Tag Archives: CA-31

The Two Strongest House Democratic Pickup Chances

Two hottest California GOP seats in 2014

by Brian Leubitz

I’ve been away from blogging for a while, in case you missed the radio silence. While I can’t make any firm commitments, I’m going to try to be a bit more active here, so make sure you stay tuned and keep watching your RSS feeds, facebook feed, etc.  As a kickoff to the year, let’s take a look at two of the GOP House seats in play this year.

1) CA-21, where freshman David Valadao is in a Cook lean Republican seat after defeating John Hernandez 58-42 in 2012. 2014 isn’t likely to be a stronger Democratic year, but Valadao could be looking at a very strong challenger in one of Cosmopolitan Magazine’s 20 Women to Watch in 2014, Amanda Renteria.

The former teacher is running to represent California’s Central Valley in the House, a Democrat challenging the Republican incumbent. She was a staffer first for Senator Dianne Feinstein, and then, under Senator Debbie Stabenow, the first Latina chief of staff in Senate history. She turned down a position as chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to focus on her campaign. (Cosmopolitan)

Yes, that is that Cosmo, but the full article of women to watch in 2014 is a good read. (There is one other Californian, Kamala Harris, for whom I have done some work.) She has a wealth of experience in public service and is clearly qualified for the job, the question is whether she can make the transition to political work. If she can raise the money needed for a robust campaign, this could be a very interesting race.

2) Down in San Bernardino (mostly), Gary Miller has his hands full in a lean Democratic seat. As David Atkins pointed out yesterday, Top-2 foiled the Democrats as the votes were split between a number of candidates, leaving two Republicans in the general election. While the candidate field is still flexible, that seems unlikely to happen again. At least unlikely if there is a bit more cooperation all around, but there is still a big field gearing up for a general election.

The full list on Around the Capitol is a little disheartening on the top-2 front:

Pete Aguilar (Democrat) – Mayor, Redlands

Danny Tillman (Democrat) – Trustee, San Bernardino Unified

Eloise Gomez Reyes (Democrat) – Attorney

Joe Baca (Democrat) – Former Member of Congress

However, as of now, there isn’t a second Republican in sight. If one does file before the deadline, this four way matchup could be a slow motion repeat of 2012. If a Democrat is able to get into the general election, Miller will be a top nationwide target. He has a somewhat tricky relationship with ethics and isn’t really all that popular.

Analysis of 2012 California U.S. House Races

Now that the primary dust is settled and I have some time, I can present my analysis of the California districts this year. With top-two, we have some more interesting races to watch. With the lack of a write-in option in the November elections, I came up with a new safer-than-safe rating, “Guaranteed”. The outcomes will not be different from the “Safe” races, but I like having them separated, because some of the “Guaranteed” races will be interesting to watch.

California’s 1st congressional district: SAFE GOP

Geography: Northeastern corner of the state (Redding, Chico)

November ballot: Doug LaMalfa (R) vs. Jim Reed (D)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 58-31

Governor 2010: Whitman 53-37

President 2008: McCain 53-42

California’s 2nd congressional district: SAFE DEM

Geography: North Coast north of San Francisco (Eureka, Petaluma)

November ballot: Jared Huffman (D) vs. Dan Roberts (R)

Senate 2010: Boxer 62-29

Governor 2010: Brown 64-30

President 2008: Obama 71-25

California’s 3rd congressional district: LEAN DEM

Geography: Solano County and Southern Sacramento Valley (Davis, Fairfield, Yuba City)

November ballot: John Garamendi (D-inc) vs. Kim Vann (R)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 46-45

Governor 2010: Brown 50-43

President 2008: Obama 55-42

Description: Garamendi underperformed the previous incumbent Ellen Tauscher in both the 2009 special and the 2010 general in the old district, which was more Democratic than this one. Colusa County Supervisor Vann is also a serious candidate, having more cash-on-hand than Garamendi ($169K – $132K), though Garamendi spent more than 3.5 times as much as Vann ($895K – $244K).

California’s 4th congressional district: SAFE GOP

Geography: Placer County, eastern Central Valley

November ballot: Tom McClintock (R-inc) vs. Jack Uppal (D)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 59-32

Governor 2010: Whitman 55-38

President 2008: McCain 54-43

California’s 5th congressional district: SAFE DEM

Geography: Napa Valley

November ballot: Mike Thompson (D-inc) vs. Randy Loftin (R)

Senate 2010: Boxer 61-30

Governor 2010: Brown 63-31

President 2008: Obama 70-27

California’s 6th congressional district: SAFE DEM

Geography: Sacramento, West Sacramento

November ballot: Doris Matsui (D-inc) vs. Joseph McCray (R)

Senate 2010: Boxer 59-32

Governor 2010: Brown 66-28

President 2008: Obama 68-29

California’s 7th congressional district: LEAN GOP

Geography: Eastern Sacramento suburbs (Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, Citrus Heights)

November ballot: Dan Lungren (R-inc) vs. Ami Bera (D)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 49-42

Governor 2010: Brown 49-44

President 2008: Obama 51-46

Description: This will probably be the race to watch in California’s congressional delegation. Lungren won a hard-fought race the last two cycles, and in 2010 Democrats picked up a State Assembly seat in this area, one of the few Democratic pickups that year. The district became slightly more Democratic, going from Obama by 0.5% to Obama by 5%. However, Lungren beat Bera by 12 points in June, so he has a small advantage.

California’s 8th congressional district: GUARANTEED GOP

Geography: Sierras and most of San Bernardino County

November ballot: Paul Cook (R) vs. Gregg Imus (R)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 57-32

Governor 2010: Whitman 52-36

President 2008: McCain 55-42

California’s 9th congressional district: LEAN DEM

Geography: San Joaquin County (Stockton, Lodi) and eastern Contra Costa County (Antioch)

November ballot: Jerry McNerney (D-inc) vs. Ricky Gill (R)

Senate 2010: Boxer 47-44

Governor 2010: Brown 51-42

President 2008: Obama 56-41

Description: Republicans landed a top recruit in Gill to face McNerney, who has had a history of tough races. This district became slightly more Democratic than the old one, voting for Boxer and Brown. Gill could use McNerney’s recent move to Stockton from Pleasanton in the Bay Area to his advantage, and has argued that McNerney has not been an effective San Joaquin County representative. This will be a race to watch, though due to this district being slightly more Democratic than the old CA-11, I give McNerney a small edge.

California’s 10th congressional district: LIKELY GOP

Geography: Stanislaus County and southwestern San Joaquin County

November ballot: Jeff Denham (R-inc) vs. Jose Hernandez (D)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 52-39

Governor 2010: Whitman 49-44

President 2008: Obama 50-47

Description: Denham’s weak performance in June was surprising, considering his history of big margins in similar districts, though that may be due to nonpartisan candidate Chad Condit (son of former conservative Democrat congressman Gary Condit).

California’s 11th congressional district: SAFE DEM

Geography: Contra Costa County (Richmond, Walnut Creek, Concord)

November ballot: George Miller (D-inc) vs. Virginia Fuller (R)

Senate 2010: Boxer 60-34

Governor 2010: Brown 61-34

President 2008: Obama 69-28

California’s 12th congressional district: SAFE DEM

Geography: San Francisco

November ballot: Nancy Pelosi (D-inc) vs. John Dennis (R)

Senate 2010: Boxer 76-14

Governor 2010: Brown 78-16

President 2008: Obama 84-13

California’s 13th congressional district: SAFE DEM

Geography: Berkeley, Oakland

November ballot: Barbara Lee (D-inc) vs. Marilyn Singleton (NPP)

Senate 2010: Boxer 83-11

Governor 2010: Brown 84-11

President 2008: Obama 87-10

California’s 14th congressional district: SAFE DEM

Geography: South San Francisco, Daly City, San Mateo, Redwood City

November ballot: Jackie Speier (D-inc) vs. Debbie Bacigalupi (R)

Senate 2010: Boxer 66-27

Governor 2010: Brown 66-28

President 2008: Obama 73-24

California’s 15th congressional district: GUARANTEED DEM

Geography: Southern East Bay (Hayward, Livermore, San Ramon)

November ballot: Pete Stark (D-inc) vs. Eric Swalwell (D)

Senate 2010: Boxer 59-34

Governor 2010: Brown 59-35

President 2008: Obama 67-30

Description: For once, we have a race to watch in a safe district, with delegation dean Stark against fellow Democrat Swalwell. Stark has had a series of gaffes, and Swalwell gained the endorsements of the San Francisco Chronicle and Bay Area Newsgroup. Swalwell also hails from a part of the district that is new to Stark, the Tri-Valley area. Will term 20 be Stark’s last term?

California’s 16th congressional district: LIKELY DEM

Geography: Fresno, Madera, Merced

November ballot: Jim Costa (D-inc) vs. Brian Whelan (R)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 47-43

Governor 2010: Brown 50-42

President 2008: Obama 57-40

Description: Costa traded the Kern and Kings portions of his old district for Madera and Merced. He should be fine if he takes the race seriously, unlike last time.

California’s 17th congressional district: SAFE DEM

Geography: Silicon Valley (Fremont, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale)

November ballot: Mike Honda (D-inc) vs. Evelyn Li (R)

Senate 2010: Boxer 63-29

Governor 2010: Brown 61-34

President 2008: Obama 69-28

California’s 18th congressional district: SAFE DEM

Geography: Silicon Valley (Menlo Park, Palo Alto, San Jose)

November ballot: Anna Eshoo (D-inc) vs. David Chapman (R)

Senate 2010: Boxer 61-32

Governor 2010: Brown 60-35

President 2008: Obama 70-27

California’s 19th congressional district: SAFE DEM

Geography: San Jose

November ballot: Zoe Lofgren (D-inc) vs. Robert Murray (R)

Senate 2010: Boxer 61-31

Governor 2010: Brown 60-25

President 2008: Obama 70-27

California’s 20th congressional district: SAFE DEM

Geography: Northern Central Coast (Monterey, Salinas, Santa Cruz)

November ballot: Sam Farr (D-inc) vs. Jeff Taylor (R)

Senate 2010: Boxer 61-31

Governor 2010: Brown 63-31

President 2008: Obama 71-26

California’s 21st congressional district: LIKELY GOP

Geography: Southern Central Valley (Hanford, Bakersfield)

November ballot: John Hernandez (D) vs. David Valadao (R)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 50-40

Governor 2010: Brown 48-44

President 2008: Obama 52-46

Description: With the Democrats’ two best candidates, Michael Rubio and Dean Florez, not running and Valadao winning a majority of the vote in the first round, this district is very likely to go Republican.

California’s 22nd congressional district: SAFE GOP

Geography: Fresno, Visalia

November ballot: Devin Nunes (R-inc) vs. Otto Lee (D)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 63-30

Governor 2010: Whitman 59-35

President 2008: McCain 55-42

California’s 23rd congressional district: SAFE GOP

Geography: Kern County (Bakersfield)

November ballot: Kevin McCarthy (R-inc) vs. Terry Phillips (NPP)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 64-26

Governor 2010: Whitman 58-33

President 2008: McCain 61-36

California’s 24th congressional district: LEAN DEM

Geography: San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties

November ballot: Lois Capps (D-inc) vs. Abel Maldonado (R)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 46-45

Governor 2010: Brown 47-46

President 2008: Obama 56-41

Description: This was probably the toughest race for me to rate, between lean Dem and toss-up. Capps gets back her old district from the 90s that was marginal (including voting for Bob Dole in 1996) and that she won close races in. Capps is more entrenched now than she was in the 90s, but I don’t think she is used to serious campaigning after five non-competitive races. In addition, Maldonado represented this area in the state legislature, though he is not liked by the party base and could be hammered on taxes. I decided to give Capps a few more points due to being entrenched, though this race could become a toss-up again if there are any new developments.

