Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Texas is one of several states that is required to get approval of new congressional districts, state legislative districts, etc. under the Voting Rights Act. A federal judge has struck down the Legislature's recent plan and drawn new districts for the 2012 elections.
The idea behind requiring approval for redistricting is that maps in states where racial discrimination in voting was a more recent problem (50's/60's) is that maps should not be able to be drawn to dilute the voting power of minorities. I certainly agree with this and find the goal very laudable. However, this is absolutely not why the Texas Legislature draws the maps the way they do in the current day and age. It is pure and simple partisan gerrymandering; they try to dilute the voting power of white liberals as well. All they care about is making it easiest for the most Republicans to win and nothing more, just as the gerrymandering in blue states is all about making it easiest for the most Democrats to win and nothing more.
While I abhor the idea of gerrymandering, if the more liberal states are able to do it, shouldn't the more conservative states be able to as well? At least ones where it's clear the goal is not to dilute the voting power of minorities?
Has time time for this approval being required come and gone? What are your thoughts on this and on partisan gerrymandering in general?
Texas is one of several states that is required to get approval of new congressional districts, state legislative districts, etc. under the Voting Rights Act. A federal judge has struck down the Legislature's recent plan and drawn new districts for the 2012 elections.
The idea behind requiring approval for redistricting is that maps in states where racial discrimination in voting was a more recent problem (50's/60's) is that maps should not be able to be drawn to dilute the voting power of minorities. I certainly agree with this and find the goal very laudable. However, this is absolutely not why the Texas Legislature draws the maps the way they do in the current day and age. It is pure and simple partisan gerrymandering; they try to dilute the voting power of white liberals as well. All they care about is making it easiest for the most Republicans to win and nothing more, just as the gerrymandering in blue states is all about making it easiest for the most Democrats to win and nothing more.
While I abhor the idea of gerrymandering, if the more liberal states are able to do it, shouldn't the more conservative states be able to as well? At least ones where it's clear the goal is not to dilute the voting power of minorities?
Has time time for this approval being required come and gone? What are your thoughts on this and on partisan gerrymandering in general?
Conservative and Republican states have done so as well. Look at Ohio's current map, look at Florida's current map, especially West's current district. In fact if you look at all of the states you probably will find more currently with a GOP gerrymander than a Democratic one.
Even Texas currently has a very Republican gerrymander. I haven't seen the new proposed map, but the last redistricting Tom Delay took things to a whole new level. He implemented a mid-decade redistricting (he eventually went to jail for the fundraising tactics he used in getting the mid-decade redistricting passed. Delay led a VERY partisan gerrymander in Texas with the mid-decade redistricting, and it was challenged in the court. The vast majority of the district held up, including areas where it was a pure partisan gerrymander (the way Austin was split up for example). One portion of the map was thrown out as Delay and the GOP attempted to dismantle a heavily Hispanic district and it was a pretty clear case of trying to dilute the Hispanic vote. However, the vast majority of the map stayed in place, and Delay was able to spearhead a very partisan mid-decade gerrymander.
I haven't seen the current proposed map of Texas, so I'm not sure what specifically was thrown out. However, the current map is such a hardcore GOP gerrymander that anything else done further might simply be racially dillusion
While I abhor the idea of gerrymandering, if the more liberal states are able to do it, shouldn't the more conservative states be able to as well? At least ones where it's clear the goal is not to dilute the voting power of minorities?
Has time time for this approval being required come and gone? What are your thoughts on this and on partisan gerrymandering in general?
it's a political challenge, not a technical challenge.
put a GIS Analyst and a lawyer together and they can come up with a way to redraw districts fairly and consistently and codify this technical process into law.
political challenge being that politicians don't want to give up that power, future politicians might want it too.
Conservative and Republican states have done so as well. Look at Ohio's current map, look at Florida's current map, especially West's current district. In fact if you look at all of the states you probably will find more currently with a GOP gerrymander than a Democratic one.
