US House Redistricting: Texas

[minionofmidas]

So if the primary is held under the interim map, that means the general would have to be as well. But I guess that won't stop Texas Republicans from another mid-decade redistricting. Of course in Colorado there was a court-drawn map, the Republicans later tried to pass their own map, but it was ruled illegal by a court and that the current map had to stand.

That was based on a literalist interpretation of the relevant clause in the Colorado Constitution. It doesn't apply to Texas.

[jimrtex]

I figured it would be worthwhile dusting these off.



The four new districts were placed in the following manner.  The 33rd district was placed at the common intersection of the three districts with the largest combined population, that is the districts that had the most excess population which could be used to form the new district.  The deficit represents the additional population needed to form 4 equipopulous districts.  The deficit was apportioned among the neighbors of the three districts in proportion to those neighbor's population in excess of the ideal population.  This recognizes that additional population must flow into the area of the new district, and also tends to distribute the new districts around the state.

This process was repeated for the 34th, 35th, and 36th population.  After the location of the new districts was determined, they were initialized with zero population, and the flow was calculated in the same it would be in states where no districts were added.

The four new districts (Red stars on map above):

TX-33 is in the Cedar Park, Round Rock, north Austin area at the intersection of TX-10, TX-21, and TX-31.  These three districts have a population equivalent to 3.923 districts, which means that a new district can be formed almost exclusively from their excess population.  As it turns out, excess population from the DFW and Houston area flows into TX-31 and TX-10 so that TX-21 doesn't actually contribute to the new district.

TX-31 shifts northward into the western Fort Worth suburbs, and becomes much less Austin focused.  Similarly TX-10 becomes much more of a Houston district.

TX-34 in the Frisco area at the intersection of TX-3, TX-4, and TX-26.  These 3 districts have a population equivalent to 3.728 districts, which requires about 200,000 more persons from other districts in North Texas.  TX-3 and TX-26 contribute excess suburban growth to the new district.  TX-4 continues to withdraw to the north and east, giving somewhat of the appearance of a small city district: Sherman, Denison, Greenville, Paris, Texarkana, etc., but continues to have a significant suburban presence.

TX-35 in the Baytown area at the intersection of TX-2, TX-14, and TX-22.  These three districts have a population equivalent to 3.526 districts, which requires around 330,000 from other districts.  The placement of the district to the east of Houston is a consequence of the excess population of TX-10 being used to form TX-33, and not available for creation of a new district in the faster growing northern or western suburbs.  In a sense, TX-33 is a re-creation of the old TX-9 in the Beaumont, Galveston, Clear Lake area.  TX-2 becomes more obviously a northern and northeast suburban Houston district, and TX-14 shifts southwestward down the coast.

TX-36 is near China Grove southeast of San Antonio at the intersection of TX-21, TX-23, and TX-28.  The three districts have a population equivalent to 3.407 districts which means that an additional 420,000 is needed from other districts.  This deficit of 420,000 was based on allocating the excess of TX-21 to TX-33.  Since this is not required, a large share of the needed population can come from TX-21, with addition contributions from elsewhere.

Texas-wide shifts:  Only 7 districts are completely outside the major metropolitan areas, while 2 others have a significant core outside those areas, while still extending into the suburban areas of the major metropolitan areas.  TX-2, TX-4, TX-5, TX-6, TX-8, TX-10, TX-21, TX-23, and TX-31 have a superficial appearance of being rural districts, but their population is concentrated in the suburban areas.

TX-1 in East Texas has an excess population of 25,000 that is shifted to TX-4.  TX-13, TX-19, and TX-11 have a deficit of around 25,000, a tiny deficit of about 400, and a surplus of 12,000 respectively.  TX-13 takes a major infusion from the DFW area, but passes most of it on to TX-31 and the Austin and San Antonio areas.  TX-11 transfers its surplus to TX-21.