California’s 25th congressional district: SAFE GOP

Geography: Palmdale, Santa Clarita, Simi Valley

November ballot: Buck McKeon (R-inc) vs. Lee Rogers (D)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 54-37

Governor 2010: Whitman 52-39

President 2008: Obama 49-48

California’s 26th congressional district: TOSS-UP

Geography: Ventura County (Oxnard, Moorpark, Thousand Oaks)

November ballot: Julia Brownley (D) vs. Tony Strickland (R)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 47-45

Governor 2010: Whitman 47-46

President 2008: Obama 56-41

Description: Democrats suffered a setback when County Supervisor Steve Bennett dropped out in February and recruited Assemblywoman Brownley. A Santa Monica-area rep would be an awkward fit for a Ventura County district, but Strickland has had many close races himself. It is unknown who the supporters of nonpartisan candidate Linda Parks will go to in November.

California’s 27th congressional district: SAFE DEM

Geography: Pasadena, Monterey Park, Alhambra

November ballot: Judy Chu (D-inc) vs. Jack Orswell (R)

Senate 2010: Boxer 54-39

Governor 2010: Brown 55-39

President 2008: Obama 61-36

California’s 28th congressional district: SAFE DEM

Geography: Glendale, Burbank

November ballot: Adam Schiff (D-inc) vs. Phil Jennerjahn (R)

Senate 2010: Boxer 63-30

Governor 2010: Brown 63-30

President 2008: Obama 70-26

California’s 29th congressional district: SAFE DEM

Geography: Eastern San Fernando Valley

November ballot: Tony Cardenas (D) vs. David Hernandez (NPP)

Senate 2010: Boxer 67-24

Governor 2010: Brown 68-24

President 2008: Obama 74-23

California’s 30th congressional district: GUARANTEED DEM

Geography: Western San Fernando Valley

November ballot: Howard Berman (D-inc) vs. Brad Sherman (D-inc)

Senate 2010: Boxer 57-35

Governor 2010: Brown 57-36

President 2008: Obama 66-31

Description: This is the same-party race to watch, a clash of the titans if you will. Berman has the Hollywood establishment, while Sherman has more local endorsements, as well as Bill Clinton. Sherman has also been more visible in the area, and got more votes than Berman in June. As far as Republican/conservative outreach goes, Berman has the support of former mayor Richard Riordan, DA Steve Cooley, and county supervisor Mike Antonovich, while CPA and former Board of Equalization (the state’s tax board) member Sherman voted against TARP in 2008.

California’s 31st congressional district: GUARANTEED GOP

Geography: Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino, Redlands

November ballot: Bob Dutton (R) vs. Gary Miller (R-inc)

Senate 2010: Boxer 46-44

Governor 2010: Brown 49-41

President 2008: Obama 56-41

Description: This is the only race where top-two cost a party a chance at a pickup. I hope this missed opportunity teaches Democrats a lesson to be more disciplined when it comes to candidates. As far as November goes, the combination of familiarity among locals and no scandals should give Dutton a comfortable edge.

California’s 32nd congressional district: SAFE DEM

Geography: San Gabriel Valley

November ballot: Grace Napolitano (D-inc) vs. David Miller (R)

Senate 2010: Boxer 55-36

Governor 2010: Brown 57-35

President 2008: Obama 62-35

California’s 33rd congressional district: SAFE DEM

Geography: West Side L.A., Beach Cities, Palos Verdes

November ballot: Henry Waxman (D-inc) vs. Bill Bloomfield (NPP)

Senate 2010: Boxer 55-39

Governor 2010: Brown 54-40

President 2008: Obama 64-32

California’s 34th congressional district: SAFE DEM

Geography: Downtown L.A.

November ballot: Xavier Becerra (D-inc) vs. Steven Smith (R)

Senate 2010: Boxer 75-16

Governor 2010: Brown 76-16

President 2008: Obama 77-19

California’s 35th congressional district: GUARANTEED DEM

Geography: Inland Empire (Pomona, Fontana, Ontario)

November ballot: Joe Baca (D-inc) vs. Gloria Negrete-McLeod (D)

Senate 2010: Boxer 56-34

Governor 2010: Brown 58-33

President 2008: Obama 64-32

Description: Another same-party race to watch, with McLeod challenging Baca from the left. McLeod has represented Pomona and Chino, which are not familiar to Baca, and held him under 50% despite establishment backing.

California’s 36th congressional district: SAFE GOP

Geography: Riverside County

November ballot: Mary Bono Mack (R-inc) vs. Raul Ruiz (D)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 51-42

Governor 2010: Whitman 50-43

President 2008: Obama 50-47

Description: Bono Mack had a closer-than-usual race in 2010 due to a third-party conservative. Now with a more Republican district she should be able to breathe easier.

California’s 37th congressional district: GUARANTEED DEM

Geography: Crenshaw, Culver City

November ballot: Karen Bass (D-inc)

Senate 2010: Boxer 79-14

Governor 2010: Brown 79-15

President 2008: Obama 84-13

California’s 38th congressional district: SAFE DEM

Geography: Norwalk, Lakewood, Whittier

November ballot: Linda Sánchez (D-inc) vs. Ben Campos (R)

Senate 2010: Boxer 55-35

Governor 2010: Brown 57-35

President 2008: Obama 61-35

California’s 39th congressional district: SAFE GOP

Geography: Fullerton, Yorba Linda, Diamond Bar, Chino Hills

November ballot: Ed Royce (R-inc) vs. Jay Chen (D)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 55-37

Governor 2010: Whitman 54-38

President 2008: McCain 49-47

California’s 40th congressional district: GUARANTEED DEM

Geography: Downey, Bellflower, Bell Gardens

November ballot: Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-inc) vs. David John Sanchez (D)

Senate 2010: Boxer 72-18

Governor 2010: Brown 73-19

President 2008: Obama 77-19

California’s 41st congressional district: TOSS-UP

Geography: Riverside, Moreno Valley

November ballot: Mark Takano (D) vs. John Tavaglione (R)

Senate 2010: Boxer 49-42

Governor 2010: Brown 52-40

President 2008: Obama 59-40

Description: This new Riverside seat will probably be the SoCal race to watch. On paper it should go Democratic, but Republicans have historically fared well in Riverside races. However, I haven’t been able to find any old Riverside districts as Democratic as this, so this district is uncharted territory for both parties.

California’s 42nd congressional district: SAFE GOP

Geography: Corona, Murrieta, Lake Elsinore

November ballot: Ken Calvert (R-inc) vs. Michael Williamson (D)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 60-33

Governor 2010: Whitman 56-35

President 2008: McCain 54-43

California’s 43rd congressional district: GUARANTEED DEM

Geography: Inglewood, Hawthorne

November ballot: Maxine Waters (D-inc) vs. Bob Flores (D)

Senate 2010: Boxer 68-23

Governor 2010: Brown 69-24

President 2008: Obama 75-22

Description: Flores got a third of the vote in the primary, so this may be a race to watch to see if Waters’ ethics issues finally catch up to her.

California’s 44th congressional district: GUARANTEED DEM

Geography: Carson, Compton, Long Beach, San Pedro

November ballot: Janice Hahn (D-inc) vs. Laura Richardson (D-inc)

Senate 2010: Boxer 76-15

Governor 2010: Brown 77-15

President 2008: Obama 81-16

Description: The other incumbent-vs.-incumbent race has much less drama. Like in June, Hahn should easily get more votes than scandal-tainted Richardson.

California’s 45th congressional district: SAFE GOP

Geography: Central Orange County (Irvine, Tustin, Mission Viejo)

November ballot: John Campbell (R-inc) vs. Sukhee Kang (D)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 60-33

Governor 2010: Whitman 59-34

President 2008: McCain 51-46

California’s 46th congressional district: SAFE DEM

Geography: North Central Orange County (Anaheim, Santa Ana)

November ballot: Loretta Sanchez (D-inc) vs. Jerry Hayden (R)

Senate 2010: Boxer 49-40

Governor 2010: Brown 50-40

President 2008: Obama 58-39

California’s 47th congressional district: LEAN DEM

Geography: Long Beach, Garden Grove

November ballot: Gary DeLong (R) vs. Alan Lowenthal (D)

Senate 2010: Boxer 50-42

Governor 2010: Brown 50-42

President 2008: Obama 58-39

Description: This should be a comfortable Democratic win, but Lowenthal’s until-recently lackluster fundraising and opposition to high-speed rail funds for the Central Valley has Democrats concerned. DeLong is also a serious contender, with strong backing from the NRCC.

California’s 48th congressional district: SAFE GOP

Geography: Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach

November ballot: Dana Rohrabacher (R-inc) vs. Ron Varasteh (D)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 58-35

Governor 2010: Whitman 58-35

President 2008: McCain 51-46

Californias’ 49th congressional district: SAFE GOP

Geography: Dana Point, San Clemente, Oceanside, Carlsbad

November ballot: Darrell Issa (R-inc) vs. Jerry Tetalman (D)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 56-36

Governor 2010: Whitman 55-37

President 2008: Obama 49-48

California’s 50th congressional district: SAFE GOP

Geography: Temecula, San Diego County (Escondido, Santee)

November ballot: Duncan D. Hunter (R-inc) vs. David B. Secor (D)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 63-28

Governor 2010: Whitman 61-31

President 2008: McCain 58-39

California’s 51st congressional district: SAFE DEM

Geography: Imperial County, San Diego (Chula Vista, Imperial Beach)

November ballot: Michael Crimmins (R) vs. Juan Vargas (D)

Senate 2010: Boxer 57-32

Governor 2010: Brown 58-31

President 2008: Obama 65-32

California’s 52nd congressional district: LEAN GOP

Geography: Coronado, Poway, San Diego

November ballot: Brian Bilbray (R-inc) vs. Scott Peters (D)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 50-42

Governor 2010: Whitman 50-43

President 2008: Obama 54-43

Description: This district is less Republican than the old CA-50, though Bilbray isn’t new to swingy districts having represented the old CA-49 in the 90s. Peters made it to the November ballot in spite of a nasty primary fight with the more liberal Saldana.

California’s 53rd congressional district: SAFE DEM

Geography: San Diego, Lemon Grove, El Cajon

November ballot: Susan Davis (D-inc) vs. Nick Popaditch (R)

Senate 2010: Boxer 51-40

Governor 2010: Brown 52-40

President 2008: Obama 60-36

Overall, here are my ratings for the congressional races.

Guaranteed DEM: 7

Safe DEM: 21

Likely DEM: 1

Lean DEM: 4

Toss-Up: 2

Lean GOP: 2

Likely GOP: 2

Safe GOP: 12

Guaranteed GOP: 2

If my ratings pan out, the best Democrats can do (holding all their Guaranteed, Safe, Likely, and Lean seats and winning both toss-ups) is 35-18 and the best Republicans can do is 33-20.

Districts I’m watching: CA-03, CA-07, CA-09, CA-15, CA-24, CA-26, CA-30, CA-35, CA-41, CA-43, CA-47, CA-52

Outlook for California districts in 2012 – Post-Super Tuesday Edition

Here are the updated districts in my “Outlook” series. I replaced the 2008-President numbers with a “Cook PVI” based only on 2008. With this number, calculating the “Partisan Factor” (PF) became a bit easier, simply averaging the CPVI, 2010 Governor and Senate races, and the difference between the DEM and GOP registration numbers. The PF’s changed slightly, but the overall numbers for U.S. House, State Senate, and State Assembly remain the same.

For the 2010 races, the numbers represent the difference between the parties given their share of the 2-party vote. For example, in CA-03, Fiorina won 51-49 and Brown won 53.8-46.2.

