2020 Texas Redistricting thread

[OBD]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/0bda591f-6533-40cb-8b2b-f0fb333232b1

I made a 39 district map that splits 28 R - 11 D while respecting the VRA. It's definitely ugly, but all Trump districts are Trump+20 other than the Trump+18 Austin one and the Trump+8 Hispanic VRAs, so it's pretty secure to trends. While population shifts will obviously make the final map considerably different, it'll be interesting to see how far the GOP can - and will - go here.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Pretty sure plenty of those districts are not VRA-compliant. It's not enough for a district to have a majority of electors from a particular demographic group, they also have to be able to elect the candidate of their choice. In several of those districts Hispanics can't, because although they're a clear majority of the population their turnout rates are sufficiently low that they'll get outvoted by whites.

What's more, several of them fail the Gingles test both on the grounds of both compactness and cohesiveness - it's hard to argue that Laredo Hispanics are essentially equivalent to Lubbock Hispanics in terms of political behaviour.

[dpmapper]

The growth in Austin, Houston, and DFW has been so massive over the last 10 years that anything drawn with equal 2010 populations is pretty much worthless. 

[OBD]

Pretty sure plenty of those districts are not VRA-compliant. It's not enough for a district to have a majority of electors from a particular demographic group, they also have to be able to elect the candidate of their choice. In several of those districts Hispanics can't, because although they're a clear majority of the population their turnout rates are sufficiently low that they'll get outvoted by whites.

What's more, several of them fail the Gingles test both on the grounds of both compactness and cohesiveness - it's hard to argue that Laredo Hispanics are essentially equivalent to Lubbock Hispanics in terms of political behaviour.

I definitely agree, and I would never be a proponent of that map (which is a peak GOP gerrymander). However, with the Supreme Court as it is right now, it's unclear if those rules still stand, and I could see a Republican legislature in 2020 draw an especially offensive gerrymander to force the issue.

The growth in Austin, Houston, and DFW has been so massive over the last 10 years that anything drawn with equal 2010 populations is pretty much worthless. 

The concept remains the same though - just juggle some of the territory around and maybe crack into the few Titanium R districts left. Bottom line is that the peak for Texas R's is an 11-28 or 12-27 map.

[Skill and Chance]

I increasingly don't think TX-39 is going to happen this round.  How might things shake out differently with a 38 CD map?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I increasingly don't think TX-39 is going to happen this round.  How might things shake out differently with a 38 CD map?

Well, under 39 CDs, DFW, Houston metro, and San Antonio-Austin corridor all gain a seat. Under 38, one of them doesn't. Which of the three is growing the slowest?

[Skill and Chance]

I increasingly don't think TX-39 is going to happen this round.  How might things shake out differently with a 38 CD map?

Well, under 39 CDs, DFW, Houston metro, and San Antonio-Austin corridor all gain a seat. Under 38, one of them doesn't. Which of the three is growing the slowest?

Well, if there is enough of a growth setback to result in only 38 CDs, probably Houston, because oil fell to $20 just in time for the census.

My intuition is that would make it near impossible to draw out Fletcher, but that would also free up more R's to shore up the Austin suburbs CDs?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I increasingly don't think TX-39 is going to happen this round.  How might things shake out differently with a 38 CD map?

Well, under 39 CDs, DFW, Houston metro, and San Antonio-Austin corridor all gain a seat. Under 38, one of them doesn't. Which of the three is growing the slowest?

Well, if there is enough of a growth setback to result in only 38 CDs, probably Houston, because oil fell to $20 just in time for the census.

My intuition is that would make it near impossible to draw out Fletcher, but that would also free up more R's to shore up the Austin suburbs CDs?

My guess is that GOPers draw TX-07 outwards in a 38-seat map, and add a ton of exurban territory. I'd expect them to produce an Austin vote sink, though they might not create a pure Travis CD if they can get Montgomery County in, say, TX-10. Kevin Brady's seat could be unpacked...

[Water Hazard]

Just considering partisan criteria, my guess is they need 12 Dem seats:

3 Dallas
3 Houston
3 Rio Grande/South TX
1 San Antonio
1 Austin
1 El Paso

I think they could get away with dismantling Fletcher's seat because Republicans are distributed pretty well in Houston and there's a lot of currently unused red territory (Brady's seat, etc.) nearby. In any case, Houston doesn't really need 4 Dem sinks, so if they decide to leave it in place they could probably keep it as a swing district and still protect everything else.

