Tag: California

Potentially the hottest California Congressional race in a decade, a matchup between Secretary of State Debra Bowen and Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn provides a great opportunity to show how mapping can inform each campaign.

Hahn is in. Activists on Twitter are saying that Bowen will decide by Tuesday. Marcy Winograd, who ran unsuccessfully in 2010 is mulling a run, and Republicans Mattie Fein and Nathan Mintz could still be in the mix. The following uses Maptitude to explore what the candidates are going to face.

 

CD36 Registration [PDF]

This coastal area has elected Republicans in the past, and it can be seen how in this map. Many of the higher income portions are either Republican leaning or narrowly Democratic. However the northern part of the district, including the city of LA portions makes this a safe Democratic seat.

 

CD36 Latino Density [PDF]

The Latino density is greatest inland and in the southern area where Hahn is most well known. Latinos could be a Hahn strength provided that these communities show up in a low-turnout election.

 

 

CD36 African American Density [PDF]

African American residents are more inland than CD 36, with only a small representation, mostly in the West Carson and LA portions of the district. Normally the African American vote would be a strong factor for Hahn as she and her father have strong support within that community. There has been some discussion that the district would have a larger African American base if the Commission made the coastal lines East/West rather than North/South. This would create two South Bay seats in which African Americans could be influential, however do so potentially at the expense of coastal communities of interest.

 

Asian Density [PDF]

Asian Voters could be a key voting bloc in this contest with the densest concentrations inside Torrance. Clearly this is a race where Ted Lieu would have been formidable, if he weren't in the middle of his own race for State Senate.

 

Hahn v. Newsom in CD36 [PDF]

Janice Hahn ran for Lieutenant Governor in June 2010, and this map shows where she won and lost, by precinct. A sitting councilmember with massive Name ID losing to a mayor from San Francisco in her LA backyard shows a major point of vulnerability.

 

Harman v. Winograd in June 2010 [PDF]

Marcy Winograd ran against Congresswoman Jane Harman in the June 2010 primary. Her campaign was primarily fueled by a progressive backlash to Harman who has been hawkish on middle east issues. As this map shows, a number of the most progressive precincts, particularly those up in the Venice area preferred her over Harman.

 

Bowen v. Ortiz 2006 Primary [PDF]

The 2006 primary election for Secretary of State was a low-interest down ballot race with Ortiz performing strongly among Latinos. This can be seen in this map where the West Carson portion of the district is strongly supportive of Ortiz. However, Bowen wins the vast majority of the district, ultimately winning by a large margin.

 

 

Hahn Results in Districts 31 – 39 [PDF]

We know from the maps below that in the 2010 Democratic Primary for Lieutenant Governor Janice Hahn lost a chunk of precincts to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. But how does this relate to her performance in other parts of LA? As this map shows, Hahn won Congressional Districts 31-39. But of those CD 36 was her worst performance. In the districts mapped, Hahn beat Newsom by an average of 31 points, but in CD 36 she only beat him by 9 points. The heavy lift for the Hahn campaign will be confronting the fact that she is extremely popular in the city core, but had her worst election night performances along the coast. 

 

Hahn and Bowen Races – side by side [PDF]

This compares the 2006 Bowen v. Ortiz race to the 2010 Hahn v. Newsom race, showing something local activists may already understand: Bowen is strongest in the most liberal and white portions of the district, while Hahn is strongest in the more urban LA and West Carson portions. This should be very concerning to Hahn as her base of support is also the lower registration and turnout part of the district.

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

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

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

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

San Diego County

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

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

District 1: Hispanic San Diego

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

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 62; McCain 37

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

Estimated Demographics: Above 50% minority

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 60; McCain 38

District 3: Coastal San Diego

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 70% white

Politics:  Lean Democratic; Obama 58; McCain 40

District 4: Inland San Diego County

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 65% white

Politics:  Safe Republican; Obama 41; McCain 57

Inland Empire

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

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

District 5:  Eastern Riverside Co. and Imperial

Estimated Demographics: Above 60% minority (Hispanic majority)

Politics:  Lean Democratic; Obama 56; McCain 43

District 6:  Central Riverside Co.

Estimated Demographics: White majority

Politics:  Safe Republican; Obama 45; McCain 53

District 7:  North-western Riverside Co.

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

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 60; McCain 39

District 8:  South-western San Bernardino Co.

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

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 60; McCain 38

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

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 60% white

Politics:  Safe Republican; Obama 43; McCain 55

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

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

Politics:  Lean Democratic; Obama 56; McCain 42

Orange County

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

District 11:  Central Orange Co.

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

Politics:  Lean Democratic; Obama 59; McCain 39

District 12:  North-central Orange Co.

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

Politics:  Toss Up; Obama 53; McCain 45

District 13:  Coastal Orange Co.

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 70% white

Politics:  Safe Republican; Obama 46; McCain 52

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

District 14:  Inland Orange Co.

Estimated Demographics: Above. 60% white

Politics:  Safe Republican; Obama 43; McCain 55

“Leftover” San Diego/Orange/Riverside:

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

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 60% white

Politics:  Safe Republican; Obama 44; McCain 55

Los Angeles and Ventura Counties

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

District 16:  Eastern LA County; Pomona, Covina

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

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 61; McCain 37

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

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

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 64; McCain 34

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

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

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 86; McCain 12

District 19:  Central Los Angeles

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

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 81; McCain 17

District 20:  Eastern Los Angeles (city), Burbank

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

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 77; McCain 21

District 21:  Eastern San Fernando Valley

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

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 74; McCain 24

District 22:  Long Beach and environs

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

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 67; McCain 31

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

Estimated Demographics: Above 80% minority (Asian plurality)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 60; McCain 38

District 24:  South-central LA

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

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 94; McCain 5

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

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

Politics:  Lean Democratic; Obama 59; McCain 39

District 26:  Santa Monica Bay coast and some inland areas

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

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 75; McCain 23

District 27:  Glendale, Pasadena, Monrovia

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

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 66; McCain 32

District 28:  Northern LA County, western San Fernando Valley

Estimated Demographics: Above 50% white

Politics:  Toss Up; Obama 54; McCain 44

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

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

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 75% white

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 67; McCain 32

District 30:  Ventura County (other than Thousand Oaks)

