2020 Texas Redistricting thread

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

From what I’m seeing seems like the GOP is willing to do pretty intense gerrymanders but are still being cautious of the VRA; maybe they want to avoid the risk of the whole map being redrawn?

Yep.  This continues the trend of going to town on Houston and North Dallas while treading carefully elsewhere.

Do we think that district 10 is rural enough to hold for the decade?  

10 probably can last the entire decade.
If I had to guess, 12 is likely the most marginal come 2030, but it's hard to tell exactly.

Hmmm... I would think 6 would flip first if the state moves left.

It will come down to trends in Houston vs DFW metro and the relative baselines in 6 vs 12.
DFW metro does seem to be trending D faster than any other part of the state, and that is an argument in 12's favor.
What is the Biden % in those two seats?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I just want to note it's taken 18 years for Texas Republicans to go from attaching 50/50 rural areas to hyper Republican suburbs to gain power (DeLaymander) to attaching 50/50 suburbs to rural areas, now hyper Republican, to try to keep from losing power.

What goes around comes around.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Made this map without looking much at partisan data. This was the result.
Effort was made to keep counties whole and districts compact.

In Harris County I created a new Latino-opportunity CD. 29 now moves south to take ina reas all the way to the Galveston County border, while remaining likely Latino-controlled (Latino VAP in the high 50s). 2 is converted into a Latino seat that is 55% Latino VAP and 58% Latino in overall population. Meanwhile, 18 is redrawn to remain Black-controlled, taking in parts of Fort Bend and shifting south because of 2 having new borders. 7 is designed to be a "white sink" but this was infeasible and it really ends up as a coalition CD likely to elect an Anglo Democrat. 9 is probably Black-controlled still but has a major Latino plurality in the neighborhood of the 40s. All these CDs are basically safe Dem in Anno Domini 2021. 25 is R-leaning, and 36 takes in a fair bit of northeastern Harris County, including Kingwood.

In Metro DFW, 6 districts are nested within Dallas and Tarrant, including a district drawn to elect a Black Democrat (30) and an Latino Democrat (33). 6 was redrawn to have as many Latinos and Blacks as possible while continuing to be clean. 32 is a left-overs CD that voted Biden by 12. Meanwhile 24 moves west and under these lines votes Trump by 12. And 12 becomes more marginal, while remaining firmly GOP-leaning. Collin County was split between three districts, with a compact district (3) taking in the southwestern quadrant. 4 loses a lot of area in the western half of Collin County, which in turn is taken by the new district, 38. 38 takes in leftovers from Collin and Denton and a bunch of exurban counties. Together, 3, 4, and 5 surround the metroplex's urban counties.

The fajitas were tweaked with the help of partisan data. Nonetheless, TX-15 voted for Biden by only 228 votes. If this district starts to cease being performing then it would have to be tweaked. Two performing Latino seats are nested within Bexar. 10 continues to run from Harris to Travis. 37, a new district, takes in most of Travis County, and 31 now takes in a small slice of Travis.

As this map was drawn largely without regard for partisan data and sought to create districts within big counties, it was pretty structurally Dem-favoring, and Biden won 21 of 38 seats. The median district voted for him by 2 points, which produces an even larger Dem geographic bias than in normal elections and evidently reflects Biden's improvement in many suburban areas. I would thus categorize it as a fair-non-partisan map, not a fair-proportional map. The latter would probably take steps that favor Rs in some areas, such as removing the Travis portion of 31 and replacing it with blood red rurals.

Here's the details.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It appears that it is more likely that Fletcher (and maybe even Allred?) are going to get screwed in redistricting as they really want Wesley Hunt to run for Congress. I wouldn't be surprised to see if the GOP proposes a 27 R - 11 D map in the coming weeks.

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/23/texas-congress-redistricting-fletcher/

We shall see how TX-07 is dealt with by the GOP.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It appears that it is more likely that Fletcher (and maybe even Allred?) are going to get screwed in redistricting as they really want Wesley Hunt to run for Congress. I wouldn't be surprised to see if the GOP proposes a 27 R - 11 D map in the coming weeks.

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/23/texas-congress-redistricting-fletcher/

If the Texas GOP really want to draw one of them out, Fletcher's probably the better option. The trends in the Houston area aren't nearly as ugly as they are in Dallas.

I feel certain that Allred is the worse one for Rs to draw out. Houston is still fairly dependent on fossil fuel industries, unlike the Metroplex.
There's reason for the fact that trends in Houston aren't as bad for Rs as in Dallas.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

So, as expected, they left Fletcher alone.
The demands of incumbents took precedence over the flipping of recently lost seats.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

So, as expected, they left Fletcher alone.
The demands of incumbents took precedence over the flipping of recently lost seats.

