case 5:11-cv-00360-olg-jes-xr document 597-16 filed 02/02/12 … · 2012-02-02 · court reporter:...

1 of 104 sheets to 1 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:01PM

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STATE OF TEXAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, etal., Defendants.

.............................

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Docket No. CA 11-1303

Washington, D.C.January 31, 20122:00 p.m.

AFTERNOON SESSION - DAY 8 TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE THOMAS B. GRIFFITH, UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE, andHONORABLES ROSEMARY M. COLLYER and BERYL A. HOWELL,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGES

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff: MATHEW H. FREDRICK, Special CounselSTACEY NAPIER, Senior Counsel to theAttorney GeneralJ. REED CLAY, Senior Counsel to theAttorney GeneralANGELA V. COLMENERO, AssistantAttorney GeneralOffice of the Attorney General ofTexasP.O. Box 12548Austin, TX 78711-2548

ADAM K. MORTARA, Esq.ASHLEY C. KELLER, Esq.JOHN M. HUGES, Esq.Bartlit, beck, Herman, Palenchar &Scott, LLPCourthouse Place54 West Hubbard StreetChicago, IL 60610

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 597-16 Filed 02/02/12 Page 1 of 104

02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 2 of 104 2 of 104 sheets

21

APPEARANCES: Cont. 2

For the Defendants: TIMOTHY F. MELLETT, Trial AttorneyBRYAN L. SELLS, Trial Attorney3OLIMPIA E. MICHEL, Trial AttorneyDANIEL J. Freeman, Trial Attorney4U.S. Department of Justice950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW5Washington, DC 20530

6For the Intervenor JOSEPH GERALD HEBERT, EsquireDefendants: J. Gerald Hebert, P.C.7

191 Somervelle street, Suite 405Alexandria, VA 223048

JOHN M. DEVANEY, Esquire9Perkins Coie700 13th Street, NW, Suite 60010Washington, DC 2005-3960

11JOHN K. TANNER, Esquire3743 Military Road, NW12Washington, DC 20015

13NINA PERALES, EsquireMexican American Legal Defense & 14Educational Fund, Inc.1100 Broadway, Suite 30015San Antonio, TX 78205

16ALLISON J. RIGGS, EsquireSouthern Coalition for Social 17Justice1415 West Highway 54, Suite 10118Durham, NC 27707

19JOSE GARZA, Esquire7414 Robin Rest Drive20San Antonio, TX 98209

21Court Reporter: SCOTT L. WALLACE, RDR, CRR

Official Court Reporter22Room 6503, U.S. CourthouseWashington, D.C. [email protected]

Proceedings reported by machine shorthand, transcript produced 25by computer-aided transcription.


3 of 104 sheets to 3 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

3

AFTERNOON SESSION, JANUARY 31, 20121(2:01 p.m.) 02:01PM 2

JUDGE COLLYER: Good afternoon, everyone. 02:01PM 3I did want to ask before we begin, how is it that the 02:01PM 4

intervenors decided to use their time? Is everyone going to take 02:01PM 515 minutes? Are people going to share time? I don't want to cut 02:02PM 6you off, but I don't want you to go on. 02:02PM 7

MR. GARZA: With regard to -- 02:02PM 8Jose Garza for the Mexican-American Legislative Caucus. 02:02PM 9JUDGE COLLYER: Yes, sir. 02:02PM 10MR. GARZA: And I believe I'm going to begin for the 02:02PM 11

intervenors. I've run through this a couple of times, and each 02:02PM 12time, I've not reached 15 minutes, so I suspect that I'll be able 02:02PM 13to do this in less than 15 minutes, and whatever time I have 02:02PM 14remaining, I will cede to the Latino Task Force intervenors. 02:02PM 15

JUDGE COLLYER: Okay. But as an overarching principle, I 02:02PM 16can expect -- we can -- 02:02PM 17

Forgive me, sir. Forgive me, ma'am. I'm not used, as a 02:02PM 18district court judge, to having colleagues. 02:02PM 19

We can expect to hear from each intervenor in turn? 02:02PM 20MR. HEBERT: Yes, Your Honor. I believe that we are all 02:02PM 21

going to take some amount of time up here. However, the LULAC 02:02PM 22has agreed to cede the Davis intervenors five minutes of their 02:02PM 23time, and I believe that they've also ceded five minutes of their 02:03PM 24time to the Gonzales intervenors as well, but they will still 02:03PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 4 of 104 4 of 104 sheets

4

make a short presentation. And I think, other than that, we're 02:03PM 1all roughly at 15 minutes. 02:03PM 2

JUDGE COLLYER: All right. Thank you. 02:03PM 3MR. VERA: Thank you, Your Honor. Five minutes is all 02:03PM 4

LULAC needs. 02:03PM 5JUDGE COLLYER: Thank you. 02:03PM 6Okay. Mr. Garza, please, sir. 02:03PM 7MR. GARZA: May it please the Court. 02:03PM 8My presentation today will focus on intent. We've 02:03PM 9

essentially joined the government in their analysis of 02:03PM 10retrogression, and we have submitted evidence that we think is 02:03PM 11important in terms of this Court's review of the intentional 02:03PM 12discrimination issue that's before the Court. 02:03PM 13

We believe that the State of Texas has failed to meet its 02:03PM 14burden, that the plan adopted for the Texas House, H283, and 02:03PM 15Congress, C185, were not adopted with the intent to discriminate 02:03PM 16against minorities of Texas and, in particular, Latinos. 02:04PM 17

The evidence shows, we believe, that the State of Texas 02:04PM 18went to great lengths, in fact, to avoid the natural consequences 02:04PM 19of the burgeoning minority and, in particular Latino, population 02:04PM 20growth. As the Court has heard many times, over 4 million new 02:04PM 21Texans were counted as a result of the new census, and almost 02:04PM 2290 percent of that growth was from the minority community, 02:04PM 2365 percent from the Latino community alone. 02:04PM 24

I'm going to talk essentially about four aspects of 02:04PM 25


5 of 104 sheets to 5 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

5

objective evidence that point to intentional discrimination in 02:04PM 1the evidence that's before this Court: The strange-shaped 02:05PM 2districts; the systematic overpopulation of Latino majority 02:05PM 3districts; the shunning of responsibility in terms of how these 02:05PM 4districts were drawn; the use of splitting precincts, the manner 02:05PM 5in which split precincts were done in the development of these 02:05PM 6plans. 02:05PM 7

The Court has heard from a number of people and has heard 02:05PM 8a great deal of evidence regarding the odd-shaped districts that 02:05PM 9were -- that can be found both in the Texas House and in the 02:05PM 10Texas Congressional plan. The District in Hidalgo County that 02:05PM 11clearly captures -- has an odd shape in order to capture as many 02:05PM 12Anglo voters as it can. Districts 103 and 104, in which the 02:05PM 13minority population of Grand Prairie and Irving are split to 02:05PM 14avoid, again, the natural consequences of the substantial growth 02:05PM 15that you had in Dallas County, growth, in fact, in which the 02:06PM 16Anglo population decreased in population. 02:06PM 17

On the Congressional side, again, this Court has heard 02:06PM 18substantial evidence, and has seen these pictures over and over 02:06PM 19again: The manner in which CD 12 went around minority 02:06PM 20populations; the manner in which CD 26 dove into Tarrant County 02:06PM 21to capture as many of the Latino voters as it possibly could; the 02:06PM 22manner in which CD 6 went into Tarrant and Dallas County, again 02:06PM 23capturing minority population and placing it in majority Anglo 02:06PM 24districts. And the evidence presented showed the overlay of 02:06PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 6 of 104 6 of 104 sheets

6

these districts onto the minority population to clearly establish 02:06PM 1what was being done there. In CD 33, the Fifth District, again, 02:07PM 2Mr. Mellett went through some detail in examining those 02:07PM 3districts. 02:07PM 4

Now, the state argues that the focus of these changes, for 02:07PM 5instance, with regard to District 26, was not race. If anything, 02:07PM 6it was partisanship. And in fact, District 26, they say, can be 02:07PM 7justified if you simply examine the historical configuration of 02:07PM 8District 26 from C100, the prior plan. 02:07PM 9

