Timmy's States

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Bringing this back from the dead with heatcharger's 2000s redraw app:

2000
2004
2008
2012
2016

interesting to see this flipping the result in 2000.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://tonymoo2228.github.io/StatesFun/
how does this look like in this?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/0ac8ce25-6991-4343-beeb-3b80b908b091
Seneca CDs on 2018 population estimates, assuming 5 CDs and neutral lines.


https://davesredistricting.org/join/b83c25f9-c5e7-4a23-a81e-9e098a0746e6
the same assuming 4 CDs.

[hyouzel the predictor]

2020 RESULTS FROM THIS MAP

Essentially, Gitchigumi (North MI, WI, MN) and Susquehanna (Central PA and MD) flipped from 2016.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

https://tonymoo2228.github.io/StatesFun/
how does this look like in this?

Decided to do this, check your DMs on Discord for the map code.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://tonymoo2228.github.io/StatesFun/
how does this look like in this?

Decided to do this, check your DMs on Discord for the map code.

This post has been seen.

[beesley]

Thread for this map. Stay tuned!

Is Oso named after Doug Ose?

[MillennialModerate]

Not sure if it’s been mentioned already. But I love what you did with New England. Honestly it makes perfect sense. I’ve always thought that Rhode Island should be part of Massachusetts (I’d vote against it at the moment only because it would further put the Dems at a further disadvantage in our electoral system - though if another move was made to offset it (I.e. the Dakotas) I’d genuinely support it as one of the few legitimate reworking of states that are both realistic and beneficial to all involved.

WITH THAT SAID: New York has to be changed. Fairhaven, Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties belong as part of that state as it makes sense the NY Metro area be what that state is all about.


NOTE: It would probably help If I asked what the purpose of the reshuffling is? Is the goal to make each state equal in population? Or is the goal to make areas that really belong together? (I.e. RI & Emass, Philly & SNJ)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Thread for this map. Stay tuned!

Is Oso named after Doug Ose?

Oso is I think the Spanish word for 'bear'. Iirc.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Not sure if it’s been mentioned already. But I love what you did with New England. Honestly it makes perfect sense. I’ve always thought that Rhode Island should be part of Massachusetts (I’d vote against it at the moment only because it would further put the Dems at a further disadvantage in our electoral system - though if another move was made to offset it (I.e. the Dakotas) I’d genuinely support it as one of the few legitimate reworking of states that are both realistic and beneficial to all involved.

WITH THAT SAID: New York has to be changed. Fairhaven, Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties belong as part of that state as it makes sense the NY Metro area be what that state is all about.


NOTE: It would probably help If I asked what the purpose of the reshuffling is? Is the goal to make each state equal in population? Or is the goal to make areas that really belong together? (I.e. RI & Emass, Philly & SNJ)

Just to make it completely clear, the image that was quoted was the original starting map. Over time, Coronado for example was folded mainly into Geronimo and borders were refined in some places (such as between Dakota and Gitchigumi).
As for the goal, I think it is best described as aiming for an interestingly different set of state borders. Population equality was not an overarching goal but it had a secondary importance, playing a role in states like CA, TX, and to a lesser extent FL getting divided up.  Other facets of human demography, sheer compactness, and natural borders are probably more important overall. There was also an effort to unify metros, yes, but metro borders were not considered sacred.
So in sum, a lot of factors, with no single one dominant in every possible case of conflict.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I decided to look at what the results of the 2020 presidential election would be in Rio Grande. I got these calculations.
Rio Grande got 816k votes for Biden and 701k for Trump - 53.79% Biden in total, compared with 56.85% for Clinton. Biden won 52.27% of the nationwide two-party vote and Clinton won 51.11%. Thus, the one-cycle PVI is D+1.52 in 2020 and D+4.74 in 2016. This averages out as D+3.13.
It also looks like Texas voted for Biden, largely on strength of his 300k vote lead in Travis and weak R leans in Collin and Denton, as well as Tarrant. Trump meanwhile did very well in Nevada, but backslid in Maricopa.
In Secoya, the big question is, are R wins in the RL Oregon and RL Nevada portions enough to win out over Dem margins in RL CA? In 2008 it was not really very close, but in 2012 and 2016, the state was within 1%, and it was probably the closest state in the 2012 election. In 2020 Trump won by 60k votes in the RL Oregon part and 23k in the RL Nevada one, but Biden won by 218k in RL California one, securing a win likely by a margin of 2 or 3.

