SENATE JOURNAL

SEVENTY-EIGHTH LEGISLATURE — THIRD CALLED SESSION AUSTIN, TEXAS

PROCEEDINGS

AiDiDiEiNiDiUiM EIGHTH DAY (Wednesday, September 24, 2003) COMMITTEEiiSUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILLi3 ON THIRD READING The following remarks regarding CSHBi3 were ordered reduced to writing and printed in the Senate Journal: President:iiMembers, the Chair lays out on third reading and final passage the Committee Substitute to House Bill 3, the Secretary will read the caption. Secretary of the Senate:iiCommittee Substitute for House Bill 3, relating to the composition of the districts for the election of Members of the United States House of Representatives from the State of Texas. President:iiThe Chair recognizes Senator Staples to explain the motion. Senator Staples:iiThank you Mr. President. Senators, being distributed to your desk, Legislative Council has revised the map that was presented to you yesterday incorporating the two amendments that were adopted. That information along with the statistical information is being distributed to you on your desk. This is a process that has received full and open debate in forms that are even new to a redistricting process, and I believe that the questions have been examined exhaustively, and would move the map at the appropriate time. President:iiSenator Barrientos, for what purpose do you rise? Senator Barrientos:iiWill the gentleman yield for a couple of three questions? President:iiWould Senator Staples yield? Senator Staples:iiI ll’ yield for some questions. Senator Barrientos:iiSenator Staples, is this the very map that we ve’ spent, since January until today, discussing the overall issues of congressional redistricting? Is that what we are talking about here on a, what is it, third reading? Senator Staples:iiThis is the very issue. Not this particular map, but this is the issue, Senator, that has dominated the headlines in our state for most of this year and other states as well. 2 78th Legislature — Third Called Session 8th Day-A

Senator Barrientos:iiI believe for the first time in history, in history, Texas and Colorado, this is what has been done without court order. Senator Staples:iiI don t’ think that is exactly right. Senator Barrientos:iiTell me where I am wrong. Senator Staples:iiWell New Mexico, Democrats in New Mexico pushed a redistricting bill to the State Senate. Senator Barrientos:iiWhen was that? Senator Staples:iiThis spring, that session concluded March of 2003, to revise, without a court order, to revise a congressional district to make it less friendly to a GOP incumbent. Senator Barrientos:iiAnd do they have GOP incumbents now? Senator Staples:iiSure. Senator Barrientos:iiWell, Senator, we should know about New Mexico, we just spent 45 days there. Senator Staples:iiI thought it was very appropriate to be there while at the same place was occurring what you protesting. (inaudible, overlapping conservation) Senator Barrientos:iiWell if you let me finish my question. If the Governor of New Mexico wanted to do what you are doing here in Texas they could do it, but he chooses not to. I ve’ spoken to him personally, so have several of my colleagues. Now let me ask you, what is the need again, refresh our memories, for this piece of legislation, why are we doing this? Senator Staples:iiRedistricting is a legislative responsibility as delegated to the legislature by the constitution. Courts have repeatedly stated that legislators abdicate their responsibility to the courts, and they should address that issue. Therefore the Legislature has never taken up this issue. We are attempting to take up this issue now, and that is why we are taking up this matter at this time. Senator Barrientos:iiAh, but let me see now, Senator, you say this Legislature has not taken up this issue. Was it not in 2001 when the Republican Senators used the two-thirds rule to prohibit redistricting on the floor of this Senate, yes or no? Senator Staples:iiWhat redistricting are you referring to? Senator Barrientos:iiWhat, what? Senator Staples:iiWhat redistricting are you referring to? Senator Barrientos:iiCongressional redistricting and House and Senate redistricting. Senator Staples:iiI would say absolutely not, Senator. Senator Barrientos:iiThat s’ not true? Senator Staples:iiThe records reflect Senate Bill 500 was never voted on in committee that was comprised of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. That committee had a scheduled public hearing on May the 9th, so therefore there was never a bill out that even had a vote in the Senate committee process. Wednesday, September 24, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 3

Senator Barrientos:iiWell, Senator, you can spin whatever– Senator Staples:iiThat s’ not spinning, that s’ the fact as recorded by our Legislative Council. Senator Barrientos:iiSenator, if I can finish my question. Senator, you can spin whatever you want into it, but the fact is that Republicans used the two-thirds rule to prevent redistricting in the State of Texas in 2001. And not only that, Senator, is it not true that the Governor, that the Attorney General didn t’ choose to call a special session or prevent the bill that the three-judge federal panel put into place, the map that was put into place? They didn t’ choose at that time to fight it, is that true or not? Senator Staples:iiWell you just said something that I said was inaccurate, so if you could break down your question, Senator, you stated that redistricting was stopped and we need to be definitive on what redistricting you were speaking of and referring to. Senator Barrientos:iiSenator, you are not an attorney, are you? Senator Staples:iiNo, sir. Senator Barrientos:iiOK, I m’ sorry, that sounded a little bit like an attorney, but anyway let me ask you, did– Senator Staples:iiLet s’ not get personal on the floor and talk ugly about me now, Senator. Senator Barrientos:iiWell, Senator, you know you can say all you want about attorneys, but when you want a good one you re’ going to go out and find the best one you can find, and you will need one before it s’ all over, believe me, on this plan. I don t’ think I am going to take any more time. I think that the news media, the people in the gallery, and the people in Texas know what is really going on here, but I thank you for your cordiality. Senator Staples:iiThank you Senator Barrientos. President:iiSenator Lucio, for what purpose do you rise? Senator Lucio:iiWill the gentleman yield? President:iiWill Senator Staples yield to Senator Lucio? Senator Staples:iiI yield for some questions. Senator Lucio:iiSenator, I find it quite amusing that you just told Senator Barrientos that this is the legislative duty that, in terms of this redistricting plan that we are working on, when, in fact, and I ll’ go back to 2001, you know, as Senator Barrientos said, the Republicans really thwarted any efforts by the Legislature at all to be able to go forward in redistricting. I remember Senator Sibley standing right there, you know, and working on killing redistricting back in 2001. My question is did you commit to Senator Sibley at that point. Were you one of the 11 back in 2001 that kept this from going forward on redistricting? Senator Staples:iiSenator Lucio, as I stated yesterday, there are several redistricting bills that were before, were issues in the 2001 legislative session. One of them happened to be Senate lines that were legislative redistricting. The congressional 4 78th Legislature — Third Called Session 8th Day-A district lines that are before us today were never passed out of committee and to my knowledge, (overlapping conservation) to my knowledge there was never an attempt to get 11 Republicans together to block a congressional redistricting bill because there was never a bill that was before us. It never made it out of committee and regard to the Senate redistricting lines as I stated yesterday, yes I was opposed to bringing that to the floor because the Senate lines that I was concerned about had not been addressed at that time. Senator Lucio:iiSo what you are telling me, that you weren t’ part of the 11 Republican Senators in 2001 that approached then Governor Ratliff, Lieutenant Governor Ratliff, stating that you were opposed for us to take up redistricting at that time. You are telling me that you did not commit in any way to Senator Sibley at that time? Senator Staples:iiSenator, I just told you in an issue of Senate redistricting– Senator Lucio:iiI know what you said, but I am just asking you outside of the committee. Senator Staples:iiAre you referring to congressional redistricting, Senate redistricting, House redistricting? Senator Lucio:iiAll three. Senator Staples:iiTo my knowledge there was only one attempt, that there was a bill before us and that was the Senate redistricting. Congressional redistricting was never reported out of committee and was not even a topic on the radar screen at that time. Senator Lucio:iiWell, you know, yesterday, I beg to differ with you. I think you all stopped redistricting. You went up to the Lieutenant Governor at that time and you said, we are not going to go forward, we ve’ got 11 votes to stop this, and that s’ fine and dandy, that s’ history, you got the votes. But I am taking issue with you scolding me and other Democrats yesterday for nixing Republicans ’earlier attempts to boost Black and Hispanic clout at the expense of Democratic Members in the U.S. House. Quite frankly, the answer to that is the reason that I believe no maps were drawn, worked on, was because we had a fair and legal plan already in place that people ran in, were elected to, you know, at the request of the people, the Texas voters. I think, we need to finish that article there, the reason those maps were not worked on is because everybody was against redistricting, and, quite frankly, there was a plan already in place, a legal plan that was kicked out of the federal courts and approved by the United States Supreme Court in place. Thank you. Senator Staples:iiThank you Senator. President:iiSenator West, for what purpose do you rise? Senator West:iiQuestion of the author. President:iiWill Senator Staples yield? Senator Staples:iiI ll’ be glad to yield for questions. Senator West:iiSenator, I want to talk about political participation. Would you agree with me that political participation, that the degree of political participation by an individual is relative, is that correct? Wednesday, September 24, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 5

Senator Staples:iiPolitical participation is relative to what? Senator West:iiRelative to the amount of power that the person has. Senator Staples:iiI guess it could be relative to how hard they work, how hard they participate in the process, what type of network they have. Senator West:iiLet me give an example:iipolitical power, yesterday Senator Wentworth had the necessary votes to split Webb County, correct? Senator Staples:iiThe motion passed. Senator West:iiSo he had political power yesterday? Senator Staples:iiIf you want to gauge it in that terms. Senator West:iiHow would you characterize it? Senator Staples:iiI would say there were sufficient votes for passage. Senator West:iiSo if there is sufficient votes to pass a particular measure, then that person has been able to effectively engage in the political process to have his or her will done. Is that correct? Senator Staples:iiOn that particular issue, Senator Wentworth was effective in persuading the requisite number of votes for passage. Senator West:iiOK, requisite number of votes for passage, and that is what this gets down to, a numbers game, does it not, in terms of political power? Senator Staples:iiThere are numbers when you put in the for and against column and you count the numbers. Senator West:iiSo if you have the numbers, everyone can participate in the political process to some degree, but it s’ all a numbers game and it really depends upon whether or not you have the numbers as to whether or not you can effectively participate in that process. Effectively being, have your will done on a particular bill, motion, or whatever the case may be, is that correct? Would you agree with me? Senator Staples:iiI would agree that you have to garner enough votes in an election, just as he had another amendment that the votes were not there. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Senator West:iiThat s’ exactly right and that is why I want to talk about political participation, because that is what Georgia v. Ashcroft talks about. Would it be a fair statement to say that the Republican Party in Congress has supported affirmative action? Senator Staples:iiYou know, Senator, I m’ not here today to talk about what happens in the United States Congress. (Senator Averitt in Chair) Senator West:iiWell that is what this is all about– Senator Staples:iiI m’ here today to talk about this plan that we passed on second reading and we are going to third reading. Senator West:iiOK, now does this plan deal with Congress? 6 78th Legislature — Third Called Session 8th Day-A

Senator Staples:iiThis plan deals with the congressional lines in the State of Texas. Senator West:iiSo you don t’ think that a fair– Senator Staples:iiIt does not deal with policy issues like some would like to believe, or led to believe. It deals strictly with lines and voters determine outcomes. Senator West:iiDoes it deal with political participation? Senator Staples:iiIn what context do you mean that, Senator? Senator West:iiIn terms of the numbers, realistically, let s’ call it what it is. The Republican Party wants more congresspersons in Washington in order to have the numbers to effectuate the policy. Isn t’ that a fair statement? Senator Staples:iiRealistically, what it is is an undoing of the most partisan gerrymander of the nation in the early 90s’ that was only modified by a three-judge panel in 2001 very minimally. It is an attempt for the legislature to vote the issue up or down in accordance with the guidelines that the constitution sets out before us. That s’ what this is about. Senator West:iiSo it s’ not about numbers? Senator Staples:iiSenator, you can say it s’ about anything. Yesterday before the debate you said it s’ about politics. Senator West:iiI meant politics, political participation, that s’ what we are talking about. That s’ the very reason I asked you from the very beginning, what is your definition of political participation? That is the very reason I am saying, and I think you agree, that it s’ about the numbers, having the necessary number of votes in order to effectuate a particular process, an example of which occurred yesterday with Senator Wentworth when he was able to successfully pass an amendment that split Webb County. It s’ politics, it s’ numbers, we agree or disagree? Senator Staples:iiI would agree that it is about a large number of things and if you want to focus on any one part of it, you can, I believe, speak– Senator West:iiI m’ talking about the overall, the overall process, what is it about? It s’ about political power, right? Senator Staples:iiThe overall process is about the very nature of our country, the very process that we are required to take up the issue, and that s’ what it is about? Senator West:iiOK, let me go back to a question again. I m’ talking about political power, political participation. Is the Republican Party supportive of affirmative action, yes or no? Senator Staples:iiYou know, Senator, I m’ here to debate this congressional map, if you want to make a political statement on it, that is your prerogative to do so. Senator West:iiSo you can t’ answer the question? Senator Staples:iiI would like you to speak for or against it. Senator West:iiYou can t’ answer the question? Senator Staples:iiI m’ not here today to speak on behalf of what a party platform is, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party– Wednesday, September 24, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 7

Senator West:iiIt s’ about political power, this whole issue is about political power. It s’ about having the numbers necessary on a national level in Congress, the House, specifically, in order to see an agenda through that s’ articulated by a political party, be it Democrat or Republican, that s’ what it is about. And Georgia v. Ashcroft, Senator, talks about political participation as part of the analysis that must be done. And I want to make sure, whether you answer the questions or not, that I, at least, ask the questions, and you can respond to them or not. One of the issues that most Hispanics and African Americans agree on is that there should be some affirmative action in this country. Would you agree or disagree with that? Senator Staples:iiI m’ not here today to discuss a policy statement in general terms for which you d’ like to make a political point on, Senator West. Senator West:iiOK, what I am trying to do, specifically, is articulate political participation in this record. Now let me just, if you did a poll on this floor, I d’ be willing to bet you that all the ethnic minority and Democrats on this floor would say that they are for affirmative action, and I think that if you did a poll on this floor that you would find that there is probably some issue concerning affirmative action as it relates to my Republican colleagues, and the whole issue is political participation. What about Head Start? What is your position on Head Start? Senator Staples:iiSenator West, I would like to discuss, there is nothing more than I would like to engage in an intellectual debate with you on the policies of our day and would love to do so, but I feel like we are here today to talk about Plan 1362 on third reading, and you are trying to extrapolate single policy issues in an attempt to bolster some type of court case, to make something be on one issue or the other when that s’ not what it s’ about. Senator West:iiYou are exactly right. That is exactly what I am doing and I make no qualms about it. That is exactly what I am doing, that is why I am trying to get the author of this bill on record in terms of what his position is and his party s’ position is as it relates to issues that are important to Democrats and ethnic minorities. Obviously, if you don t’ want to answer, you don t’ have to answer. What is the party s’ position on minimum wage? Senator Staples:iiSenator, I would be glad to talk to you about House Bill 1362, and we are here today to address congressional redistricting, and I am not advised to talk today, to talk about these issues. (overlapping conservation) Senator West:iiExcuse me, I m’ sorry, now, again, let me go back. Maybe you didn t’ understand my predicate. The predicate was that this particular map is about power. It s’ about political power, it s’ about who runs Congress. It s’ about who is able to get the necessary votes in order to effectuate policy in this country, and that s’ based on our constitution, which all of us support. But what I am asking you is, based on that policy, if, indeed, someone has been supportive of a congressperson that s’ supportive of issues that they think are important:iiaffirmative action, Head Start, minimum wage, and those persons are being removed to another congressional district and placed in a congressional district where that congressperson doesn t’ necessarily 8 78th Legislature — Third Called Session 8th Day-A support those particular issues; it s’ about political power. So the question I raise to you once again, and you don t’ have to answer it, but I am going to raise it anyway. What s’ the Republican Party s’ position on minimum wage? Staples Senator:iiI m’ not here today to debate policy issues with you, I am here to discuss redistricting matters in the context on the bill before us, and that s’ why we are here today, and all these other issues are for another time and another place. Senator West:iiSo these issues are not relevant? Senator Staples:iiThese issues are for another time and another place. Senator West:iiSo by saying that are you are saying they are not relevant? Senator Staples:iiI didn t’ say that, Senator. Senator West:iiSo are they relevant to redistricting? Senator Staples:iiI made my statement, Senator. Senator West:iiAre these issues relevant to redistricting? Senator Staples:iiI made my statement. Senator West:iiSo are these issues relevant to redistricting, yes or no? Senator Staples:iiThese are policy matters that you are trying to incorporate and weave into a redistricting bill, and I feel like that you are just attempting to make a political statement and that we need to confine our discussion to this redistricting bill. Senator West:iiSo these issues are not relevant to the redistricting process? Senator Staples:iiI made my statement. Senator West:iiIf you say they are not, I ll’ move on. Senator Staples:iiI made my statement. I think you understand. You are a very smart, intelligent man, and I think you understood me. Senator West:iiMaybe I am slow, I graduated from a public school. Senator Staples:iiYou know I did, too. Senator West:iiMaybe I just didn t’ understand. Senator Staples:iiSo we are communicating very well then. You probably actually have a lot higher education than I have actually, Senator West. You probably spent much more time on the higher education levels than I. Senator West:iiSo lets go back to the question again. Senator Staples:iiSo maybe I am at a disadvantage here. (overlapping conservation) Senator West:iiMaybe we just didn t’ understand. Let s’ communicate. Are these issues relevant to redistricting? Senator Staples:iiSenator, you are welcome to make a political statement on whatever you would like, the voters ultimately determine who is elected to office. Senator West:iiSo if the Supreme Court or a district court is looking at this, you are telling them that you believe these issues are or are not relative to redistricting, specifically the issue of political participation? Wednesday, September 24, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 9

