Perez et al v. Perry et al
FACT FINDINGS - PLAN H283. Signed by Chief Judge Orlando L. Garcia and Judge Xavier Rodriguez. (aej) Modified on 4/20/2017 to add signing judge (aej).
In the United States District Court
Western District of Texas
SHANNON PEREZ, ET AL.
GREG ABBOTT, ET AL.
FACT FINDINGS – PLAN H283
Before Circuit Judge SMITH, Chief District Judge GARCIA, and District Judge RODRIGUEZ
Circuit Judge Smith, dissenting
XAVIER RODRIGUEZ, District Judge and ORLANDO L. GARCIA, District Judge:
General Fact Findings
1. The Texas House of Representatives has 150 members, each elected in a single-member district.
Based on the 2010 U.S. Census, the ideal population size for each House district is 167,637.
2. Key players in charge of drawing and putting together the House map were Burt Solomons,
Gerardo Interiano, and Ryan Downton, and to a lesser extent Bonnie Bruce, none of whom had any
prior experience with redistricting. Tr995 (Downton). The House mapdrawers were drawing under
the supervision of House Redistricting Committee (“HRC”) Chairman Solomons. Id. Speaker Joe
Straus and Chairman Solomons were the ultimate decisionmakers on the number of districts in a
county and on pairings. TrJ1575 (Interiano).
3. A regular session starts in January and lasts 140 days, and the only bills that can be passed the
first 60 days are emergency items designated by the Governor. Tr1558 (Solomons); TrA1085-86
(Hunter). Committee assignments are often not made until February. Tr1558. Hunter testified that
there were emergency items that needed attention. TrA1086. He also testified that the budget was
hotly contested and there were fifteen sunset bills. Id.
4. Immediately after the census data came out, Interiano and others, including Texas Legislative
Council (“TLC”) lawyers, Straus’s chief of staff Denise Davis, and his legislative director Lisa
Kaufman, began looking at county populations to determine drop-in counties and how to abide by
the Texas County Line Rule. TrA59-61 (Interiano). Looking at population growth, they determined
where new districts would likely go and how many districts would be in drop-in counties. Id.
Population growth in suburban counties, such as Fort Bend, Williamson, Collin, and Denton
Counties, required adding districts in those areas. TrA62, TrJ1535 (Interiano). Dallas County lost
two seats, and Tarrant County gained a seat. Bexar County and El Paso maintained the same number
of seats. It was not initially decided whether Harris County would maintain 25 districts or would
lose a district and have 24. Interiano met with the County delegation leaders to inform them of the
likely number of districts they would have. TrA60-61 (Interiano).
5. Interiano started drawing House districts right after the census data came out in February 2011.
Interiano 8-2-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-61) at 157.
6. In drawing the House map, Interiano and Downton relied primarily on non-suspense SSVR with
regard to Hispanic districts because (1) non-suspense SSVR data was shown in RedAppl; (2) CVAP
data was not available when they started drawing the House map; and (3) they believed, based in part
on advice from Hanna (who relied on the 2011 DOJ objection letter), that use of SSVR was
appropriate. Tr925, TrJ2070, TrJ2146 (Downton); TrA35, TrJ1534 (Interiano) (SSVR “was the
main statistic that we used throughout the entire process”). Downton believed SSVR was a good
proxy for HCVAP because a registered voter is presumably a citizen, and he believed that they
correlated fairly closely. However, Downton knew that HCVAP was always going to be slightly
higher than SSVR. Tr925 (Downton). CVAP data was available no later than April 21, before the
map went to the House floor.
7. At the beginning of redistricting, Solomons announced to the members that the House plan would
be a member-driven process, by which Solomons allegedly meant that the members would have as
much input as possible and the process would be “wide open for that purpose.” Tr1560-61, TrJ106974 (Solomons). Solomons asked the members to send him three versions of their districts—their
ideal/“Christmas list” map, the “realistic map,” and one “you can live with but wouldn’t necessarily
want.” Tr922 (Downton); TrJ1934 (Bruce); Tr1563 (Solomons).
8. A main goal for drawers of the House plan was to have a member-driven process that paired the
fewest members. Tr1499 (Interiano); Interiano 8-2-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-61) at 256. By its nature,
a member-driven process will protect incumbents. TrJ1382 (Vo); Tr1631-33 (Solomons); TrJ780-81
(Pickett) (redistricting is an exercise in self-preservation). Incumbent protection and re-electing as
many Republican members as possible were priorities. Tr1499-1500 (Interiano); Tr997 (Downton);
TrJ1729 (Aycock). Solomons wanted to give every incumbent legislator an opportunity to be reelected. Tr922, Tr939 (Downton); Tr1426-27 (Interiano); Tr1560-62, TrJ1069-70 (Solomons). To
Solomons, this meant that only members of the same party would be paired when pairing was
required. Tr1427 (Interiano). In Plan H283, twelve Republicans and two Democrats are paired. Id.
Democrats Vo and Hochberg were paired in Harris County. Other pairings in the map paired Anglo
Republicans. TrJ1331-32 (Coleman). The mapdrawers felt they were required to pair Republicans
where they did so because the Democrat districts were protected districts under the VRA. Plan H283
achieved the goals of incumbent protection and maximizing Republican seats as much as possible.
9. The process used to draw Plan H283 was not conducive to creating new minority opportunity
districts under § 2 of the VRA. Downton testified that they looked at where new districts could be
drawn, but balanced that with the Texas Constitution’s County Line Rule and the political reality of
getting a map passed. Downton 8-12-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-62) at 20-21; TrJ2036-37 (Downton).
It was clear to Solomons that it would take Republican votes to pass a map. Tr1556, Tr1613-14
(Solomons). However, Republicans were very resistant to creating any new minority opportunity
districts because they felt they would be Democratic districts. Thus, Republican members would not
vote for a map that created more minority districts or enhanced minority voting strength unless they
felt it was legally required. Even Democrats and minority members could be reluctant to create new
districts where it would disrupt their districts. TrJ1806 (Lozano). Further, members were often
shown only their own districts and approved only their own districts until the first public plan was
revealed. Although drop-in county delegation members worked together on the county map, member
participation was constricted because all the member can do in that situation is protect his own
district. TrJ152 (Arrington). A member cannot create additional minority districts because there is
mutual accommodation. Id.
10. Solomons assumed that VRA compliance was being looked at by the drop-in county delegations
because there were members in protected minority districts in the counties. Tr1603 (Solomons).
Interiano testified that delegation maps were dropped into the map “and that was it.” TrJ1444. He
agreed that, in most cases, they dropped in county delegation maps; if a new Latino opportunity
district was created by the delegation, it was left in there, but if there was not a new district, it was
not put in. TrJ1445; Interiano 8-2-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-61) at 47-48 (“[B]eing that this was a – a
member-driven process . . . we dropped in a county onto the map, and if it was a [minority
opportunity] district that was included in there, it was left in there and if there wasn’t, that was it.
I mean, I think you’d have to ask the members where – where those drop-in districts occurred,
whether that was done [assessing whether additional Latino or minority opportunity districts were
justified] or not.”). Interiano did not spend time looking to see what was possible (such as in Harris
County and El Paso County) when he knew the delegation was working on a map. Interiano 8-2-11
depo. (Joint Ex. J-61) at 145, 169. Interiano testified that questions about whether the VRA might
require something different in a county than what members had agreed upon or might require an
additional minority opportunity district were raised to members, and “those were issues that they
needed to look at within the delegation.” Id. at 147-49. Interiano was ultimately responsible for
determining whether § 2 required additional districts, but he had to work with the members, and he
testified that he “was not in a position to be providing instructions to members.” Id. at 149, 167-69.
His job would include telling Speaker Straus if he thought the law required a particular district. Id.
11. Early in the process, Interiano made an effort to identify the number of Latino opportunity
districts in the benchmark so they could meet or surpass that number in the final plan. Tr1443
(Interiano). He testified that whether a district is an opportunity district depends on the HCVAP,
SSVR, HVAP, as well as any election analysis that might have been done. Interiano 8-2-11 depo.
(Joint Ex. J-61) at 143. However he also testified that he did not know whether HD90 or HD148
were electing Latino candidates of choice. Tr1454. Interiano also testified that he tried to determine
how many overall Latino opportunity districts could be drawn. Interiano 8-2-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J61) at 131, 138. He tried mapping a Hidalgo+Cameron Latino opportunity district but not others.
Id. at 140.
12. Interiano also testified that he relied on his conversations with Baker Botts, the OAG, and TLC
to determine whether any additional Latino opportunity districts were required, and that he did not
think any additional opportunity districts were required, but he did not independently try to draw new
opportunity districts. TrJ1531; Interiano 8-2-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-61) at 48, 169.
13. Solomons relied on staff to tell him which districts were Latino opportunity districts. Tr1584
(Solomons). He did not make those assessments himself. Id. Solomons relied on staff, working
with TLC, to ensure that the map met legal requirements. Tr1584, Tr1615 (Solomons). Solomons
said that if there was an issue raised by staff, who were far more knowledgeable than he was, his
role, as facilitator, was to go back and tell the delegations they would have to make some
adjustments, and to “get with staff and see what adjustments work out,” so they could get a
14. Solomons never told a county delegation or members that they needed to add new Latino
opportunity districts. Tr1587 (Solomons). Solomons did not decide whether to draw a new
opportunity district in Cameron or Hidalgo. Tr1589 (Solomons). Solomons did not make a decision
whether El Paso County needed an additional Latino opportunity district. Tr1601 (Solomons).
Solomons agreed it might be possible that the El Paso delegation might agree on the map as
satisfactory to them, but that it might not comply with the VRA. Tr1602 (Solomons). He relied on
staff to say whether it met the VRA. Id. Solomons also relied on the TLC and OAG to advise him
whether there were problems with the map. Tr1640-41 (Solomons).
15. The process also was not conducive to protecting ability to elect under § 5 in existing
opportunity districts that were represented by Republicans. Republicans who represented minority
opportunity districts but were not the Hispanic candidates of choice, such as John Garza in HD117
and Jose Aliseda in HD35 preferred district configurations that were less likely to perform for
Hispanics. Protecting these Republican incumbents required the reduction of Hispanic voters’ ability
to elect their preferred candidates of choice in future elections. In HD117, this was done by
removing areas with higher Hispanic voter turnout and including Hispanic areas with lower turnout,
while maintaining the district at exactly 50.1% SSVR. In HD35, all Hispanic population metrics
were reduced from the benchmark. Similarly, to protect newly Republican Aaron Peña, mapdrawers
created a disproportionately Anglo district, split several precincts on the basis of race, and
deliberately underpopulated the district to limit Hispanic ability to elect as much as possible in this
16. Solomons told members that Interiano and Downton were available as resources for drawing
maps. Downton 8-12-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-62) at 12; Interiano 8-2-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-61) at 40.
Downton had a big-screen TV in his office so members could sit down with him and they could pull
up the map and discuss different ideas. Downton 8-12-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-62) at 12. Interiano
also helped answer questions from Solomons, Straus, and others (Harless, Aycock, Geren) during
floor debates. Interiano 8-2-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-61) at 41-42; Tr1442 (Interiano). However,
Solomons preferred that the HRC and staff not be the resource for legal issues; instead he directed
members to the TLC for that. TrJ1929 (Bruce). He also refused to allow Interiano and Downton to
be legal resources for members of the HRC or the House. D-601 at 131, 146-47; Tr1609
17. As they started the House map, Interiano and Bruce worked on areas other than the eight drop-in
counties, leaving holes where those would go. TrJ1935 (Bruce). Interiano was the primary
mapdrawer for the House plan, but Downton also drew parts of the plan. Tr1418, TrJ1575
(Interiano); TrJ1152 (Hanna); TrJ1989 (Downton). Interiano’s role in the House map included:
rural districts, Bexar County, the initial draft of Pena’s district in Plan H113 (drawn with Reps. Peña
and Guillen), and helping with amendments in Harris County and the 24/25 district issue. TrJ157577 (Interiano). Intern Elizabeth Coburn worked on HD35 with Interiano. For the most part,
Interiano had little involvement in drop-in counties other than helping draw the lines in Bexar
County and the Harris County amendments made during debate. TrJ1575.
18. Interiano worked on the map as a whole in terms of putting the pieces together, and different
members and different delegations worked together on their individual pieces. Interiano 8-2-11
depo. (Joint Ex. J-61) at 159. Interiano made sure to not cut county lines after everybody gave their
preferences. Id. at 159. The bigger challenge was putting all the pieces together because of all the
rural districts. TrJ1573 (Interiano). Rural members could work together with their neighbor, or
where there were conflicts they could go to Interiano, and he would work with them. If there were
conflicts, he took them to Solomons or Straus, but if the members agreed, there was no need to
elevate the issue to Solomons or Straus unless there was a legal issue raised by legal counsel.
TrJ1574 (Interiano). Interiano estimated that he worked with two-thirds of members while drawing
the House map. Id.
19. Interiano worked with Reps. Peña and Guillen on the initial configuration of Hidalgo County
and HD31, and then Downton and Peña made further changes to “maximize” Peña’s district.
Control of the Hidalgo County map was taken from the other three members, and they voiced strong
objections to the map.
20. The incumbents in Fort Bend County worked with Interiano to draw their districts and the new
district in that area.
21. The evidence does not indicate who drew the lines in McLennan County (Waco), but Interiano
was ultimately responsible for the configuration of the map outside of the drop-in counties.
22. Rep. Jimmie Don Aycock, working with Rep. Sheffield and with assistance from Downton,
drew the lines for HD54 and HD55 in Bell and Lampasas Counties. TrJ1755 (Aycock).
23. Drop-in county delegations were instructed to work together on a county delegation plan. The
eight drop-in counties were Travis, Denton, Nueces, Tarrant, Dallas, Bexar, El Paso, and Harris
Counties. Some county delegations were able to reach an agreement and some were not. If a county
delegation could not agree, Solomons and Speaker Straus would make the final decision. Tr1442
24. Travis County members were able to reach an agreement, and their delegation map was put into
the statewide map unchanged. TrJ2088 (Downton). Rep. Dawnna Dukes only approved of her own
25. Solomons worked on the Denton County drop-in map with other members of that delegation,
and Bruce was responsible for providing the delegation map to Downton to put into the entire map.
TrJ1924, TrJ1948 (Bruce).
26. Nueces County was drawn by the delegation, primarily by Rep. Todd Hunter, with the agreement
of Connie Scott and Raul Torres.
27. The Bexar County delegation worked with Interiano on an agreed map. Rep. Villarreal, the
vice-chair of the HRC, was working on draft Bexar County maps and submitting them to Interiano,
but Interiano worked separately with Garza and his staff and Larson’s staff on the version of HD117
that was ultimately incorporated into the map. Interiano worked on HD117 without input or
approval from Rep. Farias, whose district HD118 was also affected. The Bexar County delegation
map that went into Plan H113 was not approved by all members of the county delegation. Further,
all county delegation members but Garza and Straus voted against the motion to table Farias’s floor
28. The Dallas County delegation could not agree on a map due to the loss of two districts, so
Downton drew the map, working with some but not all members of the Dallas County delegation.
Tr924-26 (Downton). Rep. Davis testified that she was shut out of the process. Y. Davis depo. at
198. Other members were also left out of the process or complained that their input was not
considered, including Driver (Anglo, Republican), Mallory Caraway (African American, Democrat),
and Giddings (African American, Democrat).
29. The El Paso delegation submitted two maps through Rep. Pickett, and Downton moved forward
with the map that favored the Republican incumbent Margo even though this was not the map that
Pickett preferred. Further, Downton then changed the border between HD77 and HD78 to increase
the SSVR of HD78 without consulting any delegation members about the specific changes. Rep.
Margo was unhappy with the changes, which he felt did not favor him politically.
30. The Tarrant County delegation submitted a map in which the members approved of their own
districts, and that county map was put into Plan H113. Tr929 (Downton); TrJ14 (Veasey).
However, Downton made changes to HD90 (Burnam) and HD95 (Veasey) to increase the SSVR of
HD90 without consulting the affected representatives. TrJ14 (Veasey). Veasey was not asked for
input, even though he was on the HRC. Id. Reps. Veasey and Burnam opposed the changes.
31. The Harris County delegation did not submit an agreed map. The thirteen Republican members
submitted a map for the whole county that they had worked on without any input from the twelve
Democrat members. Downton made some changes “to attempt to comply with the Voting Rights
Act” by looking at the SSVR and BVAP numbers and trying to keep the numbers “relatively the
same” as the benchmark plan, and placed that into Plan H113. Tr932 (Downton). After that,
Downton made further changes to increase the SSVR of HD148 without approval from Rep. Farrar,
who represented the district. Id. Additional changes were made during second reading after debate
on an amendment proposed by Republican Woolley, and Democrats were allowed to make changes
to their districts without affecting the Republican districts or decreasing the SSVR of HD148. Rep.
Thompson was able to obtain further negotiated changes with some Democrats and Republicans after
that. Tr933 (Downton).
32. Downton was responsible for some of the lines in the House map in Harris County (he made
changes to the Republican delegation’s map before putting it into the initial public plan and likely
increased the SSVR of HD148 after the initial public plan), Dallas County (he was the primary
mapdrawer for Dallas County), Hidalgo County (he worked with Peña to make “tweaks” to the
district after the first public plan by splitting precincts), Tarrant County (he helped develop the
delegation map and then made changes to HD90 and HD95), and El Paso County (he made “tweaks”
to the border of HD77 and HD78 by splitting precincts). TrJ1989 (Downton); Downton 8-31-11
depo. (Joint ex. J-62) at 73; TrJ1576 (Interiano). Downton stated that he was “the person who’s
probably most responsible for all of the tweaks to the districts after the initial draft.” Downton 8-3111 depo.(Joint Ex. J-62) at 73.
33. As they were drafting the House plan, Downton, Interiano, and Bruce did not show legislators
full maps, but took maps of individual districts to legislators for them to sign if the district was
acceptable to them. TrJ1539 (Interiano); D-229. Once they got the full map together, they went
around with paper copies and asked members (but not all members) to sign off on their districts that
they had already talked to them about. TrJ1997 (Downton). Members were asked to sign a map of
their district with the statement that the member would vote for passage of H.B. 150 as long as their
district was in the form shown in the map. Tr1942 (Bruce); D-229.
34. Although Solomons stated that the process would be member-driven, members had input
primarily only on their own districts or counties, and there were numerous instances where the
member-driven process was not followed and where member input was not sought or was ignored.
35. At trial, Downton admitted using block-level racial shading in Dallas County, but denied using
it in any other part of the House map. TrJ2144-45 (Downton); see also Downton 8-31-11 depo.
(Joint Ex. J-62) at 113-14 (admitting using block-level racial shading when drawing all six minority
districts in Dallas County). However, his denial regarding other portions of the House map is not
credible. Downton admitted using block-level racial shading to split precincts along the border
between HD77 and HD78 in El Paso County to increase the SSVR of HD78. TrJ2118 (Downton).
When discussing racial shading and SSVR in RedAppl in general terms, Downton stated that he
“was moving blocks in and out based on the Hispanic shading, if a district needed Hispanic
population, [he] would take part of the precinct that was more Hispanic and put it in, and the Anglo
part of the precinct in the other district.” TrJ2093-94 (Downton). Downton also made changes to
HD90 to increase its SSVR, and the Court finds that he would have used block-level racial shading
to do so. HD90 has 27 split precincts, which indicates the use of block-level racial shading. Red381 Report. The Court finds that Downton would have also used racial shading in the Harris County
map to “tweak” the initial map to maintain benchmark minority numbers and to later increase the
SSVR of HD148. HD148 has 30 split precincts, which indicates the use of block-level racial
shading. Red-381 Report.
36. As he was putting the map together, Interiano continued to work with Hanna, outside counsel,
and “the different stakeholders involved.” TrJ1612 (Interiano). Interiano, Downton, and Bruce
asked Hanna to provide § 5 retrogression analyses on three plans in progress, and Interiano had
frequent conversations with Hanna on the phone and in emails. TrJ1612; TrJ1940-41 (Bruce).
Hanna’s memos were not shared with minority legislators. TrJ1957 (Bruce). Hanna did not provide
election analysis; he directed them to the OAG for that. TrJ1613 (Interiano); TrJ2137 (Downton);
TrA1513 (Hanna). Interiano sought legal advice from TLC, OAG, and Baker Botts. TrJ1576
(Interiano). Downton sought legal advice from TLC and the Texas OAG, and he also looked at
memos from and had conversations with Hanna. TrJ2032-33 (Downton). Downton recognized Jeff
Archer of the TLC as an expert on redistricting and respected his opinion, but did not always follow
his advice. Tr1007 (Downton).
37. Solomons, Straus, and others wanted to avoid going to the LRB, so there was a lot of pressure
to pass the map during the regular session. TrJ1926 (Bruce). Bonnie Bruce, the HRC Committee
Clerk, was the principal driver of the schedule and ensuring that it complied with House rules.
38. The HRC held a public hearing on redistricting for the Texas House on March 24, 2011, before
a map was released, but this hearing did not allow for meaningful pubic input because no public plan
was available at that hearing. TrJ16 (Veasey).
39. Once the first public plan was released on April 13, the process moved very quickly, and all
changes were completed on April 28, when the House concluded third reading. The Senate
Redistricting Committee did not adopt any amendments to the House map, nor did the full Senate.
It is customary for the Senate to not interfere with the House map, and the Senate did not make any
changes. Therefore, all meaningful consideration of the House plan occurred between April 13 and
April 28. Solomons acknowledged that the session did not end until May 30, but stated that they
decided they needed to take the map to the floor and pass the map by the end of April because there
were a number of other items that also needed to go to the floor during the session. Tr1628-29.
40. Before the first public plan H113 was released on April 13, the overall plan was largely drawn
in secret. No one saw a statewide plan until the first committee plan was released. TrJ1942 (Bruce).
Several minority members complained about the secrecy and exclusion from the mapdrawing
process. TrJ18, TrJ43 (Veasey); TrJ1298-1305 (Coleman); TrA899 (Dukes).
41. The first public map, Plan H113, was released late in the afternoon on April 13, and the five-day
posting rule was suspended to allow the HRC to hold two public hearings—one on April 15 (fewer
than 48 hours later) and one on April 17, which was Palm Sunday (and Solomons was absent).
Hanna expressed concern that a Friday hearing did not allow sufficient opportunity for public and
member input. After Solomons informed the members from the House floor that he had filed the
bill and notified them of the hearings, many members, including Rep. Turner, voiced objections that
the time-line was too quick. Tr795-96 (Turner). Fourteen witnesses testified at the April 15 hearing,
and all of them opposed Solomons’ proposed map. D-116 at 99.
42. Twenty-three witnesses testified at the April 17 hearing, most in opposition to Solomons’
proposed map. D-116 at 103. Several witnesses complained about the short notice and the
inadequate time to evaluate the map. (E.g., Jacquie Chaumette from Fort Bend County, Donna
Klaegez of Burnet County, Chuck Bailey of Dallas County, Gabriel Soliz from Victoria). Witness
Rogene Calvert of the Texas American Asian Redistricting Initiative (“TAARI”) felt there was
insufficient notice for the hearings. Calvert depo. at 69. In addition, Reps. Veasey and Turner
testified that there was insufficient time for meaningful public input given the short notice and the
hearing being on Palm Sunday. TrJ17 (Veasey); Tr798 (Turner).
43. The HRC formal meeting to consider amendments (with no public testimony allowed) was set
for 11 a.m. April 19 in the Agriculture Museum, without cameras or a method to allow recording.
Alvarado decl. (docket no. 331) at 6. The latest version of Solomons’ statewide plan (Plan H134)
was made public the day before on April 18. The HRC voted out the plan on the 19th with few
changes. Tr799 (Turner). Solomons went back to the floor again that week and indicated that for
all other members who were not on the HRC, they would be given until that following Friday to file
amendments on the bill that was voted out the 19th. Tr799 (Turner). After concerns were raised,
the deadline for filing amendments was changed to Monday, and the bill would go to the floor on
the 27th. Tr800-01 (Turner); TrJ1259 (Thompson). Turner again said the time-line was not adequate
and complained to Solomons about the lack of input from the black caucus. Tr801.
44. Although members were given more time to file amendments, that did not translate into more
minority input into the map. Minorities presented options that would have expanded the number of
minority opportunity districts, and they were routinely defeated in committee and then later on the
floor. TrJ155-56 (Arrington).
45. Minority legislators testified that there was inadequate time for people to respond to the
proposed plan. Y. Davis depo. at 203; TrJ1259 (Thompson). When Turner questioned the schedule,
he was told they were operating on an expedited schedule, even though there were still five or six
weeks left in the session. Tr798 (Turner). This was Turner’s third redistricting process and he said
that “this was a much more expedited timeline” compared to the previous two, and “it didn’t provide
us with enough opportunity to get the word out, to have people come up to testify on maps, on a
substantive map, that was just introduced on April the 13th.” Tr796. He stated that in the past they
would have had a week and a half at least. Tr796.
46. Minority groups testified and said that the VRA required changes to the proposed map, but those
changes were not adopted. TrJ18 (Veasey). Minority members also offered amendments and
alternative plans, but they were not adopted by the HRC. Id. Minority House members were very
upset about the secrecy and lack of inclusion in the process. Id. Veasey does not believe the process
was fair and inclusive of minority-elected officials because of the secrecy, last-minute changes, and
lack of input. TrJ19.
47. Rep. Alvarado, a member of the HRC, testified that the committee met with little notice to the
public and had accelerated timetables for consideration of committee amendments and committee
substitutes. Alvarado decl. (docket no. 331) at 6. There were only four days between initial
consideration of committee substitute Plan H113 by the HRC on April 15 to passage from the HRC
on April 19. The accelerated time-line made it difficult for the public and members to meaningfully
amend the bill or give full comment. Alvarado decl. (docket no. 331) at 6.
48. Hanna did not feel this redistricting cycle was under more time pressure than the past two cycles.
TrJ1177 (Hanna). Hunter testified that the redistricting procedures this time were not substantially
different from others he has experienced. TrA1088.
49. There were few improvements that would benefit minorities between Plan H113 and H283.
Joint Expert Ex. E-2 (Kousser Report) at 71; Tr806 (Turner). Although the non-suspense SSVR was
increased above 50% in HD90 and HD148, the representatives of these districts and minority
legislators opposed these changes as unnecessary given that these were already performing minority
districts. These increases in SSVR were not made to enhance minority voting opportunity or ability,
but to “offset” the loss of HD33 as a majority-Hispanic district and increase the number of SSVRmajority districts in the map. Tr238 (Kousser). In the second and third reading, although some
minority members’ minor amendments passed, no amendments passed that would have repaired
minority districts or increased minority voting strength statewide. TrJ46 (Veasey); Tr806 (Turner).
50. Rep. Turner testified this redistricting cycle was less transparent than the previous two and had
much more of an adverse effect on minorities. Tr805. He felt that the House map was
predetermined and public input did not cause any changes. Tr806.
51. Rep. Farrar testified that it was not an open process and it seemed that many things were already
decided by leadership early in the process. Farrar depo. at 90-91.
52. Rep. Y. Davis did not think the process was fair. Y. Davis depo. at 30. She did not believe it
was an open process because they did not see the map until it was put on the floor. Id. She was not
shown her district before the first public plan was released. Id. at 202.
53. Not all minority members were displeased with the process, however. Rep. Anchia did not have
any complaints or criticisms of the 2011 redistricting process other than that his district was
overpopulated. Anchia depo. at 165. Anchia testified that Downton’s door was generally open.
Id. at 174. Rep. Lozano (at the time a Democrat, now a Republican) felt that House leadership was
there for him during redistricting. TrJ1791 (Lozano).
54. Mapdrawers applied the County Line Rule to the census data to determine how many districts
would be placed within each county and whether the County Line Rule would have to be broken to
comply with one-person, one-vote. Hanna had advised the HRC that the County Line Rule would
have to yield to the VRA. D-590 at 38-39; D-124. Solomons took the position that they would not
break the County Line Rule unless it was necessary to comply with one-person, one-vote, and he
relied on staff to determine when that was necessary. Solomons refused to break the County Line
Rule to comply with the VRA, stating he would need a federal court to tell him that the VRA
trumped the County Line Rule. Solomons flatly rejected all plans that broke the County Line Rule
in order to create or maintain minority opportunity districts.
55. Mapdrawers also took the position that any excess population in a county (what they termed
“spillover”) had to be placed in only one other district, and could not be divided and placed in two
districts. TrJ2043-44 (Downton). Hanna had provided testimony before the committee that there was
no clear answer on that issue, D-590 at 51-57, and numerous past maps had placed spillover into
more than one district.
56. Interiano testified that Plan H283 has one county cut in violation of the County Line Rule in
Henderson County; part of its population is joined with Ellis County to create HD10. Tr1423
(Interiano). He testified that all other county cuts are spillovers, which were not considered to be
county cuts in violation of the County Line Rule. Tr1426 (Interiano). Arrington also testified that
Plan H283 had one County Line Rule violation. TrJ181.
57. For § 5 compliance, mapdrawers compared the number of Hispanic-majority districts (using
SSVR) and African-American districts (using BVAP) in the plan with the benchmark. They felt that
as long as the they had the same number of minority districts statewide as in the benchmark, they
were not retrogressing. Downton 8-12-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-62) at 19. Benchmark HD33 would
have been included in the count of benchmark majority Hispanic districts. Id. at 20.
58. Downton testified that if a district was majority-minority CVAP, then by definition the majority
group had the opportunity to elect their candidate of choice, and any failure to do so was a function
of turnout and not of whether they had the opportunity. Downton 8-12-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-62) at
24-25. He felt it was an opportunity district even if the district was never electing the minority
candidate of choice. Id. at 25. He stated that, if a district performed consistently for minorities but
was not majority-minority, it was not considered to be a protected district, but that fact would be
considered from a political perspective. Id.
59. Downton testified that, for the House map, they also looked at total Hispanic population, HVAP,
and Black total population to make sure they did not retrogress districts. Downton 8-12-11 depo.
(Joint Ex. J-62) at 22. He said that they looked at the OAG retrogression analysis for minoritymajority districts to ensure they had a legal map by maintaining benchmark levels. Id. at 22-23. He
stated that if a district was a majority-minority district, they would look at the election analysis under
the benchmark plan and under the new plan to see if they matched up, and they would try to maintain
the election performance under the OAG 10 as close to benchmark as possible. Id. at 23-26.
Interiano also testified that they tried to keep population metrics and minority performance in
majority-minority districts near benchmark levels. TrA35. However, they did not try to maintain
minority performance levels in HD35, HD41, or HD117, minority opportunity districts with
Republican incumbents, because doing so would make it harder for the Republican incumbents to
60. Interiano had discussed with Hanna how to measure retrogression, and had talked about the DOJ
letter from 2001, which said that an election analysis should be conducted as part of the retrogression
analysis. TrJ1538 (Interiano). Interiano testified that he did not look at election performance of
benchmark districts until close to end of the process, around the time that Plan H153 was voted out
of committee. TrA10. Although he knew from the OAG analysis that performance in HD35, HD41,
and HD117 had decreased, no changes were made to any of those districts in response. TrA11
(Interiano). Interiano felt that any decreases in performance could be offset by increases in
performance elsewhere in the map. TrA34, TrA37, TrA77 (Interiano). Interiano used the OAG
analysis for § 5 compliance and felt that if one minority district went from 3/10 to 5/10 wins and
another from 5/10 to 3/10 wins, then it was a wash. TrA34 (Interiano). Interiano testified that they
did not remedy all of Hanna’s concerns because they had worked with members and the rest of the
legal team (Baker Botts and the OAG) and had been assured the plan was legal, and they thought
there were offsets throughout the map. TrJ1529-20, TrJ1538 (Interiano).
61. Interiano and Opiela were friends and had frequent personal and email contact throughout the
House redistricting process. TrJ1478 (Interiano). Downton and Opiela were also friends. TrJ2085
(Downton). Although mapdrawers denied that Opiela had any input into the House map, this
testimony is not credible. Interiano emailed Opiela on March 3 asking for help on something he was
working on, and this was a time Interiano testified he was not working on a congressional plan. US104. Interiano also emailed Opiela information about House plans, and they discussed proposed
House plans. US-514; US-515; US-493; TrJ2086 (Downton). Even if Opiela did not directly play
a role in drawing district lines in the House map, he shared his ideas with Interiano and Downton,
and there is evidence that the mapdrawers utilized a variation of Opiela’s nudge factor and
manipulated Hispanic voter turnout in drawing districts.
62. Interiano denied using Hispanic turnout data to draw districts and denied getting turnout data
from Opiela or another source. However, this testimony is not credible. Interiano admitted that
members wanted to look at turnout. In addition, reports from the Texas OAG that Interiano received
and relied upon included estimated turnout by race in specific districts. See US-3; D-182; D-183.
Downton also knew that whether a majority-minority district performs is partly a question of turnout.
Downton 8-12-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-62) at 24-25; TrJ133 (Arrington). Interiano and Downton were
aware that the effectiveness of a minority district depended in large part on voter turnout and that
manipulating Hispanic voter turnout would help protect Republican incumbents in minority districts.
63. Interiano testified that he did not know how to do racial shading at the block level while he was
mapping. TrA72-73. This testimony is not credible, given the fact that he claimed 1000 hours of
experience with RedAppl, that Downton knew how to use block-level racial shading, and that
“block” is clearly visible as an option on the drop-down menu when a RedAppl user selects shading
level. Bruce testified that she would be surprised to hear that Interiano was unaware that RedAppl
has the capability to shade census blocks by race. TrJ1967.
64. The benchmark plan H100 had 29 SSVR-majority districts (using non-suspense SSVR),
including: 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 104, 116, 117, 118,
119, 123, 124, 125, 140, 143, and 145.
65. Plan H113, the first publicly released plan, had 28 SSVR-majority districts (using non-suspense
SSVR): these were the same districts that were in Plan H100 except for HD33. (HD104, which had
been majority SSVR using either non-suspense or total SSVR, was now 50.1% non-suspense SSVR
and 48.1% total SSVR).
66. Downton noted that there was testimony at the HRC hearings that they reduced the number of
Hispanic-majority districts by one, and that there were three districts in which they could increase
the SSVR over 50% to raise the number. TrJ2099 (Downton). The mapdrawers chose to increase
the SSVR in HD90 and HD148 because those districts were performing minority districts with
Democrat incumbents. They chose not to increase the SSVR of HD78 because it had a Republican
incumbent, increasing the SSVR might endanger his re-election, and they felt they did not need to
increase the SSVR of all three districts above 50%. Solomons was aware that people were saying
that the increase in SSVR in HD90 and HD148 was not necessary to comply with the VRA because
they were already performing Latino districts. Tr1600 (Solomons). Interiano testified that they did
not look at any election analysis to determine whether HD90 or HD148 were opportunity districts
in the benchmark plan. Interiano 8-2-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-61) at 152-53. They counted them as
new Latino opportunity districts in the enacted plan simply because they were majority-SSVR in the
enacted plan but not in the benchmark. Id. at 152-53.
67. Plan H153, the plan passed out of the HRC on April 19, had 30 SSVR-majority districts (using
non-suspense). They were the same districts as in H113 but HD90 and HD148 were added, with
HD90 brought to 50.1% non-suspense SSVR (but only 47.9% total) and HD148 brought to 50.2%
non-suspense SSVR (but only 49% total). The total deviation of Plan H153 was 9.9%, with the
smallest district being HD90 (-4.9%) and the largest being HD103 (+5%).
68. Plan H283 has the same 30 majority-SSVR districts (using non-suspense SSVR). The smallest
district is HD90 (-4.9%) and the largest district is HD61 (+5.02%), for a total deviation of 9.92%.
69. Plan H100 had 30 HCVAP-majority districts based on 2005-2009 ACS data: 31, 33, 34, 35, 36,
37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 104, 116, 117, 118, 119, 123, 124, 125, 140,
143, 145. HD51 was 45.8%; HD90 was 47.9%; HD103 was 46.5%; HD148 was 42.1%.
70. Plan H113 had 29 HCVAP-majority districts, the same ones as in H100 except for HD33 in
Nueces County. HD32 was 42%; HD51 was 44.1%; HD90 was 43.2%; HD103 was 44.5%; HD148
71. Plan H153 had 30 HCVAP-majority districts, adding HD148. HD32 was 43.6%; HD51 was
44.1%; HD90 was 49.7% (50% is within the margin of error of +/- 2%); HD103 was 44.6%.
72. Plan H283 has 30 HCVAP-majority districts (31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 74, 75,
76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 104, 116, 117, 118, 119, 123, 124, 125, 140, 143, 145, and 148) using 2005-2009
ACS data. HD32 is 44.2%; HD51 is 44%; HD90 is 49.7(+/-2)%; HD103 is 44.6%.
73. Dr. Chapa estimated that Plan H283 has 31 HCVAP-majority districts (the same 30 as
determined by using 2005-2009 ACS data, plus HD90 with estimated 52% HCVAP), 10 BCVAPmajority districts, and 9 B+HCVAP-majority districts, for a total of 50 minority-majority-CVAP
districts. Joint Expert Ex. E-1 (Chapa Report) at Table 11.
74. The House plan splits 412 precincts, and some precincts are split more than once. TrJ138
(Arrington); US-387 (Red-381 report). In the House map, precincts are split most often in the
minority districts. TrJ139 (Arrington). Looking at the whole state, Dr. Arrington found that there
was at least one precinct split in 85% of minority districts compared to 56% of Anglo districts, and
about three times as many splits per precinct in the minority districts than in Anglo districts. TrJ139
(Arrington). Looking only at urban counties, he found that 87% of the Anglo districts have at least
one split while 84% of the minority districts have at least one split, but there are twice as many splits
per district in the minority districts than in Anglo districts, and the difference is statistically
significant at the .002 level. TrJ140, TrJ218 (Arrington); US-519 (the mean number of splits in
minority districts is 10.57 and in Anglo districts is 5.32). He concluded that the disruption from
splitting precincts would be primarily in minority districts. TrJ140 (Arrington). Kousser found that
252 (61%) of the split precincts had BHVAP populations above 50% while only 3154 (37.5%) of
the state’s precincts had such concentrations of Latinos and African Americans. Joint Expert Ex.
E-2 (Kousser Report) at 84.
75. Dr. Arrington acknowledged that there can be race-neutral reasons for splitting precincts (such
as equalizing population), but he did not distinguish between race-conscious and race-neutral reasons
for precinct splits in his analysis. TrJ141. However, he felt it was inconceivable that all of these
other, race-neutral reasons would center on the minority districts to that extent and not in Anglo
districts. TrJ1410, TrJ218 (Arrington). Arrington testified that race was being used improperly to
split precincts to increase Anglo population percentages in HD41 to make it more Republican and
to reduce the ability of Hispanics to elect a candidate of their choice. TrJ141-44. He also noted that
precincts were split based on race in HDs 103, 104, and 105 in Dallas County. US-519.
76. Downton stated that he split precincts based on member requests, or in making changes to
comply with the VRA, alter SSVR levels, “that type of thing.” TrJ2023.
77. Solomons opposed Farias’s proposed amendment to Bexar County in the House map in part
because it increased the number of split precincts. TrJ333-35 (Farias). Given the number of split
precincts in the plan, this basis for opposition was pretextual.
78. Minority members and groups thought Plan H283 would have a negative impact on the minority
community because it did not account for the minority growth. Y. Davis depo. at 203. The
Legislature was told that this map would not be good for minorities. Id. at 204.
79. Dr. Arrington opined that there is discriminatory effect (retrogression) because the benchmark
plan had 50 effective minority districts, and H283 has only 45 or 46. TrJ118 (Arrington). He noted
that HD33 in Nueces County was eliminated/moved and HD149 in Harris County was
eliminated/moved; he concluded that HD117 in Bexar County was no longer effective and HD35
was no longer effective; and he was not sure about HD41's performance due to the many split
precincts (and therefore unreliable election data); and no new minority opportunity districts were
created. TrJ119-20 (Arrington). Dr. Arrington looked at demographics and election results
(endogenous and exogenous). TrJ121. For endogenous elections, he relied on data from the State
regarding elections and Hispanic candidate of choice. TrJ122-23. For exogenous elections, he and
Dr. Handley looked at one election in each of the five elections in the previous decade, and looked
at the highest office for which there was a Hispanic candidate who was preferred by Hispanic voters.
80. Dr. Engstrom concluded that Plan H283 provided Latinos with a reasonable opportunity in 30
districts: 31, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 51, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 90, 103, 104, 116, 118, 119,
123, 124, 125, 140, 143, 145, and 148. Joint Expert Ex. E-7 (Engstrom Corr. Rebuttal Report docket
307-1) at 28. Dr. Engstrom considered Latinos to have a reasonable opportunity in a district when
their preferred candidates win a majority of the votes cast in the district in a select set of general and
primary elections more often than not. Id.; Tr511-12 (Engstrom). Dr. Engstrom concluded that the
Latino Task Force Plan, H292, provided Latinos with 34 such opportunities: 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36,
37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 51, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 90, 103, 104, 116, 117, 118, 119, 123, 124, 125,
140, 143, 145, and 148. Joint Expert Ex. E-7 (Engstrom Corr. Rebuttal Report) at 28-29.
81. Dr. Chapa testified that there is sufficient concentrated minority population to form more
majority-minority districts (with combined Latino and African-American CVAP population) than
were created in Plan H283. Tr189.
82. Dr. Kousser opined that every other plan he looked at that was considered during the session
(H111, H115, H130, H195/H269, H201, and H205) offered more opportunities for minorities to elect
their candidates of choice in terms of the numbers of HVAP, HCVAP, B+HVAP, and B+HCVAPmajority districts created than Plan H283 did. Joint Expert Ex. E-2 (Kousser Report) at 80, Table
19. He concluded that the failure to create more opportunity districts was not justified by the number
of deviations, county breaks, split VTDs, and compactness scores of other plans. Id. at 81-86;
Tr240-45. Plan H283 has a larger average deviation than several other plans, is less compact than
almost all the other plans, and it splits more VTDs. Tr244 (Kousser). To address criticisms that the
proposed districts in minority proposed plans are not compact, Kousser looked at compactness of
districts in Plan H283 and concluded that the minority districts in Plan H283 are not more compact.
Tr244-45. Mapdrawers rejected these plans as violating the County Line Rule or failing to create
more HCVAP or SSVR-majority districts than their plan.
83. Kousser and expert Anthony Fairfax opined that Plan H283 provided less opportunity than the
benchmark plan because it reduced the number of B+HVAP districts, despite the minority population
growth. Joint Expert Ex. E-2 (Kousser Report) at 80; Tr844 (Fairfax).
84. Plan H201 (MALC’s Whole County Plan submitted during the session) has 32 SSVR-majority
districts, 31 HCVAP-majority districts, 37 HVAP-majority districts, 50 B+HCVAP-majority
districts, and 59 BHVAP-majority districts. Joint Expert Ex. E-2 (Kousser Report) Table 19; Tr91.
According to Dr. Chapa’s 2010 population estimates (Report Table 9), Plan H201 has 32 HCVAPmajority districts, 11 BCVAP-majority districts, and 55 H+BCVAP-majority districts. Tr186, 188
(Chapa). Interiano testified that H201 has three county cuts. TrJ1434-35.
85. Plan H205 submitted during the session has 34 HCVAP-majority districts, 42-HVAP majority
districts, 53 H+BCVAP-majority districts, and 62 BHVAP-majority districts. Joint Expert Ex. E-2
(Kousser Report) Table 19. According to Dr. Chapa’s 2010 population estimates (Report Table 10),
Plan H205 has 34 HCVAP-majority districts, 9 BCVAP-majority districts, and 58 H+BCVAPmajority districts. Tr188 (Chapa). Interiano testified that this map has numerous county cuts.
86. Professor Lichtman opined that Plan H232 (submitted during the session) created eight
additional effective minority opportunity districts (three in Dallas County, three in Harris County,
one in Tarrant County, and one in Fort Bend County) compared to the enacted House plan. Tr122930, Tr1239-34 (Lichtman); Joint Expert Ex. E-3 (Lichtman Report) at 9-14. Two of the districts are
majority-HVAP and the others are majority-minority-VAP. In Dallas County there are two net
additional majority-minority districts: HD101 with 54.2% combined minority and HD102 with
75.5% combined minority. There is also HD105 with 60% HVAP and 72.3% combined minority
VAP. Tr1230 (Lichtman). In Harris County, there are HD132 (67.3% combined minority VAP),
HD149 (84% combined), and a majority-HVAP district HD138 (57.3% HVAP and 71.2% combined
VAP). In Tarrant County, there is HD96 (51% combined) and in Fort Bend County HD28 (70.6%
combined VAP). Id. Each of the proposed new districts performs for minorities in the five 2008 and
2010 general elections Lichtman studied. Plan H232 has only one County Line Rule violation, the
same number as Plan H283. Tr1437 (Interiano). It has two fewer HCVAP-majority districts (28)
than Plan H283. Tr1439-40 (Interiano).
87. Expert Anthony Fairfax opined that, using 2010 Census data, Plan H202 (the Legislative Black
Caucus map submitted during the session, which had 24 seats in Harris County) had 65 majority16
minority-VAP districts. Joint Expert Ex. E-13 (Fairfax Report (docket 267-2)) at 8. There are 12
districts that are predominantly African American, 45 that are predominantly Hispanic, and 93 that
are predominantly White. The relative overall deviation range was 9.93% and the relative mean
deviation was 2.97%. The plan has 151 split VTDs. Id. at 9. In Fairfax’s supplemental report
(docket 267-1), which used TLC CVAP data from RedAppl, he found that Plan H202 has 56
majority-minority-CVAP districts (in which non-Hispanic White CVAP was less than 50%), 53 of
which were majority Hispanic plus Black (H+BCVAP>50%), 14 were predominantly Black, and 33
were predominantly Hispanic (31 were majority-HCVAP). The remaining 103 districts were
predominantly White. Supp. Report at 4. Fairfax states that Plan H202 displayed overall mean
compactness values that are closer to the ideal value of 1 for all three compactness measurements
used (Reock, Schwartzberg, Polsby-Popper) than Plan H283. Supp. Report at 5. The least compact
district was more compact than the least compact district in H283 using Schwartzberg and PolsbyPopper, while the compactness measurements for the least compact district was the same using
Reock. According to Fairfax (Supp. Report at 6), this plan increased the number of H+BCVAP
majority districts from 57 (benchmark) to 58. Interiano testified that Plan H202 maintained the
Henderson County split, and also split San Patricio, Nueces, Victoria, Goliad, Bee, and Austin
88. Fairfax also opined that Plan H214 had 63 majority-minority VAP districts. Joint Expert Ex.
E-13 (Fairfax Report (docket 267-2)) at 9. Twelve districts were predominantly African American,
42 were predominantly Hispanic, and 96 were predominantly White. Twenty-nine are majorityHCVAP. Using CVAP data from RedAppl, this plan had 54 majority-minority districts (in which
non-Hispanic White CVAP was less than 50%); 51 of these were majority Hispanic plus Black
(H+BCVAP>50%), 14 were predominantly Black, and 31 were predominantly Hispanic. The
remaining 105 districts were predominantly White. Fairfax states that Plan H214 displayed overall
mean compactness values that are closer to the ideal value of 1 for all three compactness
measurements used (Reock, Schwartzberg, Polsby-Popper). Supp. Report (docket no. 267-1) at 5.
The least compact district was more compact than the least compact district in Plan H283 under all
three compactness measurements.
89. The Task Force’s Plan H292 has 31 HCVAP-majority districts: 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38,
39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 90, 103, 104, 116, 117, 118, 119, 123, 124, 125, 140,
143, 145, and 148. The Task Force contends that HD51 (HCVAP 43.7%, SSVR 36.9%), HD90
(49.7% HCVAP, SSVR 50.1%), and HD103 (HCVAP 44.6%, SSVR 38.1%) are also Latino
opportunity districts. The Task Force does not count HD80 as a Latino opportunity district despite
its HCVAP-majority status because minority-preferred candidates do not win more often than not
in the general election (3/7 or 6/13). The Task Force therefore asserts that H292 has 34 Latino
opportunity districts. Interiano testified that it has six county cuts—Nueces, San Patricio, Victoria,
Brazos, Henderson, and Smith Counties and would violate the Texas Constitution. Tr1440.
90. The mapdrawers, the HRC, and the Legislature were aware of one person, one vote requirements
for the House map, and were also aware of the decision in Larios v. Cox, 300 F. Supp. 2d 1320
(2004). Interiano 8-26-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-61) at 11-12. At the March 1, 2011 HRC hearing,
Hanna stated that for the Texas House districts the law “allows for a ten percent deviation without
justification . . . .” D-590 at 40. But he noted that the case of Larios v. Cox might mean that “the
old ten percent rule, which was a safe harbor, may not be any more.” Id. Hanna warned that “[i]f
all [of a] certain kind of district are drawing small, then we start to run into the sort of issues that
they [had] in [Larios v.] Cox. Or if all the districts are drawing big, we start to run into that question.
That’s not fully developed jurisprudence yet but that starts to get me a little bit concerned.” D-590
at 45. Hanna advised that, to avoid Larios problems, the Legislature should “[e]nsure that all
deviations are justified by a legitimate, consistently applied policy such as the preservation of county
lines” and should “[m]ake sure that deviations in a plan with a total deviation of less than 10 percent
do not consistently advantage or disadvantage one or more regions, racial or ethnic groups, or
political parties.” Perez-132 at 1. At the April 15 HRC meeting, Rep. Madden and Luis Figueroa
of MALDEF discussed Larios, and Rep. Madden noted that the case “indicated that you had to pay
attention to deviations from the standard so that you didn’t have one group as under and other groups
as over.” D-595 at 57.
91. The TLC’s publication, State and Federal Law Governing Redistricting in Texas (March 2011
version), stated, “[I]t is reasonably clear that, so long as the total deviation range of a state legislative
plan remains under 10 percent, the state is not required to strive for a more exacting level of
population equality. Within this range, the state is relatively free to use population deviation for any
rational purpose. However, as discussed in Section D below, a discriminatory scheme of population
deviation may be invalid for other reasons, even if the range of deviation is less than 10 percent.”
US-357 at 36. Section D stated, “Even if a legislative plan has an overall range of population
deviation less than 10 percent, a pattern of population deviation within that range to further invidious
intentional discrimination or that inadvertently resulted in systematic underrepresentation of a racial
or ethnic group may be held invalid on other grounds.” Id. at 37. It also warned that, “To minimize
the chance of a successful challenge under the somewhat amorphous Larios standard, mapdrawers
may want to consider, in a legislative redistricting plan with an overall deviation of less than 10
percent, avoiding deviations that consistently advantage or disadvantage a particular political, racial,
or ethnic group or region of the state.” Id. at 39.
92. Plan H283 has a total deviation (the difference in population between the smallest and largest
districts) of 9.92%. The smallest district is HD90 in Tarrant County (-8,209, -4.9%) and the largest
is HD61 (8,417, 5.02%). Red-100 Report.
93. Mapdrawers assumed they could have a 10% top-to-bottom deviation range and put the map
together with that assumption. Tr994 (Downton); Tr1473-74 (Interiano). There was no effort to
minimize deviation beyond complying with the 10% top-to-bottom deviation. Downton 8-12-11
depo. (Joint Ex. J-62) at 15; Tr1474.1 For drop-in counties, ensuring population equality was left
Downton testified at his deposition that they “made an effort to have a narrower range within the counties than
the overall 10 percent range.” Downton 8-31-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-62) at 96. However, there was no effort to achieve
minimal deviation, and the drop-in counties have significant population deviations. As noted, deviation issues beyond
staying within 10% were left to the county delegations. At most, there is evidence that Downton attempted to decrease
to the delegation members. Tr1474. Interiano advised the members to attempt to comply with one
person, one vote, but there was no effort to get population equality beyond ensuring a 10% deviation.
Tr1474; Interiano 8-2-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-61) at 53-54. Interiano calculated deviation only
statewide; he did not look at individual counties except to the degree it had to fit within statewide
deviation. Interiano 8-26-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-61) at 10-11. Solomons was not aware of any legal
justification for the population deviations within counties, but assumed the staff would know why
there were population deviations. Tr1596-98 (Solomons).
94. Given the adherence to the County Line Rule, the House map would necessarily have a top-tobottom deviation close to 10%. However, districts within drop-in counties could have been drawn
with little to no deviation from a county ideal.
95. Martin testified that there are fourteen counties with two or more whole districts contained
within them, and they account for 93 of the 150 districts. Tr379-80. He testified that these 93
districts could have been drawn with zero or minimal population deviations. Tr380. Further, eight
of the fourteen counties (accounting for 75 districts) have a deviation over 3.5%. Tr380. Martin
would give an “F” on good faith effort to minimize deviation. Tr381.
96. A large number of Texas House districts in Plan H283 deviate substantially from the ideal
population, and there is more population disparity in Plan H283 than in the benchmark. Tr233
(Kousser). Professor Kousser opined that, if the Legislature had been trying to minimize deviations,
a histogram of population deviations would have resembled a normal curve, with the largest number
of districts clustered around zero deviations. Tr233; Joint Expert Ex. E-2 (Kousser Report) at 61.
Instead, he noted, it is more U-shaped, with the largest number of districts between four and five
percent underpopulated (23 districts) and four and five percent overpopulated (20 districts). Tr233;
Joint Expert Ex. E-2 at 61, 63.2 Looking only at Anglo-majority and Latino-majority districts, in
general the Anglo districts are more underpopulated than overpopulated and the Latino districts are
primarily overpopulated: 34/80 Anglo districts are overpopulated and 46/80 are underpopulated
while 22/37 Latino districts are overpopulated and 15/37 are underpopulated.3 Tr234 (Kousser);
Joint Expert Ex. E-2 at 64-65. Dr. Arrington opined that usually the population deviations in a
districting plan would be unimodal, with most of the population deviations clustering near the ideal
population. US-355 at 7.
97. Kousser opined that Plan H283 was “not very compliant” with one person, one vote and that
deviations by a small amount in Dallas County (to 8.88%) and in Hidalgo County.
This is an increase from Plan H100, in which 37 districts had deviations over 4%. Joint Expert Ex. E-2 at 62,
Five of the underpopulated Latino districts are in El Paso County, where the population deficit combined with
the County Line Rule required that all five districts be underpopulated compared to the state district ideal. Excluding
those districts, more than twice as many Latino-majority districts are overpopulated than underpopulated. Tr235
(Kousser); Joint Expert Ex. E-2 (Kousser Report) at 64.
“the population disparities are clearly correlated with partisanship and ethnicity.” Tr248-49.
Kousser found that the population deviations were not justified and more heavily burdened Latinos.
Tr249, Tr313. He did not consider whether incumbency protection played a role in the population
98. Kousser also noted that districts in urban counties were generally overpopulated, including
Republican districts (19 over and 15 under, with an average deviation of .47), but Democrat districts
were more overpopulated (22 over and 17 under, with an average deviation of .94), and Latino
Democrat districts were even more overpopulated (13 over and 6 under, with an average deviation
of 1.17). Tr236 (Kousser); Joint Expert Ex. E-2 at 66. Kousser found “no particular pattern” for
districts represented by Republicans in urban counties. Tr236. But he found a bias in Democrat
districts, finding that they tended to be overpopulated. Id. And he found that districts represented
by Latino Democrats were almost all overpopulated, such that Democrats were disadvantaged, but
Latinos were even more disadvantaged. Tr235-37. Kousser noted that this difference cannot be
explained simply by partisanship or by the County Line Rule. Tr237. He opined that this
demonstrated that the Legislature acted with a partisan and racially discriminatory intent. Joint
Expert Ex. E-2 at 67.
99. Dr. Alford testified that there is not a strong tendency toward a unimodal distribution around
zero when redistricters start with existing districts and modify them based on new population data,
as opposed to starting from scratch. TrJ1887-88. Alford testified that this was because mapdrawers
were redistributing population while trying to preserve constituency representational relations and
follow county lines, and they would stop when satisfied that they were within the top-to-bottom
deviation. TrJ1888-89 (Alford). He also noted that both minority and Anglo districts in Plan H283
have a bimodal pattern. TrJ1890 (Alford). Alford concluded that the distribution indicates that
population equality was balanced against other redistricting interests, the way that 10% leeway
presumes it will be. Id. He also opined that the fact that the population deviations were not clustered
around zero did not indicate a systematic or planned pattern of under or over population. Id.
100. Dr. Alford analyzed population deviations in his 2014 supplemental report. TrJ1867 (Alford).
He divided the House districts in Plan H283 into minority and non-minority by CVAP and then
compared how they were treated. TrJ1868 (Alford). Roughly 100 districts are non-minority and 50
or 52 are minority, depending on how one counts. Id. His count used minority CVAP (using the
2008-2012 ACS average) to capture HCVAP, BCVAP, and H+BCVAP minority districts, and the
actual deviation numbers came from the 2010 Census. TrJ1868-69. He also used 2012 SSVR data.
TrJ1869. He found that the average minority district is overpopulated by 232 people, and the
average Anglo district undersized by 124 people. TrJ1870. In addition, SSVR majority/Hispanic
majority districts are undersized by 242 and Anglo majority districts (SSVR <50%) are oversized
by 63. Id. Alford testified that an ideal district is around 168,000, so these are very small deviations
from ideal. TrJ1871.
