US House Redistricting: Texas
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 05:10:53 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  US House Redistricting: Texas
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 ... 32
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: Texas  (Read 131871 times)
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #550 on: December 07, 2011, 03:27:16 PM »
« edited: December 07, 2011, 03:30:38 PM by Minion of Midas »

1 rural/exurban northwest. Open (Hall is from Rockwall) 75-12-11 (white, hispanic, black. Total. VAP in brackets where relevant.), 70.9% McCain2 Gohmert's district basically; loses Lufkin though. 65-15-17, 69.8% McCain
3 bit of an oddball remainder of East Texas district, open. 70-13-15. 70.0% McCain
4 Montgomery with Bryan. Brady, Flores. 67-22-6, 73.3% McCain
5 far northern Harris Republican remnants, with part of Liberty. Poe, I think - he lives in Humble, which is diversifying rapidly and split between districts, so it's possible I drew him into the Black district. 59-22-11, 70.0% McCain
6 Beaumont, Galveston, SE Harris County. Open. 54-21-19, 58.0% McCain
7 East Harris Hispanics. Gene Green? (No idea what part of his district he is from and which new district he would run for) 19-67-11 (23-62-11), 55.9% Obama
8 Harris Black sink. Connected through the north now, which actually makes sense to do (or would if it didn't force the Hispanic bisection). Jackson-Lee I suppose. 14-34-47 (16-30-48). 81.4% Obama
9 West Harris Hispanics (light blue). See 7. 20-63-10 (24-58-11), 56.0% Obama
10 West Harris Whites (hot pink). Culberson(?) 51-27-11, 59.9% McCain
11 Harris/Fort Bend coalition district. Al Green. 23-30-30-15 Asian (26-27-30-16). 64.7% Obama
12 Fort Bend/Brazoria/West Galveston. Paul, Olsen (unless his home is in the asian sections of Sugarland, which are mostly removed into the 11th). 54-24-11, 65.8% McCain
13 Rural district (with furthest ends of several metros) centered around Victoria. Open. 56-34-8, 65.7% McCain
14 An I-57 district. Open, thanks to Ortiz' and Ciro's defeats who would I think have been paired here. 23-71 (27-68), 56.2% Obama
15 Cameron to White sections of Corpus (proud of that gerry!) Farenthold I presume, not that he'd want it. 15-82 (19-79), 60.6% Obama
16 A purely Rio Grande Valley district for Hinojosa. Any fairish map will have one. 8-91 (10-88), 69.5% Obama
17 Trans-Pecos paired with Laredo. Makes more sense than with San Antonio imo. Cuellar. 12-86 (14-84), 63.0% Obama
18 El Paso. Reyes. 15-80 (17-78), 65.4% Obama
19 Central San Antonio. Moved northwest a little. Rodriguez (presumably), Canseco (heh). Castro I think as well, might be in the 21st. 21-70-5, 61.0% Obama
20 East San Antonio, San Marcos, East Austin. Wide open. 27-56-14 (32-50-14, barely over). 66.6% Obama
21 White parts of Bexar, with adjoining areas. Smith. 62-29, 64.7% McCain
22 Travis County White district. Doggett, McCaul. 64-21-6, 61.2% Obama
23 Williamson and Bell. Carter. 57-23-12, 55.2% McCain
24 Rural district with Waco as population centre. Open (Flores represents a lot of it and is drawn into Brady's district, so I guess he might run here) 68-20-9, 69.1% McCain
25 Parker, West and North Tarrant. Not sure if Granger lives in it (possibly not), but she ought to run here. 74-16, 70.1% McCain
26 Southeast Tarrant, Ellis, Johnson. Barton. 60-20-13. 62.5% McCain
27 Tarrant County coalition district. Open(?). We know who wants it, not as Black as what the court drew him though since this version is more Fort Worth based. 33-41-21 (39-35-21). 59.3% Obama
28 Denton County. Burgess. 65-18-8. 63.0% McCain
29 North Dallas County (and parts of Tarrant). Chock full with Republican congressmen, and it's not even all that Republican: Marchant, Sessions, Hensarling. 59-21-10. 56.7% McCain.
30 Hispanic Dallas County district. Open. 20-63-13 (25-57-14). 63.4% Obama.
31 Black Dallas County district. Eddie Bernice. 21-32-45 (25-28-45). 75.5% Obama
32 Northeast Dallas County and outwards. Bit unfortunate shape as I avoided splitting Plano. Hall. Might get primaried, I suppose. 54-24-12, 60.6% McCain
33 Plano with Grayson County. Sam Johnson. 66-14-8, 63.7% McCain
34 Amarillo, Wichita Falls. Thornberry. 67-24-5, 77.5% McCain
35 Lubbock, Abilene. Neugebauer. 59-32-6, 72.1% McCain
36 Permian, San Angelo, Hill Country. Conaway. 57-38, 75.7% McCain
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #551 on: December 07, 2011, 03:33:56 PM »

And now for the gerrymander.



