US House Redistricting: Texas

[krazen1211]

Senate Plan

Cuts down a bit on the NE arm of 10, and adds areas in west Fort Worth and Tarrant County.

Wendy Davis was hoping to keep more of the district which Perry carried by +8, and was +18 down ballot.   What a whiner.

She must know at this point that she has become to utterly repugnant to Texas whites that she has no chance at winning even that district. McCain got about 52% there.

[krazen1211]

Yeah, just playing with the overlay feature. There are minorish changes to the 20th/23rd and 23rd/28th boundary; the latter removing the splits of Maverick and Atascosa. (I wonder whether these changes marginally affect the partisan balance in the D favor? A direct full nonrounded comparison of presidential figures for old 23rd, lege plan 23rd, this 23rd, and maybe the Court's 23rd is what I'd like to see.)
There's also a confusing array of mostly very minor changes in Harris, Ft Bend, Brazoria and Galveston, affecting all districts but the 8th and 10th.
The rest of the change is all Dallas/Tarrant, with minor change to the 30th and 32nd, sizable & reasonable change to the 26th, and massive changes to the 6th and 12th (and 33nd, duh, which has very little overlap with the original version)... while the 24th, 5th and 3rd are actually not changed at all.

Sorry I can't give you better, but:

Roughly:

Existing TX-23 is 51% Obama
Legislature's is 48% Obama
SA Court's dead plan is 51% Obama
C226 is 49.7% Obama (he won it barely).

Data here:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=1n71iXrMOYIkh770Q7axdYr3Hl5XiB9hXQDwAjuJSvZaLOVKwRIm285dK7xA6&hl=en_US

Compared to the legislature's map, that section of Maverick hurts (hence they removed it). But Quico got his desired precincts in Bexar/El Paso which is really the massive bulk of the district anyway.

TX-33 is less than 40% CVAP, but of course heavily Democratic (69% Obama). Compared to the Court's TX-33, it lowers black CVAP and increases Hispanic CVAP. As everyone has said from the beginning you cannot hit 50% CVAP in DFW, and I think they barely just hit it in Houston this decade (2 decades after the district was drawn).

Minor changes were made elsewhere to move people's houses and offices in/out.

[krazen1211]

Probably just checking to see if Dems might go for an Ohio style "deal".

Well, it worked.
.

Has it? My twitter feed is reporting that this Republican victory didn't actually materialize because too many plaintiffs rejected it.

Well, they won't get their primary date, no. But I'd say these maps are quite a bit more likely than any other set of maps as they were drawn according to the Supreme Court criteria and the others were not.

But it's not a Republican victory, really. 11 districts for the Democrats is far out of proportion to what Texas Republicans want.

[krazen1211]

The NAACP is proposing a Dem gerrymander and spouting one of the more amusing advisory opinions around.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BxeOfQQnUr_gY2Q1YjM1MDMtNGRjZC00ZjhkLWJlMmItOTY1NWU2ZjBkYTc2&pli=1



Apparently, they are upset at blacks being removed from TX-6 and TX-24 to be moved into the new TX-33......

[krazen1211]

The NAACP is proposing a Dem gerrymander and spouting one of the more amusing advisory opinions around.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BxeOfQQnUr_gY2Q1YjM1MDMtNGRjZC00ZjhkLWJlMmItOTY1NWU2ZjBkYTc2&pli=1



Apparently, they are upset at blacks being removed from TX-6 and TX-24 to be moved into the new TX-33......

The memo claims both a section 2 and 5 violation, but much of the argument is about coalition districts which are only optional under section 2. The only relevance of section 5 here is if the SA court is going to rule that the DC case will likely find a section 5 deficiency. So it seems to me that much of his argument misses the target. But I admit that this is a tangled mess, and I may have missed something.

Well, for one, his last sentence is that the San Antonio Court should begin with plan C220. Of course, the Supreme Court ordered them to begin with plan C185.


Blacks are 16.2% of benchmark district 6 and 17.5% of plan C226 district 6. So its quite funny to see him claim that blacks have a better shot at the benchmark than the new district.....

