2020 Texas Redistricting thread

[lfromnj]

You don't get to claim that the fajittas should be cancelled now that the hispanics in the area maybe vote like 57 43. Your fair map should not rely on that. I will keep for my fair map the 3 compact seats. but others who drew Fajitas should not be changing their mind. If the districts slightly go against the hispanic community by a narrow margin that is not a massive error it just means they are swing voters where it is much tougher to apply the VRA.

[lfromnj]

You don't get to claim that the fajittas should be cancelled now that the hispanics in the area maybe vote like 57 43. Your fair map should not rely on that. I will keep for my fair map the 3 compact seats. but others who drew Fajitas should not be changing their mind. If the districts slightly go against the hispanic community by a narrow margin that is not a massive error it just means they are swing voters where it is much tougher to apply the VRA.

Doesn't the DRA dictate that districts must be drawn to elect the racial minority's preference? In which case a map that relies on whites+a Latino minority would be illegal.

A racial minority preference is much more loose when its a swing minority, the only other area we have seen this really are the Cuban seats where FL 26th/FL 27th failed in 2018.  They didn't have a clear preference in 2018 although they clearly did vote R.

There is no reason to expect SCOTUS to interpret the VRA that strictly and a fair map would have always been 3 compact seats in the RGV but now people want to backtrack to those 3 seats  because it doesn't give Democrats more seats.


https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=358741.msg7176737#msg7176737

To give you credit Blairite I think you did support the compact districts rather than trying to Gerrymander more hispanic seats.

[lfromnj]

To give you credit Blairite I think you did support the compact districts rather than trying to Gerrymander more hispanic seats.

Yeah I've always thought the argument that compact seats in overwhelmingly minority areas deprive them of representation was pretty weak but it is my understanding that it's mandated by the law anyway.

I was actually planning to ask Fajita defenders before the election what they would do if the Hispanic vote became swingier, damn I wish I did

Anyway it depends on how SCOTUS interprets the VRA, I doub the current SCOTUS would have required the fajitas anyway and I think even Breyer has some skepticism on them.

Overall I don't really see how if gerrymandering the Hispanic seats would massively harm the Hispanic community in the RGV. It would obviously still be a partisan advantage against Democrats. but Its not like the GOP would just be able to do whatever they want as they do in most gerrymandered areas as if the Hispanics return to 70 -30 D in the RGV then they lose all the districts, the GOP would still have to fight for the votes and pay attention to the community.

[lfromnj]

So genuine question

To all those who supported drawing the fajitas in a fair Texas map do you still support them?

Im sticking by my compact seats for my fair map and gonna be consistent.

I still support the fajitas, yes. My map in fact has four of them.

So you won't significantly change your maps in south texas excluding for population changes

Good on you then, we can agree to keep our differences on what should be done in a fair Texas map. Atleast its consistent.

[lfromnj]

The important thing is electing the Latino community's candidate of choice and any fair map should follow from that.

What is a candidate of choice if they start voting 60 40 ?
Its not a huge avoidance of their choice if that happens especially if the GOP makes sure the hispanic candidates choice wins in the primaries rather than letting Blake Farentolds get through.

What do you do mid decade if all 4 seats failed?
Redistrict because of partisan shifts?

[lfromnj]

TIL Austin white liberals are a minority group?

Is that a 3 way split of central Austin ?

[lfromnj]

Tack the way you split the Austin metro makes little sense unless if it was perfectly along the river? I tried to give Killeen its own district with Waco rather than shove it in with the Austin metro.



Here's a better way to split the metro that gives minorities in Austin influence at atleast one district. The few rural counties added to the Williamson district aren't ideal but extra pop growth should cut that down by 2020. Im not a super huge fan of going full out for minority/VRA districts but the pink district does give Austin minorities a slight amount of influence rather than splitting them with 2 certain white liberal districts in a logical and compact manner.

[lfromnj]

Tack the way you split the Austin metro makes little sense. I tried to give Killeen its own district with Waco rather than shove it in.



Here's a better way to split the metro that gives minorities in Austin influence at atleast one district. The few rural counties added to the Williamson district aren't ideal but extra pop growth should cut that down by 2020. Im not a super huge fan of going full out for minority/VRA districts but the pink district does give Austin minorities a slight amount of influence rather than splitting them with 2 certain white liberal districts in a logical and compact manner.

