Texas 2020 House Apportioment

[jimrtex]

71 counties grew faster than the state as a whole (1.34%) from 2017 to 2018, resulting in their gaining representation. These were largely in suburban/exurban areas or the Permian Basin. There appears to be a trend toward rural areas for retirement of baby boomers. In some cases, it is difficult to distinguish these from exurbs (Fannin, Rains, Navarro, Henderson, Van Zandt, Hill, Bosque, Burnet, Bandera, San Jacinto).

Big gainers:

Collin 108 (0.108)
Williamson 70
Denton 66
Fort Bend 60
Montgomery 58

All large suburban counties with the land and infrastructure for additional growth.

Big losers:

Harris -146
Dallas -105

[jimrtex]

An alternate projection based on more recent trends can be used:

d2018 = 2018 estimate - 2017 estimate
d2017 = 2017 estimate - 2016 estimate
d2016 = 2016 estimate - 2015 estimate

That is, d2018 is the estimated change from 2017 to 2018; with d2017 and d2016 calculated similarly. We can then calculate a weighted average:

wchange = (d2018*3 + d2017*2 + d2016*1)/6

And apply that to the last 1.75 years before the census:

p2020 = 2018 estimate + wchange * 1.75

Comparing the projections based on exponential projection of 2010 to 2018 estimate, to the weighted average over the past three years:

Ellis 0.947 to 0.965

Ellis share had actually declined from 2010 to 2015 (0.894 to 0.892). All the growth has come in the past three years. It appears a number of subdivisions have opened up around Waxahachie. The time to travel from Waxahachie to downtown Dallas is about the same as from McKinney. But new development to the north is now beyond McKinney and even Frisco, and showing up in places like Prosper, Melissa, and Celina. Housing prices are likely less on the south side.

If Ellis is quite close to 95% of the quota it might still be given its own district. It might be able to fit inside the 10% overall range, or it could be justified to have a single outside of range district in order to better comply with the Texas Constitution.

Other proposed districts that could now be out of range:

3. Rockwall-Hunt 1.041 (2010-18 exponential) vs. 1.059 (2015-18 weighted)

Rockwall's growth has been accelerating, from about 1000 per year to 4000 per year. Hunt is now growing at an accelerated rate.

Rockwall is going to be problematic because its small size makes it unlikely to reach the population for its own district but it is blocked in by larger neighbors. I toyed with the idea with placing it with Dallas, but that requires splitting Dallas. That might be considered an unnecessary bending of the Texas Constitution. Instead, Rockwall could be paired with Collin (5.951 based on 2015-18 weighted).

This would in turn require Denton to be paired with Wise 4.980 (2015-2018 weighted).

4. Kaufman-Van Zandt-Rains 1.036 (2010-2018 exponential) vs. 1.061 (2015-18 weighted)

Even if it is inside the 5% limit, dropping Rains will make the district closer to the quota. If the weighted projection is correct, the district will be at 0.995 without Rains.

13-15. Montgomery 3.170 (2010-2018 exponential) vs. 3.178 (2015-18 weighted).

Montgomery is outside the 5% limit using the updated 2017 estimate. Pairing it with Brazos gives a district with 5.224, which could get closer to the quota by trimming off some of the smaller counties, such as Robertson and Austin.

45. Comal-Kendall 1.053 (2010-2018 exponential) vs. 1.068 (2015-2018 weighted)

Breaking this group apart would force Hays-Comal 2.037. This in turn would force Travis-Blanco-Burnet-Llano 6.998

59-60. McLennan, etc. 2.097 (2010-2018 exponential) vs. 2.116 (2015-18 weighted)

This could be trimmed a bit to get the districts within 5%.

61-62. Ellis, Johnson, and Hill. 2.027 (2010-2018 exponential) vs. 2.067 (2015-18 weighted).

More importantly, Ellis is 0.965 under the (2015-2018 weighted) which would permit Ellis to be its own district. Johnson and Bosque could be paired for 1.010.

63. Parker and Hood. 1.047 (2010-2018 exponential) vs. 1.072 (2015-18 weighted).

If split apart, they could be joined with counties to their west.

126-150. Harris. 24.565 (2010-2018 exponential) vs. 24.339 (2015-18 weighted).

With 25 districts, there would be an average deviation of -2.6%. With 24 districts there would be an average deviation of 1.4%. But if we eliminate a district in Harris, we have to add a district elsewhere.

