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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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 () 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.

[jimrtex]

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this 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.

[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.

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?

[jimrtex]

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%.

[jimrtex]

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this 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.

[jimrtex]

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this 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.

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.

[jimrtex]

BTW, the Legislative Council redistricting website  now has the election results for 2016. Clinton carried TX-23 by 3.5%. The court tends to prefer exogenous results. Over the three elections, 2012-2016, the Democratic candidate for Congress has received more votes in total.

There are also shapefiles in case someone is interested in looking at what the plaintiffs proposed for their eight "compact" districts.

[jimrtex]

Also, the court has not issued an opinion on the House districts. The senate districts has been settled.

[jimrtex]

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this 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.

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.

We leave TX-16, TX-20, and TX-23 alone.

For the Corpus Christi district: Nueces, Aransas, San Patricio, Kleberg, Jim Wells, Duval, Jim Hogg, Brooks, Kenedy, and Willacy + ?? (the addition of Duval, Jim Hogg, and Brooks keeps the Hispanic population up and reduces the population needed from  Cameron OR gives us the option to go into Hidalgo, which has population further north. And Jim Hogg, Brooks, and Duval are more oriented towards Corpus Christi than the Rio Grande Valley.

All of Cameron + some of Hidalgo.

Remainder of Hidalgo, Starr, Zapata, Webb, La Salle (part, no change), McMullen, and Atascosa.

Bexar part of TX-35 and TX-28 plus Wilson, Guadeloupe, Karnes, Live Oak, and Bee.

Transfer the TX-35 parts of Comal and Hays to TX-21 and balance by moving part of TX-21 Travis to TX-35.

Move Wharton, Matagorda, Jackson, Calhoun, Victoria, Refugio, Goliad, Lavaca, Dewitt, and Gonzales to TX-10, and the Travis part of TX-10 to Travis.

use Caldwell and Bastrop for population balance.

TX-10, 15, 21, 27, 28, 34, and 35 are the only districts changes and none can currently be considered compact.

[jimrtex]

We leave TX-16, TX-20, and TX-23 alone.

For the Corpus Christi district: Nueces, Aransas, San Patricio, Kleberg, Jim Wells, Duval, Jim Hogg, Brooks, Kenedy, and Willacy + ?? (the addition of Duval, Jim Hogg, and Brooks keeps the Hispanic population up and reduces the population needed from  Cameron OR gives us the option to go into Hidalgo, which has population further north. And Jim Hogg, Brooks, and Duval are more oriented towards Corpus Christi than the Rio Grande Valley.

All of Cameron + some of Hidalgo.

Remainder of Hidalgo, Starr, Zapata, Webb, La Salle (part, no change), McMullen, and Atascosa.

Bexar part of TX-35 and TX-28 plus Wilson, Guadeloupe, Karnes, Live Oak, and Bee.

Transfer the TX-35 parts of Comal and Hays to TX-21 and balance by moving part of TX-21 Travis to TX-35.

Move Wharton, Matagorda, Jackson, Calhoun, Victoria, Refugio, Goliad, Lavaca, Dewitt, and Gonzales to TX-10, and the Travis part of TX-10 to Travis.

use Caldwell and Bastrop for population balance.

TX-10, 15, 21, 27, 28, 34, and 35 are the only districts changes and none can currently be considered compact.

I split Hidalgo such that Edinburg, Pharr, and McAllen were in different districts. The Corpus Christi district would be 65.2% HVAP, 57.6% SSRV, and 52.3% Obama '08. That last number is cutting it pretty close. One would have to check other statewide elections to see if it provides a suitable opportunity.

Will there be enough Latino population in your new 35 to provide an opportunity?

34, 15, and 28 lose their northern extensions and are merged into two districts. A reasonable case can be made that 15 should be the district eliminated since the Hidalgo portion is divided between two or three other districts. In addition, Guadalupe, Wilson(part), Karnes, and Live Oak would be moved into the new district.

A counter argument is that TX-15 has been a South Texas district since 1902.

If you made the new district TX-35, then you would have to assign 15 to the Travis district.

So I'd use TX-15 for the district coming southeast from San Antonio.

The parts of TX-28 and TX-35 in Bexar which would form 70% of the new TX-15 are 59.1% Hispanic, but also 14.6% Black (East San Antonio has the largest concentration of Blacks - care has to be made when drawing the House district, to keep the Hispanic share of the population down so they don't take over the district, while also keeping the Anglo share down so it doesn't elect a Republican.).

Because of the Black population, you don't need as many Hispanic voters to make the district performing.

If the Hispanic portion of the district is too low, you can go into TX-20.

Thinking about it, I'd keep the Hays portion of TX-35. It is half of the county and is reasonably connected to the city of Austin. This then means that TX-35 would only lose the narrow strip through Comal county, and TX-21 would only need to lose a much smaller part of Travis.

I'd try to reduce the division of Bastrop, Caldwell, and Gonzales such that only one of the counties is divided between TX-35 and TX-10.

We will have moved two incumbents out of their district, but this is because under the current maps disparate populations are connected, meaning that one area is a winner, and the other a loser.