2020 Texas Redistricting thread

[ProgressiveModerate]

Here we go again ig

Predictions?

Predictions for what?

Redistricting; they’re taking it up again and are gonna make some changes.

[BenjiG98]

Here we go again ig

Predictions?

Predictions for what?

Redistricting; they’re taking it up again and are gonna make some changes.

For congress, or just the legislative maps?

[ProgressiveModerate]

Here we go again ig

Predictions?

Predictions for what?

Redistricting; they’re taking it up again and are gonna make some changes.

For congress, or just the legislative maps?

I think for both, but can’t confirm. There’s a few articles on it but the information is vague.

The main concerns seem to be that they passed the maps too late in the previous session cause of delayed census, and some legal concerns around the maps.

They can’t honestly do much more in terms of maximizing their gerrymanders.

For congressional, they could theoretically crack heavily Hispanic TX-29 in Houston but that could cuss a VRA legal issue. They might also try to optimize the RGV a bit more. Idk.

[Skill and Chance]

Here we go again ig

Predictions?

Predictions for what?

Redistricting; they’re taking it up again and are gonna make some changes.

For congress, or just the legislative maps?

I think for both, but can’t confirm. There’s a few articles on it but the information is vague.

The main concerns seem to be that they passed the maps too late in the previous session cause of delayed census, and some legal concerns around the maps.

They can’t honestly do much more in terms of maximizing their gerrymanders.

For congressional, they could theoretically crack heavily Hispanic TX-29 in Houston but that could cuss a VRA legal issue. They might also try to optimize the RGV a bit more. Idk.

My understanding is the Texas constitution requires state legislative redistricting to pass in the first *regular* session after the new census data is received.  Because the 2020 census data wasn't received until after the regular session that year ended, maps had to be passed in the special session that would presumably be valid only for 2022 and then replaced for the decade by whatever the 2023 session draws.

There should be no constitutional obligation to redo the congressional map, but there's nothing prohibiting it either in Texas. 

[Gass3268]

Reporting suggests that there shouldn't be any major changes, but they could be wrong.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Here we go again ig

Predictions?

Predictions for what?

Redistricting; they’re taking it up again and are gonna make some changes.

For congress, or just the legislative maps?

I think for both, but can’t confirm. There’s a few articles on it but the information is vague.

The main concerns seem to be that they passed the maps too late in the previous session cause of delayed census, and some legal concerns around the maps.

They can’t honestly do much more in terms of maximizing their gerrymanders.

For congressional, they could theoretically crack heavily Hispanic TX-29 in Houston but that could cuss a VRA legal issue. They might also try to optimize the RGV a bit more. Idk.

My understanding is the Texas constitution requires state legislative redistricting to pass in the first *regular* session after the new census data is received.  Because the 2020 census data wasn't received until after the regular session that year ended, maps had to be passed in the special session that would presumably be valid only for 2022 and then replaced for the decade by whatever the 2023 session draws.

There should be no constitutional obligation to redo the congressional map, but there's nothing prohibiting it either in Texas. 

Ah thanks for this specific insight.

Tbh, it's pretty hard to make the State Senate or State House map much more maximal or secure, especially with the county-splitting rules. Maybe they'll try to further optimize the partisan balance of a lot of these Trump + 10ish suburban state House seats to try and push the median seat to the right of the state as much as physically possible.

[jimrtex]

Here we go again ig

Predictions?

Predictions for what?

Redistricting; they’re taking it up again and are gonna make some changes.

For congress, or just the legislative maps?

I think for both, but can’t confirm. There’s a few articles on it but the information is vague.

The main concerns seem to be that they passed the maps too late in the previous session cause of delayed census, and some legal concerns around the maps.

They can’t honestly do much more in terms of maximizing their gerrymanders.

For congressional, they could theoretically crack heavily Hispanic TX-29 in Houston but that could cuss a VRA legal issue. They might also try to optimize the RGV a bit more. Idk.

My understanding is the Texas constitution requires state legislative redistricting to pass in the first *regular* session after the new census data is received.  Because the 2020 census data wasn't received until after the regular session that year ended, maps had to be passed in the special session that would presumably be valid only for 2022 and then replaced for the decade by whatever the 2023 session draws.

There should be no constitutional obligation to redo the congressional map, but there's nothing prohibiting it either in Texas. 

Back in 1950 or so, the legislature was failing to redistrict after the Census. An amendment was passed that said if the legislature failed to redistrict in the first regular season after the census data is received, the Legislative Redistricting Board (LRB) will take over. The LRB is made up of state officers (Lieutenant Governor, AG, Comptroller, House Speaker, and Land Commissioner).

The legislature is likely to produce an incumbent protection plan - in order to be able to pass the plan. The LRB is likely to produce a more radical plan because they are not worried about incumbents and they are a smaller body. They can just let one person, likely the AG, draw the map. The normal procedure is for each body to draw their own map. Then when the bills go over to the opposite chamber, they station doormen at the doors of the chambers which are at opposite ends of the Capitol. They then gavel the bills passed simultaneously.

In 2021 the census data was received after the regular session which is tightly restricted in Texas to end around Memorial Day. It is pretty well recognized law in Texas that the legislature may redistrict at any time (they typically do this to ratify any litigation), or depending when the decision comes down the court will let the plan be used for MCD2, and order the legislature to prepare a new plan for MCD4.

