So why is it such a big deal for Greg Abbott if he succeeds in keeping the primary on April 3, or as early as possible before the Republican presidential nomination is totally sewn up? Perry's not in the race anymore, so what does it matter? The answer lies in Abbott's own future ambitions here in Texas, and his desire to serve the wealthy big-money donors who fund pro-corporate Republicans here in Texas.
Abbott needs to keep a unified primary on the highest-turnout date possible, to make sure Dewhurst wins--as well as the incumbent Republican Congressmen and State Senators--to please the big-money donors that will likely back Abbott when Perry decides he's not running for Governor again.
The Texas Republican Party is primarily dominated by extremely wealthy corporate interests, who in turn want to keep Republicans in office that serve their wishes, rather than the whims of the Tea Party. It costs money to campaign in Texas, and whether you're playing by the FEC's rules or the TEC's, in a state this big if you can't raise real money you won't get too far. In the ongoing Senate primary, Dewhurst is clearly the candidate of the big-bucks donors who backed Rick Perry's gubernatorial and presidential campaigns. While Dewhurst and Cruz both raised similar amounts of money in the last quarter ($1.5M and $1.1M respectively), and both have raised close to $4 million overall, Dewhurst's average donation is over $2000 (and remember, donors are hampered by limits of $2500 per donor, meaning that most of The Dew's donors are maxing out). Meanwhile, Cruz's average donation is a much more modest $319. It's a testament to Cruz's support from the right-wing grassroots / Tea Party / YCT sector of the Texas Republican Party. The big donors are opening their wallets for Abbott as well, who has over $10 million in the bank and raked in $1.6 million during a 10-day period in early 2011, unfettered by individual donor contribution limits. The AG has made it quietly clear that he plans to seek the top spot in the state, but first he's got to dispatch with Dewhurst to be next in line.
So what does the primary date have to do with anything?
The Texas NAACP sent the following statement to BOR regarding AG Greg Abbott's maps and purported "settlement" that is only apparently supported by some of the redistricting plaintiffs. Here's their statement, emphases mine:
The Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches opposes the proposal presented by the Texas Attorney General's Office because it does not address the letter or spirit of the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act was created to ensure that all citizens would be able to select their choices for representation at the local, state, and national levels. The proposal of the Texas Attorney General damages the ability of communities of interest, both geographical and ethnic, to pick the candidates of their choice to represent the interests of the communities in which they live and work.
Texas State NAACP President and National NAACP Board Member Gary Bledsoe said,
"The NAACP has stood throughout this litigation with our friends and allies from National LULAC, which has already announced its opposition to the proposal from the State Attorney General. We are proud to say that the African-American Congresspersons from Texas and those Congresspersons who consistently get A's on the NAACP Report Cards understand the significant gravity of this subject. We are pleased that some changes were made by the State from its passed C185 regarding the current African-American Congressional Districts, but the changes do not guarantee that the citizens who increased the population of this state during the last decade have their voices recognized through the electoral process.
"Sadly, but not surprisingly, all three of Texas African-American Congresspersons had their offices left out of their districts. It is equally not surprising that this did not happen to any white Congressperson. The State also drew Congresswoman Johnson's residence out of her district. This stark racial disparity of treatment clearly got the attention of the DC Court as it did with the San Antonio Court."
Some of those matters seem to have been addressed by the proposed plan though there are still some serious problems that exist with the drafting of the Congressional Districts. However, we need more time to study the proposed maps but our preliminary analysis yields the following opinions. We are disappointed in the plan offered by the State of Texas today in an attempt to push through an early primary election for the State of Texas. The plan provides for 70% of 36 Districts to be dominated by white majorities. This proposed solution flies in the face of fairness and awards most, if not all, of the new seats to white voters, even though minorities account for nearly 89% of Texas' total growth during the last decade. It sets Texas on a path to join other Southern States as a full-fledged adherent of the Southern Strategy. Besides having districts that were not fairly treated in the process, African-Americans are reduced to having opportunities to elect the candidate of their choice from 9.3% of the Districts to 8.3% even though they constitute 12% of Texas population. All minorities in Texas deserve to be treated equally and fairly in the electoral process and Texas still has a long way to go to meet that expectation. If the Texas Attorney General is interested in getting the primary on a faster track, then we request that he follow the spirit of the Voting Rights Act.
