Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

Quico Canseco

Obama pledges to keep fighting for the Voting Rights Act

Let’s hold him to that.

President Barack Obama assured civil rights leaders Monday that he will aggressively protect minority voters in Texas and other states, a month after the Supreme Court ended decades of federal election scrutiny.

“The Supreme Court struck down one provision, not the entire act,” said Wade Henderson, president of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, after a meeting with Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder. He said they reaffirmed “the federal government’s overriding responsibility to protect democracy and the right to vote for all Americans.”

State Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, D-San Antonio, joined him and two dozen other activists for the private White House meeting.

He also came away optimistic, even if Congress — as most analysts expect — doesn’t restore federal oversight.

“If you look at an issue as contentious as the Voting Rights Act, you want an all-of-the-above strategy,” said Martinez Fischer, chairman of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus. The group has challenged the state of Texas over redistricting and a 2011 law to require voters to show photo IDs. “You want to have a congressional plan. You want to have an outreach plan. You want to have a litigation plan.”


On Thursday, Holder announced that the Justice Department would invoke an obscure provision of the law, Section 3, to ask a court to restore special oversight for Texas for a decade.

Gov. Rick Perry, state Attorney General Greg Abbott and other GOP leaders in Texas denounced the move as an effort to circumvent the Supreme Court.

Texas has a long history of voting rights violations. But state GOP leaders say its relatively high turnout among minority voters shows that ongoing scrutiny is unfair.

To borrow from our Vice President, that allegations that pursuing Section 3 claims is somehow “circumventing” the Supreme Court is pure malarkey. SCOTUS did not throw out Section 5, the preclearance section of the VRA, it threw out Section 4, which was the historic formula for determining who was subject to preclearance. Section 3 has been there all along, it was just not needed in Texas before now. All that’s happened is that the plaintiffs and now the Justice Department have filed motions with the federal courts that argue Texas should continue to be subject to preclearance under Section 3 of the VRA. Whatever the ruling, you can be sure that the matter will find its way back before the Supreme Court again. How that can possibly be considered “circumventing” is beyond me. And if the state of Texas really wants to end being subjected to this kind of scrutiny, perhaps it could put more effort into not passing discriminatory laws related to voting.

Texas Redistricting deals with this question as well.

In the eyes of the Supreme Court, the failure of Congress to update that formula when it renewed section 5 in 2006 created fatal constitutional problems for the formula because it treated states differently without – in the view of the Supreme Court – an any-longer valid reason for doing so.

But section 3 is different.

For starters, section 3 looks not at 1972 but at recent intentionally discriminatory behavior to decide if a state should be put under preclearance review. And it makes that determination on a case by case basis – letting courts tailor the remedy to the situation.

But, as importantly, it applies throughout the nation.

If Vermont engages in intentionally discriminatory behavior, it too could be placed under section 3 review. That makes section 3 very different from section 5, where the list of covered jurisdictions was effectively set in stone by a rigid, time-based coverage formula.

When elected officials complain – as a number have – that section 3 treats states differently, that’s tantamount to complaining that drunk-driving laws treat people who drink-and-drive differently from those who don’t. They do – but for good reason.

It’s worth your time as always to read in full. The comparisons to Texas as a drunk driver and a shoplifter are dead on.

In the meantime, I’m going to take freakouts like this as evidence that Perry, Abbott, et al are genuinely worried about the outcome.

Greg Abbott, the Texas attorney general and candidate for governor, today ramped up his attack on the president, accusing him of wielding the Justice Department for political purposes.

“Mr. Obama’s attorneys conceal this partisan agenda with lofty rhetoric about minority voting rights,” Abbott writes today in an anti-Obama screed in the conservative Washington Times.

Abbott’s commentary, published a day after the president assured civil rights leaders that he’ll press Texas and other states aggressively on minority voter rights, gets featured display in the Times.


Abbott argues that Democrats have used Voting Rights Act litigation to stymie GOP inroads with Hispanics. He blames redistricting litigation for forcing from office several Hispanic Republicans – state Reps. Jose Aliseda, Raul Torres, Aaron Pena and John Garza, and U.S. Rep. Quico Canseco.

Hilarious. The Republicans’ own efforts to woo Hispanic voters are stymieing enough; they don’t need any extra help in that department. As for that fabulous five of Republican Latinos, four were elected in the 2010 landslide, the other switched parties in a district that voted 70%+ Democratic. Even the Republicans’ heroic efforts to draw him a district he could win weren’t enough to keep Aaron Pena from chickening out before trying to run under his new colors. Quico Canseco was such an inept candidate that despite the various illegal methods employed to help him, he still wound up as the only GOP incumbent to lose in a district carried by Mitt Romney. They needed to cheat for him to win, and they couldn’t quite cheat enough, poor babies. Daily Kos has more.

Precinct analysis: Congressional overs and unders

To wrap up my look at 2012 versus 2008 results for all the new districts, here’s how the 36 Congressional districts compared.

Dist McCain Pct Obama08 Pct Romney Pct Obama12 Pct RIdx DIdx ============================================================================== 01 178,520 68.85% 78,918 30.44% 181,833 71.49% 69,857 27.47% 1.04 0.90 02 150,665 61.78% 91,087 37.35% 157,094 62.93% 88,751 35.55% 1.02 0.95 03 165,158 61.46% 100,440 37.37% 175,383 64.16% 93,290 34.13% 1.04 0.91 04 180,772 69.71% 75,910 29.27% 189,455 73.95% 63,521 24.79% 1.06 0.85 05 137,698 61.79% 83,216 37.34% 137,239 64.49% 73,085 34.35% 1.04 0.92 06 148,503 57.03% 109,854 42.19% 146,985 57.87% 103,444 40.72% 1.01 0.97 07 140,692 58.73% 96,866 40.44% 143,631 59.89% 92,499 38.57% 1.02 0.95 08 171,408 73.02% 61,357 26.14% 195,735 76.97% 55,271 21.74% 1.05 0.83 09 44,520 23.42% 144,707 76.12% 39,392 21.15% 145,332 78.01% 0.90 1.02 10 148,867 56.17% 112,866 42.59% 159,714 59.06% 104,839 38.77% 1.05 0.91 11 184,238 75.90% 56,145 23.13% 182,403 79.10% 45,081 19.55% 1.04 0.85 12 161,030 63.61% 89,718 35.44% 166,992 66.77% 79,147 31.65% 1.05 0.89 13 189,600 76.88% 54,855 22.24% 184,090 80.16% 42,518 18.51% 1.04 0.83 14 139,304 57.03% 102,902 42.12% 147,151 59.32% 97,824 39.44% 1.04 0.94 15 61,282 41.84% 83,924 57.3% 62,883 41.48% 86,940 57.35% 0.99 1.00 16 58,764 34.59% 109,387 64.39% 54,315 34.44% 100,993 64.03% 1.00 0.99 17 135,738 57.95% 95,884 40.94% 134,521 60.29% 84,243 37.76% 1.04 0.92 18 45,069 22.89% 150,733 76.57% 44,991 22.81% 150,129 76.11% 1.00 0.99 19 168,553 71.22% 66,122 27.94% 160,060 73.55% 54,451 25.02% 1.03 0.90 20 80,667 40.64% 115,579 58.23% 74,540 39.59% 110,663 58.77% 0.97 1.01 21 178,531 56.42% 133,581 42.21% 188,240 59.76% 119,220 37.85% 1.06 0.90 22 142,073 60.45% 91,137 38.78% 158,452 62.11% 93,582 36.68% 1.03 0.95 23 95,679 49.27% 96,871 49.88% 99,654 50.67% 94,386 47.99% 1.03 0.96 24 152,453 58.41% 105,822 40.54% 150,547 60.42% 94,634 37.98% 1.03 0.94 25 153,998 56.05% 117,402 42.73% 162,278 59.89% 102,433 37.80% 1.07 0.88 26 166,877 64.18% 90,791 34.92% 177,941 67.59% 80,828 30.70% 1.05 0.88 27 133,839 58.95% 91,083 40.12% 131,800 60.46% 83,156 38.15% 1.03 0.95 28 65,066 40.97% 92,557 58.28% 65,372 38.65% 101,843 60.21% 0.94 1.03 29 41,843 37.04% 70,286 62.22% 37,909 32.99% 75,720 65.89% 0.89 1.06 30 47,144 21.07% 175,237 78.33% 43,333 19.64% 175,637 79.61% 0.93 1.02 31 135,601 55.80% 103,359 42.54% 144,634 59.36% 92,842 38.11% 1.06 0.90 32 147,226 55.05% 117,231 43.83% 146,420 56.97% 106,563 41.46% 1.03 0.95 33 40,290 30.64% 90,180 68.57% 32,641 27.09% 86,686 71.93% 0.88 1.05 34 58,707 39.06% 90,178 60.00% 57,303 38.28% 90,885 60.71% 0.98 1.01 35 62,764 35.47% 111,790 63.18% 58,007 34.59% 105,550 62.94% 0.98 1.00 36 165,899 69.45% 70,543 29.53% 175,850 73.05% 61,766 25.66% 1.05 0.87

The main thing that stands out is CD23, which went from plurality Obama in 2008 to a slight majority for Romney in 2012. That means that Rep. Pete Gallego joins State Rep. Craig Eiland and State Sen. Wendy Davis in the exclusive club of candidates who won in a district that their Presidential candidate lost. Not surprisingly, Rep. Gallego is a marked man for 2014. CD23 was one of the more strongly contested districts in the litigation as well as in the election, and it is likely to be modified further no matter what happens to the Voting Rights Act, so Rep. Gallego’s challenge next year may be different than it was this year. He’s clearly up to it, whatever it winds up being. Beyond that, the pattern witnessed elsewhere held here, as blue districts were generally bluer than before, while red districts were redder. Dems can still hope for (eventually) competitive races in CDs 06, 10, and 32, but the task is harder now than it would have been in 2008. As for CD14, you can see that the hurdle was just too high for Nick Lampson. Barring anything improbable, that district is unlikely to repeat as one featuring a race to watch.

