joint advisory on interim congressional districts
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
1/96
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
SHANNON PEREZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________
MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE
CAUCUS, TEXAS HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES (MALC),
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,
Defendants.____________________________________
TEXAS LATINO REDISTRICTING TASKFORCE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
)
)
))
)
)
))
)
))
)
))
)
)
))
)
))
))
)
))
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO.
SA-11-CA-360-OLG-JES-XR[Lead case]
CIVIL ACTION NO.
SA-11-CA-361-OLG-JES-XR[Consolidated case]
CIVIL ACTION NO.
SA-11-CA-490-OLG-JES-XR[Consolidated case]
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 1 of 26
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
2/96
MARGARITA V. QUESADA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RICK PERRY, et al.,
Defendants.
))
)))
)
))
)
CIVIL ACTION NO.SA-11-CA-592-OLG-JES-XR
[Consolidated case]
____________________________________ )
JOHN T. MORRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,
Defendants.
))
)
))
)
))
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO.
SA-11-CA-615-OLG-JES-XR
[Consolidated case]
____________________________________ )
EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RICK PERRY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
))
))
)
))
)
CIVIL ACTION NO.
SA-11-CA-635-OLG-JES-XR[Consolidated case]
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 2 of 26
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
3/96
I. Congressional District 33The United States Supreme Courts order in this case suggested strongly that this Court
would be justified in departing from the States enacted congressional plan in the Dallas-Fort
Worth area.1
Specifically, the Court indicated that it would be appropriate for this Court to
deviate from the enacted plans configuration of Tarrant County congressional districts,
including CD 33, because the districts appear[ed] to be subject to strong challenges in the 5
proceeding. Perry v. Perez, 132 S. Ct. 934, 944 (2012) (per curiam). The State bears the burden
of proof in the Section 5 proceeding. See, e.g.,Reno v. Bossier Parish Sch. Bd., 520 U.S. 471,
478 (1997); City of Pleasant Grove v. U.S., 479 U.S. 462, 469 (1987). In light of the States
burden to disprove discriminatory purpose under Section 5, the Supreme Courts specific
reference in Perry to Dallas-Fort Worth congressional districts, the Department of Justices
objection to these districts, and evidence in the record that certain features of these districts
correlate to race and divide concentrated minority populations, this Court has a legal and factual
basis to conclude that there is a reasonable probability these districts will fail to gain
preclearance.2
A. CD33 Is Tailored to Address Section 5 Claims in Dallas-Fort WorthI f hi i i i d f h ll d S i 5 i l i i D ll F W h
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 3 of 26
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
4/96
districts are based on allegations of discriminatory purpose. When a district is challenged as
drawn with an impermissible purposeparticularly when the effect of that alleged purpose is to
fracture identifiable communitiesthe appropriate remedy should reverse the effect of the
alleged impermissible purpose. See, e.g., Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 418
(1975) (explaining that an appropriate remedy for intentional discrimination will so far as
possible eliminate the discriminatory effects of the past as well as bar like discrimination in the
future) (citingLouisiana v. United States, 380 U. S. 145, 154 (1965)). In redrawing a district,
the Court is of course limited by its inability to make the policy decisions that inform a
legislatures redistricting efforts. Thus the appropriate remedy is generally informed by the
status quo ante, which provides the most recent expression of state policy.3 See, e.g.,Balderas v.
Texas, 2001 WL 35673968 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2001) (per curiam), summarily aff'd, 536 U.S.
919 (2002). The remedy is complicated in this case by the fact that the status quo ante is not
available, strictly speaking, because of population growth and the addition of four new
congressional seats in the State. But CD33, as drawn in Plan C226, provides an appropriate
agreed interim remedy for the Section 5 challenge to Dallas-Fort Worth congressional districts
precisely because it maintains the core of the existing congressional districts surrounding CD33,
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 4 of 26
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
5/96
2010, the Anglo population in Dallas and Tarrant counties decreased by 156,742. See Doc. 638-
39. The African American population increased by 152,825 and the Latino population increased
by 440,898. Id. Today, Anglos constitute 41% of the total population in Dallas and Tarrant
Counties, African Americans constitute 19% and Latinos constitute 33%. Id. Plan C226 follows
traditional redistricting criteria in creating CD33 as a new congressional district to accommodate
the fast-growing population of the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. Opinion and Order,Balderas v. Texas,
No. 6:01-cv-158 (Doc. 413) at *56 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2001).
Congressional District 33 in Plan C226 remedies the separation of communities in
Dallas-Fort Worth by withdrawing the fingers that divide minority population, in the enacted
plan, into congressional districts 6, 12, 26 and 33. Districts 6, 12, and 26 generally retract to
their population bases under the benchmark congressional plan. For example, in Tarrant County,
the lightning bolt of CD 26 that included substantial Latino population in the predominantly
Anglo, Denton County-based CD 26 is withdrawn. Similarly, the extension of CD 12 into
African-American neighborhoods in Tarrant County and the extension of CD 6 into
predominantly Latino areas of Dallas are also withdrawn. District 33 moves eastward to fill the
space created by the retraction of CDs 6, 12, and 26 to their population bases, and it encompasses
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 5 of 26
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
6/96
is undisturbed in Plan C226. Similarly, the boundaries of CD 32 in Dallas County remain almost
exactly the same as the enacted plan. Also in Dallas County, CD 33 is shaped to create minimal
changes to CD 30, an African-American majority district. Changes along the border of CD33
and CD30 that lowered both districts compactness were made to honor Congresswoman Eddie
Bernice Johnsons request to include specific areas in CD 30, including her home and office. 4
See Feb. 15, 2012 Hearing Tr. at 356:615. The southern boundary of CD 33 accommodates the
boundary of the enacted CD 12, reflecting the concerns of incumbent Kay Granger to retain
certain parts of the City of Fort Worth. In Tarrant County, the boundary of CD 33 extends to
take in Cowboys Stadium, home to the Dallas Cowboys football team. Notwithstanding the
variety of competing interests that are accommodated by the boundaries of CD33, the districts
compactness scores are within the State's acceptable range of compactness and are comparable to
congressional districts 2 and 35. See Exhibit B, Plan C226, Red 315 Report.
B. CD33 Is Not a Coalition DistrictBecause CD 33 encompasses much of the Dallas-Fort Worth areas population growth, it
is both racially and politically diverse. Electorally, no one racial group has an exclusive ability
to nominate and elect its preferred candidates. Although Latinos constitute the largest number of
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 6 of 26
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
7/96
Because African Americans and Latinos typically support different candidates in the
Democratic Primary, District 33 is not a minority coalition opportunity district in which two
different minority groups band together to form an electoral majority. Perry v. Perez, 132 S.
Ct. at 944. Without a majority of voters of any particular race, CD33 can be expected to
nominate and elect a candidate who has the cohesive support of one racial group and at least
some crossover support from another group. It reflects the accepted wisdom that all voters must
pull, haul, and trade to find common political ground. Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997,
1020 (1994).
The boundaries of CD 33 very closely follow Plan C216, which was offered earlier in the
litigation as a bipartisan proposal by Congressmen Cuellar and Canseco. The boundaries of CD
33 also closely follow a proposal provided to the State during the 2011 legislative session by
Representative Lamar Smith on behalf of the Texas Republican delegation. See Texas v. U.S.,
Trial Exhibit DX536. The Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force maintains that CD 33
represents carefully negotiated district boundaries that reflect the care given by the State of
Texas to accommodate the concerns of congressional incumbents in Dallas-Fort Worth.
The State of Texas maintains that Plan C226 is not an expression of state policy because,
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 7 of 26
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
8/96
C. CD33 Is Reasonably CompactProposed CD33 falls within the range of compactness of districts in the States enacted
congressional plan. As in other urban districts, the constitutional requirement to zero out the
population in districts, as well as factors such as working around existing Voting Rights Act
districts and trying to include the locations of incumbents homes and district offices have a
significant effect on district boundaries. See Exhibit A, Split VTDs from Unpopulated Blocks.
In C185 and C226, CD2 is a majority Anglo district in Harris County and is less compact than
CD33 in C226. Congressional District 18, an African-American opportunity district in the
States enacted C185, contains a similar compactness score to CD33 in Plan C226. SeePerez
Exhibit J-8; Exhibit B, Plan C226, Red 315 Report. No party has challenged the boundaries of
CD18 as a racial gerrymander. The parties also note that SD12, which was used for the 1992
election cycle, is very similar to CD33 in Plan C226. See Doc. 656 at 44. SD12 in the 1992
redistricting plan has a shape and compactness similar to CD33 in C226 and demonstrates that
such a district canand didexist in the past when the States mappers relied on traditional
race-neutral redistricting criteria.
In fact, examination of Plan C226s compactness scores in Tarrant and Dallas counties
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 8 of 26
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
9/96
Congressional Districts in Tarrant5
and Dallas Counties6
District
No.
C185Rubber
Band
C226Rubber
Band
Direction of
change
C185
Perimeter
C226
Perimeter
Direction of
change
5 0.684 0.684 n/a7 0.132 0.132 n/a
6 0.725 0.764more
compact0.204 0.215
more
compact
12 0.744 0.768more
compact0.109 0.230
morecompact
24 0.749 0.750 n/a 0.213 0.211 n/a
26 0.754 0.910more
compact0.241 0.460
morecompact
30 0.814 0.760 less compact 0.253 0.180 less compact
32 0.604 0.617more
compact0.120 0.125
more
compact
33 0.600 0.430 less compact 0.143 0.045 less compact
Total 5.674 5.683 morecompact
1.415 1.598 morecompact
Average 0.70925 0.710375 n/a 0.176875 0.19975more
compact
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 9 of 26
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
10/96
Metroplex within which it is situated. The district simply reflects the population and its growth
in Dallas and Tarrant counties. CD33 in C226 has an HCVAP of 39.4%, SSVR of 35.8%, a
BCVAP of 24%, and an Anglo CVAP of 33.5%. See Doc. 656-1 at 42.
In Bush v. Vera, where the Supreme Court struck down certain Texas congressional
districts as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders, the Court performed a fact-based analysis that
included examining the racial and nonracial reasons proffered for the districts. With respect to
CD30, the Supreme Court found it significant that CD30 elevated race over other traditional
concerns such as partisanship. 517 U.S. at 96997. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court recognized
a number of legitimate factors that could have led to the drawing of a noncompact CD30. For
example, the Supreme Court acknowledged that Congresswoman Johnsons first proposal was
compact but that five other congressmen would have been thrown into districts other than the
ones they currently represent. Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. at 967 (quoting lower court decision).