101. Dr. Alford also looked at adjusted average population deviation, taking into account drop-in
counties and looking at deviation from county ideal for those. TrJ1872. For districts outside drop-in
counties, he took all of the state population outside the drop-in counties and divided by the number
of districts to get a new ideal for those districts. TrJ1873. He testified that this would take out the
possibility that data are being obscured by drop-in county districts. Id. Using the adjusted average
population deviations, minority-majority-CVAP districts are 172 underpopulated, majority-Anglo
districts are 91 overpopulated, SSVR-majority districts are 80 overpopulated, and districts with
SSVR below 50% are 21 underpopulated. TrJ1874 (Alford); D-168 (Alford March 14, 2014 Report
Table 7 & Graphs D & E). He testified that these numbers show that the districts are close to ideal.
102. Dr. Alford also analyzed all the drop-in counties as a whole (Bexar, Dallas, Denton, El Paso,
Harris, Nueces, Tarrant, and Travis), using an adjusted countywide ideal, to see if on average the
districts are being treated differently. This examines drop-in counties without the risk that the rest
of state will obscure the results. TrJ1875 (Alford). In this analysis, minority-majority-CVAP
districts are underpopulated by 149 persons; Anglo-CVAP-majority districts are on average 141
persons overpopulated; SSVR-majority districts are on average 626 persons underpopulated; and
districts with less than 50% SSVR are on average 209 persons above the county ideal. TrJ1874-77
(Alford); D-168 (Alford March 14, 2014 Report Table 8).
103. Dr. Alford testified that, based on statewide ideal population, there is not a discernible pattern
of overpopulation of minority-CVAP or SSVR-majority districts or of underpopulation of AngloCVAP-majority districts. TrJ1880-82; D-172; D-173; D-174. He also testified that, based on county
ideal population, there is no discernible pattern of systematically overpopulating minority-majorityCVAP districts or majority-SSVR districts in drop-in counties. TrJ1884-86; D-175; D-176.
104. Dr. Alford did not analyze population deviations within any one county such as Dallas, Harris,
or Nueces County. TrJ1900 (Alford). Nor did he look for patterns by only considering the specific
counties in which Plaintiffs allege that population deviations were used to disadvantage minorities.
Dr. Alford agreed that population variations can be a tool to discriminate. TrJ1901.
105. Dr. Arrington admitted that statewide there is no systematic overpopulation of minority
districts when the County Line Rule is taken into account. TrJ182. However, he noted that Peña’s
district was intentionally underpopulated and surrounding districts were overpopulated to allow Peña
to win as a Republican in the face of the known opposition of Hispanic voters to Republican
candidates. US-355 at 10-11. He also opined that deviations combined with bizarre district shapes
suggest a possible racial bias in Dallas and Harris Counties, and his conclusion based on the
evidence was that any racially discriminatory effects must have been intentional. US-355 at 11-13.
106. The total deviation of Dallas County is 8.88%. Tr329 (Martin). Martin testified that there
appeared to be no effort to draw a minimal deviation map. Id. He testified that a map could be
drawn without deviation, and noted that the deviation of demonstration Plan H288 was only 1.74%,
and that was easily achieved. Tr333-34. By minimizing deviation and not splitting minority
population in northeast Dallas, that plan increased minority ability to elect. Tr335 (Martin).
107. In Dallas County, in Plan H283, the two Latino districts are overpopulated. Based on deviation
from the statewide ideal district size, HD103 is overpopulated by 8,379 people (5%) (the most in the
County) and HD104 is overpopulated by 5,147 people (3.07%). Of the four African-American
districts, one is overpopulated (HD109 by 3.9%) and three are underpopulated (HD100 by 3.87%,
HD110 by .05%, and HD111 by .39%). Thus, among the six minority districts in Dallas in Plan
H283, three were overpopulated (HD103, HD104, and HD109) and three were underpopulated
(HD100, HD110, and HD111). D-109; TrJ183 (Arrington). Of the eight Anglo-majority districts,
four are underpopulated and four are overpopulated. HD102 is underpopulated by 3.88%; HD108
is underpopulated by 2.63%; HD112 is underpopulated by .35%; and HD115 is underpopulated by
.54%. HD105 is overpopulated by 4.83%; HD107 is overpopulated by 2.53%; HD113 is
overpopulated by 2.25%; and HD114 is overpopulated by 2.8%.4 Kousser opined that HD103 and
HD104 were overpopulated to put as much Latino population as possible into those districts
(packing), making it much more difficult to draw additional opportunity districts for the minority
population growth. Dr. Arrington similarly noted that the Hispanic districts are overpopulated, and
that makes it more difficult to create another minority district. TrJ222 (Arrington). Martin further
noted that Anglo-district HD105 is overpopulated by 8,091 people, and because the additional
population is Anglo population from the south, it makes it more difficult to draw an additional
minority opportunity district in western Dallas County. Tr325 (Martin). Without those additional
Anglos, the district is more likely to elect Latino candidates of choice. Tr326 (Martin).
108. Downton testified that he did not recall an effort to have a 1% deviation range within Dallas
and explained the population deviations as resulting from an effort to maintain benchmark minority
population levels. Downton 8-31-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-62) at 97-98. He testified that because
benchmark HD103 and HD104 were underpopulated (HD103 was 30% underpopulated, the most
in the state), he did not think they could have gotten the districts to ideal population and also
maintained their benchmark levels of minority population (SSVR). Id. However, in his October
20, 2011 deposition, Downton testified that HD103 in Plan H283 was 8,379 above ideal population
because he worked with Rep. Anchia to include that population. TrJ2148 (Downton). He further
testified that it was not necessary to have a 5% deviation in HD103 to maintain the Hispanic
population, and that there were others ways to have done it, “but that was a policy decision.”
109. The population deviation of Harris County in Plan H283 is 9.74%. Tr356 (Martin). Martin
testified that it was easy to draw a plan with a deviation of only 1.81%. Tr357. Because the
Legislature chose to go with 24 districts, there was enough population to have all districts be at ideal
population or above. However, some districts were overpopulated and some were underpopulated.
Three of the four Latino-majority districts (HD140, 145, and 148) were overpopulated, and four of
the six African-American districts (HD131, HD139, HD146, and HD147) were overpopulated.
Dr. Arrington’s rebuttal report, US-355 Table 1, analyzes the districts in Dallas County. He noted at trial that
both Anglo and minority districts in Dallas County were roughly half under and half over-populated. TrJ183
(Arrington). However, his Table 1 only has 13 districts, leaving out HD100, a significantly underpopulated minority
district. He agreed that including HD100 would completely change the results of the analysis. TrJ184-85.
HD137 is also overpopulated. Rep. Alvarado contended that this uses up minority population
unnecessarily and limits the ability to draw new districts. Alvarado Decl. (docket no. 331) at 5;
Hochberg Decl. (docket no. 331) at 3. Ten of the thirteen Anglo Republican districts were
overpopulated, and the average overpopulation of these ten districts was 4,337, compared to 6,337
for the eight overpopulated minority/Democrat districts.
110. Interiano stated that, given the choice to have 24 districts in Harris County, the ideal population
size for a district in the County was 170,519, slightly higher than the ideal state district size
(167,637). Interiano Decl. (docket no. 370-2) at ¶ 2. He stated, for example, that HD140 and
HD145 are populated at 170,732 and 170,821, respectively, which is almost the ideal county size but
several thousand above ideal state size. Interiano stated, “This overpopulation is due to the fact that
Harris County was awarded twenty-four districts, not in order to avoid drawing an additional
minority opportunity district. With that said, there were several instances where it was necessary to
increase the population of a particular district either because a member specifically requested to have
certain precincts and was unwilling to give up other populations or because the population was
needed in order to maintain certain benchmarks, like the 50% Spanish Surname Voter Registration
(SSVR) for Latinos or the existing levels of African-American voting age population.” Id.
111. Rep. Walle raised the issue of minority district overpopulation in Harris County during second
reading on April 27. D-13 at S235. No justification was given at the time for the population
112. Mapdrawers removed population (including the African-American community of Como, which
has historically been part of the district) from HD90 in Tarrant County to raise its SSVR, leaving it
underpopulated by 8,209 (-4.9%) and the smallest district in the state. D-190 at 685-89.
113. In Plan H100, El Paso County had five districts wholly contained within it, and all five districts
were majority-HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data. HD75 was 83.1% HCVAP; HD76 was 89.4%
HCVAP; HD77 was 78.6% HCVAP; HD78 was 56.2% HCVAP; and HD79 was 70% HCVAP.
TrJ709 (Rodriguez); D-100 at 34.
114. In Plan H100, four districts were majority total SSVR and HD78 was not. HD75 was 75.6%
total SSVR (75.9% non-suspense), HD76 was 84.1% total SSVR (84.4% non-suspense); HD77 was
72.6% total SSVR (73.1% non-suspense); HD78 was 47.1% total SSVR (47.5% non-suspense);
HD79 was 64.6% total SSVR (65.2% non-suspense). TrJ1046 (Solomons); TrJ709 (Rodriguez); D100.
115. In 2008, HD78 was an open seat (before that, the seat had long been represented by Republican
Pat Haggerty), and Hispanic Democrat Joe Moody defeated Anglo Republican Dee Margo by a
margin of 51.53% to 45.11% to represent HD78. Tr406 (Martin); TrJ880-81 (Moody).
116. In 2010, Margo defeated Moody by a margin of 52.41% to 47.59%. TrJ881 (Moody). Dr.
Engstrom determined that the voting was racially polarized. He estimated that Latino support for
the Latino incumbent Moody was 79.6% and non-Latino support was 28.4%. Tr510 (Engstrom).
SSVR turnout was 34.88%. Tr510 (Engstrom). Margo was not the candidate of choice of Hispanic
voters. Joint Expert Ex. E-2 (Kousser Report) at 46; US-351 (Handley Report) at 34.
117. At the time of redistricting, El Paso County was 82% Hispanic in terms of total population and
was 74.74% estimated HCVAP based on 2005-2009 ACS data. TrJ716 (Rodriguez); D-218; Chapa
Table 1; Gonzalez-Baker Report Table 3; PL-297.
118. In 2011, the incumbents were four Democrats and one Anglo Republican: Chente Quintanilla
(Hispanic, Democrat) (HD75); Naomi Gonzalez (Hispanic, Democrat) (HD76), Marisa Marquez
(Hispanic, Democrat) (HD77), Dee Margo (Anglo, Republican) (HD78), and Joe Pickett (Anglo,
Democrat) (HD79). TrJ730 (Pickett).
119. As in Plan H100, all five El Paso districts in Plan H283 are majority-HCVAP districts using
2005-2009 ACS data. HD75 is 89% HCVAP; HD76 is 83.5% HCVAP; HD77 is 73.4% HCVAP;
HD78 is 55.2% HCVAP; HD 79 is 76.7 HCVAP. D-109 at 44. HD78 HCVAP% decreased from
56.2% to 55.2% between Plan H100 and H283.
120. In Plan H283, as in Plan H100, four districts are majority total SSVR and HD78 is not. HD75
is 81% total SSVR (81.2% non-suspense); HD76 is 80.7% total SSVR (81.3% non-suspense), HD77
is 66% total SSVR (66.4% non-suspense); HD78 is 46.8% total SSVR (47.1% non-suspense); and
HD79 is 69% total SSVR (69.3% non-suspense). Total and non-suspense SSVR are lower in HD78
than in the benchmark plan.
121. El Paso was a drop-in county with five districts (the number did not change from the
benchmark). Tr923 (Downton); TrJ731 (Pickett). Solomons and Downton told the El Paso
delegation to draw their five districts, staying within El Paso County. Tr923 (Downton). Around
March 1, Solomons told Pickett that, since he was on the HRC, he should take the lead for El Paso
and come up with a map for Solomons’ staff to review. TrJ732, TrJ783 (Pickett). Pickett was “the
dean” of the El Paso delegation. Tr923 (Downton); TrJ1045 (Solomons).
122. In the benchmark plan, HD77 had a northeast extension and a middle “horn,” and there were
also extensions towards the east coming out of the southern portion into HD76. TrJ738 (Pickett).
123. Changes were necessary to the El Paso districts to equalize the population. HD75 was 51,771
overpopulated; HD76 was 34,922 underpopulated; HD77 was 35,070 underpopulated; HD78 was
1,148 overpopulated; and HD79 was 20,465 underpopulated. D-100 at 17; TrJ720 (Rodriguez);
TrJ734, TrJ786 (Pickett) (goals included equalizing population and that was going to be the biggest
challenge); Marquez depo. at 18.
124. Geographic factors play a role in drawing districts in El Paso County. The Davis Mountains,
state and international boundary lines, and federal installations all influence the map. D-267;
TrJ717-18 (Rodriguez) (“There’s no question the mountain range is a factor, and certainly the
international boundary, the federal installation Fort Bliss, and Biggs Army airfield are also factors.
Those are all considerations.”); TrJ736 (Pickett) (the mountains, Ft. Bliss, and New Mexico and
Mexico lines are factors in drawing lines).
125. Pickett asked the delegation members to participate and bring him comments or maps. TrJ732,
TrJ783 (Pickett); Marquez depo. at 24:7-13. Pickett also prepared maps. TrJ733 (Pickett). The
Pickett RedAppl plan log shows that Pickett and/or his staff were drafting some possibilities in early
126. Marquez and Gonzales sat down on RedAppl and drew a proposed plan, which they shared
with Pickett. On March 14, a plan from Marquez’s RedAppl account was shared with Pickett’s
account. PL-703 (pick plan log); D-307 (map of pickH111). Pickett was very upset by how his
district was drawn, and he rejected it. Marquez depo. at 24:14-24; 28:8-10; TrJ757-59 (Pickett).
127. On March 15, Pickett sent Solomons a proposed El Paso House plan. PL-613 (solo plan list);
D-271(solo plan list); TrJ1046-54 (Solomons). The plan appears in Solomons’ RedAppl account
plan list as soloH108 and was created on March 15, 2011. PL-613; D-271. The comments said,
“From Pickett; El Paso House plan.” PL-613; D-271. This map (PL-501) is the same as pickH113
(PL-495) in Pickett’s RedAppl account. This map (1) has what was referred to at trial as the “chef’s
hat” configuration at the top of the northeast antler/extension in HD78; (2) has no long northwest
antler/extension; (3) has no split precincts along the HD77/HD78 boundary; (4) has an HD77
protrusion into HD76; and (5) has a total SSVR of 47.4% (compared to benchmark 47.1%) in HD78.
PL-501 (map packet); D-300 (map); PL-733 (TLC report); TrJ1049 (Solomons). Bruce asked
Pickett if he had approval from other delegation members for this map. He said no, so she told him
to let her know when everybody signed off. TrJ1951 (Bruce).
128. Around March 16, Pickett presented his preferred map (which was similar to pickH113 except
HD77 no longer protruded into HD76) to the delegation members and asked them to review it on
RedAppl and sign the map so he could provide a delegation map to the HRC. TrJ755 (Pickett);
Marquez depo. at 33:19-22; 39:19-22; 40:10-13. Marquez had some concerns about her district
(HD77), including the loss of geography to HD76 (Gonzalez’s district). Marquez was concerned
about the loss of Latino areas and gain of Anglo areas, and a decline in SSVR. Marquez depo. at 3538, 42-45. When she talked to Gonzalez about it, Gonzalez replied that she did not draw the map.
Marquez depo. at 43:8-9. When Marquez expressed her concerns to Pickett, he said, “You’ll be
fine.” Marquez depo. at 44:5-9.
129. Marquez continued to express concerns and asked to make additional changes. TrJ785
(Pickett). Pickett’s initial reaction was that it was too late and that she could not make changes.
TrJ774 (Pickett). She persisted. TrJ785 (Pickett). Pickett eventually told Marquez that she could
change her district and Margo’s district (HD78) by mutual agreement, but could not change the other
three districts. Marquez depo. at 49:1-5; TrJ765, TrJ785-86, 790. Marquez then approached Margo
with her proposed changes, and Margo agreed. Marquez depo. at 50:4-6; TrJ809 (Margo). Marquez
had been concerned that her district’s SSVR percentage was lower; she moved the district line
between HD77 and HD78 in RedAppl and determined which precinct changes would increase her
SSVR numbers; if she liked it, she asked Margo for the particular precincts. Marquez depo. at
50:19-22. Marquez asked Margo if she could take some precincts with high Hispanic numbers, and
he agreed. Id. at 50:10-12. It is not clear whether Marquez told Margo that she wanted high
Hispanic precincts or simply told him which areas of the map she wanted in her district. Id. at 52:14. She was also concerned about whether potential opponents were in her district. TrJ821 (Margo).
The map with their agreed changes was submitted to Pickett’s RedAppl account on March 21. This
map had two antlers in HD77 and also a middle horn. D-303; PL-503. Compared to Pickett’s
preferred map, the total SSVR of HD77 (Marquez’s district) is higher and the SSVR of HD78
(Margo’s district) is lower. Plan pickH120 is the agreed map between Marquez and Margo. TrJ790
130. On March 21, Pickett’s staff (on Pickett’s behalf) sent Solomons two proposed El Paso House
plans. PL-613 (solo plan list); D-271 (solo plan list); TrJ762-63 (Pickett). The maps were the
agreed-upon delegation map that Pickett preferred (pickH118) (“the Pickett map”) and the map with
changes along the boundary between HD77 and HD78 that were agreed between Margo and
Marquez (pickH120) (“the Marquez map”). These appeared in Solomons’ RedAppl account plan
list on March 21, 2011 as soloH109 and soloH110.
131. Plan soloH109 (PL-504) is the Pickett map (it is the same as pickH118 in Pickett’s RedAppl
plan account (PL-500)). The soloH109 plan has the same chef’s hat configuration in the northeast
extension as the March 15 plan, has no long northwest extension, and the SSVR for HD78 is 47.4%.
PL-504 (map); D-301 (map). Pickett and/or his staff played the primary role in developing this map,
without a lot of input from the delegation members other than Quintanilla and his staff. TrJ756-57
(Pickett); TrJ784-85 (Pickett).
132. Plan soloH110 (PL-505) is the Marquez map (it is the same as pickH120 in Pickett’s RedAppl
plan log (PL-503)). This is the map in which Marquez and Margo changed the boundary between
their districts without changing the other three districts, which are the same as in Pickett’s preferred
map. In this map, the configuration of HD77 has a longer, thinner extension to the northeast than
the prior “chef’s hat” extension, and it has a long extension to the northwest not present in the
benchmark or Pickett’s map. In addition to the antlers in HD77, there is also a tall middle horn. PL505; D-302. The total SSVR for HD78 is 45.8% (below benchmark).
133. Neither the Pickett map nor the Marquez map had split precincts along the border of HD77 and
134. Pickett testified that he told Solomons that he had an agreed-upon map by the delegation
members, and that one of them kept coming back with concerns. He told Solomons, “It is up to you
how you want to handle it.” TrJ765(Pickett). Pickett’s map, soloH109, with the chef’s hat and no
long northwestern extension was not the proposal that moved forward and was adopted. The version
that Downton put in the plan was Marquez’s map, soloH110, which included the two antlers and a
middle horn configuration and had an SSVR of 45.8%. TrJ2104-05 (Downton).
135. Downton testified that Pickett told him the “el paso #2 version” (the Marquez map) was the
consensus version to put into the map. TrJ2104 (Downton). This testimony is not credible and
conflicts with Pickett’s testimony.
136. Neither Interiano nor Downton had any role in creating the initial configuration of El Paso.
Tr1445 (Interiano); TrJ2101 (Downton).
137. On March 23, the Marquez plan (“el paso #2 version”) appeared in Downton’s RedAppl
account plan list as hrc1H169 created and last modified 3/23/2011 1:18 PM. PL-615 (hrc1account
plan list). This plan was sent to Downton’s account from Solomons’ account by Bruce. D-244; PL506; TrJ1992-93 (Downton). Downton says he changed the description to “received from Pickett”
because if a plan was forwarded from another account like Solomons’ account, he would change it
to indicate the person who actually drafted the map. TrJ1992. Downton is not sure when he received
it; it could have been before March 23, since RedAppl only indicates when a plan is first saved.
TrJ1993. Downton incorporated the configuration into his draft statewide map hrc1H215. TrJ199698 (Downton); PL-1615.
138. Sometime around April 5, Margo signed his approval on a map of his district. D-209; D-229
at 75. This map came from plan hrc1H215 dated April 1, 2011. D-209. The configuration of HD77
and HD78 in this map is the same as the Marquez map. TrJ1996 (Downton); TrJ790-92 (Pickett);
D-279 at 2.
139. On April 7, Hanna wrote his first retrogression memo. TrJ1155-56 (Hanna); D-122. For El
Paso, the memo notes that proposed HD78 has 45.8% total SSVR (benchmark was 47.1%), the other
El Paso districts have SSVR between 67.2 and 81%, and “the slight decrease in SSVR in District 78
does present some level of risk of retrogression that likely could easily be remedied by swapping
some precincts with an adjoining district. Section 5 analysis frequently focuses on the differences
in minority voting strength in adjacent districts.” Hanna recommended swapping precincts; he did
not recommend splitting precincts. TrJ1083 (Solomons); TrJ1158 (Hanna); TrJ2001 (Downton).
140. Downton testified that he made changes along the boundary between HD77 and HD78 with
the goal of complying with § 5 of the VRA by raising the SSVR level of HD78. TrJ2002, TrJ2102.
In making his changes, Downton reviewed the other two plans that had been received in the solo
account from Pickett on March 15 (“El Paso House Plan”) and March 21 (Pickett’s map). TrJ2012.
These show up in Downton’s hrc1 account on April 11 as hrc1H260 and hrc1H261. TrJ2009,
TrJ2012. Downton created hrc1H258, “full state 7” on April 11 at 12:26 and then at 12:27 opened
the two Pickett maps. When he opened “Pickett 2” on April 11 at 12:27, he had already started
working on hrcH258 (created at 12:26). TrJ2012. Downton did not use Pickett’s preferred map,
which had a higher SSVR, but instead continued working on the Marquez map. Downton’s changes
to the El Paso configuration were incorporated into the full state map on April 11. TrJ2129
(Downton); PL-615. By April 11, 2011 at 2:25 p.m., Downton had completed the final El Paso
141. Downton “tweaked” the El Paso map by altering the boundary between HD77 and HD78.
Tr1003-04 (Downton). Downton’s “tweaks” were made based on race and to raise the SSVR of
HD78. Tr1004, TrJ2103 (Downton). The changes included removing Precinct 23 from HD78 and
making changes to the northeast antler that resulted in the so-called “anteater” configuration.
Downton did not try to incorporate any input from Margo or Marquez about precincts or
neighborhoods that they wanted in their districts. TrJ2103 (Downton). Downton looked at block
level data for Hispanic population while making these changes. TrJ2117 (Hispanic). He split
precincts and moved blocks across the boundaries between HD77 and HD78 based on that Hispanic
population. TrJ2117 (Downton); TrJ1004 (Downton) (“I did look at the Hispanic population to try
to raise that back up and did raise it back up.”). Downton split fourteen precincts. It was not
necessary to split precincts to raise the SSVR of HD78 above benchmark. TrJ1603-04 (Downton);
TrJ2109-13 (Downton); TrJ2116 (Downton); PL-1007; TrJ2151-52; PL-733; PL-712; PL-713.
142. Moody testified that he could see no reason based on income, housing, or ethnic makeup of
certain precincts to divide the precincts in the way Downton did. TrJ840-43 (Precinct 10), TrJ85253 (Precinct 17); TrJ853-54 (Precinct 24, and noting that it split a cohesive neighborhood); TrJ85455 (Precinct 25); TrJ863-64 (Precinct 43); TrJ864-65 (Precinct 45); TrJ867 (Precinct 49, and noting
that it split a cohesive neighborhood); TrJ867-69 (Precinct 47); TrJ869-70 (Precinct 55).
143. As noted, Downton admitting splitting precincts on the basis of race, using block level
Hispanic shading. TrJ2118 (Downton) (saying he put the “heavily Hispanic concentrated portion
in 78 and the non-Hispanic portion in 77”); PL-1012. But Downton was selective in choosing which
Hispanic areas to include in HD78. TrJ2118-19 (Downton).
144. Although Downton denied watching political results while splitting precincts to raise the SSVR
to achieve the lowest possible percentage of votes for Latino-preferred candidates, TrJ2119, that
testimony is not credible. Downton admitted that while mapping, he had election data showing
(likely the McCain/Obama 2008 contest) and kept an eye on changes in election results. TrJ2119-20.
Downton did not exchange whole precincts to raise the SSVR, even though that was suggested by
Hanna and he could have easily done so. Rather, he chose specific areas of precincts to include and
exclude from HD78, and often did not include Hispanic population nearby in HD78. This suggests
that Downton had a purpose other than simply raising the SSVR. Therefore, Downton was using
race-based data to increase the SSVR of the district, while simultaneously watching the election
results to ensure they remained favorable to the Anglo Republican incumbent and therefore less
favorable to the Latino-preferred candidate. In addition to the method used by Downton, this fact
is shown by the ultimate result he achieved. Although Downton increased the SSVR in HD78 from
45.8 to 46.8%, he kept the political performance close to where it had been in the Marquez map. In
the 2006 general election for Lieutenant Governor, Dewhurst went from 59.9% to 59.6% and
Alvarado went from 40.1% to 40.4%. PL-503 at 56; D-109 at 1989. Keller went from 53.9% to
53.5% and Molina went from 46.1% to 46.5% in the CCA Presiding Judge race. PL-503 at 56; D28
109 at 1990. At the same time, the SSVR% in the election went from 43.9% in Marquez’s map
pickH120 to 44.9% in H283. PL-503 at 56; D-109 at 1990. Thus, although he increased the total
SSVR by 1%, election performance for the Latino-preferred candidate only increased .3 or .4%.
145. Downton’s changes did not change the population deviation percentages, which are identical
to the deviations in Marquez’s map (though the actual population numbers changed slightly). D-109
at 141; D-279 at 77.
146. In the hrc1 plan account, plan hrc1H265 created April 12 is described as “Full State 9,” which
was Downton’s “notation for the ninth iteration of [his] full state map.” TrJ2002 (Downton); D-270.
This plan was last modified April 13 at 2:45 p.m. TrJ2002; D-270. This map reflects the changes
that he made in El Paso. TrJ2003 (Downton); D-351 (map). The total SSVR for HD78 in this map
is 46.8%, which is higher than the hrc1H215 SSVR and the one that Margo signed. TrJ2003
147. Hanna’s second retrogression memo was done around April 12 on non-public Plan H110 (the
source for this plan was hrc1H265). D-327. Plan H110 contained Downton’s changes. D-368.
Hanna noted that the total SSVR of HD78 was now 46.8%, and said, “The minor decreases in the
SSVR in Districts 77 and 78 will not likely present retrogression issues.” D-327. No further
changes were made to the El Paso configuration after this. TrJ2006 (Downton). The third
retrogression memo notes that HD78 in Plan H153 still has 46.8% total SSVR. TrJ2007 (Downton);
148. Margo was not happy with the changes made by Downton, since he felt he lost some areas that
had performed favorably for him and he felt his Republican performance decreased. TrJ808-16
(Margo). Margo lost Precinct 23 and an area named “Festival,” which went into HD77. TrJ811,
TrJ823-24 (Margo). Festival had been a strong area for him in 2010; it included Coronado Country
Club, his district office, the residence of his mother-in-law, and most of his financial supporters.
TrJ812 (Margo). Margo also lost a portion of North Hills, where he had spent a lot of time
campaigning and that had been a good area for him in 2010. He did not want to lose that area.
TrJ814-15 (Margo). Margo also lost an area in the Upper Valley, where his support included a
substantial number of Hispanic Republicans. TrJ813 (Margo). Margo testified that the changes
meant he was giving up Republican precincts to HD77. TrJ815-16.
149. Plan H113 was released April 13. On April 13 at 4:46 p.m., the Downton-revised plan for El
Paso County was sent from the hrc1 account to Pickett’s RedAppl account, and it appears in
Pickett’s plan list as pickH121. PL-515.
150. On April 22, Stacy Napier from the OAG sent an RPVA summary for Plan H153 to Bruce and
Downton that included an election analysis for HD78. US-190/190A. Bruce shared it with
Solomons and Interiano. TrJ1957-58 (Bruce). The analysis showed that in Plan H153 the Latinopreferred candidate was elected in 2 out of 10 races, which was the same as the benchmark Plan
H100, but the margin of victory for the two prevailing Latino candidates had been reduced compared
to the benchmark, and the margin of victory for the prevailing non-Latino-preferred candidates had
been increased. US-190/190A. Interiano reviewed the RPVA before the House plan was adopted.
TrA5, TrA10 (Interiano).
151. On April 27 at the floor debate, Rep. Coleman introduced Plan H232. He noted that in
Solomons’ proposed plan, four of the districts ranged between 73% and 92% HVAP, while HD78,
which only elected the Hispanic candidate of choice once in the last decade, was only 62.8% HVAP.
His substitute would have increased SSVR and HVAP in HD78 to make it more likely to perform
effectively. D-13 at S248-49. It was tabled.
152. The configuration of El Paso did not change between Plan H113, released April 13, and Plan
H283, the enacted plan. Plan H283 contains the fourteen precinct splits along the boundary of HD77
and HD78 incorporated by Downton. TrJ1045 (Solomons); TrJ2117 (Downton); PL-733 (split
precincts report). The SSVR of HD78 remained below benchmark at 46.8%. Thus, as noted, all five
El Paso districts were majority-HCVAP but only four were majority-SSVR.
153. Senator Jose Rodriguez testified that both partisanship and racial considerations are evident
in the El Paso map. TrJ695 (Rodriguez); D-158 (showing lines of HD77 track Democrat shading
in many respects).
154. In Plan H283, the distribution of the Latino population and SSVR is uneven across the five
House districts, with HD78 being disproportionately low. TrJ697 (Rodriguez), D-109 at 44; Joint
Expert Ex. E-8 (Flores Report) at 9.
155. It would have been possible to draw five more compact districts and to increase the SSVR of
HD78 above 50%. Tr378-79 (Martin) (citing Plan H232); Tr1052 (Murray); TrJ462 (Flores) (citing
Plan H292). Hanna testified that it was possible to create an additional minority opportunity district
in El Paso County and that a number of plans were submitted to the Legislature that created an
additional opportunity district. TrJ1174, TrJ1206 (Hanna). The Legislature chose not to increase the
SSVR of HD78 above 50% because it would not benefit the Anglo Republican incumbent. Joint
Expert Ex. E-4 (Murray Report) at 34.
156. Downton testified that it was “a political decision as to how to draw the districts” and that “an
effort was made to give the Republican representative a chance to be reelected.” Tr1006.
Mapdrawers could have created another majority [SSVR] Hispanic district in El Paso, but made a
“policy choice” not to. TrJ2043 (Downton).
157. Interiano did not consider HD78 to be a Latino opportunity district in the benchmark or in Plan
H283. Tr1444 (Interiano); Interiano 8-2-11 depo (Joint Ex. J-61) at 143-44. Interiano testified that
he discussed with outside counsel whether § 2 required five Latino opportunity districts (measured
by a 50% SSVR threshold) in El Paso, but that he did not undertake his own separate inquiry.
Interiano 8-2-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-61) at 166. Solomons did not make an independent determination
of whether El Paso needed an additional Latino opportunity district (measured by a 50% SSVR
threshold). Tr1601-02 (Solomons).
158. Interiano testified that he never tried to draw an additional Latino opportunity district in El
Paso because Pickett and the El Paso delegation were working on a drop-in map. Tr1444-46,
TrJ1563 (Interiano). However, this testimony is not credible. On April 13 someone in his account
received or created a “VRA” version of El Paso County, in which the SSVR of HD78 was increased
to 52.6%, and sent it to David Hanna. At 8:58 p.m. on April 13, 2011, plan strjH244 was created
in the strj Red Appl plan account. Its description says “CURRENT DISTRICTS - El Paso Changes0
[sic]” and the comments say, “Copy of PLANH113.” PL-517. It was last modified at 9:00 p.m. April
13, 2011. In this plan, HD78 is compact and has no antlers, and the total SSVR for HD78 is 52.6%,
which was higher than the benchmark. TrJ1565 (Interiano); PL-517. Right after strjH244 was
saved, strjH245 was saved with the description “El Paso - VRA” and its comments say “Copy of
STRJH244.” PL-518. The SSVR for HD78 is also 52.6%. These two maps appear to be identical.
PL-517; PL-518. Thus, someone in the account started with Plan H113 and then modified El Paso
County, increasing the SSVR in HD78. Later in the evening of April 13, the same El Paso County
configuration appears in Hanna’s Red Appl account, as drh1H115. PL-512. Interiano sent this plan
to Hanna at 9:04 p.m. on April 13, 2011. TrJ1569 (Interiano). The evidence indicates that Interiano
drew this map. TrJ1567 (Interiano) (admitting that it was possible that he drew the map).
159. Dr. Engstrom concluded that HD78 was a Latino opportunity district in Plan H100. Engstrom
Corr. Rebuttal Report (docket no. 307-1) at 25. Engstrom concluded that HD78 was not a Latino
opportunity district in Plan H283. Id. at 28. Engstrom considers Latinos to have a reasonable
opportunity in a district when their preferred candidates win a majority of the votes cast more often
than not in the seven general elections and six Democratic primaries that he studied. Id.
160. Martin thought benchmark HD78 (at 47.5% SSVR) was an effective Latino opportunity district
because it elected a Latino candidate of choice in 2008 (Joe Moody, a Hispanic Democrat) and had
been preferring other candidates of choice in statewide elections as well. Tr406 (Martin).
161. Dr. Handley found that benchmark HD78 had an endogenous minority effectiveness index of
20% and an exogenous minority effectiveness index of 20%. US-351 (Handley Report) at 4-5. She
concluded that benchmark HD78 did not offer Hispanic voters an ability to elect candidates of choice
when election performance is considered. Id. at 5-6. Handley also opined that HD78 in Plan H283
was not likely to provide Hispanic voters with an ability to elect their preferred candidates because
the exogenous index score was 20%. Id. at 9.
162. Dr. Flores opined that HD78 is not a Latino opportunity district in Plan H283. Tr462.
163. The Task Force offers Plan H292, which has five SSVR-majority Latino opportunity districts.
Joint Map Ex. J-37; PL-340 (map); D-111; Tr462 (Flores). HD78 in H292 reflects the growing
Latino population in downtown, the Westside, and the town of Canutillo. PL-414 (Sergio Coronado
Decl.) ¶ 13. HD78 encompasses the growing Latino population. PL-414 ¶ 15; PL-418 (Carmen
Rodriguez Decl.) ¶ 23.
164. There are Hispanic Republicans in El Paso County and in HD78. TrJ694, TrJ722 (Rodriguez).
165. Dr. Engstrom (Joint Expert Ex. E-7) found that Latino voters are highly cohesive in support
of Latino candidates with the Democratic Primary nomination in general elections. The only Latino
Republican nominee, Guzman, was not supported by Latino voters in the general election. He found
that all Latino candidates in Democratic primaries also received strong support from Latinos.
Latinos voting in the Republican primary did support the Latino candidate for Railroad
Commissioner, but not for Governor. Non-Latino voters provided weak support for all five of the
Latino candidates favored by Latino voters in the general election, according to bivariate analysis.
They also supported the only Republican candidate that was a Latino with an estimated 73.8% of
their votes. They also provided majority support for only one of the Latinos seeking nominations
in the Democratic primaries, and did not favor either Latino candidate in Republican primaries. He
concluded that Latinos in El Paso County are very cohesive in their candidate preferences for Latino
candidates, in both general elections and Democratic primaries. This preference was shared only
once by the non-Latino voters in the county.
166. In his corrected rebuttal report (docket no. 307-1), Dr. Engstrom concluded that voting in the
general election for HD78 in 2010 was racially polarized. Latino support for the incumbent was
estimated to be 79.6% in a bivariate analysis, with non-Latino/Anglo support estimated to be 28.4%.
SSVR turnout percent was estimated at 34.88%, and incumbent Moody received 47.59% of the
167. Because El Paso’s population was not enough for five ideal districts, all five districts in El Paso
are underpopulated compared to the ideal district population. Red-202 Report; Joint Expert Ex. E-5
(Martin Report) (noting that population deviation is not an issue in El Paso).
168. 34.1% of Hispanics in El Paso County lack a high school education. Joint Expert Ex. E-1
(Chapa Report) Table 4. The per capita income for Hispanics was $13,582, compared to $32,570
for non-Hispanic Anglos. Id. Table 5.
169. Carmen Rodriguez filed a declaration stating that she has lived in El Paso for the past thirty
years. She remembers her father discussing the poll tax and his struggles to pay it. PL-418 ¶ 5. She
states that there is a constant struggle to encourage voter participation in the Latino neighborhoods
of El Paso, but the population has begun to see more Latino elected officials and government
employees. PL-418 ¶ 6. She notes that Lubbock, which is much smaller, has a major medical
university and a law school, while El Paso does not have a law school and relies on a Texas Tech
satellite campus for the only medical school in the County. PL-418 ¶ 7. Rodriguez noted that El
Paso had de jure segregation through the 1970s in its public schools until the Alvarado v. El Paso
ISD case desegregated the schools. PL-418 ¶ 10.
170. The delegation members were primarily responsible for the initial configuration of the El Paso
districts. El Paso is an example of the member-driven process ensuring that maps will be drawn to
benefit the members and not necessarily to ensure compliance with the VRA.
171. Rep. Marquez drew lines based on race to add Hispanics and increase SSVR in her district
while placing Anglos in Margo’s district HD78. These race-based lines were put into the final map
(with some further race-based modifications by Downton). There is no evidence that Marquez’s use
of race was to disadvantage Hispanics (i.e, there is no evidence of discriminatory intent); rather, it
was to increase her own electoral prospects. Nevertheless, this use of race was improper.
172. Downton admitted to using block-level racial shading to split precincts along the border of
HD78 and HD77 based on race in order to increase the SSVR of HD78 to ameliorate § 5
retrogression concerns. At the same time, however, he chose specific Hispanic areas that would
increase the SSVR while simultaneously remaining as favorable to the Anglo incumbent as possible.
He accomplished this goal and raised the SSVR by 1% while improving the performance of Latinopreferred candidates in the district by only .3 or .4 %.
173. All five El Paso districts were HCVAP-majority in the benchmark and remained so in Plan
174. Four of the five districts were SSVR-majority in the benchmark (all but HD78) and it remained
that way in Plan H283, though the SSVR of HD78 was decreased slightly.
175. In the 2001 redistricting cycle, DOJ noted that when Bexar County went from eleven to ten
districts, the State unnecessarily eliminated a Latino opportunity district, and DOJ rejected the
State’s argument that there were sufficient new Latino opportunity districts to offset the loss. The
court’s plan remedied the DOJ’s retrogression concerns about the loss of a Latino district in Bexar
County. Balderas v. Texas, No. 6:01-CV-158, 2001 WL 34104833 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2001),
summarily aff’d, 536 U.S. 919 (2002). The court reconstituted a seventh majority-Latino district in
Bexar County and equalized the SSVR (of at least 55%) across all seven Latino districts.
176. In Plan H100, Bexar County had ten districts, seven of which (HD116, 117, 118, 119, 123, 124,
and 125) were majority HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data. All seven districts also were SSVR
majority, though the total SSVR of HD117 had dropped to 50.3% (50.8% non-suspense) while the
other six districts remained in the 55-56% total SSVR range.
177. In the 2011 redistricting cycle, Bexar County maintained ten districts without excess
population, and Bexar County was therefore a drop-in county. TrJ196 (Arrington); TrJ1074
(Solomons); TrJ1517 (Interiano).
178. In 2011, the Bexar County delegation was seven Democrats and three Republicans. TrJ338
(Farias); TrJ196 (Arrington). The seven Democrats included six Hispanic Democrats and one
African-American Democrat, and included Rep. Mike Villarreal, vice-chair of the HRC, and Rep.
Jose “Joe” Farias. The Republicans included Speaker Joe Straus (Anglo), Rep. John Garza
(Hispanic), and Rep. Lyle Larson (Anglo).
179. John Garza represented HD117 in the 82nd Legislature. TrJ356 (Garza). He is a Hispanic
Republican. TrJ358, TrJ413. He first ran in 2008 and lost. He ran again and won in 2010 by a
margin of 1,070 votes. TrJ358, TrJ362 (Garza). Garza was not the Hispanic candidate of choice.
TrJ125 (Arrington); Joint Expert Ex. E-2 (Kousser Report) at 46; US-351 (Handley Report) at 35.
He was a member of MALC in 2011. TrJ415.
180. Benchmark HD117 had a total SSVR of 50.3% and non-suspense SSVR was 50.8%. TrJ360.
It had 58.8% HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data and 57.7% using 2008-2012 ACS data. It was
considered to be a protected Latino opportunity district, and Garza knew it was a protected district
under the VRA. TrJ363, TrJ416 (Garza). Benchmark HD117 was overpopulated by 52,723 persons.
TrJ416 (Garza); D-100.
181. Dr. Arrington concluded that HD117 voters had the ability to elect in the benchmark but did
not in Plan H283. TrJ119, TrJ124. Benchmark HD117 elected the Hispanic-preferred candidate in
2004, 2006, and 2008, but not 2002 or 2010. TrJ125 (Arrington). The Hispanic-preferred candidate
won 3/5 elections (60%) in both the endogenous and exogenous effectiveness indices for benchmark
HD117. TrJ125 (Arrington); US-351 (Handley Report) at 5; US-363 (Red-225 report). In
benchmark HD117, Molina (Hispanic, Democrat) got 51.2% of the vote in the race for Court of
Criminal Appeals presiding judge in the 2006 general election. TrJ395 (Garza).
182. In the enacted Plan H283, HD117 HCVAP (using 2005-2009 ACS data) increased to 63.8%
from 58.8% in the benchmark, while total SSVR was reduced from 50.3% to 50.1% and nonsuspense SSVR was reduced from 50.8% to 50.1%. HD117 in Plan H283 had an exogenous election
index of 20% (1/5 elections), compared to 60% in the benchmark. TrJ126 (Arrington); US-351
(Handley Report) at 5, 11. Dr. Arrington testified that, because it went from 60% to 20%
effectiveness, HD117 ceased to be a reasonable opportunity for the Hispanic-preferred candidate to
win. TrJ126. Although total SSVR dropped only .2% from the benchmark, Molina’s reconstituted
performance in the 2006 general election dropped from 51.2% to 48.8%. TrJ395 (Garza).
183. The State’s expert, Dr. Alford, testified that Democrats win in benchmark HD117 60% of the
time (29 of 48 contested statewide elections), while in Plan H283 that is reduced to 33% (16 of 48).
US-350 (Alford Oct. 2011 report) at 10-11.
184. HD117 in Plan H283 was drawn by Interiano, Rep. Garza, and Garza’s and Rep. Larson’s
staffers. TrA53 (Interiano). It was designed to give Garza, who was not the Hispanic-preferred
candidate, the best chance at being re-elected, while keeping the HCVAP and SSVR statistics
consistent with a Latino opportunity district (i.e., keeping SSVR above 50%).
185. Jose “Joe” Farias represented HD118 in the 82nd Legislature. TrJ312 (Farias). He was first
elected in 2006. TrJ313 (Farias). Although he was a member of MALC, he was not very involved
with MALC in the redistricting process. TrJ315 (Farias). HD118 was adjacent to Garza’s district
186. Benchmark HD118 included the City of Somerset and the neighborhood of Whispering Winds.
US-290. Somerset was a small, poor, rural, mostly Hispanic city. US-66 (total population 1,631;
76.9% Hispanic). Whispering Winds was also very poor and predominantly Hispanic. TrJ322-23
(Farias). These areas had been neglected and had been having trouble with water service provided
by Bexar Met, a water district that served rural parts of Bexar County. TrJ317 (Farias). Farias had
worked to abolish Bexar Met and bring the areas within the City water system, but that had failed,
and problems continued with Bexar Met. TrJ318 (Farias). Farias testified that the Bexar Met issue
was “very big” to these areas and he voted to abolish Bexar Met, while Garza voted the opposite.
TrJ324-25. Farias had spent a lot of time in Somerset and Whispering Winds campaigning and
engaging in community support. TrJ321 (Farias). Both these areas had low Hispanic voter turnout.
TrJ323-24 (Farias). Farias had lost some precincts to Republican challengers in those areas, which
he attributed to low Hispanic voter turnout. TrJ336-37 (Farias).
187. Although Interiano played a large role in the Bexar County map, Downton did not draw or
otherwise participate in the Bexar County map. TrJ2057 (Downton).
188. The Bexar County delegation began working on their county map around February 24. On
February 24, 2011, Villarreal sent an email to the members of the Bexar County delegation, asking
members to “[p]lease draw your ideal district taking into account your surrounding neighbors and
three recommended parameters,” including: “1) there should be 10 House districts in Bexar County;
2) try to keep all districts within a +/- 5% deviation; and 3) do not eliminate any minority-majority
voting age districts.” D-265. He asked them to get their maps to him before their meeting the next
week. He also stated, “To judge the political balance of your districts, I recommend using a midterm election, supreme court or court of criminal appeals race where there is a Democratic and
Republican candidate and where neither candidate has a Hispanic Surname. I would avoid using
2010. 2010 is a worst case scenario for Democrats, while 2008 is a best case scenario. The only race
that fits these conditions is the 2006 Supreme Court [Place] 2 race [Don Willett v. Bill Moody]. I
recommend we all use this race or another one the group agrees to so we can judge each others [sic]
maps using the same political rule. The Dean of our delegation, Ruth Jones McClendon will be
convening us next week to discuss redistricting. I will bring to the meeting maps that illustrate how
Bexar County has been changing politically and demographically. I am asking Gerardo [Interiano],
the Speakers [sic] attorney[,] to join us to answer any legal questions. I would also like to include
MALC’s attorney if that is alright with the group.” D-265.
189. Members of the Bexar County delegation met numerous times during the process. TrJ315
(Farias). Ruth Jones McClendon (African American, Democrat) was the dean of the delegation.
TrJ315-16. Villarreal oversaw laying the map out on RedAppl and presenting it to the delegation.
190. Villarreal began working on a plan for the delegation and sending draft plans to Interiano. He
sent his first draft to Interiano on February 24. D-313. Villarreal continued sending draft delegation
plans to Interiano throughout February and March.
191. Interiano met with the delegation and was also meeting with some representatives individually
to work on their districts. Interiano worked individually with the Republican members of the
delegation, Garza, Straus, and Larson. TrA53-54 (Interiano)
192. In early March, Interiano worked with Garza and Garza’s staff to help design HD117. They
would work in Interiano’s office in Interiano’s RedAppl account (strj), and he would send the plan
to Garza’s account. TrJ1548 (Interiano). Garza’s personal participation was limited. TrJ1518
(Interiano). He instructed his staff to follow Villarreal’s guidelines and create a district that would
give him the highest possibility of being reelected. TrJ374 (Garza). Garza believed that 2012 would
be a tougher election for him than 2010 had been. TrJ379. Garza and his staff looked at election
and turnout data, and precinct returns for his 2010 race. TrJ362 (Garza). Garza and his staff were
aware of which precincts gave him strong support and which had weak support. TrJ363 (Garza).
Garza and his staff knew that he had performed better in the northern part of his district than the
southern part in 2010, and had performed better outside Loop 410 than inside. TrJ377-78 (Garza).
They also looked at precinct returns for other races, including the Governor’s race, the Attorney
General’s race, and some other statewide races going back to 2006. TrJ363, TrJ375 (Garza). Garza
and his staff did an analysis of turnout district-wide. TrJ373 (Garza). He admitted that one of the
metrics they looked at was “the turnout between Anglos and Hispanics and turnout generally.”
TrJ373 (Garza). In his deposition, Garza stated that rural Hispanic turnout tended to be low but tried
to explain this statement at trial as being due to the fact that population numbers were lower in rural
areas. TrJ374 (Garza).
193. In the benchmark, HD117 was in western Bexar County and did not extend all the way to the
north of the County or very far south into the County. It included portions of northwest San Antonio
and southwest San Antonio. Garza admitted at his deposition that he wanted to spin the district
farther north because the area was more Anglo and more conservative, and they would tend to vote
Republican. TrJ367-69 (Garza); PL-454 (Garza 10-19-11 depo. at 30, admitted during interim plan
proceedings 11-3-11 Tr704).
194. Garza testified that because his district was overpopulated (by 52,723), he was going to have
to give up population. TrJ378. He said that most of the Bexar County delegation was Democrats
who wanted to remain in the City and were looking to pick up those areas, and he was defending
some of the stronger areas within the City or within 1604. TrJ378, TrJ372 (“[M]ost of them were
looking to gain population from me, so it was more of what I would be able to maintain in the district
within the city.”).
195. The initial draft that Garza’s staff and Interiano came up with (garzH100) was less than 50%
SSVR (total was 46.3%, non-suspense SSVR was 47.3%). PL-523; TrJ1547-49 (Interiano). The
proposed district extended to the north outside the City of San Antonio, but still included parts of
northwest San Antonio, and extended farther south than it had previously, with an appendage jutting
into southwest San Antonio. The top northeast corner of the district was I-10 and Loop 1604, which
includes suburban development in the City. TrJ1549 (Interiano). This proposed district was given
to Villarreal to put in the delegation map as Garza’s ideal district. TrJ381 (Garza). Therefore,
Garza’s ideal district was not completely rural, but contained portions of the City of San Antonio.
196. Around March 10, Villarreal put all the districts together in a map that showed areas of overlap
and unclaimed areas. Then the delegation members went into a room and starting discussing who
would get which areas. TrJ1519 (Interiano). Both Garza and Farias wanted an area in southwestern
Bexar County that included the city of Somerset. PL-527 (plan strjH136). Garza’s proposed district
at that time did not include Whispering Winds; it remained in Farias’s district HD118.
197. Farias’s main concern was to keep the Harlandale School District in his district, HD118. He
served on the Harlandale school board and lives in that district, and his children and grandchildren
went to school there. TrJ316-17 (Farias). He also wanted to keep Somerset and Whispering Winds
in South Bexar County because they were poor, neglected areas, and he wanted to continue to help
them with their water issues. Farias did not need these communities to get re-elected, but he was
very engaged with those communities and was trying to provide support for them. TrJ317, TrJ325
198. Villarreal continued to work on delegation maps, and his maps included versions of HD117
with SSVR above 50%. Villarreal urged the delegation to be careful about VRA compliance, and
was checking proposed districts for compliance. TrJ364-66 (Garza). Villarreal had concerns about
the performance of HD117 and voiced them to Interiano. Interiano talked to the attorneys, and then
informed Garza that his proposed district would not work. TrJ1521 (Interiano). Interiano explained
to Garza that his district’s SSVR had to stay above 50%. TrJ1521. Garza told Interiano to work with
his staff to make changes.
199. Interiano and Garza’s staff knew that Garza did not tend to win SSVR-majority precincts. On
March 25, Adelina Bryant sent Interiano an email with an attachment called HD117 VTD Analysis.
PL-1664. This was a racially polarized voting analysis of HD117 that focused on Garza’s election.
PL-1664; Quesada-240. A notation says, “Of the 27 VTD’s won by Garza, 4 had a majority of
SSRV. Of the 23 VTDs which are majority SSRV, Garza won 4.”
200. Between March 23 and March 29, Interiano worked with Garza’s staff, primarily his Chief of
Staff Art Martinez, and with Lynlie Wallace, Rep. Larson’s Chief of Staff, on HD117. TrJ388-89
(Garza); TrA53-54 (Interiano). Larson’s district adjoined HD117 to the north. They ended up
moving Garza’s district farther south, farther into Farias’s preferred areas, including Whispering
Winds. TrJ1522, TrJ1554 (Interiano). This new southern portion of the district included areas that
Garza had not spent much time in. TrJ396 (Garza). Several precincts in heavily Hispanic and
politically active South San Antonio ISD that had strongly preferred Garza’s opponent in 2010
(Precincts 1025, 1040, 1044, and 1045) were moved out of HD117 and into HD118. TrJ399-403
(Garza); PL-1361.5 The goal was to get the district to 50.1% SSVR, while also keeping the district
In the Task Force’s Fifth Supplemental Exhibit List filed July 14 (docket no. 1154), exhibit PL-954 was listed
but the description was blank. During trial on July 15, Nina Perales discussed this exhibit, calling it PL-954, with Rep.
Garza. TrJ401-03. Defendants did not object. On the Amended Exhibit List filed July 19, PL-954 is listed as the Bexar
as strong as possible for Garza’s re-election. TrJ399 (Garza); TrJ1523 (Interiano).
201. Interiano acknowledged that they could have gone into inner city San Antonio and taken areas
from other members to get the SSVR up above 50%, but he said they were trying to balance getting
the SSVR up with keeping political numbers up, as well as the desire to stay outside the City of San
Antonio and Loop 1604, so instead they went south into Farias’s district. TrJ1524 (Interiano).
Interiano said that Garza wanted to stay outside the City of San Antonio proper due to water issues,
referring to issues surrounding the Bexar Met water district. TrJ1518, TrJ1526 (Interiano).
Interiano’s testimony that Garza wanted to stay outside the City and was concerned with water issues
is not credible. Garza testified that he felt that the political issues surrounding Bexar Met were
independent from redistricting, and he did not have any goals in redistricting relating to taking more
or less of Bexar Met territory. TrJ405-07 (Garza). Garza did not know specifically which areas of
HD117 included people who were taxpayers for Bexar Met. TrJ405, TrJ408 (Garza). Interiano’s
testimony that Garza wanted to stay outside City of San Antonio conflicts with Garza’s testimony
that he was defending some of the stronger areas within the City from other members of the
delegation who wanted to take them from his district, and also conflicts with the fact that Garza’s
proposed ideal district included parts of the City. TrJ378 (Garza). Further, Interiano acknowledged
that certain areas outside 1604 and west of I-10 that were included in Garza’s “ideal” HD117
included quite a bit of suburban development and were not necessarily rural. TrJ1550-51 (Interiano);
202. Interiano said that, when he was working with Garza’s staff drawing the district, he never had
on racial shading or demographic shading at the block level, and there was no racial discussion.
TrJ1599, TrA55 (Interiano). Interiano stated that SSVR is considered an election statistic, and they
had it turned on, but not HVAP, BVAP, or census data. TrJ1599. Interiano testified that, in addition
to SSVR, he monitored election performance. TrJ1551. He stated that he used SSVR instead of
other metrics because all of the guidance (from DOJ, TLC) had been to use SSVR. TrJ1600. There
could be a wide gap between HVAP and SSVR; members wanted to look at SSVR because of the
gap and to see who actually turned out in an election. Id. Interiano denied using turnout percentages
when selecting areas for HD117 or using turnout data at all to draw districts. Id. Interiano described
the process as: looking at political shading and SSVR in statistics, and adding and removing
portions, looking to stay outside 1604 and the City of San Antonio; a lot of testing, going back and
forth and seeing what happened to the numbers to keep above benchmark SSVR and as high
Republican as they could. TrA54.
203. Between March 23 and March 29, the versions of HD117 that Interiano and Garza’s staff
worked on showed incremental increases in SSVR from 48% to 50%, while the electoral
performance of Hispanic-preferred candidate Molina remained below 50%. Plans garzH106 and
County precinct returns. The State filed its objections to the Task Force exhibits on August 1 (docket no. 1194) but listed
no objection for PL-954, noting that there was no exhibit description (based on the July 14 exhibit list). On October 2,
the Task Force Plaintiffs moved to admit this same exhibit with the corrected exhibit number of PL-1361 (docket no.
1256) and the motion was granted by text order that same day. The exhibit was filed at docket no. 1257.
garzH107 have total and non-suspense SSVR of 48.6%, while Molina receives 47.3% of the vote.
PL-533; PL-534. Plan garzH109 had total and non-suspense SSVR of 50.0%, and Molina received
48.7% of the vote. PL-535.
204. To increase SSVR but keep Republican numbers up (and therefore Hispanic-preferred
candidate performance lower) as the map progressed, some higher turnout precincts in north San
Antonio were taken out and more-Hispanic but lower turnout precincts in southern and southeastern
Bexar County were added in. TrJ125 (Arrington); PL-523 (garzH100, Garza’s ideal proposed
district); PL-538 (hrc1H190, final version); PL-1361 (precinct turnout for Bexar County); PL-739;
205. On March 29, Interiano saved a draft map from Villarreal that had an SSVR of 50.3% and
Molina won with 50.3% of the vote. PL-536 (strjH205). Thus, although the difference between
Villarreal’s plan and garzH109 is only .3% SSVR, the difference in performance for candidate
Molina is 1.6%. The 2006 Molina race for Court of Criminal Appeals was one of the races included
in the OAG 10 analysis provided to redistricters. TrA56 (Interiano).
206. On March 29, both Garza’s account and Interiano’s account included a draft HD117 with
50.0% SSVR (garzH109) (strjH206). In both of these plans, HD117 had 172,717 people and Molina
gets 48.7% of the vote.
207. At some point, additional changes were made that reduced the total population of HD117 to
171,249 and raised the SSVR to 50.1%. After these changes, the election analysis shows that Molina
gets 48.8% of the vote in the 2006 Court of Criminal Appeals race. The mapdrawer for HD117
would have been able to see that the SSVR for the district was 50.1% and election statistics,
including that the vote for Chavez-Thompson was 40.6%. TrJ243 (Dyer). Later on March 29,
Villarreal incorporated this new 50.1% SSVR version of HD117 into the delegation map and gave
it to the HRC. PL-538 (hrc1H90).
