Texas: CD35, CD27 found unconstitutional; "intentional racial discrimination"
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:37:19 AM
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)
  Texas: CD35, CD27 found unconstitutional; "intentional racial discrimination"
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Texas: CD35, CD27 found unconstitutional; "intentional racial discrimination"  (Read 4588 times)
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: August 16, 2017, 10:46:27 PM »



Would something like this work? It looks much cleaner than the current and I made sure there are plenty of Hispanic majority districts too

CD-16 (El Paso) 80% Hisp. Obama by 31
CD-23 (Big Bend) 76% Hisp. Obama by 0.4
CD-15 (Laredo) 91% Hisp. Obama by 40
CD-34 (Brownsville) 90% Hisp. Obama by 37
CD-27 (Corpus Christi) 58% Hisp. McCain by 8
CD-20 (South San Antonio) 78% Hisp. Obama by 34
CD-28 (North San Antonio) 47% Hisp. McCain by 2
CD-35 (Austin) 41% Hisp. 30% Hips. Obama by 46

There needs to be 7 hispanic majority districts.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: August 16, 2017, 10:53:27 PM »

So are they literally just making districts for one term and then new ones AGAIN?
They will be used for 2018 and 2020.

But aren't people already registering for congressional candidacy for 2018? Sounds kinda illogical.
The filing deadline is in December.

In 1996 and 2006 when the final decision came down after the primary, the congressional elections were held as special elections concurrent with the general election in November. In Texas special elections, there are no partisan primaries, all candidates run on the same ballot, and a majority is required. If no candidate receives a majority, there is a runoff in December.

In previous special elections, in partisan districts, the special election was a re-run of the primary.
Logged
Plate
Rookie
**
Posts: 46
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 16, 2017, 10:59:51 PM »

So are they literally just making districts for one term and then new ones AGAIN?
They will be used for 2018 and 2020.

But aren't people already registering for congressional candidacy for 2018? Sounds kinda illogical.
The filing deadline is in December.

In 1996 and 2006 when the final decision came down after the primary, the congressional elections were held as special elections concurrent with the general election in November. In Texas special elections, there are no partisan primaries, all candidates run on the same ballot, and a majority is required. If no candidate receives a majority, there is a runoff in December.

In previous special elections, in partisan districts, the special election was a re-run of the primary.
Seems kinda inconvenient
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: August 17, 2017, 03:59:03 AM »
« Edited: August 17, 2017, 08:07:47 AM by jimrtex »

Most of TX-35 is in Bexar County, so it stays, But there really is not a way to chop up Travis further, so it is better to have it as a Democratic sink. So TX-35 is divided into two districts.

Any honest person will agree that TX-34, TX-15, and TX-28 are not reasonably compact, and are clearly drawn for racial reasons: There are not enough people on the border to draw three districts, but there are enough Hispanics to provide a majority for three districts, so the districts are extended 100s of miles northward to get enough population.

Finally, Corpus Christi should have a district of its own based in the Coastal Bend.

So let's start with Travis County. In general we will pull TX-25 and TX-17 out of the county.

TX-25

TX-25 needs to replace the population it will lose in Travis, so we will add McLennan County. As we pull TX-25 out of Travis we will cut off the portion in western Hays, so that will be given to TX-21. We will also move the small part of Bell from TX-25 to TX-31, with the adjustment of TX-31 switched to the east side of that district.

About 162K persons are transferred to the redesignated TX-34 in Travis, reducing its portion of Travis from 241K to about 80K. While at first glance it appears that TX-25 only takes in the Lake Travis area, it has an extension that takes in much of central Austin.

Overall, TX-25 loses two part counties, and gains one whole county.

TX-17

In addition to the switch of McLennan to TX-25, TX-17 will lose all of its tongue into Travis, plus the connections through Bastrop and Lee. It picks up a small area in eastern Williamson (or Bell).

TX-17 adds Grimes, Houston, Leon (part), Madison, San Jacinto, Trinity, and Walker from TX-8, roughly 1/4 of the population of TX-8.

