The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) took little time in filing the first lawsuit to try to stop the Lone Star State’s recently signed anti-sanctuary jurisdiction bill. LULAC sued the State of Texas, its governor, and the state’s attorney general.
The panel of judges presiding over the Texas redistricting case has ordered the Lone Star State to a redistricting trial on July 10. The trial will be over plans passed in June 2013. The trial is being expedited because of the 2018 election deadlines.
Two federal judges have ruled that Texas lawmakers drew congressional maps to discriminate against minority voters, especially Hispanics. The dissenting judge countered that the ruling is “fatally infected, from start to finish, with the misunderstanding that race, rather than partisan advantage,” was the intent behind the 2011 maps.
Two federal judges have released an opinion that accuses Lone Star State legislators of drawing a congressional map in a “rushed and secretive process” that intended to discriminate against Hispanic and Democrat voters. The only problem says the dissenting jurist–the panel could not legally issue the decision because the Fifth Circuit made clear that after Texas repealed the 2011 plan, “the case became moot and eliminated the district’s jurisdiction.”
According to a hacked document, George Soros’s Open Society Foundations is funding key progressive groups with the stated goal of attempting to “influence appropriations for the (U.S.) Census Bureau” while pushing to change the methods in which racial categories are counted for the coming 2020 Census.
A voting rights lawsuit filed against the State of Texas alleges that the makeup of the Supreme Court and Criminal Court of Appeals do not sufficiently reflect the Latino population.
Members of Congress cannot intervene to challenge or defend a legislative districting plan when they fail to show a court how the lines would impact the election chances of those members, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Wittman v. Personhuballah on Monday.
All eight justices of the Supreme Court are leaving open the possibility of allowing states to draw lines based on citizenship or voter-eligibility, making this yet another issue likely to be decided by the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.
When I first met Jeff Landry in 2011, I thought I was just going to meet another member of Congress. Boy was I wrong.
The state of Texas has asked the Supreme Court of the United States to set aside the $1 million plus in attorney’s fees awarded to the Texas Legislative Black Caucus, the Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force, the Texas State Conference of Branches of the NAACP, former state senator Wendy Davis, and others, who challenged Texas’ redistricting maps.
On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States continued its gushing vomit of nonsensical opinion, issuing three rulings of varying degrees of logic and coherence.
In what observers of the U.S. Supreme Court are calling a surprise move, the court on Tuesday agreed to take up a case that will have the justices deciding whether the Constitution requires only the counting of eligible voters when
In response to an anticipated ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States in Arizona State Legislature vs. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which could very well strike down the creation of independent redistricting commissions in Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, New Jersey and Washington State, two members of Congress from California, Repupblican Dana Rohrabacher of Costa Mesa and Democrat Alan Lowenthal of Long Beach, yesterday introduced H.R. 2501, the Citizens’ Districts Preservation Act.
A bill passed by the Texas Senate on Thursday would take redistricting and school finance lawsuits out of the sole hands of judges in Travis County. The bill, S.B. 455, provides that the Texas Attorney General may petition for the formation of a three-judge panel to hear school finance and redistricting cases.
A lawsuit initiated by the Republican-controlled Arizona legislature, which is on its way to the United States Supreme Court, could have major implications for Congressional Districts here in California.
