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.
Congressman Doggett released the following statement to Burnt Orange Report today on the SCOTUS opinion, emphasis mine:
"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?
In response to today's ruling from the United State's Supreme Court Supreme Court, 10th district Congressional candidate Dan Grant issued the following statement, emphasis mine:
"With continued uncertainty surrounding primary dates, district lines and a time line for when we will have definite answers, one thing is still clear: Texans deserve a voice in Congress that understands and fights for them. For years Michael McCaul has failed to be that voice. Our campaign will continue to work hard reaching out to Texans who want better than the status quo and who demand more than the self-serving politics of Michael McCaul."
Dan Grant, an Austin-based foreign policy expert, is a candidate for U.S. House of Representatives in Texas' 10th Congressional District against Rep. Michael McCaul.
Michael McCaul is one of the richest individuals in Congress, and represents the 1% more than the people of his Central Texas district. As we've previously reported, McCaul is on the most recent list of biggest water-wasters in the Austin area. McCaul is so out of touch with working people he didn't even seem to notice that his water bill had skyrocketed to almost 20 times that of the average Austin resident. McCaul previous made the list in 2009, ranking seventh of all utility customers for the water consumed by his 1.9-acre mansion. He claimed at the time that it was a leak in his sprinkler system, and that he had it fixed immediately. City records show, however, that the McCaul household water use had averaged around 100,000 gallons a month. The average Austin home uses 10,000 gallons a year.
While McCaul's neighbors continue blame leaky pipes, I don't know too many people who could just passively afford to keep paying so much, let alone squandering our most precious resources.
Dan Grant: won't waste all of our water and watches his own utility bills. Put that on a tee shirt!
Below is a statement from State Senator Wendy Davis on the SCOTUS opinion released today. Davis' district was hacked apart by the Republican gerrymander in an effort to run the Democrat out of office, and in so doing deny Fort Worth a Senate district anchored in the city.
Press release below, emphasis mine:
Sen. Wendy Davis Encouraged By SCOTUS Ruling That Allows For Changes Where "Reasonable Probability" of Violations Exist
WASHINGTON D.C. - Senator Wendy Davis said the opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court provides legitimacy to the prior action of the San Antonio court when it drew the interim Senate map and we are therefore hopeful that we will see them replicate their actions in drawing a new interim map. Davis is hopeful of such an outcome because there is a 'reasonable probability' that the Washington D.C. court will deny preclearance of the Senate map because it is intentionally discriminatory and harms black and Hispanic voters, and it seems likely the San Antonio court will enhance minority voting strength in Senate District 10 to fairly reflect the minority population growth.
"On behalf of the thousands of voters for whom we are fighting, we are delighted that the U.S. Supreme Court ordered that adjustments should be made where the San Antonio court has found the likelihood of Section 2 violations or a "reasonable probability" of Section 5 violations, which was exactly how the San Antonio panel of judges drew the current interim maps," Davis said from a federal courthouse in Washington D.C., where she testified today in the Section 5 trial on Texas' redistricting plans. "The interim Senate map kept districts in place as they were drawn by the Legislature, except in Senate District 10 where the San Antonio court redrew the district I represent because there are likely violations of Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act."
Below is a statement from TDP spokesperson Anthony Gutierrez regarding the Supreme Court's decision on redistricting, emphasis mine:
"The Supreme Court did not strike down the interim maps. They issues they had pertained to the process by which the court arrived at new maps, not necessarily the maps themselves.
While it is not clear what the final districts will look like at this point, what is clear is that the state's original maps have been found to be discriminatory in some way by every court which has examined them.
The state's maps completely ignored the demographic realities of Texas. The Supreme Court did not approve the state's maps and we don't expect they ever will."
###
Make no mistake: we're in this mess because of the Republican gerrymander that reached too far in its effort to stifle minority voters' voices. As the ongoing pre-clearance trial makes clear, Texas Republicans deliberately worked to draw lines that diluted Hispanic voting power. While the population growth in our state has been predominantly minority over the past decade, Republicans refuse to recognize that reality and draw districts that let minority Texans select the candidates of their choosing.
Last night on his blog "Letters from Texas," Harold Cook put up a preliminary post on the SCOTUS redistricting brouhaha that's worth a read. He writes:
I haven't talked to a single redistricting lawyer tonight - they're all busy conferring with each other, no doubt. But as a guy who has been through redistricting so many times that I can't think about it very long without being ashamed of myself for still being in this business, here are my initial thoughts on what this means:
-- First, we don't really know what this means. But from Democrats' perspective, it can't exactly be great news.
