Taking into account some suggestions and comments, I made some changes to my previous attempt at redistricting California. I conceded an additional 2 seats to the GOP, which concomitantly makes a number of other seats more strongly Democratic. The additional 2 safe GOP seats are CA-4 and CA-48. Here’s what version 2 looks like, overall:
Statewide Map, Version 2
For comparison, here is Version 1:
Statewide Map, Version 1
Because redistricting diaries often seem to devolve into discussions of the morality of gerrymandering, I will state my thoughts up front in order to try and prevent discussion from thus devolving.
1) In an ideal world, my ideal scenario would be that all Congressional districts in all States would be redistricted by non-partisan commission, so that all districts were fair and no political party was disadvantaged on the national level.
2) We don’t live in an ideal world. If Democrats roll over and play dead during redistricting after the 2010 census, that will do nothing to stop Republicans from gerrymandering every last seat out of states they control, like Georgia, Texas, and Florida. That will result in a national Congressional map unfairly favorable towards Republicans.
3) So Democrats should draw politically favorable maps in states we control. Congressional Redistricting is a blood sport, and unilateral disarmament is not a viable solution. Taking the high road is the Michael Dukakis way, and it is the wrong way.
4) If Democrats draw strong enough maps in states like California that really hurt the GOP, then maybe the GOP will eventually cry uncle.
5) After that, maybe the GOP would agree to adopt a fair national solution in which all states, whether GOP controlled or Dem controlled, drew fair and competitive maps via commission or some other neutral mechanism. That might not happen, but electoral reform of that sort is certainly more likely if we fight back than if we let the GOP roll us.
Now, on to the substance:
Political Impact
The bottom line is that under this map or something similar, California’s Congressional delegation would have many more Democrats and many fewer Republicans. Overall there are now 42 seats classified as Safely Democratic, 4 Lean Democratic. Under this map California would likely send delegation with 46-49 Democrats and 6-9 Republicans to Congress. Currently, California’s Congressional delegation is 33D – 19R, so that is a substantial improvement.
If a handful of GOP incumbents are able to hold on in districts that voted in the mid-50s for Obama, it is possible the number of Democrats could be a bit lower than 46. But even in a very large GOP wave election, the number of Democratic seats would be unlikely to fall much below 42-46, because the vast majority of seats are at least D+10 or very close to it, which is more than high enough to withstand a 1994 or 2006 sized wave election.
| Version 1 | Change | Version 2 | |
| Dem | 39 | +3 | 42 |
| Lean Dem | 5 | -1 | 4 |
| Swing | 5 | -2 | 3 |
| GOP | 4 | +2 | 6 |
Below, I analyze the districts that change from my previous version.
Northern California
In Northern California, CA-4 is conceded to the GOP. In exchange CA-3 becomes more strongly Democratic and CA-10 much less gerrymandered. Indirectly, this also filters all the way down to San Bernadino County to help make CA-29 and CA-45 a bit more Democratic.
Northern California, Version 2 map
Districts Altered:
| Incumbent: | ?Wally Herger? (R), ?Tom McClintock? (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+11 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 39% Obama, R+14 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 40% Obama, R+13. |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 72% White |
| District 1.0 Demographics: | 78% White |
| District 2.0 Demographics: | 77% White |
CA-2 shifts a bit northwards from version 1, getting rid of El Dorado and Amador Counties to move into Nevada County and take in more of the Sacramento suburbs in Placer County. This might make the district about 1 point more Democratic.
| Incumbent: | Dan Lungren (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+6 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 57% Obama, D+4 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 61% Obama, D+8 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 65% White |
| District 1.0 Demographics: | 56% White |
| District version 2.0 Demographics: | 45% White |
CA-3 is reworked thoroughly from the previous version. In my previous version, GOP incumbent Dan Lungren was in trouble. In this new version, he is pretty much doomed if he runs in this district. Only 250,000 people in this district remain in Sacramento County, mostly in competitive northern suburbs, with a mix of Obama and McCain precincts. On top of those people, all of Solano County (except for a thin sparsely populated strip of CA-10) and West Sacramento are tacked on, turning a lean Democratic district into a solidly Democratic district.
| Incumbent: | ?Dan Lungren? (R), ?George Radanovich? (R), ?Tom McLintock? (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+10 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 53% Obama, D+0 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 41% Obama, R+12 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 79% White |
| District 1.0 Demographics: | 57% White |
| District 2.0 Demographics: | 78% White |
The flip side of making CA-3 more Democratic is making CA-4 more Republican. The new CA-4 is a suburban swing district no more. It is now a solidly GOP district, combining suburban parts of Placer County with the Sierra Nevadas (minus Lake Tahoe) and strongly GOP north Fresno. 1/10 of the district is also made up of some particularly strong GOP precincts in Sacramento County, most of which are already in the current CA-4. GOP incumbents Dan Lungren, George Radanovich, and Tom McClintock would all have a reason to run here, making for a potential 3-way GOP primary, as substantial amounts of territory each has previously represented is included in this district.