Thus, the Supreme Court recognized that incumbency protection might explain as well as, or
better than, race a States decision to depart from other traditional redistricting principles, such as
compactness, in the drawing of bizarre district lines. Id.
* * *
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 10 of 26
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
11/96
redistricting criteria and is tailored to address the specific harm alleged under Section 5, it is
appropriate for the Court to incorporate that district in an interim congressional plan for the 2012
elections.
II. Congressional District 35Plan C226 creates CD 35, which is a new Latino opportunity district in Central Texas,
and is identical to the CD 35 proposed in Plan C185. Because Texas enacted CD 35 as part of
Plan C185, unless there is a likelihood of success on the merits of a Section 2 or constitutional
claim against it, this Court has no authority to modify it. Perry v. Perez, 132 S. Ct. at 942. This
Court must therefore evaluate any challenge to CD 35 under the likelihood-of-success standard
because it has not been challenged by any party under Section 5. Nor could it be, since the
Department of Justice Guidelines expressly excludes Shaw v. Reno claims from the scope of the
Section 5 discriminatory purpose inquiry. U.S. Department of Justice, Guidance Concerning
Redistricting Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act: Notice, 76 Fed. Reg. 7470 (Feb. 9, 2011).
As a result, unless Plaintiffs can meet their burden of showing why CD 35 cannot be part of the
interim plan, this Court is properly constrained to include the district in any interim plan it
adopts.
A CD35 D N t R fl t th I i ibl U f R
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 11 of 26
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
12/96
likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that race predominated over other
considerations in the drawing of CD 35.
It is well-established that legislatures are afforded the benefit of a presumption of good
faith when they conduct redistricting. See Chen, 206 F.3d at 505 (The [Supreme] Court has
clearly indicated that th[e] presumption [of good faith] may impact the assessment of the
propriety of summary judgment in a suit challenging districts as racial gerrymanders.); see also
Miller, 515 U.S. at 916 (The distinction between being aware of racial considerations and being
motivated by them may be difficult to make. This evidentiary difficulty, together with the
sensitive nature of redistricting and the presumption of good faith that must be accorded
legislative enactments, requires courts to exercise extraordinary caution in adjudicating claims
that a State has drawn district lines on the basis of race.).
In Shaw v. Reno, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can challenge a
reapportionment statute . . . by alleging that the legislation, though race-neutral on its face,
rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to separate voters into different
districts on the basis of race, and that the separation lacks sufficient justification. 509 U.S. 630,
649 (1993). A plaintiff raising a Shaw claim bears the significant burden of proving that racial
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 12 of 26
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
13/96
not believe that the mere presence of race in the mix of decision making factors, and even the
desire to craft majority-minority districts, . . . alone automatically trigger[s] strict scrutiny. Id.
at 514 (citations omitted). A plaintiffs heavy burden of establishing the predominance of race
can be met either through direct evidence of the legislatures purpose or through circumstantial
evidence, including, among other things, a districts demographics or shape. See Shaw v. Hunt,
517 U.S. 899, 905 (1996);Miller, 515 U.S. at 916.
If a plaintiff meets its heavy burden of proving racial predominance, the challenged
district is subject to strict scrutiny, which means that the district must be narrowly tailored to
further a compelling state interest. Vera, 517 U.S. at 976; see id. at 977 (A 2 district that is
reasonably compact and regular, taking into account traditional districting principles . . . may
pass strict scrutiny without having to defeat rival compact districts designed by plaintiffs experts
in endless beauty contests.).
B. CD35 Reflects a Variety of Race-Neutral ConsiderationsCD 35 joins communities from Travis and Bexar Counties and results in a district that
contains 58.3% Latino voting age population, 51.9% Latino citizen voting age population, and
45.0% Spanish surname voter registration. Exhibit B, Plan C226, Red 106 Report. The
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 13 of 26
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
14/96
population; in Plan C226, CD 35 is 29.4% Anglo voting age population and 58.3% Latino voting
age population. Perez Exhibit J-1, Plan C100, Red 202 Report; Exhibit B, Plan C226, Red 202
Report.10
As was stated on the record during public redistricting committee hearings and the floor
debate, the concept of this district was originally presented to the Legislature by the Texas Latino
Redistricting Task Force in Public Plan C122. Perez Exhibit D-22 at A-2; Perez Exhibit J-62,
Deposition of Ryan Downton at 114:1724. In determining where the four new congressional
districts should be drawn, the Legislature took into consideration where the population growth
had been throughout the state. Mr. Downton testified that there was significant population
growth in Central Texas that would support the creation of a new congressional district. Perez
Trial Tr. at 915:1722; see also Perez Exhibit D-43; Perez Exhibit J-58, Deposition of Doug
Davis, 17:4-14 (explaining that the Legislature drew the new congressional districts based on
population growth). In fact, the growth in the Latino community was so significant within
Central Texas that the Legislature concluded the Latino population was sufficiently large and
geographically compact such that it could create a Latino opportunity district that met the 50%
citizen voting age population threshold. See Exhibit E, Perez Exhibit D-44; Exhibit F, Perez
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 14 of 26
C 5 11 00360 OLG JES XR D t 660 Fil d 02/16/12 P 15 f 26
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
15/96
interest in southeast Austin and San Antonio and how the residents of south San Antonio have
more in common with the residents of southeast Austin than with the residents of geographically
closer Alamo Heights. Perez Trial Tr. at 556:10-557:6, 557:17-558:19, 559:1-17. Further, Mr.
Downtons testimony showed that it is not unusual for areas in San Antonio and Austin to be
combined in a congressional district. Id. at 944:11-22. San Antonio and Williamson County,
which is north of Austin, were combined in Congressional District 21 for the 1996 special and
general elections, the 1998 general election, the 2000 general election, the court-ordered map
that was used for the 2002 election, and the legislatively drawn map used for the 2004 elections
and the 2006 primaries. Perez Latino Task Force Exhibits 305306. In the benchmark
congressional plan, CD 21 unites portions of San Antonio and the City of Alamo Heights with
the City of Austin and even the Texas Capitol building.
The record shows that in creating CD 35, the State accommodated the requests of various
Democratic state legislators with respect to the boundary between CD 35 and CD 20 and also
respected Guadalupe Countys request to be kept whole in the redistricting plan. See Perez Trial
Tr. at 918:23-919:22, 985:21986:9. Additionally, Mr. Downton testified that certain areas in
Travis and Bexar Counties were included within District 35 in order to keep Latino communities
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 15 of 26
C 5 11 00360 OLG JES XR D t 660 Fil d 02/16/12 P 16 f 26
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
16/96
elected to political office). Mr. Downton testified that when drafting the new congressional
plan he looked at possibilities for expanding minority representation. Perez Trial Tr. at 917:24-
919:13. Nevertheless, even if Mr. Downton considered the racial composition of District 35, it
is clear the Legislature considered many factors other than race. As the Court recognized in
Shaw, mere consciousness of race in redistricting is an insufficient basis on which to trigger strict
scrutiny where it is considered along with traditional redistricting principles. See Shaw, 517 U.S.
at 905.
The Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force maintains that CD 35 is a required district
under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and that it satisfies all of the requirements under
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986). See Doc. 416.
C. CD35 is Reasonably Compact.Despite the adherence to these traditional districting principles, Plaintiffs point to the
non-compact shape of CD 35 to support their claim that CD 35 was drawn predominantly on the
basis of race in disregard of traditional districting principles. While the contours of CD 35 are
not perfect, for purposes of a Shaw claim, its shape is relevant only for any light it may shed on
the claim that race for its own sake, and not other districting principles, was the legislatures
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 16 of 26
Case 5:11 cv 00360 OLG JES XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 17 of 26
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
17/96
(1) perimeter to area score of 0.054 and (2) area to rubber band score of 3.64. See Exhibit B,
Plan C226, Red 315 Report. CD 35 is not the least compact district in Plan C226 and is only
slightly less compact than other districts in Plan C226. As a result, there is no evidence that CD
35s shape indicates the predomination of race over traditional redistricting principles.
Finally, it is worth noting that CD35, like CD 33 does not have the bizarre shape of any
of the districts invalidated by the Supreme Court inBush v. Vera. E.g., 517 at 972 (According
to the leading statistical study of relative district compactness and regularity, [the Harris County
districts] are two of the three least regular districts in the country. (emphasis added)). The
compactness scores for CD 35 exceed the scores for Anglo-majority CD 2 and are more than
twice as compact as the scores for the districts invalidated inBush v. Vera. Compare Exhibit B,
Plan C226, Red 315 Report, with Richard H. Pildes & Richard G. Niemi, Expressive Harms,
Bizarre Districts, and Voting Rights: Evaluating Election-District Appearances AfterShaw v.
Reno, 92 MICH.L.REV. 483, 565 tbl. 3 (1993).
D. Split Precincts Do Not Indicate Improper Race-Based Decisionmaking.Although parties challenging CD35 point to the splitting of precincts as evidence that
race predominated in its creation, they have offered no evidence to suggest how this practice
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 17 of 26
Case 5:11 cv 00360 OLG JES XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 18 of 26
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
18/96
along the border between CD 35 and Districts 20 and 23 in order to comply with the Voting
Rights Act by maintaining appropriate Hispanic population levels in those areas. See Perez Trial
Tr. at 917:24921:18. Other splits in precincts were necessary to keep neighboring CD 23 at or
above the benchmark levels and to ensure that CD 35 had at least 50% HCVAP for purposes of
the Voting Rights Act. See Texas v. U.S., Trial Tr. T2A at 95:16-96:3. Precincts were also split
in order to make the boundaries smoother and more compact along the I-35 corridor in CD 35.
See Perez Trial Tr. at 917:24-921:18.
In Bush v. Vera, the testimonial and written record showed that the States motive in
creating less compact districts was to maximize African American voting strength and draw a
50% district no matter what it took. See 517 U.S. at 969. Here, because of the explosive
population growth in the Latino community, it was easy to draw a Latino-majority district along
the I-35 corridor from San Antonio to Austin. Perez Latino Task Force Exhibit 399; Perez
Exhibit J-11; Perez Exhibit J-9. CD 35 also contains non-racial VTD splits, in contrast to the
findings inBush v. Vera.
CD 35 also respects city boundaries where possible. Both San Antonio and the City of
Austin are larger than one congressional district and must be split in congressional redistricting.
