Federal court finds Texas State House districts racially gerrymandered

[Virginiá]

Breaking: Divided District Court Finds Texas Engaged in Intentional Race Discrimination in Drawing TX House Districts

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Virginiá]

Update for TX redistricting lawsuit

https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/texas-redistricting-back-court

Very detailed. Looks like we will get a decision relatively soon(double ish)

[Brittain33]

If you're following the trial of Texas's illegal maps for legislature and Congress, https://twitter.com/mcpli is livetweeting coverage.

[Brittain33]

MALC presented sample maps to remedy the racial gerrymandering questions raised by TX's 2013 Congressional maps. Maps that pass constitutional muster would bring the ratio of candidates chosen by Hispanic communities in Texas closer, if not equal to, that community's percentage of Texas's population.

South Texas focus (Bexar, Rio Grande Valley): http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/?PlanHeader=PLANc283
Metroplex focus: http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/?PlanHeader=PLANc285

[Gass3268]

MALC presented sample maps to remedy the racial gerrymandering questions raised by TX's 2013 Congressional maps. Maps that pass constitutional muster would bring the ratio of candidates chosen by Hispanic communities in Texas closer, if not equal to, that community's percentage of Texas's population.

South Texas focus (Bexar, Rio Grande Valley): http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/?PlanHeader=PLANc283
Metroplex focus: http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/?PlanHeader=PLANc285

Curious where you got these links, because they don't work for me.

[Brittain33]

MALC presented sample maps to remedy the racial gerrymandering questions raised by TX's 2013 Congressional maps. Maps that pass constitutional muster would bring the ratio of candidates chosen by Hispanic communities in Texas closer, if not equal to, that community's percentage of Texas's population.

South Texas focus (Bexar, Rio Grande Valley): http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/?PlanHeader=PLANc283
Metroplex focus: http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/?PlanHeader=PLANc285

Curious where you got these links, because they don't work for me.

https://twitter.com/mcpli - as of now they are 14-15hrs ago. Could it be a Flash issue?

[JerryArkansas]

MALC presented sample maps to remedy the racial gerrymandering questions raised by TX's 2013 Congressional maps. Maps that pass constitutional muster would bring the ratio of candidates chosen by Hispanic communities in Texas closer, if not equal to, that community's percentage of Texas's population.

South Texas focus (Bexar, Rio Grande Valley): http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/?PlanHeader=PLANc283
Metroplex focus: http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/?PlanHeader=PLANc285

Curious where you got these links, because they don't work for me.

https://twitter.com/mcpli - as of now they are 14-15hrs ago. Could it be a Flash issue?

They work for me, just checked them.

[Gass3268]

MALC presented sample maps to remedy the racial gerrymandering questions raised by TX's 2013 Congressional maps. Maps that pass constitutional muster would bring the ratio of candidates chosen by Hispanic communities in Texas closer, if not equal to, that community's percentage of Texas's population.

South Texas focus (Bexar, Rio Grande Valley): http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/?PlanHeader=PLANc283
Metroplex focus: http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/?PlanHeader=PLANc285

Curious where you got these links, because they don't work for me.

https://twitter.com/mcpli - as of now they are 14-15hrs ago. Could it be a Flash issue?

Thanks, they worked well from his twitter account.

[Oryxslayer]

So here is my analysis after looking at the presented maps. First they both still have huge problems.



Here are the changes under C283 in DRA. First, a change that I originally thought I would hate, but perhaps works out fine is the transformation of El Paso into a Fajita. The other good changes is the map seems to follow the court guidelines of two HVAP seats in Bexar, and sticking Nueces in a Fajita. Beyond that though, there are some problems. First,  the 34th is cut off from the rurals north of CC and essentially becomes a HVAP pack. The seat is 77% SSVR and 67% Obama, to its 66% and 58% Obama for the two neighbors. The second is that one of the main issues with the court case was to try to get the 23rd out of Bexar, a move that was interpreted by me as a call to stick Laredo into the 23rd. Theis maps 23d twists into the Odessa/Midland/San Angelo area wile also still going into Bexar. This seat is 63% SSVR and 53% Obama.

