SREC – Senate District 12

We are working hard at the Republican Party of Texas to figure out the
best way to proceed, with the very real likelihood we will not have a
Primary before our State Convention.  The Primary date is not set in
stone as of yet, so be advised that it will in all likelihood not occur
until the week before, or even after our State Convention.

      

You can read all the latest Texas Redistricting news here. 

The agreement that appears to be in the making between the court, the Democrats and Republicans about the maps is not final.

Advisory to all party activists – If the Primary is pushed back further, the RPT will still seek
court relief to allow district conventions to go forward on the dates county Republican parties already have scheduled, but with the different delegate selection process. County Chairs are urged not to cancel district conventions scheduled for either April 14 or 21.

AP – Noon
SAN ANTONIO—The Texas attorney general and minority groups demanding equal representation have agreed to a temporary compromise over one of the state’s three disputed political maps.

During a federal court hearing Wednesday in San Antonio, the state attorney general and an attorney for the minority groups said they had reached a deal on the state Senate map. The parties still haven’t worked out a deal for state House and congressional maps, leaving the Texas primary date uncertain.

The Republican-controlled Legislature drew the disputed Senate map in a way to make sure one incumbent was not re-elected.

It also divided up minority voters into districts dominated by whites, something forbidden under the Voting Rights Act.

Republican Party of Texas – reporting on Valentine’s Day, February 14th:

Today in San Antonio, the three-judge panel began a full day of hearing final arguments in the Texas redistricting case, which affects the scheduling of the state primary and state convention. We can report that the Court appears to be backing off of its stated intention to have a unified April Primary Election. This comes after assorted county election officials stepped forward to testify that it would be impossible to hold a unified April Primary Election – even if they had maps today.

Although the Republican Party of Texas had Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart appear before the panel to testify that an April 24th primary election is still doable, our sense is the Court now believes that April is no longer viable for a single unified primary. From the Court’s questioning, it seemed that at least one judge and possibly two would prefer to go ahead with a Presidential primary and statewide races in April and the other races at a date to be determined in the future. How the extra primary election would be funded appears problematic at this time. We won’t know until the Court rules whether these conclusions are correct. Our best estimate right now is that there will be a single unified primary on May 29th, absent the state coming up with funds for a split primary.

Because the Texas Democratic Party’s lawyers backed up Chairman Munisteri’s testimony at the hearing that it is practically not possible to move the State Conventions at this late date, one thing we know for sure (and the Court is aware of this fact), is that you can’t schedule the primary after the State Conventions unless (as the Democratic lawyer stated) the State Parties can find a field somewhere to hold their conventions and if we could guarantee good weather.

Chairman Munisteri testified to the Court that it would be impossible to select delegates in accordance with the process prescribed in the Election Code, if the primary was not held until May 29th and the state convention began on June 7th. However, the Court signaled that it would be open to judicial relief to allow the State Parties to select their delegates in a way that didn’t require precinct conventions to be tied to the primary. The Texas Democratic Party lawyer went a step further and argued that even though the Election Code prescribes the process, that it is their position that the Election Code is unenforceable because the political parties are private organizations and thus they could change their rules without a court order. The RPT believes it would be risky to do so and prefers the route of obtaining judicial permission prior to such action. In the event the Court schedules a May primary, Chairman Munisteri plans to schedule an emergency teleconference with all SREC members and Republican County Chairs to discuss alternative processes for picking State Convention delegates, in the hopes of coming to a consensus as to what to suggest to the court for relief.

The court also heard presentations from several plaintiffs and the State of Texas as to their position relative to how maps should be drawn. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court directed the three-judge panel to issue new maps that were neither the legislative-drawn lines, nor the subsequent lines issued by the San Antonio three-judge panel in November. In issuing that directive, the Supreme Court set forth the criteria by which lines could be altered. Specifically, the Supreme Court said that if the San Antonio panel found there was a “not insubstantial” chance of violation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, that lines could be altered to comply with Section 5. A Washington, D.C. three-judge federal panel has had a trial on Section 5 so as to make a final determination as to violations, but the Supreme Court indicated that the San Antonio three-judge federal panel should issue interim maps which correct any deficiencies in districts in which the “not insubstantial” standard was met. Moreover, the San Antonio three-judge panel has jurisdiction over Section 2 violations of the Voting Rights Act and the Supreme Court indicated that if there were violations of this provision, that lines could be altered as well.

In recent orders, the San Antonio three-judge panel had directed the plaintiffs and the State of Texas (representing the legislative maps) to see if they could agree which districts fell under these criteria and suggest fixes. Last week, the Attorney General put forth a proposed set of maps which addressed potentially problematic districts while at the same time, tried to stay as close to the original legislative maps as possible. Some of the plaintiffs’ groups agreed to some of the proposed lines. The hearing today flushed out the differences, with each party stating their differences and arguments thereof. The Attorney General’s proposals put forth what it believes are 50 Texas State House districts which have an opportunity for minorities to elect their candidates of choice – a number which meets the benchmark (2010) plan’s number of 50 such districts. Some of the plaintiffs’ groups however, want 51 or more of these districts, and a much larger number of “coalition” districts, which would likely elect Democrats, but would not have a majority of their citizen voting age population be comprised of a single minority group. Another group of plaintiffs which opposes the suggested lines put forth by the Attorney General, was arguing for 67 majority-minority districts in the State House. In effect, their proposed maps would substantially reduce the number of Republican legislators.

The Latino Redistricting Task Force, which represents a number of the Latino groups, has indicated that they would not object to much of the proposed map, but they disagree over House District 144 (currently represented by Representative Ken Legler). The Attorney General’s map draws that district with 48% registered voters with Spanish surnames. The Latino Redistricting Task Force would not accept any lines for HD 144 that do not have at least 50% of registration of Spanish surnames. That particular plaintiffs’ group was also willing to accept the proposed Congressional maps which would split the four new Congressional districts into lines which would result in two new Republican districts – an improvement over the three-judge panel’s maps but which is down one from the maps originally drawn by the Legislature. Many of the other plaintiffs’ groups opposed the proposed Congressional map and wanted at least one more Democratic Congressional district in addition to the two new Democratic districts contained in the Attorney General’s map. Congressman Joe Barton has intervened, and is arguing for one more Republican district.