One other thing I did in these races was compare the performances of the Congressional candidates with the Presidential candidates in their districts. Here are some of the more interesting results I found:

Dist Romney Pct Obama12 Pct R Cong Pct% D Cong Pct Winner ============================================================================== 02 157,094 62.93% 88,751 35.55% 159,664 64.81% 80,512 32.68% Poe 06 146,985 57.87% 103,444 40.72% 145,019 58.02% 98,053 39.23% Barton 07 143,631 59.89% 92,499 38.57% 142,793 60.80% 85,553 36.43% Culberson 10 159,714 59.06% 104,839 38.77% 159,783 60.51% 95,710 36.25% McCaul 14 147,151 59.32% 97,824 39.44% 131,460 53.47% 109,697 44.62% Weber 20 74,540 39.59% 110,663 58.77% 62,376 33.50% 119,032 63.93% Castro 21 188,240 59.76% 119,220 37.85% 187,015 60.54% 109,326 35.39% L Smith 22 158,452 62.11% 93,582 36.68% 160,668 64.03% 80,203 31.96% Olson 23 99,654 50.67% 94,386 47.99% 87,547 45.55% 96,676 50.30% Gallego 25 162,278 59.89% 102,433 37.80% 154,245 58.44% 98,827 37.44% R Williams 27 131,800 60.46% 83,156 38.15% 120,684 56.75% 83,395 39.21% Farenthold 28 65,372 38.65% 101,843 60.21% 49,309 29.76% 112,456 67.88% Cuellar 31 144,634 59.36% 92,842 38.11% 145,348 61.27% 82,977 34.98% Carter 32 146,420 56.97% 106,563 41.46% 146,653 58.27% 99,288 39.45% Sessions 35 58,007 34.59% 105,550 62.94% 52,894 32.02% 105,626 63.94% Doggett 36 175,850 73.05% 61,766 25.66% 165,405 70.73% 62,143 26.57% Stockman

You can mostly break this down into three groups. The first is the Overacheivers, the Congressional candidates that clearly drew at least some crossover votes. On that list are Reps. Ted Poe, Joaquin Castro, Pete Olson, Pete Gallego, and Henry Cuellar. Olson, one presumes, benefited from being opposed by LaRouchie nutcase Keisha Rogers. We’ll have to wait to see how he’ll do against a normal opponent, which one hopes will be this time around. Castro and Cuellas can point to their numbers as evidence for statewide viability someday, if and when they choose to make such a run. Gallego obviously had to be on this list, or he wouldn’t be Rep. Gallego. I guess the Republicans knew what their were doing when they tried to pull all those shenanigans to protect Quico Canseco, because he really did need the help. As for Ted Poe, I got nothing. He’s not a “moderate”, and he’s not a heavyweight on policy or in bringing home the bacon as far as I know, so I don’t have a ready explanation for his success here. Feel free to share your opinion in the comments.

The second group is what I’d call Tougher Than They Look. Notice how Republican incumbents in the least-red districts suffered no dropoff in support from Romney, while their Democratic opponents did? I’m talking about Reps. Joe Barton, John Culberson, Mike McCaul, Lamar Smith, John Carter, and Pete Sessions; you can also throw Democrat Lloyd Doggett onto the list. Whether by accident or design, these Republicans may be harder to knock off down the line if and when their districts get bluer. Culberson is the oddball in this group, because he greatly underperformed in 2006 and 2008. I suspect he benefited from redistricting, in particular from losing some inner Loop precincts, as well as the general trend away from crossover voting, but we’ll see if this was a one-time thing or not.

Finally, there’s the Underachievers, who lost crossover votes to their opponents. Ex-Rep Quico Canseco is the poster child, but Reps. Randy Weber, Blake Farenthold, and Steve Stockman keep him company. Weber may get a mulligan, since he’s unlikely to face an opponent like Lampson again. Farenthold’s presence is intriguing. He’s a ridiculous person, who won in a fluke year and who needed a lot of help in redistricting, but a look at this result suggests that he just might be vulnerable to the right opponent. If the Battlegound Texas folks want to try some things out on a smaller scale, let me suggest CD27 as a proving ground. Finally, Stockman shows that even in a deep red district, nuttiness has some limits. Too bad it’s not enough to affect a November election, but maybe there’s a chance that a slightly less mortifying Republican could win next March.

We should expect boring Congressional races for the foreseeable future

That’s my takeaway after reading this.


For Pete Sessions, election night ended with yet another resounding send-off to Washington.

He won a ninth term, with 58 percent of the vote. But an analysis by The Dallas Morning News raises questions about how long the swath of Dallas and Collin counties that makes up Sessions’ 32nd Congressional District will remain safely Republican.

And more broadly, the 32nd is a microcosm of the challenges Republicans face maintaining control in congressional and legislative districts as the Hispanic population, which favors Democrats, continues to grow.

The district’s Hispanic-origin population will grow from 25.6 percent to 29.7 percent by 2016 and will only continue in years to come, according to population projections from Esri, a leading provider of demographic software and data. The percentage of registered voters in the district with Spanish surnames grew from 7.3 percent of eligible voters in 2002 to 8.8 percent in 2010.

Experts said that while changes are coming, Sessions should be safe for the next few elections.

“The big takeaway, looking at the last couple of elections in Texas, is that things are changing demographically — and that certainly has political implications,” SMU political scientist Matthew Wilson said. “But the partisan levels of those implications aren’t rising as quickly as the Democrats had hoped for.

“Change is slow, and looking at 2014 or 2016 as a tipping point might be getting ahead of the game a little bit.”

There were two competitive Congressional races this year, CD23 in which Rep.-elect Pete Gallego ousted freshman Rep. Quico Canseco, and CD14, in which Nick Lampson fell short in a race to succeed Ron Paul. The latter was basically only competitive because of Lampson, who represented a chunk of the new CD14 in his first years of service in Congress. Barring anything unusual, Rep.-elect Randy Weber will likely have a smooth ride in 2014. Only CD23 is likely to be seriously contested again.

I base this on a review of the 2008 results for the current districts and the actual results from this election. To put it mildly, there were no surprises.

Dist Obama Houston Dem Candidate Pct ========================================= 05 37.3 42.0 Mrosko 33.2 06 42.2 43.7 Sanders 39.2 07 40.4 39.1 Cargas 36.4 10 42.6 43.2 Cadien 36.2 14 42.1 47.5 Lampson 44.6 17 40.9 44.1 None 0.0 21 42.2 40.2 Duval 35.4 24 40.5 39.9 Rusk 36.0 25 42.7 43.5 Henderson 37.4 27 40.1 45.8 Harrison 39.2 31 42.5 42.4 Wyman 35.0 32 43.8 43.8 McGovern 39.4 Dist McCain W'wright GOP Candidate Pct ========================================= 15 41.8 37.3 Brueggemann 36.8 20 40.6 37.7 Rosa 33.4 23 49.3 45.0 Canseco 45.5 28 41.0 35.3 Hayward 29.7

These are all of the districts in which you could squint and see something potentially competitive based on either the Presidential number or the Sam Houston/Dale Wainwright number. Needless to say, that isn’t how it played out. Some of this is likely due to Obama’s reduced national margin from 2008, which is to say his decline among Anglo voters, some of it is likely due to the absence of resources at the state level, and some of it is likely due to the candidates themselves having little to no resources. Be that as it may, there’s nothing here to suggest there were any missed opportunities or any emerging hotspots. It’s CD23 all the way down.

There are two caveats to this. One is that we will not have the same Congressional districts in 2014. These were interim districts, to be used until the San Antonio court acts on the DC court’s denial of preclearance to fix the issues that the DC court identified. What the next map may look like and how this all may be affected by the upcoming SCOTUS review of Section 5 remains to be seen.

The other is that just because there won’t be competitive elections in November doesn’t mean there won’t be any in March. We saw one incumbent Congressman get bounced, thanks in part to some big external donors, but even if that group doesn’t play in 2014, the following members of Congress are, shall we say, less likely than some of their colleagues to make it to the next round of redistricting:

Sam Johnson, 82 years old.
Ralph Hall, 89 years old.
Kay Granger, 69 years old.
Rubén Hinojosa, 72 years old.
Eddie Bernice Johnson, 77 years old.
John Carter, 71 years old.

If nothing else, we’re likely to see a few spirited primaries in the coming years. Whether we get more than that or not remains to be seen.

First pass at analyzing the 2012 results

This is kind of a brain dump, based on the information available now. I’ll have plenty more to say once precinct data has been released.

– The current tally in the Presidential race on the Secretary of State webpage, with comparison to 2008, is as follows:

2008 Votes Pct =========================== McCain 4,479,328 55.45% Obama 3,528,633 43.68% 2012 Votes Pct =========================== Romney 4,542,012 57.19% Obama 3,285,200 41.36%

Slight uptick for Romney over McCain, slightly larger downtick for Obama. My sense is that this is mostly a turnout issue, that Obama’s coalition was mostly intact but not quite as fired up as in 2008, much like what we saw nationally. I think that’s fixable, but it’s going to take the same thing to fix it (money money money) as it has always been. I mean, Team Obama invested millions in a turnout operation in various parts of the country, and by all accounts it was successful. What effect might that have had here? I hope someday to find out.

– For all my skepticism of the polling in Texas, the pollsters were fairly in the ballpark on Romney’s margin of victory. I have to say, had you told me on Monday that Romney was going to win here by 16 points, I would never have believed that Wendy Davis and Pete Gallego would have won, and I would have doubted Dems’ ability to win the four contested seats in the Lege that they did. But they did, which is both a tip to the skill of the redistricters and a reminder that things could have been better. Overall, I’d grade it as a B- for Texas Dems – the Davis, Gallego, and Craig Eiland wins were huge, but there were missed opportunities, especially in Harris and Dallas Counties, where too many judges lost in the former and two Democratic legislative challengers fell just short in the latter.

– I don’t want to dwell too much on the legislative races, since we’re going to get a new map once the San Antonio court incorporates the DC Court’s ruling into their lawsuit, but there will clearly be more opportunities in 2014. Still, it should be apparent by now just how steep the hill is. Dems came close to parity in the Lege last decade in large part to a sizable rural contingent and an ability to win seats in otherwise-Republican districts. Well, the rural Dems are virtually extinct, and outside of Davis and maybe Eiland I doubt there were any crossover stars this time around; I’ll know for sure when I see precinct data. I still think there will be opportunities for both based on the forthcoming school finance ruling and 2013 legislative session, but we’re a long way from each and candidates still need to be found.

– One question I had going into this race was how well Obama would do in predominantly Latino areas. In 2008, Obama lagged behind the rest of the Democratic ticket in these areas, possibly due to lingering resentment over Hillary Clinton’s loss to him in the primary, but as we know Democrats nationally and Obama specifically have seen Latino support go up since then. Here’s a quick and dirty comparison to 2008 in some heavily Latino counties that will have to do until I get precinct data:

County 08 Obama 12 Obama 08 turnout 12 turnout ======================================================== Cameron 64.08% 65.72% 43.37% 41.46% El Paso 65.87% 65.63% 47.67% 44.58% Hidalgo 69.01% 70.42% 42.83% 45.59% Maverick 78.20% 78.60% 40.43% 37.84% Webb 71.44% 76.56% 44.40% 44.28%

Nice gain in Webb, modest gains in Cameron and Hidalgo. It’s a start.

– Congressional loser Quico Canseco is whining about fraud.

Gallego finished 13,534 votes ahead of Canseco early Wednesday morning.

“The race is not over, and it won’t be until all votes are properly and legally counted,” Canseco said in a statement the morning after the election.

Gallego campaign spokeswoman Rebecca Acuna said there is “no way” voter fraud occurred. “This just shows a lot about [Canseco’s] character, because he chose to go this route” rather than concede and congratulate Gallego, she said.

Canseco’s campaign alleges that officials in Maverick County double- or triple-counted some of the early vote sheets. A complaint to the Secretary of State indicates that Canseco’s campaign found a minimum of 57 duplicate votes when reviewing a list provided by the Maverick County Elections Office. The campaign also alleges that another county used photocopied ballots, a criminal offense, and that an extended delay in counting votes from other counties left “other questions unanswered.”

