A Latino voting rights group might ask the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out Texas’ new congressional map, based on how many Latinos were removed from Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett’s Austin-area district.

Please, please take a deep breath and try to remain calm. Go to your happy place. Think of puppies and eating ice cream….it will be OK because:
This will not alter this election cycle.

It will require at least 12 more months of litigation, I’m sure before anyone is sitting down with their map colors.

The offending district is what caught me by surprise: Doggett’s CD-25:

Luis Vera, an attorney for LULAC, which was a party in the Supreme Court case, said the organization was “happy with a large part” of the judges’ changes last week. But LULAC is concerned about the reduction in Latino voters — 44 percent, down from 54 percent — in Doggett’s district under the new map.

“That may be a violation. . . . We are looking at it,” Vera said. If the group appeals, the case would be pushed directly to the Supreme Court, he said.

LULAC wants Texas to have seven Latino-majority districts, and an appeal would be a way for the organization to keep pushing the issue.

Vera said LULAC’s challenge, if it is pursued, would not affect November’s elections but would aim to set a better baseline for future redistricting.

“We’re going to be doing redistricting again in about four years or less,” Vera said. Without continuing to fight for the issue, “we will only have six districts.”

I don’t know about this. Frankly, I never realized (or failed to realize it or slept through the day that Todd Staples explained that to an empty Senate Chamber while everyone else was in New Mexico) Doggett’s “old” 25 (and by old, I mean not “2000 old,” or “2002 cycle old” but “2004 cycle through last Friday old”) was considered a Latino Opportunity District.

What this could mean, though, is that before this decade is out the state of Texas will have held Congressional elections under not one, not two, not three, not four—but FIVE DIFFERENT SETS OF CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS all because Tom DeLay wanted more Republicans in Congress.

I believe that there are one or more people out there writing books on Texas Redistricting who, I’m sure, just called their publishers and said “better hold off for another year.”

Thank you, Tom DeLay. We really appreciate what you’ve done for Texas.

Sharpen your map colors, kids. We’ll be re-re-re-redistricting right up until 2010.

{Just for a little more ironic fun: Republicans hate lawsuits. How many lawsuits have we had over redistricting? And, more fun than that: how many Republicans from Texas voted against the Voting Rights Act? Whose map violated the Voting Rights Act and was overturned? Come on now, say it with me: REPUBLICANS! Does this sound like a broken record to you yet?}

[Order, Opinion, Map, Election Analysis, Population Analysis]

New elections have been ordered in a winner-take-all style in these districts on Election Day, with run-offs in December if necessary.

Here are the district make-ups, old vs. new:

CD 23 Current Makeup: El Paso (part), Hudspeth, Culberson, Jeff Davis, Reeves, Pecos, Persidio, Brewster, Terrell, Crockett, Sutton (part), Valverde, Edwards, Real, Kerr, Bandera, Kendall, Medina, Zavala, Demitt, Webb (part), Maverick, Bexar (part).

CD 23 New Makeup: El Paso (part), Hudspeth, Culberson, Jeff Davis, Reeves, Pecos, Persidio, Brewster, Terrell, Crockett, Sutton (part), Val Verde, Edwards, Medina, Zavala, Demitt, , Maverick, Bexar (adds southern portion).
Cedes: Kendall, Kerr, Bandera, Real, Webb
Gains: Southern Portion, Bexas County
Leans: Toss-Up, between 46.3% (2004) and 50.1% (2002) Democratic

+++++++

CD 28 Current Makeup: Bexar (part), Guadalupe (part), Hays (part), Wilson, Atascosa, Frio, Lasalle, McMullen, Webb (part), Zapata.

CD 28 New Makeup: Frio, Guadalupe, Hidalgo (33%) Jim Hogg, La Salle, McMullen, Starr, Webb (all), Wilson, Zapata.

Cedes: Hays, southern portion of Bexas, small portion of eastern Comal.
Gains: eastern portion of Bexar, remainder of Webb, Jim Hogg, Star, southwestern portion of Hidalgo.
Leans: Solid Democratic (51.4% (2004) to 63.4% (2002) Democratic)

+++++++

CD 21 Current Makeup: Travis (part), Hays (part), Comal (part), Blanco, Bexar (part).

CD 21 New Makeup: Bandera, Bexas (25%), Blanco, Comal, Kendall, Kerr, Real, Travis (16%).

Alterations: alters northeast portion of Bexar served by district
Cedes: Hays, southern portion of Travis County
Gains: Kendall, Kerr, Bandera, Real
Leans: Solid Republican, between 65.2% (2004) and 68.4% (2002).

+++++

CD 25 Current Makeup: Hidalgo (part), Starr, Jim Hogg, Duval, Live Oak, Karnes, Gonzales, Caldwell, Travis (part).

CD 25 New Makeup: Travis (50%), Lavaca, Hays, Gonzales, Fayette, Colorado, Caldwell, Bastrop (65%).

Gains:southern portion of Travis, Bastrop, Hays, Fayette, Colorado, Lavaca
Cedes: Karnes, Live Oak, Duval, Jim Hogg, Starr, Hidalgo
Leans: Solid Democratic, 52.9% (2002) to 55.5% (2004)

+++++++

CD 15 Current Makeup: Cameron (part), Hidalgo (part), Brooks, Jim Wells, San Patricio (part), Bee, Refutio, Goliad, De Witt, Lavaca, Colorado, Fayette, Bastrop (part).

New CD 15 Makeup: Bee, Brooks, Cameron (26%), De Witt, Duval, Goliad, Hidalgo (67%), Jim Wells, Karnes, Live Oak, Refugio, San Patricio (43%).

Gains: Duval, Live Oak, Karnes
Cedes: small portion of western Hidalgo, Bastrop, Fayette, Colorado, Lavaca
Leans: Solid Democratic (54.4 % (2004) to 61.3% (2002)).

Statements

MALDEF, Congressman Charles Gonzalez, and other has a good deal to say about the new remap.

Gonzalez (D-San Antonio), who represents the 20th Congressional District, which was unchanged by the remap,said that the redistricting saga showed the continued need for the recently reauthorized Voting Rights Act:

The map issued today shows the continued need for the Voting Rights Act, which was thankfully reauthorized on July 27th. The 2003 map was an attempt to blunt the voting strength of Latino voters in Webb County and the Supreme Court rightfully struck down that gerrymander. Without the strong protections afforded by the Voting Rights Act, the previous map would still be in effect.

Today is a victory for the Voting Rights Act, yet we must remain vigilant that the right to vote is neither compromised nor negated for minority voters particularly Latinos here in Texas.

I am pleased and relieved that I will continue to represent the citizens of the 20th Congressional District if they see fit to return me to the House of Representatives on Election Day. It has been an honor to serve them in Washington DC, and I hope I will be allowed to do so for another term.

Texas State Representative Aaron Pena (D-Edinburg), who has kept close watch on the redistricting saga through his blog, A Capitol Blog, expressed pleasure that a city in his district anchors one of the newly redrawn districts:

I am pleased that the city of Edinburg anchors one of the Rio Grande Valley districts in the map released by the federal redistricting panel,” said State Representative Aaron Peña. “Unfortunately we have lost a strong advocate and friend in Congressman Lloyd Doggett. I do look forward to continuing to work with our congressional leaders for the betterment of our community.”

Congressman Henry Cuellar (D-Laredo), whose district was changed by the remap said the court’s plan restores Hispanic voting strength in South Texas:

Hispanic voting strength has been restored in South Texas today. I commend the panel of federal judges for setting partisanship aside and upholding the rights of all voters.

While I deeply regret losing my valued constituents in Bexar, Comal, and Hays Counties, I look forward to working with the people of Jim Hogg, Starr, and Hidalgo Counties.

