2020 Texas Redistricting thread

[Skill and Chance]

will republicans draw based on eligible voters?  That really makes it easier to draw the RGV and take back TX-7

TX Hispanics are counted by Spanish Surname Registration, so no. Also TX-07 will be ceded, there is no way that TX-02 lasts the decade if you try to draw away TX-07, TX-07 is sinked to make TX-02 Safe R, and if possible you might want to send some of 7 into Fort Bend actually, to shore up the 22nd. My map (which isn't probably secure enough) turns into a Clinton 60-40 sink or something like that, and has it join the bluest white parts of Houston with the bluest white parts of Fort Bend

Texas Hispanics are counted no different than any other race.  The question is whether districts are drawn based on population or eligible voters.  If by eligible voters, Hispanic districts will grow and whiter districts will shrink.  As for TX-7, I agree if drawn based on population it needs to be conceded, but if by eligible voters, the 3 VRA districts balloon, taking in more blue leaning suburbs.  They can definitely make TX-7 at least lean R if they do that.

Spanish Surname Voter Registration is how TX counts Hispanics. Also there are enough white Democratic parts in Houston that the VRA seats cannot take in, also these seats won't expand, they need to shrink, TX is gaining, not losing seats.

What you are saying is completely irrelevant.  This isn't about Hispanics in particular, this is about the issue of whether to district based on total population or eligible voters.  Also, if the districts are drawn based on eligible voters, the districts in Houston grow, I did it.  The 3 sinks take in around 2.6 million people if you draw based on eligible voters. Try it on DRA.  Also, the VRAs could take in some white areas, as long as those areas don't outvote the minorities.

Did you use 39 districts? Also if you want equal population then you do it based on total population if that is what you are asking, and if they do take in white areas, where do you plan to put the other minorities? Also keep in mind the map is being drawn for the whole decade, not just this election or next election.

Districts can be drawn with equal voter population rather than equal population.  I did use 39.  And when you use CVAP instead of total pop, the Houston VRAs grow by a lot.

This is interesting, but I think Biden can just not provide the alternative data requested under Trump's EOs to the states by repealing those EOs.  Though the apportionment data will be completed sooner, the process for preparing redistricting data within states from the 2020 census is expected to extend into April, well past the inauguration.   

[Idaho Conservative]

will republicans draw based on eligible voters?  That really makes it easier to draw the RGV and take back TX-7

TX Hispanics are counted by Spanish Surname Registration, so no. Also TX-07 will be ceded, there is no way that TX-02 lasts the decade if you try to draw away TX-07, TX-07 is sinked to make TX-02 Safe R, and if possible you might want to send some of 7 into Fort Bend actually, to shore up the 22nd. My map (which isn't probably secure enough) turns into a Clinton 60-40 sink or something like that, and has it join the bluest white parts of Houston with the bluest white parts of Fort Bend

Texas Hispanics are counted no different than any other race.  The question is whether districts are drawn based on population or eligible voters.  If by eligible voters, Hispanic districts will grow and whiter districts will shrink.  As for TX-7, I agree if drawn based on population it needs to be conceded, but if by eligible voters, the 3 VRA districts balloon, taking in more blue leaning suburbs.  They can definitely make TX-7 at least lean R if they do that.

Spanish Surname Voter Registration is how TX counts Hispanics. Also there are enough white Democratic parts in Houston that the VRA seats cannot take in, also these seats won't expand, they need to shrink, TX is gaining, not losing seats.

What you are saying is completely irrelevant.  This isn't about Hispanics in particular, this is about the issue of whether to district based on total population or eligible voters.  Also, if the districts are drawn based on eligible voters, the districts in Houston grow, I did it.  The 3 sinks take in around 2.6 million people if you draw based on eligible voters. Try it on DRA.  Also, the VRAs could take in some white areas, as long as those areas don't outvote the minorities.

Did you use 39 districts? Also if you want equal population then you do it based on total population if that is what you are asking, and if they do take in white areas, where do you plan to put the other minorities? Also keep in mind the map is being drawn for the whole decade, not just this election or next election.

