2020 Texas Redistricting thread

[lfromnj]

Again the worst GOP will need to go to if it wants maximum safety
3 RGV
1 El paso
1 San antonio
1 San Antonio to Austin
1 Austin
4 DFW
4 Houston
thats 15 D seats max and tbh 13 or 14 would do it.

[jimrtex]

While everyone has been looking at federal redistricting, given that State Senate districts are actually larger than federal ones, opinion of this map?

https://districtr.org/edit/3296







This map should be a safe 19R-12D map. All R districts are at 58.5% Trump or more. All Dem districts are also at 58% Clinton or more.

Granted, I guess with trends and what not it could end up as a dummymander? I also think several of those districts might be illegal because of the VRA?

Senators will be drawing their own map.

The reason why there is a an Amarillo Midland-Odessa district is to keep a senator in Lubbock. When there was a vacancy in 2004 on the Amarillo Midland-Odessa district, there was a special election (open primary) which resulted in a runoff between two Republicans (the lone Democrat in the special election finished fifth of seven (R 36%, R 21%, R 16%, R 14%, D 8%, R 4%, D 2%). In the runoff, the Northern candidate received 83% in Potter, and 85% in Randall, while the southern candidate received 90% in Ector, and 77% in Midland. Only Cochran and Yoakum in the middle were vaguely competitive.

Senators don't want to be challenged either in a primary or general election. They certainly don't want to be paired.

The 2012 redistricting was an incumbent-protection plan, except for carving up the Fort Worth district of Wendy Davis. It had strong bipartisan support (i.e. nobody liked Davis). When the districts were challenged in court by Democrats, they didn't challenge the senate plan. Davis did, and eventually won. The Fort Worth district was restored.

After each redistricting, all senators are up for re-election. Senators elected in 2010 had their 4-year term truncated. When they meet, they draw for terms. 16 get a 4-year term ending in 2016, and 15 get a 2-year term ending in 2014. Ideally, a senator would either be elected for terms of 4, 4, and 2 years; or for terms of 2, 4, and 4 years.

Davis drew a 2-year term, and knowing she would likely lose in 2014 ran for governor. She has since moved from Fort Worth to Austin.

This incumbent protection results in some rather odd looking districts.

So a likely plan will start with the current districts and adjust for population changes, and make sure that senators bases are not attacked. And make sure you maintain the current district numbers.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Again the worst GOP will need to go to if it wants maximum safety
3 RGV
1 El paso
1 San antonio
1 San Antonio to Austin
1 Austin
4 DFW
4 Houston
thats 15 D seats max and tbh 13 or 14 would do it.

Not a chance. I still don't see how you get DFW down from 5 to 4 districts.

[lfromnj]

Again the worst GOP will need to go to if it wants maximum safety
3 RGV
1 El paso
1 San antonio
1 San Antonio to Austin
1 Austin
4 DFW
4 Houston
thats 15 D seats max and tbh 13 or 14 would do it.

Not a chance. I still don't see how you get DFW down from 5 to 4 districts.

What do you see as safe?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Again the worst GOP will need to go to if it wants maximum safety
3 RGV
1 El paso
1 San antonio
1 San Antonio to Austin
1 Austin
4 DFW
4 Houston
thats 15 D seats max and tbh 13 or 14 would do it.

Not a chance. I still don't see how you get DFW down from 5 to 4 districts.

What do you see as safe?

1 El Paso
3 RGV
2 San Antonio
2 Austin
4 Houston
5 DFW

I can see getting San Antonio+Austin down to 3, but I think later in the decade, it just wouldn't hold as Travis, Hayes, and Williamson make up a growing share of whatever rural districts you strip them out to. Maybe DFW can get down to 4 but I haven't worked out a way yet. So far, it looks like you need the black Dallas VRA, a west Dallas seat, an east Tarrant seat, a Plano/Richardson seat, and a southwest Collin/southeast Denton/northwest Dallas seat.

[lfromnj]

Again the worst GOP will need to go to if it wants maximum safety
3 RGV
1 El paso
1 San antonio
1 San Antonio to Austin
1 Austin
4 DFW
4 Houston
thats 15 D seats max and tbh 13 or 14 would do it.

Not a chance. I still don't see how you get DFW down from 5 to 4 districts.

What do you see as safe?

1 El Paso
3 RGV
2 San Antonio
2 Austin
4 Houston
5 DFW

I can see getting San Antonio+Austin down to 3, but I think later in the decade, it just wouldn't hold as Travis, Hayes, and Williamson make up a growing share of whatever rural districts you strip them out to. Maybe DFW can get down to 4 but I haven't worked out a way yet. So far, it looks like you need the black Dallas VRA, a west Dallas seat, an east Tarrant seat, a Plano/Richardson seat, and a southwest Collin/southeast Denton/northwest Dallas seat.

Again what are the numbers for what you see as safe?

https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::e0feb46f-177c-4cdf-8de8-6e93da4d4ae5

(made by meepcheese or OregonBluedog on the forum, it does assume a complete lack of the VRA in south Texas so it would be 12-27)
However here the Dallas area uses 3 sinks and you got all 60% Trump seats, Yes Trump 60% with like 32 or 33% Clinton is absolutely Safe and will last a decade, growth in Plano has already stopped FYI as its now only like 10%

[jimrtex]

Yes, there is a lot going on here.

1. In the event the lower house of the state legislature flips, the GOP would still control state legislative redistricting through the backup commission set up by the state constitution.  The commission is the LG, AG, Comptroller,  Land Commissioner and Speaker of the State House.  It would be 4R/1D in this scenario and can approve a map with 3 votes.  the state senate is unlikely to be competitive and in any event would be icing on the cake for Dems and irrelevant to this process unless Dems somehow held a 2/3rds majority in both chambers.

That is what happened in 2002 when there was still split control. The plans weren't passed out of the Senate, and the commission drew the maps.

I would actually let the commission draw the maps to begin with. A lot of gerrymandering is to accommodate individual legislators. The 2002 plans were quite reasonable, and the only plans to last the decade without being overturned since the 1960s.

2. There are strict rules in the state constitution on how lower house districts can be drawn, particularly focused on containing entire districts within counties whenever possible, and there are 150 districts so most of them are truly constrained by these requirements.  It isn't really possible to do a hard gerrymander of the lower house.  Indeed, this is part of the reason why the Republican majority there is precarious in 2020.

In 2012, the population of Republican-held districts would have actually been entitled to four additional districts. People prefer to live in districts with a Republican representative. All but one of the pairings were R vs. R, but the replacement districts would be drawn further out in the suburbs.

The reason that the districts in Dallas are so awful was that in pairing R's they wanted to make it a fair fight to determine who would be elected.

With Section 5 gone by, there is not a concern about retrogression, and it may be easier to draw districts representing communities of interest based on race or ethnicity.

3.  By contrast, the state senate is a free for all.  It has only 31 districts, so they are bigger than US House seats, and they can be gerrymandered as aggressively as the majority wants.

You can't get a bill before the full Senate without a 60% vote, and there are ways to filibuster the senate. It is simpler to draw an incumbent protection plan. Senators are not selfless individuals who will give up their supporters for the greater good of their party.

There are always incumbents knocked off in the House primary of the '2' year, because they may facing a 60% or more turnover in constituents, and faces a challenge from a prominent local who they have heard of.

4.  In the scenario where the lower house is Dem-controlled, or has a de facto coalition government with a narrow R majority (it arguably has a coalition government already because of the mechanics of how the speaker is chosen, but this would be even more pronounced if it were down to say, a 77R/73D split), all of the Republicans on the backup commission who would need to sign off on a gerrymander are facing statewide election in 2022, potentially in another Trump midterm.  They may have more reservations about drawing the map too aggressively given that they would have to answer for it in a statewide vote the very next cycle and would not personally benefit from the gerrymandered districts.

That is a naive supposition about voters.

