MSM Redistricting Coverage

I did my best not to read any MainStream Media Redistricting coverage when writing the last post. I finally had to break down and look at a Chron story and a Statesman story when I saw an email on a list I’m on that contradicted my theories on a couple of districts in the state’s plan. I did, however, swipe several of my maps from the Austin American Statesman.

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;

Get Out Your Map Colors! It’s Time For More Redistricting Fun

Today was the deadline for the various and sundry parties to the Redistricting lawsuits to file their briefs and proposed plans with the court.

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.

Redistricting Plans Submitted By LULAC

LULAC today filed its two proposed maps to remedy the unconstitutionality of Congressional District 23—one of which would create up to seven Latino-majority districts in Texas.

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.

Coalition For Non-Partisan Redistricting Seeks To Intervene In Redistricting Lawsuit

Jon Roland of the Coalition for Non-Partisan Redistricting (and the Constitution Society)  who is also the Libertarian nominee for Texas Attorney General this year, has filed a Petition In Intervention in the Texas Redistricting lawsuits.

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.

Tipster Says State’s Plan Will Touch Every District

I don’t know why people who send “tips” by email send them from wierd accounts with wierd subject headings so I think they are spam and delete them.

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.

Brownsville Herald Op-Ed On Redistricting

The Brownsville Herald has a great Op-Ed on redistricting here. VERY MUCH worth a read.

ROT Upgrades CD-23 to ‘Toss Up’ Status Depending Upon Redistricting Changes

Righty blogger Right of Texas has worked his mapping magic with the 2004 results in Bonilla’s CD-23, and notes the district is now a toss-up, pending redistricting changes. Very interesting, check it out.

More SCOTUS Redistricting Aftermath: A Closer Look At CD-23, CD-28

No doubt, you’ve probably read a good deal of speculation about what may or may not happen with CD-23 over the past few days from myself and other bloggers.

Right of Texas, arguably the best GOP blogger in the Texas Blogsphere,  (and the one who makes the cool maps I’ve tried in vain to replicate) has another look at CD-23, complete with an election results map from the Bonilla/Cuellar contest in 2002.

I would agree with ROT’s speculation that if the district is redrawn in any way close to what it was in 2002, Bonilla will be in trouble.

Meanwhile, the San Antonio Express-News is focusing on CD-28, the district where Cuellar beat Rodriguez in ‘04 and ‘06 in the Democratic Primary, and speculates that Laredo may be united again in one single Congressional district (and a possible re-hash of the Rodriguez/Cuellar match up, i.e. “the one that got away”):

To San Antonio Democrats, Congressional District 28 is the one that got away. But some are looking at this week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling on redistricting as an opportunity to get it back.

Since GOP lawmakers redrew Texas’ electoral map in 2003, Democrat Henry Cuellar has shown that the district, long dominated by southern Bexar County, has a new anchor: his hometown of Laredo.

Mapmakers sliced the heavily Hispanic border city in two, placing roughly half in the Democratic-leaning District 28 and leaving the rest in District 23, held by San Antonio Republican Henry Bonilla. Previously, the latter had taken in all of Laredo.

The high court on Wednesday upheld the 2003 electoral map except for District 23, ruling that shifting about 100,000 Hispanics out of Bonilla’s territory stepped on minority voting rights. The map must be redrawn, which could ultimately force new elections in the 23rd congressional district and at least five others affected by the alterations — including Cuellar’s 28th and District 25, represented by Democrat Lloyd Doggett.

Some local Democrats hope to see Laredo dropped from District 28 in the remapping process, which starts with parties in the case filing their proposed remedies in federal court by July 14.

Some, like Democratic State Rep. Richard Raymond (D-Laredo) think Laredo will be reunited, while Congressman Cuellar (D-Laredo), thinks the city will remain split. I love Cuellar’s quote, too:

“It’s a possibility — but not likely,” he said. “There could be a situation where I’m not even affected. … There’s nothing magical about Laredo Hispanics.”

