2020 Texas Redistricting thread

[Torie]

Mine I think.

In that regard, I came up with a better solution for the Pub's problems in the Dallas area, that causes my TX-34 to turn a deeper shade of red (now Trump 2016 by a 12% margin), by elongating the TX-30 prong into Dallas County and losing its mother of all snakes into Collin County and then back into Dallas County to take in the City of Richardson. Now, with its elongated Dallas County prong, it absorbs the most Dem precincts in Richardson County. In turn TX-34 pushes into Collin County to take some more Pub precincts, but not too Pub, since TX-35 is a very Dem trending area, so it is in the nature of a Goldilocks snatch of some Collin County precincts, that do respect municipal lines there.

[Torie]

Torie, you’ve explained your TX-38, but what is your TX-37 doing, racially?

It’s the United Nations CD. Come on down!



The thing is, is my instinct is that the Pubs are going to draw something like this. Texans are not known to be unstated types. They think big.

Wasserman btw is drawing even worse maps, e.g., check out his latest map to zero out the Pubs in Maryland. So, believe it or not, this map could with some more effort be made even more ugly and disgusting. But I believe trading a few basis points (basis points, not percentage points) of partisan advantage to make things more aesthetic, is the gentlemanly thing to do.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/f4a598c6-1f16-4045-9b9d-5ff8dbec424d

[Torie]

By the way, the census bureau called me the other day to inform me that the metro areas in Texas have been redrawn, which match perfectly my CD lines, so with the exception of my TX-09, which goes into both the Austin and Houston metro areas, my map as to the four major metro areas in Texas has no Muon2 pack and cover penalties. Everything is perfectly nested. Who knew? All 4 metro areas I now notice voted for Trump 2016, although San Antonio was close. Interesting!

[Torie]

My Texas map has now had the CD's renumbered, so they match as best one can the current numbers. The CD's that least fit the existing map, or where two CD's overlapped too much over one existing CD, got new numbers. So the new VRA district in San Antonio gets number 37, the CD wedged between San Antonio and Austin gets number 38 (a new Pub seat), and the CD Britain33 asked about is wedged in between the existing CD's (a new Dem sink), gets number 39. Houston does not get a new numbered CD, but one mostly rural CD that stuck its nose just a bit into Harris County, TX-10, is now fully nested in Harris County. It used to be TX-23 on my maps above.

So basically the map with some effectiveness takes out the Dem incumbents in TX-07 in Harris County, TX-32 in Dallas County (mostly), and TX-34 on the Gulf, where the Dem incumbent has already announced that he is packing it in. The Pubs then "give" the Dems two of the three new seats, one in San Antonio because it is VRA required (although the geography makes it near impossible to deploy the excess Pubs there who are far, far away in any event), and TX-39, because the Dallas area has too many white Dems in the area and because the trends make the surrounding CD's not able to be very generous in giving away any more Pubs. So the net total for the Dems is -1 net, albeit with all of the dozen CD's allocated to them now uber safe. Such is the nature of gerrymanders of course.

It took me half a day to figure this all out, and renumber. Sad! But then I have read nothing in the public square either that gets it right either, as Wasserman et al chatter about the Pubs will get two of the new seats, but take away the Gulf seat, leaving the Dems even with 13 seats, or the Dems get 2 of the 3 new seats, losing only the Gulf seat, for a gain of plus one, or the Dems keep all of their seats, and get one of the three new ones, etc., etc. No wonder there is mass confusion!

https://davesredistricting.org/join/f4a598c6-1f16-4045-9b9d-5ff8dbec424d

[Torie]

I was dissatisfied with my Pubmander in the Metroplex, and reworked it. This map, unless the Rio Grande Hispanics snap back to the Dems, should without any material VRA risk at all, give the Pubs 4 new seats that should hold, while the Dems lose one seat for some time. Poor Tarrant County. It is chopped seven times. One oddity is that my TX-13 now has two thirds of its population in Tarrant County.

I share that one image of that district, where the one third of the TX-13 in the vast open spaces, joins a densely populated urban area. It will be interesting to me how closely this map matches what the Pubs enact into law.



https://davesredistricting.org/join/b9bb0297-8932-4e5f-b3ac-d82cfd30f83e

[Torie]

For those of you who think I have lost the ability to draw a map based on neutral redistricting principles, I tried my hand at it to assess the impact of a Pubmander in TX that has minimum VRA risk and has some nexus with what might happen in the real world.

