Applying VRA districting principles to the US Senate

[Skill and Chance]

This is an interesting thought experiment because there's nothing in the 17th Amendment that says senators have to be elected statewide.  Presumably, it could be constitutional to elect them from 2 approximately equal population districts within the state.  In theory, a minority group that was geographically concentrated within the state, voted meaningfully differently from the statewide result (either in primaries or in GEs) and made up substantially more than 25% of the state's population (closer to 50% than 0%) could sue.

This would likely only impact a few states.  The clearest one is that Mississippi could be compelled to split the state E/W and draw a Western Mississippi majority-black district.  Texas could also be compelled to draw one majority-Hispanic district, but it could be considered unreasonably gerrymandered if it has to include all of El Paso, the Rio Grande Valley, parts of Houston and then go up I-35 to DFW.  If it's possible to do a clean N/S split where the southern district takes in Hispanic parts of Austin and Houston and all points south, that could be reasonable.

The next best cases would be California and New Mexico being compelled to draw a majority-Hispanic senate seat, but the argument would have to be made based on primary results, so IDK?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This might give some guidance as to what the results might look like. Though some places are doubtless going to be different in some ways (like Mississippi, for example).

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/38194036-1f01-4f52-aaab-7dd8ee167ca4
Mississippi with a 52-47 Biden seat that's 50.4% black in total population

[Skill and Chance]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/38194036-1f01-4f52-aaab-7dd8ee167ca4
Mississippi with a 52-47 Biden seat that's 50.4% black in total population

Interesting.  If this took off, which party would benefit on net?  This would add a Dem-leaning seat in MS and another in TX.  Both seats in CA would pretty obviously stay Dem.  Same for NM because Dems would control the mapping process.

However, oother states would presumably draw senate districts by choice if it was forced by the VRA in some places.  Most notably, GA R's could draw one Atlanta +Columbus and Macon seat to make the other seat Safe R and flip it.  If it's possible to draw a reasonable looking majority-black district, they could even get that configuration locked in for decades under Milligan.  NH R's could also try to draw one of the Dems out in an eastern district, but this hasn't worked with the US House map.

Several states could try to do this by ballot initiative.  On the Dem side, Tester could get a much easier Western Montana seat and Brown a much easier Northern Ohio seat with maps drawn by a commission.  If an initiative passed in Nebraska, Dems could contest the eastern seat.  Missouri likely doesn't work because the 2 major cities are on opposite sides of the state.  AZ, ME, MI, and NV R's could also try this to flip one of their seats.  The boldest R opportunity would be trying an initiative that would force an everything-but-Chicago seat in Illinois, but I don't see it getting past the current state supreme court.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/38194036-1f01-4f52-aaab-7dd8ee167ca4
Mississippi with a 52-47 Biden seat that's 50.4% black in total population

Interesting.  If this took off, which party would benefit on net?  This would add a Dem-leaning seat in MS and another in TX.  Both seats in CA would pretty obviously stay Dem.  Same for NM because Dems would control the mapping process.

However, oother states would presumably draw senate districts by choice if it was forced by the VRA in some places.  Most notably, GA R's could draw one Atlanta +Columbus and Macon seat to make the other seat Safe R and flip it.  If it's possible to draw a reasonable looking majority-black district, they could even get that configuration locked in for decades under Milligan.  NH R's could also try to draw one of the Dems out in an eastern district, but this hasn't worked with the US House map.

Several states could try to do this by ballot initiative.  On the Dem side, Tester could get a much easier Western Montana seat and Brown a much easier Northern Ohio seat with maps drawn by a commission.  If an initiative passed in Nebraska, Dems could contest the eastern seat.  Missouri likely doesn't work because the 2 major cities are on opposite sides of the state.  AZ, ME, MI, and NV R's could also try this to flip one of their seats.  The boldest R opportunity would be trying an initiative that would force an everything-but-Chicago seat in Illinois, but I don't see it getting past the current state supreme court.

