multiple documents - moritz college of law4 accompanying documents. id.; see ex. 1 (designation...

Multiple DocumentsPart Description1 13 pages2 Exhibit Tab 176 - 1773 Exhibit Tab 178 - 1864 Exhibit Tab 187A

Perez et al v. Perry et al, Docket No. 5:11-cv-00360 (W.D. Tex. May 09, 2011), Court Docket

© 2013 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. Terms of Servicehttp://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6LJJ9Q6O2?documentName=882.xml // PAGE 1

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Terms_of_Service

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6LJJ9Q6O2?documentName=882.xml

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

SHANNON PEREZ, et al., Plaintiffs, - and - EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, et al., - and - TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, et al., Plaintiff Intervenors, v. RICK PERRY, et al., Defendants, ____________________________________ MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS, TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (MALC), Plaintiffs, - and - HONORABLE HENRY CUELLAR, et al., Plaintiff Intervenors, v. STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Defendants ____________________________________

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL ACTION NO.

SA-11-CA-360-OLG-JES-XR [Lead case]

CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-11-CA-361-OLG-JES-XR

[Consolidated case]

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815 Filed 07/22/13 Page 1 of 13

2

TEXAS LATINO REDISTRICTING TASK FORCE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.

) ) ) ) ) )


[Consolidated case]

) RICK PERRY, et al., )

)

) Defendants, ) ) ____________________________________

MARAGARITA v. QUESADA, et al., ) ) )


[Consolidated case] Plaintiffs, v.

) ) ) )

) RICK PERRY, et al., ) ) Defendants, ) ____________________________________

) JOHN T. MORRIS, )

) )


[Consolidated case] Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) STATE OF TEXAS, et al., ) ) Defendants, ) ____________________________________


3

EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, et al., )

) )


[Consolidated case] Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) STATE OF TEXAS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

OPPOSED JOINT MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS FOR LEAVE TO REOPEN THE RECORD TO PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE

NOW COME all Plaintiffs and file this opposed joint motion for leave to reopen the

record to provide supplemental evidence.1 In support of this motion, Plaintiffs show:

1) On July 1, 2013, the Court issued an order directing any parties who “wish to offer

any evidence from the D.C. trial proceedings as evidence on the issues being litigated

herein, . . . [to]: (1) file a designation chart of the portions of the D.C. record they are

offering; (2) electronically file one complete copy of the actual record excerpts that

have been listed in the chart; and (3) deliver one courtesy copy of the chart and the

actual record excerpts to the chambers of each judge on the panel,” by July 22, 2013.

Dkt. 772 at 2. Per the Court’s request, Plaintiffs jointly file the attached evidentiary

designation chart, including “a brief explanation of the significance of [each

designated] document as it relates to the issues being litigated herein,” and the

1 The joint Movants here include: Shannon Perez, et al., the Mexican American Legislative Caucus of the Texas House of Representatives, the Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force, et al., the Texas Democratic Party, Congressman Cuellar, Congresspersons Johnson, Jackson-Lee and Green, Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches, et al., Margarita Quesada, et al., National LULAC, et al., and Eddie Rodriguez, et al. Each plaintiff joins the designations made by other plaintiffs.


4

accompanying documents. Id.; see Ex. 1 (designation chart), 2-95 (supplemental

exhibits).

2) In deciding whether to re-open the record in a particular case, courts consider “the

importance and probative value of the evidence, the reason for the moving party’s

failure to introduce the evidence earlier, and the possibility of prejudice to the non-

moving party.” Garcia v. Woman’s Hosp. of Tex., 97 F.3d 810, 814 (5th Cir. 1996);

see also Tate v. Starks, 444 F. App'x 720, 724 (5th Cir. 2011); U.S. v. Parker, 73 F.3d

48, 53 (5th Cir. 1996), reh’g granted, 80 F.3d 1042 (5th Cir. 1996), reinstated in

relevant part, 104 F.3d 72 (5th Cir. 1997) (similarly finding that on a motion to

reopen the record, a court “must consider the timeliness of the motion, the character

of the testimony, and the effect of the granting of the motion.”). All of these factors

weigh in favor of reopening the record to incorporate the evidence offered by

Plaintiffs here.

3) The litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (“D.C. court”)

and before this Court concerns the same 2011 Texas redistricting plans. Both cases

included claims under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973, et seq. and

dealt with similar issues of intentional racial discrimination and minority vote

dilution. For this reason, both courts requested and heard evidence on the

redistricting process and the effect of the newly-adopted boundaries on racial

minority voters. Thus, the evidence from the D.C. court trial offered here is highly

relevant to and probative of the claims remaining before this Court. See Garcia, 97

F.3d at 814.


5

4) The evidence Plaintiffs seek to admit is not cumulative of the evidence in this case.

See Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 179 (1997) (finding that relevant

evidence may not be excluded because other evidence related to it has rendered it

“irrelevant;” inadmissibility must rest on other grounds). Plaintiffs have ensured that

their new evidence is not already in the record in this case and have focused on

providing the Court evidence that was provided to Plaintiffs by the State following

the trial in this case.

5) Although Plaintiffs were diligent in providing evidence during trial in this case, the

State provided additional documents to Plaintiffs for the D.C. court litigation. See

Mem. Op. on Privilege Claims, Dkt. 128, Texas v. United States, No. 1:11-cv-1303

(D.D.C. Jan. 2, 2012). Unlike in United States v. Thetford, where a motion to reopen

was denied, in part, because defendant previously had access to relevant evidence but

failed to make an effort to gather it, here, Plaintiffs did not have access to the

evidence they seek to introduce until after the trial in this case and shortly before trial

in the D.C. court. 676 F.2d 170, 182 (5th Cir. 1982) disapproved on other grounds by

United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160 (5th Cir. 1994). This evidence includes

statements by legislators, staff and lobbyists regarding the enacted redistricting plans

and is relevant to claims of vote dilution and intentional discrimination here.

6) The evidence Plaintiffs seek to admit is particularly relevant in light of upcoming

motions for section 3(c) bail-in of Texas. See 42 U.S.C. 1973a (c) (authorizing a

federal court to order a jurisdiction to preclear its election changes under certain

circumstances).


6

7) Admitting Plaintiffs’ supplemental evidence will not cause an injustice or undue

prejudice to Defendants (“the State”). See Garcia, 97 F.3d at 814 (“While there is

always the possibility of some prejudice in that additional testimony is being

introduced against the non-moving party, our concern is with undue prejudice.”). The

State is already familiar with all of the evidence being offered here precisely because

it is part of the record in the D.C. court, and, for that reason, the State has already had

the opportunity to respond to the evidence. The State also maintains the opportunity

to defend against the evidence being offered here by seeking supplementation of the

record in this Court with its own evidence from the D.C. court trial. In addition, the

Court has provided a schedule by which the State may object to the admissibility of

any specific evidence being offered. See Dkt. 772 at 2.

8) Finally, Plaintiffs proceeded without delay and in accordance with this Court’s orders

regarding supplementation of the record. On February 11, 2013, this Court ordered

that all parties file advisories addressing the issues pending before the Court in light

of the D.C. court litigation. See Dkt. 731. As part of the order, the Court requested

that parties address: whether “the record available for the Court's consideration [is]

limited to the evidence already presented in this case;” whether “the parties [would]

supplement the current record;” and whether “the Court's consideration of the issues

in this case be based, in part, on the factual evidence in the D.C. record, which has

already been tendered to this Court?” See id. at 4. Following a hearing by the Court

on May 29, 2013, the Court established a briefing schedule for addressing the issue of

record supplementation. See Dkt. 748 at 1-2. Thus, this motion is made within the

timeline for record supplementation set by the Court and not as a delay tactic.


7

1) For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court reopen

the record in this case to admit the supplemental evidence from the D.C. court trial

attached here. See Ex. 1 (designation chart), 2-95 (supplemental exhibits).

Dated: July 22, 2013 Respectfully submitted,

/s/Nina Perales Nina Perales Karolina J. Lyznik MALDEF 110 Broadway Street, #300 San Antonio, TX 78205 (210) 224-5476 Fax: (210) 224-5382 Robert W. Wilson Mark Anthony Sanchez Gale, Wilson & Sanchez, PLLC 115 East Travis, 19th Floor San Antonio, TX 78205 (210) 222-8899 Fax: (210) 222-9526

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS TEXAS LATINO REDISTRICTING TASK FORCE, RUDOLFO ORTIZ, ARMANDO CORTEZ, SOCORRO RAMOS, GREGORIO BENITO PALOMINO, FLORINDA CHAVEZ, CYNTHIA VALADEZ, CESAR EDUARDO YEVENES, SERGIO CORONADO, GILBERTO TORRES, RENATO DE LOS SANTOS, JOEY CARDENAS, ALEX JIMENEZ, EMELDA MENENDEZ, TOMACITA OLIVARES, JOSE OLIVARES, ALEJANDRO ORTIZ, AND REBECCA ORTIZ DAVID RICHARDS State Bar No. 16846000 Richards, Rodriguez & Skeith LLP 816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1200


8

Austin, Texas 78701 Tel (512) 476-0005 Fax (512) 476-1513 RICHARD E. GRAY, III State Bar No. 08328300 Gray & Becker, P.C. 900 West Avenue Austin, Texas 78701 Tel: (512) 482-0061 Fax: (512) 482-0924 ATTORNEYS FOR PEREZ PLAINTIFFS JOSE GARZA Texas Bar No. 07731950 Law Office of Jose Garza 7414 Robin Rest Dr. San Antonio, Texas 78209 (210) 392-2856 [email protected] JOAQUIN G. AVILA LAW OFFICE P.O. Box 33687 Seattle, Washington 98133 Texas State Bar # 01456150 (206) 724-3731 (206) 398-4261 (fax) [email protected] Ricardo G. Cedillo State Bar No. 04043600 Mark W. Kiehne State Bar No. 24032627 DAVIS, CEDILLO & MENDOZA, INC. McCombs Plaza, Suite 500 755 E. Mulberry Avenue San Antonio, Texas 78212 Tel.: (210) 822-6666 Fax: (210) 822-1151 [email protected] [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS, TEXAS HOUSE OF REP. (MALC)


9

Chad W. Dunn – Attorney In Charge State Bar No. 24036507 General Counsel TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY BRAZIL & DUNN K. Scott Brazil State Bar No. 02934050 4201 Cypress Creek Parkway, Suite 530 Houston, Texas 77068 Telephone: (281) 580-6310 Facsimile: (281) 580-6362 [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND GILBERTO HINOJOSA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIR OF THE TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY Gary L. Bledsoe Law Office of Gary L. Bledsoe and Associates State Bar No. 02476500 316 West 12th Street, Suite 307 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: 512-322-9992 Fax: 512-322-0840 [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR HOWARD JEFFERSON AND CONGRESSPERSONS EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, SHEILA JACKSON-LEE AND ALEXANDER GREEN Allison J. Riggs N.C. State Bar No. 40028 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Anita S. Earls N.C. State Bar No. 15597 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Southern Coalition for Social Justice 1415 West Highway 54, Suite 101 Durham, NC 27707 Telephone: 919-323-3380 Fax: 919-323-3942 [email protected]


10

[email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, JUANITA WALLACE AND BILL LAWSON Robert Notzon Law Office of Robert S. Notzon State Bar Number 00797934 1502 West Avenue Austin, TX 78701 512-474-7563 512-852-4788 fax [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, JUANITA WALLACE AND BILL LAWSON Victor L. Goode Assistant General Counsel NAACP 4805 Mt. Hope Drive Baltimore, MD 21215-3297 Telephone: 410-580-5120 Fax: 410-358-9359 [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR THE TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES J. Gerald Hebert 191 Somervelle Street, #405 Alexandria, VA 22304 (703) 628-4673 [email protected] Gerald H. Goldstein State Bar No. 08101000 Donald H. Flannary, III. State Bar No. 24045877 Goldstein, Goldstein and Hilley 310 S. St. Mary’s Street 29th Floor Tower Life Bldg. San Antonio, Texas 78205 Phone: (210) 226-1463 Fax: (210) 226-8367


11

Paul M. Smith Michael B. DeSanctis Jessica Ring Amunson Jenner & Block LLP 1099 New York Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Tel: (202) 639-6000 Fax: (202) 639-6066 Jesse Gaines PO Box 50093 Ft Worth, TX 76105 (817) 714-9988 ATTORNEYS FOR THE QUESADA PLAINTIFFS Luis Roberto Vera, Jr. LULAC National General Counsel SBN: 20546740 THE LAW OFFICES OF LUIS ROBERTO VERA, JR & ASSOCIATES 1325 Riverview Towers 111 Soledad San Antonio, Texas 78205-2260 210-225-3300 office 210-225-2060 fax ATTORNEY FOR LULAC PLAINTIFFS Renea Hicks Attorney at Law State Bar No. 09580400 Law Office of Max Renea Hicks 101 West 6th Street Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 480-8231 - Telephone (512) 480-9105 - Facsimile [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., TRAVIS COUNTY, AND CITY OF AUSTIN PERKINS COIE LLP Marc Erik Elias Admitted Pro Hac Vice 700 Thirteenth Street N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005-3960


12

(202) 434-1609 (202) 654-9126 FAX [email protected] Abha Khanna Admitted Pro Hac Vice 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 (206) 359-8312 (206) 359-9312 FAX [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. David Escamilla Travis County Attorney State Bar No. 06662300 P.O. Box 1748 Austin, Texas 78767 (512) 854-9416 fax (512) 854-4808 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF TRAVIS COUNTY Karen Kennard City Attorney State Bar No. 11280700 P.O. Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767-1088 (512) 974-2268 fax (512) 974-6490 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF CITY OF AUSTIN

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I hereby certify that, on July 19, 2013, counsel for the Task Force Plaintiffs

communicated with the Defendants State of Texas, et al. in this matter. Counsel for Defendants

State of Texas, et al. oppose this motion.

/s/ Nina Perales Nina Perales


13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that she has electronically submitted a true and

correct copy of the above and foregoing via the Court’s electronic filing system on the 22nd day

of July, 2013. The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that she caused a true and correct copy

of the above and foregoing to be mailed to the persons listed below by the close of the next

business day.

/s/ Karolina Lyznik Karolina J. Lyznik David Escamilla Travis County Asst. Attorney P.O. Box 1748 Austin, TX 78767


TAB 176

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-1 Filed 07/22/13 Page 1 of 33

Jeff Archer

From Gerardo Interiano

Sent Friday July 15 2011 121 PMTo David Hanna Stacey Napier

Cc Jeff Archer Lisa Kaufman

Subject RE submission summary House v2.docx

Attachments submission summary House v2 GI EDITS.docx

EDITS.docx

submission summary congressional GI

Here are my House and Congressional comments have no comments on SBOE

From David Hanna

Sent Friday July 15 2011 1019 AMTo Stacey Napier

Cc Jeff Archer Gerardo Interiano Lisa Kaufman

Subject submission summary House v2.docx

House comments Just what is an informal submission to DOJ

iilntSJ

TE-004765

THE STATE OF TEXAS v. UNITED STATES et al.

DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT Case No. 11-CV-1303

DX209


State of TexasInformal Submission

Act of June 24 2011 82nd Leg 1st C.S S.BUnited States Congress

This document outlines the information provided in this informal submission of S.B

the Plan pursuant to 28 C.F.R 51.27 and 51.28 The document either provides the

information requested or references the relevant attachment where the information is

located

Section 51.27 Copy of Plan

copy of the Plan may be found online at

http//www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/821/billtext/htrnl/SB00004F.htrn and is included as

Attachment

Section 51.27b Copy of Plan Currently in Effect

copy of the current United States congressional districts can be found online at

http//gisi.tlc.statetx.us/download/Congress/PLANCioo.pdf and is included as

Attachment That plan is referred to herein as benchmark plan or Cioo in the

electronic reports

Section 1.27c Statement of Change RequestedThe Plan makes changes to all 32 of the states existing congressional districts and

creates new districts as result of the population changes in the State of Texas over

the last 10 years Reports and maps have been included in the submission and detail

those changes

Section 51.27d Person Submitting Change

Greg Abbott

Texas Attorney General

209 14th Street

Austin Texas 78701

512 463-2191 office

512 936-0545 fax

greg.abbottcwoag.state.tx.us

Section 51.27e and Not applicable

Section 51.27g Body Responsible for Change

The body responsible for passing the Plan was the 8211d Texas Legislature

TE-004766


Section 51.27h Statutory Authority for Change

Article of the United States Constitution requires that the apportionment of seats

in the House of Representatives be determined by the decennial census Because of an

increase in population in the State of Texas from 2000 to 2010 Texas is entitled to four

additional districts increasing its delegation in the United States Congress from 32 to

36 members Accordingly Texas benchmark plan was malapportioned and in violation

of the federal one person one vote constitutional standard more detailed

discussion of the process the Legislature undertook can be found in Section 51.280

Section 51.27i and Date Change Adopted and Effective Date of Change

The Plan became law on July 18 2011 and will become effective on XXX 2011 91 days

after end of session

Section 51.27k Statement of NonimDlementation

The Plan has not been implemented

Section 51.270 Affected Jurisdiction

The Plan affects the entire jurisdiction of the State of Texas

Section 51.27 and Reason for and Effect of Change

Background According to the 2010 federal decennial census the State of Texas has

population of 25145561 Texas was notified in December 2010 that it would be

apportioned 36 congressional districts gain of seats Each of those 36 districts is

ideally populated at 698488

The 8211d Texas Legislature convened its regular session on January 10 2011 and

adjourned on May 30 2011 without enacting legislation apportioning congressional

districts The Governor called the Legislature into special session which started on

May 31 2011 to address among other topics congressional redistricting

Statewide Imp act on Minorities The goals of the Legislature in drafting the Plan

were to equalize population as required by the one-person one-vote principle avoid

pairing incumbents and preserve city and county lines when possible In addition the

