Burnt Orange Report

Is there any reasonable chance that the 2003 redistricting plan will be overturned? Any evidence of where John Roberts might stand? I would love for Austin to have its own district again.

What I would REALLY love to see is a revolutionary ruling saying that partisan affiliation cannot be taken into consideration in redistricting. But that's wishful thinking.

I think the fact that the U.S.S.C. has agreed to hear these cases is very promising. I along with most Texans opposed redistricting right from the start, but after Martin Frost lost his seat to a complete moron, it got personal for me.
I believe that when the state republicans approved this map, they declared war on the voters of Texas, we are being held hostage to an illegal, unconstitutional, gerrymandered congressional map, and don't think we should stop fighting until what is wrong is made right.
Thanks for the opportunity to rant.

U.S.S.C. = S.C.O.T.U.S.
Sometimes I get carried away in my abb.'s

Obviously there is a problem within the Justice Department. When staff attorneys find fault with a proposed plan but the Justice Department approves it nonetheless, that is an indication that the "checks and balances" aren't working.

More and more of these "approved" redistricting plans are ending up in the courts despite Justice Department approval. The minority party always objects. Sometimes it ends up in the courts. It seems of late, sometimes has become every time.

There are some advantages to the 2003 Texas redistricting plan but there are also some disadvantages. And far more disadvantages than advantages. Reality is the Republicans gerrymandered Texas beyond any justification on any basis. Texas is a huge state. With distinct areas. With distinct populations that go far beyond race or political party affiliation. Bad enough to mix apples and oranges. The Republicans this time threw in some tomatoes and a couple of pine trees. Red state or Blue state we are really a rainbow state when it comes to our population. We are not a solidly anything politically. Republicans do vote for Democrats. And Democrats do vote for Republicans. Which calls into question the use of "voting patterns." At least for me. We are a melting pot even within racial communities. West Texas, East Texas, South Texas, North Texas, the Hill Country, the Panhandle,the Valley, the Gulf Coast. Each with distinct populations that have quite different needs that have nothing to do with race or anything else. They are distinct geographic regions. One size does not fit all. And one representative in these gerrymandered districts cannot serve all.

Both parties tend to gerrymander to give themselves a political advantage. I'm not sure the Voting Rights Act or anything else really allows them that advantage beyond the use of "voting patterns" and I may be wrong and invite correction. Regardless of anything, the party in power does what it thinks it can get away with. And they usually get away with it.

Obviously the manner in which states redistrict needs to be better defined. And who better to define it than the Supreme Court? While we still have a reasonably rational Supreme Court.

Rational Supreme Court? Anyone else read Bush v. Gore? Hell, under SC, that "Side-show Bob" dude from the first American Idol should have sued in an epic Kelly v. Justin case just to see where Sandra Day O'Conner's loyalities really lie. He could have used the Equal Protection Clause to make an equal number of male/female votes. I bet the Court takes up the case, rules for the Repugs, then Martin Frost buys everyone a beer. Do you want Kelly Clarkson to bust out with a "Since You Been Gone" take for Max Sadlin? It's the least he deserves. . .

I said reasonably. Despite the monarchy they installed, they still stood up for "equality" in the Colorado decision involving discrimination and of course in the 21.06 decision.

Monarchies do fall. I suspect where Tom De Lay is headed, King George will soon follow.

Austin now has 2 congressmen (both from Austin) representing it, rather than just one. How is that not better?

Technically that is correct, but one of them is a republican which may not represent what Austin is.

