US House Redistricting: Texas

[krazen1211]

So, it will basically end up being a 23-13 or 24-12 map.  The real toss-up seat is the Canseco one, but Dems will need to run the right candidate (Gallegos would be the correct choice).  McCaul's seat is too partisanly divided (as well as geographically divided) for Dems to have a chance there, for now.

The obvious mistake the GOP made again was to not draw a Hispanic district in DFW.  That being said, what the court did in Dallas really makes no sense.  I would be surprised in the GOP doesn't realize its mistake this time and correct in 2013.  As for the rest of the map, the protection of Doggett will probably be addressed by the GOP in 2013.  As said many times here, the correct road to go would have been 25-11 (Canseco would always have some issues, so 24-12), but draw a Hispanic district or two looking towards the future.

The Latino Task Force realized they got hosed in DFW, and proposed changes to make Veasey's district into a Hispanic district in favor of Joe Barton.

[minionofmidas]

Lewis, what did you have in mind with your query?

What query?

You mean "see what they did there?" Extending the 23rd into more densely built up parts of San Antonio explains why it became marginally more Democratic overall despite the changes to it elsewhere being helpful to Canseco.
It also means the district remains much more Bexar-y than it looks like at first glance.

[Skill and Chance]

So, it will basically end up being a 23-13 or 24-12 map.  The real toss-up seat is the Canseco one, but Dems will need to run the right candidate (Gallegos would be the correct choice).  McCaul's seat is too partisanly divided (as well as geographically divided) for Dems to have a chance there, for now.

The obvious mistake the GOP made again was to not draw a Hispanic district in DFW.  That being said, what the court did in Dallas really makes no sense.  I would be surprised in the GOP doesn't realize its mistake this time and correct in 2013.  As for the rest of the map, the protection of Doggett will probably be addressed by the GOP in 2013.  As said many times here, the correct road to go would have been 25-11 (Canseco would always have some issues, so 24-12), but draw a Hispanic district or two looking towards the future.

Only if there is a Republican president.  There won't be any mid-decade redistricting in the South if Obama's DOJ has any say in it.

[jimrtex]

Lewis, what did you have in mind with your query?

What query?

You mean "see what they did there?" Extending the 23rd into more densely built up parts of San Antonio explains why it became marginally more Democratic overall despite the changes to it elsewhere being helpful to Canseco.
It also means the district remains much more Bexar-y than it looks like at first glance.

Canseco carried the part of Bexar County that was moved into TX-21 TX-23 by 75% margin.  Canseco's brief says that the area in west central is an Anglo area that is more likely to vote Democratic.

Charlie Gonzalez has announced he isn't running for re-election.  Joaquin Castro says he is going to run in TX-20.  So guess who that leaves for the new district?   C..o R...

Supposedly, the new district is less effective than the district drawn by the legislature.

[Mr.Phips]

So, it will basically end up being a 23-13 or 24-12 map.  The real toss-up seat is the Canseco one, but Dems will need to run the right candidate (Gallegos would be the correct choice).  McCaul's seat is too partisanly divided (as well as geographically divided) for Dems to have a chance there, for now.

The obvious mistake the GOP made again was to not draw a Hispanic district in DFW.  That being said, what the court did in Dallas really makes no sense.  I would be surprised in the GOP doesn't realize its mistake this time and correct in 2013.  As for the rest of the map, the protection of Doggett will probably be addressed by the GOP in 2013.  As said many times here, the correct road to go would have been 25-11 (Canseco would always have some issues, so 24-12), but draw a Hispanic district or two looking towards the future.

Only if there is a Republican president.  There won't be any mid-decade redistricting in the South if Obama's DOJ has any say in it.

Obama would probably preclear it anyway.  The Obama DOJ had a chance to force new black majority districts in Alabama and South Carolina, but for whatever reason, they chose not to.  Its almost like Obama doesnt care about having a Dem House. 

[Sam Spade]

So, it will basically end up being a 23-13 or 24-12 map.  The real toss-up seat is the Canseco one, but Dems will need to run the right candidate (Gallegos would be the correct choice).  McCaul's seat is too partisanly divided (as well as geographically divided) for Dems to have a chance there, for now.

The obvious mistake the GOP made again was to not draw a Hispanic district in DFW.  That being said, what the court did in Dallas really makes no sense.  I would be surprised in the GOP doesn't realize its mistake this time and correct in 2013.  As for the rest of the map, the protection of Doggett will probably be addressed by the GOP in 2013.  As said many times here, the correct road to go would have been 25-11 (Canseco would always have some issues, so 24-12), but draw a Hispanic district or two looking towards the future.

Only if there is a Republican president.  There won't be any mid-decade redistricting in the South if Obama's DOJ has any say in it.

Obama would probably preclear it anyway.  The Obama DOJ had a chance to force new black majority districts in Alabama and South Carolina, but for whatever reason, they chose not to.  Its almost like Obama doesnt care about having a Dem House. 

One of the things that I think is likely in the back of the mind of any DOJ official right now is the fact that preclearance may not be long for this world.  Go read Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, which basically ignores the constitutional arguments, in connection with other recent Section 5 jurisprudence, and you see that five Justices are pretty far down along the road of striking down this section.  A questionable use may be all they need, really.

That being said, the stronger arguments for denying preclearance based in precedence were not in Alabama (really weak) and South Carolina (well, South Carolina would been ok, except Clyburn would have never supported it), but rather in Louisiana and Virginia.  Problem is that the arguments there are still not that strong.

Anyway, the Texas GOP screwed up royally in not creating a Dallas Hispanic CD, and then going to the three-judge panel and not the DOJ.

[krazen1211]

One of the things that I think is likely in the back of the mind of any DOJ official right now is the fact that preclearance may not be long for this world.  Go read Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, which basically ignores the constitutional arguments, in connection with other recent Section 5 jurisprudence, and you see that five Justices are pretty far down along the road of striking down this section.  A questionable use may be all they need, really.

That being said, the stronger arguments for denying preclearance based in precedence were not in Alabama (really weak) and South Carolina (well, South Carolina would been ok, except Clyburn would have never supported it), but rather in Louisiana and Virginia.  Problem is that the arguments there are still not that strong.

Anyway, the Texas GOP screwed up royally in not creating a Dallas Hispanic CD, and then going to the three-judge panel and not the DOJ.

Partially yes, and partially no. The DOJ made is clear that they weren't going to give Canseco a fair shake in their remedial plan. He got a much better one through the court.

The 3 judge panel in its briefings specifically noted the difficulty in drawing a 50% HCVAP district there. Plan C216 (the Canseco plan that Jerry Smith wanted implemented) didn't reach it at least, and its the standard prone sniper rifle district.

[jimrtex]

One of the things that I think is likely in the back of the mind of any DOJ official right now is the fact that preclearance may not be long for this world.  Go read Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, which basically ignores the constitutional arguments, in connection with other recent Section 5 jurisprudence, and you see that five Justices are pretty far down along the road of striking down this section.  A questionable use may be all they need, really.

That being said, the stronger arguments for denying preclearance based in precedence were not in Alabama (really weak) and South Carolina (well, South Carolina would been ok, except Clyburn would have never supported it), but rather in Louisiana and Virginia.  Problem is that the arguments there are still not that strong.

Anyway, the Texas GOP screwed up royally in not creating a Dallas Hispanic CD, and then going to the three-judge panel and not the DOJ.

Partially yes, and partially no. The DOJ made is clear that they weren't going to give Canseco a fair shake in their remedial plan. He got a much better one through the court.

The 3 judge panel in its briefings specifically noted the difficulty in drawing a 50% HCVAP district there. Plan C216 (the Canseco plan that Jerry Smith wanted implemented) didn't reach it at least, and its the standard prone sniper rifle district.

The Canseco and State plans had a higher HCVAP (58.5%) than that drawn by the court.  The court put more blacks into the district and swapped out some more Republican Anglos in NW Bexar for more Democratic Anglos in west central San Antonio.

The legislature increased the HCVAP from that in the current district.  The plaintiffs and USDOJ lied about the the Republicans putting "less mobilized Hispanics" into TX-23.  What they looked out was the number of voters.  If a district is 60% Hispanic and has 150,000 too many people, it is likely to lose 90,000 Hispanics.  Since the district had to gain at the El Paso end, there were even more at the San Antonio end to move into the new San Antonio-Austin district.

[minionofmidas]

Canseco carried the part of Bexar County that was moved into TX-23 by 75% margin. 

Something's wrong here. "TX-21" instead of "TX-23"?

[minionofmidas]

The Canseco and State plans had a higher HCVAP (58.5%) than that drawn by the court.  The court put more blacks into the district and swapped out some more Republican Anglos in NW Bexar for more Democratic Anglos in west central San Antonio.

The legislature increased the HCVAP from that in the current district.

And as the court rightfully pointed out for the umpteenth time, this is not a valid argument, at least not in and of itself...

Ahem. A question and an observation.
Observation: Giving everybody a safe seat, splitting the new districts two-and-two and making sure they're not competitive. You can't give Canseco one, legally, so you at least give him a seat that's no worse than before - though it would have been very very easy to do so - and to treat the 23rd as just another Dem-reserved seat. Or maybe they just read LULAC vs Perry as mandating a marginal seat here. -_- Compensating his accidency Mr Farenthold for the fact that you treat his district as a Dem seat by making sure he lands in one of the new districts, taking the Legislature's plan as a blueprint even though that's far from the ideal place for the new district. But then you can't really put the new district where it logically belongs because of the residences of both Carter and McCaul. So, yeah. Bottomline. This looks like a bipartisan compromise map, not like a court map. It also looks not too unlike a non-greedy Republican map, actually - given population trends around Austin and its proximity to the VAP seats, giving up on Doggett is the sane thing to do, and the court positively packed him in.
And that is why it's such an odd map.
Makes you wonder what could have been without Ortiz' and Rodriguez' defeats...

Oh, and the question. Just for McCaul's and Canseco's precise residence. And ideally Sessions' and Hensarling's too...

[krazen1211]

The Canseco and State plans had a higher HCVAP (58.5%) than that drawn by the court.  The court put more blacks into the district and swapped out some more Republican Anglos in NW Bexar for more Democratic Anglos in west central San Antonio.

The legislature increased the HCVAP from that in the current district.  The plaintiffs and USDOJ lied about the the Republicans putting "less mobilized Hispanics" into TX-23.  What they looked out was the number of voters.  If a district is 60% Hispanic and has 150,000 too many people, it is likely to lose 90,000 Hispanics.  Since the district had to gain at the El Paso end, there were even more at the San Antonio end to move into the new San Antonio-Austin district.

In addition, this right here is pure legislating. Especially considering the last legislature specifically fractured a district on this type.


Because much of the growth that occurred in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex was attributable to minorities, the new district 33 was drawn as a minority coalition opportunity district.

[jimrtex]

Canseco carried the part of Bexar County that was moved into TX-23 by 75% margin. 

Something's wrong here. "TX-21" instead of "TX-23"?

Yes.

Judge Orlando Garcia's sister-in-law, Sen. Leticia Van de Putte is going to be at the official kickoff of Castro's congressional campaign in the TX-20.

[minionofmidas]

Canseco carried the part of Bexar County that was moved into TX-23 by 75% margin. 

Something's wrong here. "TX-21" instead of "TX-23"?

Yes.

The area is, of course, heavily Anglo and doesn't belong in the district really.
I believe it's "always" (ie, before 2004, and also before 2002) been in it, though.

[jimrtex]

The Canseco and State plans had a higher HCVAP (58.5%) than that drawn by the court.  The court put more blacks into the district and swapped out some more Republican Anglos in NW Bexar for more Democratic Anglos in west central San Antonio.

The legislature increased the HCVAP from that in the current district.

And as the court rightfully pointed out for the umpteenth time, this is not a valid argument, at least not in and of itself...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The district was overpopulated to begin with.  It had to add population in El Paso County.  The portion in southern Bexar County was needed for the new district.  There was no reason to remove the NW area from the district, and then add territory from TX-20.

See that odd little finger in TX-23 that goes across the top of TX-20.  Guess who lives in the tip of the finger.  So the court moved Canseco's residence barely into TX-23 (he currently lives in TX-21), but moved a good chunk of his constituents into TX-21.

Now looking at the districts on the lege council's redistricting web site.  Use the current district as the base plan and the interim map as the overlay.  TX-20 is only 13,000 from the ideal population, so it really doesn't need much change.

But because TX-23 was pushed in on the west side, TX-20 had to expand.  This was mostly to the north and widening of the eastern arm of the district.  But it also took in a very small are of TX-23 to the northwest.   Guess who lives in that very small area?  Joaquin Castro.

So the court issues its map; Castro talks to Gonzalez; Gonzalez announces his retirement; and Castro announces that he is going to run in the district that the court had barely drawn him into (coincidentally, Castro was introduces at the press conference where he announced his switch by Judge Orlando Garcia's sister-in-law Sen. Leticia Van de Putte

Ahem. A question and an observation.
Observation: Giving everybody a safe seat, splitting the new districts two-and-two and making sure they're not competitive. You can't give Canseco one, legally, so you at least give him a seat that's no worse than before - though it would have been very very easy to do so - and to treat the 23rd as just another Dem-reserved seat. Or maybe they just read LULAC vs Perry as mandating a marginal seat here. -_- Compensating his accidency Mr Farenthold for the fact that you treat his district as a Dem seat by making sure he lands in one of the new districts, taking the Legislature's plan as a blueprint even though that's far from the ideal place for the new district. But then you can't really put the new district where it logically belongs because of the residences of both Carter and McCaul. So, yeah. Bottomline. This looks like a bipartisan compromise map, not like a court map. It also looks not too unlike a non-greedy Republican map, actually - given population trends around Austin and its proximity to the VAP seats, giving up on Doggett is the sane thing to do, and the court positively packed him in.
And that is why it's such an odd map.
Makes you wonder what could have been without Ortiz' and Rodriguez' defeats...

Oh, and the question. Just for McCaul's and Canseco's precise residence. And ideally Sessions' and Hensarling's too...

Canseco is barely, barely on the finger tip of TX-23.  He currently lives in TX-21, and the legislature had drawn a finger tip down from the north (since it had expanded TX-20 northward to make room for the new San Antonio-Austin district).

Find the southeastern corner of TX-32.  See how TX-5 and TX-32 sort of interlock.  Hensarling and Sessions live about a mile apart.  Sessions had been elected from TX-5.  When the district court created TX-32 in 2001, it was an open seat, but Session ran for it even though he lived about a mile east, and Hensarling ran in TX-5.  When the legislature districted in 2003, the boundary was adjusted.  Martin Frost ran campaign ads about Pete Session not living in the district until recently before the election.  Pete Sessions ran campaign ads about Martin Frost not living in the district, and not bothering to update his homestead.

McCaul lives in the hook at the tip of the current TX-10 in the only part of the district that is south of the Colorado River.  TX-21 used to come south of that area into Austin, but that was trimmed back in 2006.  And now it has been pushed back.  The tip of the hook of TX-10 has been cut off, but McCaul lives just north of that.  And the whole boundary of TX-10 has been "squared off" which is really pretty funny since it totally ignores where the river is.  If on Redviewer, zoom in enough to locate the river meanders, and then display the precincts.  Precincts that are on the north side of the river but in a meander to the south are put in TX-21.  You'd have to swim, and there are northward meanders like where McCaul lives that are in TX-10

[jimrtex]

The Canseco and State plans had a higher HCVAP (58.5%) than that drawn by the court.  The court put more blacks into the district and swapped out some more Republican Anglos in NW Bexar for more Democratic Anglos in west central San Antonio.

The legislature increased the HCVAP from that in the current district.  The plaintiffs and USDOJ lied about the the Republicans putting "less mobilized Hispanics" into TX-23.  What they looked out was the number of voters.  If a district is 60% Hispanic and has 150,000 too many people, it is likely to lose 90,000 Hispanics.  Since the district had to gain at the El Paso end, there were even more at the San Antonio end to move into the new San Antonio-Austin district.

In addition, this right here is pure legislating. Especially considering the last legislature specifically fractured a district on this type.


Because much of the growth that occurred in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex was attributable to minorities, the new district 33 was drawn as a minority coalition opportunity district.

56% of the growth in Collin, Denton, and Rockwall was minorities.  That is where the new district should have been placed.

[jimrtex]

Canseco carried the part of Bexar County that was moved into TX-23 by 75% margin. 

Something's wrong here. "TX-21" instead of "TX-23"?

Yes.

The area is, of course, heavily Anglo and doesn't belong in the district really.
I believe it's "always" (ie, before 2004, and also before 2002) been in it, though.

It was moved into the district in 1991 by Martin Frost and Ann Richards.  The southern part of Bexar County was placed in the new TX-28.

[minionofmidas]

56% of the growth in Collin, Denton, and Rockwall was minorities.  That is where the new district should have been placed.

Yeah, going purely by least transfer the new DFW district needs to go on the eastern side. Same with the new Southeast Texas district.
But then again, the new Central Texas Anglo district would logically be built around Williamson and North Travis... oops.

It was moved into the district in 1991 by Martin Frost and Ann Richards.  The southern part of Bexar County was placed in the new TX-28.

So "always" in the sense of "in all maps that still influence the current map of the area".

[minionofmidas]

See that odd little finger in TX-23 that goes across the top of TX-20.  Guess who lives in the tip of the finger.  So the court moved Canseco's residence barely into TX-23 (he currently lives in TX-21), but moved a good chunk of his constituents into TX-21.

Now looking at the districts on the lege council's redistricting web site.  Use the current district as the base plan and the interim map as the overlay.  TX-20 is only 13,000 from the ideal population, so it really doesn't need much change.

But because TX-23 was pushed in on the west side, TX-20 had to expand.  This was mostly to the north and widening of the eastern arm of the district.  But it also took in a very small are of TX-23 to the northwest.   Guess who lives in that very small area?  Joaquin Castro.

So the court issues its map; Castro talks to Gonzalez; Gonzalez announces his retirement; and Castro announces that he is going to run in the district that the court had barely drawn him into

The fix was in, the fix was in. Bipartisan gerry basically,as I said. Any public word previously that Gonzalez was thinking about retiring - I only know that none reached me.
The expansion of TX-20 do a reasonably good job of removing the last minority areas from Lamar Smith's district, of course. (Not that he needs it or anything, but, you know.)

The bizarre boundary of TX-10 is of course in part because it's a leftover from the 2004 carveup of Austin - the part that didn't get changed in 2006. Now that I think of it... McCaul's residence may have had something to do with that...

[krazen1211]

56% of the growth in Collin, Denton, and Rockwall was minorities.  That is where the new district should have been placed.

Yeah, going purely by least transfer the new DFW district needs to go on the eastern side. Same with the new Southeast Texas district.
But then again, the new Central Texas Anglo district would logically be built around Williamson and North Travis... oops.

It was moved into the district in 1991 by Martin Frost and Ann Richards.  The southern part of Bexar County was placed in the new TX-28.

So "always" in the sense of "in all maps that still influence the current map of the area".

I actually drew that exactly in my least change map. It ends up being highly desirable in Dallas and highly undesirable in Austin; Austin obviously needs to either be in 1 district or 5. 2 is highly undesirable and yields 2 Dem districts.

The new Bexar district goes south, though, and becomes a Republican district, basically collecting all the excess in Doggett's district and the 3 south Texas districts.

[minionofmidas]

Canseco is barely, barely on the finger tip of TX-23.  He currently lives in TX-21, and the legislature had drawn a finger tip down from the north (since it had expanded TX-20 northward to make room for the new San Antonio-Austin district).

Fun fact: They added three precincts there (in the court map, not sure how different the lege map was in this area).
SW to NE:
3113, 54% Hispanic, 33% White, 64% Obama
3112, 52% Hispanic, 38% White, 55% Obama
3115, 66% White, 28% Hispanic, 65% McCain

Railroad tracks between 3115 (and one other precinct that stayed in TX-23, and most of the area shifted out) and 3112 (and the remainder of TX-23, well its Bexar portion at any rate).
Somehow I'd be surprised to hear that 3115 is not Canseco's home precinct.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By White Rock Lake?

My issue was mostly. I have a map that basically went through three steps: Step 1, just draw the new districts basically where they "ought" to go, except I drew the DFW one as a W Denver County/Arlington Hispanic opportunity seat, and eliminated some bizarre county splits. Step 2, amend some features that bug me about map 1, mostly taken over from before but some new. I forgot to save this step. Step 3, rectify that map to at least put everybody in their home district. This took some major redrawings compared to Step 2, and is as yet in progress as I needed this info. (I also don't know where Doggett lives, but as long as there is a Travis-based Anglo-winnable Democratic district, he'll just move and be fine, so no bother.) Many thanks!

McCaul lives in the hook at the tip of the current TX-10 in the only part of the district that is south of the Colorado River.
[/quote]Ugh. That makes things hard. Only one precinct btw (seeing as they cut back the other one.) Quite the Republican enclave, btw, what's up with that?

[minionofmidas]

56% of the growth in Collin, Denton, and Rockwall was minorities.  That is where the new district should have been placed.

Yeah, going purely by least transfer the new DFW district needs to go on the eastern side. Same with the new Southeast Texas district.
But then again, the new Central Texas Anglo district would logically be built around Williamson and North Travis... oops.

It was moved into the district in 1991 by Martin Frost and Ann Richards.  The southern part of Bexar County was placed in the new TX-28.

So "always" in the sense of "in all maps that still influence the current map of the area".

I actually drew that exactly in my least change map. It ends up being highly desirable in Dallas and highly undesirable in Austin; Austin obviously needs to either be in 1 district or 5. 2 is highly undesirable and yields 2 Dem districts.

And that's only half of it... you're pitting two Republican incumbents against each other in a Democratic district.

Yeah, I rigged it to ensure the new "southern" district is Hispanic. This led to Doggett's rural parts being split off and going into the "new" Central Texas district, which turned out highly marginal rather than clearly Dem as a result.

[minionofmidas]

I just checked what the maximum Dempack district in Austin is... 75%. I'm impressed. It's Hispanic plurality, btw (but not on VAP... presumably Anglo majority CVAP.)

[jimrtex]

Canseco is barely, barely on the finger tip of TX-23.  He currently lives in TX-21, and the legislature had drawn a finger tip down from the north (since it had expanded TX-20 northward to make room for the new San Antonio-Austin district).

Fun fact: They added three precincts there (in the court map, not sure how different the lege map was in this area).
SW to NE:
3113, 54% Hispanic, 33% White, 64% Obama
3112, 52% Hispanic, 38% White, 55% Obama
3115, 66% White, 28% Hispanic, 65% McCain

Railroad tracks between 3115 (and one other precinct that stayed in TX-23, and most of the area shifted out) and 3112 (and the remainder of TX-23, well its Bexar portion at any rate).
Somehow I'd be surprised to hear that 3115 is not Canseco's home precinct.

3112.  I said barely.  Like on the southern edge.

The legislature would have shifted 3070, 3115, and the eastern part of 3112.  The difference is that the legislature would have kept the current district on the NW side of Huebner Road (SW to NE).  The court only kept the long corridor to reach Canseco's house, while dismantling the Bexar County portion of a VRA district.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By White Rock Lake?
[/quote]
By the shore of gitche gumee.  I don't think right on the shore, but both are pretty close, so the north/south split of the two precincts is needed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're not supposed to legislate.  I assume you mean Dallas County, and not Denver City or Denver Harbor, Texas.  Arlington deserve a district just as much as lesser cities like Pittsburgh or St.Louis or Buffalo or Cincinnati.  Arlington is almost as populous as Mesa and Colorado Springs.

The new district belongs in Denton and Collin counties.

Move the Cooke piece of TX-26 to TX-13

Move 25K from TX-1 to TX-4 (Cass (remnant), Marion, Upshur (part)
Move 27K from TX-5 to TX-4 (you can swap Rains and Wood, and get rid of that near point contiguity).

Create the new district from:

TX-4 200K (Collin) keeping the eastern part above Rockwall.
TX-3 144K (Collin) Allen and McKinney (Johnson lives in Plano)
TX-26 190K (Denton) If you keep out of the city of Denton, Burgess is OK.
TX-24 43K (Denton)
TX-12 121K (Wise) and (Tarrant, Parker)

TX-32 gets replenished from:

TX-30 8K
TX-24 50K

TX-32 could also get some from TX-3 instead of TX-24.  It just switches the contributions from TX-3 and TX-24 into the new district.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Doggett said he lives 4 blocks from TX-35 in the legislature plan.  They left him in TX-25.  So somewhere in that final eastward finger into central Austin.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ugh. That makes things hard. Only one precinct btw (seeing as they cut back the other one.) Quite the Republican enclave, btw, what's up with that?
[/quote]
Westlake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Austin

Click on the picture.

The Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) was a Depression era project to build flood control and hydroelectric projects on the Colorado River.  Congressman LBJ was probably involved.

The two big dams are Lake Travis (in the western part of the county) and Lake Buchanan which is on the Burnet-Llano border.

Lake Austin is just west of the city of Austin proper, and Town Lake (Lady Bird Lake) is just south of the Capitol, UT, and downtown.  I think they were really more flood control.  If you look on the map below, just east of downtown you can see the bluffs that define the floodplain.  The Black (and now Hispanic) areas of Austin are to the east.

Austin is just east of the Balcones Escarpment that defines the start of the Hill Country, so the city proper is on the flatlands.  Remember that Austin has grown a lot.  At the time the dams were built, it would be more on par with Waco.

At one time when the government was building dams, they would just buy/condemn the land where the water is.  And so the land along the shore line would be private land.  If the lake is somewhat remote, people would build lake houses (equivalent to beach house) which could be used on weekends, and some people might retire to, or if they have a job like fireman or airline pilot could commute from.

But in this case, the flood control made it possible to develop into a rather exclusive close-in suburb.   It happens to have its own school district (Eames ISD, though the high school is Austin Westlake).   During the school funding disputes it would be cited as an example of a school district that money for extravagance vs its poorer city schools (see Highland Park vs. Dallas; and Alamo Heights vs San Antonio and Edgewood).  The comparable areas in Houston don't have a separate school district, so the students have to go to private schools.

http://maps.google.com/?ll=30.314209,-97.766819&spn=0.102844,0.209255&t=p&z=13&vpsrc=6

[minionofmidas]

I assume you mean Dallas County, and not Denver City or Denver Harbor, Texas.

Quite.

[minionofmidas]

So I abandoned the map talked about here and drew two different ones.

One, maximizing the number of safely Democratic minority districts (14 - 7 in the South and up to Austin, 4 in Houston, 2 in Dallas and 1 in Tarrant) and drawing the remainder fairly (which results in only one further Democratic district in Austin, of course).
The other, based on that but going back to something closer the status quo in minority districts, in order to create an 18-18 map that ought to stand in court. 18-18 in presidential terms that is, and given trends in the places where the most marginal districts are, in terms of representation by the end of the decade. One district certainly, and possibly several others, is still good for a few years of Republican congressional victories.


21-15 Plan



Inserts







and cause it's snipped from the bottom of the map