Inserts





Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #552 on: December 07, 2011, 04:10:28 PM »

1, 2, 3 not changed
4 Had to snip part of Montgomery to keep 5 contiguous. 67-21-7, 73.3% McCain
5 Pretty unlikely that Poe still lives in it, pretty unlikely that he wouldn't just move. 60-23-10, 70.2% McCain
6 Heh. Crawling as it is, there's a definite oil port CoI vibe to it. Well, except for the Houston proper bit. That's a gerrymander. Open coalition district, would elect a white though. 33-43-20 (37-38-20), 52.7% Obama
7 Yeah, I eliminated the district entirely, redrew it somewhere else, and was to lazy to renumber. All of Fort Bend County, with likeliest parts of Brazoria and Harris to improve Democratic performance. Olsen, and if he's careful he'll be reelected for the time being. 34-24-24-16 Asian (37-22-23-17), 51.2% Obama
8 Still the Houston Black sink. Now in Y shape, Jackson-Lee presumably. 21-31-42 (24-27-42), 79.2% Obama
9 Gene Green district. Loses Baytown because I need that for the 6th, gains more mixed areas (with Blacks and Whites) to the north. 14-66-18 (17-62-18), 65.8% Obama
10 West Harris. Somehow managed to make this much less White while improving its Republican performance. 46-30-12-10 Asian (VAP majority still though). 62.1% McCain
11 Shifted north, Whiter, much more Hispanic and a lot less Black than before. Al Green would never have captured this in the first place, not sure how he'd fare in it. 25-47-16-11 Asian (29-43-16-12), 54.5% Obama.
12 Brazoria, Suburban Galveston County. Paul. 61-26-7, 68.6% McCain
13 Loses marginal and Demifying Bastrop, shifts north as a result. 57-33-9, 66.8% McCain
14 to 18 not changed
19 marginal amendments forced by adherence to county boundaries for 21. Doesn't affect residences I believe. 70-21-5 (66-25-6), 61.0% Obama.
20 ditto. 27-55-14 (33-50-14, just under now. Presumably fixable if considered an issue.) Still 66.6% Obama.
21 loses Hays portion, regains Kerrville etc. Smith. 62-29, 66.7% McCain
22 Travis dominated district, with Killeen upended on it. Doggett, McCaul. 65-19-8, 56.6% Obama.
23 Most of Williamson, northeast Travis, Bastrop. Carter. Might be able to hold on, can't like trends though. 57-26-8, 53.0% Obama
24 Picks up Temple and stuff. Still open. 66-20-10, 67.2% McCain
25 Loses the Southwestern part of Tarrant and a few precincts around Fort Worth, gains in the north of the county. Granger? 76-15. 70.8% McCain.
26 Frees a few Obamaish precincts in Arlington. Picks up in southwest Tarrant. Barton. 61-20-13, 63.0% McCain
27 Even more specifically a Fort Worth district now. Open(?) 39-37-19 (45-32-19). 54.9% Obama
28 Denton County, now taking in Coppell instead of parts in Tarrant. Burgess, Marchant (unless he lives in one of those two precincts cut for population balance). 65-18-8. 62.5% McCain (so marginally less packed as a result)
29 North Dallas (North Central Dallas County). Sessions, Hensarling. Would it fall straight away? 41-39-15 (46-34-15). 53.4% Obama.
30 Middle suburbs, West Dallas. Reminds me of Frost's old district. Open, and safe D. 27-50-14 (32-45-14). 56.1% Obama.
31 Still the Eddie Bernice district. 23-30-44 (27-25-44), 73.0% Obama
32 Lost in the south, gained in the west. Hall. 55-25-10, 61.3% McCain.
33-35 not changed
36 Changes in the Hill Country. 57-37, 76.2% McCain
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #553 on: December 09, 2011, 11:20:28 AM »

Sessions probably beats a Hispanic Dem.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #554 on: December 09, 2011, 12:13:44 PM »

Yeah, I also noticed that I may have drawn Al Green into the western Hispanic district in the first map.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #555 on: December 09, 2011, 07:43:01 PM »

Scalia to the rescue!

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/state&id=8461770

The Supreme Court has blocked the use of Texas state legislative and congressional district maps that were drawn by federal judges to boost minorities' voting power.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,486
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #556 on: December 09, 2011, 07:51:07 PM »

Scalia to the rescue!

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/state&id=8461770

The Supreme Court has blocked the use of Texas state legislative and congressional district maps that were drawn by federal judges to boost minorities' voting power.

It was referred to the full Court with no dissents... interesting.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #557 on: December 09, 2011, 08:12:21 PM »

Scalia to the rescue!