U.S. House

District “Incumbent” DEM GOP Margin Cook PVI 2010 Sen. 2010 Gov. PF
CA-03
Garamendi
41.6
32.3
D+9.3
D+2.8
R+2.0
D+7.6
D+4.4
CA-07
Lungren
39.2
38.2
D+1.0
R+0.9
R+7.4
D+5.4
R+0.5
CA-09
McNerney
44.6
35.8
D+8.8
D+4.3
D+3.0
D+9.2
D+6.3
CA-16
Costa
47.9
32.7
D+15.2
D+5.2
R+3.8
D+8.4
D+6.3
CA-21
None
45.4
34.4
D+11.0
R+0.7
R+11.6
D+4.0
D+0.7
CA-24
Capps
38.9
35.1
D+3.8
D+4.3
R+1.4
D+0.6
D+1.8
CA-26
None
40.9
35.2
D+5.7
D+4.0
R+2.0
R+1.0
D+1.7
CA-31
None
41.0
35.9
D+5.1
D+4.0
D+2.2
D+8.2
D+4.9
CA-36
Bono Mack
39.0
40.7
R+1.7
R+2.1
R+11.0
R+6.8
R+5.4
CA-41
None
41.8
34.9
D+6.9
D+5.9
D+7.4
D+13.0
D+8.3
CA-46
Sanchez
44.3
31.7
D+12.6
D+6.3
D+10.0
D+10.6
D+9.9
CA-47
None
42.4
31.6
D+10.8
D+6.3
D+8.6
D+9.4
D+8.8
CA-52
Bilbray
32.7
35.4
R+2.7
D+2.5
R+7.8
R+8.4
R+4.1

State Senate (odd-numbered districts)

District DEM GOP Margin 2010 Sen. 2010 Gov. Cook PVI PF
SD-05
41.7
38.7
D+3.0
R+7.0
D+1.6
D+0.6
R+1.4
SD-19
43.6
31.3
D+12.3
R+6.2
D+6.2
D+7.9
D+2.3
SD-27
40.4
34.6
D+5.8
R+0.8
R+0.8
D+4.7
D+0.8
SD-31
39.7
36.7
D+3.0
R+0.2
D+5.6
D+3.8
D+3.3
SD-39
37.7
30.4
D+7.3
D+6.6
D+6.0
D+8.6
D+6.8

State Assembly

District DEM GOP Margin 2010 Sen. 2010 Gov. Cook PVI PF
AD-08
40.1
37.5
D+2.6
R+5.2
D+7.6
EVEN
D+1.6
AD-16
39.8
34.1
D+5.7
D+5.0
D+5.8
D+23.4
D+6.3
AD-21
46.3
34.1
D+12.2
R+7.2
D+1.2
D+11.5
R+0.5
AD-31
49.1
31.6
D+17.5
D+3.2
D+14.6
D+20.8
D+10.3
AD-32
46.6
32.5
D+14.1
R+8.3
R+8.6
D+7.7
R+5.4
AD-40
38.0
38.5
R+0.5
R+6.0
D+1.0
D+7.6
R+1.6
AD-44
38.9
37.0
D+1.9
R+5.8
R+5.4
D+12.0
R+4.0
AD-60
36.6
39.0
R+2.4
R+10.8
R+4.8
D+5.0
R+6.7
AD-61
42.6
34.5
D+8.1
D+10.4
D+15.8
D+24.0
D+13.1
AD-65
36.0
37.3
R+1.3
R+10.6
R+8.8
D+3.4
R+8.2
AD-66
38.2
35.4
D+2.8
R+2.2
R+1.4
D+12.6
R+0.6

If (and this is a big if) the races go according to the Partisan Factors, then the composition of the delegations will be as follows:

U.S. House: 36 DEM, 17 GOP

Safe DEM (27): 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 43, 44, 51, 53

Safe GOP (13): 1, 4, 8, 10, 22, 23, 25, 39, 42, 45, 48, 49, 50

State Senate: 27 DEM, 13 GOP

Safe DEM (10): 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 25, 33, 35

Safe GOP (5): 1, 21, 23, 29, 37

Up in 2014: 13 DEM, 7 GOP

State Assembly: 50 DEM, 30 GOP

Safe DEM (46): 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63, 64, 69, 70, 78, 79, 80

Safe GOP (23): 1, 3, 5, 6, 12, 21, 23, 26, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 55, 60, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77

Outlook for California districts in 2012 – Christmas/New Year’s edition

Picking up on a diary from 2006 about tracking competitive districts, I continued the tracking for the 2008 and 2010 elections. With the new district data, I can start the “Outlook” series for 2012.

In 2008 I tried a “Partisan Factor” (PF), inspired by a comment in the aforementioned diary, in which I averaged the margins in registration, 2002-Gov., 2004-Pres., 2004-Sen., and 2006-Sen. In 2010 I used just the registration and the 2008 presidential numbers. For 2012 I will try a new “Partisan Factor” using the registration margin, 2008-Pres., 2010-Sen., and 2010-Gov, with different weights.

Also, for the 2008 and 2010 races, the numbers represent the difference between the parties given their share of the 2-party vote. For example, in CA-03, Obama won 56.3-43.7, Fiorina won 51-49, and Brown won 53.8-46.2.

Here is the lowdown on these districts.

U.S. House

District “Incumbent” DEM GOP Margin 2008 Pres. 2010 Sen. 2010 Gov. PF
CA-03
Garamendi
42.1
32.8
D+9.3
D+12.6
R+2.0
D+7.6
D+3.9
CA-07
Lungren
39.4
38.6
D+0.8
D+5.5
R+7.4
D+5.4
R+0.5
CA-09
McNerney
45.3
35.8
D+9.5
D+15.5
D+3.0
D+9.2
D+6.9
CA-16
Costa
48.3
33.4
D+14.9
D+17.8
R+3.8
D+8.4
D+3.9
CA-21
None
46.2
35.3
D+10.9
D+5.8
R+11.6
D+4.0
R+1.9
CA-24
Capps
39.2
35.6
D+3.6
D+15.5
R+1.4
D+0.6
D+0.8
CA-26
Gallegly (?)
41.1
35.5
D+5.6
D+14.9
R+2.0
R+1.0
D+0.0
CA-31
Dreier/Lewis (?)
41.1
37.0
D+4.1
D+14.9
D+2.2
D+8.2
D+5.6
CA-36
Bono Mack
39.0
41.4
R+2.4
D+3.1
R+11.0
R+6.8
R+7.7
CA-41
None
41.9
35.3
D+6.6
D+18.9
D+7.4
D+13.0
D+10.3
CA-46
Sanchez
44.8
32.1
D+12.7
D+19.2
D+10.0
D+10.6
D+11.0
CA-47
None
42.6
32.0
D+10.6
D+19.3
D+8.6
D+9.4
D+9.7
CA-52
Bilbray
32.9
35.9
R+3.0
D+12.1
R+7.8
R+8.4
R+6.6

State Senate (odd-numbered districts)

District DEM GOP Margin 2010 Sen. 2010 Gov. 2008 Pres. PF
SD-05
42.6
38.2
D+4.4
R+7.0
D+1.6
D+8.4
R+1.4
SD-19
44.0
31.8
D+12.2
R+6.2
D+6.2
D+22.5
D+2.3
SD-27
40.9
34.6
D+6.3
R+0.8
R+0.8
D+16.4
D+0.8
SD-31
39.8
37.1
D+2.7
R+0.2
D+5.6
D+14.5
D+3.3
SD-39
38.1
30.9
D+7.2
D+6.6
D+6.0
D+13.8
D+6.8

State Assembly

District DEM GOP Margin 2010 Sen. 2010 Gov. 2008 Pres. PF
AD-08
40.4
37.9
D+2.5
R+5.2
D+7.6
D+7.1
D+1.6
AD-16
40.1
34.4
D+5.7
D+5.0
D+5.8
D+23.4
D+6.3
AD-21
47.9
33.0
D+14.9
R+7.2
D+1.2
D+11.5
R+0.5
AD-31
49.7
32.9
D+16.8
D+3.2
D+14.6
D+20.8
D+10.3
AD-32
47.5
33.5
D+14.0
R+8.3
R+8.6
D+7.7
R+5.4
AD-40
39.6
38.0
D+1.6
R+6.0
D+1.0
D+7.6
R+1.6
AD-44
39.2
37.2
D+2.0
R+5.8
R+5.4
D+12.0
R+4.0
AD-60
36.6
39.7
R+3.1
R+10.8
R+4.8
D+5.0
R+6.7
AD-61
42.8
34.7
D+8.1
D+10.4
D+15.8
D+24.0
D+13.1
AD-65
36.6
38.0
R+1.4
R+10.6
R+8.8
D+3.4
R+8.2
AD-66
38.4
35.6
D+2.8
R+2.2
R+1.4
D+12.6
R+0.6

If (and this is a big if) the races go according to the Partisan Factors, then the composition of the delegations will be as follows:

U.S. House: 35 DEM, 18 GOP

Safe DEM (26): 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 43, 44, 51, 53

Safe GOP (14): 1, 4, 8, 10, 22, 23, 25, 39, 40, 42, 45, 48, 49, 50

State Senate: 27 DEM, 13 GOP

Safe DEM (10): 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 25, 33, 35

Safe GOP (5): 1, 21, 23, 29, 37

Up in 2014: 13 DEM, 7 GOP

State Assembly: 50 DEM, 30 GOP

Safe DEM (46): 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63, 64, 69, 70, 78, 79, 80

Safe GOP (23): 1, 3, 5, 6, 12, 21, 23, 26, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 55, 60, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77

Redistricting California 2010, v2.0: Let Only 6 Republicans Be Safe

Taking into account some suggestions and comments, I made some changes to my previous attempt at redistricting California. I conceded an additional 2 seats to the GOP, which concomitantly makes a number of other seats more strongly Democratic. The additional 2 safe GOP seats are CA-4 and CA-48. Here’s what version 2 looks like, overall:

Statewide Map, Version 2

For comparison, here is Version 1:

Statewide Map, Version 1

Because redistricting diaries often seem to devolve into discussions of the morality of gerrymandering, I will state my thoughts up front in order to try and prevent discussion from thus devolving.

1) In an ideal world, my ideal scenario would be that all Congressional districts in all States would be redistricted by non-partisan commission, so that all districts were fair and no political party was disadvantaged on the national level.

2) We don’t live in an ideal world. If Democrats roll over and play dead during redistricting after the 2010 census, that will do nothing to stop Republicans from gerrymandering every last seat out of states they control, like Georgia, Texas, and Florida. That will result in a national Congressional map unfairly favorable towards Republicans.

3) So Democrats should draw politically favorable maps in states we control. Congressional Redistricting is a blood sport, and unilateral disarmament is not a viable solution. Taking the high road is the Michael Dukakis way, and it is the wrong way.

4) If Democrats draw strong enough maps in states like California that really hurt the GOP, then maybe the GOP will eventually cry uncle.

5) After that, maybe the GOP would agree to adopt a fair national solution in which all states, whether GOP controlled or Dem controlled, drew fair and competitive maps via commission or some other neutral mechanism. That might not happen, but electoral reform of that sort is certainly more likely if we fight back than if we let the GOP roll us.

Now, on to the substance:

Political Impact

The bottom line is that under this map or something similar, California’s Congressional delegation would have many more Democrats and many fewer Republicans. Overall there are now 42 seats classified as Safely Democratic, 4 Lean Democratic. Under this map California would likely send delegation with 46-49 Democrats and 6-9 Republicans to Congress. Currently, California’s Congressional delegation is 33D – 19R, so that is a substantial improvement.

If a handful of GOP incumbents are able to hold on in districts that voted in the mid-50s for Obama, it is possible the number of Democrats could be a bit lower than 46. But even in a very large GOP wave election, the number of Democratic seats would be unlikely to fall much below 42-46, because the vast majority of seats are at least D+10 or very close to it, which is more than high enough to withstand a 1994 or 2006 sized wave election.

Version 1 Change Version 2
Dem 39 +3 42
Lean Dem 5 -1 4
Swing 5 -2 3
GOP 4 +2 6

Below, I analyze the districts that change from my previous version.

