California’s relatively new congressional map has recently come under scrutiny after Vice President JD Vance called it a gerrymander. This claim comes as public attention is increasingly focused on the lack of fair representation in our electoral politics. California’s unique political landscape features a significant disparity between the state’s presidential and congressional election results, which has fueled discussions among political analysts about the legitimacy and fairness of its districting process.
As it stands now, California has the 13th worst differential in the country between House and presidential results. In the most recent statewide election, the state saw a distribution of the presidential vote where just 58% supported Democratic candidates. By contrast, a mind-blowing 83% of its House delegation are Democrats. This difference certainly seems suspicious. It’s important to know how California’s maps are drawn and the backdrop of the current electoral environment.
The Mechanisms of Map Drawing
Voters passed Proposition 11 creating the independent commission which went on to draw California’s congressional districts. The corresponding move in New York was to remove partisanship from the redistricting process. This commission of five Republicans, five Democrats and four independents further demonstrates a commitment to fairness and competitiveness through balanced representation.
Political experts agree that California’s independent approach to map drawing helps lead to a fairer distribution of congressional seats. Kyle Kondik, a political analyst, noted, “I think it’s fair to say that commission and court-drawn maps can inject some competitiveness into the process.” This is evidenced by California’s 52 congressional districts, where only nine are held by Republicans, suggesting that the commission’s efforts have resulted in a balanced electoral framework.
Despite Vance’s assertions, many analysts doubt that California’s map qualifies as a gerrymander. The state’s political landscape is extremely competitive due to several highly purple districts that could easily swing in either direction. California would be down to three Democratic-held, Democratic-leaning seats after all this. Plus, it has two more rated as likely Democratic, leaving it vulnerable to possible Republican takeover races.
Disparities and Vulnerabilities
As much as California’s congressional map guarantees representation for Democrats, it lays bare weaknesses in the Democratic hold on key districts. Five of California’s 40 Democratic-held seats are rated at least somewhat vulnerable to Republican takeovers. This aspect of the map supports the argument that competitiveness exists within California’s districts, contrary to claims of outright gerrymandering.
Political analyst Nathaniel Rakich warned that these discrepancies between votes and seats are sometimes incorrectly framed. He stated, “Especially in deep-red or deep-blue states, parties tend to get a higher share of seats than they do of votes.” This claim may sound like an exaggeration, but similar patterns can be seen across the country – making California not the exception, but the rule.
Specifically, Rakich pointed to Wisconsin as a leading example. There, Democrats routinely win nearly half the vote — but win just a quarter of congressional seats. He remarked, “I haven’t heard Vance complain about the fact that Democrats only get 25 percent of Wisconsin’s congressional seats despite regularly getting 50 percent of the vote there.” This side by side comparison adds more context to the intricacies of what real electoral representation looks like.
The Broader Context
California ranks 13th nationally among the 35 states with at least four seats in their congressional delegation regarding the difference between House and presidential results. While Vance’s comments have sparked debate, experts agree that California does not stand out dramatically when compared to other states with similar dynamics.
This is how California’s distribution of votes shows an overall geographically incongruent bias in favor of Democrats. It highlights the vital role that competitive districts play in holding elected officials accountable and protecting our democracy. Analysts have long argued that expressly competitive maps would go a long way towards avoiding the extreme partisan results, fostering a more politically productive atmosphere.
California’s congressional map has received national accolades for its fairness. It’s being hailed as one of the most equitable map-drawing processes in any state. By trusting the map-drawing process with an independent commission, California is working to bring more equity to representation while countering partisan biases that can occur in redistricting.