But the State of Texas did not present any evidence that 02:07PM 10the prior configuration went into Tarrant County and captured 02:07PM 11almost exclusively minority population. There is no evidence 02:07PM 12that it did that. And in fact, I would submit that the 02:07PM 13configuration is substantially different from the exaggerated -- 02:07PM 14and twists and turns that are made by the new District 26. 02:08PM 15

Moreover, if one examines where the Latino population is, 02:08PM 16if you look at C100, the District 26 as it comes into Tarrant 02:08PM 17County, it's further to the east. The intrusion into Tarrant 02:08PM 18County is further to the east than District 26 as it's configured 02:08PM 19in the new plan. The concentration of Latino voters is 02:08PM 20dramatically different to the east of where they drew District 26 02:08PM 21in this map. 02:08PM 22

So, historical analysis of that district doesn't explain 02:08PM 23what it did. 02:08PM 24

And there are other objective indicators that point to 02:08PM 25


7 of 104 sheets to 7 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

7

racial discrimination as opposed to partisanship or anything 02:08PM 1else. Dr. Kousser did an evaluation of the manner in which 02:09PM 2population variances are used in the drawing of these districts. 02:09PM 3He examined urban counties in particular, and found that once one 02:09PM 4looked at republican districts, there is essentially a flat line 02:09PM 5in which the population distribution is evenly divided or more 02:09PM 6evenly divided between the overpopulated and underpopulated 02:09PM 7districts. 02:09PM 8

But with regard to democratic districts, he says that 02:09PM 9there is a greater number that are overpopulated, meaning that 02:09PM 10you have -- you can't draw as many democratic districts. 02:09PM 11

But most important is that he found that the variance with 02:09PM 12regard to Latino democrats is even more exaggerated than 02:09PM 13democrats in particular. In fact, five of the six districts that 02:09PM 14are underpopulated by the state, the state had no choice but to 02:10PM 15do that because they were all included in El Paso County, a 02:10PM 16county that required all the districts there to be 02:10PM 17underpopulated. So if you remove El Paso County from the 02:10PM 18configuration, you'll see that the overpopulation of Latino 02:10PM 19districts is even more exaggerated, to the disadvantage of Latino 02:10PM 20voters. 02:10PM 21

Chairman Solomons was asked in the Texas trial how he 02:10PM 22justified the population variances, and he said he had no legal 02:10PM 23justification for those variances. Mr. Interiano, the primary 02:10PM 24drawer of the maps, said the only thing he considered in terms of 02:10PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 8 of 104 8 of 104 sheets

8

equalizing population between districts was the 10 percent -- the 02:10PM 1so-called 10 percent rule. Nothing else, he said, entered into 02:10PM 2his determination of how to comply with one person, one vote. 02:10PM 3

Representative Walle, on the House floor, remarked on the 02:10PM 4use of population variances to disadvantage Latino voters, and so 02:11PM 5the legislature was aware of the consequences of the manner in 02:11PM 6which population was being used. 02:11PM 7

And I won't go into the next -- the next section that I 02:11PM 8have is the shunning of responsibility. Nobody takes credit for 02:11PM 9the manner in which the districts were drawn. Chairman Solomons 02:11PM 10says that the staff did it. Mr. Interiano said that he was 02:11PM 11directed by the leadership and by third parties, Mr. Hanna and 02:11PM 12Mr. Peña. Mr. Hanna and Mr. Peña -- in fact, Mr. Hanna is 02:11PM 13mentioned 45 times in the transcript of this case as 02:11PM 14justification for the manner in which the lines were drawn. Yet 02:11PM 15Mr. Hanna disavows any responsibility for the manner in which the 02:11PM 16lines were drawn. He gave no seal of approval for the different 02:12PM 17issues that he raised and different concerns. 02:12PM 18

The use of voting precincts has been a topic of some 02:12PM 19discussion here as well. Dr. Kousser examined all of the voting 02:12PM 20precinct splits in the State House plan and found that, even 02:12PM 21though black and Hispanic 50 percent-plus voting precincts 02:12PM 22compose only 37 percent of the over 8,000 voting precincts in 02:12PM 23Texas, 61 percent of the splits were done in majority minority 02:12PM 24districts. 02:12PM 25


9 of 104 sheets to 9 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

9

Additionally, objective evidence of racial intent over and 02:12PM 1above partisan concerns can be found in this district -- in this 02:13PM 2plan. And I'll give two examples of that. 02:13PM 3

First of all, I would like to say that, in my reading, 02:13PM 4Village of Arlington Heights acknowledges that knowing the 02:13PM 5consequences of your actions is a relevant consideration for the 02:13PM 6Court, as does Garza versus L.A. County, and Cromartie does not 02:13PM 7overrule either of those decisions. 02:13PM 8

But the evidence that cannot be explained based on 02:13PM 9partisanship that we believe adversely affected the minority 02:13PM 10community, I would point to the elimination of House District 33. 02:13PM 11House District 33 was a minority opportunity district. House 02:13PM 12District 33 in 2010 elected a Latino republican. House District 02:13PM 1333 was eliminated from the state's plan. The Latino republican 02:14PM 14was then paired with an Anglo republican, not with the other -- 02:14PM 15and the two Anglo republicans were not paired. They paired the 02:14PM 16Hispanic republican in that district. 02:14PM 17

With regard to Harris County, in Harris County, the state 02:14PM 18points with pride that all the pairings but one in the state plan 02:14PM 19were of republicans. In Harris County is the exception. 02:14PM 20Representative Vo is paired with Representative Hochberg. 02:14PM 21Representative Vo is the only Vietnamese member of the Texas 02:14PM 22House of Representatives. He is paired into Representative 02:14PM 23Hochberg's district. Only Representative Vo's district is 02:14PM 24eliminated. And Representative Hochberg indicated in his 02:14PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 10 of 104 10 of 104 sheets

10

pre-filed testimony that he was assured by the members of his 02:15PM 1delegation that he was going to be back. They were going to draw 02:15PM 2a district in which Representative Hochberg, an Anglo democrat, 02:15PM 3would remain in the House of Representatives. 02:15PM 4

Finally, the state has made a great deal of the notion 02:15PM 5that this was a member-driven plan, and that individual members 02:15PM 6were allowed a great deal of latitude in the manner in which 02:15PM 7their districts were to be drawn; that Representative Villarreal 02:15PM 8was critical in the drawing of their county delegation's plan, 02:15PM 9for example. 02:15PM 10

But I believe the testimony really shows that individual 02:15PM 11members, democrat and republican, were allowed a great deal of 02:15PM 12latitude with regard to their specific districts except in areas 02:15PM 13where the state was going to reduce Latino opportunity. And to 02:15PM 14that end, the members, the Latino and African-American members of 02:16PM 15the Texas House of Representatives, in the venue in which is 02:16PM 16allowed under the legislative process, introduced a number of 02:16PM 17amendments to enhance Latino opportunity in the Texas House of 02:16PM 18Representatives and in the Congress, and every amendment that was 02:16PM 19offered that had any substantial improvement for Latino and 02:16PM 20African-American representation was defeated overwhelmingly. 02:16PM 21

And I cede the balance of my time to the Task Force. 02:16PM 22JUDGE COLLYER: Thank you, sir. 02:16PM 23MR. GARZA: Thank you. 02:16PM 24JUDGE COLLYER: I think the balance of your time is about 02:16PM 25


11 of 104 sheets to 11 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

11

two minutes. 02:16PM 1MR. GARZA: Oh. 02:16PM 2MS. PERALES: A little technical assistance from somebody 02:17PM 3

younger than I am. 02:17PM 4Good afternoon. Nina Perales for the Texas Latino 02:17PM 5

