2020 Texas Redistricting thread

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

So I was trying out my "Damn the Courts!" idea and I was able to get the map down to an 11-27 map, wit one of them being a swing (R+1 in the RGV). It does score an 80 on Dave's for minority representation. I'd wager there'd be roughly a dozen minority representatives, three to six might actually be republicans.



View the map here:
https://davesredistricting.org/join/e07b1154-e468-405c-aeb1-f7b1fa175965

Personally I hate this map and no one show this to the TXGOP

That insane illegal Pubmander fantasy of yours seem to have netted the Pubs a grand total of one seat as opposed to something that might actually be legal and realistic. You know, like the map I drew after about 20 drafts. Congrats!

Thank you for taking the map I made for stress relief and mostly a joke and using it to make me feel bad and stressed when I was essentially already having a meltdown
Congrats!

[Torie]

I apologize. I do have character flaws, a lot of them. Be well. Meltdowns are not a good thing. This sh**t is mere noise.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I apologize. I do have character flaws, a lot of them. Be well. Meltdowns are not a good thing. This sh**t is mere noise.

Omg so glad I can finally relate to someone on this. I have meltdowns a lot too and they're no fun; I get you bro. Dw you're a really insightful person in redistricting and your presence on this forum is not only appreciated but kinda necessary lol.

[Greedo punched first]

Will the new map project as many incumbent Republicans as possible, or will it be even uglier and unnecessarily draw out incumbents?

[ProgressiveModerate]

Will the new map project as many incumbent Republicans as possible, or will it be even uglier and unnecessarily draw out incumbents?

My guess is that they try to as much as in reason but ultimately partisan gerrymandering goals will prevail and may cause double or even triple bunking, especially in places where the GOP will have to "pizza" like crazy.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Will the new map project as many incumbent Republicans as possible, or will it be even uglier and unnecessarily draw out incumbents?

My guess is that they try to as much as in reason but ultimately partisan gerrymandering goals will prevail and may cause double or even triple bunking, especially in places where the GOP will have to "pizza" like crazy.

Does this look like a good mock-up? My best effort for a moment at a realistic 2022 map

[Torie]

Will the new map project as many incumbent Republicans as possible, or will it be even uglier and unnecessarily draw out incumbents?

My guess is that they try to as much as in reason but ultimately partisan gerrymandering goals will prevail and may cause double or even triple bunking, especially in places where the GOP will have to "pizza" like crazy.

Does this look like a good mock-up? My best effort for a moment at a realistic 2022 map

Some of the Hispanic CD's are not really performing in the above map. There are a lot of swingish CD's. As to Pub incumbents, I don't know. I actually looked up where they lived and when you push the landmark button, it depicts their residence. I think I accommodated all of them quite well except as noted below. I also thought about making coherent CD's for each incumbent. An example would be placing  "upscale" degreed types in CD's with a bunch of high SES whites (e.g. TX-03). My biggest problem was the Pub incumbent in TX-27. He would be a terrible candidate in Travis County, but could run in TX-34*, which has about two thirds of the population of his current CD, albeit much more Hispanic overall of course. (TX-25 was another incumbent problem issue, but the 72 year old incumbent lives outside his CD by about 25 miles or so as it is. His new CD is considerably father away, and focused on the slice and dice of the Austin area.) I admit I have a phobia for ugly maps except where absolutely necessary to accomplish a goal that is legal.

Finally, there are not two Hispanic CD's nested in Bexar County raising VRA issues.

*

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Will the new map project as many incumbent Republicans as possible, or will it be even uglier and unnecessarily draw out incumbents?

My guess is that they try to as much as in reason but ultimately partisan gerrymandering goals will prevail and may cause double or even triple bunking, especially in places where the GOP will have to "pizza" like crazy.

Does this look like a good mock-up? My best effort for a moment at a realistic 2022 map

Some of the Hispanic CD's are not really performing in this map. There are a lot of swingish CD's. As to Pub incumbents, I don't know. I actually looked up where they lived and when you push the landmark button, it depicts their residence. I also thought about making coherent CD's for each incumbent, with "upscale" degreed types having CD's with a bunch of high SES whites (e.g. TX-03). My biggest problem was the Pub incumbent in TX-27. He would be a terrible candidate in Travis County, but could run in TX-34*, which has about two thirds of the population of his current CD, albeit much more Hispanic of course. (TX-25 was another incumbent problem issue, but the 72 year old incumbent lives outside his CD by about 25 miles or so as it is. His new CD is considerably father away, and focused on the slice and dice of the Austin area.) I admit I have a phobia for ugly maps except where absolutely necessary to accomplish a goal that is legal.

