US House Redistricting: Texas

[krazen1211]

http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/?PlanHeader=PLANC130

New plan is out. They fixed the 36th. Put Ted Poe into a somewhat uncomfortable district. Dallas is unchanged.

Someone needs to bang it into their heads that Kevin Brady needs to be the guy to snag downtown Houston.

[krazen1211]

Just passed the Senate. Probably no more amendments at this point from the House either.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-redistricting/redistricting/texas-senate-approves-gop-drawn-congressional-map/?utm_source=texastribune.org&utm_medium=alerts&utm_campaign=News%20Alert:%20Subscriptions

26-10, lock and load.




Edit: Amusing argument.

 "This plan belongs in the 20th century, not the 21st century ," said Sen. Eddie Lucio Jr., D-Brownsville.



I guess he means this is like the Dem drawn plans.

[krazen1211]

3 things.

1. Marc Veasey can't count.

2. Poe and Brady and their allies are fighting over 300 acres for the new Exxon Mobil Headquarters.

3. Apparently this is being kicked back to the Senate.

[krazen1211]

Does anyone know if the Black-Pluralty Districts in Houston and Dallas are VRA protected?  I'm trying to draw a Democratic gerrymander, and if they're not that really simplifies things.

Because so many Hispanics are illegals, a 45% black district in VAP probably has a majority black CVAP. Whether 38/40% in CD-9 and CD-18 get there is anyone's guess.

As it stands, the 71.7% Hispanic CD-29 doesn't actually have 50% SSVR; out of 341k Hispanics, there are only 126k SS registered voters. The DFW Hispanic district in Veasey's plan doesn't even cross 40% SSVR.

[krazen1211]

Okay, good.  I drew a 35% Black-plurality, 65% Obama District in Dallas (take the black parts and connect them to Ennis and Kaufman counties) and i wanted to know if that would pass VRA muster (its 40% Hispanic VAP and 25% White VAP).

Let me correct myself. TX-29 didn't cross 50% SSVR in 2008 but it did in 2010. They probably used the 2010 numbers.

[krazen1211]

Who knows what the statutes are in Texas?

Does the legislature have the right to a redraw or is it in the courts now?

The legislature has a right to redraw if it chooses to.

In any case, the Justice Department isn't final here. The 3 judge panel is.

[krazen1211]

Who knows what the statutes are in Texas?

Does the legislature have the right to a redraw or is it in the courts now?

The legislature has a right to redraw if it chooses to.

In any case, the Justice Department isn't final here. The 3 judge panel is.

DOJ has no issues with the Dallas districts and is only complaining about TX-23 again.

[krazen1211]

The actual document mentions issues with TX-23, TX-27 and the fact that there wasn't any other VRA district created in DFW.

Yes, the last was Veasey's complaints. He wanted to draw himself a district.

http://txredistricting.org/post/10568635928/state-house-and-congressional-districts-in-dispute

[krazen1211]

So if the primary is held under the interim map, that means the general would have to be as well. But I guess that won't stop Texas Republicans from another mid-decade redistricting. Of course in Colorado there was a court-drawn map, the Republicans later tried to pass their own map, but it was ruled illegal by a court and that the current map had to stand.

Not an issue in Texas. The last 2003 remapping remapped a court map.

[krazen1211]

http://www.kwtx.com/centraltexasvotes/localheadlines/_Panel_Says_Temporary_Texas_Voting_District_Map_Unlikely_133004788.html

A three-judge federal panel in San Antonio says it's unlikely that it will approve district maps to be used temporarily for next year's congressional primaries while legal challenges to Texas redistricting proceed.



Interesting.

[krazen1211]

I figured it would be worthwhile dusting these off.

Hmm. Looking at these, I see.

1. New GOP district in Frisco. New problems for Pete Sessions. Burgess and Marchant look ok.
2. New tossup/lean Dem district in Williamson/Travis.
3. New GOP district in South San Antonio going east.
4. New GOP district in Galveston along with some discomfort for John Carter?

[krazen1211]

http://www.kwtx.com/centraltexasvotes/localheadlines/_Panel_Says_Temporary_Texas_Voting_District_Map_Unlikely_133004788.html

A three-judge federal panel in San Antonio says it's unlikely that it will approve district maps to be used temporarily for next year's congressional primaries while legal challenges to Texas redistricting proceed.

Interesting.

The court bounced the map. The Pubbies think they will have another bite out of the apple. I assume they counted on that when they over-reached. If they didn't, or don't get another bite, they are in a word, colossal dumbs.

The order by the DC Court said that Texas had used an "improper analysis" in determining whether a district was a minority opportunity district.

