Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force, Et Al. Post-Trial Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 1 of 138

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

SHANNON PEREZ, ET AL., § § Plaintiffs § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. § 11-CA-360-OLG-JES-XR STATE OF TEXAS, ET AL. § CONSOLIDATED ACTION § [Lead case] Defendants §

TEXAS LATINO REDISTRICTING TASK FORCE, ET AL. POST-TRIAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 2 of 138

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. FINDINGS OF FACT...... 1

A. STANDING TO CHALLENGE HD90…………………………………………...1

B. NEIGHBORHOODS IN HD90…………………………………………………...1

1. Sansom Park and North Beverly Hills………………………………………...2

2. The Como Neighborhood……………………………………………………..2

C. H358 IMPERMISSIBLY USES RACE TO ASSIGN VOTERS WITHIN OR WITHOUT HD90…………………………………………………………………5

1. Race as a Predominant Factor…………………………………………………5

D. CHANGES TO HD90’S BOUNDARIES IN H358 INTENTIONALLY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST LATINO VOTERS………………………………10

1. Direct Evidence of Racially Discriminatory Intent………………………….10

a. Rep. Burnam frequently stated that Latino voters in HD 90 vote on racial lines………………………………………………………………………11

b. Rep. Burnam belittled and expressed opposition to Latino voters’ support for Latino candidates……………………………………………………..11

c. Rep. Burnam targeted Latino voters to discourage them from using third party assistance in casting mail ballots…………………………………..12

d. Rep. Burnam used racial stereotypes to persuade voters not to vote for Mr. Romero…………………………………………………………………..13

2. Circumstantial Evidence of Intent: Arlington Heights Factors……………...16

a. The Impact of the Official Action……………………………………….16

b. The Historical Background of the Decision……………………………..18

c. The Specific Sequence of Events Leading up to the Challenged Decision………………………………………………………………….26

d. Departures from the Normal Procedural Sequence……………………...36

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 3 of 138

i. Departure from the Legislature’s Original Stated Goal of Passing the Court-Drawn Plans Unchanged …………………………………...36

ii. Limited Opportunity for Public Review…………………………...37

iii. Limited Amendments………………………………………………38

iv. Interactions with the Attorney General’s Office…………………...38

e. Substantive Departures…………………………………………………..39

i. Redistricters Departed from Traditional Criteria Such as Avoiding Precinct Cuts and Respecting Communities of Interest……………39

ii. Failure to Evaluate the Burnam Amendment for Compliance with the Federal Voting Rights Act…………………………………………40

iii. Departures from the Legislature’s Original Stated Goal of Passing the Court-Drawn Plans…………………………………………….42

iv. Consideration in the Senate………………………………………..44

E. HD90’s BOUNDARIES IN H358 DILUTE LATINO VOTING STRENGTH IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 2…………………………………………………...44

1. Gingles Prong 1………………………………………………………………44

2. Gingles Prong 2 and 3: Racially Polarized Voting in Tarrant County………44

a. Dr. Engstrom’s Qualifications…………………………………………...44

b. Dr. Engstrom’s Methodology……………………………………………45

c. Dr. Alford Praising Dr. Engstrom’s Methodology………………………46

d. Dr. Engstrom’s Conclusions on General Elections………………………47

e. Primary Elections Play a Critical Role in Evaluating Racially Polarized Voting……………………………………………………………………49

i. Dr. Engstrom’s Testimony…………………………………………49

ii. Dr. Alford’s Testimony…………………………………………….50

iii. Dr. Lichtman’s Testimony…………………………………………53

iii

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 4 of 138

iv. Dr. Tijerina’s Testimony…………………………………………...54

v. Dr. Murray’s Testimony…………………………………………...54

vi. African-American Congresspersons’ Testimony…………………..55

f. Tarrant County Elections………………………………………………...56

g. Democratic Primaries in HD90 Are Racially Polarized…………………59

h. NAACP Witnesses Corroborating Dr. Engstrom………………………..61

i. Tarrant County Non-Partisan Elections Are Racially Polarized…………61

j. Dilutive Effects of Burnam Amendment in H358……………………….63

3. Totality of the Circumstances………………………………………………..65

a. The History of Voting-Related Discrimination in the State of Political Subdivision………………………………………………………………65

b. The Extent to Which Voting is Racially Polarized………………………66

c. The Extent To Which The State Or Political Subdivision Has Used Voting Practices Or Procedures That Tend To Enhance The Opportunity For Discrimination Against The Minority Group, Such As Unusually Large Election Districts, Majority Vote Requirements, And Prohibitions Against Bullet Voting…………………………………………………………….67

d. The Exclusion Of Members Of The Minority Group From Candidate Slating Processes…………………………………………………………67

e. The Extent To Which Minority Group Members Bear The Effects Of Past Discrimination In Areas Such As Education, Employment, And Health, Which Hinder Their Ability To Participate Effectively In The Political Process…………………………………………………………………...68

f. The Use Of Overt Or Subtle Racial Appeals In Political Campaigns…...69

g. The Extent To Which Members Of The Minority Group Have Been Elected To Public Office In The Jurisdiction……………………………70

II. PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ...... 73

A. OVERVIEW OF THE RULING...... 73

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 5 of 138

3. The Court's Previous Rulings on HD90 Confirm that Creation of HD90 as an SSVR majority district, by itself, is neither illegal nor improper...... 73

4. Recent Rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court Support the Creation of HD90 as a Latino Majority District……………………………………………………...76

B. HD90 IN PLAN H358 INTENTIONALLY DISCRIMINATES AGAINST LATINOS IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (SHAW RACIAL GERRYMANDERING CLAIM………………………………………78

C. HD90 IN PLAN H358 INTENTIONALLY DILUTES LATINO VOTING STRENGTH IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (INTENTIONAL VOTE DILUTION CLAIM…...... 84

1. Direct Evidence of Discriminatory Intent………………………………..86

2. The Discriminatory Impact of Changes to HD90 in H358………………88

3. Historical Background…………………………………………………...89

a. The 2011 Legislative Session ...... 93

4. Sequence of Events Leading up to the Challenged Decision…...……….96

5. Departures from the Normal Procedural Sequence ...... 100

6. Departures from Normal Substantive Considerations ...... 102

7. The Factors set out in LULAC v. Perry Support a Finding of Discrimination……………………………...... 105

8. The Voting Rights Act Prohibits Intent to Dilute Latino Voting Strength in General Elections as well as Democratic Primary Elections…………...106

D. HD90 IN PLANS H358 DISCRIMINATES IN EFFECT AGAINST LATINOS IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. 1973, et seq……………………………………………………………………..108 1. Gingles 1: Latinos are Sufficiently Numerous and Compact to Constitute the Majority of HD90...... 108

2. Gingles 2 and 3: Racially Polarized Voting…………………...………..109

a. The Importance of Primary and Non-Partisan Elections in Evaluating Racially Polarized Voting ...... 113 v

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 6 of 138

3. Totality of the Circumstances ...... 119

4. The Changes to HD90 in H358 Minimized Latino Voting Strength ...... 121

5. The Senate Factors ...... 122

6. Proportionality as a Factor in the Totality of Circumstances ...... 124

E. THE LATINO TASK FORCE’S SUCCESSFUL CHALLENGE OF NUECES COUNTY BOUNDARIES IN PLAN C185 AND PLAN H283 SHOULD NOT BE REVISITED ...... 124

III. CONCLUSION ...... 127

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 7 of 138

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) ...... 78 Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) ...... 125 Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 135 S. Ct. 1257 (2015) ...... 77, 78, 79 Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) ...... 79, 85, 86 Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (2009) ...... 108 Benavidez v. City of Irving, Tex., 638 F.Supp.2d 709 (N.D. Tex. 2009) ...... 110, 111 Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, 137 S. Ct. 788 (2017) ...... 77, 78 Browning v. Navarro, 887 F.2d 553 (5th Cir. 1989) ...... 125 Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) ...... 115 Campos v. City of Baytown, 840 F. 2d 1240 (5th Cir. 1988) ...... 110 Campos v. City of Houston, 113 F.3d 544 (5th Cir. 1997) ...... 108 City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980) ...... 84 City of Mobile, Ala. v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980) ...... 78 Clark v. Calhoun County, Miss., 21 F.3d 92 (5th Cir. 1994) ...... 119 Clark, 88 F.3d ...... 121 Collins v. City of Norfolk, 816 F. 2d 932 (4th Cir. 1987) ...... 110 Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. Ct. 1455 (2017) ...... 77, 127

vii

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 8 of 138

E. Jefferson Coal. for Leadership & Dev. v. Parish of Jefferson, 926 F.2d 487 (5th Cir. 1991) ...... 109, 112 Fabela v. City of Farmers Branch, Tex., 2012 WL 3135545 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2012) ...... 111 Garza v. County of Los Angeles, 756 F. Supp. 1298 (C.D. Cal. 1990) ...... 78, 79 Garza v. County of Los Angeles, 918 F.2d 763 (9th Cir. 1990) ...... 84 Gomez v. City of Watsonville, 863 F.2d 1407 (9th Cir. 1988) ...... 110 Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25 (1993) ...... 108 In re Felt, 255 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 2001) ...... 125, 126 In re Ford Motor Co., 591 F.3d 406 (5th Cir. 2009) ...... 125, 126, 127 Jamison v. Tupelo, Mississippi, 471 F. Supp. 2d 706 (N.D. Miss. 2007) ...... 111 Jenkins v. Red Clay Consol. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 4 F.3d 1103 (3d Cir. 1993)...... 119 Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997 (1994) ...... 108, 114, 124 Kilgarlin v. Martin, 252 F. Supp. 404 (S.D. Tex. 1966) ...... 65, 67, 90 Kirksey v. Bd. of Supervisors, 528 F.2d 139 (5th Cir. 1977) ...... 121 LULAC v. Clements, 999 F.2d 831 (5th Cir. 1993) ...... 121 LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S...... 79, 90, 105, 122 Magnolia Bar Ass’n v. Lee, 793 F. Supp. 1386 (S.D. Miss. 1992)...... 112 Magnolia Bar Ass’n, Inc. v. Lee, 994 F.2d 1143 (5th Cir. 1993) ...... 111 Massey v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 46 F. Supp. 3d 688 (W.D. Tex. 2014) ...... 125 Messenger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436 (1912) ...... 125 Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995) ...... 78, 79, 84

viii

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 9 of 138

Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73 (1932) ...... 114 Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927) ...... 114, 115 Perez v. Abbott, No. SA-11-CV-360, 2017 WL 1787454 (W.D. Tex. May 2, 2017) ...... 79, 80, 82, 84 Propes v. Quarterman, 573 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 2009) ...... 125 Rangel v. Morales, 8 F.3d 242 (5th Cir. 1993) ...... 112 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) ...... 90 Rodriguez v. Harris Cnty., Tex., 964 F. Supp. 2d 686 (S.D. Tex. 2013) ...... 111 Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613 (1982) ...... 84 Royal Ins. Co. of America v. Quinn-L Capital Corp., 3 F.3d 877 (5th Cir. 1993) ...... 125, 126 Session, 298 F.Supp.2d ...... 122 Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 116 S.Ct. 1894, 135 L.Ed.2d 207 (1996) ...... 80 Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) ...... 79, 84 Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944) ...... 114 Thornburg v. Gingles 478 U.S. 30 (1986)………………….……………………………………………………passim

United States v. City of Euclid, 580 F. Supp. 2d 584 (N.D. Ohio 2008) ...... 111 United States v. Village of Port Chester, No. 06 Civ. 15173(SCR), 2008 WL 190502 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2008) ...... 111 Valdespino v. Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist., 168 F.3d 848 (5th Cir. 1999) ...... 108 Vera v. Richards, 861 F. Supp. 1304 ...... 122 Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) ...... 90 Westwego Citizens for Better Gov’t v. City of Westwego, 872 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1989) ...... 111

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 10 of 138

Westwego Citizens for Better Gov’t. v. Westwego, 946 F.2d 1109 (5th Cir. 1991) ...... 112 Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S., 124 (1971) ...... 84 White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973) ...... 92, 121

Statutes

42 U.S.C. 1973 ...... v, 108 52 U.S. Code § 10301 (b) ...... 85, 106 R.S. 2294 (2011) ...... 24 R.S. 2358 (2011) ...... 24 R.S. 2361 (2011) ...... 24 R.S. 6917 (2011) ...... 24

Other Authorities

Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 4478, at 788 (1981) ...... 125

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 11 of 138

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

A. STANDING TO CHALLENGE HD90

1. The Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force Plaintiffs (“Task Force Plaintiffs”) challenged

the configuration of HD90 in H358 as a racial gerrymander, intentionally dilutive of

Latino voting strength and dilutive in effect. (Task Force Fourth Amended Complaint,

Dkt. 891 at ¶¶ 2, 41, 78, 79).

2. The Task Force Plaintiffs have standing to challenge House District 90 (“HD90”) in

H358 because at least one member of the Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force is Latino

and a registered voter in HD90. (2017 Task Force Ex. 21).

B. NEIGHBORHOODS IN HD90

3. HD90 has had a majority minority population since at least the early 1980s. (2017 Task

Force. Ex. 1 at 4).

4. During the redistricting that took place in 2003, seven heavily Latino precincts were

added to HD90. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 5).

5. Today, HD90 covers almost all of the majority-Latino neighborhoods in Tarrant County.

(2017 Task Force Ex. 51). Tarrant County as a whole remains majority Anglo. (2017

Task Force Ex. 50).

6. HD90 includes a portion or all of a number of neighborhoods, including the North Side,

Diamond Hill, North Beverly Hills, Downtown Forth Worth, Worth Heights, South

Hemphill Heights, Rosemont, Seminary Hills, Fairmount, Polytechnic Heights,

Riverside, Sylvan Heights West, Scenic Bluff, Alamo Heights, and Como. (2017 Trial

Tr. 298:21 - 300:4).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 12 of 138

7. Mr. Lon Burnam lives in the Fairmount Neighborhood, one of the neighborhoods within

HD90. (2017 Trial Tr. 301:3-5; 2017 Task Force Ex. 18).

1. Sansom Park and North Beverly Hills

8. Sansom Park and North Beverly Hills are in the northwest portion of HD90. (2017 Trial

Tr. 351:14-16).

9. Sansom Park is a small city with approximately 4,600 residents. (2017 Trial Tr. 310:6-

8). Sansom Park has a growing Latino population. (2017 Trial Tr. 310:6-8).

10. In 2011-2012, Sansom Park was largely encompassed within precinct 4138. (2017 Trial

Tr. 338:11-13; 2017 Task Force Ex. 3-H). Precinct 4138 had a 2012G SSVR of 23.55%.

(2017 Task Force Ex. 38 at 1).

11. Sansom Park and North Beverly Hills, although not areas with majority Latino voter

registration, have a history of supporting and electing Latino candidates. (2017 Trial Tr.

315:15 - 316:25; 351:22 - 352:3). For example, Sansom Park elected Roger Chavez, a

Latino, to an at-large city council seat. (2017 Trial Tr. 316:15-25).

2. The Como Neighborhood

12. The neighborhood of Como is located in Tarrant County precinct 1120. (2017 Task

Force Ex. 1 at 45; 2017 Task Force Ex. 17).

13. Como has an overwhelmingly non-Latino voter population. In the 2012 Democratic

Primary election, Como had an SSVR of 4.4%. (2017 Task Force Ex. 15 at 1). In the

2014 Democratic Primary, Como had an SSVR of 4.62%. (2017 Task Force Ex. 11 at 1;

2017 Task Force Ex. 13 at 1).

14. Como is a predominantly African-American community. (2017 Task Force Ex. 4 at 4 ;

2017 Task Force Ex. 51).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 13 of 138

15. Como is located to the west of Fort Worth’s urban core. (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-G at 2).

16. Como is located in Senate District 12, which contains a 24.8% Black and Hispanic voting

age population and is represented by Texas Senator Jane Nelson (R). Como is not

located in Senate District 10, which contains a 42.4% Black and Hispanic voting age

population and encompasses the majority of HD90. (Tarrant County, State Senate

District 10 Voting Precincts (2014),

http://access.tarrantcounty.com/content/dam/main/elections/Maps/State_Senate/State_Se

nate_District_10.pdf; Texas Legislative Council, Precincts by District Senate District 10

(2017), http://www.fyi.legis.texas.gov/fyiwebdocs/PDF/senate/dist10/r7.pdf; Texas

Legislative Council, Senate District Population Analysis, at 3 (2017),

http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/download/Senate/PLANS172r100.pdf).

17. Como is located in Congressional District 12, which contains a 24.8% Black and

Hispanic voting age population and is represented by U.S. Representative Kay Granger

(R). Como is not located in Congressional District 33, which contains a 78.5% Black and

Hispanic voting age population and encompasses the majority of HD90. (Tarrant

County, United States Representative District 33 Voting Precincts (2014),

http://access.tarrantcounty.com/content/dam/main/elections/Maps/US_Rep/US_Rep_33.p

df; Texas Legislative Council, Precincts by District -- Congressional District 33 (2017),

http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/fyiwebdocs/PDF/congress/dist33/r7.pdf; Texas

Legislative Council, District Population Analysis -- Congressional Districts, at 3, 7

(2017), http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/download/Congress/PLANC235r100.pdf).

18. Because of its distance from the urban core of Fort Worth, Como is not located in HD95,

which is represented by an African-American representative in the State House, Nicole

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 14 of 138

Collier. (Texas Legislative Council, Incumbents By District -- House Districts, at 2

(2017), http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/download/House/PLANH358r350.pdf).

19. The neighborhood of Como is the precinct with the highest turnout in HD90 Democratic

Primary elections with a voting rate twice as high as many other HD90 precincts. (2017

Trial Tr. 313:14-22). In the 2014 Democratic Primary election, Como had a turnout of

19.4%. (2017 Task Force Ex. 39 at 1; 2017 Task Force Ex. 44 at 1).

20. In the 2014 Democratic Primary election, Como voters cast 495 votes, while the second

highest turnout precinct, precinct 1132, produced only 233 votes. (2017 Task Force Ex.

39 at 1).

21. Since 1983, Como has been a stopping point for presidential, gubernatorial, and

senatorial candidates because of its high turnout. (2017 Trial Tr. 353:4-7).

22. Como historically does not support Latino candidates in Democratic primary elections.

(2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 45-49; 2017 Trial Tr. 313:7-13, 352:16-17).

23. Como has an unofficial endorsement process, in which a number of community leaders

signal their support for a candidate, who then gains the support of the majority of the

neighborhood. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 33). Dorothy DeBose is a member of this

political machine. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 34). Rep. Burnam paid Ms. DeBose to

work for his campaigns in HD90. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 49). Before Ms. DeBose,

Ms. Viola Pitts, who was known as “the mayor of Como,” led the political machine.

(2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 34-35).

24. Como was a high priority for Rep. Burnam. He visited the neighborhood at least every

couple of weeks. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 32). He held campaign events in the

neighborhood. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 32). He block-walked the neighborhood every

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 15 of 138

election cycle. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 32). Rep. Burnam described himself as very

familiar with the residents of Como. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 32). During the 2014

Democratic primary, Rep. Burnam’s campaign separated Como residents into a specific

phone list. (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-AM).

C. H358 IMPERMISSIBLY USES RACE TO ASSIGN VOTERS WITHIN OR WITHOUT HD90

1. Race as a Predominant Factor

25. During the 2013 special session, Rep. Burnam asked his Chief of Staff, Conor Kenny, to

draw a map that placed Como back into HD90. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 17). Rep.

Burnam asked Mr. Kenny to draw the amendment after he heard that the House

leadership would entertain amendments. (2017 Trial Tr 634:7-24).

26. Rep. Burnam instructed Mr. Kenny to see if he could swap areas between HD90 and

HD99 that would bring the Como neighborhood back into HD90. (2017 Trial Tr. 635:6-

16).

27. Mr. Kenny surmised that bringing Como into HD90 would assist Rep. Burnam in a future

primary election. (2017 Trial Tr. 644:19-23).

28. Rep. Burnam instructed Mr. Kenny on how to draw maps of HD90, including pointing to

areas and instructing Mr. Kenny to add areas. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 19). Rep.

Burnam directed Mr. Kenny in drawing maps of HD90 because Rep. Burnam was

familiar with the relevant neighborhoods and Mr. Kenny was not. (2017 Task Force Ex.

1 at 27; 2017 Trial Tr. 658:10-12).

29. Mr. Kenny testified that he had only limited familiarity with the neighborhoods in HD90.

(2017 Trial Tr. 658:10-12). Mr. Kenny testified that he was not familiar with the

demographic composition of the Fairmount neighborhood. (2017 Trial Tr. 658:13-22).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 16 of 138

Mr. Kenny testified that he was not familiar with the demographic composition of the

Riverside neighborhood. (2017 Trial Tr. 658:23-25). Mr. Kenny testified that he was not

familiar with the demographic composition of the South Side neighborhoods. (2017 Trial

Tr. 659:1-14). Mr. Kenny testified that he was not familiar with the demographic

composition of the Diamond Hill neighborhood. (2017 Trial Tr. 659:21-23). Mr. Kenny

testified that he did not have enough familiarity with the neighborhoods of HD90 to know

whether the Latino population was increasing within the neighborhoods. (2017 Trial Tr.

659:24 - 660:5). Mr. Kenny testified that he has not seen population figures that show

the growth of the Latino community in Fort Worth over the last decade. (2017 Trial Tr.

660:6-11).

30. While drawing the first map, Mr. Kenny looked only at population deviation; he pulled

Como into HD90 and put other precincts into HD99. (2017 Trial Tr. 637:17 - 638:1).

Mr. Kenny did not look at demographic information during the first round of map

drawing. (2017 Trial Tr. 637:25 - 638:1).

31. On June 19, 2013, Rep. Burnam made public Plan H328, his draft plan to amend SB 3

during the 2013 special session. (2017 Task Force Ex. 30D). Rep. Burnam’s Plan H328

included the neighborhood of Como in HD90. (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-G at 2; 2017 Task

Force Ex. 1 at 29).

32. This initial plan to include Como back into HD90 brought the 2012G Total SSVR in

HD90 below 50% to 48.2%. (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-E at 2; 2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at

18; 2017 Task Force 30-F; 2017 Trial Tr. 639:8, 14-20).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 17 of 138

33. At a later point in time, Rep. Burnam asked Mr. Kenny to go back and see if he could

draw a version of HD90 that swapped more areas between HD90 and HD99 to bring the

SSVR back up to the previous plan’s level. (2017 Trial Tr. 641:1-21).

34. In order to raise the SSVR in HD90 above 50%, Rep. Burnam and Mr. Kenny created a

second map in which the goal, according to Rep. Burnam, was to remove “every white

voter near the western boundary of the district to keep the Hispanic vote over 50%.”

(2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 17).

35. Mr. Kenny did not take into account any election results as he made changes to the

district; the redrawing was, in his words, “purely a demographic exercise.” (2017 Trial

Tr. 664:11-15, 671:21-23; 2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 29 ). Rep. Burnam testified that

while drawing HD90 to reach an SSVR of 50.1%, he never examined changes in election

performance of the district. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 41).

36. Mr. Kenny first worked at the precinct level to raise the district SSVR, but he could not

raise the SSVR to the previous level. (2017 Trial Tr. 643:15-21).

37. Mr. Kenny then went block by block to finalize his second map using HVAP census data

as a proxy for SSVR, as SSVR is not available at the block level. (2017 Trial Tr. 643:24

- 644:1, 666:16 -667:1).

38. Rep. Burnam testified that he ignored precinct lines to “pull [Latinos] in” to HD90 and

find white people to put in HD99, represented by Rep. Geren. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at

27).

39. Mr. Kenny used racial shading in RedAppl, a computer application used to draw

redistricting plans, to draw HD90 by including Census blocks with higher HVAP. (2017

Trial Tr. 665:10-666:6). Mr. Kenny went along the border between HD90 and HD 99

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 18 of 138

and brought blocks that were above 50% HVAP into HD90. Then he took out blocks that

were under 50% HVAP. (2017 Trial Tr. 643:6 – 644:6, 665:24 – 666:15; 2017 Task

Force Ex. 1 at 28). When Mr. Kenny saw a block on RedAppl with an HVAP below

50%, he moved it out of HD90 regardless of other populations. This was his procedure

for creating his second map. (2017 Trial Tr. 665:24 – 666:15).

40. Mr. Kenny referred to his goal of adding blocks with greater than 50% HVAP and

removing blocks with less than 50% HVAP as an “operational mandate.” (2017 Trial Tr.

671:9-17).

41. In total, Rep. Burnam and Mr. Kenny split ten precincts to draw HD90’s new boundaries.

(2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 36; 2017 Task Force Ex. 3-I at 2-4; 2017 Task Force Ex. 40).

42. Rep. Burnam’s amendment cut out portions of Sansom Park by splitting precincts 4073

and 4593, in order to remove Anglo-majority blocks while maintaining Latino-majority

blocks. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 31; 2017 Task Force Ex. 3-H).

43. Rep. Burnam specifically outlined how he split precincts 4125, 4068, 4493, 4634, and

1015 in order to include Latino-majority blocks in HD90 and exclude Anglo-majority

blocks from HD90. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 36-39; 2017 Task Force Ex. 3-J at 1-3).

44. Rep. Burnam further outlined how he removed whole precincts 1674 and 1062 and

included whole precincts 1434 and 1408, in order to include Latino-majority precincts in

HD90 and remove non-Latino-majority precincts from the district. (2017 Task Force Ex.

1 at 39-40; 2017 Task Force Ex. 3-J at 3).

45. Rep. Burnam admitted that he made changes to HD90 for the sole purpose of including

Latino-majority blocks in the district and excluding Anglo-majority blocks. (2017 Task

Force Ex. 1 at 36-38).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 19 of 138

46. Mr. Kenny testified that he reviewed the cut to precinct 4125 with Rep. Burnam and told

Rep. Burnam that cutting 4125 in order to draw more Latinos into HD90 would be

“ugly.” (2017 Trial Tr. 670:2-12). Rep. Burnam did not express concern with the “ugly”

cut and instead said that the cut was “great” because it brought more Latinos into HD90.

(2017 Trial Tr. 670:2-12).

47. While making the changes to HD90, Mr. Kenny tried to involve only one other district,

HD99. (2017 Trial Tr. 666:25).

48. However, Mr. Kenny ultimately involved a third district in his redrawn map. (2017 Trial

Tr. 642:9-15, 667:2-4). This is because Rep. Burnam had originally used a precinct north

of the railroad track to connect Como to HD90 that he testified “wasn’t a good match”

because “there were too many white people in that district [sic].” (2017 Task Force Ex. 1

at 23). Rep. Burnam eliminated the original connector precinct to Como and replaced it

with an unpopulated precinct that was south of the railroad tracks. Adding that precinct

to HD90 involved a third district HD97, which was represented by Craig Goldman.

(2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 23; 2017 Task Force Ex. 3-J at 3).

49. The total population of the precincts split or moved whole because of race by Rep.

Burnam’s amendment is 33,343 individuals, including an estimated 16,429 registered

voters. (2017 Task Force Exs. 3-H, 3-J, 40, 66, 69 and 70).

50. Rep. Burnam introduced his amendment on the House floor with the following comment:

“[B]asically what it does is take the African American and Hispanic population out of

Representative Geren’s district and puts some of my Anglo population into his district. I

believe it’s acceptable to the author [Chairman Darby].” (2017 Joint Ex. 17.3 at S29).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 20 of 138

51. During consideration of the Burnam amendment on the House floor, Chairman Darby

addressed the House: “Members, Representative Burnam has revised his amendment and

it now keeps this district a Hispanic district--brings the numbers back over 50%. That

was the objection. I believe Representative Geren is in favor of this amendment also, so

with that I would move to accept this amendment.” (2017 Joint Ex. 17.3 at S29; 2017

Trial Tr. 1544:13 - 25).

52. Chairman Darby invoked legislative privilege and did not provide any further testimony

on the nature of “the objection” or why he believed this revision cured the objection to

the original Burnam amendment. (2017 Trial Tr. 1545:1-14).

D. CHANGES TO HD90’S BOUNDARIES IN H358 INTENTIONALLY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST LATINO VOTERS

1. Direct Evidence of Racially Discriminatory Intent

53. Fort Worth community leader Sal Espino testified that, around 2008 or 2009, he was

approached by individuals who advised him to challenge Lon Burnam in the Democratic

primary election for HD90. Rep. Burnam asked to meet with Mr. Espino, who was a Fort

Worth City Councilmember at the time, and at the meeting tried to dissuade Mr. Espino

from running for the seat. Mr. Espino ultimately decided not to challenge Rep. Burnam.

(2017 Trial Tr. 297:12 - 298:4).

54. Prior to the 2014 Democratic Primary election, Rep. Burnam approached Ramon Romero

and attempted to dissuade him from running for State Representative in HD90. (2017

Task Force Ex. 1 at 58). Rep. Burnam met only with Mr. Romero, and no other potential

challengers, to convince him not to run. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 58).

55. Rep. Burnam and Mr. Kenny referred to their initial 2013 changes to HD90 (in H328) as

a “dilution of the Hispanic voting power in the district.” (2017 Trial Tr. 665:2-5).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 21 of 138

56. Rep. Burnam testified that the changes he made from the first version of his amendment

to the second, which raised the SSVR to 50.1%, “didn’t change the [electoral

performance] numbers, but it changed the [SSVR] percentage.” (2017 Task Force Ex. 1

at 63).

57. Mr. Kenny conceded that the final map produced by him and Mr. Burnam would make it

more difficult for Latinos to elect their preferred candidate in the Democratic primary if

that candidate were Latino. (2017 Trial Tr. 672:24 – 673:7).

a. Rep. Burnam frequently stated that Latino voters in HD 90 vote on racial lines.

58. Rep. Burnam testified that he knew that the growing Latino population in HD90 would

make it difficult for him to win Democratic primaries. (2017 Task Force Ex. 2 at 19).

59. Rep. Burnam largely attributed his loss in the 2014 Democratic Primary to the

“demographic shift” in the district, saying, “people mainly tend to vote based on their

own personal identity.” (2017 Task Force Ex. 2 at 20).

b. Rep. Burnam belittled and expressed opposition to Latino voters’ support for Latino candidates.

60. Following his loss in the Democratic primary, Mr. Burnam described himself as “a

victim” of “identity politics.” (2017 Task Force Ex. 2 at 27).

61. Mr. Burnam stated that in order to appeal to Latino voters he would have had to

transform into a Latino, and stated that a joke in his office was that “if I would just

change my name to Leon Bernal there would be no problem” getting Latino votes in

HD90. (2017 Task Force Ex. 2 at 28-29).

62. Mr. Burnam stated that Latino voter support for Latino candidates was not necessarily in

their best interest. He stated, “it’s about identity politics . . . [t]his district is 70%

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 22 of 138

Hispanic and people all over the world tend to vote for people they identify with that’s

not necessarily in their best interest.” (2017 Task Force Ex. 2 at 23).

63. Mr. Burnam testified that Latino voters who voted for the Latino candidate in the HD90

2014 Democratic primary “unwittingly” voted against their interests. (2017 Task Force

Ex. 2 at 25-25).

64. Mr. Burnam also stated that Latino voters did not vote in their best interest when they

supported Latino candidates running in CD33 and SD10. (2017 Task Force Ex. 2 at 26).

65. Mr. Burnam maintained that Latino voter support for Latino candidates was the result of

manipulation as opposed to considered deliberation on the part of Latino voters. (2017

Task Force Ex. 2 at 25).

66. When speaking about the 2014 Democratic primary elections in HD90, CD33, and SD10,

Rep. Burnam invoked the stereotype of Latinos as uneducated and easily manipulated by

maintaining that Latino voters were “directed and deceived” into voting for Latino

candidates and against their own best interest. (2017 Task Force Ex. 2 at 25-26; 2017

Task Force Ex. 56; 2017 Task Force Ex. 57).

c. Rep. Burnam targeted Latino voters to discourage them from using third party assistance in casting mail ballots.

67. Ramon Romero, who is Latino, challenged Rep. Burnam in the 2014 Democratic Primary

election for HD90. (2017 Trial Tr. 302:5 - 302:10; 2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 58).

68. The volunteers and campaign workers for Mr. Romero’s campaign wore blue campaign t-

shirts. (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-AJ, 22).

69. During the 2014 Democratic primary for HD90, Rep. Burnam hired the Tyson

organization to produce robocalls for his campaign. (2017 Task Force Ex. 2 at 2-3; 2017

Task Force Ex. 3-AO; 2017 Task Force Ex. 3-AP).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 23 of 138

70. Rep. Burnam reviewed an email from his campaign manager with a robocall script

warning elderly voters that people in blue Ramon Romero campaign t-shirts may steal

their vote-by-mail ballots. (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-AG; 2017 Task Force Ex. 47).

71. Rep. Burnam’s campaign ultimately sent out a robocall warning elderly voters that

people in blue t-shirts may steal their vote-by-mail ballots. (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-AG;

2017 Task Force Ex. 3-AH; (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-AE; 2017 Task Force 3-AF; 2017

Task Force Ex. 2 at 12-13; 2017 Task Force Ex. 47).

72. Rep. Burnam was aware of his campaign sending this robocall. (2017 Task Force Ex. 2

at 8-10).

73. The Spanish language version of this robocall was recorded by Rep. Burnam’s employee,

Josie Martinez, and sent out to a targeted list of Latino voters. (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-

AQ; 2017 Task Force Ex. 3-AI; 2017 Task Force Ex. 2 at 11-12, 13-14).

74. Although there is evidence the robocall was sent in Spanish, Rep. Burnam could not

produce any evidence that the robocall was sent in English. (2017 Task Force Ex. 2 at

16).

75. Rep. Burnam testified that he intended the robocall to make recipients reluctant to accept

assistance from Ramon Romero campaign workers. (2017 Task Force Ex. 2 at 16).

76. Despite Rep. Burnam’s robocall in the Spanish-speaking community warning voters not

to participate in Mr. Romero’s vote-by-mail ballot assistance program, Rep. Burnam ran

his own vote-by-mail ballot assistance program through surrogates in the heavily non-

Latino Como neighborhood. (2017 Task Force Ex. 2 at 10).

d. Rep. Burnam used racial stereotypes to persuade voters not to vote for Mr. Romero

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 24 of 138

77. During the 2014 Democratic primary for HD90, Mr. Romero’s campaign held an event to

get out the vote. It was held at a park across the street from the All Saint's Catholic

Church, an early voting site on the north side of the district. (2017 Trial Tr. 355:16-25).

78. The All Saint’s Catholic Church is an important landmark in the northside Latino

community. (2017 Trial Tr. 355:22-24).

79. Flyers portraying Mr. Romero as a member of the Latin Kings Gang were distributed at

the All Saint’s Catholic Church across the street from Mr.Romero’s get out the vote

event. (2017 Trial Tr. 355:16 - 356:5).

80. The flyer was produced by the Tarrant County Good Government Political Action

Committee (PAC), which was affiliated with Lon Burnam’s campaign. (2017 Task Force

Ex. 3-W).

81. Rep. Burnam recognized the flyers as belonging to his campaign, and the return address

on the flyers was Rep. Burnam’s P.O. Box. (2017 Task Force Ex. 2 at 31-32).

82. The Tarrant County Good Government PAC’s Treasurer was Mary Edwards, and its only

two contributors were Randy Dukes and Lynda Bredner. (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-V; 2017

Task Force Ex. 2 at 29). Mary Edwards was an employee of Rep. Burnam. (2017 Task

Force Ex. 1 at 50). Rep. Burnam knew Randy Dukes both personally and professionally,

and Rep. Burnam describes Lynda Bredner as a close personal friend. (2017 Task Force

Ex. 1 at 50). As of February 2014, Rep. Burnam was aware of the formation of the PAC.

(2017 Task Force Ex. 2 at 29-30).

83. Rep. Burnam knew that the Latin Kings is a predominantly Latino street gang. Rep.

Burnam’s stated intention in distributing the flyer was to give voters the impression that

Mr. Romero was associated with the Latin Kings. Rep. Burnam further testified that Mr.

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 25 of 138

Romero was a member of the gang and made his money through drugs. (2017 Task Force

Ex. 2 at 33).

84. The flyer depicted a negative and offensive stereotype of Latinos, namely that they are

gang members. (2017 Trial Tr. 319:23 - 320:17). The flyer insinuated that if Mr.

Romero were elected, there would be more gangs and violence. (2017 Trial Tr. 357:12-

14).

85. During the 2014 Democratic Primary, Rep. Burnam’s website featured a graphic

depicting Mr. Romero’s photo in between the photos of two other candidates, with the

words “Fake Democrats” superimposed over all three faces. (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-X).

The candidate directly next to Mr. Romero was holding a poster of President Obama with

a Hitler mustache. (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-X).

86. Mr. Kenny prepared the campaign graphic for Mr. Burnam. (2017 Trial Tr. 680:1-2,

686:8-20). Rep. Burnam testified that he approved of the posting in some form. (2017

Task Force Ex. 2 at 35). Rep. Burnam also posted this graphic on his Facebook page.

(2017 Task Force Ex. 3-Y).

87. Mr. Espino testified that the graphic was “deeply disturbing, offensive, and hateful.” Mr.

Espino considered the graphic to be an appeal to non-Latino voters, and African-

American voters in particular, not to vote for Mr. Romero. (2017 Trial Tr. 320:18 -

321:14).

88. Rep. Burnam testified that he hoped that these posts would be “very disturbing” to

African-American voters. (2017 Task Force Ex. 2 at 37). Rep. Burnam testified that

voters would “quite possibly” gain a negative impression of Mr. Romero because he was

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 26 of 138

portrayed next to a picture of President Obama with a Hitler mustache. (2017 Task Force

Ex. 2 at 38).

89. Throughout his campaign, Rep. Burnam’s vendor, the Tyson organization, used race-

specific outreach lists and targeted voters specifically based on race, including Latinos

and African Americans. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 56-57; 2017 Task Force Ex. 2 at 5-6;

2017 Task Force Ex. 3-AL; 2017 Task force Ex. 3-AK).

2. Circumstantial Evidence of Intent: Arlington Heights Factors

a. The Impact of the Official Action

90. The 2013 Legislature enacted a redistricting plan for the Texas House of Representatives

called Plan H358, which was made public on June 21, 2013. (2017 Task Force Ex. 45;

2017 Joint Ex. 18.1 at 17).

91. In Plan H358, the 2012G total SSVR was reduced to 50.1% from 51.1% in Plan H283.

(2017 Task Force Ex. 45 at 5; 2017 Task Force Ex. 24-F at 169).

92. The Burnam amendment changed the result for Latino candidate Hector Uribe’s

performance in the 2010 Democratic primary for Land Commissioner from winning to

losing. Under H283 in HD90, Latino candidate Hector Uribe wins 50.7% in the 2010

Democratic primary for Land Commissioner. (2017 Task Force Ex. 24F at 94). Under

H358 in HD90, Latino candidate Hector Uribe loses the primary with 49.97% in the 2010

Democratic primary for Land Commissioner. (2017 Task Force Ex. 68).

93. Mr. Espino testified that the changes made to the boundaries of HD90 by Rep. Burnam’s

amendment weaken the opportunity for Latinos to elect a candidate of their choice in the

Democratic primary and make it more difficult for Latino candidates to win. (2017 Trial

Tr. 317:1-16).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 27 of 138

94. Mr. Kenny testified that the Burnam amendment would make it more difficult for Latino

voters to nominate their preferred candidate in the Democratic primary if that candidate

was Latino. (2017 Trial Tr. 672:24 – 673:7).

95. Mr. Kenny was aware that bringing Como into HD90 could help Rep. Burnam in future

primaries, as Rep. Burnam referred to Como as an area with a lot of supporters. (2017

Trial Tr. 672:15-19). Mr. Kenny testified that Rep. Burnam would be happy that Como

was back in HD90 during the next primary election. (2017 Trial Tr. 673:8 – 674:17).

96. Mr. Kenny testified that he and Rep. Burnam referred to the first version of the

amendment, which moved Como back into the district, as dilution of the Latino voting

power in the district. (2017 Trial Tr. 665:2-5).

97. Although the areas removed from HD90 were majority Anglo, they had an SSVR of

20.6%, which was significantly higher than the area added to the district, which included

Como and had an overall SSVR of 8.5% (2017 Task Force Ex. 9 at 2). As a result, the

addition of Como and the removal of portions of Sansom Park and North Beverly Hills

had a net effect of lowering the SSVR in HD90.

98. Moreover, Sansom Park and North Beverly Hills, although not areas with majority Latino

voter registration, had a history of electing Latino candidates. (2017 Trial Tr. 315:15 -

316:25). The Burnam amendment’s replacement of Sansom Park and North Beverly

Hills with Como weakened the opportunity for Latinos to elect the candidates of their

choice in HD90 in two ways: Como’s higher turnout and strong vote against a Latino

candidate outweighed the other neighborhoods’ lower turnout and more favorable

margins for Latino candidates. (2017 Trial Tr. 317:1 - 318:3, 352:9-11).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 28 of 138

99. Mr. Espino testified that Mr. Romero and other Latino candidates were still vulnerable in

HD90 Democratic primary elections because Mr. Romero only won in 2014 by 110

votes. There were other Latino candidates in the 2014 Democratic Primary running for

other seats, which contributed to higher Latino turnout that year. (2017 Trial Tr. 323:4-

18). Mr. Jimenez testified that even though HD90 has a slight majority of SSVR, he still

thinks that it is difficult for a Latino candidate to win in HD90 under the current plan that

includes Como. (2017 Trial Tr. 353:8-17).

b. The Historical Background of the Decision

100. From the 1970s to the 1990s, a group known as the “Seventh Street Gang”

recruited and supported Anglo candidates for elected office across the Fort Worth area.

(2017 Trial Tr. 294:15 - 295:21). The membership of the “Seventh Street Gang” was

predominantly Anglo. (2017 Trial Tr. 295:3-5).

101. From its creation in 1983 through 2014, HD90 was represented by Anglo state

representatives -- Doyle Willis and later Lon Burnam. (2017 Trial Tr. 352:11-13; 2017

Task Force Ex. 1 at 35; Legislative Reference Library of Texas, Doyle Willis,

http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/legeLeaders/members/memberDisplay.cfm?memberID=%2030

8).

102. Lon Burnam first won election to represent HD90 in 1996. (2017 Task Force Ex.

1 at 5). In the 1996 Democratic Primary election, Lon Burnam defeated a Latino

opponent, Francisco Hernandez, in a runoff election. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 6; 2017

Trial Tr. 301:18 - 302:10).

103. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, an informal group of Latino political,

community, and business leaders and activists formed to recruit and advise Latino

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 29 of 138

candidates in Fort Worth. (2017 Trial Tr. 295:22 - 296:11; 347:9-15). Alex Jimenez was

a founder of the group. (2017 Trial Tr. 347:9-13).

104. The informal Latino group started meeting because, at that time in the early

2000s, there were no Latino city council members, county commissioners, or state

representatives in Fort Worth, and only two Latino school board trustees. (2017 Trial Tr.

296:14 - 297:7; 347:18-22).

105. Members of the informal Latino group believed that HD90 should be a Latino

seat. (2017 Trial Tr. 347:21-25).

106. Rep. Burnam visited a meeting of the informal Latino group to deter the

members’ ongoing efforts to elect Latino local officials. (2017 Trial Tr. 348:10-17). At

that meeting, Mr. Burnam asserted that he could represent the district better than any

Latino candidate that the group could recruit. (2017 Trial Tr. 348:15-17). The discussion

grew heated, and Mr. Burnam was asked to leave the meeting. (2017 Trial Tr. 348:18-

24).

107. Throughout his 18 years in the Legislature representing HD90, Rep. Burnam

never served as the chair or vice-chair of any legislative committees. (2017 Task Force

Ex. 1 at 6-7).

108. Rep. Burnam was the only member of the House of Representatives to vote

against Rep. Craddick when Rep. Craddick ran for Speaker of the House. (2017 Task

Force Ex. 1 at 54-55). After being the only representative to vote against Speaker

Craddick, Rep. Burnam was not assigned to committees that he considered desirable,

such as the House Insurance Committee, but was instead placed on committees he

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 30 of 138

considered undesirable, such as the House Agriculture & Livestock Committee. (2017

Task Force Ex. 1 at 54-55).

109. Rep. Burnam filed bills he perceived as “cutting edge” but conceded that he filed

many more bills than he passed into law. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 56; 2017 Task Force

Ex. 3-AD).

110. Between 1996 and 2012, Representative Burnam was not challenged in the

Democratic Primary elections in HD90. (2017 Trial Tr. 301:18-24; 2017 Task Force Ex.

1 at 42).

111. HD90 in Plan H100, the benchmark plan for the 2011 redistricting, did not

contain a majority HCVAP population. However, the Latino share of CVAP had been

increasing in the district, and Latinos were on the cusp of majority status. The 2005-2009

ACS estimate for HCVAP in HD90 in Plan H100 was 47.9%. (Court Fact Findings –

Plan H283, Dkt. 1364 at 13-14, ¶ 69). HD90 had a 2010 total SSVR of 45%. (2017 Task

Force Ex. 3-A; Defendants’ Ex. D-100 (RED-202)). However, HD90 was also

substantially underpopulated -- by 26,288 (-15.68%). Id. Mr. Espino testified that his

goal for HD90 during the 2011 redistricting was for it to have an SSVR that was over

50%. (2017 Trial Tr. 309:6-22).

112. In HD90 in Plan H100, Latino candidate Hector Uribe won 56.3% in the 2010

Democratic primary for Land Commissioner. (2017 Task Force Ex. 23G at 94).

113. Rep. Burnam testified that the 2011 redistricting cycle was probably the first

cycle in which HD90 could be created as a Latino majority district: “[I]t was clear that

what we wanted to try to do is create a majority Hispanic voter surname district, and

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 31 of 138

[HD90] had been inching in that direction since its creation in ‘78. This round was

probably the first time it could have actually occurred.” (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 16).

114. In 2011, Rep. Burnam’s goal was to move out of that Latino majority district.

Rep. Burnam testified that he wanted to place himself in a non-Latino majority district

and create a separate Latino-majority district in Tarrant County. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1

at 10).

115. Rep. Burnam sought to place Diamond Hill, Riverside, the Northside

neighborhoods, historically Latino Southside neighborhoods, and much of the

Polytechnic Heights neighborhood into a new Latino majority district in which he did not

reside. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 11).

116. However, when the 2011 redistricting process started in the Legislature, and Rep.

Burnam provided his desired district boundaries to the redistricting point person for the

Tarrant County delegation, Rep. Charlie Geren, Rep. Burnam kept his home in a Latino

HD90 but lowered Latino voting strength in the district. In H113, which Rep. Geren

testified contained HD90 as proposed by Rep. Burnam, the HCVAP, based on 2005-2009

ACS data, was reduced from 47.9% to 43.2%. (Court Fact Findings – Plan H283, Dkt.

1364 at 14, ¶¶ 69, 70); 2017 Task Force Ex. 4 at 5-6; 2017 Task Force Ex. 3-D).

117. Rep. Geren’s map of Tarrant County was incorporated into the first House

proposal by House Redistricting Committee Chair Burt Solomons. The Solomons

Statewide House Proposal, H113, was made public on April 13, 2011. (2017 Task Force

Ex. 4 at 6; 2017 Task Force Ex. 27-A, 27-B, 27-C).

118. In response to that proposal, on April 14, 2011, the Texas Latino Redistricting

Task Force proposed H115. In H115, HD90 had 51.7% HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 32 of 138

data. HD90 also had a 46.8% total SSVR and 48.9% non-suspense SSVR. (Court Fact

Findings – Plan H283, Dkt. 1364 at 127, ¶ 627).

119. On April 15, 2011, at the House Redistricting Committee hearing, MALDEF Staff

Attorney Luis Figueroa testified in favor of Plan H115. With respect to Tarrant County,

Mr. Figueroa urged the Redistricting Committee to create a Latino CVAP majority

district in HD90. Mr. Figueroa pointed out that in HD90, H113 reduced the non-

suspense SSVR from 47.2% to 41.9%. (Court Fact Findings – Plan H283, Dkt. 1364 at

126-127, ¶ 627). During later redistricting hearings, representatives from the Task Force

made additional observations about the Latino population in Tarrant County. Joey

Cardenas of LULAC and the Task Force testified that there had been significant Latino

population growth in Tarrant County. (Court Fact Findings - General and Plan C185,

Dkt. 1340 at 161, ¶ 182(J)).

120. On April 17, 2011, Rep. Solomons released a statewide substitute to his Plan

H113 which increased the 2010G non-suspense SSVR to 50.1% for HD90. Rep.

Solomons’ substitute plan was Plan H134. (2017 Task Force Exhibit 43 at 5).

121. Rep. Solomons had told Rep. Geren there would be changes to the Tarrant County

map. (2017 Task Force Ex. 4 at 8). Rep. Burnam became aware of the map shortly after

Rep. Geren did, and he expressed to Mr. Geren that he was upset. (2017 Task Force Ex.

4 at 9).

122. Gerardo Interiano, Counsel to Speaker of the House, testified that when the SSVR

of HD90 was raised to 50%, Rep. Burnam “all of a sudden opposed the map.” (2017

Task Force Ex. 6 at 2). Mr. Interiano further testified that he knew the changes to HD90

increased Latino voting strength because “[t]hose two facts together, that MALDEF

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 33 of 138

wanted it done and that Representative Burnam did not want it done, told me that in

District 90, as a result of increasing it above 50 percent SSVR, Hispanics were going to

have a much better ability to elect their candidate of choice, which could ultimately lead

to Representative Burnam losing in a primary, should a Hispanic candidate from that

community run against him.” (2017 Task Force Ex. 6 at 1-2).

123. Mr. Interiano testified that Rep. Burnam “wanted the community of Como to be

put back into the district. That is a community that is predominantly African-American.

And it was my belief that if that community were to be put back into the district[], first of

all, it decreased it below 50 of SSVR and, ultimately, the African-American community

would vote against the Hispanic candidate of choice.” (2017 Task Force Ex. 6 at 2; see

also 2017 Task Force Ex. 5 at 1-2).

124. Rep. Solomons’ plan was voted out of the House Redistricting Committee on

April 19, 2011. (Court Fact Findings – Plan H283, Dkt. 1364 at 48, ¶ 254).

125. Rep. Burnam was aware that Como is a high-turnout precinct. (2017 Task Force

Ex. 1 at 33).

126. On April 25, 2011, Rep. Burnam made public Plan H203, his proposed

amendment to Tarrant County in the pending House map. (2017 Task Force Ex. 28-A,

28-B, 28-F). Burnam’s Plan H203 once again sought to lower the SSVR of HD90. Plan

H203 had a 2010G SSVR of 46.2%. (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-B at 2).

127. The next day, on April 26, 2011, Rep. Burnam also made public Plan H236, an

amendment to his proposed amendment, Plan H203. (2017 Task Force Ex. 29F). This

plan had a 2010G SSVR of 46.9%, also lower than the plan being considered by the

Legislature. (2017 Task force Ex. 3-C at 2).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 34 of 138

128. Rep. Burnam tracked Spanish Surname Voter Registration as he proposed

amendments to the 2011 plans. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 16).

129. The House redistricting plan was debated on the House floor on April 27 and

April 28, 2011. (Court Fact Findings – Plan H283, Dkt. 1364 at 8, ¶ 39 and 49, ¶ 256;

H.J. of Tex., 82nd Leg., R.S. 2294 (2011); H.J. of Tex., 82nd Leg., R.S. 2358 (2011)).

Rep. Burnam and then-State Rep. Marc Veasey spent several hours on the House floor

discussing their amendments to the proposed Tarrant County map. (2017 Task Force Ex.

1 at 12). Rep. Burnam laid out Amendment 11(H203), a plan which he described as ugly

that he said would fix HD90 and put Como back in his district. Rep. Solomons moved to

table Amendment No. 11(H203), and the proposed amendment was tabled. (Court Fact

Findings – Plan H283, Dkt. 1364 at 129, ¶ 634). The redistricting plan passed the House

on April 28, 2011, at which point all changes were completed. (Court Fact Findings –

Plan H283, Dkt. 1364 at 8, ¶ 39; H.J. of Tex., 82nd Leg., R.S. 2361 (2011)).

130. In May 2011, Rep. Burnam and Rep. Geren received a letter and a resolution from

the Lake Como Neighborhood Advisory Council, complaining about Como’s potential

reassignment to HD99. (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-AN; 2017 Task Force Ex. 4 at 1-3).

131. Representative Geren testified that there was “almost threatening language in” the

letter he received from Ms. DeBose, and that Ms. DeBose also called him to say “we’re

going to be a pain in your butt if you represent us.” (Task Force Ex. 4 at 1-3).

132. Ms. DeBose, a community leader in Como, was paid by Mr. Burnam to work on

his campaigns in HD90. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 34, 49).

133. On June 17, 2011, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed House Bill 150, which was

the State House Plan H283. (H.J. of Tex., 82nd Leg., R.S. 6917 (2011)).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 35 of 138

134. In H283, the final plan enacted by the 2011 Texas Legislature, HD90 had a 50.1%

2010 non-suspense SSVR. (2017 Task Force Ex. 24H).

135. In H283, the town of Sansom Park, which has a Latino population of 54% that

continues to grow, and the community of North Beverly Hills were brought into HD90.

(2017 Trial Tr. 310:3-12).

136. In H283, some Riverside neighborhoods were brought into HD90. Riverside is a

majority Latino community in northeast Ft. Worth. (2017 Trial Tr. 310:13-21)

137. In the southwestern portion of HD90, the predominantly non-Latino

neighborhood of Como was removed. (2017 Trial Tr. 311:13-22; 2017 Task Force Ex.

49).

138. In the ensuing 2012 election cycle, Rep. Burnam drew a Democratic primary

opponent for the first time since winning the office in 1996. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at

42). Rep. Burnam’s opponent in the 2012 Democratic primary was Carlos Vasquez, a

Latino. (2017 Trial Tr. 302:3-10; 2017 Task Force Ex. 16).

139. Rep. Burnam believed that the changes to HD90 in 2011, which increased the

Latino population in his district, created the potential for him to be challenged by a

Latino opponent in the primary. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 42).

140. In the 2012 Democratic Primary election, Rep. Burnam defeated his Latino

opponent Mr. Vasquez by only 159 votes (2017 Trial Tr. 302:2 - 302:4; 2017 Task Force

Ex. 1 at 42; 2017 Task Force Ex. 3-K at 3).

141. In the 2012 Democratic primary for HD90, Rep. Burnam generally won the non-

Latino voter registration majority precincts, and Latino candidate Carlos Vasquez

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 36 of 138

generally won the Latino voter registration majority precincts. (2017 Trial Tr. 314:3-13;

2017 Task Force Ex. 14).

142. Voting in the 2012 Democratic Primary for HD90 was racially polarized. (2014

Task Force Ex. 967 at 7-8).

143. Rep. Burnam knew that he was not the Latino candidate of choice in the 2012

Democratic primary election. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 44-45; 2017 Trial Tr. 314:12-13;

2017 Task Force Ex. 3-K).

c. The Specific Sequence of Events Leading up to the Challenged Decision

144. Plan H309, the court-drawn interim redistricting plan for the Texas House, was

made public on February 27, 2012. (2017 Task Force Exs. 26-A, 26-B, 26-C). In Plan

H309, HD90 is the same as HD90 in H283. (2017 Task Force Ex. 33).

145. On March 8, 2013, then-Attorney General Greg Abbott wrote to Speaker of the

House Joe Straus, urging the legislature’s enactment of the court-drawn interim maps

during the regular legislative session. (Letter from Greg Abbott to Joe Straus (March 8,

2013), http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/archive/2013/20788.pdf).

146. On the same day, Rep. Drew Darby, the Chairman for the House Redistricting

Committee during the 2013 regular and special sessions, filed a statewide redistricting

plan, HB 3840, which he said would have ultimately implemented the Court-ordered

maps for the U.S. Congress, Texas House of Representatives, and Texas Senate on a

permanent basis. (2017 Trial Tr. 1498:6, 13 - 1499:3; 2017 Trial Tr. 1504:9-24; Texas

Legislature Online,

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/billlookup/History.aspx?LegSess=83R&Bill=HB3840).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 37 of 138

147. The Speaker of the House referred HB 3840 to the House Redistricting

Committee on March 21, 2013. (2017 Trial Tr. 1533:3).

148. Chairman Darby testified that if a bill is referred to a committee by March 21

during a regular session, there is sufficient time for it to be voted out of committee and

considered by the full House. (2017 Trial Tr. 1533:4-11).

149. Chairman Darby did not, however, convene any meetings of the House

Redistricting Committee during the regular session. (2017 Trial Tr. 1533:12). Chairman

Darby chose not to convene any committee meetings because, even though he was the

Chairman of the House Redistricting Committee, legislative redistricting “was not one [of

his] legislative priorities.” (2017 Trial Tr. 1533:13-18).

150. No redistricting bill passed the Legislature during the regular session in 2013.

(2017 Trial Tr. 1500:1-4).

151. Then-Governor Perry issued a call for a special session in order to “consider

legislation which ratifies and adopts the interim redistricting plans ordered by the federal

district court as permanent plans for districts used to elect members of the Texas House

of Representatives.” (2017 Trial Tr. 1500:13-18).

152. The Legislature convened in special session on May 27, 2013 (2017 Trial Tr.

1500:25).

153. The Texas Senate considered and passed SB 3 without amendments and sent it to

the House for consideration. (S.J. of Texas, 83rd Leg., First C.S. 35-36 (2013),

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=831&Bill=SB3.).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 38 of 138

154. As passed by the Senate and sent to the House, SB3 was a “shell bill” without

substantive content. (Text of Senate Bill 3 as Engrossed by Senate,

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/831/billtext/html/SB00003I.htm).

155. After the Governor added redistricting to the special session call, Rep. Burnam

immediately began thinking about changing the boundaries to HD90. (2017 Task Force

Ex. 1 at 17).

156. Rep. Burnam continued to entertain the possibility that he could represent a

district that was not Latino majority. On June 4, 2013, Plan BURNH137 was saved into

Rep. Burnam’s REDAPPL redistricting account. (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-AA, 3-AB;

2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 51-52). In BURNH137, Rep. Burnam resided in a HD90 that

contained 24.8% HCVAP and 25.9% BVAP. (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-AC; 2017 Task

Force Ex. 1 at 53-54). Plan BURNH137 contained a Latino-majority HD93 with 70.7%

HVAP. (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-AC; 2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 53-54). Plan BURNH137

placed Sansom Park entirely within a Latino-majority HD93. (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-Z;

2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 54). In Plan BURNH137, Rep. Burnam did not live in the

Latino-majority HD93. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 53-54).

157. Rep. Burnam also asked Mr. Kenny to draw an amendment to HD90’s

boundaries. (2017 Trial Tr 634:7-24).

158. Rep. Burnam specifically asked Mr. Kenny to draw a map that placed Como back

into HD90. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 17). Mr. Kenny was aware that bringing Como

into HD90 could help Rep. Burnam in future primaries, as Rep. Burnam referred to

Como as an area with a lot of supporters. (2017 Trial Tr. 672:15-19). Mr. Kenny

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 39 of 138

conceded that Rep. Burnam would be happy that Como was back in HD90 during the

next primary election. (2017 Trial Tr. 673:8 – 674:17).

159. Rep. Burnam believed the first time he spoke with Chairman Darby about

changes to HD90 was at the House Redistricting Committee field hearing in Dallas on

June 6, 2013. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 21).

160. Rep. Burnam and Mr. Kenny had heard that leadership would only accept simple

amendments between two or potentially three members. (2017 Trial Tr. 635:7-10).

161. Rep. Burnam instructed Mr. Kenny to see if he could swap areas between HD90

and HD99 that would bring the Como neighborhood back into HD90. (2017 Trial Tr.

635:6-16).

162. Rep. Burnam approached Rep. Geren, who represents HD99, on the floor of the

House to tell him that he wanted to propose an amendment that would affect the lines

between HD90 and HD99. (2017 Task Force Ex. 4 at 10-11). Rep. Geren testified that

he thinks this conversation on the House floor happened during the pre-filing period

because Chairman Darby wanted to make sure that Rep. Geren would be okay with the

amendment. (2017 Task Force Ex. 4 at 12).

163. Rep. Burnam told Rep. Geren that he wanted Como moved back into HD90. Rep.

Geren said that was fine with him. Rep. Burnam offered to give Rep. Geren the area

around Arlington Heights High School to HD99. (2017 Task Force Ex. 4 at 11).

164. Rep. Burnam did not show a map of his proposal to Rep. Geren because, as

explained by Rep. Geren: “he [Burnam] didn't need to. We're both very familiar with

those areas.” (2017 Task Force Ex. 4 at 12).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 40 of 138

165. When Rep. Burnam approached Rep. Geren about changing his district, Rep.

Geren did not ask Rep. Burnam how the change might affect Latino voters’ ability to

elect their preferred candidate in HD90. (2017 Task Force Ex. 4 at 13). Rep. Geren

testified that he did not think about how the change might affect the Latino voters in the

district. (2017 Task Force Ex. 4 at 14). Rep. Burnam testified that he did not recall if

they discussed whether the proposed amendment would dilute Latino voter strength in

HD90. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 65).

166. Rep. Geren was aware that Rep. Burnam had faced a primary opponent in 2012

because Rep. Burnam had asked Rep. Geren to help him raise money for the race. (2017

Task Force Ex. 4 at 12)

167. Rep. Burnam communicated to Chairman Darby that Rep. Geren had agreed to

the changes in the amendment. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 61).

168. Rep. Burnam communicated with Chairman Darby about his plans to amend

HD90 several times before the House redistricting bill was considered on the floor.

(2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 21).

169. On June 18, 2013, the House Redistricting Committee passed the Senate version

of the bill, SB3, out of committee without amendments. (2017 Trial Tr. 1540:19 -

1541:4). Five amendments to HB 3, the companion bill to SB 3, were offered at the June

17, 2013, committee hearing but each amendment either failed to pass or was withdrawn.

(House Select Committee on Redistricting, June 17, 2013 Hearing Minutes,

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/minutes/html/C0852013061713001.HTM).

Each unsuccessful amendment was offered by a minority legislator. Id.

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 41 of 138

170. On June 19, 2013, Rep. Burnam made public Plan H328, his draft plan to amend

SB 3. (2017 Task Force Ex. 30D). Rep. Burnam’s Plan H328 included the neighborhood

of Como in HD90. (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-G at 2; 2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 29).

171. This initial plan to include Como back into HD90 brought the 2012G SSVR in

HD90 below 50% to 48.2%. (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-E at 2; 2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at

18; 2017 Trial Tr. 639:8, 14-20).

172. Rep. Burnam testified that he may have had conversations with Rep. Geren about

the SSVR of HD90 between the first HD90 plan (H328) and the second HD90 plan

(H342). (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 65).

173. Chairman Darby testified that he was aware of Rep. Burnam’s amendment prior

to consideration of the redistricting bill on the House floor. (2017 Trial Tr. 1544:4-7).

174. Rep. Burnam testified that Chairman Darby was “fixated” on the number of

Latino voters being at 50.1%. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 41). Rep. Burnam testified that

his proposed H328 did not get discussed because it did not meet that criteria. (2017 Task

Force Ex. 1 at 24).

175. Rep. Burnam therefore asked Mr. Kenny to attempt to draw a map that resulted in

more swapping between HD90 and HD99 to bring the SSVR back up to the previous

plan’s level. (2017 Trial Tr. 641:1-21).

176. In order to raise the SSVR in HD90 above 50%, Rep. Burnam and Mr. Kenny

created a second map in which the goal was to remove “every white voter near the

western boundary of the district to keep the Hispanic vote over 50%.” (2017 Task Force

Ex. 1 at 17).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 42 of 138

177. In total, Rep. Burnam and Mr. Kenny split ten precincts to draw HD90’s new

boundaries. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 36; 2017 Task Force Ex. 3-I at 2-4; 2017 Task

Force Ex. 40).

178. Mr. Burnam also testified that he moved whole precincts into and out of HD90

because of their race: 1674 and 1062 were excluded and 1434 and 1408 were included.

(2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 39-40; 2017 Task Force Ex. 3-J at 3).

179. The ten precincts in 2012 that were split by H358 were: 1015, 4068, 4073, 4121,

4122, 4125, 4138, 4493, 4593, and 4634 (2017 Task Force Ex. 40).

180. After a redistricting plan splits precincts, the precincts are divided and

renumbered by the county for the next election. The 2016 precincts that correspond to

the ten precinct splits in 2012 are: 1015, 1062, 1408, 1434, 1674, 1684, 4068, 4073,

4121, 4122, 4125, 4138, 4493, 4593, 4634, 4650, 4685, 4687, 4688, 4689, 4690, 4692,

and 4693. (2017 Task Force Ex. 67, 69).

181. The total population of the precincts split or moved whole because of race by

Rep. Burnam’s amendment is 33,343 individuals, including an estimated 16,429

registered voters. (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-H, 3-J, 40, 66, 69 and 70).

182. These changes were incorporated into what became Rep. Burnam’s Plan H342.

(2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 23, 25).

183. On June 20, 2013, Rep. Burnam made public and filed Plan H342, which had a

2012G total SSVR of 50.1%. (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-F).

184. On June 20, 2013, the full House considered the redistricting bill on the House

Floor. Chairman Darby laid out the first amendment, Amendment No. 1, a floor

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 43 of 138

substitute to SB 3 that reflected Plan H309, the court-drawn interim map. (2017 Joint Ex.

