Colorado Democrats Finally Outnumber Republicans !

(Cross-posted on the Swing State Project and the Daily Kos)

I apologize that this is a short diary (I am on my way to beautiful Oregon to spend the holidays with my family), but I just read this opinion piece by the Denver Post’s Fred Brown, and there are some very interesting statistics in the piece regarding recent voting registration patterns in the state of Colorado.  Here’s a link via ColoradoPols.com

http://www.coloradopols.com/di…

or this link to the article itself:

http://www.denverpost.com/opin…

From the article:

“Despite their president’s many problems, despite the angry town hall meetings, the poisonous partisanship in Congress, the Tea Party movement and the “birther” billboards, Democrats continue to gain numbers in Colorado.

Since August, in fact – the month of those town hall near-riots – Colorado Democrats have managed to gain slightly each month. There are currently about 10,000 more of them than Republicans…

Voter registration figures for November were released last week by the Colorado Secretary of State’s office …

Long range, the Democrats have some reason to be more optimistic. At the November 2006 elections, Republicans outnumbered Democrats in Colorado by more than 165,000 registered voters. By Election Day in November 2008, that margin had slipped to just 9,000 more Republicans than Democrats.

And today – in fact, for the past several months – Democrats have turned that around. They are now ahead of Republicans by between 9,000 and 10,000 registered voters, a trend that has shown tiny increases in the spread beginning in August….”

Obviously, Colorado will be a very important state for us in the years ahead. Together with New Mexico and Nevada (and possibly Arizona and even Texas in the future) it may provide us with an important electoral college edge in future Presidential elections.  It’s encouraging to see numbers like the ones quoted in the article above — especially in this “time of the teabaggers.”

Bold Maryland Gerrymanders

I was playing around with the newly-updated Dave’s Application that has partisan numbers and was inspired to draw a few new maps for fun !  (I think I like doing this just a little too much …)

MattTX2 inspired me in this post when he said: “One other thing I recently noticed is that in the southern half of the Eastern Shore there are some strong GOP areas have high relatively high African American populations but are still pretty strongly GOP (Talbot, Dorchester, and everything to the South). Those could theoretically be given to Donna Edwards MD-04, bringing it down to the mid/high 60s Obama% while following the voting rights act. That frees up some more heavily Democratic areas in Prince George’s County for other districts. Then MD-01 can stretch around most of the rest of the northern part of the Chesapeake Bay, and into Baltimore to make that seat Democratic.”

At first glance, I thought the same thing as others (and what I’ve always though too) that the Eastern Shore shouldn’t be split and that it would be a very tough sell for the Legislature to do during redistricting – and probably this conventional wisdom is still correct … BUT, what if the Shore can be split ?  the way to do it would be to neatly split the Upper Shore from the Lower Shore … if the Legislature went for any splitting of the Shore, it might be when done in such a manner, as the two parts of the Shore are somewhat distinct when split along this line.  

MattTX2 is correct that drawing the lines this way would be the most economical way for Democrats to free up more Democratic areas in PG Co. to be used for other districts on the western shore.  The plan here keeps both MD-4 and MD-7 majority African-American (50%+) while making every other district either 59% Obama (MD-1, MD-3, and MD-6) or 60% Obama (MD-2, MD-5 and MD-8).  This is marginally even better than the plan I originally drew in September, where I had Obama with at least 58% in each district:  http://www.swingstateproject.c…  It appears that the only way to get to at least 59%-60% Obama for each Maryland district, WHILE keeping the two majority black districts intact, is to use the Lower Eastern Shore in this manner.  

Here’s the map:

MAP 1: At least 59% Obama in each district; both black-majority districts preserved

Photobucket

This is advantageous in that all districts now will be solidly Democratic.  MD- 3 currently is itself 59% Obama, so it will be just as Democratic under the new lines as it currently is. MD-1 and MD-6 will, ofcourse, be a lot more Democratic than they currently are — at 59% Obama under the new lines.  MD-2 is now at 60% Obama, and that will not change.  In MD-5 and MD-8 the Democratic percentage will go down ofcourse, but at 60% Obama, they will still be very safe districts for us.  Interestingly, both Hoyer and Van Hollen are near the top of the Democratic power hierarchy, so they should have the resources to win in 60% Obama districts.  Hoyer might even like this less-Democratic district better, as it’s also less African-American and thus the lesser likelihood of a Democratic primary challenge for Hoyer in the future.  Van Hollen’s new district is one, btw, where the John Kerry percentage would be around 55% even under the new lines, as Obama’s improvement on Kerry was not as great in Montg. Co. and western MD as in other parts of the state (in all other districts drawn here, Kerry would have received at least approx. 53% of the vote).

While the black percentage in the new MD-4 and MD-7 will only be 50%+ black (which will satisfy the VRA), these districts will also be guaranteed to have continued black representation because in both districts, blacks as a percentage of the Democratic primary will still be at around 70%, and when it comes to the general election, the new MD-4 and MD-7 voted 70% Obama and 67% Obama, respectively.  

I have also kept the home of each incumbent in the district in which they currently are under the new lines.  Although my “TTP” scores are lower than in an ideal situation, each district manages to preserve at least 30% of the territory of the current district (but in most cases here, hovers around 40%, with the new MD-8 being an exception in that a full 56% of the population is preserved – although, ironically, the new MD-8 “looks” quite different on a map).

The second map I drew for fun is an EVIL 5-3 Republican gerrymander !  It’s possible to redraw Maryland in a manner where McCain wins 5 districts (albeit all 5 by the slightest margin) while Obama wins MD-4 and MD-7 by 92% and 90%, respectively, while MD-8 is 75% Obama.  Here it is:

MAP 2: Evil 5-3 GOP gerrymander

Photobucket

Under the map above, MD-4 and MD-7 are 68% and 69% black, respectively, while the new MD-8 is only at 49% white (blacks and Hispanics both at 17% and Asians at 13%).  This would be a GOP dream come true.  Perhaps Kratovil or Hoyer could still win the new MD-1 but it wouldn’t be guaranteed.  The GOP could draft Ehrlich to run for his old MD-2 again, or perhaps the new MD-3, as Ehrlich grew up in Arbutus.  Bartlett could still face a strong Democratic challenge in his new MD-6, but another GOPer could be a lot stronger there.  The new MD-5 could easily go Republican if they ran an Anne Arundel-based moderate to conservative candidate.  It’s interesting to note that under the EVIL GOP plan, the districts appear fairly compact and overall seem to respect county lines and “communities of interest” (!) a lot more than the first map I drew.

Redistricting New York

(This diary is cross-posted on the Swing State Project and the Albany Project.)

Using Dave’s Redistricting Application I have drawn a plan for the state of New York.  Already, 27 out of 29 Representatives are Democrats.  However, the state is set to lose one seat in the 2012 redistricting, and several current Democrats hold marginal districts.  

This plan tries to eliminate the remaining two Republicans.  NY-26, held by Christopher Lee in the western part of the state, is divided up among neighboring districts (and those districts themselves are drawn in a way which still favors Democrats) while Peter King’s district, NY-3 on Long Island, is made considerably more Democratic, whereby he will have a harder time getting re-elected.  At the same time, currently marginal districts, like NY-1, NY-13, NY-19, NY-20, NY-23 and NY-24 are made more Democratic.  NY-29, Eric Massa’s district, is renumbered NY-26 (as the 29th seat is eliminated because of reapportionment) and that district also becomes more Democratic.

Under the plan here, ALL districts in New York state voted by at least 54% for Obama and at most 45% for McCain.  This is possible because upstate New York (the area north of Westchester Co. and the less Democratic part of the state) voted approximately 54% for Obama, and 45% for McCain.  Therefore, it’s possible to create all districts in upstate which are 54% Obama/45% McCain (or 54/44 or 55/44) if one draws the lines correctly.  I have managed to do so, while at the same time paying attention to incumbent protection and keeping the districts relatively compact (it took a while to get it just right).  Long Island (Nassau and Suffolk Counties) only voted about 53/46 Obama/McCain, but by extending parts of some districts into New York City, it’s also possible to have all districts there at least 54/45 (in fact, only NY-1 and NY-3 are made to be 54/45; NY-2, NY-4 and NY-5 are all at least 57/42.  Staten Island-based NY-13 was, ofcourse, easy; all you have to do is combine parts of the current district with Manhattan.

I believe the 54/45 Obama/McCain margin for a safe Democratic district is applicable to New York.  If this were California, for example, I would not feel such a district safe at all.  But Obama’s improvement on John Kerry was not that high in New York, and in a few districts Obama actually performed the same as or marginally worse than Kerry (NY-3, NY-5, NY-9).  The other thing is that Democrats have managed to win districts in the state which are currently significantly less Democratic than the 54/45 margin: NY-1 (52/48 Obama/McCain), NY-13 (49-51), NY-19 (51/48), NY-20 (51/48), NY-23 (52/47), NY-24 (51/48), NY-29 (48/51).  I feel that if Democrats can win these marginal seats in the state, then any district that’s at least 54/45 should be safe.

Like with my redistricting plan for California, I include my “TTP” number here.  I feel that it’s a good measure relating to incumbent protection — something that has to be a significant factor in any realistic redistricting proposal.  (The “TTP” number is Territory Transfer Percentage, for lack of a better label.  It provides the percentage of the new district’s territory, in terms of population, that was formerly a part of the current district.  So, for example, in NY-7, the “TTP” is 77.  The proposed district contains much of the same territory as the current district, and 77% of the new district’s population was formerly a part of the old district; in other words, Joseph Crowley would be looking at a district where 77% of his new constituents are the same as his old constituents.)  I was aiming for a “TTP” score of at least 55 for each district, and was successful in all but two districts — NY-6, which loses a lot of territory in order to make the new NY-3 more Democratic, and the new NY-26, which combines much of Eric Massa’s current territory with parts of Chris Lee’s district and parts of Buffalo currently in Louise Slaughter’s NY-28.

Last but not least, this plan protects all minority-majority districts in the state.  The black percentage in several districts goes down a bit, but they are still drawn to ensure African-American representation.  (Demographic stats below include percentages for groups that total 10% or more of the population of a particular district).

MAP:

Photobucket

District 1:

Incumbent: Timothy Bishop

Current District:  Obama 52; McCain 48

Proposed District:  Obama 54; McCain 45

Demographics: white 71; hispanic 17

TTP: 69

The district continues to encompass the eastern half of Long Island, albeit some areas are new to the district.  NY-1 is made more Democratic by taking out very Republican Smithtown and more marginal areas in Brookhaven and then adding very Democratic areas in Islip.

District 2:  

Incumbent: Steve Israel

Current District:  Obama 56; McCain 43

Proposed District:  Obama 57; McCain 42

Demographics: white 63; black 16; hispanic 13

TTP: 61

The district is made marginally more Democratic as the lines are redrawn.  The new district is centered on Huntington and Babylon in western Suffolk Co. but also branches out east to include parts of Islip and Brookhaven and west to include parts of Oyster Bay and Hempstead in Suffolk Co.

District 3:  

Incumbent: Peter King

Current District:  Obama 47; McCain 52

Proposed District:  Obama 54; McCain 45

Demographics: white 66; black 21

TTP: 70

Much of the district remains the same.  What makes the reconfigured district considerably more Democratic is an arm (approximately one-fourth of the new district’s population) that now extends into heavily African-American areas in Queens.

District 4:  

Incumbent: Carolyn McCarthy

Current District:  Obama 58; McCain 41

Proposed District:  Obama 59; McCain 40

Demographics: white 60; black 15; hispanic 13

TTP: 71

Remains similar to the current Nassau County district.  Some very Democratic areas in Hempstead are taken out to become part of the new NY-2.  To make up for the loss, NY-4 extends slightly into neighboring areas of Queens.  The result is a marginally more Democratic district.

District 5:  

Incumbent: Gary Ackerman

Current District:  Obama 63; McCain 36

Proposed District:  Obama 57; McCain 42

Demographics: white 48; asian 23; hispanic 23

TTP: 75

The new district continues to include most of the current territory in Queens and northern Nassau County.  It is extended eastward along the northern shore of Long Island, all the way to Smithtown.  The new lines drop the Democratic percentage, but at 57/42 Obama/McCain (and approximately 57/42 Kerry/Bush as well) the new district should be safe for us.

District 6:

Incumbent: Gregory Meeks

Current District:  Obama 89; McCain 11

Proposed District:  Obama 79; McCain 21

Demographics: black 45; white 22; hispanic 18; asian 10

TTP: 52

The new NY-6 contains most of the territory of the current NY-6.  Some African-American areas in the east are taken out to strengthen Long Island-based districts.  To make up for the loss, NY-6 extends west into African-American areas in Brooklyn.  The new NY-6 is 45% black versus 52% for the current district (using data from Dave’s Application, not the 2000 census figures, as the numbers have changed over the decade), but the next largest ethnic/racial group, whites, are only at 22% in the district, so an African-American Representative is basically assured here.

District 7:  

Incumbent: Joseph Crowley

Current District:  Obama 79; McCain 20

Proposed District:  Obama 79; McCain 21

Demographics: hispanic 39; white 30; black 14; asian 13

TTP: 77

Remains very similar to the current district which stretches across parts of Queens and the Bronx.  The largest ethnic/racial group here are Hispanics (at 42% in the current district and 39% under the proposed lines).

District 8:  

Incumbent: Jerrold Nadler

Current District:  Obama 74; McCain 26

Proposed District:  Obama 65; McCain 34

Demographics: white 69; asian 15; hispanic 10

TTP: 59

The new district contains much of the same territory as the current district — an interesting combination of very progressive areas in Manhattan and more conservative  parts of Brooklyn (large Orthodox Jewish population in that part of Brooklyn).

District 9:  

Incumbent: Anthony Weiner

Current District:  Obama 55; McCain 44

Proposed District:  Obama 64; McCain 35

Demographics: white 48; asian 24; hispanic 20

TTP: 58

The new NY-9 is more compact than the current NY-9 in that it’s confined entirely to Queens.  The more conservative Orthodox Jewish areas in Brooklyn are taken out and the partisan numbers go up for the Democratic Party.

District 10:  

Incumbent: Edolphus Towns

Current District:  Obama 91; McCain 9

Proposed District:  Obama 84; McCain 15

Demographics: black 45; white 24; hispanic 22

TTP: 68

The new Brooklyn-based district is largely similar to the current one.  The black percentage goes down from 59% to 45% but, in circumstances similar to NY-6, continued representation by an African-American Congressman or Congresswoman is assured here.

District 11:  

Incumbent: Yvette Clarke

Current District:  Obama 91; McCain 9

Proposed District:  Obama 82; McCain 18

Demographics: black 47; white 34; hispanic 11

TTP: 76

See District 10 above.  The new district contains a vast majority of the current territory of NY-11.  The black percentage goes down from 56% to 47% but that is still enough to assure representation by an African-American.

District 12:  

Incumbent: Nydia Velázquez

Current District:  Obama 86; McCain 13

Proposed District:  Obama 86; McCain 13

Demographics: hispanic 45; white 25; asian 22

TTP: 85

The new district remains very similar to the current Hispanic-plurality one (the current district is about 47% Hispanic according to data in Dave’s Application, while the new one is a couple points less Hispanic).

District 13:

Incumbent: Michael McMahon

Current District:  Obama 49; McCain 51

Proposed District:  Obama 59; McCain 40

Demographics: white 69; hispanic 13

TTP: 78

The new district combines all of Staten Island and parts of Brooklyn just over the Verrazano Bridge with very progressive areas in Manhattan (mostly the Upper West Side).  As you would guess, the Democratic percentage surges, even with less than a quarter of the new district’s territory coming out of Manhattan.

District 14:  

Incumbent: Carolyn Maloney

Current District:  Obama 78; McCain 21

Proposed District:  Obama 81; McCain 18

Demographics: white 67; hispanic 14

TTP: 69

The new district is now confined entirely to Manhattan, as the Queens areas are taken out.  The district becomes marginally even more Democratic than the current progressive stronghold.

District 15:  

Incumbent: Charles Rangel

Current District:  Obama 93; McCain 6

Proposed District:  Obama 95; McCain 4

Demographics: hispanic 47; black 37; white 10

TTP: 63

New district is similarly centered on Harlem and other areas in northern Manhattan.  The district crosses over to encompass parts of the Bronx, and the African-American percentage goes up from 29% in the current district to 37% under the new lines (while the Hispanic percentage goes up slightly from 46% to 47%).

District 16:  

Incumbent: José Serrano

Current District:  Obama 95; McCain 5

Proposed District:  Obama 95; McCain 5

Demographics: hispanic 66; black 28

TTP: 95

Remains very, very similar to the current Bronx-based district.

District 17:

Incumbent: Eliot Engel

Current District:  Obama 72; McCain 28

Proposed District:  Obama 60; McCain 39

Demographics: white 59; black 18; hispanic 16

TTP: 67

The new district includes much of the same territory in the Bronx, and Westchester and Rockland Counties.  Parts of the Bronx are detached while the district expands outward into Orange County (this is geographically necessary, because of population shifts between New York City and the rest of the state).  The new district becomes a little less Democratic, but is still very safe.

District 18:  

Incumbent: Nita Lowey

Current District:  Obama 62; McCain 38

Proposed District:  Obama 61; McCain 37

Demographics: white 63; hispanic 19

TTP: 95

Westchester-based NY-18 remains very similar in shape and partisan preference to the current district.

District 19:  

Incumbent: John Hall

Current District:  Obama 51; McCain 48

Proposed District:  Obama 54; McCain 45

Demographics: white 74; hispanic 12

TTP: 62

The new district NY-19 becomes more Democratic as areas in Orange and Dutchess Counties are rearranged.

District 20:  

Incumbent: Scott Murphy

Current District:  Obama 51; McCain 48

Proposed District:  Obama 54; McCain 45

Demographics: white 88

TTP: 68

The district remains similar to the current one, but is made more Democratic, as more Republican areas (Greene Co. and part of Delaware Co.) are taken out, while part of Albany is added.

District 21:  

Incumbent: Paul Tonko

Current District:  Obama 58; McCain 40

Proposed District:  Obama 54; McCain 45

Demographics: white 87

TTP: 67

The new district continues to be centered on the Albany area.  It becomes less Democratic as it expands north and west into more conservative territory, but remains a safe seat.

District 22:  

Incumbent: Maurice Hinchey

Current District:  Obama 59; McCain 39

Proposed District:  Obama 54; McCain 44

Demographics: white 85

TTP: 68

The new NY-22 is similar in many ways to the current one.  Progressive areas around   Ithaca/Cornell University are taken out to shore up the neighboring NY-24, but the Democratic percentage here still remains safe.

