And starring Greg Abbott as Constipation

Only two things are certain in the Texas redistricting cluster: there will eventually be some elections this year, and Greg Abbott is the source of all the problems.

Rather than inch closer to a resolution over the weekend, both sides may have dug in their heels further. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott told the court that one deal-breaker is carving up the district currently held by Democratic U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, which would in turn help make Republicans more electable in heavily Democratic Travis County.

Abbott wrote in a filing Monday that while his office was reviewing new proposals to other changes on the map. But he also acknowledged that Doggett's district alone could prevent any chance of a breakthrough.

"The State cannot compromise on this district and that may prevent a global compromise on the Congressional map," Abbott wrote.

There's no legal justification for him to insist on shattering Travis County into five pieces, but who still believes the Attorney General of Texas knows anything about the law anyway? Particularly since he's suffering from a ten-year-old case of Doggett Derangement Syndrome?

Rather than going to the Justice Department, which had been standard practice, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott took the fight to federal court, entering largely uncharted legal territory.

“It's very unusual for a state to just sue” for preclearance, said Michael Li, an elections lawyer in Dallas who has covered the legal saga extensively on txredistricting.org.

Abbott pursued the high-risk legal strategy to get the Republican-dominated maps approved, he said. “Had it worked, it would have been brilliant,” Li said.

The aggressive stance was necessary because the Legislature's maps heavily favored Republicans. Under those maps, three of Texas' four new congressional seats were drawn in Anglo-dominated areas, even though minority population groups accounted for about 90 percent of the state's population growth.

Because of that, Democrats and minority groups quickly filed lawsuits, challenging the maps in the San Antonio federal court. [...]

Doggett managed to survive the 2003 Tom DeLay-backed redistricting that transformed his Austin-centric district into one that stretched from the capital city all the way to the Rio Grande Valley.

“Lloyd Doggett has been a thorn in their side for years and years,” said Harold Cook, a longtime Democratic consultant. “He is their one piece of unfinished business from 2003.”

Republicans tried again in 2011. The maps passed by the Legislature carved Austin into five different congressional districts, drawing Doggett into a heavily Hispanic district that stretched from San Antonio to Austin. State Rep. Joaquín Castro, D-San Antonio, also was eyeing the district, setting the stage for a tough primary fight. But delays in the preclearance trial in Washington forced the San Antonio court to draw a set of interim maps in an attempt to preserve the March 6 primary.

That congressional map restored much of Doggett's old district, icing the primary fight -- but the U.S. Supreme Court then threw out the interim maps. Doggett has continued to campaign in San Antonio, in case “the Perrymandered map” becomes law.

The entire process, he said, has been “really outrageous.”

The real problem for Texas Republicans isn't the jacked-up maps or even the stonewalling by the OAG; it's the inevitable separation of the primary elections down the ballot from the presidential.

A delayed primary is seen as a boon to challengers, especially in the U.S. Senate race, because they have more time to boost name identification and raise money.

Based on recent polling, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst is the prohibitive favorite in the GOP race, Cook said, “but if I was his campaign manager, I would worry a little bit. If the election was held today and you'd win, you want the election held today. Every day that goes by introduces a little more uncertainty.”

A split primary could add even more pressure on Dewhurst.

There's no question that holding the presidential primary first, then the Senate race later, would benefit tea party candidates like Ted Cruz, Houston lobbyist Robert D. Miller said. The second primary almost certainly would suffer from lower voter turnout -- and those that do come out are more ideological.

“The later it is, the better it is for Ted Cruz,” Miller said.

Without even factoring in the diminishing country-wide enthusiasm, fewer Lone Star conservatives are going make it out for two different elections, the scheduling of which is still to be determined. Greg Abbott is going to disenfranchise Texas Republicans from having any meaningful say in who their presidential nominee is, just like he's screwed the pooch with his hare-brained legal strategies in pursuing a conservative super-majority in the state and national legislatures.

(Why am I concerned about Republican disenfranchisement? Hey, I'm an empathetic guy that way.)

His hubris means they will lose even bigger than they would under normal circumstances. Greg Abbott, in short, is the Kareem Jackson of the RPT. Every time he takes the field, you know it's bad and going to get worse.

But honestly, he reminds me more of the Colon Lady on that TV commercial.



You Republicans need to keep these failures of his in mind when Abbott runs for governor in 2014.

Update: Charles has a bit more to say about relevance and Texas Republican presidential primaries.

Occupy Houston gets forcibly evicted *update*

About 6:45 p.m., after giving notice two hours earlier, HPD moved in on horses and bicycles.



Video streaming by Ustream
(skip to the 1:05:30 mark)

The scene at 6:30 p.m.:



The scene about 6:40 p.m.:



Update: KTRK, who broke this news first yesterday about two hours before the eviction, follows up.

Four months ago, Occupy Houston began with big crowds and big ideas. But on Monday, the city said Occupy Houston's time is up.

Police began moving in at dark to clear the park but the protestors stuck around for a while. On one side of the park were the protestors. Just inside were police.

After several months at Tranquility Park, Occupy Houston members were told it was time to leave.

"They are trying to force us into the park so they can do a mass arrest, that will not happen. We are Occupy Houston, we are a lot smarter than they think," protester Shere Dore said.

A few hours earlier, the group was notified this would be their last day here.

"To stand up for what's right and what I believe in, yes, I would go to jail for that," protester Capital Baker said.

At dark, the protestors left as a group, leaving many things behind at the place park they've used as headquarters to spread their message of financial reform.

But they stuck around, circling the area and climbing the steps of City Hall.

As police moved in, Houston Mayor Annise Parker attended a community meeting after giving the notice to vacate earlier in the day, adding that the park needs to be cleared for upcoming festivals. Police presence the past few months has cost the city $350,000.

"We want to make sure that the park is in good shape for those upcoming events and this will give us time to do this, and it also seemed like they needed a little nudge to move on," Parker said.

Shortly after the barricades went up, the group said a final goodbye.

"They want to fight over Tranquility Park, they can have it. We're Occupy Houston, we're not Occupy Tranquility Park," protester Carlos Villalobos said.

Go read Neil for now. I'll have something later.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance is still waiting for Greg Abbott to ask for its opinion on the interim redistricted maps that remain a bone of legal contention as it brings you this week's roundup.

Meanwhile, Off the Kuff ran the numbers for those maps that were proposed by AG Abbott.

While we may have plenty of jobs in Texas, many don't pay very well, which has led to a chasm of income disparity. WCNews at Eye On Williamson make clear that economic inequality in Texas needs to be addressed.