I believe that the court’s map is both fair and constitutional, and I’m delighted to be the sole representative for my hometown of Laredo, and Webb County.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), however, hailed the map as only a partial victory. MALDEF Southwestern Regional Counsel Nina Perales noted:

We are very pleased that the District Court replaced the Legislature’s illegal configuration of District 23 and increased the Latino population in that district. However, we are concerned that the District Court did not go far enough to restore District 23. The new plan for District 23 cuts out Webb County and features slightly worse performance by Latino-preferred candidates.

Speculation

Today’s ruling also fuels speculation about who will run where. While Cuellar and Bonillia are likely to continue to run in their current districts, most election watchers in Texas expect former Congressman Ciro Rodriguez (D-San Antonio) to make a run, possibly in Bonillia’s 23rd District instead of opting for a third re-match with Cuellar. Speculation is also mounting that State Rep. Richard Raymond (D-Laredo) may challenge Henry Cuellar in the newly reconfigured district.

The biggest question that remains unanswered is what Congressional Candidate John Courage will do. Courage isone of the Democratic party’s stars among Texas congressional—on a national and local level—gaining recognition from groups like Democracy for America and Governor Mark Warner’s political action committee. Courage, who is running against Rep. Lamar Smith (R-San Antonio) in the old 21, saw key Travis County territory—Democratic precincts—slip away in the court’s new remap. It seems most likely, however, that if Courage continues his race (when remedy maps first started being examined, he indicated he would) it would be in CD 21.

The other affected districts, CD 15 and CD 25, will likely not change hands from their current Congressmen: Lloyd Doggett (D-Austin) for CD 25 and Ruben Hinojosa (D-Mercedes) for CD 15.

“We will do the best as we can, as imperfect as probably that will be,” he [Judge Higginbotham] said later. “Our standard will be the voters.”

As imperfect as it might be, I’m sure it’s better than the state’s map. AG Greg Abbott, of course, had this to say:

“The court was very clear they are going to put the interests of the voters first,” Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said after the hearing. “They are trying to set aside partisan politics.”

So, is he admitting that the map his office drew was all about partisan politics, or just sucking up to the judges in case President Bush decides to elevate his status to the Fifth Circuit in a moment of folly?
On another note, I’m sure all of those judges’ law clerks are just thrilled about the possibility of sitting in front of computers staring at maps and moving lines all weekend—which they’ll be doing since the judges will have the map out by Monday.

And, don’t you just know that, as tedious as the process of drawing these maps is, that there will probably be moments of levity:

HIGGINBOTHAM: Hey, John, if I move this line over here, then this district looks kind of like a spleen!

WARD: Ha ha! Look at this one I drew, It combines Bonillia, Cuellar, Doggett, and Smith, and it’s a Latino Opportunity District! I rule!
ROSENTHAL: That’s nothing. I just brought five stray cats, and covered my mouse and keyboard with tuna juice and they drew a map that you’d have to be on acid to understand! I think it actually redistricts part of Mexico, but I don’t think we’re allowed to do that.

HIGGINBOTHAM: Well, that’s nothing. I just bumped my mouse and accidently redistricted Lamar Smith into the Panhandle! Woopsie!

WARD: Hey, get those cats out of here! That one just relieved itself on my shoe! We’ve got to get to work!

For some reason, lately, when I think of redistricting, I think of 20th Century composer John Cage and “chance” music. I mean, seriously, what would happen if you decided to draw these maps using some of the methods Cage used to write music? You’d end up with interesting districts, that’s for sure.

Solicitor General Ted Cruz, of course, defended the state’s map:

Cruz denied that the state Republican leadership was trying to target Doggett when it drew its map. He said the state did not know Doggett had moved from East Austin and would be paired with Smith under its proposal.

Cruz also criticized plans by Latino groups and Democratic organizations — who were scheduled to make their arguments in court later today — for trying either to add too many Latino districts or gain a partisan advantage. He urged the justices to do no political harm.

The court’s role, he argued, is “to cure a violation in (District) 23 and, other than that, like a physician, do no harm,” Cruz said.

Cruz said that in fixing the District 23 problem, the court should not hurt U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-San Antonio, whose border district is where the Republican leadership cut 100,000 Latinos to make his district more Republican.

Higginbotham seemed to suggest his thinking — if not the panel’s — on the matter.

He suggested redrawing Doggett’s existing district, which runs from Austin to the Mexico border, to contain more of Travis County. He then suggested making Webb County the political base for a South Texas district represented by U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo.

“Why should a Latino community have to come to Austin?” Higginbotham asked.

Higginbotham also grilled Cruz about the elimination of Doggett’s base in Travis County.

“Why is that necessary?” he asked.

Cruz defended it, saying the state was trying to make the districts more compact.

Wait just one minute. Previously, the AG’s office said that they believed Lloyd Doggett didn’t live in Travis County. Why aren’t they still using that argument?

There are a couple of things I want to note from the article: one about Rodriguez and one about appeals.

First, regarding appeals:

Jose Garza, a lawyer for the League of United Latin American Citizens, which is offering two maps, said he and most others involved in the case fully expected the judicial panel to give deference to the Republican leaders’ plan, if for no other reason than such panels have historically done so. Either way, the losing side will probably pursue an appeal that could eventually head back to the Supreme Court.

Then there is the question of timing. The three-judge panel has set oral arguments for Aug. 3. The Texas secretary of state said a map was needed by Aug. 8 for ballots and precinct maps to be ready for the November voting.

Will there be time for a primary before the general election, or will there be an “open primary” in November, a kind of free-for-all of candidates followed by special general election in the affected districts soon after? Is there even time for a Supreme Court appeal before November, or will the voting take place under whatever map emerges from the three-judge panel?

All of these questions posed by the NYT are legitimate questions. Clearly, this round before the judges won’t be the last for this bout of mapmaking. I would also think that, separate and apart from the maps, there could be legal challenges to whatever method of election the justices decide upon. I now wonder if the Texas Leigslature could be called into special session and inact an election plan different from what the judges determine. Furthermore, if the Republicans don’t like the map even though the court approves it, will there be a special session on redistricting? I’d say it’s possible that there would be and that then, we’d have the issue of the court’s map versus the legislature’s map, the latter of which would require not only pre-clearance but a fresh round of litigation (I would suspect).
Next, note this about Ciro Rodriguez:

As the gathering in the South San Antonio neighborhood of Harlandale showed, no matter which map prevails, one candidate’s distress may be another’s boon. The group was the second this week to have been assembled by Ciro D. Rodriguez, one of the Democratic incumbents who lost his seat in 2004, and who uses the small residence as his makeshift office, keeping his political apparatus alive.

The gathering had two purposes: to look at the various maps and see how they affected Hispanic voters, especially those in southern Bexar County, and to see if any of the maps were of particular help to Mr. Rodriguez’s political future.

One of the maps that might tempt Mr. Rodriguez to run, though not his favorite, is the Republican leaders’ map. By edging Mr. Doggett out of the 25th Congressional District, it would provide an opportunity for Mr. Rodriguez.

“There are a few of them that offer me some real possibilities,” he said. “But I’m not going to be running if some of these plans come out, especially if they break up Bexar County too much.”

I wonder if Rodriguez would run in the state’s version of 25 if Doggett decided to run there, too? Or, is it now a foregone conclusion that if the state’s map is adopted, Doggett will run against Lamar Smith since there is a genuine dispute over whether or not Doggett and Smith are paired under the maps?

I’m thinking Ciro’s best chances are with those maps that pair Bonillia and Cuellar or shift Bonillia out of the more Democratic areas. I don’t see, at this point, Rodriguez challenging Cuellar again in CD 28, unless it is in a very, very, very remade district.