5. If there is divided government, the backup commission has no authority over the congressional map, so there would either have to be a legislative compromise approved by the governor, or it would be drawn by a federal court for the 2022 cycle.  However, mid-decade redistricting is legal in Texas, so Democrats would either have to maintain control of the lower house despite the Republican-drawn map from the backup commission or win the governorship in 2022 to block a Republican gerrymander of the congressional map for future election cycles.

The US Constitution reserves to the state legislatures the drawing of congressional districts. The SCOTUS requires federal courts when drawing boundaries to respect the lines drawn by the legislature. In 2001, the legislature failed to draw congressional district lines. The federal court added in three new Republican districts, and preserved much of 1990's era awful Democrat gerrymander.

The 2003 legislature had a moral obligation to perform the function that they had failed to do in 2001.

6.  There is also the matter of trying to draw districts based on eligible voters or even registered voters instead of total population.  This would advantage Republicans, but they would first have to change existing state law to do this, and then it would go to SCOTUS.  It would have to get through the lower house, and it is likely to be more controversial than just doing a gerrymander in the traditional way.  It also introduces additional risk in that if SCOTUS blocks the eligible voters standard,  Republicans may not control the governorship anymore to pass a new gerrymander, like what happened in VA this decade.

The Constitution used to provide that senate districts be based on eligible voters. Legal guidance was that you couldn't use registered voters, and that you would have to prove the CVAP population, such as having a state census (this is the real reason Democrats don't want a citizenship question on the census, since they are enabling illegal immigration). When the constitution was cleaned up removing obsolete provisions, they eliminated the eligible voter provision along with another provision that said counties could not be split in drawing senate districts, which had been ruled unconstitutional after Reynolds v Sims. The current constitution fixes the number of senatorial districts, but  has no other requirements.

This is likely the reason that Evenwal v Abbott was brought as a challenge to the Texas senate districts. If one interprets the principle of Reynolds v Sims somewhat literally (no one would seriously argue that the phrase "One Man, One Vote" excludes females), but to exclude those who may not legally vote do to age or citizenship, that is:
"One Voter, One Vote" then voters in districts where there are an excess of voters are being denied equal protection.

If the senate was apportioned on the basis of citizenship numbers from the ACS, opponents would have to argue that the ACS was bogus for purposes of determining the population of districts, while at the same time arguing it must be used in applying the Gingles test.

7.  SCOTUS has imposed a very strict standard for how South Texas needs to be drawn based on the VRA.  If SCOTUS backs off of VRA section 2 redistricting standards next decade, expect TX-23 to go from mildly Dem leaning to mildly GOP leaning, or they could use it to pick up more of San Antonio so that TX-35 becomes an all-Travis CD.

This was based on Section 5, barring retrogression. When the legislature drew a McAllen to Austin district, the SCOTUS ruled that it was not a district that afforded Hispanic voters an opportunity to elect a candidate of choice. Since there was no community of interest between the RGV and Austin, the district was suspect as a racial gerrymander, assigning voters to a district on the basis of race. You can no more assign black voters to a black district, than you can assign black students to Booker T Washington High School, and white students to Robert E Lee High School.

Since the RGV-Austin district was not a minority-opportunity district, TX-23 had to be redrawn in order to restore the Hispanic district quota.

Section 2 under the Gingles Test requires compact communities. No one can argue that fajita strips are compact.

8. Texas also has elected state courts, using the same statewide partisan election system as North Carolina for their highest court.  Republicans cannot do much to change the mechanics of judicial elections in Texas without passing a constitutional amendment,  which would require the cooperation of some state legislative Dems just to get it on the ballot and then the amendment would have to pass a statewide vote.  The state supreme court is currently 9R/0D, but it would likely throw out gerrymandered maps passed in 2021 if it flipped to Dem control at any point during the decade, as recently happened in NC and PA.  It could also rule that Texas state law does not permit using an eligible voters standard instead of total population, or reimpose stricter requirements for how South Texas is drawn using state law.

There is currently a court challenge to at-large election of state courts.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Again the worst GOP will need to go to if it wants maximum safety
3 RGV
1 El paso
1 San antonio
1 San Antonio to Austin
1 Austin
4 DFW
4 Houston
thats 15 D seats max and tbh 13 or 14 would do it.

Not a chance. I still don't see how you get DFW down from 5 to 4 districts.

What do you see as safe?

1 El Paso
3 RGV
2 San Antonio
2 Austin
4 Houston
5 DFW

I can see getting San Antonio+Austin down to 3, but I think later in the decade, it just wouldn't hold as Travis, Hayes, and Williamson make up a growing share of whatever rural districts you strip them out to. Maybe DFW can get down to 4 but I haven't worked out a way yet. So far, it looks like you need the black Dallas VRA, a west Dallas seat, an east Tarrant seat, a Plano/Richardson seat, and a southwest Collin/southeast Denton/northwest Dallas seat.

Again what are the numbers for what you see as safe?

Trump+10 if it's rural, Trump +20 if it's metropolitan as a rule of thumb. With Texas though, it isn't just about what the margins are but where you anticipate growth. Say you have a R+15 district including west Fort Bend County and a bunch of rurals. By 2030, there could easily be another quarter million people voting 70-30 past Cinco Ranch and suddenly this district goes from casting 150k votes for Dems and and 210k votes for the GOP to casting for the 240k Dems and 250k votes for the GOP before any changes to voting are applied in already built-up parts of the district. That's the challenge with TX: not just creating buffers for normal trends but creating buffers for the brand new, Dem-leaning cities that will spring up around North and West Houston, in Collin and Denton Counties, and along the I-35 corridor from San Antonio to Temple. As such, you have to be very careful how you draw the suburb-rural districts.

[dpmapper]

It's wishful thinking to believe that the people moving to the Houston outer suburbs are going to be voting Dem at a 70-30 clip.  Most *inner loop* precincts that aren't black- or Hispanic-dominated don't even vote like that. 

[Skill and Chance]

Yes, there is a lot going on here.

1. In the event the lower house of the state legislature flips, the GOP would still control state legislative redistricting through the backup commission set up by the state constitution.  The commission is the LG, AG, Comptroller,  Land Commissioner and Speaker of the State House.  It would be 4R/1D in this scenario and can approve a map with 3 votes.  the state senate is unlikely to be competitive and in any event would be icing on the cake for Dems and irrelevant to this process unless Dems somehow held a 2/3rds majority in both chambers.

That is what happened in 2002 when there was still split control. The plans weren't passed out of the Senate, and the commission drew the maps.

I would actually let the commission draw the maps to begin with. A lot of gerrymandering is to accommodate individual legislators. The 2002 plans were quite reasonable, and the only plans to last the decade without being overturned since the 1960s.

2. There are strict rules in the state constitution on how lower house districts can be drawn, particularly focused on containing entire districts within counties whenever possible, and there are 150 districts so most of them are truly constrained by these requirements.  It isn't really possible to do a hard gerrymander of the lower house.  Indeed, this is part of the reason why the Republican majority there is precarious in 2020.

In 2012, the population of Republican-held districts would have actually been entitled to four additional districts. People prefer to live in districts with a Republican representative. All but one of the pairings were R vs. R, but the replacement districts would be drawn further out in the suburbs.

The reason that the districts in Dallas are so awful was that in pairing R's they wanted to make it a fair fight to determine who would be elected.

With Section 5 gone by, there is not a concern about retrogression, and it may be easier to draw districts representing communities of interest based on race or ethnicity.

3.  By contrast, the state senate is a free for all.  It has only 31 districts, so they are bigger than US House seats, and they can be gerrymandered as aggressively as the majority wants.

You can't get a bill before the full Senate without a 60% vote, and there are ways to filibuster the senate. It is simpler to draw an incumbent protection plan. Senators are not selfless individuals who will give up their supporters for the greater good of their party.

There are always incumbents knocked off in the House primary of the '2' year, because they may facing a 60% or more turnover in constituents, and faces a challenge from a prominent local who they have heard of.