Legislature created an additional majority-minority district

The Plan adopted by the Legislature is in compliance with all applicable state and

federal laws and neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging

the right to vote on account of race color or membership in language minority The

TE-004767


Plan does not retrogress the position of racial or language minorities with respect to

their effective exercise of the electoral franchise

On statewide level the Plan avoids retrogression of minority voting rights All but one

of the existing 32 seats were overpopulated some by as much as 50.6% over the ideal

population The districts were redrawn to accommodate population growth and still

maintain to the greatest extent possible the cores of existing districts Both the

benchmark map and the Plan contain seven districts with Hispanic Voting Age

Population HVAP greater than 60% The Plan includes one new seat with an HVAPover o%As to the African-American communities as compared to the benchmark there is an

increase from one to two districts with Black Voting Age Population BVAP of over

40% and one district which contains 37.6% BVAP Election data indicate that these

three districts Districts iS and 30 preserve or increase the African-American

communitys ability to elect its candidate of choice under the Plan

New Districts Of the four new districts the Legislature chose to create one newdistrict District 35 which will very likely elect the Hispanic communitys candidate of

choice That district joins communities from Travis and Bexar County and results in

district which contains 58.3% HVAP 51.9% HCVAP and 45.0% SSVR.2 As was stated

on the record during the public hearings and the senate floor debate the concept of this

district was originally presented by the Mexican American Legal Defense and

Educational Fund MALDEF in Public Plan C122 In fact on the day the Legislature

passed the new districts Hispanic state representative from San Antonio publicly

stated that he was considering running for the new seat He believes the district will

survive legal challenges and that it is blessing in disguise for two cities that really

complement each other that are intertwined.3 The other three new districts were

created in high growth areas throughout the state lhe new districts are located in East

Texas District 36 North Texas District 33 and South Texas District 34

httciL www.tlc.statctx.us/redist/pdf/CitizcnshipAddendujpf

According to the Texas Legislative council

spanish surname voter registration also reported in the secretary of states statewide voter

Database is generated using comparison to the 2000 Census Bureau List of spanish surnameswhile most sources agree that the match between people who have spanish surnames and those

who consider themselves Hispanic is relatively good in Texas the Census Bureau estimates 90

percent correlation for the state the reported number of registered voters with spanish surnames

is not precise measure of Hispanir vnter registratinn Snme penple who ronsider themselves

Hispanic do not have surnames that are included in the spanish surname file and will be missed by

the Spanish surname matching technique Others who have surnames that are included in the

Spanish surname file but do not consider themselves Hispanic will be incorrectly counted as

Hispanic registered voters

htto//www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/pdf/Data 2011 Redistricting.pdf

Castro to Take on Doggett for New Congressional seat The Texas Tribune June 24 2011

TE-004768


Dallas and Tarrant County Dallas County grew at much slower rate than the rest

of the state during the last decade While the state as whole grew at rate of 20.6%Dallas County grew at only 6.7% Tarrant County grew at higher rate than the state as

whole During the course of the legislative process the Legislature discussed and

debated among the membership whether new majority-minority seat could be created

in the Dallas/Fort Worth region No plans were publicly submitted for consideration

that created compact Hispanic-majority district The Hispanic population in the

region is too scattered and also suffers from low citizenship numbers and low voter

registration among Hispanic eligible voters Ultimately new District 33 was drawn to

accommodate population growth in Tarrant County and contains 558265 residents of

Tarrant County

South and West Texas Due to the high concentration of Hispanic population in

South and West Texas the districts in that region inevitably contain high levels of

HVAP The South and West Texas districts Districts 15 16 20 23 28 and 34 all

contain over 60% HVAP District 35 contains 58.3% HVAP

Election data indicates that District 34 which is largely comprised of former District 27will more consistently elect the candidate of the minority communitys choice than did

the former District 27 District 27 is made up of excess population from surrounding

districts and more accurately reflects the electoral history of the communities contained

in the district

The Plan increases the HVAP SSVR and HCVAP of District 23 Because the Legislature

wanted to keep District 20 wholly within Bexar County4 consistent with its historical

core and also wanted to ensure that new District 35 was sufficiently populated to

provide the Hispanic community with the ability to elect the candidate of their choice

the Plan results in very small reductions in demographic metrics from the benchmark

District 20 The ability of the minority community in District 20 to elect its candidate of

choice was not impacted The following chart shows the relative Hispanic population

levels in Districts 20 23 and 35

HVAPBenchmark

HYAPSB

HCVAPBenchmark

HCVAPSB

SSVRBenchmark

SSVRSB

District

23

62.8 63.8 58.4 58.5 52.6 54.8

20 71.5 69.3 63.8 62.9 59.2 56.3

35 n/a 58.3 n/a 51.9 n/a 45.0

Harris County Over the last decade Harris County grew at slightly slower pacethan the state as whole Currently Harris County contains two districts that elect the

This was request of the iueumbent congressmau

TE-004769


African-American communitys candidate of choice and one that elects the Hispanic

communitys candidate of choice The Plan maintains these districts Although several

demonstration plans were introduced none managed to create new minority-controlled

districts without causing retrogression in other established districts.5

Section S1.27o Pending litigation

The following litigation related to redistricting is currently pending

Section 51.27P Prior Preclearance

The benchmark congressional plan was ordered by three-judge court in the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on August 2006 in response to

ruling by the United States Supreme Court in League of United Latin American Citizens

Perry 548 U.S 399 2006 copy of the Courts opinion maybe found at

http //www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/pdf/LulacvPerryOpinion.pdf

See Cs68 by Carol Alvarado which created new Harria County seat that only contained 42.5% SSVR and 41.1%

HCVAP To achieve thia it reduced 55CR is District 29 from 52.6% to 35.5% and HCVAP from 56o to 38.6%

Name Cause No venue

Conso/iduted

Perez Dutton and Tamez State of Texas et al SA-si CA 360 OLG JES-XR

w.D Tex San Antonio

Three Judge Court Garcia Smith Rodriguez

Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force et al Perry

gpJj

MALC State et p1

Teuber State of Texasetpj

SA-is-CA-o572-OLG-JFS XRW.D Tex San Antonio


Teuber State of TexasgfCV-s.i 0270

397th District Court Grayson County Texas

No ii cv 544

S.D Texas McAIlen Division Judge CraneMALC State

Barton et p1 State of Texas Hope Andraden-2u238-CV

13th District Court Navarro County Texas

11-20263-IN


Cause No CV 110921 397th District Court Graysun CountyTexas

Barton et al State of Texas Hope Andrade

Washburn State of Texas Hooe Andrsde

Washburn State of Texas HoPe AndradeCause No CV 1so93s 397th District Court Grayson County

Texas

John Canica Limon et al Rick Perry et p1D-i-GN-is-uus6n

351st Judicial District Court Travis County Texas

D-1-GN-11-oo1612

419th Judicial District Court Travis County Texas

ii-cv-uusw.D Tex Austin Division

Three Judge Court Veakel Smith Garcia

Bianca Garcia et al Rick Perry et p1

Rodriguez et al State of Texas et al

Morris State of Texas Rick Perry David Dewhurst 11-cv-2244

S.D Tex Houston Division

Judge RosenthalJoe_Straus and Houe Andrade

TE-004770


Section 51.28 and Demographic Information Maps and

Election Returns

Election Data folder Same election data is used for all plan types provided once

Zipped files for each of the last five election cycles returns voter registration

VR and turnout TO by County/ VTD2002 Election.zip

2002 Democratic Primary_Election Returns .csv

2002_Democratic_Primary_Election_ VRTO.csvoo Democratic Runoff_Election_Returns.csv

2002 Democratic Runoff_Election_ VRTO.csv2rn Republican_Primary_Election_Returns.csv

2002 Republican_Primary_Election_ VRTO.csv2o Republican _Runoff_Election_Returns.csv

2002 Republican Runoff_Election_ VRTO.csv

2002_General_Election_Returns.csv

io 2002_General Election_ VRTO.csv

ii readme.bct

ii 2004_ElectioU.zip contains same reports as in 2002 Election.zip

iii 2006_Election.zip contains same reports as in 2002ElectiOn.Zip

also includes the special general and runoff for the court-ordered

congressional districts

iv zoo8_Election.zip contains same reports as in 2002_Election.zip

2010_Election.zip contains same reports as in 2002 Election.zip

PlanCioo folder

PlanCioo Reports folder

2002_Election folder

2002_Democratic Primary RED225 .pdf and .xls

2002 Democratic_Runoff_ RED225 .pdfaiid .xls

2002 Republican_Primary RED225 .pdf and .xls

2002_Republican Runoff RED225 .pdf and .xls

2002 General Election RED225 .pdf and .xls

ii 2004_Election folder- contains same reports as in 2002 Election

folder

iii 2006_Election folder contains same reports as in 2002 Election

folder also includes the special general and runoff for the court-ordered

congressional districts

iv 2008_Election folder contains same reports as in 2002 Election

folder

2010_Election folder contains same reports as in 2002 Election

folder

vi TflD level VR_SSVR_TO RED 216.pdf and .xls includes voter

registration Spanish surname voter registration and turnout by district

and VTD for the 2010 gubernatorial election

vii ACS HCVAP Special TabRED too Citizen Voting Age Population

HCVAP from the 2005-2009 ACS DOJ Special Tabulation

TE-004771


viii District Population Analysis with Counties RED ioocontains plan deviation statistics and verification information and district

population data

ix Population and Voter Data RED 202Incumbents RED 350

xi Compactness Analysis RED 315xii Split Cities by District RED 130

PlanCioo Maps folder -- 28 CFR Sec 51.28b1-6Maps of state and split counties with districts

ii n/a

iii Maps of split counties with racial/ethnic shading by VTDiii Maps of split counties with Spanish Surname voter registration by VTDiv Maps of split counties with natural boundaries and geographic features

iv Maps of split counties with cities

n/a

vi n/a

PlanCl85 folder same as PlanCioo folder

Shapefiles folder

Shapefiles of all 54 public Texas Congressional plans

blk.zip--block equivalency file .csv for PlanCioo and PlanCl85

Two Plan Comparison ReportsTwo Plan by Incumbent RED 335Plan Overlap Analysis RED 340

Section 51.28f Publicity and Participation

The process of creating the Plan that ultimately passed began almost year prior to

final passage The Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Senate conducted

numerous hearings throughout the state during the legislative interim preceding the

82nd Legislative Session In the House of Representatives hearings were conducted by

both the House Committee on Redistricting and the House Committee on Judiciary and

Civil Jurisprudence Those hearings are listed below and reflect the location of the city

where the hearing was held

6/2/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence

Austin6/21/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on San Antonio Redistricting and

House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence

7/19/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on McAllen Redistricting and House

Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence

TE-004772


7/20/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on Laredo Redistricting and House


7/21/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on Corpus Christi Redistricting and


8/16/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on El Paso Redistricting and House


8/18/20 10 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on Lubbock Redistricting and House

Judiciary and Civil Jnrisprudence

9/20/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence

Subcommittee on Downtown Dallas Redistricting and Senate Select Committee on

Redistricting

9/21/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on Tarrant County Redistricting


9/22/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on Richardson/UT-Dallas

Redistricting and House Judiriary and Civil Jurisprudence

10/18/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on Beaumont Redistricting and


10/20/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on Marshall Redistricting and House


11/17/20 10 House Redistricting Subcommittee on Austin Redistricting

11/20/2010 Joint Hearing Subcommittee of Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence and Senate Select

Committee on Redistricting Houston

In the Texas Senate hearings were conducted by the Senate Select Committee on

Redistricting

9/1/2010 Austin



Redistricting

10/4/2010 Amarillo

10/5/2010 Midland

10/21/2010 Edinburg11/4/2010 San Antonio



Members of the public were not limited to speaking on any particular map during the

interim hearings Prior to each interim hearing the Senate Committee on Redistricting

notified the elected officials in the area and encouraged them to widely disseminate

information about the hearing The committee office has retained the notification

mails that were sent During the course of the legislative interim hearings an e-mail

contact database of interested members of the public was created to notify them of

upcoming legislative hearings That database ultimately included over 200 community

leaders advocacy groups and election officials who received regular communications

throughout the legislative session At the hearings it was announced that the public

TE-004773


record of the hearings would remain open until December 2010 in order to give the

public ample time to provide written remarks to the committees

All hearing notices public plans and amendments were posted on the Texas Legislative

Councils website www.tlc.state.tx.us All public plans were accessible through

DistrictViewer The Texas Legislative Council also maintained two RedAppl terminals

which were available for public use during normal business hours

Of course map drawing could not begin in earnest until the U.S Census Bureau

released block level data to Texas on February 17 2011 During the regular session the

House Committee on Redistricting conducted public hearing to solicit input from the

public on congressional redistricting That hearing was held on April 2011 As

mentioned above the 82d Legislature adjourned on May 30 2011 without enacting

legislation redistricting the United States congressional districts The Governor called

special session beginning on May 31 2011 and later added congressional redistricting to

the list of eligible topics for the special session

Senator Kel Seliger and Representative Burt Solomons jointly released public plan

C125 on May 30 2011

The Senate Select Committee on Redistricting conducted public hearing on June to

consider congressional redistricting plan C125 On that date the plan was voted out of

committee The full Senate considered the plan on June and sent the bill to the

House The vote in the Senate was 18 ayes and 12 nays The House Committee on

Redistricting scheduled public hearing on June 2011 to consider the original

congressional redistricting plan Once the plan was passed the Senate the House

Committee considered the bill in formal meeting committee substitute was adopted

and voted out of committee On June 14 2011 the House of Representatives set the bill

on the calendar and passed it to engrossment The vote on second reading was 93 ayes

and 48 nays It passed on third reading on June 15 2011 with vote of 93 ayes and 47

nays

Notice for all hearings was provided in compliance with the Rules of the Texas House of

Representatives and the Texas Senate The following links include hearing notices

minutes and witness lists for each of the hearings on the Plan

House Redistricting committee Hearings

Hearing on April

Notice

http /Iwvw.cayito1.state.tx.us /tlodocs/8aR/schedules /ydf/Co8o2ollo4o7oQool.PDF

Minutes

http //www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodoes/SaR/minutes /ndf/coso2ollo4o7oQool.PDF

Witness List

hue //www.capitol.state.tx.os /tlodocs /8aR/witlistmtg /ixlcosoaollo4o70900l .PDF

TE-004774


Hearing on June

Notice

l1ttlD //iswi .capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/schedulespdf/CoSoaollo6o2lo4sl.PDF

Minutes

http//www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/minutes/pdf/Co80201106021o451.PDF

Witness List

httpj/Jwww.capitol.statetx.us/tlodocs/82RJwitlistmtg/ydf/Co8o2ollo6o2lo4sl.PDF

Hearing on June

Notice

http/mnsu .cayitol.state.tx.os/tlodocs/82R/schedules/pdf/CoSo2ollo6oQoQool.PDF

Minutes

htpjycaitoLstate.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/minutes/pdf/Co8o2o11o6oQogoo1.PDF

Senate Select Committee on Redistricting

Hearing on June

Notice

hijw /www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/schedulcs/ndf/C6252o11o6o.s0000l.PDF

Minutes

hun //wwo .capitol.state.txus/t1odocs/S2RJmioutes/pdf/C62.c2o11o6otogoo1.PDF

Witness List

http //\%\vss .capitol.state.tx us/tiodocs /82R/witlistnltg/pdf/C62s2ollo6o30900l.PDF

51.28g1 Public Availability of Submission

The Attorney General issued press release on XXXX date indicating that lawsuit has

been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking

pre clearance of the Plan and that this informal submission was transmitted to the DOJ

copy of that press release can be found online at www.texasattorneygeneral.gov

Members of the public were informed that they may provide comment by contacting the

Office of the Attorney General via e-mail at greg.abbott@ oag.state.tx.us or via telephone

at 800252-Soil

s1.28g2 Electronic Availability of Submission

The Attorney General has made the data included in this submission available on the

OAGs website at www.texasattorneygeneral.gov

51.28h Minority Group Contacts

The following individuals reside in the State of Texas and are familiar with the proposed

change and were active in the political process by which the Plan was adopted comment Similar to the House

submission would list the mino ity members of

the committee specifically Villa cal who was eally

helpful in drawing C035 as well as Nina and Luis

from MALDgP talked to both of them about the

congressional districts long before esen started

working in the legislature

10

TE-004775


11

TE-004776


State of Texas

Informal Submission

Act of May 23 2011 82nd Leg R.S H.B 150Texas House of Representatives

This document outlines the information provided in this informal submission of H.B

i5othe Plan pursuant to 28 C.F.R 51.27 and 51.28 The document either provides

the information requested or references the relevant attachment where the information

is located

Section 51.27 Copy of Plan

copy of the Plan may be found online at

http //www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/html/HBootcoF.htm

and is included as Attachment

Section 51.27b Copy of Plan Currently in Effect

copy of the current State House of Representatives districts can be found online at

http //gisi.tlc.state.tx.us/download/House/PLANH100.ydf

and is included as Attachment That plan is referred to herein as benchmark planor Hioo in the electronic reports

Section 1.27c Statement of Change RequestedThe Plan makes changes to all 150 of the states house district boundaries Reports and

maps have been included in the submission and detail those changes

Section 51.27d Person Submitting

Greg Abbott

Texas Attorney General

209 14th Street

Austin Texas 78701

512 463-2191 office

512 936-0545 fax

[email protected]

Section 51.27e and Not applicable

Section 51.27g Body Responsible for Change

The body responsible for passing the Plan was the 82 Texas Legislature

TE-004777


Section 51.27h Statutory AuthoritY for Change

Article section 26 of the Texas Constitution directs the Legislature to reapportion the

states House districts based on the data provided by the United States Census Bureau

