2020 Texas Redistricting thread

[Skill and Chance]

I increasingly don't think TX-39 is going to happen this round.  How might things shake out differently with a 38 CD map?

[Skill and Chance]

I increasingly don't think TX-39 is going to happen this round.  How might things shake out differently with a 38 CD map?

Well, under 39 CDs, DFW, Houston metro, and San Antonio-Austin corridor all gain a seat. Under 38, one of them doesn't. Which of the three is growing the slowest?

Well, if there is enough of a growth setback to result in only 38 CDs, probably Houston, because oil fell to $20 just in time for the census.

My intuition is that would make it near impossible to draw out Fletcher, but that would also free up more R's to shore up the Austin suburbs CDs?

[Skill and Chance]

Collin is zooming left as well. I'd guess that in 2020, your CD 7 and 8 would flip with 60-40 Dem margins in Dallas and 55-45 GOP margins at best in Collin/Denton. You need a North Dallas/Park Cities/Plano pack. If you want 6 instead of 8 Dem seats in DFW all the way through 2030, you need a NE Tarrant/NW Dallas/SW Collin/SE Denton pack, North Dallas/Plano pack, and a NE Dallas/Richardson pack. Similarly, giving Fort Bend it's own pack keeps CD 28 and 32 from eventually flipping.

In 2030, Collin, Denton, and Tarrant will all be safe Dem counties. Therefore, any district that splits chunks of Dallas out to any of the other three is bound to flip. It's much smarter to pack the inner suburbs and split the outer fringes of these counties out to the rurals. Same goes for Travis and Bexar with Williamson, Comal, and Hays; and for Harris with Fort Bend, Brazoria, and yes, Montgomery.

By 2030, Texas is going to be a D+5 state with a Dem geographic advantage. A good map for the GOP keeps Dems below 18 seats through the decade, which means starting the decade with 15-16 Dem seats. Anything else is a dummymander.

In a scenario where several of the 4/9 seats on the elected state supreme court that are up this year flipped (at least 2 of them would make it possible for Dems to take control of it after 2022), the statewide presidential vote was Trump +3 or less, and they hold only the slimmest majority in the lower house of the legislature, I could see them drawing a good government map that makes a narrow majority of the seats Republican. 

But I think things would have to deteriorate significantly for Texas R's to be that reserved about it.  Also, if they think they will never have control again for decades, they may decide it's best to go for broke and try to prolong control for another 2-6 years.  If statewide elections are 60% D in 2030, they are going to lose everything anyway.

[Skill and Chance]

I don't know this stuff as well as you guys, but if I were in the republicans' position, I would cede most urban and inner suburban areas to democrats. Something like

Dallas- 4
Houston- 3/4 (depending on whether you count Fort Bend as Houston)
Austin- 2
San Antonio-1/2 (depending on how much they wanna fajita strip areas to the north and to the valley)

They could end up doing this, but only if 2020 goes at leas as bad as 2018 for them.  Should they lose something statewide in 2020 but retain redistricting control, they won't be taking any chances this time. 

[Skill and Chance]

I don't know this stuff as well as you guys, but if I were in the republicans' position, I would cede most urban and inner suburban areas to democrats. Something like

Dallas- 4
Houston- 3/4 (depending on whether you count Fort Bend as Houston)
Austin- 2
San Antonio-1/2 (depending on how much they wanna fajita strip areas to the north and to the valley)

They could end up doing this, but only if 2020 goes at leas as bad as 2018 for them.  Should they lose something statewide in 2020 but retain redistricting control, they won't be taking any chances this time.  

The GOP would probably lose control of the Texas HoR on the current map before they lose any statewide races (as I recall, O'Rourke won an easy majority of Texas HoR seats in 2018 even while losing statewide), so that may be a moot point.

It is an interesting issue of what happens if the Democrats control the Texas HoR (or otherwise the Republicans can't pass their maps, say if they have a majority of 1 or 2 and some rebels who are anti-gerrymandering).

In that event all redistricting goes to a backup commission made of statewide elected officials, so unless Ds play ball and manage to get a compromise somewhere involving the state leg and/or congressional maps, then its another GOPmander.

IIRC thats state legislative maps but the congressional maps goes to a court which obviously can't blatantly gerrymander but when the state maps flip back in 2022(backlash from 2020 megawave+ fresh gerrymandering) the texas GOP can do mid decade redistricting if they wish ala 2004.

Yes, there is a lot going on here.

1. In the event the lower house of the state legislature flips, the GOP would still control state legislative redistricting through the backup commission set up by the state constitution.  The commission is the LG, AG, Comptroller,  Land Commissioner and Speaker of the State House.  It would be 4R/1D in this scenario and can approve a map with 3 votes.  the state senate is unlikely to be competitive and in any event would be icing on the cake for Dems and irrelevant to this process unless Dems somehow held a 2/3rds majority in both chambers.


2. There are strict rules in the state constitution on how lower house districts can be drawn, particularly focused on containing entire districts within counties whenever possible, and there are 150 districts so most of them are truly constrained by these requirements.  It isn't really possible to do a hard gerrymander of the lower house.  Indeed, this is part of the reason why the Republican majority there is precarious in 2020.

3.  By contrast, the state senate is a free for all.  It has only 31 districts, so they are bigger than US House seats, and they can be gerrymandered as aggressively as the majority wants.  

4.  In the scenario where the lower house is Dem-controlled, or has a de facto coalition government with a narrow R majority (it arguably has a coalition government already because of the mechanics of how the speaker is chosen, but this would be even more pronounced if it were down to say, a 77R/73D split), all of the Republicans on the backup commission who would need to sign off on a gerrymander are facing statewide election in 2022, potentially in another Trump midterm.  They may have more reservations about drawing the map too aggressively given that they would have to answer for it in a statewide vote the very next cycle and would not personally benefit from the gerrymandered districts.