There was litigation in state court that the legislature did not have authority to redistrict last fall. I think the Democrats either wanted a court to draw a map (i.e. if the legislature could not draw a map then nobody could, and a court would have to intervene for equal protection grounds that the districts were not equal population, or maybe they wanted the old districts to be used). In any event the Texas Supreme Court agreed that the redistricting was constitutional (with respect to process).

Since it was understood that the legislature would be drawing new districts, the federal court stayed any litigation. I think this also covered congressional districts.

The district court probably wanted to see how the SCOTUS will rule on the Alabama and Louisiana cases, knowing that the SCOTUS would probably stay any district court ruling.

A curiosity is that senate terms are staggered, but the terms are drawn after all 31 senators are elected. Half will draw an initial 2-year term, and so the district will elect in 2022, 2024, and 2028. The other districts will elect in 2022, 2026, and 2030, with the last election for a 2-year term.

So after this newest redistricting, all 31 senators will face election in 2024. In 2025, there will be a drawing for terms.

There was redistricting before the 1992, 1994, and 1996 elections. But rather than have a drawing in 1997, the Senate consents to a court order, rather actually pass a bill. AG Dan Morales, before he went to prison, said this was OK.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Here we go again ig

Predictions?

Predictions for what?

Redistricting; they’re taking it up again and are gonna make some changes.

For congress, or just the legislative maps?

I think for both, but can’t confirm. There’s a few articles on it but the information is vague.

The main concerns seem to be that they passed the maps too late in the previous session cause of delayed census, and some legal concerns around the maps.

They can’t honestly do much more in terms of maximizing their gerrymanders.

For congressional, they could theoretically crack heavily Hispanic TX-29 in Houston but that could cuss a VRA legal issue. They might also try to optimize the RGV a bit more. Idk.

My understanding is the Texas constitution requires state legislative redistricting to pass in the first *regular* session after the new census data is received.  Because the 2020 census data wasn't received until after the regular session that year ended, maps had to be passed in the special session that would presumably be valid only for 2022 and then replaced for the decade by whatever the 2023 session draws.

There should be no constitutional obligation to redo the congressional map, but there's nothing prohibiting it either in Texas. 

Back in 1950 or so, the legislature was failing to redistrict after the Census. An amendment was passed that said if the legislature failed to redistrict in the first regular season after the census data is received, the Legislative Redistricting Board (LRB) will take over. The LRB is made up of state officers (Lieutenant Governor, AG, Comptroller, House Speaker, and Land Commissioner).

The legislature is likely to produce an incumbent protection plan - in order to be able to pass the plan. The LRB is likely to produce a more radical plan because they are not worried about incumbents and they are a smaller body. They can just let one person, likely the AG, draw the map. The normal procedure is for each body to draw their own map. Then when the bills go over to the opposite chamber, they station doormen at the doors of the chambers which are at opposite ends of the Capitol. They then gavel the bills passed simultaneously.

In 2021 the census data was received after the regular session which is tightly restricted in Texas to end around Memorial Day. It is pretty well recognized law in Texas that the legislature may redistrict at any time (they typically do this to ratify any litigation), or depending when the decision comes down the court will let the plan be used for MCD2, and order the legislature to prepare a new plan for MCD4.

There was litigation in state court that the legislature did not have authority to redistrict last fall. I think the Democrats either wanted a court to draw a map (i.e. if the legislature could not draw a map then nobody could, and a court would have to intervene for equal protection grounds that the districts were not equal population, or maybe they wanted the old districts to be used). In any event the Texas Supreme Court agreed that the redistricting was constitutional (with respect to process).

Since it was understood that the legislature would be drawing new districts, the federal court stayed any litigation. I think this also covered congressional districts.

The district court probably wanted to see how the SCOTUS will rule on the Alabama and Louisiana cases, knowing that the SCOTUS would probably stay any district court ruling.

A curiosity is that senate terms are staggered, but the terms are drawn after all 31 senators are elected. Half will draw an initial 2-year term, and so the district will elect in 2022, 2024, and 2028. The other districts will elect in 2022, 2026, and 2030, with the last election for a 2-year term.

So after this newest redistricting, all 31 senators will face election in 2024. In 2025, there will be a drawing for terms.

There was redistricting before the 1992, 1994, and 1996 elections. But rather than have a drawing in 1997, the Senate consents to a court order, rather actually pass a bill. AG Dan Morales, before he went to prison, said this was OK.

In your view, what likely changed (if any) do you think are likely. In places like Collin County, there seems to be a real dummymander risk, and perhaps the GOP drew it with the intention that’s it’d be redrawn to be further optimized.

But tbh, given Ds insane geography edge, there’s not much you can do to shore up the state House. Any map that tries to keep Ds at 65 or below likely doenst push the median seat much to the right of the state, but ceding 70+ seats to Dems may feel too close for comfort even if technically the median seat is pushed right.

For State Senate, they could eliminate one of the south TX Hispanic seats given it seems like in a few cases, they actually gave the D state sens what they wanted plus this SCOTUS seems more lax on VRA. The rest of the state senate map is ridiculous ugly but can’t honestly be made much more maximal.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Ya'll wanna work on fair maps to submit to the committee.

Not that it'll affect anything, but better to do smtg with your interests ig.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Ig there’s several options as to what to submit:

1. A truly fair map the committee likely flat out ignores, but points out some of the missed minority seats that could be.

2. A fairer map that tries to meet the committee where they’re at (not throwing any incumbents under the bus), perhaps by creating more competitive seats overall and getting rid of the more extreme tentacles.

