US House Redistricting: Texas

[krazen1211]

For the Senate plan, the court found that SD-10 was not a protected district. It was noted that Wendy Davis relied on an extremely high 26% support from Anglos to win the district in the first place.


Incidentally, the Court seems to have upheld Pena's district as an ability district.

[krazen1211]

As I read the opinion I was struck at the number of times the decision pointed out the differences between sec 5 and sec 2 so they could come to their conclusions. That may also be something that gives SCOTUS pause. I also found the dissent on CD 25 far more compelling than the majority from a methodological viewpoint.

The dissenting judge noted that the logic used would protect any and every district where Democrats get 50% of the vote.

As an aside, will LULAC be arguing that the interim map's TX-33 when LULAC and Hispanic preferred candidate Garcia had his district captured by Marc Veasey? I wonder.

[krazen1211]

LULAC attempted to throw a hail mary to get the judges to re-enact plan C220 (this was the original San Antonio Court plan that was tossed at the SCOTUS).


The San Antonio Court has declined citing the timeline. Thus, elections will proceed under plan C235.


C185 is thus scrapped, and will almost certainly be moot in 2013 when the legislature returns to do redistricting.

[krazen1211]

The San Antonio Court has declined citing the timeline. Thus, elections will proceed under plan C235.


C185 is thus scrapped, and will almost certainly be moot in 2013 when the legislature returns to do redistricting.

Are these respectively the lines used in the primary and the map passed by the state lege?

C220 - San Antonio initial plan
C185 - Legislature map
C235 - Court map based on lege


C235 takes C185, builds the Veasey district, and makes minor tweaks elsewhere.

[krazen1211]

These maps passed the Senate committee.

[krazen1211]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's pretty clearcut, and the maps are of course ones drawn by Republicans, as emended by the courts, as opposed to actual court-drawn maps. A new even more Republican map will inevitably come under close court scrutiny yet again.

Whether all of the Texas House and Senate Republican caucus see things the same way is another matter entirely.

Gov. Rick Perry could decide to veto voting maps recently completed by the Texas Legislature as a result of today's decision from the Supreme Court, calling a new special session and allowing conservatives to pass new maps that would have not passed under the now defunct Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.




There is some discussion that the maps passed by the legislature in 2011 are now immediately in effect until Rick Perry decides to sign the interim maps into permanent maps.

The difference is a handful of House districts, 1 congressional district, and perhaps 1 Senate district.

[krazen1211]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's pretty clearcut, and the maps are of course ones drawn by Republicans, as emended by the courts, as opposed to actual court-drawn maps. A new even more Republican map will inevitably come under close court scrutiny yet again.

Whether all of the Texas House and Senate Republican caucus see things the same way is another matter entirely.

Gov. Rick Perry could decide to veto voting maps recently completed by the Texas Legislature as a result of today's decision from the Supreme Court, calling a new special session and allowing conservatives to pass new maps that would have not passed under the now defunct Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.




There is some discussion that the maps passed by the legislature in 2011 are now immediately in effect until Rick Perry decides to sign the interim maps into permanent maps.

The difference is a handful of House districts, 1 congressional district, and perhaps 1 Senate district.

TX-23 still needs to be 50% Hispanic CVAP does it not?  Did the 2011 map meet that number?

Yes, sir.


Link

Incidentally, SSVR is higher than TX-29. The difference is that the others are Anglos in TX-23 and blacks in TX-29.

[krazen1211]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062713zr_c0nd.pdf



The denial of preclearance to Texas redistricting, and to voter ID, has been tossed, and the judgments against Texas have been vacated in light of Shelby v Holder.

[krazen1211]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062713zr_c0nd.pdf



The denial of preclearance to Texas redistricting, and to voter ID, has been tossed, and the judgments against Texas have been vacated in light of Shelby v Holder.

Link



San Antonio court starts process for deciding if Texas should preclear maps under section 3 of Voting Rights Act

The request to rule on the 2011 maps seemed to confuse the court at first, with the judges asking on several occasions why they shouldn’t just review the 2013 maps. But after several exchanges - and a recess - they reached at least an informal consensus that the section 3 issues should be addressed.

The State of Texas had sought to have the case dismissed, arguing that the 2011 maps were moot. However, the court denied the state’s motion to dismiss without prejudice.





The Supreme Court might be stepping in again, soon, as, in the prior order, the Supreme Court made a 'suggestion' that the 2011 maps and case were moot.

[krazen1211]

Wait, what? What are they playing at?

The plaintiffs are trying to use this section 3 'bail-in' provision to reinstate section V preclearance. It's been used sporadically over the years in other non Section IV places like Arkansas for limited time frames.

Specifically, they are trying to use claims of discrimination of the old, defunct, repealed 2011 maps (which never had any elections under them) to invalidate the 2013 maps, which are of course identical to the 2012 maps.

The state is simply trying to toss everything regarding the 2011 maps.

The Supreme Court stated the following on June 27, 1 day after Rick Perry signed the new maps.

TEXAS V. UNITED STATES, ET AL.
The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia for
 further consideration in light of Shelby County v. Holder, 570
U.S. ___ (2013), and the suggestion of mootness of appellees
Wendy Davis, et al.

[krazen1211]

Texas 2014 elections will proceed on schedule with the maps passed by the Texas legislature.

[krazen1211]

The complaint alleges that changes to the map made in a floor amendment diluted the voter strength of Hispanic voters in the district - a Hispanic opportunity district long represented by State Rep. Lon Burnam - by adding the heavily African-American Como neighborhood back into the district (where it had been prior to 2011).

To accomodate that change, the complaint says the amendment “moves 4,397 individuals out of interim HD 90 and places them into HD 99.” The net effect, according to the complaint, was to reduce Spanish surname voter registration in the district from 51.1% to 50.1%. Meanwhile, the citizen voting age African-American population of the district went from 16.2% to 18.6%.*

The Latino Task Force argues that the changes were made primarily on the basis of race to protect Burnam (an Anglo Democrat), who survived a primary challenge from a Latino candidate in 2012 by a razor thin 159 votes.

[krazen1211]

So the state of Texas has decided that there will be no redistricting!


My view is that they should redistrict to fortify TX-07 and TX-32 and draw challengers out. TX-27 shall be a district connecting Nueces County to the populations in Eastern Bexar County. TX-35 shall simply be parts of Travis County.

[krazen1211]

Randy Weber is not in the Texas legislature. The other congressman quoted, Bill Flores, says that lawyers have all kinds of opinions.

The Texas Congressional delegation is famous for being very aggressive in helping out their fellow Republicans. Indeed, the proposed map in 2011 adheres to the guidelines stated by Joe Barton that Republicans rightfully deserve more seats. He weakened his own district.