Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 31, 2014, 10:52:02 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  US House Redistricting: Texas
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 32 Print
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: Texas  (Read 47898 times)
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27871


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: January 01, 2011, 05:32:12 pm »
Ignore

Sam, I think that your DFW minority districts are not as VRA-proof as the TX GOP might want. This provides more margin to correct for the VAP, and even citizen VAP if needed. This will be especially needed since this would go through the Obama DOJ. So, here's my bullet-proof minority districts for the Metroplex.



CD 30:
White 27%, Black 53%, Asian 3%, Hispanic 16%
Obama 79%, McCain 20%

CD 33:
White 21%, Black 9%, Asian 3%, Hispanic 66%
Obama 66%, McCain 33%

I don't think GOP would have any problem drawing those districts, even though they are *butt ugly* (to put it mildly).  I didn't do it, because, odd as it may sound, I'm aiming for something that looks a bit nicer.

Here's what I'm going to point out - Texas is really looking for fights with the Feds right now, and vice versa.  The reason why I'm drawing the maps that raise questions is because Texas lawmakers are almost certainly going to produce one based on their interpretation of LULAC v. Perry that comes as close to skirting the lines as they think possible.

In particular, they are going to read LULAC v. Perry as saying that 'so long as there is 50%+1 Latino citizen VAP, the first Gingles threshold requirement is not met, and, therefore, there is no Section 2 violation.'  TX-23, in that instance had 55% Latino population, 50% VAP and 46% citizen VAP.  TX-23 is probably going to be a tad lower on the citizen VAP than other parts of Texas, but if we have 59% to 60% Latino population, there will be 50%+1 citizen VAP.

And when the Obama Justice Dept. blocks this map through Section 5, they're going to argue the unconstitutionality of the Section 5, which the Court successfully ignored in Northwest Austin Municipal District No.1 v. Holder, but left quite a cautious tone on its continued viability (of course, Roberts does not speak for Kennedy, naturally)..

You'll see this game come to fruition in the next couple of maps I draw.

EDIT:  I see Torie's new post which suggests question between citizen VAP and regular VAP.  I am almost certain it is citizen VAP, just having read the ruling again before making the above post, but I am trying to show the number where 50%+1 citizen VAP is reached, at least along the border in Texas.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8783


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: January 01, 2011, 07:07:45 pm »

Yes, having now just looked at the question (because I was in a state of total confusion myself), apparently Justice Kennedy was vague in Bartlett v Strickland (did he mean to be vague, or was he just sloppy?), about whether the relevant minority class under the VRA was VAP or citizen VAP. His language just says VAP, but a later lower court opined in REYES v. CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH TEXAS that  given the context of the relevant phrase in Bartlett, and the fact that the issue of VAP versus citizen VAP was not before the Bartlett court, and  that the whole concept of voting means eligible to vote,  what Justice Kennedy really meant to say was citizen VAP, and not just VAP, and so ruled.

And since that lower court was the 5th Circuit, that holding is the governing authority for the moment for Texas, unless and until Justice Kennedy in a later case rules that no, when he wrote VAP, and did not include the qualifier "citizen," that was because he intended not to. It is all very odd, since the lower court in Bartlett which was appealed to SCOTUS, explicitly discussed the issue of citizen versus non-citizen, and explicitly ruled that the relevant number was citizen VAP, and one cannot not include the non citizen minority VAP in the count.

Fun stuff isn't it?

Especially since the 7th Circuit wasn't willing to use a standard like CVAP in Gonzalez v. City of Aurora (2008). They want to compare the approved map to a race neutral map to test for vote dilution. Clearly the two circuits differ in approach and it sets up an inevitable SCOTUS review after the 2011 redistricting IMHO. Many legal experts I've spoke to in the last year agree that the subject of VAP vs CVAP will need clarification by the high court.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2011, 10:08:22 pm by muon2 »Logged


Partial solar eclipse of April 15, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8783


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: January 01, 2011, 07:48:05 pm »

Similar to my effort in DFW, here's what I get for the Houston area. Here my goal was 60% for the Hispanic districts. I got close with the estimates and rough mapping of Dave's App. I'm confident that with block-level mapping 60% would be achievable. Definitely not pretty.



