It’s gonna make for a long session, or more likely sessions.
Wielding the map-drawing power will not be entirely painless for Republicans, who have seen their grip on dozens of state and federal districts erode since the last round of redistricting. Though Democrats failed to flip any of their targeted congressional seats in 2020 and fared about as poorly in state House contests, their single-digit defeats in once ruby red districts point to Democrats’ growing advantages in urban and suburban counties, even as Republicans retain an overwhelming advantage in rural Texas.
Republicans, then, will have to decide how aggressive they want to be in redrawing political boundaries to their benefit, balancing the need to fortify their numbers in battleground districts with the opportunity to flip back some of the districts they lost in 2018, when Democrats picked up 12 seats.
“I see this redistricting opportunity for Republicans as more of a defensive play than an offensive play,” said Texas Republican strategist Matt Mackowiak. “This is one of the tough things when you’re engaging in redistricting if you’re the party in power, because you can be sort of allured by the short-term potential to win an extra seat or two. But you can take two steps forward to eventually take three steps back if you’re not thinking about demographic changes over a 10-year period.”
For now, the looming redistricting fight is far from the minds of most state lawmakers. Though the U.S. Census Bureau is supposed to deliver updated population data to states by April 1 next year, the agency suspended field operations for the 2020 Census due to the COVID-19 pandemic and wrapped up the count in October, well after the original July 31 deadline. Bureau officials also sought to push back the deadline for sending data to the states until July 2021, prompting speculation that Texas may not get the census numbers until after the Legislature gavels out in late May.
“If the data is not delivered during the regular session, it creates a whole set of cascading problems that impact the drawing of lines, even down to the county and municipal levels, because everyone is going to be put on an even greater time crunch,” said Eric Opiela, an attorney and former executive director of the Texas Republican Party who has worked on prior redistricting efforts.
During normal times, officials might already be using population data from the Census Bureau’s annual American Community Survey (ACS) to strategize or even draw up preliminary maps. But the pandemic has forced census workers to adopt unconventional survey tactics and generated unprecedented population shifts due to the rise in remote working, factors that make any pre-2020 population data highly unreliable, Opiela said.
“Those (ACS) projections can be used to allow you to do things like work through scenarios before the official data comes, and it’s actually fairly accurate,” Opiela said. “I don’t know that that’s going to be the case this time. I think it’s going to be very important to wait until the official data is received to draw any conclusions as to where Texans live.”
It’s not just the uncertain timeline. Even if the Census data arrived on time, COVID-19 would likely hamper redistricting efforts by forcing lawmakers to prioritize filling the state’s pandemic-inflicted budget gap and perhaps providing economic and medical relief to COVID-19 victims.
“The challenge with redistricting is it’s such a naturally partisan issue that it’s really hard to sort of box half the day and then be ballet dancers the other half of the day,” Mackowiak said. “It’s hard to be bipartisan on other issues but then super, super partisan during redistricting. So, having a special session just related to redistricting after the major issues are taken care of seems to me to be the smartest pathway.”
See here for the most recent news on the Census situation. I think it’s very likely that we don’t get the data in time for the regular session, in which case redistricting will be done in a special session later in the year. Depending on how late that is, and on how long it takes to hammer out maps, and whether any initial court challenges result in temporary restraining orders, we could see the 2022 primaries get pushed back. The filing period begins in mid-November, after all, so there’s a non-zero chance of it being affected by how this plays out.
It’s worth remembering that if the Dems had managed to win the State House, they still would have had limited influence over redistricting. As the story correctly notes, the Legislative Redistricting Board, a five-member panel that would have had only one Democrat (the House Speaker, in this hypothetical), would draw the State House, State Senate, and SBOE maps if the House and Senate had been unable to agree on them. The Congressional maps would go to a federal court, however, and that’s where the Dems might have had some influence. If Republicans didn’t want to take the chance of putting map-drawing power in a third party like that, they might have been open to some compromises on the other maps. We’ll never know now, but that was the basic idea.
As it is, how this goes with Republicans once again in full control will come down to how they answer a few key questions. (For the purposes of this post, I’m focusing on the State House. The issue are mostly similar for Congress and the State Senate, but my examples will come from House elections.) Will they be constrained by established rules like the county line rule, which puts only whole House seats in sufficiently large counties (this is why all Harris County State House seats are entirely within Harris County), or do they change that? How constrained do they feel by the Voting Rights Act, and by other established redistricting precedents – in other words, do they bet big on the courts overturning past rulings so that they can more or less do whatever they want, or do they pull it in so as not to risk losing in court?
Most of all, what do they consider a “safe” seat to be? Look at it this way: In 2012, Republicans won 16 of the 95 seats they took with less than 60% of the vote. Of those, only five were decided by fewer than ten points:
HD43 – Won in 2010 by then-Democrat JM Lozano, who subsequently switched parties.
HD105 – Barely won by the GOP in 2008, by less than 20 votes.
HD107 – Won by a Dem in 2008, it became the first Republican-held seat to flip in this decade, won by Victoria Neave in 2016.