Irregardless of the magical properties of Laredo’s Hispanics, they are pretty much the “magic” key to fixing the districts. While Cuellar is technically correct in that additional Hispanics could be pulled in from the Odessa area to correct the problem of minority strength dilution, I don’t think that’s the kind of fix the high court intended.
And, though we’re probably months from a real solution to this (and probably at least one more lawsuit away as well, speculation is running rampant about who might run in the reconfigured districts:

But if Laredo is drawn out of the district, Rodriguez is ready to pounce.

“If the lines come down in a way that San Antonio is the base,” he said, “I’ll be running.”

However, some followers and practitioners of South Side politics contend that Rodriguez could have less support than he amassed in the past, saying his losses to Cuellar exposed shortcomings as a campaigner and fundraiser.

But Democratic consultant James Aldrete, who worked on Rodriguez’s primary campaign, rejected the notion that he would be a wounded candidate. In Bexar County, Aldrete noted, Rodriguez captured 74 percent of the vote in the primary.

Still, other contenders could step up.

Raymond said former City Councilman Julián Castro — who endorsed Raymond in his aborted bid for the District 28 seat — would make a strong candidate. And a person close to Castro said he’d consider entering the race if the focal point moves back to San Antonio.

Castro doesn’t live within the district as it’s currently drawn, but congressional candidates can run as non-residents.

Good Lord. I love speculation but I think it’s a bit premature to start calling out potential candidates when we don’t even know if this will in fact be fixed this election cycle.

Bear in mind that after all sides submit their remedies to the three judge panel, the three judge panel still has to rule. Not only will the “new” new map require DOJ clearance, the possibility of further lawsuits—and possibly injunctions preventing implementation of new maps, injunctions preventing use of the current maps and even a round of legislative redistricting—and appeals is an almost-given reality.

Folks, there is a real possibility this mess will still be before the courts by the 2008 election cycle.

If you don’t believe me, consider this:

•The targeted populations for these congressional districts is 651,619/651,620.

•With the figure of “100,000″ minority voters gerrymandered out of CD-23, that amounts to roughly 1/6th of the population of a congressional district.

Shifting a population equal to the amount of 1/6th of the population of a single congressional district will not just impact one single congressional district, or the congressional district the population is shifted from.

By nature, it’s going to impact a large group of districts or the entire map.

Think about it this way:

Let us say you have 10 envelopes of coins. Each one contains an equal amount of coins, say 100. Some of the envelopes contain a fairly equal number of quarters, pennies, nickles, dimes, and half-dollars. Some envelopes contain almost all quarters and only a smattering of pennies, nickles, dimes and half-dollars. Some envelopes contain almost all pennies and nothing else; some contain almost all half-dollars.

Say one envelope contains 90 quarters, two pennies, a half-dollar, two dimes, and three nickles and two pennies. Another envelope contains 60 quarters, and the rest pennies, nickles, and dimes.

Suppose I tell you to that the envelope with the 60 quarters (a composition of 60 percent quarters) and to make it an envelope with 70 percent quarters, but that however you do it, the envelope with the 90 quarters still has to end up with 100 coins in it, and that the quarter-to-dime-to-nickle-to-penny ratio of the other envelopes needs to stay relatively the same.

What are you going to do? You can do one of two things, you can start trimming a little from all of the other 9 envelopes and proportionately replacing what you take with coins of other denominations.

But, in lieu of tinkering with all 10 envelopes you can just set aside a few—say, five—of the envelopes and you can tinker with the five coins in those envelopes only. What will happen? You’ll change the make-up of those envelopes.

Under which circumstances will they change more? Clearly, if you do a redistribution from all of the envelopes at once, the  makeup of most envelopes will change only slightly with only one or two changing the most (the ones with the most quarters, perhaps).

However, if you just isolate a few of the envelopes, the makeups of the envelopes will change drastically because you  have less coins to shift around in a smaller area.

If the parties redrawing this map (be it the plaintiffs and the state, the lege, or the judges) set out to do so by changing the least number of districts possible, then the boundaries of those districts will change dramatically. If, however, a true “dominoe” effect is had, with a little shaved off in a lot of places after major changes are made to only two districts, more districts will change but less districts will change dramatically.

