US House Redistricting: Texas

[jimrtex]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/us/22ttramsey.html

Key quote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't imagine that Perry would ever let this happen.

The senate and house redistricting bills were passed yesterday.

It is pretty likely that there will be a special session to deal with redistricting, plus cleanup of everything that doesn't get finished this week.  Perry gets to set the agenda.  Traditionally, everyone can file bills and they can be taken up in committee, but they can't be passed unless they are on the call or added to the call.

State courts get first crack at redistricting.  In 2001, a state court drew a very nice congressional map, and then Pete Laney queered the deal.  The Texas Supreme Court threw out the state map.  It was only then that the federal court took over.

The federal district court drew a map that maintained existing boundaries to the extent possible (deferring to the legislative intent as expressed in past maps, and locating new districts where there was the most excess population.  This actually works out well for Republicans because a federal court won't draw a contorted district in DFW in an area where the population has not been increasing.  A federal court won't draw another fajita strip in South Texas.  And if the federal court draws the boundaries, it is not subject to Section 5 pre-clearance.

[jimrtex]

Rep. Barton files in state in Navarro County, at 12:01 A.M. Sunday.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/05/23/3097836/facing-legislative-inaction-barton.html

[jimrtex]

Rep. Barton files in state in Navarro County, at 12:01 A.M. Sunday.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/05/23/3097836/facing-legislative-inaction-barton.html

How is this expected to impact the map?  Any chance of the court's map being less gerrymandered than what the legislature would've produced.

A federal court is required to follow past legislative intent.  They can only make the minimal changes to make the plan legal.  If you look at the 2001 plan, they left as much of the 1991/2/6 gerrymander in place as possible.

A state court might be a little more aggressive, but you could end up having it appealed and overturned.  That is what more or less happened in 2001.  A state court plan would still need to be precleared.

The legislature just moved the filing deadline to November-December (2011).  So a plan probably has to be in place by the first of October.  If it is a State plan, you would have to begin preclearance in early August.

[jimrtex]

I really doubt this map will pass muster with the DOJ.  It only creates a net of one new Hispanic majority district, and splits up Hispanic communities in Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston that could be used to create at least two more Hispanic majority districts. 

The DFW Hispanic district is the issue.  I've looked at the numbers, and I haven't found a way to create a second Hispanic district in Houston other than the touch-point thing krazen mentioned way back.  The Hispanics are simply too spread out, and it would come at the expense of Al Green anyway.

You obviously didn't see the Maldef map that connected the NE Houston and NW Houston portions of TX-18 via a one block strip through North Houston.  This lets TX-29 connect east and SE Houston with the southern part of North Houston via downtown, while TX-18 also connects to the 3rd Ward.  The new Hispanic district then takes in the northern part of North Houston and wraps over the top of both parts northern arms of TX-18 so it can get to Channelview, Spring Branch and Gulfton.

BTW, the legislature is back in special session because they didn't finish with budget, and Governor Perry has added redistricting to the call.

[jimrtex]

That 36th district is the most vile abomination I have seen so far.

Careful trashing my congressional district.

[jimrtex]

Fun fact: Every single Hispanic Republican lives in a Democratic district. Every single one. This is due to the fact that all Hispanics live in Hispanic-majority Democratic districts. Every single Hispanic in the country. Very interesting, huh?

TX-17 is a Democratic district?

[jimrtex]

Fun fact: Every single Hispanic Republican lives in a Democratic district. Every single one. This is due to the fact that all Hispanics live in Hispanic-majority Democratic districts. Every single Hispanic in the country. Very interesting, huh?

TX-17 is a Democratic district?

I'm not entirely sure what Red was even trying to say in the bit you quoted... Flores is, of course, whiter than me of countenance*, an army-bases-bred Southern Baptist, and doesn't speak a word of Spanish. But is apparently of "part Spanish" ancestry - around election time, I had looked for something to clear up the matter of this white dude with a Spanish surname, couldn't find anything on him personally, but found that the name also exists in Italy (where it's considered a Napolitan name), and left him tentatively at "not Hispanic". But apparently he is, sort of.

