Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

OCA Houston

Redistricting litigation update

Reform Austin shows that the state’s legal defense strategy against the various redistricting lawsuits is “You can’t sue us!”

Because of the clear racial gerrymandering, multiple groups are launching legal challenges under the Voting Rights Act. The state has now responded to the one being brought by the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Mi Familia Vota, the Mexican American Bar Association, and others, asking for a dismissal. Among many other claims, the state alleges that private citizens do not have standing to sue under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

“The Supreme Court has never decided whether Section 2 contains an implied private cause of action,” reads the filing.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act makes it illegal to gerrymander a district for the purpose of suppressing voting power based on race. Strictly political gerrymandering was deemed acceptable in a 2019 Supreme Court case, but the two intentions are often intermingled. The majority of minorities tend to vote Democrat, making any political gerrymandering also racial almost by definition.

The filing by the state does admit that some legal opinions have implied that Section 2 does give private citizens standing to sue but says that these implications are inconsistent with other Supreme Court decisions. The case specifically cited is Alexander vs. Sandoval, which found that regulations enacted under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not confer the right to legal action in a case of non-intentional discrimination. The filing also claims that the Voting Rights Act did not actually create a right to vote in spite of the discrimination, and therefor there is no right to be contested under its statute.

Not a whole lot to say here, as Texas has employed a variation on that strategy in a whole host of lawsuit defenses lately. I don’t know what the district and appeals courts will make of that, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see it get a warm welcome at SCOTUS. Hey, have I mentioned lately that a new and updated federal voting rights law would be a good idea? Just checking.

Reading that article made me go Google news hunting for anything else I could find on redistricting litigation, since not all developments make their way into the sources I read regularly. In doing so I found that all but one of the existing federal cases against the redistricting maps have been consolidated into one, the LULAC v Texas case, as it was the first one filed. You can see all of the filings related to this omnibus case here. When I read the order combining the cases, the motion for which had been partially opposed, I learned that there were two other lawsuits that I had missed the first time around. Let me sum up here. The cases that I knew about that are now under this banner: The LULAC/MALDEF suit, the Voto Latino suit, the federal MALC suit, the Senator Powell lawsuit over SD10, and the Fair Maps Texas Action Committee lawsuit.

The cases that I missed the first time around: The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, representing the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and Damon James Wilson, formerly an inmate in Dallas County, representing himself as he was counted in one Congressional district while incarcerated but intends to return to his actual domicile in another CD when released, and says he should have been counted in that district.

The one federal case that remains separate from the others is the Gutierrez/Eckhardt suit, which the court rejected for consolidation on the grounds that about whether the Lege was allowed to draw maps at all, and not about the composition of the new maps.

So, for those of you keeping score at home, we now have two federal lawsuits challenging different aspects of Texas redistricting, and one state lawsuit that focuses on the county line rule and how it was allegedly violated in Cameron County in the drawing on HDs 35 and 37. You’ll be quizzed on this at a later date, so please make sure you take good notes.

ACLU and others sue over new redistricting maps

The count is now seven.

Civil rights groups filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday challenging new Texas state legislative and congressional district plans as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders violating both the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution. The suit details an inadequate redistricting process that lacked transparency and led to discriminatory voting maps that dilute the political power of communities of color, particularly Black, Latino, and Asian American & Pacific Islander (AAPI) voters.

The Southern Coalition for Social Justice (SCSJ), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas, and the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), brought the case on behalf of the Fair Maps Texas Action Committee, OCA-Greater Houston, the North Texas Chapter of the Asian Pacific Islander Americans Public Affairs Association, Emgage and 13 individual plaintiffs in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.

“Texas’ latest gerrymanders seek to blunt the rightful political power of fast-growing populations of Latino, Black and Asian American and Pacific Islanders voters by carving up the chance to elect their preferred candidates to the United States Congress, the Texas House of Representatives, and the Texas Senate,” Allison Riggs, Co-Executive Director and Chief Counsel for Voting Rights with SCSJ. “This intentional discrimination of voters of color in clear violation of the VRA and U.S. Constitution cannot stand.”

The Fair Maps Texas Action Committee includes the ACLU of Texas, Clean Elections Texas, League of Women Voters of Texas, Our Vote Texas, National Council of Jewish Women-Greater Dallas Section, Texans Against Gerrymandering, and Common Cause Texas.

“Today, the Fair Maps Texas Action Committee is honored to join our partners from across the state to challenge the unconstitutional district maps recently passed by the State of Texas. Lawmakers have willfully ignored the rich diversity of our growing state and have instead chosen to draw maps that discriminate against voters of color,” said organizations from the Fair Maps Texas Action Committee in a joint statement today. “From the very start of this legislative process, we worked to bring diverse people together so that all marginalized communities receive fair representation. Despite our best efforts to advocate for a fair and open redistricting process, the politicians in charge chose to shut the public out in order to force through blatantly gerrymandered maps. Now, we will take action together to challenge these unlawful maps because our democracy is threatened.”

[…]

The complaint specifically seeks to remedy discriminatory districts in many of Texas’ fastest-growing cities and suburban areas, where the political power of communities of color is exploited to the benefit of more conservative white areas. For example, the lawsuit identifies how Texas’ state House maps unfairly crack AAPI voters in Fort Bend and Collin counties among multiple districts, while House Districts 54 and 55 in Bell County brazenly split the city of Killeen, where 40% of residents are Black. The complaint also focuses on state Senate and congressional maps where new districts in the Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston metros intentionally divide AAPI, Black, and Latino voters. The suit also points out that Texas’ congressional maps create two new majority-white districts in a state where 95% of population growth stems from communities of color.

That’s from the ACLU press release. I’d gotten an email with a notice of the video conference they had about this on Tuesday, but as of Wednesday the only news story I saw about this was this one in Newsweek. Sometimes these things take a couple of days for that. Anyway, you can see a copy of the complaint here. It is limited to Congress and the two legislative chambers, so no claims about the SBOE.

The other litigation so far includes the Gutierrez/Eckhardt suit, the LULAC/MALDEF suit, the Voto Latino suit, the two MALC suits, and most recently the Senator Powell lawsuit over SD10. All but one of the MALC lawsuits, which is specifically about State House districts in Cameron County and alleges a violation of the county rule, are in federal court. I believe this is the first one to include a focus on Asian-American voters, but I’d have to go back and take a closer look at the other complaints. Beyond that, I would be really excited to have an attorney who has some familiarity with the law in this area take a look at all these actions and tell me how they are different and whether any of it matters as far as the courts are concerned. Until then, this is what we know. Reform Austin, which also rounds up all the lawsuits, has more.

First two lawsuits filed against the voter suppression bill

No time wasted.

The top elections official in Harris County and a host of organizations that serve Texans of color and Texans with disabilities have fired the opening salvos in what’s expected to be an extensive legal battle over Texas’ new voting rules.

In separate federal lawsuits filed in Austin and San Antonio, the coalition of groups and Harris County sued the state over Senate Bill 1 before it was even signed into law, arguing it creates new hurdles and restrictions that will suppress voters and unconstitutionally discourage public officials and organizations from helping Texans exercise their right to vote.

The lawsuits claim the legislation violates a broad range of federal laws — the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 — and the First, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

“Egregiously, SB 1 takes particular aim at voters with disabilities, voters with limited English proficiency — who, in Texas, are also overwhelmingly voters of color — and the organizations that represent, assist, and support these voters,” the plaintiffs in the Austin lawsuit wrote in their complaint.

The plaintiffs in the San Antonio lawsuit,, which includes Harris County, also raise claims that lawmakers intentionally discriminated against voters of color in pushing the legislation.

[…]

The plaintiffs attack head on the lack of evidence that fraud is a widespread problem in Texas elections.

In the San Antonio lawsuit, they argue SB 1’s “additional burdens and restrictions” cannot be justified by invoking “unspecified and unproven voter fraud” when there is no proof that it occurs “beyond the very few examples already identified through Texas’s pre-existing processes and procedures.”

“Rather … SB1 is a reaction to Texas’s changing electorate, which is now more racially diverse and younger than ever before,” they wrote in their complaint.

The claims raised collectively in both lawsuits are as expansive as the legislation is far-ranging.

They include claims on SB 1’s new restrictions on voter assistance, including the help voters with disabilities and those with limited English proficiency are entitled to receive. The plaintiffs point to the reworked oath that a person assisting a voter must recite, now under penalty of perjury, that no longer explicitly includes answering the voter’s questions. Instead, they must pledge to limit their assistance to “reading the ballot to the voter, directing the voter to read the ballot, marking the voter’s ballot, or directing the voter to mark the ballot.”