Sex Ed 101 by Louie Gohmert featured lectures on both caribou and human sexuality last week. Read on, if you dare, at Brains and Eggs, but have some anti-nausea medication close by just in case.

At TexasKaos, Libby Shaw reports that the blob of hate-filled vitriol known as Andrew Breitbart lost his marbles at the most recent conservative confab last weekend . Quelle shock! Read about it here: Esteemed Conservative Leader Loses It at CPAC.

Neil at Texas Liberal used a well-done Coca-Cola display at a local store to ask folks to show some Valentine's Day love for our fellow working people.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme wonders why Republicans hate women so very, very much.

Where do broken hearts go?

Where do broken hearts go?
Can they find their way home?
Back to the open arms
Of a love that's waiting there

And if somebody loves you
Won't they always love you?
I look in your eyes
And I know that you still care for me

Equally with her rendition of the National Anthem at the Super Bowl in 1991, this was my co-favorite. I hope someone will cover it at tonight's Grammys. Don't think I'll be able to keep my eyes dry, either.

Sunday Funnies

Sexual Education 101, with Professor Louie Gohmert

Hide. the. children.

(East Texas Congressman Louie) Gohmert launched into a lecture during a meeting of the House Natural Resources committee meeting last week about the need to protect the poor caribou. But here’s the catch — the evil force against which he wants to defend the creatures is the halting of the flow of oil through the pipeline. That, he says, would be akin to throwing cold water on what sounds like a randy spring-break party happening around Alaska’s caribou population.

It seems that Gohmert is also something of an expert on animal husbandry. Here’s his theory: The caribou very much enjoy the warmth the pipeline radiates. “So when they want to go on a date, they invite each other to head over to the pipeline,” he informed his colleagues. It’s apparently the equivalent of being wined and dined. And that has resulted in a tenfold caribou population boom, he concluded.

“So my real concern now ...if oil stops running through the pipeline...do we need a study to see how adversely the caribou would be affected if that warm oil ever quit flowing?” he asked.

This week his lecture focused on human sexuality.

"The court, as I understand it today, struck down a law that said marriage is between a man and a woman. It's interesting that there are some courts in America where the judges have become so wise in their own eyes that they know better than nature or nature's God," Gohmert said on the House floor.

"Nature seemed to like the idea of an egg and a sperm coming together because of pro-creation," he continued. Drawing a parallel to Iowa Supreme Court justices who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in 2009, he said, "Apparently they thought the sperm had far better use some other way biologically, combining it with something else."

It's still early in the semester for even a frat boy to be fantasizing about spring break, but I sure hope some of Gohmert's grad assistants are planning a field trip to Daytona Beach to arrange a laboratory demonstration for the professor of the birds and the bees in action. Call it 'continuing education'.

Until next month, somebody buy Louie a copy of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition. He just might be able to figure that out by himself.

Kuff and Harold have additional course syllabus suggestions.

Update: The 'dumbest man in the history of Texas politics'. That's quite a title considering he's competing against Rick Perry, George W. Bush, John Cornyn, Greg Abbott, John Culberson, Kevin Brady, Ted Poe, Aaron Pena, Dan Patrick, Troy Fraser, and all of the rest of the Republican morons who have served, died, and gone to their great reward.

We are all Santorum's children now

Not talking about his poor little sick infant daughter.

Not Photoshopped.

No delegates were at stake on Tuesday night, but Rick Santorum still scored three important -- and surprisingly large -- victories in the race for the Republican presidential nomination by winning caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota and a primary in Missouri.

"Conservatism is alive and well in Missouri and Minnesota," Santorum said when he took the stage, before the Colorado results had been announced, at his victory party in St. Charles, Mo. He called his wins "a victory for the voices of our party, conservatives and tea party people, who are out there every day in the vineyards."

It's a victory also for every man and woman who opposes not just a woman's right to choose but also a woman's right to choose contraception. (Sidebar: on the same day that the head of Catholic Charities of Galveston-Houston finally resigned over the latest child molestation scandal, you have to wonder if any of those pedophile priests would have been excoriated had they used a condom.)

For the moment, contemplate Rick Santorum's conservatism and his -- and his church's -- interpretations of heterosexuality and family planning, and what their effects may ultimately be.

The absurdity of the fundamentalists' increasingly conservative position on women's rights was illustrated recently in, of all places, the Oklahoma state Senate, where one of the lonely Democrats there introduced an amendment to a fetal personhood bill that was straight out of Monthy Python.

The concept of “personhood” defines human life as beginning at the moment of conception and, in the case of Oklahoma’s pending Senate Bill 1433, says that the resulting fetus “at every stage of development (has) all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state.” If Senate Bill 1433 were to become law, all forms of abortion and some forms of contraception would be considered murder and therefore illegal.

Sen. (Constance) Johnson, who represents Oklahoma’s 48th District introduced an amendment to the bill mandating that the same rights and benefits be granted to spermatozoa, writing: “However, any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman’s vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child.”

This would outlaw masturbation by men, anal sex, sex with condoms, all forms of fellatio to completion, as well as numerous other acts. She later withdrew the measure, but stated that she had inserted it to highlight the absurdity and sexism inherent in the current bill.

A second legislator, Democrat Jim Wilson attempted to introduce an amendment stating that all men would be responsible for the full support and well-being of any woman carrying their child for the duration of the pregnancy, including housing, food, transportation, and all medical costs. The amendment failed.

Behold; The Meaning of Life.



I am taking a fairly tangential digression from the news of Rick Santorum's electoral wins last night -- delegate-less though they may be -- in order not to miss the point about what his, ah, resurgence (and the corresponding political fortunes of American conservative Catholics, and of American religious extremists of all faiths) means for women specifically, and all the rest of us generally.

Ultimately Santorum will fall back and give way again to Mitt Romney. He's only slightly less likely to get the nomination than Newt Gingrich, slightly more so than Ron Paul. But his bloc of Christian Soldiers will, as a result of these caucus pluralities, have significant influence in the party platform and at the national convention, and his 18th-century Opus Dei-styled opinions will continue to get a public airing. They will also exert the occasional gravitational pull on Romney. Even Ann Coulter, formerly a doomsdayer on a Romney candidacy, is busily jamming Mitt to starboard.

Center-right and far-out right are shaping up as the duopoly options in 2012.

Update: A reminder to my Catholic friends; it's not you, it's your church and its leadership.

Judge Sam Sparks, the 5th Circuit, and the Texas sonogram law

This is a somewhat remarkable rebuke by a federal judge of his peers up the food chain.

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks declined to stop a new sonogram law from taking effect in a ruling Monday that indicates his hands were tied by an appellate court.