District 23:  

Incumbent: Bill Owens

Current District:  Obama 52; McCain 47

Proposed District:  Obama 54; McCain 45

Demographics: white 89

TTP: 69

The new district combines the more Democratic parts of the current NY-23 with Democratic territory around Rochester (as well as GOP-leaning but less-populated territory in Monroe Co., east of Rochester).  The overall Democratic percentage goes up by a few points.

District 24:  

Incumbent: Michael Arcuri

Current District:  Obama 51; McCain 48

Proposed District:  Obama 54; McCain 45

Demographics: white 86

TTP: 58

Arcuri had a close call during his 2008 re-election bid, so the more Democratic district created by this plan should help.

District 25:  

Incumbent: Daniel Maffei

Current District:  Obama 56; McCain 43

Proposed District:  Obama 54; McCain 45

Demographics: white 86

TTP: 56

NY-25 continues to include most of Syracuse and Onondaga Co. (although parts have been taken out to shore up the neighboring NY-24), and stretches west towards the suburbs of Rochester.

District 26:  

Incumbents: Eric Massa, Christopher Lee

Current District:  Obama 48; McCain 51 (current NY-29); Lee’s district, current NY-26, is Obama 46; McCain 52

Proposed District:  Obama 54; McCain 45

Demographics: white 79; black 14

TTP: 44

This new district combines much of Massa’s territory in NY-29 (44% of the new district), parts of Lee’s (22% of the new district) and the part of Erie Co. that is currently in NY-28 (31% of the new district), with a small remainder coming out of the current NY-27.  It stretches from Massa’s home in Corning to encompass parts of Buffalo currently in NY-28.  Lee’s home is put into the new NY-26 but his district is split among neighboring ones (22% to the new NY-26 here, 40% to NY-28, and the remainder split between

NY-27, NY-25 and NY-23).

District 27:  

Incumbent: Brian Higgins

Current District:  Obama 54; McCain 44

Proposed District:  Obama 54; McCain 45

Demographics: white 88

TTP: 87

This Buffalo-based district remains very similar to the current configuration.

District 28:  

Incumbent: Louise Slaughter

Current District:  Obama 69; McCain 30

Proposed District:  Obama 55; McCain 44

Demographics: white 75; black 14

TTP: 56

The new district looks quite similar on a map (stretching from Rochester to Niagara Falls) but the Democratic percentage goes down as parts of Buffalo are taken out.  Nevertheless the seat remains safe for a Democrat.

So that’s my plan for New York.  Thank you for any comments or suggestions.

Redistricting California, Version 2.0

(Cross-posted on Calitics and the Daily Kos)

Back in August I posted a diary here re. redistricting California:

http://www.swingstateproject.c…

Since that time, Dave’s Redistricting Application has become available for the state.  The Application is an invaluable tool in doing these maps.  It has helped me greatly in trying to come up with a new, better version of a plan for the state.  I have also taken reader comments from my last diary into consideration in drawing this new plan for California.  The comments have helped me greatly in terms of refining the districts here.  As several readers rightfully noted, several of the districts I drew last time were not Democratic enough to assure that they would be virtually guaranteed to elect Democrats, and parts of the previous map were too gerrymandered.  Here’s my new version …

Like last time, I had several main goals in mind when redistricting California:

1.  Increase Democratic representation in the state delegation.

2.  Draw relatively compact districts that largely adhere to county and community lines.

3.  Increase number of minority-majority districts in the state.

4.  Protect incumbents (at least the Democratic ones).  Towards this goal, I have added a “measuring stick” of sorts to the analysis below.  For each district I provide a “TTP” number (Territory Transfer Percentage – for lack of a better label !) which does nothing more than provide the percentage of the new district’s territory (in terms of population) that was formerly a part of the current district (the Application makes this really easy.)  So, for example, in CA-7, the “TTP” is 79.  The proposed district contains much of the same territory as the current district, and 79% of the new district’s population was formerly a part of the old district; in other words, George Miller would be looking at a district where 79% of his new constituents are the same as his old constituents.

Under this plan, 35 districts are created where Obama had at least 62% of the vote and McCain had at most 36%.  Another 6 districts are ones which are 61-37, 61-38 or 60-38 Obama-McCain.  (All 41 of the districts mentioned went for John Kerry in 2004; including 34 where Bush had 45% of the vote or less in 2004.)  1 district was won by Obama 52-46.  The remaining 11 districts were all won by McCain (and in all 11 districts Bush received 60% or more of the vote in 2004).

In a “neutral” political climate, this plan should result in a net gain of 7 seats for the Democrats (Districts 3, 24, 25, 26, 45, 46, 50).  One additional seat, District 48, might prove to be competitive in the future.  Additionally, this map strengthens several Democratic-held districts, most notably District 11.

Under the new map, 4 new Hispanic-majority seats are created (Districts 16, 25, 26, 46) although it’s really only a net gain of 3 as CA-32 is turned from majority Hispanic to plurality Asian.  Additionally, the new CA-45 becomes 49% Hispanic and may become Hispanic-majority in the future, although in many parts of California, a district needs to be around 60% or more Hispanic to ensure representation.  All-in-all, 21 of 53 districts under the new plan are either Hispanic majority or plurality (including several GOP seats, where many Hispanics are still unregistered or are ineligible because they are non-citizens).  Several existing Hispanic-majority seats (most notably CA-28 and CA-51) become even more Hispanic, where the incumbents there may face a challenge in the Democratic primary.

Districts 15 and 32 become plurality Asian districts.  (Btw, the demographic stats below include percentages for groups that total 10% or more of the population of a particular district).

MAPS:

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

District 1:

Incumbent: Mike Thompson

Current District:  Obama 66; McCain 32

Proposed District:  Obama 64; McCain 34 (Kerry 58; Bush 41)

Demographics: white 68; hispanic 21

TTP: 34

This district combines parts of the current CA-1 (Napa and Lake Counties and parts of Sonoma Co. — Sonoma, Healdsburg) with added parts of Sonoma Co. (Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Cotati, Sebastopol), and parts of the central valley (including Chico and most of Butte Co.).  The new district is a bit less Democratic than the current one, but should still be very safe for blue dog Thompson (though he’s really not as conservative as other blue dogs).  Even though only about 34% of the new district’s territory is currently part of CA-1, another 35% is taken out of areas in Sonoma Co. currently in CA-6 which are even more progressive.  The remainder is in the central valley, but Thompson’s involvement with agricultural issues should be an added bonus in the rural areas of the district.

District 2:  

Incumbent: Wally Herger

Current District:  Obama 43; McCain 55

Proposed District:  Obama 39; McCain 59 (Kerry 33; Bush 66)

Demographics: white 72; hispanic 16

TTP: 69

Combines the most Republican parts of northern California into one district – all of Siskiyou, Modoc, Lassen, Shasta, Tehama, Plumas, Sierra, Yuba and Sutter Counties, as well as most of Colusa, small parts of Butte, and some of the most Republican parts of Placer.  District becomes even more Republican than the current CA-2.

District 3:  

Incumbent: Dan Lungren

Current District:  Obama 49; McCain 49

Proposed District:  Obama 61; McCain 37 (Kerry 52; Bush 47)

Demographics: white 42; hispanic 23; asian 18; black 10

TTP: 17

The new district combines all of progressive Yolo County with purple to blue-leaning parts of Sacramento Co.; the district stays in the same general area but over 80% of the territory here is new.  A Democrat should do well running here.  In 2008 Lungren only won the current CA-3 by a 49.5 to 44 margin.  Democratic Gain !

District 4:  

Incumbent: Tom McClintock

Current District:  Obama 44; McCain 54

Proposed District:  Obama 45; McCain 53 (Kerry 39; Bush 60)

Demographics: white 80; hispanic 11

TTP: 75

The new CA-4 includes all of Nevada, El Dorado, Amador, Calaveras, Alpine and Mono Counties, as well as parts of Placer and Sacramento Counties.  Charlie Brown might have won last year by a sliver under the new lines (he only lost to McClintock by 0.5 point) but the new district is nevertheless a Republican one.

District 5:  

Incumbent: Doris Matsui

Current District:  Obama 70; McCain 28

Proposed District:  Obama 64; McCain 34 (Kerry 55; Bush 44)

Demographics: white 57; hispanic 19; asian 10

TTP: 55

The new district combines most of the city of Sacramento with GOP-leaning suburbs in Sacramento Co.  The Democratic percentage goes down around 6 points, but the district remains safely Democratic.

District 6:

Incumbent: Lynn Woolsey

Current District:  Obama 76; McCain 22

Proposed District:  Obama 72; McCain 26 (Kerry 66; Bush 33)

Demographics: white 74; hispanic 15

TTP: 58

The new CA-6 includes Woolsey’s current territory — all of Marin and parts of Sonoma Counties.  Additional parts of the north coast are attached — all of Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino and Trinity Counties, as well as a part of northern Sonoma around Cloverdale.  The Democratic margin goes down a bit, but the progressive Woolsey should feel right at home in her new 72% Obama district that stretches along the entire length of the north coast from the Golden Gate to the Oregon border.

District 7:  

Incumbent: George Miller

Current District:  Obama 72; McCain 27

Proposed District:  Obama 66; McCain 33 (Kerry 61; Bush 38)

Demographics: white 43; hispanic 23; asian 15; black 12

TTP: 79

The boundaries of the new CA-7 adhere pretty closely to those of the current district.  The lines include most of Solano County as well as parts of Contra Costa Co. — Martinez,  Pinole, Hercules, San Pablo, Clayton and part of Concord.  The Democratic percentage goes down by about 6 points, as the district loses Richmond and expands more into Solano, but the district remains solidly Democratic.

District 8:  

Incumbent: Nancy Pelosi

Current District:  Obama 85; McCain 12

Proposed District:  Obama 85; McCain 13 (Kerry 85; Bush 14)

Demographics: white 44; asian 30; hispanic 15

TTP: 96

The San Francisco based CA-8 changes ever so slightly, as areas in the Sunset district are added to maintain equal population.

District 9:  

Incumbent: Barbara Lee

Current District:  Obama 88; McCain 10

Proposed District:  Obama 76; McCain 22 (Kerry 73; Bush 25)

Demographics: white 43; hispanic 20; black 17; asian 15

TTP: 56

Combines ultra-progressive areas in Oakland, Berkeley, Albany and Emeryville with more conservative (relatively speaking) areas in Contra Costa County (Moraga, Orinda, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Danville, San Ramon, Brentwood), as well as Livermore in eastern Alameda Co.  Most African-American areas in Oakland remain in CA-9, even though other parts of Oakland are lost to the new CA-11.  The Democratic percentage goes down a lot, but as it started at 88% Obama, it can afford to fall a lot and still leave this a very solidly Democratic district.

District 10:  

Incumbent: John Garamendi

Current District:  Obama 65; McCain 33

Proposed District:  Obama 66; McCain 32 (Kerry 60; Bush 39)

Demographics: white 48; hispanic 26; asian 11; black 10

TTP: 51

The new district is largely similar to the current one. Like the current district, it includes communities in Contra Costa, Solano and Sacramento Counties (some, such as Richmond in Contra Costa, have been added).  Livermore in Alameda Co. is taken out and is substituted by the addition of Lodi in San Joaquin Co.  Overall, the Democratic percentage goes up slightly.

District 11:  

Incumbent: Jerry McNerney

Current District:  Obama 54; McCain 44

Proposed District:  Obama 61; McCain 37 (Kerry 52; Bush 47)

Demographics: white 57; hispanic 21; asian 11

TTP: 34

Much of the district remains the same. Some light-blue to purple areas in Contra Costa, San Joaquin and Santa Clara Counties are detached while the district expands into parts of Oakland (blue as can be) and Stanislaus Co (purple).  The expansion into Oakland alone makes the Democratic percentage go up enough to make this a safer Democratic district.  Even though only about 34% of the new district’s territory is currently part of CA-11, another 31% comes out of Oakland and other progressive areas currently in CA-9 (the expansion into Oakland doesn’t hurt CA-9 at all).  

District 12:  

Incumbent: Jackie Speier

Current District:  Obama 74; McCain 24

Proposed District:  Obama 74; McCain 24 (Kerry 72; Bush 27)

Demographics: white 44; asian 30; hispanic 20

TTP: 91

The new district remains very similar to the current one.  Boundaries in San Francisco shift a bit, while in San Mateo Co., a part of Redwood City is added, so that now all of it is in CA-12.

District 13:

Incumbent: Pete Stark

Current District:  Obama 74; McCain 24

Proposed District:  Obama 74; McCain 24 (Kerry 71; Bush 28)

Demographics: asian 33; white 32; hispanic 24

TTP: 94

The new district is very similar to the current one.  It includes Fremont, Newark, Union City, Hayward, San Leandro and Alameda, and remains plurality Asian.

District 14:  

Incumbent: Anna Eshoo

Current District:  Obama 73; McCain 25

Proposed District:  Obama 72; McCain 26 (Kerry 67; Bush 31)

Demographics: white 59; asian 19; hispanic 15

TTP: 59

This is another Bay Area district that stays demographically similar to the current seat under this plan.  The district continues to closely overlap with Silicon Valley; it loses parts of Sunnyvale to the new CA-15 and Santa Cruz Co. areas to CA-17, but expands into new territory in Santa Clara Co. (Campbell, Los Gatos and parts of San Jose).

District 15:  

Incumbent: Mike Honda

Current District:  Obama 68; McCain 30

Proposed District:  Obama 68; McCain 30 (Kerry 63; Bush 36)

Demographics: asian 43; white 33; hispanic 18

TTP: 63

New district is centered on San Jose; though the boundaries change somewhat.  The district becomes plurality Asian, though it should be noted that the “Asian” population here includes persons from East Asia, South Asia and parts of the Middle East.

District 16:  

Incumbent: Zoe Lofgren

Current District:  Obama 70; McCain 29

Proposed District:  Obama 63; McCain 35 (Kerry 57; Bush 42)

Demographics: hispanic 51; white 25; asian 18

TTP: 58

The new CA-16 combines the San Jose core of the current district with more conservative areas in the central valley.  The Democratic percentage goes down somewhat, but it remains a safely Democratic seat.  The district becomes majority Hispanic, but only by a bare majority.  Lofgren should have no trouble winning here as long as she wants to run, but if she decides to retire the seat may elect a Hispanic representative.

District 17:

Incumbent: Sam Farr

Current District:  Obama 72; McCain 26

Proposed District:  Obama 63; McCain 35 (Kerry 57; Bush 42)

Demographics: white 62; hispanic 26

TTP: 50

The new district includes all of Santa Cruz County, coastal areas of Monterey County, interior areas of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties, as well as portions of southern Santa Clara County (Morgan Hill and parts of San Jose).  It remains safely Democratic.

District 18:  

Incumbent: Dennis Cardoza

Current District:  Obama 59; McCain 39

Proposed District:  Obama 60; McCain 38 (Kerry 50; Bush 49)

Demographics: hispanic 44; white 30; asian 14

TTP: 68

CA-18 remains similar to the current district in many respects, though it doesn’t look quite the same on a map.  Stockton and other areas in San Joaquin Co., parts of Modesto, and areas in Merced Co., which is Cardoza’s home area, form much of the district.  It remains plurality Hispanic.  The partisan breakdown inches up in the Democrat’s direction.  Blue dog Cardoza should have no trouble winning here.

District 19:  

Incumbent: George Radanovich

Current District:  Obama 46; McCain 52

Proposed District:  Obama 41; McCain 57 (Kerry 34; Bush 65)

Demographics: white 56; hispanic 33

TTP: 39

The new district becomes more Republican than the current one, as areas in Fresno County are shifted around; the goal is to make the neighboring CA-20 a bit more Democratic, as well as create a new Hispanic-majority, Democratic district next door (the new CA-25).  The new 19th includes all of Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties, most of Madera Co., and parts of Fresno, Kings and Tulare Counties.

District 20:  

Incumbent: Jim Costa

Current District:  Obama 60; McCain 39

Proposed District:  Obama 61; McCain 37 (Kerry 52; Bush 47)

Demographics: hispanic 69; white 16

TTP: 98

The district remains very similar to the current one, with a few areas shifted around to make it marginally more Democratic.  The district continues to include parts of the cities of Fresno and Bakersfield, as well as more rural areas in between.  (My “TTP” here, 98, may seem off, as the district doesn’t look exactly like the old one.  Some populated areas in northern Kings Co. have indeed been taken out, but as the TTP is a measure of what percentage of the NEW district was formerly a part of the old, any areas taken OUT would have no effect on the measure as they are no longer a part of the NEW district.)

District 21:  

Incumbent: Devin Nunes

Current District:  Obama 42; McCain 56

Proposed District:  Obama 47; McCain 51 (Kerry 37; Bush 62)

Demographics: hispanic 45; white 41

TTP: 40

The new district continues to include much of Tulare County, but also expands into new territory — parts of what is currently CA-25 (Inyo Co. and western portions of San Bernardino Co.).   The new partisan numbers may appear competitive (and the district is plurality Hispanic), but it should be noted that the new district had one of the highest Democratic jumps between 2004 and 2008 (and much of the Hispanic population here is undocumented or unregistered).  Fundamentally, this still remains a very Republican district; the future may hold a different scenario (?).

District 22:  

Incumbent: Kevin McCarthy

Current District:  Obama 38; McCain 60

Proposed District:  Obama 38; McCain 60 (Kerry 30; Bush 69)

Demographics: white 57; hispanic 28

TTP: 83

In most ways, the new CA-22 remains geographically and politically similar to the current district.  The San Luis Obispo Co. interior areas are detached.  The new CA-22 is politically the most conservative in California.

District 23:  

Incumbent: Lois Capps

Current District:  Obama 66; McCain 32

Proposed District:  Obama 66; McCain 32 (Kerry 58; Bush 40)

Demographics: hispanic 46; white 44

TTP: 98

The new district is almost identical to the current one, following the coast from Oxnard through Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties.

District 24:  

Incumbent: Elton Gallegly

Current District:  Obama 51; McCain 48

Proposed District:  Obama 62; McCain 36 (Kerry 55; Bush 44)

Demographics: white 68; hispanic 19

TTP: 56

The new district combines much of Ventura Co. with parts of Los Angeles Co. (Malibu, Santa Monica, Calabassas, Hidden Hills, Agoura Hills, Westlake Village and parts of the city of Los Angeles).  The new lines and partisan numbers don’t look great for Gallegly.  He won with 58% last year against token opposition in a district that is much more Republican and his Simi Valley home is cut out of the district under this plan.  It should also be noted that Gallegly almost retired in 2006.  This all leads to a likely Democratic Gain !