TX-17, to be continued.

TX-8

To make up for the loss of the northern part of the district to TX-17, TX-8 gains 180K from TX-10 in northwest Harris County. TX-8 will now consist of Montgomery and a portion of Harris (roughly 2/3 of the district will be in Montgomery.

Overall, TX-8 loses 6 whole counties and part of another,  and increases its share of Harris.

TX-17, continued.

We now add the remainder of Harris, as well as Washington and Waller from TX-10 to TX-17. Roughly 70 K will be added from extreme western and northwestern Harris. Finally, we reverse our decision to place all of Lee in TX-10, instead placing all but 2K in TX-17. In a remedial plan where exact equality is not required, we could place all of Lee in TX-17.

TX-17 loses one whole county (McLennan), and two part counties (Travis and Bastrop), while gaining all of Leon, and adding Grimes, Houston, Madison, San Jacinto, Trinity, Waller, Walker, and Washington.
TX-17 adds portions of Harris and Williamson, and increases its share of Lee.

TX-31

TX-31 currently consists of all of Williamson and most of Bell. It regains all of Bell from TX-25, and loses a portion of Williamson to TX-17. About 34K are added and detached from the district.

TX-21

TX-21 gains all of Comal from TX-35, and the western part of Hays from TX-25. To compensate about 70K in Travis are added to the redesignated TX-34. TX-21 share of Travis decreases from 189K to 119K.

TX-34 (redesignated)

The northern part of TX-35 is given the number 34 because it is the newest number. Its core is the portion TX-35 which is in Travis, Hays, and Caldwell. The Hays and Caldwell boundaries are unchanged, but TX-34 will gain 162K from TX-25, 70K from TX-21, and 152K from TX-10 in Travis, bring its share of Travis to about 600K.

Current shares of Travis: TX-10 244K; TX-25 241K; TX-35 216K; TX-21 189K; TX-17 134K.
New shares of Travis: TX-34 600K; TX-10 226K; TX-21 119K; TX-25 79K.

TX-35

Half of TX-35 is in Bexar and Guadalupe. We add the TX-28 portions of Bexar and Wilson, plus all of Atascosa; and the TX-15 portions of Guadelupe. This produces a compact district, with about 70% in Bexar, and 30% in the three suburban counties. It has 8467 to many persons, which we will account for later.

TX-10

TX-10 loses about 20K (net) in Travis plus the eastern part of the district. We compensate by adding the northern and eastern arm of TX-27, beginning the process of shifting that district south.

From TX-27, we add the remainder of Bastrop, and the TX-27 portions of Caldwell and Gonzales. In addition we add Lavaca, Jackson, Wharton and Matagorda.

Continuing, we add the Gonzales portion of (current) TX-34, as well as DeWitt, and Victoria from
TX-27.

We add about 8K from Guadalupe to eliminate the surplus in TX-35, as well as Karnes from TX-15, Goliad and Bee from (current) TX-34.

TX-35 continued.

The adjustment of 8452 persons from Guadelupe to TX-10 brings TX-35 to the ideal population. It has an HVAP of 50.1%, but also a BVAP of 10.2% which should make it a performing district.

TX-10 continued.

TX-10 is slightly underpopulated (1534) and forms a roughly triangular districts with vertices of Travis, Bee, and Matagorda counties.

TX-27

Having removed the northern arm, we replace with areas to the west and south of Corpus Christi:

McMullen from TX-28, Live Oak from TX-15, remainder of San Patricio from (current) TX-34.

Duval from TX-15, Jim Wells and Kleberg from (current) TX-34.

Willacy from (current) TX-34.

Finally we add 111K from Cameron to bring TX-27 up to the ideal population, including 1534 to be moved to TX-10.

TX-28

To replace the losses in San Antonio, we add 242K from Hidalgo. TX-28 will now consist of Webb, Zapata, Starr, and 362K in Hidalgo, about 1/2 the district.

