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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:26:48 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  District Court, Splitting 2-1, Finds Texas Congressional Districts Violate VRA
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: District Court, Splitting 2-1, Finds Texas Congressional Districts Violate VRA  (Read 7583 times)
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: March 13, 2017, 10:34:39 AM »

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...
The court made no such finding.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: March 13, 2017, 10:24:18 PM »

I drew up some maps that left two CDs in Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr and Zapata, then tried to construct the best whole county SSRV district that contained all of Nueces. The CD has the following counties: Willacy, Kenedy, Kleberg, Jim Wells, Nueces, San Patricio, Aransas, Calhoun, Refugio, Bee, Goliad, Victoria, and DeWitt. From DRA is is 53.2% HVAP, 47.1% SSRV, and went 55.6% for McCain. Swapping Karnes and Wilson for Willacy, Kenedy, and Kleberg moves it to 50.3% HVAP, 44.2% SSRV and 57.5% McCain.

Nueces has voted Pub for the last three presidential elections as have all the counties north of it in the strips on my map. It is impossible to create a compact Latino opportunity district with Nueces without including either population from the Rio Grande counties or San Antonio. So if the court has found that Nueces has a section 2 claim, it can only be reasonably satisfied by linking it with counties in the Rio Grande valley.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: March 14, 2017, 12:10:25 AM »

I drew up some maps that left two CDs in Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr and Zapata, then tried to construct the best whole county SSRV district that contained all of Nueces. The CD has the following counties: Willacy, Kenedy, Kleberg, Jim Wells, Nueces, San Patricio, Aransas, Calhoun, Refugio, Bee, Goliad, Victoria, and DeWitt. From DRA is is 53.2% HVAP, 47.1% SSRV, and went 55.6% for McCain. Swapping Karnes and Wilson for Willacy, Kenedy, and Kleberg moves it to 50.3% HVAP, 44.2% SSRV and 57.5% McCain.

Nueces has voted Pub for the last three presidential elections as have all the counties north of it in the strips on my map. It is impossible to create a compact Latino opportunity district with Nueces without including either population from the Rio Grande counties or San Antonio. So if the court has found that Nueces has a section 2 claim, it can only be reasonably satisfied by linking it with counties in the Rio Grande valley.
Where did the two Lower Rio Grande districts go to?

BTW, conventional treatment would place Cameron, Hidalgo, Willacy, and Starr in the Lower Rio Grande. The counties to the north are oriented towards Corpus Christi. Hebronville and Falfurrias are in the far northern ends of Jim Hogg and Brooks counties. They were created from Hidalgo and Starr counties because the population was so remote. And even now, Hidalgo has an awful lot of empty space in the northern part of the county.

While it would be better to include Kleberg and Jim Wells with Nueces, this can not be done, because the LRGV doesn't have enough population for two districts, let alone three.

You didn't answer my question about the SSVR for the two parts of Nueces County in your map.

It appears that you placed an area with a higher Anglo population with Cameron, and an area with higher Hispanic population with Hidalgo in  order to keep the Hispanic percentage up as you headed further north.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: March 14, 2017, 05:59:02 AM »
« Edited: March 14, 2017, 06:49:37 AM by muon2 »

I drew up some maps that left two CDs in Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr and Zapata, then tried to construct the best whole county SSRV district that contained all of Nueces. The CD has the following counties: Willacy, Kenedy, Kleberg, Jim Wells, Nueces, San Patricio, Aransas, Calhoun, Refugio, Bee, Goliad, Victoria, and DeWitt. From DRA is is 53.2% HVAP, 47.1% SSRV, and went 55.6% for McCain. Swapping Karnes and Wilson for Willacy, Kenedy, and Kleberg moves it to 50.3% HVAP, 44.2% SSRV and 57.5% McCain.

Nueces has voted Pub for the last three presidential elections as have all the counties north of it in the strips on my map. It is impossible to create a compact Latino opportunity district with Nueces without including either population from the Rio Grande counties or San Antonio. So if the court has found that Nueces has a section 2 claim, it can only be reasonably satisfied by linking it with counties in the Rio Grande valley.
Where did the two Lower Rio Grande districts go to?

BTW, conventional treatment would place Cameron, Hidalgo, Willacy, and Starr in the Lower Rio Grande. The counties to the north are oriented towards Corpus Christi. Hebronville and Falfurrias are in the far northern ends of Jim Hogg and Brooks counties. They were created from Hidalgo and Starr counties because the population was so remote. And even now, Hidalgo has an awful lot of empty space in the northern part of the county.

While it would be better to include Kleberg and Jim Wells with Nueces, this can not be done, because the LRGV doesn't have enough population for two districts, let alone three.

You didn't answer my question about the SSVR for the two parts of Nueces County in your map.

It appears that you placed an area with a higher Anglo population with Cameron, and an area with higher Hispanic population with Hidalgo in  order to keep the Hispanic percentage up as you headed further north.


I didn't save that file, so I'd have to reconstruct it. I did split Corpus in a way to keep both CDs with SSRV majorities and have them both vote Dem, though I'm not sure if that would hold in 2016. That requires analysis beyond DRA, which I haven't had time for yet. Edit - I reconstructed it and the red part of Nueces is 53.4% SSRV and the Yellow part is 46.6% SSRV, These can be shifted to better balance the two CDs.

I gave numbers for two versions of a Corpus district since keeping Willacy with Cameron made it worse for a Latino opportunity district. In both versions the McAllen CD connected to Atascosa. The counties south and west of Nueces (minus Webb) are 21K short of two districts. Remove Jim Wells and add McMullen, Live Oak, Atascosa, and LaSalle and the population is just 2K over 2 CDs.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: March 14, 2017, 08:18:54 AM »

I drew up some maps that left two CDs in Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr and Zapata, then tried to construct the best whole county SSRV district that contained all of Nueces. The CD has the following counties: Willacy, Kenedy, Kleberg, Jim Wells, Nueces, San Patricio, Aransas, Calhoun, Refugio, Bee, Goliad, Victoria, and DeWitt. From DRA is is 53.2% HVAP, 47.1% SSRV, and went 55.6% for McCain. Swapping Karnes and Wilson for Willacy, Kenedy, and Kleberg moves it to 50.3% HVAP, 44.2% SSRV and 57.5% McCain.

Nueces has voted Pub for the last three presidential elections as have all the counties north of it in the strips on my map. It is impossible to create a compact Latino opportunity district with Nueces without including either population from the Rio Grande counties or San Antonio. So if the court has found that Nueces has a section 2 claim, it can only be reasonably satisfied by linking it with counties in the Rio Grande valley.
Where did the two Lower Rio Grande districts go to?

BTW, conventional treatment would place Cameron, Hidalgo, Willacy, and Starr in the Lower Rio Grande. The counties to the north are oriented towards Corpus Christi. Hebronville and Falfurrias are in the far northern ends of Jim Hogg and Brooks counties. They were created from Hidalgo and Starr counties because the population was so remote. And even now, Hidalgo has an awful lot of empty space in the northern part of the county.

While it would be better to include Kleberg and Jim Wells with Nueces, this can not be done, because the LRGV doesn't have enough population for two districts, let alone three.

You didn't answer my question about the SSVR for the two parts of Nueces County in your map.

It appears that you placed an area with a higher Anglo population with Cameron, and an area with higher Hispanic population with Hidalgo in  order to keep the Hispanic percentage up as you headed further north.


I didn't save that file, so I'd have to reconstruct it. I did split Corpus in a way to keep both CDs with SSRV majorities and have them both vote Dem, though I'm not sure if that would hold in 2016. That requires analysis beyond DRA, which I haven't had time for yet. Edit - I reconstructed it and the red part of Nueces is 53.4% SSRV and the Yellow part is 46.6% SSRV, These can be shifted to better balance the two CDs.

I gave numbers for two versions of a Corpus district since keeping Willacy with Cameron made it worse for a Latino opportunity district. In both versions the McAllen CD connected to Atascosa. The counties south and west of Nueces (minus Webb) are 21K short of two districts. Remove Jim Wells and add McMullen, Live Oak, Atascosa, and LaSalle and the population is just 2K over 2 CDs.
Take the 21K from Nueces.

That gives you:

Cameron, Willacy, Kenedy, Kleberg, Nueces (21), and Hidalgo (Huh) to balance.

Hidalgo (remainder), Starr, Zapata, Jim Hogg, Brooks, Duval, and Jim Wells.

Nueces (remainder), San Patricio, Aransas, Refugio, Calhoun, Victoria, Goliad, Bee, Live Oak, McMullen, Atascosa, Wilson, Karnes, and DeWitt.

Three compact districts.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: March 14, 2017, 08:34:51 AM »

Those three compact CDs would seem to suffer from the same section 2 violation cited in the decision.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: March 14, 2017, 02:09:32 PM »

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.

This doesn't make a lot of sense though, the current map still has the violations they talk about in the ruling (except maybe the TX-23 one, that's debatable).   How can they rule the other map is unconstitutional and the current one isn't, when they both do the same thing?
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: March 14, 2017, 02:35:08 PM »

Those three compact CDs would seem to suffer from the same section 2 violation cited in the decision.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your proposed districts are not compact.

The opinion discusses the attempt by the plaintiffs to demonstrate that 8 compact majority HCVAP districts could be drawn in South/West Texas and found that they had not because they had problems similar to yours.

How about this:

Nueces, San Patricio, Aransas, Jim Wells, Kleberg, Kenedy, Willacy, and Cameron (come down Padre Island and then jump into Brownsville)

Remainder of Cameron and most of Hidalgo.

Remainder of Hidalgo, Starr, Zapata, Jim Hogg, Brooks, Duval, Webb, McMullen, Dimmit, LaSalle, Live Oak, and Frio.

Leave TX-23 in its current format coming into Bexar County.

Leave TX-20 in Bexar County.

Then Bexar, Wilson, Karnes, Bee, Goliad, DeWitt, Victoria, Calhoun, Refugio.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: March 14, 2017, 02:38:16 PM »

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.

This doesn't make a lot of sense though, the current map still has the violations they talk about in the ruling (except maybe the TX-23 one, that's debatable).   How can they rule the other map is unconstitutional and the current one isn't, when they both do the same thing?

Has anyone challenged the current maps?


Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: March 14, 2017, 02:45:48 PM »
« Edited: March 14, 2017, 02:47:20 PM by Virginia »

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.

This doesn't make a lot of sense though, the current map still has the violations they talk about in the ruling (except maybe the TX-23 one, that's debatable).   How can they rule the other map is unconstitutional and the current one isn't, when they both do the same thing?

Since the newer map has some of the same problems, it should be able to be addressed. But as jimrtex noted, this was about the 2011 map. Here is from Michael Li @ Brennan Center:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This whole case is quite interesting in both the ruling and how it transpired.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: March 14, 2017, 06:00:18 PM »

This is crazy 8 years after Texas's current Congressional Map was made its ruled unconstitutional. Couldn't this ruling have come sooner? The current map will come up for revision in 2021 for the 2022 mid-terms.

I wish we could just do redistricting by a computer program designed to do correct congressional redistricting without gerrymandering.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: March 14, 2017, 06:02:31 PM »
« Edited: March 14, 2017, 06:04:38 PM by hopper »

Honestly, we should just get rid of the VRA district requirements *and* partisan gerrymandering. Draw compact districts like Elections Canada does and then every party can let the chips fall where they may. Compete for votes, make voters actually like you. Gerrymandering, IMO, is why both parties are so widely reviled these days.
That could easily lead to African Americans in the South being completely drawn out of power.  Its not hard to draw compact districts which destroy their representation.  
I'm sure African Americans would still have representation in the Atlanta, Georgia area though even without VRA though. TN-9 which is based in Memphis, TN would probably still be there too which is a VRA district.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: March 14, 2017, 06:03:27 PM »

This is crazy 8 years after Texas's current Congressional Map was made its ruled unconstitutional. Couldn't this ruling have come sooner? The current map will come up for revision in 2021 for the 2022 mid-terms.

I wish we could just do redistricting by a computer program designed to do correct congressional redistricting without gerrymandering.

Who gets to define "correct redistricting"?
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: March 14, 2017, 06:05:11 PM »

This is crazy 8 years after Texas's current Congressional Map was made its ruled unconstitutional. Couldn't this ruling have come sooner? The current map will come up for revision in 2021 for the 2022 mid-terms.

I wish we could just do redistricting by a computer program designed to do correct congressional redistricting without gerrymandering.

Who gets to define "correct redistricting"?

Without gerrymandering.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: March 14, 2017, 06:12:36 PM »

This is crazy 8 years after Texas's current Congressional Map was made its ruled unconstitutional. Couldn't this ruling have come sooner? The current map will come up for revision in 2021 for the 2022 mid-terms.

I wish we could just do redistricting by a computer program designed to do correct congressional redistricting without gerrymandering.

Who gets to define "correct redistricting"?

Without gerrymandering.

Who decides what is a gerrymander and what is not? Opinions on this differ from person to person.

Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: March 14, 2017, 06:22:06 PM »

This is crazy 8 years after Texas's current Congressional Map was made its ruled unconstitutional. Couldn't this ruling have come sooner? The current map will come up for revision in 2021 for the 2022 mid-terms.

I wish we could just do redistricting by a computer program designed to do correct congressional redistricting without gerrymandering.

Who gets to define "correct redistricting"?

Without gerrymandering.

Who decides what is a gerrymander and what is not? Opinions on this differ from person to person.

MI and IL congressional maps are gerrymander-lites. PA and OH Congressional Maps are messy gerrymanders. MD-06 is a gerrymander no doubt.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: March 14, 2017, 10:26:51 PM »

Those three compact CDs would seem to suffer from the same section 2 violation cited in the decision.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your proposed districts are not compact.

The opinion discusses the attempt by the plaintiffs to demonstrate that 8 compact majority HCVAP districts could be drawn in South/West Texas and found that they had not because they had problems similar to yours.

How about this:

Nueces, San Patricio, Aransas, Jim Wells, Kleberg, Kenedy, Willacy, and Cameron (come down Padre Island and then jump into Brownsville)

Remainder of Cameron and most of Hidalgo.

Remainder of Hidalgo, Starr, Zapata, Jim Hogg, Brooks, Duval, Webb, McMullen, Dimmit, LaSalle, Live Oak, and Frio.

Leave TX-23 in its current format coming into Bexar County.

Leave TX-20 in Bexar County.

Then Bexar, Wilson, Karnes, Bee, Goliad, DeWitt, Victoria, Calhoun, Refugio.

That hinges on whether the current TX-23 can withstand a challenge. I'm skeptical.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: March 15, 2017, 06:44:37 AM »

Is this court to achieve its mandate in effect requiring that performing minority districts be created that join non contiguous minority zones that are far away from each other?  I assume the problem with TX-23 is that an adjacent Hispanic CD in Bexar is deemed excessively packed. Is that correct?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: March 15, 2017, 07:36:51 AM »

Is this court to achieve its mandate in effect requiring that performing minority districts be created that join non contiguous minority zones that are far away from each other?  I assume the problem with TX-23 is that an adjacent Hispanic CD in Bexar is deemed excessively packed. Is that correct?

The way I read it, they support such districts if they are the only way to meet section 2 and are not a Shaw-type racial gerrymander. They seem to ask 1) are there minority populations that have section 2 rights? 2) can those rights be satisfied without taking away section 2 rights from another population? and 3) can a district be drawn using generally accepted principles such that the minority has the opportunity to elect the candidate of their choice? For this court linking non-contiguous minority zones is bad if race was the predominant factor in drawing the district and section 2 could have been satisfied without the linkage, otherwise it's ok.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: March 15, 2017, 08:10:59 AM »

Is this court to achieve its mandate in effect requiring that performing minority districts be created that join non contiguous minority zones that are far away from each other?  I assume the problem with TX-23 is that an adjacent Hispanic CD in Bexar is deemed excessively packed. Is that correct?

The way I read it, they support such districts if they are the only way to meet section 2 and are not a Shaw-type racial gerrymander. They seem to ask 1) are there minority populations that have section 2 rights? 2) can those rights be satisfied without taking away section 2 rights from another population? and 3) can a district be drawn using generally accepted principles such that the minority has the opportunity to elect the candidate of their choice? For this court linking non-contiguous minority zones is bad if race was the predominant factor in drawing the district and section 2 could have been satisfied without the linkage, otherwise it's ok.

I think the OK bit is existing law, if it is not possible to create a performing minority district using a continuous population. But is this court mandating such a CD to get the minority population up to its requisite quota of CD's? If so, that is not SCOTUS law at present I don't think. So to me, that is the key question. The same issue applies with TX-23. If a CD is minority packed within Bexar, probably it needs to be unpacked, particularly if it can be done using reasonable redistricting principles, as opposed to chopping away at sub-jurisdicitons.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: March 15, 2017, 10:49:21 AM »

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.

Cameron and Nueces combined are too big for a district (and you have to throw in the counties in between) by about 50k persons. They can't go together.

So, what the plaintiffs are essentially asking for is to chop Nueces County into pieces (probably along racial lines. ironic, I guess) in order to dilute the fact that is consistently votes for Republican Congressional candidates.

If you leave Nueces County intact, such district can be won by a Republican, and this is what happened in the 2010 election.

Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: March 15, 2017, 01:38:59 PM »

Is this court to achieve its mandate in effect requiring that performing minority districts be created that join non contiguous minority zones that are far away from each other?  I assume the problem with TX-23 is that an adjacent Hispanic CD in Bexar is deemed excessively packed. Is that correct?
The decision is confusing in that it is written in the present tense, when it actually refers to districts that have never been used. The current TX-23 has a HCVAP of over 60%.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: March 15, 2017, 01:44:37 PM »

Those three compact CDs would seem to suffer from the same section 2 violation cited in the decision.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your proposed districts are not compact.

The opinion discusses the attempt by the plaintiffs to demonstrate that 8 compact majority HCVAP districts could be drawn in South/West Texas and found that they had not because they had problems similar to yours.

How about this:

Nueces, San Patricio, Aransas, Jim Wells, Kleberg, Kenedy, Willacy, and Cameron (come down Padre Island and then jump into Brownsville)

Remainder of Cameron and most of Hidalgo.

Remainder of Hidalgo, Starr, Zapata, Jim Hogg, Brooks, Duval, Webb, McMullen, Dimmit, LaSalle, Live Oak, and Frio.

Leave TX-23 in its current format coming into Bexar County.

Leave TX-20 in Bexar County.

Then Bexar, Wilson, Karnes, Bee, Goliad, DeWitt, Victoria, Calhoun, Refugio.

That hinges on whether the current TX-23 can withstand a challenge. I'm skeptical.

The current TX-23 has a 60% HCVAP.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: March 15, 2017, 09:13:33 PM »

Those three compact CDs would seem to suffer from the same section 2 violation cited in the decision.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your proposed districts are not compact.

The opinion discusses the attempt by the plaintiffs to demonstrate that 8 compact majority HCVAP districts could be drawn in South/West Texas and found that they had not because they had problems similar to yours.

How about this:

Nueces, San Patricio, Aransas, Jim Wells, Kleberg, Kenedy, Willacy, and Cameron (come down Padre Island and then jump into Brownsville)

Remainder of Cameron and most of Hidalgo.

Remainder of Hidalgo, Starr, Zapata, Jim Hogg, Brooks, Duval, Webb, McMullen, Dimmit, LaSalle, Live Oak, and Frio.

Leave TX-23 in its current format coming into Bexar County.

Leave TX-20 in Bexar County.

Then Bexar, Wilson, Karnes, Bee, Goliad, DeWitt, Victoria, Calhoun, Refugio.

That hinges on whether the current TX-23 can withstand a challenge. I'm skeptical.

The current TX-23 has a 60% HCVAP.

But the court said that an HCVAP-majority doesn't matter if the district doesn't provide an opportunity to elect. The C185 version was 58.5% HCVAP.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: March 16, 2017, 06:54:13 AM »

Those three compact CDs would seem to suffer from the same section 2 violation cited in the decision.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your proposed districts are not compact.

The opinion discusses the attempt by the plaintiffs to demonstrate that 8 compact majority HCVAP districts could be drawn in South/West Texas and found that they had not because they had problems similar to yours.

How about this:

Nueces, San Patricio, Aransas, Jim Wells, Kleberg, Kenedy, Willacy, and Cameron (come down Padre Island and then jump into Brownsville)

Remainder of Cameron and most of Hidalgo.

Remainder of Hidalgo, Starr, Zapata, Jim Hogg, Brooks, Duval, Webb, McMullen, Dimmit, LaSalle, Live Oak, and Frio.

Leave TX-23 in its current format coming into Bexar County.

Leave TX-20 in Bexar County.

Then Bexar, Wilson, Karnes, Bee, Goliad, DeWitt, Victoria, Calhoun, Refugio.

That hinges on whether the current TX-23 can withstand a challenge. I'm skeptical.

The current TX-23 has a 60% HCVAP.

But the court said that an HCVAP-majority doesn't matter if the district doesn't provide an opportunity to elect. The C185 version was 58.5% HCVAP.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
On what basis do claim that the current TX-23 lacks "real electoral opportunity"?

Instead of shifting Dimmit, LaSalle, and Frio, leave TX-23 totally unchanged, and make it:

Hidalgo (remnant), Starr, Zapata, Jim Hogg, Brooks, Webb, Duval, McMullen, Live Oak, and Atascosa (which I left out of my previous map).

Move the remaining portion of TX-27 to TX-10, and move the Travis portion of TX-10 into TX-25.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.066 seconds with 12 queries.