2020 Texas Redistricting thread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 21, 2021, 03:35:15 PM

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
  2020 Texas Redistricting thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17
Author Topic: 2020 Texas Redistricting thread  (Read 13449 times)
Zaybay
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,036
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.25, S: -6.50

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #375 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
ERM64man
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,728


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #376 on: April 07, 2021, 05:05:48 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.
I know the NCGOP drew a 10R-3D map in 2010 instead of an 11R-2D one because 11-2 would draw out incumbent Republicans. I thought states like Texas and Florida don't give a rat's patootie about incumbent protection and would draw out incumbent GOP politicians in a heartbeat.
Logged
Southern Delegate Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,422
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #377 on: April 07, 2021, 05:09:42 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.
I know the NCGOP drew a 10R-3D map in 2010 instead of an 11R-2D one because 11-2 would draw out incumbent Republicans. I thought states like Texas and Florida don't give a rat's patootie about incumbent protection and would draw out incumbent GOP politicians in a heartbeat.
There is many a case legislators have allies in the state legislature that will protect them in the unlikely scenario they are targeted by enough of their own party for them to be at risk of being screwed over.
Logged
Zaybay
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,036
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.25, S: -6.50

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #378 on: April 07, 2021, 05:11:51 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.
I know the NCGOP drew a 10R-3D map in 2010 instead of an 11R-2D one because 11-2 would draw out incumbent Republicans. I thought states like Texas and Florida don't give a rat's patootie about incumbent protection and would draw out incumbent GOP politicians in a heartbeat.

There is absolutely no evidence of this being a prevailing concept in either state party. And even if the leadership were to be totally on board with screwing over certain Republicans, as Punxsutawney Phil notes, members of congress have their own network of allies and acquaintances who'd keep them safe.
Logged
ERM64man
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,728


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #379 on: April 07, 2021, 05:13:12 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.
I know the NCGOP drew a 10R-3D map in 2010 instead of an 11R-2D one because 11-2 would draw out incumbent Republicans. I thought states like Texas and Florida don't give a rat's patootie about incumbent protection and would draw out incumbent GOP politicians in a heartbeat.

There is absolutely no evidence of this being a prevailing concept in either state party. And even if the leadership were to be totally on board with screwing over certain Republicans, as Punxsutawney Phil notes, members of congress have their own network of allies and acquaintances who'd keep them safe.
Cliff Stearns in Florida got drawn out and lost to a primary challenger.
Logged
Zaybay
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,036
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.25, S: -6.50

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #380 on: April 07, 2021, 05:26:55 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.
I know the NCGOP drew a 10R-3D map in 2010 instead of an 11R-2D one because 11-2 would draw out incumbent Republicans. I thought states like Texas and Florida don't give a rat's patootie about incumbent protection and would draw out incumbent GOP politicians in a heartbeat.

There is absolutely no evidence of this being a prevailing concept in either state party. And even if the leadership were to be totally on board with screwing over certain Republicans, as Punxsutawney Phil notes, members of congress have their own network of allies and acquaintances who'd keep them safe.
Cliff Stearns in Florida got drawn out and lost to a primary challenger.

From articles at the time, Stearns was completely happy and chill with ""getting drawn out"", even going so far as to vacate the seat that he actually resided in, giving the seat to Congressman Nugent, in favor of the new FL-03. Population growth in Florida during the decade made it difficult to keep his old district soluble, and Congressman Stearns took a bullet by giving the seat that he lived in to the newcomer instead of creating a potentially ugly impasse between the two (

Note how, in the story, Stearns is not getting screwed over by the party, but is instead taking a bullet for the team. This falls under the second reason I gave earlier, Stearns gave his blessing to the newcomer and decided to run in the seat next-door.



One last thing I didn't mention in the first post, the folks drawing the map aren't the state party leaders. It's not a top-down process to draw a redistricting map, but a bottom-up one. The members of the party all give their input, demands, wants, needs, etc, and the map is drawn from there. If the members agree, then there may be some broader goal to the map (such as the NC redistricting plan among Republican members), but otherwise the incumbents and their allies are the ones who draw the map.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,958


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #381 on: April 08, 2021, 09:34:09 AM »

One last thing I didn't mention in the first post, the folks drawing the map aren't the state party leaders. It's not a top-down process to draw a redistricting map, but a bottom-up one. The members of the party all give their input, demands, wants, needs, etc, and the map is drawn from there. If the members agree, then there may be some broader goal to the map (such as the NC redistricting plan among Republican members), but otherwise the incumbents and their allies are the ones who draw the map.

