As you can see, the task ahead for Perry is enormous. He is at 7% in Iowa and Florida, 4% in South Carolina, 2% in New Hampshire. Here are the main early-voting  states ( in voting order):

IOWA

Gingrich 28

Paul 13

Romney 12

Bachmann 10

Perry 7

Santorum 3

Huntsman

- – -

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Romney 34

Gingrich 24

Paul 14

Huntsman 11

Cain 5

Perry 2

Bachmann 2

Santorum 1

- – -

SOUTH CAROLINA

Gingrich 38

Romney 15

Cain 13

Perry 7

Paul 4

Bachmann 3

Santorum 2

- – -

FLORIDA

Gingrich 41

Romney 17

Cain 13

Perry 7

Paul 4

Bachman 3

Huntsman/Santorum

- – -

CAVEAT: politicalwire.com notes that several of these polls are done by Insider Advangage, whose founder, Matt Towery ran Gingrich’s political operation in the 1990s. The New Hampshire poll is from Rasmussen.

Solomons is something of a tragic figure, because he had considerable ability but, in nine terms, he never figured out how to put it to use. He was one of the eleven insurgents who led the successful revolt against Tom Craddick in the winter of 2008-09, and one of the “cardinals” who constituted the Straus inner circle in the 81st Legislature. During the Straus speakership, he knew more about the rules than anyone else in the House, and he was at his best in informal rules meetings with his colleagues, when he was collaborative rather than combative. Solomons always seemed to be spoiling for a fight, whether it was with Phil King, in their marathon battles over the Public Utility Commission during the Craddick speakership, or with lobbyists involved in negotiating homeowners’ association issues. He was among the first members to break with Craddick after the 2008 election and filed papers to run for speaker, but it was a doomed exercise; for all his legislative skill, he didn’t have the trust of his colleagues, and at times this was evident, as when Sylvester Turner amended the rules resolution in 2009–the issue was the jurisdiction of committees that Solomons was interested in, including State Affairs–and Solomons’ motion to table failed. Even in absentia, Solomons remains a central figure, as his House redistricting map is now the subject of judicial scrutiny. His map provided only one Hispanic opportunity district, and that was a stretch, since the district was already represented by Lon Burnam. Solomons’ failing was that he was too combative, and he picked fights he didn’t need to be in, as when he moved to table the bipartisan Oliveira/Huberty amendment to the sanctuary cities bill last session that would have given school districts protection that the bill offered to hospital districts and other special districts. Nobody likes to lose, but Solomons brought most of his problems on himself. The lesson here is that talent alone isn’t enough. You have to play nice with others.

The last couple of days has been very active for races in Nueces County. Instead of running against Connie Scott, with whom he is paired, Raoul Torres decided to move to Kleberg County and run against former Democratic representative Abel Herrero in District 34. But the local Republican establishment isn’t happy with Torres and has recruited a local justice of the peace, Amanda Torres, to oppose Raoul Torres in the new district. Herrero, though, would seem to have the upper hand, since Democrat Rick Noriega outpolled Republican John Cornyn in the 2008 U.S. Senate race. Still to be heard from is the Ortiz clan; former state rep Solomon Ortiz Jr., son of former congressman Solomon Sr. , is said to be contemplating challenging Connie Scott. Meanwhile, a report out of Corpus Christi is that Texans for Lawsuit Reform is contemplating a joint endorsement of Todd Hunter and Geannie Morrison, who are paired in District 32. I spoke with a contact at TLR who said that no decision has been made concerning an endorsement in that race. That TLR would have a dual endorsement of the chairman of Calendars and a back-bencher like Morrison would be a shocker.

Tagged: Abel Herrero, Amanda Torres, Connie Scott, john cornyn, Raoul Torres, rick noriega

I came across this intriguing scenario, without an author’s byline, on a web site called nextbigfuture.com. The writing isn’t very good but the premise is most interesting:

NBC/WSJ polled multiple hypothetical matchups between the candidates in the 2012 presidential general election. The head-to-head matchup between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney shows Obama leading Romney by a 6 percent margin with Obama garnering 49 percent of the vote to Romney’s 43 percent. NBC/WSJ also polled a matchup between three candidates, Democrat Barack Obama, Republican Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul as an Independent. The results are underwhelming for the supposed favorites – but for Ron Paul, this is an opening. Barack Obama easily wins again, but with only 44 percent of the vote compared to Romney’s 32 percent. However, Paul captures a whopping 18 percent.

