Print Page - Texas 2020 House Apportioment

Texas is projected to grow at 18% for the decade, which means House districts will increase from 169,000 to 199,000. This is based on 2017 mid-year estimates projected to April 2020.

The Texas Constitution requires that county lines be respected when apportioning representatives, in a way consistent with a OMOV requirement of a maximum 5% relative deviation.

The first step in an apportionment is to calculate the number of representatives that are apportioned to each county, and to identify which counties are entitled to one or more representatives. The remaining smaller counties will be gathered into single member districts.

Seven counties can be apportioned a whole number of representatives, and be within the 5% deviation limits:

Harris (25, -1.12%)
Dallas (14, -1.67%)
Tarrant (11, -0.85%)
Bexar (10, +4.24%)
Montgomery (3, +4.90%)
Williamson (3, +1.90%)
Brazoria (2, -3.06%)

This is a gain of one representative for Harris, reversing the loss of a seat in 2010. Dallas, Tarrant, and Bexar are unchanged. In 2010, Montgomery and Williamson had two districts within the county, with a third including other counties. Brazoria had one district within the county, and another including other counties. The inter-county districts will be consolidated within these three counties, and the populations of the districts balanced.

The deviation in Montgomery will mean that the population of the three districts will have to quite tightly controlled, with the largest no more than 200 above the county average. This will also be true to some extent in Bexar, where the largest distirict may only be 1500 above the average.

Overall the seven counties are apportioned 68 representatives, and are entitled collectively to 67.958 representatives a deviation of -0.06%

There are 16 counties that have a population equivalent to more than one representative, but can't be wholly self-contained and comply with the 5% deviation limits. Therefore a whole number of districts will be drawn in the county, and an area containing the surplus will be attached to other counties.

Travis (6 + .647) In 2010, Travis had 6 districts.
Collin (5 + .323) In 2010, Collin had 4 districts plus a share of a fifth.
Denton (4 + .622) In 2010, Denton had 4 districts.
Hidalgo (4 + .532) In 2010, Hidalgo shared a district with Cameron.
El Paso (4 + .332) In 2010, El Paso had 5 undersized districts.
Fort Bend (4 + .286) In 2010, Fort Bend had 3 districts plus a share of a fourth.
Cameron (2 + .179) In 2010, Cameron shared a district with Hidalgo.
Nueces (1 + .870) In 2010, Nueces had two districts.
Bell (1 + .838) Same status as 2010.
Lubbock (1 + .598) Same status as 2010.
Webb (1 + .442) Same status as 2010.
Jefferson (1 + .305) Same status as 2010.
McLennan (1 +.304) Same status as 2010.
Hays (1 + .221) In 2010 in district with Blanco.
Smith (1 + .189) Same status as 2010.
Brazos (1 + .186) Same status as 2010.

The 16 counties is an increase of two since 2010, due to the addition of Hays, and a net gain of one county with a surplus (Travis, Denton, El Paso, Nueces, minus Williamson, Mongomery, Brazoria).

()

Areas around major metropolitan areas often are the most constrained. If a county has more than half a quota, it will have to be attached to smaller counties, and there may be only one choice.

Dallas(14) and Tarrant(11) will be self-contained. I paired Collin (5+) and Denton (4+). This has been a fairly common combination the past few cycles. An argument could be made that it is mandatory. since the cross-county-line district is a violation of the Texas Constitution. It is considered the least worst violation to be used only to comply with a maximum 5% deviation under OMOV.

Then Grayson-Cooke-Montague; Rockwall-Hunt; and Kaufman-Van Zandt-Rains are forced.

Ellis is slightly below 95% of the quota. Any neighbor will take it above 105%. Currently it has a slice of Henderson attached to it. Typically, one such exception to the Texas Constitution has been required in order to comply with OMOV.

My approach will be to combine Ellis, Johnson, and Hill in an area of approximately two representatives. Johnson willbe split, with an eastern sliver attached to Ellis. The remainder of Johnson will be combined with Hill. This will create two districts in the southern DFW area.

Finally, Parker and Hood will combined. They are very close to a quota, and keeps the district close to Fort Worth.

()

Houston (25), Montgomery(3), and Braxoria(2) can be self contained. In 2010, Harris was entitled to 24.4 representatives, and was rounded down to 24. It is now entitled to 24.7 and is rounded up to 25. In 2010, Montgomery and Brazoria shared their 3rd and 2nd districts, respectively with smaller neighbors. These districts will shift into the county. Galveston is forced to be combined with Chambers, the same configuration it is currently in.

In 2010, Fort Bend was entitled to 3.5 districts, and dominated its 4th district. In 2020, the county will be entitled to about 4.25 representatives. Four districts will be drawn in the suburban areas along the Harris County line, while the still rural areas south (or west) of the Brazos River will be joined with smaller counties to the west.

The general strategy along the I-35 spine is to keep districts close to I-35 so that they are of more uniform character, and to preserve as much population as possible for inclusion in east and west Texas districts. The area can also be used to help balance the population between east and west Texas so that they have population equivalent to a whole number of districts.

McLennan is entitled to 1.3 districts and can not be combined with Bell. The small surplus can be combined with several counties to the east or west with a total population of about 140,000. This gives a great deal of flexibility, and so one district can be concentrated in Waco, with the surplus used as a wild card to the east and or west to balance population.

Bell is entitled to 1.84 districts, and can not be combined with its larger neighbors to the south or north. Currently, Bell is paired with Lampasas, which has a somewhat tenuous connection, but has a community of interest around Fort Hood. But this also requires splitting Killeen, or drawing a bizarre district that loops around from Temple to Lampasas. Placing Bell and Milam in the same district, will permit drawing one district around Killeen, and placing Temple in the district with Milam.

Williamson is entitled to three whole districts. Currently, the 3rd district is shared with Burnet and Milam, but will be pulled entirely into the county.

Travis in 2010 had six districts. In 2020, it will be entitled to 6.647. If it reaches 6.650, it could have seven districts and be within the permitted deviation range. This is only a difference of around 600 people, for a county projected to gain nearly 300,000 persons.

But for now we will assume that Travis will have a surplus population. In 2010, Hays, just missed out on having a district by itself. By 2020 it will have a surplus of about 0.221 districts. It will fit almost perfectly with Comal to the south, with the Comal district taking the San Marcos area, and a whole district in Hays County in the Austin suburbs around Buda.

But applying a rule that the number of districts that include surplus parts of large counties, six districts will be created in Travis, one in Hays, and an 8th district including the surpluses from Travis and Hays, along with Blanco to reach the quota.

This forces Comal to be combined with Kendall, and Guadalupe to be combined with Gonzales.

Bexar is entitled to 10.424 districts, which is rounded down to 10 whole districts.

()

()

Quote from: muon2 on January 17, 2019, 06:51:59 AM

What does TX typically do with large counties? For example Harris could be divided into 25 HDs with an average of 98.9% of the quota. If Harris and Fort Bend are grouped together they make almost exactly 29 HDs. That grouping makes it a lot easier to avoid a lot of overpopulated HDs and Fort Bend has to be joined with at least some other county. Would Harris be joined in that case?

Quote from: Texas Constitution Article 3, Section 26

Sec. 26. APPORTIONMENT OF MEMBERS OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 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.

Strictly speaking, Texas has an apportionment law. Use of single member districts for election is considered to be a manner regulation, and required under the 14th amendment, 15th amendment, VRA and court cases.

The size of the House is fixed at 150, and the ratio (or quota) is 197,613.

There are three types of districts:

(1) Single (larger) counties entitled to one or more representatives. Such counties also have a surplus population.

(2) Two or more (smaller) contiguous counties that are entitled to one representative (make up the ratio of representation).

(3) Two or more contiguous counties that including the surplus of one or more larger counties to make up the ration of population.

All districts are whole counties. Districts of type three (floterial or flotorial) overlay districts of Type 1 and Type 2,

Type 3 districts are fine for apportionment purposes, but not for electoral purposes. For example according to the constitution, Harris could have 24 representatives; Fort Bend could have 4 representatives; and Harris+Fort Bend counties together would elect one representative.

The representatives could be elected by place or district or even proportional representation - the constitution is silent. But there is only one way to elect a single member (FPTP or FPTP with runoff).

If Harris has 6/7 of the votes, then effectively Harris has 24-6/7 representatives and Fort Bend has 4-1/7 representatives. Floterial districts of this type violate OMOV.

Following 'Reynolds v Sims', another provision of the constitution that limited representation of the largest counties was overturned (this provision has since been repealed).

And then the floterial districts were found to be unconstitutional. This required the third redistricting of the 60s, and so they pretty much just patched up the existing map. In some cases they detached a portion of a larger county that contained a population equal to the surplus and attached it to neighboring counties. A portion of Tarrant around the northern, western, and southern fringes was attached to Parker. The remainder of the county was apportioned 9 representatives. In other cases, they combined the counties in a multi-representative district. For example, Travis had three representative, and was in a floterial district with Burnet. Travis and Burnet were combined in a four-representative district.

After the 1970 Census, the legislature tended to ignore the constitution and started cutting up smaller counties, in one case drawing a line down the street in front of Tom Craddick's house. Craddick was one of a handful of Republicans at the time. He sued, in 'Craddick v Smith' and won. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that the Texas Constitution could be harmonized with equal protection. Craddick is still in the House of Representatives having just been elected to his 26th term.

The Supreme Court in essence devised two new types districts.

1A) An area within a single county that is apportioned the maximum number of whole representatives for the county.

3A) Two or more contiguous counties that include an area containing the surplus of one or more larger counties to make up the ratio of population.

While these violate the Texas Constitution, they do so in a way that minimizes the contradiction with the apportionment principles of the constitution. They can only be used if necessary to comply with OMOV (the 5% deviation limit is an observation by the SCOTUS of what they had approved in a case concerning the Texas House).

Typically, it is necessary to split an additional small county to comply with OMOV.

Subsequent to this division, there was a ruling that single-member districts must be used in all counties with a significant minority population. After examining each such county, it was determined that all but Hidalgo must be divided. Since then, all districts have been single-member. But this is considered to be a manner of election. Even before the ruling, Harris had been divided into several multi-member districts.

So first apportionment is done, and then districting within larger counties.

Since, your proposed division of Harris County is not necessary to comply with OMOV it will not be used. The legal advice given to the legislature is that counties entitled to 10 or more representatives can always have wholly contained districts.

The legislature might ignore "as near as may be" in the Texas Constitution, somehow concluding that the Texas constitution is not about equalizing apportionment of representatives based on population.

So the seven counties that I noted as being able to be within 5% with districts wholly within the county will be drawn way.

This is an initial pass at dividing the state into areas entitled to a whole number of representatives.
All the regions except the large East and West regions could have districts drawn in them subject to tweaking.

The East and West regions will each have 14 representatives. Placement of McLennan, Falls, and Limestone in the west was to balance the population. One whole district will be drawn in McLennan, likely centered on Waco, with another district flowing around to both the east and west.

()

Single representative districts (largest county):

Grayson
Rockwall
Kaufman
Parker
Comal
Guadalupe
San Patricio
Victoria
Maverick

Single-County mulitple representative:

Dallas(14)
Tarrant(11)
Williamson(3)
Bexar(10)
Montgomery(3)
Harris(25)
Brazoria(2)

Multi-county with two counties with whole districts and a shared extra district:

Collin(5+), Denton(4+)
Travis(6+),Hays(1+), plus Blanco.
Hidalgo(4+),Cemaron(2+), plus Willacy, Brooks, Kenedy, Kleberg

Multi-county with one county with whole district and a district including smaller counties.

Bell(1+) plus Milam
Galveston(1+) plus Chambers
Fort Bend(4+) plus Wharton, Matagorda, Calhoun, Jackson, Lavaca
Nueces(1+) plus Aransas
Webb(1+) plus Duval, Zapata, Jim Hogg, Starr
El Paso(4+) plus 14 other counties.

Special case, requires split of smaller county (2 representatives).

Ellis, Johnson, Hill

The West Region will have 14 districts. 11 will be anchored by a county with more than half a quota: Potter, Randall, Lubbock(1+), Ector, Midland, Tom Green, Taylor, Wichita, McLennan(1+). This leaves 3 districts wholly made up of smaller counties. Two will be in the eastern part of the district, leaving only one truly rural district.

The East Region will have 14 districts. 6 will be anchored by a county with more than a quota: Smith, Jefferson, and Brazos. The surplus of these counties is relatively small, so they could be considered to have a small part of the county outside Tyler, Beaumont-Port Arthur, or Bryan-College Station attached to other counties.

Districts 1 through 9 are in the northeast. I have adopted a numbering scheme that is similar to the current scheme but does a complete renumbering. In previous reapportionment, when a district is eliminated in one area of the state it is moved to a different area of the state.

For example, Williamson County has three districts: HD-20 is a district captured from East Texas that took a bit of Williamson, and then more, and now is dominated by the county; HD-52 is native to the area; and HD-136 used to be in Harris County. When doing a VRA Section 5 analysis the courts would literally compare districts based on numbers.

()

HD-1 (+1.89% relative deviation), -0.169 (change in 2020 district from 2010); Bowie(47%), Harrison(33%), Cass(15%), Marion(5%). Cities: Texarkana, Marshall and Atlanta.

HD-2 (-1.45%), -0.165 change, Lamar(25%), Hopkins(19%), Fannin(18%), Titus(17%), Morris(6%), Red River(6%), Franklin(6%), Delta(3%). Cities: Paris, Mount Pleasant, Sulphur Springs, and Bonham.

HD-3 (+2.15), +0.040 change, Rockwall(52%), Hunt(48%). Cities: Rockwall and Greenville.

HD-4 (+0.97%), +0.014 change, Kaufman(66%), Van Zandt(28%), Rains(6%). Cities: Terrell, Forney, and Canton.

HD-5 (-4.59%), -0.148 change, Henderson(44%), Anderson(30%), Navarro(26%). Cities: Corsicana, Palestine, and Athens.

HD-5 has the largest negative deviation of any district. Adding Freestone to make a compact 4-county district would result in a positive deviation greater than 5%.

HD-6(-1.81), -0.149 change (for HD-6 and HD-7), Smith(100%, 83% of county). City: Tyler.

The division of the county is based on the 2017 5-year ACS for block groups. The survey covers 2013-2017 so it is an average over the 5-year period, assuming steady growth. No attempt was made to project this forward. Based on the 2020 projection for whole counties, it was estimated that this district would include 83% of the 2020 county population. Instead, it includes 83% of the 2015 population. Assuming a larger increase in the Tyler area, the district will likely contract slightly.

As the district wholly in Smith County, with 83% of the population, it must be based on the city of Tyler - or split the city. The district is based largely on the current (2010) district, with an expansion to the north to include Lindale, and the exclusion of Whitehouse in the south. This provides a corridor for HD-7 connecting Wood and Upshur with Cherokee.

HD-7 (-1.81%) Cherokee(27%), Wood(23%), Upshur(22%), Smith(21%, 17% of county), Camp(7%). Cities: Jacksonville, Whitehouse, and Gilmer.