The results are below. You can make your own decision as to the impact, but my best estimate is that the Pub-snatch score is from 4 to 5 seats, depending on whether your score counts  lean seats as 1 for the favored party, or a partial count of 0.75. (My Pubmander had 3 Pub lean seats.) The Pubmander of course also makes GOP seats that might evolve into lean seats over time, far less likely.


Non gerrymandered TX map:



https://davesredistricting.org/join/3cdf5158-5e0a-4326-ae81-7edbfd2c3ed4

Pubmander TX map:



https://davesredistricting.org/join/b9bb0297-8932-4e5f-b3ac-d82cfd30f83e

Chart of TX Pubmander impact:

[Torie]

I put up my TX maps on RRH, and yes, you guessed it, the consensus is that my Pubmander was too kind to the Dems – way too kind. Krazen among others chimed in, and offered up his map in riposte.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/acd5d905-fd98-4c60-b8a7-72d4a23ac108

After examining his map, I made the comments below, which I copy and paste.

Thank you all for your comments.

One of the benefits of Krazen’s map being adopted into law, is that SCOTUS will be deciding LULAC et al. v. Krazen, and we will get an update on what the VRA currently means (assuming the Dems don’t succeed in amending it in the meantime). One issue that will would be clarified is if hitting the 50% HCVAP percentage is really an airtight safe harbor or not. Many of the gerrymandered 50%+ HCVAP CD’s in his map are not really performing Hispanic districts, and when you gerrymander a CD to make it not performing, you have issues.

One example of this, is that his barely above 50% HCVAP CD in the Houston area given the high percentage of blacks in it, is likely to elect a black, assuming Gingles still applies to Hispanics in that area. And given the huge Pub surge in the RGV, perhaps Gingles would be held not to apply to Hispanics in that area at all. Another issue is whether when two compact performing 50%+ HCVAP CD’s can be drawn in Bexar County, it is legal to instead gerrymander one of the CD’s so that it instead takes in the Laredo area. That will be a revisiting of the LULAC case where arguably that type of a CD was struck down.

A “conservative” approach to the VRA is not to gerrymander minority CD’s beyond what is necessary to make them performing. I did that with my TX-11 CD that takes in a slice of the El Paso area, rather than a CD that goes into San Antonio. It is a 50%+ HCVAP CD, but since it is Republican may not be deemed performing (because a majority of Hispanics still vote Dem, and those voters will not be able to elect a candidate of their choice), but it cannot with any merit be argued as being gerrymandered. Ditto for my TX-23 CD that takes in most of what remains in Bexar County after the two nested CD’s there are drawn.

One thing my Pubmander map could do better is unpack my TX-02 more effectively than it is, which should move my TX-07 from lean GOP to safe GOP. Krazen did a good job in the Houston area on that score. For a moment I was wondering if he had drawn a performing black CD in the Houston area, but low and behold he had with a CD that is about 40% BCVAP, which should do the trick (with whites 20% CVAP there). However, this was done with his TX-09 rather than his TX-18 which is at 35% BCVAP with a lot more whites in it (37% CVAP), who vote in Dem primaries, rather than Asians and Hispanics who vote in lower percentages, making that CD problematical, again assuming Gingles applies in this part of Harris County vis a vis whites, who vote Dem in relatively high percentages. Anyway, that was very creative on Krazen’s part.

Voila.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/2330f00e-d043-4e3f-9362-64c7d0dd5d40



Well, Krazen brings out the worst in me, but his bold excesses drove me over the edge (as well as give me evil ideas). Here is a map, that would seem to leash the Dems to 12 seats (with next to zero VRA risk of course), absent a big Hispanic snap back to the Dems, or ongoing massive trends against the Pubs in the outer Metroplex.

TX is fun to gerrymander because the partisan extremes are so great between town and country, as if folks live on two different planets there. I need to take a shower now.

I suppose the next project would be to try a Dem gerrymander that hews to the VRA. How many seats would the Dems get with an extreme but legal Dem gerrymander as opposed to an extreme Pub gerrymander? 10 more seats perhaps?



https://davesredistricting.org/join/91f9da94-1ac4-46b2-9e0a-84cfc829971c

[Torie]

Shut up and post your +2 maps already

It will be a 26-12 map rather than a 27-12 map. The rest is noise

I wonder if the Alabama Pubs will try to keep a 6-1 map, which means SCOTUS will be hearing that case. However, NY losing but one seat might mean the seat kept will be Pub, depending on where the non anticipated extra people are.