Northern California

In Northern California, CA-4 is conceded to the GOP. In exchange CA-3 becomes more strongly Democratic and CA-10 much less gerrymandered. Indirectly, this also filters all the way down to San Bernadino County to help make CA-29 and CA-45 a bit more Democratic.

Northern California, Version 2 map

Districts Altered:


CA-2

Incumbent: ?Wally Herger? (R), ?Tom McClintock? (R)
Previous District PVI: R+11
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 39% Obama, R+14
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 40% Obama, R+13.
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 72% White
District 1.0 Demographics: 78% White
District 2.0 Demographics: 77% White

CA-2 shifts a bit northwards from version 1, getting rid of El Dorado and Amador Counties to move into Nevada County and take in more of the Sacramento suburbs in Placer County. This might make the district about 1 point more Democratic.


CA-3

Incumbent: Dan Lungren (R)
Previous District PVI: R+6
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 57% Obama, D+4
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 61% Obama, D+8
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 65% White
District 1.0 Demographics: 56% White
District version 2.0 Demographics: 45% White

CA-3 is reworked thoroughly from the previous version. In my previous version, GOP incumbent Dan Lungren was in trouble. In this new version, he is pretty much doomed if he runs in this district. Only 250,000 people in this district remain in Sacramento County, mostly in competitive northern suburbs, with a mix of Obama and McCain precincts. On top of those people, all of Solano County (except for a thin sparsely populated strip of CA-10) and West Sacramento are tacked on, turning a lean Democratic district into a solidly Democratic district.


CA-4

Incumbent: ?Dan Lungren? (R), ?George Radanovich? (R), ?Tom McLintock? (R)
Previous District PVI: R+10
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 53% Obama, D+0
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 41% Obama, R+12
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 79% White
District 1.0 Demographics: 57% White
District 2.0 Demographics: 78% White

The flip side of making CA-3 more Democratic is making CA-4 more Republican. The new CA-4 is a suburban swing district no more. It is now a solidly GOP district, combining suburban parts of Placer County with the Sierra Nevadas (minus Lake Tahoe) and strongly GOP north Fresno. 1/10 of the district is also made up of some particularly strong GOP precincts in Sacramento County, most of which are already in the current CA-4. GOP incumbents Dan Lungren, George Radanovich, and Tom McClintock would all have a reason to run here, making for a potential 3-way GOP primary, as substantial amounts of territory each has previously represented is included in this district.


CA-7

Incumbent: George Miller (D)
Previous District PVI: D+19
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 63% Obama, D+10
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 65% Obama, D+12
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 39% White, 27% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics: 50% White, 31% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics: 50% White, 28% Latino

CA-7 gives up Antioch in order to pick up Berkeley. In order to keep Richmond contiguous with Oakland while also enabling CA-7 to add Berkeley, there is a thin coastal strip of CA-9 running through Berkeley as well. George Miller should have no difficulties in Berkeley, and when Miller retires, another strong Democrat should do fine in this district as well. Disproportionately few votes in this district are actually cast in San Joaquin county due to the high Latino population there. So the potential problem of someone from Berkeley winning a Democratic primary but then losing a general election (which applied to my previous version of CA-10) ought to be reduced in this modified version of CA-7.




CA-10

Incumbent: John Garamendi (D)
Previous District PVI: D+11
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 63% Obama, D+10
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 64% Obama, D+11
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 56% White
New District Demographics: 46% White

CA-10 is not the monster that the previous district was. The entire Sierra Nevadas section of the district is gone in version 2, and that population is instead picked up in Sacramento County (which now makes up about 4/7 of the district). The Sacramento section looks on its face like it would be Republican because there are large swaths of rural areas in the south-east of the county. But actually most of the population is in relatively Democratic suburban areas (like Elk Grove), and CA-10’s section of Sacramento County voted similarly to the county as a whole. Berkeley is also traded to CA-7 in exchange for Antioch. That makes CA-10 a little less Democratic than it would be, but only by a few points because Antioch is pretty strongly Democratic as well (65% for Obama). This also has negates the chance that someone from Berkeley with limited appeal in the Sacramento suburbs will be a future Democratic nominee in CA-10.

Southern California

An additional district in Southern California is conceded to the GOP (CA-48), in exchange for strengthening a couple of relatively weak Swing/Lean Democratic districts, and reducing gerrymandering in Orange County.

Southern California, Version 2 map

South-East LA & Orange County, Version 2 map

Districts Altered




CA-22

Incumbent: ?Kevin McCarthy? (R), ?Devin Nunes? (R), ?George Radanovich? (R)
Previous District PVI: R+16
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 32% Obama, R+21
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 32% Obama, R+21
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 57% White, 49% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics: 62% White, 24% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics: 62% White, 26% Latino

Because CA-4 does not pick up the lake Tahoe area from CA-10, it has to make up population by pushing down on CA-22 into Fresno. This means that CA-22 also has some more population (114,000) to make up. It does so by crossing into San Bernadino County and relieving Adam Schiff of the most heavily Republican precincts around Barstow and Hesperia. So while the political makeup of CA-22 does not really change, it helps make CA-29 more Democratic, and indirectly helps to make CA-41 and CA-45 more Democratic.


CA-29

Incumbent: Adam Schiff (D)
Previous District PVI: D+14
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 61% Obama, D+8
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 63% Obama, D+10
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 42% White, 26% Asian, 26% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics: 46% White, 7% Asian, 33% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics: 45% White, 8% Asian, 34% Latino

As mentioned above, CA-29 sheds some heavily GOP areas to the 22nd district. To equalize the population, CA-29 adds Upland, which has some Democratic precincts to go with its Republican ones, and GOP Yucca Valley and Twenty Nine Palms. Though these areas are still generally GOP, they are a bit less Republican than the areas he loses. I also noticed that there were two prisons with combined populations of about 25,000 people in the middle of the desert/hills of rural San Bernadino county. I was sure to add those to CA-29, serving to increases the relative proportion of the vote cast in the heavily Democratic LA County part of the 29th. So Adam Schiff’s district becomes a bit more Democratic by picking up some relatively less GOP precincts and by adding some prisoners. I thought about putting Lake Tahoe in the 29th district, but didn’t in the end.




CA-40

Incumbent: ?Ed Royce? (R), ?John Campbell? (R)
Previous District PVI: R+8
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 52% Obama, R+1
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 57% Obama, D+4
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 42% White, 18% Asian, 34% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics: 43% White, 15% Asian, 35% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics: 46% White, 16% Asian, 32% Latino

CA-40 is now entirely within Orange County, and, like the rest of the districts in Orange County (except CA-47) is remodeled from version 1.0. This is probably just about the most Democratic district that can be made in Orange County without taking substantively from CA-47. It combines progressive and Democratic leaning Laguna beach with Costa Mesa, Irvine, and some Obama voting areas (with lots of apartments, which presumably explains their Democratic trend) around Laguna Woods/Aliso Viejo. This part of the district is 57% white, and makes up half of the district. The rest of the district (35% white) pecks around the fringes of CA-47, picking up Democratic leaning precincts in parts of Tustin, Anaheim, Fullerton, and Placentia. Effective mobilization of young and minority voters would be key to any potential pickup of this district for Democrats. Another note is that if the Asian American voters I picked up turn out to be disproportionately Vietnamese, that would also make this district marginally more Republican.




CA-41

Incumbent: Jerry Lewis (R)
Previous District PVI: R+10
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 53% Obama, D+0
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 58% Obama, D+5
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 55% White, 6% Black, 33% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics: 40% White, 11% Black, 39% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics: 33% White, 11% Black, 45% Latino

CA-41 becomes substantially more Republican and less white than the previous version. It gives up its more rural areas of San Bernadino County (and its prisons) and is pulled westward towards Los Angeles. As the white population declines and the Latino population increases, both Black and Latino voters become a substantially greater proportion of the electorate. Only 50,000 people in the district now live in non-urbanized areas now (in the mountains just to the East of San Bernadino). I would guess this district voted about 58% for Obama, though it is possible that it is even more Democratic than that. The city of San Bernadino, for example, voted 66% for Obama.




CA-43

Incumbent: Joe Baca (Blue Dog D)
Previous District PVI: D+13
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 63% Obama, D+10
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 63% Obama, D+10
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 17% White, 65% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics: 23% White, 62% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics: 22% White, 63% Latino

From version 1, CA-43 shifts further to the West, adding Chino and Montclair. The Latino majority actually slightly increases in the process. Joe Baca would have no trouble running here, and he would probably have little difficulty in CA-41 either if he preferred to run there.




CA-44

Incumbent: ?Ken Calvert?, ?Mary Bono? (R)
Previous District PVI: R+6
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 41% Obama, R+12
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 41% Obama, R+12
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 44% White, 42% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics: 60% White, 25% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics: 62% White, 26% Latino

Version 2 of CA-44 is no different politically than version 1.0 (though possibly it is more like R+11 now). But geographically, it shifts further into Riverside County, adding much of Mary Bono’s GOP base areas, and even picks up a small section of San Bernadino County. This district would likely result in an interesting primary between Mary Bono (who is probably seen as too moderate to go unchallenged in a GOP primary) and Ken Calvert (who is reportedly being investigated by the FBI). Perhaps (I am only half kidding here) Doug Hoffman would run here as well, providing a true Conservative alternative…




CA-45

Incumbent: Mary Bono (R)
Previous District PVI: R+3
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 55% Obama, D+2
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 61% Obama, D+8
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 42% White, 45% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics: 35% White, 51% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics: 34% White, 52% Latino

CA-45 becomes more Democratic than in version 1 by exchanging white GOP areas for Lake Tahoe. I would have liked to expand the Latino majority in this district, but was not really possible without reducing the Hispanic percentage in other Latino majority districts like CA-42 and CA-51. It was also tough to find somewhere suitable to put Lake Tahoe – I didn’t want to waste a lot of Democratic votes, but there were not many non-majority minority and non-Republican districts in Southern California that could easily extend northwards through Inyo and Mono Counties. The Inyo/Mono/Alpine/Lake Tahoe portion of the district voted 64% for Obama, while the rest (which is 57% Latino) voted about 60% for Obama. Mary Bono would be more likely to try her luck in a GOP primary in CA-44 than to fight a losing battle here.




CA-37

Incumbent: Laura Richardson (D)
Previous District PVI: D+26
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 64% Obama, D+11
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 67% Obama, D+14
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 13% White, 22% Black, 13% Asian, 48% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics: 31% White, 18% Black, 11% Asian, 36% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics: 31% White, 19% Black, 11% Asian, 38% Latino

For version 2 of CA-37, I managed to knock the black population up a notch to 19%, by running through a different section of Long Beach. 37% of the district (Fountain Valley, Seal Beach, Huntington Beach) is in Orange County and voted for McCain 54-46. But that Orange County section is overwhelmed by the LA County portion, which includes Compton (96% for Obama), areas of LA nearby, and part of Long Beach. The overall Obama percentage goes up to 67%, partly because it actually gets more Democratic, but also because I think I originally slightly underestimated how Democratic this district was. The vote around Compton is really overwhelming – though it might be less so with Obama not on the ballot, this seat still should be very safe.




CA-46

Incumbent: Dana Rohrabacher (R)
Previous District PVI: R+3
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 60% Obama, D+7
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 61% Obama, D+8
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 59% White, 18% Asian, 18% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics: 50% White, 10% Asian, 29% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics: 37% White, 22% Asian, 30% Latino

Only 30% of CA-46 is in Orange County now, but it does get substantially more Democratic (relative to version 1) because the areas of Orange County that are retained (chiefly the area around Westminster) are relatively Republican, while some of the areas of Orange County in version 1.0 (particularly Costa Mesa and Laguna Woods) voted for Obama. Those Democratic Orange County areas are donated to CA-40. Some of the areas in LA County that are added to CA-46 are only relatively weakly Democratic as well, and there are even a few McCain precincts in the LA county part of the district. It would be easy to make this district more Democratic by switching around some precincts with the neighboring 37th and 39th districts, but I didn’t do so in order to keep the minority populations well up in those VRA districts. This district makes much more sense geographically than the elongated snake in version 1.