Speaking to the specifics of the "evil" 2003 map, Texas now has 3 districts where African American voters control the outcome every time, which is roughly proportional to the percentage of African Americans in the state. The modified Martin Frost map which Texas was under for the 2002 elections only had two. I don’t believe any other state in the country achieves that level of proportionality, but I’m not entirely sure on that one. I do know that no state does better on that point.
Also, Texas increased the number of performing Hispanic districts by at least one in the 2003 map (Two, if you count Gene Green’s. His district's Hispanic ratio went up to where it could probably be considered a performing Hispanic district if it wasn’t before - an arguable point). Doggett’s new district (CD 25) is performing by every measure. Remember, performance is a measure of the voters’ desires, not the color of the Congressman, and the Hispanic voters in that district voted for him in the primary and in the general.
In addition, no one but lawyers for white Democrat incumbents has ever said that “coalition” districts are in any way protected - certainly no court. If they had been protected, ALL Democrat districts except Stenholm’s would have been protected simply because they are Democrat districts. That’s ludicrous on it’s face.
I would need to study the numbers, but I believe there are now more Anglos in performing Hispanic districts, than Hispanics in majority Anglo districts.
Finally, we live in a democracy. Staff (even DoJ voting rights section staff) do not make decisions; they make recommendations. There was never any intention to “insulate” Section 5 decisions from political appointees who are to represent the wishes of those whom the people have elected. If you disagree with those decisions, publicize the “evil” nature of them and elect those who will not make them.

>>Austin now has 2 congressmen (both from Austin) representing it, rather than just one. How is that not better?

Seting party affiliation aside, this is not really true because neither of them can fully represent Austin, as they have to represent other areas, too. Under the old map, Austin had its own district (District 10) which was contained entirely within Travis County. Our representative, therefore, worked entirely for us. Austin now has three districts, but not single one is completely an Austin district.

Austin is the largest city in the United States in which this is the case, by the way. The Republicans wanted to dilute Austin's legislative influence because it is a Democratic city.

If people in Austin feel strongly about a certain issue, while people in Houston suburbs/San Antonio/McAllen feel differently about it, we don't have a representative who really speaks for us, since he or she would have to take into account the views of citizens from other parts of the state who may have different views.

Guess what guys. There are a lot of Republicans who live in Austin. So having a Republican from Austin does represent the values of many voters, and particularly the voters in that district. And since Republicans now represent the majority in Washington, doesn't it make sense for the city to have a representative actually sitting at the table,

Also, take a look at the districts. If any of the congressmen representing Austin were to ignore the city's needs, they would find reelection difficult. CD 10,m for example is almost evenly weighted between Harris and Travis counties. As a result, McCaul has delivered for the city. I bet if you gave the folks at city hall a truth pill they'd tell you McCaul is better for the city than Doggett is.

Guess what guys. There are a lot of Republicans who live in Austin. So having a Republican from Austin does represent the values of many voters, and particularly the voters in that district. And since Republicans now represent the majority in Washington, doesn't it make sense for the city to have a representative actually sitting at the table.

Also, take a look at the districts. If any of the congressmen representing Austin were to ignore the city's needs, they would find reelection difficult. CD 10,m for example is almost evenly weighted between Harris and Travis counties. As a result, McCaul has delivered for the city. I bet if you gave the folks at city hall a truth pill they'd tell you McCaul is better for the city than Doggett is.

Jeff's point is the most important in this argument. It is not whether or not Blacks or Hispanics controll enought districts, the point is whether or not districts are drawn in a manner which makes it possible for a single congressman to represent the interests of the entire district. This comes up not only in Austin, but also in many other districts. Stenholms old district was mentioned earlier, this one is a good case for this problem. How exactally does a single congressman represent the interests both of the rural panhandle, and areas of north central Texas, while combining other panhandle area interests with those of central Texas and the hillcountry. Ludicrous. The question is, should districts be drawn in a way that makes representation possible and sensible or to achieve some form of racial or political balance?

>>I bet if you gave the folks at city hall a truth pill they'd tell you McCaul is better for the city than Doggett is.

If that's true, I find it odd that the "folks at city hall" show up at fundraisers for Doggett but not for McCaul.

But you miss my point. People in Travis Couny and people in Harris County don't see eye-to-eye on all things, and it is not good for either of them to have a representative who does not fully represent them. It's just as unfair to people in Harris County as it is to people in Travis County.

