William C. Velásquez Institute MEMORANDUM TO: Antonio Gonzalez, President, William C. Velasquez Institute, Concerned Parties FROM: Steven Ochoa, Director of Voting Rights Policy and Research, William C. Velasquez Institute DATE: July 10, 2007 Re: Analysis of Texas State House of Representative District Recent Registration Patterns and Targeted Potential Latino Influence Districts INTRODUCTION In the attached table and maps, you will find a general analysis of Texas House of Representative Districts. I did a comparison of the most detailed registration and turnout information, which dates from the November 2000 General Election to the 2006 November General Election. This data comes from the Texas Legislative Council. I included turnout information as well. Aside from growth and comparison figures, there is an attempt to measure potential Latino influence districts. A Latino influence district is described as having a Latino registration percentage between 25%-50%. A defined potential Latino influence district is defined by adding 10,000 Latino registered voters (and therefore adding 10,000 voters to the total registration) and determining what would be the district’s Latino registration percentage. If the potential Latino registration fell between 25%-50%, then the district was classified as a possible Latino influence district. GENERAL FINDINGS In the 6 years between 2000 and 2006, Texas gained 639,553 registered voters and 342,474 Latino registered voters. Latinos represented 53.55% of the Texas registration growth. Latinos outpaced total registration growth 17.10% to 6.23%. If Latinos are removed from the total registration, one notices that Latinos grew 17.10% in 6 years compared to non-Latinos growing 3.59%. Total Reg Latino Reg Latino Reg % Non-Latino Reg Non-Latino Reg % Texas 2000 10,267,143 2,002,791 19.51% 8,264,352 80.49% Texas 2006 10,906,696 2,345,265 21.50% 8,561,431 78.50% Growth 639,553 342,474 53.55% 297,079 46.45% Growth % 6.23% 17.10% 3.59% Generally speaking, the urban cores of San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, and Fort Worth saw losses in total registration between 2000 and 2006, however most of those areas saw modest increases Latino registration in the same time frame, implying that Latinos are moving into the areas (and registering) while non-Latino groups are moving away. Regional descriptions are as follows: National Office • 206 Lombard, 1 st Floor • San Antonio, TX 78228 • (210) 922-3118 • Fax (210) 922-7095 California Office • 2914 N. Main St., 1 st Floor • Los Angeles, CA 90031 • (323) 222-2217 • Fax (323) 222-2011 Florida Office • 2646-A NW 21 st Terrace • Miami, FL 33142 • (305) 635-6965 • Fax (305) 822-7025 • In the El Paso area, urban House Districts 76 and 77 lost total registration, along with Latino registration, while the suburban El Paso districts all saw significant total registration growth. These bumps in total registration can be attributed to Latino registration, as the non-Latino registration figures show losses or comparatively small gains. El Paso State House Districts 2000-2006 Registration Growth Comparison Non- Total Latino Latino % Non- Latino % Reg Reg of Total Latino of Total House Total Growth Latino Growth Reg Non-Latino Reg Reg District 2007 Member Name Party Reg % Reg % Growth Reg Growth % Growth 75 Chente Quintanilla D 16,636 32.46% 14,977 40.48% 90.03% 1,659 11.64% 9.97% 76 Norma Chavez D -2,097 -2.96% -1,116 -1.88% 53.22% -981 -8.67% 46.78% 77 Paul Moreno D -3,694 -6.34% -2,120 -5.03% 57.39% -1,574 -9.74% 42.61% 78 Pat Haggerty R 7,825 11.62% 7,495 28.10% 95.78% 330 0.81% 4.22% 79 Joseph Pickett D 5,252 9.22% 7,022 21.26% 133.70% -1,770 -7.40% -33.70% • The Fort Worth area saw the urban core districts (90, 94, 96) lose total registration, with surrounding areas gain. Suburban districts 96, 98, and 99 featured tremendous registration growth, which were attributed to non-Latino registration growth. It should be noted that Latino registration did grow significantly as a percentage, but small in comparison of totals. And many districts that saw growth in Latino registration showed loss in non-Latino registration (90, 92, 95). Fort Worth State House