US House Redistricting: Texas

[DrScholl]

The USDOJ did not.   Their brief includes summaries of the viewpoints of other parties.

They're goofy because they don't recognize 34 as the successor to 27, and that there is no need for Corpus and Brownsville to share a congressional district.

Well, the courts will decide rather or not it is "goofy" or not. There was obviously some partisan tricks involved regarding the VRA districts. At least one more should have been created and DFW was the place for it, it's very easy to draw one there.

[jimrtex]

The USDOJ did not.   Their brief includes summaries of the viewpoints of other parties.

They're goofy because they don't recognize 34 as the successor to 27, and that there is no need for Corpus and Brownsville to share a congressional district.

Well, the courts will decide rather or not it is "goofy" or not. There was obviously some partisan tricks involved regarding the VRA districts. In DFW, there really should be a VRA seat, there is more than enough population to sustain it and the courts may see it like that.

When an area loses a seat and it is moved to another area of the state it is goofy to compare the two.  You might as well compare a district that is lost in New York and ends up in Texas. 

[Sam Spade]

The case worth making (on the Congressional side, at least) is on the DFW Hispanic seat. Arguments with regards to TX-23 are likely to be a lot of nitpicking over very little and I really don't see how you make the argument that TX-34 is not a valid substitute for TX-27.  What is the argument to make for a required Corpus Christi-Brownsville CD, exactly? 

The Austin-San Antonio Hispanic seat is really the only other new Hispanic-opportunity seat that you can create, and I think that the correct argument is that "if this has been created and mandated, which it probably is, then so should a DFW seat."  Certainly one can create more Democratic seats, but they're not going to be Hispanic-opportunity seats (they may be over 50% VAP, but what is that, like 35% voting population max), because white Democrats will likely win, so what is the point in trying to defend the Austin seat, because you can't create a Hispanic opportunity seat there right now.

Or something like this.

[minionofmidas]

I drew this ages ago for a Black and a Hispanic seat in DFW. I didn't bother saving the stats at the time, but as I remember it yellow is fairly solidly majority Hispanic (57 or 59 or something like that, though I forget if that's total or VAP) and cyan is down to 45% Black, with enough Hispanics and Asians to make Blacks clearly dominant. I didn't spend too much time with it and a better version could probably be developped, though apparently the version actually submitted is far worse.

[muon2]

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

[Torie]

Surely you don't think that erose excresence you drew is legally required by the VRA do you Muon2? Or do you?    That is the issue here: what the courts will deem legally required. What will Justice Kennedy think?  Nothing else much matters.

[timothyinMD]

This whole Texas redistricting crap is outrageous.  Basically the DOJ wants Texas to swap one gerrymandered district for another. 

This racial crap is sickening.  The law is one MAN one vote, not one racial group, one vote.  We all have the same right to walk in to the booth and select one candidate for House of Representatives no matter where we live

[muon2]

Surely you don't think that erose excresence you drew is legally required by the VRA do you Muon2? Or do you?    That is the issue here: what the courts will deem legally required. What will Justice Kennedy think?  Nothing else much matters.

Well, IL-4 has been legally required since 1990, and its long thin link through railroad yards and cemeteries to connect two different communities is arguably worse than what I drew. I do know that both districts I drew should be able to elect candidates of the minority group's choice. I think that Kennedy dislikes partisan gerrymandering (see Vieth), and will look for other bases in the law to overturn it when it is otherwise non-justiciable (see LULAC).

[muon2]

This whole Texas redistricting crap is outrageous.  Basically the DOJ wants Texas to swap one gerrymandered district for another. 

This racial crap is sickening.  The law is one MAN one vote, not one racial group, one vote.  We all have the same right to walk in to the booth and select one candidate for House of Representatives no matter where we live

The Constitution says that Congress has the power to pass laws to ensure that the right to vote may not be abridged on the basis of race. Racial gerrymanders were used for decades to disenfranchise minorities, particularly blacks. Congress used its constitutional power to pass the Voting Rights Act. It is as much the law as one man one vote.

[Torie]

Surely you don't think that erose excresence you drew is legally required by the VRA do you Muon2? Or do you?    That is the issue here: what the courts will deem legally required. What will Justice Kennedy think?  Nothing else much matters.

Well, IL-4 has been legally required since 1990, and its long thin link through railroad yards and cemeteries to connect two different communities is arguably worse than what I drew. I do know that both districts I drew should be able to elect candidates of the minority group's choice. I think that Kennedy dislikes partisan gerrymandering (see Vieth), and will look for other bases in the law to overturn it when it is otherwise non-justiciable (see LULAC).

Yes, but isn't that about preserving some CD rather than creating another net? Or was it entirely a new net minority CD judicially mandated?  SCOTUS ruled that IL-04 was legally required?

[jimrtex]

The Constitution says that Congress has the power to pass laws to ensure that the right to vote may not be abridged on the basis of race. Racial gerrymanders were used for decades to disenfranchise minorities, particularly blacks. Congress used its constitutional power to pass the Voting Rights Act. It is as much the law as one man one vote.

The Constitution says that the apportionment of a State should be reduced in proportion to the share of male citizens over 21 whose right to vote is abridged for any reason, including race.

Let's assume that an activist court would expand that to include women and those over 18.

You are charged with determining how many citizens over the age of 18 have had their right to vote abridged, how many of these because of felonies and rebellion, and how many for other reasons, which you will be expected to itemize.  How would you do it?

[jimrtex]

Surely you don't think that erose excresence you drew is legally required by the VRA do you Muon2? Or do you?    That is the issue here: what the courts will deem legally required. What will Justice Kennedy think?  Nothing else much matters.

Well, IL-4 has been legally required since 1990, and its long thin link through railroad yards and cemeteries to connect two different communities is arguably worse than what I drew. I do know that both districts I drew should be able to elect candidates of the minority group's choice. I think that Kennedy dislikes partisan gerrymandering (see Vieth), and will look for other bases in the law to overturn it when it is otherwise non-justiciable (see LULAC).

Yes, but isn't that about preserving some CD rather than creating another net? Or was it entirely a new net minority CD judicially mandated?  SCOTUS ruled that IL-04 was legally required?

I remember when a Texas senator was discussing IL-4, and he couldn't understand why the Houston districts after the 1990s weren't legal when they were just as bad (though he favored drawing them that way).

[BigSkyBob]

This whole Texas redistricting crap is outrageous.  Basically the DOJ wants Texas to swap one gerrymandered district for another. 

This racial crap is sickening.  The law is one MAN one vote, not one racial group, one vote.  We all have the same right to walk in to the booth and select one candidate for House of Representatives no matter where we live

The Constitution says that Congress has the power to pass laws to ensure that the right to vote may not be abridged on the basis of race.

Literally, you just said the Constitution prevents governments from erecting barriers to voting based on race. Presumably,  that same Constitution prevents governments from creating systems in which the votes of the members of some races carry more weight than the votes of others, which I think is more of Timothy's point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Poll taxes and literacy tests were used to "disenfranchise" Blacks, and gerrymandering was used to prevent "franchised" Blacks from winning elections ["disenfranchise" them]. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly, the Congress has the Constitutional power to enact enforcements of the reconstruction Amendments. Clearly, the same Congress has no Constitutional authority to deny equal protection to any race, including Caucasians.  Nor, does the Constitution allow members of Congress to mandate the outcomes of elections. Who wins elections is the Constitutional prerogative of the people.

Timothy seems to be claiming that, effectively, the Congress is going into a geographic area and legislating that some of citizen residents of the appropriate age are not to be allowed to win the next election simply because of their race. There really is something very Constitutionally suspect in noting that if a the majority of some voting block is not part of the majority of all voters something untowards has happened. That's overweighting the vote of that block, which is as Constitutionally unacceptable as underweighting it.

In the real world we all have the same de jure right to win an election, but, radically different defacto rights to win an election. People with IQs of 120-130 win more elections than those with IQs of 70-80. Physically attractive candidates win more often than ugly ones. Taller candidates do better than shorter ones. Nicene Protestants win at a greater rate than Mormons. Wealthy people win more often than poor folk. The Communist candidate has lost every Presidential elections, and, hopeful, that will always be the case.

We all believe that the Congress has the right to legislate against religious discrimination. I don't believe that the Congress has authority to legislate the gerrymandering of districts based on religion so that members of disfavored religions can win. Second guessing the motives of voters in the voting booth is a highly dangerous precedent.

There are Constitutional challenges to the VRA working their way through the system. One of the possible outcomes is that Timothy's position prevails. Another possibility is that it is that the VRA is further narrowed to more racially neutral standards.

Finally, I would note that if Allen West were to be gerrymandered out of his seat, and, if Allen West could produce emails from every legislator stating that their motive in redrawing the districts was to eliminate West's district simply because he was Black, he would have no recourse under the VRA as it is certainly enforced. That's utterly bizarre.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Baker vs Carr is a Supreme Court decision, the VRA is a congressional act.

[Brittain33]

Il-4 was two sensible blocks connected by a ridiculous corridor. The Houston districts were fractals.

[muon2]

Surely you don't think that erose excresence you drew is legally required by the VRA do you Muon2? Or do you?    That is the issue here: what the courts will deem legally required. What will Justice Kennedy think?  Nothing else much matters.

Well, IL-4 has been legally required since 1990, and its long thin link through railroad yards and cemeteries to connect two different communities is arguably worse than what I drew. I do know that both districts I drew should be able to elect candidates of the minority group's choice. I think that Kennedy dislikes partisan gerrymandering (see Vieth), and will look for other bases in the law to overturn it when it is otherwise non-justiciable (see LULAC).

Yes, but isn't that about preserving some CD rather than creating another net? Or was it entirely a new net minority CD judicially mandated?  SCOTUS ruled that IL-04 was legally required?

Prior to 1990 there was no Hispanic-majority district in IL. The legislature did not act to produce a map in 1991 and there were a number of suits with proposed maps later that year. The Federal district court mandated a map supported by a plaintiff, Nieves, that sued to create a section 2 Hispanic district. The 7th Circuit affirmed that Nieves was a prevailing party, but the case(s) did not go to SCOTUS.

After the 1993 Shaw decision there was a new suit (King) that attacked the shape of the new IL-04. This went back and forth through the courts as additional SCOTUS decisions in the 1990's needed to be considered. Finally the lower court found that under SCOTUS precedent "remedying a potential violation of or achieving compliance with § 2 [of the Voting Rights Act] is a compelling state interest." Based on that finding, it affirmed the creation of IL-04 as part of the map mandated earlier in the decade. In 1998 SCOTUS summarily affirmed that lower court decision.

I interpret that as an indirect mandate for the creation of the district by SCOTUS.

I don't claim to know if any of this will apply to TX in this cycle.

[minionofmidas]

IMHO there's a difference between uniting technically separate but similar areas on the west side of the city of Chicago (plus a couple inner burbs), which looks ugly but is not as ugly as it looks, and uniting downtown (and south) Dallas with downtown Forth Worth - let alone doing so twice.
Which, of course, is why I drew my districts in Dallas and its immediate suburbs alone. Though I did cross the county line.
But yeah, to get the Black district over 50% you need to draw it first and put all the Black-and-Hispanic areas in it. Drawing a Hispanic district from what's left after that requires heading to Fort Worth, I think.

[muon2]

IMHO there's a difference between uniting technically separate but similar areas on the west side of the city of Chicago (plus a couple inner burbs), which looks ugly but is not as ugly as it looks, and uniting downtown (and south) Dallas with downtown Forth Worth - let alone doing so twice.
Which, of course, is why I drew my districts in Dallas and its immediate suburbs alone. Though I did cross the county line.
But yeah, to get the Black district over 50% you need to draw it first and put all the Black-and-Hispanic areas in it. Drawing a Hispanic district from what's left after that requires heading to Fort Worth, I think.

I suspect that the two neighborhoods linked in Chicago are just as politically and culturally distinct as the two linked in my Metroplex map.

[Bacon King]

IMHO there's a difference between uniting technically separate but similar areas on the west side of the city of Chicago (plus a couple inner burbs), which looks ugly but is not as ugly as it looks, and uniting downtown (and south) Dallas with downtown Forth Worth - let alone doing so twice.
Which, of course, is why I drew my districts in Dallas and its immediate suburbs alone. Though I did cross the county line.
But yeah, to get the Black district over 50% you need to draw it first and put all the Black-and-Hispanic areas in it. Drawing a Hispanic district from what's left after that requires heading to Fort Worth, I think.

I suspect that the two neighborhoods linked in Chicago are just as politically and culturally distinct as the two linked in my Metroplex map.

The two neighborhoods aren't even the same nationality, right? IIRC one is mostly Mexican while the other is predominantly Puertorican.

[Sbane]

IMHO there's a difference between uniting technically separate but similar areas on the west side of the city of Chicago (plus a couple inner burbs), which looks ugly but is not as ugly as it looks, and uniting downtown (and south) Dallas with downtown Forth Worth - let alone doing so twice.
Which, of course, is why I drew my districts in Dallas and its immediate suburbs alone. Though I did cross the county line.
But yeah, to get the Black district over 50% you need to draw it first and put all the Black-and-Hispanic areas in it. Drawing a Hispanic district from what's left after that requires heading to Fort Worth, I think.

I suspect that the two neighborhoods linked in Chicago are just as politically and culturally distinct as the two linked in my Metroplex map.

The two neighborhoods aren't even the same nationality, right? IIRC one is mostly Mexican while the other is predominantly Puertorican.

I guess that's how it used to be, but now Mexicans are predominant in both areas. Muon might know better though.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Judges to draw interim map.

[muon2]

Judges to draw interim map.

That link is broken, but I think this is the interim map story you wanted.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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

[krazen1211]

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

Not an issue in Texas. The last 2003 remapping remapped a court map.

[jimrtex]

Judges to draw interim map.

That link is broken, but I think this is the interim map story you wanted.

The actual order from the court is more tentative.

http://www.quorumreport.com/downloadit.cfm?DocID=9142

The filing deadline for the primary (and independent candidates) is in early December, moved back so that ballots can be mailed overseas 45 days before the election.  County election officials are required to create election precincts before Oct 1, and mail out voter registration cards before the first of the year.

The trial has already been held in San Antonio, but the federal court can't act until the districts have been pre-cleared.  If the districts are not pre-cleared, then the trial in San Antonio wouldn't be able to rule on proposed 2010 districts, but would be modifying 2000-based districts.

The DC court has a hearing set for November 2 on a summary motion for pre-clearance, but no trial date other than for the senate plan.

[jimrtex]

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

In 1996 and 2006, Texas had maps drawn after the primary, and a special election was held in November (with runoffs as necessary in December).

But right now candidates can not file for the primary, which has a December filing deadline (overseas military ballots have to be sent out in mid-January).

In Colorado, the Colorado Supreme Court made a (mis)interpretation of the Colorado Constitution in a politically aligned decision.  The original constitution said that Colorado should elect its sole representative at large; but when it got additional representatives they should be elected from districts drawn by the legislature.  That is, it was simply saying that multiple representatives should be elected from districts.

Later, a language cleanup removed the provision about electing a single representative at large.  The supreme court then interpreted "when" as governing the timing of the redistricting and not the circumstances when it should occur.

Colorado had practically never followed the constitution.  It never had 3 districts, even though it had 3 representatives, and it didn't create 4 districts until 4 years after the 1910 census.  It redistricted in 1920, even though there was no national reapportionment, and then didn't bother for the next 43 years.  If one reads the constitution literally, there is no authority for redistricting under the state constitution since Colorado did not gain additional representatives.   They would be complying with the federal constitution.

So basically, the court ignored 125 years of actual practice, and determined that a district court had acted on behalf of the legislature 2 years earlier, when no one at the time had any notion that was occurring.

In 1991, the Texas legislature redistricted the legislature.  Someone filed in state district court in the Rio Grande Valley, and the State agreed that they had done badly and the district court drew a map that they could never have got through the legislature.  A federal court tossed that decision on due process grounds.   The infamous Ann Richards called a special session to redistrict.  Those maps did not get precleared until mid 1992 after the primaries.  They considered going on with the general elections (someone nominated in "District 5" could run in "District 5" even though they were different districts.   But finally they used the districts drawn by the federal court in 1991, and used the 1992-drawn districts in 1994.  By 1996, the 1992-drawn districts were found unconstitutional.   Rather than actually creating new districts by passing legislation, the Senate agreed to new districts.  If they had actually passed a law, all senate seats would have been up for election, as they had been in 1992 and 1994.  So because of the illegal districts, some voters were assigned to remedial districts where they had never had an opportunity to vote.  So Texas used different senate districts in 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, and 1998.  They did use the same districts in 2000 as they had in 1998.