2020 Texas Redistricting thread

[Brittain33]

I'm updating my map for 2020 population data and here's what I'm seeing for my 2019 estimates maps:

* 3 of 4 Houston Dem packs were underpopulated (R+)
* East Texas rurals were underpopulated (D+)
* West Texas rurals were underpopulated (D+)
* RGV was underpopulated (R+)
* Austin-area Dem cracks in R districts were overpopulated (D+)
* Dallas-area Dem packs were underpopulated, but not as much as Houston (R+)

All told, it's a wash or advantage Republicans slightly. Flipping TX-7 to an R district may be marginally easier - if Torie was able to do it before, there's now room to move 60,000 more voters into the other 3 districts.

[Brittain33]

What's the minimum R PVI I should aim for in Texas with 2016/2020 data? I built my map with 2012/2016 and just updated to 2020 results, ouch.

[Brittain33]

What's the minimum R PVI I should aim for in Texas with 2016/2020 data? I built my map with 2012/2016 and just updated to 2020 results, ouch.

R+8 or so? I'm not entirely sure.
I'll be making my own fresh R gerry to find out what's workable and what's not.

I haven't tried to eliminate the 4th D in Harris (Torie's precedent notwithstanding) but to keep the TX-32, 3, and 24 in the 8-10 range for PVI I had to send TX-32 from the Park cities up to all of Grayson County and baconstrip the most Dem parts of Collin County into TX-4.

I'm inclined to just do a fourth Dem pack in the Metroplex.

[Brittain33]

Seems to me San Antonio is even more underpopulated than the Houston or Dallas packs! 

Yes, I experienced this too, thank you for reminding me.

[Brittain33]

I've been playing around with DFW with 4 Dem districts (or 3+1 competitive) while keeping large cities whole, if possible, and trying to keep R districts performing. All PVIs are 2016/20 and VAP is W/H/B/A.

This is just what I did last night so I am sure the map can be improved either with different criteria for districts, more fine-tuning between districts, or being willing to do ugly tendrils with TX-4. I didn't clean up all the stray bits as you can see.

I make no claim whether Republicans would pursue this strategy. It's just what I wanted to draw. I found respecting city boundaries was a lot more satisfying than maximizing and smoothing out R performance across abstract shapes.






TX-3 includes McKinney, Allen, and 1/3 of Garland. R+12, 56/18/12/12

TX-5 still anchors on Mesquite and includes a small part of Garland before heading out into the rurals. I don't see how I can use it to help TX-3 any more. A wasteful R+19, 55/24/16/3

TX-6 includes most of Arlington, cedes African-American parts of Grand Prairie to TX-30, and skirts Fort Worth to take in new conservative turf in SW Tarrant. Southern counties not shown. R+11, 53/21/18/6

TX-12 remains Fort Worth-based and I unpacked it some to make TX-24 and TX-6 more Republican. I don't know if it can offer any more help. R+15, 60/21/10/5.

TX-24 combines Republican suburbs in NE Tarrant with Denton and places in between. Keeping Denton whole is why TX-26 is a horseshoe. R+12, 64/16/8/9

TX-26 includes Frisco, Lewisville, and carves out R neighborhoods in Plano. I don't like the way it looks either. R+9 (!), 54/17/12/15

TX-32 takes in the Park cities, Richardson, the majority of Plano, 1/3 of Garland, and the northern wedge of Dallas. Boundary with TX-37 was determined by trying to follow city boundaries. If I keep working on this, I'll refine 32 to be as R as possible under the circumstances since I go to the trouble to include the Park cities. D+1, 48/21/12/17

[Brittain33]

Michael Burgess still lives in TX-26 (Lewisville). Beth Van Duyne, sadly, is drawn out of her district (Irving), as is Van Taylor (Plano). If you want to keep both Irving and at least part of Plano in solid Republican districts, that would explain why there won't be a 4th Dem district.

[Brittain33]

Will the TXGOP try to protect their incumbents; or is incumbent protection not a thing in Texas, where will they draw an extremely ugly map that unnecessarily draws out GOP incumbents?

I don’t think anyone here has insight into what Texas will do, but it would be unusual for them not to try to protect all of their incumbents. This is literally the first redistricting cycle where Texas R growth has stalled relative to the state as a whole so it’s a new problem for them.

[Brittain33]

Will the TXGOP try to protect their incumbents; or is incumbent protection not a thing in Texas, where will they draw an extremely ugly map that unnecessarily draws out GOP incumbents?

I don’t think anyone here has insight into what Texas will do, but it would be unusual for them not to try to protect all of their incumbents. This is literally the first redistricting cycle where Texas R growth has stalled relative to the state as a whole so it’s a new problem for them.