[Torie]

Texas +2 least change map featuring:
* Austin vote sink
* TX-7 conceded
* TX-32 moved north, but a new Dem sink in Dallas
* Williamson County cracked
* TX-34 packed, but I can't be bothered to fix
* Reasonably close population (every district within 2,000)

Things I'm happy about:
* Working out how to make Williamson "safe" for Republicans seeing that Williamson + Waco in TX-31 was a time bomb
* Reconfiguring TX-36 and TX-2 to be more compact and better aligned to county borders (although at the expense of Fort Bend Rs being in a single district)
* Clean boundaries in East Texas despite relative population loss

https://davesredistricting.org/join/9558a137-6a0b-4ba5-a474-8d29b74ac722

What do people think? I'd love to edit.

Your respect for the VRA is on a par with the gunslingers at RRH with this map. What got in you Brittain33? Did someone brainwash you?

Please nest two Hispanic CD's in Bexar County and get rid of the Fajita strips. It may be true now that Gingles does not trigger the need for a performing Hispanic CD in the Metroplex, but since we don't know what data base the Courts will use that is risky. Granted I did not check what you did there. I saw what I saw as described above and closed the map!

[Torie]

What was the rationale for getting rid of the fajita strips in the RGV? I haven't been paying close enough attention to your posts these last 10 years to understand why this changed.

TX-33 was drawn to maximize Hispanic population in the Metroplex.

It is the LULAC case as to the Fajita strips. I think they are vulnerable under the VRA depending upon the precise facts. As to TX 33, OK, although it too under the Goldilocks rule, might be vulnerable as well if a less erose performing Hispanic CD can be drawn. When I drew my road bridge Hispanic CD to see if the 50+ HCVAP Gingles trigger was in play, and found that it was, barely, I then immediately abandoned those lines in favor of a less erose CD that was a bit below 50% HCVAP but nevertheless performing. It is a two step process. What riggers Gingles may itself potentially not be legal to draw, as ironic as that may seem.

[Torie]

What was the rationale for getting rid of the fajita strips in the RGV? I haven't been paying close enough attention to your posts these last 10 years to understand why this changed.

TX-33 was drawn to maximize Hispanic population in the Metroplex.

The decision requiring them was 5/4 liberals + Kennedy, so there is a general expectation it will/would be overturned if a more compact RGV map was drawn this time.

I'll believe the fajitas are going to be gone when it is indeed clear they are dead and buried. The threshold for a district that reliably elects the Latino community candidate of choice in this part of the state is quite high.
Some over 90%+ Latino CVAP seat only taking in parts of one or two border counties directly alongside Mexico is simply packing the Latino vote to an unacceptable degree. (Same reason why they have fajitas in South Florida too)
And a district hovering in mid-50s or low 60s Latino CVAP is not a performing district, not when the clear majority of votes cast in the district are on part of non-Latino white voters.
If there was a more elegant way to preserve the Latino community's agency in regards to deserved representation, and/or if Latino community candidate of choice is no longer really quite as relevant, I can very easily see the fajitas gone. Until then, Texas Rs probably have to just have to live with them.

You think the VRA requires something erose, when a CD drawn pursuant to neutral redistricting principles just happens to pack? The issue is that the real estate is empty around the RGV population nodes. I have never read anything under section 2 that suggests that you have to draw something that looks like a clear gerrymander to reduce packing. The only possible exception to some degree would be where Gingles triggers the need for another performing minority CD. It is also not clear at all that you need to draw something clearly in excess of 50% HCVAP, particularly via gerrymandering, solely because it is still not performing due to low Hispanic turnout. Finally, if RGV Hispanics continue to cast 40%+ for GOP candidates, it seems reasonably likely to me that Section 2 and Gingles will cease to apply to the area at all.

Hey, and then  maybe it would come back if RGV Hispanics start voting heavily GOP ala the Miami area Hispanics, and the Dems want to slice and dice them, so that the white wokesters in Austin can dominate the RGV - LULAC in reverse.  