It's not a matter of party loyality. Last month, we had redistricting reform on the ballot in Ohio (where it would have benefited Democrats) and California (where it would have benefited Republicans). As it was, they failed in both states, because people were more interested in partisan advantage than in democracy.

"...because people were more interested in partisan advantage than in democracy."

Exactly.

I think the dismantling of the 24th district is what the focus needs to be on. We know it was all about politics; get rid of the W/D 40s, and Martin Frost. That district was a minority impact in where hispanics in Dallas and african-americans in FW were able to control a district. Now the heavily african-americans Democratic SE FW is in a district with affluent Flower Mound, entirely new Lewisville and other heavy GOP areas.

The hispanic community now is in a district with the elite in North Dallas and the Park Cities.

But since Chris Bell's district was eliminated to make a a district for Al Green, the GOP justified getting rid of the old 24th to give a district to Kenny boy Marchant.

How exactly does taking decision-making power away from ELECTED representatives and giving it to non-elected boards, judges, etc. increase democracy? I understand that losing can make the faint-hearted doubt the value of democracy, but having the elected make the decision usually works out in the end.

"but having the elected make the decision usually works out in the end."

How does this work out when the "elected" turn out to be criminals? Or, funded by criminals?

It works by having a transparent system (is anybody having a hard time finding out about the DeLay case?), an electorate that chooses to inform itself of the facts (such as the FACT that Mr. DeLay has been convicted of nothing), and candidates willing to fight for the right to serve. It's not perfect, but yes, I believe that it does usually work in the end. As Churchill said, "...democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Dub,

In a real democracy, the voters choose their representative. Under the system you seem to favoer, the representatives choose their voters. That's not a republic- unless you put the word "banana" in front of it!

Jeff,
That's bizarre statement! Y'all seem to want communities of interest unless it means that Republicans are represented by Republicans, and Democrats are represented by Democrats. That statement "representatives choose their votes" may be fun to say and easy to understand, but is factually untrue. Under the former Democrat plan nearly 60% of Texas voters voted for Republican Congressional candidates, yet Republicans won a substantial minority of the seats. Who was choosing who then? The bottom line is Texas has a strong majority of Republican voters and logically should have a strong majority of the Congressional seats, a majority of the Texas Senate seats, a majority of the Texas House, and all of the statewide offices. And now they do.

Ok Dub,
So esentially, what you believe is that representation should be drawn to concentrate political power, rather than to represent common interests over which the legislature was intended to have power, such as economic, educational, etc. you know, "the common good".

The grouping of voters along the lines of common interests and needs should take a back seat to grouping voters along party lines. I'm getting it. I'll be a good republican in no time.

So beliefs, i.e. party affiliation, are not a common interest or set of common interests? How would you prefer the lines be drawn? Like they were when the majority of Texans did not agree with the outcome of the overall Congressional elections? Basically, are you saying "common good" is when Republican voters are packed into as few districts as possible in order to maximize Democrat office holders? You, of course, have the right to believe that. I just wish the Democrats would be honest enough to admit that is what they believe.
LOOK AT THE NUMBERS: Texans cast millions more votes for Republican Congressional candidates than Democrat candidates, and have for years. Under what system of fair representation of people and their interests do you advocate for a majority Democrat delegation to Congress???

I think economic interests superceed party affiliation. LOOK AT THE MAP. Tell me how the interests of Agricultural and Farming communities in the panhandle match those of suburbanites in north central Texas. Or why it is that counties adjacent to each other sharing both common geography and economic interests should not share congressional representation, other than the fact that including some of these counties might make it more difficult for a republican contender to beat a democratic incumbent.
The reason we electe congressional representation by dist. and not by statewide vote is in order to recognize that in large states with varying geographic, cultural, and economic interests individuals in areas with low populations would not be well represented by the same individuals that must represent the needs of citizens in large cities. This system allows all citizens to have a representative who represents their particular needs.
It is not in the interest of representative government to keep saying that if 60% of the state is republican then 60% of the representation should be. If that 60% is concentrated in only 40% of the areas, then they should control government in that 40% of areas, at least in situations like congress that are designed to give all citizens fair representation at both the state and federal level.
In a statewide election, then the most prevailing political belief should and generally does rule, but in electoral districts, common interests should be grouped together not common political affiliation. This should not trouble you, as common economic interests will generally consolidate people into common politcal groups as well. But the concentration of political power should be a relic of, not the driving force behind the drawing of political boundries.

Dub you're an idiot. Let me explain something to you about "THE 1965 VOTING RIGHTS ACT." It does not matter what race the CONGRESSMAN is--what matters, is the racial make-up of the district.

Chris Bell's district was a minority district, as was Martin Frost's, and Henry Bonilla's. Since ol' Henry couldn't get anybody but the white folks to vote for him, your party dumped a bunch of Anglos into his district and called it a "MINORITY INFLUENCE DISTRICT" because Henry is a Mexican (or so he says).

On to Chris Bell. Dub--have you ever heard of the term "packing"? It means that you take two minority districts and combine then into one super minority district to dilute the minority vote. That is what happend in TX. They got rid of Frost's real minority district, and Bonilla's minority district, and created two super minority districts, for a loss of....drum roll please...that's right folks at "least" one minority district.

Apparently Dub thinks that whatever the race of the Congressman is determines whether or not a district is minority. So under that logic all white people need to do is find a minority who will do what they tell'em and we gots ourselves a minority district.

Idiot, eh? Did you not read my post of the 12th at 11:26 p.m.? I know it's considered bad form to quote yourself, but ki would apparently rather not sully his/her mind by reading all of this thread, so here you go:
"Also, Texas increased the number of performing Hispanic districts by at least one in the 2003 map (Two, if you count Gene Green’s. His district's Hispanic ratio went up to where it could probably be considered a performing Hispanic district if it wasn’t before - an arguable point). Doggett’s new district (CD 25) is performing by every measure. Remember, performance is a measure of the voters’ desires, not the color of the Congressman, and the Hispanic voters in that district voted for him in the primary and in the general."
On to Chris Bell, as you say. Yes I've heard of packing. Have you heard of cracking? That's where you split a group to get the benefit of their votes without them truly having the ability to elect a candidate of their choice. Bell is a classic exmple of cracking to get the benefit of African American vote without them being able to elect the candidate of their choice. It happened in Bell's first primary when he lost the black vote, then coasted in the general with their votes. Democrats are saying that cracked minority populations helping elect multiple whites is protected. Sorry. The courts have never protected such districts and in particularly blatant cases have thrown them out. Surely there are some Democrats on here who can remember the old days when they were the masters of cracking to assure that no one but a white cracker (is that where that came from?) got elected to Congress.
The avoidance of packing is why the "bacon strips" exist from the Valley to central Texas. Otherwise Hispanic voters would be packed in two Districts from Laredo to Brownsville. Very pretty and compact, but not legal. Don't believe me? Ask MALDEF and LULAC on that one.
As to the "idiot" thing, rudeness is not the best method of argument, so I won't return fire. However, I might suggest before you throw that particular shoe, you may want to check the size, and if it fits, go ahead and wear it.

By the way Dub,
by your logic, we should hand out electoral votes based not on state boundries, but in a way that gives the majority of electoral votes to the party that gets the largest % of the popular vote.
But really, why go to that much trouble, why not just give the presidency to the party with the largest percentage of the popular vote.

Or better yet, why not lump New Hampshire together with California and call it a voting district.

Dub--you must have the same math teacher as the majority leadership in the US House of Reps.