“There are too many disturbing incidents to declare this race over,” Scott Yeldell, Canseco’s campaign manager, said in a statement. “During the next several days we will be looking into these reports to assure only legal votes have been counted in this election.”

But Acuna said even if all the votes from Maverick County — where Gallego received 6,291 more votes than Canseco — were excluded, Gallego still would have come out ahead. “His argument — it’s not at all valid,” she said. “We won this race; it’s simple math.”

I don’t expect this to go anywhere.

– In Harris County, those last nine precincts were finally counted. Obama’s margin of victory in the county inched up to 585 votes, but as far as I can tell none of the downballot races were affected. Obama’s total was down about 6000 votes from 2008, while Romney improved on McCain by about 13,000 votes. Still, as noted in the comments yesterday, provisional ballots have not yet been counted, and overseas ballots are still arriving, Judges Kyle Carter (1,499) and Tad Halbach (2,786) had the smallest margins in those races, while Mike Sullivan also had a close shave, winning by 2,498 votes and a 48.94% plurality thanks to the presence of a Libertarian candidate that received 2.34%. I still don’t think any races are likely to change, but I daresay all three of these gentlemen will not rest easy until the counting has truly ceased.

– I have to mention a couple of national stories. First, Tuesday was a great day for marriage equality.

Voters in Maryland and Maine legalized same-sex marriage by popular vote Tuesday, the first time in U.S. history that gay marriage has been approved at the ballot box.

In Maryland, voters approved marriage equality 52 percent to 48 percent with 93 percent of precincts reporting, according to the Associated Press. The state government passed legislation legalizing same-sex marriage, but opponents succeeded in putting the issue on the ballot in November.

“Over these past few weeks, Marylanders joined together to affirm that for a free and diverse people of many faiths — a people committed to religious freedom — the way forward is always found through greater respect for the equal rights and human dignity of all,” Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D), a champion of marriage equality in the state, said in a statement late Tuesday.

The AP also declared Maine voters had approved same-sex marriage Tuesday after defeating a referendum on it just three years ago, a sign of how quickly Americans’ views on the issue are evolving. With 57 percent of precincts reporting, the ballot measure led 54 percent to 46 percent.

In a third victory for gay rights advocates, Minnesota voters defeated a state constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage, according to CNN and the AP. Thirty other states have gay marriage bans on the books, including North Carolina’s, approved as recently as May 2012.

Proponents of marriage equality were still hoping Wednesday for a fourth victory in Washington, where a measure to approve gay marriage was still too close to call as of Wednesday morning.

Remember when this was an issue used to bludgeon Democrats? Never again, and thank goodness for it.

Poor John Cornyn. At the beginning of this year, you could have gotten lower odds on the Astros winning the World Series than the Democrats not only holding the Senate but making gains. Yet that’s exactly what happened.

“It’s clear that with our losses in the presidential race, and a number of key Senate races, we have a period of reflection and recalibration ahead for the Republican Party,” the Texas Republican said in a statement released by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which he directs. “While some will want to blame one wing of the party over the other, the reality is candidates from all corners of our GOP lost tonight. Clearly we have work to do in the weeks and months ahead.”

As of early Wednesday morning, Democrats (with an assist by an Independent in Maine) had picked up four Republican seats while losing just one of their own. Not a single Democratic incumbent was defeated.

Cornyn, who hopes to win a party leadership position in the new Congress, is now explaining the reasons for the 2012 failure.

“We know that our conservative vision is the right one to secure a stronger America for future generations,” Cornyn said in his statement. “We know that we are the party of big, bold ideas with the courage to fight for what’s right even if it’s not politically expedient. It was that courage and that vision that led to important gains for our party in 2010. But all of us should continue to learn from both our victories and our defeats, and work together to build an even stronger Republican Party.”

Basically, the Republicans had first and goal at the one yard line. Then, after a false start, two quarterback sacks, and an intentional-grounding penalty, their 50-yard field goal attempt was blocked by Elizabeth Warren, and returned for a touchdown by Joe Donnelly. The Democrats then added insult to injury by going for two and converting successfully. You just cannot overstate the degree and the stunningness of the turnaround in fortune. And if Big John thinks that the Republicans should just keep doing what they’ve been doing, well, I won’t try to persuade him otherwise.

– Other results of interest: The city of Austin will adopt City Council districts, while League City banned red light cameras. At least some things never change.

That’s all for now. PDiddie, Mark Bennett, Murray Newman, Harold Cook, and TM Daily Post have more, while Texas Parent PAC takes a victory lap.

Canseco’s poll response

Rep. Quico Canseco has released his own poll in CD23.

New polling data released by Rep. Francisco “Quico” Canseco’s campaign shows the freshman congressman with a 10-point lead on his Democratic challenger, Pete Gallego. The new poll is radically different from the one released by Gallego’s campaign last month. That poll, conducted by the Democratic-leaning League of Conservation Voters, had Gallego with a five-point lead.

Canseco’s new poll, conducted by On Message, Inc. between Sept. 23 and 25, shows the Republican incumbent with a 47 to 37 percent advantage. Independent polling has been hard to come by in the race for the 23rd congressional district seat.

“All critical indicators of the political environment clearly demonstrate that the 23rd is headed our way from the top of the ticket on down,” said Wes Anderson of On Message, Inc., in a memo to the Canseco campaign.

The Gallego campaign said the Canseco-backed poll has a smaller sample size than polls their campaign conducted.

“The Canseco poll defies credibility and logic,” said Gallego campaign spokeswoman Rebecca Acuna. “The fact that they’re just now releasing a poll taken a week and half ago is a telling sign of trouble for their campaign.”

Acuna also said the poll likely under-samples the Hispanic vote.

As with the Gallego poll, I have no further information than this, so I cannot analyze it in any depth. My gut feeling is that a ten-point spread is unlikely in this swing district, but more than that I couldn’t say. Since I did mention when I wrote about that Gallego poll that one could draw an inference from the lack of response on Canseco’s part, I am obligated to note that he has now responded. So there you have it.

Poll claims lead for Gallego in CD23

A poll commissioned by the League of Conservation Voters shows Democratic challenger Pete Gallego with a lead in CD23.

Pete Gallego

Democratic challenger Pete Gallego is leading Republican incumbent Quico Canseco (43% Gallego / 38% Canseco) in the race to represent Texas’ 23rd Congressional District. The 23rd is a swing district that is very competitive at the top of the ticket, and Gallego is well-positioned to take advantage of Canseco’s unimpressive popularity and job rating. Gallego not only leads Canseco, but also critical undecided voters show a propensity to break for Gallego. If Gallego and his allies are able to fund a robust communication plan rebutting Canseco/GOP attacks, Gallego stands an excellent chance to oust the Republican incumbent.

Pete Gallego leads Quico Canseco by five points, and undecided voters appear more likelyto break Democratic than Republican.

Despite Canseco’s incumbency and name -ID advantages, Democrat Pete Gallegocurrently leads Canseco 43% to 38%.

Undecided voters (18% of the electorate) are disproportionately Hispanic, a group among whom Gallego overwhelmingly leads (60% Gallego / 20% Canseco).

That’s all from the polling memo, which doesn’t tell us much else beyond the fact that Obama led in their sample by a 46-45 mark, and Democrats were preferred to control Congress by 44-41. I don’t have the questions, partisan breakdown, or crosstabs, so I can’t give you any kind of analysis of this. However, I disagree with the assertion that this poll should be taken with a “big grain of salt”. It is just one data point, and it is of limited value since it has limited information, but as Steve Singiser pointed out awhile back, internal polls do tell us something, especially when only one side is releasing them. Far as I know, there’s been no counter-poll released by the Canseco campaign or an ally of it. For sure, they have their own data. If they’re not sharing it, they either feel sufficiently confident in their position to not bother with a response, or they don’t have a suitable rebuttal at hand. Which do you think is more likely? Canseco also has his own 47% issue, which I’m sure will come up in the voluminous advertising for the race. This will be a hard-fought race to the end, but it’s clearly one Gallego can win.

March fundraising reports for Congressional candidates

Here’s a roundup of campaign finance reports for Congressional races and candidates of interest. I’ve been collecting links to the reports for contested Democratic races on my 2012 primary pages.

Area races

Nick Lampson had a typically strong fundraising report, which brings him up to parity with most of his potential Republican rivals. James Old, Michael Truncale, and Randy Weber (by the way, welcome to the district, Randy) have raised more in total – they’ve also been in the race longer – but only Old has more cash on hand, and that’s likely to change by the time the primary rolls around. Lampson should be in good shape to take on whoever emerges from that cattle call.

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that Mike Jackson‘s fundraising in CD36 has been less than impressive? Just over $200K total, with $50K of that being loans, and $75K on hand, for a veteran legislator who’s been running since the beginning and is the consensus favorite? Sure, he’s got a clear path to the seat in November once he vanquishes his unheralded primary opponents, but that’s my point: The guy who’s gonna win generally has no trouble raking in the dough. Anyone want to venture a theory about this?

Along the same lines, what in the world is John Culberson spending all that money on? He’s got no primary opponent, a district that’s drawn for him to win, Democratic opponents who haven’t raised any money, yet he has a paltry $62K on hand, which is actually an improvement over the December report. He’s spending it as fast as he’s collecting it, and I have no idea why.

UPDATE: As Mainstream notes in the comments, Culberson does have a primary opponent, Bill Tofte. My confusion on that point stemmed from the fact that the FEC shows Tofte in CD36. Of course, they also show Ciro Rodriguez in CD35, plus a few other misplaced people. I presume Tofte re-filed in February and I missed it. My apologies for the confusion. At least now Culberson’s spending makes sense to me.


Beto O’Rourke now has more cash on hand than incumbent Rep. Silvestre Reyes, but Reyes has raised more than twice as much, spent almost five times as much, and recently received the endorsement of President Obama and former President Clinton. I don’t know offhand how much the Campaign for Primary Accountability may be spending against Reyes.

It’s basically a two-person affair in CD30, at least if you go by the fundraising reports. Incumbent Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson and challenger Taj Clayton have far outraised challenger Barbara Mallory Caraway; Johnson holds a better than two-to-one lead over Clayton in cash on hand. This is another race in which President Obama is supporting the incumbent, and it’s one in which things have gotten a little personal.

Pete Gallego has raised $590K, more than double the haul of former Rep. Ciro Rodriguez, who is still shown as running in CD35; several candidates who are now in CD34 are still shown in CD27 as well. Gallego has a ways to go to catch up to Rep. Quico Canseco, whose buddies are well aware he’s in for a fight this November. As far as I know neither Obama nor Clinton have weighed in on this race, but the League of Conservation voters endorsed Gallego recently.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett is again a million-dollar man and surely holds a wide lead in every financial category in his race. I can’t say exactly how wide because as of this posting, the March 31 report for Sylvia Romo has not been posted, but Postcards says Romo raised $52K between January 1 and March 31; add that to the $35K reported in her December report, and you get that Doggett has raised more than ten times as Romo. While the President has not offered an opinion on this race, however, Romo has the backing of most of the San Antonio political establishment and may wind up garnering some support in Austin after Statesman columnist Ken Herman wrote about her age in a way that probably won’t endear himself to some voters.

