I was almost done drawing this map last year when I realized that the passage of Prop 20 is a likely outcome. A Democratic gerrymander of California then became moot of course and so I never finished. However, I recently thought it would be neat to post anyhow, as many of the maps posted here are only theoretical and don’t have a chance of becoming reality (or anything close to reality). So I finished my map – but perhaps not taking as much care as when I first started. Hence, I should note that the area around Los Angeles and Kern Counties was drawn “after the fact” and is therefore not as “thought out” as other parts of the map.
Nevertheless, I still tried to be true to my original goals: creating as many solid Democratic seats as possible, increasing the number of Hispanic and other minority-majority districts, and making sure that all Democratic incumbents kept as much of their current territory as possible. The resulting map has only 7 Republican seats. The other 46 districts are all at least 61% Obama districts — except for CA-3 and CA-4, which are 58% Obama (so really, 7 GOP, 2 districts 58% Obama, and 44 districts at 61% or more Obama) … I figured CA-3 and CA-4 could be left at the lower level as those two districts were almost won by Democrats back in 2008 even as their current configurations are a lot more Republican, and also because the percentage change between 2004 and 2008 was not as great in this part of California as it was in the rest of the state. Hence, under my estimates, John Kerry would still have been the winner in my new versions of CA-3 and CA-4, as he would have been the winner in all the 61%+ Obama districts created.
I figured I would post this map despite the fact that a commission will now be drawing the districts. I believe that it’s still instructive in some respects. For example, it’s interesting to me that despite “packing” Republicans into just 7 districts, McCain got 60%+ of the vote in only 1 of those — meaning that the GOP brand is quickly thinning out in the state, and in the near- and mid-term future, even a non-partisan plan of the state is likely to result in a relatively small number of Republican representatives. Another good example of how thinly-spread the GOP is becoming may be found by looking at San Diego Co. — historically one of the more Republican parts of the state. In this map, I was able to draw three relatively compact 61 Obama/37 McCain districts (CA-50, 51, 53) wholly confined to the area around the city of San Diego/coastal part of the county, while drawing two other 61/62% Obama districts, both over 60% hispanic, that take in other significant chunks of the county (CA-47, 49). The only GOP district left in San Diego Co. would be CA-52.
Another interesting thing was that the more minority-majority districts I created, the more Democratic districts I wound up with overall. This may seem counter-intuitive at first, and certainly doesn’t fit the pattern in most other parts of the country, where the creation of more minority-majority seats means less Democratic seats overall. Apparently, in California the minority population is pretty thoroughly or effectively spread out these days (no longer just concentrated in urban enclaves) that wherever you draw a district, there’s a good chance it will be a minority-majority district — even if a single ethnic/racial group does not form a majority. In fact, in this map 30 out of 53 districts are minority-majority. It appears that much of the hispanic population in the state is geographically interspersed among the GOP population. Hence, even (and especially ?) when non-partisan districts are drawn much of the two populations will “mix” resulting in, overall, more Democratic districts as the highly-Democratic hispanic population will make the new compact districts lean more towards that side of the political spectrum (this is especially true over the long-term, and especially true if the GOP continiues to alienate hispanics with their policies).
Basically, the map makes the districts of many white Democratic incumbents (like Berman and Filner) more white, while many GOP seats are turned into new hispanic-majority seats. Each Democratic incumbent save two also gets to keep at least 30% of his or her current constituents (in most cases, the percentage is significantly higher; the only exceptions are Chu — where I only keep her hometown area, but the new asian-plurality district is nevertheless drawn to her advantage; and, Napolitano, who gets to keep a bit under 30% of her constituents — but her new district is still centered around her hometown and is over 60% hispanic. I should note that the district I “assign” to Linda Sanchez here is CA-39, and she currently represents slightly under 30% of the new district; however, Sanchez could just as well decide to run in what’s labeled as CA-40 on this map, where she would get to keep 50% of her current constituents, and her district would border her sister’s — this is all theoretical, of course, as this map will never happen ! …. I should also note that some districts here “look” as if they were completely “shifted” in terms of geography — Loretta Sanchez’s district is a good example — as the boundaries expand all the way into Oceanside in San Diego Co., and yet population-wise, the Congresswoman still gets to keep over 60% of her current constituents, as much of the population is concentrated in Santa Ana and Anaheim.)
The only districts which are 75% or more Obama are CA-8, CA-31 and CA-33. The population deviation is +/- under 1,000 persons.