HD114 – Nothing special, it was won by eight points in 2012.
HD134 – The perennial swing district.
Note that four of those five are now Democratic. Other “less than 60%” seats from 2012 now held by Dems include HDs 45, 47, 65, 102, 115, and 136. (*) The point is, that looks like an extremely durable majority, with enough 60%+ seats on their own to ensure a mostly Republican House. And indeed it was for the first three elections of the decade. There will be books written about why all of a sudden it became precarious, but you’d be hard pressed to do a better job than the Republicans did in 2011.
But as noted, things look different now. In 2020, Republicans won 26 of the 87 seats they took with less than 60% of the vote. Of those, seventeen were won by less than ten points:
HD26, HD54, HD64, HD66, HD67, HD92, HD93, HD94, HD96, HD97, HD108, HD112, HD121, HD126, HD132, HD138
We can talk all we want about how things might have gone differently in 2020, but the fact remains that it wouldn’t have taken much to change many of those outcomes. How many Republican incumbents will insist on a 55%+ district for themselves? Whatever assumptions you make about the 2020 electorate and what it means for the future, that’s going to be a tall order in some parts of the state.
This more than anything will drive their decision-making, and may well be the single biggest source of friction on their side. Who is willing to accept a 51% Republican district, and who will have to take one for the team? In 2011, Republicans were coming off an election that they had won by more than 20 points statewide. This year they won at the Presidential level by less than six points, and at the Senate level by less than ten. They have a smaller piece of the pie to cut up. They have full control over how they do it, but the pie isn’t as big as it used to be. What are they going to do about that?
(*) In 2012, Cindy Burkett had no Democratic opponent in HD113, and Gary Elkins was re-elected in HD135 with 60.36% of the vote. Both of those districts are now held by Democrats. Always in motion, the future is.
The basic process of manipulative redistricting remains the same as always: “packing” and “cracking”. If your goal is to maximize R seats, then what you do is to pack D’s into uncompetitive districts and then crack the remaining D’s across as many districts as possible.
Data from 2020: Sheila Jackson Lee won with 73.3% of the votes. Al Green won with 75.1%. If you swapped those “excess” D voters into TX-02, Dan Crenshaw would have had a real fight with Sima Ladjevardian, and both Jackson Lee and Green would have faced real competition as well.
So, no matter how you conservatively project a decade of demographic change, you still get to do this packing, which enormously dilutes the D’s voting power. It’s the cracking where you have to be careful. You can only have just so many R votes on the board. If you add another R seat, you’re thinning out the R voting advantage per seat overall, creating opportunities for demographics and political waves.
One last thing: if the D’s take control of the U.S. Senate, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if we see gerrymandering reform bills. The lawsuits will inevitably follow.
As I noted before, changes listed in Kuff’s link will NOT be the only pain for GOP Legiscritters. Instead, especially on the House side, the decline in population in many places in West Texas, especially the ones that don’t have earl, is going to force some degree of “cramming,” either of rural districts head-on against each other, or in places like the Hill Country, rural districts cutting into exurban districts on the west side of I-35. https://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2019/09/should-drew-springer-be-in-trouble-well.html
“I see this redistricting opportunity for Republicans as more of a defensive play than an offensive play,” said Texas Republican strategist Matt Mackowiak. “This is one of the tough things when you’re engaging in redistricting if you’re the party in power, because you can be sort of allured by the short-term potential to win an extra seat or two. But you can take two steps forward to eventually take three steps back if you’re not thinking about demographic changes over a 10-year period.”
That’s a pretty key quote, suggesting that the focus will be on protecting the incumbents. Continuing the focus on the State House, my guess is that the Democrats will lose 2-3 seats to new lines in Williamson, Hays, and possibly Denton. Because of population changes, they will also lose 2 seats along the Border. However, because of population change, they could also gain up to 3 seats, namely in Harris, Fort Bend, and Bexar. So, the net change is probably going to be 1-5 seats.
My guess is the GOP won’t go on the offense like 2003 or 2011, but not entirely will they be defensive. I think the GOP will be happy with 88-89 seats that they should get 60% of the vote. I’m fascinated in how do they draw DFW. They have to shore up 108, 112, in Dallas but still want to try pick up a seat or two there. What tradeoffs do they make to shore up Shaheen and Leach in 66 and 67? Do they go into Frisco, keeping in mind Collin probably gets at least a half a district.
The senate will be even more interesting. Most vulnerable seats GOP are the 8th, 9th, and 17th. Are they going to crack SD16 or SD10 to draw a GOP seat, or will they be smart to live with 19 seats and shore up incumbents?
@asmith–I haven’t tried very hard, but I have real doubts about shoring up 108 and 112 and drawing even a 3rd seat. I’m not saying it can’t be done, but it’s likely going to be tough if even possible. That’s why I ignored it in my comment. As for the Senate, I think SD16 is more likely to be cracked than SD10. SD10 is the result of a court case from 2011, so any attempt to crack it should be thrown out. With that in mind, they might make SD10 a Democratic voter sink. Then, they shore up SD8 and SD9 and crack SD16.