Senator Staples:iiI believe that our attorneys and that your attorneys will have a great time on both of our behalf debating these issues before the court of jurisdiction that will make that determination, that being that the Department of Justice and subsequent courts, and I believe that this is not the forum for those decisions to be made because it is not something that we will rule on that ultimately makes the determining factor on this bill. It s’ the Department of Justice, the courts will make that decision. Senator West:iiI m’ just trying to figure out what s’ relative, what s’ relevant and probative as it relates to redistricting. I just want to, this is my understanding, and I may be understanding all this wrong, please tell me if I am understanding it wrong. You are saying political participation is important, but the issues as it relates to how your party feels about specific issues is not relevant to redistricting. Senator Staples:iiSenator, I ve’ made my statement, that record speaks for itself. You have had quite a bit of time to discover what your personal beliefs are for this, your rationale and reasons for doing what you re’ doing– Senator West:iiAnd I am trying to discover your personal beliefs. Senator Staples:iiAnd I have expressed that information to you. Senator West:iiAnd your personal beliefs are that this is not relevant. Senator Staples:iiI did not say that. Senator West:iiWhat are your personal beliefs about it then? Senator Staples:iiSenator, do you really want to continue a dialogue where– Senator West:iiYes. Senator Staples:iiWell then I would suggest that you ask to be recognized to speak on the issue and the terms that you would like to be a part of the record. (overlapping conservation) Senator West:iiBut I have been recognized for that and to ask you questions. Senator Staples:iiOK, I am happy to answer questions. I just don t’ want to be repetitive and redundant. Senator West:iiI don t’ think you are redundant but I have not got an answer yet. Senator Staples:iiI believe I keep giving you an answer. Senator West:iiAll right, let me go to another subject then. If, indeed, political participation is supposed to be or should be a part of the analysis of redistricting and persons are put into districts where the individuals consistently have voted against those special interests of the minority constituents, do you believe that their political participation has been negatively impacted? Senator Staples:iiFor the purposes of this bill, Texas Senators duly elected by the public have their voice in this process. They are having the opportunity to express their voice in this process. If the public is concerned about the voting patterns and the stance that Texas Senators have taken on this issue or any other, they will have the opportunity to give them a scorecard at the voting box by voting their will and their choice. 10 78th Legislature — Third Called Session 8th Day-A

Senator West:iiThat wasn t’ the question, though. Senator Staples:iiThat was my answer to what you said. Senator West:iiOK, well let me ask the question again and maybe I can get an answer. Senator Staples:iiThat was my answer. Senator West:iiUnder your plan, six Republican congressmen gained more Hispanics and African Americans compared to their victory of margin, for the most part, at the polls in the last election. Let me give you an example. In Representative Sessions ’ district, you placed, I think, about 1.2 percent ethnic minorities in his particular district, that s’ about 7,800 voters. His margin of victory is like 55,000, and I can t’ sit up and tell you that I know Congressman Sessions ’voting record on most issues. I know we ve’ worked together in Boys Scouts of America and all of that, but when we begin to look at his scorecard for NAACP and the National Hispanic Leadership Association, he flunks as it relates to issues that are important to those ethnic minorities. Do you believe that by placing this 1.2 percent of these 7,800 ethnic minorities into his district, that these particular voters are being disenfranchised as it relates to issues that are important to them? Senator Staples:iiI believe the issue of disenfranchisement is one that the Department of Justice will answer. I believe that the map that we passed yesterday is a legally fair and balanced map as compared to the Voting Rights Act and the various court decisions that have been handed down. Senator West:iiIn Congressman Burgess ’ district, 2.1 percent of ethnic minorities have been placed in his district, that is some 13,000 ethnic minorities. His margin of victory last time around was like 85,000. So if those ethnic minorities–that was probably because of Jane Nelson, that is what she is over there saying–but if those ethnic minorities wanted to make an impact in that particular district, would they be able to do, sir? Given that you ve’ taken 13,000 and placed in that district, would they be able to make an impact, realistic impact, on that election if the margin of victory for Dr. Burgess was 85,000 votes? Senator Staples:iiThat will be up to those individuals, Senator West. Senator West:iiSo 13,000 can overcome 85,000? Senator Staples:iiSenator West, I believe the map that we passed is a legal map. I believe it is a map that is respectful of the citizens of Texas. I believe that anytime you make a change in one district, you know and the courts know and everyone knows that it has a rippling effect throughout the rest of the state and the rest of the districts. Senator West:iiOK, but the realistically– Senator Staples:iiAnd realistically, the map before us today is a good map, one that is respectful of those interests, and I support and believe it expresses the direction that we need to go as a state and as a legislature. Senator West:iiSo if I also told you that Congressman Carter picked up 1.2 percent ethnic minorities and that number ended up being about 7,800 voters and his election margin was 67,000, your response would be the same? Wednesday, September 24, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 11

Senator Staples:iiI would suggest to you that you look at the entire set of circumstances just as I have stated. Senator West:iiOK, we re’ going to come to that in a second. If I was to tell you that congressmen, that basically most of the congresspersons that picked up ethnic minorities in their districts have a wider voting margin than the number of ethnic minorities that were placed in their district and that each and every one of them scored low on the Hispanic and African American scorecards, you would say, your response would be the same as it has been. Is that correct? Senator Staples:iiI would answer each question as you ask it, Senator West. Senator West:iiOK, again then as it relates to those particular congresspersons, if, indeed, you place ethnic minorities in their district lower than what it took in order for them to win the election and those persons ’districts that you placed them in scored low on both their NAACP and NHLA scorecards, would those individuals ’political participation rights be negatively impacted? Senator Staples:iiI think you would look at the totality of the circumstances, Senator West, and view all the changes that were made and analyze that information to formulate a conclusion about what this means for Texas. Senator West:iiOK, let s’ talk about the totality of the circumstances. When we begin to look at Congressman Carter s’ district, 1.2 percent– Senator Staples:iiCongressman who? Senaor West:iiCarter. OK, 7,819 minority voters from Milam County, you know where those individuals, who their congressperson was prior to being placed in Congressman Carter s’ district? Senator Staples:iiNot off the top of my head. Senator West:iiCongressman Edwards. You realize that 7,819 minority voters from Milam County, from Edwards, and pulls a number of rural counties from Brazos Valley that currently is in Congressional District 5, which is Robertson, Limestone, and Navarro counties, that all have significant African American populations, and by putting these into Carter they took from Edwards, that s’ Congressional District 11 and Hensarling s’ Congressional District 5, and Congressional District 5 was a tossup district before you pulled those ethnic minorities out there. Senator Staples:iiHow was it a tossup? What do you mean in terms of that? Senator West:iiWhen I say tossup, what I m’ saying is, is that it could have gone either way. It could have gone Republican or Democrat. Hensarling won last time. Senator Staples:iiWell first of all you are saying those counties came from Edwards and now you are saying those counties came from Hensarling and now you are saying it s’ a tossup, so were they making a difference in 5 or were they not? Senator West:iiAgain, now let me go back. It s’ probably a communication issue. I m’ saying that some of the new minorities are in Congressman Carter s’ district–all right?–came from Milam County and were taken from Congressman Edwards ,’ OK? 12 78th Legislature — Third Called Session 8th Day-A

Now we know that Congressman Edwards, that the margin of victory in Congressman Edwards ’district was a result of ethnic minorities. Is that correct? Did you even look at those numbers? Senator Staples:iiI m’ not going to say that that is the defining reason that that election outcome was the way it was. I think that is an incorrect statement. Senator West:iiBut that should be part of the analysis though, shouldn t’ it? Senator Staples:iiI m’ saying that the Department of Justice will examine all those issues, and rightfully so, in order to determine with compliance with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Senator West:iiIn Congressman Hensarling s’ district, Congressional District 5, I m’ saying that prior to your redistricting map, that particular district was kind of a tossup between Democrats and Republicans. That s’ what I am saying. In your map, what your map has done is taken ethnic minorities out of his district and placed them into Carter s’ district, which now makes his district more Republican, does it not? Senator Staples:iiWell your characterization of your question about District 5 being a tossup, I mean that might be your opinion of it. I don t’ think you can stand here today as an authoritative individual on that matter. I believe if you look at the voting records on Congressional District 5, there have been hotly contested races, national money poured into those races, and Republican candidates have won. Senator West:iiOh, so you know about the money being sent into these districts and which ones were hotly contested? Senator Staples:iiI live in Congressional District 5, Senator West. Senator West:iiIs that the only district you know about then? Senator Staples:iiI happen to know about that particular district. So I find it interesting that you bring that one up. Senator West:iiIs that the only district that you know about in terms of the amount of money that was spent in there and what the numbers were? Senator Staples:iiI saw the advertisements on TV at home and I ve’ observed the circumstances in that particular one. Senator West:iiBut you said it was hotly contested, right? Senator Staples:iiI believe I said there was hotly contested races, I have witnessed hotly contested races. Senator West:iiI m’ talking about C.D. 5. Senator Staples:iiThat s’ what I just said. (President in Chair) Senator West:iiOK, so did you do anything to make sure to prevent the future elections in that district from being hotly contested by Democrats? Senator Staples:iiI believe that it is still going to be a good district. One that will be– Senator West:iiMore Republican? Wednesday, September 24, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 13

Senator Staples:iiYou will have to look at the numbers and see. Senator West:iiIf the numbers show that it is more Republican, then a fair, I guess you say, conclusion from that is that you have made it more Republican, and the fact is that those ethnic minorities that have been taken out of that district can no longer launch hotly contested races against the Republican or Democrat, whatever the case may be? Senator Staples:iiI think you need to look at the totality of the circumstances to be able to evaluate that on an individual statistical analysis to be able to answer that question. Senator West:iiYou have consistently talked about totality of the circumstances to the questions that I have asked you yesterday and also today. Now you have viewed the totality of circumstances of your particular map, is that correct? Senator Staples:iiI have looked at the total map that we have passed. Senator West:iiAnd the test that you used to determine whether or not you personally believe that it passed the totality of the circumstances, I want to talk about that for a moment. Senator Staples:iiOK. Senator West:iiDid you have an opportunity to talk to lawyers concerning what the test is as it relates to the totality of the circumstances? Senator Staples:iiI have heard testimony just as you have, and I have read information just as you have, Senator West. Senator West:iiSo that the source of all of your knowledge concerning the appropriate test of what you believe the appropriate test that would be applied by the justice department comes from listening to witnesses in your readings. Senator Staples:iiI stand before you today as the bill author. I ve’ presented to you based on the information I have that it is a legally fair map. Senator West:iiAs it relates to the totality of the circumstances. What did you benchmark that against to determine whether or not your map is, in fact, sufficient to meet totality of the circumstances? Senator Staples:iiWell the benchmark is certainly Plan 1151C. Senator West:iiOK, so Plan 1151C, and again, and I am not going to go back through this again, you believe that there is an issue concerning influence and impact districts? Is that correct? Senator Staples:iiI believe I laid out yesterday very clearly– Senator West:iiClearly? Senator Staples:iiVery clearly, and communicated in terms very understandable by both of us the criteria utilized in establishing this map. If you would like me to reiterate those today, I will be more than happy to oblige you. (overlapping conservation) 14 78th Legislature — Third Called Session 8th Day-A

Senator West:iiI m’ just trying to get to the totality of the circumstances. If ethnic minorities that are protected by the Voting Rights Act are negatively impacted in total in the State of Texas, would your map fail the totality of the circumstance test that you are talking about? Did you understand the question? Senator Staples:iiI understood the question and I m’ presenting to you that the Department of Justice will be the determining factor in answering that question. Senator West:iiOK, that is fine. In terms of benchmark, if ethnic minorities protected by the Voting Rights Act have their rights negatively impacted under this particular map, then would you agree with me that the Department of Justice should not preclear this matter? Senator Staples:iiI m’ telling you that the Department of Justice will answer the question that you are asking today, and that I believe that this is respectful of this Voting Rights Act, the various court opinions that have been handed down throughout the years including recent court hearings and court decisions, and I believe that it will be a good map that can be presented to the Department of Justice for preclearance purposes. Senator West:iiWell let me ask you this way then. Senator Staples:iiOK. Senator West:iiIf ethnic minorities in the State of Texas have less advocates in Congress for their rights, for specific issues that are unique to their community as a result of your map, would you agree with me that their political participation has been negatively impacted? Senator Staples:iiI ll’ agree with you that Plan 1151C is the benchmark by which the new proposed map will be judged, and I would agree that the Department of Justice will make the decision on the issues that you raised today. Senator West:iiSo the answer to my question is what? Senator Staples:iiJust what I articulated to you, Senator West. Senator West:iiSo you would not agree with me that if those persons protected by the Voting Rights Act of the United States have as a result of redistricting, if they have less advocates in Congress for issues unique to them, you would not agree that their political participation has been negatively impacted? Senator Staples:iiI would agree that that issue will be measured in the context of the Voting Rights Act and the Department of Justice will make a determination. Senator West:iiOK, so then I guess I can ask the question, if it s’ never been your intent to devise a map that would negatively impact the number of advocates that ethnic minorities protected by the Voting Rights Act have in Congress, and those advocates being those persons that advocate rights, issues unique to them, it s’ never been your intent to diminish the number of advocates that they currently have. Wednesday, September 24, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 15

Senator Staples:iiSenator West, I know that you would like to have certain issues have a greater bearing on how to measure that than others, and I do not believe that what we say on the floor of this Texas Senate will be the determining factor. I believe the Department of Justice will use established criteria to analyze all the factors and then to formulate their opinion. Senator West:iiSo the answer to my question is, is that it s’ not your intent to reduce the number of advocates that those persons, ethnic minorities of the State of Texas, have in Congress, those advocates being the persons that advocate issues unique to that particular population. Senator Staples:iiIt has never been my intent to reduce minority voting strengths. I believe that this map complies with the legal requirements and that s’ what I m’ presenting today. Senator West:iiI m’ not talking about voting strength. I m’ talking about political participation. That s’ what I was referring to. So it s’ not your intent to negatively impact the political participation of ethnic minorities in the State of Texas, right? Senator Staples:iiSenator West, it has never been my intent to reduce minority voting strengths. Senator West:iiIs there a difference between minority voting strengths and political participation? Senator Staples:iiYou need to answer your own question there. Senator West:iiMy question was political participation, you came back political strength. I m’ trying to figure out is there a difference in your mind in terms of those. Can we use both terms synonymous? Senator Staples:iiI think you need to formulate your own opinions and I think you ve’ done a very good job expressing your opinions and I applaud you in doing so. Senator West:iiWell I m’ not asking to be applauded. I m’ really not. Senator Staples:iiBut I am. You re’ very good at what you do. Senator West:iiAnd you re’ doing a great job also. Senator Staples:iiAnd you have expressed that very well, and I think that will be a part of the record. Senator West:iiIs political participation and voting strengths being used synonymously between the two of us? Senator Staples:iiWell I think that s’ an argument that most likely the Department of Justice will hear and I look forward to what they say. This map is respectful and I believe meets the legal requirements. Senator West:iiIs there any way that when you look at totality of the circumstances under 1151 and the benchmark, can you itemize what you took into consideration in determining whether or not this particular map met that particular test? I m’ not talking about the general principles, I m’ talking about how you took those principles and operationalized them into numbers and considerations, not the principles that you went over yesterday. 16 78th Legislature — Third Called Session 8th Day-A

Senator Staples:iiWell I d’ be glad to discuss those principles again because those are the principles that were utilized in the formulation of this map and that s’ what occurred. Senator West:iiOK, so you can t’ operationalize those principles? Senator Staples:iiOperationalized, they were incorporated in every phase of this process. Senator West:iiThat s’ your answer and that s’ the one you re’ sticking with? Senator Staples:iiEnjoy visiting with you, as always, Senator West. Senator West:iiEnjoy visiting with you. At the appropriate time I ll’ be asking to be recognized to talk against this bill. President:iiSenator VanideiPutte, for what purpose do you rise? Senator VanideiPutte:iiWill the Senator yield for some questions? President:iiWill Senator Staples yield? Senator Staples:iiI yield for questions, Mr. President. President:iiThank you. Senator VanideiPutte:iiThank you Mr. President. Senator, I know that you stated yesterday that you thought that your original plan, the 1153, or 1353, was a fair and legal plan. Do you still believe that with the Wentworth amendment that we put on yesterday that this is still a legal and fair plan? Senator Staples:iiI do. Senator VanideiPutte:iiCan you tell me your rationale, why as it relates to percentage of retrogression? Senator Staples:iiI don t’ think retrogression is defined in percentage. I think retrogression is an element that s’ viewed based on the entire map that s’ presented. Senator VanideiPutte:iiDo you have any facts as to prior Department of Justice actions where they have stated what retrogression considers when they look at retrogression? As you said yesterday, you looked at communities of interest, Voting Rights Act, modifications, and retrogression. Can you tell me if there are any rulings that you know of that can substantiate your claim that this is a fair and legal map with the Wentworth amendment? Senator Staples:iiI can restate the issues that I stated in my opening remarks yesterday as far as the criteria that were utilized in drawing this map. Senator VanideiPutte:iiThat s’ the criteria– Senator Staples:iiThat criteria was developed as a result of Department of Justice actions and court decisions that have been made. Senator VanideiPutte:iiAnd to your knowledge did the map before the Senator Wentworth amendment have any retrogression of Hispanic or African American voting strength of 2 percent or more in your map without the amendment? Wednesday, September 24, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 17

Senator Staples:iiSenator, you re’ speaking of retrogression as a single-shot issue and retrogression is a concept that is applied to the entire state in the voting rights– Senator VanideiPutte:iiOK, let me ask it a different way. Are there any congressional districts under your plan, without Senator Wentworth s’ amendment, that deviated more than 2 percent from the benchmark 1151C in any congressional district? Senator Staples:iiOf what category of deviation? Senator VanideiPutte:iiHispanic voting-age population. Senator Staples:iiI have a sheet at a glance of the congressional districts that reflect a difference in the combined African American and Hispanic voting-age population. I don t’ have a sheet at a glance that is just for Hispanic voting-age population. And the one, at a glance the difference between the two plans, one, two, three, four districts had a deviation of greater than 2 percent. Senator VanideiPutte:iiMy question was not on the combined Black and Hispanic because as you said yourself what we re’ looking at, what you refer to is a 7-2-2, so there are seven Hispanic seats or seven Hispanic-opportunity seats, two African American seats, and then two which you would call either minority-opportunity districts where the combination of the two. My question is, on those seven, which no one on this floor disputes, is there any reduction of 2 percent voting-age population of Hispanic in any of those seven congressional districts between the benchmark which we have now, 1151C, and your plan without Senator Wentworth s’ amendment? Senator Staples:iiI will restate that I don t’ have those numbers compiled for that particular statistic that you could certainly go down, and you may have done that, but I will also say that the Department of Justice looks at all sorts of numbers rather than just percentages, and I don t’ think there is a defined percentage of 2 percent or 1 percent or 10 percent, and they look at a series of numbers in determining retrogression. (overlapping conservation) Senator VanideiPutte:iiWell my concern is, Senator Staples, is you made a statement that this was fair and legal as the precedent that you set out yesterday. And I believe that you thought so, but in our research on Department of Justice clearings, they have made some reference to retrogression of more than a percent in Hispanic voting-age populations to be enough to have that retrogression. And, therefore, I want to ask you a set of questions on the numbers with the Wentworth amendment because you have put in so much work into this plan, the process that we have put in, now the Third Called Special Session. If we get to Department of Justice clearing, which I know Senator West s’ amendment yesterday urged that we go straight to the D.C. court, but we have to go to DOJ, or that s’ the preference. I would hate at this point to have your efforts out of whack because of an amendment that does indeed retrogress. And I m’ going to ask you a couple of questions. Is it not true that in the current District 20 voting-age Hispanic percentage is 64.3 percent? Senator Staples:iiUnder which plan? Senator VanideiPutte:iiUnder the current 1151C, current plan. Senator Staples:iiWho is the congressman? 18 78th Legislature — Third Called Session 8th Day-A