CD 9:
White 13%, Black 61%, Asian 5%, Hispanic 21%
Obama 86%, McCain 14%

CD 18:
White 22%, Black 14%, Asian 5%, Hispanic 58.2%
Obama 62%, McCain 37%

CD 29:
White 21%, Black 16%, Asian 4%, Hispanic 59.0%
Obama 69%, McCain 31%
Logged


Partial solar eclipse of April 15, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27428
United States


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: January 01, 2011, 08:55:29 pm »
Ignore

Yes, having now just looked at the question (because I was in a state of total confusion myself), apparently Justice Kennedy was vague in Bartlett v Strickland (did he mean to be vague, or was he just sloppy?), about whether the relevant minority class under the VRA was VAP or citizen VAP. His language just says VAP, but a later lower court opined in REYES v. CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH TEXAS that  given the context of the relevant phrase in Bartlett, and the fact that the issue of VAP versus citizen VAP was not before the Bartlett court, and  that the whole concept of voting means eligible to vote,  what Justice Kennedy really meant to say was citizen VAP, and not just VAP, and so ruled.

And since that lower court was the 5th Circuit, that holding is the governing authority for the moment for Texas, unless and until Justice Kennedy in a later case rules that no, when he wrote VAP, and did not include the qualifier "citizen," that was because he intended not to. It is all very odd, since the lower court in Bartlett which was appealed to SCOTUS, explicitly discussed the issue of citizen versus non-citizen, and explicitly ruled that the relevant number was citizen VAP, and one cannot not include the non citizen minority VAP in the count.

Fun stuff isn't it?

Especially since the 7th Circuit wasn't willing to use a standard like CVAP in Gonzalez v. City of Aurora (2008). They want to compare the approved map to a race neutral map to test for vote dilution. Clearly the two circuits differ in approach and it sets up an inevitable SCOTUS review after the 2011 redistricting IMHO. Many legal experts I've spoke to in the last year agree that the subject of VAP vs CVAP will need clarification by the high court.

And of course, how do you count CVAP when it is not included in the census?  And just why would it seem reasonable that persons not eligible to vote, should be factored in as to whether those eligible to vote can elect someone of their choice? Those Hispanic eligible to vote would be getting a boost from those not eligible to vote to reach the 50% plus one threshold. Under that standard, why don't we count the Hispanic minors too? How are they different from VAP's who are as equally ineligible to vote?

And as to VAP's who are not CVAP's, do we count illegals too, or just legal residents with green cards who are not citizens? Why should illegals have some influence on who gets elected?  Just asking. Heck, if I were Hispanic, but all the rest of the Hispanics were illegals, in my community of interest, and the number of illegals were enough to get to 50% plus one, then I suppose as a practical matter, it should come down to whether someone of my choice can get elected. Tongue

The thing is at once ludicrous and a legal mess, and if something other than VAP is the standard, the courts will be saddled with a host of hack experts testifying trying to create inferential data, sometimes, particularly at the margins, out of something akin to thin air as we "decide" which names on the voting rolls seem "Hispanic" for CVAP purposes, and which not. I once knew a Cuban, who looked quite Hispanic, with the name of "Martin."  He would obviously not be counted as Hispanic on the voting rolls. And a fair number of surnames, could be either facially Hispanic or Anglo, not to mention having to deal with Italian and Portuguese surnames, which cross over into Spanish surnames.

SCOTUS has not distinguished itself on this one - at all. JMO of course.

Do you see how the legal advocacy mind works here?  Tongue
« Last Edit: January 01, 2011, 10:08:54 pm by muon2 »Logged

Linus Van Pelt
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1861


View Profile
« Reply #79 on: January 01, 2011, 09:20:26 pm »
Ignore

Indeed, it is a mess, and the culprit is the combination of (a) single-member districts with (b) representation for non-geographic minorities.

If you gave up (a), you could get (b) quite easily without any erose (as you like to put it) maps. For instance, STV is used in Northern Ireland for just the reason that the main social cleavage there doesn't correspond to a clear geographic segregation, and the same ought to apply to the southern US.
Logged

Quote
Resident Al Salsano griped that the wine bar has a limited food menu and attracts people who use it as a place for dates after meeting online.

"I have seen people say, ‘I met you on the Internet,’ and you’re putting that on the sidewalk?" he said incredulously. "I don’t want children walking near 'Internet people' meeting."
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27871


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: January 01, 2011, 10:57:38 pm »
Ignore

We are in agreement here, Torie.  The Supreme Court decisions in the area of congressional appropriation in recent years generally suck royally.  No wonder is it that so many of the recent ones have been written by Kennedy.

