Showing posts with label redistricting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label redistricting. Show all posts

Monday, December 08, 2025

The GOP's Redistricting In Texas Could Backfire


 I live in House District 31 in Texas. To say it's a red district is an understatement. GOP Rep. John Carter won by over 20 points in 2024, and I can't remember a time when Democrats came close to carrying the district.

District 31 is one of the districts changed by the new Republican redistricting plan. Thinking they had this district in the bag (as in the past), they added a largely Democratic portion of Travis County (north Austin) to the district. They expected by taking Democrats out of a blue district and adding them to a red one they could turn both districts red.

That may have been a mistake. It seems that the swing away from Republicans and to Democrats in elections this year has been about 13 points - including a bright red district in Tennessee that went from a 22-point GOP advantage to a 9-point advantage. That 13 point swing is because a lot of Independents who lean Republican are mad about inflation and affordability and switched their votes.

Independents in Texas are also mad about the same thing. If the 13 point swing holds true for District 31 (and there is no reason to think it wouldn't), then the New Democrats added to the district could be enough to swing it to a Democratic candidate.

Texas Republicans are smug and think they pulled a fast one on Texas Democrats. But I think it could backfire on them. By reducing the GOP advantage in some districts to help them in others, they could give Democrats a better chance to win in more districts - especially if 2026 is a blue wave election.

In the new District 31, Democrats have a better chance of winning than has been true for many years. I'm starting to get a bit excited.

Tuesday, November 25, 2025

Majorities In Both Parties Support The Partisan Redistricting


The chart above is from the Politico / Public First Poll -- done between November 14th and 17th of a nationwide sample of 2,098 adults, with a 2 point margin of error. 

Thursday, October 16, 2025

Most Texans Oppose The Redistricting Their GOP Legislature Did

 




The charts above are from the University of Houston / Texas Southern University / YouGov Poll -- done between September 19th and October 1st of a sample of 1,650 Texas residents, with a margin of error of 2.41 points.

Sunday, September 21, 2025

New California Poll Has 51% In Favor Of Redistricting Proposal


 The chart above is from the Emerson College Poll -- done on September 15th and 16th of a sample of 1,000 registered California voters, with a 3 point margin of error.

Friday, August 15, 2025

Texans And Americans Oppose The GOP Redistricting Of Texas

The chart above reflects the results of the Z To A Research Poll -- done between August 3rd and 5th of 1,921 likely midterm voters in Texas. The poll has a 2.24 point margin of error.


The chart above is from the YouGov Poll -- done between August 8th and 11th of a nationwide sample of 1,122 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

Thursday, August 07, 2025

Will Trump Use The FBI To Arrest Texas State House Democrats?


 


Donald Trump's agenda is not popular with most Americans. That has him worried that Republicans could lose the House of Representatives in the 2026 election. If Republicans lose the House, Democrats might then be able to block the worst of Trump's unpopular actions.

A reasonable chief executive would probably change his unpopular agenda, but Trump is not a reasonable person. He doesn't care what the public wants as long as he can get what he wants. To accomplish this he has decided to cheat to retain the House in 2026. He has instructed Texas Republicans to redraw the states' U.S. House districts to get Republicans an additional five seats. To do this, they would likely be destroying some minority districts by placing many minorities in heavily Republican districts.

Democrats don't have enough members of the state legislature to stop the new Republican gerrymandering. But they have the power to stop it by refusing to show up for the votes by denying a quorum in the Texas House. The House cannot pass any law (including redistricting) unless a quorum of 100 members is present. 

Enough Democrats have left the state (going to Democratic states) to deny the Republicans a quorum. The House speaker has issued a civil order for the arrest and return of the Democrats, and Gov. Abbott has instructed state DPS troopers to do that. But those troopers don't have jurisdiction outside of Texas, and since the Democratic House members have not broken any criminal law, the Democratic states and cities they have gone to are refusing to aid in their arrest. It is currently a stand-off.