17.3 S1; 2017 Trial Tr. 1523:4).

185. Chairman Darby made opening remarks in which he announced the criteria on

which he would evaluate pre-filed amendments to the redistricting bill. (2017 Trial Tr.

1523:5-23).

186. Chairman Darby stated his criteria for evaluating an amendment as follows: “that

it does not create a harm or a risk to further litigation by violating the constitution’s “one

person, one vote” principle regarding population deviation; that it does not dilute nor

dismantle a Section 2 protected district under the Voting Rights Act or violates the Texas

Constitution regarding contiguous districts or the county line rule.” Chairman Darby

stated, “If those measures can be satisfied, I want to see that it addresses a concern, for

example, the splitting of a community of interest. And finally, I’d like to see an

agreement amongst the members affected.” (2017 Joint Ex. 17.3 at S1-2; 2017 Trial Tr.

1523:5-23).

187. Chairman Darby did not specifically discuss analyzing the electoral impact of

proposed amendments, the effect of amendments on the ability of minorities to elect their

candidates of choice, or the effect of racially polarized voting on an amendment to the

court-drawn plan. (2017 Trial Tr. 1543:6-19).

188. The House adopted four amendments to Chairman Darby’s Amendment No. 1.

Then the House considered Rep. Burnam’s Plan H342, which was Amendment No. 8 to

SB 3. (2017 Joint Ex. 17.2 at 1-2).

189. Rep. Burnam introduced his amendment on the House floor with the following

comment: “basically what it does is take the African American and Hispanic population

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 44 of 138

out of Representative Geren’s district and puts some of my Anglo population into his

district. I believe it’s acceptable to the author [Chairman Darby].” (2017 Joint Ex. 17.3 at

S29).

190. During consideration of the Burnam amendment on the House floor, Chairman

Darby addressed the House: “Members, Representative Burnam has revised his

amendment and it now keeps this district a Hispanic district--brings the numbers back

over 50%. That was the objection. I believe Representative Geren is in favor of this

amendment also, so with that I would move to accept this amendment.” (2017 Joint Ex.

17.3 at S29; 2017 Trial Tr. 1544:13 - 25).

191. Chairman Darby invoked legislative privilege and did not provide any further

testimony on why he believed this revision cured the objection to the original Burnam

amendment. (2017 Trial Tr. 1545:1-14).

192. Although Chairman Darby considered the redistricting bill to be a “major piece of

legislation,” there was no calendar rule attached to the bill. (2017 Trial Tr. 1548:8-10,

1549:13-15). Calendar rules usually require floor amendments to be filed twenty four

hours ahead of time, which allows members of the public and other members of the

Legislature time to review and comment on proposed amendments. (2017 Trial Tr.

1548:19 - 1549:4).

193. The House adopted Rep. Burnam’s amendment, Plan H342, on June 20, 2013.

(2017 Joint Ex. 17.3 at S29). In that plan, HD90 had a 2012 total SSVR of 50.1% which

was lower than the SSVR in the Court-drawn plan. (2017 Task Force Ex. 31-C). In the

Court-drawn H309, which kept HD90’s boundaries as enacted under H283 in 2011 and

did not split any precincts in Tarrant County, HD90 had a 2012 total SSVR of 51.1%.

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 45 of 138

(2017 Task Force Ex. 26F at 3, 2017 Task Force Ex. 24F at 169, 2017 Task Force Ex. 33;

2017 Task Force Ex. 41).

194. Because Rep. Burnam introduced his amendment on the House floor, the

amendment was adopted without consideration in committee and without the opportunity

for public testimony. (2017 Trial Tr. 1547:25 - 1548:5; 2017 Joint Ex. 17.2).

195. After adopting Rep. Burnam’s amendment, the House recessed temporarily.

(2017 Trial Tr. 1551:22-24). During that recess, members of the House Republican

Caucus met with a representative from the Texas Attorney General’s Office. (2017 Trial

Tr. 1551:25 - 1552:18). After returning from recess, the House did not adopt any more

amendments that day. (2017 Trial Tr. 1554:1-4).

196. The House only adopted one additional amendment the next day on third reading

of the bill, which “simply . . . switched a few voters in [Toni Rose’s] district for a few

voters in the district of Representative Helen Giddings.” (2017 Trial Tr. 1526:17-18,

1597:4-5).

197. On June 22, 2013, the Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force wrote a letter to

Chairman Darby and Senate Redistricting Committee Chairman Kel Seliger to express

objections to the Burnam amendment’s changes to HD90. (2017 Task Force Ex. 9; (2017

Trial Tr.1556:7-15). The Task Force wrote that “H358 reduces Latino voters’ ability to

elect their candidate of choice in HD90.” (2017 Task Force Ex. 9 at 2). The Task Force

letter informed the two committee chairmen that Plan H358 resulted “in a decrease in the

SSVR of HD90 from 51.1% to 50.1%” because the plan removed a population with an

SSVR of 20.6% and replaced it with a population with an SSVR of only 8.5%. (2017

Task Force Ex. 9 at 2).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 46 of 138

198. Chairman Darby made no attempt to discuss this letter with Chairman Seliger.

(2017 Trial Tr. 1556:20-25). Chairman Darby invoked legislative privilege to avoid

answering whether he took any action regarding the Task Force’s letter. (2017 Trial Tr.

1556:16-19).

199. The Senate concurred with the House amendments to SB 3 on June 23, 2013.

(2017 Task Force Ex. 10 at 8; 2017 Joint Ex. 8 at 358). Senator Seliger testified that his

approach was to defer to the House and adopt SB 3 as amended by the House, because

that plan pertained to the redistricting of Texas House seats. (2017 Task Force Ex. 10 at

8).

200. SB 3, which enacted Plan H358, was signed in both the House and Senate on June

23, 2013. (H.J. of Texas, 83rd Leg., First C.S. 1113-1114 (2013); S.J. of Texas, 83rd

Leg., First C.S. 279 (2013)).

201. The governor signed SB 3 on June 26, 2013. (2017 Joint Ex. 8 at 358).

d. Departures from the Normal Procedural Sequence

i. Departure from the Legislature’s Original Stated Goal of Passing the Court-Drawn Plans Unchanged

202. The Texas Legislature’s stated purpose in the 2013 special session was to

“consider legislation which ratifies and adopts the interim redistricting plans ordered by

the federal district court as permanent plans for districts used to elect members of the

Texas House of Representatives.” (2017 Trial Tr. 1500:13-18, 25).

203. The House considered SB 3 on the House floor on June 20, 2013. (2017 Trial Tr.

1523:4; 2017 Joint Ex. 17.1 at 2). Despite the stated purpose of the session and the fact

that no amendments had been passed in committee, Chairman Darby opened the floor to

amendments. (2017 Joint Ex. 17.3 at S1-2).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 47 of 138

204. Following the adoption of Amendments 1, 2, 3, and 4, Rep. Keffer expressed his

confusion about the amendments accepted by Chairman Darby because of the narrow call

of the legislative session. Rep. Keffer had served on the Redistricting Select Committee

and stated that “[he] was under the impression when [they had] left the lines, because of

the narrow call—because of future issues that will come up concerning the map—that

any line or any change that was made would open the door for other problems or other

issues that might arise as far as the San Antonio court . . . .” (2017 Joint Ex. 17.3 at S5).

205. Nevertheless, Chairman Darby proceeded to take amendments, claiming that it

was the Legislature’s inherent right to adopt and be a part of the redistricting process, not

to simply “cede our state’s responsibilities back to the federal government.” (2017 Joint

Ex. 17.3 at S5).

ii. Limited Opportunity for Public Review

206. Chairman Darby considered the redistricting bill to be a “major piece of

legislation.” (2017 Trial Tr. 1548:8-10). Despite this, there was no calendar rule

attached to the bill. (2017 Trial Tr. 1549:13-15). Calendar rules usually require floor

amendments to be filed twenty four hours ahead of time, allowing members of the public

and other members of the Legislature time to review and comment on proposed

amendments. (2017 Trial Tr. 1548:19 - 1549:12). Without a calendar rule, Rep.

Burnam’s amendment was not made available for public comment. (2017 Trial Tr.

1548:19 - 1549:4).

207. On June 18, 2013, the House Redistricting Committee passed the Senate version

of the bill, SB3, out of committee without amendments and without the opportunity for

public comment. (2017 Trial Tr. 1540:19 - 1541:4).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 48 of 138

208. Community members in HD90 did not know that Rep. Burnam was proposing the

change to HD90’s configuration. (2017 Trial Tr. 314:14-20). Because it was a floor

amendment, it was not considered at any of the redistricting field hearings or in

committee, or made public before the day of the floor debate. (2017 Trial Tr. 1547:25 -

1548:7).

209. The Senate concurred with House Plan SB 3 on June 23, 2013, the same day that

it was taken up in the Senate. (2017 Task Force Ex. 10 at 8). There was no opportunity

for the public to come to a hearing and comment on the amended version of SB 3. (2017

Task Force Ex. 10 at 8).

iii. Limited Amendments

210. Floor debate occurred on June 20, 2017. (2017 Trial Tr. 1523: 2-4). The House

only adopted four individual amendments prior to Rep. Burnam’s amendment. (2017

Joint Ex. 17.2 at 1-2). The House did not adopt any more amendments that day. (2017

Trial Tr. 1554:1-4).

211. The next day, June 21, the House adopted only one amendment on the third

reading of the bill, (2017 Trial Tr. 1526:17-18), which “simply . . . switched a few voters

in [Toni Rose’s] district for a few voters in the district of Representative Helen

Giddings.” (2017 Trial Tr. 1597:4-5).

iv. Interactions with the Attorney General’s Office

212. Chairman Darby never asked Attorney General Greg Abbott to come to the

Redistricting Committee, despite conceding that he “would hope the attorney general and

his staff would be responsive to all members of the legislature.” (2017 Joint Ex. 17.3 at

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 49 of 138

S9). The Committee never heard from the Attorney General or anyone on his staff about

the Attorney General’s position on the interim maps. (2017 Joint Ex. 17.3 at S1-2).

213. During a short recess on June 20, 2013, after the House adopted Rep. Burnam’s

amendment, members of the House Republican Caucus met with a representative from

the Texas Attorney General’s Office. (2017 Trial Tr. 195:17-196:2, 1551:22 - 1552:18).

The Democratic Caucus was not invited to or present at that meeting, despite the fact that

Democratic and minority legislators had asked Chairman Darby multiple times to speak

with a representative of the Attorney General’s office. (2017 Joint Ex. 17.3 S33).

e. Substantive Departures

i. Redistricters Departed From Traditional Criteria Such as Avoiding Precinct Cuts and Respecting Communities of Interest

214. The Burnam amendment violated traditional redistricting criteria by splitting

precincts and cities. The Court-drawn Plan H309, that Rep. Burnam amended, did not

split any precincts in HD90. (2017 Task Force Ex. 41).

215. In total, Rep. Burnam and Mr. Kenny split ten precincts in drawing HD90’s new

boundaries. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 36; 2017 Task Force Ex. 3-I at 2-4; 2017 Task

Force Ex. 40).

216. Rep. Burnam’s amendment cut out portions of the City of Sansom Park, including

by splitting precincts 4073 and 4593, in order to remove Anglo-majority blocks while

maintaining Latino-majority blocks. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 31; 2017 Task Force Ex.

3-H.

217. Rep. Burnam specifically outlined how he split precincts 4125, 4068, 4493, 4634,

and 1015 in order to include Latino-majority blocks and exclude Anglo-majority blocks.

(2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 36-39; 2017 Task Force Ex. 3-J at 1-3).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 50 of 138

218. Rep. Burnam admitted that he made these changes for the sole purpose of

including Latino-majority blocks in the district and excluding Anglo-majority blocks.

(2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 36-38).

219. Mr. Kenny testified that he reviewed the cut to precinct 4125 with Rep. Burnam

and told Rep. Burnam that cutting 4125 in order to draw more Latinos into HD90 would

be “ugly.” (2017 Trial Tr. 670:2-12). Rep. Burnam did not express concern with the

“ugly” cut and instead said that the cut was “great” because it brought more Latinos into

HD90. (2017 Trial Tr. 670:2-12).

220. Rep. Burnam testified that while he believed that Rep. Geren was aware of the

split precincts created by the Burnam amendment, Rep. Geren did not ask about them.

(2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 65).

221. Although Como precinct 1120 was historically part of HD90, it was also located

significantly to the west of the urban core of Ft. Worth. (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-G at 1-

2). In his amendment, Rep. Burnam was forced to use largely unpopulated precincts from

HD97 as land bridges to reach Como in order not to further decrease Latino voting

strength in HD90. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 23; 2017 Task Force Ex. 3-J at 3; 2017 Trial

Tr. 642:9-15, 667:2-4).

ii. Failure to Evaluate the Burnam Amendment for Compliance With the Federal Voting Rights Act

222. Chairman Darby was aware of Rep. Burnam’s amendment prior to consideration

of the redistricting bill on the House floor. (2017 Trial Tr. 1544:4-7).

223. Chairman Darby also declared that he would only accept amendments to the

House redistricting bill that did not dilute or dismantle districts that were protected under

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 51 of 138

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. (2017 Joint Ex. 17.3 at S1-2; 2017 Trial Tr. 1523:5-

23).

224. However, aside from being “fixated” on the number of Latino voters being at

50.1%, Chairman Darby did not perform or request any functional electoral analysis of

Rep. Burnam’s proposed changes to HD90. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 41).

225. Rep. Burnam did not recall any conversations with Chairman Darby about how

the proposed changes to HD90 would affect the Latino ability to elect their preferred

candidate. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 42).

226. Chairman Darby did not testify whether he looked at voting patterns in the

Democratic primary election of HD90, invoking legislative privilege. Chairman Darby

did not testify regarding his understanding of the Burnam amendment’s effect on Latino

voting ability in HD90, invoking legislative privilege. (See 2017 Trial Tr. 1550:9 -

1551:18).

227. Rep. Burnam testified that Rep. Geren also did not inquire about Latino ability to

elect beyond the 50% SSVR threshold. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 65).

228. Rep. Burnam himself claimed he did not examine the effect of his changes on

Latinos’ ability to elect candidates of their choice. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 41).

229. On June 20, 2013, in his opening remarks on the House Floor on the consideration

of amendments to SB 3, Chairman Darby did not discuss analyzing the electoral impact

of proposed amendments. (2017 Trial Tr.1543:6-10).

230. In his floor statements, Chairman Darby did not discuss analyzing the effect of

proposed amendments on the ability of minorities to elect their candidate of choice. (2017

Trial Tr. 1543:11-14).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 52 of 138

231. In his floor statements, Chairman Darby did not discuss analyzing whether there

was racially polarized voting in the affected areas. (2017 Trial Tr. 1543:15-19).

232. Nevertheless, Chairman Darby testified that he was “vaguely” aware that Texas

had been found to violate the Voting Rights Act or the Constitution in previous

redistricting cycles. (2017 Trial Tr. 1535:10-18).

233. Chairman Darby testified that he was “vaguely” aware that the Department of

Justice blocked the Texas Senate House and congressional redistricting plans as

discriminatory against minority voters in 1982. (2017 Trial Tr. 1535:19-23).

234. Chairman Darby testified that he was “vaguely” aware that the U.S. Department

of Justice under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act blocked the State House redistricting

plan as discriminatory against minority voters in 1991. (2017 Trial Tr. 1535:24 - 1536:3).

235. Chairman Darby testified that he was “vaguely” aware that the U.S. Department

of Justice under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act blocked the State House redistricting

plan as discriminatory against minority voters in 2001. (2017 Trial Tr. 1536:4-9).

236. Chairman Darby testified that he was “vaguely” aware that about seven years

before the 2013 redistricting session, the U.S. Supreme Court in LULAC v. Perry found

the Texas congressional redistricting plan to have violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights

Act because it diluted Latino voting strength in Congressional District 23. (2017 Trial Tr.

1536:10-16).

iii. Departure from the Legislature’s Original Stated Goal of Passing the Court-Drawn Plans

237. The special session convened on May 27, 2013, with the stated purpose to

“consider legislation which ratifies and adopts the interim redistricting plans ordered by

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 53 of 138

the federal district court as permanent plans for districts used to elect members of the

Texas House of Representatives.” (2017 Trial Tr. 1500:13-18, 25).

238. The House considered SB 3 on the House floor on June 20, 2013. (2017 Trial Tr.

1523:4). Despite the stated purpose of the session and the fact that no amendments had

been passed in committee, Chairman Darby opened the floor to pre-filed amendments.

(2017 Joint Ex. 17.3 at S1-2).

239. Following the adoption of Amendments 1, 2, 3, and 4, Rep. Keffer expressed his

confusion about the amendments accepted by Chairman Darby because of the narrow call

of the legislative session. Rep. Keffer had served on the Redistricting Select Committee

and stated that “[he] was under the impression when [they had] left the lines, because of

the narrow call—because of future issues that will come up concerning the map—that

any line or any change that was made would open the door for other problems or other

issues that might arise as far as the San Antonio court . . . ”. (2017 Joint Ex. 17.3 at S5).

240. Chairman Darby responded to Rep. Keffer’s concern during the consideration of

amendments on the House floor by saying, “it’s been my position from the start that these

maps are legal. And if somebody can demonstrate to me that a district has been drawn

illegally, and it can be fixed and changed, then I want to consider those amendments, and

consider those changes.” (2017 Joint Ex. 17.3 at S5). Chairman Darby continued by

reassuring the House floor that the amendments being considered “don’t have any

implications with regard to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the constitution.” (2017

Joint Ex. 17.3 at S5).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 54 of 138

241. Chairman Darby stated it was the Legislature’s inherent rights to adopt and be a

part of the redistricting process, not to simply cede one more time to the federal

govemment. (2017 Joint Ex. 17.3 at S5).

iv. Consideration in the Senate

242. The Senate concurred with House Plan SB 3 on June 23, 2013, the same day that

it was taken up in the Senate. (2017 Task Force Ex. 10 at 8). Senator Seliger’s approach

was simply to adopt the House amendments to SB 3 without further review because it

was the House redistricting plan. (2017 Task Force Ex. 10 at 8).

E. HD90’s BOUNDARIES IN H358 DILUTE LATINO VOTING STRENGTH IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 2

1. Gingles Prong 1

243. In Plan H283, HD90 had an HCVAP of 54.4% (+/- 1.8%) according to the U.S.

Census 2011-2015 ACS. (2017 Task Force Ex. 24-D at 3). Plan H283 demonstrates that

Latinos are “sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority” of

HD90.

244. In Plan H100, the benchmark plan, HD90 had a HCVAP of 50.7% (+/- 1.9%)

according to the U.S. Census 2011-2015 ACS. (2017 Task Force Ex. 23-D at 3). Plan

H100 also demonstrates that Latinos are “sufficiently large and geographically compact

to constitute a majority” in HD90.

2. Gingles Prongs 2 and 3: Racially Polarized Voting in Tarrant County

a. Dr. Engstrom’s Qualifications

245. Defendant the State of Texas stipulated to the qualifications of Dr. Engstrom at

trial in 2011. (2011 Trial Tr. 490:7-10).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 55 of 138

246. Dr. Richard Engstrom is a visiting research fellow at the Social Sciences Research

Institute at Duke University. (2017 Task Force Ex. 19 at 1).

247. Prior to his time at Duke University, Dr. Engstrom was a professor of political

science at the University of New Orleans for 35 years. He started as an assistant professor

and left as a research professor and an endowed professor. (2011 Trial Tr. 487:19-22).

248. Dr. Engstrom has been published numerous times on the interaction of minorities

in electoral arrangements. His research has been cited by the United States Supreme

Court in several opinions. (2011 Trial Tr. 487:23 - 488:16).

249. Dr. Engstrom has been an advisor to governmental bodies to consult redistricting

commissions in Illinois and Pennsylvania. He has also served as a consultant to the Texas

House of Representatives, a joint committee on redistricting for the Mississippi

legislature, as well as to the president pro tem of the South Carolina Senate. (2011 Trial

Tr. 488:17 - 489:19).

250. Dr. Engstrom served as a court-appointed expert in a redistricting case involving

the Dallas city council. (2011 Trial Tr. 489:20-22).

b. Dr. Engstrom’s Methodology

251. Dr. Engstrom employed both bivariate and multivariate analyses. He compared

Latinos with non-Latinos in a bivariate analysis. He compared Latinos, African-American

and others in his multivariate analysis. (2017 Task Force Ex. 48 at 10-11).

252. Dr. Engstrom employed ecological inference, a statistical methodology, in order

to determine whether there was racially polarized voting in Texas. (2017 Task Force Ex.

48 at 9-10).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 56 of 138

253. Dr. Engstrom used ecological inference (EI) because it is the superior

methodology in use today. (2017 Task Force Ex. 48 at 10).

254. Dr. Engstrom’s bivariate analysis of elections from 2006-2016 used, to estimate

the racial composition of voters in each election, the precinct-level lists of voters who

turned out in the elections that were flagged for Spanish surnames. He obtained these

data from the Texas Legislative Council. For multivariate analysis that included other

ethnic groups, Dr. Engstrom used Census CVAP data. (2017 Task Force Ex. 48 at 9-11).

255. Dr. Engstrom reported the confidence intervals for his estimates of candidate

support in general elections as well as Democratic primaries. The point estimates

reported by Dr. Engstrom provide the best estimate of the true value. The confidence

intervals show the range of results within a 95% certainty. Dr. Engstrom testified that the

“further you go to the ends of the confidence interval the less likely that is to be the true

value. The best estimate of the true value is the point estimate[.]” (2011 Trial Tr. 500:17

- 501:10).

c. Dr. Alford Praising Dr. Engstrom’s Methodology

256. The State’s expert witness Dr. Alford testified that he respected Task Force expert

Dr. Engstrom’s ecological inference methods and his 2017 report on racially polarized

voting. (2017 Trial Tr. 1425:1-11).

257. Dr. Alford testified that Dr. Engstrom’s analysis spanning 2006 to 2016 across

various reports is reliable. (2017 Trial Tr. 1425:15-18).

258. Dr. Alford testified that Dr. Engstrom’s analysis is broad in both its geographic

and temporal scope. (2017 Trial Tr. 1425:19-21; 2017 Defendant Ex. 878 at 11).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 57 of 138

259. According to Dr. Alford, Dr. Engstrom “did the best job of covering geography

and using the best methodology.” (2011 Trial Tr. 1765:8-16).

260. Dr. Alford, testified that Dr. Engstrom is prominent in his field, that his report is

credible and that Dr. Engstrom chose a good methodology to use in his report. (2011

Trial Tr. 1858:16-1859:9).

261. The State’s expert witness, Dr. Alford, built the table in his report around Dr.

Engstrom’s results. (2011 Trial Tr. 1765:8-16).

d. Dr. Engstrom’s Conclusions on General Elections

262. Dr. Engstrom testified that voting is racially polarized between Latino and non-

Latino voters in Tarrant County in general elections. (2017 Task Force Ex. 19 at 6-10;

Ex. 48 at 19-31).

263. In the 2016 General election for Supreme Court Place 5, bivariate estimates show

that in Tarrant County, candidate Dori Contreras Garza received 97.0% of Latino support

and 36.6% of non-Latino support. (2017 Task Force Ex. 19 at 19; Ex. 48 at 22-24).

264. In the 2016 General election for Supreme Court Place 9, bivariate estimates show

that in Tarrant County, candidate Eva Guzman received 2.0% of Latino support and

59.2% of non-Latino support. (2017 Task Force Ex. 19 at 19; Ex. 48 at 24-25).

265. In the 2014 General election for Lt. Governor, bivariate estimates show that in

Tarrant County, candidate Leticia Van de Putte received 86.3% of Latino support and

40.3% of non-Latino support. (2017 Task Force Ex. 19 at 19; Ex. 48 at 25-27).

266. In the 2014 General election for Land Commissioner, bivariate estimates show

that in Tarrant County, candidate George P. Bush received 8.9% of Latino support and

59.1% of non-Latino support. (2017 Task Force Ex. 19 at 19; Ex. 48 at 27-28).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 58 of 138

267. In the 2014 General election for Supreme Court Place 7, bivariate estimates show

that in Tarrant County, candidate Gina Benavides received 89.8% of Latino support and

38.9% of non-Latino support. (2017 Task Force Ex. 19 at 19; Ex. 48 at 29-30).

268. In the 2012 General election for U.S. Senate, bivariate estimates show that in

Tarrant County, candidate Ted Cruz received 5.3% of Latino support and 58.7% of non-

Latino support. (2014 Task Force Ex. 968 at 11; Aug. 2014 Trial Tr. 482:4-10).

269. In the 2010 General election for Lt. Governor, bivariate estimates show that in

Tarrant County, candidate Linda Chavez-Thompson received 94.8% of Latino support

and 35.4% of non-Latino support. (2011 Task Force Ex. 392 at 52).

270. In the 2010 General election for Land Commissioner, bivariate estimates show

that in Tarrant County, candidate Hector Uribe received 95.7% of Latino support and

35.6% of non-Latino support. (2011 Task Force Ex. 392 at 52).

271. In the 2010 General election for Supreme Court Place 9, bivariate estimates show

that in Tarrant County, candidate Eva Guzman received 6.8% of Latino support and

60.0% of non-Latino support. (2011 Task Force Ex. 392 at 52).

272. In the 2008 General election for U.S. Senate, bivariate estimates show that in

Tarrant County, candidate Rick Noriega received 98.1% of Latino support and 39.4% of

non-Latino support. (2011 Task Force Ex. 392 at 51).

273. In the 2008 General election for Supreme Court Place 8, bivariate estimates show

that in Tarrant County, candidate Linda Yanez received 99.0% of Latino support and

40.1% of non-Latino support. (2011 Task Force Ex. 392 at 52).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 59 of 138

274. In the 2008 General election for Criminal Court, bivariate estimates show that in

Tarrant County, candidate Molina received 98.6% of Latino support and 39.1% of non-

Latino support. (2011 Task Force Ex. 392 at 52).

275. In the 2006 General election for Lt. Governor, bivariate estimates show that in

Tarrant County, candidate Alvarado received 97.9% of Latino support and 36.5% of non-

Latino support. (2011 Task Force Ex. 392 at 51).

276. In the 2006 General election for Supreme Court Place 4, bivariate estimates show

that in Tarrant County, candidate Medina received 43.7% of Latino support and 76.0% of

non-Latino support. (2011 Task Force Ex. 392 at 51).

277. In the 2006 General election for Criminal Court, bivariate estimates show that in

Tarrant County, candidate Molina received 99.8% of Latino support and 39.6% of non-

Latino support. (2011 Task Force Ex. 392 at 51).

e. Primary Elections Play a Critical Role in Evaluating Racially Polarized Voting

i. Dr. Engstrom’s Testimony

278. Dr. Engstrom testified that it is important to analyze primary elections in order to

determine the extent to which racially polarized voting may be disadvantaging Latino

candidates in Democratic primaries. (2011 Trial Tr. 497:25 – 498:9).

279. Primary elections are significant because the Latino candidate of choice can be

eliminated or filtered out from the competition at the primary phase. (2011 Trial Tr.

497:25 – 498:9, Aug. 2014 Trial Tr. 491:2 – 492:6). If the Latino candidate of choice

were defeated in the primary election, then Latino voters would not have the opportunity

to elect their candidate of choice in the general election, even if Latinos ultimately voted

for the general election winner. (Aug. 2014 Trial Tr. 491:13-23).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 60 of 138

280. Dr. Engstrom testified that, in such a situation, he would not consider the general

election winner to be the Latino candidate of choice, because the Latino candidate of

choice would already have been filtered out of the competition. (Aug. 2014 Trial Tr.

491:24 – 492:6).

281. Dr. Engstrom testified that polarization in the primary election between Latino

and non-Latino voters could affect the outcome of that primary for the Latino candidate

of choice. (Aug. 2014 Trial Tr. 497:7-17).

282. Dr. Engstrom testified that, within the Texas counties that he examined for this

case, African-American and Latino voters are not cohesive within Democratic Primaries

and thus are more likely than not to oppose each other’s preferred candidates in those

elections. (Aug. 2014 Trial Tr. 489:18 – 490:4).

ii. Dr. Alford’s Testimony

283. The state’s witness, Dr. Alford, testified that cohesion in the Democratic Primary

informs the second prong of Gingles. (2017 Trial Tr. 1363:14-17). Dr. Alford

characterized primary voters as the most representative and politically active of their

parties. (2017 Trial Tr. 1364:12-14).

284. Dr. Alford testified that it was empirically crucial to include analysis of the

Democratic primary. (2017 Trial Tr. 1425:22-25). Dr. Alford stated that simply looking

at a general election fails to consider whether the minority voters were able to nominate

their candidate of choice during the primary. (2017 Trial Tr. 1358:13-21). Dr. Alford

testified that looking at primary elections is useful to determine whether that preliminary

process of nominating a candidate might block or filter out the actual candidate of choice.

(2017 Trial Tr. 1359:6-18).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 61 of 138

285. Dr. Alford further explained that “it’s particularly useful [to look at primary

elections] for a variety of reasons,” including “cohesion independent of partisanship,”

“opportunity to achieve ethnic representation,” and whether the preliminary process of

nominating a candidate might block or filter out the actual candidate of choice. (2017

Trial Tr. 1357:7-1359:10). Dr. Alford testified that by not looking at Latino voters’

ability to advance their candidates of choice out of primary elections, “the Hispanic

population is being used as filler” to elect non-Hispanic democrats. (2017 Trial Tr.

1383:16-17).

286. Dr. Alford considered it ironic that the growing Latino population in Texas could

be used to justify redrawing districts that would not create true Latino opportunity

districts because Latino voters would not be able to advance their candidates of choice

out of Democratic primaries. (2017 Trial Tr. 380:1-16). He stated that failing to look at

Latino ability to elect in primary elections is “missing precisely the point that everyone

was concerned about at the beginning of this, [which] is how could a new plan fail to

represent -- how could you have divided the state so as to not represent all that Hispanic

growth?” (2017 Trial Tr. 1383:22 – 1384:1).

287. Dr. Alford cited approvingly to the conclusion of Dr. Lichtman, the Quesada

Plaintiff’s expert that a district, such as CD33 which Dr. Lichtman analyzed, could not be

considered a performing district unless the minority’s candidate of choice emerges from

the primary. (2017 Trial Tr. 1359:6-18).

288. Dr. Alford testified that combining minorities that are not cohesive does not

create a “district that provides opportunity for a single group -- a single combined group.”

(2017 Trial Tr. 1376:25 - 1377:2).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 62 of 138

289. To explain why it is important to analyze a minority group’s ability to advance

their candidate of choice out of primary elections, Dr. Alford provided the following

example: “in the old south, blacks and whites voted Democratic in the general election,

even though, in that election, the Democrats that blacks were voting for were not, for the

most part, individuals favorable to the interests of blacks in the south.” (2017 Trial Tr.

1382:15-19).

290. Dr. Alford cited Dr. Engstrom’s conclusions that, in the Texas counties examined

by Dr. Engstrom for this case, African Americans have a distinct tendency to vote for

candidates competing with the candidates preferred by Latinos in primary elections.

(2017 Defendant Ex. 878 at 9-10).

291. Dr. Alford testified that Dr. Murray’s concerns about lack of participation in

primary elections are not problematic in assessing African American and Latino cohesion

in Democratic primary elections because both minorities vote heavily in Democratic

primary elections. (2017 Trial Tr. 1363:5-13). Dr. Alford stated that this consideration

applies to State House districts as well as Congressional districts. (2017 Trial Tr.

1384:24 - 1385:8). Dr. Alford later pointed out that although primary voters are only a

subset of the population, it “is the subset whose political preferences and political

cohesion, or lack of it, are going to govern what happens in that process.” (2017 Trial Tr.

1462:23-25).

292. Dr. Alford testified that it is important to analyze primary elections because “[i]t

allows us to see what voting behavior looks like without a partisan cue.” (2017 Trial Tr.

1357:10-11).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 63 of 138

293. Dr. Alford further highlighted the functional importance of looking at primary

elections because they are an “an integral part of the process that produces the outcome

of the district,” and “[t]hey do actually tell us about preferences expressed in an actual

election where candidates run for office, represent their policy positions, make clear

which neighborhoods they live in.” (2017 Trial Tr. 1461:22 - 1461:25).

iii. Dr. Lichtman’s Testimony

294. Dr. Lichman testified that he analyzes primary elections when examining racial

polarization. (2017 Trial Tr. 971:2-5).

295. In CD33 in C235, Latinos constitute 43.6% of the CVAP and 39.2% of the voter

registration (2016 total SSVR). African Americans comprise 23.7% of the CVAP. (2017

Joint Ex. 100.3, 100.6).