Of course, I also think Reynolds v. Sims was wrongly decided, so maybe my opinion is a little out there.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8783


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: January 01, 2011, 11:25:43 pm »

We are in agreement here, Torie.  The Supreme Court decisions in the area of congressional appropriation in recent years generally suck royally.  No wonder is it that so many of the recent ones have been written by Kennedy.

Of course, I also think Reynolds v. Sims was wrongly decided, so maybe my opinion is a little out there.

I was always a bit surprised that the Reynolds court didn't establish separate standards for upper and lower chambers for state legislatures. Clearly there is that distinction for the US Senate. They could have held that as long as one chamber was fairly apportioned, then the republican model applied to the states would work as well as the federal system was intended by the Constitution.
Logged


Partial solar eclipse of April 15, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58778
India


View Profile
« Reply #82 on: January 02, 2011, 06:22:02 am »
Ignore

I wouldn't worry about Sam's metro districts, what with the fact that not nearly all the non-Blacks / non-Mexicans are Anglo. Though who knows.
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5837
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: January 02, 2011, 05:16:03 pm »
Ignore

Yes, having now just looked at the question (because I was in a state of total confusion myself), apparently Justice Kennedy was vague in Bartlett v Strickland (did he mean to be vague, or was he just sloppy?), about whether the relevant minority class under the VRA was VAP or citizen VAP. His language just says VAP, but a later lower court opined in REYES v. CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH TEXAS that  given the context of the relevant phrase in Bartlett, and the fact that the issue of VAP versus citizen VAP was not before the Bartlett court, and  that the whole concept of voting means eligible to vote,  what Justice Kennedy really meant to say was citizen VAP, and not just VAP, and so ruled.

And since that lower court was the 5th Circuit, that holding is the governing authority for the moment for Texas, unless and until Justice Kennedy in a later case rules that no, when he wrote VAP, and did not include the qualifier "citizen," that was because he intended not to. It is all very odd, since the lower court in Bartlett which was appealed to SCOTUS, explicitly discussed the issue of citizen versus non-citizen, and explicitly ruled that the relevant number was citizen VAP, and one cannot not include the non citizen minority VAP in the count.

Fun stuff isn't it?

Especially since the 7th Circuit wasn't willing to use a standard like CVAP in Gonzalez v. City of Aurora (2008). They want to compare the approved map to a race neutral map to test for vote dilution. Clearly the two circuits differ in approach and it sets up an inevitable SCOTUS review after the 2011 redistricting IMHO. Many legal experts I've spoke to in the last year agree that the subject of VAP vs CVAP will need clarification by the high court.
Shouldn't the high court address the issue of inter-district variation in CVAP?  Doesn't the deliberate packing of citizens of voting age in some districts result in their having less of a vote than citizens of voting age in other districts, and violate the 14th Amendment?
Logged
Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12965


View Profile
« Reply #84 on: January 02, 2011, 08:50:56 pm »
Ignore

The Court considered CVAP only as a proxy for determining the likelihood of a certain outcome, not for an individual's right to representation, which is based on being a resident of the state and not a citizen.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27871


View Profile
« Reply #85 on: January 02, 2011, 10:16:43 pm »
Ignore

I wouldn't worry about Sam's metro districts, what with the fact that not nearly all the non-Blacks / non-Mexicans are Anglo. Though who knows.

I'm not worried about the metro districts - so long as they vote the right way, no one will be complaining.  And the Hispanic CDs probably fit under VAP or citizen VAP - if not, adjustments can be made easily to make them compatible.

Anyway, map #2, which I'm working on, is the real way to f-ck Democrats of which there will be a hard time to find complaints to stop it.  The trick is to go back to the old Republican method of splitting Webb County, pitting Cuellar against Hinojosa in CD-15, and design new CD-28 so that it takes in the former border areas of TX-23, the leftover parts of Webb County and then combine them with Midland and Odessa, thus giving us Conaway as an incumbent.  I can get to 62.74% Hispanic population (definitely good enough for VAP or CVAP) and 55.07% McCain numbers while making everything look nice and pretty.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5837
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: January 02, 2011, 11:13:04 pm »
Ignore

The Court considered CVAP only as a proxy for determining the likelihood of a certain outcome, not for an individual's right to representation, which is based on being a resident of the state and not a citizen.

