2020 Texas Redistricting thread

[Nyvin]

I'd consider it a big win if the Dems come out of redistricting with 17 districts in Texas.

[Nyvin]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/1c8bc548-612f-4f68-9789-961c6f5f335c
Here is a good starting point for Texas redistricting. To be clear, I do not support this map it is too risky but this is the maximum Republicans could draw and still have hold up in court. The current Voting Rights Act seats are maintained but no additional democrat-leaning seats are drawn. Fletcher and Aldred's seats are cut up and made safe R.  I also found a way to make TX-23 lean a lot more Republican without making it any less Hispanic.  I removed a lot of the San Antonio suburbs, and included more rural whites and West Texas conservative Hispanics. Now the district went for Trump by 6 points, likely for Cruz as well. I believe it would hold up in court, since the current one did and this district is no less Hispanic. 69% total and 62% citizen VAP.  Another crucial change I made is sending the fajita strips into Austin instead of rural white areas.  They are all 82-83% Hispanic, so shouldn't count as packs, that are Hispanic enough so Austin white libs won't control the primaries.  I also increased the Hispanic percentage and Lloyd Doggett's seat so it should actually perform as a vra seat.  Overall I tried to get most Republican seats to around Trump+25.  My Waco based seat Trump+13, but that should be pretty safe given that the district does not include any suburbs.  It actually trended slightly red from 2008.  The remainder of the Republican seats range from Trump+20 to 30.  Also, suburban-rural combos should hold up better over the decade.  This map is 27R-1LR-11D.  

If I were the Texas Republicans, I'd make it 24R-1LR-14D, with the additional vote sinks in Austin, Dallas, and Houston.  If you do that, you can get the suburban Trump districts to Trump+30, and have more minority seats, which helps the map survive court challenges.

Is that even legal?

I don't think so, given that there really should be 4 majority-minority seats between Harris and Fort Bend counties. Given such a seat would come naturally and even exists in the current map, in the form of TX-22, it's easy to argue that minority votes will split and diluted too much in this map. Even putting that aside, this map is dead on arrival, since there is no consideration for incumbent residencies. Also taking the fajitas into Austin is probably a non starter and there's no good reason to do that. There are also some contiguity issues here that need to be fixed.

Also these "Spiral" maps with bacon-strip districts sprawling all over the place are posted online a lot but they never become a reality in any state.   There are other factors at play in map drawing than just partisanship.

[Nyvin]

Also these "Spiral" maps with bacon-strip districts sprawling all over the place are posted online a lot but they never become a reality in any state.   There are other factors at play in map drawing than just partisanship.

This 18D-0R Illinois map is legal. It has the 3 AA districts and 1 Hispanic district.

https://twitter.com/BadElectionMaps/status/1212909359572881408

legal =/= become reality.

[Nyvin]

Any chance the republicans don't draw an Austin Sink, maybe hoping for a post-trump suburban trend reversion ?

If they want to dummymander, then yes.

The current lines in metro Austin would cost the GOP literally five seats in 2024 if left unchanged.

Suburban reps don't tend to like taking in rural/exurban territory.

It's usually the other way around - Rural/Small town areas don't like their districts mixed with suburban populations since the suburban population more often than not will dominate the district.

[Nyvin]

I attempted a TX map on 2020 data and found it harder than expected, I was also basically forced to cede the two new seats to Democrats. Lastly, I ended up with a map where I am 100% certain that several seats will flip before 2030, though I think all of them should survive 2022, maybe TX-23 doesn't

Anyways:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/18b8f365-ba5f-4902-8dc4-cf84c83d7857

You obviously didn't try hard enough then. You can easily do 26-12.

I would say a 26-12 is difficult on 2020 numbers, at least one that isn't blatantly illegal and one that would survive at least most of the decade.

A 26-12 requires Austin to only have 1 sink while Houston gets 3, and it's really hard to pull off both since they both rely on rural areas between them to dilute suburbs outside the sinks.

I remember Torie made a relatively "clean"26-12 a while back but even then Houston has 2 marginal seats in the West that could easily fall.

Well I took a lot at RRH this afternoon to see what some of these 26-12 maps entail and they classify Trump+14 seats in the Metroplex as Safe R, so yeah they're dummymanders.

Trump+14 would hold for at least 3/5 elections, so I don't think it's that simple.

TX-7 was Romney+21.3 in 2012,  Clinton won it in 2016.   I don't think Trump+14 is as strong as you think in a fast growing state like Texas.

[Nyvin]

Can we have this with up to date census data for VAP?

For VRA concerns, you've turned a 66% Hispanic seat (23) into two 51% seats. And 34 is now -25% Hispanic, whilst packing 28 and 15. Lots of court potential there.

Click on the link and you can review the data. The numbers you cite are inaccurate. If a CD is compact and is not gerrymandered, and takes in one minority node, there is no reason to travel across empty land to dilute the minority population down (or increase it up for that matter. It could be 100% Hispanic. A CD that is at least 50% HCVAP should be legal even if not performing (because Hispanic legal voters vote in lower percentages or are split between the two parties), if it does not look gerrymandered. Conversely not drawing a 50% HCVAP CD that is there to be drawn in a compact form even if not actually performing is problematical, if the Hispanic percentage population in the state is more than the percentage of Hispanic CD's that are drawn for them.

I have 11 either 50% HCVAP or performing CD's, the max that can be drawn in any reasonably compact form. The percentage of Hispanics in the state is considerably higher that 11/38. The final census numbers as opposed to the estimates did not away a 50% HCVAP CD in the Metroplex, but a performing one can still be drawn (a majority of the voters in the Dem primary will be Hispanic), and I did it.

Your logic here is extremely dubious since  those Hispanic districts are essentially going to elect the white Republican's candidates of choice with a small minority of Hispanic support.   That's not really what I would call a minority access district.   

What would even be the point of bringing the HVAP up to 50% if it's not going to elect the Hispanic's candidate?   Is 50% just a nice sounding number or something?

[Nyvin]

Can we have this with up to date census data for VAP?

For VRA concerns, you've turned a 66% Hispanic seat (23) into two 51% seats. And 34 is now -25% Hispanic, whilst packing 28 and 15. Lots of court potential there.

Click on the link and you can review the data. The numbers you cite are inaccurate. If a CD is compact and is not gerrymandered, and takes in one minority node, there is no reason to travel across empty land to dilute the minority population down (or increase it up for that matter. It could be 100% Hispanic. A CD that is at least 50% HCVAP should be legal even if not performing (because Hispanic legal voters vote in lower percentages or are split between the two parties), if it does not look gerrymandered. Conversely not drawing a 50% HCVAP CD that is there to be drawn in a compact form even if not actually performing is problematical, if the Hispanic percentage population in the state is more than the percentage of Hispanic CD's that are drawn for them.

I have 11 either 50% HCVAP or performing CD's, the max that can be drawn in any reasonably compact form. The percentage of Hispanics in the state is considerably higher that 11/38. The final census numbers as opposed to the estimates did not away a 50% HCVAP CD in the Metroplex, but a performing one can still be drawn (a majority of the voters in the Dem primary will be Hispanic), and I did it.

Your logic here is extremely dubious since  those Hispanic districts are essentially going to elect the white Republican's candidates of choice with a small minority of Hispanic support.   That's not really what I would call a minority access district.  

What would even be the point of bringing the HVAP up to 50% if it's not going to elect the Hispanic's candidate?   Is 50% just a nice sounding number or something?

It's not my logic, it's the law, as long as Gingles applies, at least as I interpret it. 50% CVAP is the trigger under Gingles, to try to match that percentage, or if lower, a minority performing CD. And the CD's may well elect Hispanic candidates, at least when the incumbent retires, they will just be Hispanic Pubs. TX-23 elects an Hispanic. TX-11 might well when the incumbent retires. TX-33 may switch out a black Dem for an Hispanic one, and Houston very probably will in this map.

You may disagree. That is OK. The courts will let us know one way or the other soon.

This is the other part of Gingles  -

A minority group must demonstrate it is politically cohesive.

If your districts basically take a small portion of hispanic support and combine it with a large (overwhelming in this case) amount of white support to elect the candidates then that definitely does not pass Gingles in any way whatsoever.    The 51% HVAP districts would not be performing, especially in rural Texas.

edit - Would Hispanics even be able to control the Republican primaries in these districts?  I doubt it.

[Nyvin]

Can we have this with up to date census data for VAP?

For VRA concerns, you've turned a 66% Hispanic seat (23) into two 51% seats. And 34 is now -25% Hispanic, whilst packing 28 and 15. Lots of court potential there.

Click on the link and you can review the data. The numbers you cite are inaccurate. If a CD is compact and is not gerrymandered, and takes in one minority node, there is no reason to travel across empty land to dilute the minority population down (or increase it up for that matter. It could be 100% Hispanic. A CD that is at least 50% HCVAP should be legal even if not performing (because Hispanic legal voters vote in lower percentages or are split between the two parties), if it does not look gerrymandered. Conversely not drawing a 50% HCVAP CD that is there to be drawn in a compact form even if not actually performing is problematical, if the Hispanic percentage population in the state is more than the percentage of Hispanic CD's that are drawn for them.

I have 11 either 50% HCVAP or performing CD's, the max that can be drawn in any reasonably compact form. The percentage of Hispanics in the state is considerably higher that 11/38. The final census numbers as opposed to the estimates did not away a 50% HCVAP CD in the Metroplex, but a performing one can still be drawn (a majority of the voters in the Dem primary will be Hispanic), and I did it.

Your logic here is extremely dubious since  those Hispanic districts are essentially going to elect the white Republican's candidates of choice with a small minority of Hispanic support.   That's not really what I would call a minority access district.  

What would even be the point of bringing the HVAP up to 50% if it's not going to elect the Hispanic's candidate?   Is 50% just a nice sounding number or something?

It's not my logic, it's the law, as long as Gingles applies, at least as I interpret it. 50% CVAP is the trigger under Gingles, to try to match that percentage, or if lower, a minority performing CD. And the CD's may well elect Hispanic candidates, at least when the incumbent retires, they will just be Hispanic Pubs. TX-23 elects an Hispanic. TX-11 might well when the incumbent retires. TX-33 may switch out a black Dem for an Hispanic one, and Houston very probably will in this map.

You may disagree. That is OK. The courts will let us know one way or the other soon.

This is the other part of Gingles  -

A minority group must demonstrate it is politically cohesive.

If your districts basically take a small portion of hispanic support and combine it with a large (overwhelming in this case) amount of white support to elect the candidates then that definitely does not pass Gingles in any way whatsoever.    The 51% HVAP districts would not be performing, especially in rural Texas.

edit - Would Hispanics even be able to control the Republican primaries in these districts?  I doubt it.

Yes, it is true that maybe Gingles does not apply at all anymore in the RGV in particular (also along the Gulf up to Houston, and of course the oil patch in Ector County). As to the RGV, when Hispanics are voting 40%-45% Pub in almost all Hispanic zones, that hardly seems "cohesive." The place it is most cohesive is in San Antonio from what I can tell, and in parts of Houston, but not all parts. If Gingles does not apply at all, then it is open season. But it is a VRA risk here to just blow Gingles off, and the idea is to minimize VRA risk.

This is utterly laughable.   Hispanics grew by almost 2 million this decade in Texas and made up 60% of the state's overall growth and you're going to decrease the number of performing VRA districts for Hispanics in Texas?   Good. Fricking. Luck.

[Nyvin]

https://twitter.com/scottbraddock/status/1438257150439174153

I imagine this is a strong sign that Texas will deliver for Republicans in congressional redistricting

I assume the two seats they want to flip are the Ft Worth SD-10 and the RGV SD-19?

[Nyvin]

State Senate map proposal -

https://data.capitol.texas.gov/dataset/plans2101  

https://dvr.capitol.texas.gov/Senate/14/PLANS2101

Looks like 2 D seats in Dallas, 3 in Houston, 1 in Austin, 2 in San Antonio, 1 in El Paso, and I "think" 3 RGV fajita strips?

12 D seats total,  but a lot of seats in Houston and Dallas along with SD-25 won't last the decade.

[Nyvin]

DRA Senate proposal -
https://davesredistricting.org/join/8aa952bc-cff7-490c-83fc-03c05dd8b0ee

[Nyvin]

Here's a clue of how precise this map was made -

Districts 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 24, and 25 are ALL within 39.9% to 43.3% Biden 2020.   A top to bottom margin of only 3.4%.   

Twelve districts total, all of them in and around the four major metros.

[Nyvin]

Here's a clue of how precise this map was made -

Districts 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 24, and 25 are ALL within 39.9% to 43.3% Biden 2020.   A top to bottom margin of only 3.4%.  

Twelve districts total, all of them in and around the four major metros.

This map should be able to hold a majority through 2030, tbh.

Assuming all the RGV seats hold (who knows),  the Dems only need 4 seats to flip.  

I'd say the most likely are 7, 8, 12, and 25.   Also the Ft Worth districts, 9 and 10, might be a dummymander later on too.

I don't think all these 40-55 districts are as strong as they think they are.

[Nyvin]

The thing is though the vast majority of those exurban/rural areas in Texas are already voting 80% or even 90% Republican and a lot of them aren't growing much at all (some of them are in decline).  

Even from 2016 to 2020 there wasn't really any real R trend in Texas in the rural areas around the metros.    There's just not a whole lot more for Republicans to get out of those areas.  I know "maxed out" is a phrase used a lot here, but in this case it really does have a lot of merit.

Meanwhile everything that we have to look at right now shows the Texas metros continuing to move left as fast as Atlanta (except maybe Houston).   Republicans have an extremely weak foundation to work with here.

[Nyvin]

According to this article the GOP is going for a 24-14 map??   It might come out today.

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2021/09/27/republicans-texas-red-redistricting-514330?__twitter_impression=true

edit - I guess reading it over again, maybe they mean 25-13.

[Nyvin]

Is there a link we can use to zoom in?

https://data.capitol.texas.gov/dataset/cf8703c8-1692-4b94-8ed1-9cbf2b2fa7dd/resource/e0b01e67-ef1c-493f-8012-4ade59aebc34/download/planc2101.pdf

I'm counting 15 seats Dems could win, although I don't know about 24 and 38.

TX-10 is pretty needlessly absurd.

[Nyvin]

Conservative Election Twitter is not happy right now.

I don't see why, it's a pretty good map for Republicans

[Nyvin]

I think it’s interesting how horrendous visually DFW is while Houston is actually pretty clean, though neither are fair. This definitely isn’t the most extreme gerrymander we could’ve gotten, but things can still change and it is still a gerrymander at the end of the day

All I can think of is they took the 2016 to 2020 trend into account when drawing the two metros, and DFW had them a lot more worried in regards to future elections.   Houston was easier to keep together because there isn't as much of a dem trend.

On a side note, what's even the point of that TX-4 southern tendril?   Rockwall voted 68% Trump and only has 104k people.

[Nyvin]

Simple amendment to make TX-15 a bit more favorable for the GOP

who proposed this amendment?

No one in the TX leg,  it looks like it's just a PDF someone made.

[Nyvin]

I'm reading online that Democrats could win around 88 seats on this map (out of 150) within the next few cycles.

[Nyvin]

I'm reading online that Democrats could win around 88 seats on this map (out of 150) within the next few cycles.

Trump won 86 seats on this map so I doubt they can get to 88

A lot of those 86 have the R vote spread VERY thin though.