I can't speak to TX, but in many states the map is drawn from the top down. The state party and legislative leaders decide what their objectives are and the hire an expert to draw in a way to meet those goals. Rank and file members are shown the draft product and can provide input as to adjustments they wish, but they rarely get a say at the start of the process.
Logged
Zaybay
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,036
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.25, S: -6.50

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #382 on: April 08, 2021, 09:48:17 AM »

One last thing I didn't mention in the first post, the folks drawing the map aren't the state party leaders. It's not a top-down process to draw a redistricting map, but a bottom-up one. The members of the party all give their input, demands, wants, needs, etc, and the map is drawn from there. If the members agree, then there may be some broader goal to the map (such as the NC redistricting plan among Republican members), but otherwise the incumbents and their allies are the ones who draw the map.

I can't speak to TX, but in many states the map is drawn from the top down. The state party and legislative leaders decide what their objectives are and the hire an expert to draw in a way to meet those goals. Rank and file members are shown the draft product and can provide input as to adjustments they wish, but they rarely get a say at the start of the process.

That is kinda what I was getting at. The top leaders can decide broader goals for the map (as it is with the initial draft), but after that initial draft is shown to the members of the legislature, its the incumbents who make all the changes and improvements, to the point that the final product looks nothing like the initial and instead follows their wishes and demands. From what I know, which admittedly may not be too much, only NC's map was not substantially changed by the incumbents, due to the fact that there were not many R incumbents in NC to appease at the time. Texas and Florida do not fit this image.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,297
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #383 on: April 08, 2021, 12:23:20 PM »

One last thing I didn't mention in the first post, the folks drawing the map aren't the state party leaders. It's not a top-down process to draw a redistricting map, but a bottom-up one. The members of the party all give their input, demands, wants, needs, etc, and the map is drawn from there. If the members agree, then there may be some broader goal to the map (such as the NC redistricting plan among Republican members), but otherwise the incumbents and their allies are the ones who draw the map.

I can't speak to TX, but in many states the map is drawn from the top down. The state party and legislative leaders decide what their objectives are and the hire an expert to draw in a way to meet those goals. Rank and file members are shown the draft product and can provide input as to adjustments they wish, but they rarely get a say at the start of the process.
I recall in the 2000s cycle that the chair of the senate redistricting committee bemoaned the fact that the congressional Republicans had not provided input. The target then was more either to knock off Democratic incumbents in Republican-leaning seats or induce Democratic incumbents to switch parties (give a Democrat enough Republicans so they can comfortably be re-elected as a Republican). I don't know that there any Democrats that would work for now. It would be difficult to draw a Republican-leaning seat for Henry Cuellar.

The 2010s senate redistricting plan was a bipartisan redistricting plan, other than drawing Wendy Davis out of her district. It shows the (lack of) respect of her colleagues for her that the plan was passed on a bipartisan vote, and it was not challenged under the VRA by civil rights organizations.

The 2010s House plan was mainly an incumbent protection plan. Where Republicans were paired, there was either an agreement for one to retire or to draw a a fair primary race. Some of the more ugly districts were the results of these practices. Republicans were able to place new seats in the suburbs or shore up their vote share.

Because the Texas legislature is part-time, there may be less of a reason to hold on to a legislative seat. If you are trying to run a business, there may be less incentive to hold onto a $7600/year position.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,958


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #384 on: April 08, 2021, 12:49:26 PM »

One last thing I didn't mention in the first post, the folks drawing the map aren't the state party leaders. It's not a top-down process to draw a redistricting map, but a bottom-up one. The members of the party all give their input, demands, wants, needs, etc, and the map is drawn from there. If the members agree, then there may be some broader goal to the map (such as the NC redistricting plan among Republican members), but otherwise the incumbents and their allies are the ones who draw the map.