Senator VanideiPutte:iiCongressional District 20 is Congressman Charlie Gonzalez. That is one of your seven Hispanic-opportunity districts located totally within Bexar County. Senator Staples:iiAnd what is your question on Congressman Gonzalez? Senator VanideiPutte:iiThat current Hispanic voting-age population is 64.3 percent. Is that not correct? Senator Staples:iiThe VAP under Plan 1151 is 64.3. Senator VanideiPutte:iiAnd under your new map with the Wentworth amendment what is the voting-age Hispanic percentage? Senator Staples:iiThe voting-age percentage, the Hispanic voting-age population percentage under the new plan is 62.2. Senator VanideiPutte:iiThat is correct. So the difference of 64.3, which is the current, and 62.2, which is your map with Senator Wentworth s’ amendment, leads to a retrogression of more than 2 percent, which is what I asked yesterday and I was told it is not more than 2 percent. According to our facts today that were put on the desk, the statements of last night are incorrect. It is indeed a retrogression of 2 percent. Would you not agree that these numbers are correct? Senator Staples:iiAre you saying that Hispanics will not have the ability to elect the candidate of their choice by this percentage change, Senator? Senator VanideiPutte:iiNo. I m’ asking you about the numbers. Senator Staples:iiAnd I ve’ repeated those numbers to you as they are stated in the statistical analysis as prepared by Legislative Council. Senator VanideiPutte:iiThat s’ all I want for the record is, is it a retrogression of 2 percent? (overlapping conversation) Senator Staples:iiI think this is a good example, this Congressional District 20, of why just taking a percentage is not an ultimate measure of retrogression. Senator VanideiPutte:iiWould you agree that there is a difference of 2 percent in these numbers? Senator Staples:iiI would agree that 64.3 minus 62.2 is 2.1. I would agree with you on that, Senator. Senator VanideiPutte:iiAnd last night when I asked if there was a change in Hispanic voting-age population, I was told no. The numbers today– Senator Staples:iiWhat were you saying last night? Senator VanideiPutte:iiLast night I asked Senator Wentworth if the numbers of the congressional districts had a difference of 2 percent. I was told during debate that that was not true, that it was less than that. So I want to reaffirm for today for the record that we are talking about a 2 percent retrogression in voting-age Hispanic in Congressional District 20 with the Wentworth amendment, not on your original plan which you believe to be legal and fair. But the reason I m’ asking this is that because we have found Department of Justice rulings which say if it s’ less than a percent, they Wednesday, September 24, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 19 figure that that is not a statistical increase, but a 2 percent retrogression percentage difference in voting-age Hispanic population has been ruled in different cases at DOJ to be a retrogression. And what I m’ saying is, after all your work, do you really want to blow it? Do you really want to risk it? That we get to DOJ, and because of this amendment that was put on last night, you can no longer say it s’ a fair and legal plan because it does have a retrogression of 2 percent. That s’ all I want to make sure. Senator Staples:iiI think you are coming to inaccurate legal conclusions on retrogression and in just trying to justify that a 2 percent change results in a retrogression. Senator VanideiPutte:iiWell all I m’ saying, Senator Staples, is that the Department of Justice has found that. (overlapping conservation) I know, but this body voted yesterday for that amendment and under the impression that it did not change it 2 percent, and I am correcting that for the record that it does, so that everybody on this body knows that if DOJ does not clear it because of the retrogression that in the past they have viewed as a 2 percent deviation as being a retrogression, that everybody on this body knows it and it doesn t’ come as a surprise. Senator Staples:iiAs a matter of legal record, I think we need to make clear that it is a matter of individual circumstances, and I think if you look at Department of Justice rulings, you will see that much larger changes than 2 percent have found not to be retrogressive. It all depends on the individual circumstances and how they are gazed in the entire map. Senator VanideiPutte:iiLet me turn my attention to District 28. Can you tell me under the Staples map, which has now the Wentworth amendment, what the voting-age Hispanic percentage is? Senator Staples:iiTell me whose congressional district is 28. Senator VanideiPutte:ii28 is the district that runs from– Senator Staples:iiWhat s’ the congressman, Rodriguez? Senator VanideiPutte:iiThat is Ciro Rodriguez. It runs from the border– Senator Staples:iiFormer House Member? Senator VanideiPutte:iiFormer House Member. Senator Staples:iiOK, what s’ your question on his district? Senator VanideiPutte:iiWhat is the voting-age Hispanic population under the Staples map with the Wentworth amendment? Senator Staples:iiThe voting-age population Hispanic percentage for Congressional District 28 under Plan 1362C is 69.7 percent. Senator VanideiPutte:iiAnd what is the current benchmark, 1151C? Senator Staples:ii1151C, Hispanic voting-age population is 65.7 percent. Senator VanideiPutte:iiSo that is an increase of 4 percent, with the Wentworth amendment, so we are packing more Hispanics into District 28, are we not? 20 78th Legislature — Third Called Session 8th Day-A

Senator Staples:iiIt depends on your definition of packing. You use that term very loosely there, and I don t’ know that a 4 percent change constitutes packing. Senator VanideiPutte:iiIf prior Department of Justice rulings have termed that to pack or, not to marginalize, to increase and to make those populations more compact or more packed into that those populations were in neighboring districts, they also, the Department of Justice rulings, have ruled that in cases in their barrier is not a 4 percent, but we found records in Department of Justice rulings that even a 2.8 percent increase can be considered as packing into a district. So I wanted to make sure that for the record that District 28 reflects that while Congressional District 20 has a diminishment of over a 2 percent decrease in voting-age Hispanics that District 28 has an increase of 4 percent. And those are the numbers, is that not correct, Senator Staples? Senator Staples:iiThere appears to be a 4 percent change in that particular situation, Senator VanideiPutte, but, once again, there have been many claims made throughout the dialogue of the issue of redistricting. Many of those claims, once they have reached the courthouse, have been proven to not be legally sound and the courts have dismissed those claims. Any look at a specific number and you can look at any specific change and say yes this is the mathematical calculation, but the Department of Justice looks at each one of those circumstances and then formulates that into their overall opinion. And so I think it s’ an oversimplification to try to take out one ruling in one particular set of fact circumstances that neither one of us have here on the floor of the Senate today then to apply that to another situation where we really haven t’ looked at all the fact circumstances. I believe it s’ an erroneous conclusion. Senator VanideiPutte:iiSenator Staples, I know that that is your opinion, but I wanted to point out that your statement yesterday began with no retrogression, total concurrence with Voting Rights Act which you believed your map did, and that because of Senator Wentworth s’ amendment that it is a diminishment of 2 percent in the voting-age population Hispanic in Congressional District 20, that it is an increase in District 28 of 4 percent of the voting-age population Hispanic. But let s’ turn our attention to District 23. Senator Wentworth said last night his only, only contact was someone in Bexar County. All these maps, all these congressional districts are Bexar County were to help one person. That was Congressman Bonilla. Because it would help him in his election. That was made public on the record yesterday when I asked Senator Wentworth if he had spoken to anyone in Bexar County, any citizen, any elected official, just anybody. He said no, but he did speak to one resident and that was the congressman who lives in the northwest corner of Bexar County. So let s’ take a look at Congressman Bonilla s’ District 23, which is the only person that Senator Wentworth talked to, and let s’ look at his voting-age population Hispanic. Can you tell me what the 1151C, the benchmark is for District 23 voting-age Hispanic? Senator Staples:iiOn Plan 1151C the percentage Hispanic voting-age population is 63 percent. Senator VanideiPutte:iiAnd can you tell me what that is now in your map with the Senator Wentworth amendment? Senator Staples:iiThe Plan 1362 percentage Hispanic voting-age population is 61.4. Wednesday, September 24, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 21

Senator VanideiPutte:iiSo, therefore, the reduction is 1.6. Senator Staples:iiBingo. Senator VanideiPutte:iiAnd that was the number that was given yesterday when I asked if any seats had on any of the maps that Senator Wentworth proposed, that big map but the small amendment that he had that only affected three congressional districts, I asked if there was a retrogression or a difference of 2 percent. The statement was given 1.6, so the 1.6 is only on Congressional District 23. Is that correct? Senator Staples:iiAre you suggesting that retrogression is simply measured by a change in percentage, Senator VanideiPutte? Senator VanideiPutte:iiNo, what I am saying is Department of Justice has ruled in prior decisions that less than a percent is not of a statistical value but has ruled that more than a percent is. Senator Staples:iiWell I will stand here today and say that any time that you redraw a map that some districts ’ minority percentages go up and some districts ’ minority percentages go down. No doubt in my mind when the three-judge panel made those changes in 2001, it would be inevitable that that type of thing would occur. Retrogression occurs because there s’ a dilution of minority voting strengths, and that is the factor that has to be measured not simply by a digit or a number but by the circumstances that occur that are brought before the Department of Justice, and I believe based on the criteria that I laid out yesterday that Committee Substitute to House Bill 3, Plan 1362 does not retrogress. Senator VanideiPutte:iiThank you, Senator Staples, but I wanted to ask you one more question. We ve’ got the percentages of voting-age Hispanics in Congressional District 20, 28, and 23, and all of those that you ve’ stated are exactly what Lege Council has in their numbers here, so all of those are correct. I wanted to make sure that the correct numbers were given to us this morning and put into the record. But you also said something, that the 2001 plan, which is the 1151C, is a severely gerrymandered map to the most favored of Democrats. And my question is, if it is the 1991, did you know that if it was gerrymandered in favor of Democrats, that Democrats lost five seats during the 1990s under your definition of a very severely Democratically gerrymandered map? Senator Staples:iiI was relating to you what recognized political sources characterize that gerrymandered map, and if those individuals lost in those races, it s’ because the public rejected what they were offering them in electoral process. Senator VanideiPutte:iiSo it s’ OK to let the public decide and let the voters decide if they happen to choose Republican congressmen in a Democratic district, but it s’ not OK now to allow independent voters to choose Democratic congressmen in a Republican district. Is that what you re’ saying, Senator Staples? 22 78th Legislature — Third Called Session 8th Day-A

Senator Staples:iiI m’ saying the voters will ultimately determine who their elected representative is from the districts in the congressional maps that we present. I m’ submitting that we are undoing a political partisan gerrymander of the 90s’ to what I believe is a fair and balanced map that does not create or attempt to create the same type of circumstances that were attempted to be created in the early 90s.’ Senator VanideiPutte:iiAnd I am asking, did not Republicans win five seats during the 1990s in the Congress? Senator Staples:iiI ll’ take you re’ work for it that they did. Senator VanideiPutte:iiAnd so it was OK for those voters to be independent and to choose their own congressman, correct? Senator Staples:iiThe voters choose in any map in any plan that s’ presented out to the public. Senator VanideiPutte:iiBut now we get to the 2000 decade, and we also have voters who ve’ decided, and it s’ not OK for them to decide. Senator Staples:iiIt s’ not OK for who to decide? I m’ sorry. Senator VanideiPutte:iiIn the five congressional districts that are Republican and those voters vote for Governor Perry and they vote for Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst, they voted for President Bush, they vote for their Republican State Senator and they vote for their Republican State Senator and County Commissioner, but they choose to vote for their Democratic congressional representative, and it s’ not OK for that, but it was OK in the 90s’ for five districts to change because the voters chose, but it s’ not OK now? Senator Staples:iiI m’ saying that the voters will make the choice in any given election and it ll’ be their judgment who they want to represent them in the United States Congress. Senator VanideiPutte:iiWell, Senator Staples, that s’ one thing you and I agree on, but I can tell you that with Senator Wentworth s’ amendment the only person in my county that was consulted was the congressman whose district that he added folks that he knew would be favorable to the congressman s’ election, and I applaud Senator Wentworth for telling the truth. He talked to only one person. But it is a disservice, and would you not agree, did anybody during any of the testimonies, from San Antonio, from Bexar County, ever contemplate any change in Bexar County? Senator Staples:iiI can t’ answer affirmatively one way or the other on that issue. I ll’ leave it to the San Antonio delegation. Senator VanideiPutte:iiBut to your knowledge, I know that you went to the Senate hearings, was there anybody from San Antonio that testified any which way because none of the maps affected Bexar County? Senator Staples:iiI m’ not prepared today to recount all the testimony that was taken. Senator VanideiPutte:iiWell let me tell you, Senator Staples. There was a redistricting hearing in San Antonio. It was held in the House and the opening statement by the then Chairman of the committee was that no Bexar County lines could be changed because of Voting Rights Act and because of retrogression. Wednesday, September 24, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 23

Therefore, no one testified from Bexar County on any of the maps because they were not changed. Now we come out of the Senate last night with a severe change, particularly in southwestern, southeastern, and northwestern Bexar County, and only one person has been consulted and that s’ the congressman. So I have to retract my statements. I have always said that there is one Republican congressman who has been driving this issue. Now I can say that there have been two. Thank you Senator Staples. President:iiSenator Gallegos, did you wish to speak? For what purpose do you rise? Senator Gallegos:iiWould the author yield? President:iiWould Senator Staples yield? Senator Staples:iiI yield for questions, Mr. President. Senator Gallegos:iiThank you Senator. Now, Senator Staples, what I was looking at yesterday is not what we re’ looking at today, is that correct? When we debated, we debated almost two hours at your plan but after amendments and– Senator Staples:iiHow many hours?iiHow many did you say, two or 10? Senator Gallegos:iiNo, it wasn t’ 10. I would ve’ known if it was 10. I would have gave you more breaks than I did yesterday. But the map that we debated yesterday, the other map that was up there, and I don t’ which one this is, which one is this one? Senator Staples:iiI believe that is Plan 1362, Senator Gallegos. (overlapping conservation) Senator Gallegos:iiSo let me ask you, Senator, the map that I was debating with you yesterday for almost two hours is not this one? Senator Staples:iiIt is substantially the same map with the exception of two amendments that the body placed on yesterday. Senator Gallegos:iiOK. And the amendments were Senator Wentworth ’s amendments, those that affect San Antonio area and the other one with the Smith County one. Is that correct? Senator Staples:iiThe two amendments. One was Senator Wentworth s,’ and one was mine. Senator Gallegos:iiThe Smith County one? Senator Staples:iiIt really didn t’ affect Smith County, it affected Congressional District 4 primarily, it had some multiple ripples around the surrounding districts. Senator Gallegos:iiWell I m’ talking about the specific one that had the dogleg into, was it Smith? Senator Staples:iiThere is a portion of Smith County that is in Congressional District 5, but that portion of Smith County, I believe, was unimpacted by the amendment yesterday. Senator Gallegos:iiOK. So the map that we re’ looking at now is not the map that we debated, that s’ correct. Senator Staples:iiIt is, no, that s’ really not correct– 24 78th Legislature — Third Called Session 8th Day-A

Senator Gallegos:iiNo, the one that I debated you, but it s’ not this one. Senator Staples:iiBut it is substantially the same except for those two amendments. It is by far and away, this is the map we debated yesterday. Senator Gallegos:iiI understand. But let me ask you these questions then. It s’ not the one that was up there that had your number on it. Senator Staples:iiThe one yesterday was 1353 and this is 1362. Senator Gallegos:iiOK. So they re’ different numbers. Senator Staples:iiCorrect. Senator Gallegos:iiSo if they re’ different numbers, obviously, they re’ different maps. Senator Staples:iiWell the characteristics of the previous map are embodied in this map today though, Senator. Senator Gallegos:iiBut it s’ not the map that I was debating you on. Senator Staples:iiIt is not exactly the same. Senator Gallegos:iiOK. Senator Staples:iiBut it is exactly the same as we debated yesterday and what amendments were incorporated into this map. Senator Gallegos:iiAll right. Let me ask you. Since this is the first time I see the amended version on paper on my desk, then other than the questions that have already been asked of you, can you tell me, OK, let s’ look at Senator Wentworth s’ amendments. They look like, this one that deals with south San Antonio, it looks like a hanging chad coming from south San Antonio and going around grabbing, like a chad to grab another area. Correct me if I m’ wrong. That s’ what it looks like. (overlapping conservation) And this other hanging chad that you got going in, now it looks like an arrow here on this one, but it still looks like a hanging chad to me. Senator Staples:iiI would suggest it is a much more aesthetic picture than the unconstitutional districts that were passed in 1991 that looked like a culture in a petri dish. Senator Gallegos:iiAesthetic. (overlapping conservation) I would expect that type of vocabulary from Dr. Janek, but not on a redistricting map, unless there was surgery done on this. Senator Staples:iiWell debating Senator West has enlightened my vocabulary and has expanded my horizons, Senator Gallegos. Certainly my association with Dr. Janek is benefitted me as well. Senator Gallegos:iiSince you bring Senator West s’ debate up with you, and I m’ glad you did because that was where I was going to next. Now you keep referring, obviously, it s’ not the same map that we debated. You ve’ got a complete hanging chad grabbing, it looks like the throat of San Antonio around on that amendment, the Wentworth amendment does. And where he got that, I have no idea where he got that. And then the same with the hanging chad up around the area of Smith County, let s’ just say that, around that area, for lack of a better word. Like I said, I m’ looking at this Wednesday, September 24, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 25 first time. Did our lawyers scrub this for any Department of Justice violations, and Section 2, Section 5, who s’ moved in, who s’ moved out, who s’ pushed in, who s’ pushed out, voting patterns? Understand, I m’ looking at this for the first time since we started awhile ago. Have they gone through all the steps, all the possible Department of Justice violations, all the standard operating procedures that you go through? Senator Staples:iiAre you saying that you didn t’ look at it last night? It s’ the same document that was incorporated from his amendment, Senator. Senator Gallegos:iiIf I m’ going to go through a process, and understand I m’ not a lawyer, if I m’ going to go through a process on looking at voting patterns, Department of Justice violations, the possible violations, who lives there, what, on the standard operating procedures, Senator, under a redistricting process, communities of interest, which usually takes a little time for me, I d’ like to go in there and have at least a hearing to let those people–hey, all of a sudden lightning struck Senator Wentworth and he s’ come up with an amendment, and, lord behold, these people have new districts over there. I don t’ know, I m’ talking about me personally as Vice-chair of the Jurisprudence Committee, don t’ know if any of those people had, number one, any say about these districts, number two, if it splits up communities of interest, any economic impact, any counties that are divided, any precincts that are split up, all part of the process in a redistricting process both in drawing a map and in litigation. You asked me if I looked at it. Yeah, I looked at it, but unless you re’ a mathematics scholar and know everything about redistricting, even if you are, it s’ going to take you a few hours. I would say at least 24 to dot all the i s’ and cross all the t s’ to my satisfaction that I can at least present this map, this new map that was amended yesterday to the Senate floor and tell them in all honesty and all fairness that this a fair map, going through all of what I just stated, Senator. That this a fair map for Texas because Senator Wentworth all of a sudden had it in his mind to do an amendment and follow those procedures that I just told you that s’ part of the redistricting process. You and I know that because we heard part of that in testimony. Now that s’ what I m’ saying. Are you saying right now everything that I ve’ asked you, that this is a fair map to put in place before this Senate body, saying that each amendment, that those people had input into Senator Wentworth s’ amendment, into your amendment? Maybe into yours, I think you pointed that out, but I m’ talking about whatever Senator Wentworth did to San Antonio, did those people, those Texans, have a chance at input on his amendments yesterday? Senator Staples:iiI think you heard the testimony as well as I did, and the record speaks for itself. Senator Gallegos:iiYou re’ not answering my question. Just like you didn t’ answer a lot of my questions yesterday, Senator. Did those people of San Antonio and these regions that are covered by this map that you re’ presenting before this body have input on the issues that I stated to you that are part of the redistricting process, you as the author of this map? Senator Staples:iiThe record speaks for itself. Yes, Senator Gallegos. 26 78th Legislature — Third Called Session 8th Day-A