4.  In the scenario where the lower house is Dem-controlled, or has a de facto coalition government with a narrow R majority (it arguably has a coalition government already because of the mechanics of how the speaker is chosen, but this would be even more pronounced if it were down to say, a 77R/73D split), all of the Republicans on the backup commission who would need to sign off on a gerrymander are facing statewide election in 2022, potentially in another Trump midterm.  They may have more reservations about drawing the map too aggressively given that they would have to answer for it in a statewide vote the very next cycle and would not personally benefit from the gerrymandered districts.

That is a naive supposition about voters.

5. If there is divided government, the backup commission has no authority over the congressional map, so there would either have to be a legislative compromise approved by the governor, or it would be drawn by a federal court for the 2022 cycle.  However, mid-decade redistricting is legal in Texas, so Democrats would either have to maintain control of the lower house despite the Republican-drawn map from the backup commission or win the governorship in 2022 to block a Republican gerrymander of the congressional map for future election cycles.

The US Constitution reserves to the state legislatures the drawing of congressional districts. The SCOTUS requires federal courts when drawing boundaries to respect the lines drawn by the legislature. In 2001, the legislature failed to draw congressional district lines. The federal court added in three new Republican districts, and preserved much of 1990's era awful Democrat gerrymander.

The 2003 legislature had a moral obligation to perform the function that they had failed to do in 2001.

6.  There is also the matter of trying to draw districts based on eligible voters or even registered voters instead of total population.  This would advantage Republicans, but they would first have to change existing state law to do this, and then it would go to SCOTUS.  It would have to get through the lower house, and it is likely to be more controversial than just doing a gerrymander in the traditional way.  It also introduces additional risk in that if SCOTUS blocks the eligible voters standard,  Republicans may not control the governorship anymore to pass a new gerrymander, like what happened in VA this decade.

The Constitution used to provide that senate districts be based on eligible voters. Legal guidance was that you couldn't use registered voters, and that you would have to prove the CVAP population, such as having a state census (this is the real reason Democrats don't want a citizenship question on the census, since they are enabling illegal immigration). When the constitution was cleaned up removing obsolete provisions, they eliminated the eligible voter provision along with another provision that said counties could not be split in drawing senate districts, which had been ruled unconstitutional after Reynolds v Sims. The current constitution fixes the number of senatorial districts, but  has no other requirements.

This is likely the reason that Evenwal v Abbott was brought as a challenge to the Texas senate districts. If one interprets the principle of Reynolds v Sims somewhat literally (no one would seriously argue that the phrase "One Man, One Vote" excludes females), but to exclude those who may not legally vote do to age or citizenship, that is:
"One Voter, One Vote" then voters in districts where there are an excess of voters are being denied equal protection.

If the senate was apportioned on the basis of citizenship numbers from the ACS, opponents would have to argue that the ACS was bogus for purposes of determining the population of districts, while at the same time arguing it must be used in applying the Gingles test.

7.  SCOTUS has imposed a very strict standard for how South Texas needs to be drawn based on the VRA.  If SCOTUS backs off of VRA section 2 redistricting standards next decade, expect TX-23 to go from mildly Dem leaning to mildly GOP leaning, or they could use it to pick up more of San Antonio so that TX-35 becomes an all-Travis CD.

This was based on Section 5, barring retrogression. When the legislature drew a McAllen to Austin district, the SCOTUS ruled that it was not a district that afforded Hispanic voters an opportunity to elect a candidate of choice. Since there was no community of interest between the RGV and Austin, the district was suspect as a racial gerrymander, assigning voters to a district on the basis of race. You can no more assign black voters to a black district, than you can assign black students to Booker T Washington High School, and white students to Robert E Lee High School.

Since the RGV-Austin district was not a minority-opportunity district, TX-23 had to be redrawn in order to restore the Hispanic district quota.

Section 2 under the Gingles Test requires compact communities. No one can argue that fajita strips are compact.

8. Texas also has elected state courts, using the same statewide partisan election system as North Carolina for their highest court.  Republicans cannot do much to change the mechanics of judicial elections in Texas without passing a constitutional amendment,  which would require the cooperation of some state legislative Dems just to get it on the ballot and then the amendment would have to pass a statewide vote.  The state supreme court is currently 9R/0D, but it would likely throw out gerrymandered maps passed in 2021 if it flipped to Dem control at any point during the decade, as recently happened in NC and PA.  It could also rule that Texas state law does not permit using an eligible voters standard instead of total population, or reimpose stricter requirements for how South Texas is drawn using state law.

There is currently a court challenge to at-large election of state courts.

Can't the Texas Senate remove the 60% threshold by majority vote at the beginning of a session?  Similar to what the US Senate has done for nominee confirmation votes?  How was it lowered from 2/3rds to 60%?  If so, I don't see it as being particularly significant for the redistricting process going forward.  They will just do what the majority wants to do. 

Also, the statewide judicial elections challenge to force majority minority districts has been going on since 2016 and the plaintiffs have gotten nowhere.  Against a backdrop of federal courts relaxing VRA standards applied to redistricting in general, and one of the conservative SCOTUS justices (Thomas) being opposed to any consideration of race in redistricting whatsoever, it's a real stretch.

[voice_of_resistance]

Here's my take on what a light Democratic gerrymander of the state would look like, say in 2026 or if Dems take the legislature and force a mid-decade redistricting.
http://dra-purple.indirect.cc/join/c3300552-ec57-4e69-bb71-9789aeba6d3f

By district:
TX-01: Texarkana, Tyler, rural East Texas - this is more similar to the pre-2004 TX-01, but Gohmert should be the easy favorite in this Trump 72-25 seat (Safe R)

TX-02: Lufkin, Nacogdoches, rural East Texas stretching down to Beaumont and Houston's northern and eastern exurbs. This is again the pre-2004 TX-02, which is today's TX-36, and Babin should easily hold it, as it is Trump 76-21 (Safe R)

TX-03: Plano, Frisco, Carrollton, pretty much the same as old TX-03, except it reaches into Denton County a little. Van Taylor should be fine here, even though it's trending left and is now Trump 50-44 (Likely R)

TX-04: Rockwall, McKinney, Sulphur Springs, Sherman - this is similar to the pre-2004 TX-04 that Ralph Hall used to represent, but more of Collin replaces Tyler/Smith County. This seat is Trump 75-21, and contains Heath, so Ratcliffe should run here. (Safe R)

TX-05: Terrell, Waxahachie, Palestine, Rusk - this is similar to the previous iterations of TX-05, and is entirely outside of Dallas County now. That makes it safer for Gooden, and it is Trump 75-22, so he will likely easily win here.  (Safe R)

TX-06: Fort Worth, River Oaks, White Settlement - a D sink in Tarrant County that didn't previously exist before. This seat is Clinton 56-39, so Wright would probably not run here. This seat is a Democratic pickup. Demographically, it could elect a minority (probably Marc Veasey) as its VAP is 43% white, 34% Hispanic, and 20% black. (Safe D)

TX-07: Katy, Cypress, this seat is the western end of Harris County. Fletcher definitely would not win here. It is trending left but is still too red right now, she would probably run somewhere else in the area. Dan Crenshaw could definitely carpetbag and run in this seat and he would probably win, as it is Trump 57-38. It is close to becoming maj-min, but its VAP is 55% white, 26% Hispanic, and 11% black. (Safe R)

TX-08: The Woodlands, Kingwood, Humble, Tomball - essentially the core of Brady's base is preserved here as well as some northern red suburbs of Houston. He would run here as long as he wants, and this seat is Trump 72-24. (Safe R)

TX-09: Beaumont, Port Arthur, Galveston - this seat takes its 1990s form as it sheds Brazoria from its predecessor TX-14, and takes in the southeasternmost extremities of Houston. It goes from being Trump 58-38 to Trump 55-41, and is probably still safe as this area has a lot of WWC voters. That said, someone like Nick Lampson could run here and make a race. (Safe R)

