US House Redistricting: Texas

[minionofmidas]

Also, if its a straight "They Have to vote for Democrats" Rule, there's really no point in even submitting a map

That, IMHO, is basically why the court (and for the court, read Anthony Kennedy, I suppose...) hasn't really spelled out or even fully thought through what its recent decisions tend to - that the VRA renders gerrymandering per se illegal in minority-impacted areas. Push him too much with a whole series of 56% VAP Hispanic, 50% Citizen VAP Hispanic, 54% Republican districts, though, and you run the very real risk of eventually getting just that verdict.

[minionofmidas]

As to the map, not too crazy in some parts, just plain lol in others. (Have a look at what they drew for Granger! )
How safe are some of those DFW seats going to remain over the decade, though? Barton's seat is actually plurality Hispanic. (So is Farenthold's new district of course, but that looks safe to me.)

They don't have to always vote for the preferred Hispanic candidate. Just often enough that the Hispanic voting influence is not clearly being diluted. (And what they did with Farenthold reflects that; he got a safe seat, and they created a new Hispanic seat to replace the Farenthold seat.)

TX-23 is similar; it can elect Republicans sometimes, it just has to generally reflect Hispanic voter will. Which the old probably does, but the new one probably does not and may get thrown out. (It would be easy enough to up the Democratic percentage anyway--Corpus has a bunch of Hispanics who could be taken, for example, and the new TX-28 and TX-15 are packed more than they need to be.)

And, yes, the map does have to be 24-12. Or, at least, it has to be at least 24-10-2 or so.

Even the current Court map has no real possibility of a 12th dem district without Chet Edwards. They're capped at 11.

This is a 24-10-2 map. Only, the two (23 and 25) are lean R seats, not pure tossups. This is assuming the DFW carveup is belived to be certain to hold - I can't judge that. I assume the 10th would be fool's gold in 2006/8 repeat conditions, just like its previous incarnation.

[minionofmidas]

Yeah, I'm guilty of simplification: once it's gone Republican it stays that way. It's just not actually a guaranteed pickup. Though maybe they already recruited Doggett's challenger, and it's a strong one?

I mean, this is Doggett's electoral history with his current district, which after all is far from a purely Austin Dem vote sink itself:

2006       68-26
2008       66-30         
2010       53-45

Seven points ahead of Obama in 2008. The man's not entirely unelectable to rural whites versus some random R bloke unless they're in 2010 mood. Though it's worth pointing out that he gets a new set of rural whites this time, of course.

(Or of course he just chicken-moves to the Hispanic seat again. And then the whole discussion is moot.)

[minionofmidas]

Also, if its a straight "They Have to vote for Democrats" Rule, there's really no point in even submitting a map

That, IMHO, is basically why the court (and for the court, read Anthony Kennedy, I suppose...) hasn't really spelled out or even fully thought through what its recent decisions tend to - that the VRA renders gerrymandering per se illegal in minority-impacted areas. Push him too much with a whole series of 56% VAP Hispanic, 50% Citizen VAP Hispanic, 54% Republican districts, though, and you run the very real risk of eventually getting just that verdict.

But That's the thing, what if you you draw such a district that isn't a gerrymander at all? 

It would presumably still be legit even in that scenario - just as no one believes the South Bronx must be diluted down to 60% nonwhite. I think that TX-23 they drew should pass muster, for instance. Which is probably why they didn't shore up Canseco more. Wouldn't have been very hard to do.

[minionofmidas]

Have a look at precinct results in Texas. You don't find many Hispanic-dominated areas voting anywhere near 40% Republican. (There are a few, yes. Mostly the nicer parts of the Lower Valley, which are also the parts that have an Anglo minority presence. Though there are pockets elsewhere.) Two things are happening here: Those Hispanics (or sometimes "Hispanics") not living in Hispanic areas but rather among the White suburbanites tend, in Texas, to vote Republican (if at a lesser rate than their Anglo neighbors). They are also more likely to vote at all. These folks don't meet the Gingles test, the VRA wasn't meant for them. The Barrios do.