208. In the Bexar County delegation, nine members voted for the delegation map submitted to the
HRC, and Farias voted against it. Farias’s objection was based on the removal of Somerset and
Whispering Winds from his district. TrJ326 (Farias). The delegation plan was delivered to
Solomons despite Farias’s objection. TrJ316 (Farias); Tr1432 (Interiano).
209. Both Farias and Garza wanted the City of Somerset and Whispering Winds. Farias felt strongly
about keeping those areas and helping them resolve water and other issues. TrJ317-21 (Farias).
Farias visited with Villarreal and Interiano about it. TrJ326. Farias asked for a meeting with the
Speaker, and Interiano was there. After that meeting, the Speaker gave Interiano the direction to
keep Garza’s district in that area. TrJ1558, TrJ1595, TrJ1598 (Interiano). Thus, Speaker Straus
resolved the dispute between Garza and Farias over who would get the Somerset and Whispering
Winds areas. TrJ1558 (Interiano). Interiano said that Garza needed that rural population to keep
Garza’s district outside of 1604 and outside the City of San Antonio. TrJ1559 (Interiano) (“So we
believe that in order to keep him outside of 1604 and outside of the city of San Antonio, we needed
that rural population. It was, again, the balancing of the different priorities that were political
performance, SSVR, as well as the geographic.”). Again, for the reasons discussed previously, this
explanation is not credible.
210. Garza believed that rural Hispanic turnout would be low. TrJ373-74 (Garza). He also thought
Somerset Hispanic turnout would be low. TrJ403-04 (Garza). In addition, to the extent mapdrawers
were looking at estimated turnout reports from the OAG, those reports showed both Anglo and
Hispanic estimated turnout going down, but Hispanic turnout went down by more. US-3.
211. In Plan H283, HD117 has a very large gap between HCVAP and SSVR of 13.7 points, which
is well beyond any gap in any other House district (it appears the next largest gap is in HD41, which
has a 9.1 gap).
212. Farias testified that, toward the end of the process, Rep. McClendon called him and Garza to
the back of the room to negotiate about Somerset and Whispering Winds. Farias testified that Garza
said, “Joe, all I want is more Mexicans in my district.” TrJ335, TrJ347 (Farias). Farias did not know
what Garza meant by that, but it upset him. TrJ335 (Farias). Garza denied making any comment
about wanting or not wanting any kind of Mexican, but refused at trial to give an unqualified answer
when asked if he made the statement. TrJ425-27 (Garza).
213. Farias attempted to work with Garza and his staff to find a solution where he could keep
Whispering Winds and Somerset and both could be happy with the lines. TrJ326-27 (Farias). Garza
would not move from 50.1% SSVR. The instruction Farias was given was that HD117 had to be
50% or more SSVR, and Garza wanted no more than 50.1%. TrJ329 (Farias). Garza rejected maps
that had 50.3% and 50.4%. TrJ329. Farias offered to keep his areas of Whispering Winds and
Somerset and let Garza keep his areas in South San Antonio ISD area, which is a politically active,
high turnout, predominantly Hispanic area mostly inside Loop 410. TrJ330-31 (Farias). Garza did
not want the South San Antonio ISD area back. TrJ332 (Farias). Farias testified that, if Garza had
wanted more Hispanics, then South San Antonio ISD area would be good to have in his district, but
everyone in politics in Bexar County knows that this area is very politically active and high turnout.
TrJ352 (Farias). Eventually Farias gave up on Somerset and focused only on keeping Whispering
Winds because of the Bexar Met issue. Garza still would not agree, and Farias would eventually
propose a floor amendment to try to make the change. TrJ327 (Farias).
214. All three of Hanna’s retrogression memos raised the same points about Bexar County:
Bexar County’s seven Hispanic districts may constitute one of the most challenging
balances of population in order to avoid retrogression. In 2001, the state proposed
eliminating one of these districts because of the loss of a district in the county but
preclearance was denied for this proposal by DOJ. In its fix, the court chose to draw
seven Hispanic districts each with an SSVR of 55%. In the decade since the court
drew its plan, six of the districts have remained at the level of SSVR at which they
were drawn, and one (District 117) has diminished to just above 50% SSVR. Bexar
County as a whole has remained relatively constant in SSVR over the decade going
from 42.4% to 43.1%. Despite this near constant level of SSVR, it is possible that
Hispanic voters have become more dispersed across the county making Hispanic
districts more difficult to draw. Five of the seven districts are short people
necessitating a move of districts to the north and west. The proposed plan raises
retrogression questions as to the significant declines in Districts 116 and 119. These
declines seem inexplicable in light of the raises in the SSVR levels in adjacent
Districts 118 and 125. The declines in SSVR in Districts 123 and 124 seem to be
only of minor concern. The most prudent approach would be to eliminate the
increases in SSVR in Districts 118 and 125, and restore as much of the declines as
possible starting with Districts 116 and 119.
215. Plan H113 was released on April 13, and no changes were made to HD117 after Plan H113.
216. Interiano knew from the OAG RPVA that performance for the Hispanic candidate of choice
decreased in HD117 in Plan H153. TrA9-10 (Interiano). He acknowledged that there could have
been drafts with 50.1% SSVR with higher performance for Hispanic candidates of choice. TrJ1631
217. On April 27, during debate on the House floor, Rep. Menendez (Hispanic, Democrat) offered
Amendment 1 (Plan H160), which changed some lines between his district and Rep. Castro’s district
(HD124 and HD125 in Bexar County) that involved no people and was agreed between them and
was acceptable to the author. It was adopted. D-190 at 88-89, S729; D-13 at S130.
218. Rep. Farias put forth Amendment 2 (Plan H182) regarding his district and Rep. Garza’s district
in Bexar County (HD117 and HD118). D-13 at S130; D-190 at 90-91. His amendment would put
parts of four precincts that were moved into Garza’s district (Whispering Winds) back into Farias’s
district. D-13 at S130-31. Farias stated that these were poor, rural areas that had been his constituents
that he would like back, and that the amendment would keep Garza’s district at 50.1% minority,
which was a “big concern” for Garza. Farias stated that Garza had stated to him that he would not
oppose the amendment, but would live with the will of the House. Id. at S132-33. Rep. Aliseda
asked how it would affect Republican performance, and Farias stated, “We didn’t look at republican
numbers because the last conversation we had was that his big concern was that he did have a
minority district, and he wanted to keep it without changing the numbers. So we kept it at 50.1
percent that he had. He said he would be happy with that.” Id. at S132. Farias further stated that the
areas in question (that Farias wanted) likely would not support Garza because Garza is a Republican
and they were Democrat areas, but Garza was getting military precincts that have “some republican
votes.” Id. Farias was a third-term member, while Garza was a freshman, and having represented
the area, Farias did not think those areas would vote for Garza. The amendment put Lackland Air
Force Base back into HD117, and it is predominantly Anglo. TrJ346. The amendment split precincts
1033, 1035, 1037, and 1040. TrJ346-47 (Farias). The splits were made solely on the basis of race,
to meet the 50.1% SSVR requirement. TrJ347 (Farias). Farias did not know if the changes would
reflect an increase in Republican strength for HD117. TrJ347. Farias’s amendment stayed within
the required deviations. TrJ349 (Farias).
219. Solomons stated, “The proposed District 117 was drawn to bring together rural and suburban
communities and interests in south and west Bexar County. The amendment as proposed creates a
jagged and awkward line that divides these communities and creates an island along I-37 that
connects to the west of the district by only a tiny strip of land. And a proposed map cleanly follows
the proposed map as it exists today, follows the Medina River, a natural barrier that divides the rural
and urban counties–communities in south Bexar County. The amendment reduces the compactness
of both 117 and 118. It increases number of split precincts in District 117 from one to seven and in
District 118 from nine to fifteen, and increases the number of split VTD’s in District 111 from one
to seven and in District 118 from 10 to 15. It does have a negative impact on District 117, republican
numbers. It is a district that--it goes from--let’s see--pretty much--that’s pretty much it. I guess the
will of the House--I’m going to make a motion to table but it really will become a matter for the will
of the house, I suppose, but I’m going to oppose it because of the reasons stated.” D-13 at S133-34.
Solomons testified that leaving it to the will of the House means you are trying to communicate to
the House floor and other members that it is really up to them. TrJ1040. Solomons’ comments on
the amendment were given to him by staff to try to inform members about the specific effects of an
amendment because redistricting bills cannot just be read. TrJ1042-44. In this case the comments
were likely prepared by Interiano. TrJ1098 (Solomons); TrJ1599 (Interiano).
220. Farias tried to convince Garza to say he was okay with the amendment so they could move on
without it coming to a vote on the House floor. TrJ328 (Farias). Garza had said he would leave it
to the will of the House, which meant that he was releasing anybody that he has ties with to go ahead
and vote how they want. TrJ332-33 (Farias). Farias told that to Solomons, but Garza never got up
to say that; he stayed in his chair, and the amendment failed. TrJ333 (Farias). Farias testified that
there was concern about split precincts but that was the only way to get to 50.1% SSVR. Id. They
had tried to keep all the precincts together because Farias realized how hard it is for representatives
and for constituents to figure out where they vote when precincts are split. TrJ334 (Farias).
221. Solomons voted against the amendment and moved to table it. TrJ1040. Amendment No. 2
was tabled. The motion to table prevailed by (Record 568): 94 Yeas, 49 Nays, 5 Present, not voting.
D-190 at 2294-95. Farias testified that Garza and Larson voted against his amendment, but the
record vote indicates that only Garza voted to table the amendment, and all the other members of the
San Antonio delegation (except Straus, who abstained) voted against the motion to table. TrJ350-51
222. Although Solomons objected to the Farias amendment because it split six precincts along the
boundary of HD117 and HD118, Solomons did not have a problem with the 14 split precincts along
the border of HD77 and HD78 in El Paso or those in HD41.
223. In H283, HCVAP for HD117 is 63.8% and SSVR is 50.1%. Garza testified that he viewed the
increase in HCVAP from 58.8% to 63.8% as “an extreme positive.” TrJ423 (Garza). With regard
to the slight decrease in SSVR from the benchmark, Garza testified that he did not understand at the
time that a decrease in SSVR indicated a decrease in the effectiveness of the Hispanic vote, and he
still viewed the increase in HCVAP as a positive because they could go out and register those voters
and have them be more active. TrJ432 (Garza). However, they did not do voter registration in 2012.
224. Dr. Engstrom concluded that HD117 was not a Latino opportunity district in Plan H283.
Engstrom Corr. Rebuttal Report (docket no. 307-1) at 28. He considers Latinos to have a reasonable
opportunity in a district when their preferred candidates win a majority of the votes cast in 7 general
elections and 6 Democratic primary elections in the district more often than not, both in the general
and primary elections. Id.
225. Dr. Engstrom found a high level of racial polarization in voting in Bexar County. Tr504.
Engstrom (Joint Ex. 7) concluded that Latino voters in Bexar County are highly cohesive in support
of Latino candidates with the Democratic Party nomination in general elections. Latino Republican
Guzman (Supreme Court) was not supported by Latino voters, who provided her an estimated 16.3%
of their votes based on bivariate analysis and 23.8% based on multivariate analysis. All Latino
candidates in Democratic primaries also received strong support from Latino voters (85 to 93.2%
bivariate and 83.7-89.2% multivariate). Latinos voting in the Republican primaries did support the
Latino candidate running for re-election to the Railroad Commission in both analyses (80.7%
bivariate and 63.3% in multivariate), but they did not support the Latino seeking the Republican
nomination for Governor. Non-Latino voters were generally not supportive of Latino candidates.
In general elections they did not share the candidate preferences of Latino voters (estimates of
support range from 24 - 31.1% in the bivariate analysis). Multivariate analysis reveals that African
Americans did support these Latino candidates, with support ranging from 70 to 81.4%. Other voters
(mostly Anglos), however, supported these candidates at rates estimated to range from 8.2% to
21.9%. The only Latino Republican candidate received an estimated 70.3% support from non-Latino
voters in bivariate analysis, but again there was deep division between African-American and
other/Anglo voters–estimated African-American support for her in a multivariate analysis is 14.2%
while other voters is 84.9%. Non-Latinos provided a majority of their votes to two of the five Latino
candidates that were preferred by Latino voters in the Democratic primaries. This was true of
African Americans in only one of the Democratic primaries in the multivariate analysis, while other
voters cast majorities of 54 to 60.2% in three. In the Republican primaries, non-Latino voters, both
African-American and others, did not support either of the Latino candidates.
226. Engstrom concluded that, based on these results, the ultimately decisive general elections in
Bexar County reveal Latinos to be very cohesive in their candidate preference for Latino candidates,
and that preference is shared by African-American but not other voters. The analysis of the
Democratic primary elections reveals that Latinos are likewise very cohesive in their preference for
Latino candidates in these elections, but these preferences are not consistently shared by the rest of
227. In Engstrom’s corrected rebuttal report, he again concluded that Latino voters are highly
cohesive in support of Latino candidates with the Democratic party nomination in the general
election. Docket no. 307-1 at 9. Estimates of their support ranged from 96% to 91.8% in the
bivariate analysis. None of these Latino candidates received a majority of support from non-Latino
voters, with their estimated support ranging from 23.9% to 33.1%. Id. at 10. Multivariate analysis
showed African-American support to range from 51.2% to 81.4%, while other voters only supported
them between 8.2% to 21.9%. All Latino candidates also received strong Latino support in the
Democratic primaries (85.3% to 93.2% in the bivariate analysis). He concluded that the general
elections revealed a high level of racially polarized voting, and that Latinos shared a strong
preference for Latino Democratic candidates that was shared by African-Americans, but not other
voters, whose support was never more than 22%. Latinos are also very cohesive in their support of
Latino candidates in the Democratic primary, but these preferences were not shared by AfricanAmerican voters or Anglo voters.
228. In Bexar County, 29.5% of Hispanics lack a high school education. Joint Expert Ex. E-1
(Chapa Report) Table 4. The per capita income for Hispanics was $15,526, compared to $34,401
for non-Hispanic Anglos. Id. Table 5.
229. Benchmark HD117 was a Latino opportunity district that elected John Garza, a Hispanic
Republican, in 2010. Garza was not the Hispanic candidate of choice.
230. In Plan H283, Garza’s district was not drawn by the Bexar County delegation but by Interiano
and staffers from Garza’s office and Anglo Republican Larson’s office. Mapdrawers knew they had
to keep HD117 above 50% SSVR based on the metrics they were using, so they kept HD117 at
50.1% SSVR and refused to go any higher. Garza and his staff knew that Garza did not perform well
in SSVR-majority districts and wanted more Anglos in HD117 because they believed them to be
conservatives who would vote Republican. To achieve the goal of 50.1% SSVR while at the same
time protecting Garza, they removed higher turnout, urban precincts and added rural precincts with
low Hispanic turnout that had been in HD118. They created a district with the largest gap between
HCVAP and SSVR by far (13.7 points). Interiano’s explanations of drawing the district because
Garza wanted a rural district and was concerned about Bexar Met issues are not credible. Garza had
stated that he was defending some urban areas and his ideal district included urban areas, and he did
not view Bexar Met as relevant to redistricting. Further, Garza admitted that they looked at turnout
between Anglos and Hispanics and Garza knew that rural Hispanic turnout tended to be low. Even
though Farias had represented the rural communities of Whispering Winds and Somerset, which had
low Hispanic voter turnout, Garza refused Farias’s attempts to return these areas to his district
because Interiano and Garza knew that including other Hispanic urban areas instead would hurt
Garza’s election chances by including Hispanic areas with higher turnout.
231. In 2000, Nueces County was apportioned 2.2562 districts. D-212. Based on 2000 Census data,
it had an HCVAP of 50.97%. D-180; D-230. In the benchmark, three districts—HD32, HD33, and
HD34—were wholly or partly in Nueces County.
232. Benchmark HD32 consisted of the whole counties of San Patricio, Aransas, and Calhoun
Counties, and 14% of Nueces County. The 14% of Nueces County (approximately 47,712 persons)
was 59.1% Anglo, and HD32 was majority Anglo in terms of total population (52%) and VAP
(56.8%). TrJ633 (Herrero); Red-100 Report. Benchmark HD32 was represented by Gene Seaman
(Republican), then Juan Garcia (Hispanic Democrat) (2006), then Todd Hunter (Anglo Republican).
TrJ633 (Herrero). Hunter defeated Garcia in 2008 with 50.13% of the vote, and was re-elected in
2010 without an opponent in the general election. HD32 was 35.3% HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS
data and 36% HCVAP using 2008-2012 ACS data. Tr1497 (Interiano); PL-324; D-100 (Red-106
using 2005-2009 ACS); MALC-106.
233. HD33 and HD34 were entirely within Nueces County and were majority-Hispanic, majorityHCVAP, and majority-SSVR districts. Tr461 (Flores); D-100.
234. Benchmark HD33 was 60.4% HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data and 62.2% HCVAP using
2008-2012 ACS data. MALC-106; D-100. HD33 was completely within Corpus Christi and was
54.3% total SSVR/55.3% non-suspense SSVR. From 2004 to 2010, HD33 was represented by
Hispanic Democrats and was a Latino opportunity district. Solomon Ortiz, Jr. defeated Republican
challenger Raul Torres in 2008. In November 2010, however, Torres defeated Ortiz to represent
HD33 by a vote of 52.51% (12,499 votes) to 47.49% (11,306 votes). Dr. Engstrom estimated that
Ortiz received 92.3% of the Latino vote and 11% of the non-Latino vote. Tr510 (Engstrom). The
turnout in HD33 was 45.08% Latino. Tr510 (Engstrom). Although he was Hispanic, Torres was
not the Latino candidate of choice. Joint Expert Ex. E-2 (Kousser Report) at 45.
235. Benchmark HD34 was 58.2% HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data and 59.4% HCVAP using
2008-2012 ACS data. MALC-106; D-100. HD34 was 53.3% total SSVR/53.8% non-suspense
SSVR. From 2004 to 2010, HD34 was represented by Abel Herrero, a Hispanic Democrat. Herrero
defeated Anglo Republican challenger Connie Scott in 2008. In 2010, however, Scott defeated
Herrero to represent HD34 by a vote of 53.96% (13,892 votes) to 46.04% (11,855 votes). TrJ660
(Herrero). Scott was the not the Latino candidate of choice. Herrero attributes his loss to reduced
Latino voter turnout. TrJ630 (Herrero).
236. Benchmark HD33 and HD34 were Latino opportunity districts. However, in 2010, they did
not elect the Latino candidate of choice. All three Nueces County House districts were represented
by Republicans in the 82nd Legislature. Tr1497 (Interiano).
237. In both 2000 and 2010, Nueces County was majority Hispanic population and majority
HCVAP. D-230 (estimated 50.97% in 2000); D-231 (estimated 55.87% in 2010). Between 2000
and 2010, the growth in Nueces County was attributable to Hispanics, as both African-American and
Anglo population declined. MALC-148.
238. Nueces County growth did not keep pace with statewide growth. TrJ658 (Herrero); Tr1498
(Interiano). Based on 2010 census figures, Nueces County was apportioned 2.0295 districts. D-214.
Accordingly, two districts could be contained wholly within Nueces County without exceeding 5%
239. In 2010, Rep. Herrero had discussions with Speaker Straus about Nueces County. Straus had
mentioned to Herrero and Solomon Ortiz, Jr. that one of them was going to have to run for Congress
because one of their seats was not going to be there for the next session. TrJ645 (Herrero). He did
not say the representative of HD32 might have to run for Congress. Id. MALC contends that it was
therefore predetermined that they would lose a minority district.
240. According to 2005-2009 ACS data available to the Legislature, Nueces County was 54.61%
HCVAP. D-51. According to 2008-2012 ACS data, Nueces County was 55.87% HCVAP. D-181.
241. On February 17, Hanna emailed Denise Davis with the subject “redist issues.” D-192; US-102;
Quesada-242. He wrote, “Corpus - Two seats only; three R’s. And worse one of the seats will
probably have to be more Hispanic than the other and probably elect a D. Not sure on this but
preclearance likely an issue here.”
242. On February 18, 2011 Denise Davis forwarded Hanna’s email to Interiano. D-132. Interiano
responded to Davis stating, “[Hanna] and I went through all of this yesterday afternoon and through
some of the first things that we need to look at as soon as RedAppl is up and running. . . . The big
issue with Corpus is that two of the current seats are 65% Hispanic (Scott, Torres), but the county
as a whole is only 60%. Meaning that all of the Anglos live in Hunters [sic] district, so it really is
going to be a tricky issue. This might be one of the things to mention to Nina Perales when we meet
next week and see if she has any thoughts on whether there should be two 60% seats or one 65% and
one 55%.” D-132.
243. On March 21, the mapdrawers were still deciding what to do about Nueces County. See D-228
(Bruce email regarding issues to discuss and for which litigation team advice was needed).
244. On March 22, 2011, Rep. Hunter, Interiano, and Hanna met to discuss Nueces County issues.
Afterwards, Hanna sent an email to Interiano (copying Archer) with the subject “Nueces County.”
D-136; US-110; US-156; Quesada-275. He wrote, “According to the 2010 census and the TLC
database, Nueces County as a whole is 56.8 % HVAP and 49.6% Spanish surname for the 2010
general election. It is 60.6% total Hispanic pop. Accordingly you cannot have two wholly contained
house districts in the county with 60% HVAP or 50% Spanish surname. It may be that the 60% total
number got interpreted as HVAP but it wasn’t. I am also not finding the election data to support the
theory that Nueces County as a whole ‘performs’ for Hispanics. Thus I think it highly unlikely that
you can ever get two performing districts for Hispanics no matter how you draw them, but I am not
volunteering to test that theory.” Archer responded, “Hispanic D’s narrowly won most countywide
elections (statewide, regional, and county offices) in 2008 general (like 51-49 size margins) and got
trounced by larger margins in 2010 general (like 56-40, 55-41, 55-45).” US-156; Quesada-163.
Archer then sent Interiano and Hanna election results from the 2006 general election for Court of
Criminal Appeals (Keller (R) 50.59%, J.R. Molina (D) 49.41%), County Judge (Lloyd Neal (R)
54.55%, Larry Olivarez (D) 45.45%), and three district judge races (in two the Democrat Hispanic
wins and in one the Democrat Hispanic loses). D-205; US-110; Quesada-252. Interiano responded,
“Perfect. Thanks for all of this stuff. I think I explained to [Hanna] my new strategy at the end.” D205; Quesada-402.
245. By April 1, the mapdrawers were working on a full state plan that had only two districts in
Nueces County. Solomons made the decision to have only two districts, on advice of counsel.
TrJ1560 (Interiano). Interiano talked about it with Hanna, and felt that any § 5 concerns caused by
the loss of HD33 in Nueces County could be offset elsewhere in the plan without breaking the
County Line Rule. Id. Interiano does not remember any specific § 2 discussions regarding Nueces
246. On April 7, David Hanna wrote the first retrogression memo on the draft House plan. In this
plan, there were two districts in Nueces County, one that was strongly Hispanic and one that was not.
In his memo, Hanna wrote, “Nueces County may be the single most difficult retrogression issue to
predict. While there are two 50% SSVR plus districts within the county currently that may constitute
performing Hispanic districts, they are both significantly underpopulated and the remaining people
in Nueces County are predominantly Anglo. The county line rule likely requires two districts to be
wholly contained within Nueces County with no surplus coming out; however this would have to
yield to the federal Voting Rights Act if it can be shown retrogression could be avoided by splitting
the county. The approach taken in the proposed plan is to draw one clearly performing district and
one that is not. Another approach is to split the Hispanic population exactly in half, resulting in two
districts that are slightly at or under 50% SSVR, though neither will likely reliably perform as
Hispanic districts of choice. A final approach is to see if by splitting county lines in the area, the
second Hispanic district could be preserved. This approach should be further investigated though
it runs the risk of violating state law and requiring other county lines to be split, and should be
pursued only if it would clearly contribute to total Hispanic voting strength statewide.” Thus, Hanna
suggested three options for Nueces County: (1) draw one performing Hispanic district and one not
(as had been done in the draft map); (2) draw two equally Hispanic districts just below 50% SSVR,
which may not perform reliably; or (3) determine whether the VRA required them to break the
County Line Rule.
247. On April 12, David Hanna wrote his second retrogression memo concerning Plan H110, a nonpublic plan. US-339; D-327. Since no changes had been made to Nueces County, this memo raised
the same concerns and gave the same three suggestions.
248. On April 13, Solomons issued a press release stating that the proposed House map (Plan H113)
would be released that day. PL-205; D-9; D-206. The press release included the following “key
points” for the map: (1) under “compliance with the Voting Rights Act,” “In Nueces County, which
has a 49% Spanish Surname Voter Registration and an apportionment of two districts, one new
performing majority Hispanic district is created with a 63.7% [non-suspense] Spanish Surname
Voter Registration, and (2) due to lack of growth in Nueces County, the County went from having
2+ districts to 2 districts, which led to the pairing of Republicans Torres/Scott.” The “new
performing majority Hispanic district” referred to HD34, which had been a majority-Hispanic
opportunity district in the benchmark but did not elect the Hispanic candidate of choice in 2010.
249. In Plan H113, Nueces County contained only two districts, HD32 and HD34. Total SSVR for
HD32 was 34.9% and for HD34 was 62.9%. In addition, both districts were overpopulated, HD32
by 1.61% and HD34 by 1.34%.
250. At the April 15 HRC meeting, Luis Figueroa of MALDEF asserted that the loss of the Latino
opportunity district HD33 in Nueces County raised retrogression concerns and concerns under § 2.
251. Hanna and Interiano felt that the loss of Latino opportunity district HD33 in Nueces County
could be offset for § 5 compliance by creating a new Hispanic opportunity district in a different part
of the State. TrJ1190-91, TrJ1210 (Hanna); TrJ1560 (Interiano). Downton also believed they could
resolve any retrogression by finding a district elsewhere in the state that was below 50% SSVR and
taking it above 50%. TrJ2096-97 (Downton). As a result, mapdrawers increased the SSVR of HD90
in Tarrant County and HD148 in Harris County above 50% in part to “offset” the loss of the Nueces
County district. Both HD90 and HD148 were below 50% SSVR in the benchmark but were already
performing for Latinos.
252. On April 17, Downton received a revised Nueces County map from Rep. Hunter. PL-538
(hrc1H288, hrc1H289). Downton did not work on the Nueces map at all. TrJ2014 (Downton).
Hunter’s version of Nueces County included an odd-shaped border between HD32 and HD34 in and
around Corpus Christi.
253. On April 18, Rep. Torres sent an email to fellow members Hunter and Scott. D-142. He
wrote, “I have made my decision regarding [Hunter’s] request last Friday which was to leave his
proposed map stand without challenge. I have decided that the good of the many outweigh the needs
of just the one. Therefore, despite the fact that both I and HRT [Hispanic Republicans of Texas] have
great concerns over the layout of the proposed redistricting map for Nueces County because of the
perceived lower percentage of available Republican voters in the proposed district, I believe that it
is my duty to do my part to keep us all on the same page of understanding. In addition, there are
many other reasons such as: 1. All three of us made a commitment to each other at the beginning of
session to work together. This is important. 2. Maintaining a positive working relationship between
us three to ensure our success as a delegation. 3. Promoting party unity and long term political gains
for Nueces County. 4. Maintaining a high degree of trust between us. I have informed HRT of my
decision and have asked them to respect it. They are very disappointed with me right now. Todd, I
am placing my trust in your word that you gave me last week to allow you time to see this process
through and that you would find a way to fix the proposed district map to resolve my concerns.” Id.
Todd Hunter forwarded this email to Interiano. Id.
254. At the April 19 HRC meeting, Solomons offered statewide substitute Plan H134, and it was
adopted. He then offered an amendment (Plan H135) to Plan H134, affecting Webb and Nueces
Counties, and it was adopted (Nay: Veasey, all else present voting Aye). D-12. These amendments
incorporated the plan received from Hunter with the odd-shaped border and became the Nueces
County configuration in Plan H153. In Plan H153, HD32 was .06% overpopulated and HD34 was
2.89% overpopulated (compared to Plan H113, where HD32 was 1.61% overpopulated and HD34
was 1.34% overpopulated). In Plan H153, HD34 was 61.1% total SSVR/61.7% non-suspense SSVR
compared to 62.9%/63.7% SSVR in Plan H113. Therefore, the population of HD34 increased but
its SSVR (and its HVAP) declined slightly.
255. Sometime around April 20, David Hanna wrote his third retrogression memo analyzing Plan
H153. US-338; TrJ1161 (Hanna). Despite the changes to the map, this memo raised the same
retrogression issue and made the same three suggestions regarding Nueces County. Hanna’s
concerns regarding Nueces County did not change across his three retrogression memos. TrJ1195
256. On April 27, Plan H153 was brought to the House floor for debate/second reading. TrJ1947
(Bruce). With regard to Nueces County, Solomons said that the County Line Rule required two
districts in Nueces County because it was at 2.03% of ideal district size, and the overall population
in Nueces was 49% SSVR such that “it is impossible to draw two Hispanic majority seats within
Nueces.” D-13 at S120-21. He said that they decided to draw only one strongly Hispanic district
(HD34) to allow the Hispanic community in Nueces County to elect a representative of their choice,
and all three members of the Nueces County delegation (Hunter, Torres, and Scott) had agreed to
that. Id. at S121. Rep. Martinez Fischer (Hispanic, Democrat) stated that, had they cut a county line,
they could have had two minority opportunity districts in Nueces County, and that Plan H153 had
17 cuts, such that one could have been in Nueces County. Id. Solomons responded that there was
only one county cut in Plan H153 and that everything else was spillovers. Id. Solomons made clear
throughout the debate that he would not break the County Line Rule to comply with the VRA.
257. Later in the debate, Martinez Fischer proposed Amendment 31 (Plan H198) regarding the
Coastal Bend. D-13 at S219. Plan H198 had one district (HD34) wholly within Nueces County and
four districts (HD 32, 33, 35, and 43) partly within Nueces County; it violated the County Line Rule.
HD32 was an Anglo-majority CVAP district, and HD33 (58% HCVAP) and HD34 (63.8% HCVAP)
were HCVAP-majority districts. D-104. Rep. Raymond complained that in Plan H153 minority
voters in Nueces County were diluted and that the Nueces County configuration violated § 5. He
stated that African-American neighborhoods had been placed into HD32, diluting their strength, and
that Hispanic precincts were split into different districts, being diluted. D-13 at S219. He also noted
that HD33, a Hispanic opportunity district, had been eliminated. Raymond advocated for Plan H198.
Solomons stated, “This is a continuation of the dialogue on the Texas Constitution county line rule,
and I’ll move to table.” The amendment was tabled. D-13 at S220.
258. Hunter laid out Amendment No. 14 (Plan H178) that he said moved a precinct and was
approved by the committee. It was adopted. This amendment added the “toe” to the “boot”
extension in Corpus Christi in HD34 by adding a precinct, and removed some population from the
precinct below to keep a pathway to the HD32 extension into Los Encinos. Los Encinos is a lowturnout minority area. TrJ647 (Herrero). The amendment also moved Precincts 57 and 68 (near the
coast) from HD34 to HD32. This amendment created the final configuration of Nueces County that
appeared in the enacted Plan H283.
259. Interiano testified that the Nueces County configuration in H283 was given to him by the
Nueces County delegation (Hunter, Scott, and Torres). Tr1429-30 (Interiano). Hunter was the
longest serving member of the Nueces County delegation in 2011, so he was the dean of the
delegation. TrJ659 (Herrero). Hunter was the architect of the Nueces County map. Hunter depo.
(docket no. 1092-3) at 53-54.
260. On April 27, Nina Perales of MALDEF wrote a letter to Solomons to provide information on
Plan H153. PL-227; D-15. She wrote that Plan H153 was retrogressive and raised serious concerns
under the VRA, including that Plan H153 eliminated HD33, a Latino opportunity district. She wrote,
“Adding Latino voters to Districts 90 and 148 does raise the SSVR but does not create new Latino
opportunity districts that can offset the loss of District 33.” MALDEF and other minority members
took the position that HD90 and HD148 could not offset the loss of an opportunity district because
they were already performing Latino districts in the benchmark, such that increasing their SSVR
above 50% did not create a new Latino opportunity district.
261. In Plan H283, Nueces County is divided into HD32 to the east and HD34 to the west, and
HD33, which was a Latino opportunity district, is eliminated. TrJ646 (Herrero). HD33 was
relocated to Rockwall County, and it is undisputed that it is not a Latino opportunity district in Plan
H283. Hunter, an Anglo Republican, was left as incumbent of HD32. Connie Scott and Raul Torres
(the two junior members) were paired in Hispanic-majority district HD34. TrJ661 (Herrero).
262. HD32 (Hunter’s district) is 563 persons (-.34%) underpopulated and is 45.9% HVAP and 46%
Anglo VAP. Red-100 Report. HD32 is 44.2% HCVAP using 2005-5009 ACS data (and 46.3%
under 2008-2012 ACS) and 36.6% total SSVR/37.3% non-suspense SSVR. D-109. HD32 is not
a Latino opportunity district.
263. HD34 is 5,512 persons (+3.29%) overpopulated and is 67.7% HVAP and 27.4% Anglo VAP.
Red-100 Report. HD34 is 64.6% HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data (and 65.9% using 2008-2012
ACS data) and 60.1% total SSVR/60.8% non-suspense SSVR. MALC-105; D-109.
264. Although benchmark HD34 was underpopulated by 24,055, D-46, it is overpopulated in the
enacted plan by 5,512, while HD32 is underpopulated by 563. Between PlanH113 and H153, HD34
went from 1.34% overpopulated to 2.89% overpopulated, and between Plan H153 and H283, HD34
went from 2.89% overpopulated to 3.29% overpopulated, while HD32 got less populated. The
difference in population between HD32 and HD34 in Plan H283 is 6,075 persons. As a whole,
Nueces County is overpopulated, and thus neither district was required to be underpopulated. No
explanation is given for the population deviation.
265. HD34’s total SSVR went from 53.3% in the benchmark to 60.1%. Benchmark HD34 was
already majority-Hispanic and was made more Hispanic. TrJ650 (Herrero). Herrero did not recall
anyone at the field hearings suggesting that HD34 needed more Hispanic voters. Id.
266. Herrero describes the jagged boundary line between HD32 and HD34 as “unique,” “just odd,”
and appearing “strategic.” TrJ646. There are ten split precincts along the border of HD32 and
HD34. US-387; US-375. The boot removed two potential Hispanic rivals (Torres and Ortiz) with
legislative experience who might challenge the Anglo Hunter in HD32. TrJ647-49 (Herrero). The
map also placed the minority community of Los Encinos into HD32, but it is a low-performing area
with low turnout. TrJ647 (Herrero). In addition, the northern extension of HD32 is Hillcrest
(Precincts 30 and 38), which is majority-African American surrounded by port areas, and is also lowperforming. TrJ648 (Herrero). Herrero opined that Hispanic voters were packed into HD34
unnecessarily and those left in HD32 were marginalized. TrJ650.
267. The Plan H283 districts for Nueces County are currently in effect in Plan H358. TrJ646
(Herrero). Herrero beat Scott in 2012 in the new HD34. TrJ661 (Herrero). Therefore it appears that
HD34 as drawn is a performing Hispanic opportunity district.
268. Nueces County was over 50% HCVAP in 2000 and was over 50% HCVAP based on the 20052009 ACS data available to the Legislature. Interiano knew that Nueces County was majority
HCVAP. Tr1463 (Interiano). However, Interiano used a standard of 50% SSVR (rather than 50%
HCVAP) to determine whether § 2 required a Latino district, stating that it was based on guidance
he had been given. TrA64-65, TrA354 (Interiano). Interiano would have been aware that 50%
HCVAP was the standard that had been set forth by many courts, including the Fifth Circuit. Archer
and Hanna had also testified before the HRC on February 16 and March 1 and provided guidance
that HCVAP was the relevant metric for § 2. Interiano testified that the intent behind the chosen
configuration was to ensure that one of the two districts was an HCVAP-majority district, Tr1498
(Interiano), but this explanation is not credible given his statement that they were focusing on SSVR,
and if they had been focusing on HCVAP, both districts could have been drawn as HCVAP-majority
districts since the HCVAP of the county was over 50%. In addition, Interiano testified that they
never looked at whether they could draw two HCVAP-majority districts in Nueces County. TrA65.
There is no evidence that they could not do so. Nor did they ever do an exogenous election analysis
on a draft two-district plan with HCVAP majority districts. Id.
269. Of the three options noted by Hanna for Nueces County (draw one clearly performing Hispanic
district and one not performing district, split the Hispanic population exactly in half to create two
districts slightly under 50% SSVR, or consider breaking the County Line Rule to preserve the second
Latino opportunity district), the Legislature chose the first option and drew two districts in Nueces
County, one more Hispanic and one less Hispanic. To support their choice, mapdrawers cited the
fact that because Nueces County as a whole had SSVR below 50%, if they tried to draw two districts
at 49.5% SSVR, they would be dropping two below a majority of SSVR and they were worried they
would not perform for Latinos. TrA50 (Interiano). However, they were more focused on the number
of 50% SSVR and whether they were “performing” for § 5 purposes than whether the districts would
actually provide an opportunity for Latinos to elect or whether they were required by § 2. TrA64
(Interiano). Two districts slightly below 50% SSVR would likely have been above 50% HCVAP.
There is no indication that they ever tried to draw two districts that were equally Hispanic or
measured their election performance. Further, although they were concerned about dropping below
50% SSVR for retrogression purposes, they did not look at whether they could draw two 50%
HCVAP districts, which could have been required by § 2. Interiano did not recall talking to Hanna
about whether § 2 would require keeping two Latino opportunity districts in Nueces County.
TrA1560 (Interiano). They also refused the third option mentioned by Hanna, which was to
determine whether the County Line Rule should yield to the VRA because Solomons had foreclosed
that option. By choosing to draw only one strong Hispanic district, they protected Anglo Republican
Todd Hunter, whereas drawing two HCVAP-majority districts or two more equal SSVR districts
slightly below 50% SSVR would create two districts that might not perform for Republicans.
270. Even following their 50% SSVR requirement, mapdrawers could have drawn two SSVRmajority Latino opportunity districts if they disregarded the County Line Rule. TrA50 (Interiano).
There were proposals that preserved the existing two Latino opportunity districts wholly within
Nueces County and then spilled additional population out of the County. TrJ1560 (Interiano). These
were not considered because Solomons refused to violate the County Line Rule to comply with the
VRA. Id. Interiano testified that no proposed plan created two Nueces County districts that could
elect without violating the County Line Rule. Tr1449. The Court has not located any proposed plan
in the record with two equal SSVR districts or two HCVAP-majority districts in Nueces County that
does not break the County Line Rule (Plan H130, Plan H212, Plan H214, Plan H226, and Plan H232
each have one district around 70% HVAP and one around 43% HVAP).
271. The Latino Task Force offers demonstration Plan H292 with two Hispanic, HCVAP-majority
districts in Nueces County. Tr461 (Flores); PL-326; Joint Map Ex. J-37; D-111. HD30 is 23.6%
HCVAP, HD33 is 57.4% HCVAP, and HD34 is 57.1% HCVAP. PL-326. HD33 and HD34 are
wholly within Nueces County, and a portion of HD30 is in Nueces County. This plan breaks the
County Line Rule. PL-326 (docket no. 325-4 at 4); PL-341 (map).
272. MALC offers Plan H201, which preserves the existing two majority-HCVAP districts (HD33
and HD34) in Nueces County and spills over additional population to a third district (HD32). In
H201, 6% of Nueces County (mostly Anglo) is put into HD32. This plan breaks the County Line
273. MALC also offers Plan H205, which has one HCVAP-majority (63.8%) district (HD34) wholly
contained within Nueces County and the rest of Nueces County attached to four additional districts
(HD32, 33, 35, and 43), all of which are HCVAP-majority districts except HD32. Joint Map Ex. J26; D-108. This plan breaks the County Line Rule.
274. MALC’s lower-deviation Plan H295 has one HCVAP-majority district (HD33) wholly
contained within Nueces County and the additional population is joined with two different districts
(HD32 and HD34), one of which is a Hispanic-majority district. It also breaks the County Line Rule.
275. MALC has offered demonstration Plan H329 and Plan H373, which have the same Nueces
County configuration. MALC-107, MALC-110. In both plans, HD34 is wholly within Nueces
County, while part of Nueces County is joined with Kleberg County in HD32, and part of Nueces
County is joined with counties to the north in HD30. MALC-108. HD32 and HD34 are HCVAPmajority districts. MALC-109. H329 and H373 split only Nueces County, but split it two ways.
H373 is an eight-district plan that could be plugged into H309 or H358.
276. Dr. Engstrom testified that the bivariate analysis of statewide elections from 2006 to 2010
revealed racially polarized voting in both general and primary elections in Nueces County. Tr503;
Engstrom Rebuttal Report (docket no. 307-1) at 7/Table 2.
277. In his original report (Joint Expert Ex. E-7), Dr. Engstrom found that Latinos are highly
cohesive in support of Latino candidates with the Democratic party nomination in general
elections—all five got strong support (all >90% bivariate). The only Latino Republican, Guzman,
was not supported. Further, all Latino candidates in Democratic primaries received strong Latino
support (78.4% -95% bivariate). Latinos voting in Republican primaries did support the Latino
running for Railroad Commissioner, but not for Governor. Non-Latino voters provided little support
to any of the five Latino candidates favored by Latino voters in general elections, according to the
bivariate analysis (11.2% - 17.6% support). They did support the only Republican candidate that was
a Latino with an estimated 78%. They did not support any of the Latinos seeking nominations in the
Democratic primaries and did not favor either Latino candidate in the Republican primaries.
Engstrom concluded that Latinos in Nueces County are very cohesive in their candidate preferences
for Latino candidates, in both general elections and Democratic primaries, but their preferences were
not shared by non-Latino voters in any elections analyzed.
278. In his corrected rebuttal report (docket no. 307-1), Dr. Engstrom found racially polarized voting
in the HD33 2010 general election. Latino support for incumbent Solomon Ortiz, Jr. was estimated
to be 92.3%, while non-Latinos gave him only 11% support. SSVR turnout was estimated to be
45.08%, and Ortiz received 47.49% of the vote.
279. Dr. Brischetto’s EI supplemental analysis of 2012 elections showed that 88.9% of non-Latino
voters supported Scott and 4.45% of Latino voters supported Scott. TrJ938 (Brischetto). About
11.09% of non-Latino voters supported Herrero and about 95.55% of Latinos supported Herrero.
This showed a high degree of racially polarized voting between Latinos and non-Latinos. TrJ938
(Brischetto). Brischetto found this pattern of polarization in all ten general elections that he analyzed
in Nueces County. He characterized it as extreme. TrJ992. Brischetto found it difficult to measure
racially polarized voting in the Republican primaries because there were so few Latinos participating.
TrJ939. Nevertheless, in three of five races he could “say with some confidence that there is racial
bloc voting.” TrJ940, TrJ942. He also found good evidence of racially polarized voting in the
Democratic primary. TrJ944. Partisanship is not a factor in the primary elections. TrJ943.
280. Dr. Brischetto found that Latinos had a high level of cohesion. TrJ969 (Brischetto). He also
found that Anglo bloc voting was sufficient to usually defeat the Latino-preferred candidate. Id.
281. Dr. Kousser also found that contests in HD33 between 2002 and 2010 were “starkly racially
polarized,” with Latino voters overwhelmingly supporting the Democratic candidates. Joint Expert
Ex. E-2 (Kousser Report) at 87, Tables 12-14.
282. Dr. Robert Bezdek stated in his declaration that he worked as a political consultant for a Latino
candidate for mayor who faced an Anglo opponent in the runoff election, and through his work on
this campaign he saw firsthand the political cohesion of the Latino community in Nueces County.
PL-412. He stated that much of the support for Latino candidates comes from the predominantly
Latino West Side, and much of the support for Anglo candidates comes from predominantly Anglo
283. Defendants dispute the existence of racially polarized voting in Nueces County, specifically
the requirement that “the White majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it—in the absence of
special circumstances, such as the minority candidate running unopposed—usually to defeat the
minority’s preferred candidate” because minority-preferred candidates have won elections in Nueces
County. At Defendants’ request, the Court has taken judicial notice of the election results in docket
no. 1169, set forth in the table below. TrJ2161.
TABLE 1: 2012 General Election Results in Nueces County
Results in County
General Election, US President
(Brischetto, Feb. 2014 at 21). Exhibit A at 1.
General Election, US Senator
(Brischetto, Feb. 2014 at 21-22). Exhibit A at 1.
General Election, US Representative, Dist. 27
(Brischetto, Feb. 2014 at 22). Exhibit A at 1-2.
General Election, State Representative Dist. 34
(Brischetto, Feb. 2014 at 22). Exhibit A at 4.
General Election, SBOE Dist. 2 (Brischetto, Feb.
2014 at 22). Exhibit A at 3.
Cortez, Jr. (D)
General Election, Justice, 13th Ct. Appeals, Place 2
(Brischetto, Feb. 2014 at 22). Exhibit A at 4.
General Election, Justice, 13th Ct. Appeals, Place 4
(Brischetto, Feb. 2014 at 22). Exhibit A at 4.
General Election, Justice, 13th Ct. Appeals, Place 5
(Brischetto, Feb. 2014 at 22). Exhibit A at 4.
General Election, District Judge, 214th Jud. Dist.
(Brischetto, Feb. 2014 at 23). Exhibit A at 5.
General Election, District Judge, 347th Jud. Dist.
(Brischetto, Feb. 2014 at 23). Exhibit A at 5.
284. Defendants note that in the nine elections for Texas House Representative in Nueces County
(districts 32, 33, and 34) studied by Dr. Brischetto in his supplemental report, the minority-preferred
candidate won the election six out of nine times. TrJ993-94 (Brischetto); MALC-166 Table 1. Dr.
Brischetto explained that the minority candidate does win when the district is over 66% minority.
TrJ996. In districts that were less than 50% minority, Anglo bloc voting defeated the minoritypreferred candidate all but one time. Id.
285. There have been a significant number of Latinos in elected office in Nueces County. TrJ665
(Herrero). Three of eight Corpus Christi council members are Hispanic, as are the county attorney,
Nueces County district clerk, and three of eight district court judges. Id.
286. In Nueces County, the mean family income and the mean household income for Anglos is
almost twice that of African Americans and Hispanics. MALC-149. Hispanics and African
Americans are several times more likely to rely on food stamps than Anglos. Id. The per capita
income for Anglos far exceeds that of Hispanics and African Americans. Id.; Joint Expert Ex. E-1
(Chapa Report) Table 5. More than 86% of the Nueces County functionally illiterate persons over
25 are Hispanic. MALC-150. 16.3% of Hispanics over the age of 25 are functionally illiterate,
compared to 2.6% of Anglos. MALC-150. Hispanics lag behind Anglos in high school graduation
rates. Id. (stating that almost one third of Hispanics over the age of 25 are not high school graduates,
compared to 8.3% of Anglos); see also Joint Expert Ex. E-1 (Chapa Report) Table 4 (noting that
21.3% of Hispanics in Nueces County have less than a high school education). More Anglos have
graduate or professional degrees than do Hispanics. MALC-150; Joint Expert Ex. E-1 (Chapa
Report) Table 4.
287. Rep. Lozano was elected to HD43, which included Kleberg County directly to the south of
Nueces County, in 2010 as a Hispanic Democrat (he ran again in 2012 as a Republican). TrJ1781-82
(Lozano). Lozano testified that nobody in his region wanted Kleberg County to be paired in a district
with Nueces County and that the prior representative had fought against such a pairing in the 2000
redistricting cycle. TrJ1792. Lozano did not feel that MALC was there for him, because he felt some
of their proposed maps paired Kleberg and Nueces against his wishes or butchered the region
without consulting the members. TrJ1791-1811 (Lozano).
288. Although Nueces County was less than 50% SSVR in 2010, it was majority HCVAP and had
been since at least 2000. Mapdrawers were aware that it was majority HCVAP. Because
mapdrawers only focused on a threshold of 50% SSVR, they failed to look at whether two majorityHCVAP districts could have been drawn wholly within Nueces County with no additional districts
coming into Nueces County. However, no Plaintiffs have presented such a map. Plaintiffs did
present maps that maintained two HCVAP-majority districts in Nueces County, but they had more
than two districts in Nueces County and thus broke the County Line Rule.
289. Of the two districts in Nueces County, HD34 (the minority district) is overpopulated in the
enacted plan by 5,512 persons, while HD32 is underpopulated by 563 persons. The difference in
population between HD32 and HD34 in Plan H283 is 6,075 persons. As a whole, Nueces County
is overpopulated and thus neither district was required to be underpopulated. No justification is
given for the population deviation.
290. Plan H283 eliminates Latino opportunity district HD33, and mapdrawers refused to break the
County Line Rule to maintain a second Latino opportunity district in Nueces County. Although
mapdrawers assert that they chose to draw one strong performing Hispanic district and one nonHispanic district in order to comply with the VRA, there is no indication that they needed to make
HD34 as Hispanic as they did, and by doing so they protected Anglo Republican incumbent Hunter.
Mapdrawers also did not thoroughly explore whether two districts slightly under 50% SSVR or two
HCVAP-majority districts could or should have been drawn.
291. In 2001, the DOJ objected to the LRB’s House plan in part based on its configuration of HD35.
D-326; D-327; PL-225. The DOJ noted that the new district was created from existing HD31 and
HD44 and paired an Anglo and a Hispanic incumbent. The Hispanic incumbent represented a
district with 55.6% SSVR, and the new HD35 dropped the SSVR to 50.2%; HVAP also dropped
from 57.8% to 52.1%. In addition, over half of the configuration of the new HD35 came from the
Anglo incumbent’s former district. The DOJ therefore concluded that Hispanic voters would lose
their opportunity to elect their candidate of choice in HD35 and that the district “as drawn [would]
preclude Hispanic voters from electing their candidates of choice.” D-326; PL-225. This district
was remedied in 2001, when the court reconfigured it and drew it with 51.5% SSVR. Balderas v.
Texas, No. 6:01-CV-158, 2001 WL 34104833 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2001), summarily aff’d, 536 U.S.
292. In 2002, Democrat Gabi Canales won the district. In 2004, Democrat Yvonne Gonzalez
Toureilles defeated Republican candidate Eric Opiela, and she won again in 2006. She was reelected without an opponent in the general election in 2008. In 2010, she was defeated by
Republican Jose Aliseda 52.81% to 47.19%. Aliseda was not the Hispanic candidate of choice.
Joint Expert Ex. E-5 (Martin Report) at 13; Martin depo. (Joint Ex. J-48) at 94; Joint Expert Ex. E-2
(Kousser Report) at 46; US-351 (Handley Report) at 5, 34.
293. In the benchmark Plan H100, HD35 was located in South Texas and was made up of Atascosa,
McMullen, Live Oak, Jim Wells, Karnes, Goliad, and Bee Counties.
294. Benchmark HD35 was 15,755 people underpopulated. Red-202 Report. Hispanics were
60.6% of the total population; Anglos were 34.8% of the total population. HVAP was 56.4% and
Anglo VAP was 38.2%. Total SSVR was 55.4%; non-suspense SSVR was 55.3%. HCVAP was
54.6%. Red-106 Report.
295. Benchmark HD35 was a Latino opportunity district. TrJ119, TrJ134 (Arrington). Benchmark
HD35 had an exogenous effectiveness index of 40% (2/5) and an endogenous effectiveness index
of 80% (as noted, it elected the Hispanic preferred candidate in 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008, but not
in 2010, when Aliseda was elected). TrJ34 (Arrington); Joint Expert Ex. E-5 (Martin Report) at 13;
US-351 (Handley report) at 5; PL-290 (Red-225 Report); US-363 at 170 (Red-225 Report).
296. Interiano asked intern Elizabeth Coburn to work on HD35. TrA48-49 (Interiano); TrJ1924
(Bruce); D-370 (April 11, 2011 email from Coburn to Interiano saying she has “done the Aliseda
district numbers”). Therefore, Interiano was responsible for the configuration of HD35. Downton
did not work on HD35. TrJ2046 (Downton).
297. Aliseda signed off on a version of his district that was created by Coburn and Interiano on April
4. D-229 at 4.
298. In Plan H113 (Solomons’ first public plan) released on April 13, HD35 included La Salle,
Atascosa, McMullen, Duval, Live Oak, Bee, and San Patricio Counties. Thus, it maintained
Atascosa, McMullen, Live Oak, and Bee Counties, lost Jim Wells, Karnes, and Goliad Counties, and
added La Salle, Duval and San Patricio Counties. The configuration of HD35 did not change
between Plan H113 and Plan H283.
299. Hanna’s three retrogression memos written between April 7 and April 20 all said the same
thing about HD35. He noted that as drawn in 2001 the district had 51.5% SSVR, that benchmark
HD35 had 55.4% SSVR, and that the proposed district had 52.7% SSVR. D-122; D-327; D-338.
He wrote, “This district drew an objection from DOJ for having its SSVR lowered from 55.6% to
50.2% and pairing an Anglo and Hispanic rep. in a district DOJ concluded favored the Anglo. The
court remedy only increased the SSVR to 51.5 but drew the district as an open district that a
Hispanic candidate could win. The proposed plan lowers the SSVR 2.5 points but has it higher than
the court plan 10 years ago. Further election analysis should be performed on the district to measure
the performance of the existing and proposed districts.”
300. Interiano knew from the OAG RPVA that performance for the Hispanic candidate of choice
decreased in HD35. TrA9-10 (Interiano). No changes were made to the map.
301. At the April 15 HRC meeting, Luis Figueroa offered Plan H115, which attempted to maintain
HD35 as a Latino opportunity district. D-595 at 64-65. In Plan H115, the total SSVR of HD35 was
58.2% (non-suspense SSVR was 58.3%). HD35 shifted east and broke the County Line Rule.
302. At the April 27 floor debate, Rep. T. King (Anglo, Democrat) proposed Amendment No. 16
(Plan H161 as amended by Plan H242) that affected La Salle County and Jim Hogg County. D-13
at S179. The amendment would have moved La Salle County out of Aliseda’s district, HD35, and
into King’s district, HD80 (where it had been in the benchmark), and moved Jim Hogg County into
HD35 from HD80—basically a county swap. King said it would look better and make his district
easier to travel, with negligible effects on electoral numbers. Id. at S180. King said it was only a
.3% decrease in the 2008 Obama election (though later he said it might be .5% and Rep. Aliseda
argued it had a more significant effect down ballot). Aliseda stated that he was not happy with the
amendment because he was a freshman who would likely draw an opponent and it would reduce his
Republican numbers. Id. Aliseda said he wanted to keep La Salle County to respect the community
of interest of the Eagle Ford Shale, and King responded that the Eagle Ford Shale was also in his
HD80. Id. at S181. When Rep. Villarreal asked how the amendment would change his district,
Aliseda said it reduced his HVAP but increased his SSVR “a little bit more.” Id. at S183. Rep.
Villarreal responded that SSVR is the relevant population (not HVAP) to look at if you want to get
a sense of ability to elect. Id. Aliseda said he was not fighting the amendment because it increased
the SSVR in the district. Id. Villarreal argued that SSVR in HD35 had dropped, and the amendment
would bring it up, and that the amendment decreased the Republican numbers because of the
increase in SSVR. Id. When Villarreal said that Aliseda seemed to be opposed to King’s attempt
to restore some of the decrease in SSVR, Aliseda said he did not oppose the increase in SSVR but
was opposed to “the fact that it changes my district into a more democrat district.” Id. at S184.
Aliseda also said the increase in SSVR from the amendment was less than .02%. Id. Aliseda said
the district as drawn was better for him than the district proposed by King’s amendment. Id. at S185.
Aliseda moved to table. King asserted that the amendment kept constituents that wanted to stay in
his district, respected communities of interest, looked cleaner, and had a minimal effect on HVAP.
Id. King argued that it should not be a Republican or Democrat issue but what was best for that area
of Texas. Solomons left it to the will of the House, and it was tabled. Id. at S186.
303. Also on April 27, Rep. Coleman offered Plan H232, a statewide amendment to Plan H153. He
stated that Plan H232 strengthened existing Latino opportunity district HD35, in contrast to the way
Plan H153 treated it. D-13 at S247. His written comments, which were placed in the record, stated
that benchmark HD35 was only 56.4% HVAP and had not consistently elected the Hispanic
candidate of choice. They stated that Plan H153 diluted HD35’s HVAP by 1.5%, but Plan H232
would increase its HVAP to 63.9% while preserving all other Latino districts in the region (there are
12 HCVAP-majority districts in South Texas). Id. at S248. The comments stated that HD35 was
weak because it had failed to elect a Latino candidate of choice in the recent election or would
experience retrogression under Plan H153, and Plan H232 would make it more likely that it would
perform. Id. at S249. This amendment was tabled.
304. From Plan H100 to Plan H283, HD35 lost Karnes, Goliad, and Jim Wells Counties, and gained
La Salle, Duval, and San Patricio Counties. San Patricio County, which was added, was a large
county of about 68,000 that was only 48.5% HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data, and Jim Wells
County, which was removed and had about 40,000 people, was 74.22% HCVAP. D-51.
