This is going to be a very interesting presentation. There is a letter from NTCC College President attached regarding this special event for our community.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Minority groups near huge win with redistricting settlement
I am screening! I am BURNING OVER THIS!
This isn't compromise...this is throwing in the towel! We won the majority vote. We hold the pencil! We should be negotiating from a position of strength.
We have no GOP leadership in this state. We are going to lose to the Dems and then listen to our GOP leaders tell us that we really won!
Texas Dems, minority groups near huge win with redistricting settlement
- 01/27/12 05:52 PM ET T
The Texas state attorneys defending the state's GOP-drawn redistricting plans from court challenges have reached out to settle litigation, according to sources in the state. The settlement would give minority groups and Democrats what they've been demanding from the start: more heavily minority, Democratic-leaning House seats.
The result would likely mean at least four more Texas Democrats in Congress as of next year, a good start on the 25 or so seats Democrats need to win to retake control of the House.
Another plaintiff agreed. "It's clear they know they're in a vulnerable position and that's why they want to settle," he said.
Any settlement would need to get the multiple minority group plaintiffs on board, and would create more majority-Hispanic and majority-African American congressional districts. Two of the plaintiffs predicted that an agreement will be reached early next week.
If the state of Texas and the plaintiffs in the case reach an agreement it would solve a drawn out process with two separate lower court battles and a Supreme Court opinion already on the books.
Texas is gaining four seats in Congress and will have 36 total House seats next election. Most of the state's population growth has come from African Americans and Hispanics, but the Republican state legislators who drew the maps gave the groups few new opportunities in the state.
Any agreement would lead to a minimum of 13 Democratic-leaning seats, and possibly a fourteenth seat depending on how the districts in Fort Worth are drawn.
With conservative former Rep. Nick Lampson (D-Texas) running for a Galveston-area seat, Democrats could win as many as 14 or 15 seats in the state, up from the nine seats they currently hold. Republicans would hold 21 or 22 seats, down from the 23 they currently have.
Those 23 seats include two Democratic-leaning seats won by Republican Reps. Quico Canseco and Blake Farenthold in the 2010 Republican wave election. Farenthold would have a chance to run in the same Galveston district Lampson is likely to run in, while Canseco would have an uphill fight for reelection.
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) is also likely to be spared a tough race — initial plans would have forced him to run in a Hispanic-majority seat, something Latino groups are looking to avoid.
Texas Republicans in the legislature likely overreached by drawing a very Republican-friendly maps for the statehouse and Congress. Because of Texas's history of racial discrimination it needs to get its redistricting maps cleared at the federal level under the Voting Rights Act, and it has been increasingly clear that those maps would not be cleared.
In exchange for a map that would give minorities and Democrats what they want, the agreement would allow Republicans to keep the state's primary on April 3, saving the state money and making it more likely its presidential primary will be early enough to matter. Texas has already had to move its primary back once because of the ongoing court cases. They would also avoid having two federal courts label their plans intentionally discriminatory.
What happened? Today’s status conference in San Antonio
DOJ says San Antonio court should not shorten time for military ballots to go out
In an advisory filed this afternoon, the Justice Department told the San Antonio court that it opposed any effort to shorten requirements in the MOVE Act that require that mail ballots for military personnel be sent out 45 days in advance of a primary.
At Friday's hearing, lawyers for the State of Texas said that the period could be shortened to 25 days and said that use of electronic ballots might ease concerns.
At least some election officials also agreed with the DOJ in testimony Friday, explaining that the electronic ballots in question were emailed to voters and that they did not have email addresses for all military personnel requesting mail ballots. They also explained that the ballots still needed to be printed out and returned by mail.
What happened? Today's status conference in San Antonio
Today's hearing is difficult to write about because it was all over the place - jumping from discussions about the meaning the Supreme Court's ruling to the nitty gritty of holding city elections to talk about party rules.
The one thing that was mostly absent, however, was a lot of abstract discussion about things like state sovereignty. Today was a day for practical considerations.
At the end of the day, the consensus was there really weren't a lot of good choices.
So where do things stand?
The Date of the Primary
If there one thing that everyone seemed to agree on, it was that there should be a unified primary. However, they disagree on when.
In general, four options emerged - all of which have drawbacks.