Quote from: Justice Hugo Black in Wesberry v Sanders
We hold that, construed in its historical context, the command of Art. I, § 2 that Representatives be chosen "by the People of the several States" means that, as nearly as is practicable, one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's.
Logged
Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12965


View Profile
« Reply #87 on: January 03, 2011, 07:36:36 am »
Ignore

The Court considered CVAP only as a proxy for determining the likelihood of a certain outcome, not for an individual's right to representation, which is based on being a resident of the state and not a citizen.

Quote from: Justice Hugo Black in Wesberry v Sanders
We hold that, construed in its historical context, the command of Art. I, § 2 that Representatives be chosen "by the People of the several States" means that, as nearly as is practicable, one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's.

Interesting. When I have time, I'll have to read that decision for quotes supporting their decision to determine districting by resident population, and not the number of VAP citizens, because if they believed the latter was what mattered, they could easily have ruled for using that as the total. There are always quotes and arguments put forward in decisions that are then outweighed by other arguments seen to have more relevance and a stronger constitutional basis--hence "as nearly as practicable." Do you think that the courts would rule that a citizen's right to an equal distribution of CVAP outweighs the right of residents of the U.S. to equal representation regardless of ability or proclivity to vote? Is there evidence that the courts share that view?
Logged
Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12965


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: January 03, 2011, 07:50:31 am »
Ignore

I do think it's interesting that Wesberry was decided at a time when the non-citizen adult population in the U.S. was likely at a low for the century... just before immigration reform. However, it was also before the mass registration of African-American citizens in the South, so there were surely districts in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas with a relatively low number of voters. Did Wesberry comment on any of those districts for the purpose of de facto citizens' equal rights to representation vs. adults (not that African-Americans were represented by their representatives)? Did the courts make a nod to the fact that citizenship did not correlate with voting rights, which is a difference in analogizing that population to non-citizens and children today? I would think that if the court had concerns about districts with roughly equal populations but very different sized electorates, they would have seized the opportunity to say something. Whites in predominantly white areas surely were at a disadvantage to whites in heavily minority areas even when the districts were of equal population, as Wesberry decided was the best solution.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2011, 11:21:30 am by brittain33 »Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16806


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #89 on: January 03, 2011, 10:55:52 am »
Ignore

I do think it's interesting that Wesberry was decided at a time when the non-citizen adult population in the U.S. was likely at a low for the century... just before immigration reform. However, it was also before the mass registration of African-American citizens in the South, so there were surely districts in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas with a relatively low number of citizens. Did Wesberry comment on any of those districts for the purpose of de facto citizens' equal rights to representation vs. adults (not that African-Americans were represented by their representatives)? Did the courts make a nod to the fact that citizenship did not correlate with voting rights, which is a difference in analogizing that population to non-citizens and children today? I would think that if the court had concerns about districts with roughly equal populations but very different sized electorates, they would have seized the opportunity to say something. Whites in predominantly white areas surely were at a disadvantage to whites in heavily minority areas even when the districts were of equal population, as Wesberry decided was the best solution.

Hmm? Blacks in those places were always citizens, even when they couldn't vote. They met the 14th Amendment requirement of being born in the United States. After all, restrictions on black voting did not consist in laws actually banning blacks from voting (to which the courts would have immediately acknowledged they had a constitutional right) but rather on denying all people with low education levels or the inability to pay a fee the vote, or else through extralegal intimidation.
Logged
Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12965


View Profile
« Reply #90 on: January 03, 2011, 11:20:57 am »
Ignore

Hmm? Blacks in those places were always citizens, even when they couldn't vote.

You're right of course, I meant to say "voters" in that particular sentence. The rest of my paragraph makes sense with that correction in mind (which I'll make now), I used "de facto citizens" to refer to those who could vote and distinguish them from those who couldn't. (which also included some poor whites, but that's another discussion.)
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27428
United States


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: January 03, 2011, 01:02:42 pm »
Ignore

I wouldn't worry about Sam's metro districts, what with the fact that not nearly all the non-Blacks / non-Mexicans are Anglo. Though who knows.

I'm not worried about the metro districts - so long as they vote the right way, no one will be complaining.  And the Hispanic CDs probably fit under VAP or citizen VAP - if not, adjustments can be made easily to make them compatible.