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 18 of 26
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 19 of 26
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
19/96
Because the parties challenging CD35 have not come close to carrying their burden of
proving that race predominated over other considerations in CD35, there is no basis to conclude
that a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to that district under Shaw is likely to succeed. See
Chen, 206 F.3d at 521. Rather, the evidence reflects that CD 35 comports with race-neutral
traditional districting principles. In addition to complying with equal population requirement for
congressional districts, Texas took into account joining communities of interest, drawing a new
district where significant population growth had occurred in the state, and compliance with the
Voting Rights Act. Texas was well within its right to create a district in which Latino voters
would have an opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. This Court should therefore
include CD 35 as proposed in C226 in the interim plan.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the undersigned parties respectfully submit that any interim
congressional plan must include CD35 as enacted by the Texas Legislature and included in Plan
C226. The undersigned further submit that CD33, as drawn in Plan C226, is an appropriate and
minimally disruptive remedy for the alleged Section 5 violation in the configuration of
congressional districts in Dallas/Fort Worth.
Case 5:11 cv 00360 OLG JES XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 19 of 26
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 20 of 26
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
20/96
Dated: February 16, 2012 Respectfully Submitted,
GREG ABBOTT
Attorney General of Texas
DANIEL T. HODGEFirst Assistant Attorney General
/s/ David C. Mattax
DAVID C. MATTAXDeputy Attorney General for Defense Litigation
Acting Deputy Attorney General for Civil LitigationState Bar No. 13201600
DAVID SCHENCKDeputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel
J. REED CLAY, JR.Special Assistant and Senior Counselto the Attorney General
ANGELA COLMENEROAssistant Attorney General
Texas Bar No. 24048399
MATTHEW H. FREDERICKSpecial Counsel to the Attorney GeneralTexas Bar No. 24040931
P.O. Box 12548, Capitol StationAustin, TX 78711-2548
(512) 936 1342
Case 5:11 cv 00360 OLG JES XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 20 of 26
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 21 of 26
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
21/96
Mexican American LegalDefense and Educational Fund
___/s/ Nina Perales_______Nina Perales
Rebecca M. Couto
Marisa BonoKarolina J. Lyznik
MALDEF
110 Broadway Street, #300San Antonio, TX 78205
(210) 224-5476
Fax: (210) 224-5382
Robert W. Wilson
Mark Anthony SanchezGale, Wilson & Sanchez, PLLC
115 East Travis, 19th FloorSan Antonio, TX 78205
(210) 222-8899Fax: (210) 222-9526
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS TEXAS
LATINO REDISTRICTING TASK FORCE,
RUDOLFO ORTIZ, ARMANDO CORTEZ,
SOCORRO RAMOS, GREGORIO BENITOPALOMINO, FLORINDA CHAVEZ,
CYNTHIA VALADEZ, CESAR EDUARDO
YEVENES, SERGIO CORONADO,
GILBERTO TORRES, RENATO DE LOS
SANTOS, JOEY CARDENAS, ALEX
Case 5:11 cv 00360 OLG JES XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 21 of 26
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 22 of 26
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
22/96
_____/s/ Jose Garza_________________
JOSE GARZATexas Bar No. 07731950Law Office of Jose Garza
7414 Robin Rest Dr.
San Antonio, Texas 78209(210) 392-2856
JOAQUIN G. AVILALAW OFFICE
P.O. Box 33687
Seattle, Washington 98133Texas State Bar # 01456150
(206) 724-3731
(206) 398-4261 (fax)[email protected]
Ricardo G. Cedillo
State Bar No. 04043600Mark W. Kiehne
State Bar No. 24032627
DAVIS, CEDILLO & MENDOZA, INC.McCombs Plaza, Suite 500
755 E. Mulberry Avenue
San Antonio, Texas 78212Tel.: (210) 822-6666
Fax: (210) [email protected]
g
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 23 of 26
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
23/96
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this filing was sent via the Courts electronicnotification system and/or email to the following counsel of record on February 16, 2012, to:
Via CM/ECF
DAVID RICHARDSTexas Bar No. 1684600
Richards, Rodriguez & Skeith LLP
816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1200
Austin, TX 78701512-476-0005
RICHARD E. GRAY, III
State Bar No. 08328300
Gray & Becker, P.C.900 West Avenue, Suite 300
Austin, TX 78701512-482-0061/512-482-0924 (facsimile)
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS PEREZ,
DUTTON, TAMEZ, HALL, ORTIZ,
SALINAS, DEBOSE, and RODRIGUEZ
JOSE GARZA
Texas Bar No. 07731950Law Office of Jose Garza
7414 Robin Rest Dr.San Antonio, Texas 78209
210-392-2856
GERALD H. [email protected]
DONALD H. FLANARY, III
State Bar No. 24045877
[email protected], Goldstein and Hilley
310 S. St. Marys Street
San Antonio, TX 78205-4605210-226-1463/210-226-8367 (facsimile)
PAUL M. SMITH, MICHAEL B.DESANCTIS, JESSICA RING AMUNSON
Jenner & Block LLP1099 New York Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20001202-639-6000
J. GERALD HEBERT191 Somervelle Street, # 405
Alexandria, VA 22304
JESSE GAINES
P.O. Box 50093
Fort Worth, TX 76105
g
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 24 of 26
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
24/96
NINA [email protected]
MARISA BONO
[email protected] MCNEILL COUTO
Mexican American Legal Defenseand Education Fund
110 Broadway, Suite 300
San Antonio, TX 78205
210-224-5476/210-224-5382 (facsimile)
MARK ANTHONY SANCHEZ
[email protected] W. WILSON
Gale, Wilson & Sanchez, PLLC115 East Travis Street, Ste. 1900
San Antonio, TX 78205210-222-8899/210-222-9526 (facsimile)
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS TEXAS
LATINO REDISTRICTING TASK FORCE,
CARDENAS, JIMENEZ, MENENDEZ,
TOMACITA AND JOSE OLIVARES,
ALEJANDRO AND REBECCA ORTIZ
JOHN T. MORRIS5703 Caldicote St.
Humble, TX 77346281-852-6388
JOHN T. MORRIS, PRO SE
Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid, Inc.1111 North Main
San Antonio, TX 78213
ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR-
PLAINTIFF LEAGUE OF UNITED
LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS
ROLANDO L. RIOS
Law Offices of Rolando L. Rios115 E Travis Street
Suite 1645
San Antonio, TX 78205210-222-2102
ATTORNEY FOR INTERVENOR-
PLAINTIFF HENRY CUELLAR
GARY L. BLEDSOE
State Bar No.: 02476500Law office of Gary L. Bledsoe
316 W. 12th Street, Ste. 307
Austin, TX 78701512-322-9992/512-322-0840 (facsimile)
ATTORNEY FOR INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFFS TEXAS STATE
CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES,
TEXAS LEGISLATIVE BLACK
CAUCUS, EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON,
SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, ALEXANDER
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 25 of 26
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
25/96
STEPHEN E. [email protected]
SAM JOHNSON
[email protected]. ABRAHAM KUCZAJ, III
Scott, Douglass & McConnicoOne American Center
600 Congress Ave., 15th Floor
Austin, TX 78701
512-495-6300/512-474-0731 (facsimile)ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS CITY OF
AUSTIN, TRAVIS COUNTY, ALEX
SERNA, BALAKUMAR PANDIAN,
BEATRICE SALOMA, BETTY F. LOPEZ,
CONSTABLE BRUCE ELFANT, DAVID
GONZALEZ, EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, ELIZA
ALVARADO, JOSEY MARTINEZ,
JUANITA VALDEZ-COX, LIONORSOROLA-POHLMAN, MILTON GERARD
WASHINGTON, NINA JO BAKER, and
SANDRA SERNA
CHAD W. [email protected]
K. SCOTT BRAZIL
[email protected] & Dunn
4201 FM 1960 West, Suite 530Houston, TX 77068
281-580-6310/281-580-6362 (facsimile)
ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR-
ROBERT NOTZONState Bar No. 00797934
Law Office of Robert S. Notzon
1507 Nueces StreetAustin, TX 78701
512-474-7563/512-474-9489 (facsimile)
ALLISON JEAN RIGGS
ANITA SUE EARLS
Southern Coalition for Social Justice1415 West Highway 54, Ste. 101
Durham, NC 27707
919-323-3380/919-323-3942 (facsimile)[email protected]
ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR-
PLAINTIFFS TEXAS STATE
CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES,
EARLS, LAWSON, WALLACE, andJEFFERSON
DONNA GARCIA DAVIDSON
PO Box 12131
Austin, TX 78711512-775-7625/877-200-6001 (facsimile)
FRANK M. REILLY
Potts & Reilly, L.L.P.P.O. Box 4037
Horseshoe Bay, TX 78657
512-469-7474/512-469-7480 (facsimile)
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 26 of 26
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
26/96
Via Email
JOAQUIN G. AVILA
P.O. Box 33687
Seattle, WA 98133206-724-3731/206-398-4261 (facsimile)
ATTORNEYS FOR MEXICAN
AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS
KAREN M. KENNARD
2803 Clearview DriveAustin, TX 78703
(512) 974-2177/512-974-2894 (facsimile)
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
CITY OF AUSTIN
DAVID ESCAMILLA
Travis County Asst. AttorneyP.O. Box 1748
Austin, TX 78767(512) 854-9416
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
TRAVIS COUNTY
/s/ David C. MattaxDAVID C. MATTAX
Deputy Attorney General for Defense LitigationActing Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660-1 Filed 02/16/12 Page 1 of 3
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
27/96
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
SHANNON PEREZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________
MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE
CAUCUS, TEXAS HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES (MALC),
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________
TEXAS LATINO REDISTRICTING TASK
FORCE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO.
SA-11-CA-360-OLG-JES-XR
[Lead case]
CIVIL ACTION NO.
SA-11-CA-361-OLG-JES-XR
[Consolidated case]
CIVIL ACTION NO.
SA-11-CA-490-OLG-JES-XR
[Consolidated case]
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660-1 Filed 02/16/12 Page 2 of 3
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
28/96
MARGARITA V. QUESADA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RICK PERRY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO.
SA-11-CA-592-OLG-JES-XR
[Consolidated case]
____________________________________ )
JOHN T. MORRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,
Defendants.
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
CIVIL ACTION NO.
SA-11-CA-615-OLG-JES-XR
[Consolidated case]
____________________________________ )
EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RICK PERRY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO.
SA-11-CA-635-OLG-JES-XR
[Consolidated case]
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660-1 Filed 02/16/12 Page 3 of 3
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
29/96
Split VTDs that split populated blocks from unpopulated blocks
33
24
3
26
12
4620
4403
33823442
4362
2461
2027
1185
1170
4250
1056DaTarrant
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660-2 Filed 02/16/12 Page 1 of 7
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
30/96
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
SHANNON PEREZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________
MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE
CAUCUS, TEXAS HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES (MALC),
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________
TEXAS LATINO REDISTRICTING TASK
FORCE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO.