Districts can be drawn with equal voter population rather than equal population.  I did use 39.  And when you use CVAP instead of total pop, the Houston VRAs grow by a lot.

This is interesting, but I think Biden can just not provide the alternative data requested under Trump's EOs to the states by repealing those EOs.  Though the apportionment data will be completed sooner, the process for preparing redistricting data within states from the 2020 census is expected to extend into April, well past the inauguration.   

CVAP data must be provided to comply with the VRA.  It isn't optional.

[Idaho Conservative]

will republicans draw based on eligible voters?  That really makes it easier to draw the RGV and take back TX-7

TX Hispanics are counted by Spanish Surname Registration, so no. Also TX-07 will be ceded, there is no way that TX-02 lasts the decade if you try to draw away TX-07, TX-07 is sinked to make TX-02 Safe R, and if possible you might want to send some of 7 into Fort Bend actually, to shore up the 22nd. My map (which isn't probably secure enough) turns into a Clinton 60-40 sink or something like that, and has it join the bluest white parts of Houston with the bluest white parts of Fort Bend

Texas Hispanics are counted no different than any other race.  The question is whether districts are drawn based on population or eligible voters.  If by eligible voters, Hispanic districts will grow and whiter districts will shrink.  As for TX-7, I agree if drawn based on population it needs to be conceded, but if by eligible voters, the 3 VRA districts balloon, taking in more blue leaning suburbs.  They can definitely make TX-7 at least lean R if they do that.

Spanish Surname Voter Registration is how TX counts Hispanics. Also there are enough white Democratic parts in Houston that the VRA seats cannot take in, also these seats won't expand, they need to shrink, TX is gaining, not losing seats.

What you are saying is completely irrelevant.  This isn't about Hispanics in particular, this is about the issue of whether to district based on total population or eligible voters.  Also, if the districts are drawn based on eligible voters, the districts in Houston grow, I did it.  The 3 sinks take in around 2.6 million people if you draw based on eligible voters. Try it on DRA.  Also, the VRAs could take in some white areas, as long as those areas don't outvote the minorities.

Did you use 39 districts? Also if you want equal population then you do it based on total population if that is what you are asking, and if they do take in white areas, where do you plan to put the other minorities? Also keep in mind the map is being drawn for the whole decade, not just this election or next election.

Districts can be drawn with equal voter population rather than equal population.  I did use 39.  And when you use CVAP instead of total pop, the Houston VRAs grow by a lot.

District drawing is traditionally done with total population, while VAP is used for minority seats to determine whether or not they will actually perform (especially with low turnout minorities such as Hispanics), these are two totally different things that they are used for.

I'm aware, but the constitution doesn't specify which and SCOTUS left the door open to it.

[Stuart98]

Tried making a nasty R gerrymander.

Seems VRA compliant from what I can tell, though probably lumps a bunch of incumbents together and would be non-viable for that reason.

Insets:
Austin/San Antonio:


Houston:


DFW:


Clinton carried 15 districts, Trump carried 24 in 2016. Pretty sure Trump carried the 15th in 2020 but Biden still carried the 37th.

6th and 3rd might not last the whole decade but given DFW's trends that's unavoidable. The D vote sink in Austin was necessary to prevent the whole area from turning into a dummymander. All districts other than the 6th and 3rd (and maybe the 15th and 37th, with whatever the hell is going on in the RGV) should be safe for the whole decade.

[SevenEleven]

Damn, TX is actually way easier to draw a Dem gerrymander with and it looks cleaner than this.

[SevenEleven]

Fair map:

[Idaho Conservative]

Fair map:

D gerrymanders are "fair"?

[SevenEleven]

Fair map:

D gerrymanders are "fair"?

Not a gerrymander.

[Idaho Conservative]

Fair map:

D gerrymanders are "fair"?

Not a gerrymander.

you can say that but the lines speak for themselves

[SevenEleven]

Fair map:

D gerrymanders are "fair"?

