Part 2: Texas' Missing Young Voters

by: Michael Li

Tue May 14, 2013 at 05:28 PM CDT

But can the voter file tell us more?

The good news is that the age of voters - unlike ethnicity - is something that voter registrars in Texas track, so the data is considerably more certain and available. (To be sure, there are a few thousand voters without recorded birthdates and some inevitable coding errors - but not enough to be statistically significant in a universe of 13.6 million registered voters.)

Below the jump, let's take a look at the actual turnout data, starting with the voter pool.

Texas' Missing Younger Voters

by: Michael Li

Sun May 12, 2013 at 01:17 PM CDT

As shown, in the chart below, Texas turnout in 2012 lags every age the US turnout rate in every age group except the eligible voters over 65+, where Texas slightly outperforms the nation as a whole.

The result isn't especially surprising given that Texas ranked 47th in the nation in voter turnout in 2012 (after coming in 50th in 2010). But what does stand out is the sharp fall off in Texas among voters 18-24 when benchmarked against the national turnout rate.

Read more below the jump.

A Look at Texas Voter Turnout by Ethnicity

by: Michael Li

Wed May 08, 2013 at 07:11 PM CDT

For 2012, the Bureau estimates that nationwide 64.1% of citizen voting age Anglos, 66.2% of African-Americans, 48% of Hispanics, and 47.3% of Asians voted in 2012.

While the impact of the nation's growing Hispanic population on the 2012 election has gotten a lot of media play (deservedly), the turnout 'wonder story' of 2012 looks to involve African-Americans, not Hispanics.

Most groups in 2012, including Hispanics, saw falls in turnout.  But African-American turnout reached a historic high, with African-Americans outvoting Anglos for the first time - ever.  By contrast, while more Hispanics than ever voted, that looks to be a product of increasing numbers, not of increasing turnout rates.

Learn more below the jump.

What Fixing the Congressional Map Might Look Like for Travis County and Central Texas

by: Michael Li

Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 10:17 PM CDT

And what would become of the current Hispanic opportunity district (CD-35) - drawn by the Texas Legislature and incorporated into the court's second interim map - once the populous Hispanic parts of Travis County are removed?

The joint map advisory filed by 6 of 8 plaintiff groups with the court in San Antonio has suggested at least a couple of options.

Learn more below the jump.

Texas Redistricting: It's Back! (sort of)

by: Michael Li

Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 05:43 PM CDT

The hearing ended up being a relatively sedate affair - although State Sen. Kirk Watson (D-Austin) drew a firm line in the sand when he told the committee that the senate's Democratic caucus was united in opposing moving forward with the bill.

If that holds, the Democratic caucus would have the votes needed under the senate's 2/3 rule to block consideration of the bill on the floor - absent procedural maneuvering by the Republican majority.

An Update on Texas Redistricting and the Process Ahead

by: Michael Li

Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 03:31 PM CDT

The court previously told the parties that it would not "issue any opinion" until after the Supreme Court decides questions in Shelby Co. v. Holder surrounding the constitutionality of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

However, the court asked the parties for advice on alternative scenarios if section 5 is upheld and if it - or the coverage formula - are struck down, including time estimates.

So, what did they say? Find out below the jump.

Backgrounder: Texas and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act

by: Michael Li

Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 06:31 PM CST

• Texas is one of 8 states currently covered in its entirety by the preclearance provisions in section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  In addition, another 8 states are partially covered. The other states covered in whole are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Virginia also is covered as a state, although a number of its counties and political subdivisions no longer are.
  
  
• Texas was not covered under section 5 until 1975 amendments to the Voting Rights Act, which added provisions to address discrimination against language minority groups. Like Arizona, Texas became covered because Spanish speakers at the time of the November 1972 general election constituted more than 5% of voting age citizens but the state still provided election information only in English.
  
  
• Since becoming a covered jurisdiction, Texas and its political subdivisions have been the subject of 206 preclearance objections from the Justice Department - more than any other covered jurisdiction. Additionally, although Texas elected not to submit its 2011 legislative and congressional redistricting maps to DOJ for preclearance, a three-judge panel denied preclearance to all three of Texas' plans in 2012.
  
  
• Of the objections since Texas became a covered jurisdiction, 73 occurred between 1975-1979, 53 were between 1980-1989, 65 were between 1990-1999, and 15 have been since 2000.  In all, 112 of the objections were lodged by under Republican administrations and 94 during Democratic administrations.
  
