Texas Fajita Strips

[Idaho Conservative]

These are the biggest pain in the ass for Texas redistricting, and completely unnecessary.  The same number of Hispanic districts can be drawn without them.  Clearly they violate the gingles test
(a compact McAllen seat is a great example of what a VRA seat is supposed to be).  My question is, what options does Texas have?  Could they draw them out while keeping the same number of Hispanic districts?  Or what alternative options exist which don't waste so many GOP rural votes?  

Here are some options, drawn with 39 district maps, 2018 pop numbers:
Which of these are legal?  For reference, currently the fajitas range from 77% to 84% hispanic.  


Option 1, no fajitas.  Districts are all safe D.  78%, 92%, and 90% Hispanic.  This is drawn with the spirit of the VRA in mind.






Option 2, Corpus Christi fajitas.  All safe D.  87%, 86%, and 85% Hispanic






Option 3, Austin fajitas.  I am aware a visually similar district was struck down before due to not actually having a majority Hispanic electorate, but all 3 of these do.  All safe D.  Districts are 84%, 85%, and 84% Hispanic.






Option 4, San Antonio fajitas.  All safe D.  Districts are 85%, 86%, and 81% hispanic.

[Gass3268]

If they violate the gingles test why has a conservative Supreme Court required them for decades?

[S019]

Compact districts would be packing that's why. You'd end up with 90% Hispanic districts, which is clearly packing. The Hispanic votes need to be spread out, so that they can have adequate representation and the fajita strips are the only way to spread them out.

[Idaho Conservative]

If they violate the gingles test why has a conservative Supreme Court required them for decades?

The Supreme Court is not conservative.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Looking at this question from the other direction, is there in fact an argument that there needs to be an extra fajita district, because there are enough Hispanic voters in the RGV to control 4 districts?

[Idaho Conservative]

Looking at this question from the other direction, is there in fact an argument that there needs to be an extra fajita district, because there are enough Hispanic voters in the RGV to control 4 districts?

To do that you'd create more marginal districts like the one that flipped in 2010.  Making TX-23 a performing district is the way to get an addition rgv district, and it's much cleaner.

[Idaho Conservative]

Compact districts would be packing that's why. You'd end up with 90% Hispanic districts, which is clearly packing. The Hispanic votes need to be spread out, so that they can have adequate representation and the fajita strips are the only way to spread them out.

Depends on your definition of packing.  Compact districts naturally form in south TX, packing implies districts are specifcally drawn to pack a group, hispanics choose to live densely in south TX, a compact district inst inherently discriminatory.  Also, it's factually wrong to say the fajitas are necessary for hispanic representation.  I showed clearly how 3 hispanic districts can be drawn without them.  And what about my 3 alternate fajitas?  Assuming they remain, I showed how the fajitas can be drawn without wasting as many GOP votes.  Even using corpus Christi keeps the districts under 90% hispanic.

[S019]

Compact districts would be packing that's why. You'd end up with 90% Hispanic districts, which is clearly packing. The Hispanic votes need to be spread out, so that they can have adequate representation and the fajita strips are the only way to spread them out.

Depends on your definition of packing.  Compact districts naturally form in south TX, packing implies districts are specifcally drawn to pack a group, hispanics choose to live densely in south TX, a compact district inst inherently discriminatory.  Also, it's factually wrong to say the fajitas are necessary for hispanic representation.  I showed clearly how 3 hispanic districts can be drawn without them.  And what about my 3 alternate fajitas?  Assuming they remain, I showed how the fajitas can be drawn without wasting as many GOP votes.  Even using corpus Christi keeps the districts under 90% hispanic.

I'm confused though, what's wrong with the current ones?

[Idaho Conservative]

Compact districts would be packing that's why. You'd end up with 90% Hispanic districts, which is clearly packing. The Hispanic votes need to be spread out, so that they can have adequate representation and the fajita strips are the only way to spread them out.

Depends on your definition of packing.  Compact districts naturally form in south TX, packing implies districts are specifcally drawn to pack a group, hispanics choose to live densely in south TX, a compact district inst inherently discriminatory.  Also, it's factually wrong to say the fajitas are necessary for hispanic representation.  I showed clearly how 3 hispanic districts can be drawn without them.  And what about my 3 alternate fajitas?  Assuming they remain, I showed how the fajitas can be drawn without wasting as many GOP votes.  Even using corpus Christi keeps the districts under 90% hispanic.

I'm confused though, what's wrong with the current ones?

Completely unnecessary for there to be 3 vra seats.  And if a 4th is required, TX-23 Aand TX-35 can be mae performing.  It used to be the fajitas were necessary for 3 hispanic seats in south TX, but that's no longer the case.  Also, if they are required, it makes sense for the GOP to draw them so they don't waste so many gop votes.  What do you think of the alternative configurations?

[S019]

Compact districts would be packing that's why. You'd end up with 90% Hispanic districts, which is clearly packing. The Hispanic votes need to be spread out, so that they can have adequate representation and the fajita strips are the only way to spread them out.

