Redistricting in California

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Public Policy Logo-one line.pngin California

Redistricting in California
Election Policy Logo.png
General information
Current legislative control:
Democratic
Congressional process:
Independent commission
State legislature process:
Independent commission
Total seats
Congress: 53
State Senate: 40
State House: 80
Other states
Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming
Public Policy Logo-one line.png
Redistricting • State-by-state redistricting procedures • State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2010 Census
Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of California's 53 United States Representatives and 120 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States Senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States Census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.

Redistricting is a fiercely contested issue, primarily due to gerrymandering, the practice of drawing district lines to favor one political party, individual or constituency over another. Two areas of contention include the following:

Competitiveness: Political parties or incumbents sometimes draw district lines for their benefit at the expense of proportionality and fair representation. Some argue that this practice contributes to the present lack of competitive elections. Uncompetitive elections can in turn discourage participation.[1]
Race and ethnicity: District lines sometimes minimize the influence of minority voters by disproportionately consolidating them within single districts or splitting them across several districts. These practices are examples of "packing" and "cracking," respectively.[1][2][3][4]
HIGHLIGHTS
  • In California, an independent commission is responsible for drawing both congressional and state legislative district lines. California is home to 53 congressional districts, more than any other state.
    • DocumentIcon.jpg See state election laws

    Background

    See also: Redistricting

    Federal law stipulates that all districts, whether congressional or state legislative, must meet two primary criteria.

    1. Equal population: According to All About Redistricting, federal law "requires that each district have about the same population: each federal district within a state must have about the same number of people [and] each state district within a state must have about the same number of people." Specific standards for determining whether populations are sufficiently equal vary for congressional and state legislative districts. See below for further details.[5]
    2. Race and ethnicity: Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 states that district lines must not dilute the voting power of racial or ethnic minority groups. This provision "applies whether the denial is intentional, or an unintended end result. Courts essentially test whether the way that districts are drawn takes decisive political power away from a cohesive minority bloc otherwise at risk for discrimination."[5]

    In most states, the legislatures are primarily responsible for both congressional and state legislative redistricting. However, reformers argue that partisan legislators are incapable of establishing fair district lines because they have a vested interest in the outcome. Instead, reformers advocate using different redistricting processes, including independent commissions or electronic methods. Opponents of these reforms argue that alternative processes are less accountable to voters, subject to partisan abuse, and perhaps unconstitutional.

    State requirements

    "Gerrymandering"

    In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below. Typically, these requirements are quite flexible.

    1. Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be "physically adjacent." A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous. A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.[5][6]
    2. Compactness refers to the general principle that "the distance between all parts of a district" ought to be minimized. The United States Supreme Court has "construed compactness to indicate that residents have some sort of cultural cohesion in common." A total of 37 states "require their legislative districts to be reasonably compact." A total of 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[5][6]
    3. A community of interest is a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[5][6]
    4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.[5][6]

    Congressional redistricting

    According to Article 1, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections. Section 4 explicitly vests the authority to regulate congressional elections with the legislative branches of the states and the federal government and not with the executive or judicial branches.[7][8]

    “ The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.[9] ”
    —United States Constitution

    Article 1, Section 2, of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows, or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."[10][11][5]

    The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."[5]

    State legislative redistricting

    The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."[5]

    State process

    See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

    In 37 states, legislatures are primarily responsible for drawing congressional district lines. Seven states have only one congressional district each, so congressional redistricting is not necessary. Four states employ independent commissions to draw the district maps. In two states, politician commissions draw congressional district lines.

    State legislative district lines are primarily the province of the state legislatures themselves in 37 states. In seven states, politician commissions draw state legislative district lines. In the remaining six states, independent commissions draw the lines.[12]

    In California, an independent commission draws both congressional and state legislative district lines. Established in 2008 by ballot initiative, the commission comprises 14 members: five Democrats, five Republicans and four belonging to neither party. A panel of state auditors selects the pool of nominees from which the commissioners are appointed. This pool comprises 20 Democrats, 20 Republicans and 20 belonging to neither party. The majority and minority leaders of both chambers of the state legislature may each remove two members from each of the aforementioned groups. The first eight commission members are selected at random from the remaining nominees. These first eight comprise three Democrats, three Republicans and two belonging to neither party. The first eight commissioners appoint the remaining six, which must include two Democrats, two Republicans and two belonging to neither party.[13]