I can't speak to TX, but in many states the map is drawn from the top down. The state party and legislative leaders decide what their objectives are and the hire an expert to draw in a way to meet those goals. Rank and file members are shown the draft product and can provide input as to adjustments they wish, but they rarely get a say at the start of the process.

That is kinda what I was getting at. The top leaders can decide broader goals for the map (as it is with the initial draft), but after that initial draft is shown to the members of the legislature, its the incumbents who make all the changes and improvements, to the point that the final product looks nothing like the initial and instead follows their wishes and demands. From what I know, which admittedly may not be too much, only NC's map was not substantially changed by the incumbents, due to the fact that there were not many R incumbents in NC to appease at the time. Texas and Florida do not fit this image.

My experience is that the rank and file make requests, but they don't all get accepted by the leadership. Many requests are ignored if there are larger issues and they deem the member suitably secure.
Logged
Zaybay
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,036
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.25, S: -6.50

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #385 on: April 08, 2021, 01:00:34 PM »

One last thing I didn't mention in the first post, the folks drawing the map aren't the state party leaders. It's not a top-down process to draw a redistricting map, but a bottom-up one. The members of the party all give their input, demands, wants, needs, etc, and the map is drawn from there. If the members agree, then there may be some broader goal to the map (such as the NC redistricting plan among Republican members), but otherwise the incumbents and their allies are the ones who draw the map.

I can't speak to TX, but in many states the map is drawn from the top down. The state party and legislative leaders decide what their objectives are and the hire an expert to draw in a way to meet those goals. Rank and file members are shown the draft product and can provide input as to adjustments they wish, but they rarely get a say at the start of the process.

That is kinda what I was getting at. The top leaders can decide broader goals for the map (as it is with the initial draft), but after that initial draft is shown to the members of the legislature, its the incumbents who make all the changes and improvements, to the point that the final product looks nothing like the initial and instead follows their wishes and demands. From what I know, which admittedly may not be too much, only NC's map was not substantially changed by the incumbents, due to the fact that there were not many R incumbents in NC to appease at the time. Texas and Florida do not fit this image.

My experience is that the rank and file make requests, but they don't all get accepted by the leadership. Many requests are ignored if there are larger issues and they deem the member suitably secure.

Interesting, our experiences appear to differ on the subject. Perhaps, if I may posit a theory, it has to do with the power each party holds in a state. A party that holds a supermajority in each chamber will be less likely to care about individual member concerns than a party with a slight majority.
Logged
ERM64man
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,728


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #386 on: April 08, 2021, 02:18:54 PM »

Is the TXGOP really going to eliminate a Hispanic seat that already exists? That would be challenged.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,958


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #387 on: April 08, 2021, 05:56:21 PM »

One last thing I didn't mention in the first post, the folks drawing the map aren't the state party leaders. It's not a top-down process to draw a redistricting map, but a bottom-up one. The members of the party all give their input, demands, wants, needs, etc, and the map is drawn from there. If the members agree, then there may be some broader goal to the map (such as the NC redistricting plan among Republican members), but otherwise the incumbents and their allies are the ones who draw the map.

I can't speak to TX, but in many states the map is drawn from the top down. The state party and legislative leaders decide what their objectives are and the hire an expert to draw in a way to meet those goals. Rank and file members are shown the draft product and can provide input as to adjustments they wish, but they rarely get a say at the start of the process.

That is kinda what I was getting at. The top leaders can decide broader goals for the map (as it is with the initial draft), but after that initial draft is shown to the members of the legislature, its the incumbents who make all the changes and improvements, to the point that the final product looks nothing like the initial and instead follows their wishes and demands. From what I know, which admittedly may not be too much, only NC's map was not substantially changed by the incumbents, due to the fact that there were not many R incumbents in NC to appease at the time. Texas and Florida do not fit this image.

My experience is that the rank and file make requests, but they don't all get accepted by the leadership. Many requests are ignored if there are larger issues and they deem the member suitably secure.

Interesting, our experiences appear to differ on the subject. Perhaps, if I may posit a theory, it has to do with the power each party holds in a state. A party that holds a supermajority in each chamber will be less likely to care about individual member concerns than a party with a slight majority.

Do you have a particular state/cycle that reflects your experience?

