US House Redistricting: Texas

[jimrtex]

While watching the hoops his weekend, I thought I'd apply my algorithm from CA and NY to TX to compare to the various official maps. As with the other states I start with a regional division of whole counties representing an area with a whole number of districts. However, TX has lots of counties and that allows for more regions with tighter tolerance to the ideal. In this case I required all the regions to be within 0.1% of the ideal district population (ie within 698). This is the map.



The regions (district count) and deviations from ideal are:
El Paso region (2 CDs) +133
Lubbock region (1 CD) +24
Amarillo region (1 CD) -160
Brownsville region (3 CDs) -368
San Antonio region (4 CDs) -422
Waco region (1 CD) +167
Austin region (3 CDs) -130
Dallas region (9 CDs) +33
Sugar Land region (1 CD) -182
Houston region (8 CDs) +262
Beaumont region (3 CDs) +644

I'd start from the following map, which are the state planning regions.



I'd let the citizens of each county decide whether they wanted to switch to another apportionment region.  The regions are somewhat imposed, and are centered on cities.  Some of the outer counties like Erath, Walker, Llano, and Matagorda would probably want to switch.   This might be on the ballot in November of the -0 year.

The next step would be to adjust the areas so that they are close to an integer multiple of a number of districts.  The 19 areas with a population less than 1.5 districts, have a total population equivalent to 10.36 representatives.

I would dissolve one at a time, until the number of such areas equals the total number of representatives apportioned to them (eg at least 9 would be dissolved).   Redistricting juries in each county would choose where their county is switched to.  So the counties in the Concho Valley (San Angelo) region would choose first.

There would eventually be 15 or so regions which would each be apportioned an integer number of districts.  Each region would have a surplus or a deficit.

Regions with the deficits would select areas from adjacent regions with a surplus or smaller deficit.  Regions with surpluses would release areas to adjacent regions with a deficit or smaller surplus.

Then regions apportioned multiple districts would be divided.

[jimrtex]

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),

Is the court going to use CVAP? I noticed that submitted documents typically reference Spanish Surname Registered Voters, rather than CVAP.

I think that SSVR is used to estimate registration of Hispanic voters since Texas not use race as a voter qualification.  I think that in general that they are using reconstructed election results, as the actual test.  It gets really messy when you start trying to figure out whether you not only have to choose enough minority voters, and factor in whether they vote the right way or, vote at all even though eligible, and whether other voters vote the same way.

In any case I didn't see a CVAP analysis from any of the parties like I did in CA. CVAP also is an estimate since it isn't from 2010 and is a sample. I assumed it wasn't relevant in the TX circuit. It's not used in IL under the 7th circuit.

The interesting feature of SSVR, is when a district is over 50% SSVR and votes solidly GOP. I would conclude that either there isn't much polarized voting compared to other areas of the state. My example is CD 2 in my map - 50.2% SSRV and 60%+ GOP.

The DC circuit rejected the use of CVAP for Section 5 purposes.   The USDOJ claims you can't determine "ability" to elect without checking voting results.  This was the interpretation of the Florida Supreme Court of its constitutional amendments (rather than simply saying districts must conform to federal law, Florida incorporated the standards of the VRA into their constitution).

[jimrtex]

I'd start from the following map, which are the state planning regions.

What fascinates me is that I can picture my regions emerging from yours through the process you describe. I not saying that those areas would choose to join, but my regions look like they were made by combining the ones in your map, and then adjusting a few counties to get them close to a whole number of districts.

Something like this, which simply involved combining whole regions (I did split off all the area east of El Paso County, since I'll also have to shift a portion from the county as well.



There are some implicit pairing of regions which will get a lot closer to integer apportionment.

Panhandle-Nortex + South Plains-West Central

I might end up shifting Wise to the northern area, and using the surplus from the southern district below.

El Paso + Trans Pecos-Permian Basin-Concho Valley

Will need a shift from El Paso County

Texoma-Ark Tex-East Texas + Deep East Texas-Golden Triangle

Will need a small increment from the west.

