Travis County Commssioners Court
November 25, 2003
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Item 31
The other thing is on number 31, we did get a draft letter from -- that's consider and take appropriate action on submission to u.s. Department of justice regarding the congressional redistricting plan adopted by the state of Texas. It should be l-o-u-i-e. Right, Commissioner Davis?
>> yes.
>> instead of --
>> lloyd.
>> what page is that on?
>> the last, judge.
>> and that's l-o-u-i-e, right?
>> yes.
>> louie instead of lloyd.
>> just in terms of we had two different postings on our public hearing, and it seemed to me also what was very powerful testimony because, remember, Travis County is the administrator of the election process was the testimony that we got from dee lopez troeltd just the sheer mechanics -- related to just the sheer mechanics of what has been imposed in terms of diseven khaoeusing people because half 6 because of all our prudence are going to see a change in our -- precincts are going to aoe a change in that you are representatives. There was very powerful backup and I would love to see another bullet added related to acknowledging that it wasn't just -- this is very -- it was very powerful testimony, but it was also in terms of where the county plays a role is as the administrator of elections. We've been here, done this related to what happens when there's massive changes in lines, locations, finding new judges, that that also diseven franchises people from the process. And I'm just wondering where an appropriate place would be to acknowledge and call attention to the d.o.j. Related to that testimony as well.
>> okay, why don't we -- can we approve a paragraph or two that would cover that subject to the approval of our outside counsel? I don't know why that was not put in there. He may have had reasons for not doing that.
>> and [indiscernible] because most of those areas we were talking about where we had these massive 129 precinct changes are in the hispanic and african-american influence precincts. So it's absolutely relevant, it's just a different way of looking at it in terms of the county's role as the elections administrator in terms of just sheer confusion at the ballot box. And new voting locations, et cetera. So acknowledge that and call their attention to dee lopez's two or three-page memo. It was very powerful in terms of just the massive like -- figure out where you are trying to vote.
>> and referencing those issues.
>> yes, yes, call attention -- in the same way that you have called attention to what mayor garcia said, called attention to what judge murphy said, called attention to [indiscernible] evans' testimony. I would love to see a bullet that calls attention to what is the county's mandated responsibilities takes overseer of the elections, to call attention to that technicality as well which can disenfranchise voters because of the massive changes being ordered in a short time frame.
>> I don't think you are constrained from sending that information at all from d.o.j.
>> it was part of the public testimony, and it just caught my off guard. I was like wow, that was a huge part of the hearing.
>> that testimony, of course, will be I attached and a bullet point -- you are not constrained from doing that.
>> that's what I'm asking for is another bullet point to talk about calling their attention to what delores --
>> was that separate than put in this letter?
>> if this is the letter going on behalf of the court. Is that what I'm reading, judge?
>> this came from amelia hicks, didn't it?
>> yes.
>> but do we want to try to send it to renee?
>> it can do either way. As much as a tech know speaks a -- techo. Pes mist as I am.
>> when we change a line, when we change a voting location, when we do anything that disrupts the normal patterns that people have gotten used to, you talk about the potential of a disenfranchisement issue being raised and you can't ignore 129 precincts, virtually half getting our district numbers changed. That is an absolute on point issue.
>> did ms. Lopez, did she submit those documents?
>> yes.
>> and of course, recognizing that it's part of the disthat's going to the department of justice along with all the other evidence, I guess maybe a notation to the effect that may need to be brought in the letter that the judge is going to sign I think is something I guess to highlight that point. Even though it will still be a part of the attachment along with the video and everything else that we need to send to the department of justice. So, judge, do you want to -- I second whatever motion you put forth, judge.
>> I guess put together a paragraph that covers those points, submit that to renee hicks for review and unless file an objection, incorporate that and authorize the county judge to send a letter to the department of justice post haste. That will get it done. The question will be whether we can get that letter done or get that additional paragraph or paragraphs today or first thing tomorrow.
>> I know renee was at a deposition today, but it doesn't keep us from drafting the paragraph.
>> that's the motion.
>> not talking about gone with the wind.
>> second? Seconded by Commissioner Davis. Any more discussion?
>> judge, let me just say this to those persons that came out to testify last week on November the 18th, I would like to personally thank all of you that came and gave your rendering of being isolated, looking at the community of interest, how that will be distorted. The fragmentation that will take place here under this particular congressional redistricting plan. I think the testimony was very on time and a lot of that is incorporated here and will go forward to the department of justice. So hopefully we can move forward with this. Again, it's been a lot of major concerns. I think, again, the historical perspective that was brought by judge murphy, again, the comments by everybody, former mayor gus garcia and others. I think it's right on time, and hopefully that the united states justice department will not give this a pre-clearance status. I really hope that they do that when it comes before them for review. And because we as a minority community here in Travis County, we have been railroaded, and I just don't think that's acceptable, as I stated earlier, I think it's still-this particular plan, congressional redistricting plan is discrimination segregation by jerry mannedering and stated it's unfair and it's out right criminal to distort the people of Travis County in such a overt fashion as this has been done. Those are my comments, and I just hope that the justice department looks at this and doesn't give this particular redistricting as referred to in the letter pre-clearance. Thank you.
>> all in favor of the motion? Show Commissioners Gomez, Davis, Sonleitner, yours truly voting against. Abstaining Commissioner Daugherty.
>> would you allow me 10 seconds because this is a difference from where I voted the first time related to litigation. I just want to say that I felt strongly about not matching litigation with litigation, the people with the proper standing were already in the litigation, but this is absolutely on point with what counties do related to pre-clearance on elections. And this is beyond on point as the chief administrators of elections within Travis County for us to comment in this way. Thank you.
Last Modified: Tuesday, November 26, 2003 6:52 AM