Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts

8/3/2019 Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts

1/96

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

SHANNON PEREZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________

MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE

CAUCUS, TEXAS HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES (MALC),

Plaintiffs,

v.


Defendants.____________________________________

TEXAS LATINO REDISTRICTING TASKFORCE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

)

)

))

)

)

))

)

))

)

))

)

)

))

)

))

))

)

))

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

SA-11-CA-360-OLG-JES-XR[Lead case]

CIVIL ACTION NO.

SA-11-CA-361-OLG-JES-XR[Consolidated case]

CIVIL ACTION NO.


Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 1 of 26


2/96

MARGARITA V. QUESADA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RICK PERRY, et al.,

Defendants.

))

)))

)

))

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.SA-11-CA-592-OLG-JES-XR

[Consolidated case]

____________________________________ )

JOHN T. MORRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.


Defendants.

))

)

))

)

))

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

SA-11-CA-615-OLG-JES-XR

[Consolidated case]

____________________________________ )

EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RICK PERRY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

))

))

)

))

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.




3/96

I. Congressional District 33The United States Supreme Courts order in this case suggested strongly that this Court

would be justified in departing from the States enacted congressional plan in the Dallas-Fort

Worth area.1

Specifically, the Court indicated that it would be appropriate for this Court to

deviate from the enacted plans configuration of Tarrant County congressional districts,

including CD 33, because the districts appear[ed] to be subject to strong challenges in the 5

proceeding. Perry v. Perez, 132 S. Ct. 934, 944 (2012) (per curiam). The State bears the burden

of proof in the Section 5 proceeding. See, e.g.,Reno v. Bossier Parish Sch. Bd., 520 U.S. 471,

478 (1997); City of Pleasant Grove v. U.S., 479 U.S. 462, 469 (1987). In light of the States

burden to disprove discriminatory purpose under Section 5, the Supreme Courts specific

reference in Perry to Dallas-Fort Worth congressional districts, the Department of Justices

objection to these districts, and evidence in the record that certain features of these districts

correlate to race and divide concentrated minority populations, this Court has a legal and factual

basis to conclude that there is a reasonable probability these districts will fail to gain

preclearance.2

A. CD33 Is Tailored to Address Section 5 Claims in Dallas-Fort WorthI f hi i i i d f h ll d S i 5 i l i i D ll F W h



4/96

districts are based on allegations of discriminatory purpose. When a district is challenged as

drawn with an impermissible purposeparticularly when the effect of that alleged purpose is to

fracture identifiable communitiesthe appropriate remedy should reverse the effect of the

alleged impermissible purpose. See, e.g., Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 418

(1975) (explaining that an appropriate remedy for intentional discrimination will so far as

possible eliminate the discriminatory effects of the past as well as bar like discrimination in the

future) (citingLouisiana v. United States, 380 U. S. 145, 154 (1965)). In redrawing a district,

the Court is of course limited by its inability to make the policy decisions that inform a

legislatures redistricting efforts. Thus the appropriate remedy is generally informed by the

status quo ante, which provides the most recent expression of state policy.3 See, e.g.,Balderas v.

Texas, 2001 WL 35673968 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2001) (per curiam), summarily aff'd, 536 U.S.

919 (2002). The remedy is complicated in this case by the fact that the status quo ante is not

available, strictly speaking, because of population growth and the addition of four new

congressional seats in the State. But CD33, as drawn in Plan C226, provides an appropriate

agreed interim remedy for the Section 5 challenge to Dallas-Fort Worth congressional districts

precisely because it maintains the core of the existing congressional districts surrounding CD33,



5/96

2010, the Anglo population in Dallas and Tarrant counties decreased by 156,742. See Doc. 638-

39. The African American population increased by 152,825 and the Latino population increased

by 440,898. Id. Today, Anglos constitute 41% of the total population in Dallas and Tarrant

Counties, African Americans constitute 19% and Latinos constitute 33%. Id. Plan C226 follows

traditional redistricting criteria in creating CD33 as a new congressional district to accommodate

the fast-growing population of the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. Opinion and Order,Balderas v. Texas,

No. 6:01-cv-158 (Doc. 413) at *56 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2001).

Congressional District 33 in Plan C226 remedies the separation of communities in

Dallas-Fort Worth by withdrawing the fingers that divide minority population, in the enacted

plan, into congressional districts 6, 12, 26 and 33. Districts 6, 12, and 26 generally retract to

their population bases under the benchmark congressional plan. For example, in Tarrant County,

the lightning bolt of CD 26 that included substantial Latino population in the predominantly

Anglo, Denton County-based CD 26 is withdrawn. Similarly, the extension of CD 12 into

African-American neighborhoods in Tarrant County and the extension of CD 6 into

predominantly Latino areas of Dallas are also withdrawn. District 33 moves eastward to fill the

space created by the retraction of CDs 6, 12, and 26 to their population bases, and it encompasses



6/96

is undisturbed in Plan C226. Similarly, the boundaries of CD 32 in Dallas County remain almost

exactly the same as the enacted plan. Also in Dallas County, CD 33 is shaped to create minimal

changes to CD 30, an African-American majority district. Changes along the border of CD33

and CD30 that lowered both districts compactness were made to honor Congresswoman Eddie

Bernice Johnsons request to include specific areas in CD 30, including her home and office. 4

See Feb. 15, 2012 Hearing Tr. at 356:615. The southern boundary of CD 33 accommodates the

boundary of the enacted CD 12, reflecting the concerns of incumbent Kay Granger to retain

certain parts of the City of Fort Worth. In Tarrant County, the boundary of CD 33 extends to

take in Cowboys Stadium, home to the Dallas Cowboys football team. Notwithstanding the

variety of competing interests that are accommodated by the boundaries of CD33, the districts

compactness scores are within the State's acceptable range of compactness and are comparable to

congressional districts 2 and 35. See Exhibit B, Plan C226, Red 315 Report.

B. CD33 Is Not a Coalition DistrictBecause CD 33 encompasses much of the Dallas-Fort Worth areas population growth, it

is both racially and politically diverse. Electorally, no one racial group has an exclusive ability

to nominate and elect its preferred candidates. Although Latinos constitute the largest number of



7/96

Because African Americans and Latinos typically support different candidates in the

Democratic Primary, District 33 is not a minority coalition opportunity district in which two

different minority groups band together to form an electoral majority. Perry v. Perez, 132 S.

Ct. at 944. Without a majority of voters of any particular race, CD33 can be expected to

nominate and elect a candidate who has the cohesive support of one racial group and at least

some crossover support from another group. It reflects the accepted wisdom that all voters must

pull, haul, and trade to find common political ground. Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997,

1020 (1994).

The boundaries of CD 33 very closely follow Plan C216, which was offered earlier in the

litigation as a bipartisan proposal by Congressmen Cuellar and Canseco. The boundaries of CD

33 also closely follow a proposal provided to the State during the 2011 legislative session by

Representative Lamar Smith on behalf of the Texas Republican delegation. See Texas v. U.S.,

Trial Exhibit DX536. The Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force maintains that CD 33

represents carefully negotiated district boundaries that reflect the care given by the State of

Texas to accommodate the concerns of congressional incumbents in Dallas-Fort Worth.

The State of Texas maintains that Plan C226 is not an expression of state policy because,



8/96

C. CD33 Is Reasonably CompactProposed CD33 falls within the range of compactness of districts in the States enacted

congressional plan. As in other urban districts, the constitutional requirement to zero out the

population in districts, as well as factors such as working around existing Voting Rights Act

districts and trying to include the locations of incumbents homes and district offices have a

significant effect on district boundaries. See Exhibit A, Split VTDs from Unpopulated Blocks.

In C185 and C226, CD2 is a majority Anglo district in Harris County and is less compact than

CD33 in C226. Congressional District 18, an African-American opportunity district in the

States enacted C185, contains a similar compactness score to CD33 in Plan C226. SeePerez

Exhibit J-8; Exhibit B, Plan C226, Red 315 Report. No party has challenged the boundaries of

CD18 as a racial gerrymander. The parties also note that SD12, which was used for the 1992

election cycle, is very similar to CD33 in Plan C226. See Doc. 656 at 44. SD12 in the 1992

redistricting plan has a shape and compactness similar to CD33 in C226 and demonstrates that

such a district canand didexist in the past when the States mappers relied on traditional

race-neutral redistricting criteria.

In fact, examination of Plan C226s compactness scores in Tarrant and Dallas counties



9/96

Congressional Districts in Tarrant5

and Dallas Counties6

District

No.

C185Rubber

Band

C226Rubber

Band

Direction of

change

C185

Perimeter

C226

Perimeter

Direction of

change

5 0.684 0.684 n/a7 0.132 0.132 n/a

6 0.725 0.764more

compact0.204 0.215

more

compact

12 0.744 0.768more

compact0.109 0.230

morecompact

24 0.749 0.750 n/a 0.213 0.211 n/a

26 0.754 0.910more

compact0.241 0.460

morecompact

30 0.814 0.760 less compact 0.253 0.180 less compact

32 0.604 0.617more

compact0.120 0.125

more

compact

33 0.600 0.430 less compact 0.143 0.045 less compact

Total 5.674 5.683 morecompact

1.415 1.598 morecompact

Average 0.70925 0.710375 n/a 0.176875 0.19975more

compact



10/96

Metroplex within which it is situated. The district simply reflects the population and its growth

in Dallas and Tarrant counties. CD33 in C226 has an HCVAP of 39.4%, SSVR of 35.8%, a

BCVAP of 24%, and an Anglo CVAP of 33.5%. See Doc. 656-1 at 42.