296. Dr. Lichtman testified that he was able to classify CD33 an African American

opportunity district only by demonstrating that the district will perform for African

Americans during primary voting. (2017 Trial Tr. 1359:10-18). In his analysis of CD33,

Dr. Lichtman found that African American turnout in the primary elections dwarfed that

of Hispanics. Dr. Lichtman concluded that because African Americans are a majority of

the turnout in the Democratic primary, they are able to nominate candidates of their

choice. (2017 Trial Tr. 955:12-956:4).

297. Dr. Lichtman analyzed the 2014 primary election in CD33 and found that 99% of

African American voters supported Marc Veasey, the African American candidate, and

76% of Latino voters supported a different candidate. (2017 Trial Tr. 972:24-973:20). Dr.

Lichtman testified this was not the only time he had seen this in Texas. (2017 Trial Tr.

973:21-23).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 64 of 138

298. Dr. Lichtman testified that he has found instances in Texas where African

American voters and Latino voters did not share the same candidate of choice in primary

elections. (2017 Trial Tr. 971:14-21).

iv. Dr. Tijerina’s Testimony

299. Dr. Andres Tijerina, who testified regarding the historical experience of Mexican

Americans in Texas, presented evidence regarding the use of the White Man’s Primary in

Texas in the early 1900’s to deny Latinos the opportunity to elect their candidate of

choice. (Expert Report of Andres Tijerina, admitted as Joint Expert Report EX-10 on

9/6/11, Dkt. 341).

300. Dr. Tijerina explained that the Progressives “used the ‘White Man’s Primary’ to

exclude Mexican American voting in the Democratic Primary elections, which in a one-

party state, pre-empted the general election.” Id. at 12.

301. Dr. Tijerina quoted the Carrizo Springs Javelin in June 12, 1914 describing the

success of the Dimmit County White Man’s Primary Association: “[it] absolutely

eliminates the Mexican vote as a factor in nominating county candidates, though we

graciously grant the Mexican the privilege of voting for them afterwards.” Id.

v. Dr. Murray’s Testimony

302. Dr. Richard Murray, testifying for the NAACP and the African American

Congresspersons, warned that balancing Latino and African Americans evenly in a

Democratic district will produce “tension in Democratic primaries,” even when Latinos

and African Americans vote cohesively for candidates in the general election. (Aug. 15,

2014 Aug. 2014 Day 5 Tr. corrected, 1493:13-1494:2, Oct. 6, 2014)

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 65 of 138

303. Dr. Murray further argued that the configuration of CD18 in C185 threatened the

viability of CD18 as an African American district: “I think it has the potential, although

it's a performing African American district under Plan C185, to move in the direction of

having significant tension or friction between the faster-growing Hispanic population,

many of whom are middle class Hispanics in this district and a pretty high percentage of

citizen Hispanics, and the somewhat older and currently dominant African American

voters.” (Aug. 2014 Trial Tr. 1394:19-1395:3).

304. Dr. Murray testified in 2011 that “people tend to vote for some of their own

group, particularly in a primary or a non-partisan election” and that there is no consistent

cohesion between African-Americans and Latinos in primary elections. (2011 Trial Tr. at

1061:13-1063:9.)

vi. African-American Congresspersons Testimony

305. Congressman Al Green testified that “tension districts” occur when Latino and

African American populations are closely balanced: “When equilibrium exists, then it

could easily be the case that each party wants to have the same opportunity. So that’s

when you have unnecessary tension.” (2011 Trial Tr. at 1367:2-8; see also id. at 1365:5-

14, 1367:9-1368:13).

306. Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson similarly described “tension districts” as

districts in which “you have a large number of people and you unfairly pile them

together, then it creates tension, because everybody wants representation. They want to

be able to identify some of the people that look like them, . . . to represent them.” (2011

Trial Tr. at 1290:16-20)

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 66 of 138

307. Both Congressman Al Green and Congresswoman Johnson criticized the addition

of growing Latino areas to historically African American districts (such as districts 9, 18

and 30) as creating the potential for “tension districts.” (2011 Trial Tr. 1367:2-8, 1365:5-

14, 1367:9-1368:13, 1303:19-1304:2).

f. Tarrant County Primary Elections

308. Voting is racially polarized between Latino and non-Latino voters in Tarrant

County in Democratic Primary elections. (2011 Trial Tr. 507:8-18).

309. Dr. Engstrom testified that in Tarrant County, African-Americans supported the

Latino candidate in general elections if the Latino candidate was the Democratic

nominee. However, they were not supportive of Latino candidates generally in the

Democratic primaries. African-Americans, and all other voters, shared the candidate

preference of Latinos in only two of seven elections and supported only one of the seven

Latino candidates in the races analyzed by Dr. Engstrom. (2011 Trial Tr. 507:8-18; 2011

Task Force Ex. 392 at 53-54; 2014 Task Force Ex. 967; 2017 Task Force Ex. 19 at 28).

310. Although the confidence intervals reported by Dr. Engstrom for his estimates of

candidate support in Democratic primaries are larger than for general elections (reflecting

the smaller number of voters participating in Democratic primaries), they show at a 95%

level of certainty that African American voters supported the Latino Democratic primary

candidate in only one of seven elections. (2011 Trial Tr. 507:8-18; 2011 Task Force Ex.

392 at 53-54; 2014 Task Force Ex. 967; 2017 Task Force Ex. 19 at 28).

311. In the 2014 Democratic Primary election for Governor, multivariate estimates

show that in Tarrant County, candidate Reynaldo “Ray” Madrigal received 26.5% of

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 67 of 138

Latino support, 0.1% of African-American support, and 1.7% of other voters’ support.

(2017 Task Force Ex. 19 at 20; 2017 Task Force Ex. 48 at 18).

312. In the 2010 Democratic Primary election for Land Commissioner, multivariate

estimates show that in Tarrant County, candidate Hector Uribe received 64.3% of Latino

support, 24.1% of African-American support, and 35.4% of other voters’ support. (2011

Task Force Ex. 392 at 54).

313. In the 2010 Democratic Primary election for Lt. Governor, multivariate estimates

show that in Tarrant County, candidate Linda Chavez-Thompson received 73.3% of

Latino support, 42.9% of African-American support, and 39.6% of other voters’ support.

(2011 Task Force Ex. 392 at 54).

314. In the 2008 Democratic Primary election for U.S. Senate, multivariate estimates

show that in Tarrant County, candidate Rick Noriega received 72.4% of Latino support,

66.0% of African-American support, and 51.5% of other voters’ support. (2011 Task

Force Ex. 392 at 53).

315. In the 2008 Democratic Primary election for Supreme Court Place 7, multivariate

estimates show that in Tarrant County, candidate Cruz received 79.4% of Latino support,

27.6% of African-American support, and 31.2% of other voters’ support. (2011 Task

Force Ex. 392 at 54).

316. In the 2010 Democratic Primary election for Supreme Court 8, multivariate

estimates show that in Tarrant County, candidate Linda Yanez received 85.0% of Latino

support, 42.2% of African-American support, and 40.5% of other voters’ support. (2011

Task Force Ex. 392 at 54).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 68 of 138

317. In the 2006 Democratic Primary runoff for Lt. Governor, multivariate estimates

show that in Tarrant County, candidate Alvarado received 66.1% of Latino support,

30.4% of African-American support, and 47.5% of other voters’ support. (2011 Task

Force Ex. 392 at 53).

318. In the elections analyzed by Dr. Engstrom, the one instance in which the point

estimate for African American support for the Latino candidate is estimated below 50%

but reaches above 50% within the range of the confidence interval is the 2006

Democratic Primary for Lt. Governor, which featured an estimate for two Latino

candidates combined. (2011 Task Force Ex. 392 at 53). In the runoff for that same

election, in which there was only one Latino candidate, the 95% confidence interval is

below 50%. Id. Thus, Dr. Engstrom’s conclusions regarding patterns of candidate

support by race are largely unaffected by sample size and the associated confidence

intervals.

319. Maps displaying precinct level election results in Tarrant County further confirm

Dr. Engstrom’s conclusions regarding racially polarized voting in the Democratic

Primary.

320. In the July 2012 Democratic Primary runoff election for Congressional District

33, looking only at precincts in Tarrant County, in general Latino voter registration

majority precincts voted for Latino candidate Domingo Garcia and non-Latino voter

registration majority precincts voted for non-Latino candidate Marc Veasey. (2017 Task

Force Ex. 52; 2017 Trial Tr. 302:11 - 303:2).

321. In the March 2014 Democratic Primary for Congressional District 33, looking

only at precincts in Tarrant County, in general Latino voter registration majority precincts

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 69 of 138

voted for Latino candidate Tom Sanchez and non-Latino voter registration majority

precincts voted for non-Latino candidate Marc Veasey. (2017 Task Force Ex. 54; 2017

Trial Tr. 303:3 - 303:13).

322. In the March 2014 Democratic Primary for Senate District 10, in general Latino

voter registration majority precincts of the district voted for Latino candidate Mike

Martinez and non-Latino voter registration majority precincts voted for non-Latino

candidate Libby Willis. (2017 Task Force Ex. 56; 2017 Trial Tr. 303:14 - 303:23;

349:19-22, 350:18-25).

g. Democratic Primaries in HD90 Are Racially Polarized

323. Dr. Engstrom further concluded that voting is racially polarized between Latino

and non-Latino voters in HD90 in Democratic Primary elections. (2017 Task Force Ex.

19 at 11; Ex. 48 at 33).

324. Voting in the 2012 Democratic Primary for HD90 was racially polarized. In the

2012 Democratic Primary, multivariate estimates show that Latino candidate Carlos

Vasquez received 65.7% of Latino support, 37.7% of African-American support, and

30.2% of other voters’ support. (2014 Task Force Ex. 967 at 7-8).

325. In the 2012 Democratic primary for HD90, Rep. Burnam generally won the non-

Latino voter registration majority precincts, and Latino candidate Carlos Vasquez

generally won the Latino voter registration majority precincts. (2017 Trial Tr. 314:3-13;

2017 Task Force Ex. 58).

326. In the 2014 Democratic Primary, multivariate estimates show that Latino

candidate Ramon Romero received 78.2% of Latino support, 12.6% of African-American

support, and 24.3% of other voters’ support. (2017 Task Force Ex. 48 at 33).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 70 of 138

327. In the March 2014 Democratic Primary in HD90, in general Latino voter

registration majority precincts voted for Latino candidate Ramon Romero and non-Latino

voter registration majority precincts voted for non-Latino candidate Lon Burnam (2017

Task Force Ex. 12; 2017 Trial Tr. 318:15-21; 2017 Task Force Ex. 55).

328. In the 2014 Democratic Primary for HD90, Como, precinct 1120, was the highest

turnout precinct, with 471 votes. (2017 Trial Tr. 319:13-15). Rep. Burnam won the

Como precinct, 1120, with 383 out of 471 votes. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 58; 2017

Task Force Ex. 11). Mr. Romero received 19% of Como’s votes, compared to 81% for

Mr. Burnam. (2017 Trial Tr. 319:7-12).

329. Mr. Espino testified that HD90 almost always elects the Democratic candidate,

making the Democratic Primary the dispositive election in the District. (2017 Trial Tr.

307:17-20).

330. Dr. Alford excerpted Dr. Engstrom’s analysis of the Democratic primaries in his

2017 report, specifically Table 3. (2017 Trial Tr. 1425:1-1426:4; 2017 Defendant Ex. 878

at 10, 27).

331. Dr. Alford does not characterize HD90 in H358 as a minority coalition district.

(2017 Trial Tr. 1426:21-23).

332. Dr. Alford observed that non-Hispanic voters in HD90 did not give a majority of

their votes to the Latino-preferred candidate of their choice in Democratic primaries.

(2017 Trial Tr. 1426:24-1427:3; 2017 Defendant Ex. 878 at 32).

333. Dr. Morgan Kousser testified that in the elections he analyzed, Latinos and

African-Americans were not cohesive within the Democratic Primary. (2011 Trial Tr. at

265:15-18).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 71 of 138

h. NAACP Witnesses Corroborating Dr. Engstrom

334. Franklin Moss, a former Fort Worth City Councilman for 13 years, testified that

he had seen political races in Tarrant County where African-American and Latino voters

did not vote together. (2017 Trial Tr. 1292:22-23, 1307:3-9).

335. Mr. Moss further testified that examples of African-American and Latino voters

not voting together would be more likely to occur in Democratic primaries. (2017 Trial

Tr. 1307:11-14).

336. Mr. Moss also testified that all things being equal, African-American voters in

Tarrant County would prefer to have an African-American official represent them. (2017

Trial Tr. 1307:15-18).

337. Tarrant County Commissioner Roy Charles Brooks testified that he has seen

African-American voters and Latino voters prefer different candidates in Democratic

Primary elections, and he agreed that the 2012 Democratic Primary for CD33 was an

example of one such election. (2017 Trial Tr. 1237:3-10). Commissioner Brooks testified

that in the 2012 Democratic Primary for CD33, a majority of African-American voters

preferred African-American candidate Marc Veasey, whereas a majority of Latino voters

preferred Latino candidate Domingo Garcia. (2017 Trial Tr. 1237:19-25).

i. Tarrant County Non-Partisan Elections Are Racially Polarized

338. Mr. Jimenez testified that in his 33 years living in Fort Worth, he had never “seen

any local elections where a non-Hispanic [precinct] supported a Hispanic.” (2017 Trial

Tr. 351:4-6).

339. In the May 2014 nonpartisan election for Fort Worth City Council District 9, in

general Latino voter registration majority precincts voted for Latino candidates Juan

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 72 of 138

Rangel and Margot Garza, and non-Latino voter registration majority precincts voted for

non-Latino candidates Bernie Scheffler, Ann Zadeh, Steve Lasater, and Greg Hughes.

(2017 Task Force Ex. 59, 2017 Trial Tr. 303:24 - 304:10)

340. In the May 2015 nonpartisan election for Fort Worth City Council District 2, in

general Latino voter registration majority precincts voted for Latino candidate Salvador

Espino and non-Latino voter registration majority precincts voted for non-Latino

candidate Steve Thornton (2017 Task Force Ex. 60, 2017 Trial Tr. 304:11-23, 350:12-17,

351:1-6).

341. In the March 2016 Democratic Primary for Congressional District 33, in general

Latino voter registration majority precincts voted for Latino candidate Carlos Quintanilla

and the non-Latino voter registration majority precincts voted for non-Latino candidate

Marc Veasey. (2017 Task Force Ex. 57, 2017 Trial Tr. 304:24 - 305:8, 349:23-350:5,

351:1-6).

342. In the May 2017 nonpartisan election for Fort Worth ISD District 9, in general

Latino voter registration majority precincts voted for Latina candidate Pilar Candia and

non-Latino voter registration majority precincts voted for non-Latino candidate Ashley

Paz. (2017 Task Force Ex. 62, 2017 Trial Tr. 305:9 - 305:23)

343. In the May 2017 nonpartisan election for Fort Worth ISD District 8, in general

Latino voter registration majority precincts voted for Latino candidate Anael Luebanos

and non-Latino voter registration majority precincts voted for non-Latino candidate Jason

Brown (2017 Task Force Ex. 61, 2017 Trial Tr. 305:24 - 306:11, 350:6-11, 351:4-6).

344. In the June 2017 nonpartisan election for Fort Worth Council District 2, in general

Latino voter registration majority precincts voted for Latino candidate Carlos Flores and

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 73 of 138

non-Latino voter registration majority precincts voted for non-Latino candidate Steve

Thornton (2017 Task Force Ex. 53, 2017 Trial Tr. 306:12 - 307:13)

j. Dilutive Effects of Burnam Amendment in H358

345. Como precinct 1120 historically does not support Latino candidates in the

Democratic primary. Como does cast a majority of its votes for the Democratic

candidate in the General election. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 45-49; 2017 Trial Tr. 313:7-

13, 352:15-17).

346. In Como precinct 1120, in the March 4, 2014 Democratic Primary, Latino

candidate Reynaldo Madrigal won 21 out of 495 votes for Governor. (2017 Task Force

Ex. 39 at 1).

347. In Como precinct 1120, in the March 2, 2010 Democratic Primary, Latina

candidate Linda Chavez-Thompson won 80 out of 158 votes for Lieutenant Governor

(winning the precinct by one vote). (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-L at 2).

348. In Como precinct 1120, in the March 2, 2010 Democratic Primary, Latino

candidate Hector Uribe won 64 out of 157 votes for Commissioner of the General Land

Office. (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-M at 2 (Burnam Depo. Ex. 24).

349. In Como precinct 1120, in the March 4, 2008 Democratic Primary, Latino

candidate Rick Noriega won 350 out of 806 votes for U.S. Senator. (2017 Task Force

Ex. 3-N at 2).

350. In Como precinct 1120, in the March 4, 2008 Democratic Primary, Latino

candidate Baltasar Cruz garnered 242 out of 781 votes for Supreme Court Justice Place 7.

(2017 Task Force Ex. 3-O at 2).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 74 of 138

351. In Como precinct 1120, in the March 4, 2008 Democratic Primary, Latina

candidate Linda Reyna Yanez garnered 310 out of 752 votes for Supreme Court Justice

Place 8. (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-P at 2).

352. In Como precinct 1120, in the March 4, 2006 Democratic Primary election for

Lieutenant Governor, Latina candidate Maria Luisa Alvarado garnered 41 out of 271

votes, and Latino candidate Adrian de Leon garnered 93 out of 271 votes. (2017 Task

Force Ex. 3-Q at 2).

353. Mr. Espino testified that the changes made to the boundaries of HD90 by Rep.

Burnam’s amendment effectively weaken the opportunity for Latinos to elect a candidate

of their choice in the Democratic Primary and make it more difficult for Latino

candidates to win. (2017 Trial Tr. 317:1-16).

354. Mr. Espino testified that Mr. Romero and other Latino candidates were still

vulnerable in HD90 Democratic Primary elections because Mr. Romero only won by 110

votes in 2014. There were Latino candidates running for other seats in the 2014

Democratic Primary in Tarrant County, which contributed to higher Latino turnout that

year. (2017 Trial Tr. 323:4-18).

355. Mr. Kenny conceded that his map made it more difficult for Latino voters to

nominate their preferred candidate in the HD90 Democratic Primary if that candidate was

Latino. (2017 Trial Tr. 672:24 – 673:7).

356. Rep. Burnam testified that the changes he made from the first version of his

amendment to the second, which raised the SSVR to 50.1%, “didn’t change the [electoral

performance] numbers, but it changed the [SSVR] percentage.” (2017 Task Force Ex. 1

at 63).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 75 of 138

357. Although the areas removed from HD90 were majority Anglo, they had an SSVR

of 20.6%, which was significantly higher than the area added to the district, which

included Como and had an overall SSVR of 8.5%. (2017 Task Force Ex. 9 at 2). As a

result, the addition of Como and the removal of portions of Sansom Park and North

Beverly Hills had a net effect of lowering the SSVR in HD90.

358. Moreover, Sansom Park and North Beverly Hills, although majority non-Latino

voter registration majority areas, had a history of electing Latino candidates. (2017 Trial

Tr. 315:15 - 316:25). The Burnam amendment’s replacement of Sansom Park and North

Beverly Hills with Como weakened the opportunity for Latinos to elect the candidates of

their choice in HD90 because Como’s higher turnout against a Latino candidate

outweighs Sansom Park and North Beverly Hills’ lower turnout and more favorable

margins for Latino candidates. (2017 Trial Tr. 317:1 - 318:3, 352:9-11).

3. Totality of the Circumstances (Senate Factors)

a. The history of voting-related discrimination in the State or political subdivision

359. Latinos in Tarrant County experienced statewide discriminatory practices in the

area of voting, including the poll tax, use of dilutive multimember districting for State

House seats, and intentional race-based redistricting of congressional districts in Tarrant

County in Plan C185. See Kilgarlin v. Martin, 252 F. Supp. 404, 439 (S.D. Tex. 1966),

rev’d sub nom. Kilgarlin v. Hill, 386 U.S. 120, 87 S. Ct. 820, 17 L. Ed. 2d 771 (1967)

(describing use of 8 multi-member districts in Tarrant County for Texas House). See

Perez v. Abbott, No. SA–11–CV–360, WL 1787454, at *47-50 (W.D. Tex. May 2, 2017)

(finding Shaw-type racial gerrymandering in Tarrant County given the use of race in

drawing CD26 in violation of the Equal Protection Clause).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 76 of 138

360. The Task Force Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their proposed Findings of

Fact 180-229 from their 2014 Post-trial Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law. (Dkt. 1274 28-35, ¶¶ 180-229).

361. Tarrant County also features present-day discrimination against Latino voters and

candidates. See Perez v. Abbott, No. SA–11–CV–360, WL 1787454, at *51-69 (W.D.

Tex. May 2, 2017) (finding that the Texas Legislature intentionally diluted Latino voting

strength and acted with a racially discriminatory motive in drawing CD26, which

includes parts of Tarrant County).

362. When Mr. Romero challenged Rep. Burnam for the Democratic party nomination

in HD90 in 2014, Mr. Burnam’s campaign made robocalls in Spanish to discourage

Latino voters from accepting mail ballot assistance from Romero campaign workers and

to suggest that accepting assistance with a mail ballot could result in that ballot being

stolen. (See supra ¶¶ 67-76).

363. At the same time, Rep. Burnam ran his own vote-by-mail ballot assistance

program through surrogates in the heavily non-Latino Como neighborhood. (2017 Task

Force Ex. 2 at 10).

b. The extent to which voting is racially polarized

364. The Task Force Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their proposed Findings of

Fact ¶¶ 92-120 from their 2014 Post-trial Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law demonstrating that voting is racially polarized in Tarrant County and HD90. (Dkt.

1274 at 13-18, ¶¶ 92-120).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 77 of 138

365. The Task Force Plaintiffs also incorporate by reference their proposed Findings of

Fact ¶¶ 245-358 from Part IV, Section B of this document, “Gingles Prongs 2 and 3:

Racially Polarized Voting in Tarrant County.”

c. The extent to which the State or political subdivision has used voting practices or procedures that tend to enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group, such as unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, and prohibitions against bullet voting

366. Tarrant County employed multi-member seats for its State House districts until

the 1970’s. See Kilgarlin v. Martin, 252 F. Supp. 404, 439 (S.D. Tex. 1966), rev'd sub

nom. Kilgarlin v. Hill, 386 U.S. 120, 87 S. Ct. 820, 17 L. Ed. 2d 771 (1967) (describing

use of 8 multi-member districts in Tarrant County).

d. The exclusion of members of the minority group from candidate slating processes

367. From the 1970s to the 1990s, a group known as the Seventh Street gang would

recruit and support Anglo candidates for office across the Fort Worth area. (2017 Trial

Tr. 294:21 - 295:21).

368. When a group of Latino local leaders formed a group to recruit and advise Latino

candidate to run for office in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Rep. Burnam visited a

meeting of the informal Latino group to tell them he didn’t believe they needed to be

meeting. (2017 Trial Tr. 348:10-17). At that meeting, Mr. Burnam asserted that he could

represent the district better than any Latino candidate that the group could recruit. (2017

Trial Tr. 348:15-17). The discussion grew heated, and Mr. Burnam was asked to leave

the meeting. (2017 Trial Tr. 348:18-24).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 78 of 138

369. Around 2008 or 2009, Lon Burnam met with then-Fort Worth City

Councilmember Sal Espino; Mr. Espino testified that Mr. Burnam indicated that he did

not want Mr. Espino to challenge his HD90 seat. (2017 Trial Tr. 297:12 - 298:4).

370. Prior to the 2014 Democratic Primary election, Rep. Burnam approached Mr.

Romero and attempted to dissuade him from running for State Representative. (2017

Task Force Ex. 1 at 58 (Burnam Vol. 1)). Mr. Romero was the only individual Rep.

Burnam met with in this capacity. (2017 Task Force Ex. 1 at 58).

e. The extent to which minority group members bear the effects of past discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process

371. The Task Force Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their proposed Findings of

Fact ¶¶ 240-290, ¶¶ 343-348, ¶¶ 355-367 from their 2014 Post-trial Proposed Findings of

Fact and Conclusions of Law. (Dkt. 1274 at 37-43, ¶¶ 240-290; 51-52, ¶¶ 343-348; 53-

55, ¶¶ 355-367).

372. In his 2011 testimony, Alex Jimenez recalled his youth when Mexican Americans

were subjected to wage discrimination but continued to work under discriminatory

conditions because it was the only work available. (2011 Trial Tr. 563:1-23).

373. During his early working career Mr. Jimenez recalled that his supervisor thought

it was appropriate to call Mr. Jimenez “Pepper Belly,” and Mr. Jimenez just had to look

the other way. (2011 Trial Tr. 565:2-11).

374. When Mr. Jimenez first started working professionally, he was introduced as a

“helper” by his Anglo colleague who held the same position and had identical

educational credentials. (2011 Trial Tr. 567:10-13).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 79 of 138

375. When Mr. Jimenez earned a promotion to vice president at TXU, he received a

number of calls accusing him of filling a quota. (2011 Trial Tr. 567:25-568:19).

376. Mr. Jimenez recalled having to call banks in advance to establish checking

accounts because if he let his ethnicity be the bank’s first impression, opening an account

became an ordeal. One bank, where he had cashed checks previously, required him to

produce ID while cashing an Anglo coworker’s check without hesitation. (2011 Trial Tr.

565:18-566:22).

f. The use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns

377. When Mr. Romero, who is Latino, challenged Rep. Burnam in the 2014

Democratic Primary election for HD90, Rep. Burnam’s campaign and its supporters

distributed political flyers suggesting that Mr. Romero was a member of the Latin Kings

street gang. (See supra ¶¶ 77-84).

378. The flyer depicted a negative and offensive stereotype of Latinos, namely that

they are gang members. (2017 Trial Tr. 319:23 - 320:17). The flyer insinuated that if

Mr. Romero were elected, there would be more gangs and violence. (2017 Trial Tr.

357:12-14).

379. During the 2014 Democratic Primary, Rep. Burnam’s website featured a graphic

depicting Mr. Romero’s photo in between the photos of two other candidates, with the

words “Fake Democrats” superimposed over all three faces. (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-X).

The candidate directly next to Mr. Romero was holding a poster of President Obama with

a Hitler mustache. (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-X).

380. Mr. Espino testified that the graphic was “deeply disturbing, offensive, and

hateful.” Mr. Espino considered the post to be an appeal to non-Latino voters, and

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 80 of 138

African-American voters in particular, not to vote for Mr. Romero. (2017 Trial Tr.

320:18 - 321:14).

381. Rep. Burnam testified that he hoped that these posts would be “very disturbing” to

African-American voters. (2017 Task Force Ex. 2 at 37). Rep. Burnam thought that

voters would possibly gain a negative impression of Mr. Romero because he was

portrayed next to a picture of President Obama with a Hitler mustache. (2017 Task Force

Ex. 2 at 38).

382. Latino elected officials in Fort Worth are derogatorily referred to as the “Mexican

Mafia.” (2017 Trial Tr. 298:5 -298:20).

g. The extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction

383. Mr. Espino and Mr. Jimenez both testified that it is very difficult for Latino

candidates in the Fort Worth area to garner non-Latino votes. (2017 Trial Tr. 307:24 -

308:5, 358:15-17). In HD90, Mr. Espino testified that without at least 50% SSVR, the

Latino candidate cannot win a racially contested Democratic primary. (2017 Trial Tr.

307:24 - 308:5). Mr Espino testified: “In the Democratic Primary I have always had a

rule of [thumb] that if you're in a Democratic Primary . . . you at least need to be at least

50 percent plus voter registration to even have a shot to win. And there is racially

polarized voting because it's very difficult for a Latino candidate to get non-Hispanic

voters to vote for them.” Id.

384. From its creation in 1983 through 2014, HD90 was represented by Anglo state

representatives -- Doyle Willis and later Lon Burnam. (2017 Trial Tr. 352:11-13; 2017

Task Force Ex. 1 at 35; Legislative Reference Library of Texas, Doyle Willis,

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 81 of 138

http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/legeLeaders/members/memberDisplay.cfm?memberID=%2030

8).

385. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, an informal group of Latino political,

community, and business leaders and activists formed to recruit and advise Latino

candidates in Fort Worth. (2017 Trial Tr. 295:22 - 296:11; 347:9-15). The informal

Latino group started meeting because, at that time in the early 2000s, there were no

Latino city council members, county commissioners, or state representatives in Fort

Worth, and only two Latino school board trustees. (2017 Trial Tr. 296:14 - 297:7;

347:18-22).

386. The HCVAP of Tarrant County is 16.9%. (2017 Task Force Ex. 50).

387. Of the nine Fort Worth City Councilmembers, only one, Carlos E. Flores, is a

Latino. (Fort Worth City Government, http://fortworthtexas.gov/government/ (last visited

July 30, 2017)).

388. There are no Latinos who represent a portion of Tarrant County in the U.S. House

of Representatives. (Tarrant County, Elected Officials Representing Tarrant County as of

June 01, 2017, at 1-2 (2017)

http://access.tarrantcounty.com/content/dam/main/elections/MISC/elected_officials.pdf

(2017)).

Of the 137 total elected officials who represent Tarrant County at the federal, state, and

county level, only 11 (8.0%) have Latino surnames. (Tarrant County, Elected Officials

Representing Tarrant County as of June 01, 2017 (2017)

http://access.tarrantcounty.com/content/dam/main/elections/MISC/elected_officials.pdf

(2017)).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 82 of 138

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 83 of 138

II. PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. OVERVIEW OF THE RULING1

In 2013, the State of Texas enacted boundaries to Texas House District 90 (“HD90”) that

departed from the previous House redistricting plan H283 and this Court’s interim redistricting plan for the Texas House of Representatives, H309. The State’s changes to HD90 used race to assign voters into and out of HD90, purposefully weakened Hispanic voting strength in the district, and deployed a mechanical racial quota to give the impression that Hispanic voting

strength was unchanged.

The changes to HD90 were conceived by the incumbent in order to bolster his ability to

defeat a Latino-preferred challenger in the Democratic primary. The changes to HD90 were

reviewed and discussed by the senior member of the Tarrant County House delegation as well as

the Chairman of the House Redistricting Committee, who offered the amended boundaries for

HD90 on the House floor and urged their passage.

The State’s use of race to assign voters into and out of HD90 in H358 violated the

Fourteenth Amendment (racial gerrymandering/Shaw claim). The State’s changes to HD90

further purposefully discriminated against Latino voters in violation of the Fourteenth

Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by weakening their voting strength in order

to preserve an incumbent who was not Latino-preferred (intentional vote dilution). The State’s

changes to HD90 also weakened Latino voting strength in violation of Section 2’s effects

standard.

1. The Court’s Previous Rulings on HD90 Confirm that Creation of HD90 as an SSVR majority district, by itself, is neither illegal nor improper

1 This section also responds to the Court’s question number 2 in Questions from the Three-Judge Panel to be Addressed at the Conclusion of Trial (Dkt. 1494). 73

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 84 of 138

In its April 2017 order, this Court concluded that the State improperly claimed HD90 in

H283 as a “new” Latino ability district for the purpose of diluting Latino voting strength in

Texas. The Court explained, “redistricters believed they could offset the elimination of HD33

for § 5 purposes by increasing the SSVR of HD90[.]” Perez v. Abbott, SA–11–CV–360, WL

1450121, *45 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2017) [Dkt. 1365 at 32-33 n. 22]. The Court further observed that “§ 2 of the VRA does not permit offsets.” Id.

Texas’s reliance on HD90 in H283 to offset the elimination of HD33 in Nueces County was improper because Texas asserted the offset to justify a statewide plan that diluted Latino voting strength statewide. However, absent the improper assertion of offset, the creation of

HD90 as an SSVR majority district in H292 was not illegal or improper.2

In Plan H100, the benchmark plan for the 2011 redistricting, HD90 did not contain a

majority HCVAP population but the Latino share of CVAP had been increasing in the district

and Latinos were on the cusp of majority status.

At the beginning of the 2011 redistricting cycle, the 2005-2009 American Community

Survey estimate for HCVAP in HD90 was 47.9%. (FOF 111). HD90 had a 2010 total SSVR

of 45%. (2017 Task Force Ex. 3-A; FOF 111). However, HD90 was also substantially under

populated -- by 26,288 people (-15.68%). Id.

The representative of HD90 at the time, Lon Burnam, conceded that 2011 was probably

the first redistricting cycle in which it was possible for HD90 to be a Latino CVAP majority

district. (FOF 113). Nevertheless, in the 2011 redistricting process, Mr. Burnam proposed to

reduce HD90’s HCVAP from 47.9% to 43.2% and the total SSVR from 45% to 40%. Perez v.

Abbott, SA–11–CV–360, WL 1450121, *36 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2017) [Dkt. 1365 at 70].

