Register Now & Reserve Your Hotel Room for the 2012 Republican Party of Texas State Convention!

Register Now & Reserve Your Hotel Room for the
2012 Republican Party of Texas State Convention!

Now that we have concluded the business of the County & District Conventions, the Republican Party of Texas is setting our sights on June 7-9 in Fort Worth! Today, Chairman Munisteri and the RPT staff are pleased to announce that registration and hotel reservations have begun for the 2012 Texas GOP Convention at:

www.texasgop.org

Due to the compressed schedule we are facing this year, we urge all delegates and alternates to register as soon as possible by using our Registration link. Hotel rooms are sure to go fast, so make sure and get your reservation in now from one of our partner hotels to secure discount rates in Downtown Fort Worth.

This year’s convention will be a very special event, featuring a number of added events and changes designed to make your experience a little more exciting and informative than normal. Since we are in a Presidential year, it is important to note that the First General Session of the State Convention will begin at 10:00am on Thursday, June 7th. This 10:00am start time will help keep the convention running on schedule and able to complete all of the important business of the convention in a timely manner.

Remember that there are still opportunities for you, your campaign or your business to actively participate in the State Convention by either placing a Program Advertisement, by securing a booth space in the Trade Show, or by becoming a Convention Sponsor. Contact us today to become more involved!

Stay tuned for many important and exciting updates over the upcoming weeks leading to the State Convention! To get up-to-the-minute news from the State Party – Like the Official Convention Facebook page and follow the conversation via Twitter. We look forward to

Redistricting Update XI: It Is All Up To The Courts

Redistricting Update XI: It Is All Up To The Courts

The fate of the redistricting maps now rests solely with the three-judge panel in San Antonio. As of the time of this update, a global agreement between all parties has not been reached relative to the Texas House and Texas Congressional districts. Therefore, the final decisions as to where the lines will be are in the hands of the three-judge panel. The panel set deadlines for parties to submit final briefs on various issues and that deadline has now passed. This now means that all the arguments are over and all we are waiting for now is for the Court to rule.

If the Court issues maps on or before March 3rd, then the May 29th primary date can be accomplished – assuming a re-opened filing period can be accomplished within a few days. If the Court issues new maps after March 3rd, then the next and final available primary date would be June 26th. To accomplish a June 26th primary, maps would still need to be issued by March 30th to meet the June 26th date.

There is a possibility that the San Antonio three-judge panel (which handles Section 2 challenges of the Voting Rights Act) will wait to see what the Washington D.C. three-judge panel (who handles Section 5 challenges of the Voting Rights Act) rules, and that subsequently, the San Antonio panel incorporates the D.C. panel’s findings into new maps. The D.C. panel indicated that it would not rule prior to March. Consequently, if the San Antonio panel is waiting on the D.C. panel, a May 29th primary could only be accomplished if the D.C. panel rules at the very start of March and the rulings can be incorporated into alterations of the maps within a few days. Otherwise, only the June 26th primary date is an option.

If the San Antonio three-judge panel does not view it as a necessity to wait on the Washington D.C. panel, then we would expect to get new maps any day now.

As instructed by the San Antonio three-judge panel last week, the RPT’s attorneys have been in contact with the Texas Democratic Party’s attorneys to negotiate over proposed deadlines relative to a May 29th Primary Election and we are proceeding to plan as if we will have a May 29th Primary. RPT will provide you notice of any rulings as soon as practical.

Urgent Redistricting Update X: Primary Moved Again

Urgent Redistricting Update X: Primary Moved Again

This afternoon, the San Antonio three-judge panel indicated that the April unified primary election will be postponed and that it was probable (but not a certainty) that the new primary date will be May 29th. As previously reported, on Tuesday, county clerks and elections administrators testified that they need 88 days of lead time to prepare for a primary election from the date that new district maps are issued. Today at the hearing, the Texas Secretary of State’s office indicated that this timeline could be shrunk to 77 days and reduced even further if military ballots were accepted for a short period of time after the primary. Consequently, new maps need to be in place sometime between early and mid-March in order to maintain the May 29th primary date.

