2020 Texas Redistricting thread

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I attempted a TX map on 2020 data and found it harder than expected, I was also basically forced to cede the two new seats to Democrats. Lastly, I ended up with a map where I am 100% certain that several seats will flip before 2030, though I think all of them should survive 2022, maybe TX-23 doesn't

Anyways:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/18b8f365-ba5f-4902-8dc4-cf84c83d7857

You obviously didn't try hard enough then. You can easily do 26-12.

I would say a 26-12 is difficult on 2020 numbers, at least one that isn't blatantly illegal and one that would survive at least most of the decade.

A 26-12 requires Austin to only have 1 sink while Houston gets 3, and it's really hard to pull off both since they both rely on rural areas between them to dilute suburbs outside the sinks.

I remember Torie made a relatively "clean"26-12 a while back but even then Houston has 2 marginal seats in the West that could easily fall.

Well I took a lot at RRH this afternoon to see what some of these 26-12 maps entail and they classify Trump+14 seats in the Metroplex as Safe R, so yeah they're dummymanders.

Trump+14 would hold for at least 3/5 elections, so I don't think it's that simple.

TX-7 was Romney+21.3 in 2012,  Clinton won it in 2016.   I don't think Trump+14 is as strong as you think in a fast growing state like Texas.

Trump+14 in 2020 numbers? Absolutely. Unless you think another 2012>2016 swing is in on the cards in 2024.
For various reasons I doubt such a swing can be repeated again in recent memory.

I was referring particularly to the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, where you saw smaller, but still sizable swings from 2016>2020, swings that absolutely could be replicated.

Hmm, that seems more fair. But even then, Trump+14 in 2020 doesn't really necessarily seem to be clear dummymander territory either. All it has to do is hold for 3 elections out of 5 and it's probably not a dummymander.
There's also the fact that it's probably going to be harder for Dems to gain as much here when they have the White House. Collin County went from 37% to 39% from 2008 to 2016, and in the next election, they rocketed upwards to 46%. The mobilization of Dem voters to get Trump out of office was a key part of this surge. It's a kind of surge that only really happens when you're the out-party. There was also a surge because people suddenly were aware Texas was competitive. This drove turnout from Democratic- and Republican-leaning voters alike.
I am skeptical that the Metroplex will turn more Dem at the same pace it did in 2020, given all of this. It will continue to move towards Dems, I think, but at a slower pace, one that makes tenable the proposition that a Trump+14 seat is not a dummymander.

[dpmapper]

It is also worth noting that the shifts at the congressional level are nowhere near as rapid; they'll probably continue to some extent but there is no reason to think they will accelerate when Trump is not on the ballot or in office. 

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It is also worth noting that the shifts at the congressional level are nowhere near as rapid; they'll probably continue to some extent but there is no reason to think they will accelerate when Trump is not on the ballot or in office. 

Good point.
In TX-03 (my current CD) Van Taylor won an open-seat race in 2018 by 10 points, in contrast to Cruz only winning it by 3 and Trump winning it by 1.
Trends on congressional level tend to lag statewide elections and especially federal ones.

[Torie]

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

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

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





And here is an ethnicity map that I quite like.

[viscountviktor]

No one's explained to me why a 90% Hispanic pack in Hidalgo/Cameron is suddenly allowed under the VRA? If it was, why haven't the Texas GOP done it before?

[viscountviktor]

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

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

[Torie]

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

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

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

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

[S019]

No one's explained to me why a 90% Hispanic pack in Hidalgo/Cameron is suddenly allowed under the VRA? If it was, why haven't the Texas GOP done it before?

Yeah this is something I don't get it either. I thought that the fajitas had to be drawn specifically because this isn't allowed. In any case, you can draw a Republican fajita (split Hidalgo between 2 districts rather than 3) without creating a Hispanic megapack on the US/Mexico border, and that'd be a much safer approach from the Republicans

[Nyvin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[viscountviktor]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[viscountviktor]

No one's explained to me why a 90% Hispanic pack in Hidalgo/Cameron is suddenly allowed under the VRA? If it was, why haven't the Texas GOP done it before?