Lower Rio Grande Valley-South Texas + Coastal Bend

I'll have to cut into Cameron or Hidalgo county, but I didn't really like your pairing of Corpus Christi and Laredo

Alamo-Middle Rio Grande + Capital

A district between Austin and San Antonio will need to created, and there is a surplus that needs to be shifted east.

North Central (DFW) + Central Texas

Not a real obvious pairing, but coming up to Parker and Hood will create a district that is largely outside the immediate metro area.  This is also the reason for skimming some surplus from the West Central region (Comanche, Eastland).

The DFW area splits roughly Dallas 3.5, Tarrant 2.5, Collin 1, Denton 1, and South and East 1.

Heart of Texas-Brazos Valley

Will need a bit from the west and will transfers some on to the east,

Houston-Galveston-Golden Crescent

Rather than Houston extending eastward, the western district will come into southern Brazoria County; and then there will be a Fort Bend; Galveston-Brazoria; and Montgomery-Walker-Liberty districts which will all extend into Harris County, leaving 5 districts in the county.

[jimrtex]

I'd start from the following map, which are the state planning regions.



This combines regions.



And this shifts some counties to make the regions more precisely equal.



After shifting part of El Paso County to Trans Pecos-Permian Basin-Concho Valley; Travis County to Alamo; and Cameron County to Coastal Bend; all regions except those in the east will be within 0.5% of the ideal population.

The three east Texas districts are collectively within 0.501%, so some tiny county cuts can equalize those.

And with some of the outer districts indicated.



County Splits:

El Paso 1.00
El Paso 0.15 + Trans Pecos-Permian Basin-Concho Valley 0.85

Hidalgo 0.53 + Webb-Zapata-Starr 0.47
Hidalgo 0.58 + Cameron 0.42
Cameron 0.15 + Coastal Bend 0.85

Bexar 0.47 + Middle Rio Grande + counties to south and west 0.53
Bexar (2 districts)

Travis 0.06 + area between Austin and San Antonio 0.94
Travis 0.40 + Williamson 0.60
Travis (1 district)

Harris 0.02 + Upper Gulf 0.98
Harris 0.16 + Fort Bend 0.84
Harris 0.42 + Galveston-Chambers-Liberty 0.58
Harris 0.25 + Montgomery-Walker
Harris (5 districts)

Collin 0.05 + Denton 0.95
Collin 0.04 + Hood-to-Hunt 0.96
Collin 0.02 + Dallas 0.98
Collin (1 district)
Dallas (2 districts)
Dallas 0.41 + Tarrant 0.59
Tarrant (2 districts)

[jimrtex]

That seems to put SSRV on a stronger footing than CVAP as a proxy for voting strength. Voting analysis can follow. An ecological analysis is probably needed to discern whether the minority engages in sufficient bloc voting to meet the Gingles test for section 2 districts.

Sort of, though Spanish surnamed and Hispanic are not equivalent.

And what is the measure of "sufficiency"?

[jimrtex]

That seems to put SSRV on a stronger footing than CVAP as a proxy for voting strength. Voting analysis can follow. An ecological analysis is probably needed to discern whether the minority engages in sufficient bloc voting to meet the Gingles test for section 2 districts.

Sort of, though Spanish surnamed and Hispanic are not equivalent.

And what is the measure of "sufficiency"?

I would think the reason why people just used the SSVR data and didn't do complex estimative calculations of actual CVAP is presumably that it was available real data, didn't cost anything to produce, and seemed good enough until/unless a court said it wasn't.
Does similar real data actually exist for California?

In the State of Texas Section 5 lawsuit against the United States (when you week judicial preclearance you have to sue the US Government). they used HVAP, HCVAP, and SSVR.

The 5th Circuit (which Texas is under) has ruled that HCVAP is the relevant statistic.

Texas said that 7 districts were over 60% HVAP, and an 8th (TX-35 was at 58.3%, with HCVAP at 51.9%).  The test for the 3 black districts was 40% BVAP.

