Get Out Your Map Colors! It’s Time For More Redistricting Fun

Skip to the Article ↓

Today was the deadline for the various and sundry parties to the Redistricting lawsuits to file their briefs and proposed plans with the court.

The GI Forum, LULAC, the Jackson plaintiffs and the state’s plans are all now avaliable.

Since this is a lot to discuss, I’m going to take it in bits and pieces.

[For reference, here is a map of current congressional districts]

Jackson Plaintiffs
[Brief, Map (.GIF of the statewide map, as it's turned sideways in the .pdf), Population Data; Election Analysis]
The Jackson remedy (proposed by Congressional Democrats, “Jackson” comes from Sheila Jackson Lee) would alter four of the state’s 32, with significant fixes to CDs 23 and 25 (23 being the district declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS and Bonilla’s district and 25 being Doggett’s Austin-to-Mexico district).

The Jackson plaintiffs henge the correction of the anomalities of the ‘bacon strip’ district Doggett now represents on language in the Supreme Court opinion by Justice Kennedy (as in the previous post, these quotes are striped of the majority of the citations to make them more readable; however, I had to leave several in to make sure this made sense):

District 25. The Supreme Court also vacated the part of this Court’s judgment that upheld District 25, the Austin-to-McAllen district. The Court explained that “there was a 300-mile gap between the Latino communities [at either end of] District 25, and a similarly large gap between the needs and interests of the two groups,” as they diverged in “socio-economic status, education, employment, health, and other characteristics.” Two Members of the five-Justice majority stated that District 25 violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. (Souter, J., joined by Ginsburg, J., concurring in part) (“Plan 1374C’s Districts 23 and 25 violate § 2 of the Voting Rights Act” (“[T]he enormous geographical distance separating the Austin and Mexican-border communities, coupled with the disparate needs and interests of these populations, . . . renders District 25 noncompact for § 2 purposes.”).

Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the Court stated that District 25 “will have to be redrawn to remedy the violation in District 23.” (District 25 “must be changed”); (“[T]here is no reason to believe District 25 will remain in its current form once District 23 is brought into compliance with § 2.”); see also Session v. Perry, 298 F. Supp. 2d 451, 528 (E.D. Tex. 2005) (three-judge court) (Ward, J., dissenting in part) (“Restructuring of the South and Central Texas [‘bacon strip’] districts is necessary to remedy [District 23’s] § 2 violation.”), vacated in part sub nom. LULAC v. Perry.

Here, in part, is how the Jackson plaintiffs propose curing District 23 of its unconstitutional ailments:

It puts all of Webb County (and all of Laredo) back into District 23. And it returns Kerr, Kendall, and Bandera Counties to District 21. These two changes restore all four counties to their traditional locations in Texas’s congressional map. Indeed, from the time Texas first became entitled to a 21st congressional district — in the 1930s — up until the enactment of the 2003 Plan, District 21 always contained the entirety of Kerr, Kendall, and Bandera Counties. And likewise, from the time Texas first drew a 23rd congressional district, in the 1960s, Webb County always was kept intact in District 23 — until the 2003 Plan overthrew that tradition.

Basically, this (.gif of the district here) is the new makeup for the 23rd proposed by the Jackson plaintiffs:

El Paso (part), Hudspeth, Culberson, Jeff Davis, Presidio, Reeves, Bresester, Pecos, terrell, Val Verde, Crockett, Sutton (part), Edwards, Real, Maverick, Uvdale, Medina, Zavala, Dimmit, La Salle, Webb (all), Frio, Bexar (part) and Crockett.

This is versus the current make up (here), which is:

El Paso (part), Hudspeth, Culberson, Jeff Davis, Reeves, Pecos, Persidio, Brewster, Terrell, Crockett, Sutton (part), Valverde, Edwards, Real, Kerr, Bandera, Kendall, Medina, Zavala, Demitt, Webb (part), Maverick, Bexar (part).

I don’t know enough about the Bexar County precincts to tell, but, judging by the geographic area of the voting precincts from that county in the proposed 23rd, I’d have to say that the new 23rd either includes little of the city of San Antonio or none at all.

This proposal would, however, effectively pair Bonillia and Cuellar. It moves not only Laredo and the rest of Webb County, but also Frio and La Salle counties out of the current 28th and into the 23rd.