Texas Senator John Cornyn has asked the FBI to assist in locating and arresting the missing Texas Democrats. And Donald Trump has said that might have to be done.

But the mission of the FBI is to "protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States". They should not be used to help either political party in a partisan political matter (which this is). The Texas House Democrats may have angered Trump and Texas Republicans, but they have not broken any laws - either state or federal.

If Trump orders the FBI to intervene, his lackey Kash Patel would probably cooperate. That would turn the FBI into an enforcement branch of the Republican Party - an inappropriate and possibly illegal use of the FBI. It should never be used in a purely partisan political manner for either political party.

If Trump does this, it will mean he can use the most powerful law enforcement agency in America as his personal political retribution arm. That would be a giant step toward the dissolution of our democracy. 

Tuesday, August 05, 2025

Abbott / Paxton - Bleating Sheep With Empty Threats


Texas Gov. Abbott has called a special session of the Texas Legislature. The main purpose of the session is to redraw House district lines to give Republicans an additional five districts in the state (at the request of Donald Trump - who is afraid Republicans will lose the U.S. House in next year's election).

Texas Democratic State House members don't have enough votes to stop the GOP's racist gerrymandering, so they have left the state to deny a quorum. Nothing can be passed without a quorum (100 members) present in the House.

Gov. Abbott has threatened to arrest, fine, and even take the seats away from those Democratic members, quoting a non-binding opinion issued by Texas AG Ken Paxton.

Matt Angle, at the Lone Star Project, had the following to say about the actions of Abbott and Paxton: 

The sound coming from Greg  Abbott and Ken Paxton is the bleating of sheep. And their intended audience isn’t even the frontline Democrats who are courageously defending Texas. Abbott and Paxton are performing for Donald Trump.
 
Abbott and Paxton reacted to the strength of Texas State House Democrats by teaming up and doubling down on their own surrender to Trump. They engaged in petty name calling and then incorrectly cited an AG opinion to justify empty threats to vacate Democratic member’s seats in the Legislature.
 
Here are the facts around Abbott and Paxton’s threats to declare Democratic seats vacant.
 
First, an AG opinion does not have the force of law. Paxton’s claims have all the credibility of his marriage vows.
 
Second, the case cited in the AG opinion requires showing a failure to perform a duty of office and a purposeful decision to relinquish office. Breaking quorum is a legislative option contained within the Texas Constitution. It is an explicit part of a legislator performing his or her duty. All of the strong Texas Democrats now acting to halt action on the racist Trump map are purposefully fulfilling their duties and responsibilities as a Texas legislator.
 
The cowardice and dereliction of duty comes from Greg Abbott, Ken Paxton, and every one of the weak-kneed legislators who have surrendered their responsibility to defend Texas. They have collapsed in shameful submission to a corrupt President. They’ve picked Trump over Texas, which may not require relinquishing their office, but it is certainly a firing offense.

Sunday, July 27, 2025

Note To Both Parties: Gerrymandering Is CHEATING!


Donald Trump actually started his second term with good job approval. Independents had joined Republicans to elect him - mainly because he promised to lower prices, bring good jobs back to this country, and end the wars in Gaza and Ukraine.

But he has done none of that. Inflation continues to rise, and will likely get worse thanks to his nonsensical tariffs (on nearly every country in the world). And both wars continue to rage on. This has caused Independents to abandon him en masse - giving him the lowest job approval of any president since World War II.

This has caused most people to believe the Republicans (who have gone along with Trump on every issue) will lose the House of Representatives in next year's election. If that happens, Trump will truly become a lame duck president. Democrats would be able to stop most of his agenda.

Trump decided he had an answer for that. He decided Texas Republicans should do some redistricting. And Texas Gov. Abbott (being a Trump sycophant) has called a special session of the legislature to accomplish that redistricting. It is Trump's hope that by gerrymandering Texas districts, they can squeeze out another 5 districts for Republicans - and that may save the House for the GOP (because it would also mean five less districts for Democrats).