Anyhow, here’s the map, and then a brief run-down of the districts:
The following districts are drawn to elect a Democrat:
CA-1 Thompson – 63 Obama, 35 McCain – above 70% white
CA-3 Lungren – 58 O, 40 M – above 60% white
CA-4 McClintock – 58 O, 40 M – above 60% white
CA-5 Matsui – 61 O, 37 M – above 50% white
CA-6 Woolsey – 70 O, 28 M – above 70% white
CA-7 Miller – 63 O, 35 M – above 50% white
CA-8 Pelosi – 85 O, 13 M – white plurality, above 30% asian
CA-9 Lee – 74 O, 25 M – white plurality, around 20% black
CA-10 Garamendi – 66 O, 33 M – above 50% white
CA-11 McNerney – 65 O, 34 M – above 50% white
CA-12 Speier – 74 O, 24 M – white plurality
CA-13 Stark – 73 O, 25 M – white plurality, above 30% asian
CA-14 Eshoo – 66 O, 33 M – above 50% white
CA-15 Honda – 68 O, 30 M – white and asian each around 40%
CA-16 Lofgren – 68 O, 31 M – white plurality
CA-17 Farr – 63 O, 35 M – above 60% white
CA-18 Cardoza – 61 O, 37 M – above 50% hispanic
CA-19 Denham – 61 O, 38 M – above 50% hispanic
CA-20 Costa – 61 O, 38 M – above 50% hispanic
CA-22 McCarthy – 61 O, 38 M – around 70% hispanic
CA-23 Capps – 61 O, 37 M – above 60% white
CA-24 Gallegly – 62 O, 37 M – around 70% white
CA-25 McKeon – 61 O, 37 M – above 50% hispanic
CA-26 Dreier – 61 O, 37 M – above 50% hispanic
CA-27 Sherman – 63 O, 35 M – above 50% white
CA-28 Berman – 63 O, 35 M – hispanic plurality (but less than current district)
CA-29 Schiff – 63 O, 35 M – white and hispanic each around 40%
CA-30 Waxman – 63 O, 35 M – above 50% white
CA-31 Becerra – 78 O, 20 M – above 65% hispanic
CA-32 Chu – 62 O, 36 M – asian plurality
CA-33 Bass – 75 O, 23 M – no dominant group, large numbers of whites, hispanics, blacks and asians
CA-34 Roybal-Allard – 73 O, 25 M – above 60% hispanic
CA-35 Waters – 72 O, 27 M – almost equal number of whites, blacks and hispanics
CA-36 Harman – 65 O, 33 M – white and hispanic each around 40%
CA-37 Richardson – 63 O, 36 M – significant numbers of hispanics, whites and blacks, with no group above 40% of population
CA-38 Napolitano – 62 O, 36 M – above 60% hispanic
CA-39 Sanchez – 66 O, 31 M – above 60% hispanic
CA-40 Royce – 62 O, 36 M – above 60% hispanic
CA-43 Baca – 64 O, 34 M – above 50% hispanic
CA-44 Calvert – 63 O, 35 M – hispanic plurality
CA-46 Rochrabacher – 61 O, 37 M – white plurality
CA-47 Sanchez – 61 O, 37 M – above 65% hispanic (asian pop. under 10%)
CA-49 Issa – 62 O, 36 M – above 60% hispanic
CA-50 Bilbray – 61 O, 37 M – above 50% white
CA-51 Filner – 61 O, 37 M – hispanic plurality (but less than current district)
CA-53 Davis – 61 O, 37 M – above 50% white
The following are the GOP seats:
CA-2 Herger – 40 Obama – 58 McCain – around 80% white
CA-21 Nunes – 36 O, 62 M – above 60% white
CA-41 Lewis – 38 O, 58 M – around 70% white
CA-42 Miller – 42 O, 56 M – around 60% white
CA-45 Bono Mack – 41 O, 57 M – around 70% white
CA-48 Campbell – 43 O, 55 M – around 70% white
CA-52 Hunter – 39 O, 59 M – above 70% white
Have the Democrats thought about suing to prevent it from taking place or something like whats going on with Prop 8?
I agree 1000% that CA redistricting commission is a huge negative for the democrats.
Without going into too many details this map does show what the democrats would need to happen for the redistricting commission to be a big win or even a modest win for them. In general the democrats need to have the GOP suburban and rural areas packed into seats. That would be stage one and the second stage is that urban democratic strongeholds would have to expand out and be combined with various republican suburban or rural areas. I personally do not see that but I could be wrong.
Here’s what I see happening in CA. The GOP will need up with 12 to 15 fairly strong seats. There will be 7 to 10 leaning GOP or tossup or competitive seats. There will be around 22 to 24 seats that the GOP could win. Right now the GOP has about 22 seats in that catagory. Depending on how the 2012 elections play out and how incumbents fare in this map you probably see the republicans at 17 to 21 seats. With 22 months to go and with no lines drawn that’s just my best guess. I might add that the GOP downside might be a bit lower but the upside is probably maxed at 21. I might add that the long term trend is not great for the GOP in CA so those numbers could fade as the decade goes by.
They tried to do it last time and got lawsuit after lawsuit until they agreed to do an incumbent protection map.
While I am generally pleased about the non-partisan redistricting it sucks that CA uses it which benefits the GOP but we are going to get the short end in TX, OH, PA, MI and FL (though that remains to be seen what the impact of the ballot amendment will be).
While this map would be no guarantee that of any type of success in eliminating certain incumbents the thought of seriously going after people like Issa (huge hell yes), McCarthy, Lungren and Dreier would have been awesome.
CA is still a state that I expect non-partisan redistricting to benefit Democrats as the GOP brand is seriously heading south there. Statewide it is extremely tough for them to win and the Latino vote is continuing to grow and it appears to be spread out so lumping them into fewer districts is extremely tough.
Sigh what could have been.
I count the area I live in being divided into no less than six congressional districts.