2020 Texas Redistricting thread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:44:59 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  2020 Texas Redistricting thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 42
Author Topic: 2020 Texas Redistricting thread  (Read 57055 times)
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #350 on: March 27, 2021, 12:38:08 PM »
« edited: March 28, 2021, 04:14:19 PM by Torie »

The Pubs seem determined to draw a 26R-13D map. It seems like a tall order to me. My TX-19 and TX-34 are very shaky. However, it seems that through some rather drastic measures, it is quite doable to snatch the Ft. Bend based seat from the Dems that can be expected to hold for the decade absent very substantial Dem trends in the area. The Gulf of Mexico Hispanic seat is swing absent the Pub substantial Pub trend in 2020 holding. I think the Pubs anticipate that.

It is quite possible that  the Pub drawing of the lines if they hold to their agenda will do "better" job than this with something even more hideous. We shall see.

They is still in some quarters a misunderstanding of the VRA in some quarters that assumes that because one can draw an extremely gerrymandered 50% CVAP CD, that a performing minority CD must be drawn. I disagree. One prong to mandate that is such a CD must be reasonably compact, and that does not include wandering around chopping into disparate and dispersed city to pick up the needed minority voters. But I have said all I am going to say on that. Some seem to disagree, which is OK. We shall see.


We shall see if my attempt to "publish" the map below works this time. I am not holding my breath. Tech is not my thing!

https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::3e12aa3a-849f-4a02-88ee-e12160942562


Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #351 on: April 01, 2021, 11:08:15 AM »
« Edited: April 04, 2021, 11:47:19 AM by Torie »

Because the uber aggressive Pubmanderers at RRH trashed the map above as being too kind to the Dems, I took another stab at it, to see what was out there that had been left on the table for the Dems that could be snatched away without excessive dummymander potential, or undue VRA risk, and without drawing ludicrous looking county chopping snakes, which admittedly the Texas Pubs in the past have been perfectly willing to do, but which creates poster child potential for laws to be passed against such aggressive gerrymanders that are so harsh on the eye. And this is what I came up with. Suggestions for further "improvement" are of course welcome. In that regard, I have this fantasy that NY and Texas and Illinois should do some non aggression pact, to tone all of this down. Yes, I know, the odds of that happening are zero. Local pols care about only themselves, not others far away.

This aggressive Pubmander iteration has 12 Dem CD’s (7 Hispanic, 2 Black, 1 White, 2 mixed - we love to minimize white Dem CD's), and 27 Pub CD’s (24 White, and 3 Hispanic). Hispanics are our friends, and we want to strive to give them the max, as long as it does not hurt the Pubs, and of course is legal under the VRA.

The map's aggressiveness poses some dummymander potential of course (I suspect TX-09 and TX-02, the ones that take an uncomfortably large bite out of Travis County to suck up the precincts outside the Travis County Dem vote sink, are the most susceptible to hitting the dummymander dust sooner or later), and 2 of the CD’s are marginal, particularly the one in north Dallas that stretches out East in a  elongated rectangle in a “desperate” attempt to Pub up), but that seems unavoidable absent some insane snake shapes.

I suspect the odds of this map being drawn by the Pubs is low, because it ignores Pub incumbent preferences. For example, my TX-09 goes into both Austin and the Houston area to absorb some “problem” precincts that need to be removed from other Pub designed CD’s to make them safer. What Pub is going to want to represent that mess?

The most “new and improved” feature of note is that the map creates a new Pub Hispanic CD (TX-12) that combines a bite of El Paso with the oil patch zone of Midland and Odessa. That allows my TX-10 to exploit the Pub trend in the Rio Grande Valley and vicinity more effectively, and TX-09 to be “liberated” to absorb some problem precincts in Austin and Ft. Bend County. To minimize VRA risk, TX-12 needs to be Hispanic, because “dumping” the El Paso area Hispanics outside the nested CD there into a white CD, when rural Hispanics are adjacent to it all the way to San Antonio, is risky. But then we found out that Ector County (Odessa), is majority HCVAP, and Midland also has a substantial number, and they are also nearer to El Paso as well. Adding massively Pub trending almost all Hispanic Maverick County to that CD (TX-12) gets it over the 50% HCVAP hurdle. Perfect! That way, the Pub Hispanic CD that goes into San Antonio, can snatch up the Pub’s new found Hispanic friends down in the Rio Grande Valley and San Antonio exurbs, while still staying majority HCVAP.