If I-35 growth continues that pink could be vulnerable by the end of the decade, and the Williamson one is also risky, and if you want an Austin minority seat just copy Doggett's current seat, this one looks like it will be more dominated by white people.

I didn't specifically want an Austin minority seat and I don't find San Antonio to Austin a COI for that purpose with regards to Gingles., I just found these the most logical county pairings and communities in Austin. The Williamson seat def isn't Safe R. Rn its Trump +16 but cutting the rural counties out make its Trump +11. See earlier discussion in the thread about how both me and Sol agreed on this if you wanted 4 whole districts in the Austin to Waco area. Overall Trump +11 is slightly harmful to a purely swing district but not that partisan of a move.

Also unless you are playing around with some VRA stuff in Tarrant, Tarrant + Grand Prarie(city that is in both Dallas and Tarrant counties) is almost exactly 3 districts so seems like a fairly obvious choice.


The Forth Worth Seat is basically Safe D at Clinton +14. The Arlington Grand Prarie district is Lean D at Clinton +2 and its obviously trending D, and the northern district is a "R sink" and Trump +31. City lines are pretty easy to follow in DFW besides the actual city of Forth Worth which is a monstrosity  although the core of the city can be preserved. The few exurban/rural precincts being taken in from the SW of the county aren't ideal but I didn't want a super uncompact district.

Anyway I am finding my fair Texas map comes out to around 18 Clinton districts
(5 DFW 5 Houston, 2 Austin, 2 SA, 3 RGV) and 20 Biden districts with 6 in Houston and DFW but I think one Corpus Christi to Brownsville seat might have flipped although it could also be 19 districts.

[lfromnj]

The Texas GOP originally had a plan with only 1 DFW sink, it actually would have worked as only TX 32 flips but every other district would stay R.

[lfromnj]

Just double sink Austin for any GOP gerrymander. It takes away the most Dem net votes.

[lfromnj]

Having a CD built on growth in the Pub-leaning HCVAP population may not pass muster.

First one identifies whether a district must be drawn to meet VRA section 2 using the Gingles test: Is there a compact district with 50%+ HCVAP? Is the Hispanic population politically cohesive (does it mostly vote the same way)? Does the white population vote sufficiently together to defeat the preferred coice of the Hispanics in the area.

As long as the Hispanic population in an area is still strongly in favor of a Dem and the white population is Pub enough to defeat the Dem, then a 50% HCVAP CD is not necessarily sufficient to meet the VRA. Counting on a growing Pub fraction among Hispanics doesn't cut it until they are prevalent enough to make Hispanics no longer politically cohesive. Then the Gingles test no longer applies.

I think 60D 40 R is clearly at the point where they aren't politically cohesive. This would be like saying Missouri 1st failed as a VRA seat due to Clay losing while still slightly winning the black vote.

[lfromnj]

One last thing I didn't mention in the first post, the folks drawing the map aren't the state party leaders. It's not a top-down process to draw a redistricting map, but a bottom-up one. The members of the party all give their input, demands, wants, needs, etc, and the map is drawn from there. If the members agree, then there may be some broader goal to the map (such as the NC redistricting plan among Republican members), but otherwise the incumbents and their allies are the ones who draw the map.

I can't speak to TX, but in many states the map is drawn from the top down. The state party and legislative leaders decide what their objectives are and the hire an expert to draw in a way to meet those goals. Rank and file members are shown the draft product and can provide input as to adjustments they wish, but they rarely get a say at the start of the process.

That is kinda what I was getting at. The top leaders can decide broader goals for the map (as it is with the initial draft), but after that initial draft is shown to the members of the legislature, its the incumbents who make all the changes and improvements, to the point that the final product looks nothing like the initial and instead follows their wishes and demands. From what I know, which admittedly may not be too much, only NC's map was not substantially changed by the incumbents, due to the fact that there were not many R incumbents in NC to appease at the time. Texas and Florida do not fit this image.

My experience is that the rank and file make requests, but they don't all get accepted by the leadership. Many requests are ignored if there are larger issues and they deem the member suitably secure.

Interesting, our experiences appear to differ on the subject. Perhaps, if I may posit a theory, it has to do with the power each party holds in a state. A party that holds a supermajority in each chamber will be less likely to care about individual member concerns than a party with a slight majority.

Do you have a particular state/cycle that reflects your experience?

In 2011 the IL Dems had only a modest majority in the House (64-54) and they still drove the process from the top down. Some Dems didn't get what they wanted, but no one failed to get reelected if they ran. Interestingly the Dem leaders showed some of the Pubs the draft and adjustments were made to accommodate them as long as it didn't interfere with the big picture. The legislative map also was amended a week after it was originally presented since that first version toyed with the Pub spokesperson (ie the ranking member) and it was corrected just before passage.

I assume the Mcclean crack was something that was given to Rs right? Do you know anything about why Bloomington was cracked?

[lfromnj]

One last thing I didn't mention in the first post, the folks drawing the map aren't the state party leaders. It's not a top-down process to draw a redistricting map, but a bottom-up one. The members of the party all give their input, demands, wants, needs, etc, and the map is drawn from there. If the members agree, then there may be some broader goal to the map (such as the NC redistricting plan among Republican members), but otherwise the incumbents and their allies are the ones who draw the map.

I can't speak to TX, but in many states the map is drawn from the top down. The state party and legislative leaders decide what their objectives are and the hire an expert to draw in a way to meet those goals. Rank and file members are shown the draft product and can provide input as to adjustments they wish, but they rarely get a say at the start of the process.

That is kinda what I was getting at. The top leaders can decide broader goals for the map (as it is with the initial draft), but after that initial draft is shown to the members of the legislature, its the incumbents who make all the changes and improvements, to the point that the final product looks nothing like the initial and instead follows their wishes and demands. From what I know, which admittedly may not be too much, only NC's map was not substantially changed by the incumbents, due to the fact that there were not many R incumbents in NC to appease at the time. Texas and Florida do not fit this image.

My experience is that the rank and file make requests, but they don't all get accepted by the leadership. Many requests are ignored if there are larger issues and they deem the member suitably secure.

Interesting, our experiences appear to differ on the subject. Perhaps, if I may posit a theory, it has to do with the power each party holds in a state. A party that holds a supermajority in each chamber will be less likely to care about individual member concerns than a party with a slight majority.

Do you have a particular state/cycle that reflects your experience?

In 2011 the IL Dems had only a modest majority in the House (64-54) and they still drove the process from the top down. Some Dems didn't get what they wanted, but no one failed to get reelected if they ran. Interestingly the Dem leaders showed some of the Pubs the draft and adjustments were made to accommodate them as long as it didn't interfere with the big picture. The legislative map also was amended a week after it was originally presented since that first version toyed with the Pub spokesperson (ie the ranking member) and it was corrected just before passage.

I was involved with the MA and RI redistricting, and in those cases I saw a similar outcome. While the leaders proposed a map, the actual process revolved around the party members all bickering and squabbling amongst each other in order to secure their own demands. When I talked to a Republican colleague of mine, they divulged that the process sounded very similar to how redistricting was done in Florida and Georgia, with North Carolina being one of the few times that there was little obstruction from the members.

It's possible that either of us are having colored experiences based on the states we worked on, but if we're both right, perhaps it has more to do with how machine-like the state party is, or how secure the party views itself.

Well the NC GOP was out for full out revenge in 2010 . Not just a machine but just the harbored anger due to the coinciding of NC's strong D trend in 2008 meaning there wasn't that many party switches unlike other southern states so nothing to moderate the effect that people like Nathan Deal or Ralston had on the GA GOP.

[lfromnj]

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.

[lfromnj]

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.  

No you still pack Allred's, and it isn't neccesary to double pack Austin. Its just very efficient. 2 packs has almost like 350k net votes.  A Houston pack for Fletcher might not even have 50k. Considering Austin's central location you can rotate surrounding rurals to help in other regions.

[lfromnj]

"suburban reps aren't RINO's lol"

The most moderate Republican state senator comes from the district that covers most of TX 13th congressionally.

[lfromnj]

Well fajitas aside, the main point is that the same analysts (Cook) who originally said redistricting could be brutal for Dems seem to be backing off in a major way. 

Indiana = no net gain

Texas = Dems retain their seats and GOP adds 2

that's their current projection it seems.

And it's not surprising, when rural areas are shrinking everywhere and GOP incumbents want to be protected, they are going to need to put a lot of their gerrymandering into that. 

On the flip side, they are saying Dems could gain 4-5 seats in NY alone. 

Florida and NC are the two big prizes out there which can still deliver sizable advantages to Rs over the current court-mandated maps.

Yeah, I am most worried about FL.  But wouldn't Dems just go back to the Courts in NC?  I suppose that process might take too long to save them in 2022 though. 

I think worst case scenario:

GOP +3 in FL
NC +2 in NC

They do have a few very weak incumbents in FL to protect.

I think the courts are going to be tipping R or have tipped R in NC... I don't know the details but I think Rs have a 1-seat majority now.

Rs control the appeals court which flipped in 2020. The Supreme Court is now barely D controlled but the Chief justice is  an R who gets to choose the court of appeals panels.

[lfromnj]

Well fajitas aside, the main point is that the same analysts (Cook) who originally said redistricting could be brutal for Dems seem to be backing off in a major way. 

Indiana = no net gain

Texas = Dems retain their seats and GOP adds 2

that's their current projection it seems.

And it's not surprising, when rural areas are shrinking everywhere and GOP incumbents want to be protected, they are going to need to put a lot of their gerrymandering into that. 

On the flip side, they are saying Dems could gain 4-5 seats in NY alone. 

Florida and NC are the two big prizes out there which can still deliver sizable advantages to Rs over the current court-mandated maps.

Yeah, I am most worried about FL.  But wouldn't Dems just go back to the Courts in NC?  I suppose that process might take too long to save them in 2022 though. 

I think worst case scenario:

GOP +3 in FL
NC +2 in NC

They do have a few very weak incumbents in FL to protect.

I think the courts are going to be tipping R or have tipped R in NC... I don't know the details but I think Rs have a 1-seat majority now.

Rs control the appeals court which flipped in 2020. The Supreme Court is now barely D controlled but the Chief justice is  an R who gets to choose the court of appeals panels.

I think the issue is that after a (likely pro-GOP because of the CJ choosing the panel) ruling at the appeals court level, this case wouldn't reach the NC Supreme Court until after the 2022 judicial elections.  3 of the 4 Dem seats are up in 2022, so Dems would have to hold all of them to strike down the map in 2023.  They lost all of the seats that were up in 2020, so this will be hard to say the least.

Yes the NC GOP did not appeal the case in 2019 which gives them much more time now after the case is initially filed.

[lfromnj]

They clearly decided to vote-sink Fletcher with the Dem parts of Ft. Bend to protect Nehls and give Wesley Hunt a seat.

This is pretty tame outside of DFW and CD-10. 

TX-15 is still a Biden district.

No its Trump +2

[lfromnj]

They clearly decided to vote-sink Fletcher with the Dem parts of Ft. Bend to protect Nehls and give Wesley Hunt a seat.

This is pretty tame outside of DFW and CD-10. 

TX-15 is still a Biden district.

No its Trump +2

Thanks.  Must have gotten the county split wrong.  That's 2020, right?  How much did Clinton win it by?

13

[lfromnj]

The DFW Map does give the 90's Frostmander a run for its money.

[lfromnj]

Funnily enough a current state house district in Collin County/Rockwall kinda takes the shape of Rockwall although I doubt that was really for any partisan purposes.

[lfromnj]

So, there are only 2 single districts left in this map which are purely rural R districts. TX-01 in east TX, and TX-19 in West TX.

Every single other White Republican district is involved in some way or another in cracking some sort of Dem urban/suburban area.

Here are the Dem/Dem trending areas that each of the white R districts is directly involved in cracking/overwhelming:

TX-02 - Houston north/east fringes
TX-03 - Collin County
TX-04 - Collin County
TX-05 - Dallas County
TX-06 - Dallas/Tarrant counties (mostly Irving, a bit of Arlington)
TX-08 - West Houston Bear Creek Park area
TX-10 - Small part of Austin and also Dem trending College Station
TX-11 - Killeen/Fort Hood
TX-12 - Fort Worth
TX-13 - Denton
TX-14 - Galveston & Beaumont
TX-17 - North Austin/Round Rock
TX-21 - San Antonio and a small amount of Austin
TX-22 - Fort Bend County and Pearland
TX-24 - North Dallas
TX-25 - Arlington
TX-26 - Lewisville
TX-31 - Williamson County
TX-36 - South-East Houston
TX-38 - West Houston

They really went pretty much all in on the cracking. The only way they could have done more would to have been to make some incumbents less safe, and the incumbents wouldn't want that.

Weirdly enough Gohmert even was willing to get in on the cracking but I guess they didn't do it.

[lfromnj]

https://twitter.com/We_hit_a_boat/status/1449537031927963650

Interesting

[lfromnj]

https://twitter.com/alexazura/status/1450201263535271943