The state, via the office of the Attorney General, filed this reply brief to the various and sundry remedy briefs filed by the plaintiffs, intervenors and other interested parties.

The Jackson Plaintiffs filed this reply brief to the AG’s plan and others.

I’ve yet to wade through them all, but will over the course of the weekend. In the meantime, consider this lengthy footnote from the AG’s brief in which the state tries to justify its massive screw-up regarding where Congressman Lloyd Doggett (D-Austin) actually lives:

Press accounts suggest that Congressman Doggett may have recently moved from current
District 10 into current District 25. At the time the Court considered Plan 1374C, Congressman
Doggett was in current District 10. See, e.g., Alford Report at 29 (“Congressman Doggett
remains in the 10th District [in Plan 1374C] . . . .”) [Jackson Tr. Exh. 44]; Lichtman Report at 73
(Table 32) [Jackson Tr. Exh. 1]. Nonetheless, he ran for and was elected to represent current
District 25. The State Defendants’ proposed map, Plan 1418C, was drawn like every other map—using the RedAppl database, which includes the home residences of all the incumbent Members of Congress. And the RedAppl database (which is regularly updated) lists Congressman Doggett’s home address as still within District 10. Indeed, in an abundance of caution, while drafting the State Defendants’ opening brief, staff of the Office of the Attorney General telephoned the Legislative Council to verify Congressman Doggett’s home address. And Legislative Council staff expressly confirmed that, according to the official records of the Legislative Council, Congressman Doggett’s home residence was still within District 10.
Regardless of whether Congressman Doggett may have at some point purchased an additional home or whether he might own multiple homes in multiple districts, he is not paired in the RedAppl database, and Plan 1418C results in the identical partisan divide as currently exists, including a strongly Democratic District 25 that encompasses over 97% of Congressman Doggett’s prior geography. And, assuming press accounts of Congressman Doggett’s new address are accurate, he has traded being nominally paired with Congressman McCaul for being nominally paired with Congressman Smith. Those nominal pairings do not affect his ability to run as an incumbent in his current District, any more than they did in 2004.

Judging by the heavy emphasis they placed on the “media accounts,” I think they dug themselves into more of a hole than out of one.

First, Lone Star Project has their analysis up. Burnt Orange Report has more on that.

Second, CQPolitics has a look at the remedy plans, including this .pdf which looks at the districts using voting trends from 2004 and 2002 based on the districts’ current makeups and proposed makeups.

Finally, using the CQ data from the chart noted above, I have compiled a spreadsheet that is easier to read and tracks the increasing/decreasing Republican and Democratic strength of the districts based on plans. That’s here.

Hat tip to Phillip for introducing many bloggers to the site hosting that spreadsheet, NumSum, which I recommend.

Most amusing: the title “Jackson plaintiffs” has nothing to do with Cong. Sheila Jackson-Lee. The Jackson in this case is a citizen plaintiff named Eddie Jackson, one of many citizen plaintiffs who filed the case originally. Congressional D’s only joined in the case later as intervenors.

Duh, duh, duh! That’s what happens when you write about redistricting at one in the morning. Although I’m too zapped to go and find the references, I know that both the Austin American Statesman and CQ, and another blog refered to this as the Congressional Democrats plan and that  one even said it was called “Jackson” because of Jackson Lee.

I actually thought differently, but sided with the MSM on this one, to my own detriment.

The rest of these, though, are mistakes made as a result of some of my errors of interpretation, so they won’t need much commentary on my part:

1. The State plan would affect 4 districts just like the Jackson plaintiffs’ (also Dem congressional intervenors) plan, not two. The least districts affected by any change has to be four, and if one believes the court is likely to affect as few districts as possible, then the Jackson plan, the state plan, or a Court drawn variation is the most likely outcome. Because a four district plan cannot touch CD10, the Jackson plaintiffs’ plan simply gives CD25 (Doggett) the rest of Travis Co. and makes CD23 “legally” Hispanic, and thus more Democratic, again. Because Cuellar technically lives in the CD23 portion of Webb Co. today, there is no new pairing involved, but Cuellar’s base would go wholly into 23. This same plan could be drawn by flipping Webb Co. into 28 and putting South San Antonio into CD23, but the Supreme Court opinion and the fact that Webb had been wholly in 23 since it was created seem to point to the Jackson version as more appropriate.

Again this clarification is 100 percent correct.

2. The State plan does not “leave District 21 in tact” - it shifts it into just 145,000 folks in SE Travis, and pairs Smith and Doggett in a 60+% R district. Then the state gives Bonilla over 300,000 in Travis Co., including Central Austin Dem boxes that would be swallowed up by suburban and Hill Country R’s in a 62% R district. The state’s goal was to make sure that no Austin D could win any district and that no D could beat Smith or Bonilla - neither Doggett nor Courage.

Again, 100 percent correct, but I want to note that my comment was that the plan left the district “relatively intact enough” for John Courage to mount a campaign there, and I did note the massive rip-out of Travis County:

The only positive about the state’s plan opposed to the Jackson plaintiff’s plans is that the state keeps CD 21 intact enough that Courage can still mount a campaign, but it still tears much of Travis county out of this district.

More corrections:

3. An equally serious flaw in the state’s DeLay impersonation is the way its plan splits the traditional South Side San Antonio Hispanic community - pulling 127,000 Bexar Co. residents out of the current CD28 and dropping them into the “bacon strip” CD25, unnecessarily bringing a fifth district into Bexar Co. and splitting core Bexar Co. Hispanic communities into three districts instead of two.

Again, this is something I had difficulty comprehending—just by looking at a map—where Bexar County’s core hispanic communities are.

This makes my earlier post today that included some information on the Gingles case all that more relevant. Separating a minority community like this surely will not fly before the judges.
Still more:

4. The State plan literally “out-DeLay’s DeLay” and shifts the majority of the residents of these four districts into new districts (save their trick of changing district numbers). It would also leave Austin/Travis Co. as the only major urban area without effective control of a single district - splitting a Dem. majority county into three R districts.

5. Every plan purports to create another “legal” Hispanic district to replace the “illegal” CD23. The Jackson and Travis Co plans do that by enhancing/restoring CD23 to make it a performing Hispanic opportunity district. The state tries to do it by renumbering CD23 as CD28 and maintaining CD25 as a bacon strip Hispanic district that runs all the way from the Valley to the Travis Co. line. Only LULAC tries to enhance CD23 and maintain CD25, thus attempting to create two more “legal” Hispanic seats, although most parties in the case, including MALDEF/GI Forum believe that the Court is unlikely to go that far based on Supreme Court opinions in this case (their plan and the Travis Co. plan add only an additional “influence” district).

I won’t argue with  5 right now.  I made my judgement calls by looking at the maps more than the population trends. I may have wrongfully assumed some counties were more Latino than they are in my estimation that there were additional minority districts in other plans.

I don’t think the map will fly at all, though. After all, it contains non-contiguious districts. And there are some really wierd things going on in the Valley and in the Panhandle. I’m not sure who they had running the map making computers, but they must have been drunk or not paying close attention. It’s the worst redistricting map I’ve ever seen, bar none. How this makes things any better, I have no idea.

And, Fort Bend County is in some kind of funky district that goes to the border of Robertson County!! There is no way the population could equalize out in that thing, and I haven’t even seen the numbers yet. Swisher, Briscoe and Hall counties are split nearly in half. Some kind of “T” shaped thing is running through Borden County.

They’ve literally just colored all over the map with no good reason. that’s probably where there are no population or election analysis to go with this map. And, it looks like they paired Lloyd Doggett with three different incumbents. Yikes!
Anyway, for your viewing pleasure, the map is here.

[warning: the file contained above may be a parody. you decide.]