[Torie]

Texas +2 least change map featuring:
* Austin vote sink
* TX-7 conceded
* TX-32 moved north, but a new Dem sink in Dallas
* Williamson County cracked
* TX-34 packed, but I can't be bothered to fix
* Reasonably close population (every district within 2,000)

Things I'm happy about:
* Working out how to make Williamson "safe" for Republicans seeing that Williamson + Waco in TX-31 was a time bomb
* Reconfiguring TX-36 and TX-2 to be more compact and better aligned to county borders (although at the expense of Fort Bend Rs being in a single district)
* Clean boundaries in East Texas despite relative population loss

https://davesredistricting.org/join/9558a137-6a0b-4ba5-a474-8d29b74ac722

What do people think? I'd love to edit.

Britain33, what are your precise goals with your map?

For example:

1. A Pubmander that is not entail not much risk as a dummymander.
2. Does not create a material amount of VRA risk.
3. Hews to reasonable neutral redistricting principles to the extent it does not materially interfere with objectives 1 and 2.
4. Does not change existing lines where not materially necessary to accomplish goals 1-3.

I have exported and reimported your map, and will play with it once I more clearly understand your goals, unless you would rather that I not, in which event I shall cease and desist.

[Torie]

My goals were:
1. Least change for incumbents despite population change 
2. Preserve VRA precedents
3. Use Dem packs and cracking risky territory (Williamson, north Dallas) to ensure R districts are solid enough to last most of the decade
4. Avoid excessive snaking

That seems about what I posited above in different words, or am I missing something?

[Torie]

What might a dummymander look like?

Any suburban district near Houston, Dallas, or Austin less than R+8, I think, and not conceding 7, 32, and Austin. Possibly R+10 if you’re worried about trends.

You have TX-08 as a vote sink, while ceding TX-07. Houston should have only 3 Dem CD's in a well designed Pubmander, bearing in mind that the Dem trend in the Houston area was much milder than in the Dallas area. That CD running between Austin and SA needs to go. You have a VRA risk without two nested Hispanic performing CD's in Bexar County. The light blue CD's down there in south Texas need to be in the red family, not the blue family. One should not count on the Trump 2020 surge fully holding down there. Trump 2016 should be ahead there by at least 5 points if possible, with 10 better. Those are my thoughts so far.

[Torie]

What might a dummymander look like?

Any suburban district near Houston, Dallas, or Austin less than R+8, I think, and not conceding 7, 32, and Austin. Possibly R+10 if you’re worried about trends.

You have TX-08 as a vote sink, while ceding TX-07. Houston should have only 3 Dem CD's in a well designed Pubmander, bearing in mind that the Dem trend in the Houston area was much milder than in the Dallas area. That CD running between Austin and SA needs to go. You have a VRA risk without two nested Hispanic performing CD's in Bexar County. The light blue CD's down there in south Texas need to be in the red family, not the blue family. One should not count on the Trump 2020 surge fully holding down there. Trump 2016 should be ahead there by at least 5 points if possible, with 10 better. Those are my thoughts so far.

Thanks. Are you responding to my screen captures or the updated version on DRA? I made changes to Bexar and RGV online but didn’t take screen captures.

Interesting point that TX-8 should be cracked somewhat to help out with other Harris County R districts. I hadn’t thought of that but it makes a lot of sense.

I used your link which I assume included your changes, but I will export and import it again. This is unless you made changes in a new file, in which event you would need to share the new link.

Addendum: It appears you made your changes in a new file so I can't access it.

[Torie]

I used your link which I assume included your changes, but I will export and import it again. This is unless you made changes in a new file, in which event you would need to share the new link.

Addendum: It appears you made your changes in a new file so I can't access it.

Oh, my bad. I didn't know that would happen. Here's a fresh link with changes to north of Houston and Bexar/RGV:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/9558a137-6a0b-4ba5-a474-8d29b74ac722

Thanks.

You appear to have taken "remedial" action in the Houston area but not in the Hispanic zone, and the nesting issue in Bexar County in particular.

[Torie]

Britain33, you need to have two Democratic performing Hispanic CD's contained entirely in Bexar County to be safe under the VRA in my opinion.

