2020 Texas Redistricting thread

[Zaybay]

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.

[Zaybay]

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.

[Zaybay]

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.

[Zaybay]

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.

[Zaybay]

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.

[Zaybay]

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.

[Zaybay]

Some of these Republican seats in the DFW area won’t last 5 years.

https://twitter.com/bruneelections/status/1443611465622163457?s=21

The Republicans are caught between a rock and a hard place. Play smart, give the Ds more seats, and you lose support from the Rs being screwed over. Play to the caucus, give into all their incumbent demands, and you get a weak map that doesn't really make that much sense partisan-wise.

The county rule for TX really exacerbates the problem.

(Note: Playing smart in redistricting is almost never chosen over parochial concerns of the incumbents. Its one thing for us detached folk to draw insane gerrymanders, its another for Tim to decide Madison's, who he just had lunch with last week, future political career.)