SA-11-CA-360-OLG-JES-XR
[Lead case]
CIVIL ACTION NO.
SA-11-CA-361-OLG-JES-XR
[Consolidated case]
CIVIL ACTION NO.
SA-11-CA-490-OLG-JES-XR
[Consolidated case]
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660-2 Filed 02/16/12 Page 2 of 7
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
31/96
MARGARITA V. QUESADA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RICK PERRY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO.
SA-11-CA-592-OLG-JES-XR
[Consolidated case]
____________________________________ )
JOHN T. MORRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,
Defendants.
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
CIVIL ACTION NO.
SA-11-CA-615-OLG-JES-XR
[Consolidated case]
____________________________________ )
EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RICK PERRY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO.
SA-11-CA-635-OLG-JES-XR
[Consolidated case]
Texas Legislative Council02/06/12 2:16 PMPage 1 of 2
Population and Voter Datawith Voter Registration Comparison
Red-202Data: 2010 CensusPLANC226 02/06/2012 11:56:36 AM
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS - PLANC226
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660-2 Filed 02/16/12 Page 3 of 7
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
32/96
Population Total Voter Registration Non-Suspense Voter Registration
District Deviation Total %A %B %H %BH %O General Election Turnout Total SSVR TO/VR Total SSVR TO/VR
1 0 Total: 698,488 64.4 18.5 15.5 33.7 1.9 2010 165,185 404,654 4.4 % 40.8 % 351,474 4.4 % 47.0 %0.00% VAP: 523,448 68.2 17.7 12.3 29.9 1.9 2008 260,195 424,608 4.2 % 61.3 % 362,573 4.2 % 71.8 %
2 0 Total: 698,488 50.8 10.5 30.8 40.7 8.5 2010 172,006 372,078 13.5 % 46.2 % 324,509 13.4 % 53.0 %0.00% VAP: 518,345 55.0 9.6 27.3 36.5 8.6 2008 243,889 373,741 12.7 % 65.3 % 325,610 13.3 % 74.9 %
3 0 Total: 698,488 62.4 9.3 14.5 23.4 14.2 2010 140,980 381,905 5.9 % 36.9 % 331,691 5.6 % 42.5 %0.00% VAP: 500,074 65.3 8.6 12.8 21.1 13.5 2008 268,756 383,118 5.9 % 70.1 % 330,901 5.7 % 81.2 %
0 Total: 698,488 73.8 11.5 12.2 23.5 2.7 2010 162,593 414,048 3.7 % 39.3 % 360,518 3.7 % 45.1 %0.00% VAP: 521,731 77.1 10.7 9.7 20.3 2.6 2008 260,457 425,729 3.5 % 61.2 % 368,173 3.5 % 70.7 %
5 0 Total: 698,488 57.2 14.9 25.2 39.7 3.1 2010 134,842 358,066 8.2 % 37.7 % 309,752 8.1 % 43.5 %0.00% VAP: 511,695 62.3 13.9 21.0 34.7 3.0 2008 223,268 371,098 8.0 % 60.2 % 320,055 8.0 % 69.8 %
6 0 Total: 698,488 54.3 19.3 20.8 39.4 6.2 2010 146,089 388,455 9.6 % 37.6 % 331,133 9.6 % 44.1 %0.00% VAP: 502,856 58.9 17.5 17.7 34.9 6.2 2008 260,690 397,281 9.6 % 65.6 % 343,133 9.4 % 76.0 %
7 0 Total: 698,488 47.3 12.4 30.1 41.8 10.9 2010 169,040 353,820 11.6 % 47.8 % 304,938 11.3 % 55.4 %0.00% VAP: 519,479 50.9 11.6 27.0 38.1 11.0 2008 239,535 356,301 10.7 % 67.2 % 309,556 11.2 % 77.4 %
8 0 Total: 698,488 68.4 8.9 19.7 28.2 3.4 2010 171,204 376,057 7.3 % 45.5 % 326,252 7.2 % 52.5 %0.00% VAP: 516,691 71.6 8.7 16.7 25.2 3.2 2008 235,475 373,405 7.0 % 63.1 % 326,771 7.1 % 72.1 %
9 0 Total: 698,488 11.5 40.3 37.3 76.5 12.0 2010 116,374 317,251 14.6 % 36.7 % 266,506 15.0 % 43.7 %0.00% VAP: 500,927 13.9 39.6 34.0 72.7 13.4 2008 190,124 326,077 13.7 % 58.3 % 281,735 14.8 % 67.5 %
10 -1 Total: 698,487 57.5 11.2 26.3 36.9 5.6 2010 182,334 403,338 10.7 % 45.2 % 347,105 10.5 % 52.5 %0.00% VAP: 513,735 61.6 10.5 22.8 32.9 5.5 2008 265,170 400,941 10.3 % 66.1 % 351,302 10.4 % 75.5 %
11 0 Total: 698,488 61.0 4.3 33.3 37.1 1.9 2010 155,016 395,682 19.8 % 39.2 % 343,482 19.5 % 45.1 %0.00% VAP: 522,630 65.7 3.8 28.8 32.4 1.9 2008 243,180 409,841 19.6 % 59.3 % 357,194 19.4 % 68.1 %
12 0 Total: 698,488 66.4 8.6 20.6 28.9 4.7 2010 147,255 383,936 9.3 % 38.4 % 325,277 9.1 % 45.3 %
0.00% VAP: 518,938 70.6 7.8 17.2 24.8 4.6 2008 254,094 389,895 9.1 % 65.2 % 335,047 9.1 % 75.8 %13 0 Total: 698,488 67.0 6.1 24.1 29.8 3.2 2010 147,531 401,955 11.8 % 36.7 % 342,791 11.5 % 43.0 %
0.00% VAP: 519,246 71.4 5.6 20.2 25.6 3.1 2008 247,872 418,945 11.6 % 59.2 % 358,077 11.2 % 69.2 %
14 0 Total: 698,488 53.3 21.2 22.1 42.8 3.9 2010 164,945 412,324 11.4 % 40.0 % 351,210 11.3 % 47.0 %0.00% VAP: 523,436 56.9 20.3 19.2 39.2 3.8 2008 245,917 428,460 11.1 % 57.4 % 365,844 11.1 % 67.2 %
15 0 Total: 698,488 16.3 2.0 80.6 82.2 1.5 2010 84,855 300,705 66.5 % 28.2 % 262,292 66.8 % 32.4 %0.00% VAP: 469,736 19.4 2.1 77.2 79.0 1.6 2008 147,675 307,798 67.4 % 48.0 % 264,174 67.4 % 55.9 %
16 0 Total: 698,488 14.7 4.1 80.1 83.4 1.9 2010 82,266 339,856 65.7 % 24.2 % 319,178 66.2 % 25.8 %0.00% VAP: 493,308 17.0 3.8 77.6 80.9 2.1 2008 169,877 348,934 66.1 % 48.7 % 306,180 67.4 % 55.5 %
17 -1 Total: 698,487 57.7 14.5 23.3 37.2 5.2 2010 152,216 369,918 11.2 % 41.1 % 307,847 11.0 % 49.4 %0.00% VAP: 532,324 62.2 13.0 19.8 32.5 5.3 2008 234,556 386,413 11.2 % 60.7 % 324,257 11.0 % 72.3 %
18 0 Total: 698,488 16.7 41.4 38.7 79.2 4.1 2010 123,773 345,446 15.6 % 35.8 % 292,182 16.0 % 42.4 %0.00% VAP: 505,750 20.2 41.4 34.5 75.3 4.5 2008 196,891 351,812 14.7 % 56.0 % 301,547 15.9 % 65.3 %
19 -1 Total: 698,487 57.4 6.9 33.9 40.2 2.4 2010 138,729 385,094 23.1 % 36.0 % 330,554 22.9 % 42.0 %0.00% VAP: 522,651 62.1 6.2 29.5 35.4 2.5 2008 239,165 408,950 23.0 % 58.5 % 343,276 22.5 % 69.7 %
20 0 Total: 698,488 23.0 5.8 68.6 73.4 3.6 2010 106,726 355,709 55.3 % 30.0 % 296,003 55.9 % 36.1 %0.00% VAP: 508,354 26.3 5.5 64.9 69.8 3.8 2008 198,514 369,283 56.2 % 53.8 % 309,892 56.9 % 64.1 %
Texas Legislative Council reports prior to 2008 generally do not include results for third-party, independent, or write-in candidates. Beginning in 2008, results for all third-party and independent candidates are included, and the results for write-in candidates are summedand included as "write-in". Complete official results for all years are maintained by the office of the secretary of state.SSVR = Spanish surname voter registration
24900
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS - PLANC226
Texas Legislative Council02/06/12 2:16 PMPage 2 of 2
Population and Voter Datawith Voter Registration Comparison
Red-202Data: 2010 CensusPLANC226 02/06/2012 11:56:36 AM
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS - PLANC226
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660-2 Filed 02/16/12 Page 4 of 7
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
33/96
Population Total Voter Registration Non-Suspense Voter Registration
District Deviation Total %A %B %H %BH %O General Election Turnout Total SSVR TO/VR Total SSVR TO/VR
21 0 Total: 698,488 64.8 4.1 27.0 30.6 4.5 2010 211,493 466,724 15.1 % 45.3 % 387,634 14.5 % 54.6 %0.00% VAP: 553,018 68.3 3.6 23.9 27.2 4.5 2008 316,763 472,246 15.3 % 67.1 % 402,392 14.7 % 78.7 %
22 0 Total: 698,488 45.0 13.4 24.6 37.5 17.5 2010 162,715 366,714 14.7 % 44.4 % 320,014 14.7 % 50.8 %0.00% VAP: 494,499 48.0 12.7 22.3 34.6 17.4 2008 235,046 356,054 14.8 % 66.0 % 318,507 14.8 % 73.8 %
23 0 Total: 698,488 25.5 3.6 69.3 72.4 2.1 2010 122,593 367,614 55.1 % 33.3 % 326,175 55.9 % 37.6 %0.00% VAP: 489,508 28.9 3.6 65.8 69.0 2.1 2008 194,329 367,302 55.5 % 52.9 % 322,615 56.1 % 60.2 %
24 0 Total: 698,488 53.4 11.0 23.4 33.9 12.6 2010 146,111 379,416 9.0 % 38.5 % 309,304 8.6 % 47.2 %0.00% VAP: 528,185 57.5 10.3 20.3 30.3 12.2 2008 261,711 397,066 9.0 % 65.9 % 330,301 8.8 % 79.2 %