Now we know how AG Greg Abbott likes to kick off Black History Month: by disenfranchising African-American voters and drawing elected African-American officials out of their districts.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott: an example of why the Voting Rights Act still exists. (Think he'll put that on a tee shirt when he runs for Governor?)
What the frick. Apparently some of the redistricting plaintiffs split off and are making a deal with Attorney General Greg Abbott that would help some, but not all of the plaintiffs, such that Abbott can deliver a unified GOP primary to his big-money backers.
AUSTIN - Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott today issued the following statement on the proposed interim redistricting maps for Texas' 2012 elections:
"The proposed maps minimize changes to the redistricting plan passed by the Legislature and, as the U. S. Supreme Court required, makes changes only where necessary. The Texas Attorney General's Office has worked with a wide range of interest groups to incorporate reasonable requests from all parties to the extent possible without compromising the will of the Texas Legislature. Even though these proposed interim maps aren't fully supported by all interest groups, modifications have been incorporated based on requests made by all parties. Today's maps should allow the court to finalize the interim redistricting maps in time to have elections in April," Attorney General Abbott said.
The proposed House and Congressional interim redistricting maps are the result of an agreement between the State of Texas and the Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force - which includes Texas LULAC, MALDEF, GI Forum, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Domingo Garcia, The Mexican American Bar Association of Texas, and La Fe Policy Research and Education Center. The proposed Congressional interim redistricting map is also supported by Congressman Henry Cuellar. Although the Mexican American Legislative Caucus (MALC), the Black Legislative Caucus and the NAACP have not agreed to support the proposed maps, those maps include modifications that address some of the primary concerns those plaintiffs raised during negotiations with the State. The proposed maps also reflect consensus among the State leadership - including Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, and Speaker Joe Straus.
::
The maps suck for Democrats, and they basically return us to the partisan gerrymandered nightmare the Legislature drew in the first place. Travis County is split into 5 districts. The 25th becomes a Travis-to-Tarrant monster that was drawn to elect a Republican. Doggett is likely drawn back into the 35th, which again stretches from Austin to San Antonio. Folks on Twitter report that Pete Gallego and Ciro Rodriguez may be drawn back into a district together, the 23rd. Michael Li has links to the maps and data on their past electoral returns on his blog, www.txredistricting.org
::
In various news reports, a LULAC spokesman said they were not on board. It is unclear if MALDEF is or is not on board.
::
First in the in-box, Wendy Davis, with a statement that she has NOT agreed to any deal:
"There is no agreement on a Senate map. Rather than meet the concerns of Texas voters, the Texas Attorney General continues to advance the same effort to dilute minority voting strength as we saw attempted in the 82nd Legislative Session. This is not a good faith effort."
::
Next in the in-box, the Texas Democratic Party, who see Abbott's true political purpose here:
TDP spokesperson Rebecca Acuña released the following statement in response to the redistricting maps released by General Abbott:
"We're greatly disappointed the Attorney General did not deal in good faith with all parties involved.
For the Texas Democratic Party, any maps that do not have the consent of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, the Legislative Black Caucus, and other plaintiffs are nonstarters.
The Attorney General is clearly terrified that the DC court will find that the state's maps are discriminatory in both effect and intent. Until there's a legitimate agreement among the parties, we support the court continuing to do its work."
::
Update: 2:56 p.m. -- MALC is next in the in-box, and they don't support these maps either.
Statement from MALC Chairman Trey Martinez Fischer:
"MALC worked in good faith with General Abbott in hopes of arriving at a compromise that reflected the changing diversity of our state in a manner acceptable to all parties. Unfortunately negotiations stalled when it became apparent some parties in these discussions had a narrow and at times unrealistic view of the evidence presented at trial. The maps proposed by the Attorney General today are a beginning point, not an end.
MALC has maintained from day one that minority rights should not be subordinated in order to facilitate political expediency. We have presented a fair plan that recognizes the growth of the Latino and African American community while at the same time eliminating discriminatory tactics used by the State to disenfranchise the minority community.
