US House Redistricting: Texas

[BigSkyBob]

Doggett found a proposed Republican map.

htp://ww.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/politics/entries/2011/04/28/a_proposed_redistricting_map_w.html

The long and short of it:

1. Doggett's district turned into a Travis-Bexar district, presumably Hispanic VRA.
2. Hispanic 33rd in Metroplex.
3. Corpus-based 35th and points north for Farenthold or someone else, his old district reverting to VRA.
4. 2nd district moves all the way into Harris County, and what used to be the 2nd in East Texas is now the 36th.
5. 34th district looks bizarre, linking Parker County to the Hill Country across the remains of Edwards' pre-Delaymander district. Presumably picking up leftover territory after the 21st and 31st districts shrink and expand into Travis.

You can't see the bottom of that map. It depends on how Hidalgo is split; 27 there is almost certainly a Dem district, but 15 might not be.

That 31st is really bad. Williamson and Bell need to be split.

You seem to have answered my question. Apperently, it is the 15th that Pena is targeting. The other option was for him to inherit the 27th.

[BigSkyBob]

Rumor has it that C115 will be the plan.

DKE in panic mode.

[BigSkyBob]

Also, that map splits Laredo in two. Why would anyone expect that to be more acceptable this decade than it was last time?

A lot of meaningful objectionss can be made to the map. Splitting Laredo is simply not one of them.

[BigSkyBob]

That might end up being a 27-9 map. The 15th isn't very dem there. Though they need to smash gene green still and plop a new dallas Hispanic district, which also nicely completely eliminates the last 2 white liberals.

There is no conceivable way the 15th survives a court challenge.  They struck down a Hidalgo-Austin Map, what makes you think they'd approve of a Hidalgo-HOUSTON map?

While the district may very well be challenged in court, it simply is "conceivable" that the district is upheld. Courts have approved baconmandering South Texas for decades. Failing to baconmander South Texas would result in a couple of very Hispanic districts along the Rio Grand, and series of more marginal districts to the North. That sounds fine with me.

The appearance of the district might not even be an issue.

[BigSkyBob]

They don't have to always vote for the preferred Hispanic candidate. Just often enough that the Hispanic voting influence is not clearly being diluted. (And what they did with Farenthold reflects that; he got a safe seat, and they created a new Hispanic seat to replace the Farenthold seat.)

TX-23 is similar; it can elect Republicans sometimes, it just has to generally reflect Hispanic voter will. Which the old probably does, but the new one probably does not and may get thrown out. (It would be easy enough to up the Democratic percentage anyway--Corpus has a bunch of Hispanics who could be taken, for example, and the new TX-28 and TX-15 are packed more than they need to be.)

And, yes, the map does have to be 24-12. Or, at least, it has to be at least 24-10-2 or so.

Riddle me this, then - if 40% of Hispanics generally prefer to elect Republicans, why should Hispanic-preferring Republicans always be forced into districts in which their preferred Republican candidate could never win?  Why should you have to pack every Hispanic-majority district with the requisite number Hispanics and Democratic voters so that they almost always elect Democrats?  In other words, if there should be, say 18 minority-majority CDs drawn for Hispanics in Texas, why shouldn't a Republican be electable in 8-10 of them, instead of creating racial Gerrymandered districts that cater to the preferred candidates of a bare majority of the "special" race?  Why should Hispanic Republicans get disenfranchised due to their race?

There is a simple enough answer to this question: 50% of the voting age citizen population could be the threshold. If the Republican, White or Hispanic, wins a higher percentage of the White vote than the Democrat wins of the Hispanic vote, so be it.

People here seem to be arguing the absurdity that if the Hispanics are 51-49 Democrat, while Whites are 75% Republican,  the VRA requires a district that is 98% Hispanic.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

Literally, you just said the Constitution prevents governments from erecting barriers to voting based on race. Presumably,  that same Constitution prevents governments from creating systems in which the votes of the members of some races carry more weight than the votes of others, which I think is more of Timothy's point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Poll taxes and literacy tests were used to "disenfranchise" Blacks, and gerrymandering was used to prevent "franchised" Blacks from winning elections ["disenfranchise" them]. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly, the Congress has the Constitutional power to enact enforcements of the reconstruction Amendments. Clearly, the same Congress has no Constitutional authority to deny equal protection to any race, including Caucasians.  Nor, does the Constitution allow members of Congress to mandate the outcomes of elections. Who wins elections is the Constitutional prerogative of the people.

