Multiple DocumentsPart Description1 13 pages2 Exhibit Tab 176 - 1773 Exhibit Tab 178 - 1864 Exhibit Tab 187A
Perez et al v. Perry et al, Docket No. 5:11-cv-00360 (W.D. Tex. May 09, 2011), Court Docket
© 2013 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. Terms of Servicehttp://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6LJJ9Q6O2?documentName=882.xml // PAGE 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
SHANNON PEREZ, et al., Plaintiffs, - and - EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, et al., - and - TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, et al., Plaintiff Intervenors, v. RICK PERRY, et al., Defendants, ____________________________________ MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS, TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (MALC), Plaintiffs, - and - HONORABLE HENRY CUELLAR, et al., Plaintiff Intervenors, v. STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Defendants ____________________________________
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CIVIL ACTION NO.
SA-11-CA-360-OLG-JES-XR [Lead case]
CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-11-CA-361-OLG-JES-XR
[Consolidated case]
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815 Filed 07/22/13 Page 1 of 13
2
TEXAS LATINO REDISTRICTING TASK FORCE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
) ) ) ) ) )
CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-11-CA-490-OLG-JES-XR
[Consolidated case]
) RICK PERRY, et al., )
)
) Defendants, ) ) ____________________________________
MARAGARITA v. QUESADA, et al., ) ) )
CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-11-CA-592-OLG-JES-XR
[Consolidated case] Plaintiffs, v.
) ) ) )
) RICK PERRY, et al., ) ) Defendants, ) ____________________________________
) JOHN T. MORRIS, )
) )
CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-11-CA-615-OLG-JES-XR
[Consolidated case] Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) STATE OF TEXAS, et al., ) ) Defendants, ) ____________________________________
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815 Filed 07/22/13 Page 2 of 13
3
EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, et al., )
) )
CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-11-CA-635-OLG-JES-XR
[Consolidated case] Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) STATE OF TEXAS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )
OPPOSED JOINT MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS FOR LEAVE TO REOPEN THE RECORD TO PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE
NOW COME all Plaintiffs and file this opposed joint motion for leave to reopen the
record to provide supplemental evidence.1 In support of this motion, Plaintiffs show:
1) On July 1, 2013, the Court issued an order directing any parties who “wish to offer
any evidence from the D.C. trial proceedings as evidence on the issues being litigated
herein, . . . [to]: (1) file a designation chart of the portions of the D.C. record they are
offering; (2) electronically file one complete copy of the actual record excerpts that
have been listed in the chart; and (3) deliver one courtesy copy of the chart and the
actual record excerpts to the chambers of each judge on the panel,” by July 22, 2013.
Dkt. 772 at 2. Per the Court’s request, Plaintiffs jointly file the attached evidentiary
designation chart, including “a brief explanation of the significance of [each
designated] document as it relates to the issues being litigated herein,” and the
1 The joint Movants here include: Shannon Perez, et al., the Mexican American Legislative Caucus of the Texas House of Representatives, the Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force, et al., the Texas Democratic Party, Congressman Cuellar, Congresspersons Johnson, Jackson-Lee and Green, Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches, et al., Margarita Quesada, et al., National LULAC, et al., and Eddie Rodriguez, et al. Each plaintiff joins the designations made by other plaintiffs.
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815 Filed 07/22/13 Page 3 of 13
4
accompanying documents. Id.; see Ex. 1 (designation chart), 2-95 (supplemental
exhibits).
2) In deciding whether to re-open the record in a particular case, courts consider “the
importance and probative value of the evidence, the reason for the moving party’s
failure to introduce the evidence earlier, and the possibility of prejudice to the non-
moving party.” Garcia v. Woman’s Hosp. of Tex., 97 F.3d 810, 814 (5th Cir. 1996);
see also Tate v. Starks, 444 F. App'x 720, 724 (5th Cir. 2011); U.S. v. Parker, 73 F.3d
48, 53 (5th Cir. 1996), reh’g granted, 80 F.3d 1042 (5th Cir. 1996), reinstated in
relevant part, 104 F.3d 72 (5th Cir. 1997) (similarly finding that on a motion to
reopen the record, a court “must consider the timeliness of the motion, the character
of the testimony, and the effect of the granting of the motion.”). All of these factors
weigh in favor of reopening the record to incorporate the evidence offered by
Plaintiffs here.
3) The litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (“D.C. court”)
and before this Court concerns the same 2011 Texas redistricting plans. Both cases
included claims under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973, et seq. and
dealt with similar issues of intentional racial discrimination and minority vote
dilution. For this reason, both courts requested and heard evidence on the
redistricting process and the effect of the newly-adopted boundaries on racial
minority voters. Thus, the evidence from the D.C. court trial offered here is highly
relevant to and probative of the claims remaining before this Court. See Garcia, 97
F.3d at 814.
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815 Filed 07/22/13 Page 4 of 13
5
4) The evidence Plaintiffs seek to admit is not cumulative of the evidence in this case.
See Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 179 (1997) (finding that relevant
evidence may not be excluded because other evidence related to it has rendered it
“irrelevant;” inadmissibility must rest on other grounds). Plaintiffs have ensured that
their new evidence is not already in the record in this case and have focused on
providing the Court evidence that was provided to Plaintiffs by the State following
the trial in this case.
5) Although Plaintiffs were diligent in providing evidence during trial in this case, the
State provided additional documents to Plaintiffs for the D.C. court litigation. See
Mem. Op. on Privilege Claims, Dkt. 128, Texas v. United States, No. 1:11-cv-1303
(D.D.C. Jan. 2, 2012). Unlike in United States v. Thetford, where a motion to reopen
was denied, in part, because defendant previously had access to relevant evidence but
failed to make an effort to gather it, here, Plaintiffs did not have access to the
evidence they seek to introduce until after the trial in this case and shortly before trial
in the D.C. court. 676 F.2d 170, 182 (5th Cir. 1982) disapproved on other grounds by
United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160 (5th Cir. 1994). This evidence includes
statements by legislators, staff and lobbyists regarding the enacted redistricting plans
and is relevant to claims of vote dilution and intentional discrimination here.
6) The evidence Plaintiffs seek to admit is particularly relevant in light of upcoming
motions for section 3(c) bail-in of Texas. See 42 U.S.C. 1973a (c) (authorizing a
federal court to order a jurisdiction to preclear its election changes under certain
circumstances).
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815 Filed 07/22/13 Page 5 of 13
6
7) Admitting Plaintiffs’ supplemental evidence will not cause an injustice or undue
prejudice to Defendants (“the State”). See Garcia, 97 F.3d at 814 (“While there is
always the possibility of some prejudice in that additional testimony is being
introduced against the non-moving party, our concern is with undue prejudice.”). The
State is already familiar with all of the evidence being offered here precisely because
it is part of the record in the D.C. court, and, for that reason, the State has already had
the opportunity to respond to the evidence. The State also maintains the opportunity
to defend against the evidence being offered here by seeking supplementation of the
record in this Court with its own evidence from the D.C. court trial. In addition, the
Court has provided a schedule by which the State may object to the admissibility of
any specific evidence being offered. See Dkt. 772 at 2.
8) Finally, Plaintiffs proceeded without delay and in accordance with this Court’s orders
regarding supplementation of the record. On February 11, 2013, this Court ordered
that all parties file advisories addressing the issues pending before the Court in light
of the D.C. court litigation. See Dkt. 731. As part of the order, the Court requested
that parties address: whether “the record available for the Court's consideration [is]
limited to the evidence already presented in this case;” whether “the parties [would]
supplement the current record;” and whether “the Court's consideration of the issues
in this case be based, in part, on the factual evidence in the D.C. record, which has
already been tendered to this Court?” See id. at 4. Following a hearing by the Court
on May 29, 2013, the Court established a briefing schedule for addressing the issue of
record supplementation. See Dkt. 748 at 1-2. Thus, this motion is made within the
timeline for record supplementation set by the Court and not as a delay tactic.
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815 Filed 07/22/13 Page 6 of 13
7
1) For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court reopen
the record in this case to admit the supplemental evidence from the D.C. court trial
attached here. See Ex. 1 (designation chart), 2-95 (supplemental exhibits).
Dated: July 22, 2013 Respectfully submitted,
/s/Nina Perales Nina Perales Karolina J. Lyznik MALDEF 110 Broadway Street, #300 San Antonio, TX 78205 (210) 224-5476 Fax: (210) 224-5382 Robert W. Wilson Mark Anthony Sanchez Gale, Wilson & Sanchez, PLLC 115 East Travis, 19th Floor San Antonio, TX 78205 (210) 222-8899 Fax: (210) 222-9526
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS TEXAS LATINO REDISTRICTING TASK FORCE, RUDOLFO ORTIZ, ARMANDO CORTEZ, SOCORRO RAMOS, GREGORIO BENITO PALOMINO, FLORINDA CHAVEZ, CYNTHIA VALADEZ, CESAR EDUARDO YEVENES, SERGIO CORONADO, GILBERTO TORRES, RENATO DE LOS SANTOS, JOEY CARDENAS, ALEX JIMENEZ, EMELDA MENENDEZ, TOMACITA OLIVARES, JOSE OLIVARES, ALEJANDRO ORTIZ, AND REBECCA ORTIZ DAVID RICHARDS State Bar No. 16846000 Richards, Rodriguez & Skeith LLP 816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1200
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815 Filed 07/22/13 Page 7 of 13
8
Austin, Texas 78701 Tel (512) 476-0005 Fax (512) 476-1513 RICHARD E. GRAY, III State Bar No. 08328300 Gray & Becker, P.C. 900 West Avenue Austin, Texas 78701 Tel: (512) 482-0061 Fax: (512) 482-0924 ATTORNEYS FOR PEREZ PLAINTIFFS JOSE GARZA Texas Bar No. 07731950 Law Office of Jose Garza 7414 Robin Rest Dr. San Antonio, Texas 78209 (210) 392-2856 [email protected] JOAQUIN G. AVILA LAW OFFICE P.O. Box 33687 Seattle, Washington 98133 Texas State Bar # 01456150 (206) 724-3731 (206) 398-4261 (fax) [email protected] Ricardo G. Cedillo State Bar No. 04043600 Mark W. Kiehne State Bar No. 24032627 DAVIS, CEDILLO & MENDOZA, INC. McCombs Plaza, Suite 500 755 E. Mulberry Avenue San Antonio, Texas 78212 Tel.: (210) 822-6666 Fax: (210) 822-1151 [email protected] [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS, TEXAS HOUSE OF REP. (MALC)
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815 Filed 07/22/13 Page 8 of 13
9
Chad W. Dunn – Attorney In Charge State Bar No. 24036507 General Counsel TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY BRAZIL & DUNN K. Scott Brazil State Bar No. 02934050 4201 Cypress Creek Parkway, Suite 530 Houston, Texas 77068 Telephone: (281) 580-6310 Facsimile: (281) 580-6362 [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND GILBERTO HINOJOSA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIR OF THE TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY Gary L. Bledsoe Law Office of Gary L. Bledsoe and Associates State Bar No. 02476500 316 West 12th Street, Suite 307 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: 512-322-9992 Fax: 512-322-0840 [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR HOWARD JEFFERSON AND CONGRESSPERSONS EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, SHEILA JACKSON-LEE AND ALEXANDER GREEN Allison J. Riggs N.C. State Bar No. 40028 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Anita S. Earls N.C. State Bar No. 15597 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Southern Coalition for Social Justice 1415 West Highway 54, Suite 101 Durham, NC 27707 Telephone: 919-323-3380 Fax: 919-323-3942 [email protected]
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815 Filed 07/22/13 Page 9 of 13
10
[email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, JUANITA WALLACE AND BILL LAWSON Robert Notzon Law Office of Robert S. Notzon State Bar Number 00797934 1502 West Avenue Austin, TX 78701 512-474-7563 512-852-4788 fax [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, JUANITA WALLACE AND BILL LAWSON Victor L. Goode Assistant General Counsel NAACP 4805 Mt. Hope Drive Baltimore, MD 21215-3297 Telephone: 410-580-5120 Fax: 410-358-9359 [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR THE TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES J. Gerald Hebert 191 Somervelle Street, #405 Alexandria, VA 22304 (703) 628-4673 [email protected] Gerald H. Goldstein State Bar No. 08101000 Donald H. Flannary, III. State Bar No. 24045877 Goldstein, Goldstein and Hilley 310 S. St. Mary’s Street 29th Floor Tower Life Bldg. San Antonio, Texas 78205 Phone: (210) 226-1463 Fax: (210) 226-8367
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815 Filed 07/22/13 Page 10 of 13
11
Paul M. Smith Michael B. DeSanctis Jessica Ring Amunson Jenner & Block LLP 1099 New York Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Tel: (202) 639-6000 Fax: (202) 639-6066 Jesse Gaines PO Box 50093 Ft Worth, TX 76105 (817) 714-9988 ATTORNEYS FOR THE QUESADA PLAINTIFFS Luis Roberto Vera, Jr. LULAC National General Counsel SBN: 20546740 THE LAW OFFICES OF LUIS ROBERTO VERA, JR & ASSOCIATES 1325 Riverview Towers 111 Soledad San Antonio, Texas 78205-2260 210-225-3300 office 210-225-2060 fax ATTORNEY FOR LULAC PLAINTIFFS Renea Hicks Attorney at Law State Bar No. 09580400 Law Office of Max Renea Hicks 101 West 6th Street Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 480-8231 - Telephone (512) 480-9105 - Facsimile [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., TRAVIS COUNTY, AND CITY OF AUSTIN PERKINS COIE LLP Marc Erik Elias Admitted Pro Hac Vice 700 Thirteenth Street N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005-3960
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815 Filed 07/22/13 Page 11 of 13
12
(202) 434-1609 (202) 654-9126 FAX [email protected] Abha Khanna Admitted Pro Hac Vice 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 (206) 359-8312 (206) 359-9312 FAX [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. David Escamilla Travis County Attorney State Bar No. 06662300 P.O. Box 1748 Austin, Texas 78767 (512) 854-9416 fax (512) 854-4808 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF TRAVIS COUNTY Karen Kennard City Attorney State Bar No. 11280700 P.O. Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767-1088 (512) 974-2268 fax (512) 974-6490 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF CITY OF AUSTIN
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I hereby certify that, on July 19, 2013, counsel for the Task Force Plaintiffs
communicated with the Defendants State of Texas, et al. in this matter. Counsel for Defendants
State of Texas, et al. oppose this motion.
/s/ Nina Perales Nina Perales
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815 Filed 07/22/13 Page 12 of 13
13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that she has electronically submitted a true and
correct copy of the above and foregoing via the Court’s electronic filing system on the 22nd day
of July, 2013. The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that she caused a true and correct copy
of the above and foregoing to be mailed to the persons listed below by the close of the next
business day.
/s/ Karolina Lyznik Karolina J. Lyznik David Escamilla Travis County Asst. Attorney P.O. Box 1748 Austin, TX 78767
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815 Filed 07/22/13 Page 13 of 13
Jeff Archer
From Gerardo Interiano
Sent Friday July 15 2011 121 PMTo David Hanna Stacey Napier
Cc Jeff Archer Lisa Kaufman
Subject RE submission summary House v2.docx
Attachments submission summary House v2 GI EDITS.docx
EDITS.docx
submission summary congressional GI
Here are my House and Congressional comments have no comments on SBOE
From David Hanna
Sent Friday July 15 2011 1019 AMTo Stacey Napier
Cc Jeff Archer Gerardo Interiano Lisa Kaufman
Subject submission summary House v2.docx
House comments Just what is an informal submission to DOJ
iilntSJ
TE-004765
THE STATE OF TEXAS v. UNITED STATES et al.
DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT Case No. 11-CV-1303
DX209
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 2 of 33
State of TexasInformal Submission
Act of June 24 2011 82nd Leg 1st C.S S.BUnited States Congress
This document outlines the information provided in this informal submission of S.B
the Plan pursuant to 28 C.F.R 51.27 and 51.28 The document either provides the
information requested or references the relevant attachment where the information is
located
Section 51.27 Copy of Plan
copy of the Plan may be found online at
http//www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/821/billtext/htrnl/SB00004F.htrn and is included as
Attachment
Section 51.27b Copy of Plan Currently in Effect
copy of the current United States congressional districts can be found online at
http//gisi.tlc.statetx.us/download/Congress/PLANCioo.pdf and is included as
Attachment That plan is referred to herein as benchmark plan or Cioo in the
electronic reports
Section 1.27c Statement of Change RequestedThe Plan makes changes to all 32 of the states existing congressional districts and
creates new districts as result of the population changes in the State of Texas over
the last 10 years Reports and maps have been included in the submission and detail
those changes
Section 51.27d Person Submitting Change
Greg Abbott
Texas Attorney General
209 14th Street
Austin Texas 78701
512 463-2191 office
512 936-0545 fax
greg.abbottcwoag.state.tx.us
Section 51.27e and Not applicable
Section 51.27g Body Responsible for Change
The body responsible for passing the Plan was the 8211d Texas Legislature
TE-004766
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 3 of 33
Section 51.27h Statutory Authority for Change
Article of the United States Constitution requires that the apportionment of seats
in the House of Representatives be determined by the decennial census Because of an
increase in population in the State of Texas from 2000 to 2010 Texas is entitled to four
additional districts increasing its delegation in the United States Congress from 32 to
36 members Accordingly Texas benchmark plan was malapportioned and in violation
of the federal one person one vote constitutional standard more detailed
discussion of the process the Legislature undertook can be found in Section 51.280
Section 51.27i and Date Change Adopted and Effective Date of Change
The Plan became law on July 18 2011 and will become effective on XXX 2011 91 days
after end of session
Section 51.27k Statement of NonimDlementation
The Plan has not been implemented
Section 51.270 Affected Jurisdiction
The Plan affects the entire jurisdiction of the State of Texas
Section 51.27 and Reason for and Effect of Change
Background According to the 2010 federal decennial census the State of Texas has
population of 25145561 Texas was notified in December 2010 that it would be
apportioned 36 congressional districts gain of seats Each of those 36 districts is
ideally populated at 698488
The 8211d Texas Legislature convened its regular session on January 10 2011 and
adjourned on May 30 2011 without enacting legislation apportioning congressional
districts The Governor called the Legislature into special session which started on
May 31 2011 to address among other topics congressional redistricting
Statewide Imp act on Minorities The goals of the Legislature in drafting the Plan
were to equalize population as required by the one-person one-vote principle avoid
pairing incumbents and preserve city and county lines when possible In addition the
Legislature created an additional majority-minority district
The Plan adopted by the Legislature is in compliance with all applicable state and
federal laws and neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging
the right to vote on account of race color or membership in language minority The
TE-004767
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 4 of 33
Plan does not retrogress the position of racial or language minorities with respect to
their effective exercise of the electoral franchise
On statewide level the Plan avoids retrogression of minority voting rights All but one
of the existing 32 seats were overpopulated some by as much as 50.6% over the ideal
population The districts were redrawn to accommodate population growth and still
maintain to the greatest extent possible the cores of existing districts Both the
benchmark map and the Plan contain seven districts with Hispanic Voting Age
Population HVAP greater than 60% The Plan includes one new seat with an HVAPover o%As to the African-American communities as compared to the benchmark there is an
increase from one to two districts with Black Voting Age Population BVAP of over
40% and one district which contains 37.6% BVAP Election data indicate that these
three districts Districts iS and 30 preserve or increase the African-American
communitys ability to elect its candidate of choice under the Plan
New Districts Of the four new districts the Legislature chose to create one newdistrict District 35 which will very likely elect the Hispanic communitys candidate of
choice That district joins communities from Travis and Bexar County and results in
district which contains 58.3% HVAP 51.9% HCVAP and 45.0% SSVR.2 As was stated
on the record during the public hearings and the senate floor debate the concept of this
district was originally presented by the Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund MALDEF in Public Plan C122 In fact on the day the Legislature
passed the new districts Hispanic state representative from San Antonio publicly
stated that he was considering running for the new seat He believes the district will
survive legal challenges and that it is blessing in disguise for two cities that really
complement each other that are intertwined.3 The other three new districts were
created in high growth areas throughout the state lhe new districts are located in East
Texas District 36 North Texas District 33 and South Texas District 34
httciL www.tlc.statctx.us/redist/pdf/CitizcnshipAddendujpf
According to the Texas Legislative council
spanish surname voter registration also reported in the secretary of states statewide voter
Database is generated using comparison to the 2000 Census Bureau List of spanish surnameswhile most sources agree that the match between people who have spanish surnames and those
who consider themselves Hispanic is relatively good in Texas the Census Bureau estimates 90
percent correlation for the state the reported number of registered voters with spanish surnames
is not precise measure of Hispanir vnter registratinn Snme penple who ronsider themselves
Hispanic do not have surnames that are included in the spanish surname file and will be missed by
the Spanish surname matching technique Others who have surnames that are included in the
Spanish surname file but do not consider themselves Hispanic will be incorrectly counted as
Hispanic registered voters
htto//www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/pdf/Data 2011 Redistricting.pdf
Castro to Take on Doggett for New Congressional seat The Texas Tribune June 24 2011
TE-004768
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 5 of 33
Dallas and Tarrant County Dallas County grew at much slower rate than the rest
of the state during the last decade While the state as whole grew at rate of 20.6%Dallas County grew at only 6.7% Tarrant County grew at higher rate than the state as
whole During the course of the legislative process the Legislature discussed and
debated among the membership whether new majority-minority seat could be created
in the Dallas/Fort Worth region No plans were publicly submitted for consideration
that created compact Hispanic-majority district The Hispanic population in the
region is too scattered and also suffers from low citizenship numbers and low voter
registration among Hispanic eligible voters Ultimately new District 33 was drawn to
accommodate population growth in Tarrant County and contains 558265 residents of
Tarrant County
South and West Texas Due to the high concentration of Hispanic population in
South and West Texas the districts in that region inevitably contain high levels of
HVAP The South and West Texas districts Districts 15 16 20 23 28 and 34 all
contain over 60% HVAP District 35 contains 58.3% HVAP
Election data indicates that District 34 which is largely comprised of former District 27will more consistently elect the candidate of the minority communitys choice than did
the former District 27 District 27 is made up of excess population from surrounding
districts and more accurately reflects the electoral history of the communities contained
in the district
The Plan increases the HVAP SSVR and HCVAP of District 23 Because the Legislature
wanted to keep District 20 wholly within Bexar County4 consistent with its historical
core and also wanted to ensure that new District 35 was sufficiently populated to
provide the Hispanic community with the ability to elect the candidate of their choice
the Plan results in very small reductions in demographic metrics from the benchmark
District 20 The ability of the minority community in District 20 to elect its candidate of
choice was not impacted The following chart shows the relative Hispanic population
levels in Districts 20 23 and 35
HVAPBenchmark
HYAPSB
HCVAPBenchmark
HCVAPSB
SSVRBenchmark
SSVRSB
District
23
62.8 63.8 58.4 58.5 52.6 54.8
20 71.5 69.3 63.8 62.9 59.2 56.3
35 n/a 58.3 n/a 51.9 n/a 45.0
Harris County Over the last decade Harris County grew at slightly slower pacethan the state as whole Currently Harris County contains two districts that elect the
This was request of the iueumbent congressmau
TE-004769
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 6 of 33
African-American communitys candidate of choice and one that elects the Hispanic
communitys candidate of choice The Plan maintains these districts Although several
demonstration plans were introduced none managed to create new minority-controlled
districts without causing retrogression in other established districts.5
Section S1.27o Pending litigation
The following litigation related to redistricting is currently pending
Section 51.27P Prior Preclearance
The benchmark congressional plan was ordered by three-judge court in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on August 2006 in response to
ruling by the United States Supreme Court in League of United Latin American Citizens
Perry 548 U.S 399 2006 copy of the Courts opinion maybe found at
http //www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/pdf/LulacvPerryOpinion.pdf
See Cs68 by Carol Alvarado which created new Harria County seat that only contained 42.5% SSVR and 41.1%
HCVAP To achieve thia it reduced 55CR is District 29 from 52.6% to 35.5% and HCVAP from 56o to 38.6%
Name Cause No venue
Conso/iduted
Perez Dutton and Tamez State of Texas et al SA-si CA 360 OLG JES-XR
w.D Tex San Antonio
Three Judge Court Garcia Smith Rodriguez
Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force et al Perry
gpJj
MALC State et p1
Teuber State of Texasetpj
SA-is-CA-o572-OLG-JFS XRW.D Tex San Antonio
Three Judge Court Garcia Smith Rodriguez
Teuber State of TexasgfCV-s.i 0270
397th District Court Grayson County Texas
No ii cv 544
S.D Texas McAIlen Division Judge CraneMALC State
Barton et p1 State of Texas Hope Andraden-2u238-CV
13th District Court Navarro County Texas
11-20263-IN
13th District Court Navarro County Texas
Cause No CV 110921 397th District Court Graysun CountyTexas
Barton et al State of Texas Hope Andrade
Washburn State of Texas Hooe Andrsde
Washburn State of Texas HoPe AndradeCause No CV 1so93s 397th District Court Grayson County
Texas
John Canica Limon et al Rick Perry et p1D-i-GN-is-uus6n
351st Judicial District Court Travis County Texas
D-1-GN-11-oo1612
419th Judicial District Court Travis County Texas
ii-cv-uusw.D Tex Austin Division
Three Judge Court Veakel Smith Garcia
Bianca Garcia et al Rick Perry et p1
Rodriguez et al State of Texas et al
Morris State of Texas Rick Perry David Dewhurst 11-cv-2244
S.D Tex Houston Division
Judge RosenthalJoe_Straus and Houe Andrade
TE-004770
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 7 of 33
Section 51.28 and Demographic Information Maps and
Election Returns
Election Data folder Same election data is used for all plan types provided once
Zipped files for each of the last five election cycles returns voter registration
VR and turnout TO by County/ VTD2002 Election.zip
2002 Democratic Primary_Election Returns .csv
2002_Democratic_Primary_Election_ VRTO.csvoo Democratic Runoff_Election_Returns.csv
2002 Democratic Runoff_Election_ VRTO.csv2rn Republican_Primary_Election_Returns.csv
2002 Republican_Primary_Election_ VRTO.csv2o Republican _Runoff_Election_Returns.csv
2002 Republican Runoff_Election_ VRTO.csv
2002_General_Election_Returns.csv
io 2002_General Election_ VRTO.csv
ii readme.bct
ii 2004_ElectioU.zip contains same reports as in 2002 Election.zip
iii 2006_Election.zip contains same reports as in 2002ElectiOn.Zip
also includes the special general and runoff for the court-ordered
congressional districts
iv zoo8_Election.zip contains same reports as in 2002_Election.zip
2010_Election.zip contains same reports as in 2002 Election.zip
PlanCioo folder
PlanCioo Reports folder
2002_Election folder
2002_Democratic Primary RED225 .pdf and .xls
2002 Democratic_Runoff_ RED225 .pdfaiid .xls
2002 Republican_Primary RED225 .pdf and .xls
2002_Republican Runoff RED225 .pdf and .xls
2002 General Election RED225 .pdf and .xls
ii 2004_Election folder- contains same reports as in 2002 Election
folder
iii 2006_Election folder contains same reports as in 2002 Election
folder also includes the special general and runoff for the court-ordered
congressional districts
iv 2008_Election folder contains same reports as in 2002 Election
folder
2010_Election folder contains same reports as in 2002 Election
folder
vi TflD level VR_SSVR_TO RED 216.pdf and .xls includes voter
registration Spanish surname voter registration and turnout by district
and VTD for the 2010 gubernatorial election
vii ACS HCVAP Special TabRED too Citizen Voting Age Population
HCVAP from the 2005-2009 ACS DOJ Special Tabulation
TE-004771
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 8 of 33
viii District Population Analysis with Counties RED ioocontains plan deviation statistics and verification information and district
population data
ix Population and Voter Data RED 202Incumbents RED 350
xi Compactness Analysis RED 315xii Split Cities by District RED 130
PlanCioo Maps folder -- 28 CFR Sec 51.28b1-6Maps of state and split counties with districts
ii n/a
iii Maps of split counties with racial/ethnic shading by VTDiii Maps of split counties with Spanish Surname voter registration by VTDiv Maps of split counties with natural boundaries and geographic features
iv Maps of split counties with cities
n/a
vi n/a
PlanCl85 folder same as PlanCioo folder
Shapefiles folder
Shapefiles of all 54 public Texas Congressional plans
blk.zip--block equivalency file .csv for PlanCioo and PlanCl85
Two Plan Comparison ReportsTwo Plan by Incumbent RED 335Plan Overlap Analysis RED 340
Section 51.28f Publicity and Participation
The process of creating the Plan that ultimately passed began almost year prior to
final passage The Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Senate conducted
numerous hearings throughout the state during the legislative interim preceding the
82nd Legislative Session In the House of Representatives hearings were conducted by
both the House Committee on Redistricting and the House Committee on Judiciary and
Civil Jurisprudence Those hearings are listed below and reflect the location of the city
where the hearing was held
6/2/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
Austin6/21/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on San Antonio Redistricting and
House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
7/19/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on McAllen Redistricting and House
Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
TE-004772
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 9 of 33
7/20/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on Laredo Redistricting and House
Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
7/21/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on Corpus Christi Redistricting and
House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
8/16/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on El Paso Redistricting and House
Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
8/18/20 10 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on Lubbock Redistricting and House
Judiciary and Civil Jnrisprudence
9/20/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
Subcommittee on Downtown Dallas Redistricting and Senate Select Committee on
Redistricting
9/21/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on Tarrant County Redistricting
House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
9/22/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on Richardson/UT-Dallas
Redistricting and House Judiriary and Civil Jurisprudence
10/18/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on Beaumont Redistricting and
House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
10/20/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on Marshall Redistricting and House
Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
11/17/20 10 House Redistricting Subcommittee on Austin Redistricting
11/20/2010 Joint Hearing Subcommittee of Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence and Senate Select
Committee on Redistricting Houston
In the Texas Senate hearings were conducted by the Senate Select Committee on
Redistricting
9/1/2010 Austin
9/20/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
Subcommittee on Downtown Dallas Redistricting and Senate Select Committee on
Redistricting
10/4/2010 Amarillo
10/5/2010 Midland
10/21/2010 Edinburg11/4/2010 San Antonio
11/20/2010 Joint Hearing Subcommittee of Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence and Senate Select
Committee on Redistricting Houston
Members of the public were not limited to speaking on any particular map during the
interim hearings Prior to each interim hearing the Senate Committee on Redistricting
notified the elected officials in the area and encouraged them to widely disseminate
information about the hearing The committee office has retained the notification
mails that were sent During the course of the legislative interim hearings an e-mail
contact database of interested members of the public was created to notify them of
upcoming legislative hearings That database ultimately included over 200 community
leaders advocacy groups and election officials who received regular communications
throughout the legislative session At the hearings it was announced that the public
TE-004773
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 10 of 33
record of the hearings would remain open until December 2010 in order to give the
public ample time to provide written remarks to the committees
All hearing notices public plans and amendments were posted on the Texas Legislative
Councils website www.tlc.state.tx.us All public plans were accessible through
DistrictViewer The Texas Legislative Council also maintained two RedAppl terminals
which were available for public use during normal business hours
Of course map drawing could not begin in earnest until the U.S Census Bureau
released block level data to Texas on February 17 2011 During the regular session the
House Committee on Redistricting conducted public hearing to solicit input from the
public on congressional redistricting That hearing was held on April 2011 As
mentioned above the 82d Legislature adjourned on May 30 2011 without enacting
legislation redistricting the United States congressional districts The Governor called
special session beginning on May 31 2011 and later added congressional redistricting to
the list of eligible topics for the special session
Senator Kel Seliger and Representative Burt Solomons jointly released public plan
C125 on May 30 2011
The Senate Select Committee on Redistricting conducted public hearing on June to
consider congressional redistricting plan C125 On that date the plan was voted out of
committee The full Senate considered the plan on June and sent the bill to the
House The vote in the Senate was 18 ayes and 12 nays The House Committee on
Redistricting scheduled public hearing on June 2011 to consider the original
congressional redistricting plan Once the plan was passed the Senate the House
Committee considered the bill in formal meeting committee substitute was adopted
and voted out of committee On June 14 2011 the House of Representatives set the bill
on the calendar and passed it to engrossment The vote on second reading was 93 ayes
and 48 nays It passed on third reading on June 15 2011 with vote of 93 ayes and 47
nays
Notice for all hearings was provided in compliance with the Rules of the Texas House of
Representatives and the Texas Senate The following links include hearing notices
minutes and witness lists for each of the hearings on the Plan
House Redistricting committee Hearings
Hearing on April
Notice
http /Iwvw.cayito1.state.tx.us /tlodocs/8aR/schedules /ydf/Co8o2ollo4o7oQool.PDF
Minutes
http //www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodoes/SaR/minutes /ndf/coso2ollo4o7oQool.PDF
Witness List
hue //www.capitol.state.tx.os /tlodocs /8aR/witlistmtg /ixlcosoaollo4o70900l .PDF
TE-004774
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 11 of 33
Hearing on June
Notice
l1ttlD //iswi .capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/schedulespdf/CoSoaollo6o2lo4sl.PDF
Minutes
http//www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/minutes/pdf/Co80201106021o451.PDF
Witness List
httpj/Jwww.capitol.statetx.us/tlodocs/82RJwitlistmtg/ydf/Co8o2ollo6o2lo4sl.PDF
Hearing on June
Notice
http/mnsu .cayitol.state.tx.os/tlodocs/82R/schedules/pdf/CoSo2ollo6oQoQool.PDF
Minutes
htpjycaitoLstate.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/minutes/pdf/Co8o2o11o6oQogoo1.PDF
Senate Select Committee on Redistricting
Hearing on June
Notice
hijw /www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/schedulcs/ndf/C6252o11o6o.s0000l.PDF
Minutes
hun //wwo .capitol.state.txus/t1odocs/S2RJmioutes/pdf/C62.c2o11o6otogoo1.PDF
Witness List
http //\%\vss .capitol.state.tx us/tiodocs /82R/witlistnltg/pdf/C62s2ollo6o30900l.PDF
51.28g1 Public Availability of Submission
The Attorney General issued press release on XXXX date indicating that lawsuit has
been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking
pre clearance of the Plan and that this informal submission was transmitted to the DOJ
copy of that press release can be found online at www.texasattorneygeneral.gov
Members of the public were informed that they may provide comment by contacting the
Office of the Attorney General via e-mail at greg.abbott@ oag.state.tx.us or via telephone
at 800252-Soil
s1.28g2 Electronic Availability of Submission
The Attorney General has made the data included in this submission available on the
OAGs website at www.texasattorneygeneral.gov
51.28h Minority Group Contacts
The following individuals reside in the State of Texas and are familiar with the proposed
change and were active in the political process by which the Plan was adopted comment Similar to the House
submission would list the mino ity members of
the committee specifically Villa cal who was eally
helpful in drawing C035 as well as Nina and Luis
from MALDgP talked to both of them about the
congressional districts long before esen started
working in the legislature
10
TE-004775
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 12 of 33
State of Texas
Informal Submission
Act of May 23 2011 82nd Leg R.S H.B 150Texas House of Representatives
This document outlines the information provided in this informal submission of H.B
i5othe Plan pursuant to 28 C.F.R 51.27 and 51.28 The document either provides
the information requested or references the relevant attachment where the information
is located
Section 51.27 Copy of Plan
copy of the Plan may be found online at
http //www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/html/HBootcoF.htm
and is included as Attachment
Section 51.27b Copy of Plan Currently in Effect
copy of the current State House of Representatives districts can be found online at
http //gisi.tlc.state.tx.us/download/House/PLANH100.ydf
and is included as Attachment That plan is referred to herein as benchmark planor Hioo in the electronic reports
Section 1.27c Statement of Change RequestedThe Plan makes changes to all 150 of the states house district boundaries Reports and
maps have been included in the submission and detail those changes
Section 51.27d Person Submitting
Greg Abbott
Texas Attorney General
209 14th Street
Austin Texas 78701
512 463-2191 office
512 936-0545 fax
Section 51.27e and Not applicable
Section 51.27g Body Responsible for Change
The body responsible for passing the Plan was the 82 Texas Legislature
TE-004777
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 14 of 33
Section 51.27h Statutory AuthoritY for Change
Article section 26 of the Texas Constitution directs the Legislature to reapportion the
states House districts based on the data provided by the United States Census Bureau
The same provision of the Texas Constitution also requires that when county contains
sufficient population to make up single district district shall be created wholly
within that county Pursuant to that authority the Texas Legislature introduced and
passed the Plan more detailed discussion of the process the Legislature undertook
can be found in Section 51.28f
Section 51.27i and Date Change Adopted and Effective Date
The Plan became law on June 17 2011 and will become effective on August 29 2011
Section 51.27k Statement regarding imniementation
The Plan has not been implemented
Section 51.271 Affected Jurisdiction
The Plan affects the entire jurisdiction of the State of Texas
Section 51.27 ml and Reason for and Effect of Change
Background
The Texas House of Representatives is divided into 150 districts Based on the states
population of 25145561 House districts with perfectly equalized population would
each contain 167637 residents Population shifts over the last decade have resulted in
wide variations among the House districts with the largest district District 70 at 79.4%
over the ideal population and the smallest district District 103 at 30.0% under the
ideal population
The stated goals of the Legislature were to equalize population abide by the state
constitutional requirement to preserve county lines avoid pairing incumbents when
possible respond to the public and advocacy groups when appropriate naintain
communities of interest and preserve the cores of prior district All of these goals were Comment Both of these were done
whenever it was possible For enample one
accomplished in the Plan that ultimately passed the Legislature comwunities of interest the were several cities
that were split up so the plaintiffs could easily show
The Plan adopted by the Legislature is in compliance with all applicable state and enamples of that As far as teh prior dint icts its
the same thing The most obvious esample was
federal laws and neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abndging Rep Veronica Gontaless district where she was
the right to vote on account of race color or membership in language minority Thewant to make sure that
you guys are aware that there going to be
Tax CON5T att 26 several enamples where this was not done
TE-004778
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 15 of 33
Plan does not retrogress the position of racial or language minorities with respect to
their effective exercise of the electoral franchise
In the Plan the districts have an overall deviation of 9.92% with the smallest district
4.9o under the ideal population and the largest district 5.02% over the ideal population
In response to population shifts within the state the Legislature created seven newdistricts in high-growth areas and eliminated seven districts in areas with slowing or
negative growth This resulted in the pairing of incumbents In order to give each paired
member of the House fair chance at re-election the unavoidable pairings were all
between members of the same party i.e six-S pairings were Republican-Republican
and one was Democrat-Democrat
Throughout the legislative process the author of the bill made numerous commentsfrom the floor of the House of Representatives urging it rnlwt various regions of
the state to work together to produce ionul member-driven maps which could be
incorporated into the larger statewide map
Statewide Impact on Minorities
The makeup of the Hispanic population in Texas complicates the traditional analysis of
what constitutes performing minority district Estimates indicate that roughly io%of the states residents are non-citizens Districts within the state particularly those in
urban areas with extremely high concentrations of non-citizens merely t1ie
contain najority Hispanic population will not consistently elect the Hispanic
communitys candidate of choice Likewise the Hispanic citizens within the district maynot register to vote in the same concentrations as white and African American citizens
So it is not enough to merely populate district at o% HVAP and expect that district to
elect the Hispanic candidate of choice As result for purposes of determining
retrogression or creating replacement districts the Legislature regarded o% HVAP as
inadequate to determine the Hispanic communitys ability to elect its candidate of
choice
The Department of Justice DOJ or the Department acknowledges that the
Attorney General does not rely on any predetermined or fixed demographic percentages
at any point in the assessment.3 Some critics of the Plan take an overly simplistic and
frankly incorrect view of the term retrogression and claim that the fact that there are
two fewer districts at the o% HVAP level is in and of itself retrogressive It was the
Legislatures position that due to the high percentage of non-citizens as well as
Comment May also want to mention
sowething here ahout how Burt specifically asked
mewbers to give input regarding their own
individual districts There were many members who
never submitted anything to us His request to
mewbers was that they give us what they want
what they could live with and what they didnt
want There were several wembers that never gave
us anything and some that would give us their
current district and tell us that they didnt want any
changes So aside from wanting regional maps he
also asked for individual maps from members With
shut said just because member gave us what they
would have wanted didnt mean that they got
esactly that We then took everything and tried to
make it fit And in some cases members didnt get
anything that they wanted and all of what they
didnt want
Comment Did you mean HVAP here or
lust majority Hispanic pop ask because there
were some members of the legislature who wanted
no focus on how we dropped the Hispanic Total
Population below 50%
http//fuctfinder.censuygnv/servlet/SfluNe bmy or nameACS 2009 .cYR Goo Sosoicteo id o4000lJS48 contextst-ds narneACS 2009 sYR Goo -tree idvoo- Ianoen-formatCONThXT st
Guidance concerning Redistricting under Section of the voting Rights Act 76 Fed Reg 7470 Feb 2011
TE-004779
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 16 of 33
HCVAP4 SSVR5 and electoral performance of the district is an appropriate mclard
ii not Ii Ii to review Texas districts for compliance with Section
Even if the 50% HVAP threshold were adopted as an inflexible standard the loss of two
districts at the o% level would not constitute retrogression when those specific districts
are analyzed Specifically those districts District 144 and District 33 are addressed
within the analysis below
The states 2001 DOJ submission noted that the Black population had grown less
rapidly than the population of other racial and ethnic groups within the state This
trend continued to hold true over the last decade The Legislature faced substantial
challenge maintaining the Black Voting Age Population BVAP in the ii benchmark
districts All but of the 11 benchmark districts with BVAP over 40% were under
populated The Legislature maintained those districts and actually increased by one the
number of districts with BVAP over 40% Statistical studies demonstrate that the
African-American population tends to register to vote in higher percentages and turn
out to vote at higher rate than the Hispanic population.6 district with an
The Fifth circuit has held nuequivocally that HCVAP is the population base that should be considered in vote-
dilution claim to determine whether minority group satisfies the first Gingles requirement See Gompos City of
Houston 113 F.3d 544 548 th cir 1997 we hold that courts evaluating vote dilution claims under section of the
Voting Rights Act must consider the citizen voting age population of the group challenging the electoral practice when
determining whether the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute majority in
single member district see also Sessioo Perry 298 Supp 2d 451494 n.133 ED Tex 2004 This circuit
along with every other circuit to consider the question has concluded that the relevant voting population for
Hispanics is citizen voting age population reversed on other grounds LULAC Perry 548 U.S 3994292006commenting but not holding in dicta that using HCVAF to determine Hispanic electoral opportunity fits the
language of because only eligible voters affect groups opportunity to elect candidates For information about
how the State of Texas calculates HCVAP please see the Texas Legislative councils website
http//www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/pdf/CitizenshipAddendum.pdf
According to the Texas Legislative council Spanish surname voter registration also reported in the secretary of
states Statewide Voter Database is generated using comparison to the 2000 census Bureau List of Spanish
Surnames while most sources agree that the match between people who have Spanish surnames and those whoconsider themselves Hispanic is relatively good in Texas the census Bureau estimates 90 percent correlation for
the state the reported number of registered voters with Spanish surnames is not precise measure of Hispanic voter
registration Some people who consider themselves Hispanic do not have surnames that are included in the Spanish
surname fi le and will be missed by the Spanish surname matching technique Others who have surnames that are
included in the Spanish surname file but do not consider themselves Hispanic will be incorrectly counted as
Hispanic registered voters http //www.tlc.state.tx.ns/redist/pdf/Data 2015 Redistricting.udf
The Latino population snffers from participation rates lower than those of non Hispanic black and white
populations in terms of both voter registration and election day turnout while turnout rates among Hispanics are
lower than those among whites and blacks low registration rates among eligible voters pose the biggest problem
Only 58o of eligible Latino voters were registered to vote in 2004 compared to 75% of whites and 69o of
blacks Experts attribute these low participation rates to the fact that like African Americans Hispanics are
disproportionately young less educated and less affluent all attributes that traditionally dampen political
participation For Hispanics these factors are exacerbated by language barriers The combined effect of low voter
eligibility and participation is devastating Only 18% of all Hispanics voted in 2004 compared to 51 of whites and
39 of blacks and Hispanics only contributed 6o of all the ballots cast on election day Alvaro Bedoya Note The
Unforeseen Effects of Georgia Ashcroft on the Lotino Community 115 VALE L.J 2112 2128 29 2006
Comment fG14 cant say that thisii
necessarily irue We really werent thai focused on
the HVAP number our focus was more on the 5$VR
But it this argument worts and youve confirmed
that every district that we am counting where the
SSVR is above 50% then the Ft VAt is above 60%
Im fine with it
TE-004780
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 17 of 33
approximately 40% BVAP historically can elect the African-American candidate of
choice
Statewide the comparison between the benchmark and the Plan are
BENCHMARK HB 150
HVAP greater than 6o% 30
HCVAP greater than 50% 30
SSVR greater than o% 29 30
BVAP greater than 40% 11 12
Neither Hispanic nor Black voting strength retrogresses in the Plan
Regional Impact on Minority Communities
South and West Texas El Paso County is apportioned seats in the Plan The high
concentration of Hispanic residents results in districts with unavoidably high levels of
HVAP Ails districts in both the benchmark and the Plan are populated with over 6o%
HVAP
The same situation exists in Hidalgo County Hidalgo County is entitled to districts
four districts contained within the county plus excess population shared with
neighboring county The districts in Hidalgo County all contain over 75% HVAP in
both the benchmark and the Plan HCVAP and SSVR numbers are also generally high in
that area
Nueces County Nueces County was apportioned seats in 2001 two districts
entirely contained within the county plus excess population in district hated itli
neighboring ijykccordingto the 2010 census Nueces County grew at slower
rate than the state as whole and the countys population of 340223 no longer entitles
it to districts but only two therefore one district needed to be eliminated This loss Comment 615 Not sure if its worth euplaning
why its two districts You could add something like
of one state representative seat necessanly causeu the painng of two incumbents Thethis If you take the ideal districts size of 167637
paired incumbents are Rep Raul Torres in District 33 and Rep Connie Scott in and divideit
into the total population of the county
you get 2.0235 This number was rounded down to
District 34 Nueces County now has two distncts wholly contained within its two districts since the remaining population could
boundaries Districts 34 and 32 As required by the state constitution the Legislature
adhered whenever possible to rule that county lines should be preserved In this case You did this same calculation for Harris County but
not for Nueces and think its lust as important to
adding third distnct to Nueces County would have unnecessanly broken county lines ntiit
TE-004781
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 18 of 33
Under the Plan the Legislature chose to strengthen the Hispanic influence in one of the
two remaining districts in the county Election data indicate that district will now
consistently elect the Hispanic communitys candidate of choice ueces County
contains 36.7% Anglo VAP and 56.8% HVAP Under the benchmark plan neither
District 33 nor District 34 was consistently electing the Hispanic communitys candidate
of choice No plan was submitted that drew two performing Hispanic districts wholly
contained within the county without splitting county lines.7
HVAPBENCHMARK
HYAPHBtao
SSVRBENCHMARK
SSVRHBtao
HCVAPBENCIIMARK
HCVAPHR 150
Former
District 33
61.9 55.3 60.5
District 34 6i.6 67.7 53.8 6o.8 58.4 64.7
District 32 37.2 45.9 33.2 37.3 35.3 44.2
Comment Should mention that
considering how the total population of the county
was only 56.8 HVAP and less than 50% SSVR it was
statistically impossible to draw two districts within
the county that are both above 60% HVAP and 50/
SSVR as was the goal of the legislature
Harris County Harris County contained 25 seats in the benchmark plan AlthoughHarris County did experience growth between 2000 and 2010 its growth did not keep
pace with the rest of the state Growth in Harris County was 20.3% while the state as
whole grew at rate of 20.6% Based on the census Harris County is entitled to either
24 or 25 seats Dividing Harris Countys population of 4092459 by the ideal district
size 167637 yields the number of seats Harris County is entitled to 24.4126
Accordingly the Legislature chose to apportion 24 seats and create district elsewhere
in the state where population growth was stronger This elimination of seat
necessitated the pairing of two urnbt ni
El ri uuh
HVAP HVAP SSVRBENCHMARK HB BENCHMARK
150District 59.8 55.3 22.0 24.3 25.8 26.4
137
Representative Alonzos amendment Plan Hs15 164 which was snbmitted on behalf of MALDEF but withdrawn
before it could be voted on the by the House achieved two performing districts within Nueces but in order to do so
had to split out the Anglo population into third district thereby violating the state constitutional county line rule
Representative Martinez Fischer presented plan on behalf of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus which split
Nneces County into legislative districts also violating the state constitutional county line rule
Under the benchmark plan District 137 also contained 13.7u Anglo yAP 14.6% BvAP and s% Other VAP
Comment dont know if this is worth
mentioning but the reason that these two were
paired is because we believed that neither was
protected district Since we were focused on the
SSVR lwhich is estremely low in both dist ictsl and
even if you were to take the HVAP number both
were below the benchma ks of 50% SSVR and HVAP
SSVR HCVA.P HCVAP of 60% so we didnt feel that those districts were
protected by the VRA
HB BENCHMARK HBiso iso
TE-004782
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 19 of 33
149
30.2 15.9 19.0 Formatted Table
The House proactively increased minority voting strength in one Hispanic district in
Harris County At the request of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational
Fund MALDEF the SSVR and HCVAP in District 148 were both increased to over o%from 40.0% and 42.1% respectively Comment L6181 Do you have this testimony
om the hearing It mas given by Luis Fuigeroa
Also after his testimony Vice Chairman Mike
Villareal also suggested that the SSVR be increased
in Ff0148 and Ff090
With respect to the African American communities in Harris County an amendment
was put forth by the Harris County delegation one in which there was slight reduction
in Black VAP numbers in two of four performing districts However the members from
Harris County agreed to the amendment which did not negatively affect the ability of
Black voters to elect the candidate of their choice in any district The following
districts were affected
District BVAP
BENCHMARKBVAP
HB iso
139 47.2 42.1
141 42.8 50.0
142 40.8 42.9
147 39.2 38.2
Finally in Harris County one district District 144 drops below the o% HVAP level in
the Plan Under the benchmark District 144 held by Republican contains 50.3%HVAP However the CVAP in the district was 35.1% and the SSVR was 31.5% The Plan
decreases HVAP to 48.5% but does not change the overall characteristic of the district
Election data indicates that this was not nor is it now performing district for Hispanicvoters
Dallas County Between 2000 and 2010 Dallas County only grew by 6.7% while the
state grew at rate of 20.6% Because of this two districts were eliminated in Dallas
County therefore Dallas County was apportioned 14 rather than i6 districts Everydistrict in Dallas except for District 109 was under populated in the benchmark planDespite this challenge the Plan maintains four districts with BVAP over 40% and twodistricts with an HVAP over 6s% The four paired districts were all occupied byRepublican members of the Legislature
Under the benchmark plan District 149 also contained 26.6v Anglo yAP 16.2iO BVAP and 6.2% Other yAPiv see House Journal supplement pages S2o6-S2o8
btto// ww.journals.housestatetx.us/lsirnl/82R/odf/82R0AYtsUppLEMEwJodf
TE-004783
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 20 of 33
Tarrant County Based on population growth Tarrant County was apportioned an
additional seat bringing the county total up to ii from to The Plan contains new
district District lot which contains 32.5% HVAP 27.0% BVAP and 24.6% Anglo VAPThe future ability of the minority groups in this district to elect their candidate of choice
will depend on the growth trends in that part of the county and will depend on the
ability of the minority groups to establish the criteria needed to form jLf nrtur
district.j
The House proactively increased minority voting strength in one Hispanic district in
Tarrant County At the request of MALDEF the SSVR and HCVAP in District were
increased from 47.2% and 48.0% respectively to o.i% SSVR and 49.7% HCVAP
Name cause No Venue
Consolidoted
Perez Dutton and Tamez State of Texas et alSA CA-36o-OLG-JES-XRW.D Tex San Antonio
Three Judge Court Garcia Smith RodriguezTexas Latino Redistricting Task Force et al Perry et
al MALC State et al
Teuber State of Texas et al
SA-it-cA 0572 OLG-JES XRW.D Tex San Antonio
Three Judge Court Garcia Smith Rodriguez
Teuber State of Texas et alCV ii n7f5
397th District Court Grayson County Texas
MALC State
No tt cv 144
S.D Texas McAllen Division Judge Crane
Barton et al State of Texas Hone Andrade11-20238 CV
13th District Court Navarro County Texas
Barton et al State of Texas Hone Andrade11 20263 CV
13th District Court Navarro County Texas
Comment G19J These twu tounties are where
the communities of interest was big issue We did
the best that we could to try to split cities as little as
encnthla.Thsuiszsra tsItsnit .hur it.c i.