District 25:  

Incumbent: none (district completely relocated)

Current District:  Obama 49; McCain 48 (but not really applicable as district relocated from southern California where it is a GOP district)

Proposed District:  Obama 61; McCain 38 (Kerry 51; Bush 47)

Demographics: hispanic 60; white 27

TTP: 0

CA-25 is a new Hispanic-majority district (at 60% of the population) encompassing much of interior Monterey County (including Salinas), all of San Benito Co. and areas of Madera, Fresno and Santa Clara Counties.  This is a major agricultural area; it is designed to elect a Hispanic-American Democratic Rep.  Democratic Gain !

District 26:  

Incumbent: David Dreier

Current District:  Obama 51; McCain 47

Proposed District:  Obama 63; McCain 35 (Kerry 56; Bush 43)

Demographics: hispanic 61; white 22; asian 12

TTP: 18

This new district encompasses only a few of the areas currently in CA-26 — San Dimas, La Verne and Claremont.  It also includes El Monte, South El Monte, Irwindale, Baldwin Park, La Puente, Covina, West Covina and Azusa.  The district becomes Hispanic majority, and a solid majority one at that.  Last year Dreier had 53% to 40% for the Democrat and 7% for a Libertarian candidate.  Good luck to Dreier if he seeks re-election here.  Very likely, a Democratic Gain !

District 27:  

Incumbents: Brad Sherman; Howard McKeon

Current District:  Obama 66; McCain 32 (Obama 49-McCain 48 in McKeon’s CA-25, which is relocated to central California)

Proposed District:  Obama 64; McCain 34 (Kerry 57; Bush 41)

Demographics: white 52; hispanic 31

TTP: 33

The bulk of this district is made up of communities within the city of Los Angeles (North Hollywood, San Fernando valley neighborhoods, etc.).  Also attached is Santa Clarita to the north.  The new district is safely Democratic.  Even though only about 33% of the new district’s territory is currently part of CA-27, another 42% comes out of what is now CA-28, which is an even more progressive area.  The remainder is Santa Clarita and vicinity (McKeon’s CA-25).

District 28:  

Incumbent: Howard Berman

Current District:  Obama 76; McCain 22

Proposed District:  Obama 66; McCain 32 (Kerry 59; Bush 40)

Demographics: hispanic 64; white 22

TTP: 52

This district becomes even more Hispanic than the current version.  The new lines include a good part of the San Fernando Valley as well as Palmdale in northern LA County.  The district becomes less Democratic, but the only upset here could occur in the Democratic primary if a Hispanic-American candidate makes a run for the seat.  Perhaps Berman would decide to run in a primary against Brad Sherman under this map, as over 40% of Sherman’s new district includes territory currently a part of CA-28.

District 29:  

Incumbent: Adam Schiff

Current District:  Obama 68; McCain 30

Proposed District:  Obama 63; McCain 35 (Kerry 56; Bush 42)

Demographics: white 49; hispanic 25; asian 15

TTP: 61

The new CA-29 includes most of Schiff’s current territory in Pasadena, Glendale and Burbank.  Areas to the east are added (Sierra Madre, Arcadia, Monrovia, Bradbury, Glendora, La Canada-Flintridge) — mostly from the current CA-26.  The Democratic margin goes down somewhat, but this is still a safely Democratic seat.

District 30:  

Incumbent: Henry Waxman

Current District:  Obama 70; McCain 28

Proposed District:  Obama 65; McCain 33 (Kerry 60; Bush 39)

Demographics: white 63; hispanic 20; asian 10

TTP: 46

This westside LA district includes communities currently in CA-30 (Beverly Hills, West Hollywood and various parts of Los Angeles) as well as newly attached areas in Los Angeles (San Fernando Valley) and in Ventura Co. (Simi Valley, Moorpark).  Santa Monica, Malibu and a few other areas are taken out and attached to the neighboring CA-24.  The district remains a Democratic bastion, and a quite progressive one at that (and yes, the Reagan Library and West Hollywood are now in the same district !)

District 31:  

Incumbent: Xavier Beccera

Current District:  Obama 80; McCain 18

Proposed District:  Obama 80; McCain 18 (Kerry 77; Bush 22)

Demographics: hispanic 64; white 15; asian 14

TTP: 76

This central Los Angeles district shifts westward a bit, but for the most part (including partisan demographics) remains as is.

District 32:  

Incumbent: Judy Chu

Current District:  Obama 68; McCain 30

Proposed District:  Obama 62; McCain 36 (Kerry 56; Bush 43)

Demographics: asian 42; hispanic 37; white 16

TTP: 28

The new CA-32 runs from a part of East Los Angeles through Monterey Park, Alhambra, South Pasadena, San Marino, Temple City, San Gabriel, Rosemead, Walnut, Diamond Bar and areas in between.  The district becomes plurality Asian.  Many Hispanic-majority areas of the current CA-32 are detached in order to create the new Hispanic-majority CA-26 just to the north and east of the new CA-32.

District 33:  

Incumbent: Diane Watson

Current District:  Obama 87; McCain 12

Proposed District:  Obama 88; McCain 11 (Kerry 84; Bush 15)

Demographics: hispanic 46; black 29; white 12

TTP: 70

The new CA-33 expands somewhat into south central LA to keep the black percentage as high as possible here, although as south central is rapidly becoming majority Hispanic, the resulting district is only 29% black.  Also added is the Westchester area around LAX., while the Silver Lake/Griffith Park area is taken out of the district.

District 34:  

Incumbent: Lucille Roybal-Allard

Current District:  Obama 75; McCain 23

Proposed District:  Obama 76; McCain 22 (Kerry 70; Bush 29)

Demographics: hispanic 77; white 10

TTP: 76

The new district is very similar to the current one, including downtown Los Angeles, Downey, and everything in between, as well as new territory north of downtown.  Bellflower is detached from the district.

District 35:  

Incumbent: Maxine Waters

Current District:  Obama 84; McCain 14

Proposed District:  Obama 73; McCain 25 (Kerry 68; Bush 31)

Demographics: hispanic 45; black 28; white 15

TTP: 36

There’s only one way the new district here could have been drawn !  Yes … the heart of south central LA/Watts and Inglewood are combined with the Palos Verdes peninsula.  Also included are Carson, the Wilmington and San Pedro areas of LA, and Avalon on Santa Catalina Island.  Even though only about 36% of the new district’s territory is currently part of CA-35, another 26% is taken out of areas currently in the districts of African-American Representatives Diane Watson and Laura Richardson.  The Democratic percentage falls by over 10 points, but Waters should still be very safe in the resulting 73% Obama district.

District 36:  

Incumbent: Jane Harman

Current District:  Obama 64; McCain 34

Proposed District:  Obama 64; McCain 34 (Kerry 59; Bush 40)

Demographics: white 42; hispanic 30; asian 17

TTP: 69

The new CA-36 is similar to the current district hugging Santa Monica Bay. Some communities are detached (Wilmington and San Pedro areas of LA.) while others are attached (Hawthorne, Lawndale, Gardena), but the partisan demographics remain the same.

District 37:  

Incumbents: Laura Richardson; Dana Rohrabacher

Current District:  Obama 80; McCain 19 (Obama 48-McCain 50 in Rohrabacher’s CA-46, which is relocated to the inland empire area)

Proposed District:  Obama 65; McCain 33 (Kerry 59; Bush 39)

Demographics: hispanic 38; white 33; black 14; asian 11

TTP: 67

The new district includes most of Long Beach and Huntington Beach, as well as all of Seal Beach and Compton.  About 67% of the new district’s territory comes out of the current CA-37, while about 33% comes out of the current CA-46.  I know that Richardson is not the best California Democratic Rep, but even she should be safe in this seat (any semi-competent Democrat should be OK here.)  Ideally, a better Democrat wins here in a primary.  In the meantime, Rohrabacher can go back to concentrate on his surfing.

District 38:  

Incumbent: Grace Napolitano

Current District:  Obama 71; McCain 27

Proposed District:  Obama 63; McCain 35 (Kerry 57; Bush 42)

Demographics: hispanic 65; white 22

TTP: 47

This remains a majority-Hispanic district encompassing areas like Norwalk, Bellflower, Artesia, Santa Fe Springs, Pico Rivera, Montebello, Whittier and a part of East LA — all in Los Angeles County, as well as La Habra and parts of Fullerton and Placentia in Orange County.  Even though only 47% of the new district’s territory comes out of the current CA-38, another 28% comes out of neighboring Democratic-held seats, CA-34 and CA-39; the remaining 25% comes out of currently GOP-held seats.

District 39:  

Incumbent: Linda Sánchez

Current District:  Obama 65; McCain 32

Proposed District:  Obama 66; McCain 32 (Kerry 59; Bush 40)

Demographics: hispanic 61; white 20; asian 10

TTP: 82

The new district is very similar to the current one, including parts of LA County — South Gate, Lynwood, Paramount, Lakewood, Hawaiian Gardens, Cerritos, La Mirada and a part of Long Beach.

District 40:  

Incumbent: Ed Royce

Current District:  Obama 47; McCain 51

Proposed District:  Obama 46; McCain 52 (Kerry 38; Bush 61)

Demographics: white 45; asian 26; hispanic 23

TTP: 57

The Orange Co.-based district is somewhat similar to the current one, but becomes slightly more Republican, as communities are shifted around.  Placentia, Orange, Villa Park and a part of Fullerton are detached, while Fountain Valley, Newport Beach and parts of Westminster, Huntington Beach and Garden Grove are added.

District 41:  

Incumbent: Jerry Lewis

Current District:  Obama 44; McCain 54

Proposed District:  Obama 44; McCain 54 (Kerry 37; Bush 62)

Demographics: white 59; hispanic 29

TTP: 69

This district includes much of central and eastern San Bernardino County, as well as parts of Riverside Co. (Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, La Quinta and Blythe.)

District 42:  

Incumbent: Gary Miller

Current District:  Obama 45; McCain 53

Proposed District:  Obama 42; McCain 56 (Kerry 34; Bush 65)

Demographics: white 60; hispanic 22; asian 12

TTP: 56

This is the “stereotypical” Orange County of Richard Nixon.  The district runs from his birthplace in Yorba Linda to his “summer White House” in San Clemente.  Also included are Brea, Orange, Villa Park, Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, parts of Placentia, Anaheim and San Juan Capistrano, as well as the Chino Hills part of San Bernardino Co. The new district becomes even more Republican than the current one.

District 43:  

Incumbent: Joe Baca

Current District:  Obama 68; McCain 30

Proposed District:  Obama 66; McCain 32 (Kerry 56; Bush 43)

Demographics: hispanic 60; white 20; black 12

TTP: 82

The new CA-43 inlcudes many of the same areas as the current district — the city of San Bernardino, Colton, Rialto and Fontana — as well as added areas, parts of Redlands and Highland.  The new district remains majority-Hispanic.

District 44:  

Incumbent: Ken Calvert

Current District:  Obama 50; McCain 49

Proposed District:  Obama 46; McCain 52 (Kerry 36; Bush 62)

Demographics: white 52; hispanic 34

TTP: 56

The new CA-44 is completely confined to Riverside County, and includes communities like Corona, Norco, Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake and Hemet.  I’ve made the adjoining CA-45 much more Democratic, so this district has to become more Republican to balance the numbers.  I hate to leave Calvert in place, but the way the new CA-45 looks, it’s quite likely that Mary Bono could choose to run here instead.  In fact, she already represents almost a quarter of the new district’s population, and it would make more sense for her to run here and challenge the ethically-challenged Calvert in a primary, rather than run in the much more Democratic new CA-45 next door.

District 45:  

Incumbent: Mary Bono Mack

Current District:  Obama 52; McCain 47

Proposed District:  Obama 62; McCain 36 (Kerry 53; Bush 45)

Demographics: hispanic 49; white 31; black 10

TTP: 42

The new lines here maintain the district wholly within Riverside County.  Only the most Democratic areas are included – including Moreno Valley, Perris, Cathedral City, Palm Springs and much of Riverside.  Bono Mack lives in Palm Springs, and she won last time with 58% of the vote against a weak opponent.  It would make much more sense for her to run in CA-44 next door, or even in the new CA-41 which now expands into Riverside Co. areas just east of Palm Springs.  Both CA-41 and CA-44 GOP incumbents are ethically challenged and Bono currently represents good parts of those districts.   She would have a very hard to win race here.  If a credible Democrat runs in this 53 Kerry-45 Bush district, it is likely to be a Democratic Gain !

District 46:  

Incumbent: none (district completely relocated)

Current District:  Obama 48; McCain 50 (but not really applicable as district relocated from coastal Orange and LA Counties where it is a GOP district)

Proposed District:  Obama 64; McCain 34 (Kerry 54; Bush 45)

Demographics: hispanic 64; white 22

TTP: 0

California’s “Inland Empire” has had some of the state’s highest growth rate of the last decade, fueled largely by an increase in the Hispanic population.  The new CA-46 reflects that growth through the creation of a new Hispanic-majority district here. The new district includes the unincorporated extreme northwestern part of Riverside County as well as areas in San Bernardino Co. (Ontario, Montclair, Chino and parts of Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana), as well as most of Pomona in LA County.  Democratic Gain !

District 47:  

Incumbent: Loretta Sanchez

Current District:  Obama 60; McCain 38

Proposed District:  Obama 61; McCain 37 (Kerry 50; Bush 49)

Demographics: hispanic 68; white 15; asian 13

TTP: 97

The new CA-47 is very similar to the current district.  A few more Democratic precincts in Santa Ana are added, while more GOP parts of Garden Grove are detached, making the new district a tad more Democratic.  Parts of Anaheim and Fullerton are also in the district.  The Asian percentage goes down by a few points, as some of the Garden Grove areas are detached.

District 48:  

Incumbent: John Campbell

Current District:  Obama 49; McCain 49

Proposed District:  Obama 52; McCain 46 (Kerry 43; Bush 56)

Demographics: white 57; hispanic 21; asian 16

TTP: 78

The major change here is that Republican Newport Beach and North Tustin/Tustin Foothills are detached, while Democratic Costa Mesa is attached.  Irvine, Aliso Viejo, Dana Point, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Laguna Hills, Tustin and Lake Forest remain in the district.  The Democratic numbers go up, but probably not enough to initially make a dramatic difference.  However, with changing demographics and the right candidate we may be able to flip this seat in the future.  Coastal areas in California are becoming more and more Democratic over time.  This district is one that is already not very conservative on social issues (a majority here voted against Proposition 4 last year — a measure advocating parental notification before a minor’s abortion, and the electorate just barely voted yes on Prop. 8 — as opposed to other GOP areas in California where Prop. 8 had big majorities).  A hard-core conservative (ie., “birther” John Campbell) may not be able to hold such a district forever.

District 49:  

Incumbent: Darrell Issa

Current District:  Obama 45; McCain 53

Proposed District:  Obama 49; McCain 50 (Kerry 39; Bush 60)

Demographics: white 55; hispanic 31

TTP: 41

The new CA-49 includes parts of San Diego County — Oceanside, Carlsbad, Vista, San Marcos, Escondido, Rancho Santa Fe and parts of the city of San Diego (areas like Rancho Penasquitos and Rancho Bernardo).  Only 41% of the new district is territory that is currently in CA-49, while 51% comes out of what is now CA-50 — including Brian Bilbray’s home in Carlsbad.  The creation of this district could produce an interesting GOP primary between Issa and Bilbray.  The new district remains fairly Republican (despite Obama coming within less than 3,000 votes of winning it).

District 50:  

Incumbent: Brian Bilbray

Current District:  Obama 51; McCain 47

Proposed District:  Obama 62; McCain 36 (Kerry 54; Bush 45)

Demographics: white 61; hispanic 17; asian 14

TTP: 42

CA-50 shifts southward under this plan. The new district combines much of the northern parts of the city of San Diego — including La Jolla, Clairemont, Pacific Beach, Mission Hills, Mission Valley, Serra Mesa, Hillcrest, University Heights, Normal Heights, North Park and college areas around UCSD and  SDSU (a number of these neighborhoods are added from CA-53), as well as the incorporated communities of Del Mar, Solana Beach and Encinitas.  The Democratic percentage goes up significantly.  Bilbray (whose home is no longer in the district under the new lines) beat Nick Leibham here last year by 5 points, while in the 2006 special election, Bilbray beat Francine Busby by 4.5 points.  The new CA-50 has a Democratic margin that’s many points higher than the old CA-50; you can do the math.  Democratic Gain !

District 51:  

Incumbent: Bob Filner

Current District:  Obama 63; McCain 35

Proposed District:  Obama 63; McCain 36 (Kerry 53; Bush 46)

Demographics: hispanic 69; white 17

TTP: 79

The new district remains very similar to the current one.  The only major changes are that a part of San Diego as well as unincorporated communities to the north of Chula Vista are detached while Democratic parts of Riverside Co. (Coachella, Indio) are added.  The district remains majority Hispanic.

District 52:  

Incumbent: Duncan Hunter

Current District:  Obama 45; McCain 53

Proposed District:  Obama 39; McCain 59 (Kerry 32; Bush 67)

Demographics: white 68; hispanic 20

TTP: 52

This district becomes considerably more Republican as areas in and around the city of San Diego are detached while more GOP areas in northern San Diego County and southwestern Riverside Co. (Temecula, Murrieta) are added.  Only a little over half of the new district’s territory comes out of the current CA-52; much of the remainder is currently a part of CA-49.

District 53:  

Incumbent: Susan Davis

Current District:  Obama 68; McCain 30

Proposed District:  Obama 66; McCain 32 (Kerry 59; Bush 40)

Demographics: hispanic 37; white 36; asian 12; black 10

TTP: 57

The new CA-53 is anchored by the city of San Diego, with smaller communities like Imperial Beach, Coronado, Lemon Grove, La Mesa and part of El Cajon also included.  The new district includes San Diego neighborhoods like Mission Beach, Mission Bay, Ocean Beach, Point Loma/Harbor, Old Town, Downtown, City Heights and now virtually all of Southeast San Diego.  The district is slightly less Democratic than the current one, but remains solid for us.

So that’s my revised plan for California.  I welcome comments and suggestions.

Redistricting Oregon: 6 Districts

Using Dave’s Application, I have drawn a redistricting plan for Oregon.  The state will either keep the current five seats or may gain one seat in 2012.  This plan is drawn for six seats.  I have seen several other proposals for a six-seat Oregon plan; however, those plans were either quite gerrymandered and/or were drawn to elect four Democrats and two Republicans.

