Here is an interesting update from the Republican Party of Texas that might clear up any questions you have about the current redistricting  in Texas.

The Republican Party of Texas has received numerous emails and calls over the last few days inquiring about the status of the redistricting lawsuit. It has become apparent as a result of these questions, that many of our Republican activists are confused as to what issues are actually before the San Antonio three-judge panel, what the Supreme Court decision actually meant for the process, and what the role of RPT is in this process.
This confusion was heightened by a wholly inaccurate story in “The Hill” (a DC publication), which was then reinterpreted and disseminated through email chains this weekend. This particular article and the emails spreading it, stated that the Republican Party of Texas was in the process of negotiating trading Congressional districts in return for (among other things) saving a convention deposit. These false reports were sent out despite the fact that the Party has sent out regular updates on exactly what was occurring, including one on Saturday that clearly stated “The Republican Party of Texas has not been invited to participate in these discussions…”
Understandably, this has been a confusing time for party activists and candidates. Among the general confusion, these sorts of emails and reports have heightened many questions, so in this update, the RPT would like to explain the current situation as we best understand it.
As a piece of important background to first discuss – the legislative maps were originally drawn by the State Legislature and signed by the Governor. Various plaintiffs’ groups (who include: MALC, NAACP, LULAC, Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force and Democratic elected officials) filed suit against the Speaker of the House, the Governor, the Lt. Governor, the State of Texas and both the Texas Democratic Party and the Republican Party of Texas, to prevent elections using the legislatively drawn maps. The state and the elected officials were named, presumably, because they are the entity that created the maps. As best as we can tell – the state parties’ were sued to enjoin the chairmen from holding primaries under the lines drawn by the Legislature.
The Attorney General represents the State of Texas and the elected officials who are defendants in the suits. It is his office that is charged with actually defending the State and its maps. The RPT’s position is that we were not even a necessary party to the original lawsuits because we did not draw the maps and are not charged with the responsibility of defending them. We also argued that there was no reason to enjoin the Party from holding the primary in the legislatively-drawn districts because the Party would use whatever maps became final by Court order. Consequently, at the beginning of the original trial in front of the San Antonio three-judge panel, not only was the Republican Party of Texas dismissed from the lawsuit, but so were the Lieutenant Governor and the Speaker of the House, as neither were considered necessary parties. The case proceeded to a trial with Attorney General Abbott and his team defending the State of Texas and its maps. The Democratic plaintiffs sought and received from the San Antonio three-judge panel, an injunction preventing the maps enacted by the legislature from being used in the 2012 elections prior to being precleared under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Due to this injunction, interim maps had to be drawn, and were issued by this same court last November in a split (2-1) vote.
Meanwhile, Senator Wendy Davis filed a new lawsuit just on her district, and again included the Republican Party of Texas. We have been seeking dismissal in that case as well, but as of this date, we have not been dismissed. The Republican Party of Texas has filed numerous advisories to alert the court that as they move forward in scheduling primaries, that they needed to be aware of potential consequences to the Party’s precinct conventions, county conventions, state conventions, as well as time periods necessary to accomplish getting out early ballots, complying with the MOVE act, etc.
When the Supreme Court agreed to hear Attorney General Abbott’s appeal of the three-judge panel’s decision issuing interim maps, the Supreme Court consolidated the Davis case with the other cases for purpose of their action. This move put the Republican Party of Texas as a party to the case in front of the Supreme Court. That is why the Republican Party of Texas filed a brief with the Supreme Court as to issues pertaining to the Primary scheduling and urging the Supreme Court for a quick ruling and action in the case. As noted in previous reports, that effort was successful and the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the San Antonio three-judge panel for further action.
The three-judge panel is only considering interim maps, not final maps. This is an important distinction, but it has been confusing to many for what it means. When the legislative maps were challenged, the three-judge panel was tasked with getting a preliminary ruling on maps because a final ruling could not be issued until all the potential legal challenges are resolved, including challenges to the maps before a different three-judge panel in Washington D.C. which is dealing with alleged violations of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
When the Supreme Court issued its opinion, it ruled that the three-judge panel had gone too far for multiple reasons. For example, the three-judge panel revised lines in some districts so as not to split precinct lines, and indicated that they did so for the greater public good. The Supreme Court ruled that the three-judge panel did not have the right to alter lines on this basis because the Legislature allowed the splitting of precinct lines, and it was beyond the scope of their duty to create their own maps based on the public good. Thus, a logical conclusion from this portion of the ruling is that the districts that were altered by the San Antonio three-judge panel, on this basis alone, should be restored to the legislatively drawn lines. We expect that they will be.
However, there were also challenges to the district lines on the basis of alleged violations of the Voting Rights Act – Sections 2 and 5 in particular. The Supreme Court indicated that the San Antonio three-judge panel could not presume that the legislative map violated those sections without there first having been a judicial determination of that fact. But the Supreme Court also indicated that the three judge panel could alter the legislative lines if they determined there was “reasonable probability” that the maps would be found in violation of the Voting Rights Act. To complicate things further, there is action in front of the previously mentioned three-judge panel in Washington D.C., which is determining whether certain Texas districts actually do violate Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Their ruling has not come down yet – but the plaintiffs have been arguing in front of the San Antonio three-judge panel to delay any additional rulings on the maps until that three-judge panel in Washington D.C. rules, so that final maps can be put into place.