FUN WITH STATS:

***Pre-DeLay Plan***

1. Dist.15 Hisp (Hinojosa)*

2. Dist.16 Hisp (Reyes)

3. Dist. 18 AA (Jackson Lee)

4. Dist. 20 Hisp (Gonzalez)

5. Dist. 23 Hisp (Bonilla)*

6. Dist. 24 AA (Frost)*

7. Dist. 25 AA (Bell)

8. Dist. 27 Hisp (Ortiz)

9. Dist. 28 Hisp (Rodriguez)

10. Dist. 29 Hisp (G. Green)

11. Dist. 30 AA (EB Johnson)

***DeLay Plan***

1. Dist. 9 AA (A. Green)

2. Dist. 16 Hisp (Reyes)

3. Dist. 18 AA (Jackson Lee)

4. Dist. 20 Hisp (Gonzalez)

5. Dist. 25 Hisp (Doggett)**

6. Dist. 27 Hisp (Ortiz)

7. Dist. 28 Hisp (Cuellar)

8. Dist. 29 Hisp (G. Green)

9. Dist. 30 AA (EB Johnson)

* Eliminated as Minority Opportunity District Under DeLay Plan

FOR THOSE OF YOU LIKE DUB--WHO CANNOT SUBTRACT-- THAT IS A LOSS OF 2 MINORITY SEATS.

The numbers don't lie Dub. And yes, it's true, I don't have time to read ALL of your nonsense. Redistricted Rep. Stenholm D-(TX 17) sat in a district that GW Bush won with 77% of the vote, as did many incumbant Democrats. By your logic, nobody splits their tickets, when everybody knows that Texans are famous for being independents, AND that back when many of these guys were first elected, Texas was decidedly Democratic.

But the dirty tricks party, ever the power grabbers that they are couldn't wait for some of these oldies to retire, or for the next census for that matter, as soon as they got control of the leg, DeLay made sure as the first order of business they pushed through a gerrymandered nightmare, even though Texas couldn't fund its schools and had tons real problems to deal with all over the state. It didn't result in districts that made it possible for Republicans to win Dub, but rather, created districts that made it "impossible" for Democrats to win, which is illegal.

Dub likes the redistricting because it benefits the Republicans. If he were living in California, where redistricting favors the Democrats, he would be screaming bloody murder. For my part, I very much wanted the redistricting reform in California to pass last month; even though it would be bad for my party's interests, it would have been good for democracy.

The fact that Republicans have large statewide votes is irrelevant. It may surprise you, Dub, but Republicans can vote for Democrats and Democrats can vote for Republicans if they want to. Does the term "free country" mean anything to you?

As for overall congressional race average, your own logic defeats your argument. Add up the numbers from the Democratic 2004 congressional races and you'll see that they got 43.5% of the vote. But winning 10 out of 32 seats gives them only 31.25% of the representation.

As an aside, I opposed taking redistricting out of the hands of the CA legislature, even though it likely would have 2-3 new Republican seats. You don't increase democracy by reducing it.

ki,
Listen. I'll be short. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT SPLIT TICKETS. I am talking about votes for Congress only.

There are 11 seats held by Democrats not 10. We're hoping to get Chet Edwards next fall.