The GOP probably needs to concede a third seat in DFW unless they want to get very creative with rural areas; the geographic distribution isn't nearly as favorable there there. Austin is probably fine with one assuming the rest of the area is cracked.

The big wild card IMO is incumbent homes and priorities. 27 seats create a lot of opportunity for someone to be unhappy and could potentially mean additional Dem districts.

I increasingly don't think TX-39 is going to happen this round.  How might things shake out differently with a 38 CD map?

Relative to a 39 seat map, my guess is that a GOP seat is lost in exchange for the others becoming marginally safer (could see this making a difference in Houston).

[AustralianSwingVoter]

I increasingly don't think TX-39 is going to happen this round.  How might things shake out differently with a 38 CD map?

Well, under 39 CDs, DFW, Houston metro, and San Antonio-Austin corridor all gain a seat. Under 38, one of them doesn't. Which of the three is growing the slowest?

I suspect under 38 seats all 3 metro areas still gain a seat and a rural seat is technically abolished.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I increasingly don't think TX-39 is going to happen this round.  How might things shake out differently with a 38 CD map?

Well, under 39 CDs, DFW, Houston metro, and San Antonio-Austin corridor all gain a seat. Under 38, one of them doesn't. Which of the three is growing the slowest?

I suspect under 38 seats all 3 metro areas still gain a seat and a rural seat is technically abolished.

We also could have one of the metros gain a "half-seat" where a rural seat is made exurban I guess.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

I increasingly don't think TX-39 is going to happen this round.  How might things shake out differently with a 38 CD map?

Well, under 39 CDs, DFW, Houston metro, and San Antonio-Austin corridor all gain a seat. Under 38, one of them doesn't. Which of the three is growing the slowest?

I suspect under 38 seats all 3 metro areas still gain a seat and a rural seat is technically abolished.

We also could have one of the metros gain a "half-seat" where a rural seat is made exurban I guess.

I suspect something like that would happen. All three urban areas gain a seat but they're more exurban than with 39 seats, and a rural seat is lost in the difference.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I increasingly don't think TX-39 is going to happen this round.  How might things shake out differently with a 38 CD map?

Well, under 39 CDs, DFW, Houston metro, and San Antonio-Austin corridor all gain a seat. Under 38, one of them doesn't. Which of the three is growing the slowest?

I suspect under 38 seats all 3 metro areas still gain a seat and a rural seat is technically abolished.

We also could have one of the metros gain a "half-seat" where a rural seat is made exurban I guess.

I suspect something like that would happen. All three urban areas gain a seat but they're more exurban than with 39 seats, and a rural seat is lost in the difference.

Has anyone of us actually made a 38 seat map using 2016 estimates? This might be an illuminating exercise insofar as to what the result might be.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/215c4506-b2b1-43d9-9041-f9c9fab5e391
so I constructed this map.
three D seats in DFW, with northern Dallas County cracked between 4 seats, all of them GOP-leaning
an ingenious way of preventing an additional Democrat from getting elected from Travis County - one seat going west far into West Texas, another going east in Montgomery County, and then a D vote sink
TX-07 is kept competitive by becoming more exurban
Fort Bend is chopped in half to prevent a D from winning there
TX-23 is turned into a McCain district, but its Hispanic % is higher than in the 2010s
12 districts went to McCain with over 65%, and 9 more gave him between 60% and 65%.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/215c4506-b2b1-43d9-9041-f9c9fab5e391
so I constructed this map.
three D seats in DFW, with northern Dallas County cracked between 4 seats, all of them GOP-leaning
an ingenious way of preventing an additional Democrat from getting elected from Travis County - one seat going west far into West Texas, another going east in Montgomery County, and then a D vote sink
TX-07 is kept competitive by becoming more exurban
Fort Bend is chopped in half to prevent a D from winning there
TX-23 is turned into a McCain district, but its Hispanic % is higher than in the 2010s
12 districts went to McCain with over 65%, and 9 more gave him between 60% and 65%.