Finally, there are not two Hispanic CD's nested in Bexar County raising VRA issues.

*

I don't think I agree with the idea that some Latino seats here aren't performing, unless you think the current fajitas are also not performing.
Moreover, it's...kinda hard to argue that a CD that is at least in the high 70s in terms of overall population Latino % isn't under the overall control of the Latino demographic in the seat, no? (For comparison, that is at least around 10% more Latino than the current TX-23) Not that there is a hard threshold between performing and not, of course.
And it's not really important to have two Latino CDs wholely or mostly within Bexar imo. The current map has only one such CD after all. My map actually has almost one-and-a-half as TX-28 leaves Sequin County and goes farther into Bexar.
EDIT: I forgot to add, thanks for bringing to my attention the landmarks feature's functionalities! I don't care about residencies as much as territory though, and especially in these sorts of circumstances incumbents can just move.

[Torie]

Check out the stats of your Hispanic CD's in the Metroplex and Houston areas. You need 2 in Houston and I in the Metroplex per Gingles most probably. Is the voting racially polarized, and if it is, for a Gingles protected Hispanic CD, are a majority of the voters in a Dem primary Hispanic? That is the critical question. It appears to be the case in Dem primaries, that voting is very racially polarized between blacks and Hispanics in Texas.

And check out LULAC v Perry about unnecessarily erose CD's claimed to be adequate CD's for purposes of satisfying the VRA. It is even worse if the erose lines are intended to facilitate a Pub snatch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_United_Latin_American_Citizens_v._Perry

Personally, I always try to minimize the erosity of Gingles triggered and protected CD's, and do it only to the extent necessary to make them performing, or defensible as a reasonable community of interest. Sometimes however to make a Gingles protected CD performing for Hispanics, that means making a black CD erose, since blacks carry so much punch in Dem primaries.

You may disagree and that is fine, but hopefully I have explained my point of view adequately to you. As a poster here who knows this stuff better than anyone else here explained to me, the loadstar is to not gerrymander Gingles protected CD's except to the extent necessary to make them performing, and never to facilitate a Pub snatch. My TX map was driven by this point of view of what the VRA currently requires.

Addendum: Your TX-15 fits the bill well it appears as an erose Pub snatch, and you erased an Hispanic CD by drawing a CD that combines Laredo and Bexar County. I have two performing Hispanic CD's in Bexar, one Laredo based and one sitting down on the RGV down river from Laredo. All are compact. My TX-34 is a Pub snatch, but it I don't think it is gerrymandered. Another trick I did was to make TX-11 a 50%+ HCVAP CD, which while Pub I think will appeal to the court even if perhaps it is not compact enough to trigger Gingles, assuming Gingles applies there at all where where such a high percentage of Hispanics are Pub in the oil patch.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Check out the stats of your Hispanic CD's in the Metroplex and Houston areas. You need 2 in Houston and I in the Metroplex per Gingles most probably. Is the voting racially polarized, and if it is, for a Gingles protected Hispanic CD, are a majority of the voters in a Dem primary Hispanic? That is the critical question. It appears to be the case in Dem primaries, that voting is very racially polarized between blacks and Hispanics in Texas.

And check out LULAC v Perry about unnecessarily erose CD's claimed to be adequate CD's for purposes of satisfying the VRA. It is even worse if the erose lines are intended to facilitate a Pub snatch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_United_Latin_American_Citizens_v._Perry

Personally, I always try to minimize the erosity of Gingles triggered and protected CD's, and do it only to the extent necessary to make them performing, or defensible as a reasonable community of interest. Sometimes however to make a Gingles protected CD performing for Hispanics, that means making a black CD erose, since blacks carry so much punch in Dem primaries.

You may disagree and that is fine, but hopefully I have explained my point of view adequately to you. As a poster here who knows this stuff better than anyone else here explained to me, the loadstar is to not gerrymander Gingles protected CD's except to the extent necessary to make them performing, and never to facilitate a Pub snatch. My TX map was driven by this point of view of what the VRA currently requires.