There’s a lot of money in the open seat cattle call of CD33, with a good chunk of it coming from the candidates themselves. David Alameel, who started in CD06 before the San Antonio court redrew its interim map, has loaned himself over $2 million so far. I have to say, that’s just nuts. I don’t know that it’s even possible to spend that much money in a Congressional primary; if it is, I’m not sure it’s advisable. The record of zillionaire first time candidates in Congressional races is not enviable. Former State Rep. Domingo Garcia wrote a $300K check for his campaign, and Chrysta Castaneda gave herself $65K. State Rep. Marc Veasey had the best non-self-funded haul at $177K, followed by former Dallas City Council member Steve Salazar at $77K. There are a couple of reports still outstanding. The Lone Star Project has an analysis of the candidates, though I’m pretty sure they’re not an unbiased source on this.

Joaquin Castro isn’t in a primary, but he sure continues to bring in the donations, a development that will undoubtedly make eyes twinkle at the DCCC. I could compare his performance to that of Mike Jackson, but it’s not really fair to do so, as Castro was going to be in a smoking hot primary for much of the cycle, and much of his total is the result of that. I still think Jackson is underperforming, though.

Ronnie McDonald made a big splash when he announced he was leaving his post as Bastrop County Judge to pursue a seat in either the Texas Lege or Congress, but so far his choice to go for CD27 hasn’t translated to fundraising success. Rose Meza Harrison, who was in the race before he was, has outraised him so far and has more cash on hand, though neither is remotely in Rep. Blake Farenthold‘s neighborhood. I hope McDonald responds to my email requesting an interview, I’d love to ask him why he chose this race, which always seemed objectively less winnable to me.

Republican Reps. Ralph Hall and Smokey Joe Barton have been targeted by the Campaign for Primary Accountability, but it’s not clear to me they have much to worry about. Hall isn’t exactly swimming in cash, but his main opponent has collected less than $10K of other people’s money. Of Barton’s opponents, Joe Chow has raised a respectable $162K, but he’s got a high burn rate and has only $28K on hand. Itamar Gelbman‘s $185K is almost entirely his own money, but he’s hardly spent any of it. CPA has its work cut out for it.

To put this in some perspective, Barton has $1.3 million on hand after having raised $976K and spent $1.1 million. CPA has raised $1.8 million and spent $1.2 million, leaving it with $588K on hand; their totals are through February 29, not March 31. They do have a stable of well-heeled donors, though curiously enough none of the $100K+ club has given anything in 2012. That could have changed since March 1, or could change any day, of course, but my point is that some targets are softer than others.

Finally, in CD34 Filemon Vela reported $245K total, of which $150K was his own. That leaves Armando Villalobos with the biggest actual haul at $157K. Ramiro Garza ($138K, including $58K in loans), Denise Saenz Blanchard ($104K, $10K in loans), and Anthony Troiani ($56K) followed behind.

Update on the redistricting settlement possibility

Late Friday we heard about the possibility of a settlement agreement in the redistricting lawsuit in San Antonio, with the idea of coming up with an interim map in time to keep the primaries on April 6. Here’s an update on that from the Chron.

Under the arrangement outlined during the hearing, the parties would negotiate each of the challenged districts separately and the court would draw the boundaries for districts where an agreement could not be reached.

[Assistant Attorney General David] Mattax said they could announce agreements on some of the districts as soon as Sunday or Monday.

“If it’s possible to have a primary in April, why don’t we at least set that as a goal to do that?” asked Texas Republican Party Chairman Steve Munisteri, who said it is still in the “realm of possibility” to have an April primary.

He acknowledged that the court could give the state some flexibility in dealing with the MOVE Act, which requires ballots to be sent to troops and citizens abroad at least 45 days before an election.

The Justice Department objected to that request, so it’s no sure thing. In any event, the San Antonio court told both sides to get a move on if they want a chance to salvage the April primary date.

Is there an end in sight?

U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia told an attorney for the state that the parties should try to agree “to as many districts as possible” by early next week “if you want to have an election in April.”

He also said the parties should agree to an election date in case the maps can’t be done in time for an April election.

Assistant Attorney General David Mattax said the state wants to have a unified primary, and they want to have it in April. He said the state hasn’t appropriated the money for extra elections. That’s a new position. In hearings last month about moving the primaries, the state didn’t take a position on whether the primaries should be split or not.

The judges are concerned about the timetable. Election administrators across the state have said they need 60 to 80 days after maps are completed to pull an election together. To hold an election on April 3, they’ve told the court that they need maps by the end of the month. “How are we supposed to get all of this done by the 1st?” asked an obviously frustrated [Judge Xavier] Rodriguez.

“It can’t be done,” Garza answered. He reads the Supreme Court’s recent decision to mean the worries of the state parties are “secondary” to the need to hold fair elections. The parties hold their state conventions in early June and must hold primaries in advance as part of their nominating process.

“Those are party issues,” Garza said, in response to a question from [Judge Jerry] Smith. “I’m not saying they’re not important … but they must take a back seat.”


Garcia said the lawyers should meet over the weekend to figure out what they can agree upon. “Monday or Tuesday, you tell us the districts you’ve agreed upon or you’ll tell us the date you’ve agreed upon if it’s not going to be April,” he said.

Judge Garcia later said basically that they either have a map by February 6 or they can kiss the April 3 primary good-bye.

Michael Li sums it all up.

Settlement discussions

The other big development of the day (maybe the biggest) was the emergence of serious discussions about a settlement on the maps, with intense negotiations expected to continue this weekend.

David Mattax, the state’s lawyer, explained that what the state was proposing was a deal on interim maps, not permanent maps.

Mattax said that under the deal he was trying to work out, if redistricting plaintiffs proposed maps in areas where the state agreed that there were legitimate issues of dispute, the state would not object. Mattax conceded, though, that other parties (such as Congressman Barton) might object. Mattax also recognized that complete agreement with redistricting plaintiffs might not be possible. But Mattax said he hoped to at least be able to narrow the issues for the court before February 6 in an effort to facilitate getting maps by mid-February.

If this sounds like a significant sea change from the state’s prior position, it certainly seems to be. And at least some reports are that Republicans are willing to make significant concessions.


Drawing new maps

If the parties are not able to agree on interim maps, or substantially narrow issues, the court did not indicate when it expected to be able to complete maps.

However, the judges repeatedly raised questions about how they would be able to draw maps quickly in that instance, with Judge Rodriguez noting that they had even yet received the record and transcript from the D.C. case.

There also were questions about whether to wait for a ruling in the preclearance case from the D.C. court. In middle of the hearing, the court took a recess to call the D.C. court to discuss timing with Judge Collyer, though the judges were mum about what they learned.

While the state said it thought the court could move quickly, plaintiffs disagreed noting that the record in the D.C. case was different than in the case tried before the San Antonio court. They also said they thought the burden imposed by the Supreme Court’s ruling was more complicated than the state suggested. That position was supported, in part, by lawyers for Joe Barton who argued that the court would benefit from evidence about section 5 issues before making any significant changes to the map.

Emphasis mine. That sure sounds like a big effin’ deal to me. Obviously, the plaintiffs, whose interests are mostly but not entirely aligned, would have to come up with something – remember, there are three maps in dispute here – and there would have to be no objections from other intervenors such as Congressmen Barton and Canseco, but I would think the plaintiffs would have strong incentive to work something out. I’m very hopeful, that’s for sure. The other news of interest is that the previous court order that included things like a secondary filing deadline of February 1 has been suspended pending the outcome here. There will still be a second filing period, we just don’t know when it will be yet. Stay tuned.

Hochberg bows out, Gallego makes it official

I am totally bummed out by this.

The Legislature’s foremost expert on school finance and one of its top public education advocates, state Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, confirmed this afternoon that he won’t seek re-election next year.

Hochberg, who took office in 1993 and is now the vice chairman of the House Education Committee and the chairman of the education subcommittee on the House Appropriations Committee, said the time had come for him to pursue something new.

“Being in this job and trying to do it well is a continual thing, as any member will tell you, after a certain amount of time, I think the grind just wears people down,” he said, “I love working on all the problems we work on, but it’s 24/7 and it makes it hard to focus on anything in specific.” He brushed off any suggestion that his absence would leave an void of leadership on school finance issues.

“Nobody’s indispensable,” he said. “The state survived a lot of years before I was in the Legislature, and will continue to after I’m not.”

That’s true, and it’s completely in chacter for Rep. Hochberg to say something like that, but let’s face it: The Lege will miss him, especially in a year where school finance will be once again near the top of the list. So far I’m aware of two people who have expressed an interest in running to succeed him. One is Joe Madden, currently the chief of staff for Rep. Garnet Coleman and the executive director of the Legislative Study Group, the other is Jamaal Smith, former Execuitve Director, Deputy Campaign Manager, and Campaign Manager for the Harris County Democratic Party and Coordinated Campaign. Both would be good candidates; we’ll see if one steps aside or if they both file. I join many others in thanking Rep. Scott Hochberg for his service in the Lege, I wish him the very best for the future, and I look forward to supporting his successor. Greg has more.

Also leaving the Lege, in this case seeking a promotion, is Rep. Pete Gallego, who made his official filing for CD23 yesterday.

Gallego will formally become a candidate on his 50th birthday. He spent Thursday in San Antonio raising money for his congressional bid.

“I run every race as if it’s a tough race. This is no different — except that my opponent this time self-funds his campaign,” said Gallego, a 20-year veteran of the Texas House.

Canseco, R-San Antonio, has bankrolled $460,641 for his campaign, nearly four times the $133,233 Gallego reported in his war chest, according to the Federal Election Commission.

However, Canseco also has nearly $700,000 in campaign debt from a $1 million loan from a previous election cycle.

Democrat John Bustamante, a San Antonio lawyer, has $260, according to the FEC, and is expected to challenge Gallego in the March 6 primary.

The national parties have targeted District 23, redrawn by a federal court after Democratic challenges to a Republican redistricting plan passed by the Legislature.

The Lege’s loss would be Congress’ gain if he wins. I feel pretty confident that this one will be on the national radar. Stace has more.

Interim maps and the DC preclearance case

The federal court in San Antonio has been hearing arguments about proposed interim Congressional maps this week. Michael Li summarizes the plaintiffs’ case for why the map adopted by the Lege cannot be used, even as a starting point.

Right off the bat, the panel began by asking lawyers for the plaintiffs whether it would be possible to use uncontroversial portions of the state’s maps to form the core of the interim maps, citing the Panhandle as one example of an area where none of the plaintiff groups had alleged any problems.

Jose Garza for MALC gave the main presentation for plaintiffs and told the court that was impossible.

Until there is an adjudication that a map does not retrogress, Garza explained, a map cannot be used.