[minionofmidas]

Have a look at precinct results in Texas. You don't find many Hispanic-dominated areas voting anywhere near 40% Republican. (There are a few, yes. Mostly the nicer parts of the Lower Valley, which are also the parts that have an Anglo minority presence. Though there are pockets elsewhere.) Two things are happening here: Those Hispanics (or sometimes "Hispanics") not living in Hispanic areas but rather among the White suburbanites tend, in Texas, to vote Republican (if at a lesser rate than their Anglo neighbors). They are also more likely to vote at all. These folks don't meet the Gingles test, the VRA wasn't meant for them. The Barrios do.

Well, the problem then is that those areas are the ones seeing large increases in Hispanic growth rather than the Barrios. 

True enough, of course. True enough. (What else to expect when the concept of "Hispanic" is specifically defined so as to include anybody with any Hispanic ancestry whatsoever?)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Although those rural Hispanics don't vote 40% Republican, actually. (Those northeast of Corpus seem to to, though.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. That seems to be exactly what everybody but uber-partisan Republicans (as in, more so than the Republican state house leadership) seems to be arguing. -_-

Fun fact: Every single Hispanic Republican lives in a Democratic district. Every single one. This is due to the fact that all Hispanics live in Hispanic-majority Democratic districts. Every single Hispanic in the country. Very interesting, huh?

TX-17 is a Democratic district?

I'm not entirely sure what Red was even trying to say in the bit you quoted... Flores is, of course, whiter than me of countenance*, an army-bases-bred Southern Baptist, and doesn't speak a word of Spanish. But is apparently of "part Spanish" ancestry - around election time, I had looked for something to clear up the matter of this white dude with a Spanish surname, couldn't find anything on him personally, but found that the name also exists in Italy (where it's considered a Napolitan name), and left him tentatively at "not Hispanic". But apparently he is, sort of.

*Mind you, so are all the Cuban-American politicos including Bob Menendez - But Cuba's demographics are very different from Mexico's or New Mexico's. And G.K. Butterfield.

[minionofmidas]

Fun fact: Every single Hispanic Republican lives in a Democratic district. Every single one. This is due to the fact that all Hispanics live in Hispanic-majority Democratic districts. Every single Hispanic in the country. Very interesting, huh?

TX-17 is a Democratic district?

I'm not entirely sure what Red was even trying to say in the bit you quoted... Flores is, of course, whiter than me of countenance*, an army-bases-bred Southern Baptist, and doesn't speak a word of Spanish. But is apparently of "part Spanish" ancestry - around election time, I had looked for something to clear up the matter of this white dude with a Spanish surname, couldn't find anything on him personally, but found that the name also exists in Italy (where it's considered a Napolitan name), and left him tentatively at "not Hispanic". But apparently he is, sort of.

*Mind you, so are all the Cuban-American politicos including Bob Menendez - But Cuba's demographics are very different from Mexico's or New Mexico's. And G.K. Butterfield.

He said that the Flores family emigrated to Nacogdoches in 1725.

That's... unlikely. Unless they came from an abandoned Caddo town. It was purely a mission at the time, and remained so for the next two generations.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know, I know. I was just speaking because I had really been wondering about Flores' background.

[minionofmidas]

Who knows what the statutes are in Texas?

Does the legislature have the right to a redraw or is it in the courts now?

The legislature has a right to redraw if it chooses to.

In any case, the Justice Department isn't final here. The 3 judge panel is.

DOJ has no issues with the Dallas districts and is only complaining about TX-23 again.

Morons.

[minionofmidas]

I drew this ages ago for a Black and a Hispanic seat in DFW. I didn't bother saving the stats at the time, but as I remember it yellow is fairly solidly majority Hispanic (57 or 59 or something like that, though I forget if that's total or VAP) and cyan is down to 45% Black, with enough Hispanics and Asians to make Blacks clearly dominant. I didn't spend too much time with it and a better version could probably be developped, though apparently the version actually submitted is far worse.

