[EL] Breaking: Texas redistricting ruling

Sat Mar 11 18:11:59 PST 2017

David,

You are not alone.

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 8:56 PM, RuthAlice Anderson <
ruthalice.anderson at icloud.com> wrote:

> Yes and no. I think gum-chewing is gross and inappropriate in court, in
> church, on the debate stage, and at the podium of the Press Secretary.
> However, there is a traditional sexist disapproval of women who chew gum.
>
> My elementary school was pretty retrograde, to be honest, on gender
> issues. Girls were not even allowed to wear slacks when it was 40 below. We
> could wear them into the building so we didn’t get frostbite, but had to
> take them off before school started and could not put them on for recess no
> matter how frigid the Minnesota January cold snap. We could stay in our
> seats if it was too cold and let the boys have the playground. We were also
> not allowed to chew gum and we all learned this lovely little ditty.
>
> A gum-chewing girl and a cud-chewing cow
> Seem somewhat alike, but different somehow
> Oh yes, there it is, I see it all now
> It’s the intelligent look on the face of the cow.
>
> On the other hand, the entire dissent is an unprofessional polemic without
> any single citation or argument. It’s distilled rage.
>
> RuthAlice Anderson
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 11, 2017, at 12:50 PM, David A. Holtzman <David at HoltzmanLaw.com
> <David at holtzmanlaw.com>> wrote:
>
> *" ... One of the Department’s lawyers even exhibited her contempt for
> Texas and its representatives and her disdain for these proceedings by
> regularly rolling her eyes at State witnesses’ answers that she did not
> like, and she amused herself by chewing gum while court was in session."*
>
>
> Am I alone in feeling this part of Judge Smith's dissent triggers a sexism
> alarm?
>
>
> On 3/10/2017 8:07 PM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
> *Breaking: District Court, Splitting 2-1, Finds Some Texas Congressional
> Districts Violate Voting Rights Act or Constitution
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=91545>*
> Posted on March 10, 2017 8:03 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=91545> by *Rick
> Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
> The long awaited lengthy opinion on the congressional plan, with a dissent
> by Judge Smith, is here
> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Perez-congress-opinion-3-10-2017.pdf>.
> The numerous findings of fact and conclusions of law are here
> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Perez-finding-of-fact-3-10-2017.pdf>.
> (The court has not released findings yet on the state House challenge). If
> this stands at the Supreme Court it could lead to the creation of more
> Texas minority opportunity districts.
> I will have a fuller analysis once I have read all these pages. But for
> now, here’s a taste.
> From the majority opinion:
> *Plaintiffs have established a § 2 violation, both in terms of intent and
> effect, in South/West Texas. Plaintiffs have shown that seven compact
> majority-HCVAP districts could and should be drawn there that would
> substantially address the § 2 rights of Hispanic voters in South/West
> Texas, including Nueces County. Defendants’ decision to place Nueces County
> Hispanic voters in an Anglo district had the effect and was intended to
> dilute their opportunity to elect their candidate of choice.*
> *Meanwhile, race predominated in the drawing of CD35, and Defendants’
> decision to place majority- in Travis County was not to comply with the VRA
> but to minimize the number of Democrat districts in the plan overall.
> Plaintiffs have established a Shaw-type equal protection violation with
> regard to CD35. Plaintiffs also establish a Shaw-type equal protection
> violation with regard to CD23. In addition, Defendants’ manipulation of
> Latino voter turnout and cohesion in CD23 denied Latino voters equal
> opportunity and had the intent and effect of diluting Latino voter
> opportunity. Nueces County Hispanics and Hispanic voters in CD23 have
> proved their § 2 results and intentional vote dilution claims. The
> configurations of CD23, CD27, and CD35 in Plan C185 are therefore invalid.*
> *Plaintiffs fail to proffer a demonstration plan accompanied by sufficient
> evidence to demonstrate that additional compact minority districts could be
> drawn in DFW or Houston, taking into account traditional redistricting
> principles and communities of interest. However, they are not precluded
> from raising § 2 results claims with regard to Plan C235 during the trial
> on that plan. Plaintiffs have proved intentional vote dilution through
> packing and cracking in DFW and also establish a Shaw-type racial
> gerrymandering claim with regard to CD26, but not CD6. However, they fail
> to prove intentional vote dilution in the Houston area, and fail to prove
> that mapdrawers acted with racially discriminatory purpose when drawing the
> districts represented by the African-American Congresspersons.*
> Judge Smith dissented, believing that the case is moot. But he reserved
> his sharpest words for the U.S. Department of Justice’s intervention in
> this case:
> *And then there is the United States, appearing through attorneys from the
> Department of Justice. I have no criticism of their knowledge of the law,
> and their zeal is, to say the least, more than adequate. But they entered
> these proceedings with arrogance and condescension. One of the Department’s
> lawyers even exhibited her contempt for Texas and its representatives and
> her disdain for these proceedings by regularly rolling her eyes at State
> witnesses’ answers that she did not like, and she amused herself by chewing
> gum while court was in session.*
> *It was obvious, from the start, that the DoJ attorneys viewed state
> officials and the legislative majority and their staffs as a bunch of
> backwoods hayseed bigots who bemoan the abolition of the poll tax and pine
> for the days of literacy tests and lynchings. And the DoJ lawyers saw
> themselves as an expeditionary landing party arriving here, just in time,
> to rescue the state from oppression, obviously presuming that plaintiffs’
> counsel were not up to the task. The Department of Justice moreover views
> Texas redistricting litigation as the potential grand prize and lusts for
> the day when it can reimpose preclearance via Section 3(c).*
> *Of course, these are just personal impressions based on demeanor and
> attitude. More objectively verifiable are the witch hunts and fishing
> expeditions that the DoJ conducted in pursuit of its goals. I give two
> examples….*
> *The DoJ wholly failed, but not for lack of trying. There was, and is, no
> smoking gun in this record, nor has the United States shown that the State
> hid or failed to disclose one. The DoJ’s scheme to build a record on which
> to urge opt-in relief via Section 3(c) has initially failed. Of course, if
> this court is deemed to have jurisdiction, the judges will consider any
> remaining claims pressed by any party, including Section 3(c) claims, as
> appropriate.*
> *The Department of Justice has overplayed its hand and, in the process,
> has lost credibility. The wound is self-inflicted. The grand theory on
> which its intervention was mainly based—that invidious racial motives
> infect and predominate in the drawing of the 2011 district lines—has
> crashed and burned.*
> <Mail Attachment.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D91545&title=Breaking%3A%20District%20Court%2C%20Splitting%202-1%2C%20Finds%20Some%20Texas%20Congressional%20Districts%20Violate%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20or%20Constitution>
> Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Voting
> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> 949.824.3072 <(949)%20824-3072> - office
> <rhasen at law.uci.edu>rhasen at law.uci.edu
> <http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/>http://www.law.uci.edu/
> faculty/full-time/hasen/
> <http://electionlawblog.org/>http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> --
> David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
> david at holtzmanlaw.com
>
> Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may be
> confidential, for use only by intended recipients.  If you are not an
> intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this email to an
> intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error
> and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this
> email is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this email in error,
> please immediately notify the sender and discard all copies.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
Samuel Bagenstos
sbagen at gmail.com
Twitter: @sbagen
My University of Michigan homepage:
http://www.law.umich.edu/FacultyBio/Pages/FacultyBio.aspx?FacID=sambagen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170311/b1cd8a63/attachment.html>