(I am shocked! shocked! to find out that the Republicans' Voter ID law was discriminatory! (Not really.) - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
The Department of Justice told the panel in the Texas voter ID case in a brief filed Wednesday that depositions of Texas legislators were needed because even on the limited public record, there was "substantial indicia of discriminatory purpose, including the anticipated effect of S.B. 14, the historical background leading up to passage of the bill, and the nature of legislative debate."
The State of Texas had earlier asked the court to block the depositions of 14 Republican legislators involved with the voter ID bill's process through the legislature.
The DOJ brief cited, among other things, the failure of bill proponents to address substantive concerns or answer questions in floor debate about the bill's impact on minority voters, the refusal to consider amendments that would have lessened the impact on indigent voters, and the refusal to fund studies to track the law's impact or to education programs targeted at low-income and minority voters.
DOJ said that the state's request to block the depositions sought "to shield from discovery the very witnesses it identified in its initial disclosures and responses to interrogatories" and that the "facts are more than sufficient to demonstrate that depositions of Texas state legislators and discovery of the documents lawmakers considered are warranted."
(Redistricting expert and elections lawyer Michael Li has an update on the law requiring a Photo ID to vote as it works its way through the courts. - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
A showdown on Texas' photo voter ID law (S.B. 14) is coming this summer.
Monday morning, the D.C. district court set a one-week trial in Texas' voter ID suit for July 9-13.
That's nearly three weeks earlier than requested by the Justice Department and minority groups. The earlier date appears to be in response to concerns by the State of Texas that it would not be able to get a positive preclearance ruling from the court in time to implement the law for the November 2012 elections. The state has said that it must have any positive ruling by August 15 at the very latest - and that even that late date would result in the state being able to implement only a basic voter education program before the November election.
And, as the three-judge panel made clear at a status conference last week, they were too want to get to an early decision if possible, with Judge Rosemary Collyer telling lawyers last week, "It's a big election year. We need to get it done"
However, the earlier date wasn't exactly a win for the state.
The court also directed that issues related to the constitutionality of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (a major part of the state's case) be bifurcated from the main trial and said that those issues would "not be addressed unless the Court denies judicial preclearance of Senate Bill [14]."
Since that means that hearings on constitutional issues would take place only after a ruling on the preclearance claims (by definition some time after the July 13 end of trial), that would seem to make it less likely that the constitutional issues could be teed up in time to get them to the Supreme Court before the November elections.
If the case had reached the Supreme Court this summer, the case could have ended up as the vehicle conservative groups have long sought for re-raising the issue of the constitutionality of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. That's something many observers feel voter ID is well suited for since the Supreme Court has already approved a voter ID law in Indiana, a non-section 5 state. Conservatives were expected to ask why a similar law could be acceptable in one jurisdiction but not in others.
(Do Republicans really want to remind everyone that they don't think minorities should be voting? Or is AG Greg Abbott just getting bored? Either way, Greg Abbott is yet another Republican determined to tarnish the reputation of Texas. - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
Looks like the State of Texas wasn't too happy about DOJ's rejection of its voter ID law on Monday.
The State of Texas is seeking permission from the three-judge panel in the voter ID case to file an amended complaint that would directly challenge the constitutionality of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
The amended complaint told the court in the introduction that, as an alternative grounds for relief, "the State of Texas seeks a declaration that section 5, as most recently amended and reauthorized by the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, exceeds the enumerated powers of Congress and conflicts with Article IV of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment."
With today's filing, Texas now moves to the forefront, along with the Shelby County case, in re-raising the constitutional issue. However, because Texas' case, unlike the Shelby County case, involves a three-judge panel, appeals from the case would go directly to the Supreme Court. That means Texas' case has the potential for getting to the Supreme Court first, depending on how the timing works out.
Suffice it to say, things just got a little more interesting.
(The redistricting expert provides some in-depth analysis on issues surrounding CD-25 and whether a coalition of Anglo and Minority voters can be protected. - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
No bigger issue looms on the congressional map than the treatment of CD-25 - Travis Co. anchored district currently represented by Congressman Lloyd Doggett.
Although the San Antonio court chose not to protect the district in its interim map (Plan C235), many of the redistricting plaintiffs continue to voice hope that the D.C. court in the preclearance case will reach a different conclusion.
But that position has left them at sharp odds with some Latino groups who contend that the court properly removed heavily Hispanic portions of East Austin and put them in a new Hispanic majority district (CD-35) anchored in San Antonio.
In recent weeks, those disputes escalated in court filings and the media after the Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force settled with the state and began expressing hopes that the compromise map - which dismantles CD-25 in favor of the new CD-35 - might serve as the basis for a permanent map.
Tuesday was the deadline for parties in the preclearance case in Washington to submit additional briefs on the question of whether Anglos dominate the Democratic primary in the district, as contended by the Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force.
So what's the dispute about?
In short, it's about whether a district that is 61% Anglo can be protected under the Voting Rights Act.
Let's start with the parties' disputes about what the law is.
The Latino Task Force has taken the position that a district cannot be protected under the VRA unless a minority group has the ability to elect its candidate of choice in both the primary and the general election. The Task Force also rejects the notion that minority groups can be combined to form a majority unless those minority groups vote the same way in both the primary and the general election.
That's a more restrictive view than taken by other minority groups who contend that the literal language of the Voting Rights Act speaks of minority groups' ability to elect their candidates of choice in either the primary or general election. They also contend that the Supreme Court in Bartlett v. Strickland expressly recognized and gave protection to ability of minority groups to form coalitions either with each other or with so-called crossover Anglos.
In counter, however, the Task Force argues that to adopt that interpretation "turns the Voting Rights Act on its head" and would allow any currently existing majority-minority district to be "dismantled, its Black and Latino voters scattered into districts where they constitute less than 30% of the voters ... as long as a Democratic candidate wins the General Election."
The State of Texas, likewise, argues that protecting CD-25 essentially means protecting political alliances and that if CD-25 is protected than so is every Democratic seat in the country.
Last but not least, it should be noted that the Justice Department has said that it does not regard CD-25 as an ability-to-elect district, though it has said that ultimately is a matter for the D.C. court.
Where does the court stand?
In its summary judgment ruling, the D.C. court sided conceptually with broader view urged by the Travis County intervenors, explaining:
"In counting ability districts, Texas ignored those in which coalitions of minority voters and coalitions of minority and White voters formed to support the minority-preferred candidate. But Section 5 requires such consideration in determining whether minorities have the ability to elect preferred candidates. The statute states no preference for how the minority group is able to elect its preferred candidate, whether by cohesive voting by a single minority group or by coalitions made up of different groups. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized the value of voting coalitions formed by minority voters."
However, the court subsequently asked for briefing on whether it is necessary to look at both the primary and general election results.
Then last week, the court asked for briefing about the alleged Anglo domination of the Democratic primary in CD-25.
All that suggests that the court taking a close look at the CD-25 on the facts to see whether CD-25 performs as an ability-to-elect district.
So what's the evidence?
It probably isn't surprising, but that's also in dispute. Or more precisely, it depends on what races you look at and how you define some key concepts. It gets a bit complex.
The Travis County intervenors argue that the claim that Anglo voters control the Democratic primary is simply false because the Latino Task Force's assertion "ignores that more than half the voters comprising the White CVAP in CD-25 are Republicans who do not participate in the Democratic primary." Once Republicans are factored out, they calculate that Anglos represent only about 47% of the Democratic primary universe - meaning that no one group by itself has the ability to control the result of the primary and that any group has the ability to hustle and "haul, pull, and trade" for advantage.
As for electoral support for the claim that CD-25 is an ability-to-elect district, the Travis County intervenors say it is necessary to look at all primaries and that minority-preferred candidates prevail in the Democratic primary 75% of the time both in the district and in Travis County (where 60% of the district's population lives).