Anyway, now that I’v finished the post below, I thought I’d round up some of the MSM coverage for you (not that you need bother looking at it if you feel I gave you all the info you would ever want to know in the post below). I will note that not a single MSM outlet that I’ve found actually broke down the plans by ALL OF the changes they made.

This surprises me because, hell, MSM has virtually unlimited resources. They could stick reporters, editors, clerks, secretaries and janitors on every map and run massive coverage. But, they probably think that’s too (to borrow a phrase I’ve heard Charles Kuffner use) “inside baseball” for their readers.

Of course. Because who really cares about La Salle County, right? Or most of the other counties for that matter, I guess.

Anyway, here is the roundup:

CQ Politics Blog actually has the best roundup of changes within the districts I’ve seen.  Here’s their summary of the Plans, which I think is worth quoting in its entirety:

• Republican State Attorney General’s plan: A map produced by the office of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott — a Republican whose staff defended the pre-2004 GOP remap in court — envisions a radically different 23rd for Bonilla, whose current district stretches hundreds of miles along the Rio Grande, linking a part of Laredo in the east to the outskirts of El Paso in the west.

Under the Abbott plan, the 23rd would be anchored in southwestern Travis County (Austin) and northwestern Bexar County (San Antonio), which is Bonilla’s political base. The proposal would give the 23rd a Hispanic voting-age population (VAP) of 21 percent.

The district would not be as heavily Republican as the present 23rd District, where Bonilla was re-elected with 69 percent in 2004. But it would not be as politically competitive as it was as configured for the 2002 election, when Bonilla won by a mere 4 percentage point margin over Democrat Cuellar.

The district then encompassed all of Webb County, an overwhelmingly Hispanic and Democratic-voting area that includes Cuellar’s hometown of Laredo. Webb County was subsequently divided between the 23rd and 28th under the GOP’s mid-decade remap, spurring Cuellar to eschew a rematch against Bonilla and run instead in the 2004 primary against 28th District Democratic Rep. Ciro D. Rodriguez, whom he unseated.

The Abbott plan would reunite the two segments of Webb County, but place them in a redrawn 28th District that would take in southern and western Texas counties along the Rio Grande that have long been part of Bonilla’s district. Cuellar would be expected to run here, given his Webb County base, the district’s decided Democratic lean and a Hispanic voting-age population of 77 percent. He would, though, have to familiarize himself with a large portion of the district.

The Abbott map might create some difficulty for Doggett, in that it redraws his 25th District to exclude Travis County, a Democratic bastion in and around Austin that is Doggett’s political base. The district would be heavily Democratic, though, and have a Hispanic VAP of 66 percent.

Smith’s 21st District would still be dominated by the San Antonio and Austin areas and have a Republican lean.

“The map affects only four districts, leaving 28 current districts untouched,” according to a brief Abbott’s office filed with the federal court. “It contains two strong Latino-opportunity districts. It is substantially more compact, and it no longer links Travis County with the border region. It also avoids pairing any incumbents and maintains the current partisan balance of the four affected districts.”

“In short,” the brief continues, “it remedies the violation of federal law, while fully respecting the already enacted policy preferences of the Texas Legislature.”

• Jackson (Democratic) plaintiffs’ plan: A map filed by Texas Democratic plaintiffs would have much different political ramifications for Bonilla. Their map would include all of Webb (including 28th District Rep. Cuellar’s base) in the 23rd, while also keeping Bonilla’s San Antonio home within its boundaries — and adding two heavily Hispanic counties, Frio and LaSalle, that are presently represented by Cuellar.

The new lines would present the possibility of a renewed rivalry between Bonilla and Cuellar.

The Democratic map calls for the 23rd to have a higher Hispanic voting-age population (67 percent) than under the 2002 map (63 percent), under which Bonilla was nearly defeated, or the 2004 map (51 percent), under which he won in a landslide.

The Democrats’ map is kind to Smith, whose 21st would become overwhelmingly Republican-leaning — mainly because it would no longer include any part of liberal-leaning Travis County. The map also is favorable to Doggett, whose 25th would be dominated by Travis — much like the strongly Democratic district he represented in the 1990s.

With Cuellar’s political base moved back into the 23rd, no incumbent would reside in the 28th, which the Democratic map would stretch from San Antonio to the Mexico border.

• GI Forum (Hispanic) Map: The American GI Forum of Texas, a group of Hispanic plaintiffs that was represented in court by the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), submitted a map that would revert the 23rd District to its precise 2002 configuration — and thus would also effectively pair Bonilla and Cuellar.

The GI Forum map “will offer Latino voters the opportunity to elect their candidate of choice,” MALDEF said in its legal brief to the federal court.

That map redraws the 25th District as a narrow band that attaches San Antonio and Austin. It is solidly Democratic and has a 48 percent Hispanic VAP. Doggett could run here, though he is not well-known in Bexar County (San Antonio), where a plurality of district residents would reside. No current incumbent would reside in the redrawn 28th.

The GI Forum’s map would expand Smith’s 21st District but retain its basic configuration as a Republican-leaning San Antonio-Austin district.

That GI Forum map also makes minor modifications to two other districts — the 11th District, a heavily Republican district in and around Midland that is represented by freshman Republican Mike Conaway, and the 20th, a San Antonio-based district that is decidedly Democratic and Hispanic and is represented by four-term Democrat Charlie Gonzalez. Both districts would retain their basic configurations, and Conaway and Gonzalez would be heavily favored to win re-election.

• LULAC Maps: The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) submitted two map proposals — one that puts Webb County in the 23rd District and another that puts Webb in the 28th District.

Both maps allowed for deviation from near-perfect population equality — a criterion often deemed inviolable by the Supreme Court under the equal representation rulings of the 1960s. In one map, the population of the 21st District would be 655,037, whereas the population of the 20th District would be 648,608.

Nearly all of the other maps all have deviations among the districts of only 1 voter — and that is only because Texas’ 2000 population of 20,851,820 is not perfectly divisible by its number of districts (32).

• Travis County maps: Officials from Travis County, who also were plaintiffs in the case, submitted two maps. One would put all of Webb County in the 23rd District, while the other would put Webb in the 28th. Both maps would give Doggett a relatively compact 25th District in the Austin area.

• Bonilla/Cuellar/Smith map: A proposal was also submitted jointly by Bonilla, Cuellar and Smith. The map would continue to divide Webb County between the 23rd and the 28th District, but it would boost the Hispanic VAP in the 23rd to 62 percent by appending southern Bexar County. It would give Doggett a more compact 25th District centered in Austin.

It would also make changes to the 15th District, a south Texas district represented by five-term Democratic Rep. Ruben Hinojosa. Cuellar would represent a smaller portion of Bexar County and recoup some territory in south Texas that is presently represented by Hinojosa and Doggett.

Cuellar told CQPolitics.com on Friday that the proposal is “both constitutional and fair, at the same time causes the least amount of disruptions to the voters of those districts.”

Cuellar added that he thought the federal court would reject any map that pairs him with Bonilla in one district. “I just don’t foresee the judges pairing two Hispanic incumbents,” he said.

• New elections? The federal court must also decide whether a remedial map should be effective for this year’s elections — as many assume. This is no small matter: Texas held its primary elections in March, so new primaries in the districts affected would be required if the federal court decides the revised map it accepts should be implemented immediately.

There is precedent for a federal court to order new elections late in an election cycle, following a Supreme Court finding that a congressional map is illegal. In 1996, the Supreme Court rejected three Texas congressional districts as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders, and a federal court redrew 13 districts and ordered primary elections in November and runoff elections that December.

In a brief filed with the federal court, the defendants requested that the panel, if it chooses to order new elections, should make a ruling by Aug. 7 — four days after oral arguments — in order to give state election officials ample time to allow for a candidate filing schedule, certification of ballots, preparation of voting machines for voters with disabilities and preparation of ballots for military personnel who live overseas.

