SBOE Redistricting: On to the Governor

A catchup on SBOE redistricting: The Senate recently passed a plan that was a bit different from the House plan, so the House just voted late Thursday to approve the Senate version. That sends the map on its way to the Governor’s desk. With that accomplished, the comparison maps of each individual district are updated if you care to look and see.

I’ve also requested the 206 reports from the Legislative Council (one of the really cool areas of state government if you ask me). The 2010 report looks at Governor; Lt Governor; Commissioner – Land Office. And the 2008 report looks at President; Supreme Court – place 7; Crt. of Criminal Appeals – place 3. Since the most immediately relevant is the 2008 Presidential numbers, the quick view of those, as well as the demographics of each district, are included below.

Fundamentally, not much has changed from the initial assessment in terms of electoral competitiveness. There are some short-term and long-term opportunities for both sides on this map. But the biggest question of all will likely be whether the importance of the contests themselves ever warrants more than the $50,000-$100,000 that candidates generally raise for these races. For constituency sizes in the range of what these candidates have to contend with, that kind of money does not get you very far. And demographics plus changing voting trends are likely to limit the changes in the SBOE to maybe one or two seats a side.

2008 Presidential Performance

Dist.      McCain-R         Obama-D
-----------------------------------------
  1     168,833 (42.8%)   221,865 (56.3%)
  2     191,754 (47.1%)   211,625 (52.0%)
  3     157,233 (38.3%)   249,268 (60.7%)
  4      89,884 (22.6%)   305,638 (76.9%)
  5     358,691 (52.2%)   319,808 (46.5%)
  6     320,914 (58.4%)   224,088 (40.8%)
  7     358,380 (61.2%)   221,939 (37.9%)
  8     370,712 (67.7%)   172,373 (31.5%)
  9     436,392 (69.7%)   184,583 (29.5%)
 10     313,379 (53.5%)   263,033 (44.9%)
 11     391,597 (61.9%)   234,922 (37.1%)
 12     365,314 (57.5%)   262,939 (41.4%)
 13     123,380 (27.7%)   319,557 (71.6%)
 14     401,810 (67.0%)   192,696 (32.1%)
 15     430,765 (74.3%)   144,184 (24.9%)
----------------------------------------- 
STATE 4,479,038 (55.4%) 3,528,518 (43.6%)

 

District Demographics

Dist. Deviation        Total Pop.  %A     %B    %H   %BH    %O   Incumbent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1    -60,804   Total: 1,615,567  18.6   2.8  77.7  79.9   1.5  (R-Garza)   
       -3.63%   VAP:   1,128,800  21.7   2.6  74.5  76.7   1.6 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2    -12,323   Total: 1,664,048  22.8   3.0  73.2  75.7   1.6  (D-Berlanga)
       -0.74%   VAP:   1,161,020  27.0   2.9  68.8  71.3   1.7 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3     12,033   Total: 1,688,404  19.3   7.0  72.2  78.3   2.3  (D-Soto)
        0.72%   VAP:   1,197,931  22.6   6.9  68.5  74.8   2.5 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4      1,458   Total: 1,677,829  11.5  32.9  52.6  84.5   4.0  (D-Allen)  
        0.09%   VAP:   1,174,040  14.3  33.7  48.2  81.1   4.6 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5     13,247   Total: 1,689,618  55.5   6.6  34.1  40.1   4.4  (R-Mercer) 
        0.79%   VAP:   1,283,748  59.8   6.1  30.1  35.8   4.4 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6      5,930   Total: 1,682,301  44.6  12.5  32.6  44.4  11.0  (R-Leo)    
        0.35%   VAP:   1,250,061  48.2  11.7  29.3  40.5  11.2 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7      9,490   Total: 1,685,861  54.6  16.7  20.0  36.3   9.2  (R-Bradley)
        0.57%   VAP:   1,234,938  57.8  15.9  17.6  33.3   8.9 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8      6,227   Total: 1,682,598  58.8  10.8  26.1  36.4   4.8  (R-Cargill)
        0.37%   VAP:   1,234,692  63.1  10.0  22.5  32.2   4.8 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9     34,676   Total: 1,711,047  69.7  14.3  14.0  28.1   2.2  (R-Ratliff)
        2.07%   VAP:   1,283,538  73.2  13.6  11.2  24.7   2.1 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10    -63,371   Total: 1,613,000  58.1  12.8  24.2  36.2   5.8  (R-Farney) 
       -3.78%   VAP:   1,184,465  62.4  11.7  20.8  32.0   5.6 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11     17,716   Total: 1,694,087  60.9  10.3  21.6  31.5   7.6  (R-Hardy)  
        1.06%   VAP:   1,247,460  64.9   9.4  18.5  27.6   7.5 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12     28,508   Total: 1,704,879  56.3  12.4  21.6  33.6  10.1  (R-Clayton)
        1.70%   VAP:   1,244,293  60.4  11.4  18.6  29.7   9.9 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13      1,104   Total: 1,677,475  19.3  31.2  46.6  77.0   3.7  (D-Knight)
        0.07%   VAP:   1,168,818  23.7  31.3  41.6  72.3   4.0 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14      5,384   Total: 1,681,755  67.7   8.8  19.2  27.6   4.7  (R-Lowe) 
        0.32%   VAP:   1,235,788  71.4   8.1  16.2  24.0   4.6 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15        721   Total: 1,677,092  60.6   6.5  30.8  36.7   2.7  (R-Craig)
        0.04%   VAP:   1,250,145  65.2   5.9  26.5  32.1   2.7 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Related Posts:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *