Ari Berman analyzes the effects of the Fifth Circuit’s March 9, 2016 order. This is bad news for the plaintiffs, and for Texas voters generally. The foot-dragging has been especially galling, given the airtight factual evidence in support of the plaintiffs’ arguments.
(Note to the non-attorneys out there: the linked article explains this, but not everyone knows what “en banc review” means. After five months of delay, the court has collectively decided that the previous decisions regarding the State’s unconstitutional voter I.D. law need to be reconsidered by the entire panel of all the Fifth Circuit appellate judges, the majority of whom happen to be conservative political appointees).
As an additional follow-up; the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has rebuffed arguments for stopping implementation of the unconstitutional law until after the whole body of judges hear additional oral argument later this year. The law will likely continue to be enforced through the November 2016 presidential election, despite the fact that it has been found to be unconstitutional.
Among other things, he encouraged the audience to solve existing social inequities through the application of modern technological innovations.
(1) electronic voter registration;
(2) the class and racial divides that cut off from the Internet a disproportionate percentage of racial minorities and people living in poverty; and
(3) low voter turnout in Texas. Related to turnout, the President dryly pointed out that the elected officials of the great State of Texas are not interested in encouraging voting. In Texas, he noted, we bear at least some of the responsibility for our poorly responsive state government.
To the extent that the President offered any prescriptions for the future, he said that we need the tech community to cooperate with government-funded expansion of high-speed Internet access to underserved areas.
The blaring above-the-fold headline in many Texas papers today (February 25, 2016) describes how the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals determined that former Governor Rick Perry committed no crime when he used his government position to coerce local law enforcement into shutting down hundreds of pending criminal investigations into official misconduct.
His defense team did a masterful job of convincing the public generally that he was being prosecuted for having exercised his constitutional authority to veto line-item budget appropriations, when in fact the criminal charges against him had absolutely nothing to do with the actual act of vetoing a legislative appropriation.
I’ve written about this before. The crime wasn’t the veto. The crime was the coercive threat. It is a crime to abuse public authority, using threats to suborn criminal investigations and thereby attempt to induce a public official to act against their own and the public’s best interests.
Here’s some relevant coverage:
More significant than the outcome is the decision by the Court of Criminal Appeals (influenced by amicus briefing on First Amendment free-speech issues provided by Eugene Volokh and others) that the coercion statute (Texas Penal Code Section 36.03) itself is overbroad as written, and therefore unconstitutional. Here’s a copy of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decision in .pdf format: Ex Parte Perry, No. PD-1067-15, Texas Crim. App. (February 24, 2016).
It is a tricky, difficult thing to successfully draft a criminal statute that addresses communication. If someone foments armed revolution, are they committing a crime, or are they just behaving like an average Twitter account holder?
If someone passes a note to a bank teller that reads, “This is a hold-up,” is that someone robbing the bank, or are they just complaining about how long they’ve been waiting in line? Sure, that someone’s wearing a ski mask, but it’s cold outside. And they’re carrying a gun, but maybe that’s just to celebrate their Second Amendment open-carry rights.
I believe the coercion statute was constitutional — it had a chilling effect only on public expression to the extent that it criminalized credible abuses of office. The statute didn’t prohibit a public official from expressing an opinion, making a case, or shouting from the rooftops. It prohibited a public official possessing the actual capacity to abuse office from holding the public hostage with the threat to exercise that capacity.
I’m not a political operative. I’m just not. I’m not some K Street whiz with my finger on the pulse of America. I know a lot about the fussy internal machinery of elections, and the nasty realpolitik of voter intimidation, injunctions, election contests, and so on.
But I’m not a marketing guy.
However, just as one does not need to be a cobbler to know what an uncomfortable shoe feels like, one does not need to be a political marketing genius to know when a fundraising email campaign is DOING IT WRONG.
So, for months now, I’ve been on Hillary Clinton’s fundraising email list. Interestingly, I’m not on Bernie Sanders’s list. My being on one candidate’s list or another is in my view pretty much an accident of fate — at present, I don’t have any money to give anybody, and I’m not wildly enthusiastic about any specific candidate.
I certainly haven’t endorsed anybody. I’m a Eugene Debs man, myself, but he isn’t running this year. I would note in passing that the statement made by Mr. Debs upon being sentenced for sedition (for supporting unions, fair wages, good working conditions—e.g., simple human decency) is one that should be endorsed by any thinking person, and that I would be more inclined to support any current candidate who echoed its sentiment. He said,
Your honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.
