Is Ted Cruz legitimately 'Hispanic'?

And more to the point: is that a fair or even respectable inquiry? The chairman of the Texas Democratic Party, who is of Mexican descent, apparently thinks so.

"This is a guy who didn't claim he was Hispanic any time before he won the primary," (Gilberto) Hinojosa said, adding that Cruz was born in Canada (although it is not a requirement to be born in the United States to run for U.S. Senate).

"He's half-Cuban, and he made point of saying he's half-Cuban and his mom was German-American, was born in Canada. Interesting for a 'birther' and a guy supported by 'birthers,'" Hinojosa said, referring to people who question whether President Obama was born in the United States.

The Cruz campaign has previously said Cruz's mother is actually Irish-Italian.

Hinojosa also criticized Cruz for not using his full name, and even questioning Cruz's heritage.

"If I was named 'Rafael Cruz,' I would be proud to use that name," Hinojosa said. "The guy has denied his own Hispanic heritage, if he is a Hispanic."

When asked if he really thinks Cruz is not Hispanic, Hinojosa said: "Well, I mean, you know you are what you believe you are, right?"

As the fight for Texas Hispanic voters literally gets into name-calling, Republicans at the convention say Latinos should like the GOP message of conservative family values, improving the economy, and creating jobs.

"Hispanic Texas, come home to your values and come home to the Republican Party," said State Rep. Aaron Pena (R-Edinburg). "We're all conservatives right now."

Hispanic voters, however, typically strongly favor Democrats, who point out that Cruz is against the DREAM Act and education cuts affecting Hispanic students.

To keep it that they way, they take issue with not only Cruz's positions, but of him as a person.

"It doesn't matter what your last name is," Hinojosa said. "It matters what you do for a community and what you believe in."

There was a time in the recent past when I would have favored this aggressive, no-holds-barred approach from my TDP chairman. But this seems too close to the "Obama is a Kenyan' stuff for my comfort.

I've been using 'Latino' instead of 'Hispanic' in my own efforts to reflect cultural sensitivity, as 'Hispanic' is regarded as a 1970-census-constructed label, which suggests a Caucasian origination. But this from the NYT usage and style blog demonstrates that there is some degree of division among the community itself.

Q. How do Hispanics themselves feel about the labels “Hispanic” and “Latino”?

A. The labels are not universally embraced by the community that has been labeled. A 2006 survey by the Pew Hispanic Center found that 48% of Latino adults generally describe themselves by their country of origin first; 26% generally use the terms Latino or Hispanic first; and 24% generally call themselves American on first reference. As for a preference between “Hispanic” and “Latino”, a 2008 Center survey found that 36% of respondents prefer the term “Hispanic,” 21% prefer the term “Latino” and the rest have no preference.

But back to the point: can a Mexican American properly accuse a half-Cuban born in Canada of not being Hispanic?

You may recall that I am married to a Cuban -- born in Cuba, and emigrated as a toddler, acquired her US citizenship the requisite seven years later -- so I have familiarity with the resentment some Latinos feel toward Cubans. I have observed this arises from two things:

1. Cubans don't ever call themselves Hispanic or Latino. They are Cuban. Period.

2. Cubans get much more preferential treatment by the US government as a result of the wet foot/dry foot immigration policy that has existed for decades. This generates the most contempt from other Latinos.

So once again, back to the question: is this, to paraphrase Todd Akin, legitimate? Or is it racist? Or something in between? Personally I lean toward the latter, but I'd like to hear what you have to say. Leave a response in the comments, please.

Update: To illustrate my disgust with this tactic, Romney surrogate John Sununu has repeatedly insinuated that Obama is un-American, yet he himself was born in Cuba, to a Palestinian father and a Salvadoran mother. As much as I believe in fighting fire with fire when it comes to Republican prevaricators, there are still some things that are out of bounds. This heritage smearing is one.

Texas redistricting violates VRA, is also discriminatory

Let's go first with the LSP.

After months of deliberation, a three-judge Federal District Court panel in Washington, DC has ruled that the redistricting maps adopted by the Texas Legislature last year violate the US Voting Rights Act. The Court determined that Texas Republican leaders enacted maps that reduced the opportunity for minority voters in Texas to elect their candidates of choice AND the Court ruled that the Legislature used a process that was intentionally discriminatory in adopting the Congressional and State Senate maps.

A copy of the Court’s decision can be seen here.

The election in November will proceed as scheduled under the court-drawn interim maps ordered earlier this year. However, the DC Court’s ruling means that the maps passed by the Legislature in 2011 cannot be used for any election going forward. The current court-drawn interim Congressional, State Senate and State House maps will serve as the benchmark for determining minority voter opportunity. In effect, if the Legislature chooses to redraw the three maps next year, they cannot revert to their previously enacted maps but must start over using the court-drawn interim maps as a baseline.

Matt Angle also added...

The Court’s decision is a damning indictment of Rick Perry and other Texas Republican leaders who, in a cynical attempt to hold on to power, engaged in intentional discrimination against Texas Latino and African American voters.

Every fair-minded Texan familiar with the details of redistricting knew Republican leaders were violating the law. Greg Abbott and Texas Republican will stop at nothing to hold power – even if it means spending millions in Texans hard-earned tax dollars to defend illegal discriminatory redistricting plans. I’m sure he’s burning up more tax dollars as we speak.

Yes, Abbott plans to appeal the case to the US Supreme Court... naturally. More analysis from Michael Li.

* Opinion appears to be a sweeping win for DOJ and groups opposing the state’s redistricting maps. Unanimous except (1) that Judge Griffith dissents with respect to finding of retrogression in treatment of CD-25 (the current Lloyd Doggett seat) and (2) that Judge Collyer did not join in the portion of the opinion relating to retrogression in the congressional map as a whole.

 * Court finds that the State of Texas failed to show an absence of discriminatory purpose in the redrawing of SD-10. The court, however, rejects the contention that SD-10 is an ability to elect district since Wendy Davis was the only minority-preferred candidate to win the district and “a single victory is not the more exacting evidence needed for a coalition district.” 

And it gets deeper in the legal weeds from there.

The SCOTUS won't rule on the case until next summer, and it's hard to guess whether the Lege takes this up again in January 2013. They probably can't get anything they want past the courts, and the only thing that is likely to change their tack is if a Justice Department has an attorney general appointed by a President Romney.

I wouldn't count on that.

Update: More from BOR and DBN. And this from Socratic Gadfly:

Beyond that, the loser is the Texas taxpayer, whom the Texas GOP falsely claims to love. Because of this ruling, if it stands, next year's Legislature will have to start over from ground zero. The interim maps cannot be used as a starting point. And, the GOP is probably likely to try to get away with something again, especially if Romney is elected. So, we'll waste more taxpayer money on more court battles, more state redistricting experts, etc.