The Jackson proposal for CD 25 dramatically changes its boundaries. The proposed CD 25 would consist only of part of Travis and part of Hays counties and all of Caldwell and Gonzalez counties. Instead of being anchored just by the southeastern corner of Travis County, under this map, CD 25 would encompasses most of Travis County with only the northeastern corner (dipping into Austin) being part of CD 10, with no other congressional districts dipping into Travis.

Anticipating that the Court may have a pretty hard time with a plan that touches on four districts (the states only alters two with no incumbent pairings), and dramatically alters CD 25, the Jackson appellants note this in a footnote:

Even if this Court did not share the Supreme Court’s concerns about District 25, it would be impossible to cure the Section 2 violation in District 23 without redrawing District 25. That’s because, under the 2003 Plan, less than half of all registered voters in District 23 and District 28 combined are Hispanic. So no amount of swapping territory between those two districts could possibly create two districts that both have Hispanic registered-voter majorities. District 25,
however, contains more than 150,000 Spanish-surnamed registrants — more than enough to keep the cure for District 23’s violations from depleting District 28’s Hispanic voter majority.

Whether the panel buys this or not is anyone’s guess. But, the Jackson appellants appear to be banking on Judge T. John Ward, who was the lone voice of dissent and serious critic of CD 25 when the plans first started making their way through the court system (see the quote above) and who is on the panel who will decide on the remedy.

The other districts that the Jackson plan redraws are CD 21 and CD 28. CD 21 is Lamar Smith’s District while CD 28 is Cuellar’s district. Of note here is that John Courage is mounting a tough campaign against Smith in the current CD 21.

Let’s talk about how these proposals alter these two districts.

With regard to CD 21, the Jackson plan would make it consist of: Kerr, Bandera, Kendall, Bexar (part), Blanco, Hays (part), Comal (part), Guadalupe and Wilson counties.

That’s compared to the current CD 21 makeup of: Travis (part), Hays (part), Blanco (part), Comal and Bexar (part).

For John Courage, that would be bad news as the Democratic part of the district (Travis County) is written out making the district more firmly anchored in Bexar County.

The wierd part of the Jackson appellant’s plan may actually be by design. As far as I can tell, with Laredo shifting to the 23rd, meaning Cuellar and Bonilla are pared, the proposed 28th would be a majority Latino district without an incumbent (Paging Ciro Rodriguez?).

The proposed CD 28 would be: Bexar (part), Atascosa, McMullen, Karnes, Duval, Jim Hogg, Zapata, Starr and Hidalgo (part). It’d be firmly anchored in Bexar County.

Compare that to the current CD 28: Bexar (part), Guadalupe, Wilson, Atascosa, Frio, LaSalle, McMullen, Webb and Zapata.

Drastic, drastic, drastic proposed changes for the 28th. Including that, by my estimation, in the Jackson proposal, it’s an “incumbent free” district.

Perry, et al Proposed Remedies (Proposed By The Attorney General of Texas on behalf of all state defenants)

[Brief, Proposed Map, Population Analysis, Election Analysis]

When I read this blurb on the AG’s website about the proposed plans, I thought the state might actually have submitted a reasonable plan:

In response to the federal district court’s order, the State Defendants have submitted a remedial plan that would correct the Supreme Court’s legal concerns regarding District 23, and otherwise fully respect the legislative preferences of the already enacted congressional map. The proposed plan is directly responsive to the Supreme Court’s opinion upholding the statewide map; it leaves 28 congressional districts completely untouched, and alters only District 23 and three adjoining districts. The plan likewise avoids pairing any incumbent Members of Congress and leaves the existing partisan balance of the four altered districts (2 Democrats and 2 Republicans) undisturbed.

Ha, ha. I must have drifted off into an alternate reality for a moment, though, because this plan is a nightmare.
Here are the makeups of the districts via the state’s plan:

Current Makeup of CD 21: Travis (part), Hays (part), Comal (part), Blanco, Bexar (part).

State’s Proposed Makeup of CD 21: Travis (part), Hays, Comal, Guadalupe, Bexar (part).

As far as the current race against CD 21 incumbent Lamar Smith goes, I don’t know if the addition of Guadalupe County would make the district more or less favorable for him or his opponent, Democrat John Courage. I’ll have to run the numbers on that. The only positive about the state’s plan opposed to the Jackson plaintiff’s plans is that the state keeps CD 21 intact enough that Courage can still mount a campaign, but it still tears much of Travis county out of this district.