Addendum: Your TX-15 fits the bill well it appears as an erose Pub snatch, and you erased an Hispanic CD by drawing a CD that combines Laredo and Bexar County. I have two performing Hispanic CD's in Bexar, one Laredo based and one sitting down on the RGV down river from Laredo. All are compact. My TX-34 is a Pub snatch, but it I don't think it is gerrymandered. Another trick I did was to make TX-11 a 50%+ HCVAP CD, which while Pub I think will appeal to the court even if perhaps it is not compact enough to trigger Gingles, assuming Gingles applies there at all where where such a high percentage of Hispanics are Pub in the oil patch.

I've redone 15, 27, and 34. Thoughts on the latest version?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Also, Torie, you might be delighted to learn this: Hays and Travis together can hold 2 districts by themselves.

[Torie]

Check out the stats of your Hispanic CD's in the Metroplex and Houston areas. You need 2 in Houston and I in the Metroplex per Gingles most probably. Is the voting racially polarized, and if it is, for a Gingles protected Hispanic CD, are a majority of the voters in a Dem primary Hispanic? That is the critical question. It appears to be the case in Dem primaries, that voting is very racially polarized between blacks and Hispanics in Texas.

And check out LULAC v Perry about unnecessarily erose CD's claimed to be adequate CD's for purposes of satisfying the VRA. It is even worse if the erose lines are intended to facilitate a Pub snatch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_United_Latin_American_Citizens_v._Perry

Personally, I always try to minimize the erosity of Gingles triggered and protected CD's, and do it only to the extent necessary to make them performing, or defensible as a reasonable community of interest. Sometimes however to make a Gingles protected CD performing for Hispanics, that means making a black CD erose, since blacks carry so much punch in Dem primaries.

You may disagree and that is fine, but hopefully I have explained my point of view adequately to you. As a poster here who knows this stuff better than anyone else here explained to me, the loadstar is to not gerrymander Gingles protected CD's except to the extent necessary to make them performing, and never to facilitate a Pub snatch. My TX map was driven by this point of view of what the VRA currently requires.

Addendum: Your TX-15 fits the bill well it appears as an erose Pub snatch, and you erased an Hispanic CD by drawing a CD that combines Laredo and Bexar County. I have two performing Hispanic CD's in Bexar, one Laredo based and one sitting down on the RGV down river from Laredo. All are compact. My TX-34 is a Pub snatch, but it I don't think it is gerrymandered. Another trick I did was to make TX-11 a 50%+ HCVAP CD, which while Pub I think will appeal to the court even if perhaps it is not compact enough to trigger Gingles, assuming Gingles applies there at all where where such a high percentage of Hispanics are Pub in the oil patch.

I've redone 15, 27, and 34. Thoughts on the latest version?

Per a very quick look, the RGV-Bexar issues we discussed are mitigated but not eliminated. You still have a CD going from Laredo to San Antonio, that is marginal, when you could have two CD's, both not marginal, one in SA and one in Laredo. I appreciate you pick up a performing Dem Hispanic on the Gulf, but helping out Dem Hispanics in one area does not legalize screwing them elsewhere. That is clear from the Perry case, among other issues. I guess the bottom line is that you need 3 safe performing CD's in the region, that are available as compact and without gerrymandering at all, and as soon as you move away from that per gerrymandering, you pari passu assume VRA risk in my opinion.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Check out the stats of your Hispanic CD's in the Metroplex and Houston areas. You need 2 in Houston and I in the Metroplex per Gingles most probably. Is the voting racially polarized, and if it is, for a Gingles protected Hispanic CD, are a majority of the voters in a Dem primary Hispanic? That is the critical question. It appears to be the case in Dem primaries, that voting is very racially polarized between blacks and Hispanics in Texas.

And check out LULAC v Perry about unnecessarily erose CD's claimed to be adequate CD's for purposes of satisfying the VRA. It is even worse if the erose lines are intended to facilitate a Pub snatch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_United_Latin_American_Citizens_v._Perry

Personally, I always try to minimize the erosity of Gingles triggered and protected CD's, and do it only to the extent necessary to make them performing, or defensible as a reasonable community of interest. Sometimes however to make a Gingles protected CD performing for Hispanics, that means making a black CD erose, since blacks carry so much punch in Dem primaries.