Since there is no guarantee that we can get a ruling anytime soon, or get a ruling in time to accomplish a timely primary election, and since the Supreme Court did not say to wait on that ruling – the Attorney General’s office has been pushing for an immediate decision by the San Antonio three-judge panel. This is a position that the Republican Party of Texas thinks is reasonable and which we support.
One thing needs to be clearly understood about the Supreme Court’s decision so as to understand where we are in the process. When the Supreme Court ruled that the San Antonio three-judge panel’s maps were stayed, the Supreme Court did not reinstate the legislature’s maps, but instead, gave the task of redrawing maps back to the same San Antonio three-judge panel with the instructions to draw new maps in accordance with the criteria of their decision. This means that it will be the San Antonio three-judge panel that ultimately draws new maps, and they are still allowed to alter the Legislature’s maps if the panel determines there’s a reasonable probability of violations.
In comments on Friday, the San Antonio three-judge panel signaled that it would be helpful to them if the Attorney General (who represents the State and its maps) and the Democratic plaintiffs groups would get together and discuss if there is agreement on which districts there are areas of disputes over possible violations. By narrowing the number of contentious districts to a manageable number, it increases the likelihood that the San Antonio three-judge panel will be able to draw maps in time for an April primary. The agreement talks on this issue are going on exclusively between the plaintiff’s groups and the Attorney General and his team. The Republican Party of Texas has not been involved, nor invited, into these discussions as previously noted. The Party is told from time to time that the discussions are going on, and that they are significant, but it is not told the substance of the discussions. It is not unusual for parties to discussions to ask all the participants to keep talks confidential.
We are awaiting word from the Attorney General, in conjunction with the plaintiff’s groups, as to whether they can agree on which districts are in dispute, and which ones are not. Even after they report back to the San Antonio three-judge panel as to what they can and cannot agree on, the Court has made clear that any agreement between these two parties is not a true “settlement”. The three judges have been clear that the Court will be the only entity that decides upon the final lines for the new districts. The Court has also made clear that if the districts in dispute can be narrowed down, and if there is some agreement as to what is not in dispute by February 6, that there is still a good chance that Texas can have an April 3rd primary as long as the San Antonio three-judge panel can draw lines by February 6.
We will know if we can have an April 3rd primary by the end of the day on February 6th at the very latest.
As to a discussion on the state parties’ conventions – even if maps are not entered by February 6th, the Democratic Party and Republican Party entered into talks at the hearing on Friday, and subsequently advised the Court that they could still accomplish their state conventions (which both parties have scheduled during the first week of June) if the primary is held by April 17th. Since the Court previously indicated that an April 3rd primary could be held if maps were ready by February 6th, logic would dictate that if maps are obtained by February 20th, that we could still have a primary on April 17th. It is important to note, that the talks between the Democratic and Republican parties deal solely with the deadlines and scheduling of the primary election, not with the boundaries of state legislative or Congressional districts. Only the Attorney General’s office’s attorneys are involved in those discussions. Thus, the email chains that have gone out accusing the Republican Party of Texas of trying to save a convention deposit in exchange for district lines, are blatantly false.
As noted earlier, we are not even involved in the discussion of district lines. Furthermore, as was just previously explained, we do not need maps by February 6th to hold our state conventions on their current scheduled dates. We can get maps as late as February 20th and still accomplish these deadlines. It is the hope of the Republican Party of Texas that even if agreements are not worked out between the Attorney General and the plaintiffs’ groups, that the San Antonio three-judge panel would go ahead and issue maps by February 20th. It should also be noted that the Republican Party of Texas is not concerned merely with the convention deposit on the convention center and hotels, but rather we are concerned with the real possibility that there may not be a convention center or hotel rooms available for our 18,000 delegate contingent at a different date. The state convention serves our Party and our grassroots with the very real purpose of selecting the State Party’s officers, adopting its platform, and picking delegates to the national convention who will select our Party’s Presidential nominee. It is an important part of the overall political process.
It is the RPT’s position that a single unified primary still can be obtained sometime in early to mid April which would allow the state conventions to occur on time. It is also our position that such a schedule is not totally dependent upon any agreements between the Attorney General and the plaintiff’s groups, but rather, is within the authority of the San Antonio three-judge panel to draw lines and act quickly to expeditiously move these elections forward.
The State Party’s best guess on what will occur is that the legislative maps will be modified from the original legislatively-drawn lines by the San Antonio three-judge panel, but the modifications will not be as extensive as they were before the Supreme Court ruling. We expect the three-judge panel to issue new interim maps sometime in February. Whenever the maps are final, if they do not accomplish all the Republican Party of Texas’ goals of a fair map which meets the law representative of a strong Republican majority, then the State Party plans to move forward on its previously announced plan of action. That plan of action calls for all of our candidates to the Texas House and State Senate to pledge to support redistricting in 2013. This plan was authorized by the last meeting of the State Republican Executive Committee (SREC). In addition, the SREC has voted to place a ballot proposition on our 2012 primary ballot as a referendum on calling on the State Legislature to take up redistricting again in 2013. In the event that the maps are not representative of a strong Republican majority – we will ask all Republican primary voters to support this ballot proposition to encourage our State Legislature to draw new final maps in 2013.
For our part, we will endeavor to keep you fully advised on all developments as soon as practical. If you have any questions regarding this process, or if you receive any information through email chain which causes concern – please contact us with any questions at RPT headquarters. This will greatly help us all to avoid erroneous information from these questionable sources. Thank you for your help and for your support during these unusual times.