In Bush v. Vera, where the Supreme Court struck down certain Texas congressional

districts as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders, the Court performed a fact-based analysis that

included examining the racial and nonracial reasons proffered for the districts. With respect to

CD30, the Supreme Court found it significant that CD30 elevated race over other traditional

concerns such as partisanship. 517 U.S. at 96997. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court recognized

a number of legitimate factors that could have led to the drawing of a noncompact CD30. For

example, the Supreme Court acknowledged that Congresswoman Johnsons first proposal was

compact but that five other congressmen would have been thrown into districts other than the

ones they currently represent. Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. at 967 (quoting lower court decision).

Thus, the Supreme Court recognized that incumbency protection might explain as well as, or

better than, race a States decision to depart from other traditional redistricting principles, such as

compactness, in the drawing of bizarre district lines. Id.

* * *



11/96

redistricting criteria and is tailored to address the specific harm alleged under Section 5, it is

appropriate for the Court to incorporate that district in an interim congressional plan for the 2012

elections.

II. Congressional District 35Plan C226 creates CD 35, which is a new Latino opportunity district in Central Texas,

and is identical to the CD 35 proposed in Plan C185. Because Texas enacted CD 35 as part of

Plan C185, unless there is a likelihood of success on the merits of a Section 2 or constitutional

claim against it, this Court has no authority to modify it. Perry v. Perez, 132 S. Ct. at 942. This

Court must therefore evaluate any challenge to CD 35 under the likelihood-of-success standard

because it has not been challenged by any party under Section 5. Nor could it be, since the

Department of Justice Guidelines expressly excludes Shaw v. Reno claims from the scope of the

Section 5 discriminatory purpose inquiry. U.S. Department of Justice, Guidance Concerning

Redistricting Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act: Notice, 76 Fed. Reg. 7470 (Feb. 9, 2011).

As a result, unless Plaintiffs can meet their burden of showing why CD 35 cannot be part of the

interim plan, this Court is properly constrained to include the district in any interim plan it

adopts.

A CD35 D N t R fl t th I i ibl U f R



12/96

likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that race predominated over other

considerations in the drawing of CD 35.

It is well-established that legislatures are afforded the benefit of a presumption of good

faith when they conduct redistricting. See Chen, 206 F.3d at 505 (The [Supreme] Court has

clearly indicated that th[e] presumption [of good faith] may impact the assessment of the

propriety of summary judgment in a suit challenging districts as racial gerrymanders.); see also

Miller, 515 U.S. at 916 (The distinction between being aware of racial considerations and being

motivated by them may be difficult to make. This evidentiary difficulty, together with the

sensitive nature of redistricting and the presumption of good faith that must be accorded

legislative enactments, requires courts to exercise extraordinary caution in adjudicating claims

that a State has drawn district lines on the basis of race.).

In Shaw v. Reno, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can challenge a

reapportionment statute . . . by alleging that the legislation, though race-neutral on its face,

rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to separate voters into different

districts on the basis of race, and that the separation lacks sufficient justification. 509 U.S. 630,

649 (1993). A plaintiff raising a Shaw claim bears the significant burden of proving that racial



13/96

not believe that the mere presence of race in the mix of decision making factors, and even the

desire to craft majority-minority districts, . . . alone automatically trigger[s] strict scrutiny. Id.

at 514 (citations omitted). A plaintiffs heavy burden of establishing the predominance of race

can be met either through direct evidence of the legislatures purpose or through circumstantial

evidence, including, among other things, a districts demographics or shape. See Shaw v. Hunt,

517 U.S. 899, 905 (1996);Miller, 515 U.S. at 916.

If a plaintiff meets its heavy burden of proving racial predominance, the challenged

district is subject to strict scrutiny, which means that the district must be narrowly tailored to

further a compelling state interest. Vera, 517 U.S. at 976; see id. at 977 (A 2 district that is

reasonably compact and regular, taking into account traditional districting principles . . . may

pass strict scrutiny without having to defeat rival compact districts designed by plaintiffs experts

in endless beauty contests.).

B. CD35 Reflects a Variety of Race-Neutral ConsiderationsCD 35 joins communities from Travis and Bexar Counties and results in a district that

contains 58.3% Latino voting age population, 51.9% Latino citizen voting age population, and

45.0% Spanish surname voter registration. Exhibit B, Plan C226, Red 106 Report. The



14/96

population; in Plan C226, CD 35 is 29.4% Anglo voting age population and 58.3% Latino voting

age population. Perez Exhibit J-1, Plan C100, Red 202 Report; Exhibit B, Plan C226, Red 202

Report.10

As was stated on the record during public redistricting committee hearings and the floor

debate, the concept of this district was originally presented to the Legislature by the Texas Latino

Redistricting Task Force in Public Plan C122. Perez Exhibit D-22 at A-2; Perez Exhibit J-62,

Deposition of Ryan Downton at 114:1724. In determining where the four new congressional

districts should be drawn, the Legislature took into consideration where the population growth

had been throughout the state. Mr. Downton testified that there was significant population

growth in Central Texas that would support the creation of a new congressional district. Perez

Trial Tr. at 915:1722; see also Perez Exhibit D-43; Perez Exhibit J-58, Deposition of Doug

Davis, 17:4-14 (explaining that the Legislature drew the new congressional districts based on

population growth). In fact, the growth in the Latino community was so significant within

Central Texas that the Legislature concluded the Latino population was sufficiently large and

geographically compact such that it could create a Latino opportunity district that met the 50%

citizen voting age population threshold. See Exhibit E, Perez Exhibit D-44; Exhibit F, Perez


C 5 11 00360 OLG JES XR D t 660 Fil d 02/16/12 P 15 f 26


15/96

interest in southeast Austin and San Antonio and how the residents of south San Antonio have

more in common with the residents of southeast Austin than with the residents of geographically

closer Alamo Heights. Perez Trial Tr. at 556:10-557:6, 557:17-558:19, 559:1-17. Further, Mr.

Downtons testimony showed that it is not unusual for areas in San Antonio and Austin to be

combined in a congressional district. Id. at 944:11-22. San Antonio and Williamson County,

which is north of Austin, were combined in Congressional District 21 for the 1996 special and

general elections, the 1998 general election, the 2000 general election, the court-ordered map

that was used for the 2002 election, and the legislatively drawn map used for the 2004 elections

and the 2006 primaries. Perez Latino Task Force Exhibits 305306. In the benchmark

congressional plan, CD 21 unites portions of San Antonio and the City of Alamo Heights with

the City of Austin and even the Texas Capitol building.

The record shows that in creating CD 35, the State accommodated the requests of various

Democratic state legislators with respect to the boundary between CD 35 and CD 20 and also

respected Guadalupe Countys request to be kept whole in the redistricting plan. See Perez Trial

Tr. at 918:23-919:22, 985:21986:9. Additionally, Mr. Downton testified that certain areas in

Travis and Bexar Counties were included within District 35 in order to keep Latino communities


C 5 11 00360 OLG JES XR D t 660 Fil d 02/16/12 P 16 f 26


16/96

elected to political office). Mr. Downton testified that when drafting the new congressional

plan he looked at possibilities for expanding minority representation. Perez Trial Tr. at 917:24-

919:13. Nevertheless, even if Mr. Downton considered the racial composition of District 35, it

is clear the Legislature considered many factors other than race. As the Court recognized in

Shaw, mere consciousness of race in redistricting is an insufficient basis on which to trigger strict

scrutiny where it is considered along with traditional redistricting principles. See Shaw, 517 U.S.

at 905.

The Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force maintains that CD 35 is a required district

under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and that it satisfies all of the requirements under

Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986). See Doc. 416.

C. CD35 is Reasonably Compact.Despite the adherence to these traditional districting principles, Plaintiffs point to the

non-compact shape of CD 35 to support their claim that CD 35 was drawn predominantly on the

basis of race in disregard of traditional districting principles. While the contours of CD 35 are

not perfect, for purposes of a Shaw claim, its shape is relevant only for any light it may shed on

the claim that race for its own sake, and not other districting principles, was the legislatures


Case 5:11 cv 00360 OLG JES XR Document 660 Filed 02/16/12 Page 17 of 26


17/96

(1) perimeter to area score of 0.054 and (2) area to rubber band score of 3.64. See Exhibit B,

Plan C226, Red 315 Report. CD 35 is not the least compact district in Plan C226 and is only

slightly less compact than other districts in Plan C226. As a result, there is no evidence that CD

35s shape indicates the predomination of race over traditional redistricting principles.

Finally, it is worth noting that CD35, like CD 33 does not have the bizarre shape of any

of the districts invalidated by the Supreme Court inBush v. Vera. E.g., 517 at 972 (According

to the leading statistical study of relative district compactness and regularity, [the Harris County

districts] are two of the three least regular districts in the country. (emphasis added)). The

compactness scores for CD 35 exceed the scores for Anglo-majority CD 2 and are more than

twice as compact as the scores for the districts invalidated inBush v. Vera. Compare Exhibit B,

Plan C226, Red 315 Report, with Richard H. Pildes & Richard G. Niemi, Expressive Harms,

Bizarre Districts, and Voting Rights: Evaluating Election-District Appearances AfterShaw v.

