US House Redistricting: Texas
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 06:31:17 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 ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: Texas  (Read 131873 times)
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #675 on: March 07, 2012, 12:07:37 PM »

J.M. Lozano (District 43 in the House) switched parties from Democrat to Republican today.

Though the change being given is discussions with George P. Bush, the change in his House district explains things better, as it went from being 53% Obama to being 51% McCain in the new map.

Of course, as I remember, Jose Aliseda (District 35 in the House) is from Bee County, so there might well be a primary.

http://www2.wnct.com/news/2012/mar/05/texas-house-democrat-lozano-becoming-a-republican-ar-2006613/
Aliseda had announced back in September that he wasn't running for re-election (and that was from a district that was being challenged as being too compact and logical rather than racially gerrymandered), and is running for DA (Bee, Live Oak, McMullen).  Being a legislator can be kind of tough, since you have to take off about 5 months, and only pays $7600/year.

Yvonne Gonzalez Toureilles, who Aliseda defeated, and is also from Bee County has indicated that she is running.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #676 on: March 10, 2012, 12:23:27 AM »

J.M. Lozano (District 43 in the House) switched parties from Democrat to Republican today.

Though the change being given is discussions with George P. Bush, the change in his House district explains things better, as it went from being 53% Obama to being 51% McCain in the new map.

Of course, as I remember, Jose Aliseda (District 35 in the House) is from Bee County, so there might well be a primary.

http://www2.wnct.com/news/2012/mar/05/texas-house-democrat-lozano-becoming-a-republican-ar-2006613/
Another party switcher.

http://www.riograndeguardian.com/lista_story.asp?story_no=24

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


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #677 on: March 12, 2012, 11:27:50 AM »

Texas voter ID was of course just rejected by the DOJ. Highly expected and the lawsuits were already filed accordingly months ago.
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,461
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #678 on: March 12, 2012, 01:00:54 PM »

Good for the DOJ, too bad they can't do it in Wisconsin.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #679 on: March 14, 2012, 09:21:22 AM »

MALDEF brief on TX-25.

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

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

However, the Voting Rights Act does not exist to protect political parties or office-holders. The Court need not accept the invitation to hold that any district, regardless of its demographic composition or level of polarized voting, is protected by section 5 simply because minority voters agree with the outcome of the General Election because such a holding would stretch section 5 beyond any reasonable interpretation.
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #680 on: March 14, 2012, 09:58:01 AM »

MALDEF brief on TX-25.

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

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

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

The VRA was passed during a time in the South in which the majority of Blacks voted for the Democratic primary, and, the Democratic nominee won the general election. If that was really the standard, there would not have been any need for the VRA. The VRA was passed to ensure Black candidates had the opportunity to win the Democratic primary.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #681 on: March 14, 2012, 06:18:31 PM »

Texas has just requested that Section 5 be tossed.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #682 on: March 14, 2012, 06:40:13 PM »

Good for the DOJ, too bad they can't do it in Wisconsin.

Texas has added to their lawsuit a challenge to Section 5 based on the fact that USDOJ can block a law that they can't in other states.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #683 on: March 14, 2012, 11:19:04 PM »

MALDEF brief on TX-25.

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

Under this logic, any majority-minority district can be dismantled, its Latino and Black voters scattered into districts where they constitute less than 30% of the voters, and, as long as a Democratic candidate wins the General Election, the Voting Rights Act will be satisfied. That is simply not the case.
I read just the opposite. The brief argues that a section 5 minority district must show that the minority can control the primary as well as the general election. They specifically argue that Doggett's district does not meet that test and can claim no section 5 protection.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
This is from the brief and affirms what I said above. MALDEF is arguing against the protection of Doggett's district.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #684 on: March 15, 2012, 07:09:11 AM »

MALDEF brief on TX-25.

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

Under this logic, any majority-minority district can be dismantled, its Latino and Black voters scattered into districts where they constitute less than 30% of the voters, and, as long as a Democratic candidate wins the General Election, the Voting Rights Act will be satisfied. That is simply not the case.
I read just the opposite. The brief argues that a section 5 minority district must show that the minority can control the primary as well as the general election. They specifically argue that Doggett's district does not meet that test and can claim no section 5 protection.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
This is from the brief and affirms what I said above. MALDEF is arguing against the protection of Doggett's district.

