Redistricting
To the Editor:
The reasoning regarding the current redistricting in Texas must be sound. The health of our Republic needs a clear, fair, and accurate discussion of this matter.
One thought that needs correcting is that when President Trump called for five more Republican seats in the House of Representatives Texas could create them. Nope, after the dust settles, Texas will still have 38 representatives, currently 25 Republicans, 12 Democrats, and one unfilled by replacement. The pie stays the same size, a total of 435 U.S. Representatives. How do they get divided?
One FCR letter writer reasons that the pie needs to be divided differently so that “over 2 million new residents of Texas get” fair representation because, as the Heritage Society states, “The proposed (redistricting) map would fix inaccurately apportioned and unconstitutionally gerrymandered (based on “race”) districts to ensure fair representation for millions of Texans.” Part of the question of unfairness is based on “errors” in the 2020 census and “discriminatory” practices. The last theme will forever be debated in court and legislatures and is embedded in the census.
Commentators point to problems with the 2020 census conducted during COVID and under presidential pressure to hurry the process. Such urgency, experts argued, was likely to undercount parts of the population, especially if the process was not well advertised and not persistent. The U.S. Census Bureau revealed that counting errors typically disadvantage Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic, and Native/ Indigenous communities. The national error was estimated to be an undercount of -0.24% (782,000 people). The official Post-Enumeration Survey (PES) analysis found that B/ AA undercount was -3.0%, L/H was -4.99%, and N/I was -5.64%. Here is a list of the notable undercount states with percentage: Arkansas (-5.04), Florida (-3.48), Illinois (-1.97), Mississippi (-4.11%), Tennessee (-4.78), and Texas (-1.92). Several states experienced overcounts: Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Utah. If undercount is the big deal for Texas, its is one of the lowest and might result from a failure to work hard to get the count correct. The point, these data and expert reinterpretation and correction (PES) suggest that if Texas’ redistricting is justified by census data the undercount is likely among “populations of color,” just the opposite of what some argue, including FCR letter writers.
Is the current redistricting correcting a problem or making it worse? An FCR writer says the Democrats “left the state so they could avoid voting on the issue of correcting fair citizen representation.” If the undercount is among “populations of color” and if redistricting singles out those populations to lose more representation, then Texas government is compounding the error rather than solving it.
A strong argument can be made that the new redistricting will lead to less fairness. Legislators allege that the redistricting strategy is to pit high propensity Republican voters against low propensity voters of “color.” Critics of that process claim it is enhanced by AI. The plan is to break up concentrations of traditional and potential Democratic voters to increase the likelihood that five more seats will be in the R column.
The size of the pie stays the same. The configuration of the pieces change so that some voters get better outcomes than others. Years ago, because Texas redistricting is ongoing, we ended up with “bacon strips” which led voters to be in districts with people less like themselves. What will the Rorschach analysis of the map be this time? In the calculation of fairness, how much larger will President Trump’s gain in representation be above the 56% of the vote he earned in 2024?
Bob Heath Carmine