The map was designed to minimize VRA risk. Thus, two Dem Hispanic CD’s needed to be drawn in San Antonio. Not doing so would probably not fly with SCOTUS, since two compact Hispanic CD’s can be drawn there. The “problem” for the Pubs in San Antonio is that, unlike for example in the Rio Grande Valley and the West Texas oil patch, where they are much thicker on the ground, there are just not enough Hispanic Pubs in San Antonio to draw a CD which would be both Pub friendly and 50%+ HCVAP.

The major demographic wild card will be ascertaining what data base will be used by the courts to assess minority CVAP percentages.





https://davesredistricting.org/join/5b7274ea-37d2-4ad7-a893-7ba5c457511c




Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,564


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #352 on: April 01, 2021, 10:22:24 PM »



Got an 11D-28R map; the map below uses 2016 numbers.

Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #353 on: April 02, 2021, 07:27:45 AM »



Got an 11D-28R map; the map below uses 2016 numbers.




The concept of gerrymandering away a second Dem seat in San Antonio was commented upon by me in my post above presenting my Pubmander. I think such an act is very vulnerable to a VRA challenge. As soon as it was clear that you could draw two compact 50%+ HCVAP Hispanic seats nested in Bexar County, it was game over for me.

In any event, congrats for drawing a thoroughly hideous map in every respect. TX Pubs will be proud of you for giving them something to fantasize about.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,217


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #354 on: April 02, 2021, 01:15:26 PM »

Just double sink Austin for any GOP gerrymander. It takes away the most Dem net votes.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,124
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #355 on: April 02, 2021, 05:00:16 PM »


This is a GOPmander that is single-mindedly focused on shoring up GOP seats, staying in line with past convention, and trying to endure throughout at least the majority of the 2020s.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/934b2cfa-3dd4-4cc4-b6a9-fddd4130536e
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #356 on: April 02, 2021, 05:09:55 PM »

We need to keep TX-6 reasonably Republican for when Big Dan Rodimer is elected to statewide office.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,124
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #357 on: April 02, 2021, 05:11:38 PM »

We need to keep TX-6 reasonably Republican for when Big Dan Rodimer is elected to statewide office.
TX-6 under my map is R+19, pretty much safe R for most of the 2020s.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #358 on: April 03, 2021, 09:08:01 PM »
« Edited: April 03, 2021, 09:17:44 PM by muon2 »

Having a CD built on growth in the Pub-leaning HCVAP population may not pass muster.

First one identifies whether a district must be drawn to meet VRA section 2 using the Gingles test: Is there a compact district with 50%+ HCVAP? Is the Hispanic population politically cohesive (does it mostly vote the same way)? Does the white population vote sufficiently together to defeat the preferred choice of the Hispanics in the area.

As long as the Hispanic population in an area is still strongly in favor of a Dem and the white population is Pub enough to defeat the Dem, then a 50% HCVAP CD is not necessarily sufficient to meet the VRA. Counting on a growing Pub fraction among Hispanics doesn't cut it until they are prevalent enough to make Hispanics no longer politically cohesive. Then the Gingles test no longer applies.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,217


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #359 on: April 03, 2021, 09:17:23 PM »

Having a CD built on growth in the Pub-leaning HCVAP population may not pass muster.

First one identifies whether a district must be drawn to meet VRA section 2 using the Gingles test: Is there a compact district with 50%+ HCVAP? Is the Hispanic population politically cohesive (does it mostly vote the same way)? Does the white population vote sufficiently together to defeat the preferred coice of the Hispanics in the area.

As long as the Hispanic population in an area is still strongly in favor of a Dem and the white population is Pub enough to defeat the Dem, then a 50% HCVAP CD is not necessarily sufficient to meet the VRA. Counting on a growing Pub fraction among Hispanics doesn't cut it until they are prevalent enough to make Hispanics no longer politically cohesive. Then the Gingles test no longer applies.

I think 60D 40 R is clearly at the point where they aren't politically cohesive. This would be like saying Missouri 1st failed as a VRA seat due to Clay losing while still slightly winning the black vote.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #360 on: April 03, 2021, 10:36:56 PM »

Having a CD built on growth in the Pub-leaning HCVAP population may not pass muster.