Tarrant County Republican Party - Official Blog of the Republican Party of Tarrant County

The February 3rd ballot draw has been canceled.

We will announce when it is rescheduled.

Tarrant County Republican Party - Official Blog of the Republican Party of Tarrant County

This is the event of the primary election season!  Join us at the Candidate Fair and Straw Poll.

This is not your ordinary candidate forum…NO speeches, NO rhetoric! Grassroots pure and simple!

This is your chance to meet local & statewide candidates.

Discuss issues, and vote for your choices in the Straw Poll!

Where:

Hurst Conference Center

1601 Campus Drive Hurst, Texas 76054

Times:

1:00pm–6:00pm  Meet YOUR Candidates

Tarrant County Republican Party - Official Blog of the Republican Party of Tarrant County

Photo Source: http://www.supremecourt.gov

Looks like it is back to square one for Texans.

Earlier today, the Supreme Court shared their ruling saying no to the redistricting maps . You can read the order here.

Texas is still without maps for the primary elections this spring, possibly resulting in elections that will be held later than April 3rd.

What are your thoughts? How does this affect the voter morale, in your opinion? Will voters be discouraged to get out and vote in the primary?

Tarrant County Republican Party - Official Blog of the Republican Party of Tarrant County

TARRANT COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY

Executive Committee Meeting Notice
Monday, January 30, 2012
6:30 p.m. Social
7:00 p.m.  Meeting

Location:

CALVARY CHRISTIAN ACADEMY
School Cafeteria
1401 Oakhurst Scenic Dr.
Fort Worth, Texas 76111
Please park in the front of the school, outside the fence.  Or in the South Church parking lot.

Business Agenda:

• Opening Prayer and Pledge to the Flag
• Announcements
• Treasurer’s Report
• Fill vacancies in Executive Committee membership, if quorum is present
• Ratification of Appointive Officers, Area Leaders, and Standing Committee Chairmen
• Other Business, as allowed by the Executive Committee

Upon adjournment of the County Executive Committee meeting, the precinct chairs from each Senatorial District shall meet to elect their chairmen (for districts situated entirely in the county) or a precinct chair from their membership to serve on the District Executive Committee (for districts situated in more than one county) (Texas Election Code Sec. 171.051 – 171.054).  If the Senate District lines are not yet finalized, the Senate District meetings shall be postponed subject to the call of the County Chair.

You can read the announcement in it’s entirety here.

Tarrant County Republican Party - Official Blog of the Republican Party of Tarrant County

Below is information about the advisory filed on January 11, 2012, by  The Republican Party of Texas with the United States Supreme Court informing them of the adverse consequences of moving a unified 2012 Texas Primary Election beyond early to mid April.

You can download the advisory here.

In stating the reason behind the advisory, RPT State Chairman Steve Munisteri said, “The RPT became concerned that the Supreme Court was under the mistaken impression that it was workable to hold a unified primary as late as June 26th. This concern arose from questioning of counsel by Justices Alito and Sotomayor at Monday’s Supreme Court hearing on Texas redistricting. A review of the transcripts of the hearing confirmed that the Justices had indeed been told that a Texas Primary as late as June 26th was workable.”