Most importantly, they point to the results of the 2004 Democratic primary for CD-25 between Lloyd Doggett and a Latina opponent, Leticia Hinojosa, in which Doggett was the overwhelming choice of both African-Americans and Latinos in the district.
The Latino Task Force says hogwash and says that you have to start with evidence from the state's expert witness, John Alford, which suggests that more than 70% of the actual Democratic primary turnout in CD-25 (as opposed to potential turnout) is Anglo.
The Task Force goes on argue that primary races that are relevant are those in which a Latinos prefer a different candidate from Anglos.
In those races, the Task Force argues Anglos control the result of the primary except in the one case (a 2008 race for the Democratic Supreme Court nomination between Susan Criss and Linda Yañez) where the Anglo primary vote itself was split. They say that shows that the Latino vote in the Democratic primary (and the smaller African-American vote) is irrelevant to the outcome of the primary.
They, likewise, argue that the 2004 primary results are irrelevant because the district changed in 2006 as a result of litigation - although the core Travis County portions of the district remained the same.
In any event, the Task Force argues that because more than half of African-American voters in CD-25 are moved to the new CD-35 along with 68% of Latinos, the ability of those voters to elect the candidate of their choice is actually preserved and enhanced.
The Travis County intervenors' argument, the Task Force says, is just an argument "that African-American and Latinos in CD 25 are required by the Voting Rights Act to be contained in a Travis County-based congressional district, as opposed to any other congressional district in which they would have the ability to nominate and elect their preferred candidate."
The Travis County intervenors call the Task Force's position both "puzzling" and "perplexing" and the result a selective picking of races which assumes that Hispanics prefer Hispanic candidates. They say that broader election results show that no ethnic groups elect their candidate of choice every time, but that Anglos, African-Americans, and Latinos each have been able to elect their candidates of choice roughly 3 out of 4 times by forming successful coalitions. That they say was exactly what the Voting Rights Act was intended to do.
In short, the argument is that the Task Force left a minority seat on the table by agreeing to a map that dismantled CD-25 when CD-35 could have been created as a Latino majority district without touching Travis County.
What next?
Waiting.
The D.C. court indicated back in early February that it would be at least 30 days before it issued a preclearance decision. That time has now come and gone and, with this final (?) round of briefing, a decision could come any time now. However, whether and to what extent the court is wrestling with the issues is unknown so exact timing is anyone's guess. Right now, the only people who have a clear sense of that are the three judges and their law clerks.
(It's worth clicking through to the memo and taking a look. - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
Democratic consultants Jeff Crosby and Roger Garza have circulated a memo challenging Republican assertions that the new interim state house map results in 100 likely GOP seats.
The memo contends that there are 72 seats where a Democratic candidate can be competitive, including 63 of what it terms 'Tier 1' and 'Tier 2' seats.
Crosby and Garza explain that their analysis is based on the 2008 presidential race, an average of 2008 Supreme Court races, and the 2010 governor's race. The memo said that the "Republican average" being touted by the Republican Party of Texas was "undefined" and, Crosby and Garza argue, likely "inflated" by using races in which "Republicans routed several poorly funded, little known Democrats," noting that well-funded Democrats in suburban districts in 2008 often ran ahead of Barack Obama.
The memo, including a breakdown of districts, can be found here.
(The expert weights in with answers to your redistricting questions. - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
Who's up or down on seats?
It depends on how you count seats.
On the congressional map, Republicans are claiming that the map results in a 2-2 split of the state's new congressional districts and gives them 25 out of 36 seats overall.
A number of the redistricting plaintiffs say, though, the Republican count is disingenuous and that the court's congressional map actually fails to create any new minority seats.
