Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

JTF Redistricting1211JTF

Database

This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.

View live version

object(Timber\Post)#3742 (44) { ["ImageClass"]=> string(12) "Timber\Image" ["PostClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Post" ["TermClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Term" ["object_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["custom"]=> array(5) { ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(28) "JTF_Redistricting1211JTF.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(5) "71951" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(6439) "Dec ember 2011 www.ppic.org CALIFORNIA'S 2011 REDISTRICTING : CHALLENGES AND CONTR OVERSY Eric McGhee and Vladimir Kogan  California's new voting districts have drawn criticism. California voters recently gave authority for the decennial draw ing of new U.S. House , Assembly, State Senate, and Boar d of Equalization districts to an independent citizens commission. The commission ’s new maps, released in August, were greeted with concern —including assertions of inadequate minority representation, accusations of covert partisan mapmaking to favor Democrats, and complaints that the maps fail to respect certain geographic criteria the commission was required to consider. Opponents have submitted signat ures to the secretary of state for a referendum against the new State Senate maps.  The commission’s maps modestly improve the potentia l for minority representation … T he commission was obligated to comply with the f ederal Voting Rights Act, which require s the drawing of majority -minority districts under certain circumstances . California’s new maps include six additional majority-Latino Assembly districts, bringing the total to 14, and the first majority -Asian American district in California history . There is also one additional majority-Latino district in the new congressional map and one in the State Senate plan .  … and score better than the existing maps on traditional geographic criteria. T he commission was required to respect certain geographic crite ria whenever possible: to draw compact districts with simple shapes; to avoid splitting cities, counties , and communities of interest among multiple districts ; and to nest two Assembly districts exactly within each S enate district. The commission’s new maps improve compactne ss significantly , and improve city splits and nesting modestly . There is no notable change in county splits. Impacts on c ommunities of interest have not been evaluated here, because the concept is too subjective for systematic ana lysis.  The new maps have a larger number of competitive districts … The new maps have more competitive seats than the old ones. Based on a statistical analysis of races over the last decade, there are several seats with more than a two -in -three chance of a close outcome if no incumbent is r unning: three seats in the State Senate, s ix in the A ssembly, an d four in the U.S. House . (The competitive seats are listed in the first table .) By contrast, al though a few seats in the previous plan neared that two -thirds threshold in our simulations , none surpassed it . Because these predictions assume no incumbent legislator s, many of these seats may not be competitive in 2012. But each has a good chance of a close outcome at some point in the next 10 years, especially if an incumbent retires or is forced out by term limits .  … but partisan gains will be minimal in most cases, and difficult to attribute to the new district lines. I n a hypothetical good Democratic year, Democrats could expect to pick up as many as four seats from Republicans in the new House plan, mostly because the 2001 redistricting (drawn by the legislature itself) was uncompetitive and did not allow Democrats to pick up seats as they gained votes over the last 10 years . The new maps increase th e likelihood of a Democratic supermajority in the State Senate —and with it the ability to pass tax increases out of that body without Republican support —but only for the 20 seats being contested in 2012. By 2014, the odds of two -thirds Democratic control will be unchanged —and may even be slightly lower —compared to the 2001 legislature- drawn maps. Thus, district numbers , which determine the seats contested each year —rather than the new district lines themselves —are the primary cause of the likely (but probably temporary ) Democratic gains under the plan for the Senate . T here is little change in the Assembly. CALIFORNIA'S 2011 REDISTRICTING: CHALLENGES AND CONTR OVERSY December 2011 www.ppic.org New plans have several highly competitive seats District Location Registration balance Chance of competitive race (%) Senate 5 San Joaquin +4D 74 31 Riverside +2D 76 34 Huntington Beach Even 75 Assembly 8 East Sacramento County +2D 79 40 Redlands +2R 69 44 Ventura County +2D 81 61 Riverside +7D 68 65 Fullerton +2R 78 66 Torrance +3D 73 U.S. House 7 East Sacramento County +1D 66 10 Stanislaus +5D 66 31 San Bernardino +4D 69 41 Riverside +5D 66 Sources: 2010 registration numbers, California Statewide Database ; incumbency and returns , California Secretary of State ; district lines: California Citizens Redistricting Commission . Note s: Listed districts have better than two-in -three odds of a competitive race (where neither candidate wins by more than 10 points) when no incumbent is running , based on a regression analysis of election returns from the last decade. A number of seats also had better than 50 percent odds of competitiveness but fell short of the 2/3 threshold : d istrict s 21, 27, and 29 in the state S enate; d istricts 12, 16, 35, 36, 60, and 77 in the A ssembly; and districts 9, 21, 24, 25, 26, 36, 39, and 52 in the House. Registration balance is the difference between the percentage of voters who are Republicans and the percentage who are Democrats. An “R” number favors Republicans and a “D” number favors Democrats. 2011 redistricting may produce modest gains for Democrats Assembly 2012 Senate 2012 Senate 2014 U.S. House 2012 Predicted Democratic seat gain or loss Good Democratic y ear +1 +1 +0 +4 Good Republican y ear -1 +1 -1 +0 Chanc e of Dem ocratic supermajority in 2001/ 2011 plan Good Democratic y ear 53% / 66% 60% / 94% 89% / 79% – Good Republican y ear 0% / 1 % 4% / 43% 35% / 11% – Source s: 2010 registration numbers, California Statewide Database ; incumbency and returns , California Secretary of State ; district lines: California Citizen s Redistricting Commission . Note s: All numbers come from a regression analysis of election returns . Incumbents are assumed to run in their distric t of primary residence, and any seat occupied by a termed -out incumbent is open. Good Democratic y ear estimates use 2008 election data; good Republican y ear est imates use 2010 election data. C hance of Democratic supermajority derived from a sample of 1,000 vectors of coefficients and errors. Co ntact: mcghee @ppic.org" } ["___content":protected]=> string(134) "