2 No party alleges in a live complaint that the creation of HD90 as an SSVR majority district, by itself, violated the Voting Rights Act or the U.S. Constitution. 74

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 85 of 138

(FOF 116). . At the same time, Mr. Burnam sought to dissuade Latinos who might challenge him in the Democratic primary for HD90. (FOF 53).. Mr. Burnam claimed to local Latino leaders that he could represent the district better than any Latino candidate that they could recruit. (FOF 106).

Tarrant County Latino community advocates and elected officials wanted HD90 to be redistricted in 2011 as a Latino-majority district. (FOF 105, 111). HD90 had never been represented by a Latino, and in 1996 a Latino candidate had run for the Democratic nomination in HD90 and been defeated by Lon Burnam. (FOF 101, 102). Although HD90 voted

Democratic in general elections, local Latino leaders believed that HD90 needed an SSVR majority in order for a Latino candidate to win the Democratic primary. (FOF 339). A history of racially polarized voting in Ft. Worth area Democratic primaries and nonpartisan elections, as well as active discouragement of Latino candidates for office by local Democratic leadership, supported the conclusion of Latino leaders that Latino voters in HD90 needed a

Latino majority to nominate and elect their candidates of choice. Local Latino leaders’ intent to raise the Latino population of HD90 to a majority of CVAP and voter registration was not improper but was instead aimed at 1) providing the opportunity for Latinos to nominate and elect their candidate of choice within a context of racially polarized voting and 2) pushing back against an attempt by the incumbent in the 2011 redistricting cycle to weaken Latino voting strength in the district.

The Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force, the membership of which includes Latino

Tarrant County residents, advocated for an HD90 with a majority HCVAP. (FOF 119).

The Texas Legislature decided to create HD90 as a majority SSVR district. (FOF 120,

133-34). However, the Legislature went further, claiming that the increased Latino population

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 86 of 138

in HD90 in Plan H283 served as an offset for the elimination of HD33 in Nueces County under

section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The Task Force objected strongly to this assertion by

Texas but continued to advocate for an HCVAP majority HD90. In an April 27, 2011 letter to

House and Senate Redistricting Committee Chairmen Solomons and Seliger, the Task Force

wrote:

Adding Latino voters to Districts 90 and 148 does raise the SSVR but does not create new Latino opportunity districts that can offset the loss of District 33. Thus Plan H153 reduces the number of districts in which Latinos can elect their candidates of choice. By contrast, the Texas House plan offered by the Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force adds Latino population to Districts 90 and 148 and also creates three additional Latino majority opportunity districts.

(2014 Task Force Ex. 227 [Dkt. 320-2 at 68-74]).3

This Court has ruled that HD90 cannot serve as an offset for the loss of HD33 under

sections 2 or 5 of the Voting Rights Act and that Texas increased the SSVR of HD90 for an

improper purpose. See Perez v. Abbott, SA–11–CV–360, WL 1450121, *16-18 (W.D. Tex.

Apr. 20, 2017) [Dkt. 1365 at 32-33 n. 22, 71, 84]). At the same time, the Court also

determined that in H283, “claims that HD90 and HD95 were packed are not supported by the

evidence.” See Perez v. Abbott, SA–11–CV–360, WL 1450121, *36 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 20,

2017) [Dkt. 1365 at 71]. These two rulings, taken together, mean that HD90 can be a Latino

majority district, but not for an improper purpose.4

2. Recent Rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court Support the Creation of

HD90 as a Latino Majority District

3 See also Perez v. Abbott, SA-11-CV-360, WL 1450121, *28, n.43 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2017) [Dkt. 1365 at 56 n. 43] (“The Court notes that Perales did not “repudiate” MALDEF’s assertion that the SSVR/HCVAP of HD148 could or should be increased above 50%. Rather, she asserted that increasing the SSVR/HCVAP of existing ability districts HD90 and HD148 could not offset the loss of HD33 because they were existing ability districts, and that additional Latino opportunity districts were still required.”) 4 No party has raised a Shaw-type racial gerrymandering claim against HD90 in H283. See Dkt. 1365 at 87 n. 65. 76

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 87 of 138

There is nothing inherently wrong with a district having an increased minority

population if it reflects the demographics of the area, does not have the effect of dilution and

wasn't intentionally racially gerrymandered. In the case of HD90, the goal of local Latino

leaders to draw together Latino majority precincts that would provide Latinos the opportunity

to nominate and elect their preferred candidate of choice, and fend off the incumbent’s plan to

reduce Latino voting strength, was entirely proper.5

Recent Supreme Court decisions do not prohibit, but indeed support, the creation of

HD90 as a Latino majority district. On the one hand, they reaffirm that districts are vulnerable

to Shaw-type claims when redistricters rely on numerical demographic targets purportedly to

comply with the Voting Rights Act without undertaking the functional analysis actually

required by the Act. Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, 137 S. Ct. 788, 802

(2017); Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. Ct. 1455, 1468–69 (2017); Alabama Legislative Black

Caucus v. Alabama, 135 S. Ct. 1257, 1272 (2015). On the other hand, they affirm that in some

circumstances a certain demographic percentage might be necessary for voters to have a

“functional working majority.” Bethune-Hill, 137 S. Ct. at 802.

In Alabama Legislative Black Caucus, the Supreme Court reversed a decision

upholding districts created with “mechanical racial targets” on the theory that such targets were

required to prevent retrogression under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Alabama Legislative

Black Caucus, 135 S. Ct. at 1267. The Court reaffirmed that prevention of retrogression “does

not require a covered jurisdiction to maintain a particular numerical minority percentage” but

instead “requires the jurisdiction to maintain a minority’s ability to elect a preferred candidate

of choice.” Id. at 1272. Accordingly, the Court held that, in most instances, a demographic

5 This section also responds to question number 3 in Questions from the Three-Judge Panel to be Addressed at the Conclusion of Trial (Dkt. 1494). 77

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 88 of 138

target will not equate to compliance with the Voting Rights Act. But in Bethune-Hill, the

Supreme Court clarified that “Alabama did not condemn the use of [demographic] targets to

comply with § 5 in every instance.” Bethune-Hill, 137 S. Ct. at 802. Indeed, the Court held

that, given a functional analysis, the record in that case “support[ed] the [Virginia] legislature’s

conclusion that this was one instance where a 55% BVAP was necessary for black voters to

have a functional working majority.” Id.

Each of these decisions involved Shaw-type claims, and there are no Shaw-type

claims asserted against HD90 in Plan H283. See Perez v. Abbott, SA–11–CV–360, WL

1450121, *85-87 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2017) [Dkt. 1365 at 69–71, 85–87]. Therefore, these

decisions themselves neither prohibit nor require the creation of HD90 as a majority-SSVR

district. However, these decisions—Bethune-Hill in particular—support the use of

demographic percentages that reflect real conditions and ability to elect to guide the creation of

HD90 as a Latino majority district.

B. HD90 IN PLAN H358 INTENTIONALLY DISCRIMINATES AGAINST LATINOS IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (SHAW RACIAL GERRYMANDERING CLAIM)

The Fourteenth Amendment forbids intentional discrimination in legislative line-drawing.

City of Mobile, Ala. v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, 66 (1980). Although typically courts defer to

legislative redistricting, that deference is overcome by evidence of race-based decision making.

Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 915 (1995) (quoting Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515

U.S. 200, 218 (1995)), Garza v. County of Los Angeles, 756 F. Supp. 1298, 1349 (C.D. Cal.

1990), aff’d, 918 F.2d 763 (9th Cir. 1990).

There are two distinct claims of intentional discrimination in redistricting. The first challenges the use of race as a basis for separating voters into districts and was first recognized

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 89 of 138

in Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993). See also Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. at 911. The second

claim targets actions “disadvantaging voters of a particular race,” and is “analytically distinct”

from claims under the Shaw v. Reno line of cases. See Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 911

(1995) (explaining distinction between claims).

A Shaw-type racial gerrymandering claim turns on whether “race was improperly used in

the drawing of the boundaries of one or more specific electoral districts.” Alabama Legislative

Black Caucus v. Alabama, 135 S. Ct. 1257, 1265 (2015) (“Alabama”); see also Perez v. Abbott,

No. SA-11-CV-360, 2017 WL 1787454, at *15 (W.D. Tex. May 2, 2017) [Dkt. 1390 at 30]. The

plaintiff’s evidentiary burden is “to show, either through circumstantial evidence of a district’s

shape and demographics or more direct evidence going to legislative purpose, that race was the

predominant factor motivating the legislature’s decision to place a significant number of voters

within or without a particular district.” Alabama at 1267.

In H358, the direct and circumstantial evidence surrounding the Burnam amendment

establish that the State assigned voters into and out of HD90 because of their race. The State’s

actions are unlawful even if the State can point to other, purportedly non-racial purposes. See

LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. at 441; Garza v. County of L.A., 756 F. Supp. 1298, 1349 (C.D. Cal.

1990) aff’d, 918 F.2d 763 (9th Cir. 1990) (“racial discrimination is not just another competing consideration.”) (citing Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265

(1977)).

The State’s actions are also unconstitutional regardless of their effect on minority ability to elect in the challenged district. The Shaw line of cases challenged districts that were created to provide minority opportunity to elect. The Supreme Court made clear, however, that even if

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 90 of 138

racial gerrymanders are motivated by good intentions, they are unconstitutional solely because they assign voters to districts on the basis of race.

Furthermore, the fact that HD90 in H358 contains a majority HCVAP, or that the plan overall contains a certain number of Latino opportunity districts, does not foreclose a Shaw claim with respect to HD90. Earlier in this case, this Court recognized:

The Supreme Court has never held that a State's creation of a certain number of HCVAP- majority districts forecloses all relief, and nothing in the Supreme Court's precedents indicates that Plaintiffs may not still challenge . . . whether they comply with the Equal Protection Clause. In fact, Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 916 n.8, 116 S.Ct. 1894, 135 L.Ed.2d 207 (1996), indicates that Plaintiffs may challenge whether the minority districts drawn in the State's plan were lawfully drawn[.]

Perez v. Abbott, No. SA-11-CV-360, 2017 WL 1787454, at *5 (W.D. Tex. May 2, 2017).

In Alabama, the Court recognized “that the legislature had deliberately moved black voters into [certain] majority-minority districts” to achieve a numerical target of black voters.

Alabama at 1266-67. In its decision on Plan C185, this Court concluded that when Ryan

Downton “moved certain populations of Hispanics into CD23 to increase its SSVR and HCVAP numbers” without respect for traditional redistricting principles, “race was the predominant motive in the decision to include significant numbers of Latino voters into CD23, triggering strict scrutiny.” Perez v. Abbott, No. SA-11-CV-360, 2017 WL 1787454, at *16, n.22 (W.D.

Tex. May 2, 2017) [Dkt. 1390 at 31].

Here, Rep. Burnam directed his staffer Conor Kenney to use REDAPPL to, according to

Rep. Burnam, remove “every white voter near the western boundary of the district to keep the

Hispanic vote over 50%.” (FOF 34). Rep. Burnam further testified that he ignored precinct lines to “pull [Latinos] in” to HD90 and find white people to put in neighboring Anglo-majority

HD99. (FOF 38).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 91 of 138

Mr. Kenny did not take into account any election results as he made changes to the

district; the redrawing was, in his words, “purely a demographic exercise.” (FOF 35). Mr.

Kenny testified that he redistricted block by block to finalize his second map using Hispanic

Voting Age Population (HVAP). (FOF 37).

Mr. Kenny used racial shading in RedAppl to include in HD90 Census blocks with

higher HVAP. (FOF 39). Mr. Kenny redistricted along the border between HD90 and HD 99

and brought blocks that were above 50% HVAP into HD90. Then he took blocks that were

under 50% HVAP out of HD90. (FOF 39). When Mr. Kenny saw a block on RedAppl with an

HVAP below 50%, he moved it out of HD90 regardless of other populations. (FOF 39). Mr.

Kenny referred to his goal of adding blocks with greater than 50% HVAP and removing blocks

with less than 50% HVAP as an “operational mandate.” (FOF 40).

In total, Rep. Burnam and Mr. Kenny split ten precincts to draw HD90’s new

boundaries. (FOF 41). Rep. Burnam’s amendment:

● cut out portions of Sansom Park by splitting precincts 4073 and 4593, in order to

remove Anglo-majority blocks while maintaining Latino-majority blocks. (FOF

42);

● split precincts 4125, 4068, 4493, 4634, and 1015 in order to include Latino-

majority blocks in HD90 and exclude Anglo-majority blocks from HD90. (FOF

43).

● removed whole precincts 1674 and 1062 and included whole precincts 1434 and

1408 in order to include Latino-majority precincts in HD90 and remove non-

Latino-majority precincts from the district. (FOF 44).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 92 of 138

Rep. Burnam admitted that he made changes to HD90 for the sole purpose of including

Latino-majority blocks in the district and excluding Anglo-majority blocks. (FOF 45).

Mr. Kenny testified that he reviewed the cut to precinct 4125 with Rep. Burnam and told

Rep. Burnam that cutting 4125 in order to draw more Latinos into HD90 would be “ugly.”

(FOF 46). Rep. Burnam did not express concern with the “ugly” cut and instead said that the cut was “great” because it brought more Latinos into HD90. (FOF 46).

The total population of the precincts split or moved whole because of race by Rep.

Burnam’s amendment is 33,343 individuals, including an estimated 16,429 registered voters.6

(FOF 49).

In places where it employs race-based redistricting, HD90 in Plan H358 splits precincts, divides communities of interest and does not advance partisan interests – flaunting traditional redistricting criteria.

The racial purpose of Rep. Burnam in crafting HD90 in H358 is attributed to the

Legislature as a whole, particularly where, as here, the senior member of the Tarrant County

House delegation reviewed and approved the district lines, and the Chairman of the House

Redistricting Committee reviewed, laid out before the House and urged passage of the district lines.7 See Perez v. Abbott, SA–11–CV–360, WL 1450121, *43 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2017)

(“[A]lthough various mapdrawers drew different portions of the map, they did so with authority

from the Legislature, and thus their motives, knowledge, and intent must be imputed to the

Legislature when it enacted the plan.” (FOF 162-168, 173-174, 189-191).

6 This responds to question number 25 in Questions from the Three-Judge Panel to be Addressed at the Conclusion of Trial (Dkt. 1494). 7 This responds to question number 9 in Questions from the Three-Judge Panel to be Addressed at the Conclusion of Trial (Dkt. 1494). 82

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 93 of 138

Texas lacks any compelling reason for the race based redistricting in its changes to

HD90. The undisputed evidence shows that the changes to HD90 flowed first from Rep.

Burnam’s attempt to reduce Latino voting strength in the Democratic primary HD90 while still

maintaining the appearance of a Latino majority district, then the further imposition by

legislative leadership of a 50.1% mechanical target for HD90’s SSVR without regard to its effect on Latino voters’ ability to nominate and elect their preferred candidate.

Rep. Burnam testified that Chairman Darby was “fixated” on the number of Latino voters being at 50.1%. (FOF 174). After reaching this 50.1% goal however, Rep. Burnam testified that his changes “didn’t change the [electoral performance] numbers, but it changed the [SSVR]

percentage.” (FOF 187). Nevertheless satisfied, Chairman Darby addressed the House:

“Members, Representative Burnam has revised his amendment and it now keeps this district a

Hispanic district--brings the numbers back over 50%. That was the objection. I believe

Representative Geren is in favor of this amendment also, so with that I would move to accept this

amendment.” (FOF 51).

Chairman Darby invoked legislative privilege and did not provide any further testimony

on the nature of “the objection” or why he believed this revision cured the objection to the original Burnam amendment. (FOF 52). Chairman Darby did not perform or request any functional electoral analysis of Rep. Burnam’s proposed changes to HD90. (FOF 224).

Thus, the changes to HD90 simultaneously met the mechanical target of 50.1% SSVR

and maintained the electoral performance numbers favored by Rep. Burnam that would help him

in the Democratic primary.

Similar to the Court’s conclusion that HD117 was racially gerrymandered, here Chairman

Darby rejected Rep. Burnam’s first draft of the HD90 amendment because it did not maintain an

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 94 of 138

SSVR of 50.1%, without regard for any impact the amendment would have on Hispanic opportunity to elect. (FOF 173-174, 189-191). See also Perez v. Abbott, SA–11–CV–360, WL

1450121, *45 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2017) (“Solomons rejected the proposal because maintaining the racial quota while at the same time ensuring the least possible Hispanic opportunity was paramount. Accordingly, redistricters lacked a compelling state interest for their use of race.”).

C. HD90 IN PLAN H358 INTENTIONALLY DILUTES LATINO VOTING STRENGTH IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (INTENTIONAL VOTE DILUTION CLAIM)

A non-Shaw claim of intentional discrimination in redistricting asserts that the jurisdiction “enacted a particular voting scheme as a purposeful device ‘to minimize or cancel out the voting potential of racial or ethnic minorities.’” Perez v. Abbott, SA–11–CV–360, WL

1787454, *45 (W.D. Tex. May 2, 2017) [Dkt. 1390 at 96]. See also City of Mobile v. Bolden,

446 U.S. 55 (1980) superseded in part by statute on other grounds by 42 U.S.C. § 1973; Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613, 617 (1982) (redistricting plan violates the Fourteenth Amendment if

“‘conceived or operated as purposeful device to further racial discrimination’ by minimizing, canceling out or diluting the voting strength of racial elements in the voting population.’”)

(quoting Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S., 124, 149 (1971)); Garza v. County of Los Angeles, 918

F.2d 763 (9th Cir. 1990) (same).8

Section 2 (b) of the Voting Rights Act provides:

A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its members

8 Both Shaw and Miller acknowledge these differences. See Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 911 (1995); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 651-52 (1993). 84

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 95 of 138

have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.

52 U.S. Code § 10301 (b) (emphasis added).

Thus, pursuant to the Voting Rights Act, minority vote dilution can occur in the primary

or general election.

Courts have long recognized that public decision-making bodies, like the State of Texas,

can have more than one motive when enacting a statute. See Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous.

Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265 (1977) (“Rarely can it be said that a legislature or administrative

body operating under a broad mandate made a decision motivated solely by a single concern, or

even that a particular purpose was the ‘dominant’ or ‘primary’ one.”).

The Court in Arlington Heights continued:

In fact, it is because legislators and administrators are properly concerned with balancing numerous competing considerations that courts refrain from reviewing the merits of their decisions, absent a showing of arbitrariness or irrationality. But racial discrimination is not just another competing consideration. When there is a proof that a discriminatory purpose has been a motivating factor in the decision, this judicial deference is no longer justified.

Id. at 265-266.

In Arlington Heights, the Supreme Court explained that when determining whether racially discriminatory intent or purpose is a motivating factor behind an official action, a court must make “a sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence as may be available.” Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266.

The Court explained further that, in addition to direct evidence, circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent includes:

● the impact of the official action, i.e. whether it “bears more heavily on one

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 96 of 138

race than another” and whether “a clear pattern, unexplainable on grounds

other than race emerges from the effect of the state action even when the

governing legislation appears neutral on its face;”

● the historical background of the decision;

● the specific sequence of events leading up to the challenged decision;

● departures from the normal procedural sequence;

● substantive departures, “particularly if the factors usually considered

important by the decisionmaker strongly favor a decision contrary to the one

reached;” and

● The legislative or administrative history, especially where there are

contemporary statements by members of the decisionmaking body, minutes of

its meetings, or reports.

Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 264-68.

As shown below, application of the Arlington Heights factors to this case demonstrates

that the State’s changes to HD90 were motivated by the intent to dilute Latino voting strength in

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

1. Direct Evidence of Discriminatory Intent

Mr. Burnam recognized, and stated publicly, that Latino voters in HD 90 vote on racial

lines. Rep. Burnam testified that he knew that the growing Latino population in HD90 would

make it difficult for him to win Democratic primaries. (FOF 58). Rep. Burnam largely attributed his loss in the 2014 Democratic Primary to the “demographic shift” in the district,

saying, “people mainly tend to vote based on their own personal identity.” (FOF 59).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 97 of 138

Rep. Burnam tried to discourage Latino candidates from challenging him in the

Democratic primary for HD90. Around 2008 or 2009, Rep. Burnam asked to meet with Mr.

Espino, who was then a Fort Worth City Councilmember, and at the meeting tried to dissuade

Mr. Espino from running for the seat. (FOF 53). Prior to the 2014 Democratic Primary election, Rep. Burnam approached Ramon Romero and attempted to dissuade him from running for State Representative in HD90. (FOF 54). Rep. Burnam met only with Mr. Romero, and no other potential challengers, to convince him not to run. (FOF 54).

Mr. Burnam belittled and expressed opposition to Latino voters’ support for Latino candidates. Following his loss in the Democratic primary, Mr. Burnam described himself as “a victim” of “identity politics.” (FOF 60). Mr. Burnam stated that in order to appeal to Latino voters he would have had to transform into a Latino, and stated that a joke in his office was that

“if I would just change my name to Leon Bernal there would be no problem” getting Latino votes in HD90. (FOF 61).

Mr. Burnam stated that Latino voter support for Latino candidates was not necessarily in their best interest. He stated, “it’s about identity politics . . . [t]his district is 70% Hispanic and people all over the world tend to vote for people they identify with that’s not necessarily in their best interest.” (FOF 62). Mr. Burnam testified that Latino voters who voted for the Latino candidate in the HD90 2014 Democratic primary “unwittingly” voted against their interests.

(FOF 63). Mr. Burnam also stated that Latino voters did not vote in their best interest when they supported Latino candidates running in CD33 and SD10. (FOF 64).

Mr. Burnam maintained that Latino voter support for Latino candidates was the result of manipulation as opposed to considered deliberation on the part of Latino voters. (FOF 65).

When speaking about the 2014 Democratic primary elections in HD90, CD33, and SD10, Rep.

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 98 of 138

Burnam invoked the stereotype of Latinos as uneducated and easily manipulated by maintaining that Latino voters were “directed and deceived” into voting for Latino candidates and against their own best interest. (FOF 66).

At the same time, Mr. Burnam targeted Latino voters to discourage them from using third party assistance in casting mail ballots and portrayed his primary challenger as a member of a Latino street gang in order to dissuade voters from supporting his primary challenger. (FOF

67-84).

2. The Discriminatory Impact of Changes to HD90 in H358

Rep. Burnam and Mr. Kenny referred to their initial 2013 changes to HD90 (in H328) as a “dilution of the Hispanic voting power in the district.” (FOF 96). Rep. Burnam testified that the changes he made from the first version of his amendment to the second, which raised the

SSVR to 50.1%, “didn’t change the [electoral performance] numbers, but it changed the [SSVR] percentage.” (FOF 56).

The Burnam amendment, which was incorporated into H358, reduced the total SSVR of

HD90 from 51.1% to 50.1%. (FOF 91). The Burnam amendment changed the result for Latino candidate Hector Uribe’s performance in the 2010 Democratic primary for Land Commissioner from winning to losing. Under H283 in HD90, Latino candidate Hector Uribe wins 50.7% in the 2010 Democratic primary for Land Commissioner. (FOF 92). Under H358 in HD90, Latino candidate Hector Uribe loses the primary with 49.97% in the 2010 Democratic primary for Land

Commissioner. (FOF 92)).

Mr. Espino testified that the changes made to the boundaries of HD90 by Rep. Burnam’s amendment weaken the opportunity for Latinos to elect a candidate of their choice in the

Democratic primary and make it more difficult for Latino candidates to win. (FOF 93). Mr.

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 99 of 138

Espino further testified that Mr. Romero and other Latino candidates were still vulnerable in

HD90 Democratic primary elections because Mr. Romero only won in 2014 by 110 votes.

There were other Latino candidates in the 2014 Democratic Primary running for other seats, which contributed to higher Latino turnout that year. (FOF 99).

Mr. Kenny testified that the Burnam amendment would make it more difficult for Latino voters to nominate their preferred candidate in the Democratic primary if that candidate was

Latino. (FOF 94). Mr. Jimenez testified that even though HD90 has a slight majority of SSVR, he still thinks that it is difficult for a Latino candidate to win in HD90 under the current plan that includes Como. (FOF 99).

Moreover, Sansom Park and North Beverly Hills, although not areas with majority

Latino voter registration, had a history of electing Latino candidates. (FOF 98). The Burnam amendment’s replacement of Sansom Park and North Beverly Hills with Como weakened the opportunity for Latinos to elect the candidates of their choice in HD90 in two ways: Como’s higher turnout and strong vote against a Latino candidate outweighed the other neighborhoods’ lower turnout and more favorable margins for Latino candidates. (FOF 98, 346-359).

Mr. Kenny was aware that bringing Como into HD90 could help Rep. Burnam in future primaries, as Rep. Burnam referred to Como as an area with a lot of supporters. (FOF 95). Mr.

Kenny testified that Rep. Burnam would be happy that Como was back in HD90 during the next primary election. (FOF 95). Although the areas removed from HD90 were majority Anglo, they had an SSVR of 20.6%, which was significantly higher than the area added to the district, which included Como and had an overall SSVR of 8.5%. (FOF 97). As a result, the addition of Como and the removal of portions of Sansom Park and North Beverly Hills had a net effect of lowering the SSVR in HD90.

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 100 of 138

3. Historical Background

Texas did not engage in consistent decennial redistricting until the U.S. Supreme Court declared in 1964 that malapportioned election districts violate the Fourteenth Amendment. See

Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); see also

Kilgarlin v. Martin, 252 F. Supp. 404, 410 (S.D. Tex. 1966) rev'd sub nom. Kilgarlin v. Hill,

386 U.S. 120 (1967).

In every redistricting cycle from 1972 to 2011, Texas enacted one or more statewide redistricting plans that discriminated against Latino voters. In April and May of 2017, this

Court concluded that the State’s 2011 redistricting plans for Texas House and Congress discriminated against Latino voters. Perez v. Abbott, SA–11–CV–360, WL 1450121, *43

(W.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2017) [Dkt. 1365 at 85]; Perez v. Abbott, SA–11–CV–360, WL 1787454,

*78-79 (W.D. Tex. May 2, 2017) [Dkt. 1390 at 164-65].

In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Texas congressional redistricting plan because it diluted Latino voting strength in violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

The Court found that Texas had improperly reduced the voting strength of Latinos in CD23 to protect an incumbent who was not Latino-preferred and noted that the reduction of Latino voting strength bore “the mark of intentional discrimination that could give rise to an equal protection violation.” League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 440 (2006).

In the 2001 round of redistricting in Texas, the U.S. Department of Justice objected to parts of the state House plan because they caused an impermissible retrogression in Hispanic voting strength. (PL Ex. 229, at p. 4). Specifically, the 2001 state House plan eliminated a

Latino district in Bexar County and reduced Latino voting strength in House Districts 35, 38, and 74. (PL Ex. 229 at p. 8). The federal district court in Balderas v. Texas, No. 6:01-CV-158

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 101 of 138

(W.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2001), modified the state House plan to remedy the discrimination by

Texas. (PL Ex. 229).

In 1991, the U.S. Department of Justice blocked the state House redistricting plan

because it “exhibit[ed] a pattern of districting decisions that appears to minimize Hispanic voting strength through packing or fragmenting Hispanic population concentrations unnecessarily.” (PL Ex. 1102 at 3). The U.S. Department of Justice found that: the redistricting plan reduced Latino voting strength in a House district in El Paso in order to protect a white incumbent; in Cameron and Hidalgo counties the redistricting plan reduced the

Latino voting strength of a Latino district to protect a white incumbent; in Bexar County the redistricting plan packed Latino voters into HD118 and reduced Latino voting strength in

HD117 to 50.9% HVAP; in South Texas the redistricting plan drew House districts in an east- west manner which over-concentrated Latino voting strength in districts to the south; and in

Dallas County the redistricting plan reduced Latino voting strength in the one Latino majority district. (PL Ex. 1102 at 3-4).

In 1982, the U.S. Department of Justice blocked the Texas congressional redistricting plan because it diluted Latino voting strength. Specifically, the plan created two adjacent congressional districts in South Texas, one of which was 80.4% Mexican American and the other which was 52.9% Mexican American. (US Ex. 226). In 1982, the U.S. Department of

Justice also blocked the state Senate redistricting plan because it “unnecessarily fragment[ed] minority concentrations in such a manner as to dilute the voting strength of the minority communities.” (PL Ex. 1099 at 2). The U.S. Department of Justice found that in Bexar

County the state Senate plan removed a substantial number of Mexican Americans and added a

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 102 of 138

larger number of Anglos to an underpopulated district and diluted Latino voting strength. (PL

Ex. 1099 at 2-3).

In 1976 the U.S. Department of Justice blocked the Texas House redistricting plan

because it fractured Latino voting strength in Nueces County. (PL Ex. 1100). That same year,

the U.S. Department of Justice also blocked the Texas House redistricting plan because it

fractured minority voting strength in Jefferson and Tarrant counties. (PL Ex. 1101 at 2-3).

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the Texas House plan because it

discriminated against Latino and African American voters in violation of the Fourteenth

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973). (2011 Tr. at

434:21-435:4)

In the 1980’s and 1990’s, the U.S. Department of Justice interposed Section 5

objections to Texas election laws beyond redistricting, including: the adoption of at-large

voting for hospital districts (1989); failure to provide Spanish language versions of registration

forms and instructions (1995); and allowing agency employees to reject voter registration applications (1995). (2014 Task Force Proposed Findings of Fact [Dkt. 1274 at 30, ¶ 188]

(U.S. Ex. 234)).

The history of redistricting in Texas demonstrates that the State has consistently used

legislative line-drawing to minimize the opportunity of Latinos to elect the candidates of their

choice. (2014 Task Force Proposed Findings of Fact [Dkt. 1274 at 30-35, ¶¶ 189-229]).

In Tarrant County, from the 1970s to the 1990s, a group known as the “Seventh Street

Gang” recruited and supported Anglo candidates for elected office across the Fort Worth area.

(FOF 100). The membership of the “Seventh Street Gang” was predominantly Anglo. (FOF

100).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 103 of 138

From its creation in 1983 through 2014, HD90 was represented by Anglo state representatives -- Doyle Willis and later Lon Burnam. (FOF 100).

Lon Burnam first won election to represent HD90 in 1996 after defeating a Latino opponent, Francisco Hernandez, in a runoff election. (FOF 102).

When an informal group of Latino leaders formed in the late 1990s and early 2000s to recruit and advise Latino candidates in Fort Worth, Rep. Burnam visited a meeting of the group to deter the members’ ongoing efforts to elect Latino local officials. At that meeting, Mr.

Burnam asserted that he could represent HD90 better than any Latino candidate that the group could recruit. The discussion grew heated, and Mr. Burnam was asked to leave the meeting. (FOF 103-06).

a. The 2011 Legislative Session

As the Texas Legislature took up redistricting in the 2011 session, Latino leaders in Ft.

Worth wanted HD90 to be a majority Latino district so that it could nominate and elect the

Latino preferred candidate. (FOF 105).

Rep. Burnam testified that the 2011 redistricting cycle was probably the first cycle in which HD90 could be created as a Latino majority district, explaining “This round was probably the first time it could have actually occurred.” (FOF 113).

Rep. Burnam’s goal was to move himself out of HD90 into a different Democratic district. Rep. Burnam testified that he wanted to place his residence in a non-Latino majority district and create a separate Latino-majority district in Tarrant County. (FOF 114). Rep.

Burnam wanted to place Diamond Hill, Riverside, the Northside neighborhoods, historically

Latino Southside neighborhoods, and much of the Polytechnic Heights neighborhood into a new Latino majority district in which he did not reside. (FOF 115).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 104 of 138

However, when the 2011 redistricting process started in the Legislature, Rep. Burnam

changed his approach. The desired district boundaries provided by Rep. Burnam to the redistricting point person for the Tarrant County delegation, Rep. Charlie Geren, kept Rep.

Burnam’s home in a Latino HD90 but lowered Latino voting strength in the district. In H113, which Rep. Geren testified contained HD90 as proposed by Rep. Burnam, the HCVAP was reduced from 47.9% to 43.2%. (FOF 116).

In his retrogression memos of April 7 and April 12, 2011, David Hanna advised Bonnie

Bruce, Gerardo Interiano and Ryan Downton that the reduction of SSVR in HD90 could potentially create a retrogression issue. Mr. Hanna recommended that the redistricters restore the

SSVR of HD90, explaining “further consideration should be given to see whether the level of

SSVR in the proposed plan can be raised to come closer to the level in the current plan.” (2014

Task Force Proposed Findings of Fact [Dkt. 1274 at 124, ¶ 812]).

In response to H113, on April 14, 2011, the Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force proposed H115. In H115, HD90 had a 51.7% HCVAP using 2005-2009 ACS data. HD90 also had a 46.8% total SSVR and 48.9% non-suspense SSVR. (FOF 118).

On April 17, 2011, Rep. Solomons released a statewide substitute to his Plan H113 which increased the 2010G non-suspense SSVR to 50.1% for HD90. Rep. Solomons’ substitute plan was Plan H134. (FOF 120). When Rep. Burnam became aware of the map he was upset. (FOF 121).