305. In Plan H283, Hispanics are 58.9% of the total population of HD35 (a decrease from 60.6%).
HVAP is 54.9% (a decrease from 56.4%) and Anglo VAP is 40.6% (an increase from 38.2%). Total
SSVR is 52.7% (a decrease from 55.4%) and non-suspense SSVR is 53.4% (a decrease from 55.3%).
HCVAP is 52.5% (a decrease from 54.6%). Therefore, all Hispanic population metrics were
decreased from the benchmark.
306. HD35 in Plan H283 is less effective for minority voters. The exogenous effectiveness index
shows a reduction from 40% to 20%. TrJ134-35 (Arrington); see also US-351 (Handley Report) at
5, 11. Dr. Arrington testified that although HD35 had been an effective district in the benchmark,
the new district, at 20%, was no longer effective. TrJ135 (Arrington).
307. Dr. Engstrom found that HD35 did not provide a reasonable opportunity for Latinos, and he
considered Latinos “to have a reasonable opportunity in a district when their preferred candidates
win a majority of the votes cast in [7 general and 6 Democrat primary elections with Latino
candidates] in the districts more often than not.” Engstrom Corr. Rebuttal Report (docket no. 307-1)
308. In his report, Dr. Alford acknowledges that the Hispanic metrics have been reduced, but notes
that Hispanics remain the majority in both HCVAP and SSVR. In his election analysis (Table 2),
he notes that in benchmark HD35, Democrats win 28 of 48 statewide elections (58%) while in Plan
H283 they win 23 of 48% (48%). US-350 at 5 & Table 2.
309. Martin opined that mapdrawers retrogressed HD35 via a reduction in HVAP from 56.4% to
54.9%, packed neighboring HD43 (the HVAP of HD43 in Plan H283 is 76.5%), and added San
Patricio County to HD35 to improve the electoral chances of Republican incumbent Aliseda. Martin
further opined that this retrogression of Hispanic population in HD35 was not necessary to meet any
other redistricting principles. He noted that alternative Plan H232 created HD35 with an HVAP of
63.9%, while preserving the other Latino districts in the region and complying with the County Line
Rule. Joint Expert Ex. E-5 (Martin Report) at 13-14.
310. In proposed Fact Finding 405, DOJ asserts that “[a]lthough there is an increase in overall
turnout among both Anglo and Hispanic voters in HD35, the Anglo voter turnout is significantly
greater than the Hispanic voter turnout, reducing the effective share of Hispanic voters in the
electorate,” citing US-3 (the OAG RPVA) at 103, 105, 127, 129. However, a comparison of
estimated Anglo and Hispanic turnout and of estimated distribution of votes of Anglos and Hispanics
in various election contests in this exhibit actually shows that the “estimated turnout % for Anglo”
decreased from Plan H100 to Plan H283, while “estimated turnout % for Hispanic” increased. In
addition, the “percent Anglo estimated distribution of votes” decreased from Plan H100 to Plan
H283, while the “percent Hispanic estimated distribution of votes” increased. Thus, this exhibit does
not support DOJ’s assertion, and in fact supports the opposite conclusion; if anything, mapdrawers
looking at the OAG RPVA reports would have believed that Hispanic turnout was increased in
comparison to Anglo turnout. Further, the Court notes that mapdrawers were limited in their ability
to manipulate turnout in drawing HD35 because the district is composed of whole counties.
311. Benchmark HD35 was a performing Latino opportunity district but elected Republican Aliseda
in 2010, who was not the Latino-preferred candidate.
312. In Plan H283, all the Hispanic population metrics were decreased slightly from the benchmark,
but HCVAP and SSVR remained above 50%.
313. Benchmark HD35 scored an 80% on the endogenous election index and a 40% on the
exogenous election index. The exogenous election index shows performance of HD35 in Plan H283
to be 20%. However, HD35 performance increased from 2/5 to 3/4 in the general elections under
Dr. Engstrom’s election index.
314. There is no evidence that mapdrawers manipulated Hispanic turnout in drawing the district.
Rio Grande Valley and HD41
315. In Plan H100, there were four districts wholly contained in Hidalgo County and no surplus
population. All four districts were Latino opportunity districts. HD36 (Muñoz) was 83.8% HCVAP;
HD39 (Martinez) was 79.1% HCVAP; HD40 (Peña) was 90.2% HCVAP; HD41 (V. Gonzales) was
316. In Plan H100, HD40 had an HVAP of 93.5%, Anglo VAP of 5.1%, and total SSVR of 86.5%.
The incumbent was Aaron Peña.
317. In Plan H100, HD41 had an HVAP of 81.8%, Anglo VAP of 14.8%, and total SSVR of 68.7%.
Red-202 Report. This district had the highest Anglo VAP of the four Hidalgo County districts. Red202 Report (showing HD36 had 9.8% Anglo VAP; HD39 had 11.2% Anglo VAP; HD40 had 5.1%
Anglo VAP). The incumbent was Veronica Gonzales.
318. Hidalgo county grew more than the statewide growth rate, and all the Hidalgo County districts
were overpopulated. D-43, D-46.
319. In 2010, all four representatives of Hidalgo County districts were elected as Democrats, but
shortly after the 2010 election, Aaron Peña switched parties and became a Republican. TrA114
(Peña). Therefore, at the time of redistricting, there were three Hispanic Democrat incumbents and
one Hispanic Republican incumbent in Hidalgo County.
320. Between Plan H100 and Plan H283, HD40 and HD41 were switched, so that Peña would be
the incumbent in HD41, and Gonzales would be the incumbent in HD40.
321. In Plan H283, there are four districts wholly contained in Hidalgo County, and the surplus is
joined into HD31 (represented by Rep. Guillen, a Hispanic Democrat), which includes Starr and
Zapata Counties to the west. HD31 was a Latino opportunity district in the benchmark and remains
one in Plan H283. In the benchmark, Rep. Guillen did not represent any part of Hidalgo County.
322. In Plan H283, HD36 (Muñoz) is 88.7% HCVAP; HD39 (Martinez) is 82.4% HCVAP; HD40
(Gonzales) is 89% HCVAP, and HD41 (Peña) is 72.1% HCVAP.
323. In Plan H283, HD41 (Peña’s new district) has an HVAP of 76.2% (a drop of 5.6%), an Anglo
VAP of 19.7% (an increase of 4.9%), and total SSVR of 63% (a drop of 5.7%). Red-202 Report.
It has an HCVAP of 72.1% (a drop of 5.4%). Red-109 Report (2005-2009 ACS).
324. In Plan H283, the total SSVR of HD41 is 63% compared to 85.8% in HD40, 82.2% in HD39,
85.1% in HD36, and 90.8% in HD31. Red-202; Red-109.
325. In both Plan H100 and Plan H283, Cameron County has two districts wholly contained within
it (HD37 and HD38) and surplus population is joined to the north in HD43. HD43 was a Latino
opportunity district in the benchmark, and remains one in Plan H283.
326. Hidalgo County was not a drop-in county because it had surplus population. However,
members in the area made some attempts to work together on a plan. Peña attended one meeting
with the other three members of the county delegation, but believed they were hostile to having a
Republican in the Valley. TrA125 (Peña). After that, he did not attend meetings or work with the
other Hidalgo County representatives. TrJ73 (Fischer); V. Gonzales Decl. at 4. Interiano also did
not work with other members of the Hidalgo County delegation because there was disagreement on
whether to draw a district that would help Peña be re-elected. TrJ1579 (Interiano). Rep. Lozano
(HD43) testified that there were “precincts that Sergio Muñoz wanted to keep but were being taken
away really by surprise in some versions of the maps that were just coming out all of the sudden.”
TrJ1788. Muñoz, V. Gonzales, and Martinez were not happy with the Hidalgo County map in Plan
H283. Solomons’ direction that the House map should be a member-driven plan was not applied
to Hidalgo County.
327. Interiano drew the initial configuration of what became HD41 in the final map. He wanted to
draw a district that would give Peña the best chance at re-election. Tr1426-27 (Interiano). He
wanted to increase the Republican performance of the district, and he looked for Republicanperforming precincts to include. Tr1428 (Interiano). Reps. Peña (Hispanic, Republican) and Guillen
(Hispanic, Democrat) assisted Interiano in drawing the initial district.
328. The initial configuration of the district—then HD40—closely tracked VTDs with higher
Republican performance as measured by votes for Greg Abbott in the 2010 general election shaded
in RedAppl. D-334; TrA38 (Interiano). Including Republican-performing VTDs and approaching
ideal population were the only criteria for the initial configuration of Peña’s district, and all other
traditional redistricting criteria were subordinated to political goals. TrJ1580-81, 1590 (Interiano).
The configuration of the district does not follow city lines and splits the cities of Palmhurst, Mission,
McAllen, Pharr, and Edinburg. D-670, US-489. No city is entirely within HD41, and the map does
not respect the cohesiveness of cities and communities. TrJ509 (Longoria).
329. Sometime around April 5, Peña signed off on a proposed district. TrA110 (Peña); TrJ2061
(Downton); D-229 at 91. This district came from plan hrc1H202 dated March 31, 2011. Guillen’s
plan log has a map (plan guilH119) called “new 40” in his RedAppl account dated March 29, 2011
that matches it. TrA135; D-384. As noted, Guillen worked on the initial district configuration with
Interiano and Peña.
330. In his first retrogression memo written on April 7, Hanna said the Hidalgo County districts in
the plan were “problematic.” D-122. He noted that HD40 took “a significant dive in SSVR from
its current level” and “[t]he significant reworking of the district lines in Hidalgo County means that
new District 40 is likely more comparable to old District 41, but even here the SSVR drops by
almost 6 points.” He also wrote, “With all adjoining districts having substantially higher SSVR there
is a significant risk that DOJ will conclude that the change in District 40 is retrogressive with regard
to Hispanic voters through packing of Hispanics in the other districts. The safer approach would be
to restore Dist. 40's SSVR to the previous low SSVR for a district in Hidalgo County which was
331. Hanna’s second retrogression memo written on April 12, which reviewed proposed Plan H110
(a non-public plan), raised the same concerns. D-327. No changes were made in response to Hanna’s
332. In the first public House plan, Plan H113, made public on April 13, Hidalgo County had four
districts wholly contained within it, and the surplus Hidalgo County population was joined with
HD31 (represented by Guillen). Except for a small change in Precinct 62, the configuration of
Peña’s district was identical to the one he had signed off on previously. Peña’s district (still HD40)
had 19.8% Anglo VAP and 76.2% HVAP. Red-202 Report. It had four precinct splits in Precincts
14, 28, 62, and 124.
333. Precinct 14 was cut to include Peña’s home in his district but not other areas of Precinct 14,
which is not strongly Republican. TrJ1507, TrJ1583 (Interiano); US-311(political shading shows
Precinct 14 to be 0-42.9% Republican based on a composite index of all 2010 statewide elections);
D-335 (political shading shows Precinct 14 to be 43-47.9% in favor of Greg Abbott in the 2010
Attorney General general election).
334. Precinct 28 was cut to remove Precinct 9, which was less Republican; cutting Precinct 28 was
necessary to create a removal path. TrJ1507 (Interiano); US-311 (political shading shows Precinct
9 to be 0-42.9% Republican based on a composite index of all 2010 statewide elections); D-335
(political shading shows Precinct 9 to be 48-49.9% in favor of Greg Abbott in the 2010 Attorney
General general election).
335. Precincts 62 and 124 were split to remove Rep. Gonzales’s home from then-HD40 (Peña’s
district) and place it into then-HD41 (Gonzales’s district) and to create a removal path. TrJ1507
336. These splits and the overall initial configuration of the district were the result of collaboration
among Interiano, Guillen, and Peña. TrJ1501-03, TrJ1584 (Interiano); TrA39-40 (Interiano).
Guillen and Peña indicated to Interiano which precincts and areas they would like to have in their
districts. Tr1479 (Interiano).
337. In Plan H113, HD40 (then Peña’s district) was 8,256 persons (-4.92%) below ideal population.
HD31 (Guillen’s district) was 999 persons (.6%) overpopulated. HD41 (then Gonzales’s district)
was 4,737 persons (2.83%) overpopulated. HD39 was 7,746 persons (4.62%) overpopulated, and
HD36 was 6,344 persons (3.78%) overpopulated. Red-202 Report (PL-994). Thus, Peña’s district
was underpopulated and all other Hidalgo County districts were overpopulated.
338. At the April 15 HRC hearing on Solomons’ Plan H113, Reps. V. Gonzales, Martinez, and
Muñoz testified against Solomons’ plan, but Guillen supported it. Gonzales noted that Peña’s
district would contain a large majority of her current district and would be one of the smallest
districts in the state at negative 4.92%. D-595 at 130. She noted that the map drastically reduced the
(non-suspense) SSVR of the district from 88.3% to 64.6%, which she asserted was retrogressive.
Id. at 131. Solomons stated that the proper SSVR comparison was between the old HD41 and the
new HD40, and that it went from 69.2% to 64.6%. Id. at 136. Gonzales asserted that her district was
packed because the SSVR increased from 69% to 86.7%. She stated that it would require developing
new member-constituent relations because the districts were so changed and did not reflect the
minority citizens’ preferred candidate of choice based on previous elections. Id. at 134. Gonzales
submitted a proposed amendment that would keep the core of the current districts while increasing
Republican precincts in Peña’s district, and was approved by Muñoz, Martinez, and Gonzales. Id.
at 135. Muñoz complained that he was losing the city of Pharr and that it was being split among
three districts. Id. at 146.
339. Guillen, whose district HD31 was combined with the Hidalgo County surplus population,
testified that he was disappointed to lose Webb and Duval Counties, but that he was fine with
gaining part of Hidalgo County. D-595 at 172. Guillen said he played with the maps quite a bit after
the census came out, and that MALDEF’s map (Plan H115) required a county line break in Victoria
County. Id. at 173. Peña asked Guillen if he was happy with the Hidalgo County proposed map, and
he said he would be happy with it. Id. at 179-80. He also said that even though his district was very
high in Hispanic population it was not packed because those counties have very high percentages
of Hispanics. Id. at 181.
340. Luis Figueroa of MALDEF criticized Plan H113 in part for its failure to create a Latino
opportunity district in the Rio Grande Valley and advocated for Plan H115, which created a new
Latino opportunity district (HD32) in the Valley by combining portions of Cameron County and
Hidalgo County. D-595 at 12. This map had four districts wholly within Hidalgo County, two
districts wholly within Cameron County, the new HD32 (combining portions of Cameron County
with portions of Hidalgo County and all of Willacy County), and additional excess population from
Hidalgo County was joined with HD43. Figueroa emphasized that the map created an additional
Latino opportunity district in South Texas compared to the committee plan H113. Id. at 124.
341. At the April 17 HRC hearing, George Korbel, a redistricting expert, testified that there were
unnecessary county cuts in the map, including in Hidalgo and Cameron County because there was
a county cut in Cameron and a cut in Hidalgo, but if the spillover of the two districts were joined,
there would only be one county cut. There was a discussion about whether these were county cuts
or spillovers. One of the HRC members asked if doing what Korbel suggested would push
population up and end up diluting the Hispanic population in HD35. Korbel said he had a plug-in
fix that would show how it would work. He also testified that the map “shorted” the Hispanic
population in the Valley by one district.
342. On the afternoon of April 17, Downton made further changes to Peña’s district. Downton
made changes with input from Peña, and there were areas that Peña wanted in his district even
though they were traditionally Democratic because he thought they would support him. Downton
8-31-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-62) at 79-80. These changes appear in plan hrc1H287, which was last
modified on April 17, 2011, and in Plan H134 (Solomons’ statewide substitute), which was made
public April 18. D-317; PL-1615; US-434; US-427. In Plan H134, HD40 was renamed HD41, and
HD41 was renamed HD40. The district numbers were switched because the retrogression analysis
comparing statistics using the same district numbers was showing dramatic changes in the districts.
TrJ2034 (Downton). These changes were adopted into the map in Plan H153 (the plan passed out
of the HRC on April 19) and remained in the final Plan H283.
343. Peña testified at trial that Guillen was directing the changes that Downton made to HD41 on
April 17, but this testimony is not credible. Downton never mentioned that Guillen was involved
in the changes; he stated only that it was Peña. In addition, the evidence does not support a finding
that Guillen directed the changes. There are only three maps in Guillen’s RedAppl plan log during
the relevant time period. Although plan guilH127 (created April 14, last modified April 21) (D-372,
D-399, D-375) has some of the same precinct changes that appeared in Plan H134, this plan was last
modified on April 21 and thus it cannot be determined if the changes predated the release of Plan
H134 or came after. Similarly, plan guilH128 (created April 14, last modified April 15) (D-372, D387) shows Peña’s district the same as in Plan H113. Plan guilH129 (created and last modified on
April 17) contains a very different configuration of HD41. Nor is there any evidence that Guillen
was familiar with Hidalgo County to the level necessary to make the precinct splits or, as a
Democrat, had any motive to maximize a Republican district. The Court finds that Peña and
Downton were responsible for the changes.
344. Downton’s changes consisted primarily of splitting additional precincts to add or remove areas
from Peña’s district, HD41. Interiano testified that most of the splits were made to “follow roads,”
but Interiano denies being involved in these splits, and his explanations are based on hearsay. The
Court does not find it credible that Downton would have split numerous precincts simply to follow
345. Downton testified that the changes were partly made in an effort to increase the population of
HD41 so there was a narrower deviation between it and the surrounding Hidalgo County districts.
Downton 8-31-11 depo (Joint Ex. J-62) at 80-81. In Plan H113, Peña’s district was 4.92% below
ideal, a fact that Rep. Gonzales had pointed out at the hearing. In Plan H153, Peña’s district was
4.41% below ideal. Thus, the total population of Peña’s district was increased (from 159,381 to
160,238). However, because the splits both added and removed population from Peña’s district,
increasing district population cannot explain all of the splits.
346. Although he denied being directly involved in the changes, Peña testified that the changes were
made to “maximize” the district for Republican performance. TrA98. Peña said it was maximized
by including “persuadables” that were conservatives but not necessarily Republicans. TrA104. He
testified that people who pay heavy property taxes or income taxes were more likely to be
conservative and “persuadable.” TrA139, TrA155.
347. By objective measures available through RedAppl, the Downton/Peña changes actually slightly
decreased the Republican performance of Peña’s district, HD41. TrA17-19 (Interiano); US-518
(summary table showing that Republican performance decreased in the 2002 Governor’s race, the
2004 CCA Place 6 race, the 2006 Lt. Governor’s race, the 2008 U.S. Senate race, and the 2010 Lt.
Governor’s race); US-365, US-367, US-369, US-371, US-372, US-517 (all election analysis reports).
The changes were not made based on Republican shading or Republican performance measures in
Red Appl. Therefore, the changes were made on some other basis.
348. Because RedAppl allocates election results homogeneously across the precinct, changes in
election results are not accurately reflected when precincts are split. Someone who knows an area
could split precincts in a way that they believed would increase Republican performance even though
RedAppl shows a decline in performance. TrA20 (Interiano). Because RedAppl does have accurate
information on race below the VTD level, a mapdrawer with racial shading turned on could split
precincts by using race as a proxy to try to increase Republican performance even though RedAppl
might show a decline in performance. TrA21 (Interiano). With Hispanic shading turned on or with
knowledge of the racial makeup of an area, a mapdrawer could identify areas that are more Hispanic
within a precinct even though they show up as being Republican based on the characteristics of the
precinct as a whole. A mapdrawer could also identify areas using racial shading that had a higher
Anglo VAP than the current district to find blocks to add to the district that would increase the Anglo
VAP of the district. TrA27 (Interiano). Similarly, using racial shading, a mapdrawer could identify
blocks within a district that had a higher Hispanic VAP than the district being drawn and remove
them to lower the HVAP of the district. TrA28-29 (Interiano).
349. Downton did not change the existing splits in Precincts 62 and 124 (to exclude Gonzales’s
home and create a pathway).
350. The existing split in Precinct 14 to include Peña’s home was changed to take less of the area
surrounding his home. Downton said the change was made because Peña said he did not need the
whole area, just his house. TrJ2062-63. This precinct is shaded as 43-47.9% in favor of Greg Abbot
in 2010 (D-335) and 0-42.9% Republican strength on a 2010 election index (US-311). Areas
excluded are generally less than 50% Anglo according to RedAppl shading. D-296. The Court lacks
information to determine the specific number of Anglo and Hispanic voting age population that was
moved in this change. The portion of Precinct 14 that is included in Peña’s district has a lower
HVAP (85.4%) than the portion of Precinct 14 excluded (86.2%).
351. A new split was made in nearby Precinct 107 to take in a small portion of that precinct.
Downton said Peña wanted to include areas where he felt people were likely to vote for him based
on personal relationships. TrJ2029. Peña said the splits in Precincts 14 and 107 include his home
and high school. TrA146. The Precinct 107 split takes in 44 AVAP and 312 HVAP in an area that
is shaded as 0-42.9% support for Abbott in 2010 (D-335) and 0-42.9% Republican strength on a
2010 election index (US-311). RedAppl shading shows the area being taken in as largely Hispanic.
D-296. The portion of Precinct 107 included in Peña’s district has a lower HVAP (86.9%) than the
portion of Precinct 107 excluded (90.6%).
352. Precinct 52 is shown on RedAppl reports as being split in this area, but it appears to be a
technical split, since no split is visible on a map and no population is split out of HD41.
353. Previously, Precinct 28 was split to remove Precinct 9, a less than 50% Republican precinct.
Rep. Muñoz (HD36) wanted to keep his district office in his district, and it was located in Precinct
103, which had been put into Peña’s district. TrA152 (Peña). To accommodate Muñoz, the Precinct
28 split was removed6 and a new split was made in Precinct 103 to place Muñoz’s office back into
his district and maintain a path to remove Precinct 9 from Peña’s district. The Precinct 28 split that
was removed put back some population into HD41 that shows as 52-56.9% in favor of Abbott in
2010 (D-335) and 43-47.9% Republican strength under a 2010 election index (US-311). RedAppl
shading shows the population put back into HD41 to be heavily (>90%) Hispanic. D-296. The Court
lacks information to determine what voting age population was returned to HD41. The Precinct 103
split removed an area that showed 57-100% support for Abbott (D-335) and 52-56.9% Republican
support under the 2010 election index (US-311). Thus, with the changes to Precincts 28 and 103,
a less Republican area was put into HD41 and a more Republican area was taken out. At trial, a
RedAppl demonstration showed that areas taken out included areas that were more than 76% HVAP,
which would decrease the HVAP % of the district. TrA29 (Interiano). This is confirmed by reports
showing that the Precinct 103 split took out 115 AVAP and 822 HVAP, which would decrease the
HVAP% by removing an area that was 86.5% HVAP. RedAppl shading shows the population taken
out to be only 10-19.9% Anglo. D-296. The Red-110 Report indicates that the area taken out was
9.3% Anglo total population and 12.1% Anglo VAP. Longoria testified that the excluded part of the
precinct includes more working-class Hispanics, and includes a higher percentage of Hispanics.
TrJ519 (Longoria). This change is not consistent with Republican maximization but is consistent
with Anglo maximization. It is partly explained by the need to return Muñoz’s office to his district,
though more of the precinct was moved into HD36 than necessary to do so.
354. In addition to keeping the splits in Precincts 62 and 124 to get to Gonzales’s home, and the
changes to the other existing splits, new splits were made in ten more precincts, including Precincts
105, 35, 25, 6, 8, 47, 48, 95, 63, and 88.
355. Precinct 105: This split added population to Peña’s district. Downton said HD105 was split
to include an area with Peña’s childhood home and friends into his district. TrJ2028-29. Peña
testified that the area put in includes the Vineyards, which is fairly affluent and “there are aspects
Visually, the existing split in Precinct 28 was removed, though the Red-370 report still shows a split existing
there. PL-733. This supposed split involves no voting age population. US-382.
of that area that are favorable to me.” TrA95. However, at his deposition, Peña said he had no
reason to believe that any portion of the precinct was more favorable politically for him. TrA95
(Peña). Longoria testified that the part of Precinct 105 included in HD41 is a very exclusive
neighborhood of private homes and a gated community, with very high income and Anglo
population. TrJ1517. This split brought in an area shaded as 0-42.9% in favor of Abbott in 2010 (D335) and 0-42.9% in favor of Republicans under a 2010 election index (US-311). This split is not
consistent with Republican maximization. RedAppl shading shows the area brought in to be a mix
of areas between 0-39.9% Anglo. D-296. A trial demonstration showed that some of the areas
included were shaded as greater than 20% Anglo VAP in RedAppl, which when added would
increase the Anglo VAP of the district. TrA27-28 (Interiano). However, this split brought in 61
AVAP (14.6% AVAP) and 357 HVAP (84.6% HVAP) in total, which would decrease Anglo VAP
and increase HVAP. The portion of Precinct 105 included in Peña’s district has a lower HVAP
(84.6%) than the portion excluded (91.4%). The Court finds that this split was made to increase the
population of the district, to include areas that Peña thought might support him based on his personal
relationships, and to include affluent voters.
356. Precinct 35: This split brings in a tiny area of Precinct 35 that includes no VAP. It appears to
follow a road, as Downton asserted. TrJ2029 (Downton); TrA148 (Peña). Peña does not recall
asking for this split. TrA107 (Peña). The Court finds that this split was made to follow Jackson
357. Precincts 6, 8, and 25: These splits all removed population from Peña’s district. Downton did
not recall why these splits were made but thought they were to follow roads. TrJ2029 (Downton).
Peña did not recall asking Downton to split Precincts 6, 8, or 25. TrA106-08 (Peña). However, Peña
said the splits in Precinct 6 and 25 separate areas with a socioeconomic difference—above the split
(included in his district and where his daughter lives) is affluent, and there is a flood zone that
divides the area. TrA149. Similarly, he said the split in Precinct 8 separates people with
“socioeconomic differences” and follows Jackson Road. TrA150. Longoria testified that the parts
of Precinct 25 included in HD41 include densely populated, fairly well-to-do areas with a higher
concentration of Anglos. TrJ513. He testified that the parts of Precinct 25 excluded have higher
concentrations of Hispanics and lower income population. TrJ514. Longoria testified that the parts
of Precinct 8 included in HD41 are around Plaza Mall, the McAllen Country Club, a very exclusive
part of McAllen with higher income people and a higher concentration of Anglos, and an area around
2nd Street that is affluent with a higher concentration of Anglos. TrJ516. He testified that the
excluded portion is not highly populated.
358. These splits remove portions of precincts that appear as greater than 50% in support of Abbott
in 2010 (D-335) and greater than 50% Republican support under the 2010 election index (US-311).
Thus they remove areas that appear Republican and are not consistent with Republican
maximization. The area of Precinct 8 removed is shaded as 0% Anglo in RedAppl and removes 0
AVAP and 6 HVAP. Thus it removes an area that is 100% HVAP and decreases the HVAP of the
district. The area of Precinct 6 removed is shaded as 10-39.9% Anglo and removes 18 AVAP and
37 HVAP. It removes an area that is only 64.9% HVAP, which increases the HVAP of the district.
The area of Precinct 25 removed is mixed racial shading and removes 10 AVAP and 410 HVAP.
This split removes an area that is 97.2% HVAP and thus decreases the HVAP of the district. Thus,
two of the splits increase the district’s Anglo VAP and one split decreases the Anglo VAP. At trial,
a RedAppl demonstration showed that areas removed were greater than 76% HVAP, and thus
excluding them would decrease the HVAP % of the district. TrA29 (Interiano). In total, these three
splits remove only 28 AVAP while removing 453 HVAP, and they decreased the HVAP of the
district. Considered together, these splits are not consistent with Republican maximization but are
consistent with Anglo maximization. The Court finds that these splits were made to increase the
Anglo VAP and decrease the HVAP of the district.
359. Precincts 47, 48, & 95: These three splits all added population to Peña’s district. Downton
explained these splits as “almost certainly roads.” TrJ2029 (Downton). The roads overlay in
RedAppl shows that the district lines for Precinct 95 already followed a road, and there is no road
where these precincts are split. TrA31-33 (Interiano). However, the splits do continue a straight line
from Bentsen Road above, and the splits create a straighter line. TrA45 (Interiano). Peña testified
that the portions of Precincts 47 and 48 brought into his district include an affluent area called
Sharyland with lots of affluent Mexican-Americans and Mexican nationals. TrA150-51. Longoria
testified that the portion of Precinct 47 that is excluded is working-class Hispanics. TrJ520. He also
testified that the portion of Precinct 48 that is excluded includes Colonia McAllen7 (before it was
annexed), which has a very high concentration of Hispanics, and another colonia with a high
concentration of Hispanics. TrJ521-22. Longoria testified that the portion of Precinct 95 that was
excluded includes a former colonia with a higher concentration of low-to-moderate income
Hispanics, emphasis on low. TrJ522.
360. These splits bring into Peña’s district areas shaded as 0-42.9% in favor of Abbott in 2010 (D335) and 0-42.9% in Republican voting strength under the 2010 election index (US-311). These
changes are not consistent with Republican maximization. The splits in Precincts 48 and 95 bring
in areas shaded as 0-19.9% Anglo, and the split in Precinct 47 brings in mixed population. The splits
bring in 439 AVAP (198 from Precinct 47 (31.7% AVAP), 65 from Precinct 48 (11.1% AVAP), and
176 from Precinct 95 (12% AVAP)) and 2035 HVAP (394 from Precinct 47 (63.1% HVAP), 466
from Precinct 48 (79.3% HVAP), and 1175 from Precinct 95 (80.2% HVAP)). Thus, the Precinct
47 split increases the Anglo VAP of the district, while the Precinct 48 and 95 splits decrease the
Anglo VAP slightly. However, someone like Peña who is familiar with the area would know that
areas with many Mexican nationals would reflect higher numbers of HVAP but lower numbers of
HCVAP who could actually vote. The Court finds that these changes were made to increase the total
population of the district (i.e., to minimize deviation) but were also made on the basis of race to
increase the Anglo VAP.
361. Precinct 63: This split removed population from Peña’s district. Downton explained it as a
road. TrJ2029 (Downton). At trial, Peña made general statements about socioeconomic differences
A colonia is a community similar to a shanty-town, with sub-standard housing and a lack of roads, utilities,
and basic infrastructure. PL-419 (Seifert Decl.) ¶ 8; TrJ542-542 (Seifert).
and assumed changes were made to include “persuadables.” TrA151-52. Longoria testified that
the excluded areas include La Cuchilla, which is poor and has a very high concentration of
Hispanics. He testified it includes an area around Leal Elementary School that has a high
concentration of Hispanics with low-to-moderate income, but it also includes a little part of a country
club with a mixed population. TrJ515.
362. The Precinct 63 split removes an area that is shaded as 57-100% support for Abbott in 2010
(D-335) and 57-100% Republican voting strength under a 2010 general election index (US-311).
Therefore it is not consistent with Republican maximization. It is shaded as largely 0% Anglo with
some areas 10-19.9% Anglo in RedAppl. D-296. At trial, a RedAppl demonstration showed that
removing this area would remove areas that were more than 76% HVAP, which would decrease the
HVAP % of the district. TrA29 (Interiano). This is confirmed by the reports, which show that the
split removes 165 AVAP and 701 HVAP, an area that is 79.7% HVAP, which would decrease the
district’s HVAP. This split is not consistent with Republican maximization but is consistent with
Anglo maximization. The Court finds that this split was made on the basis of race to increase Anglo
VAP% in the district.
363. Precinct 88: This split added population to Peña’s district. Downton said that Peña requested
it and that “he said it was a significant road, and he thought it made a more appropriate dividing
line.” TrJ2062. Downton later said that he recalled Peña’s having him put up the city overlay, and
the line conforms to the City of Alton line. At trial, Peña testified that the line tracks the edge of the
City of Alton, which is a colonia, and that communities on the other side of the split (split into his
district) are “dramatically different” and affluent. TrA100, TrA155. However, at his deposition,
Peña said he had no reason to believe that the political performance of one part or the other would
be superior. TrA99 (Peña). Longoria testified that the portions of Precinct 88 included are a higher
concentration of Anglos and higher-income population, and also a sparsely populated mobile home
park and mixed population but generally more Anglos. TrJ522-23.
364. The precinct split tracks Shary Road and the edge of the City of Alton. The area that is brought
into HD41 is shaded as 0-42.9% support for Abbott (D-335) and 0-42.9% Republican voting strength
under a 2010 election index (US-311). Therefore it is not consistent with Republican maximization.
RedAppl shades the area as mixed between 0-39.9% Anglo. D-265. At trial, a RedAppl
demonstration showed that areas of greater than 20% Anglo VAP were included, which would
increase the Anglo VAP% of the district. TrA28 (Interiano). This is confirmed by the reports, which
show that the change brings in 65 AVAP and 211 HVAP (and population that is 23.4% Anglo VAP),
which would increase the Anglo VAP of the district. This split is not consistent with Republican
maximization but is consistent with Anglo maximization. The Court finds that this split was made
on the basis of race to increase the Anglo VAP% of the district.
365. HD41 contains all or part of 42 precincts. Red-110 Report (US-382). RedAppl reports
indicate that 17 precincts are split, although three (35, 52, and 28) do not involve any population.
With 17 precinct splits, 40% of the precincts in the district are split. With 14 precincts, 33% of the
precincts are split.
366. Approximately 46% of all the Anglo voters in Hidalgo County are placed in HD41. Tr369
(Martin); V. Gonzales Decl. (docket no. 331) at 5 (noting that half of the Anglos residing in Hidalgo
County are in the new HD41).
367. In Precincts 105, 107, 14, 25, 8, 47, 48, 95, 63, 103, and 88, the portions of split precincts
excluded from Peña’s district are all significantly higher in HVAP than the portions included in
Peña’s district. Only in Precinct 6 is the HVAP% higher in the included portion than the excluded
368. Dr. Arrington examined all 17 split precincts as a whole and found that the portions of split
precincts excluded from HD41 are more heavily Hispanic than areas included. TrJ141-43
(Arrington). He concluded that the map drawer was shaping this district to make it more Anglo than
it was before, and more Anglo than any district in Hidalgo County was before. TrJ143. Making the
district more Anglo reduces the ability of Hispanics to elect a candidate of their choice. TrJ144
(Arrington). Considering all 17 split precincts in HD41, 7,239 AVAP and 26,019 HVAP are
included, and 3,171 AVAP and 38,643 HVAP are excluded. US-5168. This is a net gain of 4,068
AVAP and a net loss of 12,624 HVAP. US-516. Arrington also found that the average HVAP of
blocks split out is 92.1% and of blocks split in is 77.6% TrA23 (Interiano). Similarly, AVAP of
blocks excluded from Peña’s district is 7.6% while AVAP of blocks included is 21.6%. TrA24
(Interiano). Arrington’s testimony supports the conclusion that, with regard to split precincts overall,
areas with higher Anglo VAP were retained and areas with higher Hispanic VAP were excluded
from Peña’s district. This supports the conclusion that HD41 was drawn to maximize Anglo VAP.
369. DOJ contends that the precinct splits made by Downton between Plan H113 and Plan H134/
H153/H283 were race-based. The Court finds that some, but not all, of the splits were race-based.
The Court is unable to determine the exact effect on HVAP and AVAP for the changes to Precincts
14 and 28 because it lacks the Red-110 Report for Plan H113. However, Precincts 25, 8, 63, and 103
were all split to remove areas that appeared to be Republican yet decreased the HVAP% of the
district. In addition, the Precinct 88 split and the Precinct 47 split bring in areas that do not appear
favorable to Republicans, yet increase the Anglo VAP%. Looking just at these metrics, these
precinct splits are consistent with an improper use of race and intentional vote dilution. Although
the Precinct 48 split decreases the Anglo VAP slightly, the HVAP in that area includes many
Mexican nationals, and thus someone like Peña would know that the Anglo CVAP was actually
higher and thus this split would increase the number of Anglo voters.
370. However, the other splits in Precincts 105, 107, 6, and 95 do not support a finding of an
improper use of race. Although the Precinct 105, 107, and 95 splits all brought in areas that
appeared to be 0-42.9% in favor of Abbott (D-335) (so that they would not make the district more
The Court has confirmed that the totals in this exhibit are correct, but a number of entries in the individual
columns are wrong. In addition, Arrington’s analysis includes “split” precincts 28, 35, and 52, which did not actually
split any VAP. However, the same trend is seen when those precincts are not included in the total. Not including the
precinct splits that do not split any voting age population (i.e., not considering Precincts 28, 35, and 52), the precinct
splits resulted in a net gain of 3,420 AVAP and a net loss of 13,696 HVAP.
Republican in RedAppl), they were racially shaded as primarily Hispanic, and each brought in
populations that would increase the HVAP of the district. And the Precinct 6 split removed an area
that appeared Republican but also removed population that was 31.6% Anglo VAP.
371. Between Plan H113 and Plan H134/H153/H283, the total population of Peña’s district went
from 159,381 persons with 111,239 VAP to 160,238 persons with 111,689 VAP. Therefore, despite
all the precinct splits, the net change was only 857 persons and only 450 persons of voting age. Red202 Reports.
372. Between Plan H113 and Plan H134/H153/H283, Peña’s district went from 16.3% Anglo
population and 19.8% Anglo VAP to 16.2% Anglo population and 19.7% Anglo VAP. Thus, Anglo
VAP decreased by .1%. Pena’s district went from 79.9% Hispanic population and 76.2% HVAP to
79.8% Hispanic population and 76.2% HVAP. Thus, Hispanic VAP remained the same. HCVAP
went from 72% to 72.1%. Total SSVR increased from 71,487 (62.9%) to 71,813 (63%). Red-202
Report. Non-suspense SSVR went from 60,631 (64.6%) to 60,984 (64.6%).
373. No changes were made to the district after Plan H134. Plan H134, Plan H153, and Plan H283
have the same SSVR and the same 17 precinct splits. D-335; US-311; PL-733 (Red-370 Report);
374. On April 19 at the HRC formal meeting, Rep. Veasey offered an amendment (Plan H119) to
Plan H134 that would amend only the Hidalgo County districts HD31, 36, 39, 40, and 41, but it
failed (Ayes were Villarreal, Alonzo, Alvarado, Veasey).
375. On April 20, David Hanna wrote his retrogression memo concerning Plan H153. D-338. There
were some changes between the second and third memos regarding the Hidalgo County area.
TrJ1196 (Hanna). The district numbers for HD40 and HD41 were swapped, but the retrogression
analysis did not change. TrJ1196 (Hanna). Hanna noted that HD41’s SSVR dropped by almost 6
points, while the surrounding districts all had substantially higher SSVR, creating a risk that DOJ
would conclude that HD41 was retrogressive through packing of voters in the surrounding districts.
Hanna recommended restoring HD41’s SSVR to its previous level of 68.7%. US-338. These
concerns were never resolved. TrJ1164 (Hanna). Hanna did not perform an offset analysis to see
if any retrogression could be made up elsewhere, nor did he perform any election analysis regarding
HD40 and HD41. TrJ1196 (Hanna).
376. On April 22, Stacy Napier from the OAG sent Bruce and Downton an RPVA for Plan H153.
It showed the performance of HD41 decreasing from 7 out of 10 elections in the benchmark plan to
5 out of 10 elections in Plan H153. US-190/190A. Interiano, Bruce, and Downton discussed the
RPVA (thought not specifically as to HD41) via email, and Solomons was copied. US-169; US-176.
Based on the RPVA, Interiano and Downton were aware that the performance for Hispanics was
decreased in HD41. TrA9 (Interiano).
377. During the April 27 debate on Plan H153, Rep. Martinez noted that although Solomons had
said it would be a member-driven map, a lot of amendments from members, especially from the
Valley, were not taken into account or adopted. D-13 at S100. Martinez asked who Gerardo
Interiano was, and Solomons responded that he was working out of Speaker Straus’s office, but at
Solomons’ direction. Id. at S100-01. Martinez noted that he, Rep. Gonzales, and Rep. Muñoz had
testified against the Valley configuration at the HRC hearing and also raised a point of order on the
basis that the legislators were not included in the minutes. Id. at S102.
378. During the floor debate, Rep. V. Gonzales offered amendments to the Valley. Gonzales,
Martinez, and Muñoz presented Amendment No. 18 (Plan H187) relating to Hidalgo County. D-190
at 123-124; D-13 at S186. Gonzales discussed the major changes that had been made to Hidalgo
County districts, including that her district and Peña’s district had essentially been swapped and they
both had 1.5% or less of their prior districts. D-13 at S186. She stated that she would have to start
all over with member-constituent relationships. Id. at S190. She noted that Martinez’s district was
also changed (he stated that he had only 72% of his district) and Muñoz had only 57.2% of his prior
district. She also noted that the HD40 and HD41 district numbers had been swapped and that they
tried to make Peña’s district a Republican district. She noted that 14 VTDs are split, despite
Solomons’ having objected to Farias’s proposed Bexar County amendment based on an increase in
split VTDs. She complained that the committee map did not create a new district in the Rio Grande
Valley despite the population growth, and that Peña’s district would be one of the smallest in the
state. Id. at S186-87. Gonzales stated that her proposed amendment would put “us basically back
to where we were” by adjusting the population and preserving communities of interest, without
splitting any VTDs. Id. at S188. She also stated that she believed there was retrogression and the
committee plan would not be pre-cleared. Id. at S189. Rep. Aliseda (Hispanic, Republican) noted
that MALDEF’s representative Figueroa had previously testified that the Hidalgo County map would
not violate the VRA, and Gonzales responded that Figueroa had been concerned with § 2, not § 5
and Figueroa was not aware of the issues. Id. at S190. Aliseda asked if the proposed amendment
would affect Rep. Peña’s Republican numbers. Rep. Oliveira stated that if you combine Cameron
and Hidalgo County, you could create seven districts in the Valley and create a brand new Latino
opportunity district while keeping the other districts. Id. at S191-92. Oliveira also criticized the
over-reliance on the County Line Rule, and he and Rep. Burnam asserted that the Legislature was
being inconsistent on its use of the rule and its insistence on 50% SSVR. Id. at S192-93. Rep.
Guillen noted that Gonzales’s amendment did not create a seventh Valley district, and Oliveira
responded that those maps were laid out in other plans. Id. at S193. Oliveira stated that Guillen was
protected by being given Hidalgo County population that he did not need in order to keep his
minority opportunity district, but “that population was sacrificed for your benefit and perhaps for
Representative Peña.” Guillen stated that he was not sure “about the logic behind” the assertion that
it was drawn for his benefit. Id. at S193-94. Rep. Martinez asked who drew the lines for the
Hidalgo County map, and neither Solomons nor Villarreal knew. Id. at S194-95. Martinez noted
that someone other than the delegation had to have given input because the map was not drawn the
way he, Muñoz, and Gonzales had asked, even though it was supposed to be member-driven. Id. at
S195. Villarreal noted that he opposed the map and voted against it coming out of committee
because it failed to create a district that combined Cameron and Hidalgo population. Id. at S195.
Peña stated, “I did not draw this map. But there are certain things I do know and certain things I did
ask for. I said one, please don’t pair any of my colleagues. . . . The other thing I said was if there’s
going to be spillover I would rather have an experienced member come into the valley than a
freshman. And so Representative Guillen, who you know, is somebody who is respected, senior
member, so that was my suggestion. Those are the two suggestions I made.” Id. at S195-96. Peña
argued that he should be in a conservative district and Gonzales in a democratic district, and that the
map was fair. Id. at S196. He stated he would love another Valley district but that the County Line
Rule would be followed unless a court said it could be ignored. Id. Martinez asked Peña if he had
input on the lines drawn in Hidalgo County. Peña stated that he had “some input,” including that
members not be paired, that the conservative member get a conservative district, that other members
represent the areas they have, and that a senior member like Representative Guillen come in if there
was spillover.” Id. at S197. When asked if he had input on his own district, Peña said, “No. When
I met with the members what I said to you was, look I expect that the Republicans are going to
maximize the conservative seats. That’s what I told you, you can recall that. And I said I will not
draw this map because one, I did not want to be involved. And two, that I didn’t want to be involved
in pairing or being involved in affecting my neighbor’s districts.” Id. at S198. Martinez asked him
“So, the drawing of your lines in your district you didn’t have any input in?” and Peña said “No, I
never even bothered to learn the RedAppl.” Id. Peña agreed that the Valley needs a new district,
but only if the court would give permission to break the County Line Rule. Id. at S199. Rep. Castro
pointed out that the objection to Rep. Farias’s amendment in Bexar County was that it created a
jagged line, yet HD41 was full of jagged lines. Peña stated that “the entire map has that sort of
thing” and that he did not draw it, and then he moved to table. Id. The amendment was tabled. D13 at S203.
379. Gonzales offered another Hidalgo County plan, Amendment No. 19 (H162) that tried to keep
the core of the districts the same but attempted to create a more Republican district for Peña, as more
of a compromise than the previous amendment. D-13 at S203; D-190 at 125-26. Solomons told
members to “vote their consciences.” D-13 at S203. It was tabled. Id.
380. Rep. Martinez Fischer laid out a statewide amendment (Amendment No. 29) (H196). Rep. V.
Gonzales emphasized the Latino growth and the need for a seventh Valley seat (HD72) by
combining Cameron and Hidalgo Counties. D-13 at S217-18. This map had seven districts wholly
in Hidalgo and Cameron Counties, and part of HD43 also came into Cameron County. This map
had been debated with regard to other areas. Citing the County Line Rule and prior debate,
Solomons moved to table, and the amendment was tabled. D-13 at S218.
381. Martinez Fischer also offered Plan H201, which created a seventh Latino opportunity seat in
the Valley by combining the spillover from Hidalgo and Cameron Counties to create a new HD144.
Martinez Fischer/Gonzales depo. at 19. This map had seven districts wholly contained within
Cameron and Hidalgo Counties. It also had a County Line Rule violation in Nueces County to keep
HD33 as a Latino opportunity district. With only 33.2% HCVAP, HD35 was no longer a Latino
opportunity district. Despite the loss of HD35, this map did result in a net gain of one HCVAPmajority district in South Texas over the committee plan with the addition of HD144 and retention
of HD33. Martinez Fischer/Gonzales depo. at 19. It has a total of 13 HCVAP-majority districts in
South Texas (31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 80, & 144). However, it had a County Line
Rule violation in Nueces County, and without that violation to include Nueces County population
in HD32, HD32 would be outside the permissible population deviation.9 Rep. Lozano (Hispanic,
Republican) testified at trial that he would have preferred H201 over H283 because it created a new
Rio Grande Valley district. TrJ1821 (Lozano). The amendment was tabled.
382. In Plan H283, approximately 1.5% of Peña’s constituents are the same as in Plan H100. Tr366
(Martin). Most of the areas represented by Peña in H283 are areas he had not represented before.
TrJ509 (Longoria). Peña’s district HD41 is underpopulated by 7,399 persons, while the other
districts in Hidalgo County are overpopulated—HD31 by 999; HD36 by 4,368; HD39 by 7,746, and
HD40 by 5,856 persons. Tr1478, Tr1000 (Downton); Tr369 (Martin); Red-202 Report. Peña’s
district is one of the smallest in Plan H283. The under- and overpopulation of districts in Hidalgo
County was intentional to make the district as Republican as possible and to give Peña the best
opportunity to be re-elected. Tr1478 (Interiano); Downton 8-31-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-62) at 81.
Downton admitted that adding population into HD41 to minimize the deviation would make the
district more Democratic. Tr1001. HD41 was intentionally underpopulated to avoid putting in
additional voters because they would be largely Latino and would vote Democratic. Tr372 (Martin).
Kousser testified that HD41 splits more precincts than the entire Texas Senate plan, and the pattern
of population shows that “it captures just about all of the heavily Anglo areas that it possibly could”
in a county that is heavily Latino. Tr247 (Kousser); Joint Expert Ex. E-2 (Kousser report) at 92-97
383. Dr. Arrington testified that, because of the numerous precinct splits in HD41, reconstituted
exogenous election analyses do not provide an accurate picture of electoral opportunity in HD41.
TrJ120, TrJ141-42 (Arrington); see also US-351 (Handley report) at 9-10.
384. Dr. Engstrom concluded that HD41 in Plan H283 was a Latino opportunity district. Joint
Expert Ex. E-8 (Engstrom Corr. Rebuttal Report docket no. 307) at 28.
385. Dr. Alford notes that Democrats win benchmark HD41 in 32 of 48 (67%) of contested
statewide races, this number drops to 23 of 48 (48%) in Plan H283. US-350 (Alford Report) at 8.
386. Plaintiffs offer demonstration Plan H291 that equalizes the population of the four Hidalgo
County districts and raises the SSVR of H41 to 75.3% total/75.1% non-suspense. Tr373 (Martin).
It has a deviation of .4%. Id.
387. The Rio Grande Valley is a community of interest that includes Hidalgo County, Cameron
County, Starr County, and Willacy County. TrJ540 (Seifert); PL-456 Decl. of Hidalgo County Judge
Ramon Garcia. The Valley is a community of interest with shared issues and similar socio-economic
characteristics, geography, and challenges. PL-456 (Garcia declaration); Tr630-31 (Garcia); PL-419
HD32 was -3,277 (-1.95%) underpopulated, and it included 20,381 persons from Nueces County. Therefore,
without Nueces County population, it would be -23,658, well outside the permissible deviation from the ideal of 167,637.
(Seifert Decl.) ¶ 7. Cameron and Hidalgo Counties share issues with border security, colonias, and
flooding. PL-419 (Seifert Decl.) ¶¶ 15, 8-10, and 12. Hidalgo and Cameron County residents are
more aligned with each other than with residents of the largely rural Starr and Zapata Counties, yet
Plan H283 joins the excess population of Hidalgo County to Starr and Zapata Counties with a
representative who does not live in Hidalgo County. V. Gonzales Decl. (docket no. 331) at 4-5.
Instead of joining Hidalgo and Cameron Counties, both counties are joined with multiple other
counties, preventing an increase in representation for the people of the Lower Valley. Id.
388. Hidalgo County and Cameron County grew faster than the State of Texas as a whole between
2000 and 2010. Hidalgo County grew at a rate of 36.1% compared to the State average of 20.6%.
PL-298. Cameron County grew at a rate of 21.2%. PL-296.
389. In 2010, Hidalgo County had enough population for about 4.62 ideal-sized districts. Tr363
(Martin); Tr1447 (Interiano); D-200. Cameron County had enough population for about 2.42 idealsized districts. Tr1446 (Interiano); D-200. Plaintiff groups and certain legislators, including
Democrat Trey Martinez Fischer and Republican Jose Manuel Lozano (HD43) advocated for a new
Latino opportunity district in the Rio Grande Valley. TrJ1812 (Lozano). Rep. Oliveira argued on
the floor on April 27, 2011 for the creation of a seventh Latino opportunity district by combining the
Hidalgo and Cameron surplus. US-198 at 95-96.
390. The surplus population from Cameron and Hidalgo could have been joined to form a new
Latino majority opportunity district without violating the County Line Rule and without forcing a
county line break elsewhere in the map. TrJ1542-45 (Interiano); TrJ1044-45 (Downton); Tr462-63
(Flores); Plan H309; Plan H358. Joining Cameron and Hidalgo Counties would unite a community
of interest and increase representation for the Rio Grande Valley. PL-456 (Garcia declaration);
Tr630-31 (Garcia). However, while this does create a new Latino opportunity district in the Lower
Rio Grande Valley, it does not necessarily result in the creation of an additional Latino opportunity
district in the overall South Texas area. In Plan H309 and Plan H358, there are twelve HCVAPmajority districts in South Texas (HD31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 80), the same as
in Plan H283.
391. The Legislature failed to create a new Latino opportunity district in the Valley. Downton
testified that he tried to draw a Cameron+Hidalgo district but does not remember the result. TrJ2140.
Interiano testified that no one gave him a proposal that created the district without also including a
split around Nueces County. Tr1429. He believed that drawing the district would create a split
somewhere else in the map. Tr1448. He said he could not draw the district in a way that did not
create a split further up in the map. TrA58. However, he could not identify the split allegedly caused
by such a district at trial. TrJ1543 (Interiano). Interiano stated that he did not draw a new
Cameron+Hidalgo district because he did not believe the Legislature needed to maximize the number
of minority districts. Tr1499. Downton concluded that the district was not legally required, and
testified that it was a policy decision not to draw it. TrJ2095 (Downton).
392. The Task Force Plaintiffs offer Plan H292 that creates a new district (HD32) in the lower
Valley with an 85.6% HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS. Joint Map Ex. J-37; D-111; PL-342 (docket
no. 325-4 at 21); Tr463 (Flores). In the Valley, four districts are located within Hidalgo County and
the excess population of Hidalgo County is joined with Cameron County. Cameron County has two
districts wholly within in it, and some of its excess population is joined with HD43. This Plan splits
the surplus population of Cameron County into two different districts, HD32 and HD43. This plan
maintains CD35 as a majority-HCVAP district. It also has a County Line Rule violation in Nueces
County to create two HCVAP-majority districts (HD33 and HD34) in Nueces County. It has 14
HCVAP-majority districts in South Texas (31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, & 80).
393. LULAC proposes Plan H294, an eleven-district plan for South Texas that includes a district
created by combining the excess population in Cameron and Hidalgo Counties. Joint Map Ex. J-39.
This would plug into Plan H283. However, this plan does not create any new HCVAP-majority
districts, because it would replace eleven districts that are all HCVAP majority (31, 35, 36, 37, 38,
39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 80) in Plan H283 (though HD35 is challenged by the Plaintiffs as not being
an opportunity district in Plan H283).
394. MALC also proposes a seventh district combining the Hidalgo and Cameron surplus (new
HD35) in Plan H295. Plan H295 had seven districts wholly contained within Cameron and Hidalgo
Counties, moving South Texas HD35 (an existing HCVAP-majority district) into the Lower Valley.
This plan violates the County Line Rule in Nueces County.
395. The Rio Grande Valley has been one of the fastest growing areas from 1990 to 2010 and is an
integrated economic, cultural, social, and political region. The small towns in the area represent a
community of interest. Joint Expert Ex. E-8 (Flores report) at 10.
396. Latinos make up the majority of the population in the Rio Grande Valley. The shared cultural
affinities and social conditions of these Latino communities have led to a high level of political
cohesiveness of Latinos in the area. PL-419 (Seifert Decl.) ¶ 6. 98% of the population of
Brownsville is Mexican American. TrJ542 (Seifert). About 300,000 of the 1.2 million people in
the Valley reside in colonias. TrJ541 (Seifert). Some colonias, such as Cameron Park, still have
unpaved roads, and the per capita income in Cameron Park is $4,100. TrJ550 (Seifert). Cameron
Park and other Valley communities share socioeconomic issues, poverty, lack of good jobs, and lack
of access to health services and public hospitals. TrJ550-51 (Seifert). Cameron Park has been able
to get improvements through political organizing and voting. Id. A district that combines portions
of Cameron and Hidalgo Counties reflects a community of interest. PL-419 (Seifert Decl.) ¶ 7.
397. All districts in Cameron County and Hidalgo County in Plan H283 are majority-HCVAP
districts. Defendants attempted to elicit testimony from lay witness Michael Seifert that all of the
districts in Plan H283 would be Latino opportunity districts, but he did not know what that term
meant. TrJ559 (Seifert). Upon further questioning, Seifert did agree that “all of those districts [in
Cameron and Hidalgo County in Plan H283] currently elect members to the legislature who are
Hispanic” and “so that would mean that every voter who lives in Hidalgo and Cameron County
would live in a district that would elect a Hispanic.” TrJ559. However, this testimony is
meaningless. None of the districts in Hidalgo County and Cameron County in Plan H283 were
“currently electing” any members because all of those districts were changed in the interim map.
Further, as a lay witness, Seifert could only speculate about whether the districts could elect a
Hispanic, especially regarding HD41.
398. Dr. Engstrom found racially polarized voting in the 52-county area he classified as South
Texas, which included the Rio Grande Valley. Tr503 (Engstrom); Joint Expert Ex. E-7. He found
weak support for Latino candidates among non-Latinos in these counties. The highest level of
support by them for any Latino Democratic candidate in the general election was 19.1%. And none
of the five Latino candidates in the Democratic primaries received as much as 40% of their votes.
In his corrected rebuttal report, Joint Expert Ex. E-7 (Docket no. 307-1), Dr. Engstrom found racially
polarized voting in general and primary elections in the 52-county area he classified as South Texas.
He found that Latinos are cohesive in support of Latino candidates in general and Democratic
primary elections. This preference was shared by non-Latinos in only one general election and no
primaries. In other words, Latinos and non-Latinos shared a preference for the Latino candidate in
only 1 of 17 elections studied.
399. In Hidalgo County, 39.3% of Hispanics lack a high school education. Joint Expert Ex. E-1
(Chapa Report) Table 4. In Cameron County, 43.3% of Hispanics lack a high school education. Id.
400. In Hidalgo County, the per capita income for Hispanics is $11,617, compared to $27,198 for
non-Hispanic Anglos. Joint Expert Ex. E-1 (Chapa Report) Table 5. In Cameron County, the per
capita income for Hispanics is $11,568, compared to $29,394 for non-Hispanic Anglos. Id.
401. In Hidalgo County, 38.1% of Hispanics live in poverty. Joint Expert Ex. E-1 (Chapa Report)
Table 6. 48.65% of Latino children live in poverty, compared to 23.09% of non-Latino Anglos.
