2020 Texas Redistricting thread

[Skill and Chance]

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.

[Brittain33]

Ok, I redrew TX-15 to be predominantly Bexar, high Hispanic CVAP, and Republican performing. Henry Cuellar pulled out of Bexar and gets more of the Rio Grande and TX-34 falls back, too.

[Skill and Chance]

Ok, I redrew TX-15 to be predominantly Bexar, high Hispanic CVAP, and Republican performing. Henry Cuellar pulled out of Bexar and gets more of the Rio Grande and TX-34 falls back, too.

Yes, whatever they do, they won't be drawing out Cuellar.  He has too many Republican friends for that.

[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.

[Brittain33]

I see your TX-33 is more Hispanic (mine is 43% CVAP vs. close to 50%) but it's similar enough to the current district in shape and which communities are included, and without a large Republican vote.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

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.

[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.

[Brittain33]

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

[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?

[Tintrlvr]

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

TX-32 or even TX-3 seem tough for the Republicans for an entire decade, although it's hard to be certain without seeing 2020 figures. TX-24 and TX-26 also seem a bit risky. The trends in TX-10 are less strong, but that one seems risky, too.

[I’m not Stu]

What might a dummymander look like?

[Brittain33]

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

TX-32 or even TX-3 seem tough for the Republicans for an entire decade, although it's hard to be certain without seeing 2020 figures. TX-24 and TX-26 also seem a bit risky. The trends in TX-10 are less strong, but that one seems risky, too.

I split Collin to make it possible for both to start off strong for Rs. Otherwise TX-32 is gone, again, soon. I considered doing a similar north-south split with Denton but TX-24 seemed R enough to hold off. But I probably should strengthen it at 26’s expense.

Similarly, I had to weaken TX-10 in order to make TX-22 stronger (while also cleaning up TX-2, one of the few personal goals I had.)

It seems like a lot of these questions come down to whether it’s possible to avoid conceding another D district in Harris and north Dallas without stretching districts into the rurals or not. Perhaps it’s not. I feel the legislature really doesn’t want to concede more than TX-7 and current TX-32.

[Brittain33]

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?

I wasn’t disagreeing, I was just articulating exactly what I thought.

[Brittain33]

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.

[Skill and Chance]

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.

They could try something in between with 7 by making it Lean D, but with a bunch of Dem leaning areas where Biden underperformed Clinton and hope they pick it up later in the decade.

[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.

[Brittain33]

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.

[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.

[Brittain33]

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

[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.

[S019]

The TX GOP has a massive problem in this state. The DFW metroplex is zooming left and leaving aside the fact that they need to keep either 1 of 24/6 competitive or add a new Dallas tossup-ish seat to save 24/6, you also have the issue of Collin and Denton having massive swings to the left, which provides another major issue, the only way I see around that is pairing each with multiple Red River Counties with would of course anger neighboring incumbents, who'd not only lose turf, but also likely be forced to pick up turf to account for the fact that such seats would be overpopulated if Collin/Denton were kept whole.

[Brittain33]

The TX GOP has a massive problem in this state. The DFW metroplex is zooming left and leaving aside the fact that they need to keep either 1 of 24/6 competitive or add a new Dallas tossup-ish seat to save 24/6, you also have the issue of Collin and Denton having massive swings to the left, which provides another major issue, the only way I see around that is pairing each with multiple Red River Counties with would of course anger neighboring incumbents, who'd not only lose turf, but also likely be forced to pick up turf to account for the fact that such seats would be overpopulated if Collin/Denton were kept whole.

I'm not convinced they keep "zooming" because we don't know what will happen in the post-Trump era. I doubt they go back to 2012 margins, but a change in issues may stop the bleeding for Rs.

[S019]

The TX GOP has a massive problem in this state. The DFW metroplex is zooming left and leaving aside the fact that they need to keep either 1 of 24/6 competitive or add a new Dallas tossup-ish seat to save 24/6, you also have the issue of Collin and Denton having massive swings to the left, which provides another major issue, the only way I see around that is pairing each with multiple Red River Counties with would of course anger neighboring incumbents, who'd not only lose turf, but also likely be forced to pick up turf to account for the fact that such seats would be overpopulated if Collin/Denton were kept whole.

I'm not convinced they keep "zooming" because we don't know what will happen in the post-Trump era. I doubt they go back to 2012 margins, but a change in issues may stop the bleeding for Rs.

The trend of suburbs swinging Dem precedes Trump, Collin County is very educated and affluent, two demographics that are swinging hard towards Democrats. Besides the GOP banking on "2020 was a fluke," when Trump has seized full control of the GOP seems very unwise, this is a gross exaggeration, but it reminds me of how the AR Dems got obsessed with power and drew perhaps the worst gerrymander in history, obviously TX isn't anywhere near deep blue, so that won't happen, but the GOP would be wise to recognize the issues it faces in the DFW metro.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

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. 

Erosity is not really very important in the RGV; Latino representation is much more relevant. I agree that if South Texas Latinos regularly vote 40%+ GOP a la 2020, then yes, the argument for keeping the fajitas weakens considerably, but there is not remotely enough evidence for that happening enough that it is wise to ditch them presently. Remember though that presidential election results are not an argument for one way or the other in this, at least by themselves - the most directly important thing is house level results.
The map I recently posted with 4 fajitas actually is substantially weak enough on this front I wasn't very happy at all with it. Not sure how that'd be remedied.