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

Politics:  Lean Democratic; Obama 56; McCain 42

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

Central Coast

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

District 31:  Central Coast

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 60% white

Politics:  Lean Democratic; Obama 57; McCain 41

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

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

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

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 72; McCain 26

Central Valley

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

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

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

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 62; McCain 37

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

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

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 60; McCain 39

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

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 60% white

Politics:  Safe Republican; Obama 38; McCain 60

District 36:  Parts of Tulare, Fresno, Kings

Estimated Demographics: White majority

Politics:  Safe Republican; Obama 38; McCain 60

District 37:  Modesto, Merced, Madera, Mariposa

Estimated Demographics: White majority

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

Sacramento

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

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

Estimated Demographics: Above 60% white

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

District 39:  Sacramento (city) and environs

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

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 68; McCain 30

San Francisco Bay Area

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

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

District 40:  San Francisco

Estimated Demographics: White plurality; large Asian population

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 86; McCain 12

District 41:  San Mateo peninsula, part of San Francisco

Estimated Demographics: White plurality; large Asian population

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 74; McCain 25

District 42:  Silicon Valley

Estimated Demographics: White majority

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 71; McCain 27

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

Estimated Demographics: White majority

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 65; McCain 34

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

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

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 77; McCain 21

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

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

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 71; McCain 27

District 46:  Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond

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

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 88; McCain 10

District 47:  Western Contra Costa; parts of Solano

Estimated Demographics: White majority

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 70; McCain 28

District 48:  Eastern Contra Costa; parts of San Joaquin

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

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 61; McCain 37

District 49:  Marin, Sonoma

Estimated Demographics: Above 70% white

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 76; McCain 22

Northern California

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

District 50:  North Coast, Napa, Solano

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 65% white

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 62; McCain 36

District 51:  Sacramento River Valley

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 60% white

Politics: Toss Up; Obama 54; McCain 44

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

District 52:  Far-northern California

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 80% white

Politics: Safe Republican; Obama 44; McCain 53

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

District 53:  Sierra Nevada area; Sacramento exurbs

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 80% white

Politics: Safe Republican; Obama 44; McCain 54

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

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

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

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

I was almost done drawing this map last year when I realized that the passage of Prop 20 is a likely outcome.  A Democratic gerrymander of California then became moot of course and so I never finished.  However, I recently thought it would be neat to post anyhow, as many of the maps posted here are only theoretical and don’t have a chance of becoming reality (or anything close to reality).  So I finished my map – but perhaps not taking as much care as when I first started.  Hence, I should note that the area around Los Angeles and Kern Counties was drawn “after the fact” and is therefore not as “thought out” as other parts of the map.  

Nevertheless, I still tried to be true to my original goals: creating as many solid Democratic seats as possible, increasing the number of Hispanic and other minority-majority districts, and making sure that all Democratic incumbents kept as much of their current territory as possible.  The resulting map has only 7 Republican seats.  The other 46 districts are all at least 61% Obama districts — except for CA-3 and CA-4, which are 58% Obama (so really, 7 GOP, 2 districts 58% Obama, and 44 districts at 61% or more Obama) … I figured CA-3 and CA-4 could be left at the lower level as those two districts were almost won by Democrats back in 2008 even as their current configurations are a lot more Republican, and also because the percentage change between 2004 and 2008 was not as great in this part of California as it was in the rest of the state.  Hence, under my estimates, John Kerry would still have been the winner in my new versions of CA-3 and CA-4, as he would have been the winner in all the 61%+ Obama districts created.

I figured I would post this map despite the fact that a commission will now be drawing the districts.  I believe that it’s still instructive in some respects.  For example, it’s interesting to me that despite “packing” Republicans into just 7 districts, McCain got 60%+ of the vote in only 1 of those — meaning that the GOP brand is quickly thinning out in the state, and in the near- and mid-term future, even a non-partisan plan of the state is likely to result in a relatively small number of Republican representatives.  Another good example of how thinly-spread the GOP is becoming may be found by looking at San Diego Co. — historically one of the more Republican parts of the state.  In this map, I was able to draw three relatively compact 61 Obama/37 McCain districts (CA-50, 51, 53) wholly confined to the area around the city of San Diego/coastal part of the county, while drawing two other 61/62% Obama districts, both over 60% hispanic, that take in other significant chunks of the county (CA-47, 49).  The only GOP district left in San Diego Co. would be CA-52.

Another interesting thing was that the more minority-majority districts I created, the more Democratic districts I wound up with overall.  This may seem counter-intuitive at first, and certainly doesn’t fit the pattern in most other parts of the country, where the creation of more minority-majority seats means less Democratic seats overall.  Apparently, in California the minority population is pretty thoroughly or effectively spread out these days (no longer just concentrated in urban enclaves) that wherever you draw a district, there’s a good chance it will be a minority-majority district — even if a single ethnic/racial group does not form a majority.  In fact, in this map 30 out of 53 districts are minority-majority.  It appears that much of the hispanic population in the state is geographically interspersed among the GOP population.  Hence, even (and especially ?) when non-partisan districts are drawn much of the two populations will “mix” resulting in, overall, more Democratic districts as the highly-Democratic hispanic population will make the new compact districts lean more towards that side of the political spectrum (this is especially true over the long-term, and especially true if the GOP continiues to alienate hispanics with their policies).

Basically, the map makes the districts of many white Democratic incumbents (like Berman and Filner) more white, while many GOP seats are turned into new hispanic-majority seats.  Each Democratic incumbent save two also gets to keep at least 30% of his or her current constituents (in most cases, the percentage is significantly higher; the only exceptions are Chu — where I only keep her hometown area, but the new asian-plurality district is nevertheless drawn to her advantage; and, Napolitano, who gets to keep a bit under 30% of her constituents — but her new district is still centered around her hometown and is over 60% hispanic.  I should note that the district I “assign” to Linda Sanchez here is CA-39, and she currently represents slightly under 30% of the new district; however, Sanchez could just as well decide to run in what’s labeled as CA-40 on this map, where she would get to keep 50% of her current constituents, and her district would border her sister’s — this is all theoretical, of course, as this map will never happen !     …. I should also note that some districts here “look” as if they were completely “shifted” in terms of geography — Loretta Sanchez’s district is a good example — as the boundaries expand all the way into Oceanside in San Diego Co., and yet population-wise, the Congresswoman still gets to keep over 60% of her current constituents, as much of the population is concentrated in Santa Ana and Anaheim.)