Tim, FWIW, under a somewhat different kind of rule of proportionality, using PVI, if the PVI for Texas is say 6% R (not sure what it is exactly), there is a Muon2 formula of proportionality, wherein the Pubs should have 50% + (6% x 2) = 62% of the 28 districts. Swing districts are split between the parties under this formula for purposes of the count, or excluded entirely from the pie, with the remaining portion divided 62% to 38%. (I think he likes the latter and I the former, but my memory is not as good as it once was sadly.) I think Muon2 defines swing as between -1.49% to +1.49% R PVI.

[Torie]

Britain33, you need to have two Democratic performing Hispanic CD's contained entirely in Bexar County to be safe under the VRA in my opinion.

Ok. Apologies if you covered this in a past map, but what do you propose happens to TX-23 in this scenario? Does it become one of the two performing CDs (an unlikely move for a Republican map) or does it take up the 20% of the county that is most Anglo with approx. 400,000 people, with TX-21 moving out completely? Also, since the RGV doesn't have sufficient population for 3 full Hispanic districts, where do you connect the leftovers to since fajita strips are now out, too? I would like to see the whole that is made from the sum of the parts of your proposition.

Britain33, here is the design of the RGV area I have in mind more or less. Tragically, TX-11 is about 3 points short of 50%+ HCVAP due to the districts having higher population with only 38 districts, and that I think is an important goal for the Pubs to create such a safe Pub district that meets that metric for a host of reasons. It is possible it can be achieved by transferring some of the “excess” Hispanics from TX-15 to TX-11, but how to do that depends on the design of the slice and dice of Williamson and Travis County outside the Austin Dem vote sink, while still keeping TX-23 say 52% HCVAP and safely Pub, without looking ridiculous. VRA sensitive districts need to look reasonable. The uber erose stuff should not be VRA sensitive. The image of the map has in white the real estate where the populations of the CD’s is way off. The underpopulated northern plains white zone (plus whatever TX-11 releases in population if it moves down the RGV more to meet the 50%+ HCVAP threshold (while TX-23 moves down the RGV exclusive of the counties directly appending the river), will be used to “attack” the Metroplex and the Austin area, along with TX-25, whose boundaries will be changed to join the slice and dice party. So a lot more work needs to be done.

In that regard, Victoria County is a pain in the ass for the Hispanic shift referred to above because it is reasonably high population and very Pub and needs to be retained if possible in the CD that joins the Austin area slice and dice, rather than be "wasted" in TX-15. That I find quite annoying, and means TX-15 needs to go father up the coast, which then affects the Houston area slice and dice. One things leads to another.

TX is fun to Pubmander because of the VRA issues and its complexity as to that issue and the wildly diverse trends which one must ponder as to whether they are a precursor for more of the same or more in the nature of a blip.





https://davesredistricting.org/join/b705aabf-808a-4f6b-b837-844af931ad79

[Torie]

Britain33, you need to have two Democratic performing Hispanic CD's contained entirely in Bexar County to be safe under the VRA in my opinion.

Ok. Apologies if you covered this in a past map, but what do you propose happens to TX-23 in this scenario? Does it become one of the two performing CDs (an unlikely move for a Republican map) or does it take up the 20% of the county that is most Anglo with approx. 400,000 people, with TX-21 moving out completely? Also, since the RGV doesn't have sufficient population for 3 full Hispanic districts, where do you connect the leftovers to since fajita strips are now out, too? I would like to see the whole that is made from the sum of the parts of your proposition.

Britain33, here is the design of the RGV area I have in mind more or less. Tragically, TX-11 is about 3 points short of 50%+ HCVAP due to the districts having higher population with only 38 districts, and that I think is an important goal for the Pubs to create such a safe Pub district that meets that metric for a host of reasons. It is possible it can be achieved by transferring some of the “excess” Hispanics from TX-15 to TX-11, but how to do that depends on the design of the slice and dice of Williamson and Travis County outside the Austin Dem vote sink, while still keeping TX-23 say 52% HCVAP and safely Pub, without looking ridiculous. VRA sensitive districts need to look reasonable. The uber erose stuff should not be VRA sensitive. The image of the map has in white the real estate where the populations of the CD’s is way off. The underpopulated northern plains white zone (plus whatever TX-11 releases in population if it moves down the RGV more to meet the 50%+ HCVAP threshold (while TX-23 moves down the RGV exclusive of the counties directly appending the river), will be used to “attack” the Metroplex and the Austin area, along with TX-25, whose boundaries will be changed to join the slice and dice party. So a lot more work needs to be done.