3. A version of the current map that makes small non-controversial iterations that don’t really affect partisanship in the name of improving the map.

4. Drawing an alternative gerrymander that’s even more effective.

[jimrtex]

Ya'll wanna work on fair maps to submit to the committee.

Not that it'll affect anything, but better to do smtg with your interests ig.

My House plan from 2021

[ProgressiveModerate]

Ya'll wanna work on fair maps to submit to the committee.

Not that it'll affect anything, but better to do smtg with your interests ig.

My House plan from 2021

FF map, ig my only thing is don’t Harris and Dallas have to be their own “cluster”?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Ya'll wanna work on fair maps to submit to the committee.

Not that it'll affect anything, but better to do smtg with your interests ig.

My House plan from 2021

FF map, ig my only thing is don’t Harris and Dallas have to be their own “cluster”?

My understanding is that Rockwall County, because of the land it has, has to be paired with either Dallas County or Collin County.
In the 2010s, it was paired with Collin. In Jimrtex's map, it would be paired with Dallas.

[jimrtex]

Ya'll wanna work on fair maps to submit to the committee.

Not that it'll affect anything, but better to do smtg with your interests ig.

My House plan from 2021

FF map, ig my only thing is don’t Harris and Dallas have to be their own “cluster”?

That is based on an erroneous interpretation of the Texas Constitution.

Dallas is entitled to 13.451 representatives, Harris to 24.349, and Bexar to 10.341. According to the text of the constitution, Dallas is apportioned to 13 representatives, and has a surplus of 0.451. The surplus of 0.451 can be combined with Rockwall which is entitled to 0.555. Collectively, Dallas and Rockwall have a population of 14.006 representatives. We can draw 14 districts with an error of 0.04%. This is in perfect comportment with the directive that representatives be apportioned among the counties as "as nearly as may be."

The The Texas Constitution also specifies that Dallas has 13 representatives. And that Dallas and Rockwall should have one representative. It does not say whether the 13 representatives be represented by district, by position, by plurality (Top 13) or some proportional method.

But the floterial district combining Dallas and Rockwall clearly violates equal protection. Rockwall is supplying 55% of the population, but has only 4.0% of the electorate (more or less depending on the distribution of citizen adults).

The Texas Supreme harmonized this conflict, by saying that you can combine an area containing a population equal to the surplus with adjacent counties (whole or an area containing their surplus population). That is what I did.

Equal protection (and the VRA) forbid election of 13 representatives countywide, at least when there are distinct racial areas that have distinct political opinions, within a county that can be formed into districts. It might be constitutional to use a proportional election method - but that seems inconsistent with other areas electing only one representative.

Combining Dallas and Rockwall is correct for apportionment purposes. It is not correct for electoral purposes if one representative is assigned to the whole of the two counties, and 13 representatives to the whole of Dallas County.

It is nonsensical to say that Lubbock, El Paso, Webb, Hidalgo, Cameron, Nueces, Hays, Travis, McLennan, Denton, Collin, Smith, Jefferson, Galveston, Fort Bend, Montgomery, and Brazos should be combined with adjacent counties in a particular way, and Harris, Dallas, and Bexar may not even though they do have large surpluses.

Ignoring the surplus can produce a systemic bias. Imagine you were going through a cafeteria line, and the cook was dishing out mashed potatoes. They scoop and get roughly 1/2 cup for each customer. This is fair, even though it is not precisely a 1/2 cup. If they took the time to weigh each portion, and then used a teaspoon to add a bit more, or subtract a bit, the line would stall, and some students might not even be served.

Now imagine if you watched, and the cook consistently scooped deeper for students dressed in red, and shallower for those dressed in blue, or perhaps did this based on race. Even though the scoops were within +/- 5% of 1/2 cup there is a systemic bias.

Now what if every district in Dallas County averaged 3.9% less than the quota? That is a systemic bias that delivers extra representation to Dallas County.

Or what if every district in Dallas County (13 districts) averaged 3.5% more than the quota, every district in Bexar County (10 districts) averaged 3.4% more than the quota, and every district in Harris County (24 districts) averaged 1.45% more than the quota?

You would just have apportioned 47 districts to 3 counties that are entitled to 48.140 representatives. You have shorted them a whole representative that you have given to the rest of the state. But it will be impossible to give each other of 102 districts, -1.12% less. In East Texas because of the generally larger county populations you will be forced to have some districts with surpluses, this will mean that in West Texas you can consistently create underpopulated districts.

After Reynolds v. Sims, a provision in the Texas Constitution that limited representation of the largest counties was ruled to be unconstitutional. This provision limited representation to counties that were entitled to more than 7 representatives. It had been added after the 1930 Census when Harris, Dallas, and Bexar counties first would have been apportioned more than 7 representatives. It has since been deleted from the Constitution.

In addition floterial districts were outlawed, and the practice ever since has been to recognize a surplus as an area with a population equivalent to the surplus. Note that in some instances the remainder of the county elected its representatives at large.

1972 House Districts (PDF)

In this map notice that the outlying areas of Tarrant County are combined with Parker County in a single member district, while the central area (Fort Worth, Arlington, HEB, etc. are in a single district electing 9 representatives.

Notice also that HD-17 in Harris County extends into Chambers and Galveston County. In effect it is formed from the surpluses of Harris and Galveston counties and the entirety of Chambers County. Similarly, HD-45 is formed from a surplus of Bexar County and 6 other counties. Rather than being treated as irregular, they are normative.