25 0 Total: 698,488 70.3 8.3 17.3 25.1 4.6 2010 178,357 427,892 8.3 % 41.7 % 358,665 7.9 % 49.7 %0.00% VAP: 520,539 73.5 7.5 14.8 22.0 4.5 2008 275,368 431,191 8.1 % 63.9 % 369,884 7.9 % 74.4 %
26 0 Total: 698,488 68.4 7.8 17.3 24.7 6.9 2010 142,012 386,901 7.3 % 36.7 % 325,417 7.1 % 43.6 %0.00% VAP: 497,267 71.4 7.2 15.0 22.0 6.6 2008 262,178 386,720 7.4 % 67.8 % 334,344 7.3 % 78.4 %
27 -1 Total: 698,487 42.8 6.0 49.5 54.9 2.3 2010 147,910 406,798 36.8 % 36.4 % 343,835 36.7 % 43.0 %0.00% VAP: 516,473 47.2 5.6 45.1 50.4 2.4 2008 230,491 420,927 37.1 % 54.8 % 365,684 36.9 % 63.0 %
28 0 Total: 698,488 17.8 5.0 76.3 80.7 1.5 2010 96,139 329,018 62.0 % 29.2 % 288,518 63.2 % 33.3 %0.00% VAP: 472,331 21.1 4.8 72.7 77.2 1.7 2008 159,193 327,589 62.1 % 48.6 % 291,227 63.9 % 54.7 %
29 0 Total: 698,488 11.8 10.7 76.3 86.2 2.0 2010 70,900 243,760 52.0 % 29.1 % 213,559 53.2 % 33.2 %0.00% VAP: 471,352 14.8 10.7 72.7 82.9 2.3 2008 112,984 249,806 50.0 % 45.2 % 217,090 53.5 % 52.0 %
30 -1 Total: 698,487 17.3 46.3 34.7 80.2 2.5 2010 126,420 356,471 12.3 % 35.5 % 305,406 12.7 % 41.4 %0.00% VAP: 496,651 21.4 46.4 30.1 75.9 2.7 2008 224,621 373,567 12.0 % 60.1 % 322,036 12.2 % 69.8 %
31 -1 Total: 698,487 59.5 12.9 22.5 34.5 6.0 2010 145,684 379,539 11.7 % 38.4 % 314,843 11.3 % 46.3 %0.00% VAP: 501,657 63.6 11.6 19.5 30.6 5.8 2008 243,398 382,323 12.0 % 63.7 % 327,429 11.8 % 74.3 %
32 0 Total: 698,488 53.3 13.0 25.6 38.1 8.6 2010 160,318 384,526 8.8 % 41.7 % 330,594 8.7 % 48.5 %
0.00% VAP: 523,179 58.0 11.8 21.9 33.4 8.7 2008 268,352 403,272 8.8 % 66.5 % 345,738 8.6 % 77.6 %33 0 Total: 698,488 14.5 17.2 66.3 82.7 2.7 2010 65,841 239,206 34.1 % 27.5 % 200,514 35.8 % 32.8 %
0.00% VAP: 469,456 18.4 17.8 61.3 78.5 3.0 2008 131,883 255,073 33.5 % 51.7 % 215,289 34.5 % 61.3 %
34 -1 Total: 698,487 15.2 1.6 82.7 83.9 1.0 2010 87,633 326,112 71.1 % 26.9 % 289,723 71.9 % 30.2 %0.00% VAP: 480,232 18.6 1.7 79.0 80.4 1.1 2008 150,828 331,258 71.7 % 45.5 % 297,077 72.4 % 50.8 %
35 0 Total: 698,488 25.2 10.8 62.8 72.5 2.4 2010 95,564 335,961 43.8 % 28.4 % 270,804 45.0 % 35.3 %0.00% VAP: 502,769 29.4 10.4 58.3 68.0 2.6 2008 177,044 347,208 44.4 % 51.0 % 286,324 45.1 % 61.8 %
36 0 Total: 698,488 65.8 9.9 21.2 30.8 3.4 2010 163,915 405,807 9.3 % 40.4 % 354,823 9.2 % 46.2 %0.00% VAP: 517,267 69.5 9.4 18.0 27.2 3.4 2008 238,869 419,509 8.7 % 56.9 % 363,502 8.9 % 65.7 %
Texas Legislative Council reports prior to 2008 generally do not include results for third-party, independent, or write-in candidates. Beginning in 2008, results for all third-party and independent candidates are included, and the results for write-in candidates are summedand included as "write-in". Complete official results for all years are maintained by the office of the secretary of state.SSVR = Spanish surname voter registration
24900
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS PLANC226
Texas Legislative Council02/06/12 2:16 PMPage 1 of 2
American Community Survey Special TabulationUsing Census and American Community Survey Data
Red-106Data: 2005-2009 ACS; 2010 CensusPLANC226 02/06/2012 11:56:36 AM
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS - PLANC226
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660-2 Filed 02/16/12 Page 5 of 7
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
34/96
Special Tabulation of Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) from the 2005-2009 American Community Survey with Margins of Error
2010 CensusHispanic
CVAPNot Hispanic or Latino
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)
District Total VAP CVAP % Hispanic% Black
Alone% Black+ White
% Black+ American
Indian% White
Alone
% AmericanIndianAlone
%AsianAlone
% NativeHawaiian
Alone
% AmericanIndian+ White
% Asian+ White
% Remainder2 or More Other
1 698,488 523,448 467,460 (6,503) 5.2 (0.4) 18.3 (0.7) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1(0.6) 74.8 (0.4) 0.3 (0.5) 0.5 (0.5) 0.0 (0.6) 0.5 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6)
2 698,488 518,345 411,395 (5,430) 16.5 (0.6) 8.7 (0.5) 0.1 (0.5) 0.0(0.5) 68.7 (0.6) 0.2 (0.5) 4.9 (0.4) 0.2 (0.5) 0.4 (0.5) 0.2 (0.5) 0.1 (0.5)3 698,488 500,074 413,455 (4,582) 7.9 (0.5) 7.4 (0.5) 0.1 (0.5) 0.1(0.5) 76.4 (0.5) 0.5 (0.4) 6.8 (0.4) 0.1 (0.5) 0.4 (0.4) 0.3 (0.5) 0.1 (0.5)
4 698,488 521,731 474,035 (5,454) 4.9 (0.4) 11.0 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1(0.6) 81.8 (0.4) 0.8 (0.5) 0.4 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6) 0.7 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6) 0.0 (0.6)
5 698,488 511,695 437,150 (5,765) 10.7 (0.5) 14.0 (0.7) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1(0.6) 72.9 (0.5) 0.4 (0.5) 1.2 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6) 0.4 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6)
6 698,488 502,856 426,750 (4,832) 11.9 (0.5) 16.9 (0.6) 0.2 (0.5) 0.1(0.5) 66.3 (0.5) 0.5 (0.5) 3.2 (0.5) 0.0 (0.5) 0.5 (0.5) 0.2 (0.5) 0.1 (0.5)
7 698,488 519,479 389,305 (4,821) 14.2 (0.6) 10.6 (0.6) 0.1 (0.5) 0.0(0.6) 67.8 (0.6) 0.3 (0.5) 6.5 (0.4) 0.0 (0.6) 0.3 (0.5) 0.2 (0.5) 0.1 (0.5)
8 698,488 516,691 428,525 (6,191) 8.8 (0.5) 9.4 (0.5) 0.1 (0.5) 0.0(0.5) 79.4 (0.4) 0.3 (0.4) 1.1 (0.4) 0.0 (0.5) 0.6 (0.4) 0.1 (0.5) 0.1 (0.5)
9 698,488 500,927 354,935 (5,560) 18.0 (0.8) 49.4 (0.9) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1(0.6) 22.5 (0.7) 0.2 (0.6) 9.2 (0.6) 0.0 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6)
10 698,487 513,735 402,625 (5,026) 13.5 (0.6) 10.2 (0.6) 0.1 (0.5) 0.0(0.6) 72.6 (0.5) 0.2 (0.5) 2.6 (0.5) 0.0 (0.6) 0.5 (0.5) 0.1 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6)
11 698,488 522,630 467,430 (5,256) 23.1 (0.6) 3.8 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.1(0.7) 71.2 (0.4) 0.5 (0.6) 0.5 (0.6) 0.0 (0.7) 0.5 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.1 (0.7)
12 698,488 518,938 438,740 (5,388) 11.2 (0.5) 7.2 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6) 0.0(0.6) 78.3 (0.5) 0.5 (0.5) 1.9 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6) 0.5 (0.5) 0.2 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6)
13 698,488 519,246 467,385 (4,933) 14.3 (0.5) 5.7 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6) 0.0(0.7) 77.2 (0.4) 0.7 (0.6) 0.9 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.8 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.0 (0.7)
14 698,488 523,436 465,575 (5,918) 13.1 (0.5) 21.4 (0.8) 0.1 (0.6) 0.0(0.6) 62.8 (0.4) 0.4 (0.6) 1.6 (0.6) 0.0 (0.6) 0.4 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6) 0.0 (0.6)
15 698,488 469,736 325,245 (5,079) 71.0 (0.9) 2.3 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.0(0.7) 25.4 (0.6) 0.2 (0.6) 0.7 (0.6) 0.0 (0.7) 0.2 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6) 0.0 (0.7)
16 698,488 493,308 358,179 (4,866) 72.7 (0.7) 3.6 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.0(0.7) 21.5 (0.6) 0.4 (0.7) 1.1 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.3 (0.7) 0.1 (0.7) 0.1 (0.7)
17 698,487 532,324 460,630 (5,931) 13.6 (0.5) 13.1 (0.5) 0.2 (0.5) 0.1(0.6) 69.8 (0.5) 0.3 (0.5) 2.2 (0.5) 0.0 (0.6) 0.5 (0.5) 0.2 (0.5) 0.1 (0.5)
18 698,488 505,750 387,280 (6,568) 19.2 (0.6) 49.3 (0.8) 0.2 (0.6) 0.1(0.6) 27.6 (0.7) 0.2 (0.6) 3.0 (0.6) 0.2 (0.7) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7)