TX-15

TX-15 will consist of 403K in Hidalgo and 295K in Cameron.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: August 17, 2017, 04:07:17 AM »

So are they literally just making districts for one term and then new ones AGAIN?
They will be used for 2018 and 2020.

But aren't people already registering for congressional candidacy for 2018? Sounds kinda illogical.
The filing deadline is in December.

In 1996 and 2006 when the final decision came down after the primary, the congressional elections were held as special elections concurrent with the general election in November. In Texas special elections, there are no partisan primaries, all candidates run on the same ballot, and a majority is required. If no candidate receives a majority, there is a runoff in December.

In previous special elections, in partisan districts, the special election was a re-run of the primary.
Seems kinda inconvenient
Especially for the candidates who thought they had been elected in the primary. The primary in Texas is in March, with a runoff in April (now May).
Logged
PragmaticPopulist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,234
Ireland, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -7.61, S: -5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: August 17, 2017, 09:36:31 AM »

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/16/1690288/-Court-strikes-down-Texas-GOP-s-congressional-gerrymander-but-Democratic-victory-is-limited

DKos estimates it'll be at most a net 1 for Democrats, but even that's no guaranteed. I really don't get why they emphasize that the new representative will most likely be Latino. No wonder the white working class hates the left: this is blatant identity politics.
Logged
JerryArkansas
jerryarkansas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,536
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: August 17, 2017, 11:52:30 AM »

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/16/1690288/-Court-strikes-down-Texas-GOP-s-congressional-gerrymander-but-Democratic-victory-is-limited

DKos estimates it'll be at most a net 1 for Democrats, but even that's no guaranteed. I really don't get why they emphasize that the new representative will most likely be Latino. No wonder the white working class hates the left: this is blatant identity politics.
Ah yes, the white working class hate that the minorities will have a chance to elect people of their own race.  Very progressive of them.
Logged
Strudelcutie4427
Singletxguyforfun
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,375
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: August 17, 2017, 12:26:47 PM »

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/16/1690288/-Court-strikes-down-Texas-GOP-s-congressional-gerrymander-but-Democratic-victory-is-limited

DKos estimates it'll be at most a net 1 for Democrats, but even that's no guaranteed. I really don't get why they emphasize that the new representative will most likely be Latino. No wonder the white working class hates the left: this is blatant identity politics.
Ah yes, the white working class hate that the minorities will have a chance to elect people of their own race.  Very progressive of them.

You don't need a majority minority district to elect a minority candidate. See SC-Sen, UT-4, TX-23 is 75% Hispanic and they have a black representative. People don't necessarily vote based on who looks like them. I mean for next year, I'm a Hispanic college student supporting a black candidate for NH-1
Logged
PragmaticPopulist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,234
Ireland, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -7.61, S: -5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: August 17, 2017, 01:13:17 PM »

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/16/1690288/-Court-strikes-down-Texas-GOP-s-congressional-gerrymander-but-Democratic-victory-is-limited

DKos estimates it'll be at most a net 1 for Democrats, but even that's no guaranteed. I really don't get why they emphasize that the new representative will most likely be Latino. No wonder the white working class hates the left: this is blatant identity politics.
Ah yes, the white working class hate that the minorities will have a chance to elect people of their own race.  Very progressive of them.

You don't need a majority minority district to elect a minority candidate. See SC-Sen, UT-4, TX-23 is 75% Hispanic and they have a black representative. People don't necessarily vote based on who looks like them. I mean for next year, I'm a Hispanic college student supporting a black candidate for NH-1
Exactly my point. DKos (which I only read for news on elections btw) seems to have this idea that only a majority-minority district can elected a nonwhite congressman. It's not like all white people regardless of ideology won't vote for a nonwhite candidate.
Logged
JerryArkansas
jerryarkansas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,536
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: August 17, 2017, 01:53:12 PM »
« Edited: August 17, 2017, 03:02:57 PM by JerryArkansas »

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/16/1690288/-Court-strikes-down-Texas-GOP-s-congressional-gerrymander-but-Democratic-victory-is-limited

DKos estimates it'll be at most a net 1 for Democrats, but even that's no guaranteed. I really don't get why they emphasize that the new representative will most likely be Latino. No wonder the white working class hates the left: this is blatant identity politics.
Ah yes, the white working class hate that the minorities will have a chance to elect people of their own race.  Very progressive of them.

