Author: silver spring

The partisan data is still not in the Application.  Nevertheless, I wanted to post this DRAFT map now that the Census numbers are out.

I feel that my first attempt 15-3 map was perhaps too ambitious, but I feel confident that 14-4 is VERY doable in Illinois — ofcourse, the lines will have to be ugly like this “Texas-style” map.

I had several goals:

1.) Keep all 3 black seats intact; not easy considering hundreds of thousands of blacks have left Chicago over the last decade.

2.) Create two Hispanic seats — ones that would be guaranteed to elect Hispanic representatives.

3.) Keep all currently Democratic-held seats at very high Democratic levels (this includes the minority-majority seats, ofcourse, as well as IL-3, IL-5, IL-9, and IL-12).

4.) Create seats where the incumbent Democrat would keep as much of his or her current constituents as possible.

5.) Create a map whereby there are only 4 Republican seats, the newly created Democratic seats must be at relatively high Democratic levels – ideally around 65% Obama or higher in the Chicago area and around 60% Obama or higher in downstate and/or 5 points more Democratic than the existing seat.

6.) As a finishing touch, create a map whereby Aaron Schock and Adam Kinzinger will basically not have a seat to run in.

Here’s the map:

Goal 1:  Preserving African-American seats – under this map, virtually all black-majority precincts in the Chicago area become parts of the 3 black-majority districts.  The reason the black percentage goes down in all 3 seats is because hundreds of thousands of blacks have left the area over the last decade.

New IL-1 is 51.3 black, 38.7 white (18+ pop. is 51.5 black, 40.1 white) – Rush gets to keep 53% of his current constituents, including 75% of his current black constituents.

New IL-2 is 51.8 black, 37.2 white (18+ pop. is 50.1 black, 40.5 white) – Jackson gets to keep 80% of his current constituents, including 83% of his current black constituents.

New IL-7 is 51.8 black, 34.8 white (18+ pop. is 50.1 black, 37.5 white) – Davis gets to keep 59% of his current constituents, including 90% of his current black constituents.

Goal 2:  Two Effective Hispanic seats

New IL-4 is 56.0 hispanic, 33.2 white (18+ pop. is 50.4 hispanic, 38.9 white) – these percentages are enough to elect a Hispanic Representative as IL-4 encompasses the mostly Puerto Rican-descent areas on the north side of Chicago where the Hispanics are all citizens.  It makes sense to me that Gutierrez would run here.

New IL-6 is 64.1 hispanic, 25.1 white (18+ pop. is 58.5 hispanic, 30.1 white) – this area encompasses the mostly Mexican-descent areas on the south side of Chicago where there’s a higher proportion of non-citizens, so I made the Hispanic percentage here noticeably higher in order to make sure that a Hispanic Representative is elected.

Goal 3:  Make sure all currently Democratic-held seats are safely Democratic.

My estimate is that the 3 new black-majority seats and the 2 new hispanic seats above are all in the 75-79 Obama range (ofcourse, there’s currently only one hispanic seat but I’m classifying IL-4 and IL-6 as “Dem-held” as Gutierrez currently represents roughly half of each district) …

For the other currently Democratic-held seats the partisan numbers (ESTIMATED Obama as a percentage of the 2-party vote) are as follows:

New IL-3 is 62.3 Obama (current district is 64.4 Obama)

New IL-5 is 68.3 Obama (current district is 73.9 Obama)

New IL-9 is 70.2 Obama (current district is 73.2 Obama)

New IL-12 is 60.9 Obama (current district is 56.4 Obama)

Goal 4:  Incumbent-protection

I already discussed above what percentage of their constituents the Democrats in the minority-majority seats would keep.  For the other Democratic incumbents the numbers are as follows:

New IL-3: Lipinski gets to keep 33% of his current constituents (that’s the lowest percentage of all incumbent Democrats but a good chunk of the new Hispanic-majority IL-6 comes out of territory that’s currently a part of IL-3).

New IL-5: Quigley gets to keep 70% of his current constituents

New IL-9: Schakowsky gets to keep 75% of her current constituents

New IL-12: Costello gets to keep 63% of his current constituents

Goal 5:  Get rid of 7 of the current 11 GOP members through re-drawing of lines.

– As already mentioned, IL-6 goes from a suburban GOP district to a Hispanic-majority Democratic district based in Chicago (ofcourse, Roskam can run in the new IL-16 which becomes sort of a Chicago-area GOP vote sink).

– New IL-8 is 65.1 Obama (current district is 56.5 Obama), so Walsh is history (or he can run in the new IL-16).  The new IL-8 should be friendly to Bean if she wants to make a comeback.

– New IL-10 is 65.3 Obama (current district is 61.5 Obama), plus the district has a lot of new territory, including the entire Lake Michigan shoreline — so Dold is history.

– New IL-11 is 59.2 Obama (current district is 54.2 Obama).  Only 19% of Kinzinger’s current constituents remain in IL-11 under the new lines, so his base basically disappears with this map.  Also, the new IL-11 includes 3 major university towns.  It’s likely that this district would flip back to the Democratic side in 2012.

– New IL-14 is 62.4 Obama (current district is 55.6 Obama).  Hultgren won here over Foster by 51-45 (with the Green candidate at 4%) in a major GOP year, so the 7-point Democratic increase should more than do the job.  (Hultgren can run in the new IL-16 ofcourse.)

– New IL-17 is 60.8 Obama (current district is 57.2 Obama).  The lines are scrambled here considerably (less than half of the population of the new IL-17 comes out of Schilling’s current constituency) and most of Rockford is now included.  I really believe that almost any Democrat other than Hare would have no trouble here in 2012.

– IL-19 no longer exists, so that’s also one less Republican (although Shimkus may want to run in the new IL-18 — see below).

By my estimate, John Kerry would have won all of the 14 Democratic seats created by this map.

The four GOP seats that remain:

– IL-13: now transferred to the southern reaches of the state but without an incumbent.  Although Republican, less so than the other 3 GOP seats, so perhaps a possibility that a moderate to conservative Democrat could win here.

– IL-15: Johnson gets to keep 67% of his current constituents under the new lines.

– IL-16: The most likely Republicans to run here include Manzullo, Walsh, Hultgren, Roskam and Biggert (not necessarily in that order) — yes, the map packs these 5 into one district, with a few Dold precincts also included !

– IL-18: designed more for Shimkus than for Schock — 29% of the new district’s population comes out of Shimkus’ current district, while only 20% comes out of Schock’s … which brings me to the last goal …

Goal 6:  Make it hard for Kinzinger and Schock

I already discussed Kinzinger a bit above.  Basically, the current IL-11 gets split as follows: 19% of Kinzinger’s constituents remain in IL-11; 30% go into the new IL-2; 22% into IL-1; 18% into IL-3; 6% into IL-15; and 5% into IL-18.