Redistricting Task Force. 02:17PM 6I would like to address first the issue of retrogression 02:17PM 7

in the Texas House. The state's plan reduces Latino 02:17PM 8ability-to-elect districts by two. Those diminutions are in 02:18PM 9House District 33, which is removed from Nueces County, where it 02:18PM 10is a Latino ability-to-elect district, and relocated to Rockwall 02:18PM 11and Denton County; and the second reduction is in House District 02:18PM 12117 in Bexar County, which has been weakened to the point where 02:18PM 13it is no longer an ability-to-elect district. 02:18PM 14

There is no offset to remedy this retrogression. And I 02:18PM 15agree with the state that the issue here is whether these -- the 02:18PM 16loss in ability to elect is offset otherwise. House Districts 90 02:18PM 17and 148, which the state originally pointed to as the offset 02:18PM 18districts up until about Christmastime, are ability-to-elect 02:18PM 19districts in the benchmark. Representative Solomons testified 02:18PM 20that he considered those two districts to be ability-to-elect 02:18PM 21districts in the benchmark. He also had a letter and other input 02:18PM 22during the process, telling him that these districts were already 02:18PM 23ability to elect in the benchmark and, of course, all of the 02:19PM 24election analyses of those two districts, whether endogenous or 02:19PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 12 of 104 12 of 104 sheets

12

exogenous, show they are ability-to-elect districts. 02:19PM 1Since Christmas, the state has suggested that the offset 02:19PM 2

for at least the loss of House District 33 is House District 74. 02:19PM 3However, the state considered House District 74 during the 02:19PM 4redistricting process as an ability-to-elect district, and 02:19PM 5Mr. Interiano testified to that effect when he took the stand. 02:19PM 6HD 74 has elected Latino-preferred candidates since 1991. When 02:19PM 7we look at the demographics, we see that it has a Spanish surname 02:19PM 8voter registration of 58 percent. 02:19PM 9

With respect to racial purpose, the beginning for all of 02:19PM 10this really is the very dramatic demographic growth in Texas, 02:19PM 11which brought the -- which is largely responsible for the gain by 02:19PM 12Texas of four seats in the House of Representatives. 02:20PM 13

Some of the indicators under the Arlington Heights02:20PM 14factors -- and of course, we don't have time to cover them all, 02:20PM 15but one that is a very important indicator is the redistricters' 02:20PM 16flat rejection of federal law in the Supremacy clause and 02:20PM 17compliance with the Voting Rights Act as a reason to create 02:20PM 18Latino opportunity districts. 02:20PM 19

So we see this in the elimination of House District 33 and 02:20PM 20in the refusal to create a new Latino majority district in the 02:20PM 21Rio Grande Valley, where two counties together grew so much in 02:20PM 22their population that they could have, in fact, fit another 02:20PM 23entire House District. Chairman Solomons testified he would have 02:20PM 24to be told by the United States Supreme Court to break the County 02:20PM 25


13 of 104 sheets to 13 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

13

Line Rule in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act. 02:20PM 1However, redistricters knew during the process that the 02:20PM 2

County Line Rule had to yield to federal law, and this is a piece 02:21PM 3of a presentation that was made by the Texas Legislative Council 02:21PM 4in March of 2011, stating very explicitly that the County Line 02:21PM 5Rule would have to yield to the federal Voting Rights Act. 02:21PM 6

The results of this -- I wanted to include some maps since 02:21PM 7we are after lunch -- is that House District 33, which is present 02:21PM 8in the benchmark plan as the small orange district in the heart 02:21PM 9of Corpus Christi, which had a 60 percent Hispanic citizen voting 02:21PM 10age population, is removed in the state's plan. It is no longer 02:21PM 11there in the state's. 02:21PM 12

Can it be put back? Well, of course. And this is to 02:21PM 13answer the Court's question: Can we do exactly what's done in 02:21PM 14the benchmark: Preserve House Districts 33 and 34 as Latino 02:21PM 15opportunity districts and have the district represented by 02:21PM 16Mr. Hunter, House District 30, come into Nueces County? Yes. 02:21PM 17Does it break the county line? Yes. But is it possible and is 02:21PM 18it required? Yes. 02:22PM 19

There is also the failure to add the new seat in the 02:22PM 20Valley. Above is the House plan enacted by the State; below is 02:22PM 21just one of a multitude of ways to insert the additional 02:22PM 22district, which lies wholly in Cameron and Hidalgo Counties. 02:22PM 23

There is also another factor under Arlington Heights. 02:22PM 24JUDGE GRIFFITH: Do you have authority for this 02:22PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 14 of 104 14 of 104 sheets

14

proposition that when the County Line Rule or something like that 02:22PM 1gets in the way, that it -- that it falls, that we strike it 02:22PM 2down? 02:22PM 3

MS. PERALES: The Court has never directly confronted the 02:22PM 4County Line Rule, but has stated that there are other types of 02:22PM 5state redistricting requirements that may have to yield. Well, 02:22PM 6then, of course, the County Line Rule already yields in Texas to 02:22PM 7one person one vote, and that's why there's a split in the 02:22PM 8current plan. 02:22PM 9

The Court came very close to talking about this issue in 02:22PM 10its recent Bartlett decision, but sort of skates around it, 02:22PM 11although it does raise the issue and suggests that the County 02:22PM 12Line Rule in that case would have had to yield if there was, in 02:23PM 13fact, a Section 2 claim, but then the Court found that there 02:23PM 14wasn't a Section 2 claim. 02:23PM 15

JUDGE GRIFFITH: Thank you. 02:23PM 16MS. PERALES: With respect to the refusal to address 02:23PM 17

Voting Rights Act compliance or sort of place it in the 02:23PM 18forefront, although the state says that its redistricters did, we 02:23PM 19have a lot of evidence that redistricters really didn't. 02:23PM 20Mr. Interiano testified that he dropped in whole counties that 02:23PM 21were created by delegations without questioning whether they were 02:23PM 22complying with the Voting Rights Act. Chairman Solomons says he 02:23PM 23relied on his staff. Chairman Seliger says he relied on 02:23PM 24assurances from Chairman Solomons. And of course, the 02:23PM 25


15 of 104 sheets to 15 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

15

redistricters did not analyze the benchmark districts to see how 02:23PM 1many were ability to elect in the benchmark. That is 02:23PM 2Mr. Interiano's Day One afternoon testimony that I cite there. 02:23PM 3

Yes, they did run election analysis, but only after. 02:23PM 4Another indicia of racial purpose are the antlers in El 02:23PM 5

Paso, which create out of District 78 a district with less than 02:24PM 650 percent Spanish surname voter registration in a county that is 02:24PM 7more than 80 percent Hispanic. These antlers do not conform to 02:24PM 8whole precincts. In fact, they split 14 precincts. The antlers 02:24PM 9do not hug the mountain, as the State originally tried to 02:24PM 10suggest. The antlers do conform, however, to the concentration 02:24PM 11of non-Hispanic population in block groups in this area of El 02:24PM 12Paso County. 02:24PM 13

With respect to House District 117, it has been weakened 02:24PM 14so it now only elects three out of seven Latino preferred 02:24PM 15candidates. The Court has already heard how this District was 02:24PM 16pulled out of more politically engaged precincts in the south 02:24PM 17side of San Antonio. 02:24PM 18

One thing I wanted to highlight for the Court is that the 02:24PM 19Court has heard testimony that the difference between eligibility 02:24PM 20among Latino voters, Hispanic citizen voting age population and 02:24PM 21registration is typically about three to four points. House 02:24PM 22District 17 stands out as the district, now that it's been 02:25PM 23created by the state, with the greatest gap between voter 02:25PM 24eligibility and Spanish surname voter registration. That gap is 02:25PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 16 of 104 16 of 104 sheets

16

between 13 and 14 percentage points, which indicates on its face 02:25PM 1an area of very low Latino voter engagement when you see that 02:25PM 2kind of drop-off. 02:25PM 3

Here it is in the benchmark (indicating). It's the 02:25PM 4magenta district on the left. And you can see the district has 02:25PM 5been pulled out of the city and the more politically engaged 02:25PM 6Latino precincts and now dives down into southern Bexar County, 02:25PM 7where the court has heard about the communities of Somerset. 02:25PM 8

