Critics of the Justice Department’s refusal to grant preclearance to the Texas House and congressional redistricting maps will no doubt attribute DOJ’s action to politics. And no doubt politics had something to do with it. But I never thought that DOJ would approve a map that ignored the demographic facts, which this map does. Virtually ALL of the growth in Texas’s population in the last decade is attributable to Hispanic growth. How can the state defend a map that does not respond to this reality? How can Texas gain four seats in Congress and none of them be Hispanic seats? This is a travesty. The map overreaches in its creators’ desire to send second-rate Republican legislators to Washington. Mike Jackson? Randy Weber? Give me a break. Sam Rayburn is turning over in his grave.

Tagged: DOJ, preclearance, redistricting maps, texas redistricting

This was an interesting discussion. The same lawyer who was grilled by Wentworth and Tommy Williams (see “Liars and Stolen Maps,” below) was asked by Democrats about the applicability of the Supreme Court opinion upholding the constitutionality of Indiana’s Voter I.D. law.

The lawyer’s answer was that the Indiana case involved a facial challenge to the Indiana statute: Did the Voter I.D. law burden the fundamental right to vote? The plaintiffs had to prove that the Voter I.D. law places an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote. The fate of the Texas Voter I.D. bill, if it becomes law, will be determined by the Department of Justice under the Voting Rights Act, rather than by the courts. Here the burden will fall on the state to show that the Voter I.D. bill will not produce a regression of minority voting strength.

* * * *

Back to work. Zaffirini is asking questions about the fiscal note, which she scoffed at earlier today. Mr. Hebert, the name of the lawyer I have been writing about, says that the cost of defending the bill in the Justice Department, of defending the bill in court, and of training local election officials, will cost the state millions of dollars. Hebert says, in response to Z’s question, litigation would cost a quarter of a million on the plaintiff’s side, and the defendants probably half a million.

Tagged: indiana redistricting, jeff wentworth, texas redistricting, tommy williams, voter ID

The discussion in the Senate has gotten hot and heavy as the midnight hour approached. I missed the name of the witness, an attorney who had represented Texas Democrats in various redistricting cases. He attacked the Tom DeLay midcensus redistricting in 2003. Wentworth jumped in to point out that the Democrats had gerrymandered the 1971 redistricting to eliminate one of the three Republican congressmen (in a 25-member delegation). Then he defended the 03 redistricting, pointing out that Texas had 29 statewide officeholders, all of them Republicans, and Texas had voted for George W. Bush for president, but that the congressional delegation (drawn by a federal court) was 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans, and the Democrats were fighting Bush, and that was why the 03 redistricting took place.

Williams, calm as ever, grilled the lawyer about whether Eddie Bernice Johnson had called him a liar from the witness stand, said he had lied to her, and stabbed her in the back, all to help Martin Frost. “Is she a liar?” Williams asked. “If she said I lied to her, she’s a liar,” the lawyer said. “I have never lied to a client.” Then Williams asked if the lawyer had stolen maps from the redistricting room during the 03 redistricting battle, and couldn’t he be disbarred for that? The lawyer said, “Let me answer the second question first. Yes, I could be disbarred for stealing maps. But I never stole any maps.” Williams said, “I have information that there are tapes of you stealing maps.”

12:14 a.m. Now they are on a 10-minute break while the stenographer who has been here since noon is being replaced.

Tagged: jeff wentworth, texas redistricting, tommy williams