Senator Gallegos:iiObviously you re’ not answering my questions. I would answer yours if you ask in the same fashion. You sit on the redistricting committee just like I do. You are not answering my questions. I asked you a question that deals nothing but redistricting. That s’ what this issue is on this floor. You are not answering my questions. Senator, since you brought up Senator West, in your debate on the drawing of these maps you keep referring to totality of circumstances in the way you drew these maps. And if you have said you use totality of circumstances when drawing your map, well then let s’ look at it, if you re’ using that in reference in your debates with Senator West, not me. I m’ asking, number one, how do you define totality of circumstances that you use, not me or Senator West, in drawing these maps can you define in a redistricting process totality of circumstances to me? Senator Staples:iiMy definition is that the Department of Justice looks at the entire set of circumstances, all of the changes that were made, the entire record that is brought before them, the arguments that are made by those in favor of the process, and means everything, look at everything. Senator Gallegos:iiLet me ask you this. Is race considered? Senator Staples:iiIs what considered? Senator Gallegos:iiI said race. Is race considered? Senator Staples:iiOh, OK, I didn t’ understand you, I m’ sorry. The entire set of circumstances, ethnicity, changes that are made in a variety of statistical analyses, the record that we ve’ had, the criteria that we used, all of the things, the Department of Justice looks at. Senator Gallegos:iiOK. So you re’ saying yes to race and ethnicity. Senator Staples:iiI m’ saying that race is, of course, considered, Senator. Senator Gallegos:iiSo the answer is yes. You said of course. Does that mean yes? (overlapping conservation) Senator Staples:iiSenator, I said the answer to your question. I don t’ want to be argumentative with you. Senator Gallegos:iiI m’ just asking for a yes or no. That s’ plain and simple. Senator Staples:iiAnd if you ll’ allow me to respond in the way that I choose, I ll’ allow you to ask your questions in the manner that you choose. Senataor Gallegos:iiWhat part of yes or what part of no do you understand? That s’ easy. Senator Staples:iiI understand it all, Senator. (overlapping conservation) I m’ telling you that I ll’ respond in the manner of my choosing, and you can ask the questions in the manner of your choosing. Senator Gallegos:iiBut you re’ drawing this map. Senator Staples:iiThat s’ exactly right. Wednesday, September 24, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 27

Senator Gallegos:iiIt s’ important to Texans. And if I or any of the Members on this Senate floor ask you for at least a yes or no answer, you as the author should, at least, give the citizens of Texas a yes or no answer. All I m’ asking is yes or no. Senator Staples:iiAnd I believe that I am answering fairly and properly to your questions, and I ll’ allow you to ask your questions in the manner that you choose, and I d’ appreciate it if you d’ allow me the courtesy of answering the questions in the manner that I choose. If you re’ dissatisfied with a question, Senator Gallegos, ask someone else. Senator Gallegos:iiWell, Senator, with all due respect, I don t’ think that a yes answer or a no answer is disrespectful into asking you. I ve’ heard a lot of yeses and noes on this floor, and that s’ all I ask. With all due respect to you as the author of this bill, all I m’ asking is a yes or no to the citizens of Texas on this map that we re’ fixing to vote on. That s’ all I ask for. I don t’ think that s’ disrespectful at all. If I am, then you need to tell me, and I ll’ apologize to you. Senator Staples:iiSenator, I m’ here and available to answer your questions, and I ll’ let you be the judge on whether these questions are satisfactory to you or not. Senator Gallegos:iiSenator, let me ask you on totality of circumstances that you keep using, was voting patterns a part of the process that you used in drawing this map? Senator Staples:iiI want to restate the eight criteria if you d’ like, and I believe that will encapsulate the entire set of criteria that I used in drawing this map. Senator Gallegos:iiI don t’ need to. I just asked for voting records. Is it part of it? Yes or no? Senator Staples:iiI will tell you that the criteria that I utilized in my opening remarks are the criteria that I utilized. Senator Gallegos:iiI don t’ know if that s’ a yes or a no, but let s’ say if I said voting patterns and you don t’ want to answer voting patterns, would that be included? If you don t’ want to answer that, let me rephrase the question. Would that be included in your referral to Senator West and this body in drawing this map, your, under the definition of totality of circumstances that you keep coming up with, yes or no? Senator Staples:iiWell I think you would like a yes or no answer but I believe the question deserves a slightly– Senator Gallegos:iiI m’ not asking for me, I m’ asking for these people in San Antonio, the other folks. I m’ talking about Texans that would probably want a yes or no answer. Not me, Senator, I m’ just asking for them. I just happen to be a voice on the floor asking for them. We heard some of those questions asked of us in committee. I m’ just asking for them on this floor now that other Senators didn t’ have the privilege to sit in our committee. I m’ just asking for them, not for me. I m’ just the messenger. I m’ just asking for them, and I think the citizens of Texas, those that are going to be affected by this map, deserve a yes or no answer from the author of this map. Senator Staples:iiWould you like me answer now? Senator Gallegos:iiYes. 28 78th Legislature — Third Called Session 8th Day-A

Senator Staples:iiWould you be offended if I don t’ give you a yes or no answer? Senator Gallegos:iiNo. Senator Staples:iiThank you. Voting patterns are something that can be looked at by various individuals. Voting patterns are a part of the totality of the circumstances to the extent that people choose to consider voting patterns and analyzing redistricting in congressional districts. Senator Gallegos:iiSenator, if, OK, I m’ trying to rephrase my question so maybe I can get at least, you know, a maybe, or a somewhat, or it could be– Senator Staples:iiI m’ going to use maybe and we ll’ just go maybe. Next question. Senator Gallegos:iiOK. The, well after all the questions that I ve’ asked you, then just, you know, if you didn t’ give me a yes or no on race or ethnicity or voting patterns or other criteria, then just, can you, for this map and the Senators on this floor and the people that are listening on the Internet and for the citizens of Texas that are fixing to have a new congressional map, can you define, since you referred in your debate with Senator West, that you ve’ been drawing these maps under the guise of totality of circumstances, can you define that for the citizens of Texas? Senator Staples:iiYes. Senator Gallegos:iiWell can you tell us? Can you fill us in? Senator Staples:iiMaybe. Senator Gallegos:iiSo, obviously, totality of circumstances is, then let me rephrase that question, is what you think and nobody else since you re’ the author of this bill. Senator Staples:iiMaybe. Senator Gallegos:iiAll right, Senator. Thank you Senator Staples. Senator Staples:iiThank you Senator Gallegos. (Senator Janek in Chair) Presiding Officer:iiMembers, question occurs on final passage of Committee Substitute to House Bill 3. Would anyone like to speak for or against? Senator Zaffirini, for what purpose? Senator Zaffirini:iiMr. President, to ask questions of the author. I was just trying to get this mike on. Where d’ he go? Presiding Officer:iiSenator Staples, will you yield for a question? Senator Staples:iiI yield for questions. Presiding Officer:iiGentlemen yields, Senator Zaffirini. Senator Zaffirini:iiSenator Staples, I apologize for surprising you. I had just stepped away to make sure that under the new interpretation of the rules we were still allowed to both ask questions and then speak for or against the bill later. And I have been assured by the parliamentarian that we can do both, it will not be counted as speaking necessarily twice or more regarding the bill at this point. So we can ask questions and speak against in case anybody else was wondering. Wednesday, September 24, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 29

Senator Staples:i Certainly. Senator Zaffirini:iiSenator Staples, yesterday when you and I talked about your plan before it was amended, we talked about what counties specifically and the fact that you believed that it should be united. Senator Staples:iiI restated that the testimony that we received in Webb County and Laredo hearing was strongly in favor of a whole Webb County, that you have been a strong advocate for a whole Webb County, and that in formulating the map that I brought to the floor I made changes to the previous map which had a split Webb County, and brought it to the floor as a whole Webb County. Senator Zaffirini:iiAnd then the amendment divides Webb County and also changes other counties. Counties such as Frio, for example, and others that had not been changed before. Do you recall, Senator, that the testimony that favored keeping Webb County whole also favored honoring the historical configuration of the counties in the border districts and the communities of interest? Senator Staples:iiI don t’ recall the exact rationale about the historical configurations, but I do distinctly remember that the desire was to maintain it as a whole county. Senator Zaffirini:iiAnd you remember my concern that to change that in any way would violate the communities of interest and the historical configurations. Senator Staples:iiYou expressed multiple concerns, I think, very well. Did a good job articulating those matters. Senator Zaffirini:iiThank you Senator. And yesterday you said that you stepped away and called Congressman Bonilla and that he said it was his preference to keep Webb County whole? Senator Staples:iiYes he did, his clear preference. Senator Zaffirini:iiAnd he stated that yesterday? Senator Staples:iiYes. Senator Zaffirini:iiThat Congressman Bonilla prefers to keep Webb County whole? Senator Staples:iiYes. Senator Zaffirini:iiI m’ sure the people of Webb County will be happy to hear that, especially since he was just elected Mr. South Texas, an honor that will be celebrated and bestowed on him in February. So I know that some of the people who voted for him to receive that honor would have been mighty chagrined to hear that he wanted Webb County divided. So I m’ glad that he told you yesterday that his preference was to keep Webb County whole. Senator Staples:iiThat s’ correct. Senator Zaffirini:iiSenator Staples, the map that we have before us today reflects two amendments. Your minor amendment, I believe you said it was minor. Senator Staples:iiYeah, I believe it to be a minor amendment. Senator Zaffirini:iiAll right, and Senator Wentworth s’ amendment. Senator Staples:iiThat s’ correct. 30 78th Legislature — Third Called Session 8th Day-A

Senator Zaffirini:iiIn working in and fitting in Senator Wentworth s’ amendment, were any other districts affected? Senator Staples:iiI believe just the districts that were stated on that particular map, it was a partial maps. Senator Zaffirini:iiNo other changes. Senator Staples:iiThose two are the only changes, those two amendments that were adopted. Senator Zaffirini:iiOK, Senator Staples, if you look at your map, I believe you have a copy in front of you. Senator Staples:iiYes I do, behind me. Senator Zaffirini:iiSenator Gallegos looked at Bexar County and referred to it as a hanging chad, in terms of the yellow part of it, Senator, I mean Congressman Rodriguez .’ I look at Bexar County and it looks more to me from the female perspective like varicose veins. And I wondered how in the world we could justify, or anyone could justify, dividing Bexar County in such a configuration. If you look at District 28, which is Congressman Rodriguez ’district, look at how he goes from, it looks like, on this map, it looks like northeast Bexar County all the way around to include south Bexar County and then going up almost into northwest Bexar County. And do you see what that does to the other districts? Senator Staples:iiYes, I see the configuration there. Senator Zaffirini:iiIs there any rationale for that that you know of? Senator Staples:iiWell that was Senator Wentworth s’ amendment, so, I ll,’ he was evidently involved in the construction of it rather than I, and so I just have to defer to him on– Senator Zaffirini:iiBut you know, my question is, do you know of any rationale? Senator Staples:iiI have not been apprised of the specific rationale other than what I heard on the floor yesterday. Senator Zaffirini:iiSo the answer is no, you do not know of any rationale. Senator Staples:iiNot other than what I heard yesterday. Senator Zaffirini:iiGeorgia v. Ashcroft recognized that, "spreading out minority voters over a greater number of districts in which minority voters may have the opportunity to elect the candidate of choice has the potential to increase substantive representation in more districts by creating coalitions of voters who together will help to achieve the electoral aspirations of the minority group." That is what the current map does. The current map that is in effect today. We believe that what the new Senate map does is to concentrate minority voters into fewer districts by eliminating the districts in which minority voters have been able to form specifically that kind of coalitions. And the Senate map therefore, to quote Georgia v. Ashcroft, "risks isolating minority voters from the rest of the state and risks narrowing their political influence to only a fraction of the political districts." Would you agree that that is accurate quoting of Georgia v. Ashcroft and does that concern you at all, Senator? Wednesday, September 24, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 31

Senator Staples:iiI couldn t’ attest to the accuracy of the statement that you made on Georgia v. Ashcroft, but I can also not say that it s’ not. I won t’ have to take your word for that because I don t’ have that information in front of me. In my line of questioning with Senator Wentworth the combined change was .3 percent and the change appeared to be so minimal that I left it to the will of the body in making the determination on acceptance or rejectance of his amendment. Senator Zaffirini:iiWell we disagree on that point and I will address that later rather than ask you questions about it at this point because I certainly don t’ want to be repetitive. But I will raise those questions. Senator VanideiPutte and Senator Gallegos raised many of the questions that I had planned to ask so I appreciate their raising those questions, allowing me time instead to talk against the bill at the appropriate time. But I certainly do want to thank you, Senator Staples, for your hard work. I must say that I was surprised when you voted for the amendment yesterday. As you know I had expected you to vote against the amendment. When we talked earlier on the floor, I had asked specifically about whether you had the intention of offering a motion for instructing the conferees at the time that we appoint them to support the Senate map. At the time I was interested in that, quite frankly, simply in terms of the Duncan-Craddick fight, but at this point in time I hope that you do not plan to offer such a motion, because I feel even more strongly against this map than I do the one that came out of the committee. I had been impressed that you listened to the people of Laredo and had amended your own map in committee to unite Webb County in the final plan in comparison to dividing it as you initially had, and I appreciated that and mentioned that to you. Especially after I had asked you to do it at least 10 times. Senator Staples:iiYou had, repeatedly. Senator Zaffirini:iiAnd here we are back at square one. But, again, in order to help Senator Duncan resolve his controversy I had asked and was interested in supporting a motion to instruct the conferees. At this point in time I could not support such a motion. And I would argue against it at that time and I only wanted fair warning regarding that point. Thank you, Senator Staples, and at the appropriate time I will ask to be recognized to speak against passage of this bill. Senator Staples:iiThank you Senator Zaffirini. Presiding Officer:iiSenator Wentworth, for what purpose? Senator Wentworth:iiQuestions of the author of the bill. Presiding Officer:iiSenator Staples, do you yield? Senator Staples:iiI yield for a question, Mr. President. Senator Wentworth:iiSenator Staples, I ve’ just handed you a Legislative Council comparison of these congressional districts and I ll’ just ask you a couple of questions. On the combined voting-age population of Blacks and Hispanics in Congressman Bonilla s’ district, in District 23, does that not reflect .3 percent difference between the existing maps now and the one that we adopted last night? Senator Staples:iiYes. 32 78th Legislature — Third Called Session 8th Day-A