HD-8 (+1.04%) -0.176 change. Gregg(62%), Rusk(26%), Panola(12%). Cities Longview, Kilgore, and Henderson.

Districts 10 through 20 are in the southeast wrapping around Harris County, which will continue to have the highest numbered districts.

()

HD-9 (+0.24% relative deviation), -0.169 (change in 2020 district from 2010); Angelina(45%), Nacogdoches(33%), Shelby(13%), Sabine(5%), San Augustine(4%). Cities, Lufkin, Nacogdoches, and Center.

HD-10 (-1.87%), -0.105 change; Walker(38%), Polk(26%), Houston(12%), Leon(9%), Trinity(8%),
Madison(7%). Cities: Huntsville, West Livingston CDP, and Crockett.

HD-11 (+1.51%), -0.019 change (for HD-11 and HD-12) Waller(27%), Washington(18%), Brazos(17%, 15% of county), Austin(15%), Grimes(14%), Robertson(9%). Cities: Brenham, Sealy, and Navasota.

HD-12 (+1.51%), Brazos(100%, 85% of county). Cites: College Station and Bryan.

Growth in Brazos (associated with TAMU) and Waller (ex/sub-urban Houston) keep the overall population close to the statewide growth rate. The existing district based on Bryan-College Station is maintained with slight expansion to maintain population equality.

HD-13 (+4.90%), +0.428 change (for HD-13, HD-14, and HD-15), Montgomery(100%, 33% of county). Cities: Conroe and Willis.

HD-14 (+4.90%), Montgomery(100%, 33% of county). Cities: New Caney, Magnolia, and Montgomery.

HD-15 (+4.90%), Montgomery(100%, 33% of county). Cities: The Woodlands (CDP).

This largely maintains the current configuration of districts in Montgomery County. Currently, the the middle district also includes Waller County. Because of the growth in Montgomery, Waller can be shed, and all three districts can be (barely) contained in Montgomery County.

Montgomery is projected to grow from 456K to 622K in 2020, and three representatives are apportioned based on that growth. But the internal demarcation of three districts is based on the 2013-2017 ACS, or roughly 2015, with a population of 535K, consistent with it being a mid-decade estimate.

HD-15 is the southern district based on The Woodlands, and by 2015, was already 15% overpopulation. It should have a similar additional excess by 2020, which would be shed to HD-14, the central district. The areas to be removed would be largely east of I-45.

HD-14 is the middle district, and in 2010 included Waller County, which represented about 1/4 of the district. Thus, HD-14 started the decade with around 75% of the population needed for a district. It did make up some ground, but needed to take in the excess from HD-15 and bit more from HD-13.

HD-15 includes Conroe and areas in the northern and eastern areas of the county.

By 2020, it might be possible to have district in the eastern part of the county, but extending into the Willis area in the north, and between The Woodlands and Conroe. The other district would then include Conroe and areas to the west including Magnolia and Montgomery.

HD-16 (-1.06%) -0.075 change. Liberty(44%), Hardin(30%), San Jacinto(15%), Tyler(11%). Cities: Lumberton, Liberty, and Woodville.

HD-17 (-0.46%) -0.301 change (for HD-17 and HD-18). Orange(44%), Jefferson(31%, 23% of county), Jasper(18%), Newton(7%). Cities: Orange, Nederland, Groves, Port Neches, and Vidor.

HD-18 (-0.46%) Jefferson(100%, 77% of county). Cities: Beaumont and Port Arthur.

Currently the two districts are contained by Jefferson and Orange. Newton and Jasper were added to make up for the minimal population growth.

Currently, one district consist of Beaumont and most of Port Arthur, connected by a narrow corridor along the Neches River. The other district consists of the Mid County area (Nederland, Port Neches, and Groves) connected by rural western and southern portions of Jefferson and Sabine Lake with Orange County, in a sort of ungainly Dao symbol, designed to keep the Yins and Yangs apart.

The Beaumont-Port Arthur district may qualify as a Section 5 VRA district, but not as a Section 2 district. The district is not compact (Beaumont and Port Arthur are 20 miles apart and in separate urbanized areas., and as the district has expanded, the black share of the population has declined.

The new configuration contains all of Port Arthur, and connects to Beaumont through the rural western and southern parts of the county. The Mid County area is attached to the other three counties. It does a good job of respecting city boundaries, and maintains the current configuration.

HD-19 (+0.56%) +0.56% 0.064 change (HD-19 and HD-20). Galveston(78%, 44% of county), Chambers(22%). Cities: Galveston, Texas City, and La Marque.

HD-20 (+0.56%) +0.56%. Galveston (100%, 56% of county). Cities: League City, Friendswood, Dickinson, and Santa Fe.

The two districts are contained in the same two counties and 2010, which have grown only slightly faster than the state as a whole. The growth is concentrated in the northern part of Galveston County - Houston suburbs, and Chambers County - sub/ex-urban Houston, with sluggish growth on the island and southern mainland. Only a minor tweak was needed to maintain population balance.

Districts 21 through 30 are on the upper Gulf coast, beginning in Brazoria and Fort Bend counties swing up to the Austin and San Antonio areas and back down to the coast.

()

HD-21 (-3.06%), +0.071 change for (HD-21 and HD-22) Brazoria (100%, 50% of county) Cities: Lake Jackson, Angleton, Freeport, and Clute.

HD-22 (-3.06%). Brazoria (100%, 50% of county) Cities: Pearland and Alvin.

In 2010 , Brazoria included Matagorda for its second seat. With two districts in the county, the boundary is moved northwards to balance population. As shown, the boundary is beginning to intrude on Alvin, but that is based on 2015 population. By 2020 it might be clear of Alvin. Or if an effort is made to avoid splitting cities, it might make sense to bring the boundary north in the Manvel area, and keep it south of Alvin.

HD-23 (+1.69%) change for (H-23, -24, -25, -26, and -27) Fort Bend (100%, 24% of county). Cities: Missouri City, Houston, Fresno CDP, and Sienna CDP.

HD-24 (+1.69%) Fort Bend (100%, 24% of county). Cities: Sugar Land and Stafford.

HD-25 (+1.69%) Fort Bend (100%, 24% of county). Cities: Mission Bend CDP, Rosenberg, Pecan Grove CDP, Richmond, and Four Corners CDP.

HD-26 (+1.69%) Fort Bend (100%, 24% of county). Cities: Cinco Ranch CDP.

HD-27 (+1.69%) Fort Bend(21%, 5% of county), Wharton(21%), Matagorda(18%), Calhoun(11%), Colorado(11%), Lavaca(10%), Jackson(8%). Cities Bay City, Port Lavaca, and El Campo.

In 2010, Fort Bend was entitled to 3.487 representatives, which was recognized by three districts along the Harris County line, and about half a district that included Richmond and Rosenberg and counties to the west.

By 2020, Fort Bend will be entitled to 4.286 representatives, which will include four suburban seats and a much smaller more rural area attached to the west.

I started by contracting the southern (Missouri City) and northern (Cinco Ranch) districts, and then isolated the area west (south) of the Brazos River. But this was more than needed for the western district. So I removed Richmond, Rosenberg, and Greatwood (which has been annexed to Sugar Land). This gave a largely still rural area.

The remainder of the area was added to the central (Sugar Land) district, giving it a population equivalent to two districts. I split this east-west. The Richmond-Rosenberg district was way short, but if the Sugar Land district was contracted largely to Sugar Land only, the remnant could be added to the Richmond-Rosenberg district. This is somewhat of a hodge-podge district, extending from Rosenberg to Mission Bend, but some of the area is served by the Richmond-Rosenberg school district (Lamar Consolidated) and is clearly neither Sugar Land or Cinco Ranch.

HD-28 (-1.55%) -0.033 change. Bastrop(46%), Caldwell(23%), Fayette(13%), Burleson(9%), and Lee(9%). Cities: Lockhart, Elgin, and Giddings.

HD-29 (-2.26%) +0.075 change. Guadalupe(89%), Gonzales(11%)..Cities: Schertz, Cibolo, and New Braunfels.

HD-30 (-0.51%) -0.074 change. Victoria(48%), Wilson(26%), DeWitt(10%), Karnes(8%), Goliad(4%), Refugio(4%). Cities: Victoria, Cuero, and Floresville.

Districts 34 through 40 are in the Lower Rio Grande Valley and counties northward along the coast.

()

HD-34 (+0.20%) -0.400 change (for HD-34 through HD-40, 7 districts, -0.57 per district). Hidalgo(52%, 12% of county), Cameron(17%, 8% of county), Kleberg(16%), Willacy(11%), Brooks(4%), Kenedy(0%). Cities: Weslaco, Kingsville, Mercedes, and Raymondville.

HD-35 (+0.20%). Cameron(100%, 46% of county). Cities: Brownsville.

HD-36 (+0.20%). Cameron(100%, 46% of county). Cities: Harlingen and San Benito.

HD-37 (+0.20%). Hidalgo(100%, 22% of county). Cities: Pharr, San Juan, Alamo, and Donna.

HD-38 (+0.20%). Hidalgo(100%, 22% of county). Cities: Edinburg.

HD-39 (+0.20%). Hidalgo(100%, 22% of county). Cities: McAllen, Alton, and Hidalgo.

HD-40 (+0.20%). Hidalgo(100%, 22% of county). Cities: Mission and La Homa CDP.

In 2010, Hidalgo was entitled to 4.632 districts, and Cameron was entitled to 2.432 districts. Hidalgo had 4 districts wholly in the county, Cameron had 2 districts wholly in the county, and they shared a 7th district.

By 2020, Hidalgo will be entitled to 4.532 districts, and Cameron will be entitled to 2.179 districts. Thus they will need to have additional counties added to maintain the seventh district.

In 2011, the legislature had placed the surplus of the two counties in two different districts, the one for Cameron heading north, and that for Hidalgo heading west. During the early litigation, the surpluses for the two counties were joined together. Since the surplus for Hidalgo was in the western part of tha county, a connection to Cameron County was made through the sparsely populated northern part of the county. I don't think there a road connection, and the fastest direct route went through most of the other districts. It also resulted in Harlingen being split to get enough population to be joined in a district in western Hidalgo. This in turn resulted in Brownsville being split to get enough population to compensate for the division of Harlingen.

In the 2012 Democratic Primary, Oscar Longoria from Mission in Hidalgo County defeated Guz Ruiz from Harlingen in Cameron County by a 55% to 45% margin. Longoria received 63% of the vote in his home county, while Ruiz garnered 60% of the vote in his. Longoria won because more votes were cast in Hidalgo County. This is the problem with trying to create "competitive" districts by combining disparate areas - there is no middle ground. Since that 2012 primary, Longoria has not faced an opponent in the primary or general election since then.

I initially started with Cameron, by modifying the existing districts so that one contained most of Brownsville and the other Harlingen and San Benito. This was fairly easy to do since the surplus population is reduced to about 35,000 (0.175 districts). By 2030, it is likely that no surplus will exist in Cameron, and there will only be two districts in the county. The surplus area was generally in the less populated area to the east of Harlingen and north of Brownsville. Because the surplus areas may be connected through the other counties, there is no requirement that they be adjacent.

The current districts in Hidalgo were relatively close to the ideal population, with the more southern districts underpopulated, and those further north near the quota or above it. Population growth is generally northward away from the Rio Grande. Adjustments were made to equalize population, and reduce the irregular shapes of the districts.

I then tried to reduce or eliminate splits of cities. McAllen in particular was chopped up. If McAllen is placed in its own district, then Mission, Pharr, and Edinburg must be placed in other districts. The surplus was shifted around to the eastern edge of the county, including Mercedes and Weslaco. I then shifted the surplus in Cameron around to the western edge of Cameron in the La Feria area to match up with the Hidalgo surplus, so that the shared district is along the county line. About 70% of the district is in the two counties, with the other counties added to make up the population.

Quote from: Kevinstat on February 13, 2019, 07:38:03 PM

Quote from: jimrtex on January 17, 2019, 03:13:48 AM

McLennan is entitled to 1.3 districts and can not be combined with Bell.

Why not? 1.304 + 1.838 = 3.142, and 3.142 ÷ 3 = 1.047333.... Can "whole district plus remainder" counties only be combined with each other (and nothing else) if the result is below an even integer quota (but within range)?

Historically, they might have placed Bell and McLennan in a floterial district even though the surpluses added to 1.142. The 5% limit did not apply then.

I have always included the total population in determining the deviation. Recall the 10% deviation limit comes from the Texas House, after SCOTUS noted that they had accepted that much deviation.

White v Regester (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6182301063213993071&hl=en&as_sdt=6,44)

At the time (1972), Texas still had multi-member districts, and the court calculated deviation based on their total population. The SCOTUS while overturning the district court decision on equal population grounds, upheld the lower court's ruling on outlawing multi-member districts in Dallas and Bexar counties on VRA grounds. That decision would later be applied to all multi-member districts except in Hidalgo.

Since then Texas has always had single-member districts, and deviation has been calculated for each district. My deviation assumes that the multi-district areas would be subdivided into equal population district. It is at least feasible to do so, even though the division might be somewhat ugly, with one small area divided at the census block area.

Currently, deviation is calculated based on the single member districts, so your calculation of a 4.7% deviation is saying that it would be possible to draw three districts with an average deviation of 4.7% (and therefore all under 5%).

My base plan has 3 pairs of counties with a surplus (Collin-Denton, Cameron-Hidalgo, and Hays-Travis). The Cameron-Hidalgo and Hays-Comal pairing also include other counties. Under the 2010 plan, McLennan and Brazos counties are paired, with their shared district stretching between the two.

My criteria would be:

(1) Fewest divided smaller counties (population less than a quota). Ideally, this would be zero, but that has not been achieved (1970-2010, five plans). These are clearly violations of the Texas Constitution.

(2) Fewest larger counties with an area containing a surplus. This violates the Texas Constitution, but is consistent with the apportionment principles. It is OK to elect from 4 single-member districts within a county because the constitution is silent on the manner of election. It is similar to the US Constitution in this regard. It is not OK to elect from 4.5 single-member districts within a county.

(3) Fewest districts containing surplus areas. These are the by-product of the elimination of floterial districts. This has not clearly been litigated, though it was argued that the pairing of Cameron and Hidalgo was required in 2010. This was more a ploy related to political and VRA grounds (i.e. a district going north might cause the re-election of a Hispanic Republican who had switched party; or it was discriminatory), It was a partisan objective in search of a principle.

This is why I have paired Hays and Travis, and reinforced a decision to pair Collin and Denton, and Cameron and Hidalgo (these latter two makes sense on COI reasons as well).

Guidance to the legislature has been that Type 2 violations should only be be used to avoid going outside the 5% limit. I disagree with this conclusion. I believe that Type 2 violations are clearly preferred to Type 1 violations.