[Torie]

I decided to look at what the results of the 2020 presidential election would be in Rio Grande. I got these calculations.
Rio Grande got 816k votes for Biden and 701k for Trump - 53.79% Biden in total, compared with 56.85% for Clinton. Biden won 52.27% of the nationwide two-party vote and Clinton won 51.11%. Thus, the one-cycle PVI is D+1.52 in 2020 and D+4.74 in 2016. This averages out as D+3.13.
It also looks like Texas voted for Biden, largely on strength of his 300k vote lead in Travis and weak R leans in Collin and Denton, as well as Tarrant. Trump meanwhile did very well in Nevada, but backslid in Maricopa.
In Secoya, the big question is, are R wins in the RL Oregon and RL Nevada portions enough to win out over Dem margins in RL CA? In 2008 it was not really very close, but in 2012 and 2016, the state was within 1%, and it was probably the closest state in the 2012 election. In 2020 Trump won by 60k votes in the RL Oregon part and 23k in the RL Nevada one, but Biden won by 218k in RL California one, securing a win likely by a margin of 2 or 3.

Trump in all three of the RGV based CD's ran a tad better than he did nationwide, and thus all three CD's have a small Pub PVI if you just look at 2020, rather than average 2020 and 2016.
In any Pub gerrymander, the Dem PVI will  increase in 2 of the 3 districts, and rather sharply decrease in one. The Dem incumbent in the one slated to switch teams has already announced his retirement.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I decided to look at what the results of the 2020 presidential election would be in Rio Grande. I got these calculations.
Rio Grande got 816k votes for Biden and 701k for Trump - 53.79% Biden in total, compared with 56.85% for Clinton. Biden won 52.27% of the nationwide two-party vote and Clinton won 51.11%. Thus, the one-cycle PVI is D+1.52 in 2020 and D+4.74 in 2016. This averages out as D+3.13.
It also looks like Texas voted for Biden, largely on strength of his 300k vote lead in Travis and weak R leans in Collin and Denton, as well as Tarrant. Trump meanwhile did very well in Nevada, but backslid in Maricopa.
In Secoya, the big question is, are R wins in the RL Oregon and RL Nevada portions enough to win out over Dem margins in RL CA? In 2008 it was not really very close, but in 2012 and 2016, the state was within 1%, and it was probably the closest state in the 2012 election. In 2020 Trump won by 60k votes in the RL Oregon part and 23k in the RL Nevada one, but Biden won by 218k in RL California one, securing a win likely by a margin of 2 or 3.

Trump in all three of the RGV based CD's ran a tad better than he did nationwide, and thus all three CD's have a small Pub PVI if you just look at 2020, rather than average 2020 and 2016.
In any Pub gerrymander, the Dem PVI will  increase in 2 of the 3 districts, and rather sharply decrease in one. The Dem incumbent in the one slated to switch teams has already announced his retirement.

Rio Grande is likely to have a ruthless Dem gerrymander with one GOP-leaning seat already. So little change on that front.

[Torie]

I decided to look at what the results of the 2020 presidential election would be in Rio Grande. I got these calculations.
Rio Grande got 816k votes for Biden and 701k for Trump - 53.79% Biden in total, compared with 56.85% for Clinton. Biden won 52.27% of the nationwide two-party vote and Clinton won 51.11%. Thus, the one-cycle PVI is D+1.52 in 2020 and D+4.74 in 2016. This averages out as D+3.13.
It also looks like Texas voted for Biden, largely on strength of his 300k vote lead in Travis and weak R leans in Collin and Denton, as well as Tarrant. Trump meanwhile did very well in Nevada, but backslid in Maricopa.
In Secoya, the big question is, are R wins in the RL Oregon and RL Nevada portions enough to win out over Dem margins in RL CA? In 2008 it was not really very close, but in 2012 and 2016, the state was within 1%, and it was probably the closest state in the 2012 election. In 2020 Trump won by 60k votes in the RL Oregon part and 23k in the RL Nevada one, but Biden won by 218k in RL California one, securing a win likely by a margin of 2 or 3.

Trump in all three of the RGV based CD's ran a tad better than he did nationwide, and thus all three CD's have a small Pub PVI if you just look at 2020, rather than average 2020 and 2016.
In any Pub gerrymander, the Dem PVI will  increase in 2 of the 3 districts, and rather sharply decrease in one. The Dem incumbent in the one slated to switch teams has already announced his retirement.