1976 House Districts

At-large elections were outlawed, requiring the creation of single member districts in Tarrant, Travis, and throughout the state, but the treatment of the surpluses in Harris, Bexar, and Tarrant were treated the same (the area in Tarrant combined with Parker was modified, but it is still an area with the surplus population).

In the 1960's the structural problems (1) restriction of representation for largest counties, and use of floterial districts were eliminated. Because districts had to be added to Harris, Dallas, Bexar and Tarrant counties, the rest of the state had to be reapportioned.

Following the 1970 Census, the legislature completely ignored the Texas Constitution and divided the state into 150 districts often ignoring county lines. In particular they attempted to carve a young Republican from Midland County, Tom Craddick, out of his district. Craddick sued (Craddick v Smith) and won. The Texas Supreme Court required that surpluses be handled in the way they are today.

The 1972 map was drawn after this decision. That map was challenged in federal court appealed to the SCOTUS (White v Regester). That decision (1) upheld the district courts decision mandating single-member districts in Dallas and Bexar counties; (2) remanded to the district court whether other multi-member counties (e.g. Tarrant and Travis) should also be single-member districts. The district court later determined that this should be done in all counties except Hidalgo (i.e. in Hidalgo it is impossible to draw a non-majority Hispanic district). Since that time all districts have been single member, even in Hidalgo County; and (3) that the 10% range of deviation in the plan did not violate equal protection.

This has since been made a national standard by the SCOTUS. Technically it is a burden shifting threshold. If the deviation range is greater than 10%, the defendant (state or local jurisdiction must justify the deviation). If the deviation range is less than 10%, the plaintiff must prove that deviation is not justified (e.g., the deviation was biased with discriminatory intent or significantly less deviation could be achieved while following state requirements such as observing county boundaries).

You will notice in the 1972 map that Red River County is split. It is impossible to draw a district that includes Bowie and one of its neighbors that is within 5% deviation. Relative populations are Bowie (0.908), Cass (0.323), Red River (0.192), and Morris (0.169).

Bowie alone would be -9.2% underpopulated, Bowie and Morris would +7.7% overpopulated. Bowie and Morris might have also blocked formation of other districts.

I personally would have split the larger county, Bowie, putting Texarkana with Cass, and keeping Red River whole. But that is a policy decision, and neither configuration complies with the Texas Constitution. This situation has led to a believe that "you will always have to split a smaller county", rather than the correct observation that "you may have to split a smaller county". The current official map splits Henderson County because of this false belief.

You will also notice that Smith, Brazoria, Jefferson, and Hidalgo have two surplus areas (you may have to zoom in to see the latter two). These are of dubious compliance with the Texas Constitution since these intended to be conversion of floterial districts. In effect, Smith (1.301) would have had its own district, and a majority of the population of two other districts. I don't think these were necessary in 1970, though it would have required rearrangements of districts.

In the 1976 map, the second surplus area in Jefferson County was eliminated when single-member districts were drawn.

After the 1980 Census, the legislature completely forgot all they had been told in the 1970's and willy-nilly chopped up counties. The Texas Supreme Court overruled the map. It had so many errors that they also said that treating large counties that had a surplus as not having a surplus when it could be smudged around within the county.

What is a reasonable definition of when a surplus must be recognized? For moderate-sized counties, the surplus must be recognized when the average district size within a county has a absolute relative deviation per representative is greater than 5%; OR when the total deviation for the county is between 25% and 75% (i.e. roughly 1/2); OR when recognizing a surplus can avoid dividing a small county, or not having the maximum number of whole districts within a county entitled to one or more districts, or having more than one county fragment.

When Texas was mostly rural, counties in eastern Texas were entitled to one or two representatives, or somewhere in between. Counties were formed so that farmers could get to the courthouse when necessary. Farms were roughly of the same size - farmed by a single family without mechanized equipment. So rural counties had roughly had the same number of people. It is only with urbanization that the counties began to diverge.

So if a county had the population equivalent to one or two representatives could be apportioned those representatives. Then the legislature could add a floterial district when a couple of adjacent counties were entitled to about 1.5 representatives (or 1.6 and 1.4; or 1.4 and 1.4; or 1.6 and 1.3; or 1.7 and 1.4; etc.) You can see in the old bill books where amendments have been hand-written in when someone found where an additional floterial district could be created. This was a reasonable solution when elections were administered wholly at the county level. There is no reason not to continue this use practice even with the largest counties.

[jimrtex]

Ya'll wanna work on fair maps to submit to the committee.

Not that it'll affect anything, but better to do smtg with your interests ig.

My House plan from 2021

FF map, ig my only thing is don’t Harris and Dallas have to be their own “cluster”?

If you click on the download arrow at the top of the map, the app will generate a plan report.

[jimrtex]

The Senate Redistricting Committee has scheduled hearings beginning next week.

Senate Redistricting Committee Hearings (PDF)

[ProgressiveModerate]

Ya'll wanna work on fair maps to submit to the committee.

Not that it'll affect anything, but better to do smtg with your interests ig.

My House plan from 2021

FF map, ig my only thing is don’t Harris and Dallas have to be their own “cluster”?

That is based on an erroneous interpretation of the Texas Constitution.

Dallas is entitled to 13.451 representatives, Harris to 24.349, and Bexar to 10.341. According to the text of the constitution, Dallas is apportioned to 13 representatives, and has a surplus of 0.451. The surplus of 0.451 can be combined with Rockwall which is entitled to 0.555. Collectively, Dallas and Rockwall have a population of 14.006 representatives. We can draw 14 districts with an error of 0.04%. This is in perfect comportment with the directive that representatives be apportioned among the counties as "as nearly as may be."