| Incumbent: | George Miller (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+19 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 63% Obama, D+10 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 65% Obama, D+12 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 39% White, 27% Latino |
| District 1.0 Demographics: | 50% White, 31% Latino |
| District 2.0 Demographics: | 50% White, 28% Latino |
CA-7 gives up Antioch in order to pick up Berkeley. In order to keep Richmond contiguous with Oakland while also enabling CA-7 to add Berkeley, there is a thin coastal strip of CA-9 running through Berkeley as well. George Miller should have no difficulties in Berkeley, and when Miller retires, another strong Democrat should do fine in this district as well. Disproportionately few votes in this district are actually cast in San Joaquin county due to the high Latino population there. So the potential problem of someone from Berkeley winning a Democratic primary but then losing a general election (which applied to my previous version of CA-10) ought to be reduced in this modified version of CA-7.
| Incumbent: | John Garamendi (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+11 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 63% Obama, D+10 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 64% Obama, D+11 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 56% White |
| New District Demographics: | 46% White |
CA-10 is not the monster that the previous district was. The entire Sierra Nevadas section of the district is gone in version 2, and that population is instead picked up in Sacramento County (which now makes up about 4/7 of the district). The Sacramento section looks on its face like it would be Republican because there are large swaths of rural areas in the south-east of the county. But actually most of the population is in relatively Democratic suburban areas (like Elk Grove), and CA-10’s section of Sacramento County voted similarly to the county as a whole. Berkeley is also traded to CA-7 in exchange for Antioch. That makes CA-10 a little less Democratic than it would be, but only by a few points because Antioch is pretty strongly Democratic as well (65% for Obama). This also has negates the chance that someone from Berkeley with limited appeal in the Sacramento suburbs will be a future Democratic nominee in CA-10.
Southern California
An additional district in Southern California is conceded to the GOP (CA-48), in exchange for strengthening a couple of relatively weak Swing/Lean Democratic districts, and reducing gerrymandering in Orange County.
Southern California, Version 2 map
South-East LA & Orange County, Version 2 map
Districts Altered
| Incumbent: | ?Kevin McCarthy? (R), ?Devin Nunes? (R), ?George Radanovich? (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+16 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 32% Obama, R+21 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 32% Obama, R+21 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 57% White, 49% Latino |
| District 1.0 Demographics: | 62% White, 24% Latino |
| District 2.0 Demographics: | 62% White, 26% Latino |
Because CA-4 does not pick up the lake Tahoe area from CA-10, it has to make up population by pushing down on CA-22 into Fresno. This means that CA-22 also has some more population (114,000) to make up. It does so by crossing into San Bernadino County and relieving Adam Schiff of the most heavily Republican precincts around Barstow and Hesperia. So while the political makeup of CA-22 does not really change, it helps make CA-29 more Democratic, and indirectly helps to make CA-41 and CA-45 more Democratic.
| Incumbent: | Adam Schiff (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+14 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 61% Obama, D+8 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 63% Obama, D+10 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 42% White, 26% Asian, 26% Latino |
| District 1.0 Demographics: | 46% White, 7% Asian, 33% Latino |
| District 2.0 Demographics: | 45% White, 8% Asian, 34% Latino |
As mentioned above, CA-29 sheds some heavily GOP areas to the 22nd district. To equalize the population, CA-29 adds Upland, which has some Democratic precincts to go with its Republican ones, and GOP Yucca Valley and Twenty Nine Palms. Though these areas are still generally GOP, they are a bit less Republican than the areas he loses. I also noticed that there were two prisons with combined populations of about 25,000 people in the middle of the desert/hills of rural San Bernadino county. I was sure to add those to CA-29, serving to increases the relative proportion of the vote cast in the heavily Democratic LA County part of the 29th. So Adam Schiff’s district becomes a bit more Democratic by picking up some relatively less GOP precincts and by adding some prisoners. I thought about putting Lake Tahoe in the 29th district, but didn’t in the end.
