Tag: California

Yes, this is my first diary about my home state and my second diary not involving redistricting. I have noticed many of you (including myself) believe that Democrats will gain seats in the California State Senate, State Assembly and in U.S House Representation. Even though the Democrats are falling nationally, they should not be falling in California. If the Republicans cannot reach out to Hispanics (a Survey USA poll on July 25th showed that 73% of California Hispanics approve of Obama’s job,) Democrats should have a good year in California, especially southern California. It should take an election or two to have Californians vote more Democratic at a statewide level. So a 50% for McCain win in a State Senate district would probably rank Lean Republican, not a Toss Up. Here is an analysis of the first ten State Senate Districts up for reelection (in 2010, only the even numbered districts are up for reelection.) I will post a diary about the other ten (eventually.) Overall, Democrats should gain 1-2 seats. Here is a link to the map of the California State Senate districts.

http://www.sen.ca.gov/~newsen/…

This link is for the California State Assembly Districts

http://www.legislature.ca.gov/…

State Senate District 2 Pat Wiggins (D)

We are lucky that her district is not trending Republican anytime soon. Here is a basic overview of Wiggins: July 13th, State Senate passes bill introduced by Wiggins to help rid Sonoma County of domestic violence.  On June 22nd, the State Senate passed a Wiggins bill that supports expanding Marine Sanctuaries off the coast of California. On June 3rd, the State Senate passed two Wiggins bills that expanded solar power opportunities and production. We should not lose her until 2014. Her district voted 69% for Obama. The demographics as of 2000 are 5% Black, 7% Asian and 16% Hispanic.

Status is Safe Democrat.

State Senate District 4 Sam Aanestad (R)

Aanestad’s website says that his main priorities are protecting Northern California water and rural health care. He will not fight for those issues for long. He is term limited out in 2010.  Two Republicans are lined up to take his seat. They are Rick Keene and Doug LaMalfa. Rick Keene is the former Assemblyman from the 3rd district and he lives in Chico. He supports low taxes and is a big supporter of North State water rights (since the water is shared with other parts of the state and reservoirs are low, water rights are a big issue in North State. ) Keene also promises to fight for “Conservative values.” Those include deregulation and getting rid of environmental burdens. I would not vote for Keene. LaMalfa seems to be a favorite. His website is more organized because he has the endorsements page up while Keene’s says “endorsements coming soon.” LaMalfa endorsements are influential and they include most of the sheriffs and district attorneys of the 4th district. Also, the State Senate Republican Leader Dennis Hollingsworth and the Assistant Leader Mimi Walters support LaMalfa. LaMalfa was in the State Assembly and represented the 2nd district. He is against high taxes but he is inconsistent on his views like some “Libertarians.” His website says quote, “Doug LaMalfa’s firm beliefs are that government should do no harm and that limited government means government should do only what people cannot do for themselves, in the most efficient manner possible,” unquote. Yet his website also says quote, “Doug helped lead Northern California efforts to protect marriage on both Proposition 22 and Proposition 8 that reaffirmed marriage is only between one man and one woman,” unquote. He can campaign for the government’s right to prevent people from marrying who they love as much as he wants. He should at least remove the line about supporting small government off his site! Something people CAN do for themselves is marry so why should LaMalfa interfere? Besides an endorsements page, his volunteer page is more developed and he has people sign up for email alerts, unlike Keene’s website. That leads me to believe that LaMalfa will win because he has better organization. No clear Democrat has emerged yet. His district voted 54% for McCain. The demographics are 4% Asian and 12% Hispanic. Status is Safe Republican.

State Senate District 6 Darrel Steinberg (D)

Steinberg is the President Pro Tempore of the State Senate. He succeeded Don Perata who carried a concealed gun due to death threats from anti gun control advocates. Steinberg hit the news for filing a lawsuit against Schwarzenegger because some of the budget cuts may be unconstitutional. He will be President Pro Tempore until he reaches term limits. Obama won 64% of the vote in his district. Demographics are 14% Black, 15% Asian and 18% Hispanic. Status is Safe Democrat.

State Senate District 8 Leland Yee (D)

Yee has a spotty background but at least he works hard in the State Senate. On August 17th, the Assembly approved SB 242 which Yee authored. SB 242 says that people cannot be denied a job based on the language they speak. Yee should not worry about a Republican challenge. He may worry about Tom Ammiano, a State Assemblyman from San Francisco. Ammiano was elected in 2008 but he is active in San Francisco. He ran for mayor in 1999 and was a San Francisco Supervisor. Ammiano is very Liberal, even for San Francisco. I expect that Ammiano may pass on this seat to wait for 2014, when Yee and he are term limited out of their seats. If he ran for 2010, I do not expect him to win. The reason is that Yee’s district is more working class and not as ultra Liberal as Ammiano’s Assembly district. Ammiano will definitely run to the left so I do not see him winning. Yee appears safe because he has a large presence in the area. He was elected to the State Assembly in 2002. Obama won 76% of the vote here. Demographics are 16% Hispanic and 35% Asian. Status is Safe Democrat.