There is 2010 census data for HVAP and BVAP to the block level, since redistricting data includes race and Hispanicity, for the total population and over 18.

Citizenship is only reported for the ACS, and requires a 5-year sample for statistically reliable small area estimates.  It is reported at a block group level.  The legislative council must somehow massage this to get data for districts.  Perhaps it is as simple as applying the HCVAP/HVAP ratio for a block group times the HVAP for each block in the block group.  Texas generated reports for both 2005-2009 ACS and 2006-2010 ACS (which was released while the litigation was going on).

I'm not sure how the Spanish Surname list was generated.  Maybe it is used by the Census Bureau, or maybe it was generated from census data.  California might not be as automated as Texas.  The Texas complaint said that there was about a 90% correlation between "Spanish-Surnamed" and "Hispanic".   I suspect that SSVR is only reported for an election precinct level.

One of the claims of the plaintiffs in SA, intervenors in DC was that Texas was drawing districts based on race, since they split precincts, and there is no political data for split precincts.  Of course, their hired experts explain how you can estimate vote share by race.

The DC Court has said that that Texas should not based their plan on HCVAP or BVAP, but should use election results.  So Texas had their hired experts calculate the results, and then briefs clash over interpretation. 

[jimrtex]

Sylvia Romo has been endorsed by former San Antonio mayor and HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, current mayor Julian Castro, the Bexar County Judge, 5 of 7 Bexar County Democratic representatives and state senator Leticia Van de Putte in the TX-35 race against some guy from Austin.

[jimrtex]

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.

The line drawing in El Paso County was definitely related to TX-23.  The legislative plan, which in El Paso County is the same as the court-ordered plan, has an area in El Paso County that is 96.3% Hispanic; the vacated interim plan has made the El Paso County portion 75.5%.  The result dropped the Hispanic percentage of TX-16 by 3%.

The legislature plan has a very simple straight line boundary which comes up along I-10 in the Rio Grande Valley below the city of El Paso; while the interim court plan comes up over the north part of the city.  By dropping 20,000 Hispanics in El Paso County, they had to be made up elsewhere which rationalized their radical rejiggering of Bexar County.

Given the narrowness of O'Rourke's victory, it is quite likely that Reyes had majority support among Hispanic's.   I wouldn't be surprised that this election would be added as evidence in the redistricting case.   Dropping the district from 83% to 80% was obviously done with racist intent.

[jimrtex]

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

The primaries were thrown out in both 1996 and 2006.

The last time Texas used the same districts for an entire decade was 1892-1900.

The curiosity is that the DC Circuit Court has not issued there decision on Section 5 preclearance.   Surely Section 5 is unworkable if judicial preclearance takes a year.

[jimrtex]

Does O'Rouke's victory mean that all MALDEF has to show for its ligitation is the loss of one Hispanic Democratic Congressman?

They will show that Reyes is the Hispanic "candidate of choice" and that bloc voting by whites denied him renomination, and that in the past a "coalition" would vote for the Democrat in the general election.

This was the logical of the USDOJ in Kinston, NC.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

Changing topic, some, but just by looking at the new 36th, it seems like would be a good chance for Jon Turner to make a comeback. The core of his old 2nd is there, but it also contains eastern Harris county, which would probably be quite hostile.

Jim Turner?  The district is about 10% more Republican than the State, and 1/3 of the district is in Harris County.  There is a reason that there were 12 Republican candidates and 1 Democrat in the primary.

Turner is also from Crockett which is north of the district.

[jimrtex]

The federal district court in DC has denied preclearance to the the legislative enacted plans. Whether a plan is precleared is a true/false decision.  Part of a plan can not be precleared - even though preclearance invariable depends on specific area of a map.   And a court drawing a a plan is still required to defer to legislative policy choices to the extent that is practicable and constitutional.