As far as Schock, his current district is likewise torn apart; the highest proportion of his current constituents (30%) goes to IL-15; the rest is divided among IL-11 (27%); IL-18 (20%); IL-13 (15%); IL-12 (7%); with a sliver going to IL-17.

To briefly sum up my map:

1.) Democratic; black-majority; Rush

2.) Democratic; black-majority; Jackson

3.) Democratic; 62.3 Obama; Lipinski

4.) Democratic; hispanic-majority; Gutierrez

5.) Democratic; 68.3 Obama; Quigley

6.) Democratic; hispanic-majority; new Hispanic representative (?)

7.) Democratic; black-majority; Davis

8.) Democratic; 65.1 Obama; Bean (?)

9.) Democratic; 70.2 Obama; Schakowsky

10.) Democratic; 65.3 Obama; new Dem. representative (?)

11.) Democratic; 59.2 Obama; new Dem. representative (?)

12.) Democratic; 60.9 Obama; Costello

14.) Democratic; 62.4 Obama; Foster (?)

17.) Democratic; 60.8 Obama; new Dem. representative (?)

13.) Republican; new GOP Rep. (?)

15.) Republican; Johnson

16.) Republican; Manzullo, Hultgren or Walsh most likely to win here

18.) Republican; Shimkus

This is my version of Maryland using Daves Redistricting 2.1.  Looking at the 2010 Census data incorporated into the Application, I see no reason at all why Democrats should not create an 8-0 map.

Actually, I drew a couple versions of a map.  The main part of this diary deals with “Version 1”, an 8-0 map which I believe would have the best chance of being enacted in Maryland.  My alternative “Version 2” is discussed at the end of the diary.

VERSION 1

This map preserves both black majority seats, keeps the districts of all six Democratic incumbents safely Democratic and creates two additional Democratic seats — all without creating a “monstrous” looking map.

Another very important goal for me was to keep as much of each incumbent’s current territory (population-wise) in the new district.  The percentages of current constituents that each district gets to keep are below:

MD-1 – 64.8%

MD-2 – 65.1%

MD-3 – 58.2%

MD-4 – 57.9%

MD-5 – 64.6%

MD-6 – 60.1%

MD-7 – 51.8%

MD-8 – 58.0%

I feel that the set of numbers above is just as important as the partisan numbers for each district.  In many cases, if an incumbent loses too much of his or her existing constituents, they may not like the map even if their district becomes more favorable in terms of party identification.  Thus any map that has a realistic chance of being enacted in Maryland must pay close attention to how a proposed district resembles the existing district.

As you can see from the numbers above, each incumbent save one gets to keep at least 58% of their current constituents.  As for MD-7, Cummings keeps only 52%.  However, that number comes with a caveat — because an additional 13.9% of the proposed MD-7 here comes out of African-American areas in Baltimore City (Cherry Hill, for example) or Baltimore Co. (Randallstown) that are currently part of MD-2 or MD-3.  These added areas are 75% black, so even though Cummings currently doesn’t represent them, there’s no reason these new constituents would not be receptive to being represented by Cummings.

UPDATE: please note that per suggestion from one reader, I have adjusted the map to do a better job at keeping suburban Baltimore communities together; this change had the added benefit of making Cummings keep more of his current MD-7 constituents — now 55.1% (please see comments section for more info.)

The black percentage in the two black majority districts goes down slightly from the current percentages, but the proportion of African-Americans as a percentage of the Democratic primary vote in both districts is very high — by my estimate it’s at least 77% in MD-4 and at least 82% in MD-7 (sic) ! — so these districts should have no trouble in electing an African-American representative.

The districts of all six Democratic incumbents are kept at least 60% Obama and at least 60% Democratic Average 2006-2008.  The two new Democratic districts are made to be 53.7% Obama for MD-1 and 55.6% Obama for MD-6.  Both the new MD-1 and the new MD-6 are at exactly 52.9% Democratic Average 2006-2008.  I feel that is enough of a cushion in both cases.  For MD-1, Kratovil should easily win a 53-54% Democratic district.  Most of the area in the new MD-6 (Frederick area and northern Montgomery Co.) is becoming more and more Democratic every year, as evidenced by the Democrats take-over of State Senate District 3 (Frederick) this past November.  I could have made the new MD-6 a bit more Democratic, but I did not want to endanger Van Hollen or make the lines too convoluted (for example, you could add Carroll Co. to MD-4, like I did in a previous diary and here under “Version 2”, but it just seems like a bridge too far in any map that has a realistic chance of being enacted; in this respect, much of what constitutes drawing a map is quite subjective).  The new MD-6 here should turn blue, unless a very, very moderate Republican is the nominee — which isn’t going to happen these days !  

Partisan numbers for new districts are below:

MD-1 – 53.7 Obama; 52.9 Democratic Avg. 2006-2008

MD-2 – 60.9 Obama; 63.8 Democratic Avg. 2006-2008

MD-3 – 60.2 Obama; 60.7 Democratic Avg. 2006-2008

MD-4 – 82.5 Obama; 79.1 Democratic Avg. 2006-2008

MD-5 – 60.9 Obama; 60.9 Democratic Avg. 2006-2008

MD-6 – 55.6 Obama; 52.9 Democratic Avg. 2006-2008

MD-7 – 73.5 Obama; 69.7 Democratic Avg. 2006-2008

MD-8 – 64.7 Obama; 64.9 Democratic Avg. 2006-2008

Where possible, I tried to respect county and community lines while drawing this map (see the fourth map down where city lines and Census-designated community lines in central Maryland are mapped).  

The population deviation for this map is +/- 132 persons, with the caveat that Maryland has a new law now where the prison population may have to be “reassigned” to district of origin.  For demographics below, I noted ethnic/racial group if 5%+ of the population. Please note that all the data below for current and proposed districts is obtained from Daves Redistricting Application.  I drew in the existing districts into the Application to obtain demographic data as it currently stands for each district.  Please note that for partisan data, it appears that the percentages provided in the Application are percentages as a proportion of the two-party vote.