Garza distinguished the current situation from that in the Upham case cited by the state where the Department of Justice had objected to some parts of a map but not to others. In that case, Garza explained, the state (also Texas) had sought preclearance through an administrative proceeding before the DOJ. By contrast, in this case, the state had elected to go to a different decisionmaker- the three-judge panel in Washington – and, as a consequence of its own choice, there was no binding adjudication clearing portions of the maps.

Any other course would turn section 5 on its head, Garza said, by allowing a state to do exactly what section 5 prohibited – i.e., putting into effect an unprecleared map.

Garza further explained to the court that both the DOJ and intervenors in the D.C. case were alleging that the state’s maps were the product of a discriminatory purpose. According to Garza, this discriminatory purpose “infected’ the entire map and made it suspect.

Rather than starting with the state’s maps, lawyers for the plaintiffs told the court that the proper starting point for interim maps was the last legally enforceable map, i.e., Plan C100 – the current 32 district map.

The state naturally disagreed with that, and argued they were due some deference on the legislatively passed map. The questions they got from the judges over their argument seemed to indicate they did not see it that way.

If the judges agree with the plaintiffs, all of whom submitted their own proposals, what should the court use to guide it? The plaintiffs have a plan for that.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the panel asks the plaintiffs if they might be able to narrow the maps at issue by agreeing to maps or parts of maps. Jose Garza told the court that he thought at a minimum the plaintiffs would be able to clarify which of the other parties’ maps they endorsed and would try to have an announcement for the court when hearings resume Thursday morning.

The plaintiffs are expected to wrap up the congressional map portion of the hearing Thursday morning before moving on to interim state house maps.

Hearings on an interim state senate map are currently scheduled for Friday morning, but the parties indicated they might be ahead of schedule and would be prepared to do the senate map portion of the hearings on Thursday as well.

There was also discussion about a “compromise” map put forth by Reps. Henry Cuellar and Quico Canseco, and what disagreement there was among the plaintiffs mostly centered on Travis and Bexar Counties.

Meanwhile, arguments in the DC preclearance lawsuit got underway yesterday. Here’s an overview of the players involved, the arguments each side will be making, and the stakes.

Do the maps go into effect if the panel agrees with the State of Texas and grants preclearance?

No, not necessarily.

The state still will need to get past the panel in the parallel San Antonio case.

That panel last month heard claims under section 2 of Voting Rights Act that the state failed to create enough minority opportunity districts and various other constitutional claims but has been waiting to rule until a decision on preclearance.

Well, what happens if the court agrees with DOJ and the intervenors and holds that the maps are not enforceable?

If DOJ and the intervenors prevail, action still would shift back to San Antonio for the court there to draw remedial maps to remedy defects found by the D.C. court as well as to address any issues raised in the San Antonio case.

The degree of latitude the San Antonio court will have in drawing maps will depend on whether the entire map is invalidated or only parts of the map.

In theory, Governor Perry also could decide to call a special session of the Texas Legislature to draw replacement maps, but even the state’s lawyers concede that is not realistic since election deadlines are coming up and any legislatively passed map would need to go back through the preclearance process.

What about those election deadlines?

Right now, the candidate filing period in Texas opens November 12 and is scheduled to close December 12. However, the panel in the San Antonio case has indicated that it is likely to alter some of those deadlines.

The San Antonio court has asked the parties to submit proposed orders by 10:00 a.m. on Friday, November 4, with their suggestions for changes that need to be made. The expectation is that the court will enter an order by the end of the day.

More on the discussion about election deadlines can be found here:

The state has also made explicit its belief that the whole preclearance process is itself unconstitutional. Needless to say, that would be a big effing deal if it carries the day.

Whatever the case, no one expects the DC court to rule any time soon, so interim maps are all but guaranteed. And at least for the Congressional map, that looks like good news for Democrats.

If the Republican map became law, the GOP would likely enjoy a 26-10 advantage in the state House delegation, up from the 23-9 edge the party has now. But a court-drawn map will likely give Democrats 12 or 13 seats instead.

Republicans put themselves in this predicament with an aggressive gerrymander that might not pass legal muster. They also failed to pass a map with enough time to get it cleared in Washington, and opted to go through the courts instead of the Department of Justice, a much slower process.

The high stakes of the case could observed in the attendees: Top lawyers and strategists for both parties came to watch Wednesday’s oral arguments, as did Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas).

After judges questioned representatives of the state of Texas as well as officials from the Justice Department and civil-rights groups that are working to stop the map, they made it clear they would not approve the map early enough for it to be implemented in time for next year’s election.

They also seemed skeptical of the arguments Texas’s attorneys made about which factors should determine whether the state maps discriminated against minority voters — an ominous signal for the map down the road — and at times showed deference to Justice Department officials regarding some details of the case. Since those officials already have objected to aspects of the map, that is another bad sign for Texas Republicans.

Bear in mind that a 24-12 split, which would be a shift of two seats to the Democrats, still represents a two to one advantage for the Republican delegation. Outside of the 2010 anomaly, Texas is not a two-thirds red state. 23-13 is 64% GOP, still above the normal high water mark. A truly “fair” map, one that approximates the state’s normal statewide partisan performance, would be something like 57-43 GOP, or 21-15 in terms of the delegation. As I recall, only one of the Democratic maps proposed during the special session was that aggressive. Honestly, 23-13 is the best anyone can reasonably hope for – it basically means Dems get all four new seats – but forgive me if I temper my enthusiasm just a tad.

It’s unclear, and so far unreported, if there will be an interim map for the Lege and the Senate. Given that the Justice Department also objected to the Lege map, it’s hard to imagine there won’t be a court-drawn solution there as well. The Senate is more of an open question, since the DOJ took a pass on it. I guess we’ll find out soon enough. EoW has more.

UPDATE: And here’s a report from the DC Court hearing yesterday.

Third quarter Congressional fundraising

The Trib has the highlights from some of the contested Congressional primaries that are shaping up.

Texas congressional incumbents raised more than $4.7 million during the third quarter of the year, but some of them face challengers who also displayed a knack for raising political cash. New fundraising reports show what’s in the war chests of Texans vying for seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, giving definition to some of the state’s most closely watched races.

State Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-San Antonio, wowed by bringing in more than $500,000 for his challenge to U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin. Doggett raised $377,000 by comparison – but he reported millions more in cash on hand, $3.3 million to Castro’s $389,000.

U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-El Paso, raised almost $290,000 in the third quarter, far outpacing his first serious challenger, Beto O’Rourke. The former El Paso City Council member raised almost $26,000 and ended the quarter with about $12,000 on hand to Reyes’s $276,000.

State Rep. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine, reported another of the top challenger fundraising numbers – about $137,500 – in his contest with U.S. Rep. Francisco “Quico” Canseco, R-San Antonio, who raised slightly less. The incumbent reported about $460,000 in cash on hand to Gallego’s nearly $136,000.

You should read that linked story about Beto O’Rourke, which I saw at the time but didn’t get a chance to write about. I don’t have anything in particular against Rep. Silvestre Reyes, but a young, aggressive progressive like O’Rourke is exactly the kind of person I want to see succeed in politics. O’Rourke has no money to speak of yet, but if you look at his campaign finance report, you see that he only filed his initial paperwork on August 26, so there wasn’t much time to raise money for this period. We’ll see how he does in the next quarter.

I should note that State Rep. Pete Gallego, whose report is here, also didn’t file paperwork until late in the quarter. He did pretty well for himself, which is very encouraging, as Rep. Gallego is another person I’d like to see succeed.

That covers three of the four contested Dem primaries that I know of for this cycle. The fourth is in CD30, where Rep. Eddie Berniece Johnson already has one opponent in State Rep. Barbara Mallory Caraway and may soon have another in businessman Taj Clayton. Rep. Johnson raised $82K for the period and has $223K on hand, not great but probably okay for a longtime incumbent who is well known. Rep. Caraway does not have a report visible through the search facility, but she does have a report. It’s here, and it was done by hand. No, I don’t understand why anyone would do it that way if they didn’t have to, either. In any event, she raised $13K and has $7K on hand, all from the month of September; note that in addition to the old-school handwriting, the form was filed for 2010 and not 2011. Hopefully, she’ll get her act together for the next quarterly filing. Thanks to DavidNYC for pointing this out to me.

I should note that the Trib provides a handy app that summarizes all candidates’ totals. I was a bit confused at first by the differences between their numbers and what you see in the FEC reports, but eventually it dawned on me that the totals the FEC gives for receipts are cumulative for the cycle, and not just the amouint raised in the given period. This is not how the state and city reports are done, which is why I was thrown off. In any event, the Trib’s app lets you know how much was raised over the past three months, which would be hard to do otherwide unless you had saved a query result from July.

Two other numbers of interest to note. Freshman Rep. Blake Farenthold was cited by Politico as an underperformer for this period, having raised a mere $102K. He does have $277K on hand, which isn’t nothing but also isn’t exactly insurmountable. You can see his FEC report here. Farenthold was by no means the low scorer – by my count, ten incumbents raised less, and eleven others have less cash. Fellow freshman Quico Canseco, in what is now a swingier district, raised $112K, but has $460K on hand.

And finally, a number to make you shake your head.

Seeking to gin up enthusiasm about an expanding the 2012 Senate map, national Democrats touted the candidacy of retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez when he entered the Texas Senate race in the spring. But Sanchez has maintained a low profile so far and his latest fundraising numbers aren’t impressive.

In the third quarter, Sanchez brought in just $83,000, spending over $112,000 and finishing the quarter with about $119,000 in the bank.

Yeah, that’s what I call a truly crappy report. I hope it’s because he has not been fully engaged in fundraising yet and not because no one is giving anything. At least there’s no place to go from here but up.

The interim plans

Monday was the deadline for parties in the redistricting lawsuit being heard in San Antonio to file interim plans for the court to consider in the event preclearance is not granted in time for candidate filing. Texas Redistricting summarizes the various plans that were presented to the court:

The Plaintiffs’ Interim Plans

All of the plaintiffs’ plans have substantial similarities, though they differ in the details.

All would add a new Hispanic opportunity district in North Texas, and all, in some way, would restore Lloyd Doggett’s congressional seat (CD-25)- most by creating a ‘tri-ethnic’ coalition seat strongly anchored, if not wholly contained, in Travis County. All also would make adjustments to CD-23- currently represented by freshman Republican, Quico Canseco- to improve the district’s ability the elect the “Hispanic candidate of choice.”

However, there also are divergences.

Proposals submitted separately by MALC and State Senator Wendy Davis and State Representative Marc Veasey would create an additional African-American opportunity district in the DFW Metroplex (CD-35 in both Plan C211 and Plans C202 and C204).

By contrast, the Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force and Travis County plaintiffs would forgo that seat and, instead, create a new Hispanic opportunity seat in Harris County (CD-36 in the Task Force’s Plan C213 and CD-36 in the Travis County plaintiffs’ Plan C166).


The State of Texas’ position

In its papers, the State of Texas, not surprisingly, takes the position that the panel should simply adopt the legislatively passed maps as the interim maps, arguing that the “intent of the State of Texas … is due great deference when the judiciary intercedes in the province of the legislative branch.”


