2020 Texas Redistricting thread

[AustralianSwingVoter]

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?

https://davesredistricting.org/join/33de3b30-3901-41ea-8533-aa0395d89209
2010 map updated to match.
You could definitely redraw 7/10/11 to get them nearly as or as safe as 8/9 are. The 3rd could take Grayson and some more then everything east swivels around to get safer too. Merge the 21st and 22nd into one East Texas district and you free up one more district to split up Dallas. And you could still get the 19th to get some ruby red counties from the 16th and the 16th to take some of Williamson to properly shore up against MJ Hegar.

[Skill and Chance]

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.

In a scenario where several of the 4/9 seats on the elected state supreme court that are up this year flipped (at least 2 of them would make it possible for Dems to take control of it after 2022), the statewide presidential vote was Trump +3 or less, and they hold only the slimmest majority in the lower house of the legislature, I could see them drawing a good government map that makes a narrow majority of the seats Republican. 

But I think things would have to deteriorate significantly for Texas R's to be that reserved about it.  Also, if they think they will never have control again for decades, they may decide it's best to go for broke and try to prolong control for another 2-6 years.  If statewide elections are 60% D in 2030, they are going to lose everything anyway.

[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.

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).

No, it isn't. Basically the entire built up area of DFW flipped in 2018. This is the precinct map from 2016:



In 2018, basically the entirety of the built-up suburbs--the triangle from McKinney to Lewisville to Mesquite and a chunk of east-central Tarrant--flipped Dem. The only things keeping Denton, Collin, and Tarrant voting republican are their rural fringes. What happens when the built up areas swing Dem another 10 points and the rural areas get built over as DFW adds another million people over the next 10 years? Every single inner suburb-outer suburb-rural strip you draw flips. Take this map for example:



It starts out 6-4 Dem (yes, the pink and light blue seats are pretty comfortably Dem in 2020.) However, the four Republican seats only hold the purple (and rapidly blueing) urban fringes and are designed so that only the Frisco-Prosper-Sherman district is high growth--and is the only of the three which could reasonably flip by 2030. If you don't give Collin, North Dallas, Southeast Denton, and Northeast Tarrant their two packs, I guarantee the 4-6 rural strip districts you draw instead end up 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.

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.

Not really. Hays and Williamson have flipped because of their massive growth. Montgomery and Comal are right along the underdeveloped edges of massive urban cores. What happens when The Woodlands and New Braunfels add 200k people each voting 70-30 Dem? They flip.

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.

A fair map would probably be 23-15 Dem by 2030 given the way Texas is shifting and the Dem geographic advantage (basically getting in the low 50s in every single suburb while the rurals are blow outs.) Keeping Dems to only 18 TX seats in 2030 is very ambitious. The next 10 years in Texas are going to be just like Virginia from 2006 to today.

[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?

https://davesredistricting.org/join/33de3b30-3901-41ea-8533-aa0395d89209
2010 map updated to match.
You could definitely redraw 7/10/11 to get them nearly as or as safe as 8/9 are. The 3rd could take Grayson and some more then everything east swivels around to get safer too. Merge the 21st and 22nd into one East Texas district and you free up one more district to split up Dallas. And you could still get the 19th to get some ruby red counties from the 16th and the 16th to take some of Williamson to properly shore up against MJ Hegar.

Map is now edited accordingly.
While I opted against shoring up TX-03 any further, I readily accepted redrawing East Texas to facilitate an additional cracking of North Dallas.
I also redrew Central Texas quite a bit. The Williamson CD took in areas to the north, while the Brazos CD takes in some of Williamson, which in turn trades some of Montgomery County to the Waller CD, which in turn made it feasible to radically redraw the lines in Travis County.
Anything else?

[lfromnj]

People aren't using all the exurbs properly, Tarrant has plenty of red exurbs surrounding it so you don't need a sink there All Trump districts in this map although it doesn't have population adjusments are greater than 60. Not risking the use of Collin County to shore up North Dallas as Collin itself can barely hold up and will need to be split. Population is going to be changed a bit due to Collins extreme growth.