State Senate District 10 Ellen Corbett (D)

Corbett is fighting hard to prevent a NUMMI plant in Fremont from being closed. On August 21st, she rallied with workers at the plant. No Republican has a shot at winning this district because it is too Democratic. She has had a presence in this district for more than 10 years. With no looming baggage, she should have an easy ride through 2010. Obama won 71% of the vote here. Demographics are 7% Black, 21% Hispanic and 32% Asian. Status is Safe Democrat.

State Senate District 12 Jeff Denham (R) Term Limited Out!

If Democrats want to gain a 2/3 majority, they have to pick up seats such as Denham’s. With a Republican incumbent gone, Democrats have a great shot at it with a 13% registration advantage and 46% Hispanic population as of 2000. State Assemblyman from Modesto Tom Berryhill (R) might look at the race. He does not live in it but as we learned from carpetbagger Tom McClintock, people can just move to a suitable district and run. If I were him, I would probably stay in his safe district containing Republican parts of Modesto and the Sierras. He is term limited out in 2012. Possible Democratic candidates include Anna Caballero from Salinas. She is not term limited out until 2012. She said is interested in running but has not formerly announced yet. Her background includes chairing the Youth Violence Prevention Committee and representing unions in a strike. Other candidates include Luis Alejo (D), an attorney from Watsonville. Jamie De La Cruz (D) will run if Caballero does not run. Francisco Dominguez (D) from Gilroy has worked on a school board for 12 years. He will run if Caballero decides not to run. He said, “I’m very frustrated, just like other folks, about what’s happening in Sacramento – not being able to resolve the budget and deliver to residents,” he said. “There needs to be more cooperation in the legislature. My style is to resolve conflict.” Rick Rivas (D) was Caballero’s campaign manager in 2006 so I assume he will run if Caballero decides not to run. The last candidate is Eugenia Sanchez (D) who is the mayor of Hollister and served on Hollister’s School Board. It is too early to tell who will win if Caballero runs. If someone from the Central Valley jumps in, that person could sweep the Central Valley while the other candidates split the Coastal area. If Caballero runs, the other candidates may defer to her. If they do not, I still believe she should win. The reason is that all the other candidates are Hispanic; they will split the Hispanic vote while Caballero sweeps the white vote. A Hispanic candidate would have a better chance to win this district because he or she could generate a large Hispanic turnout. The primary could damage the Democrats but it looks like the Democrats should win. Obama won 58% of the vote here. The Demographics are 46% Hispanic and 42% White. Status is Lean Democrat.

58%

State Senate District 14 Dave Cogdill (R)

Cogdill was the Senate Republican Leader from April 2008 to February, 2009. He seems to be in touch with his district because he supports cleaner air quality, low taxes and agricultural groups. One bill he proposed would cut red tape for agricultural vehicles but also protect the environment. He appears to be Conservative on most issues but moderate on others. He joined Darrel Steinberg and Schwarzenegger to campaign for the May 19th budget propositions. Since he is term limited out in 2014, he should be reelected in 2010. McCain won 56% of the vote. Demographics are 28% Hispanic and 5% Asian. Status is Safe Republican.

State Senate District 16 Dean Florez (D)

Florez appears to be sitting in the light of power. He became Senate Majority Leader in 2008 and will run for Lieutenant Governor in 2010. His grandparents are farm workers and he fights for farm worker’s rights in the Senate. One main priority of Florez’s is speaking out against using the Central Valley as a big dump for waste. Other accomplishments include sponsoring SB 700 which made farmers follow the Clean Air Act and supporting bills to make farm worker vans safer.  Possible candidates for replacement include Danny Gilmore (R) of the 30th Assembly district and Juan Arambula (I) of the 31st Assembly district which covers Hispanic areas in the southern Central Valley. Gilmore won against Fran Florez (D), the mother of Dean Florez in 2008. Gilmore was a former marine. He may run because he has a shaky hold on the 30th district. I expect due to the district’s large Hispanic population, a Hispanic Democrat will win in 2010. Even though it should be a Republican year, Gilmore was the Joseph Cao of California. He was Cao because he won an upset in a heavily Democratic district that will go back to normal by 2010. Arambula used to be a Democrat but switched parties in June 2009. Seeing an open seat, he may leap for the seat and because he is Hispanic, I see him winning. Obama won 59% of the vote here. Demographics are 63% Hispanic, 7% Black, and 6% Asian. Status is Likely Democrat.