5. If there is divided government, the backup commission has no authority over the congressional map, so there would either have to be a legislative compromise approved by the governor, or it would be drawn by a federal court for the 2022 cycle.  However, mid-decade redistricting is legal in Texas, so Democrats would either have to maintain control of the lower house despite the Republican-drawn map from the backup commission or win the governorship in 2022 to block a Republican gerrymander of the congressional map for future election cycles.

6.  There is also the matter of trying to draw districts based on eligible voters or even registered voters instead of total population.  This would advantage Republicans, but they would first have to change existing state law to do this, and then it would go to SCOTUS.  It would have to get through the lower house, and it is likely to be more controversial than just doing a gerrymander in the traditional way.  It also introduces additional risk in that if SCOTUS blocks the eligible voters standard,  Republicans may not control the governorship anymore to pass a new gerrymander, like what happened in VA this decade.

7.  SCOTUS has imposed a very strict standard for how South Texas needs to be drawn based on the VRA.  If SCOTUS backs off of VRA section 2 redistricting standards next decade, expect TX-23 to go from mildly Dem leaning to mildly GOP leaning, or they could use it to pick up more of San Antonio so that TX-35 becomes an all-Travis CD. 

8. Texas also has elected state courts, using the same statewide partisan election system as North Carolina for their highest court.  Republicans cannot do much to change the mechanics of judicial elections in Texas without passing a constitutional amendment,  which would require the cooperation of some state legislative Dems just to get it on the ballot and then the amendment would have to pass a statewide vote.  The state supreme court is currently 9R/0D, but it would likely throw out gerrymandered maps passed in 2021 if it flipped to Dem control at any point during the decade, as recently happened in NC and PA.  It could also rule that Texas state law does not permit using an eligible voters standard instead of total population, or reimpose stricter requirements for how South Texas is drawn using state law.

Put this all together, and my expectation for the congressional map would be a defensible clean looking map that is still likely to keep a majority of the congressional seats R-leaning for the decade, unless Republicans make substantial gains over 2018 in 2020 (2/3rds legislative majority?), in which case they go for broke.  I am not even sure an aggressive gerrymander would pass the current TX state house, so no need to tempt fate.  

[Skill and Chance]

While everyone has been looking at federal redistricting, given that State Senate districts are actually larger than federal ones, opinion of this map?

https://districtr.org/edit/3296







This map should be a safe 19R-12D map. All R districts are at 58.5% Trump or more. All Dem districts are also at 58% Clinton or more.

Granted, I guess with trends and what not it could end up as a dummymander? I also think several of those districts might be illegal because of the VRA?

I think 19 is the magic number under the Texas Senate's procedural rules?  Provided they agree 2/3rds is out of reach (which they will unless Trump gets like 60% this year), the number for full procedural control is what they will be targeting.

[Skill and Chance]

Anyway will start drawing it soon but thought of a concept for a Safe 14-25 map, if the 5th circuit literally doesn't care about the VRA

 4 Houston seats
4 Dallas seats(could be 3 even). 4 seats each should easily hold up for a decade.
Travis= 1 pure sink in central Travis, Draw one in SE travis to Hispanic San antonio,similar to the current Tx 35th,
1 El paso
2 RGV, (Hidalgo +cameron + few more counties)
1 Laredo to San antonio
The rest of the map is GOP.

They may not, but Roberts and Alito(!) joined the majority in striking down the 2011 NC-01, and Thomas believes very strongly that race should never be a consideration in drawing districts and has no problem joining the left in these cases.  Thomas joined the majority opinion in full, providing the 5th vote to strike down NC-12 as well as NC-01. 

I expect less SCOTUS intervention going forward, but a blanket "VRA doesn't apply to redistricting at all" ruling seems highly unlikely.  The 5th circuit may take that position, but it will be appealed. 

[Skill and Chance]

Anyway will start drawing it soon but thought of a concept for a Safe 14-25 map, if the 5th circuit literally doesn't care about the VRA

 4 Houston seats
4 Dallas seats(could be 3 even). 4 seats each should easily hold up for a decade.
Travis= 1 pure sink in central Travis, Draw one in SE travis to Hispanic San antonio,similar to the current Tx 35th,
1 El paso
2 RGV, (Hidalgo +cameron + few more counties)
1 Laredo to San antonio
The rest of the map is GOP.

They may not, but Roberts and Alito(!) joined the majority in striking down the 2011 NC-01, and Thomas believes very strongly that race should never be a consideration in drawing districts and has no problem joining the left in these cases.  Thomas joined the majority opinion in full, providing the 5th vote to strike down NC-12 as well as NC-01. 

I expect less SCOTUS intervention going forward, but a blanket "VRA doesn't apply to redistricting at all" ruling seems highly unlikely.  The 5th circuit may take that position, but it will be appealed. 

It also has the risk that if the Dems get the senate at some point and get a SC justice or two appointed then they could strike down the entire map and force fair court-drawn maps to replace it.

Or just do well enough statewide to flip the elected Texas supreme court and do an NC/PA.  3/9 seats are up every 2 years, and they run explicitly as R's and D's.     

[Skill and Chance]

While everyone has been looking at federal redistricting, given that State Senate districts are actually larger than federal ones, opinion of this map?

https://districtr.org/edit/3296







This map should be a safe 19R-12D map. All R districts are at 58.5% Trump or more. All Dem districts are also at 58% Clinton or more.

