US House Redistricting: Texas

[muon2]

Are two Hispanic districts going to be required in Houston? I drew a 60% Hispanic district, but it was still 58% Obama. The rest of the Hispanics I put in Republican districts. I turned the 18th into a lean Republican district that voted 51-49 Mccain. It contains Hispanic areas and north Harris county suburbs, and is about 32% Hispanic. My 8th consists of Montgomery county and then a sliver down into Harris to pick up some Hispanic areas. That district is 29% Hispanic, but still voted for Mccain with 69% of the vote. I suppose that could be considered diluting the vote, and might not get past the courts.

I put all Houston Blacks in one district, which voted about 90-9 Obama. Republicans will definitely try to draw that district, and it's only 60% black so I don't know if that will be considered packing. You definitely can't draw two Black majority districts there. But how good of an argument is to say that Blacks need two opportunity districts? I suspect Hispanics will get another district but Blacks won't. 

I split Austin in four, but I fear I may have drawn too few Hispanic districts overall. I am guessing Austin Hispanics get put into a district with South Texas, though the courts frowned upon that last time, right?

Last year I posted a Houston area map assuming 36 districts. It includes a black majority district (light blue 9) and two Hispanic majority districts (yellow 18 and olive 29). CD 29 is a solid 68% Hispanic, and easily defensible as a VRA district. CD 18 is at 57% Hispanic with 21% black and will probably be over 50% Hispanic VAP to satisfy section 2. I'll leave it to the local experts to determine how well it would elect a candidate of choice.

As I drew it there are still only three Harris county districts for Dems. That should give the GOP a shot a the new CD 35 (purple). It's a net increase of minority districts and of GOP districts.

[muon2]

Sam, I think that your DFW minority districts are not as VRA-proof as the TX GOP might want. This provides more margin to correct for the VAP, and even citizen VAP if needed. This will be especially needed since this would go through the Obama DOJ. So, here's my bullet-proof minority districts for the Metroplex.



CD 30:
White 27%, Black 53%, Asian 3%, Hispanic 16%
Obama 79%, McCain 20%

CD 33:
White 21%, Black 9%, Asian 3%, Hispanic 66%
Obama 66%, McCain 33%

[muon2]

Yes, having now just looked at the question (because I was in a state of total confusion myself), apparently Justice Kennedy was vague in Bartlett v Strickland (did he mean to be vague, or was he just sloppy?), about whether the relevant minority class under the VRA was VAP or citizen VAP. His language just says VAP, but a later lower court opined in REYES v. CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH TEXAS that  given the context of the relevant phrase in Bartlett, and the fact that the issue of VAP versus citizen VAP was not before the Bartlett court, and  that the whole concept of voting means eligible to vote,  what Justice Kennedy really meant to say was citizen VAP, and not just VAP, and so ruled.

And since that lower court was the 5th Circuit, that holding is the governing authority for the moment for Texas, unless and until Justice Kennedy in a later case rules that no, when he wrote VAP, and did not include the qualifier "citizen," that was because he intended not to. It is all very odd, since the lower court in Bartlett which was appealed to SCOTUS, explicitly discussed the issue of citizen versus non-citizen, and explicitly ruled that the relevant number was citizen VAP, and one cannot not include the non citizen minority VAP in the count.

Fun stuff isn't it?

Especially since the 7th Circuit wasn't willing to use a standard like CVAP in Gonzalez v. City of Aurora (2008). They want to compare the approved map to a race neutral map to test for vote dilution. Clearly the two circuits differ in approach and it sets up an inevitable SCOTUS review after the 2011 redistricting IMHO. Many legal experts I've spoke to in the last year agree that the subject of VAP vs CVAP will need clarification by the high court.

[muon2]

Similar to my effort in DFW, here's what I get for the Houston area. Here my goal was 60% for the Hispanic districts. I got close with the estimates and rough mapping of Dave's App. I'm confident that with block-level mapping 60% would be achievable. Definitely not pretty.