[krazen1211]

The arguments from the plaintiffs get dumber and dumber.

First, they complained that 'nearly half' of Anglo house districts within 1 county were underpopulated. Apparently, they did not realize that such meant that 'more than half' of Anglo house districts were overpopulated.

Now, they come up with this gem.


https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxeOfQQnUr_gY2YyMWUyNmUtYzMwNC00NjRhLTkwNGEtZWE5ZTQ5Mzg2MWZl/edit?pli=1


Perhaps even more troubling is the "lost votes" present in the compromise plan. As this
court is aware, there was an effort by the Speaker's staff to cynically game the system to draw districts that created the illusion of voting strength for candidates of choice of the Latino
The compromise plan is the codification of that intentionally discriminatory process.
On average, the candidate of choice of the Latino community can expect fewer votes and less
voting strength as a result of this problem.


Average Midterm
Average Presidential

-13,917
-26,974





By golly, a district with ~850,000 people in it provides fewer votes than a district with ~700,000 people in it.

[krazen1211]

The NAACP is proposing a Dem gerrymander and spouting one of the more amusing advisory opinions around.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BxeOfQQnUr_gY2Q1YjM1MDMtNGRjZC00ZjhkLWJlMmItOTY1NWU2ZjBkYTc2&pli=1



Apparently, they are upset at blacks being removed from TX-6 and TX-24 to be moved into the new TX-33......

The memo claims both a section 2 and 5 violation, but much of the argument is about coalition districts which are only optional under section 2. The only relevance of section 5 here is if the SA court is going to rule that the DC case will likely find a section 5 deficiency. So it seems to me that much of his argument misses the target. But I admit that this is a tangled mess, and I may have missed something.

Further update. The Latino groups are extremely upset at the NAACP and the black groups for trying to rig TX-33 in favor of Marc Veasey rather than a Latino.



The advisory described the changes as an effort “to capitalize on racially polarized voting to benefit non-Latino candidates in the Democratic primary.”

[krazen1211]

New maps are out.

http://txredistricting.org/


As far as I can initially tell they are the state/MALDEF maps.

[krazen1211]

A lot of moaning among the plaintiffs, naturally. Expected appeal of course, though tough to say on what grounds.

Canseco has 100k Bexar Anglos that will provide him with just about all the vote. You only get ~28% of the district to be Anglo so you have to make them count. Bexar Anglos are surely preferable to rural Anglos that might just vote for Peter Gallegeo.

[krazen1211]

Well, Nick Lampson thinks he can win. I'm not sure what the point is; in the event he does they will redistrict him out again..


TX-15 dropped from 60 to 57% Obama. Might be interesting in a 2010 wave.

[krazen1211]

Can someone explain to me how precedent does not rule the removal of all of Nueces (as opposed to just the Anglo portion) an illegal retrogression?
Now, I understand it was done because it helps insulate Farenthold in the primary and cook the new 34rd for someone from elsewhere (who's the likely new Democrat here and where's he from - Cameron I suppose?) but what I'd like to know is what would the minimal necessary changes be to undo it? Basically, put the solidly Hispanic areas of Nueces into the 34th, bring the 27th up to population with areas included in the Hispanic districts that are not Hispanic and/or were not included in VRA districts previously; how much do you need to change exactly?

According to the bolded logic, the Democrats never would have been able to remove Montgomery County (Alabama) from the 7th district. Yet they did.

I'm curious as to why anyone cares about this.

Texas 15 and Texas 34 have a lot of Anglo northern Counties. If you swap those Anglo counties into TX-27 and swap out Latinos, you're just packing the Latino districts more and making TX-27 even safer.

Nueces County has about 200,000 Latinos. Taking them out of Texas-27 means replacing them with some portion of the following following counties, all Republican.

Guadalupe and Bexar alone probably could do it.