Chairman Munisteri discussed with the Court the problems a May 29th primary creates for the party’s delegate selection process for the RPT State Convention. He reiterated that it is impossible to comply with the current Texas Election Code as it pertains to delegate selection, with the primary on May 29th and the State Convention in the first week of June. He strongly urged the Court to issue an order that would allow the State Republican Executive Committee to adopt a new delegate selection process which varies from the Election Code. He told the court that if there is sufficient time for planning, that in consultation with party leadership, he had several different options in mind which: would allow district conventions to still occur on schedule, allow for a May 29th primary, and still allow for a convention the next week. In general terms, he suggested different options which would completely de-couple the selection of delegates to the State Convention from the primary election.

The Court indicated it was very likely that they would grant such a request from the State Party, provided it received U.S. Department of Justice pre-clearance. Chairman Munisteri made the case that DOJ pre-clearance is not required in a case where the changes are made as a result of court order. However, the Court indicated that they thought it was a safer route to obtain pre-clearance. A Department of Justice attorney testified that his office would expedite such a request and anticipated that the approval time could be reduced from a couple of months to a couple of weeks, thereby allowing the change to occur.

The Court instructed both political parties to consult on a new schedule for a May 29th primary. It also invited the state parties to put forth separate proposals as to how they would select delegates and conduct their conventions. Chairman Munisteri is hoping to hold a telephone conference with members of the Republican Party of Texas Officials Committee tomorrow to go over various options. He plans within the next few days, to have a separate telephone conference with the entire SREC to go over recommendations from the Officials Committee. It is his hope that a consensus plan can be agreed upon by the SREC. If this is accomplished, he will distribute this plan to all County Chairmen to obtain their input, and then once a final plan is agreed upon – to propose the plan to the three-judge panel in San Antonio.

It is the Chairman’s goal to develop a process around existing Senatorial and County conventions so as to minimize inconvenience and logistical problems. It remains his objective to keep the State Republican Convention scheduled as planned during the first week of June. We will provide further information over the next few days as to developments in this regard.

Also on Wednesday – Chairman Munisteri, RPT lawyers and staff spent another day in the courtroom listening to final arguments in the redistricting case. It appears as though there is an agreement between the Attorney General and the Democrats on a new Texas State Senate map. As soon as we have full details, we will provide them to you – but it is expected that the final lines will make it possible for a Republican to win the district in controversy, SD 10, although not a certainty.

At the time the hearing concluded, General Abbott’s team had not reached agreement with all the plaintiffs on all districts pertaining to the Texas House map. With one set of plaintiffs, there is still a battle over Republican districts HD 144 (currently held by Ken Legler), HD 117 (currently held by John Garza) and HD 81 (currently held by Tryon Lewis). Another set of plaintiffs wanted to change the lines of another 30 districts on the State House map in an even larger grab for seats.

With regards to the Congressional districts (discussion of which took up most of the day) the prime battleground appears to be over CD 33, 25, 23, 35 and 27. Of particular concern to the Republican Party of Texas is CD23, which is represented by Congressman Quico Canseco. General Abbott’s map is roughly equivalent to how that district was configured before redistricting, while the Democrats are pushing for an increase of Democrat voters there.

There was also a big argument with the Democrats over CD 25, currently represented by Lloyd Doggett. Travis County and other Democratic plaintiffs are arguing that the district should not be converted to a Republican district, since in their opinion the district is protected under the Voting Rights Act – General Abbott’s team disputes this. There are also several different proposals regarding Congressional District 33 in Arlington. Additionally, Congressman Joe Barton’s legal team (led by former State Representative Joe Nixon) argues that the configuration of that district in the Attorney General’s compromise proposal is not allowable under current legal standard. At the end of the hearing today, there was also no agreement on the Texas Congressional map.

Chairman Munisteri issued the following statement regarding today’s proceedings. “I am disappointed that the San Antonio three-judge panel again delayed the Texas Primary Election. The Secretary of State’s witness today indicated that if the panel would issue maps within the next few days – that an April 24th primary could still be accomplished. However, now that it is apparent that April is out, the RPT will continue to fight to oppose any further slippage in the primary schedule. We will work hard with our Party leadership to come up with a plan to preserve our State convention.”

At this juncture, it appears that there will not be an agreement between all parties regarding all districts. Therefore, at this time, it appears that the three-judge panel will have to decide where the final lines are for the Texas House and Congressional districts.