CD 9:
White 13%, Black 61%, Asian 5%, Hispanic 21%
Obama 86%, McCain 14%

CD 18:
White 22%, Black 14%, Asian 5%, Hispanic 58.2%
Obama 62%, McCain 37%

CD 29:
White 21%, Black 16%, Asian 4%, Hispanic 59.0%
Obama 69%, McCain 31%

[muon2]

We are in agreement here, Torie.  The Supreme Court decisions in the area of congressional appropriation in recent years generally suck royally.  No wonder is it that so many of the recent ones have been written by Kennedy.

Of course, I also think Reynolds v. Sims was wrongly decided, so maybe my opinion is a little out there.

I was always a bit surprised that the Reynolds court didn't establish separate standards for upper and lower chambers for state legislatures. Clearly there is that distinction for the US Senate. They could have held that as long as one chamber was fairly apportioned, then the republican model applied to the states would work as well as the federal system was intended by the Constitution.

[muon2]

Sam, I think that your DFW minority districts are not as VRA-proof as the TX GOP might want. This provides more margin to correct for the VAP, and even citizen VAP if needed. This will be especially needed since this would go through the Obama DOJ. So, here's my bullet-proof minority districts for the Metroplex.



CD 30:
White 27%, Black 53%, Asian 3%, Hispanic 16%
Obama 79%, McCain 20%

CD 33:
White 21%, Black 9%, Asian 3%, Hispanic 66%
Obama 66%, McCain 33%

I don't think GOP would have any problem drawing those districts, even though they are *butt ugly* (to put it mildly).  I didn't do it, because, odd as it may sound, I'm aiming for something that looks a bit nicer.

Here's what I'm going to point out - Texas is really looking for fights with the Feds right now, and vice versa.  The reason why I'm drawing the maps that raise questions is because Texas lawmakers are almost certainly going to produce one based on their interpretation of LULAC v. Perry that comes as close to skirting the lines as they think possible.

In particular, they are going to read LULAC v. Perry as saying that 'so long as there is 50%+1 Latino citizen VAP, the first Gingles threshold requirement is not met, and, therefore, there is no Section 2 violation.'  TX-23, in that instance had 55% Latino population, 50% VAP and 46% citizen VAP.  TX-23 is probably going to be a tad lower on the citizen VAP than other parts of Texas, but if we have 59% to 60% Latino population, there will be 50%+1 citizen VAP.

And when the Obama Justice Dept. blocks this map through Section 5, they're going to argue the unconstitutionality of the Section 5, which the Court successfully ignored in Northwest Austin Municipal District No.1 v. Holder, but left quite a cautious tone on its continued viability (of course, Roberts does not speak for Kennedy, naturally)..

You'll see this game come to fruition in the next couple of maps I draw.

EDIT:  I see Torie's new post which suggests question between citizen VAP and regular VAP.  I am almost certain it is citizen VAP, just having read the ruling again before making the above post, but I am trying to show the number where 50%+1 citizen VAP is reached, at least along the border in Texas.

I see you went with something close to my "butt-ugly" version for minority districts in DFW.

TX-30
a) Johnson
b) Obama 82, McCain 17 (previous Obama 82, McCain 18)
c) Black 51, White 25, Hispanic 20, Asian 3
d) Now extends to reach the blacks in Tarrant County.  Also now majority-black.

TX-33
a) None
b) Obama 69, McCain 30
c) Hispanic 63 (63.16), White 21, Black 13, Asian 3
d) What an ugly looking strip of Hispanic minority-majority land.

[muon2]

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

[muon2]

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

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

[muon2]

This whole Texas redistricting crap is outrageous.  Basically the DOJ wants Texas to swap one gerrymandered district for another. 

This racial crap is sickening.  The law is one MAN one vote, not one racial group, one vote.  We all have the same right to walk in to the booth and select one candidate for House of Representatives no matter where we live

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

[muon2]

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

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

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

Prior to 1990 there was no Hispanic-majority district in IL. The legislature did not act to produce a map in 1991 and there were a number of suits with proposed maps later that year. The Federal district court mandated a map supported by a plaintiff, Nieves, that sued to create a section 2 Hispanic district. The 7th Circuit affirmed that Nieves was a prevailing party, but the case(s) did not go to SCOTUS.