The brief filed by the state Attorney General’s office said that state officials are “ready to expeditiously implement whatever changes are ordered by the Court as part of a remedial map” — though it also cited cases in which courts have allowed elections to proceed under maps that had been invalidated under federal law, with any changes deferred until the next election cycle.

But the Democrats insisted that the federal court implement a remedial map immediately. “This Court should remedy the illegalities in the 2003 plan immediately,” their brief states.

The Chron has this story (with a somewhat misleading but probably true headline). They also have this one, evidently on their Saturday’s front page, that says three incumbent lawmakers are in jeopardy via the plans:

All of the proposed new maps put Webb County back together in one congressional district or another.

But they also had a varying political impact on three incumbents: U.S. Reps. Henry Bonilla, R-San Antonio; Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo; and Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin.

Bonilla would be politically safe in some maps, but he would face possible defeat in others. The maps have the same effect on Doggett.

No map would clearly cause Cuellar’s defeat or re-election, but in some he would find greater political difficulties than others.

The number of congressional districts altered in the proposed maps ranges from four to six.

A pair of maps submitted by Travis County would make minor changes in the 10th District of U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul. If that map is adopted, it likely would trigger a special election in the Republican district, which reaches from Austin to western Harris County.

The Statesman has multiple pieces. This one notes that the State’s plan would give Travis County to three GOP Congressmen. Note that Doggett and the Statesman seem to think that the AG forgot where Doggett lives:

Doggett said Abbott’s lawyers got his residence wrong.

“This sounds like the same folks the who think Tom DeLay lives in Virginia,” said Doggett, referring to the Sugar Land lawmaker’s attempt to get off the November ballot by saying he’s moved to his Virginia condo.

Doggett said he lives in East Austin, just off Rosewood Avenue, and would be paired against Smith, a San Antonio Republican, under the state’s map.

That prompted negotiations among the affected members of Congress: Doggett, Smith, Bonilla and Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo.

All but Doggett filed a last-minute alternative that would keep Travis County split three ways among Smith, McCaul and Doggett. But Doggett would get more of Travis County, and his district would be centered in Central Texas.

Here is another Statesman story. Here is another one about the state’s plan.

Also: New York Times, San Antonio Express News, Dallas Morning News/AP;

The GI Forum, LULAC, the Jackson plaintiffs and the state’s plans are all now avaliable.

Since this is a lot to discuss, I’m going to take it in bits and pieces.

[For reference, here is a map of current congressional districts]

Jackson Plaintiffs
[Brief, Map (.GIF of the statewide map, as it's turned sideways in the .pdf), Population Data; Election Analysis]
The Jackson remedy (proposed by Congressional Democrats, “Jackson” comes from Sheila Jackson Lee) would alter four of the state’s 32, with significant fixes to CDs 23 and 25 (23 being the district declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS and Bonilla’s district and 25 being Doggett’s Austin-to-Mexico district).

The Jackson plaintiffs henge the correction of the anomalities of the ‘bacon strip’ district Doggett now represents on language in the Supreme Court opinion by Justice Kennedy (as in the previous post, these quotes are striped of the majority of the citations to make them more readable; however, I had to leave several in to make sure this made sense):

District 25. The Supreme Court also vacated the part of this Court’s judgment that upheld District 25, the Austin-to-McAllen district. The Court explained that “there was a 300-mile gap between the Latino communities [at either end of] District 25, and a similarly large gap between the needs and interests of the two groups,” as they diverged in “socio-economic status, education, employment, health, and other characteristics.” Two Members of the five-Justice majority stated that District 25 violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. (Souter, J., joined by Ginsburg, J., concurring in part) (“Plan 1374C’s Districts 23 and 25 violate § 2 of the Voting Rights Act” (“[T]he enormous geographical distance separating the Austin and Mexican-border communities, coupled with the disparate needs and interests of these populations, . . . renders District 25 noncompact for § 2 purposes.”).

Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the Court stated that District 25 “will have to be redrawn to remedy the violation in District 23.” (District 25 “must be changed”); (“[T]here is no reason to believe District 25 will remain in its current form once District 23 is brought into compliance with § 2.”); see also Session v. Perry, 298 F. Supp. 2d 451, 528 (E.D. Tex. 2005) (three-judge court) (Ward, J., dissenting in part) (“Restructuring of the South and Central Texas [‘bacon strip’] districts is necessary to remedy [District 23’s] § 2 violation.”), vacated in part sub nom. LULAC v. Perry.

Here, in part, is how the Jackson plaintiffs propose curing District 23 of its unconstitutional ailments:

It puts all of Webb County (and all of Laredo) back into District 23. And it returns Kerr, Kendall, and Bandera Counties to District 21. These two changes restore all four counties to their traditional locations in Texas’s congressional map. Indeed, from the time Texas first became entitled to a 21st congressional district — in the 1930s — up until the enactment of the 2003 Plan, District 21 always contained the entirety of Kerr, Kendall, and Bandera Counties. And likewise, from the time Texas first drew a 23rd congressional district, in the 1960s, Webb County always was kept intact in District 23 — until the 2003 Plan overthrew that tradition.

Basically, this (.gif of the district here) is the new makeup for the 23rd proposed by the Jackson plaintiffs:

El Paso (part), Hudspeth, Culberson, Jeff Davis, Presidio, Reeves, Bresester, Pecos, terrell, Val Verde, Crockett, Sutton (part), Edwards, Real, Maverick, Uvdale, Medina, Zavala, Dimmit, La Salle, Webb (all), Frio, Bexar (part) and Crockett.

This is versus the current make up (here), which is:

El Paso (part), Hudspeth, Culberson, Jeff Davis, Reeves, Pecos, Persidio, Brewster, Terrell, Crockett, Sutton (part), Valverde, Edwards, Real, Kerr, Bandera, Kendall, Medina, Zavala, Demitt, Webb (part), Maverick, Bexar (part).

I don’t know enough about the Bexar County precincts to tell, but, judging by the geographic area of the voting precincts from that county in the proposed 23rd, I’d have to say that the new 23rd either includes little of the city of San Antonio or none at all.

This proposal would, however, effectively pair Bonillia and Cuellar. It moves not only Laredo and the rest of Webb County, but also Frio and La Salle counties out of the current 28th and into the 23rd.

The Jackson proposal for CD 25 dramatically changes its boundaries. The proposed CD 25 would consist only of part of Travis and part of Hays counties and all of Caldwell and Gonzalez counties. Instead of being anchored just by the southeastern corner of Travis County, under this map, CD 25 would encompasses most of Travis County with only the northeastern corner (dipping into Austin) being part of CD 10, with no other congressional districts dipping into Travis.

Anticipating that the Court may have a pretty hard time with a plan that touches on four districts (the states only alters two with no incumbent pairings), and dramatically alters CD 25, the Jackson appellants note this in a footnote:

Even if this Court did not share the Supreme Court’s concerns about District 25, it would be impossible to cure the Section 2 violation in District 23 without redrawing District 25. That’s because, under the 2003 Plan, less than half of all registered voters in District 23 and District 28 combined are Hispanic. So no amount of swapping territory between those two districts could possibly create two districts that both have Hispanic registered-voter majorities. District 25,
however, contains more than 150,000 Spanish-surnamed registrants — more than enough to keep the cure for District 23’s violations from depleting District 28’s Hispanic voter majority.

Whether the panel buys this or not is anyone’s guess. But, the Jackson appellants appear to be banking on Judge T. John Ward, who was the lone voice of dissent and serious critic of CD 25 when the plans first started making their way through the court system (see the quote above) and who is on the panel who will decide on the remedy.