TX-10: the old TX-10 that was a Travis County seat is finally reunited with most of the southern and eastern portions of Austin in this seat. It is Clinton 73-20, so McCaul would not survive. Luckily for him, he lives in the neighboring 31st, and Lloyd Doggett would likely get to run in a compact district for the first time in decades. Doggett could get primaried though, as this district's VAP is 49% white, 35% Hispanic, and 10% black. (Safe D)

TX-11: this 11th is the old pre-2004 TX-11, and it takes in Waco, Bryan, and a swath of central and East Texas stretching from the Killeen area all the way to the west of Houston. Flores would run here, as it succeeds his TX-17. The Austin crack is gone, making it an extremely safe Trump 65-31. (Safe R)

TX-12: To accommodate the new TX-06, this district is pushed further out of Tarrant, taking in some 80% Trump counties like Jack and Palo Pinto. It also takes in Johnson County, from the old TX-06. Granger is drawn out of her seat here, but she could easily carpetbag due to name ID. The trends in the Tarrant portion of the district are cancelled by the rurals in the west, and this safe Trump 74-22 seat is in no danger of flipping blue. (Safe R)

TX-13: Amarillo, the Panhandle, Wichita Falls, this seat is basically the same as it has been. Thornberry is retiring, but his successor will likely come from the Amarillo area, or Wichita Falls, which are both in this district. It is Trump 79-18, so no Democrat will win it. (Safe R)

TX-14: Brazoria, Bay City, Victoria, this seat is the successor to the current TX-14 as well as the current TX-27. It has both Brazoria and Victoria in it, meaning that Cloud and Weber are double-bunked here. This seat is Trump 65-31, so it is truly safe for the winner. (Safe R)

TX-15: McAllen, Converse, Floresville, one of the "fajitas" of far South Texas, Gonzalez has his homebase of McAllen in this seat, and it is Clinton 58-38. Not much to say here, but it is 69% Hispanic VAP, which I believe is still enough to elect the candidate of their choice. (Safe D)

TX-16: El Paso, this seat can't have much done to it as it's tucked away in the westernmost part of the state. Consisting only of El Paso County, this seat is 79% Hispanic VAP, and was Clinton 68-26. Escobar will run here, and it will be safe for her. (Safe D)

TX-17: Abilene, San Angelo, rural Central Texas, this seat is mirroring the old TX-17, and is Titanium R. This seat would elect a Republican either from Abilene or San Angelo's areas. It is Trump 78-18. That said, Roger Williams represents some counties in the district and given that he lives in Weatherford which is in the 12th carpetbagging would work for him. (Safe R)

TX-18: northern Harris County, this seat takes in KIAH as well as Spring, Alding, and Greenwood Village. Sheila Jackson Lee would not want to run here, as it is only Clinton 53-42, significantly less blue than her current seat. She is on the older side and may want to retire though sometime next decade. In that case, a minority would likely get elected here as the VAP is 33% white, 40% Hispanic, and 24% black. (Safe D)

TX-19: Lubbock, Midland, Odessa, this seat is the cities of far western Texas. Conaway is retiring, otherwise he would have been double-bunked with Jodey Arrington. The seat's population is actually majority-minority and is 44% Hispanic, but the VAP is only 35% Hispanic and is 57% white. Arrington would likely run and win here, but could be primaried by a Hispanic Republican. It is Trump 70-25. (Safe R)

TX-20: central Bexar County, downtown San Antonio, this seat is 74% Hispanic VAP, and is a more compact version of its current self. Castro would be safe here as long as he wanted, as it is Clinton 69-26. (Safe D)

TX-21: Hollywood Park, Dripping Springs, Medina, Llano, the Austin/SA crack is undone here, and Chip Roy gets a safer seat for his antics. It is Trump 64-31, so it would be red for the foreseeable future. (Safe R)

TX-22: Sugar Land, Bexar, this is the Fort Bend County district contained entirely within the county. It has seen some amazing growth over the past decade and has been zooming left. It is Clinton 52-44, and is a highly racially diverse district, VAP being 38% white, 22% Hispanic, 22% black, and 18% Asian. Sri Preston Kulkarni could definitely be elected here, or the Indian County Judge of Fort Bend, KP George. Kathaleen Wall's antics would definitely not help here, but a Republican who is either a minority or is good at speaking to minorities could do well here. (Likely D)

TX-23: El Paso, San Antonio, Eagle Pass, this border district is 62% Hispanic VAP and probably will get litigated to death. Given how the SA suburbs have been trending left, instead of being even like the old TX-23, this seat is now Clinton 52-42. Gina Ortiz Jones would easily win this seat, unless a moderate Hispanic Republican could cut down margins in Bexar. (Safe D)

TX-24: Carrollton, Irving, Coppell, Arlington, this district is based primarily in northwest Dallas County but leans into eastern Tarrant as well. Marchant is retiring, and likely would not have held this seat as it is Clinton 52-44. By VAP, it is 44% white, 34% Hispanic, 12% black, and 10% Asian. A minority Dem like Candace Valenzuela would crush it here, and would be the heavy favorite. (Likely D)

TX-25: Bellaire, Westwood Park, southwestern Harris County, this district is a restoration of the old Houston-based TX-25. This seat would be good for Al Green, as it is Democratic as Clinton 67-29, but it is also plurality Hispanic. (VAP is 26% white, 37% Hispanic, 23% black, and 14% Asian). (Safe D)

TX-26: Denton, Corinth, Sanger, this district is contained entirely inside Denton County - shows the growth of the DFW Metro in the past decade. It is Trump 59-36, and has been slowly trending left, but Burgess lives here and is free to run as long as he wants. (Safe R)

TX-27: San Patricio, Corpus Christi, Brownsville, this is the old pre-2010 TX-27 that was a semi-fajita that took in the coast south of San Patricio. It is 67% HVAP, and should fairly consistently elect a Democrat. Filemon Vela lives in Brownsville, so he could carpetbag to this from the 34th if he wanted to. It is Clinton 52-44, so barring another 2010-style wave the Dem should be favored. (Likely D)

TX-28: Laredo, RGV, Bexar suburbs, this district essentially remains the same, except it takes in more of the San Antonio suburbs to counter the return of TX-27 to the RGV. This district has 79% HVAP, and is Clinton 62-34, meaning that it should elect a Democrat regularly. Cuellar is probably still a better fit for this district than an AOC-type like Cisneros. (Safe D)

TX-29: central Houston, this district is similar to Gene Green's old TX-29 in that it is more compact. Its VAP is 21% white, 40% Hispanic, and 36% black. Sylvia Garcia would be fine here, and the real contest would be the Democratic primary. Clinton won 80-16 here. (Safe D)

TX-30: central Dallas, this seat would be Safe D, and would elect a minority, probably Eddie Bernie Johnson or whoever wants it after her (Royce West maybe?). Its VAP is 30% white, 38% Hispanic, and 30% black. Just like TX-29, the primary is the real contest in this Clinton 73-23 seat. (Safe D)

TX-31: Round Rock, Pflugerville, Lakeway, this district takes in the rest of Travis not occupied by districts 10 and 21, and pairs it with suburban Round Rock in neighboring Williamson County. It is Clinton 55-38, so John Carter would not run here. (Safe D)

TX-32: Mesquite, Garland, Richardson, this northeast Dallas seat was won Clinton 50-45, and is zooming leftward. Colin Allred would be fine here, unless the GOP figured out how to run in suburban districts again. Even though its VAP is only 50% white, Allred would be fine. (Safe D)

TX-33: Arlington, Grand Prairie, Irving, south Dallas, this seat is a new D sink in the south of Dallas and Tarrant Counties. Veasey would run in the 6th as that is a Fort Worth/Tarrant D sink, so this seat would be a new gain for the Democrats. It is 26% white, 35% Hispanic and 34% black by VAP and Clinton 72-25. (Safe D)

TX-34: Harlingen, Edinburg, Weslaco, this RGV seat is fajitaed to the north, and is 82% HVAP. Vela could carpetbag to this seat if he wanted to, but another Hispanic Democrat who is young could easily set up shop or another RGV Democratic politician. It is Clinton 60-36. (Safe D)

TX-35: New Braunfels, San Marcos, Brenham, this seat is the converse to remaking new Democratic seats. Formerly a D sink between Austin and SA, this seat now covers a swath of rural south-central Texas, clocking in at Trump 62-33. (Safe R)

TX-36: Jersey Village, Hunters Creek, the old TX-36 was renumbered as TX-02 again, so the new 36th swaps places with the old 2, positioning itself in western Harris County. Fletcher would likely run here, as it is 26% white, 37% Hispanic, 23% black, and 13% Asian by VAP. This seat is Clinton 50-45, so it could become competitive with the right Republican (a Wesley Hunt-type perhaps), but Fletcher would be the favorite. (Likely D)

Now for the new seats:
TX-37: Richland Hills, Arlington, Colleyville, when decoupling the R gerrymander of Tarrant, in creating the 6th as a safe D sink, there was bound to be a safe R sink. That seat is the new 37th district. Wright lives in Arlington and would likely move here or run to be safe, as it is Trump 60-35. (Safe R)

TX-38: Baytown, Pasadena, Sheldon, this seat is the eastern portions of Harris County, and majority Hispanic (50.2% HVAP). It is very close in partisan lean though, and is Clinton 50-47. This seat is highly competitive, and could easily tip to either side. I would imagine that this seat would be a Beto/Abbott district. (Tossup)

TX-39: Temple, Killeen, Georgetown, this seat is the rest of the current TX-31 combined with Bell County and Coryell. John Carter would carpetbag here as this seat is far less blue than the new TX-31, being Trump 58-36. (Safe R)

Thus, when counting by incumbents:

18 Safe R:
Gohmert (1), Babin (2), Ratcliffe (4), Gooden (5), Crenshaw (7), Brady (, OPEN (9), Flores (11), Granger (12), OPEN (13), Weber/Cloud (14), Williams (17), Arrington (19), Roy (21), Burgess (26), OPEN (35), Wright (37), Carter (39)

1 Competitive R:
Taylor (3)

1 Tossup:
OPEN (38)

4 Competitive D:
OPEN (22), OPEN (24), Vela (27), Fletcher (36)

15 Safe D:
Veasey (6), Doggett (10), Gonzalez (15), Escobar (16), Jackson Lee (18), Castro (20), OPEN (23), Green (25), Cuellar (28), Garcia (29), Johnson (30), OPEN (31), Allred (32), OPEN (33), OPEN (34)

Thus, this map becomes 19-19 with one tossup, and could easily become 21-18 D by the end of the decade.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

It's wishful thinking to believe that the people moving to the Houston outer suburbs are going to be voting Dem at a 70-30 clip.  Most *inner loop* precincts that aren't black- or Hispanic-dominated don't even vote like that. 

There are plenty of precincts past beltway 6 that voted 60-40 Beto, which would imply new residents are even more liberal. Add a decade of trends and the fact 60%+ of these newcomers are going to be minorities and it doesn't seem that unlikely. And most white inner loop precincts range from 55-45 Beto to 75-25 Beto. I fully expect most white inner-loop precincts to hover around the 70% Dem mark by 2030, and with exurbs being majority minority, Dems would only need to get about 55% of the newcomer white vote--not a high bar.

[Skill and Chance]

Here's my take on what a light Democratic gerrymander of the state would look like, say in 2026 or if Dems take the legislature and force a mid-decade redistricting.
http://dra-purple.indirect.cc/join/c3300552-ec57-4e69-bb71-9789aeba6d3f

By district:
TX-01: Texarkana, Tyler, rural East Texas - this is more similar to the pre-2004 TX-01, but Gohmert should be the easy favorite in this Trump 72-25 seat (Safe R)

TX-02: Lufkin, Nacogdoches, rural East Texas stretching down to Beaumont and Houston's northern and eastern exurbs. This is again the pre-2004 TX-02, which is today's TX-36, and Babin should easily hold it, as it is Trump 76-21 (Safe R)

TX-03: Plano, Frisco, Carrollton, pretty much the same as old TX-03, except it reaches into Denton County a little. Van Taylor should be fine here, even though it's trending left and is now Trump 50-44 (Likely R)

TX-04: Rockwall, McKinney, Sulphur Springs, Sherman - this is similar to the pre-2004 TX-04 that Ralph Hall used to represent, but more of Collin replaces Tyler/Smith County. This seat is Trump 75-21, and contains Heath, so Ratcliffe should run here. (Safe R)

TX-05: Terrell, Waxahachie, Palestine, Rusk - this is similar to the previous iterations of TX-05, and is entirely outside of Dallas County now. That makes it safer for Gooden, and it is Trump 75-22, so he will likely easily win here.  (Safe R)

TX-06: Fort Worth, River Oaks, White Settlement - a D sink in Tarrant County that didn't previously exist before. This seat is Clinton 56-39, so Wright would probably not run here. This seat is a Democratic pickup. Demographically, it could elect a minority (probably Marc Veasey) as its VAP is 43% white, 34% Hispanic, and 20% black. (Safe D)

TX-07: Katy, Cypress, this seat is the western end of Harris County. Fletcher definitely would not win here. It is trending left but is still too red right now, she would probably run somewhere else in the area. Dan Crenshaw could definitely carpetbag and run in this seat and he would probably win, as it is Trump 57-38. It is close to becoming maj-min, but its VAP is 55% white, 26% Hispanic, and 11% black. (Safe R)

TX-08: The Woodlands, Kingwood, Humble, Tomball - essentially the core of Brady's base is preserved here as well as some northern red suburbs of Houston. He would run here as long as he wants, and this seat is Trump 72-24. (Safe R)

TX-09: Beaumont, Port Arthur, Galveston - this seat takes its 1990s form as it sheds Brazoria from its predecessor TX-14, and takes in the southeasternmost extremities of Houston. It goes from being Trump 58-38 to Trump 55-41, and is probably still safe as this area has a lot of WWC voters. That said, someone like Nick Lampson could run here and make a race. (Safe R)

TX-10: the old TX-10 that was a Travis County seat is finally reunited with most of the southern and eastern portions of Austin in this seat. It is Clinton 73-20, so McCaul would not survive. Luckily for him, he lives in the neighboring 31st, and Lloyd Doggett would likely get to run in a compact district for the first time in decades. Doggett could get primaried though, as this district's VAP is 49% white, 35% Hispanic, and 10% black. (Safe D)

TX-11: this 11th is the old pre-2004 TX-11, and it takes in Waco, Bryan, and a swath of central and East Texas stretching from the Killeen area all the way to the west of Houston. Flores would run here, as it succeeds his TX-17. The Austin crack is gone, making it an extremely safe Trump 65-31. (Safe R)

TX-12: To accommodate the new TX-06, this district is pushed further out of Tarrant, taking in some 80% Trump counties like Jack and Palo Pinto. It also takes in Johnson County, from the old TX-06. Granger is drawn out of her seat here, but she could easily carpetbag due to name ID. The trends in the Tarrant portion of the district are cancelled by the rurals in the west, and this safe Trump 74-22 seat is in no danger of flipping blue. (Safe R)

TX-13: Amarillo, the Panhandle, Wichita Falls, this seat is basically the same as it has been. Thornberry is retiring, but his successor will likely come from the Amarillo area, or Wichita Falls, which are both in this district. It is Trump 79-18, so no Democrat will win it. (Safe R)

TX-14: Brazoria, Bay City, Victoria, this seat is the successor to the current TX-14 as well as the current TX-27. It has both Brazoria and Victoria in it, meaning that Cloud and Weber are double-bunked here. This seat is Trump 65-31, so it is truly safe for the winner. (Safe R)

TX-15: McAllen, Converse, Floresville, one of the "fajitas" of far South Texas, Gonzalez has his homebase of McAllen in this seat, and it is Clinton 58-38. Not much to say here, but it is 69% Hispanic VAP, which I believe is still enough to elect the candidate of their choice. (Safe D)

TX-16: El Paso, this seat can't have much done to it as it's tucked away in the westernmost part of the state. Consisting only of El Paso County, this seat is 79% Hispanic VAP, and was Clinton 68-26. Escobar will run here, and it will be safe for her. (Safe D)

TX-17: Abilene, San Angelo, rural Central Texas, this seat is mirroring the old TX-17, and is Titanium R. This seat would elect a Republican either from Abilene or San Angelo's areas. It is Trump 78-18. That said, Roger Williams represents some counties in the district and given that he lives in Weatherford which is in the 12th carpetbagging would work for him. (Safe R)

TX-18: northern Harris County, this seat takes in KIAH as well as Spring, Alding, and Greenwood Village. Sheila Jackson Lee would not want to run here, as it is only Clinton 53-42, significantly less blue than her current seat. She is on the older side and may want to retire though sometime next decade. In that case, a minority would likely get elected here as the VAP is 33% white, 40% Hispanic, and 24% black. (Safe D)

TX-19: Lubbock, Midland, Odessa, this seat is the cities of far western Texas. Conaway is retiring, otherwise he would have been double-bunked with Jodey Arrington. The seat's population is actually majority-minority and is 44% Hispanic, but the VAP is only 35% Hispanic and is 57% white. Arrington would likely run and win here, but could be primaried by a Hispanic Republican. It is Trump 70-25. (Safe R)

TX-20: central Bexar County, downtown San Antonio, this seat is 74% Hispanic VAP, and is a more compact version of its current self. Castro would be safe here as long as he wanted, as it is Clinton 69-26. (Safe D)

TX-21: Hollywood Park, Dripping Springs, Medina, Llano, the Austin/SA crack is undone here, and Chip Roy gets a safer seat for his antics. It is Trump 64-31, so it would be red for the foreseeable future. (Safe R)

TX-22: Sugar Land, Bexar, this is the Fort Bend County district contained entirely within the county. It has seen some amazing growth over the past decade and has been zooming left. It is Clinton 52-44, and is a highly racially diverse district, VAP being 38% white, 22% Hispanic, 22% black, and 18% Asian. Sri Preston Kulkarni could definitely be elected here, or the Indian County Judge of Fort Bend, KP George. Kathaleen Wall's antics would definitely not help here, but a Republican who is either a minority or is good at speaking to minorities could do well here. (Likely D)

TX-23: El Paso, San Antonio, Eagle Pass, this border district is 62% Hispanic VAP and probably will get litigated to death. Given how the SA suburbs have been trending left, instead of being even like the old TX-23, this seat is now Clinton 52-42. Gina Ortiz Jones would easily win this seat, unless a moderate Hispanic Republican could cut down margins in Bexar. (Safe D)

TX-24: Carrollton, Irving, Coppell, Arlington, this district is based primarily in northwest Dallas County but leans into eastern Tarrant as well. Marchant is retiring, and likely would not have held this seat as it is Clinton 52-44. By VAP, it is 44% white, 34% Hispanic, 12% black, and 10% Asian. A minority Dem like Candace Valenzuela would crush it here, and would be the heavy favorite. (Likely D)

TX-25: Bellaire, Westwood Park, southwestern Harris County, this district is a restoration of the old Houston-based TX-25. This seat would be good for Al Green, as it is Democratic as Clinton 67-29, but it is also plurality Hispanic. (VAP is 26% white, 37% Hispanic, 23% black, and 14% Asian). (Safe D)

TX-26: Denton, Corinth, Sanger, this district is contained entirely inside Denton County - shows the growth of the DFW Metro in the past decade. It is Trump 59-36, and has been slowly trending left, but Burgess lives here and is free to run as long as he wants. (Safe R)

TX-27: San Patricio, Corpus Christi, Brownsville, this is the old pre-2010 TX-27 that was a semi-fajita that took in the coast south of San Patricio. It is 67% HVAP, and should fairly consistently elect a Democrat. Filemon Vela lives in Brownsville, so he could carpetbag to this from the 34th if he wanted to. It is Clinton 52-44, so barring another 2010-style wave the Dem should be favored. (Likely D)

TX-28: Laredo, RGV, Bexar suburbs, this district essentially remains the same, except it takes in more of the San Antonio suburbs to counter the return of TX-27 to the RGV. This district has 79% HVAP, and is Clinton 62-34, meaning that it should elect a Democrat regularly. Cuellar is probably still a better fit for this district than an AOC-type like Cisneros. (Safe D)

TX-29: central Houston, this district is similar to Gene Green's old TX-29 in that it is more compact. Its VAP is 21% white, 40% Hispanic, and 36% black. Sylvia Garcia would be fine here, and the real contest would be the Democratic primary. Clinton won 80-16 here. (Safe D)

TX-30: central Dallas, this seat would be Safe D, and would elect a minority, probably Eddie Bernie Johnson or whoever wants it after her (Royce West maybe?). Its VAP is 30% white, 38% Hispanic, and 30% black. Just like TX-29, the primary is the real contest in this Clinton 73-23 seat. (Safe D)

TX-31: Round Rock, Pflugerville, Lakeway, this district takes in the rest of Travis not occupied by districts 10 and 21, and pairs it with suburban Round Rock in neighboring Williamson County. It is Clinton 55-38, so John Carter would not run here. (Safe D)

TX-32: Mesquite, Garland, Richardson, this northeast Dallas seat was won Clinton 50-45, and is zooming leftward. Colin Allred would be fine here, unless the GOP figured out how to run in suburban districts again. Even though its VAP is only 50% white, Allred would be fine. (Safe D)

TX-33: Arlington, Grand Prairie, Irving, south Dallas, this seat is a new D sink in the south of Dallas and Tarrant Counties. Veasey would run in the 6th as that is a Fort Worth/Tarrant D sink, so this seat would be a new gain for the Democrats. It is 26% white, 35% Hispanic and 34% black by VAP and Clinton 72-25. (Safe D)

TX-34: Harlingen, Edinburg, Weslaco, this RGV seat is fajitaed to the north, and is 82% HVAP. Vela could carpetbag to this seat if he wanted to, but another Hispanic Democrat who is young could easily set up shop or another RGV Democratic politician. It is Clinton 60-36. (Safe D)

TX-35: New Braunfels, San Marcos, Brenham, this seat is the converse to remaking new Democratic seats. Formerly a D sink between Austin and SA, this seat now covers a swath of rural south-central Texas, clocking in at Trump 62-33. (Safe R)

TX-36: Jersey Village, Hunters Creek, the old TX-36 was renumbered as TX-02 again, so the new 36th swaps places with the old 2, positioning itself in western Harris County. Fletcher would likely run here, as it is 26% white, 37% Hispanic, 23% black, and 13% Asian by VAP. This seat is Clinton 50-45, so it could become competitive with the right Republican (a Wesley Hunt-type perhaps), but Fletcher would be the favorite. (Likely D)

Now for the new seats:
TX-37: Richland Hills, Arlington, Colleyville, when decoupling the R gerrymander of Tarrant, in creating the 6th as a safe D sink, there was bound to be a safe R sink. That seat is the new 37th district. Wright lives in Arlington and would likely move here or run to be safe, as it is Trump 60-35. (Safe R)

TX-38: Baytown, Pasadena, Sheldon, this seat is the eastern portions of Harris County, and majority Hispanic (50.2% HVAP). It is very close in partisan lean though, and is Clinton 50-47. This seat is highly competitive, and could easily tip to either side. I would imagine that this seat would be a Beto/Abbott district. (Tossup)

TX-39: Temple, Killeen, Georgetown, this seat is the rest of the current TX-31 combined with Bell County and Coryell. John Carter would carpetbag here as this seat is far less blue than the new TX-31, being Trump 58-36. (Safe R)

Thus, when counting by incumbents:

18 Safe R:
Gohmert (1), Babin (2), Ratcliffe (4), Gooden (5), Crenshaw (7), Brady (, OPEN (9), Flores (11), Granger (12), OPEN (13), Weber/Cloud (14), Williams (17), Arrington (19), Roy (21), Burgess (26), OPEN (35), Wright (37), Carter (39)

1 Competitive R:
Taylor (3)

1 Tossup:
OPEN (38)

4 Competitive D:
OPEN (22), OPEN (24), Vela (27), Fletcher (36)

15 Safe D:
Veasey (6), Doggett (10), Gonzalez (15), Escobar (16), Jackson Lee (18), Castro (20), OPEN (23), Green (25), Cuellar (28), Garcia (29), Johnson (30), OPEN (31), Allred (32), OPEN (33), OPEN (34)

Thus, this map becomes 19-19 with one tossup, and could easily become 21-18 D by the end of the decade.

