On December 12, both sides in Perez v State of Texas, 5:11-cv-00360, the case over redistricting for Congress and state legislature, asked the U.S. District Court in San Antonio to delay filing deadlines for candidates for U.S. House and state legislature. However, the two sides took opposing positions on whether there should be any delay for other partisan offices. Texas boundaries for U.S. House and state legislature cannot be known until next year, because the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing the case over the district boundaries on January 9, so it is obvious to everyone that filing for primaries for U.S. House and state legislature must be postponed.
The League of United Latin American Citizens filed a four-page brief, arguing that it would be very undesirable for Texas to hold a March 6 primary for statewide office and local office, and then another primary later on for U.S. House and legislative offices. The League points out that if Texas holds separate primaries, then Texans would be asked to go to the polls six times in 2012: (1) a March 6 primary for statewide and local office; (2) an April 13 run-off primary for those offices; (3) a May 12 election for non-partisan city and town office, which by law cannot be combined with any partisan primary; (4) a primary on an undetermined date for U.S. House and state legislature; (5) a run-off primary for those offices; (6) the general election in November 2012. The brief argues that this would be very expensive for election administration, would cause voter fatigue, and would be especially damaging to low income and working voters.
The state’s brief merely asks the court to provide a later filing period for candidates for U.S. House and state legislature, but not to tamper with the normal schedule for statewide office and local partisan office. The state’s brief implicitly seems to support the idea of separate primaries, because it does not ask that filing for statewide office and local partisan office be postponed.
The 3 judges will hold a status conference on December 13 at 10 a.m., and presumably will shortly afterwards issue a ruling on filing deadlines, and probably also a ruling on whether the March primary should be moved to a later date for all office, or just for U.S. House and legislature.
No one in this lawsuit seems to have mentioned anything about the effects of all this uncertainty on independent candidates and on political parties that expect to petition for a place on the ballot. Such petitioning is not permitted until after the partisan primaries are over.
Have the EVIL inmates of the TX gerrymander regime asylum taken over the regime ???
———
Democracy NOW.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
ONE election per year.
this judge shopping case was mis-filed in Albany by DOJ on top of USDC-NYWD prior then active case Forjone v California
#2 There is nothing in the LULAC brief about an April 13 runoff. That is contrary to State law, and since there is likely to be a senatorial runoff, would be contrary to federal law. Perhaps someone was trying to interpret what they meant by 6 elections. LULAC is just one of many many plaintiffs, and there appears to be some competition or jealousy among some of the plaintiffs.
The AG over the weekend said they were going to ask for a stay to deadlines for filing in the legislative and congressional offices, and the district court ordered a hearing on Tuesday May 13, and told the litigating parties to consult with the Democratic and Republican parties and the Secretary of State, and that a representative from the SOS be available for consultation.
When the State of Texas asked for the stay of the interim boundaries by the SCOTUS, they said that the issues were so important they were willing to have a delay, and suggested that the legislative and congressional primary could be held in May.
The DC District Court which is hearing the VRA Section 5 preclearance case, today finally set trial dates (January 17-26). When they had denied summary judgement, they told the San Antonio district court to create interim congressional and legislative districts. The USDOJ then argued that the interim boundaries should be used as the benchmark (ie that Texas was trying to change the interim boundaries created in November to the districts passed by the legislature last June; rather than trying to change the legislative boundaries created in 2001 and now outdated due to the 2010 census). Since the USDOJ said that a different benchmark should be used, they would need more time to prepare (delay). And the court in San Antonio can not issue their ruling on the merits of the case, until preclearance is settled.
The DC court had asked for briefs by Monday, December 12 as to which benchmark should be used. After the SCOTUS stayed the interim map, the DC court canceled the briefing, and set the trial dates. That is, the benchmark is now the 2000s-era districts.
When the SCOTUS hears the case on the interim boundaries on January 9; Texas will be able to argue that the preclearance trial will start in 8 days, and that when they gain preclearance, there will be no need for the interim maps. And even if they don’t get preclearance on all maps, they may get preclearance on some of the maps (the USDOJ had no objection with the senate map, for example). And they may get preclearance except for limited areas, in which case a limited remedy can be fashioned. If they can get that done by February 13 or so (99 days before May 22), then the legislative and congressional primary could be held in conjunction with the runoffs for other races.
If the SCOTUS were to order the interim districts be used, then the DC court would likely delay its trial, which would have the effect of denying Texas its day in court.
When the district court holds it hearing tomorrow on the election schedule, Texas can argue that no one knows what the Supreme Court will rule, or when they will rule. The interim maps were ordered on 2-1 votes, with a vigorous dissent:
“For the reasons given in my dissent, I continue respectfully to disagree with the majority’s ill-advised, though well-intentioned, imposition of an interim redistricting plan for the Texas House of Representatives.
The majority’s newly-revealed zeal to press for sweeping relief at this interim stage of the case is unseemly at best and downright alarming at worst. The majority concedes that its order implementing the plan is on appeal. Its statement in the now-appealed order, to the effect that it would file a supplemental opinion, does not change the fact that the order is already in the good hands of the Supreme Court.
This ‘Supplemental Opinion’ has the smell of a brief on appeal. That is not the role of a trial court. It would be equally inappropriate for me now to point out the flaws in this latest submission.
The talented attorneys on each side are fully capable of explicating the legal issues that will be
considered, and if the Supreme Court needs further explanation from this three-judge district court,
it will ask. If the majority feels insecure in the justification it gave in its initial offering, that is the stuff of appellate briefing by the parties’ attorneys, not judges and their law clerks.
In my almost twenty-four years as a judge on the court of appeals, I cannot recall ever seeing an unsolicited ‘supplemental opinion’ come flying over the transom from a district judge desperate to lend further support for a shaky decision. We are judges, not advocates.”
It is not surprising that the SCOTUS issued the stay.
The district court panel simply can’t assume that the Supreme Court will order the interim districts be used, given that dissent by the 5th Circuit Judge assigned to the 3-judge panel.
With the legislative and congressional districts up in the air, it would be reckless to delay 100s of other primaries. To delay the presidential primary would be to deny millions of Texans the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the election of the president, just as surely as Ohio would have done in 1968 and 1980.
In 2002 (after the last redistricting), only 90 of 462 legislative and congressional primaries in Texas were contested (2 or more candidates). There were more races (109) with zero candidates.
Texas doesn’t hold runoffs in places where the primary results in a majority. In May 2012, Republicans will probably need a statewide senatorial runoff. There will be a scattering of other offices on the ballot. If there were congressional and legislative races added, there would be minimal extra cost.
Since these would be special primaries, a court could make some adjustments. For example, they could reduce the early voting period by a week, to match that for runoffs. In addition, they could cancel legislative and congressional races where no or only one candidate files (79% of races in 2002).
With Democrats unlikely to have any statewide runoffs, this would let them to hold congressional and legislative primaries and any other runoffs only in those areas where they are needed.
There will be only a smattering of legislative and congressional primaries that need runoffs (4.6% in 2002), and these can be held in July.
The major parties hold precinct conventions, county or senatorial district conventions, and a state convention. These don’t have anything to do with nominations other than for the president. The senatorial district conventions have nothing to do with the senate. They allow larger counties with multiple senate districts to have smaller conventions. They are optional. The interim and legislature-drawn senate plan differ in only 3 counties, and only two of these are split by senate districts. It would be trivial to let the parties to define the senate districts they use, if they use senate district conventions at all.
If the primary was delayed until May, it would mess up the convention schedule, including the state conventions.
The Republicans and Democrats apportion some national convention delegates on the basis of primary results in districts. The Republicans use congressional districts, the Democrats use senate districts. No delegates are actually elected at the presidential primary. Voters simply vote for “Romney” or “Paul”. That they use districts is by party rule, not statute. So the parties can simply tabulate presidential primary votes by globs of election precincts, just like they would do otherwise.
It is unknown when the legislative and congressional districts will be resolved. It is quite practical to hold the presidential and senatorial primary and all the other 100s of other races using the current schedule.
It may be possible to fold the legislative and congressional primaries into the May runoff, depending on when they are determined. In the worst case, these elections can be held as special elections in November, just like was done in 1996 and 2006, following Supreme Court redistricting decisions that occurred after the primaries.
Kesha Rogers, the Democratic Nominee for Congress in the 22nd Congressional District of Texas in 2010 (“NASA District), a leading member of the LaRouche National Presidential Slate of Candidates for Congress in 2012, who has already filed double the number of signatures for running again, has issued the following declaration of candidacy, Dec. 11, 2011 entitled, “A Real Campaign to Save the Nation.”
Click on http://www.larouchepac.com/node/20732
for the full statement.
The statement reads in part, “I am running for Congress to fill the void in leadership. In 2010, I said the things that nobody else would say, ‘Save NASA, Impeach Obama,’ thus returning the United States to its heritage of representing the beacon of hope and liberty for the world. I said we must do this, by ending the unconstitutional bailouts of Wall Street and Europe by re-instating Glass-Steagall, then unleashing the full funding for the scientific advancement of humanity, as with our manned space program, the North American Water and Power Alliance, and other great projects.”
Once again, the full statement, which is a masterful summary of the approach to master the current global crisis, can be accessed and is available for mass circulation at http://www.larouchepac.com/node/20732
At stake in the gerrymander WARS — around $ ONE TRILLION in Fed spending/borrowing ??? — count the zeros.
Both EVIL gerrymander sides are playing for PERMANENT gerrymander control of the U.S.A. House of Reps.
Senate gerrymander State areas are *semi-permanent* —
BUT see the bogus creation of WV during the Civil War – carved out of VA — about 5 percent in the very north near DC controlled by the Union Army at the time.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Minor parties, including new parties nominate by multi-stage convention.
The precinct convention is held the week of the primary (formerly it was the same night). Actual nominations are made at county and district conventions in the following weeks. Unlike for the Republicans and Democrats, these conventions actually have a real purpose – which is as an alternative to primaries. Statewide nominations are made by the state conventions in June.
Candidates must file to be nominated by a minor party convention. The deadline is January 2. The reason that the deadline is later, is because no ballots have to be sent overseas 45 days overseas.
If there are no legislative or congressional districts, the minor parties can still hold county conventions, and district conventions for other districts (SBOE and multi-county judicial districts). The state conventions in June make the statewide nominations.
When the legislative or congressional districts are known, those district conventions can be held.
New parties qualify on the basis of attendance at their precinct conventions, which can be supplemented by petition in the 75 days following. The date of the precinct convention is tied to the date of the primary.
Until this year, precinct conventions were held the night of the primary. A new law allows them to be held on any day through the following Sunday (March 6-11). The convention date may be set by county, and the petition period is definitely based on the date of the conventions and not the primary. So nobody thought that part through. So the petition deadline is between 75 and 80 days after the primary. Since the petition can not be signed until after the precinct convention, it would seem reasonable to set the deadline based on the last convention. Having different deadlines for different counties would seem messy, even though the voter rolls that they are checked against are kept on a county basis (the SOS has a statewide roll and they are regularly synchronized).
Parties may consolidate election precincts for primaries, and thus for precinct conventions. And starting this year, the consolidation can be countywide. So a small party could hold a countywide precinct convention on any day through Sunday.
If the precinct conventions are in March, then it would be possible to use them to select delegates for the Libertarian national convention in May, if they choose to do so.