Texas: April primaries ruled out in Texas | Star Telegram

The chances of Texas voters having much influence in the Republican presidential race faded Tuesday after a panel of federal judges acknowledged that the state’s deep divisions over political maps had made it nearly impossible to preserve an April primary. Texas was originally scheduled to be a part of next month’s slate of Super Tuesday primaries, but the redistricting clash forced the state to reschedule its contest to April 3. With that date now all but dead, too, elections workers who squeezed into a packed San Antonio courtroom Tuesday advocated a new date of May 22, which could be long after Republicans settle on a nominee to face President Barack Obama.

Texas: Partial deal reached in Texas redistricting case | The Statesman

The Texas attorney general’s office and a coalition of minority groups announced a deal Wednesday on one of three disputed electoral maps, a step forward in resolving when Texas will hold its primary elections. Texas holds the country’s second largest number of delegates in the presidential race, but is unlikely to influence the Republican nomination because a dispute over the state’s political maps has pushed back the primary, originally scheduled to be part of next month’s Super Tuesday contests. Election administrators told a three-judge panel that the soonest reasonable date now is May 22.

Texas: Redistricting battle returns to court Tuesday as judges may decide fate of April primary | The Washington Post

If Texas can still hold an April primary, now is when the state likely finds out. A federal court in San Antonio that has spent months refereeing a clash over bitterly disputed Texas voting maps reconvenes again Tuesday, and Republicans and Democrats are hoping to learn when the state’s primary elections will finally take place. April 3 is the currently scheduled date, but that no longer seems realistic since not even temporary maps for the 2012 elections in Texas are settled. Another weekend of court-ordered negotiations between the state and minority rights groups, meanwhile, ended with little to show for it.

Texas: Voting rights group files suit over Texas registration practices | Houston Chronicle

The nonprofit Voting for America filed a federal lawsuit Monday alleging Texas voter rolls have been actively suppressed by excessive restrictions on volunteers who conduct registration drives, aggressive purges of county voter rolls and poll workers who improperly requested identification from voters. “A developing body of state practices and provisions targeted at voter registration activities is endangering the rights of many Texas voters,” the lawsuit alleges. The group, affiliated with the Washington D.C.-based Project Vote, runs nonpartisan voter registration drives nationwide and has previously mounted legal challenges to state voter registration procedures in Missouri, Ohio, Indiana and New Mexico, among other states.

Texas: Redistricting Judges to Lawyers: Get to Work | The Texas Tribune

With hearings on redistricting scheduled for next week and deadlines for April primaries pending, a panel of federal judges told lawyers Friday afternoon to redouble their efforts to reach a quick settlement on interim political maps for the state’s congressional and legislative elections. That’s not the first time they’ve told the lawyers to talk, but negotiations stalled this week when the state and some plaintiffs reached an agreement that several other plaintiffs didn’t like. In their order this afternoon, the judges said that proposal is still very much alive. They said they want to set an April primary. And they want negotiations to resume “with all due effort” before the hearings that begin next Tuesday.

Texas: Attorney General and key minority groups reach deal on Texas Redistricting | San Antonio Express-News

A federal court overseeing a Texas redistricting lawsuit rejected a proposal presented Monday, saying the plan did not have the support of all parties involved, a requirement outlined in an earlier order. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott on Monday announced that a compromise plan had been reached, saying that one coalition of Latino groups had signed off on redistricting maps for the 2012 election that would give Hispanics two of the state’s four new congressional districts. But the Texas Democratic Party and other groups suing the state rejected the proposal, arguing that the deal still shortchanges minority voters.

Texas: Primary election schedule nowhere in sight | Longview News-Journal

The parties to the contested redistricting litigation pending in the San Antonio Federal District Court, have until February 6, 2012 to reach a settlement, if they want to hold primary elections in Texas on April 3, 2012. The date of the primary had already been moved from March 6 to April 3rd. It is that date that now appears to be in jeopardy should there be no agreement by February 6. And, of course, no voter registration cards will be sent until all lines are drawn and approved. Panola County voter registrar Cheyenne Lampley stated, “People have been calling asking why they haven’t received their voter registration card, but all I can tell them is that the legislature must finish its job and draw correct redistricting lines before anyone gets a voter card.”

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.