Talk Elections

Farenthold's district and Doggett's district. Nothing in Metroplex.

Potential for VRA "bail-in" because of findings on racial discrimination.

Thread on @politicswolf on Twitter.

Jump to p. 104 here for specific findings.

http://redistricting.lls.edu/files/TX/TX%20perry%2020170815%20order.pdf

No discrimination/unconstitutional mapping found in Houston area or Metroplex because of lack of cohesion between African-American and Hispanic voters.

TX-23 passes muster as a Hispanic opportunity district. But we'll see what remedying TX-35 does here.

Great news!

I am going to draw a new map to fortify TX-07 and TX-32 while also preserving the GOP districts.

Literally who cares

I think krazen actually believe he has real political power.

The courts strike down districts in Corpus Christi and Austin....and Krazen thinks that means redrawing districts in Houston and Dallas....

One man one vote is the rule of the land, pal. Pushing one district into Austin pushes the other districts out.

New TX-07....6 points to the right!

()

New TX-32....4 points to the right!

()

New TX-35 and TX-27.

()

What I don't get here is that someone, somehow, has a computer good enough to get Texas to work

CA TX NY and for some reason OH

TX-23 getting a pass isn't much of a loss considering it's already winnable for Dems anyway.

TX-35 is probably the big game changer in this since Travis county is split between so many districts.   

My laptop is crap but it can run Texas no problem. California, New York, and at times Illinois are worse.

He's just trying to get a rise out of you.

An interesting tidbit is that between 2012 and 2016, Gallego's Hispanic support dropped by 6%, while turnout for Hispanics was increasing by 20%, while for Anglo voters it was only increasing by 10%.

The largest part of the decision focused on whether another coalition district could be drawn in DFW, and whether this was required by Section 2 of the VRA, and the Gingles Test which requires cohesion among minority voters. It was interesting to see how twisted the testimony could be. Some suggested that Republicans had crossed over to vote in the Democratic Primary in TX-33 in 2012 (rather than vote in the presidential primary, or the senate primary (Cruz-Dewhurst). Statewide the Republican turnout was 2-1/2 times that of the Democrats. Others suggested that Veasey was the first choice of Hispanics, because they didn't vote in the primary, and cast their first vote for Veasey.

Little time was spent with Houston, since to create more coalition districts, you would have to blow up existing districts.

This left them to focus on TX-35 and TX-27 (and avoid the absurdity that TX-28, TX-15, and TX-34 are "reasonably" compact).

Not really many. Travis County is only split among 5 districts. The Dem party split Will County IL among 6 districts.

How can you run Texas but not Illinois?

So are they literally just making districts for one term and then new ones AGAIN?

^

No trouble with OH but those other three are a hassle. TX required the patience of Job

Two terms, but yeah it's a travesty how long this Court took to work through this case.

What's really terrible about it is that it encourages the national parties to push state legislatures to gerrymander the hell out the maps in the next redistricting since the corrections by the courts take such a long time to process anyway that they basically get 2-3 free elections with rigged maps.

They will be used for 2018 and 2020.

But aren't people already registering for congressional candidacy for 2018? Sounds kinda illogical.

Damn, something needs to be done about Michigan. Districts 1-8 and 10-11 are incredibly bleached! And Melvindalers in MI-13 and Dearborners in MI-12 are cracked, since most of the people in those cities are Muslim. And the 13th and 14th districts are just black ghetto packing.

()

Would something like this work? It looks much cleaner than the current and I made sure there are plenty of Hispanic majority districts too

CD-16 (El Paso) 80% Hisp. Obama by 31
CD-23 (Big Bend) 76% Hisp. Obama by 0.4
CD-15 (Laredo) 91% Hisp. Obama by 40
CD-34 (Brownsville) 90% Hisp. Obama by 37
CD-27 (Corpus Christi) 58% Hisp. McCain by 8
CD-20 (South San Antonio) 78% Hisp. Obama by 34
CD-28 (North San Antonio) 47% Hisp. McCain by 2
CD-35 (Austin) 41% Hisp. 30% Hips. Obama by 46

There needs to be 7 hispanic majority districts.

The filing deadline is in December.

In 1996 and 2006 when the final decision came down after the primary, the congressional elections were held as special elections concurrent with the general election in November. In Texas special elections, there are no partisan primaries, all candidates run on the same ballot, and a majority is required. If no candidate receives a majority, there is a runoff in December.

In previous special elections, in partisan districts, the special election was a re-run of the primary.