    Commissioners must meet the following requirements in order to serve:[13]

    1. Members must have voted in at least two of the last three statewide elections.
    2. Members cannot have switched party affiliation for at least five years.
    3. "Neither commissioners nor immediate family may have been, within 10 years of appointment, a candidate for federal or state office or member of a party central committee; an officer, employee, or paid consultant to a federal or state candidate or party; a registered lobbyist or paid legislative staff; or a donor of more than $2,000 to an elected candidate."
    4. Members cannot be "staff, consultants or contractors for state or federal government" while serving as commissioners. The same prohibition applies to the family of commission members.

    In order to approve a redistricting plan, nine of the commission's 14 members must vote for it. These nine must include three Democrats, three Republicans and three belonging to neither party. Maps drawn by the commission may be overturned by public referendum. In the event that a map is overturned by the public, the California Supreme Court must appoint a group to draw a new map.[13]

    The California Constitution requires that districts be contiguous. Further, the state constitution mandates that "to the extent possible, [districts] must ... preserve the geographic integrity of cities, counties, neighborhoods and communities of interest." Districts must also "encourage compactness." State Senate and Assembly districts should be nested within each other where possible.[13]

    District maps

    Congressional districts

    See also: United States congressional delegations from California
    Click the above image to enlarge it.
    Source: The National Atlas of the United States of America

    California comprises 53 congressional districts. The map to the right depicts California's congressional district lines as drawn following the 2010 United States Census. The table below lists California's current House representatives.

    California delegation to the United States House of Representatives
    NamePartyPositionAssumed officeTerm ends
    Adam SchiffDemocratic PartyDistrict 28 2001January 3, 2019
    Alan LowenthalDemocratic PartyDistrict 47 2013January 3, 2019
    Ami BeraDemocratic PartyDistrict 7 2013January 3, 2019
    Anna EshooDemocratic PartyDistrict 18 1993January 3, 2019
    Barbara LeeDemocratic PartyDistrict 13 1999January 3, 2019
    Brad ShermanDemocratic PartyDistrict 30 1997January 3, 2019
    Dana RohrabacherRepublican PartyDistrict 48 1989January 3, 2019
    Darrell IssaRepublican PartyDistrict 49 2001January 3, 2019
    David G. ValadaoRepublican PartyDistrict 21 2013January 3, 2019
    Devin NunesRepublican PartyDistrict 22 2003January 3, 2019
    Doris MatsuiDemocratic PartyDistrict 6 2005January 3, 2019
    Doug LaMalfaRepublican PartyDistrict 1 2013January 3, 2019
    Duncan HunterRepublican PartyDistrict 50 2009January 3, 2019
    Edward RoyceRepublican PartyDistrict 39 1993January 3, 2019
    Eric SwalwellDemocratic PartyDistrict 15 2013January 3, 2019
    Grace NapolitanoDemocratic PartyDistrict 32 1999January 3, 2019
    Jackie SpeierDemocratic PartyDistrict 14 2008January 3, 2019
    Jared HuffmanDemocratic PartyDistrict 2 2013January 3, 2019
    Jeff DenhamRepublican PartyDistrict 10 2011January 3, 2019
    Jerry McNerneyDemocratic PartyDistrict 9 2007January 3, 2019
    Jim CostaDemocratic PartyDistrict 16 2005January 3, 2019
    Jimmy PanettaDemocratic PartyDistrict 20 2017January 3, 2019
    John GaramendiDemocratic PartyDistrict 3 2009January 3, 2019
    Juan VargasDemocratic PartyDistrict 51 2013January 3, 2019
    Judy ChuDemocratic PartyDistrict 27 2009January 3, 2019
    Julia BrownleyDemocratic PartyDistrict 26 2013January 3, 2019
    Karen BassDemocratic PartyDistrict 37 2011January 3, 2019
    Ken CalvertRepublican PartyDistrict 42 1993January 3, 2019
    Kevin McCarthyRepublican PartyDistrict 23 2007January 3, 2019
    Linda SanchezDemocratic PartyDistrict 38 2003January 3, 2019
    Lou CorreaDemocratic PartyDistrict 46 2017January 3, 2019
    Lucille Roybal-AllardDemocratic PartyDistrict 40 1993January 3, 2019
    Mark DeSaulnierDemocratic PartyDistrict 11 2015January 3, 2019
    Mark TakanoDemocratic PartyDistrict 41 2013January 3, 2019
    Maxine WatersDemocratic PartyDistrict 43 1991January 3, 2019
    Mike ThompsonDemocratic PartyDistrict 5 1999January 3, 2019
    Mimi WaltersRepublican PartyDistrict 45 2015January 3, 2019
    Nancy PelosiDemocratic PartyDistrict 12 1987January 3, 2019
    Nanette BarraganDemocratic PartyDistrict 44 2017January 3, 2019
    Norma TorresDemocratic PartyDistrict 35 2015January 3, 2019
    Paul CookRepublican PartyDistrict 8 2013January 3, 2019
    Pete AguilarDemocratic PartyDistrict 31 2015January 3, 2019
    Raul RuizDemocratic PartyDistrict 36 2013January 3, 2019
    Ro KhannaDemocratic PartyDistrict 17 2017January 3, 2019
    Salud CarbajalDemocratic PartyDistrict 24 2017January 3, 2019
    Scott PetersDemocratic PartyDistrict 52 2013January 3, 2019
    Stephen KnightRepublican PartyDistrict 25 2015January 3, 2019
    Susan DavisDemocratic PartyDistrict 53 2001January 3, 2019
    Ted LieuDemocratic PartyDistrict 33 2015January 3, 2019
    Tom McClintockRepublican PartyDistrict 4 2009January 3, 2019
    Tony CardenasDemocratic PartyDistrict 29 2013January 3, 2019
    Zoe LofgrenDemocratic PartyDistrict 19 1995January 3, 2019

