State Representative Pete Gallego was the guest speaker at the El Paso Young Democrats February meeting.
Introduced by El Paso Democratic favorite Joe Moody, Pete shared how he has always been ready to represent El Paso.
Pete has always been a friend to El Paso and has family ties including his pediatrician sister, who works for Centro de Salud Familiar La Fe Inc.
Elected at 28 years old, he served for 22 years in the Texas House of Representatives, serving on the most powerful and important committees in the Texas Legislature, including serving as an Appropriations Conference Committee Member, making him one of 10 people who hammer out the final details of the Texas budget.
He has been a leader in the Texas House, carrying bipartisan legislation under Governor George W. Bush, and has served in leadership roles in the Texas Mexican American Legislative Caucus, a bipartisan policy organization, and as Chair of the Texas House Democratic Caucus. In addition, as he stated in the El Paso Young Democrats Meet and Greet, he has worked with both Democratic and Republican legislators from El Paso, on issues important to El Paso.
Born in Alpine, Texas he graduated from Sul Russ State University and the University of Texas School of Law, and has Chaired various committees in the Texas House of Representatives and can utilize his successful legislative career to work for West Texas and El Paso in Washington.
I had the opportunity to serve in the Texas legislature with Pete my entire 14 years serving in the Texas House. After loosing my last election, I had a heartfelt lunch with him and thanked him for all he had done for Texas and El Paso and apologized for failing to allow myself to be mentored after the illness and subsequent death of Lena Guerrero, a Latina friend, leader and mentor we both respected. My final term I witnessed Pete, an honorable and respected leader, mentor and provide leadership opportunities to former Rep. Joe Moody, giving Moody a gavel to Chair a Subcommittee and on numerous occasions deferring to his advise on certain issues. As he stated in the El Paso Young Democrats meeting, he was ready to serve and represent El Paso in 1999-2001 when redistricting plans were drawing his district into El Paso. Unfortunately, the census information did not show the increase in population needed to draw him into El Paso. However South Texas census data resulted in new seats drawn in that area.
The current maps, in District Court in San Antonio, are being redrawn to reflect the increase in Latino population in Texas per census data, which means that El Paso's congressional seat will loose some population to the 23rd Congressional District. That is one of the contentious issues on how and where the lines are to be drawn. One proposal puts a great majority of the Lower Valley from Ysleta East out of the 16th Congressional District and Places it in the 23rd Congressional District. The Lower Valley, specifically Ysleta, is considered the oldest town in Texas. According to the Texas State Historical Association: A Digital Gateway to Texas History: "By an election in 1873 Ysleta replaced San Elizario as the El Paso County seat. But the coming of the railroads in 1881 changed the population center of the County, and in 1883 a strongly disputed election made El Paso the county seat." Meaning that the communities of interest, that have been the historical point of reference for El Paso's county seat would be removed if the Lower Valley, Ysleta, Socorro, San Elizario are awarded to the 23rd Congressional District.
The current map proposals, place a great majority of his current Texas House legislative district in the US Congressional district, however he will have to face an incumbent Republican, Congressman Quico Canseco in the General election. Pete along with his wife Maria Elena and their young son Nicolas would be an excellent choice for West Texas and parts of El Paso.
I hope that the maps preserve the Lower Valley in El Paso, that Pete Gallego win the 23rd Congressional race, and that he also represent a part of El Paso. Congressman Silvestre Reyes and Pete Gallego as Congressman would make a dyno-duo pack for El Paso and the Borderlands!
###
(Page 19 Lines 9-13, Page 20 Lines 1-4) Justice Sotomayor to Republican
counselor Paul D. Clement in oral arguments before the Supreme Court of
the United States on January 9, 2012:
“Counsel,
I’m not sure how I understand that, okay? As I looked at one of the El
Paso maps, the enacted map created a antler-type district, a head and
two unconnected antlers on top, nothing tying them together.
The
district court went back to the benchmark and said this is the
benchmark district; now I’m going to draw the districts around it that
fall naturally, trying to stay within neutral principles of not dividing
up the city more than I have to. And it came out with another district.
I
don’t understand what principle, what legal principle, the district
court was violating that makes what it did with that particular county
wrong. You’re saying they should have given deference to an oddly
shaped district that changed a prior benchmark that’s been challenged as
having been created specifically to minimize the Latino vote.
All
of the challenges that relate to El Paso are very significant. The
district court has already denied summary judgement on that. Tell me
what legal principle they violated, other than the deference principle
that you’re relying upon?”
How
can it be that US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s line of
questioning, counters the public support of County Judge Veronica
Escobar for the Republican drawn map that minimizes Latino
voters? In this debate, there has been little to no discussion about the
lost Lower Valley precincts, no media coverage on the fact that the
Lower Valley has been easily awarded to the 23rd congressional district
in maps that County Judge Escobar supports. No mention has been made
that she has dissed constituents in the historic Lower Valley, an 85% plus Latino area.
The
El Paso congressional seat created by the district court is first
referenced by Justice Sotomayor as “the deer with two antlers” in oral
arguments (pages 19 & 20, lines 17-18 and 22-23) . In her line of questioning, Justice Sotomayor’s statement is
compelling “the challenges that relate to El Paso are very significant.
The district court has already denied summary judgement on that.”