CA-48

Incumbent: ?John Campbell? (R) ?Ed Royce? (R)
Previous District PVI: R+6
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 52% Obama, R+1
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: 42% Obama, R+11
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 61% White, 17% Asian, 18% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics: 44% White, 19% Asian, 29% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics: 71% White, 11% Asian, 13% Latino

In Version 2.0, CA-48 is conceded to the GOP, becoming a thoroughly Republican district entirely contained within Orange County. It is just about the most heavily GOP district that could be created entirely within Orange County. In the northwest, the district starts in GOP north Fullerton. It takes in all of heavily GOP, high turnout Yorba Linda. More of the same as it heads through heavily GOP areas of Tustin and  Anaheim. It heads east to pick up more GOP areas surrounding the 40th district, including Mission Viejo, Santa Margarita, and Laguna Niguel. It then turns back to the North-West, through a thin coastal strip of Laguna Beach (hopefully not picking up too many Democrats), and ends by adding Newport Beach. By taking in so many GOP voters, it is possible to make the remaining Orange County districts both more Democratic and more compact. It also allows the 44th District to move into Riverside and San Bernadino counties, making other seats in the inland empire more Democratic.

I also made some minor alterations in the distribution of the Latino districts in LA in order to make the Latino percentages high in each, but that doesn’t alter their political status (safely Democratic).

Redistricting California 2010: Let Only 4 Republicans Be Safe

I decided to try my hand at redistricting California’s Congressional districts for 2010-2012, using Dave’s Redistricting App. After playing around with it a bit, here’s what the map I came up with looks like overall:

Here’s the 2008 Obama/McCain vote in California, on the precinct level:

Read on for a detailed analysis and breakdown:

California redistricting after the 2010 census presents a great opportunity for Democrats. In 2000, a bipartisan incumbent protection map was drawn, which very effectively protected all incumbents – both Democrats and Republicans. In fact, since that map was drawn, only 1 seat has changed hands. That was CA-11, lost by Richard Pombo to Jerry McNerney in 2006. With time, as California has continued to become more strongly Democratic, the Congressional map has effectively turned into a GOP gerrymander.

My goal was to make as many seats as possible that voted about 63% for Obama, while making as many of the rest of the remaining seats as possible at least competitive and winnable for Democrats, and conceding as few seats as possible to the GOP. My vote estimates are not exact (I did not add up all the precincts), but should generally be accurate, and any errors should be small enough to not really effect the overall partisan status of each district. My vote percentages take into account only Democratic and Republican votes, disregarding 3rd party votes which do not alter the outcome – so 63% for Obama necessarily means 37% for McCain as well. However, if CA 3rd party voters cast votes for major party candidates in Congressional races, on net it should probably help Democrats – a majority of 3rd Party votes in California were cast for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney. I also assumed that California will keep 53 districts, though it is possible that California will lose one (or who knows, even gain, if the census count is high).

In theory, it would be possible to redistrict California so that every Congressional district voted for Obama. But that would require either a bit more gerrymandering than I was willing to contemplate (like running a district from downtown San Francisco to Shasta County), or would require weakening some Democratic seats to the point that they might actually become winnable for Republicans. So instead I settled on trying to create the maximum number of seats with a PVI at or near about D+10. If a Democratic incumbent in a seat which is about D+10 loses their seat to a Republican, they probably deserve to lose it – corruption, scandal, $100,000 in the freezer, and we are probably better off without them. But even if the GOP did manage to momentarily pick up a D+10 district, Democrats would have an excellent chance of picking it back up in the next cycle. Other than scandal, it would take a truly formidable national GOP wave, greater than that of 1994 or 2006, to lose more than a handful of D+10 seats. And in that case, the GOP would control Congress regardless of what happens in California.

I also made a statewide precinct map showing the Obama/McCain vote in 2008 on the precinct level. It is not entirely complete, because no votes were cast in some irredeemably rural “precincts” and some precincts have changed. But for the most part it should get the job done in the areas where we have to worry about looking below the county level. I could have never done Southern California in particular without this. There are 8 shades of blue and red, equally incremented by 6.25 points each, so that for example, the lightest blue means that Obama won the precinct with 50-56.25% of the vote, while the darkest blue precincts voted 93.75-100% for Obama. There’s also a bigger version of the same map if you want to a more zoomed in view (big image, you were warned).

In addition, here’s the 2008 Obama/McCain vote with the size of each precinct adjusted in proportion to the actual number of votes cast in the precinct, rather than its geographical size. With the caveat that this slightly understates Republican strength because the few counties missing in the previous map voted for McCain, this is in one sense a more true depiction of the the Presidential vote in California. It also really brings home what a great proportion of the vote was cast in the LA and Bay areas. There are really not that many substantial clusters of red precincts that cannot be overwhelmed with surrounding blue areas. While in the geographic precinct map, it looks like McCain won some substantial areas, the reality is that he won in very few places – McCain only won in the most sparsely populated areas of the state and in select CA suburbs and exurbs. (Click here for a zoomed in version of the same map).

I’d also recommend anyone interested in California redistricting read Silver Spring’s earlier work on redistricting California, (which gave me some of the ideas that went into this map), which drew a map with 44 Democratic, 7 GOP, and 2 swing seats while increasing Latino and Asian American opportunity districts and generally respecting community/political boundaries. But I wanted to see if I could push the map further, conceding fewer GOP seats and further increasing Hispanic and Asian American representation, without endangering any existing Democratic incumbents.

The future political shape of California

California voted 61% for Obama to 37% for McCain. Disregarding 3rd party votes, Obama got 62% to McCain’s 38%. Obama also managed to narrowly win 8 of 19 GOP held districts which had been gerrymandered to be safe GOP, proving by example that there are potential progressive gains to be made in California.

Because California is unlikely to become much more Republican over the next 10 years, the likelihood that an aggressive redistricting plan will backfire, like the 2000 GOP gerrymander of Pennsylvania, is minimal. The chief reason for this is that California is a Majority Minority state in which the white population will to continue to decline as a share of the population. Yet white voters made up 63% of the electorate in California in 2008 even though they only make up 42% of the population. Simply put, as time passes, the electorate in California will continue to become less white, and more racially representative of the population as a whole. So there are really only two ways that the GOP can gain any ground (or avoid losing it) in California – they must either suddenly start getting support from minority voters, or they must start receiving levels of white support that they only now really get in parts of the South and a few other places. Given the GOP trend on issues like the confirmation of Sonia Sotamayor, it seems unlikely that the GOP can possibly pick up any meaningful sort of ground among minoritiesby 2020, assuming that the GOP does not suddenly transform into a very different party.

According to exit polls, the 2008 vote in California broke down by race as follows. White and black voters exceeded their share of the population, while the percentage of the electorate that was Asian American or Hispanic was only half the percentage of the population that was Asian American or Hispanic.



















































Actual 2008 Vote
% of Electorate Obama McCain Effective Obama Support
White 63.0% 52.0% 46.0% 53.1%
African American 10.0% 94.0% 5.0% 94.9%
Latino 18.0% 74.0% 23.0% 76.3%
Asian 6.0% 64.0% 35.0% 64.6%
Other 3.0% 55.0% 41.0% 57.3%
Total 62.3%

Now, what would the 2008 vote in California have looked like if the electorate had the same racial breakdown as the population as a whole? Assuming that each racial group gave the same % to Obama, he would have done 3 points better (7 on net). And that even includes cutting the African American percentage of the electorate by nearly HALF. This is what the future of the California electorate looks like, and it looks hopeless for Republicans.




















































What if the 2008 Electorate looked like the population?
% of Population Obama McCain Effective Obama Support
White 42.0% 52.0% 46.0% 53.1%
African American 5.9% 94.0% 5.0% 94.9%
Latino 36.6% 74.0% 23.0% 76.3%
Asian 12.2% 64.0% 35.0% 64.6%
Other 3.3% 55.0% 41.0% 57.3%
Total 65.6%

So what if the GOP were able to get a massive swing of white voters? With the 2008 electorate, McCain would have had to win white voters 2 to 1 to have pulled even in California (much less win it). In fact, he lost white voters 52-46. With the future electorate, things are naturally even bleaker for the GOP. In fact, with an electorate that looked like California’s population (the future electorate that CA is trending towards), Obama could have lost white voters 53-45 and still done better than he actually did in 2008.




















































What if the 2008 Electorate looked like the population?
% of Population Obama McCain Effective Obama Support
White 42.0% 45.0% 53.0% 45.9%
African American 5.9% 94.0% 5.0% 94.9%
Latino 36.6% 74.0% 23.0% 76.3%
Asian 12.2% 64.0% 35.0% 64.6%
Other 3.3% 55.0% 41.0% 57.3%
Total 62.6%

It would obviously take much more for Republicans to even come close to winning Statewide elections. In fact, for McCain to have won California without making gains with minorities and with the 2008 electorate, he would have needed to win white voters 66-32. If the electorate had broken down by race the same way as the population, he would have had to win white voters 83-15. And that only just barely gets a narrow GOP win.

Coming close to winning statewide elections is precisely what it would take for the GOP to start putting more than a handful of the D+10 seats in any danger at all. There’s just flat out no way that they can do that in California without appealing to a meaningful number of progressive voters in the Bay Area and in Los Angeles. And frankly, if the GOP starts appealing in places like Los Angeles and the Bay Area, then they will have rejected most of what they currently stand for and progressive Democrats will have already won (or failed spectacularly to the point of creating a GOP wave far exceeding 1994 or 2006). It would be foolishly Rovian to claim that is impossible, but it is a very high bar to hurdle, especially because the national GOP is so deeply averse to even the facade of quasi-moderation of exhibited by Republicans like Schwarzenegger, Crist, and Snowe.

Political Impact

The political impact of this map would be to increase the number of Democrats in Congress from California. Barring major scandal, California should have an approximately 40-13 Democratic delegation (including all 33 current Democratic incumbents). That’s likely to be at least 44-9. And in a best case scenario, in which all the swing seats turn blue, California even has a chance to send an overwhelming 49-4 Democratic delegation to Washington. Moreover, most of the new Democrats elected would likely be reasonably progressive Democrats.

The drawing of a Congressional map along these lines would also have the effect of neutering the net national partisan impact of Republican gerrymanders in states like Florida and Texas. While my personal preference would be to have all districts drawn by a non-partisan commission, it is no good if only Democrats do that in states where Democrats will control redistricting, while the GOP goes on a gerrymandering binge in states expected to gain seats like Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Utah. But with an aggressive redrawing of the lines California, Democrats can in one fell swoop come close to making sure that redistricting will not be a net negative on the national level. By carefully drawing the seats so that newly Democratic districts have strong progressive bases in areas like Los Angeles and the Bay Area, we can also increase the likelihood that better Democrats will be elected from those districts.



















District Political Status
Dem 39
Lean Dem 5
Swing 5
GOP 4

Safe Democratic seats

I classify 39 seats as reasonably safe Democratic seats. All of these districts voted 60%+ for Obama (D+7), and 28 of them voted 63%+ for Obama (D+10).

Lean Democratic seats

There are 5 Lean Democratic seats (3, 20, 42, 45, 50). The 20th is already in Democratic hands (and could probably be made safer pretty easily), and there would be a very good chance of picking up the other 4 seats in 2012, especially if Obama again does well in California. These seats all voted 55-58% for Obama and are likely to become more Democratic – 3 of them are new majority Latino seats, and the others have substantial minority populations whose turnout should gradually rise).

Swing Seats

These are seats that voted from 51% to 53% for Obama (4, 40, 41, 44, 48, 49). 40, 41, and 48 all have white populations that make up less than 50% of the district’s population, and should continue to become more Democratic as minority turnout increases. There is no guarantee that Democrats will necessarily be able to pick up all (or any) of these seats, but strong candidates ought to be able to run competitive races and win in these districts.

