SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
June 5, 2011· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

The districts are coming, the districts are coming!

Recently, KHTS and The Signal reported that the California Citizens Redistricting Commission has released its first draft of new boundaries for Congressional and legislative districts. While this is just a draft, it’s coming from the commission itself, as opposed to a interest group.

Check out both articles for more information about the process. Here at SCVtalk, we’ve been waiting for these maps with baited breath. For political junkies, seeing new district maps is like getting your hands on the next iPhone. This might be a factory prototype, but you see where it’s going. Spoiler alert: the SCV does not get split.

The new Congressional district*

Image not recoveredSCV_CD-604x480.jpg

The current draft of our congressional district would essentially consist of the L.A. County portion of the current 25th CD. Easy enough?

SCV’s stake:
About 30% of this district’s residents will live in Santa Clarita.

This is, and will remain Buck McKeon’s seat for as long as he likes it. But looking forward, I’d expect the deep-pocketed McKeon machine to do its best to line up a successor. That may be our only hope of seing a Claritan in D.C., post-McKeon.  The majority of district residents will hail from the AV, giving a significant advantage to AV-based candidates. Since we’ll no longer share Assembly or Senate districts, up-and-coming AV politicians will have little exposure in the SCV, and vice-versa. (R. Rex Parris? We hardly knew ye.)

Red or blue?
Red-er. Currently, the 25th favors Republicans by a two-point margin. This new district would roughly double this spread. While the past decade has seen the SCV and AV move from red to purple, the slow housing market has put the brakes on this trend. Simply put, people who move into new construction tend to reflect the political sensibilities from where they came, which is usually some part of Los Angeles. This seat might be competitive one day, but not until new houses are built.

What this means:
For a few years, the word around town has been that Buck McKeon is eying retirement in 2012, his 20th year in Congress. With his newly-minted Armed Services chairmanship, I’ll assume he’s going to stick around. However, if the Republicans were to lose the House in 2012 (unlikely, but possible), I’d expect him to hang it up quickly.

*UPDATE: upon closer inspection, it appears that the 25 stretches further into the SFV than I thought. (the maps are a little tricky).  So take this all with a grain of salt.

The new Assembly district

Image not recoveredSCV_AD-621x480.jpg

This is tricky. Smyth’s former seat was most of the SCV, plus some of the SFV, plus some of eastern Ventura County. The new district would sit entirely in LA County, include basically all of the SCV as we know it, plus a larger piece of the NW San Fernando Valley (City of LA).

SCV’s stake:
Based on my crude assumptions (see below), I’m estimating that the SCV would comprise 45% of the district’s population.

In short, we got our wish: once valley, one district. On one hand, Santa Clarita will produce political figures that will be more recognizable to its own residents than the West Valley will. We have our own media, our own city council and other local boards. We know and love our own more than they do.  On the other hand, SCV-bred politicians will face something they’ve never encountered before: a living, breathing Democratic party machine that has a long history of sending people to Sacramento.

Red or Blue?
Mind you, this is all a hunch, but I made the following assumptions:

  • Unincorporated SCV has about 30% as many people and has roughly the same political ID and the City of Santa Clarita. Yes, it leans more Dem, but we’re not splitting hairs.
  • The City of L.A. portion of the district will increase by roughly the number of voters that were in the Ventura County portion of the 38th, and will have rougly the same Political ID as the LA City voters already in Smyth’s district.

I’m not backing into a conclusion here, just trying to make sense of it. In fact, I’m writing this sentence before looking at, much less crunching the party ID numbers.

[number crunching time, please hold]

Based on the above assumptions, the new AD district would be 44.1% Republican and 43.2% Democrat. A dead heat. Purple. Very purple.

I should note that it’s hard to tell exactly which populated areas of the SFV are added to this district. If it’s just sagebrush, then I’d add a point to the Republican spread.

What this means:
Republican or Democrat? It’s a toss-up. SCV or SFV? It’s a toss up. Smyth will be forced out of the Assembly in 2012 due to term limits. This will be a wide-open race in an open primary with no heir apparent.

I’m not up on things enough to know who’s hot in the far west 818, but on first glance, this is a district made for Laurie Ender. A centrist woman with a very strong base and organization in the SCV who paid her dues working in the big city, and likely has plenty of friends in the 818. If she has any interest in higher office, this is her best chance.

The new Senate district

Image not recoveredSCV_SD-629x480.jpg

Confused yet? Under the new rules, Senate districts will comprise of exactly two Assembly districts. Our SD will consist of our AD, plus another district which looks a lot like the current 41st AD (coastal N LA Co, & S VeCo), but it will lose Oxnard and gain Thousand Oaks.

SCV’s stake:
Are you keeping track? We’ll have a 20-25% stake in the new district. As far as I know, an SCV’er has never served in the State Senate (Or at least it’s been a while. Where’s Leon Worden when you need him?). It’s a larger stake than we had with Runner or Strickland, but not by much.

Red or Blue?
Blue.

I took the assumptions from the Assembly seat (above).

For the second half of the district, I took registration and party ID of the current AD 41 (very blue), and factored in the party ID and population of Thousand Oaks (very red). This gives us a new AD that’s 44 to 31 Dem.