Comeon,
Why not go for your suggestion on electoral votes, CA & NH? Because inconvenient things like the Constitution and the law require it to be done otherwise.
There's a softball for you. Let me get you started: Repulicans don't care about the Constitution. Bush v. Gore. et cetera. ad infinitum. ad nauseum.
Can no one give me a convincing answer why there should be a map that results in way more Democrats than Republicans in a state that is very obviously the oposite? You alluded to that in your earlier post when you mentioned drawing more compact districts, and of course that is one important ideal. I think you would like the results even less however. Compact districts would pack Democrat votes. For likely Democrat districts you would end up with one district that was Cameron to Nueces along the lower coast, one that was Hidalgo County and a few surrounding areas, one that was Webb up to El Paso and a small part of Bexar (you've got to get to 651,619), one entirely in El Paso, one entirely in Bexar, one entirely in Travis, one entirely in Dallas, one entirely in Harris, with another tossup in Harris, and a tossup in Tarrant, and a tossup in lower East Texas including Jefferson County. You could eliminate the tossups in Jefferson and Harris by combining the Democratic portions - they are both oil counties, port counties, and they're fairly close together. That would give the Democrats 8 or 9 safe seats, and 2 or 3 possiblities. The Republicans would have 21 or 22 safe seats, and those 2 or 3 tossups. The problem is that you would end up with a number of illegally packed Hispanic seats and one possibly illegally packed African American seat, but you could create a very "pretty" map. The Hidalgo-based seat, Cameron-based seat, & the Webb-based seat would never pass legal muster.
As to creating rural seats, there just aren't enough people; that's why it's rural. Plus the rural-area cities - Lubbock, Amarillo, Abilene, San Angelo, Midland-Odessa, Wichita Falls, Tyler, Nacogdoches, etc. have very little in common with the surrounding rural counties except the weather. However, you've got to expand into the rural areas from them to get to 651,619. Despite our great expanses of land, Texas, based on population is an urban state.

The current map has about 10% more Republican Congs than votes. I suspect that despite much gnashing teeth those numbers will come very close together in 2006.
The old map had close to 15% more Democrat Congs than votes.

Dub the chart was for "minority districts" not democratic ones, try and keep up.

You've got to get over the fantasy. Frost's and Bell's districts were not protected districts! The court have never said so, and there is no reason to believe they will.
Bonilla's district is a non-performing Hispanic majority district, as it was.
Hinojosa's district was, is, and will be a performing Hispanic majority district.
Bell's district is now a protected district, not because an African American got elected, but because the African American voters in that district control the outcome.
Doggett's district is a new performing Hispanic district.
Gene Green's district Hispanic numbers were enhanced to the point that he will likely be replaced by a person of the Hispanic voters choice when he chooses to leave.
Bell and Frost never would have under the old map.

On a slightly tangential note Dub, how do you figure that the major cities in "rural" areas have little in common with the smaller towns surrounding them other than geography?

Of course they do. Where are you from anyway.

To clarify, the list I posted with the post-delay results for redistricting, had NINE seats on it not TEN, and it was a list of "Minority Districts" Dub, not Democratic ones, now try and keep up. Clearly, you think that your lengthy responses will somehow convince us all that you know what you are talking about, when in reality they just prove you don't.

You said "LOOK AT THE NUMBERS: Texans cast millions more votes for Republican Congressional candidates than Democrat candidates, and have for years. Under what system of fair representation of people and their interests do you advocate for a majority Democrat delegation to Congress???"

As far the number of cast votes are concerned, it doesn't matter how many ballots are cast but who lives in the district. You see Dub, I don't know if you know this or not, but children cannot vote. However, children are considered in the drawing of Congressional lines as part of the Congressman's district. Minority citizens have the right to a certian number of their own districts based on thier population (not ballots cast) in the each Voting Rights state according Federal laws. Even the ones who do not vote, but I suppose I shouldn't expect a DeLay supporter to grasp the whole rule of law thing unless it benefits them.

Keeping up fine. I was using those percentages and number of D & R Congs to answer Jeff above.

I don't know what all this talk of "performing districts" are, but a minority district cannot be pre-cleared by the DOJ under the current set of laws unless it is majority minority. The fact is, Bonilla's district is majority white, and although Frost's district was a coalition district, of two minority groups, blacks and latinos, it was a heck of lot less white than Bonilla's current one. And as for Bell, unless I am mistaken, well his district was a minority district.

You are mistaken. It wasn't. It is now.