JTF Redistricting1211JTF

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(116) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-2011-redistricting-challenges-and-controversy/jtf_redistricting1211jtf/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8818) ["ID"]=> int(8818) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:41:08" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(4184) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(24) "JTF Redistricting1211JTF" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(24) "jtf_redistricting1211jtf" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(28) "JTF_Redistricting1211JTF.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(5) "71951" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(6439) "Dec ember 2011 www.ppic.org CALIFORNIA'S 2011 REDISTRICTING : CHALLENGES AND CONTR OVERSY Eric McGhee and Vladimir Kogan  California's new voting districts have drawn criticism. California voters recently gave authority for the decennial draw ing of new U.S. House , Assembly, State Senate, and Boar d of Equalization districts to an independent citizens commission. The commission ’s new maps, released in August, were greeted with concern —including assertions of inadequate minority representation, accusations of covert partisan mapmaking to favor Democrats, and complaints that the maps fail to respect certain geographic criteria the commission was required to consider. Opponents have submitted signat ures to the secretary of state for a referendum against the new State Senate maps.  The commission’s maps modestly improve the potentia l for minority representation … T he commission was obligated to comply with the f ederal Voting Rights Act, which require s the drawing of majority -minority districts under certain circumstances . California’s new maps include six additional majority-Latino Assembly districts, bringing the total to 14, and the first majority -Asian American district in California history . There is also one additional majority-Latino district in the new congressional map and one in the State Senate plan .  … and score better than the existing maps on traditional geographic criteria. T he commission was required to respect certain geographic crite ria whenever possible: to draw compact districts with simple shapes; to avoid splitting cities, counties , and communities of interest among multiple districts ; and to nest two Assembly districts exactly within each S enate district. The commission’s new maps improve compactne ss significantly , and improve city splits and nesting modestly . There is no notable change in county splits. Impacts on c ommunities of interest have not been evaluated here, because the concept is too subjective for systematic ana lysis.  The new maps have a larger number of competitive districts … The new maps have more competitive seats than the old ones. Based on a statistical analysis of races over the last decade, there are several seats with more than a two -in -three chance of a close outcome if no incumbent is r unning: three seats in the State Senate, s ix in the A ssembly, an d four in the U.S. House . (The competitive seats are listed in the first table .) By contrast, al though a few seats in the previous plan neared that two -thirds threshold in our simulations , none surpassed it . Because these predictions assume no incumbent legislator s, many of these seats may not be competitive in 2012. But each has a good chance of a close outcome at some point in the next 10 years, especially if an incumbent retires or is forced out by term limits .  … but partisan gains will be minimal in most cases, and difficult to attribute to the new district lines. I n a hypothetical good Democratic year, Democrats could expect to pick up as many as four seats from Republicans in the new House plan, mostly because the 2001 redistricting (drawn by the legislature itself) was uncompetitive and did not allow Democrats to pick up seats as they gained votes over the last 10 years . The new maps increase th e likelihood of a Democratic supermajority in the State Senate —and with it the ability to pass tax increases out of that body without Republican support —but only for the 20 seats being contested in 2012. By 2014, the odds of two -thirds Democratic control will be unchanged —and may even be slightly lower —compared to the 2001 legislature- drawn maps. Thus, district numbers , which determine the seats contested each year —rather than the new district lines themselves —are the primary cause of the likely (but probably temporary ) Democratic gains under the plan for the Senate . T here is little change in the Assembly. CALIFORNIA'S 2011 REDISTRICTING: CHALLENGES AND CONTR OVERSY December 2011 www.ppic.org New plans have several highly competitive seats District Location Registration balance Chance of competitive race (%) Senate 5 San Joaquin +4D 74 31 Riverside +2D 76 34 Huntington Beach Even 75 Assembly 8 East Sacramento County +2D 79 40 Redlands +2R 69 44 Ventura County +2D 81 61 Riverside +7D 68 65 Fullerton +2R 78 66 Torrance +3D 73 U.S. House 7 East Sacramento County +1D 66 10 Stanislaus +5D 66 31 San Bernardino +4D 69 41 Riverside +5D 66 Sources: 2010 registration numbers, California Statewide Database ; incumbency and returns , California Secretary of State ; district lines: California Citizens Redistricting Commission . Note s: Listed districts have better than two-in -three odds of a competitive race (where neither candidate wins by more than 10 points) when no incumbent is running , based on a regression analysis of election returns from the last decade. A number of seats also had better than 50 percent odds of competitiveness but fell short of the 2/3 threshold : d istrict s 21, 27, and 29 in the state S enate; d istricts 12, 16, 35, 36, 60, and 77 in the A ssembly; and districts 9, 21, 24, 25, 26, 36, 39, and 52 in the House. Registration balance is the difference between the percentage of voters who are Republicans and the percentage who are Democrats. An “R” number favors Republicans and a “D” number favors Democrats. 2011 redistricting may produce modest gains for Democrats Assembly 2012 Senate 2012 Senate 2014 U.S. House 2012 Predicted Democratic seat gain or loss Good Democratic y ear +1 +1 +0 +4 Good Republican y ear -1 +1 -1 +0 Chanc e of Dem ocratic supermajority in 2001/ 2011 plan Good Democratic y ear 53% / 66% 60% / 94% 89% / 79% – Good Republican y ear 0% / 1 % 4% / 43% 35% / 11% – Source s: 2010 registration numbers, California Statewide Database ; incumbency and returns , California Secretary of State ; district lines: California Citizen s Redistricting Commission . Note s: All numbers come from a regression analysis of election returns . Incumbents are assumed to run in their distric t of primary residence, and any seat occupied by a termed -out incumbent is open. Good Democratic y ear estimates use 2008 election data; good Republican y ear est imates use 2010 election data. C hance of Democratic supermajority derived from a sample of 1,000 vectors of coefficients and errors. Co ntact: mcghee @ppic.org" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:41:08" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(24) "jtf_redistricting1211jtf" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:41:08" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:41:08" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(66) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/JTF_Redistricting1211JTF.pdf" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_mime_type"]=> string(15) "application/pdf" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" ["status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["attachment_authors"]=> bool(false) }