Is the TXGOP trying to prevent a dummymander?

It doesn't seem to have been their intentional goal, but in most of the state, it seems as though they did this as a by-product.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Better for Dems short term, worse for Dems long term. I’ll take it.

the most-of-Collin CD looks like a feasible long-term flip. I'm a bit surprised they left it this vulnerable, tbh.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Anyone else notice that 11 takes in a bunch of Dem-friendly precincts in Bell County? It's fine things like this that show how finely this entire map is balanced in many ways.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Yes, mine was a much better Pubmander, and legal. It is almost always a mistake to try to get inside the heads of TX Pubs, much less assume that they have some modicum of rationality.

A good share of the ridiculousness is pretty obviously because of incumbent concerns and incumbent self-interest/demands winning out over what would be a more rational but equal/more effective configuration. For example, TX-04 is the way it is because Rockwall County is in the current district and they apparently want that to stay due to incumbency there, but they also want to help take Dem votes from TX-03 to keep TX-03 safely R, hence the ridiculous dual tentacles to Rockwall on the one hand also to Biden-voting Dem-trending parts of Plano/Frisco on the other hand.

Similarly, TX-10 ridiculously goes through a narrow strip to get to combine West Austin and a bunch of rural areas to the east of Austin. The reason for that is to take in Mike McCaul's home in west Austin, while also including the rural areas that he currently represents and which are the parts that make it safely R. Actually, tbh it looks like the new proposed TX-10 is actually more of a rural district than a suburban district at this point (not only having very little of Austin, but also having entirely exited Harris County now). If McCaul were to retire, this district would end up getting represented by a rural R I am pretty sure.

This map is very much incumbent-driven. It's perhaps the spiritual successor to the 2013-2023 MD map in that regard.
You have a good point on the 10th. Eyeballing it, about 50% or so of the population is in rurals outside of Travis and Williamson? Which is a sizable shift.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Well, the Texas Pubs clearly did not take my advice, and yes, they should be sued, and then sued some more (probably for precisely the opposite reasons Gass has in mind but whatever). The below image has to be competitive with MD in insane erosity. I get that TX-33 was an attempt to do a crude Hispanic pack, but what is TX-04 all about? 

TX-04 is basically about taking a lot of the more Dem trending areas of the north Dallas area and sinking them into rural areas so that the Dem trending areas votes don't count and they are disenfranchised.

Specifically, it takes a lot of the more Dem parts of Plano (which also tend to have higher Asian populations), so that the less Dem and generally more white parts of Plano can be kept in TX-03 and keep TX-03 safely Republican.

It also looks like it includes a lot of Frisco, which is very diverse, extremely fast growing, and rapidly Dem trending (similar to Fort Bend County in the Houston area, with a large Asian population as well as rapidly growing black (and Hispanic) population). And since it is suburban, it is also relatively high turnout. In other words, it is exactly the sort of area that is increasingly toxic for the GOP.

A sort of somewhat comparable area is the Bear Creek part of West Houston, which flipped Dem earlier than the more white parts of West Houston which turned against Trum, and which look like they are now mostly in the proposed TX-08 so that Wesley Hunt can win the proposed TX-38.

So they all get stuck in TX-04 with a bunch of non-college unvaxxed white rural voters who would sooner commit suicide by COVID (and in fact have been doing so over the past few months) than even consider voting Dem.

That is what TX-04 is all about, thanks for asking! 

The 1990s called, they want their gerrymandering ideas back.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

So why did they decide to go MD-02/03/04 on DFW and also be so polite everywhere else?   

Metro DFW is shifting Dem faster, so they had to get nastier. Simple.

In Tarrant, it looks like they drew TX-24 for Van Duyne, then they drew TX-32 and TX-33 as Dem sinks around it, but they were left with too much territory south of TX-33 for just TX-6 so that’s why you have those disastrous tentacles and two districts coming in. Just my guess.

I don't disagree.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This map is very much incumbent-driven. It's perhaps the spiritual successor to the 2013-2023 MD map in that regard.
You have a good point on the 10th. Eyeballing it, about 50% or so of the population is in rurals outside of Travis and Williamson? Which is a sizable shift.

It is more like 2/3 of the district is outside Travis and Williamson. Whereas before the rural areas of TX-10 helped it to stay R, but a big part of the contribution was also made by Harris County. Whereas it is obviously way too risky now to keep a Travis + Harris + some rurals seat now and expect it to stay R, even though the part of Harris that was in his district was R, it was Dem trending like the rest of the TX suburbs, so they not only made the Travis portion a lot smaller, but also entirely dumped the Harris portion.