Current Makeup of CD 23: El Paso (part), Hudspeth, Culberson, Reeves, Jeff Davis, Presidio, Brewster, Pecos, Terrell, Crockett, Val Verde, Sutton (part), Edwards, Real, Kerr, Kendall, Medina, Uvalde, Zavala, Maverick, Demmit, Webb (part), Bexar (part).

State’s Proposed Makeup of CD 23: Travis (part), Blanco (part), Kendall, Kerr.

Yes, you are reading that correctly. Basically, the state is combining much of the current CDs 23 and 28 to create a larger than current plans, super, mega El Paso-to-Laredo-to-San Antonio district that you’ll note in the state’s CD 28 proposals.
The Statesman seems to think Bonillia would retain this district and gain Travis County, meaning it would be split between three Republicans.

Current Makeup of CD 25: Hidalgo (part), Starr, Jim Hogg, Duval, Live Oak, Karnes, Gonzales, Caldwell, Travis (part).

State’s Proposed Makeup of CD 25: Caldwell, Gonzales, Wilson, Bexar (part), Karnes, Atascosa, Frio, Live Oak, McMullen, La Salle, Duval, Jim Hogg, Zapata, Starr, Higaldo (part).

The Austin American Statesman says it is the state’s intent that this would be Doggett’s new district. Doggett, however, says he’d be paired with Lamar Smith. To me, though, given that there are different residency requirements to run in newly drawn districts, this should be Bonillia’s new district, since it actually includes a county he represents now (Bexar). Of course, if this was Bonillia’s new district, then Ciro Rodriguez would have him whipped 2 to 1.

Current Makeup of CD 28: Bexar (part), Guadalupe (part), Hays (part), Wilson, Atascosa, Frio, Lasalle, McMullen, Webb (part), Zapata.

State’s Proposed Makeup of CD 28: El Paso (part), Hudspeth, Culberson, Reeves, Jeff Davis, Persidio, Brewster, Pecos, Terrell, Crockett, Sutton (part), Val Verde, Edwards, Kinney, Maverick, Real, Uvalde, Bandera, Medina, Zavala, Demmit, Webb, Bexar (part).

THIS would be Cuellar’s district. Laredo united with part of San Antonio going just to El Paso.

Of course, I wonder about the wisdom of just cramming so many Latino voters into one district like the state’s plan does. The Jackson plan, of course, created a new (possibly incumbent free) Latino district. But, it also destroyed Courage’s chances in 21, meaning there would be no net Democratic gain under that plan.

The state says this plan leaves in place the existing partisan balance of these districts.

However, if 25 is Bonillia’s new district, it might be a pickup. I’ll have to run the numbers.

The one thing about the state’s map is that it will have the most attention paid to it by the Court because…well, it’s the state’s map.

Travis County (and city of Austin) Plans

[Brief; 1414C: Proposed Map, Population Analysis, Election Analysis; 1413C: Proposed Map, Population Analysis, Election Analysis]

Travis County and the City of Austin have also submitted a brief and plans.

One thing to note is that this group of appellants didn’t attempt to add an additional minority district as the Jackson plaintiffs did:

Since the Supreme Court has twice affirmed this Court’s conclusion that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not require adding a seventh Latino opportunity district in the South and West Texas area, the County has not attempted to add such a seventh district in either of its alternative maps.

This group of appellants proposed two plans. Though they claim to favor neither in their brief, so-called plan 1413C which unites Webb County in CD 28 and alters CDs 23, 28, 25, 15, 21 and 10 appears to be the one they favor because they never come out in ther plan and say what 1414 alters, except to say that it unites Laredo in CD 23 and pairs Bonillia against Cuellar.

They also make this interesting note in one of their footnotes:

There is some question whether the District 28 incumbent already lives outside his current district. The text’s comment about pairing assumes he does not.

I think they’re making reference to something from the ‘04 election cycle, but why they felt it necessary to put the smack-down on Henry Cuellar in their brief is beyond me, given that, once these new lines are drawn, all of the districts become a free-for-all.

So, I’m going to actually ignore the Travis appellants’ 1414 plan and concentrate on 1413, since I don’t think the Court is going to want to pair incumbents anyway.

Let’s look at the boundary changes they propose (which took me over an hour to compile, there are so many).

It also appears that the Travis County appellants were trying to do as much as they could to dilute the strength of the Republican Congressmen within their borders, although it would take days of number crunching to tell for sure.