In this plan, the districts are very compact and the plan is designed to elect five Democrats and one Republican.  County lines are used as the demarcation for districts to the fullest extent possible.

MAPS:

Photobucket

Photobucket

DISCUSSION OF DISTRICTS:

District 1 – Portland and Coastal Oregon

New district: Obama 63%, McCain 35% (current district: Obama 61%, McCain 36%)

David Wu lives in Portland, and about 45% of his new district is in Multnomah County.  He currently represents areas of west Portland.  Additional parts of Portland are added (a southern area currently a part of OR-5, and parts of north and northeast Portland currently a part of OR-3).  The remainder of the new district includes Columbia and Clatsop Counties, which Wu also currently represents, as well as all of Oregon’s other coastal counties (Tillamook, Lincoln, Coos and Curry), coastal communities of two inland counties (Florence in Lane Co. and Reedsport in Douglas Co.), and Josephine Co. in southern Oregon.  The Democratic percentage goes up a notch, and Wu is set to go.

District 2 – eastern Oregon

New district: Obama 41%, McCain 56% (current district: Obama 43%, McCain 54%)

This district is designed to remain the one Republican district in the state.  The new district includes 18 counties in their entirety (17 voted for McCain, while Obama won Wasco with 52%) as well as the most GOP parts of Clackamas County.  The incumbent, Greg Walden, lives in Hood River, but that 64% Obama county is no longer in the district.  The Republican percentage here goes up a notch.

District 3 – Portland and environs

New district: Obama 70%, McCain 28% (current district: Obama 71%, McCain 26%)

Earl Blumenauer’s Portland-based district remains largely intact.  67% of the new district is in Multnomah, while the rest includes all of Hood River Co. and part of Clackamas (the southern boundary of the new OR-3 in Clackamas corresponds very closely to the current southern boundary of OR-3).  The Democratic percentage goes down ever so slightly, but remains at a very comfortable 70% Obama level.

District 4 – Eugene and southern Oregon

New district: Obama 54%, McCain 43% (current district: Obama 54%, McCain 43%)

The new OR-4 contains Lane, Douglas and Jackson Counties, almost in their entirety.  The only discrepancy is that coastal communities in Lane and Douglas become part of OR-1 — this works out perfectly in terms of making each district equal in population and also in terms of keeping all coastal communities together.  Btw, does anybody know why coastal communities like Florence and Reedsport are part of otherwise inland counties, it doesn’t seem to fit the pattern of other coastal areas in Oregon which form their own counties, but I’m sure there are historical reasons (?)  The new district is almost exactly the same as the current one in terms of partisanship (and just like the current OR-4, went barely for John Kerry in 2004).  Not sure if Peter DeFazio is running for re-election, but if he does, he is set to go.  If not, other Democrats should be very competitive here.

District 5 – Salem and Willamette Valley

New district: Obama 54%, McCain 43% (current district: Obama 54%, McCain 43%)

The new district includes Marion, Benton and Polk Counties in their entirety as well as suburban parts of Clackamas Co. south of Portland (Lake Oswego, West Linn, Oregon City and Canby home of incumbent Kurt Schrader).  The new district is exactly the same as the current one in terms of political preference.

District 6 – Washington and Yamhill Counties

New district: Obama 58%, McCain 39% (current district does not exist)

The new OR-6 corresponds almost perfectly to Washington and Yamhill Counties.  To make the population perfectly equal, two precincts in Multnomah are added.  Apparently this area has experienced high population growth over the last decade, and if Oregon gains a seat in 2012, it can easily be drawn here.  The new district, if created here, would be one that is quite Democratic.  The territory here is currently represented by David Wu, but the new OR-1 is designed for him; not sure who could run in the new OR-6 (?).

That’s my plan for Oregon.  As always, I welcome comments and suggestions.  Thanks.

Redistricting Louisiana

Using Dave’s Application, I have drawn a redistricting plan for Louisiana.  It appears that the state will be losing one seat in 2012, so the plan here has six seats.  There is currently only one Democrat in the entire delegation, and this plan aims to make that two or three Democrats, including two African-Americans.  I tried to make the map so districts are relatively compact, no parish is split among more than two districts, and altogether only 13 out of Louisiana’s 64 parishes are split at all.  

Louisiana’s legislature is currently Democratic controlled, although it may switch to GOP or divided control by 2012.  The governor is a Republican.  Nevertheless, the state is about 1/3 black, and so out of 6 seats, two should ideally be represented by an African-American.  With preclearance and VRA requirements, it may indeed be possible to draw a plan such as this and the Obama DOJ may even aim at making such a plan mandatory (even if state government control was all in GOP  hands).  Even with a huge loss of population in New Orleans, two relatively compact African-American Democratic seats centered on New Orleans (LA-2) and Baton Rouge (LA-6), respectively, are still quite feasible.  

The third possible Democratic seat, LA-4, would be in the northern part of the state (with GOP control, it would perhaps be hard to draw the seat this way, but if the legislature stays Democratic, it may be possible, especially because the seat as drawn is quite compact).  I must admit I am not that familiar with the intricacies of Louisiana politics, so perhaps this plan would not work at all, but I’m throwing it out there anyhow.

Photobucket

District 1 – blue

81% white; 9% black; 21% Obama; 78% McCain

Suburbs and exurbs of New Orleans and Baton Rouge, this district would become perhaps the most Republican congressional district in the country under this plan.

District 2 – green

50% black (50%+); 40% white; 66% Obama; 33% McCain

Due to large population losses following Katrina, this New Orleans based district has to necessarily expand geographically.  I make it go into areas south and west of the city, maximizing black and Democratic numbers.  The new district is less Democratic than the current one (which is 74% Obama) but whichever Democrat beats Cao in 2010 should have no trouble here come 2012.

District 3 – red

73% white; 18% black; 28% Obama; 70% McCain

This district includes a good part of “Cajun Country” in southern Louisiana as well as the eastern part of East Baton Rouge parish.  The new seat is heavily GOP.

District 4 – purple

55% white; 40% black; 44% Obama; 55% McCain

If Carmouche had run under these new lines, he would have very likely won last year, as the current district is only 40% Obama/59% McCain and Carmouche lost to Fleming by a couple hundred votes.  Whether Carmouche or another Democrat can win here in the future is another story, but the district might be competitive at some point in the next decade.

District  5 – teal

77% white; 17% black; 26% Obama; 73% McCain

The new 5th combines much of the current 5th and 7th districts in central and southwestern Louisiana, and should be a GOP stronghold under this plan.

District 6 – yellow

53% black; 42% white; 57% Obama; 41% McCain

This new district includes most of Baton Rouge and most areas bordering the state of Mississippi.  The current 6th is only 41% Obama/57% McCain and this plan flips those numbers around to 57% Obama/41% McCain.  The district is sufficiently Democratic and African-American to elect a black Democrat here.

So that’s my plan for Louisiana. I welcome your comments.

Redistricting Maryland Legislature

Using Dave’s Application, I have drawn a redistricting plan for the Maryland legislature.  The legislature is overwhelmingly Democratic (33 out of 47 Senators and 104 out of 141 Delegates), but because of population shifts since the last census, several Democratic seats may be at risk in the next round of redistricting.  

Under the plan drawn in this diary, all Democratic seats are preserved and/or strengthened.  Different things can happen in elections, but, in the most likely scenario, the new lines will add 3 or 4 Democratic Senators (Districts 9, 31, 37, and perhaps District 3 – if Alex Mooney survives the 2010 election) and between 11 and 14 Democratic Delegates (discussed later in the diary).   (Yes, at that point the Democratic presence in the Maryland Legislature would approach that found today in the Massachusetts Legislature ! … well, maybe not quite that high, but in reality within 10 points of Massachusetts.)  The new plan is also likely to add several African-American representatives, and possibly a new Hispanic member.

The new districts are also very compact and correspond to county lines and communities — even more so than the current map !  The links below are maps of the current districts to compare:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…

Under this proposed map, districts will cross county lines only when it’s necessary to preserve equal population and/or when necessary to preserve or strengthen minority-majority districts or minority-influenced districts.  Even though Courts gave great leeway to the Governor in drawing Congressional seats last time, they were much more strict when it came to drawing state legislative seats.  In effect, Gov. Glendening’s plan was ripped up and the Courts drew the existing plan.  

The new plan I drew allows for population deviations of only 1,000 persons or less (much stricter than the existing map which I believe allowed for up to around plus/minus 5,000 persons).  Most new districts are made where there’s one Senator and three Delegates; the only exceptions are more rural, multi-county districts as well as break-ups of districts into Delegate sub-districts in order to preserve or encourage minority-population representation.  

Each district will contain approximately 120,000 persons.  Sub-districts will contain 40,000 persons if designed for one Delegate, and 80,000 if designed for two Delegates.  The only major instance of a district completely “re-locating” from one part of the state to another is District 46.  Relative population decline/lack of growth in the city of Baltimore will necessitate the loss of one district there.  No. 46 is the perfect candidate, as the other five districts are all minority-majority and have to be preserved under the VRA.  The new District 46 will straddle the Baltimore Co./Harford Co. line (Harford Co. has been one of the fastest growing parts of the state) but has been designed to be a Democratic district.  

MAPS:

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

DISCUSSION OF DISTRICTS:

District 1 – Western Maryland

New district: 93% white; 32% Obama (Obama percentage is same as in current district)

The only real change here is to divide into sub-districts a little differently from the current map:

1A – Garrett County, part of Allegany; 27% Obama (same as current district)

1B – Frostburg and Cumberland; 41% Obama (current district 34% Obama)

1C – parts of Allegany and Washington Counties; 31% Obama (current district 36% Obama)

I am really not sure why the sub-districts are currently drawn as they are.  This re-drawing should shore up the one Democratic representative in this whole district, Kevin Kelly of 1B; his redrawn district will now include most of Cumberland.  It is interesting to note that 1B is one of only two districts/sub-districts in the state where John Kerry performed better than Obama (the other is District 6).

District 2 – Washington County

New district: 82% white; 11% black; 45% Obama (Obama percentage is same as in current district)

No major changes here except to reconfigure the sub-districts.  Instead of three sub-districts, the new plan has only two:

2A – Hagerstown and surrounding precincts; two Delegates; 49% Obama

2B – more rural remainder of District 2; one Delegate; 36% Obama

OK … this may be a slightly risky move (actually, the only really risky thing I do in this entire re-map).  2A will now combine the more Democratic Hagerstown with the more Republican precincts that immediately surround it.  The wager is that two Democrats can be elected in a 49% Obama district; the risk is that two Republicans can as well, causing the loss of one Democratic Delegate.  Perhaps the current plan can be basically preserved instead — where the sub-district corresponding almost exactly to the City of Hagerstown (55% Obama) is designed to elect the one Democrat, while the other two sub-districts continue to elect the GOP ?

Bottom line for District 2: Possible addition of one Democratic Delegate.

District 3 – City of Frederick and southern Frederick County

New district: 70% white; 13% black; 56% Obama (current district 54% Obama)

The major change here is to get rid of the sub-districts.  A district that is 56% Obama (and becoming more Democratic as time goes on as more people from outside Frederick Co. stream in) should be able to elect three Democratic Delegates, instead of the current two in 3A (City of Frederick) and the Republican-turned-Independent in 3B (southern Frederick Co.).  Right-wing GOP Senator Alex Mooney should probably be on the way out in elections next year (he won in 2006 with only 51.9% of the vote, and this district has experienced an influx of less conservative people moving in since then); the increase in the Democratic percentage (from 54% to 56% Obama) should help also once the new lines are in place in 2012.

Bottom line for District 3: Probable addition of Democratic Senator (if the incumbent survives 2010) and one Democratic Delegate.

District 4 – Frederick County, parts of Washington and Carroll Counties

New district: 90% white; 38% Obama (current district 37% Obama)

The sub-districts are eliminated and the new District 4 will now be confined mostly to Frederick County (previously about one-third of the district was in Carroll Co.)   The only areas outside the county (necessary to preserve equal population of each district) will be Smithsburg in Washington Co. and Mt. Airy which straddles the Carroll Co./Frederick Co. line.  The GOP is expected to dominate here.

District 5 – Carroll County

New district: 92% white; 32% Obama (current district 33% Obama)

Like with District 4, the sub-districts are eliminated and the district will now be completely confined to Carroll County, instead of stretching out into northern Baltimore County.  GOP stronghold.

District 6 – Dundalk, Sparrows Point, east Baltimore

New district: 72% white; 21% black; 54% Obama (current district 45% Obama)

This area is a traditional blue-collar Democratic stronghold that has shifted to the right over the decades (your quintessential Reagan Democrat country).  The current District 6 is the only full district in the state of Maryland (out of 47) where John Kerry performed better than Obama.  Democrats still win here locally, but in order to make the district safer for the future, the Democratic percentage is increased substantially.  This is done in tandem with combining parts of east Baltimore City with the Baltimore County portion of the district.  

It should be noted that the break-down here is almost exactly such that the Baltimore City portion could be made into a sub-district electing one Delegate, while the Baltimore Co. part could be a two-Delegate sub-district.  However, such a move might be politically risky.  The Baltimore Co. part voted only 42% Obama and could realistically elect two Republicans at some point in the future if made into a sub-district.  The Baltimore City part is plurality African-American (47% black; 44% white) and voted 83% Obama, but it probably contains almost as many registered white Democrats as black Democrats due to historical factors, so an African-American Delegate would not by any means be assured.  Therefore, two good reasons to keep the new District 6 without sub-districts.

District 7 – northern Baltimore County, part of Harford County

New district: 88% white; 35% Obama (current district 39% Obama)

The new district combines most current areas of the district in Baltimore and Harford Counties with territory in northern-most Baltimore Co. which was previously part of District 5.  The district becomes even more Republican than the current form.

District 8 – Parkville, Carney, Overlea, Rosedale, White Marsh

New district: 72% white; 16% black; 52% Obama (current district 48% Obama)

The current district is represented by a Democratic Senator, two Democratic Delegates and one Republican Delegate.  The Republican won by a smidge last time, and the increase in the Democratic percentage (48% Obama to 52% Obama) should help.

Bottom line for District 8: Probable addition of one Democratic Delegate.

District 9 – Howard County (Ellicott City, west Columbia)

New district: 65% white; 15% black; 13% Asian; 58% Obama (current district 43% Obama)

The new District 9 is another good example of how we can make a district more compact, yet more Democratic at the same time.  The current district stretches across Howard and Carroll Counties and is quite Republican.  The new district is confined entirely to Howard Co. and is a lot more Democratic.  (It should be noted that the detachment of the western part of Columbia from District 12 does not hurt that district at all, as explained

later).

Bottom line for District 9: Probable addition of Democratic Senator and three Democratic Delegates.

District 10 – parts of Baltimore Co. (Milford Mill, Lochearn, Randallstown) and Carroll Co. (Sykesville, Eldersburg)

New district: 51% black; 41% white; 67% Obama (current district 87% Obama)

The new district stretches along the Liberty Road corridor from just outside the Baltimore City line into Carroll County.  The district is assured of continuing to elect an all African-American Democratic delegation as approximately 70-75% of the Democratic primary vote here is black, and the district overall is about two-thirds Democratic.

District 11 – northwestern Baltimore County

New district: 59% white; 30% black; 65% Obama (current district 66% Obama)

Remains solidly Democratic.  I have divided the new district into two sub-districts:

11A – two-Delegate district; Reisterstown, Owings Mills, Mays Chapel; 72% white; 15% black; 56% Obama

11B – one-Delegate district; parts of Randallstown and Pikesville; 58% black; 33% white; 84% Obama

The creation of sub-district 11B should add one African-American to the state’s delegation.  In the meantime, because of the way the lines are drawn, one of the current three Delegates here could run in the new District 42 which now will include a substantial part of Pikesville.  The 56% Obama percentage in 11A should not be a concern, as this is a safe Democratic district, particularly on the local level.  (John Kerry actually did better than Obama in several precincts of the new 11A, so Obama’s 56% percentage is not some sort of Democratic “ceiling” for the area, as it would be in other districts.)

Bottom line for District 11: Probable addition of African-American Delegate.

District 12 – southwestern Baltimore County; eastern Howard County

New district: 63% white; 24% black; 59% Obama (current district 58% Obama)

The new district covers much of the same area as the current district.  The major exception is that a part of Columbia (sub-district 12B) is taken out.  However, a new sub-district 12B (also with one Delegate) is created.  The new 12B encompasses most of Woodlawn and is majority black, and its creation is likely to add another African-American to the state’s delegation.  Here’s more numbers:

12A – two-Delegates; Catonsville, Elkridge; 77% white; 10% black; 50% Obama (current 12A is also 50% Obama)

12B – one-Delegate; Woodlawn; 53% black; 35% white; 81% Obama

Bottom line for District 12: Probable addition of African-American Delegate.

District 13 – Howard County (east Columbia, Savage, North Laurel)

New district: 60% white; 20% black; 10% Asian; 63% Obama (current district 65% Obama)

This district stays very similar to the current configuration.  District 13 was represented in the state Senate by a Republican, Sandy Schrader, prior to the 2006 election (even when the three Delegates were all Democrats).  Schrader won in 2002 with 50.95% of the vote, but received only 43.8% in her re-election attempt in 2006. This district has definitely moved in the Democratic direction over the years, and the slight decline in Democratic performance here under the proposed lines (from 65% Obama to 63% Obama) will still leave this a safe Democratic seat.

Districts 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 39 – Montgomery County

We next move to Montgomery County, where the district lines change very, very little under my map. The all-Democratic delegation here (8 Senators and 24 Delegates) is something I am very proud of (I live in Silver Spring).  I attempted to create sub-districts here which could be designed to elect minority representatives, but my efforts were futile, as the minority population is very diverse and scattered throughout the county.  But no tears lost … Even under the current lines, Montgomery is likely to elect a very multi-ethnic delegation — in fact, it already does so, with black, Hispanic, and Asian (east Asian, south Asian, as well as Middle Eastern-origin) representatives … and several openly gay representatives also.

New District 14: Burtonsville, Olney, Brookeville, Laytonsville, Damascus

59% white; 20% black; 12% Asian; 65% Obama (Obama percentage is same as in current district)

New District 15: Potomac, Poolesville, Clarksburg

67% white; 14% Asian; 65% Obama (Obama percentage is same as in current district)

New District 16: Bethesda, Garrett Park

70% white; 11% Asian; 11% Hispanic; 73% Obama (current district 74% Obama)

New District 17: Rockville, Gaithersburg

48% white; 20% Hispanic; 16% Asian; 12% black (quite diverse !); 71% Obama (Obama percentage is same as in current district)

New District 18: Wheaton, Kensington, Chevy Chase

51% white; 19% Hispanic; 18% black; 76% Obama (Obama percentage is same as in current district)

New District 19: Aspen Hill, Leisure World, Derwood

49% white; 18% black; 16% Hispanic; 13% Asian (another very diverse district); 68% Obama (Obama percentage is same as in current district)

New District 20: Silver Spring, Takoma Park, White Oak

31% white; 31% black; 23% Hispanic; 12% Asian (by far, the most ethnically diverse district in Maryland); what’s not diverse is political preference: 85% Obama (Obama percentage is same as in current district); this district is where I live, btw !