Joint Expert Ex. E-9 (Gonzalez-Baker Report) Table 8. In Cameron County, 37.2% of Hispanics
live in poverty. Joint Expert Ex. E-1 (Chapa Report) Table 6. 27.27% of Latino children live in
poverty, compared to 3.19% of non-Latino Anglos. Joint Expert Ex. E-9 (Gonzalez-Baker Report)
402. Using 2005-2009 ACS data, Cameron County’s estimated HCVAP is approximately 78.7%
and Hidalgo County’s estimated HCVAP is approximately 82.6%. D-218.
403. In 2010, all Valley districts elected Latino-preferred candidates. After his re-election as a
Democrat, Rep. Peña switched parties. The configuration of Hidalgo County was not memberdriven. Instead, Peña and Downton worked together to draw a district that would give him the best
chance at re-election as a Republican. To do this, they created the most Anglo, Republican district
possible, which meant creating an almost completely new district for Peña (only 1.5% of his
constituents are the same) and basically switching his district with incumbent Gonzales’s district.
The district was also intentionally underpopulated because any additional population would have
been less likely to vote for Peña. The mapdrawers ignored Hanna’s suggestion to raise the SSVR
of Peña’s district because it was low in comparison to the surrounding districts.
404. Downton’s precinct splits included less Hispanic portions of precincts in Peña’s district and
excluded more Hispanic portions of the precincts. Many of the precinct splits make the district less
Republican by objective measures, and thus these splits were not based on making the district more
Republican by objective measures. Several of the precinct splits are consistent with an improper use
405. Despite support from both Republican and Democrat legislators from South Texas, the
Legislature did not create a new Latino opportunity district in the lower Valley by combining the
excess population of Hidalgo County with the excess population of Cameron County. However, no
plan was presented to the mapdrawers that created this district as an additional Latino-majority
district that did not also have a County Line Rule violation.
406. In 2000, Harris County had 24.4625 districts based on ideal population. D-212.
407. The Texas House passed a plan in 2001 that had 24 seats in Harris County by a vote of 76 to
71. D-49 (House J. Supp. May 7, 2001) at 11; D-127. Democrat members, including Reps.
Coleman, Farrar, Hochberg, Martinez Fischer, Thompson, and Turner, generally voted for the map
with 24 Harris County seats. TrJ1327-28 (Coleman); TrJ1665 (Hochberg); D-49 at 11.
408. However, because the Legislature failed to pass a map in 2001, the LRB drew the map that was
eventually put into place. The LRB rounded up, and placed 25 districts in Harris County. TrJ1667
(Hochberg); TrJ1278 (Thompson). Rep. Hochberg questioned it at the time, but he was told by an
attorney that there was no court precedent on which direction it had to go, so it was not
challengeable. TrJ1666-67 (Hochberg). Rep. Coleman testified that he supported the LRB’s change
to 25. TrJ1328 (Coleman).
409. Hochberg had been elected in HD132, but in the 2001 LRB map he was placed in HD134, so
he moved to HD137. TrJ1644-45 (Hochberg). Hochberg felt the 2001 redistricting targeted
leading/active Democrats. TrJ1647 (Hochberg). Hispanics in the district that became the new
HD137, especially those living in apartments, had not had good turnout, but their turnout improved
with voter outreach efforts. TrJ1646-47 (Hochberg).
410. At the Houston field hearing on November 20, 2010, Rogene Calvert of the Texas Asian
American Redistricting Initiative (“TAARI”) testified about the Asian population in Houston/Harris
County and Fort Bend County, which borders Harris County to the southwest. D-117; US-461 at
3. Calvert asked that the Asian community be kept together. US-461 at 3. In Harris County, the
Asian population is located primarily in the southwest, including Alief and Sharpstown. Tr419
(Calvert); US-322A; Tr1363-64 (Vo). In the benchmark plan, the Alief area was in four
districts—HD149, HD133, HD131, and HD137. TrJ1377-78 (Vo). The most concentrated Asian
census blocks were together in HD149, though there were also some concentrated Asian populations,
Vietnamese and Chinese, in HD137. TrJ1364-65 (Vo); US-322A. Calvert testified at trial that,
although they are too small in total numbers to control elections, the Asian community has been able
to form coalitions with other minorities in the area such that the Asian population can elect
candidates of their choice. Tr420. Calvert wanted the Legislature to consider that the AsianAmerican community in that area was very concentrated and had demonstrated its political strength
through the election of candidates of their choice, and they did not want to be divided or diluted in
redistricting. Tr421 (Calvert).
411. In Harris County, the minority population (including Hispanic, African-American, and Asian)
grew between 2000 and 2010, while the Anglo population declined. TrJ1437 (Korbel); Joint-Expert
Ex. E-5 (Martin Report) at 5. The Harris County Hispanic population increased by almost 552,000.
The African-American population increased by over 134,000, and the Asian population increased
by 76,827. Joint Expert Ex. E-5 (Martin Report) at 5; Joint Expert Ex. E-2 (Kousser Report) at 89.
The Anglo population decreased by 82,000 or more. Tr338 (Martin). All of the growth in Harris
County was due to the increase in minority population. Id. The HCVAP in 2000 was 19.04%. D230. According to the 2005-2009 ACS data, it was 22.53%, and according to the 2008-2012 ACS
data, it was 25.36%. D-218; D-231.
412. In 2010, the Anglo population share of Harris County was 33%. Tr338 (Martin). Harris
County was 40.8% Latino, 18.9% African-American, and had a fairly significant Asian population.
413. At the start of 2011 redistricting, there were 25 districts in Harris County; 13 were Republican
and 12 were Democrat. TrJ1265 (Thompson).
414. One of the first decisions that had to be made for Harris County was how many seats to
apportion to it. Tr1567 (Solomons). It was undecided at the beginning of the process whether to
have 24 or 25 districts. Tr930 (Downton); Downton 8-31-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-62) at 108. Based
on ideal population size and census data, Harris County had 24.4126 districts. D-214; D-221; D124_13; PL-226. With either 24 or 25 districts, Harris County districts would be within the
permissible deviation range from the ideal population size. D-214; TrJ1326 (Coleman). Staff and
leadership had various conversations about the issue. Downton 8-31-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-62) at
108. Downton’s opinion from the beginning was that it should have 24. Downton and TLC made
that recommendation, and Downton believes there were other attorneys who made it as well. Tr931
(Downton). But Downton tried to draw it both ways, and he asked the delegation to draw it both
ways. Downton 8-31-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-62) at 108.
415. Plaintiffs claim that past practice supported rounding up to 25. E.g., TrJ1326 (Coleman).
LULAC-13 shows historically the number of House seats assigned to Harris County and ideal
population. It shows that in 1980, 25.40 was rounded up to 26 (it does not specify who made the
decision; it only states “3 changes 2 by legislature and 1 by Federal Court”). LULAC-13; Alvarado
Decl. (docket no. 331) at 4. It appears that the plan was enacted by the three-judge court in Terrazas
v. Clements, 537 F. Supp. 514 (N.D. Tex. 1982), based on an LRB plan modified to remedy DOJ
objections. It was then adopted by the 68th Legislature in 1983.
416. LULAC-13 also shows that after the 1990 census, 24.89 was rounded up to 25 (again it does
not specify who made the decision; it only states “changes by Court and Legislature”). LULAC-13;
Alvarado Decl. (docket no. 331) at 4. This plan was enacted by the Legislature and then modified
by the three-judge court in Terrazas v. Slagle, 789 F. Supp. 828 (W.D. Tex. 1991).
417. As noted, in 2001, 24.46 was rounded down to 24 by the House, but the LRB rounded up to
25 in its plan.
418. Korbel testified that, from 1980 to 2000, Harris County has been “redistricted in one way or
another” fifteen times, and in eight of those fifteen times, the excess population above a whole
number of districts was less than .5, but it was always rounded up. Tr702. Korbel said that the
policies utilized by the State up until 2011 would have resulted in 25 seats. Joint Expert Ex-11 at
2. He stated that, contrary to the State’s assertion, there is no rule regarding rounding. Tr756.
419. Dr. Murray testified that it made sense, as in previous redistricting cycles, to round up partly
to compensate for the acknowledged undercount and the imprecision of the census count. Tr892.
This is especially true given the large population of Hispanics and Asians in Harris County, which
are most likely to be undercounted. Tr892; V. Gonzales depo. at 33-34, 40. He noted that Harris
County grew at almost the exact same rate of growth (20.4% ) as the State (20.6%). Joint Expert Ex.
E-4 (Murray Report) at 26.
420. The benchmark plan had six African-American districts. Tr352 (Martin). These included
HD131 (47.7% BVAP) (Allen); HD139 (47.2% BVAP) (Turner); HD141 (42.8% BVAP)
(Thompson); HD142 (42.7% BVAP) (Dutton); HD146 (47.1% BVAP) (Miles); and HD147 (39.2%
BVAP) (Coleman). All of these districts were represented by African-American Democrats. All of
these districts were majority-BCVAP districts using 2005-2009 ACS data. HD131 was 58.7%
BCVAP; HD139 was 61% BCVAP; HD141 was 54.1% BCVAP; HD142 was 54.5% BCVAP;
HD146 was 53.9% BCVAP; and HD147 was 50.8% BCVAP.
421. The benchmark plan had three performing HCVAP (using 2005-2009 ACS data) and SSVRmajority districts: HD140 (66.1% HCVAP; 57.9% total SSVR) (Walle); HD143 (64.7% HCVAP;
64.8% total SSVR) (Hernandez-Luna); and HD145 (68.9% HCVAP; 65.2% SSVR) (Alvarado).
These districts were represented by Hispanic Democrats.
422. In addition, HD148 was less than 50% HCVAP/SSVR (42.1% HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS
data; 39.4% total SSVR) but performed for Latinos. Tr80 (Martinez Fischer); Tr1039-40 (Murray);
Joint Expert Ex-5 (Martin Report) at 6. HD148 had elected Jessica Farrar, a Hispanic Democrat,
every election since 1994, and thus the Latino candidate of choice was successfully elected in both
primary and general elections in the district. Farrar Decl. (docket no. 331) at 3. HD148 was an
effective Latino district based in the traditional North Side and Heights neighborhoods. Joint Expert
Ex-5 (Martin Report) at 6; Farrar depo. at 37. Mapdrawers and Hanna were aware that HD148 was
a performing Hispanic district even though it was not a majority-HCVAP/SSVR district. TrJ2049
(Downton); TrJ1215-16 (Hanna); D-122 at 5; Farrar depo. at 40-41.
423. Similarly, benchmark HD137 was not a majority-HCVAP district but it performed for Latinos
and minorities. Tr352 (Martin). It had a high Hispanic population—63.8% Hispanic population and
59.8% HVAP. TrJ1642 (Hochberg). It was a diverse district, with 35.5% Anglo CVAP, 26.4%
BCVAP, 25.6% HCVAP, and 11.6% Asian CVAP based on 2005-2009 ACS data. D-100 at 32;
TrJ1354 (Vo); TrJ1642 (Hochberg). The combined minority CVAP in HD137 was 64.5%. TrJ1643
(Hochberg). Despite the high Hispanic population, it had only 22% total SSVR.
424. HD137 had elected Scott Hochberg, an Anglo Democrat, since 2002. TrJ1641 (Hochberg).
Hochberg testified that minority voters controlled the outcome of elections in the district. TrJ1642.
Hochberg analyzed election results, and they consistently showed that he would not have won
without the support of minority voters. Id. Sarah Winkler also provided lay testimony that the
minority coalition in Alief is able to elect candidates of choice to the Texas House in HD137. Tr426.
The State described HD137 as a fifth Latino opportunity district in its 2001 preclearance submission.
Joint Expert Ex-5 (Martin Report) at 6; Tr352 (Martin); TrJ1643 (Hochberg) (Texas had indicated
that HD137 provided Latino opportunity when justifying the district for preclearance after the 2001
425. The benchmark plan also had a second effective minority coalition district, HD149. Tr352
(Martin); TrJ135-36 (Arrington); Tr827 (Turner). Benchmark HD149 was very diverse, with 37.6%
Anglo CVAP, 26.1% BCVAP, 19% HCVAP, and 16.2% Asian/Other CVAP. D-100 at 32;
TrJ1342-43, TrJ1346 (Vo); Tr350 (Martin). HD149 had a strong influence from Asian Americans.
TrJ1648 (Hochberg); TrJ1342-46 (Vo). No particular ethnic group controlled the district; it was a
multi-ethnic coalition. TrJ1648 (Hochberg); Tr350 (Martin). In the benchmark plan, HD149 was
located in southwestern Harris County and included the Alief community, which has a large Asian
population. Tr1342-43 (Vo). As noted, the largest concentrated area of predominantly Asian census
blocks were together in HD149. TrJ1364-65 (Vo); US-322A; D-201; D-264; D-332.
426. The multi-ethnic coalition of minority voters (Asian, African-American, and Latino) in HD149
supported Hubert Vo, the first Vietnamese American in the Texas House, and successfully elected
him in 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010. Tr349-50 (Martin); TrJ1647-48 (Hochberg); Tr891 (Murray);
Tr426 (Winkler). Sarah Winkler provided lay testimony that the minority coalition in Alief is able
to elect candidates of choice to the Texas House in HD149. Tr426. Vo defeated incumbent Anglo
Republican Talmadge Heflin in 2004 by only 32 votes. US-366 at 91 (Red-225 report); TrJ1343
(Vo). In 2006, Vo again defeated Heflin, but by almost 2000 votes. US-368 at 184 (Red-225
report). Vo again defeated Republican and Tea Party challengers in 2008 (by approximately 5,700
votes) and 2010 (by approximately 1,300 votes). Tr891 (Murray).
427. The coalition has supported and elected other local candidates (council members and school
board members) as well. TrJ1348-49 (Vo); Joint Expert Ex-5 (Martin report). The minority
communities work together to elect the candidate of choice. TrJ1346, TrJ1348 (Vo). The group
votes for the issues of the district and the candidates who support their issues, and they collectively
vote for the candidate of their choice. TrJ1348. Winkler testified that electing candidates of choice
is not really based on political affiliation but more on common interests and because of Vo himself.
Tr429. Vo was very involved with his constituent community and was supported by the Alief Super
Neighborhood. TrJ1342-43 (Vo). Most Asians have voted for Vo over the years. TrJ1349.
428. On February 17, 2011, Hanna emailed Denise Davis with the subject “redist issues.” D-192;
US-102; Quesada-242. Regarding Harris County, he wrote, “Houston- Like last time Houston comes
out to 24.41 seats. Many will want to round up again as LRB did but this caused legal issues w.
county line rule. Politically popular w. Harris County but legally more risky. Should do 24 but this
will mean the loss of another R seat since all D seats are minority. (Hochberg has Hispanic seat).”
At trial, Hanna said he made an initial, cursory review and that he made a mistake on the Hochberg
seat (HD137) being a minority seat because it had an HVAP in the 60s (59.8% HVAP; 63.8% total
Hispanic population). He testified that later he determined that the SSVR was in the 20s (22%), and
he was not aware of a theory where that would be a protected seat, so his assessment changed.
429. On February 18, Denise Davis forwarded Hanna’s email to Interiano. D-132. Interiano
responded to Davis stating, “Dave [Hanna] and I went through all of this yesterday afternoon and
through some of the first things that we need to look at as soon as RedAppl is up and running. I also
visited with Wayne Smith and Solomons and mentioned the issue about Houston and immediately
both of them leaned towards keeping Harris County at 25 seats.” Id.
430. Rep. Wayne Smith and/or his staff started working on Harris County plans in RedAppl around
February 22. US-441. Smith’s RedAppl plan log contains both 24-district and 25-district plans. Id.
431. On February 24, Solomons made a statement from the House front microphone that there
would be 25 districts in Harris County. TrJ1295, TrJ1324 (Coleman); TrJ1652 (Hochberg); TrJ1931
(Bruce). Bruce said this caused the staff “a small panic attack” because that issue had not yet been
decided, so they alerted Solomons to this fact when he came off the floor, and he told them to clarify
it. TrJ1931. Solomons’ office sent out a memo to members that same day clarifying that the
decision about how many districts would be in the drop-in counties had not necessarily been decided.
Id.; D-72. The memo stated, “The numbers I provided on the House floor relating to the number of
districts that will be wholly contained within the larger urban counties represent a preliminary
calculation of the number of ideal districts each county could receive. Only after the committee
takes testimony will we be able to consider the actual number of districts that each county receives.
The members will have to determine this number based on legal standards governing one-person,
one-vote and the Voting Rights Act, the requirements of the Texas Constitution, as well as the policy
choices of the members. If you need any guidance on the criteria that a district must meet under state
and federal law, as well as preclearance I would encourage you to ask either the redistricting staff
or if you need to ask confidential questions please contact the redistricting attorneys in the Texas
Legislative Council.” D-72.
432. On March 7, Interiano emailed Hanna with the subject “Harris County.” D-135; US-157. He
asked if Hanna could meet with the Harris County GOP delegation on March 9, but he wanted to talk
beforehand “to make sure that we are on the same page.” D-135. Regarding the number of districts
that Harris County would get in the House plan, Hanna wrote, “Arguments for 25: We’ve rounded
up before. It fits within the 10% overall deviation. Harris County has a lot [of] votes in the
legislature. You have to bring this claim in state court. Arguments for 24: ‘As nearly as may be’
means something, and one number only – not a range of numbers. Very safe from state lawsuit –
putting the wrong number in Harris County is a catastrophic error if you guess wrong and requires
all of Harris County and most of the rural parts of your map to be redrawn.” Id. At trial, Hanna
explained that the risks were “fairly small on the substance,” but if you were required to redraw from
25 to 24, it would require redrawing in Harris County and elsewhere in the state where the other new
seat was awarded. TrJ1202.
433. Because Harris County was a drop-in county, members of the Harris County delegation were
told to work together on a delegation plan. Alvarado decl. ¶ 6. Early in the process, Rep. Senfronia
Thompson (African American, Democrat) and Rep. Wayne Smith (Anglo, Republican) worked
together and with the delegation members to try to draw a 25-district plan. TrJ1266 (Thompson);
TrJ1351 (Vo). Smith took the lead on working with Republican members and Thompson took the
lead on working with Democrat members, and they tried to reach a consensus. TrJ1295 (Coleman);
TrJ1241 (Thompson). Thompson testified that they started in mid-March to the beginning of April.10
TrJ1266. She reached out to Democrats to see if they could get a consensus and avoid the LRB and
legal challenges. TrJ1266-67 (Thompson). Vo worked with surrounding members Murphy (HD133),
Allen (HD131), Hochberg (HD137), and Miles (HD146). TrJ1350 (Vo); TrJ1652-53 (Hochberg).
434. Some Republicans (Jim Murphy and Dwayne Bohac) approached Rep. Woolley and asked if
she knew that Smith was drawing maps. Woolley went to Speaker Straus, who confirmed that Smith
had said he was drawing county maps, but that Straus had not put him in charge. Woolley hired
Mike Hull (an attorney who worked for Associated Republicans and Texans for Lawsuit Reform)
and Scott Sims to help draw a map. Woolley depo. at 12-13, 17. She thought all Republicans should
be working together, and that the Republicans knew more about the west side than Smith did.
Woolley depo. at 13-14. Led by Rep. Woolley, the Harris County Republican delegation
independently worked with Mike Hull to draw their proposed map. TrJ1490, TrJ1577 (Interiano).
435. Around March 30, Smith sent Interiano a 25-member map of Harris County. D-313 (strjH212).
The delegation did not reach consensus on Smith’s map, although it was informally approved by a
majority of the delegation. TrJ1268 (Thompson); Alvarado decl. (docket no. 331) at ¶ 7. The
Smith/Thompson map was not introduced in the session. TrJ1268 (Thompson).
In Rep. Wayne Smith’s RedAppl plan log, there is a plan dated 3/3/2011 with comments “started on
3/2/2011” and “Plan #17 with adjustments to 134 and 136 to make Woolley’s district more Anglo.” It also says 149/137
(24 members) SKK. US-441 at 5. Only an authorized user in Smith’s account or the person who sent the plan to that
account could have put that in the comments. This same comment is in the smlw plan account for plan H121 called
“Redistricting Plan Bohac”. US-441 at 6. There is also a plan with comments “Plan #18 with adjustments to keep
vo/hochburg more hispanic” dated 3/4/2011. US-441 at 6. Given Rep. Thompson’s testimony, it appears that Rep.
Smith was not yet working with her on a delegation map at this time. In addition, Smith’s map did not get adopted, and
the evidence indicates that Smith’s maps were not incorporated into the adopted plan. However, this is evidence that
Harris County mapdrawers were focusing on race in drafting plans.
436. The thirteen Republican members of the Harris County delegation all signed off on a 24-district
map, woolH111. D-234. This plan was dated March 31 and was provided to Downton/the HRC,
and Solomons on March 31. D-234; PL-538; PL-1613. The Woolley map was drawn only by the
Republican members of the delegation. Downton incorporated the Woolley 24-district plan into his
full state map on April 1. PL-538; Downton 8-31-11 depo. at 108; Tr931 (Downton).11
437. The Houston Republican delegation made the decision to pair Hochberg and Vo and eliminate
HD149. Tr1482 (Interiano). The Republican delegation plan eliminated HD149, the multiethnic
district in southwest Harris County, which was the part of the County that had experienced a lot of
growth, but kept all four Anglo/Republican districts in East Harris County (HD127, HD128,
HD129, HD144), which had experienced slower growth, despite the fact that all the growth in Harris
County was attributable to minorities. Tr347-50 (Martin); Tr428 (Winkler); Tr809-10 (Turner);
Tr892 (Murray). This pushed the other districts farther west in Harris County, with adverse impact
on Latinos, African-Americans, and Asians, and eliminated HD149. Tr809-10; Tr892-93.
438. Solomons made the decision to go with 24 districts. TrJ1012, Tr1567 (Solomons). He based
this decision on the County Line Rule and the “as nearly as may be” language in the Texas
Constitution. TrJ1012, Tr1567-68. (Solomons). Solomons felt that giving Harris County 25 seats
would be giving them an extra representative, and the rest of the State would not be properly
represented. TrJ1568 (Solomons). Bruce said they discussed it with each other and with TLC and
did some research and looked at legislative history. The Speaker’s office also discussed it with their
litigation team. Then Solomons made the decision to go with 24 districts. TrJ1933 (Bruce). But
Solomons had no role in deciding who would be paired; he left that and the map in general to the
delegation. Tr1576, Tr1615-16 (Solomons).
439. Several representatives felt that the decision to go with 24 or 25 was not mandated by the Texas
Constitution, but was a political question given past practice. Farrar depo. at 75; Smith depo. at 2425. Hochberg did not think there was a need to go to 24 because the population of Harris County
relative to that of the state changed very slightly. TrJ1653 (Hochberg). Martin also felt it was a
policy choice to create only 24 districts. Joint Expert Ex-5 (Martin Report) at 5. Murray testified
that the decision to go to 24 districts was “fishy” given what happened in 2001. Tr892. He opined
that a 25-district map would have almost certainly resulted in a district in which Hispanic and Black
voters would have had an opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice in the 2012 election. Joint
Expert Ex. E-4 (Murray Report) at 27. Korbel also felt the decision was not justified by past practice
and made it more difficult to draw an additional minority opportunity district in Harris County.
440. Sometime around April 5 or 6, Coleman and others learned about the 24-district Woolley map
drawn only by Republicans. TrJ1296-97, TrJ1299 (Coleman); TrJ1653 (Hochberg); TrJ1983-84
It appears from the plan logs that Woolley and the Republican delegation continued working on a 25-district
plan as well. E.g., US-432; US-441; PL-706.
441. Coleman testified that Woolley “inserted herself” and “took over” without discussion with the
other members, and there was no formal designation for her to take responsibility. TrJ1298
(Coleman). Those working on the Woolley map did not discuss it with Coleman or other minority
members of the delegation. TrJ1298-99 (Coleman). Coleman was angry because the process was
supposed to include all members in a particular delegation, and there was a discussion about it being
an incumbent protection plan, but the Woolley map was not an incumbent protection map, nor did
any of the minority members or any other members that were not Republicans have any comment
on that map before it was given to Solomons. TrJ1299 (Coleman). Coleman had concerns about the
proposal because it went to 24 districts and paired Hochberg and Vo. TrJ1299 (Coleman). Coleman
felt that Vo and Hochberg represented districts that allowed minority voters an opportunity to elect
their candidates of choice, and elimination of either district would reduce the number of districts of
color protected under the VRA by one district. TrJ1300 (Coleman). On April 7, Coleman sent a
memo to Woolley, Smith, Thompson, and copied Solomons and the other members of the Harris
County delegation about the Harris County map expressing his concerns. US-266. No one
responded directly to this letter. TrJ1302 (Coleman).
442. Hanna’s first retrogression memo, written April 7, had concerns about Harris County. Hanna
(11) While most of the performing Black districts in Harris County do not appear to have
retrogression issues, the decline in District 147 in the proposed plan may be a problem.
While three of the other Black districts (139, 141, 142) see increases in their Black
populations over their current levels, the Black district with the lowest percentage of Black
population (147) sees a decrease. This would appear to be a potential retrogression issue. The
solution would be to increase the Black percentage in District 147 so that it does not decline
from current levels.
(12) Of the four performing Hispanic districts in Harris County, three appear to be in pretty
good shape in the proposed plan. Only District 148 is dropping in its level of SSVR [from
39.4% to 34.2%]. Unfortunately this district is the lowest in SSVR already so there is a
possible retrogression issue with District 148. Given that there is a sizable cushion in
adjacent District 145 over 50% SSVR, it should be possible to restore District 148 to its
current level of SSVR.
(13) This multiethnic district in Harris County [HD149] is eliminated. The “other”
population is primarily Asian but represents different ethnic groups. If it can be determined
that the district was a true minority coalition district, there could be a retrogression issue in
its elimination but this would be a novel retrogression theory to apply where no single racial
or ethnic group has more than a quarter of the VAP of the district.
Hanna testified at trial that he did not think HD149 was a protected district. TrJ1158. Interiano
thought it was legal to pair Vo and Hochberg because it was simply a Democrat pairing and the
districts were not protected. Tr1482. Because no single minority group was over 50% of the
population or over 25% of the voting age population in HD149, mapdrawers felt it was legal to
dismantle HD149 even though it was electing a minority member. Tr1009, TrJ2015, TrJ2142-43
(Downton); TrJ1194 (Hanna). Hanna never performed election analyses to determine cohesiveness
of the ethnic groups in that area. TrJ1194.
443. The Republican delegation had not paid very much attention to the Democratic districts, as far
as VRA compliance. Tr931-32 (Downton). Downton made some “tweaks” to the Republican
delegation map; he modified it to try to match benchmark numbers for the minority opportunity
districts. He did not recall tweaking it to try to enhance Republican numbers. Downton 8-31-11
depo. (Joint Ex. J-62) at 99-100. Downton looked at the numbers, essentially the SSVR and the
BVAP, and compared them to the baseline plan, and tried to keep the numbers about the same.
Tr932 (Downton). The goal was to make sure the numbers did not decrease. Id.
444. In Hanna’s second retrogression memo, Hanna no longer had concerns about HD147 and felt
the performing African-American districts did not appear to have retrogression concerns, though he
said that election analysis should be performed on HD131 and HD146 to ensure the slight BVAP
declines did not affect ability to elect. He further noted that, of the four performing Hispanic
districts, only HD148 was dropping in SSVR (total SSVR dropped from 39.4% to 38.6%, which was
higher than in the plan Hanna previously reviewed) and there was “a minor possible retrogression
issue with District 148.” He again stated, “Given that there is a sizable cushion in adjacent District
145 over 50%, it should be possible to restore District 148 to its current level of SSVR.” He added,
“Consideration should also be given as to whether a fifth majority Hispanic district could be drawn
in Harris County and whether such a district would be required by Section 2 of the Voting Rights
Act.” D-327. With regard to HD137, he noted that one might assume that it was an effective
Hispanic district given its total Hispanic population of 63.8% and HVAP of 59.8%, but explained
that the high number of non-citizens in the district gave it an SSVR in the low 20s and “as such this
is not currently a performing Hispanic district.” D-327. He further wrote, “In any event the SSVR
increases so there is little possibility of retrogression with this district.” D-327. Hanna did not find
potential retrogression issues regarding HD137 because the proposed district had a higher SSVR
than the benchmark. TrJ1193 (Hanna). With regard to HD149, he again noted that “there could be
a retrogression issue in its elimination but this would be a novel retrogression theory to apply where
no single racial or ethnic group has more than a quarter of the VAP of the district.” D-327.
445. Woolley’s plan with Downton’s changes was the first version of Harris County in Plan H113,
released April 13. Tr931-32 (Downton); Tr1430, Tr1474, TrJ1609 (Interiano); TrJ1303 (Coleman).
Other than the 25-district plan from Smith, Interiano does not remember getting a proposed map
from the whole Harris County delegation, the Harris County democrats, or any member. TrJ1609,
TrJ1611 (Interiano). In Plan H113, HD148 had a total SSVR of 38.6% and non-suspense SSVR of
39.4% and thus was not further increased in response to Hanna’s second memo. HD149 was
eliminated and moved to the Austin area. TrJ1352 (Vo).
446. The initial configuration of southwest Harris County in Plan H113 remained substantially
unchanged in Plan H283. Before redistricting, Hochberg’s district HD137 did not go west of the
Beltway. TrJ1658 (Hochberg). HD137 is elongated and extended westward into the current HD149,
and incumbents Vo and Hochberg are paired. The concentrated Asian area that was formerly in
HD149 is split, with most of it being placed in HD133 (an Anglo-controlled district) and the rest in
HD137; the remaining minority population of benchmark HD149 is placed in HD131, represented
by Allen (African American, Democrat). D-333; Tr351 (Martin). Adding the population from
HD149 to HD137 makes HD137 less Hispanic (Hispanic VAP decreased by 4.4% from 59.8% to
55.5%). Tr352 (Martin). A substantial Asian-American community was removed from HD137 and
placed in a predominantly African-American district, HD146. TrJ1658 (Hochberg).
447. Hochberg was more senior than Vo and was significantly more active and vocal in the
opposition party than Vo, and Hochberg believed that past partisan practice was to target more senior
members of the opposition party. TrJ1659, TrJ1661, TrJ1667 (Hochberg); TrJ1352-53 (Vo).
However, rather than targeting Hochberg, the perception among members was that the redistricting
favored Hochberg, who was Anglo, over Vo because minority population was reduced in the new
HD137. TrJ1302 (Coleman); TrJ1660 (Hochberg); Hochberg Decl. (docket no. 331) at 3; Alvarado
Decl. (docket no. 331) at 5. Hochberg was assured by his Anglo Republican colleagues that HD137
was drawn to give him a district in which he could win re-election and that he would be back.
Hochberg Decl. (docket no. 331) at 4; TrJ1660 (Hochberg). This included Wayne Smith, Dan
Huberty, and Ron Eissler. TrJ1675 (Hochberg). A large portion of the new district was area that
Hochberg had represented for ten years, and substantial Asian-American population that would have
at least been perceived as friendly to Vo was removed. TrJ1660. Hochberg testified that the
configuration of HD137 could not be justified on partisan grounds unless they were trying to create
a solidly Democratic district. TrJ1661.
448. In Plan H283, the Alief community would have a tougher time supporting Vo and would not
be able to elect its candidate of choice. TrJ1370 (Vo). Similarly, Vo would have a harder time being
successfully re-elected because most of the district was new for him. TrJ1354-55 (Vo). Although
both benchmark HD137 and HD149 were diverse and included Asian population, HD149 had more
Asians (mostly Vietnamese) than HD137. TrJ1354 (Vo). When HD137 and HD149 were paired
and HD149 eliminated, the new HD137 more closely resembled HD137 than HD149. TrJ1354. Vo
believes he was targeted because what is left of HD149 is just a little section and he lost a lot of
Asian population to other districts. TrJ1362 (Vo).
449. The Legislature did not pair Rep. Button (Republican), another Asian incumbent, in Dallas.
450. After seeing the map, Vo went to Solomons to ask why the map was drawn the way it was
drawn. TrJ1355 (Vo). Solomons said to give his concerns to the committee staff. TrJ1356 (Vo).
Vo submitted some changes to the new HD137 but did not hear back. Vo talked to Solomons and
Straus, noting the inconsistency of rounding down to 24 districts. He talked to Harris County
members of the HRC to try to get them to understand that the new HD137 would be hard for him
to run in. TrJ1356 (Vo). Vo stated that there was little time to organize and prepare for the hearings
on Plan H113, though some members of the Asian community were able to testify. TrJ1357.
451. At the April 15 HRC hearing, Rogene Calvert testified against Plan H113 and the pairing of
HD137 and HD149 in Harris County. D-595 at 181. She said Alief ISD was split among five
districts and the Asian vote was diluted. Id. at 182. She testified that there was voter cohesion
among the different minority groups in HD149. Id. at 185. David Nguyen also testified against the
potential loss of Vo and to cohesion among all the minority groups. Id. at 190-92. Lilly Truong also
testified against the proposed plan as it related to HD149, saying that it was important to the Asian
community to continue to be able to elect Vo. Id. at 195-96. John Truong testified similarly, adding
that the Asian vote would be divided up. Id. at 196. Barbara Quatro of Alief testified that they had
hoped Alief would be represented by one district but instead it was now divided among four. Id. at
198. Lupe Martinez from Alief testified against dividing Alief. Id. at 199. Toi Phon also testified
against the splitting of Alief. Id. at 200. Fred Bandera testified that they were bringing many
minority groups together in HD149, and Vo had been helpful. He asked that Alief be kept together.
Id. at 202. Nicole Trals also testified on behalf of Vo and keeping Alief and HD149 intact. Id. at
452. In testifying against Plan H113 and in favor of the MALDEF Plan H115, Luis Figueroa of
MALDEF complained about the loss of Latino opportunity district HD33 in Nueces County and
stated, “we can draw Section 2 compliant districts in West Texas, in the Valley, and increase
populations in Houston [in] Representative Farrar’s district [HD148] and in Lon Burnam’s district
[HD90 in Tarrant County] to create a clear Latino CVAP majority district.” D-595 at 34. Figueroa
stated, “[I]n HD148, which is currently represented by Representative Farrar, [SSVR] is also reduced
whereas we are able to even out the population to increase Representative Farrar to make it a Latino
majority district.” D-595. In Plan H115, HD148 had 51.6% total SSVR, 52.6% non-suspense
SSVR, and 55.4% HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data. Rep. Farrar, who represented HD148,
disagreed with Figueroa’s suggestion to increase the SSVR in her district because it already
performed for Latinos. Farrar depo. at 40-41, 98.
453. At the April 17 HRC hearing, Hochberg testified in opposition to Plan H113. He disagreed
with the decision to round Harris County down to 24 districts, noting that it was almost the same as
in the previous census, when it was rounded up. He also stated that it had been rounded up for 40
years, which kept it closer to one-person, one-vote requirements throughout the decade due to its fast
growth. He noted that the LRB in 2000 said it could be either 24 or 25, and it chose 25. He asserted
that if there were in fact a rule to round down, then it had been violated in the past. He noted that
the LRB also described HD137 as a minority district in its DOJ preclearance submission, when its
HVAP was 50.6%.12 He said it was inconsistent to claim it as a minority district in 2000 for
The DOJ objection letter to the LRB’s House plan stated that the State initially asserted in its preclearance
submission that HD137 was a minority district that could offset the loss of a district, but also noted that “in the
supplemental materials” provided by the State, “the State notified us that if any district should be considered as the
replacement, District 80 in South Texas - not District 137 - should be the one which offsets the loss of a majority
preclearance but deny it minority status in 2011, when its HVAP had increased to 59.8%. He also
noted that the map split the Sharpstown community of interest, and he submitted letters in
opposition. Hochberg testified before the committee about specific precincts that should be moved,
but he did not offer any amendments because there was a limited amount of time. TrJ1668
(Hochberg). The only amendment he could have offered that would have fixed Harris County would
bring a district back or substantially change Harris County, and he knew that would not be
successful. TrJ1669 (Hochberg).
454. In Plan H113, HD148 was 38.6% total SSVR and 39.4% non-suspense SSVR, which was
down slightly from the benchmark of 39.4% total and 40% non-suspense SSVR. Mapdrawers
Downton and Interiano testified that they increased the SSVR in HD148 in Plan H153 to 49% total
SSVR/50.2% non-suspense SSVR13 (and 51.6% HCVAP) in order to respond to claims that the map
reduced the number of SSVR-majority districts from benchmark and to offset the loss of SSVRmajority district HD33 in Nueces County. Tr932-33, TrJ2049, TrJ2141 (Downton); Tr1431
455. Between Plan H113 and Plan H153, mapdrawers manipulated the population of numerous
Harris County minority districts (HD148, HD139, HD141, HD142, HD143, and HD145) to increase
the SSVR in HD148, but they did not alter the Anglo districts. They elongated HD148 to the
southeast and shed its most northwest population into HD139 for the purpose of increasing its
SSVR. Latino population was taken from HD143. HD145 (Alvarado), which was also a Latino
district, was elongated to the northwest to take population from HD143 and HD148. Downton did
not know if population included in the southern part now joined into HD148 shared community
interests with the population included in the northern part of the district. Downton 8-31-11 depo.
(Joint Ex. J-62) at 103. Similarly, all he knew about the community joined at the ends of HD145
was that they were all in Harris County and they were all “along the highway” (although they are not
all, in fact, along the highway). Id. at 102. The Heights neighborhood was no longer completely in
HD148, and the district was disjointed. Farrar depo. at 63-64. In addition, the mapdrawers were not
concerned with whether the increase in SSVR actually improved Hispanic effectiveness in HD148.
Downton agreed that the increase in SSVR did not enhance the ability of minority voters in the
district to elect their candidate of choice. TrJ2050 (Downton). However, Downton testified that new
Hispanic voters added into HD148 now had an opportunity to elect (though voters being moved from
an existing Latino-opportunity district already had that). TrJ2150 (Downton). In addition, election
returns do not indicate that increasing the SSVR actually made HD148 more effective for Latinos.
Joint Expert Ex-5 (Martin Report) at 6.
456. On April 19, Plan H153 was voted out of the HRC. When the HRC adopted its committee
substitute and voted to send it to the full House, it did not make changes in response to the concerns
Hispanic district in Bexar County.” D-326; PL-225.
Although total SSVR was available to mapdrawers through reports, RedAppl displayed only non-suspense
SSVR such that mapdrawers only increased the non-suspense SSVR above 50%.
raised by Coleman and the other minority members of the delegation. TrJ1305 (Coleman).
457. Sometime between April 19 and April 26, there had been a discussion among members about
whether the process had been fair, and some of the Harris County delegation had a meeting about
how the map came about. TrJ1303-04 (Coleman). Coleman asked for the meeting. TrJ1304. Reps.
Woolley, Callegari, Bohac, Alvarado, and Farrar also attended the meeting. Id. It was contentious.
Coleman asked Woolley why she had done a separate Republican map, saying it was a violation of
the process and was not in good faith in terms of the process they were supposed to follow. During
the discussion, in the context of the issue of whether to have 25 or 24 districts, Woolley responded
that “you all’s districts are protected. Ours aren’t.” Id. Coleman testified that Woolley stated that
24 districts made their districts “stretch further in terms of the limited number of Anglo votes that
there were.” TrJ1304-05. Coleman felt it was very clear that she was talking about ethnicity and the
VRA and how that applied to the districts in Harris County. TrJ1305. Coleman felt she was talking
about racial minorities because only they would be protected under the VRA. TrJ1330. He stated
to others at the meeting that the Hochberg/Vo pairing violated the VRA. TrJ1305.
458. In an April 22 email, Stacy Napier of the OAG sent racially polarized voting summaries for
some of the proposed districts, including HD137, to Bruce. US-190/190A; PL-1616. The
attachment contained a spreadsheet consisting of ten elections for various districts. US-190/190A;
TrJ1019 (Solomons). The spreadsheet contained a column identifying the minority preferred
candidate. US-190A; TrJ1020 (Solomons). It provided an analysis of Plan H153 (committee
substitute bill). US-190A; TrJ1022 (Solomons). Napier wrote, “Given the low turnout and Hispanic
citizenship in districts 137 and 144, we didn’t feel comfortable identifying a candidate of choice
from the regressions, but 137 seems to have been strengthened for minority candidates whereas 144
appears to have been weakened.” Bruce forwarded the email with the attachments to Downton,
Interiano, and Solomons that same day. Interiano responded to Bruce and Downton saying, “Am I
missing something ... both of the districts that Stacey mentions in her email are strengthened in that
report that she sent when comparing plan 100 and 153.” US-169 . Downton then responded and
copied Solomons saying, “I believe 144 is Legler. The prevailing candidate in the district (the
Republican) was strengthened. But I’m not sure the Republican was the choice of the Hispanic
community – I don’t think that district has ever been performing. US-176. Bruce responded to
Napier saying, “Gerardo [Interiano] is saying SSVR was enhanced in district 144 from PLAN 150
so not sure how it regressed.” US-131. Bruce then wrote Interiano, “Checking. We didn’t talk about
Legler’s district [HD144]. Talked about Alvarado’s district, Sly’s district, Thompson’s district and
Vo and Hochberg’s districts at the meeting. I asked her to send me a summary of the regression
analysis of all of the minority districts whether performing or not.” US-169. At 9:51 Bruce wrote
Interiano, “I THINK she’s saying it was not performing because they couldn’t identify a candidate
of choice, but that it may have been weakened because of turnout (not registration). US-170.
Interiano responded, “See I don’t think that Leglers was ever a performing district specifically bc it’s
[sic] SSVR is so low... If they are arguing that it is then we improved it, at least based on what they
sent.” US-170. On April 25, Napier responded to Bruce, saying, “On District 144, my data shows
that SSVR went from 31.54 in H100 to 28.80 in H153, which is what our analysis compares, so it
does make some sense to me that there was less performance by the Hispanic population. However,
that district is a solid R district which looks like it elected the Republican candidate in every general
election we analyzed. I don’t think 144 is a performing district for Hispanics.” US-131. Bruce
forwarded Napier’s email to Interiano. US-131, US-177.
459. On April 22, Interiano emailed Hanna, “Also when you get a minute, will you look at the
Woolley amendment that’s been filed? This is to help S. Davis and they dropped Miles’s district to
40.5% BVAP. I know they drop it but it doesn’t bother me too much. Let me know what you think.”
US-172. Hanna replied, “It is a 7 point drop from benchmark. probably performs (as do 141 and 142
which are currently at this level) but this is a different part of town and I guess there is a chance that
voters behave differently in that part of town. couldn’t Miles shed some non-Black pop to boost
numbers a bit? Coleman looks good in this version.” Id. Interiano responded, “Well that’s exactly
the issue...” Hanna wrote, “Is there a way to accomplish what they want without dropping Miles so
460. On April 26, Calvert, Nina Perales of MALDEF, Dr. D.Z. Colfield of the NAACP Houston,
and Mustaafa Tameez of TAARI wrote a letter to Solomons about HD149. US-267; TrJ1359 (Vo).
They wrote, “The map voted out of committee, Plan H153 eliminates HD149, one of the most
diverse and multi-ethnic areas in Harris County, if not the State of Texas. It has the largest
concentration of Asian Americans in Harris County, as well as large percentages of Hispanic and
African American populations. Plan H153 creates a new HD137 which includes some of the current
149 but breaks up the majority of it into 4 other districts. It in fact breaks up Alief, a neighborhood
community of interest as well as home to a large number of Asian Americans. There is also the Alief
Independent School District, International Management District and Alief Superneighborhood that
will be split into 5 state districts. We would like to see HD149 reinstated and not be eliminated. This
would allow Harris County to have 25 districts as currently exists and provide better representation
of people with smaller districts. Southwest Harris County is one of the most populous areas. The
plan as presented will be harmful to the diverse communities of interest coexisting in this area. We
implore you to amend the plan to ensure the preservation of communities of interest.” US-267. The
HRC did not take any action to address these concerns. TrJ1359 (Vo).
461. At the April 27 floor debate, when Solomons laid out Plan H153, he said they had increased
the SSVR in HD90 in Tarrant County and HD148 in Harris County (from Plan H113) at the request
of MALDEF. D-13 at S100. In Plan H153, the SSVR of HD148 was 49% total/50.2% non-suspense.
Rep. Farrar asked why the map did not increase the number of effective minority opportunity
districts given that 89% of the growth was minority. Id. at S111. Solomons said they increased the
number of minority districts from 29 to 30 and “beefed up” a couple of districts, including Farrar’s,
for SSVR. Id. Solomons stated that a primary index they used was SSVR. Id.
462. Farrar pointed out that they did not need to increase the SSVR in her district HD148 because
it was already electing Hispanic representatives. D-13 at S112.
463. Rep. Walle (Hispanic, Democrat) noted that Harris County had grown at the same rate as the
state but was losing one seat, going from 25 to 24. D-13 at S124. He also noted that Anglo
population declined in Harris County (by 82,000) (-5.7%) while minority population increased
(Hispanic by 551,789; African-American by 134,564; Asian by 76,827), yet no new minority
opportunity districts were created, an effective coalition district, HD149, was eliminated, and the
HVAP in HD137 (Hochberg) was reduced by 4.4%. Id. Solomons stated that the Texas Constitution
required them to round down and pointed out that in 2011 the House passed a map with 24 districts
in Harris County, and it was the LRB that issued a map with 25 seats. Solomons stated that Reps.
Coleman, Dutton, Farrar, Hochberg, Thompson, and Turner all voted for a 24-district map. Id.
Solomons asserted that the 25-district aspect of the LRB plan was never challenged in court, so they
did not know if it would have survived judicial scrutiny, but they did not want to take the legal risk.
Id. at S125. Solomons stated that their legal team did not think HD137 or HD149 were protected
districts, though he recognized that there was disagreement on that. Id. Hochberg noted that he had
previously testified before the HRC on April 17 (when Solomons was absent) that 2001 was not the
first time the County had been rounded up and previously no one had said they could not. Id. at
S126. Hochberg said, “We were even further from 25 in an earlier approved redistricting plan that
passed muster with the courts. So I don’t understand where you get the requirement that it has to go
down.” Solomons responded that there had not been a court challenge to resolve the issue, and the
safer course was to round down. Id.
464. The Harris County Democrats said they were not happy with the way the Democratic districts
within Harris County had been drawn. Tr933 (Downton). They felt shut out of the process. TrJ1258
(Thompson). Rep. Thompson had specific conversations with Interiano about what she wanted her
district to look like before the first map was shown, and although he appeared to listen, her concerns
did not seem to be considered in the map. TrJ1251, TrJ1275, TrJ1236-37 (Thompson). Turner
testified that agreements that had been reached, such as an agreement he had with Rep. Harless
(Anglo, Republican), were disregarded. Tr808 (Turner). Both African-American and Hispanic
members in Harris County felt their districts were problematic, while the Anglo seats were in good
shape. TrJ1239, TrJ1243, TrJ1254 (Thompson).
465. In addition, Coleman objected to Amendment 23 (Plan H191), Woolley’s pre-filed amendment
that made changes to the Harris County map Woolley originally proposed. TrJ1309, TrJ1334
(Coleman). Woolley’s amendment was filed after the contentious meeting with Coleman. TrJ1310
(Coleman). Coleman felt that Woolley’s amendment targeted him in retaliation for his earlier
complaints. Coleman thought the amendment gutted parts of his district, and it removed his district
office and mother’s house from his district. TrJ1306-07, TrJ1312 (Coleman). The Speaker’s team,
leadership, his Chief of Staff (Denise Davis), and Interiano went to Coleman’s office and asked what
changes he wanted to the amendment. Rep. Charlie Geren (Anglo Republican) and Rep. Branch
(Anglo Republican) also spoke with the Speaker and said Woolley’s amendment was inappropriate.
TrJ1314 (Coleman). Rep. Miles said there were people working in Denise Davis’s office to fix the
map. Coleman, Turner, and others went to the Speaker’s office.
466. At that point, they stopped the floor debate for about three hours for people to meet with the
Harris County Democrats and try to get their input on changes to the map. Tr933 (Downton);
Tr1430-31 (Interiano). Downton testified that the Democrat members were told to leave the
Republican districts alone, to not drop the SSVR or BVAP of the respective districts, and to keep
HD148 above 50% SSVR, but within those guidelines, they could draw their districts however they
wanted. Tr933, Tr934 (Downton); Downton 8-31-11 depo.(Joint Ex. J-62) at 104-05. Rep. Farrar
also stated that Republicans said, “once our districts are drawn, you can have whatever is left and
you can draw them amongst yourselves.” Farrar depo. at 30-31. She stated that the Democrats
“were confined to only certain areas.” Id. at 49-50. Rep. Turner testified that they were able to make
some minor adjustments, but no real substantive changes that would add to or restore minority
districts or change the pairing of 137 and 149. Tr802-03. Alvarado stated that members were told
they could not alter HD148 “nor could [they] alter the Anglo portions of the map.” Alvarado Decl.
(docket no. 331) at 7. To rebut this testimony, Interiano stated that members of the delegation “were
never advised by House Redistricting staff that they could not alter any of the Republican and/or
Anglo districts in the plan,” and notes that the agreed amendments did alter some Republican
districts. Interiano Decl. (docket no 370-2) at ¶ 5. The Court finds that the Democrat members were
told they could not alter Republican districts, and one amendment to a Republican district was made
with the consent of that member, as discussed below.
467. Turner’s district HD139 would be taking in a lot of new area. Tr817 (Turner). Turner did not
want the area that crosses 290 and the area toward and north of 45 and Beltway 8, and he also lost
area in the southwest corner of 140. Tr938-39 (Downton). He shared his concerns with Interiano and
Denise Davis. Tr817-18. His concerns involved how the district would grow/look in the future.
Tr819. Turner thought he could still win his district but it would be harder for an African American
coming after him. Tr820. Downton said they were concerned with retrogression if they reduced his
BVAP, and could not accommodate him while getting HD148 above 50% and keeping HD140
where it was. Tr939.
468. The delegation reached an agreement (Plan H271) that was set out as Amendment 24 to
Woolley’s amendment. TrJ1315, TrJ1334 (Coleman). Everyone from the Harris County delegation
supported the changes. TrJ1316. Woolley laid out Amendment No. 23 to Harris County (H191), and
Coleman Amendment No. 24 (H271) to that amendment, reflecting the changes made through
negotiations among Harris County members. D-13 at S206; D-190 at 134-37. Woolley noted on
the floor that “we all worked together in the back room.” D-13 at S207. At Woolley’s request,
Coleman assured Woolley that his district, HD147, which went from 39.2% to 38.2% BVAP, was
still an African-American opportunity district and was not retrogressed. Id. Woolley moved for
adoption of Plan 191 as amended by Coleman’s amendment Plan H271, and it was adopted, as
amended. D-13 at S208. The amendment was acceptable to the author and not subject to a vote, but
the whole House approved it. TrJ1336 (Coleman); Tr934 (Downton). The amendment did not
remedy Coleman’s prior concerns about 24 seats and pairing Vo and Hochberg, and that remained
in the final map. TrJ1316 (Coleman).
469. Plan H271 (Amendments 23 and 24) made changes mostly to Democrat/minority districts,
including HD131, HD137, HD139, HD140, HD141, HD143, HD145, HD146, HD147, and HD148,
but also changed two Republican districts, HD134 (S. Davis) and HD136 (Woolley). However, the
changes to Woolley’s district were entirely due to Woolley’s pre-filed amendment Plan H271, and
thus were not the result of any compromise with Democrat members. Some changes to S. Davis’s
district are from Woolley’s amendment, but further changes were made in Plan H271 that appear to
be the result of compromise. HD137 lost some population to HD134, possibly at Hochberg’s
request. TrJ1359-61 (Vo). Changes were made to HD148 that did not lower its SSVR. Rep. Farrar
testified that she had to ask her colleagues for precincts that would “drop the white number and
increase the Hispanic number,” which she thought was a disservice to both groups of voters. Farrar
2014 depo. at 37. Changes to HD145 included narrowing a part of the district that created a bridge
between the northwest and southeastern parts of the district, which Downton testified was done at
the request of Democrats. Tr935 (Downton).
470. Later, Rep. Martinez Fischer laid forth Amendment No. 33 (H200) focusing on Harris County.
Rep. Walle asserted that Plan H153 violated the VRA and Texas Constitution in Harris County, and
the MALC plan remedied the issues. Walle stated that reducing the number of districts to 24 diluted
minority representation in Harris County, and that Plan H153 packed existing Latino opportunity
districts and failed to create any new Latino opportunity districts. D-13 at S230. Walle and
Hochberg asserted that HD137 was a protected district. Id. at S231. Hochberg noted that the LRB
had stated his district HD137 was a fifth majority HVAP district when submitting it for preclearance,
but that it had not been treated as a protected district. Id. at S232. Hochberg pointed out that there
was a VTD split that actually split an apartment complex and that the map cut the Sharpstown
community of interest (this was fixed). Id. Walle complained about the loss of Vo’s district and
dilution of the Asian vote. Id. at S234. Vo and Walle discussed that HD149 was a majority-minority
district, with about 20% Asians, 20% Hispanics, and 20% African Americans. Vo noted that
witnesses had come to testify to support HD149, and hundreds of emails had been sent to the
members of the HRC. Id. at S233. Solomons stated that he believed the map was legal, that HD137
and HD149 were not protected districts, and moved to table. Id. at S234. Walle stated that “we were
not informed that a 24 map was going to be submitted. Okay. That map was submitted to you
without any of the other democratic members from Harris County being informed of such map. And
that’s the issue that many of us from Harris County have is that we were not informed that those
maps had been submitted, signed off on, a 24 map. When we were trying to negotiate to get a 25
map. And for us, we take that very personally because one, you are eliminating Representative
Hubert Vo and pairing him with Representative Hochberg. And at the same time packing the other
Latino - other majority minority districts. So for us, the process wasn’t clean for us.” Id. at S235.
Walle also asked why nearly every minority-majority district in Harris County was overpopulated,
which Solomons did not answer. The amendment was tabled. D-13 at S236.
471. Alvarado set forth Amendment No. 37 (Plan H226), a statewide map that had 25 Harris County
districts and “maximizes minority majority opportunity districts.” D-13 at S245. She stated that it
has 57 total districts where minority voters can elect a candidate of choice and created five new
coalition districts. Alvarado pointed out that Harris County had been rounded up for “the last couple
of decades.” Id. She also stated that a good portion of the Harris County delegation did not have
input into the first map that was drawn at 24, and that it was not member-driven. Id. Solomons
moved to table, stating that the committee map was legal and increased the number of minoritymajority districts to 30, that there were 2 BVAP over 50% districts, and that other maps broke county
lines. Id. at S246. He also stated that the proposed map created 25 districts in violation of the Texas
Constitution. The amendment was tabled. D-13 at S247.
472. Coleman offered Amendment 38 (Plan H232), his statewide plan. He said that minority
population was responsible for over 100% of Harris County population growth because Anglo
population decreased by over 82,000. He stated that Plan H232 would create an additional Latino
opportunity district (HD138), an additional minority coalition district (HD132 that is 67.3% nonAnglo VAP), and preserve HD149 as an 80% non-Anglo district. The map would provide minority
opportunity in 58% of the districts in a county that was 67% non-Anglo, compared to 46% in Plan
H153. D-13 at S248; see also Joint Expert Ex. E-3 (Lichtman Report) at 9-14; Tr1230 (Lichtman).
473. Some time after Plan H271 was adopted, Rep. Thompson (African American, Democrat)
wanted changes. Tr936 (Downton); Tr1475 (Interiano). Speaker Straus asked Interiano to go to back
and work with her and every member that would be impacted. Tr1475. Both Republican and
Democrat members were involved. Tr1430-31 (Interiano). Other members who were affected by
the changes were included in her meeting with the Speaker’s staff, including Harold Dutton (African
American, Democrat) and Dan Huberty (Anglo, Republican), and they both agreed to changes that
affected their districts. TrJ1276 (Thompson). There were also some precinct swaps with other
members, including Walle. TrJ1277 (Thompson). Republican districts around Thompson’s HD141
changed to accommodate her requests, including HD126 (Harless), HD127 (Huberty), HD128
(Smith), and HD150 (Riddle). Interiano Decl. (docket no. 370) ¶ 6; Tr936 (Downton); TrJ1258,
TrJ1276 (Thompson). HD141 ended up above 50% BVAP, which made it the third such district in
the state. Tr936. Thompson was “85% happy” with her district. TrJ1275 (Thompson). The agreed
changes were proposed by Smith as Amendment 4 during third reading. Tr936.
474. On April 28, the House debated third reading. TrJ1947; D-190 at S846. Solomons noted that
there were a few agreed-to amendments “that help make the bill better, and they’ll be acceptable to
the author, I believe.” D-190 at S846. Smith (Anglo, Republican) proposed the amendment to
several districts in Harris County (Plan H281, affecting 126, 127, 128, 139, 141, 142, 143, and 150,
as agreed to by members working with Thompson), and it was adopted. D-190 at S846; D-53(4)
(map). Just before final passage, Rep. Allen (African-American, Democrat) realized that her district
office was left out of her district, so they drew a line with as little population as possible to connect
her district (HD131) to her district office, and that caused the little island of HD131 in the middle
of HD146. Tr937 (Downton). Allen offered the amendment (H282), and it was acceptable to the
author. It was adopted. D-190 at S848; D-53(5) (map); TrJ1610 (Interiano).
