Well, DUH! Federal judges find Texas gerrymandered maps on racial lines

[Jhhnn]

The original issue: Federal court invalidates part of Texas congressional map

Before Tuesday’s decision, the judges had already ruled that the Texas Legislature sought to weaken the strength of Latino and black voters while drawing state House and congressional districts in 2011, immediately following the 2010 U.S. Census. But the 2011 maps never actually took effect.

Amid legal wrangling over the Legislature’s maps, the court drew temporary maps ahead of the 2012 elections. Texas lawmakers formally adopted those maps in 2013 and have used them for the past three election cycles.​

What does the VRA and Shelby County defeating preclearance have to do with gerrymandering districts in Texas? The latter happened in 2011, the former in 2013. What Texas did in 2013 was bow to the court's own maps from 2012. As you can see, the timeline does not add up in the manner you described. Texas is a result of action taken in 2011 following the 2010 census.

Is the SCOTUS going to rule the court has no authority on this matter, due to the changes in the VRA and preclearance? That'd be quite interesting. But then the courts often claim the power of the Constitution itself in deciding that people have been wronged. Abortion, for example. Even if Congress and the President moved to expressly ban it, courts would overrule both branches. As with that, so too can the courts decide voters have been wronged and claim ultimate power in deciding how to right those wrongs.

As courts are definitvely above the law, they do not need the VRA to slam Texas over gerrymandering.

That's not quite accurate, either-

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/20/145532526/high-court-scraps-lower-courts-redistricting-maps

https://www.thenation.com/article/t...ght-shows-why-voting-rights-act-still-needed/

Texas Repubs gamed the system, made a SCOTUS ordered interim map permanent, thus bollixing attempts to change it.

When the SCOTUS ruled in Shelby a few weeks later they were locked in. Their ruling in 2011 presaged that, indicated the direction they intended to take.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County_v._Holder

2010 was really the first redistricting of the computer age. Capabilities will be much greater in 2020. Analysts can collate all kinds of information in ways previously impossible & use them to great effect to stymie honest democracy should they so choose, disconnecting the will of the people from their representation in even greater measure. I really don't think that the SCOTUS has the vaguest comprehension of those capabilities. They pit the limited capabilities of the federal judiciary against very, very high end computer capabilities in the hands of people who really don't care about honest democracy at all. They just care about winning.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think we'd both agree that if a court was determined to act on behalf of those voters in Texas, no law would stop them.

Because they'd do so on the basis of the Constitution to which all law is subservient with the ultimate say being that of the SCOTUS. It's been that way since the beginning. That's how it was designed to work.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Can you explain what those two issues are. I am familiar with the recent SCOTUS ruling on gerrymandering in NC. If that's what you are talking about I don't see what negative affect it has other then trying to be fair. But I am not familiar with not having a fair senate race in california.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14_(2010)

It allowed a majority of the voting public to cross vote in party primaries. It has no effect on President/Vice-President since that change would have been ruled Unconstitutional. An underhanded way of voting that allowed 2 Democrats to be on the ballot for U.S. Senator in the 2016 election. An extremely manipulative and unfair way to stack the votes. It's just another form of gerrymandering that so far has passed legal muster. If you can't see the similarities between it and Congressional District gerrymandering it's because you have political blinders on.

 

[Jaskalas]

Forcing the districts to match county lines would really help avoid gerrymandering. Could combine counties if they have too few seats, or stack seats in highly populated counties.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Forcing the districts to match county lines would really help avoid gerrymandering. Could combine counties if they have too few seats, or stack seats in highly populated counties.

You want the people being represented to be similar in interests and needs. Why the hell does it matter what the county line is?

 

[Snarf Snarf]

The famous "eye test" of representative mapping. So much more important than a United States Supreme Court ruling. Even more important than having a fair United States Senate race in places like............ California.

Just going to leave that there... The old eye test sure makes that one seem a bit funny.

 

[Jhhnn]

You want the people being represented to be similar in interests and needs. Why the hell does it matter what the county line is?

Which explains the fajita strip districts emanating from Austin & San Antonio how, exactly? How does it explain the convoluted districts of Houston & Dallas?

 

[Thebobo]

Just going to leave that there... The old eye test sure makes that one seem a bit funny.

Yea thats just pathetic. How it ever got the way is criminal.

 

[Sonikku]

Man the conservative majority that struck down the preclearance part of the Voting Rights Act must feel really smart right now.

Southern states barely waited until the ink was dry on the decision to start implementing racist voting measures.

They should. All their games got them majority power with minority votes.

 

[fskimospy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14_(2010)

It allowed a majority of the voting public to cross vote in party primaries. It has no effect on President/Vice-President since that change would have been ruled Unconstitutional. An underhanded way of voting that allowed 2 Democrats to be on the ballot for U.S. Senator in the 2016 election. An extremely manipulative and unfair way to stack the votes. It's just another form of gerrymandering that so far has passed legal muster. If you can't see the similarities between it and Congressional District gerrymandering it's because you have political blinders on.

Remember guys, the only 'fair' way to do things in a senate primary is to have the person with the third most votes win over the person with the second most votes because they are a member of the Republican Party and apparently for an election to be 'fair' it has to include Republicans even if nobody votes for them.

Come on Taj, tell us why it's unfair for the people with the most votes to win an election and why the only fair way to do things is to give Republicans what amounts to electoral welfare because they can't attract enough voters otherwise.

 

[Jhhnn]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14_(2010)

It allowed a majority of the voting public to cross vote in party primaries. It has no effect on President/Vice-President since that change would have been ruled Unconstitutional. An underhanded way of voting that allowed 2 Democrats to be on the ballot for U.S. Senator in the 2016 election. An extremely manipulative and unfair way to stack the votes. It's just another form of gerrymandering that so far has passed legal muster. If you can't see the similarities between it and Congressional District gerrymandering it's because you have political blinders on.

So, uhh, who engaged in cross party voting in the Primary? Did Dems cross vote for Repubs, or vice versa?

If Dems cross voted for Repubs it would have raised Repub vote totals & if it were the opposite then Repubs abandoned their own candidates....

The real story is that CA Repubs just used the contest to gain publicity, a whole bunch of them. It fractured their vote & put 2 Dems on the general election ticket-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_California,_2016#Results

It was perfectly obvious that no Repub could win the CA Senate seat & that no Repub would be on the general election ballot unless they had a much more unified front. Abandoning a place on the ballot saved them money to spend where it might have some effect.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Looks like an urban corridor to me.

Just going to leave that there... The old eye test sure makes that one seem a bit funny.

 

[zzyzxroad]

Just going to leave that there... The old eye test sure makes that one seem a bit funny.

In their defense, I believe an etch a sketch is used to draw these up.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

In their defense, I believe an etch a sketch is used to draw these up.

I live in Harris County. We have a high density urban area, low density urban, suburbs, manufacturing areas, farms and rural property. People of the same interest should be in the same Congressional District. So my suburban/rural district should not be jammed into a high density urban district, our interests aren't the same and our representatives shouldn't be the same.

 

[Jhhnn]

I live in Harris County. We have a high density urban area, low density urban, suburbs, manufacturing areas, farms and rural property. People of the same interest should be in the same Congressional District. So my suburban/rural district should not be jammed into a high density urban district, our interests aren't the same and our representatives shouldn't be the same.

Which explains the fajita strip districts how, exactly? Do San Antonio suburbs really have more in common with McAllen (250 miles away) than they do with San Antonio?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Which explains the fajita strip districts how, exactly? Do San Antonio suburbs really have more in common with McAllen (250 miles away) than they do with San Antonio?

Urban corridors?
http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/_urban/urban_cor.html

 

[zinfamous]

Makes a person wonder why only Repub controlled states find a need to pull this kind blatantly regressive, discriminatory and minority disenfranchising "Voter Rights Acts" in order to win elections/stay in power.

Makes me wonder if freely given their way, what the state of affairs of the voting process would actually look like in these conservative owned states.

