For the first time in several Sessions, the Legislature got along a little better this year.  They worked together to address some of the major issues facing the state like water and education and they even managed to pass a budget, though it was down to the wire.

One of the reasons they got along so well is that the leadership kept a focus on the major priorities of the Session and didn’t allow some of the more controversial issues to surface.

Never fear!  That great divider, redistricting, is the major call for the Special Session which the Governor called immediately.

Exhausted Legislators must now move into self-preservation mode and as I have frequently discussed, tackle one of the most complex topics of the day.  Nothing is more challenging than for a body of elected leaders to “fairly” approve districts that represent all Texans.

The Governor simply wants the Legislature to approve the maps drawn by a San Antonio Federal Court and used for the last election cycle.  However, the Court is due to convene again this week to discuss the case and determine if the Voting Rights Act is still applicable in Texas.

Democrats, who were not enthusiastic about the plan to begin with, will make their case in the Legislature but they have little influence.  During the Regular Session, the 2/3 rule applies in the Senate that prevents legislation from being put forward without a 2/3 majority of support.  This allows Democrats to fight down some of the legislation they see as most offensive.  In a Special Session, the 2/3 rule does not necessarily apply, though the Democrats are calling for it to be used.

At this point, the only issue on the Call is redistricting.  However, the Governor may open it up to include some of the more controversial issues of the Session that did not make it through the “peacful” process.

This blogger believes that redistricting is at the root of our troubled democracy and has significantly impacted competition among campaigns.  It is always unnerving when the process carries itself well into the decade when it should only be done every 10 years.

Check out the redistricting category for more.

New Hampshire voters are rugged and independent for the most part and tend to be a bit more moderate than most other states. Given this, it was not unexpected that Mitt Romney would emerge victorious.

Romney finished solidly in first with Ron Paul in second. Finally, a state recognized Huntsman was running as well. Huntsman is the only Republican candidate to have not been “flavor of the week”. He’s interesting, intelligent and well-versed on foreign affairs. Yet, Republican voters have mostly been ignoring him.

No one heard the cheers from the Yell Leader in New Hampshire and he finished at bottom of the pack with 1% of the vote. He mostly did not campaign there and has focused his energies on the upcoming South Carolina primary, the first southern state. I heard a radio interview with a New Hampshire voter who said, “Maybe his accent won’t sound so funny in South Carolina.” Clearly, New Hampshire voters did not respond to his “aw shucks” style.

Redistricting update:

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the Texas redistricting case on Monday but no follow-up action has been taken to date. There were many questions regarding our ability to move the primary even further out but to date, there has not been an official outcome.

2012 candidates on the ballot are left in limbo, not knowing whether to spend money on an upcoming primary currently scheduled for April 3 or to save their precious dollars for a date yet to be determined.

Still muddy waters on this topic.

The Legislature drew a set of maps and adopted them during the Legislative session. A San Antonio Federal Court ruled that those maps were not in compliance with the Voting Rights Act and did not accurately reflect the state’s population. They drew their own set of maps. Now, the Supreme Court will dictate to our state the best way we should be represented.

Redistricting is one of the most complex political processes. The people who are in charge tend to work in their own best interest and not the interest of the overall state. Why would they? Who among us wouldn’t fight to protect or enhance our own political power if we had the opportunity? It is the most base form of raw political politics.

In my humble opinion, it is also the root cause of the divided and dysfunctional governance that dominates our nation. Districts are drawn with such dominant populations of one party or the other that competition becomes moot. Could any Republican truly and legitimately compete against Sheila Jackson Lee? Could any Democrat truly and legitimately compete against John Culberson? The answer to both of these questions is a resounding “NO”!

Sure, they may face opponents in their primary but those folks are going to be as solidly partisan, if not more so, than the ones currently holding office. The fact is that there are very few “swing” districts left in our country. A “swing” district would be defined as one where the voters could legitimately choose between a Democrat or Republican and the voter behavior is not predictable prior to the election.

How could we possibly expect Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and Congressman John Culberson to sit at a table and work together on complex issues? The fact is that both might be punished by the people who elect them for even “cavorting with the enemy”. They have neither incentive nor direction from their constituents to work together. Thus, governing is in gridlock.

Alas, maybe those in charge of drawing the maps now will consider bringing the most core element of democracy back in to the process – competition.

One can only hope.

Primaries actually begin this week. Of course, President Obama is basically assured the Democratic nomination so the game to watch will be the Republicans. They have transitioned through the “flavor of the week” for so many months now that it will be fascinating to see who finally secures the nomination. Mitt Romney has withstood all the challengers to date and appears to be in a good position going into this week’s Iowa primaries. The question lingers if someone might still try to enter the race.

In Texas, we face Primary elections in early April for seats that are yet to be determined. The redistricting struggles are still unresolved but should straighten out by the end of January. We will then have a better idea of the next Texas Legislature and how it might reflect the State’s voting and/or ethnic patterns. It is the legislative races that will be the primary focus. There is still no chance that the Democrats can retake the House or Senate but will they gain or lose seats?

At the local level, County officials are up for election. There is little anticipated change at Commissioners Court and the County Judge is not up for election this year. The County Attorney, the Sheriff, and a few other offices are up for review by the voters. The two aforementioned offices are held by Democrats for the first time in many years and it will be interesting to see if they are able to hold their seats. The race to watch will be the race for District Attorney. The Republican incumbent, Pat Lykos, has faced an on-going political battle for the last several years. Her truest challenge will likely be in the Republican primary.

On January 3, seven new Council Members will be sworn into office. It will be fascinating to watch the new Council and to see the direction they offer for the City. Mayor Parker will continue with her focus on financial stability and improved quality of life.

I will ponder all of it and offer the best analysis I can and have fun along the way. Stay tuned and resolve to check-in regularly.

Happy New Year and buckle-in for an exciting year of politics!

This is a memo from the U.S. Court System. We understand that your State Constitution requires you to hold an election in 2012. You brought this to our attention via multiple lawsuits over maps drawn by the Texas Legislature in 2011.

We know that it is a Federal law that requires you to draw new representative districts after the federally mandated census. We ask States to do this so that states like yours, with significant population gain, can ensure that all Texans are fairly represented in Congress and in the State Legislature.

However, it seems that there have been some challenges with your map colors. Our Courts have not yet agreed on a resolution and are studying and redrawing your maps to guarantee they are in compliance with Federal Law.

Meanwhile, we understand that your mandated election timeline does not meet our schedule so we are happy to work out alternatives with you.

Tell your candidates to go ahead and file for election under the San Antonio maps and we’ll study the cases in January and let you know what we think. Since we are striving to meet your deadlines, we’ll reopen filing in January so candidates may adapt to new maps, if needed.

And could you two political parties, such great friends, find a nice date to hold your primaries? We’re glad that you could agree on April 3.

Now, you folks be patient while we work out all the details for your upcoming elections and have a great 2012.

Note: Candidates – a word to the wise: Don’t print district numbers on your materials.

They continue to sit at the same table and negotiate with each other with no results. If your business were dealing with this situation, you would have to resolve it.

Hey folks, pay attention. The government is our business. It is our taxes and our representatives making the decision. Last I checked, we do still live in a democracy.

However, that democracy is clearly challenged at this point. One of the most basic and primary tenets of a democracy is competition. Yet, we have few “swing” districts left in the United States Congress.

The redistricting process over the last few decades has essentially eliminated bi-partisan competition. Consider the Members of Congress from Texas. There are virtually no seats that will be truly competitive in the general election. All campaign battles will be fought out in the primaries.

Some will say that is competition. A tough primary battle is competitive. No question but primaries are “family feuds”. In the case of American politics, they have become battles for who can be the farthest right or left. With small percentages of voters casting ballots in the primaries, the most extreme and passionate viewpoints determine the victor.

It is true that there are districts that will have candidates from both parties. However, most of these districts are designed to specifically elect one party or the other and the opposition candidate is just tilting at windmills.

How can we possibly expect to have rational discussions by our leaders when they are focused on re-election and answerable to the most extreme voters for their victories?

We cannot. To repeat a famous quote from former President Grover Cleveland, “We the people will get the government we deserve, be it good or bad.”

I don’t like our government currently. How about you?

Redistricting has been a favorite topic of this blogger for some time. Last year, I published a series on redistricting that explained the process and the purpose of the need for new maps.

Over the last couple of decades, as computers entered the redistricting process, most representative districts have become more and more partisan. As the decade progresses and populations shift, some districts may become more competitive but they were not originally drawn that way.

In Texas and much of the U.S., districts are drawn to benefit one party or the other. This eliminates competition in the general election. It is true that primaries are competitive. Voters get to choose the farthest of the right or the left to somewhat moderate candidates. The nature of primary voters, however, is that they are the most partisan of all and often value party loyalty above reasonableness or moderation.