The The Texas Constitution also specifies that Dallas has 13 representatives. And that Dallas and Rockwall should have one representative. It does not say whether the 13 representatives be represented by district, by position, by plurality (Top 13) or some proportional method.

But the floterial district combining Dallas and Rockwall clearly violates equal protection. Rockwall is supplying 55% of the population, but has only 4.0% of the electorate (more or less depending on the distribution of citizen adults).

The Texas Supreme harmonized this conflict, by saying that you can combine an area containing a population equal to the surplus with adjacent counties (whole or an area containing their surplus population). That is what I did.

Equal protection (and the VRA) forbid election of 13 representatives countywide, at least when there are distinct racial areas that have distinct political opinions, within a county that can be formed into districts. It might be constitutional to use a proportional election method - but that seems inconsistent with other areas electing only one representative.

Combining Dallas and Rockwall is correct for apportionment purposes. It is not correct for electoral purposes if one representative is assigned to the whole of the two counties, and 13 representatives to the whole of Dallas County.

It is nonsensical to say that Lubbock, El Paso, Webb, Hidalgo, Cameron, Nueces, Hays, Travis, McLennan, Denton, Collin, Smith, Jefferson, Galveston, Fort Bend, Montgomery, and Brazos should be combined with adjacent counties in a particular way, and Harris, Dallas, and Bexar may not even though they do have large surpluses.

Ignoring the surplus can produce a systemic bias. Imagine you were going through a cafeteria line, and the cook was dishing out mashed potatoes. They scoop and get roughly 1/2 cup for each customer. This is fair, even though it is not precisely a 1/2 cup. If they took the time to weigh each portion, and then used a teaspoon to add a bit more, or subtract a bit, the line would stall, and some students might not even be served.

Now imagine if you watched, and the cook consistently scooped deeper for students dressed in red, and shallower for those dressed in blue, or perhaps did this based on race. Even though the scoops were within +/- 5% of 1/2 cup there is a systemic bias.

Now what if every district in Dallas County averaged 3.9% less than the quota? That is a systemic bias that delivers extra representation to Dallas County.

Or what if every district in Dallas County (13 districts) averaged 3.5% more than the quota, every district in Bexar County (10 districts) averaged 3.4% more than the quota, and every district in Harris County (24 districts) averaged 1.45% more than the quota?

You would just have apportioned 47 districts to 3 counties that are entitled to 48.140 representatives. You have shorted them a whole representative that you have given to the rest of the state. But it will be impossible to give each other of 102 districts, -1.12% less. In East Texas because of the generally larger county populations you will be forced to have some districts with surpluses, this will mean that in West Texas you can consistently create underpopulated districts.

After Reynolds v. Sims, a provision in the Texas Constitution that limited representation of the largest counties was ruled to be unconstitutional. This provision limited representation to counties that were entitled to more than 7 representatives. It had been added after the 1930 Census when Harris, Dallas, and Bexar counties first would have been apportioned more than 7 representatives. It has since been deleted from the Constitution.

In addition floterial districts were outlawed, and the practice ever since has been to recognize a surplus as an area with a population equivalent to the surplus. Note that in some instances the remainder of the county elected its representatives at large.

1972 House Districts (PDF)

In this map notice that the outlying areas of Tarrant County are combined with Parker County in a single member district, while the central area (Fort Worth, Arlington, HEB, etc. are in a single district electing 9 representatives.

Notice also that HD-17 in Harris County extends into Chambers and Galveston County. In effect it is formed from the surpluses of Harris and Galveston counties and the entirety of Chambers County. Similarly, HD-45 is formed from a surplus of Bexar County and 6 other counties. Rather than being treated as irregular, they are normative.

1976 House Districts

At-large elections were outlawed, requiring the creation of single member districts in Tarrant, Travis, and throughout the state, but the treatment of the surpluses in Harris, Bexar, and Tarrant were treated the same (the area in Tarrant combined with Parker was modified, but it is still an area with the surplus population).

In the 1960's the structural problems (1) restriction of representation for largest counties, and use of floterial districts were eliminated. Because districts had to be added to Harris, Dallas, Bexar and Tarrant counties, the rest of the state had to be reapportioned.

Following the 1970 Census, the legislature completely ignored the Texas Constitution and divided the state into 150 districts often ignoring county lines. In particular they attempted to carve a young Republican from Midland County, Tom Craddick, out of his district. Craddick sued (Craddick v Smith) and won. The Texas Supreme Court required that surpluses be handled in the way they are today.

The 1972 map was drawn after this decision. That map was challenged in federal court appealed to the SCOTUS (White v Regester). That decision (1) upheld the district courts decision mandating single-member districts in Dallas and Bexar counties; (2) remanded to the district court whether other multi-member counties (e.g. Tarrant and Travis) should also be single-member districts. The district court later determined that this should be done in all counties except Hidalgo (i.e. in Hidalgo it is impossible to draw a non-majority Hispanic district). Since that time all districts have been single member, even in Hidalgo County; and (3) that the 10% range of deviation in the plan did not violate equal protection.

This has since been made a national standard by the SCOTUS. Technically it is a burden shifting threshold. If the deviation range is greater than 10%, the defendant (state or local jurisdiction must justify the deviation). If the deviation range is less than 10%, the plaintiff must prove that deviation is not justified (e.g., the deviation was biased with discriminatory intent or significantly less deviation could be achieved while following state requirements such as observing county boundaries).

