Texas: Redistricting settlement on verge of collapse, delaying primaries | The Hill

A once-promising settlement for Texas’s convoluted redistricting battle has stalled, leaving the process once again far from an agreement and likely forcing Texas to move its primary back for a second time. Texas’s redistricting maps are tied up in federal court and are unlikely to stand as they were originally drawn. Because of that a San Antonio court drew an interim map, but that was struck down by the Supreme Court. No one is sure how the process will play out, but all sides agree that a settlement that looked possible early this week is all but dead in the water, making it likely that Texas will have to push its primary back from April.

Texas: State looks at possibility of two primaries | Daily Progress

Texas faces the possibility of hosting two primary dates for November elections. While the district courts in San Antonio work to approve a map that appeases the attorney general’s office, Democrats, Republicans and minority groups, a deadline for hosting a uniform primary looms. If the court approves redistricting maps on Monday, the state would be able to maintain a joint April 3 primary date, said Chris Elam, spokesperson for the Republican Party of Texas. If they are approved by Feb. 20, the primary date would move to April 17, Elam said. But if it takes longer, the state may be faced with splitting the elections in two.

Texas: Behind Closed Doors – Texas Redistricting Panel | The Austin Chronicle

Monday, Feb. 6. That’s the deadline set by the San Antonio redistricting panel for all parties to agree on interim House, Senate and Congressional maps, or they’ll miss the deadline for the April 3 primary. But what will the minority voting rights groups want from those maps, and can they stay on the same page? There were rumors floating around all weekend that there could be a deal struck as early as today, but with all parties heading to DC to catch closing arguments in the preclearance hearing tomorrow, Jan. 31, that seems unlikely. The Mexican American Legislative Caucus told the Chronicle this morning that a deal is not imminent, even though they are all working towards some kind of agreement.

Texas: Democrats, minority groups near huge win with redistricting settlement | The Hill

The Texas state attorneys defending the state’s GOP-drawn redistricting plans from court challenges have reached out to settle litigation, according to sources in the state. The settlement would give minority groups and Democrats what they’ve been demanding from the start: more heavily minority, Democratic-leaning House seats. The result would likely mean at least four more Texas Democrats in Congress as of next year, a good start on the 25 or so seats Democrats need to win to retake control of the House. “They’re backed up against the wall and have to come to some agreement and it’ll be awfully favorable on our end,” said one of the plaintiffs in the case. Another plaintiff agreed.  “It’s clear they know they’re in a vulnerable position and that’s why they want to settle,” he said.

Texas: Testimony in Texas redistricting trial wraps up | San Antonio Express-News

Testimony wrapped up Thursday in a trial before a three-judge panel to determine if redistricting maps drawn by the Texas Legislature violate the Voting Rights Act and discriminate against minorities. The final witness, a redistricting expert, told the court that a congressional map drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature removed 479,000 Latinos from districts that elect minority-preferred candidates.

Texas: State again facing possibility of two primaries | San Antonio Express-News

Texas could soon be facing the possibility of having its primaries split into two elections, a federal judge said Monday. U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia wrote in a filing that he was giving the move “serious consideration” if the groups involved in the fight over the state’s interim redistricting plans can’t agree on a set of maps by Feb. 6. Garcia, who leads the panel of judges that was ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court last week to redraw interim district maps for the 2012 election, also moved a key hearing up by three days, to Friday, when the court will hear arguments on how best to move forward.

Texas: Attorney General files suit to clear path for voter ID bill | Amarillo Globe-News

The ongoing Texas redistricting fight took a backseat to the voter identification law debate Monday, thanks to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. Abbott filed a lawsuit seeking swift enforcement of the controversial legislation requiring Texas voters to show government-issued photo identification before casting a ballot. “The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that voter identification laws are constitutional,” Abbott said regarding the voter identification bill the Republican-dominated Texas Legislature approved in last year’s session.

Texas: Attorney General Abbott sues DOJ over voter ID law | Statesman.com

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed suit against the Department of Justice today in an effort to speed enforcement of the state’s new voter ID law.
The Justice Department, which must conclude that the voter ID law does not unfairly disadvantage minority voters, has been reviewing the law for the past six months and has twice asked state officials to supply additional information on the racial breakdown of Texas voters. Fearing further delays, particularly after justice officials rejected South Carolina’s similar voter ID law last month, Abbott today asked a federal court to intervene and approve the Texas law. “The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that voter identification laws are constitutional,” Abbott said. “Texas should be allowed the same authority other states have to protect the integrity of elections. The Texas law, approved by the Legislature last year, requires most voters to show government-issued photo identification before voting.

Texas: Supreme Court Rejects Judge-Drawn Maps in Texas Redistricting Case | NYTimes.com

The Supreme Court on Friday instructed a lower court in Texas to take a fresh look at election maps it had drawn in place of a competing set of maps from the Texas Legislature. The justices said the lower court had not paid enough deference to the Legislature’s choices and had improperly substituted its own values for those of elected officials. The court’s unanimous decision extends the uncertainty surrounding this major voting-rights case, which could help determine control of the House of Representatives.

Texas: Supreme Court sides with Texas on redistricting plan | The Washington Post

The Supreme Court on Friday set aside Texas redistricting plans drawn by a federal court that were favored by minorities and Democrats, and ordered the lower court to come up with new plans based more closely on maps drawn by the Texas legislature. In an unsigned opinion that drew no dissents, the justices said a federal panel in San Antonio “exceeded its mission” in drawing interim plans for the state’s upcoming primaries. It said the court was wrong to believe its plans needed to be completely independent of the ones passed by the legislature. “A district court should take guidance from the state’s recently enacted plan in drafting an interim plan,” the justices wrote. They added, however, that courts must be careful not to incorporate parts of a state’s plan that might violate the Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act.

Texas: Voters? We don’t need no stinkin’ voters: Why recent changes to Texas election laws may unintentionally undermine voter turnout | State of Elections

The Texas Secretary of State is fighting to uphold Texas’s new voter photo identification law against federal scrutiny. The press has reported extensively on the battle brewing between the states and the United States Department of Justice over the impact that voter ID laws will have on voter turnout. Many groups believe that voter ID laws—which require persons to show photo ID before casting their votes—unfairly target minority voters, making it more difficult for them to participate in the democratic process. While the photo ID requirement is the most widely reported change to the Texas election process, it is not the only new roadblock likely to affect voter turnout in the Lone Star State’s upcoming elections.

Texas: Whither the Texas primary? | Texas Redistricting

With the Supreme Court yet to rule, questions inevitably have turned to whether there is any way it will be possible to keep to an April 3 primary. Senator John Cornyn and many election law lawyers think that chance is becoming increasingly remote.  In fact, many observers aren’t even certain when the primary could be held if it needs to be moved. Consider the logistical challenges. Even if the Supreme Court rules this week or early next week (by no means certain), the San Antonio court will need time to respond to the Supreme Court’s rulings – unless, of course, the Supreme Court simply orders one or the other maps into effect – but that seems unlikely based on last week’s oral argument.

Texas: Judges in DC to decide if Texas redistricting violated federal Voting Rights Act | Chron.com

A three-judge federal court panel will begin hearing two weeks of testimony today to determine whether the Texas Legislature violated the Voting Rights Act and diluted minority voting strength when it redrew political maps for state House, Senate and congressional seats. The District of Columbia panel will review plans drawn by the Legislature under Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which requires the Justice Department to approve beforehand changes to the political process. A finding by the court that the maps discriminate would then shift attention to the Supreme Court and a ruling on whether interim maps by a court in San Antonio could be used.

Texas: Voter ID Still Languishing at the Department of Justice | The Texas Tribune

Two weeks after Texas’ voter ID law was scheduled to go into effect, the measure is back in the U.S. Department of Justice’s hands. The Texas secretary of state’s office on Thursday submitted its latest batch of data in hopes of satisfying the federal government’s request for proof that the law, SB 14 by state Sen. Troy Fraser, R-Horseshoe Bay, will not disenfranchise minority or lower-income voters. The law, passed during the 82nd Texas Legislature, would require voters to furnish a state-issued ID before casting a ballot.

Texas: GOP files advisory with SCOTUS, says primary cannot be moved | Texas Redistricting

The Republican Party of Texas took the unusual step today of sending a post-argument letter to the Supreme Court to tell the court in no uncertain terms that the date of the party’s state convention could not be moved. In the letter, sent on behalf of RPT chair Steve Munisteri, the party told the high court “for numerous legal, logistical, and practical reasons, moving the Texas primary to any date after mid-April 2012 would wreak havoc with the state’s electoral process and present insurmountable difficulties.”

Texas: Is Voting Rights Act target of redistricting case? | San Antonio Express-News

The Supreme Court began hearing arguments Monday in the Texas redistricting case that could reach far beyond the districts in dispute. What began as a partisan spat could end up as a challenge to the Voting Rights Act and the power of Congress. Every 10 years when the census count is in, the states redraw the boundaries of their state and federal election districts to reflect changes in the population over the past decade. In Texas, as in most states, that is the job of the majority party of the legislature. After Republicans became a majority of the Legislature in 2002, they took control of the redistricting process. They drew plans designed to keep and increase their legislative and congressional majorities in 2012 at the expense of the will of minority voters.