    State legislative maps

    See also: California State Senate and California State Assembly

    California comprises 40 state Senate districts and 80 state Assembly districts. State senators are elected every four years in partisan elections. State representatives are elected every two years in partisan elections. To access the state legislative district maps approved following the 2010 United States Census, click here.[14]

    Competitiveness

    There are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between partisan gerrymandering and electoral competitiveness. Some critics contend that the dominant redistricting methods result in a lack of competitive elections. Jennifer Clark, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said, "The redistricting process has important consequences for voters. In some states, incumbent legislators work together to protect their own seats, which produces less competition in the political system. Voters may feel as though they do not have a meaningful alternative to the incumbent legislator. Legislators who lack competition in their districts have less incentive to adhere to their constituents’ opinions."[15]

    Some question the impact of redistricting on electoral competitiveness. In 2006, Emory University professors Alan Abramowitz, Brad Alexander and Matthew Gunning wrote, "[Some] studies have concluded that redistricting has a neutral or positive effect on competition. ... [It] is often the case that partisan redistricting has the effect of reducing the safety of incumbents, thereby making elections more competitive."[16]

    The individuals involved in redistricting must balance the desire for increased competitiveness with other principles that might conflict with that goal, such as compactness, contiguity, and maintaining communities of interest. For instance, it may at times be impossible to draw a competitive district that is both compact and preserves communities of interest.

    In 2011, James Cottrill, a professor of political science at Santa Clara University, published a study of the effect of "non-legislative approaches" to redistricting on the competitiveness of congressional elections. Cottrill found that "particular types of [non-legislative approaches] encourage the appearance in congressional elections of experienced and well-financed challengers." Cottrill cautioned, however, that non-legislative approaches "contribute neither to decreased vote percentages when incumbents win elections nor to a greater probability of their defeat."[17]

    Congress

    CongressLogo.png
    See also: Margin of victory analysis for the 2014 congressional elections

    In 2014, Ballotpedia analyzed the margins of victory in all 435 contests for the United States House of Representatives. Ballotpedia found that the average margin of victory was 35.8 percent, compared to 31.8 percent in 2012. An election is deemed competitive if it was won by a margin of victory of 5 percent or less. A total of 318 elections (73 percent of all House elections) were won by margins of victory of 20 percent or more. Only 26 elections (6 percent of the total) were won by margins of victory of 5 percent or less. See the table below for further details.

    Note: The data below are provided only for informational purposes. It should be noted that there are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between redistricting and competitiveness. A variety of factors at the local, state and federal levels can impact electoral competitiveness.