[minionofmidas]

IMHO there's a difference between uniting technically separate but similar areas on the west side of the city of Chicago (plus a couple inner burbs), which looks ugly but is not as ugly as it looks, and uniting downtown (and south) Dallas with downtown Forth Worth - let alone doing so twice.
Which, of course, is why I drew my districts in Dallas and its immediate suburbs alone. Though I did cross the county line.
But yeah, to get the Black district over 50% you need to draw it first and put all the Black-and-Hispanic areas in it. Drawing a Hispanic district from what's left after that requires heading to Fort Worth, I think.

[minionofmidas]

So if the primary is held under the interim map, that means the general would have to be as well. But I guess that won't stop Texas Republicans from another mid-decade redistricting. Of course in Colorado there was a court-drawn map, the Republicans later tried to pass their own map, but it was ruled illegal by a court and that the current map had to stand.

That was based on a literalist interpretation of the relevant clause in the Colorado Constitution. It doesn't apply to Texas.

[minionofmidas]

LULAC plans for South Texas.   TX-27 comes up the coast to Kleberg Count where it swims across Laguna Madre to Padre Island to bypass most of Corpus Christi and Nueces County before coming into Aransas County (there is a ferry) and then connecting back to Calhoun County via Matagorda Island and the splitting into legs that wander into Matagorda County and up to Caldwell County (avoiding Travis County because the Supreme Court said you can't have a district coming from the Rio Grande to Austin - though technically that was from McAllen and this district would be from Brownsville.  So maybe there is a difference.

Farenthold would be put in the open district TX-36 which connects with Hidalgo County which is more reliably Democratic.

TX-27 and TX-15 form a fajita doughnut around TX-36.

Ridiculous stuff.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. That (not the exact boundaries, mind) is what would fairly inevitably happen under a VRA-compliant and otherwise fair map. Though I fail to see how the Fort Worth district is enforceable from the bench.
And there's nothing (remotely VRA-relevant) wrong with the Houston districts, and no safe White D district that could be conceivably drawn while the three VRA districts exist; so why should they argue for a change here?

[minionofmidas]

Uh... had a closer look at that Fort Worth district. Yeah well, no.

[minionofmidas]

The two districts Dallas-Tarrant Hispanic districts submitted by plaintiffs have 66.1% HVAP, but end up barely majority HCVAP, so yours might be less.

Where do you get reliable data on that?

[minionofmidas]

I was assuming that the number was the same as for black districts.

Wow... that's friggin' insane.

[minionofmidas]

That's the beauty of the VRA. What it actually does is ban racial gerrymandering, ie the kind of calculations you (and politicians) are currently engaging in. This is why you'll never get a hard-and-fast, "if you do this the courts can't touch you" definition - nothing could be further from the spirit of the law.
As is, you need an at least sorta compact hypothetical district in an area that's over 50% the given minority to successfully argue against a state that it must draw an opportunity district here (up to approximately the minority's share in the state) - but an opportunity district drawn by the state doesn't have to fulfill that 50% figure. (So, yeah, those 40-odd% Black districts with some Hispanics in them as well are protected districts. Though if their shapes are odd it serves states defending them in court well to argue that they are not protected and are perfectly legal purely partisan gerrymanders that just happen to be full of Blacks; adding a further layer of complexity.) But this doesn't help us at all in the case of Mexicans, because there's no way a 51% Mexican, 49% Anglo VAP district doesn't elect a candidate of the Anglo's choice. They are a huge majority of the actual registered voters, after all. So your entire guiding line is that you'll have to draw as many districts as possible that will elect a candidate of Hispanics' choice without them being gerrymandered, with the latter term as defined by the court after its seen your maps. The actual geography of the place, and its White and Hispanic voting patterns, will have to be taken into account in deciding whether your district is safe enough.

[minionofmidas]

Also, wasn't part of the challenge to the Texas plan the fact that the (compact) black-plurality district in Dallas-Fort Worth prevents the creation of a hispanic VRA district in the area (I'm still confused on that issue)?

