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 |
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?