The State Senate map has really only one district in dispute – that being Senate District 10, the district held by State Senator Wendy Davis. Apparently the Attorney General and the plaintiff Democrats are not that far apart in respect to their proposals. Under virtually every anticipated scenario, at the very least that senate district would be winnable by a Republican candidate. The final battle over the lines will determine whether it is a toss-up district, or one where the Republicans will have a slight advantage.

To complicate things further, the Department of Justice sent a lawyer who argued that there were five Texas House districts on the previously-drawn legislative map, which the Department of Justice is insisting be changed because of violations to the Voting Rights Act. The DOJ lawyer also stated emphatically that the federal court panel has limited authority to alter deadlines that were controlled by federal statute.

At this time, it seems more likely than not, that all the parties will not come to an agreement on the Congressional and Texas House maps. Therefore, we are assuming that once the hearing is concluded tomorrow (Wednesday, Feb. 15) that the final map lines will be decided by the three-judge panel as opposed to the parties in the lawsuit. To add another wrinkle, one of the judges suggested that if the primary will have to be delayed until May anyway – that the San Antonio three-judge panel may delay their decision for at least a while to see if they get a ruling out of the Washington D.C. three-judge panel regarding potential Section 5 violations so that they can incorporate the decision into their deliberations.

After attending in full and testifying at the hearing, Chairman Munisteri issued the following statement – “It is the Republican Party of Texas’ position that a single unified primary is still possible for April. If the Court delays the primary further, it will be a great disappointment to Republicans who wish to have early participation in the Presidential primary process. I would like to applaud the work of General Abbott’s Deputy Attorney General for Defense Litigation, David Mattax, who I thought did an excellent job refuting the Democrats’ contention that Republicans intentionally discriminated against minorities, as well as providing excellent rebuttal district by district to the plaintiffs’ attorneys contention that more districts needed to have their lines altered with the intent of creating additional Democratic districts.”

The hearing will continue tomorrow, but is expected to conclude by 2:30pm. We should know tomorrow for certain, whether we have a split primary or a unified primary. We should also know whether April is definitely out. We hopefully will have some guidance as to what flexibility the parties will have in altering the delegate selection process. We will provide a further report after tomorrow’s hearing.

The compromise restores the district largely to its previous boundaries with a similar racial make-up.

“It is the Court’s desire to have redistricting plans in place for an April Primary”

The San Antonio three-judge panel issued an order late Friday, saying they want to set
an April primary and want negotiations to resume before the hearings that begin next
Tuesday, February 14th .

[Wait, isn't that Valentine's Day?  I'm stocking up on chocolates and standing by for updates!]

Here’s the court’s order:

As the parties know, the Court will hold a hearing on this matter on Tuesday, February 14, 2012, and quite possibly Wednesday, February 15, 2012. Contrary to any misconceptions, neither the State’s recent compromise proposal nor any of the parties’ proposals have been rejected at this juncture. It is the Court’s desire to have redistricting plans in place for an April primary and all parties must continue their negotiations to assist the Court in accomplishing that task. If the parties have ceased negotiations, they should resume with all due effort between now and the time of the hearing. In their negotiations, the parties should be reminded of the dictates of the Supreme Court by which this Court will  be bound, which include the rather flexible standards of review that may be applied on one hand and the restrictive language regarding the creation of new coalition districts on the other hand. Should the parties fail to reach an agreement prior to the hearing, the parties will be expected to resume negotiations at the courthouse upon conclusion of the hearing. The panel will accomodate the parties in what ever way necessary, and all necessary parties are expected to have a person with binding settlement authority either in attendance or available by telephone.

The Republican Party of Texas provides further clarification:

The Court also clarified some misconceptions that have appeared on blogs and among the media – specifically, reports which have stated that the Court had rejected Attorney General Greg Abbott’s proposed maps earlier this week. The order clearly states that the panel has not rejected any maps. The Court also noted that final interim maps would be drawn in accordance with the Supreme Court’s recent ruling – “…which include the rather flexible standards of review that may be applied on one hand and the restrictive language regarding the creation of new coalition districts on the other hand.” The RPT interprets this to mean that the Court is signaling to both the State of Texas (represented by General Abbott) and the various plaintiffs’ groups, that it may be in the best interests of both sides to reach an agreement since utilizing these criteria would mean that probably neither side would get completely what it wanted anyway.

The “flexible standards” referenced by the Court, indicates that they still have the ability to alter the legislative maps and still comply with the Supreme Court ruling (which is to the Democrats’ advantage). On the other hand, the Court notes that the Supreme Court struck down the Democratic proposition that new coalition minority districts should be created (which favors the legislature’s version of the maps). The Court issued additional orders requiring all sides to continue negotiations and to be prepared to discuss them at the hearing in San Antonio on February 14th and 15th.

Advisory from RPT to all Republican county chairmen, precinct chairmen, and party activists:

As the Party believes that this order increases the likelihood of a primary in April (probably in mid to late April) we urge everyone to continue to make preliminary plans for a primary around April 17th. The odds of this happening will become much clearer by mid-week.

Read the report from Ross Ramsey at The Texas Tribune here.

Late yesterday, the Republican Party of Texas sent the following update:

AUSTIN – On Monday afternoon, Attorney General Greg Abbott announced an agreement with some of the plaintiffs to the Texas redistricting lawsuit. In a released statement on Monday, the Attorney General indicated support from a significant number of plaintiffs’ groups, including: Texas LULAC, MALDEF, GI Forum, The Mexican American Bar Association of Texas, La Fe Policy Research and Education Center, Hispanics Organized for Political Education (HOPE), the National Organization for Mexican American Rights, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, the William C. Velasquez Institute, Southwest Workers’ Union, and other plaintiffs collectively known as the ‘Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force.’ With respect to the U.S. Congress, the Attorney General was also able to reach an agreement with Democratic Congressman Henry Cuellar.

