I'm redistricting again... based on these rules now:
"Section 26, Article III, of the Texas Constitution requires that house districts be apportioned among the counties according to the federal census population and the following rules:
This looks like something that I originally wrote. The procedure in Texas is based on the Texas Constitution and judicial interpretations since then.
Explanation of Texas redistricting law, prepared by Legislative Council for state legislature in 2001 Texas Constitution, Article 3, Section 26 The members of the House of Representatives shall be apportioned among the several counties, according to the number of population in each, as nearly as may be, on a ratio obtained by dividing the population of the State, as ascertained by the most recent United States census, by the number of members of which the House is composed; provided, that whenever a single county has sufficient population to be entitled to a Representative, such county shall be formed into a separate Representative District, and when two or more counties are required to make up the ratio of representation, such counties shall be contiguous to each other; and when any one county has more than sufficient population to be entitled to one or more Representatives, such Representative or Representatives shall be apportioned to such county, and for any surplus of population it may be joined in a Representative District with any other contiguous county or counties.The literal interpretation is that larger counties should form a
single representative district that elects one or member district (county) wide. That is, the Texas Constitution provides for
apportionment of representatives among the counties; not for creation of districts.
The first 3 parts are pretty straightforward, with larger counties having multiple representatives, medium counties having one representative, and smaller counties on the frontier being joined together to form a representative district.
The 4th part says that if one county were entitled to 2.4 representatives, and a neighboring county 0.6 representatives, that the larger county would elect two representative; and the two counties together would elect a 3rd representative, with 80% of the voters in the larger county. Such
flotorial districts have generally been outlawed by the US Supreme Court as violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
After the one-man one-vote decisions of the 1960s, the 1970 redistricting essentially ignored the Texas Constitution. The Texas Supreme Court in
Smith v. Craddick ruled that the Texas Constitution had to be followed insofar as it was not in conflict with the US Constitution. Tom Craddick, now House Speaker, was at the time one of 9 Republicans in the Texas House (141 Democrats) and the challenged plan had drawn a district line down his street in an attempt to eliminated him.
The 4th part of the Section 26 was then interpreted to mean that an area within a county containing the surplus population could be attached to adjacent counties, or parts of counties to form a district. It had never definitively been established whether the surplus could be placed in more than one district - though the minimum number of whole districts must be formed in a county.
Multi-member legislative districts are not in violation of the US Constitution per se, but they often run afoul of the Voting Rights Act. For example one 1970s plan created an 18-member district for Dallas County (Harris County had single member districts). The US Supreme Court in
Smith v. Regester 412 U.S. 755 (1973) ruled against that particular district, and since the 1980's they have not been used in Texas.
1981 Attorney General regarding redistricting and applicability of Smith v. Craddick.In Texas, a smaller county may not be split. It can be combined with adjacent counties, or the portion of an adjacent county with a surplus.
The US Supreme Court has generally permitted a 10% total deviation for legislative[/u] districts[/u]. A range from 104% to 94% is just as legitimate as 105% to 95%. If the districts are within this range, a challenger must be able to prove discrimination. The fact that they could create an alternative plan with less deviation is insufficient.
In the deviation is greater than 10%, the burden is on the state to prove that it is doing so to further legitimate state purposes.
The original 2000s Georgia legislative redistricting plan was overturned by a federal district court in
Larios v Cox because it systematically discriminated against the Atlanta suburbs, even though overall the variance was within the traditional 10% range.
The US Supreme Court has used a different analysis with regard to congressional districts and state legislative districts. In the case of legislative districts it has based its decisions on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In the case of congressional districts it has based its decisions on the apportionment language of the original constitution and of the 14th Amendment.
This is no more likely to pass USSC muster than a 10% range. However, if Congress were to implement your plan it might be possible for Congress to define a wider range than the courts have permitted states to use for congressional district plans.