State Senate District 18 Roy Ashburn (R)

Republicans may be dwindling in California. They still have this area as a stronghold. The 18th district contains Republican parts of Kern, Tulare, Inyo and San Bernardino counties. This totals up to a McCain win with 61% of the vote. Even though Ashburn represents the most Conservative district in California, he is fairly moderate. During the budget crisis, he voted with the Democrats to increase taxes to help the economy. His constituents were furious so his political career should be finished. Voters will not have a chance to prove it because Ashburn is term limited. A possible candidate to replace him is Republican Jean Fuller. She represents the 32nd State Assembly District which is centered in Bakersfield. She was the former Superintendent of Bakersfield schools until she became a state legislator in 2006. Like Ashburn, she is not a Tom McClintock Conservative. She supports allocating more money for education. Besides Fuller, Republican Bill Maze will seek the seat and so will Democrat Carter Pope. Maze formerly represented California’s 34th State Assembly District which covers Tulare County and some rural areas in Inyo County. In the Assembly, he was on numerous committees such as the Select Committee for Foster Care. Maze appears more Conservative than Fuller and he represented the 34th district for six years. The race should be a duel between Kern County and Tulare County.  Maze has a better chance to win because he is more Conservative and he is more entrenched. I expect the race will split about 53%-47% or even closer. Democrat Carter Pope appears to have no legislative experience or political experience so he is should lose. The demographics for this district are 27% Hispanic. Status is Safe Republican.

State Senate District 20 Alex Padilla (D)

Like San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, Padilla is a young rising star. Apparently, Newsom agrees with me because he appointed Padilla to chair his gubernatorial campaign calling Padilla, “One of the brightest and most accomplished rising stars in the country.” Even if Newsom’s poll numbers depict his as a falling star, Padilla is not falling. The Hispanic Business magazine named him one of America’s most influential Hispanics. He spearheaded a tobacco tax bill last August and is trying now to get a fire protection bill passed. The San Gabriel Mountains near his district are on fire, why am I not surprised?  Other projects include starting the Children’s Museum of Los Angeles. Since he was elected in 2006, he sponsored 29 bills.  Would he be LA Mayor Villaraigosa’s replacement when Villaraigosa retires? Anyway, he should not worry about reelection. Obama won 72% of the vote here and the demographics are 61% Hispanic, 9% Asian and 23% White. Status is Safe Democrat.  

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:

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.)

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.

When Ellen Tauscher announced she was headed for the State Department it seemed there would be no shortage of Democrats running to replace her in this safe district, including California’s Lt. Gov, John Garamendi, who ducked out of the race for governor when he got no traction and decided not to contest Republican held CA-03.  Recently though, CNN’s Campbell Brown (bleck!) interviewed a candidate I hadn’t heard anything about until now, and after watching the clip I walked away impressed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

Anthony Woods is impressive for many reasons.  Raised by a single mother, he went on to serve his country in two tours in Iraq, receive an education at Harvard and a Master’s degree from the Kennedy School of Government.  He was a co-recipient of the Robert F. Kennedy Public Service Award and organized missions to help rebuild hurricane-ravaged New Orleans.  Hell, he spent a summer bicycling across the country to raise money for Habitat for Humanity.  But all that wasn’t good enough for his government.  Woods wanted to serve his country on a third tour of Iraq, but was discharged simply because he is gay.

Woods comes off as a very polished speaker, and he clearly knows from his interview with Brown how to avoid putting his foot in his mouth.  What’s more, the guy is well rounded, having worked as an economic policy advisor, giving him credibility on what is probably always the number one issue in a campaign.  Personally though, I’m excited about the possibility of sending a victim of DADT to Congress to give the LGBT community a voice and a face there for this unjust policy that Obama has, frankly, failed us on.  What’s more, Woods would be the first black-LGBT person elected to Congress and could potentially work to build bridges and initiate dialogue between two communities that don’t always see eye to eye.

The iceing on the cake???  Woods is a self-described progressive Democrat.  He’s a clear underdog in this race with plenty of big names and established politicians, but Woods has a lot of personal qualities that hint at the possibility of an upset.  Clearly, he’s someone we need to watch.

http://www.anthonywoodsforcong…

I’ve been saving the changes in registration differences in the competitive districts that I track in my regular registration number updates. Here I will show the changes in registration going from the last numbers before the 2008 election to the latest numbers released a few days ago. Here they are in tabulated form. And for the congressional districts, in addition to the 8 Obama-Republican districts, I tossed in CA-04, because the House race there was very close in spite of the considerable Republican advantage in registration and the presidential race, and CA-46, the district of McCain’s closest win of the 11 McCain districts and the only one that he won with less than 50%.

Cross-posted at Calitics.

Numbers are over the flip.