They argue that while the map, on the surface, creates three new minority seats (CD-33, CD-34, and CD-35), it also takes away two current districts (CD-25 and CD-27) where minorities have been successful in electing their candidates of choice and additionally weakens a third district (CD-23) to the point it may not perform. As a result, they say minorities end up with the same 11 or 12 seats they would have after a normal, non-wave election.
On the state house map, Republicans say the map results give them 94 seats where the average Republican performance is 55% or better - down from 98 in the map the Legislature passed.
Redistricting plaintiffs and Democrats have expressed disappointment that the court didn't go further in addressing what they say was significant intentional fragmentation of minority communities in the map as well as improper use of population variances between districts to overpopulate minority districts.
But while fixing those issues would have resulted in more districts in places like Bell County and Fort Bend County where minorities would immediately control the result, it's not clear that the interim map, even if it were to become to permanent map, is necessarily a long-term boon for Republicans.
In Dallas County, for example, where the Legislature's map was adopted whole cloth, a large number of districts are ones where Republicans get only 52% or so of the vote. With demographic change over the next decade (Dallas County will be only about 22% Anglo in 2020 by some estimates), many of those seats will be harder to defend than if the court had created a few additional minority heavy districts.
The only map where the count is not really disputed is the state senate map and that's because only one district - SD-10 - was at issue. The new court-ordered map preserves SD-10 in its pre-redistricting form and gives Democrats the chance to keep the chamber's balance at 19R-12D, depending on whether State Sen. Wendy Davis wins re-election.
Do the new interim maps need to be precleared under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act?
Yes. Since the maps reflect state policy choices, they will need to be submitted for review either to the Justice Department or to the three-judge panel in Washington that tried the preclearance case.
Tim Mellett of the Justice Department said at hearings two weeks ago that DOJ is prepared to examine the maps under its expedited review process and that the process could be concluded in time for a May 29 primary.
The assumption of most observers is that the state will submit the maps to DOJ rather than the three-judge panel in Washington. However, the decision ultimately will be Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott's call.
Regardless, expect candidate filing and election preparations to go forward, pending preclearance.
Of course, we could be back in court if, for some reason, DOJ - or the DC court - denies preclearance.
Could a party appeal the interim maps?
Yes, dissatisfied parties (ranging from minority groups to Congressman Joe Barton) could ask the Supreme Court to review the maps and the court's explanation for doing what it did.
However, unless the Supreme Court grants a stay and/or sets the appeal on an expedited schedule, election would go forward using the interim maps - assuming, of course, that the maps are precleared.
A stay request to the Supreme Court likely would be referred to the court as a whole to consider. If that happens, it would take five justices to grant a stay.
Could the map process be reopened after the D.C. court issues its ruling in the preclearance trial?
Yes, particularly if the D.C. court's opinion differs materially from where the San Antonio court ended up in its analysis of section 5 issues (e.g., if the D.C. court decides that CD-25 is a protected district).
But the San Antonio court would have to decide whether any issues raised by the D.C. court's opinion are significant enough to warrant reopening the process or whether to simply order the election to proceed using the interim maps for the 2012 cycle.
What the court does is likely to be driven not only by what the D.C. court's opinion says but by when the decision comes out.
The D.C. court said back in early February that it did not expect to rule for "at least 30 days," but it did not give a definitive date. If the court's ruling comes out shortly (think: Friday or early next week), it would be possible to adjust maps and have a June 26 primary if not a May primary.
But if revised maps can't be done by March 31, then a June 26 primary would be hard, if not impossible, to accomplish.
And a primary any later would run into conflicts with the parties' national convention schedule and perhaps more critically would push runoffs into late September/early October.
In that case, the San Antonio court very well could chose to redraw the maps but make them effective in 2014 instead of 2012.
Any best guess on the primary date?
May 29 looks likely to be the date by all accounts.
There are still some potential hiccups that might be caused by appeals, the impact of the D.C. court's ruling, and the need to have the new interim maps precleared, but expect an order later this week setting a May 29 primary - and July 31 (or early August) runoff - with the rest to be sorted out in the coming weeks.