The only districts which are 75% or more Obama are CA-8, CA-31 and CA-33.  The population deviation is  +/- under 1,000 persons.

Anyhow, here’s the map, and then a brief run-down of the districts:

The following districts are drawn to elect a Democrat:

CA-1 Thompson – 63 Obama, 35 McCain – above 70% white

CA-3 Lungren – 58 O, 40 M – above 60% white

CA-4 McClintock – 58 O, 40 M – above 60% white

CA-5 Matsui – 61 O, 37 M – above 50% white

CA-6 Woolsey – 70 O, 28 M – above 70% white

CA-7 Miller – 63 O, 35 M – above 50% white

CA-8 Pelosi – 85 O, 13 M – white plurality, above 30% asian

CA-9 Lee – 74 O, 25 M – white plurality, around 20% black

CA-10 Garamendi – 66 O, 33 M – above 50% white

CA-11 McNerney – 65 O, 34 M – above 50% white

CA-12 Speier – 74 O, 24 M – white plurality

CA-13 Stark – 73 O, 25 M – white plurality, above 30% asian

CA-14 Eshoo – 66 O, 33 M – above 50% white

CA-15 Honda – 68 O, 30 M – white and asian each around 40%

CA-16 Lofgren – 68 O, 31 M – white plurality

CA-17 Farr – 63 O, 35 M – above 60% white

CA-18 Cardoza – 61 O, 37 M – above 50% hispanic

CA-19 Denham – 61 O, 38 M – above 50% hispanic

CA-20 Costa – 61 O, 38 M – above 50% hispanic

CA-22 McCarthy – 61 O, 38 M – around 70% hispanic

CA-23 Capps – 61 O, 37 M – above 60% white

CA-24 Gallegly – 62 O, 37 M – around 70% white

CA-25 McKeon – 61 O, 37 M – above 50% hispanic

CA-26 Dreier – 61 O, 37 M – above 50% hispanic

CA-27 Sherman – 63 O, 35 M – above 50% white

CA-28 Berman – 63 O, 35 M – hispanic plurality (but less than current district)

CA-29 Schiff – 63 O, 35 M – white and hispanic each around 40%

CA-30 Waxman – 63 O, 35 M – above 50% white

CA-31 Becerra – 78 O, 20 M – above 65% hispanic

CA-32 Chu – 62 O, 36 M – asian plurality

CA-33 Bass – 75 O, 23 M – no dominant group, large numbers of whites, hispanics, blacks and asians

CA-34 Roybal-Allard – 73 O, 25 M – above 60% hispanic

CA-35 Waters – 72 O, 27 M – almost equal number of whites, blacks and hispanics

CA-36 Harman – 65 O, 33 M – white and hispanic each around 40%

CA-37 Richardson – 63 O, 36 M – significant numbers of hispanics, whites and blacks, with no group above 40% of population

CA-38 Napolitano – 62 O, 36 M – above 60% hispanic

CA-39 Sanchez – 66 O, 31 M – above 60% hispanic

CA-40 Royce – 62 O, 36 M – above 60% hispanic

CA-43 Baca – 64 O, 34 M – above 50% hispanic

CA-44 Calvert – 63 O, 35 M – hispanic plurality

CA-46 Rochrabacher – 61 O, 37 M – white plurality

CA-47 Sanchez – 61 O, 37 M – above 65% hispanic (asian pop. under 10%)

CA-49 Issa – 62 O, 36 M – above 60% hispanic

CA-50 Bilbray – 61 O, 37 M – above 50% white

CA-51 Filner – 61 O, 37 M – hispanic plurality (but less than current district)

CA-53 Davis – 61 O, 37 M – above 50% white

The following are the GOP seats:

CA-2 Herger – 40 Obama – 58 McCain – around 80% white

CA-21 Nunes – 36 O, 62 M – above 60% white

CA-41 Lewis – 38 O, 58 M – around 70% white

CA-42 Miller – 42 O, 56 M – around 60% white

CA-45 Bono Mack – 41 O, 57 M – around 70% white

CA-48 Campbell – 43 O, 55 M – around 70% white

CA-52 Hunter – 39 O, 59 M – above 70% white

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

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

http://swdb.igs.berkeley.edu/m…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We’ve already had a lively discussion with regard to California redistricting in this diary below, but now that I have diary rights I want to finally post my own projected map of the new California districts. Needless to mention, redistricting California is a daunting task, particularly in light of the newly approved ‘nonpartisan’ commission. So, a few notes and caveats are in order.

1) My map is only as good as the data provided by Dave’s Redistricting App. Clearly then, to whatever extent that data is invalid, my output will be likewise.

2) In this installment I’ll mainly just outline the process that I followed in placing the districts. I might go over the political results or the VRA ramifications in a subsequent installment if there seems to be enough interest. In short, I welcome any feedback or criticism regarding my decisions. I want to be reasonably confident about the validity of my mapping scheme before I go into much detail about how it affects individual districts.

3) I did not take any account of the current districts when putting together my map. However, I went back and numbered them based on the closest current district merely so as to facilitate discussion. I have added the incumbent that holds that currently numbered district, though I generally have no idea whether they’d still live in said districts. Also, when I doublechecked this afternoon I realized that several of the LA County and OC County districts were not optimally labelled in the map I posted to the other thread. More on that when I get to it.

4) The purpose of this exercise is in part to counter the popular notion that we can’t project some reasonably accurate version of the new California district configuration. My basic premise is that: If the commission simply follows the rule of crossing county and city boundaries only when necessary, then in most cases it’s obvious which way to go, so long as you have a starting point.

5) None of my districts deviate by more than +/- 600 people. The majority deviate by less than +/- 200. Again, this is based on Dave’s app of course. And, speaking of Dave’s app: It’s glitchy at spots. I’ve edited these glitches out of the maps below.

