“The Democrats got poured out of the federal court last week,” said Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst on Monday. “It’s over. It’s time to get back to work and do the people’s business.” That was the guv-lite’s analysis of the Sept. 12 decision of a three-judge federal panel in Laredo, and in addition to highlighting the ominous return of biblical metaphors to Capitol rhetoric, it is this week’s conventional interpretation of the decision in Gonzalo Barrientos et al. v. State of Texas et al.
At the Thursday hearing, the federal judges were willing to spend a couple of hours mulling the Democrats’ arguments that the Senate’s off-year consideration of congressional redistricting, and its abandonment of its two-thirds rule are potential violations of the federal Voting Rights Act (as well as the Bill of Rights) and should thus require preclearance by the U.S. Department of Justice (as prescribed by the VRA). But the judges’ questions were highly skeptical, and their Friday decision agrees with state Solicitor General Ted Cruz that “the act does not apply to either of the challenged events.”
The decision cited Supreme Court precedents ruling that “a line must be drawn between events which directly affect the voters and events which, as here, affect the distribution of power between legislators of two different political parties,” and went on to say that only a map itself, once adopted, will “directly” affect Texas voters, not the process of consideration of that map. The court also noted that the Department of Justice had earlier informed the state that the dropping of the Senate two-thirds rule does not require preclearance, a ruling the court said requires “considerable deference.”
The judges declined to rule either on the threat to arrest the AWOL Democrats that drove them to safety in New Mexico or the fines and other sanctions imposed by the GOP rump Senate during the aborted second-called session, saying the former appears moot and the latter not “sufficiently developed at this point to permit an informed decision.”
The decision is not exactly overwhelming — whether it constitutes being “poured out” is a question better addressed by theologians — but the Democrats described it as “just another step in the process” and said they would appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. As to the sanctions — still officially in force but increasingly dubious — Sen. Chris Harris, R-Arlington, has asked his Committee on Administration to consider new methods of disciplining future quorum-breakers.
Not to be outdone, the House is apparently getting into the retaliatory spirit. Last week Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, said he had learned that Speaker Tom Craddick had contacted Bill Pound, executive director of the National Conference of State Legislatures, and demanded Coleman’s removal from his elected position on the executive committee of the NCSL. Coleman said Pound’s office mentioned “economic considerations” might be at stake (Texas has not yet paid its hefty current NCSL dues), and said Craddick is attempting to retaliate for Coleman’s opposition to redistricting. According to published reports, Pound confirmed that Craddick had contacted him about the matter, although he said Craddick primarily argued that Coleman’s place on the (bipartisan) committee no longer reflects the Republican majority in the Texas House. Coleman pointed out that he and Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, are two of a half-dozen minority legislators on the 45-person committee, that he is actively involved in ongoing NCSL work, and that he has no intention of stepping down. On Sept. 11, Coleman wrote to Craddick requesting a meeting to discuss the matter, but Craddick’s spokesman said Tuesday that the speaker has no plans to respond to Coleman’s request.
Coleman is in good Republican company. Despite all the hoopla over the Senate Democrats’ walkout and return, the majority party has yet to come to an agreement over differences in proposed Senate and House congressional maps. Craddick continues to insist on a map that anchors a new West Texas district in Midland. Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock and chairman of the Jurisprudence Committee overseeing redistricting in the Senate, wants to maintain a district (like the current District 19) anchored in Lubbock. Neither is willing to budge. Although Dewhurst insists daily that the dispute is “close to a resolution,” Craddick spokesman Bob Richter said not only is it not resolved, Craddick and Duncan have made no progress. “The speaker’s position,” said Richter, “is that he and Duncan had a deal prior to the May run-off” between Randy Neugebauer of Lubbock and Mike Conaway of Midland for the District 19 seat vacated by retiring Larry Combest. (Neugebauer won by a narrow margin.) “And Duncan has reneged on the deal. … The speaker has no intention of changing his mind.”
Richter said Craddick believes a Midland congressman could more directly represent the oil and gas industry; that separating Abilene and San Angelo into different districts would increase the chance for survival of both cities’ Air Force bases; and that Craddick’s map would more likely defeat U.S. Rep. Charles Stenholm, D-Abilene, thereby giving West Texas four GOP congressmen. And finally, Richter says, Craddick’s the speaker, he’s been in the Lege since 1969, and he considers this his chance to anchor a congressional seat in his hometown.
In the map already approved several times by the House — most recently Wednesday morning as HB 3, authored by Phil King — San Angelo would be in the (vacant) Midland district, which would stretch all the way to Boerne. Abilene would be in Neugebauer’s District 19 — pitting the just-elected rookie against 13-term veteran Stenholm, which seems to Senate-side observers, including Duncan, hardly the GOP slam-dunk Craddick envisions. Duncan firmly denies that he and Craddick ever had a “deal” to support the King map and says he will oppose any map that pairs Neugebauer and Stenholm. (The latest Senate map introduced by Sen. Todd Staples leaves District 19 whole.) Duncan added that at Dewhurst’s request he met with Craddick and U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay last week, that there was no movement on either side, and his own position hasn’t changed. Asked if he thought the dispute is resolvable, Duncan said, “That depends on the speaker.”
The deadlock is apparently influencing the conflicting business schedules of the chambers; Dewhurst said the Senate may meet through Saturday to try to get a map passed, while Craddick held a marathon Tuesday night/ Wednesday morning session to ram through a map and as many other bills as possible before adjourning until Monday. Asked about the GOP predicament, Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso, shrugged and said, “We’re [Democrats] just window-dressing until they get their problem resolved. Duncan will try to hold out, but my guess is Craddick will be bringing in reinforcements.” Gov. Rick Perry will surely be heard from, but the broader implication, of course, is that where Craddick goes, Tom DeLay and Karl Rove will not be far behind.
This article appears in September 19 • 2003.
