District 23 cannot be redrawn without substantially affecting district 28. You'll want to make Webb County whole in this process. That makes District 28 non-contiguous, so you will have to redraw 25 as well. District 11 and 21 will also be affected in the process.
One alternative is to reinstitute old district 23, and then look for how the chips fall. I'll be playing with this today.
You could end up with a district wrapping arouns San Antonio that is of an indeterminant composition. The problem is that you can't keep all the "Slot Cars" in the valley and also reconstitute old 23. A district will have to migrate toward San Antonio.
_____________________________
Ronald Keith Gaddie
Professor of Political Science
The University of Oklahoma
455 West Lindsey Street, Room 222
Norman, OK 73019-2001
Phone 405-325-4989
Fax 405-325-0718
E-mail: rkgaddie@ou.edu
http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/G/Ronald.K.Gaddie-1
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael McDonald <mmcdon@gmu.edu>
Date: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 11:04 am
Subject: RE: Texas case decided
> The decision is here (Rick beat me to this):
>
>
>
> http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-204.pdf
>
>
>
> Like I suspect everyone else, I am pouring over the document. No
> presumption that mid-decade redistricting is un-constitutional and
> currentfederal prohibition. The Court is going to require that
> the Hispanic
> population of District 23 be increased, that the current (and then
> new)District 25 was not a substitution for decreasing the Hispanic
> population of
> District 23. This map may be useful to some:
>
>
>
> http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/pdf/c1374/map.pdf
>
>
>
> It's not clear that District 23 can be redrawn without substantively
> affecting District 28, perhaps even to the point of forcing
> Cuellar (D-28)
> and Bonilla (R-23) to run against one another. If that is the
> case, I
> suspect there will be a dramatic reorganization of the south part
> of Texas
> to make sure that the political damage is minimized. Worst case
>
scenariofor the Democrats: If the Republicans so choose, they
> could redistrict the
> entire state, while manipulating the difference between the 2000
> census and
> current population growth to shore up any potentially vulnerable
> Republicansand try to upset some Democratic incumbents; not to
> neglect the Katrina
> victims in Houston that need to be considered. The Supreme Court
> has said
> re-redistricting is permissible and since Texas has to redistrict
> anyway,why not?
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
> [owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 10:17 AM
> To: election-law
> Subject: Texas case decided
>
>
>
>
> Breaking News: Supreme Court Rejects Texas Partisan Gerrymandering
> Claim;Strikes Down Texas District 24 as Voting Rights Act Violation
>
>
> See this
> <http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/06/decisions_4.html>
> early report from Lyle Denniston, who says the Court did not conclude
> whether these cases are non-justiciable. He also says the court
> rejected a
> challenge to mid-decade redistricting. If Monday is any guide, it
> may be up
> to an hour before the opinion actually becomes available in
> electronic form
> to read. As soon as I have a link, I'll post it, and analysis will
> followonce I've had a chance to read the set of opinions.
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
> Loyola Law School
> 919 Albany Street
> Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
> (213)736-1466 - voice
> (213)380-3769 - fax
> rick.hasen@lls.edu
> http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
>