With respect to racial purpose, I think Representative 02:25PM 9Garza, the incumbent of that district, said it best when he said, 02:25PM 10"I wanted to get more Anglo numbers." This is from his 02:25PM 11deposition in this case. 02:25PM 12

With respect to United States Congress, again, the 02:25PM 13starting point is the extraordinary population growth of Latinos 02:25PM 14in the six existing Latino districts in South Texas, and 02:26PM 15certainly, the very obvious possibility of creating a seventh 02:26PM 16Latino opportunity district. In fact, the overpopulation was so 02:26PM 17great in the existing districts, they comprised three-quarters of 02:26PM 18an additional district that could have been made by simply going 02:26PM 19a little bit farther north. 02:26PM 20

I have so many things to say about Congressional 23 and no 02:26PM 21time, but only that the district was transformed so that it can 02:26PM 22now elect only one out of ten Latino preferred candidates. The 02:26PM 23Court has heard regarding the Opiela e-mail, which describes the 02:26PM 24method of choosing precincts that have the lowest Latino turnout 02:26PM 25


17 of 104 sheets to 17 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

17

to keep the facade, the shell perhaps, of a district. 02:26PM 1Mr. Downton testified that he knew he could be swapping precincts 02:26PM 2with lower turnout among Latinos. Mr. Interiano testified the 02:26PM 3result was achieved. Everybody knew that Mr. Canseco was not the 02:26PM 4candidate of choice except, perhaps, Chairman Seliger, who was 02:26PM 5really at a district from the Congressional redistricting. And 02:27PM 6Chairman Seliger helped out by saying that if he knew that the 02:27PM 7district could only elect one out of ten Latino preferred 02:27PM 8candidates, he would consider it a violation of the Voting Rights 02:27PM 9Act, but nobody ever told him that. 02:27PM 10

The state's analysis, however -- and I'd like to draw the 02:27PM 11Court's attention to the Office of the Attorney General's 02:27PM 12racially polarized voting analysis, which are these voting 02:27PM 13analyses that we've been discussing, shows that the estimates of 02:27PM 14turnout among Latino voters in the benchmark versus the state's 02:27PM 15new 23 shows fewer Latino voters casting votes in elections. 02:27PM 16

To the degree that the state claims it was attempting to 02:27PM 17protect a Hispanic republican, the state admits it never looked 02:27PM 18at the impact of these changes on the ability of a Hispanic 02:27PM 19republican to get nominated in the republican primary, which is a 02:27PM 20necessary element of running in the general election. 02:27PM 21

And Dr. Alford, although we didn't have time to cover it 02:27PM 22here, testified in the Perez case that he had a sense of déjà vu 02:27PM 23regarding the similarities between the changes in CD 23 from 02:28PM 24LULAC versus Perry to today, including the cut of an increasingly 02:28PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 18 of 104 18 of 104 sheets

18

mobilized and heavily Latino border county, the attempt to 02:28PM 1protect an incumbent who is not preferred by Latino voters, and 02:28PM 2that the changes were made at the expense of Latino voters, in 02:28PM 3this case reducing the actual number of Latino voters who would 02:28PM 4come out to vote. 02:28PM 5

With respect to 27, even though there is an offset that 02:28PM 6the state claims that it created to avoid retrogression, this 02:28PM 7does not insulate the state from a finding of racial purpose. 02:28PM 8And the truth is that removing Nueces County from the South Texas 02:28PM 9configuration not only deprives the Nueces County Latino voters, 02:28PM 10who have always been in a Latino majority district since the 02:28PM 11early 1980s, removes their ability to elect their candidate of 02:28PM 12choice; it also prevents the state from being able to create 02:28PM 13seven Latino opportunity districts in South Texas. 02:29PM 14

This is described -- 02:29PM 15JUDGE HOWELL: Ms. Perales, did you put in your brief -- I 02:29PM 16

know you're very short on time, but I'm very interested in this 02:29PM 17ripple effect. I think that Professor Ansolabehere talks about 02:29PM 18this ripple effect from the removal from Nueces County and how it 02:29PM 19affects all the districts moving west, and I would like somebody 02:29PM 20at some point to trace what that ripple effect is. 02:29PM 21

MS. PERALES: Absolutely. Yes, Your Honor. 02:29PM 22JUDGE HOWELL: You don't need to necessarily take up time 02:29PM 23

now unless you're planning to. 02:29PM 24MS. PERALES: You have assisted me to my next slides, Your 02:29PM 25


19 of 104 sheets to 19 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

19

Honor, which simply demonstrates that if you keep Nueces County, 02:29PM 1which is Latino majority and is in South Texas, in the 02:29PM 2configuration, it is -- Nueces County alone has the population of 02:29PM 3half of a Congressional District. When you keep that population 02:29PM 4of half a Congressional District in, it provides a great deal 02:29PM 5more population with which to work to create seven Latino 02:29PM 6opportunities districts or ability-to-elect districts. 02:30PM 7

In this case, this is just one of a number of proposals. 02:30PM 8Nueces County, or most of it, is in the configuration, I believe 02:30PM 9a little piece of it may be taken out to spare Mr. Farenthold 02:30PM 10from having to run in a district that he does not want to run in, 02:30PM 11but otherwise, you will see very healthy Latino citizen voting 02:30PM 12age numbers. And without Nueces County, this becomes much more 02:30PM 13difficult, and, in fact, one sees in the state's plan that 02:30PM 14Congressional District 23 simply doesn't have enough Latinos in 02:30PM 15it to function as an ability-to-elect district, and that is, in 02:30PM 16part, because Nueces County is taken out. 02:30PM 17

Finally, I could not end without the lightning bolt and a 02:30PM 18reference to it. This is an exhibit that we have produced, 02:30PM 19showing that the lightning bolt traces the outlines of the Latino 02:30PM 20community. The state has never offered a partisan justification 02:30PM 21for separating Latinos from African-Americans in this area of 02:30PM 22Dallas/Ft. Worth. This is purely and simply a racial 02:31PM 23gerrymander. In fact, I believe Mr. Hughes showed an exhibit of 02:31PM 24partisan voting patterns that showed a much larger block here of 02:31PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 20 of 104 20 of 104 sheets

20

what he claimed were democratic votes. 02:31PM 1What we see here is the separation of Latinos from 02:31PM 2

African-Americans. There is an e-mail from Mr. Downton, where he 02:31PM 3describes his attempts to keep the African-Americans separated 02:31PM 4from the Latinos in this lightning bolt. And I do have -- it is 02:31PM 59O3, Defense Exhibit 903. 02:31PM 6

Finally, with, hopefully -- is my remaining moment, I want 02:31PM 7to address this question of the partisan justification. It is 02:31PM 8unconstitutional to use race as a proxy for partisanship. The 02:31PM 9record in this case demonstrates that Latinos can vote for 02:31PM 10democrats and republicans, and that on the issues, maybe 02:31PM 11sometimes they would vote for a democrat and maybe sometimes for 02:32PM 12a republican. 02:32PM 13

But here, the redistricters consistently used race as a 02:32PM 14proxy for partisanship. Chairman Seliger testified that, 02:32PM 15although he knew Latinos could support a republican candidate in 02:32PM 16the general, frankly, he didn't want to draw a Latino opportunity 02:32PM 17district that was not required because he considered it just 02:32PM 18another democratic district, and he didn't want to do that. 02:32PM 19

The redistricters continuously in these materials in the 02:32PM 20case talk about republican districts and Hispanic districts, 02:32PM 21using race interchangeably with party. 02:32PM 22

And then finally, as the Court saw in the previous slide, 02:32PM 23you saw redistricters talking about race instead of partisanship. 02:32PM 24

Finally, the issue of Cromartie came up in LULAC versus 02:32PM 25


21 of 104 sheets to 21 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

21

Perry, and when we hashed it all out, frankly -- and we don't 02:32PM 1need to do it again -- first of all, the facts are different. 02:32PM 2Texas cannot show that Latinos vote uniformly for candidates of 02:32PM 3one party, which was the factual underpinning of Cromartie. What 02:33PM 4happened here is the same thing that happened in LULAC versus 02:33PM 5Perry. Texas redistricters relied on race and they used race to 02:33PM 6restrict, and then afterwards used partisanship as an excuse or 02:33PM 7as a pretext. 02:33PM 8