The same provision of the Texas Constitution also requires that when county contains

sufficient population to make up single district district shall be created wholly

within that county Pursuant to that authority the Texas Legislature introduced and

passed the Plan more detailed discussion of the process the Legislature undertook

can be found in Section 51.28f

Section 51.27i and Date Change Adopted and Effective Date

The Plan became law on June 17 2011 and will become effective on August 29 2011

Section 51.27k Statement regarding imniementation

The Plan has not been implemented

Section 51.271 Affected Jurisdiction

The Plan affects the entire jurisdiction of the State of Texas

Section 51.27 ml and Reason for and Effect of Change

Background

The Texas House of Representatives is divided into 150 districts Based on the states

population of 25145561 House districts with perfectly equalized population would

each contain 167637 residents Population shifts over the last decade have resulted in

wide variations among the House districts with the largest district District 70 at 79.4%

over the ideal population and the smallest district District 103 at 30.0% under the

ideal population

The stated goals of the Legislature were to equalize population abide by the state

constitutional requirement to preserve county lines avoid pairing incumbents when

possible respond to the public and advocacy groups when appropriate naintain

communities of interest and preserve the cores of prior district All of these goals were Comment Both of these were done

whenever it was possible For enample one

accomplished in the Plan that ultimately passed the Legislature comwunities of interest the were several cities

that were split up so the plaintiffs could easily show

The Plan adopted by the Legislature is in compliance with all applicable state and enamples of that As far as teh prior dint icts its

the same thing The most obvious esample was

federal laws and neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abndging Rep Veronica Gontaless district where she was

the right to vote on account of race color or membership in language minority Thewant to make sure that

you guys are aware that there going to be

Tax CON5T att 26 several enamples where this was not done

TE-004778


Plan does not retrogress the position of racial or language minorities with respect to

their effective exercise of the electoral franchise

In the Plan the districts have an overall deviation of 9.92% with the smallest district

4.9o under the ideal population and the largest district 5.02% over the ideal population

In response to population shifts within the state the Legislature created seven newdistricts in high-growth areas and eliminated seven districts in areas with slowing or

negative growth This resulted in the pairing of incumbents In order to give each paired

member of the House fair chance at re-election the unavoidable pairings were all

between members of the same party i.e six-S pairings were Republican-Republican

and one was Democrat-Democrat

Throughout the legislative process the author of the bill made numerous commentsfrom the floor of the House of Representatives urging it rnlwt various regions of

the state to work together to produce ionul member-driven maps which could be

incorporated into the larger statewide map

Statewide Impact on Minorities

The makeup of the Hispanic population in Texas complicates the traditional analysis of

what constitutes performing minority district Estimates indicate that roughly io%of the states residents are non-citizens Districts within the state particularly those in

urban areas with extremely high concentrations of non-citizens merely t1ie

contain najority Hispanic population will not consistently elect the Hispanic

communitys candidate of choice Likewise the Hispanic citizens within the district maynot register to vote in the same concentrations as white and African American citizens

So it is not enough to merely populate district at o% HVAP and expect that district to

elect the Hispanic candidate of choice As result for purposes of determining

retrogression or creating replacement districts the Legislature regarded o% HVAP as

inadequate to determine the Hispanic communitys ability to elect its candidate of

choice

The Department of Justice DOJ or the Department acknowledges that the

Attorney General does not rely on any predetermined or fixed demographic percentages

at any point in the assessment.3 Some critics of the Plan take an overly simplistic and

frankly incorrect view of the term retrogression and claim that the fact that there are

two fewer districts at the o% HVAP level is in and of itself retrogressive It was the

Legislatures position that due to the high percentage of non-citizens as well as

Comment May also want to mention

sowething here ahout how Burt specifically asked

mewbers to give input regarding their own

individual districts There were many members who

never submitted anything to us His request to

mewbers was that they give us what they want

what they could live with and what they didnt

want There were several wembers that never gave

us anything and some that would give us their

current district and tell us that they didnt want any

changes So aside from wanting regional maps he

also asked for individual maps from members With

shut said just because member gave us what they

would have wanted didnt mean that they got

esactly that We then took everything and tried to

make it fit And in some cases members didnt get

anything that they wanted and all of what they

didnt want

Comment Did you mean HVAP here or

lust majority Hispanic pop ask because there

were some members of the legislature who wanted

no focus on how we dropped the Hispanic Total

Population below 50%

http//fuctfinder.censuygnv/servlet/SfluNe bmy or nameACS 2009 .cYR Goo Sosoicteo id o4000lJS48 contextst-ds narneACS 2009 sYR Goo -tree idvoo- Ianoen-formatCONThXT st

Guidance concerning Redistricting under Section of the voting Rights Act 76 Fed Reg 7470 Feb 2011

TE-004779


HCVAP4 SSVR5 and electoral performance of the district is an appropriate mclard

ii not Ii Ii to review Texas districts for compliance with Section

Even if the 50% HVAP threshold were adopted as an inflexible standard the loss of two

districts at the o% level would not constitute retrogression when those specific districts

are analyzed Specifically those districts District 144 and District 33 are addressed

within the analysis below

The states 2001 DOJ submission noted that the Black population had grown less

rapidly than the population of other racial and ethnic groups within the state This

trend continued to hold true over the last decade The Legislature faced substantial

challenge maintaining the Black Voting Age Population BVAP in the ii benchmark

districts All but of the 11 benchmark districts with BVAP over 40% were under

populated The Legislature maintained those districts and actually increased by one the

number of districts with BVAP over 40% Statistical studies demonstrate that the

African-American population tends to register to vote in higher percentages and turn

out to vote at higher rate than the Hispanic population.6 district with an

The Fifth circuit has held nuequivocally that HCVAP is the population base that should be considered in vote-

dilution claim to determine whether minority group satisfies the first Gingles requirement See Gompos City of

Houston 113 F.3d 544 548 th cir 1997 we hold that courts evaluating vote dilution claims under section of the

Voting Rights Act must consider the citizen voting age population of the group challenging the electoral practice when

determining whether the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute majority in

single member district see also Sessioo Perry 298 Supp 2d 451494 n.133 ED Tex 2004 This circuit

along with every other circuit to consider the question has concluded that the relevant voting population for

Hispanics is citizen voting age population reversed on other grounds LULAC Perry 548 U.S 3994292006commenting but not holding in dicta that using HCVAF to determine Hispanic electoral opportunity fits the

language of because only eligible voters affect groups opportunity to elect candidates For information about

how the State of Texas calculates HCVAP please see the Texas Legislative councils website

http//www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/pdf/CitizenshipAddendum.pdf

According to the Texas Legislative council Spanish surname voter registration also reported in the secretary of

states Statewide Voter Database is generated using comparison to the 2000 census Bureau List of Spanish

Surnames while most sources agree that the match between people who have Spanish surnames and those whoconsider themselves Hispanic is relatively good in Texas the census Bureau estimates 90 percent correlation for

the state the reported number of registered voters with Spanish surnames is not precise measure of Hispanic voter

registration Some people who consider themselves Hispanic do not have surnames that are included in the Spanish

surname fi le and will be missed by the Spanish surname matching technique Others who have surnames that are

included in the Spanish surname file but do not consider themselves Hispanic will be incorrectly counted as

Hispanic registered voters http //www.tlc.state.tx.ns/redist/pdf/Data 2015 Redistricting.udf

The Latino population snffers from participation rates lower than those of non Hispanic black and white

populations in terms of both voter registration and election day turnout while turnout rates among Hispanics are

lower than those among whites and blacks low registration rates among eligible voters pose the biggest problem

Only 58o of eligible Latino voters were registered to vote in 2004 compared to 75% of whites and 69o of

blacks Experts attribute these low participation rates to the fact that like African Americans Hispanics are

disproportionately young less educated and less affluent all attributes that traditionally dampen political

participation For Hispanics these factors are exacerbated by language barriers The combined effect of low voter

eligibility and participation is devastating Only 18% of all Hispanics voted in 2004 compared to 51 of whites and

39 of blacks and Hispanics only contributed 6o of all the ballots cast on election day Alvaro Bedoya Note The

Unforeseen Effects of Georgia Ashcroft on the Lotino Community 115 VALE L.J 2112 2128 29 2006

Comment fG14 cant say that thisii

necessarily irue We really werent thai focused on

the HVAP number our focus was more on the 5$VR

But it this argument worts and youve confirmed

that every district that we am counting where the

SSVR is above 50% then the Ft VAt is above 60%

Im fine with it

TE-004780


approximately 40% BVAP historically can elect the African-American candidate of

choice

Statewide the comparison between the benchmark and the Plan are

BENCHMARK HB 150

HVAP greater than 6o% 30

HCVAP greater than 50% 30

SSVR greater than o% 29 30

BVAP greater than 40% 11 12

Neither Hispanic nor Black voting strength retrogresses in the Plan

Regional Impact on Minority Communities

South and West Texas El Paso County is apportioned seats in the Plan The high

concentration of Hispanic residents results in districts with unavoidably high levels of

HVAP Ails districts in both the benchmark and the Plan are populated with over 6o%

HVAP

The same situation exists in Hidalgo County Hidalgo County is entitled to districts

four districts contained within the county plus excess population shared with

neighboring county The districts in Hidalgo County all contain over 75% HVAP in

both the benchmark and the Plan HCVAP and SSVR numbers are also generally high in

that area

Nueces County Nueces County was apportioned seats in 2001 two districts

entirely contained within the county plus excess population in district hated itli

neighboring ijykccordingto the 2010 census Nueces County grew at slower

rate than the state as whole and the countys population of 340223 no longer entitles

it to districts but only two therefore one district needed to be eliminated This loss Comment 615 Not sure if its worth euplaning

why its two districts You could add something like

of one state representative seat necessanly causeu the painng of two incumbents Thethis If you take the ideal districts size of 167637

paired incumbents are Rep Raul Torres in District 33 and Rep Connie Scott in and divideit

into the total population of the county

you get 2.0235 This number was rounded down to

District 34 Nueces County now has two distncts wholly contained within its two districts since the remaining population could

boundaries Districts 34 and 32 As required by the state constitution the Legislature

adhered whenever possible to rule that county lines should be preserved In this case You did this same calculation for Harris County but

not for Nueces and think its lust as important to

adding third distnct to Nueces County would have unnecessanly broken county lines ntiit

TE-004781


Under the Plan the Legislature chose to strengthen the Hispanic influence in one of the

two remaining districts in the county Election data indicate that district will now

consistently elect the Hispanic communitys candidate of choice ueces County

contains 36.7% Anglo VAP and 56.8% HVAP Under the benchmark plan neither

District 33 nor District 34 was consistently electing the Hispanic communitys candidate

of choice No plan was submitted that drew two performing Hispanic districts wholly

contained within the county without splitting county lines.7

HVAPBENCHMARK

HYAPHBtao

SSVRBENCHMARK

SSVRHBtao

HCVAPBENCIIMARK

HCVAPHR 150

Former

District 33

61.9 55.3 60.5

District 34 6i.6 67.7 53.8 6o.8 58.4 64.7

District 32 37.2 45.9 33.2 37.3 35.3 44.2

Comment Should mention that

considering how the total population of the county

was only 56.8 HVAP and less than 50% SSVR it was

statistically impossible to draw two districts within

the county that are both above 60% HVAP and 50/

SSVR as was the goal of the legislature

Harris County Harris County contained 25 seats in the benchmark plan AlthoughHarris County did experience growth between 2000 and 2010 its growth did not keep

pace with the rest of the state Growth in Harris County was 20.3% while the state as

whole grew at rate of 20.6% Based on the census Harris County is entitled to either

24 or 25 seats Dividing Harris Countys population of 4092459 by the ideal district

size 167637 yields the number of seats Harris County is entitled to 24.4126

Accordingly the Legislature chose to apportion 24 seats and create district elsewhere

in the state where population growth was stronger This elimination of seat

necessitated the pairing of two urnbt ni

El ri uuh

HVAP HVAP SSVRBENCHMARK HB BENCHMARK

150District 59.8 55.3 22.0 24.3 25.8 26.4

137

Representative Alonzos amendment Plan Hs15 164 which was snbmitted on behalf of MALDEF but withdrawn

before it could be voted on the by the House achieved two performing districts within Nueces but in order to do so

had to split out the Anglo population into third district thereby violating the state constitutional county line rule

Representative Martinez Fischer presented plan on behalf of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus which split

Nneces County into legislative districts also violating the state constitutional county line rule

Under the benchmark plan District 137 also contained 13.7u Anglo yAP 14.6% BvAP and s% Other VAP

Comment dont know if this is worth

mentioning but the reason that these two were

paired is because we believed that neither was

protected district Since we were focused on the

SSVR lwhich is estremely low in both dist ictsl and

even if you were to take the HVAP number both

were below the benchma ks of 50% SSVR and HVAP

SSVR HCVA.P HCVAP of 60% so we didnt feel that those districts were

protected by the VRA

HB BENCHMARK HBiso iso

TE-004782


149

30.2 15.9 19.0 Formatted Table

The House proactively increased minority voting strength in one Hispanic district in

Harris County At the request of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational

Fund MALDEF the SSVR and HCVAP in District 148 were both increased to over o%from 40.0% and 42.1% respectively Comment L6181 Do you have this testimony

om the hearing It mas given by Luis Fuigeroa

Also after his testimony Vice Chairman Mike

Villareal also suggested that the SSVR be increased

in Ff0148 and Ff090

With respect to the African American communities in Harris County an amendment

was put forth by the Harris County delegation one in which there was slight reduction

in Black VAP numbers in two of four performing districts However the members from

Harris County agreed to the amendment which did not negatively affect the ability of

Black voters to elect the candidate of their choice in any district The following

districts were affected

District BVAP

BENCHMARKBVAP

HB iso

139 47.2 42.1

141 42.8 50.0

142 40.8 42.9

147 39.2 38.2

Finally in Harris County one district District 144 drops below the o% HVAP level in

the Plan Under the benchmark District 144 held by Republican contains 50.3%HVAP However the CVAP in the district was 35.1% and the SSVR was 31.5% The Plan

decreases HVAP to 48.5% but does not change the overall characteristic of the district

Election data indicates that this was not nor is it now performing district for Hispanicvoters

Dallas County Between 2000 and 2010 Dallas County only grew by 6.7% while the

state grew at rate of 20.6% Because of this two districts were eliminated in Dallas

County therefore Dallas County was apportioned 14 rather than i6 districts Everydistrict in Dallas except for District 109 was under populated in the benchmark planDespite this challenge the Plan maintains four districts with BVAP over 40% and twodistricts with an HVAP over 6s% The four paired districts were all occupied byRepublican members of the Legislature

Under the benchmark plan District 149 also contained 26.6v Anglo yAP 16.2iO BVAP and 6.2% Other yAPiv see House Journal supplement pages S2o6-S2o8

btto// ww.journals.housestatetx.us/lsirnl/82R/odf/82R0AYtsUppLEMEwJodf

TE-004783


Tarrant County Based on population growth Tarrant County was apportioned an

additional seat bringing the county total up to ii from to The Plan contains new

district District lot which contains 32.5% HVAP 27.0% BVAP and 24.6% Anglo VAPThe future ability of the minority groups in this district to elect their candidate of choice

will depend on the growth trends in that part of the county and will depend on the

ability of the minority groups to establish the criteria needed to form jLf nrtur

district.j


Tarrant County At the request of MALDEF the SSVR and HCVAP in District were

increased from 47.2% and 48.0% respectively to o.i% SSVR and 49.7% HCVAP

Name cause No Venue

Consolidoted

Perez Dutton and Tamez State of Texas et alSA CA-36o-OLG-JES-XRW.D Tex San Antonio

Three Judge Court Garcia Smith RodriguezTexas Latino Redistricting Task Force et al Perry et

al MALC State et al

Teuber State of Texas et al

SA-it-cA 0572 OLG-JES XRW.D Tex San Antonio


Teuber State of Texas et alCV ii n7f5


MALC State

No tt cv 144

S.D Texas McAllen Division Judge Crane

Barton et al State of Texas Hone Andrade11-20238 CV


Barton et al State of Texas Hone Andrade11 20263 CV


Comment G19J These twu tounties are where

the communities of interest was big issue We did

the best that we could to try to split cities as little as

encnthla.Thsuiszsra tsItsnit .hur it.c i.