It should be noted that under this map, District 20 extends into two precincts in Prince George’s County, in order to meet equal population standards; however, the new districts may be designed in such a way where all eight Montgomery County seats are confined exclusively to the county (I’m using a deviation of under 1,000 persons, while Courts in the past have used a considerably higher number; bottom line: those two PG Co. precincts may not need to be a part of District 20).

New District 39: Germantown, Montgomery Village, North Potomac

50% white; 18% Asian; 15% black; 12% Hispanic; 71% Obama (Obama percentage is same as in current district)

District 21 – northern Prince George’s County

New district: 47% white; 31% black; 10% Hispanic; 78% Obama (current district 75% Obama)

The new district is now completely contained within PG Co.  I just didn’t think that it made sense to have a district stretch from College Park all the way to Odenton in Anne Arundel County (as does the current District 21).  I also divided the new district into sub-districts in order to create a minority-opportunity seat centered on Laurel, which is relatively more African-American than other parts of District 21 (it should be noted, though, that the current district already elects a minority representative who lives in College Park, so perhaps a sub-district is unnecessary here ?).  The new numbers are:

21A – two Delegates; College Park, University Park, Beltsville, part of Bowie; 54% white; 24% black; Obama 76%

21B – one Delegate; Laurel; 46% black, 33% white; 11% Hispanic; Obama 83%

District 22 – northern Prince George’s County

New district: 50% black; 25% Hispanic; 16% white; 85% Obama (Obama percentage is same as in current district)

The new district is quite similar to the existing one.  Senator Paul Pinsky should have no trouble getting re-elected here.  Once he retires, however, this district is likely to elect an African-American Senator.  I have also divided this district into sub-districts.  Currently, two of the three Delegates here are white, even though the current district’s ethnic composition is similar to the proposed district.  Creating sub-districts here may screw up that dynamic; however, I do so anyways in order to create a Hispanic-opportunity sub-district (Hispanics seem to be vastly under-represented in the state legislature):

22A – two Delegates; Greenbelt, New Carrolton, Landover Hills; 57% black; 18% Hispanic; 16% white

22B – one Delegate; Hyattsville; Riverdale; 39% Hispanic; 38% black; 16% white; the new 22B is barely Hispanic plurality; however, the Hispanic population is still growing here, so this district may become an opportunity district for the population.

Bottom line for District 22: Possible addition of a Hispanic Delegate.

District 23 – parts of Prince George’s Co. (Largo/Kettering, Mitchelville, Bowie) and Anne Arundel Co. (Crofton, Gambrills, Fort Meade)

New district: 45% black; 44% white; 74% Obama (current district 81% Obama)

Since this re-map made District 21 confined to PG Co., the new District 23 has to play the opposite role and reach outside PG, into Anne Arundel County.  I think this proposed map is more logical — it makes much more sense to have Bowie and Crofton in the same district than to have College Park and Odenton in the same district.  

The new district becomes plurality black, and most registered Democrats here are black (as a good part of the white population in Anne Arundel is Republican).  Nevertheless, the numbers are not overwhelming either way, and should not hurt the currently racially-diverse delegation.  I decided to drop the sub-districts however, as they seem unnecessary under the circumstances, and could only hurt Democratic chances if, for instance, a part of the Anne Arundel Co. portion of the district was made into a sub-district.

Districts 24, 25, 26 – central and southern Prince George’s Co.

These three districts remain largely very similar to the current districts.

New District 24: Capitol Heights, Seat Pleasant, Suitland, Glenarden; 86% black; 98% Obama (Obama percentage is same as in current district)

New District 25: District Heights, Forestville, parts of Upper Marlboro; 78% black; 14% white; 95% Obama (current district 96% Obama)

New District 26: Oxon Hill, Temple Hills, Fort Washington; 80% black; 93% Obama (current district 94% Obama)

District 27 – Calvert County and southern Prince George’s Co.

New district: 67% white; 26% black; 57% Obama (current district 71% Obama)

The new district is more compact than the current District 27, now taking in all of Calvert County (Calvert has experienced some of the highest population growth in the state, and will now account for two-thirds of the new district).  The rest of the new district will be a Prince George’s Co.-based minority-majority sub-district.  Thus, the major change here is that sub-district 27A will now have one Delegate, instead of two, and 27B will have two instead of one.  

Senate Leader Mike Miller should be quite happy with the new lines, as his seat becomes more Calvert-based (his home) and it is less likely that he will be challenged in the Democratic primary by an African-American in the future.  

27A – one Delegate; southern Prince George’s County and several precincts in Calvert and Charles to preserve equal population; 52% black; 40% white; 81% Obama (Obama percentage is same as in current sub-district)

27B – two Delegates; all of Calvert Co. except for northern-most area around Dunkirk; 79% white; 14% black; 47% Obama (Obama percentage is same as in current sub-district)

Even though sub-district 27B remains at only 47% Obama, it should be noted that the current Delegate, Democrat Sue Kullen, won with 57% of the vote in 2006.  Anthony O’Donnell (from southern Calvert, currently in sub-district 29C) could also run here, but even if he were to win, his gain here would be effectively offset by his disappearance from District 29.

District 28 – Charles County

New district: 50% white; 39% black; 64% Obama (current district 63% Obama)

The lines here change only insofar that several precincts in the eastern part of the county are taken out to preserve equal population.  There’s a good chance that this district will become majority black over the next decade.

District 29 – St. Mary’s County, part of Charles Co.

New district: 75% white; 17% black; 45% Obama (current district 44% Obama)

The new district is more compact than the current one, and all of St. Mary’s County will now be in one district.  The sub-districts are eliminated, and I’m hopefully optimistic  that all three Delegates will be Democrats (currently both Delegates in 29A and 29B, which are areas almost entirely in St. Mary’s County, are Democrats elected with 65 and 64 percent of the vote; Republican Anthony O’Donnell won 29C — which straddles both St. Mary’s and Calvert Counties — with 60% but his sub-district becomes split in half between the new District 27 and the new District 29.)

District 30 – Annapolis and environs in Anne Arundel Co.

New district: 73% white; 16% black; 53% Obama (current district 52% Obama)

The lines here are tweaked just a bit in order to make the district more Democratic.  The current district is represented by a Democratic Senator and two out of three Delegates are also Democrats.  The lone Republican, Delegate Ron George, won by 53 votes last time (or one-tenth of a percentage point), and so the change from 52% Obama to 53% Obama may be helpful in the future — assuming George even makes it through 2010 under the current lines, which is less than assured.

Bottom line for District 30: Probable addition of one Democratic Delegate (if the sole Republican is not defeated by the time the new lines come into being).

District 31 – Glen Burnie, Brooklyn Park, Riviera Beach

New district: 75% white; 14% black; 48% Obama (current district 40% Obama)

The political composition of this Anne Arundel district changes significantly under this re-map.  Parts of Glen Burnie currently in District 32 are added (except for the homes of several District 32 incumbents which remain in the 32nd) while most of hyper-Republican Pasadena is detached.  (Under the new lines, most of Glen Burnie is now part of one district, instead of being split in half between Districts 31 and 32.)  The result is a district that goes from 40% Obama to 48% Obama.  

It is quite likely that all four Republican representatives will disappear under the new lines, and will be replaced by four Democrats.  The GOP Senator here, Bob Jones University graduate Bryan Simonaire, won last time with only 50.8% of the vote, and he lives in Pasadena, now outside the district.  The three GOP Delegates all won by relatively small margins also, and two of the three also live in Pasadena.  

The one Delegate whose home remains in the new 31st is Don Dwyer, a rabidly right-wing homophobe who makes Simonaire appear like a moderate in comparison (Dwyer is so right-wing that he has effectively taken himself out of the Republican caucus, as they are apparently not conservative enough for him, though he remains a Republican.)  Dwyer won re-election by 25 votes last time (even the current 58% McCain district had barely the stomach for him), and it’s far from assured that he will win in 2010.  If for some reason he makes it next year, the new lines and district composition will pose a very formidable obstacle for him in 2014.  

This area, btw, is traditionally quite Democratic, but parts contain many conservative Reagan Democrats.  In that light, the 48% Obama of the proposed District 31 should not be seen as a Democratic ceiling for the district; in a number of precincts in the area, including ones in Brooklyn Park and Riviera Beach, John Kerry performed better than Obama.  (Disclosure: I grew up in Brooklyn Park, and my mom still lives there, hence this long entry re. District 31 … that, and the fact that the odious Don Dwyer is still a representative there.)

(It should be noted that in drawing this district, I used new precinct lines for the map in the very southern end of this district, where it dips into a sliver of Severna Park — precincts no. 5-10 and 5-12 on Dave’s Application — which are now really four separate precincts, not just two.  The lines the Application uses are based on precincts as they existed in 2002 but in this particular area it made more sense to use the new lines to include a new African-American majority precinct into District 31 and exclude a very GOP new precinct nearby.  Incidentally, the current border between Congressional Districts 1 and 3 in that area makes use of the same new lines).

Bottom line for District 31: Probable addition of Democratic Senator and three Democratic Delegates.

District 32 – Linthicum, Severn, Odenton, Arbutus/Lansdowne

New district: 61% white; 25% black; 54% Obama (Obama percentage is same as in current district)

Like the current incarnation, the new district encompasses much of northwestern Anne Arundel County.  The district also crosses over into a part of Baltimore County, in order to maintain equal population.  The current all-Democratic delegation looks to be in good shape under the new lines.

District 33 – Pasadena/Lake Shore, Severna Park, Crownsville, Davidsonville

New district: 89% white; 37% Obama (current district 43% Obama)

The new District 33 combines the most Republican communities of Anne Arundel County into one district.  Geographically, it pretty much resembles the current district with Pasadena added.  The two current sub-districts are eliminated.  

I thought about having three separate sub-districts here – 1.) Pasadena, 2.) Severna Park/Crownsville, and 3.) southern remainder of the district.  Such an arrangement might perhaps lead to a local Democrat capturing one of the districts at some point (although it hasn’t happened in any of the current GOP districts which Democrats sub-divided last time in order to enhance the possibility of a Democrat capturing one of the sub-districts).  However, my original goal was to create sub-districts only for large, rural, multi-county districts (so that each county could have a voice in the Assembly) and/or for minority-majority or minority-opportunity districts.  Besides those exceptions, it wouldn’t be fair to have only Republican districts sub-divided and not the Democratic ones.

District 34 – parts of Harford and Cecil Counties

New district: 80% white; 12% black; 46% Obama (current district 48% Obama)

This district largely resembles the current 34th, except that the Edgewood and Joppatowne areas in southern Harford have been taken out in order to preserve equal population (this area has experienced a lot of population growth).  The new district becomes a little less Democratic, but the current political balance here should remain (GOP Senator, and three Democratic Delegates). Although the Harford Co. part would correspond almost perfectly to a one-Delegate sub-district, it is politically better to eliminate sub-districts here, as the more Democratic area in Harford will balance the more Republican two-thirds of the new district in Cecil County.

District 35 – Harford County

New district: 91% white; 30% Obama (current district 31% Obama)

Remains very similar to the current district which is a GOP stronghold.

District 36 – Eastern Shore

New district: 86% white; 40% Obama (current district 41% Obama)

The current district expands south and is sub-divided into three sub-districts — each corresponding closely to a county or set of counties:

36A – Cecil and Kent Counties (also includes one precinct in Queen Anne’s directly across from Chestertown in order to maintain equal population); 46% Obama; this sub-district could perhaps elect a Democrat, breaking the GOP stranglehold on District 36.

36B – most of Queen Anne’s County; 36% Obama

36C – Talbot and Dorchester Counties; 39% Obama

District 37 – Eastern Shore

New District: 61% white; 32% black; 52% Obama (current district 46% Obama)

Currently, three out of four representatives here are Republicans.  The re-map expands the current district northward and the sub-districts remain.  However, sub-district 37A will now have two Delegates, instead of one, and 37B will have one instead of two.  The lines forming the border between the new 36th and 37th don’t line up perfectly with county boundaries.  However, the goal here was to create a minority-influence district on the Shore.  Even though only about a third of the population of the new 37th is black, that population might have an effective voice in how the district is represented in Annapolis, through an alignment with white Democrats in the area — the borders intentionally include more “liberal” (relatively) white-majority  areas like Chestertown and Easton.

Here’s a break-down of the sub-districts:

37A – two Delegates; lower Eastern Shore: Salisbury, Princess Anne, Cambridge, Easton; 51% white; 41% black; 58% Obama; although on paper this district is majority white (barely), blacks constitute a majority of the Democratic primary vote here.  Thus, there’s a good chance the district can elect two African-American Delegates (increasing their representation on the Shore by one).

37B – one Delegate; most of Caroline County, part of Queen Anne’s and Chestertown (Kent Co.); 79% white; 13% black; 41% Obama; likely to elect a GOP Delegate.

Bottom line for District 37: Probable addition of Democratic Senator and one Democratic Delegate (there’s a good chance the Delegate will be African-American).

District 38 – lower Eastern Shore

New District: 81% white; 13% black; 40% Obama (current district 41% Obama)

The new 38th is quite similar to the current district.  The district here currently elects a GOP Senator and GOP Delegate in sub-district 38A, while 38B elects two Democrats, even though that area is even more Republican than 38A.  The two Democrats include one legislator from Salisbury and a former mayor of Ocean City, so personal popularity likely plays a part, especially in the case of the latter.

38A – includes parts of Somerset and Wicomico Counties (as does the current sub-district) but also expands east into Worcester Co.

38B – includes much of Worcester Co. and part of Wicomico around Salisbury.

District 39 – see earlier entry under Districts 14, 15, etc. (Montgomery County)

Districts 40, 41, 43, 44, 45 – Baltimore City

As I already discussed, due to stagnant population growth, Baltimore City has to lose one of its current districts, and the 46th is the only logical candidate.  (Also, as already discussed, the eastern-most part of the city will be combined with adjoining parts of Baltimore County into a new 6th District.)  The other five districts are reconfigured but still keep the basic shape and identity of their current incarnations:

New District 40: west-central Baltimore

64% black; 28% white; 89% Obama (current district 93% Obama)

New District 41: northwest Baltimore

64% black; 30% white; 84% Obama (current district 87% Obama)

New District 43: northeast Baltimore

63% black; 30% white; 90% Obama (current district 91% Obama)

New District 44: southwest and south Baltimore

63% black; 31% white; 86% Obama (current district 92% Obama)

New District 45: east-central Baltimore

63% black; 28% white; 86% Obama (current district 90% Obama)

District 42 – Towson, Timonium, Cockeysville, Pikesville

New District: 71% white; 18% black; 58% Obama (current district 53% Obama)

The current district is represented in the Senate by a Democrat.  However, two out of three Delegates are Republicans.  The new district expands into more Democratic areas, including Pikesville, and the Democratic percentage goes up, from 53% Obama to 58% Obama.  The increase should be enough to produce an all-Democratic delegation here (both Republican delegates won by small margins last time).  

Bottom line for District 42: Probable addition of two Democratic Delegates.

District 46 – parts of Baltimore Co. (Essex, Middle River) and Harford Co. (Edgewood, Joppatowne)

New District: 69% white; 22% black; 51% Obama

This district is a newly-created one to account for population growth in the area (and it replaces the old 46th which was based in Baltimore City).  It was initially surprising to me that you could create a new, compact district here that is at the same time quite Democratic.  I was afraid that the new district would have to be a GOP stronghold, thus causing an automatic loss of a Democratic Senator and three Democratic Delegates.  But there is apparently a robust Democratic presence in this area; in fact, both the Baltimore Co. and Harford Co. parts of the new district voted for Obama ! (the Harford part by a larger margin though).  There are actually some very GOP precincts in the Baltimore Co. part of the district, but they seem to be outweighed by other very Democratic areas.

District 47 – northern Prince George’s County

New District: 52% black; 36% Hispanic; 93% Obama (current district 92% Obama)

The new 47th keeps mostly within the lines of the current district.  I have sub-divided the new District 47 into two sub-districts in order to provide the Hispanic community with a sub-district.  Perhaps this is completely unnecessary, as the district has already elected a Delegate who is Hispanic, even without a sub-district …  Nevertheless:

47A – two Delegates; Chillum; Mount Rainier, Brentwood, Bladensburg, Cheverly, Landover; 66% black; 22% Hispanic

47B – one Delegate; Langley Park; 63% Hispanic; 24% black; it’s interesting to note that this Hispanic-majority area voted over 90% for Obama.

So this is my plan for redistricting the Maryland Legislature.  I welcome your thoughts and comments.

Redistricting Maryland: 8 Democrats Guaranteed

This is my third (and hopefully final) version of a redistricting plan for Maryland.  Thanks to Dave’s Redistricting application, the process was much easier this time for me, and I got a plan that virtually guarantees that 8 Democrats will be elected starting in 2012.  In each district, Obama received at least 58% of the vote (and McCain received under 40%; MD-1 is rounded off to 40.0, but it’s technically 39.98%).  The plan keeps the two majority African-American districts, and is also very incumbent-friendly (except for Bartlett ofcourse).  I normally make these diaries super long, but not this time.  Here’s the plan:

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

District 1

Dark Blue

Obama 58.1%; McCain 40.0%

Combines Eastern Shore (57% of new district) with areas on the western shore in Harford and Baltimore Counties and Baltimore City.  The new district is 33% African-American. Interestingly, the Baltimore County part is 62% African-American, but the Baltimore City part is only plurality African-American (not majority); I intentionally took out white-majority, yet very Democratic areas out of MD-7 (Charles Village, Mt. Vernon, Bolton Hill, etc.) so as not to do too much damage to Cummings’ district, while at the same time making MD-1 much more Democratic.

District 2

Green

Obama 58.5%; McCain 39.5%

The new district largely mirrors the current district in Baltimore and Harford Counties; a good part of Anne Arundel is also the same.  African-American areas in Baltimore City are taken out, but African-American areas in Prince George’s County are added, and the district remains politically almost exactly the same as before.