Gerardo Interiano, Counsel to Speaker of the House, testified that when the SSVR of

HD90 was raised to 50%, Rep. Burnam “all of a sudden opposed the map.” (FOF 122). Mr.

Interiano further testified that he knew the changes to HD90 increased Latino voting strength

because “[t]hose two facts together, that MALDEF wanted it done and that Representative

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 105 of 138

Burnam did not want it done, told me that in District 90, as a result of increasing it above 50 percent SSVR, Hispanics were going to have a much better ability to elect their candidate of choice, which could ultimately lead to Representative Burnam losing in a primary, should a

Hispanic candidate from that community run against him.” (FOF 122).

After Chairman Solomons raised the SSVR of HD90, Mr. Hanna removed the concern about HD90 from his retrogression analysis. Mr. Hanna did not characterize HD90 in the enacted plan as a “new” Latino opportunity district. (2014 Task Force Proposed Findings of Fact

[Dkt. 1274 at 125, ¶ 817]).

Following passage of the House redistricting plan out of committee, Rep. Burnam tried twice more, unsuccessfully, to amend the boundaries of HD90 to reduce the SSVR and bring the neighborhood of Como back into HD90. Mr. Interiano testified that Rep. Burnam “wanted the community of Como to be put back into the district. . . And it was my belief that if that community were to be put back into the district[], first of all, it decreased it below 50 of SSVR and, ultimately, the African-American community would vote against the Hispanic candidate of choice.” (FOF 123).

A Como resident who was paid by Mr. Burnam in his political campaigns wrote a letter to Rep. Geren with “almost threatening language” saying that Como should be put back in

HD90. (FOF 130, 132). That same resident called Mr. Geren to say “we’re going to be a pain in your butt if you represent us.” (FOF 131).

The final version of HD90 enacted by Texas in 2011 contained a majority HCVAP and

SSVR (Plan H283). Texas also claimed, improperly, that HD90 was an offset for the elimination of HD33 in Nueces County. The court-drawn interim redistricting plan for the

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 106 of 138

Texas House carried forward the boundaries of HD90 as they were enacted in H283. (FOF

144).

In the ensuing 2012 election cycle, Rep. Burnam drew a Democratic primary opponent

for the first time since winning the office in 1996. (FOF 138). Rep. Burnam’s opponent in the

2012 Democratic primary was Carlos Vasquez, a Latino. (FOF 138).

Rep. Burnam believed that the changes to HD90 in 2011, which increased the Latino

population in his district, created the potential for him to be challenged by a Latino opponent in

the primary. (FOF 139).

In the 2012 Democratic Primary election, Rep. Burnam defeated his Latino opponent

Mr. Vasquez by only 159 votes. (FOF 140).

Voting in the 2012 Democratic Primary for HD90 was racially polarized. (FOF 142).

Rep. Burnam generally won the non-Latino voter registration majority precincts, and Latino candidate Carlos Vasquez generally won the Latino voter registration majority precincts. (FOF

141).

Rep. Burnam knew that he was not the Latino candidate of choice in the 2012

Democratic primary election. (FOF 143).

4. Sequence of Events Leading up to the Challenged Decision

The specific sequence of events leading up to the creation of HD90 in H358 and the

amendment’s legislative history reveal that the Burnam amendment was drawn behind closed

doors with the goal of limiting Latino voting strength, and was subsequently reviewed by

legislative leadership before Chairman Darby urged the House membership to adopt the

amendment.

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 107 of 138

Although then-Attorney General Greg Abbott urged the Texas Legislature to adopt the court-drawn interim plans for Congress and State House, the 2013 Regular Session ended without legislators holding a hearing in the House Redistricting Committee or enacting a bill.

(FOF 145-50).

Then-Governor Perry issued a call for a special session to “consider legislation which

ratifies and adopts the interim redistricting plans ordered by the federal district court as permanent plans for districts used to elect members of the Texas House of Representatives.”

(FOF 151).

Rep. Burnam specifically asked Mr. Kenny to draw a map that placed Como back into

HD90. (FOF 158). Mr. Kenny was aware that bringing Como into HD90 could help Rep.

Burnam in future primaries, as Rep. Burnam referred to Como as an area with a lot of supporters. (FOF 158). Mr. Kenny conceded that Rep. Burnam would be happy that Como was back in HD90 during the next primary election. (FOF 158).

Rep. Burnam secured the agreement of Rep. Geren to swap geography between their two districts. (FOF 163). Rep. Geren was aware that Rep. Burnam had faced a primary opponent in

2012 because Rep. Burnam had asked Rep. Geren to help him raise money for the race. (FOF

166).

Rep. Burnam communicated with Chairman Darby about his plans to amend HD90 several times before the House redistricting bill was considered on the floor. (FOF 168).

Chairman Darby testified that he was aware of Rep. Burnam’s amendment prior to consideration of the redistricting bill on the House floor. (FOF 173).

Rep. Burnam testified that Chairman Darby was “fixated” on the number of Latino voters being at 50.1%. (FOF 174). Rep. Burnam testified that his proposed first draft, H328,

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 108 of 138

did not get discussed on the house floor because it did not meet that criteria. (FOF 174). In

order to raise the SSVR in HD90 above 50%, Rep. Burnam and Mr. Kenny created a second

map in which the goal was to remove “every white voter near the western boundary of the

district to keep the Hispanic vote over 50%.” (FOF 176).

In total, Rep. Burnam and Mr. Kenny split ten precincts to draw HD90’s new

boundaries. (FOF 177). Mr. Burnam also testified that he moved whole precincts into and out of

HD90 because of their race: 1674 and 1062 were excluded and 1434 and 1408 were

included. (FOF 178).

The total population of the precincts split or moved whole because of race by Rep.

Burnam’s amendment is 33,343 individuals, including an estimated 16,429 registered voters.

(2017 Task Force Exs. 3-H, 3-J, 40, 66, 69 and 70).

These changes were incorporated into what became Rep. Burnam’s Plan H342. (FOF

182). On June 20, 2013, the full House considered the redistricting bill on the House Floor.

That say day, Rep. Burnam made public and filed Plan H342, which had a 2012G total SSVR of

50.1%. (FOF 183).

Despite the Attorney General’s request that the Legislature pass the court-drawn plans,

The House adopted four amendments to Chairman Darby’s bill. Then the House considered

Rep. Burnam’s Plan H342. (FOF 145, 188).

Rep. Burnam introduced his amendment on the House floor with the following comment: “basically what it does is take the African American and Hispanic population out of

Representative Geren’s district and puts some of my Anglo population into his district. I believe

it’s acceptable to the author [Chairman Darby].” (FOF 189).

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 109 of 138

During consideration of the Burnam amendment on the House floor, Chairman Darby addressed the House: “Members, Representative Burnam has revised his amendment and it now keeps this district a Hispanic district--brings the numbers back over 50%. That was the

objection. I believe Representative Geren is in favor of this amendment also, so with that I

would move to accept this amendment.” (FOF 190).

Chairman Darby invoked legislative privilege and did not provide any further testimony

on why he believed this revision cured the objection to the original Burnam amendment. (FOF

191).

Although Chairman Darby considered the redistricting bill to be a “major piece of

legislation,” there was no calendar rule attached to the bill. (FOF 192). Calendar rules usually

require floor amendments to be filed twenty four hours ahead of time, which allows members of

the public and other members of the Legislature time to review and comment on proposed

amendments. (FOF 192).

The House adopted Rep. Burnam’s amendment, Plan H342, on June 20, 2013. (FOF

193). In that plan, HD90 had a 2012 total SSVR of 50.1% which was lower than the SSVR in

the Court-drawn plan. (FOF 193). The House only adopted one additional amendment the next

day on third reading of the bill, which “simply . . . switched a few voters in [Toni Rose’s]

district for a few voters in the district of Representative Helen Giddings.” (FOF 196).

Because Rep. Burnam introduced his amendment on the House floor, the amendment

was adopted without consideration in committee and without the opportunity for public

testimony. (FOF 194).

On June 22, 2013, the Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force wrote a letter to Chairman

Darby and Senate Redistricting Committee Chairman Kel Seliger to express objections to the

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 110 of 138

Burnam amendment’s changes to HD90. (FOF 197). The Task Force wrote that “H358 reduces

Latino voters’ ability to elect their candidate of choice in HD90.” (FOF 197). The Task Force letter informed the two committee chairmen that Plan H358 resulted “in a decrease in the SSVR of HD90 from 51.1% to 50.1%” because the plan removed a population with an SSVR of 20.6% and replaced it with a population with an SSVR of only 8.5%. (FOF 197).

Chairman Darby made no attempt to discuss this letter with Chairman Seliger. (FOF

198). Chairman Darby invoked legislative privilege to avoid answering whether he took any action regarding the Task Force’s letter. (FOF 198).

The Senate concurred with the House amendments to SB 3 on June 23, 2013. (FOF

199). Senator Seliger testified that his approach was to defer to the House and adopt SB 3 as amended by the House, because that plan pertained to the redistricting of Texas House seats.

(FOF 199).

The governor signed SB 3 on June 26, 2013. (FOF 201).

5. Departures from the Normal Procedural Sequence

The Texas Legislature departed from the normal procedural sequence by taking up the

Governor’s call to adopt the court-drawn plans, then modifying those plans. Even members debating the redistricting bill on the House floor did not understand the sudden change in course. Following the adoption of Amendments 1, 2, 3, and 4, Rep. Jim Keffer (R) expressed his confusion about the amendments accepted by Chairman Darby because of the narrow call of the legislative session. Rep. Keffer had served on the Redistricting Select Committee and stated that “[he] was under the impression when [they had] left the lines, because of the narrow call— because of future issues that will come up concerning the map—that any line or any change that was made would open the door for other problems or other issues that might arise as far as the

San Antonio court . . . ” (FOF 204). 100

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 111 of 138

Nevertheless, Chairman Darby proceeded to take amendments, claiming that it was the

Legislature’s inherent right to adopt and be a part of the redistricting process, not to simply

“cede our state’s responsibilities back to the federal government.” (FOF 205).

The Legislature further departed from the normal procedural sequence of making

amendments public and providing an opportunity for public comment. On June 18, 2013, the

House Redistricting Committee passed the Senate version of the bill, SB3, out of committee

without amendments and without the opportunity for public comment. (FOF 207). Because the

Burnam amendment was a floor amendment, it was not considered at any of the redistricting

field hearings or in committee, or made public before the day of the floor debate. (FOF 208).

Community members in HD90 did not know that Rep. Burnam would propose a change in

HD90’s configuration. (FOF 208).

Although Chairman Darby considered the redistricting bill to be a “major piece of

legislation,” there was no calendar rule attached to the bill. (FOF 206). Calendar rules usually

require floor amendments to be filed twenty-four hours ahead of time, allowing members of the

public and other members of the Legislature time to review and comment on proposed

amendments. (FOF 206). Without a calendar rule, Rep. Burnam’s amendment was not made

available for public comment. (FOF 206). The Senate concurred with House Plan SB 3 on June

23, 2013, the same day that it was taken up in the Senate. (FOF 209). There was no opportunity for the public to come to a hearing and comment on the amended version of SB 3. (FOF 209).

The Legislature also departed from the normal procedural sequence when the House redistricting committee refused to amend the bill, then Chairman Darby announced he would take amendments on the floor, then the Legislature only accepted one amendment after the

Burnam amendment. (FOF 203-205, 210-211).

101

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 112 of 138

Finally, the Legislature also departed from the normal procedural sequence by restricting

access to legal advice from the Texas Attorney General’s office. During a short recess on June

20, 2013, after the House adopted Rep. Burnam’s amendment, members of the House

Republican Caucus met with a representative from the Texas Attorney General’s Office. (FOF

213). The Democratic Caucus was not invited to or present at that meeting, despite the fact that

Democratic and minority legislators had asked Chairman Darby multiple times to speak with a

representative of the Attorney General’s office. (FOF 213).

6. Departures from Normal Substantive Considerations

The Texas Legislature departed from normal substantive considerations by failing to

review the Burnam amendment for its effects on Latino opportunity to elect. A legislature always has an affirmative duty to ensure that the plans it adopts comply with the federal Voting

Rights Act and the Constitution, even when it adopts preliminary redistricting plans drawn by a court. Where, as in the case of HD90, the Legislature considered changes to the Court drawn plan, the obligation to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution was even greater because a court had not given even preliminary consideration to the proposed new boundaries.9

On the House floor, Chairman Darby declared that he would only accept amendments to the House redistricting bill that did not dilute or dismantle districts that were protected under

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. (FOF 223).

However, aside from being “fixated” on the number of Latino voters being at 50.1%,

Chairman Darby did not perform or request any functional electoral analysis of Rep. Burnam’s

9 This paragraph responds to question 13 of Questions from the Three-Judge Panel to be Addressed at the Conclusion of Trial (Dkt. 1494). 102

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 113 of 138

proposed changes to HD90. (FOF 224). Rep. Burnam did not recall any conversations with

Chairman Darby about how the proposed changes to HD90 would affect the Latino ability to

elect their preferred candidate. (FOF 225).

Chairman Darby did not testify whether he looked at voting patterns in the Democratic primary election of HD90, invoking legislative privilege. (FOF 226). Chairman Darby did not testify regarding his understanding of the Burnam amendment’s effect on Latino voting ability

in HD90, invoking legislative privilege. Id. Rep. Burnam testified that Rep. Geren also did not inquire about Latino ability to elect beyond the 50% SSVR threshold. (FOF 227). Rep. Burnam himself claimed he did not examine the effect of his changes on Latinos’ ability to elect candidates of their choice. (FOF 228).

On June 20, 2013, in his opening remarks on the House Floor on the consideration of amendments to SB 3, Chairman Darby did not discuss analyzing the electoral impact of proposed amendments. (FOF 229). In his floor statements, Chairman Darby did not discuss analyzing the effect of proposed amendments on the ability of minorities to elect their candidate of choice or analyzing whether there was racially polarized voting in the affected areas. (FOF

230-31).

Nevertheless, Chairman Darby testified that he was “vaguely” aware that Texas had been found to violate the Voting Rights Act or the Constitution in previous redistricting cycles. (FOF

232-36).

During the House floor debate, when questioned by a colleague about whether taking amendments could jeopardize the legal status of the House redistricting plan, Chairman Darby responded by saying that the amendments being considered “don’t have any implications with regard to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the constitution.” (FOF 240).

103

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 114 of 138

The Legislature also departed from using traditional redistricting criteria such as

avoiding splitting precincts and communities of interest. The Court-drawn Plan H309, that Rep.

Burnam amended, did not split any precincts in HD90. (FOF 214). The Burnam amendment

split ten precincts in drawing HD90’s new boundaries. (FOF 215).

Rep. Burnam’s amendment also cut out portions of the City of Sansom Park, including

by splitting precincts 4073 and 4593, in order to remove Anglo-majority blocks while

maintaining Latino-majority blocks. (FOF 216).

Rep. Burnam specifically outlined how he split precincts 4125, 4068, 4493, 4634, and

1015 in order to include Latino-majority blocks and to exclude Anglo-majority blocks. (FOF

217). Rep. Burnam admitted that he made these changes for the sole purpose of including

Latino-majority blocks in the district and excluding Anglo-majority blocks. (FOF 218).

Mr. Kenny testified that he reviewed the cut to precinct 4125 with Rep. Burnam and told

Rep. Burnam that cutting 4125 in order to draw more Latinos into HD90 would be “ugly.”

(FOF 219). Rep. Burnam did not express concern with the “ugly” cut and instead said that the cut was “great” because it brought more Latinos into HD90. Id.

Rep. Burnam testified that while he believed that Rep. Geren was aware of the split precincts created by the Burnam amendment, Rep. Geren did not ask about them. (FOF 220).

Although Como precinct 1120 was historically part of HD90, it was also located significantly to the west of the urban core of Ft. Worth. (FOF 221). In his amendment, Rep. Burnam was forced to use largely unpopulated precincts from HD97 as land bridges to reach Como in order not to further decrease Latino voting strength in HD90. Id.

The Legislature further departed from normal substantive considerations in taking amendments to the court-drawn interim plan. If the purpose of the special legislative session

104

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 115 of 138

was to provide a legal safe harbor for Texas by enacting the court-drawn interim plans, Texas departed from that substantive goal by amending H309.

7. The Factors set out in LULAC v. Perry Support a Finding of Discrimination

In LULAC v. Perry, the Supreme Court observed that in CD23 “the State took away

Latinos’ opportunity because Latinos were about to exercise it” and that the revision of CD23

“bears the mark of intentional discrimination that could give rise to an equal protection claim.”

LULAC, 548 U.S. at 440. The factors identified by the Supreme Court in LULAC v. Perry as indicative of intentional discrimination are present in the revisions to HD90 in H358.

First, Latino voters in HD90 “were poised to elect their candidate of choice.” LULAC,

548 U.S. at 438. The incumbent, who was not Latino preferred, had been challenged in the

2012 Democratic primary and held on to his seat by only 159 votes. (FOF 140).

Second, Latinos in HD90 “were becoming more politically active.” LULAC, 548 U.S. at

438. In HD90, the HCVAP was close to 50% and the SSVR was 45%. (FOF 105, 111).

Increased voting by Latinos threatened the incumbent.

Third, the changes to HD90 reduced Latino voters’ ability to elect their candidate of choice. LULAC, 548 U.S. at 424-25, 427. (FOF 90-99).

Fourth, the Burnam amendment intentionally drew HD90 to have a nominal majority for political reasons. LULAC, 548 U.S. at 424-25. Rep. Burnam crafted HD90 with 50.1% SSVR but conceded that the increase in SSVR did not change the political performance of the district which favored Rep. Burnam’s reelection. (FOF 51, 357). Chairman Darby was “fixated” with raising the SSVR in HD90 but did not examine any effect of the new district boundaries on

Latino opportunity to elect. (FOF 174, 224).

105

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 116 of 138

8. The Voting Rights Act Prohibits Intent to Dilute Latino Voting Strength in General Elections as well as Democratic Primary Elections

The fact that the changes to HD90 in H358 were driven by intent to dilute Latino voting

strength in the Democratic Primary does not make vote dilution legal or permissible in any way.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act specifically protects Latino voters’ right to equal opportunity in the “the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision[.]” 52 U.S. Code § 10301(b) (emphasis added).

The process of electing a candidate of choice to the Texas House of Representatives includes both the primary and general election. In order to be elected, a Latino candidate of choice must first prevail in the primary election then win the general election.

Dr. Engstrom testified that primary elections are significant because the Latino candidate of choice can be eliminated or filtered out from the competition at the primary phase. (FOF

279). If the Latino candidate of choice were defeated in the primary election, then Latino voters would not have the opportunity to elect their candidate of choice in the general election, even if

Latinos ultimately voted for the general election winner. Id. Dr. Engstrom testified that, in such a situation, he would not consider the general election winner to be the Latino candidate of choice, because the Latino candidate of choice would already have been filtered out of the competition. (FOF 280).

Dr. Alford similarly testified that simply looking at a general election fails to consider whether the minority voters were able to nominate their candidate of choice during the primary.

(FOF 284). Dr. Alford testified that looking at primary elections is useful to determine whether that preliminary process of nominating a candidate might block or filter out the actual candidate of choice. Id. Dr. Alford testified that by not looking at Latino voters’ ability to advance their

106

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 117 of 138

candidates of choice out of primary elections, “the Hispanic population is being used as filler” to

elect non-Hispanic Democrats. (FOF 285).

Dr. Alford considered it ironic that the growing Latino population in Texas could be

used to justify redrawing districts that would not create true Latino opportunity districts because

Latino voters would not be able to advance their candidates of choice out of Democratic

primaries. (FOF 286). He stated that failing to look at Latino ability to elect in primary

elections is “missing precisely the point that everyone was concerned about at the beginning of

this, [which] is how could a new plan fail to represent -- how could you have divided the state so

as to not represent all that Hispanic growth?” Id.

To explain why it is important to analyze a minority group’s ability to nominate their

candidate of choice, Dr. Alford provided the following example: “in the old south, blacks and whites voted Democratic in the general election, even though, in that election, the Democrats that blacks were voting for were not, for the most part, individuals favorable to the interests of blacks in the south.” (FOF 289).

Dr. Alan Lichtman, who testified as an expert witness for the Quesada plaintiffs, testified that a minority group must be able to nominate its preferred candidate in the party primary in order for the district to be considered an opportunity district. (FOF 287, 294-98).

Dr. Andres Tijerina, who testified for the Task Force Plaintiffs regarding the historical experience of Mexican Americans in Texas, presented evidence regarding the use of the White

Man’s Primary in Texas in the early 1900’s to deny Latinos the opportunity to elect their

candidate of choice. (FOF 299).

Dr. Tijerina explained that the Progressives “used the ‘White Man’s Primary’ to exclude

Mexican American voting in the Democratic Primary elections, which in a one-party state, pre-

107

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 118 of 138

empted the general election.” (FOF 300). Dr. Tijerina quoted the Carrizo Springs Javelin in

June 12, 1914 describing the success of the Dimmit County White Man’s Primary Association:

“[it] absolutely eliminates the Mexican vote as a factor in nominating county candidates, though we graciously grant the Mexican the privilege of voting for them afterwards.” (FOF 301).

D. HD90 IN PLANS H358 DISCRIMINATES IN EFFECT AGAINST LATINOS IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. 1973, et seq

1. Gingles 1: Latinos are Sufficiently Numerous and Compact to Constitute the Majority of HD90

As demonstrated by the configuration of HD90 in H115, H283/309 and H292, Latinos in

Tarrant County are sufficiently numerous and compact to constitute the CVAP majority of a state house district. See Gingles, 487 U.S. at 50-51; Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1008

(1994) (“When applied to a claim that single-member districts dilute minority votes, the first

Gingles precondition requires the possibility of creating more than the existing number of reasonably compact districts with a sufficiently large minority population to elect candidates of

its choice.”)10 HD90 in Plan H283/309 contained an HCVAP of 54.4% (+/- 1.8%) according to the U.S. Census 2011-2015 ACS. (FOF 243). Thus, the first Gingles precondition is satisfied.

See Gingles, 487 U.S. at 50-51; Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1008 (1994); see also See

Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1, 12 (2009); Campos v. City of Houston, 113 F.3d 544, 548 (5th

Cir. 1997); Valdespino v. Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist., 168 F.3d 848 (5th Cir. 1999).

10 Although the Gingles test was developed in litigation over an at-large election system, it also applies in redistricting cases where a plan is challenged for failure to draw a sufficient number of majority minority districts. Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25, 39-41 (1993).

108

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 119 of 138

This Court has already found that HD90 is not packed, i.e. there is not the possibility of

creating an additional HCVAP majority district in Tarrant County. See Perez v. Abbott, SA–

11–CV–360, WL 1450121, *36 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2017) [Dkt. 1365 at 71].

2. Gingles 2 and 3: Racially Polarized Voting

The State concedes that voting is racially polarized in Texas (with the caveat that the

State is not prepared to concede that there is racially polarized voting in Nueces and Kleberg

counties). (2014 Task Force Proposed Findings of Fact [Dkt. 1274 at 93-94]). Dr. Alford, the

State’s expert, testified in 2014 that he did not do any work on matters related to the State House

and in 2017 offered no independent analysis of voting in Tarrant County House elections (relying

instead on the Task Force expert’s conclusions). (2014 Task Force Proposed Findings of Fact

[Dkt. 1274 at 18];see also Ex. E-17; 2017 Defendant Ex. 878 at 9-10).

Prong two of the Gingles test requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that Latinos are politically

cohesive, while Gingles prong three requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that the white majority

votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it, in the absence of special circumstances such as the

minority candidate running unopposed, usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate. See

Gingles, 478 U.S. at 51. In practice, the two inquiries merge into the concept of racially

polarized voting. See, e.g., E. Jefferson Coal. for Leadership & Dev. v. Parish of Jefferson, 926

F.2d 487, 493 (5th Cir. 1991).

Racially polarized voting is a practical inquiry into whether racial voting patterns impede

the election of minority-preferred candidates. Thus, the Supreme Court noted in Gingles, “[i]f

the minority group is not politically cohesive, it cannot be said that the selection of a

multimember electoral structure thwarts distinctive minority group interests.” Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50. Similarly, the standard for bloc voting is whether “the white majority votes sufficiently as

109

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 120 of 138

a bloc to enable it—in the absence of special circumstances, such as the minority candidate running unopposed, to defeat the minority's preferred candidate.” Id. (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted).

In the Gingles analysis, political cohesion is judged “primarily on the basis of the voting preferences expressed in actual elections.” Gomez v. City of Watsonville, 863 F.2d 1407, 1415

(9th Cir. 1988). Evidence of racially polarized voting “establishes both cohesiveness of the

minority group and the power of white bloc voting to defeat the minority’s candidates.” Id. at

1415 (citing Collins v. City of Norfolk, 816 F. 2d 932, 935 (4th Cir. 1987)) (internal quotation

marks omitted). Whether Latinos are cohesive is not a question to be determined “prior to and

apart from a study of polarized voting.” Campos v. City of Baytown, 840 F. 2d 1240, 1244 (5th

Cir. 1988).

Because ballots are secret, experts estimate group voting behavior using statistical

analyses. One such analysis is ecological inference. The Latino Redistricting Task Force

Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Richard Engstrom, used ecological inference to measure the presence of racially polarized voting. (2014 Task Force Proposed Findings of Fact [Dkt. 1274 at 110, 165-

168]). “[Ecological inference] is similar to [ecological regression], but abandons the assumption of linearity that ER relies upon.” Benavidez v. City of Irving, Tex., 638 F.Supp.2d

709, 724 (N.D. Tex. 2009). “This methodology was developed subsequent to the Gingles decision, and was designed specifically for the purpose of arriving at estimates in this type of case.” Id. (crediting testimony of Dr. Richard Engstrom).

The State’s expert witness, Dr. John Alford, expressed “faith in Dr. Engstrom

and . . . confidence that [ecological inference] would give us the most stable picture we could

get.” (2011 Tr. 1859:3-4). Ecological inference is an accepted method of analysis. See, e.g.,

110

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 121 of 138

Rodriguez v. Harris Cnty., Tex., 964 F. Supp. 2d 686, 768 (S.D. Tex. 2013); Fabela v. City of

Farmers Branch, Tex., 2012 WL 3135545 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2012); Benavidez v. City of Irving,

Tex., 638 F. Supp. 2d 709, 723 (N.D. Tex. 2009); Jamison v. Tupelo, Mississippi, 471 F. Supp.

2d 706, 713 (N.D. Miss. 2007); United States v. Village of Port Chester, No. 06 Civ.

15173(SCR), 2008 WL 190502, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2008); United States v. City of Euclid,

580 F. Supp. 2d 584, 596 (N.D. Ohio 2008).

Dr. Engstrom analyzed racially contested elections because they provide the most

probative evidence of racially polarized voting. See Magnolia Bar Ass’n, Inc. v. Lee, 994 F.2d

1143, 1149 (5th Cir. 1993) (“This court has repeatedly stated that, when statistical evidence is

used to establish legally significant white bloc voting, the most probative elections are generally

those in which a minority candidate runs against a white candidate.” (citing Westwego Citizens

for Better Gov’t v. City of Westwego, 872 F.2d 1201, 1208 n.7 (5th Cir. 1989)). The State’s

expert, Dr. Alford, agreed that elections in which both candidates are Anglo not do not reveal

anything about the impact of ethnic voting, because Latinos cannot express an ethnic preference

when there are two white candidates opposing each other. (2014 Task Force Proposed Findings

of Fact [Dkt. 1274 at 162]).11

Dr. Engstrom analyzed voting patterns in Tarrant County, among other areas of Texas.

(2014 Task Force Proposed Findings of Fact [Dkt. 1274 at 113-152]).

In order to tailor his inquiry most closely to voter behavior, Dr. Engstrom used 2012 and

2010 data on voters who cast ballots derived from polling place sign-in sheets and matched by

the Texas Secretary of State to Spanish-surnamed voter lists. (2014 Task Force Proposed

Findings of Fact [Dkt. 1274 at 111]). For earlier years, Dr. Engstrom relied on data showing the

11 This paragraph also responds to the Court’s question number 20 in Questions from the Three-Judge Panel to be Addressed at the Conclusion of Trial (Dkt. 1494). 111

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 122 of 138

number of Spanish-surnamed and non-Spanish-surnamed voters in each precinct. (2014 Task

Force Proposed Findings of Fact [Dkt. 1274 at 111]). Dr. Engstrom also performed a multi-

variate analysis which relied on citizen voting age population by precinct in order to estimate

candidate preferences of Latinos, African Americans and Others (primarily Anglos). (2014 Task

Force Proposed Findings of Fact [Dkt. 1274 at 111]). Dr. Engstrom conducted bi-variate and

multivariate analysis in Tarrant County. (2014 Task Force Proposed Findings of Fact [Dkt. 1274

at 165]; Ex. E-7, Engstrom Corr. Rebuttal Report at 25; 2017 Task Force Ex. 48 at 10-11).

Dr. Alford, the State’s expert witness, stated that “Engstrom's analysis uses the best

combination of modern statistical techniques and quality data.” (Ex. E-17, Alford Expert Report,

at 11). For his study, Dr. Engstrom examined exogenous and endogenous elections, both of

which provide important information when determining whether voting is polarized along racial

lines. See Magnolia Bar Ass’n v. Lee, 793 F. Supp. 1386, 1399 (S.D. Miss. 1992), aff’d, 994

F.2d 1143 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 555 (1993); Westwego Citizens for Better

Gov’t. v. Westwego, 946 F.2d 1109, 1120 n.15 (5th Cir. 1991); E. Jefferson Coalition for

Leadership Dev. v. Parish of Jefferson, 926 F.2d 487, 493 (5th Cir. 1991); see also Rangel v.

Morales, 8 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 1993) (district court erred by failing to consider exogenous elections “when it had only one endogenous election from which to consider the third Gingles factor”). The exogenous elections analyzed by Dr. Engstrom included racially contested statewide elections held from 2006-2016.

The State’s expert, Dr. Alford, testified that he respected Task Force expert Dr.

Engstrom’s ecological inference methods and his 2017 report on racially polarized voting. (FOF

256). Dr. Alford testified that Dr. Engstrom’s analysis spanning 2006 to 2016 across various reports is reliable. (FOF 257). Dr. Alford testified that Dr. Engstrom’s analysis is broad in both

112

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 123 of 138

its geographic and temporal scope. (2017 Trial Tr. 1425:19-21; 2017 Defendant Ex. 878 at 11

(Alford Report)). According to Dr. Alford, Dr. Engstrom “did the best job of covering

geography and using the best methodology.” (2011 Trial Tr. 1765:8-16 (Alford)).

Dr. Alford, testified that Dr. Engstrom is prominent in his field, that his report is credible

and that Dr. Engstrom chose a good methodology to use in his report. (2011 Trial Tr. 1858:16-

1859:9 (Alford)). The State’s expert witness, Dr. Alford, built the table in his report around Dr.

Engstrom’s results. (2011 Trial Tr. 1765:8-16 (Alford)).

With respect to exogenous elections in Tarrant County, Dr. Engstrom concluded that

Latinos voted cohesively in general and primary elections. (FOF 262-277; 2014 Task Force

Proposed Findings of Fact [Dkt. 1274 at 96, 101-112, 113-152]). He further concluded that in general elections, Latino preferences are shared by African Americans but not by others. In the

Democratic primary elections, Latino preferences were not consistently shared by the rest of the

primary voters. (FOF 96, 101-112, 113-152 (2011 Trial Tr. 507:8-18 (Engstrom)); 2017 Task

Force Ex. 48).

a. The Importance of Primary and Non-Partisan Elections in Evaluating Racially Polarized Voting

It is well-settled that triers of fact in voting rights cases examine primary elections when

evaluating whether voting is racially polarized. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court in Gingles

reviewed and approved of the district court’s examination of primary elections as well as general

elections. Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 58–61 (1986) (approving of district court’s review

of 16 primary elections to conclude that “black voters’ support for black candidates was

overwhelming in almost every election [and] on average, 81.7% of white voters did not vote for

any black candidate in the primary elections”).

113

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 124 of 138

In a series of cases striking down White Primary laws in Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the argument that “[p]rimaries . . . are political party affairs” and because “officers of government cannot be chosen at primaries [the 14th, 15th and 17th] Amendments are applicable only to general elections where governmental officers are actually elected.” Smith v. Allwright,

321 U.S. 649, 657 (1944); see also Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927), Nixon v. Condon,

286 U.S. 73 (1932). Instead, the Court held that “the right to vote in such a primary for the nomination of candidates without discrimination by the State, like the right to vote in a general election, is a right secured by the Constitution.” Id. at 661–62.