As we have said before, MALC and the redistricting plaintiffs have presented a compelling case at trial in both San Antonio and in Washington, D.C. We will not compromise our principles for the sake of expediency and will not be forced into a resolution that fails to recognize the fundamental fact that Texas' growth is minority growth. We are confident that the evidence presented at trial demonstrates that Texas' maps violate both Section 5 and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
The Attorney General presents an illusion of an inclusive map; the reality is that it falls short of recognizing minority growth in Texas. For instance in CD 23, the compromise district clearly performs worse than it had in the benchmark map. No one needs to be reminded that the candidate of choice of the minority community failed to win election in the benchmark map in 2010. MALC could not accept a CD 23 that is worse off than it was in the benchmark map, considering that reality. While all the parties support a primary as soon as possible, we want to ensure that Texans have fair and legal redistricting maps. MALC is encouraged that with the issuance of these maps the Attorney General has made it clear that he accepts the growing reality that the maps adopted by the state legislature for the state house, state senate, and United States Congress were constitutionally-flawed and require immediate remedial action."
::
Update: 3:10 p.m. -- From State Rep. Dawnna Dukes' Facebook Page:
"A.G. cherry picked groups with whom to cut a deal on the redistricting maps to rush for an April primary. The Texas Legislative Black Caucus, Mexican American Legislative Caucus, NAACP and all of the Democractic Congressional Members except Henry Cuellar (who got what he wanted in the Republican drawn maps) were excluded from discussions and did not support the [maps] issued today by A.G. Abbott's office. Travis County was not made whole nor partly whole. It is still divided into five separate congressional districts. Travesty....excluding TLBC, MALC, NAACP, TX LULAC, Gonzales Litigants [which includes Travis County]...this is not a good faith effort on the part of the A.G. to draw agreed upon maps as instructed by the San Anthonio Federal District Court."
::
Update: 3:23 p.m. -- More commentary on the Congressional map changes, from my own eyeballing and the analysis of folks on Twitter and in the press.
CD-6 was apparently none of Abbott's concern, as the AG ripped into him on a redistricting press call, suggesting that his only concern is keeping the Cowboys stadium in his district. In reality Barton and his lawyer are very worried about the inclusion of more Hispanics in his district, which was already only "Lean Republican." Barton already has two decent Democratic challengers. [via]
CD-10 gets vastly more conservative than the interim maps, with the re-inclusion of ultra right-wing Tomball.
CD-23 gets more Democratic, thus making the winner of the primary, which is currently State Rep. Pete Gallego vs. Some Other Guy, and now potentially Gallego vs. Ex-Congressman Ciro Rodriguez.
CD-27 gets more Hispanic and thus more likely to flip Democratic. It looks like TX Republicans aren't afraid to say "sayonara" to Blake "Ducky Pajamas" Farenthold.
CD-33 goes from a district that was entirely in Tarrant County and favored the winner of the Marc Veasey-Kathleen Hicks primary, to one that spans Dallas and Tarrant, and has more Dallas than Tarrant. This would be a minority opportunity district in North Texas. [via]
::
Update: 4:17 p.m. -- Michael Li posts filings from plaintiffs who don't agree to Abbott's purported "settlement."
Li reports that LULAC, NAACP, Davis, and the Travis County group told the San Antonio courts today that they did not agree to a deal, and that some of them had not even been contacted by the AG's office about this supposed deal.
The plaintiffs also have a list of House, Senate, and Congressional districts that they have problems with, notably the Central Texas boondoggle, the entirety of South Texas, the entire DFW Metroplex, and specific Congressional districts 23, 27, 30 and 35.
This is good news because the courts will need to take this into account and understand that not all plaintiffs are on board here.
Ok, and now Li is reporting that State Senator Estes, SD-30, wants to intervene in the lawsuit since Abbott's new maps.
Good work, Abbott.
::
Update 4:31 p.m. -- Twitter Scuttlebutt.
Nolan Hicks of the San Antonio Express-News quotes Gary Bledsoe of the TX NAACP, who says that they may appeal to SCOTUS if the San Antonio panel selects this map. That makes sense, since the maps disenfranchise the African-American communities in Austin and to a degree in Tarrant County.