Seems kinda inconvenient

Most of TX-35 is in Bexar County, so it stays, But there really is not a way to chop up Travis further, so it is better to have it as a Democratic sink. So TX-35 is divided into two districts.

Any honest person will agree that TX-34, TX-15, and TX-28 are not reasonably compact, and are clearly drawn for racial reasons: There are not enough people on the border to draw three districts, but there are enough Hispanics to provide a majority for three districts, so the districts are extended 100s of miles northward to get enough population.

Finally, Corpus Christi should have a district of its own based in the Coastal Bend.

So let's start with Travis County. In general we will pull TX-25 and TX-17 out of the county.

---

TX-25

TX-25 needs to replace the population it will lose in Travis, so we will add McLennan County. As we pull TX-25 out of Travis we will cut off the portion in western Hays, so that will be given to TX-21. We will also move the small part of Bell from TX-25 to TX-31, with the adjustment of TX-31 switched to the east side of that district.

About 162K persons are transferred to the redesignated TX-34 in Travis, reducing its portion of Travis from 241K to about 80K. While at first glance it appears that TX-25 only takes in the Lake Travis area, it has an extension that takes in much of central Austin.

Overall, TX-25 loses two part counties, and gains one whole county.

---

TX-17

In addition to the switch of McLennan to TX-25, TX-17 will lose all of its tongue into Travis, plus the connections through Bastrop and Lee. It picks up a small area in eastern Williamson (or Bell).

TX-17 adds Grimes, Houston, Leon (part), Madison, San Jacinto, Trinity, and Walker from TX-8, roughly 1/4 of the population of TX-8.

TX-17, to be continued.

---

TX-8

To make up for the loss of the northern part of the district to TX-17, TX-8 gains 180K from TX-10 in northwest Harris County. TX-8 will now consist of Montgomery and a portion of Harris (roughly 2/3 of the district will be in Montgomery.

Overall, TX-8 loses 6 whole counties and part of another,  and increases its share of Harris.

---

TX-17, continued.

We now add the remainder of Harris, as well as Washington and Waller from TX-10 to TX-17. Roughly 70 K will be added from extreme western and northwestern Harris. Finally, we reverse our decision to place all of Lee in TX-10, instead placing all but 2K in TX-17. In a remedial plan where exact equality is not required, we could place all of Lee in TX-17.

TX-17 loses one whole county (McLennan), and two part counties (Travis and Bastrop), while gaining all of Leon, and adding Grimes, Houston, Madison, San Jacinto, Trinity, Waller, Walker, and Washington.
TX-17 adds portions of Harris and Williamson, and increases its share of Lee.

---

TX-31

TX-31 currently consists of all of Williamson and most of Bell. It regains all of Bell from TX-25, and loses a portion of Williamson to TX-17. About 34K are added and detached from the district.

---

TX-21

TX-21 gains all of Comal from TX-35, and the western part of Hays from TX-25. To compensate about 70K in Travis are added to the redesignated TX-34. TX-21 share of Travis decreases from 189K to 119K.

---

TX-34 (redesignated)

The northern part of TX-35 is given the number 34 because it is the newest number. Its core is the portion TX-35 which is in Travis, Hays, and Caldwell. The Hays and Caldwell boundaries are unchanged, but TX-34 will gain 162K from TX-25, 70K from TX-21, and 152K from TX-10 in Travis, bring its share of Travis to about 600K.

Current shares of Travis: TX-10 244K; TX-25 241K; TX-35 216K; TX-21 189K; TX-17 134K.
New shares of Travis: TX-34 600K; TX-10 226K; TX-21 119K; TX-25 79K.

---

TX-35

Half of TX-35 is in Bexar and Guadalupe. We add the TX-28 portions of Bexar and Wilson, plus all of Atascosa; and the TX-15 portions of Guadelupe. This produces a compact district, with about 70% in Bexar, and 30% in the three suburban counties. It has 8467 to many persons, which we will account for later.

---

TX-10

TX-10 loses about 20K (net) in Travis plus the eastern part of the district. We compensate by adding the northern and eastern arm of TX-27, beginning the process of shifting that district south.

From TX-27, we add the remainder of Bastrop, and the TX-27 portions of Caldwell and Gonzales. In addition we add Lavaca, Jackson, Wharton and Matagorda.

Continuing, we add the Gonzales portion of (current) TX-34, as well as DeWitt, and Victoria from
TX-27.