You don’t think they would do anything like double bunking Crenshaw into a Democratic district with Fletcher to make TX-02 more rural? I can imagine Crenshaw not being happy if that is done.

Crenshaw has $4m in his account so he will be fine with whatever happens. But I do expect they would try to keep a TX-2 that includes much of his turf but is more Republican for him to run in.

[Brittain33]

Good sign for the fajitas.

I think TX Republicans realizing that a large number of never-voting Hispanics showing up only to vote for Trump in 2020 may not be a strong basis for future wins.

[Brittain33]

snip

At the very least there are few universes in which Rs do fajitas for one set of maps and not another. And the fajitas existing ensures a certain seat floor for Democrats.

I have literally no idea what you're talking about.

The congressional map? What else could I be talking about?

Yes I know that, I just don't know what your point is with regard to the 25-13 map.

He’s saying that based on the Senate map, Republicans are likely to preserve the Congressional fajitas rather than try to wring another Republican seat out of the RGV, so that means Democrats likely have a floor of 13.

[Brittain33]

snip

At the very least there are few universes in which Rs do fajitas for one set of maps and not another. And the fajitas existing ensures a certain seat floor for Democrats.

I have literally no idea what you're talking about.

The congressional map? What else could I be talking about?

Yes I know that, I just don't know what your point is with regard to the 25-13 map.

He’s saying that based on the Senate map, Republicans are likely to preserve the Congressional fajitas rather than try to wring another Republican seat out of the RGV, so that means Democrats likely have a floor of 13.

I don't think it's necessarily 13 (haven't gave that much thought to the question) but it is undeniable that preserving the RGV fajitas is a net positive for Democrats in pure partisanship terms.

Doesn't that depend on what is in the fajitas?

True, but the TX Senate fajitas are all Dem performing districts.

[Brittain33]

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.

[Brittain33]

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.

[Brittain33]

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.

[Brittain33]

Seriously, leaving TX-7 as a competitive district that Republicans win in a 2014 or 2016 environment rather than trying to pack it or crack it should be considered a good outcome for them. They shouldn’t need to push everything to extremes.

[Brittain33]

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.

[Brittain33]

Beth Van Duyne was mayor of Irving which doesn’t appear to be in TX-24 any longer.

[Brittain33]

Big changes to the two Houston AA districts, it looks like.

[Brittain33]

Kinda a random thought, but the more I think about it, the more I think TX-03 could be a potential problem down the road for the GOP than TX-24.

Using Atlanta as kind of an example, TX-03 seems more like a Gwinnett County type-place- rapidly growing, diversifying, and gentrifying so will likely trend hard left by default over the course of the decade.

Meanwhile, TX-24 very much feels like northern Cobb county, an already largely established wealth white suburban community of the metro. If the district flips, while some of it could be attributed to shifting demographics and generation turnover, it’ll ultimately be from peeling off more college educated whites.

We saw in the GA runoffs for instance GA-7 vote decently to the left of GA-6 after GA-6 voted to the left of GA-7 in the 2020 Pres election, where the circumstances caused Biden to do better with college educated voters than a Dem would normally do. GA-7 also grew significantly more than GA-6 this decade population wise. GA-7 and TX-3 seem like the kind of places that are the future of the Democratic Party more than GA-6 or TX-24.

Also iirc TX-3 and GA-7 were both in the top 5 of most left shifting districts from 2016-2020 Pres

Are there any other districts similar to this? Maybe Fort Bend (now just 30% NHW) for a comparison to Gwinett/GA-07?

Def Fort Bend. Seminole may kinda qualify in a way. Also Northern Phoenix and some parts of OC (CA-45ish). Nova. Columbus perhaps?

I would say Raleigh but I feel like that’s gonna go more the way of Austin or Madison; very white but highly educated and high income.

Minneapolis prolly falls in a sort if in between category.

NJ-7.

[Brittain33]

I suppose you're right, Somerset County isn't growing as quickly as I thought.

[Brittain33]

deny the white minority the ability to elect the candidate of their choice

This has nothing to do with the Voting Rights Act because there is no systematic and centuries-long oppression of white Americans in Texas to the benefit of African Americans or Hispanics. Being outnumbered in a county isn’t that.

[Brittain33]

deny the white minority the ability to elect the candidate of their choice

This has nothing to do with the Voting Rights Act because there is no systematic and centuries-long oppression of white Americans in Texas to the benefit of African Americans or Hispanics. Being outnumbered in a county isn’t that.

The 14th Amendment created equal citizenship, not affirmative action democracy. If racial gerrymanders are illegal, they are illegal across the board.

Cool, get yourself on a federal court and perhaps this theory could be tested and adopted and affect how the law is practiced. Under current jurisprudence, what you wrote is as relevant and meaningful as a Santos LinkedIn endorsement.