Depends on your definition of packing.  Compact districts naturally form in south TX, packing implies districts are specifcally drawn to pack a group, hispanics choose to live densely in south TX, a compact district inst inherently discriminatory.  Also, it's factually wrong to say the fajitas are necessary for hispanic representation.  I showed clearly how 3 hispanic districts can be drawn without them.  And what about my 3 alternate fajitas?  Assuming they remain, I showed how the fajitas can be drawn without wasting as many GOP votes.  Even using corpus Christi keeps the districts under 90% hispanic.

I'm confused though, what's wrong with the current ones?

Completely unnecessary for there to be 3 vra seats.  And if a 4th is required, TX-23 Aand TX-35 can be mae performing.  It used to be the fajitas were necessary for 3 hispanic seats in south TX, but that's no longer the case.  Also, if they are required, it makes sense for the GOP to draw them so they don't waste so many gop votes.  What do you think of the alternative configurations?

The Austin ones are terrible, the Corpus Christi ones might still be packing with all of the seats above 85% Hispanic, the San Antonio configuration looks quite a lot like the current one, but the simple issue is you can't put too many Hispanics into the fajitas since you have so many from the border, so you need to take in whites in the rurals, many of whom are Republicans, and there's really no way around it

[Gass3268]

If they violate the gingles test why has a conservative Supreme Court required them for decades?

The Supreme Court is not conservative.

Haha, that's a funny one. Good joke! They are reactionary when it comes to voting rights too. Roberts loves going after voting rights.

[Idaho Conservative]

If they violate the gingles test why has a conservative Supreme Court required them for decades?

The Supreme Court is not conservative.

Haha, that's a funny one. Good joke! They are reactionary when it comes to voting rights too. Roberts loves going after voting rights.

No court that upholds gay marriage and abortion is conservative. period.  Those things are not in the constitution, it takes a left wing activist court to get Obergefell or Roe. 

[Idaho Conservative]

Compact districts would be packing that's why. You'd end up with 90% Hispanic districts, which is clearly packing. The Hispanic votes need to be spread out, so that they can have adequate representation and the fajita strips are the only way to spread them out.

Depends on your definition of packing.  Compact districts naturally form in south TX, packing implies districts are specifcally drawn to pack a group, hispanics choose to live densely in south TX, a compact district inst inherently discriminatory.  Also, it's factually wrong to say the fajitas are necessary for hispanic representation.  I showed clearly how 3 hispanic districts can be drawn without them.  And what about my 3 alternate fajitas?  Assuming they remain, I showed how the fajitas can be drawn without wasting as many GOP votes.  Even using corpus Christi keeps the districts under 90% hispanic.

I'm confused though, what's wrong with the current ones?

Completely unnecessary for there to be 3 vra seats.  And if a 4th is required, TX-23 Aand TX-35 can be mae performing.  It used to be the fajitas were necessary for 3 hispanic seats in south TX, but that's no longer the case.  Also, if they are required, it makes sense for the GOP to draw them so they don't waste so many gop votes.  What do you think of the alternative configurations?

The Austin ones are terrible, the Corpus Christi ones might still be packing with all of the seats above 85% Hispanic, the San Antonio configuration looks quite a lot like the current one, but the simple issue is you can't put too many Hispanics into the fajitas since you have so many from the border, so you need to take in whites in the rurals, many of whom are Republicans, and there's really no way around it

I'd assume it would be legal tho, the districts aren't much more hispanic than current.  I specifically included less Hispanic precincts from San Antonio.  I couldn't see the current judiciary strike down the San Antonio version.  7 performing hispanic seats in southern/western TX btw. 

[Greedo punched first]

Rural whites are needed in order to spread out the number of performing seats.

[Sol]

How do these fajitas vote? Don't think they comply with the VRA if they're Republican...

[Idaho Conservative]

How do these fajitas vote? Don't think they comply with the VRA if they're Republican...

my fajitas are safe D.  I think at least Clinton+20

[Idaho Conservative]

Rural whites are needed in order to spread out the number of performing seats.

How many seats are you suggesting are needed? 

[lfromnj]

Well some of the issue lies into the fact the gop has incumbents in Corpus Christi.
For your first map put Brownsville with corpus Christian and push the Laredo district South.

[Idaho Conservative]

Well some of the issue lies into the fact the gop has incumbents in Corpus Christi.
For your first map put Brownsville with corpus Christian and push the Laredo district South.

Who?  Michael Cloud is from Victoria. 

[lfromnj]

Well some of the issue lies into the fact the gop has incumbents in Corpus Christi.
For your first map put Brownsville with corpus Christian and push the Laredo district South.

Who?  Michael Cloud is from Victoria.  

This was in 2010 btw thought Cloud was from Christi too, my bad.

[Former President tack50]

Yeah, getting 3 compact districts from the area is trivial. Here is the compact map I'd personally do (including San Antonio and El Paso):



1 (El Paso): Clinton+40, D+17 76% Hispanic CVAP
2 (Matamoros to Corpus Christi): Clinton+16, D+6, 72% Hispanic CVAP
3 (McAllen): Clinton+39, D+18, 87% Hispanic CVAP
4 (Laredo): Clinton+35, D+17, 85% Hispanic CVAP
5 (West Texas): Trump+19, R+13, 58% Hispanic CVAP
6 (Central San Antonio): Clinton+30, D+12, 62% Hispanic CVAP
7 (Southern San Antonio): Clinton+16, D+7, 65% Hispanic CVAP

So the basic outline imo would be:

Matamoros to Corpus Christi
McAllen
Laredo to Corpus Christi
2 San Antonio
El Paso
"Remainder"

Note that this remainder district is actually a Safe Republican district (in the order of Trump+15). However the district is also firmly Hispanic, even by CVAP (around 58%). So whether this counts or not is an open question, though it probably doesn't.

Doing the fajitas imo only makes sense if you are going to have 4 Hispanic districts in the area for some reason or to try and make the Yellow District (equivalent to current TX-23) Democratic or a swing district. But doing it for 3 districts makes no sense

[Greedo punched first]

Yeah, getting 3 compact districts from the area is trivial. Here is the compact map I'd personally do (including San Antonio and El Paso):



1 (El Paso): Clinton+40, D+17 76% Hispanic CVAP
2 (Matamoros to Corpus Christi): Clinton+16, D+6, 72% Hispanic CVAP
3 (McAllen): Clinton+39, D+18, 87% Hispanic CVAP
4 (Laredo): Clinton+35, D+17, 85% Hispanic CVAP
5 (West Texas): Trump+19, R+13, 58% Hispanic CVAP
6 (Central San Antonio): Clinton+30, D+12, 62% Hispanic CVAP
7 (Southern San Antonio): Clinton+16, D+7, 65% Hispanic CVAP

So the basic outline imo would be:

Matamoros to Corpus Christi
McAllen
Laredo to Corpus Christi
2 San Antonio
El Paso
"Remainder"

Note that this remainder district is actually a Safe Republican district (in the order of Trump+15). However the district is also firmly Hispanic, even by CVAP (around 58%). So whether this counts or not is an open question, though it probably doesn't.

Doing the fajitas imo only makes sense if you are going to have 4 Hispanic districts in the area for some reason or to try and make the Yellow District (equivalent to current TX-23) Democratic or a swing district. But doing it for 3 districts makes no sense

How would a 58% Hispanic CVAP district not count?

[Sol]

Note that this remainder district is actually a Safe Republican district (in the order of Trump+15). However the district is also firmly Hispanic, even by CVAP (around 58%). So whether this counts or not is an open question, though it probably doesn't.

Yeah that's the tricky thing about the VRA as it relates to Latinos, particularly in Texas; the majority of Mexican-Americans will vote for Democrats, but a substantial minority, particularly in the RGV, vote Republican. The result is that for the district to actually elect the Latino candidate of choice, the Latino % has to be fairly high (without packing) so that Whites won't select their preferred candidate with the support of the 20-30% of Hispanics who will prefer the Republican.

[Former President tack50]

Yeah, getting 3 compact districts from the area is trivial. Here is the compact map I'd personally do (including San Antonio and El Paso):



1 (El Paso): Clinton+40, D+17 76% Hispanic CVAP
2 (Matamoros to Corpus Christi): Clinton+16, D+6, 72% Hispanic CVAP
3 (McAllen): Clinton+39, D+18, 87% Hispanic CVAP
4 (Laredo): Clinton+35, D+17, 85% Hispanic CVAP
5 (West Texas): Trump+19, R+13, 58% Hispanic CVAP
6 (Central San Antonio): Clinton+30, D+12, 62% Hispanic CVAP
7 (Southern San Antonio): Clinton+16, D+7, 65% Hispanic CVAP

So the basic outline imo would be:

Matamoros to Corpus Christi
McAllen
Laredo to Corpus Christi
2 San Antonio
El Paso
"Remainder"

Note that this remainder district is actually a Safe Republican district (in the order of Trump+15). However the district is also firmly Hispanic, even by CVAP (around 58%). So whether this counts or not is an open question, though it probably doesn't.

Doing the fajitas imo only makes sense if you are going to have 4 Hispanic districts in the area for some reason or to try and make the Yellow District (equivalent to current TX-23) Democratic or a swing district. But doing it for 3 districts makes no sense

How would a 58% Hispanic CVAP district not count?

Because the district is safe Republican; it's not even like it's a swing district. Being rural west Texas, the Hispanics there vote on the scale of say, 60-40 or 70-30 Democratic; but they get outvoted by the whites being staunchly Republican as well as having higher turnouts.

Being the district is 58% Hispanic by CVAP, it is actually not hard to imagine the district having a narrowly majority hispanic electorate, but since the whites are more republican than the hispanics are democratic, the district votes Trump

So the "Hispanic candidate of choice" is not winning, but the thing is that a sizable amount of Hispanics, allied with the whites get their candidate of choice. It is certainly a weird thing that can only really work in this area of Texas and maybe in next door New Mexico? (and in Florida with the Cuban districts I suppose)

So as I say, whether this qualifies as a VRA district is an open question

[Greedo punched first]

Is the electorate only narrowly majority-Hispanic?