It does, at least in the shape that it is now, and at least for a compact hispanic district (one not stretching all the way from downtown Dallas to downtown Fort Worth). There are a number of areas in Dallas that have many Black and many Hispanic but few or no White residents.
Also, it's not enough that the Hispanic district elect a Democrat - it also needs to elect the Democrat the Hispanics vote for in the primary. Yes, that is going to be an issue in a 51% Hispanic Dallas district. (Heck, the Hispanic district in Houston is still held by a White man. Though he couldn't hold it these days if he wasn't the Hispanics' candidate of choice, of course. When he was first elected though, it was a different matter.)

[minionofmidas]

That does mean they were dumbs in opting to go directly to court, rather than to Holder, for preclearance. Nothing else as far as I can see.

[minionofmidas]

To my knowledge, all 435 House districts have a non-Hispanic white person over the age of 25.  Thus, every district in this county is a minority opportunity district.

You only need to live in the state, not the district.

[minionofmidas]

To my knowledge, all 435 House districts have a non-Hispanic white person over the age of 25.  Thus, every district in this county is a minority opportunity district.

You only need to live in the state, not the district.

The "opportunity" is not for the candidate, but for the class of voters.

And it is not to vote in an election, but to determine the outcome. (Then again, that opportunity exists in every close election, no? )

[minionofmidas]

Canseco's new district is more Democratic than the one he won in 2010 (edit: This looks like a reply to Krazen now. It isn't. And I can't back it up besides "I read it on the internet".)

That Tarrant district they drew is 40% Hispanic, 28% White, 27% Black... these kind of demographics frequently favor Black candidates.
And I wonder about that 35th - they drew it out of Austin so it's only 55% Hispanic now, even though still clearly Dem-leaning (enough white Dems in Hays. Also, the Black bits of Bexar). Maybe they figure that it's safely enough Hispanic because there's two obvious Representative-apparents, and both are Hispanic - Senor Ciro Rodriguez, and Doggett's primary opponent Joaquin Castro.

Somebody said that McCaul might be in trouble... looks exaggerated to me, though I wouldn't be surprised to hear Obama won the district.
EDIT: Didn't. Went up three points, though.

[minionofmidas]

Great, so if future elections are like 2010 and no one brings up his bankruptcies, Canseco is home free.

D+3 or
D+4.

He also needs a quality opponent of course. Not much of Bexar is left there and Bexar Democrats have their own new district.

*looks up who represents Eagle Pass and Del Rio in the Texas State House*

Pete Gallego for Congress?

Obama share went up by 0.4 percentage points, btw. Not much (Canseco would still have won under these lines... ignoring the fact that his opponent wouldn't have been there) but every little bit helps.

I wonder where it's coming from. They added a number of Permian counties after all, and just two Rio Grande Valley rural counties, and those cast 5k odd votes together (59% Obama both). And the withdrawal out of Bexar ought to hurt Dems. Must have been doing some pretty clever stuff in El Paso.

[minionofmidas]

And suddenly it all made sense.



See what they did there?

[minionofmidas]

The Bexar and Travis splits are kinda weird, and there is no need for Harris to be cut in 10, but overall I think it's a good map

It also doesn't seem to be creating any new Hispanic CVAP majority districts. Great map for Veasey and Doggett of course, but neither is Hispanic.

Obviously we will be seeing a 2013 redistricting session.

Strictly speaking the preclearance case isn't lost yet, right? (Obviously, in a full trial the state would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it neither intended to nor accidentally discriminated against any minority, so, yeah.)

[minionofmidas]

And suddenly it all made sense.



See what they did there?

Took a district that had about the right population and transferred territory to a district that was already overpopulated?

Fun fact: Their CD20 has exactly the same racial breakdown as the old one had in 2002.

McCaul's district is not nearly as geographically divided as it used to be, fwiw. It's very much a Travis-Williamson district with pieces all the way into Harris added on now, not really a Travis-to-Harris district.