GOP Seats

Finally, there are 4 safe GOP seats. These all voted about 32-41% for Obama and are designed to be completely unwinnable for Democrats. These districts all serve to suck in the maximum number of Republicans possible, making surrounding districts more Democratic.

In retrospect, if I were to redraw the map, I might consider conceding one more safe GOP seat in the Orange County/Riverside/San Bernadino area. If the most heavily GOP areas remaining were combined into one more district, it would be pretty easy to make a number of swing/lean Dem seats a bit more Democratic.

The Voting Rights Act

I endeavored to follow the requirements of the Voting Rights Act in full, and tried to even go a bit beyond its strict requirements. From the districts drawn in 2000, I managed to substantially increase minority voting strength for both Latinos and Asian Americans, while maintaining effective black control or at least substantial influence over 4 districts. :











































































VRA Status of New Districts
District Type # of Districts % of Districts % of Population
Majority White 19 35.8% 42.3%
Plurality White 11 20.8% 42.3%
Total White 30 56.6% 42.3%
Majority Latino 15 28.3% 36.6%
Plurality Latino 1 1.9% 36.6%
Total Latino 16 30.2% 36.6%
Plurality Asian 3 5.7% 12.5%
Effective Black 4 7.5% 6.7%

Increase Latino voting strength

5 new Majority Latino seats are added. They are the the 18th, 21st, 25th, 42nd, and 45th. CA-32 also changes to an Asian plurality district, which is offset by the change of CA-26 to a Latino majority district. Factors such as how complete the census count of Latinos is and how concentrated Latino population growth actually is will have a big effect on the actual location and shapes of these districts, but in reality it ought to be possible to add a number of new Latino majority districts.

Increase Asian American voting strength

The 12th, 15th, and 32nd districts become Asian American plurality districts. Although Asians are not a homogeneous group politically or ethnically, and although Californians have sometimes elected Asian Americans in districts without a particularly large Asian community (like Doris Matsui in Sacramento), Asian voters will now have more of a guarantee that they can elect candidates of their choice.

Maintain African American voting strength

I tried to maintain African American voting strength as much as I could, but trends are working against the maintanance of the existing 4 districts which are effectively controlled by African American voters (CA-9, CA-33, CA-35, CA-37). Particularly in the 3 LA districts, Latino population growth is gradually overwhelming the African American population, particularly in CA-35. Additionally, population growth has not kept up with the state average in these districts, meaning that they will need to expand – and there are really no more concentrations of black voters nearby that can be added to the 3 districts. On the basis of population, one could probably justify merging the African American areas of the 3 existing districts into two districts with higher African American populations, but I did not do this in order to try and protect all incumbents. If a merger of these districts does not happen in 2010, the voters may well make it happen anyway, making a merger in 2020 a near certainty. But despite these difficulties, I managed to actually slightly increase the black population % in CA-9 and CA-33. In CA-35 and 37, the African American percentage drops, but the main threat to effective black control of these districts (Latino voters) are decreased as a share of the population. By making these districts more white and more Republican, Maxine Waters and Laura Richardson are probably actually safer, because the main threat to their incumbancy is a primary challenge from a Latino Democrat. While one could arge that this disenfranchises Latinos, there is really no other way to maintain black VRA districts that I can see, and the Latinos removed from CA-35 and CA-37 help make it possible to create other Latino majority districts in the LA area.

Breakdown of the Districts

Finally, let’s look at the new districts themselves, in aggregate and individually. Because I de-packed many overly Democratic districts, the average and median district becomes more Republican, while a greater number of districts become Democratic.




































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































District Summary
District New Dist Est. Obama% Old Dist Obama % Change in Obama % Designation VRA Status Region
1 63 67 -4 Dem Majority White Northern California
2 39 44 -5 GOP Majority White Northern California
3 57 50 7 Lean Dem Majority White Northern California
4 53 45 8 Swing Majority White Northern California
5 62 71 -9 Dem Plurality White Northern California
6 72 78 -6 Dem Majority White Northern California
7 63 73 -10 Dem Majority White Bay Area
8 81 87 -6 Dem Majority White Bay Area
9 83 90 -7 Dem Effective Black Bay Area
10 63 66 -3 Dem Majority White Bay Area
11 61 55 6 Dem Plurality White Bay Area
12 79 76 3 Dem Plurality Asian Bay Area
13 64 76 -12 Dem Plurality White Bay Area
14 73 75 -2 Dem Majority White Bay Area
15 69 70 -1 Dem Plurality Asian Bay Area
16 66 71 -5 Dem Plurality Latino Bay Area
17 65 74 -9 Dem Majority White Central California
18 60 60 0 Dem Majority Latino Central California
19 63 47 16 Dem Plurality White Bay Area
20 56 61 -5 Lean Dem Majority Latino Central California
21 67 43 24 Dem Majority Latino Central California
22 32 39 -7 GOP Majority White Central California
23 62 67 -5 Dem Majority White Central California
24 63 51 12 Dem Majority White Greater LA
25 65 51 14 Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
26 62 52 10 Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
27 62 68 -6 Dem Plurality White Greater LA
28 76 78 -2 Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
29 61 69 -8 Dem Plurality White Greater LA
30 64 72 -8 Dem Majority White Greater LA
31 73 82 -9 Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
32 63 70 -7 Dem Plurality Asian Greater LA
33 94 88 6 Dem Effective Black Greater LA
34 65 76 -11 Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
35 76 86 -10 Dem Effective Black Greater LA
36 64 66 -2 Dem Plurality White Greater LA
37 64 81 -17 Dem Effective Black Greater LA
38 63 73 -10 Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
39 62 67 -5 Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
40 52 48 4 Swing Plurality White Greater LA
41 53 45 8 Swing Plurality White Greater LA
42 58 46 12 Lean Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
43 63 69 -6 Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
44 41 50 -9 GOP Majority White Greater LA
45 55 52 3 Lean Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
46 60 49 11 Dem Majority White Greater LA
47 60 61 -1 Dem Majority Latino Greater LA
48 52 50 2 Swing Plurality White Greater LA
49 51 46 5 Swing Majority White San Diego
50 57 52 5 Lean Dem Majority White San Diego
51 62 64 -2 Dem Majority Latino San Diego
52 38 46 -8 GOP Majority White San Diego
53 63 70 -7 Dem Plurality White San Diego
Average 62.17 63.37 -1
Median 63.00 66.88 -4

Northern California

I defined the Northern California region as pretty much everything from Sacramento northwards. It includes 6 districts. 4 Should be Democratic, while CA-2 is Republican and CA-4 is a swing district. This is the whitest part of the State, and therefore probably the part of the State where there is the greatest potential for the GOP to make gains (even if it seems improbable at best that they will make much headway in liberal areas like Sonoma County). For that reason I decided not get too overly aggressive here. It would be possible to avoid conceding a GOP district in the far North-East, but unless you did something like draw a tentacle from Nancy Pelosi’s district up into rural GOP areas, it would be very hard to then also avoid creating a strong or leaning GOP district in the Sierra Nevada’s East and South-East of Sacramento. So I didn’t even try. Instead, I took advantage of the opportunity to move Nancy Pelosi’s district north without endangering the 1st or 6th districts, giving her Marin County across the Golden Gate bridge, which, as we will see, makes it possible to squeeze a great deal out of the Eastern side of the San Francisco Bay.

Northern California





Sacramento Area





San Francisco Bay Area

Every single seat based in the San Francisco Bay area is safely Democratic. A number of these districts also extend outwards to the east, in order to avoid wasting too many votes in ultra-Demacratic districts. But many districts remain entirely within the Bay area, and if one were willing to draw pinwheels flowing out from San Francisco and the San Mateo Peninsula to places like Bakersfield, Fresno, and Barstow, you could pretty easily squeeze out another one or two utterly safe Democratic districts.

Northern Bay Area





Southern Bay Area





Central California

Given the GOP lean of much of this region, having only 1 GOP district is not bad. Latino voting strength is greatly increased in this area. Although it might not be at all certain that all of the Latino districts will immediately have an effective Latino voting majority, they will with time. This is the most obviously gerrymandered part of the state, but that is necessary in order to increase Latino voting strength and to increase Democratic strength in less heavily Latino areas. The actual lines in this area will be greatly affected by the actual distribution of Latino population growth within counties.

Central Coast





Central Valley





LA Area

I am using a broad definition of the LA area, including areas beyond the city of Los Angeles proper, including Orange, Riverside, San Bernadino, and Ventura counties. In this area, and especially in LA County, some of the districts are better thought of as general ideas than specific exact proposals. I am fairly certain that someone who knows the area better than I do could draw the urban lines a bit more sensibly while maintaining or increasing all the political benefits and fully complying with the Voting Rights Act (a major cause of strange district shapes). Additionally, the 2008 Population Estimates are only available on the County level – so the actual population will be distributed somewhat differently than in the lines I drew. The exact lines should not be taken too literally, but it should be possible to draw roughly similar districts with the same basic demographic and political results. I may have mistakenly drawn some Democratic incumbents’ houses out of their district, but in reality that would probably be easy to avoid, if it matters. The greater LA area also has the greatest concentration of minorities in California.

That is the chief reason why I was more willing to draw some districts that were only lean Democratic or swing seats – because of their high but still relatively low turnout Latino and Asian American populations, many districts are safe bets to become more Democratic as that turnout increases. So even if these seats do not all flip Democratic in 2012, there is a great chance that they will flip some time between 2014 and 2020. Still, you can make a good argument for either conceding another seat to the GOP (or sending another district or 2 deep into the heart of LA), and if I were redrawing the map I would probably concede a third safe GOP seat in the Orange/Riverside/Burnadino area in order to make the surrounding districts more Democratic. But the overall point is that there is no reason for any district in LA County to be Republican, and from LA County, a number of districts can be safely extended outwards to make even more Democratic seats. It also ought to be possible to create more Latino majority seats and an Asian American plurality seat.

Southern California





Northern LA area





Southern LA area





Eastern LA area





San Diego

Last but not least, the San Diego area. Democrats currently hold only 2 of 5 seats in this area, while Obama won 54-44. With the exception of CA-51, the minority population in San Diego is relatively small. But even without relying on votes from Los Angeles, it should be possible to make 3 fairly strong Democratic districts, one heavily GOP district, and a swing district out of this area.





Breakdown of the Districts

And now to all 53 of the individual districts, one by one.

























CA-1

Incumbent: Mike Thompson (Blue Dog D) v. Wally Herger (R)
Previous District PVI: D+13
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 60% Obama, D+7
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 63% White
New District Demographics: 66% White

CA-1 pairs Napa Blue dog Mike Thompson with Butte County (which narrowly voted for Obama) Republican Wally Herger. The district basically consists of Napa, Yolo, Colusa, Sutter, ande Butte counties, along with the section of Sonoma County previously in CA-1. Those areas combined voted 60% for Obama, and that is the basic partisan orientation of this district. If that’s not Democratic enough, it could easily be made stronger by trading some Sonoma area territory with CA-6. Some relatively unpopulated parts of Yolo and Sutter Counties are cut out to provide a path for CA-4 to connect Yolo and Placer counties, and the city of Marysville in Yuba County is thrown in to equalize the population.

In the event that Herger decided to actually run in this district, he would almost certainly lose. Half of the districts population lives in Napa, Yolo, and Sonoma counties, and would vote heavily for Thomson. In the other half of the district, Herger might win, but would have a lot of trouble winning by enough to offset the heavily Democratic Napa/Yolo/Sonoma margin. It is also easier to imagine Thomson appealing to voters in Butte County than it is to imagine Herger appealing to San Francisco Bay area liberals.

But more than likely this is a moot point, because Herger would almost certainly take one look at CA-1 and opt to run in CA-2 instead, which includes a lot of his rural GOP base areas.

