| Incumbent: | ?Ed Royce? (R), ?John Campbell? (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+8 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 52% Obama, R+1 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 57% Obama, D+4 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 42% White, 18% Asian, 34% Latino |
| District 1.0 Demographics: | 43% White, 15% Asian, 35% Latino |
| District 2.0 Demographics: | 46% White, 16% Asian, 32% Latino |
CA-40 is now entirely within Orange County, and, like the rest of the districts in Orange County (except CA-47) is remodeled from version 1.0. This is probably just about the most Democratic district that can be made in Orange County without taking substantively from CA-47. It combines progressive and Democratic leaning Laguna beach with Costa Mesa, Irvine, and some Obama voting areas (with lots of apartments, which presumably explains their Democratic trend) around Laguna Woods/Aliso Viejo. This part of the district is 57% white, and makes up half of the district. The rest of the district (35% white) pecks around the fringes of CA-47, picking up Democratic leaning precincts in parts of Tustin, Anaheim, Fullerton, and Placentia. Effective mobilization of young and minority voters would be key to any potential pickup of this district for Democrats. Another note is that if the Asian American voters I picked up turn out to be disproportionately Vietnamese, that would also make this district marginally more Republican.
| Incumbent: | Jerry Lewis (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+10 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 53% Obama, D+0 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 58% Obama, D+5 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 55% White, 6% Black, 33% Latino |
| District 1.0 Demographics: | 40% White, 11% Black, 39% Latino |
| District 2.0 Demographics: | 33% White, 11% Black, 45% Latino |
CA-41 becomes substantially more Republican and less white than the previous version. It gives up its more rural areas of San Bernadino County (and its prisons) and is pulled westward towards Los Angeles. As the white population declines and the Latino population increases, both Black and Latino voters become a substantially greater proportion of the electorate. Only 50,000 people in the district now live in non-urbanized areas now (in the mountains just to the East of San Bernadino). I would guess this district voted about 58% for Obama, though it is possible that it is even more Democratic than that. The city of San Bernadino, for example, voted 66% for Obama.
| Incumbent: | Joe Baca (Blue Dog D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+13 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 63% Obama, D+10 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 63% Obama, D+10 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 17% White, 65% Latino |
| District 1.0 Demographics: | 23% White, 62% Latino |
| District 2.0 Demographics: | 22% White, 63% Latino |
From version 1, CA-43 shifts further to the West, adding Chino and Montclair. The Latino majority actually slightly increases in the process. Joe Baca would have no trouble running here, and he would probably have little difficulty in CA-41 either if he preferred to run there.
| Incumbent: | ?Ken Calvert?, ?Mary Bono? (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+6 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 41% Obama, R+12 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 41% Obama, R+12 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 44% White, 42% Latino |
| District 1.0 Demographics: | 60% White, 25% Latino |
| District 2.0 Demographics: | 62% White, 26% Latino |
Version 2 of CA-44 is no different politically than version 1.0 (though possibly it is more like R+11 now). But geographically, it shifts further into Riverside County, adding much of Mary Bono’s GOP base areas, and even picks up a small section of San Bernadino County. This district would likely result in an interesting primary between Mary Bono (who is probably seen as too moderate to go unchallenged in a GOP primary) and Ken Calvert (who is reportedly being investigated by the FBI). Perhaps (I am only half kidding here) Doug Hoffman would run here as well, providing a true Conservative alternative…
| Incumbent: | Mary Bono (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+3 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 55% Obama, D+2 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 61% Obama, D+8 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 42% White, 45% Latino |
| District 1.0 Demographics: | 35% White, 51% Latino |
| District 2.0 Demographics: | 34% White, 52% Latino |
CA-45 becomes more Democratic than in version 1 by exchanging white GOP areas for Lake Tahoe. I would have liked to expand the Latino majority in this district, but was not really possible without reducing the Hispanic percentage in other Latino majority districts like CA-42 and CA-51. It was also tough to find somewhere suitable to put Lake Tahoe – I didn’t want to waste a lot of Democratic votes, but there were not many non-majority minority and non-Republican districts in Southern California that could easily extend northwards through Inyo and Mono Counties. The Inyo/Mono/Alpine/Lake Tahoe portion of the district voted 64% for Obama, while the rest (which is 57% Latino) voted about 60% for Obama. Mary Bono would be more likely to try her luck in a GOP primary in CA-44 than to fight a losing battle here.
| Incumbent: | Laura Richardson (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+26 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 64% Obama, D+11 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 67% Obama, D+14 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 13% White, 22% Black, 13% Asian, 48% Latino |
| District 1.0 Demographics: | 31% White, 18% Black, 11% Asian, 36% Latino |
| District 2.0 Demographics: | 31% White, 19% Black, 11% Asian, 38% Latino |
For version 2 of CA-37, I managed to knock the black population up a notch to 19%, by running through a different section of Long Beach. 37% of the district (Fountain Valley, Seal Beach, Huntington Beach) is in Orange County and voted for McCain 54-46. But that Orange County section is overwhelmed by the LA County portion, which includes Compton (96% for Obama), areas of LA nearby, and part of Long Beach. The overall Obama percentage goes up to 67%, partly because it actually gets more Democratic, but also because I think I originally slightly underestimated how Democratic this district was. The vote around Compton is really overwhelming – though it might be less so with Obama not on the ballot, this seat still should be very safe.