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS

District	10-08 DIFF	02-09 DIFF	03-09 DIFF	05-09 DIFF
CA-03	R+2.19%	R+1.93%	R+1.91%	R+1.85%
CA-04	R+14.88%	R+14.68%	R+14.64%	R+14.69%
CA-24	R+6.40%	R+6.13%	R+6.04%	R+5.99%
CA-25	R+2.37%	R+1.68%	R+1.63%	R+1.52%
CA-26	R+5.57%	R+4.96%	R+4.92%	R+4.83%
CA-44	R+8.25%	R+7.52%	R+7.68%	R+7.77%
CA-45	R+4.60%	R+3.98%	R+3.99%	R+4.27%
CA-46	R+12.16%	R+11.79%	R+11.57%	R+11.47%
CA-48	R+16.12%	R+15.78%	R+15.46%	R+15.37%
CA-50	R+9.20%	R+8.90%	R+8.98%	R+8.87%

STATE SENATE DISTRICTS

District	10-08 DIFF	02-09 DIFF	03-09 DIFF	05-09 DIFF
SD-04	R+11.11%	R+11.05%	R+11.05%	R+11.10%
SD-12	D+13.92%	D+14.32%	D+14.37%	D+14.66%
SD-16	D+16.21%	D+16.53%	D+16.46%	D+16.49%
SD-18	R+16.01%	R+15.70%	R+15.67%	R+15.74%
SD-22	D+43.91%	D+44.21%	D+44.24%	D+44.35%
SD-24	D+31.96%	D+32.46%	D+32.39%	D+32.59%
SD-34	D+8.18%	D+8.63%	D+9.24%	D+9.39%
SD-36	R+17.49%	R+17.11%	R+17.19%	R+17.12%
SD-40	D+16.13%	D+16.84%	D+16.94%	D+17.07%

STATE ASSEMBLY DISTRICTS

District	10-08 DIFF	02-09 DIFF	03-09 DIFF	05-09 DIFF
AD-03	R+5.44%	R+5.37%	R+5.34%	R+5.45%
AD-05	R+1.23%	R+0.89%	R+0.87%	R+0.87%
AD-07	D+28.72%	D+29.11%	D+29.09%	D+29.09%
AD-09	D+37.61%	D+37.89%	D+37.93%	D+37.99%
AD-10	R+0.43%	R+0.11%	R+0.07%	D+0.01%
AD-15	D+3.96%	D+4.45%	D+4.51%	D+4.57%
AD-20	D+28.16%	D+28.43%	D+28.48%	D+28.44%
AD-21	D+20.26%	D+20.32%	D+20.39%	D+20.52%
AD-23	D+32.24%	D+32.39%	D+32.32%	D+32.29%
AD-25	R+5.51%	R+5.48%	R+5.46%	R+5.51%
AD-26	D+2.31%	D+2.76%	D+2.82%	D+2.83%
AD-30	D+9.81%	D+9.89%	D+9.65%	D+9.69%
AD-31	D+14.62%	D+15.12%	D+15.23%	D+15.30%
AD-33	R+4.81%	R+4.83%	R+4.86%	R+4.77%
AD-35	D+19.86%	D+20.26%	D+20.29%	D+20.34%
AD-36	R+0.05%	D+0.83%	D+0.91%	D+1.18%
AD-37	R+5.95%	R+5.62%	R+5.54%	R+5.47%
AD-38	R+3.76%	R+3.21%	R+3.18%	R+3.06%
AD-47	D+53.60%	D+53.67%	D+53.66%	D+53.67%
AD-50	D+45.03%	D+45.68%	D+45.71%	D+45.87%
AD-63	R+3.11%	R+2.59%	R+2.45%	R+2.37%
AD-64	R+5.98%	R+5.35%	R+5.72%	R+6.03%
AD-65	R+4.54%	R+3.92%	R+3.94%	R+4.82%
AD-68	R+9.27%	R+8.89%	R+8.43%	R+8.36%
AD-70	R+13.94%	R+13.61%	R+13.30%	R+13.16%
AD-74	R+11.11%	R+10.74%	R+10.79%	R+10.65%
AD-75	R+9.23%	R+9.07%	R+9.17%	R+9.08%
AD-76	D+14.91%	D+15.16%	D+15.07%	D+15.09%
AD-78	D+10.97%	D+11.50%	D+11.55%	D+11.62%
AD-80	D+7.82%	D+8.63%	D+8.84%	D+9.09%

With the release of the new registration numbers, and a couple of special elections just around the corner, I now have updates for the open and/or competitive State Senate and State Assembly districts, as well as the eight Obama-Republican districts. The Secretary of State’s website has the presidential results by district, so I am including the presidential results in each district.

Breaking news: We now have a (albeit slight) registration advantage in AD-10!

And an edit: I am including CA-04 in the list because of McClintock’s less-than-1% win, even though the presidential race and registration gap are not particularly close.

Cross-posted at Calitics and Democracy for California.

District	Incumbent	DEM	GOP	Margin	2008 Result
CA-03	Dan Lungren	37.73%	39.58%	R+1.85	O+0.5
CA-04	Tom McClintock	31.14%	45.83%	R+14.69	M+10.1
CA-24	Elton Gallegly	35.83%	41.82%	R+5.99	O+2.8
CA-25	Buck McKeon	37.77%	39.29%	R+1.52	O+1.1
CA-26	David Dreier	35.67%	40.50%	R+4.83	O+4.0
CA-44	Ken Calvert	34.63%	42.40%	R+7.77	O+0.9
CA-45	Mary Bono Mack	37.81%	42.08%	R+4.27	O+4.6
CA-48	John Campbell	29.40%	44.77%	R+15.37	O+0.7
CA-50	Brian Bilbray	31.40%	40.27%	R+8.87	O+4.2

Competitive and/or open state legislature districts are over the flip…

Our current numbers in the Senate are 25 Democrats/15 Republicans, with winning 2 GOP-held seats necessary for 2/3; and in the Assembly 51 Democrats/29 Republicans, with winning 3 GOP-held seats necessary for 2/3.