You don't need a majority minority district to elect a minority candidate. See SC-Sen, UT-4, TX-23 is 75% Hispanic and they have a black representative. People don't necessarily vote based on who looks like them. I mean for next year, I'm a Hispanic college student supporting a black candidate for NH-1
Exactly my point. DKos (which I only read for news on elections btw) seems to have this idea that only a majority-minority district can elected a nonwhite congressman. It's not like all white people regardless of ideology won't vote for a nonwhite candidate.
You can point to a few which have in the past decade to try and make your point more palatable, but it doesn't change the crux of it.  But continue on your rants against minority communities having a member which is like them.  It really makes you look so pragmatic and progessive.
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 17, 2017, 01:56:48 PM »

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/16/1690288/-Court-strikes-down-Texas-GOP-s-congressional-gerrymander-but-Democratic-victory-is-limited

DKos estimates it'll be at most a net 1 for Democrats, but even that's no guaranteed. I really don't get why they emphasize that the new representative will most likely be Latino. No wonder the white working class hates the left: this is blatant identity politics.
Ah yes, the white working class hate that the minorities will have a chance to elect people of their own race.  Very progressive of them.

You don't need a majority minority district to elect a minority candidate. See SC-Sen, UT-4, TX-23 is 75% Hispanic and they have a black representative. People don't necessarily vote based on who looks like them. I mean for next year, I'm a Hispanic college student supporting a black candidate for NH-1
Exactly my point. DKos (which I only read for news on elections btw) seems to have this idea that only a majority-minority district can elected a nonwhite congressman. It's not like all white people regardless of ideology won't vote for a nonwhite candidate.

Studies have shown that generally a district needs to be minority-majority district in order for that community to elect a representative of their choice. It is one of the main tenants of the VRA.
Logged
PragmaticPopulist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,234
Ireland, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -7.61, S: -5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 17, 2017, 02:01:33 PM »

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/16/1690288/-Court-strikes-down-Texas-GOP-s-congressional-gerrymander-but-Democratic-victory-is-limited

DKos estimates it'll be at most a net 1 for Democrats, but even that's no guaranteed. I really don't get why they emphasize that the new representative will most likely be Latino. No wonder the white working class hates the left: this is blatant identity politics.
Ah yes, the white working class hate that the minorities will have a chance to elect people of their own race.  Very progressive of them.

You don't need a majority minority district to elect a minority candidate. See SC-Sen, UT-4, TX-23 is 75% Hispanic and they have a black representative. People don't necessarily vote based on who looks like them. I mean for next year, I'm a Hispanic college student supporting a black candidate for NH-1
Exactly my point. DKos (which I only read for news on elections btw) seems to have this idea that only a majority-minority district can elected a nonwhite congressman. It's not like all white people regardless of ideology won't vote for a nonwhite candidate.

Studies have shown that generally a district needs to be minority-majority district in order for that community to elect a representative of their choice. It is one of the main tenants of the VRA.
I understand that part of the VRA, which is why Jim Clyburn, Terri Sewell, and Benny Thompson are in the house. I won't "rant" anymore, since my question seems to have been answered.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: August 18, 2017, 01:10:44 PM »
« Edited: August 18, 2017, 01:31:17 PM by jimrtex »

Here is a least change version, that only requires moving 801,592 persons.

Add the Travis portion of TX-35 to TX-27 (215,626). This fixes TX-35 except that it is underpopulated.