In that regard, Victoria County is a pain in the ass for the Hispanic shift referred to above because it is reasonably high population and very Pub and needs to be retained if possible in the CD that joins the Austin area slice and dice, rather than be "wasted" in TX-15. That I find quite annoying, and means TX-15 needs to go father up the coast, which then affects the Houston area slice and dice. One things leads to another.

TX is fun to Pubmander because of the VRA issues and its complexity as to that issue and the wildly diverse trends which one must ponder as to whether they are a precursor for more of the same or more in the nature of a blip.





https://davesredistricting.org/join/b705aabf-808a-4f6b-b837-844af931ad79

Voila!

[Torie]

Thanks Britain33. Moving right along, I still see in your map 4 dark blue blobs in the Houston area, one more than the Pubmander quota that is allowed there for advocates of the "socialist agenda."  Naughty!

[Torie]

Thanks Britain33. Moving right along, I still see in your map 4 dark blue blobs in the Houston area, one more than the Pubmander quota that is allowed there for advocates of the "socialist agenda."  Naughty!

I’m guessing I can do better if I break up my compact TX-2 and TX-36 to bacon strip east Texas and diluted more of Harris’s blue districts like I did with 10, 22, and 8 already. It’s hard to do more in Central TX because those rurals are also needed for Austin. Do you think it’s possible to do much better to break up TX-7 without the minority districts shedding Hispanics and African-Americans to east Texas R districts?

In other words, talk to me after you’ve solved for Williamson and the bits of Travis you haven’t assigned yet. 😘

OK, the Austin area (outside the TX-35 compound where the loci of the woksters and other such hostiles have been penned), has been pacified, with the design of the CD’s as they go into the zone to slice and dice, and their recommended level of Pub strength (as measured by the Trump 2016 percentages) to be able to hold up to adverse trends as Pub havens for the decade, depicted. They include TX-17 (highly Pubbed up since it is taking a double adverse trend hit per its slice of Williamson and Brazos), 21, 31, and 27, together with TX-25 (the latter being deliberately excluded from the slice and dice party because half its population is in Bell County, which we don’t particularly trust as to future trends because it is too near Austin). Your mission is to summon up the virtu to do to TX-07 what Rome did to Carthage, so that over the next 10 years it will be nothing but the equivalent of a toxic waste dump for the Dems. I have not actually taken on this noble task myself. I leave that to you for me to critique.  Be a mensch!

As per the program, the white areas are the 3 CD’s (TX-6, 13 and 36) where the populations were/are substantially off.

Btw, I don't think your TX-33 is Hispanic performing.  In order to be Hispanic performing, it imo needs to be at least 45% HCVAP, and have at least twice as many HCVAP's as BCVAP's.

Here is an example that I just drew moving your lines around.





https://davesredistricting.org/join/b705aabf-808a-4f6b-b837-844af931ad79

[Torie]

Britain33, you need to have two Democratic performing Hispanic CD's contained entirely in Bexar County to be safe under the VRA in my opinion.

Ok. Apologies if you covered this in a past map, but what do you propose happens to TX-23 in this scenario? Does it become one of the two performing CDs (an unlikely move for a Republican map) or does it take up the 20% of the county that is most Anglo with approx. 400,000 people, with TX-21 moving out completely? Also, since the RGV doesn't have sufficient population for 3 full Hispanic districts, where do you connect the leftovers to since fajita strips are now out, too? I would like to see the whole that is made from the sum of the parts of your proposition.

Britain33, here is the design of the RGV area I have in mind more or less. Tragically, TX-11 is about 3 points short of 50%+ HCVAP due to the districts having higher population with only 38 districts, and that I think is an important goal for the Pubs to create such a safe Pub district that meets that metric for a host of reasons. It is possible it can be achieved by transferring some of the “excess” Hispanics from TX-15 to TX-11, but how to do that depends on the design of the slice and dice of Williamson and Travis County outside the Austin Dem vote sink, while still keeping TX-23 say 52% HCVAP and safely Pub, without looking ridiculous. VRA sensitive districts need to look reasonable. The uber erose stuff should not be VRA sensitive. The image of the map has in white the real estate where the populations of the CD’s is way off. The underpopulated northern plains white zone (plus whatever TX-11 releases in population if it moves down the RGV more to meet the 50%+ HCVAP threshold (while TX-23 moves down the RGV exclusive of the counties directly appending the river), will be used to “attack” the Metroplex and the Austin area, along with TX-25, whose boundaries will be changed to join the slice and dice party. So a lot more work needs to be done.