Timothy seems to be claiming that, effectively, the Congress is going into a geographic area and legislating that some of citizen residents of the appropriate age are not to be allowed to win the next election simply because of their race. There really is something very Constitutionally suspect in noting that if a the majority of some voting block is not part of the majority of all voters something untowards has happened. That's overweighting the vote of that block, which is as Constitutionally unacceptable as underweighting it.

In the real world we all have the same de jure right to win an election, but, radically different defacto rights to win an election. People with IQs of 120-130 win more elections than those with IQs of 70-80. Physically attractive candidates win more often than ugly ones. Taller candidates do better than shorter ones. Nicene Protestants win at a greater rate than Mormons. Wealthy people win more often than poor folk. The Communist candidate has lost every Presidential elections, and, hopeful, that will always be the case.

We all believe that the Congress has the right to legislate against religious discrimination. I don't believe that the Congress has authority to legislate the gerrymandering of districts based on religion so that members of disfavored religions can win. Second guessing the motives of voters in the voting booth is a highly dangerous precedent.

There are Constitutional challenges to the VRA working their way through the system. One of the possible outcomes is that Timothy's position prevails. Another possibility is that it is that the VRA is further narrowed to more racially neutral standards.

Finally, I would note that if Allen West were to be gerrymandered out of his seat, and, if Allen West could produce emails from every legislator stating that their motive in redrawing the districts was to eliminate West's district simply because he was Black, he would have no recourse under the VRA as it is certainly enforced. That's utterly bizarre.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Baker vs Carr is a Supreme Court decision, the VRA is a congressional act.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

The GOP received the 3rd Degree from the Appeals Courts. The Supreme Court will have the final say.

We will never know what would have happened if the GOP had chosen to meekly abide by the DOJ rather than preparing to litigate.

[BigSkyBob]

The GOP received the 3rd Degree from the Appeals Courts. The Supreme Court will have the final say.

Appeals Court?

DC Circuit.

It was a District Court that screwed them on the maps.

[BigSkyBob]

Senate Plan

Cuts down a bit on the NE arm of 10, and adds areas in west Fort Worth and Tarrant County.

Wendy Davis was hoping to keep more of the district which Perry carried by +8, and was +18 down ballot.   What a whiner.

What the Hell is up with Neuces? It seems to be the same unconstitutional needless split the courts tried to impose.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

However, the Voting Rights Act does not exist to protect political parties or office-holders. The Court need not accept the invitation to hold that any district, regardless of its demographic composition or level of polarized voting, is protected by section 5 simply because minority voters agree with the outcome of the General Election because such a holding would stretch section 5 beyond any reasonable interpretation.

The VRA was passed during a time in the South in which the majority of Blacks voted for the Democratic primary, and, the Democratic nominee won the general election. If that was really the standard, there would not have been any need for the VRA. The VRA was passed to ensure Black candidates had the opportunity to win the Democratic primary.

[BigSkyBob]

16th District reverts in primary.


Past practise of the DoJ in 1984 [Mississippi] and 2004 [Texas] has been to redraw a yet heavier minority district if the "wrong" candidate won [White Republican in Mississippi and Hispanic Republican in Texas.] Could we see El Paso redrawn to exclude as many Whites as possible?

[BigSkyBob]

Did the winner of the Dem primary not have a majority of the Hispanic vote?

No. The winner had 50.4% of the vote, and a much higher percentage among White voters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, that is the exact opposite of the Truth. The VRA has two key components. First, that Blacks, and other minorities, can vote. And, second, they can vote for whomever they want, and, not just the preferable/least_objectionable White candidate.

Again, the past practise of the DoJ has been to demand that such districts that revert be "packed" with even more minorities so that a minority candidate wins.

[BigSkyBob]

BTW, El Paso County, TX has more than the population of a congressional district but of that population, 82.2% is Hispanic. Only 13.1% (about 100,000 people) is non-Hispanic white. At least some of them are presumably in TX-23 and not TX-16.

It looks like BSB is responding to the fact that the winner has an Irish surname,

No, I'm responding to the fact that according to media accounts neither his mother or father is of Hispanic heritage.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, in 1984 it was "relevant to the VRA" that a White Republican beat a Black Democrat in Mississippi in a VRA district, and 2004 it was "relevant to the VRA" that a Hispanic Republican beat a Hispanic Democrat in a VRA district. So why isn't it "relevant to the VRA" that a White Democrat beat a Hispanic Democratic in a VRA district?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except, of course, for this election.