Move a similar portion (222,836, about 65%) of Nueces from TX-27 to TX-34. This fixes TX-27 since it no longer dilutes the voting power of Hispanics in Nueces County.

To get TX-35 to equality, move (139,231) from TX-15 to TX-35, including the remainder of Guadalupe, Wilson(part), Karnes, and Live Oak; and (78,522) from TX-34 to TX-35, including Gonzales(part), DeWitt, Bee, and San Patricio (part).

This truncates the northern extension of TX-15 and TX-34 at Duval-Jim Wells-Nueces, and provides better connectivity between San Antonio and the areas of TX-35 along I-35 to the south of Austin.

To make up for the losses of of TX-15, move (138,167), including 97K from Hidalgo, and Jim Wells. The 97K from Hidalgo leaves just 13K of TX-34 in Hidalgo.

And finally, move Goliad (7210) from TX-34 to TX-27 for population balance.

Doggett represents 70% of the new TX-35 so he will probably run there. Otherwise he can run against Fahrenthold in TX-27.


If you want more compactness bring TX-28 further east. It picks up Duval, Jim Wells, Brooks, and Jim Hogg from TX-15 in exchange for part of Hidalgo. This will put all of TX-15 in Hidalgo.

TX-28 also picks up Live Oak, Karnes, and Wilson(part), and Bee, DeWitt, Gonzales, and San Patricio (part) which we had moved into TX-35, and instead move much of the TX-28 part of Bexar into the new and improved TX-35.

In 2022, the new districts can be created in Travis, DFW, and Houston.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: August 18, 2017, 02:11:07 PM »
« Edited: August 18, 2017, 02:15:56 PM by Brittain33 »

What's the ethnic / racial makeup of the 200,000+ voters in the Travis County portion of TX-35 that would move to TX-27? Predominantly Anglo like the remainder of TX-27, I would guess.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: August 18, 2017, 03:44:41 PM »

The portion of Travis in TX-35 is mostly Hispanics.


Link

Link


Should be very easy to crack. Only 58k votes.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: August 19, 2017, 01:48:59 PM »

The portion of Travis in TX-35 is mostly Hispanics.

Interesting. It seems dumping those voters into Farenthold's Anglo district just as it sheds Hispanic voters in Nueces would make this map DOA when it hits the courts.
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: August 19, 2017, 03:22:59 PM »
« Edited: August 19, 2017, 04:53:16 PM by AKCreative »

The portion of Travis in TX-35 is mostly Hispanics.

Interesting. It seems dumping those voters into Farenthold's Anglo district just as it sheds Hispanic voters in Nueces would make this map DOA when it hits the courts.

Exactly, what good does it do to move hispanics out of one part of the district just to add them to another part up north?   That's completely ridiculous.

Also,  I just put together the TX-27 district that Jimrtex described and I only achived about 48% hispanic,  so I'm wondering where exactly the 7th hispanic majority district will be.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: August 19, 2017, 06:28:29 PM »

The portion of Travis in TX-35 is mostly Hispanics.

Interesting. It seems dumping those voters into Farenthold's Anglo district just as it sheds Hispanic voters in Nueces would make this map DOA when it hits the courts.

Exactly, what good does it do to move hispanics out of one part of the district just to add them to another part up north?   That's completely ridiculous.

Also,  I just put together the TX-27 district that Jimrtex described and I only achived about 48% hispanic,  so I'm wondering where exactly the 7th hispanic majority district will be.

The opinion clearly differentiated between Travis County hispanics vs others outside Travis County.

But of course your issue is with pure numbers. 220k Travis County (mostly) hispanics must be combined with 500k others to form a district. Your preference is that they be combined with a 500k Travis County white dominated population and thus be at the mercy of the white voters of Travis County.

In any case, a mere 58k votes can be added to any surrounding district or split among them, while TX-27 adds different areas of Travis County if that is your preference.

