Talk:California Citizens Redistricting Commission

Amazingly biased: "Efforts by the California Democratic Party subverted the process, resulting in districts drawn in their favor."

Every reference is a blog. There are no legitimate news articles. The thing about conspiracy theories is they're hard to verify. M i c 23:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

From looking over the history, it looks like User:RightCowLeftCoast is pushing this sentence. I see that everyone has their own biases, but when something sticks out so blatantly I don't feel like I can ignore it. User:RightCowLeftCoast, if you choose to reinsert this sentence please give a brief explanation here. M i c 00:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see the Washington Post article. It is hosted by a reliable secondary source, and in it the writer states:

There were also critics of the citizen’s redistricting process, and some reports indicated that the Democratic Party, in particular, subverted the process in order to get the map drawn in its favor. (Creating a truly independent process for redistricting has proven very difficult, though California’s attempt has earned praise.)

If it is believed that the critics should be attributed, I can see that as a worthy compromise, however to blank verified content is not in the best interest of the article.

Additionally, per WP:BRD please do not delete the content again until a consensus is reached as to what the outcome of this discussion is.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Before and after?

Why are there no maps? Or at least some examples of redrawn districts? Abductive (reasoning) 03:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

2025 update in the works

I'm working on a full update of this article, especially to fully reflect the work of the 2020 commission. russmoss (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Replacement commissioners

Russell Yee, per the edit summary of this edit here are my reasoning for moving the commissioners from the table to footnotes (here and here)

1. Including them in the table gives the wrong impression that there are 15 commissioners, rather than 14 because it's not readily apparent that the commissioners are replacements. Unless the reader would analyze the table, there would be 15 entries in the table, giving the wrong impression for the number of commissioners.
2. Although the appointment is for a decade, the redistricting work essentially ends within a year to 18 months.
3. Specifically for Kuo, her tenure on the commission lasted just over a month before she resiged. She therefore couldn't have accomplished too much on the commission (if anything at all, since it would be fair to presume that the commission did not do a whole lot of work during the year-end holiday season).

Green Montanan (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your reasoning. How about we leave Kuo in the footnotes but put Blando back in the table. The "Start" and "End" dates are pretty clear and I think it's more likely that someone would be confused not seeing a current, seated commissioner in the list. While you're right that Blando will serve without doing any redistricting per se, he is nevertheless a full, ongoing, serving commissioner in every legal sense. For instance, at some point he will probably chair the commission (we rotate the chair quarterly; his turn will come up in 2027 or so). russmoss (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Pictures

I'm thinking about adding some of my pics of the CCRC at work, any discouraging or encouraging thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russell Yee (talk • contribs) 03:53, 10 December 2025 (UTC)