[BigSkyBob]

BTW, El Paso County, TX has more than the population of a congressional district but of that population, 82.2% is Hispanic. Only 13.1% (about 100,000 people) is non-Hispanic white. At least some of them are presumably in TX-23 and not TX-16.

It looks like BSB is responding to the fact that the winner has an Irish surname, but that's not relevant to VRA. If there's racially polarized voting in El Paso, than almost definitionally it's not Anglos who are winning.

Very few, if memory serves. The state intentionally drew TX-23 to include El Paso County Hispanics, so they could balance it with Bexar County whites.

Then, a more heavily Hispanic district could be drawn to remedy the reversion. That's what happened in Mississippi in 1984 and Texas in 2002.

[BigSkyBob]

Did the winner of the Dem primary not have a majority of the Hispanic vote?

No. The winner had 50.4% of the vote, and a much higher percentage among White voters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, that is the exact opposite of the Truth. The VRA has two key components. First, that Blacks, and other minorities, can vote. And, second, they can vote for whomever they want, and, not just the preferable/least_objectionable White candidate.

Again, the past practise of the DoJ has been to demand that such districts that revert be "packed" with even more minorities so that a minority candidate wins.

I can't find any links to exit polls, but this district is something like 70-80% Hispanic. O'Rourke must have received a significant portion of the Hispanic vote. Even if he didn't receive a majority of the Hispanic vote, I don't think you could really classify this as "racially polarized voting."

If Whites voted overwhelming for the White Democrat, and Hispanics voted mostly for the Hispanic Democrat, that seems to be "racially polarized" voting to me!

[BigSkyBob]

Again, in 1984 it was "relevant to the VRA" that a White Republican beat a Black Democrat in Mississippi in a VRA district, and 2004 it was "relevant to the VRA" that a Hispanic Republican beat a Hispanic Democrat in a VRA district. So why isn't it "relevant to the VRA" that a White Democrat beat a Hispanic Democratic in a VRA district?

The identity of the candidate doesn't matter.

Please, "regression" has everything to do with the "identity" of candidate who wins.

[BigSkyBob]

Did the winner of the Dem primary not have a majority of the Hispanic vote?

No. The winner had 50.4% of the vote, and a much higher percentage among White voters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, that is the exact opposite of the Truth. The VRA has two key components. First, that Blacks, and other minorities, can vote. And, second, they can vote for whomever they want, and, not just the preferable/least_objectionable White candidate.

Again, the past practise of the DoJ has been to demand that such districts that revert be "packed" with even more minorities so that a minority candidate wins.

I can't find any links to exit polls, but this district is something like 70-80% Hispanic. O'Rourke must have received a significant portion of the Hispanic vote. Even if he didn't receive a majority of the Hispanic vote, I don't think you could really classify this as "racially polarized voting."

If Whites voted overwhelming for the White Democrat, and Hispanics voted mostly for the Hispanic Democrat, that seems to be "racially polarized" voting to me!

Again, I'd really like to see the exit polls. I don't know what the margins are in this particular case, but the demographics of the district suggest that O'Rourke received at least a substantial minority of Hispanic voters. I contend that it isn't racially polarized voting on the basis that the Hispanic vote was sufficiently divided in such a way as to allow the white Democrat to emerge victorious. My opinion on this may change when and if I see the exit polls.

The district as drawn is north of 75% Hispanic VAP. It's possible to draw a roughly 85% Hispanic VAP seat, but it looks real ugly and splits a few counties, and weakens CD-23.

I think the important thing is to see if this continues in future elections. One fluke election isn't enough to throw out an entire seat- otherwise, CD-23 would've been changed years ago. Now, if the preferred candidate of choice continually is defeated, measures might have to be taken, but it's an overreaction if it's done immediately.

Redistricting hasn't been finalized, yet, for Texas. There is no reason not to comply with the VRA in a timely fashion. The same remedy wasn't delayed in Mississippi, or Texas. They didn't wait to see if Franklin or Bonilla won another election before demanding a remap.

[BigSkyBob]

If Whites voted overwhelming for the White Democrat, and Hispanics voted mostly for the Hispanic Democrat, that seems to be "racially polarized" voting to me!

The white population in this district is a) small and b) almost certainly Republican-leaning, not participating in the Dem primary.

You have an 80+% Hispanic district in a state where Anglos are overwhelmingly Republican. If this race was 50-50, that means the Hispanic population did not vote uniformly. If the dominant community did not coalesce behind a single candidate, it's impossible to say that they didn't elect the candidate of their choice.