Section 51.270 Pending Litigation


TE-004784


Tarrant County Based on population growth Tarrant County was apportioned an

additional seat bringing the county total up to ii from to The Plan contains new

district District tot which contains 32.5% HVAP 27.0% BVAP and 24.6% Anglo YAPThe future ability of the minority groups in this district to elect their candidate of choice

will depend on the growth trends in that part of the county and will depend on the

ability of the minority groups to establish the criteria needed to form iw1 iin

district


Tarrant County At the request of MALDEF the SSVR and HCVAP in District were

increased from 47.2% and 48.0% respectively to o.t% SSVR and 49.7% HCVAP

Section 51.270 Pending Litigation


Na cause No Venue

Consolidoted

Perez Dutton and Tamez State of Texas et alSA ii CA 360 OLG JE5-XR

W.D Tex San Antonio

Three Judge Court Garcia Smith RodriguezTexas Latino Redistricting Task Force et Perry et

al MALC State et al

Teuber State of Texas et

SA is CA 0572-OLG-JES XRW.D Tex San Antonio

Three Judge Court Garcia smith Rodriguez

Teuber State uf Texas et alCV-11-o27o


MALC State

No 711-cv 144

S.D Texas McAlIen Division Judge Crane

Barton eta State of Texas Hope Andrade11-2u238-CV

s3th District Court Navarro County Texas

Barton eta state of Texas Hope Andrade11 20263-CV


Comment These two counties are where

the communities of interest wes big issue We did

the best that we could to try to split cities as little as

possible They were still split but it was our goal to

keep them together as much as we could

Comment dont think that we should

be talking about the future ability of groups to elect

their candidate of choice The Democrats tried to

focus on why we were not taking into considertalon

how the Hispanic community was going to continue

to grow and this seems to go against that

argument We simply didnt beliese that we should

take future growth into consideration when it

comes to drawing districts

TE-004785


Washburn State of Texas Hope AndradeCause No CV 110921 397th District Court Grayson County

Texas

Washburn State of Texas Hope AndradeCause No CV 110931 397th District Court Grayson County

Texas

John Canica Limon et al Rick Perry et alD-s-GN-n-ooi6ii

351st Judicial District Court Travis County Texas

Bianca Garcia et al Rick Perry et ali-GN 11 001612

419th Judicial District Court Travis County Texas

Rodrieuez et al State of Texas et al

sls-cv-p045s

W.D Tex Austin Division

Three Judge Conrt Yeakel Smith Garcia

Morris State of Texas Rick Perry David Dewhurst11 cv 2244

S.D Tex Houston Division

Judge RosenthalJoe Straps and Hope Astdrade

Section 51.27p Prior Preelearance The benchmark state House plan was submitted to

the DOJ for preclearance in 2001 The Department objected to three districts three-judge

panel convened in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas modified

the state house plan to address DOJ objections The courts opinion can be found at

httD//www.tlc.state.tx.us/redi5t/Ddf/housepc.Ddf and the Final Judgment can be found at

httD//www.tlcState.tx.us/redistJDdf/finalorderhouse.Ddf

Section 51.28 iiand Demographic Information Mans and Election

Returns

Election Data folder Same election data is used for all plan types provided once

Zipped files for each of the last five election cycles returns voter registration VR and

turnout TO by County/ VTD2002 Election.zip

2002 Demoeratic_Primcsry_Election_Returns.csv

2002_Democratic_primary Election_VRTO.csv

2002_Democratic_Runoff_Election_Retuflis.css

2002 Democratic_ Runoff _Election_ VRTO.css

2002_Republlcan_PrimaryElection_Retunls.csv

2002_Republican_Primarsj_Election VRTO.csu

TE-004786


2002_Republican Runoff_Election Returns.csv

2002_Republican _Runoff _Election_ VRTO.csv

ci 2002 General_Election_Returns.csv

io 2002_General_Election_ VRTO.csv

ii readme.txt

ii 2004_Election.zip contains same reports as in 2002 Election.zip

iii 2006_Election.zip contains same reports as in 2002 Election.zip also

includes the special general and runoff for the court-ordered

Congressional districts

iv 2008 Election.zip contains same reports as in 2002 Election.zip

2010_Election.zip contains same reportsas Hi 2002 Electioil.Lip

PlanHioo folder

PlanHtoo Reports folder

2002_Election folder

2002_Democratic_Prfrnary_RED225 .pdf and .xls

2002_Democratic_Runoff_ RED225 .pdf and .xls

2002 Republican_Primary_ RED225 .pdf and .xls

2002_Republican _Runoff P.ED22 .pdf and xls

2002_General_Election_ RED225 .p4f and .xls

ii 2004_Election folder- contains same reports as in 2002 Election folder

iii 2006 Election folder contains same reports as in 2002 Election folder also

includes the special general and runoff for the court-ordered Congressional

districts

iv 2008 Election folder contains same reports as in 2002 Election folder

2010_Election folder contains same reports as in 2002_Election folder

vi VTD level VR_SSVR_TO RED 216.pdf and .xls includes voter

registration Spanish surname voter registration and turnout by district and VTDfor the 2010 gubernatorial election

vii ACS HCVAP Special TabRED 106 Citizen Voting Age PopulationHCVAP from the 2005-2009 ACS DOJ Special Tabulation

viii District Population Analysis with Counties RED zoo contains plan

deviation statistics and verification information and district population data

ix Population and Voter Data RED 202Incumbents RED 350

xi Compactness Analysis RED 315xii Split Cities by District RED 130

PlanHioo Maps folder-- 28 CFR Sec 51.28b1-6

Maps of state and split counties with districts

ii n/a

iii Maps of split counties with racial/ethnic shading by VTDiii Maps of split counties with Spanish Surname voter registration by VTDiv Maps of split counties with natural boundaries and geographic features

iv Maps of split counties with cities

n/avi n/a

PlanH283 folder same as PlanHioo folder

Shapefilcs folder

Shapefiles of all iii public Texas House plans

TE-004787


blk.zip--block equivalency file .csv for PlanHioo and PlanH283

Two Plan Comparison Reports

Two Plan by Incumbent RED 335Plan Overlap Analysis RED 340

Section 51.280 Publicity and Participation

The process of creating the Plan that passed began almost year prior to final passage The

Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Senate conducted numerous hearings throughout

the state during the legislative interim preceding the 82nd Legislative Session In the House of

Representatives hearings were conducted by both the House Committee on Redistricting and

the House Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence those hearings are listed below

and refliect the location of the city where the hearing was held

6/2/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence

Austin6/21/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on San Antonio Redistricting and


7/19/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on McAllcn Redistricting and House


7/20/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on Laredo Redistricting and House


7/21/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on Corpus Christi Redistricting and


8/16/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on El Paso Redistricting and House


8/18/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on Lubbock Redistricting and House




Redistricting

9/21/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on Tarrant County Redistricting


9/22/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on Richardson/UT-Dallas

Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence

10/18/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on Beaumont Redistricting and


10/20/2010 Joint Hearing House Redistricting Subcommittee on Marshall Redistricting and House


11/17/2010 House Redistricting Subcommittee on Austin Redistricting



In the Texas Senate hearings were conducted by the Senate Select Committee on Redistricting

9/1/2010 Austin

TE-004788


9/20/20 10 Joint Hearing House Redistricting House Jndiciary and Civil Jurisprudence


Redistricting

10/4/2010 Amarillo

10/5/2010 Midland

10/21/2010 Edinburg11/4/2010 San Antonio



All hearing notices public plans and amendments were posted on the Texas Legislative

Councils website www.tlc.state.tx.us and all public pians were accessible through

DistrictViewer The Texas Legislative Council also maintained two RedAppl terminals

which were available for public use during normal business hours

During the course of the legislative interim hearings an e-mail contact database of

interested members of the public was created to notify them of upcoming legislative

hearings That database ultimately included over 200 community leaders advocacy

groups and election officials who received regular communications throughout the

legislative session At the hearings it was announced that the public record on the

hearings would remain open until December 2010 in order to give the public ample

time to provide written remarks to the committees

Maps could not be drawn in earnest until the U.S Census released block-level data to

Texas on February 17 2011 On March 24 2011 the House Committee on Redistricting

held public hearing to solicit input from the public on potential house map On April

13 2011 Chairman Solomons publicly released plan H113

In the time between the release of the census numbers and the public release of the

plan the committee staff and the Speakers office conducted several meetings with

members to receive input on the map as well as with minority groups such as MALDEFand the Mexican American Legislative Caucus MALC Several of MALDEFsrecommended changes were incorporated into the plan that ultimately passed The staff

unsuccessfully attempted to set up meetings with the NAACP Multiple times on the

House floor Chairman Solomons encouraged the members from various regions of the

state to get together to submit regional proposals as group The committee took all of

these suggestions into consideration when crafting proposed map

After H113 was publicly posted on DistrictViewer two public hearings were held

Chairman Solomons laid out committee substitute plan 134 at that time The first

hearing was on Friday April 15 2011 at 1200 p.m The second was on Sunday April 17

2011 at 200 p.m The committee decided to conduct one meeting during the week and

one on the weekend so that members of the public would have two opportunities to

participate without overly interfering with traditional five-day work week The

TE-004789


committee held formal meeting on Tuesday April 19 2011 at iioo a.m to vote the bill

out of committee after considering committee amendments The committee-approved

plan H153 was sent to the floor.The bill was considered for second reading on the

House calendar on April 27 2011 The entire proceedings were transcribed record

vote was taken and the Plan passed with 92 yeas and 54 nays Two democrats voted for

the plan Representative Eiland and Representative Guillen The enrolled version

H283 was sent to the Senate for consideration The bill passed in the Senate by vote of

22 yeas and nays on second reading and 25 yeas and nays on third reading

Notice of all hearings was provided in compliance with the Rules of the Texas House of

Representatives and the Texas Senate The following links include hearing notices

minutes and witness lists for each of the hearings on the Plan

House Redistricting Committee Hearings

Hearing on April 15

Notice

htto//www.caoitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82RJschedules/odffC0802011041512001.PDF

Minutes

http//www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocsf82Rjminutes/odf/C08020110415 12001 PDF

Witness List

htto//www.caoitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/witlistmtg/odf/C080201 1041512001.PDF

Hearing on April 17

Notice

httr//www.caoitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/schedulesfodf/C080201 1041714001 PDF

Minutes

http/fwww.caoitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/minutes/odf/C0802011041714001.pDF

Witness List

htto//www.caoitol.state.bcus/tlodocs/82RJwitlistmtg/odf/C080201 1041714001 .PDF

Hearing on April 19

Notice

htto//www.caoitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/S2Rjschedules/odf/C080201 104191 1001.PDF

Minutes

http//www.caoitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/minutesfodf/C0802iJ1 1041911001 PDF

Senate Select Committee on Redistricting

Hearing on May

Notice

httoIlwww.caoitol .state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/schedules/odf/C625201 1050609001 POF

Minutes

htto//www.cagitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/S2Rjminutes/pdf/C6252011050609001 .PDF

Witness List

WW UI t8 iUrLEME

TE-004790


htto//www.caoitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82Rlwitlistmtg/odI/C625201 1050609001.PDF

Hearing on May 13

Notice

http//www.caoitostatetxus/todocs/82Rjschedues/odf/C525201 1051308001 PDF

Minutes

htto//www.caoitol .state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/minutes/pdf/C6252011051308001.PDF

51.28211 Public Availability of the Submission

The Attorney General issued press release on XXXX date indicating that lawsuit has been

filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking preclearance of the

Plan and that this informal submission has been transmitted to DOJ copy of that press

release can be found online at www.texasattornevgeneral.gov Members of the public were

informed that they may provide comment by contacting the Office of the Attorney General via

mail at greg.abbottfioag.state.tx.us or via telephone at 800252-8011

51.28 W2 Electronic Availability of Data

The Attorney General has made the data included in this submission available on the OAGswebsite at wwis .texasattorneygeneral.v

51.28h Mint iit up Convicts

The following individuals reside in the State of Texas and are familiar with the proposed _____________________________change and were active in the political process by which the Plan was adopted Comment L6111 would definitely list Nina

Perales Luis Figueroa Jose Germ Martin Golando

the big guy who works for MALC the minority

members of the committee Mike Villareal carol

Alvarado Aaron Pena and Marc Veasey We tried

to contact Gary Bledsoe the Tesas President of the

NAACP but mere never able to get hold of him

Bonnie may also have some other people that me

visited with

As far as each of the big counties Trey Martinez

Piucher was very involved in the drawing of San

Antonio as was the rest of the San Antonio

delegation Borris Miles Garnet Coleman and

almost the entire black delegation was actively

involved in making the final changes to the Harris

County African-American district the night that the

map was being debated on Ihe floor Granted they

were not as involved throughout the rest of the

process But there is no doubt that they were

huge part of what was done that night

TE-004791


TAB 177


Case 51 1-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 117-6 Filed 08105111 Page 30 of 62

From corbin Casteel

Sent Friday June 10 2011 1035AMTo Geranio Interiano

Subject Fwd Jun 11

Attachments 9Jun11 .zip Untitled attachment 01 092.htm

any truth to this part

If DOJ objects the Texas federal court grants legislative deference to the map passed by the

Legislature and is required to remedy ALL of DOJs objections in its map If preclearance is

only pursued at DOJ there will be most likely longer list of objections

If Texas foregoes DOJ preclearance and litigation is not completed in the DCDC the Texas

three-judge panel cannot use the legislatively-enacted map and would be required to begin from

the 2003 map as if this were deadlock case

Begin forwarded message

From Dub Majnes dubmaines5qmaiI.comDate June 2011 53929 PM CDTTo Dub Maines cdubmaines qmaiI.comBcc wcc casteeIinc.com

Subject Re Jun 11

would like add correction that received on the message that sent earlier

If DOJ objects the Texas federal court grants legislative deference to the map passed by the Legislature and is

required to remedy ALL of DOJs objections in its map If preclearance is only pursued at DOJ there will bemost likely longer list of objections

If Texas foregoes DOJ preclearance and litigation is not completed in the DCDC the Texas three-judge panel

cannot use the legislatively-enacted map and would be required to begin from the 2003 map as if this were

deadlock caseAnd another

DOJs punch list will grow exponentially if they know we have to make changes Little things that theywouldnt have nit picked in clean map will show up on the list because of the obvious retrogression and lack

of new Hispanic seatThat having been said is there any reason why every effort should not be made to make the map more likely to

pre-clear especially if it doesnt hurt the political aims in any wayOn Thu Jun 2011 at 115 PM Dub Maines [email protected] wrote

would really appreciate you looking at this modified Solomons/Seliger map It is 26R and 1OD as is the onethe House Committee

just passed However the Committee-passed map badly retrogresses CD2O without creating new YRAdistrict CD35 is in no way VRA district it is district that re-elects Congressman Doggett whether he

receives the support of Hispanic voters or not

In the map Ive sent you CD25 is heavily-Republican Hill Country West Texas district CD2O contains the

southeast quadrant of Travis County has incumbent Congressman Charlie Gonzales in it is heavily Bexar

TE-004792



DX210


TE-004793


Case 51 1-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 117-6 Filed 08/05/11 Page 31 of 62

County and is legal performing V.RA district CD35 is an open seat and is district from southern and

central Bexar County to Webb County It is legal performing VRA district

The Committee map as passed has next to no chance of pre-clearance either by Justice or the DC circuit

court The map Ive sent you has very high probability of pre-clearing at least in the DC court This is the

analysis of those who have practiced in the Voting Rights area very successfully for over 25 years would

encourage you to speak with them about the Committee-passed map They may be from evil DC but they AREthe premier experts in this area and believe it would be prudent to entertain their thoughts on this mapThere seems to be quite bit of confUsion about Section pre-clearance Section is not like Section in that

Section deals with existing maps and makes minimal changes to those existing maps if the courts feel

changes are needed Section pre-clearance decides if map ever really exists If map is not pre-cleared

then it is as if nothing had ever been drawn The courts will draw the map de novo as they did in 2001 Doggett

will be re-elected Canseco will not be Parenthold will not be They will likely split the baby on the newseats The Ds pick up net of seats The Rs pick up net of zero seats This idea of challenging the

Constitutionality of Section is high-risk poker with no discernible positive return

Again would appreciate you importing and looking at this map Please call on me if you have any questions

comments or suggestions

Thank youDub Maines

972-898-6796

TE-004794


TE-004795


TAB 178


From JetiArcher

Sent Tuesday March 22 2011 722 PMTo David Hanna Gerardo Interlano

Subject RE Nueces County

Hispanic Ds narrowly won most countywide elections statewide regional and county offices in 2008 general

like 51-49 size margins and got trounced by larger margins in 2010 general like 56-40 55-41 55-45

Jeff ArcherChief Legislative CounselTexas Legislative Council

512-483-1155

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

This electronic message contains information that may be confidential under Chapter 323 Texas GovernmentCode or confidential or privileged as an attorney-client communication or attorney work product or under other

laws or rules The information is meant solely for the use of the intended recipient or another personauthorized by the intended recipient If you have received this electronic message in error please notify the

sender immediately and do not disclose the information to any other person

From David Hanna

Sent Tuesday March 22 2011 714 PMTo Gerardo Interiano

Cc Jeff Archer

Subject Nueces County

AccordIng to the 2010 census and the TLC database Nueces county as whole is 56.8 HVAP and 49.6% spanish

surname for the 2010 general election It is 60.6% total Hispanic pop Accordingly you cannot have two wholly

contained house districts in th county with 60% HVAP or 50% Spanish surname It may be that the 60% total number

got interpreted as HVAP but it wasnt am also not finding the election data to support the theory that Nueces County

as whole performs for Hispanics Thus think it highly unlikely that you can ever get two performing districts for

Hispanics no matter how you draw them but am not volunteering to test that theory

drh

EXHIBIT

67

DEFPRIV0004I

TE-004796



DX211


TAB 179



Sent Tuesday July 12 20111104 AMTo Gerardo Interiano

Subject Office Files

Attachments Nixon3VRANumbers.xls MapsComparison.docx Nixon2VRANumbers.xls

EXHIBif

DEFPRIV000I 98

TE-004797



DX212


Republican Party of Texas Analysis Attached

CURRENT IXO HB 150

Analysis of Current Map vs Committee Substitute

Average 2010 Perry Abbott Lehrman and 2008 McCain Cornyn Jefferson

CURRENT

82 Districts Above 55% GOP

98 Districts above 50% GOP93 Districts Perry White

92 Districts McCain Obama

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE

92 Districts Above 55% GOP99 Districts Above 50% GOP99 Districts Perry White

98 Districts McCain ObamaNixon Map has 97 districts where McCain Obama

Voting Rights Act Districts

CURRENT NIXON NIXON HB 150

I_DIST8VAP SSVR

29

BVAP SSVR

27

BVAJ SSVR

27

BVAP SSVRI

30

i.PrJ1J2 12 12

DISTJM/RP

ALL

GOPJM/RP

ALL

GOPJM/RP

ALL

GOP50% 91 97 95 100 96 100

55% 79 82 86 86 91

60% 64 70 64 72 65 75

DEFPRIV0002O7

TE-004798


TAB 180


From Bonnie Bruce

Sent FrIday April 22 2011 934 PMTo Ryan Downton...HC Gerardo Intetiano burtsolomonsgmaiicomSubject Fw Racially Polarized Voting SummariesAftachments RPVA_SummaryPHl 53.xlsx

Original MessageFrom Stacey Napier cstacey.napierLoag.statetx.usTo Bonnie Bruce Ryan Downton_HCCc Stacey Napier stacey.napierthoagstate.tx.usSent Fri Apr 22 213225 2011

Subject Racially Polarized Voting Summaries

Attached are the summaries we discussed providing yesterday

From our number crunchersGiven the low turnout and Hispanic citizenship in districts 137 and 144 we didnt feel

comfortable identifying candidate of choice from the regressions but 137 seems to have

been strengthened for minority candidates whereas 144 appears to have been weakened

We can discuss this on Monday if you have questions

hope you both get to take at least few hours off this weekend to spend with yourfamilies Talk to you soon

Stacey Schiff NapierSenior counsel to the Attorney General

512 936-6432 direct

512 370-9338 fax

512 563-8324 cell

Privileged and confidential

DEFPRIV0000I8

It

TE-004816



DX216


iii

11 ID ID

2420

10G

en

era

ljl.a

nd

Co

mm

issio

ne

r

2520

10G

en

era

lJustice

Sup

rem

eC

r1

Al

BI

DIs

tric

t40

.3__ii

co

nte

st

Pla

nH

iOD

His

panic

Choic

eP

lanH

lOO

Pre

vailin

gIP

ian

HlS

3P

revailin

g

2002

Ge

ne

ral

Gov

erno

rS

anch

ezS

anch

ez8o

.S%

San

chez

l8.8

%

2004

Ge

ne

rsjJ

Ra

ilro

ad

Com

m

2004

Ge

ne

ral

Crt

ofC

rmin

alA

p

2006

Ge

ne

ral

lit

Gov

erno

r

2006

Ge

ne

ral

Crt

ofC

rmin

alA

p

Sca

rbor

ough

Sca

rbor

ough

66.8

%

Mo

lina

Mo

llna

73.4

%

Sca

rbor

ough

64.3

%

Mo

lina

7l.6

%

Alv

ara

da

Alv

ara

do

11.3

%A

lva

rad

o10

.2%

Mo

lina

Mol

ina7

S.2

%M

oIin

a74.