Ron Paul could potentially capture enough Electoral votes to prevent both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney from reaching the 270 Electoral votes needed to become president. If this scenario plays out, the presidential election would be decided in the House of Representatives with the top three highest electoral vote getters being decided on who becomes president[as I said, the writing is terrible]. In 2012, the House will most likely still be Republican controlled, leaving Mitt Romney and Ron Paul vowing [vying--pb] for the highest office. With the growing number of tea party representatives in Congress, the election could look more similar to a European parliament vote, in building coalitions with many factions to support a prime minister.

* * * *

Intriguing, yes. Plausible, no. Readers will recall that Ross Perot ran for president in 1992, against George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and did not carry a single state. He got 18.9% of the vote, about what Ron Paul is projected to receive if he runs as an independent candidate. It would be a huge development if Paul were to carry a state. You can’t affect the electoral vote unless you carry a state, and I don’t think Paul can carry it off.

Joe Arpaio, who likes to describe himself as “America’s toughest sheriff,” will endorse Rick Perry for president and will campaign with Perry. But Perry’s statements on the controversial Arizona immigration law may not find favor with Arpaio. Perry has been quoted by local TV stations in Houston (Channel 26) and San Antonio (Channel 4) making critical comments about the Arizona law. The statements are made by the reporters, citing previous remarks by Perry.

“The governor has said all along that what’s right for Arizona is not necessarily right for Texas. It would take law officers away from their legal duties.” (Channel 26)

“A law like that would not be good for Texas.” (Channel 4)

* He will veto any Arizona-style immigration bill that crosses his desk as governor (Channel 26)

This is a significant development. It means that Justice Scalia did not deny the State’s request for a stay (nor did he grant it).  He has asked the plaintiffs to respond by 4 p.m. on Thursday. It will take five justices, Scalia included, to grant a stay.

I spoke earlier with General Abbott about the state’s strategy in the redistricting case. Abbott conceded that, in normal circumstances, the granting of a stay “is not a high probability event.” However, he says that certain aspects of the case–particularly language in the dissent by Judge Jerry Smith of the Fifth Circuit–could tip the case in the State’s favor. The comments below are from my conversation with Abbott.

Smith “openly urged the Supreme Court to grant a stay.”

To this point in the case, “no court has made a finding or issued an order that has found the map(s) to violate any law in any way.”

A lower court cannot overturn or issue a remedy without concluding that a wrong occurred. The state should get a remand from the Supreme Court to the trial court. The trial court cannot create a map out of whole cloth without a finding that something wrong occurred.

The trial court dictated a remedy without finding any violation of the law, therefore usurping the will of the legislature.

AUSTIN—Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott will file an emergency stay application with the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to halt the implementation of legally flawed redistricting maps drawn by a federal panel in San Antonio.

At issue is whether the interim maps imposed by a three-judge redistricting panel violate the U.S. Constitution and federal law, and exceed the proper role of the judiciary. The State of Texas alleges the panel improperly rejected the will of the elected legislature and redrew the State’s House and Senate districts without regard to any established legal or constitutional principles.

Attorney General Greg Abbott explained that a stay of the election process is needed because “elections should not proceed based on legally flawed maps that are likely to be overturned on further review.”

Because the legally flawed maps could create confusion for Texans who wish to become candidates when the filing period opens Monday, the State of Texas is pushing quickly to restore clarity to the process. An expeditious decision is necessary so candidates will not needlessly file for office based on boundaries drawn by the interim maps that are likely to be overturned upon further legal review.

Why should the State of Texas appeal this case to the United States Supreme Court? Why should the State ask for a stay of the redistricting plan proposed by two of the three judges at the lower court hearing? Why does the State believe it can and should win at the U.S. Supreme Court?