Yeah this is something I don't get it either. I thought that the fajitas had to be drawn specifically because this isn't allowed. In any case, you can draw a Republican fajita (split Hidalgo between 2 districts rather than 3) without creating a Hispanic megapack on the US/Mexico border, and that'd be a much safer approach from the Republicans

Right, I assumed the fajitas are there to dilute the %Hispanic.

If this isn't the case why on earth are they drawn like that.

[Torie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Torie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Nyvin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the other part of Gingles  -

A minority group must demonstrate it is politically cohesive.

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

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

[Torie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the other part of Gingles  -

A minority group must demonstrate it is politically cohesive.

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

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

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

[Nyvin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the other part of Gingles  -

A minority group must demonstrate it is politically cohesive.

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

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

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

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

[Torie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the other part of Gingles  -

A minority group must demonstrate it is politically cohesive.

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

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

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

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

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

[_.]

I tried my hand at a fair congressional map of Texas using the 2020 census results.

Image Link

The Population Deviation is less than 0.01%.

100/100 on Dave's Proportionality Index
77/100 on the Compactness Index
51/100 on County Splitting
80/100 on the Minority Representation index
20/100 on Dave's competitiveness index

The map above shows results from the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election.

Check it out here and see county and municipality boundaries.


Partisan Breakdown by Election

2014 U.S. Senate Election in Texas: 30R to 8D

2014 Texas Gubernatorial Election: 28R to 10D

2016 U.S. Presidential Election in Texas: 20R to 18D

2018 Texas Attorney General Election: 21D to 17R

2018 U.S. Senate Election in Texas: 21D to 17R

2018 Texas Gubernatorial Election: 26R to 12D

2018 Texas Lieutenant Governor Election: 20R to 18D

2020 U.S. Senate Election in Texas: 21R to 17D

2020 U.S. Presidential Election in Texas: 19R to 19D


Texas's geography is crazy good for Democrats actually.

My map has nine majority-Hispanic districts (all five touching the Mexican border, the two in San Antonio, and two in the Houston metro area) in terms of their voting-age population. Then there are five more seats which are over 40% Hispanic (voting-age population).

It doesn't have a single majority-Black seat, but there are two opportunity seats (30% or more) in the Houston metro and there's a 40% Black seat in Dallas. Truth be told Texas doesn't have a lot of Black people.

There are also two seats that are over 20% Asian. One is centered around the Plano-Frisco conurbation in the Southern parts of Collin and Denton Counties, and the other is based in Fort Bend County.


Opinions?

[I’m not Stu]

What happens to Allred and Fletcher?

[Skill and Chance]

What happens to Allred and Fletcher?

Allred has to get a 60%+ Biden seat or 3+ other DFW area R incumbents will lose in the Republican midterm. 

Fletcher's seat is more interesting.  She only won by 3 in 2020 and the surrounding R seats will be much safer once they draw the inevitable 65%+ Biden seat in Austin.  She could plausibly be drawn out or they could draw into Ft. Bend for a non-VRA suburban Dem sink to protect Nehls and Crenshaw as much as possible  or they could try to turn it into a VRA-protected Hispanic seat including all of the areas where Biden underperformed Clinton the most and hope they flip it by the end of the decade (though this wouldn't be maximizing the R lean of TX-02/22 as much as the 2nd scenario) 

[I’m not Stu]

Will the TXGOP try to protect incumbents or draw an extremely ugly baconmander that draws out incumbent Republicans?

[S019]

https://twitter.com/evanasmith/status/1435367198952931328

Governor Abbott has announced a redistricting special session towards the end of the month.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

https://twitter.com/evanasmith/status/1435367198952931328

Governor Abbott has announced a redistricting special session towards the end of the month.

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

[S019]

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

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

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

[Torie]

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

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

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

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

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