    In California, 32 elections for the United States House of Representatives were won by margins of victory of 20 percent or greater; eight were won by margins of 5 percent or less. The smallest margin of victory occurred in District 7, where Ami Bera (D) won by 0.8 percent. The largest margin of victory occurred in District 13, where Barbara Lee (D) won by 77 percent. The average margin of victory in California was 29.4 percent. See the table below for full details.

    Electoral margins of victory in 2014 United States House of Representatives elections, California
    District Winner Margin of victory Total votes cast Top opponent
    District 1 Republican Party Doug La Malfa 22.1% 216,372 Heidi Hall
    District 2 Democratic Party Jared Huffman 50% 217,524 Dale Mensing
    District 3 Democratic Party John Garamendi 5.4% 150,260 Dan Logue
    District 4 Republican Party Tom McClintock 20.1% 211,134 Art Moore
    District 5 Democratic Party Mike Thompson 51.5% 171,148 James Hinton
    District 6 Democratic Party Doris Matsui 45.4% 133,456 Joseph McCray, Sr.
    District 7 Democratic Party Ami Bera 0.8% 183,587 Doug Ose
    District 8 Republican Party Paul Cook 35.3% 114,536 Bob Conaway
    District 9 Democratic Party Jerry McNerney 4.7% 121,204 Tony Amador
    District 10 Republican Party Jeff Denham 12.3% 125,705 Michael Eggman
    District 11 Democratic Party Mark DeSaulnier 34.5% 174,662 Tue Phan-Quang
    District 12 Democratic Party Nancy Pelosi 66.5% 192,264 John Dennis
    District 13 Democratic Party Barbara Lee 77% 190,431 Dakin Sundeen
    District 14 Democratic Party Jackie Speier 53.4% 149,146 Robin Chew
    District 15 Democratic Party Eric Swalwell 39.6% 142,906 Hugh Bussell
    District 16 Democratic Party Jim Costa 1.5% 91,220 Johnny Tacherra
    District 17 Democratic Party Mike Honda 3.5% 134,408 Ro Khanna
    District 18 Democratic Party Anna Eshoo 35.5% 196,386 Richard Fox
    District 19 Democratic Party Zoe Lofgren 34.4% 127,788 Robert Murray
    District 20 Democratic Party Sam Farr 50.4% 141,044 Ronald Paul Kabat
    District 21 Republican Party David Valadao 15.7% 79,377 Amanda Renteria
    District 22 Republican Party Devin Nunes 44.1% 133,342 Suzanna Aguilera-Marrero
    District 23 Republican Party Kevin McCarthy 49.7% 134,043 Raul Garcia
    District 24 Democratic Party Lois Capps 3.9% 198,794 Chris Mitchum
    District 25 Republican Party Steve Knight 6.7% 114,072 Tony Strickland
    District 26 Democratic Party Julia Brownley 2.7% 169,829 Jeff Gorell
    District 27 Democratic Party Judy Chu 18.7% 127,580 Jack Orswell
    District 28 Democratic Party Adam Schiff 53% 120,264 Steve Stokes
    District 29 Democratic Party Tony Cardenas 49.2% 67,141 William O'Callaghan Leader
    District 30 Democratic Party Brad Sherman 31.3% 131,883 Mark Reed
    District 31 Democratic Party Pete Aguilar 3.5% 99,784 Paul Chabot
    District 32 Democratic Party Grace Napolitano 19.3% 84,406 Art Alas
    District 33 Democratic Party Ted Lieu 18.4% 183,031 Elan Carr
    District 34 Democratic Party Xavier Becerra 45.1% 61,621 Adrienne Nicole Edwards
    District 35 Democratic Party Norma Torres 26.9% 62,255 Christina Gagnier
    District 36 Democratic Party Raul Ruiz 8.4% 134,139 Brian Nestande
    District 37 Democratic Party Karen Bass 68.6% 114,838 Adam King
    District 38 Democratic Party Linda Sanchez 18.2% 98,480 Benjamin Campos
    District 39 Republican Party Edward Royce 37.1% 133,225 Peter Anderson
    District 40 Democratic Party Lucille Roybal-Allard 22.4% 49,379 David Sanchez
    District 41 Democratic Party Mark Takano 13.3% 82,884 Steve Adams
    District 42 Republican Party Ken Calvert 31.5% 113,390 Tim Sheridan
    District 43 Democratic Party Maxine Waters 41.9% 98,202 John Wood
    District 44 Democratic Party Janice Hahn 73.3% 68,862 Adam Shbeita
    District 45 Republican Party Mimi Walters 30.2% 162,902 Drew Leavens
    District 46 Democratic Party Loretta Sanchez 19.4% 83,315 Adam Nick
    District 47 Democratic Party Alan Lowenthal 12% 123,400 Andy Whallon
    District 48 Republican Party Dana Rohrabacher 28.2% 174,795 Sue Savary
    District 49 Republican Party Darrell Issa 20.3% 163,142 Dave Peiser
    District 50 Republican Party Duncan Hunter 42.4% 157,299 James Kimber
    District 51 Democratic Party Juan Vargas 37.6% 81,950 Stephen Meade
    District 52 Democratic Party Scott Peters 3.2% 191,572 Carl DeMaio
    District 53 Democratic Party Susan Davis 17.7% 148,044 Larry Wilske