Bee (100%) 31,861 10,967 2,716 17,906 20,490 404 34.4 8.5 56.2 64.3 1.3
De Witt (100%) 20,097 11,482 2,030 6,502 8,366 249 57.1 10.1 32.4 41.6 1.2
Goliad (100%) 7,210 4,337 385 2,462 2,794 79 60.2 5.3 34.1 38.8 1.1
Gonzales (31%) 6,139 2,841 209 3,073 3,242 56 46.3 3.4 50.1 52.8 0.9
Guadalupe (83%) 108,688 58,393 7,360 41,045 47,637 2,658 53.7 6.8 37.8 43.8 2.4
Karnes (100%) 14,824 5,956 1,422 7,376 8,747 121 40.2 9.6 49.8 59.0 0.8
Live Oak (100%) 11,531 6,805 533 4,060 4,536 190 59.0 4.6 35.2 39.3 1.6
Wilson (10%) 4,188 2,840 52 1,266 1,308 40 67.8 1.2 30.2 31.2 1.
Bexar (9%) 158,356 60,509 31,513 62,527 91,419 6,428 38.2 19.9 39.5 57.7 4.1

[krazen1211]

http://www.texasmonthly.com/blogs/burkablog/?p=12917&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


 It was a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth.

[krazen1211]

According to the bolded logic, the Democrats never would have been able to remove Montgomery County (Alabama) from the 7th district. Yet they did.

Yeah, I know.

Basically these are the kind of things you can't do if you want to be extra certain to follow the case law to the t, but that legislatures will be fine with taking a low-risk gamble on. As such, its presence in what's officially a court map stinks a little. But, like, that doesn't tell us anything about these proceedings that we didn't know already.

Jim: Where is Corpus distant compared to, you know, the places northwest of it that were used instead?

I suspect some aspect of this might help in 2020. If population growth in Hidalgo county continues at 20% they simply remove the northern counties for a new district.

[krazen1211]

If anyone wants to see potent rule governed gerrymandering, check out the Dallas County (8 safe seats out of 14) and Tarrant (8 safe seats out of 11) in the Texas House map.

[krazen1211]

Texas voter ID was of course just rejected by the DOJ. Highly expected and the lawsuits were already filed accordingly months ago.

[krazen1211]

MALDEF brief on TX-25.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxeOfQQnUr_gVnAyTjN5aUFRR09iNnU3cE01SDAtdw/edit?pli=1#

Under this logic, any majority-minority district can be dismantled, its Latino and Black voters scattered into districts where they constitute less than 30% of the voters, and, as long as a Democratic candidate wins the General Election, the Voting Rights Act will be satisfied. That is simply not the case.

However, the Voting Rights Act does not exist to protect political parties or office-holders. The Court need not accept the invitation to hold that any district, regardless of its demographic composition or level of polarized voting, is protected by section 5 simply because minority voters agree with the outcome of the General Election because such a holding would stretch section 5 beyond any reasonable interpretation.

[krazen1211]

Texas has just requested that Section 5 be tossed.

[krazen1211]

MALDEF brief on TX-25.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxeOfQQnUr_gVnAyTjN5aUFRR09iNnU3cE01SDAtdw/edit?pli=1#

Under this logic, any majority-minority district can be dismantled, its Latino and Black voters scattered into districts where they constitute less than 30% of the voters, and, as long as a Democratic candidate wins the General Election, the Voting Rights Act will be satisfied. That is simply not the case.

I read just the opposite. The brief argues that a section 5 minority district must show that the minority can control the primary as well as the general election. They specifically argue that Doggett's district does not meet that test and can claim no section 5 protection.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is from the brief and affirms what I said above. MALDEF is arguing against the protection of Doggett's district.

Ah, yes. The 'logic' being referred to is that of the Travis County plaintiffs, who want to functionally extend S5 to all Democratic districts.

[krazen1211]

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxeOfQQnUr_gOEx1X0dxbllTS3VhVmxtRk9aSjJ6QQ/edit

Ultimately, the court decided that - on an interim basis - the loss of CD-25 was offset for the district’s Hispanic population by inclusion of most of the Hispanic population in the new CD-35 and that the impact on the district’s African-American population was offset by the creation of the new CD-33 in North Texas.