It matters not of course. The clock is almost out on the decade.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: August 19, 2017, 08:42:49 PM »

The State of Texas sought to stay the remedial proceedings by the district court, so that they could appeal  the courts interlocutory decision. The district court refused to stay their activity, claiming that they have not enjoined the use of the current map that they have labeled as intentionally discriminatory.

The State of Texas says that if the legislature would draw a new map, that they waive their right of appeal of the court's opinion, and also that it does not matter that the court labeled their opinion interlocutory, since it is tantamount to saying that the districts can not be used.

Presumably, the State of Texas will appeal to the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS will stay the remedial process.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: August 19, 2017, 08:47:14 PM »

The portion of Travis in TX-35 is mostly Hispanics.

Interesting. It seems dumping those voters into Farenthold's Anglo district just as it sheds Hispanic voters in Nueces would make this map DOA when it hits the courts.
You can't make TX-35 constitutional without shedding Travis County. Where are you going to put them?
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: August 20, 2017, 01:09:38 AM »

Here is a plan that shifts a total of 1,025,227 persons, only involves 5 districts and produces much more compact districts:

TX-35

Drops Travis County 215,626 to TX-27, complying with court's decision forbidding a San Antonio-Austin district, gains remainder of Guadalupe (108,688) from TX-35, and more of Bexar (106,938) from TX-28.

Keeps 69.1% of current district. 62% of the district is in Bexar county, with the remainder along I-35 in Guadalupe, Comal, Hays, and Caldwell.

TX-27

Gains Travis County from TX-35 (215,626), DeWitt, Goliad, and remainder of Gonzales (33,446) from TX-34, loses 237,655 in Nueces to TX-34, and 11,416 in San Patricio to TX-28.

Keeps 64.3% of current district.

TX-28 Loses (106,938) to TX-35 in Bexar, and (52,450) to TX-15 in Hidalgo, gains (54,848) from TX-15: Brooks, Duval, Jim Hogg, Karnes, Live Oak, and remainder of Wilson; gains (93,124) from TX-34: Bee, Jom Wells, and part of San Patricio; gains (11,416) from TX-27 (a bit more of San Patricio).

Keeps 77.2% of current district. Currentlly 41.1% of the district is in the end counties of Hidalgo and Bexar. This is reduced to 18.2%.

TX-15 Loses (54,848) to TX-28: Brooks, Duval, Jim Hogg, Karnes, Live Oak, and Wilson(part); loses remainder of Guadalupe (108,688) to TX-35; Gains (111,086) Hidalgo (part) from TX-34; Gains (52,450) Hidalgo (part) from TX-28.

Keeps 76.6% of current district. New district will be entirely in Hidalgo county, as TX-34 is pushed out of the county.

TX-34 Loses (93,124) to TX-28: Bee, Jim Wells, and San Patricio (part); loses (33,446) to TX-27: DeWitt, Goliad, and remnant of Gonzales; loses (111,086) to TX-15: (remainder of Hidalgo); and gains (237,655) from TX-27: Nueces.

Keeps 66.0% of district, keeping only Cameron, Willacy, Kenedy, Kleberg, and gaining much of Nueces.



Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: August 20, 2017, 09:35:25 AM »

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/16/1690288/-Court-strikes-down-Texas-GOP-s-congressional-gerrymander-but-Democratic-victory-is-limited

DKos estimates it'll be at most a net 1 for Democrats, but even that's no guaranteed. I really don't get why they emphasize that the new representative will most likely be Latino. No wonder the white working class hates the left: this is blatant identity politics.
Ah yes, the white working class hate that the minorities will have a chance to elect people of their own race.  Very progressive of them.

They never pretend to be a "very progressive". And if "a progressism" means to elect a minority candidates only, at the expense of all others - neither am i, though i have very little in common with WWC people.
Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: August 20, 2017, 09:43:54 AM »
« Edited: August 20, 2017, 09:56:49 AM by smoltchanov »

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/16/1690288/-Court-strikes-down-Texas-GOP-s-congressional-gerrymander-but-Democratic-victory-is-limited

DKos estimates it'll be at most a net 1 for Democrats, but even that's no guaranteed. I really don't get why they emphasize that the new representative will most likely be Latino. No wonder the white working class hates the left: this is blatant identity politics.
Ah yes, the white working class hate that the minorities will have a chance to elect people of their own race.  Very progressive of them.