The first would be an April primary. Democratic and Republican party lawyers, however, agreed that this was only feasible if maps could be done by mid-February and even then there is a substantial likelihood that the primary would need to be pushed to April 17. Testimony from election officials, moreover, raised questions about whether even an April 17 date was feasible if extensive changes were made to the maps. An April primary date also would require some adjustment to address military ballots since it will be hard to have ballots ready to be mailed 45 days before the primary as required under federal law.
Other dates proposed were May 29 or June 26.
A May 29 date, however, might require a shortening of the early voting period since municipal elections are May 12 and there might not be enough time to reprogram electronic voting machines.
In addition, if party conventions are not moved, a May 29 date would sharply compress the sequence of events leading to the party conventions. Chad Dunn, lawyer for the Texas Democratic Party, told the court that it essentially would require parties to perform the 'hat trick' of having precinct conventions the night of May 29, county and senate district conventions on Saturday, June 2, and their state conventions the following weekend, as currently scheduled. That possibility has already raised howls from party activists in both parties.
A late May date also would almost certainly assure that the Republican nomination for president would be locked up before Texans have a chance to vote.
A June 26 date also posses issues. For one thing, it is after the date of the parties' state conventions. If the party conventions do not move (something both parties say would be a challenge), then the question becomes how do Republicans select delegates to their national convention. Dunn, the ever helpful Democrat, raised the possibility that delegates could be elected at the early June conventions and pledge to be bound by whatever result came out of the primary later in June. But some think that possibility a little awkward, especially if the Republican presidential contest goes down to the wire.
There's also the logistical issue of how you decide who goes to the state convention. Normally, you are eligible to participate in a parties' precinct convention if you vote in the primary. Do you limit people who can participate to those who voted in 2010? If you open it up, how do you ensure that people who participate in the precinct convention then don't vote in the Democratic primary?
The last option, of course, would be to split the primary. However, the state's lawyers said that no additional money would be available to pay for a split primary. A number of elected officials also are on the record as being adamant that the primary not be split.
At the end of the day, the court did not definitively decide the issue but gave the parties a chance to see whether they could reach an agreement on maps (see below). The court said, however, that if an agreement on maps could not be reached by February 6 (or the issues very significantly narrowed), then it would be impossible to have an April primary.
Settlement discussions
The other big development of the day (maybe the biggest) was the emergence of serious discussions about a settlement on the maps, with intense negotiations expected to continue this weekend.
David Mattax, the state's lawyer, explained that what the state was proposing was a deal on interim maps, not permanent maps.
Mattax said that under the deal he was trying to work out, if redistricting plaintiffs proposed maps in areas where the state agreed that there were legitimate issues of dispute, the state would not object. Mattax conceded, though, that other parties (such as Congressman Barton) might object. Mattax also recognized that complete agreement with redistricting plaintiffs might not be possible. But Mattax said he hoped to at least be able to narrow the issues for the court before February 6 in an effort to facilitate getting maps by mid-February.
If this sounds like a significant sea change from the state's prior position, it certainly seems to be. And at least some reports are that Republicans are willing to make significant concessions.
Drawing new maps
If the parties are not able to agree on interim maps, or substantially narrow issues, the court did not indicate when it expected to be able to complete maps.
However, the judges repeatedly raised questions about how they would be able to draw maps quickly in that instance, with Judge Rodriguez noting that they hadn't even yet received the record and transcript from the D.C. case.
There also were questions about whether to wait for a ruling in the preclearance case from the D.C. court. In middle of the hearing, the court took a recess to call the D.C. court to discuss timing with Judge Collyer, though the judges were mum about what they learned.
While the state said it thought the court could move quickly, plaintiffs disagreed noting that the record in the D.C. case was different than in the case tried before the San Antonio court. They also said they thought the burden imposed by the Supreme Court's ruling was more complicated than the state suggested. That position was supported, in part, by lawyers for Joe Barton who argued that the court would benefit from evidence about section 5 issues before making any significant changes to the map.
Election deadlines
Last but not least (and maybe an anticlimax), but the court also directed that the February 1 filing deadline, February 3 ballot order draw, and all other deadlines in its December 16 order be suspended until further order of the court.
Barack Obama's 32 Month Report Card
Barack Obama's 32 Month Report Card
A gallon of regular gasoline the day Obama was inaugurated averaged $1.79 in the U.S. Today, that price is $3.59, a 100.6% increase.