Presumably, the SA district court will now go ahead and issue its ruling.  It is too late to draw a new map, and a map drawn by a federal court does not need preclearance.  So its remedial plans will be used for 2012.   It might ask for additional briefing to decide whether its plan would have been pre-cleared, and it might realize that it is wasted effort at this point.  The legislature has every right to produce a new plan.  The DC court decision will be appealed possibly directly to the SCOTUS, including a direct challenge to Section 5.  Judicial preclearance is clearly unworkable if the only options are accepting the diktats of a federal bureaucracy or have to have another court step in in order to have other elections.

Texas v United States

Congressional Plan:

Everyone agrees that TX-34 replaces TX-27 (Fahrenthold) as being a minority ability to elect district.  The numbering switch simply lets a court to opine for a few more paragraphs.

The court was decisive in that demographic data could not be used to determine whether a district was a minority ability to elect district (unless it is overwhelmingly so).  Instead, a functional analysis (based on election results) should be used.

The court seems to think endogenous results (based on results in a current district), even though this is useless for hypothetical districts.  Exogenous results are based on other elections, typically statewide races.  This can be used for both existing and hypothetical districts.

So it does not matter that the HCVAP for TX-23 (Canseco) was increased under the legislature plan.  TX-23 does not consistently elect the Hispanic candidate of choice in exogenous elections, so the court seemed to prefer the 3 elections held on the 2006 boundaries, one of which Ciro Rodriguez lost, and one of which he would have likely lost if it had been held as a regular election.   The court also found that the legislature deliberately included Hispanic voters who were more likely to vote for a Republican, thereby denying other Hispanic voters the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice.

The court split on whether the TX-25 (Doggett) is currently a minority ability to elect district, but agreed that TX-35 the new San Antonio-Austin district was.

So excluding TX-25, it is a new minority districts TX-34 and TX-25, and former districts TX-23 and TX-27, for no net change.  But the court in another split decision found that an additional district should have been drawn due to the increase from 32 to 36 representatives.

The court also made a finding of discriminatory intent, largely based on self-serving testimony by Democrat representatives.   Al Green (TX-9) claimed that the legislature took, "The Medical Center, Astrodome, rail line, and Houston Baptist University" out of his district, and that they would not have done that to a white Congressman.  In fact, Green retained some of the Medical Center, and Culberson (TX-7) was removed from the Medical Center as it was transferred to Jackson Lee (TX-18).  The Astrodome is likely going to be torn down.  Green only had the tail end of the rail line, and HBU can't really be considered a key economic institution.  It also moved his office out of his district, but it is on the very edge of the district, and not necessarily convenient to anyone.

Jackson Lee also had her district office moved out of her district, but it was shifted to TX-29 (Gene Green).  Her office is in the federal building downtown.  Very few people live downtown and it was just an adjustment made to balance population and make it easier to fit in TX-36 and the modified TX-2.   I see no reason why a district office has to be in a congressional district and it would be just as convenient as it is now.   Currently the office is on the edge of the district.  Because it is on a one-way street, you would have to leave the district when driving away.  It would be 1/2 block outside the district under the new map.

Presumably, the interim plan with the inclusion of the revised TX-33 would have complied with Section 5, unless the SA court had a flawed understanding of whether its TX-23 retrogressed.

[jimrtex]

For the Senate plan, the court found that SD-10 was not a protected district. It was noted that Wendy Davis relied on an extremely high 26% support from Anglos to win the district in the first place.

Incidentally, the Court seems to have upheld Pena's district as an ability district.

The court's decision on the senate plan provides an additional basis for a direct challenge to Section 5.  Pages 46 to 51 essentially conclude that Texas has failed to demonstrate that they had not engaged in thought crimes.

They really had no choice on Pena's district, though it might be challenged on equal protection grounds.  There is really a pretty big variation in population which is not justifiable for political purposes (you can't deliberately underpopulate Republican districts, while you can justify variation due to conformance to political boundaries, natural or artificial features, etc.

There must have been interesting communication between the two district courts.  Texas requires the Secretary of State to set the final list of candidates for the November general election by August 27.   The DC court filed their decision on August 28.  The DC decision means that Texas can not use the districts passed by the legislature.  But they weren't going to be used, because of the interim boundaries crafted by the SA court, and now elections based on that map have been finalized.