In 2010, Dallas was entitled to 14.118 representatives, and was given fourteen districts with an average deviation of 0.08%. Ellis was entitled to 0.892 districts. By itself it was too small, -10.8%. With its smallest neighbor of Hill, it had a deviation of +10.1%. Both are way outside range. As a result, Henderson was divided with a small sliver attached to Ellis. Besides splitting the smaller county, the connection between Ellis and Henderson is quite tenuous.

If Ellis has been paired with Dallas, then the combined deviation would have been 0.01%. The Ellis County district would have have intruded into Dallas County by about 17,000 persons and there are three cities, Cedar Hill, Glenn Heights, and Ferris on the border.

In 2020. Ellis will be entitled to 0.930 districts, and Dallas 13.766. I thought it dubious to claim that a surplus of 0.766 to a county with 0.930 complied with the constitution, even though the collective deviation for 15 districts would only be 2.0%.

All of this argues in favor of your proposed Bell-McLennan pairing. The problem is that it leaves leftovers of Coryell+Bosque = 0.481 districts, and Freestone+Limestone+Falls+Milam = 0.432 districts. These are not contiguous, besides having a collective deviation of -8.7%. You could add in Hill and Ellis and split Hill. The split in Hill would replace that of Johnson, so it is neutral in that regard. The Coryell to Milam loop district is quite ugly, but that is not disqualifying. But Johnson would have to be combined with Somervell and Bosque, which breaks the continuity of the ring district.

If you have ever drawn house districts starting in Aroostook and ending in York you have probably got near the end and realized that you have population for 4.5 districts with four to be drawn. It is better to allocate areas with a large number of districts, and draw within them if possible. You might have larger counties such as York, Cumberland, and Androscoggin, and the coastal counties east of Brunswick, and the inland counties such as Oxford, Franklin, and Somerset, and the northern counties Aroostook, Penobscot, and Washington. Kennebec and Piscataquis might be wild cards, placed in a way that would result in a whole number of districts.

I did something similar, with areas in east and west Texas, with McLennan serving as a buffer. The counties placed on either side of McLennan and to a lesser extent Bell were mainly to get a whole number of districts in both east and west Texas.

If we tried to absorb the counties to the west and added a new district, there would be an average deficit of about 3.5%. It is difficult to achieve that amount consistently, while having no districts with a deficit below 5%. At the same time there would be a surplus of population in eastern Texas, because we can only add one district between east and west. This would require a consistent surplus in the east of about 3.5%. Even if this is possible, it might violate equal protection, to consistently underpopulate districts in one part of the state and overpopulate them in another. The Texas Constitution requires apportionment to be "as near as may be" within whole county constraints.

If we don't buffer across McLennan then we have to go south below Bexar. We can't go north of Dallas, because the Grayson-Cooke-Montague district is the only way to draw Grayson into a district, except if placed with Collin. And that splits the Denton-Collin pair, and there would still be a hard boundary between Grayson and Fannin.

I may have biased my analysis by assuming that McLennan would be used as the buffer. The placement of two separate blocks of counties connected by McLennan was deliberate.

It is not totally clear that fewer type (3) districts is actually favored. So for now a McLennan-Bell pairing is rejected.

It appears possible to connect Brazos and Fort Bend, and not have large-scale side effects.

Districts 44 through 58 are along I-35 north of San Antonio through Temple.

()

HD-44 (+0.86%) -0.069 change (in 2020 district relative to 2010) Kerr(26%), Burnet(24%), Gillespie(14%), Bandera(12%), Llano(11%), Lampasas(11%), Mason(2%). Cities: Kerrville, Fredericksburg, and Lampasas.

HD-45 (+3.56%) 0.189 change. Comal(76%), Kendall(24%). Cities: New Braunfels, Canyon Lake CDP, and Boerne.

HD-46 (-0.89%) 0.818 change for HD-46 through HD-53 (0.102 per district). Hays(100%, 82% of county). Cities: San Marcos and Kyle.

HD-47 (-0.89%) Travis(71%, 11% of county), Hays(23%, 18% of county), Blanco(6%). Cities: Lakeway, Wimberly, and Blanco.

In 2010, Hays and Blanco shared a district. Hays will grow almost 1/4 a district, and will be divided. HD-46 is the suburban area south of Austin and on south to San Marcos.

The western part of the county, including Dripping Springs and Wimberly will be place in HD-47 with the western part of Travis and Blanco. The somewhat irregular shape of the border is because of the shape of block groups in the Hill Country, and the desire to keep Dripping Springs and Wimberly and environs together.

HD-48 (-0.89%) Travis(100%, 15% of county). Cities: Austin (south of US 290)

HD-49 (-0.89%) Travis(100%, 15% of county). Cities: Austin (west of MoPac)

HD-50 (-0.89%) Travis(100%, 15% of county). Cities: Austin (between MoPac and I-35, north of Colorado River)

HD-51 (-0.89%) Travis(100%, 15% of county). Cities: Austin (southeast, south of Colorado River)

HD-52 (-0.89%) Travis(100%, 15% of county). Cities: Austin (northeast, east of I-35, north of Colorado River)

HD-53 (-0.89%) Travis(100%, 15% of county). Cities: Pflugerville, Wells Branch CDP , and Austin (far north, north of Howard Lane)

Currently Travis County has six representatives. In 2020, it will be entitled to 6.647 representatives. Currently, the district west of Austin in the Hill Country includes about 1/3 of the district in south Austin along the Hays county line. The area west of Austin is placed in HD-47 with western Hays and Blanco.

In a sense, HD-48 is a new district, starting with the remnant third of the otherwise-west Travis District, expanding northward. This forced the two central districts, I-49 and I-50, northward, maintaining the MoPac and I-35 divisions.

HD-51 and HD-52 to the east of I-35 have VRA implications, essentially being on the wrong side of the highway through town. HD-51 is a Hispanic majority district and is little changed except for reasons of population balance and cleaning up the boundaries some, including moving the district south of the Colorado River.

HD-52 was at one time a black majority district, that currently has an ungainly hook through Manor and Pflugerville. In 2010, the equivalent district was only 21% black. The city of Austin redistricting commission deliberately drew a black opportunity city council district, and could only get it up to 28%. Moreover, the same area had been 39% black at the time of the 2010 Census. But House districts are more than twice the population of a city council district. If you can only gather 28% of the black effort, it will plummet as you expand the area in the district.

Blacks are not moving to Austin in the same numbers that whites, Hispanics, and Asians are. And those that are, are not restricted to living in East Austin. Pflugerville and Manor have not unnoticeable black populations of around 15% as people who can afford better homes and schools move out. The 11-term incumbent Rep. Dawnna Dukes was scandal ridden, first pledging to resign, and then deciding to run. She finished 3rd in the 2018 Democratic primary with 10% of the vote. In the primary runoff, the black candidate narrowly defeated the Hispanic candidate.

HD-53 keeps out of the city limits of Austin as much as possible.

HD-54 (+1.90%) Change 0.537 (for HD-54, HD-55, and HD-56, 0.179 per 3 HD). Williamson(100%, 33% of county). Cities: Cedar Park, Austin(extreme north), and Leander.

HD-55 (+1.90%) Williamson(100%, 33% of county). Cities: Round Rock and Brushy Creek CDP.

HD-56 (+1.90%) Williamson(100%, 33% of county). Cities: Georgetown, Taylor, and Hutto.

In 2010, Williamson had to include Milam and Burnet to have enough population for three districts. In 2020, it will shed the two other counties. Currently, Williamson comprises about 60% of the third district. Thus it needs considerable expansion to make up for the loss of the other counties, while the southern districts adjacent to Travis County need to be trimmed some.

The northern district picks up the emerging suburbs of Taylor and Hutto, and the boundary is shifted south to a more neutral location between Georgetown and Round Rock. Bushy Creek is shifted into the Round Rock district for population balance.

HD-57 (-1.71%) Change -0.032 (for HD-57 and HD-58, -0.016 per two districts). Bell(100%, 54% of county). Cities: Killeen, Harker Heights, Fort Hood CDP.

HD-58 (-1.71%) Bell(87%, 46% of county), Milam(13%). Cities Temple amd Belton.

In 2010, Bell was combined with Lampasas to create two districts. This resulted in the division of Killeen. Placing Milam with Bell reduces the deviation and produces a better division of Bell.

The irregularity of HD-57 is because it follows part of the boundary of Fort Hood, and that it was necessary to trim very closely around the outskirts of Killeen and Harker Heights for population balance reasons. Nolanville is in HD-58 for that reason.

Districts 59 through 63 are south and west of DFW.

()

HD-59 (+4.05%) -0.243 change (for HD-59 and HD-60, -0.122 per two districts). Coryell(36%), McLennan(25%, 20% of county), Limestone(11%), Freestone(10%), Bosque(9%), Falls(8%). Cities: Copperas Cove, Gatesville. and Fort Hood CDP.

HD-60(+4.05%) McLennan(100%, 80% of county). Cities: Waco, Hewitt, and Robinson.

Currently, McLennan is in a group of counties stretching down to Brazos, where McLennan and Brazos each have a district, and then there is one district containing surpluses from the two large counties along with three rural counties in between. In 2020, the envisioned configuration is that the district would serve as a population buffer between East Texas and West Texas, with the McLennan district focused on Waco, in sort of a doughnut configuration.

The current district lines chop up Waco, so they were ignored. Instead HD-60 consists of the city of Waco, and neighboring cities of Bellmead and Lacy-Lakeview to the east, Hewitt and Woodway to the west, and Robinson to the south. The district extends out a bit further because it uses block groups, and to get enough population.

HD-61 (-0.36%) -0.009 change (for HD-61 and HD-62, -0.005 per two districts). Johnson(82%, 93% of county), Hill(18%). Cities: Cleburne, Burleson, and Hillsboro.

HD-62 (-0.36%). Ellis(93%), Johnson(7%, 7% of county). Cities: Waxahachie, Ennis, Midlothian, and Red Oak.

Ellis is just short of being able to have its own district (0.929) and there is not an adjacent smaller county that will not put the district more than 5% above the quota. Both Dallas and Tarrant have large surpluses (0.766 and 0.907, respectively) that are not complementary to that of Ellis. This requires a division of a smaller county in violation of the Texas Constitution, but necessary to comply with equal protection under the US Constitution.

Texas could conceivably argue that a single district with a deviation of 7.1% is not a gross violation of equal protection.

The SCOTUS has said that the 10% overall range is the threshold for a burden shifting. If the range is below 10%, the plaintiff must prove that there is a violation of equal protection. If all Democratic districts were deliberately underpopulated by 4.9% and all the Republican districts were deliberately overpopulated by 4.9%, this might support a case based on a claim of political gerrymandering. The SCOTUS has rejected such an argument in the case of the Arizona legislature. There, the state redistricting commission argued that it was necessary for compliance with the VRA to underpopulate minority districts (that happened to vote Democratic). A more cynical reading is that conservative justices were opposed to the justiciablity of partisan gerrymandering claims, and the liberal justices were not inclined to rule against a plan that favored Democrats.

Texas is unlikely to change a practice that has resulted in only one or two exceptions over the past five redistricting cycles, in particular since the 10% range was based on Texas litigation.

Ellis, Johnson, and Hill are collectively entitled to 1.993 districts. A tiny sliver of Johnson is appended to Ellis. This area includes the Johnson portion of Mansfield and Venus, both of which slightly intrude into Ellis (the largest share of Mansfield is in Tarrant). The remainder of Johnson is placed in a district with Hill.

HD-63 (+1.99%) Change +0.017. Parker(70%), Hood(30%). Cities: Weatherford and Granbury.

This is a multi-county (two counties) comprised of two suburban counties west and southwest of Fort Worth.

Districts 64 to 74 are to the north of DFW.

()

HD-64 (-0.55%) Change 1.327 (districts HD-64 through HD-73, 0.133 per 10 districts). Denton(100%, 21% of county). Cities: Flower Mound.

HD-65 (-0.55%) Denton(100%, 21% of county). Cities: Denton

HD-66 (-0.55%) Denton(100%, 21% of county). Cities: Lewisville, Corinth, and Highland Village.

HD-67 (-0.55%) Denton(100%, 21% of county). Cities: Carrollton, The Colony, and Dallas.

HD-68 (-0.55%) Denton(65%, 14% of county), Collin(35%, 7% of county). Cities: Frisco and Little Elm.

HD-69 (-0.55%) Collin(100%, 19% of county) Cities: Plano and Dallas.

HD-70 (-0.55%) Collin(100%, 19% of county) Cities: Plano and Richardson.

HD-71 (-0.55%) Collin(100%, 19% of county) Cities: Allen, Murphy, and Plano.

HD-72 (-0.55%) Collin(100%, 19% of county) Cities: McKinney.

HD-73 (-0.55%) Collin(100%, 19% of county) Cities: Wylie and Frisco.

In 2010, Denton had four districts, while Collin had four districts wholly within the county and shared a fifth with Rockwall. Both counties gained about 2/3 of a district during the decade, so that Denton will have four whole districts, and the major part of a 5th district, and Collin will have 5 whole districts and part of a 6th.

Collectively, the population of the two counties is equivalent to 9.945 districts, so the two districts will share the 10th district, with 65% in Denton and 35% in Collin. Since Frisco sprawls across the county line, it was decided to make that the core of the shared district. In the 2010 map, the Collin-Rockwall district includes Frisco, and a narrow corridor the western, northern, and eastern boundaries of Collin to reach Rockwall. Population-wise it is very much a barbell that some Supergerryman has bent as if it were a coat-hanger.

In Denton, the initial plan was to retain the basic configuration of the current four districts, but placing Frisco in the inter-county district.

Lewisville is currently divided between two districts. A particular goal of this exercise is to keep cities whole, so that was done here. Currently, the eastern part of Lewisville is in a district that includes the Denton portions of Carrollton and the city of Dallas. The Dallas portion is isolated by Carrollton, so it essentially treated as part of Carrollton. But Lewisville, can not be placed with Carrolton and kept whole.

Separating Carrollton from Lewisville, requires the Carrollton district to go northward picking up The Colony, and pieces of Plano, Hebron, and a small bit of Frisco for population balance. These areas are largely chosen because they are not Lewisville or Frisco.

Lewisville could be placed in a district with Flower Mound. Such a district would consist of little more than the two cities, and require other districts to piece together disparate parts of the county,

So instead the Lewisville district expands northward around Lewisville Lake. There is road connectivity to these areas, including by I-35. Lewisville itself is below the dam, with numerous smaller communities around the lake.

Separating Flower Mound from Lewisville, creates a district based on Flower Mound, which is over a third of the district. To get sufficient population this district stretches around the western side of the city of Denton.

The district that includes the city of Denton also includes the northeast part of the county, an area that is just beginning to fill.

To get the required population for the inter-county district, Little Elm was added to the west of Frisco.

In Collin, the initial goal was to maintain the four existing districts, and create the fifth from the district that extended into Rockwall, after removing Frisco. This left a thin strip extending around three sides of the county with only about 13% of the necessary population. It would have to be fattened.

Currently, Allen is divided between two districts, and Plano between three districts. Plano could fit into two districts, but it would have to lose the strip of the cities of Dallas and Richardson that extend into Collin. Dropping those areas, would have created a narrow panhandle (about 14 miles long by two miles wide), and required adding population to get enough for two Plano-based districts.