You may disagree and that is fine, but hopefully I have explained my point of view adequately to you. As a poster here who knows this stuff better than anyone else here explained to me, the loadstar is to not gerrymander Gingles protected CD's except to the extent necessary to make them performing, and never to facilitate a Pub snatch. My TX map was driven by this point of view of what the VRA currently requires.

Addendum: Your TX-15 fits the bill well it appears as an erose Pub snatch, and you erased an Hispanic CD by drawing a CD that combines Laredo and Bexar County. I have two performing Hispanic CD's in Bexar, one Laredo based and one sitting down on the RGV down river from Laredo. All are compact. My TX-34 is a Pub snatch, but it I don't think it is gerrymandered. Another trick I did was to make TX-11 a 50%+ HCVAP CD, which while Pub I think will appeal to the court even if perhaps it is not compact enough to trigger Gingles, assuming Gingles applies there at all where where such a high percentage of Hispanics are Pub in the oil patch.

I've redone 15, 27, and 34. Thoughts on the latest version?

Per a very quick look, the RGV-Bexar issues we discussed are mitigated but not eliminated. You still have a CD going from Laredo to San Antonio, that is marginal, when you could have two CD's, both not marginal, one in SA and one in Laredo. I appreciate you pick up a performing Dem Hispanic on the Gulf, but helping out Dem Hispanics in one area does not legalize screwing them elsewhere. That is clear from the Perry case, among other issues. I guess the bottom line is that you need 3 safe performing CD's in the region, that are available as compact and without gerrymandering at all, and as soon as you move away from that per gerrymandering, you pari passu assume VRA risk in my opinion.

The crux of the matter might be me axing TX-35 (the current Latino seat running from Bexar to Travis). The "replacement" for that is the new TX-10, drawn to be as Latino as possible but also still controlled by white liberals in practice. But TX-10 also uses up a lot of Latino precincts probably vital for inclusion in a San Antonio-area CD if we want to add another performing Latino seat there.
Can the TX GOP argue that TX-35 being eliminated can be justified by Gingles?

[Torie]

Check out the stats of your Hispanic CD's in the Metroplex and Houston areas. You need 2 in Houston and I in the Metroplex per Gingles most probably. Is the voting racially polarized, and if it is, for a Gingles protected Hispanic CD, are a majority of the voters in a Dem primary Hispanic? That is the critical question. It appears to be the case in Dem primaries, that voting is very racially polarized between blacks and Hispanics in Texas.

And check out LULAC v Perry about unnecessarily erose CD's claimed to be adequate CD's for purposes of satisfying the VRA. It is even worse if the erose lines are intended to facilitate a Pub snatch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_United_Latin_American_Citizens_v._Perry

Personally, I always try to minimize the erosity of Gingles triggered and protected CD's, and do it only to the extent necessary to make them performing, or defensible as a reasonable community of interest. Sometimes however to make a Gingles protected CD performing for Hispanics, that means making a black CD erose, since blacks carry so much punch in Dem primaries.

You may disagree and that is fine, but hopefully I have explained my point of view adequately to you. As a poster here who knows this stuff better than anyone else here explained to me, the loadstar is to not gerrymander Gingles protected CD's except to the extent necessary to make them performing, and never to facilitate a Pub snatch. My TX map was driven by this point of view of what the VRA currently requires.

Addendum: Your TX-15 fits the bill well it appears as an erose Pub snatch, and you erased an Hispanic CD by drawing a CD that combines Laredo and Bexar County. I have two performing Hispanic CD's in Bexar, one Laredo based and one sitting down on the RGV down river from Laredo. All are compact. My TX-34 is a Pub snatch, but it I don't think it is gerrymandered. Another trick I did was to make TX-11 a 50%+ HCVAP CD, which while Pub I think will appeal to the court even if perhaps it is not compact enough to trigger Gingles, assuming Gingles applies there at all where where such a high percentage of Hispanics are Pub in the oil patch.

I've redone 15, 27, and 34. Thoughts on the latest version?

Per a very quick look, the RGV-Bexar issues we discussed are mitigated but not eliminated. You still have a CD going from Laredo to San Antonio, that is marginal, when you could have two CD's, both not marginal, one in SA and one in Laredo. I appreciate you pick up a performing Dem Hispanic on the Gulf, but helping out Dem Hispanics in one area does not legalize screwing them elsewhere. That is clear from the Perry case, among other issues. I guess the bottom line is that you need 3 safe performing CD's in the region, that are available as compact and without gerrymandering at all, and as soon as you move away from that per gerrymandering, you pari passu assume VRA risk in my opinion.