Current Makeup of CD 23: El Paso (part), Hudspeth, Culberson, Reeves, Jeff Davis, Presidio, Brewster, Pecos, Terrell, Crockett, Val Verde, Sutton (part), Edwards, Real, Kerr, Kendall, Medina, Uvalde, Zavala, Maverick, Demmit, Webb (part), Bexar (part).
CD 23 as altered by 1413C: El Paso (part), Hudspeth, Culberson, Jeff Davis, Presidio, Reeves, Brewster, pecos, Terrell, Crockett, Val Verde, Sutton (part), Edwards, Kinney, Real, Uvalde, Zavala, Maverick, Dimmit, Medina, Frio, La Salle, Bexar (part).

Webb is united within CD 28 so as not to pair incumbents, so you can see it’s gone from 23 and replaced by Lasalle and Frio counties. I think the makeup of this district would but Bonillia in serious hot water.

Current Makeup of CD 28: Bexar (part), Guadalupe (part), Hays (part), Wilson, Atascosa, Frio, La Salle, McMullen, Webb (part), Zapata.

CD 28 as altered by 1413C: Hidalgo (part), Starr, Jim Hogg, Webb, Duval, McMullen, Live Oak, Karnes, Wilson, Guadalupe (part), Bexar (part).

La Salle and Frio are gone to CD 23. Atascosa is also gone. Duval and the rest of Webb are added along with Live Oak and Karnes (from the current 25) and part of Guadalupe, which may make this a less Democratic district.

Current Makeup of CD 25: Hidalgo (part), Starr, Jim Hogg, Duval, Live Oak, Karnes, Gonzales, Caldwell, Travis (part).

CD 25 as altered by 1413C: Travis (part), Hays (part), Bastrop (part), Caldwell (part).

Clearly, CD 25 was the main thing the Travis appellants wanted to fix. Of course, their remedy had to propose a fix to 23 since that is what the court declared unconstitutional. The fix to 23 resulted in a fix to 28, and also legitimately leads to the fix to 25.

These remaining districts are ones I think the Tavis appellants wanted to fix just to say they tried one last time to get some better CDs. Otherwise, I think they could have done what they wanted to without altering Ruben Hinojosa’s (D-Mercedes) district, CD 15, to wit:

Current CD 15: Cameron (part), Hidalgo (part), Brooks, Jim Wells, San Patricio (part), Bee, Refutio, Goliad, De Witt, Lavaca, Colorado, Fayette, Bastrop (part).

CD 15 as proposed by 1413C: Cameron (part), Hidalgo (part), Brooks, Jim Wells, San Patricio (part), Bee, Refugio, Goliad, De Witt, Lavaca.

I think they had to take some less Latino counties out of Hinojosa’s district to justify what they did with other districts closer to Austin, specifically, the creative work on Lamar Smith and Michael McCaul’s districts which I believe (again, I’d have to run the numbers) makes them more favorable (although probably not totally) to Democrats.

Current Makeup of CD 21: Travis (part), Hays (part), Comal (part), Blanco, Bexar (part).

1413C makeup of CD 21: Kerr, Bandera, Kendall, Blanco, Comal, Hays, Travis (part), Bexar (part), Guadalupe (part).

That sliver of Guadalupe County seems to be the single most “moved-around” piece of Texas land in all of the proposals.

Here is what the Travis appellants propose for CD 10:

Current CD 10: Travis (part), Bastrop, Lee, Burleson, Washington, Austin, Waller, Harris (part).

1413C makeup of CD 10: Travis (part), Bastrop (part), Lee, Burleson (part), Washington, Fayette, Austin, Colorado, Waller, Harris (part).

Smith, Bonillia, Cuellar Proposal

[Proposed Map, (Color Map in .html), Population Analysis, Election Analysis]

If you head isn’t spinning enough yet, consider that Lamar Smith (R-San Antonio), Henry Bonilla (R-San Antonio), and Henry Cuellar (D-Laredo) got so damned scared by all this mapmaking, they’ve filed their own map with the Court.

Smith is probably most scared; he may well be pitted against Lloyd Doggett. Bonillia and Cuellar, I think, simply don’t want to have to run against each other (and Bonillia knows he will lose). (And, no, I don’t think there is any reason to call Cuellar a turncoat over his joining with Smith and Bonillia on this one. I think it is a legitimate move on his part).

This map narrows the northern reach of CD 23 and moves Kerr, Real and Bandera counties back to CD 21.

It keeps Laredo split, and appears to give Cuellar several of Doggett’s old counties while isolating CD 25 to north of Travis County and appears to include part of Bexar county in the district.