*Mind you, so are all the Cuban-American politicos including Bob Menendez - But Cuba's demographics are very different from Mexico's or New Mexico's. And G.K. Butterfield.

He said that the Flores family emigrated to Nacogdoches in 1725.  There are also Raul Labrador and Jaime Herrera.

[jimrtex]

He said that the Flores family emigrated to Nacogdoches in 1725.

That's... unlikely. Unless they came from an abandoned Caddo town. It was purely a mission at the time, and remained so for the next two generations.

http://books.google.com/books?id=9xhKe6Zc__EC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=flores+nacogdoches+1725&source=bl&ots=F0vJC0MFoz&sig=xg9tFcTyMVknkTSPtORUwIpfU2I&hl=en&ei=mWbtTYCOC6O_0AHC5-SrAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=flores%20nacogdoches%201725&f=false

[jimrtex]

At least until the inevitable court challenge.

...assuming the DOJ even approves it.

DOJ won't have anything to say about it.  It will go to the D.C.Court of Appeals

[jimrtex]

2. Poe and Brady and their allies are fighting over 300 acres for the new Exxon Mobil Headquarters.

This was only announced last week.  So if the bill had been passed during the regular session, they would have been surprised.  I wonder who gets left with (Greens)point?

HQ of Exxon Mobil is in Irving (but that is more for their business operations).  Exploration and production are handled from Houston which is being consolidated.

[jimrtex]

3. Apparently this is being kicked back to the Senate.

A lot of twiddles here and there.  In some cases, a more rural county got swapped, and then they had to adjust some squiggly lines elsewhere (eg Barton got Navarro, and some lines in Tarrant and Johnson got adjusted).  Some lines were adjusted to avoid splitting cites.

Some other look to make boundaries more continuous, lines through Bastrop and Hays flow naturally into Travis.

[jimrtex]

3. Apparently this is being kicked back to the Senate.

A lot of twiddles here and there.  In some cases, a more rural county got swapped, and then they had to adjust some squiggly lines elsewhere (eg Barton got Navarro, and some lines in Tarrant and Johnson got adjusted).  Some lines were adjusted to avoid splitting cites.

Some other look to make boundaries more continuous, lines through Bastrop and Hays flow naturally into Travis.

The Senate will probably want a conference so that they can finish cleaning up any leftovers, but the House version looks like it will be what is approved.

[jimrtex]

Texas AG Greg Abbott has asked for a 3-judge panel to approved the Texas redistricting maps.  As a matter of courtesy, Texas has sent a copy of the material to the USDOJ.

Incidentally, the federal court cases are being consolidated in San Antonio (Texas Western District).  The lead case, Shannon Perez v Texas, argues that prison population should not be considered for redistricting purposes; and secondly with modern computer technology there is no reason to allow 10% deviation.

The other plaintiffs include MALDEF, LULAC, MALC.  Rep. Henry Cuellar is an plaintiff-intervenor.  The Texas Democratic Party is defendant-intervenor.

Another case that argues that the non-legal immigrants should not be counted for redistricting purposes was not consolidated, but was moved to San Antonio.

Trial is September 6.

[jimrtex]

Fresh from Lloyd Doggett's Facebook page:

The DOJ rejected the Texas maps.

Litigation time - perhaps all the way to SCOTUS.

USDOJ brief

Texas bypassed the DOJ and went directly to the DC District Court for preclearance.  When they did this, they "informally" made a submission to the USDOJ as a matter of courtesy.

The USDOJ brief is with DC District Court and basically says that if it were up to them they would have precleared the senate plan and the SBOE plan.  This should make it real hard for the court not to preclear, since it would imply that the USDOJ doesn't understand the law, or that they are imposing the wrong standards.

The USDOJ also rejected the idea that Section 5 is unconstitutional.