    State legislatures

    See also: Margin of victory in state legislative elections

    In 2014, Ballotpedia conducted a study of competitive districts in 44 state legislative chambers between 2010 and 2012. Ballotpedia found that there were 61 fewer competitive general election contests in 2012 than in 2010. Of the 44 chambers studied, 25 experienced a net loss in the number of competitive elections. A total of 17 experienced a net increase. In total, 16.2 percent of the 3,842 legislative contests studied saw competitive general elections in 2010. In 2012, only 14.6 percent of the contests studied saw competitive general elections. An election was considered competitive if it was won by a margin of victory of 5 percent or less. An election was considered mildly competitive if it was won by a margin of victory between 5 and 10 percent. For more information regarding this report, including methodology, click here.

    Note: These data are provided only for informational purposes. It should be noted that there are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between redistricting and competitiveness. A variety of factors at the local, state and federal levels can impact electoral competitiveness.

    There were four competitive elections for the California State Assembly in 2012, compared to two in 2010. There were five mildly competitive state Assembly races in 2012, the same as in 2010. This amounted to a net gain of two competitive races.

    Partisan composition

    The tables below summarize the current partisan composition of the California House of Representatives and the California State Senate.

    House

    SLP badge.png
    Party As of February 2017
         Democratic Party 55
         Republican Party 25
         Vacancies 0
    Total 80

    Senate

    Party As of February 2017
         Democratic Party 27
         Republican Party 13
         Vacancies 0
    Total 40

    Race and ethnicity

    See also: Majority-minority districts

    Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that electoral district lines cannot be drawn in such a manner as to "improperly dilute minorities' voting power."

    “ No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.[9] ”
    —Voting Rights Act of 1965[18]

    States and other political subdivisions may create majority-minority districts in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A majority-minority district is a district in which minority groups comprise a majority of the district's total population. As of 2013, California was home to 37 congressional majority-minority districts.[2][3][4]

    Proponents of majority-minority districts maintain that these districts are a necessary hindrance to the practice of "cracking." Cracking occurs when a constituency is divided between several districts in order to prevent it from achieving a majority in any one district. In addition, supporters argue that the drawing of majority-minority districts has resulted in an increased number of minority representatives in state legislatures and Congress.[2][3][4]

    Critics, meanwhile, contend that the establishment of majority-minority districts results in "packing." Packing occurs when a constituency or voting group is placed within a single district, thereby minimizing its influence in other districts. Because minority groups tend to vote Democratic, critics argue that majority-minority districts ultimately present an unfair advantage to Republicans by consolidating Democratic votes into a smaller number of districts.[2][3][4]

    Demographics

    See also: Demographics of congressional districts as of 2013 and Demographics of congressional districts as of 2013 (as percentages)

    The tables below provide demographic information for each of California's congressional districts as of 2013. At that time, the population of the largest congressional district, District 42, totaled 724,529, and the population of the smallest, District 8, totaled 701,729, which represented a difference of 3.2 percent. Click on the second table to v[19]

    The first table displays the figures as percentages. Click on the second table to view the figures as numbers.