If you can follow that logic, you can understand why this is one heck of a thorn-infested thicket we are about to delve into.

Regardless of how this is done, there is nothing to say that the new map won’t result in litigation like the current one did.

Just because this has gone before the Supreme Court doesn’t mean that litigation can’t erupt over the makeup of the new districts.

The current map, in my opinion, made a mess of West Texas.

Because of El Paso’s population, you’ve pretty much got to have 16 structured like it is; CD-11 is a god awful mess that looks like the teeth of a jack-o’-lantern grouping Fredricksburg and Lampassas with Midland and Odessa, CD-19 that looks like it was drawn by a cat with finger paints after rolling in a bed of catnip for hours on end…not to mention 20, 21, 28 and 23 all sectoring Bexar County which should be split into as few Congressional Districts as possible to begin with, as should have been done with Austin.

Consider that, with this map that looks like a child threw up on a blank county map of Texas after eating a box of finger paints, you’ve got to shift around 100,000 people of a specific ethnicity and tell me it’s not going to cause a domino effect.

A district that cedes territory to another district because of the population in that district has to pick up population from another district somewhere by adding the territory with the population it picks up. To think that an adjacent district can be found with the needed population and that territory can as a result just be shifted from within the two districts is, in my opinion, wishful thinking.

It’s just not going to be that easy.

An Excellent Editorial On Redistricting

I fully expected that papers outside Texas might have a harsher take on the Supreme Court’s Texas Redistricting decision than papers in Texas might; after all, members of the legislature that approve the DeLay-backed plan are frequently before the ed boards of the major Texas dailies and I figured some may be content to use more toned-down rhetoric when discussing the decision than other national dalies.

Case in point is the Boston Globe, which published an excellent editorial on redistricting. It begins:

FOR THE SECOND TIME this week, a splintered US Supreme Court yesterday made America a little more partisan, a little less democratic.

Taking on the Texas redistricting case, the justices scattered like water bugs, producing five different opinions. A majority acknowledged the obvious: Republicans, pushed by US Representative Tom DeLay, capitalized on their new majorities in the Texas Legislature in 2003 to redraw the lines of the state’s 32 congressional districts with one goal in mind: to increase the number of Republicans in the US House. They knew what they were doing; in the 2004 election, the GOP membership in the delegation grew by six seats.

The court yesterday agreed that the motive was purely political, and that the Republican mapmakers had drawn several long, narrow districts that look like bent straws to achieve their aims, making a mockery of the compactness that is a recognized goal of redistricting.

Even so, most of the justices threw up their hands. They were staring at one of the most heavy-handed political power grabs in the history of Congress, but they said they couldn’t figure out a standard by which to declare it an unconstitutional political gerrymander.

Excellent work by the Globe’s editorial writers. And, they’re right. The justices threw up their hands and refused to “figure out a standard” by which to declare it an unconstitutional political gerrymander.

I wonder what would have happened in cases like Miranda v. Arizona, Roe v. Wade, or  Brown vs. Board of Education if the court had thrown up its hands and failed to try to figure out a standard to put a stop to injustices?

This case was no different; a different outcome, however, would have been possible had a few more of the justices had a little more courage to tred into this particular bay of uncharted waters.

Special Session On Redistricting: The Number For The Holiday Inn In Ardmore Is (580) 223-7130

Make your reservations now.

In the Pink Texas is the first one out with news that there will likely be a Special Session on Congressional Redistricting to fix CD-23.

Given that Democrats stood against the map last time, will we stand as unified again, in an election year where Republicans will no doubt use any “walkouts” against us. I think we will be.

Regardless of the constitutionality of the plan, it’s not fair. There is a difference between basic fairness to Texans and what the right-wing-dominated SCOTUS says is constitutional.

Off The Kuff has some speculation on a Cuellar vs. Bonillia race that may result from the consolidation of Laredo.

BOR has a “tick-tock” updated with as-it-happens news & speculation.

« Previous Page — Next Page »