First one identifies whether a district must be drawn to meet VRA section 2 using the Gingles test: Is there a compact district with 50%+ HCVAP? Is the Hispanic population politically cohesive (does it mostly vote the same way)? Does the white population vote sufficiently together to defeat the preferred coice of the Hispanics in the area.

As long as the Hispanic population in an area is still strongly in favor of a Dem and the white population is Pub enough to defeat the Dem, then a 50% HCVAP CD is not necessarily sufficient to meet the VRA. Counting on a growing Pub fraction among Hispanics doesn't cut it until they are prevalent enough to make Hispanics no longer politically cohesive. Then the Gingles test no longer applies.

I think 60D 40 R is clearly at the point where they aren't politically cohesive. This would be like saying Missouri 1st failed as a VRA seat due to Clay losing while still slightly winning the black vote.

Unfortunately there hasn't been a case to directly test what a cohesive minority means in this context. However the cases in the last decade make it clear that one cannot rely on a numeric target for a minority population but must rely on election data to support the claim that the minority has the ability to elect the candidate of choice. Which leaves open the question of how to determine when the minority no longer has a candidate of choice.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #361 on: April 04, 2021, 11:35:14 AM »
« Edited: April 04, 2021, 12:13:24 PM by Torie »

Having a CD built on growth in the Pub-leaning HCVAP population may not pass muster.

First one identifies whether a district must be drawn to meet VRA section 2 using the Gingles test: Is there a compact district with 50%+ HCVAP? Is the Hispanic population politically cohesive (does it mostly vote the same way)? Does the white population vote sufficiently together to defeat the preferred choice of the Hispanics in the area.

As long as the Hispanic population in an area is still strongly in favor of a Dem and the white population is Pub enough to defeat the Dem, then a 50% HCVAP CD is not necessarily sufficient to meet the VRA. Counting on a growing Pub fraction among Hispanics doesn't cut it until they are prevalent enough to make Hispanics no longer politically cohesive. Then the Gingles test no longer applies.


1. Where is the case that held illegal a 50% HCVAP CD that was (1) "compact," (2) not gerrymandered in any unreasonable way, (3) 80% of the Hispanic voters preferred a Democrat, (4) those voters could not elect a candidate of their choice, because 20% of the Hispanics voted Pub, and their relatively turnout percentages were low? A case with different percentages than mine that elucidate the underlying issue will be accepted. Smiley

2. Where is the case that held a 50% HCVAP CD was illegal where the Hispanics were legally entitled to a CD because of the 50% CVAP Gingles trigger, and where it was not something that looked outrageous, but was not performing due to low Hispanic turnout, and/or some Hispanics voting in Pub primaries?

3. Is there any case that dealt with the issue of playing the game of seeking out minority precincts that had a low percentage of CVAP's voting and avoiding those with higher CVAP turnouts, for partisan reasons? I noticed in Texas per the 2016 election results, that in some precincts Hispanic CVAP turnout was shockingly low. Ditto for the blacks as well to a lesser degree in some places. It has not been mentioned much, but doing Texas, I realized that playing the gerrymandering game involves seeking out such hostile to the gerrymanderer's party precincts that are low turnout. The best precincts of all for the Pubs are prison precincts, but it would be a very  easy lift for SCOTUS to hold that you cannot count prisoners not eligible to vote in CVAP figures.

4. Even if there is not such a case, yet, what I would anticipate is that where you can draw a compact minority CD, where the Gingles trigger has been met, particularly if it also hews to neutral redistricting metrics, what you cannot do is demonically change the lines around to get the CVAP down to 50% CVAP or whatever, and/or systematically seek out the lowest turnout precincts, so that it ceases to be performing, due to low minority turnout. I tend to doubt that has ever been done by the Pubs however. Historically they minority CVAP up, not down, to more effectively Dem vote sink. Which raises the question, that if you can draw a compact 50% HCVAP CD, but it is not performing, and no such compact performing Hispanic CD in fact can be drawn, do you need to draw it anyway? I do appreciate that if some erose monster were deemed "compact"under the Gingles test, and only that CD were performing, you would have to draw it. Less clear to me is whether or not if such CD were deemed "compact," but is nevertheless an obvious gerrymander by all other metrics, you have to draw something less gerrymandered that gets the HCVAP or BCVAP way down, but is still performing (a variant of the packing issue).
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #362 on: April 04, 2021, 11:38:45 AM »

In other news, having read the Cooper case, and sought advice on the matter, I have concluded that my racially driven erose lines between the two Dem CD's that I drew in Dallas County are illegal, so the map I put up above will be switched out in the very near future. The map has been "fixed."
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #363 on: April 04, 2021, 02:08:02 PM »

Having a CD built on growth in the Pub-leaning HCVAP population may not pass muster.