475. While some improvements were made to minority districts during the process, minority
members still were not happy with their districts, and they felt that the Anglo members were 100%
satisfied with their districts while minorities were not. TrJ1253, TrJ1281 (Thompson). AfricanAmerican legislators were not very successful in getting changes made to their districts in a way they
wanted. TrJ1257 (Thompson). Plan H283 did not address concerns about the pairing of Vo and
Hochberg and elimination of HD149 or the fragmentation of the Asian community. TrJ1361 (Vo).
Coleman, Vo, and other minority members of the Harris County delegation did not support Plan
H283. TrJ1317 (Coleman); TrJ1362 (Vo).
476. Sarah Winkler, a lay witness from Alief, testified that the new configuration essentially
destroyed the coalition and that minority voters’ voices would be lost. Tr427-28. She also thought
there would be voter confusion. Tr427. Calvert testified that Plan H283 paired two districts that
were very representative of the minority coalition, eliminating one, and that it also fractured the
concentration of minorities in that area. Tr422.
477. Instead of reflecting the minority population growth, Plan H283 eliminates a minority coalition
district, HD149, and does not create any new districts where minority voters can elect candidates of
their choice. Tr339 (Martin); TrJ1438 (Korbel). Kousser opined that the only change that might be
thought to have increased Latino representation between Plan H113 and Plan H283 was the increase
in HCVAP/SSVR in HD148, but that “merely further packed a district in which Latino voters had
been able to elect their candidates of choice for at least a generation.” Joint Expert Ex. E-2 at 71.
Martin opined that the benchmark had six African-American districts, five Hispanic districts, and
HD149 that were electing minority candidates of choice; Plan H283 eliminated HD149, thus
reducing the number of effective minority districts from twelve to eleven. Tr352 (Martin). Martin
opined that the reduction in minority opportunity in Harris County was the result of cracking and
packing. Joint Expert Ex. E-5 (Martin Report) at 5-7.
478. Murray noted that it would seem logical to delete a district from the east side of the County,
where the growth rate was only about 10%, but that did not happen. Joint Expert Ex. E-4 (Murray
Report) at 27. Instead, he noted that the map moves some of the eastern Harris County Republican
districts slightly west to pick up minority population. Specifically, HD127 shed some of its Anglo/
Republican population to the south into HD128 (to shore it up) and extended westward into Spring,
taking in high performing minority areas and diluting their vote among the Anglo majority. Id. at
28. He stated that HD129 also moved northwest to add racially mixed, heavily populated precincts,
where they would be diluted by the Anglo majority. Id. at 27-28.
479. Martinez Fischer, Martin, and Murray also asserted that there was an effort to maintain Anglo
voting strength at the expense of minorities in HD144 in eastern Harris County. Tr339 (Martin).
Benchmark HD144, which was drawn in 2001 as a majority-Anglo district and was represented by
Anglo Republican Legler, had an Anglo VAP of 36.3% and a Hispanic VAP of 50.3% (but only
31.5% total SSVR and 34.8% HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data). In 2008, Legler defeated
Democrat Redmond by only 902 votes (51.15% to 48.85%), though he won with 59.45% of the vote
in the 2010 Republican-tide year. Murray opined that, to prevent HD144 from becoming an
opportunity district and to shore up the Anglo Republican incumbent, three predominantly Anglo
precincts with a vote history of opposing minority-supported candidates were added to HD144 from
HD129, seven mixed-race majority precincts and one majority black precinct were removed from
HD144, and the district was extended to the east north of the ship channel to pick up sizeable
Hispanic areas, but not in sufficient voter numbers to threaten the Anglo incumbent. Joint Expert
Ex-4 (Murray report) at 28.
480. In Plan H283, HD144 is underpopulated by 5,759 people (-3.44%), and its Anglo VAP is
increased to 42.8% and Hispanic VAP decreased to 48.5%. Martin testified that HD144 picked up
Anglo population and shed Latino population into HD145 and HD147, which were overpopulated,
but retained enough Latino population that that population was not available to create additional
minority districts. Tr340-42. Martin testified that Latino voting strength could be increased by
putting the Latinos that were removed back in and not underpopulating the district. Tr341. Martin
asserted that the map retrogressed HD144 by reducing the Hispanic VAP from 50.3% to 48.5% and
reducing the BVAP by 2.6% (from 7.8% to 5.2%).
481. Martin further noted that, in Plan H283, both HD145 and HD148 are elongated for miles, with
HD145 extending north and west of downtown Houston for the first time since the district was
created to take core Heights precincts from HD148 and beyond that, all the way to the 610/290
interchange. HD145 stretches roughly 25 miles across the city. Tr342-43; Joint Expert Ex-5 (Martin
Report) at 6. Martin further opined that putting the HD144 population into HD145 and
overpopulating it, shoving it north and taking population that had been in HD148, as well as
artificially packing HD148, had the effect of preventing the creation of another minority opportunity
district. Tr345 (Martin). HD148 has one of the lowest perimeter-to-area compactness scores (.099)
in Plan H283. HD145 is the least compact using the area-to-smallest circle compactness measure.
Giberson depo. at 47.
482. Martin opined that high-growth minority areas in west Harris County were cracked.
Benchmark HD132 (Callegari (R)) was only 43.8% Anglo VAP and HD135 was only 38.8% Anglo
VAP, reflecting an area of rapid minority growth in West Harris County along and west of State
Highway 6, north of I-10 and south of 290. Martin asserted that neither district was yet effective for
minority voters, but plans H232 and H287 (24-district plans) show that an effective majorityminority district can be drawn in the area, while instead the State split this minority growth area
among three Anglo-controlled districts 132, 135, and 138. Joint Expert Ex. E-5 (Martin Report) at
7. Murray noted that HD133 elected Kristi Thibaut, a Democrat, in 2008, but she was defeated in
2010 during the “Tea Party tsunami.” Joint Expert Ex. E-4 at 31. To shore up the Anglo Republican
incumbent, minority precincts were moved from HD133 to HD137, and high turnout Anglo precincts
were added. Id.
483. Murray opined that mapdrawers used the artificial 50% SSVR threshold to unnecessarily pack
large Hispanic majorities into just four districts (HD140, HD143, HD145, and HD148), without a
showing that a 50% SSVR majority was needed for the districts to be effective. Joint Expert Ex. E-4
(Murray report) at 29. He asserted that Hispanics are otherwise packed into African-American
districts or diluted in Anglo-dominated districts. Thus, although Hispanics are 41% of the Harris
County population, they can elect their candidates of choice in only five districts of twenty-four
districts (the four Latino SSVR majority districts and HD137, where they can be an effective part
of a coalition district). Id. He also opined that African-American voters are packed into the existing
African-American districts (131, 138, 141, 142, 146, & 147). Id.
484. Despite Hanna’s second retrogression memo stating that “consideration should also be given
as to whether a fifth majority Hispanic district could be drawn in Harris County” and whether it
would be required by § 2 of the VRA, D-327, mapdrawers Downton and Interiano did not try to
determine if an additional Hispanic opportunity district could be drawn in Harris County. Downton
testified that “it may have been possible” to draw a new Hispanic opportunity district in Harris
County. TrJ2051-52. He stated that they “definitely could have created another district with a
sizable Hispanic population” but he was not sure if they could have created another Hispanic
majority district, and it was not something he worked on. TrJ2052. He was not sure if anyone
worked on one. TrJ2053. Interiano also did not work to see what else was possible because the
delegation was working on it. Tr1450 (Interiano). Hanna was able to draw an additional minority
opportunity district within Harris County, though doing so likely would not have been popular with
the Harris County incumbents (Republicans would not like it because they would lose a Republican
district and Democrats would not like it because their districts would be rearranged). TrJ1207,
TrJ1217-18 (Hanna). However, he did not run any election analysis on such a district. TrJ1218.
485. Anglos make up only 33% of Harris County population, but would control 54% (13 of 24) of
the House Districts in Plan H283. Joint Expert Ex. E-5 (Martin Report) at 5; TrJ1245 (Thompson).
486. It is possible to preserve HD148, HD137, and HD149 with only 24 districts and create an
additional Latino opportunity district, as was done in the Court’s interim plan H309. TrJ138. Plan
H309 eliminated Woolley’s district HD136 because she retired. Plan H309 creates an additional
HCVAP-majority district HD144 in eastern Harris County. PL-689.
487. The Legislative Black Caucus introduced two House plans—H202 and H214. Tr803 (Turner).
Plan H214 had 25 districts in Harris County and Plan H202 had 24. When Solomons’ map came out,
Harris County had 24 districts, so they proceeded with H202 and did not introduce Plan H214 as an
amendment. Tr804 (Turner). Plan H202 was a 24-district map that eliminated HD144 (represented
by Anglo Republican Legler). It maintained the three benchmark HCVAP majority districts HD140,
HD143, and HD145. It also maintained the six African-American districts (though two districts are
below 50% BCVAP—HD146 is 48.7% (+/- 1.7%) and HD147 is 48% (+/- 1.5%). It also maintained
HD148 as 44.1% HCVAP, HD137 as a minority-majority coalition CVAP district, and HD149 as
a majority-minority coalition CVAP district. Therefore, H202 maintained the same number of
minority districts in Harris County as the benchmark based on demographics.
488. Plan H232 is a 24-district plan introduced by Coleman during second reading. It eliminates
HD126, an Anglo/Republican district. This plan maintains the three benchmark HCVAP majority
districts (HD131, HD143, and HD145) and the six benchmark African-American districts (though
BCVAP in HD147 is 49.3% (+/- 1.3%)). It maintains HD148 as a 42.3% HCVAP district and
maintains HD137 and HD149 as multi-ethnic minority-majority CVAP districts. Both HD132 and
HD135 are majority-minority VAP (HD132 is 32.7% Anglo VAP, and HD135 is 46.6% Anglo
VAP), but neither district is a majority VAP for a single minority. Further, both districts are majority
Anglo CVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data: HD132 is 50.1% Anglo CVAP (and thus would probably
not be majority Anglo CVAP using 2008-2012 ACS data), and HD135 is 59.2% Anglo CVAP. See
also Joint Expert Ex. E-3 (Lichtman Report) at 9-14.
489. Plan H286 is LULAC’s proposed Gingles 24-district Harris County map. LULAC-12-2A. It
has four HCVAP-majority districts (HD1, 2, 3, & 4), and two of those are SSVR-majority districts
(HD1 & 3). It has four districts that appear to be African-American districts, with BVAP of 39.4%
(HD7), 48% (HD10), 56% (HD12), and 40.2% (HD13). Two of those (HD10 & 12) are BCVAPmajority districts. HD5 is 31.9% BVAP but 45.2% BCVAP (so it would be either an AfricanAmerican district or a minority-coalition district (it is 33.1% HCVAP and only 17.9% Anglo
CVAP). Four additional districts are majority-minority CVAP coalition districts (HD6, with 47.4%
Anglo CVAP; HD9, with 36% Anglo CVAP; HD14, with 47.6% Anglo CVAP; and HD16, with
28.2% Anglo CVAP).
490. The Perez Plaintiffs offered Plan H287 (24 districts) for Harris County with 1.81% deviation
that remedied the pairing of Hochberg and Vo, preserved all existing minority districts, and added
two additional minority coalition districts. Joint Expert Ex-5 (Martin report) at 7; Tr357-61
(Martin); Perez-113. HD126, an Anglo/Republican district, is eliminated and HD149 is retained.
Martin testified that by taking out the overpopulation of districts in the Alief area, HD149 could be
re-created, and by fixing deviations and cracking, two more minority opportunity districts—HD132
and HD138—could be created. Tr360-61. Plan H287 maintains the three HCVAP-majority districts
from the benchmark—HD140, HD143, and HD145. It also maintains the six BVAP districts (one
of the districts, HD147, drops slightly below 50% BCVAP at 49.5%, but the margin of error is 1.3%,
and in any event the mapdrawers were only looking at BVAP for African-American districts).
HD148 (Farrar) is a majority-minority CVAP district (Anglo CVAP is 43%), but not a majorityHCVAP district (HCVAP is 43.5%). HD137 and HD149 are maintained as majority-minority
CVAP coalition districts. And HD132 and HD138 are added as majority-minority CVAP coalition
districts. HD132 is 31.6% Anglo VAP and 49.8% Anglo CVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data. No
single minority group is over 50% CVAP, so this would be a coalition district. Similarly, HD138
is 47% Anglo CVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data, while HCVAP is 35.9% and BCVAP is 12.5%.
Martin testified this map was much more reflective of the demographics of the County and
recognized the substantial minority population growth. Tr362.
491. Demonstration plan H205 (Martinez Fischer statewide substitute) would create 25 districts in
Harris County. V. Gonzales depo. at 33-34, 40. With 25 districts, sufficient Latino population
remained in HD144 to make it a new HCVAP-majority district. Alvarado Decl. (docket no. 331)
at 5; Hochberg Decl. (docket no. 331) at 3. It has four HCVAP-majority districts using 2005-2009
ACS data: HD140 (55.7%); HD143 (52.6%); HD144 (53%); and HD145 (53.8%). These districts
also have non-suspense SSVR over 50%. HD144 in Plan H205 is a compact majority-HCVAP
district. HD148 is 35.7% non-suspense SSVR, 41.1% HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data, and
54.6% HVAP. H205 has two BCVAP-majority districts (HD139, 59.8% and HD147, 58%) and four
additional districts with BCVAP in the 40s (HD131, 47.5%; HD141, 49.2%; HD142, 44.8%; and
HD146, 44%). H205 has five districts with BVAP over 40%: HD131 (41.4%; HD139 (49.1%);
HD141 (43.2%); HD142 (40.3%); and HD147 (50.8%)) and one district with BVAP of 36.4%
(HD146). HD137 and HD149 are maintained as majority-minority CVAP coalition districts (HD137
is 33.1% Anglo CVAP, and HD149 is 28.2% Anglo CVAP) and B+CVAP in these districts is
greater than 50%. Three additional districts (HD133, HD136, and HD138) are majority-minority
CVAP, but H+BCVAP is less than 50%.
492. Plan H214 was a Legislative Black Caucus statewide substitute plan with 25 districts in Harris
County. It maintained the three HCVAP/SSVR majority districts, 140, 143, and 145. It maintained
the six African-American districts, though HD146 and HD147 fell slightly below 50% BCVAP. It
maintained HD137 as a majority-minority CVAP district (Anglo CVAP 34.4%) and maintained
HD149 as a majority-minority coalition district (Anglo CVAP 23.4%). It did not create any new
minority opportunity districts.
493. MALC offered Plan H295, which created HD144 in Harris County with 51.4% SSVR.
494. The population deviation of Harris County in Plan H283 is 9.74%. Tr356 (Martin). Martin
testified that it was easy to draw a plan with a deviation of only 1.81%. Tr357.
495. Alvarado noted that three of four Latino-majority districts (HD140 (1.85%), HD145 (1.9%),
and HD148 (4.59%)) were overpopulated, and four of six African-American districts (HD131,
HD139 (4.83%), HD146 (4.09%), and HD147 (4.91%)) were overpopulated. Alvarado decl. (docket
no. 331) at ¶ 11a. She opined that this uses up minority population unnecessarily and limits the
ability to draw new districts. Alvarado Decl. (docket no. 331) at 5; Hochberg Decl. (docket no. 331)
496. One would expect Harris County districts to be overpopulated compared to the statewide ideal
because there was enough population for 24.41 districts. Because the Legislature chose to go with
24 districts, there was enough population to have all districts be at ideal population or above.
However, six districts (three Anglo Republican and three Democrat) were underpopulated. All other
districts were overpopulated. HD147, an African-American district, is the most overpopulated
district in Harris County (4.91%). And HD142, also an African-American district, is the most
underpopulated district in Harris County (-4.83%). Dr. Arrington noted that minority districts in
Harris County were drawn with larger populations than the Anglo Republican districts. US-356
(Arrington report) at 28. The overpopulated Anglo Republican districts are populated as follows
compared to the statewide ideal: .97, .55, 2.45, 4.71, 3.18, 3.22, 4.05, 2.85, 3.23, .65. The
overpopulated minority districts are populated as follows compared to the statewide ideal: 4.53, 3.56,
4.83, 1.85, 1.9, 4.09, 4.91, 4.59.
497. Interiano stated that, given the choice to have 24 districts in Harris County, the ideal population
size for a district in the County was 170,519, slightly higher than the ideal state district size
(167,637). Interiano Decl. (docket no. 370-2) at ¶ 2. He stated, for example, that HD140 and
HD145 are populated at 170,732 and 170,821, respectively, which is almost the ideal county size,
but several thousand above ideal state size. Interiano stated, “This overpopulation is due to the fact
that Harris County was awarded twenty-four districts, not in order to avoid drawing an additional
minority opportunity district. With that said, there were several instances where it was necessary to
increase the population of a particular district either because a member specifically requested to have
certain precincts and was unwilling to give up other populations or because the population was
needed in order to maintain certain benchmarks, like the 50% Spanish Surname Voter Registration
(SSVR) for Latinos or the existing levels of African-American voting age population.” Interiano
Decl. (docket no. 370-2).
498. In Harris County, Bill White got 50.23% and Obama got 50.44% of the vote. Tr337(Martin).
499. Arrington testified that coalition districts are effective districts in the sense that one or more
of the racial groups in coalition have an ability to elect their first choice candidate in the district,
even if they oppose each other in the primary, though he found no evidence of that in HD149.
500. Dr. Engstrom (Joint Expert Ex. E-7) found that Latino voters are highly cohesive in support
of Latino candidates with Democratic primary nominations in the general election. All five of such
candidates received strong support (75-83%). The only Republican Latino in the general election,
Eva Guzman, did not. All Latino candidates in Democratic primaries also received Latino support
(78.1% bivariate and 59-87.8% multivariate). Latinos voting in Republican primaries also supported
the Latino running for Railroad Commissioner but not for Governor. While non-Latino voters
overall did not provide majority support for the two Latino candidates endorsed by the Democratic
party in the 2008 election, they did provide all three such candidates with slight majorities in 2010,
though it appears to be a function of very high African-American support for these candidates (98%
of their vote, whereas other voters ranged from 15 to 24.7%) The only Latino Republican received
a slight majority of support from non-Latino voters overall, but multivariate showed AfricanAmerican support was less than 2% while others was 81.1%. Non-Latino voters in Harris County
provided a slight majority of their votes to just one of the Latino candidates seeking the nomination
in the Democratic primary. In the multivariate analysis, African Americans provided a majority of
their votes to two of the Latino candidates favored by Latinos, while the other voters provided
majorities of their votes to only one. In Republican primaries, African Americans and Latinos
supported the incumbent candidate for Railroad Commissioner, while others did not, and neither
favored the Latino candidate for Governor. The analysis reveals that Latinos are very cohesive in
their candidate preference for Democratic Latino candidates in general elections and that is shared
by African Americans in these elections, but not other voters. The analyses of the Democratic
primary elections show Latinos to be likewise cohesive in their preferences for Latinos, but this
preference was not generally shared by the rest of the primary voters.
501. In his corrected rebuttal report (docket no. 307-1), Dr. Engstrom found racially polarized voting
in Harris County. In general elections, Latinos were very cohesive in their support for Latino
candidates with the Democratic party nomination, and that preference was shared by African
Americans but not by other voters, whose support did not exceed 30%. Latinos are also very
cohesive in their support for Latino candidates in the Democratic primaries, but these preferences
are not usually shared by non-Latinos, and African Americans were least likely to share the
502. Data from 2008 and 2010 in Harris County show “almost zero black voting in the Republican
Primaries, and very, very little Hispanic participation.” Joint Expert Ex. E-4 (Murray Report) at 19.
503. Plaintiffs provided lay testimony of tri-ethnic cohesion. Sarah Winkler provided lay testimony
that the minority coalition in Alief is able to elect candidates of choice to the Texas House in HD137
and HD149. Tr426. Rep. Turner testified that Asians, Latinos, and African Americans have worked
together to pick someone of their choice in HD137 and HD149. Tr827. Rep. Thompson testified
that, in Harris County, African Americans, Latinos, and Asians work in cooperation together
politically. TrJ1256. Thompson, who is African American, is supported by the Latino community
and has supported many in the Latino community. Id.
504. 48.1% of Hispanics in Harris County lack a high school education, compared to 22.6% of the
total population of Harris County. Joint Expert Ex. E-1 (Chapa Report) Table 4. The median
household income for Hispanics is $37,520, compared to $50,567 for the total population of the
County. Id. Table 5. Per capita income for Hispanics was $14,103, while for non-Hispanic Anglos
it was $43,902. Id. 31.42% of Hispanic children live in poverty, compared to 7.08% of nonHispanic Anglo children. Joint Expert Ex. E-9 (Gonzalez-Baker Report) Table 8.
505. Murray noted that the King Street Patriots, a Tea Party affiliate, used “ballot security” programs
in Houston aimed at suppressing African-American and Hispanic voting in October and November
2010. Joint Expert Ex. E-4 (Murray Report) at 17. They monitored early and in-person voting at
Harris County polling places in minority neighborhoods, and there were a number of confrontations
with voters and election officials at minority polling places. Id.14 Murray also noted that the Harris
County Tax Assessor-Collector and Registrar of Voters Paul Bettencourt used his position in 2008
to slow the rise in voter registrations that year among younger, mostly minority applicants by
rejecting thousands of applications for minor errors and creating a backlog of unprocessed voter
registration cards. These actions resulted in a lawsuit alleging violations of the VRA. Id.
506. The Harris County map was drawn primarily by the Anglo Republican members of the
delegation (and their mapdrawer) without any input from minorities or Democrats. Downton made
some changes to their map to try to match benchmark numbers for the minority districts, and he used
race to do so. During second reading, Democrats were able to make some changes to the map within
limitations placed upon them, including that they could not alter the Republican districts. Rep.
Thompson was able to get further negotiated changes to the map that were agreed upon by some
507. Because Harris County went from 25 to 24, one district was eliminated, and the Harris County
Republican delegation chose to pair Hochberg and Vo and eliminate Vo’s district HD149. HD149
was a multi-ethnic district that had been electing Vo, the first Vietnamese-American representative,
since 2004. The pairing was viewed as favoring Hochberg, an Anglo, over Vo. Because no single
minority group was over 50% HCVAP or VAP, mapdrawers took the position that the district was
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee also testified about the King Street Patriots engaging in voter
intimidation in minority areas. Tr1533, Tr1536 (Jackson Lee).
508. Plan H283 eliminated HD149 and did not create any new minority ability districts despite the
fact that all the growth in Harris County was due to minorities. Mapdrawers increased the SSVR
of HD148, a district that was already strongly performing for Latinos, above 50% in order to offset
the loss of an SSVR-majority district in Nueces County, and claimed it was a new Latino opportunity
district. Mapdrawers did not look at and were not concerned with whether this increase improved
Latino electoral ability in HD148; they increased the Hispanic population solely to bring the district
above 50% SSVR.
509. HD144, which had become 50.3% HVAP, was reconfigured to protect the Anglo Republican
incumbent, resulting in a district that was underpopulated and was 48.5% HVAP.
510. Representatives from the Asian community in southwest Harris County testified repeatedly that
they wanted to be kept together in a district, but the Asian community was split among several
districts in Plan H283.
Fort Bend County
511. In Plan H100, HD26 and HD27 are wholly contained within Fort Bend County, with the
remainder of Fort Bend County being connected in HD28 with Waller County and Wharton County.
512. HD26 was 39.4% Anglo in terms of total population, 41.9% Anglo VAP, and 53.5% Anglo
CVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data (but only 48.2% Anglo CVAP using 2008-2012 ACS data).
HD26 was represented by Rep. Howard, an Anglo Republican.
513. HD27 was 25.1% Anglo in terms of total population, 27.5% Anglo VAP, and 34.5% Anglo
CVAP (using 2005-2009 ACS data). Its BCVAP was 36.4% and its HCVAP was 23.2%. Red-106
Report. HD27 was represented by Rep. Reynolds, an African-American Democrat.
514. HD28 was 46.6% Anglo in terms of total population, 41.9% Anglo VAP, and 59% Anglo
CVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data. HD28 was represented by Rep. Zerwas, an Anglo Republican.
515. In 2010, Fort Bend County was 36.2% Anglo (and 38.7% Anglo VAP). D-58. Fort Bend
County has a substantial Asian-American population. TrJ1454 (Korbel).
516. Fort Bend County was one of the suburban areas with high population growth, warranting a
new district in the area. TrJ1535 (Interiano). Fort Bend County was not a drop-in county because
there was spillover. TrJ1603 (Interiano). Due to the growth in Fort Bend County, it went from two
districts with spillover population to three districts with spillover population, and the Legislature
placed new HD85 there.
517. Interiano worked with the three incumbent delegation members because it was not a drop-in
county. The delegation members had to work together to create their districts within the confines
of the county, and Interiano had to provide constant feedback on how many counties and which ones
they would be pulling in to join with the spillover population. TrJ1603 (Interiano). The mapdrawers
could have combined the spillover with two, three, or four counties, and that would have an impact
across the rest of the map. The location of the incumbents’ homes was a constraint on drawing the
districts. Rep. Reynolds lives in the southern part of HD27 but wanted population located to the
north. TrJ1604 (Interiano). Reynolds also lives in a very Republican part of the city and he wanted
to make sure that the community that he lived in stayed entirely together. TrJ1605 (Interiano).
Putting Reynolds in the new HD85 would not have given him a chance to be re-elected. TrJ1606
(Interiano). They also tried to keep the districts similar in size; they were on the low end because
they “ultimately ended up pairing the spillover from Fort Bend County with only 2 counties,” so they
needed the spillover population from Fort Bend County to be higher. All members of the Fort Bend
County delegation agreed to the configuration. TrJ1608 (Interiano); D-229 at 51, 98, 120.
518. The delegation-agreed map was put into Plan H113, the first public map. The configuration
of the Fort Bend County districts did not change, and thus were the same in the enacted Plan H283.
In Plan H113 and Plan H283, HD26, HD27, and HD28 are wholly within Fort Bend County, and the
remainder of Fort Bend County is joined in HD85 with Wharton and Jackson Counties.
519. At the April 15 HRC hearing, Rogene Calvert of the Texas Asian American Redistricting
Initiative complained about the proposed configuration of HD26 in Fort Bend County, which had
one of the largest Asian-American populations, stating that they had hoped for two more compact
districts to protect their strength. D-595 at 184. She had also testified at the Houston field hearing
on November 20, 2010 about the Asian population in Harris County and Fort Bend County, and had
asked that the Asian community be kept together. D-117; US-461 at 3.
520. During the April 27 floor debate, Rep. Walle (Hispanic Democrat from Harris County)
proposed an amendment (Plan H172) that would have created an Asian, Latino, and AfricanAmerican coalition district based in Sugar Land. D-13 at S174, S176. This plan left HD27 the same
as in the committee plan but changed the configuration of HD26, HD28, and HD85. Walle said that
the proposed amendment would put over 30% “other” population (Asian Americans) into HD26, and
it would be a coalition district with an opportunity for Asians to reflect the Asian population growth
in Fort Bend County. Walle contended that the growing Asian population in Fort Bend County
needed representation. D-13 at S177-78. He stated the committee map was convoluted and violated
the city boundaries; it split precincts, fractured the City of Sugar Land, and diluted Asian voting
power in Fort Bend County. Id. at S174. Rep. Howard (Anglo Republican), who represented HD26,
noted that the members of the area had agreed on the plan, that much of the Asian community was
concentrated in his district, and that he felt he had adequately represented them and that they had
“overwhelmingly voted” for him. Id. at S177. Walle argued that Asians needed representation and
that it was also wrong to eliminate Vo’s district HD149 in Harris County. Id. at S176. The
amendment was tabled. Id. at S178.
521. Rep. Turner (African American, Democrat) proposed Plan H202 during the April 27 floor
debate. It placed HD26, HD27, and H28 wholly inside Fort Bend County, and joined the surplus
with Waller County and Washington County in HD13. HD26 (Fort Bend County) in H202 is 12.9%
HCVAP, 14.5% BCVAP, 23.8% Asian CVAP, and is majority-minority CVAP using 2005-2009
ACS. Tr841-42 (Fairfax); Joint Map Ex. J-25. This would be a tri-ethnic coalition district.
522. Rep. Coleman (African American, Democrat) proposed Plan H232. He said that Fort Bend
County was 62% non-Anglo and his substitute created a 70% non-Anglo coalition district HD28 in
addition to African-American HD27 (with 43.9% BCVAP). D-13 at S248. This map kept HD26,
HD27, and HD28 wholly within Fort Bend County, and joined the excess Fort Bend population with
Waller County and Wharton County in HD126. HD28 was 40.4% Anglo CVAP, and majorityminority HCVAP (25% HCVAP, 19.9% BCVAP, and 13.7% Asian CVAP). This would be a triethnic coalition district. See also Joint Expert Ex. E-3 (Lichtman Report) at 9-14; Tr1230
523. As noted, no amendments were adopted or changes made to the Fort Bend County districts.
In Plan H283, HD26 is 57.3% Anglo CVAP; HD27 is 30.8% Anglo CVAP; HD28 is 58.9% Anglo
CVAP, and HD85 is 52.5% Anglo CVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data.
524. Using 2008-2010 ACS data, HD27 had a combined B+HCVAP of 62% and Anglo CVAP of
26.8%. TrJ1420 (Korbel); D-109. BCVAP alone is 46.4%. HD85 is 42.9% H+BCVAP and 49.4%
Anglo CVAP (+/- 1.2%). HD26 is 51.8% Anglo CVAP and HD28 is 55.2% HCVAP. D-109.
Korbel testified that HD27 is a minority opportunity district but the other districts are not. TrJ1417.
525. Martin noted that Fort Bend County is only 38% Anglo in terms of voting age population, but
in Plan H283, Anglo voters would control 71% of the 3.5 districts in Fort Bend County. Joint Expert
Ex. E-5 (Martin Report) at 12. Relying on racial shading maps by VTD, he opined that this partisan
gerrymander was achieved by splitting the minority community outside the African-American
opportunity district HD27 among Districts 26, 28, and 85 (which extends into neighboring rural
counties). Id. Korbel testified that HD27 is packed with minorities and the remaining minority
population is cracked among the other districts that will not provide minority opportunity. TrJ1417.
The Legislature spread the minority population of Fort Bend County into four districts. TrJ1416
526. Korbel testified that HD26 is an odd-shaped district that does not appear to follow traditional
redistricting principles of compactness and respecting communities of interest. TrJ1413-14.
However, his report did not provide information about factors such as rivers, city boundaries, roads,
or political data that might account for district boundaries. TrJ1455 (Korbel). Interiano testified that
the HD26 lines partly track precinct lines and natural boundaries, and also reflect the goal of trying
to keep a balance of Republican strength between HD26 and 28. TrJ1607.
527. The population growth in Fort Bend, Wharton, and Jackson Counties was 80% minority.
TrJ1411 (Korbel). Asian, Hispanic, and African-American growth all exceeded Anglo growth, and
there was sufficient total minority population growth in Fort Bend County to populate a new district.
MALC-154; Joint Expert Ex. E-5 (Martin Report) at 12; Joint Expert Ex. E-4 (Murray Report) at
29. The growth meant the Legislature created a new district there, and although there were roughly
140,000 more minorities added to the area than Anglos, no minority opportunity district was created.
TrJ1411-12 (Korbel); Joint Ex-5 (Martin Report) at 12; Joint Expert Ex. E-4 (Murray Report) at 29.
Martin opined that the Legislature failed to draw an additional coalition district in Fort Bend County
even though one could have been drawn. Tr404 (Martin). Interiano testified that the mapdrawers
looked at whether to put a new minority opportunity district in Fort Bend but decided not to because
it would have been a coalition district, and they did not feel that § 2 required it. TrJ1571, TrA66
(Interiano). The mapdrawers also did not believe they had an obligation to provide an opportunity
for minority growth; instead they chose to draw the districts to keep them Republican throughout the
decade. TrA67 (Interiano).
528. The Perez Plaintiff’s Gingles demonstration plan H290 is a three-district plan. Joint Map Ex.
J-35. It contains an African-American district (HD27) (44.3% BCVAP) and a proposed tri-ethnic
minority coalition district (HD28) with an Anglo VAP of 25.5% and a B+HVAP of 52.7%, and
“other” (Asian) VAP of 21.7%. HD28 would have an Anglo CVAP of only 36.2% and 26.3%
HCVAP, 21.8% BCVAP, and 14.7% Asian CVAP, and would be a tri-ethnic coalition. Joint Expert
Ex. E-5 (Martin Report) at 12.
529. MALC offers Gingles plan H329 that would create two minority districts. MALC-126. Using
2008-2012 ACS data, HD27 is 30.3% Anglo CVAP (45.6% BCVAP, 15.9% HCVAP, and 7.3%
Asian CVAP), and HD26 is 37.8% Anglo CVAP (16.5% BCVAP, 13.6% HCVAP, and 30.8% Asian
CVAP). MALC-128. HD28 and HD85 are majority-Anglo CVAP.
530. MALC also offers Gingles demonstration map H361 (H366 is the same), a plug-in map that
MALC contends creates two minority opportunity districts, HD27 and HD85 (a tri-ethnic coalition
district). TrJ1418, TrJ1421 (Korbel); MALC-131. HD27 is similar to that in H283; HD26
encompasses Sugar Land and areas to the south; HD85 encompasses Rosenberg and Richmond and
extends southwest, and HD28 includes the rest of Fort Bend and Wharton County and all of Jackson
County. TrJ1418. In this map, HD27 is 65% B+H in total population and HD85 is 59.9% B+H in
total population, and both are over 12% in “other” (Asian) population. TrJ1419-20 (Korbel). Using
2008-2012 ACS data, HD27 has 25.4%Anglo CVAP and 64.2% B+HCVAP, and HD85 has 34.1%
Anglo CVAP and 54.3% B+HCVAP. TrJ1421 (Korbel). With Asian 10.8% CVAP included, it is
over 64% minority CVAP. TrJ1421. Korbel testified that this area has a tri-ethnic coalition and that
there are no significant compactness differences between H283 and H361. TrJ1421-22 (Korbel).
This would be a minority coalition district. TrJ1455 (Korbel).
531. LULAC offers Plan H285, a four-district plug-in Gingles demonstration map for Fort Bend
County with 1.94% deviation. LULAC 12-2-B; Joint Map Ex. J-30; Tr699 (Korbel). HD27 is the
same as in Plans H361 and H366, and the remaining districts are similar but not identical. Thus,
HD27 is 47.4% BCVAP, and HD85 is a coalition district (28.8% HCVAP, 23% BCVAP, and 8.8%
Asian CVAP). HD26 and HD28 remain Anglo-majority CVAP.
532. Rep. Senfronia Thompson (African American, Democrat) is familiar with Fort Bend County
politically and personally. TrJ1246 (Thompson). She has observed cooperation between African
Americans, Latinos, and Asians in Fort Bend County, and she thinks there should be an Asian
coalition district there. Id. She testified that African Americans and Latinos vote with Asians in that
533. Dr. Brischetto found a high degree of racially polarized voting in Fort Bend County. TrJ969.
Dr. Brischetto found racial bloc voting in general elections in Fort Bend County. TrJ947, TrJ969;
MALC-161. He found that Latinos had a very high cohesiveness. TrJ969. He also found that Anglo
bloc voting was sufficient to usually defeat the Latino-preferred candidate. Id. Brischetto found that
African Americans, Asians, and Latinos were very cohesive in Fort Bend County in the general
elections. TrJ970. He did not conduct a multivariate analysis for the primary elections in Fort Bend
County. TrJ978-79; TrJ1866 (Alford).
534. Based on his analysis of the expert reports in this case, Dr. Alford did not find any evidence
of cohesion among Asian-American, Black, and Hispanic voters in primary elections in Fort Bend
County. TrJ1866 (Alford). He testified that no expert has done a multivariate analysis for Anglo,
Asian, Black, and Hispanic voters in primary elections in Bell or Fort Bend Counties. TrJ1866. He
stated that there was no evidence of cohesion among Asian Americans, Black, and Hispanic voters
in primary elections in Bell or Fort Bend County, and unless their behavior there is remarkably
different from what is seen everywhere else in the state, they would not vote cohesively. TrJ1866-67.
He thinks there is neither political cohesion nor electoral voter cohesion. TrJ1867. His conclusion
about lack of evidence of cohesion in Bell and Fort Bend does not take into account lay witness
testimony about minority cohesion in those areas. TrJ1895 (Alford). His conclusion is based only
on the statistical evidence. Id.
535. In Fort Bend County, 31.7% of Hispanics have less than a high school education, compared
to 11.3% for the entire County population. Joint Expert Ex. E-1 (Chapa Report) Table 4. The percapita income for Hispanics was $18,086, compared to $43,208 for non-Hispanic Anglos. Id. Table
536. The Fort Bend County map was drawn by the incumbents, two Anglo Republicans and an
African-American Democrat, working with Interiano.
537. Fort Bend County had enough growth for a new district to be added there. The mapdrawers did
not put a new minority district in Fort Bend County, despite substantial minority population growth
538. Plans were proposed during the session to create tri-ethnic coalition districts, but mapdrawers
did not feel a coalition district was required. They chose to draw the map so that three districts
would remain Republican throughout the decade.
539. Dr. Brischetto found that Latinos, African Americans, and Asians were very cohesive in
general elections in Fort Bend County. Dr. Brischetto did not conduct a multivariate analysis of the
primary elections. Dr. Alford found no expert evidence of cohesion among Latinos, African
Americans, and Asians in the primary elections. Plaintiffs provided lay testimony of cohesion.
540. In the benchmark plan H100, Dallas County had 16 districts (100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105,
106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, and 115).
541. Four districts were African-American opportunity districts and were represented by AfricanAmerican Democrats: HD100 (Rep. Johnson) (40.3% BVAP, 50.9% BCVAP), HD109 (Rep.
Giddings) (63.9% BVAP, 62.2% BCVAP), HD110 (Rep. Mallory Caraway) (42.2% BVAP, 53%
BCVAP), and HD111 (Rep. Y. Davis) (49.1% BVAP, 54% BCVAP). TrJ145 (Arrington). These
districts were in the southern part of the County.
542. Two districts were considered to be Hispanic districts (only one was majority HCVAP) and
were represented by Hispanic Democrats: HD103 (Rep. Anchia) (69.3% HVAP, 46.5% HCVAP and
14% BCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data, and 38% total SSVR/39.3% non-suspense SSVR) and
HD104 (Rep. Alonzo) (77.2% HVAP, 60.8% HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data, and 56.7% total
SSVR/58.3% non-suspense SSVR). TrJ145 (Arrington); Anchia depo. at 46. These districts were
in the central west part of the County.
543. The ten other districts were Anglo CVAP majority districts using 2005-2009 ACS data.
544. HD105 and HD106, in the western part of the County, were majority-minority VAP. Using
2008-2012 ACS data, benchmark HD105 was 50.8% Anglo CVAP with a margin of error of +/1.2% and HD106 was only 47% Anglo CVAP. D-100.
545. HD105 was a compact district that included much of the City of Irving. The incumbent was
Linda Harper-Brown, an Anglo Republican. HD105 had an HVAP of 31.2%, BVAP of 14.7%, and
Anglo VAP of 36.1%. It had 19.6% HCVAP, 15.3% BCVAP, and 56% Anglo CVAP using 20052009 ACS data (50.8% +/- 1.2% Anglo CVAP using 2008-2012 ACS data). Hispanic voters did not
have the opportunity to elect their candidates of choice in benchmark HD105. US-351 (Handley
2011 report) at 3-8. However, in 2008, Democrat Bob Romano lost to incumbent Harper-Brown by
only 19 votes. And in 2008, 7 of 9 Hispanic-preferred candidates prevailed in statewide elections
in HD105 (President, U.S. Senate, Railroad Commissioner, Supreme Court Chief, Supreme Court
Places 7 and 8, and Court of Criminal Appeals Places 3, 4, and 9). US-370 at 99-100.
546. HD106 in the benchmark plan was also in the western part of the County, just below HD105,
and included portions of Irving, Grand Prairie, and a small part of Dallas. The incumbent was Anglo
Republican Rodney Anderson. HD106 had an HVAP of 44.3%, BVAP of 13.7%, and Anglo VAP
of 35.9%. It had HCVAP of 29%, BCVAP of 12.8%, and Anglo CVAP of 52% using 2005-2009
ACS data, though, as noted, using 2008-2012 ACS data it was only 47% Anglo CVAP. The total
SSVR was 23.4%. Minority voters elected their candidate of choice in HD106 in 2006 and 2008,
but not in 2002, 2004, or 2010. US-351 (Handley report) at n.10. In 2010, Anderson narrowly
defeated the Democratic incumbent Kirk England by 204 votes.
547. Three districts in the eastern/northeastern part of Dallas County, HD101, HD102, and HD113,
had also become majority-minority VAP but remained majority Anglo CVAP. HD113 (60.1%
Anglo CVAP) was located in the northeastern corner of Dallas County and had been represented by
Anglo Republican Joe Driver since his election in 1992. Some Plaintiffs’ experts opined that HD101
(61.3% Anglo CVAP) and HD102 (61% Anglo CVAP) had experienced minority population growth
and had become effective minority coalition districts. TrJ1425 (Korbel); Joint Expert Ex. E-5
(Martin Report) at 9-10. Those districts elected Republicans in 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2010, but
elected Democrats in 2008. In 2010, Anglo Republican Cindy Burkett was elected to represent
HD101, and African-American Republican Stefani Carter was elected to HD102.
548. Dallas County lost population relative to the state as a whole, so Dallas County was only
apportioned 14 seats in the 2011 redistricting cycle, meaning a loss of two seats. TrJ145 (Arrington).
The mapdrawers knew that the two lost seats would have to be Republican seats because all of the
Democrat districts were protected minority opportunity districts. D-192; D-132; TrJ925, TrJ2073,
TrJ2015 (Downton). HD106 was one of the two districts that was eliminated from Dallas County
(Anderson and Harper-Brown were paired in HD105); it was moved to Denton County, which gained
a district. HD101 was eliminated (Burkett and Driver were paired in HD113) and moved to Tarrant
County, which also gained a district.
549. The 2010 population of Dallas County was 2,368,139, meaning it was apportioned 14.1266
districts. All districts within Dallas County could therefore be slightly overpopulated from the ideal
district size. The Anglo population of Dallas County decreased by over 198,000, a negative 20.2%
growth rate. Tr327-28 (Martin); TrJ1423 (Korbel). The minority population of Dallas County grew
by almost 350,000 and accounted for 100% of the growth in Dallas County. Tr328 (Martin); TrJ1423
(Korbel). In 2010, Dallas County was 33.1% Anglo, 38.3% Latino, and 22.3% African American.
Tr327 (Martin). Despite this growth pattern, the Legislature did not put any new minority
opportunity districts in Dallas County. TrJ1423 (Korbel); TrJ146 (Arrington); Joint Expert Ex. E-5
(Martin report) at 8. In addition, their enacted map gave Anglo control (majority-Anglo CVAP) to
8 of 14 districts (57% of districts) in Dallas County. Tr1053 (Murray).
550. On February 17, Hanna emailed Denise Davis with the subject “redist issues.” D-192; US-102;
Quesada-242. He wrote, “1. Dallas Lose two seats. Both will have to be R’s b/c all D seats are
minority. It may get worse. If it is possible to draw third Hispanic seat, you’ll need to do that too.
That would be a 3rd seat. Four Black seats (as now) looks doable.” Downton testified that it was
not possible to draw a third Hispanic seat. TrJ2053. He said that they could not get two majoritySSVR districts, let alone three, and he did not think it could be done while keeping Alonzo’s Latino
opportunity district (HD104) at 50% SSVR. TrJ2054-56.
551. On February 18, 2011, Denise Davis forwarded Hanna’s email to Interiano. D-132. Interiano
responded to Davis stating, “[Hanna] and I went through all of this yesterday afternoon and through
some of the first things that we need to look at as soon as RedAppl is up and running. . . . As far as
Dallas goes, the ones that are going to be at risk are Sheets, R. Anderson, and Burkett,15 but Hartnett
may also have issues because Branch has to pick up population as well and he told me last night that
he would like to pick it up from Hartnett and give up some other portions to some of the minority
552. Dallas was a drop-in county, but the delegation could not agree on a map due to the loss of two
seats and no members wanting to be paired. Tr924, TrJ2014-15 (Downton); Y. Davis depo. at 199.
Rep. Branch (Anglo, Republican), a member of the HRC, served as the delegation lead and tried
unsuccessfully to get an agreed delegation map. Downton was then tasked by Branch with trying
to draw a map. Tr924, TrJ2015-16 (Downton).
553. Downton was the principal mapdrawer for Dallas County. Downton 8-31-11 depo. (Joint Ex.
J-62) at 72-73; Tr924-29, 930-39 (Downton). Downton drew some of the districts with Rep. Branch,
particularly his district (HD108). TrJ2015-17, 2073-74 (Downton). As to the other districts,
Downtown came up with ideas and met with some members to get their input. TrJ2016 (Downton).
Downton met with Democrat members Anchia (HD103) and Johnson (HD100). Tr2017 (Downton).
Several of the members came to talk with him, including Burkett and Harper-Brown, who also gave
him a Dallas County proposal. TrJ2016-17. Downton got district proposals from all members
except Alonzo. Tr924 (Downton). Downton testified that he got a proposal from Y. Davis but said
she did not have approval of the other Democrat members for those districts (there is a plan in the
hrc1 account that says it was “received from davy,” though Rep. Y. Davis said that she did not
submit a map). Tr924, TrJ2077 (Downton); PL-1615 (plan log). Downton stated that he “essentially
looked at various ideas from different people” and “drew a map.” Downton 8-31-11 depo. (Joint Ex.
J-62) at 100.
554. Dallas County was not a “member-driven” process. Y. Davis depo. at 32, 198. Although some
members participated, Rep. Davis said she was “shut out of the process.” Davis depo. at 198. Davis
was not shown her district before the first plan was publicly released. Id. at 202. Davis testified that
Solomons and his staff did not work with her or her office. Id. at 35-36, 41, 44, 207. She testified
that when she talked to Solomons, he said to have her staff contact his staff, but when her staff
reached out to the designated redistricting person, he did not respond. Id. at 41-42. He was
nonresponsive to their inquiries about how to submit plan ideas or to see the map in progress. Id.
at 208-09. Davis did not feel that Solomons’ door was open to her and felt that the Republicans
already had a plan and “we were not part of that factor.” Id. at 43, 45. She testified that “we were
not successful in getting involved with his office with the maps.” Id. at 199. Davis testified that she
was told that Solomons was drafting his own map. Id. at 208. She also testified that one of the other
members had told her that Solomons had directed her to talk to Rep. Branch about the map, but she
did not provide a map to him because he was not on the HRC, and Branch later told her that he was
There is no evidence as to why these three representatives were “at risk,” but they had all been recently
elected in the 2010 election, defeating Democrat incumbents.
not putting together the Dallas County map. Id. at 209-11.
555. Mapdrawers knew early in the process that they would likely pair Reps. Harper-Brown and
Anderson, and Downton was drawing some maps pairing them as early as March 10 in hrc1H135.
TrJ2073 (Downton). For the other pairing, there were different ways it could have been done. Id.
556. The first map sent to Hanna for a retrogression analysis (either hrc1H215 or hrc1H220)
contained a Dallas County map that was very different from what ended up in Plan H283. It does
not appear to pair Harper-Brown and Anderson. Hanna’s first retrogression memo, written around
April 7 (D-122), raised some concerns about Dallas County. Hanna noted that the proposed HD103
went from 38.0% total SSVR to 33.8% total SSVR and HD104 went from 56.7% SSVR to 45.6%
SSVR, and wrote that both districts “present retrogression issues.” He continued, “While both are
significantly short people (more than 86,000 combined), no new Hispanic districts are being added
in Dallas County, and the overall percentage increase in the Hispanic population in Dallas County
makes the declines in SSVR especially difficult to justify. While it can be argued that District 104
will likely perform at 45.6 SSVR since this is similar to the performing level it was drawn at in 2001,
no similar argument exists for the reduction in District 103. Accordingly, at a minimum, the decline
in SSVR in District 103 should be remedied. Consideration should also be given to keeping District
104 over the 50% SSVR threshold if this can be done.” D-122; TrJ2143-44 (Downton). With regard
to the African-American opportunity districts, Hanna wrote, “The Black population in Dallas County
is moving to the south and West and out of the inner city. This is reflected in the disparities in the
Black populations in the current districts between the two more northerly ones (100 and 110) and
the two southern ones (109 and 111). This effect is enhanced by the proposed plan and presents clear
retrogression issues. With the Black percentage in District 109 sitting at 62.1% in the proposed plan,
it is likely that the levels of Black populations in District 100 and 110 can be restored significantly
closer to their current levels without endangering the viability of District 109 or District 111 as
performing Black districts. Additional leveling out of the Black populations could occur, but likely
would not be required for preclearance under Section 5.”
557. Downton stated that, in response to Hanna’s suggestion to remedy the SSVR decline in HD103
and keep HD104 above 50% SSVR, they increased SSVR in both of those districts. TrJ2143-44.
To do this, Downton used HVAP racial shading at the block level (SSVR is only available at the
precinct level and he could not recall whether he could shade for SSVR). TrJ2144 (Downton).
Downton was able to increase the SSVR in HD104 to 48.1% total SSVR and 50.1% non-suspense
SSVR. TrJ201 (Arrington).
558. Downton admitted using block level racial shading when drawing all six minority districts in
Dallas County—HD100, 103, 104, 109, 110, 111. Downton 8-31-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-62) at 11314.
559. Downton testified that he began with Anchia’s district HD103 and with HD104, because those
were the two Hispanic opportunity districts. TrJ2017, TrJ2069. He testified that he drew HD103
and then drew other districts around it. Tr999. Downton also testified that he worked with Rep.
Anchia to determine what population to include. Tr999, TrJ2017. It is not clear from the testimony
whether Downton was referring to the time before or after Hanna’s first retrogression memo, but it
appears to be after. Anchia confirmed that he was involved in the configuration of his district.
Anchia depo. at 15. They generally discussed the “metes and bounds” of the district, and Anchia
made specific requests about areas he wanted included in his district, but did not recall those requests
other than including a portion of Farmers Branch and Carrollton. Id. at 15:25-16:10. He does not
recall making any requests about the overall demographics or kind of voting profile of his district.
Id. at 16:11-14. HD103 was at the bottom end of the population range and needed more population.
Downton testified that they tried unsuccessfully to get the SSVR of HD103 above 50% but could
not have it and HD104 both above 50%, so mapdrawers decided to maintain the SSVR of HD103
at benchmark levels. Tr925-26, TrJ2069. Downton testified that because mapdrawers also wanted
to maintain the SSVR in HD104 over 50%, they could not take concentrated Hispanic population
out of 104 to put into 103 because it would have dropped the SSVR in HD104. He stated that
although the Hispanic VAP in the area was high, there were a lot of noncitizens. Tr926 (Downton).
Benchmark SSVR in HD103 was 38% total/39.3% non-suspense, and in Plan H283 it was reduced
slightly to 36.9% total/38.1% non-suspense. Although SSVR decreased, Anchia did not think it
affected the ability of Hispanic voters to elect their candidate of choice, and Downton agreed with
him. TrJ2071 (Downton). Anchia was displeased that his district was so overpopulated (5%), and
it seemed like there was an effort to put a lot of population in unnecessarily, but otherwise he was
happy with his district. Anchia depo. at 19, 165. However, he voted against Plan H283. Tr160
560. In Plan H283, an HD103 arm reaches to the west into HD105 (represented by Anglo
Republican Harper-Brown), picking up the most heavily concentrated Latino population in Irving
and splitting ten precincts. Tr323-24 (Martin); TrJ148 (Arrington). These splits made HD103 at lot
less Anglo and more Hispanic, and made HD105 more Anglo. TrJ151 (Arrington). Downton
admitted using racial shading in drawing HD103, including the incursions of HD103 into HD105,
because he wanted to keep the SSVR of HD103 at benchmark. TrJ2080-81 (Downton). This is
confirmed by racial shading exhibit PL-106, which shows that the HD103 west arm is picking up
primarily population that is 70-100% Black + Hispanic population.
561. HD105 has a long arm that reaches from Irving in west Dallas County down through Grand
Prairie, with HD104 wrapping around it. Downton had been instructed to pair Rep. Anderson with
Rep. Harper-Brown in a district either could win (i.e, a Republican district). Anderson lived in
southern Grand Prairie, so Downton had to draw the long extension down from HD105 to pick up
Anderson’s home and pair him with Harper-Brown, who lived at the north end of the district.
Downton 8-31-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-62) at 113; TrJ2018 (Downton). Downton stated that he also
drew the arm to contain Republican-leaning precincts, which fit more with the composition of
HD105, which is a Republican-leaning district, than HD104, which is a Democratic-leaning district.
He testified that he did that by looking at political shading, and the area below the highway was the
most Republican area, and so he pulled it up into HD105. Tr927. Additionally, he testified that the
105/104 configuration was a combination of trying to pick up Anderson’s house for HD105, trying
to keep HD104 compliant with the VRA, and trying to cut Grand Prairie into as few pieces as he
could, given other considerations. Tr928. Downton stated that the fact that the HD105 southern arm
into HD104 matched with picking up Anglos was explained by trying to maintain the Hispanic
numbers of 104 by putting Anglos in HD105 and not in HD104. Downton 8-31-11 depo. (Joint Ex.
J-62) at 114-15. Downton admits using racial shading at the block level when drawing HD105 and
HD104, but says it was to keep HD104 above 50% SSVR and loop it around the southern portion
of HD105 that picked up Anderson’s home. Tr928-29, TrJ2080. Interiano testified that they drew
the HD105 arm down to pick up Anderson, and then drew HD104 around it. Interiano 8-9-11 depo.
(Joint Ex. J-61) at 36 . He also testified, “As much as possible, we tried to keep the minority
community in Dallas County together.” Id. at 37
562. Downton split a number of precincts between HD104 and HD105. Downton stated that he split
precincts because there was no policy against it and he needed to create the pathway to Anderson’s
house while maintaining HD104’s total and Hispanic population. TrJ2020-21. He stated that he split
Precinct 4504 because it was too large to include all of it in HD105 and he needed to maintain a
pathway to keep the population of Precincts 4510, 4514, and 4516 in HD104. TrJ2021. He said he
split Precinct 4508 to create a pathway to Anderson’s home without taking too much population; he
split Precinct 4515 to comply with the VRA for HD104, and he did not recall why he split Precinct
4517. TrJ2022-24. Downton testified that he did not know of any other ways to pair Anderson and
Harper-Brown, keep HD104 above 50% SSVR, and maintain HD103 at or as close as possible to
its benchmark SSVR level. TrJ2081.
563. The boundary of HD105 divides the cities of Grand Prairie and Irving, splits 22 precincts, and
breaks up numerous communities of interest. Tr321-23 (Martin); US-387 at (Red-381 Report); US299. The benchmark configuration of HD105 is compact, encompassing most of Irving north of the
Rock Island railroad and west of Loop 12. TrJ1107 (McPhail). HD105 in H283 has jagged, bizarrely
shaped lines, that extend much farther outward than they used to. TrJ1108 (McPhail). Downton split
precincts in the HD105 arm extending into HD104 on the basis of race to include Anglos in HD105
and place Hispanics in HD104. TrJ148 (Arrington); Tr322 (Martin). HD103 reaches an arm into
HD105 to take Hispanic portions of Irving by splitting precincts. TrJ146-48 (Arrington); TrJ599
(Lopez); TrJ1117-18, TrJ1121 (McPhail); Tr321 (Martin); US-299D. The population excluded from
HD105 by splitting precincts was disproportionately Hispanic and low income. TrJ599-01, 602-05,
606-09 (Lopez); TrJ1124-25 (McPhail); US-299D. The population included in HD105 in split
precincts is disproportionately Anglo and relatively affluent. TrJ151 (Arrington); TrJ595-96,
TrJ601-02, TrJ606 (Lopez); TrJ1109-26 (McPhail); US-356 ¶¶ 52-53 & Table 1 (Feb. 2014
Arrington report). Downton deliberately split precincts by race to put Hispanic voters into HD103
and HD104 but not in HD105. TrJ2069 (Downton); TrJ147-51 (Arrington).
564. Hanna’s first memo (around April 7) had pointed out that HD109 had 62.1% BVAP and
districts 110 and 100 had gone down but could be restored. In Plan H113, the BVAP of HD109 is
57.4%. BVAP in HD100 is 40.8% and in HD110 is 42.5%. Downton spoke with Rep. Caraway and
she gave him some suggestions about her district HD110. Tr1018 (Downton). He did not recall
Caraway complaining to him that the Hispanic numbers in her district were dramatically increased.
Id. Again, it is not clear whether Downton worked with these members initially or in making
changes after Hanna’s initial retrogression memo.
565. Hanna’s second retrogression memo, written around April 12, still noted the decreases in
SSVR for HD103 and HD104 as potential retrogression issues and suggested remedying the reduced
SSVR (36.8% total, down from 38%) in HD103. With regard to the African-American districts,
Hanna no longer felt that there were retrogression issues. D-327.
566. Plan H113, the first public plan, was released April 13. As noted, Rep. Linda Harper-Brown
(Anglo, Republican) and Rep. Rodney Anderson (Anglo, Republican) were paired in HD105, and
Rep. Cindy Burkett (Anglo, Republican) with Rep. Joe Driver (Anglo, Republican) in HD113, and
HD101 and HD106 were eliminated. The Plan H113 configuration of Dallas County remained
mostly unchanged in Plan H283. The only change was through Branch’s amendment at the April
19 committee meeting, which shifted 690 people from HD108 into HD103.
