In the quest to increase the number of seats for the republicans, there is a need to craft the redistricting process by carefully manipulating the boundaries of various districts in Texas state. The redistricting process is aimed at minimizing the deviations among the populations in ten years. In some cases, the process is done to the benefit or loss of some groups. For instance, minorities are often overlooked and the public as a whole also ignores their interests. Therefore, they do not get the representation they deserve as they live within the majority (Ramsey, 2019) . Constitutionally, this is wrong as all citizens are rendered equal regardless of their backgrounds and ethnicities. In cases where gerrymandering is viewed as unfair, the affected tend to face off the majority in court, where they seek to redefine the boundaries and promote equality. Where the courts agree with the redistricting results, these groups are forced to live with the results. On the other hand, in cases where the courts side with the affected parties, the whole redistricting and gerrymandering process is redone to enhance the protection of the rights of the minority an those of the majority. Thus, to minimize the chance of successful redistricting and gerrymandering of the Texas state, there is need to embrace the one person one vote principle.
The current case is based on the republicans group. The redistricting process is aimed at maximizing the number of seats that the republicans will acquire during the voting exercise ( Johnston et al., 2017) . The Republicans are expected to garner 27 seats in Texas, which is way higher than those of the other groups. The figure was arrived at by counting the number of districts that the republicans are less dominant; which amounted to nine districts. All the other districts had high chances, above 90% chances of being led by the Republicans. Therefore, given the fact that there are 36 districts in Texas, the remaining ones are 27. The districts colored in blue and purple are dominated by the non-republican parties.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Markedly, the resulting redistricting map does not contain an equal number of populations based on the sizes of the districts, as some are large and others occupy a very insignificant space. Therefore, the one person, one vote principle is not adequately addressed. Different leaders are chosen by a different number of people, which creates inequality among the voters. Their representation is questionable as some of the leaders represent small populations, while others serve massive populations depending on the sizes of their territories. However, this is justifiable from the constitutional point of view, based on the fact that not all the residents in the seemingly large populations were eligible to vote. The rule ought to be directed to the current and potential voters to make sense. Notably, the eligibility of the residents to vote is the determining factor on the voting process; hence, the rate of eligibility determines their overall representation.
Moreover, the partisan proportionality of the republicans constitutes a minimum of 22 seats. On the other hand, the probability of being represented by democrats is highest in 14 districts while that of the minorities is highest in two districts. Based on the analysis of the map and the residences of the Latino’s, they constitute more than half of the population in ten cities. Therefore, based on their concentration, they are bound to get tremendous support and can easily take leadership roles in the ten districts. Their participation in the voting process is as per the constitution because they possess voting rights. Their inclusion in the analysis of the map depicts their significance in the decision making process and as a result, they portray the equality in the voting exercise. Thus, they serve to increase the rate of voter engagement during the election period.
Based on the compactness of the borders, 24 districts with such attributes have high chances of being led by the republicans. Those dominated by the democrats are 13, while none of the 36 districts are bound to be led by the minorities based on these grounds. The map follows the allocated borders and does not manipulate them to meet their winning goals, as evidenced by the uniformity of the boundaries and the regions enclosed based on political affiliations. For instance, the democrats are concentrated towards the southern parts of Texas while the republican territories are more concentrated on the north. The competitive regions are concentrated towards the western parts of the state. Some districts have violated the boundaries requirements but this is considered legal based on the criteria set in the constitution. The essence of redistricting is to align the available population with the set territories based on the changes that have been experienced within a decade after a census. Thus, in some cases, there is need to forgo the boundaries to align these territories with the set standards of proportionality. Markedly, this redistricting plan is different from that approved by the one recommended by Texas as it incorporates compactness unlike the approved one.
References
Ramsey, R. (2019). Analysis: Texas redistricting is hard enough when politicians trust the mapmakers. https://www.texastribune.org/texas-redistricting/redistricting/
Johnston, R., Rossiter, D., & Pattie, C. (2017). When is a gerrymander not a gerrymander: Who benefits and who loses from the changed rules for defining parliamentary constituencies? The Political Quarterly , 88 (2), 211-220. doi:10.1111/1467-923x.12339