Reno, 92 MICH.L.REV. 483, 565 tbl. 3 (1993).

D. Split Precincts Do Not Indicate Improper Race-Based Decisionmaking.Although parties challenging CD35 point to the splitting of precincts as evidence that

race predominated in its creation, they have offered no evidence to suggest how this practice




18/96

along the border between CD 35 and Districts 20 and 23 in order to comply with the Voting

Rights Act by maintaining appropriate Hispanic population levels in those areas. See Perez Trial

Tr. at 917:24921:18. Other splits in precincts were necessary to keep neighboring CD 23 at or

above the benchmark levels and to ensure that CD 35 had at least 50% HCVAP for purposes of

the Voting Rights Act. See Texas v. U.S., Trial Tr. T2A at 95:16-96:3. Precincts were also split

in order to make the boundaries smoother and more compact along the I-35 corridor in CD 35.

See Perez Trial Tr. at 917:24-921:18.

In Bush v. Vera, the testimonial and written record showed that the States motive in

creating less compact districts was to maximize African American voting strength and draw a

50% district no matter what it took. See 517 U.S. at 969. Here, because of the explosive

population growth in the Latino community, it was easy to draw a Latino-majority district along

the I-35 corridor from San Antonio to Austin. Perez Latino Task Force Exhibit 399; Perez

Exhibit J-11; Perez Exhibit J-9. CD 35 also contains non-racial VTD splits, in contrast to the

findings inBush v. Vera.

CD 35 also respects city boundaries where possible. Both San Antonio and the City of

Austin are larger than one congressional district and must be split in congressional redistricting.




19/96

Because the parties challenging CD35 have not come close to carrying their burden of

proving that race predominated over other considerations in CD35, there is no basis to conclude

that a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to that district under Shaw is likely to succeed. See

Chen, 206 F.3d at 521. Rather, the evidence reflects that CD 35 comports with race-neutral

traditional districting principles. In addition to complying with equal population requirement for

congressional districts, Texas took into account joining communities of interest, drawing a new

district where significant population growth had occurred in the state, and compliance with the

Voting Rights Act. Texas was well within its right to create a district in which Latino voters

would have an opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. This Court should therefore

include CD 35 as proposed in C226 in the interim plan.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the undersigned parties respectfully submit that any interim

congressional plan must include CD35 as enacted by the Texas Legislature and included in Plan

C226. The undersigned further submit that CD33, as drawn in Plan C226, is an appropriate and

minimally disruptive remedy for the alleged Section 5 violation in the configuration of

congressional districts in Dallas/Fort Worth.




20/96

Dated: February 16, 2012 Respectfully Submitted,

GREG ABBOTT

Attorney General of Texas

DANIEL T. HODGEFirst Assistant Attorney General

/s/ David C. Mattax

DAVID C. MATTAXDeputy Attorney General for Defense Litigation

Acting Deputy Attorney General for Civil LitigationState Bar No. 13201600

DAVID SCHENCKDeputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel

J. REED CLAY, JR.Special Assistant and Senior Counselto the Attorney General

ANGELA COLMENEROAssistant Attorney General

Texas Bar No. 24048399

MATTHEW H. FREDERICKSpecial Counsel to the Attorney GeneralTexas Bar No. 24040931

P.O. Box 12548, Capitol StationAustin, TX 78711-2548

(512) 936 1342




21/96

Mexican American LegalDefense and Educational Fund

___/s/ Nina Perales_______Nina Perales

Rebecca M. Couto

Marisa BonoKarolina J. Lyznik

MALDEF

110 Broadway Street, #300San Antonio, TX 78205

(210) 224-5476

Fax: (210) 224-5382

Robert W. Wilson

Mark Anthony SanchezGale, Wilson & Sanchez, PLLC

115 East Travis, 19th FloorSan Antonio, TX 78205

(210) 222-8899Fax: (210) 222-9526

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS TEXAS

LATINO REDISTRICTING TASK FORCE,

RUDOLFO ORTIZ, ARMANDO CORTEZ,

SOCORRO RAMOS, GREGORIO BENITOPALOMINO, FLORINDA CHAVEZ,

CYNTHIA VALADEZ, CESAR EDUARDO

YEVENES, SERGIO CORONADO,

GILBERTO TORRES, RENATO DE LOS

SANTOS, JOEY CARDENAS, ALEX




22/96

_____/s/ Jose Garza_________________

JOSE GARZATexas Bar No. 07731950Law Office of Jose Garza

7414 Robin Rest Dr.

San Antonio, Texas 78209(210) 392-2856

[email protected]

JOAQUIN G. AVILALAW OFFICE

P.O. Box 33687

Seattle, Washington 98133Texas State Bar # 01456150

(206) 724-3731

(206) 398-4261 (fax)[email protected]

Ricardo G. Cedillo

State Bar No. 04043600Mark W. Kiehne

State Bar No. 24032627

DAVIS, CEDILLO & MENDOZA, INC.McCombs Plaza, Suite 500

755 E. Mulberry Avenue

San Antonio, Texas 78212Tel.: (210) 822-6666

Fax: (210) [email protected]

[email protected]

g



23/96

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this filing was sent via the Courts electronicnotification system and/or email to the following counsel of record on February 16, 2012, to:

Via CM/ECF

DAVID RICHARDSTexas Bar No. 1684600

Richards, Rodriguez & Skeith LLP

816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1200

Austin, TX 78701512-476-0005

[email protected]

RICHARD E. GRAY, III


Gray & Becker, P.C.900 West Avenue, Suite 300

Austin, TX 78701512-482-0061/512-482-0924 (facsimile)

[email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS PEREZ,

DUTTON, TAMEZ, HALL, ORTIZ,

SALINAS, DEBOSE, and RODRIGUEZ

JOSE GARZA

Texas Bar No. 07731950Law Office of Jose Garza

7414 Robin Rest Dr.San Antonio, Texas 78209

210-392-2856

[email protected]

GERALD H. [email protected]

DONALD H. FLANARY, III


[email protected], Goldstein and Hilley

310 S. St. Marys Street

San Antonio, TX 78205-4605210-226-1463/210-226-8367 (facsimile)

PAUL M. SMITH, MICHAEL B.DESANCTIS, JESSICA RING AMUNSON

Jenner & Block LLP1099 New York Ave., NW

Washington, D.C. 20001202-639-6000

J. GERALD HEBERT191 Somervelle Street, # 405

Alexandria, VA 22304

[email protected]

JESSE GAINES

P.O. Box 50093

Fort Worth, TX 76105

g



24/96

NINA [email protected]

MARISA BONO

[email protected] MCNEILL COUTO

[email protected]

Mexican American Legal Defenseand Education Fund

110 Broadway, Suite 300

San Antonio, TX 78205

210-224-5476/210-224-5382 (facsimile)

MARK ANTHONY SANCHEZ

[email protected] W. WILSON

[email protected]

Gale, Wilson & Sanchez, PLLC115 East Travis Street, Ste. 1900

San Antonio, TX 78205210-222-8899/210-222-9526 (facsimile)

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS TEXAS

LATINO REDISTRICTING TASK FORCE,

CARDENAS, JIMENEZ, MENENDEZ,

TOMACITA AND JOSE OLIVARES,

ALEJANDRO AND REBECCA ORTIZ

JOHN T. MORRIS5703 Caldicote St.

Humble, TX 77346281-852-6388

JOHN T. MORRIS, PRO SE

Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid, Inc.1111 North Main

San Antonio, TX 78213

[email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR-

PLAINTIFF LEAGUE OF UNITED

LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS

ROLANDO L. RIOS

Law Offices of Rolando L. Rios115 E Travis Street

Suite 1645

San Antonio, TX 78205210-222-2102

[email protected]

ATTORNEY FOR INTERVENOR-

PLAINTIFF HENRY CUELLAR

GARY L. BLEDSOE

State Bar No.: 02476500Law office of Gary L. Bledsoe

316 W. 12th Street, Ste. 307


[email protected]

ATTORNEY FOR INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFFS TEXAS STATE

CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES,

TEXAS LEGISLATIVE BLACK

CAUCUS, EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON,

SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, ALEXANDER



25/96

STEPHEN E. [email protected]

SAM JOHNSON

[email protected]. ABRAHAM KUCZAJ, III

[email protected]

Scott, Douglass & McConnicoOne American Center

600 Congress Ave., 15th Floor

Austin, TX 78701

512-495-6300/512-474-0731 (facsimile)ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS CITY OF

AUSTIN, TRAVIS COUNTY, ALEX

SERNA, BALAKUMAR PANDIAN,

BEATRICE SALOMA, BETTY F. LOPEZ,

CONSTABLE BRUCE ELFANT, DAVID

GONZALEZ, EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, ELIZA

ALVARADO, JOSEY MARTINEZ,

JUANITA VALDEZ-COX, LIONORSOROLA-POHLMAN, MILTON GERARD

WASHINGTON, NINA JO BAKER, and

SANDRA SERNA

CHAD W. [email protected]

K. SCOTT BRAZIL

[email protected] & Dunn

4201 FM 1960 West, Suite 530Houston, TX 77068

281-580-6310/281-580-6362 (facsimile)


ROBERT NOTZONState Bar No. 00797934

Law Office of Robert S. Notzon

1507 Nueces StreetAustin, TX 78701

512-474-7563/512-474-9489 (facsimile)

[email protected]

ALLISON JEAN RIGGS

ANITA SUE EARLS

Southern Coalition for Social Justice1415 West Highway 54, Ste. 101

Durham, NC 27707

919-323-3380/919-323-3942 (facsimile)[email protected]


PLAINTIFFS TEXAS STATE

CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES,

EARLS, LAWSON, WALLACE, andJEFFERSON

DONNA GARCIA DAVIDSON

PO Box 12131


[email protected]

FRANK M. REILLY

Potts & Reilly, L.L.P.P.O. Box 4037

Horseshoe Bay, TX 78657

512-469-7474/512-469-7480 (facsimile)



26/96

Via Email

JOAQUIN G. AVILA

P.O. Box 33687

Seattle, WA 98133206-724-3731/206-398-4261 (facsimile)

[email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR MEXICAN

AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS

KAREN M. KENNARD

2803 Clearview DriveAustin, TX 78703

(512) 974-2177/512-974-2894 (facsimile)

[email protected]

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

CITY OF AUSTIN

DAVID ESCAMILLA

Travis County Asst. AttorneyP.O. Box 1748

Austin, TX 78767(512) 854-9416

[email protected]

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

TRAVIS COUNTY

/s/ David C. MattaxDAVID C. MATTAX

Deputy Attorney General for Defense LitigationActing Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 660-1 Filed 02/16/12 Page 1 of 3


27/96





Plaintiffs,

v.


Defendants.

____________________________________


CAUCUS, TEXAS HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES (MALC),

Plaintiffs,

v.


Defendants.

____________________________________

TEXAS LATINO REDISTRICTING TASK

FORCE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

)

)

)

)

)

)

))

)

)

)

)

)

)

))

)

)

)

)

)

)

))

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.


[Lead case]

CIVIL ACTION NO.


[Consolidated case]

CIVIL ACTION NO.


[Consolidated case]



28/96


Plaintiffs,

v.

RICK PERRY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.


[Consolidated case]

____________________________________ )

JOHN T. MORRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.


Defendants.

))

)

)

)

)

)

)

))

CIVIL ACTION NO.


[Consolidated case]

____________________________________ )


Plaintiffs,

v.

RICK PERRY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

))

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.


[Consolidated case]



29/96

Split VTDs that split populated blocks from unpopulated blocks

33

24

3

26

12

4620

4403

33823442

4362

2461

2027

1185

1170

4250

1056DaTarrant



30/96





Plaintiffs,

v.


Defendants.

____________________________________




Plaintiffs,

v.


Defendants.

____________________________________


FORCE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

)

)

)

)

)

)

))

)

)

)

)

)

)

))

)

)

)

)

)

)

))

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.


[Lead case]

CIVIL ACTION NO.


[Consolidated case]

CIVIL ACTION NO.


[Consolidated case]



31/96


Plaintiffs,

v.

RICK PERRY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.


[Consolidated case]

____________________________________ )

JOHN T. MORRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.


Defendants.

))

)

)

)

)

)

)

))

CIVIL ACTION NO.


[Consolidated case]

____________________________________ )


Plaintiffs,

v.

RICK PERRY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

))

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.


[Consolidated case]

Texas Legislative Council02/06/12 2:16 PMPage 1 of 2

Population and Voter Datawith Voter Registration Comparison

Red-202Data: 2010 CensusPLANC226 02/06/2012 11:56:36 AM

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS - PLANC226



32/96

Population Total Voter Registration Non-Suspense Voter Registration

District Deviation Total %A %B %H %BH %O General Election Turnout Total SSVR TO/VR Total SSVR TO/VR

1 0 Total: 698,488 64.4 18.5 15.5 33.7 1.9 2010 165,185 404,654 4.4 % 40.8 % 351,474 4.4 % 47.0 %0.00% VAP: 523,448 68.2 17.7 12.3 29.9 1.9 2008 260,195 424,608 4.2 % 61.3 % 362,573 4.2 % 71.8 %

2 0 Total: 698,488 50.8 10.5 30.8 40.7 8.5 2010 172,006 372,078 13.5 % 46.2 % 324,509 13.4 % 53.0 %0.00% VAP: 518,345 55.0 9.6 27.3 36.5 8.6 2008 243,889 373,741 12.7 % 65.3 % 325,610 13.3 % 74.9 %

3 0 Total: 698,488 62.4 9.3 14.5 23.4 14.2 2010 140,980 381,905 5.9 % 36.9 % 331,691 5.6 % 42.5 %0.00% VAP: 500,074 65.3 8.6 12.8 21.1 13.5 2008 268,756 383,118 5.9 % 70.1 % 330,901 5.7 % 81.2 %

0 Total: 698,488 73.8 11.5 12.2 23.5 2.7 2010 162,593 414,048 3.7 % 39.3 % 360,518 3.7 % 45.1 %0.00% VAP: 521,731 77.1 10.7 9.7 20.3 2.6 2008 260,457 425,729 3.5 % 61.2 % 368,173 3.5 % 70.7 %

5 0 Total: 698,488 57.2 14.9 25.2 39.7 3.1 2010 134,842 358,066 8.2 % 37.7 % 309,752 8.1 % 43.5 %0.00% VAP: 511,695 62.3 13.9 21.0 34.7 3.0 2008 223,268 371,098 8.0 % 60.2 % 320,055 8.0 % 69.8 %

6 0 Total: 698,488 54.3 19.3 20.8 39.4 6.2 2010 146,089 388,455 9.6 % 37.6 % 331,133 9.6 % 44.1 %0.00% VAP: 502,856 58.9 17.5 17.7 34.9 6.2 2008 260,690 397,281 9.6 % 65.6 % 343,133 9.4 % 76.0 %

7 0 Total: 698,488 47.3 12.4 30.1 41.8 10.9 2010 169,040 353,820 11.6 % 47.8 % 304,938 11.3 % 55.4 %0.00% VAP: 519,479 50.9 11.6 27.0 38.1 11.0 2008 239,535 356,301 10.7 % 67.2 % 309,556 11.2 % 77.4 %

8 0 Total: 698,488 68.4 8.9 19.7 28.2 3.4 2010 171,204 376,057 7.3 % 45.5 % 326,252 7.2 % 52.5 %0.00% VAP: 516,691 71.6 8.7 16.7 25.2 3.2 2008 235,475 373,405 7.0 % 63.1 % 326,771 7.1 % 72.1 %

9 0 Total: 698,488 11.5 40.3 37.3 76.5 12.0 2010 116,374 317,251 14.6 % 36.7 % 266,506 15.0 % 43.7 %0.00% VAP: 500,927 13.9 39.6 34.0 72.7 13.4 2008 190,124 326,077 13.7 % 58.3 % 281,735 14.8 % 67.5 %

10 -1 Total: 698,487 57.5 11.2 26.3 36.9 5.6 2010 182,334 403,338 10.7 % 45.2 % 347,105 10.5 % 52.5 %0.00% VAP: 513,735 61.6 10.5 22.8 32.9 5.5 2008 265,170 400,941 10.3 % 66.1 % 351,302 10.4 % 75.5 %

11 0 Total: 698,488 61.0 4.3 33.3 37.1 1.9 2010 155,016 395,682 19.8 % 39.2 % 343,482 19.5 % 45.1 %0.00% VAP: 522,630 65.7 3.8 28.8 32.4 1.9 2008 243,180 409,841 19.6 % 59.3 % 357,194 19.4 % 68.1 %

12 0 Total: 698,488 66.4 8.6 20.6 28.9 4.7 2010 147,255 383,936 9.3 % 38.4 % 325,277 9.1 % 45.3 %

0.00% VAP: 518,938 70.6 7.8 17.2 24.8 4.6 2008 254,094 389,895 9.1 % 65.2 % 335,047 9.1 % 75.8 %13 0 Total: 698,488 67.0 6.1 24.1 29.8 3.2 2010 147,531 401,955 11.8 % 36.7 % 342,791 11.5 % 43.0 %

0.00% VAP: 519,246 71.4 5.6 20.2 25.6 3.1 2008 247,872 418,945 11.6 % 59.2 % 358,077 11.2 % 69.2 %

14 0 Total: 698,488 53.3 21.2 22.1 42.8 3.9 2010 164,945 412,324 11.4 % 40.0 % 351,210 11.3 % 47.0 %0.00% VAP: 523,436 56.9 20.3 19.2 39.2 3.8 2008 245,917 428,460 11.1 % 57.4 % 365,844 11.1 % 67.2 %

15 0 Total: 698,488 16.3 2.0 80.6 82.2 1.5 2010 84,855 300,705 66.5 % 28.2 % 262,292 66.8 % 32.4 %0.00% VAP: 469,736 19.4 2.1 77.2 79.0 1.6 2008 147,675 307,798 67.4 % 48.0 % 264,174 67.4 % 55.9 %

16 0 Total: 698,488 14.7 4.1 80.1 83.4 1.9 2010 82,266 339,856 65.7 % 24.2 % 319,178 66.2 % 25.8 %0.00% VAP: 493,308 17.0 3.8 77.6 80.9 2.1 2008 169,877 348,934 66.1 % 48.7 % 306,180 67.4 % 55.5 %

17 -1 Total: 698,487 57.7 14.5 23.3 37.2 5.2 2010 152,216 369,918 11.2 % 41.1 % 307,847 11.0 % 49.4 %0.00% VAP: 532,324 62.2 13.0 19.8 32.5 5.3 2008 234,556 386,413 11.2 % 60.7 % 324,257 11.0 % 72.3 %

18 0 Total: 698,488 16.7 41.4 38.7 79.2 4.1 2010 123,773 345,446 15.6 % 35.8 % 292,182 16.0 % 42.4 %0.00% VAP: 505,750 20.2 41.4 34.5 75.3 4.5 2008 196,891 351,812 14.7 % 56.0 % 301,547 15.9 % 65.3 %

19 -1 Total: 698,487 57.4 6.9 33.9 40.2 2.4 2010 138,729 385,094 23.1 % 36.0 % 330,554 22.9 % 42.0 %0.00% VAP: 522,651 62.1 6.2 29.5 35.4 2.5 2008 239,165 408,950 23.0 % 58.5 % 343,276 22.5 % 69.7 %

20 0 Total: 698,488 23.0 5.8 68.6 73.4 3.6 2010 106,726 355,709 55.3 % 30.0 % 296,003 55.9 % 36.1 %0.00% VAP: 508,354 26.3 5.5 64.9 69.8 3.8 2008 198,514 369,283 56.2 % 53.8 % 309,892 56.9 % 64.1 %

Texas Legislative Council reports prior to 2008 generally do not include results for third-party, independent, or write-in candidates. Beginning in 2008, results for all third-party and independent candidates are included, and the results for write-in candidates are summedand included as "write-in". Complete official results for all years are maintained by the office of the secretary of state.SSVR = Spanish surname voter registration

24900



Population and Voter Datawith Voter Registration Comparison

Red-202Data: 2010 CensusPLANC226 02/06/2012 11:56:36 AM




33/96

Population Total Voter Registration Non-Suspense Voter Registration

District Deviation Total %A %B %H %BH %O General Election Turnout Total SSVR TO/VR Total SSVR TO/VR

21 0 Total: 698,488 64.8 4.1 27.0 30.6 4.5 2010 211,493 466,724 15.1 % 45.3 % 387,634 14.5 % 54.6 %0.00% VAP: 553,018 68.3 3.6 23.9 27.2 4.5 2008 316,763 472,246 15.3 % 67.1 % 402,392 14.7 % 78.7 %

22 0 Total: 698,488 45.0 13.4 24.6 37.5 17.5 2010 162,715 366,714 14.7 % 44.4 % 320,014 14.7 % 50.8 %0.00% VAP: 494,499 48.0 12.7 22.3 34.6 17.4 2008 235,046 356,054 14.8 % 66.0 % 318,507 14.8 % 73.8 %

23 0 Total: 698,488 25.5 3.6 69.3 72.4 2.1 2010 122,593 367,614 55.1 % 33.3 % 326,175 55.9 % 37.6 %0.00% VAP: 489,508 28.9 3.6 65.8 69.0 2.1 2008 194,329 367,302 55.5 % 52.9 % 322,615 56.1 % 60.2 %

24 0 Total: 698,488 53.4 11.0 23.4 33.9 12.6 2010 146,111 379,416 9.0 % 38.5 % 309,304 8.6 % 47.2 %0.00% VAP: 528,185 57.5 10.3 20.3 30.3 12.2 2008 261,711 397,066 9.0 % 65.9 % 330,301 8.8 % 79.2 %

25 0 Total: 698,488 70.3 8.3 17.3 25.1 4.6 2010 178,357 427,892 8.3 % 41.7 % 358,665 7.9 % 49.7 %0.00% VAP: 520,539 73.5 7.5 14.8 22.0 4.5 2008 275,368 431,191 8.1 % 63.9 % 369,884 7.9 % 74.4 %

26 0 Total: 698,488 68.4 7.8 17.3 24.7 6.9 2010 142,012 386,901 7.3 % 36.7 % 325,417 7.1 % 43.6 %0.00% VAP: 497,267 71.4 7.2 15.0 22.0 6.6 2008 262,178 386,720 7.4 % 67.8 % 334,344 7.3 % 78.4 %

27 -1 Total: 698,487 42.8 6.0 49.5 54.9 2.3 2010 147,910 406,798 36.8 % 36.4 % 343,835 36.7 % 43.0 %0.00% VAP: 516,473 47.2 5.6 45.1 50.4 2.4 2008 230,491 420,927 37.1 % 54.8 % 365,684 36.9 % 63.0 %

28 0 Total: 698,488 17.8 5.0 76.3 80.7 1.5 2010 96,139 329,018 62.0 % 29.2 % 288,518 63.2 % 33.3 %0.00% VAP: 472,331 21.1 4.8 72.7 77.2 1.7 2008 159,193 327,589 62.1 % 48.6 % 291,227 63.9 % 54.7 %

29 0 Total: 698,488 11.8 10.7 76.3 86.2 2.0 2010 70,900 243,760 52.0 % 29.1 % 213,559 53.2 % 33.2 %0.00% VAP: 471,352 14.8 10.7 72.7 82.9 2.3 2008 112,984 249,806 50.0 % 45.2 % 217,090 53.5 % 52.0 %

30 -1 Total: 698,487 17.3 46.3 34.7 80.2 2.5 2010 126,420 356,471 12.3 % 35.5 % 305,406 12.7 % 41.4 %0.00% VAP: 496,651 21.4 46.4 30.1 75.9 2.7 2008 224,621 373,567 12.0 % 60.1 % 322,036 12.2 % 69.8 %

31 -1 Total: 698,487 59.5 12.9 22.5 34.5 6.0 2010 145,684 379,539 11.7 % 38.4 % 314,843 11.3 % 46.3 %0.00% VAP: 501,657 63.6 11.6 19.5 30.6 5.8 2008 243,398 382,323 12.0 % 63.7 % 327,429 11.8 % 74.3 %

32 0 Total: 698,488 53.3 13.0 25.6 38.1 8.6 2010 160,318 384,526 8.8 % 41.7 % 330,594 8.7 % 48.5 %

0.00% VAP: 523,179 58.0 11.8 21.9 33.4 8.7 2008 268,352 403,272 8.8 % 66.5 % 345,738 8.6 % 77.6 %33 0 Total: 698,488 14.5 17.2 66.3 82.7 2.7 2010 65,841 239,206 34.1 % 27.5 % 200,514 35.8 % 32.8 %

0.00% VAP: 469,456 18.4 17.8 61.3 78.5 3.0 2008 131,883 255,073 33.5 % 51.7 % 215,289 34.5 % 61.3 %

34 -1 Total: 698,487 15.2 1.6 82.7 83.9 1.0 2010 87,633 326,112 71.1 % 26.9 % 289,723 71.9 % 30.2 %0.00% VAP: 480,232 18.6 1.7 79.0 80.4 1.1 2008 150,828 331,258 71.7 % 45.5 % 297,077 72.4 % 50.8 %

35 0 Total: 698,488 25.2 10.8 62.8 72.5 2.4 2010 95,564 335,961 43.8 % 28.4 % 270,804 45.0 % 35.3 %0.00% VAP: 502,769 29.4 10.4 58.3 68.0 2.6 2008 177,044 347,208 44.4 % 51.0 % 286,324 45.1 % 61.8 %

36 0 Total: 698,488 65.8 9.9 21.2 30.8 3.4 2010 163,915 405,807 9.3 % 40.4 % 354,823 9.2 % 46.2 %0.00% VAP: 517,267 69.5 9.4 18.0 27.2 3.4 2008 238,869 419,509 8.7 % 56.9 % 363,502 8.9 % 65.7 %

Texas Legislative Council reports prior to 2008 generally do not include results for third-party, independent, or write-in candidates. Beginning in 2008, results for all third-party and independent candidates are included, and the results for write-in candidates are summedand included as "write-in". Complete official results for all years are maintained by the office of the secretary of state.SSVR = Spanish surname voter registration

24900

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS PLANC226


American Community Survey Special TabulationUsing Census and American Community Survey Data

Red-106Data: 2005-2009 ACS; 2010 CensusPLANC226 02/06/2012 11:56:36 AM




34/96

Special Tabulation of Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) from the 2005-2009 American Community Survey with Margins of Error

2010 CensusHispanic

CVAPNot Hispanic or Latino

Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)

District Total VAP CVAP % Hispanic% Black

Alone% Black+ White

% Black+ American

Indian% White

Alone

% AmericanIndianAlone

%AsianAlone

% NativeHawaiian

Alone

% AmericanIndian+ White

% Asian+ White

% Remainder2 or More Other

1 698,488 523,448 467,460 (6,503) 5.2 (0.4) 18.3 (0.7) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1(0.6) 74.8 (0.4) 0.3 (0.5) 0.5 (0.5) 0.0 (0.6) 0.5 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6)

2 698,488 518,345 411,395 (5,430) 16.5 (0.6) 8.7 (0.5) 0.1 (0.5) 0.0(0.5) 68.7 (0.6) 0.2 (0.5) 4.9 (0.4) 0.2 (0.5) 0.4 (0.5) 0.2 (0.5) 0.1 (0.5)3 698,488 500,074 413,455 (4,582) 7.9 (0.5) 7.4 (0.5) 0.1 (0.5) 0.1(0.5) 76.4 (0.5) 0.5 (0.4) 6.8 (0.4) 0.1 (0.5) 0.4 (0.4) 0.3 (0.5) 0.1 (0.5)

4 698,488 521,731 474,035 (5,454) 4.9 (0.4) 11.0 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1(0.6) 81.8 (0.4) 0.8 (0.5) 0.4 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6) 0.7 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6) 0.0 (0.6)

5 698,488 511,695 437,150 (5,765) 10.7 (0.5) 14.0 (0.7) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1(0.6) 72.9 (0.5) 0.4 (0.5) 1.2 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6) 0.4 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6)

6 698,488 502,856 426,750 (4,832) 11.9 (0.5) 16.9 (0.6) 0.2 (0.5) 0.1(0.5) 66.3 (0.5) 0.5 (0.5) 3.2 (0.5) 0.0 (0.5) 0.5 (0.5) 0.2 (0.5) 0.1 (0.5)

7 698,488 519,479 389,305 (4,821) 14.2 (0.6) 10.6 (0.6) 0.1 (0.5) 0.0(0.6) 67.8 (0.6) 0.3 (0.5) 6.5 (0.4) 0.0 (0.6) 0.3 (0.5) 0.2 (0.5) 0.1 (0.5)

8 698,488 516,691 428,525 (6,191) 8.8 (0.5) 9.4 (0.5) 0.1 (0.5) 0.0(0.5) 79.4 (0.4) 0.3 (0.4) 1.1 (0.4) 0.0 (0.5) 0.6 (0.4) 0.1 (0.5) 0.1 (0.5)

9 698,488 500,927 354,935 (5,560) 18.0 (0.8) 49.4 (0.9) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1(0.6) 22.5 (0.7) 0.2 (0.6) 9.2 (0.6) 0.0 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6)

10 698,487 513,735 402,625 (5,026) 13.5 (0.6) 10.2 (0.6) 0.1 (0.5) 0.0(0.6) 72.6 (0.5) 0.2 (0.5) 2.6 (0.5) 0.0 (0.6) 0.5 (0.5) 0.1 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6)

11 698,488 522,630 467,430 (5,256) 23.1 (0.6) 3.8 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.1(0.7) 71.2 (0.4) 0.5 (0.6) 0.5 (0.6) 0.0 (0.7) 0.5 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.1 (0.7)

12 698,488 518,938 438,740 (5,388) 11.2 (0.5) 7.2 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6) 0.0(0.6) 78.3 (0.5) 0.5 (0.5) 1.9 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6) 0.5 (0.5) 0.2 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6)

13 698,488 519,246 467,385 (4,933) 14.3 (0.5) 5.7 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6) 0.0(0.7) 77.2 (0.4) 0.7 (0.6) 0.9 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.8 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.0 (0.7)

14 698,488 523,436 465,575 (5,918) 13.1 (0.5) 21.4 (0.8) 0.1 (0.6) 0.0(0.6) 62.8 (0.4) 0.4 (0.6) 1.6 (0.6) 0.0 (0.6) 0.4 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6) 0.0 (0.6)

15 698,488 469,736 325,245 (5,079) 71.0 (0.9) 2.3 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.0(0.7) 25.4 (0.6) 0.2 (0.6) 0.7 (0.6) 0.0 (0.7) 0.2 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6) 0.0 (0.7)

16 698,488 493,308 358,179 (4,866) 72.7 (0.7) 3.6 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.0(0.7) 21.5 (0.6) 0.4 (0.7) 1.1 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.3 (0.7) 0.1 (0.7) 0.1 (0.7)

17 698,487 532,324 460,630 (5,931) 13.6 (0.5) 13.1 (0.5) 0.2 (0.5) 0.1(0.6) 69.8 (0.5) 0.3 (0.5) 2.2 (0.5) 0.0 (0.6) 0.5 (0.5) 0.2 (0.5) 0.1 (0.5)

18 698,488 505,750 387,280 (6,568) 19.2 (0.6) 49.3 (0.8) 0.2 (0.6) 0.1(0.6) 27.6 (0.7) 0.2 (0.6) 3.0 (0.6) 0.2 (0.7) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7)

19 698,487 522,651 464,230 (5,478) 25.4 (0.6) 5.9 (0.5) 0.2 (0.7) 0.0(0.7) 66.7 (0.5) 0.3 (0.6) 0.6 (0.6) 0.0 (0.7) 0.5 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.1 (0.7)20 698,488 508,354 425,980 (6,417) 62.0 (0.8) 5.2 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1(0.6) 30.2 (0.7) 0.4 (0.6) 1.4 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6) 0.2 (0.6) 0.2 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6)

21 698,488 553,018 489,820 (5,684) 19.7 (0.6) 2.9 (0.4) 0.1 (0.5) 0.0(0.5) 74.4 (0.5) 0.3 (0.5) 1.5 (0.4) 0.1 (0.5) 0.5 (0.4) 0.3 (0.5) 0.1 (0.5)

22 698,488 494,499 381,335 (4,959) 17.3 (0.7) 12.3 (0.6) 0.1 (0.5) 0.0(0.5) 58.3 (0.6) 0.2 (0.4) 11.1 (0.6) 0.0 (0.5) 0.3 (0.4) 0.2 (0.4) 0.1 (0.5)

23 698,488 489,508 363,165 (5,126) 60.0 (0.8) 3.3 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.0(0.7) 34.7 (0.6) 0.4 (0.6) 0.8 (0.6) 0.0 (0.7) 0.4 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.1 (0.7)

24 698,488 528,185 434,275 (4,930) 12.2 (0.5) 8.9 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1(0.6) 72.0 (0.5) 0.3 (0.5) 5.4 (0.5) 0.3 (0.6) 0.4 (0.5) 0.3 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6)

25 698,488 520,539 456,945 (6,133) 10.3 (0.5) 8.1 (0.6) 0.2 (0.5) 0.0(0.5) 78.2 (0.4) 0.5 (0.5) 1.6 (0.5) 0.2 (0.5) 0.5 (0.5) 0.3 (0.5) 0.1 (0.5)

26 698,488 497,267 412,845 (5,537) 8.9 (0.5) 6.1 (0.5) 0.2 (0.4) 0.2(0.4) 80.5 (0.5) 0.4 (0.3) 2.5 (0.4) 0.1 (0.4) 0.8 (0.3) 0.2 (0.4) 0.1 (0.4)

27 698,487 516,473 463,345 (6,054) 41.1 (0.7) 5.8 (0.6) 0.0 (0.6) 0.0(0.6) 51.4 (0.6) 0.2 (0.6) 0.8 (0.6) 0.0 (0.6) 0.4 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6)

28 698,488 472,331 325,415 (4,783) 65.3 (0.9) 4.9 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.1(0.7) 28.1 (0.6) 0.2 (0.6) 0.9 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.2 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7)

29 698,488 471,352 309,540 (5,160) 57.0 (1.0) 13.9 (0.8) 0.0 (0.8) 0.0(0.8) 26.5 (0.8) 0.3 (0.8) 1.8 (0.7) 0.0 (0.8) 0.3 (0.8) 0.0 (0.8) 0.0 (0.8)

30 698,487 496,651 401,575 (5,733) 17.6 (0.7) 51.2 (0.8) 0.2 (0.7) 0.2(0.7) 28.2 (0.7) 0.3 (0.6) 1.4 (0.6) 0.2 (0.7) 0.4 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.2 (0.7)

31 698,487 501,657 417,970 (5,357) 15.0 (0.6) 11.4 (0.6) 0.2 (0.5) 0.1(0.5) 69.2 (0.5) 0.5 (0.4) 2.5 (0.4) 0.2 (0.5) 0.4 (0.5) 0.4 (0.5) 0.2 (0.5)

32 698,488 523,179 440,815 (5,189) 12.2 (0.6) 11.2 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6) 0.3(0.6) 69.5 (0.5) 0.4 (0.6) 5.2 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.6 (0.6) 0.2 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6)

33 698,488 469,456 305,120 (4,816) 39.4 (1.0) 23.8 (0.9) 0.1 (1.0) 0.1(1.0) 33.5 (0.8) 0.4 (0.9) 2.0 (0.9) 0.1 (1.0) 0.4 (0.9) 0.1 (1.0) 0.1 (1.0)

34 698,487 480,232 366,725 (5,403) 71.7 (0.8) 2.2 (0.7) 0.0 (0.7) 0.1(0.7) 25.2 (0.6) 0.2 (0.7) 0.4 (0.7) 0.0 (0.7) 0.2 (0.7) 0.0 (0.7) 0.0 (0.7)

24898

The American Community Survey provided estimated citizen voting age population (CVAP) data at the block group level in a Special Tabulation. All block groups with more than 50% of the population in a district are included in the analysis.The percent for each CVAP population category is that group's CVAP divided by the CVAP total.Numbers in parentheses are margins of error at 90% confidence level.Black = Non-Hispanic Black


American Community Survey Special TabulationUsing Census and American Community Survey Data

Red-106Data: 2005-2009 ACS; 2010 CensusPLANC226 02/06/2012 11:56:36 AM




35/96

Special Tabulation of Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) from the 2005-2009 American Community Survey with Margins of Error

2010 CensusHispanic

CVAPNot Hispanic or Latino

Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)

District Total VAP CVAP % Hispanic% Black

Alone% Black+ White

% Black+ American

Indian% White

Alone

% AmericanIndianAlone

%AsianAlone

% NativeHawaiian

Alone

% AmericanIndian+ White

% Asian+ White

% Remainder2 or More Other

35 698,488 502,769 398,400 (5,924) 51.9 (0.9) 11.1 (0.6) 0.2 (0.7) 0.0(0.7) 34.5 (0.7) 0.3 (0.7) 1.2 (0.6) 0.1 (0.7) 0.4 (0.7) 0.2 (0.7) 0.1 (0.7)

36 698,488 517,267 462,070 (5,373) 10.5 (0.5) 9.7 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6) 0.0(0.6) 76.9 (0.5) 0.5 (0.5) 1.6 (0.5) 0.0 (0.6) 0.5 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6) 0.1 (0.6)

24898

The American Community Survey provided estimated citizen voting age population (CVAP) data at the block group level in a Special Tabulation. All block groups with more than 50% of the population in a district are included in the analysis.The percent for each CVAP population category is that group's CVAP divided by the CVAP total.Numbers in parentheses are margins of error at 90% confidence level.Black = Non-Hispanic Black


Compactness Analysis - Area Based MeasuresRed-315Data: 2010 CensusPLANC226 02/06/2012 11:56:36 AM

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS PLANC226



36/96

District Area Rubber Band Perimeter to Area

1 0.768 0.203

2 0.421 0.074

3 0.871 0.371

4 0.780 0.175

5 0.684 0.132

6 0.764 0.215

7 0.554 0.136

8 0.840 0.235

9 0.607 0.156

10 0.725 0.154

11 0.616 0.200

12 0.768 0.230

13 0.672 0.262

14 0.583 0.156

15 0.521 0.124

16 0.942 0.565

17 0.673 0.191

18 0.587 0.080

19 0.706 0.279

20 0.689 0.181

21 0.773 0.192

22 0.704 0.14523 0.726 0.210

24 0.750 0.211

25 0.607 0.160

26 0.910 0.460

27 0 619 0 192




37/96





Plaintiffs,

v.


Defendants.

____________________________________




Plaintiffs,

v.


Defendants.

____________________________________


FORCE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

))

)

)

)

)

)

)

))

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.


[Lead case]

CIVIL ACTION NO.


[Consolidated case]

CIVIL ACTION NO.


[Consolidated case]



38/96


Plaintiffs,

v.

RICK PERRY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

))

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.


[Consolidated case]

____________________________________ )

JOHN T. MORRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.


Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

))

CIVIL ACTION NO.


[Consolidated case]

____________________________________ )


Plaintiffs,

v.

RICK PERRY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

))

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.


[Consolidated case]

Racially Polarized Voting AnalysisRacially Polarized Voting Analysis

Racially Polarized Voting Analysis

Estimated Turnout by Race/Ethnicity as a Percent of VAP



39/96

y / y

In Voter Tabulation Districts (VTDs)

District 33

T 1 PLANC226

Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Actual Acutal

Turnout Turnout Turnout Turnout Turnout Turnout

% for % for % for % in % in % in

Anglo Black Hispanic District District Election----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2002 Democratic Primary 0.0% 2.7% 2.9% 5.6% 4.9% 5.8%

2002 Democratic Runoff 0.0% 3.7% 2.0% 5.8% 5.0% 3.5%

2002 General 5.8% 7.0% 5.5% 18.3% 18.2% 25.1%

2004 General 10.6% 9.3% 7.4% 27.2% 27.1% 40.8%


2006 General 6.8% 4.5% 3.4% 14.7% 14.5% 24.2%


2008 General 10.1% 10.6% 7.4% 28.2% 28.0% 44.4%


2010 General 6.1% 5.4% 2.6% 14.1% 13.9% 27.3%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Office of the Attorney General-State of Texas Page 001 02/07/2012



Regression of Turnout as Percent of VAP



40/96

Against Percent of VAP by Race or Ethnicity

District 33

T 2 PLANC226

Prob>F Prob>T For Slope Prob>T Slope For Prob>T For

# of VTD R-Square For EQN Intercept Intercept For Black For Black Hispanic Hispanic

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2002 Democratic P 210 0.429 0.000 -0.0351 0.002 0.1886 0.000 0.0834 0.0002002 Democratic R 210 0.586 0.000 -0.0357 0.003 0.2463 0.000 0.0693 0.000

2002 General 210 0.439 0.000 0.2681 0.000 0.1300 0.000 -0.1777 0.000

2004 General 210 0.513 0.000 0.4867 0.000 0.0369 0.396 -0.3644 0.000

2006 Democratic P 210 0.559 0.000 -0.0139 0.010 0.0997 0.000 0.0229 0.001

2006 General 210 0.436 0.000 0.3144 0.000 -0.0610 0.035 -0.2587 0.000

2008 Democratic P 210 0.580 0.000 0.0627 0.002 0.3464 0.000 0.0219 0.399

2008 General 209 0.604 0.000 0.4657 0.000 0.1355 0.001 -0.3437 0.000

2010 Democratic P 210 0.414 0.000 -0.0051 0.440 0.0931 0.000 0.0233 0.006

2010 General 210 0.531 0.000 0.2810 0.000 0.0231 0.397 -0.2383 0.000

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Estimated Distribution of Votes in Contest



41/96

District 33

T 3 Plan: PLANC226

Percent Anglo Percent Black Percent Hispanic

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2002 Democratic Primary Governor 2.4% 46.9% 50.7%

2002 General Governor 32.2% 38.1% 29.7%

2004 General Railroad Commissione 37.7% 37.3% 25.0%

2004 General Court of Criminal Ap 37.4% 35.9% 26.8%

2006 Democratic Primary Lt. Governor 0.0% 69.6% 30.4%

2006 Democratic Primary Agriculture Commissi 0.0% 73.8% 26.2%

2006 General Lt. Governor 44.2% 32.1% 23.8%

2006 General Court of Criminal Ap 43.3% 32.5% 24.2%

2008 Democratic Primary U.S. Senator 11.6% 49.2% 39.2%

2008 Democratic Primary Railroad Commissione 10.4% 54.2% 35.4%

2008 Democratic Primary Justice of the Supre 11.3% 48.7% 39.9%

2008 General U.S. Senator 35.0% 39.4% 25.6%

2008 General Justice of the Supre 33.6% 40.3% 26.0%

2010 Democratic Primary Lt. Governor 4.4% 55.9% 39.7%

2010 Democratic Primary Land Commissioner 1.3% 58.8% 39.9%

2010 General Lt. Governor 41.2% 39.5% 19.3%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Estimated Distribution of Votes in Contest



42/96

District 33

T 3 Plan: PLANC226

Percent Anglo Percent Black Percent Hispanic

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2010 General Land Commissioner 40.4% 39.7% 20.0%

2010 General Justice of the Supre 40.8% 41.1% 18.2%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Estimated Percent Vote by Race/Ethnicity for Each Candidate




43/96


District 33

T 4 PLANC226

Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Actual Actual

% Anglo % Black % Hispanic % of Total % of Total % of Total

Votes for Votes for Votes for Votes in Votes in Votes in

Party Candidate Candidate Candidate District District Election----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2002 Democratic Primary Governor

LYON,BILL O D 6.3% 1.2% 2.2% 1.9% 2.2% 4.3%

MORALES,DAN H D 93.7% 16.6% 23.1% 21.8% 25.4% 32.9%

SANCHEZ,TONY H D 0.0% 81.0% 73.6% 75.4% 71.3% 60.8%

WORLDPEACE,JOHN A D 0.0% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.9%

2002 General Governor

PERRY,RICK A R 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 32.2% 31.5% 59.1%

SANCHEZ,TONY H D 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 67.8% 68.5% 40.9%

2004 General Railroad Commissioner 3

CARRILLO,VICTOR H R 84.8% 0.0% 19.5% 36.9% 35.7% 57.5%

SCARBOROUGH,BOB O D 15.2% 100.0% 80.5% 63.1% 64.3% 42.5%

2004 General Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 6

KEASLER,MICHAEL A R 87.1% 0.0% 6.4% 34.3% 33.1% 57.9%

MOLINA,J.R. H D 12.9% 100.0% 93.6% 65.7% 66.9% 42.1%

2006 Democratic Primary Lt. Governor

ALVARADO,MARIA H D 0.0% 25.0% 58.8% 35.2% 37.4% 41.5%

DELEON,ADRIAN H D 0.0% 17.4% 20.7% 18.4% 17.8% 22.4%

GRANT,BENJAMIN A D 0.0% 57.6% 20.5% 46.4% 44.8% 36.1%

2006 Democratic Primary Agriculture Commissioner

GILBERT,HANK A D 0.0% 56.2% 68.6% 59.4% 64.2% 71.1%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------








44/96


District 33

T 4 PLANC226




Party Candidate Candidate Candidate District District Election

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MELTON,KOECADEE B D 0.0% 43.8% 31.4% 40.6% 35.8% 28.9%

2006 General Lt. Governor


DEWHURST,DAVID A R 84.6% 0.0% 0.0% 37.4% 35.6% 60.8%

2006 General Court of Criminal Appeals, Presiding

KELLER,SHARON A R 80.7% 0.0% 0.0% 35.0% 32.7% 56.6%

MOLINA,J.R. H D 19.3% 100.0% 100.0% 65.0% 67.3% 43.4%

2008 Democratic Primary U.S. Senator

KELLY,GENE A D 23.3% 34.4% 10.0% 23.6% 23.5% 26.9%

MCMURREY,RAY A D 17.7% 18.3% 6.7% 13.7% 13.6% 12.4%

NORIEGA,RICHARD H D 47.3% 32.0% 81.1% 53.0% 53.1% 51.0%

SMITH,RHETT A D 11.7% 15.3% 2.1% 9.7% 9.7% 9.7%

2008 Democratic Primary Railroad Commissioner 3

HALL,ART B D 25.6% 27.2% 21.0% 24.9% 24.9% 23.9%

HENRY,DALE A D 39.8% 16.9% 37.7% 26.7% 26.7% 27.7%

THOMPSON,MARK A D 34.6% 55.8% 41.2% 48.4% 48.5% 48.4%

2008 Democratic Primary Justice of the Supreme Court, Place 8

CRISS,SUSAN A D 83.8% 63.4% 7.0% 43.2% 42.9% 48.6%

YANEZ,LINDA H D 16.2% 36.6% 93.0% 56.8% 57.1% 51.4%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------








45/96


District 33

T 4 PLANC226





----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2008 General U.S. Senator

CORNYN,JOHN A R 82.9% 0.0% 4.6% 30.2% 29.0% 56.1%


2008 General Justice of the Supreme Court, Place 8

JOHNSON,PHIL A R 83.0% 0.0% 1.7% 28.4% 27.1% 54.0%

YANEZ,LINDA H D 17.0% 100.0% 98.3% 71.6% 72.9% 46.0%


CHAVEZ-THOMPSON,LINDA H D 0.0% 39.4% 80.9% 54.2% 52.4% 53.2%

EARLE,RONALD A D 79.7% 37.3% 14.9% 30.2% 31.4% 34.7%

KATZ,MARC A D 20.3% 23.3% 4.2% 15.6% 16.2% 12.2%

2010 Democratic Primary Land Commissioner

BURTON,BILL B D 100.0% 79.5% 12.7% 53.1% 53.3% 48.3%

URIBE,HECTOR H D 0.0% 20.5% 87.3% 46.9% 46.7% 51.7%




2010 General Land Commissioner

PATTERSON,JERRY A R 89.9% 0.0% 0.0% 36.3% 32.9% 63.6%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------








46/96

( )

District 33

T 4 PLANC226





----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

URIBE,HECTOR H D 10.1% 100.0% 100.0% 63.7% 67.1% 36.4%


BAILEY,BLAKE A D 11.5% 100.0% 100.0% 63.9% 65.8% 37.1%

GUZMAN,EVA H R 88.5% 0.0% 0.0% 36.1% 34.2% 62.9%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Estimated Votes by Race/Ethnicity




47/96

District 33

T 5 PLANC226


Votes from Votes from Votes from Votes in Votes in Votes in

Party Anglo Black Hispanic District District Election

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LYON,BILL O D 38 146 285 469 471 42,980

MORALES,DAN H D 560 1,962 2,959 5,481 5,494 331,409

SANCHEZ,TONY H D 0 9,577 9,416 18,993 15,445 612,156

WORLDPEACE,JOHN A D 0 131 126 257 243 19,597


PERRY,RICK A R 26,966 0 0 26,966 25,583 2,632,069

SANCHEZ,TONY H D 0 31,881 24,856 56,737 55,678 1,818,503


CARRILLO,VICTOR H R 36,581 0 5,579 42,160 40,050 3,891,643

SCARBOROUGH,BOB O D 6,533 42,678 23,016 72,228 72,271 2,872,596


KEASLER,MICHAEL A R 38,403 0 2,022 40,425 38,439 3,990,355

MOLINA,J.R. H D 5,678 42,308 29,534 77,520 77,644 2,906,687


ALVARADO,MARIA H D 0 1,339 1,375 2,714 2,590 207,816

DELEON,ADRIAN H D 0 933 484 1,417 1,236 112,311

GRANT,BENJAMIN A D 0 3,091 480 3,571 3,100 180,750


GILBERT,HANK A D 0 2,876 1,247 4,123 4,075 323,283

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Privileged and Confidential Page 001 02/07/2012







48/96

District 33

T 5 PLANC226




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MELTON,KOECADEE B D 0 2,243 572 2,815 2,276 131,400


ALVARADO,MARIA H D 4,332 20,507 15,181 40,020 40,048 1,619,457

DEWHURST,DAVID A R 23,889 0 0 23,889 22,150 2,515,493


KELLER,SHARON A R 22,731 0 0 22,731 20,494 2,347,043

MOLINA,J.R. H D 5,428 21,091 15,728 42,247 42,252 1,797,176


KELLY,GENE A D 1,264 7,886 1,832 10,982 10,967 586,412

MCMURREY,RAY A D 959 4,187 1,222 6,368 6,355 270,336

NORIEGA,RICHARD H D 2,562 7,338 14,794 24,695 24,764 1,114,026

SMITH,RHETT A D 637 3,506 388 4,531 4,518 212,363


HALL,ART B D 1,132 6,263 3,151 10,546 10,546 468,600

HENRY,DALE A D 1,763 3,894 5,658 11,314 11,321 541,927

THOMPSON,MARK A D 1,532 12,829 6,182 20,543 20,560 946,702


CRISS,SUSAN A D 4,087 13,266 1,196 18,549 18,457 979,158

YANEZ,LINDA H D 790 7,664 15,970 24,424 24,548 1,035,623


CORNYN,JOHN A R 35,802 0 1,465 37,268 35,200 4,336,883

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



49/96





District 33



50/96

District 33

T 5 PLANC226




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GUZMAN,EVA H R 22,299 0 0 22,299 20,502 2,918,808

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Estimated Votes by Race/Ethnicity as a percent of All Votes Cast in Contest


District 33



51/96

District 33

T 6 PLANC226


% of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LYON,BILL O D 0.1% 0.6% 1.1% 1.9% 2.2% 4.3%

MORALES,DAN H D 2.2% 7.8% 11.7% 21.8% 25.4% 32.9%

SANCHEZ,TONY H D 0.0% 38.0% 37.4% 75.4% 71.3% 60.8%

WORLDPEACE,JOHN A D 0.0% 0.5% 0.5% 1.0% 1.1% 1.9%


PERRY,RICK A R 32.2% 0.0% 0.0% 32.2% 31.5% 59.1%

SANCHEZ,TONY H D 0.0% 38.1% 29.7% 67.8% 68.5% 40.9%


CARRILLO,VICTOR H R 32.0% 0.0% 4.9% 36.9% 35.7% 57.5%

SCARBOROUGH,BOB O D 5.7% 37.3% 20.1% 63.1% 64.3% 42.5%


KEASLER,MICHAEL A R 32.6% 0.0% 1.7% 34.3% 33.1% 57.9%

MOLINA,J.R. H D 4.8% 35.9% 25.0% 65.7% 66.9% 42.1%



DELEON,ADRIAN H D 0.0% 12.1% 6.3% 18.4% 17.8% 22.4%

GRANT,BENJAMIN A D 0.0% 40.1% 6.2% 46.4% 44.8% 36.1%


GILBERT,HANK A D 0.0% 41.5% 18.0% 59.4% 64.2% 71.1%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






District 33



52/96

st ct 33

T 6 PLANC226





----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MELTON,KOECADEE B D 0.0% 32.3% 8.2% 40.6% 35.8% 28.9%





KELLER,SHARON A R 35.0% 0.0% 0.0% 35.0% 32.7% 56.6%

MOLINA,J.R. H D 8.4% 32.5% 24.2% 65.0% 67.3% 43.4%


KELLY,GENE A D 2.7% 16.9% 3.9% 23.6% 23.5% 26.9%

MCMURREY,RAY A D 2.1% 9.0% 2.6% 13.7% 13.6% 12.4%


SMITH,RHETT A D 1.4% 7.5% 0.8% 9.7% 9.7% 9.7%


HALL,ART B D 2.7% 14.8% 7.4% 24.9% 24.9% 23.9%

HENRY,DALE A D 4.2% 9.2% 13.3% 26.7% 26.7% 27.7%

THOMPSON,MARK A D 3.6% 30.3% 14.6% 48.4% 48.5% 48.4%


CRISS,SUSAN A D 9.5% 30.9% 2.8% 43.2% 42.9% 48.6%

YANEZ,LINDA H D 1.8% 17.8% 37.2% 56.8% 57.1% 51.4%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






District 33



53/96

T 6 PLANC226





----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


CORNYN,JOHN A R 29.0% 0.0% 1.2% 30.2% 29.0% 56.1%



JOHNSON,PHIL A R 27.9% 0.0% 0.4% 28.4% 27.1% 54.0%

YANEZ,LINDA H D 5.7% 40.3% 25.6% 71.6% 72.9% 46.0%



EARLE,RONALD A D 3.5% 20.8% 5.9% 30.2% 31.4% 34.7%

KATZ,MARC A D 0.9% 13.0% 1.7% 15.6% 16.2% 12.2%

2010 Democratic Primary Land Commissioner

BURTON,BILL B D 1.3% 46.7% 5.1% 53.1% 53.3% 48.3%

URIBE,HECTOR H D 0.0% 12.1% 34.8% 46.9% 46.7% 51.7%




2010 General Land Commissioner

PATTERSON,JERRY A R 36.3% 0.0% 0.0% 36.3% 32.9% 63.6%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






District 33

Ca

Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts

Documents

Transcript of Joint Advisory on Interim Congressional Districts