Most likely impact, partisan-wise:
ME 0 (Collins gets the non-Portland seat and is very secure there, King wins Portland seat)
NH 0 (political geography, as you said, not favorable)
MA 0 (not enough Rs to make a winnable seat)
RI 0 (not enough Rs to make a winnable seat)
VT 0 (not enough Rs to make a winnable seat)
CT 0 (not enough Rs to make a winnable seat)
NY 0 (Ds likely split New York City in two)
NJ 0 (probably not enough Rs, also Ds can gerrymander if needed)
PA +1 R (hard for either party to sweep and the state has two Ds right now)
DE 0 (Democrats would make two seats splitting the more R southern areas)
MD (not enough Rs to make a winnable seat)
VA +1 R (whichever seat doesn't have NoVA probably elects a Republican)
NC +1 D (most likely two competitive seats, Western NC would probably turn whichever one it is in Republican, the other would be marginally and slightly Dem)
SC +1 D (a tough call here, but there's enough blacks to make a competitive winnable seat possible, and trends in the Charleston area would allow a D flip here)
OH +1 D (Ohio Supreme Court would force them to the table, if not them, then a citizen referendum)
GA +1 R (what you said looks fairly likely, and it's in the clear interest of Rs in particular)
FL 0 (a decade ago a southern seat would elect Ds and a northern seat would elect Rs, but since then, Miami and SW FL have grown in vote share and gone downwards for Ds relatively)
MI +1 R (hard to duck the fact that whichever seat has Detroit would vote D, and the other one would vote R; you need an arrangement like what I put for Ds to sweep. hard to see that happening)
IN 0 (too bad for Joe Donnelly he didn't have the benefit of having this in place, it would have helped him)
KY 0 (not enough Ds to make a winnable seat)
TN 0 (TN is too white for Ds to press a VRA claim, and no way TN Rs give up a seat)
AL 0 (probably not enough Ds to make a winnable seat)
WI 0 (expecting a 1-1 split with the Milwaukee seat electing a D and the non-Milwaukee seat electing an R)
IL 0 (Ds will gerrymander as needed to prevent a R from getting elected)
MS +1 D (more blacks than AL, more Dem voters, still the seat should be reliably but narrowly Dem)
MN +1 R (expecting a 1-1 split with the Minneapolis seat electing a D and the non-Minneapolis seat electing an R)
IA +1 D (very undecisive about this one, but Eastern IA cities should still give Ds a seat narrowly)
MO 0 (you could draw a seat stringing St. Louis and Kansas City together, but MO Rs would never allow it to be made)
AR 0 (not enough Ds to make a winnable seat; look at the map upthread, I tried)
LA 0 (not enough Ds to make a winnable seat; the state is too conservative now)
ND 0 (not enough Ds to make a winnable seat)
SD 0 (not enough Ds to make a winnable seat)
NE 0 (you could draw a seat pairing Omaha and Lincoln, but MO Rs would never allow it to be made)
KS 0 (rural areas are too Republican)
OK 0 (not enough Ds to make a winnable seat)
TX +1 D (enough Latinos for an influence seat; Latino influence seat will have to include Austin and that+Border will make the D baseline high enough that Ds would win it, but I think it would be unpredictable)
MT 0 (western MT seat will be much easier for Tester)
WY 0 (not enough Ds to make a winnable seat)
CO 0 (too many Ds outside Denver metro for Rs to win other seat)
NM 0 (Ds will be sure to gerrymander 2 Dem seats, it would probably resemble my map upthread)
ID 0 (not enough Ds to make a winnable seat)
UT 0 (not enough Ds to make a winnable seat)
AZ +1 R (Latino seat will take in D areas making the other seat lean Republican)
NV +1 R (political geography probably makes for a split delegation)
WA 0 (Ds have enough bargaining power to force Rs to make 2 Dem-leaning seats)
OR 0 (Ds will just gerrymander like what my map above does; Portland+Bend outvoting remote Eastern Oregon)
CA 0 (not enough Rs to make a winnable seat)
AK 0 (not sure what happens here, but gonna assume we get two competitive seats that both lean R)
HI 0 (not enough Rs to make a winnable seat)
+1 R on net I guess?

[Skill and Chance]

A commission initiative would be possible in Nebraska and Missouri.  I still don't think they would get a Dem-leaning seat, though.  Kentucky is interesting because their state supreme court has a history of getting involved in redistricting.  If Beshear gets a seat containing both Louisville and Lexington and excluding the far east and far west to run in...

If senate districts were only allowed as a VRA section 2 remedial measure, it would be AZ +0.5R (entirely possible they make one seat majority-Hispanic and then it trends right while the rest of the state trends rapidly left!), CA no change (maybe by the 2040's R's win the SoCal Hispanic seat?), GA +1R, NM +0.5R (R's eventually get a say in the process and/or state supreme court requires compact districts), MS +1D, TX+1D (not sure how long the southern seat would stay significantly more Dem than statewide?).  IDK if a majority-black district can be drawn in MD, but if it can, Dems still control the process so no change there except the other seat is like 60% Dem instead of 65% Dem.  Virginia is <25% black and I'm pretty sure reasonable majority-black districts this large can't be drawn in AL or the Carolinas.  So it ends up exactly even.