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/state&id=8461770

The Supreme Court has blocked the use of Texas state legislative and congressional district maps that were drawn by federal judges to boost minorities' voting power.

Supreme Court Stays Court Drawn Maps
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,047
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #558 on: December 09, 2011, 08:23:16 PM »

I wonder if this portends that SCOTUS is going to chop back on the VRA (as interpreted by prior courts), something that would not surprise me at all. The VRA in my opinion is out of control. Scalia must have enjoyed issuing that stay. Smiley
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,858
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #559 on: December 09, 2011, 08:28:39 PM »

And the double standard continues, unbelievable.

I hope it is realized that the court could just let the court map go through, since the GOP map was illegal and cannot stand.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #560 on: December 09, 2011, 08:29:36 PM »

And the double standard continues, unbelievable.

I hope it is realized that the court could just let the court map go through, since the GOP map was illegal and cannot stand.

What double standard?
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #561 on: December 09, 2011, 08:30:14 PM »

I wonder if this portends that SCOTUS is going to chop back on the VRA (as interpreted by prior courts), something that would not surprise me at all. The VRA in my opinion is out of control. Scalia must have enjoyed issuing that stay. Smiley

The Scalia/Thomas position is that the Voting Rights Act cannot challenge a reapportionment plan.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,858
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #562 on: December 09, 2011, 08:31:29 PM »


The one about courts intervening in redistricting. When it doesn't help Republicans, it's unconstitutional and warrants impeachment, but if it does, it's all well and good.

You can't have it both ways, it's either unconstitutional or it isn't.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,486
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #563 on: December 09, 2011, 08:32:33 PM »

I wonder if this portends that SCOTUS is going to chop back on the VRA (as interpreted by prior courts), something that would not surprise me at all. The VRA in my opinion is out of control. Scalia must have enjoyed issuing that stay. Smiley

The Scalia/Thomas position is that the Voting Rights Act cannot challenge a reapportionment plan.

So if that went through, everything from at large districts to multi-member districts would be legal again?  Talk about chaos...
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #564 on: December 09, 2011, 08:34:49 PM »


The one about courts intervening in redistricting. When it doesn't help Republicans, it's unconstitutional and warrants impeachment, but if it does, it's all well and good.

You can't have it both ways, it's either unconstitutional or it isn't.

The courts already intervened by drawing a map out of loin cloth.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #565 on: December 09, 2011, 08:37:06 PM »

I wonder if this portends that SCOTUS is going to chop back on the VRA (as interpreted by prior courts), something that would not surprise me at all. The VRA in my opinion is out of control. Scalia must have enjoyed issuing that stay. Smiley

The Scalia/Thomas position is that the Voting Rights Act cannot challenge a reapportionment plan.

So if that went through, everything from at large districts to multi-member districts would be legal again?  Talk about chaos...

One man one vote district rules would apply. 1967 congressional law still bars multi-member districts.

So it would actually be quite a bit simpler.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #566 on: December 09, 2011, 08:38:15 PM »

And the double standard continues, unbelievable.

I hope it is realized that the court could just let the court map go through, since the GOP map was illegal and cannot stand.

The US Constitution says that the legislature draws the maps.  PERIOD.  Not some judges from the central government.  In extreme cases they can follow the legislative intent and match the existing (2000) maps as close as possible.  They didn't do that.  The maps from the legislature and Judge Smith were much closer to the current maps.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #567 on: December 09, 2011, 08:42:00 PM »

I wonder if this portends that SCOTUS is going to chop back on the VRA (as interpreted by prior courts), something that would not surprise me at all. The VRA in my opinion is out of control. Scalia must have enjoyed issuing that stay. Smiley

The Scalia/Thomas position is that the Voting Rights Act cannot challenge a reapportionment plan.

So if that went through, everything from at large districts to multi-member districts would be legal again?  Talk about chaos...

One man one vote district rules would apply. 1967 congressional law still bars multi-member districts.

So it would actually be quite a bit simpler.
The Supreme Court says that is not entirely true since Congress did not repeal existing statutes regarding transitions after censuses.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,486
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #568 on: December 09, 2011, 08:43:51 PM »

I wonder if this portends that SCOTUS is going to chop back on the VRA (as interpreted by prior courts), something that would not surprise me at all. The VRA in my opinion is out of control. Scalia must have enjoyed issuing that stay. Smiley

The Scalia/Thomas position is that the Voting Rights Act cannot challenge a reapportionment plan.

So if that went through, everything from at large districts to multi-member districts would be legal again?  Talk about chaos...

One man one vote district rules would apply. 1967 congressional law still bars multi-member districts.

So it would actually be quite a bit simpler.