There wasn't even a serious need for a Tarrant sink this decade with hindsight, the only reason it existed is because of the VRA.


https://dvr.capitol.texas.gov/?PlanHeader=PLANC185

This would have given 0 tarrant districts and only 1 Dallas sink but still ended up with only 3 D districts by 2018 due to Dallas. (32 and 6 flip, 24 is the same as the current map)So shift half of the Tarrant sink to Dallas county which needs more population taken up and then carve up the rest of Tarrant. So the above proposed map in 2010 wouldn't have been a dummymander this decade although it would collapse next decade.

[Bidenworth2020]

I don't know this stuff as well as you guys, but if I were in the republicans' position, I would cede most urban and inner suburban areas to democrats. Something like

Dallas- 4
Houston- 3/4 (depending on whether you count Fort Bend as Houston)
Austin- 2
San Antonio-1/2 (depending on how much they wanna fajita strip areas to the north and to the valley)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I don't know this stuff as well as you guys, but if I were in the republicans' position, I would cede most urban and inner suburban areas to democrats. Something like

Dallas- 4
Houston- 3/4 (depending on whether you count Fort Bend as Houston)
Austin- 2
San Antonio-1/2 (depending on how much they wanna fajita strip areas to the north and to the valley)

ceding 4 seats to Dems in DFW metro is unnecessary and gifts Ds an certain extra district in the early years of the decade. Much better to crack Northern Dallas County and pack everything else.
Had Collin Allred won by 15 or more points then it would probably be measurably different.

[Skill and Chance]

I don't know this stuff as well as you guys, but if I were in the republicans' position, I would cede most urban and inner suburban areas to democrats. Something like

Dallas- 4
Houston- 3/4 (depending on whether you count Fort Bend as Houston)
Austin- 2
San Antonio-1/2 (depending on how much they wanna fajita strip areas to the north and to the valley)

They could end up doing this, but only if 2020 goes at leas as bad as 2018 for them.  Should they lose something statewide in 2020 but retain redistricting control, they won't be taking any chances this time. 

[Tintrlvr]

I don't know this stuff as well as you guys, but if I were in the republicans' position, I would cede most urban and inner suburban areas to democrats. Something like

Dallas- 4
Houston- 3/4 (depending on whether you count Fort Bend as Houston)
Austin- 2
San Antonio-1/2 (depending on how much they wanna fajita strip areas to the north and to the valley)

They could end up doing this, but only if 2020 goes at leas as bad as 2018 for them.  Should they lose something statewide in 2020 but retain redistricting control, they won't be taking any chances this time.  

The GOP would probably lose control of the Texas HoR on the current map before they lose any statewide races (as I recall, O'Rourke won an easy majority of Texas HoR seats in 2018 even while losing statewide), so that may be a moot point.

It is an interesting issue of what happens if the Democrats control the Texas HoR (or otherwise the Republicans can't pass their maps, say if they have a majority of 1 or 2 and some rebels who are anti-gerrymandering).

[lfromnj]

I don't know this stuff as well as you guys, but if I were in the republicans' position, I would cede most urban and inner suburban areas to democrats. Something like

Dallas- 4
Houston- 3/4 (depending on whether you count Fort Bend as Houston)
Austin- 2
San Antonio-1/2 (depending on how much they wanna fajita strip areas to the north and to the valley)

They could end up doing this, but only if 2020 goes at leas as bad as 2018 for them.  Should they lose something statewide in 2020 but retain redistricting control, they won't be taking any chances this time.  

The GOP would probably lose control of the Texas HoR on the current map before they lose any statewide races (as I recall, O'Rourke won an easy majority of Texas HoR seats in 2018 even while losing statewide), so that may be a moot point.

Well he didn't win an easy majority, he literally won the barest majority btw. 76/150.

