Sincerely,
Lloyd

“There is good news and bad news.  The good news is that only Justice Clarence Thomas insisted on imposing the crooked Perrymandered map and rejecting the vital preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act.  The bad news is that the Supreme Court did not affirm every aspect of the ruling by Judges Garcia and Rodriquez in San Antonio, so our primary election is not likely to proceed on April 3.  Yet nothing in the Supreme Court order precludes a final congressional map like that already drawn by this San Antonio court.  Republican comments to the contrary are wishful thinking at best. The mishandling of this matter by Rick Perry and Greg Abbott may unfortunately again delay this election, but it need not prevent full implementation of the Voting Rights Act to assure fair treatment of our Hispanic and African American neighbors. Better later and right than earlier and wrong.”

“However the final lines are drawn, I will seek reelection wherever most of my constituents live.  That is CD 25 composed of substantial parts of Travis and Hays Counties under the court map and CD35 under the Perrymandered map.  To ensure that our shared progressive values continue to be advanced in Washington, I will continue working hard every day.  I have been in San Antonio this week, like last week, and next week, and at every future opportunity.  With active campaign offices in both San Antonio and Austin, I need all the volunteer help we can get now at each.  I want to be as strong an advocate for working families in other parts of the I-35 corridor as I have been for the communities that I already serve in Congress.”

Republicans are so determined to draw Lloyd Doggett out of Congress that they hacked Austin and Travis County into five Congressional districts with their illegal racist gerrymandered map. This isn’t the first time Doggett’s district has had to be re-drawn by the courts. In 2006, SCOTUS threw out Tom DeLay’s mid-decade redistricting that forced Doggett into a district that ran from Austin to Mexico. That district was redrawn into the current CD-25. That district was warped by the Republican legislature into a conservative monstrosity running from Fort Worth to Austin.Memo to Republicans: Doggett won’t quit, and every time you try to draw him out, he just keeps fighting back. Maybe you should give up and get a new legislative priority other than forcing out Central Texas’ progressive voice in Congress? ]]> http://www.votedoggett.com/2012/01/what-the-supreme-court-decision-means/feed/ 0 http://www.votedoggett.com/2012/01/states-maps-detestable-paternalism/ http://www.votedoggett.com/2012/01/states-maps-detestable-paternalism/#comments Sun, 08 Jan 2012 16:21:12 +0000 admin http://www.votedoggett.com/?p=955 By O. Ricardo Pimentel

U.S. Supreme Court justices have an opportunity to make a bold statement either for or against the kind of game rigging that has been going on throughout the country every 10 years.

This is commonly referred to as redistricting but, in practice and in effect, is better known as gerrymandering.

On Monday, the highest court will hear arguments on Texas redistricting cum gerrymandering.

The issue is whether Texas, with a history of discrimination against minority voters, will be able to use redistricting maps that haven’t been pre-cleared to determine if they are discriminatory, per the Voting Rights Act. If the court allows this, it will have to set aside interim maps drawn by a federal panel of judges in San Antonio and do much damage to the Act in the process.

So, the effect of their ruling will still be either to embolden legislatures to continue to draw lines to ensure party dominance; or, draw them as if the Voting Rights Act actually mattered.

A ruling here will not be as sweeping as the one that ended separate but equal in public education but, by not allowing maps that haven’t been pre-cleared, the court can make a similar statement — that the federal government has a right to stop state legislators, through redistricting, to separate minority voters from their opportunity for representation of their choosing.

Those challenging these maps have now had two federal courts essentially agree that the state maps should not go forward. And the courts used strong language that, deciphered, say the state used standards that did not do justice to minority voter growth or rights.

Latinos accounted for 65 percent of this growth, minorities altogether about 90 percent.

Texas’ state House map, however, reduced the number of districts in which minorities have at least a chance to elect a representative of their choosing from 50 to 45. And though the state’s minority population growth earned Texas four additional congressional seats, state legislators reasoned that only one of these should be majority-minority.

The most charitable reading of this speaks to a detestable paternalism — the Legislature telling minority voters to eat their GOP spinach. Here, we know what’s good for you.

But it really matters little what motivated the GOP-dominated Legislature. The high court should weigh the effect. And these maps are discriminatory.

The U.S. Constitution says, “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” That last part has, fortunately, been fixed.

With a nod from the U.S. Constitution elsewhere, the Texas Constitution empowers the state’s Legislature to draw the lines.

But reading constitutions is always a balancing act and the prohibition on abridging rights, including voting rights, is at least as implicit, if not explicit, in various U.S. constitutional amendments.

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” says the 15th.

The questions the justices ask and how they react on Monday will, if the past offers any lesson, point to a direction for the court majority. That ruling must not trample minority voting rights in Texas.

o.ricardo.pimentel@express-news.net

Best to you for the holidays.  During this special season, I certainly have much for which to be thankful.  First and foremost is a wonderful family and friends and neighbors across Texas, who have stood with me during these recent challenging months.  Who would have guessed that even as we enter the new year, we have neither a definite congressional map nor a certain date for the primary election?  The sole cause of this delay and confusion is the Republican effort to subvert the Voting Rights Act.  With your encouragement, I am prepared to meet any challenge the Republicans present.

