Texas 2020 House Apportioment

[Skill and Chance]

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.

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.

[Skill and Chance]

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.

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.

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

[Skill and Chance]

Any updates on how the census response situation is looking?  Determines whether the 39th district actually happens.

[Skill and Chance]

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

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?

[Skill and Chance]

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.