[Coastal Elitist]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/38194036-1f01-4f52-aaab-7dd8ee167ca4
Mississippi with a 52-47 Biden seat that's 50.4% black in total population

Interesting.  If this took off, which party would benefit on net?  This would add a Dem-leaning seat in MS and another in TX.  Both seats in CA would pretty obviously stay Dem.  Same for NM because Dems would control the mapping process.

However, oother states would presumably draw senate districts by choice if it was forced by the VRA in some places.  Most notably, GA R's could draw one Atlanta +Columbus and Macon seat to make the other seat Safe R and flip it.  If it's possible to draw a reasonable looking majority-black district, they could even get that configuration locked in for decades under Milligan.  NH R's could also try to draw one of the Dems out in an eastern district, but this hasn't worked with the US House map.

Several states could try to do this by ballot initiative.  On the Dem side, Tester could get a much easier Western Montana seat and Brown a much easier Northern Ohio seat with maps drawn by a commission.  If an initiative passed in Nebraska, Dems could contest the eastern seat.  Missouri likely doesn't work because the 2 major cities are on opposite sides of the state.  AZ, ME, MI, and NV R's could also try this to flip one of their seats.  The boldest R opportunity would be trying an initiative that would force an everything-but-Chicago seat in Illinois, but I don't see it getting past the current state supreme court.

Most likely impact, partisan-wise:
ME 0 (Collins gets the non-Portland seat and is very secure there, King wins Portland seat)
NH 0 (political geography, as you said, not favorable)
MA 0 (not enough Rs to make a winnable seat)
RI 0 (not enough Rs to make a winnable seat)
VT 0 (not enough Rs to make a winnable seat)
CT 0 (not enough Rs to make a winnable seat)
NY 0 (Ds likely split New York City in two)
NJ 0 (probably not enough Rs, also Ds can gerrymander if needed)
PA +1 R (hard for either party to sweep and the state has two Ds right now)
DE 0 (Democrats would make two seats splitting the more R southern areas)
MD (not enough Rs to make a winnable seat)
VA +1 R (whichever seat doesn't have NoVA probably elects a Republican)
NC +1 D (most likely two competitive seats, Western NC would probably turn whichever one it is in Republican, the other would be marginally and slightly Dem)
SC +1 D (a tough call here, but there's enough blacks to make a competitive winnable seat possible, and trends in the Charleston area would allow a D flip here)
OH +1 D (Ohio Supreme Court would force them to the table, if not them, then a citizen referendum)
GA +1 R (what you said looks fairly likely, and it's in the clear interest of Rs in particular)
FL 0 (a decade ago a southern seat would elect Ds and a northern seat would elect Rs, but since then, Miami and SW FL have grown in vote share and gone downwards for Ds relatively)
MI +1 R (hard to duck the fact that whichever seat has Detroit would vote D, and the other one would vote R; you need an arrangement like what I put for Ds to sweep. hard to see that happening)
IN 0 (too bad for Joe Donnelly he didn't have the benefit of having this in place, it would have helped him)
KY 0 (not enough Ds to make a winnable seat)
TN 0 (TN is too white for Ds to press a VRA claim, and no way TN Rs give up a seat)
AL 0 (probably not enough Ds to make a winnable seat)
WI 0 (expecting a 1-1 split with the Milwaukee seat electing a D and the non-Milwaukee seat electing an R)
IL 0 (Ds will gerrymander as needed to prevent a R from getting elected)
MS +1 D (more blacks than AL, more Dem voters, still the seat should be reliably but narrowly Dem)
MN +1 R (expecting a 1-1 split with the Minneapolis seat electing a D and the non-Minneapolis seat electing an R)
IA +1 D (very undecisive about this one, but Eastern IA cities should still give Ds a seat narrowly)
MO 0 (you could draw a seat stringing St. Louis and Kansas City together, but MO Rs would never allow it to be made)
AR 0 (not enough Ds to make a winnable seat; look at the map upthread, I tried)
LA 0 (not enough Ds to make a winnable seat; the state is too conservative now)
ND 0 (not enough Ds to make a winnable seat)
SD 0 (not enough Ds to make a winnable seat)
NE 0 (you could draw a seat pairing Omaha and Lincoln, but MO Rs would never allow it to be made)
KS 0 (rural areas are too Republican)
OK 0 (not enough Ds to make a winnable seat)
TX +1 D (enough Latinos for an influence seat; Latino influence seat will have to include Austin and that+Border will make the D baseline high enough that Ds would win it, but I think it would be unpredictable)
MT 0 (western MT seat will be much easier for Tester)
WY 0 (not enough Ds to make a winnable seat)
CO 0 (too many Ds outside Denver metro for Rs to win other seat)
NM 0 (Ds will be sure to gerrymander 2 Dem seats, it would probably resemble my map upthread)
ID 0 (not enough Ds to make a winnable seat)
UT 0 (not enough Ds to make a winnable seat)
AZ +1 R (Latino seat will take in D areas making the other seat lean Republican)
NV +1 R (political geography probably makes for a split delegation)
WA 0 (Ds have enough bargaining power to force Rs to make 2 Dem-leaning seats)
OR 0 (Ds will just gerrymander like what my map above does; Portland+Bend outvoting remote Eastern Oregon)
CA 0 (not enough Rs to make a winnable seat)
AK 0 (not sure what happens here, but gonna assume we get two competitive seats that both lean R)
HI 0 (not enough Rs to make a winnable seat)
+1 R on net I guess?