SENATE

Republicans (4)

District	Incumbent	DEM	GOP	Margin	2008 Result
SD-04	Sam Aanestad	33.02%	44.12%	R+11.09	M+11.8
SD-12	Jeff Denham	47.60%	32.94%	D+14.66	O+17.6
SD-18	Roy Ashburn	31.88%	47.62%	R+15.74	M+23.1
SD-36	Dennis Hollingsworth	28.94%	46.06%	R+17.12	M+14.2

Democrats (5)

District	Incumbent	DEM	GOP	Margin	2008 Result
SD-16	Dean Florez	49.59%	33.10%	D+16.49	O+19.5
SD-22	Gilbert Cedillo	59.01%	14.66%	D+44.35	O+58.7
SD-24	Gloria Romero	53.63%	21.04%	D+32.59	O+41.3
SD-34	Lou Correa	42.84%	33.45%	D+9.39	O+16.8
SD-40	Denise Ducheny	46.57%	29.50%	D+17.07	O+25.7

ASSEMBLY

Republicans (16)

District	Incumbent	DEM	GOP	Margin	2008 Result
AD-03	Dan Logue	34.80%	40.25%	R+5.45	M+1.6
AD-05	Roger Niello	37.90%	38.77%	R+0.87	O+4.2
AD-25	Tom Berryhill	36.81%	42.32%	R+5.51	M+7.9
AD-26	Bill Berryhill	42.06%	39.23%	D+2.82	O+4.4
AD-30	Danny Gilmore	46.28%	36.59%	D+9.69	O+3.9
AD-33	Sam Blakeslee	35.92%	40.69%	R+4.77	O+1.4
AD-36	Steve Knight	39.69%	38.51%	D+1.18	O+0.8
AD-37	Audra Strickland	35.87%	41.34%	R+5.47	O+3.7
AD-38	Cameron Smyth	36.85%	39.91%	R+3.06	O+4.9
AD-63	Bill Emmerson	38.00%	40.37%	R+2.37	O+4.1
AD-64	Brian Nestande	35.96%	41.99%	R+6.03	O+1.8
AD-65	Paul Cook	36.82%	41.64%	R+4.82	M+4.1
AD-68	Van Tran	32.80%	41.16%	R+8.36	M+2.9
AD-70	Chuck DeVore	30.20%	43.36%	R+13.16	O+3.9
AD-74	Martin Garrick	30.93%	41.58%	R+10.65	O+2.2
AD-75	Nathan Fletcher	30.72%	39.80%	R+9.08	O+4.1

Democrats (15)

District	Incumbent	DEM	GOP	Margin	2008 Result
AD-07	Noreen Evans	52.80%	23.71%	D+29.09	O+43.3
AD-09	Dave Jones	56.66%	18.67%	D+37.99	O+49.0
AD-10	Alyson Huber	39.33%	39.32%	D+0.01	O+4.0
AD-15	Joan Buchanan	40.61%	36.04%	D+4.57	O+16.9
AD-20	Alberto Torrico	48.61%	20.17%	D+28.44	O+42.3
AD-21	Ira Ruskin	47.27%	26.75%	D+20.52	O+45.8
AD-23	Joe Coto	51.22%	18.93%	D+32.29	O+44.4
AD-31	Juan Arambula	49.08%	33.78%	D+15.80	O+26.1
AD-35	Pedro Nava	48.22%	27.88%	D+20.34	O+35.6
AD-47	Karen Bass	64.92%	11.25%	D+53.67	O+71.9
AD-50	Hector De La Torre	62.00%	16.13%	D+45.87	O+55.9
AD-76	Lori Saldaña	41.94%	26.85%	D+15.09	O+34.4
AD-78	Martin Block	43.08%	31.46%	D+11.62	O+21.8
AD-80	Manuel Perez	45.38%	36.29%	D+9.09	O+20.7

In the Senate, our obvious plan of action is to win the 12th and possibly the 4th if we have a strong candidate, and hold the 34th. In the Assembly, we have a lot of offense opportunities and of course, we will need to defend our 4 freshmen in vulnerable districts (Huber especially, Buchanan, Block, Perez). As for the potentially vulnerable Republican districts we should target, we should prioritize them like this:

(I) Open seats in Obama districts: 5, 33, 37, 63, 70

(II) Incumbents in Obama districts: 26, 30, 36, 38, 64, 74, 75

(III) Open seat in McCain district with small (<6%) registration edge: 25

(IV) Incumbents in McCain districts with small (<6%) registration edge: 3, 65

(V) Other open seat: 68

Found this J. Moore Methods poll over at Calitics. Lt. Gov. John Garamendi leads among likely voters (36% have no opinion). (Rupf is Republican Warren Rupf, Sheriff of Contra Costa County.)