Granted, I guess with trends and what not it could end up as a dummymander? I also think several of those districts might be illegal because of the VRA?

I think the Texas Constitution says they have to minimize county splits in the state legislative maps. So a few places you have two or more districts splitting the same two counties (like the three Dallas-Collin districts, the two Harris-Montgomery districts or the four Harris-Fort Bend districts) are illegal.

Although maybe that only applies to the state House... not certain.

It only applies to the State House. Though in practice the State Senate districts being long short strings would not fly too well among the public; so the GOP might take the path of "clean compact gerrymandering" where the seats look good but strongly favor the GOP.

If there is any place they go MD style all out, it will be in the state senate.  The state house district constitutional rules are probably strict enough that the chamber will inevitably flip before 2031 if it hasn't flipped already.  The state senate will be the focus.  It's their best hope to ensure a say in the state's government for another decade.  

[Skill and Chance]

The delayed census count introduces an interesting wrinkle into the process.  If the legislature has to convene a special session to redistrict after its normal session ends in May of 2021, the maps will only be valid for one election and must be redrawn at the next regular legislative session in 2023.  Also, the backup commission has no constitutional authority to step in and draw the legislative maps if there is a deadlock in a special session.

It would be able to step in after a deadlock in the 2023 regular session, but all of the statewide offices that make up 4 of the 5 seats on the backup commission are up for statewide election in 2022 and the 5th seat is the Speaker of the State House, so it is possible control of the backup commission could flip.  The commission includes the LG and AG who both won by <5% in 2018.  The most likely scenario where the backup commission would come into play would be if Democrats control the state house (whether they flipped it in 2020 or 2022 doesn't really matter) or if they flipped the governorship in 2022.  Thus, if 2022 is another Trump midterm, it is, remarkably, now plausible that Democrats could be in a position to draw the the state legislative maps in 2023.

With all this uncertainty hanging out there, I wonder if a deal could be struck on sending a nonpartisan commission amendment to the voters in 2022 if there is a split legislature after 2020?

[Skill and Chance]

The delayed census count introduces an interesting wrinkle into the process.  If the legislature has to convene a special session to redistrict after its normal session ends in May of 2021, the maps will only be valid for one election and must be redrawn at the next regular legislative session in 2023.  Also, the backup commission has no constitutional authority to step in and draw the legislative maps if there is a deadlock in a special session.

It would be able to step in after a deadlock in the 2023 regular session, but all of the statewide offices that make up 4 of the 5 seats on the backup commission are up for statewide election in 2022 and the 5th seat is the Speaker of the State House, so it is possible control of the backup commission could flip.  The commission includes the LG and AG who both won by <5% in 2018.  The most likely scenario where the backup commission would come into play would be if Democrats control the state house (whether they flipped it in 2020 or 2022 doesn't really matter) or if they flipped the governorship in 2022.  Thus, if 2022 is another Trump midterm, it is, remarkably, now plausible that Democrats could be in a position to draw the the state legislative maps in 2023.

With all this uncertainty hanging out there, I wonder if a deal could be struck on sending a nonpartisan commission amendment to the voters in 2022 if there is a split legislature after 2020?

I wonder if there's a chance Texas Republicans would try to stick in commissions with strong compactness requirements as a method of packing Hispanics more along the Rio Grande and in urban areas? The Fifth Circuit Court is thoroughly in the tank for them, so they'd only have to worry about the Supreme Court striking it down and if they were willing to say compact Rio Grande districts aren't unconstitutional packing, that ought to save them at least one congressional district.

That's interesting.  A commission amendment would have to get 2/3rds support in the legislature to get referred to the ballot.  I think it's likely Republicans would try to rally support from black and Hispanic Dem legislators like they did for the commission amendment in Ohio.  So if anything you would be more likely to see something with stricter than VRA protections that would also benefit Republican incumbents in neighboring districts?

Actually, now that I think about it, if control is split in a special session, they will probably just approve a Dem map in the House and a GOP map in the Senate and let a court draw the 2 year congressional map.  Even if it's a long shot, the chance to draw both chambers through the backup commission in 2023 (or have all the leverage to get their preferred commission language enshrined in the state constitution) is just too valuable to either side.

[Skill and Chance]

Yes, there is a lot going on here.

1. In the event the lower house of the state legislature flips, the GOP would still control state legislative redistricting through the backup commission set up by the state constitution.  The commission is the LG, AG, Comptroller,  Land Commissioner and Speaker of the State House.  It would be 4R/1D in this scenario and can approve a map with 3 votes.  the state senate is unlikely to be competitive and in any event would be icing on the cake for Dems and irrelevant to this process unless Dems somehow held a 2/3rds majority in both chambers.

That is what happened in 2002 when there was still split control. The plans weren't passed out of the Senate, and the commission drew the maps.

I would actually let the commission draw the maps to begin with. A lot of gerrymandering is to accommodate individual legislators. The 2002 plans were quite reasonable, and the only plans to last the decade without being overturned since the 1960s.

2. There are strict rules in the state constitution on how lower house districts can be drawn, particularly focused on containing entire districts within counties whenever possible, and there are 150 districts so most of them are truly constrained by these requirements.  It isn't really possible to do a hard gerrymander of the lower house.  Indeed, this is part of the reason why the Republican majority there is precarious in 2020.

In 2012, the population of Republican-held districts would have actually been entitled to four additional districts. People prefer to live in districts with a Republican representative. All but one of the pairings were R vs. R, but the replacement districts would be drawn further out in the suburbs.

The reason that the districts in Dallas are so awful was that in pairing R's they wanted to make it a fair fight to determine who would be elected.

With Section 5 gone by, there is not a concern about retrogression, and it may be easier to draw districts representing communities of interest based on race or ethnicity.

3.  By contrast, the state senate is a free for all.  It has only 31 districts, so they are bigger than US House seats, and they can be gerrymandered as aggressively as the majority wants.

You can't get a bill before the full Senate without a 60% vote, and there are ways to filibuster the senate. It is simpler to draw an incumbent protection plan. Senators are not selfless individuals who will give up their supporters for the greater good of their party.

There are always incumbents knocked off in the House primary of the '2' year, because they may facing a 60% or more turnover in constituents, and faces a challenge from a prominent local who they have heard of.

4.  In the scenario where the lower house is Dem-controlled, or has a de facto coalition government with a narrow R majority (it arguably has a coalition government already because of the mechanics of how the speaker is chosen, but this would be even more pronounced if it were down to say, a 77R/73D split), all of the Republicans on the backup commission who would need to sign off on a gerrymander are facing statewide election in 2022, potentially in another Trump midterm.  They may have more reservations about drawing the map too aggressively given that they would have to answer for it in a statewide vote the very next cycle and would not personally benefit from the gerrymandered districts.

That is a naive supposition about voters.

5. If there is divided government, the backup commission has no authority over the congressional map, so there would either have to be a legislative compromise approved by the governor, or it would be drawn by a federal court for the 2022 cycle.  However, mid-decade redistricting is legal in Texas, so Democrats would either have to maintain control of the lower house despite the Republican-drawn map from the backup commission or win the governorship in 2022 to block a Republican gerrymander of the congressional map for future election cycles.

The US Constitution reserves to the state legislatures the drawing of congressional districts. The SCOTUS requires federal courts when drawing boundaries to respect the lines drawn by the legislature. In 2001, the legislature failed to draw congressional district lines. The federal court added in three new Republican districts, and preserved much of 1990's era awful Democrat gerrymander.

The 2003 legislature had a moral obligation to perform the function that they had failed to do in 2001.

6.  There is also the matter of trying to draw districts based on eligible voters or even registered voters instead of total population.  This would advantage Republicans, but they would first have to change existing state law to do this, and then it would go to SCOTUS.  It would have to get through the lower house, and it is likely to be more controversial than just doing a gerrymander in the traditional way.  It also introduces additional risk in that if SCOTUS blocks the eligible voters standard,  Republicans may not control the governorship anymore to pass a new gerrymander, like what happened in VA this decade.

The Constitution used to provide that senate districts be based on eligible voters. Legal guidance was that you couldn't use registered voters, and that you would have to prove the CVAP population, such as having a state census (this is the real reason Democrats don't want a citizenship question on the census, since they are enabling illegal immigration). When the constitution was cleaned up removing obsolete provisions, they eliminated the eligible voter provision along with another provision that said counties could not be split in drawing senate districts, which had been ruled unconstitutional after Reynolds v Sims. The current constitution fixes the number of senatorial districts, but  has no other requirements.

This is likely the reason that Evenwal v Abbott was brought as a challenge to the Texas senate districts. If one interprets the principle of Reynolds v Sims somewhat literally (no one would seriously argue that the phrase "One Man, One Vote" excludes females), but to exclude those who may not legally vote do to age or citizenship, that is:
"One Voter, One Vote" then voters in districts where there are an excess of voters are being denied equal protection.

If the senate was apportioned on the basis of citizenship numbers from the ACS, opponents would have to argue that the ACS was bogus for purposes of determining the population of districts, while at the same time arguing it must be used in applying the Gingles test.

7.  SCOTUS has imposed a very strict standard for how South Texas needs to be drawn based on the VRA.  If SCOTUS backs off of VRA section 2 redistricting standards next decade, expect TX-23 to go from mildly Dem leaning to mildly GOP leaning, or they could use it to pick up more of San Antonio so that TX-35 becomes an all-Travis CD.

This was based on Section 5, barring retrogression. When the legislature drew a McAllen to Austin district, the SCOTUS ruled that it was not a district that afforded Hispanic voters an opportunity to elect a candidate of choice. Since there was no community of interest between the RGV and Austin, the district was suspect as a racial gerrymander, assigning voters to a district on the basis of race. You can no more assign black voters to a black district, than you can assign black students to Booker T Washington High School, and white students to Robert E Lee High School.

Since the RGV-Austin district was not a minority-opportunity district, TX-23 had to be redrawn in order to restore the Hispanic district quota.

Section 2 under the Gingles Test requires compact communities. No one can argue that fajita strips are compact.

8. Texas also has elected state courts, using the same statewide partisan election system as North Carolina for their highest court.  Republicans cannot do much to change the mechanics of judicial elections in Texas without passing a constitutional amendment,  which would require the cooperation of some state legislative Dems just to get it on the ballot and then the amendment would have to pass a statewide vote.  The state supreme court is currently 9R/0D, but it would likely throw out gerrymandered maps passed in 2021 if it flipped to Dem control at any point during the decade, as recently happened in NC and PA.  It could also rule that Texas state law does not permit using an eligible voters standard instead of total population, or reimpose stricter requirements for how South Texas is drawn using state law.

There is currently a court challenge to at-large election of state courts.

Can't the Texas Senate remove the 60% threshold by majority vote at the beginning of a session?  Similar to what the US Senate has done for nominee confirmation votes?  How was it lowered from 2/3rds to 60%?  If so, I don't see it as being particularly significant for the redistricting process going forward.  They will just do what the majority wants to do. 

Also, the statewide judicial elections challenge to force majority minority districts has been going on since 2016 and the plaintiffs have gotten nowhere.  Against a backdrop of federal courts relaxing VRA standards applied to redistricting in general, and one of the conservative SCOTUS justices (Thomas) being opposed to any consideration of race in redistricting whatsoever, it's a real stretch.

[Skill and Chance]

Here's my take on what a light Democratic gerrymander of the state would look like, say in 2026 or if Dems take the legislature and force a mid-decade redistricting.
http://dra-purple.indirect.cc/join/c3300552-ec57-4e69-bb71-9789aeba6d3f

By district:
TX-01: Texarkana, Tyler, rural East Texas - this is more similar to the pre-2004 TX-01, but Gohmert should be the easy favorite in this Trump 72-25 seat (Safe R)

TX-02: Lufkin, Nacogdoches, rural East Texas stretching down to Beaumont and Houston's northern and eastern exurbs. This is again the pre-2004 TX-02, which is today's TX-36, and Babin should easily hold it, as it is Trump 76-21 (Safe R)

TX-03: Plano, Frisco, Carrollton, pretty much the same as old TX-03, except it reaches into Denton County a little. Van Taylor should be fine here, even though it's trending left and is now Trump 50-44 (Likely R)

TX-04: Rockwall, McKinney, Sulphur Springs, Sherman - this is similar to the pre-2004 TX-04 that Ralph Hall used to represent, but more of Collin replaces Tyler/Smith County. This seat is Trump 75-21, and contains Heath, so Ratcliffe should run here. (Safe R)

TX-05: Terrell, Waxahachie, Palestine, Rusk - this is similar to the previous iterations of TX-05, and is entirely outside of Dallas County now. That makes it safer for Gooden, and it is Trump 75-22, so he will likely easily win here.  (Safe R)

TX-06: Fort Worth, River Oaks, White Settlement - a D sink in Tarrant County that didn't previously exist before. This seat is Clinton 56-39, so Wright would probably not run here. This seat is a Democratic pickup. Demographically, it could elect a minority (probably Marc Veasey) as its VAP is 43% white, 34% Hispanic, and 20% black. (Safe D)

TX-07: Katy, Cypress, this seat is the western end of Harris County. Fletcher definitely would not win here. It is trending left but is still too red right now, she would probably run somewhere else in the area. Dan Crenshaw could definitely carpetbag and run in this seat and he would probably win, as it is Trump 57-38. It is close to becoming maj-min, but its VAP is 55% white, 26% Hispanic, and 11% black. (Safe R)

TX-08: The Woodlands, Kingwood, Humble, Tomball - essentially the core of Brady's base is preserved here as well as some northern red suburbs of Houston. He would run here as long as he wants, and this seat is Trump 72-24. (Safe R)

TX-09: Beaumont, Port Arthur, Galveston - this seat takes its 1990s form as it sheds Brazoria from its predecessor TX-14, and takes in the southeasternmost extremities of Houston. It goes from being Trump 58-38 to Trump 55-41, and is probably still safe as this area has a lot of WWC voters. That said, someone like Nick Lampson could run here and make a race. (Safe R)

TX-10: the old TX-10 that was a Travis County seat is finally reunited with most of the southern and eastern portions of Austin in this seat. It is Clinton 73-20, so McCaul would not survive. Luckily for him, he lives in the neighboring 31st, and Lloyd Doggett would likely get to run in a compact district for the first time in decades. Doggett could get primaried though, as this district's VAP is 49% white, 35% Hispanic, and 10% black. (Safe D)

TX-11: this 11th is the old pre-2004 TX-11, and it takes in Waco, Bryan, and a swath of central and East Texas stretching from the Killeen area all the way to the west of Houston. Flores would run here, as it succeeds his TX-17. The Austin crack is gone, making it an extremely safe Trump 65-31. (Safe R)

TX-12: To accommodate the new TX-06, this district is pushed further out of Tarrant, taking in some 80% Trump counties like Jack and Palo Pinto. It also takes in Johnson County, from the old TX-06. Granger is drawn out of her seat here, but she could easily carpetbag due to name ID. The trends in the Tarrant portion of the district are cancelled by the rurals in the west, and this safe Trump 74-22 seat is in no danger of flipping blue. (Safe R)

TX-13: Amarillo, the Panhandle, Wichita Falls, this seat is basically the same as it has been. Thornberry is retiring, but his successor will likely come from the Amarillo area, or Wichita Falls, which are both in this district. It is Trump 79-18, so no Democrat will win it. (Safe R)

TX-14: Brazoria, Bay City, Victoria, this seat is the successor to the current TX-14 as well as the current TX-27. It has both Brazoria and Victoria in it, meaning that Cloud and Weber are double-bunked here. This seat is Trump 65-31, so it is truly safe for the winner. (Safe R)

TX-15: McAllen, Converse, Floresville, one of the "fajitas" of far South Texas, Gonzalez has his homebase of McAllen in this seat, and it is Clinton 58-38. Not much to say here, but it is 69% Hispanic VAP, which I believe is still enough to elect the candidate of their choice. (Safe D)

TX-16: El Paso, this seat can't have much done to it as it's tucked away in the westernmost part of the state. Consisting only of El Paso County, this seat is 79% Hispanic VAP, and was Clinton 68-26. Escobar will run here, and it will be safe for her. (Safe D)

TX-17: Abilene, San Angelo, rural Central Texas, this seat is mirroring the old TX-17, and is Titanium R. This seat would elect a Republican either from Abilene or San Angelo's areas. It is Trump 78-18. That said, Roger Williams represents some counties in the district and given that he lives in Weatherford which is in the 12th carpetbagging would work for him. (Safe R)

TX-18: northern Harris County, this seat takes in KIAH as well as Spring, Alding, and Greenwood Village. Sheila Jackson Lee would not want to run here, as it is only Clinton 53-42, significantly less blue than her current seat. She is on the older side and may want to retire though sometime next decade. In that case, a minority would likely get elected here as the VAP is 33% white, 40% Hispanic, and 24% black. (Safe D)

TX-19: Lubbock, Midland, Odessa, this seat is the cities of far western Texas. Conaway is retiring, otherwise he would have been double-bunked with Jodey Arrington. The seat's population is actually majority-minority and is 44% Hispanic, but the VAP is only 35% Hispanic and is 57% white. Arrington would likely run and win here, but could be primaried by a Hispanic Republican. It is Trump 70-25. (Safe R)

TX-20: central Bexar County, downtown San Antonio, this seat is 74% Hispanic VAP, and is a more compact version of its current self. Castro would be safe here as long as he wanted, as it is Clinton 69-26. (Safe D)

TX-21: Hollywood Park, Dripping Springs, Medina, Llano, the Austin/SA crack is undone here, and Chip Roy gets a safer seat for his antics. It is Trump 64-31, so it would be red for the foreseeable future. (Safe R)

TX-22: Sugar Land, Bexar, this is the Fort Bend County district contained entirely within the county. It has seen some amazing growth over the past decade and has been zooming left. It is Clinton 52-44, and is a highly racially diverse district, VAP being 38% white, 22% Hispanic, 22% black, and 18% Asian. Sri Preston Kulkarni could definitely be elected here, or the Indian County Judge of Fort Bend, KP George. Kathaleen Wall's antics would definitely not help here, but a Republican who is either a minority or is good at speaking to minorities could do well here. (Likely D)

TX-23: El Paso, San Antonio, Eagle Pass, this border district is 62% Hispanic VAP and probably will get litigated to death. Given how the SA suburbs have been trending left, instead of being even like the old TX-23, this seat is now Clinton 52-42. Gina Ortiz Jones would easily win this seat, unless a moderate Hispanic Republican could cut down margins in Bexar. (Safe D)

TX-24: Carrollton, Irving, Coppell, Arlington, this district is based primarily in northwest Dallas County but leans into eastern Tarrant as well. Marchant is retiring, and likely would not have held this seat as it is Clinton 52-44. By VAP, it is 44% white, 34% Hispanic, 12% black, and 10% Asian. A minority Dem like Candace Valenzuela would crush it here, and would be the heavy favorite. (Likely D)

TX-25: Bellaire, Westwood Park, southwestern Harris County, this district is a restoration of the old Houston-based TX-25. This seat would be good for Al Green, as it is Democratic as Clinton 67-29, but it is also plurality Hispanic. (VAP is 26% white, 37% Hispanic, 23% black, and 14% Asian). (Safe D)

TX-26: Denton, Corinth, Sanger, this district is contained entirely inside Denton County - shows the growth of the DFW Metro in the past decade. It is Trump 59-36, and has been slowly trending left, but Burgess lives here and is free to run as long as he wants. (Safe R)

TX-27: San Patricio, Corpus Christi, Brownsville, this is the old pre-2010 TX-27 that was a semi-fajita that took in the coast south of San Patricio. It is 67% HVAP, and should fairly consistently elect a Democrat. Filemon Vela lives in Brownsville, so he could carpetbag to this from the 34th if he wanted to. It is Clinton 52-44, so barring another 2010-style wave the Dem should be favored. (Likely D)

TX-28: Laredo, RGV, Bexar suburbs, this district essentially remains the same, except it takes in more of the San Antonio suburbs to counter the return of TX-27 to the RGV. This district has 79% HVAP, and is Clinton 62-34, meaning that it should elect a Democrat regularly. Cuellar is probably still a better fit for this district than an AOC-type like Cisneros. (Safe D)

TX-29: central Houston, this district is similar to Gene Green's old TX-29 in that it is more compact. Its VAP is 21% white, 40% Hispanic, and 36% black. Sylvia Garcia would be fine here, and the real contest would be the Democratic primary. Clinton won 80-16 here. (Safe D)

TX-30: central Dallas, this seat would be Safe D, and would elect a minority, probably Eddie Bernie Johnson or whoever wants it after her (Royce West maybe?). Its VAP is 30% white, 38% Hispanic, and 30% black. Just like TX-29, the primary is the real contest in this Clinton 73-23 seat. (Safe D)

TX-31: Round Rock, Pflugerville, Lakeway, this district takes in the rest of Travis not occupied by districts 10 and 21, and pairs it with suburban Round Rock in neighboring Williamson County. It is Clinton 55-38, so John Carter would not run here. (Safe D)

TX-32: Mesquite, Garland, Richardson, this northeast Dallas seat was won Clinton 50-45, and is zooming leftward. Colin Allred would be fine here, unless the GOP figured out how to run in suburban districts again. Even though its VAP is only 50% white, Allred would be fine. (Safe D)

TX-33: Arlington, Grand Prairie, Irving, south Dallas, this seat is a new D sink in the south of Dallas and Tarrant Counties. Veasey would run in the 6th as that is a Fort Worth/Tarrant D sink, so this seat would be a new gain for the Democrats. It is 26% white, 35% Hispanic and 34% black by VAP and Clinton 72-25. (Safe D)

TX-34: Harlingen, Edinburg, Weslaco, this RGV seat is fajitaed to the north, and is 82% HVAP. Vela could carpetbag to this seat if he wanted to, but another Hispanic Democrat who is young could easily set up shop or another RGV Democratic politician. It is Clinton 60-36. (Safe D)

TX-35: New Braunfels, San Marcos, Brenham, this seat is the converse to remaking new Democratic seats. Formerly a D sink between Austin and SA, this seat now covers a swath of rural south-central Texas, clocking in at Trump 62-33. (Safe R)

TX-36: Jersey Village, Hunters Creek, the old TX-36 was renumbered as TX-02 again, so the new 36th swaps places with the old 2, positioning itself in western Harris County. Fletcher would likely run here, as it is 26% white, 37% Hispanic, 23% black, and 13% Asian by VAP. This seat is Clinton 50-45, so it could become competitive with the right Republican (a Wesley Hunt-type perhaps), but Fletcher would be the favorite. (Likely D)

Now for the new seats:
TX-37: Richland Hills, Arlington, Colleyville, when decoupling the R gerrymander of Tarrant, in creating the 6th as a safe D sink, there was bound to be a safe R sink. That seat is the new 37th district. Wright lives in Arlington and would likely move here or run to be safe, as it is Trump 60-35. (Safe R)

TX-38: Baytown, Pasadena, Sheldon, this seat is the eastern portions of Harris County, and majority Hispanic (50.2% HVAP). It is very close in partisan lean though, and is Clinton 50-47. This seat is highly competitive, and could easily tip to either side. I would imagine that this seat would be a Beto/Abbott district. (Tossup)

TX-39: Temple, Killeen, Georgetown, this seat is the rest of the current TX-31 combined with Bell County and Coryell. John Carter would carpetbag here as this seat is far less blue than the new TX-31, being Trump 58-36. (Safe R)

Thus, when counting by incumbents:

18 Safe R:
Gohmert (1), Babin (2), Ratcliffe (4), Gooden (5), Crenshaw (7), Brady (, OPEN (9), Flores (11), Granger (12), OPEN (13), Weber/Cloud (14), Williams (17), Arrington (19), Roy (21), Burgess (26), OPEN (35), Wright (37), Carter (39)

1 Competitive R:
Taylor (3)

1 Tossup:
OPEN (38)

4 Competitive D:
OPEN (22), OPEN (24), Vela (27), Fletcher (36)

15 Safe D:
Veasey (6), Doggett (10), Gonzalez (15), Escobar (16), Jackson Lee (18), Castro (20), OPEN (23), Green (25), Cuellar (28), Garcia (29), Johnson (30), OPEN (31), Allred (32), OPEN (33), OPEN (34)

Thus, this map becomes 19-19 with one tossup, and could easily become 21-18 D by the end of the decade.

Interesting.

I know it's a bear with the 150 districts, but someone should do a somewhat Dem leaning State House map within the constitutional rules.  It's by far the most likely place Dems will have leverage.  I could easily see a Dem state house agreeing to pass a GOP congressional map if they get to draw their chamber and avoid the backup commission, sort of like the VA 2011 situation but with the chambers reversed.

[Skill and Chance]

Doesn't a state law first have to be changed (legislature plus gov signature) to allow CVAP redistricting? 

[Skill and Chance]

Does anyone see Texas eventually accumulating as many electoral college votes as California currently has (55)?  Texas currently stands at 38.     

Probably not, but I could see both states being tied at say 47 after the 2040 census.

[Skill and Chance]

will republicans draw based on eligible voters?  That really makes it easier to draw the RGV and take back TX-7

TX Hispanics are counted by Spanish Surname Registration, so no. Also TX-07 will be ceded, there is no way that TX-02 lasts the decade if you try to draw away TX-07, TX-07 is sinked to make TX-02 Safe R, and if possible you might want to send some of 7 into Fort Bend actually, to shore up the 22nd. My map (which isn't probably secure enough) turns into a Clinton 60-40 sink or something like that, and has it join the bluest white parts of Houston with the bluest white parts of Fort Bend

Texas Hispanics are counted no different than any other race.  The question is whether districts are drawn based on population or eligible voters.  If by eligible voters, Hispanic districts will grow and whiter districts will shrink.  As for TX-7, I agree if drawn based on population it needs to be conceded, but if by eligible voters, the 3 VRA districts balloon, taking in more blue leaning suburbs.  They can definitely make TX-7 at least lean R if they do that.

Spanish Surname Voter Registration is how TX counts Hispanics. Also there are enough white Democratic parts in Houston that the VRA seats cannot take in, also these seats won't expand, they need to shrink, TX is gaining, not losing seats.

What you are saying is completely irrelevant.  This isn't about Hispanics in particular, this is about the issue of whether to district based on total population or eligible voters.  Also, if the districts are drawn based on eligible voters, the districts in Houston grow, I did it.  The 3 sinks take in around 2.6 million people if you draw based on eligible voters. Try it on DRA.  Also, the VRAs could take in some white areas, as long as those areas don't outvote the minorities.

Did you use 39 districts? Also if you want equal population then you do it based on total population if that is what you are asking, and if they do take in white areas, where do you plan to put the other minorities? Also keep in mind the map is being drawn for the whole decade, not just this election or next election.

Districts can be drawn with equal voter population rather than equal population.  I did use 39.  And when you use CVAP instead of total pop, the Houston VRAs grow by a lot.

This is interesting, but I think Biden can just not provide the alternative data requested under Trump's EOs to the states by repealing those EOs.  Though the apportionment data will be completed sooner, the process for preparing redistricting data within states from the 2020 census is expected to extend into April, well past the inauguration.   

[Skill and Chance]

Not without cross chops.

here's a pretty clean packing

So Fletcher would run in the green CD, I presume?  Though it moved significantly south so she might get a Fort Bend Dem primary challenger. 

[Skill and Chance]

Not without cross chops.

here's a pretty clean packing

So Fletcher would run in the green CD, I presume?  Though it moved significantly south so she might get a Fort Bend Dem primary challenger. 

It's only 16% white and is almost all new turf, if not all.  I don't think she'd be electorally viable there.  She cold run in the downtown Houston seat, it contains her base and is 29% white, a majority of them being Dems.  But it's 29% black, so she'd be quite vulnerable to a black Dem.  Fletcher wouldn't have a good option here.  But 4 heavily minority Houston seats would help avoid lawsuits over packing minorities.  TX has little incentive to draw seats for white Dems.

Yes, if Republicans are smart, they draw a 4th Dem-leaning seat in Houston, but include as many Clinton landslide->narrow Biden win precincts as possible and try to make it majority Hispanic.  They could end up with a VRA-protected and Republican-leaning seat by 2030.   

Fletcher is a lawyer, so I wonder if she goes for AG in 2022?  It's probably the best Dem opportunity of the statewide offices due to Paxton's eccentricity and ethics troubles.

[Skill and Chance]

So with Texas gaining 2 seats, how are they gonna do this? There absolutely needs to be an Austin vote sink, but they can make at least one RGV seat that Trump carried. And the trends in DFW are worse for the GOP than they are in Houston, so Allred's district probably gets turned into a sink.

1. Obvious Austin vote sink
2. Allred vote sink in Dallas suburbs to make TX-03/06/24 all ~60% R again
3. In South Texas, make Pete Gonzales much safer and put Vicente Gonzales in a Trump-leaning district in a way that won't lose conservative votes at SCOTUS.
4. Decide whether to draw out or vote sink Fletcher in Houston.  This is the hardest call IMO.     

[Skill and Chance]

So with Texas gaining 2 seats, how are they gonna do this? There absolutely needs to be an Austin vote sink, but they can make at least one RGV seat that Trump carried. And the trends in DFW are worse for the GOP than they are in Houston, so Allred's district probably gets turned into a sink.

1. Obvious Austin vote sink
2. Allred vote sink in Dallas suburbs to make TX-03/06/24 all ~60% R again
3. In South Texas, make Pete Gonzales much safer and put Vicente Gonzales in a Trump-leaning district in a way that won't lose conservative votes at SCOTUS.
4. Decide whether to draw out or vote sink Fletcher in Houston.  This is the hardest call IMO.     

Nope
Double vote sink Austin.

White liberals have the highest turnout in the state. Its also relatively center to the state. The less you need to crack to the rest of Austin the more rurals one can use for Dallas/Houston.

I don't think that is necessary.  They can always keep the arm of Doggett's district to capture extra Dem-trending areas if they want to.  Conceding 2 Austin CDs but trying to flip Allred's seat would be playing with fire.  Collin County will be voting left of statewide by 2024.   

It probably does make sense to go after Fletcher's CD now. 

[Skill and Chance]

Anybody know which Dem would be favoured for a Primary in a New Austin sink district ?

It would be an insane 20 candidate free for all. I wouldn't be surprised if the new person ends up joining the Squad. 

Will the republican also draw a new Houston Sink ?. I think Lina Hidalgo would be very much favoured for a new sink there if they draw one.

I don’t think they need to if they concede and redraw TX-7.

Well, if they do concede a new Houston seat, the ideal placement would be well south of the current TX-07, with an arm into the most Dem part of Fort Bend.  I believe this seat would be plurality Hispanic.  Fletcher lives in the southernmost part of the current TX-07, so she might still live in the new Safe Dem district, but would be vulnerable to a primary by someone from Fort Bend.

IDK though I'm not at all convinced they will concede TX-07, especially with a 38 district map.  Fletcher only won by 3% in 2020, so it's not like this is hopeless territory for Texas R's and they are basically stuck conceding TX-32 and an additional Austin seat.  Houston was not as scary for R's as the other TX cities in 2020.  A Lean R swing seat in west Houston that takes advantage of Clinton 2016->Trump 2020 precincts definitely seems doable. 

[Skill and Chance]

What was the rationale for getting rid of the fajita strips in the RGV? I haven't been paying close enough attention to your posts these last 10 years to understand why this changed.

TX-33 was drawn to maximize Hispanic population in the Metroplex.

The decision requiring them was 5/4 liberals + Kennedy, so there is a general expectation it will/would be overturned if a more compact RGV map was drawn this time.

[Skill and Chance]

Ok, I redrew TX-15 to be predominantly Bexar, high Hispanic CVAP, and Republican performing. Henry Cuellar pulled out of Bexar and gets more of the Rio Grande and TX-34 falls back, too.

Yes, whatever they do, they won't be drawing out Cuellar.  He has too many Republican friends for that.

[Skill and Chance]

What might a dummymander look like?

Any suburban district near Houston, Dallas, or Austin less than R+8, I think, and not conceding 7, 32, and Austin. Possibly R+10 if you’re worried about trends.

They could try something in between with 7 by making it Lean D, but with a bunch of Dem leaning areas where Biden underperformed Clinton and hope they pick it up later in the decade.

[Skill and Chance]

What happens to Allred and Fletcher?

Allred has to get a 60%+ Biden seat or 3+ other DFW area R incumbents will lose in the Republican midterm. 

Fletcher's seat is more interesting.  She only won by 3 in 2020 and the surrounding R seats will be much safer once they draw the inevitable 65%+ Biden seat in Austin.  She could plausibly be drawn out or they could draw into Ft. Bend for a non-VRA suburban Dem sink to protect Nehls and Crenshaw as much as possible  or they could try to turn it into a VRA-protected Hispanic seat including all of the areas where Biden underperformed Clinton the most and hope they flip it by the end of the decade (though this wouldn't be maximizing the R lean of TX-02/22 as much as the 2nd scenario)