Even Texas currently has a very Republican gerrymander. I haven't seen the new proposed map, but the last redistricting Tom Delay took things to a whole new level. He implemented a mid-decade redistricting (he eventually went to jail for the fundraising tactics he used in getting the mid-decade redistricting passed. Delay led a VERY partisan gerrymander in Texas with the mid-decade redistricting, and it was challenged in the court. The vast majority of the district held up, including areas where it was a pure partisan gerrymander (the way Austin was split up for example). One portion of the map was thrown out as Delay and the GOP attempted to dismantle a heavily Hispanic district and it was a pretty clear case of trying to dilute the Hispanic vote. However, the vast majority of the map stayed in place, and Delay was able to spearhead a very partisan mid-decade gerrymander.
I haven't seen the current proposed map of Texas, so I'm not sure what specifically was thrown out. However, the current map is such a hardcore GOP gerrymander that anything else done further might simply be racially dillusion
Get your hands on a Kansas map of legislative districts. You will find one district that runs from the southwest corner, through the entire group of counties on the north clear to the Missouri border. Of course, this is protected by the fact that the western half of the state, which just happens to be in that 1st district with, I think, 67 out of 125 counties in that Big 1st.
It is so openly political in nature in that if the district could be included with the one with Wichita in it the Dems, because of labor votes could be taen over by Democrats. What a helluva looking map.
Even Texas currently has a very Republican gerrymander.
No kidding. I should've been clearer in my original post by stating that more liberal states are able to do it MORE. Yes, I know TX is already gerrymandered. However, not as much as New York, for example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
I haven't seen the new proposed map, but the last redistricting Tom Delay took things to a whole new level. He implemented a mid-decade redistricting (he eventually went to jail for the fundraising tactics he used in getting the mid-decade redistricting passed. Delay led a VERY partisan gerrymander in Texas with the mid-decade redistricting, and it was challenged in the court.
Yes. I'm aware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
The vast majority of the district held up, including areas where it was a pure partisan gerrymander (the way Austin was split up for example). One portion of the map was thrown out as Delay and the GOP attempted to dismantle a heavily Hispanic district and it was a pretty clear case of trying to dilute the Hispanic vote.
My point is that they weren't trying to dilute the Hispanic vote, but rather the Democratic vote. While the result may look the same, these are very different motivations/intentions.
Two congressional districts like this - one stretching from San Antonio all the way to El Paso and one stretching from San Antonio south into the Rio Grande Valley - are now represented by Hispanic Republicans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
However, the vast majority of the map stayed in place, and Delay was able to spearhead a very partisan mid-decade gerrymander.
I haven't seen the current proposed map of Texas, so I'm not sure what specifically was thrown out. However, the current map is such a hardcore GOP gerrymander that anything else done further might simply be racially dillusion
It has to do with the new congressional districts that have been created, as well as redrawing some state legislative districts.
put a GIS Analyst and a lawyer together and they can come up with a way to redraw districts fairly and consistently and codify this technical process into law.
This is what I would LOVE to happen, but it would have to be in every state or it would give one party a more disproportionate level of power in the House.
IIRC, California went through a gerrymandering process with a slightly different intent. It was to protect those already in office - regardless of party - so they could keep their seats as long as they wanted and made almost all elections uncompetitive.
IMO, this is worse. It's one thing to try and artificially boost power for your party (and, consequently, give your ideas/opinions a louder voice); it's quite another to gerrymander because you want to protect a certain political "elite" class of people.
No kidding. I should've been clearer in my original post by stating that more liberal states are able to do it MORE. Yes, I know TX is already gerrymandered. However, not as much as New York, for example.
Yes. I'm aware.
My point is that they weren't trying to dilute the Hispanic vote, but rather the Democratic vote. While the result may look the same, these are very different motivations/intentions.
Two congressional districts like this - one stretching from San Antonio all the way to El Paso and one stretching from San Antonio south into the Rio Grande Valley - are now represented by Hispanic Republicans.
It has to do with the new congressional districts that have been created, as well as redrawing some state legislative districts.