	Garamendi	Rupf	DeSaulnier	Buchanan
Support:	24	17	13	10
Known:	80	20	39	45
Favorable:	35	9	16	17
Unfavorable:	12	9	13	12

While Garamendi does have a commanding lead in the polls and the name rec, Senator Mark DeSaulnier or Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan can try and catch up, but it will be a long shot when facing Garamendi’s high name rec and campaign war chest. DeSaulnier is a great progressive in the state legislature and I would like him to win, but no one knows if it will be enough. For now this race is Garamendi’s to lose.

I checked the California Secretary of State’s site and found that each statement of vote has registration statistics going back to 1910. I decided to use the presidential elections from 1988 on, since 1992 marked the realignment in California, Illinois, and many northeastern states that caused them to vote Democratic in every presidential election from 1992 on. Here are the numbers.

Year	DEM	%	GOP	%	Other	%
1988	7,052,368	50.36%	5,406,127	38.60%	1,546,378	11.04%
1992	7,410,914	49.07%	5,593,555	37.04%	2,097,004	13.89%
1996	7,387,504	47.17%	5,704,536	36.42%	2,570,035	16.41%
2000	7,134,601	45.42%	5,485,492	34.92%	3,087,214	19.65%
2004	7,120,425	43.00%	5,745,518	34.70%	3,691,330	22.29%
2008	7,683,495	44.40%	5,428,052	31.37%	4,192,544	24.23%

The 2008 election marked the end of a streak of decreasing numbers of Democratic registered voters since the bump they got in 1992. Why the Democrats’ share of the pie in 1992 fell from their 1988 numbers can be explained by the surge in unaffiliated voters, methinks, thanks to Ross Perot. Also, despite the fall in the Democrats’ numbers in proportion to the total number of registered voters, the Democratic presidential nominee has won California by stronger margins. This can be accounted for by many unaffiliated voters becoming disenchanted with the GOP’s rightward shift and voting Democratic in greater numbers, as well as more Republicans crossing over than Democrats. You will also notice that the GOP’s share of the pie has been steadily declining since 1988, with the boost they got from Arnold and the 2004 election only temporarily stopping the bleeding.

Here are the rates of change in the numbers of each parties’ registered voters. For 1992, I am showing the percent change in the numbers from 1988.

Year	DEM	GOP	Other
1992	5.08%	3.47%	35.61%
1996	-0.32%	1.98%	22.56%
2000	-3.42%	-3.84%	20.12%
2004	-0.20%	4.74%	19.57%
2008	14.20%	-5.53%	13.58%

From here, we can see that the only times since 1988 that the Republicans surpassed Democrats in the rate of increase in the number of registered voters were 1996, where Republican optimism got a jumpstart from their 1994 landslides, and 2004, and in 2008 the rate of increase in the number of registered Democrats surpassed the rate of increase in the number of unaffiliated voters for the first time in a while. (I’m not sure of the last time this happened; I’d have to look it up.) It remains to see if 2008 was a one-time deal, or if we’ll be looking at similar numbers in 2012, with a faster increase in the number of registered Democrats than unaffiliated voters. Unaffiliated voters outnumbering Republican voters is not out of the question either, at least if current trends continue or speed up.

www.draftgaramendi.com

In 2010, Democrats need a strong candidate to run in California’s 3rd Congressional District, which is rapidly trending Democratic. In 2006, Bill Durston ran against Republican Dan Lungren and lost by 21.5 percent. In 2008, Durston ran again. This time, he came within 5.5 percent of winning and kept Lungren’s vote total under 50%.

But Durston has decided not to run again. And with the DCCC targeting the district, we desperately need a candidate who can step in and finish the job that Bill Durston started.

John Garamendi is the absolute best person to lead the battle for California’s 3rd Congressional District. He has deep roots in the district – he was born and raised in Mokelumne Hill, owns a ranch there, and was elected by the voters in the district to serve in the California state legislature from 1974 to 1990.

SIGN THE PETITION

Tell John Garamendi that you want him to run for Congress in the 3rd Congressional district against Dan Lungren in 2010.  

Back in 2007, when John Garamendi addressed the Amador County Democrats, he discussed his longstanding relationship with the district:

Garamendi talked briefly about his time representing Amador, Calaveras and other rural counties in the State Assembly for two years and for fourteen years as a State Senator. He recalled that one of the first bills he introduced was about a water ditch in Amador Co. The local connection is “very important to those of us living in these rural areas” says Central Committee Vice Chair Randy Bayne. As evidence, he noted that every year hundreds of local residents take a trip out to the Touch the Earth Ranch in Mokelumne Hill for the Garamendi Basque Barbeque.

Garamendi will be holding his 32nd Annual Basque Barbeque in Calaveras County in a little over two weeks, reconnecting with the local folks who have supported him for decades. We’re asking him to step up once again to fight for Amador and Calaveras Counties by running for Congress in District 3.

