the maps (out of the 14 person Citizens Redistricting Commission) to veto them on Aug 15.

    If there’s no agreement, then the CA Supreme Court must draw the maps.

  19. any plan needs at least three of the five Democrats, three of the five Republicans, and three of the four Independents. So even if the Dems and indies form a D-friendly plan, a majority of the Republicans need to vote for it.  

  20. 6 GOP nominees and 1 Dem nominee.  However, the CA SC is not known to be nearly as partisan as the US SC.

  21. but a 4-3 majority paved the way for same-sex marriage in 2008, so at least a couple of the Republicans on the Court are reasonable folks.

  22. of what happens should the commission deadlock, but I imagine court action would be involved. In 1991 the Dem legislature and Gov. Pete Wilson (R) came to a stalemate and the courts drew a competitive congressional map that resulted in considerable turnover throughout the ’90s. Courts would probably try to replicate that this time, so no matter what happens, we are probably looking at a considerably more volatile, competitive map than we’ve become accustomed to in the 2000s.

    Most everyone expects the commission to succeed though, as commissions have regularly in Arizona, Washington, New Jersey, Iowa, etc. Generally these people are civic-minded but relatively apolitical, and the state Constitution prohibits them from considering incumbency, so I doubt there will be nasty partisan fights over, say, whose district to eliminate. Also, this is a very ethnically diverse commission so VRA issues should be quite decently respected.

  23. the growth in Republican areas has been the force making them less Republican and more and more swingy.

  24. the Wyoming Rule would make sense. But then California would have 65+ seats and the House would have 550-odd members.  

  25. My statistics knowledge is limited and it’s not like I have a better system in mind. Just seems irrational on the surface

  26. McNerney’s district was gerrymandered to be as secure as possible for Dick Pombo (R), but the changing demographics and lopsided growth there has made it swing.

  27. Obscenely safe Democratic seats losing people they can do without. Not necessarily good for the GOP at all. Certainly in the long term. Unless we are meant to believe all these people are Republicans which would be abnormal to say the least. Most are Hispanics who vote Democratic 60-40 at worst. No wonder Mary Bono barely won last year.

  28. that the UK has more MPs than we have Congressmen, with a population 1/5 the size, is telling. I believe we have the second least representative legislative body of any democracy, after India.  

  29.  are going to stay +30D -there is no doubt about that.  Ditto for much of the D seats in CA. The problem is that strong D counties like Monterey or Solano will almost certainly  not be connected to distant rural counties.  The D strength will be concentrated as follows

    10 Bay area seats

    2 Coastal seats (roughly Farr & Thompson)

    1 Sacramento

    12 LA county seats

    1 Ontario SB seat

    1 Orange county

    1 SD county seat

    These will be the 28 (maybe 29 depending how SD is drawn)+20 seats.  

    That leaves 25 to 26 seats that will be R or tossup or perhaps lean D depending how lines are drawn.  That looks a like the 19 seats the GOP now hold.  

  30. My favorite solution to this issue is multi-member districts, but I guess the Wyoming rule would work well, too.

  31. Dan Lungren, Dana Rohrabacher, and Brian Bilbray only barely won in surprisingly close races. The once “Solid South” of Orange County, The Inland Empire, and San Diego County is no longer as solid for the GOP as it used to be 20 years ago…

    And now that all three areas are increasingly diverse and becoming more urban, this will only further hurt the CA GOP over time, especially if they keep pushing hard right to teabagger extremes.

  32. partly reflects a large chunk of CA Republicabs and independants soundly rejecting the national GOP agenda, but it could aso be looked at as all the non-Latinos acting as they did in 2000, but adding in a bunch of extra Latinos.

    Stretching out those obscenely safe Dem districts into these now more Latino red areas should lead to adding a couple of new blue districts to the big circle blob of Los Angeles area blue.  The blob should end up being bigger.

    Same as with up north, a map could be drawn that acts if it was a GOP gerrymander, but any kind of reasonable map should be combining some average blue areas with some light red ones to make some new blue districts around the edges of the current blue circle.

  33. I’ve actually been watching the proceedings of the commission and I’m quite sure that they’ll reach consensus. The selection process was such that the people who emerged are much more committed to good government than they are to their own partisan interest. They all really believe in fair districts (and I suspect they’ll be disappointed when the way that Sacramento and the Congressional delegation work isn’t radically transformed by better maps).

  34. California will become Latin@ plurality, and at some point soon California’s electorate will regularly be majority-minority.

    It’s looking like this change will especially become more pronounced in The Inland Empire (Riverside and San Bernardino Counties). Many minority families moved there last decade in search of affordable housing, so in the next decade those two counties will continue to experience a HUGE political earthquake as these kids grow up and register to vote.