By that logic, any district that is 50% + 1 CVAP is VRA compliant because if that majority uniformly chose to register, and vote for the same candidate that majority's candidate would win. That simply isn't how the VRA is enforced, though you seem to be evolving into my position that that is in fact how it should be enforced.

Conseco and O'Rourke won for the same reason: heavy White support combined with a significant minority of Hispanic support. Either something untowards has happened in both cases, or it hasn't.  What he shouldn't happen is that coalition be declared okay for a White Democrat and unacceptable for a Hispanic Republic.

Considering themselves "Republicans" wasn't an obstacle for many Whites in El Paso to request a Democratic primary ballot to vote for O'Rouke.

[BigSkyBob]

If Whites voted overwhelming for the White Democrat, and Hispanics voted mostly for the Hispanic Democrat, that seems to be "racially polarized" voting to me!

The white population in this district is a) small and b) almost certainly Republican-leaning, not participating in the Dem primary.

You have an 80+% Hispanic district in a state where Anglos are overwhelmingly Republican. If this race was 50-50, that means the Hispanic population did not vote uniformly. If the dominant community did not coalesce behind a single candidate, it's impossible to say that they didn't elect the candidate of their choice.

Conseco and O'Rourke won for the same reason: heavy White support combined with a significant minority of Hispanic support. Either something untowards has happened in both cases, or it hasn't.  What he shouldn't happen is that coalition be declared okay for a White Democrat and unacceptable for a Hispanic Republic.

Nothing untoward happened in either case. The way I see it, if there is "significant dissent" within the ranks of the minority voters, then it's okay if the "candidate of choice" of the majority of that minority loses in a VRA district. You don't see me complaining about Quico Canseco or Blake Farenthold, do you?

My point is that the DoJ did complain in Mississippi after the 1982 election, and Texas after the 2002 election. If consistency matter to the DoJ, they should complain about TX-16.

Another point is that many of Democratic posters here have claimed that the overall result must, barring extraordinary circumstances, mirror the majority of the protected minority. Nothing extraordinary occured in TX-16. If they take intellectual consistency seriously, they'd object to the outcome as well.

[BigSkyBob]

Again, in 1984 it was "relevant to the VRA" that a White Republican beat a Black Democrat in Mississippi in a VRA district, and 2004 it was "relevant to the VRA" that a Hispanic Republican beat a Hispanic Democrat in a VRA district. So why isn't it "relevant to the VRA" that a White Democrat beat a Hispanic Democratic in a VRA district?

The identity of the candidate doesn't matter.

Please, "regression" has everything to do with the "identity" of candidate who wins.

Nope, Gene Green's district has continued to be a protected Hispanic district despite his win. It's not as if the TX map hasn't been amply litigated over that time.

"Regression" occurs when a district held by the appropriate minority is won by a non-member, usually a White. Gene Green has nothing to do with that definition.

[BigSkyBob]

BTW, El Paso County, TX has more than the population of a congressional district but of that population, 82.2% is Hispanic. Only 13.1% (about 100,000 people) is non-Hispanic white. At least some of them are presumably in TX-23 and not TX-16.

It looks like BSB is responding to the fact that the winner has an Irish surname, but that's not relevant to VRA. If there's racially polarized voting in El Paso, than almost definitionally it's not Anglos who are winning.

Very few, if memory serves. The state intentionally drew TX-23 to include El Paso County Hispanics, so they could balance it with Bexar County whites.

Bexar County whites are much preferred for Quico Canseco.

The line drawing in El Paso County was definitely related to TX-23.  The legislative plan, which in El Paso County is the same as the court-ordered plan, has an area in El Paso County that is 96.3% Hispanic; the vacated interim plan has made the El Paso County portion 75.5%.  The result dropped the Hispanic percentage of TX-16 by 3%.

The legislature plan has a very simple straight line boundary which comes up along I-10 in the Rio Grande Valley below the city of El Paso; while the interim court plan comes up over the north part of the city.  By dropping 20,000 Hispanics in El Paso County, they had to be made up elsewhere which rationalized their radical rejiggering of Bexar County.

Given the narrowness of O'Rourke's victory, it is quite likely that Reyes had majority support among Hispanic's.   I wouldn't be surprised that this election would be added as evidence in the redistricting case.   Dropping the district from 83% to 80% was obviously done with racist intent.

Does O'Rouke's victory mean that all MALDEF has to show for its ligitation is the loss of one Hispanic Democratic Congressman?

[BigSkyBob]

The legislature should take the opportunity to end the baconmander in South Texas. Just make one district from the Northern edges, and fatten the bases. Compactness, not race, would be the motivating factor.