Texas Fajita Strips

[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?

[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.

[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.