| Incumbent: | Dana Rohrabacher (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+3 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 60% Obama, D+7 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 61% Obama, D+8 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 59% White, 18% Asian, 18% Latino |
| District 1.0 Demographics: | 50% White, 10% Asian, 29% Latino |
| District 2.0 Demographics: | 37% White, 22% Asian, 30% Latino |
Only 30% of CA-46 is in Orange County now, but it does get substantially more Democratic (relative to version 1) because the areas of Orange County that are retained (chiefly the area around Westminster) are relatively Republican, while some of the areas of Orange County in version 1.0 (particularly Costa Mesa and Laguna Woods) voted for Obama. Those Democratic Orange County areas are donated to CA-40. Some of the areas in LA County that are added to CA-46 are only relatively weakly Democratic as well, and there are even a few McCain precincts in the LA county part of the district. It would be easy to make this district more Democratic by switching around some precincts with the neighboring 37th and 39th districts, but I didn’t do so in order to keep the minority populations well up in those VRA districts. This district makes much more sense geographically than the elongated snake in version 1.
| Incumbent: | ?John Campbell? (R) ?Ed Royce? (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+6 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 52% Obama, R+1 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 42% Obama, R+11 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 61% White, 17% Asian, 18% Latino |
| District 1.0 Demographics: | 44% White, 19% Asian, 29% Latino |
| District 2.0 Demographics: | 71% White, 11% Asian, 13% Latino |
In Version 2.0, CA-48 is conceded to the GOP, becoming a thoroughly Republican district entirely contained within Orange County. It is just about the most heavily GOP district that could be created entirely within Orange County. In the northwest, the district starts in GOP north Fullerton. It takes in all of heavily GOP, high turnout Yorba Linda. More of the same as it heads through heavily GOP areas of Tustin and Anaheim. It heads east to pick up more GOP areas surrounding the 40th district, including Mission Viejo, Santa Margarita, and Laguna Niguel. It then turns back to the North-West, through a thin coastal strip of Laguna Beach (hopefully not picking up too many Democrats), and ends by adding Newport Beach. By taking in so many GOP voters, it is possible to make the remaining Orange County districts both more Democratic and more compact. It also allows the 44th District to move into Riverside and San Bernadino counties, making other seats in the inland empire more Democratic.
I also made some minor alterations in the distribution of the Latino districts in LA in order to make the Latino percentages high in each, but that doesn’t alter their political status (safely Democratic).
I really like this one.
I think he lives in Huntington Beach – but either way, he would be doomed in CA-37 and he would likely move into your 46th and run there.
2006 Attorney General is a good one. Then gerrymander. I suspect you’ll find you’ll need to set up about 10 Republican districts, if only to be fair in a state they are still about 35% of the population in.
I like that it looks less gerrymandered, but maybe the best ideal goal would be to create as many swing districts as possible and force good, clean Democrats to win them.
I hope the California State Leg hires you to draw their districts for them.
The only thing I’d change is Del Norte, even though it leans Republican, belongs in 6 not 2.
For the good of the Party as a whole, v.1 was probably better, but I think this map suits me just fine. Excellent job. Would it be possible to combine your Southern California version 1 with this version’s Northern/Central coast districts. My only concern in v.1 was Berkeley. Now that that’s solved, does the Antioch-for-Berkeley switch effect what goes down in SoCal? The v.1 10th did absorb a lot of Central Valley GOP areas, but does that mean Bono-Mack has to now? In other words, conceding 5 would make sense, if that would work…would it?
I definitely think v2.0 is an improvement on 1.0….kudos to you for being so open to criticism.
Btw, you should apply to be on the citizens redistricting commission they’re setting up in Cali for the 2010 census changes….it’s Assembly & State Senate seats and not congressional ones, but you’ve obviously gotten to know every corner of the state.
CaliSista points out that some of the requirements of the commission apply, at least in theory, to the legislature remapping of Congressional districts.
(4) The geographic integrity of any city, county, city and county,
neighborhood, or community of interest shall be respected to the
extent possible without violating the requirements of any of the
preceding subdivisions. Communities of interest shall not include
relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political
candidates.
(5) To the extent practicable, and where this does not conflict
with the criteria above, districts shall be drawn to encourage
geographical compactness such that nearby areas of population are not bypassed for more distant population.
Though there is some ambiguity in what exactly counts as “geographically compact” and a “community of interest,” and I really doubt the assembly would actually ignore “relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.”
I guess this means version 3…
That will mean a few more GOP seats, but a substantial portion is locked in with Voting Rights Act districts.
There is a ballot initiative approved for 2010 which would incorporate Congressional redistricting into the independent commission.
Personally I might vote for it if Texas and Florida also set up independent commissions.