As part of its claims of intentional discrimination, the lawsuit that includes Harris County as a plaintiff also calls out SB 1’s prohibition on the drive-thru and 24-hour voting initiatives used by the diverse, Democratic county in the 2020 election — both of which county officials said were disproportionately used by voters of color.

SB1 also makes it a state jail felony for local election officials to send unsolicited applications to request a mail-in ballot. Several counties proactively sent applications to voters 65 and older who automatically qualify to vote by mail, but Harris County attempted to send them to all 2.4 million registered voters last year with specific instructions on how to determine if they were eligible.

In outlawing those voting initiatives, Republican lawmakers made it clear they were targeting the state’s most populous county, even though other counties employed similar voting methods.

“My first and only priority is to educate and help voters to lawfully cast their ballots,” Harris County Elections Administrator Isabel Longoria said in a statement. “Voting by mail is not simply another method to vote — for many senior voters and voters with disabilities, it’s their only option to vote. SB1 makes it a crime for me to encourage those who are eligible to vote by mail to do so, effectively making it impossible to fulfill my sworn duty as Elections Administrator.”

Both lawsuits also argue the constitutionality of a section of SB 1 that creates new a “vote harvesting” criminal offense, which it defines as in-person interactions with voters “in the physical presence of an official ballot or a ballot voted by mail, intended to deliver votes for a specific candidate or measure.” The lawsuits argue the language in that section — and the criminal penalties attached to it — are unconstitutionally overbroad and vague and could serve to quash legitimate voter turnout initiatives.

The lawsuits also challenge provisions of SB1 that bolster protections for partisan poll watchers inside polling places, and new ID requirements for voting by mail.

You can see copies of the lawsuits here for Austin and here for San Antonio. I note that Isabel Longoria, the Harris County elections administrator, is a defendant in her official capacity in the Austin lawsuit and a plaintiff in the San Antonio lawsuit. I assume there’s a technical reason why a county elections administrator is named as a defendant in these actions, but I have no idea what algorithm is used to decide which county and administrator. (The Austin lawsuit also includes Dana DeBeauvoir from the Travis County elections office as a defendant, while the San Antonio lawsuit picks the Medina County admin. Go figure.)

I’m not going to speculate on the merits or chances of these lawsuits, which I assume will eventually get combined into a single action. I expect that they have a strong case, and we know from past performance that the Republicans in the Lege tend to be shoddy and indifferent in their work when they pass bills like these, but none of that really matters. What matters is what if anything the Fifth Circuit and SCOTUS deign to find objectionable. For obvious reasons, I’m not going to get my hopes up. I expect the Justice Department to get involved on the side of the plaintiffs, and there’s always the specter of passing the John Lewis Act and making this way easier on everyone. In the meantime, settle in for the long haul, because we know this will take years to come to a resolution. Look to see what happens when (I feel confident saying “when” and not “if”) a temporary restraining order is granted.

The Chron covers the #BoycottBoykins story

They don’t mention the hashtag, though.

CM Dwight Boykins

Houston city councilman and mayoral candidate Dwight Boykins is facing backlash for a recent incident in which he allegedly advised a group of students to “keep their legs closed,” among other comments that some attendees said made them feel uncomfortable.

The District D councilman’s remarks came Friday afternoon during a “youth advocacy summit,” where Boykins and Mayor Sylvester Turner separately addressed middle and high school students about getting civically engaged.

While talking to a roomful of teenagers, Boykins told the students to “keep their legs closed” and joked about dating one of them, according to accounts from multiple students.

In a statement issued Monday, Boykins said he was asked to offer the students “words of inspiration” and “help them understand the important role they play in our future.” He said he intended to “speak frankly about the pitfalls which I have seen derail the future of many of our youth, including teen pregnancy…an issue I have firsthand experience with in my own family.”

[…]

An invitation to Boykins, released to reporters Monday, shows he was invited to talk about his personal story, time as a council member and why he is running for office, while Turner was invited to hold an “intimate conversation” on mental health, criminal justice and other policy topics.

Many of the students were “eager to make a difference in the 2019 Mayoral election” and encouraged to volunteer on campaigns, the invitation reads.

In an audio recording of a segment of the event, a female student can be heard confronting Boykins about his comments.