    Demographics of California's congressional districts (as percentages)
    District Hispanic White Black Native
    American     		Asian Pacific
    Islander     		Other Multiple
    races
    California 37.89% 39.67% 5.72% 0.39% 13.11% 0.36% 0.22% 2.64%
    District 1 12.4% 78.6% 1.3% 1.5% 2.5% 0.2% 0.1% 3.4%
    District 2 16.8% 72.7% 1.6% 1.9% 3.6% 0.2% 0.3% 3%
    District 3 27.8% 50% 6% 0.8% 10.4% 0.5% 0.3% 4.2%
    District 4 12.4% 77.9% 1.2% 1% 4.2% 0.1% 0.1% 3.1%
    District 5 26.4% 52.3% 6% 0.6% 10.4% 0.5% 0.2% 3.6%
    District 6 27% 39.3% 12% 0.5% 15.1% 1.1% 0.3% 4.6%
    District 7 16.6% 55.8% 7.4% 0.5% 14.2% 0.8% 0.2% 4.4%
    District 8 35.9% 49.6% 8.1% 1% 2.8% 0.4% 0.1% 2.1%
    District 9 37.7% 36.5% 8.1% 0.4% 13.3% 0.4% 0.1% 3.4%
    District 10 40.7% 45.8% 3% 0.5% 6.4% 0.7% 0.1% 2.8%
    District 11 25.4% 48.3% 9% 0.2% 12.6% 0.5% 0.3% 3.7%
    District 12 14.5% 44% 5.7% 0.2% 31.4% 0.4% 0.4% 3.3%
    District 13 21.1% 34.1% 18.6% 0.3% 20.8% 0.6% 0.3% 4.2%
    District 14 24.4% 36.3% 3.1% 0.2% 30.8% 1.4% 0.4% 3.4%
    District 15 23.3% 36.6% 6.1% 0.3% 28.6% 1% 0.3% 3.8%
    District 16 58.3% 24.6% 5.7% 0.5% 9.1% 0.2% 0.1% 1.5%
    District 17 17.5% 26.3% 2.6% 0.2% 49.5% 0.5% 0.3% 3.1%
    District 18 17.3% 57.2% 1.9% 0.2% 19.4% 0.2% 0.2% 3.6%
    District 19 41.1% 26.6% 2.8% 0.2% 26.1% 0.4% 0.2% 2.6%
    District 20 51% 38.8% 2.1% 0.3% 5.1% 0.4% 0.1% 2.3%
    District 21 71.6% 18.7% 4.3% 0.5% 3.3% 0.1% 0.1% 1.3%
    District 22 45.2% 42% 2.8% 0.5% 7% 0.1% 0.2% 2.1%
    District 23 36.4% 49.5% 5.9% 0.8% 4.6% 0.1% 0.1% 2.4%
    District 24 34.5% 56.6% 1.8% 0.4% 4.2% 0.2% 0.1% 2.1%
    District 25 36.1% 44.8% 7.4% 0.2% 7.8% 0.2% 0.2% 3.2%
    District 26 43.7% 45.6% 1.7% 0.2% 6.4% 0.1% 0.1% 2.1%
    District 27 26.9% 29.1% 4.4% 0.1% 36.8% 0.2% 0.3% 2.2%
    District 28 26.4% 55.3% 2.4% 0.2% 12.9% 0.1% 0.3% 2.5%
    District 29 68.4% 18.3% 3.6% 0.1% 8% 0.1% 0.3% 1.1%
    District 30 28.2% 51.8% 4.3% 0.2% 12.2% 0.1% 0.2% 3.1%
    District 31 50.5% 28.8% 10.2% 0.2% 7.3% 0.3% 0.3% 2.4%
    District 32 62% 18% 2.6% 0.2% 15.8% 0.1% 0.1% 1.3%
    District 33 12.1% 67.1% 2.8% 0.2% 13.7% 0.2% 0.3% 3.7%
    District 34 65.6% 9.7% 4% 0.2% 19.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.9%
    District 35 69.2% 15.4% 6.8% 0.2% 6.3% 0.3% 0.2% 1.6%
    District 36 46.8% 43.8% 3.6% 0.5% 3.1% 0.2% 0.2% 1.7%
    District 37 37.9% 24.8% 24.5% 0.1% 9.4% 0.1% 0.5% 2.6%
    District 38 61.3% 18.4% 3.6% 0.3% 14.4% 0.3% 0.3% 1.4%
    District 39 33.4% 32.9% 2.2% 0.2% 28.7% 0.2% 0.2% 2.2%
    District 40 87.2% 5.2% 4.7% 0.1% 2.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3%
    District 41 57.4% 25.2% 9.2% 0.3% 5.1% 0.3% 0.2% 2.2%
    District 42 36.4% 45.9% 5.1% 0.4% 8.7% 0.4% 0.2% 2.9%
    District 43 45.9% 15% 23.2% 0.1% 12.4% 0.5% 0.2% 2.5%
    District 44 69.2% 6.9% 15.8% 0.2% 5.5% 0.6% 0.2% 1.6%
    District 45 18.1% 55.1% 1.5% 0.2% 21.5% 0.2% 0.2% 3.1%
    District 46 66.5% 18.7% 1.7% 0.2% 11.5% 0.3% 0.1% 1%
    District 47 34.2% 33% 7.2% 0.3% 21.2% 0.7% 0.2% 3.2%
    District 48 20.9% 57.4% 1% 0.2% 17.5% 0.3% 0.2% 2.4%
    District 49 25.9% 61.8% 2.4% 0.2% 6.3% 0.4% 0.2% 2.7%
    District 50 29.8% 58.6% 2.3% 0.8% 5% 0.3% 0.2% 3.1%
    District 51 69% 14.1% 6.8% 0.4% 7.8% 0.3% 0.1% 1.5%
    District 52 13% 61% 2.9% 0.2% 18.8% 0.4% 0.2% 3.6%
    District 53 32.6% 42% 7.8% 0.3% 12.8% 0.6% 0.2% 3.7%
    Source: United States Census Bureau, "2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates," accessed April 8, 2015