Did you actually draw these or are you guessing the partisanship? Both OH, MO, SC, TX and IA seats would be Republican. There aren't enough blacks to require a D seat in South Carolina. Even the most D biased seat in MS gets you a Trump seat. Also that NM seat would definitely be competitive.

[Skill and Chance]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/38194036-1f01-4f52-aaab-7dd8ee167ca4
Mississippi with a 52-47 Biden seat that's 50.4% black in total population

Interesting.  If this took off, which party would benefit on net?  This would add a Dem-leaning seat in MS and another in TX.  Both seats in CA would pretty obviously stay Dem.  Same for NM because Dems would control the mapping process.

However, oother states would presumably draw senate districts by choice if it was forced by the VRA in some places.  Most notably, GA R's could draw one Atlanta +Columbus and Macon seat to make the other seat Safe R and flip it.  If it's possible to draw a reasonable looking majority-black district, they could even get that configuration locked in for decades under Milligan.  NH R's could also try to draw one of the Dems out in an eastern district, but this hasn't worked with the US House map.

Several states could try to do this by ballot initiative.  On the Dem side, Tester could get a much easier Western Montana seat and Brown a much easier Northern Ohio seat with maps drawn by a commission.  If an initiative passed in Nebraska, Dems could contest the eastern seat.  Missouri likely doesn't work because the 2 major cities are on opposite sides of the state.  AZ, ME, MI, and NV R's could also try this to flip one of their seats.  The boldest R opportunity would be trying an initiative that would force an everything-but-Chicago seat in Illinois, but I don't see it getting past the current state supreme court.