Since Obama took office, the number of food stamp recipients has risen from 31,983,716 to 43,200,878, an increase of 35.1%.
Long term unemployment soared 146.2% during the same 32 month period - from 2,600,000 to 6,400,000. Staggering "hope and change," isn't it?
The number of Americans living in poverty increased 9.5%, from 39,800,000 to 43,600,000.
The number of unemployed has jumped almost 25%, from 11,616,000 to 14,485,000 as of August 31, 2011.
The number of unemployed blacks has increased from 12.6% at the end of George Bush's term, to 15.8% today - an increase of 25.4%.
Our national debt is up 34.4%, from 10.627 trillion to 14,278 trillion *
Keep the above figures in-mind as we recount some of the "firsts" for this president:
First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.
First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.
First President to preside over a cut in the credit rating of the United States .
First President to violate the War Powers Act.
First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico .
First President to defy a Federal Judges court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.
First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
First President to spend a trillion dollars on shovel-ready jobs, then later admit there is no such thing as shovel-ready jobs.
First President to abrogate bankruptcy law in order to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
First President to order a secret amnesty program and to stop the deportation of illegal immigrants, including those with criminal convictions.
First President to demand a company hand over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
First President to terminate America's ability to put a man in space.
First President to encourage racial discrimination and intimidation at polling places.
First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional, and refuse to enforce it.
First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly speak out on the reasons for their rate increases.
First President to tell a major manufacturing company which state they are allowed to locate a factory in.
First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (Az, WI, OH, IN).
First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been legally years ago.
First President to fire an inspector general (of Ameri-corps) for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
First President to appoint 45 Czars to replace elected officials in his office.
First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office.
First President to hide his medical, education, and travel records.
First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing literally NOTHING to earn it.
First President to coddle America's enemies while alienating our allies.
First President to publicly bow to America's enemies while refusing to salute the U.S. Flag.
First President to go on multiple global apology tours.
First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends, paid for by the taxpayer.
First President to refuse to wear the U.S. Flag lapel pin.
First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
First President to repeat "the Holy Qur'an tells us," and openly admit "the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth."
First President whose constitutional eligibility to be President was on trial in a court of law, AND who considered himself to be above the law by failing to appear for his trial (yesterday, 1/26/12, in Georgia).
In 34 months of the Obama White House, 'we the people' have accumulated national debt at a rate more than 27 times faster than during the rest of our nation's entire history - as the Obama's plan their next extravagant vacation to the Indonesian Island nation of Bali.
Hope and change, anyone?
* Sources: U.S Energy Information Administration, Wall Street Journal, Bureau of Labor Statistics , US Dept of Labor, Standard & Poors/Case-Shiller, Federal Reserve , US Treasury, Heritage Foundation.
A gallon of regular gasoline the day Obama was inaugurated averaged $1.79 in the U.S. Today, that price is $3.59, a 100.6% increase.
Since Obama took office, the number of food stamp recipients has risen from 31,983,716 to 43,200,878, an increase of 35.1%.
Long term unemployment soared 146.2% during the same 32 month period - from 2,600,000 to 6,400,000. Staggering "hope and change," isn't it?
The number of Americans living in poverty increased 9.5%, from 39,800,000 to 43,600,000.
The number of unemployed has jumped almost 25%, from 11,616,000 to 14,485,000 as of August 31, 2011.
The number of unemployed blacks has increased from 12.6% at the end of George Bush's term, to 15.8% today - an increase of 25.4%.
Our national debt is up 34.4%, from 10.627 trillion to 14,278 trillion *
Keep the above figures in-mind as we recount some of the "firsts" for this president:
First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.
First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.
First President to preside over a cut in the credit rating of the United States .
First President to violate the War Powers Act.
First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico .
First President to defy a Federal Judges court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.
First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
First President to spend a trillion dollars on shovel-ready jobs, then later admit there is no such thing as shovel-ready jobs.
First President to abrogate bankruptcy law in order to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
First President to order a secret amnesty program and to stop the deportation of illegal immigrants, including those with criminal convictions.
First President to demand a company hand over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
First President to terminate America's ability to put a man in space.
First President to encourage racial discrimination and intimidation at polling places.
First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional, and refuse to enforce it.
First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly speak out on the reasons for their rate increases.
First President to tell a major manufacturing company which state they are allowed to locate a factory in.
First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (Az, WI, OH, IN).