First one identifies whether a district must be drawn to meet VRA section 2 using the Gingles test: Is there a compact district with 50%+ HCVAP? Is the Hispanic population politically cohesive (does it mostly vote the same way)? Does the white population vote sufficiently together to defeat the preferred choice of the Hispanics in the area.

As long as the Hispanic population in an area is still strongly in favor of a Dem and the white population is Pub enough to defeat the Dem, then a 50% HCVAP CD is not necessarily sufficient to meet the VRA. Counting on a growing Pub fraction among Hispanics doesn't cut it until they are prevalent enough to make Hispanics no longer politically cohesive. Then the Gingles test no longer applies.


1. Where is the case that held illegal a 50% HCVAP CD that was (1) "compact," (2) not gerrymandered in any unreasonable way, (3) 80% of the Hispanic voters preferred a Democrat, (4) those voters could not elect a candidate of their choice, because 20% of the Hispanics voted Pub, and their relatively turnout percentages were low? A case with different percentages than mine that elucidate the underlying issue will be accepted. Smiley

2. Where is the case that held a 50% HCVAP CD was illegal where the Hispanics were legally entitled to a CD because of the 50% CVAP Gingles trigger, and where it was not something that looked outrageous, but was not performing due to low Hispanic turnout, and/or some Hispanics voting in Pub primaries?

3. Is there any case that dealt with the issue of playing the game of seeking out minority precincts that had a low percentage of CVAP's voting and avoiding those with higher CVAP turnouts, for partisan reasons? I noticed in Texas per the 2016 election results, that in some precincts Hispanic CVAP turnout was shockingly low. Ditto for the blacks as well to a lesser degree in some places. It has not been mentioned much, but doing Texas, I realized that playing the gerrymandering game involves seeking out such hostile to the gerrymanderer's party precincts that are low turnout. The best precincts of all for the Pubs are prison precincts, but it would be a very  easy lift for SCOTUS to hold that you cannot count prisoners not eligible to vote in CVAP figures.

4. Even if there is not such a case, yet, what I would anticipate is that where you can draw a compact minority CD, where the Gingles trigger has been met, particularly if it also hews to neutral redistricting metrics, what you cannot do is demonically change the lines around to get the CVAP down to 50% CVAP or whatever, and/or systematically seek out the lowest turnout precincts, so that it ceases to be performing, due to low minority turnout. I tend to doubt that has ever been done by the Pubs however. Historically they minority CVAP up, not down, to more effectively Dem vote sink. Which raises the question, that if you can draw a compact 50% HCVAP CD, but it is not performing, and no such compact performing Hispanic CD in fact can be drawn, do you need to draw it anyway? I do appreciate that if some erose monster were deemed "compact"under the Gingles test, and only that CD were performing, you would have to draw it. Less clear to me is whether or not if such CD were deemed "compact," but is nevertheless an obvious gerrymander by all other metrics, you have to draw something less gerrymandered that gets the HCVAP or BCVAP way down, but is still performing (a variant of the packing issue).


In TX the most relevant case is LULAC v Perry (2006). In that case Dems were gaining in the 1990's in TX-23 (Rio Grande Valley) and in 2001 the Pubs substituted a new TX-25, drawn to neutralize the growing Dem power in TX-23 and create an opportunity district elsewhere that they would also likely win based on partisan voter turnout. It seems not unlike your item 4.

In the opening of LULAC, J Kennedy laid out a number of points, one of which was "Another relevant consideration is whether the number of districts in which the minority group forms an effective majority is roughly proportional to its share of the population in the relevant area. Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U. S. 997 ." Note that the minority group must form an effective majority to be considered as performing. A 50% HCVAP district that is not performing would presumably not count towards the rough proportionality of VRA districts. Cooper allows that a crossover or coalition district can be performing even if the minority is not over 50% VAP.