After the 1993 Shaw decision there was a new suit (King) that attacked the shape of the new IL-04. This went back and forth through the courts as additional SCOTUS decisions in the 1990's needed to be considered. Finally the lower court found that under SCOTUS precedent "remedying a potential violation of or achieving compliance with § 2 [of the Voting Rights Act] is a compelling state interest." Based on that finding, it affirmed the creation of IL-04 as part of the map mandated earlier in the decade. In 1998 SCOTUS summarily affirmed that lower court decision.

I interpret that as an indirect mandate for the creation of the district by SCOTUS.

I don't claim to know if any of this will apply to TX in this cycle.

[muon2]

IMHO there's a difference between uniting technically separate but similar areas on the west side of the city of Chicago (plus a couple inner burbs), which looks ugly but is not as ugly as it looks, and uniting downtown (and south) Dallas with downtown Forth Worth - let alone doing so twice.
Which, of course, is why I drew my districts in Dallas and its immediate suburbs alone. Though I did cross the county line.
But yeah, to get the Black district over 50% you need to draw it first and put all the Black-and-Hispanic areas in it. Drawing a Hispanic district from what's left after that requires heading to Fort Worth, I think.

I suspect that the two neighborhoods linked in Chicago are just as politically and culturally distinct as the two linked in my Metroplex map.

[muon2]

Judges to draw interim map.

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

[muon2]

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

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

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

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



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

[muon2]

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

I was constrained to precincts by DRA, so I suspect you are correct. I did appreciate how close it was to plan even with my crude building blocks.

I thought it interesting that no group seemed to go for the outright BVAP majority that I drew.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[muon2]

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

Where do you get reliable data on that?

At present, the best technique is to apply the 3-year or 5-year ACS data from 2009 onto districts which are closely approximated by the geography of that data. That ACS data uses neither the 2010 geography, nor is it available at the block level. It also is a small sample so it is prone to statistical errors.

The various federal circuits have not agreed on the use of VAP as opposed to CVAP. VAP can be precisely determined from the Census, but CVAP can only be inferred through statistics. However, for Latino populations CVAP better measures voting strength in a district. SCOTUS has not taken up this issue, though many observers believe it will have to address it in this decade of cases.

[muon2]

Well, we'll see what the court says and if they don't rule in the Republicans favor, then there probably isn't much recourse left. This never would have happened if the Republicans hadn't played fast and loose with the VRA in parts of the state.

It never would have happened if the DC Circuit Court of Appeals realized that the legislature had the Constitutional right to draw the map, and the statutory option to  seek preclearance in its court.  Between the two, it would seem obvious that the DC Circuit was obligated to expedite its review.

The DC Circuit Court should have ruled long ago.

A year and a half ago the feeling in many circles was that the Obama DOJ was going to prove an obstacle to GOP maps in section 5 states. There was a lot of talk about bypassing DOJ preclearance and using the DC Circuit instead.

Yet, now it looks like the DOJ rolled over on opportunities for minority representation in states it reviewed. OTOH the TX plan goes the circuit route and gets the 3rd degree.

[muon2]

Does anyone have the PVI for TX-33?  Thanks

62.5% Obama, according to this: http://d2o6nd3dubbyr6.cloudfront.net/media/documents/PlanC220_RED206_2008G_Statewides.pdf

Has anyone combined this with the 2004 data to get PVIs?

[muon2]

Unanimous too.

The interim plan’s Congressional District 33, for example, disregards aspects of the State’s plan that appear to be subject to strong challenges in the §5 proceeding.

The Justices flatly rejected the declaration of the San Antonio court that it was “not required to give any deference” to what the legislature had crafted.  The lower court was wrong, the Court added, “to the extent” it “exceeded its mission to draw interim maps that do not violate the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act, and substituted its own concept of ‘the collective public good’ for the Texas legislature’s determination of which policies serve ‘the interests of the citizens of Texas.’ ”

Further, the Court wrote, “because the District Court here had the benefit of a recently enacted plan to assist it, the court had neither the need nor the license to cast aside that vital aid.”

The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the SA District Court and told them to give more deference to the legislature's plans.

