Texas Redistricting – the Latest

Feb 1, 2012 by

by Donna Garner

Donna Garner

MY CONCLUSIONS

What should have happened in Texas is this:

1. The three Washington, D. C. federal judges should have made a preclearance ruling on the redistricting maps passed by the Texas Legislature. The three D. C. judges were charged with determining whether the newly passed redistricting maps violated the Voting Rights Act.

2. Then the three federal judges on the San Antonio panel should have drawn their maps making sure that they implemented whatever recommendations the Washington, D. C. preclearance judges required.

3. If there were still disagreements among the various sides of the issue at that point, they should have submitted the redistricting maps in question to the Supreme Court judges for a ruling.

Instead everything got out of order:

(1) The three-judge, preclearance federal panel in Washington, D. C. (that weighs whether Texas violated the Voting Rights Act) was very slow in reaching their decision.

(2) Because the preclearance federal judges in Washington, D. C. were slow, the federal, three-judge San Antonio panel decided to draw their own redistricting maps.

(3) The federal panel in San Antonio is made up of these three judges:

Judge Orlando L. Garcia is a Democrat federal judge appointed by President Clinton. Garcia is the brother-in-law of Democrat State Senator Leticia Van de Putte. Van de Putte is one of the most liberal Democrat Senators in the Texas Legislature (scored 16% in 82nd Legislative Session as rated by the Young Conservatives of Texas) and has been the Texas State Senate Caucus Chairman for ten years.

The second judge is Xavier Rodriguez. When George W. Bush was elected President, Rick Perry became Governor on Dec. 21, 2000 and was already looking toward the elections of 2002 in which he knew either Dan Morales or Antonio Sanchez would run against him. Therefore, Perry nominated Democrat Xavier Rodriguez to one of two Texas Supreme Court vacancies. When asked by the newspaper to name his judicial role model, Rodriguez named U. S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter, a left-leaning liberal. Prior to Xavier Rodriguez’s appointment, he had never argued a case in front of any court of appeals.

The third judge is Jerry E. Smith of New Orleans who proposed a map that was different from Garcia and Rodriguez’s but was much closer to the map the Texas Legislature passed.

(4) Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott took the San Antonio judges’ maps before the Supreme Court. The Supremes agreed with Abbott that the San Antonio judges should have used the redistricting maps drawn by the Legislatures as the basis for their interim maps. However, the Supremes stopped short and did not require Texas in this year’s elections to use the redistricting maps passed by the Texas Legislature in the 82nd Legislative Session.

(5) The San Antonio panel has told the lawyers for both sides that if they do not come back with a plan on the districts in question by February 6, then no primaries can be held on April 3.

(6) As of yesterday (1.31.12), the Washington, D. C. federal panel (i.e., focusing on Voting Rights Act) said they would issue a decision quickly; and if they make a ruling before the federal panel in San Antonio does, then the D. C. panel could even dictate what will happen in the 2012 redistricting maps.

 

(7) Bottomline: It seems to me that the Democrats will want to delay the April 3 unified primaries (possibly until June 26) because they want the Republican Party’s State Convention (scheduled for June 7 – 9) to be messed up, making it impossible for delegates to be chosen for the National Republican Convention. This year Texas is scheduled to have the second largest delegation to the National Convention.

The Texas Republican Party has already signed contracts to have the convention on June 7 – 9 and cannot cancel those. The Democrats undoubtedly think that they have the Republicans over a barrel and that Texas Atttorney General Greg Abbott (to save Texas’ chances to impact the National Convention) will give in to the Democrat lawyers and allow them to draw-in the Democrat-protected districts. This, of course, would probably place more Democrats in the Texas Legislature.

 

I hope that during the time that our state attorneys have been meeting with all of these federal judges about the redistricting maps that Bill Burch’s data has been presented. His data taken from the 2010 Census gives a very different picture from the one being portrayed by such groups as MALDEF, LULAC, and the Democrats.

 

5.17.11 — Texas Insider Report

 

“How Democrats & MALDEF Twist Redistricting Numbers Away from Truth”

By Bill Burch

 

http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=47263#more-47263

 

Excerpts from this article:

 

Let’s take a closer look at the numbers.

 

First, of 25,145,561 Texas residents, 27.3% are children.

 

The number of population increase that came from children was 991,893. This leaves an increase of 3,301,848 Texas residents of voting age.

 

But, according to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, 1,678,045 – or 51.7% are not citizens.http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

 

This begs the question, “Why are Democrats & MALDEF trying to give Congressional representation to people who are not Texas citizens?”

 

According to the United States Census Bureau, Texas had an increase in population increase of 4,293,741 people over the past ten years.

 

Of the 4,293,741 people, according to the Democrats and MALDEF (the Mexican America Legal Defense & Education Fund) a full 60% of this increase was Hispanic. They push this so as to get an increase in the number of language protected (Hispanic) seats. The assumption is also that these will be Democrat seats.

 

Most of these new people cannot vote. It seems to me that we need to look at representation for those who can vote, rather than those who cannot.

 

1. The Hispanic citizen increase in the voting age population is not the millions the Democrats claim, but rather 700,186.

 

2. The Anglo increase was 459,143.

 

3. The Black population increase was 287,139 (mostly Katrina victims and unlikely to have continued increase at this level).

 

4. The Asian citizens increased 158,525 to a total of 394,298 (an almost equal amount are non-citizen residents).

 

Another distortion is the percentage of the population that is Anglo and the percentage that is Hispanic.

 

1. The percentage of Anglo, voting age population that is Anglo, is 58.8%.

 

2. For Hispanics it is 24.7%.

 

3. The Black percentage is 12.7%.

 

4. And Asian is 2.6%.

 

5. The Other category is 1.1%.

 

 

 

[To read the rest of Bill Burch’s article, please go to — http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=47263#more-47263

 

Mr. Bill Burch is Chairman of G.R.I.T. (Grass Roots Institute of Texas).

 

=======================

 

1.31.12 – “Judges Voice Doubt About State’s Intentions in Redistricting Case” – Washington Bureau, Dallas Morning News

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/state-politics/20120131-judges-voice-doubt-about-states-intentions-in-redistricting-case.ece?action=reregister

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Related Posts

Tags

Share This

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.