CA's redistricting commission did a fine job drawing maps based on communities of interest, but I've wondered if it could've done more to ensure Latinos can elect their chosen candidates in #CA21+#CA31. This makes #CA21 6% bluer by margin & #CA31 Safe D; both are more compact too
This map is just a draft, so I've yet to calculate the 2012 or 2016 presidential results for it, & I don't necessarily prefer it over what the commission adopted. Nevertheless, it splits no additional counties or cities than the actual map & gives more clout to Latino voters
Had this map been in place, a Latino Dem likely would've won #CA31 in 2012 instead of being shut out in that top-two primary fluke. A Latino-backed Dem also would've had a good chance to win #CA21 in at least 2012 & 2016 instead of losing it, depending upon candidate quality
One major question is whether Blue Dog Dem Rep. Dennis Cardoza would've retired in 2012 like he did in reality. Had he run again in that #CA16, he'd have likely easily won yet necessitated that fellow Blue Dog Dem Rep. Jim Costa run in this #CA21, which Costa would've likely won
My latest draft looking at California alters #CA06 & #CA07 to eliminate a city split & make both more districts more compact. #CA07 becomes about 2% redder on margin & may have flipped to the GOP in 2014 & 2016. Changes to #CA21 & #CA31 still favor Latino Dems, as shown upthread
All of these three changed regions (Sacramento, the southern Central Valley, and the San Bernardino area) are just draft proposals & not necessarily recommendations at this point. They could each have been implemented independently of the other two
Here's a close-up of the Bakersfield area
California's commission drew a nonpartisan congressional map, but I've been mapping some alternatives. This puts Imperial County in #CA36 to make it near-plurality Latino CVAP & eliminates 3 split cities. #CA16, #CA21, & #CA31 also boost Latino voting power. What do folks think?
Also, does anyone on #ElectionTwitter know where I can find California's 2010-2018 statewide election results by precinct organized into spreadsheets, along with the precinct shapefiles for years aside from 2012 & 2016? Thanks!
The answer to the above question:
My latest version of a nonpartisan California congressional map. It makes some different choices than what the commission did, especially by increasing Latino voting power in #CA21 to more closely resemble the old #CA20 (which Dem Jim Costa nearly lost in 2010) #CAPolitics #CALeg
I also drew another version keeping Kings County whole, but the VRA-protected #CA21 is just Obama+12% in 2008. Its predecessor district, the old #CA20, was Obama+21%, so removing some white voters in Kings County comes much closer to that (the real #CA21 is just Obama+6% in 2008)
I'm still working with the Statewide Database's data to calculate the 2002-2018 statewide elections for my hypothetical California districts, but based on the 2008 pres differences, I've included the California districts with 2016 estimates for my national nonpartisan map
I didn't go into this exercise with strong feelings about changing California's congressional map, but I came away with the conclusion that the commission should have done a better job protecting Latino voting power in #CA21, #CA31, & #CA36. This #CA21 is 10-12% bluer by margin
Thank you @TylerDinucci for catching my typo on CA-29. Here's the map with the corrected label for that district
Finally, here are the 2016 & 2012 presidential results by district for my revised nonpartisan California congressional map. Of note, Latino VRA districts #CA21, #CA31, & #CA36 all would get bluer/more Latino. Swing districts #CA07, #CA49, & #CA52 all would get a bit redder
With my California map complete, here's my take on how congressional redistricting could look in every state with the best nonpartisan map. Unlike the actual maps, Hillary Clinton would have won a majority of districts, & Trump's 4.4% median seat bonus would drop to just 1%
Note: Some of these states in my nonpartisan congressional map in the previous tweet could've drawn additional seats for black voters to elect their preferred candidates. I've left these maps as alternates simply to present a more conservative estimate on gerrymandering's impact
Take for instance South Carolina. GOP legislators could easily have drawn two districts to elect black voters' preferences, but they chose not to. However, even just maintaining one such district would have likely meant another Dem-leaning district without GOP gerrymandering
You can follow @PoliticsWolf.
Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.
Enjoy Threader? Sign up.
Threader is an independent project created by only two developers. The site gets 500,000+ visits a month and our iOS Twitter client was featured as an App of the Day by Apple. Running this space is expensive and time consuming. If you find Threader useful, please consider supporting us to make it a sustainable project.