19 698,487 522,651 464,230 (5,478) 25.4 (0.6) 5.9 (0.5) 0.2 (0.7) 0.0(0.7) 66.7 (0.5) 0.3 (0.6) 0.6 (0.6) 0.0 (0.7) 0.5 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.1 (0.7)20 698,488 508,354 425,980 (6,417) 62.0 (0.8) 5.2 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1(0.6) 30.2 (0.7) 0.4 (0.6) 1.4 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6) 0.2 (0.6) 0.2 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6)
21 698,488 553,018 489,820 (5,684) 19.7 (0.6) 2.9 (0.4) 0.1 (0.5) 0.0(0.5) 74.4 (0.5) 0.3 (0.5) 1.5 (0.4) 0.1 (0.5) 0.5 (0.4) 0.3 (0.5) 0.1 (0.5)
22 698,488 494,499 381,335 (4,959) 17.3 (0.7) 12.3 (0.6) 0.1 (0.5) 0.0(0.5) 58.3 (0.6) 0.2 (0.4) 11.1 (0.6) 0.0 (0.5) 0.3 (0.4) 0.2 (0.4) 0.1 (0.5)
23 698,488 489,508 363,165 (5,126) 60.0 (0.8) 3.3 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.0(0.7) 34.7 (0.6) 0.4 (0.6) 0.8 (0.6) 0.0 (0.7) 0.4 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.1 (0.7)
24 698,488 528,185 434,275 (4,930) 12.2 (0.5) 8.9 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1(0.6) 72.0 (0.5) 0.3 (0.5) 5.4 (0.5) 0.3 (0.6) 0.4 (0.5) 0.3 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6)
25 698,488 520,539 456,945 (6,133) 10.3 (0.5) 8.1 (0.6) 0.2 (0.5) 0.0(0.5) 78.2 (0.4) 0.5 (0.5) 1.6 (0.5) 0.2 (0.5) 0.5 (0.5) 0.3 (0.5) 0.1 (0.5)
26 698,488 497,267 412,845 (5,537) 8.9 (0.5) 6.1 (0.5) 0.2 (0.4) 0.2(0.4) 80.5 (0.5) 0.4 (0.3) 2.5 (0.4) 0.1 (0.4) 0.8 (0.3) 0.2 (0.4) 0.1 (0.4)
27 698,487 516,473 463,345 (6,054) 41.1 (0.7) 5.8 (0.6) 0.0 (0.6) 0.0(0.6) 51.4 (0.6) 0.2 (0.6) 0.8 (0.6) 0.0 (0.6) 0.4 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6)
28 698,488 472,331 325,415 (4,783) 65.3 (0.9) 4.9 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.1(0.7) 28.1 (0.6) 0.2 (0.6) 0.9 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.2 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7)
29 698,488 471,352 309,540 (5,160) 57.0 (1.0) 13.9 (0.8) 0.0 (0.8) 0.0(0.8) 26.5 (0.8) 0.3 (0.8) 1.8 (0.7) 0.0 (0.8) 0.3 (0.8) 0.0 (0.8) 0.0 (0.8)
30 698,487 496,651 401,575 (5,733) 17.6 (0.7) 51.2 (0.8) 0.2 (0.7) 0.2(0.7) 28.2 (0.7) 0.3 (0.6) 1.4 (0.6) 0.2 (0.7) 0.4 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.2 (0.7)
31 698,487 501,657 417,970 (5,357) 15.0 (0.6) 11.4 (0.6) 0.2 (0.5) 0.1(0.5) 69.2 (0.5) 0.5 (0.4) 2.5 (0.4) 0.2 (0.5) 0.4 (0.5) 0.4 (0.5) 0.2 (0.5)
32 698,488 523,179 440,815 (5,189) 12.2 (0.6) 11.2 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6) 0.3(0.6) 69.5 (0.5) 0.4 (0.6) 5.2 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.6 (0.6) 0.2 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6)
33 698,488 469,456 305,120 (4,816) 39.4 (1.0) 23.8 (0.9) 0.1 (1.0) 0.1(1.0) 33.5 (0.8) 0.4 (0.9) 2.0 (0.9) 0.1 (1.0) 0.4 (0.9) 0.1 (1.0) 0.1 (1.0)
34 698,487 480,232 366,725 (5,403) 71.7 (0.8) 2.2 (0.7) 0.0 (0.7) 0.1(0.7) 25.2 (0.6) 0.2 (0.7) 0.4 (0.7) 0.0 (0.7) 0.2 (0.7) 0.0 (0.7) 0.0 (0.7)
24898
The American Community Survey provided estimated citizen voting age population (CVAP) data at the block group level in a Special Tabulation. All block groups with more than 50% of the population in a district are included in the analysis.The percent for each CVAP population category is that group's CVAP divided by the CVAP total.Numbers in parentheses are margins of error at 90% confidence level.Black = Non-Hispanic Black
Texas Legislative Council02/06/12 2:16 PMPage 2 of 2
American Community Survey Special TabulationUsing Census and American Community Survey Data
Red-106Data: 2005-2009 ACS; 2010 CensusPLANC226 02/06/2012 11:56:36 AM
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS - PLANC226
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660-2 Filed 02/16/12 Page 6 of 7
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
35/96
Special Tabulation of Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) from the 2005-2009 American Community Survey with Margins of Error
2010 CensusHispanic
CVAPNot Hispanic or Latino
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)
District Total VAP CVAP % Hispanic% Black
Alone% Black+ White
% Black+ American
Indian% White
Alone
% AmericanIndianAlone
%AsianAlone
% NativeHawaiian
Alone
% AmericanIndian+ White
% Asian+ White
% Remainder2 or More Other
35 698,488 502,769 398,400 (5,924) 51.9 (0.9) 11.1 (0.6) 0.2 (0.7) 0.0(0.7) 34.5 (0.7) 0.3 (0.7) 1.2 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.4 (0.7) 0.2 (0.7) 0.1 (0.7)
36 698,488 517,267 462,070 (5,373) 10.5 (0.5) 9.7 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6) 0.0(0.6) 76.9 (0.5) 0.5 (0.5) 1.6 (0.5) 0.0 (0.6) 0.5 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6)
24898
The American Community Survey provided estimated citizen voting age population (CVAP) data at the block group level in a Special Tabulation. All block groups with more than 50% of the population in a district are included in the analysis.The percent for each CVAP population category is that group's CVAP divided by the CVAP total.Numbers in parentheses are margins of error at 90% confidence level.Black = Non-Hispanic Black
Texas Legislative Council02/16/12 2:01 PMPage 1 of 1
Compactness Analysis - Area Based MeasuresRed-315Data: 2010 CensusPLANC226 02/06/2012 11:56:36 AM
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS PLANC226
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660-2 Filed 02/16/12 Page 7 of 7
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
36/96
District Area Rubber Band Perimeter to Area
1 0.768 0.203
2 0.421 0.074
3 0.871 0.371
4 0.780 0.175
5 0.684 0.132
6 0.764 0.215
7 0.554 0.136
8 0.840 0.235
9 0.607 0.156
10 0.725 0.154
11 0.616 0.200
12 0.768 0.230
13 0.672 0.262
14 0.583 0.156
15 0.521 0.124
16 0.942 0.565
17 0.673 0.191
18 0.587 0.080
19 0.706 0.279
20 0.689 0.181
21 0.773 0.192
22 0.704 0.14523 0.726 0.210
24 0.750 0.211
25 0.607 0.160
26 0.910 0.460
27 0 619 0 192
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS - PLANC226
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660-3 Filed 02/16/12 Page 1 of 27
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
37/96
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
SHANNON PEREZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________
MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE
CAUCUS, TEXAS HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES (MALC),
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________
TEXAS LATINO REDISTRICTING TASK
FORCE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO.
SA-11-CA-360-OLG-JES-XR
[Lead case]
CIVIL ACTION NO.
SA-11-CA-361-OLG-JES-XR
[Consolidated case]
CIVIL ACTION NO.
SA-11-CA-490-OLG-JES-XR
[Consolidated case]
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660-3 Filed 02/16/12 Page 2 of 27
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
38/96
MARGARITA V. QUESADA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RICK PERRY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO.
SA-11-CA-592-OLG-JES-XR
[Consolidated case]
____________________________________ )
JOHN T. MORRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
CIVIL ACTION NO.
SA-11-CA-615-OLG-JES-XR
[Consolidated case]
____________________________________ )
EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RICK PERRY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO.
