TEXAS REDISTRICTING
The caveat is that everything that follows is subject to change - maybe radically - depending on what the courts and parties decide to do.
But with post-trial briefs in the preclearance case now not due until February 6, it looks almost certain that the D.C. court won’t be issuing a ruling in time for Texas to go forward with a unified April 3 primary based on maps that incorporate the D.C. court’s ruling.
That leaves the San Antonio court with two main options.
On the one hand, it could wait for the D.C. court’s ruling, which some of the lawyers are saying they expect by February 15.
However, that would mean splitting the Texas primary. And the major drawback to that is the added cost of a second primary, estimated by some to be in neighborhood of $13 million. And, of course, there’s voter confusion and changed turnout dynamics.
The second option would be for the San Antonio court to draw new interim maps. But to do so, the court may want more briefing and evidence about section 5 issues as well as about the Supreme Court’s opinion. That may present hurdles to getting maps done in time.
Friday’s status conference in San Antonio should make it more clear where the court wants to go.
So, the big question - when will the primary be?
If the court ends up splitting primary, a June or early July date looks most likely for the second part of the primary.
The easiest thing would be to use the existing June 5 runoff date for the second part of the primary. If for some reason that doesn’t prove feasible, the election will have to be scheduled around June municipal runoffs, which, in general, can be held any time until June 26 depending on the municipality (in Austin, for example, municipal runoffs are June 23 with runoffs June 11-19).
The court also will have to decide whether to have just a presidential primary on April 3 or to also include the U.S. Senate race, statewide, countywide, and whole county contests (e.g., courts of appeal races).
On the other hand, if the court draws interim maps, it is possible - just - that a unified April primary could be salvaged. But that would require that the maps be finished by February 6 or very shortly thereafter. It also would require shortening the deadline to mail military and overseas ballots. And, even then, it might be necessary to push the primary back a week or two. (If the primary does get pushed later into April, that would push early voting onto Good Friday and Easter Sunday and possibly necessitate finding some new polling places - but in the grand scheme of things probably a manageable challenge.)
The one option that doesn’t seem to be on the table anymore is moving back the entire primary, given the cost and difficulty of moving the Republican and Democratic party conventions.
But back to the original caveat. There are more lawyers in this case than you can shake a stick at - and politically savvy ones at that. And 6 judges in two courts. It may be that they made yet come up with a different and better option.