When will we know the schedule for doing things like ballot draws, redrawing precinct lines, mailing ballots, etc.?
The Democratic and Republican parties are due to submit a proposed election schedule detailing all those things by 2 p.m. on Wednesday, February 29.
Could we really have to go through all this again in the 2013 legislative session?
That's what some Republicans are suggesting - at least on a limited basis. But it remains to be seen whether the Legislature has the stomach for it.
If a week is a long time in politics, then 2013 is light years away.
(So if you had "after the municipals" in the office pool on when the primary would be, you could be the big winner! - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
The San Antonio panel told the Democratic and Republican parties today to prepare tentatively for a May 29 primary and asked the parties to submit proposed changes to the Texas Election Code deadlines and party procedures based on that date.
Both parties have said they would keep their state conventions on the second weekend of June, which means that a number of internal party rules- as well as parts of the Texas Election Code- would have to change to accommodate a primary that does not occur until shortly before the state convention.
Chad Dunn, general counsel for the Texas Democratic Party, said the party likely would choose to forgo precinct conventions and move directly to senate district and county conventions. After the hearing, Steve Munisteri, chair of the Republican Party of Texas, told reporters that he would be discussing a similar arrangement with the State Republican Executive Committee.
Under the possible proposal outlined by Munisteri, district conventions would be held in April as scheduled but would be open to all comers who swear an oath that they are a Republican. At the district convention, attendees would break into precinct caucuses and elect delegates to the state convention in June.
The court did not discuss the date for runoff elections but discussion after the hearing suggested that early August date was most likely.
The court said it would finalize a date based on progress on interim maps.
(Here's a run-down of what happened in San Antonio yesterday regarding the primary date. - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
An April primary is all but dead.
Although the San Antonio court clearly wanted to try to have an April primary of some sort, those hopes appeared dashed when election officials from around the state told the court that an April 17 primary was a severe physical and logistical challenge and "setting counties up to fail." All but one of the nine election administrators present also felt that an April 24 primary was not feasible given the amount of work that needed to be done to redraw precinct boundaries and prepare for elections.
Getting the maps done in time also appeared to be a challenge - with the judges on the panel seeming disagreeing on key issues. When the Harris County clerk tried to suggest that an April 24 was salvageable if maps could be finalized by Monday, February 20, Judge Rodriguez cut off discussion with the question, "What's your next date?" (to general laughter in the courtroom)
In addition, the Justice Department's lawyer, Tim Mellett, threw a new wrinkle into the April primary mix when he told the court that McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U.S. 130 (1981), required that any new interim map to be precleared under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to the extent the map incorporated a settlement with the State of Texas - a process that under the best of circumstances probably would take at least a couple of weeks.
The Justice Department also reiterated its view that the San Antonio court did not have the authority to waive preclearance requirements for new precinct boundaries or requirements of the MOVE Act.
In short, for logistical and legal reasons, an April primary now looks out of the question.
A split primary also is dead.
A split primary also appears dead as a result of confirmation by the state that it does not have funding to pay the estimated $13-$22 million needed to pay for a split primary.
If that changes, both political parties were amenable to a split primary, but the fundamental issue is one of cost.
A May 29 or June 26 primary?
Although a May 29 primary appeared to be the most likely fallback date, Judge Rodriguez suggested during the questioning that a June 26 primary would allow the court to wait for a ruling from the D.C. court. (A position supported by Congressman Joe Barton and several of the redistricting plaintiffs.)
Yes, that would involve some changes to party logistics, including, for Democrats, probably forgoing precinct conventions and just moving directly to senate district and county conventions.
For better or worse, the court did not resolve the issue Tuesday. We may get a better sense Wednesday when the hearing continues. At least one more day of waiting for candidates.
On Tuesday, trial in the preclearance case wrapped up in Washington and, by all accounts, the trial went very well for redistricting plaintiffs.