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has responded by saying California might also redistrict if Texas does - giving more seats to Democrats in that state - and some other Democratic governors have said they might do the same.

I understand the Democrats wanting to fight fire with fire. But both parties are wrong. Gerrymandering is cheating and should not happen in any state.

We need a new law - and it should probably be a national law that would apply to every state. The law should mandate that legislative districts be created by a bipartisan commission. That commission should create districts of equal population and giving districts to the different races in the same portion as their population in the state.

Politicians should not be able to choose the voters they want in districts. Voters should be able to elect the politicians they want. And the process should be fair to both parties and all voters. Anything else is an unjustified attack on our democracy.  

Wednesday, December 08, 2021

DOJ Says Texas Redistricting Was Unfair To Minorities


Texas gained enough population between 2010 and 2020 to give it two more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. About 95% of that population gain was due to minorities. Texas Republicans ignored this, and created two more white seats by dividing minority communities and putting them into majority white districts. This was racist and unfair, and the Department of Justice is suing the state to rectify the situation.

Here is part of how Steve Vladeck describes the Texas unfair redistricting at MSNBC.com:

The Justice Department sued Texas on Monday, challenging its newly drawn electoral maps at both the state and congressional levels. At its core, the lawsuit claims that Texas’ new maps discriminate against the state’s “growing minority electorate.” And clearly, they do. The problem with the lawsuit is not its factual premise; it is the significant steps the Supreme Court has taken in the last eight years to make it easier for conservative states to get away with exactly such anti-democratic (and anti-Democratic) manipulation.

And although Congress could fix much of the damage the Supreme Court has caused, its efforts to do so remain mired in Senate Democrats’ inability to overcome or eliminate the filibuster. Simply put, the latest front in the battle between the Biden administration and Texas reinforces just how fragile our democracy is becoming — and how directly the Supreme Court is responsible.

Texas fared well in the 2020 census: The second-largest state added 4 million residents between 2010 and last year’s count. Most of that growth came from minority groups, which now constitute a majority of the state’s population. Indeed, the statewide population of “Anglos” (non-Latino white Texans) was responsible for only 5 percent of that growth. Among other things, this population boom netted Texas two new seats in the U.S. House — it will now elect members from 38 districts, second only to California.

When the Texas Legislature met to redraw both the U.S. and state house districts in response to the new data, it adopted maps that, put most charitably, do not reflect the actual sources of population growth. As the Justice Department’s lawsuit explains, the two new congressional seats both have Anglo majorities; a West Texas district with a large Latino population was redrawn to turn a Latino majority into a minority, and minority communities in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex were, in the Justice Department’s words, “surgically excised” by being attached to different districts with Anglo majorities — some stretching over a hundred miles from Dallas-Fort Worth. And the redrawn lines in the state House are even more, shall we say, aggressive.

The unabashed goal of this gerrymandering was to entrench as large a Republican majority as the Legislature could. The FiveThirtyEight redistricting tracker predicts that, with these maps, Republicans would control 24 of the 38 U.S. House seats, or 63 percent of the delegation, and have a good shot at a 25th in a state former President Donald Trump won last year by only 52 percent to 46 percent. That’s achieved by expanding the voting power of non-Latino white voters, who are about 40 percent of the state’s total population but now control 3 of every 5 districts.

As Ari Berman has documented, Latinos, in contrast, make up 39 percent of the population but control only 20 percent of the districts. And only 2 percent of the districts have Black majorities, even though Black Texans are one-eighth of the state’s population. More fundamentally, the maps completely ignore the source of Texas’ explosive population growth, reducing the voting power of the very minority groups who are responsible for virtually all of the state’s gains in size.

Before 2013, Texas’ map would never have made it into force. Texas was a “covered jurisdiction” under the federal Voting Rights Act, meaning changes to its districts would need to get “preclearance” from the federal Justice Department. But in 2013, the Supreme Court, in its 5-4 ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, neutered the preclearance requirement by invalidating the formula Congress used to decide which jurisdictions it applied to.