In 2011 the IL Dems had only a modest majority in the House (64-54) and they still drove the process from the top down. Some Dems didn't get what they wanted, but no one failed to get reelected if they ran. Interestingly the Dem leaders showed some of the Pubs the draft and adjustments were made to accommodate them as long as it didn't interfere with the big picture. The legislative map also was amended a week after it was originally presented since that first version toyed with the Pub spokesperson (ie the ranking member) and it was corrected just before passage.
Logged
The workers of Bessemer have spoken
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #388 on: April 08, 2021, 05:58:43 PM »

One last thing I didn't mention in the first post, the folks drawing the map aren't the state party leaders. It's not a top-down process to draw a redistricting map, but a bottom-up one. The members of the party all give their input, demands, wants, needs, etc, and the map is drawn from there. If the members agree, then there may be some broader goal to the map (such as the NC redistricting plan among Republican members), but otherwise the incumbents and their allies are the ones who draw the map.

I can't speak to TX, but in many states the map is drawn from the top down. The state party and legislative leaders decide what their objectives are and the hire an expert to draw in a way to meet those goals. Rank and file members are shown the draft product and can provide input as to adjustments they wish, but they rarely get a say at the start of the process.

That is kinda what I was getting at. The top leaders can decide broader goals for the map (as it is with the initial draft), but after that initial draft is shown to the members of the legislature, its the incumbents who make all the changes and improvements, to the point that the final product looks nothing like the initial and instead follows their wishes and demands. From what I know, which admittedly may not be too much, only NC's map was not substantially changed by the incumbents, due to the fact that there were not many R incumbents in NC to appease at the time. Texas and Florida do not fit this image.

My experience is that the rank and file make requests, but they don't all get accepted by the leadership. Many requests are ignored if there are larger issues and they deem the member suitably secure.

Interesting, our experiences appear to differ on the subject. Perhaps, if I may posit a theory, it has to do with the power each party holds in a state. A party that holds a supermajority in each chamber will be less likely to care about individual member concerns than a party with a slight majority.

Do you have a particular state/cycle that reflects your experience?

In 2011 the IL Dems had only a modest majority in the House (64-54) and they still drove the process from the top down. Some Dems didn't get what they wanted, but no one failed to get reelected if they ran. Interestingly the Dem leaders showed some of the Pubs the draft and adjustments were made to accommodate them as long as it didn't interfere with the big picture. The legislative map also was amended a week after it was originally presented since that first version toyed with the Pub spokesperson (ie the ranking member) and it was corrected just before passage.

I assume the Mcclean crack was something that was given to Rs right? Do you know anything about why Bloomington was cracked?
Logged
Zaybay
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,036
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.25, S: -6.50

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #389 on: April 08, 2021, 07:07:47 PM »

One last thing I didn't mention in the first post, the folks drawing the map aren't the state party leaders. It's not a top-down process to draw a redistricting map, but a bottom-up one. The members of the party all give their input, demands, wants, needs, etc, and the map is drawn from there. If the members agree, then there may be some broader goal to the map (such as the NC redistricting plan among Republican members), but otherwise the incumbents and their allies are the ones who draw the map.

I can't speak to TX, but in many states the map is drawn from the top down. The state party and legislative leaders decide what their objectives are and the hire an expert to draw in a way to meet those goals. Rank and file members are shown the draft product and can provide input as to adjustments they wish, but they rarely get a say at the start of the process.

That is kinda what I was getting at. The top leaders can decide broader goals for the map (as it is with the initial draft), but after that initial draft is shown to the members of the legislature, its the incumbents who make all the changes and improvements, to the point that the final product looks nothing like the initial and instead follows their wishes and demands. From what I know, which admittedly may not be too much, only NC's map was not substantially changed by the incumbents, due to the fact that there were not many R incumbents in NC to appease at the time. Texas and Florida do not fit this image.

My experience is that the rank and file make requests, but they don't all get accepted by the leadership. Many requests are ignored if there are larger issues and they deem the member suitably secure.

Interesting, our experiences appear to differ on the subject. Perhaps, if I may posit a theory, it has to do with the power each party holds in a state. A party that holds a supermajority in each chamber will be less likely to care about individual member concerns than a party with a slight majority.

Do you have a particular state/cycle that reflects your experience?

In 2011 the IL Dems had only a modest majority in the House (64-54) and they still drove the process from the top down. Some Dems didn't get what they wanted, but no one failed to get reelected if they ran. Interestingly the Dem leaders showed some of the Pubs the draft and adjustments were made to accommodate them as long as it didn't interfere with the big picture. The legislative map also was amended a week after it was originally presented since that first version toyed with the Pub spokesperson (ie the ranking member) and it was corrected just before passage.

I was involved with the MA and RI redistricting, and in those cases I saw a similar outcome. While the leaders proposed a map, the actual process revolved around the party members all bickering and squabbling amongst each other in order to secure their own demands. When I talked to a Republican colleague of mine, they divulged that the process sounded very similar to how redistricting was done in Florida and Georgia, with North Carolina being one of the few times that there was little obstruction from the members.

It's possible that either of us are having colored experiences based on the states we worked on, but if we're both right, perhaps it has more to do with how machine-like the state party is, or how secure the party views itself.
Logged
The workers of Bessemer have spoken
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #390 on: April 08, 2021, 07:43:43 PM »

One last thing I didn't mention in the first post, the folks drawing the map aren't the state party leaders. It's not a top-down process to draw a redistricting map, but a bottom-up one. The members of the party all give their input, demands, wants, needs, etc, and the map is drawn from there. If the members agree, then there may be some broader goal to the map (such as the NC redistricting plan among Republican members), but otherwise the incumbents and their allies are the ones who draw the map.

I can't speak to TX, but in many states the map is drawn from the top down. The state party and legislative leaders decide what their objectives are and the hire an expert to draw in a way to meet those goals. Rank and file members are shown the draft product and can provide input as to adjustments they wish, but they rarely get a say at the start of the process.

That is kinda what I was getting at. The top leaders can decide broader goals for the map (as it is with the initial draft), but after that initial draft is shown to the members of the legislature, its the incumbents who make all the changes and improvements, to the point that the final product looks nothing like the initial and instead follows their wishes and demands. From what I know, which admittedly may not be too much, only NC's map was not substantially changed by the incumbents, due to the fact that there were not many R incumbents in NC to appease at the time. Texas and Florida do not fit this image.

My experience is that the rank and file make requests, but they don't all get accepted by the leadership. Many requests are ignored if there are larger issues and they deem the member suitably secure.

Interesting, our experiences appear to differ on the subject. Perhaps, if I may posit a theory, it has to do with the power each party holds in a state. A party that holds a supermajority in each chamber will be less likely to care about individual member concerns than a party with a slight majority.

Do you have a particular state/cycle that reflects your experience?

In 2011 the IL Dems had only a modest majority in the House (64-54) and they still drove the process from the top down. Some Dems didn't get what they wanted, but no one failed to get reelected if they ran. Interestingly the Dem leaders showed some of the Pubs the draft and adjustments were made to accommodate them as long as it didn't interfere with the big picture. The legislative map also was amended a week after it was originally presented since that first version toyed with the Pub spokesperson (ie the ranking member) and it was corrected just before passage.

I was involved with the MA and RI redistricting, and in those cases I saw a similar outcome. While the leaders proposed a map, the actual process revolved around the party members all bickering and squabbling amongst each other in order to secure their own demands. When I talked to a Republican colleague of mine, they divulged that the process sounded very similar to how redistricting was done in Florida and Georgia, with North Carolina being one of the few times that there was little obstruction from the members.

It's possible that either of us are having colored experiences based on the states we worked on, but if we're both right, perhaps it has more to do with how machine-like the state party is, or how secure the party views itself.

Well the NC GOP was out for full out revenge in 2010 . Not just a machine but just the harbored anger due to the coinciding of NC's strong D trend in 2008 meaning there wasn't that many party switches unlike other southern states so nothing to moderate the effect that people like Nathan Deal or Ralston had on the GA GOP.
Logged
Sol
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,130
Congo, The Democratic Republic of the


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #391 on: April 08, 2021, 10:03:06 PM »

One last thing I didn't mention in the first post, the folks drawing the map aren't the state party leaders. It's not a top-down process to draw a redistricting map, but a bottom-up one. The members of the party all give their input, demands, wants, needs, etc, and the map is drawn from there. If the members agree, then there may be some broader goal to the map (such as the NC redistricting plan among Republican members), but otherwise the incumbents and their allies are the ones who draw the map.