We add about 8K from Guadalupe to eliminate the surplus in TX-35, as well as Karnes from TX-15, Goliad and Bee from (current) TX-34.

---

TX-35 continued.

The adjustment of 8452 persons from Guadelupe to TX-10 brings TX-35 to the ideal population. It has an HVAP of 50.1%, but also a BVAP of 10.2% which should make it a performing district.

---

TX-10 continued.

TX-10 is slightly underpopulated (1534) and forms a roughly triangular districts with vertices of Travis, Bee, and Matagorda counties.

---

TX-27

Having removed the northern arm, we replace with areas to the west and south of Corpus Christi:

McMullen from TX-28, Live Oak from TX-15, remainder of San Patricio from (current) TX-34.

Duval from TX-15, Jim Wells and Kleberg from (current) TX-34.

Willacy from (current) TX-34.

Finally we add 111K from Cameron to bring TX-27 up to the ideal population, including 1534 to be moved to TX-10.

---

TX-28

To replace the losses in San Antonio, we add 242K from Hidalgo. TX-28 will now consist of Webb, Zapata, Starr, and 362K in Hidalgo, about 1/2 the district.

---

TX-15

TX-15 will consist of 403K in Hidalgo and 295K in Cameron.

Especially for the candidates who thought they had been elected in the primary. The primary in Texas is in March, with a runoff in April (now May).

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/16/1690288/-Court-strikes-down-Texas-GOP-s-congressional-gerrymander-but-Democratic-victory-is-limited

DKos estimates it'll be at most a net 1 for Democrats, but even that's no guaranteed. I really don't get why they emphasize that the new representative will most likely be Latino. No wonder the white working class hates the left: this is blatant identity politics.

Ah yes, the white working class hate that the minorities will have a chance to elect people of their own race.  Very progressive of them.

You don't need a majority minority district to elect a minority candidate. See SC-Sen, UT-4, TX-23 is 75% Hispanic and they have a black representative. People don't necessarily vote based on who looks like them. I mean for next year, I'm a Hispanic college student supporting a black candidate for NH-1

Exactly my point. DKos (which I only read for news on elections btw) seems to have this idea that only a majority-minority district can elected a nonwhite congressman. It's not like all white people regardless of ideology won't vote for a nonwhite candidate.

You can point to a few which have in the past decade to try and make your point more palatable, but it doesn't change the crux of it.  But continue on your rants against minority communities having a member which is like them.  It really makes you look so pragmatic and progessive.

Studies have shown that generally a district needs to be minority-majority district in order for that community to elect a representative of their choice. It is one of the main tenants of the VRA.

I understand that part of the VRA, which is why Jim Clyburn, Terri Sewell, and Benny Thompson are in the house. I won't "rant" anymore, since my question seems to have been answered.

Here is a least change version, that only requires moving 801,592 persons.

Add the Travis portion of TX-35 to TX-27 (215,626). This fixes TX-35 except that it is underpopulated.

Move a similar portion (222,836, about 65%) of Nueces from TX-27 to TX-34. This fixes TX-27 since it no longer dilutes the voting power of Hispanics in Nueces County.

To get TX-35 to equality, move (139,231) from TX-15 to TX-35, including the remainder of Guadalupe, Wilson(part), Karnes, and Live Oak; and (78,522) from TX-34 to TX-35, including Gonzales(part), DeWitt, Bee, and San Patricio (part).

This truncates the northern extension of TX-15 and TX-34 at Duval-Jim Wells-Nueces, and provides better connectivity between San Antonio and the areas of TX-35 along I-35 to the south of Austin.

To make up for the losses of of TX-15, move (138,167), including 97K from Hidalgo, and Jim Wells. The 97K from Hidalgo leaves just 13K of TX-34 in Hidalgo.

And finally, move Goliad (7210) from TX-34 to TX-27 for population balance.

Doggett represents 70% of the new TX-35 so he will probably run there. Otherwise he can run against Fahrenthold in TX-27.

---

If you want more compactness bring TX-28 further east. It picks up Duval, Jim Wells, Brooks, and Jim Hogg from TX-15 in exchange for part of Hidalgo. This will put all of TX-15 in Hidalgo.

TX-28 also picks up Live Oak, Karnes, and Wilson(part), and Bee, DeWitt, Gonzales, and San Patricio (part) which we had moved into TX-35, and instead move much of the TX-28 part of Bexar into the new and improved TX-35.

In 2022, the new districts can be created in Travis, DFW, and Houston.