The Attorney General has posted the proposed maps online which are agreed to by these plaintiffs. The Republican Party of Texas has been closely analyzing these proposed lines. If the court agrees to enact these interim maps, the proposal should enable the Republican Party to have an excellent chance at preserving all of the Congressional seats we won in 2010, and would also provide a very strong chance at picking up an additional couple of Congressional seats from the four Texas has gained through reapportionment. This is an improvement over the maps originally issued by the San Antonio three-judge panel. Under those maps, there was a possibility that the Republican Party would not win any of the new four seats, and Republicans also faced a possibility of losing one or two of our existing incumbents.

In regards to proposed maps for the Texas House of Representatives, the proposal preserves the ability of the Republican Party to achieve a solid majority in that body. RPT staff has analyzed the maps over the past few hours and believe that there will be 96 State House districts with an average GOP vote of 50% or better (using vote totals for the 2008 Presidential Election.) Thus, the new proposed maps represent an improvement over the court-issued maps, with fewer Republican seats at risk than the lines drawn by the San Antonio three-judge panel last year.

On the State Senate side, there is really only one district in dispute – that being SD 10 with Democratic Senator Wendy Davis. A trial is already scheduled this week on that district, so hopefully the court will be in a position to issue a ruling early next week and issue a new State Senate map in time for there to be a single unified primary in April.

While these are only proposed maps at the present time, the filing of them greatly increases the chances that there will still be a single unified primary in mid-April. It is the Republican Party of Texas’ position that even if maps are not agreed to by all parties, that the Court now has sufficient information as to the  respective positions of all parties so as to allow the Court to issue final maps in time for a single unified primary in mid-April. The RPT filed an advisory this morning to this effect, a copy of which is linked here.

Republican Party of Texas Chairman Steve Munisteri issued the following statement, relative to these developments. ‘I believe these lines are a substantial improvement overall when compared to the maps initially released by the San Antonio three-judge panel overseeing redistricting. These proposed maps do have some substantial differences from the originally drawn legislative maps. The unanimous Supreme Court ruling in January stated that the legislative maps (prior to preclearance) and the San Antonio three-judge panel maps were both unable to be used in the 2012 Texas primary, but the Supreme Court also said that the legislative maps needed to be a starting point. As the Attorney General announced today, this agreement complies with the Supreme Court’s criteria, while at the same time preserving the opportunity for Republicans to make gains in the Congressional delegation and to preserve our solid majority in the State Legislature.’

Munisteri continued, ‘I am hopeful that the San Antonio three-judge panel will rule in a timely fashion on these new proposed maps, so that our candidates can have certainty and so that we can move forward with a unified primary. I am particularly hopeful that we can still have a Presidential primary prior to any candidates obtaining a majority of delegates necessary for nomination, and that Texas can still have a significant voice in the Republican Presidential primary process.’

Advisory to all Republican county chairmen, precinct chairmen, and party activists -

It appears as though today’s [Monday's] developments make it unlikely that there will be an April 3rd Primary. However, it is increasingly likely that there will be a single unified primary in mid-April. If the three-judge panel acts swiftly on these new proposed maps, it is still possible for an April unified primary to occur. Therefore, we recommend you still make preliminary preparations for a primary sometime in the second or third week of April. We still cannot definitively tell you when the primary will occur, but we expect there to be additional announcements within the next week, so please be on the lookout for additional emails and leadership advisories.

Remember that little game we played at birthday parties?
You’re seated on the floor in a circle, and the birthday girl holds a ball of string.
She starts a story, unwinding the string until the knot, then passes the ball of string along
to the next one in the circle, who adds a sentence or two, and the ball of string
and the story continue. By the time the string and the story get back to the birthday girl,
the story and the ball of string are nothing like the original!
Maybe you’ve received one of those tangled tales in an email recently …

The redistricting story is a tangled mess, but it’s important to keep to the facts.

Here’s the latest update on redistricting from The Republican Party of Texas.

The Republican Party of Texas has received numerous emails and calls over the last few days inquiring about the status of the redistricting lawsuit. It has become apparent as a result of these questions, that many of our Republican activists are confused as to what issues are actually before the San Antonio three-judge panel, what the Supreme Court decision actually meant for the process, and what the role of RPT is in this process.

This confusion was heightened by a wholly inaccurate story in “The Hill” (a DC publication), which was then reinterpreted and disseminated through email chains this weekend. This particular article and the emails spreading it, stated that the Republican Party of Texas was in the process of negotiating trading Congressional districts in return for (among other things) saving a convention deposit. These false reports were sent out despite the fact that the Party has sent out regular updates on exactly what was occurring … [read more]

[Bottom line: We will know if we can have an April 3rd primary by the end of the day on February 6th at the very latest.]

The United States Supreme Court issued an opinion on Friday which vacated the orders implementing Texas redistricting maps prepared by the Western District of Texas three-judge panel. The case was remanded back to the Western District of Texas three-judge panel in San Antonio for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.

The Republican Party of Texas reported late Friday:

This opinion means that currently there are no district lines for State House, State Senate and Congressional districts. By vacating the three-judge panel’s order, the Supreme Court did not reinstitute the legislative maps drawn by the Texas Legislature in 2011. Rather, the opinion states that the three-judge panel is to issue new Texas redistricting maps in a manner consistent with the guidance found in the Supreme Court opinion as to what factors should be considered in drawing these new maps … However, as a note of caution – today’s opinion by the Supreme Court did not order the enactment of maps and lines drawn by the Texas Legislature in 2011. The opinion still allows the three-judge panel to make some alterations to the legislatively drawn maps.

In addition, it should be noted that when the Western District three-judge panel issues new maps for the 2012 elections – these maps are “interim” only. Final maps for Texas redistricting still have to be cleared under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which will take place in front of a Washington D.C. federal panel. At this time, we do not know exactly when new lines will be published by the Western District federal panel, nor do we know where the district lines will actually be.