Anyway, map #2, which I'm working on, is the real way to f-ck Democrats of which there will be a hard time to find complaints to stop it.  The trick is to go back to the old Republican method of splitting Webb County, pitting Cuellar against Hinojosa in CD-15, and design new CD-28 so that it takes in the former border areas of TX-23, the leftover parts of Webb County and then combine them with Midland and Odessa, thus giving us Conaway as an incumbent.  I can get to 62.74% Hispanic population (definitely good enough for VAP or CVAP) and 55.07% McCain numbers while making everything look nice and pretty.

I am finding that drawing really good maps requires a heck of a lot of work, Sam, precinct by precinct, and of course the larger number of CD's involved, the more the work. I found PA to be a bear, and Texas must be an utter nightmare. Can you imagine what will be involved to draw CA, with all those rules as an overlay?  Oh dear!

You can't just spend a couple of hours with your mouse, and call it a day. Not for this endeavor.
Logged

Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27871


View Profile
« Reply #92 on: January 03, 2011, 04:02:01 pm »
Ignore

I wouldn't worry about Sam's metro districts, what with the fact that not nearly all the non-Blacks / non-Mexicans are Anglo. Though who knows.

I'm not worried about the metro districts - so long as they vote the right way, no one will be complaining.  And the Hispanic CDs probably fit under VAP or citizen VAP - if not, adjustments can be made easily to make them compatible.

Anyway, map #2, which I'm working on, is the real way to f-ck Democrats of which there will be a hard time to find complaints to stop it.  The trick is to go back to the old Republican method of splitting Webb County, pitting Cuellar against Hinojosa in CD-15, and design new CD-28 so that it takes in the former border areas of TX-23, the leftover parts of Webb County and then combine them with Midland and Odessa, thus giving us Conaway as an incumbent.  I can get to 62.74% Hispanic population (definitely good enough for VAP or CVAP) and 55.07% McCain numbers while making everything look nice and pretty.

I am finding that drawing really good maps requires a heck of a lot of work, Sam, precinct by precinct, and of course the larger number of CD's involved, the more the work. I found PA to be a bear, and Texas must be an utter nightmare. Can you imagine what will be involved to draw CA, with all those rules as an overlay?  Oh dear!

You can't just spend a couple of hours with your mouse, and call it a day. Not for this endeavor.

With Texas, the only real questions occur from Austin southward and westward.  There's really no point to playing around with the other parts of the state that much, the results are obvious, except that it makes a lot of sense to give Johnson, Culberson and Sessions some younger suburbs.  Map #2 will be a bit different in layout than the present gerrymander than Map #1, and I must admit, looks much better.

I'm going to produce a map with 60%+1 Latino population and one with 62.50%+1 Latino population just for comparison.  The second one I know will produce a Hispanic majority even under CVAP, even though I can only get Farenthold up a bit in GOP strength (about 50-50) and there will be two obvious marginals (I can get TX-27 up to marginal status).  With 60%, I can certainly produce 27 seats that should produce GOP reps as the McCain% should be above 50% in the two marginals.

Depending on the actual numbers, this is the map that should be produced b/c you get the two new Hispanic majority CDs (the third would be made up of almost already all Democratic areas in Houston, if done) and 25 certain GOP reps, along with two marginals that look much better than present TX-23 and TX-27.

Actually, the problem with so many CDs is that it makes it harder for you to open up your eyes and see the best solution, which in Texas is 1) combine Cuellar and Hinojosa together - the geography works; 2) split Webb County; 3) include Midland/Odessa in a border CD.
Logged
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5931


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: January 04, 2011, 05:18:03 pm »
Ignore

Interview about Texas redistricting.


http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/01/redistricting-q-2.php

MA: I think their starting place will be to try to hold their districts. And they'll do that by keeping the minority percentage the same, but putting in high-voting Anglo-Republicans. High turnout Republicans. What they did this time is they won because you had high turnout among Anglos who vote straight-ticket Republican.

And then they will draw a new Hispanic district in Dallas County and just say that that's a new Hispanic district. Because you can draw it there and not hurt any incumbent. Then they'll draw some kind of Hispanic district, or at least I'll call it a "Hispanic district" from Austin, South. But rather than leave the rest of Travis County for Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D), they'll break up Travis County into three or four pieces.

So Doggett will face a tough race. Either they'll get rid of him by putting him a Republican district or they'll make him run in a Hispanic district. Doggett's been elected in a Hispanic district before; maybe he can do it again. But it keeps Democrats from netting up seats. So then, in effect, what they will have done is created three new Republican districts.