CA-2

Incumbent: ?Wally Herger? (R), ?Tom McClintock? (R)
Previous District PVI: R+11
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 39% Obama, R+14
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 72% White
New District Demographics: 78% White

CA-2 serves to pack as many rural Northern California Republicans as possible into one district. It is the whitest district in California, and is very strongly Republican. CA-2 includes compact rural counties in Northern California, and snakes down through Placer, El Dorado, and Amador counties to pick up rural/exurban GOP areas, leaving closer in Sacramento suburbs in Placer County to CA-4, and leaving the more Democratic Lake Tahoe area to CA-10.

As discussed with CA-1, Wally Herger would probably run in this district, even though he lives in the new CA-1. Tom McClintock would also probably want prefer to run in this district than in a swing district, even though he lives in the new CA-5. In the event of a primary between Herger and McClintock, Herger would probably prevail because slightly more of the new CA-2 comes from Herger’s old district than from the old CA-4, and Herger has longer standing actual ties to the area than McClintock.

























CA-3

Incumbent: Dan Lungren (R)
Previous District PVI: R+6
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 57% Obama, D+4
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 65% White
New District Demographics: 56% White

CA-3 is now entirely within Sacramento County, and is substantially more Democratic than the old CA-3, which voted narrowly for Obama. There is a delicate balancing act here between hurting Lungren and keeping Matsui secure. It would be possible to make CA-3 even more Democratic, but not without dragging CA-5 under roughly D+10, which I wanted to avoid. It is not a complete certainty that Lungren would lose in this district, but it is a certainly that he would face very competitive elections every 2 years until he does.

























CA-4

Incumbent: None
Previous District PVI: R+10
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 53% Obama, D+0
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 79% White
New District Demographics: 57% White

The new CA-4 is a bona fide suburban swing district, combining 99% of Democratic Solano County (4/7 of the district) with GOP leaning Sacramento Suburban part of Placer county, and sparsely populated areas in between to connect them. There is no real incumbent in this district, but Charlie Brown would be well positioned to win here. This district is much less Republican than the old version, which he only barely lost in 2008. If not, a Democrat from Solano County would have a good chance of winning here. The only potential hitch is the fast pace of growth in Placer County. If that tends to increase GOP margins, this district will become more Republican with time. On the other hand, if the Sacramento suburbs liberalize as they grow, this district will stay roughly even or move slightly more Democratic. It would be pretty easy to make this district more Democratic by extending it further into the Bay Area, but I kept it more compact and suburban based.

























CA-5

Incumbent: Doris Matsui (D)
Previous District PVI: D+15
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 62% Obama, D+9
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 39% White
New District Demographics: 46% White

CA-5 becomes more Republican, but not Republican enough to put Doris Matsui in any realistic danger. It now crosses over (barely) into Yolo County to pick up West Sacramento, but otherwise is based very much in Sacramento proper.

























CA-6

Incumbent: Lynn Woolsey (D)
Previous District PVI: D+23
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 72% Obama, D+19
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 70% White
New District Demographics: 71% White

CA-6 ditches highly progressive Marin County to pick up less-progressive-but-still-progressive areas further North along the coast. Lynn Woolsey still has absolutely nothing to worry about, and could easily take on some more GOP turf or donate some heavily Democratic areas to CA-1. Alternatively, CA-2 could be sucked into CA-6/Marin and become a swing or Democratic district rather than being conceded to the GOP, but that would make it much more difficult to make CA-4 a swing district, and much more difficult to turn CA-10 into a Democratic district with a strong base in the Sierra Nevadas, and would also necessitate some more county splitting.

























CA-7

Incumbent: George Miller (D)
Previous District PVI: D+19
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 63% Obama, D+10
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 39% White, 27% Latino
New District Demographics: 50% White, 31% Latino

CA-7 moves out of Solano County, and into San Joaquin where it picks up Lodi, Tracy, and Manteca (most of the county other than Stockton). The district also cedes areas around Richmond to CA-10 and CA-9, resulting in a more Republican District. My intention was to bring it down to about D+10, but it could be a couple points off in either direction. If it is too Republican, it would be very easy to fix that and make this district more Democratic. CA-7 isn’t D+19 any more, but it does not really need to be. Long time incumbent George Miller, who has been in Congress since 1974, will not be in any danger of suddenly now losing his seat simply becase it becomes a bit less Democratic.

























CA-8

Incumbent: Nancy Pelosi (D)
Previous District PVI: D+35
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 81% Obama, D+28
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 45% White, 30% Asian
New District Demographics: 61% White, 18% Asian

Nancy Pelosi’s CA-8 plays a very important but subtle role in this overall map. By crossing the Golden Gate Bridge and taking in Marin County, her district becomes slightly less Democratic. But that’s not the main point. By taking in Marin County, it allows CA-6 to push northwards, and just as importantly, it sucks CA-12 into San Francisco (making it Asian plurality in the process), and sucks all the districts to the South-East of it towards San Francisco. This dominoes through the districts and ultimately provides the impetus to pull more Republican districts in the Central Valley further in towards areas like Santa Cruz, San Jose, and Alameda.

























CA-9

Incumbent: Barbara Lee (D)
Previous District PVI: D+37
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 83% Obama, D+30
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 36% White, 20% Black, 17% Asian, 23% Latino
New District Demographics: 37% White, 22% Black, 16% Asian, 21% Latino

The percentage of African Americans in Barbara Lee’s new 9th District is not just maintained, but actually increased, even while the district becomes a little bit less Democratic. I did this by trading ultra-liberal but predominantly white areas of her district (principally Berkeley) for predominantly white liberal areas in Contra Costa County, along with Richmond, which has a fairly high black population. So the district now consists of Oakland, Richmond, and areas of Contra Costa county like Orinda, Walnut Creek, and Pleasantville.

























CA-10

Incumbent: ?John Garamendi? (D)
Previous District PVI: D+11
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 63% Obama, D+10
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 56% White
New District Demographics: 60% White

This new version of CA-10 is rather different from the previous CA-10, and is drawn under the assumption that John Garamendi wins the CA-10 special election. This district is probably the most bizarrely shaped of all the districts I drew, but it makes sense, at least from the perspective of drawing a distrcit that would be good for Garamendi. Republican George Radanovich also lives here (in Mariposa), but he wouldn’t have much chance if he ran in this district.

Nearly 4/7 of the population of CA-10 live in Contra Costa or Alameda Counties, and those areas are all very heavily Democratic (Berkeley – where Garamendi went to college, El Cerrito, San Pablo, Pinole). From there, it snakes through sparsely populated parts of Solano, Amador, and Sacramento counties, picking up Garamendi’s home along the way. Then it enters the Sierra Nevada mountain range through Calaveras county, where Garamendi was born and has a ranch. It picks up Republican leaning areas near Yosemite National Park (Garamendi was Deputy Secretary of the Interior), and picks up a mixture of Rural Republicans and more liberal Lake Tahoe/ski areas up and down the Nevada border, stretching from Inyo County in the south to Nevada County in the north. I have to say, I was sorely tempted to cross into Fresno and Tulare counties to pick up Sequoia and King’s Canyon National park, and into San Bernadino to take in all of Death Valley, but I restrained myself.

Alpine, Calaveras, Inyo, Mariposa, Mono, Nevada, and Toulumne counties collectively voted McCain 52% to Obama 48%. If you assume that liberal areas around Lake Tahoe (parts of Placer and El Dorado counties) roughly cancel out extraneous GOP areas, and that the Contra Costa/Alameda county parts of the district voted about 75% for Obama, then you end up with a district that voted about 63% for Obama, litte changed from the current partisan stance of CA-10. And there we have it – a district that takes care of some hard to deal with GOP areas in the Sierras, avoids wasting Democratic votes along the Nevada border on a GOP district, that opens up space in eastern Contra Costa County for CA-7 to dilute GOP votes in San Joaquin county, and that John Garamendi should be able to effectively represent despite the district’s bizarre geographic shape, given his background. Whew!

As a more compact alternative to this, instead of reaching all the way to Berkeley, the district could combine the Sierras with a different and nearer Democratic area, such as the city of San Joaquin. But then this district would not include Garamendi’s home, would be only weakly Democratic rather than safe, would be less progressive, and would really be more like a reconfigured 19th than the 10th.

























CA-11

Incumbent: Jerry McNerney (D)
Previous District PVI: R+1
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 61% Obama, D+8
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 51% White, 26% Latino
New District Demographics: 45% White, 27% Latino

CA-11 is altered significantly to make it more Democratic. It now takes in all of the city of Stockton, in exchange for which it gives up some relatively conservative areas to CA-7. It also expands a bit more in Alameda County, taking on Livermore as well as a bit of territory from Pete Stark and Barbara Lee. The end result is a much safer district for McNerney. I guesstimate that it voted roughly 61% for Obama, but that could be off by a few percentage points. If it is too Republican, that is easy to fix.

























CA-12

Incumbent: Jackie Speier (D)
Previous District PVI: D+23
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 79% Obama, D+26
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 45% White, 31% Asian
New District Demographics: 35% White, 38% Asian

CA-12 moves further into San Francisco to accomadate Pelosi’s shift into Marin County. In the process, it turns into a district with a slight Asian American plurality.

























CA-13

Incumbent: Pete Stark (D)
Previous District PVI: D+22
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 64% Obama, D+11
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 29% White, 35% Asian, 23% Latino
New District Demographics: 37% White, 26% Asian, 28% Latino

CA-13 is still primarily based in Alameda County, where 2/3 of the district is located, retaining Pete Stark’s home town of Fremont, along with Union City, Newark, and most of Hayward. It then crosses through unpopulated mountains to the east and reappears on the outskirts of Modesto, where it basically picks up the parts of Stanislaus County that were formerly in the 19th district. The end result is a district which is still strongly Democratic, but not packed as full of progressive Alameda County voters as before.

























CA-14

Incumbent: Anna Eshoo (D)
Previous District PVI: D+21
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 73% Obama, D+20
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 53% White, 21% Asian, 19% Latino
New District Demographics: 52% White, 22% Asian, 20% Latino

Like CA-12 before it, CA-14 is sucked towards San Francisco because of CA-8’s trip across the Golden Gate Bridge. In San Mateo County, it adds San Carlos, Foster City, and San Mateo. Saratoga in Santa Cruz County along with CA-14’s old section of Santa Cruz County are removed. This has no real political impact, and CA-14 remains a veritable Democratic fortress.

























CA-15

Incumbent: Mike Honda (D)
Previous District PVI: D+15
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 69% Obama, D+16
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 39% White, 36% Asian
New District Demographics: 35% White, 39% Asian

Moving parts of CA-9 and CA-13 out of Alameda County has left some people there that need to go somewhere. They go into Mike Honda’s 15th district, which is now up to 39% Asian American. No real partisan effect, except CA-15 may get a bit more Democratic.

























CA-16

Incumbent: Zoe Lofgren (D)
Previous District PVI: D+16
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 66% Obama, D+13
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 28% White, 26% Asian, 40% Latino
New District Demographics: 29% White, 19% Asian, 45% Latino

60% of CA-16 remains within Santa Clara County. To get to the rest of the district, it crosses the mountains and ends up in Stanislaus County, where it takes in the city of Modesto. strengthening the Latino plurality in the process. This only makes the district 3 or 4 points more Republican, and Zoe Lofgren has nothing to worry about.

























CA-17

Incumbent: Sam Farr (D)
Previous District PVI: D+19
New District estimated Obama/McCain: 65% Obama, D+12
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: 41% White, 48% Latino
New District Demographics: 60% White, 19% Latino

Sam Farr’s district becomes much whiter than before, principally because it gives up predominantly Latino areas inland (Salinas, Hollister, Watsonville) to the 21st district in order to help give that district a strong Latino majority. In exchange, Farr adds the rest of Santa Cruz county (except for Watsonville), parts of Santa Clara county (Saratoga, Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno), as well as some conservative inland areas in San Luis Obispo and Kern counties. But 78% of the population lives in Monterrey, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz counties, all of which are strongly Democratic, so Farr’s district remains strongly Democaratic even while becoming much whiter. As a rough estimate, this district probably voted about 65% for Obama.