As I said, this issue has been covered and the Court 02:33PM 9addresses it in LULAC by saying that the state could not achieve 02:33PM 10its ends of incumbency protection for a non-Latino preferred 02:33PM 11candidate by depriving Latino voters of their ability to elect. 02:33PM 12

Thank you. 02:33PM 13JUDGE COLLYER: I have a question before you sit down. 02:33PM 14This follows up on a question that Judge Griffith asked 02:33PM 15

earlier, and it goes to -- this may be -- well, I don't know. It 02:33PM 16goes to the issue of purpose that we were grappling with with 02:33PM 17Mr. Hughes. 02:33PM 18

Do you have any law behind the proposition besides -- you 02:33PM 19cited some right here, so forgive me because you just cited 02:34PM 20law -- the issue is whether or not impact -- that is, the effect 02:34PM 21of something -- is, that -- as Judge Griffith said, in many 02:34PM 22instances, the Court is used to inferring intent from effect, but 02:34PM 23in this instance, the intent, effect, partisanship, minority 02:34PM 24standing seemed very -- all very close to each other. 02:34PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 22 of 104 22 of 104 sheets

22

So how do you suggest that we make that distinction 02:34PM 1between, Listen, it was straight partisanship; in the State of 02:34PM 2Texas anyway, no matter how Latinos may vote elsewhere, Latinos 02:34PM 3are democrats. I mean, Mr. Mortara said that in his opening 02:34PM 4statement. Well, you know, in Texas, that's just the way it is, 02:34PM 5and so if we slide once or twice, don't hold it against us 02:35PM 6because that's just the way it is. 02:35PM 7

So, how -- what would you suggest we use? How do we get 02:35PM 8our way through that analysis, from your perspective? 02:35PM 9

MS. PERALES: Your Honor, I would cite to Arlington 02:35PM 10Heights and also Garza versus L.A. County. It is still true that 02:35PM 11the impact is an element or a circumstantial indicator of intent, 02:35PM 12but I want to distinguish this case -- 02:35PM 13

JUDGE COLLYER: Is Garza a Section 2 or Section 5? 02:35PM 14MS. PERALES: It's a Fourteenth Amendment case, Your 02:35PM 15

Honor. 02:35PM 16JUDGE COLLYER: All right. 02:35PM 17MS. PERALES: But also, I would direct the Court not just 02:35PM 18

to the Supreme Court's decision in LULAC versus Perry, but in the 02:35PM 19District Court's decision below, where the District Court relied 02:35PM 20on Feeney to say that, although the redistricters were aware of 02:35PM 21the impact on Latino voters when they dismantled Congressional 02:35PM 22District 23, that was sort of a -- it wasn't "because of, not in 02:35PM 23spite of," and forgive the double negative. And the Supreme 02:35PM 24Court squarely rejected that. 02:36PM 25


23 of 104 sheets to 23 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

23

And also, Your Honor, I would raise that here, the facts 02:36PM 1are not simply, for example, that Mr. Downton was looking at 02:36PM 2partisan performance when he was making his changes to 02:36PM 3Congressional District 23. He used race. He testified that he 02:36PM 4had Spanish surname voter registration on the whole time that he 02:36PM 5was swapping precincts in and out of Congressional District 23. 02:36PM 6He used race to very carefully and cynically sculpt a district 02:36PM 7that would appear to be a Latino opportunity district, but in 02:36PM 8fact could not elect a Latino preferred candidate. 02:36PM 9

And it's that consciousness of race, Your Honor, that I 02:36PM 10think moves this well beyond a case where there may be a fine 02:36PM 11line between pursuing a partisan goal and a racial one. 02:36PM 12

JUDGE HOWELL: Are you saying that the state's use and 02:36PM 13reliance, very heavily, on SSVR is, in fact, evidence that we can 02:36PM 14also rely on in evaluating its purpose? 02:37PM 15

MS. PERALES: Yes, Your Honor. Spanish surname voter 02:37PM 16registration is what everybody uses to indicate Latino voters, 02:37PM 17and so the percent SSVR of a precinct is the percent of 02:37PM 18registered Latino voters. It indicates nothing else, and it 02:37PM 19indicates nothing about political behavior. It is as if one were 02:37PM 20turning on the race shading, except Mr. Downton was shading for 02:37PM 21Spanish surname voter registration, and he was also watching for 02:37PM 22election performance. 02:37PM 23

JUDGE COLLYER: Thank you very much. 02:37PM 24MS. PERALES: Thank you. 02:37PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 24 of 104 24 of 104 sheets

24

JUDGE COLLYER: Who's going to talk next? 02:37PM 1MR. VERA: Luis Vera, Your Honors, for the League of 02:38PM 2

United Latin American Citizens. 02:38PM 3I want to answer that last question -- 02:38PM 4JUDGE COLLYER: Maybe you can -- excuse me. 02:38PM 5Maybe you can give a copy to the court reporter so that he 02:38PM 6

can take things down quickly, but when push comes to shove, he'll 02:38PM 7know what you were talking about. 02:38PM 8

MR. VERA: Yes, Your Honor. 02:38PM 9JUDGE COLLYER: Go right ahead. 02:38PM 10MR. VERA: The last question you asked was how do you 02:38PM 11

answer that question. Here's a ten-page partial list of all the 02:38PM 12cases that have -- not all, just a partial list, ten pages, one 02:38PM 13after the other, of the cases that have been litigated, not only 02:38PM 14Section 2, but Section 5, and the DOJ objections. 02:38PM 15

The Voting Rights Act is what, roughly 40 years old. In 02:38PM 16the first 25 years, almost exclusively, the cases were against 02:38PM 17the state-controlled democratic -- where the party controlled the 02:38PM 18State of Texas. Last 20 years or a little bit less, or somewhere 02:38PM 19around that part, now the republican party totally controls the 02:38PM 20State of Texas. But yet in the process, the Latino community and 02:39PM 21African community -- African-American community we're always 02:39PM 22having to fight for what one party does or the other. That's how 02:39PM 23you answer your question. 02:39PM 24

Mr. Interiano and all those people that took the stand and 02:39PM 25


25 of 104 sheets to 25 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

25

said this was not about intent -- it's a question of credibility. 02:39PM 1We've got 40 years of constant racial discrimination and 02:39PM 2intentional discrimination against the State of Texas, and it's 02:39PM 3always been the same argument. 02:39PM 4

Look at those cases. If you get the objections that were 02:39PM 5filed by DOJ, when it was a democratic party, they used the same 02:39PM 6argument: We're trying to defeat republicans. Now, the 02:39PM 7republicans have it: We're trying to defeat democrats. But it 02:39PM 8was always the Latinos and the blacks that were excluded. We've 02:39PM 9always been cracked, packed and stacked to keep the Latino 02:39PM 10community and the African-American community from electing 02:40PM 11candidates of our choice. 02:40PM 12

They always craft these ways to do it. But why are we 02:40PM 13always standing here in the same spot? The vast majority of the 02:40PM 14cases that you see on there were LULAC and MALDEF. Mrs. Perales 02:40PM 15has been involved in a number of these cases. José Garza, in 02:40PM 16representing LULAC, did a number of these cases. George Korbel, 02:40PM 17who you met in this courtroom, and who testified as an expert in 02:40PM 18Section 2, logged three and a half hours of testimony -- were all 02:40PM 19about this area. 02:40PM 20

They can call it whatever they want to, but why is it the 02:40PM 21Latino community and the African-American community, who has 02:40PM 22to -- how did Jose put it in the Section 2 trial -- "at the backs 02:40PM 23of the Latino community"? They get what they want when we lose. 02:40PM 24

There's a Maverick County, that I live in the 23rd 02:40PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 26 of 104 26 of 104 sheets