Because I believe that Federal Judges Orlando Garcia and Xavier Rodriquez acted properly in reuniting San Antonio neighborhoods, removing District 35 from Austin, and reuniting District 25 as a compact Travis-Hays County district, I have formally filed for reelection in District 25. If the Republican map is once again imposed, I will seek reelection along the I-35 corridor, from San Antonio to Austin, in District 35, about half of which I have represented in Congress.  We have to be ready to campaign in either district or some new one that the courts design.  I have particular confidence in having my work evaluated by those who know me best.  For six months, I have been especially focused on reaching out to those whom I have not previously served in Bexar, Comal, and Guadalupe Counties through neighborhood meetings and Democratic gatherings.   I will continue doing that with an active presence in San Antonio and by maintaining campaign offices in both San Antonio and Austin.

Districts may change, but my commitment to stand firmly for our shared values will not.  Thanks so much.

The draft proposal was crafted by Sens. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., Jerry Moran, R-Kan., Mark Warner, D-Va., Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Reps. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, John Campbell, R-Calif.,Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.

Their draft proposes an alternative to a Senate bill known as the Protect IP Act, authored by Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, introduced in the House last month by Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas. Wyden has been a vocal opponent of the Senate measure and has blocked the bill from moving to the Senate floor since it was approved by the Judiciary Committee in May.

Even though they agree on the need to curb online piracy and counterfeiting abroad, Wyden and several of the other lawmakers say Protect IP and SOPA would stifle free speech and innovation and undermine the integrity of the Internet.

In an interview late Thursday, Wyden said the proposal he and the other lawmakers have crafted “is focusing to the extent possible on the payment processors, the advertisers, the follow-the-money approach.” Its an approach that tech firms and other critics have been urging lawmakers to take instead of trying to block access to websites that offer infringing content or goods. “If you can take away the financial incentive, that goes a long way in dealing” with the problem, Wyden added.

Protect IP and SOPA focus on trying to cut off funding to those sites as well but they also would allow the attorney general to seek a court order requiring U.S. service providers to direct users away from websites deemed to be primarily focused on providing pirated content or counterfeit goods. Those bills also would put the Justice Department in charge of enforcing the bill’s provisions.

The proposal from Wyden and the other lawmakers would give that job to the International Trade Commission, which deals with imports alleged to infringe intellectual property. The proposal would allow intellectual property owners to appeal to the commission to investigate infringing sites. If the commission finds such sites are “primarily” and “willfully” infringing U.S. copyrights or willfully enabling imports of counterfeit merchandise, the agency would issue a cease-and-desist order requiring U.S. payment processors and advertisers to stop doing business with the sites.

“When infringement is addressed only from a narrow judicial perspective, important issues pertaining to cyber security and the promotion of online innovation, commerce and speech get neglected,” according to the proposal.

Wyden said the lawmakers will collect comments on the proposal over the next few weeks and will likely introduce it early next year.

Doggett’s measure, House Resolution 3346, would prevent Congress from letting federal unemployment insurance expire. Some people will begin losing benefits in six weeks unless the bill becomes law.

“We’re ready to work with anyone in either party to prevent over 5 million of our American neighbors from facing the night before Christmas, wondering if in the New Year, they will have money to pay the rent and put food on the table,” said Doggett, D-Austin, at a news conference. “The rent won’t wait. The car payment, the pickup truck payment won’t wait on the Congress.”

Some Republicans are expected to oppose Doggett’s measure, taking the position that the country cannot afford to maintain assistance for the unemployed.

If passed, the measure also would relieve states with federal unemployment insurance loans from interest charges next year and prevent higher federal unemployment taxes on employers in insolvent states.

Since Texas does not currently have a federal unemployment insurance loan, it would not be affected by the interest provision, Doggett’s office said.

The national unemployment rate is 9 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In Texas, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is lower, at 8.4 percent, the bureau reported.

Organized labor came out in strong support of the measure.

“Americans are suffering through the worst crisis of long-term unemployment since the Great Depression,” Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa said in a statement Wednesday. “It’s time for Congress to get to work and help American workers who are going through serious hardship through no fault of their own.”

HR 3346 could once again put Doggett and Gov. Rick Perry at odds.

In March 2009, Perry announced that he would block the state from accepting $550 million for expanded unemployment benefits as part of the federal stimulus package. To be eligible for the money, Texas would have had to enact legislation that would change how the state calculates a worker’s eligibility and extend benefits to more workers, including those looking for part-time work.

When Perry’s office was asked about the governor’s position on HR 3346, Perry spokeswoman Lucy Nashed replied in a statement: “People want a paycheck, not an unemployment check. The federal government should focus on reducing the regulatory and tax burden on employers so they can create jobs and fuel our economy.”

RSVP Here

Join Our Sponsor Committee

Purchase Tickets Here

People close to the District 35 congressional race between San Antonio state Rep. Joaquin Castro and Austin Congressman Lloyd Doggett are now speculating that the district may yet gain some San Antonio voters and lose at least a bit of Austin when a panel of federal judges rules on redistricting lawsuits filed by various groups.

According to this theory, Doggett’s current base, District 25, would regain at least some of the Austin votes that were stripped away in this year’s redistricting process. At first glance, this could be a win-win for the dueling Democrats, because it would solidify Castro’s claim on the newly created District 35, and allow Doggett to run for another term in District 25, with a reasonable chance at victory.

While everything hinges on exactly where the lines are drawn for the two districts, word is that when the issue has come up for discussion in the Doggett war room, the Austin congressman has expressed his determination to tough it out in District 35, even if the boundary lines become more challenging to him. If Doggett is resistant to abandoning a District 35 race, some in the Castro camp are similarly less than eager to see Doggett go back to District 25. A District 35 race without Doggett would certainly make life easier for Castro, but there is also a school of thought within Castro’s campaign that he would enter Congress with much more status if he got there by knocking off a tough, wily political veteran such as Doggett, rather than cruising into office without a serious challenge.