However, it seems that LULAC would support what you drew in Dallas county, as the facts seem similar to LULAC and they found for the state in the Dallas area. The key is if there is a performing Hispanic VRA CD, don't mess with it, but if there is at best a crossover, coalition, or opportunity district where the Gingles test finds no majority those lines are fair game for political gerrymandering. Note that if the new apportionment dictates that rough proportionality is better served by increasing the number of performing Hispanic CDs, then the burden would be on the state to show why they didn't create one, if a plaintiff shows that it was possible. As in LULAC performing means electing a Dem supported by the majority of Hispanics in the district.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #364 on: April 05, 2021, 06:23:40 PM »

In TX the most relevant case is LULAC v Perry (2006). In that case Dems were gaining in the 1990's in TX-23 (Rio Grande Valley) and in 2001 the Pubs substituted a new TX-25, drawn to neutralize the growing Dem power in TX-23 and create an opportunity district elsewhere that they would also likely win based on partisan voter turnout. It seems not unlike your item 4.

In the opening of LULAC, J Kennedy laid out a number of points, one of which was "Another relevant consideration is whether the number of districts in which the minority group forms an effective majority is roughly proportional to its share of the population in the relevant area. Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U. S. 997 ." Note that the minority group must form an effective majority to be considered as performing. A 50% HCVAP district that is not performing would presumably not count towards the rough proportionality of VRA districts. Cooper allows that a crossover or coalition district can be performing even if the minority is not over 50% VAP.

However, it seems that LULAC would support what you drew in Dallas county, as the facts seem similar to LULAC and they found for the state in the Dallas area. The key is if there is a performing Hispanic VRA CD, don't mess with it, but if there is at best a crossover, coalition, or opportunity district where the Gingles test finds no majority those lines are fair game for political gerrymandering. Note that if the new apportionment dictates that rough proportionality is better served by increasing the number of performing Hispanic CDs, then the burden would be on the state to show why they didn't create one, if a plaintiff shows that it was possible. As in LULAC performing means electing a Dem supported by the majority of Hispanics in the district.

Shouldn't the compact area of minority CVAP predominance be identified before the districts are drawn?
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #365 on: April 05, 2021, 07:02:10 PM »

Does anyone think this map is a gerrymander?

Logged
Stuart98
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,783
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.35, S: -5.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #366 on: April 05, 2021, 07:10:56 PM »
« Edited: April 05, 2021, 07:18:39 PM by Stuart98 »

Does anyone think this map is a gerrymander?


Yes.

Why does the 31st contain Wise instead of more of Denton? Why does the 34th contain Rockwall instead of more of Dallas? Why is the purple district going outside of the immediate DFW metro when there's plenty more of Collin it could take? Why is the 37th snaking the way it is when you don't need to be nearly that snakey to be >60% hispanic by total population and plurality hispanic by CVAP (and I'm not sure that 37th is even plurality hispanic, for that matter).

This is not only a gerrymander, but an extremely transparent one at that.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #367 on: April 05, 2021, 07:19:20 PM »

All roads lead to the 38th, not the 37th, which is the Dem vacuum cleaner CD for the Pubs in this map.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #368 on: April 05, 2021, 07:22:33 PM »

In TX the most relevant case is LULAC v Perry (2006). In that case Dems were gaining in the 1990's in TX-23 (Rio Grande Valley) and in 2001 the Pubs substituted a new TX-25, drawn to neutralize the growing Dem power in TX-23 and create an opportunity district elsewhere that they would also likely win based on partisan voter turnout. It seems not unlike your item 4.

In the opening of LULAC, J Kennedy laid out a number of points, one of which was "Another relevant consideration is whether the number of districts in which the minority group forms an effective majority is roughly proportional to its share of the population in the relevant area. Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U. S. 997 ." Note that the minority group must form an effective majority to be considered as performing. A 50% HCVAP district that is not performing would presumably not count towards the rough proportionality of VRA districts. Cooper allows that a crossover or coalition district can be performing even if the minority is not over 50% VAP.