Meanwhile, I need an explanation for C285. The map fails o solve the Rio Grande court issue, the 35th is still a snake and not based in Bexar like the court wants. It similarly redraws the Houston districts despite them being outside the scope of court case. The Metroplex districts meanwhile are too redrawn . From what I have heard, there is only a rumor that a third coalition seat will be mandated in the ruling, not a jurisdiction set in stone.  The mpa seems to add two more coalition seats - the 6th and the 3rd. 

[jimrtex]

So here is my analysis after looking at the presented maps. First they both still have huge problems.



Here are the changes under C283 in DRA. First, a change that I originally thought I would hate, but perhaps works out fine is the transformation of El Paso into a Fajita. The other good changes is the map seems to follow the court guidelines of two HVAP seats in Bexar, and sticking Nueces in a Fajita. Beyond that though, there are some problems. First,  the 34th is cut off from the rurals north of CC and essentially becomes a HVAP pack. The seat is 77% SSVR and 67% Obama, to its 66% and 58% Obama for the two neighbors. The second is that one of the main issues with the court case was to try to get the 23rd out of Bexar, a move that was interpreted by me as a call to stick Laredo into the 23rd. Theis maps 23d twists into the Odessa/Midland/San Angelo area wile also still going into Bexar. This seat is 63% SSVR and 53% Obama.

Meanwhile, I need an explanation for C285. The map fails o solve the Rio Grande court issue, the 35th is still a snake and not based in Bexar like the court wants. It similarly redraws the Houston districts despite them being outside the scope of court case. The Metroplex districts meanwhile are too redrawn . From what I have heard, there is only a rumor that a third coalition seat will be mandated in the ruling, not a jurisdiction set in stone.  The mpa seems to add two more coalition seats - the 6th and the 3rd. 

Cool! You split 8 counties and included parts of El Paso, Odessa, Midland, San Angelo, and San Antonio. Especially nice is the division of Hudspeth and Culberson counties with a few thousand each. Did you consider running the district through New Mexico? You can exclude those areas from the population counts and from voting, but can maintain contiguity.

By the way, the court rejected that El Paso-Midland monstrosity as being non-compact when it was used as part of an attempt to demonstrate that you can draw eight compact spaghetti strap districts in South Texas.

Anyhow, what the current trial is about is the districts that the legislature passed in 2013, which were generally what the district court had mandated. Minority legislators had presented various plans, that the legislature "rejected" as they put the court-mandated map into statute.

[Oryxslayer]

So here is my analysis after looking at the presented maps. First they both still have huge problems.



Here are the changes under C283 in DRA. First, a change that I originally thought I would hate, but perhaps works out fine is the transformation of El Paso into a Fajita. The other good changes is the map seems to follow the court guidelines of two HVAP seats in Bexar, and sticking Nueces in a Fajita. Beyond that though, there are some problems. First,  the 34th is cut off from the rurals north of CC and essentially becomes a HVAP pack. The seat is 77% SSVR and 67% Obama, to its 66% and 58% Obama for the two neighbors. The second is that one of the main issues with the court case was to try to get the 23rd out of Bexar, a move that was interpreted by me as a call to stick Laredo into the 23rd. Theis maps 23d twists into the Odessa/Midland/San Angelo area wile also still going into Bexar. This seat is 63% SSVR and 53% Obama.

Meanwhile, I need an explanation for C285. The map fails o solve the Rio Grande court issue, the 35th is still a snake and not based in Bexar like the court wants. It similarly redraws the Houston districts despite them being outside the scope of court case. The Metroplex districts meanwhile are too redrawn . From what I have heard, there is only a rumor that a third coalition seat will be mandated in the ruling, not a jurisdiction set in stone.  The mpa seems to add two more coalition seats - the 6th and the 3rd. 