  
• Prior to the Obama administration, the Justice Department objected to all three of the state's redistricting plans in the 1981 cycle, the state house and state senate redistricting plans in the 1991 cycle, and the state house plan in the 2001 cycle.  In 1991, DOJ also objected to the City of Dallas' proposed 10-4-1 city council plan.
  
  
• In 2011-2012, in addition to opposing Texas' redistricting plans and Texas' voter ID law (SB 14), the Justice Department objected to redistricting plans for county commissions in Galveston and Nueces counties and to a change in the way the trustees for the Beaumont Independent School District would be elected.
  
  
• If section 5 is upheld, Texas would remain covered by preclearance requirements until 2031, unless at some future juncture it qualifies for bailout under provisions of the Voting Rights Act.  Under current law, to bailout as a state, Texas and all of its political subdivisions would need to have a 'clean record' under both section 5 and section 2 of the Voting Rights Act for a period at least ten years, in addition to meeting other statutory requirements.
  
  
• Political subdivisions, such as counties, also can bailout on their own if they independently meet the bailout tests, though to date none have done so in Texas.  Nationwide, roughly 125 jurisdictions have bailed out since 2009.
  
  
• As a covered jurisdiction, Texas is required to submit all voting related changes either to the Justice Department or to a court in Washington D.C. for approval (preclearance) before they can be put into effect.  This requirement includes changes in the manner of voting, candidacy requirements, abolition of an office, annexations, redistricting plans as well as things like the location of precinct polling places and changes in political parties' delegate selection rules.
  
  

This post was updated to add a missing bullet point that disappeared into the ether during reformatting. -- KH

'Battleground Texas' Launches New Multimillion Dollar Effort to Turn Texas Blue

by: Michael Li

Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:29 AM CST

For all the sweat and money that Texas Democrats and their allies have poured into the state over the years, a big missing ingredient has been national interest in Texas.

Sure, as Bill Clinton said, "There's no state in the country that votes less like its demographics than Texas."  

But with cities the size of states (Harris County by itself would be the 15th largest state) and with multiple media markets, Texas was always too big, too expensive, and too hard compared with the other pressing priorities of national donors.

As a result, Texas for 30 years has languished near the bottom in voter turnout - finishing dead last in 2010. While one poll by LatinoDecisions estimates that nearly 60% of Hispanic voters in Colorado were contacted about the 2012 election, the same poll found that only about 25% of Texas Hispanics were.

But the good news is that the signs are that Texas' days as a perpetual bridesmaid are coming to an end.

One of the most promising signs came today in the announcement that former Obama for America national field director Jeremy Bird with support from national Democratic and progressive donors is launching Battleground Texas, a new organization that Bird told POLITICO "will make Texas a battleground state by treating it as one."

According to POLITICO:

"Battleground Texas," plans to engage the state's rapidly growing Latino population, as well as African-American voters and other Democratic-leaning constituencies that have been underrepresented at the ballot box in recent cycles. Two sources said the contemplated budget would run into the tens of millions of dollars over several years - a project Democrats hope has enough heft to help turn what has long been an electoral pipe dream into reality.

True to the Obama campaign's model in swing states, Bird said:

"Over the next several years, Battleground Texas will focus on expanding the electorate by registering more voters - and as importantly, by mobilizing Texans who are already registered voters but who have not been engaged in the democratic process."

And the good news is these efforts dovetail nicely into substantial work already being done in the state with low-propensity voters by partisan organizations as well as non-partisan groups like the Texas Organizing Project, Mi Familia Vota, and Texans Together.  Those efforts also are expected to increase in coming years.

While Texas may be big, the lessons of places like Colorado and New Mexico is that big change is possible over several cycles (and sooner than you think).  But engaging non-regular voters means starting earlier and year-around civic engagement.  And it also means more research and polling to understand the complex and incredibly diverse population of Texas.  All that's expensive.  But with national funder interest, the resources needed to do that kind of work may finally be available in Texas.

It's not hard to see why national interest has started to shift to Texas.  By many estimates Hispanic provided the decisive margin of victory to President Obama in Colorado, Nevada, and Florida - each states where President Obama lost the Anglo vote.  