Quorum Report says the Court (which one?) has told the parties in redistricting to "keep negotiating."
Steve Rivas points out that only only would these maps cut Travis County in 5, they would cut the City of Austin into 6 Congressional districts. (Chunks of Austin are in Hays and Williamson Counties.)
::
Update 4:45 p.m. -- MALDEF Likes It, San Antonio Courts Say No Dice
The San Antonio court entered an order this afternoon telling parties that the court's scheduling orders would remain in place "in the absence of a general agreement between all Plaintiffs and the State of Texas."
In short, it does not appear the court is inclined - at this time at least - to move up its schedule for drawing interim maps unless the parties can reach a complete agreement.
Under the court's previously announced schedule, a hearing on interim maps is set for Wednesday, February 15, at 8 a.m.
Also, MALDEF issued a statement supporting the maps, which is posted on BOR here.
::
Update 4:58 p.m. -- Lone Star Project Sends Update
The Lone Star Project emailed out a key update on the filing by several plaintiffs (NAACP, Travis Co., Davis) opposing Abbott's maps. Here's the key quote from the plaintiffs' filing, highlighted by the email:
Excerpt from Plaintiffs Advisory in opposition to AG's Proposal:
"We understand that the Court indicated in its February 2nd order that, if the April 3 primary was to remain in place, "all parties" should submit an agreed interim map by today. That will not be happening. None of the parties to this submission has joined in or has any plans to join in any proposed agreement with the state, in the person of the Texas Attorney General, as to interim maps for the districting plans at issue in this dispute. Some have been contacted by the Office of the Texas Attorney General about discussing potential areas of agreement; others have not been contacted in that regard at all. In any event, no agreement has been reached, and none is foreseeable.
That makes it pretty clear that there is no agreement and we likely can't have our April 3rd primary, since there is no agreed-upon map, and the San Antonio court has asked all parties to continue negotiating, in advance of the February 15th court date.
Other key points from the Lone Star Project:
Under the AG's plan, minorities can elect the candidate of their choice in only 11 of 36 districts, down from 11 of 32 in our current map. That's a decrease from 34.4 to 30.5, and therefore doesn't accommodate minority population growth.
Rep. Henry Cuellar, the one Democratic congressperson who signed on with the deal, supported Tom DeLay's redistricting efforts in 2001 and 2003.
Also, Burka says that only 1 of 10 redistricting attorneys has signed on to this plan. So, it sounds like no deal after all.
Ok, last update, I swear.
::
This is the last update for now. We'll have additional coverage elsewhere on BOR.
Over the weekend, it was reported that redistricting plaintiffs (minority and Democratic groups) were poised to win big in a settlement over the map used for the 2012 elections, in return for the ability to hold an early April primary that makes Texas more relevant in the Republican presidential primary.
Sources cautioned, though, that there are many moving pieces to the deal and that it is not clear whether it will be possible to get all plaintiff groups on board. Some closely involved in the process are said to be concerned that the state is attempting to divide and conquer plaintiff groups in negotiations and that any partial deal could prove to be divisive.
Makes sense, right? The State of Texas -- which in this case has aims that are essentially identical to those of the Republican Party -- would try to split up the plaintiff group to eke out the least-bad settlement that preserves as much of the Legislature's map and ensuing Republican seats as possible.
If some members of the plaintiff group consider working with Attorney General Greg Abbott on a short-sighted settlement that only benefits some, not all members of the plaintiff group, that's bad news for everyone in Texas.
The plaintiffs look poised to win in court, so it's in the best interest of Abbott, the State of Texas, and the Republican Party to settle and try to eke out any gains they can, while they still have a chance. Since the Republicans' prime motivation seems to be an early primary, that gives extreme urgency to the proceedings, since maps need to be finalized and county elections divisions need to know to get a move-on to be able to hold April primaries.
The incumbent and establishment Republicans seem to want an early primary not only so our state matters in the overall Presidential nomination process, but also to avoid a split primary where Tea Party challengers would have a much easier time knocking out incumbent State Senators, congress members, and legislators.