I say “appears” because the only version of the map I can find is in black and white and it is very difficult to read, hence the difficulty I’m having telling you exactly what is in it.

GI Forum Proposal

[ Brief; Proposed Map; Population Analysis; Election Analysis]

The GI Forum/MALDEF plaintiffs map is interesting as well. It alters five districts, the 23rd, the 28th, 25th, 21st, 11th and 20th.

Like the Jackson plaintiffs’ map, it leaves CD-28 incumbent free and pairs Bonilla and Cuellar.

Current Makeup of CD 23: El Paso (part), Hudspeth, Culberson, Reeves, Jeff Davis, Presidio, Brewster, Pecos, Terrell, Crockett, Val Verde, Sutton (part), Edwards, Real, Kerr, Kendall, Medina, Uvalde, Zavala, Maverick, Demmit, Webb (part), Bexar (part).

GI Forum CD 23 Proposal: El Paso (part), Hudspeth, Culberson, Reeves, Jeff Davis, Presidio, Brewster, Pecos, Terrell, Crockett, Val Verde, Upton, Reagan, Sutton Edwards, Real, Kinney, Uvalde, Medina, Bexar (part), Zavala, Dimmit, Webb.

The GI Forum proposal unites both Webb and Sutton counties within CD 23.
Current Makeup of CD 28: Bexar (part), Guadalupe (part), Hays (part), Wilson, Atascosa, Frio, La Salle, McMullen, Webb (part), Zapata.

Current Makeup of CD 25: Hidalgo (part), Starr, Jim Hogg, Duval, Live Oak, Karnes, Gonzales, Caldwell, Travis (part).

GI Forum Proposed CD 25: Travis (part), Hays (part), Comal (part), Bexar (part).

GI Forum also makes this more of a Central Texas district but takes the added twist of adding some of San Antonio into the mix.

Current Makeup of CD 21: Travis (part), Hays (part), Comal (part), Blanco, Bexar (part).

GI Forum Makeup of CD 21: Travis (part), Hays (part), Comal (part), Bexar (part), Blanco (part), Kendall (part), Kerr (part), Bandera (part).

It seems to me with the addition of some of these counties, they may have made CD 21 a bit more Democratic. This plan might not hurt John Courage, but I’d have to run the numbers to be sure.

Current CD 11: Loving, Winkler, Ector, Midland, Glassock, Sterling, Coke, Runnels, Coleman, Brown, Comanche, Mills, Andrews, Dawson, Martin, Surry, Mitchell, Nolan (part), Ward, Crane, Upton, Reagan, Irion, Tom Green, Concho, McCulloch, San Saba, Mills, Lampasas, Burnet, Llano, Mason, Minard, Schleicher, Sutton (part), Kimble, Gillesipe.

GI Forum Proposed CD 11: Remove Upton and Reagan from above list along with the portion of Sutton that is in the district; add part of Blanco County.

I’m guessing these moves were to get Upton and Reagan into the more Hispanic CD 23. Of course, I’m assuming they have significant Hispanic populations. I haven’t seen census figures for these counties.
CD 20 is a San Antonio-centered district; I can’t tell from the statewide map what is changing exactly with the district, except for the fact that instead of being a circular district, it now has a snake going east.

LULAC Plans

[Brief (not avaliable); Plan A: Proposed Map, Population Analysis, Election Analysis; Plan B: Proposed Map, Population Analysis, Election Analysis]
I discussed the LULAC plans yesterday. Charles Kuffner has more at Kuff’s World.

**UPDATE**

There are a couple of other remedy plans. I wasn’t aware of these because I’ve been having trouble getting the Legislative Council’s Red Viewer to work right.

Anyway, the Coalition of Black Democrats has a proposed remedy.

There is another proposed remedy called the “Pate” plan. Not sure about that one. There is also one called the “Owens” remedy.

And, since it seems everyone on planet earth is trying to access Red Viewer (at 4:30 on a Saturday morning, I might add) it doesn’t look like I’ll be able to post these just yet. But I will later.

Written by Vince Leibowitz

If you like what you read here, please consider giving us a tip through Blog Patron or PayPal!

Visit Capitol Annex's Online Book Store!

Popularity: 11% [?]

Vince Leibowitz posted this article under Redistricting on Saturday, July 15th, 2006 at 12:03 am You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a comment. Pinging is currently not allowed. View Technorati Linkbacks.