On January 20, the minority voter plaintiffs in the Texas redistricting lawsuit (the one that is in 3-judge court in San Antonio) asked for further discovery in the case. The plaintiffs charge that an important e-mail that is relevant to the case was not properly disclosed earlier. The state charges that it did turn over the e-mail months ago, and that the plaintiffs just didn’t notice it. This case is called Perez v State of Texas.
Also on January 20, the San Antonio court set a status conference in the case for February 1, and said it would issue a set of questions for both sides on January 23. The state then asked the court to reconsider the status conference date, and to make it earlier. The state says if the status conference is not held until February 1, it will be impossible to have new districts in place by that date, and then the April 3 primary will need to be postponed again.
Meanwhile, the other Texas redistricting lawsuit, the one being heard in 3-judge U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., is halfway through the trial of whether the legislature’s plan violates the Voting Rights Act. The trial will resume on February 3. The U.S. District Court in San Antonio probably wishes that it could wait for the conclusion of the trial in Washington. If the Washington, D.C. court finds that the legislature’s plan violates the Voting Rights Act, that will give more freedom to the 3-judge court in San Antonio to draw the districts it believes are best.
Gerrymanders 24/7 —
1/2 votes x 1/2 gerrymander districts
MORON judges – Fed / State / local — esp. SCOTUS math morons.
Testimony in the preclearance trial will continue through next Thursday. The court will then take a week before final arguments are heard on February 3.
Since the decision of that court will be appealed to the SCOTUS, the court may take some time to craft their opinion.
The SCOTUS ruling yesterday chastised the SA court for drawing districts that it believes are best, and pointed out that had the Section 5 proceedings found any violations of the VRA, that the SA Court would have been limited to remedying those specifically identified problems.
The SA court probably regrets proceeding so quickly. They have held the trial, but can’t rule on the merits of the case until after the DC court issues its ruling. But they are expected somehow to draw a map that can’t take into account claims that they haven’t ruled on, but are expected to take them into account at the same time.
Were there no Section 5, there would already be a remedial plan (if necessary), the primary would be on schedule, and the appeals working their way through the court system.
Of the 150 house seats, 31 senate seats, and 36 congressional seats X 2 parties, only 21% would have contested primaries. 36% have no filed candidates. There is no reason to delay the presidential, senatorial, 8 other statewide races, and quite numerous judicial and county races for elections that are actually quite limited in scope.
A shortened filing period on newly revealed lines will make it less likely that voters will be able to actually choose their representatives. For example, Texas has a restriction on an incumbent withdrawing immediately before the filing deadline. An incumbent likely scares off challengers, and then if he withdraws just before the filing deadline, his crony would be able to run unopposed. Under Texas law, there is an extended filing period in such instances. But that has already been shortened.
In other instances, a long term incumbent indicated their intent not to seek re-election last summer. There had not been a seriously contested election, primary or general in over a decade. So the early announcement made it likely that several candidates would run, and the voters could choose who they preferred. The interim court said that it was “fortunate” that the incumbent had resigned, so that they could eliminate the district, and “disburse” (sic) the voters among other districts. The candidates would have to quickly have to assess their chances where they might be facing a new incumbent.
How about 100 percent absentee votes to save the suffering taxpayers a little cash ???
Again see 1996 in Texas due to Bush v. Vera JUNE 1996 —
NO primary.
The general election was the primary / conditional election – if a winner got a district majority.
If not, then there was a Dec 1996 top 2 runoff.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
ONE election per year
NO moron robot party hack primaries, caucuses and conventions — all moron stuff from the Dark Age.
#3 There was a primary in March 1996. After the SCOTUS decision in Bush v Vera, some of the congressional districts were redrawn, the primary results discarded, and a special election was held in those districts concurrent with the general election in November.
Of course, all the other primary results for other districts and offices were used.
At this point, the best would be to go ahead with all the other primaries, except the congressional and legislative primaries. They might be able to catch up by the time of the runoff in June.
If they do try to hold congressional and legislative primaries now, they are likely to end up with a muddle like 1996.
Texas doesn’t have party registration, so you would have to send both primary ballots out by mail and let the voter send one back in. Absentee ballots tend to disappear out of mailboxes in some parts of Texas – and there are some folks who are all too helpful in helping other voters vote.