Instead, the cities of Dallas and Richardson were treated as being part of Plano. This left a small area of Plano to be trimmed off. The area chosen was to the west of Allen, continuing the city limits of Allen westward.

The Allen district then incorporated population to its east and southeast. The somewhat irregular boundary is due to avoiding including Wylie, which would add too much population, as well as the shapes of some block groups in undeveloped, or developing areas.

The portion of Frisco in Collin is more than is needed for the inter-county district. Initially, I trimmed an area to the east which was added to McKinney. But this produced a district that would have required division of McKinney.

Instead, the division of Frisco was re-oriented so that the excess population could be added to the outer district that runs from Frisco to Wylie. While ungainly, it recognizes McKinney, Allen, and Plano as cores for the other four districts. Rather than dividing those cities, we have a district that aggregates less populated cities.

It should be remembered that the division of fast-growing counties is illustrative. While the apportionment to counties is based on projection of 2017 estimates to 2020, the population of block groups is based on the 2013-2017 ACS, or roughly 2015 populations. Thus there is an assumption that internal growth within a county will be uniform between 2015 and 2020.

This is unlikely. Areas that developed 25-30 years ago, may see declines as children reach adulthood, while newly developing areas will see explosive growth. Most of the approximately 140,000 population growth between 2015 and 2020 will occur in areas of new construction (single family and apartments). There will be some growth in recently developed areas, as children are added, while maturing areas will see some declines as children reach adulthood.

HD-74 (-1.23) Change -0.080. Grayson(69%), Cooke(21%), and Montague(10%). Cities: Sherman, Dennison, and Gainesville.

This is the only combination of smaller counties that Grayson can be a part of.

Districts 75 through 79 are in El Paso and counties to its east. Only El Paso is shown.

()

HD-75 (+0.55%) Change -0.556 (HD-75 through HD-79, -0.111 per 5 districts). El Paso(100%, 23% of county). Cities: El Paso

HD-76 (+0.55%) Change -0.556 (HD-75 through HD-79, -0.111 per 5 districts). El Paso(100%, 23% of county). Cities: El Paso

HD-77 (+0.55%) Change -0.556 (HD-75 through HD-79, -0.111 per 5 districts). El Paso(100%, 23% of county). Cities: El Paso

HD-78 (+0.55%) Change -0.556 (HD-75 through HD-79, -0.111 per 5 districts). El Paso(100%, 23% of county). Cities: El Paso and Horizon City.

HD-79 (+0.55%) El Paso(31%, 7% of county), Val Verde(25%), Reeves(8%), Pecos(8%), Ward(6%), Brewster(5%), Presidio(3%), Hudspeth(2%), Kimble(2%), Sutton(2%), Crockett(2%), Schleicher(1%), Jeff Davis(1%), Culberson(1%), Menard(1%), Edwards(1%), Terrell(0%), Loving(0%). Cities: Socorro, Del Rio, and San Elizario CDP.

In 2010, El Paso barely retained 5 seats in the county, with the districts on average underpopulated by -4.48%. Relatively slow growth results in loss of the 5th seat. Now that the districts can be brought up to a full quota, the remaining districts must gain additional population.

El Paso faces a number of geographical constraints. The name of the city denotes that it is located at a pass between the Franklin Mountains and the Rio Grande. Expansion to the south and west would be into Mexico. Expansion to the north runs into the Franklin Mountains. Fort Bliss is to the northeast. The available areas to the northwest and north-northwest are largely developed. This means the only way for expansion is to the east, where the constraint is access to municipal water. roads, etc. Rather than hopscotching about based on developer's acquiring farmland, the development is fairly sequential, with a section being opened up at a time ever eastward.

El Paso has had five house districts for the last four redistricting cycles, so adjustments have been internal to El Paso since the 1980 redistricting. There were two plans in the 1990s as Ann Richards called a special session in 1992 to redraw congressional, senate, and house districts. Due to litigation, the wildly gerrymandered districts did not take effect until 1994. In 2001, after the legislature failed to redistrict, the Legislative Redistricting Board drew more rational districts, which were adjusted by the legislature and the courts in 2011.

Beginning with the westernmost district, I added enough population to get to the quota. This district is currently in two sections divided by the Franklin Mountains, with about 1/3 of the district to the east of the mountains. I did not attempt to resolve this split.

This pushed the next district which includes the central portion of El Paso to the east. I included the populated portions of Fort Bliss for population reasons and to make the district appear more regular.

The next district was extended southeast to the El Paso city limits, but most of the addition was north of I-10 and south of the El Paso Airport. In 2010, about 12% of the district was in this area, and now around 57% of the district is in this area.

The fourth district, having lost almost half its population is extended to Hudspeth county line, and takes in not only the easternmost part of El Paso, but areas beyond.

The remnant of the fifth district is an area south of I-10 along the Rio Grande. While only 7% of El Paso, it is 31% of the district, This area was chosen because it includes smaller towns in irrigated farmland along the river, and I-10 provides a way to get to the remainder of the district.

Quote from: Oryxslayer on February 25, 2019, 12:55:04 PM

BTW, here is the 2018 results on the current map:

()

Credit to @emilshabanovTX. Beto also lost the South Tarrant seat by 91 votes, so there is another close one.

East Texas

Excludes DFW, Houston, and San Antonio suburbs and I-35 corridor. Includes Grayson, and districts east of I-37. (districts 1-2, 5-9, 11-19, 21-22, 30, 57, and 62)

Current 18RC/1DO.
2020: 15R/1D

Population loss is exaggerated due to Rockwall, Fort Bend, and McLennan seats extending into areas of East Texas. Loss over 2020 seats, 1.66 districts.

The only Democratic seat is in Beaumont-Port Arthur, which was 33% Cruz. While the district will become more Republican it will remain a Democratic hold. The only close district was in Bryan-College Station. There appears to be considerable Betomania on college campuses. I can't see that being duplicated by any other Democrat.

Warren is old. Biden is old. Booker is black. Harris is black. Sanders is old, and has that awful accent.

Houston Suburbs

Montgomery, Galveston, Brazoria, Fort Bend (Districts 3, 15-16, 23-29)

Current 9RC, 2DO,
2020: 10R, 2D.

Gain 1.244 seats.

The Sugar Land seat will become more Democratic. It currently has some odd extensions to (try) to keep it Republican, plus the district will shift towards the southeast a bit.

The northern Brazoria district will be pushed to the north and could be more competitive. The added seat in Fort Bend could be competitive, while the other two will become more Republican.

Border

I-37 and south, south of San Antonio and Hill Country, and Trans-Pecos. Includes Corpus Christi, Brownsville, McAllen, Laredo, and El Paso. (districts 31-32, 34-43, 74-80)

Current: 17DO, 2RC
2020: 14D, 4R to 13D, 5R

The areas loses -1.424 districts. To avoid losing a second district, the districts are pushed northward. This makes the two Republican seats safer, and could flip three other seats. Abbott carried two O'Rourke seats. HD-31 and HD-34. HD-31 disappears, but will provide Republican votes in the northern part of the district. HD-34, the western Nueces district expands to the east making it a bit more Republican.

Cruz carried the new district between Eagle Pass and San Antonio, which is currently chopped up between four districts. Cruz piled up big margins in Medina, offsetting Maverick. Cruz also carried Uvalde, Kinney, and Real, and was competitive in Frio and La Salle.

The Trans-Pecos district may flip as it loses Maverick and pushes east into the Hill Country. The only thing that keeps it competitive is the bit of El Paso that is added, and it likely got a favorite son boost for O'Rourke. El Paso loses a district.

San Antonio Suburbs

(districts 44 and 73). Gains 0.264

Current: 2RC
2020: 2RC

No change.

I-35 Corridor

San Marcos to Waco (districts 20, 45-52, 54-56, 136). Gains 1.079 districts, but two districts are added, since the Waco doughnut is both in east and west Texas (this accounts for one of the extra losses attributed to East Texas).

Current: 4RC, 9DO
2020: 6R, 9D

The Democrats pick up the new district in south Austin, but loss of this area and moving into western Hays and Blanco, shifts HD-47 back into the R column (Abbott carried the district as it is). The Republicans will also pick up the Waco doughnut district that is classified here as an I-35 seat. Democrats will be more competitive in the Killeen seat as it loses Lampasas.

DFW Suburbs

Rockwall, Kaufman, Ellis, Johnson, Parker, Denton, and Collin (disricts 4, 10, 33, 58, 61, 63-67, 70, 89, and 106). Gains 1.602, but two seats because of Hunt, Kaufman, and Johnson districts extending outward.

Current: 9RC, 4DO
2020: 11R, 4D to 15R, 0D.

Abbott carried the 4 Collin and Denton districts that O'Rourke carried. The new districts will be Republican.

Quote from: Trump/Straight R 2018/Harris 2020 Voter on February 26, 2019, 05:36:42 PM

Why can't the texas GOP gerrymander the Beoumont district? Is it VRA protected?

It may have been, particularly under Section 5. It might not be now, because it likely fails the Gingles test. As Texas population increases, district sizes increase.

Jefferson(Beaumont-Port Arthur) and Smith(Tyler) are the only two counties with enough population to be carved into house districts. Smaller counties have to be assembled into districts made up of whole counties. Tyler is a strong Republican area, because of its urban population and the legacy of the East Texas Field. It was electing Republicans when no other areas along the eastern border were electing Democrats. In 2000, there were 13D's and 3 R's from the area. 8 of the D's had no general election opponent.

Many of the D's were WD40's (white Democrats over 40, with their hair slicked back).

Beaumont and Port Arthur have a strong union presence because of the refineries and ship building. Those who made their money in Spindletop have long ago moved on. Beaumont had a significant population. It formed a second tier with cities like Waco, Austin, Corpus Christi, and El Paso (behind Houston, San Antonio, Dallas and Fort Worth). But it has stagnated. The population of Jefferson County is roughly the same as it was in 1960, while that of Texas has tripled.

In the 1970's, Jefferson County had three representatives, and part of another district. The 1970's decision that required election from single-member districts, was because of minority voters being outvoted in at-large elections. So in Jefferson County, you could create a black district. In a smaller county with a 30% black population, and one district, you have a district with a significant black population. If there are three districts, you can create one with at least a majority black population.

Because of the stagnant population, residential segregation patterns have persisted. In a more dynamic economy, middle class blacks can move to new housing in the suburbs. If the population is static, you only have to build enough to account for reduced family sizes (more households for the same population) or replacement housing for low quality houses. Some of the that can be built in the same neighborhoods.

Jefferson County is 34% black. Beaumont is 47% black, Port Arthur 42%, Nederland 4%, Groves 1%, Port Neches 1% (the three Mid-County cities have about 50,000 persons, so they are not insignificant enclaves.

Elsewhere, Democrats were gradually defeated. This was particularly true after redistricting. Because of the requirement of districts being made up whole counties, and a declining population share, the districts are necessarily radically changed. Sometimes two incumbents would be paired, and one would lose the Democratic primary. Or they might have an unfamiliar county added to the district, removing a familiar county.

Bob Johnson (incumbent) won't be the incumbent in the new district. Ballots in Texas don't indicate incumbents. Voters won't recognize the name. If told that he owns an insurance agency, restaurant, etc. over in Hopperville, they might reply, "I haven't been to Hopperville in ages", or remember when the Hopperville Hoppers kept the local Loopertown Leapords out of the state playoffs. Johnson is a stranger to them.

When Democrats were the majority in the Texas House (up until 2002), being a Democrat was an advantage, since it meant better committee assignments.

As time went on, Republicans became dominant at the presidential and state levels. But you could still vote in the Democratic primary where county officers and legislators were chosen. Remember that Rick Perry was a Democratic legislator, and claims he had never met a Republican until he went away to college. He was from west Texas, but for this discussion it is no different. Sometime, all the county commissioners, and other county officials would announce that they would be running as Republicans. Texas does not have party registration, you can choose your party every two years.

In 2004, 2006, and 2008 Chuck Hopson(D) narrowly won re-election, the last time by 120 votes, when he received less than 50% of the vote due to a Libertarian candidate. In 2010, Chuck Hopson(now R) was easily re-elected with 76% of the vote. His district was changed by the 2012 redistricting, adding Nacogdoches which was more than half the new district. He lost in the primary.

In 2010, Republicans won 11 of 13 East Texas seats, including three they finally flipped that year. Six of the incumbents were unopposed. After the election, one of the two Democrats, Allan Ritter joined the Republican caucus. Along with two other post-election party switchers, Republicans reached their maximum of 101 of 150 House members.

By the 1990's redistricting, Jefferson had been reduced to 2 whole districts and a small fraction of a third. If an area's population is static, while the state's populations is tripling then, the representation for the county will be reduced by 2/3. This is what happened in Jefferson as its representation has decreased from 4 districts to 1-1/3 districts between 1960 and 2020.

Democrats controlled the 1990's redistricting and their aggressive gerrymandering for Congress, the Senate, and House resulted in more minority House districts. In Jefferson, they created a black district, a white district, and the little bit of the Mid County area was added to an inter-county district. At this time, all would be Democratic districts.

The 2000's redistricting was the first to be controlled by Republicans. A Democratic-controlled House, and a Republican-controlled Senate were unable to agree on legislative districts. Under the Texas Constitution, redistricting in that case was done by the Legislative Redistricting Board, which is comprised of statewide office holders, whom were then all Republican except for House Speaker Pete Laney.

Statewide, they simply corrected many of the excesses of the Democratic gerrymander in larger counties. They eliminated districts in rural areas, and added districts in suburbs. At the time, the eliminated rural seats were not necessarily Republican-held, but the new suburban seats would be.

Jefferson was down to about 1.8 districts. Ordinarily, Jefferson would have been joined with Chambers, but Chambers was the only option for Galveston as well. This meant that the Texas Constitution had to be violated in order to comply with OMOV (or for the LRB to discover that Galveston could have been paired with Harris). The LRB divided Orange, which was a smaller county. They added a tentacle into the city of Orange and added that to the black district, and the white district was wholly in Jefferson.

At that time, all the districts in southeast Texas were Democratic-held. So if anything this would make it easier for a Republican to be elected, particularly if there was a retirement. As it was, one district in southeast Texas was eliminated, one flipped in 2002, and another in 2004, so as it was, the southeast Texas delegation went from D6:R1 in 2000, to D3:R3 in 2004. Over the decade, the Republican districts became out of reach for Democrats, and another flipped in 2010.

Allan Ritter was elected without opposition as a Democrat for most of the decade.. After the 2010 election he switched to the Republican Party. There was likely an understanding that he would have a safe seat as a Republican.

By 2010, Jefferson was down to 1.5 districts. The black district was entirely in Jefferson, and the white district took in 1/3 of the county plus Orange. The black district was 67% Obama, while the white district was 24% Obama (in 2012). If you balanced the two, you could have two 48% Obama districts, which might both be Democratic districts.