District 3

Magenta

Obama 58.8%; McCain 39.3%

Like MD-2, the new MD-3 largely mirrors the current district.  In some ways, it actually is kind of similar to what MD-3 looked like prior to 2002 (especially in Baltimore City). It’s a very Baltimore-oriented district, except for the 18% of the district that’s now in Montgomery County.

District 4

Red

Obama 73.6%; McCain 25.6%

Majority African-American (50%+); 6% Hispanic; 38% white.  Combines much of Prince George’s County (60% of new district) with mostly Republican areas in Anne Arundel County.

District 5

Aqua Blue

Obama 61.5%; McCain 37.2%

New district is very, very similar to the current one.

District 6

Gray

Obama 58.7%; McCain 39.4%

Combines parts of Montgomery County (57% of new district) with most of Frederick and Carroll Counties.  Good luck to Bartlett if he runs here.

District 7

Yellow

Obama 66.1%; McCain 32.3%

Majority African-American (50%+); 44% white; African-Americans are around 70-75% of the Democratic primary vote.  Combines most of Baltimore City (56% of new district) with more Republican areas in Baltimore, Harford and Cecil Counties.  African-American areas which were put in MD-2 as part of the 2002 redistricting are now returned to MD-7.

District 8

Violet

Obama 59.1%; McCain 39.1%

Combines parts of Montgomery County (60% of new district) with a part of Frederick County and all of western Maryland.

I should add that the new plan is indeed gerrymandered, but not any more so than the current plan.  Counties are split among districts, but again, it’s not any worse than currently.  I can likewise envision the plan being implemented from a legal point of view.  OK … that’s it; I said I would make it short.  Your thoughts ….

Political Realignment on Steroids ?

(Cross-posted on Daily Kos and the Swing State Project)

Beginning in the 1960’s the Republican Party won many elections using their “Southern Strategy”.  The strategy worked pretty well for them for over three decades, but beginning maybe a dozen years ago, it began to have a counter-effect whereby areas outside the South began to increasingly vote Democratic (in part as a reaction to the “Southernization” of the GOP).   This trend accelerated rather rapidly over the last few election cycles, culminating in the 2008 election where the “Southern Strategy” literally blew up in the face of the Republican Party.  The latest polling from Research 2000  –summarized here in a diary from earlier today: http://www.dailykos.com/weekly… — indicates that this realigning trend has perhaps reached new and unprecedented levels.

Looking at simply support for President Obama and support for the Republican Party will give you an idea of what I’m talking about …

Obama:

Northeast – 81% favorable; 13% unfavorable

Midwest – 62% favorable; 33% unfavorable

West – 60% favorable; 36% unfavorable

“non-South” – 67% favorable; 28% unfavorable (for the “non-South” I combined the data for the three regions above, adjusting for population proportions)

South – 27% favorable; 68% unfavorable

As you can see, the numbers for the South vs. the “non-South” are almost exactly the reverse of each other !  If you look at this as a net plus/minus aggregate, the difference between the South and the non-South is an astounding 80 points !

It appears that, despite the fact that President Obama’s overall numbers have gone down over the last several polls, he is still VERY popular in the “non-Southern” area of the country which encompasses 70% of our population.

The Research 2000 polling also included data based on race/ethnicity.  I played with the numbers here a bit to try to extrapolate (an educated “guesstimate”) what the proportion of “Southern whites” thinks about the President.  For this purpose I assumed that blacks and Hispanics, regardless of whether they live in the South or not, would generally have a similar opinion of President Obama (blacks: 86% favorable, 5% unfavorable; Hispanics: 63% favorable, 30% unfavorable).  My extrapolated numbers for Southern Hispanics may be off a bit as the largest concentrations include both the relatively more Democratic population in Texas, as well as the relatively more Republican population in Florida; nevertheless, the Hispanic numbers here don’t play as large of a role as the numbers for the black population, so I feel my final extrapolated numbers are quite accurate.  After crunching all the numbers I “guesstimated” the following:

“Southern Whites” (approx. 21% of the U.S. population):

Obama – 5% favorable; 91% unfavorable

“everyone else” (non-Southerners of all races and Southern blacks and Hispanics; approx. 79% of the U.S. population):

Obama – 68% favorable; 26% unfavorable

The net difference between the two groups above is an amazing 128 points !

I repeated the entire process to analyze support for the Republican Party:

GOP:

Northeast – 6% favorable; 91% unfavorable

Midwest – 10% favorable; 81% unfavorable

West – 11% favorable; 77% unfavorable

“non-South” – 9% favorable; 83% unfavorable

South – 46% favorable; 40% unfavorable

“Southern Whites” – 64% favorable; 18% unfavorable

“everyone else” – 9% favorable; 84% unfavorable

The favorable number above for “everyone else” is really only a bit over 8.5% (which I rounded to 9%), so among the 4/5 of the U.S. population that isn’t “Southern white” the opinion of the Republican Party is, in effect, a 10 to 1 unfavorable to favorable ratio !  These numbers clearly support the assertion made by many over the last number of months that the Republican Party is becoming a rump, regional entity.

The purpose of this diary is not to bash Southern whites.  I simply find it very interesting how disparate the numbers are when comparing that particular population with the rest of the nation.  Much of this may already seem like “common knowledge” but the numbers from the Research 2000 polling are still mind-boggling to me.  

Perhaps the point to all this is that when looking at aggregate national poll numbers that measure the “popularity” of President Obama, the Republican Party, or health care for that matter, we should always keep in mind that they are just an average, and the overall “toplines” should not necessarily be used to measure the country as a whole.  Instead, greater consideration should be given to how the numbers play out regionally.  A good example of this includes when we’re trying to figure out how the 2010 Congressional elections will play out.  The GOP may indeed capture seats from us next year — but where will those seats be ?  With 46-40 favorable/unfavorable numbers in the South, it seems quite conceivable that a number of Southern seats may be lost; on the other hand, with a 6-91 numbers in the Northeast, it’s a much steeper hill to climb for the GOP in that region (btw, this poll also provides Generic Congressional Ballot preference numbers, though with decidedly larger numbers of undecideds; for ex. the generic GOP candidate in the South beats the generic Democrat by a 2 to 1 ratio, while in the Northeast the generic Democrat wins by a ratio of 5 to 1).  All politics is local, ofcourse, but understanding the current state of regional political differentiation in this country at this point in our history will go a long way towards planning strategy, whether the battle is winning Congressional elections or the health care debate.

One thing does seem certain here, though.  The GOP’s Southern Strategy is dead, and it appears to have taken the party down with it.  Whether the GOP can rise from the ashes is another question.  But if it rises, it will not be through the resurrection of the Southern Strategy.

UPDATE:

Reader KTinOhio (from the Daily Kos version of this diary) makes a really good observation re. the realignment process.  I am adding KTin’s comment below as I think it’s very relevant to this discussion:

First, the most recent polling – especially the Gallup tracker that gives Obama a +7 favorability rating – matches the election results closely.  Gallup had Obama up 50-43.  Last fall’s vote was 53-46, and very few of those 46% will support the president now.

Second, in comparing the Research 2000 regional favorability ratings as posted on Kos to the election results, it is odd that Obama is doing better now than he did in the election in three out of four regions.  Any guesses as to which one is the exception?

NORTHEAST

Popular Vote:  Obama 16,955,765 (59.44%), McCain 11,163,386 (39.14%), Total 28,524,587.  Electoral Vote:  Obama 117, McCain 5.

Research 2000:  81% Favorable, 13% Unfavorable.

MIDWEST

Popular Vote:  Obama 17,790,208 (52.98%), McCain 15,253,735 (45.43%), Total 33,576,392.  Electoral Vote:  Obama 97, McCain 34.

Research 2000:  62% Favorable, 33% Unfavorable.

WEST

Popular Vote:  Obama 15,720,655 (55.94%), McCain 11,765,120 (41.86%), Total 28,104,554.  Electoral Vote:  Obama 96, McCain 28.

Research 2000:  60% Favorable, 36% Unfavorable.

SOUTH

Popular Vote:  Obama 19,032,324 (46.14%), 21,767,161 (52.77%), Total 41,251,078.  Electoral Vote:  Obama 55, McCain 106.

Research 2000:  27% Favorable, 68% Unfavorable.

TOTAL

Popular Vote:  Obama 69,498,952 (52.87%), 59,949,402 (45.60%), Total 131,456,611.  Electoral Vote:  Obama 365, McCain 173.

Research 2000:  55% Favorable, 40% Unfavorable.

So, if we compare the election results to the current favorability polls, which are obviously not the same thing, but the election was a much a referendum on Obama as anything else, Obama has gone from +7 to +15 nationally, +20 to +68 in the Northeast, +8 to +29 in the Midwest, +14 to +24 in the West, and – 7 to -41 in the South.  Somehow, a lot of McCain voters in the Northeast now give Obama a favorable grade, as do a smaller number of McCain voters in the Midwest and West.  But in the South, the opposite is true; large numbers of Obama voters seem to have turned against him.

Thank you KTinOhio for crunching the numbers and for your very relevant and insightful analysis.

Redistricting California: 45 Democrats ?

I had three main goals in mind when thinking about redistricting California:

1.)  Make the new map less gerrymandered than the current one, keeping more communities together in the same district.  

2.)  Increase the number of Hispanic-majority districts in the state, while preserving all the current Hispanic-represented seats.  

3.)  Increase Democratic representation in the state delegation.

All three goals above are met by the proposed map.  Incumbent protection was a lesser goal.  Nevertheless, at least for Democratic Representatives, this goal was also met by this proposal.

Under the proposed plan, 44 districts are made to be Democratic, 7 to be Republican, and 2 to be swing districts (one of which, CA-4, would have certainly gone Democratic in the 2006 and 2008 Congressional elections if the proposed plan was in place, and the other, CA-48, could quite conceivably go Democratic in the near future).  

Bottom line: if these lines had been in effect during the 2008 elections, Democrats would have likely won 45 of the 53 districts

This diary is broken into three parts.  First, the maps.  Second, a discussion of my main goals.  Third, a discussion of individual districts.

MAPS:

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

DISCUSSION OF GOALS:

1.)  Make the new map less gerrymandered than the current one, keeping more communities together in the same district.  The map does just that.  (Btw, this plan assumes that the number of districts in the state will remain at 53.  The plan also accounts for different rates of growth within the state between 2000 and 2010 — coastal areas have generally grown 10% or less, while many inland areas have grown 20-30% since 2000.)

Under the current (2002) plan, 30 incorporated cities in California are split between two or more districts.  Under the proposed map, only 10 incorporated cities are split; they are:

Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose – must be necessarily split because they are too big for one district.  District boundaries in San Francisco change slightly.  Areas of San Jose constitute parts of three different districts under the new plan (as in the current plan, except one of the districts is not the same).  

San Diego is currently split among five districts, while under the proposed plan it is split among only four, as the CA-50 and CA-52 parts of the city of San Diego are combined into one district, CA-50 (with the new plan, the bulk of  San Diego’s population is actually split among only three districts, CA-50, CA-51 and CA-53; the Rancho Bernardo community in the extreme northern area of the city becomes part of another district but that area contains only about 1% of the city’s population).  

Under the current plan, parts of Los Angeles belong to 14 different districts; under the proposed plan, areas of LA are part of only 11 districts (and two of the 11 contain only very small portions of the city).

It should be noted that, in cities which are split among districts, I also tried to redraw the lines, where possible, so that distinct neighborhoods or city areas are not split between districts.  For example, the Van Nuys section of LA is currently split between CA-27 and CA-28; under the proposed plan all of it falls under CA-28.

Anaheim, Garden Grove, Bakersfield, Fresno – are split in order to preserve majority Hispanic districts in Orange County and the Central Valley.

Fremont – this is the only area not split under the current plan, but divided under the proposed map.  Population shifts in Alameda County and Fremont’s relatively large size in land area made it hard for me not to divide the city. (Area-wise, Fremont is bigger than either San Francisco or Oakland; the city was originally five smaller towns which merged in 1956.)

Long Beach – under the new plan, it’s almost all in one district ! (97% is in the new CA-37, with the remaining narrow coastal sliver — which exists under the current plan as well — connecting two parts of CA-46).

Additionally, when looking at unincorporated communities in California, under the current plan, 29 are split among one or more districts, while under the proposed plan only  seven are split.  Furthermore, many areas which remain split are “less” split under the proposed map.  For example, currently East LA is split among three different districts, while under the proposed plan, it is split only between two districts.

2.) The next goal was to increase the number of Hispanic-majority districts in the state, while preserving all the current Hispanic-represented seats.  The Hispanic population in the state has grown rapidly, and the new map reflects this reality.  All the Hispanic-represented seats remain intact, while four new Hispanic-majority seats are created – Districts 19, 26, 40 and 44.  

CA-35 also becomes Hispanic-majority.  Even according to the 2000 Census numbers, the current CA-35 was already 47.4% Hispanic, and only 34% African-American (even though among registered voters, the numbers may have been roughly reversed); the new district’s boundaries change slightly to encompass South Gate to the east of the current district, and, combined with Hispanic population growth within the area, the new district should be approximately 66% Hispanic.  Bottom line: once Maxine Waters retires, CA-35 is quite likely to elect a Hispanic representative.

3.) The third goal was to increase Democratic representation in the state delegation.  Under the proposed plan, 44 districts are made to be Democratic, 7 to be Republican, and 2 to be swing districts (one of which, CA-4, would have certainly gone Democratic in the 2006 and 2008 Congressional elections if the proposed plan was in place, and the other, CA-48, could quite conceivably go Democratic in the near future).  

What’s great here is that 44 Democratic seats can be created while making the map less gerrymandered than it is now (I can think of no reason for the way the 2002 map looks other than that it was intentionally gerrymandered — by Democrats no less — to intentionally help certain Republicans to survive, even as it attained the same goal for a number of Democrats; even a purely politically-neutral map would have resulted in more Democrats today).

Under the proposed plan, Obama wins the following 26 districts by at least a 24.0 point margin:

Districts # 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 44, 46, 51, 53

Needless to say, all of the above districts voted for John Kerry in 2004 (all but two were won by at least 8 points, while Kerry was losing the national vote by 2.5 points).  The Democratic margin here is something akin to “safe” Democratic when classifying districts.

Obama wins the following 16 districts by a 17.0 to 23.9 point margin:

Districts # 2, 3, 6, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 27, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 47, 50

All of the above districts also voted for John Kerry in 2004, except Districts 19, 40, 43, 47 and 50 which Bush won barely with percentages ranging from 49.6 to 50.9% of the vote.  The Democratic margin (and voting history in the case of many of these districts) suggests something akin to “likely” Democratic when classifying these.

Obama wins the following two districts by a margin of approximately 14 to 15 points:

Districts # 11 and 18.

In 2004, Bush received approximately 52-53% of the vote in both districts above.  The voting history here (discussed in detail later in this diary) though, suggests that these seats will stay in Democratic hands.  Conventional wisdom would classify these two as “lean” Democratic, though recent voting history in both suggests they could be on the cusp of “likely.”

The following two districts should be considered “toss-up” based on Democratic margin and voting history (again, the diary will discuss the reasoning):

CA-4 which Obama lost by 3.4 points.

CA-48, which Obama won by a 6.5 point margin.

 

Obama loses the following seven districts by a margin of 9.4 to 25.2 points:

Districts # 21, 22, 41, 42, 45, 49, 52

All of the above also voted for Bush over Kerry in 2004 by at least a 63/36 margin.  These are all destined to stay “safe” GOP (unless there’s a major, major scandal !).  Note the absence of any “likely” GOP or “lean” GOP districts under this proposal …. there are just way too many of those under the map currently in effect !

The point here is that you can indeed create this many Democratic seats — and add between 10 to 12 Democrats to California’s delegation — while keeping community lines intact.  One can imagine what you could do if the lines were tweaked just a bit more, and some district boundaries crossed irregularly across city/community lines.  An Obama +18 district could easily be turned into an Obama +20 district (it wouldn’t take much actually, and the districts would still look pretty compact; for an example re. how a district can be made more Democratic, see the entry under “District 48” in the body of the post).   However, my goal was to see if you could create both a more Democratic map, and a less gerrymandered one at the same time, and the answer clearly is yes.  Others certainly could take the template of this map and refine the lines further, whereby the Democratic seats became even more Democratic.

Note that not mentioned as one of the three goals above is incumbent protection.  I tried to match incumbents with their current districts, and, at least for Democratic members, was mostly successful.  The goal here was more long-term, looking down the whole decade, and the other considerations took precedence.

One last thing to remember here: if this plan were adopted, it would first come into effect in 2012 – coinciding with the next Presidential election.  Having President Obama on the ballot (in 2012, when candidates would first run for these new seats), thus, had an effect in my design of the districts here, including political considerations like coattails… the point is that if these lines had been in effect during the 2008 elections, Democrats would have likely won 45 of the 53 districts (the 26 “safe” ones above; 16 “likely” ones; 2 “lean” ones; and CA-4 with Charlie Brown as our nominee).  If there’s some sort of future GOP wave election, even some of the “likely” Democratic seats may not hold; but all things being (relatively) even, this plan  should result in a considerable increase in the number of Democrats in the state’s delegation for the next decade.

Now (finally !) to the discussion of individual districts:

District 1:

Incumbent: Mike Thompson (St. Helena)

Current District:  Obama 65.6%; McCain 31.7% (Obama + 33.9)

Proposed District:  Obama 63.1%; McCain 35.1% (Obama + 28.0)

Proposed District:  Kerry 56.6%; Bush 42.2%

This district combines parts of the current CA-1 (Napa and Yolo Counties) with San Francisco suburbs in Marin and Sonoma Counties and Sacramento suburbs in Sacramento and  Placer Counties.  Yolo is no longer split between districts, but Marin now is.  Placer is also split, but the western suburban part of the county is quite different from the central and eastern Sierra Nevada area.  Overall, it’s a pretty suburban to exurban district, with rural areas here and there.  The Democratic percentage goes down a bit, but it’s still a solidly Democratic district.

District 2:  

Incumbent: None

Current District:  Obama 42.6%; McCain 55.0% (McCain + 12.4)

Proposed District:  Obama 60.0%; McCain 37.4% (Obama + 22.6)

Proposed District:  Kerry 54.8%; Bush 43.4%

The new CA-2 includes only a small part of the current CA-2 – Siskiyou and Trinity Counties and part of Shasta Co. around Redding.  Most of the territory comes from the current CA-1, with parts from CA-4 and CA-6.  The new district becomes a true “north coast” district (unlike the old CA-1 which included only the coast north of Gualala), following the entire coast and redwood belt from the Golden Gate to the Oregon border (OK … I must admit this is my favorite part of California).  Overall, it’s a rural/small town district, with some suburban pockets in the far south.  Politically, it’s quite Democratic, and overall, leans towards the progressive side (against Prop. 8, anti-war, etc.).  This plan puts Lynn Woolsey in the new CA-6, but perhaps she would be more comfortable running here (?).  Her home is in Petaluma, just over the border, and the lines could be easily tweaked (substituting Petaluma for Rohnert Park for instance) without changing the overall political makeup of either CA-6 or CA-2.