Although the court’s analysis focused on the claim that the formula was outdated (and therefore was unduly harsh to jurisdictions that no longer had demonstrated patterns of discrimination), as the Justice Department lawsuit points out, “in every redistricting cycle since 1970, courts have found that one or more of Texas’s statewide redistricting plans violated the United States Constitution or the Voting Rights Act.”. . .

The Biden administration’s new suit against Texas may be a bellwether. If the Voting Rights Act can no longer prevent a state that gained seats in Congress almost entirely because of minority population growth from redistricting to reduce the voting power of those minority groups, it will be a powerful testament to how much the Supreme Court has denuded that landmark civil rights statute.

That the case has to be filed at all shows how imperative it is for Congress to fix it, even if eliminating the filibuster is the only way to accomplish such reform. So long as these maps remain in effect, they will provide only further evidence of the fragility of our democracy — and how increasingly unrepresentative our “representatives” are.

Saturday, November 17, 2012

Texas House Delegation


Texas is sending three more Democrats to the House of Representatives for the new Congress, and one more Republican. In 2010, Texas had 32 seats in the House -- and sent 9 Democrats and 23 Republicans to Washington. In 2012, Texas was awarded an additional four seats for population growth -- and is sending 12 Democrats and 24 Republicans to Washington. It looks like the Republicans were very successful in protecting their incumbents through redistricting.

District 1
2010 -- Gohmert (R)
2012 -- Gohmert (R)

District 2
2010 -- Poe (R)
2012 -- Poe (R)

District 3
2010 -- Johnson (R)
2012 -- Johnson (R)

District 4
2010 -- Hall (R)
2012 -- Hall (R)

District 5
2010 -- Hensarling (R)
2012 -- Hensarling (R)

District 6
2010 -- Barton (R)
2012 -- Barton (R)

District 7
2010 -- Culberson (R)
2012 -- Culberson (R)

District 8
2010 -- Brady (R)
2012 -- Brady (R)

District 9
2010 -- Green (D)
2012 -- Green (D)

District 10
2010 -- McCaul (R)
2012 -- McCaul (R)

District 11
2010 -- Conaway (R)
2012 -- Conaway (R)

District 12
2010 -- Granger (R)
2012 -- Granger (R)

District 13
2010 -- Thornberry (R)
2012 -- Thornberry (R)

District 14
2010 -- Paul (R)
2012 -- Weber (R)

District 15
2010 -- Hinijosa (D)
2012 -- Hinojosa (D)

District 16
2010 -- Reyes (D)
2012 -- O'Rourke (D)

District 17
2010 -- Flores (R)
2012 -- Flores (R)

District 18
2010 -- Lee (D)
2012 -- Lee (D)

District 19
2010 -- Neugebauer (R)
2012 -- Neugebauer (R)

District 20
2010 -- Gonzalez (D)
2012 -- Castro (D)

District 21
2010 -- Smith (R)
2012 -- Smith (R)

District 22
2010 -- Olson (R)
2012 -- Olson (R)

District 23
2010 -- Canseco (R)
2012 Gallego (D)

District 24
2010 -- Marchant (R)
2012 -- Marchant (R)

District 25
2010 -- Doggett (D)
2012 -- Williams (R)

District 26
2010 -- Burgess (R)
2012 -- Burgess (R)

District 27
2010 -- Farenthold (R)
2012 -- Farenthold (R)

District 28
2010 -- Cuellar (D)
2012 -- Cuellar (D)

District 29
2010 -- Green (D)
2012 -- Green (D)

District 30
2010 -- Johnson (D)
2012 -- Johnson (D)

District 31
2010 -- Carter (R)
2012 -- Carter (R)

District 32
2010 -- Sessions (R)
2012 -- Sessions (R)

District 33
2012 -- Veasey (D)

District 34
2012 -- Vela (D)

District 35
2012 -- Doggett (D)

District 36
2012 -- Stockman (R)

Friday, September 07, 2012

Texas GOP Wastes Money To Restrict Voting Rights And Representation

Yesterday, at the Democratic Convention, Rep John Lewis (D-Georgia) told delegates, "Your vote is precious -- almost sacred. It is the most powerful non-violent tool you have to create a more perfect union." He was right. Their is nothing more precious and valuable in a representative democracy than the right of every single citizen to vote for the party and the candidate of their choice.

