The rules for drawing house districts really hampers the Texas GOP. You can't just connect Dallas, Harris and Travis counties with exurban/rural areas and create GOP districts that way. They have to stay within the county, which was fine when there were plenty of Republican leaning suburbs within those counties. Not the case anymore.
Looking at the Congressional maps, I imagine this only applies to the state maps?
That is correct.
Is that a state constitutional requirement or just statutory?
It is in the constitution (with adjustments to comply with OMOV) and applies to the House only.
Under the Constitution, there are two kinds of districts.
(1) Single counties entitled to one or more representatives.
(2) Multi-county districts entitled to one representative. This can include the surplus of a larger county above a whole number of quotas.
If County A was entitled to 2.5 representatives and County B was entitled to 1.5 representatives, then under the constitution County A would have 2 representatives, County B would have one representative and Counties A+B would elect one representative.
There used to be a provision that counties entitled to more than 7 representatives, would be limited to one additional representative for every 100,000 persons. This was enacted at a time when the quota was around 39,000; so that these counties would get 7 representatives for the first 39,000 x 7 = 273,000 population, and one additional for every 100,000. This provision was added after Harris, Dallas, and Bexar would have been entitled to more than seven representatives. Were it still in place, large counties would get extra representation since the quota is nearly 170,000.
This provision was ruled unconstitutional after 'Reynolds v Sims', and has since been removed from the constitution.
After this decision. the representation of Harris, Dallas, Bexar, and Tarrant increased from 38 (of 150) to 51 (of 150).
Floterial districts, which are apportioned on the basis of the surplus population were also ruled to violate OMOV. In our example above, the representative from counties A+B would be elected by all the voters from counties A and B. While each contributed 50% of the apportionment population, county A had 62.5% of the voters, and likely would have controlled the election, such that there would be 3 representatives from A, and one from B.
Following this decision, the floterial districts were patched up by taking an
area of a county with a surplus population and combining it with adjacent counties or parts of counties.
For example, Brazoria County had elected one representative, and Brazoria + Fort Bend elected another. Collectively, the two counties had a population equivalent to two representatives so the apportionment was correct, but Brazoria had almost twice the population for Fort Bend.
So afterwards an area of Brazoria County containing about 1/4 the population was attached to Fort Bend County, and the remainder of Brazoria County elected the other representative. It appears that the changes that were made were just to address the issue of the floterial districts, enough to get through the remainder of the decade (this was the 3rd map for the 1960s).
Following the 1970 census, the Democrats decided to ignore the constitution and draw 150 districts dividing many small counties. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that the Texas constitution could be be harmonized with OMOV, by attaching an area of a larger county containing a surplus of population to surplus areas in other large counties and/or other small counties to form a single-member district, but this can only be done to comply with OMOV.
Large counties might be able to be within 5% average deviation without recognizing a surplus. A county entitled to 10.4 representatives would have a 4% deviation if apportioned 10 representatives, and a county entitled to 10.6 representatives would have a -3.6% deviation if apportioned 11 representatives. So even though they had a surplus, the surplus would not be recognized because it would violate the Texas constitution.
The largest counties: Harris(24), Dallas(14), Tarrant(11), and Bexar(10) can never have a surplus recognized.
Some larger counties: Travis(6), El Paso(5), and Denton(4) have all their districts within the county. Travis an have 6 representatives if its population is between 5.7 and 6.3 representatives. It can have 7 representatives if its population is between 6.65 and 7.35 representatives. So it is only in a gap between 6.30 and 6.65 that Travis would have a district that reached into a neighboring county.
Other larger counties: Collin(4+), Hidalgo(4+), and Fort Bend(3+) have a district that extends into a neighboring county.
Most of the counties that have a district into another county have either (2+) districts - Williamson, Cameron, Motgomery, or (1+) districts: Lubbock, Bell, McLennan, Smith, Jefferson, Brazoria, Galveston, and Brazos.
After the Texas Supreme Court ruled, a district was drawn that included the fringes of Tarrant County (representing its surplus) which was attached to Parker County. The remainder of Tarrant County (Fort Worth, Arlington, and Grand Prairie) and other cities formed another district that elected 7 representatives.
This map was upheld by the SCOTUS. This decision established the 5% maximum deviation, because that was what Texas used. In essence the SCOTUS said the map had reasonable about of deviation given that Texas was trying to follow county lines based on the Constitution.
Actually the decision established a 10% range, since the largest Texas districts had a deviation of 5.1% and the smallest a deviation of -4.9%.
After this, federal courts ruled that multi-member districts could not be used in areas where there were concentrations of minority voters. After an analysis was done, all but Hidalgo had to be divided. So that area in Parker County that had 9 representatives, who were elected by place, was divided up into single-member districts. The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that election by district is a manner regulation. The constitution specifies apportionment of representatives among the counties, not how those representatives are elected. Even before the court decisions, Harris County had been divided into three districts electing 6 or 7 representatives, rather than electing 19 representatives countywide.
So in Texas, the rules are:
(1) Single-county 1 or more representatives.
(2) Multi-county single representatives.
Unless some of these don't comply with OMOV.
(3) Multi-county small counties, or areas of larger counties with a surplus population with a single representative. The remnant of the larger county may have 1 or more representatives.
These districts are not fully compliant with the Texas Constitution, but are consistent with apportionment principles of floterial districts. In effect, the Texas Constitution is stretched in order to comply with OMOV principles of the US Constitution, but only to the extent
necessary.It may be required to make an exception or two to comply with OMOV. This is why Henderson County is divided, even though it has a population less than a district.
Because most larger counties are clustered in the DFW, Houston, and I-35 corridor (Waco to San Antonio) there are often real constraints on how counties may be grouped. For example, Hays, Comal, and Guadalupe counties are not large enough for their own district, but too large to share a district, so their districts have to spread outwards.
These rules greatly restrict which counties may form a district. It might be possible to form a district with A, B, and C counties, or A, B, and D counties. But if C must be in a district with E county, then the A, B, C district can not be used, and A, B, D must be used.
Note: I disagree with Sbane's initial analysis.
