US House Redistricting: Texas

[Vasall des Midas]

Good enough on TX23, then. (Both good enough on info and good enough on what the numbers are, ie didn't sell out on that.)

Obviously a "fair" design would create a Black and a Hispanic seat in Dallas County and a coalition district in Tarrant (and force one of the three North Dallas Republicans into retirement) but that was never a likely outcome anyhow.

[jimrtex]

Good enough on TX23, then. (Both good enough on info and good enough on what the numbers are, ie didn't sell out on that.)

Obviously a "fair" design would create a Black and a Hispanic seat in Dallas County and a coalition district in Tarrant (and force one of the three North Dallas Republicans into retirement) but that was never a likely outcome anyhow.

You can't create a Hispanic district in Dallas County unless you include enough Blacks to make it a Democratic district.   You also would have to come across along the Trinity River, which would keep SD-30 from going to far north.

And the coalition district in Tarrant is dubious.  The senate district was lost by 18 points in down ballot races in 2010.

Fun exercise: Eddie Bernice Johnson claimed that the compromise Hispanic district excluded Rafael Anchia and Roberton Alonzo, the two Hispanic representatives from Dallas County (HD-103 and HD-104), as well as Domingo Garcia, former Dallas Mayor pro tem and state representative.

But the proposal by MALC (the Mexican American Legislative Caucus) also cut out Anchia and Garcia.  Guess where they live.

[krazen1211]

The NAACP is proposing a Dem gerrymander and spouting one of the more amusing advisory opinions around.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BxeOfQQnUr_gY2Q1YjM1MDMtNGRjZC00ZjhkLWJlMmItOTY1NWU2ZjBkYTc2&pli=1



Apparently, they are upset at blacks being removed from TX-6 and TX-24 to be moved into the new TX-33......

[muon2]

The NAACP is proposing a Dem gerrymander and spouting one of the more amusing advisory opinions around.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BxeOfQQnUr_gY2Q1YjM1MDMtNGRjZC00ZjhkLWJlMmItOTY1NWU2ZjBkYTc2&pli=1



Apparently, they are upset at blacks being removed from TX-6 and TX-24 to be moved into the new TX-33......

The memo claims both a section 2 and 5 violation, but much of the argument is about coalition districts which are only optional under section 2. The only relevance of section 5 here is if the SA court is going to rule that the DC case will likely find a section 5 deficiency. So it seems to me that much of his argument misses the target. But I admit that this is a tangled mess, and I may have missed something.

[krazen1211]

The NAACP is proposing a Dem gerrymander and spouting one of the more amusing advisory opinions around.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BxeOfQQnUr_gY2Q1YjM1MDMtNGRjZC00ZjhkLWJlMmItOTY1NWU2ZjBkYTc2&pli=1



Apparently, they are upset at blacks being removed from TX-6 and TX-24 to be moved into the new TX-33......

The memo claims both a section 2 and 5 violation, but much of the argument is about coalition districts which are only optional under section 2. The only relevance of section 5 here is if the SA court is going to rule that the DC case will likely find a section 5 deficiency. So it seems to me that much of his argument misses the target. But I admit that this is a tangled mess, and I may have missed something.

Well, for one, his last sentence is that the San Antonio Court should begin with plan C220. Of course, the Supreme Court ordered them to begin with plan C185.


Blacks are 16.2% of benchmark district 6 and 17.5% of plan C226 district 6. So its quite funny to see him claim that blacks have a better shot at the benchmark than the new district.....

[krazen1211]

The arguments from the plaintiffs get dumber and dumber.

First, they complained that 'nearly half' of Anglo house districts within 1 county were underpopulated. Apparently, they did not realize that such meant that 'more than half' of Anglo house districts were overpopulated.

Now, they come up with this gem.


https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxeOfQQnUr_gY2YyMWUyNmUtYzMwNC00NjRhLTkwNGEtZWE5ZTQ5Mzg2MWZl/edit?pli=1


Perhaps even more troubling is the "lost votes" present in the compromise plan. As this
court is aware, there was an effort by the Speaker's staff to cynically game the system to draw districts that created the illusion of voting strength for candidates of choice of the Latino
The compromise plan is the codification of that intentionally discriminatory process.
On average, the candidate of choice of the Latino community can expect fewer votes and less
voting strength as a result of this problem.


Average Midterm
Average Presidential

-13,917
-26,974





By golly, a district with ~850,000 people in it provides fewer votes than a district with ~700,000 people in it.

[jimrtex]

The arguments from the plaintiffs get dumber and dumber.

First, they complained that 'nearly half' of Anglo house districts within 1 county were underpopulated. Apparently, they did not realize that such meant that 'more than half' of Anglo house districts were overpopulated.

Now, they come up with this gem.


https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxeOfQQnUr_gY2YyMWUyNmUtYzMwNC00NjRhLTkwNGEtZWE5ZTQ5Mzg2MWZl/edit?pli=1


Perhaps even more troubling is the "lost votes" present in the compromise plan. As this
court is aware, there was an effort by the Speaker's staff to cynically game the system to draw districts that created the illusion of voting strength for candidates of choice of the Latino
The compromise plan is the codification of that intentionally discriminatory process.
On average, the candidate of choice of the Latino community can expect fewer votes and less
voting strength as a result of this problem.