The voters in the general election, who usually significantly outnumber primary voters, are left with a party nominee who often doesn’t even face an opponent. And, even if they did face an opponent, the district is designed in such a manner that only one party could ever win election.

The Texas Legislature has designed new State Representative, State Senate and now U.S. Congressional maps for Texas. If it is possible, they are even more partisan than in the past. The proverbial “swing” district (meaning either party could win) only exists in a small number of opportunities.

Folks, this is the root of the breakdown of our governing systems and a hard knock on democracy. Without competition, we do not truly have a democracy. We must have choices and options for those choices to win if we are to have a thriving democratic environment.

While we espouse the spirit of “free elections” and the “spread of democracy” around the world, we may want to pause and look in our own backyard. Both parties are guilty of designing districts to protect their power base and limit competition.

Let’s tell them we want our right to select from two or more candidates and to bring debate back into the competition for political office!

Mayor Parker drew an opponent last week. Deputy Fire Chief Fernando Herrera announced his intention to challenge Parker. While the media took interest, this is not really a breaking news item. Herrera has sought office before, as a Republican State Representative candidate, and lost. I’m not sure if he has studied the demographics and voting patterns of people living inside the Houston city limits, but they do not usually vote for Republicans. Further, Herrera will have a difficult time raising funds to be anywhere near competitive with Mayor Parker. In fact, it gives Parker an excuse to build on her $2 million war chest and to spend those funds telling the story of her first term.

City Council At-Large 2 has several announced candidates and many of them have been crying in the wilderness for several months, hoping someone would listen. Incumbent Sue Lovell is term-limited. We’ll review this race in more detail in the coming weeks.

The newly drawn District C is the district race we’re hearing most about. It has already drawn two candidates, based upon the proposed lines, and will likely attract even more. Both candidates come from the south side of the district but there is a sizable population on the north side. The proposed district runs from Montrose/Greenway area to pick up the Heights, Timbergrove areas. More power to the person who wins this seat as they will have very in tune, demanding and engaged constituents to represent.

We will be discussing and dissecting the candidates and campaigns as they take shape over the next few weeks.

Most of you probably think this makes good sense and see nothing unusual about it. However, I must tell you that it is significant.

There are many forces that work for varying aspects of improvement in Houston’s Latino community. They sometimes find themselves working with the same goal through different approaches.

In recent years, the Houston Hispanic Chamber of Commerce has begun building unity across the many non-profits that serve Hispanics, the business community, educational advocates and more.

It appears that the City’s 2011 Redistricting process has provided a solid point of unity for the entire Latino community.

Through a number of presentations and public speakers at yesterday’s public hearings, they made their voice heard – loud, clear, and with a unified message.

The redistricting plan they presented had solid support from a cross-section of the entire Latino community.

Alas, redistricting is a complex process. Asian-Americans were most unhappy with the plan as it splits the area of town known as “Asia Town” across Council districts. The Heights area is split across district lines. More people will express their opinion.

This is the nature of democracy and of redistricting. People have input into the process and the elected leaders ultimately have to develop a plan that will provide the best representation for all Houstonians.

The Legislature this Session is an already strained environment with extreme budget cuts proposed and tensions boiling over at every point.

Toss in the drama of Redistricting and you have a recipe for complete collapse.

The fact is that many people are still very bruised from the last mid-decade redistricting process led by former Congressman Tom Delay. We had walkouts and lawsuits and an overthrow of many incumbents.

Those that survived have long memories that have been simmering since that time.

The loudest initial opposition to this redistricting plan is coming from the Latino community. The plan provides little increase in potential Hispanic districts while 62% of the population growth in Texas was Latino. Simple math indicates that you will need to add Latino representation to reflect that population increase.

Some say it can’t be done due to the “dispersal” of Hispanics across Texas. This same message is being used in Houston redistricting. It may even be true but there are many communities and counties in Texas that are Latino-dominant populations. There are multiple ways to increase their representation in Austin. The heated discussions commence.

Do not expect much else to happen in the Session now that the maps have been released. The already emotionally-charged environment will increase significantly as Members begin to look to survival for themselves and for their constituents.

From my point of view, there is a definite attitude coming out of Austin this Session towards Latinos. It permeates the public education discussion, the higher ed debate and redistricting. It is the “Let them eat pan dulce” attitude toward Latinos.

If it doesn’t happen this year, it will ultimately catch up with those in charge as this ever-growing population gains political power.