Congressman Canseco

Freshman Republican Congressman Quico Canseco (CD-23) also has submitted two interim congressional map proposals (Plan C209 and Plan C212).

During trial on the claims before the San Antonio court, the court expressed a number of concerns about changes to CD-23 under the state’s map.

In response to concerns raised by the court at trial, both these maps would create a new Hispanic opportunity district in North Texas that is substantially identical to the district included in Congressman Lamar Smith’s proposal to the Texas Legislature in April 2011.

You can see links to all of the briefs that were filed at that post, and you can see the all of plan numbers here. All proposed interim maps can be found at To view a map, click on ‘select plans’ and then ‘base plan.’ The congressional and state house plans are filed under Exhibits in Perez v. Perry, and state senate plans can be found under Exhibits in Davis v. Perry. You can zoom in on these maps to see street-level detail, which I needed to do during the legislative process to see which district my house was being moved to. The parties have until Monday the 24th to respond to any plan they object to – one presumes the plaintiffs have already made their feelings clear about the legislative maps, but I imagine they might reiterate those feelings, just in case – and on Wednesday, November 2 there will be a hearing at which the plans get formally presented. This Statesman story and Randy Bear have more, and an explanation of State Sen. Wendy Davis’ proposed Senate map is here.

Another entrant in CD23

The Democratic field in CD23 has gotten bigger, and may grow again.

Manny Pelaez, a trustee of VIA Metropolitan Transit, has filed a statement of candidacy for Congressional District 23, a seat held by U.S. Rep. Francisco “Quico” Canseco, R-San Antonio.

Pelaez, 37, is running as a Democrat.

That pits him in the March primary against declared candidate Ciro Rodriguez, a veteran Southside politico whom Canseco defeated last year.

Pelaez was out of the country and not available for comment Monday.

“This filing is the first step in the process of determining whether or not my candidacy for congress (sic) is the right thing for this district, my family, and for me,” he wrote in a prepared statement. “Over the next several weeks, I’ll be having some serious talks with leaders from all corners of the district to better understand their priorities and needs. In the meantime, however, I’m just exploring and carefully considering all options.”

State Rep. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine, said Monday that he’s considering a challenge in District 23 but had not decided to run.

“I certainly think that if I join in the fray, I’d do fairly well,” he said.

Other than what’s in this story, I know nothing about Mr. Pelaez. Rep. Gallego is a valued member of the House Democratic Caucus, and his departure would be a loss if he chooses to run for CD23, but that’s what having new blood is all about. I will wish him all the best if he decides to jump into this race. I have nothing against Ciro Rodriguez, who was and would be a good member of Congress, but as I’ve said before no one is entitled to a nomination. A little competition would be good for everyone. More to the point, having viable candidates run for offices that are currently held by Republicans is a healthy and necessary step for 2012 and beyond. We’re not going to get anywhere if we don’t run some races we could lose.

Oh yeah, someone is running in CD23

Scott Stroud reminds me that the Democrats do have a candidate for that other Congressional race in Bexar County.

Although Democrats are already buzzing about the looming Interstate 35 tussle between Congressman Lloyd Doggett and state Rep. Joaquín Castro for a new congressional district, Congressman Francisco “Quico” Canseco’s defense of his sprawling district might turn out to be the better story.

Canseco, so far, has one declared opponent — the man he defeated in 2010, Ciro Rodriguez. But while Doggett and Castro are fighting over a sure Democratic seat, national Democrats will need to reclaim District 23 to have any shot at a congressional majority.

“If we can’t win seats at that level,” said Adrian Saenz, a Democratic consultant who has worked with Rodriguez in the past, “there’s no way we can win back the House.”

And yet the list of Democrats who looked at District 23 and passed keeps growing. It includes Castro, former City Councilman Justin Rodriguez, state Reps. Mike Villarreal and Trey Martinez Fischer, and state Sens. Carlos Uresti and Leticia Van de Putte.

Republicans, meanwhile, seem content to let Canseco defend his turf. He’s one of a handful of Hispanic Republicans in Congress, and with America becoming more Latino in a hurry, that’s an asset the GOP wants to build on. That helps explain why lawmakers added GOP voters to District 23 — and removed Hispanic voters in favor of others less likely to show up.

That might not withstand a challenge in the court battle over redistricting — another reason it’s puzzling that so many contenders took a pass.

I don’t find that part so puzzling. If the Justice Department takes action, it will happen before the filing deadline. If it’s left to the courts, there won’t be a final ruling for years; likely not till the 2016 election, as I’ve suggested before. Ciro Rodriguez is an acceptable candidate if not a terribly exciting one – Stroud says “this race cries out for a jolt of new energy” and I don’t disagree with that. He’ll need to do better on the fundraising trail – his July report shows $98K raised and $51K on hand, while Canseco greatly improved his position with a $579K haul, leaving him with $481K on hand. Not insurmountable, especially if the winds shift back, but quite a decent head start. I’m glad there is someone with experience running in CD23, but my concern that this race isn’t getting the attention it deserves remains.

Doggett v Castro by the numbers

Greg looks at primary results from the last two cycles in the newly drawn CD35, and finds confirmation of the convention wisdom that Rep. Lloyd Doggett has his work cut out for him against State Rep. Joaquin Castro. Go take a look and see for yourself, then check out NewsTaco and Somos Tejanos for a few words with Rep. Castro.

There are two things that need to be said here. One is that these numbers are publicly available, and anyone with any skin in this game is well aware of them. What that means is that if Castro had not jumped into this race, somebody else would have. Maybe that person would make a better member of Congress than Castro would, and maybe not, but one way or another Lloyd Doggett was going to be challenged if he ran in CD35, and recent electoral history suggests he’d be an underdog. To me, the question is not just whether or not Castro is more progressive than Doggett but whether or not Castro is preferable to anyone else that might have run instead. I don’t want to sound like I’m writing Doggett’s political obituary here, because no one has run an ad yet, never mind cast a vote, but the prospects of him being ousted are very real. It’s worth thinking about whether or not Castro is the best alternative we were likely to get.

The other thing is that CD35 is not the only attractive opportunity for an ambitious young Democrat in Bexar County, though it is the only one on anyone’s radar right now. As we know, CD23 is the most Democratic-leaning of the currently Republican-held Congressional districts. In some ways, given the longer time frame, the possibility of an active Presidential campaign behind you, and the fact that Lloyd Doggett starts out with an order of magnitude more cash on hand than Quico Canseco, one could argue that a challenge in CD23 might be less arduous, even given the relative tilt of each district. Be that as it may, if the only high profile candidacy to come out of Bexar County this year is Castro’s campaign against Doggett, then the 2011 Republican redistricting effort is as big a triumph for them as they could have wanted. If the only risks Democrats are willing to take are in our own sandboxes, we’ve already lost.

Plans from an alternate universe: The Veasey-West plan

Congressional redistricting, which took so long that it couldn’t be done during the regular session, has zipped through the special session, thanks in no small part to the virtual elimination of public testimony. At this point, the full House needs to pass the map that emerged from the House Redistricting Committee last week, then either the Senate must concur or a conference committee will be formed.

All this you know. What you may not know is that along the way there were some interesting alternative plans put forth by various Democratic legislators. None of them ever had a chance of being adopted, of course, but all of them served the purpose of showing what could have been for the eventual litigation. I’m going to take a look at a few of these.

We’ll start with the Veasey map, Plan C121, which was presented to the Senate by Sen. Royce West. I’ve already shown the pictures, so let’s skip ahead to the electoral numbers.

Safe R Dist Obama Houston ======================= 01 29.95 36.74 02 29.89 31.27 03 36.30 36.00 04 29.77 37.74 05 27.93 36.13 06 29.41 32.64 08 24.93 29.54 10 36.54 38.49 11 25.36 28.90 12 34.14 35.28 13 23.06 28.16 14 33.14 38.04 17 37.01 40.78 19 26.96 31.73 21 34.67 33.30 22 39.04 40.61 24 39.00 38.31 26 33.77 35.10 Likely R Dist Obama Houston ======================= 07 42.60 40.89 31 44.01 42.93 32 43.32 43.36 36 41.32 48.27 Safe D Dist Obama Houston ======================= 09 76.48 76.68 15 60.22 64.01 16 65.18 67.38 18 78.24 78.29 20 63.67 64.10 23 65.31 66.14 25 60.68 56.95 27 56.64 60.72 28 58.91 61.69 29 60.28 65.59 30 72.41 73.05 33 58.86 60.85 34 66.15 67.84 35 64.78 65.20

A spreadsheet with all the 2008 numbers is here. Arguably, CDs 27, 28, and 33 could be Likely Dem instead of Safe Dem, but as no Republican other than McCain topped 40% in any of them, I feel comfortable with this designation. CD25 is an odd duck. Obama did better than every other Democrat by up to almost seven points, but downballot Republicans didn’t best John McCain by similar amounts. It was Libertarian candidates, who got as much as 6.38% of the vote, that sopped up the extra support, while no R reached 41%. Keep Austin weird, y’all. Finally, as I expected CD31 would make for an interesting potential swing district, while CD36’s apparent Dem strength is overstated, as Jefferson and Galveston counties continue to go the wrong way.

Veasey’s plan would likely give 14 seats to the Democrats. It adds three of the four news seats to the D column – two in the Metroplex and one in South Texas – while ensuring that Blake Farenthold and Quico Canseco would be one-termers. It does not create a new Harris County seat, nor is it the most ambitious Democratic plan. We’ll see the former in the next entry.

House Redistricting committee approves modified Congressional map

Even quicker than the Senate committee.

The Texas House Redistricting Committee approved a new version of the Congressional map that makes a few tweaks, mainly in North and South Texas. But the overall goal remains the same: Maintain and expand Republican power in Washington.

The map was approved on an 11-5 party line vote in the committee, sending it to the full House. The map looks very much like the one that sailed out of the Senate Monday. But this new version would slightly reduce Hispanic voting strength in the district represented by Republican U.S. Rep. Francisco “Quico” Canseco, who faces a potentially stiff re-match in 2012 from former Rep. Ciro Rodriguez, a Democrat.

The author of the map, Rep. Burt Solomons, R-Carrollton, said the change was a response to “concerns of the San Antonio Hispanic community” and is meant to shore up Latino voting strength in the district held by Rep. Charlie Gonzalez, D-San Antonio. It does that by taking Latinos from surrounding districts, including District 23 held by Canseco and a newly proposed District 35.

State Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Fort Worth, said the changes were designed to protect Canseco, easily the most vulnerable Republican in the Congressional delegation.

“They switched some Hispanic and Anglo voters around to make the district safer for Canseco, and make it easier for Anglo voters to control the district,” Veasey said.

The House version of the map would also switch around some precincts in Tarrant and Denton Counties, changes that Veasey said would help shore up the re-election prospects of U.S. Rep. Kay Granger, R-Fort Worth.

Postcards has more. I guess I was expecting them to hold a public hearing with testimony or something before they actually voted. Silly me. The new plan is C149. Here’s what the partisan numbers look like now, with comparisons to the original plan and the one that the Senate approved:

C125 C130 C149 C125 C130 C149 Dist Obama Obama Obama Houston Houston Houston ==================================================== 01 30.40 30.47 30.47 37.01 36.39 36.39 02 35.39 35.86 35.86 38.14 36.65 36.65 03 37.37 37.37 37.37 36.79 36.79 36.79 04 29.28 29.28 29.28 37.55 37.55 37.55 05 37.31 37.28 37.21 42.07 42.05 42.01 07 39.32 39.08 39.08 38.10 37.83 37.83 08 25.43 26.08 26.14 28.59 29.40 29.44 11 23.42 23.13 23.13 28.44 28.29 28.29 13 22.24 22.24 22.24 27.48 27.48 27.48 14 34.30 41.96 41.96 39.69 47.31 47.31 19 27.94 27.94 27.94 32.32 32.32 32.32 22 35.80 37.65 37.65 36.92 38.32 38.32 26 39.44 39.33 39.33 39.64 39.64 39.55 06 41.67 41.67 42.51 44.29 44.28 45.44 10 43.81 42.77 42.59 44.14 43.41 43.23 12 42.50 42.50 43.53 43.10 43.10 44.13 17 40.71 40.94 40.94 43.98 44.08 44.08 21 42.51 42.67 42.25 40.48 40.61 40.26 24 40.55 40.54 40.54 39.91 39.91 39.91 25 42.40 42.83 42.73 43.63 43.95 43.54 27 40.78 40.31 40.12 46.28 45.85 45.75 31 42.61 42.61 42.54 42.47 42.47 42.40 32 43.79 43.79 43.80 43.63 43.63 43.67 33 42.64 42.64 41.74 43.90 43.90 42.96 36 41.02 29.58 29.58 47.46 39.30 39.30 23 47.19 47.19 47.14 49.27 49.27 49.18 15 59.15 58.43 56.36 61.90 61.19 58.91 20 58.40 58.47 58.40 58.15 58.34 58.71 34 59.11 60.29 60.52 62.85 63.87 64.10 09 76.42 76.49 76.49 76.77 76.85 76.85 16 66.44 66.44 66.44 68.68 68.68 68.68 18 79.48 79.24 79.57 78.71 78.47 78.73 28 60.40 60.91 62.09 63.33 63.82 65.12 29 65.18 65.40 64.63 70.09 70.29 69.70 30 81.87 81.89 81.89 82.08 82.10 82.10 35 60.70 60.61 61.59 61.16 60.98 61.47

Doesn’t look like Granger got much help to me. Joe Barton’s district also got a little bluer, while Blake Farenthold and Ruben Hinojosa’s got a touch redder. Quico Canseco’s CD23 got just a pinch redder – now only Linda Yanez achieved a majority there for the Dems; Susan Strawn fell short by a handful of votes – but it remains the case that every downballot Dem other than Jim Jordan got at least a plurality. CD23’s SSVR dropped a bit, from 53.65% to 53.40%, while CD20’s Charlie Gonzalez saw his go up from 50.8% to 53.64%. You can see all of the district data here, and of course Greg liveblogged the committee hearing, with salient analysis about how it all ties into the forthcoming litigation. On to the full House from here.

WaPo on Texas redistricting

The Fix makes a few curious statements about the proposed Congressional redistricting map for Texas.

Despite the Lonestar State voting 55 percent for Republicans in the 2008 presidential race, the GOP-controlled legislature’s proposed map features 26 districts that went for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) out of a total of 36 districts, according to a Fix analysis based on data from the Texas Legislative Council. That’s 72 percent of districts that favor Republicans on paper.

The big changes are the four new districts the state gained in the decennial reapportionment process thanks to its rapid population growth. Of the four, three lean Republican while one is solidly Democratic. The other big change is the shifting of Rep. Lloyd Doggett’s (D-Texas) district from a strongly Democratic district to a strongly Republican one.

The new Republican-leaning districts went 53 percent, 57 percent and 58 percent for McCain, while the Democratic district went 38 percent for McCain. Doggett’s district would go from 40 percent McCain to 56 percent.

In effect, Republicans appear to be trying to give themselves a good chance to gain three of the four new seats, leaving Democrats to gain just one.

If The Fix’s math here were correct, that would be a net gain of four Republican seats – three new ones, plus the eradication of Lloyd Doggett. As we know, however, two of the four “new” seats are Democratic – CDs 34 and 35 – so two new R seats plus Doggett’s is what takes them from 23 to 26.

The result is a map in which there are 10 very safe Democratic seats — McCain didn’t take more than 40 percent in any of them — and 26 districts that went at least 52 percent for McCain. The fact that there is no district that went between 40 percent and 52 percent for McCain suggests a carefully crafted gerrymander.

Of those 26 McCain districts, the GOP presidential nominee took less than 60 percent of the vote in 13 of them, which suggests they could be competitive under the right set of cirumstances. But 2008 was a very bad year for the GOP, and McCain’s numbers were on the low end of what a Republican presidential — or congressional — candidate will likely get in any given election cycle.

First, it’s not clear what he’s basing that statement about where McCain’s numbers might fall on the spectrum, other than perhaps a reflexive “Texas is a red state” intuition. Second, there’s a surprising amount of variation between the number of votes the Presidential candidate for a given party gets in a particular district and the amount of votes a downballot candidate gets. I’ll explore this in some depth in a future post, but trust me on this. There can be a large difference, amounting to several percentage points. Finally, as we saw in 2008, nearly all of the growth in the Texas voter pool from 2004 came from Democratic voters. That likely won’t be as big and may not be as pronounced this time, but it’s not Republican voters that have caused Texas’ population surge this decade. My belief is that Obama starts out at the level he got in 2008, and is more likely to go up than down in 2012, and that’s before we consider the possibility that he might actually campaign here.

About the closest thing to a swing district would be freshman Rep. Quico Canseco’s (R-Texas) big and rural 23rd district, running from San Antonio to El Paso. McCain’s vote share would increase from 48 percent currently to 52 percent under the new plan, though, so Canseco would have an easier time in what’s looking like a rematch with former Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D).

Again, you can’t just look at the Presidential numbers. In some districts, Obama ran ahead of other Democrats. In others, including the old and the reconfigured CD23, he ran behind other Democrats. As I said before, every downballot statewide Democrat other than Jim Jordan got at least a plurality in CD23, with Susan Strawn and Linda Yanez getting majorities. This district is friendlier to Canseco than the old CD23, and I call it a Lean Republican district, but it’s far from a slamdunk for him.

Freshman Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) may not have an easy time, either. But his South Texas 27th district would undergo significant changes and would grow seven points more Republican.

(Most of Farenthold’s current district is in what would be the new 34th district, but since most of that “new” district is from Farenthold’s current district — and the new 27th is a patchwork of other districts — we and others consider the 27th to be the new district, along with the 33rd, 35th and 36th.)

Ah, here’s the math error. If you are counting CD27 as the fourth “new” district, then you must also count Farenthold’s “old” district, which is now CD34, as one that would flip from the GOP to the Democrats, much as you counted Lloyd Doggett’s old CD25 as an R pickup. Otherwise, as we saw, you credit the GOP with a four seat gain instead of three. Which is technically a two-seat net gain – they go from a 14-seat advantage (23-9) to a 16-seat advantage (26-10), assuming they can hold onto Canseco.

Among other Republicans, National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions gets a two-point bump to a 55 percent McCain district in his Dallas-based 32nd; Rep. Mike McCaul (R) keeps a 55 percent McCain district in the 10th; and GOP Reps. John Carter, Lamar Smith, Kay Granger and Joe Barton all see their districts get less Republican.

Freshman Rep. Bill Flores (R) would take the biggest hit, with his 17th district dropping from one where McCain got 67 percent to one where he would have gotten 58 percent. Flores would be taking one for the team, in order to add Republicans to nearby districts. But besides he and Granger (6 percent drop), no other Republican would see his or her district drop more than 2 percent, according to the 2008 presidential numbers.

And clearly this was either written before the Senate modified the original into Plan C136, or it was written in ignorance of that, as Plan C136 makes Ron Paul’s CD14 a lot less red, at least on the surface. (Plan C141, which made no further changes to CD14, is what was eventually passed by the full Senate.) Stuff does happen over the weekend, fellas, especially when the GOP considers it to be in its interest to get things done before the public figures out what’s going on.

Who’s running for what where?

Chris Cillizza notes an old familiar face who’s back on the scene.

Former Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D-Texas) is running again after losing his seat to businessman Francisco Canseco (R) last fall. Rodriguez won the seat in an 2006 special election, after the Supreme Court found that new lines drawn in 2003 violated the Voting Rights Act. Other Democrats have expressed interest in the seat, including state Rep. Joaquin Castro, state Rep. Pete Gallego, and state Sen. Carlos Uresti.

DavidNYC also noted this, as he had come across Rodriguez’s FEC Form 2 declaring his candidacy. As for the other Dems that may be interested in this race, the linked article is pre-Seliger-Solomons and thus may well be obsolete. To wit:

Congressional redistricting is under way at the Capitol, and a map proposed by key Republican legislators splits Democrat-heavy Travis County into five congressional districts, up from the current three-district split. The map puts U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, into a Republican-friendly district that stretches north from western Travis County up to the Fort Worth suburbs.

If the map becomes law — and that’s a long ways off from happening — Doggett may move into the newly created District 35, which stretches from southeastern Travis County, down through eastern Hays and Caldwell counties and into San Antonio.

Doggett would vie for the support of tens of thousands of voters whom he has never represented in Congress before. And that creates an opening for a San Antonio Democrat to try to beat him in the March 2012 primary.

“That district as drawn is probably attractive to no less than half of the Bexar County delegation from the (state) House,” said state Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, D-San Antonio. “It takes in some of the most Hispanic and Democratic neighborhoods in San Antonio.”

Martinez Fischer said the district is tempting to him but that it’s too early to decide whether to run.

A more likely candidate is probably state Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-San Antonio, who said he would not be deterred by a Doggett candidacy. “I’m interested in taking a very close look at it,” said Castro, a 36-year-old lawyer who has been in the Legislature since 2003 and whose brother is San Antonio’s mayor.

Other San Antonio Democrats who might give the race a look include Reps. Mike Villarreal and Roland Gutierrez, plus state Sen. Carlos Uresti.

I can say with certainty that Pete Gallego does not live in the proposed CD35, though I’m sure if the GOP could have figured out a way to extend it as far as Alpine, they would have. As for the others, I’d have to do some digging to see who actually lives where. Suffice it to say that this is a one or the other proposition for all involved.

Meanwhile, in a district that has nothing to do with any state legislators from San Antonio, another potential candidate for a new seat has emerged.

Former Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams, who announced his intention back in January to seek the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Kay Bailey Hutchison, is likely to drop out of that race and instead run for a newly created congressional seat in House District 33, which contains his hometown of Arlington, sources tell the Tribune.