So, without further ado, here we go:

To begin with, here’s my statewide map:

Now I chose San Francisco as a natural starting point. The simple reason for this being that it’s bounded on three sides by water boundaries. It’s also one of the state’s leading cities and a classic tenet of purely geographic districting is to minimize the subdivision of major population centers. Below is my final map of the Bay Area. This is the process by which I arrived at these boundaries:

1) I began with CA-08 in San Francisco County, then simply added voting blocks horizontally until I reach the correct population. Now, there’s been some discussion about the idea of instead dividing the county roughly in half and joining the northern district with Marin County across the Bay. For the record, I tried that just to see what happens. In short, all of these compact districts around the Bay are heavily Democratic districts, and taking CA-08 north into Marin simply rotates them clockwise, still leaving you with a set of heavily Democratic districts. The only meaningful difference is that population centers are harder to keep intact.

CA-08 (Pelosi – D): 85% Obama / 13% McCain

2) I started CA-12 with the remainder of San Francisco County and finished it with San Mateo County except for Redwood City.

CA-12 (Speier – D): 74% Obama / 24% McCain

3) I started CA-14 with Redwood City and added Santa Clara to complete the district. I then put San Jose in its own CA-15 district, and then started CA-16 with the rest of Santa Clara County.

CA-14 (Eshoo – D): 73% Obama / 25% McCain

CA-15 (Honda – D): 70% Obama / 28% McCain

4) I wasn’t sure which way to go with CA-16, so I switched gears to start CA-17 with Santa Cruz County. I then added Monterey County to CA-17. It then became clear enough that I should add San Benito County to CA-16, because if I added it to CA-17 it would not take up the whole county.

5) At this point it became clear enough that I should complete CA-16 with the eastern part of Alameda County.

CA-16 (Lofgren – D): 64% Obama / 34% McCain

6) All of central Alameda County can then become CA-13 (Fremont, Union City, Pleasonton, Hayword) and then Oakland can take up most of CA-09.

CA-13 (Stark – D): 72% Obama / 26% McCain

7) I then finished up CA-09 with the western tip of Contra Costa County, then added CA-10 to take up the central county through Concord and Danville.

CA-09 (Lee – D): 89% Obama / 9% McCain

CA-10 (Garamendi – D): 69% Obama / 30% McCain

8) I wasn’t sure where the rest of Contra Costa belonged, so I started CA-07 with Solano County. I wasn’t sure where to go for the rest of CA-07 so I switched to CA-06 in Marin County, then finished it up with most of Sonoma County.

CA-06 (Woolsey – D): 76% Obama / 22% McCain

OK, so now what? More after the map…

Below I have my maps of Northern California and the Sacramento area.

9) As I pondered CA-07, I realized that I could add all of Napa County and all of Yolo County except for West Sacramento. The alternatives would either create a weirdly shaped district or unnecessarily divide Sacramento.

CA-07 (Miller – D): 65% Obama / 33% McCain

10) I then started CA-01 with Mendocino, Trinity, Humboldt, Del Norte, and Lake counties. It also became clear that the rest of Sonoma belonged in CA-01. The CA-01 district still needed 365,000 people.

11) I went ahead and added CA-05 in West Sacramento (Yolo County) and Sacramento proper. Sacramento should clearly anchor 2 districts, so I placed CA-03 fully in the eastern part of the county.

CA-05 (Matsui – D): 69% Obama / 29% McCain

CA-03 (Lungren – R): 50% Obama / 48% McCain

12) I still had 55,000 people left in the southwestern salient of Sacramento County. It now became clear enough that CA-11 should take those, the remaining half of Contra Costa County, and San Joaquin including half of Stockton.

CA-11 (McNerney – D): 59% Obama / 39% McCain

13) I now added Colusa, Glenn, Tehama, Shasta, and Siskiyou counties to CA-01. I still needed 23,000 more people. The most efficient way to finish up CA-01 was with Modoc County and part of Lassen County.

CA-01 (Thompson – D): 50% Obama / 47% McCain

14) I could now start CA-02 with the rest of Lassen. I then added Plumas, Butte, Sierra, Yuba, Nevada, and Sutter. This left me needing 170,000 people. The obvious place to get them was Placer County except for the Rocklin/Roseville corner.

CA-02 (Herger – R): 47% Obama / 51% McCain

15) It now made sense to start CA-04 with this corner of Placer, and to add the sparsely populated eastern counties of El Dorado, Amador, Calaveras, Alpine, Mono, Tuolomne, and Mariposa. But, where to go now? More after the maps…

Below I’ve added my maps of the Central Valley and Southern California. The next set of decisions involving the Central Valley are the ones that I think are most debatable, as I’ve stated previously. In any case, here’s my reasoning

16) It made sense to start CA-18 with the rest of San Joaquin County and then finish it off in Stanislaus County, including the city of Modesto.

CA-18 (Cardoza – D): 54% Obama / 44% McCain

17) I then started CA-19 with the remainder of Stanislaus County and all of Merced County. At this point, the next population center was Fresno, but I had to decide what to do with Madera County that was in the way. I played with several alternatives and realized that my options were to either split Madera County or split the city of Fresno or end up with several weirdly shaped districts. I chose to split Madera County and then finish off CD-19 with western half of Fresno County.

CA-19 (Denham – R): 49% Obama / 49% McCain

18) It then made sense to give Fresno it’s own CA-21 district, and to place the sparsely populated eastern remainder of Madera & Fresno counties in CA-04.

CA-21 (Nunes – R): 51% Obama / 47% McCain

19) At this juncture, it seemed fairly obvious to start CA-20 with Kings and Tulare counties. Once I did that, it was obvious that CA-04 should finally be completed with Inyo and the sparsely populated east of San Bernardino County.

CA-04 (McClintock – R): 42% Obama / 56% McCain

20) I now decided it was time to switch back to the coast. It was clear that I should finish CA-17 with the Cambria corner of San Luis Obispo County. I could then start CA-23 with the rest of San Luis Obispo and add all of Santa Barbera County, which left me needing 67,000 people.

CA-17 (Farr – D): 71% Obama / 27% McCain

21) I then switched back to CA-20, finishing it in Kern County. Then I added CA-22 fully contained in Kern County, which left 12,000 people in one corner. I decided to add these to CA-04, swapping them out for 12,000 in San Bernardino (which didn’t change the partisan breakdown of CA-04).

CA-20 (Costa – D): 43% Obama / 56% McCain

CA-22 (McCarthy – R): 39% Obama / 59% McCain

22) I then added CA-41 in central San Bernardino County, finished CA-23 in northern Ventura County, and placed CA-24 in southern Ventura County. This left me with 34,000 people in Ventura County and I was ready to start on LA – after the maps!

CA-41 (Lewis – R): 44% Obama / 53% McCain

CA-23 (Capps – D): 58% Obama / 40% McCain

CA-24 (Gallegly – R): 55% Obama / 44% McCain

Below is my LA County map. Note that the district numbering has changed from the map that I posted in the other thread, because when I went back over it I realized that the current Dreier district (CA-26) had been dismantled and that the one which I had labeled as CA-26 should’ve been Chu’s CA-32, while the one that I originally labelled as CA-32 should’ve clearly been CA-39 (Linda Sanchez).

23) Anyhow, here is how I proceeded with LA County (with the above amendments):

CA-25: I started with northern LA County, and added the San Fernando Valley.

CA-30: I finished Ventura County, and added the Westside cities.

CA-27: I took the rest of San Fernando, Burbank, and Glendale.

CA-33: I started with Culver City, added Santa Monica, and Beverly Hills.

CA-28: Centered on Hollywood.

CA-29: Centered on Pasadena.

CA-32: I started in Glendora and took in the northern suburbs.

CA-35: Centered on Inglewood.

CA-36: Centered on Rancho Palos Verdes – with Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach.

CA-38: Centered on Pomona and Covina.

CA-31: Centered on downtown LA.

CA-34: Centered on Huntington Park.

CA-37: Centered on Compton.

CA-39: East LA, leaving the southeast waterfront corner of Los Angeles County.

CA-25 (McKeon – R): 53% Obama / 45% McCain

CA-27 (Sherman – D): 71% Obama / 27% McCain

CA-28 (Berman – D): 80% Obama / 18% McCain

CA-29 (Schiff – D): 69% Obama / 29% McCain

CA-30 (Waxman – D): 63% Obama / 35% McCain

CA-31 (Becerra – D): 80% Obama / 17% McCain

CA-32 (Chu – D): 58% Obama / 40% McCain I think Dreier actually lives here.

CA-33 (Bass – D): 77% Obama / 22% McCain

CA-34 (Roybal-Allard – D): 76% Obama / 22% McCain

CA-35 (Waters – D): 88% Obama / 11% McCain

CA-36 (Harman – D): 59% Obama / 39% McCain

CA-37 (Richardson – D): 84% Obama / 15% McCain

CA-38 (Napolitano – D): 64% Obama / 34% McCain

CA-39 (Linda Sanchez – D): 60% Obama / 38% McCain

With LA out of the way, it’s time to wrap up SoCal after the map.

Below I have added my final maps. The first covers Orange County & the Inland Empire; the second covers the San Diego area. Here is how I proceeded to map these districts.

24) I started with Orange County by taking the last bit of LA and joining it with Huntington Beach to make CA-46. I then put CA-47 in Fullerton, Anaheim, and Buena Park and Irvine/Newport Beach in CA-48.

CA-46 (Rohrabacher – R): 48% Obama / 50% McCain

CA-47 (Loretta Sanchez – D): 52% Obama / 46% McCain

CA-48 (Campbell – R): 55% Obama / 43% McCain

25) I then put the city of San Bernardino in CA-43, and finished off San Bernardino County with CA-42, which still needed about 90,000 people. However, I wasn’t sure whether these should come from Orange County or Riverside County.

CA-43 (Baca – D): Obama 61% / McCain 37%

26) I now switched to Riverside County by placing CA-45 in the eastern 2/3 anchored with  Palm Springs, and then centered CA-44 on the city of Riverside and Moreno Valley. I think CA-44 might actually be the vacant seat, so maybe I should’ve labeled it CA-26..

CA-45 (Bono Mack – R): 51% Obama / 48% McCain

CA-44 (Calvert – R, or maybe vacant): 58% Obama / 40% McCain

27) I then started CA-51 with Imperial County and added eastern San Diego County basically up to the coastal strip. That still left me needing 440,000 people, and neatest way to add them was to take the South Bay area (Chula Vista & Imperial Beach).

CA-51 (Filner – D): 51% Obama / 47% McCain

28) The city of San Diego can clearly anchor two compact districts, so I just split it down the middle with CA-52 and CA-53. I then added CA-50 along the coast, and started CA-49 in Oceanside.

CA-50 (Bilbray – R): 50% Obama / 48% McCain

CA-52 (Hunter – R): 55% Obama / 44% McCain

CA-53 (Davis – D): 66% Obama / 32% McCain

29) At this point it’s clear that if CA-49 goes into Riverside County, either Riverside or Orange will be subdivided once more than necessary. So, I finish off Orange County with CA-49 and CA-40, leaving 15,000 people in the southeast corner.

CA-40 (Royce – R): 43% Obama / 55% McCain

CA-49 (Issa – R): 46% Obama / 52% McCain

30) This leaves only Riverside County, where I wrap up CA-42 with Norco, and create what is essentially a new Inland Empire seat from Temecula to Corona (along with those 15,000 people from the corner of O.C.) I’ve numbered it CA-26, but it doesn’t actually overlap Dreier’s current district, and I think Calvert lives here in Corona, which would make the CA-44 district the vacant one.

CA-42 (Miller – R): 53% Obama / 45% McCain

CA-26 (Dreier – R; but actually either vacant or maybe Calvert – R): 44% Obama / 55% McCain

Whatever the case, I think that more than covers it! Please let me know what you think of my maps. Am I on track or way off base??

Now that it’s 2011, the redistricting games will soon begin in earnest, with more detailed Census data expected in February or March and some states holding spring legislative sessions to deal with drawing new maps. Long ago I planned to do state-by-state rundowns of the redistricting process as soon as 2010 election results and Census reapportionment were clear. Now that time has arrived, and it’s time to look at California, Colorado, and Connecticut.

Previous diary on Alabama, Arizona, and Arkansas

The rest below the fold…

California

Districts: 53

Who’s in charge? Nonpartisan commission

Is that important? Heck yes

Boy, is this the big kahuna. With California’s delegation comprising 12.2% of the entire House, and 17.6% of the whole Democratic caucus, the Golden State was already a dominant player in the nationwide redistricting wars, but with its recent switch from legislative control (which would have meant a Democratic gerrymander in 2011) to a nonpartisan commission, any semblance of certainty is out the window. The commission must preserve VRA-protected minority seats, of which there are at least 12 (Barbara Lee’s 9th, Jim Costa’s 20th, Xavier Becerra’s 31st, Judy Chu’s 32nd, Karen Bass’s 33rd, Lucille Roybal-Allard’s 34th, Maxine Waters’s 35th, Laura Richardson’s 37th, Grace Napolitano’s 38th, Linda Sanchez’s 39th, Joe Baca’s 43rd, and Loretta Sanchez’s 47th) and  several more if you interpret the law as protecting Latino-majority/plurality districts represented by non-Hispanic whites.