Allan Ritter was elected as a Republican without opposition in his new district. He retired, and in 2014 a Republican Wade Phelan was elected with 74% of the vote. It is noteworthy that he is from Orange rather than Jefferson like Ritter was.

So the 2010's redistricting was useful to create a Democratic sink, while rewarding a Democratic for flipping a seat, and converting it to a Republcan seat. At the same time, it avoided an additional issue for VRA litigation.

By 2020, Jefferson will be down to 1.3 districts. HD-22 currently has a 51% BCVAP, while HD-21 has an 8% BCVAP. The districts are about as racially differentiated as possible. If HD-22 stays in Jefferson, the district will drop to about 45% BCVAP. This would mean that it fails the Gingles. If you have an area that is 51% BCVAP, and the surroundings areas are 8% BCVAP, there is no way to expand the area and maintain a majority BCVAP.

But a 45% BCVAP district will continue to elect a black Democrat. Blacks will constitute 75% of the Democratic primary vote, and the district will be 60% Democrat.

If you start chopping up the black areas, you might have to violate the state constitution, and also divide cities. You could still a court to rule that you are violating the 15th Amendment.

Districts 79 through 82 are in far west Texas

()

HD-79 (+0.55%) change -0.111 per 5 El Paso districts). El Paso(31%, 7% of county), Val Verde(25%), Reeves(8%), Pecos(8%), Ward(6%), Brewster(5%), Presidio(3%), Hudspeth(2%), Kimble(2%), Sutton(2%), Crockett(2%), Schleicher(1%), Jeff Davis(1%), Culberson(1%), Menard(1%), Edwards(1%), Terrell(0%), Loving(0%). Cities: Del Rio, Socorro, and San Elizario CDP.

HD-80 (-0.30%) change 0.022. Ector(84%), Andrews(10%), Winkler(4%), Crane(2%). Cities: Odessa, West Odessa, and Andrews.

HD-81 (+0.37%) change 0.075. Midland(89%), Martin(3%), Reagan(2%), Upton(2%), Coke(2%), Irion(1%), Glasscock(1%), Sterling(1%). Cities: Midland, Big Lake, Stanton.

HD-82 (+0.48%) change -0.136. Tom Green(61%), Brown(19%), Runnels(5%), Coleman(4%), McCulloch(4%), San Saba(3%), Mills(2%), Concho(1%),. Cities: San Angelo, Brownwood, and Brady.

El Paso currently has five undersized districts (-4.5% deviation). Once the deviation exceeds 5%, population has to be added to bring the district up to the quota, plus make up any difference due to relative loss of population throughout the decade. In effect, the fifth El Paso district is largely forced out of the county and expands into 17 sparsely populated counties to the east.

Alternatively, the district could be considered as a successor to an existing district that loses Maverick and Kinney, picks up a bit of El Paso and expands into the Hill Country.

HD-80, HD-81, and HD-82 are anchored by the cities of Odessa, Midland, and San Angelo respectively. The anchor counties of Ector, Midland, and Tom Green are too small to be divided, but too large to be merged with another similar county. The overall effect is that the representative will likely be from the anchor city, which has a majority of the population, while each decade the additional counties will get reshuffled, as the districts expand.

Note that Midland and Ector, and some other Permian Basin counties have at least kept up with the statewide growth of 18% for the decade.

34 counties have grown faster than the State as a whole:

Houston area (7) Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Montgomery, Waller.
DFW area (8) Collin, Denton, Ellis, Hood, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrrant.
San Antonio (5) Bexar, Comal, Guadalupe, Kendall. Wilson.
Austin (4) Bastrop, Hays, Travis, Williamson.

Permian Basin (7) Andrews, Ector, Gaines, Loving, Martin, Midland, Sterling.

Others (3) Brazos (Texas A&M), Frio (Eagle Ford?), Hudspeth (immigrant detention?)

Districts 83 through 90 are in west Texas.

()

HD-83 (+0.88%) Change -0.087. Wise(35%), Erath(22%), Palo Pinto(14%), Eastland(9%), Comanche(7%), Somervell(5%), Jack(4%), Hamilton(4%). Cities: Stephenville, Mineral Wells, and Decatur.

HD-84 (+0.85%) Change -0.146. Taylor(69%), Jones(10%), Nolan(7%), Callahan(7%), Stephens(5%), Shackelford(2%). Cities: Abilene, Sweetwater, and Breckenridge.

HD-85 (+1.67%) Change -0.200. Wichita(66%), Young(9%), Wilbarger(6%), Clay(5%), Archer(4%), Haskell(3%), Hardeman(2%), Knox(2%), Baylor(2%), Throckmorton(1%), Foard(1%). Cities: Wichita Falls, Vernon, and Burkburnett.

HD-86 (+0.47%) Change -0.172 Howard(18%), Gray(11%), Gaines(11%), Scurry(9%), Terry(6%), Dawson(6%), Yoakum(4%), Mitchell(4%), Childress(4%), Garza(3%), Crosby(3%), Lynn(3%), Floyd(3%), Wheeler(3%), Fisher(2%), Donley(2%), Hall(1%), Collingsworth(1%), Dickens(1%), Briscoe(1%), Stonewall(1%), Cottle(1%), Motley(1%), Kent(0%), Borden(0%), King(0%). Cities: Big Spring, Pampa, and Snyder.

In west Texas there are nine counties that have the population equivalent to more than one half a house district: Ector (Odessa), Midland (Midland), Tom Green (San Angelo), Taylor (Abilene), Wichita (Wichita Falls), Lubbock (Lubbock) (2 districts), Potter (Amarillo), and Randall (Amarillo).

Because of their size they must each be placed in separate districts, where they will contain a majority of the district population and serve as anchors. Overall, west Texas has population for 12 districts. This means that there are three unanchored districts in west Texas. As population share is eliminated over the coming decades, these unanchored districts will be eliminated.

HD-86 will likely be gobbled up by the nine surrounding anchored districts in 2030. It may be increasingly difficult to create the anchored districts and avoid nearby districts.

HD-87 (-0.03%) Change -0.162 (for HD-87 and HD-88, -0.081 per two districts). Lubbock(60%, 38% of county), Hale(17%), Hockley(12%), Lamb(7%), Bailey(4%), Cochran(1%). Cities: Lubbock, Plainview, and Levelland.

HD-88 (-0.03%) Lubbock(100%, 62% of county). City: Lubbock.

HD-88 is entirely within the city of Lubbock, with about 1/4 of the city in HD-87. The current district has a strange intrusion from the south that reaches the campus of Texas Tech, and an extrusion that reaches (the former) Reese AFB. These are unlikely to reflect partisan concerns. They are either to preserve separate districts for incumbent representatives, or to give both districts part of the economic engines of the area.

I simplified the boundaries, such that HD-87 is more peripheral areas of Lubbock, which may help the smaller counties be more competitive in determining representations.

HD-89 (+0.51%) Change -0.075. Randall(71%), Deaf Smith(9%), Parmer(5%), Castro(4%), Dallam(4%), Swisher(4%), Hartley(3%), Oldham(1%). Cities: Amarillo, Hereford, and Canyon.

HD-90 (+0.31%) Change -0.191 Potter(61%), Moore(11%), Hutchinson(11%), Ochiltree(5%), Carson(3%), Hansford(3%), Hemphill(2%), Lipscomb(2%), Sherman(2%), Armstrong(1%), Roberts(0%). Cities: Amarillo, Dumas, and Borger.

I see that according to the projected decimal "quotas" you've been using (perhaps different from what you expect to happen in some cases, like in Travis County, but what you're using all the same), Harris County is the one county with a projected quota that is within 5% of more than one integer. In fact Harris's 24.719 could be (25, -1.12%) (which you use, understandably), (24, +3.00%) or even (26, -4.93%). Unless, that is, there is some court precedent forbidding one of those last two options (particularly the last one that is more than a whole Representative different from Harris County's "ideal" (fractional) number of State Representatives. I'd be curious to know what the legal precedent is there. With Bexar County being projected close to a range which would be within 5% of two integers (the smallest such range, interestingly enough), the ability to either round up or round down could be relevant if it could potentially allow the deviations in single-county districts/conglomerates add up closer to 0 (right now, it's very close but Travis County getting within 5% of 7 and/or Montgomery County ending up more than 5% over 3 could upset that) and thus make the math less tight elsewhere. Although I guess in that case giving Bexar County an 11th district would make things even worse, but you could think of it as giving Bexar only 10 districts if its quota was 10.494 (4.94% greater than 10; only 4.60% less than 11). I'd be interested to know about the legal possibilities here.

As you've noted, the last range of decimal numbers that isn't within 5% of any integer is the range from 9.45 (5% greater than 9) to 9.50 (5% less than 10). Once you get up to 10.45 (5% less than 11; only 4.5% greater than 10), you have at first small but then larger and larger ranges of decimal numbers within 5% of two integers until the last range that isn't within 5% of two integers is the range from 18.90 (5% greater than 18) to 19.00 (5% less than 20). The lowest range of decimal numbers within 5% of three integers (or the lowest range of decimal numbers that's within 5% of an integer that is a whole number or more off from the number itself) is the range from 20.90 (5% less than 22) to 21.00 (5% greater than 20). The range of numbers within 5% of 24, 25 and 26 (the range that you project Harris County to be in) is half a "quota" long (from 24.700 to 25.200).

Quote from: Kevinstat on March 23, 2019, 11:52:59 PM

I'll address the estimate issue in this post, and the apportionment issue in the second.

I have used the July 2017 Census estimate to (exponentially) project to April 2020. That is what I based the apportionment on.

Travis has a population of 1,030,522 in the 2010 Census and was entitled to 6.111 representatives. The July 2017 Census estimate is 1,226,698, which would entitle Travis to 6.501 representatives. That represents a 2.5% (compounded) rate of increase.

Projected to April 2020, that would result in 1,313,448 persons, which is equivalent to 6.647 representatives. It appears that growth has slowed some in Travis, and looking at annual increases I would expect it to be just short of 1.3 million. That may or may not result in 6.647 representatives. Texas was accelerating through 2015, and slowing down since. The recovery of the price of oil may push the rate back up.

Annual estimated change: 404K, 434K, 401K, 475K, 501K, 450K, 400K (2011 through 2017).

When the 2018 county estimates are released next month, I will refine the 2020 projections.

Within counties, I used the 2013-2017 ACS block group estimates. Since these are based on a monthly sample over 5 years (60 monthly samples), they represent an average over the period. Assuming steady change, they can be treated as an estimate of the July 2015 population (midpoint of the 60 months).

I did not attempt to project these to 2020, since I thought that the census tracts and block groups had changed since 2010. In fact, the tracts and block groups are unchanged, even though there may be significant growth. One census tract in the 2013-2017 ACS has a population of 65,000.

I did scale the 2013-2017 estimates to the 2020 county projected populations. For example, the total population of block groups for Travis County (2013-2017) ACS was 1,176,584. This is in good accordance with the Census 2015 estimate of 1,178,292 (0.145% difference).

The 2013-2017 ACS populations were scaled so that they totaled the 2020 projected county population of 1,313,448, That is each block group population was scaled by 1313448/1176584 (1.116). That is each block group was projected to increase by 11.6% from 2015 to 2020.

In fully developed areas, the population typically declines. In a newly developed area, young couples (20s) purchase the homes, because they want a more modern home with more bedrooms, a yard, and access to better schools. At first the population increases, as children are added. As the children reach adulthood, they leave home either to college or the city.

The original couple tends to stay in the same house. Originally, they may have been economically stretched to afford the house. Later, they may seek stability for the children's education. Even if they change jobs, they likely considered the cost of commuting. As the children leave, the household population decreases, as does the neighborhood population.

The original couple is settled in by now, and will only leave when they retire, move to senior living, or die. It is only then that a new couple can move in. Unless there is multi-family added, the population will decline.

In older developed areas, the lowest quality housing stock may be abandoned. If your $200,000 house won't sell. your $180,000 house will. If you are moving to another city, you likely need the cash rather than hanging on for three years to sell. The $180,000 house becomes a $160,000 house, and so on, until you get to the $60,000 bungalow. It will either be abandoned, converted to rental, or torn down and replaced by a $300,000 4-story behemoth that fits on the lot barely.

Upgrading the bungalow is expensive. "Charming and quaint" translates to "small, wear long johns, and pile on quilts in winter, sweat in summer, and get used to charging your phone at Starbucks". There is a reason the bathroom is not mentioned in the advertisement.

So a block group that has declined by 5% between 2010 and 2015 will be projected to increase by 11.6% from 2015 to 2020, and a block group that increased by 23% between 2010 and 2015 will be projected to increase by 11.6% from 2015 to 2020.

This will have an effect on intracounty boundaries, but not intercounty apportionment. That is, based on the 2020 projections, there could still be a Blanco-Travis-Hays district, but the boundaries in Travis and Hays would be somewhat/slighty different.

I may try to project 2020 populations for block groups, now that I know that the 2010 base populations use the same areas.

The Census Bureau guidance for dividing or eliminating census tracts is to use the 2010 populations. That is census tracts that were too large or too small in 2010 have continued to be used. If a different population is used, the Census Bureau would require justification.

The Census Bureau expects census tracts to have a population between 1200 and 8000 persons with an ideal of 4000. Since the Census Bureau produces ACS data for formal political subdivisions, which in Maine includes towns. Small census tracts are not really a problem. If a town has a population of 500, it will have a greater sample rate in order to provide staistical reliability. The state liaison for census tracts is likely the same as for VTD's and census blocks.

Quote from: Kevinstat on March 24, 2019, 09:31:36 AM

Quote from: jimrtex on March 23, 2019, 07:49:00 AM

HD-88 is entirely within the city of Lubbock, with about 1/4 of the city in HD-87. The current district has a strange intrusion from the south that reaches the campus of Texas Tech, and an extrusion that reaches (the former) Reese AFB. These are unlikely to reflect partisan concerns. They are either to preserve separate districts for incumbent representatives, or to give both districts part of the economic engines of the area.

I simplified the boundaries, such that HD-87 is more peripheral areas of Lubbock, which may help the smaller counties be more competitive in determining representations.

The real beneficiaries might of that might be people in say, Shallowater or Wolfforth (still in Lubbock County but outside the City of Lubbock itself, and between the City of Lubbock and at least some (all in the case of Shallowater) of the other counties in the 2-district conglomerate). Of course the current conglomerate may be different, but I'm talking about the benefit of smoothing out the boundaries of the main Lubbock district as opposed to making minimal changes to that district and putting the rest of Lubbock County in with the other counties in your proposed (possibly new) conglomerate.

The current districts in west Texas are somewhat odd because the goal was to avoid pairing incumbents. If that was not possible, there was an effort to draw districts that were "fair" contests between two incumbents. That is part of the reason for the odd districts in Dallas County.

The current incumbent in the outer Lubbock district lives in the extreme tip of the extension into Lubbock. But he was not the incumbent in 2011. The senator from the area resigned to become chancellor at Texas Tech, and the former representative for the outer Lubbock district became senator.