District 1:

Current District Population: 81.0 white, 11.4 black

Proposed District Population: 66.0 white, 24.7 black, 5.2 hispanic

Current District 18+ Population: 82.8 white, 11.1 black

Proposed District 18+ Population: 68.5 white, 23.8 black

Current District President: 41.5 Obama, 58.5 McCain

Proposed District President: 53.7 Obama, 46.3 McCain

Current District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 41.8 Democratic, 58.2 Republican

Proposed District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 52.9 Democratic, 47.1 Republican

District 2:  

Current District Population: 55.2 white, 33.1 black, 5.0 hispanic

Proposed District Population: 62.6 white, 24.9 black, 5.4 hispanic

Current District 18+ Population: 59.2 white, 30.8 black

Proposed District 18+ Population: 66.5 white, 22.4 black

Current District President: 60.8 Obama, 39.2 McCain

Proposed District President: 60.9 Obama, 39.1 McCain

Current District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 63.4 Democratic, 36.6 Republican

Proposed District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 63.8 Democratic, 36.2 Republican

District 3:  

Current District Population: 65.2 white, 20.0 black, 6.8 hispanic, 5.3 asian

Proposed District Population: 60.0 white, 21.9 black, 8.7 asian, 6.1 hispanic

Current District 18+ Population: 68.2 white, 18.7 black, 6.0 hispanic, 5.2 asian

Proposed District 18+ Population: 62.9 white, 21.0 black, 8.6 asian, 5.4 hispanic

Current District President: 60.5 Obama, 39.5 McCain

Proposed District President: 60.2 Obama, 39.8 McCain

Current District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 62.3 Democratic, 37.7 Republican

Proposed District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 60.7 Democratic, 39.3 Republican

District 4:

Current District Population: 55.7 black, 20.6 white, 14.2 hispanic, 6.9 asian

Proposed District Population: 53.2 black, 24.7 white, 13.0 hispanic, 6.5 asian

Current District 18+ Population: 55.5 black, 22.3 white, 12.9 hispanic, 7.2 asian

Proposed District 18+ Population: 53.0 black, 26.2 white, 11.9 hispanic, 6.7 asian

Current District President: 86.1 Obama, 13.9 McCain

Proposed District President: 82.5 Obama, 17.5 McCain

Current District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 82.6 Democratic, 17.4 Republican

Proposed District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 79.1 Democratic, 20.9 Republican

District 5:

Current District Population: 48.0 white, 36.7 black, 7.9 hispanic

Proposed District Population: 56.4 white, 27.9 black, 9.5 hispanic

Current District 18+ Population: 50.8 white, 35.6 black, 6.9 hispanic

Proposed District 18+ Population: 58.7 white, 27.2 black, 8.4 hispanic

Current District President: 67.0 Obama, 33.0 McCain

Proposed District President: 60.9 Obama, 39.1 McCain

Current District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 65.8 Democratic, 34.2 Republican

Proposed District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 60.9 Democratic, 39.1 Republican

District 6:

Current District Population: 85.0 white, 6.4 black

Proposed District Population: 66.4 white, 11.0 hispanic, 10.6 black, 9.2 asian

Current District 18+ Population: 86.8 white, 6.4 black

Proposed District 18+ Population: 69.0 white, 10.0 black, 9.9 hispanic, 9.3 asian

Current District President: 41.3 Obama, 58.7 McCain

Proposed District President: 55.6 Obama, 44.4 McCain

Current District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 40.0 Democratic, 60.0 Republican

Proposed District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 52.9 Democratic, 47.1 Republican

District 7:  

Current District Population: 55.7 black, 31.6 white, 6.7 asian

Proposed District Population: 55.0 black, 38.2 white

Current District 18+ Population: 54.6 black, 33.6 white, 6.7 asian

Proposed District 18+ Population: 54.1 black, 39.9 white

Current District President: 81.8 Obama, 18.2 McCain

Proposed District President: 73.5 Obama, 26.5 McCain

Current District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 76.6 Democratic, 23.4 Republican

Proposed District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 69.7 Democratic, 30.3 Republican

District 8:  

Current District Population: 47.5 white, 20.0 hispanic, 16.3 black, 13.3 asian

Proposed District Population: 63.3 white, 13.6 black, 12.6 hispanic, 7.9 asian

Current District 18+ Population: 49.6 white, 18.6 hispanic, 16.1 black, 13.5 asian

Proposed District 18+ Population: 65.0 white, 13.6 black, 11.5 hispanic, 8.1 asian

Current District President: 76.0 Obama, 24.0 McCain

Proposed District President: 64.7 Obama, 35.3 McCain

Current District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 75.1 Democratic, 24.9 Republican

Proposed District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 64.9 Democratic, 35.1 Republican

VERSION 2

The map below is my alternative version.  There’s only one difference from Version 1:  Carroll Co. is added to MD-4 while almost everything that’s in Montgomery Co. and part of MD-4 under Version 1 is now added to MD-6.  This exchange between MD-4 and MD-6 produces the following demographic and partisan numbers:

District 4:

Proposed District Population: 50.5 black, 33.1 white, 10.5 hispanic

Proposed District 18+ Population: 50.3 black, 34.5 white, 9.7 hispanic

Proposed District President: 75.7 Obama, 24.3 McCain

Proposed District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 72.6 Democratic, 27.4 Republican

District 6:

Proposed District Population: 58.0 white, 13.4 hispanic, 13.3 black, 12.1 asian

Proposed District 18+ Population: 60.9 white, 12.5 black, 12.3 asian, 12.2 hispanic

Proposed District President: 62.3 Obama, 37.7 McCain

Proposed District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 59.3 Democratic, 40.7 Republican

The “Version 2” map turns MD-6 into something that’s safely Democratic (instead of just a lean/likely Democratic seat under Version 1), but reduces the black percentage in MD-4 — though it remains above 50%.  The reduction in the African-American population in MD-4 may be retrogressive — however, it should be noted that the white population remains a relatively low percentage, and amazingly, according to my estimate, the proportion of African-Americans as a percentage of the Democratic primary vote in MD-4 now goes UP to 84%.  Another problem would be that Edwards would only get to keep 39% of her existing constituents under these revised lines.

Last, but not least, I must add that I absolutely love version 2.1 of Daves Redistricting Application !

I drew this map upon release of the new Census data for Iowa.  I paid no attention to partisanship and tried to correlate each district with a geographical area of the state.  Starting with Des Moines, I drew a district around it, then drew a district for the southeast, northeast and western Iowa.  My goal was to have each district within 1,000 persons of the ideal district population.  Amazingly, my configuration worked out on my very first try (which means there’s probably many possible combinations to how the state can be drawn).  Nevertheless, I kind of like the map here because I think it does a good job in keeping the different regions of the state together (in that respect, I think it’s better than, for example, the 1990’s Iowa map which had one district run from Des Moines to  the western border).

The population numbers are as follows:

blue – 762,255

green – 761,010

purple – 760,876

red – 762,214

ideal pop. is 761,589

I originally posted my map as part of  a comment on another diary , http://www.swingstateproject.c…  and reader OGGoldy crunched the partisan numbers for the map as follows:

blue – 55.3% Obama, 44.7% McCain

green – 58.8% Obama, 41.2% McCain

purple – 58.9% Obama, 41.1% McCain

red – 46.3% Obama, 53.7% McCain

I was inspired by Alizarin’s diary “Republican Gerrymander of New York”: http://www.swingstateproject.c…  as well as abgin’s “finding limits” series of diaries to try to make a Utah map with two Obama districts.  The resulting map actually has both districts at McCain under 50% — in the green district, Obama has a plurality, while in the blue one McCain is slightly ahead, though still under 50%.  