“You’ve made some comments that have made me a little bit uncomfortable. You’ve joked about dating some of us,” the student said.

“Not dating you. I mean, that was an example,” Boykins interjected.

“You’ve pulled and singled out a few of the girls, you’ve told us to keep our legs closed,” the student continued, also alleging that Boykins “didn’t really answer” a question about gender equality.

Boykins responded by apologizing and insisting that he did not intend to make the group uncomfortable.

“That’s really important for me to know that you understand, it wasn’t personal,” Boykins said. “It was trying to warn you guys what’s out there.”

One female student described the room as being “tense, but people were afraid to say something.”

In a second statement Monday, Boykins said “a few seconds” of his talk “overshadowed my entire conversation which was meant to ensure that our youth have the best opportunity to succeed in life.”

See here for the background. There are a few new details but other than the second statement, which to me still sounds like weasel words, nothing substantial has happened since this first came out. But at least now more people are aware of this. KUHF has more.

#BoycottBoykins

The headline is a hashtag started on Twitter as a result of this.

CM Dwight Boykins

Several Sugar Land families say they’re stunned and upset with how city council member and mayoral candidate Dwight Boykins addressed a room of teenagers Friday, even starting a hashtag #BoycottBoykins.

ABC13 Eyewitness News spoke with several teenagers who were attendees of a five-day Youth Advocacy Summit organized by OCA Asian Pacific American Advocates and Mi Familia Vota.

The night was billed as a meet and greet conversation for area youth to hear from Boykins.

“Initially, we were really excited because we didn’t know much about this mayoral candidate,” said 17-year-old Hajra Alvi.

But Hajra and her friends say the question-answer session with Boykins went south very quickly.

“He was telling us we should keep our legs closed, that we shouldn’t taint ourselves,” said 16-year-old Khloe. “In a way, saying that we should stay pure because otherwise, in the future, other men won’t want us.”

The attendees say Boykins grabbed another teen girl from the audience to demonstrate a relationship.

“He made a young man stand up and he was holding another girl side by side and he was like, ‘If me and her were to do something, that young man wouldn’t want you in the future,’ and that really shows that he is invalidating young girls and not putting a good message across to the youth of America,” said Khloe.

“I was actually sitting like right across from her so I could see her expression perfectly and I could see her looking at everyone else and sort of mouthing, ‘I want to leave’,” said Hajra.

This was first reported on Instagram here, with some video of the interaction with the young girl here. Hajra Alvi, who was quoted in that KTRK story, also posted to Instagram about it, and you can see her post in this Twitter thread. OCA Houston and Mi Familia Vota, who organized the event, released a statement condemning Boykins for his actions, while Boykins posted his own statement, which got a better reception on Facebook than it did on Twitter. It’s a generic apology, so if you have no idea what he’s talking about it doesn’t sound like any big deal. But it is – it’s straight up purity culture slut shaming, and it really, really has no place in today’s discourse.

Let’s talk about what Boykins should do at this point, because one of the many things that the #MeToo era has made clear is that lots and lots of people have no idea how to offer an appropriate apology.

1. Fully admit to the thing that you did that you are now apologizing for. Don’t euphemize, don’t analogize, don’t avoid the facts, and for crying out loud don’t praise yourself for your past actions or pure-hearted intentions. You don’t have to beat yourself up, just state the plain facts.

2. Make it clear that you understand why the thing that you did is wrong and why it harmed someone else. You can’t make amends if you don’t know what you’re making amends for.

3. State what you will do differently going forward, and if needed what you will do to make it up to the people who were harmed. Again, this is not the time or the place to state your credentials as One Of The Good Ones, or whatever mitigating factor you think should let you slide on this. This is about your actions.

4. Say you are sorry to those you harmed. Not to those “who may have been offended”, or “who may have misunderstood” what you said or did, because those are weasel words. You did something harmful. You are sorry you did this. Say that.

None of this is easy. I speak from the experience of having to apologize for all kids of dumb, hurtful, spiteful, mean-spirited, ignorant, and offensive behavior in my own life. I still get it wrong. But it’s the only way.

Anyway. I don’t support Boykins’ Mayoral candidacy, and he has no reason to care what I say. I hope he does make a full and sincere apology anyway, not because I care about his candidacy but because the girls who were there and experienced what he said deserve it. I’m not voting for him either way, but I’ll respect him a lot more as a person if he does the right thing.