I did the math and I'd guess about 2/3. Holy moly.
This sure is the Micheal McCaul Lifetime Employment Act.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I did the math and I'd guess about 2/3. Holy moly.
This sure is the Micheal McCaul Lifetime Employment Act.

It is probably not a coincidence that McCaul was the lead Congressional Republican coordinating the map between TX Congressional Rs and state legislative Rs that were drawing the maps and the fact that he managed to end up with a much more rural (but rural areas that know him) and safe district which will re-elect him as long as he wants, whereas a lot of the other vulnerable TX suburban Rs still have relatively more suburban districts that should be pretty safe, but where it is at least theoretically possible they may not be by the end of the decade (TX-24, TX-3, TX-22).

I was not aware that McCaul was the lead coordinator, but it does make a lot of sense. Merely looking at the map, it's pretty clear that Micheal McCaul looked out for the interests of Micheal McCaul.
Also, I joked earlier about this being 1990s gerrymandering tactics being back, but then, I saw the lines in Denton County...
What goes around does come around.
The precinct in which I lived for 8 years is now in a CD that borders New Mexico.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

In Tarrant, it looks like they drew TX-24 for Van Duyne, then they drew TX-32 and TX-33 as Dem sinks around it, but they were left with too much territory south of TX-33 for just TX-6 so that’s why you have those disastrous tentacles and two districts coming in. Just my guess.

About half a district worth of "excess" territory. Classic gerrymander. You combine a lot of marginal territory with solid territory to create a safe CD, rather than smaller bits of very hostile territory. With very hostile territory it gets very inefficient and exhausting (c.f.,  the quin chop of Travis).



The Torie metric of trying to make gerrymanders look as pretty as possible was just not in play here now, was it? 

How did the new 6th, minus Dallas and Tarrant, vote? 72% Trump?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

How did the new 6th, minus Dallas and Tarrant, vote? 72% Trump?

71-28

And to think there were thoughts in my head that were going "Oh, 72 percent seems a bit high"...

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Basically, there doesn't seem to be enough Latinos that there's a ironclad argument for a second seat.
There will be one in 2030, but in 2020 it's more unclear. TX GOPers have the space to defend the map they have made.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Basically, there doesn't seem to be enough Latinos that there's a ironclad argument for a second seat.
There will be one in 2030, but in 2020 it's more unclear. TX GOPers have the space to defend the map they have made.

There are plenty of Latinos in the Houston area for 2 Hispanic seats (there were actually plenty in 2010 as well!). See the map I just posted. I could have gotten the Hispanic population %s even higher if I were spending more time on it, changing more districts and drawing a map from scratch rather than just editing a few districts in the R proposal. Probably the way to get the highest Hispanic population percentage on the new west-side Hispanic VRA district would be to include some of the heavily Hispanic areas in southwest Houston which are currently in TX-09 & TX-07, which I left entirely untouched. And I was still able to easily draw 2 2/3+ Hispanic districts in a very short amount of time with no real effort required.

Oh, I don't doubt it's possible.
But whether or not such a seat can be drawn is different than if such a district will be drawn. It is possible to draw an extra black seat in Mississippi even in 2010, but I don't see such a district on the map today, and the drawing of such a district in 2020 is a very dubious proposition unless the votes for it exist in the legislature (Translation: it's not happening).
Overwhelming numbers of a group is enough to oblige the drawing of such a district, even over the wishes of the state government; the critical mass to force an R trifecta into drawing a second Latino seat will be there in 2030, but it's far from a certain bet in 2020.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Basically, there doesn't seem to be enough Latinos that there's a ironclad argument for a second seat.
There will be one in 2030, but in 2020 it's more unclear. TX GOPers have the space to defend the map they have made.

There are plenty of Latinos in the Houston area for 2 Hispanic seats (there were actually plenty in 2010 as well!). See the map I just posted. I could have gotten the Hispanic population %s even higher if I were spending more time on it, changing more districts and drawing a map from scratch rather than just editing a few districts in the R proposal. Probably the way to get the highest Hispanic population percentage on the new west-side Hispanic VRA district would be to include some of the heavily Hispanic areas in southwest Houston which are currently in TX-09 & TX-07, which I left entirely untouched. And I was still able to easily draw 2 2/3+ Hispanic districts in a very short amount of time with no real effort required.

Oh, I don't doubt it's possible.
But whether or not such a seat can be drawn is different than if such a district will be drawn. It is possible to draw an extra black seat in Mississippi even in 2010, but I don't see such a district on the map today, and the drawing of such a district in 2020 is a very dubious proposition unless the votes for it exist in the legislature (Translation: it's not happening).
Overwhelming numbers of a group is enough to oblige the drawing of such a district, even over the wishes of the state government; the critical mass to force an R trifecta into drawing a second Latino seat will be there in 2030, but it's far from a certain bet in 2020.