I don't know if I agree with that, but its an interesting point to ponder. It makes much more sense to me just to draw a circle in Travis County and move on.

I don't know where this idea that there's going to be another hispanic majority Dem district in South Texas. I see no reason at all to draw one. If there has to be an 8th hispanic majority district it should use the idea posted above and just rearrange the 3 existing Houston districts.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27871


View Profile
« Reply #94 on: January 04, 2011, 05:31:07 pm »
Ignore

btw, the next map I'll work on is the Austin pack.  You won't get to 60% Hispanic though, which will probably cause LULAC to file suit for another Hispanic district.  Or maybe not.  

The fact remains is that, without making the map *too* ugly, a pretty safe 25-11 GOP map, with the Austin-San Antonio TX-23, can be created at the 62.5% Hispanic population level with one definite marginal stronger than present TX-23 or TX-27 and another marginal the same or weaker than those..  At the 60%, those two marginals become even stronger, of course.  The issue is that I can't get Farenthold's CD above McCain 52% with 60% Hispanics in its current configuration or something close.  You go to the north and east and you pick up too many whites.

With the Austin pack, I suspect I can get 26-10 with a bit more security, but 27-9 is probably impossible.  It allows me to try to push Farenthold's CD out to the west where I think I can get a better %.  We'll see.  Anything more than 27-9 anywhere, is impossible.  The GOP may be OK with 26-10, since they probably view Farenthold as a fluke, but we'll see.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27871


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: January 04, 2011, 05:37:26 pm »
Ignore

Interview about Texas redistricting.


http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/01/redistricting-q-2.php

MA: I think their starting place will be to try to hold their districts. And they'll do that by keeping the minority percentage the same, but putting in high-voting Anglo-Republicans. High turnout Republicans. What they did this time is they won because you had high turnout among Anglos who vote straight-ticket Republican.

And then they will draw a new Hispanic district in Dallas County and just say that that's a new Hispanic district. Because you can draw it there and not hurt any incumbent. Then they'll draw some kind of Hispanic district, or at least I'll call it a "Hispanic district" from Austin, South. But rather than leave the rest of Travis County for Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D), they'll break up Travis County into three or four pieces.

So Doggett will face a tough race. Either they'll get rid of him by putting him a Republican district or they'll make him run in a Hispanic district. Doggett's been elected in a Hispanic district before; maybe he can do it again. But it keeps Democrats from netting up seats. So then, in effect, what they will have done is created three new Republican districts.



I don't know if I agree with that, but its an interesting point to ponder. It makes much more sense to me just to draw a circle in Travis County and move on.

I don't know where this idea that there's going to be another hispanic majority Dem district in South Texas. I see no reason at all to draw one. If there has to be an 8th hispanic majority district it should use the idea posted above and just rearrange the 3 existing Houston districts.

So, in other words, they're going to follow the initial plan of my maps.  But no one will have the guts to go and draw Midland-Odessa with the border and a Webb County split.  It works - quite well, I might add. 55% McCain.
Logged
dpmapper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 255
View Profile
« Reply #96 on: January 04, 2011, 05:39:03 pm »
Ignore

 The issue is that I can't get Farenthold's CD above McCain 52% with 60% Hispanics in its current configuration or something close.  You go to the north and east and you pick up too many whites.

I got a Farenthold district at 50% McCain, 65% Hispanic:
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=129772.msg2765676#msg2765676

You could probably modify it to get 52% McCain, 60% Hispanic pretty easily.  
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27871


View Profile
« Reply #97 on: January 04, 2011, 05:53:21 pm »
Ignore

 The issue is that I can't get Farenthold's CD above McCain 52% with 60% Hispanics in its current configuration or something close.  You go to the north and east and you pick up too many whites.

I got a Farenthold district at 50% McCain, 65% Hispanic:
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=129772.msg2765676#msg2765676

You could probably modify it to get 52% McCain, 60% Hispanic pretty easily.  

I should have clarified - without making it look *butt-ugly*.  Smiley

But even with that, you should seriously think about f-ing Cuellar.  The trick is going up to Midland-Odessa, pulling in rural counties  around that area in west Texas (which have lots of Hispanics) and splitting Webb.
Logged
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5931


View Profile
« Reply #98 on: January 04, 2011, 06:10:31 pm »
Ignore

Interview about Texas redistricting.


http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/01/redistricting-q-2.php

MA: I think their starting place will be to try to hold their districts. And they'll do that by keeping the minority percentage the same, but putting in high-voting Anglo-Republicans. High turnout Republicans. What they did this time is they won because you had high turnout among Anglos who vote straight-ticket Republican.

