Why Greg Abbott Is So Desperate to Cut a Primary Deal

by: Katherine Haenschen

Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 01:15 PM CST

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?

Find out below the jump.

NAACP: Abbott's Proposal "Does Not Address Letter or Spirit of Voting Rights Act"

by: Katherine Haenschen

Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 06:13 PM CST

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?)  

MALDEF Releases Statement Supporting Abbott's Maps

by: Katherine Haenschen

Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 04:52 PM CST

MALDEF praises the maps, since they ensure more Hispanic districts, even though they do so at the potential expense of an African-American elected from Tarrant County, or the coalition of Hispanic, African-American, Anglo, and Asian liberals in Austin electing a Congressperson from our own community. Let's not forget that African-Americans had significant population growth in Texas as well. This is a short-sighted deal by MALDEF. By bargaining with Abbott for short-term gain and hurting other members of our coalition, MALDEF is creating unnecessary divisions between the plaintiffs, and potentially creating a long-term rift between Hispanic and African-American groups.

Abbott's maps are intended to help minimize Republican losses in 2012 and protect Republican incumbents. His real goal is to prevent a split primary, for fear that Tea Party voters would outnumber pro-business and moderate Republicans. The big-money backers of the Texas GOP are pushing for this settlement for their own best interests. It's shameful to see MALDEF going along with Abbott's chicanery rather than what is in the best interest of all Texans.

As long as more Republicans are elected, all Latinos will suffer in Texas.

• Republicans pass restrictive Voter ID laws that disenfranchise Latinos more than any other group.
• Republicans slash funding to education, pre-K, healthcare, Medicaid and Medicare, on which our Latino populations depend.
• Republicans simply don't care about the poor here in Texas. Over 50% of Texans in poverty are Latino.

In dealing with the Republicans for short-term gains this cycle, MALDEF is denying everyone in Texas the chance for fair representation, and decreasing the odds that Democrats will win many more seats this cycle. They can't even keeping the Hispanic coalition together, since MALC refuses to support Abbott's plan. I know MALDEF is a non-partisan organization, but it seems they don't seem to realize any Democrat is better for Latinos in Texas than any Republican. By refusing to maximize Democratic gains in redistricting litigation, they're hurting everyone here in Texas.

MALDEF's entire statement is below the jump.  

Statements on Supposed Redistricting "Deal" Announced by AG Greg Abbott

by: Katherine Haenschen

Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 02:54 PM CST

Here's Abbott's statement:

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

Per Michael Li:

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.  

Texas Democrats need to Play Hardball on Redistricting

by: ProgressiveInTexas

Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 10:03 AM CST

Due to Perrymandering by Republicans in the legislature that precluded Texas from being a part of Super Tuesday, Texas media outlets have lost out on untold millions in Super Pac campaign advertising.   Even if the Texas Presidential Primary is held in April, it may be too late. The Republican nomination may be decided and Texas will have lost a chance to benefit from Citizens United.  Do you really think GPS-Crossroads will sink money into the Texas General Election for the Republican Presidential Nominee?  Hardly.

The Republicans need to hold their Presidential Primary as soon as possible; preferably before their State Convention.  Democrats can wait it out.  Here is a plan for the TDP to submit in lieu of an agreement on district boundaries.

County/Senate District Conventions will be held either May 12 or 19 without holding Precinct Conventions. Conventions will be open to all registered voters wishing to declare as Democrats for the election cycle.  Those attending the Democratic Conventions would be precluded from voting in the Republican Primary.

The boundaries of the most recently implemented District Plan (as used in 2010) will be used.  County Conventions will select a slate of delegates to attend the State Convention.  If a new map is approved prior the State Convention, and a Delegate is in a new District, that delegate will be added to the slate of delegates of their new District at the same status (Delegate or Alternate).  Should a conflict arise due to available slots, Delegates will be determined by those with the most consecutive cycles voting in the Democratic Primary, and if a tie still exists, then the delegate will be determined by a coin toss.

If maps are approved after the State Convention, then the slate of delegates to the National Convention will be adjusted using the same rule.

But wait, don't we need to determine our candidates for Senate, Congress, State House, Judges and other down ticket races?  No.   More than likely Democratic candidates will be out spent in the General Election.  Why give that money more time to have an effect.  Democrats should work to limit the General Election Campaign to the shortest time possible.  This will go a long way to counter Super Pac spending.

Our candidates can use their Primary funds to raise doubts about the suitability of Republican incumbents and shed light on the Republican agenda.  In races with several Democratic candidates, those campaigns should tag team the Republican incumbent; not attack fellow Democrats.

Politics is a contact sport and Democrats need to start playing hardball or get out of the game.

Republicans Dividing Redistricting Plaintiffs for Short-Sighted Settlement?

by: Katherine Haenschen

Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 00:51 PM CST

Michael Li blogged about it over the weekend, writing:  

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.  

Michael Li Liveblogging San Antonio Panel Hearing Today

by: Katherine Haenschen

Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 01:14 PM CST

The State of Texas must also tell the court today if they can afford to reimburse counties and political parties for the cost of holding two primaries. That figure has been estimated at approximately $13 million, which obviously our cash-strapped state doesn't have just lying around.