Not a gerrymander.

you can say that but the lines speak for themselves

I prioritized keeping counties whole and adequate representation for minority groups.

[lfromnj]

TIL Austin white liberals are a minority group?

Is that a 3 way split of central Austin ?

[SevenEleven]

TIL Austin white liberals are a minority group?

Is that a 3 way split of central Austin ?

Out of necessity, to create three Hispanic majority districts in Bexar.

[Idaho Conservative]

TIL Austin white liberals are a minority group?

Is that a 3 way split of central Austin ?

Out of necessity, to create three Hispanic majority districts in Bexar.

well prioritizing hispanic representation is just as nonpartisan as prioritizing white representation.  Racial gerrymandering has partisan outcomes, and you did significantly more than needed legally.

[SevenEleven]

TIL Austin white liberals are a minority group?

Is that a 3 way split of central Austin ?

Out of necessity, to create three Hispanic majority districts in Bexar.

well prioritizing hispanic representation is just as nonpartisan as prioritizing white representation.  Racial gerrymandering has partisan outcomes, and you did significantly more than needed legally.

Its not, though.

[Idaho Conservative]

TIL Austin white liberals are a minority group?

Is that a 3 way split of central Austin ?

Out of necessity, to create three Hispanic majority districts in Bexar.

well prioritizing hispanic representation is just as nonpartisan as prioritizing white representation.  Racial gerrymandering has partisan outcomes, and you did significantly more than needed legally.

Its not, though.

Finally we agree.  It's not nonpartisan

[SevenEleven]

TIL Austin white liberals are a minority group?

Is that a 3 way split of central Austin ?

Out of necessity, to create three Hispanic majority districts in Bexar.

well prioritizing hispanic representation is just as nonpartisan as prioritizing white representation.  Racial gerrymandering has partisan outcomes, and you did significantly more than needed legally.

Its not, though.

Finally we agree.  It's not nonpartisan

What? Minority voting rights and representation access should not be a partisan issue. If it is, that sounds more like a problem with the party.

[Idaho Conservative]

TIL Austin white liberals are a minority group?

Is that a 3 way split of central Austin ?

Out of necessity, to create three Hispanic majority districts in Bexar.

well prioritizing hispanic representation is just as nonpartisan as prioritizing white representation.  Racial gerrymandering has partisan outcomes, and you did significantly more than needed legally.

Its not, though.

Finally we agree.  It's not nonpartisan

What? Minority voting rights and representation access should not be a partisan issue.

What? White voting rights and representation access should not be a partisan issue.

The fact is, when you gerrymander for one racial group, another group or groups have fewer representatives of their choice.  There are only so many seats in any given state.  Racial gerrymandering for a group which favors a certain political party is a partisan act.  Your map didn't just do what was legally mandated, you went out of your way to draw it to maximize minority seats and that has a partisan impact.  The idea this isn't a partisan issue is ridiculous.

[SevenEleven]

TIL Austin white liberals are a minority group?

Is that a 3 way split of central Austin ?

Out of necessity, to create three Hispanic majority districts in Bexar.

well prioritizing hispanic representation is just as nonpartisan as prioritizing white representation.  Racial gerrymandering has partisan outcomes, and you did significantly more than needed legally.

Its not, though.

Finally we agree.  It's not nonpartisan

What? Minority voting rights and representation access should not be a partisan issue.

What? White voting rights and representation access should not be a partisan issue.

The fact is, when you gerrymander for one racial group, another group or groups have fewer representatives of their choice.  There are only so many seats in any given state.  Racial gerrymandering for a group which favors a certain political party is a partisan act.  Your map didn't just do what was legally mandated, you went out of your way to draw it to maximize minority seats and that has a partisan impact.  The idea this isn't a partisan issue is ridiculous.

There are still more white seats than minority seats.