In commenting on the Supreme Court decision, RPT Chairman Steve Munisteri stated:

We are pleased that the Supreme Court recognized that the Western District three-judge panel exceeded its authority in drawing lines for our elected officials. The opinion stated very clearly that the Legislature’s intent and judgment is an important consideration and “starting point” in the process of judicially redrawing maps and that the Legislature’s intent should not be overlooked. I am especially pleased that the Supreme Court apparently took notice of the Republican Party of Texas’ advisory which we filed last week and our subsequently filed brief in support of that advisory. In those documents, we alerted the Court to the fact that an expeditious decision was needed in order to maintain our current April 3rd primary schedule, to prevent havoc with our elections, and to protect the parties’ State Conventions as well. Again, we would like to thank Chris Ward and the law firm of Yetter Coleman LLP who did a fabulous job in providing a brief pro bono on a quick turnaround. I am hopeful that the Western District three-judge panel will issue new maps in time for us to maintain our current April 3rd primary. Until the panel issues new orders, we will not know how many legislative districts will likely be Republican and how many will be Democrat. Thus, any conclusion as to the overall result of today’s ruling by the Supreme Court will have to be withheld until that time. In the meantime, the RPT will continue to advocate for an election schedule that will allow an early April primary.

The Republican Party of Texas also issues the following advisory to all county chairmen, precinct chairmen and party activists:

At this time, it is not known with certainty whether the April 3rd primary schedule will hold. The timely decision by the Supreme Court today makes it possible for the April 3rd primary schedule to hold, but we will not know this for certain until we get further guidance from the three-judge panel in San Antonio. As soon as we receive additional information from that panel relative to this issue, the State Party will issue an advisory through our website, social media, and email database.

For additional insight:

Michael Quinn Sullivan of Empower Texans provides a detailed explanation of the decision; read it here.

Michael Quinn Sullivan was a guest of the Mark Davis Show on WBAP. Llisten to Mark and Michael talk about the SCOTUS decision here

We’re still without maps, but the SCOTUS ruling moves Texas a step closer to where we can hold the Texas Primary Election.

Did the Texas Legislature violate the Voting Rights Act, thereby diluting minority voting strength when political maps were drawn for the Texas House and Senate and the U.S. Congressional seats?

Texas population increased 4.3 million in the 2010 Census and will receive four new congressional seats, increasing the congressional delegation from 32 members to 36.

The census count which identifies minorities does not identify eligible voters.

Although Hispanics accounted for 65 percent of the population gain, and all minorities represented 90 percent of the increase, the congressional map drawn by the Legislature contained no additional districts which specifically provide minority voters a “safe” district in which to elect “their” candidates of choice.

Under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Section 5 the Justice Department must approve any changes to the political process.

If the court finds that the maps discriminate, attention would shift to the Supreme Court and a ruling on whether interim maps by a court in San Antonio could be used.

Members of Hispanic and African American minority rights groups contend that the state diluted minority voting strength when it drew new maps. The Mexican American Legislative Caucus, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and other minority rights groups are involved in litigation over the state’s maps before the Supreme Court and two federal district courts in Washington, D.C., and San Antonio.

Texas argues that the legislature did the best it could and did not discriminate against minorities.

Personally, I think it would be more discriminatory and would disenfranchise minority voters to have specific “minority” districts.

……………………………………
Stay tuned for updates

Case Pending Before 3-Judge Panel in Washington, D.C.
Trial set for January 17th, with with closing arguments February 3rd,
on the validity of the state-drawn maps.

Dallas News reports:

The Supreme Court seemed eager Monday to delay Texas’ primaries yet again to avoid wading into a district-drawing brawl that could impact control of the U.S. House and minority power in Austin.

The hearing also left minority advocates reassured that the court won’t use the case to throw out the civil rights-era law that puts extra federal scrutiny on Texas and other states with a history of racial discrimination.

“The constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act is not at issue here,” Chief Justice John Roberts declared at one point during the 70-minute oral argument.

But the hearing left serious doubt about the timing of the Texas primaries — already pushed from March 6 to April 3, to give lower courts more time to review the maps that the GOP-controlled Legislature drew last spring for U.S. House, Texas House and Texas Senate districts.

The justices sounded deeply dissatisfied with the main choices before them.

One option: allowing Texas elections to proceed, using maps drawn by the Legislature that haven’t been approved by federal authorities. An alternative, pushed by Hispanic advocates and supported by the Obama administration, would be to use a map drawn by a federal court in San Antonio that state officials complain gives no deference to the will of the Legislature.

“How do we decide between those … two wrong choices?” Roberts asked.

The dispute stems partly from the state’s gain of four seats in the U.S. House, thanks to its population growth over the previous decade. Black and Hispanic advocates, noting that the growth was almost entirely driven by minority populations, say the Legislature didn’t do enough to ensure that minority voters could elect candidates of their choosing in certain areas.

State officials dismiss that, saying they honored federal voting rights protections but reflected Republican dominance of the state.

Caution urged

Much of the hearing Monday revolved around the potential harm of delaying the primaries. The one-month delay, ordered in mid-December by a San Antonio federal court, already reshuffled dozens of state and federal races. Voters are unlikely to know which candidates they’ll get to choose among for weeks or months, and local elections officials don’t know what names to put on ballots or how lines will be set.

But Jose Garza, a San Antonio attorney who argued the case on behalf of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, urged the justices not to rush a ruling just to ensure that Texas elections are held under the current schedule.

“The drop-dead deadline is not April 3rd,” he said, adding later, “There are states that conduct primaries as late as September.”

At one point, Justice Samuel Alito asked the lawyer representing Texas, Paul Clement, whether the state would entertain the possibility of a delay.

“Why can’t this all be pushed back, and wouldn’t that eliminate a lot of the problems that we are grappling with in this case?” Alito said.

Clement — who was solicitor general, or chief Supreme Court advocate, under George W. Bush — called the lower court’s approach “profoundly wrong.” The state has already delayed its primaries once, he noted, and the court should hesitate to “interfere” further, though “Texas wants the court to have the opportunity to get this right.”