Interesting.

I know it's a bear with the 150 districts, but someone should do a somewhat Dem leaning State House map within the constitutional rules.  It's by far the most likely place Dems will have leverage.  I could easily see a Dem state house agreeing to pass a GOP congressional map if they get to draw their chamber and avoid the backup commission, sort of like the VA 2011 situation but with the chambers reversed.

[jimrtex]

Can't the Texas Senate remove the 60% threshold by majority vote at the beginning of a session?  Similar to what the US Senate has done for nominee confirmation votes?  How was it lowered from 2/3rds to 60%?  If so, I don't see it as being particularly significant for the redistricting process going forward.  They will just do what the majority wants to do. 

Also, the statewide judicial elections challenge to force majority minority districts has been going on since 2016 and the plaintiffs have gotten nowhere.  Against a backdrop of federal courts relaxing VRA standards applied to redistricting in general, and one of the conservative SCOTUS justices (Thomas) being opposed to any consideration of race in redistricting whatsoever, it's a real stretch.

They could lower the 60% threshold. It used to be 2/3.

The Texas Senate does not have a calendars committee. Regular order is to take bills up in the order they are reported by committee. Traditionally, the first bill on the calendar is called the rosebush bill. The 60% threshold is to suspend regular order and take up another bill.

You can think of it as the crowd lined up to get into Club 31. The line never moves, but a women who flashes a little extra skin will be moved up and admitted by the bouncers.

In practice, the Lieutenant Governor will not recognize a motion to take up a bill out of regular order unless he has a signed sheet of paper with the 19 members who support the order. There also has to be notice given that a senator intends to take a bill up out of order (24 or 48? hours, IIRC).

If you watch the senate, there is usually nothing happening, and then a senator will be recognized and make a motion to take up a bill out of regular order. There may be a short debate on that motion, then the Secretary of the Senate will call the roll in alphabetical order, starting out slow, A, B, C, and speeding up so it sounds like LMNOP.

But I just realized something interesting. The Texas Constitution requires reapportionment of the legislature to happen in the regular session, otherwise it goes to the commission (Article 3, Section 28). That amendment was made in 1948 after the legislature had failed to apportion after the 1930 and 1940 censuses. The legislature then apportioned after the 1950 and 1960 censuses and generally every census thereafter.

The Constitution limits the regular session to 140 days. Statute sets the meeting date to the second Tuesday in January (Jan 12, 2021). The 140th day will be May 31, 2021.

The Commerce Department and the Bureau of the Census have requested a delay in delivering state apportionment until April 2021 (The December 2020 deadline is in statute). They would then deliver the PL 94-171 data in the summer of 2021. Statute currently requires delivery of the data by April 1, 2021. Traditionally, the Census Bureau tries to deliver data to states with earlier deadlines by February, while year round states or states with later 2022 filing deadlines get their data earlier.

Congress will go along with the delay, because Democrats will be concerned about an undercount, and Republicans will want a full enumeration.

It will be impossible for the regular session of the legislature to redistrict. The Constitution can't be changed, and the meeting date can't be changed without a legislative change, which would have to be made in a special session. Even if there were a special session this year, they are unlikely to delay the 2021 regular session, since that among other things will mess up the budget for the biennium that begins July 1, 2021. Texas requires a balanced budget.

If adjustments need to be made for the 2019-2021 biennium they can be made without the legislature meeting.

Theoretically, the LRB might be more willing to reapportion based on CVAP. They don't have to do the horsetrading that happens in the legislature. This happened in 2001, where they drew cleaner maps because they didn't have to pander to different legislators. The SCOTUS would likely rule that using CVAP was discretionary.

[Skill and Chance]

Doesn't a state law first have to be changed (legislature plus gov signature) to allow CVAP redistricting? 

[jimrtex]

Doesn't a state law first have to be changed (legislature plus gov signature) to allow CVAP redistricting? 

The legislature passes a law specifying the district boundaries (or in this case, the LRB acting in lieu of the legislature failing to act).

The redistricting committee has been holding hearings in the interim. I'll check to see if CVAP redistricting comes up.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/f960b344-3da3-45d8-8b26-1ad76f0b95a7
I drew this map of state board of education districts based off of 2018 population estimates. Without intending to I created a perfect example as to how geographic bias in favor of Ds is now a thing in Texas. Clinton, despite losing the state by 9, wins 8/15 seats, all of them by double digits. The Clinton districts voted for her by margins of 11, 14, 27, 20, 36, 12, 24, and 18 points, while Trump districts went to him by a margins of 31, 55, 20, 45, 38, 49, and 13 points.

[Former President tack50]

Much like I did for the State Senate, here is a map I drew for the federal House, now that DRA has 2018 data. This map is supposed to be an R gerrymander that is quite agressive; though as always I am never 100% sure if this follows the VRA or not. I also messed up the population numbers slightly. In general I tried to target numbers of Trump+15 or above for all the R seats:



Dfw zoom: (the unnumbered green district is district 16)



Houston zoom:



Austin+San Antonio zoom:



https://davesredistricting.org/join/d9298ca6-ea4c-4741-a92d-0736920bcd70

And here are the district details:

TX-01: Clinton+42; D+18 (81% Hispanic)
TX-02: Clinton+14; D+5 (78% hispanic)
TX-03: Clinton+38; D+18 (91% Hispanic)
TX-04: Clinton+37; D+19 (92% Hispanic)
TX-05: Clinton+26; D+8 (68% Hispanic)
TX-06: Clinton+60; D+28 (43% black; 32% Hispanic; 21% white)
TX-07: Clinton+37; D+15 (59% Hispanic)
TX-08: Clinton+60; D+29 (44% black; 37% Hispanic; 17% White)
TX-09: Clinton+14; D+3 (44% Hispanic, 29% White, 20% black)
TX-10: Clinton+23; D+7 (56% Hispanic)

TX-11: Trump+19; R+14
TX-12: Trump+17; R+14
TX-13: Trump+42; R+24
TX-14: Trump+24; R+15
TX-15: Trump+20; R+12
TX-16: Trump+17; R+14
TX-17: Trump+39; R+23
TX-18: Trump+16; R+13
TX-19: Trump+19; R+15
TX-20: Trump+15; R+14

TX-21: Clinton+32; D+11 (38% Hispanic; 23% Black, 21% White; 19% Asian)

TX-22: Trump+13; R+12
TX-23: Trump+27; R+15
TX-24: Trump+31; R+21
TX-25: Trump+47; R+25

TX-26: Clinton+29; D+13 (67% Hispanic)

TX-27: Trump+16; R+11
TX-28: Trump+28; R+18
TX-29: Trump+16; R+12
TX-30: Trump+16; R+12

TX-31: Clinton+53; D+23 (50% White, 35% Hispanic)

TX-32: Trump+16; R+13
TX-33: Trump+17; R+13
TX-34: Trump+48; R+27
TX-35: Trump+61; R+32
TX-36: Trump+19; R+11
TX-37: Trump+42; R+23
TX-38: Trump+15; R+10
TX-39: Trump+51; R+27

Or in other words, here is the distrubution of the Dem districts:

1 El Paso
3 Rio Grande Valley
3 Dallas
4 Houston
1 Austin
1 San Antonio

So in total this should be a 26R-13D map; giving Republicans exactly 2/3 of the seats. In fact I think if you went with really awful looking lines, dismantling the few remaining Trump/R+A lot districts you could even do 27R-12D (probably dismantling one of the Houston districts or the Austin one); though in that scenario the lines would probably be too awful to be considered serious

Of course, I imagine with trends and what not several of these districts will be very close; in particular the 22nd looks like it would almost certainly flip by 2030.

