2020 Texas Redistricting thread

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The Texas RGV results are going to be good for the GOP to argue in redistricting.

Not really. What matters is congressional electoral results, not presidential.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The Texas RGV results are going to be good for the GOP to argue in redistricting.

Not really. What matters is congressional electoral results, not presidential.

Cuellar and Gonzalez are only leading by 3 rn.

Decision desk shows Cuellar winning by 13, Vela by 11, Ortez-Jones by 19. Only close race is Gonzalez, who is only 3 ahead.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

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.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

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.

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=366539.msg7700855#msg7700855
What were your overall thoughts on this map anyway? It didn't get any commentary of any kind.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Don't pay too much attention to the specific label I used in the image url "fairpartisan", or the specific district numbering.
One aim I had with this one is increasing the number of minority-influenced districts. I also tried to be non-partisan for the most part, drawing districts mostly or wholely within large, populous counties. When I was done I edited districts in some areas to create a majority of Trump districts. I achieved a disproportionality of just -1.38% using 2016 presidential results. Throughout, I tried to keep compactness preserved in some form, but this map places it unusually low in priority, relative to my other maps.

In Harris County, the Latino seat remains safe for the Hispanic candidate of choice, while the black seat becomes less Hispanic overall. There are 2 coalition districts within Harris and one within Fort Bend. A district is drawn in western Harris that is Trump+5; Culberson likely wins here in 2018 if it existed back then. Along the border, only two CDs take from Hidalgo. In metro DFW, there is a black seat and a Latino seat, as well as two minority influence CDs. There is also a district drawn to withstand pro-Clinton swings in northern Dallas County, combining all of Rockwall County with the Park Cities. Not sure if it went for Biden; it might have. But Sessions would have been re-elected here in 2018.

There are 20 Trump districts and 19 Clinton districts.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/96dbe077-f1d1-4975-a6d0-5817515cc2fa

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I put the same map up, with mostly the same comments, at RRH, for comment, and one regular referred me to his map, which generated this response back from me, for your entertainment.

The one below? That map I would file away into the “poster child” file, although we both channeled the bisection of Cameron County as part of the Pub-nap of the CD along the Gulf of Mexico.

The idea is when the other party says hideous gerrymander, I am as made as hell, it’s time to lash back, and I am going to sue, get something on the ballot, etc., the party holding the pen, parries that thrust with what on earth are you talking about? We don’t see a gerrymander here at all, it’s a good government map, it’s all about respecting COI’s (we have our talking points for every line on the map, we respected municipal lines, and see we gave you a bone here (c.f., Ft. Bend County in my map), because we, as always, are fair and balanced, unlike what you predatory jerks would be like if you controlled the lines).

So far, I don’t think I am making much progress as to my little project with you guys, but I accept full responsibility for my miserable fail at that. I actually like all my character flaws at this point in my life. It is like your smelly old shoe, that you still wear, because it is just so comfortable a fit 🙂

Trump 2016 lost my TX-08 by 3 points by the way, close to a neutral PVI for that election. It will be interesting to find out down the line how Trump 2020 did within those lines when the data becomes available.

https://i.imgur.com/ubxUrKf.png

This map has the looks of a continuity map of sorts from the 2010s map, like how the 2003-2005 map had the looks of a continuity map from the 1997-2003 one.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Thoughts on the choices this map made and the overall impact this had on the map overall?
https://davesredistricting.org/join/886aa4fd-4622-4a21-a446-14f9354f8f04

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I don't know what your choices were that led to this but I feel there are a lot of districts that just hoover up the remaining space with no real COIs or anything. Having said that I think your map is similar to mine in a lot of ways.

Any districts that specifically come to mind here?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

District 19 from the coast, through Bryan to past Waco. I know I had a district that went from the coast to near Austin, and another from the coast to Hays county, but it seems a bit far. I also didn't like how parts of Bexar county were attached to districts 35 and 38, which left other areas being attached to 31 and 32. It depends what your upper limit for Hispanic CVAP is, I suppose. If you had kept Travis to two districts it would've been more logical in my view, then 34 could've hoovered up North Bexar and 35 eaten into 16. The final one I'm not as keen on is District 8. If you have to go northwards I would've put the rest of Tarrant into a district with parts of Denton and the remaining parts of Denton with the OK border, or mixed it all up with District 12 and had another Tarrant only district.

I hope I haven't been too critical! I'm sure you could find objections to my map.