Cool! You split 8 counties and included parts of El Paso, Odessa, Midland, San Angelo, and San Antonio. Especially nice is the division of Hudspeth and Culberson counties with a few thousand each. Did you consider running the district through New Mexico? You can exclude those areas from the population counts and from voting, but can maintain contiguity.

By the way, the court rejected that El Paso-Midland monstrosity as being non-compact when it was used as part of an attempt to demonstrate that you can draw eight compact spaghetti strap districts in South Texas.

Anyhow, what the current trial is about is the districts that the legislature passed in 2013, which were generally what the district court had mandated. Minority legislators had presented various plans, that the legislature "rejected" as they put the court-mandated map into statute.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, this ain't my map. This is a map that was posted above as a way for districts to be drawn. I was just putting it in partisan purpose. I don't like either of the maps presented either. Note the links provided by Britian33.

Also, while this court case is about the 2013 map, it is simply a case of applying the 2011 districts to the 2013 map. The 35th and 27th are apparently exactly the same, so its simply a matter of pushing the previous decision forward. The problems the court found in the 2011 23rd I thought stemmed from it going into Bexar when two compact HVAP seats could be made entirely within the county - a decision that still exists on the 2013 map. If any of this is wrong, please correct me - the information around this case is scattered and every discussion seems to be filled with hot takes rather then info.

[JerryArkansas]

So here is my analysis after looking at the presented maps. First they both still have huge problems.



Here are the changes under C283 in DRA. First, a change that I originally thought I would hate, but perhaps works out fine is the transformation of El Paso into a Fajita. The other good changes is the map seems to follow the court guidelines of two HVAP seats in Bexar, and sticking Nueces in a Fajita. Beyond that though, there are some problems. First,  the 34th is cut off from the rurals north of CC and essentially becomes a HVAP pack. The seat is 77% SSVR and 67% Obama, to its 66% and 58% Obama for the two neighbors. The second is that one of the main issues with the court case was to try to get the 23rd out of Bexar, a move that was interpreted by me as a call to stick Laredo into the 23rd. Theis maps 23d twists into the Odessa/Midland/San Angelo area wile also still going into Bexar. This seat is 63% SSVR and 53% Obama.

Meanwhile, I need an explanation for C285. The map fails o solve the Rio Grande court issue, the 35th is still a snake and not based in Bexar like the court wants. It similarly redraws the Houston districts despite them being outside the scope of court case. The Metroplex districts meanwhile are too redrawn . From what I have heard, there is only a rumor that a third coalition seat will be mandated in the ruling, not a jurisdiction set in stone.  The mpa seems to add two more coalition seats - the 6th and the 3rd. 

Cool! You split 8 counties and included parts of El Paso, Odessa, Midland, San Angelo, and San Antonio. Especially nice is the division of Hudspeth and Culberson counties with a few thousand each. Did you consider running the district through New Mexico? You can exclude those areas from the population counts and from voting, but can maintain contiguity.

By the way, the court rejected that El Paso-Midland monstrosity as being non-compact when it was used as part of an attempt to demonstrate that you can draw eight compact spaghetti strap districts in South Texas.

Anyhow, what the current trial is about is the districts that the legislature passed in 2013, which were generally what the district court had mandated. Minority legislators had presented various plans, that the legislature "rejected" as they put the court-mandated map into statute.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, this ain't my map. This is a map that was posted above as a way for districts to be drawn. I was just putting it in partisan purpose. I don't like either of the maps presented either.

Don't worry about him, he gets like this anytime a map seems to either be non partisan or favour dems.

[Nyvin]

So here is my analysis after looking at the presented maps. First they both still have huge problems.