  35. Is that formerly rock solid Republican counties, like Ventura, Riverside, and San Diego, have now become swing counties due to tremendous growth and tremoundous demographic shifts. These areas used to be dominated by upper-middle-class suburban whites, but these areas are now more urban and diverse. It’s quite likely that The IE will get a new VRA district. And if heavily Latin@, blue-collar, and Democratic Oxnard gets drawn out of CA-23, then most likely it goes into CA-24 and Elton Gallegly (the long time Ventura County GOPer) becomes far more vulnerable.

  36. You’re forgetting the Valley.  At least one, maybe two VRA seats.  That’s 1 to 2 more.

  37. Being in the 24th would be enough to unseat him. He is unfamiliar with the Oxnard voters so they are not used to voting for him like some Democrats in his district now. The addition of Oxnard should also attract a strong candidate, hopefully one from his current district who can not only do well in Oxnard but win over enough independents and moderate Democrats in the current 24th to win.  

  38. Capps will likely be in a district that while it was carried by Obama in 2008 was also carried by Carly F in 2010.  You could see two tossups seats based on Ventura, SLO and Santa Barbara counties.  Overall those three counties are marginal with Carly F winning two of them.  

    There was a huge move to the D’s in 2008 in CA-no doubt about it.  Even as Obama won 42 congressional districts in CA in 2008 the GOP won 19 congressional seats.  The concept is called “ticket splitting” and its often seen when either party has a strong or a weak  candidate on the top of the ticket.  

    As I said I expect to see 24-25 competitive seats for the GOP.  In a great year they might win 21 and in a poor year 17 but I think the likely result will be 19 or so in 2012.

    Yes the commission is unpredictable.  The make of indies appear to lean leftward but will that mean more heavily minority seats or more competitive seats?  

  39. It was removed in the last redistrict, but of course it’s changed a lot since then and is more Hispanic and Democratic. The bench is a bit thin, but State Senator Fran Pavely could beat him, she’s got Oxnard in her district.

  40. Because Santa Barbara had low turnout which is why she almost won the county. Still, Obama won 58% of the vote in a district that combines San Luis Obisbo and Santa Barbara Counties. I completely see 53% Obama districts in California voting Republican but a 58% Obama district? That’s too high for a Republican. McNerney managed to win in his 54% Obama California district in 2010 so if a Democrat can win a 54% Obama district in 2010, a Democrat should be able to win a 58% Obama district in a less Republican year. Capps is also a popular politician. The only issue with a Santa Barbara based district is turning out Santa Barbara City which can have low turnout.  

  41. is weird semi gerrymander.

    The presumption has to be counties stay together as much as possible.

    SLO and Santa Barbara are only 10k less than a full district.  the only way to get that 10k out of Ventura without a tentacle is to take 10k the very north of Ventura which is heavily Democratic, or going olddly inland to get 10k from Republican Kern.

    SLO looks more likely to go north with Monterey to make a district, which would then make for two districts out of Santa Barbara and Ventura (plus 55k from either Kern or LA or maybe part of SLO).

    Two SB/Ventura districts should be SB plus coastal Ventura versus inland Ventura.  Capps would win the former easily, and depending where that 55k people came from the inland district would either be Republican or competitive.

  42. how long before areas like suburban Houston, the Wasatch Front, or coastal South Carolina become less safe for the Republicans? Have they already to some extent?

    The Wasatach Front in particular is fascinating to me since it contains the vast majority of the state’s population.  

  43. A coastal district could be made just as easily from Monterey and SLO, rather than SLO and Santa Barbara.  Monterey/SLO would be much more Democratic, and make more sense in a cenral coast way.

    Capps district would then extend into Ventura, and if done so in a communities of interest coastal way would give her a safe district too.

  44. I’m not as worried about the urban blocks – a block might easily be dominated by retail or office buildings.

    For example, I remember from New York data in 2000 that the two census blocks bounded by 7th Ave, 33rd, Broadway, and 34th (which form VTD 66-124, I believe) contained a grand total of 3 people. (All of whom voted for McCain, no less!)

    But the rural problem you describe could be a problem.

  45. Long Beach and Lakewood in one district makes sense. Napolitano will draw back out of Pomona and take up lots of the places in Sanchez’s current district. I imagine Sanchez would win a primary, Richardson has some ethics problems.

  46. saying he wasn’t going to run in the special for Harman’s district because it would be disappearing.

    That makes sense in a way, as the Commission surely will not connect Palos Verdes to OC by a string along the coast, so in addition to population loss that will also impact the surrounding other area districts, moving that 75,000 people into the LA districts will jumble things up too.