The partisan data was not in the Application.  The major problem I had was lack of precinct data from the various counties.  I did this map purely for fun so I used a variety of data sources and estimation techniques here – some of which may come with caveats.  Therefore, I cannot guarantee that my end result is exactly accurate.  The point, nevertheless, is not whether one can actually have 2 Obama districts BUT that one can certainly draw 2 districts in Utah that at least come very close to being Obama plurality or majority. (In all likelihood, though, it would probably be technically possible to draw 2 Obama districts in Utah if certain precincts could be split and the map was a little more gerrymandered than the one here.  I also played with this using the “old” population numbers, and in that case I can guarantee that two Obama districts could be drawn.)

For Salt Lake County, I used city data provided by sysm29 in the diary “Let’s Redistrict Utah !”: http://www.swingstateproject.c… (I estimated/extrapolated the numbers for a couple of precincts in unincorporated areas).  For Davis, Tooele and Utah Counties good precinct data was available, although I had to use maps provided on the county sites to match existing precincts to those in the Application, as the borders and numbers have changed in many cases over the last decade.  For San Juan and Uintah counties I estimated the percentages based on some information I had re. how Native American areas voted.  (In San Juan, for example, the total county vote was 51 McCain – 47 Obama, but that hides the fact that the Navajo areas voted overwhelmingly for Obama, while the white areas were overwhelmingly for McCain).

For many counties, like Weber and Wasatch I couldn’t find precinct breakdowns; thus I was very limited in how to create the districts.  I decided to include the whole county in both cases in my green Obama plurality district as the Obama percentages were relatively high for the state.  I feel that if I had precinct data, especially for Weber, I could redo this map so that 2 districts would result with Obama pluralities.  Nevertheless, here is the map in its imperfect form.  The population deviation, using the “new” population estimates was 266 to 388 persons above an ideal district size for the blue, green and purple districts, and 967 persons under the ideal size for the red district:

Here’s a breakdown of each district (please NOTE that the partisan data comes with a caveat explained above, so may not be completely accurate):

Green: Obama 48.4 – McCain 48.3

Blue: Obama 47.2 – McCain 49.9

Purple: Obama 23.1 – McCain 74.1

Red: Obama 21.0 – McCain 75.7

One interesting fact: to show you just how Republican much of Utah still is, it turns out that the most Democratic part of Davis Co. is Hill Air Force Base !

I should also note that approximately 27% of the population of the green district would be current constituents of Jim Matheson, while about 49% of the population of the blue district would be Matheson’s current constituents.  If there’s a parallel universe somewhere out there where the Democrats control their version of Utah, they should definitely go with this map.

California is a minority-majority state.  Therefore any non-partisan redistricting plan drawn there should reflect the diversity of the state by maximizing the number of minority-majority districts — as long as those districts can be drawn to be compact, drawn to preserve community interests, and otherwise adhere to the other requirements of the new Commission.  11 out of 14 persons on the Commission are themselves minorities; therefore it is quite plausible that they may draw the new districts in this manner.  I tried to put aside all partisan bias when drawing this map, and tried to use only non-partisan criteria like compactness and adherence to the VRA.

There are 53 districts in California.  In this map I drew 15 that fit entirely within the confines of San Diego/Orange/Inland Empire; 15 that basically fit within Los Angeles Co./Ventura and the remaining 23 are in central and northern California.

No districts cross over from Los Angeles Co. into Orange or San Bernardino Counties.  Ventura and Kern Counties share areas with LA Co., but that was the only logical way for me to draw the districts there and still account for equal population for each district.  Likewise, one district does cross over from the Bay Area into the Central Valley, but again, that is because of population totals — basically, one district has to cross that divide somewhere.  

The population deviation per district is under +/- 1,500 persons.  I used American Community Survey estimates for my demographics, so the numbers are off somewhat from the 2000 data that’s still in Dave’s Application.  I numbered the districts from south to north in order to get away from thinking about them in the current sense and away from thinking about them in terms of incumbents (although there may be a rule where the districts have to be numbered north to south ?).  I will discuss each geographic area in turn and try to explain how I drew the lines.

San Diego County

San Diego County’s population estimate according to the American Community Survey is 2,988,000 which is equal to 4.2 congressional districts.  The county is 51% white and 49% minority; therefore I made 2 of the districts majority white and 2 districts minority-majority (the remaining “0.2” of the county is in a majority white district that also encompasses parts of Orange and Riverside Counties).  Hispanics are about 30% of the county so at least one district must be Hispanic.  If you “pack” the most Hispanic precincts in San Diego into one district you will only come out with a district that is approx. 56% Hispanic, but the map would look like this:

Obviously, the Commission would not draw a convoluted map like the one above.  With just a few adjustments, “District 1” can be made pretty compact, however, and the Hispanic percentage would still be approx. 54% — only 2 points less than in the convoluted map.  (I use this example to demonstrate how I planned out many of the minority-majority districts in the state).  After District 1 was drawn, I still needed another minority-majority district for the county in order to draw a map that reflects the true diversity of the state.  It turned out that by combining all the other minority-majority areas in San Diego, you could draw a compact district almost entirely within the city of San Diego itself that is approximately 54% minority (basically combining Hispanics who are too geographically remote or dispersed to be included in District 1 with black and Asian areas in San Diego).  At this point, I had the two white majority districts to draw in the county — I drew one logically along the coast and one inland.

District 1: Hispanic San Diego

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 75% minority (Hispanic majority)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 62; McCain 37

District 2: Inland City of San Diego – Multi-Ethnic

Estimated Demographics: Above 50% minority

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 60; McCain 38

District 3: Coastal San Diego

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 70% white

Politics:  Lean Democratic; Obama 58; McCain 40

District 4: Inland San Diego County

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 65% white

Politics:  Safe Republican; Obama 41; McCain 57

Inland Empire

The next area I covered was Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.  I decided to include Imperial Co. with a Riverside district, as the combination would result in a compact Hispanic-majority district, and it made more sense to me to include with Riverside than with the city of San Diego as the current CA-51 looks today.  Also, Inyo and Mono Counties were included with San Bernardino, as that made more sense than to include them with Los Angeles as the current CA-25 does today.  Both San Bernardino and Riverside Counties have Hispanic pluralities (and Imperial is over three-fourths Hispanic; Inyo and Mono are about two-thirds white but have relatively very little population); whites are only 38% of the combined area.  

The total population of the “Inland Empire” is approx. 4,213,000 which is equal to about 6 congressional districts.  Riverside Co. is only slightly bigger than San Bernardino Co., so 3 districts can be drawn in Riverside and 3 in San Bernardino.  Since San Bernardino/Inyo/Mono is only 36% white, I decided that 2 of the 3 San Bernardino-based districts should be minority-majority (with at least 1 being mostly Hispanic) and likewise, since Riverside/Imperial combined is only 40% white, I decided that 2 of the 3 districts there should be minority-majority (with at least 1 being mostly Hispanic).  The Hispanic growth in this area has been great and it was difficult to estimate the Hispanic percentages here.  For example, using even 2000 Census numbers, Districts 5 and 8 would be Hispanic majority, but if you use the ACS numbers, it appears that Districts 5 and 8 as drawn here would approach 60% Hispanic.