But, be that as it may. Hillary Clinton is running for her party’s nomination, and her campaign office is sending me what seems to be around 30 emails a day asking for money. Here’s one I got today from “Robby Mook” (actually the real name of a real, and probably very nice and very competent, person) her campaign manager:
More of Bernie Sanders’ supporters have stepped up to donate to his campaign than ours have.
I know that. You probably know that. And holy cow does Bernie Sanders’ campaign know that.
Last night, Bernie Sanders said this to the Washington Post: “What this campaign is about, and I’m seeing it every day, is an excitement and energy that does not exist and will not exist in the Clinton campaign.”
I am so tired of Hillary’s team being dismissed and written off like this. On the road with Hillary every day, I see countless women, men, girls, and boys of all colors and creeds who are inspired by Hillary, and excited to make her vision a reality.
Well, I’m just a simple big-city lawyer, but I can tell you that these are great fundraising appeals.
For the Sanders campaign.
Email after email, going on and on about how Bernie is raising more money; Bernie has more energy; Bernie is ahead in the polls; Bernie is kicking ass. Bernie, Bernie. BERNIE!
Gosh, Robby and Huma, why would I give any money to your candidate? This Sanders fellow sounds like a real barn-burner. Apparently he’s quite the savvy fundraiser and campaigner. He hasn’t asked me for a penny, and seems to be doing quite well nonetheless. Meanwhile, your candidate keeps jamming up my inbox with wheedling, self-pitying emails about how desperately behind she is in the Iowa caucus, and what a terrible tragedy it would be for America if Bernie got the party nomination instead of her.
There is an additional narrative in the emails, but it isn’t being pushed very hard. The narrative is suggestive that (1) if we don’t nominate a woman to run for President, then (2) the vast unwashed horde won’t be motivated to vote for some grandpa-socialist in November 2016, and (3) in 2017, President Trump will declare “Year Zero,” round us all up, and send us off to the re-education camps.
I’ll buy part of that narrative. As a
progressive rational human being, I totally agree that “President Trump” would bring about the end of Western civilization. Actually, I’d say that if any of the GOP candidates for 2016 that have thus far poured out from the clown-car of our collective nightmares were to win the presidency, it’d be the end of Western civilization.
But none of Hillary Clinton’s fundraising emails have managed to tout why she’s fundamentally a better candidate than Bernie Sanders, or (beyond her desire not to lose) why I should pony up some money for her. (I will say that the overall Clinton fundraising does show a bit of K Street razzle-dazzle by asking for only one dollar and no more than that amount—capping the request at a single dollar is an inspired PR move that helps defuse the argument that Clinton is the “big money” chosen one.)
A fundraising email should not provide free publicity for one’s opponent by touting how badly one is faring against said opponent. A fundraising email should express how confidently one is striding forward to win the New Hampshire primary and Iowa caucus, as stepping stones to the inevitable nomination for party candidate, and fated, fêted, victory in November.
One should perhaps instead say,
“We are going to make history. Would you like to join us?”
I’ve been pretty quiet, and I realized that I should at the very least remind people that the deadline to register to vote in the upcoming March 1, 2016, primary elections is Monday (February 1, 2016). So register. You’ll have to drop off an actual application, and make sure that it gets postmarked by Monday. (Of course, in benighted Texas, we can’t simply register to vote online, but that’s properly a subject for another post).
There’s a lot to write about. In particular, I note this interesting January 11, 2016, decision from the El Paso Court of Appeals regarding residence and eligibility requirements for county commissioners. (In Re Perez, 08-15-00381-CV, Tex. App – El Paso January 11, 2016) (text provided by Texas Lawyer, at: http://www.texaslawyer.com/home/id=1202747328543/In-re-Perez-081500381CV-TexApp-Dist8-01112016?mcode=1202615269686&curindex=1&slreturn=20160030135229).
Vincent Perez is the current incumbent and candidate for reelection as Commissioner for Precinct 3 in El Paso County – he argued that his opponent in the March 1, 2016, Democratic Party primary election, Antonio Quintanilla, was ineligible to run for that office, on the grounds that Mr. Quintanilla had not been a registered voter within Precinct 3 for the requisite six months prior to the filing deadline to run in the primary.
Until September 1, 2015, candidates for public office were not generally required to be registered voters; there were a few rare exceptions that applied to specific offices, but the default was only a requirement that a candidate reside in the territory in which he or she was running for office. A bill passed in the most recent legislative session (H.B. 484) changed the status quo significantly, and required that candidates for local, district, or state office must now be eligible to vote in the jurisdiction from which they are elected. (See Section 141.001(a)(6), Texas Election Code).