The other districts that the Jackson plan redraws are CD 21 and CD 28. CD 21 is Lamar Smith’s District while CD 28 is Cuellar’s district. Of note here is that John Courage is mounting a tough campaign against Smith in the current CD 21.

Let’s talk about how these proposals alter these two districts.

With regard to CD 21, the Jackson plan would make it consist of: Kerr, Bandera, Kendall, Bexar (part), Blanco, Hays (part), Comal (part), Guadalupe and Wilson counties.

That’s compared to the current CD 21 makeup of: Travis (part), Hays (part), Blanco (part), Comal and Bexar (part).

For John Courage, that would be bad news as the Democratic part of the district (Travis County) is written out making the district more firmly anchored in Bexar County.

The wierd part of the Jackson appellant’s plan may actually be by design. As far as I can tell, with Laredo shifting to the 23rd, meaning Cuellar and Bonilla are pared, the proposed 28th would be a majority Latino district without an incumbent (Paging Ciro Rodriguez?).

The proposed CD 28 would be: Bexar (part), Atascosa, McMullen, Karnes, Duval, Jim Hogg, Zapata, Starr and Hidalgo (part). It’d be firmly anchored in Bexar County.

Compare that to the current CD 28: Bexar (part), Guadalupe, Wilson, Atascosa, Frio, LaSalle, McMullen, Webb and Zapata.

Drastic, drastic, drastic proposed changes for the 28th. Including that, by my estimation, in the Jackson proposal, it’s an “incumbent free” district.

Perry, et al Proposed Remedies (Proposed By The Attorney General of Texas on behalf of all state defenants)

[Brief, Proposed Map, Population Analysis, Election Analysis]

When I read this blurb on the AG’s website about the proposed plans, I thought the state might actually have submitted a reasonable plan:

In response to the federal district court’s order, the State Defendants have submitted a remedial plan that would correct the Supreme Court’s legal concerns regarding District 23, and otherwise fully respect the legislative preferences of the already enacted congressional map. The proposed plan is directly responsive to the Supreme Court’s opinion upholding the statewide map; it leaves 28 congressional districts completely untouched, and alters only District 23 and three adjoining districts. The plan likewise avoids pairing any incumbent Members of Congress and leaves the existing partisan balance of the four altered districts (2 Democrats and 2 Republicans) undisturbed.

Ha, ha. I must have drifted off into an alternate reality for a moment, though, because this plan is a nightmare.
Here are the makeups of the districts via the state’s plan:

Current Makeup of CD 21: Travis (part), Hays (part), Comal (part), Blanco, Bexar (part).

State’s Proposed Makeup of CD 21: Travis (part), Hays, Comal, Guadalupe, Bexar (part).

As far as the current race against CD 21 incumbent Lamar Smith goes, I don’t know if the addition of Guadalupe County would make the district more or less favorable for him or his opponent, Democrat John Courage. I’ll have to run the numbers on that. The only positive about the state’s plan opposed to the Jackson plaintiff’s plans is that the state keeps CD 21 intact enough that Courage can still mount a campaign, but it still tears much of Travis county out of this district.

Current Makeup of CD 23: El Paso (part), Hudspeth, Culberson, Reeves, Jeff Davis, Presidio, Brewster, Pecos, Terrell, Crockett, Val Verde, Sutton (part), Edwards, Real, Kerr, Kendall, Medina, Uvalde, Zavala, Maverick, Demmit, Webb (part), Bexar (part).

State’s Proposed Makeup of CD 23: Travis (part), Blanco (part), Kendall, Kerr.

Yes, you are reading that correctly. Basically, the state is combining much of the current CDs 23 and 28 to create a larger than current plans, super, mega El Paso-to-Laredo-to-San Antonio district that you’ll note in the state’s CD 28 proposals.
The Statesman seems to think Bonillia would retain this district and gain Travis County, meaning it would be split between three Republicans.

Current Makeup of CD 25: Hidalgo (part), Starr, Jim Hogg, Duval, Live Oak, Karnes, Gonzales, Caldwell, Travis (part).

State’s Proposed Makeup of CD 25: Caldwell, Gonzales, Wilson, Bexar (part), Karnes, Atascosa, Frio, Live Oak, McMullen, La Salle, Duval, Jim Hogg, Zapata, Starr, Higaldo (part).

The Austin American Statesman says it is the state’s intent that this would be Doggett’s new district. Doggett, however, says he’d be paired with Lamar Smith. To me, though, given that there are different residency requirements to run in newly drawn districts, this should be Bonillia’s new district, since it actually includes a county he represents now (Bexar). Of course, if this was Bonillia’s new district, then Ciro Rodriguez would have him whipped 2 to 1.

Current Makeup of CD 28: Bexar (part), Guadalupe (part), Hays (part), Wilson, Atascosa, Frio, Lasalle, McMullen, Webb (part), Zapata.

State’s Proposed Makeup of CD 28: El Paso (part), Hudspeth, Culberson, Reeves, Jeff Davis, Persidio, Brewster, Pecos, Terrell, Crockett, Sutton (part), Val Verde, Edwards, Kinney, Maverick, Real, Uvalde, Bandera, Medina, Zavala, Demmit, Webb, Bexar (part).

THIS would be Cuellar’s district. Laredo united with part of San Antonio going just to El Paso.

Of course, I wonder about the wisdom of just cramming so many Latino voters into one district like the state’s plan does. The Jackson plan, of course, created a new (possibly incumbent free) Latino district. But, it also destroyed Courage’s chances in 21, meaning there would be no net Democratic gain under that plan.

The state says this plan leaves in place the existing partisan balance of these districts.

However, if 25 is Bonillia’s new district, it might be a pickup. I’ll have to run the numbers.

The one thing about the state’s map is that it will have the most attention paid to it by the Court because…well, it’s the state’s map.

Travis County (and city of Austin) Plans

[Brief; 1414C: Proposed Map, Population Analysis, Election Analysis; 1413C: Proposed Map, Population Analysis, Election Analysis]

Travis County and the City of Austin have also submitted a brief and plans.

One thing to note is that this group of appellants didn’t attempt to add an additional minority district as the Jackson plaintiffs did:

Since the Supreme Court has twice affirmed this Court’s conclusion that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not require adding a seventh Latino opportunity district in the South and West Texas area, the County has not attempted to add such a seventh district in either of its alternative maps.

This group of appellants proposed two plans. Though they claim to favor neither in their brief, so-called plan 1413C which unites Webb County in CD 28 and alters CDs 23, 28, 25, 15, 21 and 10 appears to be the one they favor because they never come out in ther plan and say what 1414 alters, except to say that it unites Laredo in CD 23 and pairs Bonillia against Cuellar.

They also make this interesting note in one of their footnotes:

There is some question whether the District 28 incumbent already lives outside his current district. The text’s comment about pairing assumes he does not.

I think they’re making reference to something from the ‘04 election cycle, but why they felt it necessary to put the smack-down on Henry Cuellar in their brief is beyond me, given that, once these new lines are drawn, all of the districts become a free-for-all.

So, I’m going to actually ignore the Travis appellants’ 1414 plan and concentrate on 1413, since I don’t think the Court is going to want to pair incumbents anyway.

Let’s look at the boundary changes they propose (which took me over an hour to compile, there are so many).

It also appears that the Travis County appellants were trying to do as much as they could to dilute the strength of the Republican Congressmen within their borders, although it would take days of number crunching to tell for sure.

