Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 1 of 34
2011 HOUSE Claims
Perez v. Perry Et Al.
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 2 of 34
FACTS ABOUT ERIC OPIELA
Opiela worked for the Republican Congressional delegation during
the 2011 Legislative session.
Opiela was not employed by the Speaker, the House Redistricting
Committee, nor Chairman Solomons during the 2011 Legislative
session.
Opiela stopped working for the Speaker’s campaign prior to the
commencement of the 2011 session.
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 3 of 34
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 4 of 34
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 5 of 34
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 6 of 34
TESTIMONY OF BONNIE BRUCE
Q. And was there anyone else from the Speaker’s office who officed in the Redistricting Committee [sic] who
was also working on redistricting matters?
A. Yes. Gerardo had an intern who operated in the second office.
Q. And what was that intern’s name?
A. Elizabeth Colburn, I believe.
Q. Okay. And Ms. Coburn—Elizabeth Colburn who worked as an intern in the Speaker’s office, did
she assist Mr. Interiano working on any kind of maps during the Redistricting Process?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. I know he had her work on special projects. I know for a fact he had her work on Travis County to see
whether it was possible to draw two Republican districts. I believe he had her work on Aliseda’s district, and I
think a couple of other special projects.
Source: Tr. 1923:17 -1924:8
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 7 of 34
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 8 of 34
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 9 of 34
THE “NUDGE FACTOR” EMAIL IS NOT EVIDENCE
OF INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION
The plaintiffs have failed to prove:
That Opiela received the data
That Opiela was ever able to calculate a nudge factor
That any one of Opiela’s ratios was ever used to draw a district
There is No Evidence That The Mapdrawers Used This Data
9
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 10 of 34
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 11 of 34
EL PASO CLAIMS
• “The border between HD 77 and 78 had a
bizarre shape with deer antler protrusions that
split multiple precincts between these
two districts.”
-- Plaintiff MALC’s Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 897) ¶ 59
• “Plan H283 packs Latinos into surrounding
districts to undermine their political power in
HD 78.”
--Plaintiff Texas Latino Task Force et. al. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Doc
634 para 459)
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 12 of 34
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 13 of 34
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 14 of 34
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 15 of 34
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 16 of 34
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 17 of 34
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 18 of 34
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 19 of 34
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 20 of 34
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 21 of 34
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 22 of 34
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 23 of 34
WHAT MOTIVATED CHANGES TO HD 117?
• Rep. Garza sought to create a rural, conservative district
outside the City of San Antonio to boost his reelection
prospects and comply with the Committee directives of
maintaining the district’s SSVR over 50%. Tr. 1518:9-15,
1523:2-18 (Interiano); Tr. 399:4-13 (Garza).
• Speaker Straus and his staff determined that in order to
achieve these goals, HD 117 needed to include rural areas
of southern Bexar County that were previously
represented by Rep. Farias (HD 118) under the benchmark
plan. Tr. 1559:7-15 (Interiano).
• Ultimately HD 117 was agreed to by Rep. Villarreal and 9
of 10 members of the Bexar County delegation.
23
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 24 of 34
PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT RACE WAS A
“SUBSTANTIAL” AND “MOTIVATING” FACTOR IN HD 117
Rep. Garza’s conversations with Rep. Farias cannot be imputed to the Legislature.
No evidence that Rep. Garza’s individual motivations in the 2011 redistricting process
played any role in the agreement of other delegation members to the Bexar County map.
Even assuming Rep. Garza had an improper motive, there is no evidence that Rep.
Villarreal or other members of the San Antonio delegation were aware of that motive.
Plaintiffs have not established that Rep. Garza’s individual motivations were a substantial
or motivating factor behind the Legislature’s adoption of the 2011 House plan.
24
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 25 of 34
HIDALGO COUNTY—PLAN H 113
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 26 of 34
HIDALGO COUNTY --H283
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 27 of 34
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 28 of 34
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 29 of 34
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 30 of 34
TESTIMONY OF REPRESENTATIVE HUBERT VO
Q. And let me go back to that, because you
don't know who drew it, you cannot say -- you
cannot make a charge that this was
intentionally done?
A. I'm not saying that. But I'm asking why the
Asian community, especially the Vietnamese
community's been split into other districts.
Q. It's a question in your mind. It's not an
allegation you're making, though?
A. No, it's not.
Tr. 1381:25-1382:8.
30
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 31 of 34
Process—Hanna Testimony
1177:7-23 (Hanna).
31
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 32 of 34
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF HOUSE BILL 150
January 11, 2011
February 10, 2011
February 17, 2011
February 21, 2011
March 1, 2011
March 8, 2011
April 6, 2011
April 12, 2011
April 13, 2011
April 13, 2011
April 15, 2011
April 17, 2011
April 19, 2011
April 19, 2011
April 20, 2011
April 22, 2011
April 25, 2011
April 27, 2011
April 28, 2011
First Day of 82nd Legislative Session
Rep. Solomons Named Chair of House Redistricting Committee
U.S. Census Bureau Releases 2010 Census Data
RedAppl Updated with New 2010 Census Data
House Redistricting Committee Holds First Hearing
House Bill 150 Filed
D. Hanna Provides First Retrogression Memo on Plan H110
D. Hanna Provides Second Retrogression Memo on Plan H110
Rep. Solomons Releases First Public Texas House Plan – Plan H113
Rep. Villarreal Moves to Suspend the Five-Day Posting Rule
House Redistricting Committee Holds Public Hearing
House Redistricting Committee Holds Public Hearing
House Redistricting Committee Votes Out Plan H153 (Committee
Substitute) in Formal Hearing
House Bill 150 Considered in House Calendars Committee
Calendars Committee Adopts Amended Rule for House Bill 150
D. Hanna Provides Third Retrogression Memo on Plan H153
Deadline for Floor Amendments to be Filed
Floor Debate on House Bill 150
Floor Debate on House Bill 150; Passed out of Texas House
32
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 33 of 34
PLAINTIFFS’ THEORY OF THE CASE
Testimony of Dr. Arrington
Q. You believe that if a Republican in Texas intends a partisan change
in a districting decision, then you were intending also to discriminate
against Latinos and African Americans; right?
A. Yes.
Our prior decisions have made clear that a jurisdiction may engage in
constitutional political gerrymandering even if it so happens that the
most loyal Democrats happen to be black Democrats and even if the
State were conscious of that fact.
Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 551 (1999)
33
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1249-2 Filed 09/19/14 Page 34 of 34
“‘[D]iscriminatory purpose’ . . . implies more than intent as volition
or intent as awareness of consequences. It implies that the
decisionmaker . . . selected or reaffirmed a particular course of
action, at least in part ‘because of,’ not merely ‘in spite of,’ its
adverse effects upon an identifiable group.”
Personnel Adm’r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279 (1979)
(internal citation omitted).
34