Yapping Dog LULAC filed a motion with the SA court demanding an immediate status conference.  The SA district court responded with an order setting the status conference for tomorrow, and then added:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It appears that it is the intent of the SA Court to wait until after the Supreme Court makes it ruling on the Section 5 appeal before it issues its opinion.   Which means that Section 5 has prevented Texas from holding its own elections, and also prevented aggrieved plaintiffs from getting relief.

Were there not Section 5, the SA court would have issued their ruling last November and it would have been under appeal.

Texas was correct to take its case to the US Supreme Court because it prevented an out of control district judge who happens to be a former Texas legislator and brother-in-law of a current legislature of drawing new maps out of whole cloth.

[jimrtex]

The DC district court has issued an order on the constitutional challenge to Section 5

"FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer and submit a joint proposed schedule on Claim Two (Texas’s claim that Section 5 is unconstitutional) by no later than September 13, 2012."

I don't know whether this means that Texas's appeal on the actual pre-clearance will wait on the opinion on the Section 5 procedure itself.

[jimrtex]

As I read the opinion I was struck at the number of times the decision pointed out the differences between sec 5 and sec 2 so they could come to their conclusions. That may also be something that gives SCOTUS pause. I also found the dissent on CD 25 far more compelling than the majority from a methodological viewpoint.

This is the type of evidence used by that opinion:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nelda Wells Spears was the tax assessor-collector for nearly 20 years.   In Texas, it is traditional to write the checks for taxes to the name of the county tax assessor, with or without their title, so:

"Nelda Spears" or "Nelda Spears Travis County Tax Assessor" rather than "Travis County" or "Travis County Tax Assessor".   Vehicle registration in Texas is handled by the counties, so that anyone who owned a home or a car in Travis County had likely written a check to the office.   So the incumbent has higher name recognition than you would otherwise expect for the office.

She was facing Glen Maxey, the first openly gay Texas legislator, who was recently elected as the LGBT member of the DNC.   In Texas, the Tax Assessor-Collector is also the voter registrar (a legacy of when the the office collected the poll tax).  Maxey felt it was the key job of the office to lobby the legislature on voter registration and other matters, rather than run a professional office that handles millions of dollars and 100s of 1000s of transactions.

In the 2008 primary, Dukes herself was challenged as being a Craddick D, a Democrat who had been appointed a committee chair and supported Craddick.  I think she was the only Craddick D who survived a primary challenge, and she did so by emphasizing that he did was what was in the best interest of her (Black) constituents, rather than kowtowing to the Democratic party elite (in a 79% Obama district).

Spears herself carried every precinct in Travis County, but a tiny one that Maxey carried on a 1:0 vote, and he managed to get above 40% in just a few precincts.  Because Spears was above 90% in some precincts vs 74% countywide, does that prove Blacks are essential to victory of a Democrat, or simply that they are even more likely to vote for a long-time county incumbent who is Black, particularly when they may feel that the Democratic elite are trying to knock off their representative in the same primary, than other voters.

Spears retired in 2011, and in the 2012 primary endorsed a long time deputy, serving as his campaign treasurer.

Spears endorses Wilson

He lost with 25% of the vote to an Anglo male.   There was more of a mix of results.  While Wilson did not win any precincts with 90% of the vote, he did win some with substantial majorities.  

The 2008 race was coincident with the presidential primary, which had 4.4 times as many votes (Obama carried Travis County with 63%, while losing statewide to Clinton).

[jimrtex]

LULAC attempted to throw a hail mary to get the judges to re-enact plan C220 (this was the original San Antonio Court plan that was tossed at the SCOTUS).

The San Antonio Court has declined citing the timeline. Thus, elections will proceed under plan C235.

C185 is thus scrapped, and will almost certainly be moot in 2013 when the legislature returns to do redistricting.

Texas has appealed the redistricting decision to the Supreme Court.

[jimrtex]

The San Antonio Court has declined citing the timeline. Thus, elections will proceed under plan C235.