District 5:  Eastern Riverside Co. and Imperial

Estimated Demographics: Above 60% minority (Hispanic majority)

Politics:  Lean Democratic; Obama 56; McCain 43

District 6:  Central Riverside Co.

Estimated Demographics: White majority

Politics:  Safe Republican; Obama 45; McCain 53

District 7:  North-western Riverside Co.

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 70% minority (Hispanic majority)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 60; McCain 39

District 8:  South-western San Bernardino Co.

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 75% minority (Hispanic majority)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 60; McCain 38

District 9:  Northern San Bernardino Co./Inyo/Mono

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 60% white

Politics:  Safe Republican; Obama 43; McCain 55

District 10:  South-central San Bernardino Co. (and Calimesa in Riverside Co.)

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 65% minority (Hispanic plurality, and possibly majority)

Politics:  Lean Democratic; Obama 56; McCain 42

Orange County

Orange Co. has about 2,977,000 people, equal to 4.2 congressional districts.  The population is 47% white and 53% minority.  Like in San Diego Co., I decided to draw two minority-majority districts (with one being mostly Hispanic and the other “multi-ethnic”), and two white districts — one coastal and one interior.

District 11:  Central Orange Co.

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 75% minority (Hispanic majority)

Politics:  Lean Democratic; Obama 59; McCain 39

District 12:  North-central Orange Co.

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 75% minority (Hispanic plurality; large Asian population)

Politics:  Toss Up; Obama 53; McCain 45

District 13:  Coastal Orange Co.

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 70% white

Politics:  Safe Republican; Obama 46; McCain 52

Interesting note:  This potential district would be Republican but socially quite moderate.  For example, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach and Laguna Beach were some of the rare cities in the state where the “No” on Prop. 8 received more votes, percentage-wise, than Obama received in 2008.

District 14:  Inland Orange Co.

Estimated Demographics: Above. 60% white

Politics:  Safe Republican; Obama 43; McCain 55

“Leftover” San Diego/Orange/Riverside:

District 15:  Eastern Orange/Northern San Diego/Western Riverside

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 60% white

Politics:  Safe Republican; Obama 44; McCain 55

Los Angeles and Ventura Counties

The next 15 districts are based in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (14 mostly in LA Co. and 1 mostly in Ventura).  The estimated population of LA County is 9,785,000 — equal to 13.8 districts.  47% of the population in the county is Hispanic — equal to 6.5 districts — so my plan makes sure that 6 districts are Hispanic majority and at least one other is Hispanic plurality.  Asians are 13% of the population which would translate to 1.8 districts.  However, as they are very geographically dispersed it would be impossible to draw two Asian-majority districts in LA Co.; in fact even drawing one Asian district resulted in a district that’s only plurality Asian.  Blacks in LA Co., on the other hand, form only 9% of the population, but are geographically very compact, so it was possible to draw a black-majority district in the county.  Whites are only 29% of LA County – equal to almost exactly 4 districts, but because of the way the white population is dispersed, the most logical thing to do was to create 2 white majority districts and 3 white plurality districts.  The Ventura-based district is also white majority/plurality.

District 16:  Eastern LA County; Pomona, Covina

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 75% minority (Hispanic majority)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 61; McCain 37

District 17:  Eastern LA County; Whittier, Norwalk, Downey

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 75% minority (approx. 65% Hispanic)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 64; McCain 34

District 18:  Central LA County; East Los Angeles, Southgate

Estimated Demographics: At least 98% minority (sic !); approx. 90% Hispanic

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 86; McCain 12

District 19:  Central Los Angeles

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 85% minority (above 60% Hispanic)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 81; McCain 17

District 20:  Eastern Los Angeles (city), Burbank

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 75% minority (approx. 60% Hispanic)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 77; McCain 21

District 21:  Eastern San Fernando Valley

Estimated Demographics: Above 80% minority (approx. 70% Hispanic)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 74; McCain 24

District 22:  Long Beach and environs

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 70% minority (Hispanic plurality)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 67; McCain 31

District 23:  Eastern LA County; San Gabriel, Diamond Bar

Estimated Demographics: Above 80% minority (Asian plurality)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 60; McCain 38

District 24:  South-central LA

Estimated Demographics: At least 97% minority (sic !); above 50% black

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 94; McCain 5

District 25:  South-western LA Co.; Torrance, San Pedro part of LA

Estimated Demographics: Above 60% minority (has white plurality, but is quite multi-ethnic)

Politics:  Lean Democratic; Obama 59; McCain 39

District 26:  Santa Monica Bay coast and some inland areas

Estimated Demographics: Minority-majority (though barely, as whites at approx. 49%)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 75; McCain 23

District 27:  Glendale, Pasadena, Monrovia

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 60% minority (but white plurality)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 66; McCain 32

District 28:  Northern LA County, western San Fernando Valley

Estimated Demographics: Above 50% white

Politics:  Toss Up; Obama 54; McCain 44

This district, btw, is very similar to the CA-25 under the non-partisan 1992 plan (but since the population has grown a lot in this area, Lancaster in the far north is detached).

District 29:  Westside LA/Beverly Hills; Malibu; Thousand Oaks

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 75% white

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 67; McCain 32

District 30:  Ventura County (other than Thousand Oaks)

Estimated Demographics: white majority hovering around 50% (so could be white plurality ?)

Politics:  Lean Democratic; Obama 56; McCain 42

This district, btw, looks almost identical to the CA-23 under the non-partisan 1992 plan.

Central Coast

We now start to move out of southern California …. The central coast and Monterey Bay areas have sizeable Hispanic numbers (35-40% of the population), but there’s really not enough population to form a compact Hispanic district here that would at the same time preserve county/community cohesiveness (Hispanic-majority districts could be drawn that include some of this area, but they would have to cross over into the Central Valley).

District 31:  Central Coast

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 60% white

Politics:  Lean Democratic; Obama 57; McCain 41

This district is very similar to the CA-22 under the non-partisan 1992 plan.  All of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties are included, as well as southern Monterey Co.

District 32:  Monterey Bay area; Santa Cruz, San Benito and most of Monterey Counties (and sliver of Santa Clara)

Estimated Demographics: white majority hovering around 50% (so could be white plurality ?)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 72; McCain 26

Central Valley

The San Joaquin Valley (Kern, Tulare, Kings, Fresno, Madera, Merced, Stanislaus, San Joaquin Counties) has approximately 3,792,000 persons which is equal to 5.4 congressional districts.  The population is about 46% Hispanic and 40% white — which “translates” into 3 minority-majority districts out of the 5 drawn here — however, as in this part of the state much of the Hispanic population is still undocumented/not citizens/under-age, it is realistically possible to create only two “effective” Hispanic-majority seats in this area.