The USDOJ didn't really reject the congressional and house plans, but said that they had insufficient information to evaluate them, but would be providing stipulations by today that would "narrow" the issues.

This is the reason that Texas didn't go through the USDOJ, because they like to negotiate settlements.  It is like then EEOC.  The EEOC might not be able to make their case, but it could be a long drug out affair, so why not just pay a fine, don't admit culpability, and agree to some changes.  You might be right, but it is too costly to win.

The regular trial has been heard in San Antonio the past couple of weeks.   They might or might not wait until the DC court has ruled on preclearance.

The SCOTUS has Texas penciled in on their decennial docket.

[jimrtex]

Who knows what the statutes are in Texas?

Does the legislature have the right to a redraw or is it in the courts now?

The legislature has a right to redraw if it chooses to.

In any case, the Justice Department isn't final here. The 3 judge panel is.

DOJ has no issues with the Dallas districts and is only complaining about TX-23 again.

They don't like districts that elect Republicans.

4 house districts are challenged.

Republicans were elected to all 3 Nueces County districts (two within the county, and a 3rd with just a small portion of the county).  Because of relatively slow growth, there are only 2 districts in the county, and they didn't like where the line was drawn.  San Patricio the largest county in the Nueces+ district was attached to a South Texas (35) district in exchange for Jim Wells.  This district also elected a Republican.

They didn't like how Aaron Pena's district was drawn because he switched parties.

And they didn't like District 117 which is the westernmost banana in Bexar County, and which dropped 58,000 persons and increased the HVAP from 58.7% to 62.7% in the process.  It too chose a Republican Garza instead of the Democrat Leibowitz who was the Hispanic candidate of choice (even though he didn't actually live in the district).

They're still trying to make up their mind about a Houston district with a 21% Asian population (vs 30% Hispanic, 27% Anglo, and 23% Black) and whether that is because the Vietnamese guy is candidate of choice, or that the Hispanics aren't citizens, and the Blacks aren't as politically organized.

[jimrtex]

The actual document mentions issues with TX-23, TX-27 and the fact that there wasn't any other VRA district created in DFW.

The USDOJ did not.   Their brief includes summaries of the viewpoints of other parties.

They're goofy because they don't recognize 34 as the successor to 27, and that there is no need for Corpus and Brownsville to share a congressional district.

[jimrtex]

The USDOJ did not.   Their brief includes summaries of the viewpoints of other parties.

They're goofy because they don't recognize 34 as the successor to 27, and that there is no need for Corpus and Brownsville to share a congressional district.

Well, the courts will decide rather or not it is "goofy" or not. There was obviously some partisan tricks involved regarding the VRA districts. In DFW, there really should be a VRA seat, there is more than enough population to sustain it and the courts may see it like that.

When an area loses a seat and it is moved to another area of the state it is goofy to compare the two.  You might as well compare a district that is lost in New York and ends up in Texas. 

[jimrtex]

The Constitution says that Congress has the power to pass laws to ensure that the right to vote may not be abridged on the basis of race. Racial gerrymanders were used for decades to disenfranchise minorities, particularly blacks. Congress used its constitutional power to pass the Voting Rights Act. It is as much the law as one man one vote.

The Constitution says that the apportionment of a State should be reduced in proportion to the share of male citizens over 21 whose right to vote is abridged for any reason, including race.

Let's assume that an activist court would expand that to include women and those over 18.

You are charged with determining how many citizens over the age of 18 have had their right to vote abridged, how many of these because of felonies and rebellion, and how many for other reasons, which you will be expected to itemize.  How would you do it?

[jimrtex]

Surely you don't think that erose excresence you drew is legally required by the VRA do you Muon2? Or do you?    That is the issue here: what the courts will deem legally required. What will Justice Kennedy think?  Nothing else much matters.