"There can be little doubt that (the law) is an attempt by the Texas Legislature to discourage women from exercising their constitutional rights by making it more difficult for caring and competent physicians to perform abortions," Sparks wrote in his decision.

"It appears the (three judge appellate court panel) has effectively eviscerated the protections of the First Amendment in the abortion context," and "in no other medical context does the government go so far in telling doctors what they must, and must not, do," Sparks said in the ruling.

Sparks granted a temporary restraining order last fall, which kept the law from taking effect, but three judges from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals last month overturned Sparks, who was appointed to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush.

I've often wondered how the ultra-right freaks on the 5th Circuit can stand to live and work in a den of hedonism like New Orleans. They must be appalled.

"It is a terrible injustice that Judge Sparks could not rule in favor of protecting the constitutional rights of Texas doctors because of the Fifth Circuit panel's decision," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. "We urge the full Fifth Circuit to consider Judge Sparks' sound legal analysis when reviewing our request for a new hearing."

Nice thought, but it'll never happen unless Obama gets a shot at replacing some of those folks. The Republican obstructionists in the Senate will keep doing their best to block that, too.

See what happens when you vote GOP? Or when you don't show up to vote at all?

And starring Greg Abbott as P.T. Barnum

It was fairly good fun watching the attorney general of Texas try to pull a fast one today, and getting slapped before he could draw his hand out of the cookie jar.

Earlier this afternoon, Greg Abbott proclaimed an "agreement" in the Texas redistricting saga and spoon-fed a few media outlets with the news. Except that the "deal" wasn't one because several of the various plaintiffs said 'pass', and the judges who set today as the deadline for agreeing -- or pushing farther out the primary elections -- called bullshit as well.

A federal judge ordered all sides in the Texas redistricting lawsuit to keep talking Monday, just hours after the attorney general announced a compromise plan that prompted immediate pushback from several minority groups involved in the case.

Attorney General Greg Abbott had said several minority groups agreed to a plan that would put two new congressional seats in Hispanic-dominated districts for this year's elections. But some of the groups that sued the state, alleging the GOP-controlled Legislature drafted redistricting maps that were discriminatory, scoffed at the new plan and said it diluted the voice of minority voters in some parts of the state.

Judge Orlando Garcia noted that Monday was the deadline for all sides to agree.

"The parties should continue their negotiations to the extent possible, but all deadlines remain in place until the Court is notified that an agreement has been reached," Garcia said in the court order.

Garcia and two other San Antonio-based federal judges are hearing the lawsuit. The judges said that if all sides couldn't draft compromise maps by Monday, then the April 3 primary would likely be delayed.

In other words, Greg Abbott is his usual sorry ass lying bastard self, everyone in Texas (and quite a few people in Washington DC) know it, and nothing much has really changed with regard to the clusterfuck that is Texas redistricting.

Any questions? Juanita Jean can answer them.

Update: Greg goes deep into the cartography, Charles burrows into the spreadsheets, the Corpus Caller nails it, and the Associated Press gets most everything comically wrong in this piece.

Super Hangover Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance waited into Sunday morning for election returns from Nevada (they can count cards 24-7 in Vegas but they can't count ballots?!), slept late, woke up in time for the Super Bowl party, and thought Madge delivered one of the better halftime shows it has seen in recent years. Here's this week's roundup.

Texas gets a C on its science curriculum standards, despite the worst efforts of the wingnut faction on the State Board of Education. Off the Kuff has the details.

Anonymous blogging is First Amendment-protected speech, as most of us (but not some conservative bloggers) knew three years ago. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs documents the establishment of the legal precedent.

BossKitty at TruthHugger wants you to ask your presidential candidate about America's water safety. The 35-year-old federal law regulating tap water is so out of date that everyone who unable to afford expensive purification devices is at risk.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson posts on the struggle Texas teachers and schools are having because of the billions the legislature cut from public education last year: Texas teachers and schools need our help.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme wants you to know that Planned Parenthood, unions, and the Girl Scouts aren't the only institutions the republicans are trying to kill.

At TexasKaos, Libby Shaw nails the Komen Foundation flap and sees its parallels in Texas. Give it a read: The Republican Jihad On Women.

Blogging on protests at home and abroad, Neil at Texas Liberal posted about a website hosting conference calls for Occupy participants across the nation, and also made a post with a number of links to learn more about events in Syria.

Three hours? Seemed like three years.

Or maybe it was three 'seasons'. But those three movies were the worst.

The Harlem Globetrotters?!

The relevance of Nevada

Less than zero, but if you turn on your teevee this morning -- and not to watch any of the eight hours of Super Bowl pre-game -- you'll get a different version.

• Mormons outnumbered evangelical voters: 26 percent of the Nevada caucus-goers were Mormon compared to just 23 percent who said they were evangelical Christians. Only New Hampshire had a lower-percentage of evangelical voters, at 22 percent. Even so, Romney carried evangelicals here with 48 percent; the best he's done in any state thus far.
• Very low turn-out: With Romney all but assured a win here, Nevada GOPers weren't exactly inspired to get out to vote. In 2008, just 45,000 Republicans caucused. This year, it looks like even fewer will vote. Given the dismal showing, it's going to be very hard for Nevada to justify its early state status in 2016. As the New York Time's @natesilver tweeted: "new rule: if you don't turn enough people out to fill state's largest football stadium, you lose early voting status."

Look at the Google link to the election returns. At the time of this posting Clark County, with 50+% of the state's vote, still has not fully reported.

Ron Paul won Esmeralda County by a vote of 20 to 19 over Mitt Romney. Less than 60 people caucused in the entire county. Meanwhile, Ron Paul is apparently now running for Treasury secretary in a Romney administration (but will probaby have to settle for a speech in prime time at the convention ... right after his wacko son). Gary Johnson is a better fit for the Libertarians anyway.

This may be a fine way for the freak right wing of the Republican party to pick a nominee, but not for anybody else.

Sunday Super Bowl Funnies

“Newt may be toast already. The Republican establishment have the knives out for him. Tom DeLay said Newt Gingrich was the most despicable human being he has seen since shaving this morning.” -- Bill Maher

Anonymous blogging is First Amendment protected speech -- as we knew all along

You may recall the case of the blogger/PI who sued two bloggers in Beaumont because they made fun of him, sucking Google (as blogger.com) and others into his vindictive legal wrath.

He lost at the Texas Supreme Court, and now he has lost again. First, from the Southeast Texas Record:

On Monday a local judge denied Philip Klein's petition to take the depositions of Google and Beaumont attorney Brent Coon, effectively ending the political commentator's three-year crusade to unmask two area bloggers.