District 33:  Northern San Joaquin Valley (Stockton to Fresno)

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 75% minority (Hispanic majority)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 62; McCain 37

District 34:  Southern San Joaquin Valley (Bakersfield to Fresno Co.)

Estimated Demographics: Above 80% minority (approx. 70% Hispanic)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 60; McCain 39

District 35:  Kern Co. and Lancaster (in LA Co.)

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 60% white

Politics:  Safe Republican; Obama 38; McCain 60

District 36:  Parts of Tulare, Fresno, Kings

Estimated Demographics: White majority

Politics:  Safe Republican; Obama 38; McCain 60

District 37:  Modesto, Merced, Madera, Mariposa

Estimated Demographics: White majority

Politics:  Lean to Safe Republican; Obama 48; McCain 51

Sacramento

The map now moves into the Sacramento area.  Sacramento Co. is about 52% white.  It has roughly enough population for two congressional districts, so I made one district here majority white and one that is minority-majority.

District 38:  Sacramento suburbs, part of San Joaquin Co.

Estimated Demographics: Above 60% white

Politics:  Lean to Safe Republican; Obama 47; McCain 51

District 39:  Sacramento (city) and environs

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 60% minority (Hispanics, Asians, blacks)

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 68; McCain 30

San Francisco Bay Area

We next go into the San Francisco Bay area.  The population amounts to approximately 9.5 districts here; in the resulting map, there are 9 districts completely within the Bay Area and one that overlaps with part of the Central Valley.  The white population in the Bay Area is about 45%, but there is really no predominant minority ethnic/racial group – but instead relatively large numbers of Hispanics, Asians and blacks.  Out of the 10 districts here, 5 are white majority and 5 are minority-majority (and out of those, I made 1 to be Hispanic-majority, 1 Asian plurality, 1 white plurality with a relatively high number of blacks, and 2 white plurality with large numbers of Asians).  

(Looking back after I drew the map, what I found interesting in this area was that even after making a new Hispanic-majority district here (that’s also overall about 85% minority, and “packing” as many African-Americans as I could into an Oakland-based district) all the surrounding “outer-Bay Area” districts still remain solidly Democratic — there’s just no way to draw even a single Republican district here if you’re using strictly non-partisan criteria.)

District 40:  San Francisco

Estimated Demographics: White plurality; large Asian population

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 86; McCain 12

District 41:  San Mateo peninsula, part of San Francisco

Estimated Demographics: White plurality; large Asian population

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 74; McCain 25

District 42:  Silicon Valley

Estimated Demographics: White majority

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 71; McCain 27

District 43:  part of San Jose; outer Santa Clara and Alameda Counties

Estimated Demographics: White majority

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 65; McCain 34

District 44:  part of San Jose; parts of Alameda and San Mateo Counties

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 85% minority (Hispanic majority)

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 77; McCain 21

District 45:  parts of Alameda and Santa Clara Co’s.; Fremont, San Leandro, Milpitas

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 70% minority (Asian plurality)

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 71; McCain 27

District 46:  Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 70% minority (black, Asian, Hispanic)

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 88; McCain 10

District 47:  Western Contra Costa; parts of Solano

Estimated Demographics: White majority

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 70; McCain 28

District 48:  Eastern Contra Costa; parts of San Joaquin

Estimated Demographics: white majority hovering around 50% (so could be white plurality ?)

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 61; McCain 37

District 49:  Marin, Sonoma

Estimated Demographics: Above 70% white

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 76; McCain 22

Northern California

Last, but not least, we move to the northern-most area of California.  The districts here kind of drew themselves, as there were several instances where you can draw perfectly compact districts that correspond almost perfectly to county lines and also look almost exactly like the 1992 non-partisan districts.  This area is overwhelmingly white, so all four districts here are white majority.

District 50:  North Coast, Napa, Solano

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 65% white

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 62; McCain 36

District 51:  Sacramento River Valley

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 60% white

Politics: Toss Up; Obama 54; McCain 44

This district looks almost exactly like CA-3 under the non-partisan 1992 map.

District 52:  Far-northern California

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 80% white

Politics: Safe Republican; Obama 44; McCain 53

District fits perfectly within county lines; almost identical to CA-2 under non-partisan 1992 map.

District 53:  Sierra Nevada area; Sacramento exurbs

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 80% white

Politics: Safe Republican; Obama 44; McCain 54

District fits almost perfectly within county lines; almost the same as CA-4 under 1992 map.

So, that’s my map for California — using non-partisan criteria and with an emphasis on maximizing minority-majority seats.  The map has 22 out of 53 seats at white-majority status — corresponding exactly to the 42% of the population that is white according to the ACS.  There are 15 Hispanic-majority seats (and a majority of those are at least 60% Hispanic) and two more with a strong Hispanic plurality — unfortunately, that is below the estimated 36-37% of the population that is Hispanic (ideally, there would be 19 Hispanic-majority seats).  However, some of the Hispanic population is just too dispersed to form a district, and the 15 seats are almost double the current number of Hispanic representatives in the state.  The remaining 14 districts are either black-majority, Asian-plurality or multi-ethnic districts where no single group predominates .

It should be noted that in partisan terms, the map produces 31 safe Democratic seats; 7 lean Democratic seats; 3 toss-ups (Obama won two of those by 10 points and one by 8 points, but that should still be considered “Toss-Up” by California standards); 2 lean to safe Republican seats; and 10 safe Republican seats.  

A plan could certainly be made that has more Republican seats — but you would not be using neutral criteria, and the number of minority-majority or minority-plurality seats would necessarily go down in such a plan.

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

This is a short diary for me – and one where I just wanted to “make a point.”

The diary is not really about South Carolina, although the state is used here as an example.  The VRA has been discussed in a number of diaries recently, but I think it’s important to revisit this issue again.  I previously did a post on South Carolina where two compact black-majority districts are created:

http://www.swingstateproject.c…

In this diary, three minority-majority districts are created.  Granted, they are not as compact (and would likely not pass a Supreme Court test as they are pretty clear racial gerrymanders), and the African-American percentage is only 49% in each district using the “new population estimate” in Dave’s Application.

Here’s a quick breakdown (pop. deviation is +/- 865 persons, btw).

Yellow – 49% black; 45% white (50%+ black; 46% white using “old” estimate)

Teal – 49% black; 46% white (51% black; 45% white using “old” estimate)

Gray – 49% black; 44% white (49% black; 47% white using “old” estimate)

Blue – 81% white; 10% black

Red – 78% white; 16% black

Green – 82% white; 10% black

Purple – 79% white; 14% black

Nevertheless, I am confident that, assuming the population figures under the Application are correct, it would be quite possible to make each district 50%+ African-American if precincts were split, lines were further refined, etc. — but that’s not really my point, as three black-majority districts will certainly not be drawn in South Carolina in 2012.