Well, IL-4 has been legally required since 1990, and its long thin link through railroad yards and cemeteries to connect two different communities is arguably worse than what I drew. I do know that both districts I drew should be able to elect candidates of the minority group's choice. I think that Kennedy dislikes partisan gerrymandering (see Vieth), and will look for other bases in the law to overturn it when it is otherwise non-justiciable (see LULAC).

Yes, but isn't that about preserving some CD rather than creating another net? Or was it entirely a new net minority CD judicially mandated?  SCOTUS ruled that IL-04 was legally required?

I remember when a Texas senator was discussing IL-4, and he couldn't understand why the Houston districts after the 1990s weren't legal when they were just as bad (though he favored drawing them that way).

[jimrtex]

Judges to draw interim map.

That link is broken, but I think this is the interim map story you wanted.

The actual order from the court is more tentative.

http://www.quorumreport.com/downloadit.cfm?DocID=9142

The filing deadline for the primary (and independent candidates) is in early December, moved back so that ballots can be mailed overseas 45 days before the election.  County election officials are required to create election precincts before Oct 1, and mail out voter registration cards before the first of the year.

The trial has already been held in San Antonio, but the federal court can't act until the districts have been pre-cleared.  If the districts are not pre-cleared, then the trial in San Antonio wouldn't be able to rule on proposed 2010 districts, but would be modifying 2000-based districts.

The DC court has a hearing set for November 2 on a summary motion for pre-clearance, but no trial date other than for the senate plan.

[jimrtex]

So if the primary is held under the interim map, that means the general would have to be as well. But I guess that won't stop Texas Republicans from another mid-decade redistricting. Of course in Colorado there was a court-drawn map, the Republicans later tried to pass their own map, but it was ruled illegal by a court and that the current map had to stand.

In 1996 and 2006, Texas had maps drawn after the primary, and a special election was held in November (with runoffs as necessary in December).

But right now candidates can not file for the primary, which has a December filing deadline (overseas military ballots have to be sent out in mid-January).

In Colorado, the Colorado Supreme Court made a (mis)interpretation of the Colorado Constitution in a politically aligned decision.  The original constitution said that Colorado should elect its sole representative at large; but when it got additional representatives they should be elected from districts drawn by the legislature.  That is, it was simply saying that multiple representatives should be elected from districts.

Later, a language cleanup removed the provision about electing a single representative at large.  The supreme court then interpreted "when" as governing the timing of the redistricting and not the circumstances when it should occur.

Colorado had practically never followed the constitution.  It never had 3 districts, even though it had 3 representatives, and it didn't create 4 districts until 4 years after the 1910 census.  It redistricted in 1920, even though there was no national reapportionment, and then didn't bother for the next 43 years.  If one reads the constitution literally, there is no authority for redistricting under the state constitution since Colorado did not gain additional representatives.   They would be complying with the federal constitution.

So basically, the court ignored 125 years of actual practice, and determined that a district court had acted on behalf of the legislature 2 years earlier, when no one at the time had any notion that was occurring.

In 1991, the Texas legislature redistricted the legislature.  Someone filed in state district court in the Rio Grande Valley, and the State agreed that they had done badly and the district court drew a map that they could never have got through the legislature.  A federal court tossed that decision on due process grounds.   The infamous Ann Richards called a special session to redistrict.  Those maps did not get precleared until mid 1992 after the primaries.  They considered going on with the general elections (someone nominated in "District 5" could run in "District 5" even though they were different districts.   But finally they used the districts drawn by the federal court in 1991, and used the 1992-drawn districts in 1994.  By 1996, the 1992-drawn districts were found unconstitutional.   Rather than actually creating new districts by passing legislation, the Senate agreed to new districts.  If they had actually passed a law, all senate seats would have been up for election, as they had been in 1992 and 1994.  So because of the illegal districts, some voters were assigned to remedial districts where they had never had an opportunity to vote.  So Texas used different senate districts in 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, and 1998.  They did use the same districts in 2000 as they had in 1998.

[jimrtex]

I figured it would be worthwhile dusting these off.