According to the latest filing with the Federal Election Commission, Michael Williams’s Senate campaign raised just $418,000 in the first quarter of 2011, less than Cruz, Leppert and Roger Williams but more than Jones.

Williams’ campaign consultant Corbin Casteel, confirmed the switch was impending. “Commissioner Williams has lived in Arlington since the early 90s when he returned to Texas after working for Presidents Reagan and Bush,” Casteel said in a statement to the Tribune. “His home has been drawn into a newly created Congressional district. He has received a great deal of encouragement to transition from the Senate race to run for Congress. Provided the new district does not change significantly, he will pursue the new congressional seat.”

Well, he wouldn’t significantly change the craziness ratio of the Republican delegation, I’ll say that much. He’d fit right in, in fact. And he’d no doubt raise the spirits of bow tie wearers everywhere. Beyond that, I will hope that my assessment of CD33’s partisan potential is too pessimistic.

More on the Seliger-Solomons plan

Rick Dunham has a nice analysis of the proposed Congressional map that’s worth your time to read. I disagree with him on two related points.

Republicans successfully shored up three districts they captured from Democrats in the past two election cycles — those held by Pete Olson of Sugar Land, Blake Farenthold of Corpus Christi and Francisco “Quico” Canseco of San Antonio.


Rep. Joe Barton is the only Republican to be put in jeopardy by the GOP line-drawers. His Dallas-area district becomes more Hispanic and is probably a political toss-up. Barton decided to take the high road when I sought his reaction: “I think this map is a great starting point,” he said. “And it is positive that the House and Senate redistricting chairmen joined together and put forth a public map. Now open debate can begin.”

To see where I disagree, let’s look at a breakdown of the districts by 2008 electoral results. I’m using the Obama and Sam Houston numbers to divide these districts into different groups. First, the Safe Republicans:

Dist Obama Houston ======================= 01 30.40 37.01 02 35.39 38.14 03 37.37 36.79 04 29.28 37.55 05 37.31 42.07 07 39.32 38.10 08 25.43 28.59 11 23.42 28.44 13 22.24 27.48 14 34.30 39.69 19 27.94 32.32 22 35.80 36.92 26 39.44 39.64

Some of these are likely to move into the next category over time. Keep an eye on districts 7, 22, and 26, as I think they’re the best bets to be affected by demographic change over the next decade. All this is assuming this is the map we get, of course, which is no sure bet, but we do have to start the conversation somewhere. Next is what I’d call the Likely Republicans:

Dist Obama Houston ======================= 06 41.67 44.29 10 43.81 44.14 12 42.50 43.10 17 40.71 43.98 21 42.51 40.48 24 40.55 39.91 25 42.40 43.63 27 40.78 46.28 31 42.61 42.47 32 43.79 43.63 33 42.64 43.90 36 41.02 47.46

Some of these are likelier than others. Despite the high Sam Houston numbers, I don’t really think that either CDs 27 or 36 are going to be seriously in play. They just have too much rural turf. Same for CDs 17 and 33. The ones I’d keep my eye on are CDs 32, 31, 21, 12, and yes, 06. But while Smokey Joe may have a slightly more purple district in this map, he’s not the GOPer on the most shaky ground. That goes to the one Lean Republican district:

Dist Obama Houston ======================= 23 47.19 49.27

I should note that both Linda Yanez and Susan Strawn won a majority in CD23, while all downballot Dems other than Jim Jordan had pluralities. It’s redder than it was before, but it sure as heck isn’t safe.

On the Democratic side, there’s not much to see:

Dist Obama Houston ======================= 15 59.15 61.90 20 58.40 58.15 34 59.11 62.85 09 76.42 76.77 16 66.44 68.68 18 79.48 78.71 28 60.40 63.33 29 65.18 70.09 30 81.87 82.08 35 60.70 61.16

For the sake of consistency, I’d call the first three Likely Dem and the latter seven Safe Dem. I don’t really think Congressmen Hinojosa or Gonzalez has much to fear, and whether it’s a Lucio or someone else I figure the Democratic nominee in CD34 would win easily.

So as drawn, this map would elect 10 or 11 Democrats, depending on how things broke in CD23, and 25 or 26 Republicans, though I would expect several Republican held districts to become more competitive over time. Again, all of this assumes that the final map is more or less the same as this one. Even without lawsuits and a Justice Department review, surely some aspects of this map will change. For those of you in Austin or who can get there today or tomorrow, the House Redistricting Committee will have a hearing this morning at 10:45, and the Senate will have a hearing Friday at 9. Be there if you can. A statement about the proposed map from the Texas Democratic Congressional delegation is beneath the fold, and an analysis of the plan plus a statement from the Lone Star Project is here.


The Seliger-Solomons Congressional map is out

And it’s a joke. Seriously, I can’t describe it any other way. Look at the following districts – go to and look up Plan C125 – and tell me how they can possibly satisfy any rational legal argument for compactness or communities of interest. Let’s start with CD36, which forms a giant Gateway-style arch from Super Neighborhood 22 up into East Texas and down around to Orange County.


Let’s continue with CD35, which basically snakes along I-35 from the northern reaches of Travis County to the southern end of Bexar County.


Speaking of I-35, if you drive it through Travis County, you change Congressional districts no fewer than seven times.

Here’s CD21, which spreads tentacles into both Travis and Bexar from the west.


You really have to zoom in on the Bexar County portions of CD21 to fully appreciate its ridiculousness. The word “fractal” comes to mind in some places. As for Travis County, it gets split into five districts under this plan. When I said that the Republicans would put a piece of Travis into every single district if they could, I wasn’t kidding.

Here’s the GOP’s attempt to save Blake Farenthold by turning his district into one that’s more Hill Country and less Gulf Coast.


There’s some similar juju with HD34, which I guess is supposed to be the Aaron Pena Special.


For what it’s worth, CD27 becomes a fairly strong Republican district, according to 2008 election data. Here’s how it stacks up against some current GOP districts:

District Incumbent Obama % Houston % ========================================== 06 Barton 41.67 44.29 10 Mc Caul 43.81 44.14 12 Granger 42.50 43.10 21 Smith 42.51 40.48 23 Canseco 47.19 49.27 25* Doggett 42.40 43.63 27 Farenthold 40.78 46.28 31 Carter 42.61 42.47 32 Sessions 43.79 43.63 33 Open 42.64 43.90 34 Open 59.11 62.85 35* Open 60.70 61.16 36 Open 41.02 47.46

Greg makes the case that CD27 is really a “new” district, much as CD25 is – it may contain Lloyd Doggett’s house, but it’s not his district in any meaningful sense – and that Farenthold is actually in CD34, with Doggett likely to aim for CD35, where he may or may not get knocked off by a San Antonio hopeful. I’ll defer to him on that, I’m just going by the existing district numbers. Some of these Republican districts are more purple than I’d have expected, and much as is the case with State House districts, it may be that in a cycle or two a few of these guys could be imperiled. It’s harder for me to say with such bigger districts, but the possibility certainly exists. Honestly, it’s a bit hard to believe this map represents a genuine consensus among Republicans, as there’s plenty more they could have done to make most incumbents safer while warding off the more obvious VRA-related complaints. But we’ll see.

Anyway, it goes on and on, with no new minority opportunity district for the D/FW area in sight, and some examples of what seems to be clearcut retrogression – CD27 goes from a district with a 59.4 SSVR percentage to one with 37.2%. I suppose you can claim that CD34 makes up for that, but still. One hopes that means this map would be a non-starter with the Justice Department. In fact, Rep. Marc Veasey, whose alternate map I showed yesterday, issued the following statement about this map:

Last week, Rep. Veasey offered the Fair Texas Plan, a congressional map that provides electoral opportunity for the Texans who earned our state four additional congressional districts and meets the requirements of the Voting Rights Act. Today, Chairman Seliger and Chairman Solomons presented Texans with their proposed congressional map.

“This map is the very definition of an unfair and illegal congressional plan, one that was constructed behind closed doors with reckless disregard for the testimony of Texans who asked for a plan that adheres to the Voting Rights Act and preserves communities of interest,” Rep. Veasey explained. “The Seliger-Solomons Plan is a slap in the face of minority voters responsible for 90% of Texas growth in the last decade.”

An initial review of the proposed plan clearly indicates that it is retrogressive and creates only 10 effective minority opportunity districts out of 36 compared to the 11 effective districts in the current 32 member plan.

“In fact, preserving only 11 effective minority opportunity districts when the state now has four additional seats due to minority population growth would still be retrogressive, and I have no doubt that a plan that has only 10 effective minority opportunity districts runs afoul of the Voting Rights Act,” Rep. Veasey said.

Across the state, this discriminatory plan splits and packs minority communities. Nowhere is that illegal scheme more apparent than Tarrant and Dallas Counties. Veasey pointed out that once again, the Southeast Ft. Worth community he represents is separated from other areas of African American growth in Tarrant County and placed in a district that would be controlled by suburban Anglo voters. This time, the North Side Hispanic community is exiled to a Denton County district and Latino voters in Dallas-Ft. Worth are split into at least seven different districts.

“A plan that splits and packs the 2.1 million African Americans and Latinos in Dallas and Tarrant Counties to provide us only one effective voice in Congress is not just illegal, it’s wrong,” concluded Rep. Veasey.

MALDEF has a similar reaction.

A coalition of Latino groups which submitted partial state maps for congressional districts blasted the Republican plan. “The Solomons-Seliger map does not increase the number of Latino opportunity congressional districts despite the fact that 65% of the State’s growth over the past decade was comprised of Latinos,” said MALDEF’s Nina Perales. “Instead, the map gerrymanders more than nine million Latinos in Texas to make sure that we have no more electoral opportunity than we did in 1991.”

And as of Tuesday evening, the issue is now on the call with a hearing scheduled for Friday. In the meantime, another lawsuit has been filed.

Rep. Gene Green, D-Houston, expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed congressional redistricting because he said it neglects Hispanic population growth in Harris County and elsewhere in Texas.

“Personally, the map is fine with me,” said Green, whose district remains largely the same. “But the reason I’m not totally happy with the plan is because I don’t think it fairly treats Harris County — and particularly the Hispanic community in Harris County. I don’t think it recognizes the huge increase in the Hispanic population.”

Green said that he and three Democratic House members from Texas who represent large Hispanic populations – Reps. Charlie Gonzalez of San Antonio, Silvestre Reyes of El Paso and Lloyd Doggett of Austin, have filed suit in federal and state courts in Austin seeking court-ordered creation of two Hispanic congressional districts in Harris County with more than 60 percent Hispanic population.

Just something to consider here: After the 1991 redistricting, subsequent litigation led to the redrawing of several districts, for which special elections had to be held in 1996. After the 2001 redistricting and 2003 re-redistricting, subsequent litigation also led to the redrawing of several districts, for which special elections had to be held in 2006. Point being, whatever map we have in 2012 is unlikely to be the map we still have in 2020.

Anyway, take a look at this map and react as appropriate. I have 2010 electoral data here, and Greg has further analysis here and here. PoliTex, Trail Blazers, and the Trib have more.