I'll find a map and post it here.
If you go state by state and examine the congressional districts you will actually find more GOP gerrymanders than Democratic ones. Texas has a MUCH heavier GOP gerrymander than NY has a Democratic one.
In fact New York doesn't have a Democratic gerrymander at all, the current Congressional map is an incumbent protection gerrymander. For decades neither side in NY has had an advantage as far as Congressional redistricting goes. The Democrats have long controlled the State Assembly, the GOP has long controlled the State Senate (Dems got it briefly, but GOP won it back and no redistricting was held when the Dems gained brief control of the State Senate). As a result the Congressional maps in NY have long been a compromise map. With the last round of redistricting NY had a Dem Assembly, GOP State Senate and GOP Governor (Pataki). The end result was a Dem gerrymander in the Assembly, GOP gerrymander in the State Senate, and a Compromise map with the congressional districts which wound up basically being incumbent protection. This time around, its a Dem Assembly, GOP Senate and Democratic Governor (Cuomo), main difference is Cuomo has said he will veto any gerrymander (though his hands could be tied somewhat if its not submitted soon).
Anyway back to the Texas situation in some cases it has been simply racial dillusion (as the district that was thrown out last time around).
I don't know the exact numbers of %, but under VRA any state where a minority group makes up x% of voting eligible residents, a certain amount of districts must have an x% voting eligible residents of that minority group if possible. Looking into things further it appears the Legislature did not follow that and did split large Hispanic communities up in the process.
IIRC, California went through a gerrymandering process with a slightly different intent. It was to protect those already in office - regardless of party - so they could keep their seats as long as they wanted and made almost all elections uncompetitive.
IMO, this is worse. It's one thing to try and artificially boost power for your party (and, consequently, give your ideas/opinions a louder voice); it's quite another to gerrymander because you want to protect a certain political "elite" class of people.
Quite a few states do this. It generally happens when one party controls one part of the state government and the other party controls the other, so they come up with a compromise map that doesn't hurt or help either party and generally protects the incumbents. This has happened to varying degrees here in NY for decades as the two branches in the State Legislature have long been split, the current map is a pretty clear Incumbent protection map.
If you go state by state and examine the congressional districts you will actually find more GOP gerrymanders than Democratic ones. Texas has a MUCH heavier GOP gerrymander than NY has a Democratic one.
In fact New York doesn't have a Democratic gerrymander at all, the current Congressional map is an incumbent protection gerrymander. For decades neither side in NY has had an advantage as far as Congressional redistricting goes. The Democrats have long controlled the State Assembly, the GOP has long controlled the State Senate (Dems got it briefly, but GOP won it back and no redistricting was held when the Dems gained brief control of the State Senate). As a result the Congressional maps in NY have long been a compromise map. With the last round of redistricting NY had a Dem Assembly, GOP State Senate and GOP Governor (Pataki). The end result was a Dem gerrymander in the Assembly, GOP gerrymander in the State Senate, and a Compromise map with the congressional districts which wound up basically being incumbent protection. This time around, its a Dem Assembly, GOP Senate and Democratic Governor (Cuomo), main difference is Cuomo has said he will veto any gerrymander (though his hands could be tied somewhat if its not submitted soon).
Anyway back to the Texas situation in some cases it has been simply racial dillusion (as the district that was thrown out last time around).
I don't know the exact numbers of %, but under VRA any state where a minority group makes up x% of voting eligible residents, a certain amount of districts must have an x% voting eligible residents of that minority group if possible. Looking into things further it appears the Legislature did not follow that and did split large Hispanic communities up in the process.
I'll look into this some more. (You are obviously more familiar with this topic than me.)
As far as the NY gerrymandering, I don't know what the exact numbers are now, but I know that for a time before the 2010 elections there were THREE (maybe only two actually, don't remember exactly) Republican US representatives from New York. I believe that TX currently has 9 Democratic representatives and had 10 before the 2010 elections. So I find the assertion that TX is more gerrymandered a bit difficult to believe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