[krazen1211]

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxeOfQQnUr_gOEx1X0dxbllTS3VhVmxtRk9aSjJ6QQ/edit

Ultimately, the court decided that - on an interim basis - the loss of CD-25 was offset for the district’s Hispanic population by inclusion of most of the Hispanic population in the new CD-35 and that the impact on the district’s African-American population was offset by the creation of the new CD-33 in North Texas.

I don't interpret it that way.

23 is kept at benchmark performance;

33 is to address issues of fragmentation of the minority population in the DFW area, and the court doesn't believe a compact Hispanic CVAP majority district can be drawn.

35 addresses statewide retrogression claims, and 25 is not protected.   And because it is not possible to create 8 compact Hispanic districts in south Texas (maybe the Supreme Court will decide that 15, 23, 25, 27, 28, 33, 34, and 35 are all non-compact),

What is not addressed is whether 33 is a required district or not. The Court seems to be leaning no, which is excellent for the GOP for a mid-decade redistricting.

[krazen1211]

BTW, El Paso County, TX has more than the population of a congressional district but of that population, 82.2% is Hispanic. Only 13.1% (about 100,000 people) is non-Hispanic white. At least some of them are presumably in TX-23 and not TX-16.

It looks like BSB is responding to the fact that the winner has an Irish surname, but that's not relevant to VRA. If there's racially polarized voting in El Paso, than almost definitionally it's not Anglos who are winning.

Very few, if memory serves. The state intentionally drew TX-23 to include El Paso County Hispanics, so they could balance it with Bexar County whites.

Bexar County whites are much preferred for Quico Canseco.

[krazen1211]

How does it make any sense to still be deliberating over the maps when the congressional primaries have already taken place?

The GOP will certainly attempt to have the state map put in place for the 2012 elections with a favorable court ruling. Or of course redistrict in 2013 to take their districts back.

[krazen1211]

How does it make any sense to still be deliberating over the maps when the congressional primaries have already taken place?

So they didn't pass an injunction against using the maps which of course means they'll probably dismiss all suits, but they haven't done that yet.

As to the question - I wouldn't doubt for a minute that what White vote there is in El Paso played a role in fashioning that winning coalition. But it's a bit questionable how much more Hispanics can be packed into the district... and anyways it, cough, borders another rather more marginally Hispanic opportunity district, and no other district whatsoever. So fixing this district would require bumping the 23rd's Hispanic share as well, presumably in San Antonio, and you would hate that. Bottom line: no one with court access has an interest in it, and thus it will not happen.

Well, the DOJ claims that TX-23 is not a performing district, anyway. Swapping TX-16 whites for TX-23 Hispanics would merely explicitly affirm that status.

[krazen1211]

Texas 33rd goes 53% for Veasey (black) and Garcia (Hispanic).

http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/results/july31_163_race5.htm


http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20120801-veasey-defeats-garcia-in-new-33rd-congressional-district.ece

“Veasey did not play in Dallas like we all thought he would,” said Dallas political consultant Vinny Minchillo. “He stuck with the Fort Worth, predominantly black vote and won. ”


Garcia also waited too long to try to fire up Hispanic voters. In the last week of the campaign, he said 1.5 million Hispanics in North Texas were without representation in Congress.




Certainly Hispanics in TX-33 are not able to elect their candidate of choice in this district. This district has 84000 blacks and 287000 hispanics.

[krazen1211]

Certainly Hispanics in TX-33 are not able to elect their candidate of choice in this district. This district has 84000 blacks and 287000 hispanics.

With only 30,000 votes cast, it appears that neither candidate was the candidate of their choice. That would be "none of the above." 

This is an interesting situation.

20,412 which was an increase from 18,868 in the primary.

I wonder how many of those were outside Veasey's Tarrant County house district.


Veasey, in one of the more amusing claims of the year, claims that Ted Cruz and the Republican party does not represent 'mainstream' Texas. I wonder how he came to that conclusion as Cruz will possibly hit 60% and is guaranteed 55%.