The crux of the matter might be me axing TX-35 (the current Latino seat running from Bexar to Travis). The "replacement" for that is the new TX-10, drawn to be as Latino as possible but also still controlled by white liberals in practice. But TX-10 also uses up a lot of Latino precincts probably vital for inclusion in a San Antonio-area CD if we want to add another performing Latino seat there.
Can the TX GOP argue that TX-35 being eliminated can be justified by Gingles?

The short answer is that while TX-35 was legal in 2010 to create another performing Hispanic CD, per the 2020 census numbers, it is almost certainly illegal now. Why? Because unlike in 2010, you can nest the old TX-35 in Bexar County without losing another Hispanic CD. And that is the fix, not drawing Fajita strips in this cycle that appear designed to cost the Hispanics a performing CD, per a Pub snatch, or very close to it. You have gerrymandered to put at risk a performing Hispanic CD, when it is not only possible, but obvious, that you can draw compact, safe performing Hispanic CD's without any gerrymandering at all. I would take that case on a contingency for the Dems. They would have a very meritorious case in my opinion.

Why F with the VRA if you don't have to, and get next to nothing from it from a partisan perspective for the Pubs? It makes no sense to me. Not that the TX Pubs won't go there of course. TX Pubs are capable of anything. They kind of terrify sometimes actually, macho reckless types that the center of gravity of the Pub TX party seems to be these days. The ethos of George Herbert Walker Bush down in TX just seems like a century ago to me. Ditto in some other states as well, but I digress. Both parties pretty much suck to me these days. But then you already knew that I think.

[Torie]

Also, Torie, you might be delighted to learn this: Hays and Travis together can hold 2 districts by themselves.

That's nice. But TX is not Florida or New York. The TX Pubs subject to Federal law, can do whatever the F they want, and subject to Federal law, I of course did, to the extent necessary to max the Pub's position, including district coherency, staying power, and the care and feeding of Pub incumbents, no matter how detestable many of them are.
Somebody had to do it!  

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Check out the stats of your Hispanic CD's in the Metroplex and Houston areas. You need 2 in Houston and I in the Metroplex per Gingles most probably. Is the voting racially polarized, and if it is, for a Gingles protected Hispanic CD, are a majority of the voters in a Dem primary Hispanic? That is the critical question. It appears to be the case in Dem primaries, that voting is very racially polarized between blacks and Hispanics in Texas.

And check out LULAC v Perry about unnecessarily erose CD's claimed to be adequate CD's for purposes of satisfying the VRA. It is even worse if the erose lines are intended to facilitate a Pub snatch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_United_Latin_American_Citizens_v._Perry

Personally, I always try to minimize the erosity of Gingles triggered and protected CD's, and do it only to the extent necessary to make them performing, or defensible as a reasonable community of interest. Sometimes however to make a Gingles protected CD performing for Hispanics, that means making a black CD erose, since blacks carry so much punch in Dem primaries.

You may disagree and that is fine, but hopefully I have explained my point of view adequately to you. As a poster here who knows this stuff better than anyone else here explained to me, the loadstar is to not gerrymander Gingles protected CD's except to the extent necessary to make them performing, and never to facilitate a Pub snatch. My TX map was driven by this point of view of what the VRA currently requires.

Addendum: Your TX-15 fits the bill well it appears as an erose Pub snatch, and you erased an Hispanic CD by drawing a CD that combines Laredo and Bexar County. I have two performing Hispanic CD's in Bexar, one Laredo based and one sitting down on the RGV down river from Laredo. All are compact. My TX-34 is a Pub snatch, but it I don't think it is gerrymandered. Another trick I did was to make TX-11 a 50%+ HCVAP CD, which while Pub I think will appeal to the court even if perhaps it is not compact enough to trigger Gingles, assuming Gingles applies there at all where where such a high percentage of Hispanics are Pub in the oil patch.

I've redone 15, 27, and 34. Thoughts on the latest version?

