District Court, Splitting 2-1, Finds Texas Congressional Districts Violate VRA

[Torie]

I drew this puppy following the Muon2 rules more or less. Would this map of a part of Texas make the court happy?  The CD going from the Rio Grande into Bexar is 60.2% HVAP, and went 53.7% for Obama in 2008. It could go up by moving precincts around in Bexar with the inner city CD, but is that necessary?  Kennedy really said that a more than 50% HCVAP CD could still be challenged, simply because Hispanics don't vote as much, or enough of them vote Republican to not elect an Hispanic Democrat, with respect to a map that otherwise follows good redistricting principles? Meanwhile the Laredo to El Paso CD is 69.2% HVAP, and McCain carried it by two points.  Sure Cuellar (sp) would carry that CD, but assuming he were not around, would this CD displease the court that nixed the Texas map and/or Justice Kennedy if it is still iffy as to whether it would elect an Hispanic Democrat? 

It seems to me that much of a problem for some unhappy courts is that too many Texas Hispanics, particularly rural ones, vote Pub.

[muon2]

I only see 6 Latino opportunity districts. The court said there should be 7, and TX said they had 7 already, so on that point there was no disagreement. The disagreement was how to get to 7. The court said use Nueces, not Travis.

One problem for the Pubs is that the rural Latinos that vote Pub are not sufficient in number to negate Gingles, but sufficient to swing the election against the majority of the Latinos. On the flip side the court found that the Anglos in Travis did not exhibit bloc voting against the Latinos' preferred candidate, so Gingles is not met there and the Latinos in Travis don't qualify for section 2 protection.

[Torie]

It would be helpful for me to read the case, but I don't see the legal rationale for 7 Hispanic CD's under any reasonable good redistricting principles. In fact, it may be hard to draw it without gross gerrymandering. It is not as if contiguous Hispanic populations are chopped up. It seems that some want the kind of CD that Kennedy disliked, that joins Rio Grande Hispanics with some Democrats far away in a gerrymander (maybe white Democrats), just so long as it squeezes out another Hispanic CD, as opposed to replacing a more contiguous Hispanic CD. This all needs to go back to SCOTUS. Things seem to be getting really way off track here. This should not stand. In fact, it sucks.

[Brittain33]

It is hard, intuitively, to understand that a district held entirely within Hidalgo County (pop. 842,000) is unkosher because it constitutes packing. When you have a county larger than a congressional district that is 91% Hispanic...

[Nyvin]

It would be helpful for me to read the case, but I don't see the legal rationale for 7 Hispanic CD's under any reasonable good redistricting principles. In fact, it may be hard to draw it without gross gerrymandering. It is not as if contiguous Hispanic populations are chopped up. It seems that some want the kind of CD that Kennedy disliked, that joins Rio Grande Hispanics with some Democrats far away in a gerrymander (maybe white Democrats), just so long as it squeezes out another Hispanic CD, as opposed to replacing a more contiguous Hispanic CD. This all needs to go back to SCOTUS. Things seem to be getting really way off track here. This should not stand. In fact, it sucks.

3 fajita strip districts, two in Bexar, El Paso, and TX-23....what's so hard about that?   It's pretty easy to draw the districts, it's making it through the Texas GOP that's the problem.

BTW- Hispanics, even after these changes, are still horribly under-represented in Texas.

[Torie]

It would be helpful for me to read the case, but I don't see the legal rationale for 7 Hispanic CD's under any reasonable good redistricting principles. In fact, it may be hard to draw it without gross gerrymandering. It is not as if contiguous Hispanic populations are chopped up. It seems that some want the kind of CD that Kennedy disliked, that joins Rio Grande Hispanics with some Democrats far away in a gerrymander (maybe white Democrats), just so long as it squeezes out another Hispanic CD, as opposed to replacing a more contiguous Hispanic CD. This all needs to go back to SCOTUS. Things seem to be getting really way off track here. This should not stand. In fact, it sucks.

3 fajita strip districts, two in Bexar, El Paso, and TX-23....what's so hard about that?   It's pretty easy to draw the districts, it's making it through the Texas GOP that's the problem.

BTW- Hispanics, even after these changes, are still horribly under-represented in Texas.

It doesn't comport with good redistricting principles, and unites Hispanics geographically disparate. The VRA should not require that. We shall see.

[muon2]

It would be helpful for me to read the case, but I don't see the legal rationale for 7 Hispanic CD's under any reasonable good redistricting principles. In fact, it may be hard to draw it without gross gerrymandering. It is not as if contiguous Hispanic populations are chopped up. It seems that some want the kind of CD that Kennedy disliked, that joins Rio Grande Hispanics with some Democrats far away in a gerrymander (maybe white Democrats), just so long as it squeezes out another Hispanic CD, as opposed to replacing a more contiguous Hispanic CD. This all needs to go back to SCOTUS. Things seem to be getting really way off track here. This should not stand. In fact, it sucks.

You may be pleased to know that the court rejected plaintiff's plan and argument for 8 Latino CDs in S/W TX. Kennedy thought one could have fajita strips as long as they weren't extreme, and didn't substitute for a reasonable alternative. This court seemed to follow that thinking that CD 35 was impermissible when Nueces could be used to make a more compact alternative and served a deserving population.

[Torie]

It would be helpful for me to read the case, but I don't see the legal rationale for 7 Hispanic CD's under any reasonable good redistricting principles. In fact, it may be hard to draw it without gross gerrymandering. It is not as if contiguous Hispanic populations are chopped up. It seems that some want the kind of CD that Kennedy disliked, that joins Rio Grande Hispanics with some Democrats far away in a gerrymander (maybe white Democrats), just so long as it squeezes out another Hispanic CD, as opposed to replacing a more contiguous Hispanic CD. This all needs to go back to SCOTUS. Things seem to be getting really way off track here. This should not stand. In fact, it sucks.

You may be pleased to know that the court rejected plaintiff's plan and argument for 8 Latino CDs in S/W TX. Kennedy thought one could have fajita strips as long as they weren't extreme, and didn't substitute for a reasonable alternative. This court seemed to follow that thinking that CD 35 was impermissible when Nueces could be used to make a more compact alternative and served a deserving population.

Replacing one poor CD for another, hosting the Pubs on their own petard. It's one thing to strike down the plot to neutalize white Dems in Travis. It's another to require something else, that I don't think comports with prior SCOTUS precedent, and is just not justified on public policy grounds, and certainly if the alternative comports with good redistricting principles, and is obviously not out to screw minorities. The court did mention the impermissible Pub intent, that it found. Minorities should not be used as pawns, splitting them up, to neutralize white Dems.

[muon2]

It would be helpful for me to read the case, but I don't see the legal rationale for 7 Hispanic CD's under any reasonable good redistricting principles. In fact, it may be hard to draw it without gross gerrymandering. It is not as if contiguous Hispanic populations are chopped up. It seems that some want the kind of CD that Kennedy disliked, that joins Rio Grande Hispanics with some Democrats far away in a gerrymander (maybe white Democrats), just so long as it squeezes out another Hispanic CD, as opposed to replacing a more contiguous Hispanic CD. This all needs to go back to SCOTUS. Things seem to be getting really way off track here. This should not stand. In fact, it sucks.

You may be pleased to know that the court rejected plaintiff's plan and argument for 8 Latino CDs in S/W TX. Kennedy thought one could have fajita strips as long as they weren't extreme, and didn't substitute for a reasonable alternative. This court seemed to follow that thinking that CD 35 was impermissible when Nueces could be used to make a more compact alternative and served a deserving population.

Replacing one poor CD for another, hosting the Pubs on their own petard. It's one thing to strike down the plot to neutalize white Dems in Travis. It's another to require something else, that I don't think comports with prior SCOTUS precedent, and is just not justified on public policy grounds, and certainly if the alternative comports with good redistricting principles, and is obviously not out to screw minorities. The court did mention the impermissible Pub intent, that it found. Minorities should not be used as pawns, splitting them up, to neutralize white Dems.

So in which parts would judge Torie concur, and in which dissent?

[cinyc]

Replacing one poor CD for another, hosting the Pubs on their own petard. It's one thing to strike down the plot to neutalize white Dems in Travis. It's another to require something else, that I don't think comports with prior SCOTUS precedent, and is just not justified on public policy grounds, and certainly if the alternative comports with good redistricting principles, and is obviously not out to screw minorities. The court did mention the impermissible Pub intent, that it found. Minorities should not be used as pawns, splitting them up, to neutralize white Dems.

No.  Best I can tell, the courts would rather minorities be used as pawns to neutralize white and Hispanic Republicans.  That's all I can ever make heads or tails out of these cases, and is the realpolitic of recent VRA decisions.

Packing minorities into a compact district is bad because nonsensical reasons - even when geographical compactness should dictate a compact district, say, in the Rio Grande Valley or within municipal boundaries.  Not packing enough minorities into a district is bad when not enough Hispanics bother to vote the way the courts want them to - i.e. for Democrats.  

VRA jurisprudence is a mess.

[DrScholl]

The court isn't going to order a map that doesn't comply with the VRA and not even the legislature would bother drawing that one, but even if they did draw a singular district in Hidalgo County, there would still be two more border districts. Besides, if you apply the compactness principle, it would have to apply to the rest of the state and you couldn't justify Travis County being in 5 different districts.

[Nyvin]

Replacing one poor CD for another, hosting the Pubs on their own petard. It's one thing to strike down the plot to neutalize white Dems in Travis. It's another to require something else, that I don't think comports with prior SCOTUS precedent, and is just not justified on public policy grounds, and certainly if the alternative comports with good redistricting principles, and is obviously not out to screw minorities. The court did mention the impermissible Pub intent, that it found. Minorities should not be used as pawns, splitting them up, to neutralize white Dems.

No.  Best I can tell, the courts would rather minorities be used as pawns to neutralize white and Hispanic Republicans.  That's all I can ever make heads or tails out of these cases, and is the realpolitic of recent VRA decisions.

Packing minorities into a compact district is bad because nonsensical reasons - even when geographical compactness should dictate a compact district, say, in the Rio Grande Valley or within municipal boundaries.  Not packing enough minorities into a district is bad when not enough Hispanics bother to vote the way the courts want them to - i.e. for Democrats.  

VRA jurisprudence is a mess.

"Neutralizing" white and hispanic Republicans IS the main point the courts are trying to accomplish.    The Republicans hold 25 of 36 seats with 57% of the vote, that's about a 13% discrepancy.   The vast majority of those being voted in by Anglo majorities (Probably all but two I think...?).    Minorities in Texas are under-represented in Texas,  no matter how you slice it, and the maps are almost entirely to blame.

[cinyc]

Replacing one poor CD for another, hosting the Pubs on their own petard. It's one thing to strike down the plot to neutalize white Dems in Travis. It's another to require something else, that I don't think comports with prior SCOTUS precedent, and is just not justified on public policy grounds, and certainly if the alternative comports with good redistricting principles, and is obviously not out to screw minorities. The court did mention the impermissible Pub intent, that it found. Minorities should not be used as pawns, splitting them up, to neutralize white Dems.

No.  Best I can tell, the courts would rather minorities be used as pawns to neutralize white and Hispanic Republicans.  That's all I can ever make heads or tails out of these cases, and is the realpolitic of recent VRA decisions.

Packing minorities into a compact district is bad because nonsensical reasons - even when geographical compactness should dictate a compact district, say, in the Rio Grande Valley or within municipal boundaries.  Not packing enough minorities into a district is bad when not enough Hispanics bother to vote the way the courts want them to - i.e. for Democrats.  

VRA jurisprudence is a mess.

"Neutralizing" white and hispanic Republicans IS the main point the courts are trying to accomplish.    The Republicans hold 25 of 36 seats with 57% of the vote, that's about a 13% discrepancy.   The vast majority of those being voted in by Anglo majorities (Probably all but two I think...?).    Minorities in Texas are under-represented in Texas,  no matter how you slice it, and the maps are almost entirely to blame.

Minorities are underepresented only if you live in a fantasy world where all minorities, particularly Texas Hispanics, must vote for Democrats - if they bother to vote at all.  It's not the Republicans' fault that Democrat-leaning Hispanics often don't bother to show up to vote, or when they do, don't unilaterally block vote the way you want them to.  All they have to be given is the opportunity to elect the candidate of their choice - and in a 60% CVAP Hispanic district, they certainly have that if they block vote and show up to the polls.  That they don't block vote the way the courts and Democrats want them to shouldn't be grounds to overturn the district in a rational, sane world.  The alternative would be to pack the districts with even more Hispanics, but the courts would likely overturn that as impermissible packing - which is even greater nonsense, especially when Democrats tend to self-pack themselves into urban areas to begin with. 

I maintain that even without the VRA-required racial gerrymandering, Republicans would have an advantage compared to the vote percentage in almost any non-Democatic gerrymandered Texas map, even a neutral one.  Democrats are self-packed into urban areas.

[jimrtex]

BTW, the Legislative Council redistricting website  now has the election results for 2016. Clinton carried TX-23 by 3.5%. The court tends to prefer exogenous results. Over the three elections, 2012-2016, the Democratic candidate for Congress has received more votes in total.

There are also shapefiles in case someone is interested in looking at what the plaintiffs proposed for their eight "compact" districts.

[jimrtex]

Also, the court has not issued an opinion on the House districts. The senate districts has been settled.

[jimrtex]

Those three compact CDs would seem to suffer from the same section 2 violation cited in the decision.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your proposed districts are not compact.

The opinion discusses the attempt by the plaintiffs to demonstrate that 8 compact majority HCVAP districts could be drawn in South/West Texas and found that they had not because they had problems similar to yours.

How about this:

Nueces, San Patricio, Aransas, Jim Wells, Kleberg, Kenedy, Willacy, and Cameron (come down Padre Island and then jump into Brownsville)

Remainder of Cameron and most of Hidalgo.

Remainder of Hidalgo, Starr, Zapata, Jim Hogg, Brooks, Duval, Webb, McMullen, Dimmit, LaSalle, Live Oak, and Frio.

Leave TX-23 in its current format coming into Bexar County.

Leave TX-20 in Bexar County.

Then Bexar, Wilson, Karnes, Bee, Goliad, DeWitt, Victoria, Calhoun, Refugio.

That hinges on whether the current TX-23 can withstand a challenge. I'm skeptical.

The current TX-23 has a 60% HCVAP.

But the court said that an HCVAP-majority doesn't matter if the district doesn't provide an opportunity to elect. The C185 version was 58.5% HCVAP.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On what basis do claim that the current TX-23 lacks "real electoral opportunity"?

Instead of shifting Dimmit, LaSalle, and Frio, leave TX-23 totally unchanged, and make it:

Hidalgo (remnant), Starr, Zapata, Jim Hogg, Brooks, Webb, Duval, McMullen, Live Oak, and Atascosa (which I left out of my previous map).

Move the remaining portion of TX-27 to TX-10, and move the Travis portion of TX-10 into TX-25.

We leave TX-16, TX-20, and TX-23 alone.

For the Corpus Christi district: Nueces, Aransas, San Patricio, Kleberg, Jim Wells, Duval, Jim Hogg, Brooks, Kenedy, and Willacy + ?? (the addition of Duval, Jim Hogg, and Brooks keeps the Hispanic population up and reduces the population needed from  Cameron OR gives us the option to go into Hidalgo, which has population further north. And Jim Hogg, Brooks, and Duval are more oriented towards Corpus Christi than the Rio Grande Valley.

All of Cameron + some of Hidalgo.

Remainder of Hidalgo, Starr, Zapata, Webb, La Salle (part, no change), McMullen, and Atascosa.

Bexar part of TX-35 and TX-28 plus Wilson, Guadeloupe, Karnes, Live Oak, and Bee.

Transfer the TX-35 parts of Comal and Hays to TX-21 and balance by moving part of TX-21 Travis to TX-35.

Move Wharton, Matagorda, Jackson, Calhoun, Victoria, Refugio, Goliad, Lavaca, Dewitt, and Gonzales to TX-10, and the Travis part of TX-10 to Travis.

use Caldwell and Bastrop for population balance.

TX-10, 15, 21, 27, 28, 34, and 35 are the only districts changes and none can currently be considered compact.

[muon2]

We leave TX-16, TX-20, and TX-23 alone.

For the Corpus Christi district: Nueces, Aransas, San Patricio, Kleberg, Jim Wells, Duval, Jim Hogg, Brooks, Kenedy, and Willacy + ?? (the addition of Duval, Jim Hogg, and Brooks keeps the Hispanic population up and reduces the population needed from  Cameron OR gives us the option to go into Hidalgo, which has population further north. And Jim Hogg, Brooks, and Duval are more oriented towards Corpus Christi than the Rio Grande Valley.

All of Cameron + some of Hidalgo.

Remainder of Hidalgo, Starr, Zapata, Webb, La Salle (part, no change), McMullen, and Atascosa.

Bexar part of TX-35 and TX-28 plus Wilson, Guadeloupe, Karnes, Live Oak, and Bee.

Transfer the TX-35 parts of Comal and Hays to TX-21 and balance by moving part of TX-21 Travis to TX-35.

Move Wharton, Matagorda, Jackson, Calhoun, Victoria, Refugio, Goliad, Lavaca, Dewitt, and Gonzales to TX-10, and the Travis part of TX-10 to Travis.

use Caldwell and Bastrop for population balance.

TX-10, 15, 21, 27, 28, 34, and 35 are the only districts changes and none can currently be considered compact.

I split Hidalgo such that Edinburg, Pharr, and McAllen were in different districts. The Corpus Christi district would be 65.2% HVAP, 57.6% SSRV, and 52.3% Obama '08. That last number is cutting it pretty close. One would have to check other statewide elections to see if it provides a suitable opportunity.

Will there be enough Latino population in your new 35 to provide an opportunity?

[jimrtex]

We leave TX-16, TX-20, and TX-23 alone.

For the Corpus Christi district: Nueces, Aransas, San Patricio, Kleberg, Jim Wells, Duval, Jim Hogg, Brooks, Kenedy, and Willacy + ?? (the addition of Duval, Jim Hogg, and Brooks keeps the Hispanic population up and reduces the population needed from  Cameron OR gives us the option to go into Hidalgo, which has population further north. And Jim Hogg, Brooks, and Duval are more oriented towards Corpus Christi than the Rio Grande Valley.

All of Cameron + some of Hidalgo.

Remainder of Hidalgo, Starr, Zapata, Webb, La Salle (part, no change), McMullen, and Atascosa.

Bexar part of TX-35 and TX-28 plus Wilson, Guadeloupe, Karnes, Live Oak, and Bee.

Transfer the TX-35 parts of Comal and Hays to TX-21 and balance by moving part of TX-21 Travis to TX-35.

Move Wharton, Matagorda, Jackson, Calhoun, Victoria, Refugio, Goliad, Lavaca, Dewitt, and Gonzales to TX-10, and the Travis part of TX-10 to Travis.

use Caldwell and Bastrop for population balance.

TX-10, 15, 21, 27, 28, 34, and 35 are the only districts changes and none can currently be considered compact.

I split Hidalgo such that Edinburg, Pharr, and McAllen were in different districts. The Corpus Christi district would be 65.2% HVAP, 57.6% SSRV, and 52.3% Obama '08. That last number is cutting it pretty close. One would have to check other statewide elections to see if it provides a suitable opportunity.

Will there be enough Latino population in your new 35 to provide an opportunity?

34, 15, and 28 lose their northern extensions and are merged into two districts. A reasonable case can be made that 15 should be the district eliminated since the Hidalgo portion is divided between two or three other districts. In addition, Guadalupe, Wilson(part), Karnes, and Live Oak would be moved into the new district.

A counter argument is that TX-15 has been a South Texas district since 1902.

If you made the new district TX-35, then you would have to assign 15 to the Travis district.

So I'd use TX-15 for the district coming southeast from San Antonio.

The parts of TX-28 and TX-35 in Bexar which would form 70% of the new TX-15 are 59.1% Hispanic, but also 14.6% Black (East San Antonio has the largest concentration of Blacks - care has to be made when drawing the House district, to keep the Hispanic share of the population down so they don't take over the district, while also keeping the Anglo share down so it doesn't elect a Republican.).

Because of the Black population, you don't need as many Hispanic voters to make the district performing.

If the Hispanic portion of the district is too low, you can go into TX-20.

Thinking about it, I'd keep the Hays portion of TX-35. It is half of the county and is reasonably connected to the city of Austin. This then means that TX-35 would only lose the narrow strip through Comal county, and TX-21 would only need to lose a much smaller part of Travis.

I'd try to reduce the division of Bastrop, Caldwell, and Gonzales such that only one of the counties is divided between TX-35 and TX-10.

We will have moved two incumbents out of their district, but this is because under the current maps disparate populations are connected, meaning that one area is a winner, and the other a loser.