567. At the April 15 hearing before the HRC, Sandra Crenshaw from Dallas testified against Plan
H113, asserting that it improperly split cities. D-595 at 206. She also noted that splitting precincts
causes costly problems for elections and confuses voters. Id. at 208.
568. At the April 17 hearing before the HRC, Rep. Driver (Anglo, Republican), who had been
paired with Burkett in Dallas County, asked how the map was created and what criteria had been
used. He wanted to know how they had decided to pair a senior and junior member, and why the
map was changed from what he had been shown before.
569. Rep. Mallory Caraway (African-American, Democrat, HD110) opposed Plan H113. She
complained that she was not included in the delegation meeting and she did not know that Rep.
Branch was in charge of drawing districts. She said the plan destroyed the community of interest
in the southwestern portion of HD110. She said that certain precincts (3506, 3514, 3515, 3517,
3526, 3351, and 3353) should not be moved into HD100 (because they do not share interests with
the rest of HD100) but should stay in HD110 (her district) and that the plan was gerrymandered to
include them in HD100. She proposed a map to move them back into HD110 and to put other
precincts that were more “geographically compatible” into HD100. She complained that the precinct
she lives in (Precinct 3515) was split. She stated that she proposed a district, but the map did not
look like her proposal. She noted that HD109 (Giddings) was the only district that gained
population, so it was more logical for HD110 to absorb that excess, and she proposed that in her map
to Solomons. Although HD109 did absorb some of that population, she also lost some of her most
valuable precincts. She said she understood that changes were necessary given the loss of a district
but did not see why drastic measures were taken to disconnect her core stable precincts. She also
stated that Plan H113 eliminated a majority African-American district by diluting the AfricanAmerican voting strength in HD100 and giving it to HD110. Rep. Johnson (HD100) testified in
opposition to Caraway’s proposed changes that would swap areas between HD100 and HD110. He
stated the changes would reduce the BVAP of HD100 from 40.8% (H113) to 36.5% (benchmark was
40.3%). Johnson stated it would impermissibly retrogress HD100. No changes were made.
570. Sandra Crenshaw (Precinct 3549 Chair) from Dallas testified against Plan H113. She stated
that Oak Cliff was split among districts and the African-American community in HD110 should be
kept together. She objected to suburban districts coming in and “cherry picking” population and
asserted that Oak Cliff should stay together. She also stated that HD100 could get African-American
population from Mesquite. She noted that Dallas County representatives had testified about lack of
transparency and encouraged the mapdrawers to respect communities of interest.
571. At the April 19 HRC formal meeting, Rep. Branch offered an amendment (Plan H126) to the
committee substitute (Plan H134) affecting HD100, 103, and 108 in Dallas County, and an
amendment (Plan H148) to the amendment (Plan H126). D-12. The amendment (Plan H126) and
the amendment to it (Plan H148) were adopted. This moved some population between HD108 and
572. The third Hanna memo, which considered Plan H153 voted out of committee, raised the same
concerns about HD103 and HD104 and suggested remedying the drop in SSVR in HD103 but did
not raise any other concerns about Dallas County. US-338.
573. On April 22 and 23, Interiano was working on the Dallas County map as a possible
amendment, and emailed Hanna to run a retrogression analysis on it. US-171; US-161; PL-1669;
D-133. Archer responded to Interiano’s email and noted that benchmark HD103 was not a Hispanic
opportunity district and he had not seen a plan that made it into one. D-134.
574. On April 27, during second reading, Rep. Veasey pointed out that Anglo population had
decreased by 198,000 in Dallas County and all the growth was minority, that although Anglos were
only about 33% of Dallas County they still controlled most of districts, and that the numbers did not
seem to be adding up. D-13 at S116. Solomons replied that the committee did not see the need to
create new districts, and that primarily the growth “was in a lot of existing protected districts.” Id.
He said it “didn’t grow in the relevant areas.” Id.
575. Rep. Anderson (Anglo Republican) laid out Amendments No. 3 (H220) and 4 (H247) relating
to Dallas County that would pair Rep. Sheets and Hartnett and Driver and Button instead of
Anderson and Harper-Brown. D-190 at 92-95, S733; D-13 at S134-35. Anderson stated that he
believed the district as currently drawn was fair and legal but he “believed there’s another way to
keep the core districts and communities of interest together. It keeps Mesquite, Garland, Richardson,
Carrollton, Addison, Irving, and Grand Prairie predominantly intact. It also reflects the diverse
neighborhoods that are located within the city of Dallas.” D-13 at S134. Rep. Martinez Fischer
stated that the proposed map might be retrogressive because it dropped HD104’s SSVR from 58.3%
to 45.5% and it did not create any new opportunity districts. Id. at S138, S141. Republicans
Hartnett, Jackson, Branch, and Harper-Brown did not support the amendment. Solomons moved to
table, and it was tabled. Id. at S142-43.
576. Rep. Driver (Anglo, Republican) took issue with Solomons’ statement that it was a memberdriven map in Dallas County and complained that he was not consulted on his district or on Dallas
County, that it was not inclusive, and that his community of interest was “cut up.” D-13 at S137,
S141, S157. Rep. Anderson complained that the proposed map “dramatically chang[ed]
representation throughout all of Dallas County.” Id. at S142.
577. Rep. Harper-Brown proposed Amendments 5 and 6 (Plan H219) relating to Dallas County.
Harper-Brown asserted that the amendment would keep more of Irving in HD105 and allow HD115
to encompass Carrollton and Farmers Branch and protect the community of interest of these cities
and improve compactness. Rep. Giddings (African American, Democrat) complained that it
destroyed the core of HD109, a minority opportunity district. D-13 at S144. Anderson complained
that it divided Grand Prairie, “the 15th largest city in Texas,” into five pieces in Dallas County. Id.
at S145. Rep. Y. Davis asserted that it changed HD111 from a majority African-American district
to majority Hispanic and opposed the amendment. Id. at S146. Anchia complained that it reduced
the SSVR of his district, and he opposed the amendment. Id. at S148. Solomons stated, “It breaks
up Grand Prairie far more than what the original map does. It redraws the west side of Dallas
County. It reduces Representative Anchia’s SSVR numbers problematically simply but not enough
for Leg Council to have an over-concern ....” Id. Rep. Turner opposed the amendment on behalf of
the Legislative Black Caucus “because we view it as outright regression” (to change it from an
African-American district to a Latino district). Id. at S155. It was tabled. D-13 at S158; D-190 at
578. Rep. Martinez Fischer then set forth Amendment No. 32 (H199) focusing on Dallas and
Tarrant Counties to increase the number of opportunity districts. This plan included three districts
that spanned Dallas and Tarrant Counties. Martinez Fischer stated that Plan H153 violated § 2 of
the VRA by limiting the creation of minority opportunity districts. Rep. Alonzo noted it was the
same plan Martinez Fischer had presented for other areas, but he was just focusing on DFW. D-13
at S223. A statement of legal issues regarding the DFW metroplex and the April 27, 2011 letter
from MALDEF stating that Plan H153 was retrogressive were made a part of the record. Id. at S224.
The statement of legal issues noted that H153 substantially overpopulated Latino majority districts
HD103 and HD104 in Dallas and across the state. It concluded that the overpopulation of Latino
majority districts in Dallas County served to limit Latino influence in Dallas County House districts.
Id. at S221-22. It argued that use of the County Line Rule fenced apart minority voters in Dallas
County and Tarrant County, and that Plan H153 packed minority districts and failed to create
additional minority opportunity districts, while alternative plans created up to two by unpacking
districts and avoiding the County Line Rule. Id. at S222. The amendment was tabled. D-13 at S230.
579. Martinez Fischer also proposed Amendment No. 34, Plan H201. Joint Map Ex. J-24. Like the
enacted plan, this plan eliminates HD101 and HD106. Using 2005-2009 ACS, HD109, 110, and 111
remain majority BCVAP, but HD100 is 46.6% BCVAP.16 HD103 is 42.2% HCVAP (34.4%/35.3%
SSVR) and HD104 is 56.9% HCVAP (51.7%/53.4% SSVR). HD102 is 49.7% Anglo CVAP
(though B+HCVAP is less than 50%). The Anglo VAP of HD102 is only 31.2% and the Anglo VAP
Chapa estimated that HD100 was 49% BCVAP. Joint Expert Ex. E-2 Table 9. Using 2008-2012 ACS data,
HD100 is 47.3% (+/- 1.6) BCVAP.
of HD105 is 40.1%. Seven of the districts are majority Anglo CVAP.
580. Arrington opined that Plan H201 creates eight minority districts – four African-American, three
Hispanic, and one in which the situation in the primary is “unclear.” US-352 at 18. The plan pairs
Republican incumbents in three districts and leaves HD106 an open seat. Id.
581. Rep. Turner laid out Amendment No. 35, Plan H202, on behalf of the Legislative Black
Caucus. This plan eliminates HD114 and HD115. Plan H202 maintains the four African-American
districts, though the BCVAP of HD100 falls below 50% to 47.2% Black Alone CVAP (47.6%
combined). It maintains HD104 above 50% HCVAP and includes an HD103 with a lower HCVAP
than benchmark (38.8% compared to 46.5% HCVAP in the benchmark) and lower SSVR. It also
creates an additional proposed minority coalition district (HD107) in northeastern Dallas County.
Using 2005-2009 ACS data, HD107 had a BCVAP of 26.5% and HCVAP of 23.9%, for a combined
B+HCVAP of 50.4%. Joint Map Ex. J-25; TrJ581 (Wallace); TrJ913, TrJ921 (Fairfax); Y. Davis
depo. at 67. The Anglo CVAP was 42.8%. Y. Davis depo. at 67. Rep. Davis testified that HD107
was drawn to recognize the Hispanic and African-American communities that had grown in the area.
Y. Davis depo. at 67. Lay witness Juanita Wallace is familiar with the area of proposed HD107 and
states that Hispanics and African Americans live in the proposed HD107, and they would benefit
from additional representation of their choice. TrJ578 (Wallace).
582. Rep. Coleman set forth Amendment No. 38, a statewide amendment (Plan H232), that would
create a number of opportunity and coalition districts (59 in total). He said that minority population
was responsible for 100% of Dallas County growth because Anglo population declined by over
198,000. This plan eliminates HD106 and HD107. Coleman’s written comments for Plan H232
were put into the record, and they assert that this plan: creates a new Latino district HD105 (60%
HVAP, though only 34.1% HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data) while preserving the two existing
Latino districts HD103 and HD104; creates a new HD102 that is 80% non-Anglo in terms of total
population and 67.5% B+HVAP (50.8% B+HCVAP); and preserves coalition HD101 (this is 49.3%
B+HVAP but remains 60.9% Anglo CVAP). He asserted it would provide minority opportunity in
64% of the districts (9 of 14) in a county that is 67% non-Anglo, compared to 42% in H153. D-13
at S248. The amendment was tabled. D-13 at S250. H232 keeps HD100, 109, and 110 above 50%
BCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS, but HD111 drops to 48.9% (+/- 1.5). The SSVR of HD103 is
reduced to 38.3/40.4% (45.2% HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS) and the SSVR of HD104 is reduced
to 43.5/45.2% (49.2% (+/-1.9) HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS). HD101 is 60.9% Anglo CVAP and
HD105 is 52.5% Anglo CVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data. HD102 is a coalition district with
24.3% HCVAP and 26.5% BCVAP. See also Joint Map Ex. J-28; Joint Expert Ex. E-3 (Lichtman
Report) at 9-14; Tr1230 (Lichtman).
583. Rep. Giddings (African-American, Democrat) noted that he and other Dallas County members
had submitted maps and they were not accepted. He stated that the proposed committee map was
problematic because it did not create influence districts and there was racial disparity in terms of
African Americans having less representation than could have been achieved, and the communities
of interest were not preserved in minority districts. D-13 at S253.
584. Even Anglo Republican members of the House felt that the Dallas County map unnecessarily
divided physical communities and did not maintain core districts and communities of interest.
585. In Plan H283, based on deviation from the statewide ideal district size, HD103 is
overpopulated by 8,379 persons (5%) (the most in the County) and HD104 is overpopulated by 5,147
persons (3.07%). Of the four African-American districts, one is overpopulated (HD109 by 3.9%)
and three are underpopulated (HD100 by 3.87%, HD110 by .05%, and HD111 by .39%). Of the
eight Anglo districts, four are underpopulated and four are overpopulated. HD102 is underpopulated
by 3.88%; HD108 is underpopulated by 2.63%; HD112 is underpopulated by .35%; and HD115 is
underpopulated by .54%. HD105 is overpopulated by 4.83%; HD107 is overpopulated by 2.53%;
HD113 is overpopulated by 2.25%; and HD114 is overpopulated by 2.8%.
586. Dr. Arrington and Martin testified that HD103, HD104, and HD105 are also overpopulated
using the County ideal, and population deviations play a role in not creating a new minority district.
TrJ222 (Arrington); Tr330-32 (Martin). Martin and Arrington opined that the two Latino districts
HD103 and HD104 are overpopulated and packed with excess Latino population, preventing that
population from being used to create another minority district, and that HD105 is overpopulated with
Anglos, preventing it from providing minority opportunity. Tr326, Tr330 (Martin); TrJ149, TrJ14851, TrJ222 (Arrington).
587. The HD103 western arm and the HD105 southern arm are not in the benchmark configuration
of Dallas County. PL-103; Tr328 (Martin). As noted, the HD103 western arm reaches into Irving
in HD105 and takes out the Latino population, splitting approximately ten precincts. Tr322-23
(Martin). The HD105 southern arm then reaches down to the “most Anglo part of the City of Grand
Prairie” to pick up that population, following the “least Hispanic channel that could have been
drawn” and splitting seven precincts to split out the Latino community of Grand Prairie into HD104.
Tr321-22 (Martin). The net effect of the new configuration of taking Latino Irving population out
of HD105 and picking up Anglos with the southern arm is to increase Anglo VAP by about 5% over
benchmark in HD105. Tr325(Martin). HD105 is also overpopulated by 8,091 persons. Id. Because
the additional population is Anglo population from the south, it makes it more difficult to draw an
additional minority opportunity district in West Dallas County. Id. Without those additional Anglos
in the southern arm, the district is more likely to elect Latino candidates of choice. Tr326 (Martin).
588. Arrington testified that other plans created more minority opportunity, such as Plan H201 and
Plan H288. TrJ150; US-352 ¶¶ 52-59 & Tables 5-6 (Oct. 2011 Arrington report). These were not
incumbent-protection plans. Arrington asserts that the failure to recognize the Hispanic population
growth by increasing representation, when it could have been done consistent with traditional
districting principles, is evidence of intentional discrimination. US-352 at 17-18. He further asserts
that Plan H288 and Plan H201 are examples of “what can be done if the line drawer makes an effort
to recognize the demographic changes that are rapidly altering the racial landscape of Dallas
County.” Id. at 18. He opined that those who drew Plan H283 “did not make any effort to increase
representation for minority citizens to match these drastic changes.” Id.
589. The total deviation of Dallas County is 8.88%. Tr329 (Martin). Downton testified that he did
not recall an effort to limit the deviation range to 1%. Downton 8-31-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-62) at
96. Downton said that he could not draw the districts at zero deviation. His explanation (Downton
8-31-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-62) at 97-98) was:
In Dallas County there was -- there were multiple districts that are minority
opportunity districts. You’ve got one district there that it’s arguable as to whether it
is or not, depending on your definition. Representative Anchia’s district [HD103].
Based on the definition I’ve been using, the 50 percent threshold, Representative
Anchia’s district did not have 50 percent SSVR. And you could not get it 50 percent
SSVR. But what we did to try to stave off any possible legal challenge with Dallas
County, we wanted to maintain as close as possible to the benchmark levels for
minority populations as possible in Hispanic districts and the district. Representative
Anchia’s district was the most underpopulated district in the entire state.17 I think
Representative Alonzo’s neighboring district [HD104] was slightly underpopulated
or right around the line.18 So I don’t think we could have brought Representative
Anchia’s district up to the ideal population and Representative Alonzo to the ideal
population and also maintain their benchmark levels of minority population.
590. In his October 20, 2011 deposition, Downton testified that HD103 is 8,379 above ideal
population (about 5%) and that he drew it with that deviation because he worked with Rep. Anchia
to include that population. TrJ2148. Anchia, however, was not happy that his district was
overpopulated. Downton further testified that it was not necessary to have a 5% deviation in HD103
to maintain the Hispanic population, and that there were others ways to have done it, “but that was
a policy decision.” TrJ2149.
591. In Plan H283, HD103 is 67.7% HVAP, 44.6% HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS, and 36.6% total
SSVR/37.6% non-suspense SSVR. HD103 has one of the lowest perimeter-to-area compactness
scores (.081) in Plan H283.
592. HD104 is 69.2% HVAP, 51.7% HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data, and 48.1% total
SSVR/50.1% non-suspense SSVR. HD104 has the lowest perimeter-to-area compactness score
(.076) in Plan H283. Giberson depo. (Joint Ex. J-42) at 46.
593. HD105 is 39.2% HVAP, 24.1% HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data, and 18.1% total
SSVR/18.3% non-suspense SSVR. The Anglo VAP went from 36.1% in H100 to 41% in H283.
The HVAP went from 31.2% to 39.2%.
At the start of redistricting, HD103 was 30% underpopulated and was in fact the most underpopulated district
in the state.
HD104 was in fact 21.32% underpopulated. Of course, due to Dallas County’s comparative slow population
growth, all but HD109 were underpopulated. But the two Latino districts HD103 and HD104 were among the most
594. In his report, Martin asserted that HD101, HD102, HD106 were effective districts that were
less than 50% Anglo VAP, and that HD107 was also less than 50% Anglo VAP and had elected the
minority voters’ candidate of choice during the prior decade, and that all these districts were
eliminated in plan H283. Joint Expert Ex. E-5 at 4. He asserted that even though minority
population growth was responsible for over 100% of the Dallas County population growth, Plan
H283 creates no new minority opportunity districts and eliminates effective majority-minority
coalition districts. Id. at 8.
595. Martin opined that Plan H283 uses a bizarre configuration in west Dallas County to dilute a
trending minority district HD105 and prevent creation of an additional Latino district, eliminates two
effective majority minority coalition districts—101 and 102—by splitting areas of rapid minority
growth in eastern and northeastern Dallas County into five Anglo-controlled districts, eliminates
majority-minority HD106 (Grand Prairie) and its population is not used to create an additional
minority district in west Dallas County, and contains an unnecessary 8.8% population deviation with
Dallas County. Joint Expert Ex. E-5 (Martin report).
596. Martin opined that the gerrymander of HD105 preserved Republican advantage and prevented
an additional Latino district. Joint Expert Ex. E-5 at 8. He asserted that benchmark Irving-based
HD105 had only 36.1% Anglo VAP and experienced rapid Latino population growth, and
benchmark HD106 had only 35.9% Anglo VAP, so between them there was sufficient Latino
population to create an additional effective district. But instead of creating that district, he contends,
Plan H283 extends HD105 south through a series of narrow channels that split seven predominantly
Latino precincts, dividing the Grand Prairie Hispanic population while reaching far to the south for
the Anglo population. Id. Latino HD104 was packed, and then looped around this bizarre southern
extension of HD105 to run back north up the western border of the county. Id. To the north, a long
narrow arm of Latino HD103 is extended through HD105 in Irving, splitting ten precincts to remove
Hispanic population from HD105. As a result of this bizarre configuration, the Anglo VAP of
HD105 is increased from 36.1% to 41% and no additional Latino district is created. Id.
597. Martin opined that deviation and other factors have prevented the creation of a minority
opportunity district in northeast Dallas County. Tr331. Where HD107, 112, 102, 114, and 100 come
together, there is a significant area of minority population growth in northeast Dallas, south
Richardson, and that population is split among five districts in H283 instead of together where it
might be able to elect a candidate of choice. Tr331-35 (Martin). He also opined that two effective
eastern/ northeastern Dallas County majority-minority districts (HD101 (Anglo VAP 46.7%, district
eliminated) and HD102 (Anglo VAP 43% increased to 51.2%) were eliminated by splitting minority
population into five Anglo districts.
598. Plaintiffs’ expert Korbel opined that the minority population of HD101 was split among
HD113, which is a long district that stretches almost all the way along the county’s edge, and HD107
and HD110. TrJ1425. Some of the black population was moved into an already packed district
HD110, and the minority population placed in HD113 is diluted with Anglo population from the
north. TrJ1427 (Korbel). HD106 was already a very heavily minority district and it was close to
ideal population, but the Legislature moved it to Denton County. TrJ1425 (Korbel). HD104 and
HD105 are moved into where HD106 had been. TrJ1427 (Korbel). HD104 is the most noncompact
district in Plan H283. TrJ1427 (Korbel). These are strange-shaped districts that do not appear to
follow traditional redistricting principles. TrJ1427-28 (Korbel). HD105 extends down into HD104
and picks up minority population and ties it into heavily Anglo population to the north, cracking the
minority population and making it difficult for them to elect their candidate of choice. TrJ1429
(Korbel). There are numerous places within Dallas County where the minority population is
cracked. Id. The minorities that were in HD101 are split into HD113, HD110, and HD107. Id.
Minority population in the northeast corner is split between HD112 and H113. Id. Minority
population is split between HD100 and HD107. TrJ1430 (Korbel). Minority population in central
Dallas County is split between HD100 and HD108, which contains Highland Park. Id. In the
northwest area, minority population is split between HD103, HD105, and HD115. Id. In west
Dallas County, HD104 and HD105 split the minority community. TrJ1431 (Korbel). HD100 is also
one of the five least compact districts in the map. TrJ1432 (Korbel). Korbel agrees that there is
enough spread-out minority population that it cannot all be put in one district and any map will split
some minority population. TrJ1458. Korbel did not look at the role of incumbents and how it might
have affected the lines. TrJ1460. He did not consider the role of Rep. Johnson (African American,
Democrat) in drawing HD100 (Downton testified that he worked with Johnson on the district,
however it is not clear whether this was before he made significant changes to the map). Id.
599. Murray opined that minorities in Dallas County are worse off than they were in the benchmark
plan. Joint Expert Ex. E-4 (Murray Report) at 33. He noted that, over the decade, there was rapid
Anglo population share decline in HD101, 102, 105, 106, and 107, such that these non-competitive
districts represented by Anglo Republicans gradually came into play. In 2008, Anglo Republicans
lost four of the five districts, and prevailed in the fifth by only 20 votes, though the four lost seats
were recaptured in 2010. He felt these areas presented minority opportunities, but Plan H283 “takes
that opportunity off the table” by eliminating two of the mixed districts (HD101 and HD106),
assigning as many minority residents as possible to the six protected minority districts, and moving
the rest of the minority voters into districts with high-turnout Anglos and a recent history of
polarized voting. Joint Expert Ex. E-4 (Murray report) at 32-33.
600. In Dallas County, Perry got 42.5% of the vote and Bill White got 55.2%. Tr327 (Martin).
Obama got 57.27% of the vote and McCain got 41.97%. Tr327 (Martin).
601. Perez Plaintiffs propose Plan H288 for Dallas County to show that up to nine minority
opportunity districts could be drawn in Dallas County (as opposed to six in Plan H283). Perez-107;
PL-207; D-110; Tr333 (Martin); Joint Expert Ex. E-5 (Martin Report) at 9. It has a 1.72% deviation,
which was not difficult to achieve. Tr334 (Martin). The basic configuration of districts in this map
is similar to that in Plan H232, offered by Rep. Coleman during the session. According to Martin,
Plan H288 creates HD102 in northeast Dallas County to recognize minority growth in that area.
HD102 is two-thirds Black plus Hispanic VAP and majority H+BCVAP, is less than 20% Anglo
population, and is very compact. Tr334-35 (Martin); Joint Map Ex. J-33. HD101 is preserved as
a majority-minority district with 46.4% Anglo VAP. Joint Expert Ex. E-5 (Martin Report) at 10.19
In west Dallas County, HD103 and 104 are retained as performing Latino districts, and HD105 is
“fixed” so that it is 66.3% Hispanic population, and 60.4% HVAP (35.6% HCVAP using 2005-2009
ACS; 37.4% using 2008-2012 ACS data). Tr335 (Martin); D-110. The net effect is an additional
Latino district and two additional coalition districts where minority voters can elect their candidate
of choice while more closely achieving one-person, one-vote principles. Tr335 (Martin); Joint
Expert Ex. E-5 (Martin Report) at 10. Martin admits that HD103 does not have a great shape
(though it is no worse than HD104 in H283), but Martin says that is caused by HD100 coming in to
keep together the traditional African-American community in West Dallas that has always been in
HD100. Tr336 (Martin). The upper arm of HD103 is picking up and keeping together a Latino
community in east Dallas. Tr337.
602. Arrington used Plan H288 as an example of a plan that showed it was possible to create more
minority opportunity in Dallas County to recognize the minority population growth. US-352 at 18.
He opined that Plan H288 created four African-American districts (HD100, 109, 110, 111) and four
Hispanic districts (HD102, 103, 104, 105), though “the %SSVR is low in two of the Hispanic
districts, so they might be considered multi-race districts in which Hispanics and Blacks would
compete in the Democratic primary and vote together in the general election.” Id. He further notes
that it leaves two open seats—the two weak Hispanic districts HD102 and HD105—and pairs
numerous incumbents (both Republican with Republican and Republican with Democrat, but he felt
the pairings were difficult to avoid given the population changes. Id.
603. Comparing Plan H288 with Plan H283 using 2005-2009 ACS data, Plan H283 has one
HCVAP-majority district (HD104), while Plan H288 has none, and Plan H283 has three BCVAPmajority districts (HD109, 110, and 111), while Plan H288 has two (HD109 and 110), though
HD111 is right at 50% using combined BCVAP. However, both plans have four districts that are
over 40% BVAP (HD100, 109, 110, 111), which is the criteria legislators were using for defining
African-American opportunity districts. In terms of 50% SSVR, Plan H283 has one (HD104) and
Plan H288 has none. Plan H288 creates five strongly Anglo districts in terms of Anglo CVAP using
2005-2009 ACS data, with HD108 being 78.5% Anglo CVAP, HD112 being 73.2% Anglo CVAP,
HD113 being 64.1% Anglo CVAP, HD114 being 76% Anglo CVAP, and HD115 being 65.8%
Anglo CVAP. As noted HD101 remains 61.1% Anglo CVAP, similar to its benchmark numbers and
604. Plan H205 (proposed by MALC) has 25 districts in Dallas and Tarrant Counties (three districts
span both counties, and thus it breaks the County Line Rule). In Dallas County, it would maintain
the African-American districts (HD100 46.9% BCVAP; HD109, HD110, and HD111 all above 50%
BCVAP) and the Latino districts (HD103 (43.8% HCVAP) and HD104 (56.4% HCVAP)). It would
create minority-majority CVAP HD102 in northeastern Dallas County, with 48.8% Anglo CVAP
(and 25.8% HCVAP, 18.9% BCVAP, and 4.1% Asian CVAP). HD107 is majority-Anglo (52.7%)
Because HD101 remains 61.1% Anglo CVAP, it must be considered a crossover district (or a combination
minority coalition + Anglo crossover district) rather than a true minority coalition district.
CVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data, but is majority-minority CVAP (46.8% Anglo CVAP) using
2008-2012 ACS data. D-109. H205 violates the County Line Rule by joining districts between
Dallas and Tarrant Counties and also joining some population of Dallas County with Kaufman
605. Dr. Engstrom (Joint Expert Ex. E-7) concluded that Latino voters have been highly cohesive
in their support of Latino candidates with the Democratic Party nomination in the general elections.
All five candidates received their strong support (83.8% -90.3% bivariate and 81.1% -88.1%
multivariate). The only Latino candidate that was the Republican nominee in a general election was
Guzman and she was not supported by Latino voters (17.4% bivariate and 18.6% multivariate). All
Latino candidates in Democratic primaries also received strong Latino support (71.5%-84.7%
bivariate and 64.7-87.8% multivariate). Latinos voting in the Republican primary did support the
Latino candidate for Railroad Commissioner, but gave only a bare majority of support for the Latino
candidate seeking the Republican nomination for Governor (50.5% bivariate, but multivariate shows
only 32.6%). Non-Latino voters overall provided majority support for four of the five Latino
candidates favored by Latino voters in the general elections, according to bivariate analysis, but this
appears to be a function of the strong African-American support for these candidates. All five are
estimated to have received over 99% of African-American votes in the multivariate analysis. The
estimated support from other voters ranges from 22.1% to 29.4%. The only Latino Republican
candidate received less than a majority of the support of the non-Latino voters overall, but in the
multivariate analysis, her African-American support was less than 1% while that of other voters was
72.1%. Non-Latino voters did not provide majority support for any Latinos seeking nominations in
the Democratic primaries. In the multivariate analysis, African-Americans provided a majority of
their support for only one of the Latino candidates favored by Latinos, and other voters provided
majorities of their votes to only two of them. In the Republican primaries, non-Latino voters, both
African-American and others, did not support either Latino candidate.
606. Engstrom’s analyses reveal that Latinos in Dallas County are very cohesive in their candidate
preferences for Latino candidates, and that preference is shared by African Americans but not other
voters. The analysis of Democratic primaries shows Latinos are very cohesive in their preference
for Latino candidates, but these preferences are not generally shared by the rest of primary voters.
607. In Engstrom’s corrected rebuttal report (docket no. 307-1), he found racially polarized voting
in Dallas County. In the general elections, Latinos were very cohesive in their support for Latino
candidates with the Democratic party nomination, and that preference was shared by African
Americans, but not by other/Anglo voters, who did not cast as much as 30% of their votes in favor
of the candidates. Latinos are also very cohesive in their support for the Latino candidate in the
Democratic primaries, but these preferences were not shared by non-Latinos, with AfricanAmericans being least likely to share the preference.
608. Rep. Anchia has seen examples of Latinos and African-Americans being cohesive in Dallas.
Anchia depo. at 116-117. He believes they are cohesive more often than not. Anchia depo. at 117,
609. Juanita Wallace, a long-time resident of Dallas, offered lay testimony that Black and Latino
voters work together to elect candidates, including county commissioner Elba Garcia, who got
significant support from black voters. TrJ568-69 (Wallace). Wallace testified that there are similar
issues and challenges facing Black and Latino voters in Dallas—transportation, the criminal justice
system, and education. TrJ569-72. Wallace has not reviewed election data showing the breakdown
of voting for particular candidates by minority groups. Tr582 (Wallace).
610. Raul Magdaleno, a resident of Dallas, testified to the coalition in Dallas between Latinos and
African Americans. TrJ1134. He works closely with the community and sees that they have a lot
of issues in common, the three primary issues being education, health care, and economic disparities.
Id. He agrees that the populace in Dallas votes by issue rather than by racial coalition. TrJ1140.
When Marc Veasey ran against Domingo Garcia, the African Americans supported Garcia, a
Hispanic. TrJ1141. When Jason Villalba ran in HD114, the Latino Republicans—just a very
few—supported him. Id.
611. Wallace testified that there is official discrimination against Hispanics and African Americans
in Dallas County, which she knows because part of her job was to listen to complaints of
discrimination, and they would investigate. TrJ573. She testified that minority voters are still underrepresented in Dallas. TrJ574. She has encountered people who lack photo ID that would be affected
by voter ID. TrJ575. She is aware of Abbott’s campaigning with Ted Nugent, and feels he did not
denounce the comment Nugent made. Id. The Dallas branch of the NAACP started a petition over
this and sent it to Abbott and DOJ. TrJ577.
612. Magdaleno testified that he has not gotten favorable help from elected officials in Dallas when
seeking help for the Latino and African-American communities in Dallas. TrJ1135. When people
have not gotten help from their congressperson, such as Pete Sessions, he has gone through
Congresswoman Johnson’s office, and they have been very supportive. TrJ1136. When Magdaleno
was getting an award from the Park Cities Republican Women’s Organization, Pete Sessions
responded to a question about immigration, stating that “the solution to it was to round them up like
dogs and send them back.” TrJ1138. This was seven years ago, but Sessions is still in office.
Congresswoman Johnson helped him get his citizenship (he was her constituent then). TrJ1139.
Magdaleno says he has not really experienced racial discrimination, but more economic
discrimination. He says discrimination is against poor people regardless of their ethnicity. TrJ1142.
The concerns he listed for the coalition of blacks and Hispanics also apply to the poor Anglo
population of Dallas. Id. But in Dallas it tends to be more prevalent in the African-American and
Latino communities, which are poverty-stricken communities. TrJ1143. So they are affected more
deeply than the Anglo communities in Dallas. Id.
613. Rep. Anchia has heard complaints from constituents (fewer than 10) in Dallas County about
Spanish-language materials not being available at polling locations. Anchia depo. at 75.
614. 54.8% of Hispanics in Dallas County lack a high school education (compared to 25.1% of the
total population of Dallas County). Joint Expert Ex. E-1 (Chapa Report) Table 4. The per capita
income for Hispanics was $12,727, compared to $43,103 for non-Hispanic Anglos. Id. Table 5.
33.24% of Hispanic children live in poverty, compared to 7.01% of non-Latino Anglo children.
Joint Expert Ex. E-9 (Gonzalez-Baker Report) Table 8.
615. The HCVAP of Dallas County in 2010 was estimated to be 19.17% (using 2005-2009 ACS
data), yet Latinos have only 2/14 districts (14%) in Plan H283. Latino representation is not
616. Dallas County lost two districts and four Republicans were paired because all Democrats
represented minority districts and thus mapdrawers felt they could not be paired.
617. Despite the decline in Anglo growth and increase in minority growth, Plan H283 maintains
only the six existing districts represented by minority Democrats and eliminates emerging minority
618. Downton used racial shading to draw all of the minority districts in Dallas County. Downton
drew lines and split precincts based on race to put Anglos in HD105 (which had an Anglo
Republican incumbent) and put Latinos in HD103 and HD104. He was told to pair Anderson and
Harper-Brown, and thus HD105 extends south into HD104 to get to Anderson’s house, but this
caused Downton to have to use race and split precincts to keep HD104 at 50% SSVR. This
configuration also eliminated emerging minority coalition district HD106.
619. In Plan H100, Tarrant County had ten districts (HD90, HD91, HD92, HD93, HD94, HD95,
HD96, HD97, HD98, and HD99). It had one African-American opportunity district, HD95 (BCVAP
54.2%), which was represented by Marc Veasey (African American, Democrat). And it had one
Latino district, HD90, which was represented by Lon Burnam (Anglo, Democrat). HD90 was 47.9%
HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data and 49.5% (+/- 2) HCVAP using 2008-2012 ACS data. Except
for HD90, HD93, and HD95, all benchmark districts were majority Anglo VAP.
620. Benchmark HD93 (represented by Anglo Republican Nash) was 53% Black + Hispanic VAP
(and only 37.9% Anglo VAP). HD93 was 50.5% (+/1 1.3) Anglo CVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data
but only 46.9 Anglo CVAP using 2008-2012 ACS data. Using 2005-2009 ACS data, B+HCVAP
was 41.7% and using 2008-2012 ACS data, B+HCVAP was 43.4%. HD93 elected Democrat Paula
Pierson in 2006 and 2008. However, Republican Nash defeated Pierson in 2010 by 431 votes.
621. Benchmark HD96 was minority-majority in terms of total population (Anglo population was
49%), but was majority-Anglo VAP (53.6%) and CVAP (61.4% using 2005-2009 ACS data). In
HD96, Democrat Chris Turner defeated Republican incumbent Bill Zedler in 2008, but Zedler then
defeated Turner in 2010.
622. Thus, at the time of redistricting, two minority districts HD90 and HD95 were represented by
Democrats, and the other eight districts were represented by Anglo Republicans.
623. In the last decade, Tarrant County grew by 362,815 residents, but only 41,882 of them were
Anglo, meaning minority population growth accounted for almost 89% of Tarrant County’s
population growth. Joint Expert Ex. E-5 (Martin Report) at 10; TrJ1432 (Korbel). The Hispanic
population increased by 197,687; African-American population increased by 79,809; and Asian
population increased by 31,321. Joint Expert Ex. E-5 (Martin Report) at 10. Tarrant County gained
one seat, so HD101 from Dallas County was moved to Tarrant County. But no new minority
opportunities were created, and Plaintiffs’ expert Korbel testified that two districts where minorities
might have had a chance to elect their representatives of choice were eliminated. TrJ1433. Martin
opined that the enacted map merely maintained the status quo, preserving the two effective minority
districts (HD90 and HD95) (though unnecessarily packing them) and replacing HD93 with HD101
as a majority-minority coalition district. Joint Expert Ex. E-5 (Martin Report) at 10-11.
624. At the start of redistricting, Solomons asked Rep. Charlie Geren, a member of the HRC, to take
the lead on the Tarrant County delegation map, so Geren led the Tarrant County delegation. TrJ2097
(Downton), TrJ29 (Veasey); Interiano 8-2-11 depo. (Joint Ex. J-61) at 27-28; TrJ1561 (Interiano).
The members of the Tarrant County delegation met once or twice and were able to agree on the lines.
TrJ13 (Veasey). Downton helped to get a consensus map. TrJ2097 (Downton); TrJ1576 (Interiano).
Veasey initialed a map of his district HD95 to show his approval. TrJ13 (Veasey). Everyone in the
Tarrant County delegation agreed on their districts and signed off on a delegation map (hrc1H195)
in late March. TrJ14 (Veasey); D-233; US-498 (no obj); Quesada-341. This was incorporated into
Plan H113, and therefore the configuration of Tarrant County in Plan H113 came from the
delegation. Tr929, TrJ2099 (Downton).20
625. In the benchmark Plan H100, HD90 had a total SSVR of 45% (and 47.2% non-suspense
SSVR). TrJ1561 (Interiano). Lon Burnam (Anglo, Democrat) was the incumbent in HD90.
TrJ1562 (Interiano). In Plan H113, total SSVR dropped to 40% (41.9% non-suspense). TrJ2099
(Downton); TrJ1562 (Interiano).
626. Hanna’s first retrogression memo (written around April 7) noted, “While current District 90
is short people and that likely accounts for most of the drop in SSVR, further consideration should
be given to see whether the level of SSVR in the proposed plan can be raised to come closer to the
level in the current plan.” D-122. Hanna’s second retrogression memo, written around April 12,
raises the same point. D-327; TrJ2145-46 (Downton).
627. At the April 15 HRC hearing, Luis Figueroa of MALDEF testified in opposition to Plan H113
and in support of MALDEF’s Plan H115. He stated, “[W]e can draw Section 2 compliant districts
in West Texas, in the Valley, and increase populations in Houston [in] Representative Farrar’s
Veasey testified that when the first House plan (Plan H113) was publicly released, Veasey’s district HD95
was different than the one he signed off on. TrJ14 (Veasey). However, Veasey was more likely referring to changes
made later in Plan H153 because his district in Plan H113 is the same as the district he approved (D-233).
district [HD148] and in Lon Burnam’s district [HD90] to create a clear Latino CVAP majority
district.” D-595 at 34. In Plan H115, HD90 had 46.8% total SSVR, 48.9% non-suspense SSVR, and
51.7% HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data. Joint Map Ex. J-23. In response to questioning,
Figueroa also pointed out that in HD90 in Tarrant County, Solomons’ proposal reduced the (nonsuspense) SSVR from 47.2% to 41.9% while MALDEF was able to increase it by almost ten points
over Solomons’ map. D-595 at 32. Figueroa said MALDEF wanted to “ensure that that district
becomes a Latino citizen voting age population” majority district. D-595 at 66.
628. At the April 17 HRC hearing, Jose Chavez testified on behalf of himself that Plan H113 did
not reflect the population changes. He noted that Tarrant County had seen tremendous minority
population growth. He stated that HD90, 93, 95, and 96 were performing minority districts, and
although there was a new seat added to Tarrant County, there were only three performing
districts—HD90, 95, and H101—in Tarrant County in Plan H113. He said HD90 and HD95 were
packed by taking voters from HD96 (which had a combined minority population over 50%). He said
they packed three districts and cracked two to end up with only the three performing districts. A
member of the HRC noted that HD90 had 40% SSVR, which was down from the benchmark, but
it only concerned him somewhat because the district would probably perform given its consistent
performance. He also noted that it seemed inconsistent with the growth pattern for the SSVR to
629. In response to Figueroa’s testimony, Hanna’s concerns, and to offset the loss of SSVR-majority
district HD33 in Nueces County, the mapdrawers made changes to HD90 to increase its SSVR.
Tr930, TrJ2097-99, TrJ2145-46 (Downton); Tr1431, TrJ1562 (Interiano). Downton made changes
to bring HD90 over 50% SSVR; those changes involved including new areas with Hispanic
population in the southeast portion of HD90 (areas that had been in Veasey’s district HD95) and
reducing the non-Hispanic population to the far south (which was put into HD95) and in the western
part of the district (which was put into HD99, represented by Anglo Republican Charlie Geren).
TrJ2101 (Downton). Some population was also exchanged between HD90 and HD93 in the
northeast part of the district. Burnam and Veasey were not consulted about the changes before they
were made, and they later opposed the changes. Tr930, TrJ2101 (Downton). These changes
(reflected in Plan H134) (along with a minor change moving some population from HD99 to HD97
in Plan H151) were incorporated into the plan (Plan H153) at the April 19 HRC meeting.
630. Veasey testified that there were some key African-American neighborhoods that were taken
out of his district HD95 and some areas that were added in, and he was “completely in the dark about
it” and “very upset.” TrJ14. Veasey said that he did not know why the changes were made because
no one came to him and no one reached out to explain the changes to him. TrJ15. Veasey was on
the HRC and would have been very accessible. TrJ15-16. He felt that the process was secret and
there was no transparency. TrJ15.
631. In Hanna’s third retrogression memo (written about April 20) concerning Plan H153, Hanna
noted that the total SSVR of HD90 was 47.9% and there were no retrogression issues identified. D123; TrJ2146 (Downton). Downton testified that he would have been using non-suspense SSVR on
RedAppl, which was 50.1%, to measure the SSVR of the district. TrJ2146.
632. On April 27 at the floor debate, when Solomons laid out Plan H153, he said, “Specifically we
increased the SSR-SSVR- in District 90 in Tarrant County and District 148 in Harris County. Both
of these changes were made at the request of MALDEF.” D-13 at S100; D-190 at 632; TrJ32
(Veasey). Rep. Veasey noted that HD101 was a new coalition district but questioned why HD93 in
Tarrant County was retrogressed. Solomons stated it was an agreed, drop-in map from the
delegation. D-13 at S116. Veasey later stated that the members had not approved of the entire
County map, only their districts. Id. at S163. He further noted that his and Burnam’s districts had
been changed without their approval, but with the approval of people in Anglo districts. Id. at S117.
Rep. Geren responded that HD93 was a minority district that became HD101, and that the new HD93
did not resemble the old HD93 at all, and that MALDEF asked them to increase the HVAP of HD90.
Id. Veasey responded that legally that meant nothing because HD90 was already an opportunity
district that had been performing, and HD90 now came far into his district HD95. Id. Geren
responded that “it has more Hispanic opportunity now than what it was.” Id. at S118. Solomons
said the SSVR numbers of HD90 and HD148 “were increased slightly . . . because we were advised
basically we needed to do that just for additional protection to make sure that they were where they
needed to be.” Id. Solomons said the only reason they increased the SSVR of HD90 was because
MALDEF requested it and its SSVR was only at 45% before. D-13 at S119-20.
633. Rep. Veasey proposed Amendment No. 10 (H120) for Tarrant County that would have created
a new minority opportunity district (HD96) in Tarrant County. D-13 at S160; D-190 at 106-07. He
said his map more accurately reflected the growth there. Veasey said that there were four majority
Black and Hispanic districts in the benchmark, and that H153 dropped a minority opportunity district
from the benchmark Tarrant County (from 4 to 3) and packed his district and Burnam’s
unnecessarily, despite the large minority growth. Veasey further noted that Tarrant County had
agreed on a map but his (HD95) and Rep. Burnam’s district (HD90), the two most minority districts,
had been changed. D-13 at S161. Rep. Truitt (Anglo, Republican) complained that Veasey’s map
split communities of interest in northeast Tarrant County. Id. at S162. Veasey stated, “There’s a big
line going through the middle of my district. Representative Geren picked up the Como community,
and I think everybody over there knows Charlie [Geren] and I think they are more comfortable being
represented by Lon [Burnam]. But if you look at the major changes that took place from after the
point in which we signed off, the big change that has happened in the districts were represented by
the minorities, and we didn’t approve them.” Id. at S163. Burnam and Veasey stated that they did
not approve of the whole Tarrant County map, only their districts, which were then changed. Id.
Burnam stated that his district has essentially been the same since it was first created by the federal
court in 1978. Id. He also stated that, “Since the creation of this district, neighborhoods that are
incredibly important and protected by virtue of their minority status in District 90 include the Lake
Como community.” Id. Como had been moved into HD99, represented by Anglo Republican
Geren.) Burnam also complained that his neighborhood was split. Id. Veasey further asserted that
HD96, represented by Zedler (Anglo Republican), was “one of the fastest growing minority areas
in the entire county” and they had “a shot to decide who gets elected in that district,” but “[u]nder
the plan that was voted out, they do not have that opportunity anymore” and “[t]hey’ve become
completely irrelevant under what was voted out [of the HRC].” Geren moved to table the
amendment, stating that it split communities of interest and dropped the HVAP of HD90 below 50%,
and that there were only three minority districts in the benchmark. Id. at S164-65. Burnam stated
that he was elected in a district that was 47.2% SSVR, and although the committee map raised it over
50%, it was done by making his district 8,200 plus people below the ideal population and by taking
the Lake Como community out, which is an overwhelming minority-majority community, and put
into Geren’s district. Id. at S165. Burnam and Veasey argued that the map was retrogressive, that
HD90 was already effective, and that the map did not represent Tarrant county. They also asserted
that HD96 was an effective coalition district when there was good turnout, and it had been cracked
to assure reelection of a white representative. Id. at S167. Geren pointed out that changes were also
made to districts represented by Nash, Patrick, and Shelton, but Veasey said they were only “slight
changes.” Id. The amendment was tabled.
634. Burnam laid out Amendment No. 11(H203) and a perfecting Amendment No. 12 (H236) for
Tarrant County. D-13 at S168; D-190 at 108-11. He said he thought they had an agreed-to plan
acceptable for HD90, which was established by a federal judge in 1978. D-13 at S168. He said his
plan was ugly, but it fixed HD90 and put Lake Como back. It was only 49.1% SSVR, but he said
that the 50% number was arbitrary, and the DOJ had rejected using a fixed demographic percentage
in favor of a functional analysis. Id. Burnam stated that the predominantly African-American
district in Tarrant County was packed, that his district represents “the artificial nuance of just two
or three percentage points in the registered Hispanic voters, when, in fact, the proposed map takes
out over 10 percent of the voting population in this district, which includes the minority constituency
in the Lake Como community. It rips it out and puts it in a district in far northwest Tarrant County
in Azle. And while the people in Azle are wonderful folks they just don’t have very much in
common with my inner-city Fort Worth constituency, the Lake Como community. I’m extremely
concerned that in a district that is largely a no growth district that you would put me at such a low
number. It undermines the one person, one vote.” Id. at S169. Solomons stated that there were
problems with the amendment because it reduced the SSVR of HD90 below 50% (to 49.1%) and that
MALDEF had testified that it needed to be above 50%. Burnam asked him if he had heard Veasey
talking about the letter from representatives of the Latino community stating that the 50% criteria
was not particularly important in this instance, and Solomons stated that the letter did not repudiate
and take back the MALDEF testimony on the record. Solomons stated that they were trying to be
consistent and conservative about legal risk. Id. at S171. Burnam also asked him about the DOJ
guidelines and stated that “it looks a little hypocritical to people that are looking at it closely because
if you were really following the MALDEF recommendation you would create five new Hispanic
districts not just call Representative Farrar’s district and my district new Hispanic districts. Those
two communities in Harris County and Tarrant County already vote for who they want to vote for,
and those minority communities don’t want to have their districts ripped up.” Id. at S172. Solomons
moved to table. Veasey and Burnam reiterated that Plan H153 was “all a contrivance to look like
we’re not in retrogression” and that there would be a lawsuit if the map was not changed. The
proposed amendment was tabled. Id. at S173.
635. Rep. Martinez Fischer then set forth Amendment No. 32 (H199) focusing on Dallas and
Tarrant Counties to increase the number of opportunity districts from three to five. This plan created
three districts that spanned Dallas and Tarrant Counties and thus broke the County Line Rule. He
stated that Plan H153 violated § 2 of the VRA by limiting the creation of minority opportunity
districts. Rep. Alonzo stated it was the same plan Martinez Fischer had presented for other areas, but
he was just focusing on DFW. Id. at S223. A statement of legal issues regarding the DFW
metroplex and the April 27, 2011 letter from MALDEF stating that Plan H153 was retrogressive was
made a part of the record. Id. at S224. The statement argued that use of the County Line Rule
fenced apart minority voters in Dallas County and Tarrant County, and that Plan H153 packed
minority districts and failed to create additional minority opportunity districts, while alternative plans
created up to two by unpacking districts and avoiding the County Line Rule. Id. at S222. The
amendment was tabled. Id. at S230.
636. Rep. Coleman offered Plan H232. He said that almost 89% of the growth was non-Anglo in
Tarrant County, and his map would maintain communities of interest and the core of effective
minority opportunity districts 90 and 95, while also creating two new coalition districts, HD106 and
HD96. Plan H232 moves HD106 from Dallas County into Tarrant County and turns it into a
minority coalition district with 19.6% HCVAP and 26.9% BCVAP. HD90 is 44.3% HCVAP using
2005-2009 ACS data and 40.4/42.1% SSVR. HD95 is 52.9% BCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data.
HD93 and HD96 are both Anglo-CVAP majority districts, though HD96 is only 49% Anglo VAP.
See also Joint Expert Ex. E-3 (Lichtman Report) at 12-14; Tr1230 (Lichtman).
637. Plan H283 has eleven districts in Tarrant County. Eight of the eleven districts are majority
Anglo VAP. HD90 is 49.7%(+/- 2%) HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data and 51.6% HCVAP using
2008-2010 ACS data. It is 47.9% total/50.1% non-suspense SSVR. HD95 is 49.8% (+/-1.5)
BCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data and 49.1% BCVAP using 2008-2012 ACS data. HD93 is
66.5% Anglo CVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data and 57.8% Anglo VAP. HD96 is 62% Anglo VAP
and 68.4% Anglo CVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data. Thus, both HD93 and HD96 are solid Anglo
districts. The new HD101 is 29.5% Anglo VAP and 42.9% Anglo CVAP, 28% Black CVAP, 19.7%
Hispanic CVAP, and 7.8% Asian CVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data. The new HD101 elected Chris
Turner, who is the Latino candidate of choice. TrJ612 (Lopez).
638. Dr. Murray opined that Plan H283 creates minimal opportunities for minority voters. Tr1052.
He opined that Tarrant County gained a seat and has had very substantial minority growth, and had
as many as four districts (HD90, 93, 95, and 96) where minorities in combination with coalitions
have been able to elect candidates. Tr1053 (Murray); Joint Expert Ex. E-4 (Murray Report) at 34.
Murray opined that Plan H283 locks in a 2/9 delegation with just two districts where Black and
Hispanic voters will have an opportunity to elect, despite the fact that they are the fastest growing
segment of the county population. Tr1052-53.
639. Martin opined that Plan H283 packs minority opportunity districts HD90 and HD95 to prevent
creation of a majority-minority district HD96, which had a rapidly growing minority population in
the benchmark plan and had elected the minority candidate of choice in 2008. He stated that HD90
was already an effective Latino district, but H283 extended it into existing HD95 and HD96 to meet
an arbitrary and unnecessary 50% SSVR, and that HD95 was already an effective African-American
district, but it was extended west of I-35 to take in areas of African-American growth to protect the
Republican incumbent of HD96. Martin opined that new coalition district HD101 simply replaces
existing HD93. He noted that benchmark HD93 was 55% B+HVAP and 37.9% Anglo VAP and
new HD101 has only a 29.5% Anglo VAP and contains the bulk of HD93’s Arlington and Grand
Prairie population, but is shifted south to take in minority precincts from existing HD96 to prevent
its creation as a majority-minority district. Joint Expert Ex. E-5 (Martin Report) at 10-11.
640. Plaintiffs’ expert Korbel testified that HD93 became a very odd-shaped district cutting across
the county from its eastern border, through Fort Worth, and up to the northern border of the County.
TrJ1434. He opined that the minority population in eastern Tarrant County used to be part of HD93
and now it is joined with north Tarrant County near Denton, which is Anglo, and that dilutes the
minority vote. TrJ1434-36 (Korbel). HD93 is also one of the least compact districts in the plan.
TrJ1437 (Korbel). Korbel testified that HD96 in the southern portion of the County was developing
into a minority district, but some of its heavily minority population in the east is placed into HD101
and that stops its growth. TrJ1435 (Korbel). Korbel did not consider the role of incumbents or city
boundaries as reasons for the lines. TrJ1460-61 (Korbel).
641. Rep. Burnam testified that HD93 is the leftover district made out of nothing else that meanders
across Tarrant County, includes many municipalities, and prevents a third majority-minority district
inside the loop. Burnam depo. at 242-43.
642. Dr. Kousser testified that the shape of HD90 (Burnam’s district) is suspect, and was drawn to
capture as many Latinos as possible while avoiding non-Latinos. Tr248; Joint Expert Ex. E-2
(Kousser Report) at 99. He noted that HD90 was performing for Latinos, and had a 64.9% VAP,
47.9% HCVAP, and 47.2% non-suspense SSVR, but Plan H283 raised its HVAP to 71%, its
HCVAP to 49.7%, and its SSVR to 50.1%. Joint Expert Ex. E-2 (Kousser Report) at 98. This was
accomplished by subtracting non-Latino population, making this district the smallest in the State and
giving it the second-to-lowest perimeter-to-area compactness score (.079) in the State. Joint Expert
Ex. E-2 (Kousser Report) at 99-102.
643. HD90 is underpopulated by 4.9% and is the smallest district in Plan H283. HD95 is also
underpopulated by 3.58%. Potential coalition district HD101 is underpopulated by 1.77%. Six of
the Anglo districts are underpopulated and two are overpopulated.
644. In his report (Joint Expert Ex. E-7), Dr. Engstrom found that Latinos are highly cohesive in
support of Latino candidates with Democratic party nominations in general elections—all five had
strong support (all >90% bivariate and 86.1-98.3 multivariate). The Latino Republican, Guzman,
was not supported. All Latino candidates in Democratic primaries also received solid support from
Latino voters (74.9% - 99 % bivariate; 64.3% -85% multi). Non-Latinos were generally not
supportive of the Latino candidates. In general elections they did not share the candidate preferences
of Latino voters (35.4% to 40.1% bivariate). The multivariate analysis showed that African
Americans did support these candidates (>99%), but other voters/Anglos did not (17.6% to 25.7%).
The only Republican candidate that was a Latino did receive an estimated 60% support from nonLatino voters in bivariate analysis, but the multivariate analysis showed a deep divide between
African Americans (less than 1% support) and other voters (76.9%). Non-Latinos did not provide
a majority of their votes to any of the five Latino candidates preferred by Latino voters in the
Democratic primaries. African-American voters provided a majority of their votes to one of the five
according to multivariate analysis, as did the other voters. In the Republican primaries, non-Latino
voters, both African-Americans and others, did not support either of the Latino candidates. The
analyses reveal that Latino voters in Tarrant County have been very cohesive in their candidate
preferences for Latino candidates, and that preference is shared by African-Americans in the general
elections studied, but not by other voters. Analysis of the Democratic primary elections shows
Latinos are very cohesive in their preference for Latino candidates, but these preferences are not
generally shared by the rest of primary voters.
645. In his corrected rebuttal report (docket no. 307-1), Dr. Engstrom found racially polarized voting
in Tarrant County. He found that in the general elections Latinos were very cohesive in support of
Latino candidates with the Democratic party nomination, and that preference was not shared by nonLatino voters in any of the elections. While African-American voters were strongly supportive of
these Latino candidates, the other voters preferred the opponent in every instance. Latinos are also
strongly cohesive in support of Latino candidates in the Democratic primary elections, but that
preference was not shared by non-Latino voters, with African-American and other voters supporting
the Latino candidate in only one of six primaries.
646. Plan H201 has the same Tarrant County configuration as the enacted plan. MALC’s Plan H205
has 25 districts in Dallas and Tarrant Counties, with three districts spanning both counties (and thus
violating the County Line Rule). Joint Map Ex. J-26. It maintained HD90 (45.5% HCVAP using
2005-2009 ACS data) and HD95 (51% BCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data). HD107, which spans
Dallas and Tarrant Counties, has an Anglo CVAP of 52.7% using 2005-2009 ACS data and 46.8%
using 2008-2012 ACS data. D-108.
647. Perez Plaintiffs offer Tarrant County Plan H289, an eleven-district Tarrant County Low
Deviation (1.08% total deviation) Plan. Joint Map Ex. J-34. Martin stated that this plan preserved
HD95 as an African-American district (it is 52.2% BCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data), preserves
HD90 as an effective Latino opportunity district, replaces existing HD93 with HD106 as an effective
majority-minority coalition district, and creates HD96 as a proposed additional minority district.