Per a very quick look, the RGV-Bexar issues we discussed are mitigated but not eliminated. You still have a CD going from Laredo to San Antonio, that is marginal, when you could have two CD's, both not marginal, one in SA and one in Laredo. I appreciate you pick up a performing Dem Hispanic on the Gulf, but helping out Dem Hispanics in one area does not legalize screwing them elsewhere. That is clear from the Perry case, among other issues. I guess the bottom line is that you need 3 safe performing CD's in the region, that are available as compact and without gerrymandering at all, and as soon as you move away from that per gerrymandering, you pari passu assume VRA risk in my opinion.

The crux of the matter might be me axing TX-35 (the current Latino seat running from Bexar to Travis). The "replacement" for that is the new TX-10, drawn to be as Latino as possible but also still controlled by white liberals in practice. But TX-10 also uses up a lot of Latino precincts probably vital for inclusion in a San Antonio-area CD if we want to add another performing Latino seat there.
Can the TX GOP argue that TX-35 being eliminated can be justified by Gingles?

The short answer is that while TX-35 was legal in 2010 to create another performing Hispanic CD, per the 2020 census numbers, it is almost certainly illegal now. Why? Because unlike in 2010, you can nest the old TX-35 in Bexar County without losing another Hispanic CD. And that is the fix, not drawing Fajita strips in this cycle that appear designed to cost the Hispanics a performing CD, per a Pub snatch, or very close to it. You have gerrymandered to put at risk a performing Hispanic CD, when it is not only possible, but obvious, that you can draw compact, safe performing Hispanic CD's without any gerrymandering at all. I would take that case on a contingency for the Dems. They would have a very meritorious case in my opinion.

Why F with the VRA if you don't have to, and get next to nothing from it from a partisan perspective for the Pubs? It makes no sense to me. Not that the TX Pubs won't go there of course. TX Pubs are capable of anything. They kind of terrify sometimes actually, macho reckless types that the center of gravity of the Pub TX party seems to be these days. The ethos of George Herbert Walker Bush down in TX just seems like a century ago to me. Ditto in some other states as well, but I digress. Both parties pretty much suck to me these days. But then you already knew that I think.

I have comprehensively redrawn the lines in Bexar. How good are they now?

[Torie]

Much better! I still don't like what you did with TX-15 in particular, and will play with your map to assess the VRA risk, at a later date. Also the Pubs are going to take care of Cuellar in TX-28. They have made that very clear.


You still have two erose CD's, in TX-34 and TX-15, with TX-34 dead even, and that most hideous TX-15 lean Pub, rather than a non gerrymandered map, with one safe Pub CD, and one safe Dem CD. So per the gerrymander, there is still a lot of Pub snatch potential. TX-28 is a bit marginal too, but I consider that one less gerrymandered. But it still crosses empty space in two directions, rather than just one, which is a bit problematical.

Addendum:

OK, I modified your map Tim.

I did the below with your map, which kind of impeaches that fajita strip TX-15 of yours. This revision of your map should be OK from a VRA standpoint (and in the bargain, I also  Pubbed up your TX-23 in Bexar using the method (excuse) of uniting better the city of San Antonio as well as it look easier on the eye), but why would the Pubs want to do this? It gives up a seat. TX-34 is now Dem rather than Pub.

And thus, the subtlety of it all. TX-23 needs to go into Bexar deeper, to push TX-34 father north, and become Pub. Which means that TX-23 should not go to El Paso, which it need not, over all of that emptiness. So why not have TX-11 take that western prong out of TX-23, and  dress it up even more, by making TX-11 50%+ HCVAP, so that you have another Hispanic CD, and thus if actually deemed required by Gingles if deemed "compact" (maybe, maybe not), and further assuming that Gingles would apply there at all, given the Hispanics are so evenly divided there politically. But it kind of comports with some of the spirit of Gingles, so even if not required, it should earn SCOTUS bonus points in a case where there are competing considerations, with the Dems having some talking points that cannot easily be dismissed as merely frivolous.

The bottom line is that the Pubs can snatch another seat with almost no VRA risk, using my map design. And I read something that said the Pubs plan to create that TX-11 Hispanic CD that will still be safely Pub, and the Dem incumbent in TX-34 is not running for re-election. It seems that the Torie plan might actually be afoot. We shall see.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/878af8ee-6b20-41d5-8578-4335796b81cd

[Greedo punched first]

Will the TXGOP try to protect their incumbents; or is incumbent protection not a thing in Texas, where will they draw an extremely ugly map that unnecessarily draws out GOP incumbents?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/20ce1db5-fe7b-4e2e-87b6-0073e18e7845
Race-blind map.
Integrity of cities and, even more so, counties, and compactness was emphasized. There are eight whole county CDs. Exactly half of the districts voted for Joe Biden.
In Bexar especially, ring roads were used as district boundaries.

