Spreadsheet

Demographics of the new congressional 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 702,905 31.5% 43.5% 24.9% 79.1% 1.3% 2.5% 12.0% 5.1%
2 NOCST 702,905 49.9% 22.8% 27.2% 72.8% 1.6% 3.5% 16.6% 5.4%
3 YUBA 702,906 42.2% 33.0% 24.8% 50.9% 5.9% 10.4% 27.8% 5.1%
4 FTHLL 702,906 30.3% 46.3% 23.4% 78.2% 1.2% 4.1% 12.4% 4.1%
5 NEBAY 702,905 52.3% 22.9% 24.8% 52.8% 6.4% 11.0% 25.7% 4.1%
6 SAC 702,905 49.8% 26.6% 23.7% 38.9% 12.6% 16.2% 27.0% 5.4%
7 SACCO 702,904 39.5% 38.9% 21.6% 57.2% 7.3% 14.3% 16.1% 5.1%
8 INMSB 702,905 33.0% 43.0% 24.0% 50.2% 7.5% 3.2% 35.3% 3.8%
9 SNJOA 702,904 45.3% 35.9% 18.8% 36.9% 8.3% 13.7% 37.2% 4.0%
10 STANI 702,905 42.4% 37.4% 20.2% 46.4% 3.2% 6.6% 40.1% 3.7%
11 COCO 702,906 50.1% 26.1% 23.8% 48.6% 8.9% 12.8% 25.6% 4.1%
12 SF 702,905 56.5% 9.2% 34.4% 44.0% 5.9% 31.6% 14.7% 3.8%
13 OKLND 702,906 64.1% 9.1% 26.7% 34.2% 19.2% 21.1% 20.8% 4.7%
14 SNMAT 702,905 52.8% 18.3% 28.8% 36.9% 3.2% 31.7% 24.3% 3.9%
15 FRENE 702,904 48.6% 24.2% 27.2% 37.5% 6.5% 28.1% 23.4% 4.6%
16 MRCED 702,904 48.2% 33.5% 18.3% 25.1% 5.8% 8.6% 58.0% 2.5%
17 SANJO 702,904 44.6% 20.8% 34.6% 26.8% 2.4% 49.7% 17.5% 3.7%
18 SNMSC 702,906 45.9% 25.8% 28.2% 57.9% 1.9% 19.1% 17.1% 4.0%
19 SNACL 702,904 48.1% 23.7% 28.2% 27.0% 2.8% 25.9% 41.4% 2.9%
20 MONT 702,906 54.4% 22.5% 23.1% 39.2% 2.0% 5.3% 50.7% 2.9%
21 KINGS 702,904 46.2% 35.6% 18.2% 19.3% 4.4% 3.4% 71.0% 1.9%
22 FRSNO 702,905 33.9% 47.3% 18.8% 42.4% 2.8% 7.3% 44.8% 2.8%
23 KR 702,904 30.5% 48.4% 21.1% 50.6% 5.9% 4.5% 35.5% 3.5%
24 SLOSB 702,904 39.2% 35.4% 25.3% 57.1% 1.8% 4.1% 34.1% 2.9%
25 AVSCV 702,904 35.5% 41.5% 23.0% 45.8% 8.0% 7.7% 35.3% 3.2%
26 EVENT 702,905 41.3% 35.5% 23.2% 46.1% 1.6% 6.4% 43.2% 2.6%
27 SGVP 702,905 42.3% 29.5% 28.2% 29.2% 4.5% 37.0% 26.9% 2.5%
28 SGMFH 702,904 47.8% 23.5% 28.7% 55.3% 2.3% 13.5% 25.7% 3.2%
29 SFVET 702,905 56.3% 17.1% 26.6% 18.4% 3.6% 7.5% 68.7% 1.7%
30 SFVWC 702,904 48.9% 25.7% 25.4% 53.4% 4.2% 11.9% 27.0% 3.5%
31 SB 702,905 41.0% 37.5% 21.6% 29.7% 11.0% 7.2% 49.4% 2.7%
32 COVNA 702,905 47.5% 28.4% 24.1% 18.1% 2.5% 15.1% 62.6% 1.6%
33 WLADT 702,904 44.5% 28.6% 26.9% 68.5% 2.8% 13.5% 11.2% 4.0%
34 ELABH 702,904 59.1% 13.8% 27.1% 9.2% 4.4% 19.4% 65.4% 1.5%
35 ONTPM 702,905 48.6% 29.0% 22.4% 15.9% 6.7% 6.3% 69.4% 1.7%
36 COACH 702,905 38.7% 41.9% 19.3% 44.4% 3.6% 3.0% 46.6% 2.4%
37 IGWSGF 702,904 65.5% 11.2% 23.3% 24.3% 24.6% 9.3% 38.6% 3.3%
38 DWWTR 702,905 49.8% 27.6% 22.5% 18.9% 3.6% 14.5% 61.2% 1.8%
39 LHBYL 702,905 32.7% 41.3% 26.0% 34.1% 2.3% 28.5% 32.6% 2.5%
40 DOWNTOWN 702,904 62.1% 16.1% 21.8% 5.4% 5.1% 2.3% 86.5% 0.8%
41 RVMVN 702,904 41.6% 36.1% 22.3% 26.1% 9.5% 5.9% 55.9% 2.6%
42 PRS 702,906 30.3% 46.2% 23.5% 46.6% 5.1% 8.8% 36.2% 3.3%
43 IGWSG 702,904 59.4% 18.0% 22.5% 15.1% 23.6% 12.6% 46.0% 2.7%
44 COMP 702,904 64.3% 14.2% 21.4% 7.2% 16.8% 6.2% 68.4% 1.5%
45 STHOC 702,906 28.3% 45.6% 26.1% 55.5% 1.4% 20.9% 18.4% 3.8%
46 SNORN 702,906 44.9% 32.7% 22.5% 18.4% 1.7% 11.7% 66.6% 1.5%
47 LBPRT 702,905 42.7% 32.3% 25.0% 34.1% 7.3% 21.4% 34.1% 3.1%
48 WSTCST 702,906 28.7% 45.4% 25.9% 58.6% 0.9% 17.5% 19.9% 3.1%
49 CSTSN 702,906 29.0% 43.8% 27.2% 61.5% 2.3% 6.9% 25.8% 3.5%
50 NESAN 702,905 26.3% 48.3% 25.4% 58.6% 2.3% 5.1% 29.9% 4.0%
51 IMSAN 702,906 51.1% 23.1% 25.8% 14.4% 6.8% 8.1% 68.5% 2.2%
52 MMRHB 702,904 33.1% 36.3% 30.6% 62.1% 2.9% 17.9% 12.9% 4.2%
53 CHNCS 702,904 43.2% 29.6% 27.2% 43.1% 7.8% 13.2% 31.8% 4.2%

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.