Justice Antonin Scalia seemed to be the only member of the court ready to let Texas hold this year’s elections under the maps drawn by the Legislature, though.

As one of 16 states subject to the Voting Rights Act, enacted in 1965 and renewed six years ago by Congress and President George W. Bush, Texas cannot enact any changes to election rules — from shifting a polling site to overhauling congressional district maps — without federal approval.

3-judge panel

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott chose to bypass the Obama administration’s Justice Department, which Republicans mistrust. The request is pending before a three-judge panel in Washington that has signaled concerns about the maps.

That court has set a trial for Jan. 17, with closing arguments Feb. 3, on the validity of the state-drawn maps.

In the meantime, another three-judge panel, in San Antonio, issued maps of its own.

Abbott, speaking with reporters after Monday’s hearing, accused critics of the state-drawn maps of trying to promote partisan interests. The state’s maps, he said, protected Hispanic Republican incumbents who won office in 2010 — a “perfectly permissible” approach.

“The rise of the connection between the Hispanic community and the Republican Party in the state of Texas is directly under assault,” he said.

Minority advocates say the case hinges to a large degree on fundamental fairness. Roughly 2/3 of the state’s torrid population growth from 2000 to 2010 came from Hispanics.

“Texas was willing to accept that growth for purposes of growing its power in Congress but wasn’t willing to acknowledge those that brought them to the dance,” said state Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, a San Antonio Democrat who leads the Mexican American Legislative Caucus in the Texas House.

Observations

Eight members of the Texas congressional delegation attended the arguments, including Austin Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat whom Republicans targeted in redistricting. Under the Legislature’s maps, he’d face a tough primary fight.

“I saw a fully engaged court that is not ready to destroy the Voting Rights Act,” Doggett said after Monday’s hearing. “I was hopeful from the argument, but there is a still a lot of uncertainty” about the eventual shape of his district.

U.S. Rep. John Culberson, a Houston Republican, left the high court expecting a majority to defer to the Legislature, however.

He also said he wouldn’t be surprised if the justices order Texas to delay its primary, at least long enough for the three-judge court in Washington to decide whether the state’s map passes muster.

“Above all, you don’t want judges making legislative policy,” Culberson said.

At stake are the congressional and legislative boundaries
that Texas will use for the next decade.

I don’t normally cite liberal / Democrat sources, but The Burnt Orange Report presents a good background of the redistricting case and what may or may not occur; read it below:

“Showdown at the Supreme Court: A Guide to Today’s Argument in the Texas Redistricting Case“

The start of a “January to remember” kicks off Monday afternoon at 1 p.m. (ET) with arguments in the Supreme Court about the interim legislative and congressional maps drawn by the San Antonio panel.

Here’s a preview of the case:

What will the Supreme Court decide?

There are three interlinked core issues:
The first, and most basic issue, is whether the San Antonio panel abused its  discretion in drawing interim  maps that did not hew closely enough to the maps adopted by the Texas Legislature.

Then, if the Supreme Court concludes that was the case, the court will have to explain to the San Antonio panel what it needs to do to fix the maps – or how it should draw new ones.

Related to that, the Supreme Court will need to decide whether there is enough time to fix any problems that it finds in the interim maps or whether it should just order the elections to go forward on the state’s maps (as the state argues) or the court-drawn interim maps.

Mixed in with those more pedestrian issues is the lurking and potentially explosive issue of whether the preclearance process under section 5 continues to be constitutionally viable nearly 50 years after enactment of the Voting Rights Act.
____

When will the Supreme Court rule? How likely is it that there could be further changes to the election schedule?

That’s not clear and may not be clear even after Monday’s oral argument.

But the Supreme Court seems to understand the time sensitive nature of the task.  It did, after all, set the case on a very fast briefing and argument schedule, even ordering the filing of simultaneous opening briefs (something that hasn’t happened since Bush v. Gore in 2000).  The parties’ briefs also have stressed how interconnected the Texas election process is.

That said, the timeframe is about as tight as could be for keeping to an April 3 primary.

If the court doesn’t rule within a week to 10 days, many observers think that some additional changes to the Texas election schedule could be needed. Right now, candidate filing is scheduled to close on February 1 and the printing of ballots must begin shortly after that to meet deadlines for sending out military ballots.  A host of other tight deadlines fall in place after that.

Needless to say, there will be a lot of lawyers checking emails on their computers and phones during the preclearance trial.

___

What’s the State of Texas’ argument for deference to its maps? What does Texas want the Supreme Court to do?

The state rests its legal argument on a 1982 Supreme Court case, Upham v. Seamon – also involving Texas – which held that the three-judge court in that case erred when it drew maps that changed districts other than those that DOJ had objected to as part of the preclearance process.

According to the state, “in the absence of any finding that some aspect of the challenged apportionment plan ‘offended either the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act.’ the district court ‘was not free, and certainly was not required, to disregard the political program of the Texas State Legislature.’” (quotations from Upham).

In this case, the state argues that its maps are entitled to even more deference because the preclearance process is still ongoing and the D.C. court has yet to make a definitive ruling on the state’s plans.  Ignoring the state’s maps, Texas argues, punishes the state for delays in the preclearance process not within its control (though the plaintiffs and DOJ vocally disagree with the state’s contention that it bears no responsibility for the delays).

The state argues that any changes made to the state’s map should have been made only based on “preliminary likelihood-of-success rulings” that would identify and address constitutional and statutory defects in the maps (even if the Voting Rights Act bars the San Antonio from issuing a final ruling until completion of the preclearance process).

Instead, Texas says Judge Garcia and Judge Rodriguez got it wrong by starting from “scratch” without making any kind of ruling about the state’s maps.

As for the maps themselves, Texas argues that time constraints now make it very difficult to go through another round of map drawing and keep to a tight election schedule and, therefore, it asks the Supreme Court to order use of the state’s maps on an interim basis for the 2012 election.