Senator Wentworth:iiAnd on Congressman Gonzalez ’district, the same criteria, isn t’ it only .8 percent change between the current lines and the one that we adopted last night? Senator Staples:iiThat appears to be what the map shows. Senator Wentworth:iiAnd Congressman Ciro Rodriguez ’district, District 28, shows a .5 percent, five-tenths of one percent change. Senator Staples:iiThat s’ what the map shows here, .5 percent. Senator Wentworth:iiLegislative Council lawyers have indicated to me that this is a "minimal change." Lawyers to the committee have indicated to me that this is a low percentage risk change. This is not a major change at all and I just wanted to make the record clear in that regard. Thank you Senator. Senator Staples:iiThank you Senator. Presiding Officer:iiMembers, the question is on passage to final reading of Committee Substitute House Bill 3. Are there any other discussion from the Members? Anyone like to speak for or against? Senator Shapleigh, for what purpose? Senator Shapleigh:iiAt the appropriate time I would like to be recognized to speak against the bill. Presiding Officer:iiSenator Shapleigh is recognized to speak against the bill. Senator Shapleigh:iiThank you Mr. President. Senator Staples, I am glad that you have brought up the reason and basis for which this bill apparently in your mind is being passed. Yesterday in your opening statement, you told the Texas Senate that this is being passed because courts are telling us that it s’ our duty in the legislature to pass redistricting bills. Everyone on this floor knows it s’ not about the courts. It s’ about Tom DeLay. When you brought up our time in New Mexico, I d’ like to share with you what the Governor in New Mexico told us about redistricting. In New Mexico they have a Democratic Governor, Democratic Senate, Democratic House, they could do exactly what we re’ doing here in Texas today. They could take and alter, take a court-ordered bill and a redistricting bill that they had in New Mexico that drew lines on which every congressman in New Mexico ran and they could change it in the legislature in New Mexico this year. Here s’ what their Governor told us. We re’ not going to do that. That s’ not a priority in the State of New Mexico. We ve’ got kids to educate, we ve’ got other business and redistricting is a highly partisan initiative. And the other thing he said, what would that do in this great country of ours, if we have perpetual redistricting every year all across the country and never know where these lines exist? And he said, we are not going to do this in the State of New Mexico this year. You know what, that sounds almost word for word what we were told in 2001, that redistricting was not a priority, not something we wanted to get into, and nothing we needed to do. It s’ almost word for word what we were told by our Presiding Officer in December, in January, when he came to our caucus and told us redistricting is not a priority, we need to balance the budget in the State of Texas and we need to do school finance because those are the priorities in the State of Texas. We heard that in February. Redistricting is a contagious flu. Let s’ not do it. Texas doesn t’ need to do it. Texas has other important priorities. Let s’ come together and make decisions in a Wednesday, September 24, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 33 bipartisan manner that benefit all of Texas. Redistricting is not a priority. We heard it in March once again, and it wasn t’ until Tom DeLay began to appear on the scene that we heard that language begin to change. It was when DeLay went to his old friend in the House and convinced him, let s’ do this, you re’ now the first Speaker in 130 years since Reconstruction, let s’ have a redistricting bill start in the House and come over, and was so zealously after power that he was willing to send Homeland Security, not once, but twice, to find House Members that had gone to Ardmore to break a quorum. And our story in the Senate began to change in June when we sat in that room in our caucus and were told that a new session would start in an hour and we would not have the 21-vote rule, and good luck in what s’ going to happen at 3:15, when we decided to break quorum to preserve the traditions of this Senate and a hundred-year-old rule and do what makes this body unique. When Bill Ratliff rose on this Senate floor over his stellar career to talk about the 21-vote rule, what he has told us time and time again is that is what makes the Senate different, that is what makes Texas different. It s’ not George Bush saying, let s’ be uniters not dividers, it s’ not whatever happens in the House, it s’ having a rule here on the Senate floor that means, Senator Janek, I ve’ got to walk across the aisle to talk to you about health care, and that you on your side have to come to talk to us about education and issues that are important to you. In the history of this body, crossing that aisle to talk to each other, to share concerns about the 22 million Texans that we represent is what makes this body unique. And it s’ that 21-vote rule that made this Presiding Officer the Top 10 Legislator of the Year, when he had the independence to say, let s’ do this for Texas, not for Tom DeLay. When we were up in New Mexico, we got to go to Colorado, several of us, and talk to the legislators up there, and here s’ the story they told in Colorado. Last three days of their session, never heard about a redistricting bill, last day of the session in the Senate there shows up on the Senate floor a Kinko s’ bill. Their redistricting bill had not gone through their legislative council process. No one had ever seen the bill, it shows up on the floor with a bill from Kinko s’ and their majority leader grabs it and puts it on and says, we re’ going to take up and consider this bill in Colorado. In Colorado they have a rule that requires that their bill be read on the floor, much like the rule we have here in this Texas Senate. And in Colorado when Democrats got up to ask, can we simply have this bill read, the bill was torn into 14 pieces and read at one time. That s’ what happened in Colorado to constitutional rules there. And this is what is happening in Texas to constitutional rules here. What is happening is unique in American history. Senator Staples was asked by Senator Barrientos, isn t’ this the first time in American history that there has been a mid decade re-redistricting anywhere in this great country. And he said, wait a minute, no, they tried to do it up in New Mexico, a couple of Democrats got together and tried to get a bill together. Members of the Senate, did they spend 200 days in New Mexico? Did they have a threat to go to four sessions? Did they have over $25 million bill at the end of this process in New Mexico? Was it national press about what they were trying to do? No, it stopped in New Mexico because you had a Governor there who made the right call for the people of New Mexico, which is, this is not a priority. We have a bill, we ve’ done redistricting, we have lines, congressmen have run and been elected and we have a contract with the voters, we have a contract with the people of New Mexico to be honest about this process. And we got back to Texas and started this process, Regular 34 78th Legislature — Third Called Session 8th Day-A

Session, First Special Session, the Second going to Albuquerque, coming back 45 days later, and coming back here. Who loses in Texas is democracy. When a majority is willing to go up to the Presiding Officer and time after time change rules just to win, then democracy loses. We ve’ seen it in Colorado, we ve’ seen it on this Texas Senate floor, and that is who the loser in Texas is today. Democracy loses. What is at stake here? Senator Ellis, you ve’ talked about it. What this is about fundamentally is power, not power here, power in D.C.iiBy doing what they are doing in Texas today, five to seven white Anglo congressmen will lose their seats, congressmen that have been voted over and over and over again by the people of their districts, in Waco, in San Angelo, in Abilene. Lines will be drawn, not by this body, but essentially by Tom DeLay, so that he can appoint congressmen, so at the end of this process five to seven come out of Texas, one comes out of Colorado, and up to a total of a dozen get added in Congress to Tom DeLay s’ roster, and to establish the next-decade Republican power in D.C. That s’ what this is about. When I was asked in my district, what is this in Texas, what is it that we re’ doing that s’ so important that we have to spend $25 million and leave the state and come back. I said simply, what we re’ doing is democracy. And what I explained in Spanish is, lo que esta´n haciendo es un coup de e´tat, sin balas, sin sangre, pero con las plumas y palabras le esta´n quitando los derechos de la gente. That s’ what s’ happening in the State of Texas today. And the question we need to ask, Senator Duncan, is are we a better state for it? This is not about Midland, it s’ not about, as you said, Texas. It s’ about power, the raw, naked grab for power. Let s’ ask ourselves the question that Reagan used to ask, are we better off tomorrow than we are today, for what we re’ having done on this Texas Senate floor? Is the Presiding Officer better off for having lost that sheen of independence that he brought to this body, where he led us, all 31 of us, to a solution on school finance, and lost that independence because, instead of looking out for Texas and the people of Texas, now it s’ about D.C. and some need for power in the Republican Party there? Are we better off as a body, now having a 21-vote rule that now means not 21 votes but whether you lack the 21 votes you need because tomorrow you re’ going to change the rule? It s’ no longer a 21-vote rule, it s’ if you don t’ have 21 votes you ll’ change the rule to make it 16. That s’ what the 21-vote rule means today. Is this Senate going to be the same place on school finance when we sit and try and resolve those issues for 21 million Texans and have to resolve the very significant issues on the board and property-poor districts, and the real tax issues in your district, Senator Brimer? Are we going to go to 16 votes for that because it s’ convenient? Is that what happens to the rules in the Texas Senate in the future? Is that what our democracy s’ about now? Have we become a nation of whims and left the long-time notion in our country that we re’ a nation of laws? And are we better off as a people in this state? Are we better off at the end of this process, Senator Wentworth, for having done what we ve’ done since January to September of this year? I submit to you that when 90 percent of those Texans came to those hearings that you went to and said, we don t’ need to do redistricting, they were right. And I would submit to you that Texas is not better off for having done what we ve’ done on redistricting in this session. Thank you. Presiding Officer:iiChair recognizes Senator Ellis to speak against the bill. Wednesday, September 24, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 35

Senator Ellis:iiThank you Mr. President. How did you guess I was going to speak against the bill? Senator Shapleigh, you probably have said everything that I care to say so I won t’ be long. I ll’ just make a few points. I was here in the Senate, not as a Member but as an employee, when a group of Democrats who were very angry because the leadership decided to change that 21-vote tradition and walk out of this body. And I remember very clearly being in Governor Hobby s’ office–I was just a legislative intern although I tried to act like I was more than that–and whenever discussions about what would be done when it ended. Bill Hobby was a very gifted leader, not someone who was very long-winded when it was time to speak but commanded to respect in this body and had a tremendous appreciation for what this body stands for. And I raise that issue to make a point to you. Why is it that historically the Texas Senate has been perceived as what we call one of the greatest deliberative bodies in the country? Is it because this body had the good fortune of having Bill Hobby to lead it, Bob Bullock or Rick Perry or Bill Ratliff or David Dewhurst? Was it because this body had great intellectual minds and orators like Eliot Shapleigh and Robert Duncan and Senator VanideiPutte or others before them? I say not. The reason that this body has commanded respect over the years has not been because the Presiding Officers were so great or any one of the 31 egos on this floor have been so great. It has been because of that tradition, Eliot Shapleigh, that you made reference to, of the two-thirds rule. Now where did it come from? I had a little time to do a lot of reflecting, some research, listen to a lot of people. I think it was Frank Madla who a couple of times in our little private caucuses would talk eloquently about the tradition of that two-thirds rule. Let me tell you my sense of where it came from. It s’ patterned after the 60 percent closure rule in the United States Senate. The 60 percent closure rule in the United States Senate is what conservative Democrats and conservative Republicans used over the years to keep things like civil rights from getting on the front burner. That 60 percent closure rule in the United States Senate is the same rule that now progressive Democrats use to keep right-wing judges from being confirmed to the federal judiciary. That 60 percent closure rule is also what Republicans used to keep Bill Clements ’judicial appointees from being confirmed. And make this interesting analogy, even with all of the partisan rancor that goes on in Washington, D.C., the United States Senate for some reason is a bit more genteel and bipartisan than the United States House of Representatives. I think our two-thirds rule came out of that great tradition. That two-thirds rule was developed over a century ago because of that tradition in the United States Senate of taking a 60 percent vote to cut off closure. That two-thirds rule was used to keep a hate crimes bill from getting up on the floor of this Senate for a decade. And although I resented it, in a lot of ways, Robert Duncan, the argument could be made that that issue didn t’ get up until its time was ripe. Maybe it was right for me and some of us on this floor a little earlier, maybe we were ahead of our times, maybe we were too far ahead. But it has been that tradition of having a super majority patterned after the very same tradition from the United States Senate that has forced all of us to walk across the other side of the aisle. There ve’ been times I have committed to vote to bring somebody s’ bill up and prayed to God that sucker wouldn t’ get up on the floor of this Senate. There ve’ been times when I ve’ voted to bring it up and wondered would I look foolish if I filibustered the bill when it got up. I say to you, colleagues, it will be a long time 36 78th Legislature — Third Called Session 8th Day-A before that genie gets back in the bottle. We started a new tradition. The tradition now in the Texas Senate is you can have a two-thirds rule as long as I get my 21 votes. That s’ essentially what this boils down to. You can take the position, well we just won t’ have a two-thirds rule if it s’ a special session and it deals with redistricting. What it amounts to is if he or she who is in control cannot get their 21 votes, you get rid of the two-thirds rule. I may be on probation, but I want to stress in the strongest terms I can think of, civility in this body is on probation and that s’ a great loss. I ask you a couple of questions. I didn t’ want to take up the time of this body, I think Todd Staples did the best he could in a very difficult situation so I didn t’ want to stand up and ask him questions. There were those who had to ask questions to make a record because the issue will end up being resolved in the courtroom at some point. Are we really a better body, are we more respected today because we went through mid term redistricting? OK, the bill is going to pass in Texas, everybody knows that. It will go to the courthouse. Robert, with all due respect, at some point either you going to get run over or you going to figure how to run over the other side. But it s’ going to get out of here. And then it ll’ go to courthouse and we ll’ see what happens. But I ask you, is it what we want this body to be remembered for? It is, as Senator Shapleigh was eluding to, a 12-vote margin that determines who controls the United States House of Representatives. That s’ what this is about. Look, you all are good people. My Republican colleagues, even the Presiding Officer didn t’ want to do this. Regardless of what you say now, many of you in print said you didn t’ want to do it. Who would? I understand the pressure that you had on you. If the shoe had been on the other foot, if Democrats had control of the United States Congress and they figured, make my day, give me a padded margin, do whatever you have to do, I would hope that I d’ have the strength of my conviction to not bend. But it s’ hard to do that, I understand that. You got calls from them, used to be times that we d’ be proud to say a Member of Congress called us. I bet now you hope they forget your phone number. You hope they don t’ think of something else that they want. Both parties spent well over $20 million going after six seats in the United States Congress for the last election. It was a six-seat margin. Republicans won all those seats, so the margin is now twelve. Look what they have in Washington, that s’ the zero-sum game in the United States House of Representatives. Either you have power or you don t.’ You go to funerals and you read proclamations, you give nice speeches, you raise hell about everything that goes on, or you re’ totally in charge. For whatever reason the founding fathers over 100 years ago decided, for this body we wouldn t’ do that. It wasn t’ easy for any of us to make that decision to break quorum and go to Albuquerque. Look, I haven t’ been a hothead all my life, Teel. And don t’ think because we Democrats are in the minority now, we just can t’ adjust to being in the minority. Hell, I been in the minority all my life, it ain t’ been so bad. It s’ been pretty good. You can be in the minority in this body and even wake up one day and somebody s’ named you Chairman, Teel, of a powerful Senate Finance Committee. Be a minority in a minority party, happen to be African American and somewhat progressive occasionally, and end up even chairing the Finance Committee. It wasn t’ easy to do that. We put a lot on the line. I hope regardless of how you feel about us personally, you have some appreciation for the risk we took. Madla, Lucio, even John Whitmire chair committees. VanideiPutte and West chair subcommittees. But every Wednesday, September 24, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 37 once in a while you ve’ got to believe in something and you got to feel strongly enough about something, you put everything on the line to do it. And, Members, maybe we lost 45 days, you lost them as well, away from your families, away from your business, we did as well, but my fear is what we lost more than anything was the respect that this body held all around the country. You know what we re’ going to be remembered for now? After this happens I m’ sure there ll’ be a big push in New Mexico. It s’ a little state, so what? They pick up one additional Democratic seat. If things turn out the way the Democrats hope they turn out in California, it s’ a big state. There ll’ be a big push to go after other seats. There ll’ be a push in Illinois now. There ll’ be a push in Michigan to do perpetual redistricting. I ask you, what if you d’ gotten a call from the White House. I m’ not saying the President called anybody, but you got to admit, when you get a call from the White House, that s’ not just like a call from anybody s’ house, no matter how nice your house is. You get a call from Karl Rove in the White House saying, do this. What if it had happened to you two years from now? When Todd got up he said it was a healthy respect for one person, one vote. Part of why you do redistricting, main reason you do it is reapportionment, more people move into Houston than move into Plano, maybe. We picked up two new seats because more people moved into Texas than moved into New York. We couldn t’ make an adjustment because the census changes. We re’ still one of the fastest growing states in the country. We didn t’ adjust to that. What if the Democrats luck up? I know you think it won t’ happen. What if the Democrats luck up next cycle, pick up the Governor s’ mansion, pick up control of the House or the Senate, and decide they did it to us, we ll’ do it to them, go back and do redistricting again? Has it really been worth it? I ve’ heard a lot of you all, heard a private conversation in the lounge a few seconds ago, Craig Estes, about, you re’ feeling dumped on because the issue of race has come up. Gives you a tremendous discomfort, doesn t’ it? Tell you a little secret, race has been and always will be the dominant issue in redistricting. And it s’ not just because Republicans control the Senate now, Craig Estes. My predecessors had to stand up on the floor of this Senate and fight white Democrats, mainly liberal Democrats. It s’ always been about how you divide the Blacks to a great extent, because we tend to vote in a block. Maybe because we been blocked out so long, so we tend to vote in a block. To a great extent the issue is how you divide the Hispanics, how you pack them, how you crack them. So you could decide in the old days how many progressive Anglos, Democrats would be in the State Senate. Don t’ feel poured on, that s’ reality, that a part of it. That s’ why were under the Voting Rights Act. I heard someone make the comment, why is that you think only the Democrats can represent African Americans or Hispanics? The issue is not the color of the person s’ skin, Craig, it s’ where they are philosophically on those issues. Why are we under the Voting Rights Act? When the Voting Rights Act passed, Lyndon Johnson didn t’ even put Texas under it. Tell you a little secret, one of the few times in my life that I voted for a Republican, I voted for a Republican who was running for Attorney General of the State of Texas. Because I remember being in law school and seeing every statewide elected official in Texas fight Barbara Jordan when she went to Congress. She added Texas to the Voting Rights Act under the Bilingual Amendment. Wasn t’ a Black thing, it was a brown one, it was a Hispanic thing to put Texas under the Voting 38 78th Legislature — Third Called Session 8th Day-A

Rights Act. The Governor was against it, everybody was against it, except the Presiding Officer of this body, Bill Hobby, favored it. Why were we put on there, because we have a legacy of racial insensitivity in this state. Somebody made the comment to me, a good friend, when I read the Patsy Spaw memo that gave a little breakdown on when this two-thirds rule has been suspended in Texas. And I made reference at one point in a press conference to the Session of 1957, Price Daniel was Governor of Texas, Alan Shivers was the Lieutenant Governor of Texas. Shortly after the incident in Little Rock is the segregation-forever package, stuff I didn t’ keep up with, I went and dug that up, looked at the affidavit that was submitted to the federal court. Friend told me be careful with that because there had been numerous instances in which the two-thirds rule has been suspended. I haven t’ gotten that memo yet but I know it s’ coming. Be interesting for you to go and look at it, because now we ve’ trampled on that two-thirds tradition in this state. You know, when I made that comment at a press conference about that segregation-forever package I had no earthly idea such awful stuff passed the Texas Legislature in the 50s.’ It s’ just the kind of stuff you d’ like to forget about. The good news is that 11 Members of this body, 10 Anglos and one Hispanic, would not vote to change, to suspend the rules. You couldn t’ get 21 votes to bring up stuff. Like a bill that said if you were a member of the NAACP or LULAC, any organization that criticized the state, you had to give up your membership role. Had a piece of legislation saying that you could shut down the schools in Texas if the federal government sent the military in to integrate the schools. Had a bill saying the Attorney General of Texas could use the resources of that office to represent the school districts in desegregation stuff. Good news is, and I m’ so proud of it, 10 white Senators and Henry B. Gonzalez would not vote to bring that legislation up. So they changed the rules. I m’ not saying every time the rules are changed it s’ about an issue involving race or class or ethnicity. But I m’ saying to you, this redistricting bill that will pass the Texas Senate is in the same mold of that legislation that they passed in 1957. What is the bill doing? OK, going to get rid of Nick Lampson. Put a face on him. Nick Lampson s’ out, Jim Turner s’ out, Max Sandlin s’ out, Stenholm is out, Ralph Hall is out, Chet Edwards will probably hold on. OK, you say, well what s’ the big deal over that? I remember when I was in Washington working for Mr. Mickey Leland. I had dinner with our congressional folks and Democrats about three weeks ago. I told Congressman Stenholm and Congressman Hall, boy, how the table turns. Back when I was working up here as a young staffer on Capitol Hill, my boss Mickey Leland spent most of his time trying to get them out of the Democratic Party. They were the boll weevils before President Reagan was in. Now I packed up my bags, go on to Albuquerque, put my career on the line trying to keep you in the Party. Craig, you re’ right, it s’ about race. It s’ me trying to protect Anglo Democrats. I heard you ask the question very sincerely, and I mean this, a few moments ago, why do you think only Black people can represent Blacks? This issue is not about Black people representing African Americans. This issue is about white people representing minorities. This battle is a national battle. It s’ about trying to marginalize the Democratic Party so only African Americans and Hispanics are left. Friends, I tell you, you mark my words, I don t’ know when that sleeping giant will wake up, and Alena might have rolled me on over there to the convalescent home when it s’ time. Wednesday, September 24, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 39