Section 51.270 Pending Litigation
The following litigation related to redistricting is currently pending
TE-004784
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 21 of 33
Tarrant County Based on population growth Tarrant County was apportioned an
additional seat bringing the county total up to ii from to The Plan contains new
district District tot which contains 32.5% HVAP 27.0% BVAP and 24.6% Anglo YAPThe future ability of the minority groups in this district to elect their candidate of choice
will depend on the growth trends in that part of the county and will depend on the
ability of the minority groups to establish the criteria needed to form iw1 iin
district
The House proactively increased minority voting strength in one Hispanic district in
Tarrant County At the request of MALDEF the SSVR and HCVAP in District were
increased from 47.2% and 48.0% respectively to o.t% SSVR and 49.7% HCVAP
Section 51.270 Pending Litigation
The following litigation related to redistricting is currently pending
Na cause No Venue
Consolidoted
Perez Dutton and Tamez State of Texas et alSA ii CA 360 OLG JE5-XR
W.D Tex San Antonio
Three Judge Court Garcia Smith RodriguezTexas Latino Redistricting Task Force et Perry et
al MALC State et al
Teuber State of Texas et
SA is CA 0572-OLG-JES XRW.D Tex San Antonio
Three Judge Court Garcia smith Rodriguez
Teuber State uf Texas et alCV-11-o27o
397th District Court Grayson County Texas
MALC State
No 711-cv 144
S.D Texas McAlIen Division Judge Crane
Barton eta State of Texas Hope Andrade11-2u238-CV
s3th District Court Navarro County Texas
Barton eta state of Texas Hope Andrade11 20263-CV
13th District Court Navarro County Texas
Comment These two counties are where
the communities of interest wes big issue We did
the best that we could to try to split cities as little as
possible They were still split but it was our goal to
keep them together as much as we could
Comment dont think that we should
be talking about the future ability of groups to elect
their candidate of choice The Democrats tried to
focus on why we were not taking into considertalon
how the Hispanic community was going to continue
to grow and this seems to go against that
argument We simply didnt beliese that we should
take future growth into consideration when it
comes to drawing districts
TE-004785
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 22 of 33
Washburn State of Texas Hope AndradeCause No CV 110921 397th District Court Grayson County
Texas
Washburn State of Texas Hope AndradeCause No CV 110931 397th District Court Grayson County
Texas
John Canica Limon et al Rick Perry et alD-s-GN-n-ooi6ii
351st Judicial District Court Travis County Texas
Bianca Garcia et al Rick Perry et ali-GN 11 001612
419th Judicial District Court Travis County Texas
Rodrieuez et al State of Texas et al
sls-cv-p045s
W.D Tex Austin Division
Three Judge Conrt Yeakel Smith Garcia
Morris State of Texas Rick Perry David Dewhurst11 cv 2244
S.D Tex Houston Division
Judge RosenthalJoe Straps and Hope Astdrade
Section 51.27p Prior Preelearance The benchmark state House plan was submitted to
the DOJ for preclearance in 2001 The Department objected to three districts three-judge
panel convened in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas modified
the state house plan to address DOJ objections The courts opinion can be found at
httD//www.tlc.state.tx.us/redi5t/Ddf/housepc.Ddf and the Final Judgment can be found at
httD//www.tlcState.tx.us/redistJDdf/finalorderhouse.Ddf
Section 51.28 iiand Demographic Information Mans and Election
Returns
Election Data folder Same election data is used for all plan types provided once
Zipped files for each of the last five election cycles returns voter registration VR and
turnout TO by County/ VTD2002 Election.zip
2002 Demoeratic_Primcsry_Election_Returns.csv
2002_Democratic_primary Election_VRTO.csv
2002_Democratic_Runoff_Election_Retuflis.css
2002 Democratic_ Runoff _Election_ VRTO.css
2002_Republlcan_PrimaryElection_Retunls.csv
2002_Republican_Primarsj_Election VRTO.csu
TE-004786
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 23 of 33
2002_Republican Runoff_Election Returns.csv
2002_Republican _Runoff _Election_ VRTO.csv
ci 2002 General_Election_Returns.csv
io 2002_General_Election_ VRTO.csv
ii readme.txt
ii 2004_Election.zip contains same reports as in 2002 Election.zip
iii 2006_Election.zip contains same reports as in 2002 Election.zip also
includes the special general and runoff for the court-ordered
Congressional districts
iv 2008 Election.zip contains same reports as in 2002 Election.zip
2010_Election.zip contains same reportsas Hi 2002 Electioil.Lip
PlanHioo folder
PlanHtoo Reports folder
2002_Election folder
2002_Democratic_Prfrnary_RED225 .pdf and .xls
2002_Democratic_Runoff_ RED225 .pdf and .xls
2002 Republican_Primary_ RED225 .pdf and .xls
2002_Republican _Runoff P.ED22 .pdf and xls
2002_General_Election_ RED225 .p4f and .xls
ii 2004_Election folder- contains same reports as in 2002 Election folder
iii 2006 Election folder contains same reports as in 2002 Election folder also
includes the special general and runoff for the court-ordered Congressional
districts
iv 2008 Election folder contains same reports as in 2002 Election folder
2010_Election folder contains same reports as in 2002_Election folder
vi VTD level VR_SSVR_TO RED 216.pdf and .xls includes voter
registration Spanish surname voter registration and turnout by district and VTDfor the 2010 gubernatorial election
vii ACS HCVAP Special TabRED 106 Citizen Voting Age PopulationHCVAP from the 2005-2009 ACS DOJ Special Tabulation
viii District Population Analysis with Counties RED zoo contains plan
deviation statistics and verification information and district population data
ix Population and Voter Data RED 202Incumbents RED 350
xi Compactness Analysis RED 315xii Split Cities by District RED 130
PlanHioo Maps folder-- 28 CFR Sec 51.28b1-6
Maps of state and split counties with districts
ii n/a
iii Maps of split counties with racial/ethnic shading by VTDiii Maps of split counties with Spanish Surname voter registration by VTDiv Maps of split counties with natural boundaries and geographic features
iv Maps of split counties with cities
n/avi n/a
PlanH283 folder same as PlanHioo folder
Shapefilcs folder
Shapefiles of all iii public Texas House plans
TE-004787
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 24 of 33
blk.zip--block equivalency file .csv for PlanHioo and PlanH283
Two Plan Comparison Reports
Two Plan by Incumbent RED 335Plan Overlap Analysis RED 340
Section 51.280 Publicity and Participation
The process of creating the Plan that passed began almost year prior to final passage The
Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Senate conducted numerous hearings throughout
the state during the legislative interim preceding the 82nd Legislative Session In the House of
Representatives hearings were conducted by both the House Committee on Redistricting and
the House Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence those hearings are listed below
and refliect the location of the city where the hearing was held
6/2/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
Austin6/21/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on San Antonio Redistricting and
House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
7/19/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on McAllcn Redistricting and House
Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
7/20/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on Laredo Redistricting and House
Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
7/21/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on Corpus Christi Redistricting and
House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
8/16/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on El Paso Redistricting and House
Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
8/18/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on Lubbock Redistricting and House
Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
9/20/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
Subcommittee on Downtown Dallas Redistricting and Senate Select Committee on
Redistricting
9/21/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on Tarrant County Redistricting
House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
9/22/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on Richardson/UT-Dallas
Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
10/18/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on Beaumont Redistricting and
House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
10/20/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on Marshall Redistricting and House
Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
11/17/2010 House Redistricting Subcommittee on Austin Redistricting
11/20/2010 Joint Hearing Subcommittee of Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence and Senate Select
Committee on Redistricting Houston
In the Texas Senate hearings were conducted by the Senate Select Committee on Redistricting
9/1/2010 Austin
TE-004788
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 25 of 33
9/20/20 10 Joint Hearing House Redistricting House Jndiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
Subcommittee on Downtown Dallas Redistricting and Senate Select Committee on
Redistricting
10/4/2010 Amarillo
10/5/2010 Midland
10/21/2010 Edinburg11/4/2010 San Antonio
11/20/2010 Joint Hearing Subcommittee of Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence and Senate Select
Committee on Redistricting Houston
All hearing notices public plans and amendments were posted on the Texas Legislative
Councils website www.tlc.state.tx.us and all public pians were accessible through
DistrictViewer The Texas Legislative Council also maintained two RedAppl terminals
which were available for public use during normal business hours
During the course of the legislative interim hearings an e-mail contact database of
interested members of the public was created to notify them of upcoming legislative
hearings That database ultimately included over 200 community leaders advocacy
groups and election officials who received regular communications throughout the
legislative session At the hearings it was announced that the public record on the
hearings would remain open until December 2010 in order to give the public ample
time to provide written remarks to the committees
Maps could not be drawn in earnest until the U.S Census released block-level data to
Texas on February 17 2011 On March 24 2011 the House Committee on Redistricting
held public hearing to solicit input from the public on potential house map On April
13 2011 Chairman Solomons publicly released plan H113
In the time between the release of the census numbers and the public release of the
plan the committee staff and the Speakers office conducted several meetings with
members to receive input on the map as well as with minority groups such as MALDEFand the Mexican American Legislative Caucus MALC Several of MALDEFsrecommended changes were incorporated into the plan that ultimately passed The staff
unsuccessfully attempted to set up meetings with the NAACP Multiple times on the
House floor Chairman Solomons encouraged the members from various regions of the
state to get together to submit regional proposals as group The committee took all of
these suggestions into consideration when crafting proposed map
After H113 was publicly posted on DistrictViewer two public hearings were held
Chairman Solomons laid out committee substitute plan 134 at that time The first
hearing was on Friday April 15 2011 at 1200 p.m The second was on Sunday April 17
2011 at 200 p.m The committee decided to conduct one meeting during the week and
one on the weekend so that members of the public would have two opportunities to
participate without overly interfering with traditional five-day work week The
TE-004789
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 26 of 33
committee held formal meeting on Tuesday April 19 2011 at iioo a.m to vote the bill
out of committee after considering committee amendments The committee-approved
plan H153 was sent to the floor.The bill was considered for second reading on the
House calendar on April 27 2011 The entire proceedings were transcribed record
vote was taken and the Plan passed with 92 yeas and 54 nays Two democrats voted for
the plan Representative Eiland and Representative Guillen The enrolled version
H283 was sent to the Senate for consideration The bill passed in the Senate by vote of
22 yeas and nays on second reading and 25 yeas and nays on third reading
Notice of all hearings was provided in compliance with the Rules of the Texas House of
Representatives and the Texas Senate The following links include hearing notices
minutes and witness lists for each of the hearings on the Plan
House Redistricting Committee Hearings
Hearing on April 15
Notice
htto//www.caoitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82RJschedules/odffC0802011041512001.PDF
Minutes
http//www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocsf82Rjminutes/odf/C08020110415 12001 PDF
Witness List
htto//www.caoitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/witlistmtg/odf/C080201 1041512001.PDF
Hearing on April 17
Notice
httr//www.caoitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/schedulesfodf/C080201 1041714001 PDF
Minutes
http/fwww.caoitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/minutes/odf/C0802011041714001.pDF
Witness List
htto//www.caoitol.state.bcus/tlodocs/82RJwitlistmtg/odf/C080201 1041714001 .PDF
Hearing on April 19
Notice
htto//www.caoitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/S2Rjschedules/odf/C080201 104191 1001.PDF
Minutes
http//www.caoitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/minutesfodf/C0802iJ1 1041911001 PDF
Senate Select Committee on Redistricting
Hearing on May
Notice
httoIlwww.caoitol .state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/schedules/odf/C625201 1050609001 POF
Minutes
htto//www.cagitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/S2Rjminutes/pdf/C6252011050609001 .PDF
Witness List
WW UI t8 iUrLEME
TE-004790
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 27 of 33
htto//www.caoitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82Rlwitlistmtg/odI/C625201 1050609001.PDF
Hearing on May 13
Notice
http//www.caoitostatetxus/todocs/82Rjschedues/odf/C525201 1051308001 PDF
Minutes
htto//www.caoitol .state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/minutes/pdf/C6252011051308001.PDF
51.28211 Public Availability of the Submission
The Attorney General issued press release on XXXX date indicating that lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking preclearance of the
Plan and that this informal submission has been transmitted to DOJ copy of that press
release can be found online at www.texasattornevgeneral.gov Members of the public were
informed that they may provide comment by contacting the Office of the Attorney General via
mail at greg.abbottfioag.state.tx.us or via telephone at 800252-8011
51.28 W2 Electronic Availability of Data
The Attorney General has made the data included in this submission available on the OAGswebsite at wwis .texasattorneygeneral.v
51.28h Mint iit up Convicts
The following individuals reside in the State of Texas and are familiar with the proposed _____________________________change and were active in the political process by which the Plan was adopted Comment L6111 would definitely list Nina
Perales Luis Figueroa Jose Germ Martin Golando
the big guy who works for MALC the minority
members of the committee Mike Villareal carol
Alvarado Aaron Pena and Marc Veasey We tried
to contact Gary Bledsoe the Tesas President of the
NAACP but mere never able to get hold of him
Bonnie may also have some other people that me
visited with
As far as each of the big counties Trey Martinez
Piucher was very involved in the drawing of San
Antonio as was the rest of the San Antonio
delegation Borris Miles Garnet Coleman and
almost the entire black delegation was actively
involved in making the final changes to the Harris
County African-American district the night that the
map was being debated on Ihe floor Granted they
were not as involved throughout the rest of the
process But there is no doubt that they were
huge part of what was done that night
TE-004791
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 28 of 33
Case 51 1-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 117-6 Filed 08105111 Page 30 of 62
From corbin Casteel
Sent Friday June 10 2011 1035AMTo Geranio Interiano
Subject Fwd Jun 11
Attachments 9Jun11 .zip Untitled attachment 01 092.htm
any truth to this part
If DOJ objects the Texas federal court grants legislative deference to the map passed by the
Legislature and is required to remedy ALL of DOJs objections in its map If preclearance is
only pursued at DOJ there will be most likely longer list of objections
If Texas foregoes DOJ preclearance and litigation is not completed in the DCDC the Texas
three-judge panel cannot use the legislatively-enacted map and would be required to begin from
the 2003 map as if this were deadlock case
Begin forwarded message
From Dub Majnes dubmaines5qmaiI.comDate June 2011 53929 PM CDTTo Dub Maines cdubmaines qmaiI.comBcc wcc casteeIinc.com
Subject Re Jun 11
would like add correction that received on the message that sent earlier
If DOJ objects the Texas federal court grants legislative deference to the map passed by the Legislature and is
required to remedy ALL of DOJs objections in its map If preclearance is only pursued at DOJ there will bemost likely longer list of objections
If Texas foregoes DOJ preclearance and litigation is not completed in the DCDC the Texas three-judge panel
cannot use the legislatively-enacted map and would be required to begin from the 2003 map as if this were
deadlock caseAnd another
DOJs punch list will grow exponentially if they know we have to make changes Little things that theywouldnt have nit picked in clean map will show up on the list because of the obvious retrogression and lack
of new Hispanic seatThat having been said is there any reason why every effort should not be made to make the map more likely to
pre-clear especially if it doesnt hurt the political aims in any wayOn Thu Jun 2011 at 115 PM Dub Maines [email protected] wrote
would really appreciate you looking at this modified Solomons/Seliger map It is 26R and 1OD as is the onethe House Committee
just passed However the Committee-passed map badly retrogresses CD2O without creating new YRAdistrict CD35 is in no way VRA district it is district that re-elects Congressman Doggett whether he
receives the support of Hispanic voters or not
In the map Ive sent you CD25 is heavily-Republican Hill Country West Texas district CD2O contains the
southeast quadrant of Travis County has incumbent Congressman Charlie Gonzales in it is heavily Bexar
TE-004792
THE STATE OF TEXAS v. UNITED STATES et al.
DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT Case No. 11-CV-1303
DX210
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 30 of 33
Case 51 1-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 117-6 Filed 08/05/11 Page 31 of 62
County and is legal performing V.RA district CD35 is an open seat and is district from southern and
central Bexar County to Webb County It is legal performing VRA district
The Committee map as passed has next to no chance of pre-clearance either by Justice or the DC circuit
court The map Ive sent you has very high probability of pre-clearing at least in the DC court This is the
analysis of those who have practiced in the Voting Rights area very successfully for over 25 years would
encourage you to speak with them about the Committee-passed map They may be from evil DC but they AREthe premier experts in this area and believe it would be prudent to entertain their thoughts on this mapThere seems to be quite bit of confUsion about Section pre-clearance Section is not like Section in that
Section deals with existing maps and makes minimal changes to those existing maps if the courts feel
changes are needed Section pre-clearance decides if map ever really exists If map is not pre-cleared
then it is as if nothing had ever been drawn The courts will draw the map de novo as they did in 2001 Doggett
will be re-elected Canseco will not be Parenthold will not be They will likely split the baby on the newseats The Ds pick up net of seats The Rs pick up net of zero seats This idea of challenging the
Constitutionality of Section is high-risk poker with no discernible positive return
Again would appreciate you importing and looking at this map Please call on me if you have any questions
comments or suggestions
Thank youDub Maines
972-898-6796
TE-004794
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 32 of 33
From JetiArcher
Sent Tuesday March 22 2011 722 PMTo David Hanna Gerardo Interlano
Subject RE Nueces County
Hispanic Ds narrowly won most countywide elections statewide regional and county offices in 2008 general
like 51-49 size margins and got trounced by larger margins in 2010 general like 56-40 55-41 55-45
Jeff ArcherChief Legislative CounselTexas Legislative Council
512-483-1155
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This electronic message contains information that may be confidential under Chapter 323 Texas GovernmentCode or confidential or privileged as an attorney-client communication or attorney work product or under other
laws or rules The information is meant solely for the use of the intended recipient or another personauthorized by the intended recipient If you have received this electronic message in error please notify the
sender immediately and do not disclose the information to any other person
From David Hanna
Sent Tuesday March 22 2011 714 PMTo Gerardo Interiano
Cc Jeff Archer
Subject Nueces County
AccordIng to the 2010 census and the TLC database Nueces county as whole is 56.8 HVAP and 49.6% spanish
surname for the 2010 general election It is 60.6% total Hispanic pop Accordingly you cannot have two wholly
contained house districts in th county with 60% HVAP or 50% Spanish surname It may be that the 60% total number
got interpreted as HVAP but it wasnt am also not finding the election data to support the theory that Nueces County
as whole performs for Hispanics Thus think it highly unlikely that you can ever get two performing districts for
Hispanics no matter how you draw them but am not volunteering to test that theory
drh
EXHIBIT
67
DEFPRIV0004I
TE-004796
THE STATE OF TEXAS v. UNITED STATES et al.
DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT Case No. 11-CV-1303
DX211
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 2 of 50
From Gerardo Interiano
Sent Tuesday July 12 20111104 AMTo Gerardo Interiano
Subject Office Files
Attachments Nixon3VRANumbers.xls MapsComparison.docx Nixon2VRANumbers.xls
EXHIBif
DEFPRIV000I 98
TE-004797
THE STATE OF TEXAS v. UNITED STATES et al.
DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT Case No. 11-CV-1303
DX212
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 4 of 50
Republican Party of Texas Analysis Attached
CURRENT IXO HB 150
Analysis of Current Map vs Committee Substitute
Average 2010 Perry Abbott Lehrman and 2008 McCain Cornyn Jefferson
CURRENT
82 Districts Above 55% GOP
98 Districts above 50% GOP93 Districts Perry White
92 Districts McCain Obama
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE
92 Districts Above 55% GOP99 Districts Above 50% GOP99 Districts Perry White
98 Districts McCain ObamaNixon Map has 97 districts where McCain Obama
Voting Rights Act Districts
CURRENT NIXON NIXON HB 150
I_DIST8VAP SSVR
29
BVAP SSVR
27
BVAJ SSVR
27
BVAP SSVRI
30
i.PrJ1J2 12 12
DISTJM/RP
ALL
GOPJM/RP
ALL
GOPJM/RP
ALL
GOP50% 91 97 95 100 96 100
55% 79 82 86 86 91
60% 64 70 64 72 65 75
DEFPRIV0002O7
TE-004798
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 5 of 50
From Bonnie Bruce
Sent FrIday April 22 2011 934 PMTo Ryan Downton...HC Gerardo Intetiano burtsolomonsgmaiicomSubject Fw Racially Polarized Voting SummariesAftachments RPVA_SummaryPHl 53.xlsx
Original MessageFrom Stacey Napier cstacey.napierLoag.statetx.usTo Bonnie Bruce Ryan Downton_HCCc Stacey Napier stacey.napierthoagstate.tx.usSent Fri Apr 22 213225 2011
Subject Racially Polarized Voting Summaries
Attached are the summaries we discussed providing yesterday
From our number crunchersGiven the low turnout and Hispanic citizenship in districts 137 and 144 we didnt feel
comfortable identifying candidate of choice from the regressions but 137 seems to have
been strengthened for minority candidates whereas 144 appears to have been weakened
We can discuss this on Monday if you have questions
hope you both get to take at least few hours off this weekend to spend with yourfamilies Talk to you soon
Stacey Schiff NapierSenior counsel to the Attorney General
512 936-6432 direct
512 370-9338 fax
512 563-8324 cell
Privileged and confidential
DEFPRIV0000I8
It
TE-004816
THE STATE OF TEXAS v. UNITED STATES et al.
DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT Case No. 11-CV-1303
DX216
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 7 of 50
iii
11 ID ID
2420
10G
en
era
ljl.a
nd
Co
mm
issio
ne
r
2520
10G
en
era
lJustice
Sup
rem
eC
r1
Al
BI
DIs
tric
t40
.3__ii
co
nte
st
Pla
nH
iOD
His
panic
Choic
eP
lanH
lOO
Pre
vailin
gIP
ian
HlS
3P
revailin
g
2002
Ge
ne
ral
Gov
erno
rS
anch
ezS
anch
ez8o
.S%
San
chez
l8.8
%
2004
Ge
ne
rsjJ
Ra
ilro
ad
Com
m
2004
Ge
ne
ral
Crt
ofC
rmin
alA
p
2006
Ge
ne
ral
lit
Gov
erno
r
2006
Ge
ne
ral
Crt
ofC
rmin
alA
p
Sca
rbor
ough
Sca
rbor
ough
66.8
%
Mo
lina
Mo
llna
73.4
%
Sca
rbor
ough
64.3
%
Mo
lina
7l.6
%
Alv
ara
da
Alv
ara
do
11.3
%A
lva
rad
o10
.2%
Mo
lina
Mol
ina7
S.2
%M
oIin
a74.
4%
2008
Ge
ne
ral
US
Se
na
tor
Noriega
Non
age
79.9
%N
orie
ga
778%
2008
iGenera
lJustice
Sup
rem
eC
rtY
anez
Yan
ez83
.2%
Yan
ez82
.0%
1020
10G
en
era
lLI
Gov
erno
rC
have
z-T
hom
pson
Cha
vez-
Tho
mps
on77
.8%
Cha
vez-
Tho
mps
on74
.0%
1120
10G
en
era
lLa
ndC
om
mis
sio
ne
rU
ribe
Uribe
78.9
%U
nib
e75
.6%
12201Q
_IG
enera
lJustice
Sup
rem
eC
r1B
ailey
Ba
iley7
4.3
%8a
11ey
69.2
%
ª 14D
lstr
lct4
l
15Y
ear
Ele
ction
Co
nte
st
Pla
n11
100
HIs
panic
Choic
eP
lanH
lOO
Pre
vailin
gP
lan
Hls
3P
revailin
g
1620
02G
en
era
lG
over
nor
San
chez
San
chez
s3.S
%S
anch
ezsO
.S%
Sca
rbor
ough
Mo
lina
JM
olin
asl.6
%M
olin
aSO
.7%
fAlv
ara
do
bh
irsS
9%
Mo
lina
lMo
8n
aS
l.9
%M
oIln
aSO
.2%
Noriega
Non
lega
59.7
%N
orie
ga
56.9
%
1720
04G
en
era
lR
ailr
oa
dC
omm
Ig 19
2110
4G
en
era
l
2006
Ge
ne
ral
jcrt
nfc
rmln
alA
p
fLt
Gov
erno
r
20 21
2006
2008
Ge
ne
ral
Ge
ne
ral_
_JC
rto
fCrm
ina
lAp
US
Se
na
tor
2220
08
2320
10
Ge
ne
ral
liu
ztice
Sup
rem
eC
r1V
anes
Ge
ne
ral
it
Gov
erno
rC
have
z-T
hom
pson
Urib
e--
Bailey
1anez
63.7
%V
anes
61.1
%
Cha
vez-
Tho
mps
on50
.5%
0e
W4
ltirft
tS4
.0
Uribe
51.9
%P
tte
rso
n52
9%G
uzm
amj
52.9
%G
dzm
aS
73
2008
Ge
ne
ral
2008
Ge
ne
ral
2010
Ge
ne
ral
26 27D
istictl8
____
____
____
____
____
_28
Yea
rE
lection
Co
nte
st
Pla
nH
iOD
Hia
panic
Choic
eP
lan
uio
oP
revailin
gP
IanH
lS3
Pre
vailin
g
2920
02G
en
era
lG
over
nor
San
chez
3020
04G
en
era
lR
ailr
oad
Com
mS
carb
orou
ghtC
ard
j52r
ca
rdtf
6sl
3120
04G
en
era
lC
rtof
Crm
inal
ApM
olin
aK
eaert
O%
Ii$
Xe
asle
rSi
1%
3220
06G
en
era
lL
IG
over
nor
Vlto
4iz
.rt
3320
06G
en
era
lC
r1of
Crm
ina
lAp
Mo
lina
Keliet4
ZS
-
US
Se
na
tor
Noriega
1N
oriege
53.5
%N
orie
ga
52.7
%
35V
anes
36 3720
10
3820
10
Justice
Sup
rem
eC
r1
39
itG
over
nor
Ge
ne
ral
Land
Co
mm
issio
ne
r
Ge
ne
ral
Justice
Sup
rem
eC
r1
Cha
vez-
Tho
mps
on
Uribe
Bailey
Van
esS
6.S
%V
anes
55.7
%
0eW
hurs
tSS
12D
eik
ptu
S2
Pa
tte
rso
cU
sts
te4srs
6i5
69%
r.-
Gtizm
art
SiO
%.P
.ML
41
DIs
tictl3
l
Yea
rE
lection
Co
nte
st
ml1
00
Pre
vailin
g
Pdr
ryS
DJ%
Pla
nHl5
3P
revailin
g
sanc
hez
543%
Sca
rbor
ough
56.9
%
Mo
ilna5
8A
lva
rad
o3d
%
4220
02G
en
era
lG
over
nor
43 44 45
2004
Ge
ne
ral
Railr
oad
Com
mS
carb
orou
ghSL
3%
Molirt
a5L1
De
wflu
rst.
sltS
2004
2006
Ge
ne
ral
Ge
ne
ral
Cr8
of
Crm
lnel
Ap
it
Gov
erno
r
TE-004817
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 8 of 50
.7 p.3
4620
06G
en
era
lIC
rtof
Crm
inal
ApM
otna
538
jM
piln
a5T
3%47
2008
Ge
ne
ral
lJS
$e
na
tor
No
rie
ga
6z
7%4W
orie
ga44
%48
2008
Genera
lIjuatc
eS
upre
me
Cr1
Van
e633
Ya
rie
r%S
8%
.52
2010
enfL
jL
IG
over
nor
1lio
kn
pso
z3
2.9
%C
Pirm
zT
hom
pson
582%
5020
10G
en
era
lLa
ndC
om
mis
sio
ne
rU
rlIe
6%ljrlb
e58
7%
5120
10G
en
era
litic
eS
upre
me
Cr1
Ba
iley$
27
%B
eile
yS7S
%
52 53D
istict
139
54Y
ear
Ele
ction
5520
02G
enera
l
IConte
et
Pla
nH
100
Bla
ckC
hoic
eP
lanH
lOO
Pre
vailin
gP
lanH
l53
Pre
vailin
g
Jnor
San
chez
San
chez
79.2
%S
anch
ez65
.9%
5620
04G
en
era
lR
ailr
oad
Com
mjs
ca
rbo
rou
gh
Sca
rbor
ough
80.7
%S
carb
orou
gh69
.2%
Si
2004
Ge
ne
rLjC
rto
fCrm
ina
lAp
IMo
lina
Mo
lina
Bl.4
%jM
olin
a6
g.8
%
5820
06G
en
era
l
5928
6jG
enera
l
IIG
over
nor
JAlv
ara
do
Alv
ara
do
77.8
%JA
lvara
do
64.7
%
Crt
ofC
rmin
aiA
pJM
olin
ailn
a8LS
%1o
l1na
689%
6020
08G
en
ere
lJU
SS
en
ato
rtd
oriega
No
rle
ga
86.4
%N
orle
ga
75.3
%
6120
08G
en
era
lJiu
stice
Sup
rem
e01
Yan
ezlY
anez
87.4
%Y
anez
765%
6220
10enera
lJLI
Gov
erno
rJC
have
z-lh
omps
onC
have
z-T
hom
pson
84.6
%C
have
z-T
hom
pson
69.1
%
22..
Land
Co
mm
issio
ne
rU
ribe
tJribe
84.9
%JU
ribe
69.4
%
6420
10
Jaiii
ustiasvpre
mE
EB
aile
7l8
aile
y8
4.0
%
66D
ietlct
140
67Y
ear
Ele
ction
Co
nte
at
Pla
nH
ioG
His
panic
Choic
eP
lanH
lOO
Pre
vailin
gJP
lanH
lS3
Pre
vailin
g
55S
anch
ezS
anch
ez68
.1%
San
chez
67.4
%
6920
04G
en
era
lR
ailr
oad
Com
mS
carb
orou
ghS
carb
orou
gh60
.0%
Jsca
rbo
rou
gh
61.8
%
7020
04G
en
era
lC
rtof
Crm
inal
ApM
olin
aM
olin
a64
.3%
Mo
iina
65.1
%
7120
06G
en
era
lL
IG
over
nor
Alv
ara
do
jAlv
ara
do
63.4
%A
iva
rad
o63
.6%
7220
06G
en
era
lC
rto
fCrm
ina
lAp
Mol
inaG
80%
Mol
inaG
8.3%
7320
08G
en
era
lU
Sse
nato
rN
oriega
No
rie
ga
il.0
%N
orie
ga
ll.4
%
7420
08G
en
era
lJustice
Sup
rem
eC
IY
anez
JYan
ez73
.0%
Yan
ez74
.2%
7520
10G
en
era
l
7620
10
7720
10JG
enera
i
Lt
Gov
erno
rC
have
z-T
hom
pson
Cha
vez-
Tho
mps
on66
.1%
Cha
vez-
Tho
mps
on68
.2%
Land
Co
mm
issio
ne
rU
ribe
Uribe
67.6
%U
ribe
69.3
%
Justice
Sup
rem
eC
rtS
aie
y_
fBailey
63.5
%B
ailey
66.1
%
79D
istict
141j
80Y
ear
Co
nte
st
Pla
nH
100
Bla
ckG
olce
JPia
nHlO
OP
revailin
gP
ianH
lS3
Pre
vailin
g
8120
02G
en
era
lG
over
nor
San
chez
San
chez
74.8
%S
anch
ez82
.0%
8220
04G
en
era
lR
ailr
oad
Com
mS
carb
orou
ghS
carb
orou
gh73
.9%
8320
04M
olin
a74.
2%
8420
06G
en
era
lL
iG
over
nor
Aiv
ara
do
Aiv
ara
do
71.5
%
Sca
rbor
ough
82.5
%
MoiinaB
ll%
Alv
ara
do
80.7
%
ES20
06G
en
era
lC
r1of
Crm
inal
ApM
olin
aM
oiln
a7S
.S%
Mo
ilna
84.2
%
8620
08G
en
era
lU
SS
en
ato
rN
oriega
No
rie
ga
79.5
%N
oriega
88.3
%
8720
08G
en
era
lJustice
Sup
rem
eC
r1Y
anez
Yan
ez80
.6%
Yan
ez89
0%
8820
10IG
enera
l
8920
10T
Ge
ne
rai
9020
10
.LI
Gov
erno
rC
have
z-T
hom
pson
Cha
vez-
Tho
mps
on76
.2%
Cha
vez-
Tho
mps
on86
.8%
Land
Co
mm
issio
ne
rU
rlbe
Uribe
76.4
%U
ribe
86.9
%
Justice
Sup
rem
eC
rtB
ailey
Bailey
76.0
%B
ailey
86.5
%
TE-004818
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 9 of 50
AfB
91 92D
istlctl44
91 94
Yea
r
2002
Ge
ne
ral
JGov
erno
r
Pre
vailin
gP
lanH
lS3
Pre
vailin
g
Pe
rryS
l.S
%P
err
y64
.7%
Carr
Ilto
60.9
%C
arr
iio
62
j%
Kess
ler
60.1
%K
ess
ler
61.9
%
Dew
hurs
t62
.5%
Oe
wls
urs
t64
.2%
Ke
llerS
7.2
%K
eller
59.1
%
Cor
nyn5
4.9%
Cor
nyns
B.8
%
John
son
54.2
%io
inso
n5
82
%
Oew
hurs
tSl.9
%O
ew
flu
rst6
l.8
%
Patters
on
64.3
%P
att
ers
on
68
.3%
Gts
cmar
643%
Guz
man
67.7
%
9520
04G
en
era
lR
ailr
oad
Com
m
96 97 98
2004
JGenera
iJC
rto
fcrm
ina
lAp
2006
Ge
ne
ral
1L1
Gov
erno
r___
___
2006
Ge
ne
ral3
Crt
ofC
rmin
al
Ap
.22
.P2
Le
iU
sSen
ator
100
2008
IGenera
lJu
stice
Su
pre
rne
Crt
101
2010
Ge
ne
ral
itG
over
nor
102
2010
Genera
lLa
ndC
om
mis
sio
ne
r
103
2010
Ge
ne
ral
Just
iceS
upre
me
Cr1
105
Dis
tlct
147
106
Yea
rE
lect
Ion
IConte
stP
lan
1410
0B
lack
Cho
Ice
107
2002
IGenera
lG
over
nor
JSan
chez
lOS
2004
3G
enera
lR
allr
nad
Com
mS
rarh
nrn
ug
h
Pia
nHlo
OP
revailin
gP1
an14
153
Pre
vailin
g
San
chez
79.2
%S
anch
ez78
.1%
Sra
rhn
rnu
gh
789%
Sca
rbor
ough
750%
109
2004
Ge
ne
ralJ
Crt
ofC
rmin
alA
pM
oiln
aM
olln
aSO
.2%
Mol
ina7
9.1%
UP
111
112
2006
12
.ne
flfL
t.G
ove
rno
rA
lvara
do
2006
jGeriera
lIC
rto
fCrm
ina
lAp
MaI
ms
2008
Ge
ne
ral
US
Se
na
tor
No
rie
ga
Alv
ara
do
76.8
%A
lva
rad
o75
.8%
Mol
ina8
O.6
%M
olin
a69.
7%
Noriega
82.2
%N
orie
ga
80.9
%
113
114
115
116
117
2008
Genera
lf.iu
stice
Sup
rem
eC
r1Y
anec
2010
Ge
ne
rai
LI
Gov
erno
rC
have
z-T
hom
pson
2010
Gen
eF1L
and
Co
mm
issio
ne
rLlrib
e
Yan
ec82
.9%
Yan
ec81
.7%
Cha
vez-
Tho
mps
on78
.4%
Cha
vez-
Tho
mps
on77
.0%
Urlbe
78.7
%U
rlbe
77.3
%
2010
Ge
ne
ral
Justice
Sup
rem
eC
r1B
ailey
Bailey
77.7
%B
ailey
76.4
%
118
119
120
Ois
tics
148
Yea
rE
lection
Co
nte
st
fpla
nH
100
His
panic
Cho
ice
2002
Ge
ne
r1G
ove
rno
rIS
anch
ez
Pla
nHlO
OP
revaIlin
gP
revailin
g
Sa
nth
ez6
l.6
%S
anch
ez63
3%
121
122
124
2004
Genera
lIs
ailro
ad
Cw
nrn
Sca
rbor
ough
2004
Ge
ne
ral
icff
Crm
mn
aiA
piiiina
2006
Ge
ne
raJL
tG
over
nor
fAlv
ara
do
2006
Ge
ne
rel
JC
rtof
Crm
ina
lAp
Mo
lina
Sca
rbor
ough
57.7
%S
carb
orou
gh56
.9%
Mol
ine6
2.0%
Mo
iina
6l.3
%
Alv
ara
do
61.3
%A
lva
rad
o59
.4%
Mo
lina
65.3
%M
olin
a63
.7%
125
126
2008
Genera
lU
SS
en
ato
r
2008
Genera
lJustice
Spr
eme
Crc
Horiega
Van
es
Norlaga
63.1
%H
orle
ga
65.2
%
Yan
ez64
.4%
Yan
ec66
.5%
127
128
2010
Genera
lL
IG
over
nor
2010
Genera
lLa
ndC
om
mis
sio
ne
r
Cha
vez-
Tho
mps
onC
have
z-T
hom
pson
55.0
%C
have
z-T
hom
pson
56.7
%
Uribe
Urlbe
55.8
%U
ribe
58.0
%
129
2010
Genera
lJu
stic
eSup
rem
eC
rcB
ailey
Ba
lleyS
z.6
%Ja
alle
yS
3.7
%
11 .5 p4
TE-004819
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 10 of 50
From Bonnie Bruce
Sent Wednesday AprIl 13 20111137 AMTo Gerardo Interiano Burt Solomons Ryan Downton_HCCc Denise Davis Lisa Kaufman
Subject FW hearing schedule
Importance High
Leg Councils thoughts on the process and schedule need to know asap if we are going to change the schedule
Bonnie Bruce
Chief of Staff
Office of State Rep Burt Solomons
Room IW.11P.0 Box 2910
Austin TX 78768-2910512-463-0478
From David HannaSent Wednesday April 13 2011 1135 AMTo Bonnie Bruce
Subject RE hearing schedule
You could have the hearing Sunday afternoon and resume Monday morning for those that want to testify on MondayAmendments could be filed by pm Tuesday and then the committee can vote weds night or Thursday
The process on this is important for both preclearance and litigation People and members must be given meaningful
opportunity to comment on the plan you lay out Since dont think the senate will do much with it the only
opportunity for public input on the plan to be reflected with amendments is in the house committee phase
drh
From Bonnie Bruce
Sent Wednesday April 13 2011 1125 AMTo David Hanna
Subject RE hearing schedule
How do we get it out of committee with 24 hour committee amendment rule get committee report back get it through
calendars and on the floor before Thursday We will have to meet while the House is in session any day that we hear it if
were going to have lot of testimony
Bonnie BruceChief of Staff __________________Office of State Rep Burt Solomorss EXHIBIT
AuS TX 78768-2910
_______512-463-0478
DEFPRIV000548
TE-004820
THE STATE OF TEXAS v. UNITED STATES et al.
DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT Case No. 11-CV-1303
DX217
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 12 of 50
Case 511-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 117-9 Filed 08/05/Il Page of 26
From Ashlee Vinyard
Sent Tuesday April 05 2011 340 PMTo Gerardo Interiano
Subject Fwd FWAttachments 20110405161 622763.pdf
Please see attached It is confidential from Lamar
GOVERNMENT
TE-004821
THE STATE OF TEXAS v. UNITED STATES et al.
DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT Case No. 11-CV-1303
DX218
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 14 of 50
Case 511-cv-00360-OLG-JES..xR Document 117-9 Filed 08/05/il Page of 26
n./AOSVTIoi-C cem- Oxc ªc4roc4 cjiyoJa
Redistricting Pronosal
Maintains the core of current districts unless requested otherwise
Strives to be fair and reflect the changing demographics ofTexas
Creates four new districts as allowed by the census results
One new likely Republican district in
East Texas
One new likely Republican district in
South Texas
One new Voting Rights Act district in
South Texas that leans Republican
One new Voting Rights Act district in
the Dallas-Ft Worth area
Results in 25 congressional districts that lean Republican and 11 that
lean Democratic
TE-004822
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 15 of 50
Case 511 -cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 117-9 Filed 08/05/11 Page of 26
From Tony Essalih
Sent Monday April 11 2011 936 AMTo Gerardo Interiano
Subject FYI
The map that Congressman Smith and Eric sent to my boss last night is absolutely perfect from our perspectiveif its workable
Thanks Gerardo
TE-004823
THE STATE OF TEXAS v. UNITED STATES et al.
DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT Case No. 11-CV-1303
DX219
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 17 of 50
From Gerardo Interiano
Sent Friday December 102010411 PMTo Eric Opiela
Subject Re
They wont have 18 data yet So went ahead and asked for it for 08Well have it on Monday
On fri Dec 10 2010 at 334 PM Eric Opiela eopielaericopiela.con wrote08 and 10 would be nice 08 is probably the only practical data
On Dec 10 2010 at 916 AM Gerardo Interiano wrote
See below .what do you want
Gerardo
The only requested item we can actually do at the block level is
Spanish Surname VR Total Hispanic Population
We will generate that and send it for which election 2008general would you like the SSVR data The population stays the
same for the decade
Thanks- dare
EXHIBIT11DEFPRIV000224
TE-004824
THE STATE OF TEXAS v. UNITED STATES et al.
DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT Case No. 11-CV-1303
DX220
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 19 of 50
1
Jeff Archer
From: Gerardo InterianoSent: Friday, July 15, 2011 1:21 PMTo: David Hanna; Stacey NapierCc: Jeff Archer; Lisa KaufmanSubject: RE: submission summary House v2.docxAttachments: submission summary House v2 - GI EDITS.docx; submission summary congressional - GI
EDITS.docx
Here are my House and Congressional comments. I have no comments on SBOE.
From: David Hanna Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 10:19 AMTo: Stacey NapierCc: Jeff Archer; Gerardo Interiano; Lisa KaufmanSubject: submission summary House v2.docx
House comments. Just what is an informal submission to DOJ?
TE-004825
THE STATE OF TEXAS v. UNITED STATES et al.
DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT Case No. 11-CV-1303
DX221
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 21 of 50
State of TexasInformal Submission
Act of June 24, 2011, 82nd Leg., 1st C.S., S.B. 4United States Congress
This document outlines the information provided in this informal submission of S.B. 4 (the “Plan”) pursuant to 28 C.F.R. §§51.27 and 51.28. The document either provides the information requested or references the relevant attachment where the information is located.
Section 51.27 (a) – Copy of Plan
A copy of the Plan may be found online at http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/821/billtext/html/SB00004F.htm and is included as Attachment 1.
Section 51.27(b) – Copy of Plan Currently in EffectA copy of the current United States congressional districts can be found online at http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/download/Congress/PLANC100.pdf and is included as Attachment 2. That plan is referred to herein as “benchmark plan” or “C100” in the electronic reports.
Section 51.27(c) – Statement of Change RequestedThe Plan makes changes to all 32 of the state’s existing congressional districts and creates 4 new districts as a result of the population changes in the State of Texas over the last 10 years. Reports and maps have been included in the submission and detail those changes.
Section 51.27(d) – Person Submitting Change
Greg AbbottTexas Attorney General209 W. 14th StreetAustin, Texas 78701(512) 463-2191 - office(512) 936-0545 - [email protected]
Section 51.27(e) and (f): Not applicable
Section 51.27(g) – Body Responsible for Change
The body responsible for passing the Plan was the 82nd Texas Legislature.
TE-004826
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 22 of 50
Section 51.27(h) – Statutory Authority for Change
Article 1, §2 of the United States Constitution requires that the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives be determined by the decennial census. Because of an increase in population in the State of Texas from 2000 to 2010, Texas is entitled to four additional districts, increasing its delegation in the United States Congress from 32 to 36 members. Accordingly, Texas’ benchmark plan was malapportioned and in violation of the federal “one person, one vote” constitutional standard. A more detailed discussion of the process the Legislature undertook can be found in Section 51.28(f)
Section 51.27(i) and (j) – Date Change Adopted and Effective Date of Change
The Plan became law on July 18, 2011 and will become effective on XXX, 2011. (91 days after end of session)
Section 51.27(k) – Statement of Nonimplementation
The Plan has not been implemented.
Section 51.27(l) - Affected JurisdictionThe Plan affects the entire jurisdiction of the State of Texas.
Section 51.27 (m) and (n) – Reason for and Effect of Change
Background. According to the 2010 federal decennial census, the State of Texas has a population of 25,145,561. Texas was notified in December, 2010, that it would be apportioned 36 congressional districts, a gain of 4 seats. Each of those 36 districts is ideally populated at 698,488.
The 82nd Texas Legislature convened its regular session on January 10, 2011 and adjourned on May 30, 2011 without enacting legislation apportioning congressional districts. The Governor called the Legislature into a special session which started on May 31, 2011 to address, among other topics, congressional redistricting.
Statewide Impact on Minorities. The goals of the Legislature in drafting the Plan were to equalize population as required by the “one-person, one-vote” principle, avoid pairing incumbents, and preserve city and county lines when possible. In addition, the Legislature created an additional majority-minority district.
The Plan adopted by the Legislature is in compliance with all applicable state and federal laws and neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority. The
TE-004827
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 23 of 50
Plan does not retrogress the position of racial or language minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.
On a statewide level, the Plan avoids retrogression of minority voting rights. All but one of the existing 32 seats were overpopulated, some by as much as 50.6% over the ideal population. The districts were redrawn to accommodate population growth and still maintain, to the greatest extent possible, the cores of existing districts. Both the benchmark map and the Plan contain seven districts with a Hispanic Voting Age Population (HVAP) greater than 60%. The Plan includes one new seat with an HVAP over 50%.
As to the African-American communities, as compared to the benchmark there is an increase from one to two districts with a Black Voting Age Population (BVAP) of over 40% and one district which contains 37.6% BVAP. Election data indicate that these three districts (Districts 9, 18 and 30) preserve or increase the African-American community’s ability to elect its candidate of choice under the Plan.
New Districts. Of the four new districts, the Legislature chose to create one new district (District 35) which will very likely elect the Hispanic community’s candidate of choice. That district joins communities from Travis and Bexar County and results in a district which contains 58.3% HVAP, 51.9% HCVAP1 and 45.0% SSVR.2 As was stated on the record during the public hearings and the senate floor debate, the concept of this district was originally presented by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (“MALDEF “) in Public Plan C122. In fact, on the day the Legislature passed the new districts, a Hispanic state representative from San Antonio publicly stated that he was considering running for the new seat. He believes the district will survive legal challenges and that it is a “blessing in disguise for two cities that really complement each other, that are intertwined.”3
1
The other three new districts were created in high growth areas throughout the state. The new districts are located in East Texas (District 36), North Texas (District 33), and South Texas (District 34).
http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/pdf/CitizenshipAddendum.pdf2 According to the Texas Legislative Council
Spanish surname voter registration, also reported in the secretary of state’s Statewide Voter Database, is generated using a comparison to the 2000 Census Bureau List of Spanish Surnames. While most sources agree that the match between people who have Spanish surnames and those who consider themselves Hispanic is relatively good in Texas (the Census Bureau estimates a 90 percent correlation for the state), the reported number of registered voters with Spanish surnames is not a precise measure of Hispanic voter registration. Some people who consider themselves Hispanic do not have surnames that are included in the Spanish surname file and will be missed by the Spanish surname matching technique. Others, who have surnames that are included in the Spanish surname file but do not consider themselves Hispanic, will be incorrectly counted as Hispanic registered voters.”
http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/pdf/Data_2011_Redistricting.pdf3 “Castro to Take on Doggett for New Congressional Seat ” The Texas Tribune, June 24, 2011
TE-004828
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 24 of 50
Dallas and Tarrant County. Dallas County grew at a much slower rate than the rest of the state during the last decade. While the state as a whole grew at a rate of 20.6%, Dallas County grew at only 6.7%. Tarrant County grew at a higher rate than the state as a whole. During the course of the legislative process, the Legislature discussed and debated among the membership whether a new majority-minority seat could be created in the Dallas/Fort Worth region. No plans were publicly submitted for consideration that created a compact Hispanic-majority district. The Hispanic population in the region is too scattered and also suffers from low citizenship numbers and low voter registration among Hispanic eligible voters. Ultimately, new District 33 was drawn to accommodate population growth in Tarrant County and contains 558,265 residents of Tarrant County.
South and West Texas. Due to the high concentration of Hispanic population in South and West Texas, the districts in that region inevitably contain high levels of HVAP. The South and West Texas districts - Districts 15, 16, 20, 23, 28, and 34 - all contain over 60% HVAP. District 35 contains 58.3% HVAP.
Election data indicates that District 34, which is largely comprised of former District 27, will more consistently elect the candidate of the minority community’s choice than did the former District 27. District 27 is made up of excess population from surrounding districts and more accurately reflects the electoral history of the communities contained in the district.
The Plan increases the HVAP, SSVR and HCVAP of District 23. Because the Legislature wanted to keep District 20 wholly within Bexar County,4 consistent with its historical core, and also wanted to ensure that new District 35 was sufficiently populated to provide the Hispanic community with the ability to elect the candidate of their choice, the Plan results in very small reductions in demographic metrics from the benchmarkDistrict 20. The ability of the minority community in District 20 to elect its candidate of choice was not impacted. The following chart shows the relative Hispanic population levels in Districts 20, 23 and 35.
HVAP –Benchmark
HVAP –SB 4
HCVAP –Benchmark
HCVAP– SB 4
SSVR –Benchmark
SSVR –SB 4
District 23
62.8 63.8 58.4 58.5 52.6 54.8
20 71.5 69.3 63.8 62.9 59.2 56.335 n/a 58.3 n/a 51.9 n/a 45.0
Harris County. Over the last decade, Harris County grew at a slightly slower pace than the state as a whole. Currently, Harris County contains two districts that elect the
4 This was a request of the incumbent Congressman.
TE-004829
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 25 of 50
African-American community’s candidate of choice and one that elects the Hispanic community’s candidate of choice. The Plan maintains these districts. Although several demonstration plans were introduced, none managed to create new minority-controlled districts without causing retrogression in other established districts.5
Section 51.27(o) Pending litigation
The following litigation related to redistricting is currently pending:Name Cause No. & VenueConsolidated:Perez, Dutton and Tamez v. State of Texas, et al;Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force et al. v. Perry, et al;MALC v. State, et al.
SA-11-CA-360-OLG-JES-XRW.D. Tex. San Antonio Three Judge Court: Garcia, Smith, Rodriguez
Teuber v. State of Texas , et al.SA-11-CA-0572-OLG-JES-XRW.D. Tex. San Antonio Three Judge Court: Garcia, Smith, Rodriguez
Teuber v. State of Texas, et al.CV-11-0270397th District Court, Grayson County, Texas
MALC v. State No. 7:11-cv-144S.D. Texas - McAllen Division (Judge Crane)
Barton et al. v. State of Texas & Hope Andrade11-20238-CV 13th District Court, Navarro County, Texas
Barton et al. v. State of Texas & Hope Andrade11-20263-CV 13th District Court, Navarro County, Texas
Washburn v. State of Texas & Hope AndradeCause No. CV 110921; 397th District Court, Grayson County, Texas
Washburn v. State of Texas & Hope AndradeCause No. CV 110931; 397th District Court, Grayson County, Texas
John "Canica" Limon, et al. v. Rick Perry, et al.D-1-GN-11-001611 351st Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texas
Bianca Garcia, et al. v. Rick Perry, et al.D-1-GN-11-001612 419th Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texas
Rodriguez, et al. v. State of Texas, et al.1:11-cv-00451 W.D. Tex. Austin Division Three Judge Court, Yeakel Smith, Garcia
Morris v. State of Texas, Rick Perry, David Dewhurst, Joe Straus, and Hope Andrade
11-cv-2244S.D. Tex. Houston Division(Judge Rosenthal)
Section 51.27(p) - Prior PreclearanceThe benchmark congressional plan was ordered by a three-judge court in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on August 4, 2006 in response to a ruling by the United States Supreme Court in League of United Latin American Citizensv. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006). A copy of the Court’s opinion may be found athttp://www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/pdf/LulacvPerryOpinion.pdf
5 See C168 by Carol Alvarado, which created a new Harris County seat that only contained 42.5% SSVR and 41.1% HCVAP. To achieve this, it reduced SSVR is District 29 from 52.6% to 35.5% and HCVAP from 56% to 38.6%.
TE-004830
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 26 of 50
Section 51.28 (a) (b) and (d) – Demographic Information, Maps and Election Returns
1. Election Data folder – Same election data is used for all plan types – provided oncea. Zipped files for each of the last five election cycles; returns, voter registration
(VR), and turnout (TO) by County/ VTD. i. 2002_Election.zip (1) 2002_Democratic_Primary_Election_Returns.csv
(2) 2002_Democratic_Primary_Election_VRTO.csv(3) 2002_Democratic_Runoff_Election_Returns.csv(4) 2002_Democratic_ Runoff _Election_ VRTO.csv(5) 2002_Republican_Primary_Election_Returns.csv(6) 2002_Republican_Primary_Election _ VRTO.csv(7) 2002_Republican _Runoff _Election_Returns.csv(8) 2002_Republican _Runoff _Election_ VRTO.csv(9) 2002_General_Election_Returns.csv(10) 2002_General_Election_ VRTO.csv(11) readme.txt
ii. 2004_Election.zip - contains same reports as in 2002_Election.zipiii. 2006_Election.zip - contains same reports as in 2002_Election.zip;
also includes the special general and runoff for the court-ordered congressional districts.
iv. 2008_Election.zip - contains same reports as in 2002_Election.zip v. 2010_Election.zip - contains same reports as in 2002_Election.zip2. PlanC100 folder
a. PlanC100 Reports folder i. 2002_Election folder
(1) 2002_Democratic_Primary_RED225 .pdf and .xls (2) 2002_Democratic_Runoff_ RED225 .pdf and .xls (3) 2002_Republican_Primary_ RED225 .pdf and .xls (4) 2002_Republican _Runoff _ RED225 .pdf and .xls (5) 2002_General_Election_ RED225 .pdf and .xls
ii. 2004_Election folder- contains same reports as in 2002_Election folder
iii. 2006_Election folder - contains same reports as in 2002_Election folder; also includes the special general and runoff for the court-ordered congressional districts.
iv. 2008_Election folder - contains same reports as in 2002_Election folder
v. 2010_Election folder - contains same reports as in 2002_Election folder
vi. VTD level VR_SSVR_TO (RED 216.pdf and .xls) - includes voter registration, Spanish surname voter registration, and turnout by district and VTD for the 2010 gubernatorial election
vii. ACS HCVAP Special Tab(RED 106) - Citizen Voting Age Population) (HCVAP) from the 2005-2009 ACS (DOJ Special Tabulation)
TE-004831
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 27 of 50
viii. District Population Analysis with Counties (RED 100) – contains plan deviation statistics and verification information and district population data
ix. Population and Voter Data (RED 202)x. Incumbents (RED 350) xi. Compactness Analysis (RED 315)xii. Split Cities by District (RED 130)
b. PlanC100 Maps folder -- 28 CFR Sec. 51.28(b)1-6 i. Maps of state and split counties with districtsii. n/a
iii. Maps of split counties with racial/ethnic shading by VTD iii. Maps of split counties with Spanish Surname voter registration by VTD iv. Maps of split counties with natural boundaries and geographic features iv. Maps of split counties with cities v. n/a vi. n/a
3. PlanC185 folder - same as PlanC100 folder
4. Shapefiles foldera. Shapefiles of all 54 public Texas Congressional plansb. blk.zip--block equivalency file (.csv) for PlanC100 and PlanC185
5. Two Plan Comparison Reportsa. Two Plan by Incumbent (RED 335)b. Plan Overlap Analysis (RED 340)
Section 51.28(f) - Publicity and Participation
The process of creating the Plan that ultimately passed began almost a year prior to final passage. The Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Senate conducted numerous hearings throughout the state during the legislative interim preceding the 82nd Legislative Session. In the House of Representatives, hearings were conducted by both the House Committee on Redistricting and the House Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence. Those hearings are listed below and reflect the location of the citywhere the hearing was held:
6/2/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence (Austin)
6/21/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on San Antonio Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
7/19/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on McAllen Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
TE-004832
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 28 of 50
7/20/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on Laredo Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
7/21/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on Corpus Christi Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
8/16/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on El Paso Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
8/18/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on Lubbock Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
9/20/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting, House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Subcommittee on Downtown Dallas Redistricting and Senate Select Committee on Redistricting
9/21/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on Tarrant County Redistricting, House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
9/22/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on Richardson/UT-DallasRedistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
10/18/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on Beaumont Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
10/20/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on Marshall Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
11/17/2010 House Redistricting Subcommittee on Austin Redistricting 11/20/2010 Joint Hearing: Subcommittee of Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence and Senate Select
Committee on Redistricting (Houston)
In the Texas Senate, hearings were conducted by the Senate Select Committee on Redistricting:
9/1/2010 Austin9/20/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting, House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
Subcommittee on Downtown Dallas Redistricting and Senate Select Committee on Redistricting
10/4/2010 Amarillo10/5/2010 Midland10/21/2010 Edinburg11/4/2010 San Antonio11/20/2010 Joint Hearing: Subcommittee of Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence and Senate Select
Committee on Redistricting (Houston)
Members of the public were not limited to speaking on any particular map during the interim hearings. Prior to each interim hearing the Senate Committee on Redistricting notified the elected officials in the area and encouraged them to widely disseminate information about the hearing. The committee office has retained the notification e-mails that were sent. During the course of the legislative interim hearings, an e-mail contact database of interested members of the public was created to notify them of upcoming legislative hearings. That database ultimately included over 200 community leaders, advocacy groups, and election officials who received regular communications throughout the legislative session. At the hearings, it was announced that the public
TE-004833
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 29 of 50
record of the hearings would remain open until December 2010 in order to give the public ample time to provide written remarks to the committees.