    Redistricting after the 2010 census

    See also: Redistricting in California after the 2010 census

    Following the 2010 United States Census, California neither gained nor lost congressional seats. On August 15, 2011, the state's independent redistricting commission voted to approve new congressional and state legislative district maps. The commission voted 12-2 to approve the congressional map and 13-1 to approve the state legislative map. The newly-approved state Senate districts were subject to a popular referendum on November 6, 2010. The district lines were maintained as a result of the referendum. Suits challenging the congressional and state legislative district lines were ultimately rejected.[13]

    Regarding the new congressional map, Michael Barone and Chuck McCutcheon wrote the following in The Almanac of American Politics:[20]

    “ After months of tedious meetings and mountains of public testimony, the commission in August 2011 adopted a new map that radically, and more logically, rearranged the state’s 53 seats. Under the 2001 map, mangled lines had produced a delegation so safe that just one House seat changed partisan hands one time in 10 years’ worth of elections. Moreover, clever incumbent protection had delayed advancements in Latino representation; in 2010, Latinos were 38% of California’s population, but held just nine of the state’s 53 seats. The new map threw 27 incumbents into 13 districts and created 14 seats with no resident incumbent. It also created three new or altered districts with functional majorities of Latino citizens: one in the fast-growing Central Valley, another in the San Fernando Valley, and a third anchored by San Diego. ...

    The end result was the most upheaval and loss of seniority California’s delegation has ever seen. Not only did the new commission scramble the map, the state’s new top-two jungle primary law meant candidates of the same party advanced to the November election in eight districts. In addition to retirees, seven members lost reelection, including high-ranking members like Democrats Berman and Pete Stark and Republican Dan Lungren. What incumbents viewed as seniority, many voters saw as entrenchment, and reformers got the burst of competition they wanted.[9]

    		”
    —The Almanac of American Politics

    Connerly v. California

    Race, ethnicity and sex are considered in the selection of members for California's independent redistricting commission. Ward Connerly filed suit against the state on October 4, 2011, alleging that these selection criteria violate the California Constitution, which prohibits "discrimination or favorable treatment based on race in public employment, education or contracting." On December 16, 2011, the state responded with a demurrer, which is "an assertion by the defendant that although the facts alleged by the plaintiff in the complaint may be true, they do not entitle the plaintiff to prevail in the lawsuit." The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 20, 2012. The state responded with another demurrer on April 30, 2012. A trial court granted the demurrer on December 21, 2012, and dismissed the case, finding that "the redistricting commissioners are public officers rather than public employees, and therefore beyond the reach of the state constitutional provision prohibiting discrimination or favorable treatment based on race."[13][21][22][23]

    The plaintiffs appealed to the California Third District Court of Appeal, which reversed the trial court's decision "with directions to the trial court to grant Connerly leave to amend the complaint." The plaintiff filed an amended complaint with the trial court on December 4, 2014.[13][24]

    Redistricting ballot measures

    Voting on elections and campaigns
    Campaignsandelections.jpg
    Ballot measures
    By state
    By year
    Not on ballot
    See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot and List of California ballot measures

    Ballotpedia has tracked the following ballot measure(s) relating to redistricting in California.

