Redistricting trial looms over 2018 election

Summer trial likely; new maps need to be ready around Oct. 1.

With election SAN ANTONIO — deadlines looming, a federal court panel indicated Thursday that there will be a trial, likely this summer, over whether the Legislature drew illegal districts for the Texas House and U.S. House in 2013.

During a courtroom conference with the many lawyers involved in the case, the three-judge panel repeatedly pressed for a stream- lined process in a four-step case that has been winding toward a conclusion for years.

The court completed the first two steps earlier this year when, in separate 2-1 rulings, it found that Republicans in the Legislature improperly drew both maps in 2011 with the intent to gain partisan advantage by diluting the voting strength of minorities, who tend to favor Democrats.

Thursday’s conference was designed, in part, to plan the next two steps — challenges alleging that both maps, as redrawn in 2013, also violate the Voting

Speaking after the conference, Garza predicted that new maps, if needed, would be drawn by the court.

Rights Act and the Consti- tution.

Lawyers for civil rights groups, voters and politicians who challenged the maps

said they needed time to present new information and new analyses from experts to support maps that they

hope to submit to the court to increase minority voting strength in several districts. They also said experts needed to analyze results from the 2014 and 2016 elections that were held under

the current maps. Texas Assistant Attorney General Patrick Sweeten, who argued that the lawyers had improperly introduced new allegations of racial disparity in several districts, said adding new witnesses could delay the trial beyond upcoming election deadlines.

“We cannot proceed to a trial if there are new wit- nesses … in August,” Sweeten told the judges. “That is a very narrow window.”

The court also heard testimony that new maps would have to be ready by around Oct. 1 to meet deadlines

set by state law for creating precinct lines and to allow candidate filing for the 2018 primaries to begin, as scheduled, in mid-No- vember.

“It’s pretty clear there’s going to be a trial on the 2013 maps, and, hopefully, it will be scheduled in time for the 2018 elections,” said Jose Garza, a lawyer for the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, one of several groups that sued over the redrawn districts.

Speaking after the confer- ence, Garza predicted that new maps, if needed, would be drawn by the court.

The legal challenge to the redistricting maps began shortly after the Legislature completed its work on them in 2011, leading the three- judge panel to find several problems that it sought to cure by issuing new maps for use in the 2012 election. The Legislature adopted those redrawn maps in 2013.

Working methodically if slowly, the court held hear-

ings on the challenge to the 2011 maps in 2014 — issuing its first ruling 2½ years later with a March 10 decision that invalidated three congressio- nal districts, including one in Travis County, that the court said were intention- ally drawn to discriminate against African-American and Latino voters.

Last week, the court issued its ruling on the 2011 Texas House districts, saying the map was drawn to improp- erly dilute minority voting statewide and specifically in 12 districts in seven counties and the Rio Grande Valley.

U.S. District Judges Orlando Garcia and Xavier Rodriguez were in the major- ity of both rulings, with Justice Jerry Smith of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dissenting both times.

Also during Thursday’s conference:

The judges declined to hear arguments from several plaintiffs who were seeking an injunction barring Texas from using the three invalidated congressional districts — two which were unchanged, and one that was little changed, from 2011 and 2013.

The panel gave a skeptical reception to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s request for permission to appeal the court’s order finding voting-rights violations in the congressional districts. The court’s permission is needed because the order isn’t a final ruling on the case.

The judges heard arguments about Paxton’s request to dismiss the challenge to the 2013 m aps, arguing that lawmakers shouldn’t be faulted for following the judges’ direction when they adopted the court-drawn maps in 2013.

Garcia said the court will issue a ruling Monday on “several matters” discussed during the conference.

Contact Chuck Lindell at 512-912-2569. Twitter: @chucklindell