Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 16, 2014, 02:36:51 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  US House Redistricting: Texas
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 32 Print
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: Texas  (Read 47047 times)
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5765
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #625 on: January 21, 2012, 10:54:21 pm »
Ignore

I do note the SC says the state's plan for DFL "appear to be subject to strong challenges in the 5 proceeding" and the district court was right in not following it. Then they say the district court oughtn't to have drawn a coalition district on purpose. Doesn't that mean they ought to have drawn the (possible) Hispanic-majority district instead? It happens to be far more disruptive to the existing GOP gerrymander...
The SA district court should just wait for the DC court to issue its ruling.

But are they patient enough to do that?

They have issued an order that a conference be held on February 1 to discuss what they should do next.  February 1 was supposed to be the filing deadline for a new special filing period in which everyone could correct their filings to match the districts they were filing in.

And even then it was largely wishful feeling that there would enough time to conduct an April 3 primary.

Final arguments in the preclearance case are February 3.

They would now be faced with guessing what the DC court might order.  If they guess wrong, they would have to modify their plan.  And they have held the Section 2 trial, but they can't issue their ruling on Section 2 until after DC court rules.

If they had sense, they would simply let the rest of the primary go on without the congressional and legislative races, and aim for holding those at the time of the June 5 primary.  That gives them a couple of months to work on the districts.
Logged
Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12845


View Profile
« Reply #626 on: January 29, 2012, 01:04:06 pm »
Ignore

File this under "probably too good to be true" - reports that the legislature is willing to concede on the VRA and allow Dems to have a fairer share of the new seats driven by Latino population growth, and not slice Austin 5 ways, as part of a settlement that avoids the SA courts and gives them a map which still preserves Republican gerrymandering and protects most of their incumbents.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/27/imminent-settlement-possible-in-texas-redistricting-dispute/

I'll believe it when I see it. This would take more common sense than we've seen from that side.
Logged
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5786


View Profile
« Reply #627 on: January 29, 2012, 09:05:48 pm »
Ignore

File this under "probably too good to be true" - reports that the legislature is willing to concede on the VRA and allow Dems to have a fairer share of the new seats driven by Latino population growth, and not slice Austin 5 ways, as part of a settlement that avoids the SA courts and gives them a map which still preserves Republican gerrymandering and protects most of their incumbents.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/27/imminent-settlement-possible-in-texas-redistricting-dispute/

I'll believe it when I see it. This would take more common sense than we've seen from that side.

Any compromise extends solely to the interim maps (per Abbott and Mattax) and will of course be immediately voided if and when Texas wins the preclearance case either at the DC circuit court or on appeal.

In the 1990 redistricting of course, Texas Democrats did not give Republicans their fair share of the new districts. How times change!
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5765
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #628 on: January 30, 2012, 12:22:38 pm »
Ignore

File this under "probably too good to be true" - reports that the legislature is willing to concede on the VRA and allow Dems to have a fairer share of the new seats driven by Latino population growth, and not slice Austin 5 ways, as part of a settlement that avoids the SA courts and gives them a map which still preserves Republican gerrymandering and protects most of their incumbents.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/27/imminent-settlement-possible-in-texas-redistricting-dispute/

I'll believe it when I see it. This would take more common sense than we've seen from that side.

Ferdinand Frank Fischer III likes to boast a lot.
Logged
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5786


View Profile
« Reply #629 on: February 05, 2012, 11:47:33 am »
Ignore

File this under "probably too good to be true" - reports that the legislature is willing to concede on the VRA and allow Dems to have a fairer share of the new seats driven by Latino population growth, and not slice Austin 5 ways, as part of a settlement that avoids the SA courts and gives them a map which still preserves Republican gerrymandering and protects most of their incumbents.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/27/imminent-settlement-possible-in-texas-redistricting-dispute/

I'll believe it when I see it. This would take more common sense than we've seen from that side.

Too good to be true, yep. Texas GOP just told the plaintiffs to get lost a couple days back.

I might add that in 1991 Texas Republican Anglos did not get 'their fair share' of the 3 new seats. Martin Frost kept them all.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2012, 11:50:01 am by krazen1211 »Logged
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58778
India


View Profile
« Reply #630 on: February 05, 2012, 11:54:51 am »
Ignore

Probably just checking to see if Dems might go for an Ohio style "deal".
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
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5786


View Profile
« Reply #631 on: February 05, 2012, 12:04:20 pm »
Ignore

Probably just checking to see if Dems might go for an Ohio style "deal".