Special Advisory to all Republican county chairmen, precinct chairmen, and party activists from Chairman Munisteri – I am hopeful that the SREC will come up with a plan for the three-judge panel that will still allow district conventions on the date scheduled. Therefore it is our advice that you not cancel your plans to go forward with district conventions until otherwise instructed. I am hopeful that within the next week or so, that we will have a telephone conference with all county chairs to provide them more information on any proposed plans. The RPT is committed to working with each of you to come up with a workable solution to this unprecedented challenge. Thank you again for your patience and hard work.

Redistricting Update IX: Valentine’s Day Hearing Update

Today in San Antonio, the three-judge panel began a full day of hearing final arguments in the Texas redistricting case, which affects the scheduling of the state primary and state convention. We can report that the Court appears to be backing off of its stated intention to have a unified April Primary Election. This comes after assorted county election officials stepped forward to testify that it would be impossible to hold a unified April Primary Election – even if they had maps today.

Although the Republican Party of Texas had Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart appear before the panel to testify that an April 24th primary election is still doable, our sense is the Court now believes that April is no longer viable for a single unified primary. From the Court’s questioning, it seemed that at least one judge and possibly two would prefer to go ahead with a Presidential primary and statewide races in April and the other races at a date to be determined in the future. How the extra primary election would be funded appears problematic at this time. We won’t know until the Court rules whether these conclusions are correct. Our best estimate right now is that there will be a single unified primary on May 29th, absent the state coming up with funds for a split primary.

Because the Texas Democratic Party’s lawyers backed up Chairman Munisteri’s testimony at the hearing that it is practically not possible to move the State Conventions at this late date, one thing we know for sure (and the Court is aware of this fact), is that you can’t schedule the primary after the State Conventions unless (as the Democratic lawyer stated) the State Parties can find a field somewhere to hold their conventions and if we could guarantee good weather.

Chairman Munisteri testified to the Court that it would be impossible to select delegates in accordance with the process prescribed in the Election Code, if the primary was not held until May 29th and the state convention began on June 7th. However, the Court signaled that it would be open to judicial relief to allow the State Parties to select their delegates in a way that didn’t require precinct conventions to be tied to the primary. The Texas Democratic Party lawyer went a step further and argued that even though the Election Code prescribes the process, that it is their position that the Election Code is unenforceable because the political parties are private organizations and thus they could change their rules without a court order. The RPT believes it would be risky to do so and prefers the route of obtaining judicial permission prior to such action. In the event the Court schedules a May primary, Chairman Munisteri plans to schedule an emergency teleconference with all SREC members and Republican County Chairs to discuss alternative processes for picking State Convention delegates, in the hopes of coming to a consensus as to what to suggest to the court for relief.

The court also heard presentations from several plaintiffs and the State of Texas as to their position relative to how maps should be drawn. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court directed the three-judge panel to issue new maps that were neither the legislative-drawn lines, nor the subsequent lines issued by the San Antonio three-judge panel in November. In issuing that directive, the Supreme Court set forth the criteria by which lines could be altered. Specifically, the Supreme Court said that if the San Antonio panel found there was a “not insubstantial” chance of violation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, that lines could be altered to comply with Section 5. A Washington, D.C. three-judge federal panel has had a trial on Section 5 so as to make a final determination as to violations, but the Supreme Court indicated that the San Antonio three-judge federal panel should issue interim maps which correct any deficiencies in districts in which the “not insubstantial” standard was met. Moreover, the San Antonio three-judge panel has jurisdiction over Section 2 violations of the Voting Rights Act and the Supreme Court indicated that if there were violations of this provision, that lines could be altered as well.

In recent orders, the San Antonio three-judge panel had directed the plaintiffs and the State of Texas (representing the legislative maps) to see if they could agree which districts fell under these criteria and suggest fixes. Last week, the Attorney General put forth a proposed set of maps which addressed potentially problematic districts while at the same time, tried to stay as close to the original legislative maps as possible. Some of the plaintiffs’ groups agreed to some of the proposed lines. The hearing today flushed out the differences, with each party stating their differences and arguments thereof. The Attorney General’s proposals put forth what it believes are 50 Texas State House districts which have an opportunity for minorities to elect their candidates of choice – a number which meets the benchmark (2010) plan’s number of 50 such districts. Some of the plaintiffs’ groups however, want 51 or more of these districts, and a much larger number of “coalition” districts, which would likely elect Democrats, but would not have a majority of their citizen voting age population be comprised of a single minority group. Another group of plaintiffs which opposes the suggested lines put forth by the Attorney General, was arguing for 67 majority-minority districts in the State House. In effect, their proposed maps would substantially reduce the number of Republican legislators.