The eastern, western, and border areas are flexible, with the exception of Grayson-Cooke-Montague. The changes proposed above would release Hill, Hunt, Kendall, and Rains, while locking in Bosque, Burnet, Llano, and Wise. In addition, the Montgomery, Fort Bend, and McLennan, are flexible (i.e. we can slightly underpopulate districts in the core county, while freeing up a smaller county.

In total we have a population equivalent to 56.706 quotas, which is divided into 56 districts, for an average deviation of 1.3%. By creating 57 districts, the average deviation is -0.5%. We should be able to add a district, while improving deviation in up to 81 districts. Some will end up worse, but most will improve. This is subject to an actual demonstration, but is quite likely to be achievable.

[jimrtex]

Districts 102-115 are in Dallas.

[jimrtex]

Districts 102-115 are in Dallas.



As in Tarrant, we determine the apportionment of the 14 districts among the ISD's in the county. There are also tiny bits of Grapevine-Colleyville and Ferris ISD in the county.

Dallas ................... 5.969
Garland .................. 1.592
Richardson ............... 1.352
Irving ................... 0.997
Mesquite ................. 0.939
Grand Prairie ............ 0.693
Carrollton-Farmers Branch  0.684
Duncanville .............. 0.437
Desoto ................... 0.315
Coppell .................. 0.290
Cedar Hill ............... 0.279
Lancaster ................ 0.228
Highland Park ............ 0.184
Sunnyvale ................ 0.040

Dallas ISD has sufficient population for six districts. We add in Highland Park ISD since it is engulfed by Dallas ISD. Relative to the statewide quota this addition reduces the deviation.

We can group other ISD's in areas entitled to one representative:

Irving: 0.997
Mesquite and Sunnyvale 0.979
Grand Prairie and Cedar Hill: 0.972
Carrollton-Farmers Branch and Coppell: 0.974
Duncanville, DeSoto, and Lancaster: 0.981

This leaves Garland and Richardson ISD's collectively entitled to 2.944 representatives. Each ISD will have one district, with the third shared between the two.

Dallas ISD, including Highland Park ISD are entitled to six districts. The area east of the Trinity, and north of I-20 has half the population and thus can be drawn into three districts. The portion coming down from the Collin line into the Park Cities created one district, largely selected to maximize the number of trees. The area to the west along the Trinity River is intended to be predominately Hispanic, while the area to the east is more mixed.

Continuing southward a district including Oak Cliff which is predominately minority. A district south of I-20 and east of the Trinity, and finally a district in the southern portion of the district, including the former Wilmer-Hutchins ISD.

HD-102 (+1.07%) Dallas (100%, 7% of County). ISD: Dallas (82%, 14% of ISD), Highland Park (18%). Cities: Dallas, University Park, Addison, and Highland Park, and bits of Carrollton and Farmers Branch.

HD-103 (+0.78%) Dallas (100%, 7% of County). ISD: Dallas (100%, 17% of ISD), Cities: Dallas.

HD-104 (+1.15%) Dallas (100%, 7% of County). ISD: Dallas (100%, 17% of ISD), Cities: Dallas.

HD-105 (+1.15%) Dallas (100%, 7% of County). ISD: Dallas (100%, 17% of ISD), Cities: Dallas and Balch Springs.

HD-106 (+0.61%) Dallas (100%, 7% of County). ISD: Dallas (100%, 17% of ISD), Cities: Dallas and Cockrell Hill.

HD-106 (+0.61%) Dallas (100%, 7% of County). ISD: Dallas (100%, 17% of ISD), Cities: Dallas and Cockrell Hill.

HD-107 (+1.14%) Dallas (100%, 7% of County). ISD: Dallas (100%, 17% of ISD), Cities: Dallas, Seagoville. Hutchins, and Wilmer, and bits of DeSoto and Lancaster.

[EastAnglianLefty]

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.

[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.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

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.

[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. 

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

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. 

I don't think Ds have much room to further fall in rural areas, but if I did think that way, I'd agree totally with you in this area.

[lfromnj]

Its not the percentage margins of the votes especially with regards to congressional districts, its rather the raw votes that causes the geographical bias, hispanics are super low turnout and Democrats demand VRA fajita districts to even expand their geographical bias further. Low turnout means less votes wasted per precint.

[EastAnglianLefty]

It's both - any clean map, no matter who's drawing it, is going to have a lot of State House districts where Clinton got less than 20% and some where she didn't hit 15%, whereas unless you're packing black voters to a degree that likely contravenes the VRA, you aren't going to have too many where she got over 75%.

The fajita strips are more of an issue on a congressional map, but for the State House they're a side issue.

[Skill and Chance]

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

[lfromnj]

Jimtrex any chance that Texas switches to CVAP for legislative redistricting to make sure "minority districts are truly preserved " throughout the state ? This would probably shift 2 from the RGV/1 from El paso/ 2 from houston/ 2 in SA and 1 in Dallas to GOP areas.

[jimrtex]

Jimtrex any chance that Texas switches to CVAP for legislative redistricting to make sure "minority districts are truly preserved " throughout the state ? This would probably shift 2 from the RGV/1 from El paso/ 2 from houston/ 2 in SA and 1 in Dallas to GOP areas.

They could conceivably do so for the Senate.

The state constitution used to specify that senate districts were to be based on eligible voters, and that counties could not be divided. Thus Harris, Dallas, Bexar, and Tarrant were single-county senate districts. This went by the wayside after Reynolds v Sims

Unlike for House districts, where the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the Texas Constitution and equal protection could be harmonized, there was no such ruling for senate districts. This might be a case of no one filing suit, or the 1965 map minimizing splits of the larger counties (Harris had 3 whole plus part of a 4th; Dallas had 2 whole plus part of a 3rd; Bexar had 2 whole plus part of a 3rd; Tarrant had one whole plus part of a 2nd; only Cameron was divided, and that was likely because Hidalgo + Cameron was too large for a district). The 1965 was largely new since they had to put about 10 districts in an area that previously had four. That meant elsewhere 27 districts had to be reduced to 21, and four of those extended into the big counties.

The 1970s generally followed the same pattern, except Harris and Dallas each captured a whole district, and Tarrant had two whole districts. The only slight exception was Harris had two districts extending outside the county. The 1970s map was drawn by the Legislative Redistricting Board.

The 1980s map had more districts nibbling into larger counties. Since a senate map has to preserve be passed by the senate, the individual senators are interested in preserving their own districts. Rather than sucking most of a district into a large county, they might add 100K or so to several districts, which may preserve control in other counties. By this time, the suburban counties were also becoming significant.

The 1990s maps (sic, there were 5) were a whole-hog Democrat gerrymander. And the concept of counties was largely ignored, except that Texas Senate districts were by that time were almost as large as congressional districts, and there is little need to chop counties with 5K or 10K or even 50K to create 600K districts.

In the 2000 cycle, the senate redistricting committee was advised that the legislature could follow the state constitution and base it on eligible voters, but could not use registered voters as a proxy. Any maps they passed would be challenged on not being based on any solid data. They could use a state census, but that would be expensive.

In any event the legislature did not pass any redistricting maps, and the LRB drew the legislative maps. They cleaned up the districts where they could, but did a partisan gerrymander to the extent possible (Republicans have to avoid pitfalls associated with the VRA, but it is quite legal to crack white Democrats).

Along about this time, there was a constitutional amendment that cleaned up obsolete provisions (the Texas Constitution is quite lengthy, and from time-to-time an omnibus cleanup amendment is proposed and passed). They eliminated the requirement that counties could not be divided, and that districts would be based on eligible voters. Essentially, the only requirement is that there be 31 districts (and comply with the US Constitution).

This is likely why Evenwel v Abbott challenged the Texas Senate districts (another reason is the manifest difference in CVAP among Texas Senate districts). If you read the decision carefully, it did not say that Texas could not use CVAP or some other basis, but rather that it was not required.

Ginsburg who wrote the opinion spent most of her opinion expressing how representational equality was the traditional method - but ignoring that was likely because it was simpler and also that the franchise greatly varied among the states. For example, she quoted Hamilton arguing that the Senate should be based on population even though that was not was adopted. If you simply glance over the decision you would get the impression that only population equality could be used, but if you read carefully, she would say that population equality may be used. That is, it was OK that Texas had used population equality.

Remember, it was not the state of Texas advocating for use of voter equality, but rather defending their senate map that had used population equality.

The decision actually matched what the State had argued in their brief. The Obama DOJ had argued that Texas could not use voter equality.

If Texas were to use voter equality, it would likely be challenged on VRA grounds. It is uncertain how the SCOTUS would rule on that.

Alito and Thomas would have gone along with a majority decision that Texas must use voter equality, but weren't willing to write a dissent. Gorsuch did not participate, and Kavanaugh has replaced Kennedy. That would make Roberts the critical vote.

Question asked:

Must Texas create a district with a majority Hispanic CVAP and a total CVAP of 200K, if it means that another district has a total CVAP of 400K.

Sotamoyor, Breyer, Ginsberg, Kagan: Yes, because it favors Democrats.
Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh: No, because it is unprincipled to give 200K voters the same voting strength as 400K voters.
Roberts: ?????

The delay in the census will have an interesting effect in Texas. The data will be received too late for the legislature to act in the regular session in 2021. This will automatically kick legislative redistricting to the LRB, which won't face any procedural obstacles to enacting voter equality for senate districts.

[lfromnj]

Thanks a lot jim
Anyway a key part will be if Missouri passes the new ballot initiative which has CVAP redistricting

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

Thanks a lot jim
Anyway a key part will be if Missouri passes the new ballot initiative which has CVAp redistricting

Why does this matter, for MO-05? I don’t think Republicans are bold enough to try and split Kansas City 2 or 3 ways. I can’t imagine Hartzler being fine with having both Boone County and a big slice of Kansas Cory in her seat. Or Graves being happy with having Clay County, Platte County and another slice of Kansas City. Even if both would probably be fine from a PVI standpoint if you drew it three ways, that still invites some potential chaos in a bad year, and incumbents don’t want that.

[lfromnj]

Thanks a lot jim
Anyway a key part will be if Missouri passes the new ballot initiative which has CVAp redistricting

Why does this matter, for MO-05? I don’t think Republicans are bold enough to try and split Kansas City 2 or 3 ways. I can’t imagine Hartzler being fine with having both Boone County and a big slice of Kansas Cory in her seat. Or Graves being happy with having Clay County, Platte County and another slice of Kansas City. Even if both would probably be fine from a PVI standpoint if you drew it three ways, that still invites some potential chaos in a bad year, and incumbents don’t want that.

It's quite easy and relatively  clean to split kansas city 3 ways with all 3 seats being right of Missiuri.
Anyway missouri is complicated because I'm only talking about state legislative districts
In 2010 it was a bipartisan commission that deadlocked and went to the courts
Democrats cry now because Missouri is awful for them geographically and in 2018 sneaked a popular ethics reform thing with a new legislative redistricting proposal that let's one person basically chosen by the state auditor ( only statewide Democrat) make the map. Also requires minimizing the efficiency gap as the top priority which means baconmandering st Louis.
So the GOP is playing back and doing more ethics reform changes along with reverting the redistricting back to the commission.
The main change is the commission must now redistrict on CVAP to follow one man one vote. This means even less seats based in the cities. Anyway its clear the current proposal which requires a minimization of the efficiency gap is basically a Democrat Gerrymander(remember by the efficiency gap Illinois is considered a Republican gerrymander)

In Missouri CVAP redistricting doesn't really matter too much. Not a lot of hispanics or kids even in the cities. It probably costs Democrats maybe 1 or 2 seats at the state legislative level out of 180 seats. SCOTUS will probably allow this in Missouri . If the Texas state house could do it it would completely change the name of the game in the state house. All the cities lose seats. The RGV would lose 2 seats. El paso loses 1 . Dallas D areas lose 2. Harris loses 2 and theres internal shifts within Harris itself that probably costs D's another seat while Austin probably gains one. This makes a whole net gain of like 7 seats to Safe R areas.

For congressional seats in Missouri check out this thread
https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=367901.0
Its very easy for a 7-1 Missouri.

[jimrtex]

Thanks a lot jim
Anyway a key part will be if Missouri passes the new ballot initiative which has CVAP redistricting

Is there some constitutional requirement in Missouri that you can't directly override an initiated amendment? Or are they just angling for a better ballot title?

The initiative had set a gift limit from lobbyists of $5, which the new measure reduces to $0.

The initiative had set a contribution limit of $2500 to senatorial candidates, which the new measure reduces to $2400 and eliminates the cost-of-living adjustment for both senators and legislators.

It is not clear that the measure provides for use of CVAP. I wouldn't have caught that without your comment and a news article. Since the requirement is "districts shall be drawn on the basis of one person, one vote, using data reported in the federal decennial
census", it might have to use VAP. That might not make a particular difference in Missouri without a particularly large immigrant population.

One thing I missed on my Texas reply was that the House redistricting committee has held a number of hearings. I have listened to the first one, but not others, so I don't know whether the issue of CVAP has been brought up. The second hearing was supposed to have legal experts testify.

[EastAnglianLefty]

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.

Now that DRA has CVAP data, I've gone back and updated this to try to ensure a few more districts perform. I had to concede another Republican seat in Tarrant, but elsewhere I was generally able to improve Democratic margins even whilst trying to create performing VRA seats:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/dd9d0905-6c40-4b44-9158-d6da84c2259e

[lfromnj]

Thanks a lot jim
Anyway a key part will be if Missouri passes the new ballot initiative which has CVAP redistricting

Is there some constitutional requirement in Missouri that you can't directly override an initiated amendment? Or are they just angling for a better ballot title?

The initiative had set a gift limit from lobbyists of $5, which the new measure reduces to $0.

The initiative had set a contribution limit of $2500 to senatorial candidates, which the new measure reduces to $2400 and eliminates the cost-of-living adjustment for both senators and legislators.

It is not clear that the measure provides for use of CVAP. I wouldn't have caught that without your comment and a news article. Since the requirement is "districts shall be drawn on the basis of one person, one vote, using data reported in the federal decennial
census", it might have to use VAP. That might not make a particular difference in Missouri without a particularly large immigrant population.

One thing I missed on my Texas reply was that the House redistricting committee has held a number of hearings. I have listened to the first one, but not others, so I don't know whether the issue of CVAP has been brought up. The second hearing was supposed to have legal experts testify.

The point in Missouri is its easier to uphold in court. It only costs democrats like 1.5 state house seats and probably helps them in the state senate by making the Columbia seat more D.

[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?

[EastAnglianLefty]

Here's an attempt at a fair State Senate map, which aims to minimise county splits and produce compact seats whilst complying with the VRA: https://davesredistricting.org/join/3d5d9702-a1f3-4106-abdb-29034f35c9d0







My intention here was to draw the sort of map that might be produced by a politically independent commission.

The numbering more or less follows the current pattern, though it's not always easy to work out what is the successor to what. 18 districts have a Republican PVI, but only 16 were won by Trump. The tipping point seat would be the 7th, in NW Harris, which Trump won by 3%.

I tried to minimise the fajita strips, but unfortunately Hispanic turnout in the Rio Grande outside Hidalgo County is just so low that I needed to divide Hidalgo County three ways. If there's a way to get 3 performing Hispanic districts out of the RGV which only needs two strips, I'd love to see it.

[Former President tack50]

I tried to minimise the fajita strips, but unfortunately Hispanic turnout in the Rio Grande outside Hidalgo County is just so low that I needed to divide Hidalgo County three ways. If there's a way to get 3 performing Hispanic districts out of the RGV which only needs two strips, I'd love to see it.

It is extremely easy to do no fajitas (or just one of them) in the RGV. Here are for example 6 hispanic districts (including 2 in San Antonio and 1 in El Paso); including 3 districts with no fajitas (in fact, Hidalgo County is kept whole!)



The population percentages here refer to CVAP by the way, not to raw population

TX-01: 70% Hispanic, Clinton+11, D+4
TX-02: 88% Hispanic, Clinton+41, D+20
TX-03: 74% Hispanic, Clinton+15, D+7
TX-04: 76% Hispanic, Clinton+38, D+16
TX-05: 49% Hispanic, Clinton+11, D+2
TX-06: 57% Hispanic, Clinton+11, D+2

Though I am not sure if the San Antonio ones would truly be VRA compliant, but you can easily make at least one that is, I was really trying to maximize the Hispanic districts. The 3rd is also not that great either for a similar reason, you can easily clean it up if you go for just 1 Hispanic district in San Antonio

Also given the low PVIs, it is possible that these were not compliant in 2020, but they should be now, at least as long as Biden does not go down in the RGV compared to Clinton.

[Greedo punched first]

How would being well over 55% Hispanic CVAP be too low?

[Former President tack50]

How would being well over 55% Hispanic CVAP be too low?

My worry was with the 5th district, which is only 49% Hispanic though I recognize that is not in the RGV