Of course, the candidates for the various special law districts scattered throughout the state are exempt from this requirement, as those individuals are generally not required to register to vote within the boundaries of their districts (many of those said special taxing entities are created specifically without any inhabitants, and therefore would not possess registered voters upon creation anyway). See Section 141.001(d), above.
Alas, for Mr. Quintanilla, the change in state law was fatal to his application for a place on the primary ballot.
Did it make any sense for the legislature to add the requirement to be a registered voter as a requisite for public office-holding? Eh. Not really.
I don’t dispute the symbolic importance of civic engagement represented by being a registered voter, and for years I had told candidates (who inquired) that not being registered to vote in a particular district or territory was a potential public relations problem.
The reason why I think the new law is a little stupid is that the lead times for candidate applications are stretched ludicrously far in advance of the election date. As of March 1, 2016, Mr. Quintanilla will be eligible to cast an angry vote against Mr. Perez. That’s because Mr. Quintanilla’s registration as a voter in Commissioner’s Precinct 3 was effective as of mid-January of this year; he submitted his application for registration at about the same time that he filed to run in the primary. But his application to run in the primary had to be filed two months before the election, and his registration had to be effective as of the deadline to file as a candidate. Since registrations are by law effective 30 days after the date submitted, that meant that Mr. Quintanilla would have had to register to vote in Precinct 3 by no later than mid-November, slightly more than one month after the new law went into effect.
In other words, our lawmakers (and, let’s just be charitable to the bill’s drafter and assume that the bill was drafted in simple ignorance of the long lead-time for filing deadlines) passed a bill that now obligates candidates to register to vote in a specific territory three months prior to running for office in that territory. That makes no sense.
Although (candidates, take note): the new law has set up an excellent new “gotcha” mechanism for kicking one’s opponents off of the ballot.
As we anticipate the Supreme Court’s ruling in Evenwel v. Abbott, here’s a rundown of recent academic scholarship regarding “one person – one vote.” Some of this is from Rick Hasen’s summary of hot draft law review articles on the Social Science Research Network, and some is just from simple searching.
Rick Pildes, Symposium: Misguided hysteria over Evenwel v. Abbott, SCOTUSblog (Jul. 30, 2015, 12:01 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/07/symposium-misguided-hysteria-over-evenwel-v-abbott
Rick Hasen, Symposium: Ideology, partisanship, and the new “one person, one vote” case, SCOTUSblog (Jul. 31, 2015, 12:01 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/07/symposium-ideology-partisanship-and-the-new-one-person-one-vote-case
Fishkin, Joseph, “Be Careful What You Wish For in Evenwel, Justice Kennedy” Texas Law, December 10, 2015; https://law.utexas.edu/news/2015/12/10/be-careful-what-you-wish-for-in-evenwel-justice-kennedy
Berry, Thomas, The New Federal Analogy: Evenwel v. Abbott and the History of Congressional Apportionment (December 9, 2015). NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2701538
Klarner, Carl Eoin, Assessing the Potential Impact of Evenwel v. Abbott (December 6, 2015). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2699850
Parsons, Gary Michael, Clearing the Political Thicket: Why Political Gerrymandering for Partisan Advantage is Unconstitutional (December 1, 2015). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2698183
Muller, Derek T., Perpetuating ‘One Person, One Vote’ Errors (December 1, 2015). Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Forthcoming; Pepperdine University Legal Studies Research Paper 2015/16. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2697719
Tokaji, Daniel P., Realizing the Right to Vote: The Story of Thornburg v. Gingles (November 30, 2015). Election Law Stories, Foundation Press, 2016 Forthcoming; Ohio State Public Law Working Paper No. 322. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2697007
Edelman, Paul H., Evenwel, Voting Power and Dual Districting (November 13, 2015). Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 44, 2016; Vanderbilt Law and Economics Research Paper No. 15-16; Vanderbilt Public Law Research Paper No. 15-19. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2631666 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2631666
Hasen, Richard L., Election Law’s Path in the Roberts Court’s First Decade: A Sharp Right Turn but with Speed Bumps and Surprising Twists (August 4, 2015). UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No. 2015-70. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2639902
This isn’t breaking news — the redistricting panel’s order came out November 6, and the Texas Tribune and various editorialists have already weighed in on the implications. (See also this coverage from Texas Lawyer).