I don't think that North Dallas crack can hold. All four of those North Dallas/Collin seats could go over in a cycle or two. Similarly, I don't that North Tarrant seat can hold. Houston and Austin should be stonger, although the ex-TX-07 and Williamson County seat should go for the Dem. Same with the Hays-Fort Bend district. You just drew a map that could be 22D-16R. Also, you seriously need to adjust for 2020 populations; some of these districts are going to be ~200k voters off.

[lfromnj]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/215c4506-b2b1-43d9-9041-f9c9fab5e391
so I constructed this map.
three D seats in DFW, with northern Dallas County cracked between 4 seats, all of them GOP-leaning
an ingenious way of preventing an additional Democrat from getting elected from Travis County - one seat going west far into West Texas, another going east in Montgomery County, and then a D vote sink
TX-07 is kept competitive by becoming more exurban
Fort Bend is chopped in half to prevent a D from winning there
TX-23 is turned into a McCain district, but its Hispanic % is higher than in the 2010s
12 districts went to McCain with over 65%, and 9 more gave him between 60% and 65%.

The Texas 8 and 9 in your map are like Trump +6 and +7, Denton and Collin can't be used to shore up North Dallas, they have to go west and east.

Your williamson county district is Trump +8 so that flips in 2018 to MJ hegar.

Also theres no need for RGV districts, 3 is enough.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I had a response typed out and lost said response due to a short-term connection issue.

What I will say is that my crack of northern Dallas should work flawlessly or close to flawlessly for one or two cycles and then degrade heavily as the decade goes on. However, this is still better than conceding an additional district to Dems. At the beginning of 2018 they had 2 seats in DFW, then they gained another. Now I turned this seat into a pack and then destroyed the D pickup (TX-32), taking the heavily white liberal southern portion into the D vote sink and then splitting its territory among three seats. The NW Dallas County seat is probably the first domino to fall though, in any event, and if the crack failed anywhere, it would do so here. But the others are more resilent. I designed the Park Cities CD to take in a lot of territory in northern Collin, to help insulate it from trends in Dallas County, and the Richardson CD has a ton of exurban territory, which should counterweigh hostile trends in Dallas County; the portion outside of Dallas and Collin is not all that smaller than the Dallas County portion, which helps it a lot. Ds would have to not just landslide in the Dallas County portion by a larger margin than Rs landslide in the exurban portion, they would also need to win the Collin portion. And while the Garland CD retreats quite a bit, its still quite difficult turf for Dems. The 1/3rd of it outside of Dallas County will be strong R turf and Ds would need massive turnout in Dallas County to overcome that. As for the Tarrant CD, it is 64% white in 2016 and has loads of areas that have remained steadfastly R even in the Trump Era. So I have doubts it really needs help.

As for San Antonio and Austin - I deliberately drew a GOP safe seat here (Comal+north Bexar+Hays+Hill Country). And I don't think Ds can break through easily at all in either of the Travis GOP seats. Are Ds supposed to get massive swings in Montgomery County or the rural areas of either the Texas Triangle or West Texas? Less than a third of either district is in Travis County as of 2016 estimates, and the other parts of the seats in question are overwhlemingly R. Yes I'm aware MJ Hegar would win this version of the Williamson CD. That's not really something I see as possible to avert without dealing serious damage elsewhere or making the map look super ugly.

As for the South East parts of Texas - no I do not think the Fort Bend seats are vulnerable. Fort Bend going D by 60-65% overall (a scenario which I do not see as very plausible as a long-term possibility), would be enough to flip both seats, but until you get to that stress point, you have cracked a county that would have elected a D by itself in 2, keeping that from happening for at the very least, two to three election cycles, at the most, until the next round of redistricting. And I don't think TX-07 is a lost cause for GOPers here. It takes on a large amount of GOP turf and gives up minority territory, making it almost majority white in total population. Culberson only lost by 5 points in 2018, and that was with lots of Hispanic areas in SW Houston thrown in. These have all been excised out, and replaced with white, conservative exurban GOP precincts. This should produce a seat that can rather easily vote R in 2022 and 2024, and potentially later on if you have an entrenched, skilled incumbent. And I doubt that the CD in NE Harris is particularly vulnerable either. It has a large chunk of Montgomery (around 20% of the CD), and Liberty County (another 10% or so). And these would make it very hard for the D to win. The only "GOP" seat that should actually be Dem here by 2022 is the one in SW Harris, but that can't be helped too much. Perhaps it would be competitive however, for three to four election cycles.