Through his companies, Klein filed the petition against the Operation Kleinwatch and Sam the Eagle blogs, as well as Google and its subsidiary, blogger.com, on Aug. 26, 2009, in Jefferson County District Court.

Klein alleged Operation Kleinwatch and Sam the Eagle engaged in a pattern of libel and defamation, invasion of privacy and use of copyrighted images.

In his petitions, Klein claimed the bloggers defamed him by posting a parody of Dog Fancy magazine in which he was depicted under the caption, "Fat Men Who Love Their Dogs Too Much."

Nonetheless, on Jan. 30 Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd District Court, denied Klein's verified third amended petition, ending his efforts to investigate claims.

"This ruling reaffirms the important principle that disgruntled public figures may not abuse pre-suit discovery to ferret out personal information about the people who criticize them," said Jeffrey L. Dorrell, a Houston attorney who defended the bloggers, in a press release.

And from said press release:

Ending almost three years of litigation, Judge Donald Floyd of the 172nd District Court in Jefferson County on January 30, 2012, entered a final order denying Beaumont private investigator and local media personality Philip R. Klein’s request to take presuit depositions of Internet search giant Google, prominent local attorney Brent Coon, and others to discover the identity of two anonymous bloggers. The bloggers publish satirical parody and other biting criticism directed at Klein on blogs known as “Operation Kleinwatch” and “Sam The Eagle.”

Here's the response from OK:

After repeated attempts by our attorneys and much foot-dragging by Philip R. Klein and his attorney, John S. Morton, Esq., an evidentiary hearing was held on Jan. 17, in which PRK introduced NO evidence to support his claims that we invaded his privacy, stole his copyrighted work, inflicted emotional duress on him and his family, or defamed him.

We did, however, admit that we posted a parody of a dog magazine with Philip on the front cover - the title of the article: "Fat Men Who Love Their Dogs Too Much," as a parody of this piece from MSNBC. Draw your own conclusions, but according to Philip's arguments, he apparently believes we exposed his penchant for dating farm animals.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Here's the response from Sam The Eagle:

On January 30, 2012, over two and a half years since Sillip instigated his Philly lawsuit, Judge Donald Floyd struck down all of Philip's allegations, denied all of Philip Klein's requests, and confirmed that Philip Klein was the biggest blowhard liar in Southeast Texas.

Klein's blog is the Southeast Texas Political Review, a badly written, poorly sourced ultraconservative freak show covering the Golden Triangle. Klein is also a private investigator, which means he knows lots of crooked attorneys who pay him for various shovelfuls of dirt he is able to unearth.

I would post his response to his losing his case yet again, but it's already been removed.

Philip Klein, quite simply, is a moron. To be both candid and a little cruel, he's just another one of those conservatives of low intelligence you may have read about recently. And there are plenty of lawyers -- even in places like Beaumont, Port Arthur, and Orange -- willing to take his money to watch him demonstrate it.

The importance of this case (to those of us who blog) as precedent really can't be overstated. I do not blog anonymously, of course; and no one who does should have any fear of legal retribution from someone who wishes to out them just because they don't like what they wrote. Sarcasm -- even excessive sarcasm -- as political insult goes at least as far back as 1800 ... in the battle for the presidency between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Amazingly, FOX News found the archival videotape of the 19th-century political ads and here it is:



I sure do miss hearing the phrase "hideous hermaphroditical character" tossed around at the Republican debates. Don't you?

Things like First Amendment rights to free speech are usually obvious to every honest and decent American, but rarely are to TeaBaggers with brains too thick and skin too thin.

April 3rd unified primary hits the circular file

DBN:

The D.C. District Court three judge panel entered a order in the preclearance case telling parties that they should not expect a ruling for at least 30 days:

The Court directs the parties to comply fully with the page limits and briefing schedule set in this matter so that it can be timely resolved and also notifies the parties that this Court does not anticipate issuing any order within the next 30 days.

A number of participants in the case had been expecting the court to rule by February 15 and some had felt that a ruling might even be possible next week.

This afternoon, in light of today's D.C. Court advisory telling the state and plaintiffs in the preclearance case that they should not expect a ruling for at least 30 days, the Texas Democratic Party (TDP) filed an advisory with the San Antonio District Court, that has jurisdiction over interim district maps and the primary election schedule, saying it no long believed a unified primary was still possible on any date in April, absent a near term settlement between the state and plaintiffs in the interim redistricting case before the San Antonio District Court.

And that settlement is on ice, as we learned this past Monday.

So the Republicans will likely hold their presidential hag beauty contest on the April 3rd date; the rest of the Republicans and Democrats will wait until April, perhaps, for court decisions, with primaries not until the end of May or June. There might still be some short filing deadlines if the San Antonio court releases maps by February 6, but with the DC court's pronouncement they are not likely to feel any deadline heat to do so.

Meh. At least the pressure's off.

Update: Michael Li, as always.

(Thursday) morning, the San Antonio court entered an scheduling order, directing briefing by February 10 at 6 p.m. on a number of issues related to interim maps and setting a hearing/status conference for February 15 at 8 a.m. (so much for Valentine’s Day for lovelorn lawyers).

The court’s order is here.

The issues the court asked to be addressed include:

• the meaning of the Supreme Court’s ‘not insubstantial’ standard, including the proper allocation of the burden of proof,

• how the county line rule should be applied in interim maps,

• the applicable law on coalition and crossover districts and how it should be applied for purposes of interim maps,

• whether the court has the authority to waive preclearance requirements for new precinct boundaries

The court also asked that the parties submit propped findings of fact and conclusions of law by February 10.  The court’s order said that it was not announcing an election schedule at this time.

A week's worth of Mexican sweat

Via Democratic Blog News, the Austin Chronicle (their emphasis):

There were rumors floating around all weekend that there could be a deal struck as early as today, but with all parties heading to DC to catch closing arguments in the preclearance hearing tomorrow, Jan. 31, that seems unlikely. The Mexican American Legislative Caucus told the Chronicle this morning that a deal is not imminent, even though they are all working towards some kind of agreement.

MALC (and particularly chair Rep. Trez Martinez Fischer, D-San Antonio) and MALDEF are clearly most interested in creating the largest number possible of Hispanic opportunity districts. However, that could clash severely with both the interests of the other plaintiffs (many of whom are looking for more Democratic opportunity seats) and the historic coalition between African-American and Hispanic groups. Throughout this process, LULAC and the NAACP have been very much on the same page, and have not always been in complete agreement with MALC and MALDEF.

You may also recall the reports last month that African American legislators and associated interest groups don't care much for districts drawn to favor Latinos in somewhat exclusive manner. There's a rich quote from bloghermano Greg Wythe here with respect to that. Continuing...

And what about the time table? The problem with any deal is that the San Antonio panel ordered that there has to be unanimity between the parties, or all contested districts have to be submitted to be redrawn. The state's seeming desperation to avoid shifting the primaries again might add some strength to the plaintiffs' side of the table, as they can extract more as the state keeps clock-watching to hit that Feb. 6 deadline. As Martinez-Fischer told the Associated Press, the state is willing to negotiate and "something’s motivating that."

The time crunch means the plaintiffs can dangle the equal representation terms of Section Two of the Voting Rights Act over the assembled heads of Attorney General Greg Abbott's team. However, the DC District Court is expected to rule this week on whether the legislature's maps violate the preclearance terms of Section Five of the VRA. There are undoubtedly voices in the room suggesting that the plaintiffs would be in a much stronger negotiating position – and that the state would have little legal wiggle room – if they just wait a couple more days.

And the most recent update to that post has this (with my emphasis now):

...LULAC attorney Luis Roberto Vera, Jr. confirmed that his clients (who are still pushing for coalition districts) want to wait for the DC ruling, and that was the stated position of all plaintiffs to the San Antonio panel before this weekend. "As to negotiations," he wrote, "they have totally broken down as of now. I am sure they will resume but I doubt an agreement if at all by this Monday so I don't expect an April 3rd election."

If this is going to settle out at all, it will be the Republicans giving something up of significant value. Some reports indicate that Abbott is trying to sow discord among the plaintiffs but it doesn't look like that's working.

Waiting for the Redistricting Settlement Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance is stocking up on unhealthy snacks and adult beverages -- in preparation to celebrate the almost-ready-to-break news on Texas redistricting as well as Sunday's Super Bowl -- as it brings you this week's roundup.

BossKitty at TruthHugger is concerned that the frivolous issues the Tea Party Republicans scream about -- and boo and cheer about at their debates -- are a complete distraction from the serious problems facing America. Character slaughter in the battle for a Republican presidential candidate does not demonstrate who the best candidate may be, so Divided and Apathetic We Fall.

In addition to all of the redistricting litigation, the state of Texas has also filed a lawsuit to get the odious voter ID law precleared. Off the Kuff has a look.

Texas always ranks high on the list of "business friendly" states. WCNews at Eye On Williamson says It's time for Texas to become a top 10 state for the rest of us.

A Houston Not-So-Much 'Stros rant, starring Roger Metzger as Ron Paul (or maybe the other way around), is posted at PDiddie's Brains and Eggs.

At TexasKaos, lightseeker explains that Rick Santorum's wife DIDNOT have an abortion, but therein lies both a morality tale and an advocacy for a sane truce in the choice wars. Give it a read: Abortion, Choice and Absolutist Morality.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme, like everyone else, knows that the Texas Supreme Court is crony capitalism central.

Neil at Texas Liberal made a post about the great resources at the C-SPAN program archive, and at the new American wing of the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art. These are first rate, free and accessible websites that respect the fact that everybody has the ability to understand complex things, and that everybody has the abilty to engage in political action.

Satisfying pre-conclusions to Texas redistricting

I have been wondering why the state of Texas (read: Attorney General Greg Abbott) has been so suddenly willing to abandon its concurrent legal strategies to force discriminatory districts on us all, and reach a settlement that will reportedly favor Democrats, Latino organizations, and others fighting them.

Here's the insight I have been seeking to what, by every appearance to me, looked like folding a winning hand. First, the indomitable Michael Li (go read the entire thing for his cogent observations at the scene of Friday's hearing, some of which I put in this post that came from his Twitter feed):

It’s not clear why the state’s position has shifted so radically. Theories range from pressure to keep Texas relevant to the GOP presidential nomination to concerns about the ruling that the D.C. court might issue to worries of incumbent legislators about a split primary. Or maybe it’s just that Texas Republicans, faced with few good options, are figuring that they can always try redistricting again in January 2013.

And Paul Burka:

Abbott may find himself on the hot seat again, as critics are sure to question (again) his decision to go forum shopping by making an end run around the Department of Justice: going straight to the Republican-dominated district court of the District of Columbia and moving for summary judgment to preclear the state’s congressional and legislative maps. But the D.C. Court found potential evidence of discriminatory intent, and suddenly Abbott’s litigation strategy didn’t look so clever. To be fair to Abbott, he didn’t have much choice; the House supermajority was dead set on maximizing seats for both the House and the Congressional maps. The impulse to overreach is common to large majorities, regardless of party. But the result is that the state’s legal team ran out of time, which would not have occurred had Abbott taken the traditional route of seeking preclearance from the Department of Justice.

And so, in a single stroke, the Republican Legislature has managed to resurrect the Democratic party from the ashes of the 2010 election and the 2003 Tom DeLay midcensus redistricting.

We'll know for sure soon enough, possibly as early as tomorrow.

What Oakland looked like yesterday

Saturday's protests -- the most turbulent since Oakland police forcefully dismantled an Occupy encampment in November -- came just days after the group said it planned to use a vacant building as a social center and political hub and threatened to try to shut down the port, occupy the airport and take over City Hall.

Springtime will be coming soon.

Sunday Funnies

San Antonio judges mull later date for TX primary

The three federal judges charged with drawing the maps that Texas will use in the 2012 primary elections pushed the date of those primaries later into April, and left uncertainty as to whether that would be final due to continuing questions swirling about the maps themselves.

After testimony from various parties -- Chad Dunn of the TDP, David Mattax for the TX OAG, attorneys for Reps. Joe Barton and Quico Canseco -- and a conference call with the judges in DC hearing the case over pre-clearance there, Justices Orlando Garcia, Xavier Rodriguez, and Jerry Smith finally put out of its misery the April 3rd unified primary date in their hearing which began at 1 p.m this afternoon.

There were some remarkable exchanges between the panel's judges and the Republican lawyers and representatives. Mattax at one point indicated that the judges did not have to 'get Section 5 (the pre-clearance provision) right', since the maps being drawn were interim ones anyway. Judge Rodriguez responded: "Are you saying you won't appeal our map if the DC court says something different on Section 5?"

Mattax' response: 'What I'm saying is the Section 5 conclusion doesn't have to be exactly the same, because the maps are just interim.'

Rodriguez: "Well, we thought we were just drawing interim maps the last time."