The USDOJ latest brief says that Texas erred in using a bare majority to determine whether a district was a minority opportunity district (being a lawyer, you probably recognize a 58% HCVAP as being a bare majority), and that Texas should have used a "functional analysis" which means looking at election results, and mandates political gerrymandering.

The USDOJ expert drew a plan for TX-23 that only required modifying 6 neighboring districts that the USDOJ liked better.  After it was pointed out that she had drawn Canseco out of the district, she drew another map.

In addition, they want the Hispanics in Nueces County placed back into TX-34 rather than in the new TX-27. Not sure what that accomplishes other than cleaving Nueces County into 2.

[krazen1211]

Here is my attempt at a map based on the Jimtrex parameters.

http://www.redracinghorses.com/diary/1348/a-least-change-texas-map

[krazen1211]

DOJ's proposed remedy basically modifies the same 3 districts again; TX-23, TX-20, TX-21.

Both TX-23 and TX-20 become ~57% Obama districts and TX-20 doesn't even sit in Bexar County.

http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/?PlanHeader=PLANc219

[krazen1211]

Plan released.

At first glance: it creates a Tarrant-only Dem district.

Keeps Travis split three ways but gives Doggett a compact, winnable district not including Bexar.

35th district is Hispanic and based in Bexar County.

Looks like it restores 27th as a Hispanic district and moves Farenthold into a 34th district equivalent to what the R's had done with 27 before, but only a small slice of Nueces.

I can't analyze Bexar, but Canseco got some territory that the R gerrymander had assigned to TX-20 and lost some in north Bexar, so that can't be good for him. He picked up some rural territory that is heavily Hispanic, but whose electorate in many cases is probably still quite R.

12 D districts plus whatever TX-23 is.

Canseco is in a 51% Obama district. Same as he just won. The Democrats get their 9 + TX-27 +  TX-33 and probably TX-35, although that one is only 54.5% Obama too.

[krazen1211]

Canseco's new district is more Democratic than the one he won in 2010 (edit: This looks like a reply to Krazen now. It isn't. And I can't back it up besides "I read it on the internet".)

That Tarrant district they drew is 40% Hispanic, 28% White, 27% Black... these kind of demographics frequently favor Black candidates.
And I wonder about that 35th - they drew it out of Austin so it's only 55% Hispanic now, even though still clearly Dem-leaning (enough white Dems in Hays. Also, the Black bits of Bexar). Maybe they figure that it's safely enough Hispanic because there's one obvious Representative-apparent, and he's Hispanic - Senor Ciro Rodriguez.

Somebody said that McCaul might be in trouble... looks exaggerated to me, though I wouldn't be surprised to hear Obama won the district.

No need to speculate. Pretty much every incumbent has a safe district. The McCaul district spans 2 very expensive metros and McCain got 52% there.

http://d2o6nd3dubbyr6.cloudfront.net/media/documents/PlanC220_RED206_2008G_Statewides.pdf

[krazen1211]

Great, so if future elections are like 2010 and no one brings up his bankruptcies, Canseco is home free.

D+3 or
D+4.

He also needs a quality opponent of course. Not much of Bexar is left there and Bexar Democrats have their own new district.

[krazen1211]

The Bexar and Travis splits are kinda weird, and there is no need for Harris to be cut in 10, but overall I think it's a good map

It also doesn't seem to be creating any new Hispanic CVAP majority districts. Great map for Veasey and Doggett of course, but neither is Hispanic.

Obviously we will be seeing a 2013 redistricting session.

[krazen1211]

The Bexar and Travis splits are kinda weird, and there is no need for Harris to be cut in 10, but overall I think it's a good map

It also doesn't seem to be creating any new Hispanic CVAP majority districts. Great map for Veasey and Doggett of course, but neither is Hispanic.

Obviously we will be seeing a 2013 redistricting session.

Strictly speaking the preclearance case isn't lost yet, right? (Obviously, in a full trial the state would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it neither intended to nor accidentally discriminated against any minority, so, yeah.)

No, it's not lost. Strickly speaking of course that won't be settled for a while. If the GOP wins presumably they will ask for these internim maps to be immediately tossed.

We could see another 2006 situation with election day primaries and a runoff.

The TX-23 proposed by the interim plan is certainly much better for Canseco than the 58% Obama DOJ plan talked about a couple days ago. I would hope they leave the entire Valley are alone and redraw DFW and Austin to bust up the 2 districts I mentioned before.

[krazen1211]

This is great news.

The Bexar and Travis splits are kinda weird, and there is no need for Harris to be cut in 10, but overall I think it's a good map

It also doesn't seem to be creating any new Hispanic CVAP majority districts. Great map for Veasey and Doggett of course, but neither is Hispanic.

Obviously we will be seeing a 2013 redistricting session.

