On December 12, both sides in Perez v State of Texas, 5:11-cv-00360, the case over redistricting for Congress and state legislature, asked the U.S. District Court in San Antonio to delay filing deadlines for candidates for U.S. House and state legislature. However, the two sides took opposing positions on whether there should be any delay for other partisan offices. Texas boundaries for U.S. House and state legislature cannot be known until next year, because the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing the case over the district boundaries on January 9, so it is obvious to everyone that filing for primaries for U.S. House and state legislature must be postponed.

The League of United Latin American Citizens filed a four-page brief, arguing that it would be very undesirable for Texas to hold a March 6 primary for statewide office and local office, and then another primary later on for U.S. House and legislative offices. The League points out that if Texas holds separate primaries, then Texans would be asked to go to the polls six times in 2012: (1) a March 6 primary for statewide and local office; (2) an April 13 run-off primary for those offices; (3) a May 12 election for non-partisan city and town office, which by law cannot be combined with any partisan primary; (4) a primary on an undetermined date for U.S. House and state legislature; (5) a run-off primary for those offices; (6) the general election in November 2012. The brief argues that this would be very expensive for election administration, would cause voter fatigue, and would be especially damaging to low income and working voters.

The state’s brief merely asks the court to provide a later filing period for candidates for U.S. House and state legislature, but not to tamper with the normal schedule for statewide office and local partisan office. The state’s brief implicitly seems to support the idea of separate primaries, because it does not ask that filing for statewide office and local partisan office be postponed.

The 3 judges will hold a status conference on December 13 at 10 a.m., and presumably will shortly afterwards issue a ruling on filing deadlines, and probably also a ruling on whether the March primary should be moved to a later date for all office, or just for U.S. House and legislature.

No one in this lawsuit seems to have mentioned anything about the effects of all this uncertainty on independent candidates and on political parties that expect to petition for a place on the ballot. Such petitioning is not permitted until after the partisan primaries are over.

On December 12, U.S. District Court Judge Gary Sharpe held another hearing in U.S. v State of New York, 10-cv-1214. This is the lawsuit over New York state’s non-compliance with the 2009 federal law that says states must mail overseas absentee ballots at least 45 days before any federal primary or federal election. Judge Sharpe said, after hearing from both sides, that he himself will choose a primary date. He said the legislature has had two years to solve the problem and that it has not acted, and that he doesn’t trust that it will ever act. See this story.

In order for New York to obey the federal law, it must cease holding its Congressional primaries in mid-September. The only solution is to move the primary to an earlier date. Republicans control the State Senate and they want an August primary. Democrats control the Assembly and they want a June primary. Judge Sharpe asked for more briefs on the subject of when the primary should be held. He said he will make a decision within 30 days. The judge is a Bush Jr. appointee in Albany.