2020 Texas Redistricting thread

[Torie]

The one-legged two humped camel and the bunny rabbit. 

[Torie]

What is the DRA extender? Sounds interesting.

It gives you O'Rourke/Cruz data, but it doesn't work with 2020 precincts afaik

Thanks. We will just have to wait. With all the slicing and dicing on the map, doing it manually would take weeks!

[Torie]

Is it easy to create two fairly compact 50+% Hispanic CVAP districts in Houston?

With or without a separate black district?

With one.

Does this qualify?
https://davesredistricting.org/join/f836a004-6377-4eee-9f44-fae59e10ef5c

It might (it meets my metric anyway of performing in TX anyway - 45%+ HCVAP with HCVAP's at least twice the number of BCVAP's), and if those HCVAP numbers hold, it may well cost the Pubs a seat since the risk of losing a VRA lawsuit is substantial. Intra-county erosity and municipal chops like that do not slow down the courts much, particularly if the alternative is a partisan slice and dice in the area. Good catch Tim. It is not as solid as the Holder lawsuit in Alabama, but if the numbers the court uses have higher percentages than what is in the DRA (very possible), the lawsuit's merit should match Holder's. The only out is potentially trying to replace the non Dem VRA CD in Harris with the second Hispanic CD, but I don't think the numbers are there. The one remaining caveat is to take a look at the 2020 Trump numbers and see if Hispanics on the east side of the county trended enough Pub to make the CD iffy as a performing Hispanic CD for the Dems. I tend to doubt that too.

If the HCVAP percentages go up enough in this area, as they might well, so that this blob is over 50% HCVAP, the below might be the Pubs' best option, because the shape and nesting along the county lines,  can be defended as not gerrymandered. Lower than 50%, no dice, because then the shortfall can then will be viewed as  the difference between performing (in this case, Hispanic Democrats will win both the primary and general), and not performing (Democrats might lose). Once you get over 50% HCVAP without gerrymandering, then if the Dems lose, it is due to too many Hispanic Pubs, and/or relatively low Hispanic turnout. In that case, the "conservative" SCOTUS is reasonably likely to rule against the VRA litigant, in essence ruling, "too bad, if Hispanics choose not to vote, or Hispanics are too divided, that is the Democrats' problem, not ours."

[Torie]

In other news, the yellow rabbit has now turned into a yellow chicken. I think I have now managed to break every Muon2 rule that exists, as well as a couple of my own codicils thereto and now accept my accolades. The only rules obeyed are legal ones - you know like that darn VRA. Usually it favors the Pubs, but not in Harris County!





And here is something far less insane looking where the Pubs draw TX-07 as lean Dem, but potentially competitive if higher SES urban educated white voters snap back to the GOP, and recover from their Trump low with them. Gingles triggering a need for an additional performing Hispanic CD in Harris County really hurts them this time. Alternatively they could take the risk of losing a VRA lawsuit to see what the reconstituted SCOTUS does, and redraw if they lose. Another potentiality is that if the CVAP figures which the Courts decide to use in various cases have higher percentage numbers for HCVAP's, it may allow them to draw two performing Hispanic CD's with more favorable lines for them than what the DRA figures currently use make possible.

[Torie]

Where a seat is safe Dem, my metric for a performing Hispanic CD is approximately at least 45% HVCAP, with that percentage being twice as high as the BCVAP. That where there is a material GOP minority at least where a substantial percentage of the whites will not vote in a Dem primary, should have the majority of the voters in a Dem primary be Hispanic.

Here is another Houston art study where two CD’s surround seven, that makes TX-07 around a toss-up.  I find this one so visually appealing to the eye that I might have it framed. 



https://davesredistricting.org/join/4992c870-f512-4f36-ad72-392d3db026b0

[Torie]

In playing around with the border land between TX-07 and TX-18, and looking at the NYT interactive map link below, I find that the pattern of Hispanics not voting before voting for Trump 2020, even as high SES whites fled. Thus, I suspect by doing what I did, and in heavily Dem precincts along the border land that are heavily Hispanic with relatively few blacks while excluding those with a higher black percentage and some high SES white precincts that are not so Democratic, is probably the way to maximize the Trump 2020 percentage. I suspect the Trump 2020 numbers are quite close to the Trump 2020 numbers (he may have even carried it), and the PVI of TX-07 drawn this way may have moved the PVI from the existing PVI of 1% D to maybe 2% R.