But electing representatives at-large would be legal (and devastating from a partisan standpoint in TX, NY, IL, IN, MD, etc.), because that was specifically a VRA Supreme Court Case.  An at large IL in 2012 would probably elect 18 Democrats, and  TX and GA could go 90-100% GOP
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #569 on: December 09, 2011, 08:57:50 PM »

I wonder if this portends that SCOTUS is going to chop back on the VRA (as interpreted by prior courts), something that would not surprise me at all. The VRA in my opinion is out of control. Scalia must have enjoyed issuing that stay. Smiley

The Scalia/Thomas position is that the Voting Rights Act cannot challenge a reapportionment plan.

So if that went through, everything from at large districts to multi-member districts would be legal again?  Talk about chaos...

One man one vote district rules would apply. 1967 congressional law still bars multi-member districts.

So it would actually be quite a bit simpler.
The Supreme Court says that is not entirely true since Congress did not repeal existing statutes regarding transitions after censuses.

Ah, interesting. Although I suspect the current 435 members of Congress would be very quick to repeal such to protect themselves.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,858
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #570 on: December 09, 2011, 08:58:36 PM »


The courts already intervened by drawing a map out of loin cloth.

Whatever that means.

And the double standard continues, unbelievable.

I hope it is realized that the court could just let the court map go through, since the GOP map was illegal and cannot stand.

The US Constitution says that the legislature draws the maps.  PERIOD.  Not some judges from the central government.  In extreme cases they can follow the legislative intent and match the existing (2000) maps as close as possible.  They didn't do that.  The maps from the legislature and Judge Smith were much closer to the current maps.

But, if the maps drawn violate the law, the court must step in. If the legislature could do anything they wanted with the maps, there would be more tricks with deviations like there were in the past to stifle opposition strength.

Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #571 on: December 09, 2011, 09:03:58 PM »


The courts already intervened by drawing a map out of loin cloth.

Whatever that means.

And the double standard continues, unbelievable.

I hope it is realized that the court could just let the court map go through, since the GOP map was illegal and cannot stand.

The US Constitution says that the legislature draws the maps.  PERIOD.  Not some judges from the central government.  In extreme cases they can follow the legislative intent and match the existing (2000) maps as close as possible.  They didn't do that.  The maps from the legislature and Judge Smith were much closer to the current maps.

But, if the maps drawn violate the law, the court must step in. If the legislature could do anything they wanted with the maps, there would be more tricks with deviations like there were in the past to stifle opposition strength.


It was never established by any court that the maps drawn violate the law. Hence:


The courts already intervened by drawing a map out of loin cloth.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,486
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #572 on: December 09, 2011, 09:07:51 PM »

I wonder if this portends that SCOTUS is going to chop back on the VRA (as interpreted by prior courts), something that would not surprise me at all. The VRA in my opinion is out of control. Scalia must have enjoyed issuing that stay. Smiley

The Scalia/Thomas position is that the Voting Rights Act cannot challenge a reapportionment plan.

So if that went through, everything from at large districts to multi-member districts would be legal again?  Talk about chaos...

One man one vote district rules would apply. 1967 congressional law still bars multi-member districts.

So it would actually be quite a bit simpler.
The Supreme Court says that is not entirely true since Congress did not repeal existing statutes regarding transitions after censuses.

Ah, interesting. Although I suspect the current 435 members of Congress would be very quick to repeal such to protect themselves.

What does that mean?  That states wouldn't formally have to redistrict every 10 years anymore?  Isn't that in Baker v. Carr and unrelated to VRA?
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #573 on: December 09, 2011, 09:17:11 PM »

What does that mean?  That states wouldn't formally have to redistrict every 10 years anymore?  Isn't that in Baker v. Carr and unrelated to VRA?

Well, it's just a guess based on what you and jimtrex said. In any sort of at large free for all, plenty of members of Congress would be at risk. Naturally, then, they would have interest in maintaining single member districts as that's their best chance of being elected.

If the 1967 law is not enough to require single member districts, a hypothetical new law could perhaps rectify that.

Redistricting is of course related to Baker v Carr and one man one vote violations. But by definition, at large districts comply as all districts are the same size.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,486
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #574 on: December 09, 2011, 09:30:31 PM »

What does that mean?  That states wouldn't formally have to redistrict every 10 years anymore?  Isn't that in Baker v. Carr and unrelated to VRA?

Well, it's just a guess based on what you and jimtrex said. In any sort of at large free for all, plenty of members of Congress would be at risk. Naturally, then, they would have interest in maintaining single member districts as that's their best chance of being elected.

If the 1967 law is not enough to require single member districts, a hypothetical new law could perhaps rectify that.

Redistricting is of course related to Baker v Carr and one man one vote violations. But by definition, at large districts comply as all districts are the same size.

Just imagine the amount of money that would be spent on a ballot referendum to create an at large CA, if such a thing were possible...
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 ... 32  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 11 queries.