The DC Circuit court is poised to rule on the pre-clearance trial over the Legislature's initial illegal racist gerrymandered maps, which most people involved expect to be out within two weeks. That ruling could toss the Legislature's maps for good, and in turn result in the San Antonio panel being instructed to draw a new map that's much closer to the interim maps previously tossed by the Supreme Court. However, such a timeline makes an April 3 primary essentially impossible. The issue for the Republicans here is timing -- they want their early April primary, which means all parties need to get on the same page regarding maps ASAP. Hence, the push to settle.
However, if settlement isn't in the best issue of the combined aims of the plaintiffs, then it's not in the best interest of the people in Texas, all of whom deserve fair representation.
It's bad if Abbott convinces plaintiffs to split off and benefit a few, rather than all members of the group. It's even worse if any members of the plaintiff group seek out a private settlement that doesn't help solve all of our redistricting woes. Dividing and conquering for immediate political gain is short-sighted, as it destroys coalitions and makes it harder for all of us to win the big stuff: specifically, the statewide races we need to take back Texas.
If a settlement deal is on the table that doesn't benefit all plaintiffs and all minority groups and regions of Texas, then it's a bad deal, and plaintiffs should get back together to work out a deal that benefits everyone.
Here in Texas, the only way for Democrats, progressives, minorities to win is if we all stick together. We win sooner and we win bigger if we're all in it together. Let's hope that this deal never happens and the plaintiffs get together on a settlement that benefits everyone in Texas who has been harmed by the Republican Legislature's illegal gerrymandered maps.
We'll keep you updated on this story as it develops.
When you have an overtly political law to defend, file an overtly political lawsuit.
Back in September, we predicted that the new Voter ID law (Senate Bill or SB 14) passed by the Texas Legislature and signed into law by Governor Perry would find its way into federal court. Better late than never, the state did not disappoint. Yesterday, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed a lawsuit in federal district court in the District of Columbia demanding a declaratory judgment by the court that SB 14 take effect immediately "because it neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, nor will it deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote because he is a member of a language minority group."
Briefly, Texas has been unable to implement SB 14 because it has been awaiting preclearance to do so from the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (the "Act"). For background on why this is the case, as well as more information on preclearance and Sections 2 and 5 of the Act, see our past articles here and here.
The gravamen of yesterday's lawsuit is that the state of Texas must seek relief from the federal court because DOJ is taking too long to decide whether to grant SB 14 preclearance. Normally, such complaints are reserved for a deli or the department of motor vehicles. Maintaining that conceit, however, the state has pulled the number two - as in recent memory, it is the second state, right behind South Carolina, the voter identification laws of which have drawn the critical eye of DOJ. As the Texas lawsuit notes several times, DOJ ultimately refused to preclear the voter identification law at issue in South Carolina.
(More great coverage from Michael Li. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
As expected, the State of Texas asked the U.S. Supreme Court today to block the interim state house and senate maps approved last week by a San Antonio federal court.
A similar request for a stay on the interim congressional map is expected shortly.
In his papers, Abbott suggests that the primaries for state house and state senate (and presumably Congress as well) be moved to May 22, the date scheduled for primary runoffs. The state says that the primary for local and county races and the State Board of Education should remain March 6.
It's not clear under the state's proposal when runoff elections would be if legislative primaries are moved to the end of May, but compliance with the law on military ballots would put a runoff in mid-July- not a lot of time for candidates to raise more money and begin campaigning for the general election.
State Representative Trey Martinez Fischer, chair of the Mexican-American Legislative Caucus, wasted no time in blasting Abbott's move:
Today, Attorney General Greg Abbott applied for an emergency stay of the maps from the United States Supreme Court, once again, putting the 2012 election cycle in jeopardy. The leadership in the legislature chose to ignore overwhelming Latino growth in our state and refused to adhere to the Voting Rights Act, now the courts have had to step in and apply the law.
The leadership of Texas defaulted on their opportunity to enact fair and legal legislative maps. Instead, they sought to expand their politcal power on the backs of African American, Latino, and Asian American Texans. To date, six federal juges have rejected Attorney General Abbott's fiction that Texas' redistricting maps comply with the law and should be implemented for Texas elections.