The current representative for the district is the chair of the Republican caucus. If the legislature draws the districts, they won't use my map.

Growth in the county is to the south and west, and into two districts outside Lubbock ISD. Wolfforth Frenship is the only 6A school in the county, but Frenship ISD includes a big chunk of western part of the city. Districts sometimes manipulate the size of the high schools for classification reasons. Three of the Lubbock hogh schools are just below the 5A cap, with the 4th much smaller. If they were not evenly balanced, one or two might be among the smallest 6A schools. It likely reduces travel costs.

Frenship with a single high school keeps adding buildings. It is pretty momentous to add a second high school, particularly if the current high school is centrally located.

Lubbock-Cooper is now a 5A school and includes the southern fringe of Lubbock. In the four largest counties, I used the school districts to draw boundaries, because the current distrcts are so awful.

Most other places I simply cleaned up the boundaries.

Quote from: Kevinstat on March 23, 2019, 11:52:59 PM

The constitution is clear how apportionment is to be done. You divide a county's population by the quota and give it that many representatives. Then you form additional districts from smaller counties and/or surpluses. Historically, many more counties were entitled to their own representative, and there were relatively few entitled to extra. The largest had three.

In 1900, there were 27 counties with a single representative. These 27 counties were collectively entitled to 26.662 representatives an average deviation of -1.3%.

Their deviation ranged from +22.2% to -21.6%, with a standard deviation of 12.0%. It is somewhat high because there was a distribution gap around 1.00 quotas. Only 4 counties were within 5%, but 11 were between 5 and 10%.

Counties with larger deviation were apparently cases where there were not adjacent counties that could be used to balance out the population. It does not appear to be a simplistic, any county between 80% and 120% of a quota received a single representative. That is, if there was an opportunity to reduce the deviation for a county entitled to 1.15 or 0.85 counties it was used, but otherwise, the slightly larger deviation was acceptable.

There were 13 counties with two or three representatives, for a total of 29 representatives. Collectively they were entitled to 29.083 representatives or an average deviation of +0.3%.

With 2 representatives: Lamar, Galveston, Hunt, Fannin, Collin, Ellis, Navarro, Travis, Bell, and Hill.
With 3 representatives: Harris, Grayson, and Bexar.

The deviation range was -8.8% to 13.0%, with a standard deviation of 6.9%. This is not too surprising since the deviation is divided between two or three representatives. A county entitled to 2.2 representatives would have a deviation of 10%, while one with 1.2 would have a 20% deviation.

There were 27 multi-county districts with a single representative. Collectively. they were entitled to 27.251 representatives an average of the 0.9%.

I modified a pair of these.

HD-54 consisted of Jackson, Calhoun, Victoria, Refugio, and Bee, and had a deviation of +36.5%. HD-109 consisted of Live Oak, Karnes, and Goliad, and had a deviation of -16.6%.

These were the extreme deviations for multi-county districts. The two districts rap around each other, so Bee is surrounded on three sides by HD-109, and Goliad is surrounded on three sides by HD-54. HD-109 is anomalously numbered. suggesting that it was a last minute change. Moving Bee to HD-109 results in:

HD-54 consists of Jackson, Calhoun, Victoria, and Refugio, and has a deviation of +3.1%.
HD-109 consists of Live Oak, Karnes, Bee, and Goliad, and has a deviation of +16.8%.

The difference between the two is is reduced from 53.1% to 13.7%. The overall improvement is so great, that I suspect either a drafting error or a scriviner's error.

With these changes, the range in deviation was from 33.1% to -15.7%, with a standard deviation of 13.1%.

The multic-county districts were mostly along the Gulf Coast and West Texas, where there were clusters of counties with insufficient population of their own. The largest deviations tended to be among more isolated counties. The largest deviation was for Fort Bend and Waller, two counties too small for their own representative, and without ready alternatives for pairing.

These three types of districts: (1) Single county, single representative; (2) Single County, multi-representative, and (3) Multi-county, single representative; provided 85 of 132 representatives, in 152 of 243 counties. These forms of legislative districts were normative for the era, particularly for a rural state with a vast territory. While they were not as equal as current standards, they could certainly be considered equitable.

Note: At this time. the constitution provided an upper limit of 150 representatives. It was only after several decades at 150 that the current specification of exactly 150 representatives was enacted.

There were 9 instances of single counties apportioned one or more representatives. In addition, they were placed in a floterial district with one or two smaller counties based on their surplus. The average surplus was 0.463.

There were 3 instances of multiple counties apportioned one or more representatives, along with a floterial district for their collective surpluses. This might be considered the classical example of a floterial district.

Fayette (1.583), Gonzales(1.251), Bastrop(1.163) = Total (3.996)
Milam (1.718), Robertson(1.363) = Total(3.081)
Tarrant (2.268), Denton(1.226). Wise(1.174), Cooke(1.191) = Total (5.860)

The numbering of the last district (108) indicates it might have been a late addition. By themselves, the individual counties did not have an atypical deviation, but it might have been realized that they were all shortchanged a bit. Montague (1.074) and Parker(1.118) could have been added to the group, but this would have placed almost 240,000 persons in the district. While theoretically representing the surplus of the six counties, the representative would have been elected from the entire 6-county area.

The floterial districts comply with the Texas Constitution, but their elections are problematic.

Districts 91-101 are in Tarrant County.

()

The map has been cleaned up using Paint to match school district boundaries. Population is based on block groups, which do not match school district boundaries, but should be within a few percent.

Rather than trying to adjust current districts and undo any gerrymandering, the districts are based on school districts (ISD). Tarrant is entitled to 10.907 representatives. With 11 districts, this is an average deviation of -0.8% which gives flexibility in varying the district populations to match district boundaries.

Note: My districts are based on block groups, which do not align with school district boundaries. I assigned each block group to an ISD, generally based on area, but also to give better contiguity and shape to the districts. In an actual map, I would match the actual ISD boundaries. So while the black lines (school district boundaries) don't match the house districts (color), imagine that they do.

When I had to split a school district, I tried to match city boundaries of smaller cities. This would be an impossible task for large cities such as Fort Worth, Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston.

School district boundaries in Texas are sometimes irregular, which may reflect consolidation patterns, as well as school bus routes. But they are much more regular than city limits, and fairly static. Generally, change is annexation of a whole district by another, rather than piecemeal changes. School districts are wary of losing students, even if an area would be better served by the other district. Their school planning may have sited schools based on anticipated development.

School districts represent a local community of interest. They provide more direct services to residents, and have more impact than streets or police or fire protection. Football stadiums provide a local gathering place on Friday night.

The following table represents the share of the 11 house districts in Tarrant County (e.g. Fort Worth ISD has 2.843/11ths of the county population vs. 2.819/150ths of the state population).

Fort Worth .......... 2.843 Arlington ........... 1.996 Keller .............. 0.973 Hurst-Euless-Bedford 0.871 Mansfield ........... 0.812 Birdville ........... 0.764 Eagle Mountain ...... 0.544 Crowley ............. 0.499 Grapevine ........... 0.458 Northwest ........... 0.234 White Settlement .... 0.186 Carroll ............. 0.174 Burleson ............ 0.126 Everman ............. 0.121 Azle ................ 0.109 Castleberry ......... 0.105 Kennedale ........... 0.101 Lake Worth .......... 0.084

Aledo and Godley ISD extend into Tarrant, but do not dominate any block grpups.

We can apportion out districts as follows:

Arlington 1.979 (two districts)
Keller 0.965 (one district)
Mansfield, Burleson, and Kennedale 1.039 (one district)
Eagle Mountain-Saginaw, Northwest(Justin), Castleberry, and Lake Worth 0.967 (one district)
Fort Worth and Everman 2.963 (three districts)

Hurst-Euless-Bedford(HEB), Birdville, Grapevine-Colleyville, and Carroll(South Lake) 2.268 (two districts plus a surplus),
Crowley, White Settlement, and Azle 0.794 (major portion of one district). This also includes the portions of Aledo and Godley ISD's in Tarrant. This area is not contiguous, but is intended for grouping population. Everman could be included, but demographically, it is a better fit with Fort Worth.

Collectively, these last two areas are entitled to 3.062 districts, but are not contiguous. We will use Fort Worth ISD to buffer the population between the two areas.

Haltom City and Richland Hills in Birdville ISD have the population to eliminate the surplus from the northeast area. In turn, the western part of FWISD is transferred to the western area.

Fort Worth ISD is divided into three districts. An eastern district along with Everman ISD is intended to be a predominately black district, a successor to HD-95. The northern district is intended to be a predominately Hispanic district. a successor to HD-90, and also includes the cities of Haltom City and Richland Hills in Birdville ISD. The near-western district is entirely in Fort Worth ISD.

HD-91 (-2.39%) Tarrant (100%, 9% of County). ISD: Fort Worth (100%, 35% of ISD); Cities: Fort Worth, Westover Hills, Westworth Village, and Edgecliff Village.

HD-92 (-1.96%) Tarrant (100%, 9% of County). ISD: Fort Worth (88%, 31% of ISD), Everman (12%). Cities: Fort Worth, Forest Hill, and Everman.

HD-93 (-2.25%) Tarrant (100%, 9% of County). ISD: Fort Worth (73%, 25% of ISD), Birdville (27%, 35% of ISD). Cities: Fort Worth, Haltom City, and Richland Hills.

Arlington ISD is divided into two districts, generally along Collins Street. This ensures that all of Grand Prairie is in one district. The city of Grand Prairie straddles the Dallas-Tarrant line. Grand Prairie ISD is entirely in Dallas County.

HD-94 (+0.25%) Tarrant (100%, 9% of County). ISD: Arlington (100%, 51% of ISD). Cities: Arlington, Pantego, and Dalworthington Gardens.

HD-95 (-2.14%) Tarrant (100%, 9% of County). ISD: Arlington (100%, 49% of ISD). Cities: Arlington and Grand Prairie.

Keller ISD has population sufficient for its own district. Fort Worth has annexed a large share of the district.

HD-96 (-3.39%) Tarrant (100%, 9% of County). ISD: Keller (100%). Cities: Fort Worth, Keller, and Westlake.

Mansfield, Burleson, and Kennedale ISD's have population sufficient for a district. Burleson ISD is only the portion in Tarrant. The cities of Arlington, Grand Prairie, and Fort Worth have annexed south into the district.

HD-97 (+3.12%) Tarrant (100%, 9% of County). ISD: Mansfield 78%, Burleson 12%, Kennedale 10%. Cities: Mansfield, Arlington, Grand Prairie, Rendon CDP, Fort Worth. Burleson, and Kennedale.

Hurst-Euless-Bedford (HEB) 0.871 and Birdville ISD's each have population sufficient for a significant portion of a district, but there is no smaller ISD to complement them. Instead a district is created between them, and the collective surplus on the the west and east ends is added to other districts.

Both ISD's contain a number of cities, and the split attempts to match city boundaries, with Haltom City and Richland Hills excluded on the west, and Euless on the east.

HD-98 (-1.28%) Tarrant (100%, 9% of County). ISD: Birdville (50%, 65% of ISD), HEB (50%, 57% of ISD). Cities: North Richland Hills, Bedford, Hurst, and Watauga.

Eagle Mountain-Saginaw, Northwest, Castleberry, and Lake Worth ISD's have a population equivalent to a district. A small portion of Fort Worth ISD along Eagle Mountain Lake is included to get the district population closer to a quota, and avoid an odd panhandle on a district in Fort Worth ISD.

HD-99 (-0.69%) Tarrant (100%, 9% of County). ISD: Eagle Mountain-Saginaw (54%), Northwest (23%), Castleberry (10%), Lake Worth (8%). Fort Worth (3%, 1% of ISD). Cities: Fort Worth, Saginaw, River Oaks, Sansom Park, Lake Worth, Blue Mound, Pecan Acres CDP, and Haslet.

Crowley, White Settlement, and Azle ISD's have population equivalent to 3/4 of a quota. A portion of the western part of Fort Worth ISD is added to connect Crowley ISD with White Settlement and Azle ISD's. Azle ISD is physically separated from the rest of northern Tarrant by Eagle Mountain Lake, accounting for the Idaho-shaped district. Small portions of Aledo and Godley ISD's that extend into the county are also included into the district.

HD-100 (+2.50%) Tarrant (100%, 9% of County). ISD: Crowley (48%), Fort Worth (23%, 8% of ISD), White Settlement (10%). Azle (11%), Aldeo (0%), Godley (0%). Cities: Fort Worth, Benbrook, White Settlement, Crowley, Azle, Briar CDP, Pelican Bay, and Lakeside.

Grapevine-Colleyville and Carroll ISD's have about 3/5 of a quota. The Euless portion of HEB ISD is added to reach the quota.

HD-101 (+0.13%) Tarrant (100%, 9% of County). ISD: Grapevine-Colleyville (45%), HEB (37%, 43% of ISD), Carroll (17%). Cities: Euless, Grapevine, Southlake, and Colleyville,

I have had an initial look at the 2018 county estimates.

Four counties had notable changes in their annual rate of change based on 2010-2018 projections vs. 2010-2017.

Aransas went from +1.3% to +0.3%. With essentially all the gain from 2010-2018 wiped out by Harvey. Some of this may be temporary as the estimate was for July 2018, 10 months after Harvey. Many people may have still been living in temporary locations while homes and businesses were rebuilt. Last summer, they were earnestly advertising that they were open for business, in an area heavily dependent on tourists.

Concho went from -5.5% to +0.5%, as a result of the closure of a privately-owned prison that was contracted by the federal government. The 2017 estimate reduced the county population by about 1/3 (1400). The 2018 restored the 2017 number and also for 2018. I found many news articles about the closure, but none about re-opening. In addition, to the 1400 inmates, the facility provided 270 jobs, though many may have been commuting in from San Angelo and other counties. The company is advertising for employees, which appear to be contingent on a new contract. The jobs appear to be specialists, rather than guards (e.g. dental hygienist).

Ector went from 1.8% to 2.0%, and Midland went from 2.6% to 2.8%, as the price of oil returned to profitable levels. The Permian Basin is the only area in the country where $35/bbl oil is profitable. Ector returned to an increase of 5K per year that it had achieved earlier in the decade, after two years of losses. Midland had its best year of the decade (7.2) after two years of small increases.

15 counties had a decrease in projected entitlement of 0.005. I think that in general this reflects the overall decrease in the rate of growth in cities, from the beginning of the decade (a trend that is nationwide). There may also be a Harvey effect.

27 counties had an increase in projected entitlement of 0.005 representatives or more. These seem to be concentrated in suburban areas, but this may be a residual of the lower growth rate in cities. As the urban share declines, the share of everything else increases.