[Tintrlvr]

I don't know this stuff as well as you guys, but if I were in the republicans' position, I would cede most urban and inner suburban areas to democrats. Something like

Dallas- 4
Houston- 3/4 (depending on whether you count Fort Bend as Houston)
Austin- 2
San Antonio-1/2 (depending on how much they wanna fajita strip areas to the north and to the valley)

They could end up doing this, but only if 2020 goes at leas as bad as 2018 for them.  Should they lose something statewide in 2020 but retain redistricting control, they won't be taking any chances this time.  

The GOP would probably lose control of the Texas HoR on the current map before they lose any statewide races (as I recall, O'Rourke won an easy majority of Texas HoR seats in 2018 even while losing statewide), so that may be a moot point.

Well he didn't win an easy majority, he literally won the barest majority btw. 76/150.

Ah, okay. Maybe less likely then. I thought it was something like 80-82 seats. Still, the Democrats only need to win every O'Rourke seat to control a house of the legislature, which is a smaller lift than getting those last two percentage points O'Rourke missed by statewide.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I don't know this stuff as well as you guys, but if I were in the republicans' position, I would cede most urban and inner suburban areas to democrats. Something like

Dallas- 4
Houston- 3/4 (depending on whether you count Fort Bend as Houston)
Austin- 2
San Antonio-1/2 (depending on how much they wanna fajita strip areas to the north and to the valley)

They could end up doing this, but only if 2020 goes at leas as bad as 2018 for them.  Should they lose something statewide in 2020 but retain redistricting control, they won't be taking any chances this time.  

The GOP would probably lose control of the Texas HoR on the current map before they lose any statewide races (as I recall, O'Rourke won an easy majority of Texas HoR seats in 2018 even while losing statewide), so that may be a moot point.

It is an interesting issue of what happens if the Democrats control the Texas HoR (or otherwise the Republicans can't pass their maps, say if they have a majority of 1 or 2 and some rebels who are anti-gerrymandering).

In that event all redistricting goes to a backup commission made of statewide elected officials, so unless Ds play ball and manage to get a compromise somewhere involving the state leg and/or congressional maps, then its another GOPmander.

[lfromnj]

I don't know this stuff as well as you guys, but if I were in the republicans' position, I would cede most urban and inner suburban areas to democrats. Something like

Dallas- 4
Houston- 3/4 (depending on whether you count Fort Bend as Houston)
Austin- 2
San Antonio-1/2 (depending on how much they wanna fajita strip areas to the north and to the valley)

They could end up doing this, but only if 2020 goes at leas as bad as 2018 for them.  Should they lose something statewide in 2020 but retain redistricting control, they won't be taking any chances this time.  

The GOP would probably lose control of the Texas HoR on the current map before they lose any statewide races (as I recall, O'Rourke won an easy majority of Texas HoR seats in 2018 even while losing statewide), so that may be a moot point.

It is an interesting issue of what happens if the Democrats control the Texas HoR (or otherwise the Republicans can't pass their maps, say if they have a majority of 1 or 2 and some rebels who are anti-gerrymandering).

In that event all redistricting goes to a backup commission made of statewide elected officials, so unless Ds play ball and manage to get a compromise somewhere involving the state leg and/or congressional maps, then its another GOPmander.

IIRC thats state legislative maps but the congressional maps goes to a court which obviously can't blatantly gerrymander but when the state maps flip back in 2022(backlash from 2020 megawave+ fresh gerrymandering) the texas GOP can do mid decade redistricting if they wish ala 2004.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

this is a "good government" 38-district map made from 2016 population estimates, emphasis was on creating compact seats.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/047dc5e1-31f1-46d7-918c-4f442f857c58

there are 13 Obama districts, 1 district where Obama and McCain were exactly tied, and 24 McCain seats. However I assume it would be Dem leaning today.

[lfromnj]

this is a "good government" 38-district map made from 2016 population estimates, emphasis was on creating compact seats.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/047dc5e1-31f1-46d7-918c-4f442f857c58

there are 13 Obama districts, 1 district where Obama and McCain were exactly tied, and 24 McCain seats. However I assume it would be Dem leaning today.

No good government would draw the fajittas reasonably.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

this is a "good government" 38-district map made from 2016 population estimates, emphasis was on creating compact seats.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/047dc5e1-31f1-46d7-918c-4f442f857c58

there are 13 Obama districts, 1 district where Obama and McCain were exactly tied, and 24 McCain seats. However I assume it would be Dem leaning today.

No good government would draw the fajittas reasonably.

?

[lfromnj]

this is a "good government" 38-district map made from 2016 population estimates, emphasis was on creating compact seats.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/047dc5e1-31f1-46d7-918c-4f442f857c58

there are 13 Obama districts, 1 district where Obama and McCain were exactly tied, and 24 McCain seats. However I assume it would be Dem leaning today.

No good government would draw the fajittas reasonably.

?

Sorry I mean the fajjitas are an unfair tear up of  the COI's I guess they would be mandated by the VRA  to expand hispanic representation  I guess. You can easily just draw 3 simple RGV districts instead of stripping them far north, I doubt the courts will require the fajittas anyway because they fail the Gingles test of a compact COI. If texas already has a natural geographical advantage for Democrats why would a fair map try to make even more tilted in favor of Ds by stripping away hispanic districts. A good government map would naturall draw good COI's in Dallas and Houston accepting that the GOP will be underrepresented in those areas per vote while also accepting that if Hispanics largely live in one region they should be kept in a district in that region.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

this is a "good government" 38-district map made from 2016 population estimates, emphasis was on creating compact seats.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/047dc5e1-31f1-46d7-918c-4f442f857c58

there are 13 Obama districts, 1 district where Obama and McCain were exactly tied, and 24 McCain seats. However I assume it would be Dem leaning today.

No good government would draw the fajittas reasonably.

?

Sorry I mean the fajjitas are an unfair tear up of  the COI's I guess they would be mandated by the VRA  to expand hispanic representation  I guess. You can easily just draw 3 simple RGV districts instead of stripping them far north, I doubt the courts will require the fajittas anyway because they fail the Gingles test of a compact COI. If texas already has a natural geographical advantage for Democrats why would a fair map try to make even more tilted in favor of Ds by stripping away hispanic districts. A good government map would naturall draw good COI's in Dallas and Houston accepting that the GOP will be underrepresented in those areas per vote while also accepting that if Hispanics largely live in one region they should be kept in a district in that region.

I'm not signing up for a debate about the merits and drawbacks of the fajitas - I will just say that I see them as necessary and you will not see me remove them from my maps. That is all.

[lfromnj]

this is a "good government" 38-district map made from 2016 population estimates, emphasis was on creating compact seats.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/047dc5e1-31f1-46d7-918c-4f442f857c58

there are 13 Obama districts, 1 district where Obama and McCain were exactly tied, and 24 McCain seats. However I assume it would be Dem leaning today.

No good government would draw the fajittas reasonably.

?

Sorry I mean the fajjitas are an unfair tear up of  the COI's I guess they would be mandated by the VRA  to expand hispanic representation  I guess. You can easily just draw 3 simple RGV districts instead of stripping them far north, I doubt the courts will require the fajittas anyway because they fail the Gingles test of a compact COI. If texas already has a natural geographical advantage for Democrats why would a fair map try to make even more tilted in favor of Ds by stripping away hispanic districts. A good government map would naturall draw good COI's in Dallas and Houston accepting that the GOP will be underrepresented in those areas per vote while also accepting that if Hispanics largely live in one region they should be kept in a district in that region.

I'm not signing up for a debate about the merits and drawbacks of the fajitas - I will just say that I see them as necessary and you will not see me remove them from my maps. That is all.

Cool just don't call it a good government map, call it a court map if you wish .

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

this is a "good government" 38-district map made from 2016 population estimates, emphasis was on creating compact seats.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/047dc5e1-31f1-46d7-918c-4f442f857c58

there are 13 Obama districts, 1 district where Obama and McCain were exactly tied, and 24 McCain seats. However I assume it would be Dem leaning today.

No good government would draw the fajittas reasonably.

?