The four new districts were placed in the following manner.  The 33rd district was placed at the common intersection of the three districts with the largest combined population, that is the districts that had the most excess population which could be used to form the new district.  The deficit represents the additional population needed to form 4 equipopulous districts.  The deficit was apportioned among the neighbors of the three districts in proportion to those neighbor's population in excess of the ideal population.  This recognizes that additional population must flow into the area of the new district, and also tends to distribute the new districts around the state.

This process was repeated for the 34th, 35th, and 36th population.  After the location of the new districts was determined, they were initialized with zero population, and the flow was calculated in the same it would be in states where no districts were added.

The four new districts (Red stars on map above):

TX-33 is in the Cedar Park, Round Rock, north Austin area at the intersection of TX-10, TX-21, and TX-31.  These three districts have a population equivalent to 3.923 districts, which means that a new district can be formed almost exclusively from their excess population.  As it turns out, excess population from the DFW and Houston area flows into TX-31 and TX-10 so that TX-21 doesn't actually contribute to the new district.

TX-31 shifts northward into the western Fort Worth suburbs, and becomes much less Austin focused.  Similarly TX-10 becomes much more of a Houston district.

TX-34 in the Frisco area at the intersection of TX-3, TX-4, and TX-26.  These 3 districts have a population equivalent to 3.728 districts, which requires about 200,000 more persons from other districts in North Texas.  TX-3 and TX-26 contribute excess suburban growth to the new district.  TX-4 continues to withdraw to the north and east, giving somewhat of the appearance of a small city district: Sherman, Denison, Greenville, Paris, Texarkana, etc., but continues to have a significant suburban presence.

TX-35 in the Baytown area at the intersection of TX-2, TX-14, and TX-22.  These three districts have a population equivalent to 3.526 districts, which requires around 330,000 from other districts.  The placement of the district to the east of Houston is a consequence of the excess population of TX-10 being used to form TX-33, and not available for creation of a new district in the faster growing northern or western suburbs.  In a sense, TX-33 is a re-creation of the old TX-9 in the Beaumont, Galveston, Clear Lake area.  TX-2 becomes more obviously a northern and northeast suburban Houston district, and TX-14 shifts southwestward down the coast.

TX-36 is near China Grove southeast of San Antonio at the intersection of TX-21, TX-23, and TX-28.  The three districts have a population equivalent to 3.407 districts which means that an additional 420,000 is needed from other districts.  This deficit of 420,000 was based on allocating the excess of TX-21 to TX-33.  Since this is not required, a large share of the needed population can come from TX-21, with addition contributions from elsewhere.

Texas-wide shifts:  Only 7 districts are completely outside the major metropolitan areas, while 2 others have a significant core outside those areas, while still extending into the suburban areas of the major metropolitan areas.  TX-2, TX-4, TX-5, TX-6, TX-8, TX-10, TX-21, TX-23, and TX-31 have a superficial appearance of being rural districts, but their population is concentrated in the suburban areas.

TX-1 in East Texas has an excess population of 25,000 that is shifted to TX-4.  TX-13, TX-19, and TX-11 have a deficit of around 25,000, a tiny deficit of about 400, and a surplus of 12,000 respectively.  TX-13 takes a major infusion from the DFW area, but passes most of it on to TX-31 and the Austin and San Antonio areas.  TX-11 transfers its surplus to TX-21.

TX-16 in El Paso County has an excess of 59,000 which is transferred to TX-23.  TX-15 and TX-27 in south Texas have an excess of 132,000 which they shift to TX-14 as they concentrate more towards the border.

TX-17 extends into the southern DFW suburbs, but would be described as a Waco, Bryan-College Station central Texas district.  Its excess of 62,000 is shifted into TX-31 for transport further south.

TX-28 includes San Antonio suburbs, but has a focus in Laredo and other south Texas areas.  The northern portion will be used in creation of TX-36.

It appears that the Houston area is a little bit short of the excess population needed to create TX-35 (inflow from TX-15 and TX-27 minus outflow from TX-8, but growth in the Harris County portion of TX-10 provided a significant share of the excess that went into creation of TX-33.

The DFW area has an excess of about 150,000 plus a significant portion of the surplus in TX-17.  This is used to top off TX-13, with the bulk being shifted southward to the Austin and San Antonio areas.

A total of 4.105 million persons are shifted in Texas, representing 14.0% of the state, or the equivalent of 5.03 districts.  But this includes the persons moved into the 4 new districts.

If those persons are excluded, then 717 thousand, or 2.9% of the population is shifted.



In the DFW area, most shifts are associated with creating TX-34 in the Frisco area, with direct transfers from TX-3, TX-4, and TX-26, supported by secondary transfers from TX-1 (not shown), TX-5, TX-6, and TX-24.  TX-32 is the least populated district in Texas, and TX-30 has a very small surplus.  Population is transferred from TX-6 to make up this deficit in TX-32.

The DFW area produces a surplus of 149K (210K if the surplus in TX-17 is attributed to the suburban areas (Johnson and Hood counties).  This surplus is directed from TX-12 into TX-13, and then into TX-31.  About 25,000 of the surplus is used to erase the deficit in TX-13, one of four Texas districts that are underpopulated.  This could be made up from Wise County.  The remaining population from Parker County would be moved into TX-31.  If the transfer from TX-17 to TX-31 takes place from the northern end of the district, then TX-31 is shifted northward, with roughly comparable population in the western DFW suburbs, Bell County (Killeen and Temple) and northerly parts of Williamson County.



In the Houston area, TX-35 is formed east of the city.  This unexpected result is a consequence of TX-33 being created in the Austin area, which depletes the excess population in TX-10 in northwest Harris County, which might have been used to form a new district in areas to north and west of the city.  But in effect, TX-10 becomes a Houston area district with the transfer of the Travis County portion into TX-33.

Rather than population flowing into the Baytown area, TX-35 would be created from the east portions of TX-2 (Jefferson) and TX-14 (Galveston and Chambers).  The contribution from TX-22 might also include Galveston County, along with areas of southeast Harris County.  Thus TX-35 would be somewhat like the old TX-9.

TX-2 would become more clearly a northern and northeast suburban district, while TX-22 would become more of a southwestern suburban district.  TX-14 would move back down the coast, but would continue to have a significant Houston area population.  This process would be aided by a transfer of population of 132K from the extreme northern portions of TX-15 and TX-27.

There are additional secondary transfers from TX-7, TX-8, and TX-9 into TX-2 and TX-14 to make up for the population used to create TX-35.  TX-29 is one of 4 districts below the ideal population which is matches with a similar small surplus in TX-18.  TX-8 provides a small outflow into TX-10, which strengthens the new Houston orientation of TX-10.



Two new districts are created in the San Antonio-Austin area, TX-33 in north Austin and its suburbs and TX-36 southeast of San Antonio.

Because of an inflow of about 185K into TX-31 from the DFW area and 65K into TX-10 from the Houston area, no population is transferred from TX-21 into the new TX-33.  If one wanted to avoid a an additional county split, the small transfer of 18K from TX-31 to TX-21 could be from Travis County, with TX-31 then providing a larger portion of TX-33.  With half of a congressional district being contributed to TX-33 by both TX-10 and TX-31, these districts are shifted out of the Austin area, with TX-10 becoming a Houston area district, and TX-31 becoming a central Texas district stretching north to the western DFW suburbs, while the new TX-33 if fully an Austin area district.

TX-36 is created southeast of San Antonio, but would have most of its population in Bexar County.  In effect Bexar county would have 4 districts: TX-20 in the center, TX-23 in the west extending all the way to El Paso; TX-21 in the north extending into the Hill Country and to Austin, and the new TX-36 in south and east extending into counties further east.  I suspect that TX-36 would have the largest share of Bexar County after TX-20.