-- Second, If somebody tonight is explaining to you what it means, that's probably because he's a consultant, you're paying him, and as a result he feels a duty to sound smart. Nobody knows what it means. But keep this in mind: it takes fewer Supreme Court Justices to accept a case than it does to issue a majority ruling on a case, so after it's all said and done, we may end up with the exact same maps the Federal Court in San Antonio ordered. Or, we may not. It may be a sign that Justice Scalia has seen this as his big opportunity to do away with Sec. 5 of the Voting Rights Act, or it may be a hiccup in which Justices merely want to know more.
Tonight, the US Supreme Court announced that they would stay the San Antonio Federal Court's redrawn Congressional, State House, and State Senate maps. Filing will continue through this Thursday, December 15th. SCOTUS will hold a hearing on January 9. No word of moving the March 6 primary... Yet.
The Supreme Court has blocked the use of Texas state legislative and congressional district maps that were drawn by federal judges to boost minorities' voting power.
The court issued a brief order Friday that applies to electoral maps drawn by federal judges in San Antonio for the Texas Legislature and Congress. The justices say they will hear arguments in the case on Jan. 9.
Texas says that the judges overstepped their authority and should have taken into account the electoral maps that were drawn by the Republican-dominated Texas Legislature.
And by "Texas" in that last paragraph, the AP means Attorney General Greg Abbott and hyper-partisan Republicans, whose argument can be summed up as "Waaaaaah!! The San Antonio courts didn't disenfranchise enough Democrats minority, young, and poor people! Antonin Scalia, fix it!"
Here's the REALLY hinky part, courtesy of SCOTUSBLOG:
Candidates began filing for seats in the legislature and in the House of Representatives on Nov. 28, and the filing period now in effect was to continue until Dec. 15. Friday's order made no immediate change in that. More importantly, the order did not specify what districts would actually be used for purposes of candidate filing. The three maps drawn by the state legislature earlier this year supposedly cannot be used, because their validity under federal voting rights law and the Constitution are now under review by a U.S. District Court in Washington. And the interim districts crafted by the District Court in San Antonio cannot be used because they are now stayed by the Justices' order.
So basically candidates can keep filing for seats with numbers attached to them, but there's no map at this time that says what that district is. The Legislative maps were tossed out for blatantly obliterating minority voting power, and now SCOTUS has basically put the new maps on hold. It's unclear if the maps are changed after January 9 whether filing would re-open and what would happen to the candidates who potentially might need to shift around.
More from SCOTUSBLOG:
The Court set this briefing schedule: it consolidated the cases, order Texas officials and the challengers to the legislature's maps to file opening briefs simultaneously on Dec. 21. Reply briefs are due Jan. 3. And the oral argument on Jan. 9 will be for one hour only.
Will the Gentleman from News Corp, the Distinguished Senator from Saudi Arabia please yield to the Gentle Lady from Citigroup, the Senator from Russia? The Gentleman from Goldman Sachs, the Distinguished Senator from the great land of Dubai may have ten minutes.
By the way, Prince Al-Waleed, a grandson of the King of Saudi Arabia and the largest individual shareholder in Citigroup and second biggest shareholder in News Corp (Murdock's FOX "News") doesn't like Obama's tax on the banks. Nor does he think much of health care reform or the movie Avatar. Of course Saudi Arabia, a highly repressive country, is one comprised of the very rich and the very poor. For every Prince Al-Waleed there are thousands of impoverished Saudis. The King may wish to ask himself why terrorism has become a successful means of employment in his country.
Apparently Senator John Cornyn and Rick Perry have absolutely no problem with the recent SOTUS decision in which corporations can contribute unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns. In an interview with FOX "News" yesterday, Senator Cornyn said everyone is making too big a deal about this decision.
WALLACE: And finally - and we've only got about 30 seconds left - what's the practical effect of the Supreme Court ruling this week saying that corporations can now openly support and spend money, openly supporting or opposing candidates? Do you expect a rush of corporate cash into the campaign?
CORNYN: No, I don't. I think it's been overstated, the impact. Frankly, there's been an explosion of money into federal races for public office since - well, in the last 10 years, since campaign finance reform.
It hadn't done anything to stop the flow of money in. What it's done is make it less transparent and less accountable. President Obama spent more money in his campaign in 2008 than Senator Kerry and President Bush did in 2004 combined.
So what we need is transparency. We need contemporaneous reporting on the Internet. I think that's the kind of accountability that we need.