Republicans say the losers in California redistricting will be white Democrats representing less-than-completely-solid seats (such as Jerry McNerney and Dennis Cardoza), seats likely to be broken up and redistributed between other districts (such as Lois Capps), or seats likely to be turned into VRA-protected minority districts (such as one of the San Fernando Valley Dems: Berman, Sherman, or Schiff). Democrats say that the current map is not that gerrymandered in their favor, and is instead an incumbent protection gambit; they argue that nonpartisan redistricting will ruin as many GOP incumbents (Ken Calvert and Gary Miller, say) as Dem incumbents. In any case, few solid predictions can be made at this point, and I’d like very much to hear what those of you at SSP think will happen. If forced at gunpoint to predict something about the new map, I’d say a seat will be shifted from the Bay Area to the Inland Empire, and that Jerry McNerney is the likely “eliminee,” though it could also be a longtimer like George Miller or Pete Stark. Also, a competitive Central Coast district will be recreated à la the California 22nd in the 1990s, hurting the reelection prospects of both Lois Capps and Elton Gallegly. Demographics will also compel the commission to create a couple new Hispanic districts, at least one of which will be a reconfiguration of a seat now represented by a white L.A. Democrat.

The commission’s membership has been finalized and its work should be complete by sometime this autumn. I, for one, greatly look forward to the fireworks.

Colorado

Districts: 7

Who’s in charge? Split (Dem Governor and Senate, GOP House)

Is that important? Not really

The bare Republican majority in Colorado’s House should ensure a safer seat for Scott Tipton in the 3rd (represented by a Republican from 1992 to 2004 and a Democrat from 2004 to 2010), but otherwise won’t change the partisan dynamics much in Colorado. Overwhelming Democratic edges for Diana DeGette in Denver and Jared Polis in the Boulder area may be diluted a bit to create a rock-solid constituency for Ed Perlmutter, but that will be the only tangible benefit for Team Blue.

Connecticut

Districts: 5

Who’s in charge? Democrats

Is that important? No

An overwhelmingly Democratic legislature will draw districts for an already all-Democratic House delegation. Jim Himes and Chris Murphy should get slightly safer seats at the marginal expense of rock-solid incumbents John Larson and Rosa DeLauro, but that will be the extend of remapping drama in the Nutmeg State.

Later this week: Florida, Georgia, and Hawaii!

The coming redistricting in California will see two significant forces working to give the new lines.  The first is population, how it has grown and shifted since the last maps were drawn.  The second is the commission process that will follow set rules around keeping cities and counties together, compactness, communities of interest, and drawing lines without considering where candidates live.

To survey the political landscape I put together this chart showing population growth in each congressional district.  While the commission does not need to start from the existing lines, this does show the disparity in population growth among current districts.

Swing State readers should quickly realize that districts with the greatest overages are Republican.  This is seen statewide where Republican congressional seats are on average 42,000 over target population, and Democrat-held seats are 28,000 under.

Tightly packed Democratic seats like those in Los Angeles will have to geographically expand, stealing population from other neighboring Democrats to gain the requisite number of residents.  Conversely, Republican districts will be contracting as they give up voters, and could provide more opportunity to other Republicans.

Current Congressional Districts and Variation from 2010 Projected Targets

Member Residence Variation

1 Mike Thompson D St Helena Under By 19,552

2 Wally Herger R Chico Over By 23,927

3 Dan Lungren R Gold River Over By 52,873

4 Tom McClintock R Elk Grove Over By 78,971

5 Doris Matsui D Sacramento Over By 21,151

6 Lynn Woolsey D Petaluma Under By 82,302

7 George Miller D Martinez Under By 47,071

8 Nancy Pelosi D San Francisco Under By 28,457

9 Barbara Lee D Oakland Under By 47,004

10 John Garamendi D Walnut Grove Under By 4,079

11 Jerry McNerney D Pleasanton Over By 68,602

12 Jackie Speier D Hillsborough Under By 73,416

13 Pete Stark D Fremont Under By 59,603

14 Anna Eshoo D Atherton Under By 47,104

15 Mike Honda D San Jose Under By 17,541

16 Zoe Lofgren D San Jose Under By 7,756

17 Sam Farr D Carmel Under By 63,360

18 Dennis Cardoza D Merced Over By 27,745

19 George Radanovich R Mariposa Over By 49,586

20 Jim Costa D Fresno Over By 18,060

21 Devin Nunes R Tulare Over By 75,114

22 Kevin McCarthy R Bakersfield Over By 71,524

23 Lois Capps D Santa Barbara Under By 54,321

24 Elton Gallegly R Simi Valley Under By 29,472

25 Howard McKeon R Santa Clarita Over By 4,084

26 David Dreier R San Dimas Over By 10,372

27 Brad Sherman D Sherman Oaks Under By 41,458

28 Howard Berman D Los Angeles Under By 37,913

29 Adam Schiff D Burbank Under By 39,041

30 Henry Waxman D Los Angeles Under By 31,871

31 Xavier Becerra D Los Angeles Under By 55,157

32 Judy Chu D Monterey Park Under By 54,149

33 Diane Watson D Los Angeles Under By 36,444

34 Lucille Roybal-Allard D Los Angeles Under By 47,705

35 Maxine Waters D Los Angeles Under By 39,585

36 Jane Harman D Los Angeles Under By 34,005

37 Laura Richardson D Long Beach Under By 36,943

38 Grace Napolitano D Norwalk Under By 51,103

39 Linda Sanchez D Lakewood Under By 44,407

40 Ed Royce R Fullerton Under By 37,637

41 Jerry Lewis R Redlands Over By 100,829

42 Gary Miller R Diamond Bar Under By 10,593

43 Joe Baca D Rialto Over By 57,355

44 Ken Calvert R Corona Over By 191,982

45 Mary Bono Mack R Palm Springs Over By 200,712

46 Dana Rohrabacher R Huntington Beach Under By 40,074

47 Loretta Sanchez D Anaheim Under By 43,323

48 John Campbell R Irvine Over By 437

49 Darrell Issa R Vista Over By 65,129

50 Brian Bilbray R Carlsbad Over By 13,076

51 Bob Filner D San Diego Over By 7,693

52 Duncan Hunter R Lakeside Under By 25,845

53 Susan Davis D San Diego Under By 25,626

The following shows variations for congressional districts by region, however they do not match county growth perfectly as several Congressional districts overlap counties and skew the numbers.