Rio Grande is likely to have a ruthless Dem gerrymander with one GOP-leaning seat already. So little change on that front.

Did you mean "ruthless Pub gerrymander?" The TX Pubs will need to be cautious about the VRA. TX is a quagmire on that front with unresolved ambiguities in the law, which drives how I draw my TX Pubmanders. I am still struggling with the issue of how to draw a performing Hipanic TX-33 without running afoul of a racial gerrymandering rap, in the event SCOTUS deems whatever is drawn as either not performing, or over performing and thus an illegal racial gerrymandering Hispanic pack, or black exclusion. It seems nobody has good answers.Ditto for my TX-18, but there, there is no alternative but to accept the risk.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I decided to look at what the results of the 2020 presidential election would be in Rio Grande. I got these calculations.
Rio Grande got 816k votes for Biden and 701k for Trump - 53.79% Biden in total, compared with 56.85% for Clinton. Biden won 52.27% of the nationwide two-party vote and Clinton won 51.11%. Thus, the one-cycle PVI is D+1.52 in 2020 and D+4.74 in 2016. This averages out as D+3.13.
It also looks like Texas voted for Biden, largely on strength of his 300k vote lead in Travis and weak R leans in Collin and Denton, as well as Tarrant. Trump meanwhile did very well in Nevada, but backslid in Maricopa.
In Secoya, the big question is, are R wins in the RL Oregon and RL Nevada portions enough to win out over Dem margins in RL CA? In 2008 it was not really very close, but in 2012 and 2016, the state was within 1%, and it was probably the closest state in the 2012 election. In 2020 Trump won by 60k votes in the RL Oregon part and 23k in the RL Nevada one, but Biden won by 218k in RL California one, securing a win likely by a margin of 2 or 3.

Trump in all three of the RGV based CD's ran a tad better than he did nationwide, and thus all three CD's have a small Pub PVI if you just look at 2020, rather than average 2020 and 2016.
In any Pub gerrymander, the Dem PVI will  increase in 2 of the 3 districts, and rather sharply decrease in one. The Dem incumbent in the one slated to switch teams has already announced his retirement.

Rio Grande is likely to have a ruthless Dem gerrymander with one GOP-leaning seat already. So little change on that front.

Did you mean "ruthless Pub gerrymander?" The TX Pubs will need to be cautious about the VRA. TX is a quagmire on that front with unresolved ambiguities in the law, which drives how I draw my TX Pubmanders. I am still struggling with the issue of how to draw a performing Hipanic TX-33 without running afoul of a racial gerrymandering rap, in the event SCOTUS deems whatever is drawn as either not performing, or over performing and thus an illegal racial gerrymandering Hispanic pack, or black exclusion. It seems nobody has good answers.Ditto for my TX-18, but there, there is no alternative but to accept the risk.

Rio Grande is likely to have a Dem trifecta that produces one GOP-leaning swing seat (no doubt taking from Bexar) and makes the rest of the map safe/likely Dem.

[Torie]

I decided to look at what the results of the 2020 presidential election would be in Rio Grande. I got these calculations.
Rio Grande got 816k votes for Biden and 701k for Trump - 53.79% Biden in total, compared with 56.85% for Clinton. Biden won 52.27% of the nationwide two-party vote and Clinton won 51.11%. Thus, the one-cycle PVI is D+1.52 in 2020 and D+4.74 in 2016. This averages out as D+3.13.
It also looks like Texas voted for Biden, largely on strength of his 300k vote lead in Travis and weak R leans in Collin and Denton, as well as Tarrant. Trump meanwhile did very well in Nevada, but backslid in Maricopa.
In Secoya, the big question is, are R wins in the RL Oregon and RL Nevada portions enough to win out over Dem margins in RL CA? In 2008 it was not really very close, but in 2012 and 2016, the state was within 1%, and it was probably the closest state in the 2012 election. In 2020 Trump won by 60k votes in the RL Oregon part and 23k in the RL Nevada one, but Biden won by 218k in RL California one, securing a win likely by a margin of 2 or 3.

