But here's a bright spot in an otherwise dreary landscape: TX State Senator Wendy Davis.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/05/1236356/-TX-State-Sen-Wendy-Davis-Wins-Lawsuit-Against-Racist-GOP-Redistricting-Plan?detail=action
From Lone Star Project:
Earlier today (Wednesday), the three-judge Federal District Court in San Antonio handling the Texas redistricting litigation entered a final judgment in the Texas State Senate redistricting law suit. In its ruling, the Court made clear that Wendy Davis and her fellow plaintiffs in the case won and Greg Abbott, representing the Republican state leadership, lost.
...
Greg Abbott served as the primary legal counsel to the State of Texas during the consideration of redistricting by the Legislature and defended the State’s redistricting plans in federal court. His efforts in redistricting have been nothing short of an embarrassing debacle.
Abbott advised the Legislature to configure and adopt redistricting plans that the federal courts ruled to be in violation of the US Voting Rights Act. Two of the three redistricting plans were ruled to be drawn with discriminatory intent. Abbott has spent millions of dollars in Texas taxpayer funds to unsuccessfully defend redistricting plans that were unfair and illegal. Abbott’s actions go beyond partisanship to illustrate profound incompetence and open hostility to Hispanics, African Americans and other fair-minded Texans....
Here is the entire court order:
WENDY DAVIS; MARC VEASEY; ROY BROOKS; VICKY BARGAS; PAT PANGBURN; FRANCES DELEON; DOROTHY DEBOSE; and SARAH JOYNER
Plaintiffs
v.
RICK PERRY, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas;
JOHN STEEN, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Texas;
BOYD RICHIE, in his official capacity as Chair of the Texas Democratic Party;
and STEVE MUNISTERI, in his official capacity as Chair of the Republican Party of Texas.
Defendants
FINAL JUDGMENT
This Court previously ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED:
that Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief was granted to the extent that Senate plan S100, the benchmark plan, violates the one-person, one-vote requirements of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and will not be used for any further elections;
that Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief was granted such that Senate plan S148, the 2011 enacted plan, has been permanently enjoined from implementation and no elections have been or will be held thereunder; and
that Plan S172, which was reviewed under the standard set forth in Perry v. Perez and restored district 10 to near benchmark configuration and remedied the constitutional infirmities being asserted by Plaintiffs, was to be used for the 2012 election.
It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED:
that because (1) Plan S148 has been repealed, (2) Plaintiffs agree that Plan S172 does not violate the Voting Rights Act or the Constitution, and (3) Plaintiffs do not seek any further relief with regard to Plan S148, Plaintiffs’ remaining claims under § 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution are DISMISSED AS MOOT; and
that, as prevailing parties, Plaintiffs are awarded their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(2) and W.D. Tex. Rule CV-7(j), Plaintiffs may file their applications for attorneys’ fees and costs no later than twenty days after entry of judgment. If the application is opposed in whole or in part, a response in opposition shall be filed no later than ten days after the filing of the application.
SIGNED AND ENTERED this 4th day of September, 2013.
Home
If I were 12 years old and had $10, I'd have spent it on a good catcher's mitt instead of some political candidate.