Texas: Supreme Court Argument in Texas Redistricting Cases Highlights Importance of Shelby County Voting Rights Act Case | Text & History

Yesterday, in an unusual afternoon session, the Justices of the Supreme Court jumped right into the political thicket, debating the authority of a federal court in Texas to draw election districts for the state’s  upcoming primaries.  Texas currently has no legally enforceable district lines.  Its current districts are now badly out of step with the constitutional requirements of one person, one vote, and its new district lines have yet to be precleared, as required by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, one of our Nation’s most iconic and important federal civil rights statutes.  During yesterday’s 70-minute argument in Perry v. Perez, the Justices sought to figure out a solution that would permit the upcoming primary elections to go forward, consistent with the requirement of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act.  Hovering over oral argument in Perry v. Perez was the question of the constitutionality of the Act’s preclearance requirement.  In 2009, in NAMUDNO v. Holder, the Roberts Court came dangerously close to striking down this bedrock provision of the Voting Rights Act, but yesterday, at least, the Justices showed little interest in debating the Act’s constitutionality. As Chief Justice Roberts specifically observed, “the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act is not at issue here.”

Texas: Court pressed for time in redistricting case | USAToday.com

In a closely watched fight over Texas voting districts and the rights of Latinos, Chief Justice John Roberts aptly observed, “We are all under the gun of very strict time limitations.” Monday’s Supreme Court arguments in a case that could affect voting rights nationwide were marked by frustration among the justices. On one side is a looming Texas primary schedule. On the other, separate proceedings in a lower court in Washington could eclipse any action the justices take.

Texas: Supreme Court weighs Texas redistricting case | latimes.com

The Supreme Court justices waded into an election-year political dispute from Texas, signaling they favor drawing the state’s 36 congressional districts based largely on the plan adopted by its Republican-controlled Legislature. The court’s leading conservatives said they were skeptical of allowing judges in San Antonio to put into effect their own statewide map that creates districts geared to electing Latinos.

Texas: Voting Rights Clash Puts U.S. High Court in Election Fray | Businessweek

As the election year dawns, the U.S. Supreme Court is right in the thick of it. The justices return today from their holiday break to hear arguments on an expedited basis over minority voting rights in Texas’s congressional and state legislative districts. Together with disputes over immigration and health care, the redistricting case is part of a Supreme Court term with repercussions for November’s presidential and congressional elections.

The Texas case will determine the power of judges to redraw voting-district lines — and will test the strength of a central provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act: its requirement that some states get federal “preclearance” before changing election rules. Texas is asking the high court to put in place three Republican-drawn maps for this year’s elections, even though they haven’t received that preclearance.

“It would essentially give a major way for states to circumvent the Voting Rights Act,” said Pamela Karlan, a professor at Stanford Law School who represents the Texas Mexican American Legislative Caucus, one of the groups battling the state’s Republicans in court.

Texas: Redistricting Case Risks Political Firestorm; Slowly Supreme Court Backs Away | Huffington Post

Time and timing was of the essence Monday afternoon during Supreme Court oral argument over which legislative maps Texas may use in its fast-approaching state and federal primary elections, now slated for April. The justices appeared to recognize that they needed to craft some creative compromise to avoid a hastily written, ideologically divided opinion that could essentially hand over the Texas legislature and four new congressional seats to Republicans at the expense of the state’s increased Latino population, which primarily votes Democratic.

Texas: Voting Rights Case Confounds U.S. High Court Justices | Businessweek

U.S. Supreme Court justices grappled with minority voting rights in Texas’s congressional and state legislative districts, trying to find a quick fix against the backdrop of looming deadlines. During arguments today in Washington, the justices gave no clear answer as to how or when they will rule in the case, which tests the power of judges to redraw voting-district lines and the strength of a central provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Several justices lamented the lack of an easy answer in a case being considered on an expedited schedule because of the impending Texas primary, set for April 3 after a judge delayed the vote for a month. The justices discussed moving the primary date back further to give the courts handling different aspects of the case more time.

Texas: The U.S. Supreme Court tries to solve a looming Texas redistricting crisis | Slate Magazine

If the Supreme Court were a car, it would be a Volvo. Slow, safe, and built for the long haul. In fact if Bush v. Gore taught us anything, it’s that when the court tries to be a Lamborghini, racing to meet deadlines and flipping through its day planners to forestall impending election disasters, that’s usually when the law ends up flipping a guardrail and landing upside down on the side of the road.

Texas: Redistricting maps take spotlight in Supreme Court | Houston Chronicle

U.S. Supreme Court justices will hear a case Monday with enormous political implications for Texas and will determine whether elections are held using redistricting maps drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature or by a federal district court to account for minority population gains.