The Latino Redistricting Task Force, which represents a number of the Latino groups, has indicated that they would not object to much of the proposed map, but they disagree over House District 144 (currently represented by Representative Ken Legler). The Attorney General’s map draws that district with 48% registered voters with Spanish surnames. The Latino Redistricting Task Force would not accept any lines for HD 144 that do not have at least 50% of registration of Spanish surnames. That particular plaintiffs’ group was also willing to accept the proposed Congressional maps which would split the four new Congressional districts into lines which would result in two new Republican districts – an improvement over the three-judge panel’s maps but which is down one from the maps originally drawn by the Legislature. Many of the other plaintiffs’ groups opposed the proposed Congressional map and wanted at least one more Democratic Congressional district in addition to the two new Democratic districts contained in the Attorney General’s map. Congressman Joe Barton has intervened, and is arguing for one more Republican district.

The State Senate map has really only one district in dispute – that being Senate District 10, the district held by State Senator Wendy Davis. Apparently the Attorney General and the plaintiff Democrats are not that far apart in respect to their proposals. Under virtually every anticipated scenario, at the very least that senate district would be winnable by a Republican candidate. The final battle over the lines will determine whether it is a toss-up district, or one where the Republicans will have a slight advantage.

To complicate things further, the Department of Justice sent a lawyer who argued that there were five Texas House districts on the previously-drawn legislative map, which the Department of Justice is insisting be changed because of violations to the Voting Rights Act. The DOJ lawyer also stated emphatically that the federal court panel has limited authority to alter deadlines that were controlled by federal statute.

At this time, it seems more likely than not, that all the parties will not come to an agreement on the Congressional and Texas House maps. Therefore, we are assuming that once the hearing is concluded tomorrow (Wednesday, Feb. 15) that the final map lines will be decided by the three-judge panel as opposed to the parties in the lawsuit. To add another wrinkle, one of the judges suggested that if the primary will have to be delayed until May anyway – that the San Antonio three-judge panel may delay their decision for at least a while to see if they get a ruling out of the Washington D.C. three-judge panel regarding potential Section 5 violations so that they can incorporate the decision into their deliberations.

After attending in full and testifying at the hearing, Chairman Munisteri issued the following statement – “It is the Republican Party of Texas’ position that a single unified primary is still possible for April. If the Court delays the primary further, it will be a great disappointment to Republicans who wish to have early participation in the Presidential primary process. I would like to applaud the work of General Abbott’s Deputy Attorney General for Defense Litigation, David Mattax, who I thought did an excellent job refuting the Democrats’ contention that Republicans intentionally discriminated against minorities, as well as providing excellent rebuttal district by district to the plaintiffs’ attorneys contention that more districts needed to have their lines altered with the intent of creating additional Democratic districts.”

The hearing will continue tomorrow, but is expected to conclude by 2:30pm. We should know tomorrow for certain, whether we have a split primary or a unified primary. We should also know whether April is definitely out. We hopefully will have some guidance as to what flexibility the parties will have in altering the delegate selection process. We will provide a further report after tomorrow’s hearing.

Advisory to all Republican county chairmen, precinct chairmen, and party activists – In the event that the primary is pushed back further, the RPT will still seek court relief to allow district conventions to go forward on the dates you already have scheduled but with the different delegate selection process. Consequently, at this time – we urge you not to cancel your district conventions as they still may occur on the same day. We anticipate having a conference call with the SREC in the next week to discuss the situation and examine options together. Thank you for your understanding and patience in this difficult situation.

Redistricting Update III – Recap and News From Friday’s Hearing

Redistricting Update III – Recap and News From Friday’s Hearing

Friday afternoon, the Western District three-judge panel in San Antonio, which is overseeing redistricting and scheduling of the Texas primary, held a hearing in order to determine options as to when the Texas primary should be held, whether we will have one or two primaries, where the district lines will be, and an overall path forward on how to conduct the party’s primaries and state conventions.