Apparently this diary is too long for Calitics’ html checking to accept… ­čÖé Read the rest at Swing State Project, which has laxer html screening.

That’s all, folks!

If you liked this diary, do me a favor and contact your Representative and Senators and tell them to support strong Health Care Reform. A strong public option, no trigger, no opt-in, no opt-out. Strong subsidies to make the mandate affordable, open the exchange to everyone, and for crying out loud there’s no reason we should have to wait all the way until 2013 to have it go into effect!

CA-31: Becerra To Join Cabinet After All? [UPDATED] Or Not

I’m not really much for forcible identity politics, but some Latino leaders are making noises that a Hispanic ought to replace Bill Richardson (who withdrew his nomination) as the Secretary of Commerce, making the argument that the Latino population must maintain its representation in the Administration.  I’d prefer the best man or woman for the job, but this is a case where there already is a Hispanic who Obama considered for a separate cabinet appointment who may be able to be persuaded into accepting this one.  That would be Xavier Becerra.

An Obama transition team source said a veteran California congressman, Xavier Becerra, has emerged as the leading congressional candidate to replace Richardson, the Hispanic governor of New Mexico, as President-elect Barack Obama’s choice for a job that will include overseeing the 2010 U.S. Census.

“Even though he turned down the trade representative slot, Becerra is not only Hispanic, but he has the skill, talent and experience to do the Commerce job,” said the source, who was not authorized to speak for the president-elect.

“Xavier’s name has gone to the top of the list of potential replacements in part because he is a member of the House leadership, he is well liked, he has very good credentials, and, of course, he was an early Obama backer,” the source said.

It’s all speculative at the moment, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this happened.  Becerra wanted a bigger role in the Administration than trade representative, and certainly the Commerce Department would give him a better opportunity to shape White House policy.

Obviously this would create another special election in an adjoining district to incoming Labor Secretary Hilda Solis’ CA-32.  Los Angeles County from Hollywood to points east would be ground zero for political wrangling this spring.

UPDATE: Becerra’s spokeswoman says he’s not interested.

Xavier Becerra is not considering an appointment to become Secretary of Commerce and will remain in the House, his spokeswoman told Politico.

“The Congressman has already expressed that he is staying in Congress and looks forward to working with the Obama Administration from his position as House Democratic Vice Chair,” said Fabiola Rodriguez.

CA-31: Becerra Out, Garcetti In?

Xavier Becerra, a Congressman from Hollywood, is at the least being strongly considered for the post of US Trade Representative and may have already accepted the job.  Becerra is in the House leadership as Vice President of the Democratic caucus, and while he voted for NAFTA he has since regretted doing so, and he led the fight against CAFTA and other trade agreements which he felt did not have the proper safeguards, or labor and environmental standards.  And channeling my inner David Sirota, the fact that pro-business conservatives are worried about the direction Becerra will take US trade policy confirms that he would be an excellent choice:

And now Business Week reports on some rumblings of opposition from the pro-business and free-trade camp:

Philip Levy, who’s now with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, told the mag that the choice is “troubling,” arguing that “to oppose Nafta is in many ways to lash out symbolically against trade.” A business lobbyist added to the mag that he and his colleagues are “pretty concerned.”

Well, I’m sold.

If Obama brushes off the concerns of the American Enterprise Institute (and really, everyone should) and Becerra gets the job, a very safe Democratic seat in the heart of Los Angeles would be up for grabs.  Considering the density of the city it’s actually a pretty large district (with lots of it in rapidly gentrifying Hollywood), and has a good deal of Latino voters.  However, this would be up for grabs in a special election, and the universe of special election voters is probably a smaller Hispanic universe than on a normal Election Day, so I wouldn’t say that only a Latino candidate could win here. In fact, LA City Council President Eric Garcetti represents a good portion of the district on the council.

Garcetti would be a progressive leader in the Congress and a major upgrade.  Becerra is a member of the Progressive Caucus and generally solid on the issues, but he’s not particularly outspoken, and as part of the leadership team, wouldn’t stray too much from the party line.  On the other hand, Garcetti is a smart, committed young leader, a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford and a graduate of the London School of Economics who has led on so many progressive issues in the city it’s hard to even count them all.  It would be great to have someone in the Congress with the background of dealing with key urban issues from graffiti to housing to development, while at the same time having led on important national initiatives like clean money, the war in Iraq (the LA City Council was among the first to pass a resolution opposing it) and renewable energy.  Garcetti jumped aboard the Barack Obama campaign from almost the very beginning as a California chairperson, so he would be able to tap that network of organizers pretty easily.  He would make a fantastic member of Congress, among the best in the nation in my view. (and that’s not just because he appeared on Calitics Radio on primary election night!)

Rep. Becerra would get to set trade policy, and Los Angeles would experience no dropoff in leadership.  Everybody wins!

UPDATE: In this LA Times article, Sen. Gil Cedillo is also mentioned as a possible candidate.  I’m a fan of Cedillo’s as well, particularly his leadership on the DREAM Act and his advocacy for comprehensive immigration reform.  Garcetti is quoted in the article saying “it was premature to speculate on a possible run but did not rule it out.”

Progressive Punch: Jerry McNerney ranks 195th of 232

Woohoo! Jerry did it! Jerry McNerney has managed to become the most un-progressive Democrat of the entire California congressional delegation. For those keeping score at home, Jerry’s 82.45 was about a half point lower than the next CA Dem, Jim Costa, that progressive stalwart, at 82.97. And for all the talk of Harman changing her ways, she’s still worse than even Joe Baca, almost 7 points worse from a very safe Dem seat.

For all of you CA-45 fans, “moderate” Mary Bono came in with a stellar 4.42 Chips are Down score. So, for all the bluster of the SCHIP vote, she’s still dancing the same jig as the rest of her party.

On thing must be said, the Speaker has done an excellent job at preserving unity amongst the caucus. Whether that means she’s being too incremental and/or ineffective, or just laying down the law is the big question. The reason her approval rating, and the Congress in general, is down has a whole lot to do with the fact that little has changed on the Iraq front. So, would it be better to have a speaker who is more willing to take risks? Perhaps, but the impediment of the president always lingers over her head, veto pen in hand. So, whether the unity is really there, is an open question. Full data over the flip.








































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Rank Name 07-08 All-time ChipsAreDown Party State
1 Pelosi, Nancy 100.00 93.58 100.00 D CA
3 Sánchez, Linda T. 98.97 96.45 98.43 D CA
6 Lee, Barbara 98.45 96.99 97.18 D CA
9 Capps, Lois 98.28 88.95 97.49 D CA
13 Solis, Hilda L. 97.94 95.77 96.24 D CA
18 Richardson, Laura 97.83 97.83 96.43 D CA
23 Woolsey, Lynn C. 97.57 94.69 95.92 D CA
24 Filner, Bob 97.55 94.02 95.91 D CA
25 Matsui, Doris O. 97.42 94.46 95.30 D CA
26 Becerra, Xavier 97.33 92.41 95.19 D CA
37 Farr, Sam 96.72 90.66 94.98 D CA
39 Honda, Michael M. 96.63 94.39 94.67 D CA
51 Roybal-Allard, Lucille 96.39 92.79 94.03 D CA
55 Lofgren, Zoe 96.34 87.42 94.65 D CA
56 Tauscher, Ellen O. 96.23 83.14 93.10 D CA
58 Napolitano, Grace F. 96.17 90.68 93.42 D CA
63 Schiff, Adam B. 95.88 86.79 92.45 D CA
68 Waters, Maxine 95.77 93.38 93.31 D CA
71 Miller, George 95.72 93.67 93.20 D CA
73 Davis, Susan A. 95.70 87.53 93.10 D CA
77 Eshoo, Anna G. 95.64 88.63 93.38 D CA
82 Sherman, Brad 95.52 84.99 92.79 D CA
88 Berman, Howard L. 95.28 87.56 92.38 D CA
88 Watson, Diane E. 95.28 92.71 91.80 D CA
97 Thompson, Mike 95.01 85.33 93.42 D CA
102 Lantos, Tom 94.74 87.73 90.51 D CA
104 Sanchez, Loretta 94.49 84.58 90.19 D CA
114 Baca, Joe 94.16 82.91 90.28 D CA
127 Waxman, Henry A. 93.63 91.96 89.49 D CA
153 Stark, Fortney Pete 92.02 93.12 87.74 D CA
178 Cardoza, Dennis A. 90.09 77.80 84.86 D CA
179 Harman, Jane 89.82 76.91 83.86 D CA
187 Costa, Jim 89.22 78.46 82.97 D CA
195 McNerney, Jerry 87.63 87.63 82.45 D CA
274 Lewis, Jerry 18.40 10.68 4.73 R CA
283 Bono, Mary 16.01 11.32 4.42 R CA
295 Doolittle, John T. 12.72 4.44 1.57 R CA
313 Calvert, Ken 10.39 5.41 0.95 R CA
322 Hunter, Duncan 8.85 5.38 1.32 R CA
330 Gallegly, Elton 7.60 5.89 1.89 R CA
342 Rohrabacher, Dana 6.67 7.73 4.08 R CA
346 Dreier, David 6.38 5.19 2.51 R CA
352 Bilbray, Brian P. 6.07 13.85 3.77 R CA
356 McKeon, Howard P. “Buck” 5.91 3.87 1.27 R CA
370 Herger, Wally 4.92 3.30 0.95 R CA
373 Lungren, Daniel E. 4.81 4.43 1.25 R CA
376 Radanovich, George 4.60 3.65 1.27 R CA
378 Issa, Darrell E. 4.36 4.52 1.27 R CA
380 Miller, Gary G. 4.18 2.45 1.25 R CA
384 Nunes, Devin 4.01 3.30 0.31 R CA
385 McCarthy, Kevin 3.97 3.97 0.63 R CA
388 Royce, Edward R. 3.49 6.55 1.26 R CA
394 Campbell, John 3.12 3.77 2.85 R CA

Chips are down scorecard

(I was working on a similar post, but I’ll still post my own, with all CA data and some other miscellany. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

The problem with most scorecards is that they are written by lobbyists concerned with always getting the votes of potential supporters. Thus, there is an equal weighting while in the real world not all votes are equal. In fact, regardless of everything else, some votes are dealbreakers and when they show up on scorecards as one of 12 votes or something, it looks silly. However, Progressive Punch has a new “when the chips are down” scorecard. After the flip is the ratings of CA’s congressional delegation, in descending order.

Senate:

92.86 Boxer, Barbara
90.45 Feinstein, Dianne

House:

100.00 Pelosi, Nancy
98.43 Sánchez, Linda T.
97.49 Capps, Lois
97.18 Lee, Barbara
96.43 Richardson, Laura
96.24 Solis, Hilda L.
95.92 Woolsey, Lynn C.
95.91 Filner, Bob
95.30 Matsui, Doris O.
95.19 Becerra, Xavier
94.98 Farr, Sam
94.67 Honda, Michael M.
94.65 Lofgren, Zoe
94.03 Roybal-Allard, Lucille
93.42 Napolitano, Grace F.
93.42 Thompson, Mike
93.38 Eshoo, Anna G.
93.31 Waters, Maxine
93.20 Miller, George
93.10 Davis, Susan A.
93.10 Tauscher, Ellen O.
92.79 Sherman, Brad
92.45 Schiff, Adam B.
92.38 Berman, Howard L.
91.80 Watson, Diane E.
90.51 Lantos, Tom
90.28 Baca, Joe
90.19 Sanchez, Loretta
89.49 Waxman, Henry A.
87.74 Stark, Fortney Pete
84.86 Cardoza, Dennis A.
83.86 Harman, Jane
82.97 Costa, Jim
82.45 McNerney, Jerry