Districts 2000-2006 Registration Growth Comparison Non- Total Latino Latino % Non- Latino % Reg Reg of Total Latino of Total House Total Growth Latino Growth Reg Non-Latino Reg Reg District 2007 Member Name Party Reg % Reg % Growth Reg Growth % Growth 90 Lon Burnam D -1,868 -4.44% 1,973 11.97% -105.62% -3,841 -14.99% 205.62% 91 Kelly Hancock R 4,982 7.23% 2,143 47.16% 43.01% 2,839 4.41% 56.99% 92 Tod Smith R 723 1.01% 1,361 35.23% 188.24% -638 -0.94% -88.24% 93 Paula Pierson D 3,515 6.52% 2,124 41.34% 60.43% 1,391 2.85% 39.57% 94 Diane Patrick R -2,261 -3.01% 1,021 27.73% -45.16% -3,282 -4.60% 145.16% 95 Marc Veasey D -2,391 -3.61% 1,865 47.72% -78.00% -4,256 -6.84% 178.00% 96 Bill Zedler R 23,072 31.81% 4,189 80.70% 18.16% 18,883 28.04% 81.84% 97 Anna Mowery R 2,929 3.70% 1,984 41.79% 67.74% 945 1.27% 32.26% 98 Vicki Truitt R 28,486 35.65% 3,077 89.11% 10.80% 25,409 33.24% 89.20% 99 Charlie Geren R 16,546 23.19% 4,029 76.23% 24.35% 12,517 18.94% 75.65% Page 2 • Dallas County House districts almost all featured a loss in total registration and increases in Latino registration. Districts 102, 107, and 114 featured the largest losses in total registration, but little change in Latino registration, which significantly increased the Latino registration percentage in those districts. Dallas State House Districts 2000-2006 Registration Growth Comparison Non- Total Latino Latino % Non- Latino % Reg Reg of Total Latino of Total House Total Growth Latino Growth Reg Non-Latino Reg Reg District 2007 Member Name Party Reg % Reg % Growth Reg Growth % Growth 100 Terri Hodge D -2,836 -5.47% 1,950 33.41% -68.76% -4,786 -10.40% 168.76% 101 Thomas Latham R -874 -1.35% 1,893 32.28% -216.59% -2,767 -4.72% 316.59% 102 Tony Goolsby R -7,556 -12.79% 250 7.60% -3.31% -7,806 -13.99% 103.31% 103 Rafael Anchia D -3,199 -9.12% 523 4.51% -16.35% -3,722 -15.86% 116.35% 104 Roberto Alonzo D 646 1.77% 3,750 21.95% 580.50% -3,104 -15.91% -480.50% 105 Linda Harper-Brown R -3,500 -6.65% 1,587 33.58% -45.34% -5,087 -10.61% 145.34% 106 Krik England R 524 0.96% 3,389 40.66% 646.76% -2,865 -6.17% -546.76% 107 Allen Vought D -7,385 -10.21% 1,381 24.27% -18.70% -8,766 -13.15% 118.70% 108 Dan Branch R -2,582 -4.08% -90 -1.42% 3.49% -2,492 -4.37% 96.51% 109 Helen Giddings D 9,420 12.72% 1,378 35.70% 14.63% 8,042 11.46% 85.37% 110 Barbara Mallory D -4,818 -7.64% 1,962 33.86% -40.72% -6,780 -11.83% 140.72% 111 Yvonne Davis D -649 -0.90% 2,611 47.56% -402.31% -3,260 -4.90% 502.31% 112 Fred Hill R -3,569 -4.77% 992 25.02% -27.79% -4,561 -6.44% 127.79% 113 Joe Driver R 6,531 10.69% 2,088 38.50% 31.97% 4,443 7.98% 68.03% 114 Will Hartnett R -9,976 -14.93% -423 -11.86% 4.24% -9,553 -15.10% 95.76% • The Austin/Travis County area of the state was a region that saw significant registration growth. Only 1 district (49) saw a loss in registration, with it attributed to a loss in non-Latino registration. Conversely, significant increases in total registration to House districts 47, 48, 50, and 52 can primarily attributed to non- Latino registration. Austin State House Districts 2000-2006 Registration Growth Comparison Non- Total Latino Latino % Non- Latino % Reg Reg of Total Latino of Total House Total Growth Latino Growth Reg Non-Latino Reg Reg District 2007 Member Name Party Reg % Reg % Growth Reg Growth % Growth 46 Dawnna Dukes D 130 0.23% 1,411 14.34% 1085.38% -1,281 -2.69% -985.38% 47 Valinda Bolton D 17,154 20.70% 2,283 21.34% 13.31% 14,871 20.60% 86.69% 48 Donna Howard R 5,384 6.63% 971 20.79% 18.03% 4,413 5.76% 81.97% 49 Elliott Naishtat D -5,028 -6.13% -595 -6.19% 11.83% -4,433 -6.13% 88.17% 50 Mark Strama D 11,959 16.41% 2,782 39.08% 23.26% 9,177 13.95% 76.74% 51 Eddie Rodriguez D 99 0.19% 562 2.54% 567.68% -463 -1.48% -467.68% 52 Mike Krusee R 15,845 22.87% 3,405 40.94% 21.49% 12,440 20.40% 78.51% Page 3 • Almost all districts in the San Antonio/Bexar County area lost total registration, with the exception of districts 117, 122, and 124 in the western part of the county. Districts that lost total registration generally saw increases in Latino registration, where districts that saw massive total registration growth owe most of it to total non-Latino registration growth.