4%

2008

Ge

ne

ral

US

Se

na

tor

Noriega

Non

age

79.9

%N

orie

ga

778%

2008

iGenera

lJustice

Sup

rem

eC

rtY

anez

Yan

ez83

.2%

Yan

ez82

.0%

1020

10G

en

era

lLI

Gov

erno

rC

have

z-T

hom

pson

Cha

vez-

Tho

mps

on77

.8%

Cha

vez-

Tho

mps

on74

.0%

1120

10G

en

era

lLa

ndC

om

mis

sio

ne

rU

ribe

Uribe

78.9

%U

nib

e75

.6%

12201Q

_IG

enera

lJustice

Sup

rem

eC

r1B

ailey

Ba

iley7

4.3

%8a

11ey

69.2

%

ª 14D

lstr

lct4

l

15Y

ear

Ele

ction

Co

nte

st

Pla

n11

100

HIs

panic

Choic

eP

lanH

lOO

Pre

vailin

gP

lan

Hls

3P

revailin

g

1620

02G

en

era

lG

over

nor

San

chez

San

chez

s3.S

%S

anch

ezsO

.S%

Sca

rbor

ough

Mo

lina

JM

olin

asl.6

%M

olin

aSO

.7%

fAlv

ara

do

bh

irsS

9%

Mo

lina

lMo

8n

aS

l.9

%M

oIln

aSO

.2%

Noriega

Non

lega

59.7

%N

orie

ga

56.9

%

1720

04G

en

era

lR

ailr

oa

dC

omm

Ig 19

2110

4G

en

era

l

2006

Ge

ne

ral

jcrt

nfc

rmln

alA

p

fLt

Gov

erno

r

20 21

2006

2008

Ge

ne

ral

Ge

ne

ral_

_JC

rto

fCrm

ina

lAp

US

Se

na

tor

2220

08

2320

10

Ge

ne

ral

liu

ztice

Sup

rem

eC

r1V

anes

Ge

ne

ral

it

Gov

erno

rC

have

z-T

hom

pson

Urib

e--

Bailey

1anez

63.7

%V

anes

61.1

%

Cha

vez-

Tho

mps

on50

.5%

0e

W4

ltirft

tS4

.0

Uribe

51.9

%P

tte

rso

n52

9%G

uzm

amj

52.9

%G

dzm

aS

73

2008

Ge

ne

ral

2008

Ge

ne

ral

2010

Ge

ne

ral

26 27D

istictl8

____

____

____

____

____

_28

Yea

rE

lection

Co

nte

st

Pla

nH

iOD

Hia

panic

Choic

eP

lan

uio

oP

revailin

gP

IanH

lS3

Pre

vailin

g

2920

02G

en

era

lG

over

nor

San

chez

3020

04G

en

era

lR

ailr

oad

Com

mS

carb

orou

ghtC

ard

j52r

ca

rdtf

6sl

3120

04G

en

era

lC

rtof

Crm

inal

ApM

olin

aK

eaert

O%

Ii$

Xe

asle

rSi

1%

3220

06G

en

era

lL

IG

over

nor

Vlto

4iz

.rt

3320

06G

en

era

lC

r1of

Crm

ina

lAp

Mo

lina

Keliet4

ZS

-

US

Se

na

tor

Noriega

1N

oriege

53.5

%N

orie

ga

52.7

%

35V

anes

36 3720

10

3820

10

Justice

Sup

rem

eC

r1

39

itG

over

nor

Ge

ne

ral

Land

Co

mm

issio

ne

r

Ge

ne

ral

Justice

Sup

rem

eC

r1

Cha

vez-

Tho

mps

on

Uribe

Bailey

Van

esS

6.S

%V

anes

55.7

%

0eW

hurs

tSS

12D

eik

ptu

S2

Pa

tte

rso

cU

sts

te4srs

6i5

69%

r.-

Gtizm

art

SiO

%.P

.ML

41

DIs

tictl3

l

Yea

rE

lection

Co

nte

st

ml1

00

Pre

vailin

g

Pdr

ryS

DJ%

Pla

nHl5

3P

revailin

g

sanc

hez

543%

Sca

rbor

ough

56.9

%

Mo

ilna5

8A

lva

rad

o3d

%

4220

02G

en

era

lG

over

nor

43 44 45

2004

Ge

ne

ral

Railr

oad

Com

mS

carb

orou

ghSL

3%

Molirt

a5L1

De

wflu

rst.

sltS

2004

2006

Ge

ne

ral

Ge

ne

ral

Cr8

of

Crm

lnel

Ap

it

Gov

erno

r

TE-004817


.7 p.3

4620

06G

en

era

lIC

rtof

Crm

inal

ApM

otna

538

jM

piln

a5T

3%47

2008

Ge

ne

ral

lJS

$e

na

tor

No

rie

ga

6z

7%4W

orie

ga44

%48

2008

Genera

lIjuatc

eS

upre

me

Cr1

Van

e633

Ya

rie

r%S

8%

.52

2010

enfL

jL

IG

over

nor

1lio

kn

pso

z3

2.9

%C

Pirm

zT

hom

pson

582%

5020

10G

en

era

lLa

ndC

om

mis

sio

ne

rU

rlIe

6%ljrlb

e58

7%

5120

10G

en

era

litic

eS

upre

me

Cr1

Ba

iley$

27

%B

eile

yS7S

%

52 53D

istict

139

54Y

ear

Ele

ction

5520

02G

enera

l

IConte

et

Pla

nH

100

Bla

ckC

hoic

eP

lanH

lOO

Pre

vailin

gP

lanH

l53

Pre

vailin

g

Jnor

San

chez

San

chez

79.2

%S

anch

ez65

.9%

5620

04G

en

era

lR

ailr

oad

Com

mjs

ca

rbo

rou

gh

Sca

rbor

ough

80.7

%S

carb

orou

gh69

.2%

Si

2004

Ge

ne

rLjC

rto

fCrm

ina

lAp

IMo

lina

Mo

lina

Bl.4

%jM

olin

a6

g.8

%

5820

06G

en

era

l

5928

6jG

enera

l

IIG

over

nor

JAlv

ara

do

Alv

ara

do

77.8

%JA

lvara

do

64.7

%

Crt

ofC

rmin

aiA

pJM

olin

ailn

a8LS

%1o

l1na

689%

6020

08G

en

ere

lJU

SS

en

ato

rtd

oriega

No

rle

ga

86.4

%N

orle

ga

75.3

%

6120

08G

en

era

lJiu

stice

Sup

rem

e01

Yan

ezlY

anez

87.4

%Y

anez

765%

6220

10enera

lJLI

Gov

erno

rJC

have

z-lh

omps

onC

have

z-T

hom

pson

84.6

%C

have

z-T

hom

pson

69.1

%

22..

Land

Co

mm

issio

ne

rU

ribe

tJribe

84.9

%JU

ribe

69.4

%

6420

10

Jaiii

ustiasvpre

mE

EB

aile

7l8

aile

y8

4.0

%

66D

ietlct

140

67Y

ear

Ele

ction

Co

nte

at

Pla

nH

ioG

His

panic

Choic

eP

lanH

lOO

Pre

vailin

gJP

lanH

lS3

Pre

vailin

g

55S

anch

ezS

anch

ez68

.1%

San

chez

67.4

%

6920

04G

en

era

lR

ailr

oad

Com

mS

carb

orou

ghS

carb

orou

gh60

.0%

Jsca

rbo

rou

gh

61.8

%

7020

04G

en

era

lC

rtof

Crm

inal

ApM

olin

aM

olin

a64

.3%

Mo

iina

65.1

%

7120

06G

en

era

lL

IG

over

nor

Alv

ara

do

jAlv

ara

do

63.4

%A

iva

rad

o63

.6%

7220

06G

en

era

lC

rto

fCrm

ina

lAp

Mol

inaG

80%

Mol

inaG

8.3%

7320

08G

en

era

lU

Sse

nato

rN

oriega

No

rie

ga

il.0

%N

orie

ga

ll.4

%

7420

08G

en

era

lJustice

Sup

rem

eC

IY

anez

JYan

ez73

.0%

Yan

ez74

.2%

7520

10G

en

era

l

7620

10

7720

10JG

enera

i

Lt

Gov

erno

rC

have

z-T

hom

pson

Cha

vez-

Tho

mps

on66

.1%

Cha

vez-

Tho

mps

on68

.2%

Land

Co

mm

issio

ne

rU

ribe

Uribe

67.6

%U

ribe

69.3

%

Justice

Sup

rem

eC

rtS

aie

y_

fBailey

63.5

%B

ailey

66.1

%

79D

istict

141j

80Y

ear

Co

nte

st

Pla

nH

100

Bla

ckG

olce

JPia

nHlO

OP

revailin

gP

ianH

lS3

Pre

vailin

g

8120

02G

en

era

lG

over

nor

San

chez

San

chez

74.8

%S

anch

ez82

.0%

8220

04G

en

era

lR

ailr

oad

Com

mS

carb

orou

ghS

carb

orou

gh73

.9%

8320

04M

olin

a74.

2%

8420

06G

en

era

lL

iG

over

nor

Aiv

ara

do

Aiv

ara

do

71.5

%

Sca

rbor

ough

82.5

%

MoiinaB

ll%

Alv

ara

do

80.7

%

ES20

06G

en

era

lC

r1of

Crm

inal

ApM

olin

aM

oiln

a7S

.S%

Mo

ilna

84.2

%

8620

08G

en

era

lU

SS

en

ato

rN

oriega

No

rie

ga

79.5

%N

oriega

88.3

%

8720

08G

en

era

lJustice

Sup

rem

eC

r1Y

anez

Yan

ez80

.6%

Yan

ez89

0%

8820

10IG

enera

l

8920

10T

Ge

ne

rai

9020

10

.LI

Gov

erno

rC

have

z-T

hom

pson

Cha

vez-

Tho

mps

on76

.2%

Cha

vez-

Tho

mps

on86

.8%

Land

Co

mm

issio

ne

rU

rlbe

Uribe

76.4

%U

ribe

86.9

%

Justice

Sup

rem

eC

rtB

ailey

Bailey

76.0

%B

ailey

86.5

%

TE-004818


AfB

91 92D

istlctl44

91 94

Yea

r

2002

Ge

ne

ral

JGov

erno

r

Pre

vailin

gP

lanH

lS3

Pre

vailin

g

Pe

rryS

l.S

%P

err

y64

.7%

Carr

Ilto

60.9

%C

arr

iio

62

j%

Kess

ler

60.1

%K

ess

ler

61.9

%

Dew

hurs

t62

.5%

Oe

wls

urs

t64

.2%

Ke

llerS

7.2

%K

eller

59.1

%

Cor

nyn5

4.9%

Cor

nyns

B.8

%

John

son

54.2

%io

inso

n5

82

%

Oew

hurs

tSl.9

%O

ew

flu

rst6

l.8

%

Patters

on

64.3

%P

att

ers

on

68

.3%

Gts

cmar

643%

Guz

man

67.7

%

9520

04G

en

era

lR

ailr

oad

Com

m

96 97 98

2004

JGenera

iJC

rto

fcrm

ina

lAp

2006

Ge

ne

ral

1L1

Gov

erno

r___

___

2006

Ge

ne

ral3

Crt

ofC

rmin

al

Ap

.22

.P2

Le

iU

sSen

ator

100

2008

IGenera

lJu

stice

Su

pre

rne

Crt

101

2010

Ge

ne

ral

itG

over

nor

102

2010

Genera

lLa

ndC

om

mis

sio

ne

r

103

2010

Ge

ne

ral

Just

iceS

upre

me

Cr1

105

Dis

tlct

147

106

Yea

rE

lect

Ion

IConte

stP

lan

1410

0B

lack

Cho

Ice

107

2002

IGenera

lG

over

nor

JSan

chez

lOS

2004

3G

enera

lR

allr

nad

Com

mS

rarh

nrn

ug

h

Pia

nHlo

OP

revailin

gP1

an14

153

Pre

vailin

g

San

chez

79.2

%S

anch

ez78

.1%

Sra

rhn

rnu

gh

789%

Sca

rbor

ough

750%

109

2004

Ge

ne

ralJ

Crt

ofC

rmin

alA

pM

oiln

aM

olln

aSO

.2%

Mol

ina7

9.1%

UP

111

112

2006

12

.ne

flfL

t.G

ove

rno

rA

lvara

do

2006

jGeriera

lIC

rto

fCrm

ina

lAp

MaI

ms

2008

Ge

ne

ral

US

Se

na

tor

No

rie

ga

Alv

ara

do

76.8

%A

lva

rad

o75

.8%

Mol

ina8

O.6

%M

olin

a69.

7%

Noriega

82.2

%N

orie

ga

80.9

%

113

114

115

116

117

2008

Genera

lf.iu

stice

Sup

rem

eC

r1Y

anec

2010

Ge

ne

rai

LI

Gov

erno

rC

have

z-T

hom

pson

2010

Gen

eF1L

and

Co

mm

issio

ne

rLlrib

e

Yan

ec82

.9%

Yan

ec81

.7%

Cha

vez-

Tho

mps

on78

.4%

Cha

vez-

Tho

mps

on77

.0%

Urlbe

78.7

%U

rlbe

77.3

%

2010

Ge

ne

ral

Justice

Sup

rem

eC

r1B

ailey

Bailey

77.7

%B

ailey

76.4

%

118

119

120

Ois

tics

148

Yea

rE

lection

Co

nte

st

fpla

nH

100

His

panic

Cho

ice

2002

Ge

ne

r1G

ove

rno

rIS

anch

ez

Pla

nHlO

OP

revaIlin

gP

revailin

g

Sa

nth

ez6

l.6

%S

anch

ez63

3%

121

122

124

2004

Genera

lIs

ailro

ad

Cw

nrn

Sca

rbor

ough

2004

Ge

ne

ral

icff

Crm

mn

aiA

piiiina

2006

Ge

ne

raJL

tG

over

nor

fAlv

ara

do

2006

Ge

ne

rel

JC

rtof

Crm

ina

lAp

Mo

lina

Sca

rbor

ough

57.7

%S

carb

orou

gh56

.9%

Mol

ine6

2.0%

Mo

iina

6l.3

%

Alv

ara

do

61.3

%A

lva

rad

o59

.4%

Mo

lina

65.3

%M

olin

a63

.7%

125

126

2008

Genera

lU

SS

en

ato

r

2008

Genera

lJustice

Spr

eme

Crc

Horiega

Van

es

Norlaga

63.1

%H

orle

ga

65.2

%

Yan

ez64

.4%

Yan

ec66

.5%

127

128

2010

Genera

lL

IG

over

nor

2010

Genera

lLa

ndC

om

mis

sio

ne

r

Cha

vez-

Tho

mps

onC

have

z-T

hom

pson

55.0

%C

have

z-T

hom

pson

56.7

%

Uribe

Urlbe

55.8

%U

ribe

58.0

%

129

2010

Genera

lJu

stic

eSup

rem

eC

rcB

ailey

Ba

lleyS

z.6

%Ja

alle

yS

3.7

%

11 .5 p4

TE-004819


TAB 181


From Bonnie Bruce

Sent Wednesday AprIl 13 20111137 AMTo Gerardo Interiano Burt Solomons Ryan Downton_HCCc Denise Davis Lisa Kaufman

Subject FW hearing schedule

Importance High

Leg Councils thoughts on the process and schedule need to know asap if we are going to change the schedule