But there are many politicians in this country, including my own state of Texas, that do not believe this. They believe voting should be restricted to those who would vote for them and their party -- the Republican Party. Here in Texas, and in many other states, the Republicans have used their power in office to pass a couple of laws that could only be described as promoting discrimination.

The first is the redistricting law they passed. Although at least 90% of the growth in Texas population between 2000 and 2010 was in the minority population, the Republicans only created one new minority seat (and three new white Republican-leaning seats). They hoped that the one minority seat would allow them to sneak their discriminatory redistricting past the Justice Department. It didn't work, so they took the matter to the federal courts. In spite of spending more than a million dollars, the court has ruled against them. Now the Attorney General is going to spend even more state money to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

The second is the Voter ID law they passed. They claimed it was to prevent voter fraud. But they were unable to show a federal court that any widespread fraud even existed in the state. The court saw through their specious argument and recognized the law for what it was -- an effort to suppress the vote of groups who would likely vote for Democrats. They have also spent over a million dollars trying to defend this obviously discriminatory law in the courts. Now the Attorney General is going to spend even more state money to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

There's no doubt this is naked and ugly discrimination, but it is also sheer insanity. Like too many states, Texas has a budget deficit. In the last legislative session, they drastically cut state services for the citizens of Texas (including a $5 billion cut to education). Now they are facing another large and growing deficit when the legislature meets again next January -- and they are already talking about more cuts in services.

How is it that a state with large deficit problems can afford to spend millions of dollars to defend discrimination? Obviously they believe that state money should be used to keep Republicans in power, and not for the good of the state's citizens. This is shameful behavior. But they are Republicans, and today's Republicans have no shame.

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Court Tosses Out Texas Redistricting

(The pink area on the map above shows the congressional district I live in [#13]. It is over 300 miles long and contains 44 of Texas' 254 counties.)

After the last census was taken, it showed that the population in Texas had grown enough for the state to have an additional 4 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. And at least 90% (or more) of that growth was due to an increase in minority residents (mostly Hispanics and African-Americans). Now any fair redistricting proposal would have created 3 new Hispanic-majority districts and one with a majority of African-Americans (or at the very least, two new Hispanic seats and one new African-American seat).

But fairness is not a Republican value, and the state government in Texas is dominated by the Republican Party. The Texas GOP likes to talk about values, but that is just for the benefit of voters. The only value they really adhere to is doing whatever is necessary to stay in power (even if they have to cheat to do it), and that seems to be the value they followed in redistricting the state's congressional seats. When they were done, they had gerrymandered the state so that 3 new white Republican seats had been created and one Hispanic seat.

They knew what they had done was wrong and would not meet the standards outlined in the Voting Rights Act. That's why they didn't submit the new districts to the Justice Department for approval (as the law requires since Texas has a history of denying minority voting rights). Instead, they bypassed the Justice Department and submitted their plan to a federal court (counting on Republican-appointed judges to approve their illegal and racist plan).

The court has now made its decision. They tossed out the Republican redistricting plan in a 2 to 1 decision. The court wanted no part of the GOP's plan to deny minority voting rights. The court said:

"We conclude that Texas has not met its burden to show that the U.S. Congressional and State House Plans will not have a retrogressive effect, and that the U.S. Congressional and State Senate Plans were not enacted with discriminatory purpose. Accordingly, we deny Texas declaratory relief. Texas has failed to carry its burden that (the Legislature's actions) do not have the purpose or effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act."