But the case is complicated and yesterday the three-judge panel hearing the case told the parties in a minute order that they should not expect a ruling for at least 30 days.
The Court directs the parties to comply fully with the page limits and briefing schedule set in this matter so that it can be timely resolved and also notifies the parties that this Court does not anticipate issuing any order within the next 30 days.
That threw things back in the hands of the San Antonio court, which had been considering whether to wait on the D.C. court's ruling before drawing new maps (an anomaly of the Voting Rights Act is that while only the D.C. court can rule on preclearance issues, it has no power to draw replacement maps to fix them - that's the province of courts back in Texas).
Well, with the window for an April primary rapidly closing (if it hasn't already), the San Antonio court entered an scheduling order this morning, directing briefing by February 10 at 6 p.m. on a number of issues related to interim maps and setting a hearing/status conference for February 15 at 8 a.m. (so much for Valentine's Day for lovelorn lawyers).
The issues the court asked to be addressed include:
* the meaning of the Supreme Court's 'not insubstantial' standard, including the proper allocation of the burden of proof,
* how the county line rule should be applied in interim maps,
* the applicable law on coalition and crossover districts and how it should be applied for purposes of interim maps, and
* whether the court has the authority to waive preclearance requirements for new precinct boundaries
The court also asked that the parties submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by February 10. The court's order said that it was not announcing an election schedule at this time.
Mean time, settlement talks are still going on being redistricting plaintiffs and the State of Texas.
(All the news from yesterday's big court hearing. - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
Today's hearing is difficult to write about because it was all over the place - jumping from discussions about the meaning the Supreme Court's ruling to the nitty gritty of holding city elections to talk about party rules.
The one thing that was mostly absent, however, was a lot of abstract discussion about things like state sovereignty. Today was a day for practical considerations.
At the end of the day, the consensus was there really weren't a lot of good choices.
So where do things stand?
_____
The Date of the Primary
If there one thing that everyone seemed to agree on, it was that there should be a unified primary. However, they disagree on when.
In general, four options emerged - all of which have drawbacks.
The first would be an April primary. Democratic and Republican party lawyers, however, agreed that this was only feasible if maps could be done by mid-February and even then there is a substantial likelihood that the primary would need to be pushed to April 17. Testimony from election officials, moreover, raised questions about whether even an April 17 date was feasible if extensive changes were made to the maps. An April primary date also would require some adjustment to address military ballots since it will be hard to have ballots ready to be mailed 45 days before the primary as required under federal law.
Other dates proposed were May 29 or June 26.
A May 29 date, however, might require a shortening of the early voting period since municipal elections are May 12 and there might not be enough time to reprogram electronic voting machines.
In addition, if party conventions are not moved, a May 29 date would sharply compress the sequence of events leading to the party conventions. Chad Dunn, lawyer for the Texas Democratic Party, told the court that it essentially would require parties to perform the 'hat trick' of having precinct conventions the night of May 29, county and senate district conventions on Saturday, June 2, and their state conventions the following weekend, as currently scheduled. That possibility has already raised howls from party activists in both parties.
A late May date also would almost certainly assure that the Republican nomination for president would be locked up before Texans have a chance to vote.
A June 26 date also posses issues. For one thing, it is after the date of the parties' state conventions. If the party conventions do not move (something both parties say would be a challenge), then the question becomes how do Republicans select delegates to their national convention. Dunn, the ever helpful Democrat, raised the possibility that delegates could be elected at the early June conventions and pledge to be bound by whatever result came out of the primary later in June. But some think that possibility a little awkward, especially if the Republican presidential contest goes down to the wire.
There's also the logistical issue of how you decide who goes to the state convention. Normally, you are eligible to participate in a parties' precinct convention if you vote in the primary. Do you limit people who can participate to those who voted in 2010? If you open it up, how do you ensure that people who participate in the precinct convention then don't vote in the Democratic primary?