Sorry I mean the fajjitas are an unfair tear up of  the COI's I guess they would be mandated by the VRA  to expand hispanic representation  I guess. You can easily just draw 3 simple RGV districts instead of stripping them far north, I doubt the courts will require the fajittas anyway because they fail the Gingles test of a compact COI. If texas already has a natural geographical advantage for Democrats why would a fair map try to make even more tilted in favor of Ds by stripping away hispanic districts. A good government map would naturall draw good COI's in Dallas and Houston accepting that the GOP will be underrepresented in those areas per vote while also accepting that if Hispanics largely live in one region they should be kept in a district in that region.

I'm not signing up for a debate about the merits and drawbacks of the fajitas - I will just say that I see them as necessary and you will not see me remove them from my maps. That is all.

Cool just don't call it a good government map, call it a court map if you wish .

But I see the fajitas as a good government measure. So I will continue calling it as such, thank you very much.

[lfromnj]

Anyway not sure if legal but a much better and much more good government RGV + San antonio.+ El paso
Obviously Safe D El Paso. Texas 23 moves 2 points right.

Within Bexar the grey southern district is Safe D at Obama +27.
Central Bexar is Obama +10 so with Clintons improved margins it should be Safe D by now.
Laredo to Nueces is Likely D at Obama +8(but obama 2012 improved a lot here and Clinton improved in Nueces and had a net vote margin improvement in Laredo) . Its clinton 54.5 and Trump 41.5 so Clinton +13, probably Likely D. The other 2 RGV are Safe D of course.

I think everyone else would agree this map is much more respecting of COIs rather than randomly stripping white rural people who live hudnreds of miles away to be in the same district as mostly urban latinos to further enhance the Latinos already natural geographic advantage.

[Skill and Chance]

I don't know this stuff as well as you guys, but if I were in the republicans' position, I would cede most urban and inner suburban areas to democrats. Something like

Dallas- 4
Houston- 3/4 (depending on whether you count Fort Bend as Houston)
Austin- 2
San Antonio-1/2 (depending on how much they wanna fajita strip areas to the north and to the valley)

They could end up doing this, but only if 2020 goes at leas as bad as 2018 for them.  Should they lose something statewide in 2020 but retain redistricting control, they won't be taking any chances this time.  

The GOP would probably lose control of the Texas HoR on the current map before they lose any statewide races (as I recall, O'Rourke won an easy majority of Texas HoR seats in 2018 even while losing statewide), so that may be a moot point.

It is an interesting issue of what happens if the Democrats control the Texas HoR (or otherwise the Republicans can't pass their maps, say if they have a majority of 1 or 2 and some rebels who are anti-gerrymandering).

In that event all redistricting goes to a backup commission made of statewide elected officials, so unless Ds play ball and manage to get a compromise somewhere involving the state leg and/or congressional maps, then its another GOPmander.

IIRC thats state legislative maps but the congressional maps goes to a court which obviously can't blatantly gerrymander but when the state maps flip back in 2022(backlash from 2020 megawave+ fresh gerrymandering) the texas GOP can do mid decade redistricting if they wish ala 2004.

Yes, there is a lot going on here.

1. In the event the lower house of the state legislature flips, the GOP would still control state legislative redistricting through the backup commission set up by the state constitution.  The commission is the LG, AG, Comptroller,  Land Commissioner and Speaker of the State House.  It would be 4R/1D in this scenario and can approve a map with 3 votes.  the state senate is unlikely to be competitive and in any event would be icing on the cake for Dems and irrelevant to this process unless Dems somehow held a 2/3rds majority in both chambers.


2. There are strict rules in the state constitution on how lower house districts can be drawn, particularly focused on containing entire districts within counties whenever possible, and there are 150 districts so most of them are truly constrained by these requirements.  It isn't really possible to do a hard gerrymander of the lower house.  Indeed, this is part of the reason why the Republican majority there is precarious in 2020.

3.  By contrast, the state senate is a free for all.  It has only 31 districts, so they are bigger than US House seats, and they can be gerrymandered as aggressively as the majority wants.  