Bonnie Bruce

Chief of Staff

Office of State Rep Burt Solomons

Room IW.11P.0 Box 2910

Austin TX 78768-2910512-463-0478

From David HannaSent Wednesday April 13 2011 1135 AMTo Bonnie Bruce

Subject RE hearing schedule

You could have the hearing Sunday afternoon and resume Monday morning for those that want to testify on MondayAmendments could be filed by pm Tuesday and then the committee can vote weds night or Thursday

The process on this is important for both preclearance and litigation People and members must be given meaningful

opportunity to comment on the plan you lay out Since dont think the senate will do much with it the only

opportunity for public input on the plan to be reflected with amendments is in the house committee phase

drh

From Bonnie Bruce

Sent Wednesday April 13 2011 1125 AMTo David Hanna

Subject RE hearing schedule

How do we get it out of committee with 24 hour committee amendment rule get committee report back get it through

calendars and on the floor before Thursday We will have to meet while the House is in session any day that we hear it if

were going to have lot of testimony

Bonnie BruceChief of Staff __________________Office of State Rep Burt Solomorss EXHIBIT

AuS TX 78768-2910

_______512-463-0478

DEFPRIV000548

TE-004820



DX217


TAB 182


Case 511-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 117-9 Filed 08/05/Il Page of 26

From Ashlee Vinyard

Sent Tuesday April 05 2011 340 PMTo Gerardo Interiano

Subject Fwd FWAttachments 20110405161 622763.pdf

Please see attached It is confidential from Lamar

GOVERNMENT

TE-004821



DX218


Case 511-cv-00360-OLG-JES..xR Document 117-9 Filed 08/05/il Page of 26

n./AOSVTIoi-C cem- Oxc ªc4roc4 cjiyoJa

Redistricting Pronosal

Maintains the core of current districts unless requested otherwise

Strives to be fair and reflect the changing demographics ofTexas

Creates four new districts as allowed by the census results

One new likely Republican district in

East Texas

One new likely Republican district in

South Texas

One new Voting Rights Act district in

South Texas that leans Republican

One new Voting Rights Act district in

the Dallas-Ft Worth area

Results in 25 congressional districts that lean Republican and 11 that

lean Democratic

TE-004822


TAB 183


Case 511 -cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 117-9 Filed 08/05/11 Page of 26

From Tony Essalih

Sent Monday April 11 2011 936 AMTo Gerardo Interiano

Subject FYI

The map that Congressman Smith and Eric sent to my boss last night is absolutely perfect from our perspectiveif its workable

Thanks Gerardo

TE-004823



DX219


TAB 184



Sent Friday December 102010411 PMTo Eric Opiela

Subject Re

They wont have 18 data yet So went ahead and asked for it for 08Well have it on Monday

On fri Dec 10 2010 at 334 PM Eric Opiela eopielaericopiela.con wrote08 and 10 would be nice 08 is probably the only practical data

On Dec 10 2010 at 916 AM Gerardo Interiano wrote

See below .what do you want

Gerardo

The only requested item we can actually do at the block level is

Spanish Surname VR Total Hispanic Population

We will generate that and send it for which election 2008general would you like the SSVR data The population stays the

same for the decade

Thanks- dare

EXHIBIT11DEFPRIV000224

TE-004824



DX220


TAB 185


1

Jeff Archer

From: Gerardo InterianoSent: Friday, July 15, 2011 1:21 PMTo: David Hanna; Stacey NapierCc: Jeff Archer; Lisa KaufmanSubject: RE: submission summary House v2.docxAttachments: submission summary House v2 - GI EDITS.docx; submission summary congressional - GI

EDITS.docx

Here are my House and Congressional comments. I have no comments on SBOE.

From: David Hanna Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 10:19 AMTo: Stacey NapierCc: Jeff Archer; Gerardo Interiano; Lisa KaufmanSubject: submission summary House v2.docx

House comments. Just what is an informal submission to DOJ?

TE-004825



DX221



Act of June 24, 2011, 82nd Leg., 1st C.S., S.B. 4United States Congress

This document outlines the information provided in this informal submission of S.B. 4 (the “Plan”) pursuant to 28 C.F.R. §§51.27 and 51.28. The document either provides the information requested or references the relevant attachment where the information is located.

Section 51.27 (a) – Copy of Plan

A copy of the Plan may be found online at http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/821/billtext/html/SB00004F.htm and is included as Attachment 1.

Section 51.27(b) – Copy of Plan Currently in EffectA copy of the current United States congressional districts can be found online at http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/download/Congress/PLANC100.pdf and is included as Attachment 2. That plan is referred to herein as “benchmark plan” or “C100” in the electronic reports.

Section 51.27(c) – Statement of Change RequestedThe Plan makes changes to all 32 of the state’s existing congressional districts and creates 4 new districts as a result of the population changes in the State of Texas over the last 10 years. Reports and maps have been included in the submission and detail those changes.

Section 51.27(d) – Person Submitting Change

Greg AbbottTexas Attorney General209 W. 14th StreetAustin, Texas 78701(512) 463-2191 - office(512) 936-0545 - [email protected]

Section 51.27(e) and (f): Not applicable

Section 51.27(g) – Body Responsible for Change

The body responsible for passing the Plan was the 82nd Texas Legislature.

TE-004826


Section 51.27(h) – Statutory Authority for Change

Article 1, §2 of the United States Constitution requires that the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives be determined by the decennial census. Because of an increase in population in the State of Texas from 2000 to 2010, Texas is entitled to four additional districts, increasing its delegation in the United States Congress from 32 to 36 members. Accordingly, Texas’ benchmark plan was malapportioned and in violation of the federal “one person, one vote” constitutional standard. A more detailed discussion of the process the Legislature undertook can be found in Section 51.28(f)

Section 51.27(i) and (j) – Date Change Adopted and Effective Date of Change

The Plan became law on July 18, 2011 and will become effective on XXX, 2011. (91 days after end of session)

Section 51.27(k) – Statement of Nonimplementation

The Plan has not been implemented.

Section 51.27(l) - Affected JurisdictionThe Plan affects the entire jurisdiction of the State of Texas.

Section 51.27 (m) and (n) – Reason for and Effect of Change

Background. According to the 2010 federal decennial census, the State of Texas has a population of 25,145,561. Texas was notified in December, 2010, that it would be apportioned 36 congressional districts, a gain of 4 seats. Each of those 36 districts is ideally populated at 698,488.

The 82nd Texas Legislature convened its regular session on January 10, 2011 and adjourned on May 30, 2011 without enacting legislation apportioning congressional districts. The Governor called the Legislature into a special session which started on May 31, 2011 to address, among other topics, congressional redistricting.

Statewide Impact on Minorities. The goals of the Legislature in drafting the Plan were to equalize population as required by the “one-person, one-vote” principle, avoid pairing incumbents, and preserve city and county lines when possible. In addition, the Legislature created an additional majority-minority district.

The Plan adopted by the Legislature is in compliance with all applicable state and federal laws and neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority. The

TE-004827


Plan does not retrogress the position of racial or language minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.

On a statewide level, the Plan avoids retrogression of minority voting rights. All but one of the existing 32 seats were overpopulated, some by as much as 50.6% over the ideal population. The districts were redrawn to accommodate population growth and still maintain, to the greatest extent possible, the cores of existing districts. Both the benchmark map and the Plan contain seven districts with a Hispanic Voting Age Population (HVAP) greater than 60%. The Plan includes one new seat with an HVAP over 50%.

As to the African-American communities, as compared to the benchmark there is an increase from one to two districts with a Black Voting Age Population (BVAP) of over 40% and one district which contains 37.6% BVAP. Election data indicate that these three districts (Districts 9, 18 and 30) preserve or increase the African-American community’s ability to elect its candidate of choice under the Plan.

New Districts. Of the four new districts, the Legislature chose to create one new district (District 35) which will very likely elect the Hispanic community’s candidate of choice. That district joins communities from Travis and Bexar County and results in a district which contains 58.3% HVAP, 51.9% HCVAP1 and 45.0% SSVR.2 As was stated on the record during the public hearings and the senate floor debate, the concept of this district was originally presented by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (“MALDEF “) in Public Plan C122. In fact, on the day the Legislature passed the new districts, a Hispanic state representative from San Antonio publicly stated that he was considering running for the new seat. He believes the district will survive legal challenges and that it is a “blessing in disguise for two cities that really complement each other, that are intertwined.”3

1

The other three new districts were created in high growth areas throughout the state. The new districts are located in East Texas (District 36), North Texas (District 33), and South Texas (District 34).

http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/pdf/CitizenshipAddendum.pdf2 According to the Texas Legislative Council

Spanish surname voter registration, also reported in the secretary of state’s Statewide Voter Database, is generated using a comparison to the 2000 Census Bureau List of Spanish Surnames. While most sources agree that the match between people who have Spanish surnames and those who consider themselves Hispanic is relatively good in Texas (the Census Bureau estimates a 90 percent correlation for the state), the reported number of registered voters with Spanish surnames is not a precise measure of Hispanic voter registration. Some people who consider themselves Hispanic do not have surnames that are included in the Spanish surname file and will be missed by the Spanish surname matching technique. Others, who have surnames that are included in the Spanish surname file but do not consider themselves Hispanic, will be incorrectly counted as Hispanic registered voters.”

http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/pdf/Data_2011_Redistricting.pdf3 “Castro to Take on Doggett for New Congressional Seat ” The Texas Tribune, June 24, 2011

TE-004828


Dallas and Tarrant County. Dallas County grew at a much slower rate than the rest of the state during the last decade. While the state as a whole grew at a rate of 20.6%, Dallas County grew at only 6.7%. Tarrant County grew at a higher rate than the state as a whole. During the course of the legislative process, the Legislature discussed and debated among the membership whether a new majority-minority seat could be created in the Dallas/Fort Worth region. No plans were publicly submitted for consideration that created a compact Hispanic-majority district. The Hispanic population in the region is too scattered and also suffers from low citizenship numbers and low voter registration among Hispanic eligible voters. Ultimately, new District 33 was drawn to accommodate population growth in Tarrant County and contains 558,265 residents of Tarrant County.

South and West Texas. Due to the high concentration of Hispanic population in South and West Texas, the districts in that region inevitably contain high levels of HVAP. The South and West Texas districts - Districts 15, 16, 20, 23, 28, and 34 - all contain over 60% HVAP. District 35 contains 58.3% HVAP.

Election data indicates that District 34, which is largely comprised of former District 27, will more consistently elect the candidate of the minority community’s choice than did the former District 27. District 27 is made up of excess population from surrounding districts and more accurately reflects the electoral history of the communities contained in the district.

The Plan increases the HVAP, SSVR and HCVAP of District 23. Because the Legislature wanted to keep District 20 wholly within Bexar County,4 consistent with its historical core, and also wanted to ensure that new District 35 was sufficiently populated to provide the Hispanic community with the ability to elect the candidate of their choice, the Plan results in very small reductions in demographic metrics from the benchmarkDistrict 20. The ability of the minority community in District 20 to elect its candidate of choice was not impacted. The following chart shows the relative Hispanic population levels in Districts 20, 23 and 35.

HVAP –Benchmark

HVAP –SB 4

HCVAP –Benchmark

HCVAP– SB 4

SSVR –Benchmark

SSVR –SB 4

District 23

62.8 63.8 58.4 58.5 52.6 54.8

20 71.5 69.3 63.8 62.9 59.2 56.335 n/a 58.3 n/a 51.9 n/a 45.0

Harris County. Over the last decade, Harris County grew at a slightly slower pace than the state as a whole. Currently, Harris County contains two districts that elect the

4 This was a request of the incumbent Congressman.

TE-004829


African-American community’s candidate of choice and one that elects the Hispanic community’s candidate of choice. The Plan maintains these districts. Although several demonstration plans were introduced, none managed to create new minority-controlled districts without causing retrogression in other established districts.5

Section 51.27(o) Pending litigation

The following litigation related to redistricting is currently pending:Name Cause No. & VenueConsolidated:Perez, Dutton and Tamez v. State of Texas, et al;Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force et al. v. Perry, et al;MALC v. State, et al.

SA-11-CA-360-OLG-JES-XRW.D. Tex. San Antonio Three Judge Court: Garcia, Smith, Rodriguez

Teuber v. State of Texas , et al.SA-11-CA-0572-OLG-JES-XRW.D. Tex. San Antonio Three Judge Court: Garcia, Smith, Rodriguez

Teuber v. State of Texas, et al.CV-11-0270397th District Court, Grayson County, Texas

MALC v. State No. 7:11-cv-144S.D. Texas - McAllen Division (Judge Crane)

Barton et al. v. State of Texas & Hope Andrade11-20238-CV 13th District Court, Navarro County, Texas


Washburn v. State of Texas & Hope AndradeCause No. CV 110921; 397th District Court, Grayson County, Texas


John "Canica" Limon, et al. v. Rick Perry, et al.D-1-GN-11-001611 351st Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texas

Bianca Garcia, et al. v. Rick Perry, et al.D-1-GN-11-001612 419th Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texas

Rodriguez, et al. v. State of Texas, et al.1:11-cv-00451 W.D. Tex. Austin Division Three Judge Court, Yeakel Smith, Garcia

Morris v. State of Texas, Rick Perry, David Dewhurst, Joe Straus, and Hope Andrade

11-cv-2244S.D. Tex. Houston Division(Judge Rosenthal)

Section 51.27(p) - Prior PreclearanceThe benchmark congressional plan was ordered by a three-judge court in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on August 4, 2006 in response to a ruling by the United States Supreme Court in League of United Latin American Citizensv. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006). A copy of the Court’s opinion may be found athttp://www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/pdf/LulacvPerryOpinion.pdf

5 See C168 by Carol Alvarado, which created a new Harris County seat that only contained 42.5% SSVR and 41.1% HCVAP. To achieve this, it reduced SSVR is District 29 from 52.6% to 35.5% and HCVAP from 56% to 38.6%.

TE-004830


Section 51.28 (a) (b) and (d) – Demographic Information, Maps and Election Returns

1. Election Data folder – Same election data is used for all plan types – provided oncea. Zipped files for each of the last five election cycles; returns, voter registration

(VR), and turnout (TO) by County/ VTD. i. 2002_Election.zip (1) 2002_Democratic_Primary_Election_Returns.csv

(2) 2002_Democratic_Primary_Election_VRTO.csv(3) 2002_Democratic_Runoff_Election_Returns.csv(4) 2002_Democratic_ Runoff _Election_ VRTO.csv(5) 2002_Republican_Primary_Election_Returns.csv(6) 2002_Republican_Primary_Election _ VRTO.csv(7) 2002_Republican _Runoff _Election_Returns.csv(8) 2002_Republican _Runoff _Election_ VRTO.csv(9) 2002_General_Election_Returns.csv(10) 2002_General_Election_ VRTO.csv(11) readme.txt

ii. 2004_Election.zip - contains same reports as in 2002_Election.zipiii. 2006_Election.zip - contains same reports as in 2002_Election.zip;

also includes the special general and runoff for the court-ordered congressional districts.

iv. 2008_Election.zip - contains same reports as in 2002_Election.zip v. 2010_Election.zip - contains same reports as in 2002_Election.zip2. PlanC100 folder

a. PlanC100 Reports folder i. 2002_Election folder

(1) 2002_Democratic_Primary_RED225 .pdf and .xls (2) 2002_Democratic_Runoff_ RED225 .pdf and .xls (3) 2002_Republican_Primary_ RED225 .pdf and .xls (4) 2002_Republican _Runoff _ RED225 .pdf and .xls (5) 2002_General_Election_ RED225 .pdf and .xls

ii. 2004_Election folder- contains same reports as in 2002_Election folder

iii. 2006_Election folder - contains same reports as in 2002_Election folder; also includes the special general and runoff for the court-ordered congressional districts.

iv. 2008_Election folder - contains same reports as in 2002_Election folder

v. 2010_Election folder - contains same reports as in 2002_Election folder

vi. VTD level VR_SSVR_TO (RED 216.pdf and .xls) - includes voter registration, Spanish surname voter registration, and turnout by district and VTD for the 2010 gubernatorial election

vii. ACS HCVAP Special Tab(RED 106) - Citizen Voting Age Population) (HCVAP) from the 2005-2009 ACS (DOJ Special Tabulation)

TE-004831


viii. District Population Analysis with Counties (RED 100) – contains plan deviation statistics and verification information and district population data

ix. Population and Voter Data (RED 202)x. Incumbents (RED 350) xi. Compactness Analysis (RED 315)xii. Split Cities by District (RED 130)

b. PlanC100 Maps folder -- 28 CFR Sec. 51.28(b)1-6 i. Maps of state and split counties with districtsii. n/a

iii. Maps of split counties with racial/ethnic shading by VTD iii. Maps of split counties with Spanish Surname voter registration by VTD iv. Maps of split counties with natural boundaries and geographic features iv. Maps of split counties with cities v. n/a vi. n/a

3. PlanC185 folder - same as PlanC100 folder

4. Shapefiles foldera. Shapefiles of all 54 public Texas Congressional plansb. blk.zip--block equivalency file (.csv) for PlanC100 and PlanC185

5. Two Plan Comparison Reportsa. Two Plan by Incumbent (RED 335)b. Plan Overlap Analysis (RED 340)

Section 51.28(f) - Publicity and Participation

The process of creating the Plan that ultimately passed began almost a year prior to final passage. The Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Senate conducted numerous hearings throughout the state during the legislative interim preceding the 82nd Legislative Session. In the House of Representatives, hearings were conducted by both the House Committee on Redistricting and the House Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence. Those hearings are listed below and reflect the location of the citywhere the hearing was held:

6/2/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence (Austin)

6/21/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on San Antonio Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence

7/19/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on McAllen Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence

TE-004832


7/20/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on Laredo Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence

7/21/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on Corpus Christi Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence

8/16/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on El Paso Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence

8/18/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on Lubbock Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence

9/20/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting, House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Subcommittee on Downtown Dallas Redistricting and Senate Select Committee on Redistricting

9/21/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on Tarrant County Redistricting, House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence

9/22/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on Richardson/UT-DallasRedistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence

10/18/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on Beaumont Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence

10/20/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on Marshall Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence

11/17/2010 House Redistricting Subcommittee on Austin Redistricting 11/20/2010 Joint Hearing: Subcommittee of Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence and Senate Select

Committee on Redistricting (Houston)

In the Texas Senate, hearings were conducted by the Senate Select Committee on Redistricting:

9/1/2010 Austin9/20/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting, House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence

Subcommittee on Downtown Dallas Redistricting and Senate Select Committee on Redistricting

10/4/2010 Amarillo10/5/2010 Midland10/21/2010 Edinburg11/4/2010 San Antonio11/20/2010 Joint Hearing: Subcommittee of Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence and Senate Select


Members of the public were not limited to speaking on any particular map during the interim hearings. Prior to each interim hearing the Senate Committee on Redistricting notified the elected officials in the area and encouraged them to widely disseminate information about the hearing. The committee office has retained the notification e-mails that were sent. During the course of the legislative interim hearings, an e-mail contact database of interested members of the public was created to notify them of upcoming legislative hearings. That database ultimately included over 200 community leaders, advocacy groups, and election officials who received regular communications throughout the legislative session. At the hearings, it was announced that the public

TE-004833


record of the hearings would remain open until December 2010 in order to give the public ample time to provide written remarks to the committees.