All in all this gerrymander I think has great potential. Bear in mind that if Ds take the White House in 2020, then a big amount of the potential gains for them are put in much doubt, as the Dems no longer being the out-party makes it considerably harder for them to gain much in Texas. And if the GOP wins in 2020, this map should do a decent job of holding Dems at bay until at least 2026.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Also, I am aware that 2016 population estimates are out of date; but 1) a fair number of the seats mix areas that are weaker in population growth and those are stronger, so it should cancel out in some districts (such as in the Tom Green-Travis CD), and 2) I have no better data to work with. Certainly it's better than using 2010 data...

[AustralianSwingVoter]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/215c4506-b2b1-43d9-9041-f9c9fab5e391
so I constructed this map.
three D seats in DFW, with northern Dallas County cracked between 4 seats, all of them GOP-leaning
an ingenious way of preventing an additional Democrat from getting elected from Travis County - one seat going west far into West Texas, another going east in Montgomery County, and then a D vote sink
TX-07 is kept competitive by becoming more exurban
Fort Bend is chopped in half to prevent a D from winning there
TX-23 is turned into a McCain district, but its Hispanic % is higher than in the 2010s
12 districts went to McCain with over 65%, and 9 more gave him between 60% and 65%.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/33de3b30-3901-41ea-8533-aa0395d89209
It's always useful to redraw maps in 2010 figures so you get some useful election data to better evaluate the map's effectiveness.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

What I will say is that my crack of northern Dallas should work flawlessly or close to flawlessly for one or two cycles and then degrade heavily as the decade goes on. However, this is still better than conceding an additional district to Dems. At the beginning of 2018 they had 2 seats in DFW, then they gained another. Now I turned this seat into a pack and then destroyed the D pickup (TX-32), taking the heavily white liberal southern portion into the D vote sink and then splitting its territory among three seats. The NW Dallas County seat is probably the first domino to fall though, in any event, and if the crack failed anywhere, it would do so here. But the others are more resilent. I designed the Park Cities CD to take in a lot of territory in northern Collin, to help insulate it from trends in Dallas County, and the Richardson CD has a ton of exurban territory, which should counterweigh hostile trends in Dallas County; the portion outside of Dallas and Collin is not all that smaller than the Dallas County portion, which helps it a lot. Ds would have to not just landslide in the Dallas County portion by a larger margin than Rs landslide in the exurban portion, they would also need to win the Collin portion. And while the Garland CD retreats quite a bit, its still quite difficult turf for Dems. The 1/3rd of it outside of Dallas County will be strong R turf and Ds would need massive turnout in Dallas County to overcome that. As for the Tarrant CD, it is 64% white in 2016 and has loads of areas that have remained steadfastly R even in the Trump Era. So I have doubts it really needs help.

Given the 4th, 5th and 9th are all right on the edge of Tarrant and all over R+20 why not get them to take a larger bite of Fort Worth allowing the 33rd to take a chunk of blue Dallas allowing the 2 Dallas packs to take more blue territory there. And given the 2nd is only D+12 you could definitely improve the D packs in Dallas county too. And the 9th could also help take a chunk of bluer Dallas too.

As for San Antonio and Austin - I deliberately drew a GOP safe seat here (Comal+north Bexar+Hays+Hill Country). And I don't think Ds can break through easily at all in either of the Travis GOP seats. Are Ds supposed to get massive swings in Montgomery County or the rural areas of either the Texas Triangle or West Texas? Less than a third of either district is in Travis County as of 2016 estimates, and the other parts of the seats in question are overwhlemingly R. Yes I'm aware MJ Hegar would win this version of the Williamson CD. That's not really something I see as possible to avert without dealing serious damage elsewhere or making the map look super ugly.

Instead of adding another Rio Grande Hispanic seat you could keep the existing arrangement (so giving Corpus Christi back to an R seat) and instead keep the current 35th which can take blue east san antonio and then take it up to Austin to get rid of the risk on the Travis splitters.
The risk of MJ Hegar could definitely be gotten rid of by just splitting up Williamson-Bell. The 20th is R+23 so could definitely take a large chunk of Williamson, the 19th then moves north abandoning most of Williamson and instead taking Bell some of the 20th and some of the Eastern counties off the 16th. And the 16th could instead come in and take a large chunk of Williamson too, it's R+18 so it has room to spare.

As for the South East parts of Texas - no I do not think the Fort Bend seats are vulnerable. Fort Bend going D by 60-65% overall (a scenario which I do not see as very plausible as a long-term possibility), would be enough to flip both seats, but until you get to that stress point, you have cracked a county that would have elected a D by itself in 2, keeping that from happening for at the very least, two to three election cycles, at the most, until the next round of redistricting. And I don't think TX-07 is a lost cause for GOPers here. It takes on a large amount of GOP turf and gives up minority territory, making it almost majority white in total population. Culberson only lost by 5 points in 2018, and that was with lots of Hispanic areas in SW Houston thrown in. These have all been excised out, and replaced with white, conservative exurban GOP precincts. This should produce a seat that can rather easily vote R in 2022 and 2024, and potentially later on if you have an entrenched, skilled incumbent. And I doubt that the CD in NE Harris is particularly vulnerable either. It has a large chunk of Montgomery (around 20% of the CD), and Liberty County (another 10% or so). And these would make it very hard for the D to win. The only "GOP" seat that should actually be Dem here by 2022 is the one in SW Harris, but that can't be helped too much. Perhaps it would be competitive however, for three to four election cycles.

Rather than being indecisive the GOP could actually try and secure the 27th a good bit more. Your map improves its PVI vs the current district by 2, but by trading precincts with the 18th, 28th and 29th you could definitely get that seat a few points redder without risking the others.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

What I will say is that my crack of northern Dallas should work flawlessly or close to flawlessly for one or two cycles and then degrade heavily as the decade goes on. However, this is still better than conceding an additional district to Dems. At the beginning of 2018 they had 2 seats in DFW, then they gained another. Now I turned this seat into a pack and then destroyed the D pickup (TX-32), taking the heavily white liberal southern portion into the D vote sink and then splitting its territory among three seats. The NW Dallas County seat is probably the first domino to fall though, in any event, and if the crack failed anywhere, it would do so here. But the others are more resilent. I designed the Park Cities CD to take in a lot of territory in northern Collin, to help insulate it from trends in Dallas County, and the Richardson CD has a ton of exurban territory, which should counterweigh hostile trends in Dallas County; the portion outside of Dallas and Collin is not all that smaller than the Dallas County portion, which helps it a lot. Ds would have to not just landslide in the Dallas County portion by a larger margin than Rs landslide in the exurban portion, they would also need to win the Collin portion. And while the Garland CD retreats quite a bit, its still quite difficult turf for Dems. The 1/3rd of it outside of Dallas County will be strong R turf and Ds would need massive turnout in Dallas County to overcome that. As for the Tarrant CD, it is 64% white in 2016 and has loads of areas that have remained steadfastly R even in the Trump Era. So I have doubts it really needs help.

Given the 4th, 5th and 9th are all right on the edge of Tarrant and all over R+20 why not get them to take a larger bite of Fort Worth allowing the 33rd to take a chunk of blue Dallas allowing the 2 Dallas packs to take more blue territory there. And given the 2nd is only D+12 you could definitely improve the D packs in Dallas county too. And the 9th could also help take a chunk of bluer Dallas too.

As for San Antonio and Austin - I deliberately drew a GOP safe seat here (Comal+north Bexar+Hays+Hill Country). And I don't think Ds can break through easily at all in either of the Travis GOP seats. Are Ds supposed to get massive swings in Montgomery County or the rural areas of either the Texas Triangle or West Texas? Less than a third of either district is in Travis County as of 2016 estimates, and the other parts of the seats in question are overwhlemingly R. Yes I'm aware MJ Hegar would win this version of the Williamson CD. That's not really something I see as possible to avert without dealing serious damage elsewhere or making the map look super ugly.

