Drawing a Texas Congressional Map

[Texsox]

http://www.themonitor.com/articles/gain-51143-seats-gop.html

 

I've been paying attention to the new congressional map and from a political standpoint it is just amazing how well the GOP has drawn this map. My area is the fastest growing area of the state and we managed to hold onto our three seats. We'll see what the courts say. I believe by the time this is settled it will be a textbook example for learning the process of drawing maps.

 

With the new census, Texas picks up four new house seats. The vast, vast majority of Texas growth is Hispanic. So the GOP had to draw a map that would keep those new seats out of the Dems (Hispanic) hands. Somehow, they managed to do just that. Keep nibbling at the corners of areas that are solidly Hispanic and s t r e t c h it out to grab enough rural GOP to win elections.

 

The Solomons-Seliger proposal also doesn’t create a Hispanic-majority district in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, where there are more than a million Hispanics.

 

“You have to work really hard to deny Latinos in these districts,” Perales said. “This proposed map does not reflect Latino growth in South Texas or anywhere else.”

 

A proposal the Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force released earlier this year presented two additional Latino-majority districts in Dallas-Forth Worth and South Texas. The state currently has seven such districts, a number that has not increased since the 1991 redistricting plan, despite massive statewide growth.

 

Valley officials were hopeful they could gain a fourth congressional district here after Cuellar offered to give up a portion of his stake in Hidalgo County in a bid to land the elusive seat.

 

Some proposals submitted to the Legislature for consideration included four districts stretching north from the Valley, said Rolando Rios, a redistricting attorney representing Cuellar, Hinojosa and Hidalgo County commissioners in Austin. But Republican legislators in the Texas capital were hesitant to add too many seats in the Valley, where Democrats would have the upper hand in races.

 

The GOP btw, imho, is doing exactly what they should do. They have the majority of the statewide offices and should draw a map that is within the law and benefits them the most. And the Dems should challenge the map every which way they can.

 

/pops some corn

[Balta1701]

There's a trick here though...the best Congressional map in the short-term is the one that maximizes the number of seats for the Republicans right now...but if Hispanic Demographic growth continues, then that makes the short term strong map the long-term weak map, because it exposes more districts to growing Hispanic populations over time.

 

Unless of course you stop mid-decade and redo the Redistricting to make sure that never becomes a risk.

[StrangeSox]

There's a trick here though...the best Congressional map in the short-term is the one that maximizes the number of seats for the Republicans right now...but if Hispanic Demographic growth continues, then that makes the short term strong map the long-term weak map, because it exposes more districts to growing Hispanic populations over time.

 

Unless of course you stop mid-decade and redo the Redistricting to make sure that never becomes a risk.

 

There was an article yesterday in the Sun Times that pointed to Hispanics being the key to the Republicans' challenges to the Democrats' map in Illinois. They can argue that the new maps underrepresent Hispanics in violation of the voting rights act.

[southsider2k5]

There was an article yesterday in the Sun Times that pointed to Hispanics being the key to the Republicans' challenges to the Democrats' map in Illinois. They can argue that the new maps underrepresent Hispanics in violation of the voting rights act.

 

yeah, they had by far the biggest population growth in the state, and got no new representation out of it.

[StrangeSox]

Gerrymandering!

[Texsox]

I will say this, and remember this is coming from a known liberal, I am uncomfortable building a map along racial lines. But I guess it is as valid as along political lines. But when I read "X" district it seems wrong. Each segment of the state should have about the same number of people to be represented. The racial makeup in an ideal world, shouldn't matter.

[Balta1701]

I will say this, and remember this is coming from a known liberal, I am uncomfortable building a map along racial lines. But I guess it is as valid as along political lines. But when I read "X" district it seems wrong. Each segment of the state should have about the same number of people to be represented. The racial makeup in an ideal world, shouldn't matter.

They should have about the same number of people even when gerrymandered. If not then it cant be a legal map. Race only matters in this because race correlates strongly with voting patterns.

[Texsox]

The underlying presumption is Hispanics need a Dem representative and that the presumably GOP Rep cannot represent them. I'm uncomfortable with that.

[Balta1701]

The underlying presumption is Hispanics need a Dem representative and that the presumably GOP Rep cannot represent them. I'm uncomfortable with that.

?

 

How in the world is that the underlying presumption? What kind of radical racist would ever think that?

 

I'd say that the underlying presumption is that historical voting trends will continue.

[Texsox]

How else can a conclusion regarding no new Hispanic districts? The map protects GOP districts. All people living in those districts, regardless of race, will have a rep. The rep will in all likelihood be a GOP. And that's somehow a problem. Why?

[StrangeSox]

How else can a conclusion regarding no new Hispanic districts? The map protects GOP districts. All people living in those districts, regardless of race, will have a rep. The rep will in all likelihood be a GOP. And that's somehow a problem. Why?

 

The argument is that, the way the districts are drawn, hispanics are underrepresnted i.e. there's 10,000 hispanics for every rep vs. 5,000 caucasions.

[Texsox]

The argument is that, the way the districts are drawn, hispanics are underrepresnted i.e. there's 10,000 hispanics for every rep vs. 5,000 caucasions.

 

The total in every district has to be close to the same. So the ratio is basically the same for every person. Any single individual will be 1 of X number, no matter which district. But we've decided that certain groups (in this case Latinos) need to be a majority in a few districts. Why?

[mr_genius]

There's a trick here though...the best Congressional map in the short-term is the one that maximizes the number of seats for the Republicans right now...but if Hispanic Demographic growth continues, then that makes the short term strong map the long-term weak map, because it exposes more districts to growing Hispanic populations over time.

 

Unless of course you stop mid-decade and redo the Redistricting to make sure that never becomes a risk.

 

na, just crack down on voter fraud (ID required, ect) and the illegals won't be able to vote. if that fails, mid-decade redistrict.

[bmags]

na, just ramp up voter suppression (ID required, ect) and the citizens won't be able to vote. if that fails, mid-decade redistrict.

 

edited.

Edited June 5, 2011 by bmags

[Balta1701]

na, just crack down on voter fraud (ID required, ect) and the minorities won't be able to vote. if that fails, mid-decade redistrict.

 

[bmags]

 

yeah i didn't correctly edit his statement. fail.

[Balta1701]

yeah i didn't correctly edit his statement. fail.

Eh, yours wasn't a fail, I just liked mine better.

[mr_genius]

I can settle this. They were both very stupid.

 

Just a smoke screen from loyal Democrats that believe their party needs voter fraud to win.

[Balta1701]

I can settle this. They were both very stupid.

 

Just a smoke screen from loyal Democrats that believe their party needs voter fraud to win.

 

Just a smoke screen from the loyal Republican that believes his party can only win when wealthy white people vote.

[Balta1701]

Anyway, did you know that Indiana's voter ID law has cost the state something like $12 million since it was passed according to the Indiana Secretary of State's office?

[mr_genius]

Anyway, did you know that Indiana's voter ID law has cost the state something like $12 million since it was passed according to the Indiana Secretary of State's office?

 

money well spent, for once.

[mr_genius]

Just a smoke screen from the loyal Republican that believes his party can only win when wealthy white people vote.

 

how very melodramatic

[Balta1701]

money well spent, for once.

 

All you want is a larger and larger government.

 

Remember, there is no such thing as good government spending. Otherwise, every time I tried to advocate for something, I wouldn't have person after person saying "Government saves!" (From black people voting).

[mr_genius]

 

All you want is a larger and larger government.

 

Remember, there is no such thing as good government spending.

 

Don't be ridiculous, i support government spending when it is positive. A lot of that $12 million went to teach uneducated Democrats about voting, how to vote, and how many times they can legally vote (only once per election, it is illegal to fill out a blank stack of ballots for your favorite candidate). Obviously, there have been issues.

Edited June 5, 2011 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

Obviously, there have been issues.

Yup. Every election you find 1 or 2.

 

And by "Election" I mean "full national election with 100 million people voting".

 

Really, it's remarkable how you guys care insanely about something that is already against the law and rarely ever happens. If you applied the same standards to guns, we'd probably save hundreds of thousands of lives over my lifetime.