2020 Texas Redistricting thread

[Minnesota Mike]

Big changes to the two Houston AA districts, it looks like.

Jackson Lee was drawn back into her district. Vicente Gonzales was drawn into the 34th so he does not have to carpet bag. 15th is now vacant. Looks like they undid most of the changes the House made to the RGV and pretty much went with the senate plan.

[Minnesota Mike]

A DRA link.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/c086f5ca-e897-499d-9f3c-39aa435864f5

[Tintrlvr]

I expect this to get a rather unhappy reception in the courts.

It would be beautiful if this massively backfires and the courts draw a dem majority map

Who would do that?  The crappy right wing Texas courts or the Crappy right wing 5th Cir./Crappy right wing SCOTUS?

Stealing Judicial seats did pay off for Cocaine Mitch..  It's definitely bought his nearly extinct party some time.

If it ends up as a federal case, it would be some random District Court judge (probably in the Western District of Texas, since that's where Austin is) who does the actual drawing, which could be anyone. The Supremes/5th Circuit wouldn't get involved in actually drawing the map.

Why wouldn't the 5th Circ. just overturn the random judge and return it to the legislature's map?  And then the SCOTUS refuse to hear any appeal?  That seems like the likely outcome if it even got that far.  

Well, we're assuming there's a new map at all; obviously if the maps are upheld then it doesn't matter who is hearing the case.

Also, even within the 5th Circuit you could luck out and get liberal judges. I doubt redistricting would be viewed as so important as to result in an en banc rehearing.

[jimrtex]

I expect this to get a rather unhappy reception in the courts.

It would be beautiful if this massively backfires and the courts draw a dem majority map

Who would do that?  The crappy right wing Texas courts or the Crappy right wing 5th Cir./Crappy right wing SCOTUS?

Stealing Judicial seats did pay off for Cocaine Mitch..  It's definitely bought his nearly extinct party some time.

If it ends up as a federal case, it would be some random District Court judge (probably in the Western District of Texas, since that's where Austin is) who does the actual drawing, which could be anyone. The Supremes/5th Circuit wouldn't get involved in actually drawing the map.

Why wouldn't the 5th Circ. just overturn the random judge and return it to the legislature's map?  And then the SCOTUS refuse to hear any appeal?  That seems like the likely outcome if it even got that far.  

Well, we're assuming there's a new map at all; obviously if the maps are upheld then it doesn't matter who is hearing the case.

Also, even within the 5th Circuit you could luck out and get liberal judges. I doubt redistricting would be viewed as so important as to result in an en banc rehearing.

Redistricting cases are heard as a three-judge district court panel. The plaintiffs generally forum shop (since a plaintiff is typically a resident of one of the four federal district courts in Texas, they choose one where they hope to get a more favorable judge (e.g. 1990s Southern District in Houston; 2000s Eastern District in Tyler; 2010s Western District in San Antonio).

In the past, the federal cases have been filed as soon as the apportionment numbers have been announced in December. The complaint says that Texas does not have "36" Congressional districts and on information and belief the nefarious legislature will not redistrict or if they do it will be illegal. The judge will tell them to cool their jets, but all cases will be consolidated.

The 2010s case may still be ongoing, or perhaps suit will be filed as soon as the governor signs the bills.

All redistricting cases are directly appealed to the SCOTUS, which does not have discretion to hear them. In 2011, the SCOTUS first heard the Texas redistricting case, they asked when the case would be back before them, and someone jokingly (or not) said "two weeks".

[Gass3268]

Fort Bliss is still removed from the El Paso based TX-16.

[lfromnj]

https://twitter.com/alexazura/status/1450201263535271943

[David Hume]

I expect this to get a rather unhappy reception in the courts.

It would be beautiful if this massively backfires and the courts draw a dem majority map

Who would do that?  The crappy right wing Texas courts or the Crappy right wing 5th Cir./Crappy right wing SCOTUS?

Stealing Judicial seats did pay off for Cocaine Mitch..  It's definitely bought his nearly extinct party some time.

If it ends up as a federal case, it would be some random District Court judge (probably in the Western District of Texas, since that's where Austin is) who does the actual drawing, which could be anyone. The Supremes/5th Circuit wouldn't get involved in actually drawing the map.

Why wouldn't the 5th Circ. just overturn the random judge and return it to the legislature's map?  And then the SCOTUS refuse to hear any appeal?  That seems like the likely outcome if it even got that far.  

Well, we're assuming there's a new map at all; obviously if the maps are upheld then it doesn't matter who is hearing the case.

Also, even within the 5th Circuit you could luck out and get liberal judges. I doubt redistricting would be viewed as so important as to result in an en banc rehearing.

Redistricting cases are heard as a three-judge district court panel. The plaintiffs generally forum shop (since a plaintiff is typically a resident of one of the four federal district courts in Texas, they choose one where they hope to get a more favorable judge (e.g. 1990s Southern District in Houston; 2000s Eastern District in Tyler; 2010s Western District in San Antonio).

In the past, the federal cases have been filed as soon as the apportionment numbers have been announced in December. The complaint says that Texas does not have "36" Congressional districts and on information and belief the nefarious legislature will not redistrict or if they do it will be illegal. The judge will tell them to cool their jets, but all cases will be consolidated.

The 2010s case may still be ongoing, or perhaps suit will be filed as soon as the governor signs the bills.

All redistricting cases are directly appealed to the SCOTUS, which does not have discretion to hear them. In 2011, the SCOTUS first heard the Texas redistricting case, they asked when the case would be back before them, and someone jokingly (or not) said "two weeks".

The following redistricting cases do not qualify for the three-judge panel procedure, and instead proceed through the federal courts as do nearly all other cases:

A challenge to a congressional districting plan under the Voting Rights Act.
A challenge to a legislative districting plan under the Voting Rights Act.

[jimrtex]

I expect this to get a rather unhappy reception in the courts.

It would be beautiful if this massively backfires and the courts draw a dem majority map

Who would do that?  The crappy right wing Texas courts or the Crappy right wing 5th Cir./Crappy right wing SCOTUS?

Stealing Judicial seats did pay off for Cocaine Mitch..  It's definitely bought his nearly extinct party some time.

If it ends up as a federal case, it would be some random District Court judge (probably in the Western District of Texas, since that's where Austin is) who does the actual drawing, which could be anyone. The Supremes/5th Circuit wouldn't get involved in actually drawing the map.

Why wouldn't the 5th Circ. just overturn the random judge and return it to the legislature's map?  And then the SCOTUS refuse to hear any appeal?  That seems like the likely outcome if it even got that far.  

Well, we're assuming there's a new map at all; obviously if the maps are upheld then it doesn't matter who is hearing the case.

Also, even within the 5th Circuit you could luck out and get liberal judges. I doubt redistricting would be viewed as so important as to result in an en banc rehearing.

Redistricting cases are heard as a three-judge district court panel. The plaintiffs generally forum shop (since a plaintiff is typically a resident of one of the four federal district courts in Texas, they choose one where they hope to get a more favorable judge (e.g. 1990s Southern District in Houston; 2000s Eastern District in Tyler; 2010s Western District in San Antonio).

In the past, the federal cases have been filed as soon as the apportionment numbers have been announced in December. The complaint says that Texas does not have "36" Congressional districts and on information and belief the nefarious legislature will not redistrict or if they do it will be illegal. The judge will tell them to cool their jets, but all cases will be consolidated.

The 2010s case may still be ongoing, or perhaps suit will be filed as soon as the governor signs the bills.

All redistricting cases are directly appealed to the SCOTUS, which does not have discretion to hear them. In 2011, the SCOTUS first heard the Texas redistricting case, they asked when the case would be back before them, and someone jokingly (or not) said "two weeks".

The following redistricting cases do not qualify for the three-judge panel procedure, and instead proceed through the federal courts as do nearly all other cases:

A challenge to a congressional districting plan under the Voting Rights Act.
A challenge to a legislative districting plan under the Voting Rights Act.

The complaint argues that the current (2011) maps are malapportioned. Though it includes some complaints under the VRA, it is a challenge to a statewide districting plan.

[David Hume]

I expect this to get a rather unhappy reception in the courts.

It would be beautiful if this massively backfires and the courts draw a dem majority map

Who would do that?  The crappy right wing Texas courts or the Crappy right wing 5th Cir./Crappy right wing SCOTUS?

Stealing Judicial seats did pay off for Cocaine Mitch..  It's definitely bought his nearly extinct party some time.

If it ends up as a federal case, it would be some random District Court judge (probably in the Western District of Texas, since that's where Austin is) who does the actual drawing, which could be anyone. The Supremes/5th Circuit wouldn't get involved in actually drawing the map.

Why wouldn't the 5th Circ. just overturn the random judge and return it to the legislature's map?  And then the SCOTUS refuse to hear any appeal?  That seems like the likely outcome if it even got that far.  

Well, we're assuming there's a new map at all; obviously if the maps are upheld then it doesn't matter who is hearing the case.

Also, even within the 5th Circuit you could luck out and get liberal judges. I doubt redistricting would be viewed as so important as to result in an en banc rehearing.

Redistricting cases are heard as a three-judge district court panel. The plaintiffs generally forum shop (since a plaintiff is typically a resident of one of the four federal district courts in Texas, they choose one where they hope to get a more favorable judge (e.g. 1990s Southern District in Houston; 2000s Eastern District in Tyler; 2010s Western District in San Antonio).

In the past, the federal cases have been filed as soon as the apportionment numbers have been announced in December. The complaint says that Texas does not have "36" Congressional districts and on information and belief the nefarious legislature will not redistrict or if they do it will be illegal. The judge will tell them to cool their jets, but all cases will be consolidated.

The 2010s case may still be ongoing, or perhaps suit will be filed as soon as the governor signs the bills.

All redistricting cases are directly appealed to the SCOTUS, which does not have discretion to hear them. In 2011, the SCOTUS first heard the Texas redistricting case, they asked when the case would be back before them, and someone jokingly (or not) said "two weeks".

The following redistricting cases do not qualify for the three-judge panel procedure, and instead proceed through the federal courts as do nearly all other cases:

A challenge to a congressional districting plan under the Voting Rights Act.
A challenge to a legislative districting plan under the Voting Rights Act.

The complaint argues that the current (2011) maps are malapportioned. Though it includes some complaints under the VRA, it is a challenge to a statewide districting plan.

What matters is if the challenge is constitutional or not. Only constitutional cases are subject to three judge panel.

[Torie]

The Hispanics should file a VRA suit with the following counts, listed in order of likelihood of success on the merits:

1. The failure to draw a second performing Hispanic CD in Houston that is triggered by Gingles.

2. The drawing of an Hispanic CD (TX-35) running from SA to Austin, in lieu of a second nested Hispanic CD in Bexar County (Gingles CD's that can be drawn compactly must be drawn compactly and not gerrymandered to take in disparate communities of interest.

3. The TX-28 and TX-15 Fajita strips again were drawn in lieu of compact CD's thereby unnecessarily taking in disparate communities of interest, and should be struck for the same reasons as TX-35.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It looks like the Conference Committee reversed the changes to the South Texas districts, once again shoring up Cuellar (or Cisneros, if she wins the primary) and Gonzalez.

[jimrtex]

https://twitter.com/alexazura/status/1450201263535271943

Currently there are 33 districts with a majority HCVAP.

28 are underpopulated by a total of 558K, equivalent to almost three districts.

Five are overpopulated by 144K. 81K of this in in HD-117 on the far west side of San Antonio. HD-124 in San Antonio is also slightly overpopulated by 3K. The other five HCVAP majority districts in San Antonio are underpopulated by 61K. HD-117 is stripped of the northern part of the district increasing the HCVAP by nine points. The most populous Bexar districts under the plan are HD-121 and HD-122 in the northern part of the county (and not majority HCVAP). An argument that majority HCVAP districts were overpopulated deliberately or otherwise does not hold water.

Only one of the 13 districts in South Texas is overpopulated (HD-40 in Edinburg). South Texas should lose a district, but instead the districts are underpopulated in the House plan. This is a systemic underpopulation of HCVAP majority districts.

HD-32 is dropped from 50.6% HCVAP to 42.0% because it is partially pushed out of Nueces County.

HD-76 is eliminated in El Paso because El Paso is not entitled to five representatives.

To the extent that some majority HCVAP districts are overpopulated it is because the legislature failed to comply with Texas Constitution and all districts in the county are overpopulated, but the districts are not out of line relative to other districts in the county.

[Torie]

https://twitter.com/alexazura/status/1450201263535271943

Currently there are 33 districts with a majority HCVAP.

28 are underpopulated by a total of 558K, equivalent to almost three districts.

Five are overpopulated by 144K. 81K of this in in HD-117 on the far west side of San Antonio. HD-124 in San Antonio is also slightly overpopulated by 3K. The other five HCVAP majority districts in San Antonio are underpopulated by 61K. HD-117 is stripped of the northern part of the district increasing the HCVAP by nine points. The most populous Bexar districts under the plan are HD-121 and HD-122 in the northern part of the county (and not majority HCVAP). An argument that majority HCVAP districts were overpopulated deliberately or otherwise does not hold water.

Only one of the 13 districts in South Texas is overpopulated (HD-40 in Edinburg). South Texas should lose a district, but instead the districts are underpopulated in the House plan. This is a systemic underpopulation of HCVAP majority districts.

HD-32 is dropped from 50.6% HCVAP to 42.0% because it is partially pushed out of Nueces County.

HD-76 is eliminated in El Paso because El Paso is not entitled to five representatives.

To the extent that some majority HCVAP districts are overpopulated it is because the legislature failed to comply with Texas Constitution and all districts in the county are overpopulated, but the districts are not out of line relative to other districts in the county.

There seem to be a lot of Pub unforced errors here. Dumbasses.

[jimrtex]

https://twitter.com/alexazura/status/1450201263535271943

Currently there are 33 districts with a majority HCVAP.

28 are underpopulated by a total of 558K, equivalent to almost three districts.

Five are overpopulated by 144K. 81K of this in in HD-117 on the far west side of San Antonio. HD-124 in San Antonio is also slightly overpopulated by 3K. The other five HCVAP majority districts in San Antonio are underpopulated by 61K. HD-117 is stripped of the northern part of the district increasing the HCVAP by nine points. The most populous Bexar districts under the plan are HD-121 and HD-122 in the northern part of the county (and not majority HCVAP). An argument that majority HCVAP districts were overpopulated deliberately or otherwise does not hold water.

Only one of the 13 districts in South Texas is overpopulated (HD-40 in Edinburg). South Texas should lose a district, but instead the districts are underpopulated in the House plan. This is a systemic underpopulation of HCVAP majority districts.

HD-32 is dropped from 50.6% HCVAP to 42.0% because it is partially pushed out of Nueces County.

HD-76 is eliminated in El Paso because El Paso is not entitled to five representatives.

To the extent that some majority HCVAP districts are overpopulated it is because the legislature failed to comply with Texas Constitution and all districts in the county are overpopulated, but the districts are not out of line relative to other districts in the county.

There seem to be a lot of Pub unforced errors here. Dumbasses.

I don't know whether you read the complaint or not. It claims that HCVAP majority districts were deliberately overpopulated. That is simply untrue. Within counties with the multiple seats, the HCVAP majority seats were not overpopulated relative to other districts within the county.

Generally speaking (28 of 33) the current majority HCVAP districts are underpopulated. This is because they were areas that did not grow as fast as Texas as a whole (15.9%). In areas along the border where ALL districts have a majority HCVAP population, this should mean a loss of districts.

HCVAP majority districts in inner cities tend to not grow for a number of reasons. (1) There is no room to add houses. If there was a Hispanic family with 6 children in 2010, three of the children are now adults. One is in the Army. One is the first HS and college graduate for the family and now teaching bilingual education in the suburbs, and the third decided to  go into construction like his father, and lives in the suburbs where the houses are being built and he can afford a house with a garage where he can park his truck and not worry about the tools being stolen. The districts may also be gentrifying with high rises for singles who work downtown replacing cottages.

The border area is where the vast majority of majority HCVAP districts exist. There should be a loss of a district. Where they went off the rails is trying to preserve existing districts by underpopulating them. And then for El Paso County which was entitled to less than 4.5 was to extend it outside the county, but not enough for the extra 1/2 representative, but so they could get to the home of the existing representative for Hudspeth County, who happens to live in Eagle Pass (Maverick County).

It is the equivalent of underpopulating congressional districts in New York and California so that none are lost and overpopulating those in Florida and Texas so none are gained.

Shouldn't part of the Gingles Test be that if the minority-majority district would be a violation of Brown v Board of Education if it were designed to be an attendance zone for Lorenzo de Zavala or Booker T Washington High School?

The majority HCVAP district in Fort Worth is hideous. It was expanded enough to get the population back up to par. The HCVAP population dipped slightly below 50%.

I suspect that the plaintiffs will claim that majority HCVAP districts must be underpopulated. Let's say that the quota was 100,000; and it is impossible to draw a majority HCVAP district with that population. But it was possible to draw a district with 80,000 persons, that was majority HCVAP, that the district might not only be drawn, but must be drawn.

[Thunder98 🇮🇱 🤝 🇵🇸]

All the GOP did was obviously delay the inevitable.

https://twitter.com/DrewSav/status/1452339850846277636?s=20

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

All the GOP did was obviously delay the inevitable.

https://twitter.com/DrewSav/status/1452339850846277636?s=20

Hope and prey by 2024 they’ll start flipping to the point of getting an even/dem advantage map

[patzer]

Would anyone be able to calculate the result of extending 2012-20 trends to other districts? I tried doing it myself but turns out Texas DRA maps are too much for my laptop.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Dems should try to argue that the GOP is "packing" Hispanic voters into TX-20 and TX-37 when 2 Hispanic majority districts can be drawn entirely within Bexar and a relatively compact 49% Hispanic district can be drawn along the I-35 corridor up to Austin, as shown above. All 3 districts would reliably send Hispanic Dems to congress.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Would anyone be able to calculate the result of extending 2012-20 trends to other districts? I tried doing it myself but turns out Texas DRA maps are too much for my laptop.

Here ya go

[patzer]

Here ya go

Very nice, thanks!

Hm. If I tentatively assume the fajitas don't go right any more and that their trend was a one-off (can hardly be repeated), but that elsewhere past trends broadly continue, then some rough calculations indicate the following districts will fall as follows-

24th falls when Texas overall is R+0.5
3rd falls when Texas is D+1, 22nd and 38th fall when it's D+2
26th falls when it's D+4, 2nd when it's D+6, 21st when it's D+7
10th and 31st fall when Texas is D+9, and the 12th when it's D+10

I didn't include the Rio Grande districts in those flip-possibility conversations; the key districts there are of course the 23rd, 15th, and 28th (in order from red to blue). Very hard to say what will become of the trends there.

So... the gerrymander will probably stick for now but a few seats may well get vulnerable in the second half of the decade. All in all it's probably the best the Republicans could have done.

[ChiefFireWaterMike]

The Hispanics should file a VRA suit with the following counts, listed in order of likelihood of success on the merits:

1. The failure to draw a second performing Hispanic CD that is triggered by Gingles.

2. The drawing of an Hispanic CD (TX-35) running from SA to Austin, in lieu of a second nested Hispanic CD in Bexar County (Gingles CD's that can be drawn compactly must be drawn compactly and not gerrymandered to take in disparate communities of interest.

3. The TX-28 and TX-15 Fajita strips again were drawn in lieu of compact CD's thereby unnecessarily taking in disparate communities of interest, and should be struck for the same reasons as TX-35.

Ah yes, the formal group The Hispanics.

[BoiseBoy]

https://twitter.com/PatrickSvitek/status/1452727461578424325?s=20

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://twitter.com/PatrickSvitek/status/1452727461578424325?s=20

Lawyers be like: my time has come...

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm honestly relieved this is the map we got. It's still a gerrymander, of course, but it's not one that tries to undo the 2018 gains - in fact it consolidates them, and even adds one Dem seat on top of that. If the 2020 trends with Hispanics continue, that's very worrying down South, of course, but I have to hope Dems will be able to keep the 3 South Texas seats, which would make the map 14-24. Not too bad for a still GOP-leaning swing state.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I'm honestly relieved this is the map we got. It's still a gerrymander, of course, but it's not one that tries to undo the 2018 gains - in fact it consolidates them, and even adds one Dem seat on top of that. If the 2020 trends with Hispanics continue, that's very worrying down South, of course, but I have to hope Dems will be able to keep the 3 South Texas seats, which would make the map 14-24. Not too bad for a still GOP-leaning swing state.

Ye fortunately most of Rs gerrymander is just cancelling out their own geography issues.