Judge Smith then asked David Mattax: "If the Supreme Court says that districts violate Section 5, how can we ignore that on interim maps?" Mattax replied: "Because they are only interim maps." Judge Smith: "I completely disagree that we can ignore (Section 5) concerns", and followed up with: "Doesn't the DC court's ruling already say Section 5 issues are not insubstantial?" Mattax responded that he did not think the SCOTUS ruling used the words 'not insubstantial'.

The conversation then turned back to settlement efforts. Mattax: 'We're going to work all weekend. Try to get something Monday.'

This is a good time to point out that about the time the hearing in San Antonio began, Gary Scharrer of the SAEN posted that the parties involved were negotiating a settlement.

A leading player in the state’s redistricting turmoil said this morning he’s hopeful that both sides are closing in on a settlement that will salvage Texas’ April 3 primary.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has been meeting with representatives of minority groups that sued the state last year to stop new political boundaries from taking effect on grounds the decade-long maps ignore profound population growth of minority Texans – mostly Hispanics.

“I am confident that the parties are working in good faith and have enough time to craft a compromise that will assure that the April primaries go on as scheduled,” said state Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, D-San Antonio, chairman of the House Mexican American Legislative Caucus, which is one of the parties suing the state.

Caught off guard as he was preparing for a 1 p.m. court hearing in San Antonio before three federal judges refereeing the redistricting fight, Martinez Fischer acknowledged that lawyers for his organization have been talking with Abbott and others in the case about a settlement. Martinez Fischer said he could not share details.

A spokesman for Abbott said the attorney general will hold off commenting until the court hearing.

Consensus seemed to emerge around 3:45 p.m. that everyone might come to an agreement on an April 17 unified primary -- two weeks later than currently scheduled -- contingent upon questions settled by the parties over the weekend. Judge Garcia directed the two sides to provide a list of the district maps not in dispute by Monday or Tuesday of next week "if you want to have an election in April."

When the conversation turned to military ballots (they have to be printed and mailed, thus requiring the most lead time of anything associated with an election), Steve Munisteri, chair of the Republican Party of Texas, responded that service members could be allowed to vote electronically and still satisfy the Texas Election Code's MOVE Act (Texas Insider has a nice, brief explanation in the first paragraph here). Judge Rodriguez was skeptical of that, and a moment later when Munisteri cited the TEC for not being able to move the conventions, the judge pounced.

"But you are asking us to change the MOVE Act. Why not just change the election code?"

The chairman said that Texas Republican voters would be disenfranchised by splitting the primary, moving the presidential part to the summer. "Why would you be OK with waiving certain parts of the election code but not others?" replied Rodriguez.

There was no indication from those present how Munisteri answered that question.

There followed more give-and-take between the litigants regarding the costs of splitting the primary, whether the state or other plaintiffs might or might not object to the forthcoming new maps, and more deep-in-the-weeds legal and political machinations. But the smirking was induced when Texas county election administrators began to testify, gently spiking the bad ideas from GOP redistricting lawyers and Munisteri by describing what would be able to functionally happen in their municipalities. The Bexar County elections official, for example, said that electronic ballots were not an option ... because they simply don't have email addresses for all service members.

Thanks to the Twitter feeds from the scene by Michael Li, Ross Ramsey, Nolan Hicks, Rebecca Acuna, Alana Rocha, and many others. You can read their play-play-play which I used to compose this post at the Twitter hashtag #txlege . Ramsey has his report up, likely with updates to come, and Kuffner has a bit more. Li's most recent Tweet, just before 5 p.m., says:

Probably pretty obvious but 2/1 filing deadline and ballot order draw next week are being cancelled.

The hearing continues; I'll post more updates as warranted.

Update: The Hill reports extremely positive news regarding settlement negotiations.

The Texas state attorneys defending the state’s GOP-drawn redistricting plans from court challenges have reached out to settle litigation, according to sources in the state. The settlement would give minority groups and Democrats what they’ve been demanding from the start: more heavily minority, Democratic-leaning House seats.

The result would likely mean at least four more Texas Democrats in Congress as of next year, a good start on the 25 or so seats Democrats need to win to retake control of the House.

“They’re backed up against the wall and have to come to some agreement and it’ll be awfully favorable on our end,” said one of the plaintiffs in the case.

Another plaintiff agreed.  “It’s clear they know they’re in a vulnerable position and that’s why they want to settle,” he said.

Update II: In a clear indication of the ongoing confusion, this Austin American-Statesman headline -- "Federal judges warn April 3 primary in jeopardy, urge redistricting compromise" -- contradicts what they quote Judge Orlando Garcia saying in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the story: "We don't know when (the primaries) might be, but we know it won't be April 3"...

That would be way beyond the dictionary definition of 'jeopardy'.

Not-so-much 'Stros

There's no astronauts any more. There's almost no Astrodome any more. Even Astroworld, which had nearly nothing to do with outer space, is a prairie again. So WTF does anyone want to be called "Astros" anyway?

“We’re looking at the name,” (brand-new Astros owner Jim) Crane said. “I said earlier that the Astros will be here, but we’re looking into that, too.”

This is a reversal of what Crane had said about the Houston name the day Major League Baseball approved his bid to purchase the team from Drayton McLane: “Astros are here to stay.”

“We haven’t said we’re going to do that, so don’t jump to any conclusions,” Crane said. “But sometimes change is good.”

Hell, I'm so old I remember when small businesses in this town were all named after the team. Astro Dry Cleaners. Astro Brake Repair. Astro Insurance. That kind of self-identification goes way beyond exploding scoreboards, groundskeepers dressed for a moon walk, and even orange-and-yellow rainbow unis.

Hey look! It's Roger Metzger! Ah shit, never mind. . . .

The day MLB completed the transfer of power from (Drayton) McLane, Crane hinted strongly that he’d be swift and decisive about how to proceed with the baseball operations. He said he’d be making a few moves right after Thanksgiving, and he followed through with the dismissal of team president Tal Smith and general manager Ed Wade. When it came time to find somebody to run the baseball operations, Crane landed a well-rounded executive – (Jeff) Luhnow – who helped build the St. Louis Cardinals into a World Series champion. Luhnow is trying to marry advanced data analysis with old-fashioned, boots-on-the-ground intelligence to make the Astros relevant again.

Crane caused a bit of a stir with his admission on Monday that the Astros name might be subject to review. But is it a bad thing that he wants to at least explore all plausible options? With a move to the American League having been foisted upon Houston starting in 2013, with the team coming off its worst season in history, there is no time like the present to consider just about anything.

A uniform change would seem to be a given, what all the merchandising opportunities that would come with it. Teams change uniforms all the time, and the brick red and pinstripes have not conjured a lot of good feelings lately. A name change would be a considerably more radical undertaking – one the franchise has already experienced once.

