2011 house claims -...

2011 HOUSE ClaimsPerez v. Perry Et Al.

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 of 34

FACTS ABOUT ERIC OPIELA

� Opiela worked for the Republican Congressional delegation during

the 2011 Legislative session.

� Opiela was not employed by the Speaker, the House Redistricting

Committee, nor Chairman Solomons during the 2011 Legislative

session.

� Opiela stopped working for the Speaker’s campaign prior to the

commencement of the 2011 session.


TESTIMONY OF BONNIE BRUCE

Q. And was there anyone else from the Speaker’s office who officed in the Redistricting Committee [sic] who

was also working on redistricting matters?

A. Yes. Gerardo had an intern who operated in the second office.

Q. And what was that intern’s name?

A. Elizabeth Colburn, I believe.

Q. Okay. And Ms. Coburn—Elizabeth Colburn who worked as an intern in the Speaker’s office, did

she assist Mr. Interiano working on any kind of maps during the Redistricting Process?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

A. I know he had her work on special projects. I know for a fact he had her work on Travis County to see

whether it was possible to draw two Republican districts. I believe he had her work on Aliseda’s district, and I

think a couple of other special projects.

Source: Tr. 1923:17 -1924:8


THE “NUDGE FACTOR” EMAIL IS NOT EVIDENCE

OF INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION

The plaintiffs have failed to prove:

� That Opiela received the data

� That Opiela was ever able to calculate a nudge factor

� That any one of Opiela’s ratios was ever used to draw a district

There is No Evidence That The Mapdrawers Used This Data

9


EL PASO CLAIMS

• “The border between HD 77 and 78 had a bizarre shape with deer antler protrusions that split multiple precincts between these two districts.”

-- Plaintiff MALC’s Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 897) ¶ 59

• “Plan H283 packs Latinos into surrounding districts to undermine their political power in HD 78.”

--Plaintiff Texas Latino Task Force et. al. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Doc

634 para 459)


WHAT MOTIVATED CHANGES TO HD 117?

• Rep. Garza sought to create a rural, conservative district outside the City of San Antonio to boost his reelection prospects and comply with the Committee directives of maintaining the district’s SSVR over 50%. Tr. 1518:9-15, 1523:2-18 (Interiano); Tr. 399:4-13 (Garza).

• Speaker Straus and his staff determined that in order to achieve these goals, HD 117 needed to include rural areas of southern Bexar County that were previously represented by Rep. Farias (HD 118) under the benchmark plan. Tr. 1559:7-15 (Interiano).

• Ultimately HD 117 was agreed to by Rep. Villarreal and 9 of 10 members of the Bexar County delegation.

23


PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT RACE WAS A

“SUBSTANTIAL” AND “MOTIVATING” FACTOR IN HD 117

Rep. Garza’s conversations with Rep. Farias cannot be imputed to the Legislature.

� No evidence that Rep. Garza’s individual motivations in the 2011 redistricting process

played any role in the agreement of other delegation members to the Bexar County map.

� Even assuming Rep. Garza had an improper motive, there is no evidence that Rep.

Villarreal or other members of the San Antonio delegation were aware of that motive.

� Plaintiffs have not established that Rep. Garza’s individual motivations were a substantial

or motivating factor behind the Legislature’s adoption of the 2011 House plan.

24


HIDALGO COUNTY—PLAN H 113


HIDALGO COUNTY --H283


Q. And let me go back to that, because you

don't know who drew it, you cannot say -- you

cannot make a charge that this was

intentionally done?

A. I'm not saying that. But I'm asking why the

Asian community, especially the Vietnamese

community's been split into other districts.

Q. It's a question in your mind. It's not an

allegation you're making, though?

A. No, it's not.

Tr. 1381:25-1382:8.

TESTIMONY OF REPRESENTATIVE HUBERT VO

30


Process—Hanna Testimony

1177:7-23 (Hanna).

31


LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF HOUSE BILL 150

January 11, 2011 First Day of 82nd Legislative Session

February 10, 2011 Rep. Solomons Named Chair of House Redistricting Committee

February 17, 2011 U.S. Census Bureau Releases 2010 Census Data

February 21, 2011 RedAppl Updated with New 2010 Census Data

March 1, 2011 House Redistricting Committee Holds First Hearing

March 8, 2011 House Bill 150 Filed

April 6, 2011 D. Hanna Provides First Retrogression Memo on Plan H110

April 12, 2011 D. Hanna Provides Second Retrogression Memo on Plan H110

April 13, 2011 Rep. Solomons Releases First Public Texas House Plan – Plan H113

April 13, 2011 Rep. Villarreal Moves to Suspend the Five-Day Posting Rule

April 15, 2011 House Redistricting Committee Holds Public Hearing

April 17, 2011 House Redistricting Committee Holds Public Hearing

April 19, 2011 House Redistricting Committee Votes Out Plan H153 (Committee

Substitute) in Formal Hearing

April 19, 2011 House Bill 150 Considered in House Calendars Committee

April 20, 2011 Calendars Committee Adopts Amended Rule for House Bill 150

April 22, 2011 D. Hanna Provides Third Retrogression Memo on Plan H153

April 25, 2011 Deadline for Floor Amendments to be Filed

April 27, 2011 Floor Debate on House Bill 150

April 28, 2011 Floor Debate on House Bill 150; Passed out of Texas House32


PLAINTIFFS’ THEORY OF THE CASE

Testimony of Dr. Arrington

Q. You believe that if a Republican in Texas intends a partisan change

in a districting decision, then you were intending also to discriminate

against Latinos and African Americans; right?

A. Yes.

Our prior decisions have made clear that a jurisdiction may engage in

constitutional political gerrymandering even if it so happens that the

most loyal Democrats happen to be black Democrats and even if the

State were conscious of that fact.

Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 551 (1999)33


“‘[D]iscriminatory purpose’ . . . implies more than intent as volition

or intent as awareness of consequences. It implies that the

decisionmaker . . . selected or reaffirmed a particular course of

action, at least in part ‘because of,’ not merely ‘in spite of,’ its

adverse effects upon an identifiable group.”

Personnel Adm’r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279 (1979)

(internal citation omitted).

34


2011 house claims -...

Documents