26

Congressional District. I live in South San Antonio, and the 02:41PM 1Section 2 trial talks about that. They cut Maverick County in 02:41PM 2half and removed all of the south side in San Antonio, the two 02:41PM 3highest performing Latino districts in the 23rd, and replaced 02:41PM 4them with counties whose performance was so low, it was almost 02:41PM 5nonexistent, but yet the populations were the same. 02:41PM 6

What they did to Senator Wendy Davis -- that's why we got 02:41PM 7involved. Because who was removed from the district? Latinos 02:41PM 8and blacks. Not white Anglos. Latinos and blacks. 02:41PM 9

Travis County, same thing. Travis County is what, the 02:41PM 10sixth, seventh largest city (sic) in Texas, yet they were chopped 02:41PM 11up into five Congressional Districts. Look at the map. You can 02:41PM 12see it yourself. You've got a district coming out of -- right 02:41PM 13outside of downtown Houston, going to Austin. Dallas to Austin, 02:41PM 14Fort Worth to Austin, two districts from San Antonio, under their 02:41PM 15map, going to Austin, and every one of them chopping up the black 02:42PM 16and Latino communities. 02:42PM 17

This is what this -- it's about credibility. You're going 02:42PM 18to -- map drawer for the first time in the State of Texas versus 02:42PM 1940 years of discrimination. 02:42PM 20

I yield the rest of my time, Your Honors, to Mr. Davis, 02:42PM 21who will argue, I believe, successfully for Senator Wendy Davis, 02:42PM 22and Mr. Devaney will argue for Travis County. 02:42PM 23

Thank you very much. 02:42PM 24JUDGE COLLYER: Thank you very much. 02:42PM 25


27 of 104 sheets to 27 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

27

Mr. Devaney, you're coming next. 02:42PM 1MR. DEVANEY: Thank you, Your Honor. If I could have one 02:42PM 2

minute to get situated. 02:42PM 3JUDGE COLLYER: You can. And you got an extra minute from 02:42PM 4

Mr. Vera, out of the goodness of his heart.02:43PM 5MR. VERA: Oh, there's an extra minute? 02:43PM 6JUDGE COLLYER: There's an extra minute.02:43PM 7And the passion of his soul.02:43PM 8MR. DEVANEY: Okay. Thank you. 02:43PM 9Good afternoon, Your Honors. First, let me begin by 02:43PM 10

thanking all of you and all of your staff for extraordinary 02:43PM 11public service. I think all counsel would say that. We know 02:43PM 12that you've been working harder than we have, because you have 02:43PM 13other cases to juggle, and we really appreciate everyone in this 02:43PM 14room's commitment, and the staff of yours who are not here, 02:43PM 15because we know everyone's been working very hard in this 02:43PM 16exhausting case. 02:43PM 17

I will be addressing just the Congressional plan, and I 02:43PM 18want to make three fundamental points. The first is to provide 02:43PM 19some broad factual context for this case. The second is to 02:43PM 20summarize some of the evidence going to discriminatory purpose. 02:43PM 21And the third is to address retrogression, and in particular, the 02:43PM 22effect of CD 25 on the retrogression analysis. 02:43PM 23

I hope to demonstrate, and think the evidence has 02:43PM 24demonstrated, that if you do what Judge Howell calls simple math, 02:43PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 28 of 104 28 of 104 sheets

28

we can establish retrogression, because when you include CD 25, 02:44PM 1which is clearly a minority ability district, it's 11 minus 10, 02:44PM 2and that's the end of the story. So in absolute numbers, we have 02:44PM 3retrogression. 02:44PM 4

So, let me begin, if I could, by just pointing to some of 02:44PM 5the overarching statistics that provide a backdrop for this case. 02:44PM 6And my poster board is a little bit hard to read, but what you'll 02:44PM 7see there is that Texas added 4.3 million people since 2000, and 02:44PM 8of those, 2.8 million are Hispanic, 526,000 are black, and 02:44PM 9457,000 are white. The Hispanic population increased by 02:44PM 1042 percent, black population by 23 percent, and the white 02:44PM 11population by only 4.1 percent. 02:44PM 12

If Hispanics had grown at the same rate as whites, Texas 02:44PM 13actually would have lost seats in Congress instead of gaining 02:44PM 14four seats. So, one would logically pull back from that and say, 02:44PM 15Boy, I'd sure expect to see more minority ability districts. 02:45PM 16It's pretty clear. 02:45PM 17

So what do we see instead? Well, C185 decreases minority 02:45PM 18ability districts, as I said, from 11 to 10. It decreases the 02:45PM 19number of minority ability districts from 34 percent to 02:45PM 2028 percent. And what's really the worst thing about all this is 02:45PM 21we're talking about real life here. We've got almost 800,000 02:45PM 22blacks and Hispanics who've lost the ability to elect candidates 02:45PM 23of their choice. And that's the real tragedy in all this. We 02:45PM 24talk about statistics, we talk about -- 02:45PM 25


29 of 104 sheets to 29 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

29

JUDGE COLLYER: So the record is clear, it's 780,000. Is 02:45PM 1that what you said? 02:45PM 2

MR. DEVANEY: I think I said "nearly 800,000." 02:45PM 3JUDGE COLLYER: I'm sorry. I thought you said "18,000." 02:45PM 4MR. DEVANEY: Oh, I didn't -- maybe I did. 02:45PM 5JUDGE COLLYER: I'm not sure, but anyway, "nearly 800" is 02:45PM 6

perfectly fine. 02:45PM 7MR. DEVANEY: And while we're on that point, 02:45PM 8

Dr. Ansolabehere testified last week that these numbers are 02:46PM 9actually understated because they're based on, really, 2007 data 02:46PM 10that all the experts in this case used. He talked about ACS data 02:46PM 11and how recently, new data that basically are for 2008 came out. 02:46PM 12Those data show significant growth, and in particular, Hispanic 02:46PM 13population. 02:46PM 14

So, when I say nearly 800,000, it's actually more than 02:46PM 15that who have lost their political voice. So that's the 02:46PM 16backdrop. And this Court has recognized that statistics of this 02:46PM 17type are important evidence of both improper effect and 02:46PM 18potentially racially discriminatory purpose. 02:46PM 19

Now, I want to turn now to the issue of purpose. 02:46PM 20Your Honors asked, Well, how do we distinguish between 02:46PM 21

whether this is just racial or whether it's partisan? And I 02:46PM 22would submit that you begin with these statistics, which create, 02:46PM 23in my view anyway, a pretty strong presumption that something is 02:47PM 24amiss here. 02:47PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 30 of 104 30 of 104 sheets

30

And when we look, what else do we have? We have lots of 02:47PM 1evidence, and I'll try not to duplicate what others have talked 02:47PM 2about. But we have, for example, the process by which the 02:47PM 3Congressional map was adopted. You'll recall testimony about 02:47PM 4public hearings at which no maps were presented, so no minority 02:47PM 5can show up and say, I'm concerned about how you're drawing this 02:47PM 6district. There was no opportunity to do that. 02:47PM 7

Not only was the public excluded from commenting on maps, 02:47PM 8but representatives in the Texas Legislature were excluded. 02:47PM 9

I found particularly compelling the testimony of Dawnna 02:47PM 10Dukes, not just because she was my own witness, but because of 02:47PM 11what she had to say. Also, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. 02:47PM 12

You'll recall how Representative Dukes talked about how 02:47PM 13she didn't learn about the map until a Friday, two days before it 02:47PM 14was adopted. On the very day she learned about the map and saw 02:48PM 15how CD 25 had literally been ripped apart, as Mr. Vera just 02:48PM 16described, into five different districts, she -- a rule change 02:48PM 17was implemented that said, If you have any objections to this 02:48PM 18map, get them in in 48 hours. 02:48PM 19

So you'll recall, she toiled over the weekend, worked 02:48PM 20ceaselessly to come up with a proposed map that addressed her 02:48PM 21concerns, that put CD 25 back together, that added a minority 02:48PM 22opportunity district in Dallas/Ft. Worth and one in Hidalgo 02:48PM 23County, and she prepared it on that Monday, and it was 02:48PM 24immediately tabled, which is another way, in legislative speak, 02:48PM 25