I can't speak to TX, but in many states the map is drawn from the top down. The state party and legislative leaders decide what their objectives are and the hire an expert to draw in a way to meet those goals. Rank and file members are shown the draft product and can provide input as to adjustments they wish, but they rarely get a say at the start of the process.

That is kinda what I was getting at. The top leaders can decide broader goals for the map (as it is with the initial draft), but after that initial draft is shown to the members of the legislature, its the incumbents who make all the changes and improvements, to the point that the final product looks nothing like the initial and instead follows their wishes and demands. From what I know, which admittedly may not be too much, only NC's map was not substantially changed by the incumbents, due to the fact that there were not many R incumbents in NC to appease at the time. Texas and Florida do not fit this image.

My experience is that the rank and file make requests, but they don't all get accepted by the leadership. Many requests are ignored if there are larger issues and they deem the member suitably secure.

Interesting, our experiences appear to differ on the subject. Perhaps, if I may posit a theory, it has to do with the power each party holds in a state. A party that holds a supermajority in each chamber will be less likely to care about individual member concerns than a party with a slight majority.

Do you have a particular state/cycle that reflects your experience?

In 2011 the IL Dems had only a modest majority in the House (64-54) and they still drove the process from the top down. Some Dems didn't get what they wanted, but no one failed to get reelected if they ran. Interestingly the Dem leaders showed some of the Pubs the draft and adjustments were made to accommodate them as long as it didn't interfere with the big picture. The legislative map also was amended a week after it was originally presented since that first version toyed with the Pub spokesperson (ie the ranking member) and it was corrected just before passage.

I was involved with the MA and RI redistricting, and in those cases I saw a similar outcome. While the leaders proposed a map, the actual process revolved around the party members all bickering and squabbling amongst each other in order to secure their own demands. When I talked to a Republican colleague of mine, they divulged that the process sounded very similar to how redistricting was done in Florida and Georgia, with North Carolina being one of the few times that there was little obstruction from the members.

It's possible that either of us are having colored experiences based on the states we worked on, but if we're both right, perhaps it has more to do with how machine-like the state party is, or how secure the party views itself.

Well the NC GOP was out for full out revenge in 2010 . Not just a machine but just the harbored anger due to the coinciding of NC's strong D trend in 2008 meaning there wasn't that many party switches unlike other southern states so nothing to moderate the effect that people like Nathan Deal or Ralston had on the GA GOP.

Having spent time around NCGOP legislators, that's absolutely the case--if you bring up fair redistricting to them, the argument they always say is essentially "the Democrats controlled the legislature for 100 years, why shouldn't we have our turn." Which aside from being rather gross is also inaccurate-- a fair NCGA map would probably favor Republicans most of the time, with the occasional Dem takeover opportunity (a lot would also depend on what fair redistricting would do to the whole county requirement, which is pretty strict to the point of sometimes creating weird gerrymandered shapes).
Logged
tack50
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,881
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #392 on: April 10, 2021, 06:37:23 AM »

Given DRA updates and what not, here is my attempt at a fair Texas map. I don't know if the number of VRA districts is fine or if I am lacking 1 of them but whatever.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/ffa4c193-70b4-4a50-b7a8-c8720cb15f88



DFW inset



Houston inset



Per DRA this should have 14 Dem districts, 7 competitive districts and 18 Republican districts, though I think DRA's characterizations of competitiveness might be a bit too generous. The competitive districts by VRA are:

District 2: Clinton+6 but R+2 in PVI; I imagine trends have made this likely D if not even Safe D?
District 22: Basically a Fort Bend district, this must be likely D if not even Safe D
District 6: A Trump+1, R+3 district in the southern suburbs of Fort Worth, this is probably lean D now?
District 3: A Trump+0 district in northeast Dallas suburbs, this is probably likely D now? (very similar to the current TX-32 but much more dem leaning?)
District 39: A district that voted Clinton+1 in the northern Austin suburbs, this must have trended very hard D?
District 37: An interesting Trump+3 district going from east Austin to the San Antonio suburbs along that corridor, I guess it flipped Dem this election?
District 26: A Trump+8 district in the north part of the DFW area I suppose this is similar to the current TX-24, so a tossup?


