District Court, Splitting 2-1, Finds Texas Congressional Districts Violate VRA

[Torie]

Is this court to achieve its mandate in effect requiring that performing minority districts be created that join non contiguous minority zones that are far away from each other?  I assume the problem with TX-23 is that an adjacent Hispanic CD in Bexar is deemed excessively packed. Is that correct?

[Torie]

Is this court to achieve its mandate in effect requiring that performing minority districts be created that join non contiguous minority zones that are far away from each other?  I assume the problem with TX-23 is that an adjacent Hispanic CD in Bexar is deemed excessively packed. Is that correct?

The way I read it, they support such districts if they are the only way to meet section 2 and are not a Shaw-type racial gerrymander. They seem to ask 1) are there minority populations that have section 2 rights? 2) can those rights be satisfied without taking away section 2 rights from another population? and 3) can a district be drawn using generally accepted principles such that the minority has the opportunity to elect the candidate of their choice? For this court linking non-contiguous minority zones is bad if race was the predominant factor in drawing the district and section 2 could have been satisfied without the linkage, otherwise it's ok.

I think the OK bit is existing law, if it is not possible to create a performing minority district using a continuous population. But is this court mandating such a CD to get the minority population up to its requisite quota of CD's? If so, that is not SCOTUS law at present I don't think. So to me, that is the key question. The same issue applies with TX-23. If a CD is minority packed within Bexar, probably it needs to be unpacked, particularly if it can be done using reasonable redistricting principles, as opposed to chopping away at sub-jurisdicitons.

[Torie]

I drew this puppy following the Muon2 rules more or less. Would this map of a part of Texas make the court happy?  The CD going from the Rio Grande into Bexar is 60.2% HVAP, and went 53.7% for Obama in 2008. It could go up by moving precincts around in Bexar with the inner city CD, but is that necessary?  Kennedy really said that a more than 50% HCVAP CD could still be challenged, simply because Hispanics don't vote as much, or enough of them vote Republican to not elect an Hispanic Democrat, with respect to a map that otherwise follows good redistricting principles? Meanwhile the Laredo to El Paso CD is 69.2% HVAP, and McCain carried it by two points.  Sure Cuellar (sp) would carry that CD, but assuming he were not around, would this CD displease the court that nixed the Texas map and/or Justice Kennedy if it is still iffy as to whether it would elect an Hispanic Democrat? 

It seems to me that much of a problem for some unhappy courts is that too many Texas Hispanics, particularly rural ones, vote Pub.

[Torie]

It would be helpful for me to read the case, but I don't see the legal rationale for 7 Hispanic CD's under any reasonable good redistricting principles. In fact, it may be hard to draw it without gross gerrymandering. It is not as if contiguous Hispanic populations are chopped up. It seems that some want the kind of CD that Kennedy disliked, that joins Rio Grande Hispanics with some Democrats far away in a gerrymander (maybe white Democrats), just so long as it squeezes out another Hispanic CD, as opposed to replacing a more contiguous Hispanic CD. This all needs to go back to SCOTUS. Things seem to be getting really way off track here. This should not stand. In fact, it sucks.

[Torie]

It would be helpful for me to read the case, but I don't see the legal rationale for 7 Hispanic CD's under any reasonable good redistricting principles. In fact, it may be hard to draw it without gross gerrymandering. It is not as if contiguous Hispanic populations are chopped up. It seems that some want the kind of CD that Kennedy disliked, that joins Rio Grande Hispanics with some Democrats far away in a gerrymander (maybe white Democrats), just so long as it squeezes out another Hispanic CD, as opposed to replacing a more contiguous Hispanic CD. This all needs to go back to SCOTUS. Things seem to be getting really way off track here. This should not stand. In fact, it sucks.

3 fajita strip districts, two in Bexar, El Paso, and TX-23....what's so hard about that?   It's pretty easy to draw the districts, it's making it through the Texas GOP that's the problem.

BTW- Hispanics, even after these changes, are still horribly under-represented in Texas.

It doesn't comport with good redistricting principles, and unites Hispanics geographically disparate. The VRA should not require that. We shall see.

[Torie]

It would be helpful for me to read the case, but I don't see the legal rationale for 7 Hispanic CD's under any reasonable good redistricting principles. In fact, it may be hard to draw it without gross gerrymandering. It is not as if contiguous Hispanic populations are chopped up. It seems that some want the kind of CD that Kennedy disliked, that joins Rio Grande Hispanics with some Democrats far away in a gerrymander (maybe white Democrats), just so long as it squeezes out another Hispanic CD, as opposed to replacing a more contiguous Hispanic CD. This all needs to go back to SCOTUS. Things seem to be getting really way off track here. This should not stand. In fact, it sucks.

You may be pleased to know that the court rejected plaintiff's plan and argument for 8 Latino CDs in S/W TX. Kennedy thought one could have fajita strips as long as they weren't extreme, and didn't substitute for a reasonable alternative. This court seemed to follow that thinking that CD 35 was impermissible when Nueces could be used to make a more compact alternative and served a deserving population.

Replacing one poor CD for another, hosting the Pubs on their own petard. It's one thing to strike down the plot to neutalize white Dems in Travis. It's another to require something else, that I don't think comports with prior SCOTUS precedent, and is just not justified on public policy grounds, and certainly if the alternative comports with good redistricting principles, and is obviously not out to screw minorities. The court did mention the impermissible Pub intent, that it found. Minorities should not be used as pawns, splitting them up, to neutralize white Dems.