US House Redistricting: Texas

[jimrtex]

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.

Sort of, though Spanish surnamed and Hispanic are not equivalent.

And what is the measure of "sufficiency"?

[Vasall des Midas]

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.

Sort of, though Spanish surnamed and Hispanic are not equivalent.

And what is the measure of "sufficiency"?

I would think the reason why people just used the SSVR data and didn't do complex estimative calculations of actual CVAP is presumably that it was available real data, didn't cost anything to produce, and seemed good enough until/unless a court said it wasn't.
Does similar real data actually exist for California?

[jimrtex]

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.

Sort of, though Spanish surnamed and Hispanic are not equivalent.

And what is the measure of "sufficiency"?

I would think the reason why people just used the SSVR data and didn't do complex estimative calculations of actual CVAP is presumably that it was available real data, didn't cost anything to produce, and seemed good enough until/unless a court said it wasn't.
Does similar real data actually exist for California?

In the State of Texas Section 5 lawsuit against the United States (when you week judicial preclearance you have to sue the US Government). they used HVAP, HCVAP, and SSVR.

The 5th Circuit (which Texas is under) has ruled that HCVAP is the relevant statistic.

Texas said that 7 districts were over 60% HVAP, and an 8th (TX-35 was at 58.3%, with HCVAP at 51.9%).  The test for the 3 black districts was 40% BVAP.

There is 2010 census data for HVAP and BVAP to the block level, since redistricting data includes race and Hispanicity, for the total population and over 18.

Citizenship is only reported for the ACS, and requires a 5-year sample for statistically reliable small area estimates.  It is reported at a block group level.  The legislative council must somehow massage this to get data for districts.  Perhaps it is as simple as applying the HCVAP/HVAP ratio for a block group times the HVAP for each block in the block group.  Texas generated reports for both 2005-2009 ACS and 2006-2010 ACS (which was released while the litigation was going on).

I'm not sure how the Spanish Surname list was generated.  Maybe it is used by the Census Bureau, or maybe it was generated from census data.  California might not be as automated as Texas.  The Texas complaint said that there was about a 90% correlation between "Spanish-Surnamed" and "Hispanic".   I suspect that SSVR is only reported for an election precinct level.

One of the claims of the plaintiffs in SA, intervenors in DC was that Texas was drawing districts based on race, since they split precincts, and there is no political data for split precincts.  Of course, their hired experts explain how you can estimate vote share by race.

The DC Court has said that that Texas should not based their plan on HCVAP or BVAP, but should use election results.  So Texas had their hired experts calculate the results, and then briefs clash over interpretation. 

[jimrtex]

Sylvia Romo has been endorsed by former San Antonio mayor and HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, current mayor Julian Castro, the Bexar County Judge, 5 of 7 Bexar County Democratic representatives and state senator Leticia Van de Putte in the TX-35 race against some guy from Austin.

[Vasall des Midas]

Hank Sizzlin' Cisneros. He still around?

[BigSkyBob]

16th District reverts in primary.


Past practise of the DoJ in 1984 [Mississippi] and 2004 [Texas] has been to redraw a yet heavier minority district if the "wrong" candidate won [White Republican in Mississippi and Hispanic Republican in Texas.] Could we see El Paso redrawn to exclude as many Whites as possible?

[Gravis Marketing]

Did the winner of the Dem primary not have a majority of the Hispanic vote?

I'm sure you're well aware that it's the race of the voters, and not the candidate, that is significant for VRA?

[Torie]

16th District reverts in primary.


Past practise of the DoJ in 1984 [Mississippi] and 2004 [Texas] has been to redraw a yet heavier minority district if the "wrong" candidate won [White Republican in Mississippi and Hispanic Republican in Texas.] Could we see El Paso redrawn to exclude as many Whites as possible?

Only if the counties involved are subject to Section 5 of the VRA, which may not see another year of life before SCOTUS axes it.

[Gravis Marketing]

BTW, El Paso County, TX has more than the population of a congressional district but of that population, 82.2% is Hispanic. Only 13.1% (about 100,000 people) is non-Hispanic white. At least some of them are presumably in TX-23 and not TX-16.

It looks like BSB is responding to the fact that the winner has an Irish surname, but that's not relevant to VRA. If there's racially polarized voting in El Paso, than almost definitionally it's not Anglos who are winning.

[krazen1211]

BTW, El Paso County, TX has more than the population of a congressional district but of that population, 82.2% is Hispanic. Only 13.1% (about 100,000 people) is non-Hispanic white. At least some of them are presumably in TX-23 and not TX-16.

It looks like BSB is responding to the fact that the winner has an Irish surname, but that's not relevant to VRA. If there's racially polarized voting in El Paso, than almost definitionally it's not Anglos who are winning.

Very few, if memory serves. The state intentionally drew TX-23 to include El Paso County Hispanics, so they could balance it with Bexar County whites.

Bexar County whites are much preferred for Quico Canseco.

[BigSkyBob]

Did the winner of the Dem primary not have a majority of the Hispanic vote?

No. The winner had 50.4% of the vote, and a much higher percentage among White voters.

I'm sure you're well aware that it's the race of the voters, and not the candidate, that is significant for VRA?

No, that is the exact opposite of the Truth. The VRA has two key components. First, that Blacks, and other minorities, can vote. And, second, they can vote for whomever they want, and, not just the preferable/least_objectionable White candidate.

Again, the past practise of the DoJ has been to demand that such districts that revert be "packed" with even more minorities so that a minority candidate wins.

[BigSkyBob]

BTW, El Paso County, TX has more than the population of a congressional district but of that population, 82.2% is Hispanic. Only 13.1% (about 100,000 people) is non-Hispanic white. At least some of them are presumably in TX-23 and not TX-16.

It looks like BSB is responding to the fact that the winner has an Irish surname,

No, I'm responding to the fact that according to media accounts neither his mother or father is of Hispanic heritage.

but that's not relevant to VRA.

Again, in 1984 it was "relevant to the VRA" that a White Republican beat a Black Democrat in Mississippi in a VRA district, and 2004 it was "relevant to the VRA" that a Hispanic Republican beat a Hispanic Democrat in a VRA district. So why isn't it "relevant to the VRA" that a White Democrat beat a Hispanic Democratic in a VRA district?

If there's racially polarized voting in El Paso, than almost definitionally it's not Anglos who are winning.

Except, of course, for this election.

[BigSkyBob]

BTW, El Paso County, TX has more than the population of a congressional district but of that population, 82.2% is Hispanic. Only 13.1% (about 100,000 people) is non-Hispanic white. At least some of them are presumably in TX-23 and not TX-16.

It looks like BSB is responding to the fact that the winner has an Irish surname, but that's not relevant to VRA. If there's racially polarized voting in El Paso, than almost definitionally it's not Anglos who are winning.

Very few, if memory serves. The state intentionally drew TX-23 to include El Paso County Hispanics, so they could balance it with Bexar County whites.

Then, a more heavily Hispanic district could be drawn to remedy the reversion. That's what happened in Mississippi in 1984 and Texas in 2002.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Did the winner of the Dem primary not have a majority of the Hispanic vote?

No. The winner had 50.4% of the vote, and a much higher percentage among White voters.

I'm sure you're well aware that it's the race of the voters, and not the candidate, that is significant for VRA?

No, that is the exact opposite of the Truth. The VRA has two key components. First, that Blacks, and other minorities, can vote. And, second, they can vote for whomever they want, and, not just the preferable/least_objectionable White candidate.

Again, the past practise of the DoJ has been to demand that such districts that revert be "packed" with even more minorities so that a minority candidate wins.

I can't find any links to exit polls, but this district is something like 70-80% Hispanic. O'Rourke must have received a significant portion of the Hispanic vote. Even if he didn't receive a majority of the Hispanic vote, I don't think you could really classify this as "racially polarized voting."

[BigSkyBob]

Did the winner of the Dem primary not have a majority of the Hispanic vote?

No. The winner had 50.4% of the vote, and a much higher percentage among White voters.

I'm sure you're well aware that it's the race of the voters, and not the candidate, that is significant for VRA?

No, that is the exact opposite of the Truth. The VRA has two key components. First, that Blacks, and other minorities, can vote. And, second, they can vote for whomever they want, and, not just the preferable/least_objectionable White candidate.

Again, the past practise of the DoJ has been to demand that such districts that revert be "packed" with even more minorities so that a minority candidate wins.

I can't find any links to exit polls, but this district is something like 70-80% Hispanic. O'Rourke must have received a significant portion of the Hispanic vote. Even if he didn't receive a majority of the Hispanic vote, I don't think you could really classify this as "racially polarized voting."

If Whites voted overwhelming for the White Democrat, and Hispanics voted mostly for the Hispanic Democrat, that seems to be "racially polarized" voting to me!

[Gravis Marketing]

Again, in 1984 it was "relevant to the VRA" that a White Republican beat a Black Democrat in Mississippi in a VRA district, and 2004 it was "relevant to the VRA" that a Hispanic Republican beat a Hispanic Democrat in a VRA district. So why isn't it "relevant to the VRA" that a White Democrat beat a Hispanic Democratic in a VRA district?

The identity of the candidate doesn't matter.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Did the winner of the Dem primary not have a majority of the Hispanic vote?

No. The winner had 50.4% of the vote, and a much higher percentage among White voters.

I'm sure you're well aware that it's the race of the voters, and not the candidate, that is significant for VRA?

No, that is the exact opposite of the Truth. The VRA has two key components. First, that Blacks, and other minorities, can vote. And, second, they can vote for whomever they want, and, not just the preferable/least_objectionable White candidate.

Again, the past practise of the DoJ has been to demand that such districts that revert be "packed" with even more minorities so that a minority candidate wins.

I can't find any links to exit polls, but this district is something like 70-80% Hispanic. O'Rourke must have received a significant portion of the Hispanic vote. Even if he didn't receive a majority of the Hispanic vote, I don't think you could really classify this as "racially polarized voting."

If Whites voted overwhelming for the White Democrat, and Hispanics voted mostly for the Hispanic Democrat, that seems to be "racially polarized" voting to me!

Again, I'd really like to see the exit polls. I don't know what the margins are in this particular case, but the demographics of the district suggest that O'Rourke received at least a substantial minority of Hispanic voters. I contend that it isn't racially polarized voting on the basis that the Hispanic vote was sufficiently divided in such a way as to allow the white Democrat to emerge victorious. My opinion on this may change when and if I see the exit polls.

[Deldem]

Did the winner of the Dem primary not have a majority of the Hispanic vote?

No. The winner had 50.4% of the vote, and a much higher percentage among White voters.

I'm sure you're well aware that it's the race of the voters, and not the candidate, that is significant for VRA?

No, that is the exact opposite of the Truth. The VRA has two key components. First, that Blacks, and other minorities, can vote. And, second, they can vote for whomever they want, and, not just the preferable/least_objectionable White candidate.

Again, the past practise of the DoJ has been to demand that such districts that revert be "packed" with even more minorities so that a minority candidate wins.

I can't find any links to exit polls, but this district is something like 70-80% Hispanic. O'Rourke must have received a significant portion of the Hispanic vote. Even if he didn't receive a majority of the Hispanic vote, I don't think you could really classify this as "racially polarized voting."

If Whites voted overwhelming for the White Democrat, and Hispanics voted mostly for the Hispanic Democrat, that seems to be "racially polarized" voting to me!

Again, I'd really like to see the exit polls. I don't know what the margins are in this particular case, but the demographics of the district suggest that O'Rourke received at least a substantial minority of Hispanic voters. I contend that it isn't racially polarized voting on the basis that the Hispanic vote was sufficiently divided in such a way as to allow the white Democrat to emerge victorious. My opinion on this may change when and if I see the exit polls.

The district as drawn is north of 75% Hispanic VAP. It's possible to draw a roughly 85% Hispanic VAP seat, but it looks real ugly and splits a few counties, and weakens CD-23.

I think the important thing is to see if this continues in future elections. One fluke election isn't enough to throw out an entire seat- otherwise, CD-23 would've been changed years ago. Now, if the preferred candidate of choice continually is defeated, measures might have to be taken, but it's an overreaction if it's done immediately.

[Gravis Marketing]

If Whites voted overwhelming for the White Democrat, and Hispanics voted mostly for the Hispanic Democrat, that seems to be "racially polarized" voting to me!

The white population in this district is a) small and b) almost certainly Republican-leaning, not participating in the Dem primary.

You have an 80+% Hispanic district in a state where Anglos are overwhelmingly Republican. If this race was 50-50, that means the Hispanic population did not vote uniformly. If the dominant community did not coalesce behind a single candidate, it's impossible to say that they didn't elect the candidate of their choice.

[BigSkyBob]

Again, in 1984 it was "relevant to the VRA" that a White Republican beat a Black Democrat in Mississippi in a VRA district, and 2004 it was "relevant to the VRA" that a Hispanic Republican beat a Hispanic Democrat in a VRA district. So why isn't it "relevant to the VRA" that a White Democrat beat a Hispanic Democratic in a VRA district?

The identity of the candidate doesn't matter.

Please, "regression" has everything to do with the "identity" of candidate who wins.

[BigSkyBob]

Did the winner of the Dem primary not have a majority of the Hispanic vote?

No. The winner had 50.4% of the vote, and a much higher percentage among White voters.

I'm sure you're well aware that it's the race of the voters, and not the candidate, that is significant for VRA?

No, that is the exact opposite of the Truth. The VRA has two key components. First, that Blacks, and other minorities, can vote. And, second, they can vote for whomever they want, and, not just the preferable/least_objectionable White candidate.

Again, the past practise of the DoJ has been to demand that such districts that revert be "packed" with even more minorities so that a minority candidate wins.

I can't find any links to exit polls, but this district is something like 70-80% Hispanic. O'Rourke must have received a significant portion of the Hispanic vote. Even if he didn't receive a majority of the Hispanic vote, I don't think you could really classify this as "racially polarized voting."

If Whites voted overwhelming for the White Democrat, and Hispanics voted mostly for the Hispanic Democrat, that seems to be "racially polarized" voting to me!

Again, I'd really like to see the exit polls. I don't know what the margins are in this particular case, but the demographics of the district suggest that O'Rourke received at least a substantial minority of Hispanic voters. I contend that it isn't racially polarized voting on the basis that the Hispanic vote was sufficiently divided in such a way as to allow the white Democrat to emerge victorious. My opinion on this may change when and if I see the exit polls.

The district as drawn is north of 75% Hispanic VAP. It's possible to draw a roughly 85% Hispanic VAP seat, but it looks real ugly and splits a few counties, and weakens CD-23.

I think the important thing is to see if this continues in future elections. One fluke election isn't enough to throw out an entire seat- otherwise, CD-23 would've been changed years ago. Now, if the preferred candidate of choice continually is defeated, measures might have to be taken, but it's an overreaction if it's done immediately.

Redistricting hasn't been finalized, yet, for Texas. There is no reason not to comply with the VRA in a timely fashion. The same remedy wasn't delayed in Mississippi, or Texas. They didn't wait to see if Franklin or Bonilla won another election before demanding a remap.

[Joe Republic]

How does it make any sense to still be deliberating over the maps when the congressional primaries have already taken place?

[BigSkyBob]

If Whites voted overwhelming for the White Democrat, and Hispanics voted mostly for the Hispanic Democrat, that seems to be "racially polarized" voting to me!

The white population in this district is a) small and b) almost certainly Republican-leaning, not participating in the Dem primary.

You have an 80+% Hispanic district in a state where Anglos are overwhelmingly Republican. If this race was 50-50, that means the Hispanic population did not vote uniformly. If the dominant community did not coalesce behind a single candidate, it's impossible to say that they didn't elect the candidate of their choice.

By that logic, any district that is 50% + 1 CVAP is VRA compliant because if that majority uniformly chose to register, and vote for the same candidate that majority's candidate would win. That simply isn't how the VRA is enforced, though you seem to be evolving into my position that that is in fact how it should be enforced.

Conseco and O'Rourke won for the same reason: heavy White support combined with a significant minority of Hispanic support. Either something untowards has happened in both cases, or it hasn't.  What he shouldn't happen is that coalition be declared okay for a White Democrat and unacceptable for a Hispanic Republic.

Considering themselves "Republicans" wasn't an obstacle for many Whites in El Paso to request a Democratic primary ballot to vote for O'Rouke.

[krazen1211]

How does it make any sense to still be deliberating over the maps when the congressional primaries have already taken place?

The GOP will certainly attempt to have the state map put in place for the 2012 elections with a favorable court ruling. Or of course redistrict in 2013 to take their districts back.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

If Whites voted overwhelming for the White Democrat, and Hispanics voted mostly for the Hispanic Democrat, that seems to be "racially polarized" voting to me!

The white population in this district is a) small and b) almost certainly Republican-leaning, not participating in the Dem primary.

You have an 80+% Hispanic district in a state where Anglos are overwhelmingly Republican. If this race was 50-50, that means the Hispanic population did not vote uniformly. If the dominant community did not coalesce behind a single candidate, it's impossible to say that they didn't elect the candidate of their choice.

Conseco and O'Rourke won for the same reason: heavy White support combined with a significant minority of Hispanic support. Either something untowards has happened in both cases, or it hasn't.  What he shouldn't happen is that coalition be declared okay for a White Democrat and unacceptable for a Hispanic Republic.

Nothing untoward happened in either case. The way I see it, if there is "significant dissent" within the ranks of the minority voters, then it's okay if the "candidate of choice" of the majority of that minority loses in a VRA district. You don't see me complaining about Quico Canseco or Blake Farenthold, do you?

But 50%+1 majority population isn't enough to force what I'd call "significant dissent." I'd suggest that the "candidate of choice" of a unified white electorate would have to receive about 20-30% of the minority vote in order to win in a VRA district over the "candidate of choice" of the minority. Of course, I'd also prioritize communities of interest and compactness over this criterion. Districts like NC-12 shouldn't exist.

Considering themselves "Republicans" wasn't an obstacle for many Whites in El Paso to request a Democratic primary ballot to vote for O'Rouke.

If there's anything remotely "untoward" about this race, it would be this. But the fact that I oppose open primaries is another issue.