Redistricting, Revisited

Many Texas Democrats choose to perpetuate the myth that a voter’s ethnicity can predict which party they support. Democrats claim to represent Hispanic Texans, but that claim doesn’t match up with how Hispanics in Texas vote. Hispanics, like all Americans, are not a politically cohesive group and hold a plurality of political beliefs.

In 2010, the Republican Party of Texas elected more Hispanics to statewide office than the Democrat party. There are presently six Hispanic Republicans in the Texas Legislature, two Hispanic Republicans on the Texas Supreme Court, and numerous Hispanic Republican officeholders throughout the state. Nationally, a significant number of majority Hispanic Congressional districts have elected conservative Republican members, including: CD 21 Florida (75.6% Hispanic), CD 27 Texas (73.2% Hispanic), CD 25 Florida (71.6% Hispanic), CD 18 Florida (66.9% Hispanic), CD 23 Texas (66.4% Hispanic), CD 2 New Mexico (51.8% Hispanic) and CD 28 California (51.2% Hispanic).

On Jan. 20, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out the court drawn Texas redistricting maps and rightfully chastised the San Antonio court for its judicial activism. The lower court erred by adopting the arguments of partisan factions seeking to redraw the maps produced by the Legislature. The San Antonio court's disregard for the Legislature's map was in fact disregard for the will of the people of Texas, who spoke through their elected representatives.

Before the Supreme Court ruling, two Federal judges voted to change the boundaries of District 117. Honorable Jerry Smith, the other Federal judge who heard the case and voted against changing the district, wrote “any purported challenge to the Bexar County districts is without foundation,” and “we should not use past elections as a crystal ball to predict how future elections will turn out.” He went on to explain that the court “is prevented from making such complex political predictions tied to race-based assumptions,” and “nothing in the State’s plan will hinder Hispanic opportunity to register and vote in greater numbers than before.”

While the San Antonio federal court clearly has jurisdiction to review redistricting maps to ensure compliance with constitutional protections, it cannot override the political will of the people of Texas when no such violations have been found. Racism in America is still a reality, but partisan factions should not use the Voting Rights Act to push a partisan agenda. The Texas Democratic Party has lost sight of the goal of the Civil Rights Movement—that we abandon superficial racial barriers and come together as a unified American people. Liberty, freedom and optimism are what truly define what it means to be an American, not race or political affiliation.

John V. Garza represents District 117.

Cowboy Breakfast

This is a picture of me enjoying the Somerset Cowboy Breakfast with my wife, daughter & sister-in-law on Friday, January 27. Early morning but the food was great. Many thanks to the City of Somerset for sponsoring the event!

My Point of View: The Redistricting Debate

The American Civil Rights movement should be about true integration. A candidate should be elected because he or she represents voters the best, regardless of race. Unfortunately, the Texas Democratic Party has failed to take the same non-racial stance. Instead, it has chosen to manipulate the Voting Rights Act as a way to gain seats in the Legislature.

The current redistricting debate centers on this. The Texas Democrat Party has chosen to support candidates defined primarily by racial background in special racially drawn districts, rather than candidates with broad appeal. The result is self-segregation, over dependence on racial politics and a class of protected politicians who are limited in their electability to their racially protected districts.

Two Federal judges voted to change the boundaries of District 117 on the belief that it violated the Voting Rights Act. They discussed changing 117 in a lengthy defense of their proposed interim map, but their only claim was that the State tried to replace regularly voting Hispanics with those who do not regularly vote. This is not part of the Voting Rights Act or any case law. They do not attack District 117’s stats because the map was carefully drawn to improve every statistic.

Honorable Jerry Smith, the other Federal judge who heard the case, voted against changing District 117. He wrote that “any purported challenge to the Bexar County districts is without foundation,” and “we should not use past elections as a crystal ball to predict how future elections will turn out.” He went on to explain that the court “is prevented from making such complex political predictions tied to race-based assumptions,” and “nothing in the State’s plan will hinder Hispanic opportunity to register and vote in greater numbers than before.”

Texas Democrats are so concerned about getting elected that they forget they must represent everyone in their districts. This is why candidates that define themselves primarily on their racial background often fail to get popular support. In contemporary America, including Bexar County, race-baiting needs to end.

Creating a climate of racial polarization does not achieve anything. Hispanics and Mexican-Americans consider themselves simply American.

John V. Garza represents District 117. He will testify before the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. next week regarding redistricting.