District 3:  

Incumbent: Tom McClintock (Elk Grove – ultimate carpetbagger McClintock doesn’t even live in his current district, CA-4, after having just recently moved from southern California to Elk Grove in the current CA-3 !; CA-3 incumbent Congressman Dan Lungren – another former carpetbagger – is drawn out of his district under this plan).

Current District:  Obama 49.3%; McCain 48.8% (Obama + 0.5)

Proposed District:  Obama 58.1%; McCain 40.1% (Obama + 18.0)

Proposed District:  Kerry 49.3%; Bush 49.9%

The proposed CA-3 is made up of most of Sacramento County outside the city of Sacramento.  It also includes Pittsburg in Contra Costa Co., just across from the southern tip of Sacramento Co.  The district is more compact than the current CA-3, being mostly confined to just one county.  Additionally, many communities in Sacramento Co. are no longer split between districts – these include incorporated places like Elk Grove and Rancho Cordova as well as unincorporated areas like Arden-Arcade, Foothill Farms and North Highlands.  A Democrat should do well running here.  In 2008 Lungren only won the current district (Obama +0.5) by a 49.4 to 44.0 margin.  One can only imagine just how well a Democrat would do in an Obama +18 district !

District 4:  

Incumbents: Wally Herger (Chico); Dan Lungren (Gold River); also see entry under “District 3” above.

Current District:  Obama 43.8%; McCain 54.0% (McCain + 10.2)

Proposed District:  Obama 47.2%; McCain 50.6% (McCain + 3.4)

Proposed District:  Kerry 40.8%; Bush 57.7%

The new CA-4 follows the entire crest of the Sierra Nevada Mountains from Lassen National Park in the north to Mt. Whitney in the south.  At its southern end it also includes Death Valley.  The plan splits Placer and El Dorado Counties but puts parts of Butte Co., previously in two districts, back into one.  The proposed district is somewhat more Democratic than the current one – enough so that Charlie Brown would have very likely won under the current lines – both in 2006 and 2008 (Brown lost by a 3.4 point margin in 2006 and by 0.4 points last year; the new district becomes 6.8 points more Democratic — as measured by the Obama margin — which would have enabled Brown to win if he ran under the proposed lines, all other things being even).  Tom McClintock doesn’t live in the district as redrawn — but then again, he doesn’t live in the existing one either !

District 5:  

Incumbent: Doris Matsui (Sacramento)

Current District:  Obama 69.6%; McCain 28.4% (Obama + 41.2)

Proposed District:  Obama 61.4%; McCain 36.6% (Obama + 24.8)

Proposed District:  Kerry 52.9%; Bush 46.1%

CA-5 combines all of the city of Sacramento with GOP-leaning suburbs in Sacramento and Placer Counties (Citrus Heights, Orangevale, Rocklin, Granite Bay).   Almost exactly two-thirds of the population is in Sacramento, which sets the political tone of the district.

District 6:

Incumbent: Lynn Woolsey (Petaluma)

Current District:  Obama 76.0%; McCain 22.0% (Obama + 54.0)

Proposed District:  Obama 58.7%; McCain 39.1% (Obama + 19.6)

Proposed District:  Kerry 52.5%; Bush 46.0%

The new District 6 combines much of exurban — though very progressive — Sonoma County (approximately 45% of the new district’s population) with Lake County, part of the Sacramento River Valley and Lassen County, in the northeastern part of the state.  As mentioned under “District 2” above, perhaps Woolsey would be more comfortable running in the new CA-2; however, the new CA-6 contains much of her territory, population-wise, and is only slightly less Democratic than CA-2.  

District 7:

Incumbent: George Miller (Martinez)

Current District:  Obama 71.4%; McCain 26.4% (Obama + 45.0)

Proposed District:  Obama 65.1%; McCain 33.1% (Obama + 32.0)

Proposed District:  Kerry 59.8%; Bush 39.1%

The new CA-7 combines all of Solano County (no longer split among three different districts) with areas of north-central Contra Costa County — Martinez, Concord (no longer split between two districts), Clayton, Pleasant Hill, etc.  The district remains solidly Democratic.

District 8:  

Incumbent: Nancy Pelosi (San Francisco)

Current District:  Obama 85.2%; McCain 12.4% (Obama + 72.8)

Proposed District:  Obama 85.5%; McCain 12.4% (Obama + 73.1)

Proposed District:  Kerry 84.6%; Bush 14.1%

The size of new district expands slightly as the southern end of City Supervisor District # 8 becomes part of CA-8 (all of that district is in CA-8 under the new lines); part of City Supervisor District # 7 (around Golden Gate Heights and Forest Hill) is also added.

District 9:  

Incumbent: Barbara Lee (Oakland)

Current District:  Obama 88.1%; McCain 9.9% (Obama + 78.2)

Proposed District:  Obama 82.6%; McCain 15.5% (Obama + 67.1)

Proposed District:  Kerry 79.5%; Bush 19.0%

Combines ultra-progressive areas in Oakland, Berkeley and adjoining smaller towns with (relatively) more conservative areas in Contra Costa County (Moraga, Orinda, Danville, Brentwood, etc.).

District 10:  

Incumbent: None currently (Ellen Tauscher has vacated seat)

Current District:  Obama 64.7%; McCain 33.1% (Obama + 31.6)

Proposed District:  Obama 64.2%; McCain 34.0% (Obama + 30.2)

Proposed District:  Kerry 58.4%; Bush 40.5%

Combines a central swath of Contra Costa Co. (from Richmond in the west to Bethel Island in the east) with parts of more inland California (northern San Joaquin Co.; Amador Co. and southern El Dorado Co.).  

District 11:  

Incumbent: Jerry McNerney (Pleasanton)

Current District:  Obama 53.8%; McCain 44.5% (Obama + 9.3)

Proposed District:  Obama 56.3%; McCain 42.0% (Obama + 14.3)

Proposed District:  Kerry 47.2%; Bush 51.9%

Combines suburban parts of Alameda Co. (Pleasanton, Dublin, etc.) with part of San Joaquin County (Stockton – no longer split between two districts; Tracy) and rural/small town areas in Stanislaus Co.  The new district becomes approximately 5 points more Democratic — at least as measured by the Obama margin — which should be a boost to McNerney’s future election chances.  (In 2006 McNerney won by 6.2 points, while last year he won by 10.6 points; all other things being even, if the Congressman ran under these lines his winning margin would have likely topped 11 points in 2006 and might have been 15 to 16 points in 2008).

District 12:  

Incumbent: Jackie Speier (Hillsborough)

Current District:  Obama 74.3%; McCain 23.9% (Obama + 50.4)

Proposed District:  Obama 73.9%; McCain 24.4% (Obama + 49.5)

Proposed District:  Kerry 70.6%; Bush 28.4%

Very similar to the current “Peninsula” district.  Boundaries in San Francisco shift a bit, while in San Mateo Co., Half Moon Bay is added from CA-14 as well as part of Redwood City (which is no longer split between two districts).

District 13:

Incumbent: Pete Stark (Fremont)

Current District:  Obama 74.4%; McCain 23.8% (Obama + 50.6)

Proposed District:  Obama 70.9%; McCain 27.2% (Obama + 43.7)

Proposed District:  Kerry 66.5%; Bush 32.2%

New district is focused mainly on Alameda County (Alameda, Hayward, San Leandro, Union City, Livermore, etc.), with a small part of Contra Costa attached (San Ramon).  Stark’s home in Fremont remains, though approximately 65% of the city becomes part of CA-15.

District 14:

Incumbent: Anna Eshoo (Atherton)

Current District:  Obama 73.1%; McCain 24.9% (Obama + 48.2)

Proposed District:  Obama 72.8%; McCain 25.2% (Obama + 47.6)

Proposed District:  Kerry 68.2%; Bush 30.5%

CA-14 becomes even more so the “Silicon Valley” district as the city of Santa Clara is added; other than that and the changes discussed under “District 12”, the boundaries stay quite similar.

District 15:  

Incumbent: Mike Honda (San Jose)

Current District:  Obama 68.4%; McCain 29.7% (Obama + 38.7)

Proposed District:  Obama 70.1%; McCain 28.3% (Obama + 41.8)

Proposed District:  Kerry 64.8%; Bush 34.3%

New district is still centered on San Jose; though the boundaries change in some places around the city.  The cities of Santa Clara and Gilroy are detached, while Newark and most of Fremont is attached, as the district shifts in a northern geographic direction.

District 16:  

Incumbent: Zoe Lofgren (San Jose)

Current District:  Obama 69.6%; McCain 28.8% (Obama + 40.8)

Proposed District:  Obama 66.4%; McCain 31.8% (Obama + 34.6)

Proposed District:  Kerry 60.2%; Bush 38.5%

The new CA-16 is centered on San Jose, as the current district.  Gilroy and Morgan Hill are added, while parts of northern San Jose are detached to form portions of the new CA-15 and CA-18.

District 17:

Incumbents: Sam Farr (Carmel); George Radanovich (Mariposa)                

Current District:  Obama 72.1%; McCain 25.8% (Obama + 46.3)

Proposed District:  Obama 61.0%; McCain 36.9% (Obama + 24.1)

Proposed District:  Kerry 54.6%; Bush 43.9%

The new district encompasses virtually the whole Monterey Bay littoral (from Santa Cruz to Carmel), then turns inland to include much of Merced Co. (except for the cities of Merced and Atwater), most of Madera Co. (except the city of Madera) and all of Mariposa, Tuolumne and Calaveras Counties.  Politically, the new boundaries preserve Sam Farr’s district while creating a new Hispanic-majority seat in the area at the same time (the new CA-19).  About 45% of the population of the new CA-17 is currently in Farr’s district; while approximately 29% is in Radanovich’s (the rest comes mostly out of the current CA-18).  Additionally, Farr’s old territory is relatively more partisan (77% for Obama in the Santa Cruz/Monterey area) than Radanovich’s base area (only 56% for McCain in that part).   End result: a pretty solidly Democratic district.

District 18:  

Incumbent: Dennis Cardoza (Atwater)

Current District:  Obama 59.2%; McCain 39.0% (Obama + 20.2)

Proposed District:  Obama 56.0%; McCain 42.1% (Obama + 13.9)

Proposed District:  Kerry 46.4%; Bush 52.9%

CA-18 remains similar to the current district in many respects.  The district is expanded in Stanislaus Co. (Modesto is no longer split between districts, but is now wholly within CA-18); parts of Merced Co. (including the cities of Merced and Atwater) and San Joaquin Co. also remain.  The part of Stockton currently in CA-18 is detached, and Hispanic-majority areas in San Jose are substituted.  The district remains plurality Hispanic (around 46%).  Perhaps the only concern with the new district is that it’s a bit less Democratic than the current one.  When Cardoza first ran here in 2002 he faced Republican Dick Monteith.  Blue Dog Cardoza won that race by 9 points (he has won subsequent elections by much higher margins).  Even if Cardoza had ran his initial race in the new, less Democratic (by approximately 6 points) district, he would still have won.  If these concerns are not allayed, the district can pretty easily be made more Democratic by tweaking the lines, especially around San Jose.

District 19:  

Incumbent: None.

Current District:  Obama 46.0%; McCain 52.1% (McCain + 6.1)

Proposed District:  Obama 57.7%; McCain 40.7% (Obama + 17.0)

Proposed District:  Kerry 49.5%; Bush 49.6%

CA-19 is a new Hispanic-majority district (at approximately 52% of the population) encompassing much of Monterey County (including Salinas), all of San Benito Co. — both previously part of CA-17 — and areas of Madera and Fresno Counties previously part of CA-19 and CA-18.  Bush won here by a hair in 2004, but in 2008 the area swung strongly for Obama.

District 20:

Incumbent: Jim Costa (Fresno)

Current District:  Obama 59.6%; McCain 38.7% (Obama + 20.9)

Proposed District:  Obama 60.8%; McCain 37.5% (Obama + 23.3)

Proposed District:  Kerry 51.8%; Bush 47.3%

The district remains very, very similar to the current one, with a few areas removed in Fresno and Kings Counties to account for population growth.  The district continues to include parts of the cities of Fresno and Bakersfield, and stays Hispanic-majority.  

District 21:  

Incumbent: Devin Nunes (Tulare)

Current District:  Obama 42.1%; McCain 56.3% (McCain + 14.2)

Proposed District:  Obama 42.0%; McCain 56.4% (McCain + 14.4)

Proposed District:  Kerry 33.6%; Bush 65.6%

The new district remains similar to the current one, encompassing parts of Fresno and Tulare Counties.  It should be noted that the area contained in the current lines has a Hispanic population of close to 50%; however, in this part of California the Hispanic population forms a relatively small part of the electorate, and the district remains a GOP bastion.

District 22:  

Incumbent: Kevin McCarthy (Bakersfield)

Current District:  Obama 38.3%; McCain 59.7% (McCain + 21.4)

Proposed District:  Obama 36.5%; McCain 61.7% (McCain + 25.2)

Proposed District:  Kerry 29.4%; Bush 69.7%

CA-22 remains politically similar to the current district (though geographically, perhaps appears more similar to the 1992-2002 version of this district, with the addition of a part of Tulare Co.).  The San Luis Obispo Co. interior areas are detached, while interior Santa Barbara County is added.  Surprisingly, interior Santa Barbara is more conservative than interior areas of SLO (probably due to the relatively high military presence around Vandenberg AFB), even though the coastal area of Santa Barbara is considerably more progressive than coastal areas of SLO.  The new CA-22 is politically the most conservative in California, and it’s super conservative on social issues; almost three-fourth of the voters here went for Prop. 8.

District 23:  

Incumbent: Lois Capps (Santa Barbara)

Current District:  Obama 65.3%; McCain 32.3% (Obama + 33.0)

Proposed District:  Obama 59.2%; McCain 38.7% (Obama + 20.5)

Proposed District:  Kerry 52.4%; Bush 46.1%

The new district encompasses all of San Luis Obispo County (no longer divided among two districts), the coastal area of Santa Barbara Co. (with Lompoc added, and a few precincts on the outskirts of Santa Maria detached) and all of the city of Ventura (no longer split between districts) in Ventura Co.  Oxnard is no longer in the district.  The Democratic percentage is reduced, but Capps or another Democrat in the future should have no trouble here.

District 24:

Incumbent: None.

Current District:  Obama 50.5%; McCain 47.7% (Obama + 2.8)

Proposed District:  Obama 61.0%; McCain 37.3% (Obama + 23.7)

Proposed District:  Kerry 54.0%; Bush 44.8%

The new district combines much of Ventura Co. (except Simi Valley and the city of Ventura) with parts of Los Angeles Co. (Malibu, Santa Monica, and a tiny portion of the city of Los Angeles).  Bottom line here in four steps: (1) Elton Gallegly almost retired from Congress during the 2006 election cycle.  (2) He lives in Simi Valley (made part of CA-30 under this plan).  (3) The Democratic margin goes up by over 20 points.  (4) The redrawing of this district will assure Gallegly’s retirement.  

District 25:  

Incumbent: Adam Schiff (Burbank – see entry under “District 29” below).

Current District:  Obama 49.5%; McCain 48.3% (Obama + 1.2)

Proposed District:  Obama 59.7%; McCain 38.2% (Obama + 21.5)

Proposed District:  Kerry 51.2%; Bush 47.5%

The new CA-25 is no longer the crazy version of the current CA-25 which runs from the city of Los Angeles almost to Reno, Nevada !  The new 25th is confined entirely to Los Angeles County, combining the northern part of the county (Palmdale, Lancaster – which is no longer split between two districts) with areas further south – Burbank (no longer split between districts), West Hollywood and parts of the city of Los Angeles (Hollywood, Beverly Crest, Griffith Park, Sunland, Tujunga, etc.).  Perhaps combining Lancaster and Palmdale with West Hollywood may seem crazy as well, but the new district appears quite compact, and who says northern Los Angeles Co. and West Hollywood should not be combined ?  The Obama margin jumps from a 1.2 advantage to a 21.5 point advantage.  Technically, Adam Schiff is the only incumbent residing in the district though he would likely seek reelection in the new CA-29 if this plan were adopted.  Howard McKeon resides in the new CA-27 under this plan, and he should think twice about running here (he won his last election by 15.6 points, in a district that has a 20.3 points less Democratic margin than the proposed one).

District 26:  

Incumbent: None

Current District:  Obama 51.0%; McCain 47.0% (Obama + 4.0)

Proposed District:  Obama 61.5%; McCain 36.7% (Obama + 24.8)

Proposed District:  Kerry 54.5%; Bush 44.4%

This new district has relatively little in common with the current CA-26.  Both the old and new CA-26 contain Claremont and LaVerne, but the bulk of the territory in the new district comes out of the current CA-32 (El Monte, Baldwin Park, Irwindale, Covina, etc.), with parts of CA-38 (Pomona) and CA-42 (Chino, Chino Hills) also attached.  CA-32 itself is preserved as a separate district.  The new CA-26 is a new Hispanic-majority district (approximately 62% Hispanic).

District 27:

Incumbents: Brad Sherman (Los Angeles); Howard McKeon (Santa Clarita)

Current District:  Obama 66.1%; McCain 31.7% (Obama + 34.4)

Proposed District:  Obama 60.6%; McCain 37.2% (Obama + 23.4)

Proposed District:  Kerry 53.6%; Bush 45.0%

The bulk of this district is made up of San Fernando Valley communities within the city of Los Angeles (Reseda, Northridge, Granada Hills, etc.) and within the current CA-27.  Also attached is Santa Clarita to the north.

District 28:  

Incumbent: Howard Berman (Los Angeles)

Current District:  Obama 76.2%; McCain 22.0% (Obama + 54.2)

Proposed District:  Obama 75.6%; McCain 22.6% (Obama + 53.0)

Proposed District:  Kerry 70.4%; Bush 28.5%

This new district is quite similar to the current one, consisting of San Fernando Valley communities.  Borders are changed a little, partly in order to keep neighborhoods together within the same district.  The district remains majority Hispanic.