In that regard, Victoria County is a pain in the ass for the Hispanic shift referred to above because it is reasonably high population and very Pub and needs to be retained if possible in the CD that joins the Austin area slice and dice, rather than be "wasted" in TX-15. That I find quite annoying, and means TX-15 needs to go father up the coast, which then affects the Houston area slice and dice. One things leads to another.

TX is fun to Pubmander because of the VRA issues and its complexity as to that issue and the wildly diverse trends which one must ponder as to whether they are a precursor for more of the same or more in the nature of a blip.

I see several issues with this, first McCaul lives in Austin, on the other end of the 10th, so a north south configuration between Harris and Montgomery won't work with that seat. Second, the 9th can remain performing and still take in more of Fort Bend, this makes it necessary not to split the county in half and leaves Nehls' home base intact. Third, TX-34 is 90% Hispanic, no court is going to let that stand, especially since Democrats have already been preparing for multiple VRA lawsuits in many different states, not that hard for them to add TX to that list. Fourth, TX-11 was a leftovers district last time and probably should remain one, this current configuration eats into a lot of the 19th, which is going to cause problems for several rural incumbents who are going to lose large parts of their district. Fifth, Denton County cannot sustain itself anymore, not with the swings it's undergoing, it should be split and part of it paired with the Red River Counties. Sixth, 15 and 23 are in all likelihood not Hispanic enough, you need around 60% for a Hispanic performing seat, in general, and it needs to be more like 70% in the RGV (the probably illegal pack of 28 is probably partially responsible for this). Seventh, the elimination of Doggett's seat is unwise as it serves as a convenient D pack and with 25 being used up and 17 needing to go to Waco to grab Sessions' home, I don't think that Carter is going to be too happy with the 31 that results. One thing that I do like in this map is the carve up of Montgomery, with Brady gone, the GOP should have free reign to slice and dice the county at will. Also the Collin seat isn't going to safe, but I have yet to see a map that successfully pulls that off, Van Taylor is just going to have hope he's strong enough to brave the trends, given we've seen strong incumbents survive in districts zooming away from their party, he should have a chance of pulling it off for sure, unless a Democratic favored year occurs.

Of course there will probably be VRA lawsuits anyway. The issue is their relative level of merit. I think taking the risk of having CD's that are clearly 50%+ HCVAP that don't elect Democrats because there are two many Hispanic Pubs or they just don't bother to vote, that do not look gerrymandered, is a reasonable one. Others may disagree which is OK. Having said that, in addition to what has been drawn appending the RG River and the two nested CD's in Bexar County, there needs to be one Democratic performing Hispanic CD in the Metroplex, and one in Houston. That goes without saying, mandated by Gingles.

[Torie]

I completed my revisions to Britain33's map, but I won't post it now in case he or others want to do they own map and try to be more effective for the Pubs. I will post the stats in a moment.

Voila. The goal of course was to get the competitiveness score down to zero, but alas I fell short with a 3 score. Zero I think is possible with a bit more work however, perhaps by adding another county split or two, and a smidgen of more erosity. Alas when the Trump 2020 numbers are available, that zero even if achieved will go away. Sad!

Will the Pubs be up to this task? Inquiring minds want to know. I have faith in their brutality and avarice however.

[Torie]

What is the DRA extender? Sounds interesting.

[Torie]

I completed my revisions to Britain33's map, but I won't post it now in case he or others want to do they own map and try to be more effective for the Pubs. I will post the stats in a moment.

To be honest, I’m not likely to make changes because it would mean dismantling my neat TX-2 and TX-36 districts to make 3 baconstrip R districts and rebalancing the minority districts in Harris, precinct by precinct, to inch them west while surrendering minorities to the eastern R districts at a managed pace. I recognize it may be doable in a way that dissolves TX-7 wouldn’t find that exercise much fun, it’s not what I enjoy about redistricting. Bring on your new solution.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/71a4d540-b677-4eca-8e3a-4d32bbe24086

There ought to be a law against this sort of thing!