Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post has this interesting article about the probable effects of California’s new redistricting process, in relation to U.S. House elections. The column expects that some incumbents will lose their seats. Thanks to Rick Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog for the link.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
New gerrymander districts = same old EVIL results.
Half the votes in half the gerrymander districts = about 25 percent ANTI-Democracy minority rule.
Way too difficult for MORON media folks to understand.
P.R. and App.V. — before the gerrymander MONSTERS cause Civil WAR II — with THE control freak law — that sets things off.
Damn straight some incumbents need to lose their seats!
There is about 1-1/2 districts shifted inland from the coast, with very little north/south shift.
P.R. = TOTAL Votes / TOTAL seats = REAL Democracy
— for ballot access —
each election AREA to have 2 to 5 times such TV/TS ratio in the prior election – lower rural, higher urban.
Democracy stuff AIN’T atomic physics – except for ALL EVIL party hack gerrymander incumbents and armies of math MORONS.
Jim Riley:
It look different from the figures already. A Congressional District line needs to be on the border
between San Francisco and San Mateo. Therefore the Northern Part of San Francisco will go due North and
pick up all of Marin County and beyond. This is because
of the terms in the California State Constitution now.
There will not be a Congressial District that holds the
Southwest part of San Francisco with San Mateo County
Territory, because San Matio County need one whole Congressional District of its own.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party.
P.S. the real question should be asked is how many “flag
poles” (like the territory in the City of Santa Barbara)
or “checker boards” (like territory in the City of
Palm Springs) will take place.
P.P.S. Lets look if Congressman Rohrabacher will keep
his district. One Congressional District will start at
San Pedro and head Northward to include Wilmington
and up the “flag pole” by the City of Los Angeles borders. So all that territory is in a congressional
district within the city limits of Los Angeles. The only way is to connect the two part under water under
a “Santa Barbara Flag Pole Plan” using the City of Avalon as a connecting point (going south of Los Angeles
Harbor or in the alternative the commission declares the
“San Pedro Mining District” a “community of interest”.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
#5 It depends. Congressional districts often are required to have almost exact equal population. If they aren’t, there has to be a very good reason, such as always honoring county lines. A court will be quite skeptical if you do it sometimes and not others. And since in California there will be cases where you can’t, there may be a temptation to simply ignore the issue. It might be argued that you should avoid multiple crossings of the same boundary, so if you cross the Alameda-Contra Costa line you either do it inland (Antioch-Livermore), or you do it along the SF Bay (Richmond-Berkeley).
You can sometimes get districts that are roughly close to the right population. If I were in charge I would draw those districts, and then have the county supervisors draw to determine which county gets a sliver chopped off.
Based on 2009 estimates it would be:
SF Bay (-Napa) 14.011 districts.
Sonoma, Marin
Contra Costa, Solano (2)
Alameda (2)
San Francisco (1)
San Mateo (1)
Santa Clara (2)
Santa Clara-San Mateo-Alameda (1) This last district would be about 1/2 in Santa Clara, and 1/4 in San Mateo, and 1/4 in Alameda. So it might just wrap around the southern tip of SF Bay. Or you might have two districts that are 3/4 in Santa Clara, with one extending into San Mateo and another into Alameda, and a whole district in Santa Clara
NoCal 3.027:
1.010 Lake, Mendocino, Humboldt, Del Norte, Colusa, Gkenn, Tehama, Trinity, Shasta, Siskiyou, Lassen, Modoc
1.033 Napa, Yolo, Sutter, Yuba, Butte
0.984 Plumas, Sierra, Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, Amador
2.009 Sacramento
The above districts have a population of 19.047, with the excess being added to districts further south.
2.001 Central Coast (Santa Cruz to Santa Barbara, including San Benito). The split would be just north of the SLO-Monterey line.
San Joaquin Valley 5.828:
San Joaquin 0.968 (1)
Stanislaus, Calaveras, Tuolumne, Mariposa 0.905 (1)
Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings 2.091 (2)
Kern, Tulare, Inyo, Mono 1.817 (2)
So basically Stockton and Modesto have a district, with Merced a pretty significant split. Fresno has to be split, but it might be possible to do a district in the city of Fresno, and then another from Merced to Kings. Kern will also be split, with the major portion of one district and the minor part of another. It will also need some population from Ventura, Los Angeles, or San Bernardino.
South Coast (Ventura to San Diego) 23.992
Ventura 1.151
Los Angeles 14.121
Orange 4.340
San Diego 4.379
So you have a small part of Ventura with Los Angeles;
14 districts in Los Angeles; a district about 1/4 Los Angeles 3/4 Orange; 3 districts in Orange; a district that is 2/3 Orange 1/3 San Diego; 4 districts in San Diego. While only 3 whole districts in OC, it would be dominant part of 5.
Inland Empire 6.180 The excess goes to the Kern County district and would be the desert region (Barstow, Needles, 29 Palms etc.)
1 3/4 Riverside 1/4 Imperial
2 in Riverside
1 1/4 Riverside 3/4 San Bernardino
2 in San Bernardino
City of Los Angeles gets chopped up some extra because of its odd shape, enclaves and semi enclaves. Santa Catalina must be connected to the mainland port for regular passenger service.
