Burnt Orange Report

Deal Falls Apart, Perry Shrugs

By Byron LaMasters

Well, the Great Republican Redistricting Compromise lasted, well, less than a day. The Dallas Morning News reports:

The GOP tug-of-war dragged on Wednesday, as immovable Republican leaders defied the governor's prediction of a deal to end the standoff over congressional redistricting.

House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, swatted aside the Senate's version of an olive branch, a proposed plan his spokesman said "would not do any of the things that the speaker would want."

"They're absolutely apart" on the specifics of a plan to boost the number of Republicans in Congress, said Bob Richter, Mr. Craddick's press secretary.

Senate mapmakers, in announcing their offer of a compromise over West Texas districts, accused their House counterparts of stubbornness.

Sen. Todd Staples, R-Palestine, the author of the Senate's map, said Mr. Craddick appears ready to block passage of any redistricting plan if he doesn't get his way on every detail of a Midland-dominated congressional district the Senate's already agreed to create.

"We believe that position is unreasonable," Mr. Staples said.

They also disagree on the timetable for a deal, and whether it's worth moving back the primary, costing taxpayers millions of dollars:

If a map is not approved soon, Republicans may have to pass another bill delaying the state's March primary to allow enough time for a federal review of the redistricting plan to assure it doesn't violate the Voting Rights Act.

Mr. Richter irritated senators when he said Tuesday that there's no rush to pass a map because the Legislature can delay the primary. The House's top mapmaker, Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, echoed the sentiment late Wednesday.

"We're in no hurry. We'll take whatever time we need," Mr. King said.

But Mr. Staples said such a delay would be disrespectful to voters and candidates, and costly, especially if lawmakers opt for two primary elections – one in March for everything except congressional seats and one later for Congress using the new districts.

"We believe that cavalier statements about an issue as important as maintaining the election dates is counterproductive to negotiating in good faith," the senator said. "The deadline, the hour, draws near."

And now, Rick Perry has basically said that he was just kidding when he said that redistricting must be passed by next Monday:

Last week, Mr. Perry called next Monday a "drop-dead" date for passing a bill. As his timetable appeared in jeopardy Wednesday, the governor downplayed his opposition to shifting the primary date.

"If that is what's required, then that is what's required," he said. "When we have that election is not as important as having the election" using a map drawn by elected legislators instead of the current map, which was drawn by judges, Mr. Perry said.

"Now with that said, I would rather them not have to be changing primary dates," he added.

And the problem, once again is once again west Texas. No one wants Charlie Stenholm to run in their district.

The latest volley came at a noon news conference Wednesday.

Mr. Staples, Mr. Duncan and Mr. Hinojosa said the Senate would accept three West Texas districts as proposed by Rep. Arlene Wohlgemuth, R-Burleson. They challenged the House to negotiate the rest of the state with them later Wednesday.

"The Senate's met the deadline," Mr. Staples said. "We encourage the House to engage in this process."

But Mr. King, author of the House's map, said the House can't accept the senators' proposal. "It's not a template we can work from," he said.

And Ms. Wohlgemuth noted that senators had rejected a key portion of her proposed West Texas compromise – splitting Abilene, Mr. Stenholm's hometown, so that he would be in the most vulnerable position possible.

"The issue was that neither Midland nor Lubbock wanted to be running against incumbent Charlie Stenholm," Ms. Wohlgemuth said.

The Houston Chronicle is now reporting that Speaker Craddick has taken a position that there will be a Midland based district, or their will be no redistricting at all:

With House and Senate negotiators apparently stalled on how to draw a congressional district for Speaker Tom Craddick's hometown of Midland, passage of a redistricting bill seems endangered.

Senate conference committee members criticized the House for refusing to negotiate. They also seized on statements that likely Midland congressional candidate K. Michael Conaway made Tuesday to the Houston Chronicle that Craddick was committed to a Midland district or no redistricting plan at all.

That surprises me, personally. I thought that Craddick would eventually budge. And then now there's the San Antonio Express News reporting on the spat between Wohlgemuth and Craddick:

The senators argued that Wohlgemuth's map was identical to one favored by the Texas Republican congressional delegation, which could change the delegation to 21 Republicans and 11 Democrats. Currently, there are 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans.

"That being the case, and (Wohlgemuth) being a top member of the House leadership team, how could a top Republican leader offer a compromise on West Texas that the speaker has rejected?" Staples questioned.

But a Wohlgemuth aide countered that the legislator had no idea the senators were going to take just the West Texas part of her proposed map. It's not even the part she wanted changed.

"She had no indication they were going to take her map and graft it like they did, and she is a little surprised, needless to say," said Erica Phillips, Wohlgemuth's legislative director.

Craddick sought to distance himself from the Wohlgemuth map, which he said had not seen.

"Rep. Wohlgemuth is not a member of the House Redistricting Committee, has not participated to date in the House-Senate negotiations on redistricting, and did not speak to me or for me — or the House — in drawing her map," Craddick said in a prepared statement.

Finally, in a weird column, Dave McNeely warns David Dewhurst not to follow the mistakes of LBJ. I can see the connection, but the whole comparison is just quite a stretch in several ways. First, David Dewhurst is not LBJ. One was a President, the other is a first-year Lt. Governor. Second, the wave of compassion LBJ had in 1963 was because of JFK's death. Dewhurst's "wave of compassion" is over, and it was based simply on trust that he had built up over several months this spring. LBJ had built relationships on Capitol Hill for decades by 1963. Finally, I wouldn't compare the two-thirds rule in the Texas legislature to the Vietnam War. It's just a little out there, and it surprises me a bit.