Yay! You get to buy the new gear, and all those $150 jerseys you bought with names like Berkman and Oswalt and Pence can go on E-bay and be sold to the hoarders collectors as 'retro'. If you're one of the poor saps with 'Clemens' or 'Pettitte' on the back, sorry; you're still SOL. Believe me, most of 'em will be worth more if they change the name of the team and not just the colors and the stripes and the logos. Win-win!

See, it takes a real smart guy, a guy who didn't grow up here -- who grew up a Cardinals fan, for Pete's sake -- to come to Houston, make a shitpile of money, buy a baseball team and change everything about it. Jim Crane understands that people don't move to H-Town to retire. You people reading this are not Jim Crane's target market. He knows he's in competition with the Dynamos, and the Dynamos are way ahead of him.

Jim Crane, smarter than you because he's richer than you, understands that kids don't grow up playing baseball any longer. Keep in mind that the baseball academies are in Venezuela, not Iowa (or New Hampshire). Jim Crane knows just enough about Houston to know that we bulldoze our history around here, not preserve it.

It should be obvious to everyone by now that Jim Crane doesn't give a flip about anything relevant to his new baseball team but the money he's going to eventually be making. That's why he cut prices on the seats and the beer this year... and why he's going to cut the payroll even more than Drayton already had.

The last and only thing left for the quaint Astros fans among us to decide is how much of our money we are going to give him. This year, next year when they change leagues, and most importantly the years after that when the NL and the Astros and any lingering resentment become a distant memory. Ten years from now it will be like a faded black-and-white of your grandparents; an anachronism, like watching the game through a knothole in the fence, an afternoon World Series, and starters that go nine innings every fourth day. Jim Crane's in it for the long haul, and I don't mean another World Series appearance. At least until his lawyers can find an 'out' in his Minute Maid Park lease.

How much of our money will we give to Jim Crane because of how much we love the idea of baseball. Not baseball the way they'll be playing it in MMP for the next few years, not the Astros... not even "our" team, the Houston What's-Their-Names, for that matter. How much are we willing to pay to cling to our warm childhood recollections.

What's the going rate on nostalgia these days? Jim Crane's about to set the local market.

(apologies to Kuff for appropriating enough of his blog post title to motivate a claim of plagiarism)

Update: Jim Crane hears you.

Houston progressive events on tap this week

At the top of my list this weekend:

Healthcare-NOW!

National Single Payer Strategy Conference in Houston

WHAT: Over 120 Representatives from 25 states and 52 organizations will meet in Houston this weekend to plan strategies to advance a single payer national health insurance plan in the USA. The best health care system plan for accessible, cost-effective, equitable and high quality health care is expanded and improved “Medicare for All”. Workshops and topics include:

*economic impact of the PPACA legislation, funding and affordability, the individual mandate, challenging electoral candidates to press forward for single payer during the election year

* defending attacks on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security

* health care inequities; exposing pharmaceutical and insurance industry corruption of government

* state plans for universal health care coverage

* building coalitions with faith-communities, professionals, peace, justice, consumer rights and labor groups

* shareholder “divestment” campaign from profit-making insurance companies

* connecting to the OccupyWallStreet movement and occupying the health care debate

* lessons from the southern states and the civil rights movement to achieve health care as a civil right

WHEN: Saturday, January 28, 2012 2pm-9pm and Sunday, January 29, 9:00am-5:00pm

WHERE: Hilton Hobby Hotel, 8181 Airport Blvd, Houston

Agenda here (.pdf). Conference info: http://www.healthcare-now.org/campaigns/strat-conf/ Co-sponsor host: Health Care for All Texas www.healthcareforalltexas.org

WHO: Senior leaders from national and regional coalitions, academic, medical care, health policy analysts, movie producers, videographers, writers and activists. Speakers available for interview include:

• Dr. Claudia Fegan, Chief Medical Officer, Ambulatory & Community Health Network, Cook County
• Dr. Walter Tsou, past president, American Public Health Association; Physicians for a National Health Program
• Michael Lighty, Director of Public Policy, National Nurses United
• Mark Dudzic, Labor Campaign for Single Payer Health
• Dr. Margaret Flowers, Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Health Care
• Dr. Jerry Frankel, Physicians for a National Health Program (Texas) www.pnhp.org
• Donna Smith, ("Sicko") American Patients United; California Nurses Association
• Tim Carpenter, Nat’l Director, Progressive Democrats of America
• Catherine Tactaquin, Executive Director, Nat’l Network for Immigrant & Refugee Rights
• Dr. Margaret Nosek, Executive Director, Center for Research on Women with Disabilities
• John Lozier, Nat’l Health Care for the Homeless Council
• Katie Robbins, Healthcare for the 99% -OccupyWallStreet-NY
• Laurie Simons & Terry Sterrenberg, producers, The Healthcare Movie http://healthcaremovie.net/

Contact: Colleen O’Brien, media representative, Health Care for All TX -Houston, www.hcfat.org

281-660-9765, cobrien1ster@yahoo.com, or Cathy Courtney, HealthcareNOW Conference Planning Committee -Houston 832-677-6766, houstonc3courtney@gmail.com

Earlier in the day on Saturday:

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Knowledge is Power.

When envisioning the future of women in Texas, one thing is certain — we have only just begun to tap into the dynamic resources that will help us transform into Women of Action.

Be a part of the change.

If you are impacted by changes in health care, education or economic opportunity, you should attend this informative and action-oriented summit. Get up-to-date information about changes in the laws and direction in health care, education and economic opportunity: what to expect; how to arm yourself with the most current resources for today and the future; and most importantly, how you can make a difference.

This free summit will offer:

· Meaningful workshops on Health, Education and Economic Well-Being
· Speakers with insight as to what is really happening to women’s resources and what can be done to improve our circumstances
· A Women in Action Panel where you can speak with experts on a variety of topics
· A Women's Resource Table Fair with a variety of businesses and organizations providing resource materials
· Networking opportunities with other women

You can speak up, be heard, and become a Woman in Action.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." -Margaret Mead

The Winter Women's Summit will include sessions on:

• Health Care Access to resources for women's health, children, and those affected by domestic violence and sexual assault.
• Education Success for Your Child in K-8 Education, The 12 Tests High School Students Must Pass, How to Fund Your Child's or Your College Education.
• Economic Well-Being Information about small business opportunities, alternative work solutions, and preparing for financial security.

Tomorrow evening:

HCDP Evening Brown Bag with Jessica Farrar and SOTU Watch Party

Representative Jessica Farrar had an opportunity to observe as the Supreme Court of the United States heard the oral arguments regarding redistricting in Texas.Join us on Tuesday, January 24th at 6:30pm at HCDP HQ as she will explain her experience, and the developments since.

Farrar is currently in her 9th term as state representative of District 148. She was first elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1994 at the age of 27, and she is the longest serving Hispanic member from Harris County in the Texas House of Representatives. She is also chair of the Texas House Democratic Caucus.

HCDP will also host a State of the Union Watch Party immediately after Farrar's talk starting at 7:45pm.

Wednesday afternoon:

Religion in the 2012 Elections

The Religion in the 2012 Elections symposium, sponsored by the Texas Freedom Network, takes place this Wednesday, January 25 at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy on the Rice University campus in Houston.

Event Details
When: Wednesday January 25, 1 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Where: James A. Baker III Hall, Rice University
Address: 6100 Main St. (Google Map)

Here is the agenda for the symposium.

(this event is free, but registration is full)

And Wednesday night:

An Evening with Pulitzer Prize-Winning Columnist Leonard Pitts
Wednesday, January 25 at 7 p.m., Congregation Emanu El, Houston

One of the most emotionally engaging columnists writing today, Leonard Pitts is beloved by readers for the thoughtful way he treats complicated issues involving religion, race, culture and politics. His nationally syndicated column appears regularly in newspapers around the country, and in 2004 Pitts was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for commentary. Also a bestselling author, his critically acclaimed first novel, Before I Forget, was released in 2009 and a collection of his columns, Forward From This Moment, was published that same year.

Purchase tickets for "An Evening with Leonard Pitts" here.

Judges deciding TX redistricting feel deadline pressure, pass it down

This just has the air of turning out badly for everybody.

Federal redistricting judges in San Antonio want to see if they can get agreement from the parties on political maps in time for an April 3 primary and said they are "giving serious consideration" to split primaries if no agreement can be reached by the first week of February.

The three federal judges said in an order issued this afternoon that they will meet with the parties on Friday instead of waiting until Feb. 1.

The five-page order is full of dates and deadlines:

• The judges say they will almost certainly move a candidate filing deadline (my emphasis) now set for Feb. 1.
• They said the parties should confer and submit agreed-upon interim maps for legislative and congressional elections by Feb. 6 if they "wish to maintain the current election schedule." If they can't agree, the judges want a list of districts in the Legislature's maps that each party no longer objects to.
• The parties are involved in hearings in Washington, D.C., where a separate panel of three federal judges is deciding whether the Legislature's maps violate preclearance provisions of the federal Voting Rights Act. Ideally, the San Antonio judges would have that court's ruling in hand before it approves redistricting maps. It's asking the lawyers to give the Washington court a nudge: "With high respect for the importance of that proceeding and the prerogatives of that court, this Court hereby requests both sides in the San Antonio proceedings to request, on behalf of this Court, that the D.C. Court attempt to rule on the Section 5 issues in time for this court to incorporate those decisions into its ultimate decision on the redistricting plans for the 2012 elections for the Texas House of Representatives, the Texas Senate, and the U.S. Congress."
• The Texas judges say they are giving "serious consideration to whether a so-called 'split primary' will be required" for this year's elections, and asked the lawyers to be ready to talk about it at the end of the week. They also want lawyers for the state to be ready to say whether the state would be prepared to reimburse counties and the political parties for the "substantial additional expense of a split primary."
• The judges asked for comments on the idea of a presidential primary on April 3 with most or all other elections held later. The earlier presidential primary would relieve the Republican and Democratic political parties, which hope to have the primary elections well before their state conventions in June. The Republican Party of Texas has suggested the split primary on several occasions; the Democratic Party, in filings this week, said it would prefer a unified primary if possible.

Hustled-up court decisions, rushed maps, split primaries, new voting requirements ... it all adds up to confused voters and poor turnout.

More from Michael Li. Shorter Michael Li, from Facebook:

BREAKING: Court says to keep unified April 3 primary, parties will need to agree on interim maps by 2/6. Otherwise, court giving 'series consideration' to split primary; wants to know if state will commit to reimburse added costs. Court considering presidential only primary on 4/3 or presidential + countywide/whole county on 4/3.

Election officials from your local precinct all the way to the Secretary of State will be pressured to make decisions -- or wait for decisions to be made. Candidates, potential and incumbent, won't know what the districts they intend to represent will look like -- and neither will the voters, until very late in the process. All while Republicans keep doing their dead-level best to gum up the works, disenfranchising even their own voters as they do.

This is what one-party rule looks like, from the bottom up.

Update:

When the San Antonio court set Feb 1st as the candidate filing deadline for a April 3rd election date organizations representing Texas counties told the court in a pleading that they had “serious reservations and concerns” about their ability to comply with the April 3rd election schedule. The county organizations said that compliance would be “extremely difficult and expensive” if even physically possible...” The counties said the Feb 1st — April 3rd timeline wouldn't leave them enough time to prepare an election that usually takes six to seven weeks to prepare. Today, the Republican Party suggests lopping another week off the April 3rd timeline.

County election officials must have election precincts mapped, voter registration cards printed and mailed, ballots prepared, and voting machines programmed and delivered to polling locations not by April 3rd, but a few days before March 19th, the first day of early voting for the April 3rd election date.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance thanks South Carolina for all the laughs as it brings you this week's blog roundup.

The big story last week was the SCOTUS ruling on interim redistricting maps. Off the Kuff has an initial look.

It turns out that PDiddie and Paula Deen have more in common than just their initials; there's also a morality tale involved. Read "Paula Deen, diabetes, and Novo Nordisk" at Brains and Eggs.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme is tired of the media ignoring grossly untrue, inflammatory, and just plain disgusting things Republicans like Rick Perry say.

Perry's run for the presidency is over! WCNews at Eye On Williamson posts on it here: Good riddance for now; Perry drops out.

This was a big week of action culminating in the defeat (for the time being) of SOPA, including January 18 when many sites blacked themselves out. Darth Politico refused to go dark, and instead went dork -- with a snark/irony blog supporting SOPA (or "Why Death Stars are a good thing").

At TexasKaos, Libby Shaw mourns for Texas in "Poor Texas: Forrest Homer Simpson is Coming Back". An eloquent requiem for a candidate who brought untold levels of derision to our state when he revealed how truly shallow and narcissistic he is. Give it a read!

Neil at Texas Liberal wrote this week abour how Houston school board member Manuel Rodriguez got away with using anti-gay campaign materials in his recent re-election victory. Everyday citizens, civil rights groups and the Houston GLBT political caucus all gave Mr. Rodriguez a free pass despite his hateful words.

Sunday Funnies