Well, the strategy was to peel off 2 or 3 of the plaintiffs (ie MALDEF). Give them their Metroplex Hispanic district, hose Doggett, and give Canseco a district where he's more likely than not to win rather than a tossup; ie, 24-11-1.

That's probably the most likely outcome when all this settles in about 3 years. As it stands, that's pretty much the map that Lamar Smith started with before Barton got greedy; all the time and effort put it basically gave the GOP a shot at the extra district for 10 years.
Logged
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5786


View Profile
« Reply #632 on: February 06, 2012, 02:32:14 pm »
Ignore

Probably just checking to see if Dems might go for an Ohio style "deal".

Well, it worked.

It's probably plan C216.

http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/?PlanHeader=PlanC216



A congressman's lawyer says the Texas attorney general has agreed to a temporary voting map that could keep the April 3 date for primary elections in Texas.

Democratic Congressman Henry Cuellar's lawyer Rolando Rios tells The Associated Press that the attorney general agreed not to challenge a proposal that would give Texas two new Hispanic congressional seats.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5765
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #633 on: February 06, 2012, 03:28:55 pm »
Ignore

Probably just checking to see if Dems might go for an Ohio style "deal".

Well, it worked.

It's probably plan C216.

http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/?PlanHeader=PlanC216

A congressman's lawyer says the Texas attorney general has agreed to a temporary voting map that could keep the April 3 date for primary elections in Texas.

Democratic Congressman Henry Cuellar's lawyer Rolando Rios tells The Associated Press that the attorney general agreed not to challenge a proposal that would give Texas two new Hispanic congressional seats.

Attorney General announces agreement.

Everyone on board but Mexican American Legislative Caucus and NAACP. (and probably Travis County)

Congressional Map

Hispanic majority seat in Dallas/Tarrant county.  Probably not HCVAP majority, but enough blacks to make it a Democratic seat, but not enough to elect Marc Veasey.  1/2 of district in Dallas County is very Hispanic.

San Antonio-Austin seat the same as legislative plan, leaving Doggett carved out of his seat.

TX-23 takes all of Maverick county, and lots of twiddling in Bexar County.

Bunches of little shifts in Harris County (but accidentally makes 14 a little more R)

Currently: 23:9, but really 21:2:9

34,27: Cameron and points north.  +1 D, but 27 made safe:

22:1:10

33: New DFW Hispanic.  +1 D.  But everything that surrounds is safer.

22:1:11

36: Looks like East Texas seat, but is really replacement for 2, 1/2 of District in Harris County.

23:1:11

35,25: San Antonio-Austin Hispanic seat.  These are unchanged from legislative map.  Doggett will run in 35.  About 10 Republicans have filed in 25.

24:1:11

So overall +2.5 R, +1.5 D.

New seats: Hispanic 3, Republican 1, but old seats +1.5 R.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5765
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #634 on: February 06, 2012, 04:08:04 pm »
Ignore

Senate Plan

Cuts down a bit on the NE arm of 10, and adds areas in west Fort Worth and Tarrant County.

Wendy Davis was hoping to keep more of the district which Perry carried by +8, and was +18 down ballot.   What a whiner.

Logged
timothyinMD
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 441


View Profile
« Reply #635 on: February 06, 2012, 04:13:07 pm »
Ignore

A crappy map, but I guess the best were gonna get with all the obsessive racial issues involved
Logged
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2264
View Profile
« Reply #636 on: February 06, 2012, 04:15:10 pm »
Ignore

Senate Plan

Cuts down a bit on the NE arm of 10, and adds areas in west Fort Worth and Tarrant County.

Wendy Davis was hoping to keep more of the district which Perry carried by +8, and was +18 down ballot.   What a whiner.



What the Hell is up with Neuces? It seems to be the same unconstitutional needless split the courts tried to impose.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5765
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #637 on: February 07, 2012, 02:17:16 am »
Ignore

Senate Plan

Cuts down a bit on the NE arm of 10, and adds areas in west Fort Worth and Tarrant County.

Wendy Davis was hoping to keep more of the district which Perry carried by +8, and was +18 down ballot.   What a whiner.


What the Hell is up with Neuces? It seems to be the same unconstitutional needless split the courts tried to impose.