I think the source of those districts was ultimately me amping up my usual tendency to segregate urban and rural, combined with my tendency to want CDs solely within Fort Bend, Denton, and Collin. I also found a whole county CD combination taking in Central Texas, so that pushed the Williamson CD south into Travis.
I was wanting to create a ring of exurban districts around the major suburban counties, so I had a northern one, a western one, and a southern one.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

thoughts on this take on Southeast Texas?
https://davesredistricting.org/join/0271fb4f-bd99-4bd4-810a-903bf5279b79

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This is a GOPmander that is single-mindedly focused on shoring up GOP seats, staying in line with past convention, and trying to endure throughout at least the majority of the 2020s.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/934b2cfa-3dd4-4cc4-b6a9-fddd4130536e

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

We need to keep TX-6 reasonably Republican for when Big Dan Rodimer is elected to statewide office.

TX-6 under my map is R+19, pretty much safe R for most of the 2020s.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Does the TXGOP care about protecting Republican incumbents, or would they not hesitate to draw out incumbents in their own party?

I'd say there aren't really any parties willing to draw out their own incumbents, unless said incumbent is just "the worst" or has given their blessing to do so (either to coincide with a retirement or to climb the political ladder). The TXGOP is no exception.

I know the NCGOP drew a 10R-3D map in 2010 instead of an 11R-2D one because 11-2 would draw out incumbent Republicans. I thought states like Texas and Florida don't give a rat's patootie about incumbent protection and would draw out incumbent GOP politicians in a heartbeat.

There is many a case legislators have allies in the state legislature that will protect them in the unlikely scenario they are targeted by enough of their own party for them to be at risk of being screwed over.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Oh wow. Only +2 TX? Goodbye new seat in Metro Houston.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Any chance the republicans don't draw an Austin Sink, maybe hoping for a post-trump suburban trend reversion ?

There's a chance, but it's probably a very small chance.
Them not drawing a second sink is much more likely.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Quick-and-dirty non partisan map.
Any thoughts?
https://davesredistricting.org/join/0ea32d1f-d9ee-4661-a195-53cb8d35f831

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

What was the rationale for getting rid of the fajita strips in the RGV? I haven't been paying close enough attention to your posts these last 10 years to understand why this changed.

TX-33 was drawn to maximize Hispanic population in the Metroplex.

The decision requiring them was 5/4 liberals + Kennedy, so there is a general expectation it will/would be overturned if a more compact RGV map was drawn this time.

I'll believe the fajitas are going to be gone when it is indeed clear they are dead and buried. The threshold for a district that reliably elects the Latino community candidate of choice in this part of the state is quite high.
Some over 90%+ Latino CVAP seat only taking in parts of one or two border counties directly alongside Mexico is simply packing the Latino vote to an unacceptable degree. (Same reason why they have fajitas in South Florida too)
And a district hovering in mid-50s or low 60s Latino CVAP is not a performing district, not when the clear majority of votes cast in the district are on part of non-Latino white voters.
If there was a more elegant way to preserve the Latino community's agency in regards to deserved representation, and/or if Latino community candidate of choice is no longer really quite as relevant, I can very easily see the fajitas gone. Until then, Texas Rs probably have to just have to live with them.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

What was the rationale for getting rid of the fajita strips in the RGV? I haven't been paying close enough attention to your posts these last 10 years to understand why this changed.

TX-33 was drawn to maximize Hispanic population in the Metroplex.

The decision requiring them was 5/4 liberals + Kennedy, so there is a general expectation it will/would be overturned if a more compact RGV map was drawn this time.

I'll believe the fajitas are going to be gone when it is indeed clear they are dead and buried. The threshold for a district that reliably elects the Latino community candidate of choice in this part of the state is quite high.
Some over 90%+ Latino CVAP seat only taking in parts of one or two border counties directly alongside Mexico is simply packing the Latino vote to an unacceptable degree. (Same reason why they have fajitas in South Florida too)
And a district hovering in mid-50s or low 60s Latino CVAP is not a performing district, not when the clear majority of votes cast in the district are on part of non-Latino white voters.
If there was a more elegant way to preserve the Latino community's agency in regards to deserved representation, and/or if Latino community candidate of choice is no longer really quite as relevant, I can very easily see the fajitas gone. Until then, Texas Rs probably have to just have to live with them.

You think the VRA requires something erose, when a CD drawn pursuant to neutral redistricting principles just happens to pack? The issue is that the real estate is empty around the RGV population nodes. I have never read anything under section 2 that suggests that you have to draw something that looks like a clear gerrymander to reduce packing. The only possible exception to some degree would be where Gingles triggers the need for another performing minority CD. It is also not clear at all that you need to draw something clearly in excess of 50% HCVAP, particularly via gerrymandering, solely because it is still not performing due to low Hispanic turnout. Finally, if RGV Hispanics continue to cast 40%+ for GOP candidates, it seems reasonably likely to me that Section 2 and Gingles will cease to apply to the area at all.