[Former President tack50]

To be fair, ID Conservative has a point in that maximizing minority representation is something that gets forced too often. But that is something that is forced by the VRA, if it wasn't for that bill, in theory states would have the right to make pure 100% clean maps. (in practice, either they'd still do minority districts as packs and you'd see 80% black or hispanic districts; or the minority areas would get cracked so if repealed it would strengthen gerrymandering rather than weakening it).

Not that I support repealing it as it does much more than minority districts (and even minority districts are a good idea in theory, it's just that too many times it is used to trump COIs), but certain minority districts (in this particular case, the fajita districts for instance but there are lots of others in other states) are gerrymanders or at least look awful and respect no COIs whatsoever.

[Former President tack50]

Anyways, here goes my attempt. This map preserves the exact amount of majority minority districts and tries to be fair too

https://davesredistricting.org/join/0db31c7b-72a6-45ba-8316-45f74148dd44



Zoom on populated areas:



This map should in theory have (based on 2016 at least) 16 Dem districts, 19 Rep districts and 4 swing districts. (2, 22, 32 and 37; 2 in Houston, 1 in Dallas and 1 in Round Rock)

The list of majority minority districts (by CVAP) is:

TX-02: 45% white, 28% Hispanic, 16% Black, 10% Asian (doesn't count)
TX-09: 45% black, 35% hispanic, 16% white (Houston black district 1)
TX-15: 87% Hispanic, 11% white (McAllen Hispanic district)
TX-16: 76% Hispanic, 18% white (El Paso Hispanic district)
TX-18: 47% Black, 27% white, 18% Hispanic (Houston black district 2)
TX-20: 58% Hispanic, 28% white, 12% black (San Antonio Hispanic district 1)
TX-22: 44% white, 20% asian, 18% Hispanic, 16% black (Doesn't count)
TX-23: 52% Hispanic, 42% White (Hispanic West Texas Republican district)
TX-27: 49% Hispanic, 44% White (No idea if this counts or not, but it's titanium R anyways)
TX-28: 76% Hispanic, 21% White (South Texas Hispanic district 1)
TX-29: 53% Hispanic, 26% White, 16% black (Houston Hispanic district)
TX-30: 57% Black, 24% Hispanic, 18% White (Dallas Black district)
TX-33: 39% Hispanic, 34% White, 21% black (Dallas Hispanic district*)
TX-34: 81% Hispanic, 17% White (South Texas Hispanic district 2)
TX-35: 62% Hispanic, 27% White (San Antonio Hispanic district 2)
TX-39: 48% White, 25% Hispanic, 24% Black (doesn't count)

*: The percentage here might be a bit low, but I wanted to avoid a gerrymander into Fort Worth

[lfromnj]

Tack the way you split the Austin metro makes little sense unless if it was perfectly along the river? I tried to give Killeen its own district with Waco rather than shove it in with the Austin metro.



Here's a better way to split the metro that gives minorities in Austin influence at atleast one district. The few rural counties added to the Williamson district aren't ideal but extra pop growth should cut that down by 2020. Im not a super huge fan of going full out for minority/VRA districts but the pink district does give Austin minorities a slight amount of influence rather than splitting them with 2 certain white liberal districts in a logical and compact manner.

[S019]

Tack the way you split the Austin metro makes little sense. I tried to give Killeen its own district with Waco rather than shove it in.



Here's a better way to split the metro that gives minorities in Austin influence at atleast one district. The few rural counties added to the Williamson district aren't ideal but extra pop growth should cut that down by 2020. Im not a super huge fan of going full out for minority/VRA districts but the pink district does give Austin minorities a slight amount of influence rather than splitting them with 2 certain white liberal districts in a logical and compact manner.

if you want an Austin minority seat just copy Doggett's current seat, this one looks like it will be more dominated by white people. Also the Williamson seat is clearly dominated by whites and looks like something that a Republican dummymander would draw.

[lfromnj]

Tack the way you split the Austin metro makes little sense. I tried to give Killeen its own district with Waco rather than shove it in.



Here's a better way to split the metro that gives minorities in Austin influence at atleast one district. The few rural counties added to the Williamson district aren't ideal but extra pop growth should cut that down by 2020. Im not a super huge fan of going full out for minority/VRA districts but the pink district does give Austin minorities a slight amount of influence rather than splitting them with 2 certain white liberal districts in a logical and compact manner.

If I-35 growth continues that pink could be vulnerable by the end of the decade, and the Williamson one is also risky, and if you want an Austin minority seat just copy Doggett's current seat, this one looks like it will be more dominated by white people.

I didn't specifically want an Austin minority seat and I don't find San Antonio to Austin a COI for that purpose with regards to Gingles., I just found these the most logical county pairings and communities in Austin. The Williamson seat def isn't Safe R. Rn its Trump +16 but cutting the rural counties out make its Trump +11. See earlier discussion in the thread about how both me and Sol agreed on this if you wanted 4 whole districts in the Austin to Waco area. Overall Trump +11 is slightly harmful to a purely swing district but not that partisan of a move.

Also unless you are playing around with some VRA stuff in Tarrant, Tarrant + Grand Prarie(city that is in both Dallas and Tarrant counties) is almost exactly 3 districts so seems like a fairly obvious choice.


The Forth Worth Seat is basically Safe D at Clinton +14. The Arlington Grand Prarie district is Lean D at Clinton +2 and its obviously trending D, and the northern district is a "R sink" and Trump +31. City lines are pretty easy to follow in DFW besides the actual city of Forth Worth which is a monstrosity  although the core of the city can be preserved. The few exurban/rural precincts being taken in from the SW of the county aren't ideal but I didn't want a super uncompact district.

Anyway I am finding my fair Texas map comes out to around 18 Clinton districts
(5 DFW 5 Houston, 2 Austin, 2 SA, 3 RGV) and 20 Biden districts with 6 in Houston and DFW but I think one Corpus Christi to Brownsville seat might have flipped although it could also be 19 districts.

[Brittain33]

TIL Austin white liberals are a minority group?

Is that a 3 way split of central Austin ?

Out of necessity, to create three Hispanic majority districts in Bexar.

well prioritizing hispanic representation is just as nonpartisan as prioritizing white representation.  Racial gerrymandering has partisan outcomes, and you did significantly more than needed legally.

Its not, though.

Finally we agree.  It's not nonpartisan

What? Minority voting rights and representation access should not be a partisan issue.

What? White voting rights and representation access should not be a partisan issue.

The fact is, when you gerrymander for one racial group, another group or groups have fewer representatives of their choice.  There are only so many seats in any given state.  Racial gerrymandering for a group which favors a certain political party is a partisan act.  Your map didn't just do what was legally mandated, you went out of your way to draw it to maximize minority seats and that has a partisan impact.  The idea this isn't a partisan issue is ridiculous.

But in the U.S., there is no symmetry between the political power enjoyed by the dominant ethnic group / caste and political power enjoyed by members of other castes who have historically been suppressed by the majority. A system that favors representation by suppressed and discriminated-against minorities is fairer than one which pretends there’s an equal playing field whereas in reality the dominant caste enjoys inherent advantages in a system they built and maintain.

[Idaho Conservative]

TIL Austin white liberals are a minority group?

Is that a 3 way split of central Austin ?

Out of necessity, to create three Hispanic majority districts in Bexar.

well prioritizing hispanic representation is just as nonpartisan as prioritizing white representation.  Racial gerrymandering has partisan outcomes, and you did significantly more than needed legally.

Its not, though.

Finally we agree.  It's not nonpartisan

What? Minority voting rights and representation access should not be a partisan issue.

What? White voting rights and representation access should not be a partisan issue.

The fact is, when you gerrymander for one racial group, another group or groups have fewer representatives of their choice.  There are only so many seats in any given state.  Racial gerrymandering for a group which favors a certain political party is a partisan act.  Your map didn't just do what was legally mandated, you went out of your way to draw it to maximize minority seats and that has a partisan impact.  The idea this isn't a partisan issue is ridiculous.

There are still more white seats than minority seats.

well white voters are like 60-70% of the Texas electorate