    1. California Legislative Reapportionment, Proposition 28 (1926)
    2. California Proposition 1, Reapportionment of Legislative Districts (1928)
    3. California Proposition 10, Congressional Redistricting Act (June 1982)
    4. California Proposition 11, Creation of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission (2008)
    5. California Proposition 11, State Senate Redistricting Act (June 1982)
    6. California Proposition 118, the "Legislative Ethics Enforcement Initiative" (1990)
    7. California Proposition 119, Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission Act (1990)
    8. California Proposition 12, State Assembly Redistricting Act (June 1982)
    9. California Proposition 13, State Senate Redistricting (1948)
    10. California Proposition 14, Creation of a Districting Commission (1982)
    11. California Proposition 15, Reapportionment of State Senate (1960)
    12. California Proposition 18, Membership of Reapportionment Commission (1942)
    13. California Proposition 20, Congressional Redistricting (2010)
    14. California Proposition 27, Elimination of Citizen Redistricting Commission (2010)
    15. California Proposition 39, Creation of a Redistricting Commission (1984)
    16. California Proposition 40, Referendum on the State Senate Redistricting Plan (2012)
    17. California Proposition 6, Rules Governing Redistricting (June 1980)
    18. California Proposition 77, Rules Governing Legislative Redistricting (2005)
    19. California Reapportionment Commission, Proposition 20 (1926)

    Redistricting legislation

    The following is a list of recent redistricting bills that have been introduced in or passed by the California state legislature. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title. This information is provided by BillTrack50 and LegiScan.

    Note: Due to the nature of the sorting process used to generate this list, some results may not be relevant to the topic. If no bills are displayed below, no legislation pertaining to this topic has been introduced in the legislature recently.

    Recent news

    The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Redistricting California. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles; they are included to provide readers with the most recent news articles on the subject. Click here to learn more about this section.

    Redistricting in California - Google News Feed

    • Loading...

    See also

    External links

    Additional reading

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Indy Week, "Cracked, stacked and packed: Initial redistricting maps met with skepticism and dismay," June 29, 2011
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 The Atlantic, "How the Voting Rights Act Hurts Democrats and Minorities," June 17, 2013
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Redrawing the Lines, "The Role of Section 2 - Majority Minority Districts," accessed April 6, 2015
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April 9, 2015
    7. ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
    8. ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
    9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
    10. ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
    11. ↑ The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
    12. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed March 25, 2015
    13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 All About Redistricting, "California," accessed April 21, 2015
    14. ↑ California Citizens Redistricting Commission, "Maps: Final Certified," accessed April 21, 2015
    15. ↑ The Daily Cougar, "Redistricting will affect November election," October 16, 2012
    16. ↑ The Journal of Politics, "Incumbency, Redistricting, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections," February 2006
    17. ↑ Polity, "The Effects of Non-Legislative Approaches to Redistricting on Competition in Congressional Elections," October 3, 2011
    18. ↑ Yale Law School, The Avalon Project, "Voting Rights Act of 1965; August 6, 1965," accessed April 6, 2015
    19. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates," accessed April 8, 2015
    20. ↑ Barone, M. & McCutcheon, C. (2013). The almanac of American politics 2014 : the senators, the representatives and the governors : their records and election results, their states and districts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    21. ↑ Superior Court of the State of California, "Ward Connerly et al. v. State of California et al.," December 16, 2011
    22. ↑ American Civil Rights Institute, "About Mr. Ward Connerly," accessed April 21, 2015
    23. ↑ The Free Dictionary: Legal Dictionary, "Demurrer," accessed April 21, 2015
    24. ↑ Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, "Ward Connerly et al. v. State of California et al.," September 3, 2014
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Redistricting_in_California&oldid=6404520"