Even if Obama wins? Or could the GOP pass an equally partisan map in 2013 that would pass the Justice Dept?

Of course, they don't like Doggett and they certainly don't like that self serving Veasey.

[krazen1211]

*looks up who represents Eagle Pass and Del Rio in the Texas State House*

Pete Gallego for Congress?

Obama share went up by 0.4 percentage points, btw. Not much (Canseco would still have won under these lines... ignoring the fact that his opponent wouldn't have been there) but every little bit helps.

I wonder where it's coming from. They added a number of Permian counties after all, and just two Rio Grande Valley rural counties, and those cast 5k odd votes together (59% Obama both). And the withdrawal out of Bexar ought to hurt Dems. Must have been doing some pretty clever stuff in El Paso.

Indeed, if you look at El Paso they did a solid job plucking out some GOP areas for TX-23 and putting all the Democrats in TX-16. Quite favorable to Canseco.

Then of course you get TX-33 which is just created out of thin air and certainly not based on any existing legislative intent.

Really odd map overall.

[krazen1211]

So, it will basically end up being a 23-13 or 24-12 map.  The real toss-up seat is the Canseco one, but Dems will need to run the right candidate (Gallegos would be the correct choice).  McCaul's seat is too partisanly divided (as well as geographically divided) for Dems to have a chance there, for now.

The obvious mistake the GOP made again was to not draw a Hispanic district in DFW.  That being said, what the court did in Dallas really makes no sense.  I would be surprised in the GOP doesn't realize its mistake this time and correct in 2013.  As for the rest of the map, the protection of Doggett will probably be addressed by the GOP in 2013.  As said many times here, the correct road to go would have been 25-11 (Canseco would always have some issues, so 24-12), but draw a Hispanic district or two looking towards the future.

The Latino Task Force realized they got hosed in DFW, and proposed changes to make Veasey's district into a Hispanic district in favor of Joe Barton.

[krazen1211]

One of the things that I think is likely in the back of the mind of any DOJ official right now is the fact that preclearance may not be long for this world.  Go read Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, which basically ignores the constitutional arguments, in connection with other recent Section 5 jurisprudence, and you see that five Justices are pretty far down along the road of striking down this section.  A questionable use may be all they need, really.

That being said, the stronger arguments for denying preclearance based in precedence were not in Alabama (really weak) and South Carolina (well, South Carolina would been ok, except Clyburn would have never supported it), but rather in Louisiana and Virginia.  Problem is that the arguments there are still not that strong.

Anyway, the Texas GOP screwed up royally in not creating a Dallas Hispanic CD, and then going to the three-judge panel and not the DOJ.

Partially yes, and partially no. The DOJ made is clear that they weren't going to give Canseco a fair shake in their remedial plan. He got a much better one through the court.

The 3 judge panel in its briefings specifically noted the difficulty in drawing a 50% HCVAP district there. Plan C216 (the Canseco plan that Jerry Smith wanted implemented) didn't reach it at least, and its the standard prone sniper rifle district.

[krazen1211]

The Canseco and State plans had a higher HCVAP (58.5%) than that drawn by the court.  The court put more blacks into the district and swapped out some more Republican Anglos in NW Bexar for more Democratic Anglos in west central San Antonio.

The legislature increased the HCVAP from that in the current district.  The plaintiffs and USDOJ lied about the the Republicans putting "less mobilized Hispanics" into TX-23.  What they looked out was the number of voters.  If a district is 60% Hispanic and has 150,000 too many people, it is likely to lose 90,000 Hispanics.  Since the district had to gain at the El Paso end, there were even more at the San Antonio end to move into the new San Antonio-Austin district.

In addition, this right here is pure legislating. Especially considering the last legislature specifically fractured a district on this type.


Because much of the growth that occurred in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex was attributable to minorities, the new district 33 was drawn as a minority coalition opportunity district.

[krazen1211]

56% of the growth in Collin, Denton, and Rockwall was minorities.  That is where the new district should have been placed.

Yeah, going purely by least transfer the new DFW district needs to go on the eastern side. Same with the new Southeast Texas district.
But then again, the new Central Texas Anglo district would logically be built around Williamson and North Travis... oops.

It was moved into the district in 1991 by Martin Frost and Ann Richards.  The southern part of Bexar County was placed in the new TX-28.

So "always" in the sense of "in all maps that still influence the current map of the area".

I actually drew that exactly in my least change map. It ends up being highly desirable in Dallas and highly undesirable in Austin; Austin obviously needs to either be in 1 district or 5. 2 is highly undesirable and yields 2 Dem districts.

The new Bexar district goes south, though, and becomes a Republican district, basically collecting all the excess in Doggett's district and the 3 south Texas districts.