And then they will draw a new Hispanic district in Dallas County and just say that that's a new Hispanic district. Because you can draw it there and not hurt any incumbent. Then they'll draw some kind of Hispanic district, or at least I'll call it a "Hispanic district" from Austin, South. But rather than leave the rest of Travis County for Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D), they'll break up Travis County into three or four pieces.

So Doggett will face a tough race. Either they'll get rid of him by putting him a Republican district or they'll make him run in a Hispanic district. Doggett's been elected in a Hispanic district before; maybe he can do it again. But it keeps Democrats from netting up seats. So then, in effect, what they will have done is created three new Republican districts.



I don't know if I agree with that, but its an interesting point to ponder. It makes much more sense to me just to draw a circle in Travis County and move on.

I don't know where this idea that there's going to be another hispanic majority Dem district in South Texas. I see no reason at all to draw one. If there has to be an 8th hispanic majority district it should use the idea posted above and just rearrange the 3 existing Houston districts.

So, in other words, they're going to follow the initial plan of my maps.  But no one will have the guts to go and draw Midland-Odessa with the border and a Webb County split.  It works - quite well, I might add. 55% McCain.

I wouldn't say nobody. Tom Delay might, if they can find a way to contract him from prison.

I still believe the cleanest solution is 26-10, Austin Pack, 3 GOP marginals (Canseco, Farenholdt, and whomever gets the new district), and 7 hispanic majority districts. LULAC will probably complain no matter what you do.

I don't see any court forcing any type of Austin to San Antonio district, which is really just a waste of Republican votes and forces you to crack the Austin liberal whites. I'm going to try to work on a map to use TX 13, 19, and 11 and utterly chop Austin into bits.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27871


View Profile
« Reply #99 on: January 04, 2011, 06:19:21 pm »
Ignore

Interview about Texas redistricting.


http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/01/redistricting-q-2.php

MA: I think their starting place will be to try to hold their districts. And they'll do that by keeping the minority percentage the same, but putting in high-voting Anglo-Republicans. High turnout Republicans. What they did this time is they won because you had high turnout among Anglos who vote straight-ticket Republican.

And then they will draw a new Hispanic district in Dallas County and just say that that's a new Hispanic district. Because you can draw it there and not hurt any incumbent. Then they'll draw some kind of Hispanic district, or at least I'll call it a "Hispanic district" from Austin, South. But rather than leave the rest of Travis County for Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D), they'll break up Travis County into three or four pieces.

So Doggett will face a tough race. Either they'll get rid of him by putting him a Republican district or they'll make him run in a Hispanic district. Doggett's been elected in a Hispanic district before; maybe he can do it again. But it keeps Democrats from netting up seats. So then, in effect, what they will have done is created three new Republican districts.



I don't know if I agree with that, but its an interesting point to ponder. It makes much more sense to me just to draw a circle in Travis County and move on.

I don't know where this idea that there's going to be another hispanic majority Dem district in South Texas. I see no reason at all to draw one. If there has to be an 8th hispanic majority district it should use the idea posted above and just rearrange the 3 existing Houston districts.

So, in other words, they're going to follow the initial plan of my maps.  But no one will have the guts to go and draw Midland-Odessa with the border and a Webb County split.  It works - quite well, I might add. 55% McCain.

I wouldn't say nobody. Tom Delay might, if they can find a way to contract him from prison.

I still believe the cleanest solution is 26-10, Austin Pack, 3 GOP marginals (Canseco, Farenholdt, and whomever gets the new district), and 7 hispanic majority districts. LULAC will probably complain no matter what you do.

I don't see any court forcing any type of Austin to San Antonio district, which is really just a waste of Republican votes and forces you to crack the Austin liberal whites. I'm going to try to work on a map to use TX 13, 19, and 11 and utterly chop Austin into bits.

The Austin-San Antonio thing won't be forced either, I agree. 

But since I can chop Austin into bits in map #2 with McCain % being 57.50% in all the Austin choppers (map#2 I've designed has it being Smith, Canseco, Neugebauer and Flores!) I don't view it as being that big of a wast.  Smiley
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 32 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines