“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)
###