However, it seems that LULAC would support what you drew in Dallas county, as the facts seem similar to LULAC and they found for the state in the Dallas area. The key is if there is a performing Hispanic VRA CD, don't mess with it, but if there is at best a crossover, coalition, or opportunity district where the Gingles test finds no majority those lines are fair game for political gerrymandering. Note that if the new apportionment dictates that rough proportionality is better served by increasing the number of performing Hispanic CDs, then the burden would be on the state to show why they didn't create one, if a plaintiff shows that it was possible. As in LULAC performing means electing a Dem supported by the majority of Hispanics in the district.

Shouldn't the compact area of minority CVAP predominance be identified before the districts are drawn?


That can be helpful and even ideal, but then the mapmaker must be careful not to let the bias of knowing those areas predominate the plan. That could be construed as a racial gerrymander.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #369 on: April 06, 2021, 08:29:14 AM »
« Edited: April 06, 2021, 09:04:31 AM by Torie »

I am highly skeptical that the performing Hispanic CD that I drew is sufficiently compact to be either required or legal. The case that dealt with the legality/necessity of a CD combing two Hispanic nodes in Chicago (the infamous ear muffs district) is below, and I quote the language that I think distinguishes that case from what is going on in the metro-plex. If a performing Hispanic CD can be drawn in Dallas County, that carefully separates the blacks and Hispanics, that are very segregated from each other in most places, that would probably be deemed “compact.” A CD like I drew where there are two separate Hispanic nodes separated by 10-15 miles of white neighborhoods, in two different counties, is another matter. Moreover, with the existing CVAP data in the DRA data base, a performing Hispanic CD could probably be drawn based on the Hispanic nodes entirely within Dallas County if eligible Hispanics voted in the same percentages as other ethnic groups. The opportunity is there if they just get out and vote. But they don't. I suspect however in the 2020 election they did vote in considerably greater numbers than before, albeit with the Pubs getting in most places a higher percentage share.

If the Hispanic CVAP percentages materially increase in Dallas County, as may well be the case, this matter will become moot. If not, and there still is no way to draw a performing CD in Dallas County, the Pubs should file a lawsuit for declaratory relief as to whether or not the crazed barbell CD that I drew is legally mandated, or something akin to it. The court may refuse to rule, but it should. There is also an issue as to whether Hispanics in this area are even a sufficiently cohesive voting block to even trigger Gingles at this point. The best argument that it might still be is not so much that whites will not vote for a Hispanic, but that blacks do not in a Dem primary.

“The [Hastert ] court made the following findings of fact to support its conclusion that the Chicago/Cook County Hispanic community was “sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a single district majority.” First, the 1990 census reported the Hispanic population in Chicago at 545,852, a 29.33% increase over the 1980 total. Second, “[m]ost of the Chicago/Cook County Hispanic population is clustered in two dense enclaves, one on Chicago's near northwest side and one on the near southwest side.” Third, the two enclaves are less than one mile apart at their closest point. Fourth, this separation resulted from exogenous physical and institutional barriers—specifically, the east-west Eisenhower Expressway, the University of Illinois–Chicago Circle campus, and various major medical institutions—and thus did not indicate the existence of two distinct communities.”

https://content.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1997171948&originatingDoc=I6a9efbe52aa511e1a84ff3e97352c397&refType=RP&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)&firstPage=true


Oh, one other thing. When it was drawn to my attention, that using existing DRA numbers, a 50% plus HCVAP could be drawn in the metro-plex (barely), I drew it (trying to minimize its erosity in both nodes, and then otherwise in the most Pub friendly manner possible, i.e., drawing a  more erose "highway bridge," in order for my heterodox Dem vote sink of TX-37 to get at more of  uber Dem precincts south of  downtown Ft. Worth which just happen to be almost all black). I then just gerrymandered the rest of the CD's in the area ignoring racial data, and only when done, checked to see what the BCVAP percentage was for the black CD. It was 56%. In my earlier map, where the black CD was entirely contained in Dallas County, it was 51%. You first gerrymander, and then check the racial percentages, to ascertain whether you might have a VRA problem, and adjust accordingly. One should also, if it does not degrade too much the objectives of the gerrymander, try to respect otherwise neutral redistricting principles wherever possible. And the gerrymanderers should be able to testify as to all of that under oath in court.

It continues to be shocking to me just how racially segregated lower SES blacks and Hispanics continue to be from each other in most places in the US where they both reside in large numbers. They seem as their numbers dramatically increase in an area to seek out white working class neighborhoods.

We continue to live in interesting times. May they go away soon!