Ah, yes. The 'logic' being referred to is that of the Travis County plaintiffs, who want to functionally extend S5 to all Democratic districts.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #685 on: March 17, 2012, 08:44:17 PM »

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

Had I used the 0.5% tolerance from NY and CA I would have included three additional regions:
The counties east of Bexar and Comal would be separate from the San Antonio region
Denton and Cooke counties would be separate from the Dallas region
The southern part of the Beaumont district would form a single CD and leave the other two districts in a region just over 0.1%.

DRA maps in the next post ...
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #686 on: March 17, 2012, 09:08:45 PM »

Here's the resulting map in DRA from my initial set of regions. Districts are drawn to minimize county splits and all districts are within 500 and all except 35 and 36 are within 300 of the ideal population. The numbering follows the initial regional divisions.

There are 10 districts with a Hispanic VAP majority and 2 with a Black VAP majority. They are listed below along with the percent VAP and percent of registered voters with Spanish surnames (SSRV).

CD 1 (El Paso) H 77.9% (SSVR 66.2%)
CD 2 (Midland) H 59.9% (SSVR 50.2%)
CD 5 (Corpus Christi) H 67.8% (SSVR 58.4%)
CD 6 (Brownsville) H 85.7% (SSVR 78.5%)
CD 7 (McAllen) H 87.6% (SSVR 78.5%)
CD 9 (San Antonio west) HVAP 61.8% (SSVR 50.7%)
CD 10 (San Antonio south) HVAP 62.0% (SSVR 50.9%)
CD 18 (Dallas central/Ft Worth central) HVAP 63.3% (SSVR 38.0%)
CD 19 (Dallas south) BVAP 50.8%
CD 30 (Houston northwest) HVAP 60.3% (SSVR 33.8%)
CD 31 (Houston central) BVAP 50.9%
CD 32 (Houston east/Pasadena) HVAP 62.4% (SSVR 42.2%)



Here's the detail for central TX, DFW, and Houston:





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


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #687 on: March 20, 2012, 07:22:49 PM »

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.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #688 on: March 20, 2012, 09:34:03 PM »

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),
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #689 on: March 20, 2012, 10:12:23 PM »

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.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #690 on: March 20, 2012, 10:51:27 PM »

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.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #691 on: March 20, 2012, 11:11:04 PM »

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.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #692 on: March 21, 2012, 12:03:02 AM »

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.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #693 on: March 21, 2012, 12:20:20 AM »

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).
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #694 on: March 21, 2012, 12:27:21 AM »

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.

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.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #695 on: March 21, 2012, 12:30:47 AM »

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).


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.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #696 on: March 21, 2012, 02:11:17 AM »

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.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #697 on: March 21, 2012, 06:58:43 AM »


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
My version that used the middle Rio Grande instead of the Concho Valley was to get a 50%+ SSRV district. If that's not a factor, I like your compactness.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Which is pretty much what I did for my East TX region with 3 CDs.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
But you can't deny that the pairing gets to almost exactly 3 CDs. Once those are paired, are the fajita strips really better than my Laredo-Corpus link?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
I found it much easier to cut Ellis and Navarro out. The remaining population is very close to 9 CDs, and it facilitates drawing VRA districts in Dallas County (in case that matters here). Those excess counties on the south then move to ...

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I also had 5 CDs in Harris, and I also used the Galveston-Brazoria and Montgomery-Liberty links. though I came in from College Station instead of Fort Bend, in part because I could so precisely make a CD with Fort Bend and other counties outside of Harris. I think your region will force a split of Fort Bend.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #698 on: March 21, 2012, 08:01:46 AM »

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

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

I don't interpret it that way.

23 is kept at benchmark performance;

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

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

What is not addressed is whether 33 is a required district or not. The Court seems to be leaning no, which is excellent for the GOP for a mid-decade redistricting.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #699 on: March 21, 2012, 12:49:57 PM »
« Edited: March 21, 2012, 06:26:42 PM by 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)
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 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 0.082 seconds with 11 queries.