My point instead is that — if it’s basically possible to draw 3 black-majority seats in South Carolina — then it’s almost a “must” that just 2 are drawn, and furthermore, the Obama DOJ should not pre-clear any map of a state under the VRA where that map does not reflect the diversity of the state.

The above point should apply for states like South Carolina, which are gaining seats; states like Louisiana, which are losing seats; and states like Virginia, where the number of seats remains constant.  In a previous diary over a year ago, I drew 2 compact black-majority seats in Louisiana:

http://www.swingstateproject.c…

Just yesterday, roguemapper demonstrated how 6 compact minority-majority seats can be drawn in Georgia:

http://www.swingstateproject.c…

Here’s a map I did a while back (and posted only as an attachment to a diary comment) where Virginia gets 2 black-majority seats (and I have seen basically the same map done independently by several other posters on this site).  About 20% of Virginia’s population is African-American; yet there is currently only 1 black-majority district (out of 11) — where all the black population is “packed.”  Incidentally, using the “new population estimate”, the green district here (Hampton Roads area) is 51% black – 41% white, while the yellow district (Richmond and Southside area) is 52% black – 42% white.

Now, below is a really important map — that of geographic areas covered by the VRA:

I’m really not sure what the Obama DOJ will do regarding this issue, but I hope that they will take a strong stand in favor of drawing districts which reflect the diversity of the covered states, and will pre-clear only those maps which pass muster under that standard.

I have drawn a number of maps trying to predict California’s 2012 redistricting.  I will not be posting any of them in this diary, as I think it’s just a guessing game trying to figure out how exactly the lines will look.  There are several different ways the lines can be drawn – all adhering to the new commission standards.  (OK, maybe I will post a prediction map at some time in the future, once I feel confident that I am drawing the lines in a purely objective way – which is hard to do perfectly) …

Nevertheless, in this diary I wanted to find a totally objective way in which to predict only what the net effect of such a perfectly non-partisan, non-biased redistricting may be – in a “most likely” scenario.  I thought that one of the best and most objective ways to do this is to look back at the 1992 non-partisan map and see how those districts compare, in partisan terms, to the existing ones.  This entails nothing more than redrawing the 1992 districts into Dave’s Application.  Hence, I will not even post any statewide maps here, as you can see what the districts looked like via this link:

http://swdb.igs.berkeley.edu/m…

Instead of the maps, I have included a chart here showing how each 2002 district voted in the 2008 election and how each of the 1992 districts would have voted had that map been in effect in 2008.  Granted, there were obvious population shifts between the 90’s and the last decade, so the 1992 lines now would produce over-populated or under-populated districts, and the biggest difference is that there were 52 districts back then instead of 53 now.  But the districts can still be compared for the purpose of this analysis — because the point here is not really trying to see how any particular district would change, but only what the net effect would be, ie. more or less Democratic or Republican districts overall ??  As far as the missing 53rd District, I get to that too, towards the end of the diary …

Under this exercise, it appears that had the 1992 lines stayed in place for 2002, there might now be upwards of 40 seats in California that Obama won by at least 6 points (at least a 52-46 margin) as compared to only 34 such seats currently.

As can be inferred from the above chart, a perfectly fair redistricting of California is likely to add several more Democratic districts.  The numbers highlighted in yellow are districts where the partisan balance doesn’t change much when you go from the 2002 incumbent protection map to the 1992 non-partisan map.  These are districts where the change in Obama’s margin over McCain (or McCain over Obama) is no more than 4 points.  The numbers highlighted in red are ones where the margin changes by 5 points or more in the Republican direction, while the numbers highlighted in blue are ones where the margin changes by 5 points or more in the Democratic direction.  

First, we need to take out the districts where the numbers change by 5 points or more in the Democratic or Republican direction, BUT the change is not likely to make a difference because the district is already super-Democratic or super-Republican.  These include CA-7, CA-30, CA-34, CA-35 and CA-37, which are already very Democratic and which might become even more Democratic under a re-map, as well as CA-1, CA-10, CA-23, CA-27, CA-36, CA-43 and CA-53 which become less Democratic, but are still very likely to be retained by a Democrat even if the lines were changed (all except CA-23 and CA-36 would have Obama percentages of at least 62%).  

What’s left are 7 districts where the partisan change may entail a change in party control.  These include 2 districts that move in a Republican direction, and 5 that move in a Democratic direction (I have marked these districts using a bolded outline in the column referencing the 1992 District partisan breakdown).

CA-18 and CA-20 become less Democratic to the point where, at least in CA-20, the Republican candidate would have very likely won last November under the old lines.  It appears that CA-18 would have also been a 50/50 district in last year’s election had it remained under the old lines.  (For what it’s worth, it should be noted that both districts still remain “Obama districts”.)   However, for both of these Central Valley districts, the actual 2012 redistricting may not be as “brutal” if you’re a Democrat because of the VRA.  The commission is likely to feel the need to be quite “VRA-compliant” in this part of the state, and the resulting districts are likely to have more Hispanics than under the 1992 lines, and thus be more Democratic.

The 5 more Democratic districts include CA-3, CA-24, CA-25, CA-26 and CA-42.  All move in the Democratic direction in this exercise.  CA-24 and CA-26 become so much more Democratic, that a Democratic takeover would be likely, while the other 3 are right on the line – with the caveat that Congressmen like Lungren and Miller would not likely be able to hold the districts in a Democratic or even “neutral” year.  McKeon – I’m not sure, but he certainly doesn’t have the moderate reputation of someone like Bono Mack who is able to currently hold a district with a similar partisan makeup.

What’s interesting, at first, is that Calvert’s district does not appear to change much in the chart.  Here’s where the “53rd District” comes in … Out of the 52 districts under the 1992 plan, two stand out like a sore thumb, in terms of over-population (I am using today’s population numbers, but under the 2000 population numbers they would have been over-populated in a similar fashion).  Both the western and eastern halves, respectively, of Riverside Co. (which under the 1992 map were labeled CA-43 and CA-44 but now more closely correspond to CA-44 and CA-45) are over-populated by over 300,000 persons, or something like 150% (Calvert’s area is at +367,000 while Bono Mack’s is at +321,000) … No other districts in the state even come close (every other is under 200,000, in most cases 100,000 or less) … Taken together, the +367,000 and +321,000 over-populations add up to almost exactly one new Congressional district in Riverside Co.  Granted, we’re using 2006-2008 population estimates on 1992 lines.  Nevertheless, even between the 1990 and 2000 Censuses, Riverside Co. had the highest population growth in the state (other than three relatively small counties – San Benito, Placer and Madera).  Thus, if the 2002 map was truly “non-partisan” the 53rd district created may have been centered not in the Central Valley, but in Riverside Co.  