All hearing notices, public plans and amendments were posted on the Texas Legislative Council’s website, www.tlc.state.tx.us. All public plans were accessible through DistrictViewer. The Texas Legislative Council also maintained two RedAppl terminals which were available for public use during normal business hours.

Of course, map drawing could not begin in earnest until the U.S. Census Bureaureleased block level data to Texas on February 17, 2011. During the regular session, the House Committee on Redistricting conducted a public hearing to solicit input from the public on congressional redistricting. That hearing was held on April 7, 2011. As mentioned above, the 82nd Legislature adjourned on May 30, 2011 without enacting legislation redistricting the United States congressional districts. The Governor called a special session beginning on May 31, 2011, and later added congressional redistricting to the list of eligible topics for the special session.

Senator Kel Seliger and Representative Burt Solomons jointly released a public plan (C125) on May 30, 2011.

The Senate Select Committee on Redistricting conducted a public hearing on June 3 to consider congressional redistricting plan C125. On that date, the plan was voted out of committee. The full Senate considered the plan on June 6 and sent the bill to the House. The vote in the Senate was 18 ayes and 12 nays. The House Committee on Redistricting scheduled a public hearing on June 2, 2011 to consider the original congressional redistricting plan. Once the plan was passed the Senate, the House Committee considered the bill in a formal meeting. A committee substitute was adopted and voted out of committee. On June 14, 2011, the House of Representatives set the bill on the calendar and passed it to engrossment. The vote on second reading was 93 ayes and 48 nays. It passed on third reading on June 15, 2011 with a vote of 93 ayes and 47nays.

Notice for all hearings was provided in compliance with the Rules of the Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Senate. The following links include hearing notices, minutes and witness lists for each of the hearings on the Plan:

House Redistricting Committee HearingsHearing on April 7

Noticehttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/schedules/pdf/C0802011040709001.PDFMinuteshttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/minutes/pdf/C0802011040709001.PDFWitness List http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/witlistmtg/pdf/C0802011040709001.PDF

TE-004834


Hearing on June 2Notice http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/schedules/pdf/C0802011060210451.PDFMinuteshttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/minutes/pdf/C0802011060210451.PDFWitness List http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/witlistmtg/pdf/C0802011060210451.PDF

Hearing on June 9Notice http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/schedules/pdf/C0802011060909001.PDFMinuteshttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/minutes/pdf/C0802011060909001.PDF

Senate Select Committee on RedistrictingHearing on June 3

Notice http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/schedules/pdf/C6252011060309001.PDFMinuteshttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/minutes/pdf/C6252011060309001.PDFWitness List http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/witlistmtg/pdf/C6252011060309001.PDF

51.28(g)(1) – Public Availability of SubmissionThe Attorney General issued a press release on XXXX date indicating that a lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking preclearance of the Plan and that this informal submission was transmitted to the DOJ. A copy of that press release can be found online at www.texasattorneygeneral.gov. Members of the public were informed that they may provide comment by contacting the Office of the Attorney General via e-mail at [email protected] or via telephone at (800)252-8011.

51.28(g)(2) – Electronic Availability of SubmissionThe Attorney General has made the data included in this submission available on the OAG’s website at www.texasattorneygeneral.gov.

51.28(h) – Minority Group ContactsThe following individuals reside in the State of Texas and are familiar with the proposed change and were active in the political process by which the Plan was adopted: Comment [GI1]: Similar to the House

submission, I would list the minority members of the committee, specifically Villareal who was really helpful in drawing CD35, as well as Nina and Luis from MALDEF. I talked to both of them about the congressional districts long before I even started working in the legislature.

TE-004835


TE-004836



Act of May 23, 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., H.B. 150Texas House of Representatives

This document outlines the information provided in this informal submission of H.B. 150(the “Plan”) pursuant to 28 C.F.R. §§51.27 and 51.28. The document either provides the information requested or references the relevant attachment where the information is located.

Section 51.27 (a) – Copy of Plan

A copy of the Plan may be found online at http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/html/HB00150F.htmand is included as Attachment 1.

Section 51.27(b) – Copy of Plan Currently in EffectA copy of the current State House of Representatives districts can be found online at http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/download/House/PLANH100.pdfand is included as Attachment 2. That plan is referred to herein as “benchmark plan”

or “H100” in the electronic reports.

Section 51.27(c) – Statement of Change RequestedThe Plan makes changes to all 150 of the state’s house district boundaries. Reports and maps have been included in the submission and detail those changes.

Section 51.27(d) – Person Submitting

Greg AbbottTexas Attorney General209 W. 14th StreetAustin, Texas 78701(512) 463-2191 - office(512) 936-0545 - [email protected]

Section 51.27(e) and (f): Not applicable

Section 51.27(g) Body Responsible for Change

The body responsible for passing the Plan was the 82nd Texas Legislature.

TE-004837


Section 51.27(h) – Statutory Authority for Change

Article 3, section 26 of the Texas Constitution directs the Legislature to reapportion the state’s House districts based on the data provided by the United States Census Bureau. The same provision of the Texas Constitution also requires that when a county contains sufficient population to make up a single district, a district shall be created wholly within that county. Pursuant to that authority, the Texas Legislature introduced and passed the Plan. A more detailed discussion of the process the Legislature undertook can be found in Section 51.28(f).

Section 51.27(i) and (j) – Date Change Adopted and Effective Date

The Plan became law on June 17, 2011 and will become effective on August 29, 2011.

Section 51.27(k) – Statement regarding implementation

The Plan has not been implemented.

Section 51.27(l) – Affected Jurisdiction

The Plan affects the entire jurisdiction of the State of Texas.

Section 51.27 (m) and (n) – Reason for and Effect of Change

Background

The Texas House of Representatives is divided into 150 districts. Based on the state’s population of 25,145,561, House districts with perfectly equalized population would each contain 167,637 residents. Population shifts over the last decade have resulted in wide variations among the House districts, with the largest district, District 70, at 79.4% over the ideal population, and the smallest district, District 103, at 30.0% under the ideal population.

The stated goals of the Legislature were to equalize population, abide by the state constitutional requirement to preserve county lines,1

The Plan adopted by the Legislature is in compliance with all applicable state and federal laws and neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority. The

avoid pairing incumbents when possible, respond to the public and advocacy groups when appropriate, maintain communities of interest, and preserve the cores of prior districts. All of these goals were accomplished in the Plan that ultimately passed the Legislature.

1 TEX. CONST. art. 3, § 26

Comment [GI1]: Both of these were done whenever it was possible. For example, one communities of interest, there were several cities that were split up so the plaintiffs could easily show examples of that. As far as teh prior districts, it's the same thing. The most obvious example was Rep. Veronica Gonzales's district where she was placed in a district that according to her only had 1% of her previous district. Just want to make sure that you guys are aware that there are going to be several examples where this was not done.

TE-004838


Plan does not retrogress the position of racial or language minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.

In the Plan, the districts have an overall deviation of 9.92%, with the smallest district 4.9% under the ideal population and the largest district 5.02% over the ideal population.

In response to population shifts within the state, the Legislature created seven new districts in high-growth areas and eliminated seven districts in areas with slowing or negative growth. This resulted in the pairing of incumbents. In order to give each paired member of the House a fair chance at re-election, the unavoidable pairings were all between members of the same party (i.e., six 6 pairings were Republican-Republican and one was Democrat-Democrat).

Throughout the legislative process, the author of the bill made numerous comments from the floor of the House of Representatives urging members from various regions of the state to work together to produce regional “member-driven maps,” which could be incorporated into the larger statewide map.

Statewide Impact on Minorities.

The makeup of the Hispanic population in Texas complicates the traditional analysis of what constitutes a “performing minority district.” Estimates indicate that roughly 10% of the state’s residents are non-citizens.2

The Department of Justice (“DOJ” or the “Department”) acknowledges that “the Attorney General does not rely on any predetermined or fixed demographic percentages at any point in the assessment.”

Districts within the state, particularly those in urban areas, with extremely high concentrations of non-citizens merely because they contain a majority Hispanic population will not consistently elect the Hispaniccommunity’s candidate of choice. Likewise, the Hispanic citizens within the district may not register to vote in the same concentrations as white and African American citizens. So, it is not enough to merely populate a district at 50% HVAP and expect that district to elect the Hispanic candidate of choice. As a result, for purposes of determining retrogression or creating replacement districts, the Legislature regarded 50% HVAP as inadequate to determine the Hispanic community’s ability to elect its candidate of choice.

3

2

Some critics of the Plan take an overly simplistic, and frankly incorrect, view of the term “retrogression” and claim that the fact that there are two fewer districts at the 50% HVAP level is in and of itself retrogressive. It was the Legislature’s position that, due to the high percentage of non-citizens as well as

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-qr_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_S0501&-geo_id=04000US48&-context=st&-ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_&-tree_id=5309&-_lang=en&-format=&-CONTEXT=st3 Guidance Concerning Redistricting under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 76 Fed. Reg. 7470 (Feb. 8, 2011)

Comment [GI2]: May also want to mention something here about how Burt specifically asked members to give input regarding their own individual districts. There were many members who never submitted anything to us. His request to members was that they give us what they want, what they could live with, and what they didnt want. There were several members that never gave us anything and some that would give us their current district and tell us that they didnt want any changes. So aside from wanting regional maps, he also asked for individual maps from members. With that said, just because a member gave us what they would have wanted didnt mean that they got exactly that. We then took everything and tried to make it fit. And in some cases members didnt get anything that they wanted and all of what they didnt want.

Comment [GI3]: Did you mean HVAP here or just majority Hispanic pop? I ask because there were some members of the legislature who wanted to focus on how we dropped the Hispanic Total Population below 50%.

TE-004839


disparate voting patterns, a 60% HVAP threshold, in conjunction with reviewing HCVAP4, SSVR5

Even if the 50% HVAP threshold were adopted as an inflexible standard, the loss of two districts at the 50% level would not constitute retrogression when those specific districts are analyzed. Specifically, those districts (District 144 and District 33) are addressed within the analysis below.

and electoral performance of the district, is an appropriate standard under which to review Texas’ districts for compliance with Section 5.

The state’s 2001 DOJ submission noted that the Black population had grown less rapidly than the population of other racial and ethnic groups within the state. This trend continued to hold true over the last decade. The Legislature faced a substantial challenge maintaining the Black Voting Age Population (BVAP) in the 11 benchmark districts. All but 2 of the 11 benchmark districts with a BVAP over 40% were under populated. The Legislature maintained those districts and actually increased by one, the number of districts with a BVAP over 40%. Statistical studies demonstrate that the African-American population tends to register to vote in higher percentages and turn out to vote at a higher rate than the Hispanic population.6

4 The Fifth Circuit has held unequivocally that HCVAP is the population base that should be considered in a vote-dilution claim to determine whether a minority group satisfies the first Gingles requirement. See Campos v. City of Houston, 113 F.3d 544, 548 (5th Cir. 1997) (“We hold that courts evaluating vote dilution claims under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act must consider the citizen voting-age population of the group challenging the electoral practice when determining whether the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district.”); see also Session v. Perry, 298 F. Supp. 2d 451, 494 n.133 (E.D. Tex. 2004) (“This circuit, along with every other circuit to consider the question, has concluded that the relevant voting population for Hispanics is citizen voting age population.”), reversed on other grounds, LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 429 (2006) (commenting (but not holding) in dicta that using HCVAP to determine Hispanic electoral opportunity “fits the language of § 2 because only eligible voters affect a group’s opportunity to elect candidates”). For information about how the State of Texas calculates HCVAP, please see the Texas Legislative Council’s website: http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/pdf/CitizenshipAddendum.pdf

A district with an

5 According to the Texas Legislative Council, “Spanish surname voter registration, also reported in the secretary of state’s Statewide Voter Database, is generated using a comparison to the 2000 Census Bureau List of Spanish Surnames. While most sources agree that the match between people who have Spanish surnames and those who consider themselves Hispanic is relatively good in Texas (the Census Bureau estimates a 90 percent correlation for the state), the reported number of registered voters with Spanish surnames is not a precise measure of Hispanic voter registration. Some people who consider themselves Hispanic do not have surnames that are included in the Spanish surname fi le and will be missed by the Spanish surname matching technique. Others, who have surnames that are included in the Spanish surname fi le but do not consider themselves Hispanic, will be incorrectly counted as Hispanic registered voters.” http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/pdf/Data_2011_Redistricting.pdf 6 "[T]he Latino population suffers from participation rates lower than those of non-Hispanic black and white populations, in terms of both voter registration and election day turnout. While turnout rates among Hispanics are lower than those among whites and blacks, low registration rates among eligible voters pose the biggest problem. Only 58% of eligible Latino voters were registered to vote in 2004, compared to 75% of whites and 69% of blacks. Experts attribute these low participation rates to the fact that, like African-Americans, Hispanics are disproportionately young, less educated, and less affluent--all attributes that traditionally dampen political participation. For Hispanics, these factors are exacerbated by language barriers. The combined effect of low voter eligibility and participation is devastating: Only 18% of all Hispanics voted in 2004, compared to 51% of whites and 39% of blacks, and Hispanics only contributed 6% of all the ballots cast on election day." Alvaro Bedoya, Note, The Unforeseen Effects of Georgia v. Ashcroft on the Latino Community, 115 YALE L.J. 2112, 2128-29 (2006).

Comment [GI4]: I can't say that this is necessarily true. We really weren't that focused on the HVAP number, our focus was more on the SSVR. But if this argument works and you've confirmed that every district that we are counting where the SSVR is above 50%, then the HVAP is above 60% then I'm fine with it.

TE-004840


approximately 40% BVAP historically can elect the African-American candidate of choice.

Statewide, the comparison between the benchmark and the Plan are:

BENCHMARK HB 150

HVAP (greater than 60%) 30 30

HCVAP (greater than 50%) 30 30

SSVR (greater than 50%) 29 30

BVAP (greater than 40%) 11 12

Neither Hispanic nor Black voting strength retrogresses in the Plan.

Regional Impact on Minority Communities

South and West Texas. El Paso County is apportioned 5 seats in the Plan. The high concentration of Hispanic residents results in districts with unavoidably high levels of HVAP. All 5 districts in both the benchmark and the Plan are populated with over 60% HVAP.

The same situation exists in Hidalgo County. Hidalgo County is entitled to 4+ districts (four districts contained within the county plus excess population shared with a neighboring county). The districts in Hidalgo County all contain over 75% HVAP in both the benchmark and the Plan. HCVAP and SSVR numbers are also generally high in that area.

Nueces County. Nueces County was apportioned 2+ seats in 2001 (two districts entirely contained within the county plus excess population in a district shared with aneighboring countiesy). According to the 2010 census, Nueces County grew at a slower rate than the state as a whole, and the county’s population of 340,223 no longer entitles it to 2+ districts, but only two. Therefore, one district needed to be eliminated. This loss of one state representative seat necessarily caused the pairing of two incumbents. The paired incumbents are Rep. Raul Torres (R) in District 33 and Rep. Connie Scott (R) in District 34. Nueces County now has two districts wholly contained within its boundaries – Districts 34 and 32. As required by the state constitution, the Legislature adhered whenever possible to rule that county lines should be preserved. In this case, adding a third district to Nueces County would have unnecessarily broken county lines.

Comment [GI5]: Not sure if it's worth explaning why it's two districts. You could add something like this: "If you take the ideal districts size of 167,637 and divide it into the total population of the county, you get 2.0285. This number was rounded down to two districts since the remaining population could easily be distributed among the two districts and keep them within the allowed deviation statewide." You did this same calculation for Harris County, but not for Nueces and I think it's just as important to mention it.

TE-004841


Under the Plan, the Legislature chose to strengthen the Hispanic influence in one of the two remaining districts in the county. Election data indicate that district will now consistently elect the Hispanic community’s candidate of choice. Nueces County contains 36.7% Anglo VAP and 56.8% HVAP. Under the benchmark plan, neither District 33 nor District 34 was consistently electing the Hispanic community’s candidate of choice. No plan was submitted that drew two performing Hispanic districts wholly contained within the county without splitting county lines.7

Harris County. Harris County contained 25 seats in the benchmark plan. Although Harris County did experience growth between 2000 and 2010, its growth did not keep pace with the rest of the state. Growth in Harris County was 20.3%, while the state as a whole grew at a rate of 20.6%. Based on the census, Harris County is entitled to either 24 or 25 seats. Dividing Harris County’s population of 4,092,459 by the ideal district size (167,637) yields the number of seats Harris County is entitled to: 24.4126. Accordingly, the Legislature chose to apportion 24 seats and create a district elsewhere in the state where population growth was stronger. This elimination of a seat necessitated the pairing of two incumbents.