You will notice in the 1972 map that Red River County is split. It is impossible to draw a district that includes Bowie and one of its neighbors that is within 5% deviation. Relative populations are Bowie (0.908), Cass (0.323), Red River (0.192), and Morris (0.169).

Bowie alone would be -9.2% underpopulated, Bowie and Morris would +7.7% overpopulated. Bowie and Morris might have also blocked formation of other districts.

I personally would have split the larger county, Bowie, putting Texarkana with Cass, and keeping Red River whole. But that is a policy decision, and neither configuration complies with the Texas Constitution. This situation has led to a believe that "you will always have to split a smaller county", rather than the correct observation that "you may have to split a smaller county". The current official map splits Henderson County because of this false belief.

You will also notice that Smith, Brazoria, Jefferson, and Hidalgo have two surplus areas (you may have to zoom in to see the latter two). These are of dubious compliance with the Texas Constitution since these intended to be conversion of floterial districts. In effect, Smith (1.301) would have had its own district, and a majority of the population of two other districts. I don't think these were necessary in 1970, though it would have required rearrangements of districts.

In the 1976 map, the second surplus area in Jefferson County was eliminated when single-member districts were drawn.

After the 1980 Census, the legislature completely forgot all they had been told in the 1970's and willy-nilly chopped up counties. The Texas Supreme Court overruled the map. It had so many errors that they also said that treating large counties that had a surplus as not having a surplus when it could be smudged around within the county.

What is a reasonable definition of when a surplus must be recognized? For moderate-sized counties, the surplus must be recognized when the average district size within a county has a absolute relative deviation per representative is greater than 5%; OR when the total deviation for the county is between 25% and 75% (i.e. roughly 1/2); OR when recognizing a surplus can avoid dividing a small county, or not having the maximum number of whole districts within a county entitled to one or more districts, or having more than one county fragment.

When Texas was mostly rural, counties in eastern Texas were entitled to one or two representatives, or somewhere in between. Counties were formed so that farmers could get to the courthouse when necessary. Farms were roughly of the same size - farmed by a single family without mechanized equipment. So rural counties had roughly had the same number of people. It is only with urbanization that the counties began to diverge.

So if a county had the population equivalent to one or two representatives could be apportioned those representatives. Then the legislature could add a floterial district when a couple of adjacent counties were entitled to about 1.5 representatives (or 1.6 and 1.4; or 1.4 and 1.4; or 1.6 and 1.3; or 1.7 and 1.4; etc.) You can see in the old bill books where amendments have been hand-written in when someone found where an additional floterial district could be created. This was a reasonable solution when elections were administered wholly at the county level. There is no reason not to continue this use practice even with the largest counties.

Ah thank you for this thorough analysis.

Under the GOP's lineas, then it makes sense why the GOP just did 13 Dallas seats, 10 Bexar seats, and 24 Harris seats if on net they're denying Ds a seat from all these deep blue counties. This really is a case where every seat matters because of how extreme Ds geography edge is.

Ig that begs the question, on the current map, under what you're stating, would the Hidalgo-Cameron-Willacy group be problematic because that is 2 floterial districts and 35 specifically doesn't is shared between Hidalgo and Cameron without being a clear Floterial for either.

[jimrtex]

Ah thank you for this thorough analysis.

Under the GOP's lineas, then it makes sense why the GOP just did 13 Dallas seats, 10 Bexar seats, and 24 Harris seats if on net they're denying Ds a seat from all these deep blue counties. This really is a case where every seat matters because of how extreme Ds geography edge is.

Ig that begs the question, on the current map, under what you're stating, would the Hidalgo-Cameron-Willacy group be problematic because that is 2 floterial districts and 35 specifically doesn't is shared between Hidalgo and Cameron without being a clear Floterial for either.

They may have just looked at the raw entitlement and determined that Dallas at 13.451 should be rounded down. This might be a case where they looked at Dallas and decided that it was a good thing.

There was a similar situation in the 2000s redistricting. Harris was intermediate between 24 and 25. The Harris delegation was supposedly united on keeping 25 districts in Harris County. Pete Laney was Speaker at the time, and the head of the Redistricting Committee was from Lubbock. When the map went before the House, Harris had been apportioned 24, and Democrats had drawn the map - with the intent of cutting out a Republican representative.

In 2001, the legislature failed to pass a redistricting bill (in part because action was blocked in the Senate). This resulted in the LRB drawing a map with 25 districts in Harris County, and also more compact boundaries.

If you compare to the US apportionment, you would have to first define multi-seat clusters, and then a super-cluster comprised of all the area in single-member districts. What you would find is that the super-cluster was being apportioned one extra seat.

In the 2020 Census there was some question on how the floterial district should be drawn in the RGV. The Democrats wanted to cut J.M.Lozano out of his seat (because he had switched parties in 2003. Ultimately, they figured out how to configure HD-35 so that it snaked around from La Joya to Harlingen.

Cameron is growing slower than the State, and by 2030 might be down to 2 districts. Willacy is only entitled to 0.100, so HD-37 is close to a full quota but not quite. It also meant that TX-35 had to take a larger share of Cameron (the natural surplus, plus the part  cut out to accommodate Willacy.

The goal of this plan was to protect Ryan Guillen who switched parties. He lives in Starr County. By stretching TX-31 north to Wilson County it made it winnable by a Republican.

