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.

California, like many other states, prints ballots and other election material in Spanish in certain parts of the state. The California Secretary of State has struggled with how to translate “Americans Elect” into Spanish, and has finally concluded that the name is too generic, and can’t be literally translated. So, “Americans Elect” will be on voter registration cards, and on ballots, as “Partido Americans Elect.”

UPDATE: Americans Elect has told California election officials that it wants its name translated into Spanish, so the Secretary of State is reconsidering.

On January 18, a Virginia legislative committee defeated HB 36. The bill would have required parties to pay the election-administration costs of their own primaries. The vote was 3-3. If the bill had been enacted, it is likely that the major parties would have switched most of their nominations to conventions.

The Committee has five Republicans and two Democrats. Both Democrats, James Scott and Lionell Spruill, voted “no.” Three of the Republicans voted for the bill: Mark Cole, R. Steven Landes, and John O’Bannon. One Republican, Israel O’Quinn, voted “no”. One Republican, Robert Bell, didn’t vote.