Spreadsheet

    Demographics of the new state Assembly districts

    The Cali­for­nia Cit­izens Re­dis­trict­ing Com­mis­sion tent­at­ively ap­proved new state polit­ic­al maps on Ju­ly 29. A fi­nal vote is sched­uled Au­gust 15 after a two-week pub­lic re­view peri­od. Here is a look at the break­down of party re­gis­tra­tion and race/eth­ni­city for the newly drawn dis­tricts. Click on a dis­trict’s num­ber or name code to see a map of that dis­trict. Read more: Pan­el’s fi­nal re­dis­trict­ing maps drawn.

    Published:
    July 29, 2011
       Download: CSV | XLS | JSON
    Search:
    1/1 per page
    District Name code Population Democrat Republican Other party White Black Asian Latino Other
    1 MTCAP 466,514 30.7% 44.0% 25.3% 82.1% 1.2% 1.7% 9.8% 5.1%
    2 DMNDO 463,404 46.6% 25.8% 27.5% 71.5% 1.2% 2.8% 18.0% 6.6%
    3 YUBA 468,983 33.8% 41.8% 24.4% 65.0% 1.6% 6.3% 22.2% 4.9%
    4 NAPA 466,385 46.8% 27.1% 26.1% 57.8% 1.7% 7.6% 29.3% 3.7%
    5 FTHLL 463,049 33.1% 43.3% 23.6% 67.0% 1.8% 1.6% 25.8% 3.8%
    6 NSAC 468,939 28.9% 49.0% 22.1% 74.5% 2.1% 7.4% 12.0% 4.0%
    7 WSAC 464,310 48.0% 27.0% 25.0% 43.3% 10.1% 14.4% 26.9% 5.3%
    8 ESAC 463,773 40.6% 38.3% 21.1% 61.2% 7.4% 8.5% 17.7% 5.2%
    9 SACEG 468,512 46.2% 33.0% 20.8% 34.4% 11.9% 22.2% 26.3% 5.1%
    10 MARIN 465,830 54.1% 20.0% 25.9% 68.7% 2.1% 4.9% 20.8% 3.5%
    11 ECC 466,986 48.2% 28.3% 23.5% 44.1% 12.3% 10.5% 27.6% 5.6%
    12 STNSJ 461,766 38.3% 41.7% 20.1% 53.2% 2.7% 6.1% 34.4% 3.6%
    13 STKTN 461,772 47.7% 34.1% 18.2% 27.9% 9.3% 17.9% 40.8% 4.2%
    14 PTANT 466,848 51.9% 23.4% 24.6% 44.9% 9.7% 15.3% 25.4% 4.7%
    15 WCC 469,144 64.8% 9.0% 26.2% 39.4% 15.6% 18.4% 21.7% 4.9%
    16 EALAM 465,945 40.1% 34.6% 25.3% 64.4% 2.4% 18.1% 11.0% 4.1%
    17 ESF 467,501 59.2% 7.3% 33.5% 41.3% 7.7% 28.3% 18.9% 3.8%
    18 OKLND 469,665 63.6% 10.5% 25.9% 24.0% 22.6% 22.9% 26.3% 4.2%
    19 WSFDC 467,767 53.0% 12.7% 34.4% 35.1% 3.1% 44.2% 13.8% 3.7%
    20 HYWRD 461,362 54.6% 17.8% 27.6% 25.8% 8.2% 32.5% 28.8% 4.7%
    21 MRCED 461,301 48.2% 33.2% 18.7% 33.6% 3.2% 6.3% 54.3% 2.7%