The problem is the district court has already heard the Section 2 claims, but can't rule on them because they aren't ripe for ruling on until the the DC Court rules on the Section 5 claims.  it would have been better if the Texas district court had not acted until after the DC Court had issued its ruling.  It is likely that this would have pushed the DC Court to act quicker.

The SA district court could simply ordered no legislative and congressional elections until a plan was precleared or until any apparent Section 5 violations were remedied.

They did cast a negative impression on coalition districts. TX-33 is specifically out. I wonder if the San Antonio Court tries to wholesale redraw TX-25 again.

The original dissenting judge upheld a map that dismantled TX-25 and threw Doggett into a Hispanic district. Although now Doggett might still win that as Castro slid over to TX-20.

That makes sense since they had ruled three years ago that crossover and coalition districts were at the discretion of the state. Section 2 only applied to 50%+ majority districts per Gingles.

I do note the SC says the state's plan for DFL "appear to be subject to strong challenges in the §5 proceeding" and the district court was right in not following it. Then they say the district court oughtn't to have drawn a coalition district on purpose. Doesn't that mean they ought to have drawn the (possible) Hispanic-majority district instead? It happens to be far more disruptive to the existing GOP gerrymander...

It seems like they should do so, if they would find that there is a likelihood of a successful challenge on that specific point. If the plaintiffs aren't making that case, then the court should look only to population growth.

[muon2]

I do note the SC says the state's plan for DFL "appear to be subject to strong challenges in the §5 proceeding" and the district court was right in not following it. Then they say the district court oughtn't to have drawn a coalition district on purpose. Doesn't that mean they ought to have drawn the (possible) Hispanic-majority district instead? It happens to be far more disruptive to the existing GOP gerrymander...

The SA district court should just wait for the DC court to issue its ruling.

But are they patient enough to do that?

[muon2]

The NAACP is proposing a Dem gerrymander and spouting one of the more amusing advisory opinions around.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BxeOfQQnUr_gY2Q1YjM1MDMtNGRjZC00ZjhkLWJlMmItOTY1NWU2ZjBkYTc2&pli=1



Apparently, they are upset at blacks being removed from TX-6 and TX-24 to be moved into the new TX-33......

The memo claims both a section 2 and 5 violation, but much of the argument is about coalition districts which are only optional under section 2. The only relevance of section 5 here is if the SA court is going to rule that the DC case will likely find a section 5 deficiency. So it seems to me that much of his argument misses the target. But I admit that this is a tangled mess, and I may have missed something.

[muon2]

MALDEF brief on TX-25.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxeOfQQnUr_gVnAyTjN5aUFRR09iNnU3cE01SDAtdw/edit?pli=1#

Under this logic, any majority-minority district can be dismantled, its Latino and Black voters scattered into districts where they constitute less than 30% of the voters, and, as long as a Democratic candidate wins the General Election, the Voting Rights Act will be satisfied. That is simply not the case.

I read just the opposite. The brief argues that a section 5 minority district must show that the minority can control the primary as well as the general election. They specifically argue that Doggett's district does not meet that test and can claim no section 5 protection.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is from the brief and affirms what I said above. MALDEF is arguing against the protection of Doggett's district.

[muon2]

While watching the hoops his weekend, I thought I'd apply my algorithm from CA and NY to TX to compare to the various official maps. As with the other states I start with a regional division of whole counties representing an area with a whole number of districts. However, TX has lots of counties and that allows for more regions with tighter tolerance to the ideal. In this case I required all the regions to be within 0.1% of the ideal district population (ie within 698). This is the map.



The regions (district count) and deviations from ideal are:
El Paso region (2 CDs) +133
Lubbock region (1 CD) +24
Amarillo region (1 CD) -160
Brownsville region (3 CDs) -368
San Antonio region (4 CDs) -422
Waco region (1 CD) +167
Austin region (3 CDs) -130
Dallas region (9 CDs) +33
Sugar Land region (1 CD) -182
Houston region (8 CDs) +262
Beaumont region (3 CDs) +644

Had I used the 0.5% tolerance from NY and CA I would have included three additional regions:
The counties east of Bexar and Comal would be separate from the San Antonio region
Denton and Cooke counties would be separate from the Dallas region
The southern part of the Beaumont district would form a single CD and leave the other two districts in a region just over 0.1%.