TX-16 in El Paso County has an excess of 59,000 which is transferred to TX-23.  TX-15 and TX-27 in south Texas have an excess of 132,000 which they shift to TX-14 as they concentrate more towards the border.

TX-17 extends into the southern DFW suburbs, but would be described as a Waco, Bryan-College Station central Texas district.  Its excess of 62,000 is shifted into TX-31 for transport further south.

TX-28 includes San Antonio suburbs, but has a focus in Laredo and other south Texas areas.  The northern portion will be used in creation of TX-36.

It appears that the Houston area is a little bit short of the excess population needed to create TX-35 (inflow from TX-15 and TX-27 minus outflow from TX-8, but growth in the Harris County portion of TX-10 provided a significant share of the excess that went into creation of TX-33.

The DFW area has an excess of about 150,000 plus a significant portion of the surplus in TX-17.  This is used to top off TX-13, with the bulk being shifted southward to the Austin and San Antonio areas.

A total of 4.105 million persons are shifted in Texas, representing 14.0% of the state, or the equivalent of 5.03 districts.  But this includes the persons moved into the 4 new districts.

If those persons are excluded, then 717 thousand, or 2.9% of the population is shifted.



In the DFW area, most shifts are associated with creating TX-34 in the Frisco area, with direct transfers from TX-3, TX-4, and TX-26, supported by secondary transfers from TX-1 (not shown), TX-5, TX-6, and TX-24.  TX-32 is the least populated district in Texas, and TX-30 has a very small surplus.  Population is transferred from TX-6 to make up this deficit in TX-32.

The DFW area produces a surplus of 149K (210K if the surplus in TX-17 is attributed to the suburban areas (Johnson and Hood counties).  This surplus is directed from TX-12 into TX-13, and then into TX-31.  About 25,000 of the surplus is used to erase the deficit in TX-13, one of four Texas districts that are underpopulated.  This could be made up from Wise County.  The remaining population from Parker County would be moved into TX-31.  If the transfer from TX-17 to TX-31 takes place from the northern end of the district, then TX-31 is shifted northward, with roughly comparable population in the western DFW suburbs, Bell County (Killeen and Temple) and northerly parts of Williamson County.



In the Houston area, TX-35 is formed east of the city.  This unexpected result is a consequence of TX-33 being created in the Austin area, which depletes the excess population in TX-10 in northwest Harris County, which might have been used to form a new district in areas to north and west of the city.  But in effect, TX-10 becomes a Houston area district with the transfer of the Travis County portion into TX-33.

Rather than population flowing into the Baytown area, TX-35 would be created from the east portions of TX-2 (Jefferson) and TX-14 (Galveston and Chambers).  The contribution from TX-22 might also include Galveston County, along with areas of southeast Harris County.  Thus TX-35 would be somewhat like the old TX-9.

TX-2 would become more clearly a northern and northeast suburban district, while TX-22 would become more of a southwestern suburban district.  TX-14 would move back down the coast, but would continue to have a significant Houston area population.  This process would be aided by a transfer of population of 132K from the extreme northern portions of TX-15 and TX-27.

There are additional secondary transfers from TX-7, TX-8, and TX-9 into TX-2 and TX-14 to make up for the population used to create TX-35.  TX-29 is one of 4 districts below the ideal population which is matches with a similar small surplus in TX-18.  TX-8 provides a small outflow into TX-10, which strengthens the new Houston orientation of TX-10.



Two new districts are created in the San Antonio-Austin area, TX-33 in north Austin and its suburbs and TX-36 southeast of San Antonio.

Because of an inflow of about 185K into TX-31 from the DFW area and 65K into TX-10 from the Houston area, no population is transferred from TX-21 into the new TX-33.  If one wanted to avoid a an additional county split, the small transfer of 18K from TX-31 to TX-21 could be from Travis County, with TX-31 then providing a larger portion of TX-33.  With half of a congressional district being contributed to TX-33 by both TX-10 and TX-31, these districts are shifted out of the Austin area, with TX-10 becoming a Houston area district, and TX-31 becoming a central Texas district stretching north to the western DFW suburbs, while the new TX-33 if fully an Austin area district.