I'm not sure whether shared floterials (e.g. Montgomery-Brazos, Harris-Fort Bend, or Hidalgo-Cameron) are preferred or not. I can see it particularly in the case of two large counties that share a district between themselves, since it may mean more districts comprised of whole counties.

The current map also treats Travis and El Paso badly. El Paso is entitled to 4.455 representatives. In the past it has just barely qualified for 5 representative in the county.

El Paso has a surplus of 0.455 based on the definition in the constitution. We would want to combine this with other counties with a population equivalent to 0.545. Instead 0.758 was added.

4.455 + 0.758 equals 5.213. 5.213/5 = 1.043. Three of the five districts have deviations of +4.95%, +4.88%, +4.60%. They pushed these districts to the limit.

The Democrat plan did just the opposite, adding enough to get the total above 4.75, so that the 5 districts would have close to -5.00% deviation.

Imagine you had water glasses which had a black line representing 8 ounces, and two red lines representing +/-5% more or less (7.6 and 8.4 ounces).

There are four glasses filled to the black line, and one that is half full or half empty depending on your political persuasion.

What should be the procedure is to fill the fifth glass up to the black line from a pitcher.

Instead the Republicans poured from the fifth glass into the four other glass, so they were close to the upper red line, and then were able to add more water from the pitcher into the fifth glass.

The Democrats would have poured some of the water from the full glasses into the fifth glass, so they were close to the lower red line. There was then less room in the fifth glass for additional filling.

I think that the following are clearly in violation of the Texas Constitution:

(1) Division of Henderson County.
(2) Failure to draw two districts wholly in Cameron County.
(3) Treatment of surplus of El Paso County.
(4) Treatment of surplus of Travis County.

It is subjective whether Harris, Dallas, and Bexar should be treated as having surpluses. It is clear that by doing so, that the apportionment is "as near as may be".

I think that HD-62 and HD-68 exhibit bad policy choices by connecting Delta to Franklin; and Shackleford to Eastland via quite tenuous connections.

[jimrtex]

Under the GOP's lineas, then it makes sense why the GOP just did 13 Dallas seats, 10 Bexar seats, and 24 Harris seats if on net they're denying Ds a seat from all these deep blue counties. This really is a case where every seat matters because of how extreme Ds geography edge is.

Ig that begs the question, on the current map, under what you're stating, would the Hidalgo-Cameron-Willacy group be problematic because that is 2 floterial districts and 35 specifically doesn't is shared between Hidalgo and Cameron without being a clear Floterial for either.

I remembered another side effect of the clustering, under the rules for consideration of the House Bill for redistricting, any amendment has to fit in to the rest of the map. So if you wanted to change the districts in Dallas County, you would have to accept that there are 13 districts and limit adjustments among some or all of those. You would be constrained to overpopulate most or all of the districts some.

My ideal would have county redistricting boards in each county, appointed in around the x8 year. They would be responsible for identifying communities for redistricting. If each community has less than 10% of the population of a House district, they can be assembled into a House district within 5% deviation of the ideal.

This is sort of done in Massachusetts, where all the cities and towns are required to re-ward to precincts of less than 5000, even though most don't use districts for local governments. The problem there is that communities of interest don't have equal population.

If you instead had county redistricting boards dividing counties into communities of interest in the 08 year, they could concentrate on respecting city and school district boundaries (in cities like they Houston, they would only respect the city limits to the extent that they earn respect).

After the Census, a statewide redistricting board could draw congressional and senate districts that minimize county division, and drawing clusters for House districts.

The county district boards could then redistrict the county commissioner and JP precincts, and any cities or ISDs that have districts. They could also refine any congressional or senate districts in their counties, and do house districts in their areas.

[Spectator]

Just did my attempt at a fair 40-seat 2030 redraw. 40 seats is likely too conservative given Texas's explosive growth. If Democrats win the State House or the Governorship (or both) in 2030, this map just shows how screwed Republicans would be in the redistricting cycle. This map below is based on 2020 Trump-Biden numbers. I made R-favorable decisions in the DFW area and a few D-favorable splits in Harris County. I expect Williamson County will be big enough to contain its own congressional district pretty easily by 2030, so the map may be even more D favorable by then. My Denton County seat will likely go blue presidentially anyway by 2030, as will my Tarrant County seat.

VRA-compliant on all fronts, including black seats in south Dallas and central Harris County. >55% Hispanic in the weirdly shaped Dallas, Tarrant and Harris seats.

I think the only optimistic rooms for growth for the TX GOP in this map would be the South Texas seats, but even those are all Biden +12 or greater. I was surprised at how cleanly redrawing those seats results in all of them getting bluer.

My takeways are that almost any fair map would result in:
-a D seat in Fort Bend County
-2 solidly blue seats entirely within Bexar County
-at least 2 solidly blue Austin metro seats with a third swing (blue-trending) seat
-at least 1 blue Collin County seat (especially by the end of the decade)
-at least 1 additional blue seat out of Dallas/Tarrant counties, possibly 2 or 3 by end of decade.

All of this is possible in the 21 Biden - 19 Trump seat map because there's just so many wasted GOP votes in areas that are >70% Trump, all throughout rural west and east Texas. 7 seats total are >70% Trump. Meanwhile only 3 seats are >70% Biden (one in Dallas, Harris and Travis counties each). A fourth seat in Bexar County comes really close though at 69% Biden.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Will anything be touched here?