Losers:

Big Cities
Bexar -21 (-.021)
Dallas -61
Denton -13
Harris -154
Travis -34

Border
El Paso -18
Cameron -7
Hidalgo -31
Webb -11

Harvey
Aransas -13
Fort Bend -24
Galveston -17
Jefferson -10
Nueces -6
Orange -10

Suburban San Antonio
Atascosa +6
Comal +17

Suburban Austin
Bastrop +6
Williamson +5

Suburban Houston
Brazoria +9
Liberty +11
Montgomery +23

Suburban/Exurban Dallas
Collin +59
Ellis +17
Fannin +5
Grayson +11
Henderson +7
Hood +9
Hunt +11
Johnson +13
Kaufman +20
Navarro +5
Parker +18
Rockwall +8
Wise +8

Prison
Concho +10

Permian Basin
Ector +16
Midland +24

I-35
Bell +21
McLennan +11

Other
Rusk +11
Taylor +7

Quote from: Kevinstat on April 20, 2019, 08:17:40 PM

Okay, so Harris County's quota of 24.565 (+/- 0.001 if you were using rounded change figures, not +/- anything (well, +/- 0.0005 technically) if you were calculating the change in the rounded figures) would not be within 5% of 26 like 25.719 would (not that that matters at all from what I gather), but it's still closer to 25 than to 24 so it would still get 25 seats. Montgomery County, at 3.170 quotas, will have to have a partial forth district, compared to an even three districts in your earlier plan and two whole disticts and most of a third currently based on the 2010 numbers. Ellis County will be even more agonizingly close to the 0.950 mark, at 0.947. I don't see any counties crossing an 0.950n or 1.050n mark in these revised projections besides Montgomery (and Harris). Travis County will be further from the 6.650 mark, at 6.613 rather than 6.647.

Collin + Denton is now even closer to the ideal population for 10 districts (at 9.991 quotas rather than 9.945). And Bell + McLennon will now (with these projections) be too big to be joined in a 3-district combo (that you hadn't done because of leftovers such a pairing would have left) anyway (with 3.174 quotas rather than 3.142). I was mostly just looking at single counties and if their "status" changed, so there may be some changes to what could and could not happen with these new figures that I haven't noticed.

I had only noted that Bexar and Travis were further away from gaining a whole district, and the drop in Harris.

I had not noticed that Bell and McLennan were possible as a pairing. Based on my rule that quasi-floterial districts should be minimized, they would have been paired. This assumes that it would be possible to draw districts in eastern and western Texas that were all within 5%. This is in no way a certain, since the population of the other counties to the east (Freestone, Limestone, Falls, Milam) is 0.432, and to the west (Coryell and Bosque) is 0.471. One side would have to absorb the extra among many districts, while the other side would gain a seat and have to spread a deficit around.

Looking at short term trends, Ellis is almost certain to reach 0.950. Based on annual estimates, Ellis went from 0.894 in 2010 to 0.892 in 2015. It has gained to 0.938 in 2018. The projection based on eight years is 0.947. Based on the last 3 years, it would be around 0.960.

If Ellis were its own district, Johnson would take Bosque and Somervell. This would reduce the western districts a tad, which could be absorbed given the smaller populations in that area. Hill would replace Bosque in the McLennan district. That would force Freestone out of the district. But it likely could be accommodated.
.585
You are right about Montgomery. A likely candidate would be to pair it with Brazos.

Harris will likely fall well below 24.5. Harris has almost 1/6 the state population, and must gain 72K per year just to stay even. It has fallen below that the last 3 years.

2010 24.410
2011 24.447
2012 24.517
2013 24.662
2014 24.792
2015 24.895
2016 24.855
2017 24.702
2018 24.556

Harris gained 0.585 in 5 years, but has lost 0.339 in the next three years. The projection of 24.565 based on 8 years is unrealistic.

If Harris has 24.300 in 2020, that would be an average deviation +1.2% with 24 districts vs. -2.8% with 25 districts. Either is easily doable within a single county.

If we limit ourselves to the 28 districts in eastern and western Texas, the change would be from the current -0.2%, vs. -3.6% for 29 districts. The deviation range would increase when shifting a district from Harris to these rural areas (from 2.6% to 4.8%). Moreover it is harder to consistently hit -3.6%, since only 1.4% below the mean we hit a limit.

It is possible more districts could be involved reducing the average deficit, making it more feasible to shift the district away from Harris.

For now, I'll keep Ellis and Harris as is, rather than trying to do a global projection over a shorter period of time.

I will adjust the Montgomery districts, and any multi-county districts that are out of range. I'll take a look at shifting counties to improve equality for the updated projections.

Incidentally, one of the virtues of weighted representation is that these shifts can easily be accommodated. If we were confident of the estimates, the weights could even be updated annually.

An alternate projection based on more recent trends can be used:

d2018 = 2018 estimate - 2017 estimate
d2017 = 2017 estimate - 2016 estimate
d2016 = 2016 estimate - 2015 estimate

That is, d2018 is the estimated change from 2017 to 2018; with d2017 and d2016 calculated similarly. We can then calculate a weighted average:

wchange = (d2018*3 + d2017*2 + d2016*1)/6

And apply that to the last 1.75 years before the census:

p2020 = 2018 estimate + wchange * 1.75

Comparing the projections based on exponential projection of 2010 to 2018 estimate, to the weighted average over the past three years:

Ellis 0.947 to 0.965

Ellis share had actually declined from 2010 to 2015 (0.894 to 0.892). All the growth has come in the past three years. It appears a number of subdivisions have opened up around Waxahachie. The time to travel from Waxahachie to downtown Dallas is about the same as from McKinney. But new development to the north is now beyond McKinney and even Frisco, and showing up in places like Prosper, Melissa, and Celina. Housing prices are likely less on the south side.

If Ellis is quite close to 95% of the quota it might still be given its own district. It might be able to fit inside the 10% overall range, or it could be justified to have a single outside of range district in order to better comply with the Texas Constitution.

Other proposed districts that could now be out of range:

3. Rockwall-Hunt 1.041 (2010-18 exponential) vs. 1.059 (2015-18 weighted)

Rockwall's growth has been accelerating, from about 1000 per year to 4000 per year. Hunt is now growing at an accelerated rate.

Rockwall is going to be problematic because its small size makes it unlikely to reach the population for its own district but it is blocked in by larger neighbors. I toyed with the idea with placing it with Dallas, but that requires splitting Dallas. That might be considered an unnecessary bending of the Texas Constitution. Instead, Rockwall could be paired with Collin (5.951 based on 2015-18 weighted).

This would in turn require Denton to be paired with Wise 4.980 (2015-2018 weighted).

4. Kaufman-Van Zandt-Rains 1.036 (2010-2018 exponential) vs. 1.061 (2015-18 weighted)

Even if it is inside the 5% limit, dropping Rains will make the district closer to the quota. If the weighted projection is correct, the district will be at 0.995 without Rains.

13-15. Montgomery 3.170 (2010-2018 exponential) vs. 3.178 (2015-18 weighted).

Montgomery is outside the 5% limit using the updated 2017 estimate. Pairing it with Brazos gives a district with 5.224, which could get closer to the quota by trimming off some of the smaller counties, such as Robertson and Austin.

45. Comal-Kendall 1.053 (2010-2018 exponential) vs. 1.068 (2015-2018 weighted)

Breaking this group apart would force Hays-Comal 2.037. This in turn would force Travis-Blanco-Burnet-Llano 6.998

59-60. McLennan, etc. 2.097 (2010-2018 exponential) vs. 2.116 (2015-18 weighted)

This could be trimmed a bit to get the districts within 5%.

61-62. Ellis, Johnson, and Hill. 2.027 (2010-2018 exponential) vs. 2.067 (2015-18 weighted).

More importantly, Ellis is 0.965 under the (2015-2018 weighted) which would permit Ellis to be its own district. Johnson and Bosque could be paired for 1.010.

63. Parker and Hood. 1.047 (2010-2018 exponential) vs. 1.072 (2015-18 weighted).

If split apart, they could be joined with counties to their west.

126-150. Harris. 24.565 (2010-2018 exponential) vs. 24.339 (2015-18 weighted).

With 25 districts, there would be an average deviation of -2.6%. With 24 districts there would be an average deviation of 1.4%. But if we eliminate a district in Harris, we have to add a district elsewhere.

The eastern, western, and border areas are flexible, with the exception of Grayson-Cooke-Montague. The changes proposed above would release Hill, Hunt, Kendall, and Rains, while locking in Bosque, Burnet, Llano, and Wise. In addition, the Montgomery, Fort Bend, and McLennan, are flexible (i.e. we can slightly underpopulate districts in the core county, while freeing up a smaller county.

In total we have a population equivalent to 56.706 quotas, which is divided into 56 districts, for an average deviation of 1.3%. By creating 57 districts, the average deviation is -0.5%. We should be able to add a district, while improving deviation in up to 81 districts. Some will end up worse, but most will improve. This is subject to an actual demonstration, but is quite likely to be achievable.

Districts 102-115 are in Dallas.

()

As in Tarrant, we determine the apportionment of the 14 districts among the ISD's in the county. There are also tiny bits of Grapevine-Colleyville and Ferris ISD in the county.

Dallas ................... 5.969 Garland .................. 1.592 Richardson ............... 1.352 Irving ................... 0.997 Mesquite ................. 0.939 Grand Prairie ............ 0.693 Carrollton-Farmers Branch 0.684 Duncanville .............. 0.437 Desoto ................... 0.315 Coppell .................. 0.290 Cedar Hill ............... 0.279 Lancaster ................ 0.228 Highland Park ............ 0.184 Sunnyvale ................ 0.040

Dallas ISD has sufficient population for six districts. We add in Highland Park ISD since it is engulfed by Dallas ISD. Relative to the statewide quota this addition reduces the deviation.

We can group other ISD's in areas entitled to one representative:

Irving: 0.997
Mesquite and Sunnyvale 0.979
Grand Prairie and Cedar Hill: 0.972
Carrollton-Farmers Branch and Coppell: 0.974
Duncanville, DeSoto, and Lancaster: 0.981

This leaves Garland and Richardson ISD's collectively entitled to 2.944 representatives. Each ISD will have one district, with the third shared between the two.

Dallas ISD, including Highland Park ISD are entitled to six districts. The area east of the Trinity, and north of I-20 has half the population and thus can be drawn into three districts. The portion coming down from the Collin line into the Park Cities created one district, largely selected to maximize the number of trees. The area to the west along the Trinity River is intended to be predominately Hispanic, while the area to the east is more mixed.

Continuing southward a district including Oak Cliff which is predominately minority. A district south of I-20 and east of the Trinity, and finally a district in the southern portion of the district, including the former Wilmer-Hutchins ISD.

HD-102 (+1.07%) Dallas (100%, 7% of County). ISD: Dallas (82%, 14% of ISD), Highland Park (18%). Cities: Dallas, University Park, Addison, and Highland Park, and bits of Carrollton and Farmers Branch.

HD-103 (+0.78%) Dallas (100%, 7% of County). ISD: Dallas (100%, 17% of ISD), Cities: Dallas.

HD-104 (+1.15%) Dallas (100%, 7% of County). ISD: Dallas (100%, 17% of ISD), Cities: Dallas.

HD-105 (+1.15%) Dallas (100%, 7% of County). ISD: Dallas (100%, 17% of ISD), Cities: Dallas and Balch Springs.

HD-106 (+0.61%) Dallas (100%, 7% of County). ISD: Dallas (100%, 17% of ISD), Cities: Dallas and Cockrell Hill.

HD-106 (+0.61%) Dallas (100%, 7% of County). ISD: Dallas (100%, 17% of ISD), Cities: Dallas and Cockrell Hill.

HD-107 (+1.14%) Dallas (100%, 7% of County). ISD: Dallas (100%, 17% of ISD), Cities: Dallas, Seagoville. Hutchins, and Wilmer, and bits of DeSoto and Lancaster.

As per Skill and Chance's suggestion in the congressional redistricting thread, I've taken a look at what a Democratic map of the Texas State House might look like, using the 2018 population estimates. It shouldn't be taken too seriously, particularly since some of the county groupings probably won't hold up after another two years of population growth, but it does give some sense of the range of manouevre.

Map here: https://davesredistricting.org/join/8d69f2df-f111-437e-8e55-35b2550a9a70

I managed to 84 districts that voted for Clinton, as opposed to 66 that went to Trump. What's more, all but a handful of those districts gave Clinton more than 53% of the vote, which given the relatively high third-party shares in 2016 generally equates to a margin of victory above 10 points. Assuming nothing particularly odd happens with vote swings in Texas this year, that's probably a decent marker of what a safe seat might look like if Texas does shift into proper swing state status.

I went for a fairly soft gerrymander - no thin tendrils, but a willingness to crack strongly Republican areas between multiple districts. I did pay some heed to trying to increase minority representation, but working out what Hispanic percentage makes a district perform in which bits of Texas didn't seem worth it, given the hypothetical nature of this map. If I haven't drawn sufficient performing districts, a few more districts might need to be conceded, although in other cases the VRA could still be satisfied with slightly uglier lines.

Distribution of Clinton districts:

Along the border: 16 (out of 16; Clinton's lowest score here was 54.9% and that could easily be bumped up with uglier lines; all are likely to be won by Hispanic candidates as they're all above 70% Hispanic by total population and mostly above 80%)
Nueces County: 1 (56.7% Clinton, 76.7% Hispanic by total 2018 population)
Bexar County: 9 (out of 10; one is only 51.9% Clinton but the other 8 are all north of 54%; all at least plurality; 7 are Hispanic majority by total population and the other 2 are strong pluralities, but may not quite be a plurality in the Democratic primary)
Hays County: 1 (but only 49% Clinton)
Travis/Bastrop: 7 (out of 7; weakest is 55.1% Clinton; two are Hispanic majority by total population but I'm not certain any are by CVAP)
Williamson County: 1 (but only 48.2% Clinton)
Bell County: 1 (56.6% Clinton; a fairly compact Killeen district; would probably be represented by a black Democrat)
Denton County: 2 (out of four and a bit; 47.2% and 48.7% Clinton respectively but probably trending leftwards reasonably securely)
Tarrant County: 6 (out of 11; weakest is 53.7% Clinton but only one is above 60%; all six are majority-minority but wouldn't like to speculate about which would perform for which group)
Dallas County: 14 (out of 14; weakest is 51.1% Clinton but the others are all above 53%; two black-majority seats and one black plurality; three Hispanic-majority seats and three Hispanic plurality - though some of the latter group might be more likely to return black than Hispanic Democrats; one Asian opportunity seats in the NW)
Collin County: 1 (out of 5; only 48.5% Clinton but there's at least one more Democrats would strongly contests from 2022 and four might be competitive by 2030)
Harris County: 21 (out of 25; weakest is 51.8% Clinton and a few others are sub-53%, but all are growing rapidly; 9 Hispanic plurality and 7 Hispanic-majority districts but far fewer than that would perform; one black-majority and one black-plurality seat but probably at least four which would reliably elect black candidates)
Fort Bend County: 3 (out of 4; only is only 50.8% Clinton and another 52.1%; one Hispanic plurality, one Asian plurality, one black plurality)
Jefferson County: 1 (Beaumont-Port Arthur district, black plurality)

Aside from the Clinton districts, there's not much else left on the table. There's another competitive seat in Williamson; one more in Collin (and two more which might be by 2030 if they trend rapidly), a seat in Brazoria and one more in Galveston, and that's about it.