Without the Trump 2020 numbers in the DRA, going for heavily Hispanic precincts with a very low percentage turnout of HCVAP’s to include in districts targeting for the GOP in preference to other 2016 heavily Dem precincts, seems to be a winning strategy for the Pubs in many areas, including in some big cities such as Houston.




https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/upshot/2020-election-map.html

Another lacunae, is that inasmuch as one can draw two 50%+ HCVAP CD's in the Houston area while one cannot draw two 50%+ BCVAP CD's, per Gingles, one of the performing black CD's there needs to be converted to a performing Hispanic CD. The odd person out whose district is chopped to bits is not Al Green, whose current TX-09 is not mostly covered by TX-18, but Shelia Jackson Lee, who has some of the territory in the redrawn TX-18, but not nearly as much as Al Green does in his TX-09. I doubt she can beat an Hispanic in a Dem primary in the redrawn TX-09. I think I will switch the numbers of the CD's to avoid confusion, along with TX-08 and YX-10 exchanging numbers.

And then I revised the  map yet again that reflects research as to where Pub incumbents live (in CD's that are potentially in play in the Austin area anyway), and the ones who are likely to run for reelection and I researched that too, and their needs – a mix of reality and effectiveness). I would not be that surprised if a map similar to this is actually adopted.



https://davesredistricting.org/join/85865b26-bd52-44ae-bd4a-095c122a8396

[Torie]

Mirror, mirror on the wall, bet on a high SES white snap back, or the Hispanic/Asian Pub trends, what is the best Pubmander strategy of them all? This map reflects the diversified approach. A little of this, a little of that, but not too much of either. The blue to red hue map is the NYT precinct swing map, which depicts the rather wild and quite surprising shifts. One would never guess that Harris County trended blue if one was unaware that the turnout among high SES WCVAP's is massively higher in the region than that of low SES persons of color, particularly HCVAP's. Will that continue going forward? It did pretty much from 2016 to 2020. The turnout percentage increase seems sluggish with that cohort of eligible voters - up but by no means dramatically.

Clairvoyance is in short supply, at least in my brain. One wild card is to what degree inflation will ramp up. It seems to be ready to reignite in a substantial way at least in some sectors. In fact, it already has in some sectors at least. The cost of shipping and construction materials has close to doubled in the last few months it seems. Whether a resolution of the supply chain choke points will resolve that or not I don’t know, given all the “free” cash floating around financed by government debt. The nexus of macroeconomics and Pubmandering writ large.

What is your crystal ball revealing to you, or did you misplace it?



I hope with some help to have this map with the 2020 POTUS election figures in due course. In the meantime, my metrics are as follows:

I. Minimize VRA risk

1. If a majority compact BCVAP or HCVAP CD can be drawn that is "compact," then a performing CD for that minority must be drawn, per Gingles.

2. I use a broad definition of what is "compact" for purposes of the Gingles trigger test.

3. Minority CD's should not look gerrymandered except to the extent necessary to make them performing.

4. For Hispanic performing CD's, in Texas for Demcroactic Hispanic CD's, that in practice means keeping the BCVAP percentage down. The metric I use is that the HCVAP must be at least 45%, and at least twice as much as the BCVAP, although if the HCVAP is over 50%, there might be a bit of wiggle room on the at least twice as high as the BCVAP percentage metric. I do not count on a 50%+ HCVAP being a safe harbor even if the CD is not in fact a performing Hispanic CD due to higher percentages of HCVAP's not voting in a Dem primary, either because they do not vote at all, or vote in GOP primaries in higher percentages.

II. Avoid county and municipal splits to the extent possible, without materially degrading the efficacy of the gerrymander, and in general make the map look as "attractive as possible consistent with such efficacy.

III. Mimimize dummymander potential.

This one is tricky in Texas. Will higher income and educated urban whites continue trending to the Dems, or even snap back, and will the Hispanic trend to the GOP hold or continue, and how about the turnout among HCVAP's? If the more upscale white trends continue, as opposed to stopping, much less a snap back, while the Hispanic trends are but an ephemeral fling, or they start voting in much higher percentages, and not for the GOP, then or course the map will have some dummymander potential. Ultimately, one cannot plan on worse case scenarios. If the Pubs lose their gains with persons of color, and keep tanking with Pubs, or former Pubs, who disdain Trump, then the Pubs are going to cease being competitive anyway in general. Black turnout in many places in Texas in 2020 was tepid too btw.

The idea is to diversify the risk, and not put the eggs all in one ethnic basket, and try to pad CD's with more Pubs where the trends look most ominous. A lot will depend on events of course, that are hard to predict. A ramp up in inflation I think would tend to facilitate a snap back, since I suspect many of the more upscale white voters tend to be fiscally cautious, and don't like unpleasant surprises, which among other things can be bad for business. But nobody knows for sure what is in store on the macro-economic level. I at least certainly don't.

IV. Minimize CD's that have such a diversity in Pub ranks, that the risk is that they will nominate someone who is an underpeformer, either due to incompetence, or because it is impossible within the Pub coalition within a CD to avoid annoying one group or the other.

V.  Take cognizance of the needs of Pub incumbents, and avoid a situation where their CD has a group of voters in it where they will substantially underperform, to the point of putting the CD in play over time. That is a problem in the Austin area in particular. Sessions and Cloud need to be kept out of the zone for example.