Alternatively, it asks the court to provide guidance in four areas where it says the San Antonio court erred:

First, the Court should reiterate that nothing in the VRA requires proportional representation on the basis of race, and that a State’s failure   to  maximize the voting strength of minority groups does not violate  the VRA.  Second, the Court should hold that nothing in the VRA requires a   State to draw  ”coalition districts,” in which multiple minority groups are a combined majority of the population.  The district court created a number of coalition districts in its interim orders, even though it was plainly permissible for the Texas Legislature to choose not to create those districts. Third, the Court should make clear that the district court may not depart from traditional districting principles, such as the Texas “county line rule,” unless that departure is the only way to address an actual or likely violation of law.  Fourth, the Court should clarify that the district court cannot seek to equalize population among state legislative districts unless the population deviations in the legislatively enacted map violate the law.___

What’s the counterargument of redistricting plaintiffs (and DOJ)?

The position of the redistricting plaintiffs and the Justice Department is pretty straightforward:  Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act says you can’t use an unprecleared voting change, and Texas’ maps haven’t been precleared.  Period. End stop.

According to the DOJ and intervenors, using the state’s maps – or even according them substantial deference – would upset the statutory structure of section 5 and encourage states to go slow.

That’s exactly what the intervenors argue what happened here, with the Texas Legislature delaying consideration of redistricting until the end of the legislative session.  Then Attorney General Greg Abbott chose to file suit in D.C. district court, rather than seek administrative review from DOJ, and pursued what the parties have called an ‘inexplicable’ litigation strategy responsible for numerous delays (though, again, the parties dispute who is to blame for those delays).

As for Upham, redistricting plaintiffs say that case is different because there the state had a preclearance decision in hand that found certain districts problematic but made no objection to others.

This case, they say, is far different, with the D.C. court having ordered a trial in the preclearance case finding that there were “genuine issues” about whether the state acted with discriminatory intent in drawing the maps.

The redistricting plaintiffs also take issue with the state’s contention that the San Antonio court’s maps constitute ‘runaway’ plans, arguing that the San Antonio court’s order shows that it exercised a “restrained approach.” That approach had the court:

(1) start from Texas’s last precleared map; (2) incorporate the new districts and correct population imbalances to comply with one-person, one-vote principles; (3) preserve benchmark minority opportunity districts so as not to violate Section 5; (4) minimize split voting tabulation districts (‘VTDs’) to allow for quick implementation; and (5) ‘utilize[] portions of the enacted map where it could do so.’(Joint Travis Co., Davis et al. reply brief)

As far as a remedy, the redistricting plaintiffs ask that the court-drawn interim maps be adopted in light of scheduling issues, noting that even in Upham the Supreme Court held that “[a]though the District Court erred, it does not necessarily follow that its plan should not serve as an interim plan governing the forthcoming election” in light of scheduling exigencies. (In Upham the court was drawing a permanent remedial map rather than an interim map.)

___

Is it possible the Supreme Court will use the interim map appeal to strike down section 5 of  the Voting Rights Act entirely?

Most observers feel that’s unlikely.  For starters, the Voting Rights Act itself requires that claims about section 5 come up through D.C. federal district court. 42 U.S.C. § 1973l.

What observers regard as more possible is that the court could end up striking a balance that would require substantial deference to the state’s maps – or even order that unprecleared maps be used as long as a state is being diligent in going through the preclearance process. That would have the effect of weakening, if not completely neutering, section 5 in the redistricting context but leave it in place.

For its part, Texas has not directly urged the court to strike down section 5, though it has tiptoed right to the line – saying that if a district court is allowed to use a state’s inability to obtain a timely preclearance ruling as a basis for ignoring a state’s policy decisions, then there would be significant constitutional questions.

One additional factor that may weigh against the court getting too involved in section 5 issues is simply timing.  Building a consensus on complicated issue simply may not be realistic given the tight election schedule – even if some Justices are inclined to try to do so.

___

Do we know where the Justices stand?

We should have a much better sense after this afternoon’s argument.

The court granted the stay of the interim maps back on December 9 unanimously or at least without published or noted dissent, so there’s no record of where individual Justices stand.

What’s more, redistricting comes up only once every ten years (well, more often if you are in Texas), and Supreme Court case law on interim maps is pretty sparse – with no cases since 1996 and the state’s key case going back almost three decades.

However, granting a stay is a highly unusual step, and it takes at least five Justices to agree to a stay, so we do know that at least that many thought there was a pretty significant issue that the San Antonio panel may have gotten wrong.

But no one knows whether the court views the issue as a relatively narrow one or whether it believes there are more significant constitutional concerns.  Or whether the additional briefing has changed any minds.

To the extent constitutional concerns are implicated, we do know from the NAMUDNO case in 2009 (yet another Texas case) that at least one member of the court, Justice Clarence Thomas, believes that section 5 is unconstitutional and that several other members – Justices Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy- have expressed serious concerns about its constitutionality based on the fact that section 5 imposes the burden of going through the preclearance process on some states and not on others and does so premised on whether the states were ‘good’ states or ‘bad’ states in the 1960s and early 1970s.

On the other hand, Justices Breyer and Ginsberg had fewer problems with section 5 that last time the Voting Rights Act was before the Supreme Court, while two other members – Justices Sotomayor and Kagan- are new to the court and have not yet decided a case involving section 5, but are thought to be more sympathetic.

___

How does what happens in the Supreme Court affect the preclearance case set to go to trial on January 17?

It doesn’t – or shouldn’t.  The Supreme Court case involves only the interim maps that the state will use for the 2012 cycle.  The preclearance case is about the maps the state will use for the 2014 and later cycles.

___

How much time does each side get?  Who’s doing the arguing?

The Supreme Court has given 30 minutes of argument time to the State of Texas and 30 minutes to redistricting plaintiffs.  In addition, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli requested, and has been granted, 10 minutes to argue on behalf of the United States.

The State of Texas will be represented by Paul Clement, former solicitor general under President George W. Bush and now a partner with the litigation boutique of Bancroft, PLLC.

Redistricting plaintiffs will be represented by Jose Garza, lead counsel for the Mexican-American Legislative Caucus.

___

Is it possible to watch or listen to the oral argument?

Supreme Court arguments are not televised or audio broadcast live, but audio recordings of oral arguments are made available at the end of each week on the Supreme Court’s website: www.supremecourt.gov

Also read related articles:

Fort Worth Star Telegram – January 8, 2012 – by Aman Batheja

Texas redistricting case hits U.S. Supreme Court today

After more than a year of political and legal wrangling, the latest round of Texas redistricting reaches the U.S. Supreme Court today in a case that may help reshape the state’s political landscape for years.

The nine justices have set aside an hour for oral arguments to determine which political maps the state should use for this year’s elections. The court agreed last month to hear an emergency challenge by Texas Republicans to court-drawn maps that had been set for the 2012 election cycle.

At stake are the congressional and legislative boundaries that Texas will use for the next decade.

The case could help determine the balance of power in the House of Representatives in 2013, with Republicans in a stronger position if the court allows Texas to use electoral districts drawn by the GOP-dominated Legislature.

Another issue is when Texas will be allowed to hold its 2012 primaries. Texas Republicans and Democrats recently agreed to move the primaries from March 6 to April 3 in light of the legal logjam, but that assumes the Supreme Court will settle the matter in perhaps a week or so.

Some candidates and consultants fear the court could take as long as a month to decide the issue, which could further push back the primaries.

“Every day that goes by, it becomes harder and harder to conduct an April 3 election,” Tarrant County Elections Administrator Steve Raborn said.

All states set about redrawing their political boundaries every 10 years in light of population changes. The stated goal is to draw fair maps, though the definition of fair depends on whom you ask. Ideally, redistricting should create compact districts that avoid splitting up communities.

In recent decades, Texas’ efforts have prompted multiple trips to the Supreme Court; the most recent case before the current one was in 2006.

Work on the current redistricting efforts stretches back well over a year. Hearings seeking public input were held statewide. Lawmakers and party leaders discussed how they hoped to see the districts drawn.

Things kicked into overdrive in February when the Census Bureau released its 2010 count for Texas. The new population figures showed that the state had grown over the last decade by more than 20 percent, with Hispanics accounting for over two-thirds of that. The boom means that Texas will have 36 seats instead of 32 in the 435-member House next year.

In Austin, the Republican-controlled Legislature proposed new maps of congressional and legislative districts. Democrats and several minority groups decried the plans as diluting the power of minority voters. Lawsuits began to be filed even before Gov. Rick Perry had signed the maps into law.

Because of a history of racial discrimination in voting, Texas is among 16 states required to get federal approval of election changes under the Voting Rights Act. A federal court in Washington, D.C., would not approve the Legislature’s maps. That prompted federal judges in San Antonio to draw temporary maps that were widely seen as favoring Democrats.

The Texas attorney general’s office will try to convince Supreme Court justices today that the state should get to use the maps approved by the Legislature last year because no federal court has rejected them. A ruling in their favor could compromise a key portion of the Voting Rights Act, legal experts say.

“What Texas is trying to do is game the system by saying, ‘Well, we haven’t pre-cleared the plans but let us put them into effect anyway,’” said Nina Perales with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, part of a coalition of parties opposing the state in the suit. Others involved in the legal action include the Texas Democratic Party and state Sen. Wendy Davis and state Rep. Marc Veasey, both Fort Worth Democrats.

Eight other states signed a brief backing Texas, saying a map approved by a state’s elected officials should be given more deference if federal authorities haven’t ruled on its legality.

“Courts may be competent to alter district lines to account for violations of federal law, but they are ill-suited to draw such lines from scratch,” the brief reads.

Until the court decides, candidates statewide are stuck in a holding pattern as they wait to see which maps are approved. Some such as Veasey and Republican Roger Williams have framed their plans to run for Congress based on assumptions that they can run in a district drawn a certain way. If the map turns out differently, their political plans could change.

Election officials say planning for the primary will take weeks after the maps are finalized. New voter registration cards that were supposed to be mailed out this month are on hold. Also, ballots for military and overseas voters need to go out 45 days before the primary under a new federal law.

“Unless those maps come out real quickly, we’ll never make that 45-day deadline,” Raborn said.

*****

Fort Worth Star Telegram – January 7, 2012:

Who knew the road to getting elected in Texas this year would wind through the U.S. Supreme Court?

None of the justices gets to vote for a member of the state Legislature or congressional delegation, but those nine jurists — or as few as five of them — could well determine the outcome of key races nonetheless.

For instance, if the court says 2012 primaries should proceed under voting districts approved by the Legislature during the summer, a new congressional district stretching from Arlington to Parker County heavily favors a conservative Republican, and central Fort Worth voters who sent Democrat Wendy Davis to the state Senate will be dispersed, stacking the odds against her re-election.

But if the justices say the balloting should proceed under maps drawn by a three-judge federal panel in San Antonio as part of convoluted redistricting litigation, two Fort Worth Democrats — state Rep. Marc Veasey and former City Councilwoman Kathleen Hicks — could be the main contenders in a new North Texas congressional district, and Democrats might have a better chance of wresting other seats from the Republican grip in Austin and Washington for this election cycle.

The Supreme Court could order revisions in one set of maps or the other, or combine elements of both into a hybrid that nobody really loves.

Or course, no one loves the hydra that Texas’ election apparatus has become, either.

And the 70 minutes of arguments scheduled for Monday afternoon won’t immediately make it any more embraceable.

The Supreme Court could take days or weeks to decide whether the arguments of the state’s lawyers or an array of challengers to the Legislature’s maps prevail.

The political ramifications are significant.

The practical considerations are enormous because county election officials are crunched for time to prepare for April 3 primaries.

But the court’s role is to decide a limited legal question: Which “interim” maps should be used for 2012 elections while litigation continues over whether the legislatively drawn districts comply with the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution?

Lawyers for the state argue that redistricting plans the Legislature adopted for the state House and Senate and Congress should be used this year even though they haven’t received the approval the Voting Rights Act requires.