    22 NSNMT 462,734 51.2% 21.5% 27.2% 48.0% 1.8% 22.6% 23.4% 4.2%
    23 FRSNO 468,185 34.9% 46.4% 18.6% 48.6% 5.0% 10.7% 32.2% 3.5%
    24 SSNMT 464,599 48.1% 22.3% 29.6% 47.4% 2.7% 26.1% 20.1% 3.8%
    25 MLPTS 461,206 45.9% 20.3% 33.8% 24.2% 2.8% 49.6% 19.7% 3.7%
    26 TLRE 470,166 34.3% 45.4% 20.3% 35.2% 1.2% 3.1% 57.7% 2.8%
    27 SANJO 464,103 49.6% 20.0% 30.4% 15.7% 3.0% 32.5% 46.3% 2.5%
    28 SILIV 466,090 43.5% 27.0% 29.4% 50.4% 2.2% 26.2% 17.4% 3.9%
    29 WMONT 465,870 49.7% 23.6% 26.7% 60.9% 2.2% 9.3% 23.5% 4.1%
    30 MONT 465,431 54.5% 25.1% 20.4% 25.1% 1.7% 4.9% 66.3% 2.1%
    31 FSEC2 468,265 50.0% 33.0% 17.0% 17.3% 4.6% 8.1% 68.1% 1.8%
    32 KINGS 466,850 47.5% 33.9% 18.7% 19.5% 6.2% 3.3% 68.9% 2.2%
    33 MISBK 469,288 33.8% 42.0% 24.2% 45.5% 9.1% 2.9% 38.9% 3.6%
    34 BKRFD 466,780 29.2% 50.2% 20.6% 54.1% 4.8% 4.9% 32.9% 3.4%
    35 SLOSB 467,334 35.2% 40.3% 24.5% 55.7% 2.1% 3.6% 35.7% 2.9%
    36 LAAVV 463,038 37.0% 40.5% 22.5% 37.7% 13.4% 4.0% 41.6% 3.3%
    37 SBWVE 466,200 45.6% 29.6% 24.8% 53.8% 1.3% 4.3% 37.9% 2.7%
    38 LASCV 469,883 34.7% 41.7% 23.7% 55.6% 3.2% 12.1% 25.8% 3.3%
    39 LASFE 466,422 54.1% 19.8% 26.1% 20.3% 3.1% 6.4% 68.5% 1.7%
    40 SBCUC 462,470 37.9% 40.1% 22.0% 35.6% 10.5% 8.5% 42.3% 3.1%
    41 LASGF 462,507 43.0% 33.8% 23.2% 46.1% 8.0% 11.9% 30.7% 3.3%
    42 BBCOH 462,952 33.9% 44.8% 21.3% 59.6% 3.8% 3.5% 29.9% 3.2%
    43 LAGBP 468,406 44.7% 27.0% 28.4% 55.9% 1.9% 15.5% 23.3% 3.3%
    44 EVENT 462,271 39.4% 37.2% 23.4% 45.3% 1.8% 7.8% 42.5% 2.6%
    45 LAVSF 467,766 48.1% 26.9% 25.0% 49.9% 4.0% 12.2% 30.4% 3.5%
    46 LASFW 464,441 53.9% 18.8% 27.3% 40.0% 4.3% 8.7% 44.4% 2.6%
    47 RLTFO 470,257 49.6% 28.9% 21.5% 14.3% 10.5% 4.6% 68.7% 1.9%
    48 LACVN 461,346 46.8% 29.6% 23.6% 19.4% 2.5% 12.5% 64.0% 1.6%
    49 LAWSG 462,545 41.4% 25.8% 32.9% 12.5% 0.8% 52.7% 32.5% 1.5%
    50 LAMWS 470,048 53.0% 19.0% 27.9% 71.2% 3.7% 9.3% 12.0% 3.7%
    51 LAELA 465,643 60.7% 13.3% 26.0% 10.9% 2.2% 13.9% 71.6% 1.4%
    52 POMVL 465,678 48.0% 29.7% 22.3% 17.2% 5.7% 7.2% 68.1% 1.8%
    53 LADNT 463,916 60.2% 12.8% 27.0% 7.2% 5.1% 18.0% 68.3% 1.3%
    54 LAWSC 466,445 64.3% 11.9% 23.8% 29.5% 24.6% 11.6% 30.5% 3.8%
    55 DBRYL 461,696 31.7% 42.0% 26.3% 34.0% 2.5% 30.9% 30.0% 2.6%
    56 COACH 465,302 48.9% 32.6% 18.5% 21.9% 2.9% 1.8% 71.8% 1.6%
    57 LAPRW 465,845 48.1% 29.5% 22.4% 18.2% 1.5% 11.1% 67.7% 1.4%
    58 LADNN 468,258 53.6% 23.4% 23.0% 13.2% 4.4% 13.8% 67.2% 1.5%
    59 LAVSQ 465,168 71.3% 8.1% 20.5% 2.6% 19.2% 2.0% 75.0% 1.2%
    60 RIVJU 470,287 36.4% 40.3% 23.3% 31.6% 5.2% 8.2% 52.5% 2.5%
    61 MTRMV 470,325 42.5% 35.5% 21.9% 25.8% 12.1% 6.8% 52.3% 2.9%
    62 LAIHG 466,713 61.2% 15.2% 23.5% 22.8% 24.8% 6.3% 43.2% 2.9%
    63 LASGL 461,153 57.8% 19.5% 22.7% 11.1% 7.2% 6.0% 74.2% 1.5%
    64 LAWBC 466,400 67.7% 12.1% 20.2% 3.3% 25.4% 7.4% 62.2% 1.6%
    65 ANAFL 461,510 36.7% 38.4% 24.9% 31.0% 2.8% 24.7% 38.8% 2.6%
    66 LAPVB 467,745 38.5% 35.7% 25.9% 46.3% 4.5% 24.1% 21.0% 4.0%
    67 MGOBN 462,769 29.4% 47.3% 23.3% 50.8% 4.7% 6.3% 34.7% 3.4%
    68 TUSTO 463,053 28.5% 46.6% 25.0% 48.6% 1.5% 18.5% 28.1% 3.2%
    69 SNANA 465,317 50.3% 28.6% 21.1% 12.1% 1.4% 9.2% 76.1% 1.1%
    70 LALBS 468,514 49.3% 25.7% 25.0% 35.1% 10.3% 12.5% 38.7% 3.4%
    71 ISAND 462,584 29.7% 45.4% 24.9% 63.9% 4.1% 3.4% 24.1% 4.4%
    72 WESTC 469,933 31.7% 43.2% 25.1% 38.7% 0.9% 32.1% 25.7% 2.7%
    73 STHOC 461,101 25.6% 49.0% 25.4% 69.0% 1.1% 8.3% 18.0% 3.6%
    74 CSTOC 470,248 29.5% 42.9% 27.6% 63.2% 1.1% 16.7% 15.4% 3.6%
    75 MURTM 465,548 26.0% 48.7% 25.3% 51.5% 2.3% 7.0% 35.4% 3.7%
    76 NCSAN 468,627 30.9% 41.3% 27.8% 57.9% 3.0% 6.1% 29.3% 3.7%
    77 RCHMM 464,066 30.6% 39.9% 29.6% 57.5% 2.6% 22.9% 12.5% 4.5%
    78 CNSAN 461,885 41.0% 27.8% 31.2% 64.6% 4.1% 9.1% 18.4% 3.8%
    79 LMSAND 466,416 43.8% 29.9% 26.3% 33.5% 10.3% 18.3% 33.8% 4.1%
    80 SSAND 464,602 49.7% 22.8% 27.5% 14.3% 6.2% 9.5% 67.7% 2.3%

    Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; California Citizens Redistricting Commission; Statewide Database, University of California Berkeley Law, Center for Research

    Credits: Thomas Suh Lauder, Sandra Poindexter, Doug Smith, Allan Vestal and Ben Welsh

    Advertisement

    Readers: What’s your take? Share it here.