WALLACE: Senator Cornyn, thank you. Thanks for coming in today. And it's always a pleasure to see you, sir.
CORNYN: Thanks, Chris.
Overstated? I guess the Senator forgot that most of our corporations are multi-national now and thereby include hundreds if not thousands of foreign shareholders who have a lot of financial clout. Foreign investors like Prince Al-Waleed could very likely donate unimaginable amounts of cash through the back door, i.e. through the armies of lobbying firms that are already crawling all over Washington D.C. In fact, lobbying firms will very likely now become the biggest employer in the Washington, D.C. area, after the federal government.
Senator Cornyn also needs to be reminded that President Obama's ability to raise extraordinary amounts of cash is in no small part due to an immensely effective and powerful electronic grass roots fund raising tool. Through this mechanism the Obama campaign could easily raise vasts amounts from tiny donations ranging from $5.00 to $50.00. There were no small number of "money bombs" raised over at Daily Kos when progressive bloggers would feel the need to show then candidate Obama support especially through the media circuses of Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers. In fact, when progressive grass roots bloggers and activists would get fed up with media bias, John McCain or Sarah Palin we would implement electronic fund raising drives.
Well, I guess those days are over since the SCOTUS threw we little ol' grass roots activists and average Janes and Joes of America into a tank pervaded with with gigantic flesh eating sharks. Big John will tell us this is just fine and we should not worry.
I guess the Senator would love nothing better than to let Goldman-Sachs retaliate against President Obama's efforts to tax the banks, or for health insurance companies to crush the President in 2012 if he should sign the health care reform bill.
Imagine how many congressmen Goldman Sachs could make quake if it quietly let it be known it had decided to divert just 10 percent of the $16.2 billion in employee bonuses it has budgeted this year to retaliate against any of them who supported Obama's proposed reforms.
Will the Senator from Wal-Mart please yield to the Senator from Halliburton? The Congressman from Black Water has 5 minutes remaining before the Congresswoman from United Health may speak.
Mark your calendars, folks. January 21, 2010 is the day the radical and activist Supreme Court of the United States delivered the U.S. Democracy into the hands of the corporate sector and special interests groups. According to an article in the New York Times corporations, lobbyists and unions can now legally purchase their candidates of choice.
"We have got a million we can spend advertising for you or against you - whichever one you want,' " a lobbyist can tell lawmakers, said Lawrence M. Noble, a lawyer at Skadden Arps in Washington and former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission.
The decision yesterday will usher in unimaginable numbers of Swift Boat attack ads. Corporate fat cats can now threaten and bully politicians to do their bidding or else.
"It will put on steroids the trend that outside groups are increasingly dominating campaigns," Mr. Ginsberg said. "Candidates lose control of their message. Some of these guys lose control of their whole personalities."
"Parties will sort of shrink in the relative importance of things," he added, "and outside groups will take over more of the functions - advertising support, get out the vote - that parties do now."
In opening the floodgates for corporate money in election campaigns, the Supreme Court did not simply engage in a brazen power grab. It did so in an opinion stunning in its intellectual dishonesty.
Many of those commenting on the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission have focused on the power-grab part. I agree with them. It was unnecessary for the court to go so far when there were several less-radical grounds available. It was audacious to seize the opportunity to overrule precedents when the parties had not pressed this issue and the lower courts had not considered it. It was the height of activism to usurp the judgments of Congress and state legislatures about how best to prevent corruption of the political process.
"If it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more," a wise judge once wrote. That was Chief Justice John G. Roberts -- back when -- and dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens rightly turned that line against him.
(Today's case would not have happened without the Voting Rights Act. Matt does a good job at pointing out the connections and why we must fight Texas Republicans that stand in the way of getting the VRA renewed. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
Hours ago, the Unites States Supreme Court released their ruling in the Texas Redistricting case. It was a strong statement in support of hundreds of thousands of voters in the most diverse parts of the state.
In a time where less Texans are insured, education is failing, and the culture of corruption is sweeping our nation, it is troubling to have the court rule FOR an incumbent protection plan. With no test in place and no restrictions, state legislatures can legally choose to ignore the plight of children and seniors, teachers and doctors, veterans and first responders, and waste time by constantly changing the boundaries of a political district.
The High Court made it clear that political gerrymandering is legal and acceptable as long as voters have their rights protected. The court was troubled by the simple fact that in Congressional District 23 over 100,000 Latino voters were thrown into a new district to protect the incumbent Republican and weaken the voting power of the minority.
Currently the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is in jeopardy and the House of Representatives has refused to protect the civil rights of every American.
