Thread by @mcpli

The experience of Texas in the last round of redistricting powerfully illustrates how Section 5’s pre-clearance requirements weren’t some mere outdated formality. A thread 🧵 1/ #fairmaps #VRA55

When Texas last drew maps in 2011, it was after a decade when the state saw its population increase by 4.3 million people - making it the fastest growing state in the nation. 2/3 of that growth was Latino & nearly 90% non-white. 2/ #fairmaps #VRA55

As a result of that explosive growth, Texas gained 4 new congressional seats - the most number of seats ever gained by a state covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. 3/ #fairmaps #VRA55

Without the growth of its non-white populations (Black and Asian as well as Latino), Texas would not have gained any new congressional districts. With it, it gained four. 4/ #fairmaps #VRA55

Yet when it came time to draw new districts, Texas didn't draw any additional minority ability-to-elect districts. In fact, as a percentage of districts, minority ability-to-elect districts actually *decreased.* 5/ #fairmaps #VRA55

This was accomplished in several ways. One was simply by aggressively dividing communities of color in the DFW region (see, e.g., the taproot of TX-26 which joined heavily Latino parts of Tarrant Co. to mostly white suburban Denton Co.). #fairmaps #VRA55

Another means was by actively and nefariously undermining ability-to-elect districts like sprawling TX-23 in West Texas. 7/ #fairmaps #VRA55

In TX-23, the trick was to replace higher voting Latinos (orange) with lower voting ones (green) so that the district looked more Latino on paper but was worse electorally for Latino preferred candidates. 8/ #fairmaps #VRA55

Republican operatives even had a word for this slight-of-hand maneuver: "OHRVS" or "optimal Hispanic Republican voting strength" (Though they also forgot the the 'e' in email stands for 'evidence') 9/ #fairmaps #VRA55

But back in 2011, Texas was still covered by Section 5's pre-clearance requirements - meaning that its aggressive and highly discriminatory maps couldn't be put into effect until pre-approved. 10/ #fairmaps #VRA55

In 2011, that pre-clearance dragged out into mid-2012, in part because Texas chose to sue for pre-clearance in federal district court in Washington rather than seek pre-clearance from the Obama DOJ. 11/ #fairmaps #VRA55

That delay resulted in partially redrawn interim maps being put in place by another federal court and delay of the Texas primary. It also resulted in August 2012 in a sweeping decision by the DC court denying pre-clearance. drive.google.com/file/d/0BxeOfQ… 12/ #fairmaps #VRA55

Not only did the court find that Texas' maps (state house and state senate as well as congressional) result in retrogression of minority voting power, it found that Texas had intentionally discriminated in the drawing of the maps. 13/ #fairmaps #VRA55

Unfortunately, that ruling never got to play out in full because shortly after the Texas Legislature adopted new maps in 2013, the Supreme Court struck down Section 5 - meaning that the redrawn maps never had to undergo pre-clearance review. 14/ #fairmaps #VRA55

And in the upcoming redistricting cycle, of course, any new maps adopted by Texas won't be subject to pre-clearance either - unless Congress acts to restore the VRA to its full force. 15/ #fairmaps #VRA55