TX Senate
How gerrymandered are the maps coming out of the TXLege this session?
We report...you decide! See our table below for basic metrics and links to detailed analysis.
| PLAN |
Submitted By |
MM |
MM (%ile) |
PB |
PB (%ile) |
Favors | 2D (#of total) |
| Ensemble median |
2.14 | 50% | 1 | 41.59% | N/A | N/A | |
| S2100 (Current map) |
|
1.33 | 39.28% | 1 | 41.59% | N | N/A |
| S2175 |
REP COLLIER (D) | -10.17 |
0.01% |
-5 |
0.39% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2174 |
REP ROMERO (D) | -12.56 |
0% |
-5 |
0.39% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2173 |
13-DIST FLOOR | -13.86 |
0% |
-3 |
3.34% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2172 |
Jeff Harper | 2.94 |
61.7% |
3 |
71.96% |
D | 168,753 out of 617,270 |
| S2171 |
REP C TURNER (D) | -10.17 |
0.01% |
-5 |
0.39% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2168 |
S.B. 4 | -12.17 |
0% |
-7 |
0.02% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2167 |
SEN HUFFMAN (R) | -12.19 |
0% |
-7 |
0.02% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2166 |
SEN JOHNSON (D) | -12.2 |
0% |
-7 |
0.02% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2164 |
SEN ZAFFIRINI (D) | -12.16 |
0% |
-7 |
0.02% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2154 |
SEN LUCIO (D) | -12.19 |
0% |
-7 |
0.02% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2153 |
SEN HINOJOSA (D) | -12.2 |
0% |
-7 |
0.02% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2150 |
SEN JOHNSON (D) | -12.2 |
0% |
-7 |
0.02% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2149 |
SEN HUFFMAN (R) | -12.2 |
0% |
-7 |
0.02% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2148 |
SEN KOLKHORST (R) | -12.19 |
0% |
-7 |
0.02% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2146 |
SEN GUTIERREZ (D) | -12.19 |
0% |
-7 |
0.02% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2142 |
SEN MENENDEZ (D) | 7.66 |
97.91% |
3 |
71.96% |
D | 10,404 out of 617,270 |
| S2141 |
SEN KOLKHORST (R) | -12.19 |
0% |
-7 |
0.02% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2139 |
SEN ZAFFIRINI (D) | -12.16 |
0% |
-7 |
0.02% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2137 |
SEN CREIGHTON (R) | -10.13 |
0.01% |
-7 |
0.02% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2135 |
SEN SELIGER (R) | -12.19 |
0% |
-7 |
0.02% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2134 |
SEN POWELL (D) | -12.59 |
0% |
-5 |
0.39% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2132 |
SEN POWELL (D) | -10.2 |
0.01% |
-5 |
0.39% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2130 |
C.S.S.B. 4 | -12.19 |
0% |
-7 |
0.02% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2129 |
SEN GUTIERREZ/ECKHARDT | 1.6 |
42.73% |
1 |
41.59% |
N | N/A |
| S2126 |
SEN HUFFMAN (R) | -12.21 |
0% |
-7 |
0.02% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2125 |
Ric Galvan | -9.06 |
0.04% |
-1 |
15.47% |
R | 250 out of 617,270 |
| S2124 |
Alexander Morales | -12.27 |
0% |
-9 |
0% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2123 |
Statewide Senate | 9.16 |
99.28% |
9 |
99.81% |
D | 13 out of 617,270 |
| S2122 |
SEN CREIGHTON (R) | -11.63 |
0% |
-7 |
0.02% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2121 |
SEN HUFFMAN (R) | -12.21 |
0% |
-7 |
0.02% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2120 |
SEN WEST (D) | -12.2 |
0% |
-7 |
0.02% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2119 |
SEN POWELL (D) | -10.22 |
0.01% |
-5 |
0.39% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2118 |
SEN CREIGHTON (R) | -10.18 |
0.01% |
-7 |
0.02% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2117 |
SEN GUTIERREZ (D) | -12.21 |
0% |
-7 |
0.02% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2113 |
SEN CREIGHTON (R) | -11.62 |
0% |
-7 |
0.02% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2112 |
SEN WEST (D) | -12.19 |
0% |
-7 |
0.02% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2109 |
SEN POWELL (D) | -10.22 |
0.01% |
-5 |
0.39% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2108 |
SEN HUFFMAN (R) | -12.21 |
0% |
-7 |
0.02% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2103 |
SEN WEST (D) | -11.59 |
0% |
-7 |
0.02% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
| S2101 |
SEN HUFFMAN (R) | -11.62 |
0% |
-7 |
0.02% |
R | 0 out of 617,270 |
Metrics
MM = mean-median score (expressed as difference in vote share needed for majority)
MM (%ile) = percentile of MM score in ensemble
PB = partisan bias score (expressed as difference in seats won at 50% vote share)
PB (%ile) = percentile of PB score in ensemble.Favors = Does the map favor one party relative to another, compared with the ensemble? Possible values: D/R/N (neutral)/NA (not applicable)
2D (# of total) = number of ensemble plans that score worse on both MM and PB, or are equal on PB and worse on MM. We only assessed plans which favored one party over another on both PB and MM; e.g. in contrast S2100 favors Republicans slightly on MM, but is neutral on PB.
For integer-valued quantities such as partisan bias, the percentile value is sensitive to the exact definition. We used an average between the between the "weak" and "strict" definitions (i.e. "less than or equal to" and "strictly less than"), as implemented in the SciPy stats package (stats.percentileofscore(kind='mean') ).
Methodology
We generated an ensemble of 617,270 legal TX Senate plans using Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithms as implemented in GerryChain (MGGG, 2018). Data was compiled from the Census Bureau (population data and geographic units) and the Texas Legislative Council (election returns from the 2020 Presidential and US Senate races). Proposed plans were obtained from the Texas Legislative Council. Each plan was assessed on a variety of partisan metrics; the range of observed values in the ensemble is then used to assign a percentile value to each metric as computed for each proposed plan.