But somebody s’ going to dust off all of the ranting and raving and the speeches that I and others have given in the year of our Lord two thousand and now. They re’ going to dust them off and in the not too distant future at some point when you walk on the floor of the Senate and you sit there in the gallery, most of the people who sit out here will probably be Hispanic. Numbers indicate, the demographic trends indicate you ll’ have one African American in the Senate. Royce, don t’ want to hurt your feelings, but probably be from Houston. He ll’ probably be from the Dominican Republic, English is his second language, but the skin will probably be black. You have a couple Anglos in the Senate. They ll’ be in power, they ll’ be in charge. And they ll’ look back on what we did this year. They ll’ ask, did we play by the rules? They ll’ ask, were we fair? They ll’ ask, with what we did, did Texas end up being better off because we did it? Some point the United States Supreme Court is going to have to take up this issue of perpetual redistricting. The issue will become ripe at some point, because after we do this in Texas, you mark my word, that the numbers of the other states who have to do it is a zero-sum game in Washington on the House side, because they don t’ have a super majority tradition. In closing, I made a conscious decision a couple of times throughout my political career to stay here instead of taking an appointment from Ann Richards to the Railroad Commission, instead of running for Mayor of Houston when people encouraged me to do it, instead of make a bid for congressional seat, and it has been because of the civility in this body. And my friends, I ll’ tell you that civility has not been here because we re’ so smart or because we re’ so nice or because we re’ so articulate. It has been because of that tradition of having two-thirds of the Members agree to bring a piece of legislation up before you can debate it on the floor of the Texas Senate. And that is a great loss. Thank you. (President in Chair) President:iiLet me, there will be no reaction from the gallery. The chair recognizes Senator Lucio to speak against the bill. Senator Lucio:iiThank you Mr. President. Members, as a Member of the Jurisprudence Committee, obviously I was given an opportunity first-hand to participate. As you know I missed the regional hearings, which I m’ very saddened because I could have heard in different locales of the state how people felt on this issue. And as you know I had health problems at the time. I believe that this bill is riddled with unanswered questions, questions from Senators West, Barrientos, Shapleigh, Gallegos, Ellis, VanideiPutte, Madla, Zaffirini, Hinojosa, and myself, questions that deserve answers on behalf of the people that we represent and all Texans who feel left out and ignored by the legislators in this process. Members, public opinion, public input, public participation, is important to me, 91 percent of all who testified and communicated with us are against redistricting in our state. Yes, I m’ for fostering representation. I think that s’ evident at this point. Representation for Texans, especially those along the Border who have historically been underserved and ignored because some feel they don t’ make a difference in our statewide political races. Yes, I m’ concerned with this map that affords more representation in Congress from areas in West Texas that is less populated than the border of Texas. You see the people who represent us in Washington will take up issues that are extremely important to those areas of the state they come from. Along the Border, infrastructure 40 78th Legislature — Third Called Session 8th Day-A is a major issue, public school education is a major issue, criminal justice, Senator Whitmire, is a major issue. Major issues that were impacted on because of our proximity to Mexico, issues that should be taken up by congressmen or women in those areas of the state that can truly represent us. Senator Ellis, I too crossed over and I was very pleased back when George W. Bush ran the first time. I had no choice that Governor Richards endorsed every one of my opponents from the very first day I ran for State Representative to Senator, she was never with me. And I say that publicly, I have no shame for voting for him because I thought that the spirit of bipartisanship, which you and I and others cherish, would probably become stronger, and it did, with his governorship and that of Bob Bullock at the time. Strong partners working together, Democrat, Republican, working to resolve the issues of our great state, and I was very pleased to be part of that team. I m’ also, I ve’ also been very critical, Senator Ellis, of Democrats who represented us in Congress over the years and historically, unfortunately, they ve’ been part of the problem. Infrastructure, Senator Shapleigh you re’ right, we don t’ have an interstate highway in the Rio Grande Valley, and my question is, why? Why did not the Chairman of the Finance Committee in the United States Congress and the U.S. Senate, Senator Lloyd Bentsen, do something about that when he chaired that committee, when he controlled thrillions of dollars? Well those days are gone, and that opportunity is gone. I have even criticized my very dear friend Kika de la Garza, Democrat, when he was Chairman of Agriculture, when he could have done something to pressure, Senator Duncan, agricultural congressmen from Nebraska and Idaho and other states that depended on his leadership to be able to tell them we are not going to have an ag. bill this year unless my veterans down in the Valley get the little hospital so they won t’ have to travel, Senator VanideiPutte, Senator Madla, all the way to San Antonio and back to the Valley, 700 miles, to be able to get medical attention. Yes, I ve’ been critical, but I m’ also critical of those of us who don t’ stand up and listen to what people are saying. I guess I could talk for a while, but I m’ not. My final question, and I wish Senator Staples was here, unfortunately he s’ not around when we re’ asking questions, and if he is he won t’ answer them. My final question is simple. There you are, maybe you can answer this one, Senator. My final question is, when will things truly be equal for all Texans including those along the border of Texas? Thank you. President:iiChair recognizes Senator West to speak against House Bill 3. Senator West:iiMr. President. Members, thank you very much. I m’ not going to be long, but there s’ a few things I must say. It was an interesting question and Rodney kind of hit a lot of the high points but, Members, when we look at what has transpired in this body, and I ve’ served in the body for 10 years now, and one of the hallmarks of this body has been the two-thirds rule, whether you are a political minority or not. And when I came here–things have changed–Republicans were in the minority but I don t’ believe that the two-thirds rule was ever an issue when there were 11 Senators that objected to suspending the two-thirds rule. And I must say how I feel because I think it s’ very important. I think that we started off with a set of rules and then when we could no longer use those rules of engagement in order to achieve a result, the rules changed in the middle of the game. The game became rigged, outcome determined, and then a process ensued. That s’ how I feel. We Senators, 11 of us, decided that the only recourse that we had under the "civility" of this system was to Wednesday, September 24, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 41 avail ourselves of a constitutional provision and utilize that provision, Senator Brimer, in order to make a political statement about changing of the rules and about the issue. We did that. We did that because we believed very strongly that that two-thirds rule empowered each and every one of us to be able to convince 10 of our colleagues that our position was right, and then be able to work that coalition, not an ethnic coalition but a political coalition, in order to impact and persuade policy in this state. That was taken away, Senator Duncan. That was taken away. So we decided to go to Albuquerque, New Mexico. I don t’ need to chronicle everything that occurred while we were there. That s’ already been chronicled, but we came back and we ve’ now been placed on probation. What if your son or daughter asked you why you re’ on probation? What would you tell them? Well this is what I m’ telling my sons and telling my daughter. My colleagues have decided to place me on probation. You ve’ decided to place me on probation because I decided to stand up for what I believe was right, a principle, the two-thirds rule. You ve’ decided to place me on probation because of an issue using the rules of the game. You know, we tell our kids all the time, follow the rules of the game, they re’ rules, and follow the rules. And that s’ what we should respect. You decided to place us on probation for that. You ve’ decided to fine us $57,000. You ve’ decided some other sanctions. Well that s’ what political participation and effective political participation is all about. When we look at the issue of redistricting it s’ all about the numbers game, whether it s’ here in the Senate, whether it s’ Congress, or some other legislative body. My Republican colleagues have the majority of the vote now. And, obviously, you can work your will as relates to suspension of rules, whether we have rules, and, needless to say, redistricting, congressional redistricting. Members, I agree with Rodney as it relates to civility, don t’ agree with him about the Senate district, you know. I may very well still be in Dallas County. You have the ability to work your will on this issue. But let me caution you, we will have perpetual redistricting. You will win this legislative battle, assuming that you can work the West Texas issue out. But what a tragedy if for some reason you re’ not able to work the West Texas issue out. That means that this body, this respective body, has been put through all of this for nothing. Yes, there is a wound. I mean, you know, it would be ridiculous if we didn t’ recognize that there s’ a wound. And that this wound in this body is wide and it s’ deep. And, yes, it s’ going to take some time for us to reconcile our differences. That s’ a fact of life. And having redistricting on the table as we attempt to reconcile, it s’ not going to be easy but that s’ what we signed up for. There will be a court battle that will ensue. And don t’ think that we will be isolated from that because we won t’ be. We will be right in the middle of it. Let me ask you a question. What if Georgia v. Ashcroft had been the law when we went through Senate and House redistricting? What would have been the results? Have you thought about that question? Would there still be three additional Senators, Democratic Senators in this house? Would Senator Brimer be here? Would the Jane Nelson-Chris Harris configuration be different? I suggest to you that it would have. Would Mike Moncrief still be here? I simply suggest to you that he would have been. Would David Bernsen still be here? I would suggest to you that he would ve’ been. Would David Cain have been here? Maybe. But that is what we are treading towards, ladies and gentlemen. Do we open up redistricting on everything else? Well do we? That s’ an issue that s’ going to have to be addressed 42 78th Legislature — Third Called Session 8th Day-A because of Georgia v. Ashcroft. I suggest to you that if it had been the law, Moncrief would not be the Mayor of Fort Worth, he would be right here in this body, or Brimer would have been the Mayor of Fort Worth and David Bernsen would be here in this body right now. So recognize the road that we re’ going down as it relates to redistricting. Senator Ellis has said that it wasn t’ the choice of the Presiding Officer, it wasn t’ many of our choices, but we allowed external forces–let me think about this, let me put a pin in there for a second–we had a session where all 31 of us put aside partisan difference and voted on a school finance bill, 31 of us, 31 to 0. That s’ the type of body that we had. During the Regular Session, the Senate, all news accounts, praised us for what we were doing here in the Senate and the way we were handling our business. All of that is now changed, colleagues. All of that is now changed. We allowed external forces to determine the destiny and the reputation of this particular body. You talk about political participation as it relates to this particular map, it s’ probably not a heck of a lot I can say that s’ going to change your mind, but I want to give you some food for thought. The political participation that I questioned my colleague Senator Staples about, as it relates to those persons that are protected by the Voting Rights Act, has been negatively impacted by this map. You can be assured that during the fourth quarter, the Department of Justice, and through the litigation phase of this particular political war, that those issues are going to be raised. You can be assured that those of us that participated in the process will be involved as witnesses or whatever the case may be, on these particular issues. So let s’ not think that it s’ over with. Yes, I am on probation. Never before been on probation before, don t’ know the terms and conditions but I ll’ proudly stand up here and say that I am on probation for what I believe in. And guess what? If the rules of engagement are the same and this situation presented itself again, I d’ do the same thing that I did when I went out to Albuquerque, New Mexico, because it s’ better to stand up for something than to fall for anything. President:iiAre there any additional Members to speak on, for, or against this bill. Senator Gallegos. The Chair recognizes Senator Gallegos to speak against the bill. Senator Gallegos:iiThank you Mr. President. Members, last year at approximately this time most of the Senators in this chamber were busy campaigning for their Party s’ nominee for Governor and Lieutenant Governor. Indeed, much of the state was focused on who would comprise the state s’ leadership for the next four years. And we all remember the 2002 campaign. It was about many issues, important issues to the State of Texas, issues that the people of Texas cared about, those that your consultants told you, this is what Texas cares about. The campaign was about character, leadership, insurance reform, the pending budget crisis, taxation, and school finance, that we haven t’ addressed yet. Those were the issues that dominated the 2002 campaign season. I don t’ think anyone in this chamber can stand here today and tell me that the voters in 2002 were thirsty for congressional redistricting. The Governor has told us time and time again that it is the Legislature s’ responsibility to redraw congressional district lines. We ve’ had that debate, I had that debate with Senator Staples. But what the Governor is not telling the people of Texas is that he abdicated that responsibility by failing to call a special session in 2001 and failing to appeal the map drawn by the three-judge panel. The Governor has misled the people of Texas. In essence the Governor has lied to the people of Texas by telling Wednesday, September 24, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 43 them, by not telling them the whole truth. I have a Houston Chronicle editorial. While we were in New Mexico, Senator Whitmire, if you re’ listening, because you were on the same call, calling from the Democratic sanctuary in New Mexico, the Texas Eleven reminded Texans that when the Legislature failed to agree on congressional district lines in 2001 Governor Perry could have called it back into special session. Perry did not think it necessary nor did the state appeal the lines drawn by a panel of federal judges. Perry s’ failure to act then betrays, and I quote from the Chronicle editorial, betrays his true sentiments about redistricting s’ lack of urgency, sentiments that Governor Perry is disowning today. That is the truth, ladies and gentlemen. And that is what should be told by the press, already told by the Houston Chronicle, to the people of Texas. And I continue from the same editorial in the Houston Chronicle, dated September, this is September the 9th of this year, on top of his false portrayal of the merits of redistricting, let me repeat it again from the Houston Chronicle editorial, on top of the Governor s’ false portrayal of the merits of redistricting, Governor Perry has dishonestly tried to blame Democrats for the state s’ inadequate support for health care and other vital social services. This is per the Houston Chronicle. This is what Governor Perry is not telling the people of Texas. And whether you be Democrat or Republican or Independent, all you have to do is look it up on the Internet. Don t’ take it from me, don t’ take it from Senator Ellis, Senator West, or any of the 11 or 10 that went to New Mexico. The people of Texas can find out for themselves, and as the Chronicle is telling, the Governor lied, misled, and he misled the people of Texas on the issue of redistricting. As a former firefighter, those that do something wrong usually have to be held accountable for it, it s’ called the chain of command. Obviously, when you do something wrong you re’ held accountable and you ll’ be dealt accordingly with. The Governor lied to the people of Texas and I assure you he will be dealt accordingly with per the Houston Chronicle editorial. Governor Dewhurst, after the election, before you were sworn in–I thought he was up there but he s’ not–you signaled to the people of this state that congressional redistricting was not a priority. You very wisely stated that revisiting congressional redistricting had the potential to permanently damage this body. As we sat in the audience and watched you take the Oath of Office on the steps of the State Capitol before thousands of Texans you never mentioned congressional redistricting as a legislative priority. I suspect you knew then, as you know now, that revisiting congressional redistricting was not a priority or concern of the people of Texas. Our state and our nation were awakened to this issue and it s’ potential when our colleagues in the House broke quorum in order to stop the passage of congressional redistricting. The resolve of our Democratic colleagues across the rotunda focused the attention on the procedures that we hold so dear in the Texas Senate, the two-thirds rule that Senator West and others have talked about. We had a procedure that would keep Senators from having to resort to such drastic measures, and America began to witness why this body, this Texas Senate, was so special. We could rely on the two-thirds rule to govern this body on contentious issues like hate crimes, other issues, parental notification, Senator Nelson, we could rely on the two-thirds rule to govern this body on those issues. And we could rely on consensus generated through the two-thirds rule to protect Texas. And just recently the rules that have been brought up, and under the Senate rules provided to us by this book that says Senate Rules, has 44 78th Legislature — Third Called Session 8th Day-A the seal of the State of Texas, 2003. Now those rules, those very rules that, Senator Zaffirini, you know backwards and forwards, this book, and now the rules in this book are being null and voided as we bring them up and try to use these rules. So when a book is null and voided and you can t’ use it anymore and you can t’ go by this book because when you state, as per Senator West and Senator Barrientos, if you go straight by the book and are null and voided and overruled and, obviously, the two-thirds rule is gone. Senator Zaffirini, what do you do with a book that you can t’ use? You throw it away. During the First Called Session congressional redistricting was added to the call. We went out and conducted hearings across this state, in East Texas, North Texas, West Texas, South Texas, Southeast Texas, and guess what? Close to 90 percent in our committee hearings, Senator Staples, the author of this map, that attended those hearings, 90 percent of those who attended said don t’ mess with our congressional districts. And this body respected the voices of Texans and refused to act. As we approached the end of the First Called Session, there were several signs of storm clouds that, obviously, forced us to leave this state. We were alerted to the fact that a second special session would be called and that the rules would be changed, Senator West, threatening to change how this body would function forever. In my mind our reasons, and still are completely justified as an honor to use the Texas Constitution, not voted on by the Governor, not voted on by the Lieutenant Governor, the Speaker of the House, or anybody on this floor, by the citizens of Texas. That s’ the rule we used. Senator Ellis, is that your take on it, that we used that rule to break a quorum and let those people that were not heard, especially in rural Texas, in Waco, and those areas that are being threatened by this map? That s’ why we broke a quorum. We will not surrender the will of the people, of blatant partisan power grabs by anyone, especially what happened to poor Colorado. At least we get 45 days to break the quorum, we get to debate it on the floor, but those poor Senators from Colorado, I feel for them. To have to debate a bill and pass a bill provided to them by Kinko s.’ You know, Kinko s’ should deserve all, along with Karl Rove, the conductor of that congressional redistricting bill, deserves the credit on that, Kinko s.’ I don t’ even know who owns Kinko s,’ to tell you the truth, but they re’ the ones that provided the bill in front of that Legislature, orchestrated by Karl Rove, confirmed by the Senators from Colorado to us that he was the conductor, as he is of this one, along with Tom DeLay and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Make no mistake, we will not surrender our principles to those that have no qualms about extinguishing those voices that I talked about, Senator West, those rural minority Texans that don t’ have a voice on this floor. And, my friends, it is no coincidence that the 11 Senators that broke quorum are either minorities or represent minority districts. And throughout the entire redistricting debate there has not been one single credible Hispanic or African American organization that has stepped forward either in our hearings or anywhere else and asked for redistricting. And why? You usually ask yourself why. Why did not one credible organization representing those Texans step forward? If you look at what s’ at stake here, not only the voting rights issue that s’ coming up soon, but look at the close votes in Congress, look at the comparison pieces that we were given, Senator Staples, in committee. Look at the scorecard. If you look at those close votes in Congress that is the difference here. And let me tell you what the issues are, that s’ why we left. The issues, a close vote on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 45 overtime for police and firefighters, the very persons, the very Americans that gave up their lives at the World Trade Center. Their overtime is trying to be taken away from them. Police and firefighters, the vote is that slim, the vote is that right here what we re’ talking about on this floor and on that map, overtime for firefighters and police officers, Senator Whitmire. And then if you look even further, if you look even further on services, Senator Ellis, to your district, and the votes that are very close in Congress, on my handbook, that are on the handbook of those congressional representatives that are being threatened by this map, that those services are also being threatened, the services that are going to your constituents, that money on health, education, and help to the elderly are being threatened right here on this map. To your district, Senator Whitmire s’ district, all 11 and probably, if the other Senators would look, a lot of federal money that was voted upon that s’ going to their districts also. That s’ why we broke a quorum. It s’ a, really, it is a shame that diverse voices of this state were ignored, an act that I am certain will some day come back and haunt this body, if it s’ not doing that already, because we learn through history. And when Hispanics and African Americans are a majority in this chamber, when Senator Ellis is being wheeled to a convalescent home, and that day may arrive soon, what we are going to say is that when they completely ignore the voices of their Anglo colleagues, what if at that time, the same rules that put Senator West and us on probation, that this body wants to do away with parental notification or completely deal with abortion. Now, do you think that Senator Florence Shapiro or Senator Jane Nelson is going to want to walk off this floor to break a quorum? As passionate as they feel about those issues, I think not. They will walk, I would hope so, that s’ the way they ve’ been voting. And they feel so passionate about those issues, there s’ no doubt in my mind they will break a quorum. I would expect nothing less than that on issues that they care about like we care about this redistricting issue. I feel that the leadership of this state has completely destroyed any future hope of bipartisanship in this body. And let ’s be perfectly clear here, Senator Ellis, bipartisanship is not an empty phrase and it is not convenient. Bipartisan requires, bipartisanship requires a certain willingness to trust and to work together. But the leadership of this state gave away bipartisanship, bipartisanship that was given away just to satisfy the political diet of Tom DeLay, Karl Rove. Bipartisanship is what makes serving this body special to me. And that s’ why when our Democratic colleagues in the House, when they broke a quorum and went to Oklahoma and they asked, what are you going to do? And I said, we don t’ have to do anything. We have the two-thirds rule that protects us, that protects this body, that protects Texas. We don t’ have to act like that. We have the two-thirds rule. We don t’ have to walk. We don t’ have to break a quorum or go to Oklahoma. We have the two-thirds rule that protects the sanctuary of this body. That s’ what I told my colleagues in the House. We have the two-thirds rule that protects us. One of these days the leadership will have to rely on bipartisanship again to navigate through these tough times. And when bipartisanship is not reached, we can almost certainly look back at the summer of this year for answers. We gave away a lot this summer and for what? Is the partisanship grab, power grab worth the damage this body has sustained? I believe that in the final analysis we can all agree that it was not worth it. It was not worth it and it continues to be not worth it. But I can assure you, if I had to do it over again, I would walk right 46 78th Legislature — Third Called Session 8th Day-A now with the 11, as provided to me by the Constitution of the State of Texas. And I was proud to walk then and break a quorum with my fellow Democrats, and it was an honor to be with you while we spent those 45 days plus. And I would just, you know, really, just in closing, just say, and I think I said this before, and I think I said it to you when we left New Mexico, two very phrases that I like to mention, and that I think that, that we share together in New Mexico, and that we still share together here on this floor, that we can actually say that we did it with strength and honor. Strength and honor. And that when we went to New Mexico, and one of the best phrases that I like is that, if we as 11 went, if you go, I go. President:iiSenator Zaffirini, did you wish to speak against this bill? You were next in line. Senator Zaffirini:iiThank you. President:iiThe Chair recognizes Senator Zaffirini to speak against House Bill 3. Senator Zaffirini:iiThank you Mr. President. Mr. President and Members, I had intended to rise and speak in opposition to this bill focusing on issues such as violation of minority rights, of voting rights, and constitutional rights. But those who have spoken before me have already articulated those issues so well, and I would like to say generally that I agree with those who have expressed their concerns specifically about these issues and more, issues such as the two-thirds rule and its importance. I had intended to talk and stress the fact that all of us who are minority Members of the Texas Senate, two African Americans and the Hispanic Americans, all oppose redistricting and all oppose this plan. And I believe that that is significant, but the Senators have expanded upon that point and I will not be repetitive. Instead, because of the amendment that was attached to this bill last night, I will focus on making a record, a record that will focus on Webb County and the specific violations that pertain to that amendment as it is now reflected in this plan. Under the Voting Rights Act a redistricting plan is entitled to preclearance by the Department of Justice if it will lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise. If it does so it is not entitled to preclearance. The case that determined that was Beer v. United States. The courts have often said that a redistricting plan retrogresses when it makes minority voters worse off than they were before. The Supreme Court earlier this year said in Georgia v. Ashcroft that any assessment of retrogression of a minority group s’ effective exercise of the electoral franchise depends on the examination of all the relevant circumstances, such as:ii(1) the ability of the minority group to elect a candidate of choice, (2) the ability of the minority group to participate effectively in the political process, and (3) the feasibility of creating a nonretrogressive plan. Some courts have said that plus or minus 1 percent is too much, although Senator Staples has said that there is no specific percentage that determines retrogression. The important issue at hand is the effect on the district that is determined by expert analysis on election results. Ladies and gentlemen of the Texas Senate, the Wentworth amendment that affects South Texas and Bexar County places this map squarely in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Congressional District 23, in which I live and which is represented by my friend Congressman Henry Bonilla, is already only a marginally effective Hispanic district. The reason is that it has a very strong case that Wednesday, September 24, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 47 can be made, that the outcome of the general election is already determined by high turnout Anglo, Republican Bexar County residents. In the 2001 congressional redistricting trial, statistical analysis from expert witnesses representing different parties expressed doubt that Congressional District 23 was actually an effective Hispanic-opportunity district, but rather that higher Hispanic turnout generated by the 2000 Governor s’ race, 2002 Governor s’ race did make the current district slightly better for Hispanics in that one election cycle. The changes in the Wentworth amendment reduce the Hispanic voting-age population from 63 percent to 61.4 percent, and a 1.6 reduction in an already marginally performing district could be critical in determining the effectiveness of Congressional District 23 as an effective performing Hispanic-opportunity district. The amendment causes a retrogression of Hispanic voting strength and that is not acceptable given the fact that the plan creates no additional Hispanic districts despite rapid Hispanic population growth. In the current Congressional District 23, 172,051 persons reside in Bexar County, a portion of the district that is 64.2 percent Anglo. By contrast, Members, 193,117 Webb County residents also reside in the current Congressional District 23 and Webb County is 94.3 percent Hispanic, 94.3 percent. It has the highest Hispanic population of any county in Texas. The Wentworth amendment shifts population from Webb County in South Texas into Bexar County. It moves, specifically, 291,164 residents, an increase of almost 120,000 Bexar County residents, abandoning all but 37,000 Webb County residents by splitting our Border county, now wholly in Congressional District 23. Also, by contrast, almost 120,000 persons from Congressional District 28, which is represented by Congressman Ciro Rodriguez, are shifted from Bexar County to the Webb County district, and the amendment literally shreds the traditional Bexar County South side San Antonio base of Congressman Rodriguez, splitting it into not two but three congressional districts. The bizarre shape of Congressional Districts 20, 23, and 28, which I earlier said looked like varicose veins, would likely violate racial gerrymandering standards. Such a configuration insults the community, creates confusion that diminishes turnout, and makes effective representation extremely difficult. Reiterating what Senator Staples said yesterday when laying out House Bill 3, there are certain and specific issues that must be considered when drawing congressional redistricting maps:ii(1) maintaining communities of interest, (2) ensuring that minority voters do not have a lessened opportunity to elect the representatives of their choice, (3) historical configuration of a district, and (4) not causing retrogression. The amendment passed by this body late last night by a vote of 17 to 13 violates each of these basic tenets and requirements of redistricting maps. The amendment would divide Webb County and would disenfranchise the voters of the most Hispanic county in Texas. Webb County has never been divided in a congressional district. Its historical configuration is to be kept whole. It always has been paired with other Border counties that have similar communities of interest with regard to rural, agricultural, and business concerns. Senator Staples also stated that the only reason he had considered dividing Webb County earlier was to create a new Hispanic district. This is one of the reasons why retrogression is acceptable, to create a new minority-opportunity district, but that is not the case with this amendment. The only purpose of this amendment and the division of Webb County is to disenfranchise the 48 78th Legislature — Third Called Session 8th Day-A voters of the most Hispanic county in Texas and to dilute our voting power so that no one from Webb County would ever have the possibility of representing Congressional District 23, an opportunity that exists today. There also is a great concern that this amendment will cause retrogression in Hispanic representation. To be perfectly frank with you, several Democrats late last night and early this morning urged me not to fight this amendment, to leave it alone because it would result in our prevailing, not today, but at a later date. Currently total population in Congressional District 23 is 66.8 percent Hispanic and 1.8 percent African American. Voting-age population is 63 percent Hispanic and 1.8 percent African American. The Wentworth amendment that is now included in House Bill 3 has a total population in Congressional District 23 that is 65.2 Hispanic and 3.1 percent African American. Voting-age population is 61.4 percent Hispanic and 3.1 percent African American. This is a 1.6 percent deviation both in total population and in voting-age population from current Hispanic population. This is retrogression. The primary problem with this amendment, and caused by it, is the Hispanic precincts given to Congressional District 23. They are not poor Hispanic districts, instead they are integrated precincts with high Hispanic growth. The reason that this is important is not simply because the percentage of Hispanics is decreased, but also because of who these persons are. Congressional District 23 is a historically low performing minority-opportunity district. That means that the minorities do not turn out in significant enough numbers to effect the outcome of an election the way that they should. So any reduction in the number of minorities in the district will have a retrogressive effect. Some retrogression is acceptable when a district is a very high performing minority-opportunity district and when the minority voters are taken from that district to include them in a new minority-opportunity district, that is not the case, and because of this amendment. In fact, there probably would be a much higher retrogression evident once an election has occurred and election analysis is done to indicate who votes in the district and in what percentages. The effect will be to decrease minority influence because of the precincts moved to Congressional District 23 and those moved out. Senator Staples also stated that in the original House Bill 3, without the Wentworth amendment, he paid careful attention to keeping counties whole unless splitting counties served a public purpose. There is no justifiable purpose in dividing Webb County. No new Hispanic district is being created. Dividing Webb County only serves to dilute the voting strength of its residents and subject this map to further court and Department of Justice challenges. Senator Wentworth stated that he drew this amendment without input from citizens from Webb County or any other surrounding county. Senator Wentworth did not discuss this amendment with other state or Bexar County or federal legislators other than one. He stated that Congressman Henry Bonilla told him he wanted Webb County divided because his margin of victory was too close in 2002. Senator Staples, however, stated that he called Congressman Bonilla during our debate last night and that Congressman Bonilla s’ preference was to keep Webb County whole. I asked Senator Staples about that this morning and he confirmed that conversation and that it occurred last night. I heard from other Senators, including Senator Duncan, who had discussed redistricting with Senator Bonilla, that he has never asked them to divide Webb County. I attended the Senate Jurisprudence Committee hearing in Laredo, Senator Wentworth did not. I heard the citizens of Webb County testify repeatedly that Wednesday, September 24, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 49 they were opposed to redistricting. I heard the citizens of Webb County testify repeatedly that if redistricting were to occur they supported keeping Webb County whole. Senator Wenworth s’ amendment incorporated into House Bill 3 flies in the face of all the testimony received regarding keeping Webb County whole. I do take personal offense to the passage of the Wentworth amendment that is now included in House Bill 3. Not because it hurts me, but because it hurts the approximately 200,000 citizens of Webb County and nearly all of the more than 651,000 citizens of Congressional District 23, and also because several Senators stated to me that the amendment and its vote was not based on the merit of the amendment but was related to the Webb County investigation of official oppression, that was stated to me, Members, on this Senate floor. I will respectfully vote no for final passage of House Bill 3 and I urge all of you to do the same, and all of you who want to see redistricting succeed, I truly believe that you need to understand that voting for this plan and if it prevails in the conference committee will ensure that it will fail later. Thank you Mr.iPresident and Members. President:iiSenator, the Chair recognizes Senator Wentworth. The Chair recognizes Senator Wentworth to speak against or to speak for the bill. Senator Wentworth:iiNo, Mr. President, I m’ not going to speak against the bill. I m’ going to speak for the bill. Mr. President, I didn t’ really intend to speak, we Republicans though from time to time complain that we don t’ get a fair shake from the press, that they only tell one side of the story, and it occurred to me this morning as we were listening to these speeches that everybody speaking was speaking against congressional redistricting. And I think it only right that there be some balance in this discussion. So I m’ speaking for those of us that think that this is a good bill. Let me, let me just say in response to some remarks that have been made by Senator Shapleigh and Senator Ellis about political power. In all candor, I don t’ think anybody has ever said that congressional redistricting is not about anything other than political power. That s’ what we all in our heart of hearts know this is about. It is about political power. There s’ nothing wrong with that. In 1961, when I was an undergraduate student at Texas A&M, I was here in this building working to kill a bill that was introduced by Senator Moore from Brazos County. I was here during a congressional redistricting discussion. There were virtually no Republicans here and Democrats had the majority and they did what they wanted to, and that s’ appropriate. They were the people elected by the people of Texas. In 1971, when this Legislature was going through redistricting again, once again, I was in this building trying to get a bill passed having to do with legal education, which in fact was successful. We were discussing redistricting and, once again, Democrats had absolute sway. They had a Democrat in the Governor s’ mansion, a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate, and they drew the lines the way they wanted to. In 1971, I will point out there were 25 Members of Congress from Texas, seven less than there are today. Of those 25, 22 were Democrats. There were only three Republican Members of Congress 30 years ago from Texas, George Bush from Houston, Jim Collins from Dallas, and Bob Price from the Panhandle, Pampa, Texas, Gray County particularly. Three out of 25 in the minds of the Democrats were too many, too many Republicans. So the effort was made to eliminate at least a third of them. There wasn t’ anything they could do to draw lines to defeat George Bush in Houston, there wasn t’ anything they could do to 50 78th Legislature — Third Called Session 8th Day-A redraw lines to defeat Jim Collins in Dallas, but there was a way they thought to get rid of Bob Price in the Panhandle. So they paired him to run against an incumbent Democratic congressman, who was Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, a Graham Purcell of Wichita Falls. That is the kind of political things you can do if you ve’ got the majority. In fact, Bob Price was reelected, he defeated Graham Purcell and went back to Congress. In 1981, I was a county commissioner from Bexar County and was in this building regularly trying to persuade the Legislature, as I continued to try to get this Legislature to do, and that is to give more local authority to local elected officials. In 1991, I was back in this building as a Member of the House of Representatives when we had redistricting. We had 57 Members of the Texas House, out of 150. Kim Brimer was there, I think Senator Lucio was still in the House in 1991, Frank Madla was, I know Frank was, I guess Eddie had already moved to the Senate by then, Frank Madla was there, we had 57. The rules haven t’ changed, it took 51 people to break quorum in 1991. We Republicans could have broken quorum in 1991 and prevented the most gerrymandered congressional district map of any of the 50 states, 22 years ago, 12 years ago, but we didn t’ do it. We didn t’ do it because we didn t’ think it was a legitimate or appropriate reaction to being outvoted by people elected by the majority of the folks in the State of Texas. In 1983, this Legislature, under no court order, and repeatedly I ve’ seen it printed and spoken that what we are doing in Texas is absolutely unprecedented, the Legislature has never gone back in mid term and tried to do something unless some federal court was ordering them to do it. Not true. In 1983, the Democrat majority of this Legislature looked at the election returns from November of 1982 and discovered an incumbent Democrat congressman who was nearly defeated in November of 1982 who needed help. So without any federal court ordering them to do it they adjusted lines between Congressional District 21 and Congressional District 23 in order to protect that congressman. They moved the Republican candidate out of Congressional District 23 into 21, moved Republican voters out of Congressional District 23 into 21 and protected him. They thought. In 1984, in fact, when that congressman ran for reelection, he was actually defeated in the Democratic primary. He didn t’ lose to the Republican candidate, but they had moved so many Hispanic Democrats into District 23 that a Hispanic Democrat was elected instead. But the record needs to be kept straight. As for the lack of the civility and the reaction of those us who remained behind, let me just say candidly to the 11 Democrats that left, we are still your friends. We hope you consider us your friends as well. There are a number of us who are elected to serve until January of 2007. You need our votes and we need your votes on critical issues. But if I may talk about those 30 days, the first 17 days that you all were gone of that 30-day session, there were no penalties at all. We didn t’ want to assess penalties. We asked you to come back. We invited you to come back. We begged you to come back. We dispatched two Senators, Senator Duncan and Senator Staples, to Albuquerque to try to persuade you to come back. We dispatched Senator Duncan a second time to try to persuade you to come back. They were unsuccessful. Then we came up with a device that would give you political cover with your constituents, we ll’ have the Supreme Court of Texas order you to come back, not us. So you wouldn t’ be giving in to us, but we would have the Supreme Court order you to come back and then you could tell your constituents, we didn t’ want to come back, we Wednesday, September 24, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 51 disagree with the Supreme Court, we think they are wrong, what did you expect, they re’ nine Republican judges, you know, it reminds us of Bush v. Gore in the U.S. Supreme Court. You could say all those things but in the end, as lawmakers, you could say, legitimately, we re’ not going to disobey an order of the Supreme Court. And you could return and have that cover. The problem was, you all hired a lawyer to appear at the hearing to argue against the Supreme Court s’ issuing the writ of mandamus. And your lawyer argued that the Supreme Court shouldn t’ get involved in what was essentially a political matter. And your lawyer argued in your behalf, in addition, that we remaining Senators had the right to compel your attendance under the constitution. And so the Supreme Court agreed with your lawyer. And we were stuck with the ball, they threw the ball back in our laps. So we said, well what do we do? The constitution says we can compel your return by assessing penalties. We didn t’ want to assess penalties, Members. So what we said was, OK, if you come back today, you can come back for free, no penalty. If you come back tomorrow, you can come back for free, no penalty. If you come back day after tomorrow, up until 4:00 in the afternoon, you come back for free, no penalty. But if you continue to be absent, then we ll’ assess a penalty. And when we adopted that, within about an hour, you all held a press conference in which you said two things, number one, we re’ not coming back and, number two, which appeared to me to be contradictory, when we do come back, we re’ not paying the fines. So that s’ where we were stuck. So let me just say, we didn t’ want to do any of that stuff. We felt like we were pushed into it. In regard to the Lieutenant Governor s’ changing the rules in the middle of the game, I need the record to be set straight in that regard. The Lieutenant Governor is not changing the rules in the middle of the game. On the matter of redistricting in special sessions, the tradition has been that there is no blocker bill and, by the way, there is no two-thirds rule. I keep reading about the two-thirds rule. There is a regular order of business rule, not a two-thirds rule. And the regular order of business is has been in by Ben Barnes, Democratic Lieutenant Governor, by Bill Hobby, Democratic Lieutenant Governor, by Bob Bullock, a Democratic Lieutenant Governor, no blocker bill in a special session on redistricting. Governor Dewhurst is not changing the rule, he s’ following the tradition. There has been a lot of talk about how expensive this has been, and I ve’ heard typically the figures $1.7 million for every 30-day session. I ve’ heard now today, 25 million and extraordinary sums. Actually, I ve’ tried to calculate what it is, and based on my calculations, and in checking with Lege Council, it s’ not 1.7 million, it s’ never been 1.7 million. The only real additional cost for a special session is the per diem, the 181, and actually it was only 170 because the 11 Democrats who went to Albuquerque said, we don t’ want our per diem while we re’ gone. So it s’ 170 times 30 days times $125 a day. And a couple of extra part-time undergraduate students in this chamber and about five or six in the other chamber. We re’ talking about maybe $700,000 for a 30-day session, a million dollars less than the figure that has been cited on a regular basis. The reason we believe that it is fair to change the lines, and it s’ after hearings, and I attended, it s,’ Senator Zaffirini mentioned that I didn t’ make the hearing in Laredo and that s’ true, it was on a Saturday, and I had a family conflict that day. But I did make the Senate hearings in San Angelo and McAllen, in Houston, in Corpus Christi and here in Austin. And I made the House hearing in San Antonio. So I sat 52 78th Legislature — Third Called Session 8th Day-A through 35 or 40 hours worth of public hearings. And it s’ true that the majority of people who testified before us said that they were against redistricting. But it was, the testimony was expected. Most everybody that testified against redistricting told us that they were Democrats and they wanted to protect their incumbent Democratic congressman. I understand that. But it s’ not a 90 percent view of the voters of Texas. The voters of Texas, in fact, are, if you rank them by numbers, Independents outnumber Republicans and Republicans outnumber Democrats. We were hearing from the third largest group of Texans in terms of not losing their Democratic congressman. The trend in this state since 1994 has inedgerably [sic] moved from our being a Democrat majority state to being a Republican majority state. All 29 elected officials are now held by Republicans. In the November election last year 56.4 percent of Texas voted for Republicans. President:iiMay we have– Senator Wentworth:iiThank you Mr. President. President:iiCan we pay as much courtesy to Senator Wentworth as we paid to the other speakers? Senator Wentworth:iiThank you Mr. President. In November of last year 56.4 percent of the people of this state voted for the Republican candidate for Congress. It clearly does not make any sense that in the state that overwhelming elected the Governor of this state to be President of the United States, we also have a congressional delegation that is made up of a majority of people who are opposing President Bush and his administration. The map that you have before you is not overreaching. It doesn t’ try to grab 22 or 21 or 20 seats as has been discussed over the, over the past several months. It is a reasonable map that tries to fairly represent the majority of Texans that would like our congressional delegation to support President Bush. In closing, Mr. President, I d’ like to say in response to Senator Zaffirini s’ remark that the only reason for the Wentworth amendment is to disenfranchise voters, I take genuine exception to that. As I announced last night on the floor of the Senate and will announce again, the only reason for my making the changes that that amendment encompasses was to help Congressman Bonilla. His district now moves from 42.8 percent to 44.9 percent Republican. That was the only reason for that amendment. Mr. President, I will proudly vote in favor of a very fine plan that Senator Staples brought through Senator Duncan s’ committee. President:iiThank you Senator Wentworth. The chair recognizes Senator Deuell to speak for the bill. Senator Deuell:iiThank you Mr. President. I do rise to speak in favor of the bill. I wasn t’ going to speak because the day s’ long and will be longer, but I did want to say that this is my first session and now someone told me I ll’ be in more days than we ve’ ever been in before, but I deeply appreciate this body and all of the Members. I could go through and tell you stories about all 30 other Members and how much I appreciate them and their help through the session. And, Senator Shapleigh, I don t’ care what the rules are, you and I can talk about any issue. My office is open and I know you feel the same way and I don t’ need a rule of 21 to have your friendship and to listen to you about issues that concern your district. Former Senator Sibley told me when he came Wednesday, September 24, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 53 to this body that he hated the rule of 21 and he said, in all fairness, that the day he left he would defend it til his death. But I don t’ necessarily think, and Senator Wentworth has pointed out that we re’ not really talking about the rule of 21, we re’ talking about the regular order of business. But redistricting is a bipartisan, or a partisan issue by nature, it s’ not something that we can work with each other and necessarily work out compromises. You re’ either for it or against it, and if you re’ for it then you re’ going to try to work out various lines as we ve’ done. But one is civil in their life or one is uncivil. Rules don t’ change that. One is fair or one is not fair. Much reference has been made to the hearings, the committee hearings, and Senator Duncan was more than fair, tried to hear everyone, but they were stacked. Ninety-some percent were against redistricting. I guess any organization could hire temporary help from all these temporary services and stack a meeting, not just the redistricting hearing. Why didn t’ people testify for redistricting? I think it depends on the time of day, people were working. The meeting that I went to in Dallas, the average citizen would probably be intimidated. Signs, shouting, boos, hisses, there was a lot of intimidation that I think kept people from wanting to testify. There was somebody from my district, it was at the Dallas hearing, that was afraid to go up there and testify for redistricting because of the way other witnesses had been treated. What would you think if you saw your congressman get up and testify and be called by the chairman the rudest witness he had ever heard at any committee hearing? Would you want to go up in that environment? I think not. The people of my district, for the most part, want redistricting. They re’ tired of a congressman that only supports our President 30 percent of the time. That s’ true in other parts of the state. You know much has been said about Governor Perry changing his mind. He s’ been called a liar. Well there are some people who hold to the formula that if the facts change, they change their mind. What do you do? I saw my friends, Senator West and Senator Ellis, in Washington, D.C., my birthplace, on the occasion of Martin Luther King s’ I Have A Dream speech. And I take well what Senator Ellis said about some of the history that s’ been mentioned, but Martin Luther King said in that speech that he looked forward to a day when people are judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin. And yet some of the arguments regarding redistricting are right in the face of what Martin Luther King had to say. I think the Republican Party is the future for Hispanic Americans and African Americans. I was endorsed by the local African American newspaper in Greenville. I was supported by the Vice-president, one of the Vice-presidents of the Texas NAACP. So I think that I can represent African Americans. Does that mean that I agree with them all the time? No. The very Vice-president that supported me in my race was somebody that I opposed, or he opposed me when I was on the school board in Greenville. But he always said I listened, didn t’ always agree with me but he knew I d’ listen and be fair. We didn t’ have a rule of 21 on the school board. I admire the Democratic Senators for standing up. Senator West thinks that the fines and probation and sanctions for standing up. No, it s’ not for standing up for your principles, it s’ how you stood up for your principles. You didn t’ stand up, you ran away. Should redistricting have been a priority? No, we could have dealt with it in the Regular Session. It could have been done, we didn t’ have to spend this much time doing it. We could deal with these other issues that are much more important. In the last Regular Session, I saw that the 54 78th Legislature — Third Called Session 8th Day-A

Democrats in this body were always brought to the table, always had a say. The votes didn t’ always go their way. We ramrodded nothing. There s’ a difference between disagreeing on an issue, having an honest disagreement, and calling someone stupid as our Governor was called, calling someone a liar or maybe even implying that someone is a racist. I guess we know what is going to happen in terms of this bill passing, we have to see what happens with the House. But much has been made about what s’ going to happen to this great body of the Texas State Senate. It s’ a body that I cherish just in my short time here. And it reminds me of a story that I heard Paul Harvey tell. Paul Harvey talked about a small boy who had caught a bird, and he had the bird in his hand. And he asked a man, is the bird dead or is the bird alive? It s’ a trick question. If the man said the bird s’ alive, the young boy would squeeze the bird and kill it. If the man said the bird s’ dead, he would let the bird go. My fellow Senators, so the answer that the man gave the boy about the bird when the boy said, is it dead or alive, the man said, it s’ as you wish it to be. Where this body goes is as we wish it to be. Thank you Mr. President. President:iiThank you Senator Deuell. Are there any additional speakers? There being no other speakers, the Chair, I noticed that the Dean wishes to speak, so the Chair recognizes Senator Whitmire to speak against the bill. Senator Whitmire:iiThank you Mr. President. Members, I rise in opposition of House Bill 3. I think, probably because of my tenure in the Legislature, some 30-plus years, I, personally, I believe I have more personal experience with redistricting in the process than anyone on the Senate floor. Frank and I came to the Legislature together, but based on that experience of having gone through several redistricting sessions, I d’ like to speak to you for a moment and tell you why I am in opposition of House Bill 3. First of all, redistricting can be really good. It can be a good experience. It can have good results. It can produce outstanding Senators like are on this Senate floor. It can send Barbara Jordan to Congress. It can be really bad, really, really bad. Barbara Jordan to go to Congress, Houston went 10 years without a State Senator, that was the trade. That was the power grab, Senator Wentworth. I could give other examples of the really good and the really bad. Many of them are in our presence and you could define them for yourself. I could even, as a side note, right, say one of the really bad things that it does, is I heard yesterday, even some House Members were threatening Senators that if they didn t’ support the Speaker s’ position that they were going to kill our legislation next session. First of all, that is really bad and brings out the worst in people. I would suggest someone needs to remind them that they re’ just House Members. And it takes five of them to comprise a Senate District, but we ll’ have that debate with them if they re’ foolish enough to try to do that. My first experience with redistricting was as a senior at the University of Houston in 1971. In October of that year, working at the food stamp office, getting a lot of real experience with the problems of people. I went by a government professor s’ office and he was looking at the new redistricting map, Senator Shapleigh. It had broken Harris County down into single-member districts because of a court order, for the first time in that county s’ history. Dr. Murray, who is still there and a person I greatly respect, looked at me and said, where do you live? I showed him my Oak Forest address. It had my church, my high school, my mother was a nurse, my DeMolay chapter. And I made the comment it looked like they drew that one for me. I stayed out that spring, knocked on doors, Wednesday, September 24, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 55 beat a labor candidate, beat a business candidate and a couple of others. That was what was really good about redistricting. It gave a young student that could go to his community the opportunity to be elected. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Kay Bailey was elected across town doing essentially the same thing, Gene Green, Mickey Leland, Anthony Hall, Ben Reyes. Redistricting was a very good thing because it gave communities their representatives and it was very diverse, Senator West, for the first time out of Harris County. When you ran at-large, you had to be on a slate of mostly Anglo men. In 1981, I was a House Member and saw the really bad of redistricting. We were kind of going through a redistricting process, I saw grown men cry, got in the face of Buddy Jones. He was a freshman House Member. He was from Hillsboro, I grew up in Hillsboro, so we kind of had a rapport. He voted with the leadership to completely wipe out Bill Keese, a young man from Somerville s’ district. Bill started crying. I went over and got in Buddy s’ face and said, how can you do that to somebody? It s’ what the Speaker and the leadership wanted. It was really bringing out the worst in people. In 1991, I was prepared to run unopposed in the district essentially that I have now. We had created our first Hispanic Senate seat in Harris County, but on Christmas Eve Judge Nowlin, a very partisan federal judge who I had served with in the House, threw out the legislative-drawn plan. Flipped me into a Hispanic district, and it was one of the worst experiences I ve’ had in politics. Rodney, as you recall, race, my ethnicity was the issue. I had the wrong mother and father. Because I had been thrown into a Hispanic district that I successfully won, shortly thereafter another court put it back and restored the legislative district. And the very good about redistricting is Harris County elected Mario Gallegos as their first Hispanic State Senator. Two years ago, 2001, we all experienced redistricting, saw the best in people and the worst in people. The outcome was that David Sibley, a very capable Republican State Senator, successfully used the two-thirds rule to block redistricting, that I would think be fair to say is why we re’ here today. Some of the best and some of the worst brought out in the people. But I would suggest to you, Members, this experience in redistricting, in my 30-plus years in the Legislature in experiencing it, is the worst of the worst. It is really, really the bad and it has brought out the worst in people. And I have seen opportunities for it to bring out the best in individuals. But it is certainly, Senator Wentworth, the worst power grab in all the experiences that I ve’ had working with redistricting. And I think it points to why our forefathers knew what they were doing, Mr. Lieutenant Governor, when they said we should only do it every 10 years because they were wise enough to know that it brought out the very good and the very bad in individuals. I have been unalterably opposed to redistricting, Senator West, since the subject was brought up last fall. In the two meetings that I had with Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect Dewhurst, it was brought up. And I said, I m’ strongly opposed to it and for all the reasons, it will divide the Senate, it s’ unnecessary, it s’ a power grab. As the session began, I never changed one iota. I never used it to bargain for a chairmanship or a committee assignment. I was never on the fence. I was opposed to it because it is bad, it is unnecessary. During the First Called Special, I had the opportunity to be contacted by a gentleman that I respect and the discussion was if you can get 10 Democrats to sign a letter, I ll’ be the 11th. Why did he call me? Because he knew I was unalterably opposed to redistricting. And I assumed he felt 56 78th Legislature — Third Called Session 8th Day-A like I might could get the other signatures. I worked an entire weekend. There was a hurricane coming towards Brownsville. I made arrangements to get the signature of Eddie Lucio with Hinojosa s’ assistance, brought the letter back on Monday, got the additional signatures, killed it with that letter the First Called Special. Second Called Special, because of the rule change and my conviction of, (1) being opposed to redistricting but (2) change in the rules, I agreed to spend the entire Second Special Session out of state. Governor Dewhurst, you have been quoted that it is like the flu and that we ought to avoid being in contact with the flu. Let me suggest it s’ worse than the flu. It s’ like a cancer because it s’ going to literally kill communities of interest. It s’ going to disenfranchise people. Senator Wentworth, there s’ nothing wrong with a power grab unless it hurts people. And I think we ’ve heard demonstration after demonstration where this plan harms individuals. And I think Senator Zaffirini did such an articulate job explaining what it does to her community of Webb County. It is unnecessary, it s’ costly, it s’ divisive, and let me just tell you from my experience in public service what it s’ really doing and why I m’ so opposed to it. It s’ been my experience going through each of these decade redistricting experiences, it takes the communities and voters a couple of years to recognize the changes. After redistricting and a reshuffling–let me just call what we re’ doing, it s’ not redistricting, it s’ reshuffling because you and I know it s’ based on personalities and names–but after a redistricting, it takes an election cycle or two for people to know who their State Rep or State Senator or congressperson is. The real harm is we re’ shuffling things up just when we re’ trying to get people to participate in the process. So we re’ setting it back. We re’ setting back voter participation. It s’ wrong, it s’ a power grab, and it s’ unnecessary. But I also realize if Governor Perry is going to continue to call one after another, it was inevitable. And I think yesterday, he said he would call his fourth if necessary, a wrong harmful power grab. The two-thirds rule, as we have heard repeatedly today by persons of both sides of the aisle, is what makes this body so unique. It s’ what allowed us to build a consensus on insurance and so many other issues during the Regular Session. It did kill redistricting during the Regular Session. It did kill redistricting in the First Called. And I strongly object to the change of the rules going into the Third Called Special. And I strongly object to the example of Bob Bullock in 1992. I was here. I challenge anyone to bring up a news article, a record of floor debate where it was challenged. Anyone being objective, in my judgment, looking at the 92’ record would say we came in to ratify a court plan so we could set an election date, unlike what we re’ doing today, undoing a court order after a successful election cycle. And I will suggest, I don t’ know if you knew Bob Bullock like I knew Bob Bullock, but Bob Bullock could have gotten his two-thirds if he d’ wanted. It is just irrefutable that that is not the reason we did not have a blocker bill. Not a good example of what we did in this unfortunate special session. It s’ one of my greatest goals, and I would urge each of my colleagues to join me after we put redistricting behind us, and, Senator West, you re’ right it moves to the courts where it ultimately was always going to be. I ask you to join with me and realize what not having a two-thirds rule does to this body. What other proof do we need than what we just went through the last 30, 60 days? We have Wednesday, September 24, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 57 made the best case I could have ever made for why we need the two-thirds rule by what took place in this Third Called Special. We must work to preserve it for future sessions. Let me end on a positive note. We ve’ all heard this body called the greatest legislative body on Earth. It certainly, I believe, would have had that image during the Regular Session, most of the First Called. I don t’ think anyone could refer to that during the Second Called and I don t’ believe it would be fair to call it the greatest legislative body on Earth today. But we ve’ made great strides toward regaining that image. I am proud of the debate that we had yesterday. It did me great good. It healed me to watch Senator West and Duncan late yesterday evening sit there and engage, two intelligent, diverse, respected Senators having the discourse. I believe in the great work of Senator Ellis ’speech today. And let me just compliment Senator Staples. Senator Staples, you did a fine job presenting your bill. I m’ proud of this body and I m’ not pessimistic at all. Yes, we re’ not where we need to be but with a lot of work, and it s’ not even going to take a lot of work, there is a lot of good will still in this body. To the leadership of the Lieutenant Governor and each and every one of us, I believe very shortly people will be saying it s’ the greatest legislative body on Earth. President:iiThank you Dean. The Chair recognizes Senator Staples for a motion. Senator Staples:iiThank you Mr. President. Senators, I know we re’ nearing the final phase of what has proven to have been a long but effective process, regardless of our political views that are no doubt shaped by our political affiliations. Each of us had a full and open opportunity to express our opinions in this process. I believe the map does comply with the Voting Rights Act and fairly represents the voting trends of Texans. I do believe the conduct of each of us on this floor proves that we do care and respect the opinions of one another and I move final passage of Committee Substitute to House Bill 3.