The last option, of course, would be to split the primary. However, the state's lawyers said that no additional money would be available to pay for a split primary. A number of elected officials also are on the record as being adamant that the primary not be split.
At the end of the day, the court did not definitively decide the issue but gave the parties a chance to see whether they could reach an agreement on maps (see below). The court said, however, that if an agreement on maps could not be reached by February 6 (or the issues very significantly narrowed), then it would be impossible to have an April primary.
___
Settlement discussions
The other big development of the day (maybe the biggest) was the emergence of serious discussions about a settlement on the maps, with intense negotiations expected to continue this weekend.
David Mattax, the state's lawyer, explained that what the state was proposing was a deal on interim maps, not permanent maps.
Mattax said that under the deal he was trying to work out, if redistricting plaintiffs proposed maps in areas where the state agreed that there were legitimate issues of dispute, the state would not object. Mattax conceded, though, that other parties (such as Congressman Barton) might object. Mattax also recognized that complete agreement with redistricting plaintiffs might not be possible. But Mattax said he hoped to at least be able to narrow the issues for the court before February 6 in an effort to facilitate getting maps by mid-February.
If this sounds like a significant sea change from the state's prior position, it certainly seems to be. And at least some reports are that Republicans are willing to make significant concessions.
According to the Hill:
Any agreement would lead to a minimum of 13 Democratic-leaning seats, and possibly a fourteenth seat depending on how the districts in Fort Worth are drawn.
With conservative former Rep. Nick Lampson (D-Texas) running for a Galveston-area seat, Democrats could win as many as 14 or 15 seats in the state, up from the nine seats they currently hold. Republicans would hold 21 or 22 seats, down from the 23 they currently have.
Those 23 seats include two Democratic-leaning seats won by Republican Reps. Quico Canseco and Blake Farenthold in the 2010 Republican wave election. Farenthold would have a chance to run in the same Galveston district Lampson is likely to run in, while Canseco would have an uphill fight for reelection.
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) is also likely to be spared a tough race - initial plans would have forced him to run in a Hispanic-majority seat, something Latino groups are looking to avoid.
State Representative Trey Martinez-Fischer confirmed the talks with a statement on behalf of the Mexican-American Legislative Caucus:
"Since the early days of the legislative session, the Mexican American Legislative Caucus had been asking for Republican law-makers to negotiate fair maps that reflect the growing diversity of the State of Texas. I am encouraged by the Attorney General's efforts to now strive towards that goal, but I must say that the evidence presented at trial in San Antonio and in Washington, D.C. are compelling. Given that evidence, any hope to arrive at a consensus will require that proposed compromise maps reflect the diversity of Texas and ensure that 3.7 million minority Texans are not be swept under the rug for the sake of partisan politics. I have asked MALC Legal Counsel Jose Garza to work within these parameters and I am confident in his ability to be the voice of Texas' Latino voters."
___
Drawing new maps
If the parties are not able to agree on interim maps, or substantially narrow issues, the court did not indicate when it expected to be able to complete maps.
However, the judges repeatedly raised questions about how they would be able to draw maps quickly in that instance, with Judge Rodriguez noting that they hadn't even yet received the record and transcript from the D.C. case.
There also were questions about whether to wait for a ruling in the preclearance case from the D.C. court. In middle of the hearing, the court took a recess to call the D.C. court to discuss timing with Judge Collyer, though the judges were mum about what they learned.
While the state said it thought the court could move quickly, plaintiffs disagreed noting that the record in the D.C. case was different than in the case tried before the San Antonio court. They also said they thought the burden imposed by the Supreme Court's ruling was more complicated than the state suggested. That position was supported, in part, by lawyers for Joe Barton who argued that the court would benefit from evidence about section 5 issues before making any significant changes to the map.
___
Election deadlines
Last but not least (and maybe an anticlimax), but the court also directed that the February 1 filing deadline, February 3 ballot order draw, and all other deadlines in its December 16 order be suspended until further order of the court.
