District Court, Splitting 2-1, Finds Texas Congressional Districts Violate VRA

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Could someone who's knowledgeable about this explain why CD's 15, 28, and 34 are drawn as three long north-south strips rather than three compact districts?

[Heisenberg]

Could someone who's knowledgeable about this explain why CD's 15, 28, and 34 are drawn as three long north-south strips rather than three compact districts?

I think it's because if they were more compact, there would only be two Hispanic seats in the Valley, and the third would be a predominantly White, rural, Republican district.

[DrScholl]

Most of Nueces would end up in TX-34, which is where it should be, since it has previously been in a district with Brownsville. Farenthold would still have a seat, so that isn't a change. TX-35 is the issue, because if it condenses into Travis County, that means that another Bexar County anchored seat has to be drawn. That is where all the questions about change come in.

Why should Corpus Christ be in the same district as Brownsville?

The name of the city is Corpus Christi, not Corpus Christ. It would make for a compact district that complies with the VRA fairly easily.

[Heisenberg]

Anyone have an idea as to how the new maps may look like?

Likely a total redraw of the southern part of the state, Fourth valley district would be likely.  Austin would likely also have a seat entirely in Travis county as well.  It might take out 2 or 3 republicans, depending on what they do in San Antonio. 

Maybe some rearanging of the 11 and 23.

If there's a fourth valley seat, I assume this means Farenthold's seat is dismantled, and then 15, 27, 28, and 34 are all long, tall "fajita strips"?
Yes, an Austin-anchored White district is probably going to happen. A blessing in disguise for the GOP, you can only crack it into so many pieces, and many rich, white Austin suburbanites who voted against Obama twice can't stand Trump.
With Doggett's current seat being dismantled in favor of an Austin-anchored one, I suppose this would mean a second Hispanic mostly-San Antonio seat?
Lastly, not quite sure what becomes of 23 and 11 if San Antonio. Playing around with DRA, it's hard to have 4 valley strips, 2 San Antonio seats, AND a D-leaning TX-23, but then again the numbers used are pretty old.
As for TX-26 being mentioned (I think), are they mandating a third DFW-area VRA seat, too?

[krazen1211]

Anyone have an idea as to how the new maps may look like?

Likely a total redraw of the southern part of the state, Fourth valley district would be likely.  Austin would likely also have a seat entirely in Travis county as well.  It might take out 2 or 3 republicans, depending on what they do in San Antonio. 

Maybe some rearanging of the 11 and 23.

If there's a fourth valley seat, I assume this means Farenthold's seat is dismantled, and then 15, 27, 28, and 34 are all long, tall "fajita strips"?
Yes, an Austin-anchored White district is probably going to happen. A blessing in disguise for the GOP, you can only crack it into so many pieces, and many rich, white Austin suburbanites who voted against Obama twice can't stand Trump.
With Doggett's current seat being dismantled in favor of an Austin-anchored one, I suppose this would mean a second Hispanic mostly-San Antonio seat?
Lastly, not quite sure what becomes of 23 and 11 if San Antonio. Playing around with DRA, it's hard to have 4 valley strips, 2 San Antonio seats, AND a D-leaning TX-23, but then again the numbers used are pretty old.
As for TX-26 being mentioned (I think), are they mandating a third DFW-area VRA seat, too?

The court rejected all 4 valley district plans as being noncompact and with bizarre districts similar to that of the 2006 district rejected by the Supreme Court.


The fact that the Legislature’s enacted map contains three such “fajita strip” districts does not relieve Plaintiffs of their obligation to produce evidence showing that their proposed Gingles demonstration districts are compact for § 2 purposes.9 Thus, these plans fail to demonstrate that an additional compact Latino opportunity district could be drawn in South/West Texas.

[Nyvin]

The VRA is nothing more than a money making machine for trial lawyers. If Paul Ryan had any sense, he should stand for its immediate repeal.

....And that whole pesky part about ensuring minorities get representation in government and all...

[publicunofficial]

Anyone have an idea as to how the new maps may look like?

Likely a total redraw of the southern part of the state, Fourth valley district would be likely.  Austin would likely also have a seat entirely in Travis county as well.  It might take out 2 or 3 republicans, depending on what they do in San Antonio. 

Maybe some rearanging of the 11 and 23.

If there's a fourth valley seat, I assume this means Farenthold's seat is dismantled, and then 15, 27, 28, and 34 are all long, tall "fajita strips"?
Yes, an Austin-anchored White district is probably going to happen. A blessing in disguise for the GOP, you can only crack it into so many pieces, and many rich, white Austin suburbanites who voted against Obama twice can't stand Trump.
With Doggett's current seat being dismantled in favor of an Austin-anchored one, I suppose this would mean a second Hispanic mostly-San Antonio seat?
Lastly, not quite sure what becomes of 23 and 11 if San Antonio. Playing around with DRA, it's hard to have 4 valley strips, 2 San Antonio seats, AND a D-leaning TX-23, but then again the numbers used are pretty old.
As for TX-26 being mentioned (I think), are they mandating a third DFW-area VRA seat, too?

I'm not sure another San Antonio seat is needed. Pull the 35th entirely into Austin, have the 20th in the center of San Antonio, have the 23rd and 28th grab the remaining Hispanic portions of the county (Having them lose population elsewhere) and then have the 21st grab the mostly white northern half the county.

[publicunofficial]

The VRA is nothing more than a money making machine for trial lawyers. If Paul Ryan had any sense, he should stand for its immediate repeal.

....And that whole pesky part about ensuring minorities get representation in government and all...

The only minority group that's discriminated against in America is Russians, don't you know?

[jimrtex]

Could someone who's knowledgeable about this explain why CD's 15, 28, and 34 are drawn as three long north-south strips rather than three compact districts?

Race.

The counties along the border are 80%+ Hispanic. By drawing districts north-south, you can take in areas that are less Hispanic and maintain control of the election.

[jimrtex]

Most of Nueces would end up in TX-34, which is where it should be, since it has previously been in a district with Brownsville. Farenthold would still have a seat, so that isn't a change. TX-35 is the issue, because if it condenses into Travis County, that means that another Bexar County anchored seat has to be drawn. That is where all the questions about change come in.

Why should Corpus Christ be in the same district as Brownsville?

The name of the city is Corpus Christi, not Corpus Christ. It would make for a compact district that complies with the VRA fairly easily.

It is 160 miles between Brownsville and Corpus including a stretch of about 100 miles of highway where there are no services such as food or gasoline.

It is absurd to claim the district is compact when more compact districts can easily be drawn.

[Gass3268]

Could someone who's knowledgeable about this explain why CD's 15, 28, and 34 are drawn as three long north-south strips rather than three compact districts?

Illegal packing of Hispanics

[jimrtex]

Could someone who's knowledgeable about this explain why CD's 15, 28, and 34 are drawn as three long north-south strips rather than three compact districts?

Illegal packing of Hispanics

That is not true.

[DrScholl]

There are plenty of large land area districts that have stretches of highway where there is nothing in between and it's unavoidable in many cases. With that said, arguing about this is a moot point, because the VRA districts are going to be mandated by law. End of debate.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

There are plenty of large land area districts that have stretches of highway where there is nothing in between and it's unavoidable in many cases. With that said, arguing about this is a moot point, because the VRA districts are going to be mandated by law. End of debate.

Especially in Texas. Everything is big in Texas, y'all. One time I was drivin' through West Texas, and for dozens of miles I saw little other than derricks' and oil wells owned by wild catters strikin' to get a fortune

[Nyvin]

Most of Nueces would end up in TX-34, which is where it should be, since it has previously been in a district with Brownsville. Farenthold would still have a seat, so that isn't a change. TX-35 is the issue, because if it condenses into Travis County, that means that another Bexar County anchored seat has to be drawn. That is where all the questions about change come in.

Why should Corpus Christ be in the same district as Brownsville?

The name of the city is Corpus Christi, not Corpus Christ. It would make for a compact district that complies with the VRA fairly easily.

It is 160 miles between Brownsville and Corpus including a stretch of about 100 miles of highway where there are no services such as food or gasoline.

It is absurd to claim the district is compact when more compact districts can easily be drawn.

It's almost equally as far to Victoria....what's your point?   Texas has lots of empty space.

You can't draw a "compact" district with just Nueces and San Patricio counties, there aren't enough people.

[Nyvin]

So after reading the court order, it seems they decided:

1. There needs to be 7 HCVAP majority districts in south/west Texas

2.  They don't consider the current TX-23 to be a performing district for hispanics and it needs to be made performing

3.  Nueces county must be put into a HCVAP majority district.  

4.  CD-35 must be removed from Travis county....? To make it more compact?  (Not sure on this, I guess they're saying a second HCVAP district in Bexar county alone?).   TX-21 would be the obvious target to fill in what's left empty in Travis.   

So those changes would pretty much force 2 districts entirely within Bexar, 1 district most likely entirely within Travis, TX-23 be made more hispanic (and dem),  and TX-34 would take in Nueces, resulting in big changes to TX-27.

Did I get this right..?

[Gass3268]

So after reading the court order, it seems they decided:

1. There needs to be 7 HCVAP majority districts in south/west Texas

2.  They don't consider the current TX-23 to be a performing district for hispanics and it needs to be made performing

3.  Nueces county must be put into a HCVAP majority district.  

4.  CD-35 must be removed from Travis county....? To make it more compact?  (Not sure on this, I guess they're saying a second HCVAP district in Bexar county alone?).   TX-21 would be the obvious target to fill in what's left empty in Travis.   

So those changes would pretty much force 2 districts entirely within Bexar, 1 district most likely entirely within Travis, TX-23 be made more hispanic (and dem),  and TX-34 would take in Nueces, resulting in big changes to TX-27.

Did I get this right..?

Plus maybe another minority opportunity district in the DFW area.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

So after reading the court order, it seems they decided:

1. There needs to be 7 HCVAP majority districts in south/west Texas

2.  They don't consider the current TX-23 to be a performing district for hispanics and it needs to be made performing

3.  Nueces county must be put into a HCVAP majority district. 

4.  CD-35 must be removed from Travis county....? To make it more compact?  (Not sure on this, I guess they're saying a second HCVAP district in Bexar county alone?).   TX-21 would be the obvious target to fill in what's left empty in Travis.   

So those changes would pretty much force 2 districts entirely within Bexar, 1 district most likely entirely within Travis, TX-23 be made more hispanic (and dem),  and TX-34 would take in Nueces, resulting in big changes to TX-27.

Did I get this right..?

Plus maybe another minority opportunity district in the DFW area.

If there is another minority opportunity seat, I wonder which North Texas R sacrifices their seat.

[DrScholl]

Marchant and Sessions probably end up in the same district, with prioritization given to Sessions due to seniority (assuming the legislature concedes a seat in the area).

[jimrtex]

There are plenty of large land area districts that have stretches of highway where there is nothing in between and it's unavoidable in many cases. With that said, arguing about this is a moot point, because the VRA districts are going to be mandated by law. End of debate.

We are making progress. You are no longer claiming that the district is compact, or that Nueces or Cameron belong together.

[jimrtex]

Most of Nueces would end up in TX-34, which is where it should be, since it has previously been in a district with Brownsville. Farenthold would still have a seat, so that isn't a change. TX-35 is the issue, because if it condenses into Travis County, that means that another Bexar County anchored seat has to be drawn. That is where all the questions about change come in.

Why should Corpus Christ be in the same district as Brownsville?

The name of the city is Corpus Christi, not Corpus Christ. It would make for a compact district that complies with the VRA fairly easily.

It is 160 miles between Brownsville and Corpus including a stretch of about 100 miles of highway where there are no services such as food or gasoline.

It is absurd to claim the district is compact when more compact districts can easily be drawn.

It's almost equally as far to Victoria....what's your point?   Texas has lots of empty space.

You can't draw a "compact" district with just Nueces and San Patricio counties, there aren't enough people.

163.6 miles from Corpus to Brownsville; 86.2 miles to Victoria. That is 1.89 times as far.

Almost twice as far, which is not the same as almost equal. Don't you remember when the UIL proposed a district going from Corpus to the Valley?

You can draw two districts in the lower Valley without going into Laredo or Corpus.

[jimrtex]

So after reading the court order, it seems they decided:

1. There needs to be 7 HCVAP majority districts in south/west Texas

2.  They don't consider the current TX-23 to be a performing district for hispanics and it needs to be made performing

3.  Nueces county must be put into a HCVAP majority district.  

4.  CD-35 must be removed from Travis county....? To make it more compact?  (Not sure on this, I guess they're saying a second HCVAP district in Bexar county alone?).   TX-21 would be the obvious target to fill in what's left empty in Travis.   

So those changes would pretty much force 2 districts entirely within Bexar, 1 district most likely entirely within Travis, TX-23 be made more hispanic (and dem),  and TX-34 would take in Nueces, resulting in big changes to TX-27.

Did I get this right..?

No. The court was evaluating the districts drawn in 2011. In 2012, the court drew remedial districts, which were used in 2012. The Texas legislature adopted the districts in 2013, and they have been used in 2014 and 2016.

The court ruled that districts that have never been used are unconstitutional.

[muon2]

So after reading the court order, it seems they decided:

1. There needs to be 7 HCVAP majority districts in south/west Texas

2.  They don't consider the current TX-23 to be a performing district for hispanics and it needs to be made performing

3.  Nueces county must be put into a HCVAP majority district.  

4.  CD-35 must be removed from Travis county....? To make it more compact?  (Not sure on this, I guess they're saying a second HCVAP district in Bexar county alone?).   TX-21 would be the obvious target to fill in what's left empty in Travis.   

So those changes would pretty much force 2 districts entirely within Bexar, 1 district most likely entirely within Travis, TX-23 be made more hispanic (and dem),  and TX-34 would take in Nueces, resulting in big changes to TX-27.

Did I get this right..?

The best way to make TX-23 performing is to remove it from Bexar and give it Wood (Laredo).
New TX-23: SSRV 68.8%, '08 Obama 57.0%.

That pushes TX-28, -15, and -34 towards the Gulf. TX-15 and -34 would split Nueces and TX-15 would have to take in more of TX-11 north of Nueces.
New TX-28: SSRV 67.0%, '08 Obama 56.4%.
New TX-15: SSRV 60.5%, '08 Obama 53.1%.
New TX-34: SSRV 63.5%, '08 Obama 56.4%.

Using 2010 data, I can't get two SSRV majority CDs in Bexar, but there might be two that perform.
New TX-20: SSRV 53.4%, '08 Obama 58.8%.
New TX-35: SSRV 46.1%, '08 Obama 58.8%.

Here's what those districts would look like:

[Brittain33]

I'm shocked the courts found there can be 3 VRA districts in the Metroplex when Republicans were confident they could pack all of the Metroplex's minority voters into 1 vote sink and hold all other districts in the area for Republicans. I know voter turnout is extremely variable in Texas...

[jimrtex]

So after reading the court order, it seems they decided:

1. There needs to be 7 HCVAP majority districts in south/west Texas

2.  They don't consider the current TX-23 to be a performing district for hispanics and it needs to be made performing

3.  Nueces county must be put into a HCVAP majority district.  

4.  CD-35 must be removed from Travis county....? To make it more compact?  (Not sure on this, I guess they're saying a second HCVAP district in Bexar county alone?).   TX-21 would be the obvious target to fill in what's left empty in Travis.   

So those changes would pretty much force 2 districts entirely within Bexar, 1 district most likely entirely within Travis, TX-23 be made more hispanic (and dem),  and TX-34 would take in Nueces, resulting in big changes to TX-27.

Did I get this right..?

The best way to make TX-23 performing is to remove it from Bexar and give it Wood Webb (Laredo).

The court did not rule that TX-23 is not performing. It ruled the TX-23 proposed by the legislature in 2011 would have been non-performing if it had ever been used.

You might remember back in 2011 when the court drew its initial remedial plan, it released its map on Thanksgiving. It drew the boundary of the central San Antonio district TX-20, one block past Joaquin Castro's house. Representative Gonzales announced he was retiring from a seat which he or his father had held for closely to 50 years, in order to better provide for family financially. Castro who had been planning to run against Doggett in TX-35 announced he was running in TX-20 (Doggett claims that Castro had told him previously that he was running in TX-23).

After the SCOTUS overturned that plan because it had not shown deference to the legislative intent, the court delayed the 2012 primary, and drew the boundaries that have been used for the past three elections. TX-23 elected a Hispanic Democrat in 2012, and a Black Republican in 2014.

What the majority of the district court is angling for is to show that by starting from the 2011 legislative boundaries, they were duped into drawing the current boundaries, which the legislature then enacted in 2013.

This would possibly permit the current boundaries to be challenged since they are now a legislative enactment, rather than a court-imposed plan, and possibly be used to put Texas back under Section 5.

New TX-23: SSRV 68.8%, '08 Obama 57.0%.

That pushes TX-28, -15, and -34 towards the Gulf. TX-15 and -34 would split Nueces and TX-15 would have to take in more of TX-11 north of Nueces.
New TX-28: SSRV 67.0%, '08 Obama 56.4%.
New TX-15: SSRV 60.5%, '08 Obama 53.1%.
New TX-34: SSRV 63.5%, '08 Obama 56.4%.

Using 2010 data, I can't get two SSRV majority CDs in Bexar, but there might be two that perform.
New TX-20: SSRV 53.4%, '08 Obama 58.8%.
New TX-35: SSRV 46.1%, '08 Obama 58.8%.

Here's what those districts would look like:

What is the SSRV in each of the counties of the three fajita strips (including the split portions). Also what is the cumulative SSRV as you move northward.

And what happens if you draw two districts in the lower valley, one entirely in Hidalgo, and the other taking everything up to Duval and Jim Wells, but excluding Nueces and Webb. Alternatively you can put Cameron, Willacy, Kenedy, Kleberg, and part of Hidalgo in one district.

Then draw a compact district using the northern portions of your three districts.