Potential problems:

-South Texas is always a battleground for obvious reasons; if the current map is illegal or not in that regard depends on the interepreter

-Not having a 2nd Hispanic seat fully within Bexar; you could create 2 solid Hispanic seats fully within Bexar and an opportunity seat in Austin. This is honestly prolly the strongest current argument against the current map.

-Dallas could have another functional minority seat

-Houston is weird cause you have 2 black and 1 hispanic seat when based on population it should be the other way around. You could do 2 black and 2 Hispanic seats though

Again, I think I need more specifics of the ruling. Does it mandate opportunity seats or keeping clear communities or minorities whole, or only seats that are outright majority?

[Death of a Salesman]

Will anything be touched here?

Potential problems:

-South Texas is always a battleground for obvious reasons; if the current map is illegal or not in that regard depends on the interepreter

-Not having a 2nd Hispanic seat fully within Bexar; you could create 2 solid Hispanic seats fully within Bexar and an opportunity seat in Austin. This is honestly prolly the strongest current argument against the current map.

-Dallas could have another functional minority seat

-Houston is weird cause you have 2 black and 1 hispanic seat when based on population it should be the other way around. You could do 2 black and 2 Hispanic seats though

Again, I think I need more specifics of the ruling. Does it mandate opportunity seats or keeping clear communities or minorities whole, or only seats that are outright majority?

If Republicans don’t have a case in New Mexico, Democrats don’t have a case in Texas. The Hispanic population is not politically cohesive. Now, the five liberals on the court have ignored logic before, but that sort of shameless double standard is beyond even them.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Will anything be touched here?

Potential problems:

-South Texas is always a battleground for obvious reasons; if the current map is illegal or not in that regard depends on the interepreter

-Not having a 2nd Hispanic seat fully within Bexar; you could create 2 solid Hispanic seats fully within Bexar and an opportunity seat in Austin. This is honestly prolly the strongest current argument against the current map.

-Dallas could have another functional minority seat

-Houston is weird cause you have 2 black and 1 hispanic seat when based on population it should be the other way around. You could do 2 black and 2 Hispanic seats though

Again, I think I need more specifics of the ruling. Does it mandate opportunity seats or keeping clear communities or minorities whole, or only seats that are outright majority?

If Republicans don’t have a case in New Mexico, Democrats don’t have a case in Texas. The Hispanic population is not politically cohesive. Now, the five liberals on the court have ignored logic before, but that sort of shameless double standard is beyond even them.

Under that’s argument, the current TX-35 connects very in cohesive cohorts of Hisapanic voters whereas 2 districts nested entirely within Bexar would represent cohesive community of Hispanics.

[Death of a Salesman]

Will anything be touched here?

Potential problems:

-South Texas is always a battleground for obvious reasons; if the current map is illegal or not in that regard depends on the interepreter

-Not having a 2nd Hispanic seat fully within Bexar; you could create 2 solid Hispanic seats fully within Bexar and an opportunity seat in Austin. This is honestly prolly the strongest current argument against the current map.

-Dallas could have another functional minority seat

-Houston is weird cause you have 2 black and 1 hispanic seat when based on population it should be the other way around. You could do 2 black and 2 Hispanic seats though

Again, I think I need more specifics of the ruling. Does it mandate opportunity seats or keeping clear communities or minorities whole, or only seats that are outright majority?

If Republicans don’t have a case in New Mexico, Democrats don’t have a case in Texas. The Hispanic population is not politically cohesive. Now, the five liberals on the court have ignored logic before, but that sort of shameless double standard is beyond even them.

Under that’s argument, the current TX-35 connects very in cohesive cohorts of Hisapanic voters whereas 2 districts nested entirely within Bexar would represent cohesive community of Hispanics.

Drawing two majority Hispanic districts in a county that is 59% Hispanic would require an obvious gerrymander that would deny the white minority the ability to elect the candidate of their choice. This should not be required under the VRA if it is applied neutrally.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Will anything be touched here?

Potential problems:

-South Texas is always a battleground for obvious reasons; if the current map is illegal or not in that regard depends on the interepreter

-Not having a 2nd Hispanic seat fully within Bexar; you could create 2 solid Hispanic seats fully within Bexar and an opportunity seat in Austin. This is honestly prolly the strongest current argument against the current map.

-Dallas could have another functional minority seat

-Houston is weird cause you have 2 black and 1 hispanic seat when based on population it should be the other way around. You could do 2 black and 2 Hispanic seats though

Again, I think I need more specifics of the ruling. Does it mandate opportunity seats or keeping clear communities or minorities whole, or only seats that are outright majority?

If Republicans don’t have a case in New Mexico, Democrats don’t have a case in Texas. The Hispanic population is not politically cohesive. Now, the five liberals on the court have ignored logic before, but that sort of shameless double standard is beyond even them.

Under that’s argument, the current TX-35 connects very in cohesive cohorts of Hisapanic voters whereas 2 districts nested entirely within Bexar would represent cohesive community of Hispanics.

Drawing two majority Hispanic districts in a county that is 59% Hispanic would require an obvious gerrymander that would deny the white minority the ability to elect the candidate of their choice. This should not be required under the VRA if it is applied neutrally.

That's just terrible logic.



The blue area is udner 60% white, and could hold approximately 10 CDs. You think you could draw a single functional VRA seat within this region? No. That's because direct proportionality tends to be impossible.

Alsoi Bexar can hold almost 3 seats entirely within it. So if the County is 60% Hispanic, having 2 Hispanic seats and 1 white seats is the fairest thing you could do.