What's the ethnic / racial makeup of the 200,000+ voters in the Travis County portion of TX-35 that would move to TX-27? Predominantly Anglo like the remainder of TX-27, I would guess.

The portion of Travis in TX-35 is mostly Hispanics.


Link (http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/download/Congress/PLANC235r100.pdf)

Link (http://www.traviscountyclerk.org/eclerk/content/images/election_results/2016.11.08/Run12/20161108cume1.pdf)


Should be very easy to crack. Only 58k votes.

Interesting. It seems dumping those voters into Farenthold's Anglo district just as it sheds Hispanic voters in Nueces would make this map DOA when it hits the courts.

Exactly, what good does it do to move hispanics out of one part of the district just to add them to another part up north?   That's completely ridiculous.

Also,  I just put together the TX-27 district that Jimrtex described and I only achived about 48% hispanic,  so I'm wondering where exactly the 7th hispanic majority district will be.

The opinion clearly differentiated between Travis County hispanics vs others outside Travis County.

But of course your issue is with pure numbers. 220k Travis County (mostly) hispanics must be combined with 500k others to form a district. Your preference is that they be combined with a 500k Travis County white dominated population and thus be at the mercy of the white voters of Travis County.

In any case, a mere 58k votes can be added to any surrounding district or split among them, while TX-27 adds different areas of Travis County if that is your preference.

It matters not of course. The clock is almost out on the decade.

The State of Texas sought to stay the remedial proceedings by the district court, so that they could appeal  the courts interlocutory decision. The district court refused to stay their activity, claiming that they have not enjoined the use of the current map that they have labeled as intentionally discriminatory.

The State of Texas says that if the legislature would draw a new map, that they waive their right of appeal of the court's opinion, and also that it does not matter that the court labeled their opinion interlocutory, since it is tantamount to saying that the districts can not be used.

Presumably, the State of Texas will appeal to the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS will stay the remedial process.

You can't make TX-35 constitutional without shedding Travis County. Where are you going to put them?

Here is a plan that shifts a total of 1,025,227 persons, only involves 5 districts and produces much more compact districts:

TX-35

Drops Travis County 215,626 to TX-27, complying with court's decision forbidding a San Antonio-Austin district, gains remainder of Guadalupe (108,688) from TX-35, and more of Bexar (106,938) from TX-28.

Keeps 69.1% of current district. 62% of the district is in Bexar county, with the remainder along I-35 in Guadalupe, Comal, Hays, and Caldwell.

TX-27

Gains Travis County from TX-35 (215,626), DeWitt, Goliad, and remainder of Gonzales (33,446) from TX-34, loses 237,655 in Nueces to TX-34, and 11,416 in San Patricio to TX-28.

Keeps 64.3% of current district.

TX-28 Loses (106,938) to TX-35 in Bexar, and (52,450) to TX-15 in Hidalgo, gains (54,848) from TX-15: Brooks, Duval, Jim Hogg, Karnes, Live Oak, and remainder of Wilson; gains (93,124) from TX-34: Bee, Jom Wells, and part of San Patricio; gains (11,416) from TX-27 (a bit more of San Patricio).

Keeps 77.2% of current district. Currentlly 41.1% of the district is in the end counties of Hidalgo and Bexar. This is reduced to 18.2%.

TX-15 Loses (54,848) to TX-28: Brooks, Duval, Jim Hogg, Karnes, Live Oak, and Wilson(part); loses remainder of Guadalupe (108,688) to TX-35; Gains (111,086) Hidalgo (part) from TX-34; Gains (52,450) Hidalgo (part) from TX-28.

Keeps 76.6% of current district. New district will be entirely in Hidalgo county, as TX-34 is pushed out of the county.

TX-34 Loses (93,124) to TX-28: Bee, Jim Wells, and San Patricio (part); loses (33,446) to TX-27: DeWitt, Goliad, and remnant of Gonzales; loses (111,086) to TX-15: (remainder of Hidalgo); and gains (237,655) from TX-27: Nueces.

Keeps 66.0% of district, keeping only Cameron, Willacy, Kenedy, Kleberg, and gaining much of Nueces.

They never pretend to be a "very progressive". And if "a progressism" means to elect a minority candidates only, at the expense of all others - neither am i, though i have very little in common with WWC people.

