Why does Oklahoma have so many registered democrats?

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

The state doesn't appear to have an ancestral democratic domination like many areas in the south, so why are there so many registered democrats there?

Oklahoma abandoned the Democratic party a lot earlier than other Southern states in Presidential elections. But local offices were still competitive between democrats and republicans despite that. As with the national geographic realignment and the Southern local parties. The local branch declined eventually but a lot slower than the national democratic party. However a lot of people who registered democrats who might not of voted democrats they changed registration a lot slower than for example neighboring Texas which also used to have a democratic plurality of the registered voters. And thats mainly because the process in Oklahoma was for a long time having to go to a court house to change registration which for many people wasnt worth the process. However if i hear this right, the state government made it a lot easier and the number of registration changes to the GOP from longtime republican voting registered dems is going really fast which made the registration difference from double digits to single digits as of current.

Except that Texas doesn't register people with parties.

But in terms of primary participation, yes, Democratic primary turnout was usually higher than Republican primary turnout in Texas up until the 2000s.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

The state doesn't appear to have an ancestral democratic domination like many areas in the south, so why are there so many registered democrats there?

Oklahoma abandoned the Democratic party a lot earlier than other Southern states in Presidential elections. But local offices were still competitive between democrats and republicans despite that. As with the national geographic realignment and the Southern local parties. The local branch declined eventually but a lot slower than the national democratic party. However a lot of people who registered democrats who might not of voted democrats they changed registration a lot slower than for example neighboring Texas which also used to have a democratic plurality of the registered voters. And thats mainly because the process in Oklahoma was for a long time having to go to a court house to change registration which for many people wasnt worth the process. However if i hear this right, the state government made it a lot easier and the number of registration changes to the GOP from longtime republican voting registered dems is going really fast which made the registration difference from double digits to single digits as of current.

Except that Texas doesn't register people with parties.

But in terms of primary participation, yes, Democratic primary turnout was usually higher than Republican primary turnout in Texas up until the 2000s.

Also, it is interesting to note that when Texas Republicans tried to ram through a massive Gerrymandering of state districts, that Texas Democrats fled over the border to Oklahoma...

It was actually kind of a legendary action from an historical perspective, and things got a bit crazy when the Texas Rangers were deployed to fetch Dem lawmakers out of their hotel in Oklahoma...

http://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-a-2003-05-15-27-texas-67309472/381313.html

Interestingly enough, historically both Texas and Oklahoma used to have the most active Socialist support way back in the '20s and '30s.

-Texas's 2003 redistricting wasn't gerrymandering; it was simply removing an archaic highly pro-Democrat gerrymander.

The maps passed in 2001 were agreed to by a divided legislature (Democratic House, Republican Senate) and a Republican governor (Rick Perry). If it was a "pro-Democrat" gerrymander, that's more of an indictment of the competence of Perry and the Republicans than it is any perfidy on the Democrats' part.

In pre-2003 Texas, you could have Democrats get a majority of CDs while losing the statewide House PV for the same reason Democrats today can win a presidential vote by 2% but lose the EC. Geography, geography, geography.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

-Texas's 2003 redistricting wasn't gerrymandering; it was simply removing an archaic highly pro-Democrat gerrymander.

The maps passed in 2001 were agreed to by a divided legislature (Democratic House, Republican Senate) and a Republican governor (Rick Perry). If it was a "pro-Democrat" gerrymander, that's more of an indictment of the competence of Perry and the Republicans than it is any perfidy on the Democrats' part.

There were no congressional or legislative maps passed in 2001. A state district court drew a map that was probably the fairest ever drawn. The judge then said he had a few "tweaks" that Democratic House Speaker Pete Laney had requested. When the judge released his final maps there had been major changes. The Texas Supreme Court overturned his decision on grounds that it violated due process.

The Federal District Court which had held off considering the case had to act. They admitted that as a federal court, they did not have the authority to totally disregard the 1991 Democrat gerrymander since that had been passed by Texas. They drew two new Republican seats and unkinked a few of the more bizarre borders, but they admitted they were preserving the Democratic gerrymander.

Meanwhile the Legislative Redistricting Board drew new House and Senate boundaries, undoing decades of Democratic gerrymanders. The legislative boundaries were the first since the 1960s to remain unchanged by legal action for the remainder of the decade.

In 2003, the legislature fulfilled their obligation to draw congressional districts, despite efforts by the Democrats to break quorum.

Yeah, districts that were in such flagrant violation of the VRA that a court had to order a new map for the 2006 elections.