[lfromnj]

You don't want Trump +15 you probably want +22 or +23 especially in Austin. Only areas where Trump +15 is acceptable is maybe if you combine inner city with rurals where in that case the inner city is already maxed out and the rurals won't be swinging much or San Antonio and rurals could also work.

Texas 31 was +1 Cruz but +13 Trump while TX 10 was +9 Trump and +0 beto and TX 21 was +10 Trump and +0 Cruz. Also you added Brazos to Austin which is just as #resistance +35 Romney,+24 Trump +11 Cruz so nope.
Your map really isn't an aggressive R gerrymander its just a Clean R gerrymander that has a decent chance of falling.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Some of those Rio Grande districts probably don't pass constitutional muster according to current jurisprudence. According to Wikipedia, in 2010 the three Rio Grande districts were 82%, 79% and 84% Hispanic by total population. You can probably get down to more or less that level just by exchanging territory within your 2nd, 3rd and 4th districts.

There may also be an issue with your 28th, given that the 23rd has historically been a protected VRA district. But I wouldn't be certain of that, given that the Hispanic community there has only managed to elect the candidate of their choice once out of four attempts since redistricting and the district hasn't been struck down.

[dpmapper]

You can definitely make one of the 4 Houston districts Tilt-R without endangering the others, and have the San Antonio district that heads west be majority Hispanic but still lean R if you're willing to get a little uglier.



Austin/San Antonio:


Houston:


DFW:


All GOP districts are at least Trump+20 other than TX-7 in Harris County (Trump +7), TX-23 in San Antonio + west (Trump +6, 59.6% Hispanic by VAP), and TX-27 (Corpus Christi-San Antonio, Trump +18).  Some cleaning up can be done in DFW since my 6th (gray), 17th, and 12th (tan) are Trump +30, Trump +41, Trump +38 respectively.  

Fun fact: TX-9 has whites as the 4th-most populous racial group. 

[The Mikado]

Much like I did for the State Senate, here is a map I drew for the federal House, now that DRA has 2018 data. This map is supposed to be an R gerrymander that is quite agressive; though as always I am never 100% sure if this follows the VRA or not. I also messed up the population numbers slightly. In general I tried to target numbers of Trump+15 or above for all the R seats:



Dfw zoom: (the unnumbered green district is district 16)



Houston zoom:



Austin+San Antonio zoom:



https://davesredistricting.org/join/d9298ca6-ea4c-4741-a92d-0736920bcd70

And here are the district details:

TX-01: Clinton+42; D+18 (81% Hispanic)
TX-02: Clinton+14; D+5 (78% hispanic)
TX-03: Clinton+38; D+18 (91% Hispanic)
TX-04: Clinton+37; D+19 (92% Hispanic)
TX-05: Clinton+26; D+8 (68% Hispanic)
TX-06: Clinton+60; D+28 (43% black; 32% Hispanic; 21% white)
TX-07: Clinton+37; D+15 (59% Hispanic)
TX-08: Clinton+60; D+29 (44% black; 37% Hispanic; 17% White)
TX-09: Clinton+14; D+3 (44% Hispanic, 29% White, 20% black)
TX-10: Clinton+23; D+7 (56% Hispanic)

TX-11: Trump+19; R+14
TX-12: Trump+17; R+14
TX-13: Trump+42; R+24
TX-14: Trump+24; R+15
TX-15: Trump+20; R+12
TX-16: Trump+17; R+14
TX-17: Trump+39; R+23
TX-18: Trump+16; R+13
TX-19: Trump+19; R+15
TX-20: Trump+15; R+14

TX-21: Clinton+32; D+11 (38% Hispanic; 23% Black, 21% White; 19% Asian)

TX-22: Trump+13; R+12
TX-23: Trump+27; R+15
TX-24: Trump+31; R+21
TX-25: Trump+47; R+25

TX-26: Clinton+29; D+13 (67% Hispanic)

TX-27: Trump+16; R+11
TX-28: Trump+28; R+18
TX-29: Trump+16; R+12
TX-30: Trump+16; R+12

TX-31: Clinton+53; D+23 (50% White, 35% Hispanic)

TX-32: Trump+16; R+13
TX-33: Trump+17; R+13
TX-34: Trump+48; R+27
TX-35: Trump+61; R+32
TX-36: Trump+19; R+11
TX-37: Trump+42; R+23
TX-38: Trump+15; R+10
TX-39: Trump+51; R+27

Or in other words, here is the distrubution of the Dem districts:

1 El Paso
3 Rio Grande Valley
3 Dallas
4 Houston
1 Austin
1 San Antonio

So in total this should be a 26R-13D map; giving Republicans exactly 2/3 of the seats. In fact I think if you went with really awful looking lines, dismantling the few remaining Trump/R+A lot districts you could even do 27R-12D (probably dismantling one of the Houston districts or the Austin one); though in that scenario the lines would probably be too awful to be considered serious

Of course, I imagine with trends and what not several of these districts will be very close; in particular the 22nd looks like it would almost certainly flip by 2030.

I can't imagine Kay Granger being particularly thrilled with your 17th. Most of that is new area to her and her entire brand is suburban/exurban Fort Worth and some yahoo from the rurals there could primary her in your map. Not sure she'd survive a GOP primary in those circumstances with so much new in the seat.

I...guess? That new 12 is for Van Taylor? I'm not sure if he lives in it or not. It's possible he'd be forced into a primary against Wright in your new TX-11. I know that John Ratcliffe lives in your new TX-11, and this would ruin him because he'd lose his safe seat and have to primary Wright.

My guess is that the current TX Republican Congressional delegation would HATE your map, though I only really could go into that level of detail on the DFW part of it.

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

The Collin and Denton County seats would likely flip in the next Dem wave

[lfromnj]

Does anyone know exactly why the old Texas 25th was ruled illegal(the one Dogget was placed in from 2004 to 2006)

If the goal is to prevent a Hispanic pack then taking in a little bit of Austin white libs(around 200 to 220k each) could be a feasible for 4 districts. This way I have removed about 900k people In Austin+Williamson and a little bit more in Hays and split it 4 ways down South. So theres still effectively a district in Austin for the sink but its now been pizza sliced into 4 districts so rather than mixing Fajitas with white rurals its white libs. So rather than Ds getting 3 nice barely Safe D Rio Grande districts this adds another "Hispanic" district but makes them all like D+15-16 PVI on average instead of D+10,D+9,D+7. So this gerrymander could solve Hispanic representation in South Texas and let TX 23 go to a Safe R district while also taking care of that Austin sink(1 district in austin is probably enough but 1.33 makes it a bit safer.) Only major downside I see for the GOP is that Henry Cuellar who sometimes votes with them is screwed here as he's placed with the whitest D part of Austin and Williamson.



I think Houston and Dallas can also be shored up for 2022 with 3 sinks each but later on they might fall would 3/7 of an extra sink to each region work?
(100k rural connections)

Is point contiguity allowed in Texas? You could basically just make this green strip a super thin strip and then use point contiguity to do anything else.

This way  4 RGV/Austin districts
1 SA
1 el paso and 7 Houston/Dallas. for a total of 13-26 or 13-25.

[EastAnglianLefty]

As I recall, the issue with the 25th was that the primary appeared to be controlled by Austin liberals, as their turnout was much higher than border Hispanics, so it didn't count as a VRA district.

Regarding Cuellar, would there be any mileage in giving his a district combining Laredo and the western end of TX-23? It looks like you would need to grab a few heavily Republican counties to avoid it becoming a racial pack, but it's still a good way of soaking up Democratic votes whilst making Cuellar much safer from primary challenges.