With the release of the new registration numbers, I now have updates for the open and/or competitive State Senate and State Assembly districts. The Secretary of State’s website has the presidential results by district, so I am including the presidential results in each districts.

I am also tacking on the eight districts that are our top targets in 2010: CA-03, CA-24, CA-25, CA-26, CA-44, CA-45, CA-48, and CA-50.

Cross-posted at Calitics and Democracy for California.

District	Incumbent	DEM	GOP	Margin	2008 Result
CA-03	Dan Lungren	37.72%	39.63%	R+1.91	O+0.5
CA-24	Elton Gallegly	35.84%	41.88%	R+6.04	O+2.8
CA-25	Buck McKeon	37.72%	39.35%	R+1.63	O+1.1
CA-26	David Dreier	35.64%	40.56%	R+4.92	O+4.0
CA-44	Ken Calvert	34.70%	42.38%	R+7.68	O+0.9
CA-45	Mary Bono Mack	37.97%	41.96%	R+3.99	O+4.6
CA-48	John Campbell	29.41%	44.87%	R+15.46	O+0.7
CA-50	Brian Bilbray	31.38%	40.36%	R+8.98	O+4.2

Competitive and/or open state legislature districts are over the flip…

Our current numbers in the Senate are 25 Democrats/15 Republicans, with winning 2 GOP-held seats necessary for 2/3; and in the Assembly 51 Democrats/29 Republicans, with winning 3 GOP-held seats necessary for 2/3.

SENATE

Republicans (4)

District	Incumbent	DEM	GOP	Margin	2008 Result
SD-04	Sam Aanestad	33.05%	44.10%	R+11.05	M+11.8
SD-12	Jeff Denham	47.46%	33.09%	D+14.37	O+17.6
SD-18	Roy Ashburn	31.91%	47.58%	R+15.67	M+23.1
SD-36	Dennis Hollingsworth	28.94%	46.13%	R+17.19	M+14.2

Democrats (5)

District	Incumbent	DEM	GOP	Margin	2008 Result
SD-16	Dean Florez	49.61%	33.15%	D+16.46	O+19.5
SD-22	Gilbert Cedillo	58.98%	14.74%	D+44.24	O+58.7
SD-24	Gloria Romero	53.62%	21.13%	D+32.49	O+41.3
SD-34	Lou Correa	42.82%	33.58%	D+9.24	O+16.8
SD-40	Denise Ducheny	46.59%	29.65%	D+16.94	O+25.7

ASSEMBLY

Republicans (16)

District	Incumbent	DEM	GOP	Margin	2008 Result
AD-03	Dan Logue	34.81%	40.15%	R+5.34	M+1.6
AD-05	Roger Niello	37.93%	38.80%	R+0.87	O+4.2
AD-25	Tom Berryhill	36.84%	42.30%	R+5.46	M+7.9
AD-26	Bill Berryhill	42.04%	39.22%	D+2.82	O+4.4
AD-30	Danny Gilmore	46.31%	36.66%	D+9.65	O+3.9
AD-33	Sam Blakeslee	35.91%	40.77%	R+4.86	O+1.4
AD-36	Steve Knight	39.56%	38.65%	D+0.91	O+0.8
AD-37	Audra Strickland	35.86%	41.40%	R+5.54	O+3.7
AD-38	Cameron Smyth	36.84%	40.02%	R+3.18	O+4.9
AD-63	Bill Emmerson	37.90%	40.35%	R+2.45	O+4.1
AD-64	Brian Nestande	36.11%	41.83%	R+5.72	O+1.8
AD-65	Paul Cook	37.14%	41.08%	R+3.94	M+4.1
AD-68	Van Tran	32.82%	41.25%	R+8.43	M+2.9
AD-70	Chuck DeVore	30.19%	43.49%	R+13.30	O+3.9
AD-74	Martin Garrick	30.89%	41.68%	R+10.79	O+2.2
AD-75	Nathan Fletcher	30.71%	39.88%	R+9.17	O+4.1

Democrats (15)

District	Incumbent	DEM	GOP	Margin	2008 Result
AD-07	Noreen Evans	52.81%	23.72%	D+29.09	O+43.3
AD-09	Dave Jones	56.64%	18.71%	D+37.93	O+49.0
AD-10	Alyson Huber	39.32%	39.39%	R+0.07	O+4.0
AD-11	Tom Torlakson	54.23%	22.06%	D+32.17	O+41.2
AD-15	Joan Buchanan	40.60%	36.09%	D+4.51	O+16.9
AD-20	Alberto Torrico	48.65%	20.17%	D+18.48	O+42.3
AD-21	Ira Ruskin	47.22%	26.83%	D+20.39	O+45.8
AD-23	Joe Coto	51.28%	18.96%	D+32.32	O+44.4
AD-31	Juan Arambula	49.07%	33.84%	D+15.23	O+26.1
AD-35	Pedro Nava	48.24%	27.95%	D+20.29	O+35.6
AD-47	Karen Bass	64.93%	11.27%	D+53.66	O+71.9
AD-50	Hector De La Torre	61.92%	16.21%	D+45.71	O+55.9
AD-76	Lori Saldaña	41.96%	26.89%	D+15.07	O+34.4
AD-78	Martin Block	43.09%	31.54%	D+11.55	O+21.8
AD-80	Manuel Perez	45.33%	36.49%	D+8.84	O+20.7