Hey, and then  maybe it would come back if RGV Hispanics start voting heavily GOP ala the Miami area Hispanics, and the Dems want to slice and dice them, so that the white wokesters in Austin can dominate the RGV - LULAC in reverse. 

Erosity is not really very important in the RGV; Latino representation is much more relevant. I agree that if South Texas Latinos regularly vote 40%+ GOP a la 2020, then yes, the argument for keeping the fajitas weakens considerably, but there is not remotely enough evidence for that happening enough that it is wise to ditch them presently. Remember though that presidential election results are not an argument for one way or the other in this, at least by themselves - the most directly important thing is house level results.
The map I recently posted with 4 fajitas actually is substantially weak enough on this front I wasn't very happy at all with it. Not sure how that'd be remedied.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This is what peak performance looks like.
I started in South Texas this time, as opposed to East Texas which is where I normally begin.
The two median districts (under 2012/2016 PVI) are R+3 and D+3 compared to the state, which makes them together mirror the state perfectly.
Under 2016 presidential figures, Disproportionality is 0.00% - making it the most proportional map I have ever made.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/1c1a3329-066c-4f19-8457-e4c9d2c209ea

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Britain33, you need to have two Democratic performing Hispanic CD's contained entirely in Bexar County to be safe under the VRA in my opinion.

Tim, FWIW, under a somewhat different kind of rule of proportionality, using PVI, if the PVI for Texas is say 6% R (not sure what it is exactly), there is a Muon2 formula of proportionality, wherein the Pubs should have 50% + (6% x 2) = 62% of the 28 districts. Swing districts are split between the parties under this formula for purposes of the count, or excluded entirely from the pie, with the remaining portion divided 62% to 38%. (I think he likes the latter and I the former, but my memory is not as good as it once was sadly.) I think Muon2 defines swing as between -1.49% to +1.49% R PVI.

I'm aware of the Muon formula. I just find the DRA proportionality measurement too convenient not to widely use.
It goes without saying that multiple legitimate definitions of proportionality can exist at the same time  too.
I'm interested in how the Muon rules would rate my TX map above in fact.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

If McCaul lives in Austin, isn't that his problem if he wants to remain an R in Congress?

If he has to move, he's going to move. These days, having a secure seat trumps having your residence kept in the district, in case the two conflict.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I'm playing around with two configuration for 38 seat Texas:

The first one adds new seats in Dallas and Austin, the second adds them in Dallas and Houston. I had two goals for these maps: 1. shore up as many incumbents as possible to survive the decade, 2. create a map that is an aggressive gerrymander but avoids issues of racial gerrymandering and should be protected from a court challenge

First map (new seats Dallas and Austin): https://davesredistricting.org/join/d971787d-2cf3-499a-bac8-3d86769e2c32
Second map (new seats Dallas and Houston): https://davesredistricting.org/join/b2735b10-a885-4451-aaa1-fe4e73442540

So, some interesting observations: 1. It is fully possible to draw a competitive fajita without creating Hispanic packs or adding way too many white voters into the seat, 2. it is very difficult to shore up the Collin County seat due to its large size and also its rapid Dem trends, 3. Not adding one of the two new seats in Austin spells disaster for several GOP incumbents and further shows why there needs to be not just 1 Austin sink, but 1.5 (new seat+Doggett), 4. even in the the first map, some Austin area incumbents could become vulnerable simply due to the broad spread of Dem votes in Austin and it isn't an easy problem to fix, but much better than the alternative.

Interested to hear feedback on this, I spent around 5-6 hours working on these two maps.

I chose not to do an Austin and Houston new seat map because seeing the rate of bluing in the DFW Metroplex, the GOP would be braindead not to add a new seat there and looking at the results from the 2nd map, it's pretty clear that it'd be some version of a dummymander.

I'd say these pretty efficiently use the GOP vote. At the same time, they probably both are a bit too messy (hard to see that 38th actually being in a real enacted map).
Houston area lines in Map 1 are pretty much pitch-perfect for a GOP gerrymander. Both Maps 1 and 2 crack the Austin area effectively, but I would agree with the idea 2 is safer. At the same time, 1's lines in Austin look better.
It would be interesting to see you do Austin and Houston, even if that is not the most efficient for the GOP probably.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Is it easy to create two fairly compact 50+% Hispanic CVAP districts in Houston?

With or without a separate black district?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Getting 2 majority Latino CVAP seats in Houston is hard, let alone 2 performing Latino seats
there, or 2 compact majority Latino CVAP ones.
It'd be easier if there was another district, but it is what it is.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Is it easy to create two fairly compact 50+% Hispanic CVAP districts in Houston?

With or without a separate black district?

With one.

Does this qualify?
https://davesredistricting.org/join/f836a004-6377-4eee-9f44-fae59e10ef5c