TX-25 would also contribute to the new district, with counties southeast of Travis County being shifted through TX TX-28 into the new district.  TX-28 would be moved out of the San Antonio area.  TX-16 (El Paso) contributes its surplus of 59K to TX-23 which moves that district slightly to the west.  TX-11 shifts its small surplus to TX-21.  TX-11 also makes up the tiny deficit (400 persons) in TX-19.

[jimrtex]

Here are the proposed interim plans that some of the plaintiff's want the San Antonio district court to put in place, while the DC court is mulling over preclearance.

LULAC plans for South Texas.   TX-27 comes up the coast to Kleberg Count where it swims across Laguna Madre to Padre Island to bypass most of Corpus Christi and Nueces County before coming into Aransas County (there is a ferry) and then connecting back to Calhoun County via Matagorda Island and the splitting into legs that wander into Matagorda County and up to Caldwell County (avoiding Travis County because the Supreme Court said you can't have a district coming from the Rio Grande to Austin - though technically that was from McAllen and this district would be from Brownsville.  So maybe there is a difference.

Farenthold would be put in the open district TX-36 which connects with Hidalgo County which is more reliably Democratic.

TX-27 and TX-15 form a fajita doughnut around TX-36.



LULAC plans for DFW create a Hispanic district in Dallas and a coalition district in Tarrant.  They don't change the Houston districts



This is the south Texas plan from the Mexican American Legislative Caucus.  Apparently TX-33 is OK as a Hispanic Opportunity district since the area in Travis County is not majority Hispanic.  TX-28 is OK because Laredo is closer to Austin than McAllen, and Henry Cuellar was Secretary of State.   Doggett and McCaul are paired in TX-25.  TX-10 is now an open Houston to Corpus district.  TX-23 now has almost as much of El Paso County as Bexar County, and it is 96% Hispanic.  The rest of El Paso in TX-16 is 76% Hispanic and extends east to Odessa.



MALC's proposal for DFW looks like a man holding a gun on another man who is laying down in a prone position.



DFW plan form Texas Latino Task Force.  According to the State of Texas briefs, this is the only demonstrated plan that has a majority HCVAP.



This is the Texas Latino Task Force plan for Houston.  TX-18 is contiguous.  Barely.  Race was obviously not the driving factor in these maps.

[jimrtex]

The two districts Dallas-Tarrant Hispanic districts submitted by plaintiffs have 66.1% HVAP, but end up barely majority HCVAP, so yours might be less.

The LULAC plan has a 58.9% HVAP in Tarrant County

The TLTF plan for Harris County has "Black" districts that are around 40% BVAP and 30% HVAP, and "Hispanic" districts that have a 10% BVAP despite the extraordinarily convoluted nature of the districts.  It appears that they drew one Hispanic double district and one Black double district that was in two parts (and extended out to Rosenberg to pick up some Hispanic areas), and then split the Hispanic district in two based on population, and ran a block-wide connector between them to connect the Black districts.

similarly awful or awfully similar?

I know Torie didn't like my plans, but I see at least two of the submissions are awfully similar to the Latino district I drew long ago.

I drew a version back in Jan to address the Metroplex. I've updated it for the actual Census numbers. CD 30 is 51.7% BVAP and CD 33 is 65.0% HVAP.

Here are the proposed interim plans that some of the plaintiff's want the San Antonio district court to put in place, while the DC court is mulling over preclearance.

MALC's proposal for DFW looks like a man holding a gun on another man who is laying down in a prone position.



DFW plan form Texas Latino Task Force.  According to the State of Texas briefs, this is the only demonstrated plan that has a majority HCVAP.

[jimrtex]

The two districts Dallas-Tarrant Hispanic districts submitted by plaintiffs have 66.1% HVAP, but end up barely majority HCVAP, so yours might be less.

Where do you get reliable data on that?

The 66.1% HVAP is from the Texas redistricting site.  The barely HCVAP is from the brief of the State of Texas.