The racially polarized voting analysis asks whether those who cast ballots do so in a polarized manner. Because elections are decided by those who turn out to vote, voting is polarized or not because of the behavior of voters who cast ballots. It impossible to determine whether those who do not vote would vote in a polarized manner, and it is inappropriate to look beyond actual votes cast to suggest that non-voters would vote differently than voters in actual elections.

Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997 (1994), does not undermine this proposition. In De

Grandy, the Supreme Court declined to require that more majority minority districts be included in a redistricting plan because there was already a proportionate number of majority minority districts. At the same time, De Grandy affirmed the remedial purpose of majority minority districts. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1020 (1994) (recognizing that “the lesson of Gingles is that society's racial and ethnic cleavages sometimes necessitate majority-minority districts to ensure equal political and electoral opportunity”).

Although DeGrandy observed that in Anglo majority districts, minority voters can “pull, haul, and trade” to elect a second choice candidate, (id.), De Grandy does not stand for the

114

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 125 of 138

proposition that the Voting Rights Act contemplates minority voters electing their second or third

choice candidate in opportunity districts. Quite the opposite, DeGrandy stands for the proposition that minority voters should have the opportunity to elect their preferred candidate when the section 2 factors are met.

Within HD90, a majority of voters prefer the Democratic nominee in general elections.

(FOF 329). As a result, the Democratic primary is the dispositive election in HD90. See, e.g.,

Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 444 (1992) (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (recognizing Democratic primary election in Hawaii as the “dispositive election for many offices”). It is therefore critical to examine whether polarized voting in Democratic primary elections leads to a submergence of a cohesive Latino vote that denies Latino voters the opportunity to elect their preferred candidates. It is important to examine voting pattern within the Democratic primary to ensure that Latinos are not “den[ied] a vote at the primary election that may determine the final result.”

Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536, 540 (1927).

Dr. Engstrom testified that it is important to analyze primary elections in order to determine the extent to which racially polarized voting may be disadvantaging Latino candidates in Democratic primaries. (2011 Trial Tr. 497:25 – 498:9 (Engstrom)).

Dr. Engstrom testified that polarization in the primary election between Latino and non-

Latino voters could affect the outcome of that primary for the Latino candidate of choice. (Aug.

2014 Trial Tr. 497:7-17 (Engstrom)).

The state’s witness, Dr. Alford, testified that cohesion in the Democratic Primary informs the second prong of Gingles. (2017 Trial Tr. 1363:14-17). Dr. Alford characterized primary voters as the most representative and politically active of their parties. (2017 Trial Tr. 1364:12-

115

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 126 of 138

14). Dr. Alford testified that it was empirically crucial to include analysis of the Democratic

primary. (2017 Trial Tr. 1425:22-25).

Dr. Alford further explained that “it’s particularly useful [to look at primary elections] for

a variety of reasons,” including “cohesion independent of partisanship,” “opportunity to achieve

ethnic representation,” and whether the preliminary process of nominating a candidate might

block or filter out the actual candidate of choice. (FOF 285).

Dr. Alford testified that concerns about lack of participation in primary elections are not

problematic in assessing African-American and Latino cohesion in Democratic primary elections

because both minorities vote heavily in Democratic primary elections. (2017 Trial Tr. 1363:5-

13). Dr. Alford stated that this consideration applies to State House districts as well as

Congressional districts. (2017 Trial Tr. 1384:24 - 1385:8). Dr. Alford later pointed out that

although primary voters are only a subset of the population, it “is the subset whose political

preferences and political cohesion, or lack of it, are going to govern what happens in that

process.” (2017 Trial Tr. 1462:23-25).

Dr. Alford testified that it is important to analyze primary elections because “[i]t allows

us to see what voting behavior looks like without a partisan cue.” (2017 Trial Tr. 1357:10-11).

Dr. Lichman, expert witness for the Quesada plaintiffs, testified that he analyzes primary

elections when examining racial polarization. (2017 Trial Tr. 971:2-5 (Lichtman)).

Dr. Engstrom testified that in Tarrant County, voting is racially polarized between Latino

and non-Latino voters in Democratic primary elections. (FOF 308-318). Dr. Engstrom testified

that African Americans supported the Latino candidate in general elections if the Latino

candidate was the Democratic nominee. However, they were not supportive of Latino candidates generally in the Democratic primaries. African Americans, and all other voters, shared the

116

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 127 of 138

candidate preference of Latinos in only two of seven elections and supported only one of the

seven Latino candidates in the races analyzed by Dr. Engstrom. (2011 Trial Tr. 507:8-18

(Engstrom); 2011 Task Force Ex. 392 at 53-54 (2011 Engstrom Corrected Rebuttal Report);

2014 Task Force Ex. 967 (2014 Engstrom Report); 2017 Task Force Ex. 19 at 28 (2017

Engstrom Report); FOF 262-277, 308-322).

Although the confidence intervals reported by Dr. Engstrom for his estimates of candidate support in Democratic primaries are larger than for general elections (reflecting the smaller number of voters participating in Democratic primaries), they show at a 95% level of certainty that African-American voters supported the Latino Democratic primary candidate in only one of seven elections.

Dr. Alford excerpted Dr. Engstrom’s analysis of the Democratic primaries in his 2017 report, specifically Table 3. (FOF 330).

Dr. Lichtman testified that he has found instances in Texas where African-American voters and Latino voters did not share the same candidate of choice in primary elections. (FOF

298). Dr. Lichtman analyzed the 2014 primary election in CD33 and found that 99% of African

American voters supported Marc Veasey, the African-American candidate, and 76% of Latino voters supported a different candidate. (FOF 297). Dr. Lichtman testified this was not the only time he had seen this in Texas. (FOF 297).

Dr. Richard Murray, testifying for the NAACP and African-American Congresspersons,

warned that balancing Latino and African Americans evenly in a Democratic district will

produce “tension in Democratic primaries,” even when Latinos and African Americans vote

cohesively for candidates in the general election. (FOF 302-304). Dr. Murray, as well as

Congressman Al Green and Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, criticized the addition of

117

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 128 of 138

growing Latino areas to historically African-American districts (such as districts 9, 18 and 30) as creating the potential for “tension districts” because of different candidate preferences among

Latinos and African Americans. (FOF 307).

Tarrant County resident and former Ft. Worth City Councilman Salvador Espino testified that in general, Latino majority precincts support Latino candidates in the Democratic primary and non-Latino majority precincts do not support Latino candidates in the Democratic primary.

(FOF 319-22).

Dr. Engstrom also examined the 2012 and 2014 Democratic primary elections in HD90 and concluded that they were polarized between Latinos and non-Latinos as well as between

Latinos and African Americans. (FOF 323-26). In 2014, when the Como neighborhood was included in HD90, the Como precinct 1120 was the highest turnout precinct, with 471 votes.

(FOF 328). Rep. Burnam won the Como precinct, 1120, with 383 out of 471 votes. (FOF 328).

Mr. Romero received 19% of Como’s votes, compared to 81% for Mr. Burnam. (FOF 328).

Franklin Moss, a former Fort Worth City Councilman for 13 years who is African

Ameircan, testified that he had seen political races in Tarrant County where African-American and Latino voters did not vote together. (FOF 334). Mr. Moss further testified that examples of

African-American and Latino voters not voting together would be more likely to occur in

Democratic primaries. (FOF 335). Mr. Moss also testified that all things being equal, African-

American voters in Tarrant County would prefer to have an African-American official represent them. (FOF 336).

Tarrant County Commissioner Roy Charles Brooks, who is African American, testified that he has seen African-American voters and Latino voters prefer different candidates in

Democratic Primary elections, and he agreed that the 2012 Democratic Primary for CD33 was an

118

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 129 of 138

example of one such election. (FOF 337). Commissioner Brooks testified that in the 2012

Democratic Primary for CD33, a majority of African-American voters preferred African-

American candidate Marc Veasey, whereas a majority of Latino voters preferred Latino candidate Domingo Garcia. (FOF 337).

Tarrant County non-partisan elections are also racially polarized. Mr. Alex Jimenez testified that in his 33 years living in Fort Worth, he had never “seen any local elections where a non-Hispanic [precinct] supported a Hispanic.” (FOF 338). In the following recent non-partisan election, in general Latino voter registration majority precincts voted for Latino candidates and non-Latino voter registration majority precincts voted for non-Latino candidates: the May 2014 nonpartisan election for Fort Worth City Council District 9; the May 2015 nonpartisan election for Fort Worth City Council District 2; the May 2017 nonpartisan election for Fort Worth ISD

District 9; the May 2017 nonpartisan election for Fort Worth ISD District 8; and the June 2017 nonpartisan election for Fort Worth Council District 2. (FOF 338-40, 342-44).

3. Totality of the Circumstances

Establishing the three Gingles preconditions is necessary but not sufficient to prove a

Voting Rights Act violation. See Johnson v. DeGrandy, 507 U.S. 997, 1011 (1994). However,

“it will be only the very unusual case in which the plaintiffs can establish the existence of the

three Gingles factors but still have failed to establish a violation of § 2 under the totality of the

circumstances.” Clark v. Calhoun County, Miss., 21 F.3d 92, 97 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting

Jenkins v. Red Clay Consol. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 4 F.3d 1103, 1135 (3d Cir. 1993)).

In addition to the Gingles preconditions, the court may also examine the factors

enumerated in the Senate Judiciary Committee Report to Section 2 and adopted by the Supreme

Court in Gingles, 473 U.S. at 36, 37, 44-45, to determine whether, under the totality of the

119

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 130 of 138

circumstances, the challenged practice or structure results in a lack of equal opportunity for

Latinos to participate in the political process and to elect candidates of their choice.12

There is no requirement that all seven factors be met or that “any particular number of factors be proved, or that a majority of them point one way or the other.” S. Rep. at 29. "The courts ordinarily have not used these factors . . . as a mechanical ‘point counting’ device . . . .

Rather, the provision requires the court’s overall judgment, based on the totality of circumstances and guided by those relevant factors in the particular case, of whether the voting strength of minority voters is, in the language of Fortson and Burns, ‘minimized or canceled out.’” Id. at 29 n. 118. The Court in Gingles explained that the Senate factors must be applied with an eye toward a “practical evaluation of the ‘past and present reality’ and on a ‘functional’ view of the political process.” Gingles, 478 U.S. at 45, quoting S. Rep. at 30 n. 120.

Because “courts have recognized that disproportionate educational, employment, income levels and living conditions arising from past discrimination tend to depress minority political participation, . . . plaintiffs need not prove any further causal nexus between their disparate socio-

12 These factors include, but are not limited to: (1) the extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision affecting the right of a member of a minority group to register, vote, or participate in the democratic process; (2) the extent to which voting in government elections is racially polarized; (3) the extent to which the state or political subdivision has used voting practices or procedures that tend to enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group (for example, unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, prohibitions against bullet voting); (4) exclusion of minorities from a candidate slating process; (5) the extent to which minority group members in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of past discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process; (6) the use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns; (7) the extent to which minorities have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction. Additional factors are: “whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs” of the minority group and “whether the policy underlying the . . . use of such voting qualification, prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice or procedure is tenuous.” S. Rep. at 29; see also Gingles, 478 U.S. at 48 n.15.

120

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 131 of 138

economic status and the depressed level of political participation.” S. Rep. at 29 n. 114 (citing

White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 768 (1973) and Kirksey v. Bd. of Supervisors, 528 F.2d 139,145

(5th Cir. 1977); see also Clark, 88 F.3d at 1399; LULAC v. Clements, 999 F.2d 831, 867 (5th Cir.

1993) (Senate Report does not “insist[] upon a causal nexus between socioeconomic status and depressed participation”).

4. The Changes to HD90 in H358 Minimized Latino Voting Strength

As an initial matter, the changes made by Texas to HD90 operated to minimize Latino

voting strength. (FOF 345-52). Mr. Espino testified that the changes made to the boundaries of

HD90 by Rep. Burnam’s amendment effectively weaken the opportunity for Latinos to elect a

candidate of their choice in the Democratic Primary and make it more difficult for Latino

candidates to win. (FOF 353). Mr. Espino testified that Mr. Romero and other Latino candidates

were still vulnerable in HD90 Democratic Primary elections because Mr. Romero only won by

110 votes in 2014. There were also Latino candidates running for other seats in the 2014

Democratic Primary in Tarrant County, which contributed to higher Latino turnout that year.

(FOF 354).

Mr. Kenny conceded that his map made it more difficult for Latino voters to nominate their preferred candidate in the HD90 Democratic Primary if that candidate was Latino. (FOF

355). Rep. Burnam testified that the changes he made from the first version of his amendment to the second, which raised the SSVR to 50.1%, “didn’t change the [electoral performance] numbers, but it changed the [SSVR] percentage.” (FOF 356). Although the areas removed from

HD90 were majority Anglo, they had an SSVR of 20.6%, which was significantly higher than the area added to the district, which included Como and had an overall SSVR of 8.5%. (FOF 357).

121

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 132 of 138

As a result, the addition of Como and the removal of portions of Sansom Park and North Beverly

Hills had a net effect of lowering the SSVR in HD90.

Moreover, Sansom Park and North Beverly Hills, although majority non-Latino voter registration majority areas, had a history of electing Latino candidates. (FOF 358). The Burnam amendment’s replacement of Sansom Park and North Beverly Hills with Como weakened the opportunity for Latinos to elect the candidates of their choice in HD90 because Como’s higher turnout against a Latino candidate outweighs Sansom Park and North Beverly Hills’ lower turnout and more favorable margins for Latino candidates. (FOF 358).

5. The Senate Factors

In LULAC v. Perry, the Supreme Court noted that the “’the long history of discrimination against Latinos and Blacks in Texas’ . . . may well ‘hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process’” and found a section 2 violation under the totality of the circumstances.

LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 439-40, 442 (quoting Session, 298 F.Supp.2d, at 473, 492 and

Gingles, 478 U.S., at 45).

The Supreme Court explained:

Texas has a long, well-documented history of discrimination that has touched upon the rights of African-Americans and Hispanics to register, to vote, or to participate otherwise in the electoral process. Devices such as the poll tax, an all-white primary system, and the restrictive voter registration time periods are an unfortunate part of this State’s minority voting rights history. The history of official discrimination in the Texas election process—stretching back to Reconstruction—led to the inclusion of the state as a covered jurisdiction under Section 5 in the 1975 amendments to the Voting Rights Act. Since Texas became a covered jurisdiction, the Department of Justice has frequently interposed objections against the State and its subdivisions.

LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 439-40 (2006) (quoting Vera v. Richards, 861 F. Supp. 1304,

1317 (S.D. Tex. 1994)).

122

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 133 of 138

Dr. Andres Tijerina, an historian and expert in Texas Mexican American history, testified

in this case that there exists a long history of discrimination against Latinos in Texas and that

Latinos bear the present effects of that discrimination in the form of lower rates of political

participation. (2014 Task Force Proposed Findings of Fact [Dkt. 1274 at 178, 191, 196-200,

204, 208, 246, 247, 258-269, 339-347, 358- 364, 414]; Ex. E-10 [Dkt. 149-6, at 32]). Much of

that discrimination, including the poll tax, refusal to register voters, segregated public facilities,

segregated schools and employment discrimination, has been experienced by Latino voters still

living today. (2014 Task Force Proposed Findings of Fact [Dkt. 1274 at 192, 194, 305-310, 312,

313, 320, 322-323, 325, 348, 365-373, 385-386, 388, 391]; Ex. E-10 [Dkt. 149-6, at 32]).

The legacy of historical discrimination persists today in the form of lower socio-

economic status for Latinos in Texas. Dr. Jorge Chapa, a demographer and specialist in Latino

population studies, testified that even among third- and subsequent-generation Latinos living in

Texas, educational achievement and earnings lag far behind Anglos. (2014 Task Force Proposed

Findings of Fact [Dkt. 1274 at 244, 245]; Ex. E-1, at p. 4). Dr. Chapa presented data showing

that Latino voter turnout rates remain below that of Anglos in Texas. (2014 Task Force

Proposed Findings of Fact [Dkt. 1274 at 247, 249, 252]; Ex. E-1 at p. 16).

Ft. Worth resident Alex Jimenez testified at trial about his personal experiences with discrimination against Latinos. (FOF 371-76). The State did not contest the Task Force

Plaintiffs’ evidence of the present effects of past racial discrimination and offered no conclusions regarding the lingering effects of prior discrimination in the Latino community. (Task Force

2014 FOF 248). Mr. Jimenez also testified regarding the existence of an Anglo slating group in

Ft. Worth, in which Anglo businesspersons and community leaders recruited other Anglos to run for office. (FOF 367). More recently, HD90 elections were characterized by racial appeals (FOF

123

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 134 of 138

377-382) and attempts by the non-Latino preferred candidate to deter Latino voters from using

third party assistance to cast mail ballots in the Democratic primary. (FOF 67-76).

6. Proportionality as a Factor in the Totality of Circumstances

Whether or not Latinos constitute the majority in a number of districts proportional to

their population “is a relevant fact in the totality of circumstances.” Johnson v. De Grandy, 512

U.S. 997, 1000 (1994).

HD90 is one of 11 House districts in Tarrant County (9.1%). The HCVAP of Tarrant

County is 16.9%. (FOF 386). Thus, the one Latino-majority House district is less than

proportional representation for Latinos in Tarrant County.

The lack of proportionality in Latino opportunity districts in the Tarrant County House plan supports Plaintiffs’ section 2 claim.

E. THE LATINO TASK FORCE’S SUCCESSFUL CHALLENGE OF NUECES COUNTY BOUNDARIES IN PLAN C185 AND PLAN H283 SHOULD NOT BE REVISITED

The Court’s determinations in its March 10 and April 20 orders that Defendants are liable under § 2 and the Fourteenth Amendment for the discriminatory configurations of CD27 in Plan

C185 and of HD32 and HD34 in Plan H283 constitute law of the case. As a result, Texas is liable for these exact configurations that were carried forward into Plans C235 and H358. The

Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force Plaintiffs successfully challenged these boundaries in the

2011 redistricting plans. See Task Force Pls.’ Fourth Am. Complaint, Dkt. 891 ¶ 37. Pursuant to the law of the case doctrine, the Court should not revisit these findings of liability but should instead find liability for the discriminatory configurations’ continued implementation under the present plans.

124

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 135 of 138

The law of the case doctrine provides that “a court should not reopen issues decided in earlier stages of the same litigation.” Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 236 (1997) (citing

Messenger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444 (1912)); see also Massey v. Novartis Pharm. Corp.,

46 F. Supp. 3d 688, 691 (W.D. Tex. 2014) (“The existence of a prior ruling invokes the law-of- the-case doctrine, which provides that settled issues will not be revisited during the pendency of a lawsuit.” (citing In re Ford Motor Co., 591 F.3d 406 (5th Cir. 2009))). “The law of the case doctrine requires that courts not revisit the determinations of an earlier court unless ‘(i) the evidence on a subsequent trial was substantially different, (ii) controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of the law applicable to such issues, or (iii) the decision was clearly erroneous and would work . . . manifest injustice.’” In re Ford Motor Co., 591 F.3d 406, 411–12

(5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Propes v. Quarterman, 573 F.3d 225, 228 (5th Cir. 2009)). The doctrine was “developed to ‘maintain consistency and avoid [needless] reconsideration of matters once decided during the course of a single continuing lawsuit.’” Royal Ins. Co. of

America v. Quinn-L Capital Corp., 3 F.3d 877, 880 (5th Cir. 1993) (alteration in original)

(quoting Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 4478, at 788 (1981)). Moreover, the doctrine “applies not only to issues decided explicitly, but also to everything decided ‘by necessary implication.’” In re Felt, 255 F.3d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Browning v.

Navarro, 887 F.2d 553, 556 (5th Cir. 1989)).

The Court’s findings of liability for Defendants’ configuration of CD27 in Plan C185 and for Defendants’ configurations of HD32 and HD34 in Plan H283 are law of the case. In particular, in its Order on Plan C185, the Court ruled that “Plaintiffs have established a § 2 violation, both in terms of intent and effect, in South/West Texas;” that “Nueces County

Hispanics . . . have proved their § 2 results and intentional vote dilution claims;” and that “[t]he

125

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 136 of 138

configuration[] of . . . CD27 . . . in Plan C185 [is] therefore invalid.” Am. Order on Plan C185,

Dkt. 1390 at 57–58. In its Order on Plan H283, meanwhile, the Court ruled that “redistricters intentionally diluted Latino voting strength by eliminating HD33 in Nueces County;” and that

“[g]iven the existence of racially polarized voting and the history of discrimination and its legacy in Nueces County, and considering the totality of circumstances, the elimination of an existing

Latino opportunity district and ensuing racial gerrymandering in Nueces County is intentional vote dilution in violation of § 2 of the VRA and the Fourteenth Amendment.” Order on Plan

H283, Dkt. 1365 at 40.

As the Court has noted, the configuration of CD27 in Plan C185 remains unchanged in

Plan C235, Dkt. 1390 at 5, and the configurations of HD32 and HD34 in Plan H283 remain unchanged in Plan H358, Dkt. 1365 at 33. Especially here, where the Texas Legislature did not assess the lawfulness of these configurations prior to reenacting them, the boundaries remain discriminatory in Plans C235 and H358. See In re Felt, 255 F.3d at 225; Defs.’ Supp. Brief

Addressing Cooper v. Harris and Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections, Dkt. 1413 at

14 (claiming that the Legislature “simply adopted wholesale the interim congressional plan

drawn by this Court in 2012,” Plan C235).

Finding liability for the same Nueces County district configurations in Plans C235 and

H358 would “maintain consistency” with the Court’s earlier rulings on Plans C185 and H283

and would “avoid [needless] reconsideration.” Royal Ins. Co. of America v. Quinn-L Capital

Corp., 3 F.3d at 880 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, the

exceptions outlined in the law of the case doctrine do not apply here. First, evidence in the 2017

trial was not substantially different with respect to Nueces County. In re Ford Motor Co., 591

F.3d at 411. The same evidence that supported the Court’s finding of liability with respect to

126

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 137 of 138

CD27 in Plan C185 supports the Court’s corresponding finding as to Plan C235. Any

differences in evidence, for example updates to demographic data, only support the Court’s

earlier ruling. Second, no “controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of the law”

that would undermine the Court’s earlier ruling. Id. at 411–12. Indeed, to the extent that recent

Supreme Court decisions bear on the Court’s findings of liability with respect to the 2013 plans,

they merely underscore the legal deficiencies of the unchanged and unevaluated configurations.

See, e.g., Cooper v. Harris, No. 15-1262, 2017 WL 2216930 (“Cooper slip op.”), at *13 (May

22, 2017) (holding that a state must “carefully evaluate” whether there are legal deficiencies in

its proposed maps prior to enactment). Third, the Court’s determinations were not clearly erroneous, and it would be improper for the Court to review its own determinations at this point for clear error. In re Ford Motor Co., 591 F.3d at 412.

With respect to the Task Force claims, the only remaining questions with respect to the violations in Plans C185 and H283 in districts that remain unchanged in Plans C235 and H358 are questions of remedy.13

III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Task Force Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court

find that HD90 in Plan H358 illegally and unconstitutionally discriminates against Latino voters.

DATED: July 31, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND

/s/ Nina Perales Nina Perales

13 This sentence responds to the Court’s question number 1 in Questions from the Three-Judge Panel to be Addressed at the Conclusion of Trial (Dkt. 1494). 127

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530 Filed 08/01/17 Page 138 of 138

TX Bar No. 24005046 Ernest I. Herrera TX Bar No. 24094718 Celina Moreno TX Bar No. 24074754 *Denise Hulett CA Bar No. 121553 *Kip M. Hustace CA Bar No. 310048 110 Broadway, Suite 300 San Antonio, TX 78205 (210) 224-5476 FAX (210) 224-5382

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS TEXAS LATINO REDISTRICTING TASK FORCE, RUDOLFO ORTIZ, ARMANDO CORTEZ, SOCORRO RAMOS, GREGORIO BENITO PALOMINO, FLORINDA CHAVEZ, CYNTHIA VALADEZ, CESAR EDUARDO YEVENES, SERGIO CORONADO, GILBERTO TORRES, RENATO DE LOS SANTOS, JOEY CARDENAS, ALEX JIMENEZ, EMELDA MENENDEZ, TOMACITA OLIVARES, JOSE OLIVARES, ALEJANDRO ORTIZ, AND REBECCA ORTIZ

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 31st day of July, 2017, I served a copy of the foregoing document on all counsel who are registered to receive NEFs through this Court’s CM/ECF system. All attorneys who are not registered to receive NEFs have been served via email.

/s/ Nina Perales Nina Perales

128

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530-1 Filed 08/01/17 Page 1 of 31 District Election Analysis Texas Legislative Council Red-225 02/25/14 6:00 PM Data: 2010 Census Page 1 of 1 PLANH358 06/21/2013 1:29:25 PM HOUSE DISTRICTS - PLANH358 2010 Democratic Primary Election

District 1 State District 1 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 2,517 41.72% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 2,317 38.41% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 1,199 19.87% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 4,949 83.04% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,011 16.96% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 98,830 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 1,688 1.71% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR7,361 7.45% 694,077 5.37%

District 2 State District 2 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,242 41.39% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,402 46.72% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 357 11.9% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 2,170 74.01% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 762 25.99% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 101,455 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 4,121 4.06% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR3,426 3.38% 694,077 5.37%

District 3 State District 3 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 794 49.32% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 621 38.57% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 195 12.11% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,031 66.52% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 519 33.48% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 91,230 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 7,580 8.31% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,865 2.04% 694,077 5.37%

District 4 State District 4 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,150 51.0% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 789 34.99% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 316 14.01% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,722 77.85% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 490 22.15% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 96,724 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 5,312 5.49% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,495 2.58% 694,077 5.37%

District 5 State District 5 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,973 39.26% 315,181 53.15%

For technical reasons, election results in Texas Legislative Council reports may vary slightly from the official election results. Complete official results for all elections are maintained by the Office of the Texas Secretary of TASK FORCE PL EX 68 - 000001 Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XREarle - D Document2,262 1530-1 45.01% Filed 08/01/17 205, 562 Page34.66% 2 of 31 Katz - D 791 15.74% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 4,009 81.67% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 900 18.33% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 95,908 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 4,346 4.53% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR5,812 6.06% 694,077 5.37%

District 6 State District 6 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 840 45.58% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 760 41.24% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 243 13.19% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,083 66.24% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 552 33.76% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 88,602 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 4,725 5.33% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,197 2.48% 694,077 5.37%

District 7 State District 7 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 968 42.61% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 999 43.97% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 305 13.42% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,722 78.13% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 482 21.87% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 92,240 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 3,260 3.53% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,630 2.85% 694,077 5.37%

District 8 State District 8 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,646 42.15% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,651 42.28% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 608 15.57% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 3,146 82.77% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 655 17.23% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 86,218 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 5,482 6.36% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR4,538 5.26% 694,077 5.37%

District 9 State District 9 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 2,923 38.73% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 3,562 47.19% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 1,063 14.08% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 6,032 81.56% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,364 18.44% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 102,971 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 2,134 2.07% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR8,801 8.55% 694,077 5.37%

District 10 State District 10 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor

For technical reasons, election results in Texas Legislative Council reports may vary slightly from the official election results. Complete official results for all elections are maintained by the Office of the Texas Secretary of TASK FORCE PL EX 68 - 000002 Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XRChavez-Thompson - D Document905 1530-1 51.74% Filed 08/01/17 315, 181 Page53.15% 3 of 31 Earle - D 665 38.02% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 179 10.23% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,192 69.26% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 529 30.74% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 91,753 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 9,928 10.82% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,887 2.06% 694,077 5.37%

District 11 State District 11 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,234 50.59% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 915 37.52% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 290 11.89% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,821 76.93% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 546 23.07% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 89,449 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 4,120 4.61% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,843 3.18% 694,077 5.37%

District 12 State District 12 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,766 44.21% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,539 38.52% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 690 17.27% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 2,908 74.64% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 988 25.36% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 87,901 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 9,178 10.44% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR4,515 5.14% 694,077 5.37%

District 13 State District 13 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,591 34.41% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 2,219 48.0% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 813 17.59% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 3,237 73.04% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,195 26.96% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 105,960 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 9,095 8.58% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR5,319 5.02% 694,077 5.37%

District 14 State District 14 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 939 55.17% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 555 32.61% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 208 12.22% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 917 58.07% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 662 41.93% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 67,439 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 8,421 12.49% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,928 2.86% 694,077 5.37%

District 15 State District 15 Totals Total Percent Total Percent

For technical reasons, election results in Texas Legislative Council reports may vary slightly from the official election results. Complete official results for all elections are maintained by the Office of the Texas Secretary of TASK FORCE PL EX 68 - 000003 Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XRLt. Governor Document 1530-1 Filed 08/01/17 Page 4 of 31 Chavez-Thompson - D 698 44.74% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 648 41.54% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 214 13.72% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 737 52.27% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 673 47.73% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 98,134 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 6,480 6.6% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,867 1.9% 694,077 5.37%

District 16 State District 16 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 678 45.56% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 586 39.38% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 224 15.05% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 922 64.88% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 499 35.12% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 83,179 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 6,822 8.2% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,711 2.06% 694,077 5.37%

District 17 State District 17 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 2,926 34.14% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 4,385 51.17% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 1,259 14.69% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 4,854 61.41% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 3,050 38.59% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 91,967 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 21,786 23.69% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR9,426 10.25% 694,077 5.37%

District 18 State District 18 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,739 38.55% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,819 40.32% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 953 21.13% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 3,361 77.12% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 997 22.88% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 87,214 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 5,153 5.91% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR5,413 6.21% 694,077 5.37%

District 19 State District 19 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 2,805 39.93% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 3,063 43.61% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 1,156 16.46% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 5,843 83.89% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,122 16.11% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 111,949 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 2,856 2.55% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR8,387 7.49% 694,077 5.37%

District 20 State

For technical reasons, election results in Texas Legislative Council reports may vary slightly from the official election results. Complete official results for all elections are maintained by the Office of the Texas Secretary of TASK FORCE PL EX 68 - 000004 Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XRDistrict 20 Totals DocumentTotal 1530-1 Percent Filed 08/01/17Total PagePercent 5 of 31 Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,227 28.12% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 2,556 58.57% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 581 13.31% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 2,580 66.12% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,322 33.88% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 96,656 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 8,178 8.46% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR4,762 4.93% 694,077 5.37%

District 21 State District 21 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 3,593 42.55% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 3,559 42.14% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 1,293 15.31% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 6,367 77.99% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,797 22.01% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 104,393 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 5,672 5.43% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR10,559 10.11% 694,077 5.37%

District 22 State District 22 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 4,645 55.36% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 2,923 34.83% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 823 9.81% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 5,192 67.47% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 2,503 32.53% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 89,169 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 4,707 5.28% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR11,479 12.87% 694,077 5.37%

District 23 State District 23 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 2,419 47.67% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 2,094 41.26% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 562 11.07% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 3,007 63.05% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,762 36.95% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 102,612 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 14,921 14.54% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR5,971 5.82% 694,077 5.37%

District 24 State District 24 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,126 42.91% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,182 45.05% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 316 12.04% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,485 62.76% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 881 37.24% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 99,692 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 10,231 10.26% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR3,091 3.1% 694,077 5.37%

For technical reasons, election results in Texas Legislative Council reports may vary slightly from the official election results. Complete official results for all elections are maintained by the Office of the Texas Secretary of TASK FORCE PL EX 68 - 000005 Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530-1Distric t 2Filed5 08/01/17 PageState 6 of 31 District 25 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 2,072 50.35% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,322 32.13% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 721 17.52% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 2,749 69.28% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,219 30.72% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 95,744 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 17,097 17.86% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR4,943 5.16% 694,077 5.37%

District 26 State District 26 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,058 49.6% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 813 38.12% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 262 12.28% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,033 52.7% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 927 47.3% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 91,559 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 9,655 10.55% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,512 2.74% 694,077 5.37%

District 27 State District 27 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 3,001 42.53% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 3,468 49.14% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 588 8.33% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 4,154 63.49% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 2,389 36.51% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 87,885 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 10,430 11.87% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR8,477 9.65% 694,077 5.37%

District 28 State District 28 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 754 50.88% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 558 37.65% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 170 11.47% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 723 51.9% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 670 48.1% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 73,534 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 9,101 12.38% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,770 2.41% 694,077 5.37%

District 29 State District 29 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,180 47.31% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 997 39.98% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 317 12.71% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,410 61.01% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 901 38.99% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 93,000 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 14,139 15.2% 2,817,389 21.8%

District 30 State District 30 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 4,071 55.82% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,852 25.39% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 1,370 18.79% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 3,609 52.03% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 3,327 47.97% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 101,623 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 30,115 29.63% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR8,288 8.16% 694,077 5.37%

District 31 State District 31 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 12,972 75.41% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 2,362 13.73% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 1,869 10.86% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 3,766 22.04% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 13,319 77.96% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 93,840 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 70,365 74.98% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR21,007 22.39% 694,077 5.37%