Munisteri continued, “In fact, as noted in my previous Chairman’s Report (see link here) it is impossible to have a single unified primary on June 26th and to still comply with our Texas Election Code. The reason is that the Election Code requires the Parties to have a state convention in June or July and then further mandates a process of selecting delegates to those conventions over a several weeks period of time. This requirement, combined with the time it takes to organize a state convention, would make it impossible to hold a primary as late as June 26th, and still have a convention in a timely fashion. In addition, it is not practically possible to reschedule either party’s state convention, which are scheduled for June 7-9 for the RPT, and June 8-9 for the Texas Democratic Party. The reason for this is that you have to line up a convention facility sometimes years in advance, and the State Party has already contracted with the Fort Worth Convention Center and surrounding hotels.”

The Chairman continued, “In addition to the the Party’s convention problems, there are other practical problems why a June 26th primary is unworkable. An immediate concern is the reported jump in cost to the taxpayers as a large number of polling locations in Texas are school facilities. While these locations are normally free in the spring, they would not be available in the summer, and/or there would be a charge to utilize them. Another looming problem is manpower – many of the workers required to hold the elections, have no doubt already planned for summer vacations during that time, or will be forced to obtain child care or weigh other conflicting considerations. Furthermore, it is also expected that voting during the summer months would lower voter turnout, to say nothing of the fact that the Presidential Primary will be of little or no importance on June 26th, as opposed to April 3rd. For these reasons, the State Party felt compelled to take the extraordinary step of forwarding an advisory to the U.S. Supreme Court to raise these issues. I would like to make particular note of the help we received from Austin attorney Chris Ward of the firm Yetter Coleman LLP in drafting the advisory. Chris generously donated his work pro bono, and we are very grateful for his service.”

Tarrant County Republican Party - Official Blog of the Republican Party of Tarrant County

What are your thoughts about what transpired in New Hampshire last night?

New Hampshire Primary 2012:

Leave your insight in the comments.

Tarrant County Republican Party - Official Blog of the Republican Party of Tarrant County

Did you hear the oral arguments yesterday at the Supreme Court?

What do you think the election map for 2012 will look like in here in Texas?

As you likely already know, the question at hand focuses on the federal judge panel in San Antonio drawing up an interim redistricting map before getting the green light.

Some argue that the redistricting is discriminatory. Was it fair to allot several new congressional seats to Texas? Are the minority voters being overlooked or minimized? From your point of view, are the maps unclear? In the end, is this even constitutional? You may want to check out what is going on in another state with mass-growth that is facing the same issues as Texas. Will this set the presidence?

We hope you will read the Supreme Court Oral Argument transcript in it’s entirety and let us know your thoughts in the comments.

Tarrant County Republican Party - Official Blog of the Republican Party of Tarrant County

From http://txredistricting.org

The start of a “January to remember” kicks off Monday afternoon at 1 p.m. (ET) with arguments in the Supreme Court about the interim legislative and congressional maps drawn by the San Antonio panel.

Here’s a preview of the case:

What will the Supreme Court decide?  

There are three interlinked core issues.

The first, and most basic issue, is whether the San Antonio panel abused its  discretion in drawing interim  maps that did not hew closely enough to the maps adopted by the Texas Legislature.

Then, if the Supreme Court concludes that was the case, the court will have to explain to the San Antonio panel what it needs to do to fix the maps – or how it should draw new ones.

Related to that, the Supreme Court will need to decide whether there is enough time to fix any problems that it finds in the interim maps or whether it should just order the elections to go forward on the state’s maps (as the state argues) or the court-drawn interim maps.

Mixed in with those more pedestrian issues is the lurking and potentially explosive issue of whether the preclearance process under section 5 continues to be constitutionally viable nearly 50 years after enactment of the Voting Rights Act.

Read More at TxRedistricting.Org

Tarrant County Republican Party - Official Blog of the Republican Party of Tarrant County

FORT WORTH — Three months ago, Jennifer Hall was one of the numerous background players in Texas Republican politics. The strong-minded stay-at-home mom from Fort Worth volunteered for campaigns and rallied for causes but was mostly comfortable away from the spotlight.But in October, her brother-in-law died. Over the last decade, David Hall had made himself a familiar sight to thousands of people. Even if they didn’t know him by name, they could recall the Liberty Bell replica he hauled around on a flatbed trailer to hundreds of soldiers’ funerals and various local events.”At his funeral, we talked about all the things he had done throughout his life and I just got to the point where I thought I should do what I can while I can,” Hall said.Within weeks, Hall was in a three-way race to be interim chairwoman of the Tarrant County Republican Party. The chairwoman at the time, Stephanie Klick, had announced she was stepping down to run for the Texas House.One Saturday last month, after three rounds of voting, local Republican precinct chairmen picked Hall, 41, as head of the largest reliably Republican county in Texas.

Read more here: Aman Batheja - Star-Telegram

Tarrant County Republican Party - Official Blog of the Republican Party of Tarrant County