SA-11-CA-635-OLG-JES-XR
[Consolidated case]
Racially Polarized Voting AnalysisRacially Polarized Voting Analysis
Racially Polarized Voting Analysis
Estimated Turnout by Race/Ethnicity as a Percent of VAP
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660-3 Filed 02/16/12 Page 3 of 27
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
39/96
y / y
In Voter Tabulation Districts (VTDs)
District 33
T 1 PLANC226
Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Actual Acutal
Turnout Turnout Turnout Turnout Turnout Turnout
% for % for % for % in % in % in
Anglo Black Hispanic District District Election----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 Democratic Primary 0.0% 2.7% 2.9% 5.6% 4.9% 5.8%
2002 Democratic Runoff 0.0% 3.7% 2.0% 5.8% 5.0% 3.5%
2002 General 5.8% 7.0% 5.5% 18.3% 18.2% 25.1%
2004 General 10.6% 9.3% 7.4% 27.2% 27.1% 40.8%
2006 Democratic Primary 0.0% 1.5% 0.5% 2.1% 1.8% 3.2%
2006 General 6.8% 4.5% 3.4% 14.7% 14.5% 24.2%
2008 Democratic Primary 1.4% 7.2% 5.1% 13.7% 13.7% 15.8%
2008 General 10.1% 10.6% 7.4% 28.2% 28.0% 44.4%
2010 Democratic Primary 0.0% 1.6% 1.1% 2.7% 2.6% 3.8%
2010 General 6.1% 5.4% 2.6% 14.1% 13.9% 27.3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Attorney General-State of Texas Page 001 02/07/2012
Racially Polarized Voting AnalysisRacially Polarized Voting Analysis
Racially Polarized Voting Analysis
Regression of Turnout as Percent of VAP
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660-3 Filed 02/16/12 Page 4 of 27
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
40/96
Against Percent of VAP by Race or Ethnicity
District 33
T 2 PLANC226
Prob>F Prob>T For Slope Prob>T Slope For Prob>T For
# of VTD R-Square For EQN Intercept Intercept For Black For Black Hispanic Hispanic
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 Democratic P 210 0.429 0.000 -0.0351 0.002 0.1886 0.000 0.0834 0.0002002 Democratic R 210 0.586 0.000 -0.0357 0.003 0.2463 0.000 0.0693 0.000
2002 General 210 0.439 0.000 0.2681 0.000 0.1300 0.000 -0.1777 0.000
2004 General 210 0.513 0.000 0.4867 0.000 0.0369 0.396 -0.3644 0.000
2006 Democratic P 210 0.559 0.000 -0.0139 0.010 0.0997 0.000 0.0229 0.001
2006 General 210 0.436 0.000 0.3144 0.000 -0.0610 0.035 -0.2587 0.000
2008 Democratic P 210 0.580 0.000 0.0627 0.002 0.3464 0.000 0.0219 0.399
2008 General 209 0.604 0.000 0.4657 0.000 0.1355 0.001 -0.3437 0.000
2010 Democratic P 210 0.414 0.000 -0.0051 0.440 0.0931 0.000 0.0233 0.006
2010 General 210 0.531 0.000 0.2810 0.000 0.0231 0.397 -0.2383 0.000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Attorney General-State of Texas Page 001 02/07/2012
Racially Polarized Voting AnalysisRacially Polarized Voting Analysis
Racially Polarized Voting Analysis
Estimated Distribution of Votes in Contest
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660-3 Filed 02/16/12 Page 5 of 27
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
41/96
District 33
T 3 Plan: PLANC226
Percent Anglo Percent Black Percent Hispanic
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 Democratic Primary Governor 2.4% 46.9% 50.7%
2002 General Governor 32.2% 38.1% 29.7%
2004 General Railroad Commissione 37.7% 37.3% 25.0%
2004 General Court of Criminal Ap 37.4% 35.9% 26.8%
2006 Democratic Primary Lt. Governor 0.0% 69.6% 30.4%
2006 Democratic Primary Agriculture Commissi 0.0% 73.8% 26.2%
2006 General Lt. Governor 44.2% 32.1% 23.8%
2006 General Court of Criminal Ap 43.3% 32.5% 24.2%
2008 Democratic Primary U.S. Senator 11.6% 49.2% 39.2%
2008 Democratic Primary Railroad Commissione 10.4% 54.2% 35.4%
2008 Democratic Primary Justice of the Supre 11.3% 48.7% 39.9%
2008 General U.S. Senator 35.0% 39.4% 25.6%
2008 General Justice of the Supre 33.6% 40.3% 26.0%
2010 Democratic Primary Lt. Governor 4.4% 55.9% 39.7%
2010 Democratic Primary Land Commissioner 1.3% 58.8% 39.9%
2010 General Lt. Governor 41.2% 39.5% 19.3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Attorney General-State of Texas Page 001 02/07/2012
Racially Polarized Voting Analysis
Racially Polarized Voting Analysis
Estimated Distribution of Votes in Contest
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660-3 Filed 02/16/12 Page 6 of 27
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
42/96
District 33
T 3 Plan: PLANC226
Percent Anglo Percent Black Percent Hispanic
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 General Land Commissioner 40.4% 39.7% 20.0%
2010 General Justice of the Supre 40.8% 41.1% 18.2%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Attorney General-State of Texas Page 002 02/07/2012
Racially Polarized Voting AnalysisRacially Polarized Voting Analysis
Racially Polarized Voting Analysis
Estimated Percent Vote by Race/Ethnicity for Each Candidate
In Voter Tabulation Districts (VTDs)
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660-3 Filed 02/16/12 Page 7 of 27
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
43/96
In Voter Tabulation Districts (VTDs)
District 33
T 4 PLANC226
Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Actual Actual
% Anglo % Black % Hispanic % of Total % of Total % of Total
Votes for Votes for Votes for Votes in Votes in Votes in
Party Candidate Candidate Candidate District District Election----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 Democratic Primary Governor
LYON,BILL O D 6.3% 1.2% 2.2% 1.9% 2.2% 4.3%
MORALES,DAN H D 93.7% 16.6% 23.1% 21.8% 25.4% 32.9%
SANCHEZ,TONY H D 0.0% 81.0% 73.6% 75.4% 71.3% 60.8%
WORLDPEACE,JOHN A D 0.0% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.9%
2002 General Governor
PERRY,RICK A R 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 32.2% 31.5% 59.1%
SANCHEZ,TONY H D 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 67.8% 68.5% 40.9%
2004 General Railroad Commissioner 3
CARRILLO,VICTOR H R 84.8% 0.0% 19.5% 36.9% 35.7% 57.5%
SCARBOROUGH,BOB O D 15.2% 100.0% 80.5% 63.1% 64.3% 42.5%
2004 General Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 6
KEASLER,MICHAEL A R 87.1% 0.0% 6.4% 34.3% 33.1% 57.9%
MOLINA,J.R. H D 12.9% 100.0% 93.6% 65.7% 66.9% 42.1%
2006 Democratic Primary Lt. Governor
ALVARADO,MARIA H D 0.0% 25.0% 58.8% 35.2% 37.4% 41.5%
DELEON,ADRIAN H D 0.0% 17.4% 20.7% 18.4% 17.8% 22.4%
GRANT,BENJAMIN A D 0.0% 57.6% 20.5% 46.4% 44.8% 36.1%
2006 Democratic Primary Agriculture Commissioner
GILBERT,HANK A D 0.0% 56.2% 68.6% 59.4% 64.2% 71.1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Attorney General-State of Texas Page 001 02/07/2012
Racially Polarized Voting Analysis
Racially Polarized Voting Analysis
Estimated Percent Vote by Race/Ethnicity for Each Candidate
In Voter Tabulation Districts (VTDs)
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660-3 Filed 02/16/12 Page 8 of 27
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
44/96
In Voter Tabulation Districts (VTDs)
District 33
T 4 PLANC226
Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Actual Actual
% Anglo % Black % Hispanic % of Total % of Total % of Total
Votes for Votes for Votes for Votes in Votes in Votes in
Party Candidate Candidate Candidate District District Election
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MELTON,KOECADEE B D 0.0% 43.8% 31.4% 40.6% 35.8% 28.9%
2006 General Lt. Governor
ALVARADO,MARIA H D 15.4% 100.0% 100.0% 62.6% 64.4% 39.2%
DEWHURST,DAVID A R 84.6% 0.0% 0.0% 37.4% 35.6% 60.8%
2006 General Court of Criminal Appeals, Presiding
KELLER,SHARON A R 80.7% 0.0% 0.0% 35.0% 32.7% 56.6%
MOLINA,J.R. H D 19.3% 100.0% 100.0% 65.0% 67.3% 43.4%
2008 Democratic Primary U.S. Senator
KELLY,GENE A D 23.3% 34.4% 10.0% 23.6% 23.5% 26.9%
MCMURREY,RAY A D 17.7% 18.3% 6.7% 13.7% 13.6% 12.4%
NORIEGA,RICHARD H D 47.3% 32.0% 81.1% 53.0% 53.1% 51.0%
SMITH,RHETT A D 11.7% 15.3% 2.1% 9.7% 9.7% 9.7%
2008 Democratic Primary Railroad Commissioner 3
HALL,ART B D 25.6% 27.2% 21.0% 24.9% 24.9% 23.9%
HENRY,DALE A D 39.8% 16.9% 37.7% 26.7% 26.7% 27.7%
THOMPSON,MARK A D 34.6% 55.8% 41.2% 48.4% 48.5% 48.4%
2008 Democratic Primary Justice of the Supreme Court, Place 8
CRISS,SUSAN A D 83.8% 63.4% 7.0% 43.2% 42.9% 48.6%
YANEZ,LINDA H D 16.2% 36.6% 93.0% 56.8% 57.1% 51.4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Attorney General-State of Texas Page 002 02/07/2012
Racially Polarized Voting Analysis
Racially Polarized Voting Analysis
Estimated Percent Vote by Race/Ethnicity for Each Candidate
In Voter Tabulation Districts (VTDs)
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660-3 Filed 02/16/12 Page 9 of 27
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
45/96
In Voter Tabulation Districts (VTDs)
District 33
T 4 PLANC226
Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Actual Actual
% Anglo % Black % Hispanic % of Total % of Total % of Total
Votes for Votes for Votes for Votes in Votes in Votes in
Party Candidate Candidate Candidate District District Election
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 General U.S. Senator
CORNYN,JOHN A R 82.9% 0.0% 4.6% 30.2% 29.0% 56.1%
NORIEGA,RICHARD H D 17.1% 100.0% 95.4% 69.8% 71.0% 43.9%
2008 General Justice of the Supreme Court, Place 8
JOHNSON,PHIL A R 83.0% 0.0% 1.7% 28.4% 27.1% 54.0%
YANEZ,LINDA H D 17.0% 100.0% 98.3% 71.6% 72.9% 46.0%
2010 Democratic Primary Lt. Governor
CHAVEZ-THOMPSON,LINDA H D 0.0% 39.4% 80.9% 54.2% 52.4% 53.2%
EARLE,RONALD A D 79.7% 37.3% 14.9% 30.2% 31.4% 34.7%
KATZ,MARC A D 20.3% 23.3% 4.2% 15.6% 16.2% 12.2%
2010 Democratic Primary Land Commissioner
BURTON,BILL B D 100.0% 79.5% 12.7% 53.1% 53.3% 48.3%
URIBE,HECTOR H D 0.0% 20.5% 87.3% 46.9% 46.7% 51.7%
2010 General Lt. Governor
CHAVEZ-THOMPSON,LINDA H D 10.7% 100.0% 100.0% 63.3% 66.4% 36.1%
DEWHURST,DAVID A R 89.3% 0.0% 0.0% 36.7% 33.6% 63.9%
2010 General Land Commissioner
PATTERSON,JERRY A R 89.9% 0.0% 0.0% 36.3% 32.9% 63.6%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Attorney General-State of Texas Page 003 02/07/2012
Racially Polarized Voting Analysis
Racially Polarized Voting Analysis
Estimated Percent Vote by Race/Ethnicity for Each Candidate
In Voter Tabulation Districts (VTDs)
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660-3 Filed 02/16/12 Page 10 of 27