To see how this plays out in a partisan way, I drew 4 different possible scenarios of how Riverside may look if it contains 3 districts of equal population (with each district corresponding to an ideal district size using population estimates for 2006-2008) …

The first map below is simply the districts under the 1992 map; the old CA-43 is in magenta while the old CA-44 is in blue:

The second map shows how the districts may look if Riverside Co. is divided into 3 districts of equal population.  In this scenario, equal numbers of people are taken out of both the western (magenta) and eastern (blue) halves of the county to create a new district in the middle.  I tried to draw so that cities are not split up by the district lines.  The new district, in orange, encompasses Riverside, Moreno Valley, Calimesa, Beaumont and Perris, and its partisan breakdown is 56 Obama – 43 McCain (the western district in magenta is 47 Obama – 51 McCain, while the eastern district in blue is 51 Obama – 48 McCain).

The third map below shows how the map may look if, instead, Riverside, Moreno Valley and their immediate environs are put together into one very compact district (almost rectangular) while the magenta and blue districts adjust accordingly for equal population.  In this scenario, the new orange district is 58 Obama – 40 McCain, the magenta one is 46 Obama – 52 McCain, while the blue one is 50 Obama – 48 McCain.

The fourth map has Riverside, Norco and Corona all in one orange district at 53 Obama – 45 McCain (the magenta district is 50 Obama – 48 McCain, while the blue one is 50 Obama – 49 McCain).

The last map tries to keep most of Moreno Valley together with Palm Springs (as they are currently); while Norco and most of Corona stay with Riverside.  The orange district here is 55 Obama – 43 McCain; magenta one is 44 Obama – 54 McCain and the blue one is 55 Obama – 43 McCain.

As you can see, any reasonable way you slice and dice Riverside, you’re creating at least one quite Democratic district (and possibly two) – which, like CA-3, CA-24, CA-25, CA-26 and CA-42 above would likely move in the Democratic direction (in scenario #4, the one that produces the “weakest” partisan shift for Democrats, still has the new Riverside Co. district at 53 Obama – 45 McCain which is a 7 point improvement in the Obama – McCain margin over the existing CA-44).

You can see from this exercise that the 2002 plan, even though it was an incumbent-protection map, has benefitted Republican incumbents significantly more than Democratic incumbents.  If something truly non-partisan had been created in 2002 Democrats would likely have at least several more members currently.  With 2012 redistricting being non-partisan it is therefore likely (though never guaranteed ofcourse) that the map will increase the number of Democrats in California.  And, as you can see from the “53rd District” scenario above, even in Republican districts which have or are experiencing the highest population growth in California (like Riverside Co.) the growth has been in Republican districts, but among Democratic constituencies.  

To sum up, therefore, I think that a non-partisan map will ultimately be more of a plus for Democrats than Republicans.  If drawn in a neutral manner, a new CA-18 and CA-20 might be marginal to leaning Republican — but the VRA is likely to “save” those districts for the Democrats.  Meanwhile, non-partisan criteria will more likely than not enable the creation of more Democratic districts in geographic areas currently corresponding to CA-3, CA-24, CA-25, CA-26, CA-42 and CA-44.  The new Democratic-leaning districts may even not correspond to the districts listed here — as this exercise for me really tried to gauge a net effect rather than trying to predict individual districts — but they will appear somewhere in California (mostly in the southern part of the state).  Several of these new districts will likely go Democratic in 2012, while others may be more marginal but may nevertheless provide Democrats at least an even chance of takeover (later if not sooner, as demographic change progresses) — which is better than what the existing map has to offer.  If you’re a Democrat, fortunately we no longer will have the self-defeating Democrats of 2002 to draw the map for us. Instead, we should look forward to the Commission’s work in the Golden State.

I have combined the two states in this diary as they both only have a few Congressional seats, and, if I understand correctly, both have a rule whereby counties should not be split when doing redistricting.  Both Arkansas and West Virginia are also states which historically have been very Democratic — but in the recent past, both are trending Republican (though both are still controlled by Democrats when it comes to remapping).  Each state currently has only one Democratic House member left.  Via these maps, the goal is to have two Democrats in both Arkansas and West Virginia.

Arkansas:

All the districts conform to the “no-county splitting” rule with population deviations ranging from 266 to 2902 persons using Dave’s Application.  Under demographics, ethnic/racial groups are provided if 5% or more of a district’s population.

District 1 (Green)

Proposed District Demographics: 90% white; 5% black

Current District: Obama 38; McCain 59

Proposed District: Obama 33; McCain 64

This new district includes the most Republican counties of northern Arkansas, combining parts of the current AR-1, AR-2 and AR-3.

District  2 (Blue)

Proposed District Demographics: 62% white; 31% black

Current District: Obama 44; McCain 54

Proposed District: Obama 50+; McCain 48

Population-wise, almost 60% of this new district comes out of the existing AR-2, while the rest comes out of AR-1.  I was surprised, but it’s apparently possible to create an Obama-majority district in Arkansas even when all districts have to correspond to the county lines rule (while also not messing with Mike Ross’ district).  This new district combines the most Democratic parts of AR-1 and AR-2.  11 out of 15 counties in the new district were carried by the Democratic candidate in last November’s House elections (the exceptions being Conway, Lonoke, Perry and Van Buren Counties).  Likewise, Blanche Lincoln carried the same 11 out of 15 counties.

District 3 (Purple)

Proposed District Demographics: 80% white; 12% hispanic

Current District: Obama 34; McCain 64

Proposed District: Obama 33; McCain 64

The new AR-3 in the northwestern part of the state maintains its hyper-GOP nature under this map.

District  4 (Red)

Proposed District Demographics: 71% white; 23% black

Current District: Obama 39; McCain 58

Proposed District: Obama 38; McCain 59

Arkansas’ only House Democrat, Mike Ross, gets to keep about 90% of his current territory, as the district becomes only a sliver more Republican.

West Virginia:

All the districts conform to the “no-county splitting” rule with population deviations ranging from 3026 to 7993 persons using Dave’s Application.  

District  1 (Blue)

Proposed District Demographics: 93% white

Current District: Obama 42; McCain 57

Proposed District: Obama 45; McCain 53

The new WV-1 combines some of the most Democratic parts of the current WV-1 and WV-2 into one district.  However, both GOP incumbents from those districts would now be in WV-1 under the new lines.  The goal is to have the two Republicans fight it out in the primary, while a Democrat ultimately emerges on top in November.

District 2 (Green)

Proposed District Demographics: 93% white

Current District: Obama 44; McCain 55

Proposed District: Obama 39; McCain 59

The new WV-2 becomes sort of a “sink” for GOP votes under this map.  However, it would have no incumbent under the new lines.

District 3 (Purple)

Proposed District Demographics: 94% white

Current District: Obama 42; McCain 56

Proposed District: Obama 43; McCain 55

West Virginia’s only House Democrat, Nick Rahall, gets to keep about 75% of his current territory, as the district becomes slightly more Democratic.