The opponents to the new statewide Texas congressional plan continue to accuse the State of discrimination and retrogression because they allege they failed to create enough seats for Hispanics population growth and allow statewide proportional respresentation of non-citizen Hispanics that accounted for some of the population growth. The evidence shows that Texas drew as many districts as population demographics would permit without resorting to outright racial germandering. Because the Hispanic population is often integrated into other population groups and not always concentrated, the proposed seats by its opponents fail to meet even the first prong of the legal analysis (Gingles analysis) where there needs to be a majority (50%+1) of a minority group to require the drawing of additional majority minority Latino districts. While the plaintiffs in the case seek to force Texas to draw additional seats, those forcibly drawn districts could very well be ruled unconstitutional under Shaw v. Reno. These examples (here, here, here and here) of racially gerrymandered districts are included in some of the alternative maps suggested by the opponents of the Texas plans. Unfortunately, they look like football kicking tees, bug splats and other alien creatures primarily because they drew the lines with only thing on their mind – race.
In fact, as this brief shows, the increase in voting age citizens (as opposed to total population) within the Latino community constituted only 20% of the state’s population growth to reach a total of current 24.7% of the state’s eligible voting age population. Thus, the proposed plans by Texas provide for a total of 8 of its 36 (or 22%) Congressional seats to be Latino held seats and accurately reflect the proportional representation of Hispanic citizens.
DOJ and the other opponents to the plans want Texas to draw even more seats based on the overall population increases, including citizen and non-citizens, despite the fact that much of this growth was non-citizen in nature.