Instead of adding another Rio Grande Hispanic seat you could keep the existing arrangement (so giving Corpus Christi back to an R seat) and instead keep the current 35th which can take blue east san antonio and then take it up to Austin to get rid of the risk on the Travis splitters.
The risk of MJ Hegar could definitely be gotten rid of by just splitting up Williamson-Bell. The 20th is R+23 so could definitely take a large chunk of Williamson, the 19th then moves north abandoning most of Williamson and instead taking Bell some of the 20th and some of the Eastern counties off the 16th. And the 16th could instead come in and take a large chunk of Williamson too, it's R+18 so it has room to spare.

As for the South East parts of Texas - no I do not think the Fort Bend seats are vulnerable. Fort Bend going D by 60-65% overall (a scenario which I do not see as very plausible as a long-term possibility), would be enough to flip both seats, but until you get to that stress point, you have cracked a county that would have elected a D by itself in 2, keeping that from happening for at the very least, two to three election cycles, at the most, until the next round of redistricting. And I don't think TX-07 is a lost cause for GOPers here. It takes on a large amount of GOP turf and gives up minority territory, making it almost majority white in total population. Culberson only lost by 5 points in 2018, and that was with lots of Hispanic areas in SW Houston thrown in. These have all been excised out, and replaced with white, conservative exurban GOP precincts. This should produce a seat that can rather easily vote R in 2022 and 2024, and potentially later on if you have an entrenched, skilled incumbent. And I doubt that the CD in NE Harris is particularly vulnerable either. It has a large chunk of Montgomery (around 20% of the CD), and Liberty County (another 10% or so). And these would make it very hard for the D to win. The only "GOP" seat that should actually be Dem here by 2022 is the one in SW Harris, but that can't be helped too much. Perhaps it would be competitive however, for three to four election cycles.

Rather than being indecisive the GOP could actually try and secure the 27th a good bit more. Your map improves its PVI vs the current district by 2, but by trading precincts with the 18th, 28th and 29th you could definitely get that seat a few points redder without risking the others.

I don't think its necessary to cross the Tarrant-Dallas county line. What I have with Tarrant is a stable 3R-1D arrangement - one seat that has as much minorities as is feasible, and then the rest of the Tarrant just draws itself. I'd also note that the new D vote sink is pretty much as packed as it feasibly can for the most part (the only caveat being that it was drawn to optimize Latino voting power, hence requiring the inclusion of some GOP-leaning precincts in and around Love Field). You have a fair point regarding the two Denton districts; a precinct exchange is in order, with TX-37 losing areas in its north and it gaining Wise and SW Denton.

I'm also dead-set against keeping the current TX-35. It's a total eyesore, it puts GOP seats in and around Travis at risk, erodes count integrity for no clear partisan benefit, and is too much of a danger, due to it forcing nearby GOP districts to take in some D-trending precincts. The GOP can no longer afford not to have a district very firmly based in eastern Travis. However you have outlined a good alternative arrangement in Williamson so I'm using that. Thanks for the help. And you have a decent point regarding TX-07. It definitely could be improved.

Also thanks for making a map to figure out PVIs.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Collin is zooming left as well. I'd guess that in 2020, your CD 7 and 8 would flip with 60-40 Dem margins in Dallas and 55-45 GOP margins at best in Collin/Denton. You need a North Dallas/Park Cities/Plano pack. If you want 6 instead of 8 Dem seats in DFW all the way through 2030, you need a NE Tarrant/NW Dallas/SW Collin/SE Denton pack, North Dallas/Plano pack, and a NE Dallas/Richardson pack. Similarly, giving Fort Bend it's own pack keeps CD 28 and 32 from eventually flipping.

In 2030, Collin, Denton, and Tarrant will all be safe Dem counties. Therefore, any district that splits chunks of Dallas out to any of the other three is bound to flip. It's much smarter to pack the inner suburbs and split the outer fringes of these counties out to the rurals. Same goes for Travis and Bexar with Williamson, Comal, and Hays; and for Harris with Fort Bend, Brazoria, and yes, Montgomery.

By 2030, Texas is going to be a D+5 state with a Dem geographic advantage. A good map for the GOP keeps Dems below 18 seats through the decade, which means starting the decade with 15-16 Dem seats. Anything else is a dummymander.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

What I will say is that my crack of northern Dallas should work flawlessly or close to flawlessly for one or two cycles and then degrade heavily as the decade goes on. However, this is still better than conceding an additional district to Dems. At the beginning of 2018 they had 2 seats in DFW, then they gained another. Now I turned this seat into a pack and then destroyed the D pickup (TX-32), taking the heavily white liberal southern portion into the D vote sink and then splitting its territory among three seats. The NW Dallas County seat is probably the first domino to fall though, in any event, and if the crack failed anywhere, it would do so here. But the others are more resilent. I designed the Park Cities CD to take in a lot of territory in northern Collin, to help insulate it from trends in Dallas County, and the Richardson CD has a ton of exurban territory, which should counterweigh hostile trends in Dallas County; the portion outside of Dallas and Collin is not all that smaller than the Dallas County portion, which helps it a lot. Ds would have to not just landslide in the Dallas County portion by a larger margin than Rs landslide in the exurban portion, they would also need to win the Collin portion. And while the Garland CD retreats quite a bit, its still quite difficult turf for Dems. The 1/3rd of it outside of Dallas County will be strong R turf and Ds would need massive turnout in Dallas County to overcome that. As for the Tarrant CD, it is 64% white in 2016 and has loads of areas that have remained steadfastly R even in the Trump Era. So I have doubts it really needs help.

Given the 4th, 5th and 9th are all right on the edge of Tarrant and all over R+20 why not get them to take a larger bite of Fort Worth allowing the 33rd to take a chunk of blue Dallas allowing the 2 Dallas packs to take more blue territory there. And given the 2nd is only D+12 you could definitely improve the D packs in Dallas county too. And the 9th could also help take a chunk of bluer Dallas too.

As for San Antonio and Austin - I deliberately drew a GOP safe seat here (Comal+north Bexar+Hays+Hill Country). And I don't think Ds can break through easily at all in either of the Travis GOP seats. Are Ds supposed to get massive swings in Montgomery County or the rural areas of either the Texas Triangle or West Texas? Less than a third of either district is in Travis County as of 2016 estimates, and the other parts of the seats in question are overwhlemingly R. Yes I'm aware MJ Hegar would win this version of the Williamson CD. That's not really something I see as possible to avert without dealing serious damage elsewhere or making the map look super ugly.

Instead of adding another Rio Grande Hispanic seat you could keep the existing arrangement (so giving Corpus Christi back to an R seat) and instead keep the current 35th which can take blue east san antonio and then take it up to Austin to get rid of the risk on the Travis splitters.
The risk of MJ Hegar could definitely be gotten rid of by just splitting up Williamson-Bell. The 20th is R+23 so could definitely take a large chunk of Williamson, the 19th then moves north abandoning most of Williamson and instead taking Bell some of the 20th and some of the Eastern counties off the 16th. And the 16th could instead come in and take a large chunk of Williamson too, it's R+18 so it has room to spare.

As for the South East parts of Texas - no I do not think the Fort Bend seats are vulnerable. Fort Bend going D by 60-65% overall (a scenario which I do not see as very plausible as a long-term possibility), would be enough to flip both seats, but until you get to that stress point, you have cracked a county that would have elected a D by itself in 2, keeping that from happening for at the very least, two to three election cycles, at the most, until the next round of redistricting. And I don't think TX-07 is a lost cause for GOPers here. It takes on a large amount of GOP turf and gives up minority territory, making it almost majority white in total population. Culberson only lost by 5 points in 2018, and that was with lots of Hispanic areas in SW Houston thrown in. These have all been excised out, and replaced with white, conservative exurban GOP precincts. This should produce a seat that can rather easily vote R in 2022 and 2024, and potentially later on if you have an entrenched, skilled incumbent. And I doubt that the CD in NE Harris is particularly vulnerable either. It has a large chunk of Montgomery (around 20% of the CD), and Liberty County (another 10% or so). And these would make it very hard for the D to win. The only "GOP" seat that should actually be Dem here by 2022 is the one in SW Harris, but that can't be helped too much. Perhaps it would be competitive however, for three to four election cycles.