District 29:  

Incumbent: David Dreier (San Dimas)

Current District:  Obama 67.6%; McCain 30.4% (Obama + 37.2)

Proposed District:  Obama 61.1%; McCain 36.8% (Obama + 24.3)

Proposed District:  Kerry 53.4%; Bush 45.2%

Even though Adam Schiff lives in Burbank (part of the new CA-25), most of his current district is transferred to the new CA-29.  In fact, 56% of the new CA-29 is territory currently represented by Schiff (including Glendale and Pasadena), while only 34% is territory currently represented by Dreier.  I tried to avoid splitting communities between districts in drawing this plan, but the lines can be nevertheless easily tweaked here to include a part of Burbank in CA-29; under the current plan, eastern Burbank is in CA-29.

District 30:  

Incumbent: Henry Waxman (Los Angeles); Elton Gallegly (Simi Valley)

Current District:  Obama 70.4%; McCain 27.9% (Obama + 42.5)

Proposed District:  Obama 64.0%; McCain 34.4% (Obama + 29.6)

Proposed District:  Kerry 59.3%; Bush 39.7%

This westside LA district includes communities currently in CA-30 (like Beverly Hills, Bel Air, Brentwood, Pacific Palisades, Woodland Hills, Calabasas and Agoura Hills) as well as newly attached areas (Culver City, Chatsworth – which was previously spilt between CA-30 and another district, etc.).  Santa Monica and Malibu are taken out and attached to the neighboring CA-24.  The district remains a Democratic bastion, and a very progressive one at that (almost 2/3 of the vote went against Prop 8).

District 31:  

Incumbent: Xavier Beccera (Los Angeles)

Current District:  Obama 79.9%; McCain 18.3% (Obama + 61.6)

Proposed District:  Obama 78.9%; McCain 18.7% (Obama + 60.2)

Proposed District:  Kerry 75.6%; Bush 22.9%

This district consists of the entire current CA-31 territory plus, in order to reflect population shifts in the area, South Pasadena is added.  The district is majority-Hispanic.

District 32:  

Incumbent: Judy Chu (Monterey Park); Gary Miller (Diamond Bar)

Current District:  Obama 68.2%; McCain 29.8% (Obama + 38.4)

Proposed District:  Obama 61.4%; McCain 36.6% (Obama + 24.8)

Proposed District:  Kerry 55.9%; Bush 43.1%

The new CA-32 runs from a part of East Los Angeles through Monterey Park (now all in one district), Rosemead, San Gabriel, Temple City, San Marino, South El Monte, West Covina, La Puente, Walnut, Diamond Bar, Brea and other communities interspersed in between.  The new district remains majority Hispanic (barely) but also has a very high percentage of Asian-Americans (almost 40%).  Indeed, in some communities, the Hispanic and Asian population combined equals almost 100% of the total population.  Many Hispanic-majority areas of the current CA-32 are detached in order to create the new Hispanic-majority CA-26 just to the north and east of the new CA-32.

District 33:  

Incumbent: Diane Watson (Los Angeles)

Current District:  Obama 86.8%; McCain 11.7% (Obama + 75.1)

Proposed District:  Obama 84.2%; McCain 14.2% (Obama + 70.0)

Proposed District:  Kerry 80.0%; Bush 18.7%

The new CA-33 includes most of the current district (except Culver City and part of Griffith Park) as well as areas previously part of other districts (El Segundo and the Westchester area around LAX).

District 34:  

Incumbent: Lucille Roybal-Allard (Los Angeles)

Current District:  Obama 74.7%; McCain 23.2% (Obama + 51.5)

Proposed District:  Obama 75.2%; McCain 22.7% (Obama + 52.5)

Proposed District:  Kerry 68.8%; Bush 30.0%

The new district is very similar to the current one, including downtown LA, Downey, and everything in between, as well as new territory (El Sereno part of LA, Alhambra).  Some areas have been taken out (part of East LA, Bellflower) and attached to other districts. The district is majority-Hispanic

District 35:  

Incumbent: Maxine Waters (Los Angeles)

Current District:  Obama 84.4%; McCain 14.1% (Obama + 70.3)

Proposed District:  Obama 86.5%; McCain 12.0% (Obama + 74.5)

Proposed District:  Kerry 81.2%; Bush 17.7%

Most of the district is the same as before – the south-central area of Los Angeles.  Areas around LAX in the west are detached, while South Gate is added in the east.  A little history in a nutshell to summarize the political evolution in a part of this area: back in the 50’s and 60’s South Gate was almost all white while areas immediately to the west, like Watts, were almost all black, and a large degree of segregation existed.  Today Watts is over 70% Hispanic, while South Gate is over 90% Hispanic.  Overall, the district is about 66% Hispanic.  There’s a strong possibility that once Maxine Waters retires, this district will elect a Hispanic representative.

District 36:  

Incumbent: Jane Harman (Los Angeles)

Current District:  Obama 64.4%; McCain 33.5% (Obama + 30.9)

Proposed District:  Obama 62.0%; McCain 35.9% (Obama + 26.1)

Proposed District:  Kerry 57.0%; Bush 41.6%

The new CA-36 is similar to the current district hugging Santa Monica Bay. Some areas are detached (El Segundo) while others are attached (Palos Verdes Peninsula).  The Palos Verdes area was part of the district prior to 2002, contributing to the election of Republican Steve Kuykendall here in 1998 with a bare winning margin of 49% of the vote.  At first glance, the new district appears kind of similar to that old one – but in reality is significantly more Democratic.  One major difference is that high-population progressive areas of LA just east of Santa Monica (Mar Vista, etc.) are currently in the district — and remain in the new district — but were not a part of CA-36 when Kuykendall was elected.

District 37:

Incumbent: Laura Richardson (Long Beach)

Current District:  Obama 79.6%; McCain 18.7% (Obama + 60.9)

Proposed District:  Obama 60.7%; McCain 37.3% (Obama + 23.4)

Proposed District:  Kerry 53.1%; Bush 45.5%

The new district puts the parts of Long Beach previously in CA-37 and CA-46 into one district (except for a narrow coastal sliver connecting two parts of CA-46).  Approximately 97% of Long Beach’s population is now in CA-37.  The district also includes more conservative areas in Orange County to the immediate east (Los Alamitos, part of Garden Grove, Stanton, Fountain Valley and Westminster – the latter, no longer split between two districts).

District 38:

Incumbent: Grace Napolitano (Norwalk); Ed Royce (Fullerton)

Current District:  Obama 71.3%; McCain 26.6% (Obama + 44.7)

Proposed District:  Obama 58.5%; McCain 39.4% (Obama + 19.1)

Proposed District:  Kerry 51.0%; Bush 47.7%

This remains a majority-Hispanic district (approximately 63%) encompassing areas like Norwalk, Pico Rivera, part of East LA, Hacienda Heights and Montebello in Los Angeles County as well as La Habra, Fullerton and Placentia (the latter two no longer divided between two districts) in Orange County.

District 39:

Incumbent: Linda Sánchez (Lakewood)

Current District:  Obama 65.5%; McCain 32.4% (Obama + 33.1)

Proposed District:  Obama 57.6%; McCain 40.4% (Obama + 17.2)

Proposed District:  Kerry 50.4%; Bush 48.5%

This districts maintains many of the same parts of Los Angeles County currently included in CA-39, but does a better job at keeping communities intact (Whittier is no longer divided between districts) and also adds communities in Orange County (Cypress, La Palma, Buena Park, etc.)   The district remains majority Hispanic.  The new CA-39 now borders the new CA-47, the district of Linda’s sister Loretta Sanchez.

District 40:

Incumbent: None

Current District:  Obama 46.6%; McCain 51.1% (McCain + 4.5)

Proposed District:  Obama 59.7%; McCain 38.6% (Obama + 21.1)

Proposed District:  Kerry 49.3%; Bush 49.8%

California’s “Inland Empire” has had some of the state’s highest growth rate of the last decade, fueled largely by an increase in the Hispanic population.  The new CA-40 reflects that growth through the creation of a new Hispanic-majority district here (new district is approximately 57% Hispanic).  The new district includes the unincorporated extreme northwestern part of Riverside County as well as areas — mostly incorporated — in San Bernardino Co. (Ontario, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana).

District 41:  

Incumbent: None

Current District:  Obama 43.7%; McCain 54.2% (McCain + 10.5)

Proposed District:  Obama 41.4%; McCain 56.4% (McCain + 15.0)

Proposed District:  Kerry 34.9%; Bush 63.9%

This district includes most of San Bernardino Co. outside the southwestern population core, as well as parts of Riverside Co. (Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, etc.)  The current CA-41 incumbent Jerry Lewis lives in Redland, part of CA-43 under the new lines, but most of Lewis’ base is in the new CA-41 and it would make sense for him to run here.

District 42:

Incumbent: None

Current District:  Obama 44.9%; McCain 53.2% (McCain + 8.3)

Proposed District:  Obama 43.3%; McCain 54.9% (McCain + 11.6)

Proposed District:  Kerry 35.1%; Bush 63.9%

This is perhaps the stereotypical Orange County district – “conservative Nixon/Reagan country”.  The district runs from Yorba Linda (the birthplace of Richard Nixon) to the hills just above San Clemente (the site of Nixon’s “summer White House”).  San Juan Capistrano, in the district’s southern reaches, is no longer split between two different districts.  In its new form, CA-42 is a Republican stronghold, though this is no longer the most conservative area in California.  Furthermore, compared to other GOP districts in the rest of the country, the new CA-42 is (relatively) not that extremely conservative.  Current CA-42 incumbent Gary Miller lives in Diamond Bar, a part of CA-32 under the new lines.  However, politically, it would make much sense for Miller to run here.

District 43:

Incumbent: Joe Baca (Rialto); Jerry Lewis (Redlands; see entry under “District 41” above).

Current District:  Obama 68.0%; McCain 30.1% (Obama + 37.9)

Proposed District:  Obama 58.0%; McCain 39.9% (Obama + 18.1)

Proposed District:  Kerry 48.7%; Bush 50.1%

The new CA-43 consists of urban to exurban areas of San Bernardino Co., including all of the city of San Bernardino (which as previously split between CA-43 and CA-41), Colton (which was also split), Rialto, Loma Linda, Highland, Redlands, Adelanto, Victorville and other areas.  The new district remains majority-Hispanic.

District 44:  

Incumbent: Mary Bono (Palm Springs)

Current District:  Obama 49.5%; McCain 48.6% (Obama + 0.9)

Proposed District:  Obama 61.6%; McCain 36.6% (Obama + 25.0)

Proposed District:  Kerry 51.3%; Bush 47.6%

The new CA-44 is completely confined to Riverside County, and includes communities like Riverside, Moreno Valley, Perris, Cathedral City and Palm Springs.  Current CA-44 incumbent Ken Calvert doesn’t even live in the new CA-44, and even if he ran here, wouldn’t have a prayer under the new lines.  Mary Bono would have a hard time winning here also (the last two times she won by approximately 18 points in a district with about a 20 point less Democratic margin than the new CA-44), and it would make sense for her to run in the new CA-45.  The district is a new Hispanic-majority district (approximately 53%).

District 45:

Incumbent: None

Current District:  Obama 51.5%; McCain 46.9% (Obama + 4.6)

Proposed District:  Obama 44.5%; McCain 53.9% (McCain + 9.4)

Proposed District:  Kerry 35.8%; Bush 63.3%

The new lines here maintain the district wholly within Riverside County.  Much of Riverside Co. outside the (relatively) more suburban northwestern area is included here, including Menifee, which is now contained entirely within one district.  Mary Bono lives in Palm Springs (in the new CA-44), but most of Bono’s base is in the new CA-45, and the only logical thing for her to do would be to run here.

District 46:  

Incumbent: Dana Rohrabacher (Huntington Beach)

Current District:  Obama 47.9%; McCain 49.8% (McCain + 1.9)

Proposed District:  Obama 61.7%; McCain 36.5% (Obama + 25.2)

Proposed District:  Kerry 53.7%; Bush 45.0%

The new CA-46 combines parts of Los Angeles and Orange Counties — as does the district in its current form.  The OC part is somewhat similar to what’s contained in the current CA-46, with Huntington Beach and Seal Beach included but with Newport Beach substituted for Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley and Westminster.  The LA part is a bit different, with areas like Carson, Lynwood and Compton substituting for parts of Long Beach and the Palos Verdes Peninsula communities.  The new district is almost entirely suburban, with only a sliver of Los Angeles proper included.  Under these lines, Rohrabacher may finally experience “wipeout” conditions in his electoral prospects.  

Addendum: it’s interesting to note that the OC part of the new CA-46 voted for Prop. 8 by approximately 53%, while the LA part voted for Prop. 8 by a significantly higher 65%.

District 47:  

Incumbent: Loretta Sanchez (Anaheim)

Current District:  Obama 60.1%; McCain 37.8% (Obama + 22.3)

Proposed District:  Obama 58.6%; McCain 39.5% (Obama + 19.1)

Proposed District:  Kerry 47.9%; Bush 50.9%

The new CA-47 is very similar to the current district.  Parts of Santa Ana which were previously in CA-46 and CA-48 are added to the bulk of the city that is already in the district, so that all of Santa Ana is now in CA-47.  Likewise, a small part of Fullerton is detached in the north so that it too can be all in one district.  However, Anaheim and Garden Grove remain split between this and other districts; this is necessary to maintain the viability of Hispanic representation in CA-47.

District 48:  

Incumbent: John Campbell (Irvine)

Current District:  Obama 49.3%; McCain 48.6% (Obama + 0.7)

Proposed District:  Obama 52.3%; McCain 45.8% (Obama + 6.5)

Proposed District:  Kerry 43.1%; Bush 55.8%

The new CA-48 runs along the coast of Orange and San Diego Counties, including all of Costa Mesa, Irvine, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Beach, Dana Point, San Clemente, Camp Pendleton and Oceanside.  Obama won the new district by 6.5 points.  This is an improvement on the current district which basically split 49/49 in the last election.  While this may initially appear not enough to flip the district to the Democratic side, I believe that with a good campaign, a Democrat can win here.  It bears watching how Beth Krom, the mayor of Irvine, does in the current CA-48 in 2010 if she is our nominee.  If she hits around 45% or more of the vote, it would appear that a Democrat would be well positioned under the new lines.  It should be noted that the area contained within the proposed CA-48 is progressive enough to have actually voted against Proposition 8 ! (by 51% to 49%).  It would not appear that such a district would elect someone like “birther” John Campbell forever.

Addendum:  this proposed district can easily be made even more Democratic by tweaking the lines.  Communities, of course would have to be broken up, but the subsequent district would still be compact enough to pass muster.  Please see the map below re. how CA-48 could go from the proposed +6.5 point Obama margin with communities completely intact to a +10.0 Obama margin district with some communities split among districts.  The top map here shows CA-48 as designed for this diary, with the nine constituent communities intact.  The bottom map shows that by adding all or parts of seven additional communities, while detaching parts of the first nine, you can come up with a district that voted 54.1 Obama – 44.1 McCain. (Btw, if you’re wondering why the large Camp Pendleton area is left alone, the reason is that the number of active voters there is relatively very small compared to other parts of the district, and so trying to gerrymander the lines in that area would have a minimal effect on the overall political composition of this district.)

Photobucket

District 49:

Incumbent: Darrell Issa (Vista); Ken Calvert (Corona).

Current District:  Obama 45.1%; McCain 53.0% (McCain + 7.9)

Proposed District:  Obama 41.2%; McCain 56.3% (McCain + 15.1)

Proposed District:  Kerry 32.0%; Bush 67.1%

The new CA-49 includes much of Darrell Issa’s current territory in San Diego and Riverside Counties and also parts of Ken Calvert’s territory in Riverside and Orange Counties (as well as Rancho Santa Margarita, currently part of CA-42).  The new district becomes an even bigger GOP bastion.

District 50:  

Incumbent: None

Current District:  Obama 51.3%; McCain 47.1% (Obama + 4.2)

Proposed District:  Obama 57.9%; McCain 40.3% (Obama + 17.6)

Proposed District:  Kerry 48.0%; Bush 50.7%

This district combines the San Diego city parts of the current CA-50 and CA-52 into one district.  The boundaries are then tweaked a bit so that parts of the city of San Diego currently in CA-53 (Hillcrest, Pacific Beach, Mission Beach, the area around UC-San Diego, etc.) become part of this district, while other areas now part of CA-50 (interior portion of La Jolla) become part of the new CA-53.  Also included in the new CA-50 are coastal communities just north of the city (Del Mar, Encinitas, Solana Beach); other than these communities, the new district consists entirely of the city of San Diego.  Brian Bilbray’s new home in Carlsbad is not included in the district.  Bilbray beat Nick Leibham here last year by exactly 5 points, while in the 2006 special election, Bilbray beat Francine Busby by 4.5 points.  The new CA-50 has a Democratic margin that’s 13.4 points higher than the old CA-50; you can do the rest of the math here re. Bilbray’s future electoral prospects under the new lines !

District 51:  

Incumbent: Bob Filner (San Diego)

Current District:  Obama 63.1%; McCain 35.5% (Obama + 27.6)

Proposed District:  Obama 63.1%; McCain 35.5% (Obama + 27.6)

Proposed District:  Kerry 55.1%; Bush 43.3%

The new district remains very, very similar to the current one.  The only changes are that a small part of San Diego as well as unincorporated communities to the north of Chula Vista are detached in order to meet population parameters of the new district.  The district remains majority Hispanic.

District 52:  

Incumbent: Duncan Hunter (Lakeside); Brian Bilbray (Carlsbad)

Current District:  Obama 45.0%; McCain 53.4% (McCain + 8.4)

Proposed District:  Obama 43.6%; McCain 55.4% (McCain + 11.8)

Proposed District:  Kerry 35.7%; Bush 63.3%

This district combines the non-San Diego parts of the current CA-50 and CA-52 into one district — 51% of the territory in the new district comes out of CA-50, while 46% comes out of CA-52 (also included is the  Rancho Bernardo part of San Diego, currently in CA-49).  The primary here between Bilbray and Hunter (if that was the result of these lines being adopted) would be quite interesting to watch.

District 53:  

Incumbent: Susan Davis (San Diego)

Current District:  Obama 68.2%; McCain 29.9% (Obama + 38.3)

Proposed District:  Obama 63.0%; McCain 35.4% (Obama + 27.6)

Proposed District:  Kerry 55.0%; Bush 44.0%

The new CA-53 is anchored by the city of San Diego, with smaller communities like Imperial Beach, Coronado, Lemon Grove, La Mesa and El Cajon also included.  The new district is a bit less Democratic than the current one, but Davis would have no trouble winning in a new “Obama +27.6 points” district.