In the Senate, our obvious plan of action is to win the 12th and possibly the 4th if we have a strong candidate, and hold the 34th. In the Assembly, we have a lot of offense opportunities and of course, we will need to defend our 4 freshmen in vulnerable districts (Huber especially, Buchanan, Block, Perez). As for the potentially vulnerable Republican districts we should target, we should prioritize them like this:

(I) Open seats in Obama districts: 5, 33, 37, 63, 70

(II) Incumbents in Obama districts: 26, 30, 36, 38, 64, 74, 75

(III) Open seat in McCain district with small (<6%) registration edge: 25

(IV) Incumbents in McCain districts with small (<6%) registration edge: 3, 65

(V) Other open seat: 68

I know we’ve all blamed California Democrats plenty for cowardice in 2002, but I’ve thought about it and I come to a clearer decision. Things were different then. They had just been through the hard fought 90s where they had to fight tooth and nail to win the senate Seats, the Governorship and a huge numbers of house seats.

Look at the political environment. Gray Davis was very unpopular, the Gary Condit scandal had just racked state Democrats, and Bush was wildly popular and many of areas of the state looked a lot different than they do now, after another 8 years of political trends.

The one thing I think we can all be assured on is that they won’t be so timid again, not after Kerry’s and and especially Obama’s margin in the state, Obama is the benchmark I’d use because he will be running again in 2012 and hopefully will win the state by an even bigger margin then giving coattails. Regardless many of the states areas and major Demographics are trending even more Democratic and doing so very fast.

Here are a list of the Republicans who must be targeted and how.

Dana Rohrabacher. No excuse for having someone this vitrolic a Representative. There’s no way LA should have a representative who refused to meet President Bush at one time because he was too liberal and who would dress up with Minute Men if he could. Obama made progress in this current gerrymander which contains all the Republican coastal areas south of LA. The 46th has a large hispanic population that is growing quickly, and a large Asian population.

Democrats will probably take move hispanic areas out of CA-37 and CA-36 to make a coalition Hispanic VRA district. All they would need to do is increase it by 24 points from 16% to 40% and then use the large Asian population. Laura Richardson’s district has plenty of Democrats to spare, as does Harman’s, and Harman is a little to conservative for her district anyway. Doing this to Rohrabacher just gives me a certain pleasure, there’s such a fitting irony to it. Hopefully he will be defeated by a Hispanic Democrat.

Ed Royce is another big, sore thumb. McCain still own it 51-47. It covers northern Orange County, I’d change that. The best way to change it would to be to lop off that southern hoof into Orange that goes around Loretta Sanchez’s district and move the district North into some of the areas repesented by Grace Napiltano and Linda Sanchez, notable Cerritos. I’d make the new 40th about 56-43 Democratic to just to be safe and then I’d leave all the remaining Republican areas in the 42nd district, I’d buff it up with all the most conservative areas.

As I’ve said elsewhere Bilbary can be targeted. Susan Davis’ district has become so overwhelmingly Democratic it can be diluted a little. Bilbary’s district is trending out from under him for, an ironically, second time, losing the first time to Susan Davis. A little mixing up could create two San Diego districts that went around 59-40 for Obama and both would be Hispanic coalition VRA districts and would be hispanic majority by the end of the decade. The San Deigo can safely support two Democrats now, its time to get to it here.

CA-03 should also be made more Democratic. It can be done. I’d revert it to a district similar to its old boundaries; part of Sacrmento and North Sacremento County Amador County and Yolo. Yolo county is so liberal it would push the district back to the left and Lungren wouldn’t be able to hold such a district. CA-01, Mike Thompson, doesn’t need Yolo anymore. Its become so liberal anyway and the trend doesn’t show any sign of stopping.

Ken Calvert is weak Republican and politician. He’s been racked by scandal in the 90s and barely managed to win a swing district then. So Democrats did the sensible thing, (and I’m mocking them here), and gave him a safely Republican district. When that trended towards Democrats he nearly lost again. I see a trend here. If his district were finally to be made Democratic leaning he’d lose to a strong candidate. It can be done, but to do it I’d make Mary Bono Mack and John Campbell safe. One out of three ain’t bad, and the Inland Empire can’t support more than one Democrat safely right now and Calvert is the weakest of the three so he should be the one targeted.

And there you have it. A loss of five Republican Congressional seats and without going to such extremes as Republicans did in Texas. If we went that far we could probably knock out another two districts or so.

P.S. Please vote in my diary. I use it as a counter to see how many people read a given thing.