Because they are trying to get agreement on an interim map.  They can still argue the constitutional issue elsewhere.

(1) Nueces County has almost the correct population for two districts, and the city of Corpus Christi has 90% of the population, so that two districts with a clear community of interest could and should be drawn.
(2) Moreover, the district to the north (35) is compact, constituting whole counties along I-37 between Corpus Christi and San Antonio, quite similar to its current configuration with adjustments for relatively slower population growth (San Patricio, Duval, La Salle) added, Karnes, Goliad dropped).
(3) And the district to the south (43) is reasonably compact, and quite similar to its current configuration, with Jim Wells added, and Jim Hogg removed, and the configuration of Cameron County adjusted to reflect slower growth in Brownsville vs Harlingen.

The current incumbent, JM Lozano announced that he was moving from Kingsville (in Kleberg) to Alice (in Jim Wells) rather than be placed in a Corpus Christi dominated district.  The compromise map would swap Jim Wells for Kleberg, and perhaps Lozano will move back to Kingsville.
(4) Nueces County has too many Anglos to permit two Hispanic majority districts to be drawn in the county; and San Patricio is too white (54%) to permit its addition to 35.

Therefore the 14th and 15 Amendments require that an area be sliced out of Nueces County (36% Hispanic) and combined with Victoria via two boat crossings; the remainder of Nueces County split in a way that pairs a less Hispanic area of eastern Corpus Christi with Jim Wells, and makes HD-43 stretch from Raymondville to Refugio via a circuitous route around Corpus Christi, in order to outvote San Patricio (this is an improvement over the court drawn plan since it least has road connectivity).

You aren't going to claim this subordinates everything else to race.
Logged
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58778
India


View Profile
« Reply #638 on: February 07, 2012, 06:05:06 am »
Ignore

Okay... what are the election figures on the 23rd?

Wait... Farenthold gets to be 25 now? The Paul district is that from the court plan? The 6th and 17th go into Austin now so that there is no open R seat that Doggett could have theoretically run in (but chose not to), as under the state's original map? All of these so they can somehow create two new districts in the DFW? Castro continues to run in the 20th amiright - so the Hispanic 35th would be a, what, Doggett vs Ciro race? Cannot see it, somehow. The new Dem seat is of course far more Tarranty than would have been necessary for creating it... because that way it doesn't impact on the North Dallas Republicans as much. Mark Veasey remains a possibility for it, I think.
D+2 R+2* could have been achieved with an infinitely cleaner map... but that would have stepped on more (non-Doggett) incumbent's toes.

*Based on current incumbents, R+3 D+1 on usual leans, assuming Canseco's remains a tossup. The new districts are two D, three R. One D seat is abolished. One notional D seat held by an R is changed so that it cannot happen again. Anyways, not really an Ohio style "deal" but an actual deal - bagging the Dems an extra seat.
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
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58778
India


View Profile
« Reply #639 on: February 07, 2012, 06:08:02 am »
Ignore

Oh, I was looking at C216. Apparently C226 is the one to look at?
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
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5786


View Profile
« Reply #640 on: February 07, 2012, 08:14:29 am »
Ignore

Oh, I was looking at C216. Apparently C226 is the one to look at?


They are just about the same. It's basically the state's map everywhere except Dallas.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 08:22:48 am by krazen1211 »Logged
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5786


View Profile
« Reply #641 on: February 07, 2012, 08:17:48 am »
Ignore

Okay... what are the election figures on the 23rd?

Wait... Farenthold gets to be 25 now? The Paul district is that from the court plan? The 6th and 17th go into Austin now so that there is no open R seat that Doggett could have theoretically run in (but chose not to), as under the state's original map? All of these so they can somehow create two new districts in the DFW? Castro continues to run in the 20th amiright - so the Hispanic 35th would be a, what, Doggett vs Ciro race? Cannot see it, somehow. The new Dem seat is of course far more Tarranty than would have been necessary for creating it... because that way it doesn't impact on the North Dallas Republicans as much. Mark Veasey remains a possibility for it, I think.
D+2 R+2* could have been achieved with an infinitely cleaner map... but that would have stepped on more (non-Doggett) incumbent's toes.

*Based on current incumbents, R+3 D+1 on usual leans, assuming Canseco's remains a tossup. The new districts are two D, three R. One D seat is abolished. One notional D seat held by an R is changed so that it cannot happen again. Anyways, not really an Ohio style "deal" but an actual deal - bagging the Dems an extra seat.

49% Obama 49% McCain. Every other Republican over the last decade has won it more or less.

There are a lot of conservative Anglos in that district's portion of Bexar.
Logged
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5786


View Profile
« Reply #642 on: February 07, 2012, 08:28:41 am »
Ignore

Senate Plan

Cuts down a bit on the NE arm of 10, and adds areas in west Fort Worth and Tarrant County.

Wendy Davis was hoping to keep more of the district which Perry carried by +8, and was +18 down ballot.   What a whiner.




She must know at this point that she has become to utterly repugnant to Texas whites that she has no chance at winning even that district. McCain got about 52% there.
Logged
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58778
India


View Profile
« Reply #643 on: February 07, 2012, 08:57:49 am »
Ignore

Yeah, just playing with the overlay feature. There are minorish changes to the 20th/23rd and 23rd/28th boundary; the latter removing the splits of Maverick and Atascosa. (I wonder whether these changes marginally affect the partisan balance in the D favor? A direct full nonrounded comparison of presidential figures for old 23rd, lege plan 23rd, this 23rd, and maybe the Court's 23rd is what I'd like to see.)
There's also a confusing array of mostly very minor changes in Harris, Ft Bend, Brazoria and Galveston, affecting all districts but the 8th and 10th.
The rest of the change is all Dallas/Tarrant, with minor change to the 30th and 32nd, sizable & reasonable change to the 26th, and massive changes to the 6th and 12th (and 33nd, duh, which has very little overlap with the original version)... while the 24th, 5th and 3rd are actually not changed at all.
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
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5786


View Profile
« Reply #644 on: February 07, 2012, 11:41:00 am »
Ignore

Yeah, just playing with the overlay feature. There are minorish changes to the 20th/23rd and 23rd/28th boundary; the latter removing the splits of Maverick and Atascosa. (I wonder whether these changes marginally affect the partisan balance in the D favor? A direct full nonrounded comparison of presidential figures for old 23rd, lege plan 23rd, this 23rd, and maybe the Court's 23rd is what I'd like to see.)
There's also a confusing array of mostly very minor changes in Harris, Ft Bend, Brazoria and Galveston, affecting all districts but the 8th and 10th.
The rest of the change is all Dallas/Tarrant, with minor change to the 30th and 32nd, sizable & reasonable change to the 26th, and massive changes to the 6th and 12th (and 33nd, duh, which has very little overlap with the original version)... while the 24th, 5th and 3rd are actually not changed at all.

Sorry I can't give you better, but:

Roughly:

Existing TX-23 is 51% Obama
Legislature's is 48% Obama
SA Court's dead plan is 51% Obama
C226 is 49.7% Obama (he won it barely).

Data here:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=1n71iXrMOYIkh770Q7axdYr3Hl5XiB9hXQDwAjuJSvZaLOVKwRIm285dK7xA6&hl=en_US

Compared to the legislature's map, that section of Maverick hurts (hence they removed it). But Quico got his desired precincts in Bexar/El Paso which is really the massive bulk of the district anyway.

TX-33 is less than 40% CVAP, but of course heavily Democratic (69% Obama). Compared to the Court's TX-33, it lowers black CVAP and increases Hispanic CVAP. As everyone has said from the beginning you cannot hit 50% CVAP in DFW, and I think they barely just hit it in Houston this decade (2 decades after the district was drawn).

Minor changes were made elsewhere to move people's houses and offices in/out.
Logged
Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12845


View Profile
« Reply #645 on: February 07, 2012, 03:03:34 pm »
Ignore

Probably just checking to see if Dems might go for an Ohio style "deal".

Well, it worked.
.

Has it? My twitter feed is reporting that this Republican victory didn't actually materialize because too many plaintiffs rejected it.
Logged
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5786


View Profile
« Reply #646 on: February 07, 2012, 04:06:18 pm »
Ignore

Probably just checking to see if Dems might go for an Ohio style "deal".

Well, it worked.
.

Has it? My twitter feed is reporting that this Republican victory didn't actually materialize because too many plaintiffs rejected it.

Well, they won't get their primary date, no. But I'd say these maps are quite a bit more likely than any other set of maps as they were drawn according to the Supreme Court criteria and the others were not.