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/08/28/4211979/new-texas-political-maps-rejected.html#storylink=cpy


It is likely that the current election will be held under districts drawn by a San Antonio federal court for the primaries. But in the next legislative session (scheduled for January of 2013), the legislature is going to have to start over and draw new districts -- hopefully they will be districts that are much fairer to all Texans, including minorities.

This makes the down-ballot races, especially for the State House and Senate, very important this November. The Democrats will not be able to retake either body of the legislature, but they need to pick up enough seats to apply pressure to create fair districts.

Tuesday, February 07, 2012

Texas AG Tries To Pull A Fast One

During the last legislative session, Texas Republicans tried to use their majorities in both legislative houses to create legislative districts that would unfairly favor the Republican Party. One of the aspects of the Republican redistricting plan would give the nearly all-white Republican Party all of the four new U.S. Congressional Districts the state got due to its population growth in the last ten years. In an effort to avoid scrutiny by the U.S. Justice Department, the Republicans then bypassed the Justice Department and asked federal courts to approve their redistricting plan.

That hasn't worked out too well for them. The federal court told them to work out a compromise plan with minority groups and the Democrats, or be subject to a plan imposed by the court itself (at least for the coming election). Yesterday, Texas Attorney General Abbott announced that a compromise had been reached. He said the compromise would create two new Hispanic-majority districts (and evidently leave the other two new districts as white-majority Republican districts).

The problem is that this wasn't a "compromise" at all. To reach his ballyhooed agreement, the Attorney General simply left out any organizations that didn't agree with his "new" proposal -- including the Mexican-American Legislative Conference, the Black Legislative Caucus, and the NAACP. The Democratic Party also refused to give its blessing to the Texas AG's "compromise", saying:

Attorney General Abbott issued a statement outlining an agreement reached with some parties regarding the ongoing redistricting legal fight. We were not involved in the discussions that produced this agreement, we are not in agreement to the maps released by the Attorney General, and we do not expect that these maps will be used for the 2012 election. 

We're greatly disappointed the Attorney General did not deal in good faith with all parties involved. 

For the Texas Democratic Party, any maps that do not have the consent of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, the Legislative Black Caucus, and other plaintiffs are nonstarters. 

The Attorney General is clearly terrified that the DC court will find that the state’s maps are discriminatory in both effect and intent. Until there’s a legitimate agreement among the parties, we support the court continuing to do its work.


I have to agree with those opposing the AG's new proposal. Let's look at a few facts about the population of Texas. While the state did experience significant population growth, nearly 90% of that growth was due to a growth in the minority population. It was primarily due to Hispanic growth, but the African-American sector of the population also grew by 22%. In fact, the non-Hispanic white portion of the Texas population actually decreased as a portion of the total population, and now makes up only 45.3% of it while minority groups make up 54.7%.

How can it be right for a decreasing portion of the population (one that only made up 10% of the growth at most) to claim ANY of the four new seats, let alone all or even half of them? The answer, of course, is that it isn't right -- or fair. If the Republicans wanted to be fair (a concept they have yet to master), they would have drawn up a redistricting plan that gave ALL of the new congressional seats to districts with a minority-majority population. I personally think it should be three new Hispanic districts and one new African-American district.

Gerrymandering is wrong. And gerrymandering to reduce the voice of minorities in government is much worse -- it is illegal. But that is what the Texas Republicans are trying to do. It is time for the federal courts to slap them down.

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Would A Single May Primary Be So Bad ?

By now you probably know that the primary voting for Texas has become a real mess. The Republican-dominated legislature drew new district lines for U.S. House and state legislative races -- and those new districts ignored the huge rise in population of Hispanics in the state. Instead of creating new Hispanic districts as they should have done, the Republicans reverted back to the old practice of gerrymandering to make sure that Republicans would be the electoral winners for the next 10 years.