All hearing notices, public plans and amendments were posted on the Texas Legislative Council’s website, www.tlc.state.tx.us. All public plans were accessible through DistrictViewer. The Texas Legislative Council also maintained two RedAppl terminals which were available for public use during normal business hours.
Of course, map drawing could not begin in earnest until the U.S. Census Bureaureleased block level data to Texas on February 17, 2011. During the regular session, the House Committee on Redistricting conducted a public hearing to solicit input from the public on congressional redistricting. That hearing was held on April 7, 2011. As mentioned above, the 82nd Legislature adjourned on May 30, 2011 without enacting legislation redistricting the United States congressional districts. The Governor called a special session beginning on May 31, 2011, and later added congressional redistricting to the list of eligible topics for the special session.
Senator Kel Seliger and Representative Burt Solomons jointly released a public plan (C125) on May 30, 2011.
The Senate Select Committee on Redistricting conducted a public hearing on June 3 to consider congressional redistricting plan C125. On that date, the plan was voted out of committee. The full Senate considered the plan on June 6 and sent the bill to the House. The vote in the Senate was 18 ayes and 12 nays. The House Committee on Redistricting scheduled a public hearing on June 2, 2011 to consider the original congressional redistricting plan. Once the plan was passed the Senate, the House Committee considered the bill in a formal meeting. A committee substitute was adopted and voted out of committee. On June 14, 2011, the House of Representatives set the bill on the calendar and passed it to engrossment. The vote on second reading was 93 ayes and 48 nays. It passed on third reading on June 15, 2011 with a vote of 93 ayes and 47nays.
Notice for all hearings was provided in compliance with the Rules of the Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Senate. The following links include hearing notices, minutes and witness lists for each of the hearings on the Plan:
House Redistricting Committee HearingsHearing on April 7
Noticehttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/schedules/pdf/C0802011040709001.PDFMinuteshttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/minutes/pdf/C0802011040709001.PDFWitness List http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/witlistmtg/pdf/C0802011040709001.PDF
TE-004834
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 30 of 50
Hearing on June 2Notice http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/schedules/pdf/C0802011060210451.PDFMinuteshttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/minutes/pdf/C0802011060210451.PDFWitness List http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/witlistmtg/pdf/C0802011060210451.PDF
Hearing on June 9Notice http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/schedules/pdf/C0802011060909001.PDFMinuteshttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/minutes/pdf/C0802011060909001.PDF
Senate Select Committee on RedistrictingHearing on June 3
Notice http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/schedules/pdf/C6252011060309001.PDFMinuteshttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/minutes/pdf/C6252011060309001.PDFWitness List http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/witlistmtg/pdf/C6252011060309001.PDF
51.28(g)(1) – Public Availability of SubmissionThe Attorney General issued a press release on XXXX date indicating that a lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking preclearance of the Plan and that this informal submission was transmitted to the DOJ. A copy of that press release can be found online at www.texasattorneygeneral.gov. Members of the public were informed that they may provide comment by contacting the Office of the Attorney General via e-mail at [email protected] or via telephone at (800)252-8011.
51.28(g)(2) – Electronic Availability of SubmissionThe Attorney General has made the data included in this submission available on the OAG’s website at www.texasattorneygeneral.gov.
51.28(h) – Minority Group ContactsThe following individuals reside in the State of Texas and are familiar with the proposed change and were active in the political process by which the Plan was adopted: Comment [GI1]: Similar to the House
submission, I would list the minority members of the committee, specifically Villareal who was really helpful in drawing CD35, as well as Nina and Luis from MALDEF. I talked to both of them about the congressional districts long before I even started working in the legislature.
TE-004835
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 31 of 50
State of TexasInformal Submission
Act of May 23, 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., H.B. 150Texas House of Representatives
This document outlines the information provided in this informal submission of H.B. 150(the “Plan”) pursuant to 28 C.F.R. §§51.27 and 51.28. The document either provides the information requested or references the relevant attachment where the information is located.
Section 51.27 (a) – Copy of Plan
A copy of the Plan may be found online at http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/html/HB00150F.htmand is included as Attachment 1.
Section 51.27(b) – Copy of Plan Currently in EffectA copy of the current State House of Representatives districts can be found online at http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/download/House/PLANH100.pdfand is included as Attachment 2. That plan is referred to herein as “benchmark plan”
or “H100” in the electronic reports.
Section 51.27(c) – Statement of Change RequestedThe Plan makes changes to all 150 of the state’s house district boundaries. Reports and maps have been included in the submission and detail those changes.
Section 51.27(d) – Person Submitting
Greg AbbottTexas Attorney General209 W. 14th StreetAustin, Texas 78701(512) 463-2191 - office(512) 936-0545 - [email protected]
Section 51.27(e) and (f): Not applicable
Section 51.27(g) Body Responsible for Change
The body responsible for passing the Plan was the 82nd Texas Legislature.
TE-004837
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 33 of 50
Section 51.27(h) – Statutory Authority for Change
Article 3, section 26 of the Texas Constitution directs the Legislature to reapportion the state’s House districts based on the data provided by the United States Census Bureau. The same provision of the Texas Constitution also requires that when a county contains sufficient population to make up a single district, a district shall be created wholly within that county. Pursuant to that authority, the Texas Legislature introduced and passed the Plan. A more detailed discussion of the process the Legislature undertook can be found in Section 51.28(f).
Section 51.27(i) and (j) – Date Change Adopted and Effective Date
The Plan became law on June 17, 2011 and will become effective on August 29, 2011.
Section 51.27(k) – Statement regarding implementation
The Plan has not been implemented.
Section 51.27(l) – Affected Jurisdiction
The Plan affects the entire jurisdiction of the State of Texas.
Section 51.27 (m) and (n) – Reason for and Effect of Change
Background
The Texas House of Representatives is divided into 150 districts. Based on the state’s population of 25,145,561, House districts with perfectly equalized population would each contain 167,637 residents. Population shifts over the last decade have resulted in wide variations among the House districts, with the largest district, District 70, at 79.4% over the ideal population, and the smallest district, District 103, at 30.0% under the ideal population.
The stated goals of the Legislature were to equalize population, abide by the state constitutional requirement to preserve county lines,1
The Plan adopted by the Legislature is in compliance with all applicable state and federal laws and neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority. The
avoid pairing incumbents when possible, respond to the public and advocacy groups when appropriate, maintain communities of interest, and preserve the cores of prior districts. All of these goals were accomplished in the Plan that ultimately passed the Legislature.
1 TEX. CONST. art. 3, § 26
Comment [GI1]: Both of these were done whenever it was possible. For example, one communities of interest, there were several cities that were split up so the plaintiffs could easily show examples of that. As far as teh prior districts, it's the same thing. The most obvious example was Rep. Veronica Gonzales's district where she was placed in a district that according to her only had 1% of her previous district. Just want to make sure that you guys are aware that there are going to be several examples where this was not done.
TE-004838
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 34 of 50
Plan does not retrogress the position of racial or language minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.
In the Plan, the districts have an overall deviation of 9.92%, with the smallest district 4.9% under the ideal population and the largest district 5.02% over the ideal population.
In response to population shifts within the state, the Legislature created seven new districts in high-growth areas and eliminated seven districts in areas with slowing or negative growth. This resulted in the pairing of incumbents. In order to give each paired member of the House a fair chance at re-election, the unavoidable pairings were all between members of the same party (i.e., six 6 pairings were Republican-Republican and one was Democrat-Democrat).
Throughout the legislative process, the author of the bill made numerous comments from the floor of the House of Representatives urging members from various regions of the state to work together to produce regional “member-driven maps,” which could be incorporated into the larger statewide map.
Statewide Impact on Minorities.
The makeup of the Hispanic population in Texas complicates the traditional analysis of what constitutes a “performing minority district.” Estimates indicate that roughly 10% of the state’s residents are non-citizens.2
The Department of Justice (“DOJ” or the “Department”) acknowledges that “the Attorney General does not rely on any predetermined or fixed demographic percentages at any point in the assessment.”
Districts within the state, particularly those in urban areas, with extremely high concentrations of non-citizens merely because they contain a majority Hispanic population will not consistently elect the Hispaniccommunity’s candidate of choice. Likewise, the Hispanic citizens within the district may not register to vote in the same concentrations as white and African American citizens. So, it is not enough to merely populate a district at 50% HVAP and expect that district to elect the Hispanic candidate of choice. As a result, for purposes of determining retrogression or creating replacement districts, the Legislature regarded 50% HVAP as inadequate to determine the Hispanic community’s ability to elect its candidate of choice.
3
2
Some critics of the Plan take an overly simplistic, and frankly incorrect, view of the term “retrogression” and claim that the fact that there are two fewer districts at the 50% HVAP level is in and of itself retrogressive. It was the Legislature’s position that, due to the high percentage of non-citizens as well as
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-qr_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_S0501&-geo_id=04000US48&-context=st&-ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_&-tree_id=5309&-_lang=en&-format=&-CONTEXT=st3 Guidance Concerning Redistricting under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 76 Fed. Reg. 7470 (Feb. 8, 2011)
Comment [GI2]: May also want to mention something here about how Burt specifically asked members to give input regarding their own individual districts. There were many members who never submitted anything to us. His request to members was that they give us what they want, what they could live with, and what they didnt want. There were several members that never gave us anything and some that would give us their current district and tell us that they didnt want any changes. So aside from wanting regional maps, he also asked for individual maps from members. With that said, just because a member gave us what they would have wanted didnt mean that they got exactly that. We then took everything and tried to make it fit. And in some cases members didnt get anything that they wanted and all of what they didnt want.
Comment [GI3]: Did you mean HVAP here or just majority Hispanic pop? I ask because there were some members of the legislature who wanted to focus on how we dropped the Hispanic Total Population below 50%.
TE-004839
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 35 of 50
disparate voting patterns, a 60% HVAP threshold, in conjunction with reviewing HCVAP4, SSVR5
Even if the 50% HVAP threshold were adopted as an inflexible standard, the loss of two districts at the 50% level would not constitute retrogression when those specific districts are analyzed. Specifically, those districts (District 144 and District 33) are addressed within the analysis below.
and electoral performance of the district, is an appropriate standard under which to review Texas’ districts for compliance with Section 5.
The state’s 2001 DOJ submission noted that the Black population had grown less rapidly than the population of other racial and ethnic groups within the state. This trend continued to hold true over the last decade. The Legislature faced a substantial challenge maintaining the Black Voting Age Population (BVAP) in the 11 benchmark districts. All but 2 of the 11 benchmark districts with a BVAP over 40% were under populated. The Legislature maintained those districts and actually increased by one, the number of districts with a BVAP over 40%. Statistical studies demonstrate that the African-American population tends to register to vote in higher percentages and turn out to vote at a higher rate than the Hispanic population.6
4 The Fifth Circuit has held unequivocally that HCVAP is the population base that should be considered in a vote-dilution claim to determine whether a minority group satisfies the first Gingles requirement. See Campos v. City of Houston, 113 F.3d 544, 548 (5th Cir. 1997) (“We hold that courts evaluating vote dilution claims under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act must consider the citizen voting-age population of the group challenging the electoral practice when determining whether the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district.”); see also Session v. Perry, 298 F. Supp. 2d 451, 494 n.133 (E.D. Tex. 2004) (“This circuit, along with every other circuit to consider the question, has concluded that the relevant voting population for Hispanics is citizen voting age population.”), reversed on other grounds, LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 429 (2006) (commenting (but not holding) in dicta that using HCVAP to determine Hispanic electoral opportunity “fits the language of § 2 because only eligible voters affect a group’s opportunity to elect candidates”). For information about how the State of Texas calculates HCVAP, please see the Texas Legislative Council’s website: http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/pdf/CitizenshipAddendum.pdf
A district with an
5 According to the Texas Legislative Council, “Spanish surname voter registration, also reported in the secretary of state’s Statewide Voter Database, is generated using a comparison to the 2000 Census Bureau List of Spanish Surnames. While most sources agree that the match between people who have Spanish surnames and those who consider themselves Hispanic is relatively good in Texas (the Census Bureau estimates a 90 percent correlation for the state), the reported number of registered voters with Spanish surnames is not a precise measure of Hispanic voter registration. Some people who consider themselves Hispanic do not have surnames that are included in the Spanish surname fi le and will be missed by the Spanish surname matching technique. Others, who have surnames that are included in the Spanish surname fi le but do not consider themselves Hispanic, will be incorrectly counted as Hispanic registered voters.” http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/pdf/Data_2011_Redistricting.pdf 6 "[T]he Latino population suffers from participation rates lower than those of non-Hispanic black and white populations, in terms of both voter registration and election day turnout. While turnout rates among Hispanics are lower than those among whites and blacks, low registration rates among eligible voters pose the biggest problem. Only 58% of eligible Latino voters were registered to vote in 2004, compared to 75% of whites and 69% of blacks. Experts attribute these low participation rates to the fact that, like African-Americans, Hispanics are disproportionately young, less educated, and less affluent--all attributes that traditionally dampen political participation. For Hispanics, these factors are exacerbated by language barriers. The combined effect of low voter eligibility and participation is devastating: Only 18% of all Hispanics voted in 2004, compared to 51% of whites and 39% of blacks, and Hispanics only contributed 6% of all the ballots cast on election day." Alvaro Bedoya, Note, The Unforeseen Effects of Georgia v. Ashcroft on the Latino Community, 115 YALE L.J. 2112, 2128-29 (2006).
Comment [GI4]: I can't say that this is necessarily true. We really weren't that focused on the HVAP number, our focus was more on the SSVR. But if this argument works and you've confirmed that every district that we are counting where the SSVR is above 50%, then the HVAP is above 60% then I'm fine with it.
TE-004840
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 36 of 50
approximately 40% BVAP historically can elect the African-American candidate of choice.
Statewide, the comparison between the benchmark and the Plan are:
BENCHMARK HB 150
HVAP (greater than 60%) 30 30
HCVAP (greater than 50%) 30 30
SSVR (greater than 50%) 29 30
BVAP (greater than 40%) 11 12
Neither Hispanic nor Black voting strength retrogresses in the Plan.
Regional Impact on Minority Communities
South and West Texas. El Paso County is apportioned 5 seats in the Plan. The high concentration of Hispanic residents results in districts with unavoidably high levels of HVAP. All 5 districts in both the benchmark and the Plan are populated with over 60% HVAP.
The same situation exists in Hidalgo County. Hidalgo County is entitled to 4+ districts (four districts contained within the county plus excess population shared with a neighboring county). The districts in Hidalgo County all contain over 75% HVAP in both the benchmark and the Plan. HCVAP and SSVR numbers are also generally high in that area.
Nueces County. Nueces County was apportioned 2+ seats in 2001 (two districts entirely contained within the county plus excess population in a district shared with aneighboring countiesy). According to the 2010 census, Nueces County grew at a slower rate than the state as a whole, and the county’s population of 340,223 no longer entitles it to 2+ districts, but only two. Therefore, one district needed to be eliminated. This loss of one state representative seat necessarily caused the pairing of two incumbents. The paired incumbents are Rep. Raul Torres (R) in District 33 and Rep. Connie Scott (R) in District 34. Nueces County now has two districts wholly contained within its boundaries – Districts 34 and 32. As required by the state constitution, the Legislature adhered whenever possible to rule that county lines should be preserved. In this case, adding a third district to Nueces County would have unnecessarily broken county lines.
Comment [GI5]: Not sure if it's worth explaning why it's two districts. You could add something like this: "If you take the ideal districts size of 167,637 and divide it into the total population of the county, you get 2.0285. This number was rounded down to two districts since the remaining population could easily be distributed among the two districts and keep them within the allowed deviation statewide." You did this same calculation for Harris County, but not for Nueces and I think it's just as important to mention it.