Variation from Ideal 2010 Population, by Congressional Districts in Regions

.: Northern California +4.5% 4 districts over by 175,000, 1 under

.: San Francisco Bay -5.8% 11 districts are under by 415.000

.: Central Valley +6.9% 5 districts over by 240,000

.: Los Angeles -5.5% 13 districts under by 550,000

.: Orange County +1.4% 1 district is over, 4 are under

.: San Diego +1% 2 districts are under, 3 over

.: Inland Empire +11.4% 8 districts are over by 640,000

Regional Differences…

San Francisco Bay Area

Bay Area congressional districts have largely not kept up with statewide growth, putting them under the required population by about 4.5%.  The only exception is the Jerry McNerney district, but the growth in this district is primarily within the San Joaquin portion.  Excluding McNerney, the remaining ten districts need to expand to capture another 415,000 residents.  

Excluding the McNerney district the remaining Bay Area seats have to grow 6% on average.  This does not seem significant when looked at for an individual district where it is like adding the city of Pacifica.  However, as each district takes from the next, the impact is added up.  In the end the last district is going to shift by the equivalent of gaining or losing a city the size of Oakland.

Central Valley and Norcal

Tightly packed urban Democratic seats like those in the Bay Area will have to geographically expand, stealing population from other neighboring Democrats to gain the requisite number of residents.  Conversely, Republican districts like these in the Central Valley and Northern California will be contracting as they give up voters, and could provide more opportunity to other Republicans as these regions add a district.

Aside from population, the requirements for geographic compactness and keeping cities and counties together will wreak havoc on the current districts.

Los Angeles

As can be seen above, the cumulative impact of shrinking population is that LA districts have to go searching for an additional 540,000 residents.   In a redraw that follows the new commission rules this should cause the loss of one congressional seat for the region.

The greatest volatility could come in the San Gabriel Valley where population growth has been slowest. The districts of Grace Napolitano (CD 38), Judy Chu (CD 32) and Xavier Becerra (CD 31) have only had growth of 2-2.5% – putting them under the state average by approximately 8%.  Furthermore, South and West facing beaches limit the ability for districts in the City of LA to move in either of those directions, meaning that expanding districts must shift North and East – likely toward the Inland Empire that has seen the highest growth rate in the state.

The only district in Los Angles with an overage is also the only district held by a Republican.

Orange County

Orange County congressional districts have largely not kept up with statewide growth putting them under the required population by about 5%.  The only exception is the Ken Calvert district, but the growth in this seat is primarily within the Riverside portion of the district.  Excluding Calvert, the remaining five districts need to expand to capture another 130,000 residents.

While Orange County currently has six congressional members, it only has four who live within the county.  The districts held by Miller and Calvert extend from Orange County into Riverside and San Bernardino where those members live.  Given Orange County population estimates, the county should have 4.25 members of congress.  

San Diego

Overall growth in San Diego is just 1% above the state average.  Yet that shifts to about 1% under the state average after accounting for the Issa District that overlaps with Riverside and the Filner district that takes in the Inland Empire.  As can be expected, it is the southern, more densely populated portion of San Diego that has had the least growth.

Inland Empire

Past redistricting efforts have not done a good job of keeping the Inland Empire intact or creating lines that benefit this growing portion of the State.  The area has eight congressional seats with only three districts entirely within its boundaries and five that overlap from Los Angeles, San Diego and Orange Counties.   Half of the Inland Empire’s congressional representatives live outside of the three-county area.

In a redraw that respects city and county lines and pays no regard to where current members live, it can be expected that the three Congressional districts entirely within the Inland Empire would increase to five, and the districts that only dip into the Inland Empire would be stopped at the county lines.  This would be an increase in the region’s true representation, but a decrease in the number of representatives that have any part of the Inland Empire.

Over the past few weeks there has been a flurry of diaries about the Wyoming Rule (California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Maryland, Oregon, New Mexico, and my Washington map below). Many of these diaries asked at the end what they thought about the Wyoming Rule, and the intent of this diary is to examine some of the benefits and drawbacks of the Ruie itself. 

The primary benefit of the Wyoming Rule is that the districts are smaller for many states – or about 75%-80% the size of the current projected district size. California would go from 52 seats to 68, Washington from 10 to 12, and Oklahoma from 5 to 7. Other states would stay the same – Hawaii, Nebraska, and Rhode Island.  (The number of districts for each state was researched by borodino21). The range between states would drop from about 400k (Rhode Island to Montana) to 300k (South Dakota to Alaska).

The smaller district sizes in most states means that there are more opportunities to preserve communities of interest. For some states like North Carolina, this means it may be possible to create additional minority-majority or minority-influence districts. In other states, it may be possible to draw more CDs that encompass only one county or city.

While I do not wish to subscrible to albguy's method of creating as many Democratic districts as possible (while I do enjoy his method of pushing the limits of a redistricting map), the smaller districts may make it harder to create all Democratic seat maps.

In Washington, a more realistic map under the Wyoming Rule likely means two safe(r) Republican seats in Western Washington and two or three safe Republican seats in Eastern Washington. Now perhaps one or two of those districts may be better considered swing districts (especially a Vancouver to Yakama district), but the result of the Wyoming Rule is a 7-5 delegation (compared with the current 5-4 delegation with the possibility of a 6-4 delegation after the 2011 redistricting).

The Wyoming'd New York faces a similar problem. In jsramek's New York – the delegation would be 30 Democrats and 6 Republicans. This map also includes the cracking of Staten Island, which would probably not be politically viable – even for a solidly Democratic state legislature. While this is better than the 8 Republicans representing NY in the 2011-2012 Congress, many of the maps made for the Redistricting Contest would contain 1 or 2 Republicans out of New York's 28 Congressional Districts. 

The resaons for these results is that the smaller district sizes make it more difficult to crack Republican strongholds – or areas without overwhelming the nearby Democratic area. So, back to New York, at least 4 upstate districts are created as Republican vote sinks, instead of the possibilty of spreading them out. In Western Washington, eastern King, Pierce, Thurston and Clark counties are Republican areas, as well as Lewis and most of Cowlitz counties. In some maps, it is possible to divide those populations and combine them with more Democratic areas such as Vancouver, Olympia, Tacoma, and Bellevue to allow for Democrats to win those districts (but as in the 2010 elections, Republicans held on in WA 8 [East King and Pierce County] and won in WA 3 [SW Washington including Olympia]). With smaller districts, you can create two safe Republican districts in those Republican areas in exchange for two additional safe Democratic districts (and possibly another swing district). 

So, where does that leave us?  I think the advantages of the Wymonig Rule outweigh the drawbacks. More representation is better from a democracy standpoint, but it also helps Democrats in the big picture. For all of the concerns about not being able to maximize Democratic seats, the Republicans would not be able to either. In addition, more Congressional seats will also help Democrats in the Electoral College.

 

 

 

I put this in the comments of the open thread earlier today, but I’m confident in my numbers to make a proclamation.

As it stands right now, Kamala Harris is up by .2%, or 14,000 votes according to the CA SOS website, which was updated at 8 am this morning.

There are still around 900,000 ballots left uncounted.

Here are the top counties, their outstanding votes, and by how large a margin each county voted for a candidate.

Los Angeles: 208,513 (Harris +13.5%)

San Diego: 71,970 (Cooley +13.8%)

Orange: 54,316 (Cooley +29.2%)

San Joaquin: 39,715 (Cooley +7.6%)

Contra Costa: 38,413 (Harris +13.3%)

San Bernardino: 36,000 (Cooley +5%)

Sonoma: 35,500 (Harris +24.2%)

Riverside: 29,700 (Cooley +19%)

Monterey: 29,470 (Harris +15.2%)

Santa Cruz: 27,905 (Harris +34.1%!)

Marin: 27,050 (Harris +31.2%)

San Mateo: 26,812 (Harris +21.6%)

Alameda: 24,500 (Harris +40.7%!!)

Sacramento: 21,621 (Cooley +2.6%)

San Francisco: 21,376 (Harris +50.4%!!!!!!)

Using some mind numbing number crunching, I project that Kamala Harris takes it home with a net 64,584 from all of the above counties combined.

All of those counties account for around 694,000 of the 898,458 unprocessed votes, or 77% of the uncounted votes.

This means that for cooley to overtake that 64,584 deficit from the remaining uncounted counties, he would have to, on average, win them by around a 32% margin.

While not impossible, I find it highly unlikely for this to occur.  The biggest margin Cooley received from any county that I can see is from Kern, when he got a 36.5% margin.  He is going to have to do better than that with outstanding counties like santa Clara that went for Harris by 18.2%, and has 8,000 more outstanding ballots than Kern.

Unless the last of these ballots go overwhelmingly for Cooley, I think Cooley is a goner, and California will have its first Bi-Racial AG.

Congrats Kamala.  

(Also at Nevada Progressive, and I have photos from Netroots CA at my Twitpic!)

OK, so I’ve had more time to process what happened. And I had a chance to talk with my old Cali friends at Netroots California last Saturday. And I came out surprisingly hopeful about our future.

While we did have some rough losses in Nevada, overall the picture here was much brighter than the rest of the country. Come on, all the incumbent statewide elected Democrats are reelected while Harry Reid won by over 5.6%! Reid outperformed almost all the public polls. What happened? How come “The Great Red Tide” that destroyed many Dems in many states east of The Rockies was barely a ripple here?

Basically, it comes down to what Harry Reid and Nevada Democrats did right. They invested in getting out the vote. They made our progressive message clear and concise AND accessible to regular voters. And they reached out to minority communities and actually IMPROVED Latin@ turnout over 2006 AND 2008!

It really comes down to this. Even in “wave elections”, “the wave” doesn’t have to be a monstrous tsunami. Good campaigns still matter. Good field still matters. And good messaging still matters. Harry Reid made all this happen and more.

Ralston explained this on Sunday.

The Reid organization’s Terminator-like single-mindedness, relentlessness and discipline turned preparation into the most satisfying victory of Reid’s career, a resurrection unthinkable most of the year by the Beltway cognoscenti. Combined with an Angle campaign that was thoroughly unprepared for the post-primary onslaught – think of a Little League batter facing Roy Halladay – that by the time the GOP nominee brought in some D.C. pros, the damage was insurmountable.

Interestingly, a similar dynamic appeared in California last Tuesday. More Latin@ voters turned out than ever before. And while Jerry Brown’s campaign (for CA Governor) didn’t exactly “strike while the iron was hot” on delivering his message or attacking Meg Whitman’s record, California unions did. And they delivered, big time!

And Barbara Boxer followed a very similar strategy to Reid’s in defining Carly Fiorina early as quite the unacceptable choice, delivering a progressive message in a practical way to attract voters (Hint: Make it real. Make it tangible. Make it about one’s pocketbook/wallet/purse.), and turning out Dem voters like crazy.

Again, it comes down to whether Democrats can field good candidates, deliver a good message, and turn out as many allied voters as possible. It worked in California and Nevada… But because the national Democratic groups failed in these categories and many other state parties were in turmoil, that’s why the results were so bad elsewhere.

Why didn’t other Senate candidates try to turn health care reform and good climate policy into winning arguments? Why didn’t other state parties invest more in good GOTV infrastructure? Why didn’t the DCCC and DSCC take a closer look at the winning arguments being made by Reid and Boxer?

That’s the challenge moving forward. President Obama needs to rethink his messaging. Democrats need to work harder on showing how good progressive policy means more and better jobs. And Democrats nationally need to look at places like Nevada and California to learn how to rebuild good, strong GOTV infrastructure. And if Obama can turn his numbers around and offer a strong and appealing progressive message that reveals the crap the GOP is truly offering and explains how to truly get our nation back on track, he can win handily again and Democrats can soon retake the House and keep the Senate.

It really comes down to that. Oh, and I had a great time in SF… 😉

But I’m hoping we have an even better time back in Vegas this weekend!