TX-36 is created southeast of San Antonio, but would have most of its population in Bexar County.  In effect Bexar county would have 4 districts: TX-20 in the center, TX-23 in the west extending all the way to El Paso; TX-21 in the north extending into the Hill Country and to Austin, and the new TX-36 in south and east extending into counties further east.  I suspect that TX-36 would have the largest share of Bexar County after TX-20.

TX-25 would also contribute to the new district, with counties southeast of Travis County being shifted through TX TX-28 into the new district.  TX-28 would be moved out of the San Antonio area.  TX-16 (El Paso) contributes its surplus of 59K to TX-23 which moves that district slightly to the west.  TX-11 shifts its small surplus to TX-21.  TX-11 also makes up the tiny deficit (400 persons) in TX-19.

[timothyinMD]

This is my solution to the Texas redistricting flap.

Harris County 3 Democrat/3 Republican
Navy - 63% McCain 46.7% White, 27% Hispanic
Olive - 61.7% McCain 42.7% White, 35.9% Hispanic
Maroon - 63.3% McCain 49.3% White, 31.9% Hispanic

Yellow - 54.3% Obama 38.7% Hispanic, 35.2% White
Brown - 86.4% Obama 49.3% Black, 35% Hispanic
Pink - 67.2% Obama 74.6 Hispanic, 12.3% Black



Tarrant/Dallas Counties 3 Democrat/3 Republican
Green - 59.4% McCain 55% White, 26% Hispanic
Red - 66.5% McCain 67.7% White, 18.9% Hispanic
Purple - 60% McCain 55.2% White, 28% Hispanic

Blue - 79.9% Obama 42.5% Black, 38.3% Hispanic
Orange - 62.2% Obama 45.7% Hispanic, 28.5% White
Yellow - 67.1% Obama 42.5% Hispanic, 26.2% Black

DWF has the population for 5.98 seats so I just leveled it off and made 6 entirely within those 2 counties.   For the 98,000 extra persons needed to complete Harris' 6th seat, the black seat dips into the black section of Fort Bend Co.


Does't get fairer than 6-6

[jimrtex]

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

LULAC plans for South Texas.   TX-27 comes up the coast to Kleberg Count where it swims across Laguna Madre to Padre Island to bypass most of Corpus Christi and Nueces County before coming into Aransas County (there is a ferry) and then connecting back to Calhoun County via Matagorda Island and the splitting into legs that wander into Matagorda County and up to Caldwell County (avoiding Travis County because the Supreme Court said you can't have a district coming from the Rio Grande to Austin - though technically that was from McAllen and this district would be from Brownsville.  So maybe there is a difference.

Farenthold would be put in the open district TX-36 which connects with Hidalgo County which is more reliably Democratic.

TX-27 and TX-15 form a fajita doughnut around TX-36.



LULAC plans for DFW create a Hispanic district in Dallas and a coalition district in Tarrant.  They don't change the Houston districts



This is the south Texas plan from the Mexican American Legislative Caucus.  Apparently TX-33 is OK as a Hispanic Opportunity district since the area in Travis County is not majority Hispanic.  TX-28 is OK because Laredo is closer to Austin than McAllen, and Henry Cuellar was Secretary of State.   Doggett and McCaul are paired in TX-25.  TX-10 is now an open Houston to Corpus district.  TX-23 now has almost as much of El Paso County as Bexar County, and it is 96% Hispanic.  The rest of El Paso in TX-16 is 76% Hispanic and extends east to Odessa.



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



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



This is the Texas Latino Task Force plan for Houston.  TX-18 is contiguous.  Barely.  Race was obviously not the driving factor in these maps.

[minionofmidas]

LULAC plans for South Texas.   TX-27 comes up the coast to Kleberg Count where it swims across Laguna Madre to Padre Island to bypass most of Corpus Christi and Nueces County before coming into Aransas County (there is a ferry) and then connecting back to Calhoun County via Matagorda Island and the splitting into legs that wander into Matagorda County and up to Caldwell County (avoiding Travis County because the Supreme Court said you can't have a district coming from the Rio Grande to Austin - though technically that was from McAllen and this district would be from Brownsville.  So maybe there is a difference.

Farenthold would be put in the open district TX-36 which connects with Hidalgo County which is more reliably Democratic.

TX-27 and TX-15 form a fajita doughnut around TX-36.

Ridiculous stuff.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. That (not the exact boundaries, mind) is what would fairly inevitably happen under a VRA-compliant and otherwise fair map. Though I fail to see how the Fort Worth district is enforceable from the bench.
And there's nothing (remotely VRA-relevant) wrong with the Houston districts, and no safe White D district that could be conceivably drawn while the three VRA districts exist; so why should they argue for a change here?

[minionofmidas]

Uh... had a closer look at that Fort Worth district. Yeah well, no.

[muon2]

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

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

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

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



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

[jimrtex]

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

The LULAC plan has a 58.9% HVAP in Tarrant County

The TLTF plan for Harris County has "Black" districts that are around 40% BVAP and 30% HVAP, and "Hispanic" districts that have a 10% BVAP despite the extraordinarily convoluted nature of the districts.  It appears that they drew one Hispanic double district and one Black double district that was in two parts (and extended out to Rosenberg to pick up some Hispanic areas), and then split the Hispanic district in two based on population, and ran a block-wide connector between them to connect the Black districts.

similarly awful or awfully similar?

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

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

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

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



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

[muon2]

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

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[minionofmidas]

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

Where do you get reliable data on that?

[muon2]

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

Where do you get reliable data on that?

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

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

[jimrtex]

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

Where do you get reliable data on that?

The 66.1% HVAP is from the Texas redistricting site.  The barely HCVAP is from the brief of the State of Texas.

[lowtech redneck]

Anybody know why the Republicans didn't create majority-black districts in Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth?  The end result would be the same (i.e. four safe Dem districts), and there would be no room left to carve out a fifth majority-minority district within the two metropolitan areas.

Also, those fajita strips seem to serve no practical demographic or political purpose; why do that instead of making an equal number of more compact, more hispanic, and more Democratic districts out of southern texas and San Antonio?

[jimrtex]

Anybody know why the Republicans didn't create majority-black districts in Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth?  The end result would be the same (i.e. four safe Dem districts), and there would be no room left to carve out a fifth majority-minority district within the two metropolitan areas.

Also, those fajita strips seem to serve no practical demographic or political purpose; why do that instead of making an equal number of more compact, more hispanic, and more Democratic districts out of southern texas and San Antonio?

It might not be practical to create a majority black district.   For example in Dallas.

TX-30 is 41% Black.  TX-3 is 17% Black, TX-5 is 18%, TX-24 is 17%, and TX-32 is 8% (these are numbers for the Dallas County portions).

Only 56% of Dallas County Blacks live in TX-30.   Dallas has a lot of small farm towns that have become suburbs, but most of them have a small area that is the black section of the old town.  So you would have to try to include those areas, and then you would have to pick up areas that Blacks have moved into.  These aren't necessarily adjacent to the traditional areas.  If you have a job at the airport, you might want to live in Irving, for example.  In the 1990s, the Democrats drew a majority Black district and it horrible tentacles as they literally went down to the block level to try to pick up enough people.

You might be able to draw one majority Black district in Houston, but not two.  Houston has 3 major Black areas (NW, NE, and South/SW).  They separate 4 major Hispanic areas, east, north, west northwest, and southwest.  These explain  the shapes of the districts, but also require districts to wrap around each other.

The legislature did increase the Black percentage a couple of percentage points, but it would really take a lot of intricate line drawing to get above that.

The DOJ calculates "opportunity to elect a candidate of minority choice" on a statewide basis.  So what is being disputed now is whether the number of minority districts has increased from 10/32 to 11/32.  Almost doesn't count.  It is the number of districts, not the concentration in the districts.

Many of the border areas have 90% Hispanic population.  So what you need to do is come north and pick up areas which don't have a majority Hispanic population.  Hardly anybody lives in the brush country once you get out of the immediate Rio Grande Valley.  Along the interstate and divided highways, there are no gas stations for 75 miles.   So you have to start out along the border and start drawing north simply to get enough population for 3 or 4 separate districts, and then you have to carefully pick which population you add to a district.   You can't start picking up a lot of areas that are 20% Hispanic, and you may have to zigzag into or around Corpus or Victoria because you might pick up too many Hispanics or too much population.



In the above map, TX-27 skips around Nueces County and Corpus Christi, because that is where the Republican incumbent is from.  Most of the area in that skip is water, and you would need an amphibious vehicle to drive from one end of the district to the other.  And because you want to make it look like a coastal district you extend it up to Matagorda County, and then it extends inland to get enough population.

The new district TX-35 takes in Nueces County, but has enough Hidalgo County to outvote it.  You can create a congressional district in Hidalgo County, but that would waste a lot of Hispanic votes.  So you have these pieces of TX-15 and TX-28 coming in to pick up enough Hispanic votes.  You also want to keep these districts further south so that TX-23 picks up the counties north of Webb County, such as Maverick, Zavalla, and Dimmit, as well as southern Bexar County.  This is also intended to show that you can create a minority majority starting in Travis County without coming south all the way to San Antonio.



This one takes a different approach.  It strips out the Anglo areas of Corpus Christi from TX-27 and adds a bit more of Cameron County.  This is placed in TX-10 which is converted from an Austin-Houston district with a representative in Austin to a Houston-Corpus district with no incumbent.

TX-33 takes in a more significant chunk of Hidalgo County.  That is because the area of Travis County it takes is the part that is currently in TX-10, and is plurality Anglo.  A similar district was ruled not to be a Hispanic opportunity district because it linked areas with different interests (eg solely on the basis of race).  Apparently, this one is OK because the Hispanic voters in then southern part of the district have the opportunity to choose their candidate of choice without worrying what the Anglo voters in Austin want.

This plan also avoids taking out too many minority voters in Travis County so Lloyd Doggett can be re-elected.  This means that TX-34 has to take more Hispanic voters out of San Antonio.   It also pushes TX-20 further north.

To make up for the loss of population, TX-23 takes in more of El Paso,  And then TX-16 which is currently in El Paso County extends east to Odessa.

[lowtech redneck]

Anybody know why the Republicans didn't create majority-black districts in Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth?  The end result would be the same (i.e. four safe Dem districts), and there would be no room left to carve out a fifth majority-minority district within the two metropolitan areas.

Also, those fajita strips seem to serve no practical demographic or political purpose; why do that instead of making an equal number of more compact, more hispanic, and more Democratic districts out of southern texas and San Antonio?

You might be able to draw one majority Black district in Houston, but not two.  Houston has 3 major Black areas (NW, NE, and South/SW).  They separate 4 major Hispanic areas, east, north, west northwest, and southwest.  These explain  the shapes of the districts, but also require districts to wrap around each other.

The legislature did increase the Black percentage a couple of percentage points, but it would really take a lot of intricate line drawing to get above that.

The DOJ calculates "opportunity to elect a candidate of minority choice" on a statewide basis.  So what is being disputed now is whether the number of minority districts has increased from 10/32 to 11/32.  Almost doesn't count.  It is the number of districts, not the concentration in the districts.

You misunderstand, I'm referring to the creation of one black district and one hispanic district in each metropolitan area, for a combined total of four majority-minority districts.  Its very easily done, and the gerrymandering looks no worse on the map than what the Republicans already produced.  Doing everything I said in my previous post, I was able to produce 12 majority-minority districts, including two hispanic Republican districts.  Of the other 8, 5 were along the Mexican border (one stretching from Laredo to San Antonio, but still more compact than the official map), one in the urban core of San Antonio, one in Austin, and one along the Gulf of Mexico.

I'll add the district profiles later, and if I can figure out how*, I'll post the map.

*The first part of my name is sadly quite accurate, and I already failed at my first attempt at posting my maps.

Edit: I just remembered that the criteria is voting age population, not total population; I'll have to make some changes.  Here's where I'm at right now, with voting age in parentheses.

Edit2: this list now officially serves no point except to drill the information I have learned into my brain.

Mexican border, from left to right:

1.) 81.6 (79.2) hispanic, 66.0 Obama.

2.) 54.1 (49.6) hispanic, 58.4 McCain.

3.) 87.2 (84. hispanic, 69.1 Obama.  This district is comprised of Maverik, Zavala, Dimmit, Frio, La Salle, Atoscosa, most of Webb, and part of Bexar counties.

4.) 90.0 (87. hispanic, 68.3 Obama.  This district is comprised of Jim Wells, Duvall, Jim Hoag, Brooks, Starr, Zapata, part of Webb, and the majority of Hidalgo counties.

5.) 88.8 (85. hispanic, 67.2 Obama.  This district is comprised of Kleberg, Kenedy, Willac, Cameron, and part of Hidalgo counties.

I'll need to adjust #2, but the latter 3 are all more compact and better Democratic vote sinks than the Republican plan.

6.) San Antonio District: 67.1 (63.7) hispanic, 64.7 Obama.

7.) Austin district: 50.1 (44.1) hispanic, 68.4 Obama.  This one wouldn't even have worked with a bare majority, it seems-I might as well have concentrated on creating a maximized Democratic vote sink.

8.) Gulf district: 52.0 (47.7) hispanic, 58.6 McCain.  Another one that would have had to be reworked, but that's a moot point now.

[jimrtex]

Anybody know why the Republicans didn't create majority-black districts in Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth?  The end result would be the same (i.e. four safe Dem districts), and there would be no room left to carve out a fifth majority-minority district within the two metropolitan areas.

Also, those fajita strips seem to serve no practical demographic or political purpose; why do that instead of making an equal number of more compact, more hispanic, and more Democratic districts out of southern texas and San Antonio?

You might be able to draw one majority Black district in Houston, but not two.  Houston has 3 major Black areas (NW, NE, and South/SW).  They separate 4 major Hispanic areas, east, north, west northwest, and southwest.  These explain  the shapes of the districts, but also require districts to wrap around each other.

The legislature did increase the Black percentage a couple of percentage points, but it would really take a lot of intricate line drawing to get above that.

The DOJ calculates "opportunity to elect a candidate of minority choice" on a statewide basis.  So what is being disputed now is whether the number of minority districts has increased from 10/32 to 11/32.  Almost doesn't count.  It is the number of districts, not the concentration in the districts.

You misunderstand, I'm referring to the creation of one black district and one hispanic district in each metropolitan area, for a combined total of four majority-minority districts.  Its very easily done, and the gerrymandering looks no worse on the map than what the Republicans already produced.  Doing everything I said in my previous post, I was able to produce 12 majority-minority districts, including two hispanic Republican districts.  Of the other 8, 5 were along the Mexican border (one stretching from Laredo to San Antonio, but still more compact than the official map), one in the urban core of San Antonio, one in Austin, and one along the Gulf of Mexico.

I'll add the district profiles later, and if I can figure out how*, I'll post the map.

*The first part of my name is sadly quite accurate, and I already failed at my first attempt at posting my maps.

You have to get around 58% HCVAP for a district to be considered an effective minority district.  Texas is in court now defending TX-23 which is 63.8% HVAP,

[lowtech redneck]

You have to get around 58% HCVAP for a district to be considered an effective minority district.  Texas is in court now defending TX-23 which is 63.8% HVAP,

Wow...that's friggin' insane.  I admit I was assuming that the number was the same as for black districts.

I'll continue with my list on the previous post for the hell of it, though.

[minionofmidas]

I was assuming that the number was the same as for black districts.

Wow... that's friggin' insane.

[lowtech redneck]

I was assuming that the number was the same as for black districts.

Wow... that's friggin' insane.

Speaking of which, would limiting the number of 58+ VRA hispanic districts be given legal cover by the creation of two majority-minority black seats (with a large number of hispanic Democrats included in each district by necessity)?  I still don't see why it would not be in the Republican's interests to do this (as opposed to the 40-40 black/hispanic thing they have going in three districts), and I'm assuming 50+ is still the standard for black VRA seats?  For that matter, are the 40-40 seats even VRA seats by some legal standard I am unaware of?

[minionofmidas]

That's the beauty of the VRA. What it actually does is ban racial gerrymandering, ie the kind of calculations you (and politicians) are currently engaging in. This is why you'll never get a hard-and-fast, "if you do this the courts can't touch you" definition - nothing could be further from the spirit of the law.
As is, you need an at least sorta compact hypothetical district in an area that's over 50% the given minority to successfully argue against a state that it must draw an opportunity district here (up to approximately the minority's share in the state) - but an opportunity district drawn by the state doesn't have to fulfill that 50% figure. (So, yeah, those 40-odd% Black districts with some Hispanics in them as well are protected districts. Though if their shapes are odd it serves states defending them in court well to argue that they are not protected and are perfectly legal purely partisan gerrymanders that just happen to be full of Blacks; adding a further layer of complexity.) But this doesn't help us at all in the case of Mexicans, because there's no way a 51% Mexican, 49% Anglo VAP district doesn't elect a candidate of the Anglo's choice. They are a huge majority of the actual registered voters, after all. So your entire guiding line is that you'll have to draw as many districts as possible that will elect a candidate of Hispanics' choice without them being gerrymandered, with the latter term as defined by the court after its seen your maps. The actual geography of the place, and its White and Hispanic voting patterns, will have to be taken into account in deciding whether your district is safe enough.

[lowtech redneck]

That's the beauty of the VRA. What it actually does is ban racial gerrymandering, ie the kind of calculations you (and politicians) are currently engaging in.

I love irony.

Anyway, Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth are capable of creating black-majority districts whose contortions are no worse (and in many instances look much better) than elsewhere, and the voting patterns of the urban hispanics in both places make a 58+ standard overkill (its the rural and suburban hispanics north of Corpus Cristie that lack pronounced partisan tendencies, which would seem to neccessitate an even higher bar than 58 to screw over non-hispanics in those districts, if the fluid parameters you outlined were to be objectively applied).   

Also, wasn't part of the challenge to the Texas plan the fact that the (compact) black-plurality district in Dallas-Fort Worth prevents the creation of a hispanic VRA district in the area (I'm still confused on that issue)?

[Verily]

That's the beauty of the VRA. What it actually does is ban racial gerrymandering, ie the kind of calculations you (and politicians) are currently engaging in.

I love irony.

Anyway, Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth are capable of creating black-majority districts whose contortions are no worse (and in many instances look much better) than elsewhere, and the voting patterns of the urban hispanics in both places make a 58+ standard overkill (its the rural and suburban hispanics north of Corpus Cristie that lack pronounced partisan tendencies, which would seem to neccessitate an even higher bar than 58 to screw over non-hispanics in those districts, if the fluid parameters you outlined were to be objectively applied).    

Also, wasn't part of the challenge to the Texas plan the fact that the (compact) black-plurality district in Dallas-Fort Worth prevents the creation of a hispanic VRA district in the area (I'm still confused on that issue)?

First off, the difference between rural Hispanics and urban Hispanics is not partisanship (this should be obvious, just look at the voting patterns of somewhere like Zavala County). The difference is registration and turnout as well as the partisan/racial voting patterns of non-Hispanics. Hispanics in urban areas are much more likely to be registered voters, and they're much more likely to vote, than Hispanics in rural areas.

Additionally, Hispanics in urban areas tend to live in places where the non-Hispanic voters are more amenable to voting for Hispanic-preferred candidates (inevitably Democrats). A 50% Hispanic, 50% Anglo voting tract in Houston probably voted narrowly for Obama, or at least was marginal. A 50% Hispanic, 50% Anglo voting tract in rural Texas probably voted around 60% for McCain, in some places well over 60% for McCain. The difference is not mostly in the Hispanic voters, though (even assuming identical registration and turnout rates); it's mostly among the Anglo voters, who were moderately Republican in the Houston tract but overwhelmingly Republican in the rural tract. Additionally, urban voting tracts are more likely to have non-negligible non-Hispanic, non-Anglo populations (blacks and Asians, essentially nonexistent in rural Texas [except East Texas, but there are few Hispanics there]) that also are amenable to voting for Hispanic-preferred candidates.

There are still a few areas where the Hispanic percentage and the Democratic percentage don't line up, even accounting for registration, turnout and non-Hispanic votes. These are all in the panhandle area. They're basically explained the same way "Native American" areas in Oklahoma voting Republican are explained. It's a bunch of people of tenuously Hispanic ancestry who've lived in the area for centuries who really are not appropriately grouped with the residents of the Rio Grande Valley or the urban barrios.

[lowtech redneck]

First off, the difference between rural Hispanics and urban Hispanics is not partisanship (this should be obvious, just look at the voting patterns of somewhere like Zavala County). The difference is registration and turnout as well as the partisan/racial voting patterns of non-Hispanics.

Zavalas county is located south of Corpus Cristie, which I noted as safe Democrat territory.  I was basing my claim on hispanic voters living in safe Republican precints wherein the McCain vote was substantially higher than the proportion of white voters (in many instances the hispanics comprised a majority or plurality of the population, oftentimes with large Asian and even substantial black minorities).  Assuming a 75-25 break for McCain among white voters, the numbers have to be accounted for among the minorities; the blacks are obviously not the source, and the Asians are not always present in large numbers where this pattern exists.  I think a likely explanation for the difference from the Mexican border and the barrios (aside from greater integration with the dominant culture) is the proportion of voters descended from illegal immigrants (I don't know if this has ever been subject to credible research).

[krazen1211]

http://www.kwtx.com/centraltexasvotes/localheadlines/_Panel_Says_Temporary_Texas_Voting_District_Map_Unlikely_133004788.html

A three-judge federal panel in San Antonio says it's unlikely that it will approve district maps to be used temporarily for next year's congressional primaries while legal challenges to Texas redistricting proceed.



Interesting.

[minionofmidas]

Also, wasn't part of the challenge to the Texas plan the fact that the (compact) black-plurality district in Dallas-Fort Worth prevents the creation of a hispanic VRA district in the area (I'm still confused on that issue)?

It does, at least in the shape that it is now, and at least for a compact hispanic district (one not stretching all the way from downtown Dallas to downtown Fort Worth). There are a number of areas in Dallas that have many Black and many Hispanic but few or no White residents.
Also, it's not enough that the Hispanic district elect a Democrat - it also needs to elect the Democrat the Hispanics vote for in the primary. Yes, that is going to be an issue in a 51% Hispanic Dallas district. (Heck, the Hispanic district in Houston is still held by a White man. Though he couldn't hold it these days if he wasn't the Hispanics' candidate of choice, of course. When he was first elected though, it was a different matter.)