In Texas, by contrast, there are some 2.3 million registered and eligible African-Americans and Hispanics in just the state's 11 largest counties who are considered unlikely voters.  Of those, only 782,580 (34%) voted in 2008. And in 2010?  Only 68,883 voted.  That's less than 3% turnout and a fall off of almost 714,000 in a state that Bill White lost by 631,086 votes.

And it's important to stress that while talk about Texas usually and inevitably focuses on Hispanics, more than 60% registered voters in Dallas and Harris counties are considered unlikely voters under common models.

That's opportunity galore.

And from a national perspective as one national donor said in Washington recently when calling for a "moon-landing commitment to Texas":  Texas is checkmate.

And with prolific San Antonio fundraiser Henry Muñoz taking over as finance chair for the Democratic National Committee, a deepening of ties of Texas with national sources of money will only increase.  

That's only further good news for Texas progressives.

No changes to interim maps before November

by: Michael Li

Fri Aug 31, 2012 at 10:58 PM CDT

Instead, the panel asked the parties to submit proposals by December 1 for how they would propose to move forward.  

Although all of the plaintiff groups were united in the view that there were additional deficiencies in the interim maps that needed to be corrected in light of the D.C. panel's preclearance ruling on Tuesday, only LULAC was left insisting that the defects needed to be addressed before an election.

Nina Perales, counsel for the Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force, told the panel that she would prefer to see the issues addressed in a more deliberative way - adding that election results from November 2012 could help inform that process.  Perales also told the court that she just simply didn't see that there was enough time to accomplish all that would need to happen logistically in order to adjust the maps in time for a November election - especially with ballot printing and other hard deadlines fast approaching.

Perales also expressed concerns that the prospect of 'jungle primaries' in November 2012 (in which candidates of all parties run together on a single slate with the top two finishers moving on to a runoff) would lead to voter confusion and depressed turnout.

While the State of Texas argued for holding off adjustments to the maps until after a Supreme Court ruling, the panel did not address that issue today, and Jose Garza, counsel for MALC, reminded the panel that the D.C. panel's order had not been stayed.  Garza told the panel that precedent argued in favor of moving forward with crafting a remedy, notwithstanding the existence of appeals.

So, after some flurry of activity, everything seems back on track for a November election, though one observer has already quiped that, "Laws enacted by a legislature elected under an interim map are interim laws, right?"

Court blocks key Texas voter registration laws

by: Michael Li

Thu Aug 02, 2012 at 11:21 PM CDT

The restrictions had been challenged by the non-profit group Voting for America and various other plaintiffs in a suit filed early this year in federal district court in Galveston.

The court rejected claims of Texas that the new restrictions were required to prevent fraud, holding that "[i]f these practices did contribute to fraud, concrete examples of such fraud would likely exist from decades of experience . . . . But no such evidence was introduced for the Court to weigh against the harm to Plaintiffs."

The court also enjoined enforcement of existing provisions of Texas law which Texas interpreted as banning deputy voter registrars from "accepting or handling applications from residents of counties other than the county in which the person is appointed as a VDR," finding the requirement unconstitutionally burdensome.  The court noted:

As Plaintiffs have pointed out, a VDR active only in the City of Dallas would need to be appointed in Dallas, Denton, Collin, Rockwall, and Kaufman Counties in order to legally accept applications from residents of all parts of the city ... The county limitation, by requiring both registration and training in any county in which a potential VDR wishes to submit applications, thus imposes severe time burdens and administrative expenses on voter registration activities.

The court also barred enforcement of prohibitions on "photocopying or scanning voter registration applications that have been submitted to a VDR but not yet delivered to the appropriate county registrar, so long as the information copied or scanned does not include" confidential personal information, such as driver's license or social security numbers.

In addition, the court enjoined provisions requiring that completed applications be delivered in person by a deputy voter registrar rather than by U.S. mail.

In its opinion, the court stressed the importance of voter registration drives in modern democracies:

Voter registration drives have played a vital role in increasing participation in the political process. This is especially true in minority communities with historically lower rates of voter registration. Census figures indicate that a significant percentage of African-Americans and Hispanics voting in the last presidential election registered through voter registration drives and other third-party voter registration activities.

But rather than helping to ensure participation in the electoral process, Judge Costa found that Texas laws had the opposite effect:

The result is that Texas now imposes more burdensome regulations on those engaging in third-party voter registration than the vast majority of, if not all, other states.

The laws in question are now blocked pending a full hearing and trial.

The court's 94-page opinion can be found here.