I've tried to keep cities like Waco and College Station whole so they'd probably be the next targets hoving in to view, but honestly if those flip then the map doesn't matter much because Texas will be a securely Democratic state anyway.

Quote from: EastAnglianLefty on April 25, 2020, 05:05:39 PM

Interesting. 84/150 Clinton districts in a state that was Trump +9 on a map that doesn't look like MD and following fairly strict county splitting rules is just wild.

Quote from: Skill and Chance on April 25, 2020, 09:13:13 PM

Quote from: EastAnglianLefty on April 25, 2020, 05:05:39 PM

Interesting. 84/150 Clinton districts in a state that was Trump +9 on a map that doesn't look like MD and following fairly strict county splitting rules is just wild.

Did you see my Board of Education map in the Texas US house thread? I had an outright majority of seats that went Clinton by double digits IIRC. Really shows geographic bias in spades taking shape in the Lone Star State.

Quote from: Southern Speaker Punxsutawney Phil on April 25, 2020, 09:16:04 PM

Quote from: Skill and Chance on April 25, 2020, 09:13:13 PM

Quote from: EastAnglianLefty on April 25, 2020, 05:05:39 PM

Interesting. 84/150 Clinton districts in a state that was Trump +9 on a map that doesn't look like MD and following fairly strict county splitting rules is just wild.

A forerunner of the coming near unanimous GOP rural vote? That probably helps them in the senate, but the EC bias would quickly flip.

Quote from: Skill and Chance on April 25, 2020, 09:31:45 PM

Quote from: Southern Speaker Punxsutawney Phil on April 25, 2020, 09:16:04 PM

Quote from: Skill and Chance on April 25, 2020, 09:13:13 PM

Quote from: EastAnglianLefty on April 25, 2020, 05:05:39 PM

Interesting. 84/150 Clinton districts in a state that was Trump +9 on a map that doesn't look like MD and following fairly strict county splitting rules is just wild.

A forerunner of the coming near unanimous GOP rural vote? That probably helps them in the senate, but the EC bias would quickly flip.

I don't think Ds have much room to further fall in rural areas, but if I did think that way, I'd agree totally with you in this area.

Quote from: lfromnj on May 19, 2020, 10:07:08 PM

Jimtrex any chance that Texas switches to CVAP for legislative redistricting to make sure "minority districts are truly preserved " throughout the state ? This would probably shift 2 from the RGV/1 from El paso/ 2 from houston/ 2 in SA and 1 in Dallas to GOP areas.

They could conceivably do so for the Senate.

The state constitution used to specify that senate districts were to be based on eligible voters, and that counties could not be divided. Thus Harris, Dallas, Bexar, and Tarrant were single-county senate districts. This went by the wayside after Reynolds v Sims

Unlike for House districts, where the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the Texas Constitution and equal protection could be harmonized, there was no such ruling for senate districts. This might be a case of no one filing suit, or the 1965 map minimizing splits of the larger counties (Harris had 3 whole plus part of a 4th; Dallas had 2 whole plus part of a 3rd; Bexar had 2 whole plus part of a 3rd; Tarrant had one whole plus part of a 2nd; only Cameron was divided, and that was likely because Hidalgo + Cameron was too large for a district). The 1965 was largely new since they had to put about 10 districts in an area that previously had four. That meant elsewhere 27 districts had to be reduced to 21, and four of those extended into the big counties.

The 1970s generally followed the same pattern, except Harris and Dallas each captured a whole district, and Tarrant had two whole districts. The only slight exception was Harris had two districts extending outside the county. The 1970s map was drawn by the Legislative Redistricting Board.

The 1980s map had more districts nibbling into larger counties. Since a senate map has to preserve be passed by the senate, the individual senators are interested in preserving their own districts. Rather than sucking most of a district into a large county, they might add 100K or so to several districts, which may preserve control in other counties. By this time, the suburban counties were also becoming significant.

The 1990s maps (sic, there were 5) were a whole-hog Democrat gerrymander. And the concept of counties was largely ignored, except that Texas Senate districts were by that time were almost as large as congressional districts, and there is little need to chop counties with 5K or 10K or even 50K to create 600K districts.

In the 2000 cycle, the senate redistricting committee was advised that the legislature could follow the state constitution and base it on eligible voters, but could not use registered voters as a proxy. Any maps they passed would be challenged on not being based on any solid data. They could use a state census, but that would be expensive.

In any event the legislature did not pass any redistricting maps, and the LRB drew the legislative maps. They cleaned up the districts where they could, but did a partisan gerrymander to the extent possible (Republicans have to avoid pitfalls associated with the VRA, but it is quite legal to crack white Democrats).

Along about this time, there was a constitutional amendment that cleaned up obsolete provisions (the Texas Constitution is quite lengthy, and from time-to-time an omnibus cleanup amendment is proposed and passed). They eliminated the requirement that counties could not be divided, and that districts would be based on eligible voters. Essentially, the only requirement is that there be 31 districts (and comply with the US Constitution).

This is likely why Evenwel v Abbott challenged the Texas Senate districts (another reason is the manifest difference in CVAP among Texas Senate districts). If you read the decision carefully, it did not say that Texas could not use CVAP or some other basis, but rather that it was not required.

Ginsburg who wrote the opinion spent most of her opinion expressing how representational equality was the traditional method - but ignoring that was likely because it was simpler and also that the franchise greatly varied among the states. For example, she quoted Hamilton arguing that the Senate should be based on population even though that was not was adopted. If you simply glance over the decision you would get the impression that only population equality could be used, but if you read carefully, she would say that population equality may be used. That is, it was OK that Texas had used population equality.

Remember, it was not the state of Texas advocating for use of voter equality, but rather defending their senate map that had used population equality.

The decision actually matched what the State had argued in their brief. The Obama DOJ had argued that Texas could not use voter equality.

If Texas were to use voter equality, it would ~~likely~~ be challenged on VRA grounds. It is uncertain how the SCOTUS would rule on that.

Alito and Thomas would have gone along with a majority decision that Texas must use voter equality, but weren't willing to write a dissent. Gorsuch did not participate, and Kavanaugh has replaced Kennedy. That would make Roberts the critical vote.

Question asked:

Must Texas create a district with a majority Hispanic CVAP and a total CVAP of 200K, if it means that another district has a total CVAP of 400K.

Sotamoyor, Breyer, Ginsberg, Kagan: Yes, because it favors Democrats.
Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh: No, because it is unprincipled to give 200K voters the same voting strength as 400K voters.
Roberts: ?????

The delay in the census will have an interesting effect in Texas. The data will be received too late for the legislature to act in the regular session in 2021. This will automatically kick legislative redistricting to the LRB, which won't face any procedural obstacles to enacting voter equality for senate districts.

Quote from: TrendsareUsuallyReal on May 22, 2020, 02:31:08 PM

Quote from: lfromnj on May 22, 2020, 02:20:03 PM

Thanks a lot jim
Anyway a key part will be if Missouri passes the new ballot initiative which has CVAp redistricting

Why does this matter, for MO-05? I don’t think Republicans are bold enough to try and split Kansas City 2 or 3 ways. I can’t imagine Hartzler being fine with having both Boone County and a big slice of Kansas Cory in her seat. Or Graves being happy with having Clay County, Platte County and another slice of Kansas City. Even if both would probably be fine from a PVI standpoint if you drew it three ways, that still invites some potential chaos in a bad year, and incumbents don’t want that.

It's quite easy and relatively clean to split kansas city 3 ways with all 3 seats being right of Missiuri.
Anyway missouri is complicated because I'm only talking about state legislative districts
In 2010 it was a bipartisan commission that deadlocked and went to the courts
Democrats cry now because Missouri is awful for them geographically and in 2018 sneaked a popular ethics reform thing with a new legislative redistricting proposal that let's one person basically chosen by the state auditor ( only statewide Democrat) make the map. Also requires minimizing the efficiency gap as the top priority which means baconmandering st Louis.
So the GOP is playing back and doing more ethics reform changes along with reverting the redistricting back to the commission.
The main change is the commission must now redistrict on CVAP to follow one man one vote. This means even less seats based in the cities. Anyway its clear the current proposal which requires a minimization of the efficiency gap is basically a Democrat Gerrymander(remember by the efficiency gap Illinois is considered a Republican gerrymander)

In Missouri CVAP redistricting doesn't really matter too much. Not a lot of hispanics or kids even in the cities. It probably costs Democrats maybe 1 or 2 seats at the state legislative level out of 180 seats. SCOTUS will probably allow this in Missouri . If the Texas state house could do it it would completely change the name of the game in the state house. All the cities lose seats. The RGV would lose 2 seats. El paso loses 1 . Dallas D areas lose 2. Harris loses 2 and theres internal shifts within Harris itself that probably costs D's another seat while Austin probably gains one. This makes a whole net gain of like 7 seats to Safe R areas.

For congressional seats in Missouri check out this thread
https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=367901.0
Its very easy for a 7-1 Missouri.

Quote from: EastAnglianLefty on April 25, 2020, 05:05:39 PM

Now that DRA has CVAP data, I've gone back and updated this to try to ensure a few more districts perform. I had to concede another Republican seat in Tarrant, but elsewhere I was generally able to improve Democratic margins even whilst trying to create performing VRA seats:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/dd9d0905-6c40-4b44-9158-d6da84c2259e

This is text of the LRB provision in the Texas state constitution:

Quote

Sec. 28. TIME FOR APPORTIONMENT; APPORTIONMENT BY LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING BOARD. The Legislature shall, at its first regular session after the publication of each United States decennial census, apportion the state into senatorial and representative districts, agreeable to the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of this Article. In the event the Legislature shall at any such first regular session following the publication of a United States decennial census, fail to make such apportionment, same shall be done by the Legislative Redistricting Board of Texas, which is hereby created, and shall be composed of five (5) members, as follows: The Lieutenant Governor, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Attorney General, the Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Commissioner of the General Land Office, a majority of whom shall constitute a quorum. Said Board shall assemble in the City of Austin within ninety (90) days after the final adjournment of such regular session. The Board shall, within sixty (60) days after assembling, apportion the state into senatorial and representative districts, or into senatorial or representative districts, as the failure of action of such Legislature may make necessary. Such apportionment shall be in writing and signed by three (3) or more of the members of the Board duly acknowledged as the act and deed of such Board, and, when so executed and filed with the Secretary of State, shall have force and effect of law. Such apportionment shall become effective at the next succeeding statewide general election. The Supreme Court of Texas shall have jurisdiction to compel such Board to perform its duties in accordance with the provisions of this section by writ of mandamus or other extraordinary writs conformable to the usages of law. The Legislature shall provide necessary funds for clerical and technical aid and for other expenses incidental to the work of the Board, and the Lieutenant Governor and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall be entitled to receive per diem and travel expense during the Board's session in the same manner and amount as they would receive while attending a special session of the Legislature.

If the 2020 census data is delayed past the end of the 2021 regular session of the Texas Legislature (which is 5/31), I don't think the LRB can act until after the 2023 session? The Census Bureau currently lists 7/31 as its deadline to get redistricting data to the states and may not even have apportionment by state ready until 4/30. If so, they would need to pass legislative maps in a special session or let a court draw them if they deadlock, and those maps would be effective for just the 2022 election unless they re-pass the same maps in 2023. It looks like the LRB could draw the maps in 2023 if there is a deadlock then, but control of the LRB would be at stake in the 2022 statewide elections. Am I missing something important here?

()

https://davesredistricting.org/join/e476466d-9715-45b5-bb98-245d4fa2c7ba

Ran some calculations on the new map.

In 2020 Pres, the partisan breakdown was 85 Trump to 65 Biden. Breakdowns for most other similar elections are similar given the lack of competitive seats and Biden doing the best in suburban Texas where there are a lot of Likley R type seats.

The median seat in 2020 was Trump + 7.9. Still about a 2.5-point bias in the GOP's favour. However, 2 important factors to consider are that narrow Trump seats are disproportionately suburban but also tend to lag topline shifts.

A few other observations:

-For whatever reason, the GOP seemed much more aggressive/greedy when gerrymandering Dallas than Houston or Austin. Collin and Denton counties especially seem like disasters waiting to happen for the GOP whi9le Houston seems a bit more generally secure and in Austin there's really only 1 or maybe 2 seats Dems could gain.

-Right now, Hidalgo and Cameron counties have horrible geography for the GOP. Between the 2 of them, it's pretty much impossible to create a Trump seat even though he won 40% of the vote there. Instead, you get a bunch of Biden + 20ish seats that the GOP could gain down the road if they continue to make enough gains, though I'm skeptical they will win either county outright anytime soon.

-Democrats have quite a high floor relative to the GOP. Seat 60 was Biden + 12.4. Seat 55 was Biden + 18.9. There's virtually no chance Rs win a supermajority in the State House because of this.

-San Antonio's map really isn't that bad and has 2 competitive districts. Seems like VRA constrained Rs a bit. Republicans currently hold the Biden + 3 seat on the South Side of the city.

So yeah, basically Texas county rules and bad geography made it difficult for the GOP to make a gerrymander that's very secure, and if Dems do win they're path likely runs mostly through holding their RGV seats, making gains in the Metroplex, and flipping a few narrow Trump seats here and there throughout the state.

Quote from: Nyvin on June 04, 2022, 05:14:29 PM

DFW could be a complete disaster for the GOP later in the decade, in a D-wave year it's easy to see Democrats picking up 12-13 seats there. I think it would've been smarter to concede a D sink in Denton and a stronger D sink in Collin, but maybe the Republicans thought a 10 seat majority is already too small?

Assuming the three vulnerable RGV seats flip to R's their floor is probably 62 seats and a majority is 76 so DFW could be right on the cusp of everything they need for a majority.

Those two Bell County districts aren't really all that secure either for the GOP, and northern Bexar actually has good trends for Democrats too so that's another 2 seats that R's hold.

For the Republicans to make up ground I don't see much beyond the three narrow RGV seats (37, 74, 80), maybe they can flip the Corpus Christi district?? Also Democrats currently hold HD-52 in Williamson, but that's been a competitive seat for a while and has pretty strong D trends.

For the state house, Republicans just can't escape from the fact that Texas is just a very urban state overall.

It depends on how much weight you put on trends. IMO the optimal path to hold for the decade would have been drawing a conservative ~7 seat majority that is like 98% safe through 2026 while opening up as many long term opportunities in the RGV as possible. The problem is at that point you are asking existing members to sacrifice their own seats for something that might happen in the future, and the rules make it impossible to just draw 76-78 60% Trump districts and make the majority a sure thing.

BTW something I always thought would be hilarious is if a state legislature had a tied chamber in the redistricting year (in a state with few or no restrictions on gerrymandering) and they made a deal to draw half of the districts >60% for each party to keep it tied for the decade.

Talk Elections

General Politics => Political Geography & Demographics => Topic started by: jimrtex on January 17, 2019, 03:13:48 AM