Trump in all three of the RGV based CD's ran a tad better than he did nationwide, and thus all three CD's have a small Pub PVI if you just look at 2020, rather than average 2020 and 2016.
In any Pub gerrymander, the Dem PVI will  increase in 2 of the 3 districts, and rather sharply decrease in one. The Dem incumbent in the one slated to switch teams has already announced his retirement.

Rio Grande is likely to have a ruthless Dem gerrymander with one GOP-leaning seat already. So little change on that front.

Did you mean "ruthless Pub gerrymander?" The TX Pubs will need to be cautious about the VRA. TX is a quagmire on that front with unresolved ambiguities in the law, which drives how I draw my TX Pubmanders. I am still struggling with the issue of how to draw a performing Hipanic TX-33 without running afoul of a racial gerrymandering rap, in the event SCOTUS deems whatever is drawn as either not performing, or over performing and thus an illegal racial gerrymandering Hispanic pack, or black exclusion. It seems nobody has good answers.Ditto for my TX-18, but there, there is no alternative but to accept the risk.

Rio Grande is likely to have a Dem trifecta that produces one GOP-leaning swing seat (no doubt taking from Bexar) and makes the rest of the map safe/likely Dem.

Why would the Pubs do that? They don't need to. Two Dem seats right on the river, one lean Pub seat mostly in Bexar County, and a close to safe Pub seat on the Gulf. And the map looks clean. TX-11 takes its slice of El Paso and the western side of TX-23, plus the oil patch, and creates another safe Pub majority HCVAP CD. So with the lean Pub TX-23 seat, and the two safe or close to safe Pub seats in the Rio Grande area, the Pubs get 3 seats, and the Dems 2, and the VRA risk is minimal. The fajita strips are tossed into the ash heap of history.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I decided to look at what the results of the 2020 presidential election would be in Rio Grande. I got these calculations.
Rio Grande got 816k votes for Biden and 701k for Trump - 53.79% Biden in total, compared with 56.85% for Clinton. Biden won 52.27% of the nationwide two-party vote and Clinton won 51.11%. Thus, the one-cycle PVI is D+1.52 in 2020 and D+4.74 in 2016. This averages out as D+3.13.
It also looks like Texas voted for Biden, largely on strength of his 300k vote lead in Travis and weak R leans in Collin and Denton, as well as Tarrant. Trump meanwhile did very well in Nevada, but backslid in Maricopa.
In Secoya, the big question is, are R wins in the RL Oregon and RL Nevada portions enough to win out over Dem margins in RL CA? In 2008 it was not really very close, but in 2012 and 2016, the state was within 1%, and it was probably the closest state in the 2012 election. In 2020 Trump won by 60k votes in the RL Oregon part and 23k in the RL Nevada one, but Biden won by 218k in RL California one, securing a win likely by a margin of 2 or 3.

Trump in all three of the RGV based CD's ran a tad better than he did nationwide, and thus all three CD's have a small Pub PVI if you just look at 2020, rather than average 2020 and 2016.
In any Pub gerrymander, the Dem PVI will  increase in 2 of the 3 districts, and rather sharply decrease in one. The Dem incumbent in the one slated to switch teams has already announced his retirement.

Rio Grande is likely to have a ruthless Dem gerrymander with one GOP-leaning seat already. So little change on that front.

Did you mean "ruthless Pub gerrymander?" The TX Pubs will need to be cautious about the VRA. TX is a quagmire on that front with unresolved ambiguities in the law, which drives how I draw my TX Pubmanders. I am still struggling with the issue of how to draw a performing Hipanic TX-33 without running afoul of a racial gerrymandering rap, in the event SCOTUS deems whatever is drawn as either not performing, or over performing and thus an illegal racial gerrymandering Hispanic pack, or black exclusion. It seems nobody has good answers.Ditto for my TX-18, but there, there is no alternative but to accept the risk.

Rio Grande is likely to have a Dem trifecta that produces one GOP-leaning swing seat (no doubt taking from Bexar) and makes the rest of the map safe/likely Dem.

Why would the Pubs do that? They don't need to. Two Dem seats right on the river, one lean Pub seat mostly in Bexar County, and a close to safe Pub seat on the Gulf. And the map looks clean. TX-11 takes its slice of El Paso and the western side of TX-23, plus the oil patch, and creates another safe Pub majority HCVAP CD. So with the lean Pub TX-23 seat, and the two safe or close to safe Pub seats in the Rio Grande area, the Pubs get 3 seats, and the Dems 2, and the VRA risk is minimal. The fajita strips are tossed into the ash heap of history.