This evening Justice Scalia asked redistricting plaintiffs to submit file responses by 4 p.m. this Thursday, December 1. Except a ruling from the court to come perhaps as early as Friday.
Oh, this tidbit being reported by the Texas Tribune, apparently Abbott has bolstered his legal team by bringing in outside lawyers:
Abbott hired Paul Clement, a noted Supreme Court advocate, to help his office with the case (at a rate of $520 an hour, which he called "a steep discount").
Clement, who was solicitor general under George W. Bush, looks to be busy. As reported in the New York Times:
At the moment, he is defending both Arizona's tough new law against illegal immigration and Congress's prohibition against federal recognition of same-sex marriages. And if, as expected, the Supreme Court soon announces that it will hear a challenge to last year's health care law, it seems increasingly likely that it will be Mr. Clement who argues, in the thick of the 2012 campaign, that President Obama's signature domestic achievement is unconstitutional.
Nearly four years after the Texas Youth Commission was overhauled after a sex abuse and cover-up scandal, four leading advocacy groups for incarcerated youths said Tuesday that little has changed. Widespread unsafe conditions and various forms of abuse and mistreatment continue to plague the agency, they say.
The news last week reads a lot like reports of sexual abuse and cover-up from 2005-2007, when it was discovered that drastic acts of sexual abuse of children at the West Texas State School were swept under the rug and ignored by TYC officials, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, and Texas Governor Rick Perry. In fact, Governor Rick Perry claimed he knew nothing about the abuse until he read about it in the paper -- only for it to be later discovered that his office was informed of a stalled investigation into the abuse as early as February 2005, two years before news reports first came out.
In the coming weeks, the most recent scandal at the Texas Youth Commission will be discussed at length. In order to put these allegations at TYC in context, it is necessary to look back at what happened the last time the public learned of misconduct at TYC. The recap below is an attempt to re-tell the TYC scandal from 2007, using facts and quotes gathered from news stories. The following sources are used repeatedly, and are an excellent starting point for anyone who wants to dive deeper into the scandal:
Back in 2005, Attorney General Greg Abbott announced with a flourish a rash of arrests in South Texas on various counts of voter fraud. These arrests, some of which were announced while the Lege was debating a voter ID bill, were cited as evidence by Abbott of an “epidemic”, for which voter ID was naturally the solution. Many of these cases ultimately wound up being dismissed, with the last batch in Hidalgo County getting dropped last week.
Despite the fanfare, nearly all the charges have been dismissed five years later.
What was once trumpeted across the state as one of the premier examples of the “epidemic of voter fraud” plaguing Texas polls evaporated even as debate over the divisive reform measures it helped spawn continues.
See here, here, and here for some background. One thing that’s been true in all of the cases Abbott has pushed is that they involved mail in ballots, which as I’ve observed would be unaffected by any legislation that required photo ID to vote in person. Abbott and his allies, of course, never drew that distinction, since the purpose of the voter ID legislation that keeps getting pushed in the Lege isn’t about stopping the kind of voter fraud that actually happens, it’s about making it harder for certain people to vote. In the end, even the fraud cases that Abbott claimed to have found turned out to be a whole lot of nothing. It’s no surprise to me.
Thankfully, Texans have a much better choice than Abbot on the ballot. Barbara Ann Radnofsky is challenging Abbott for the AG spot this November. Last week was her turn in the Texas Democratic Party's "Meet the Statewides" campaign -- a great series that highlights every statewide candidate with a video, op-ed, issue piece, biography and more. Here's the latest from Radnofsky and the TDP:
Republicans continue to fall all over themselves defending BP. All are likely up to their eyeballs in donations from the oil and gas industry.
God forbid should BP be expected to pay every claim proposed by those whose loved ones have been killed and those whose businesses and careers have been destroyed by BP's reckless, irresponsible and apparently unstoppable oil volcano and gas leak in the Gulf of Mexico.
Meanwhile here in Texas our Attorney General is doing the same thing. According to a press release issued by Democratic candidate Barbara Radnofsky today Abbott seriously underestimated the devastating long term impact of the Gulf oil leak.