Comeon,
I'm from a small town (~1,000) outside of Austin. We have nothing in common with Austin but cedar trees, live oaks, weather, and a media market. They don't raise goats and cows. I don't work in high tech. The fact that I watch the weather on channel 36 doesn't make me feel anything like an Austinite.
Ki,
If you take the district by district percentages, and then divide by 32 it doesn't significantly change the outcome of what I've said. Minority voters get more districts they control under this map than under the previous map. Frost's and Bell's were not such districts.
Further, Bonilla's is majority minority, although slighty. And yes, you can pre-clear (and meet court muster) with a less than minority majority district. Only one of the African American districts is majority minority. African American districts are considered to be performing (depending on the rest of the district) at between 40-45 African American. Performance is a measure of the ability of a minority group (or groups if they vote cohesively) to elect the candidate of their choice in both the primary and the general elections.
Sorry I'm not better at the short, insulting, sloganeering sort of argument.

Call him what you like, Dub has forgotten more about re-d then asshats like ki will ever know. Pathetic that they can't even concede the last set of lines were drawn to benefit Democrats. In their world, it was a group of philosophers that sat around and decided what lines would best represent Texas, not Laney and Bullock hammering it out with the D congressional delegation. Get a f-ing clue.

obviously snub, you have nothing intelligent to offer to this thread, you know nothing about congressional lines that Rush Limbaugh didn't tell you, so your poor little pea brain has to result to insults. At least, when I insult someone it's with purpose, you know, like calling you a pea brain, I don't see much point in calling someone I do not know an ahem "ass hat"

Look Dub, the very idea that minorities are better off with two less districts is insane. Now if you want to divert over to "but...but..the Texas delegation should refect a GOP majority!" then fine, there is no place for such political ramblings in the court of law, which is why, in my opinion, that map will soon be overturned.

In fact, some are so confident it will, that they are dropping out of their current races, like popular Laredo State Rep. Richard Raymond who abandoned his primary against Cuellar, and lord willing, when the map does get overturned will come after Bonilla.

Look, Bell's and Frost's districts in the previous map were not protected, nor will they be resurrected. It's just not going to happen. I know that's what lawyer Hebert is arguing for, and well he should, but he's not going to prevail. Keep in mind, there are many people that have good, smart lawyers arguing for them that lose. That doesn't mean the lawyer should have never make the argument. But the fact that he is smart and good does mean it is going to prevail.
As to Bonilla, once again: it was (and is) a majority Hispanic district. It was (and is) a district in which the Hispanic vote does not prevail. No retrogression there.
CD 9 is new African American controlled district. CD 25 is a new Hispanic controlled district.
Those are the simple facts. Mr. Hebert is one of the top voting rights attorneys in the nation. He's not going to win this one.

Tell it to the Justice Dept.

Dub, I wouldn't make those comments about Frost and Bell's districts if I were you until you read the DOJ memo that the Washington Post leaked a few weeks back. That memo mentions that Frost's district was a performing African American district that was never replaced, and that Bell's district was a performing African American district that did not need to be strengthened, suggesting packing of the dist.

ki,
I have read the memo. In fact a copy is laying on my coffee table right now. I have no doubt that the staff lawyers in the DoJ believe that Bell and Frost were protected. Fortunately, the Founders didn't give any decision making powers to staff. Staff makes suggestions/recommendations. Constitutional officers make decisions.
Also, don't kid yourself. DC staff attorneys are no more non-partisan than you or I. In fact, Jerry Hebert, the Dems lead attorney, was head of the Voting Rights Division for a while. When DoJ principals have over-ruled staff attoneys, the courts have never rejected those maps. It has happened frequently when the principals accepted staff recommendations, such as the I-95 district in NC or the bizarre district in La., both of which were also approved by staff and the AG, then rejected by the courts. Staff are not on the line for decisions. Principals are. They'll usually (so far, always) make the right choice when over-ruling.
The Congress nor the courts have ever protected such districts as Frost's or Bell's, despite DoJ staff's greatest desires.
Also, packing can't occur unless you eliminate a district or the real possibility of a district. Bell's districtd wasn't eliminated. Bell was.