A group of plaintiffs and the Justice Department say some elements of those plans violate minority voting rights, but the trial for a federal panel in Washington, D.C., to decide those claims won’t start until Jan. 17 and likely won’t be decided until February or later.

The San Antonio panel, which is overseeing separate but related lawsuits, drew interim maps because some voting districts had to be in place for the quickly approaching primaries. But state officials insist that the court’s plans should have looked a lot more like what the Legislature passed.

The plaintiffs — interest groups and individual Democrats including Davis and Veasey — contend that the Republican-dominated Legislature has illegally built GOP power at the expense of racial and ethnic minority voters so the state’s plans can’t be used until their fundamental flaws are corrected.

The Justice Department, which gets 10 minutes to present its views Monday, argues that even though the San Antonio court’s plans aren’t ideal they should be used for now.

Though the Texas attorney general has tried to get the Supreme Court to veer off into ruling on the validity of the Voting Rights Act, the justices should keep their eyes straight ahead.

They should rule quickly and clearly so that candidates can make plans, voters can know who’s running and election officials can proceed with the nuts and bolts of mailing voter cards, printing ballots and otherwise preparing for the primaries.

Merry Christmas!

May you be blessed as you ponder the Real Reason for the Season.

If you’re perturbed, or deeply concerned as I am, about our public schools’ restriction of any reference to Christmas and labeling the observance a “Winter Holiday”, we share common ground. My two youngest grandchildren are part of today’s public school kids who bear the brunt of beauracratic hypocrisy or pseudo-political correctness. You may have read of Fort Worth School District’s memo regarding “appropriate ways to celebrate holidays.” If your school district hasn’t made the news, perhaps you haven’t been paying attention!

You’ll be encouraged by Liberty Institute and their record in defending the observance of Christmas.Thursday’s news could not have come at a more appropriate moment.

Thursday, Dec. 22, 2011 -

Today, days before Christmas, Liberty Institute filed a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in Morgan v. Swanson, (known nationwide as the “candy cane” case), asking the Court to hold government officials accountable for violating students’ First Amendment rights. Liberty Institute filed the petition on behalf of Plano ISD students who, during Christmas 2003, were banned by school officials from distributing candy cane pens, pencils and other gifts containing religious messages to classmates during non-curricular activities and after school—a clear violation of their constitutional rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. [Read more]

My long-time friend and SREC colleague, Don Zimmerman, has written an excellent, thought-provoking piece published in the Austin Statesman. I share it with his kind permission and  hope you will take time to read it.

Honoring King While Shutting Out Jesus Reeks of Hypocrisy

I’ve witnessed the success of the political war against Christmas in public school in my own generation. I remember well the excitement and joy of my fourth-grade public school Christmas party in 1970 (complete with nativity scenes of the infant Jesus), but in 2008 I experienced the virtual prohibition of even a secular Christmas party for my fourth-grade daughter in the neighborhood public school.

Contemplating the motivation of government school bureaucrats and politicians for the gradual repression of Christmas over the decades led me to examine the public schools’ treatment of two well-known political and religious figures — one Jesus of Nazareth and one Martin Luther King Jr. I conclude that the motivation has to do with justifying and consolidating government power, which bureaucrats must consider easier to do with the life of King than with the life of Christ.

It’s first necessary to demonstrate a war on Christmas exists, as a chorus of secular voices claim there is no such war.

Consider the Plano school district “candy cane” case. The district in December 2004 instructed parents that they could only supply white plates and white napkins for the “Winter Break Party,” that red and green were to be avoided at all costs, that a ban on the words “Merry Christmas” should be observed, that candy cane pens and other “religious oriented items” should be prohibited on “school property” (as if that property belongs to government bureaucrats, instead of the parents and taxpayers who paid for it), and other such extreme absurdities.

This month, the Fort Worth school district issued a memo saying schools cannot “endorse or sponsor any religious activity or doctrine” and that “students should not be allowed to exchange gifts or distribute personal holiday messages.” The arrogance here is the implication that respect for individual choices — arbitrarily labeled “religious activity” — amounts to government endorsement or sponsorship of such choices, and I believe that is the key to understanding the government’s war on Christmas.

It’s as if freedom of individual conscience and choice, and the appeal to a higher authority (either one’s God, or one’s individual conscience) for justification of that choice, offends a power hungry, womb-to-tomb government that demands the dependence of, and obedience from, the people it aims to control.

Consider Jesus and King, and school policy toward recognizing these two men.

Most honest scholars and educators recognize Jesus as the “greatest teacher who ever lived” — who by example, not coercive political force, changed history immeasurably for the better. Christ was bitterly opposed by the most powerful religious forces of his day — forces which eventually collaborated with the hated Roman political state to have Jesus executed without legal cause.

In like manner, Martin Luther King was a spiritual and organizational force in an effective crusade against discrimination that had powerful religious and political overtones.

King, the Baptist minister who quoted Christ in his sermons and political writings, was jailed 20 times, stabbed in the chest, had his home firebombed, endured countless religious and political attacks, and was eventually assassinated.

So we should question why King — a Baptist minister and student of Christ — is universally honored by the Austin school district in an “annual celebration honoring the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King,” while the life and legacy of Christ is universally ignored, and Christmas virtually prohibited.

A key to understanding this might be seen in a Beacon Publishing commentary: “with a universal message of hope that continues to resonate, King demanded an end to global suffering, powerfully asserting that humankind — for the first time — has the resources and technology to eradicate poverty.”

If one accepts this humanistic assertion that King trusted “humankind” exerting collective political force, rather than Christ working individualized personal transformations, as the best hope for humanity, then it would make sense that government would embrace this King as morally justifying ever increasing government control — including the repression of Christ and Christmas.

I certainly don’t consider myself knowledgeable enough about Jesus Christ or Martin Luther King yet, but it’s already evident that the public school engages in a dangerous hypocrisy when it censors Santa for an affiliation with Christ, while endorsing a political agenda it affiliates with King.

Zimmerman is a Travis County member of the Texas State Republican Executive Committee.