But it's not a Republican victory, really. 11 districts for the Democrats is far out of proportion to what Texas Republicans want.
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2291
United States


View Profile
« Reply #647 on: February 07, 2012, 06:30:57 pm »
Ignore

11 districts out of proportion? Considering the democrats usually get around 40 percent of the vote, it's not out of proportion at all.
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15010
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 4.52

View Profile
« Reply #648 on: February 07, 2012, 08:07:36 pm »
Ignore

11 districts out of proportion? Considering the democrats usually get around 40 percent of the vote, it's not out of proportion at all.
Then shouldn't we give Republicans 3 or 4 seats in Massachusetts?
Logged


jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5765
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #649 on: February 08, 2012, 12:24:12 am »
Ignore

Okay... what are the election figures on the 23rd?

Wait... Farenthold gets to be 25 now? The Paul district is that from the court plan? The 6th and 17th go into Austin now so that there is no open R seat that Doggett could have theoretically run in (but chose not to), as under the state's original map? All of these so they can somehow create two new districts in the DFW? Castro continues to run in the 20th amiright - so the Hispanic 35th would be a, what, Doggett vs Ciro race? Cannot see it, somehow. The new Dem seat is of course far more Tarranty than would have been necessary for creating it... because that way it doesn't impact on the North Dallas Republicans as much. Mark Veasey remains a possibility for it, I think.
D+2 R+2* could have been achieved with an infinitely cleaner map... but that would have stepped on more (non-Doggett) incumbent's toes.

*Based on current incumbents, R+3 D+1 on usual leans, assuming Canseco's remains a tossup. The new districts are two D, three R. One D seat is abolished. One notional D seat held by an R is changed so that it cannot happen again. Anyways, not really an Ohio style "deal" but an actual deal - bagging the Dems an extra seat.

Texas redistricting

Scroll to at least the second page and you will find election data.

The compromise plan is based on the plan passed by the legislature.  The only changes are in the DFW area to put in the new district; in the SA area and Maverick County to make TX-23 more palatable; and in the Houston area.  For some reason TX-18 and TX-9 were pushed south.  I'm guessing it was to make the right hook of TX-2 to look more palatable.

In the process they cut downtown Houston out of TX-18 and put it in TX-29.  SJL was Outraged!(tm) because that was where she has her office.  Then the office of TX-9 was placed in TX-18.  They managed to do the same in TX-30, plus got EBJ's residence (her staff apparently didn't know she had moved downtown).

In his testimony Al Green also complained that a couple of upscale undeveloped areas had been put in his district, and it could tip it in a few years (if it was upscale, there wouldn't be enough residents to matter).  Anyhow they played around with the districts a little bit, and TX-14 did end up a little further north in Brazoria County.

Presumably Castro runs in TX-20 because Gonzalez is retiring.  Castro would have been in TX-20 all along, but wasn't running there because Gonzalez was around.  Doggett claims that when Castro talked to him about running for Congress, he thought he was talking about TX-23 which is where Castro lives now.

TX-35 in the legislative map and the compromise map is identical.

In the court drawn map, TX-35 was shifted to south Bexar County and stopped at the Travis County line.   TX-20 was drawn one block beyond Castro's house, and TX-23 was really yanked around (180,000 people moved from TX-23 to TX-21, 180,000 from TX-21 to TX-20, and 180,000 from TX-20 to TX-23).

This meant Doggett could run in TX-25; Gonzalez retired so he could make more money; Castro announces that he is running in TX-20 the district he lives in; Ciro Rodriguez switches to the reconfigured TX-35; Pete Gallego gets a free run in TX-23, and the Republican areas in El Paso County are unlikely to be as supportive as the Republican areas in Bexar County are for Canseco.  (winks and nudges omitted).

If the compromise map is used, Doggett runs in TX-35; Ciro is back to TX-23 against Gallego; Castro is in TX-20.  Maybe someone else runs against Doggett, there were challengers to Ciro under the court-drawn map for TX-35.  And Alberto Bustamante's son is running in TX-23.  I was never able to figure out where he lived - he might have been drawn out of TX-23.  (Alberto Bustamante was who was beaten by Henry Bonilla in 1992; Bustamante had beaten Chick Kazen after an earlier redistricting.

TX-23 was created after the 1970 census, an incumbent has been displaced due to redistricting each decade ever since.

If you don't put a lot of TX-33 in Tarrant, you might end up having to repeat in the future.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 32 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines