Texas Fajita Strips

[Former President tack50]

Is the electorate only narrowly majority-Hispanic?

I mean, it might also be just narrowly majority white, but it must certainly be close?

You can definitely make a district that is even more Hispanic, but still Safe or Likely Republican

[Greedo punched first]

What if it’s largely Hispanic, but still elects a Republican?

[EastAnglianLefty]

Looking at this question from the other direction, is there in fact an argument that there needs to be an extra fajita district, because there are enough Hispanic voters in the RGV to control 4 districts?

To do that you'd create more marginal districts like the one that flipped in 2010.  Making TX-23 a performing district is the way to get an addition rgv district, and it's much cleaner.

You wouldn't have to. Here's a map with a performing TX-23, a Hispanic seat in San Antonio and 4 fajita strips. All are D+7 or better and the lowest Hispanic CVAP is 61% (in the San Antonio seat, where Hispanic turnout is much better anyway): https://davesredistricting.org/join/00406593-75bb-4edb-a5bb-0151b0077c9a

It certainly doesn't look attractive, but it gets the job done. I wouldn't recommend it (I think it's better to draw 2 Hispanic seats based on San Antonio and 3 in the RGV) but it's possible.

[Idaho Conservative]

Looking at this question from the other direction, is there in fact an argument that there needs to be an extra fajita district, because there are enough Hispanic voters in the RGV to control 4 districts?

To do that you'd create more marginal districts like the one that flipped in 2010.  Making TX-23 a performing district is the way to get an addition rgv district, and it's much cleaner.

You wouldn't have to. Here's a map with a performing TX-23, a Hispanic seat in San Antonio and 4 fajita strips. All are D+7 or better and the lowest Hispanic CVAP is 61% (in the San Antonio seat, where Hispanic turnout is much better anyway): https://davesredistricting.org/join/00406593-75bb-4edb-a5bb-0151b0077c9a

It certainly doesn't look attractive, but it gets the job done. I wouldn't recommend it (I think it's better to draw 2 Hispanic seats based on San Antonio and 3 in the RGV) but it's possible.

definetley 2 in San Antonio, 3 in the valley is a better arrangement.  Make Dogget's seat perform then add a white pack in Austin. 

[Idaho Conservative]

Note that this remainder district is actually a Safe Republican district (in the order of Trump+15). However the district is also firmly Hispanic, even by CVAP (around 58%). So whether this counts or not is an open question, though it probably doesn't.

Yeah that's the tricky thing about the VRA as it relates to Latinos, particularly in Texas; the majority of Mexican-Americans will vote for Democrats, but a substantial minority, particularly in the RGV, vote Republican. The result is that for the district to actually elect the Latino candidate of choice, the Latino % has to be fairly high (without packing) so that Whites won't select their preferred candidate with the support of the 20-30% of Hispanics who will prefer the Republican.

That sounds like partisan gerrymandering.  VRA seats should qualify so long as that group has a clear majority of the electorate.  If republicans are able to appeal to a substantial portion of the hispanic electorate, that isn't a failure of the district, it's a failure of the Democratic party.  The current TX-23 was upheld in court even though the candidate that wins the hispanic vote isn't guaranteed to win.  Hispanics still are a majority of the electorate and a candidate can't win without a significant portion of hispanic votes. 

[Idaho Conservative]

What if it’s largely Hispanic, but still elects a Republican?

Here's an example of that.  39 district map, 2018 pop.  Trump+9.  71% hispanic, 64% CVAP.  Taking in Odessa instead of the San Antonio suburbs really helps here.  The district need not be made noticeably less Hispanic than the current to be likely R.  

[kph14]

Note that this remainder district is actually a Safe Republican district (in the order of Trump+15). However the district is also firmly Hispanic, even by CVAP (around 58%). So whether this counts or not is an open question, though it probably doesn't.

Yeah that's the tricky thing about the VRA as it relates to Latinos, particularly in Texas; the majority of Mexican-Americans will vote for Democrats, but a substantial minority, particularly in the RGV, vote Republican. The result is that for the district to actually elect the Latino candidate of choice, the Latino % has to be fairly high (without packing) so that Whites won't select their preferred candidate with the support of the 20-30% of Hispanics who will prefer the Republican.

That sounds like partisan gerrymandering.  VRA seats should qualify so long as that group has a clear majority of the electorate.  If republicans are able to appeal to a substantial portion of the hispanic electorate, that isn't a failure of the district, it's a failure of the Democratic party.  The current TX-23 was upheld in court even though the candidate that wins the hispanic vote isn't guaranteed to win.  Hispanics still are a majority of the electorate and a candidate can't win without a significant portion of hispanic votes. 

The turnout differential between rural whites and rural hispanics is enormous though. That's also a factor helping Republicans in your district

[Greedo punched first]

What should be done when there's a turnout problem?

[Idaho Conservative]

Note that this remainder district is actually a Safe Republican district (in the order of Trump+15). However the district is also firmly Hispanic, even by CVAP (around 58%). So whether this counts or not is an open question, though it probably doesn't.

Yeah that's the tricky thing about the VRA as it relates to Latinos, particularly in Texas; the majority of Mexican-Americans will vote for Democrats, but a substantial minority, particularly in the RGV, vote Republican. The result is that for the district to actually elect the Latino candidate of choice, the Latino % has to be fairly high (without packing) so that Whites won't select their preferred candidate with the support of the 20-30% of Hispanics who will prefer the Republican.

That sounds like partisan gerrymandering.  VRA seats should qualify so long as that group has a clear majority of the electorate.  If republicans are able to appeal to a substantial portion of the hispanic electorate, that isn't a failure of the district, it's a failure of the Democratic party.  The current TX-23 was upheld in court even though the candidate that wins the hispanic vote isn't guaranteed to win.  Hispanics still are a majority of the electorate and a candidate can't win without a significant portion of hispanic votes. 

The turnout differential between rural whites and rural hispanics is enormous though. That's also a factor helping Republicans in your district

CVAP is relevant, turnout isn't.  Turnout is an individual choice.  if you choose not to vote, you get less influence, simple as that.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Note that this remainder district is actually a Safe Republican district (in the order of Trump+15). However the district is also firmly Hispanic, even by CVAP (around 58%). So whether this counts or not is an open question, though it probably doesn't.

Yeah that's the tricky thing about the VRA as it relates to Latinos, particularly in Texas; the majority of Mexican-Americans will vote for Democrats, but a substantial minority, particularly in the RGV, vote Republican. The result is that for the district to actually elect the Latino candidate of choice, the Latino % has to be fairly high (without packing) so that Whites won't select their preferred candidate with the support of the 20-30% of Hispanics who will prefer the Republican.

That sounds like partisan gerrymandering.  VRA seats should qualify so long as that group has a clear majority of the electorate.  If republicans are able to appeal to a substantial portion of the hispanic electorate, that isn't a failure of the district, it's a failure of the Democratic party.  The current TX-23 was upheld in court even though the candidate that wins the hispanic vote isn't guaranteed to win.  Hispanics still are a majority of the electorate and a candidate can't win without a significant portion of hispanic votes. 

The turnout differential between rural whites and rural hispanics is enormous though. That's also a factor helping Republicans in your district

CVAP is relevant, turnout isn't.  Turnout is an individual choice.  if you choose not to vote, you get less influence, simple as that.

That's your opinion, but is that the case law as it actually stands today?

Given that turnout is observably affected by a range of socioeconomic factors (even when different socioeconomic groups can all cast a ballot with the same ease, which is contestable) I would be somewhat sceptical of this argument.

However, I suspect the bigger problem is who actually counts as a member of the 'community' concerned. In West Texas, your Hispanic electorate is going to have fewer Mexican-Americans and more Tejanos than you'll find along the Rio Grande. Are they actually meaningfully the same community? Miami and the distinction between the Cuban population and the non-Cuban Hispanic population is relevant here.

[Battista Minola 1616]

Note that this remainder district is actually a Safe Republican district (in the order of Trump+15). However the district is also firmly Hispanic, even by CVAP (around 58%). So whether this counts or not is an open question, though it probably doesn't.

Yeah that's the tricky thing about the VRA as it relates to Latinos, particularly in Texas; the majority of Mexican-Americans will vote for Democrats, but a substantial minority, particularly in the RGV, vote Republican. The result is that for the district to actually elect the Latino candidate of choice, the Latino % has to be fairly high (without packing) so that Whites won't select their preferred candidate with the support of the 20-30% of Hispanics who will prefer the Republican.

That sounds like partisan gerrymandering.  VRA seats should qualify so long as that group has a clear majority of the electorate.  If republicans are able to appeal to a substantial portion of the hispanic electorate, that isn't a failure of the district, it's a failure of the Democratic party.  The current TX-23 was upheld in court even though the candidate that wins the hispanic vote isn't guaranteed to win.  Hispanics still are a majority of the electorate and a candidate can't win without a significant portion of hispanic votes. 

The turnout differential between rural whites and rural hispanics is enormous though. That's also a factor helping Republicans in your district

CVAP is relevant, turnout isn't.  Turnout is an individual choice.  if you choose not to vote, you get less influence, simple as that.

That's your opinion, but is that the case law as it actually stands today?

Given that turnout is observably affected by a range of socioeconomic factors (even when different socioeconomic groups can all cast a ballot with the same ease, which is contestable) I would be somewhat sceptical of this argument.

However, I suspect the bigger problem is who actually counts as a member of the 'community' concerned. In West Texas, your Hispanic electorate is going to have fewer Mexican-Americans and more Tejanos than you'll find along the Rio Grande. Are they actually meaningfully the same community? Miami and the distinction between the Cuban population and the non-Cuban Hispanic population is relevant here.

I believe that they can be considered the same community if they vote similarly. Of course the distinction in Miami is relevant because the Cuban areas may well vote 60% Republican while the non-Cuban Hispanic areas vote more than 60% Democratic.

Also, about "turnout" in the literal sense I would think that Idaho Conservative is in the right. However, it's very clear that there is a citizenship rate differential and a registration rate differential between Hispanics and non-Hispanics, and that is meaningful.

[Idaho Conservative]

Note that this remainder district is actually a Safe Republican district (in the order of Trump+15). However the district is also firmly Hispanic, even by CVAP (around 58%). So whether this counts or not is an open question, though it probably doesn't.

Yeah that's the tricky thing about the VRA as it relates to Latinos, particularly in Texas; the majority of Mexican-Americans will vote for Democrats, but a substantial minority, particularly in the RGV, vote Republican. The result is that for the district to actually elect the Latino candidate of choice, the Latino % has to be fairly high (without packing) so that Whites won't select their preferred candidate with the support of the 20-30% of Hispanics who will prefer the Republican.

That sounds like partisan gerrymandering.  VRA seats should qualify so long as that group has a clear majority of the electorate.  If republicans are able to appeal to a substantial portion of the hispanic electorate, that isn't a failure of the district, it's a failure of the Democratic party.  The current TX-23 was upheld in court even though the candidate that wins the hispanic vote isn't guaranteed to win.  Hispanics still are a majority of the electorate and a candidate can't win without a significant portion of hispanic votes. 

The turnout differential between rural whites and rural hispanics is enormous though. That's also a factor helping Republicans in your district

CVAP is relevant, turnout isn't.  Turnout is an individual choice.  if you choose not to vote, you get less influence, simple as that.

That's your opinion, but is that the case law as it actually stands today?

Given that turnout is observably affected by a range of socioeconomic factors (even when different socioeconomic groups can all cast a ballot with the same ease, which is contestable) I would be somewhat sceptical of this argument.

However, I suspect the bigger problem is who actually counts as a member of the 'community' concerned. In West Texas, your Hispanic electorate is going to have fewer Mexican-Americans and more Tejanos than you'll find along the Rio Grande. Are they actually meaningfully the same community? Miami and the distinction between the Cuban population and the non-Cuban Hispanic population is relevant here.

CVAP is the metric used, not turnout.  Turnout varies by election and can't be precisely measured by race.  But Battista Minola 1616 is correct in saying CVAP greatly influences turnout.  Also, the VRA simply protects minority racial and language groups.  Ethnicity isn't mentioned.  So under the VRA, there's no differentiation between Tejanos and Mexican-Americans. 

[Greedo punched first]

Tejanos are a specific subgroup of Mexican-American. I'm part Mexican-American, but not Tejano. Is partisanship even taken into account for what qualifies as a VRA district or not?

[Idaho Conservative]

Tejanos are a specific subgroup of Mexican-American. I'm part Mexican-American, but not Tejano. Is partisanship even taken into account for what qualifies as a VRA district or not?

Polarized voting is taken into account as to whether a vra district is necessary, but that doesn't necessarily mean party, as it could be white dem vs black dem or hispanic dem polarization.  Since TX-23 held up in court, I think that indicates partisanship isn't relevant.  But the CVAP required for a VRA seat 9/10 times means it's titanium D.  If partisanship was used, it woulds undermine the entire legitimacy of the concept of VRA districts.  Section 2 would then simply be a thinly veiled way to mandate democratic gerrymanders, rather than a law to guarantee minority representation.  Excluding partisanship still makes the law 90% as effective while maintaining an appearance of partisan neutrality.  That's why courts use CVAP rather than PVI to determine if a district performs or not. 

[Greedo punched first]

Has there ever been a Supreme Court case regarding partisanship as a factor in determining the status as a VRA district? Is partisanship considered, or is it race alone?