The court heard from attorneys from various plaintiffs groups, as well as lawyers from the Attorney General’s office representing the State and the legislatively drawn maps, and also from the attorney for the Republican Party of Texas (RPT), Donna Davidson. The court also heard testimony from various witnesses, including Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart, who was called as a witness by the RPT. During the hearing, the court also allowed RPT Chairman Steve Munisteri to address the panel in order for him to outline numerous concerns of the state party relative to the primaries and state conventions.

During the hearing, various positions were advocated relative to when the primary should be held and proposed dates spanned from April 3rd to June 26th. The court also asked numerous questions concerning the need for and feasibility of a bifurcated primary. The Republican Party of Texas’ position was that it was still possible to accomplish a single unified primary on April 3rd if maps could be obtained by early February. The Party also took the position, that if for some reason this could not be accomplished – that a single unified primary as late as April 17th would still be feasible if maps were received from the court by mid-February. During his testimony to the court, Chairman Munisteri also explained the difficulty (if not near-impossibility) of moving the state convention, and in his opinion, the impossibility of preparing properly for state conventions (scheduled for June 7-9) if the primary were to be held in late May.

The judges ordered that representatives of the two political parties confer during a break to see if there was any common ground that could be agreed upon. Chairman Munisteri entered into discussions directly with the attorney for the Texas Democratic Party, and upon the judges’ return, the political parties made an agreed-upon statement that if maps were issued by mid-February, a single unified primary could still be held by mid-April.

Also during the hearing, the Attorney General’s attorneys reported to the court that they had been involved in significant negotiations with some of the plaintiff’s groups who filed the lawsuits against the state. The lawyers for the Attorney General indicated that it was a possibility that agreement on maps could be reached between the state and the plaintiff’s groups and that they would work over the weekend and report back to the court on Monday or Tuesday. The Republican Party of Texas has not been invited to participate in these discussions, so we can offer you no details as to the substance of these talks.

After the testimony and statements were taken, the court recessed, returned and issued a unanimous decision. The key points of that decision are as follows:

1. They will issue an order suspending the deadlines of the December 16th order.
2. They advised the political parties that they can inform party officials and candidates that the February 1st filing deadline will be vacated and that the drawing for ballot positions next week should be postponed.
3. They indicated that if the parties could agree on maps and submit those maps by February 6th, that an April 3rd primary was still obtainable. However, the court and the attorneys have been very specific that any agreement is not a settlement.
4. That if there was no agreement and maps were not drawn by February 6th, that an April 3rd primary would not take place.
5. In the event there is no settlement agreement and maps are not completed by February 6th, the court makes no present indication of when the new primary would be rescheduled.
6. In the event the parties cannot agree on new maps, the court requires them to submit advisories to the court as to which districts are still in dispute and the issues related thereto.
7. The court will then schedule future hearings if necessary and issue new orders if necessary.

Advisory to all Republican county chairmen, precinct chairmen, and party activists – As it is still a possibility that we will have a single unified primary on April 3rd, you can still continue your plans for an April 3rd primary as best as you can until at least February 6th. By February 6th, we should know whether or not we will have an April 3rd primary. Even if maps are not submitted by February 6th, there is still a possibility that a single unified primary could be held in mid-April if the court can draw maps by mid-February. It is unclear what will happen in the event that maps are not drawn by mid-February. We will let you know as soon as we know. We do expect there to be a new schedule issued with new filing deadlines, etc., once it is clear when the primary will be finally scheduled. The final primary date will not be determined until maps are ready to be issued by the court. This is all we know at the present time. Please stay tuned for further updates from the State Party – we will issue them as soon as we have additional information.

Redistricting Update: New Order from San Antonio Three-Judge Panel

Redistricting Update: New Order from San Antonio Three-Judge Panel

AUSTIN – Friday afternoon, the Republican Party of Texas (RPT) was informed that the three-judge federal panel in San Antonio has issued an order for a status conference on February 1st. As the ordered status conference is the same date on which the recently extended filing deadlines are supposed to end, the RPT is concerned that delaying a status confernce until this date will place the April 3rd unified Primary Election in jeopardy. This may also put in jeopardy the Democratic and Republican State Conventions which are scheduled in June. Therefore, the Republican Party of Texas has instructed its lawyers to file a motion with the panel to reconsider a status conference at such a late date and to request that the status conference be moved up so that the possibility of an April 3rd primary can be maintained.

As a note to our candidates, county chairs, precinct chairs and Republican activists – until we receive a ruling on our anticipated motion to reconsider, we suggest everybody continue with plans toward an April 3rd primary. However, everyone should now be on notice that there is a possibility that this date could be moved. We will continue to try and keep you advised as soon as developments occur.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Texas Redistricting

U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Texas Redistricting

AUSTIN – Today, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion which vacated the orders implementing Texas redistricting maps prepared by the Western District of Texas three-judge panel. The opinion also remanded the case back to the Western District of Texas three-judge panel for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.

This opinion means that currently there are no district lines for State House, State Senate and Congressional districts. By vacating the three-judge panel’s order, the Supreme Court did not reinstitute the legislative maps drawn by the Texas Legislature in 2011. Rather, the opinion states that the three-judge panel is to issue new Texas redistricting maps in a manner consistent with the guidance found in the Supreme Court opinion as to what factors should be considered in drawing these new maps.

The Republican Party of Texas interprets this opinion as meaning that the three-judge panel exceeded its authority by altering district lines where there had not been established a probable basis for constitutional or legal challenge. However, as a note of caution – today’s opinion by the Supreme Court did not order the enactment of maps and lines drawn by the Texas Legislature in 2011. The opinion still allows the three-judge panel to make some alterations to the legislatively drawn maps.

In addition, it should be noted that when the Western District three-judge panel issues new maps for the 2012 elections – these maps are “interim” only. Final maps for Texas redistricting still have to be cleared under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which will take place in front of a Washington D.C. federal panel. At this time, we do not know exactly when new lines will be published by the Western District federal panel, nor do we know where the district lines will actually be.

The RPT applauds the good news that the Supreme Court acted relatively quickly, and that the Justices acted in time to allow for an April unified primary. To keep the current election schedule, it is incumbent upon the Western District three-judge panel to also act expeditiously and redraw the maps in the next week or so. We are hoping that they will do so.

In commenting on the Supreme Court decision, RPT Chairman Steve Munisteri stated, “We are pleased that the Supreme Court recognized that the Western District three-judge panel exceeded its authority in drawing lines for our elected officials. The opinion stated very clearly that the Legislature’s intent and judgment is an important consideration and “starting point” in the process of judicially redrawing maps and that the Legislature’s intent should not be overlooked. I am especially pleased that the Supreme Court apparently took notice of the Republican Party of Texas’ advisory which we filed last week and our subsequently filed brief in support of that advisory. In those documents, we alerted the Court to the fact that an expeditious decision was needed in order to maintain our current April 3rd primary schedule, to prevent havoc with our elections, and to protect the parties’ State Conventions as well. Again, we would like to thank Chris Ward and the law firm of Yetter Coleman LLP who did a fabulous job in providing a brief pro bono on a quick turnaround.”

Munisteri continued, “I am hopeful that the Western District three-judge panel will issue new maps in time for us to maintain our current April 3rd primary. Until the panel issues new orders, we will not know how many legislative districts will likely be Republican and how many will be Democrat. Thus, any conclusion as to the overall result of today’s ruling by the Supreme Court will have to be withheld until that time. In the meantime, the RPT will continue to advocate for an election schedule that will allow an early April primary.”

The Republican Party of Texas also issues the following advisory to all of our county chairmen, precinct chairmen and party activists. At this time, it is not known with certainty whether the April 3rd primary schedule will hold. The timely decision by the Supreme Court today makes it possible for the April 3rd primary schedule to hold, but we will not know this for certain until we get further guidance from the three-judge panel in San Antonio. As soon as we receive additional information from that panel relative to this issue, the State Party will issue an advisory through our website, social media, and email database.

Click here to read the full Supreme Court decision.
Click here to read the RPT advisory brief submitted to the Supreme Court.

RPT Files Advisory with U.S. Supreme Court

RPT Files Advisory with U.S. Supreme Court

This morning, the Republican Party of Texas filed an advisory with the United States Supreme Court informing them of the adverse consequences of moving a unified 2012 Texas Primary Election beyond early to mid April.