Regardless of what could be said about what you have said, Rio Grande is not Texas. Whatever partisan incentive exists for Texas Republicans to gain seats by ditching the fajitas, the Hispanic Democrats who would be in charge of Latino-majority Rio Grande would have interest in having something along the lines of the fajitas both for sake of increasing Latino political power and for partisan gain.

[Torie]

I decided to look at what the results of the 2020 presidential election would be in Rio Grande. I got these calculations.
Rio Grande got 816k votes for Biden and 701k for Trump - 53.79% Biden in total, compared with 56.85% for Clinton. Biden won 52.27% of the nationwide two-party vote and Clinton won 51.11%. Thus, the one-cycle PVI is D+1.52 in 2020 and D+4.74 in 2016. This averages out as D+3.13.
It also looks like Texas voted for Biden, largely on strength of his 300k vote lead in Travis and weak R leans in Collin and Denton, as well as Tarrant. Trump meanwhile did very well in Nevada, but backslid in Maricopa.
In Secoya, the big question is, are R wins in the RL Oregon and RL Nevada portions enough to win out over Dem margins in RL CA? In 2008 it was not really very close, but in 2012 and 2016, the state was within 1%, and it was probably the closest state in the 2012 election. In 2020 Trump won by 60k votes in the RL Oregon part and 23k in the RL Nevada one, but Biden won by 218k in RL California one, securing a win likely by a margin of 2 or 3.

Trump in all three of the RGV based CD's ran a tad better than he did nationwide, and thus all three CD's have a small Pub PVI if you just look at 2020, rather than average 2020 and 2016.
In any Pub gerrymander, the Dem PVI will  increase in 2 of the 3 districts, and rather sharply decrease in one. The Dem incumbent in the one slated to switch teams has already announced his retirement.

Rio Grande is likely to have a ruthless Dem gerrymander with one GOP-leaning seat already. So little change on that front.

Did you mean "ruthless Pub gerrymander?" The TX Pubs will need to be cautious about the VRA. TX is a quagmire on that front with unresolved ambiguities in the law, which drives how I draw my TX Pubmanders. I am still struggling with the issue of how to draw a performing Hipanic TX-33 without running afoul of a racial gerrymandering rap, in the event SCOTUS deems whatever is drawn as either not performing, or over performing and thus an illegal racial gerrymandering Hispanic pack, or black exclusion. It seems nobody has good answers.Ditto for my TX-18, but there, there is no alternative but to accept the risk.

Rio Grande is likely to have a Dem trifecta that produces one GOP-leaning swing seat (no doubt taking from Bexar) and makes the rest of the map safe/likely Dem.

Why would the Pubs do that? They don't need to. Two Dem seats right on the river, one lean Pub seat mostly in Bexar County, and a close to safe Pub seat on the Gulf. And the map looks clean. TX-11 takes its slice of El Paso and the western side of TX-23, plus the oil patch, and creates another safe Pub majority HCVAP CD. So with the lean Pub TX-23 seat, and the two safe or close to safe Pub seats in the Rio Grande area, the Pubs get 3 seats, and the Dems 2, and the VRA risk is minimal. The fajita strips are tossed into the ash heap of history.

Regardless of what could be said about what you have said, Rio Grande is not Texas. Whatever partisan incentive exists for Texas Republicans to gain seats by ditching the fajitas, the Hispanic Democrats who would be in charge of Latino-majority Rio Grande would have interest in having something along the lines of the fajitas both for sake of increasing Latino political power and for partisan gain.

And why would the Pubs accommodate them? In point of fact, the two Dems running for reelection in the RGV would be happy with the map. The other Dem is retiring, because I surmise he saw the writing on the wall. Anyway, we shall see. I have my map, and we shall how close it is to what happens. The map btw creates a second safe Dem Hispanic CD nested in Bexar to join the existing TX-20 there, which I call TX-37. I think the VRA mandates that.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I decided to look at what the results of the 2020 presidential election would be in Rio Grande. I got these calculations.
Rio Grande got 816k votes for Biden and 701k for Trump - 53.79% Biden in total, compared with 56.85% for Clinton. Biden won 52.27% of the nationwide two-party vote and Clinton won 51.11%. Thus, the one-cycle PVI is D+1.52 in 2020 and D+4.74 in 2016. This averages out as D+3.13.
It also looks like Texas voted for Biden, largely on strength of his 300k vote lead in Travis and weak R leans in Collin and Denton, as well as Tarrant. Trump meanwhile did very well in Nevada, but backslid in Maricopa.
In Secoya, the big question is, are R wins in the RL Oregon and RL Nevada portions enough to win out over Dem margins in RL CA? In 2008 it was not really very close, but in 2012 and 2016, the state was within 1%, and it was probably the closest state in the 2012 election. In 2020 Trump won by 60k votes in the RL Oregon part and 23k in the RL Nevada one, but Biden won by 218k in RL California one, securing a win likely by a margin of 2 or 3.

Trump in all three of the RGV based CD's ran a tad better than he did nationwide, and thus all three CD's have a small Pub PVI if you just look at 2020, rather than average 2020 and 2016.
In any Pub gerrymander, the Dem PVI will  increase in 2 of the 3 districts, and rather sharply decrease in one. The Dem incumbent in the one slated to switch teams has already announced his retirement.

Rio Grande is likely to have a ruthless Dem gerrymander with one GOP-leaning seat already. So little change on that front.

Did you mean "ruthless Pub gerrymander?" The TX Pubs will need to be cautious about the VRA. TX is a quagmire on that front with unresolved ambiguities in the law, which drives how I draw my TX Pubmanders. I am still struggling with the issue of how to draw a performing Hipanic TX-33 without running afoul of a racial gerrymandering rap, in the event SCOTUS deems whatever is drawn as either not performing, or over performing and thus an illegal racial gerrymandering Hispanic pack, or black exclusion. It seems nobody has good answers.Ditto for my TX-18, but there, there is no alternative but to accept the risk.

Rio Grande is likely to have a Dem trifecta that produces one GOP-leaning swing seat (no doubt taking from Bexar) and makes the rest of the map safe/likely Dem.

Why would the Pubs do that? They don't need to. Two Dem seats right on the river, one lean Pub seat mostly in Bexar County, and a close to safe Pub seat on the Gulf. And the map looks clean. TX-11 takes its slice of El Paso and the western side of TX-23, plus the oil patch, and creates another safe Pub majority HCVAP CD. So with the lean Pub TX-23 seat, and the two safe or close to safe Pub seats in the Rio Grande area, the Pubs get 3 seats, and the Dems 2, and the VRA risk is minimal. The fajita strips are tossed into the ash heap of history.

Regardless of what could be said about what you have said, Rio Grande is not Texas. Whatever partisan incentive exists for Texas Republicans to gain seats by ditching the fajitas, the Hispanic Democrats who would be in charge of Latino-majority Rio Grande would have interest in having something along the lines of the fajitas both for sake of increasing Latino political power and for partisan gain.

And why would the Pubs accommodate them? In point of fact, the two Dems running for reelection in the RGV would be happy with the map. The other Dem is retiring, because I surmise he saw the writing on the wall. Anyway, we shall see. I have my map, and we shall how close it is to what happens. The map btw creates a second safe Dem Hispanic CD nested in Bexar to join the existing TX-20 there, which I call TX-37. I think the VRA mandates that.

Why would the RG Ds need to accomodate the GOP is a better question...

[Torie]

Because the Pubs control how the lines are drawn, or am I missing something? We seem to be shadow boxing here, which is not what we usually do with each other.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Because the Pubs control how the lines are drawn, or am I missing something? We seem to be shadow boxing here, which is not what we usually do with each other.

The missing factor is that Rio Grande is Dem-leaning and will likely have a Dem trifecta.
Just as Llano and Houston are certain R trifectas and Texas might be either a R trifecta or split control in the leg. (Biden won rump Texas so it's clearly more Dem than RL Texas is - is that enough to give Dems enough ability to stop an R gerrymander?)
I apologize if I had failed to make this more clear.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/32f3a605-67c7-47a1-9bc3-d6a92bf8cff8
Possible 2022 CDs for Houston and Rio Grande.

[Torie]

I see that I missed  the entire point of the thread, since I did not explore its genesis. Sorry to interrupt your regular programming with my obtuseness!

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I see that I missed  the entire point of the thread, since I did not explore its genesis. Sorry to interrupt your regular programming with my obtuseness!

We all make mistakes. Please don't be too hard on yourself!

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Educated guesses at who has what in 2021.

State legislatures


Governors