7 Representative Alonzo’s amendment (Plan H115, H164), which was submitted on behalf of MALDEF but withdrawn before it could be voted on the by the House, achieved two performing districts within Nueces, but in order to do so had to split out the Anglo population into a third district, thereby violating the state constitutional county line rule. Representative Martinez-Fischer presented a plan on behalf of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus which split Nueces County into 5 legislative districts, also violating the state constitutional county line rule.8 Under the benchmark plan, District 137 also contained 13.7% Anglo VAP, 14.6% BVAP, and 13% Other VAP.

HVAP (BENCHMARK)

HVAP (HB 150)

SSVR(BENCHMARK)

SSVR(HB 150)

HCVAP(BENCHMARK)

HCVAP(HB 150)

FormerDistrict 33

61.9 ___ 55.3 ___ 60.5 ___

District 34 61.6 67.7 53.8 60.8 58.4 64.7

District 32 37.2 45.9 33.2 37.3 35.3 44.2

HVAP (BENCHMARK)

HVAP (HB 150)

SSVR(BENCHMARK)

SSVR(HB 150)

HCVAP(BENCHMARK)

HCVAP(HB 150)

District1378

59.8 55.3 22.0 24.3 25.8 26.4

Harris County Pairing

Comment [GI6]: Should mention that considering how the total population of the county was only 56.8 HVAP and less than 50% SSVR, it was statistically impossible to draw two districts within the county that are both above 60% HVAP and 50% SSVR as was the goal of the legislature.

Comment [GI7]: I don’t know if this is worth mentioning but the reason that these two were paired is because we believed that neither was a protected district. Since we were focused on the SSVR (which is extremely low in both districts) and even if you were to take the HVAP number both were below the benchmarks of 50% SSVR and HVAP of 60%, so we didnt feel that those districts were protected by the VRA.

TE-004842


The House proactively increased minority voting strength in one Hispanic district in Harris County. At the request of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the SSVR and HCVAP in District 148 were both increased to over 50% from 40.0% and 42.1%, respectively.

With respect to the African American communities in Harris County, an amendment was put forth by the Harris County delegation – one in which there was slight reduction in Black VAP numbers in two of four performing districts. However, the members from Harris County agreed to the amendment, which did not negatively affect the ability of Black voters to elect the candidate of their choice in any district. 10 The following districts were affected:

Finally, in Harris County, one district (District 144) drops below the 50% HVAP level in the Plan. Under the benchmark, District 144, held by a Republican, contains 50.3% HVAP. However, the CVAP in the district was 35.1% and the SSVR was 31.5%. The Plandecreases HVAP to 48.5% but does not change the overall characteristic of the district. Election data indicates that this was not, nor is it now, a performing district for Hispanic voters.

Dallas County. Between 2000 and 2010, Dallas County only grew by 6.7%, while the state grew at a rate of 20.6%. Because of this, two districts were eliminated in Dallas County; therefore Dallas County was apportioned 14, rather than 16, districts. Every district in Dallas except for District 109 was under populated in the benchmark plan. Despite this challenge, the Plan maintains four districts with a BVAP over 40% and two districts with an HVAP over 65%. The four paired districts were all occupied by Republican members of the Legislature.

9 Under the benchmark plan, District 149 also contained 26.6% Anglo VAP, 16.2% BVAP and 6.2% Other VAP.10 See House Journal Supplement pages S206-S208 http://www.journals.house.state.tx.us/hjrnl/82R/pdf/82RDAY63SUPPLEMENT.pdf

Former District

1499

30.2 __ 15.9 __ 19.0 __

District BVAP(BENCHMARK)

BVAP(HB 150)

139 47.2 42.1

141 42.8 50.0

142 40.8 42.9

147 39.2 38.2

Formatted Table

Comment [GI8]: Do you have this testimony from the hearing? It was given by Luis Fuigeroa. Also, after his testimony Vice-Chairman Mike Villareal also suggested that the SSVR be increased in HD148 and HD90.

TE-004843


Tarrant County. Based on population growth, Tarrant County was apportioned an additional seat, bringing the county total up to 11, from 10. The Plan contains a new district, District 101, which contains 32.5% HVAP, 27.0% BVAP and 24.6% Anglo VAP. The future ability of the minority groups in this district to elect their candidate of choice will depend on the growth trends in that part of the county and will depend on the ability of the minority groups to establish the criteria needed to form a performingdistrict.

The House proactively increased minority voting strength in one Hispanic district in Tarrant County. At the request of MALDEF, the SSVR and HCVAP in District 90 were increased from 47.2% and 48.0%, respectively, to 50.1% SSVR and 49.7% HCVAP.

Section 51.27(o) Pending Litigation

The following litigation related to redistricting is currently pending:

Name Cause No. & Venue

Consolidated:Perez, Dutton and Tamez v. State of Texas, et al;Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force et al. v. Perry et al; MALC v. State, et al.

SA-11-CA-360-OLG-JES-XRW.D. Tex. San Antonio Three Judge Court: Garcia, Smith, Rodriguez

Teuber v. State of Texas, et al. SA-11-CA-0572-OLG-JES-XRW.D. Tex. San Antonio Three Judge Court: Garcia, Smith, Rodriguez

Teuber v. State of Texas, et al.CV-11-0270397th District Court, Grayson County, Texas

MALC v. State No. 7:11-cv-144S.D. Texas - McAllen Division (Judge Crane)



Comment [GI9]: These two counties are where the communities of interest was a big issue. We did the best that we could to try to split cities as little as possible. They were still split, but it was our goal to keep them together as much as we could.

Comment [GI10]: I don’t think that we should be talking about the future ability of groups to elect their candidate of choice. The Democrats tried to focus on why we were not taking into considertaion how the Hispanic community was going to continue to grow, and this seems to go against that argument. We simply didn't believe that we should take future growth into consideration when it comes to drawing districts.

TE-004844




John "Canica" Limon, et al. v. Rick Perry, et al.D-1-GN-11-001611 351st Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texas

Bianca Garcia, et al. v. Rick Perry, et al.D-1-GN-11-001612 419th Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texas

Rodriguez, et al. v. State of Texas, et al.1:11-cv-00451 W.D. Tex. Austin Division Three Judge Court, Yeakel Smith, Garcia

Morris v. State of Texas, Rick Perry, David Dewhurst, Joe Straus, and Hope Andrade

11-cv-2244S.D. Tex. Houston Division(Judge Rosenthal)

Section 51.27(p) – Prior Preclearance: The benchmark state House plan was submitted to the DOJ for preclearance in 2001. The Department objected to three districts. A three-judge panel convened in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, modified the state house plan to address DOJ objections. The court’s opinion can be found athttp://www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/pdf/housepc.pdf and the Final Judgment can be found athttp://www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/pdf/finalorderhouse.pdf. Section 51.28 (a) (b) and (d) – Demographic Information, Maps and Election Returns

1. Election Data folder – Same election data is used for all plan types – provided oncea. Zipped files for each of the last five election cycles; returns, voter registration (VR), and

turnout (TO) by County/ VTD. i. 2002_Election.zip (1) 2002_Democratic_Primary_Election_Returns.csv

(2) 2002_Democratic_Primary_Election_VRTO.csv(3) 2002_Democratic_Runoff_Election_Returns.csv(4) 2002_Democratic_ Runoff _Election_ VRTO.csv(5) 2002_Republican_Primary_Election_Returns.csv(6) 2002_Republican_Primary_Election _ VRTO.csv

TE-004845


(7) 2002_Republican _Runoff _Election_Returns.csv(8) 2002_Republican _Runoff _Election_ VRTO.csv(9) 2002_General_Election_Returns.csv(10) 2002_General_Election_ VRTO.csv(11) readme.txt

ii. 2004_Election.zip - contains same reports as in 2002_Election.zipiii. 2006_Election.zip - contains same reports as in 2002_Election.zip; also

includes the special general and runoff for the court-ordered Congressional districts.

iv. 2008_Election.zip - contains same reports as in 2002_Election.zip v. 2010_Election.zip - contains same reports as in 2002_Election.zip

2. PlanH100 folder

a. PlanH100 Reports folder i. 2002_Election folder

(1) 2002_Democratic_Primary_RED225 .pdf and .xls (2) 2002_Democratic_Runoff_ RED225 .pdf and .xls (3) 2002_Republican_Primary_ RED225 .pdf and .xls (4) 2002_Republican _Runoff _ RED225 .pdf and .xls (5) 2002_General_Election_ RED225 .pdf and .xls

ii. 2004_Election folder- contains same reports as in 2002_Election folderiii. 2006_Election folder - contains same reports as in 2002_Election folder; also

includes the special general and runoff for the court-ordered Congressional districts.

iv. 2008_Election folder - contains same reports as in 2002_Election folderv. 2010_Election folder - contains same reports as in 2002_Election foldervi. VTD level VR_SSVR_TO (RED 216.pdf and .xls) - includes voter

registration, Spanish surname voter registration, and turnout by district and VTD for the 2010 gubernatorial election

vii. ACS HCVAP Special Tab(RED 106) - Citizen Voting Age Population) (HCVAP) from the 2005-2009 ACS (DOJ Special Tabulation)

viii. District Population Analysis with Counties (RED 100) – contains plan deviation statistics and verification information and district population data

ix. Population and Voter Data (RED 202)x. Incumbents (RED 350)xi. Compactness Analysis (RED 315)xii. Split Cities by District (RED 130)

b. PlanH100 Maps folder -- 28 CFR Sec. 51.28(b)1-6 i. Maps of state and split counties with districtsii. n/a

iii. Maps of split counties with racial/ethnic shading by VTD iii. Maps of split counties with Spanish Surname voter registration by VTD iv. Maps of split counties with natural boundaries and geographic features iv. Maps of split counties with cities v. n/a vi. n/a

3. PlanH283 folder - same as PlanH100 folder

4. Shapefiles foldera. Shapefiles of all 111 public Texas House plans

TE-004846


b. blk.zip--block equivalency file (.csv) for PlanH100 and PlanH283

5. Two Plan Comparison Reportsa. Two Plan by Incumbent (RED 335)b. Plan Overlap Analysis (RED 340)

Section 51.28(f) – Publicity and Participation

The process of creating the Plan that passed began almost a year prior to final passage. The Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Senate conducted numerous hearings throughout the state during the legislative interim preceding the 82nd Legislative Session. In the House of Representatives, hearings were conducted by both the House Committee on Redistricting andthe House Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence. Those hearings are listed belowand refliect the location of the city where the hearing was held:

6/2/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence (Austin)

6/21/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on San Antonio Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence

7/19/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on McAllen Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence

7/20/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on Laredo Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence

7/21/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on Corpus Christi Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence

8/16/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on El Paso Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence

8/18/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on Lubbock Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence


9/21/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on Tarrant County Redistricting, House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence

9/22/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on Richardson/UT-DallasRedistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence

10/18/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on Beaumont Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence

10/20/2010 Joint Hearing: House Redistricting Subcommittee on Marshall Redistricting and House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence

11/17/2010 House Redistricting Subcommittee on Austin Redistricting 11/20/2010 Joint Hearing: Subcommittee of Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence and Senate Select


In the Texas Senate, hearings were conducted by the Senate Select Committee on Redistricting:

9/1/2010 Austin

TE-004847



10/4/2010 Amarillo10/5/2010 Midland10/21/2010 Edinburg11/4/2010 San Antonio11/20/2010 Joint Hearing: Subcommittee of Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence and Senate Select


All hearing notices, public plans, and amendments were posted on the Texas Legislative Council’s website, www.tlc.state.tx.us, and all public plans were accessible through DistrictViewer. The Texas Legislative Council also maintained two RedAppl terminals which were available for public use during normal business hours.

During the course of the legislative interim hearings, an e-mail contact database of interested members of the public was created to notify them of upcoming legislative hearings. That database ultimately included over 200 community leaders, advocacy groups, and election officials who received regular communications throughout the legislative session. At the hearings, it was announced that the public record on the hearings would remain open until December, 2010, in order to give the public ample time to provide written remarks to the committees.

Maps could not be drawn in earnest until the U.S. Census released block-level data to Texas on February 17, 2011. On March 24, 2011, the House Committee on Redistricting held a public hearing to solicit input from the public on a potential house map. On April 13, 2011, Chairman Solomons publicly released a plan (H113).

In the time between the release of the census numbers and the public release of the plan, the committee staff and the Speaker’s office conducted several meetings with members to receive input on the map as well as with minority groups such as MALDEF and the Mexican American Legislative Caucus (MALC). Several of MALDEF’s recommended changes were incorporated into the plan that ultimately passed. The staff unsuccessfully attempted to set up meetings with the NAACP. Multiple times on the House floor, Chairman Solomons encouraged the members from various regions of the state to get together to submit regional proposals as a group. The committee took all of these suggestions into consideration when crafting a proposed map.

After H113 was publicly posted on DistrictViewer, two public hearings were held. Chairman Solomons laid out a committee substitute plan (H134) at that time. The first hearing was on Friday April 15, 2011 at 12:00 p.m. The second was on Sunday, April 17, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. The committee decided to conduct one meeting during the week and one on the weekend so that members of the public would have two opportunities to participate without overly interfering with a traditional five-day work week. The

TE-004848


committee held a formal meeting on Tuesday, April 19, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. to vote the bill out of committee, after considering committee amendments. The committee-approved plan, H153, was sent to the floor.The bill was considered for second reading on the House calendar on April 27, 2011. The entire proceedings were transcribed.11

Notice of all hearings was provided in compliance with the Rules of the Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Senate. The following links include hearing notices, minutes, and witness lists for each of the hearings on the Plan:

A record vote was taken, and the Plan passed with 92 yeas and 54 nays. Two democrats voted for the plan – Representative Eiland and Representative Guillen. The enrolled version, H283, was sent to the Senate for consideration. The bill passed in the Senate by a vote of 22 yeas and 9 nays on second reading and 25 yeas and 6 nays on third reading.

House Redistricting Committee HearingsHearing on April 15

Noticehttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/schedules/pdf/C0802011041512001.PDFMinuteshttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/minutes/pdf/C0802011041512001.PDFWitness Listhttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/witlistmtg/pdf/C0802011041512001.PDF

Hearing on April 17Noticehttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/schedules/pdf/C0802011041714001.PDFMinuteshttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/minutes/pdf/C0802011041714001.PDFWitness Listhttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/witlistmtg/pdf/C0802011041714001.PDF

Hearing on April 19Noticehttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/schedules/pdf/C0802011041911001.PDFMinutes http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/minutes/pdf/C0802011041911001.PDF

Senate Select Committee on RedistrictingHearing on May 6

Notice http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/schedules/pdf/C6252011050609001.PDFMinuteshttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/minutes/pdf/C6252011050609001.PDFWitness List

11 http://www.journals.house.state.tx.us/hjrnl/82R/pdf/82RDAY63SUPPLEMENT.pdf

TE-004849


http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/witlistmtg/pdf/C6252011050609001.PDF

Hearing on May 13Notice http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/schedules/pdf/C6252011051308001.PDFMinutes http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/minutes/pdf/C6252011051308001.PDF

51.28(g)(1) – Public Availability of the SubmissionThe Attorney General issued a press release on XXXX date indicating that a lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking preclearance of the Plan and that this informal submission has been transmitted to DOJ. A copy of that press release can be found online at www.texasattorneygeneral.gov. Members of the public were informed that they may provide comment by contacting the Office of the Attorney General via e-mail at [email protected] or via telephone at (800)252-8011.

51.28(g)(2) – Electronic Availability of DataThe Attorney General has made the data included in this submission available on the OAG’s website at www.texasattorneygeneral.gov.

51.28(h) – Minority Group ContactsThe following individuals reside in the State of Texas, and are familiar with the proposed change, and were active in the political process by which the Plan was adopted: Comment [GI11]: I would definitely list Nina

Perales, Luis Figueroa, Jose Garza, Martin Golando (the big guy who works for MALC), the minority members of the committee (Mike Villareal, Carol Alvarado, Aaron Pena, and Marc Veasey). We tried to contact Gary Bledsoe, the Texas President of the NAACP, but were never able to get a hold of him. Bonnie may also have some other people that we visited with. As far as each of the big counties, Trey Martinez-Fischer was very involved in the drawing of San Antonio as was the rest of the San Antonio delegation, Borris Miles, Garnet Coleman, and almost the entire black delegation was actively involved in making the final changes to the Harris County African-American district the night that the map was being debated on the floor. Granted, they were not as involved throughout the rest of the process. But there is no doubt that they were a huge part of what was done that night.

TE-004850


TAB 186


TE-004851



DX222


TE-004852


TE-004853


TAB 187


TE-004854



DX223


TE-004855


TE-004856Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 815-3 Filed 07/22/13 Page 4 of 60

TE-004857


TE-004858


TE-004859


TE-004860


TE-004861


TE-004862


TE-004863


TE-004864


TE-004865


TE-004866


TE-004867


TE-004868


TE-004869


TE-004870


TE-004871


TE-004872


TE-004873


TE-004874


TE-004875


TE-004876


TE-004877


TE-004878


TE-004879


TE-004880


TE-004881


TE-004882


TE-004883


TE-004884


TE-004885


TE-004886


TE-004887


TE-004888


TE-004889


TE-004890


TE-004891


TE-004892


TE-004893


TE-004894


TE-004895


TE-004896


TE-004897


TE-004898


TE-004899


TE-004900


TE-004901


TE-004902


TE-004903


TE-004904


TE-004905


TE-004906


TE-004907


TE-004908


TE-004909


TE-004910


TE-004911


TE-004912