Please see the following link to view the advisory in PDF format.

In stating the reason behind the advisory, RPT State Chairman Steve Munisteri said, “The RPT became concerned that the Supreme Court was under the mistaken impression that it was workable to hold a unified primary as late as June 26th. This concern arose from questioning of counsel by Justices Alito and Sotomayor at Monday’s Supreme Court hearing on Texas redistricting. A review of the transcripts of the hearing confirmed that the Justices had indeed been told that a Texas Primary as late as June 26th was workable.”

Munisteri continued, “In fact, as noted in my previous Chairman’s Report (see link here) it is impossible to have a single unified primary on June 26th and to still comply with our Texas Election Code. The reason is that the Election Code requires the Parties to have a state convention in June or July and then further mandates a process of selecting delegates to those conventions over a several weeks period of time. This requirement, combined with the time it takes to organize a state convention, would make it impossible to hold a primary as late as June 26th, and still have a convention in a timely fashion. In addition, it is not practically possible to reschedule either party’s state convention, which are scheduled for June 7-9 for the RPT, and June 8-9 for the Texas Democratic Party. The reason for this is that you have to line up a convention facility sometimes years in advance, and the State Party has already contracted with the Fort Worth Convention Center and surrounding hotels.”

The Chairman continued, “In addition to the the Party’s convention problems, there are other practical problems why a June 26th primary is unworkable. An immediate concern is the reported jump in cost to the taxpayers as a large number of polling locations in Texas are school facilities. While these locations are normally free in the spring, they would not be available in the summer, and/or there would be a charge to utilize them. Another looming problem is manpower – many of the workers required to hold the elections, have no doubt already planned for summer vacations during that time, or will be forced to obtain child care or weigh other conflicting considerations. Furthermore, it is also expected that voting during the summer months would lower voter turnout, to say nothing of the fact that the Presidential Primary will be of little or no importance on June 26th, as opposed to April 3rd. For these reasons, the State Party felt compelled to take the extraordinary step of forwarding an advisory to the U.S. Supreme Court to raise these issues. I would like to make particular note of the help we received from Austin attorney Chris Ward of the firm Yetter Coleman LLP in drafting the advisory. Chris generously donated his work pro bono, and we are very grateful for his service.”

GOPisForMe Spotlight: Republican County Chairman, Frank Steed

The first time you meet Frank Steed, Navarro County Republican Party Chairman, you know you’ve just met someone who is serious about his business…whatever that may be.

He is an accomplished businessman, and owner of the Steed Consultancy, with corporate and private experience. He probably has more experience developing and rolling out franchise development programs both domestically and internationally than anyone else in the casual dining segment of the foodservice industry.

His demeanor is respectful and calm, and he looks like he’s always thinking of a way to solve problems, which leads us to this blog.

In November, at Hill College (Hillsboro), GOPisForMe held and open discussion on issues relating to Hispanics. We invited Hispanic Republican leaders from across the state, and we talked about immigration, border security, education, the 14th Amendment and everything in between. We used immediate response tools to input answers with remote devices…allowing the system to immediately display the results of our answers on a large screen.

The dialogue was created from our input to questions posed to the group. We talked about certain positions we held and debated which solutions seemed more acceptable than others.

Frank Steed was in that discussion. He was there…in the room with all of us. Why was he there? Why has he been a key factor in the development of the Hispanic Republican movement in Navarro County?

He does what he does because he understands what’s at stake. He realizes the importance of “reaching out” to the Hispanic community. He believes Hispanics are Conservative by nature, and he’s passionate about doing something to develop the Republican Party through Hispanic inclusion.

Frank Steed has been actively supporting the Hispanic Republican Club of Navarro County, which we helped nurture and develop, along with local Hispanic activists from Navarro County. He’s essentially given the newly formed Hispanic Club the keys to the Republican Headquarters. They can use the facility whenever they need to.

The Citizens of Navarro County are fortunate to have a Chairman who is eager to help and willing to make things happen.

Recently, Frank arranged a meeting for the Hispanic Club to meet with their elected officials to discuss openly their concerns on issues. This will take place January 5th, 2012, in Corsicana,TX. We will meet with U.S. Congressman Joe Barton (CD-6), and Texas House Representative, Byron Cook.