Most likely impact, partisan-wise:
ME 0 (Collins gets the non-Portland seat and is very secure there, King wins Portland seat)
NH 0 (political geography, as you said, not favorable)
MA 0 (not enough Rs to make a winnable seat)
RI 0 (not enough Rs to make a winnable seat)
VT 0 (not enough Rs to make a winnable seat)
CT 0 (not enough Rs to make a winnable seat)
NY 0 (Ds likely split New York City in two)
NJ 0 (probably not enough Rs, also Ds can gerrymander if needed)
PA +1 R (hard for either party to sweep and the state has two Ds right now)
DE 0 (Democrats would make two seats splitting the more R southern areas)
MD (not enough Rs to make a winnable seat)
VA +1 R (whichever seat doesn't have NoVA probably elects a Republican)
NC +1 D (most likely two competitive seats, Western NC would probably turn whichever one it is in Republican, the other would be marginally and slightly Dem)
SC +1 D (a tough call here, but there's enough blacks to make a competitive winnable seat possible, and trends in the Charleston area would allow a D flip here)
OH +1 D (Ohio Supreme Court would force them to the table, if not them, then a citizen referendum)
GA +1 R (what you said looks fairly likely, and it's in the clear interest of Rs in particular)
FL 0 (a decade ago a southern seat would elect Ds and a northern seat would elect Rs, but since then, Miami and SW FL have grown in vote share and gone downwards for Ds relatively)
MI +1 R (hard to duck the fact that whichever seat has Detroit would vote D, and the other one would vote R; you need an arrangement like what I put for Ds to sweep. hard to see that happening)
IN 0 (too bad for Joe Donnelly he didn't have the benefit of having this in place, it would have helped him)
KY 0 (not enough Ds to make a winnable seat)
TN 0 (TN is too white for Ds to press a VRA claim, and no way TN Rs give up a seat)
AL 0 (probably not enough Ds to make a winnable seat)
WI 0 (expecting a 1-1 split with the Milwaukee seat electing a D and the non-Milwaukee seat electing an R)
IL 0 (Ds will gerrymander as needed to prevent a R from getting elected)
MS +1 D (more blacks than AL, more Dem voters, still the seat should be reliably but narrowly Dem)
MN +1 R (expecting a 1-1 split with the Minneapolis seat electing a D and the non-Minneapolis seat electing an R)
IA +1 D (very undecisive about this one, but Eastern IA cities should still give Ds a seat narrowly)
MO 0 (you could draw a seat stringing St. Louis and Kansas City together, but MO Rs would never allow it to be made)
AR 0 (not enough Ds to make a winnable seat; look at the map upthread, I tried)
LA 0 (not enough Ds to make a winnable seat; the state is too conservative now)
ND 0 (not enough Ds to make a winnable seat)
SD 0 (not enough Ds to make a winnable seat)
NE 0 (you could draw a seat pairing Omaha and Lincoln, but MO Rs would never allow it to be made)
KS 0 (rural areas are too Republican)
OK 0 (not enough Ds to make a winnable seat)
TX +1 D (enough Latinos for an influence seat; Latino influence seat will have to include Austin and that+Border will make the D baseline high enough that Ds would win it, but I think it would be unpredictable)
MT 0 (western MT seat will be much easier for Tester)
WY 0 (not enough Ds to make a winnable seat)
CO 0 (too many Ds outside Denver metro for Rs to win other seat)
NM 0 (Ds will be sure to gerrymander 2 Dem seats, it would probably resemble my map upthread)
ID 0 (not enough Ds to make a winnable seat)
UT 0 (not enough Ds to make a winnable seat)
AZ +1 R (Latino seat will take in D areas making the other seat lean Republican)
NV +1 R (political geography probably makes for a split delegation)
WA 0 (Ds have enough bargaining power to force Rs to make 2 Dem-leaning seats)
OR 0 (Ds will just gerrymander like what my map above does; Portland+Bend outvoting remote Eastern Oregon)
CA 0 (not enough Rs to make a winnable seat)
AK 0 (not sure what happens here, but gonna assume we get two competitive seats that both lean R)
HI 0 (not enough Rs to make a winnable seat)
+1 R on net I guess?

Did you actually draw these or are you guessing the partisanship? Both OH, MO, SC, TX and IA seats would be Republican. There aren't enough blacks to require a D seat in South Carolina. Even the most D biased seat in MS gets you a Trump seat. Also that NM seat would definitely be competitive.

He just drew a majority-black Biden seat in MS upthread.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Did you actually draw these or are you guessing the partisanship? Both OH, MO, SC, TX and IA seats would be Republican. There aren't enough blacks to require a D seat in South Carolina. Even the most D biased seat in MS gets you a Trump seat. Also that NM seat would definitely be competitive.

I was going with educated guesses and instinct there.
Here's an example of a 2 seat MO. 52-47 Biden https://davesredistricting.org/join/2c3a698c-a99a-44bf-8d6b-32af139b375b
But MO Ds lack the ability to get such a seat in place.
Keep in mind that map I posted upthread uses 2008/2012 PVIs (most likely). South Carolina would be a close call but the seat I drew would still be slightly Dem, as expected (being Biden+3, yes I checked that just now) with trends such as the growth of Horry being checked by the D trend in and around Charleston. I interpret the "VRA" part of this to favor producing a seat that Ds could hope to win in Deep South states. You might be right about Iowa, it might be decided by where Des Moines goes...
As for TX I would firmly agree if we were talking about the Texas of 2013, but in 2023 the state has trended significantly Dem (if still being quite R-leaning) and Austin, with its boatloads of Latinos, would have to end up in the Latino district. One upside for Rs is that D trends in places like Collin County would be stuck in a firmly R seat, thus no harm to them.
I agree the NM seat would be competitive, but Santa Fe and Native rurals should keep it in the Dem column unless the state has a monster-sized long-term trend or swing to Republicans.
For OH it could go multiple ways, but it's not that hard to imagine the OH Supreme Court that slapped down multiple R gerrymanders already to force OH Rs to draw at least a true swing seat.  So I went with that.
And I've already got MS covered.

[Coastal Elitist]

Did you actually draw these or are you guessing the partisanship? Both OH, MO, SC, TX and IA seats would be Republican. There aren't enough blacks to require a D seat in South Carolina. Even the most D biased seat in MS gets you a Trump seat. Also that NM seat would definitely be competitive.

I was going with educated guesses and instinct there.
Here's an example of a 2 seat MO. 52-47 Biden https://davesredistricting.org/join/2c3a698c-a99a-44bf-8d6b-32af139b375b
But MO Ds lack the ability to get such a seat in place.
Keep in mind that map I posted upthread uses 2008/2012 PVIs (most likely). South Carolina would be a close call but the seat I drew would still be slightly Dem, as expected (being Biden+3, yes I checked that just now) with trends such as the growth of Horry being checked by the D trend in and around Charleston. I interpret the "VRA" part of this to favor producing a seat that Ds could hope to win in Deep South states. You might be right about Iowa, it might be decided by where Des Moines goes...
As for TX I would firmly agree if we were talking about the Texas of 2013, but in 2023 the state has trended significantly Dem (if still being quite R-leaning) and Austin, with its boatloads of Latinos, would have to end up in the Latino district. One upside for Rs is that D trends in places like Collin County would be stuck in a firmly R seat, thus no harm to them.
I agree the NM seat would be competitive, but Santa Fe and Native rurals should keep it in the Dem column unless the state has a monster-sized long-term trend or swing to Republicans.
For OH it could go multiple ways, but it's not that hard to imagine the OH Supreme Court that slapped down multiple R gerrymanders already to force OH Rs to draw at least a true swing seat.  So I went with that.
And I've already got MS covered.

That MO seat is hideous and in SC you can only get like a 30% black seat which wouldn't be required. OH is impossible without drawing a ridiculous gerrymander. The problem with Texas is if you put the RGV and El Paso with Austin you also have to take in all of West Texas which actually makes the less Hispanic seat more competitive.

Texas: https://davesredistricting.org/join/0485fa8e-96b4-42e0-b2ce-01d5baac8320
Ohio: https://davesredistricting.org/join/4043df54-6071-4820-8c11-167364e12597

Hard to believe that the OH map wouldn't be approved even by O'Connor.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You can do a Biden+10 seat in South Carolina.

[Skill and Chance]

You can do a Biden+10 seat in South Carolina.

Yes, but it looks blatantly gerrymandered.

How about a majority-black seat in Louisiana?  Is that viable in a non-crazy way?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/a045e666-e0e2-4212-bddf-19969eab8d01
IA would probably be 2 Republicans. At the same time, I was right to think it would come down to whether Des Moines is in the same seat as Iowa City.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/d35e212e-ca81-4888-a8af-686e9b4a13ef
TX though, is a different story. It is true large sections of West Texas are strongly Latino, but eventually you run into non-Latino areas (and large stretches of rurals that are less than 20% Latino even...). Travis County is over 30% Latino now and has 1.3 million and probably would end up in the Latino seat. In the end, the combo of Austin+Houston+Rio Grande Valley overpowers Republican votes in the coastal regions and in West Texas. (I sought to avoid adding heavily Latino counties next to Oklahoma as well as the DFW metroplex, considering how ugly it would get to add those places in)
All this yielded a seat that is almost Biden+10 and 49% Latino VAP.

[Skill and Chance]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/a045e666-e0e2-4212-bddf-19969eab8d01
IA would probably be 2 Republicans. At the same time, I was right to think it would come down to whether Des Moines is in the same seat as Iowa City.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/d35e212e-ca81-4888-a8af-686e9b4a13ef
TX though, is a different story. It is true large sections of West Texas are strongly Latino, but eventually you run into non-Latino areas (and large stretches of rurals that are less than 20% Latino even...). Travis County is over 30% Latino now and has 1.3 million and probably would end up in the Latino seat. In the end, the combo of Austin+Houston+Rio Grande Valley overpowers Republican votes in the coastal regions and in West Texas. (I sought to avoid adding heavily Latino counties next to Oklahoma as well as the DFW metroplex, considering how ugly it would get to add those places in)
All this yielded a seat that is almost Biden+10 and 49% Latino VAP.

I would say that your MS and TX VRA Senate seats look no worse than court-ordered AL-02 in the House.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/cee6b92d-feda-46bc-9d15-1dbf2370b84e
Astonishingly it is possible to make an Alabama seat that is only Trump+3. Still, this confirms my expectation that there isn't enough of a Dem vote to make a generally winnable seat. (Though it did vote 52-48 for the Dem gubernatorial candidate in 2018)