TE-004841
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 37 of 50
Under the Plan, the Legislature chose to strengthen the Hispanic influence in one of the two remaining districts in the county. Election data indicate that district will now consistently elect the Hispanic community’s candidate of choice. Nueces County contains 36.7% Anglo VAP and 56.8% HVAP. Under the benchmark plan, neither District 33 nor District 34 was consistently electing the Hispanic community’s candidate of choice. No plan was submitted that drew two performing Hispanic districts wholly contained within the county without splitting county lines.7
Harris County. Harris County contained 25 seats in the benchmark plan. Although Harris County did experience growth between 2000 and 2010, its growth did not keep pace with the rest of the state. Growth in Harris County was 20.3%, while the state as a whole grew at a rate of 20.6%. Based on the census, Harris County is entitled to either 24 or 25 seats. Dividing Harris County’s population of 4,092,459 by the ideal district size (167,637) yields the number of seats Harris County is entitled to: 24.4126. Accordingly, the Legislature chose to apportion 24 seats and create a district elsewhere in the state where population growth was stronger. This elimination of a seat necessitated the pairing of two incumbents.
7 Representative Alonzo’s amendment (Plan H115, H164), which was submitted on behalf of MALDEF but withdrawn before it could be voted on the by the House, achieved two performing districts within Nueces, but in order to do so had to split out the Anglo population into a third district, thereby violating the state constitutional county line rule. Representative Martinez-Fischer presented a plan on behalf of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus which split Nueces County into 5 legislative districts, also violating the state constitutional county line rule.8 Under the benchmark plan, District 137 also contained 13.7% Anglo VAP, 14.6% BVAP, and 13% Other VAP.
HVAP (BENCHMARK)
HVAP (HB 150)
SSVR(BENCHMARK)
SSVR(HB 150)
HCVAP(BENCHMARK)
HCVAP(HB 150)
FormerDistrict 33
61.9 ___ 55.3 ___ 60.5 ___
District 34 61.6 67.7 53.8 60.8 58.4 64.7
District 32 37.2 45.9 33.2 37.3 35.3 44.2
HVAP (BENCHMARK)
HVAP (HB 150)
SSVR(BENCHMARK)
SSVR(HB 150)
HCVAP(BENCHMARK)
HCVAP(HB 150)
District1378
59.8 55.3 22.0 24.3 25.8 26.4
Harris County Pairing
Comment [GI6]: Should mention that considering how the total population of the county was only 56.8 HVAP and less than 50% SSVR, it was statistically impossible to draw two districts within the county that are both above 60% HVAP and 50% SSVR as was the goal of the legislature.
Comment [GI7]: I don’t know if this is worth mentioning but the reason that these two were paired is because we believed that neither was a protected district. Since we were focused on the SSVR (which is extremely low in both districts) and even if you were to take the HVAP number both were below the benchmarks of 50% SSVR and HVAP of 60%, so we didnt feel that those districts were protected by the VRA.
TE-004842
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 38 of 50
The House proactively increased minority voting strength in one Hispanic district in Harris County. At the request of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the SSVR and HCVAP in District 148 were both increased to over 50% from 40.0% and 42.1%, respectively.
With respect to the African American communities in Harris County, an amendment was put forth by the Harris County delegation – one in which there was slight reduction in Black VAP numbers in two of four performing districts. However, the members from Harris County agreed to the amendment, which did not negatively affect the ability of Black voters to elect the candidate of their choice in any district. 10 The following districts were affected:
Finally, in Harris County, one district (District 144) drops below the 50% HVAP level in the Plan. Under the benchmark, District 144, held by a Republican, contains 50.3% HVAP. However, the CVAP in the district was 35.1% and the SSVR was 31.5%. The Plandecreases HVAP to 48.5% but does not change the overall characteristic of the district. Election data indicates that this was not, nor is it now, a performing district for Hispanic voters.
Dallas County. Between 2000 and 2010, Dallas County only grew by 6.7%, while the state grew at a rate of 20.6%. Because of this, two districts were eliminated in Dallas County; therefore Dallas County was apportioned 14, rather than 16, districts. Every district in Dallas except for District 109 was under populated in the benchmark plan. Despite this challenge, the Plan maintains four districts with a BVAP over 40% and two districts with an HVAP over 65%. The four paired districts were all occupied by Republican members of the Legislature.
9 Under the benchmark plan, District 149 also contained 26.6% Anglo VAP, 16.2% BVAP and 6.2% Other VAP.10 See House Journal Supplement pages S206-S208 http://www.journals.house.state.tx.us/hjrnl/82R/pdf/82RDAY63SUPPLEMENT.pdf
Former District
1499
30.2 __ 15.9 __ 19.0 __
District BVAP(BENCHMARK)
BVAP(HB 150)
139 47.2 42.1
141 42.8 50.0
142 40.8 42.9
147 39.2 38.2
Formatted Table
Comment [GI8]: Do you have this testimony from the hearing? It was given by Luis Fuigeroa. Also, after his testimony Vice-Chairman Mike Villareal also suggested that the SSVR be increased in HD148 and HD90.
TE-004843
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 39 of 50
Tarrant County. Based on population growth, Tarrant County was apportioned an additional seat, bringing the county total up to 11, from 10. The Plan contains a new district, District 101, which contains 32.5% HVAP, 27.0% BVAP and 24.6% Anglo VAP. The future ability of the minority groups in this district to elect their candidate of choice will depend on the growth trends in that part of the county and will depend on the ability of the minority groups to establish the criteria needed to form a performingdistrict.
The House proactively increased minority voting strength in one Hispanic district in Tarrant County. At the request of MALDEF, the SSVR and HCVAP in District 90 were increased from 47.2% and 48.0%, respectively, to 50.1% SSVR and 49.7% HCVAP.
Section 51.27(o) Pending Litigation
The following litigation related to redistricting is currently pending:
Name Cause No. & Venue
Consolidated:Perez, Dutton and Tamez v. State of Texas, et al;Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force et al. v. Perry et al; MALC v. State, et al.
SA-11-CA-360-OLG-JES-XRW.D. Tex. San Antonio Three Judge Court: Garcia, Smith, Rodriguez
Teuber v. State of Texas, et al. SA-11-CA-0572-OLG-JES-XRW.D. Tex. San Antonio Three Judge Court: Garcia, Smith, Rodriguez
Teuber v. State of Texas, et al.CV-11-0270397th District Court, Grayson County, Texas
MALC v. State No. 7:11-cv-144S.D. Texas - McAllen Division (Judge Crane)
Barton et al. v. State of Texas & Hope Andrade11-20238-CV 13th District Court, Navarro County, Texas
Barton et al. v. State of Texas & Hope Andrade11-20263-CV 13th District Court, Navarro County, Texas
Comment [GI9]: These two counties are where the communities of interest was a big issue. We did the best that we could to try to split cities as little as possible. They were still split, but it was our goal to keep them together as much as we could.
Comment [GI10]: I don’t think that we should be talking about the future ability of groups to elect their candidate of choice. The Democrats tried to focus on why we were not taking into considertaion how the Hispanic community was going to continue to grow, and this seems to go against that argument. We simply didn't believe that we should take future growth into consideration when it comes to drawing districts.
TE-004844
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 40 of 50
Washburn v. State of Texas & Hope AndradeCause No. CV 110921; 397th District Court, Grayson County, Texas
Washburn v. State of Texas & Hope AndradeCause No. CV 110931; 397th District Court, Grayson County, Texas
John "Canica" Limon, et al. v. Rick Perry, et al.D-1-GN-11-001611 351st Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texas
Bianca Garcia, et al. v. Rick Perry, et al.D-1-GN-11-001612 419th Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texas
Rodriguez, et al. v. State of Texas, et al.1:11-cv-00451 W.D. Tex. Austin Division Three Judge Court, Yeakel Smith, Garcia
Morris v. State of Texas, Rick Perry, David Dewhurst, Joe Straus, and Hope Andrade
11-cv-2244S.D. Tex. Houston Division(Judge Rosenthal)
Section 51.27(p) – Prior Preclearance: The benchmark state House plan was submitted to the DOJ for preclearance in 2001. The Department objected to three districts. A three-judge panel convened in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, modified the state house plan to address DOJ objections. The court’s opinion can be found athttp://www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/pdf/housepc.pdf and the Final Judgment can be found athttp://www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/pdf/finalorderhouse.pdf. Section 51.28 (a) (b) and (d) – Demographic Information, Maps and Election Returns
1. Election Data folder – Same election data is used for all plan types – provided oncea. Zipped files for each of the last five election cycles; returns, voter registration (VR), and
turnout (TO) by County/ VTD. i. 2002_Election.zip (1) 2002_Democratic_Primary_Election_Returns.csv
(2) 2002_Democratic_Primary_Election_VRTO.csv(3) 2002_Democratic_Runoff_Election_Returns.csv(4) 2002_Democratic_ Runoff _Election_ VRTO.csv(5) 2002_Republican_Primary_Election_Returns.csv(6) 2002_Republican_Primary_Election _ VRTO.csv
TE-004845
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 41 of 50
(7) 2002_Republican _Runoff _Election_Returns.csv(8) 2002_Republican _Runoff _Election_ VRTO.csv(9) 2002_General_Election_Returns.csv(10) 2002_General_Election_ VRTO.csv(11) readme.txt
ii. 2004_Election.zip - contains same reports as in 2002_Election.zipiii. 2006_Election.zip - contains same reports as in 2002_Election.zip; also
includes the special general and runoff for the court-ordered Congressional districts.
iv. 2008_Election.zip - contains same reports as in 2002_Election.zip v. 2010_Election.zip - contains same reports as in 2002_Election.zip
2. PlanH100 folder
a. PlanH100 Reports folder i. 2002_Election folder
(1) 2002_Democratic_Primary_RED225 .pdf and .xls (2) 2002_Democratic_Runoff_ RED225 .pdf and .xls (3) 2002_Republican_Primary_ RED225 .pdf and .xls (4) 2002_Republican _Runoff _ RED225 .pdf and .xls (5) 2002_General_Election_ RED225 .pdf and .xls
ii. 2004_Election folder- contains same reports as in 2002_Election folderiii. 2006_Election folder - contains same reports as in 2002_Election folder; also
includes the special general and runoff for the court-ordered Congressional districts.
iv. 2008_Election folder - contains same reports as in 2002_Election folderv. 2010_Election folder - contains same reports as in 2002_Election foldervi. VTD level VR_SSVR_TO (RED 216.pdf and .xls) - includes voter
registration, Spanish surname voter registration, and turnout by district and VTD for the 2010 gubernatorial election
vii. ACS HCVAP Special Tab(RED 106) - Citizen Voting Age Population) (HCVAP) from the 2005-2009 ACS (DOJ Special Tabulation)
viii. District Population Analysis with Counties (RED 100) – contains plan deviation statistics and verification information and district population data
ix. Population and Voter Data (RED 202)x. Incumbents (RED 350)xi. Compactness Analysis (RED 315)xii. Split Cities by District (RED 130)
b. PlanH100 Maps folder -- 28 CFR Sec. 51.28(b)1-6 i. Maps of state and split counties with districtsii. n/a
iii. Maps of split counties with racial/ethnic shading by VTD iii. Maps of split counties with Spanish Surname voter registration by VTD iv. Maps of split counties with natural boundaries and geographic features iv. Maps of split counties with cities v. n/a vi. n/a
3. PlanH283 folder - same as PlanH100 folder
4. Shapefiles foldera. Shapefiles of all 111 public Texas House plans
TE-004846
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 42 of 50
b. blk.zip--block equivalency file (.csv) for PlanH100 and PlanH283
5. Two Plan Comparison Reportsa. Two Plan by Incumbent (RED 335)b. Plan Overlap Analysis (RED 340)
Section 51.28(f) – Publicity and Participation
The process of creating the Plan that passed began almost a year prior to final passage. The Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Senate conducted numerous hearings throughout the state during the legislative interim preceding the 82nd Legislative Session. In the House of Representatives, hearings were conducted by both the House Committee on Redistricting andthe House Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence. Those hearings are listed belowand refliect the location of the city where the hearing was held:
6/2/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence (Austin)
6/21/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on San Antonio Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
7/19/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on McAllen Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
7/20/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on Laredo Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
7/21/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on Corpus Christi Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
8/16/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on El Paso Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
8/18/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on Lubbock Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
9/20/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting, House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Subcommittee on Downtown Dallas Redistricting and Senate Select Committee on Redistricting
9/21/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on Tarrant County Redistricting, House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
9/22/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on Richardson/UT-DallasRedistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
10/18/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on Beaumont Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
10/20/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on Marshall Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
11/17/2010 House Redistricting Subcommittee on Austin Redistricting 11/20/2010 Joint Hearing: Subcommittee of Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence and Senate Select
Committee on Redistricting (Houston)
In the Texas Senate, hearings were conducted by the Senate Select Committee on Redistricting:
9/1/2010 Austin
TE-004847
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 43 of 50
9/20/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting, House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Subcommittee on Downtown Dallas Redistricting and Senate Select Committee on Redistricting
10/4/2010 Amarillo10/5/2010 Midland10/21/2010 Edinburg11/4/2010 San Antonio11/20/2010 Joint Hearing: Subcommittee of Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence and Senate Select
Committee on Redistricting (Houston)
All hearing notices, public plans, and amendments were posted on the Texas Legislative Council’s website, www.tlc.state.tx.us, and all public plans were accessible through DistrictViewer. The Texas Legislative Council also maintained two RedAppl terminals which were available for public use during normal business hours.
During the course of the legislative interim hearings, an e-mail contact database of interested members of the public was created to notify them of upcoming legislative hearings. That database ultimately included over 200 community leaders, advocacy groups, and election officials who received regular communications throughout the legislative session. At the hearings, it was announced that the public record on the hearings would remain open until December, 2010, in order to give the public ample time to provide written remarks to the committees.
Maps could not be drawn in earnest until the U.S. Census released block-level data to Texas on February 17, 2011. On March 24, 2011, the House Committee on Redistricting held a public hearing to solicit input from the public on a potential house map. On April 13, 2011, Chairman Solomons publicly released a plan (H113).
In the time between the release of the census numbers and the public release of the plan, the committee staff and the Speaker’s office conducted several meetings with members to receive input on the map as well as with minority groups such as MALDEF and the Mexican American Legislative Caucus (MALC). Several of MALDEF’s recommended changes were incorporated into the plan that ultimately passed. The staff unsuccessfully attempted to set up meetings with the NAACP. Multiple times on the House floor, Chairman Solomons encouraged the members from various regions of the state to get together to submit regional proposals as a group. The committee took all of these suggestions into consideration when crafting a proposed map.
After H113 was publicly posted on DistrictViewer, two public hearings were held. Chairman Solomons laid out a committee substitute plan (H134) at that time. The first hearing was on Friday April 15, 2011 at 12:00 p.m. The second was on Sunday, April 17, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. The committee decided to conduct one meeting during the week and one on the weekend so that members of the public would have two opportunities to participate without overly interfering with a traditional five-day work week. The
TE-004848
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 44 of 50
committee held a formal meeting on Tuesday, April 19, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. to vote the bill out of committee, after considering committee amendments. The committee-approved plan, H153, was sent to the floor.The bill was considered for second reading on the House calendar on April 27, 2011. The entire proceedings were transcribed.11
Notice of all hearings was provided in compliance with the Rules of the Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Senate. The following links include hearing notices, minutes, and witness lists for each of the hearings on the Plan:
A record vote was taken, and the Plan passed with 92 yeas and 54 nays. Two democrats voted for the plan – Representative Eiland and Representative Guillen. The enrolled version, H283, was sent to the Senate for consideration. The bill passed in the Senate by a vote of 22 yeas and 9 nays on second reading and 25 yeas and 6 nays on third reading.
House Redistricting Committee HearingsHearing on April 15
Noticehttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/schedules/pdf/C0802011041512001.PDFMinuteshttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/minutes/pdf/C0802011041512001.PDFWitness Listhttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/witlistmtg/pdf/C0802011041512001.PDF
Hearing on April 17Noticehttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/schedules/pdf/C0802011041714001.PDFMinuteshttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/minutes/pdf/C0802011041714001.PDFWitness Listhttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/witlistmtg/pdf/C0802011041714001.PDF
Hearing on April 19Noticehttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/schedules/pdf/C0802011041911001.PDFMinutes http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/minutes/pdf/C0802011041911001.PDF
Senate Select Committee on RedistrictingHearing on May 6
Notice http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/schedules/pdf/C6252011050609001.PDFMinuteshttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/minutes/pdf/C6252011050609001.PDFWitness List
11 http://www.journals.house.state.tx.us/hjrnl/82R/pdf/82RDAY63SUPPLEMENT.pdf
TE-004849
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 45 of 50
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/witlistmtg/pdf/C6252011050609001.PDF
Hearing on May 13Notice http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/schedules/pdf/C6252011051308001.PDFMinutes http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/minutes/pdf/C6252011051308001.PDF
51.28(g)(1) – Public Availability of the SubmissionThe Attorney General issued a press release on XXXX date indicating that a lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking preclearance of the Plan and that this informal submission has been transmitted to DOJ. A copy of that press release can be found online at www.texasattorneygeneral.gov. Members of the public were informed that they may provide comment by contacting the Office of the Attorney General via e-mail at [email protected] or via telephone at (800)252-8011.
51.28(g)(2) – Electronic Availability of DataThe Attorney General has made the data included in this submission available on the OAG’s website at www.texasattorneygeneral.gov.
51.28(h) – Minority Group ContactsThe following individuals reside in the State of Texas, and are familiar with the proposed change, and were active in the political process by which the Plan was adopted: Comment [GI11]: I would definitely list Nina
Perales, Luis Figueroa, Jose Garza, Martin Golando (the big guy who works for MALC), the minority members of the committee (Mike Villareal, Carol Alvarado, Aaron Pena, and Marc Veasey). We tried to contact Gary Bledsoe, the Texas President of the NAACP, but were never able to get a hold of him. Bonnie may also have some other people that we visited with. As far as each of the big counties, Trey Martinez-Fischer was very involved in the drawing of San Antonio as was the rest of the San Antonio delegation, Borris Miles, Garnet Coleman, and almost the entire black delegation was actively involved in making the final changes to the Harris County African-American district the night that the map was being debated on the floor. Granted, they were not as involved throughout the rest of the process. But there is no doubt that they were a huge part of what was done that night.
TE-004850
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 46 of 50
TE-004851
THE STATE OF TEXAS v. UNITED STATES et al.
DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT Case No. 11-CV-1303
DX222
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-2 Filed 07/22/13 Page 48 of 50
TE-004854
THE STATE OF TEXAS v. UNITED STATES et al.
DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT Case No. 11-CV-1303
DX223
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-3 Filed 07/22/13 Page 2 of 60