On January 28, 2012, we will join the Navarro County Hispanic Republican Club and host the Navarro County Hispanic Republican Summit. We will have another discussion with feedback devices and use the feedback and questions to develop questions for the Forum for Candidates and Incumbents to discuss openly on stage, with constituents in attendance.

There will be Navarro County Republican candidates for every position on the ballot. A first for the RPNC.

Because of Frank’s dedication to the Hispanic Republican Movement, Hispanics in Navarro County have a true opportunity to make an impact in their community. He is building the Party, gaining strength and building the “ground forces” to combat Liberalism. What better reason do we need to spotlight his work?

Frank Steed is setting a great example of what can happen when the County Chairman gets involved and wants to make a difference. Thank you for all you do!

Here’s an interview from a few months ago…at a Hispanic event in Corsicana. Skip to 1:20 :

Federal Judge in Redistricting Battle is Brother in Law of Texas Democrat Senate Caucus Chairman

Read Story BELOW or Click Here: http://hardincountyconservatives.blogspot.com/2011/12/federal-judge-in-redistricting-battle.html

Judge Orlando L. Garcia is the Brother-In-Law of Democrat State Senator Leticia Van De Putte. Van De Putte was recently the Texas State Senate Caucus Chairman for nearly a decade and she is one of the most liberal Democrats in Texas. Judge Orlando Garcia should have stepped down because of this clear conflict of interest.

I was speaking to a State Senator the other night (he will remain anonymous). We were talking about Texas Redistricting and about the US Supreme Court stopping the ridiculous abuse of power by the two Judges in the San Antonio Federal Court. It was almost as if the Democrats were single handedly allowed to redraw the maps, and then these Judges just used what the Democrats had drawn.

This State Senator asked me if I knew that one of these 2 Federal Judges was the brother in law of the Texas Democrat Senate Caucus Chairman. I almost did not believe him at first because, well, if this was true then it would have been all over the news, but I had never seen this on the news.

Maybe Judge Garcia and Senator Van De Putte do not communicate with each other? Wrong! The State Senator I was talking to told me that Judge Garcia is known to eat dinner nearly every Sunday night with Senator Van De Putte.

Maybe Senator Van De Putte does not have an opinion about Redistricting battles in Texas? Wrong! Senator Van De Putte was very vocally against Republicans in the 2003 Texas redistricting battle. She accused Republicans of trying to hurt minorities in redistricting. That sounds very familiar to what is being said in this year’s redistricting battle. Senator Van De Putte very likely played a hand in making sure this redistricting lawsuit was filed in San Antonio where her brother in law is the Federal Judge. Senator Van De Putte also very likely used her relationship with the San Antonio Judge to inappropriately affect the court’s decision. I guess if you do not want the Elected Officials of Texas to draw the maps as required by the Constitution, then the next best thing would be to ask your brother in law Judge to redraw the maps right? This is judicial activism and corrupt government at its worst.

Redistricting Panel Conflict of Interest, Media Cover Up

This relationship between Judge Garcia and State Senator Van De Putte is shocking. Just as shocking is the fact that the media has completely ignored this clear conflict of interest. There was a Republican State Representative, Sarah Davis, who heard about this conflict of interested and objected to this conflict of interest, but the Federal Court quickly shot down her motion. The State Senator that I was talking to mentioned that the Texas Attorney General’s staff did not want to make a big deal about it because this was the beginning stages of the redistricting battle and they did not want to make the Federal Court mad because that might cause the Judges to rule against the State Drawn Maps. That plan sure didn’t work though because the Judges still went on to completely overstep their boundaries and re-draw the Texas Redistricting Maps in favor of the Democrats!

According to Daniel Greer of Agenda Wise, the United States Judicial Code provides for the disqualification of a judge if his spouse or a person within the third degree of relationship to either individual is a party to the proceeding. Democrat legislators sued to have maps drafted during the session disqualified and redrawn by judges. Democrat Senator Leticia Van De Putte is the sister-in-law of one of the three judges on the panel who redrew the maps, Judge Orlando L. Garcia. Since the state was sued, it’s officers are a party to the suit, making Garcia’s relation to Van De Putte a conflict of interest.