First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been legally years ago.
First President to fire an inspector general (of Ameri-corps) for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
First President to appoint 45 Czars to replace elected officials in his office.
First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office.
First President to hide his medical, education, and travel records.
First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing literally NOTHING to earn it.
First President to coddle America's enemies while alienating our allies.
First President to publicly bow to America's enemies while refusing to salute the U.S. Flag.
First President to go on multiple global apology tours.
First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends, paid for by the taxpayer.
First President to refuse to wear the U.S. Flag lapel pin.
First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
First President to repeat "the Holy Qur'an tells us," and openly admit "the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth."
First President whose constitutional eligibility to be President was on trial in a court of law, AND who considered himself to be above the law by failing to appear for his trial (yesterday, 1/26/12, in Georgia).
In 34 months of the Obama White House, 'we the people' have accumulated national debt at a rate more than 27 times faster than during the rest of our nation's entire history - as the Obama's plan their next extravagant vacation to the Indonesian Island nation of Bali.
Hope and change, anyone?
* Sources: U.S Energy Information Administration, Wall Street Journal, Bureau of Labor Statistics , US Dept of Labor, Standard & Poors/Case-Shiller, Federal Reserve , US Treasury, Heritage Foundation.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
San Antonio court considers splitting party primaries
San Antonio court considers splitting party primaries
By Tim Eaton
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
A federal court in San Antonio said Monday that it is "giving serious consideration" to calling for split dates for party primaries with the presidential nominating contests coming earlier than legislative races in which district boundaries have yet to be decided.
The only way to proceed as planned with a single primary date on April 3 would be for the State of Texas and plaintiffs' groups suing the state to agree upon interim redistricting maps by Feb. 6, said U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia, who is on the three-judge panel in San Antonio that is hearing one of the Texas redistricting cases.
In theory, it wouldn't be impossible to still designate a single primary date. But getting the state, represented by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, and the plaintiffs, who claim the Legislature drew maps that dilute the minority vote, to agree on much of anything seems pretty unlikely, said Steve Bickerstaff, a University of Texas School of Law professor who worked on redistricting cases for more than 40 years.
"There's just too much at stake," he said.
In a court order Monday, Garcia wrote that the he and the other judges "would not be bound by any such agreement but would take it into careful consideration in announcing interim plans."
The San Antonio panel is just one of the courts dealing with Texas redistricting. While it considers plaintiffs' claims that the Legislature's maps violate the Voting Rights Act by diluting the minority vote, a federal court in Washington, D.C., is hearing another Voting Rights Act case; the Washington court will decide if the Legislature's maps deserve pre-clearance. Texas and other mostly Southern states with a history of discrimination must have redistricting maps approved by the federal government before they can be enacted, as outlined in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
To deal with looming primaries and a lack of district boundaries, the San Antonio panel has taken significant steps in recent months. It has delayed the primaries from the original date of March 6, and it has drafted a batch of interim redistricting maps for Congress, the Texas House and the state Senate. But the U.S. Supreme Court rejected those maps last week, and sent the panel of judges in San Antonio back to drawing board.
In Monday's order, the San Antonio court said that the parties in the case need to be ready by Feb. 6 to say which districts drawn by the Legislature are not in contention, in the event that the parties cannot agree on interim maps.
Garcia and the other judges also asked the state and the plaintiffs to help them get all the information they need to draw new redistricting maps. In particular, the San Antonio court would like the parties to request a swift judgment from the Washington court's pre-clearance case, so the San Antonio court would be able to take it into account when it draws maps for the 2012 elections.
Garcia also said the parties in the case should be prepared to comment on the various forms of a split primary. He offered a couple of options to think about.
For one, the state Republican and Democratic parties might conduct only the presidential primaries and the precinct chair elections on April 3 — or some other date in early or mid-April. This option would allow the state parties to hold their conventions as scheduled in early June. That option would put off all other primaries — and any runoffs — to a later date that is yet to be determined.
Another option outlined by the court would be to hold the presidential primaries in April along with other designated primaries that do not depend on the district lines, leaving the remaining primary elections to be held later.
The court said the possible categories of offices that could be included in an election with the presidential primaries: statewide offices, multicounty offices that do not cut county lines, any office that encompasses only one whole county, and offices that include districts or precincts within counties but do not involve the district lines to be decided by the San Antonio court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)