 Texas House of Representatives District 147 • Fax (713) 520-5355 • Phone (713) 520-1860 PRESS STATEMENT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Christopher Walker August 28, 2012 (281) 250-0833 Statement from Rep. Coleman on Federal Court Denying Preclearance of Redistricting Maps HOUSTON –Rep. Garnet F. Coleman, (D-Houston) released the following statement in response to the denial of preclearance of redistricting maps by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia: I was called as a witness by the U.S. Department of Justice in this case, and I would like to thank Attorney General Eric Holder and his staff for their vigorous defense of the Voting Rights Act and their stellar performance in federal court." #### Attached and below is a copy of Rep. Coleman’s April 2011 letter to the Department of Justice arguing that Plan H283 passed in H.B. 150 by the Legislature is retrogressive and violates Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. April 29, 2011 Dear Gentlemen: Having been passed by the House, this plan will likely be signed by the Governor and be submitted to you or the District Court in the District of Columbia for preclearance. At that time, we will provide much greater detail about the Section 5 violations contained in this redistricting plan and the process that was used to develop it, but we wanted to inform you immediately about the fundamental flaws in the proposed map. 1. Statewide Retrogression. In the past decade, 89% of Texas population growth was non-Anglo, but the State House redistricting plan reduces the number of effective districts where Hispanic, African American and Asian voters can elect the candidate of choice by systematically packing minority voters into existing minority opportunity districts to prevent the creation of additional minority districts and eliminate effective minority coalition districts where African Americans, Latinos and other language minorities vote cohesively to elect their candidate of choice. A number of alternate plans by legislators that would have increased the number of minority opportunity districts were presented by Latino and African American legislators, but all were rejected. 2. The number of Latino districts was reduced by the Texas House plan. According to the 2010 census, the Texas Latino population increased by almost 2.8 million since 2000, accounting for 65% of the state’s population growth, but the plan reduces the number of effective Latino districts to 34 from a benchmark of 35 or 36 existing districts. Plans were submitted that would have created as many as five additional effective Latino opportunity districts, but all were rejected. Additionally, there was retrogression in some of the 34 Latino districts maintained in the plan. 3. Effective Coalition Districts are eliminated by the plan. The 2010 census confirmed what we already knew: in Texas, minority population growth has moved into suburban areas over the decade, providing minority voters the opportunity to vote cohesively to elect their candidates of choice in coalition districts outside traditional “core” communities. The Texas House plan eliminates five existing effective coalition districts. The most egregious destruction of an effective coalition in the plan is the elimination of District 149, a Southwest Houston district that is currently only 26.6% Anglo Voting Age Population and is currently represented by a Vietnamese American legislator, Representative Hubert Vo, who has been elected four times by a minority coalition that has also elected local candidates to office. Instead of preserving and enhancing the district’s minority population, District 149.[sic] In fact, Vo was paired with the incumbent in neighboring Hispanic opportunity District 137. 4. Examples of Local Retrogression
5. The County Line Rule. The State Constitution includes a provision that has been interpreted to require a Texas House district plan to split as few county lines as possible, which allows a 10% deviation range among districts. Alternate plans were introduced that created additional Latino opportunity districts and split a few more county lines, but still kept the vast majority of the state’s 254 counties intact. However, other alternate plans were introduced that also increased the number of Latino opportunity Districts and majority-minority coalition districts while adhering to the minimum number of county line cuts – and one even cut one less county line than the House plan 6. The Misleading “SSRV Standard.” As noted previously, the sponsor of the House plan CSHB plan claims he created a new Latino district, but that false claim is based on a singular statistic – Spanish Surname Voter Registration. Latino legislators and advocates repeatedly pointed out that the Department’s guidelines clearly state that the “ability to elect” is not determined by any predetermined or fixed demographic percentages. In fact, by packing minority voters into already effective minority opportunity districts, the House plan achieves its overriding partisan goal and dilutes the ability of the minority voters to elect the candidate of their choice. Signed, |