The Republicans knew they were violating the Voting Rights Act with their new district lines, so they decided to skip the Justice Department (which is required to approve of Texas redistricting) and go straight to federal court. They figured they had a better chance with the federal court, since it had two Republican appointees and one Democratic appointee. But they were wrong. That court ruled they had violated the law and redrew the district lines.

The Republicans could have accepted that, since the court-drawn lines would probably have still given them majorities -- at least for a few more years. But they decided to go for the whole ball of wax, and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. And amazingly, the court decided to hear the case. It is scheduled for a January 9th hearing. Now no one knows whether the Republican district lines or the court's district lines will be approved -- it could go either way.

Monday, June 13, 2011

Looks Like Panhandle Will Lose A Nut And Gain A District


It looks like the Texas Panhandle will come out of the redistricting process for House districts better than expected. For the last 10 years the Panhandle has had three representatives in the Texas House -- the representatives from districts 86,87, and 88 (see bottom map above). Those districts are currently represented by John Smithee (86), Walter Price (87), and Warren Chisholm (88) -- all Republicans. Although the Panhandle (and West Texas) showed a small gain in population, it was feared that the area would lose a House district to the much larger growth in other areas (particularly the I-35 corridor).

There was a district eliminated from West Texas -- District 85, which was represented by Plainview's Jim Landtroop. But Landtroop's home county was put into a reconfigured District 88. This would normally mean Landtroop would have to face off against Chisholm, but Chisholm has already indicated he would either retire or run for the Railroad Commission. I doubt he could defeat Landtroop in the reconfigured district anyway.

That means the Panhandle will still have all or most of the same three districts (86,87,88), but it will also gain some representation from a fourth district (see top map above). District 68, represented by Vernon's Rick Hardcastle, has been pushed a little farther West and now includes four Panhandle counties. While West Texas as a whole has lost a House seat, the Panhandle actually came out a little better. They now have four representatives looking out for their interests instead of three. And as a bonus, they will now be rid of religious nut-job Warren Chisholm.

Of course the four representatives are still all Republicans, but hopefully future demographic changes will remedy that (since the growth of the Hispanic population is much larger than the growth of the White population in almost all of these counties).

On the whole, the Panhandle really can't complain too much about the new Texas House districts. It could have been worse.

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Panhandle Will Lose A Seat In State House

This was not really unexpected, but it is not good for the people in this part of Texas. It looks like the Panhandle (and the area near it) is going to lose a seat in the Texas House of Representatives.

The redistricting map currently proposed will have District 88 of Warren Chisum (R-Pampa) and District 68 of Rick Hardcastle (R-Vernon) merge. I think Chisum (pictured) had expected this since he has recently been talking about maybe running for Railroad Commission or a similar position. If he doesn't run for something else, then he and Hardcastle would have to face off in a Republican primary. I think Hardcastle would probably win that race.

I torn in my feelings about this. While expected, it does mean the Panhandle will have less of a voice in Austin. That's not good since state leaders tend to ignore us most of the time anyway (as we are a long way from Austin and not in a mostly rural part of the state). On the other hand, it takes a district out-of-play that was very safe for Republicans and creates one in a more urban area that Democrats could possibly win. So while this is bad for the Panhandle, it could be a good thing for Texas in general.

It looks like the growth in population here in the Amarillo area (Potter and Randall counties) has saved the other two Panhandle seats -- the District 86 seat of John Smithee (R-Amarillo) and the District 87 seat of Walter Price (R-Amarillo). These districts might increase slightly in size, but the current plan keeps them intact.

It looks like the South Plains area around Lubbock will also lose a Republican legislator. The current redistricting map has combined the District 83 seat of Charles Perry (R-Lubbock) and the District 85 seat of Jim Landtroop (R-Plainview).

Monday, September 27, 2010

Redistricting Hearing Coming To Amarillo


The Texas legislature has already started hearings across Texas on redistricting, even though the legislature will not meet to actually take action on the matter until January of 2011.   The results of the 2010 census is expected to give Texas three or four more U.S. House representatives than it currently has.   Population shifts within the state are also expected to require a redrawing the lines for state legislature House and Senate districts.