Jim Riley
According to the United States Census the April 1, 2010
population of California was 37,253,956. That will make
Congressional Districts of a population of either 702,904 or 702,905. It will make Board of Equalization
Districts of 9,313,489 (total 4). Senate Districts will
be either 931,348 or 931,349 and Assembly Districts will
be either 465,674 or 465,675. There will be 10 Senate
Districts within each Board of Equalization District, and two Assemble Districts in each Senate District. This is a major change from what is current.
As of now the population of Los Angeles County is unknown for April 1, 2010. We do know that the July 1,
2009 estimate population of California was 36,961,664.
That places 292,292 more people in California than the
estimate of 9 month earlier.
We know that more than half of the states population is
in only 5 of the 58 counties.
Therefore the new 3rd Board of Equalization District will be all within the County of Los Angeles. The 4th
Board of Equalization District will be in Imperial, San Diego, Riverside, Orange and part of Los Angles Counties. This will place all of San Bernadino County
in the 2nd Board of Equalization District(a major change from the present district).
The City of Los Angeles will have a five congressional
districts, 4 senate districts, and 8 assembly district
within its city limit.
The cities of Beverly Hills, West Hollywood and Santa Monica and some remainder territory of the city of Los
Angeles will be in the same Congressional District and
Assemby District.
Because keeping the City of Oakland in one assembly district and knowing the population of Alameda County,
Marin County will be connect by the Golden Gate Bridge
as one district. San Francisco had a July 1, 2009 population of 815,358. Reports I have read its April 1, 2010 population will be less than that figure.
Taking a figure of 702,904 will leave a total population of a remainder of 112,454 for San Francisco.
Marin County with over a quarter million population is
the most likely to connect that remainder with. Therefore the San Francisco / San Mateo County border
will be a district border.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Electors-Voters elect public officers INSIDE a State — NOT census persons — especially the zillions of ILLEGAL aliens (aka INVADERS) in CA and in other States.
SCOTUS has been brain dead on the INSIDE a State point since the 1964 gerrymander cases.
#7 There is no requirement that when a county is split that as many whole districts be formed in the county as possible. So there is no guarantee that San Mateo gets a whole seat, vs 5/6 of seat with the remainder from San Francisco, and about 1/5 of a district shared with Santa Clara.
If congressional districts had the same population flexibility as legislative districts, then San Mateo could have its own congressional district, as could Sonoma and Marin. And the excess San Francisco population would be placed in a district across the Bay Bridge.
The area of Los Angeles County west of the Harbor Freeway probably doesn’t have population equal to an integer number pf districts, so you could end up with bunches of LA districts extending into places like Ventura County, Santa Clarita, Burbank, areas SE of the city, and SE and SW of the city. And Palos Verdes won’t be linked via Santa Catalina to some other area, whether it be Long Beach, Orange County, or Alcatraz.
For gerrymander district fans —
Each District = 1 or more whole local regimes and/or parts of 1 or 2
Each local regime = 1 or more whole districts and/or parts of 1 or 2.
Nice cute rectangular GERRYMANDER districts on State maps.
Jim Riley
First, the estimated population of Oakland, CA in 2006 was 397,067. Let’s say that on April 1st, 2010 Oakland
had a population about 400 thousand.
The Bay Bridge runs from Yerba Island to Oakland City.
That is how the line will connect unless it is underwater, using a “flag pole”.
Alameda County had an est. population on July 1, 2009
of 1,491,482. That would give two congressional districts totally in Alameda County, with an excess of
about 86 thousand persons. So there will not be a
Congressional District between Alameda and San Francisco
via the bridge from Yerba Buena Island.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
American Independent Party
Richard Winger
How will the state be divided under Prop. 14 for sub districts. Election Code section 12261(a) covers the
direct primary. The top two is not the direct primary.
Voting for the American Independent Party County Central
Committee as I understand it is still part of the direct
primary. How will they divided the state under Prop. 14
since it is not a vote at a direct primary?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman
American Independent Party
Jim Riley
You stated in # 9 that the area of Los Angeles County west of the Harbor Freeway (110)probably does not have population = an interger number pf districts. That is new to me. Please explain and give source?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg,Vice Chairman,
American Independent Party
Richard Winger,
Ten years ago when John Longsville’s committee did his thing on redictricting he did not take into account that
the most Northern point in California is in Siskiyou County. Therefore lets hope the 14 member commission will acknowledge this and have all three districts numbered as 1 include Siskiyou County.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
American Independent Party
Richard Winger,
I think a good read for every one that is interested in the redistricting process should read: Claudine Gay’s
THE EFFECT OF MINORITY DISTRICTS AND MINORITY REPRESENTATION ON POLITICAL PARTICIPATION IN CALIFORNIA,
San Francisco, Public Policy Institute of California (2001)[97 pages total].
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
American Independent Party
DC gerrymander meeting
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_68/-202506-1.html
Gee — now the preliminary ANTI-Democracy gerrymander EVIL is being done partly in public — since the gerrymander WAR criminals are so arrogant.