So far, only one appellate judge has considered the redistricting plan passed by the Legislature – that is Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. He dissented from the interim Texas House of Representatives redistricting plan proposed by the two trial court judges, and provided a detailed analysis as to why the interim House plan was a stark departure from the law. The italics in the following paragraphs are words written by Judge Smith that graphically detail why justice demands the interim House redistricting plan be overturned immediately. (more…)

Like my former colleague, Patricia Kilday Hart, I always found Aaron Pena to be one of the Legislature’s most interesting members. Pena had no use for the Valley Democratic establishment. Hart chronicled his alienation from the power brokers in a profile for TEXAS MONTHLY earlier this year. He was known to his constituents as a frequent blogger about the Capitol; what was less well known was that he was a reluctant Democrat who loathed the machine politicians who practice petty corruption at election time. It was hardly surprising, then, when Pena switched parties following the 2010 Republican sweep and helped found the House Hispanic Republican caucus.

Pena believed that the Democrats in the Valley were scripting their fate by continuing their old-style tactics of using politqueras — women who were paid to hustle votes — and refused to have anything to do with it; astonishingly, both the incumbent district attorney and his challenger said they would not hire politiqueras in the 2010 elections.

I had several conversations with Pena over the years, and I think he is right that in the long run, old-style politics, a la Kino Flores, in South Texas will inevitably fail, as the Valley becomes increasingly affluent. The emerging business class will have nothing to do with the corrupt politics and will  increasingly abandon the Democratic party, because the old-line Democrats will never change their ways. Democrats vowed to beat him this time around, and Pena himself admitted that there was no way he or any Republican could win in his new district. It had come to the point that Pena would rather lose as a Republican than win as a Democrat. I hate to see him driven out of the Legislature, but he paid the price for being a straight-arrow.

This creates new opportunities for Latinos. Joaquin Castro could run in Gonzalez’s central San Antonio district instead of the weird IH 35 district that connects southeast Travis County to southeast Bexar County, the shape of which arguably violates the requirement that districts must be compact and contiguous. [The Texas Tribune is reporting that Castro will announce that he is running in CD-20 tomorrow morning.] Other possible beneficiaries are Trey Martinez-Fischer, Jose Menendez, and Michael Villarreal. The Constitution of the United States does not require a congressional candidate to be a resident of the district he or she seeks to represent. State Senator Carlos Uresti may also want to take a look. The new 35th district is a safe Latino seat, so it could also appeal to pols who hold local offices.

From CNN:

Representatives for leading social conservative groups in Iowa held a secret meeting Monday as part of an effort with one main goal: find and support a Republican presidential candidate who can stop Mitt Romney in Iowa.

The idea: avoid splintering the conservative vote in the state by rallying around one GOP rival who could win Iowa’s Jan. 3 caucus and then challenge Romney in New Hampshire and the other early voting states.

Many social conservatives and other religious leaders in the state have openly labeled the former Massachusetts governor as a “flip-flopper,” a criticism the campaign frequently beats back, while others have seen Romney’s Mormon faith as an issue. And many of them have openly hoped for someone to emerge as a viable alternative to the former Massachusetts governor.

* * * *

This may be Perry’s best–and last–chance to break through into the upper tier of candidates. Social conservatives are very strong in Iowa, and their objective is to stop Romney from winning the Iowa caucuses. Whoever gets the endorsement will have enhanced his credibility with social conservatives everywhere.

More from CNN:

One attendee at the meeting earlier this week told CNN they wanted “to see if they could come to a consensus of who they might endorse.”

But the source was skeptical about the impact of Iowa social conservatives rallying behind one candidate.

“If you want to stop Romney you’re probably going to have to have some organization [and] some money,” the source said. “Somebody who’s at 5% or 6% in the polls, and they endorse, I don’t think that does any good.”

The effort is said to still be in the discussion phase. Participants were said to have narrowed their focus down to four candidates: Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

Perry does have organization and money, the two critical elements. Bachmann and Santorum have no chance to reach the top tier. That leaves Gingrich and Perry, but Perry is still polling at around 6% in Iowa to Gingrich’s 20+. Still, the opening is there, if Perry can squeeze through it.