  47. Wow what a gerrymander. I just looked at the district for the first time and started laughing. I wonder if Chu might be drawn in with Napolitano. There are so many possibilities in my corner of LA County.  

  48. The Wasatch Front as a whole will never (read: N.E.V.E.R) be Democratic. Small sections might (Salt Lake City, but not County), but not the entire thing by a long shot.

  49. pitting Chu against Gary Miller by combining as many of the Asian precincts in 32 and 42 as I could, and also endangering Dreier by moving Pomona into his district and keeping it entirely in L.A. County.

  50. Breaking up CA-36 solves the numbers problems for the other south-of-I10 districts.

    I’ll be intrigued by and amused with what they do to Palos Verdes should that happen.  Maybe it’ll declare itself an outlying piece of Santa Monica.  LOL

    Sheesh, it’s been over twelve years since I was there last. Luñada Bay is amazing in moonlight.  Maybe it’s time to drop by there again.  :-)

  51. for a couple more decades but it’s still fun watching the Republican and selfidentifying Mormon percentages slowly tick down in Utah.  And Latino numbers slowly tick up.

  52. But yes, in the near future, it doesn’t seem likely over the Front as a whole. But Salt Lake County, as well as Salt Lake City, went for Obama in 2008, although the County only very narrowly. But the swing towards the Democrats was considerable.

    Whatever the case, it just remains a fascinating part of the country.  

  53. counties in question for 2010. I only report.

    SLO     Carly F  50,100  Boxer 41,400

    Santa B  Boxer 56,600  Carly  F 53,300

    Ventura  Carly F 121,700–Boxer 107,700

    I got these off the NY Times 2010 election results site so I assume they are accurate.  These three counties are almost exactly two congressional seats.  

    So in the 2010 election in these three counties the GOP candidate for US senate won by 20K votes.  Dividing these counties fairly would mean two districts with 10K margin for the GOP.  Exactly how would that be a gerrymander and be two evenly split seats?

    Yes obama won these three counties big but 2008 was outlier as in 2004-2010 and in recent legislative elections they have been marginal.

  54. 1) all your numbers are wrong.  The actual state numbers are here:

    2)  the three counties together are more than 110,000 people over the limit for two seats.  that is not close at all, especially when you consider the three counties are not at all homogenous (Oxnard is very Democratic and Simi Valley is very Republican in Ventura for example)

    3) The Dem candidate for Treasurer won all three counties easily.  Bowen (Sec State) won the three counties by about 10,000 votes.  Boxer and Brown were relatively weak candidates compared to a normal House candidate like Capps or whoever.

    4) You can’t split counties “evenly”.  Districts have to be connected by land.  SLO and SB are only 10,000 people less than a full district, so the only way to add 10k people to them from Ventura is via the very northerly part of ventura… which is around the Democratic city of Ojai.  It would be a gerrymander to run a tentacle around Ojai to grab some Rep areas miles further southeast.

    There is no way to make two GOP districts from these three counties unless you gerrymander tentacles and completely ignore communities of interest.

  55. Eastern SLO county is a part CD22 currently. Its not a stretch to borrow population from Western / Southern Kern which is going to have to be split anyway. Southern Kern (Lebec/Frazier Park) are an easy community of interest argument with North Ventura/Eastern SLO.

  56. The Google satellite image is a bit out of date, but the groundwork for a subdivision is there.

    If you look at the layout of Blocks 1106-1116 in the same Tract, you’ll see a pattern generally characteristic of subdivisions.  Block 1105 also happens to be the “envelope” around a set of blocks that captures the outside of various cul-de-sacs, etc.

    Any others?

  57. Part of the “Asian-American Butlers for McCain” 527 group that got so much press down the stretch in ’08.

  58. There is no way to have eastern SLO and northern Ventura in the same district, unless you split SB/SLO/Ventura like now… a very safe blue coastal district, and a mostly safe inland Republican district.  There is some logical communities of interest in that, but given SLO combined with either Monterey or Santa Barbara makes a close to a perfect district, it is hard to see how a non-partisan commission will prefer the vertical cutting of counties in half instead.

    If they do that, they will be making a map statewide pretty similar to what we have now, essentially defining communities of interest as “democratic-area” and “republican area”.

  59. There’s no subdivision there. This area is known as McAllister Ranch. (Google it) There was going to be a subdivision there. that failed in the biggest way possibly the straw that broke Lehman Brothers back.

    go here ->

    and look at the 2010 Aerial.

  60. All the blocks it envelopes have zero population. I wish I could explain how insane having housing & population in that block is.  

  61. Borrowing 10,000 people from Frazier Park for Ventura makes creating VRA Districts in Central Valley a lot easier though.

Comments are closed.