For purposes of reference, below is the link to perhaps the most hideous Pubmander I have ever managed to draw, that I discuss above.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/6aab77f0-a6a1-49c4-97ae-3ce0fb737322
Logged
beesley
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,140
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: 2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #370 on: April 06, 2021, 09:43:17 AM »
« Edited: April 06, 2021, 09:47:03 AM by beesley »



They is still in some quarters a misunderstanding of the VRA in some quarters that assumes that because one can draw an extremely gerrymandered 50% CVAP CD, that a performing minority CD must be drawn. I disagree. One prong to mandate that is such a CD must be reasonably compact, and that does not include wandering around chopping into disparate and dispersed city to pick up the needed minority voters. But I have said all I am going to say on that. Some seem to disagree, which is OK. We shall see.



Hi Torie - I know you promised not to say anymore, but could I ask you how what you said in the quote would relate to District 38 on this map? It sounds exactly like what you described. If you also had any comments on the VRA and my configuration in Bexar County I'd appreciate those.

https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::ce5db554-f503-450d-8419-cc3f7d66b22b
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #371 on: April 06, 2021, 09:56:26 AM »
« Edited: April 06, 2021, 10:38:36 AM by Torie »

They is still in some quarters a misunderstanding of the VRA in some quarters that assumes that because one can draw an extremely gerrymandered 50% CVAP CD, that a performing minority CD must be drawn. I disagree. One prong to mandate that is such a CD must be reasonably compact, and that does not include wandering around chopping into disparate and dispersed city to pick up the needed minority voters. But I have said all I am going to say on that. Some seem to disagree, which is OK. We shall see.



Hi Torie - I know you promised not to say anymore, but could I ask you how what you said in the quote would relate to District 38 on this map? It sounds exactly like what you described. If you also had any comments on the VRA and my configuration in Bexar County I'd appreciate those.

https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::ce5db554-f503-450d-8419-cc3f7d66b22b


You need to go to your map on the DRA, and assuming it is already "published," you need to hit  the "share map" button in the top column, and then hit the copy button and paste it here. The link will have the word "join" in it. That said, even assuming your TX-38 is majority HCVAP, and further assuming a majority of the Hispanics vote Dem there (not clear that would be the case, but maybe), there are too many Hispanic Pubs there, and their turnout is way too low, to make the CD deemed performing Hispanic, so the VRA is not in play at all. No matter how you draw the lines, the CD will vote Pub. But if I could access the map, I could answer your question more definitively, to the extent anything about the VRA is definitive these days, absent something really egregious.
Logged
beesley
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,140
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: 2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #372 on: April 06, 2021, 10:17:29 AM »

You need to go to your map on the DRA, and assuming it is already "published," you need to hit  the "share map" button in the top column, and then hit the copy button and paste it here. The link will have the word "join" in it. That said, even assuming your TX-38 is majority HCVAP, and further assuming a majority of the Hispanics vote Dem there (not clear that would be the case, but maybe), there are too many Hispanic Pubs there, and their turnout is way to low, to make the CD deemed performing Hispanic, so the VRA is not in play at all. No matter how you draw the lines, the CD will vote Pub. But if I could access the map, I could answer your question more definitively, to the extent anything about the VRA is definitive these days, absent something really egregious.

Understood - I've just been able to do as you asked, but it seems as if on the 2019 figures I've discovered they just uploaded the difference in population means that the district and the knock-on has become plurality white and is likely to stay that way. I will have a play around to see if it's possible rebalance the figures, but in the meantime your answer has already been of value so thank you very much for that. If I still have that same question I will respond to you again with a new link. Sorry for the difficulty.
Logged
I’m not Stu
ERM64man
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,747


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #373 on: April 07, 2021, 02:30:38 PM »

Does the TXGOP care about protecting Republican incumbents, or would they not hesitate to draw out incumbents in their own party?
Logged
Zaybay
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,076
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.25, S: -6.50

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #374 on: April 07, 2021, 02:47:13 PM »

Does the TXGOP care about protecting Republican incumbents, or would they not hesitate to draw out incumbents in their own party?

I'd say there aren't really any parties willing to draw out their own incumbents, unless said incumbent is just "the worst" or has given their blessing to do so (either to coincide with a retirement or to climb the political ladder). The TXGOP is no exception.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 42  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.079 seconds with 13 queries.