District 32 State District 32 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 2,845 67.34% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,066 25.23% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 314 7.43% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,173 29.67% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 2,780 70.33% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 91,655 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 34,022 37.12% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR4,471 4.88% 694,077 5.37%

District 33 State District 33 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 562 48.95% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 392 34.15% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 194 16.9% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 609 56.92% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 461 43.08% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 91,290 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 6,121 6.71% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,286 1.41% 694,077 5.37%

District 34 State District 34 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 4,241 74.13% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,094 19.12% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 386 6.75% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,193 21.56% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 4,341 78.44% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 96,463 12,922,567

For technical reasons, election results in Texas Legislative Council reports may vary slightly from the official election results. Complete official results for all elections are maintained by the Office of the Texas Secretary of TASK FORCE PL EX 68 - 000007 Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XRTotal Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/V R Document58,617 1530-1 60.77% Filed 08/01/17 2,817, 389 Page21.8% 8 of 31 Turnout (TO) and TO/VR6,182 6.41% 694,077 5.37%

District 35 State District 35 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 4,356 75.26% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 846 14.62% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 586 10.12% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,298 22.94% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 4,361 77.06% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 57,590 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 43,014 74.69% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR8,028 13.94% 694,077 5.37%

District 36 State District 36 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 5,151 75.36% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,029 15.05% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 655 9.58% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,160 17.49% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 5,471 82.51% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 63,861 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 53,832 84.3% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR10,602 16.6% 694,077 5.37%

District 37 State District 37 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 4,225 74.94% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 701 12.43% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 712 12.63% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,197 20.35% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 4,685 79.65% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 72,813 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 57,257 78.64% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR6,668 9.16% 694,077 5.37%

District 38 State District 38 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 4,477 79.02% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 602 10.62% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 587 10.36% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,079 18.65% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 4,705 81.35% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 68,064 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 53,230 78.21% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR6,483 9.52% 694,077 5.37%

District 39 State District 39 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 4,527 76.78% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 875 14.84% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 494 8.38% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,217 21.22% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 4,519 78.78% 292,860 51.72%

For technical reasons, election results in Texas Legislative Council reports may vary slightly from the official election results. Complete official results for all elections are maintained by the Office of the Texas Secretary of TASK FORCE PL EX 68 - 000008 Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XRTotal Voter Registration (VR) Document65,741 1530-1 Filed 08/01/1712,922, 567 Page 9 of 31 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 54,127 82.33% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR7,684 11.69% 694,077 5.37%

District 40 State District 40 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 5,249 76.49% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,037 15.11% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 576 8.39% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,185 17.49% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 5,591 82.51% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 51,250 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 44,462 86.76% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR9,330 18.2% 694,077 5.37%

District 41 State District 41 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 4,546 73.12% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,037 16.68% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 634 10.2% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,366 22.37% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 4,741 77.63% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 66,011 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 45,848 69.46% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR7,334 11.11% 694,077 5.37%

District 42 State District 42 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 15,670 80.74% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 2,376 12.24% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 1,362 7.02% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 2,550 13.19% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 16,781 86.81% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 75,083 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 65,555 87.31% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR22,577 30.07% 694,077 5.37%

District 43 State District 43 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 7,447 74.77% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,563 15.69% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 950 9.54% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 2,423 25.01% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 7,264 74.99% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 99,398 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 56,788 57.13% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR11,370 11.44% 694,077 5.37%

District 44 State District 44 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 2,409 65.98% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 916 25.09% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 326 8.93% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,768 50.76% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,715 49.24% 292,860 51.72%

For technical reasons, election results in Texas Legislative Council reports may vary slightly from the official election results. Complete official results for all elections are maintained by the Office of the Texas Secretary of TASK FORCE PL EX 68 - 000009 Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530-1 Filed 08/01/17 Page 10 of 31 Total Voter Registration (VR) 98,930 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 24,986 25.26% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR4,073 4.12% 694,077 5.37%

District 45 State District 45 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,857 33.87% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 3,056 55.75% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 569 10.38% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 2,339 49.38% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 2,398 50.62% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 100,114 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 20,665 20.64% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR5,910 5.9% 694,077 5.37%

District 46 State District 46 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,183 22.92% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 3,448 66.8% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 531 10.29% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 2,055 44.36% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 2,578 55.64% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 74,483 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 13,739 18.45% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR5,318 7.14% 694,077 5.37%

District 47 State District 47 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,231 24.13% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 3,405 66.74% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 466 9.13% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,877 42.73% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 2,516 57.27% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 114,419 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 8,662 7.57% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR5,296 4.63% 694,077 5.37%

District 48 State District 48 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,978 22.26% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 6,287 70.77% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 619 6.97% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 2,520 32.98% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 5,121 67.02% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 118,145 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 15,480 13.1% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR9,198 7.79% 694,077 5.37%

District 49 State District 49 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,836 20.71% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 6,410 72.31% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 619 6.98% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 2,169 28.0% 273,422 48.28%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 111,330 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 12,295 11.04% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR9,228 8.29% 694,077 5.37%

District 50 State District 50 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,060 24.63% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 2,783 64.66% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 461 10.71% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,659 43.11% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 2,189 56.89% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 90,460 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 12,275 13.57% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR4,443 4.91% 694,077 5.37%

District 51 State District 51 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,244 27.32% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 2,877 63.19% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 432 9.49% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,276 30.64% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 2,888 69.36% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 77,767 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 28,864 37.12% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR4,703 6.05% 694,077 5.37%

District 52 State District 52 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 706 33.84% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,132 54.27% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 248 11.89% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 848 44.66% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,051 55.34% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 80,880 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 13,212 16.34% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,181 2.7% 694,077 5.37%

District 53 State District 53 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,683 49.93% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,259 37.35% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 429 12.73% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,721 52.28% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,571 47.72% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 105,887 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 20,929 19.77% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR3,908 3.69% 694,077 5.37%

District 54 State District 54 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 836 55.29% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 513 33.93% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 163 10.78% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm

Total Voter Registration (VR) 81,660 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 9,516 11.65% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,608 1.97% 694,077 5.37%

District 55 State District 55 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 674 43.77% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 658 42.73% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 208 13.51% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 921 62.74% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 547 37.26% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 81,190 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 10,210 12.58% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,686 2.08% 694,077 5.37%

District 56 State District 56 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 925 44.11% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 689 32.86% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 483 23.03% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,414 69.69% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 615 30.31% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 90,943 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 9,401 10.34% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,316 2.55% 694,077 5.37%

District 57 State District 57 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 3,171 42.49% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 3,082 41.3% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 1,210 16.21% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 6,202 81.65% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,394 18.35% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 95,400 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 5,373 5.63% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR8,954 9.39% 694,077 5.37%

District 58 State District 58 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 916 46.71% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 692 35.29% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 353 18.0% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,462 75.67% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 470 24.33% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 91,711 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 7,119 7.76% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,215 2.42% 694,077 5.37%

District 59 State District 59 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,270 39.03% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,562 48.0% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 422 12.97% 72,258 12.19%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 89,471 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 8,254 9.23% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR3,811 4.26% 694,077 5.37%

District 60 State District 60 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 890 38.15% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,145 49.08% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 298 12.77% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,675 74.81% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 564 25.19% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 106,190 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 7,450 7.02% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,598 2.45% 694,077 5.37%

District 61 State District 61 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 780 43.89% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 761 42.82% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 236 13.28% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,252 73.86% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 443 26.14% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 106,597 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 5,243 4.92% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,932 1.81% 694,077 5.37%

District 62 State District 62 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 988 40.24% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,073 43.71% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 394 16.05% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,708 73.15% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 627 26.85% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 94,101 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 3,023 3.21% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,707 2.88% 694,077 5.37%

District 63 State District 63 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 504 50.25% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 358 35.69% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 141 14.06% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 553 57.66% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 406 42.34% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 97,729 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 6,086 6.23% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,098 1.12% 694,077 5.37%

District 64 State District 64 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 677 48.19% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 549 39.07% 205,562 34.66%

For technical reasons, election results in Texas Legislative Council reports may vary slightly from the official election results. Complete official results for all elections are maintained by the Office of the Texas Secretary of TASK FORCE PL EX 68 - 000013 Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XRKatz - D Document 1791530-1 12.74% Filed 08/01/1772 , 258 Page12.19% 14 of 31 Land Comm Burton - D 762 56.65% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 583 43.35% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 88,702 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 6,857 7.73% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,560 1.76% 694,077 5.37%

District 65 State District 65 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 588 54.09% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 354 32.57% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 145 13.34% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 616 59.46% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 420 40.54% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 86,582 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 7,475 8.63% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,156 1.34% 694,077 5.37%

District 66 State District 66 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 638 47.68% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 436 32.59% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 264 19.73% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 605 50.76% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 587 49.24% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 95,168 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 4,107 4.32% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,534 1.61% 694,077 5.37%

District 67 State District 67 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 655 46.92% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 558 39.97% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 183 13.11% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 658 51.85% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 611 48.15% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 94,500 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 5,361 5.67% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,605 1.7% 694,077 5.37%

District 68 State District 68 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 2,164 35.83% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 2,933 48.57% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 942 15.6% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 4,819 81.77% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,074 18.23% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 98,101 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 11,199 11.42% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR7,100 7.24% 694,077 5.37%

District 69 State District 69 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,232 48.56% 315,181 53.15%

For technical reasons, election results in Texas Legislative Council reports may vary slightly from the official election results. Complete official results for all elections are maintained by the Office of the Texas Secretary of TASK FORCE PL EX 68 - 000014 Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XREarle - D Document 9351530-1 36.85% Filed 08/01/17 205 , 562 Page34.66% 15 of 31 Katz - D 370 14.58% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,928 77.31% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 566 22.69% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 98,530 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 8,109 8.23% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,872 2.91% 694,077 5.37%

District 70 State District 70 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 460 51.86% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 278 31.34% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 149 16.8% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 495 59.5% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 337 40.5% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 86,155 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 6,304 7.32% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,027 1.19% 694,077 5.37%

District 71 State District 71 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,101 45.23% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 997 40.96% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 336 13.8% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,759 75.43% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 573 24.57% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 93,255 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 13,416 14.39% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,712 2.91% 694,077 5.37%

District 72 State District 72 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 945 45.83% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 834 40.45% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 283 13.72% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,252 62.07% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 765 37.93% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 95,042 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 22,691 23.87% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,279 2.4% 694,077 5.37%

District 73 State District 73 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,027 49.9% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 739 35.91% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 292 14.19% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 928 47.69% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,018 52.31% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 112,583 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 15,055 13.37% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,334 2.07% 694,077 5.37%

District 74 State District 74 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor

For technical reasons, election results in Texas Legislative Council reports may vary slightly from the official election results. Complete official results for all elections are maintained by the Office of the Texas Secretary of TASK FORCE PL EX 68 - 000015 Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XRChavez-Thompson - D Document10, 6531530-1 72.7% Filed 08/01/17 315 , 181 Page53.15% 16 of 31 Earle - D 2,327 15.88% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 1,674 11.42% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 4,269 28.79% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 10,559 71.21% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 86,510 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 58,216 67.29% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR18,023 20.83% 694,077 5.37%

District 75 State District 75 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 3,013 82.8% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 371 10.2% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 255 7.01% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 698 19.98% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 2,795 80.02% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 56,551 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 46,703 82.59% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR4,139 7.32% 694,077 5.37%

District 76 State District 76 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 7,476 83.25% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 828 9.22% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 676 7.53% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,850 21.41% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 6,789 78.59% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 77,369 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 63,750 82.4% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR10,078 13.03% 694,077 5.37%

District 77 State District 77 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 5,170 75.5% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 944 13.79% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 734 10.72% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 2,006 30.72% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 4,525 69.28% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 70,670 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 45,528 64.42% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR7,903 11.18% 694,077 5.37%

District 78 State District 78 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 4,128 74.31% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 830 14.94% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 597 10.75% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,890 35.77% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 3,394 64.23% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 76,414 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 39,113 51.19% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR6,180 8.09% 694,077 5.37%

District 79 State District 79 Totals Total Percent Total Percent

For technical reasons, election results in Texas Legislative Council reports may vary slightly from the official election results. Complete official results for all elections are maintained by the Office of the Texas Secretary of TASK FORCE PL EX 68 - 000016 Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XRLt. Governor Document 1530-1 Filed 08/01/17 Page 17 of 31 Chavez-Thompson - D 4,705 79.44% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 702 11.85% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 516 8.71% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,541 27.06% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 4,154 72.94% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 70,513 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 49,775 70.59% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR6,425 9.11% 694,077 5.37%

District 80 State District 80 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 12,794 76.19% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 2,574 15.33% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 1,424 8.48% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 3,569 21.03% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 13,403 78.97% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 74,429 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 58,352 78.4% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR20,432 27.45% 694,077 5.37%

District 81 State District 81 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,378 63.77% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 527 24.39% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 256 11.85% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 916 42.92% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,218 57.08% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 84,106 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 29,749 35.37% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,426 2.88% 694,077 5.37%

District 82 State District 82 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,095 54.07% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 691 34.12% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 239 11.8% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,095 56.53% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 842 43.47% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 86,304 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 21,806 25.27% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,299 2.66% 694,077 5.37%

District 83 State District 83 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,503 46.46% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,227 37.93% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 505 15.61% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,996 63.57% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,144 36.43% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 95,562 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 21,609 22.61% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR3,574 3.74% 694,077 5.37%

District 84 State

For technical reasons, election results in Texas Legislative Council reports may vary slightly from the official election results. Complete official results for all elections are maintained by the Office of the Texas Secretary of TASK FORCE PL EX 68 - 000017 Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XRDistrict 84 Totals DocumentTotal 1530-1 Percent Filed 08/01/17Total PagePercent 18 of 31 Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,484 56.88% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 742 28.44% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 383 14.68% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,195 47.8% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,305 52.2% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 85,125 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 21,388 25.13% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,740 3.22% 694,077 5.37%

District 85 State District 85 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,605 50.76% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,116 35.29% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 441 13.95% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,780 58.94% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,240 41.06% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 80,866 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 20,739 25.65% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR3,711 4.59% 694,077 5.37%

District 86 State District 86 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 591 51.62% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 425 37.12% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 129 11.27% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 709 63.3% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 411 36.7% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 96,529 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 13,657 14.15% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,233 1.28% 694,077 5.37%

District 87 State District 87 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 589 52.03% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 385 34.01% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 158 13.96% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 679 63.94% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 383 36.06% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 82,119 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 14,914 18.16% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,230 1.5% 694,077 5.37%

District 88 State District 88 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 730 42.29% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 748 43.34% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 248 14.37% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,218 72.24% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 468 27.76% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 90,703 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 25,800 28.44% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,952 2.15% 694,077 5.37%

For technical reasons, election results in Texas Legislative Council reports may vary slightly from the official election results. Complete official results for all elections are maintained by the Office of the Texas Secretary of TASK FORCE PL EX 68 - 000018 Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530-1Distri c t Filed89 08/01/17 PageState 19 of 31 District 89 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 604 51.62% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 383 32.74% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 183 15.64% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 633 58.45% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 450 41.55% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 91,155 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 6,200 6.8% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,344 1.47% 694,077 5.37%

District 90 State District 90 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 893 56.41% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 412 26.03% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 278 17.56% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 771 50.03% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 770 49.97% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 47,042 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 22,840 48.55% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,759 3.74% 694,077 5.37%

District 91 State District 91 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 592 43.66% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 485 35.77% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 279 20.58% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 889 68.97% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 400 31.03% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 84,874 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 8,915 10.5% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,444 1.7% 694,077 5.37%

District 92 State District 92 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 701 43.49% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 588 36.48% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 323 20.04% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 966 62.16% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 588 37.84% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 87,682 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 7,405 8.45% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,743 1.99% 694,077 5.37%

District 93 State District 93 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 550 49.06% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 360 32.11% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 211 18.82% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 628 57.77% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 459 42.23% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 71,916 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 8,610 11.97% 2,817,389 21.8%

District 94 State District 94 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 958 45.79% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 779 37.24% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 355 16.97% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,172 59.43% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 800 40.57% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 92,778 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 7,473 8.05% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,269 2.45% 694,077 5.37%

District 95 State District 95 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,816 40.96% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,589 35.84% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 1,029 23.21% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 3,045 71.43% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,218 28.57% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 74,310 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 6,954 9.36% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR5,081 6.84% 694,077 5.37%

District 96 State District 96 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 801 46.33% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 577 33.37% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 351 20.3% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,100 66.39% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 557 33.61% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 84,478 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 8,011 9.48% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,873 2.22% 694,077 5.37%

District 97 State District 97 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,139 40.11% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,163 40.95% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 538 18.94% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,571 59.51% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,069 40.49% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 88,362 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 7,778 8.8% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR3,091 3.5% 694,077 5.37%

District 98 State District 98 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 490 42.91% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 380 33.27% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 272 23.82% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 675 62.15% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 411 37.85% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 99,763 12,922,567

For technical reasons, election results in Texas Legislative Council reports may vary slightly from the official election results. Complete official results for all elections are maintained by the Office of the Texas Secretary of TASK FORCE PL EX 68 - 000020 Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XRTotal Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/V RDocument5, 1531530-1 5.17% Filed 08/01/17 2,817 , 389 Page 21.8%21 of 31 Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,243 1.25% 694,077 5.37%

District 99 State District 99 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 732 43.88% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 627 37.59% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 309 18.53% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 990 61.99% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 607 38.01% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 82,614 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 10,230 12.38% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,787 2.16% 694,077 5.37%

District 100 State District 100 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 2,063 44.17% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 2,043 43.74% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 565 12.1% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 2,361 56.16% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,843 43.84% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 75,629 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 9,904 13.1% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR5,799 7.67% 694,077 5.37%

District 101 State District 101 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 830 50.12% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 496 29.95% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 330 19.93% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,006 62.48% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 604 37.52% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 67,279 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 10,583 15.73% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,784 2.65% 694,077 5.37%

District 102 State District 102 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 796 33.7% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,171 49.58% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 395 16.72% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 977 47.08% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,098 52.92% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 82,565 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 5,782 7.0% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,668 3.23% 694,077 5.37%

District 103 State District 103 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,443 48.82% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,163 39.34% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 350 11.84% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,072 40.99% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,543 59.01% 292,860 51.72%

For technical reasons, election results in Texas Legislative Council reports may vary slightly from the official election results. Complete official results for all elections are maintained by the Office of the Texas Secretary of TASK FORCE PL EX 68 - 000021 Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XRTotal Voter Registration (VR) Document55, 8171530-1 Filed 08/01/1712,922 , 567 Page 22 of 31 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 19,829 35.53% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR3,603 6.46% 694,077 5.37%

District 104 State District 104 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,764 62.64% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 765 27.17% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 287 10.19% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 996 37.97% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,627 62.03% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 58,962 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 28,697 48.67% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR3,247 5.51% 694,077 5.37%

District 105 State District 105 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,180 50.86% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 867 37.37% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 273 11.77% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,078 50.0% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,078 50.0% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 76,510 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 13,909 18.18% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,573 3.36% 694,077 5.37%

District 106 State District 106 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 394 51.84% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 253 33.29% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 113 14.87% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 453 61.89% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 279 38.11% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 82,207 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 6,367 7.75% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR830 1.01% 694,077 5.37%

District 107 State District 107 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,002 40.88% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,156 47.16% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 293 11.95% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,180 53.69% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,018 46.31% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 85,159 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 10,841 12.73% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,806 3.3% 694,077 5.37%

District 108 State District 108 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,023 32.73% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,727 55.25% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 376 12.03% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 976 37.28% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,642 62.72% 292,860 51.72%

For technical reasons, election results in Texas Legislative Council reports may vary slightly from the official election results. Complete official results for all elections are maintained by the Office of the Texas Secretary of TASK FORCE PL EX 68 - 000022 Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530-1 Filed 08/01/17 Page 23 of 31 Total Voter Registration (VR) 96,293 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 8,827 9.17% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR3,651 3.79% 694,077 5.37%

District 109 State District 109 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 3,071 48.04% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 2,505 39.18% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 817 12.78% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 3,782 64.21% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 2,108 35.79% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 95,681 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 7,887 8.24% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR7,522 7.86% 694,077 5.37%

District 110 State District 110 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,834 48.12% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,498 39.31% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 479 12.57% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 2,288 65.32% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,215 34.68% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 73,225 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 12,725 17.38% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR4,665 6.37% 694,077 5.37%

District 111 State District 111 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 3,268 48.2% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 2,714 40.03% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 798 11.77% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 3,896 62.51% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 2,337 37.49% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 89,752 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 9,659 10.76% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR7,840 8.74% 694,077 5.37%

District 112 State District 112 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 757 44.42% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 725 42.55% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 222 13.03% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 830 53.62% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 718 46.38% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 81,233 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 8,905 10.96% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,936 2.38% 694,077 5.37%

District 113 State District 113 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 962 49.69% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 727 37.55% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 247 12.76% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,070 59.48% 273,422 48.28%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 81,537 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 9,920 12.17% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,191 2.69% 694,077 5.37%

District 114 State District 114 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,020 28.9% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,995 56.52% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 515 14.59% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,221 41.39% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,729 58.61% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 93,999 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 6,659 7.08% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR4,073 4.33% 694,077 5.37%

District 115 State District 115 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 713 43.61% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 707 43.24% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 215 13.15% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 714 48.94% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 745 51.06% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 82,369 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 9,315 11.31% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,812 2.2% 694,077 5.37%

District 116 State District 116 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 3,035 77.25% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 593 15.09% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 301 7.66% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 860 21.45% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 3,149 78.55% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 83,032 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 42,743 51.48% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR4,594 5.53% 694,077 5.37%

District 117 State District 117 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,610 78.46% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 282 13.74% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 160 7.8% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 599 27.54% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,576 72.46% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 68,338 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 35,632 52.14% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,474 3.62% 694,077 5.37%

District 118 State District 118 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 2,727 78.7% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 424 12.24% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 314 9.06% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm

Total Voter Registration (VR) 84,831 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 50,220 59.2% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR4,313 5.08% 694,077 5.37%

District 119 State District 119 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 3,262 77.7% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 579 13.79% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 357 8.5% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,337 30.41% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 3,059 69.59% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 81,606 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 42,154 51.66% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR5,030 6.16% 694,077 5.37%

District 120 State District 120 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 2,707 68.93% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 835 21.26% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 385 9.8% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,955 49.66% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,982 50.34% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 88,034 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 26,152 29.71% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR4,766 5.41% 694,077 5.37%

District 121 State District 121 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 2,209 65.63% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 831 24.69% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 326 9.69% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,243 37.75% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 2,050 62.25% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 109,393 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 23,321 21.32% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR3,921 3.58% 694,077 5.37%

District 122 State District 122 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,879 66.96% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 647 23.06% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 280 9.98% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 990 36.07% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,755 63.93% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 107,709 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 19,824 18.41% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR3,285 3.05% 694,077 5.37%

District 123 State District 123 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 3,632 74.96% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 823 16.99% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 390 8.05% 72,258 12.19%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 89,365 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 48,770 54.57% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR5,751 6.44% 694,077 5.37%

District 124 State District 124 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 2,352 79.01% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 398 13.37% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 227 7.63% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 909 29.7% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 2,152 70.3% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 83,619 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 45,709 54.66% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR3,396 4.06% 694,077 5.37%

District 125 State District 125 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 3,207 79.38% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 489 12.1% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 344 8.51% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 903 21.63% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 3,272 78.37% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 94,153 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 56,219 59.71% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR4,769 5.07% 694,077 5.37%

District 126 State District 126 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 872 43.49% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 867 43.24% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 266 13.27% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,127 60.33% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 741 39.67% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 85,533 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 12,089 14.13% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,289 2.68% 694,077 5.37%

District 127 State District 127 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 842 45.0% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 763 40.78% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 266 14.22% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,064 60.83% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 685 39.17% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 93,588 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 10,117 10.81% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,197 2.35% 694,077 5.37%

District 128 State District 128 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 983 42.12% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,004 43.02% 205,562 34.66%

For technical reasons, election results in Texas Legislative Council reports may vary slightly from the official election results. Complete official results for all elections are maintained by the Office of the Texas Secretary of TASK FORCE PL EX 68 - 000026 Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XRKatz - D Document 3471530-1 14.87% Filed 08/01/1772 , 258 Page12.19% 27 of 31 Land Comm Burton - D 1,379 63.61% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 789 36.39% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 90,392 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 14,258 15.77% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,774 3.07% 694,077 5.37%

District 129 State District 129 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,120 39.55% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,291 45.59% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 421 14.87% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,405 53.71% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,211 46.29% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 98,958 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 12,533 12.66% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR3,361 3.4% 694,077 5.37%

District 130 State District 130 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 633 44.02% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 630 43.81% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 175 12.17% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 800 59.84% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 537 40.16% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 92,202 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 9,062 9.83% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,661 1.8% 694,077 5.37%

District 131 State District 131 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 2,262 39.46% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 2,797 48.79% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 674 11.76% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 3,676 67.66% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,757 32.34% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 73,024 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 12,684 17.37% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR6,997 9.58% 694,077 5.37%

District 132 State District 132 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 631 48.88% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 439 34.0% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 221 17.12% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 704 58.13% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 507 41.87% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 75,270 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 13,901 18.47% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,514 2.01% 694,077 5.37%

District 133 State District 133 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 867 29.69% 315,181 53.15%

For technical reasons, election results in Texas Legislative Council reports may vary slightly from the official election results. Complete official results for all elections are maintained by the Office of the Texas Secretary of TASK FORCE PL EX 68 - 000027 Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XREarle - D Document1, 6021530-1 54.86% Filed 08/01/17 205 , 562 Page34.66% 28 of 31 Katz - D 451 15.45% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,225 47.67% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,345 52.33% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 101,517 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 6,811 6.71% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR3,576 3.52% 694,077 5.37%

District 134 State District 134 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,524 22.37% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 4,179 61.35% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 1,109 16.28% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 2,258 38.59% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 3,593 61.41% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 112,766 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 8,807 7.81% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR8,190 7.26% 694,077 5.37%

District 135 State District 135 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 811 47.01% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 675 39.13% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 239 13.86% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 922 57.05% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 694 42.95% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 80,192 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 13,040 16.26% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,997 2.49% 694,077 5.37%

District 136 State District 136 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 773 30.83% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,426 56.88% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 308 12.29% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 985 44.94% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,207 55.06% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 92,294 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 9,771 10.59% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,609 2.83% 694,077 5.37%

District 137 State District 137 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 591 39.11% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 687 45.47% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 233 15.42% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 766 53.68% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 661 46.32% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 47,559 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 8,926 18.77% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,775 3.73% 694,077 5.37%

District 138 State District 138 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor

For technical reasons, election results in Texas Legislative Council reports may vary slightly from the official election results. Complete official results for all elections are maintained by the Office of the Texas Secretary of TASK FORCE PL EX 68 - 000028 Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XRChavez-Thompson - D Document 7081530-1 37.24% Filed 08/01/17 315 , 181 Page53.15% 29 of 31 Earle - D 899 47.29% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 294 15.47% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 970 55.43% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 780 44.57% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 74,285 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 14,450 19.45% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,211 2.98% 694,077 5.37%

District 139 State District 139 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 2,484 39.58% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 3,000 47.8% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 792 12.62% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 4,226 70.57% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,762 29.43% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 85,882 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 13,321 15.51% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR7,642 8.9% 694,077 5.37%

District 140 State District 140 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,021 53.04% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 677 35.17% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 227 11.79% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,054 56.3% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 818 43.7% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 53,085 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 27,598 51.99% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,286 4.31% 694,077 5.37%

District 141 State District 141 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,955 43.21% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 2,033 44.94% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 536 11.85% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 3,185 75.49% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,034 24.51% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 67,693 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 9,704 14.34% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR5,768 8.52% 694,077 5.37%

District 142 State District 142 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 2,122 41.86% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 2,205 43.5% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 742 14.64% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 3,416 71.14% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,386 28.86% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 69,873 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 11,904 17.04% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR6,525 9.34% 694,077 5.37%

District 143 State District 143 Totals Total Percent Total Percent

For technical reasons, election results in Texas Legislative Council reports may vary slightly from the official election results. Complete official results for all elections are maintained by the Office of the Texas Secretary of TASK FORCE PL EX 68 - 000029 Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XRLt. Governor Document 1530-1 Filed 08/01/17 Page 30 of 31 Chavez-Thompson - D 1,766 54.09% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,102 33.75% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 397 12.16% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,658 52.84% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,480 47.16% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 63,166 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 32,103 50.82% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR3,800 6.02% 694,077 5.37%

District 144 State District 144 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 826 52.02% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 560 35.26% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 202 12.72% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 831 54.42% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 696 45.58% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 55,932 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 27,585 49.32% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,815 3.25% 694,077 5.37%

District 145 State District 145 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,406 56.11% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 804 32.08% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 296 11.81% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 841 35.37% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 1,537 64.63% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 58,343 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 31,075 53.26% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,929 5.02% 694,077 5.37%

District 146 State District 146 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 2,904 36.59% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 3,925 49.46% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 1,107 13.95% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 5,019 67.45% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 2,422 32.55% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 84,963 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 7,848 9.24% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR9,865 11.61% 694,077 5.37%

District 147 State District 147 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 3,097 36.19% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 4,442 51.9% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 1,019 11.91% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 4,818 60.05% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 3,205 39.95% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 93,018 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 13,391 14.4% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR10,518 11.31% 694,077 5.37%

District 148 State

For technical reasons, election results in Texas Legislative Council reports may vary slightly from the official election results. Complete official results for all elections are maintained by the Office of the Texas Secretary of TASK FORCE PL EX 68 - 000030 Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XRDistrict 148 Totals DocumentTotal 1530-1 Percent Filed 08/01/17Total PagePercent 31 of 31 Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 1,963 44.13% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 1,924 43.26% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 561 12.61% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,649 40.07% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 2,466 59.93% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 70,713 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 28,712 40.6% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR5,214 7.37% 694,077 5.37%

District 149 State District 149 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 991 44.38% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 945 42.32% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 297 13.3% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 1,275 59.39% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 872 40.61% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 73,375 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 12,742 17.37% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR2,633 3.59% 694,077 5.37%

District 150 State District 150 Totals Total Percent Total Percent Lt. Governor Chavez-Thompson - D 723 43.66% 315,181 53.15% Earle - D 713 43.06% 205,562 34.66% Katz - D 220 13.29% 72,258 12.19% Land Comm Burton - D 900 58.14% 273,422 48.28% Uribe - D 648 41.86% 292,860 51.72%

Total Voter Registration (VR) 87,829 12,922,567 Total Spanish Surname VR and SSVR/VR 10,409 11.85% 2,817,389 21.8% Turnout (TO) and TO/VR1,883 2.14% 694,077 5.37%

TASK FORCE PL EX. 69 - 000001 Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530-2 Filed 08/01/17 Page 2 of 4

TASK FORCE PL EX. 69 - 000002 Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530-2 Filed 08/01/17 Page 3 of 4

TASK FORCE PL EX. 69 - 000003 Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530-2 Filed 08/01/17 Page 4 of 4

TASK FORCE PL EX. 69 - 000004 Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1530-3 Filed 08/01/17 Page 1 of 1

County FIPS VTD CNTYVTD TotalPop TotalVR SpanishSurnamePercent TotalTO Tarrant 439 1015 4391015 2157 1105 41.8 610 Tarrant 439 1062 4391062 32 35 25.7 22 Tarrant 439 1408 4391408 522 179 54.7 89 Tarrant 439 1434 4391434 0 0 0 0 Tarrant 439 1674 4391674 0 0 0 0 Tarrant 439 1684 4391684 622 450 18 307 Tarrant 439 4068 4394068 4047 1212 82.2 557 Tarrant 439 4073 4394073 551 412 14.3 236 Tarrant 439 4121 4394121 4560 2488 26.7 1472 Tarrant 439 4122 4394122 6099 1538 76.1 662 Tarrant 439 4125 4394125 1727 611 34.5 260 Tarrant 439 4138 4394138 2348 880 32 397 Tarrant 439 4493 4394493 649 597 17.1 422 Tarrant 439 4593 4394593 1065 377 53.6 153 Tarrant 439 4634 4394634 667 1381 6.1 900 Tarrant 439 4650 4394650 6935 4706 23.4 2838 Tarrant 439 4685 4394685 6 6 83.3 1 Tarrant 439 4687 4394687 787 189 56.1 79 Tarrant 439 4688 4394688 127 55 49.1 27 Tarrant 439 4689 4394689 275 161 50.3 94 Tarrant 439 4690 4394690 32 10 0 9 Tarrant 439 4692 4394692 108 28 39.3 18 Tarrant 439 4693 4394693 27 9 66.7 7 TOTAL 33343 16429

Source: TLC, ftp://ftpgis1.tlc.state.tx.us/elections/2016_General_Election_VRTO.csv (accessed July 31, 2017)