Why? because they are a minority party, and they know it. They would never win a free election again in this country without this kind of cheating, and they've been happily doing it for more than a decade now.

 

[MrPickins]

Urban corridors?
http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/_urban/urban_cor.html

You can't be serious.

Please explain the other districts from Austin, especially districts 10 and 17. You really think those are urban corridors?

How can you say with a straight face that the people in north Austin have the same interests as those 100 miles to the east (where the next closest "city" is College Station)?

 

[Snarf Snarf]

Urban corridors?
http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/_urban/urban_cor.html

That doesn't play when you're grabbing high variance mixed income and ethnic areas. Looking at that and knowing the entire area in question because I've lived here my entire life I share 0 of the same interests in policy with Southeast Travis County, New Branufels I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt because it's essentially still San Antonio. But Southeast Bexar county is a very Hispanic and low income area, it's one of the poorest areas in all of San Antonio, and they're trying to dilute that voting bloc with the higher income predominately white population in the I-35 corridor all the way to Austin. There's 0% chance you could convince any objective observer that that is not a blatant attempt at diluting a huge Hispanic voter group that would swing hard left normally.

The Kyle and Buda area's are essentially South Austin now, and have very different needs in that area that those in Southeast San Antonio do. You can try to pull the urban corridor argument but it falls apart when you consider that I35 S of downtown San Antonio is affectionately known as Little Mexico, there's entire neighborhoods there that are 75% Spanish speaking area's with income below the poverty line.

Texas Republicans are going to lose this fight in the courts, but like I said in my earlier post, they are effectively getting away with robbing the bank. Demographically Texas is far closer to a purple state than a majority red state like it is now, and an independent redistricting would probably put it close to an even split. The GOP has every reason to cling to Texas because once it goes the way of the other more diverse states like NY and California they have no hope of ever getting it back. Between Harris, Bexar, Travis, Dallas and the border counties in 2016 presidential race they were able to pull 43% of the popular vote. As the population density in these areas increases over the next 20 years, and the I35 corridor becomes more urban, coupled with Hispanics having more children than other ethnic groups, there's a very real possibility that 2020 is the last national election considered an easy win for the GOP.

 

[Jhhnn]

The price of growth for Texas is diversity, and diversity demands liberalism.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Texas hasn't voted for a Democrat for the White House since 1976. (Jimmy Carter). The last state wide vote a Democrat won was in 1994, but i'm sure Democratic control of Texas is just around the corner for you guys.

 

[brycejones]

Texas hasn't voted for a Democrat for the White House since 1976. (Jimmy Carter). The last state wide vote a Democrat won was in 1994, but i'm sure Democratic control of Texas is just around the corner for you guys.

And tajjy bitches out and runs away again when confronted by uncomfortable questions he can't answer.

 

[sdifox]

Is there any reason why politicians are allowed to draw electoral districts? It is plain old conflict of interest. Get to a system with an independent electoral comission already.

 

[glenn1]

Which explains the fajita strip districts how, exactly? Do San Antonio suburbs really have more in common with McAllen (250 miles away) than they do with San Antonio?

Of course they do. Voting behavior almost perfectly mirrors population density. It's pretty much axiomatic that San Antonio suburbs would have more in common with McAllen (population density 824.9/sq mi) than the city of San Antonio (2,808.5 / sq mile).

https://medium.com/@davetroy/is-pop...to-understanding-voting-behavior-191acc302a2b

 

[fskimospy]

Of course they do. Voting behavior almost perfectly mirrors population density. It's pretty much axiomatic that San Antonio suburbs would have more in common with McAllen (population density 824.9/sq mi) than the city of San Antonio (2,808.5 / sq mile).

https://medium.com/@davetroy/is-pop...to-understanding-voting-behavior-191acc302a2b

'In common' does not mean 'same partisan ID'. It's actually exactly that thinking which is causing the problem.

One of the primary justifications for districts is that representatives could address local issues. I sincerely doubt people 250 miles away care about cleaning up a superfund site the same way people 5 miles away do, for example.