Joint Expert Ex. E-5 at 11. This plan is very similar to H232 in Tarrant County. HD90 is the same
as in H232 (44.3% HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data and 40.4/42.1% SSVR). HD95 is similar,
with 52.2% BCVAP. Proposed HD106 is 43.7% Anglo CVAP, 19.6% HCVAP, and 26.9% Black
Alone CVAP (27.4% combined). HD93 and HD96 are both Anglo-CVAP majority districts, though
HD96 is only 48.8% Anglo VAP.
648. Task Force Plan H292 moves HD115 into Tarrant County, and it is 42.9% Anglo CVAP using
2005-2009 ACS data (47.7% B+HCVAP) and 37.3% Anglo CVAP using 2008-2012 ACS data
(50.7% B+HCVAP). Joint Map Ex. J-37. HD90 is 49.7% (+/- 2) HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS
data and 51.6% HCVAP using 2008-2012 ACS data. HD95 is 49.8% (+/- 1.5) BCVAP using 20052009 ACS data and 49.1% BCVAP using 2008-2012 ACS data. Joint Map Ex. J-37; D-111. All
other districts are majority-Anglo VAP.
649. Terrysa Guerra, a campaign staffer and consultant who worked for Chris Turner in Tarrant
County in 2008 and 2010, testified about “black/brown coalitions” in Tarrant County. Tr1146.
Turner won election in HD96 in 2008, but lost in 2010. Guerra testified that these groups existed
in 2008 and were working on different neighborhood issues and other issues not related to a specific
candidate. Tr1146. She testified this coalition was successful in 2008 and also elected Senator
Wendy Davis in that area. Tr1147. She stated that they were not successful in 2010, and the tone
of the 2010 election was “venomous.” Tr1148. She testified that Turner’s skin was darkened and
he was given a gap in his teeth in Zedler’s 2010 opposition campaign materials, and they tried to link
him to President Obama. Tr1148-51. In one mail piece Turner is wearing a Mexican flag button.
Tr1152 (Guerra); NAACP-609. She said these mail pieces only went to Anglo households. Tr115051. Guerra testified that Zedler was a member of the Tea Party, which she had seen making race an
issue in elections. Tr1149.
650. In Tarrant County, 47% of Hispanics lack a high school education. Joint Expert Ex. E-1
(Chapa report) Table 4. The per capita income for Hispanics was $14,489, compared to $35,179 for
non-Hispanic Anglos. Id. Table 5. 28.93% of Hispanic children live in poverty, compared to 13.71%
of non-Hispanic Anglo children. Joint Expert Ex. E-9 (Gonzalez-Baker Report) Table 8.
651. Tarrant County went from 11.37% HCVAP in 2000 to 13.99% under the 2005-2009 ACS
Special Tabulation (D-51).
652. Due to minority population growth, Tarrant County gained a district, but the Legislature
maintained the status quo, keeping a Latino district, an African-American district, and a potential
653. Mapdrawers increased the SSVR of HD90 above 50% (non-suspense) to offset the loss of
HD33 in Nueces County (and perhaps also in response to concerns raised by MALDEF and Hanna
about potential retrogression). Downton made these changes based on race. Mapdrawers applied
the 50% SSVR threshold without regard to whether the district was already performing for
654. The McLennan County/Waco district (at the time HD35) was the subject of litigation over atlarge districts in Graves v. Barnes II, 378 F. Supp. 640 (W.D. Tex. 1974). TrJ1441 (Korbel). In that
opinion, the court stated, “All of these factors—past history of discrimination resulting in continuing
lack of minority political participation, demographic and geographic factors, the failure of the few
bids of minority candidates, and the present representatives’ lack of commitment to the particularized
needs of minorities—present a persuasive pattern of cancellation and minimization of minority
voting strength.” The court held that the use of multi-member districts in McLennan County was
655. What is now HD57 was drawn so that minorities could elect representatives of their choice.
TrJ1442 (Korbel). That district has performed for minorities. TrJ1443 (Korbel). Plaintiffs provided
lay testimony from NAACP-member and County Commissioner Lester Leon Gibson. He testified
that the minority community (African-American, Hispanic, and others) vote for the candidate that
will represent their interests, regardless of their color. They are very supportive of minorities in that
area. TrJ1828 (Gibson). The minority community supported Rep. Jim Dunnam (Democrat), who
represented HD57 from 1998 to 2010, and those who won prior to him, who were responsive to the
concerns of the minority community in Waco. TrJ1828. Dunnam lost the election in 2010 to Anglo
Republican Marva Beck.
656. In Plan H100, HD56 was located wholly within McLennan County. HD57 joined the
remainder of McLennan County with Falls, Robertson, Leon, and Madison Counties. The City of
Waco was divided between districts 56 and 57. HD14 was wholly within Brazos County and
included most of Bryan/College Station, and the remainder of Brazos County was joined with HD17
to the southwest. Brazos County was not connected to McLennan County in a district.
657. In 2010, HD57 was majority minority in terms of total population (45.5% Anglo population).
Red-202 Report. However, it was majority Anglo VAP (50.7%) and majority Anglo CVAP (57.3%
using 2005-2009 ACS data and 55.8% using 2008-2012 ACS data). D-100 (Red-106 Report; Red116 Report).
658. HD56 was 12,339 people underpopulated. HD57 was 23,076 people underpopulated. HD14
was 14,441 people overpopulated. Red-202 Report.
659. In Plan H283, HD56 remains wholly within McLennan County and includes large portions of
Waco. HD14 remains in Brazos County and includes much, but not all of Bryan/College Station.
Although it has a somewhat odd shape, many of the lines track city boundaries and a river. HD12
(which takes the place of HD57) moves west and now joins the remainder of McLennan County to
the remainder of Brazos County, spanning Limestone County, Falls County, and Robertson County
in between. MALC-132 (map). All three districts are majority Anglo in terms of total population,
VAP, and CVAP. HD12 is 55.2% Anglo in terms of total population.
660. Instead of underpopulated HD56 simply gaining population from HD57, mapdrawers shifted
population between the two districts along their boundary in McLennan County in Plan H283. The
mapdrawers removed largely minority areas of Waco (about 23,000 people who were 70% minority)
from HD57 (renumbered HD12) and replaced them with more Anglo areas (about 20,000 people
who were 80% Anglo). TrJ1444 (Korbel). A significant portion of minority population is moved
out, including minority Precincts 12 and 14. TrJ1444; TrJ1841 (Gibson). This split minority
communities of interest and cracked minority voting strength. TrJ1444 (Korbel); TrJ1837 (Gibson).
Gibson testified that if HD57 were restored it could again elect minority candidates of choice.
661. MALC has provided Gingles demonstration map Plan H363 that is a three-district plug-in plan.
MALC-135 (H363 map) (Plan H367 is the same). This map joins minority population in
Bryan/College Station in Brazos County with minority population in Waco in McLennan County in
HD57. TrJ1445 (Korbel); MALC-136. Thus, by leaving benchmark HD57 essentially intact and
changing the border with HD14 in Brazos County, HD57 is 58.7% B+HVAP. TrJ1445 (Korbel);
Red-100 Report. Using 2008-2012 ACS data, HD57 is majority B+HCVAP (HCVAP is 23.7%
and BCVAP is 29.1%). MALC-137.
662. Martin noted that benchmark HD57, a 53.2% Black + Hispanic district in terms of total
population that had elected the minority candidate of choice until the 2010 election, was eliminated
and effectively replaced by a 59.2% Anglo VAP HD12. Joint Expert Ex. E-5 at 14. He notes that
in statewide Plan H232, which was offered by Rep. Coleman during the session, HD57 is drawn as
a Waco-based district that is only 49.5% Anglo in terms of total population. Id. at 14. In Plan H232,
HD57 is wholly within McLennan County, and it is 55.3% Anglo VAP and 63.3% Anglo CVAP
using 2005-2009 ACS data. Joint Map Ex. J-28; Red-106 Report.
663. Gibson testified that there is a “black and brown” coalition in McLennan County. TrJ1829-30
(Gibson). They have been able to come up with a common candidate for their support. TrJ1830.
They have had success—Gibson, when he ran for school board, had the support of the coalition, and
also as county commissioner. Id. He testified that the African-American community has supported
Latino candidates with success. Id. Other examples are school board members, like Sunny Lozano,
a Justice of the Peace, and a constable. Id.
664. HD57, a majority-minority district in terms of total population (but not HVAP or HCVAP) had
been electing minority candidates of choice until the 2010 election, when it elected an Anglo
Republican. In Plan H283, population was shifted and minority population was split in Waco, and
HD57 was replaced with an Anglo-majority district (55.2% Anglo in terms of total population and
59.9% Anglo VAP).
665. Plaintiffs offer demonstration Plan H363 to show that a majority-minority coalition district
(B+HCVAP majority) could be drawn affecting only three districts in Plan H283.
666. Plaintiffs presented lay testimony of a black and brown coalition. There is no expert testimony
concerning racially polarized voting in McLennan County specifically. There is evidence of racially
polarized voting and African-American and Latino cohesion in general elections statewide (e.g.,
Joint Expert Ex. E-2 (Kousser Report)) and in Bell County, which is directly adjacent to McLennan
County and Falls County.
Bell and Lampasas Counties
667. In Plan H100, two districts, HD54 and HD55, were wholly contained within Bell, Burnet, and
668. HD54 included all of Lampasas and Burnet Counties and almost all of the City of Killeen in
Bell County. TrJ1726 (Aycock); D-340. Jimmie Don Aycock (Anglo, Republican), who lives in
Killeen, represented HD54. TrJ1725 (Aycock). HD 54 was 48.5% Anglo (i.e., majority minority)
in terms of total population and was 53.4% Anglo (i.e., majority Anglo) in terms of VAP. Using
2005-2009 ACS data, benchmark HD54 was Anglo-majority CVAP (it was 14.8% HCVAP, 20.5%
Black alone CVAP, 2.1% Asian alone CVAP, and 59.4% Anglo CVAP). Red-106 Report. It was
55.3% Anglo CVAP using 2008-2012 ACS data. D-100.
669. HD55 included the rest of Bell County, including the cities of Temple and Belton. D-340.
HD55 was 62.1% Anglo in terms of total population and 66.4% Anglo VAP. Red-202 Report. The
HD55 incumbent was Ralph Sheffield (Anglo, Republican).
670. HD54 was overpopulated by 28,815 persons, and HD55 was overpopulated by 8,573. Minority
population growth accounted for more than 70% of the growth in Bell and Lampasas Counties
between 2000 and 2010. MALC-151. Due to population growth in Bell and Burnet Counties, the
two counties could not be joined in a house district, so Burnet County was removed from HD54.
671. Aycock requested to be on the HRC because he wanted input into how HD54 was drawn. He
was senior to Sheffield, the HD55 incumbent, so he took the lead in drawing the lines between HD54
and HD55. TrJ1729 (Aycock). Aycock worked with Sheffield. TrJ1730 (Aycock). They worked
well together and reached a compromise map for their districts. Id. Because Aycock lost Burnet
County, which was a heavily Republican portion of his district, he was anxious to gain Republican
strength and looked for places that could be done, like Salado, which Sheffield did not want to give
up. TrJ1731 (Aycock). Sheffield gave Aycock Salado as part of their compromise. Incumbency/
Republican protection was a high priority, and Aycock “was looking for Republican voters who
would vote for [him] primarily.” TrJ1741-44 (Aycock).
672. Aycock was responsible for the lines of districts HD54 and HD55 in Plan H283. TrJ1770
(Aycock). He went to Downton when he needed assistance moving the lines; he would direct
Downton where to move lines. TrJ1755 (Aycock) (“I knew where the voters were and knew where
I wanted to draw those lines”). Aycock denied drawing the lines on the basis of race. Id.
673. Aycock is not a lawyer and has no VRA expertise. He relied on staff to tell him if the districts
complied with the VRA and other legal requirements. TrJ1741 (Aycock). Aycock stated that he
looked at whether he had to create a coalition district but “the combined minority populations do not
exceed 50%.” TrJ1766. He did not think a coalition district was required by the VRA. TrJ1769.
He also stated in his deposition that a coalition district “would have probably got me unelected
because I couldn’t put that many Republicans together in one place.” Id. He testified that he “sort
of looked at” whether he could configure HD54 in such a way that it would create a coalition district
and came to the conclusion that it could not be done. TrJ1766-67 (Aycock). He did not look at
election returns in deciding not to draw a coalition district. TrJ1767.
674. On February 16, 2011, the Senate Select Committee held a hearing on redistricting to solicit
public testimony and hear invited testimony. D-117 at 33; D-589 (transcript). Claudia Brown of
Killeen testified about an African-American community in Bell County that she would like to see
together for voting. D-589 at 37.
675. The initial configuration of districts HD54 and HD55 in Plan H113 came from Rep. Aycock.
This was the configuration that remained throughout the session and is in Plan H283. In Plan H283,
HD54 includes all of Lampasas County and the western part of Bell County, including the City of
Harker Heights and much of the City of Killeen. Burnet County is no longer part of HD54. HD55
includes the eastern portion of Bell County, including Temple and Belton, and the rest of Killeen and
most of Fort Hood within Bell County. D-341. HD54 is 99 (.06%) above the ideal district
population and HD55 is 5,461 (-3.26%) below. Red-100 Report.
676. In Plan H283, HD54 is 47.6% Anglo in terms of total population, 52.1% Anglo VAP, 15.8%
HCVAP, 22.2% Black alone CVAP, 2.6% Asian alone CVAP, and 56.1% Anglo CVAP using 20052009 ACS data (and 52.4% Anglo using 2008-2012 ACS data). D-109; MALC-114. There were
increases in all three minority populations from the benchmark. TrJ1731 (Aycock). This was due
to minority growth and because HD54 no longer included Burnet County, which is more Anglo.
677. In Plan H283, HD55 is 56.9% Anglo in terms of total population, 61.3% Anglo VAP, and
64.9% Anglo CVAP (under both the 2005-2009 and 2008-2012 ACS). D-109; MALC-114.
678. During the floor debate on April 27, the Texas Legislative Black Caucus introduced Plan H202
(and the NAACP relied on this plan during trial). Plan H202 created HD54 encompassing most of
the City of Killeen and the City of Harker Heights in Bell County, and HD55 includes the remainder
of Bell County and all of Lampasas County. HD54 in Plan H202 is 17.7% HCVAP, 28.7% BCVAP,
3.2% Asian CVAP, .8% American Indian CVAP (and thus a combined minority CVAP of 50.4%
using 2005-2009 ACS data) and 46.4% Anglo CVAP. Red-106 Report; Tr842 (Fairfax). It is a
proposed majority-minority coalition district. Tr842 (Fairfax).21
679. Aycock opposed Plan H202 because it connected Lampasas County to Temple/Belton in the
eastern part of Bell County, instead of putting Lampasas County with the western part of Bell
County/Killeen. Aycock testified that he felt that Lampasas County was more aligned with western
Bell County than with Temple/Belton, so it was beneficial for them to remain in a district with
Killeen. TrJ1732, TrJ1741. Aycock testified that Killeen is the largest population center accessible
easily to Lampasas County, and people in Lampasas County have commonality with Killeen.
TrJ1734, TrJ1741. He also noted that H202 still has a split of Killeen. TrJ1735. However, he
acknowledged that the vast majority of Killeen population is in HD54. TrJ1759.
According to Dr. Fairfax, HD54 in 2014 would have a B+HCVAP of 53.29%. TrJ912 (Farifax). Fairfax
estimated the combined B+HCVAP of HD54 in 2010 was 47.9%. NAACP-673.
680. During the session, Rep. Martinez Fischer proposed Plan H201 and other plans that created a
district combining parts of Killeen with parts of Temple and Belton in Bell County and had an Anglo
CVAP of 43.7%. Aycock opposed this configuration because it included a “land bridge” joining the
population of Killeen with Temple and Belton. TrJ1770 (Aycock). However, he admits that Plan
H283, which he voted for, also includes land bridges in other areas. Id.
681. During the April 27 floor debate, Rep. Coleman introduced Plan H232 as a statewide substitute
to Plan H153, which maintained HD54 and HD55 wholly within Lampasas and Bell Counties. It
created HD54, a proposed minority coalition district. Tr409 (Martin); Joint Map Ex. J-28. HD54
joined Lampasas County with Fort Hood and most of Killeen. Using 2005-2009 ACS data, it
showed Anglo CVAP of 49.7% (+/- 1.4). Red-106 Report. BVAP is 28.4%, HVAP is 19.4%, SSVR
is 13.1%, and HCVAP 17.5%. Anglo VAP is 46.6%, less than a majority. Tr410 (Martin); Red-100
Report. HD54 is drawn as a majority-minority district that reunites the Killeen and Ft. Hood
community that was split by Plan H283, and when Martin drew this district for Coleman, he assumed
minority voter cohesion. Tr411(Martin); Joint Expert Ex. E-5 (Martin Report) at 14. Rep. Davis
testified that it made sense not to split this community up and that HD54 would be a coalition district
with the possibility that the minority groups would be politically cohesive based on anecdotal
experience and her analysis of election data. Y. Davis depo. at 63-65.
682. In Plan H283, the minority population of Bell County is divided between the two districts.
MALC-113 (racial shading exhibit). Plan H283 fails to create a majority-minority district in Bell
and Lampasas Counties. Tr408 (Martin). Minorities in Bell County do not have an opportunity to
elect their candidate of choice in Plan H283. Id.
683. Aycock testified that he primarily wanted to maintain communities of interest and that
maintaining communities of interest is important. TrJ1739-41, TrJ1762. He agreed that the City of
Killeen is a community of interest. TrJ1746. The City of Killeen has elected an African-American
mayor (Hancock) and a Latino mayor (Villaronga). TrJ1747 (Aycock). There was a small split of
Killeen in the benchmark, but the split was enlarged in H283 (more of Killeen voters were removed
from HD54). TrJ1743 (Aycock). Aycock’s assertion that it was more important to keep Lampasas
County together with the City of Killeen as a community of interest (TrJ1744) than it was to keep
the City of Killeen together as a community of interest is not credible. Killeen has been kept
virtually whole in one district in previous plans. TrJ1403 (Korbel). The decision to split Killeen,
which is more than 50% minority (TrJ1760 (Aycock)) was made to ensure that HD54 and HD55
would remain Republican and would re-elect the Republican incumbents. To accomplish this goal,
Killeen was split and more of it was removed from Aycock’s district, which Aycock knew meant
that he was removing minority voters because Killeen is heavily minority in all areas. TrJ1744
(Aycock). About 32,000 persons (about two-thirds minority) from the northern part of Killeen were
removed from HD54. TrJ1404 (Korbel). 47,000 persons from southwest Bell County, including
Salado, an area that historically votes heavily Republican, and which is more Anglo than Killeen,
were placed into HD54. TrJ1405 (Korbel); TrJ1745 (Aycock). Thus, areas that were largely
minority voters were removed from HD54 and replaced with areas that were largely Anglo voters;
the effect was to make it more difficult for minority voters in HD54 to elect their candidate of
684. Plaintiffs’ demonstration maps propose minority coalition districts; none are 50.1% of a single
minority group. TrJ1454 (Korbel).
685. LULAC has provided Plan H293 with a proposed Gingles demonstration district in Bell County
that joins portions of Killeen and Harker Heights with portions of Temple and Belton. LULAC-122C; Joint Map Ex. J-38; Tr700-01 (Korbel). Using 2005-2009 ACS, this district has 19% HCVAP,
31.2% BCVAP, and 2.8% Asian CVAP. Red-106 Report. B+HCVAP is therefore 50.2% and
B+H+Asian CVAP is 53%. Anglo VAP is 39.2% and Anglo CVAP is 43.6%. Red-202 Report;
Red-106 Report. This is a proposed minority coalition district. The compactness scores for the
district are .310 area rubber band and .025 perimeter-to-area. Red-315 Report. The proposed district
is not compact and fails to satisfy the first Gingles precondition.
686. MALC has provided Plan H329 as a Gingles demonstration map. MALC-115 (demo map).
This map creates a compact district, HD54, based around the City of Killeen, while HD55 takes in
the remainder of Bell County and all of Lampasas County. HD54 keeps the minority population in
and around Killeen together. MALC-116 (demo map with racial shading). HD54 Anglo CVAP is
43%; (B+H+Asian CVAP is 51.6%), and HD55 Anglo CVAP is 73.2%. MALC-117(demographic
data using 2008-2012 ACS for H329). These districts could plug-in to the existing map.
687. LULAC, MALC, and the Perez Plaintiffs have provided Plan H364 as a Gingles demonstration
two-district map. TrJ1406 (Korbel); MALC-118 (demo map) (it consists of two plug-in districts to
map H283, H309, or H358) . This map creates HD54, a compact district centered around Killeen.
HD54 includes almost the entire city of Killeen (with the exception of finger annexations with
virtually no population) and all of nearby Fort Hood that is within Bell County. TrJ1406; MALC172. HD55 includes the remainder of Bell County and all of Lampasas county. This map keeps the
minority community in Killeen together in HD54 and joins it with Fort Hood. MALC-119 (H364
map with racial shading). The B+HVAP of HD54 is 50.5%. TrJ1408 (Korbel); Red-202 Report;
MALC-172. Using 2008-2012 ACS data, the B+HCVAP is 50.4% (including Black plus White and
Black plus American Indian). TrJ1408; MALC-172 (Red-116 Report). Using 2008-2012 ACS data,
HD54 is 42.4% Anglo CVAP (B+H+A CVAP is 52.2%), and HD55 is 73.1% Anglo CVAP.
TrJ1408; MALC-120; MALC-172/Perez-135 at 25. Compactness measures are essentially the same
between H283 and H364. TrJ1409 (Korbel). District 54 is very compact and is more compact than
HD54 in Plan H283, while HD55 is less compact. MALC-172.
688. LULAC, MALC, and the Perez Plaintiffs have provided Plan H369 as a Gingles demonstration
map. MALC-121 (demo map) (three plug-in districts). This map creates HD54 around minority
areas in Killeen and combines them with a portion of Coryell County in order to keep all of Fort
Hood together in HD54; it also creates HD55 in the remainder of Bell County and HD59 places
Lampasas County together with other rural central Texas counties. MALC-172 ; MALC-122 (demo
map with racial shading). Using 2008-2012 ACS data, HD54 is 42.8% Anglo CVAP (B+H+A
CVAP is 51.8%) and HD55 is 70.4% Anglo CVAP. MALC-123 (demographic data using 2008-2012
689. Although Aycock has received support from some minority community leaders, including
Miok Doranski (Asian), former mayor Raul Villaronga (Hispanic), and former mayor Tim Hancock
(African American), TrJ1736-37 (Aycock), Aycock is not the minority candidate of choice. TrJ955
(Brischetto). In the race between Aycock (R) and Brown (D), almost 9 out of 10 Anglo voters
supported Aycock, while 8 out of 10 Latino voters, 9 out of 10 black voters, and 7 out of 10 Asian
voters supported Brown. TrJ955. The voting showed a clear pattern of polarization between
minority and non-minority voters. Id.22 Other races examined showed the same pattern of
polarization, with Anglo voters supporting the Republican candidate and minority voters supporting
the Democratic candidate. TrJ956 (Brischetto). Dr. Brischetto testified that Blacks, Asians, and
Latinos vote very cohesively in Bell County in the general elections. TrJ970.
690. Dr. Brischetto found racial bloc voting in general elections in Bell County. TrJ947, TrJ969;
MALC-161. He found that Latinos had a very high cohesiveness. TrJ969. He also found that
Anglo bloc voting was sufficient to usually defeat the Latino-preferred candidate. Id. Brischetto did
not analyze any primary elections in Bell County because of the lack of good predictor data of who
is voting. TrJ956. Brischetto did not conduct a multivariate analysis for the primary elections in
Bell County. TrJ978-79. No expert conducted a multivariate racially polarized voting analysis for
Anglo, Asian, Black, and Hispanic voters in the primary elections in Bell County; TrJ1866 (Alford).
Dr. Alford testified that there was no expert analysis of cohesion among Asian, Black, and Hispanic
voters in primary elections in Bell County. TrJ1866, TrJ1895. Based on all the evidence, Alford
believed it was safe to assume they would not vote cohesively. TrJ1866. Alford’s conclusions about
cohesion do not take into account lay witness testimony about minority cohesion; his conclusion is
based only on the statistical evidence. TrJ1895.
691. Phyllis Louis Jones of Killeen provided lay testimony of minority voter cohesion. TrJ1689.
She has lived in Killeen and Fort Hood and has witnessed Black and Latino voters working together
to elect candidates in Killeen. TrJ1695. They joined forces behind Timothy Hancock, an African
American, for mayor of Killeen and behind Dr. Claudia Brown, an African American, for the Texas
House. TrJ1695, TrJ1697-98. These African-American candidates were supported by Latinos.
TrA1695, TrJ1697-98. There was also a multi-racial coalition in support of Jonathan Okray, an
African American, for city council. TrJ1696. There was cohesion in support of Juan Rivera for city
council, who was supported by African Americans. TrJ1697. Based on his observation of school
board elections, Aycock did not agree that Black, Latino, and Asian voters vote as a bloc. TrJ1772
692. Jones is an election judge and has witnessed voters of color being treated differently than
Anglo voters in Bell County elections in recent years. TrJ1698-99 (Jones). She stated that Anglo
election judges do not get interpreters for Latino voters. TrJ1699. She testified that the Fraternal
Because of the large percentage of African-American voters in Bell County, Brischetto used the 2010 Census
data that identified the racial composition of a precinct to estimate votes for each racial group. TrJ953-55 (Brischetto).
Order of Police in Temple stood within 50 feet and asked voters how they were going to vote, and
this was intimidating. Id. She further testified that, in 2014, when Anglos voted they were not asked
for as much ID as Hispanic voters (if the voter was Hispanic and only had one form of ID, they had
to fill out a residency form). TrJ1702 (Jones).
693. Jones lived in benchmark HD54, represented by Jimmie Don Aycock, and she testified that he
does not adequately represent voters of color in Killeen. TrJ1703. Specifically, she did not feel he
represented them with regard to education and testing. Tr1703-04. Aycock voted for the voter ID
law even though minority groups and legislators opposed it. TrJ1751 (Aycock). He also voted for
massive education cuts in 2011, and for drug testing for individuals to get unemployment even
though these were opposed by the NAACP. TrJ1751. Latinos, African Americans, and Asians
supported Brown, an African American, against Aycock. TrJ1705 (Jones). When Brown ran against
Aycock, she won most of the minority precincts in Killeen. TrJ1755 (Aycock). Aycock does not
prevail in heavily African-American precincts. TrJ1717 (Jones). Jones testified that Bell County
needs more minority representation. TrJ1708-09.
694. Jones supports the configuration of HD54 in Plan H202 because it keeps Killeen and Harker
Heights together. TrJ1708 (Jones). It also puts Killeen with the portion of Fort Hood that is in Bell
County, and she felt that Killeen and Fort Hood should be together in a district. TrJ1706 (Jones).
However, a southern portion of Killeen is split into HD55. In Plan H283, Fort Hood is split and is
separated from the northern part of Killeen, which considers itself “one” with Fort Hood. TrJ170910 (Jones).
695. In Bell and Lampasas Counties, 13% of Hispanic and 12.1% of African-American households
received SNAP or food stamps, compared to only 5% for Anglos. MALC-152. Hispanic and
African-American families were twice as likely to be below the poverty level than Anglo families.
696. In Bell and Lampasas Counties, 15% of Hispanics over the age of 25 are functionally illiterate,
compared to 2.4% of Anglos. MALC-153. 25.5% of Hispanics over the age of 23 have not
graduated high school, compared to 8.8% for Anglos. Id. Hispanic and African-American students
lag behind Anglo students in SAT scores, college readiness, TAKS commended performance, and
advanced placement. Id.
697. Anglo Republican incumbent Aycock divided the growing minority City of Killeen to protect
698. Plaintiffs’ proposed § 2 districts are proposed minority coalition districts. There is expert
testimony and lay testimony of cohesion in the general elections.
West Texas Midland/Ector Counties
699. In Plan H100, HD81 consisted of Andrews, Winkler, and Ector Counties. HD81 was 52.4%
Hispanic in terms of total population and 47.1% HVAP. HD81 was 41.8% Anglo in terms of total
population and 47.2% Anglo VAP. HD82 consisted of Dawson, Martin, Midland, Crane, and Upton
Counties. HD82 was majority-Anglo in terms of total population and Anglo VAP. Red-202 Report.
700. Benchmark HD81 was 8,611 (-5.1%) below ideal population and HD82 was 4,403 (-2.6%)
below ideal population. Red-202 Report.
701. In Plan H283, HD82 stays the same, but Ward County is added to HD81. TrJ1393 (Korbel).
Using 2008-2012 ACS data, HD81 has 52.8% Anglo CVAP and HD82 has 60.1% Anglo CVAP.
MALC-90; D-109 at 54. Neither district is a Latino opportunity district.
702. The minority population of the nine counties that make up the Midland-Ector mix grew by
46,067, while Anglo population shrank by 8,498. TrJ1392-93 (Korbel); MALC-142. According to
2010 Census data, minorities make up more than 53% of the population of the nine-county area
included in HD81 and HD82 in Plan H283. MALC-142. There is a substantial, fast-growing
Hispanic population in the Midland-Ector County area. TrJ1393-94 (Korbel). Midland and Odessa
have been electing Hispanic county commissioners for some time now. TrJ1394. Despite the
minority growth, the Legislature did not create any opportunity districts in the Midland-Ector area.
703. Plan H111 and Plan H205, two Martinez Fischer statewide proposals submitted during the
session, create HD81 in West Texas that joins Hudspeth County next to El Paso County, with
Culberson, Reeves, Loving, Ward, Crane, and parts of Winkler, Ector, and Midland Counties.
Proposed HD81 is 51.2% HCVAP. This district splits numerous cities, including Kermit in Winkler
County, Odessa in Ector County, and Midland in Midland County. It violates the County Line Rule.
HD81 has an area-rubber-band score of .741 and a perimeter-to-area score of .235. Red-315 Report.
Rep. V. Gonzales testified that proposed HD81 was no more strange looking than HD74, a large
west-Texas district, in the enacted map. V. Gonzales depo. at 65. HD74 in Plan H283 has an arearubber-band score of .692 and a perimeter-to-area score of .189. MALC-138 (Red-315 Report).
Defendants’ expert Giberson concluded, based on compactness scores and visual observation, that
the district is not compellingly compact such that it would be required to be drawn. Joint Expert Ex.
E-18 (Giberson report) at 8; Giberson depo. (Joint Ex. J-42) at 12-13. In his deposition, he
acknowledged that the compactness scores for HD81 were not remarkable. Giberson depo. (Joint
Ex. J-42) at 87. He noted that the scores for this district benefitted from the inclusion of whole
counties on the west side, which help offset the non-compactness on the eastern side. Joint Expert
Ex. E-18 at 8; Giberson depo. (Joint Ex. J-42) at 87-88.
704. MALDEF advocated for a new Latino opportunity district in West Texas during the session.
Plan H115 creates HD81, a long, odd-shaped district that spans along I-20 from Reeves County to
Howard County, including parts of five counties and three whole counties, and breaking the County
Line Rule numerous times. It splits the cities of Kermit in Winkler County, Odessa in Ector County,
and Midland in Midland County. Proposed HD81 is 59.5% HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data.
Red-109 Report. HD81 has an area-rubber-band score of .479 and a perimeter-to-area score of .128.
705. At the April 15 HRC hearing, Luis Figueroa testified against Plan H113 and offered H115. He
asserted that the new CVAP-majority district in West Texas (HD81) united the Latino community
of interest. D-595 at 62-63. In response to questioning about the County Line Rule, Figueroa
admitted that the map broke the rule to create § 2 districts, but asserted that this was necessary to
comply with the VRA, and that the County Line Rule was being applied in a discriminatory manner
to prevent the creation of § 2 districts. Id. at 12-15, 93. (Plan H115 also has numerous county cuts
related to one-person, one-vote that were not necessary for VRA compliance and Figueroa said they
could be re-evaluated. D-595 at 96.) Figueroa asserted that proposed HD81 was compact given
the lower populations in the area and did not split any precincts. Id. at 108-16. He asserted that the
district represented “communities within different counties that are contiguous, that they are in a
compact geographical region, and the Latinos in the area are over 50 percent of the required
population size, and that they -- but not for these county line rules would be able to elect a candidate
of choice.” Id. at 106. He further stated, “And so it encompasses metropolitan areas in Ector and
includes parts of Winkler. But you can see that it doesn’t extend all the way out in one single stream,
nor does it extend into -- you’ve got to remember this area of the population is very under -- very
small population so it’s going to be larger than most districts because of the lack of population. So
for that area, it is -- it is a compact district.” Id. at 107. Rep. Phillips (Anglo, Republican) argued
that it was not compact and did not respect communities of interest like cities and commissioner
precincts, and that it was a racial gerrymander. Figueroa stated that they were willing to do further
study to encompass more communities of interest. Id. at 111. Plan H115 was not adopted.
706. At the April 27 floor debate, Rep. Alonzo (Hispanic, Democrat) laid out Amendment No. 26
(Plan H164), “the MALDEF amendment.” D-190 at 139. This plan included the same proposed
HD81 as in Plan H115. He noted that West Texas lost population and had lost two districts, but
there was an increase in Hispanic population, so they should create new opportunity districts. D-13
at S208. There was discussion that the plan paired members in Dallas, and Alonzo stated that the
main purpose of the proposal was to talk about the opportunities, and that he would withdraw it. Id.
707. Rep. Martinez Fischer laid out Amendment No. 27 (H195) and Amendment 30 (Plan H197)
as MALC statewide plans. D-13 at S210; D-190 at 190-244. These maps created the same proposed
HD81 as in Plan H111 and Plan H205. Martinez Fischer and Rep. Gallego discussed the lack of
Latino districts in West Texas, Odessa, Amarillo, Lubbock, Midland, and the Panhandle. D-13 at
S211. Martinez Fischer stated that Latinos represent 40% of the West Texas population and their
numbers had maintained growth, while Anglo population had declined, yet no growth was reflected
in the proposed plan. Id. Gallego and Rep. Alonzo discussed that the MALC plan was trying to
address the increase in Hispanic population in West Texas, even though the overall population
decline caused a loss of two seats in West Texas. Id. at S218-19. Martinez Fischer stated that the
map demonstrated that if you want to create minority opportunity districts, you certainly can, but that
it was not done. Id. at S212. Solomons stated that Martinez Fischer’s amendments unnecessarily
violated the County Line Rule and they were tabled.
708. County Commissioner Luis Sanchez testified that the majority of Latinos that live in Midland
come from a small town in Mexico called Ojinaga. TrJ445. They still read the paper from Mexico.
Id. There is a similar connection to the Mexican-American population in Odessa. TrJ446 (Sanchez).
They are U.S. citizens and residents with a common connection to a small town in Mexico. Id. He
testified that there is a natural connection between the Latino communities in Odessa and Midland.
They all work in the same type of oilfield business, the majority of their families are from that same
small town in Mexico, and they have the same media and church diocese. He testified that H283
splits up the Latino vote because the majority of Latinos are concentrated in certain areas in Midland
and certain areas of Ector County, and they would be more effective together. TrJ457-58. Sanchez
testified that Plan H283 does not give an equal opportunity for Latino voters to elect their candidate
of choice because they do not have enough concentrated minority population. TrJ459-60.
709. MALC and the Perez Plaintiffs submitted plans Plan H295, Plan H296, and Plan H297 as
interim House plans that also create a new HD81. Proposed HD81 includes all of Ward, Crane,
Upton, Reagan, Irion, Crockett, and parts of Tom Green, Midland, and Ector Counties. It is 61.4%
HVAP and 50.1% total SSVR (51% non-suspense SSVR). MALC interim plan hearing ex. 9. This
district violates the County Line Rule.
710. MALC has submitted Gingles demonstration plan H329. MALC-94 (map). In this map, HD81
takes in part of Midland and Ector Counties and large portions of West Texas. HD82 takes in the
remainder of Midland and Ector Counties. Minority areas of Midland and Odessa and Midland and
Ector Counties are joined with West Texas counties that have mixed population. MALC-95 (H329
HD81 overlay with shading by VTD). This is not a plug-in map. Using 2008 to 2012 ACS data,
HD81 is 55.3% HCVAP. MALC-96. HD81 has an area-rubber-band score of .743 and a perimeterto-area score of .238. Id. Sanchez testified that this plan would give the Latino community a better
opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice than Plan H283. TrJ463-64. Sanchez testified that
the areas encompassed are similar, and although the Latino-preferred candidate lost in an election
analysis of a similar district, he thinks someone local, who knows people, could win. TrJ464.
711. MALC submitted demonstration Plan H360 as a plug-in plan to Plan H283. MALC-91 (map).
HD81 in this plan includes Ward, Crane, Upton, and minority parts of Ector and Midland Counties.
Proposed HD81 is 50.1% HCVAP using 2008-2012 ACS data. TrJ461 (Sanchez); MALC-93.
HD82 takes the remainder of Ector County and Midland County and pairs them with Dawson
County, Martin County, Andrews County, and Winkler County. These districts can be plugged-in
to Plan H283. This plan breaks the County Line Rule.
712. Plaintiffs’ expert Korbel testified that the Midland-Odessa minority community is a naturally
occurring district, as shown in Plan H360, a two-district plug-in plan. TrJ1397. The minority
populations of Midland and Odessa are only about 12 to 15 miles apart. TrJ1396 (Korbel). But they
are separated into two districts in Plan H283 (as they were in the benchmark plan H100). Plan H360
has no VTD splits. TrJ1398 (Korbel). The district deviations are similar to those in H283. HD81
in H283 is 46.9% Hispanic VAP, and in Plan H360 it is increased to 56.3%. TrJ1399 (Korbel).
B+HVAP is increased from 50.7% to 63%. Id. HCVAP is increased from 41.4% to 50.1% in HD81.
TrJ1400. B+HCVAP increases from 45.5% to approximately 58% (57.5%). TrJ1400 (Korbel). It
does not pair the incumbents. TrJ1401 (Korbel). The districts are within the range of deviation for
compactness and there is very little difference from H283 in terms of compactness. Id. Korbel
agreed that this map likely captures every 50% plus Hispanic VTD into HD81. TrJ1456. Sanchez
testified that Plan H360 would give the Latino community more of an opportunity to elect a minority
candidate of choice. TrJ460.
713. Sanchez testified that he won his 2008 primary against an African American because he had
African-American support. He testified that he did well in his 2012 general election with Latino
voters and African-American voters. TrJ450. He also testified that Anglo voters in Midland County
generally do not support candidates that are also supported by the Latino community. TrJ455.
Latinos have not been successful in county-wide races in Midland. TrJ453 (Sanchez). The mayor
of Midland is Latino. TrJ454 (Sanchez). Sanchez did not know of any Latino officeholders elected
in and around Midland County from areas that were majority Anglo. Id. Sanchez does believe that
Midland Latino citizens have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process. TrJ468.
Korbel agrees that minority voters can and do participate in Midland and Ector County school board,
city council, and county commissioner elections. TrJ1458.
714. Plaintiffs offered the deposition and Declaration of Rep. Pete Gallego. Rep. Gallego served
eleven terms in the House and represented HD74 in West Texas. He is familiar with the location
and distribution of Latino communities in West Texas from campaigning and redistricting over four
cycles. Docket no. 331 at 2. Many of the Latino communities in West Texas represent a community
of interest consisting of individuals and families in certain low-income categories and at certain
poverty levels. These communities are characterized by high poverty levels, low income, and
significant health issues. Id. The Latino community in West Texas has experienced substantial
population growth. Instead of creating two new Latino districts, Plan H283 diluted Latino voting
strength and HD81 and HD84 are 35.8% HCVAP and 24.9% HCVAP, respectively. Id. at 3. In
contrast, MALC’s plan H205 provides Latino opportunity by including HD81 (in Midland/Ector
Counties) and HD84 (in the Panhandle) with 51.8% and 53.9% HCVAP. Id. The two districts seek
to combine communities that share a similar poverty level, low-income characteristics, and healthrelated concerns. These communities have been in place many decades and represent a politically
cohesive community with similar interests that are expressed in local, state, and national elections.
HD81 includes significant portions of the Latino community residing in the southern parts of Ector
and Midland Counties, and other counties such as Reeves, Culberson, and Hudspeth Counties, which
also contain substantial Latino communities. Id. at 4.
715. In Midland County, the mean household income for Anglos is more than twice that of
Hispanics and African Americans. MALC-140. Per capita income for Anglos is almost three times
that of Hispanics. Id. Hispanics and African Americans are four to five times more likely to rely on
food stamps than Anglos. Id. Sanchez testified that the Latino community is lower to middle class.
TrJ465. More than 22% of Hispanics over the age of 25 are functionally illiterate, compared to 1.9%
of Anglos. MALC-141. 42.9% of Hispanics and 21.4% of African Americans over the age of 25 are
not high school graduates, compared to 7.4% of Anglos. Id. 8.3% of Anglos over the age of 25 have
professional degrees, compared to 1.1% of Hispanics and 5% of African Americans. Id. Sanchez
testified that Hispanics are not doing as well as Anglo counterparts in terms of educational
716. In Ector County, the Anglo per capita income is almost twice that of Hispanics and African
Americans. MALC-143. The median income of Hispanic families is approximately two-thirds of
that of Anglos. African-American median family income is less than half that of Anglos. Id. More
than one quarter of Hispanics over the age of 25 are functionally illiterate compared to 3.5% of
Anglos. MALC-144. Anglos make up 71.2% of those with professional or post-graduate degrees
even though minorities make up more than 50% of the population. Almost 44% of Hispanics over
the age of 25 are not high school graduates, compared to 13.8% of Anglos.
717. Dr. Brischetto found racially polarized voting in general elections in Midland and Ector
Counties. TrJ947, TrJ969. He found that Latinos had a high level of cohesiveness. TrJ969. He also
found that Anglo bloc voting was sufficient to usually defeat the Latino-preferred candidate. Id.
Brischetto noted that, according to 2010 Census data, Ector county was 47.3% Latino VAP and
46.4% Anglo VAP. MALC-161 Table 8. Dr. Brischetto found racially polarized voting in Ector
County in the general election, and the Republican and Democratic primaries. TrJ947-51. Midland
County was 32.9% Latino VAP and 58% Anglo VAP. MALC-161 (Brischetto report) Table 11.
Latino voter participation was very low. MALC-161 ¶ 60. In each of the three races involving
minority candidates, voting between Latinos and non-Latinos was extremely polarized. MALC-161
¶ 61. Brischetto was unable to draw a conclusion for the Republican primary due to a lack of good
data. MALC-161 ¶ 62-63. Brischetto also did not look at the Democratic primary because there
were no races with Latino versus non-Latino candidates. MALC-161 ¶ 63.
718. Plaintiffs presented maps with majority-HCVAP districts during the session (H111/H205 and
H115/H164) that were rejected. These required breaking the County Line Rule.
719. Plaintiffs present demonstration maps with majority-HCVAP districts using 2008-2012 ACS
data (H329/H360); one is more compact and is a plug-in plan (H360). These require breaking the
County Line Rule.
720. Dr. Brischetto found racially polarized voting in general elections and Democratic primaries
in Midland and Ector Counties.
West Texas Lubbock/Panhandle
721. In Plan H100, HD84 was centered around the City of Lubbock in Lubbock County, and HD83
included the rest of Lubbock County and joined it with Hockley, Cochran, Yoakum, and Gaines
Counties. Both were Anglo-majority districts in terms of VAP, though HD84 was only 47.7% Anglo
in terms of total population. D-100; Red-202 Report.
722. In Plan H113, the first public plan, HD84 remained centered around Lubbock and wholly
within Lubbock County. HD83 joined the remainder of Lubbock County with Hockley County to
the west and Hale County to the north.
723. Plan H115 was introduced by MALDEF during the session. At the April 15 HRC hearing, Luis
Figueroa testified against Plan H113 and offered H115 with proposed Latino opportunity district
HD87 in the Panhandle, in and around Lubbock County. HD84 remains wholly within Lubbock
County. HD83 (an Anglo district) takes in part of Lubbock County and connects to eleven other
counties (six whole counties and five parts of counties). HD87 is a long, odd-shaped district that
includes two whole counties (Floyd and Crosby) and parts of nine other counties, including Lubbock
County. HD87 is 51.6% HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data and 46.8% total SSVR/48.9% nonsuspense SSVR. It has an area-rubber-band score of .395 and a perimeter-to-area score of .062.
Defendants’ expert Giberson concluded, based on compactness scores and visual observation, that
the district is not compellingly compact such that it would be required to be drawn. Joint Expert Ex.
E-18 (Giberson Report) at 8; Giberson depo. (Joint Ex. J-42) at 12-13.
724. There was quite a bit of discussion about the proposed district at the hearing. Figueroa noted
that there were “huge Latino growths” in the Panhandle region that were not reflected in the
proposed map, and that they were a community of interest so that the district could be drawn in
compliance with § 2. D-595 at 62. Rep. Hilderbran (Anglo, Republican) noted that HD87 did not
look compact, did not look like it cared about communities of interest, and “basically zigzag[ged]
around to catch precincts in those rural counties that have the most Hispanics in them.” Id. at 73.
Figueroa disputed the assertion, stating, “We drew a Latino majority district in an area that we felt
was compact enough to where a district could be drawn. And so we attempted to see if Latinos were
being split because of the county line rule and we thought the Latino communities were being split
because of the county line rule fracturing their ability to elect their candidate of choice.” Id. at 74.
Figueroa said the district was drawn with a goal of 50% HCVAP to ensure Latino voter opportunity.
Id. at 75-76. Rep. Hilderbran asserted that the Latino communities in the different counties might
have different interests, and that he thought more compact districts could be drawn that respect
communities of interest but still provide Latino opportunity. Id. at 77-79. Figueroa pointed out that
other districts in Solomons’ proposed map were not particularly compact and thus “communities of
interest and the prettiness of compactness is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.” Id. at 87.
Figueroa said that HD87 was compact given the lower populations in the area and did not split any
precincts. Id. at 108-16. He asserted that the district represented “communities within different
counties that are contiguous, that they are in a compact geographical region, and the Latinos in the
area are over 50 percent of the required population size, and that they -- but not for these county line
rules would be able to elect a candidate of choice.” Id. at 106. Figueroa noted that HD87 did not
split any precincts and although it included parts of several counties, “these populations in these
counties are very small so it is going to extend a little bit longer than, of course, an urban district,
but it is still very much within the traditional size of a house district in those areas.” Id. at 112.
Figueroa noted that the communities of interest they were trying to unite “came from working with
the community, reaching out to them, looking at socioeconomic data, looking at some of the
industries.” Id. at 114. Figueroa and Rep. Phillips (Anglo, Republican) discussed whether the
district was required by § 2 or whether it was a racial gerrymander, and Phillips asked how HD87
showed respect for political subdivisions. Id. at 110-16. Figueroa responded, “In District 87 we
maintain all the VTDs. We drew as many counties as we could whole to respect the communities
of interest. We drew it in a way so that Latinos who are unified under a community of interest would
be able to elect a candidate of choice.” Id. at 116. However, Figueroa acknowledged that only two
of ten counties were wholly within HD87. Id. at 117. In response to questioning about the County
Line Rule, Figueroa admitted that the map broke the rule to create § 2 districts, but asserted that this
was necessary to comply with the VRA. Id. at 12-15, 63-64, 94-95. Figueroa said that the other
county cuts elsewhere in the map (other than to create Latino opportunity districts) were made to
comply with one person, one vote, and they would be happy to re-evaluate those. Id. at 96.
725. Plan H111 and Plan H205, two Martinez Fischer statewide proposals presented during the
session, create HD84 in the Panhandle, taking in all of Crosby County, and parts of Dawson, Lynn,
Terry, Lubbock, Floyd, Hale, Lamb, Swisher, Castro, Deaf Smith, Randall, and Potter Counties. It
breaks the County Line Rule. Proposed HD84 has a 53.3% HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data. It
has an area-rubber-band score of .342 and a perimeter-to-area score of .042. Defendants’ expert
Giberson concluded based on compactness scores and visual observation (which included observing
that many county lines were split) that this district was not compellingly compact and was likely not
required by the VRA. Joint Expert Ex. E-18 (Giberson Report) at 8-9; Giberson depo. (Joint Ex. J42) at 86-87.
726. On second reading on April 27, Rep. Smithee (Anglo, Republican) offered Amendment No.
20 (Plan H154) concerning West Texas. D-13 at S203. This amendment would avoid the pairing
of Landtroop and Perry and eliminate part of “that district that has drawn so much attention, that
linear district that goes pretty much to the width of Texas, over 350 miles” (HD88 in Solomons’
plan, which was a long narrow district in Plan H153 that stretched from north of DFW to almost the
New Mexico border). Id. He also stated it would preserve communities of interest and make the
districts more geographically compact. Id. at S204. Rep. Perry (Anglo, Republican) offered
Amendment No. 21 (H206) to Amendment No. 20 to “clean up some inter-district stuff.” He stated
that it would affect HD84 in Lubbock County by removing a “little finger” that was created before
and was politically motivated but no longer needed. Id. at S206. Rep. Frullo (Anglo, Republican)
opposed it. Id. at S204. Rep. Martinez Fischer advised that members of MALDEF should “sit this
one out” because they should not vote for maps that they may not ultimately agree on in the bigger
picture. Id. at S205. Amendment No. 21 was tabled. Rep. Gallego offered Amendment No. 22
(H250) to Amendment No. 20 to add Loving County to HD74, and it was acceptable to the author
and adopted. Id. at S206. Amendment No. 20, as amended, was adopted. Id. After the amendment,
HD84 remained the same, but HD83 now joined the rest of Lubbock County with Lynn County to
the south, Terry County and Gaines County to the southwest, and Borden, Scurry, and Mitchell
Counties to the southeast. It also made significant changes to HD68, HD88, and other districts in
the Panhandle and West Texas.
727. Rep. Alonzo (Hispanic, Democrat) laid out Amendment No. 26 (Plan H164), “the MALDEF
amendment.” D-190 at 139. The proposed HD87 in this plan is the same as in Plan H115. Alonzo
said it would add opportunity districts, including in Lubbock. D-13 at S208. After a debate about
the County Line Rule, the amendment was withdrawn. Id. at S209. Alonzo stated that he did not
intend for it to have a legal effect. Id. at S210.
728. In Plan H283, HD84 is centered in the City of Lubbock, while HD83 takes in the remainder
of Lubbock County and joins it with Lynn, Borden, Scurry, Mitchell, Terry, and Gaines Counties.
Using 2008-2012 ACS data, HD83 is 67.6% Anglo CVAP and HD84 is 59.3% Anglo CVAP.
729. County Commissioner Lorenzo “Bubba” Sedeno lives in Lubbock County. He testified that
H283 splits the Latino voters off and divides up the minority community. TrJ482. He testified that
Plan H283 does not provide Latinos with an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.
730. MALC submits Gingles demonstration Plan H329. MALC-100 (map). In this map, HD84 is
wholly within Lubbock County and the remainder of Lubbock County is joined with two other
districts, HD83 and HD88. According to 2008-21012 ACS data, proposed HD88 has a 50.9%
HCVAP. MALC-102; TrJ495 (Sedeno). Using 2005-2009 ACS data, the HCVAP for HD88 is
47.2%. TrJ496 (Sedeno). HD88’s SSVR is 46.3%. TrJ497 (Sedeno). Three districts (HD83, HD84,
HD85) come into Lubbock County, but that is the only split. TrJ485, TrJ493 (Sedeno). The City of
Lubbock is also divided among three districts. HD88 includes parts of the City of Lubbock and
Lubbock County and joins them with 10 surrounding counties. HD84 takes a portion of Lubbock
County. And HD83 takes another portion of Lubbock County and joins it with Lamb, Hockley, and
Terry Counties. HD88 has a .623 area-to-rubber band score (compared to less-compact HD83 of .576
in Plan H283) and a .162 perimeter-to-area compactness score. MALC-99; MALC-102. Sedeno
testified that this map would help Latinos “tremendously” because it includes more Hispanic
population and “would give us a fighting chance.” TrJ483-84. This map creates a district that unites
counties with significant Hispanic population. TrJ479 (Sedeno). Based on his political experience
in the area, Sedeno testified that proposed HD88 would give Latinos an opportunity to elect a
candidate of their choice. TrJ485.
731. Past Texas House maps have split excess county population between two districts. Graves v.
Barnes, 343 F. Supp. 704 (W.D. Tex. 1972) (1972 map, Brazoria County and Smith County); S.B.
590, 63rd Leg. R.S. (1974 map, Brazoria County and Smith County); H.B. 1097, 64th Leg. R.S.
(1976-1980, Brazoria County and Smith County); H.B. 1389, 68th Leg. R.S. (1982-1984 Brazoria
County, Jefferson County, Collin County); H.B. 753, 69th Leg. R.S. (1986-1990 Brazoria County,
Jefferson County, Collin County). MALC Oct. 31, 2011 interim hearing exhibits 29-34.
732. Although Precinct 3, which is 52% Hispanic, has elected Sedeno, no other county
commissioners are Hispanic. TrJ472 (Sedeno). There are Latino elected officials in city council and
school district positions in the Lubbock area. TrJ488-89 (Sedeno).
733. In Lubbock during the Obama 2012 election, Obama signs were stolen, then cut up and the “N”
word written on them. TrJ486 (Sedeno).
734. Schools and public facilities in Lubbock were segregated. TrJ487 (Sedeno). The Latino
community has a lower standing in education and income than their Anglo counterparts in Lubbock.
735. Sedeno was not aware of any racial voting discrimination. TrJ490 (Sedeno). He also could not
think of any specific examples of discrimination against Hispanics in employment or health. TrJ49091.
736. Plaintiffs offer the declaration and deposition of Rep. Pete Gallego. Rep. Gallego served
eleven terms in the House and represented HD74 in West Texas. He is familiar with the location
and distribution of Latino communities in West Texas from campaigning and redistricting over four
cycles. Docket no. 331 at 2. Many of the Latino communities in West Texas represent a community
of interest consisting of individuals and families in certain low income categories and at certain
poverty levels. These communities are characterized by high poverty levels, low income, and
significant health issues. Id. The Latino community in West Texas has experienced substantial
population growth. Instead of creating two new Latino districts, Plan H283 diluted Latino voting
strength and HD81 and HD84 are 35.8% HCVAP and 24.9% HCVAP, respectively. Id. at 3. In
contrast, MALC’s plan H205 provides Latino opportunity by including HD81 (in Midland/Ector
Counties) and HD84 (in the Panhandle) with 51.8% and 53.9% HCVAP. Id. The two districts seek
to combine communities that share a similar poverty level, low-income characteristics, and healthrelated concerns. These communities have been in place many decades and represent a politically
cohesive community with similar interests that are expressed in local, state, and national elections.
Although HD84 may appear odd-shaped, the contours are no more odd than districts in other parts
of H283, such as HD41. HD84 is odd-shaped to include communities in rural areas and is the best
shape to accommodate a community of interest of similarly situated voters united by common
industries and shared cultural experiences. Id. at 4.
737. In Lubbock County, the mean family income for Anglos is twice that of African Americans and
Hispanics. MALC-146. The per capita income for Anglos is more than twice that of African
Americans and Hispanics. Id.; Joint Expert Ex. E-1 (Chapa Report) Table 5. Hispanics and African
Americans are several times more likely to rely on food stamps than Anglos. MALC-146.
738. In Lubbock County, almost 20% of Hispanics over age 25 are functionally illiterate, compared
to 3.2% of Anglos. MALC-147. 35.3% of Hispanics and 21.7% of African Americans over the age
of 25 are not high school graduates, compared to 8.5% of Anglos. Id.; see also Joint Expert Ex. E-1
(Chapa Report) Table 4 (noting that 40.6% of Hispanics have less than a high school education).
18.5% of Anglos over 25 have graduate or professional degrees, compared to 2.5% of Hispanics and
3.8% of Blacks. MALC-147. Anglos in Lubbock ISD are more likely to have TAKS commended
performance, have SAT scores at or above criterion, take advanced placement or IB courses, and be
college ready. Id. Anglos have higher average SAT scores than Hispanics and African Americans.
739. Dr. Brischetto found racial bloc voting in general elections in Lubbock County. TrJ947,
TrJ969; MALC-161. He also found racial bloc voting in the Republican primary. MALC-161. He
found that Latinos had a very high cohesiveness. TrJ969. He also found that Anglo bloc voting
was sufficient to usually defeat the Latino-preferred candidate. Id. Attorney Jackson said at trial that
the State does not contest the existence of racially polarized voting in Lubbock County. TrJ975.
740. Plans (H115, H111/H205) were proposed during the session that would create a new HCVAPmajority (but not SSVR-majority) district in the Panhandle. Although other significant changes were
made to the map at the request of an Anglo Republican member, the proposed Latino districts were
rejected because they did not look compact and would require a violation of the County Line Rule.
741. MALC’s Gingles demonstration map H329 creates HD88, an HCVAP-majority district using
2008-2010 ACS data but it would not have been HCVAP-majority using 2005-2009 ACS data.
SIGNED on this 20th day of April, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORLANDO L. GARCIA
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?