Steve Cohen is better representative of Memphis black community then many black candidates would be. And, following your reasoning, why "progressives" are so incensed (look at dKos, for example), when most of whites prefer to vote for one of their own (usually - white Republican), and are in no hurry to embrace present day heavily minority-oriented Democratic party??? They behave very pragmatically and logically (according to you) - vote for one of their own... Of course, time may come when this white vote will become insignificant, but so far - you have Trump exactly because of that reason (these people were fed up with national Democratic party  politics, and demonstrated it in such (may be - foolish) way). Democratic Party became "too minority oriented" and "too politically correct" for many of it's former solid supporters... And not only in Deep South (those left it long ago), but in many other areas. Though the best example i know of is still in the South - small, rural Liberty county in Florida. More then 75% Democratic in registration, all Democratic on local level (so, it's willing to elect Democrats, but - different Democrats...), and - less then 20% for Hillary in 2016 (with 75% for Trump)

So i have been messing around with the maps on DRA, and it is easily possible to get two compact districts inside Bexar, along with bits for the 23rd and the 21st. The thing is, both these districts evened out are at 55-56% Obama - probably higher for Clinton after checking to precinct maps. Drawing districts with such a low D % does not seem to be in the spirit of the TX GOP and their Dem packs so here is a question:

Is it possible/probable for one to redraw the 23rd in Bexar, in relation to the 20th and the 35th in this case? It seems dicey since the court barely held up the 23rd as it stands, and any changes would need to produce a extremely similar PVI and HVAP. However, trading precincts between the Fajitas and Bexar produces two more favorable Dem packs in Bexar and leaves the 23rd as an R leaning competitive seat.

If it is not politically feasible, it seems likely that in exchange for the expected Austin Dem pack, the new 35th will be a battleground seat with probably a slight D tilt.

Nobody will touch TX-23, not even to get rid of the split of LaSalle, and if you tried to move TX-23 into Bexar, you have to find a place for 500,000 other persons.

The option that makes the most sense to me for TX-35 is to have TX-35 moved entirely within Bexar and then move TX-21 out of Bexar and move it into Travis as much as possible.   

I would think the Legislature is going to do something along those lines.

Lamar Smith is a committee chairman.

Pwned. 5-4!

Losers of elections are going to have a tough time stealing the districts.

Link (https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/907759137198657536)

BREAKING: #SCOTUS stays Texas redistricting case order, pending appeal to and disposition in the Supreme Court.

See the partisan racist is happy the racist GOP can continue to use illegal maps.

Hahahaha, lol. Says who?

They just stayed the decision until a final ruling is made,  it doesn't affect much, except that the district won't go into effect right away.

5 votes indicated that Texas is likely to win on the merits.

I tried to tell folks that there would be no redistricting and that thievery would fail.

Uh, no you didn't.

"increasing minority representation" means increasing minorities' ability to choose representatives, not increasing the number of minorities in Congress.

This is so annoying when people just equate a minority district to having minority representatives....sheesh!

But there's a careful balance to avoid using minorities to elect white Dems to the point that the Congress becomes unrepresentative of minorities. That's why the VRA was passed and upheld by SCOTUS.

If the Texas GOP does need to conduct some mid-decade redistricting then it will be a hell of a lot easier now with Poe, Johnson, Smith and Farenthold retiring.

And Jeb Hensarling. The GOP can easily fortify the districts. In addition, the Democratic party created a grossly unnecessary 29th district in Harris County after the 1990 census. Gene Green is also retiring.

I have posted maps to bust Gene Green and shift that district to the GOP.

The 29th is a Hispanic VRA district. You can't "bust" it.

Prepare to be cucked again.

Considering the way the Houston metro is trending, wouldn't dismantling the 29th? Just end up making the surrounding R seats even more vulnerable?

Ultimate case of "Justice delayed is justice denied." Fixing districts drawn in 2011 in 2018 when they're due to be redrawn in 2021 is absurd.

Is it even possible to fix the map in time for 2018 at this point? I thought they appealed to SCOTUS to get a stay or at least delay long enough to keep the maps for 2018, and I haven't seen anything else on it since.

Of course we can. The 5th circuit is being reinforced with fresh blood, and Neil Gorsuch stands ready to throw the nonsense Voting Rights Act into the garbage.

2 quarantines is more than sufficient for Harris County.

There is a surplus of GOP votes in TX-08 and TX-36 to transfer to the new district.

Wrong. They already fixed the districts in 2013. Some folks didn't get the idea that they had to actually win the occasional election and decided to keep complaining.

The SCOTUS will consider at their January 5th conference whether to take the case.

The Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas redistricting!