I know no instance where a Gingles seat could be drawn (a "compact" 50% CVAP minority seat), that was not due to a gerrymander screwing the subject minority out of a seat. Do you?
If one blows off that metric, one is betting that either the Blacks v. Hispanics case will not be litigated, or SCOTUS will water down Gingles. The thing is, is that per Gingles, in Houston the blacks are legally entitled to but one seat, and Hispanics two. The Pub map is the opposite. That seems crazy to me. I don't know what I am missing.

There were cases of black Democrats in state legislatures teaming up with Republicans to add VRA seats, but I don't know to what extent that is applicable here, because some of that history precedes the decision that put in place the Gingles test.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Basically, there doesn't seem to be enough Latinos that there's a ironclad argument for a second seat.
There will be one in 2030, but in 2020 it's more unclear. TX GOPers have the space to defend the map they have made.

There are plenty of Latinos in the Houston area for 2 Hispanic seats (there were actually plenty in 2010 as well!). See the map I just posted. I could have gotten the Hispanic population %s even higher if I were spending more time on it, changing more districts and drawing a map from scratch rather than just editing a few districts in the R proposal. Probably the way to get the highest Hispanic population percentage on the new west-side Hispanic VRA district would be to include some of the heavily Hispanic areas in southwest Houston which are currently in TX-09 & TX-07, which I left entirely untouched. And I was still able to easily draw 2 2/3+ Hispanic districts in a very short amount of time with no real effort required.

Oh, I don't doubt it's possible.
But whether or not such a seat can be drawn is different than if such a district will be drawn. It is possible to draw an extra black seat in Mississippi even in 2010, but I don't see such a district on the map today, and the drawing of such a district in 2020 is a very dubious proposition unless the votes for it exist in the legislature (Translation: it's not happening).
Overwhelming numbers of a group is enough to oblige the drawing of such a district, even over the wishes of the state government; the critical mass to force an R trifecta into drawing a second Latino seat will be there in 2030, but it's far from a certain bet in 2020.

I know no instance where a Gingles seat could be drawn (a "compact" 50% CVAP minority seat), that was not due to a gerrymander screwing the subject minority out of a seat. Do you?
If one blows off that metric, one is betting that either the Blacks v. Hispanics case will not be litigated, or SCOTUS will water down Gingles. The thing is, is that per Gingles, in Houston the blacks are legally entitled to but one seat, and Hispanics two. The Pub map is the opposite. That seems crazy to me. I don't know what I am missing.

There were cases of black Democrats in state legislatures teaming up with Republicans to add VRA seats, but I don't know to what extent that is applicable here, because some of that history precedes the decision that put in place the Gingles test.

Adding VRA seats is different than not adding VRA seats, but allocating them to the "wrong" minority.

Aaaah I see.
So the issue with the TX map is that it might have "converted" a black seat into a Hispanic one?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

(the insets are all of the same scale, fyi)
https://davesredistricting.org/join/3bf84bc6-2dee-47d3-898c-e7d3058ea340
Made this Texas State House map, with emphasis on compactness, staying within municipal lines, and drawing minority seats when possible, while also avoiding packing (this is visible in areas such as Central Houston). I did not let partisanship be a major factor in how I drew the districts.
By my reckoning, Biden won 75 seats. DRA even rates this map as "anti-majoritarian".

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Remember that the map is only a dummymander if it fails to deliver net gains over the decade as a whole.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I'm honestly really surprised that Kay Granger was willing to take a seat that could flip within 10 years.

Remember that the map is only a dummymander if it fails to deliver net gains over the decade as a whole.

I do think that's possible honestly, consensus seems to Democrats gain at least two (24 and 3) and possibly more (38, 21, etc.), for the Republicans 15 is a plausible pickup and maybe 28 if RGV trends continue, though I'm less sure about that one given it's more urban parts of the RGV like Hidalgo and Webb which shifted much less than the rural parts and also has a sizable chunk of Bexar County, 34 is not flipping unless we see 2016->2020 shifts replicated multiple times, which seems unlikely imo.

I meant net gains as in net gains relative to perhaps the average of what "neutral" maps would produce. It's not a very well-defined thing though.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

How many seats did Beto win?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Change in Collin County for the House Map as they have drawn a Democratic pack.

https://twitter.com/PatrickSvitek/status/1445463242239668233?s=20

The GOP vote in that county is poorly distributed, isn't it?