Also I suppose some Safe R districts in this map have trended hard D and are now competitive like the 24th (much of Collin County), the 12th (much of Denton County, though still likely R) or the 21st (Northern San Antonio suburbs)

Of course on the flip side the South Texas districts must have trended hard R in 2020
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 39,437
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #393 on: April 10, 2021, 11:58:17 AM »
« Edited: April 10, 2021, 12:48:39 PM by Torie »

Fair maps for Texas? You must be kidding!

The 2019 CVAP numbers now allow a performing Hispanic CD to be drawn without a road bridge going all the way to downtown Ft. Worth and beyond, so that CD loses the Ft. Worth side of its barbell. But given that a performing Hispanic CD may be required under the VRA since a 50% HCVAP trigger CD can be drawn, the real estate TX-38 must cover on the map to be performing causes chaos in the existing design of the Pubmander, requiring drastic and extreme measures to be taken. I have every confidence however that the TX Pubs are up to the task. Another option of course is to give the Dems one more seat to avoid this kind of mess. We shall see just how acquisitive they will turn out to be.




Logged
ERM64man
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,728


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #394 on: April 10, 2021, 03:06:02 PM »

Will TX-07 and TX-32 be conceded or baconmandered? Will Democrats get at least one new seat?
Logged
dpmapper
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 388
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #395 on: April 10, 2021, 03:32:30 PM »

Will TX-07 and TX-32 be conceded or baconmandered? Will Democrats get at least one new seat?

It's not either/or.  In Houston, for instance, you can pack the 3 safe D districts, make all other seats safe R, and get TX-07 to being Trump+5 or so even while keeping it in Harris County. 
Logged
ERM64man
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,728


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #396 on: April 10, 2021, 03:57:23 PM »

Will TX-07 and TX-32 be conceded or baconmandered? Will Democrats get at least one new seat?

It's not either/or.  In Houston, for instance, you can pack the 3 safe D districts, make all other seats safe R, and get TX-07 to being Trump+5 or so even while keeping it in Harris County. 
But isnít it very easy to draw another compact VRA district in Houston with over 50% CVAP of a specific group? Will the TXGOP concede at least one seat?
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 39,437
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #397 on: April 10, 2021, 05:43:04 PM »
« Edited: April 10, 2021, 05:48:03 PM by Torie »

Will TX-07 and TX-32 be conceded or baconmandered? Will Democrats get at least one new seat?

Will you have the numeral correct, it's one, but the integer is wrong, it's minus rather than plus. The map "gives" the Dems 12 seats, rather than their current 13, 3 each in the Metroplex, Houston, and the RGV, two in San Antonio (they are VRA protected so need to be there), and one Dem vote sink in Austin. The map is the reciprocal of what will happen in NYS, where the Pubs will be losing 4 seats, while gaining 4 in Texas. The parties of the two states should sign a non aggression pact, but since they will not, because of parochialism, it's war.

My TX-13 is particularly glorious. Don't you agree?


Logged
ERM64man
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,728


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #398 on: April 10, 2021, 05:53:38 PM »

Will TX-07 and TX-32 be conceded or baconmandered? Will Democrats get at least one new seat?

Will you have the numeral correct, it's one, but the integer is wrong, it's minus rather than plus. The map "gives" the Dems 12 seats, rather than their current 13, 3 each in the Metroplex, Houston, and the RGV, two in San Antonio (they are VRA protected so need to be there), and one Dem vote sink in Austin. The map is the reciprocal of what will happen in NYS, where the Pubs will be losing 4 seats, while gaining 4 in Texas. The parties of the two states should sign a non aggression pact, but since they will not, because of parochialism, it's war.

My TX-13 is particularly glorious. Don't you agree?



Is it easy to create at least one other compact district that is over 50% HCVAP? What would be the best legal gerrymander (not a VRA violation) for the GOP?
Logged
patzer
Newbie
*
Posts: 3
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #399 on: April 10, 2021, 06:05:59 PM »

I've seen speculation that they might try to make a RGV district that's just over 50% Hispanic (for VRA purposes) but still leans Republican (thanks to the rightward shift of the RGV post-2020). Wonder how easy that would be to achieve.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17  
« 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 0.067 seconds with 14 queries.