Texas 2020 House Apportioment

[Kevinstat]

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)?

[Kevinstat]

Districts 59 through 63 are south and west of DFW (division of Johnson to follow).

Whereabouts in the light blue blob was the infamous David Koresh compound, or was it perhaps outside Waco proper and in the orange district?

[Kevinstat]

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).

[Kevinstat]

I also meant to ask: are any counties' 2010 decimal quotas (besides Harris's obviously) (the quotas that governed what the current districts could be) in any of the ranges of numbers that are within 5% of two integers?  Like between 10.45 and 10.50 for Tarrant?  Based on what I know that's the only other one possible, as I know your 10.424 projection for Bexar (just below the lowest such range) has it growing faster than the state as a whole and that Dallas's 2010 quota was 14.118 (6.88% below 15).

I'm guessing no for Tarrant, that it was was over 10.50 in 2010 (it was obviously over 10.45) as otherwise it would have been noteworthy that it was apportioned 11 districts in 2010 rather than 10.  Although the harmonic mean of 10 and 11 (the point at which a Tarrant County voter's share of a representative would be the same amont off the statewide average with 10 representatives as 11) is 10.476 and the geometric mean (the number that's the same % {above 10, below 11} that {11, 10} is {above, below} it) is 10.488, so arguably giving Tarrant 11 Representatives in the 2011/2012 redistricting would have been justified as long as Tarrant's quota was above either of those numbers, even if it was below 10.50 and thus in a "range of flexibility."

I see that Harris's 2010 quota was 24.4 (if you round to the nearest 0.1), which is only between 5% of 24 and 25.  Anything between 24.350 and 24.450 is below the arithmetic (24.500), geometric (24.495) and harmonic (24.490) means of 24 and 25 (they get closer together the higher you get), so it's not surprising that Harris County was apportioned only 24 Representatives last time, even if there is some flexibility (I'm not sure if there is or not).

[Kevinstat]

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.

[Kevinstat]

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

You forgot Jackson (8%) (or possibly rounding to 7% of the district since the district is +1.69%).

[Kevinstat]

Didnt Beto come pretty close in the core Lubbock district? it was something like a 10 point loss or something like that.

According to Emil Shabanov (@emilshabanovTX, who made the map of the Cruz/O'Rourke Senate race by House district), the result in the current State House district entirely in Lubbock County (HD 84) was Cruz 55.90%, O'Rourke 43.27% (a 12.63% marin for Cruz).  That's a lot better for Democrats than Trump 59.58%, Clinton 35.12% in 2016, but it's still not particularly close.  It's possible Beto did a bit better in the cure Lubbock district that Jimrtex has drawn, but I imagine it would still have a pretty strong Republican lean (Cruz seemed to run well behind other Republicans).

[Kevinstat]

Its also possible to get a beto seat in Lubbuck...

https://twitter.com/emilshabanovTX/status/1112472921560285185

For the benefit of those who don't want to click on the link for whatever reason, here's a map of that hypothetical Beto House district entirely in Lubbock County:



Interesting that the most Democratic all-Lubbock County House district discovered so far (that I'm aware of) extends well outside the City of Lubbock (that is itself too large for one House district) to a corner of the county.  Any particular factors that make southeastern Lubbock County (apart from Slaton or the portion thereof not included in that district) Democratic or at least less Republican than parts of Lubbock itself?

[Kevinstat]

The July 1, 2018 population estimates came out yesterday.  I'm curious if the new numbers, when plugged into your model, result in any counties crossing an 0.95n or 1.05n (n being an integer) House quota boundary for 2020 for quotas less than an even 10, or an n+0.5 boundary for quotas greater than 10.  I guess I'd also be interested if you had Bexar County crossing the 10.45 (5% under 11) boundary, or the 10.476 (harmonic mean of 10 and 11) or 10.488 (geometric mean of 10 and 11) boundaries (and of course the 10.5 boundary, which is both the arithmetic mean of 10 and 11 and 5% over 10).

(An earlier post of yours makes it pretty clear that you can't apportion say, Harris County a number of House districts other than the number its quota rounds to.  With greater mathematical awareness since the Texas Constitution was written I'd argue some flexibility might be in order if Bexar County's quota ended up being between 10.476 and 10.5, or at least if it was between 10.488 and 5, but I'm not a lawyer.  Dallas and Tarrant counties aren't close to being within 5% of more than one integer in your projections and Harris County isn't close to being in an n+0.5 neighborhood.)

[Kevinstat]

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 figres that I haven't noticed.