You don't need a majority minority district to elect a minority candidate. See SC-Sen, UT-4, TX-23 is 75% Hispanic and they have a black representative. People don't necessarily vote based on who looks like them. I mean for next year, I'm a Hispanic college student supporting a black candidate for NH-1
Exactly my point. DKos (which I only read for news on elections btw) seems to have this idea that only a majority-minority district can elected a nonwhite congressman. It's not like all white people regardless of ideology won't vote for a nonwhite candidate.
You can point to a few which have in the past decade to try and make your point more palatable, but it doesn't change the crux of it.  But continue on your rants against minority communities having a member which is like them.  It really makes you look so pragmatic and progessive.

Steve Cohen is better representative of Memphis black community then many black candidates would be. And, following your reasoning, why "progressives" are so incensed (look at dKos, for example), when most of whites prefer to vote for one of their own (usually - white Republican), and are in no hurry to embrace present day heavily minority-oriented Democratic party??? They behave very pragmatically and logically (according to you) - vote for one of their own... Of course, time may come when this white vote will become insignificant, but so far - you have Trump exactly because of that reason (these people were fed up with national Democratic party  politics, and demonstrated it in such (may be - foolish) way). Democratic Party became "too minority oriented" and "too politically correct" for many of it's former solid supporters... And not only in Deep South (those left it long ago), but in many other areas. Though the best example i know of is still in the South - small, rural Liberty county in Florida. More then 75% Democratic in registration, all Democratic on local level (so, it's willing to elect Democrats, but - different Democrats...), and - less then 20% for Hillary in 2016 (with 75% for Trump)
Logged
Oryxslayer
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,724


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: August 21, 2017, 06:10:05 PM »

So i have been messing around with the maps on DRA, and it is easily possible to get two compact districts inside Bexar, along with bits for the 23rd and the 21st. The thing is, both these districts evened out are at 55-56% Obama - probably higher for Clinton after checking to precinct maps. Drawing districts with such a low D % does not seem to be in the spirit of the TX GOP and their Dem packs so here is a question:

Is it possible/probable for one to redraw the 23rd in Bexar, in relation to the 20th and the 35th in this case? It seems dicey since the court barely held up the 23rd as it stands, and any changes would need to produce a extremely similar PVI and HVAP. However, trading precincts between the Fajitas and Bexar produces two more favorable Dem packs in Bexar and leaves the 23rd as an R leaning competitive seat.

If it is not politically feasible, it seems likely that in exchange for the expected Austin Dem pack, the new 35th will be a battleground seat with probably a slight D tilt.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: August 23, 2017, 04:19:25 PM »

So i have been messing around with the maps on DRA, and it is easily possible to get two compact districts inside Bexar, along with bits for the 23rd and the 21st. The thing is, both these districts evened out are at 55-56% Obama - probably higher for Clinton after checking to precinct maps. Drawing districts with such a low D % does not seem to be in the spirit of the TX GOP and their Dem packs so here is a question:

Is it possible/probable for one to redraw the 23rd in Bexar, in relation to the 20th and the 35th in this case? It seems dicey since the court barely held up the 23rd as it stands, and any changes would need to produce a extremely similar PVI and HVAP. However, trading precincts between the Fajitas and Bexar produces two more favorable Dem packs in Bexar and leaves the 23rd as an R leaning competitive seat.

If it is not politically feasible, it seems likely that in exchange for the expected Austin Dem pack, the new 35th will be a battleground seat with probably a slight D tilt.
Nobody will touch TX-23, not even to get rid of the split of LaSalle, and if you tried to move TX-23 into Bexar, you have to find a place for 500,000 other persons.

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« 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 0.073 seconds with 13 queries.