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
46/96
( )
District 33
T 4 PLANC226
Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Actual Actual
% Anglo % Black % Hispanic % of Total % of Total % of Total
Votes for Votes for Votes for Votes in Votes in Votes in
Party Candidate Candidate Candidate District District Election
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
URIBE,HECTOR H D 10.1% 100.0% 100.0% 63.7% 67.1% 36.4%
2010 General Justice of the Supreme Court, Place 9
BAILEY,BLAKE A D 11.5% 100.0% 100.0% 63.9% 65.8% 37.1%
GUZMAN,EVA H R 88.5% 0.0% 0.0% 36.1% 34.2% 62.9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Attorney General-State of Texas Page 004 02/07/2012
Racially Polarized Voting AnalysisRacially Polarized Voting Analysis
Racially Polarized Voting Analysis
Estimated Votes by Race/Ethnicity
In Voter Tabulation Districts (VTDs)
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660-3 Filed 02/16/12 Page 11 of 27
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
47/96
District 33
T 5 PLANC226
Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Actual Actual
Votes from Votes from Votes from Votes in Votes in Votes in
Party Anglo Black Hispanic District District Election
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 Democratic Primary Governor
LYON,BILL O D 38 146 285 469 471 42,980
MORALES,DAN H D 560 1,962 2,959 5,481 5,494 331,409
SANCHEZ,TONY H D 0 9,577 9,416 18,993 15,445 612,156
WORLDPEACE,JOHN A D 0 131 126 257 243 19,597
2002 General Governor
PERRY,RICK A R 26,966 0 0 26,966 25,583 2,632,069
SANCHEZ,TONY H D 0 31,881 24,856 56,737 55,678 1,818,503
2004 General Railroad Commissioner 3
CARRILLO,VICTOR H R 36,581 0 5,579 42,160 40,050 3,891,643
SCARBOROUGH,BOB O D 6,533 42,678 23,016 72,228 72,271 2,872,596
2004 General Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 6
KEASLER,MICHAEL A R 38,403 0 2,022 40,425 38,439 3,990,355
MOLINA,J.R. H D 5,678 42,308 29,534 77,520 77,644 2,906,687
2006 Democratic Primary Lt. Governor
ALVARADO,MARIA H D 0 1,339 1,375 2,714 2,590 207,816
DELEON,ADRIAN H D 0 933 484 1,417 1,236 112,311
GRANT,BENJAMIN A D 0 3,091 480 3,571 3,100 180,750
2006 Democratic Primary Agriculture Commissioner
GILBERT,HANK A D 0 2,876 1,247 4,123 4,075 323,283
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Privileged and Confidential Page 001 02/07/2012
Racially Polarized Voting Analysis
Racially Polarized Voting Analysis
Estimated Votes by Race/Ethnicity
In Voter Tabulation Districts (VTDs)
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660-3 Filed 02/16/12 Page 12 of 27
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
48/96
District 33
T 5 PLANC226
Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Actual Actual
Votes from Votes from Votes from Votes in Votes in Votes in
Party Anglo Black Hispanic District District Election
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MELTON,KOECADEE B D 0 2,243 572 2,815 2,276 131,400
2006 General Lt. Governor
ALVARADO,MARIA H D 4,332 20,507 15,181 40,020 40,048 1,619,457
DEWHURST,DAVID A R 23,889 0 0 23,889 22,150 2,515,493
2006 General Court of Criminal Appeals, Presiding
KELLER,SHARON A R 22,731 0 0 22,731 20,494 2,347,043
MOLINA,J.R. H D 5,428 21,091 15,728 42,247 42,252 1,797,176
2008 Democratic Primary U.S. Senator
KELLY,GENE A D 1,264 7,886 1,832 10,982 10,967 586,412
MCMURREY,RAY A D 959 4,187 1,222 6,368 6,355 270,336
NORIEGA,RICHARD H D 2,562 7,338 14,794 24,695 24,764 1,114,026
SMITH,RHETT A D 637 3,506 388 4,531 4,518 212,363
2008 Democratic Primary Railroad Commissioner 3
HALL,ART B D 1,132 6,263 3,151 10,546 10,546 468,600
HENRY,DALE A D 1,763 3,894 5,658 11,314 11,321 541,927
THOMPSON,MARK A D 1,532 12,829 6,182 20,543 20,560 946,702
2008 Democratic Primary Justice of the Supreme Court, Place 8
CRISS,SUSAN A D 4,087 13,266 1,196 18,549 18,457 979,158
YANEZ,LINDA H D 790 7,664 15,970 24,424 24,548 1,035,623
2008 General U.S. Senator
CORNYN,JOHN A R 35,802 0 1,465 37,268 35,200 4,336,883
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Privileged and Confidential Page 002 02/07/2012
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
49/96
Racially Polarized Voting Analysis
Racially Polarized Voting Analysis
Estimated Votes by Race/Ethnicity
In Voter Tabulation Districts (VTDs)
District 33
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660-3 Filed 02/16/12 Page 14 of 27
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
50/96
District 33
T 5 PLANC226
Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Actual Actual
Votes from Votes from Votes from Votes in Votes in Votes in
Party Anglo Black Hispanic District District Election
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUZMAN,EVA H R 22,299 0 0 22,299 20,502 2,918,808
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Privileged and Confidential Page 004 02/07/2012
Racially Polarized Voting AnalysisRacially Polarized Voting Analysis
Racially Polarized Voting Analysis
Estimated Votes by Race/Ethnicity as a percent of All Votes Cast in Contest
In Voter Tabulation Districts (VTDs)
District 33
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660-3 Filed 02/16/12 Page 15 of 27
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
51/96
District 33
T 6 PLANC226
Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Actual Actual
% of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total
Votes from Votes from Votes from Votes in Votes in Votes in
Party Anglo Black Hispanic District District Election
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 Democratic Primary Governor
LYON,BILL O D 0.1% 0.6% 1.1% 1.9% 2.2% 4.3%
MORALES,DAN H D 2.2% 7.8% 11.7% 21.8% 25.4% 32.9%
SANCHEZ,TONY H D 0.0% 38.0% 37.4% 75.4% 71.3% 60.8%
WORLDPEACE,JOHN A D 0.0% 0.5% 0.5% 1.0% 1.1% 1.9%
2002 General Governor
PERRY,RICK A R 32.2% 0.0% 0.0% 32.2% 31.5% 59.1%
SANCHEZ,TONY H D 0.0% 38.1% 29.7% 67.8% 68.5% 40.9%
2004 General Railroad Commissioner 3
CARRILLO,VICTOR H R 32.0% 0.0% 4.9% 36.9% 35.7% 57.5%
SCARBOROUGH,BOB O D 5.7% 37.3% 20.1% 63.1% 64.3% 42.5%
2004 General Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 6
KEASLER,MICHAEL A R 32.6% 0.0% 1.7% 34.3% 33.1% 57.9%
MOLINA,J.R. H D 4.8% 35.9% 25.0% 65.7% 66.9% 42.1%
2006 Democratic Primary Lt. Governor
ALVARADO,MARIA H D 0.0% 17.4% 17.9% 35.2% 37.4% 41.5%
DELEON,ADRIAN H D 0.0% 12.1% 6.3% 18.4% 17.8% 22.4%
GRANT,BENJAMIN A D 0.0% 40.1% 6.2% 46.4% 44.8% 36.1%
2006 Democratic Primary Agriculture Commissioner
GILBERT,HANK A D 0.0% 41.5% 18.0% 59.4% 64.2% 71.1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Privileged and Confidential Page 001 02/07/2012
Racially Polarized Voting Analysis
Racially Polarized Voting Analysis
Estimated Votes by Race/Ethnicity as a percent of All Votes Cast in Contest
In Voter Tabulation Districts (VTDs)
District 33
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660-3 Filed 02/16/12 Page 16 of 27
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
52/96
st ct 33
T 6 PLANC226
Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Actual Actual
% of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total
Votes from Votes from Votes from Votes in Votes in Votes in
Party Anglo Black Hispanic District District Election
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MELTON,KOECADEE B D 0.0% 32.3% 8.2% 40.6% 35.8% 28.9%
2006 General Lt. Governor
ALVARADO,MARIA H D 6.8% 32.1% 23.8% 62.6% 64.4% 39.2%
DEWHURST,DAVID A R 37.4% 0.0% 0.0% 37.4% 35.6% 60.8%
2006 General Court of Criminal Appeals, Presiding
KELLER,SHARON A R 35.0% 0.0% 0.0% 35.0% 32.7% 56.6%
MOLINA,J.R. H D 8.4% 32.5% 24.2% 65.0% 67.3% 43.4%
2008 Democratic Primary U.S. Senator
KELLY,GENE A D 2.7% 16.9% 3.9% 23.6% 23.5% 26.9%
MCMURREY,RAY A D 2.1% 9.0% 2.6% 13.7% 13.6% 12.4%
NORIEGA,RICHARD H D 5.5% 15.8% 31.8% 53.0% 53.1% 51.0%
SMITH,RHETT A D 1.4% 7.5% 0.8% 9.7% 9.7% 9.7%
2008 Democratic Primary Railroad Commissioner 3
HALL,ART B D 2.7% 14.8% 7.4% 24.9% 24.9% 23.9%
HENRY,DALE A D 4.2% 9.2% 13.3% 26.7% 26.7% 27.7%
THOMPSON,MARK A D 3.6% 30.3% 14.6% 48.4% 48.5% 48.4%
2008 Democratic Primary Justice of the Supreme Court, Place 8
CRISS,SUSAN A D 9.5% 30.9% 2.8% 43.2% 42.9% 48.6%
YANEZ,LINDA H D 1.8% 17.8% 37.2% 56.8% 57.1% 51.4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Privileged and Confidential Page 002 02/07/2012
Racially Polarized Voting Analysis
Racially Polarized Voting Analysis
Estimated Votes by Race/Ethnicity as a percent of All Votes Cast in Contest
In Voter Tabulation Districts (VTDs)
District 33
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660-3 Filed 02/16/12 Page 17 of 27
-
8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts
53/96
T 6 PLANC226
Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Actual Actual
% of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total
Votes from Votes from Votes from Votes in Votes in Votes in
Party Anglo Black Hispanic District District Election
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 General U.S. Senator
CORNYN,JOHN A R 29.0% 0.0% 1.2% 30.2% 29.0% 56.1%
NORIEGA,RICHARD H D 6.0% 39.4% 24.4% 69.8% 71.0% 43.9%
2008 General Justice of the Supreme Court, Place 8
JOHNSON,PHIL A R 27.9% 0.0% 0.4% 28.4% 27.1% 54.0%
YANEZ,LINDA H D 5.7% 40.3% 25.6% 71.6% 72.9% 46.0%
2010 Democratic Primary Lt. Governor
CHAVEZ-THOMPSON,LINDA H D 0.0% 22.0% 32.1% 54.2% 52.4% 53.2%
EARLE,RONALD A D 3.5% 20.8% 5.9% 30.2% 31.4% 34.7%
KATZ,MARC A D 0.9% 13.0% 1.7% 15.6% 16.2% 12.2%
2010 Democratic Primary Land Commissioner
BURTON,BILL B D 1.3% 46.7% 5.1% 53.1% 53.3% 48.3%
URIBE,HECTOR H D 0.0% 12.1% 34.8% 46.9% 46.7% 51.7%
2010 General Lt. Governor
CHAVEZ-THOMPSON,LINDA H D 4.4% 39.5% 19.3% 63.3% 66.4% 36.1%
DEWHURST,DAVID A R 36.7% 0.0% 0.0% 36.7% 33.6% 63.9%
2010 General Land Commissioner
PATTERSON,JERRY A R 36.3% 0.0% 0.0% 36.3% 32.9% 63.6%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Privileged and Confidential Page 003 02/07/2012
Racially Polarized Voting Analysis
Racially Polarized Voting Analysis
Estimated Votes by Race/Ethnicity as a percent of All Votes Cast in Contest
In Voter Tabulation Districts (VTDs)
District 33
Ca