On October 4th, the residents of the Texas Panhandle will get their chance to make their views on redistricting heard.   That is the day that the Senate Select Committee on Redistricting, chaired by Senator Kel Seliger, comes to Amarillo.   The Panhandle hearing will be held at the Region 16 Education Service Center at 5800 Bell Street in Amarillo.   All interested citizens are encouraged to attend.

West Texas and the Panhandle gained over 4% in population since the 2000 census, but that pales in comparison to the rise in population in several urban areas (as much as a 57% jump in population).   This means the new congresspeople will go to the urban areas.   West Texas and the Panhandle will be lucky if they can just maintain the current representation they have (on both the state and federal level).

One interesting idea was floated in the hearing held in Lubbock -- the creation of a minority Hispanic district somewhere in the west or northwest part of Texas.   Currently all of the state and federal representatives in West Texas and the Panhandle (except for El Paso) are held by white male Republicans.   It was pointed out that 58% of the Lubbock Independent School District is already minority (Hispanic and African-American).   There are also 12 counties in the 26 county Panhandle that are majority Hispanic, and several more in West Texas.

It's good that this idea is already being considered, although it'll probably not happen until after the 2020 census (which undoubtably will show an even denser Hispanic population in West Texas and the Panhandle).   It is doubtful that after the 2020 census the federal courts will allow the Republicans to dilute Hispanic voting strength by gerrymandering districts.    

Friday, July 02, 2010

Seliger Heads Redistricting Committee

In a recent post I lamented the fact that the two Texas House committees that are starting to study redistricting don't have a single member from the Panhandle on them and haven't scheduled any visits to the Panhandle. It was as though the voters living in the Panhandle would not be able to make their voices heard on this very important issue.

But that may have been somewhat rectified. The Texas Senate has now chosen their own redistricting committee and the person appointed to chair that committee is from Amarillo -- Senator Kel Seliger (pictured). This committee will also be touring the state to get voter input, and although the cities to be visited have not yet been determined, it is expected that the Panhandle will be included.

Seliger is a Republican and the committee is heavily weighted with Republicans (7 Republicans and 4 Democrats), but the public hearings will be open to everyone interested. I urge area Democrats to attend and make sure their voices are heard. Redistricting is one of the most important things the next legislature will do and it will affect all our lives for at least the next ten years.

This is also an excellent reason to elect more Democrats to the legislature in November. It is within reach of Democrats to secure a majority in the House, and that would assure that another unfair redistricting doesn't take place like happened a few years ago at the urging of Tom DeLay.

Saturday, June 05, 2010

The Redisricting Battle Is Beginning


The census is not officially over (saw a census worker in my complex yesterday), but the politicians here in Texas are already beginning the long process of redistricting. And I'm sure there will be lots of fighting and name-calling before it's over next year (and I wouldn't be surprised to see a court fight either). Texas is one of the states that will gain some members of the U.S. House of Representatives -- possibly as much as three or four new members.

According to Texas House Speaker Joe Straus, the Redistricting Committee and the Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence Committee will be working together on this issue. These two committees are going on the road to hear what the people of Texas have to say about redistricting. They will start this road show in San Antonio on June 21st, and then go on to some other cities between now and November. Here is the tentative schedule:

July 2010 - McAllen, Laredo, Corpus Christi
August 2010 - El Paso, Lubbock
September 2010 - Dallas, Richardson, Fort Worth
October 2010 - Beaumont, Marshall
November 2010 - Houston, Austin

You will notice that the city of Amarillo (with about 200,000 citizens) is nowhere on that list, and neither is any other Panhandle city. I'm beginning to feel like the Panhandle is the red-headed step-child of Texas politics. We get plenty of abuse from Austin, but no recognition at all.

During the last redistricting fight, Oklahoma and New Mexico got more visits from Texas politicians than the Panhandle did. Is it going to be that way again?