As is explained in this Dallas Morning News article, a federal judge in San Antonio today rejected the efforts of LULAC and others to derail the way in which the Texas Democratic Party awards its delegates. The suit was filed by LULAC of Texas, the Mexican American Bar Association of Houston and six voters described as Democrats upset by the party’s method of rewarding delegates.
According to the DMN:
The plaintiffs were not contesting to whom the delegates were awarded, but rather how the allotment is made.
The judge wrote that the plaintiffs never alleged that Latino voters were "intimidated, threatened or otherwise kept from voting." He said if they had gone to the polls in greater numbers in previous elections they would have benefited.
"The adage remains 'no vote, no voice,"' he wrote.
I know you will be shocked! to learn that the Hillary supporters, I mean, "plaintiffs", are likely to not accept the district court's decision and instead appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
Earlier this week, the Judge had canceled a scheduled hearing on the matter due in part to the price of gas.
Also of interest is the Judge's connection with the Clintons:
Democratic Party officials had noted that the general system for selecting Texas presidential delegates has been in place for 20 years.
[Judge] Biery agreed, and said the reason it got such notice this year was because of the close presidential race. The judge also mentioned his own background as a Democrat and the fact that he was appointed by former President Bill Clinton in the 1990s.
He wrote: "Notes of full disclosure: Senator Clinton's husband nominated me to the federal bench, and I hope to shoot baskets some day with Senator Obama."
For background, this Austin American-Statesman story contains a link to the complaint filed by the plaintiffs. As explained in that story:
The party bases the delegates awarded within each state senatorial district on the percentage of voters who turned out and voted for the Democratic gubernatorial nominee in the most recent previous general election.
A key factoid: Latino-heavy districts end up fielding fewer delegates to the national convention. Why? Turnout in those districts often drops in general elections partly because Democratic candidates in those districts face fewer serious fall races.
Also of interest is that according to the Court's online docket, the NAACP moved to intervene in the case today--though it is not clear if they knew of the Court's ruling when they did so. In their pleadings, they say they oppose the relief sought by the plaintiffs.
A link to the brief of the Texas Democratic Party is found in this story.
More Updates:
I located the Court's opinion (not online publicly yet) and there are some choice tidbits:
--he talks about his high school class in South Texas being one of the first integrated classes to graduate after Brown v. Board of Education, and names a number of prominent Texas Latino leaders who were members of that class
--he refers to Maury Maverick, Jr. (a Texas ACLU lawyer) and Carlos Cardena and their advocacy against segregated law schools and sporting events
--he says his sister is married to the nephew of Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez and now lives in the area from which the Congressman and his family were once excluded from having a picnic, due to racist attitudes
--he expresses amusement at the 2008 "discovery" of the Texas Democratic Party nominating process
--he says, "As a practical political matter, the question [of seating Texas delegates] may be moot if the pundits are correct about the nominating process coming to a close."
--he mentions having once been stopped for speeding (in college) by one of the lawyers now representing the Texas Democratic Party, who was then a Texas highway patrol trooper, and that he (the Judge) represented himself in JP court for that matter and lost
--he quotes Alexis de Toqueville, stating, "In a Democracy, the people get the government they deserve," in the context of discussing how these plaintiffs made the bed they now lie in by not exercising their right to vote previously, because it is the failure to vote, not the rules, that has caused any vote dilution
--my favorite of his quotes, in that same context: "We have met the enemy, and he is us." (citing Pogo, by Walt Kelly)
--finally, he rejects the plaintiffs' requested relief on multiple grounds, including (among other things) untimeliness (these rules have been in place since 1988) and the fact that plaintiffs' proposed system would reward those who do not vote.