This is not the first time the high court has weighed into the thorny area of Texas redistricting. Justices ruled in 2006 that a GOP mid-decade redistricting map by the Legislature diluted Latino voting strength to protect a Republican incumbent congressman from San Antonio. The Supreme Court has again intervened in a Lone Star political battle, with minority groups again accusing Texas of disenfranchisement through redistricting, and in the same congressional district.

Texas: Supreme Court hears dispute over Texas elections, power of key part of Voting Rights Act | The Washington Post

A federal law says states and localities with a history of discrimination cannot change any voting procedures without first getting approval from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington. Yet Texas is asking the Supreme Court to allow the use of new, unapproved electoral districts in this year’s voting for Congress and the state Legislature.

The outcome of the high court case, to be argued Monday afternoon, could be another blow to a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. In 2009, the justices raised doubts about whether Southern states still should need approval in advance of voting changes more than 40 years after the law was enacted. The case also might help determine the balance of power in the House of Representatives in 2013, with Republicans in a stronger position if the court allows Texas to use electoral districts drawn by the GOP-dominated Legislature.

Mexico: Mexico’s Election Will Have Big Impact on Texas | NYTimes.com

Texas economists are confident that the financial upheavals long associated with Mexican elections are a thing of the past. Still, they are closely watching what this summer’s presidential contest means for the peso and, in turn, Texas’ symbiotic business ties to Mexico. Texas politicians are paying close attention, too — to whether the trade, security and energy policies of President Felipe Calderón’s successor will affect illegal immigration or the state’s robust trade relationship with Mexico.

Three Texas customs districts, Laredo, El Paso and Houston, rank among Mexico’s top four trading partners. Collectively, they accounted for roughly $235 billion in trade between Texas and Mexico from January to September 2011, according to United States Census data analyzed by WorldCity, which tracks global trade patterns. The figures show an increase over 2010 despite the American recession and unprecedented violence in Mexico because of warring drug cartels.

Texas: Case Could Change Voting Rights Act | ABC News

The Supreme Court will attempt on Monday to untangle the political mess in Texas created by a voting rights controversy. The case could have important political consequences, and highlights a lurking issue regarding the continued viability of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, the landmark legislation passed in 1965 to protect minorities from discriminatory voting practices.

At issue are two very different sets of redistricting maps drawn up to take into account new census numbers for the state: Texas has grown by 4.3 million people since the previous census, and minorities make up the majority of the growth. Because of the population growth, Texas was awarded four additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Last spring the Republican-dominated Texas legislature passed one set of redistricting maps. But Democrats and minority rights groups immediately criticized them, arguing they did not reflect the growth of minority representation. Texas, a state with a history of past discrimination in voting, is subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires the state to get approval or “preclearance” from the Department of Justice or a federal court in Washington, D.C., for any election-related changes.

Texas: Election map fight goes before Supreme Court | Thomson Reuters

The Supreme Court next week will step into a partisan battle over remapping congressional districts in Texas, the court’s first review of political boundary-drawing resulting from the 2010 U.S. census, with elections ahead in November. At issue in Monday’s arguments will be whether Texas uses maps drawn by a U.S. court in San Antonio favoring Democrats and minorities, or maps drawn by the Republican-dominated state legislature, in the 2012 congressional and state elections.

Texas Republican officials appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that a lower court had overstepped its authority in coming up with its own redistricting plan and that it should have deferred to the state legislature’s plan. The Obama administration for the most part has supported the state Democratic Party and groups representing Hispanics and blacks before the Supreme Court, saying that parts of the state’s plan violated the federal voting rights law.

Texas: Supreme Court to examine Texas redistricting | USAToday.com

As the election season intensifies, the Supreme Court will hear a dispute Monday involving the fairness of new voting districts drawn by the Texas Legislature. The case arises as several challenges from other states and localities have been made against the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. Advocates on both sides are watching the Texas case for signals from the court on whether a decades-old provision intended to ensure equality at the polls should stand.

In Texas, a San Antonio-based federal court blocked the Legislature’s voting-district maps, saying they could not be used until officials had ensured, based on the 1965 law, that they didn’t harm the interests of Hispanics and blacks. Texas contends the lower court judges wrongly drew a new, interim plan for state House and Senate districts and Texas’ 36-member U.S. House of Representatives. State lawyers say the judges should have deferred to the legislative plan even though it had not been cleared under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Texas: Primaries Await U.S. Supreme Court Ruling | The Texas Tribune

If Texas is going to hold primary elections on April 3, the federal courts will have to pick up the pace. A panel of federal judges in Washington, D.C., is deciding whether congressional and legislative district maps drawn by the Legislature last year give proper protection to minority voters under the federal Voting Rights Act.

At the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether an interim map drawn by federal judges in San Antonio is legal. In the meanwhile, there are no maps in place for the impending Texas elections.