[Brittain33]

Will the TXGOP try to protect their incumbents; or is incumbent protection not a thing in Texas, where will they draw an extremely ugly map that unnecessarily draws out GOP incumbents?

I don’t think anyone here has insight into what Texas will do, but it would be unusual for them not to try to protect all of their incumbents. This is literally the first redistricting cycle where Texas R growth has stalled relative to the state as a whole so it’s a new problem for them.

[Greedo punched first]

Will the TXGOP try to protect their incumbents; or is incumbent protection not a thing in Texas, where will they draw an extremely ugly map that unnecessarily draws out GOP incumbents?

I don’t think anyone here has insight into what Texas will do, but it would be unusual for them not to try to protect all of their incumbents. This is literally the first redistricting cycle where Texas R growth has stalled relative to the state as a whole so it’s a new problem for them.

You don’t think they would do anything like double bunking Crenshaw into a Democratic district with Fletcher to make TX-02 more rural? I can imagine Crenshaw not being happy if that is done.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Will the new map project as many incumbent Republicans as possible, or will it be even uglier and unnecessarily draw out incumbents?

My guess is that they try to as much as in reason but ultimately partisan gerrymandering goals will prevail and may cause double or even triple bunking, especially in places where the GOP will have to "pizza" like crazy.

Does this look like a good mock-up? My best effort for a moment at a realistic 2022 map

I'm suprised how clean you were able to make it. I'm still hesistant to believe the GOP will make 3 fajitas that start out as Dem leading, especially if it does turn out 2020 was a bit of an exception. To be fair, it's hard to even draw 1 R leaning hispanic VRA seat in RGV without getting frisky. The Metroplex config is interesting but works quite well, and North Dallas doesn't look that brutal. That 26 and 22 are obv not safe and I think the GOP will probably find a way to shroe them up a bit but this looks pretty realistic overall.

[S019]

Will the new map project as many incumbent Republicans as possible, or will it be even uglier and unnecessarily draw out incumbents?

My guess is that they try to as much as in reason but ultimately partisan gerrymandering goals will prevail and may cause double or even triple bunking, especially in places where the GOP will have to "pizza" like crazy.

Does this look like a good mock-up? My best effort for a moment at a realistic 2022 map

I honestly get serious dummymander vibes from this map, there are multiple Trump+14 2020 seats in the Dallas area and a Trump+6 one in the Houston area, also McCaul and Roy seem to have been drawn into safe Democratic seats. Instead, I think having a single Austin pack as a new seat is the smarter play, and also preserving the current I-35 seat.

[Brittain33]

Will the TXGOP try to protect their incumbents; or is incumbent protection not a thing in Texas, where will they draw an extremely ugly map that unnecessarily draws out GOP incumbents?

I don’t think anyone here has insight into what Texas will do, but it would be unusual for them not to try to protect all of their incumbents. This is literally the first redistricting cycle where Texas R growth has stalled relative to the state as a whole so it’s a new problem for them.

You don’t think they would do anything like double bunking Crenshaw into a Democratic district with Fletcher to make TX-02 more rural? I can imagine Crenshaw not being happy if that is done.

Crenshaw has $4m in his account so he will be fine with whatever happens. But I do expect they would try to keep a TX-2 that includes much of his turf but is more Republican for him to run in.

[Roll Roons]

Will the TXGOP try to protect their incumbents; or is incumbent protection not a thing in Texas, where will they draw an extremely ugly map that unnecessarily draws out GOP incumbents?

I don’t think anyone here has insight into what Texas will do, but it would be unusual for them not to try to protect all of their incumbents. This is literally the first redistricting cycle where Texas R growth has stalled relative to the state as a whole so it’s a new problem for them.

You don’t think they would do anything like double bunking Crenshaw into a Democratic district with Fletcher to make TX-02 more rural? I can imagine Crenshaw not being happy if that is done.

Crenshaw has $4m in his account so he will be fine with whatever happens. But I do expect they would try to keep a TX-2 that includes much of his turf but is more Republican for him to run in.

My guess is he takes a bit of Montgomery County. He also ran ahead of Trump by 12 points, so he has somewhat of a cushion.