C185 is thus scrapped, and will almost certainly be moot in 2013 when the legislature returns to do redistricting.

Are these respectively the lines used in the primary and the map passed by the state lege?

C220 - San Antonio initial plan
C185 - Legislature map
C235 - Court map based on lege


C235 takes C185, builds the Veasey district, and makes minor tweaks elsewhere.

Yeah, I remember their relationship to each other, I just don't memorize official names/numbers.

Texas Legislative Council - Redistricting

Michael Li's Texas redistricting blog

US Redistricting

[jimrtex]

The description of the session makes it sound as if they'll ratify the current districts.
Does that sound plausible?

The governor's call says:

"Legislation which ratifies and adopts the interim redistricting plans ordered by the federal district court as the permanent plans for districts used to elect members of the Texas House of Representatives, Texas Senate and United States House of Representatives."

A literal interpretation would say that the only legislation that could be considered are the interim maps.  I doubt that would stand up to a separation of powers challenge.  Otherwise, a governor could draft bills and say pass this.  And of course a legislature may not bind a future legislature, so a plan could not be permanent.

[jimrtex]

TX-23 still needs to be 50% Hispanic CVAP does it not?  Did the 2011 map meet that number?

The 2011 Texas map had 54.5% SSVR.  The first federal judiciary map (struck down by the SCOTUS) had 52.2% SSVR.  The final interim federal judiciary map (and now Texas map) has 55.1% SSVR.  It has an estimated 61.1% CVAP.

As Quico Conseco noted, they removed Hispanic voters, and replaced them with Blacks and Anglos who were more likely to vote for the Hispanic "candidate of choice".

[jimrtex]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's pretty clearcut, and the maps are of course ones drawn by Republicans, as emended by the courts, as opposed to actual court-drawn maps. A new even more Republican map will inevitably come under close court scrutiny yet again.

Whether all of the Texas House and Senate Republican caucus see things the same way is another matter entirely.

Gov. Rick Perry could decide to veto voting maps recently completed by the Texas Legislature as a result of today's decision from the Supreme Court, calling a new special session and allowing conservatives to pass new maps that would have not passed under the now defunct Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

There is some discussion that the maps passed by the legislature in 2011 are now immediately in effect until Rick Perry decides to sign the interim maps into permanent maps.

The difference is a handful of House districts, 1 congressional district, and perhaps 1 Senate district.

Perry has signed the maps passed by the legislature.

[jimrtex]

The complaint alleges that changes to the map made in a floor amendment diluted the voter strength of Hispanic voters in the district - a Hispanic opportunity district long represented by State Rep. Lon Burnam - by adding the heavily African-American Como neighborhood back into the district (where it had been prior to 2011).

To accomodate that change, the complaint says the amendment “moves 4,397 individuals out of interim HD 90 and places them into HD 99.” The net effect, according to the complaint, was to reduce Spanish surname voter registration in the district from 51.1% to 50.1%. Meanwhile, the citizen voting age African-American population of the district went from 16.2% to 18.6%.*

The Latino Task Force argues that the changes were made primarily on the basis of race to protect Burnam (an Anglo Democrat), who survived a primary challenge from a Latino candidate in 2012 by a razor thin 159 votes.

I'm sure the Republicans wanted to protect Burnam.

[jimrtex]

So the state of Texas has decided that there will be no [legislative-driven] redistricting!

Excellent news. The federal judges may have the opportunity to draw a fair map.

The federal judges drew the current map which has been used for the 2012, 2014, and 2016 elections.

[jimrtex]

The legislature should take the opportunity...

The legislature is passing on redistricting. If any maps are drawn, it will be by the federal courts.

Any map drawn by a federal court must be consistent with what the legislature has drawn. Don't you remember in 2012 when the SCOTUS struck down the map drawn by the federal judges?

[jimrtex]

So the state of Texas has decided that there will be no [legislative-driven] redistricting!

Excellent news. The federal judges may have the opportunity to draw a fair map.

The federal judges drew the current map which has been used for the 2012, 2014, and 2016 elections.

Which they struck down...

When did they do that?