Unfortunately, the headlights have been shined upon dear County
Judge Veronica Escobar due to her absolute willingness to expend all
necessary political capitol to ensure one of her political allies is
awarded the best congressional map for his congressional race against
Congressman Silvestre Reyes, at the expense of a Democratic favored map
that protects Latino voters and ensures the Lower Valley remains in the
16th Congressional District.
The
“deer with two antlers” map that she opposed, was the district court
created map that the Democratic parties agreed on. Unfortunately,
County Judge Veronica Escobar continues to demonstrate her lack of
Democratic loyalty and understanding of the bigger picture for Latinos
and Democrats in the state of Texas. It is embarrassing when
Democratic allies, such as the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund
(MALDEF), Mexican American Legislative Caucus (MALC), NAACP, and LULAC are
fighting to create maps that fairly create districts that reflect the
increase in Texas’ population and also Latino voters in Texas, and yet
our own Latina county judge is used by the Republican leaders of the
state to argue for a map that minimizes Latino voter strength in Texas.
She doesn’t like to be called out when she is wrong, but she hasn’t
learned that pandering to a personal political agenda that will advance
the political goals of the political faction she leads, only
demonstrates her short sided vision for the community and the state.
The
parties, all interested parties including the Democratic and Republican
Party’s, were asked to “cut a deal” so that the extended primary to
April 3, could happen. It appears that those deals fell through this
week, even though rumored side deals were being discussed and negotiated
between the Attorney General and others.
To date, most
of the discussions we have heard in the El Paso media reflect the inflated
remarks by County Judge Escobar about the loss of all of Ft. Bliss and
precincts in the Northeast. After embarrassing the County Commissioners
Court for her remark, she later recanted and admitted that it was not
all of Ft. Bliss. In a report by the El Paso Times on 12/15/11 “Escobar,
Reyes disagree on Fort Bliss impact from redistricting” she stated in
her ever scandalous manner “An El Paso person won’t represent El Paso’s
military installation” which she later acknowledged was not correct, and
then she is quoted as stating that the area she was referencing was
mostly training ranges outside Loop 375 and adjacent land. Although
loudly vocal about Fort Bliss, she has made absolutely no remarks to
defend the Lower Valley precincts impacted by the Republican legislative
map and the proposed Republican map that she supports.
And
so, the Texas redistricting legal fight, is about the increase in
population, about increasing congressional seats from 32 to 36 and
drawing state house, senate and state board of education seats, about
fairly addressing representation and apportionment of Latino and
African American districts because Texas is a covered jurisdiction under
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 due to the
historical disenfranchisement of minorities in Texas!! Further, the
legislative map drawn by the Texas legislature must go through
preclearance. The process known as preclearance requiries “the covered
jurisdiction to demonstrate that it’s proposed change neither has the
purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to
vote on account of race or color.” That preclearance continues today,
simultaneously with the District Court action in Texas because the US
Supreme Court unanimous decision stated that redistricting is primarily a
job for elected state officials, and that the lower court had not paid
enough deference to maps drawn by the Texas Legislature, sending the
case back to San Antonio, which has major implications for the
voting-rights case.
In
addition, various civil rights organizations and groups brought forth a lawsuit in Texas claiming the
State’s newly enacted maps violate the United States Constitution and
the Voting Rights Act.
County
Judge Veronica Escobar, the on going legal arguments on redistricting
are about LATINO AND AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTER REPRESENTATION. About Texas
historical disenfranchisement of Latino and African American voters.
This argument is bigger than you, and your personal desire of a map that
is preferential to your candidate for congress! The 2010 census data
demonstrates that minority growth in Texas was 87% since the last
census. And the white population in Texas has dropped to below 50% for
the first time.The numbers are not going to reverse! !! Simply put, the redistricting court case before the Supreme Court sent
the
case back to the District Court to redraw the lines using the Texas
Legislative maps as a “starting point”, the Texas Legislative
redistricting map is at the Justice Department subject to review and
preclearance, and the challenge to the incredible document called the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 has monumental significance for not just Texas
but every state in the union. The San Antonio Court has set a hearing
on February 15th for arguments and a status conference, but not for
evidence. Further the court states that the parties “should assume” that
the court “will announce interim maps before any decision is rendered”
by the DC court and that the court “is not announcing a primary schedule
at this time.” And so the April Primary is not likely occurring April 3
nor two weeks later.
So
when you see the Democratic “wolf in sheeps clothes” County Judge
Veronica Escobar, tell her the “deer with two antlers” was the preferred
map by a majority of Democrats. Reminder her that she is a Democrat
and Latina and that she represents a county and not just her political
allies. Tell County Judge Veronica Escobar that she is behaving like a
“deer in headlights” when she lies to the people. And tell her she is
going to have some ‘splaining to do to the voters in the historic Lower
Valley because she has made no public comment, statement, or reference
to keeping them in the 16th Congressional District.
From
the Urban Dictionary: 1. “deer in headlights” - A mental state of high
arousal caused by anxiety, fear, panic, surprise and/or confusion, or
substance abuse. A person experiencing the "deer in headlights" syndrome
often shows behavioral signs reminding those of a deer subjected to a
car's headlights, such as widely opened eyes and a transient lack of
motor reactions. (see definitions 2. and 3. for further Urban
definition)
###