Current Makeup of CD 23: El Paso (part), Hudspeth, Culberson, Reeves, Jeff Davis, Presidio, Brewster, Pecos, Terrell, Crockett, Val Verde, Sutton (part), Edwards, Real, Kerr, Kendall, Medina, Uvalde, Zavala, Maverick, Demmit, Webb (part), Bexar (part).
CD 23 as altered by 1413C: El Paso (part), Hudspeth, Culberson, Jeff Davis, Presidio, Reeves, Brewster, pecos, Terrell, Crockett, Val Verde, Sutton (part), Edwards, Kinney, Real, Uvalde, Zavala, Maverick, Dimmit, Medina, Frio, La Salle, Bexar (part).

Webb is united within CD 28 so as not to pair incumbents, so you can see it’s gone from 23 and replaced by Lasalle and Frio counties. I think the makeup of this district would but Bonillia in serious hot water.

Current Makeup of CD 28: Bexar (part), Guadalupe (part), Hays (part), Wilson, Atascosa, Frio, La Salle, McMullen, Webb (part), Zapata.

CD 28 as altered by 1413C: Hidalgo (part), Starr, Jim Hogg, Webb, Duval, McMullen, Live Oak, Karnes, Wilson, Guadalupe (part), Bexar (part).

La Salle and Frio are gone to CD 23. Atascosa is also gone. Duval and the rest of Webb are added along with Live Oak and Karnes (from the current 25) and part of Guadalupe, which may make this a less Democratic district.

Current Makeup of CD 25: Hidalgo (part), Starr, Jim Hogg, Duval, Live Oak, Karnes, Gonzales, Caldwell, Travis (part).

CD 25 as altered by 1413C: Travis (part), Hays (part), Bastrop (part), Caldwell (part).

Clearly, CD 25 was the main thing the Travis appellants wanted to fix. Of course, their remedy had to propose a fix to 23 since that is what the court declared unconstitutional. The fix to 23 resulted in a fix to 28, and also legitimately leads to the fix to 25.

These remaining districts are ones I think the Tavis appellants wanted to fix just to say they tried one last time to get some better CDs. Otherwise, I think they could have done what they wanted to without altering Ruben Hinojosa’s (D-Mercedes) district, CD 15, to wit:

Current CD 15: Cameron (part), Hidalgo (part), Brooks, Jim Wells, San Patricio (part), Bee, Refutio, Goliad, De Witt, Lavaca, Colorado, Fayette, Bastrop (part).

CD 15 as proposed by 1413C: Cameron (part), Hidalgo (part), Brooks, Jim Wells, San Patricio (part), Bee, Refugio, Goliad, De Witt, Lavaca.

I think they had to take some less Latino counties out of Hinojosa’s district to justify what they did with other districts closer to Austin, specifically, the creative work on Lamar Smith and Michael McCaul’s districts which I believe (again, I’d have to run the numbers) makes them more favorable (although probably not totally) to Democrats.

Current Makeup of CD 21: Travis (part), Hays (part), Comal (part), Blanco, Bexar (part).

1413C makeup of CD 21: Kerr, Bandera, Kendall, Blanco, Comal, Hays, Travis (part), Bexar (part), Guadalupe (part).

That sliver of Guadalupe County seems to be the single most “moved-around” piece of Texas land in all of the proposals.

Here is what the Travis appellants propose for CD 10:

Current CD 10: Travis (part), Bastrop, Lee, Burleson, Washington, Austin, Waller, Harris (part).

1413C makeup of CD 10: Travis (part), Bastrop (part), Lee, Burleson (part), Washington, Fayette, Austin, Colorado, Waller, Harris (part).

Smith, Bonillia, Cuellar Proposal

[Proposed Map, (Color Map in .html), Population Analysis, Election Analysis]

If you head isn’t spinning enough yet, consider that Lamar Smith (R-San Antonio), Henry Bonilla (R-San Antonio), and Henry Cuellar (D-Laredo) got so damned scared by all this mapmaking, they’ve filed their own map with the Court.

Smith is probably most scared; he may well be pitted against Lloyd Doggett. Bonillia and Cuellar, I think, simply don’t want to have to run against each other (and Bonillia knows he will lose). (And, no, I don’t think there is any reason to call Cuellar a turncoat over his joining with Smith and Bonillia on this one. I think it is a legitimate move on his part).

This map narrows the northern reach of CD 23 and moves Kerr, Real and Bandera counties back to CD 21.

It keeps Laredo split, and appears to give Cuellar several of Doggett’s old counties while isolating CD 25 to north of Travis County and appears to include part of Bexar county in the district.

I say “appears” because the only version of the map I can find is in black and white and it is very difficult to read, hence the difficulty I’m having telling you exactly what is in it.

GI Forum Proposal

[ Brief; Proposed Map; Population Analysis; Election Analysis]

The GI Forum/MALDEF plaintiffs map is interesting as well. It alters five districts, the 23rd, the 28th, 25th, 21st, 11th and 20th.

Like the Jackson plaintiffs’ map, it leaves CD-28 incumbent free and pairs Bonilla and Cuellar.

Current Makeup of CD 23: El Paso (part), Hudspeth, Culberson, Reeves, Jeff Davis, Presidio, Brewster, Pecos, Terrell, Crockett, Val Verde, Sutton (part), Edwards, Real, Kerr, Kendall, Medina, Uvalde, Zavala, Maverick, Demmit, Webb (part), Bexar (part).

GI Forum CD 23 Proposal: El Paso (part), Hudspeth, Culberson, Reeves, Jeff Davis, Presidio, Brewster, Pecos, Terrell, Crockett, Val Verde, Upton, Reagan, Sutton Edwards, Real, Kinney, Uvalde, Medina, Bexar (part), Zavala, Dimmit, Webb.

The GI Forum proposal unites both Webb and Sutton counties within CD 23.
Current Makeup of CD 28: Bexar (part), Guadalupe (part), Hays (part), Wilson, Atascosa, Frio, La Salle, McMullen, Webb (part), Zapata.

Current Makeup of CD 25: Hidalgo (part), Starr, Jim Hogg, Duval, Live Oak, Karnes, Gonzales, Caldwell, Travis (part).

GI Forum Proposed CD 25: Travis (part), Hays (part), Comal (part), Bexar (part).

GI Forum also makes this more of a Central Texas district but takes the added twist of adding some of San Antonio into the mix.

Current Makeup of CD 21: Travis (part), Hays (part), Comal (part), Blanco, Bexar (part).

GI Forum Makeup of CD 21: Travis (part), Hays (part), Comal (part), Bexar (part), Blanco (part), Kendall (part), Kerr (part), Bandera (part).

It seems to me with the addition of some of these counties, they may have made CD 21 a bit more Democratic. This plan might not hurt John Courage, but I’d have to run the numbers to be sure.

Current CD 11: Loving, Winkler, Ector, Midland, Glassock, Sterling, Coke, Runnels, Coleman, Brown, Comanche, Mills, Andrews, Dawson, Martin, Surry, Mitchell, Nolan (part), Ward, Crane, Upton, Reagan, Irion, Tom Green, Concho, McCulloch, San Saba, Mills, Lampasas, Burnet, Llano, Mason, Minard, Schleicher, Sutton (part), Kimble, Gillesipe.

GI Forum Proposed CD 11: Remove Upton and Reagan from above list along with the portion of Sutton that is in the district; add part of Blanco County.

I’m guessing these moves were to get Upton and Reagan into the more Hispanic CD 23. Of course, I’m assuming they have significant Hispanic populations. I haven’t seen census figures for these counties.
CD 20 is a San Antonio-centered district; I can’t tell from the statewide map what is changing exactly with the district, except for the fact that instead of being a circular district, it now has a snake going east.

LULAC Plans

[Brief (not avaliable); Plan A: Proposed Map, Population Analysis, Election Analysis; Plan B: Proposed Map, Population Analysis, Election Analysis]
I discussed the LULAC plans yesterday. Charles Kuffner has more at Kuff’s World.

**UPDATE**

There are a couple of other remedy plans. I wasn’t aware of these because I’ve been having trouble getting the Legislative Council’s Red Viewer to work right.

Anyway, the Coalition of Black Democrats has a proposed remedy.

There is another proposed remedy called the “Pate” plan. Not sure about that one. There is also one called the “Owens” remedy.

And, since it seems everyone on planet earth is trying to access Red Viewer (at 4:30 on a Saturday morning, I might add) it doesn’t look like I’ll be able to post these just yet. But I will later.

The Austin American Statesman reports that the plans would, however, leave Travis County split between three Congressional Districts.

I was going to try and explain these all myself. Instead, after spending an hour compiling a VRA spreadsheet, let me just tell you what the Statesman says:

•Plan “A” fuses Laredo back together as part of Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar’s 28rd district (which currently runs from San Antonio to the border), and has Republican Rep. Henry Bonilla’s 23rd district shifted north to pull voters from South San Antonio.

• Plan “B” fuses Laredo back together as part of Bonilla’s district, and has Cuellar’s 28rd district shifted north to include more of Bexar County.

The two congressmen currently split Laredo; that would change under either proposal. In Plan A, the member’s homes would remain in separate districts in November (Bonilla lives in San Antonio and Cuellar in Laredo). In Plan B, it is likely Cuellar would challenge Bonilla for the Laredo territory.

In both proposals, a handful of other districts are only slightly affected. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, would see his 25th district tweaked, and similar small changes would be made to the 20th and 21st districts, currently represented by Democrat Rep. Charles Gonzalez and Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, respectively.

Doggett’s curent district winds from Austin to Mexico. It includes about one-third of Travis County. The rest of the county is represented by Smith and Republican Michael McCaul.

The plans are here, here, here, here and here.

Going by the summary in the Petition, Roland intends to offer:

1. A standard of proof by which the Court may determine what is and is not constitutionally impermissible adoption of district maps for the U.S. House of Representatives.

2. Argument that it is not the maps per se but the intent and method of creating and adopting them that may be in violation of the Constitution and Voting Rights Act.
3. Argument that the manual revision of a few of the districts of the 2003 map, even if done by the Court, is just as improper as the drawing of those districts in the first instance, and that only a new map, produced by a new method, is compliant with both the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act.
4. Argument that however defective might be the 2003 map, it is too late to revise it for the 2006 election, and the Court should adopt a new method for producing maps for subsequent elections.
5. A method for producing maps for subsequent elections, that satisfies the standard of proof offered and also the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision of June 28, 2006.

Although I don’t think there is any question Roland would have had standing back in 2003 to challenge this or that he would have standing to challenge whatever maps the court draws after the fact, I’m wondering if the three-judge panel is going to allow that he has standing to intervene in the case at this time. Of course, as Roland states in his Petition, citizens quite frequently are granted standing in such cases.

I’m especially interested in his arguments (3) and (4) above and want to address those just briefly. In order to understand (3) you’ve got to look back at (2). As I understand two, when Roland refers to “method” and “intent,” he’s going more in the direction of the human tinkering with the software programs used to draw the maps as opposed to what most of us would think, which is the intent of creating GOP districts as part of a method of Republican domination that goes back to the scandals of the ‘02 election cycle.

I would argue that, were he arguing any other method and intent, he wouldn’t get the time of day from the court. And, while the petition may not get much attention from the court depending upon the direction in which they go, this is an interesting point I’m not aware of having been raised before.

Number 4 is interesting, too.

In my view, much of what Roland says in his petition has merit in this regard. Tinkering with districts now could, as Roland points out, actually jeopardize candidates in districts which aren’t presently unconstitutional. Roland even mentions that candidates have prepared for the race to the point of doing media buys and that the candidates have “committed” to the 2003 map. In his view, he sees no remedy that “isn’t worse” than continuing with the 2003 map.

It’s an interesting concept, to be sure, and I wonder how some candidates like Nick Lampson and Chet Edwards would feel about this. Consider, for example, that if the redrawing of 23 goes northwest enough, Edwards could end up with a more “red” district than he has now.

If this could truly be fixed by altering only 23 and one other district, I could see how other solutions would be better than continuing with the 2003 map. But, if the situation is such that a lot of districts are touched, then I can see the argument as to how that’s worse (especially given that new constitutional claims could arise from the redrawn maps) than continuing with the 2003 maps.

I guess what Roland says by making that point is that the court must balance the disenfranchisement of the Hispanics unlawfully moved from CD-23 with the interests of the candidates and voters in the other 31 districts that could be impacted. That’s a lot of balancing to do. But, if the court accepted a plan like that, then voters affected by the CD-23 debacle would have another constitutional claim in that the gerrymander isn’t being fixed quick enough.

An interesting petition, to say the least. Not sure that it will go anywhere, but interesting anyway.

Anyway, as I was cleaning up my inbox today, I noticed an email that came in at about 1 a.m. this morning. It looked suspiciously like a bunch of spam I’ve been getting lately where the email messages actually have subjects that look legitimate but their bodies are actually images (to fight the spamblockers) that tell you about wonderful “no-risk” stocks in which to invest.

I decided to click on this one to make sure it got added to the crappy filters I’ve got in place and it turned out to be a legitimate email to me from someone calling themselves “The Red Viewer.” The Red Viewer is, in real life, the thing you use to view (and, I guess, design) the redistricting maps.

The Red Viewer claims to be an “insider” (who doesn’t) that knows someone who has intimate, behind-the-scenes knowledge of the plans the state will submit to the three-judge panel later this month to rectify the problems within CD-23 that the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional.

Normally, I don’t do much with tips from people that haven’t been tipsters before; it’s too hard to prove if they are reliable, truthful, or just crazy assbag, batshit, rightwingers who want to see something they wrote on a blog but are too afraid to blog themselves.

However, Red Viewer’s claims are so damned amusing and outlandish I felt that they were at least worthy of publishing…for amusement. Let me say I seriously doubt the veracity of one of the claims Red Viewer claims. But, if they prove to be true, I guess I’ve found myself a new tipster.

Here’s what The Red Viewer had to say:

the state will actually submit multiple plans to the judges.

at least one of the plans is being deliberately crafted to be so outlandish it will force the judges to look at the lesser impact plans.

i have been told information about two of the plans. it is very general. one plan will alter only districts 23, 28 and 25. the alterations to 25 will be the most dramatic. the other plan i have been told about redraws 23, 18, and 25 in such a way that every single congressional district in the state is impacted. as you should know, this plan will require new elections in every congressional district because all of the boundaries will be altered. Districts farther north and east will see the least amount of alteration. in most districts farthest away from the hot zone, all or parts of a county are shifted from district to district to result in the alteration of every single district. In the urban areas shifts of one or two voting precincts are used to alter those district. The map will not look that much different on paper except for south texas but the impact will be felt in all of the districts.

In addition to evidently thinking he or she is e.e. cummings (the all lowercase letters), the person seems to be focusing on the three districts EVERYBODY is focusing on, so this may be a hoax. Further, if “Red Viewer” knew anything about the maps, why isn’t he/she telling us what the alterations will be to CD-25 that will be so “dramatic?”
However, I was intreagued by the use of the term “hot zone.” Is that what folks in Austin who are doing the mapmaking are calling CD-23? “The Hot Zone?” That’s hilarious if it is true.

Since Red Viewer is no doubt a reader of this blog, how about providing me with a bit more information?

As for speculating on where Red Viewer may be getting his/her info from, I don’t think it is the AG’s office. I monitor site stats pretty closely, and rarely if ever do I get hits from servers that are from the AG’s office. Most state servers are comptroller’s office employees, HHSC, LBB or Legislative Council employees, or from legislative offices. As I understand it, hits from legislators’ staff show up as being “legislative council” hits.