VI. Number CD's so that Pub incumbents keep their same CD number if reasonably possible.

[Torie]

Here is my revised TX Pubmander that you have all been waiting for. Why do I engage in this madness? For relaxation when home alone. We shall see how closely it matches to what is enacted. That is my challenge game for me. One bit of research was to check the population deviations in the 2010 map with the 2010 populations. There was a deviation but it did not exceed 400 people in any CD. So that was my metric, while trying, sort of, to minimize precinct splits while making the lines look as clean as possible also in the mix, and trying to avoid municipal and county splits where possible while trying to otherwise max Pub advantage, taking into account coherency, Pub incumbent residence locations, and so forth. That is what is done behind the doors I think.

And oh yes, minimizing the VRA risk to essentially near zero. Yes, near zero.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/c6f7daa4-156b-4e7f-8d58-765965bb4976





And here is an ethnicity map that I quite like.

[Torie]

Can we have this with up to date census data for VAP?

For VRA concerns, you've turned a 66% Hispanic seat (23) into two 51% seats. And 34 is now -25% Hispanic, whilst packing 28 and 15. Lots of court potential there.

Click on the link and you can review the data. The numbers you cite are inaccurate. If a CD is compact and is not gerrymandered, and takes in one minority node, there is no reason to travel across empty land to dilute the minority population down (or increase it up for that matter. It could be 100% Hispanic. A CD that is at least 50% HCVAP should be legal even if not performing (because Hispanic legal voters vote in lower percentages or are split between the two parties), if it does not look gerrymandered. Conversely not drawing a 50% HCVAP CD that is there to be drawn in a compact form even if not actually performing is problematical, if the Hispanic percentage population in the state is more than the percentage of Hispanic CD's that are drawn for them.

I have 11 either 50% HCVAP or performing CD's, the max that can be drawn in any reasonably compact form. The percentage of Hispanics in the state is considerably higher that 11/38. The final census numbers as opposed to the estimates did not away a 50% HCVAP CD in the Metroplex, but a performing one can still be drawn (a majority of the voters in the Dem primary will be Hispanic), and I did it.

[Torie]

Can we have this with up to date census data for VAP?

For VRA concerns, you've turned a 66% Hispanic seat (23) into two 51% seats. And 34 is now -25% Hispanic, whilst packing 28 and 15. Lots of court potential there.

Click on the link and you can review the data. The numbers you cite are inaccurate. If a CD is compact and is not gerrymandered, and takes in one minority node, there is no reason to travel across empty land to dilute the minority population down (or increase it up for that matter. It could be 100% Hispanic. A CD that is at least 50% HCVAP should be legal even if not performing (because Hispanic legal voters vote in lower percentages or are split between the two parties), if it does not look gerrymandered. Conversely not drawing a 50% HCVAP CD that is there to be drawn in a compact form even if not actually performing is problematical, if the Hispanic percentage population in the state is more than the percentage of Hispanic CD's that are drawn for them.

I have 11 either 50% HCVAP or performing CD's, the max that can be drawn in any reasonably compact form. The percentage of Hispanics in the state is considerably higher that 11/38. The final census numbers as opposed to the estimates did not away a 50% HCVAP CD in the Metroplex, but a performing one can still be drawn (a majority of the voters in the Dem primary will be Hispanic), and I did it.

Your logic here is extremely dubious since  those Hispanic districts are essentially going to elect the white Republican's candidates of choice with a small minority of Hispanic support.   That's not really what I would call a minority access district.   

What would even be the point of bringing the HVAP up to 50% if it's not going to elect the Hispanic's candidate?   Is 50% just a nice sounding number or something?

It's not my logic, it's the law, as long as Gingles applies, at least as I interpret it. 50% CVAP is the trigger under Gingles, to try to match that percentage, or if lower, a minority performing CD. And the CD's may well elect Hispanic candidates, at least when the incumbent retires, they will just be Hispanic Pubs. TX-23 elects an Hispanic. TX-11 might well when the incumbent retires. TX-33 may switch out a black Dem for an Hispanic one, and Houston very probably will in this map.

You may disagree. That is OK. The courts will let us know one way or the other soon.

[Torie]

Can we have this with up to date census data for VAP?

For VRA concerns, you've turned a 66% Hispanic seat (23) into two 51% seats. And 34 is now -25% Hispanic, whilst packing 28 and 15. Lots of court potential there.

Click on the link and you can review the data. The numbers you cite are inaccurate. If a CD is compact and is not gerrymandered, and takes in one minority node, there is no reason to travel across empty land to dilute the minority population down (or increase it up for that matter. It could be 100% Hispanic. A CD that is at least 50% HCVAP should be legal even if not performing (because Hispanic legal voters vote in lower percentages or are split between the two parties), if it does not look gerrymandered. Conversely not drawing a 50% HCVAP CD that is there to be drawn in a compact form even if not actually performing is problematical, if the Hispanic percentage population in the state is more than the percentage of Hispanic CD's that are drawn for them.

I have 11 either 50% HCVAP or performing CD's, the max that can be drawn in any reasonably compact form. The percentage of Hispanics in the state is considerably higher that 11/38. The final census numbers as opposed to the estimates did not away a 50% HCVAP CD in the Metroplex, but a performing one can still be drawn (a majority of the voters in the Dem primary will be Hispanic), and I did it.

I did click on the link, you've used 2019 CVAP estimates, not the census data.

But I ask again, and I genuinely want to know, if two 90%+ Hispanic districts are allowed, why haven't the Texas GOP done that before?

Diluting the %Hispanic in two congressional districts compared to the previous map is a VRA challenge imo.

I don't know why they did it, maybe they misunderstood the law. The might try to do it
 again, to try to gain yet another seat. If they do, I think that is illegal. You don't gerrymander to take away a performing CD that is triggered by Gingles, to make it less compact. 2019 estimates are all we have, other than looking at surnames on the registration rolls. In any event, the 2019 estimates are really 2017, since it is a 5 year average, and the Hispanic percentages have gone up since then.

[Torie]

Can we have this with up to date census data for VAP?

For VRA concerns, you've turned a 66% Hispanic seat (23) into two 51% seats. And 34 is now -25% Hispanic, whilst packing 28 and 15. Lots of court potential there.

Click on the link and you can review the data. The numbers you cite are inaccurate. If a CD is compact and is not gerrymandered, and takes in one minority node, there is no reason to travel across empty land to dilute the minority population down (or increase it up for that matter. It could be 100% Hispanic. A CD that is at least 50% HCVAP should be legal even if not performing (because Hispanic legal voters vote in lower percentages or are split between the two parties), if it does not look gerrymandered. Conversely not drawing a 50% HCVAP CD that is there to be drawn in a compact form even if not actually performing is problematical, if the Hispanic percentage population in the state is more than the percentage of Hispanic CD's that are drawn for them.

I have 11 either 50% HCVAP or performing CD's, the max that can be drawn in any reasonably compact form. The percentage of Hispanics in the state is considerably higher that 11/38. The final census numbers as opposed to the estimates did not away a 50% HCVAP CD in the Metroplex, but a performing one can still be drawn (a majority of the voters in the Dem primary will be Hispanic), and I did it.

Your logic here is extremely dubious since  those Hispanic districts are essentially going to elect the white Republican's candidates of choice with a small minority of Hispanic support.   That's not really what I would call a minority access district.  

What would even be the point of bringing the HVAP up to 50% if it's not going to elect the Hispanic's candidate?   Is 50% just a nice sounding number or something?

It's not my logic, it's the law, as long as Gingles applies, at least as I interpret it. 50% CVAP is the trigger under Gingles, to try to match that percentage, or if lower, a minority performing CD. And the CD's may well elect Hispanic candidates, at least when the incumbent retires, they will just be Hispanic Pubs. TX-23 elects an Hispanic. TX-11 might well when the incumbent retires. TX-33 may switch out a black Dem for an Hispanic one, and Houston very probably will in this map.

You may disagree. That is OK. The courts will let us know one way or the other soon.

This is the other part of Gingles  -

A minority group must demonstrate it is politically cohesive.

If your districts basically take a small portion of hispanic support and combine it with a large (overwhelming in this case) amount of white support to elect the candidates then that definitely does not pass Gingles in any way whatsoever.    The 51% HVAP districts would not be performing, especially in rural Texas.

edit - Would Hispanics even be able to control the Republican primaries in these districts?  I doubt it.

Yes, it is true that maybe Gingles does not apply at all anymore in the RGV in particular (also along the Gulf up to Houston, and of course the oil patch in Ector County). As to the RGV, when Hispanics are voting 40%-45% Pub in almost all Hispanic zones, that hardly seems "cohesive." The place it is most cohesive is in San Antonio from what I can tell, and in parts of Houston, but not all parts. If Gingles does not apply at all, then it is open season. But it is a VRA risk here to just blow Gingles off, and the idea is to minimize VRA risk.

[Torie]

Can we have this with up to date census data for VAP?

For VRA concerns, you've turned a 66% Hispanic seat (23) into two 51% seats. And 34 is now -25% Hispanic, whilst packing 28 and 15. Lots of court potential there.

Click on the link and you can review the data. The numbers you cite are inaccurate. If a CD is compact and is not gerrymandered, and takes in one minority node, there is no reason to travel across empty land to dilute the minority population down (or increase it up for that matter. It could be 100% Hispanic. A CD that is at least 50% HCVAP should be legal even if not performing (because Hispanic legal voters vote in lower percentages or are split between the two parties), if it does not look gerrymandered. Conversely not drawing a 50% HCVAP CD that is there to be drawn in a compact form even if not actually performing is problematical, if the Hispanic percentage population in the state is more than the percentage of Hispanic CD's that are drawn for them.

I have 11 either 50% HCVAP or performing CD's, the max that can be drawn in any reasonably compact form. The percentage of Hispanics in the state is considerably higher that 11/38. The final census numbers as opposed to the estimates did not away a 50% HCVAP CD in the Metroplex, but a performing one can still be drawn (a majority of the voters in the Dem primary will be Hispanic), and I did it.

Your logic here is extremely dubious since  those Hispanic districts are essentially going to elect the white Republican's candidates of choice with a small minority of Hispanic support.   That's not really what I would call a minority access district.  

What would even be the point of bringing the HVAP up to 50% if it's not going to elect the Hispanic's candidate?   Is 50% just a nice sounding number or something?

It's not my logic, it's the law, as long as Gingles applies, at least as I interpret it. 50% CVAP is the trigger under Gingles, to try to match that percentage, or if lower, a minority performing CD. And the CD's may well elect Hispanic candidates, at least when the incumbent retires, they will just be Hispanic Pubs. TX-23 elects an Hispanic. TX-11 might well when the incumbent retires. TX-33 may switch out a black Dem for an Hispanic one, and Houston very probably will in this map.

You may disagree. That is OK. The courts will let us know one way or the other soon.

This is the other part of Gingles  -

A minority group must demonstrate it is politically cohesive.

If your districts basically take a small portion of hispanic support and combine it with a large (overwhelming in this case) amount of white support to elect the candidates then that definitely does not pass Gingles in any way whatsoever.    The 51% HVAP districts would not be performing, especially in rural Texas.

edit - Would Hispanics even be able to control the Republican primaries in these districts?  I doubt it.

Yes, it is true that maybe Gingles does not apply at all anymore in the RGV in particular (also along the Gulf up to Houston, and of course the oil patch in Ector County). As to the RGV, when Hispanics are voting 40%-45% Pub in almost all Hispanic zones, that hardly seems "cohesive." The place it is most cohesive is in San Antonio from what I can tell, and in parts of Houston, but not all parts. If Gingles does not apply at all, then it is open season. But it is a VRA risk here to just blow Gingles off, and the idea is to minimize VRA risk.

This is utterly laughable.   Hispanics grew by almost 2 million this decade in Texas and made up 60% of the state's overall growth and you're going to decrease the number of performing VRA districts for Hispanics in Texas?   Good. Fricking. Luck.

Not sure how I did that, and how you would create more, but this is OK. It doesn't matter. Have a good evening.

[Torie]

https://twitter.com/evanasmith/status/1435367198952931328
Governor Abbott has announced a redistricting special session towards the end of the month.

What is the absolute bare minimum number of seats they can draw for democrats? 8-30?

Well, you need at least two Democrats in Dallas, probably three, and at least one of those is VRA mandated (whether or not 33 is mandated is more iffy), for Houston, you need three VRA seats, and maybe a fourth Democratic sink, in the south you need three Hispanic seats, at least one of which would likely end up as Democratic, you need a VRA seat in El Paso, you need a VRA seat in San Antonio, and at least one sink, preferably 2 on the San Antonio-Austin corridor. The bare minimum seems to be 29-9, but that looks like a pipe dream and would probably involve many seats that turn into instant dummymanders. 27-11 or 26-12 are realistically the max that they'd go, and even that could be iffy. My personal guess is somewhere between 26-12 and 23-15.

Given your commentary above, how would the map below fit into your matrix chart?

https://davesredistricting.org/join/05696b08-4fd2-47b6-8e9b-d08d61420c08

[Torie]

Lots of claims here of late, less granular detail with maps. When it comes to redistricting, it takes a near miracle to persuade anyone of anything anyway. Partisan political junkies are just too hard wired on this issue. But if one retreats to generalities and broad brush claims, it becomes asymptotically close to impossible.

On the RGV packing thing, is it against the VRA to draw a district that takes in heavily populated towns on the river, almost all Hispanic, as opposed to traveling over 100 miles of sagebrush and cows where humans are an endangered species to unpack the Hispanics with some whites hanging around over the far horizon? It is also dated. I have a CD in my map (TX-15) that is 90% Hispanic or something in which Biden got a grand total of  58% of the vote and trending Pub at warp speed. Let's unpack it, and make it travel to Victoria to reduce it to 75% and politically marginal to satisfy the VRA! Those annoying little granular details matter in my opinion.

There are legitimate ways to reduce VRA risk, but I am not telling one how. It's proprietary.  

Will this post persuade anyone of anything? F no! I told you!  

[Torie]

Lots of claims here of late, less granular detail with maps. When it comes to redistricting, it takes a near miracle to persuade anyone of anything anyway. Partisan political junkies are just too hard wired on this issue. But if one retreats to generalities and broad brush claims, it becomes asymptotically close to impossible.

Ok, here's a challenge. Name one election cycle where, when it was mathematically possible and we had one-man-one-vote, one CD has not been nested entirely in El Paso County.
Hell, can anyone even find any evidence at all that this status quo has ever been seriously and credibly challenged? Even the 2003 Texas redistricting left El Paso whole. If there was ever a time they would have tried that, it would have been in 2003.

Not to my knowledge. Not nesting a CD in El Paso County to do a Pub snatch would of course raise VRA issues*. That would be like a slow hanging curve ball for a Dem lawsuit to swat out of the park.

*Notice how in each and every iteration of about the 20 or so drafts of the TX CD maps that I drew, I nested two Dem Hispanic CD's in Bexar County. That was not an accident.

[Torie]

So I was trying out my "Damn the Courts!" idea and I was able to get the map down to an 11-27 map, wit one of them being a swing (R+1 in the RGV). It does score an 80 on Dave's for minority representation. I'd wager there'd be roughly a dozen minority representatives, three to six might actually be republicans.



View the map here:
https://davesredistricting.org/join/e07b1154-e468-405c-aeb1-f7b1fa175965

Personally I hate this map and no one show this to the TXGOP

That insane illegal Pubmander fantasy of yours seem to have netted the Pubs a grand total of one seat as opposed to something that might actually be legal and realistic. You know, like the map I drew after about 20 drafts. Congrats!

[Torie]

I apologize. I do have character flaws, a lot of them. Be well. Meltdowns are not a good thing. This sh**t is mere noise.

[Torie]

Will the new map project as many incumbent Republicans as possible, or will it be even uglier and unnecessarily draw out incumbents?

My guess is that they try to as much as in reason but ultimately partisan gerrymandering goals will prevail and may cause double or even triple bunking, especially in places where the GOP will have to "pizza" like crazy.

Does this look like a good mock-up? My best effort for a moment at a realistic 2022 map

Some of the Hispanic CD's are not really performing in the above map. There are a lot of swingish CD's. As to Pub incumbents, I don't know. I actually looked up where they lived and when you push the landmark button, it depicts their residence. I think I accommodated all of them quite well except as noted below. I also thought about making coherent CD's for each incumbent. An example would be placing  "upscale" degreed types in CD's with a bunch of high SES whites (e.g. TX-03). My biggest problem was the Pub incumbent in TX-27. He would be a terrible candidate in Travis County, but could run in TX-34*, which has about two thirds of the population of his current CD, albeit much more Hispanic overall of course. (TX-25 was another incumbent problem issue, but the 72 year old incumbent lives outside his CD by about 25 miles or so as it is. His new CD is considerably father away, and focused on the slice and dice of the Austin area.) I admit I have a phobia for ugly maps except where absolutely necessary to accomplish a goal that is legal.

Finally, there are not two Hispanic CD's nested in Bexar County raising VRA issues.

*

[Torie]

Check out the stats of your Hispanic CD's in the Metroplex and Houston areas. You need 2 in Houston and I in the Metroplex per Gingles most probably. Is the voting racially polarized, and if it is, for a Gingles protected Hispanic CD, are a majority of the voters in a Dem primary Hispanic? That is the critical question. It appears to be the case in Dem primaries, that voting is very racially polarized between blacks and Hispanics in Texas.

And check out LULAC v Perry about unnecessarily erose CD's claimed to be adequate CD's for purposes of satisfying the VRA. It is even worse if the erose lines are intended to facilitate a Pub snatch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_United_Latin_American_Citizens_v._Perry

Personally, I always try to minimize the erosity of Gingles triggered and protected CD's, and do it only to the extent necessary to make them performing, or defensible as a reasonable community of interest. Sometimes however to make a Gingles protected CD performing for Hispanics, that means making a black CD erose, since blacks carry so much punch in Dem primaries.

You may disagree and that is fine, but hopefully I have explained my point of view adequately to you. As a poster here who knows this stuff better than anyone else here explained to me, the loadstar is to not gerrymander Gingles protected CD's except to the extent necessary to make them performing, and never to facilitate a Pub snatch. My TX map was driven by this point of view of what the VRA currently requires.

Addendum: Your TX-15 fits the bill well it appears as an erose Pub snatch, and you erased an Hispanic CD by drawing a CD that combines Laredo and Bexar County. I have two performing Hispanic CD's in Bexar, one Laredo based and one sitting down on the RGV down river from Laredo. All are compact. My TX-34 is a Pub snatch, but it I don't think it is gerrymandered. Another trick I did was to make TX-11 a 50%+ HCVAP CD, which while Pub I think will appeal to the court even if perhaps it is not compact enough to trigger Gingles, assuming Gingles applies there at all where where such a high percentage of Hispanics are Pub in the oil patch.

[Torie]

Check out the stats of your Hispanic CD's in the Metroplex and Houston areas. You need 2 in Houston and I in the Metroplex per Gingles most probably. Is the voting racially polarized, and if it is, for a Gingles protected Hispanic CD, are a majority of the voters in a Dem primary Hispanic? That is the critical question. It appears to be the case in Dem primaries, that voting is very racially polarized between blacks and Hispanics in Texas.

And check out LULAC v Perry about unnecessarily erose CD's claimed to be adequate CD's for purposes of satisfying the VRA. It is even worse if the erose lines are intended to facilitate a Pub snatch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_United_Latin_American_Citizens_v._Perry

Personally, I always try to minimize the erosity of Gingles triggered and protected CD's, and do it only to the extent necessary to make them performing, or defensible as a reasonable community of interest. Sometimes however to make a Gingles protected CD performing for Hispanics, that means making a black CD erose, since blacks carry so much punch in Dem primaries.

You may disagree and that is fine, but hopefully I have explained my point of view adequately to you. As a poster here who knows this stuff better than anyone else here explained to me, the loadstar is to not gerrymander Gingles protected CD's except to the extent necessary to make them performing, and never to facilitate a Pub snatch. My TX map was driven by this point of view of what the VRA currently requires.

Addendum: Your TX-15 fits the bill well it appears as an erose Pub snatch, and you erased an Hispanic CD by drawing a CD that combines Laredo and Bexar County. I have two performing Hispanic CD's in Bexar, one Laredo based and one sitting down on the RGV down river from Laredo. All are compact. My TX-34 is a Pub snatch, but it I don't think it is gerrymandered. Another trick I did was to make TX-11 a 50%+ HCVAP CD, which while Pub I think will appeal to the court even if perhaps it is not compact enough to trigger Gingles, assuming Gingles applies there at all where where such a high percentage of Hispanics are Pub in the oil patch.

I've redone 15, 27, and 34. Thoughts on the latest version?

Per a very quick look, the RGV-Bexar issues we discussed are mitigated but not eliminated. You still have a CD going from Laredo to San Antonio, that is marginal, when you could have two CD's, both not marginal, one in SA and one in Laredo. I appreciate you pick up a performing Dem Hispanic on the Gulf, but helping out Dem Hispanics in one area does not legalize screwing them elsewhere. That is clear from the Perry case, among other issues. I guess the bottom line is that you need 3 safe performing CD's in the region, that are available as compact and without gerrymandering at all, and as soon as you move away from that per gerrymandering, you pari passu assume VRA risk in my opinion.

[Torie]

Check out the stats of your Hispanic CD's in the Metroplex and Houston areas. You need 2 in Houston and I in the Metroplex per Gingles most probably. Is the voting racially polarized, and if it is, for a Gingles protected Hispanic CD, are a majority of the voters in a Dem primary Hispanic? That is the critical question. It appears to be the case in Dem primaries, that voting is very racially polarized between blacks and Hispanics in Texas.

And check out LULAC v Perry about unnecessarily erose CD's claimed to be adequate CD's for purposes of satisfying the VRA. It is even worse if the erose lines are intended to facilitate a Pub snatch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_United_Latin_American_Citizens_v._Perry

Personally, I always try to minimize the erosity of Gingles triggered and protected CD's, and do it only to the extent necessary to make them performing, or defensible as a reasonable community of interest. Sometimes however to make a Gingles protected CD performing for Hispanics, that means making a black CD erose, since blacks carry so much punch in Dem primaries.

You may disagree and that is fine, but hopefully I have explained my point of view adequately to you. As a poster here who knows this stuff better than anyone else here explained to me, the loadstar is to not gerrymander Gingles protected CD's except to the extent necessary to make them performing, and never to facilitate a Pub snatch. My TX map was driven by this point of view of what the VRA currently requires.

Addendum: Your TX-15 fits the bill well it appears as an erose Pub snatch, and you erased an Hispanic CD by drawing a CD that combines Laredo and Bexar County. I have two performing Hispanic CD's in Bexar, one Laredo based and one sitting down on the RGV down river from Laredo. All are compact. My TX-34 is a Pub snatch, but it I don't think it is gerrymandered. Another trick I did was to make TX-11 a 50%+ HCVAP CD, which while Pub I think will appeal to the court even if perhaps it is not compact enough to trigger Gingles, assuming Gingles applies there at all where where such a high percentage of Hispanics are Pub in the oil patch.

I've redone 15, 27, and 34. Thoughts on the latest version?

Per a very quick look, the RGV-Bexar issues we discussed are mitigated but not eliminated. You still have a CD going from Laredo to San Antonio, that is marginal, when you could have two CD's, both not marginal, one in SA and one in Laredo. I appreciate you pick up a performing Dem Hispanic on the Gulf, but helping out Dem Hispanics in one area does not legalize screwing them elsewhere. That is clear from the Perry case, among other issues. I guess the bottom line is that you need 3 safe performing CD's in the region, that are available as compact and without gerrymandering at all, and as soon as you move away from that per gerrymandering, you pari passu assume VRA risk in my opinion.

The crux of the matter might be me axing TX-35 (the current Latino seat running from Bexar to Travis). The "replacement" for that is the new TX-10, drawn to be as Latino as possible but also still controlled by white liberals in practice. But TX-10 also uses up a lot of Latino precincts probably vital for inclusion in a San Antonio-area CD if we want to add another performing Latino seat there.
Can the TX GOP argue that TX-35 being eliminated can be justified by Gingles?

The short answer is that while TX-35 was legal in 2010 to create another performing Hispanic CD, per the 2020 census numbers, it is almost certainly illegal now. Why? Because unlike in 2010, you can nest the old TX-35 in Bexar County without losing another Hispanic CD. And that is the fix, not drawing Fajita strips in this cycle that appear designed to cost the Hispanics a performing CD, per a Pub snatch, or very close to it. You have gerrymandered to put at risk a performing Hispanic CD, when it is not only possible, but obvious, that you can draw compact, safe performing Hispanic CD's without any gerrymandering at all. I would take that case on a contingency for the Dems. They would have a very meritorious case in my opinion.

Why F with the VRA if you don't have to, and get next to nothing from it from a partisan perspective for the Pubs? It makes no sense to me. Not that the TX Pubs won't go there of course. TX Pubs are capable of anything. They kind of terrify sometimes actually, macho reckless types that the center of gravity of the Pub TX party seems to be these days. The ethos of George Herbert Walker Bush down in TX just seems like a century ago to me. Ditto in some other states as well, but I digress. Both parties pretty much suck to me these days. But then you already knew that I think.

[Torie]

Also, Torie, you might be delighted to learn this: Hays and Travis together can hold 2 districts by themselves.

That's nice. But TX is not Florida or New York. The TX Pubs subject to Federal law, can do whatever the F they want, and subject to Federal law, I of course did, to the extent necessary to max the Pub's position, including district coherency, staying power, and the care and feeding of Pub incumbents, no matter how detestable many of them are.
Somebody had to do it!  

[Torie]

Much better! I still don't like what you did with TX-15 in particular, and will play with your map to assess the VRA risk, at a later date. Also the Pubs are going to take care of Cuellar in TX-28. They have made that very clear.


You still have two erose CD's, in TX-34 and TX-15, with TX-34 dead even, and that most hideous TX-15 lean Pub, rather than a non gerrymandered map, with one safe Pub CD, and one safe Dem CD. So per the gerrymander, there is still a lot of Pub snatch potential. TX-28 is a bit marginal too, but I consider that one less gerrymandered. But it still crosses empty space in two directions, rather than just one, which is a bit problematical.

Addendum:

OK, I modified your map Tim.

I did the below with your map, which kind of impeaches that fajita strip TX-15 of yours. This revision of your map should be OK from a VRA standpoint (and in the bargain, I also  Pubbed up your TX-23 in Bexar using the method (excuse) of uniting better the city of San Antonio as well as it look easier on the eye), but why would the Pubs want to do this? It gives up a seat. TX-34 is now Dem rather than Pub.

And thus, the subtlety of it all. TX-23 needs to go into Bexar deeper, to push TX-34 father north, and become Pub. Which means that TX-23 should not go to El Paso, which it need not, over all of that emptiness. So why not have TX-11 take that western prong out of TX-23, and  dress it up even more, by making TX-11 50%+ HCVAP, so that you have another Hispanic CD, and thus if actually deemed required by Gingles if deemed "compact" (maybe, maybe not), and further assuming that Gingles would apply there at all, given the Hispanics are so evenly divided there politically. But it kind of comports with some of the spirit of Gingles, so even if not required, it should earn SCOTUS bonus points in a case where there are competing considerations, with the Dems having some talking points that cannot easily be dismissed as merely frivolous.

The bottom line is that the Pubs can snatch another seat with almost no VRA risk, using my map design. And I read something that said the Pubs plan to create that TX-11 Hispanic CD that will still be safely Pub, and the Dem incumbent in TX-34 is not running for re-election. It seems that the Torie plan might actually be afoot. We shall see.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/878af8ee-6b20-41d5-8578-4335796b81cd

[Torie]

snip

At the very least there are few universes in which Rs do fajitas for one set of maps and not another. And the fajitas existing ensures a certain seat floor for Democrats.

I have literally no idea what you're talking about.

The congressional map? What else could I be talking about?

Yes I know that, I just don't know what your point is with regard to the 25-13 map.

He’s saying that based on the Senate map, Republicans are likely to preserve the Congressional fajitas rather than try to wring another Republican seat out of the RGV, so that means Democrats likely have a floor of 13.

I don't think it's necessarily 13 (haven't gave that much thought to the question) but it is undeniable that preserving the RGV fajitas is a net positive for Democrats in pure partisanship terms.

Doesn't that depend on what is in the fajitas?