Rather than being indecisive the GOP could actually try and secure the 27th a good bit more. Your map improves its PVI vs the current district by 2, but by trading precincts with the 18th, 28th and 29th you could definitely get that seat a few points redder without risking the others.

I don't think its necessary to cross the Tarrant-Dallas county line. What I have with Tarrant is a stable 3R-1D arrangement - one seat that has as much minorities as is feasible, and then the rest of the Tarrant just draws itself. I'd also note that the new D vote sink is pretty much as packed as it feasibly can for the most part (the only caveat being that it was drawn to optimize Latino voting power, hence requiring the inclusion of some GOP-leaning precincts in and around Love Field). You have a fair point regarding the two Denton districts; a precinct exchange is in order, with TX-37 losing areas in its north and it gaining Wise and SW Denton.

I'm also dead-set against keeping the current TX-35. It's a total eyesore, it puts GOP seats in and around Travis at risk, erodes count integrity for no clear partisan benefit, and is too much of a danger, due to it forcing nearby GOP districts to take in some D-trending precincts. The GOP can no longer afford not to have a district very firmly based in eastern Travis. However you have outlined a good alternative arrangement in Williamson so I'm using that. Thanks for the help. And you have a decent point regarding TX-07. It definitely could be improved.

Also thanks for making a map to figure out PVIs.

No, I mean having the current 35th in addition to a new D sink in Austin. Even after 1 D sink there's a lot of blue territory left over in Austin. My suggestion is dropping Corpus Cristi from the D seats so more of Austin can be added instead.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Collin is zooming left as well. I'd guess that in 2020, your CD 7 and 8 would flip with 60-40 Dem margins in Dallas and 55-45 GOP margins at best in Collin/Denton. You need a North Dallas/Park Cities/Plano pack. If you want 6 instead of 8 Dem seats in DFW all the way through 2030, you need a NE Tarrant/NW Dallas/SW Collin/SE Denton pack, North Dallas/Plano pack, and a NE Dallas/Richardson pack. Similarly, giving Fort Bend it's own pack keeps CD 28 and 32 from eventually flipping.

6 Dem seats in DFW would be a rather ugly gerrymander, even taking into account trends. Even on the hardest of swings you only need 4 Dem packs in DFW, then just splitting off the rest of the suburbs and sinking it (and with 4 D packs you can get every single R seat around DFW to over 60% Cruz, which should be pretty safe for a decade)

In 2030, Collin, Denton, and Tarrant will all be safe Dem counties. Therefore, any district that splits chunks of Dallas out to any of the other three is bound to flip. It's much smarter to pack the inner suburbs and split the outer fringes of these counties out to the rurals. Same goes for Travis and Bexar with Williamson, Comal, and Hays; and for Harris with Fort Bend, Brazoria, and yes, Montgomery.

Tarant being blue in a decade is somewhat plausible, but Collin and Denton being not only blue but Safe D is a rather bold prediction to say the least. And the solution to the risk of Collin and Denton going blue isn't to give up and hand away seats to the Dems, it's to make the map uglier and get more rurals involved in splitting up the suburbs. And treating Montgomery (a county that Cruz got 72% in) and Comal (where Cruz got 71%) in the same category as Hays and Williamson is rather silly.

By 2030, Texas is going to be a D+5 state with a Dem geographic advantage. A good map for the GOP keeps Dems below 18 seats through the decade, which means starting the decade with 15-16 Dem seats. Anything else is a dummymander.

Even on the hardest of swings Texas in 10 years being the same PVI as Oregon is rather unlikely. And you can draw a 23-16 map with every R seat over 60% Cruz, so saying a "good" map for the GOP gives away 18 seats is rather absurd.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

No, I mean having the current 35th in addition to a new D sink in Austin. Even after 1 D sink there's a lot of blue territory left over in Austin. My suggestion is dropping Corpus Cristi from the D seats so more of Austin can be added instead.

Ah. Apologies for misunderstanding you.
35th+new Austin vote sink might make sense if not for the fact that 1) I don't need any further protection against Ds in Austin, 2) Corpus Christie being placed out of a D seat means that someway or another the red rurals I am using to crack Fort Bend will be taken out of the equation for certain due to geography, and 3) all this makes the map unnecessarily ugly regardless.
Anyway, I redid some of the districts. Thoughts on the changes?