DRA maps in the next post ...

[muon2]

Here's the resulting map in DRA from my initial set of regions. Districts are drawn to minimize county splits and all districts are within 500 and all except 35 and 36 are within 300 of the ideal population. The numbering follows the initial regional divisions.

There are 10 districts with a Hispanic VAP majority and 2 with a Black VAP majority. They are listed below along with the percent VAP and percent of registered voters with Spanish surnames (SSRV).

CD 1 (El Paso) H 77.9% (SSVR 66.2%)
CD 2 (Midland) H 59.9% (SSVR 50.2%)
CD 5 (Corpus Christi) H 67.8% (SSVR 58.4%)
CD 6 (Brownsville) H 85.7% (SSVR 78.5%)
CD 7 (McAllen) H 87.6% (SSVR 78.5%)
CD 9 (San Antonio west) HVAP 61.8% (SSVR 50.7%)
CD 10 (San Antonio south) HVAP 62.0% (SSVR 50.9%)
CD 18 (Dallas central/Ft Worth central) HVAP 63.3% (SSVR 38.0%)
CD 19 (Dallas south) BVAP 50.8%
CD 30 (Houston northwest) HVAP 60.3% (SSVR 33.8%)
CD 31 (Houston central) BVAP 50.9%
CD 32 (Houston east/Pasadena) HVAP 62.4% (SSVR 42.2%)



Here's the detail for central TX, DFW, and Houston:

[muon2]

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxeOfQQnUr_gOEx1X0dxbllTS3VhVmxtRk9aSjJ6QQ/edit

Ultimately, the court decided that - on an interim basis - the loss of CD-25 was offset for the district’s Hispanic population by inclusion of most of the Hispanic population in the new CD-35 and that the impact on the district’s African-American population was offset by the creation of the new CD-33 in North Texas.

I don't interpret it that way.

23 is kept at benchmark performance;

33 is to address issues of fragmentation of the minority population in the DFW area, and the court doesn't believe a compact Hispanic CVAP majority district can be drawn.

35 addresses statewide retrogression claims, and 25 is not protected.   And because it is not possible to create 8 compact Hispanic districts in south Texas (maybe the Supreme Court will decide that 15, 23, 25, 27, 28, 33, 34, and 35 are all non-compact),

Is the court going to use CVAP? I noticed that submitted documents typically reference Spanish Surname Registered Voters, rather than CVAP.

[muon2]

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxeOfQQnUr_gOEx1X0dxbllTS3VhVmxtRk9aSjJ6QQ/edit

Ultimately, the court decided that - on an interim basis - the loss of CD-25 was offset for the district’s Hispanic population by inclusion of most of the Hispanic population in the new CD-35 and that the impact on the district’s African-American population was offset by the creation of the new CD-33 in North Texas.

I don't interpret it that way.

23 is kept at benchmark performance;

33 is to address issues of fragmentation of the minority population in the DFW area, and the court doesn't believe a compact Hispanic CVAP majority district can be drawn.

35 addresses statewide retrogression claims, and 25 is not protected.   And because it is not possible to create 8 compact Hispanic districts in south Texas (maybe the Supreme Court will decide that 15, 23, 25, 27, 28, 33, 34, and 35 are all non-compact),

Is the court going to use CVAP? I noticed that submitted documents typically reference Spanish Surname Registered Voters, rather than CVAP.

I think that SSVR is used to estimate registration of Hispanic voters since Texas not use race as a voter qualification.  I think that in general that they are using reconstructed election results, as the actual test.  It gets really messy when you start trying to figure out whether you not only have to choose enough minority voters, and factor in whether they vote the right way or, vote at all even though eligible, and whether other voters vote the same way.

In any case I didn't see a CVAP analysis from any of the parties like I did in CA. CVAP also is an estimate since it isn't from 2010 and is a sample. I assumed it wasn't relevant in the TX circuit. It's not used in IL under the 7th circuit.

The interesting feature of SSVR, is when a district is over 50% SSVR and votes solidly GOP. I would conclude that either there isn't much polarized voting compared to other areas of the state. My example is CD 2 in my map - 50.2% SSRV and 60%+ GOP.