Average Midterm
Average Presidential

-13,917
-26,974

By golly, a district with ~850,000 people in it provides fewer votes than a district with ~700,000 people in it.

Shh!  They'll catch on that we're trying to flip TX-16 by moving the Hispanics into TX-23.

[krazen1211]

The NAACP is proposing a Dem gerrymander and spouting one of the more amusing advisory opinions around.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BxeOfQQnUr_gY2Q1YjM1MDMtNGRjZC00ZjhkLWJlMmItOTY1NWU2ZjBkYTc2&pli=1



Apparently, they are upset at blacks being removed from TX-6 and TX-24 to be moved into the new TX-33......

The memo claims both a section 2 and 5 violation, but much of the argument is about coalition districts which are only optional under section 2. The only relevance of section 5 here is if the SA court is going to rule that the DC case will likely find a section 5 deficiency. So it seems to me that much of his argument misses the target. But I admit that this is a tangled mess, and I may have missed something.

Further update. The Latino groups are extremely upset at the NAACP and the black groups for trying to rig TX-33 in favor of Marc Veasey rather than a Latino.



The advisory described the changes as an effort “to capitalize on racially polarized voting to benefit non-Latino candidates in the Democratic primary.”

[krazen1211]

New maps are out.

http://txredistricting.org/


As far as I can initially tell they are the state/MALDEF maps.

[jimrtex]

New maps are out.

http://txredistricting.org/

As far as I can initially tell they are the state/MALDEF maps.

There are bunches of reports below that.

The Congressional map has some minor, minor tweaks.   There are 6 shifts of 0 population, 1 of 10 persons and 1 of 16 persons.  I assume they have to do with precinct splits.  So the court plan ends up with a difference of 10 and 16 persons.

The Senate plan has the final compromise of placing SD-10 back to it current boundaries (which is only 2.85% too large).

The House plan restores Nueces County to two districts, overriding the compromise plan, the court interim plan, and the Judge Smith interim proposal.  Because they created a Cameron-Hidalgo district they had to redo the South Texas districts, but ended up restoring much of the Legislature-enacted plan, because the 3-way split of Nueces County had ripple effects.

They also twiddled 4 districts in Harris County, with about 30,000 shift among them.   Perhaps to avoid too many Anglos in one district; but perhaps to avoid too many Blacks in another.  They also made another change between 117 and 118 in Bexar County.  They came so close to a 4-way split of Lytle, I'm disappointed they didn't go for it.

[krazen1211]

A lot of moaning among the plaintiffs, naturally. Expected appeal of course, though tough to say on what grounds.

Canseco has 100k Bexar Anglos that will provide him with just about all the vote. You only get ~28% of the district to be Anglo so you have to make them count. Bexar Anglos are surely preferable to rural Anglos that might just vote for Peter Gallegeo.

[Sam Spade]

Looking at the map, the changes to CD-23 are as follows.  The El Paso section gets a lot more Democratic and Hispanic, as well as gaining a lot of population, and most of Ciro's south side precincts in San Antonio are excised.  That being said, the most black areas of CD-23 remain, and the areas added have a larger black contingent than most of San Antonio (towards the west).  Frio and part of LaSalle are added, but that adds very few votes. 

Anyway, swing district.  I don't think the changes are really that positive for Republicans under the surface, though it is unlikely a San Antonio Dem will run there. 

The rest of the map is 24-11 safe, so who cares.

[krazen1211]

Well, Nick Lampson thinks he can win. I'm not sure what the point is; in the event he does they will redistrict him out again..


TX-15 dropped from 60 to 57% Obama. Might be interesting in a 2010 wave.

[jimrtex]

Well, Nick Lampson thinks he can win. I'm not sure what the point is; in the event he does they will redistrict him out again..

TX-15 dropped from 60 to 57% Obama. Might be interesting in a 2010 wave.

You typically don't get 10 Republican candidates if they don't think winning the primary is the same as winning the election.

TX-15 was 51D-47R in the down ballot races in 2010, and you have a problem getting a candidate.

[Vasall des Midas]

Can someone explain to me how precedent does not rule the removal of all of Nueces (as opposed to just the Anglo portion) an illegal retrogression?
Now, I understand it was done because it helps insulate Farenthold in the primary and cook the new 34rd for someone from elsewhere (who's the likely new Democrat here and where's he from - Cameron I suppose?) but what I'd like to know is what would the minimal necessary changes be to undo it? Basically, put the solidly Hispanic areas of Nueces into the 34th, bring the 27th up to population with areas included in the Hispanic districts that are not Hispanic and/or were not included in VRA districts previously; how much do you need to change exactly?

[timothyinMD]

Map = embarrassing

[krazen1211]

Can someone explain to me how precedent does not rule the removal of all of Nueces (as opposed to just the Anglo portion) an illegal retrogression?
Now, I understand it was done because it helps insulate Farenthold in the primary and cook the new 34rd for someone from elsewhere (who's the likely new Democrat here and where's he from - Cameron I suppose?) but what I'd like to know is what would the minimal necessary changes be to undo it? Basically, put the solidly Hispanic areas of Nueces into the 34th, bring the 27th up to population with areas included in the Hispanic districts that are not Hispanic and/or were not included in VRA districts previously; how much do you need to change exactly?

According to the bolded logic, the Democrats never would have been able to remove Montgomery County (Alabama) from the 7th district. Yet they did.

I'm curious as to why anyone cares about this.

Texas 15 and Texas 34 have a lot of Anglo northern Counties. If you swap those Anglo counties into TX-27 and swap out Latinos, you're just packing the Latino districts more and making TX-27 even safer.

Nueces County has about 200,000 Latinos. Taking them out of Texas-27 means replacing them with some portion of the following following counties, all Republican.

Guadalupe and Bexar alone probably could do it.




Bee (100%) 31,861 10,967 2,716 17,906 20,490 404 34.4 8.5 56.2 64.3 1.3
De Witt (100%) 20,097 11,482 2,030 6,502 8,366 249 57.1 10.1 32.4 41.6 1.2
Goliad (100%) 7,210 4,337 385 2,462 2,794 79 60.2 5.3 34.1 38.8 1.1
Gonzales (31%) 6,139 2,841 209 3,073 3,242 56 46.3 3.4 50.1 52.8 0.9
Guadalupe (83%) 108,688 58,393 7,360 41,045 47,637 2,658 53.7 6.8 37.8 43.8 2.4
Karnes (100%) 14,824 5,956 1,422 7,376 8,747 121 40.2 9.6 49.8 59.0 0.8
Live Oak (100%) 11,531 6,805 533 4,060 4,536 190 59.0 4.6 35.2 39.3 1.6
Wilson (10%) 4,188 2,840 52 1,266 1,308 40 67.8 1.2 30.2 31.2 1.
Bexar (9%) 158,356 60,509 31,513 62,527 91,419 6,428 38.2 19.9 39.5 57.7 4.1

[jimrtex]

Can someone explain to me how precedent does not rule the removal of all of Nueces (as opposed to just the Anglo portion) an illegal retrogression?
Now, I understand it was done because it helps insulate Farenthold in the primary and cook the new 34rd for someone from elsewhere (who's the likely new Democrat here and where's he from - Cameron I suppose?) but what I'd like to know is what would the minimal necessary changes be to undo it? Basically, put the solidly Hispanic areas of Nueces into the 34th, bring the 27th up to population with areas included in the Hispanic districts that are not Hispanic and/or were not included in VRA districts previously; how much do you need to change exactly?

What is the community of interest between Brownsville and Corpus Christi, other than ethnicity?  LULAC v Perry says that districts linking distant population centers merely to pump up the racial numbers are not VRA districts.  Perhaps in the past the additional population of Nueces County was necessary.  It is no longer so.

[krazen1211]

http://www.texasmonthly.com/blogs/burkablog/?p=12917&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


 It was a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth.

[Vasall des Midas]

According to the bolded logic, the Democrats never would have been able to remove Montgomery County (Alabama) from the 7th district. Yet they did.

Yeah, I know.

Basically these are the kind of things you can't do if you want to be extra certain to follow the case law to the t, but that legislatures will be fine with taking a low-risk gamble on. As such, its presence in what's officially a court map stinks a little. But, like, that doesn't tell us anything about these proceedings that we didn't know already.

Jim: Where is Corpus distant compared to, you know, the places northwest of it that were used instead?

[krazen1211]

According to the bolded logic, the Democrats never would have been able to remove Montgomery County (Alabama) from the 7th district. Yet they did.

Yeah, I know.

Basically these are the kind of things you can't do if you want to be extra certain to follow the case law to the t, but that legislatures will be fine with taking a low-risk gamble on. As such, its presence in what's officially a court map stinks a little. But, like, that doesn't tell us anything about these proceedings that we didn't know already.

Jim: Where is Corpus distant compared to, you know, the places northwest of it that were used instead?

I suspect some aspect of this might help in 2020. If population growth in Hidalgo county continues at 20% they simply remove the northern counties for a new district.

[jimrtex]

According to the bolded logic, the Democrats never would have been able to remove Montgomery County (Alabama) from the 7th district. Yet they did.

Yeah, I know.

Basically these are the kind of things you can't do if you want to be extra certain to follow the case law to the t, but that legislatures will be fine with taking a low-risk gamble on. As such, its presence in what's officially a court map stinks a little. But, like, that doesn't tell us anything about these proceedings that we didn't know already.

Jim: Where is Corpus distant compared to, you know, the places northwest of it that were used instead?

Maybe the Supreme Court will rule that those areas should be consolidated in one district, instead of being split among three stretching north from the border.

[Vasall des Midas]

They did, of course, rule that last time around. (Include that in the remedy for the problems found elsewhere.)

[krazen1211]

If anyone wants to see potent rule governed gerrymandering, check out the Dallas County (8 safe seats out of 14) and Tarrant (8 safe seats out of 11) in the Texas House map.

[Sam Spade]

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/