Here are the changes under C283 in DRA. First, a change that I originally thought I would hate, but perhaps works out fine is the transformation of El Paso into a Fajita. The other good changes is the map seems to follow the court guidelines of two HVAP seats in Bexar, and sticking Nueces in a Fajita. Beyond that though, there are some problems. First,  the 34th is cut off from the rurals north of CC and essentially becomes a HVAP pack. The seat is 77% SSVR and 67% Obama, to its 66% and 58% Obama for the two neighbors. The second is that one of the main issues with the court case was to try to get the 23rd out of Bexar, a move that was interpreted by me as a call to stick Laredo into the 23rd. Theis maps 23d twists into the Odessa/Midland/San Angelo area wile also still going into Bexar. This seat is 63% SSVR and 53% Obama.

Meanwhile, I need an explanation for C285. The map fails o solve the Rio Grande court issue, the 35th is still a snake and not based in Bexar like the court wants. It similarly redraws the Houston districts despite them being outside the scope of court case. The Metroplex districts meanwhile are too redrawn . From what I have heard, there is only a rumor that a third coalition seat will be mandated in the ruling, not a jurisdiction set in stone.  The mpa seems to add two more coalition seats - the 6th and the 3rd. 

Cool! You split 8 counties and included parts of El Paso, Odessa, Midland, San Angelo, and San Antonio. Especially nice is the division of Hudspeth and Culberson counties with a few thousand each. Did you consider running the district through New Mexico? You can exclude those areas from the population counts and from voting, but can maintain contiguity.

By the way, the court rejected that El Paso-Midland monstrosity as being non-compact when it was used as part of an attempt to demonstrate that you can draw eight compact spaghetti strap districts in South Texas.

Anyhow, what the current trial is about is the districts that the legislature passed in 2013, which were generally what the district court had mandated. Minority legislators had presented various plans, that the legislature "rejected" as they put the court-mandated map into statute.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, this ain't my map. This is a map that was posted above as a way for districts to be drawn. I was just putting it in partisan purpose. I don't like either of the maps presented either.

Don't worry about him, he gets like this anytime a map seems to either be non partisan or favour dems.

but he's part of the "boy's club" part of this political geography forum, so it's okay.

[Brittain33]

but he's part of the "boy's club" part of this political geography forum, so it's okay.

Jim has his quirks and it's unfortunate when they're partisan but he's one of the best, if not the best, contributors to this forum.

[krazen1211]

So here is my analysis after looking at the presented maps. First they both still have huge problems.



Meanwhile, I need an explanation for C285. The map fails o solve the Rio Grande court issue, the 35th is still a snake and not based in Bexar like the court wants. It similarly redraws the Houston districts despite them being outside the scope of court case. The Metroplex districts meanwhile are too redrawn . From what I have heard, there is only a rumor that a third coalition seat will be mandated in the ruling, not a jurisdiction set in stone.  The mpa seems to add two more coalition seats - the 6th and the 3rd. 

Plan C285 is designed to be a Dem gerrymander where the Dems get the seats despite being a distant minority of the voter pool....just like they did in the 1990s and early 2000s.

[jimrtex]

Cool! You split 8 counties and included parts of El Paso, Odessa, Midland, San Angelo, and San Antonio. Especially nice is the division of Hudspeth and Culberson counties with a few thousand each. Did you consider running the district through New Mexico? You can exclude those areas from the population counts and from voting, but can maintain contiguity.

By the way, the court rejected that El Paso-Midland monstrosity as being non-compact when it was used as part of an attempt to demonstrate that you can draw eight compact spaghetti strap districts in South Texas.

Anyhow, what the current trial is about is the districts that the legislature passed in 2013, which were generally what the district court had mandated. Minority legislators had presented various plans, that the legislature "rejected" as they put the court-mandated map into statute.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, this ain't my map. This is a map that was posted above as a way for districts to be drawn. I was just putting it in partisan purpose. I don't like either of the maps presented either. Note the links provided by Britian33.

Also, while this court case is about the 2013 map, it is simply a case of applying the 2011 districts to the 2013 map. The 35th and 27th are apparently exactly the same, so its simply a matter of pushing the previous decision forward. The problems the court found in the 2011 23rd I thought stemmed from it going into Bexar when two compact HVAP seats could be made entirely within the county - a decision that still exists on the 2013 map. If any of this is wrong, please correct me - the information around this case is scattered and every discussion seems to be filled with hot takes rather then info.

Sorry. I thought you were extrapolating from C283, rather than just transcribing into DRA. You also seemed to show favor for the El Paso fajita which can not be explained by any reason other than race, particularly given how Ector is split.

The 2011 map was never used.

The interim plan drawn by the federal district court in 2012 supposedly corrected any deficiencies in TX-23. The issue has never been with whether TX-23 comes into Bexar, but which parts of Bexar. TX-23 elected Peter Gallego(D) in 2012, and over the three elections since then the majority of the votes have been for the Democrat candidate Gallego, it is just that the 9,000 vote margin in 2012, only counts for one term, despite being more than the total of the 2,000 and 3,000 vote margins in 2014 and 2016.

In 2013, the legislature accepted the election of Gallego (who had served in the House), and simply placed the interim plan into statute. What the plaintiffs are trying to prove is that the legislature shouldn't just have just rubberstamped the court-imposed maps and explored whether additional districts could be drawn.

But since TX-23 was an opportunity district in 2012, there would be no reason to modify it. Instead, the Republicans recruited a better candidate and were able to win in 2014, and again in 2016, despite Clinton carrying the district by 3.5%. Perhaps the Democrats should run Ciro Rodriguez again.

You have to realize that c283 also modified TX-11 to the north. The plan is intended to pack more Hispanics into TX-23, by cracking a concentration of Hispanics in El Paso. TX-16 which is now a compact district has to pick up replacement population and stretches across five counties of desert to Odessa, where it hooks around to grab the whiter part of the city, bypassing the majority Hispanic part of the city, where voters might actually prefer Beto O'Rourke. TX-23 besides going deeper into El Paso, also goes into Odessa, Midland, and San Angelo cracking the three major cities of the district.

TX-11 has to make up the population losses so is pushed eastward to the brink of Fort Worth and Austin. Ector, Midland, and Tom Green currently comprise 55% of TX-11. Under c283 that would be reduced to 24% and suburban Johnson County will become the most populous county. The district would even include Venus.

TX-17 also moves northwestward. This shoves TX-25 down into Travis where it would likely be represented by Lloyd Doggett. His current TX-35 would now be in Bexar (45% of it already is).

TX-28 would be pushed out of Bexar, and take in parts of northern TX-15 and TX-34. TX-15 is squeezed down to less than half of Hidalgo (it currently has 69% of a county that is slightly larger than a congressional district). TX-34 grabs parts of Hidalgo, pushing its HVAP to 86%.

This permits TX-15 to take Jim Wells and most of Nueces. But because all of Nueces would bring in to many Anglo voters and risk flipping it like happened in 2010, only 80% of the county is used. This also makes sure that Hidalgo controls the district.

TX-27 enters Nueces via the ferry and Mustang and Padre Islands.

You will have to let some race sorter explain the spike across Corpus Christi Bay and up the ship channel.

Texas congressional districts history

Before the 1980s, TX-15 was the lower Rio Grande, and TX-23 was north of it. You will notice the districts were drawn in the more logical east-west direction. TX-23 was represented by Chick Kazen, who was from Laredo, though of Lebanese ancestry.

TX-27 was added in the 1980s redistricting. It was somewhat logical to put it along the coast, but the real problem was that the area had not grown enough for another district.  So TX-23 was forced northward to include more of Bexar County. This resulted in Kazen being defeated by San Antonioan Albert Bustamante.

In the 1990s, TX-28 was added. Bustamante was building a big new house further north in San Antonio and asked that it be placed in "his" district. TX-23 was extended to the west to make up for the fact there was not actually enough growth to create TX-28. He was implicated in the House banking scandal and black-and-white pictures of his new mansion along with images of kited checks, plus his new neighbors being more Republican, led to his defeat by Republican Henry Bonilla, who had been a news anchor in San Antonio.

The 2002 map was imposed by the federal court, after the legislature failed to pass a map, and then speaker, Pete Laney killed a quite reasonable map that had been drawn by a state court. The state court had announced the plan, and the judge said he wanted to make a few minor tweaks. Laney got to him and the judge made major changes to the map. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that the state district court had violated due process, and the federal court then went ahead and made a least change map.

In 2002, Henry Cuellar from Laredo almost defeated Bonilla. The election is cited as a demonstration that Hispanics in TX-23 were becoming disenchanted with Bonilla. What actually happened was not that Hispanics were becoming Democratic-minded but that they were Laredo-minded. Cuellar carried Webb County 32,471:5933 (85%:15%), while Bonilla carried Bexar County 41,520:13,246 (75%:24%). It was an almost reversal of the regional power struggle that had defeated Kazen 18 years earlier.

The legislature in 2003 rectified their failure to redistrict in 2002 by drawing a new congressional map. They added another district in south Texas (TX-25). This was not actually a new district but an existing district in Travis County that was extended southward. The traditional practice of extending the districts northward to gain additional population now included Austin. Webb County was divided between TX-23 and TX-28.

In 2004, Cuellar defeated the incumbent Ciro Rodriguez in the Democratic primary in TX-28. Cuellar carried Webb County 12,894:2431 (84%:16%) while Rodriguez carried Bexar County 10,824:2734 (80%:20%).

A federal court overturned TX-25, saying that it was not compact, and being brown alone did not make a community of interest. Since TX-25 was no longer counted as a Hispanic opportunity district, TX023 had to be modified. All of Webb County was placed in TX-28 and Henry Cuellar continues to represent the district.

In a 2006 special election, Ciro Rodriguez defeated Henry Bonilla. Bonilla received 48.6% of the vote in the special election held coincident with the November 2006 gubernatorial election. A special election requires a runoff, and Rodriguez managed to win in the lower turnout runoff.

Rodriguez was re-elected in 2008, but was beaten by Republican Quico Canseco in 2010. In the four elections held between 2006 and 2010, Bexar County represented 64.8%, 64.7%, 66.8%, and 64.7% of the vote, so clearly it is absurd to suggest that the district was drawn into the county when it represented almost 2/3 of the vote.

Under the map drawn by the court in 2012, Bexar represented 47.0%, 48.0%, and 48.5% of the TX-23 vote. Some of this is due to more of El Paso being drawn into the district, because El Paso now has more than enough a single district. Note that the portion of El Paso that is currently in TX-23 is 98% Hispanic, so it isn't like the legislature or the court cherry-picked voters.

Pete Gallego defeated Ciro Rodriguez in the 2012 Democratic primary, and went on to defeat Canseco in the general election. Will Hurd defeated Gallego in both 2014 and 2016.

[JerryArkansas]

but he's part of the "boy's club" part of this political geography forum, so it's okay.

Jim has his quirks and it's unfortunate when they're partisan but he's one of the best, if not the best, contributors to this forum.

Still calling them on their partisanship is not something which should be discouraged.

[Gass3268]

It's possible that up to 6 Texas Republicans (1/4 of what Democrats need to take back the House) could be in danger in a redrawn map:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nate Cohen takes a look at what Republicans would be the most in danger if the worst case happens for Republicans

[Brittain33]

Another ruling today, I think the *ninth* this year against Texas on grounds of racial discrimination. How can anyone keep up?

[krazen1211]

It's possible that up to 6 Texas Republicans (1/4 of what Democrats need to take back the House) could be in danger in a redrawn map:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nate Cohen takes a look at what Republicans would be the most in danger if the worst case happens for Republicans

Nope. Dave Wasserman has a great map on how the GOP can redraw without any loss of districts.

[Strudelcutie4427]

How about something like this? I tried to keep as many counties whole as I could and remove any ridiculous shapes