Overall, I’m estimating a Senate District that has a Democratic advantage of 44 to 38.

What this means:
State Senator Fran Pavley (D-23) lives in Agoura Hills and is up for reelection in 2012. She won in 2008 with 67% of the vote. If these maps hold, I’m nearly certain we’ll see Ms. Pavely coast to re-election, and along with that, Cameron Smyth is probably through with Sacramento – at least until 2022, when he turns 50.

The wild card:
Under CA’s new open primary system, the top two finishers from the primary go on to the general election. It’s quite possible that we’ll see a general election with two candidates from the same party facing off in November. There are plenty of long-shot scenarios that could make this all very interesting. I can’t wait.

If you think this analysis is premature, of course it is. But as the picture crystalizes, we’ll be back for another look.

The districts are coming, the districts are coming!

Comments (14)

  1. Timothy Myers SR.June 5, 2011 at 3:19 pm
    So let’s start the speculation on who gets Cameron Smyth’s seat. I pick Paul Strickland as the establishment candidate, but there will be many anti-establishment Republican candidates.
  2. MikeJune 5, 2011 at 3:23 pm
    I don’t know if Ender has any interest, but I’d bet on her. I’m always hearing that Scott Wilk wants it. I’d be shocked if 1 in 10 SCV’ers could pick Paul Strickland from a lineup.
  3. Timothy Myers SR.June 5, 2011 at 6:11 pm
    The Ender problem is that she would be running for Assembly at the same time she was running for City Council. It would be tons of work to keep going back to the fundraising well, and contributors would hesitate to put money in her Council campaign if she was going to have to quit anyway.
  4. MikeJune 5, 2011 at 6:29 pm
    I’m not sure there is much of a dilemma. If she’s in this to go further, she takes this shot. Runs for this, and not that. If a career in politics has any appeal, then it’s time to get on with the show. If she’s not interested, and I suspect she isn’t, end of story. It’s a matter of choice, not of strategy. Even if it were, there’s a pretty obvious play: run hard for assembly and jog for council. Incumbents get boatloads of cash, anyway, just for being so. Hire someone to run the show. Show up at a debate or two and make a speech on election day.
  5. IHeartSCVJune 5, 2011 at 8:18 pm
    I’ve always thought Frank to be the most politically ambitious one on the city council. How else do you explain his profound lack of enthusiasm for the council member gig? It seems like it’s just a form of political water treading, waiting for his chance for some better office.
  6. MikeJune 5, 2011 at 8:28 pm
    Frank was the most ambitious of the lot, but opportunities passed him by. He wasn’t always in the dumps. I think the sunken demeanor has as much to do with the opportunities that didn’t come as his dissatisfaction with the job. He barely campaigned in the last race, and he hasn’t made any moves that suggest a big move on the horizon. His political organization is no longer, the local “activists” and videographers detest him (unfairly, I think), and he doesn’t sound like someone who’s especially concerned with his political future. Since we last saw the hyper-ambitous Frank, he’s been divorced, nearly died and nearly lost a very safe seat. He’s had a tough go at it.
  7. ToddJune 5, 2011 at 10:18 pm
    Good analysis Tim. Just by eyeballing it, the assembly map seems to stretch down in the far southwest to include Chatsworth Reservoir. If thats the case, then our AD will cover the SFV from Roscoe Blvd, north. So that would include Chatsworth, Northridge, Porter Ranch, Granada Hills. The CD map looks like it draws at Lassen or maybe Devonshire… so we’d still get Porter Ranch, Northridge Granada Hills, etc but not get North Hills or Chatsworth. I’m still digging trying to find census tract maps of LA City… found the unincorporated areas but not City…
  8. MikeJune 5, 2011 at 10:21 pm
    Yeah, it’s a little tricky, but this afternoon, I came to the same conclusion, down to Roscoe. My party ID assumptions might be off if that’s the case. That area of the SFV closely resembles Council District 12, the most conservative in the City of LA. How conservative is it? I can’t quite tell.
  9. ToddJune 5, 2011 at 11:09 pm
    12 is pretty damn conservative…. religion plays a factor… many of the same type of mega-churches that we’ve got up here dot the landscape along the 118. Although, I still think LA City’s most right winged conservative pales in comparison to some of what we have to offer. But it probably keeps Assembly running red. Greig Smith is the current Councilman for District 12 and he’s on his way out. I’d bet he’s runining for Smyth’s seat next year.
  10. MikeJune 5, 2011 at 11:11 pm
    I was thinking the same thing. I was also thinking: what kind of name is Greig?
  11. Timothy Myers SR.June 6, 2011 at 9:37 am
    Todd: Thanks for the Kudos but they belong to Mike Devlin, who put together this post and analysis.
  12. ToddJune 6, 2011 at 9:59 am
    Egad! You’re right. My bad. Props to Mike!
  13. Timothy Myers SR.June 6, 2011 at 9:39 am
    The map is incredibly hard to read, but I agree that it seems to come very close to the map of the Assembly District that Keith Richman served in.
  14. MikeJune 6, 2011 at 12:53 pm
    Great write-up on Venturatalk.com about these maps: http://www.venturatalk.com/2011/06/06/redistricting/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=redistricting

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support