4.  In the scenario where the lower house is Dem-controlled, or has a de facto coalition government with a narrow R majority (it arguably has a coalition government already because of the mechanics of how the speaker is chosen, but this would be even more pronounced if it were down to say, a 77R/73D split), all of the Republicans on the backup commission who would need to sign off on a gerrymander are facing statewide election in 2022, potentially in another Trump midterm.  They may have more reservations about drawing the map too aggressively given that they would have to answer for it in a statewide vote the very next cycle and would not personally benefit from the gerrymandered districts.

5. If there is divided government, the backup commission has no authority over the congressional map, so there would either have to be a legislative compromise approved by the governor, or it would be drawn by a federal court for the 2022 cycle.  However, mid-decade redistricting is legal in Texas, so Democrats would either have to maintain control of the lower house despite the Republican-drawn map from the backup commission or win the governorship in 2022 to block a Republican gerrymander of the congressional map for future election cycles.

6.  There is also the matter of trying to draw districts based on eligible voters or even registered voters instead of total population.  This would advantage Republicans, but they would first have to change existing state law to do this, and then it would go to SCOTUS.  It would have to get through the lower house, and it is likely to be more controversial than just doing a gerrymander in the traditional way.  It also introduces additional risk in that if SCOTUS blocks the eligible voters standard,  Republicans may not control the governorship anymore to pass a new gerrymander, like what happened in VA this decade.

7.  SCOTUS has imposed a very strict standard for how South Texas needs to be drawn based on the VRA.  If SCOTUS backs off of VRA section 2 redistricting standards next decade, expect TX-23 to go from mildly Dem leaning to mildly GOP leaning, or they could use it to pick up more of San Antonio so that TX-35 becomes an all-Travis CD. 

8. Texas also has elected state courts, using the same statewide partisan election system as North Carolina for their highest court.  Republicans cannot do much to change the mechanics of judicial elections in Texas without passing a constitutional amendment,  which would require the cooperation of some state legislative Dems just to get it on the ballot and then the amendment would have to pass a statewide vote.  The state supreme court is currently 9R/0D, but it would likely throw out gerrymandered maps passed in 2021 if it flipped to Dem control at any point during the decade, as recently happened in NC and PA.  It could also rule that Texas state law does not permit using an eligible voters standard instead of total population, or reimpose stricter requirements for how South Texas is drawn using state law.

Put this all together, and my expectation for the congressional map would be a defensible clean looking map that is still likely to keep a majority of the congressional seats R-leaning for the decade, unless Republicans make substantial gains over 2018 in 2020 (2/3rds legislative majority?), in which case they go for broke.  I am not even sure an aggressive gerrymander would pass the current TX state house, so no need to tempt fate.  

[Former President tack50]

While everyone has been looking at federal redistricting, given that State Senate districts are actually larger than federal ones, opinion of this map?

https://districtr.org/edit/3296







This map should be a safe 19R-12D map. All R districts are at 58.5% Trump or more. All Dem districts are also at 58% Clinton or more.

Granted, I guess with trends and what not it could end up as a dummymander? I also think several of those districts might be illegal because of the VRA?

[The Mikado]

I literally had to get out a map of Dallas County to figure out whether I'd be in 16 or 17 on that map because I'm so close to the line between them. (16 was the answer)

Not sure I'd bet on 17 staying GOP through 2030, fwiw. Frisco's one of the fastest-growing areas in the country and already looks to be swinging Dem quite rapidly.

[Skill and Chance]

While everyone has been looking at federal redistricting, given that State Senate districts are actually larger than federal ones, opinion of this map?

https://districtr.org/edit/3296







This map should be a safe 19R-12D map. All R districts are at 58.5% Trump or more. All Dem districts are also at 58% Clinton or more.

Granted, I guess with trends and what not it could end up as a dummymander? I also think several of those districts might be illegal because of the VRA?

I think 19 is the magic number under the Texas Senate's procedural rules?  Provided they agree 2/3rds is out of reach (which they will unless Trump gets like 60% this year), the number for full procedural control is what they will be targeting.