In particular, Jody Seaborn’s editorial in the Austin-American Statesman expresses everything I feel about the decision, only better. Jody also points out how the delays in the 2012 primary schedule ultimately produced Ted Cruz’s primary runoff victory over the more moderate David Dewhurst. (Disclosure: Jody and I are old friends.)
The federal judicial redistricting panel charged with reviewing the State’s 2011 redistricting plan (yes, that’s not a typo. 2011), has responded somewhat petulantly regarding an effort by a subgroup of the plaintiffs in the Perez v. Perry redistricting litigation who joined together in a motion to enjoin the State from using gerrymandered district boundary lines for the 2016 U.S. House of Representatives elections.
For a good overview and analysis of the origin, development and philosophy of this gerrymandering (cleverly described as a “Perrymander” by various wags), see this excellent article by Rosemarie Unite, The Perrymander, Polarization, and Peyote v. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 46 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1075 (2013) (pdf). Also available in on the web at http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol46/iss3/7).
The subgroup of the plaintiffs that petitioned—including the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC ), the NAACP, the City of Austin, Travis County, Eddie Rodriguez Jr., Shannon Perez, the Quesada plaintiffs, et al., but excluding the Latino Redistricting Task Force, the United States Department of Justice, and the various congressional officeholder plaintiffs—had hoped to light a fire under the panel by asking for an injunction against the use of the redistricting plan that had been used in the November 2014 election (presumably hoping that the panel would either completely redraw the district maps, or at the very least prohibit the use of the bad maps).
Instead, the redistricting panel announced that the bad maps would most assuredly be used for the 2016 elections, stating that new maps at this late date would be unduly disruptive and confusing to voters and office seekers.
So sorry, petitioners.
See this statement from page five of the redistricting panel’s denial of a request for injunctive relief:
The Court has been working diligently and has made substantial progress toward resolution of the claims on the 2011 plans; however, it has not yet reached a final decision. Trial on the merits of the claims against the 2013 plans has not been scheduled, and legal challenges to the 2013 plans will not be resolved before the 2016 election cycle.
This unanimous denial could have been subtitled, “Redistricting Panels Have Feelings Too, You Know.”
The panel explicitly countered criticism that the judges have been dragging their feet on a resolution.
One can’t help but feel that there’s a little bit of passive-aggressive retribution in the decision. As in, “Oh! You think we haven’t been working fast enough to resolve your redistricting problems? Well how about this? How about we just declare that we won’t bother fixing any of this until the 2018 elections? Yeah! That’ll teach you to pressure us about coming up with some sort of consensus regarding your maps.”
This denial is frustrating on many levels. The State of Texas made no real effort to argue that its 2011 and 2013 maps weren’t discriminatory toward minority voters.The State’s argument, grounded and based solidly on a line of U.S. Supreme Court cases relating to so-called “partisan gerrymandering,” beginning with Davis v. Bandamer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986), Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004), and League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006) is, more or less, we don’t discriminate against Hispanics and African Americans because of race, but because we, the line-drawing Republican Party majority, want to crush the Democratic Party, and therefore any seemingly discriminatory line-drawing was not intentional.
You can see this argument reflected throughout the State’s proposed finding of fact and conclusions of law, as well as the State’s pre- and post-trial briefs. For example, on page 56 of the State’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, finding of fact number 518 states that the chairman of the Texas House Redistricting Committee felt he could not pass a redistricting plan unless he guaranteed that three of the four new U.S. House of Representatives seats for Texas would go to Republicans. Later, on pages 100-101 of the same proposed finding of fact and conclusions of law (starting around proposed conclusion 45) the State argues for findings of fact that the Texas redistricting plan was motivated by political, rather than racial, discrimination, and was therefore not part of an invidious intentionally racially discriminatory scheme.
And the redistricting panel (which for those of you who are new to the story, consists of the three-judge panel convened in May of 2011 out of the membership of the San Antonio division of the Federal District Court for the Western District of Texas, as explained in this handy blog post from the wonderful (and greatly missed) Texas Redistricting and Election Law blog) has made as explicit as it possibly can that the most glaring of demographic problems with the State’s Congressional and State legislative district maps are not going to be fixed in time for the 2016 elections. That fact leaves just two federal election cycles (2018 and 2020) before the next redistricting maps get drawn.
Particularly for Hispanic voters in Texas, 2011–2021 is shaping up to be the lost decade for both U.S. House of Representatives representation, as well as for representation in the Texas Legislature, notwithstanding the fact that the population gains experienced by the State were overwhelmingly the result of increases in the population of protected classes of linguistic and racial minorities.