The Texas Democratic Party supports one unified primary. Republican State Senators and Congressmen largely support one unified primary. Now that Perry's out, it's unclear if Perry loyalists still support a split primary with the Presidential primary held ASAP and legislative and Congressional races held later. A split primary would result in much lower, more-partisan turnout in the second primary, which could benefit Tea Party supported candidates.

Michael Li, redistricting expert extraordinaire, will be liveblogging from San Antonio today so we can keep abreast of all of the happenings.

Follow Michael on twitter: @mcpli

Follow his liveblog, which will compile his tweets: txredistricting.org

Read all of our redistricting coverage here: Redistricting Coverage

Update 1:25 pm: The Austin Chronicle has a good primer on how we got here.  

Split Texas Primary Looking Likely

by: Michael Li

Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 03:47 PM CST

However, the court told the parties that if they wish to maintain a unified April 3 primary date that they would need to agree among themselves on interim maps by February 6. (Yes, there probably is some parallel universe out there where this will happen- and Greg Abbott has a beard - but my irking suspicion is that it's not this one.)

If the parties are unable to agree upon maps, they are to submit a list of unobjected to districts by February 6 for the court's consideration.

The court also said that it was giving 'serious consideration' to a split primary and asked the State of Texas to be prepared on Friday to say whether it would reimburse counties and political parties for the added expense.  That added costs is expected to run somewhere in the neighborhood of at least $13 million.

The also asked all parties to be prepared to discuss two alternative options for split primaries: one that would have a presidential (+ precinct chair) primary on April 3 and another that would have an April 3 presidential primary and primary countywide and whole county races (+ precinct chairs).  [Before you ask, it's not entirely clear why the court rolled precinct chair elections into the first option except that it seems to be under the impression that having precinct chair elections is necessary to start the process of having precinct conventions.  It'll get sorted out.]

The court's order is available here

TDP Files Advisory Supporting Single Texas Primary Date

by: Katherine Haenschen

Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 00:00 PM CST

In any case, an April 3rd primary looks less and less likely--at least for Congressional and Legislative races--which brings us back to the issue of one primary or two. TDP weighed in today in support of one primary through an advisory submitted to the San Antonio panel.

The advisory reads as follows:

The Texas Democratic Party has and continues to support a unified primary insofar as is possible. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court ruling in this case seems to require substantial additional work from counsel to this case and from this Court, in particular. The members of the Court are best able to determine what and when they can accomplish in terms of reviewing the evidence, preparing interim maps and issuing opinions to support each interim map. TDP is prepared to work with all parties with respect to the preparation of an election schedule once it is known when districts maps will be available.

The Democratic party is doing everything they can to keep one primary date. That's what's best for our county governments in terms of saving money and minimizing confusion. It's also what's best for maintaining high turnout -- a second, later primary for districts impacted by the redistricting process would have lower turnout, not to mention the increased confusion of potential new precinct lines.

None of this would have happened if Republicans hadn't decided to blatantly stifle minority populations' voting power through their partisan, racist gerrymander.  

Statement from Congressman Lloyd Doggett on Today's SCOTUS Opinion

by: Katherine Haenschen

Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 05:12 PM CST

"There is good news and bad news.  The good news is that only Justice Clarence Thomas insisted on imposing the crooked Perrymandered map and rejecting the vital preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act.  The bad news is that the Supreme Court did not affirm every aspect of the ruling by Judges Garcia and Rodriquez in San Antonio, so our primary election is not likely to proceed on April 3.  Yet nothing in the Supreme Court order precludes a final congressional map like that already drawn by this San Antonio court.  Republican comments to the contrary are wishful thinking at best. The mishandling of this matter by Rick Perry and Greg Abbott may unfortunately again delay this election, but it need not prevent full implementation of the Voting Rights Act to assure fair treatment of our Hispanic and African American neighbors. Better later and right than earlier and wrong."

"However the final lines are drawn, I will seek reelection wherever most of my constituents live.  That is CD 25 composed of substantial parts of Travis and Hays Counties under the court map and CD35 under the Perrymandered map.  To ensure that our shared progressive values continue to be advanced in Washington, I will continue working hard every day.  I have been in San Antonio this week, like last week, and next week, and at every future opportunity.  With active campaign offices in both San Antonio and Austin, I need all the volunteer help we can get now at each.  I want to be as strong an advocate for working families in other parts of the I-35 corridor as I have been for the communities that I already serve in Congress."

Republicans are so determined to draw Lloyd Doggett out of Congress that they hacked Austin and Travis County into five Congressional districts with their illegal racist gerrymandered map. This isn't the first time Doggett's district has had to be re-drawn by the courts. In 2006, SCOTUS threw out Tom DeLay's mid-decade redistricting that forced Doggett into a district that ran from Austin to Mexico. That district was redrawn into the current CD-25. That district was warped by the Republican legislature into a conservative monstrosity running from Fort Worth to Austin.

Memo to Republicans: Doggett won't quit, and every time you try to draw him out, he just keeps fighting back. Maybe you should give up and get a new legislative priority other than forcing out Central Texas' progressive voice in Congress?