31 of 104 sheets to 31 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

31

of being thrown into the trash bin. It wasn't debated seriously. 02:48PM 1It wasn't considered seriously. She never had a chance to 02:48PM 2participate in this process. 02:48PM 3

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee -- I had heard her 02:48PM 4testimony before and I was sitting in the back of the room. I 02:48PM 5was just frankly stunned to hear her say that she traveled from 02:48PM 6D.C. down to Austin to meet with legislators to say how important 02:49PM 7CD 18 is to her, how important it is to have that business 02:49PM 8district in her downtown. She talked about the Fourth Ward and 02:49PM 9the Freedmen's District. And they never contacted her. 02:49PM 10

She too, just like Representative Dukes, hears of the map 02:49PM 11on the eve that it's voted upon. And she discovers to her horror 02:49PM 12not only that the downtown business district had been stripped 02:49PM 13out, but also that her Congressional office has been removed from 02:49PM 14her district. And she, I thought in very compelling terms, 02:49PM 15talked about how that is home for some people. When they have 02:49PM 16needs, they go to that district office. 02:49PM 17

The only district offices that were removed from any of 02:49PM 18these districts were the district offices of minorities. That 02:49PM 19speaks volumes. And again, it brings to life what's really 02:49PM 20happening here. It's not just statistics. These are people who 02:49PM 21have needs, and this result has really undermined their needs. 02:49PM 22

I won't talk about CD 23, but the e-mail that we've all 02:49PM 23focused on speaks for itself. 02:50PM 24

I will say that, with respect to Nueces County, in 02:50PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 32 of 104 32 of 104 sheets

32

response to Judge Howell's question earlier, we certainly will 02:50PM 1address in our post-hearing brief the ripple effect that 02:50PM 2Dr. Ansolabehere establishes in his testimony. 02:50PM 3

Another thing that did happen with the treatment of Nueces 02:50PM 4County is moving those 240,000 Hispanics to the north, losing 02:50PM 5their political voice, made it much more difficult to create 02:50PM 6another district in South Texas. That is one of the ripple 02:50PM 7effects. 02:50PM 8

And then also -- and I'm about to conclude on purpose and 02:50PM 9move to CD 25, but as we set forth in our summary judgment 02:50PM 10papers, there's also a glaring disparate treatment in the form 02:50PM 11of -- as we talked about, line drawing to protect country clubs, 02:51PM 12line drawing to protect grandbabies' high school or grammar 02:51PM 13school. You'll recall two. 02:51PM 14

In Travis County, there's a county to the west that was 02:51PM 15kept whole, a white rural county, in contrast, as Dawnna Dukes 02:51PM 16testified, to the slashing apart of the five districts in eastern 02:51PM 17Travis County where the minorities live. So you've got that 02:51PM 18contrast.02:51PM 19

In response to a request for Hilderbran, Representative 02:51PM 20Hilderbran, a white Anglo representative. He said, Please keep 02:51PM 21my rural county whole. Well, they sure did. But then, just 02:51PM 22right next door, they chopped up the minority communities into 02:51PM 23five districts. Again, this is just clear disparate treatment of 02:51PM 24minority versus Anglo representatives who were involved in this 02:51PM 25


33 of 104 sheets to 33 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

33

process. 02:51PM 1Turning now to CD 25, this Court, in its summary judgment 02:51PM 2

decision, properly recognizes that minority ability coalition 02:52PM 3districts are protected under Section 5. Texas, it's very clear, 02:52PM 4in conducting its map drawing in this case assumed that coalition 02:52PM 5districts are not protected. It never did an analysis to 02:52PM 6identify where there might be coalition districts that are 02:52PM 7performing and, therefore, they're not included in the benchmark, 02:52PM 8and they weren't treated as protected in the proposed Plan C185. 02:52PM 9

We know that CD 25 is minority performing because, number 02:52PM 10one, Dr. Alford admitted it. He said in response to my 02:52PM 11questions, I think last Thursday, "Isn't it true that CD 25 is a 02:52PM 12minority performing district in the general election?" And he 02:52PM 13said, "Yes." 02:52PM 14

Dr. Ansolabehere provides detailed analysis of elections 02:52PM 15in CD 25 that show that Congressman Lloyd Doggett has been the 02:52PM 16candidate of choice of blacks and Hispanics overwhelmingly in the 02:53PM 17last two elections, not just in the general election, but also in 02:53PM 18the primary. 02:53PM 19

There's this whole issue of, Well, we just look at 02:53PM 20primaries. Well, number one, as I think we established in the 02:53PM 21bench memo we provided to the Court, that's not the law. There's 02:53PM 22plenty of law that says you look at general elections as well. 02:53PM 23And if you look at -- 02:53PM 24

JUDGE COLLYER: Excuse me. You filed that on CM/ECF, as 02:53PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 34 of 104 34 of 104 sheets

34

well as handed it in to us, did you not? 02:53PM 1MR. DEVANEY: Yes, we did. 02:53PM 2JUDGE COLLYER: Thank you. 02:53PM 3MR. DEVANEY: Yes, we did, Your Honor.02:53PM 4So first of all, as a matter of law, it's just wrong. 02:53PM 5

Judge Higginbotham himself, from the Fourth Circuit, who 02:53PM 6Mr. Mortara knows very well -- 02:53PM 7

MR. MORTARA: Fifth Circuit.02:53PM 8MR. DEVANEY: Fifth Circuit. Thank you, thank you.02:53PM 9-- speaks of the importance of general elections. And 02:53PM 10

again, if you look at Dr. Ansolabehere's analysis, the election 02:53PM 11results provided by David Escamilla, the Travis County City 02:53PM 12Attorney -- we have prefiled testimony from him -- and the 02:54PM 13testimony of Dawnna Dukes, you see repeatedly that blacks and 02:54PM 14Hispanics align in primaries and in general elections to elect 02:54PM 15candidates of their choice in Travis County and in Congressional 02:54PM 16District 25. 02:54PM 17

Dawnna Dukes testified that Travis Countians, for lack of 02:54PM 18a better description, love to say, "Keep Austin weird." Well, 02:54PM 19Austin is kind of weird. It's different from the rest of Texas, 02:54PM 20but in a really beautiful way. It's a place where blacks, 02:54PM 21Hispanics and whites come together in almost a colorblind way to 02:54PM 22elect candidates of the minority's choice. And it's really kind 02:54PM 23of a shining example of how democracy ought to work.02:54PM 24

And what happened to it here? It's been destroyed. It 02:54PM 25


35 of 104 sheets to 35 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

35

has been destroyed by ripping apart CD 25 into five districts. 02:54PM 1Dawnna Dukes testified how you could drive several miles up the 02:54PM 2east side and you cross district lines nine different times, it's 02:54PM 3been so chopped up. So -- 02:55PM 4

JUDGE HOWELL: But how do you address the Justice 02:55PM 5Department's view that because of the lack of racially polarized 02:55PM 6voting, if I understand that argument correctly, the Voting 02:55PM 7Rights Act doesn't protect that district? 02:55PM 8

MR. DEVANEY: The only way the Voting Rights Act could not 02:55PM 9protect that district, Your Honor, is if somehow, there had been 02:55PM 10a bailout. There has to be a formal legal proceeding that 02:55PM 11removals a district from Section 5. In fact, Section 5 covers 02:55PM 12all of Texas as a matter of law, and so Travis County, CD 25, is 02:55PM 13covered, just like every other jurisdiction in Texas. 02:55PM 14

JUDGE HOWELL: Well, that much I know, but -- 02:55PM 15MR. DEVANEY: I want to be sure I answer your question. 02:55PM 16JUDGE HOWELL: I mean, as I understood it, the Justice 02:55PM 17

Department's view of CD 25 is there's no racially polarized 02:55PM 18voting there, so -- 02:55PM 19

Am I correct on that? 02:55PM 20MR. DEVANEY: My understanding of their view is that, 02:56PM 21

first, they did say -- and it's a minority performing district. 02:56PM 22Two, that it's minority performing because you have a coalition 02:56PM 23of black, Hispanic and white crossover voters that join together 02:56PM 24to elect candidates of minorities' choice. 02:56PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 36 of 104 36 of 104 sheets

36

That is what I heard Mr. Mellett say this morning. And -- 02:56PM 1have I -- I feel like I'm not answering your question. Is 02:56PM 2there -- 02:56PM 3

JUDGE HOWELL: Well, I just think -- that's okay. I don't 02:56PM 4want to take up too much of your time. I'll figure it out. 02:56PM 5

MR. DEVANEY: My point is that you all have ruled that 02:56PM 6coalition districts are protected under Section 5. We have 02:56PM 7established through undisputed evidence that CD 25 is a minority 02:56PM 8performing coalition district. There is no contrary evidence in 02:56PM 9the record that shows -- to contest our point that blacks and 02:56PM 10Hispanics join together to elect candidates of their choice in 02:56PM 11that district. 02:56PM 12

And so -- 02:56PM 13JUDGE COLLYER: You have three minutes. 02:57PM 14MR. DEVANEY: Thank you. 02:57PM 15JUDGE COLLYER: You have a wealth of time. 02:57PM 16MR. DEVANEY: Okay. So, again, back to retrogression. 02:57PM 17We have retrogression in terms of raw numbers, 11 to 10. 02:57PM 18

We have it in terms of percentages, going from 34 to 28 percent. 02:57PM 19And we have it in terms of lost voters, just literally 800,000 or 02:57PM 20probably more. 02:57PM 21

And the final point I want to make -- and it's a little 02:57PM 22bit corny, but I'll make it anyway. I just want to come back to 02:57PM 23what this is all about, the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 02:57PM 24

"The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by 02:57PM 25


37 of 104 sheets to 37 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

37

man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls 02:57PM 1which imprison men because they are different from other men." 02:57PM 2President Johnson, on the day the Voting Rights Act was passed in 02:57PM 31965. 02:57PM 4

And when we hear someone like Sheila Jackson Lee testify 02:58PM 5about the importance of a home -- the Congressional district, 02:58PM 6going to a place where you can have your needs met, it's exactly 02:58PM 7what President Johnson was talking about. And what's happened in 02:58PM 8this case is those homes have been destroyed, which takes me to 02:58PM 9my corny quote, which is Harper Lee from To Kill a Mockingbird. 02:58PM 10I know this Court doesn't need a lecture on its role, but I just 02:58PM 11couldn't resist. And I know you know Harper Lee is not binding 02:58PM 12on this Court, but I will say it's a wonderful quote. 02:58PM 13

I'll just focus on the last part, which says: "Our courts 02:58PM 14have their faults" -- not this Court, of course -- "as does any 02:58PM 15human institution, but in this country, our courts are the great 02:58PM 16levelers. In our courts, all men are created equal." 02:58PM 17

And I use that to ask you to strike down Plan C185 in all 02:58PM 18respects. The plan's infected with purposeful discrimination. 02:58PM 19It's retrogressive. It should not be used for any purpose. It 02:59PM 20should not be picked apart, some parts saved, some parts thrown 02:59PM 21away. It should be entirely discarded because it's infected with 02:59PM 22purpose. 02:59PM 23

JUDGE COLLYER: Okay. Your argument is well presented, 02:59PM 24but let me ask you: In light of the admonition of the Supreme 02:59PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 38 of 104 38 of 104 sheets

38

Court recently -- oh, so recently -- aren't we really supposed to 02:59PM 1look at this plan -- these plans with some amount of deference to 02:59PM 2the state legislature, and identify those areas, those districts 02:59PM 3where there are problems, rather than say the whole thing is out? 02:59PM 4

MR. DEVANEY: Your Honor, I think a court, drawing a 02:59PM 5remedial plan under the Supreme Court's decision, may look to 02:59PM 6legislative intent and what the legislature did if what the 02:59PM 7legislature did is lawful. And I think if you read the Supreme 02:59PM 8Court decision carefully, that's a very important caveat. 03:00PM 9

JUDGE COLLYER: I don't disagree with that. And maybe my 03:00PM 10question should be framed a little better. 03:00PM 11

There are districts, few as they may be, in the State of 03:00PM 12Texas, in the House or the Congressional plans, certainly in the 03:00PM 13Senate plan, which have not been the subject of contest here. So 03:00PM 14let's say the Senate plan -- should we really throw the entire 03:00PM 15Senate plan out when what's been contested -- I'll let Mr. Hebert 03:00PM 16speak -- is Senate District 10? 03:00PM 17

I grant you, if you're going redo Senate District 10, you 03:00PM 18have to redo more geography than just Senate District 10. But if 03:00PM 19we were to identify Senate District 10 as the problem, don't we 03:00PM 20then let it go back to the state to figure out, what are we going 03:00PM 21to do about that? 03:00PM 22

MR. DEVANEY: I'll answer your question in two parts. 03:01PM 23First, with respect to Senate District 10 -- and I've not been 03:01PM 24involved in the Senate plan -- 03:01PM 25


39 of 104 sheets to 39 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

39

JUDGE COLLYER: No, no. It's only an example. 03:01PM 1MR. DEVANEY: -- but I think I can still answer that, and 03:01PM 2

then I'll go to the Congressional plan. 03:01PM 3The broad answer is if you have racial purpose that 03:01PM 4

infects all three plans, you can't use any of the plans, because 03:01PM 5how do you determine whether -- just pick a number -- District 9 03:01PM 6isn't infected by purpose while District 13 is? It just becomes 03:01PM 7a morass, and to try to pull it apart and identify districts that 03:01PM 8aren't infected by purpose and those that are seems to me to be 03:01PM 9an impossible task, and that if you find purpose, you can't use 03:01PM 10the map for any reason. 03:01PM 11

And then I would move to the Congressional map and answer 03:01PM 12your question a little more specifically. And this gets back to 03:01PM 13Judge Howell's question about the ripple effect in Nueces, as an 03:01PM 14example. 03:02PM 15

You have ripple effects all over that map. And tearing 03:02PM 16apart CD 25, in moving Hispanics from Nueces County up north, in 03:02PM 17making believe that CD 23 is, say, a minority ability district 03:02PM 18when we all know it's not -- all of those decisions ripple 03:02PM 19throughout that map. And particularly with respect to the 03:02PM 20Congressional map, I don't see any way that you could save a 03:02PM 21district here and save a district there, because the ripple 03:02PM 22effects are enormous. 03:02PM 23

JUDGE COLLYER: Thank you, sir. 03:02PM 24MR. DEVANEY: Thank you very much. 03:02PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 40 of 104 40 of 104 sheets

40

JUDGE COLLYER: Thank you. 03:02PM 1And who goes next? Ms. Riggs? 03:02PM 2MS. RIGGS: Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Allison 03:02PM 3

Riggs on behalf of the NAACP defendant intervenors. May it 03:02PM 4please the Court. 03:02PM 5

As Your Honors know -- 03:02PM 6JUDGE COLLYER: Did you want 15 minutes? 03:02PM 7MS. RIGGS: 15. Yes, please. 03:03PM 8As Your Honors know, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act 03:03PM 9

was designed to prevent jurisdictions like Texas, although added 03:03PM 10after the initial passage, from creatively attempting to 03:03PM 11undermine minority electoral success. Texas has not met its 03:03PM 12burden in this case of proving that the enactment of the 03:03PM 13Congressional State House and State Senate plans were enacted 03:03PM 14without racially discriminatory intent and without retrogressive 03:03PM 15effect. 03:03PM 16

I'd first like to address the state's enacted 03:03PM 17Congressional plan. Again, this has already been discussed, but 03:03PM 1811 ability to elects in the benchmark district; you have a decade 03:03PM 19with enormous population growth, 90 percent of which was minority 03:03PM 20population growth; four new Congressional seats, and you have ten 03:03PM 21ability-to-elect districts in the new plan. 03:03PM 22

What the State did to Congressional Districts 9, 18 and 30 03:03PM 23demonstrates the persistent efforts of the conservative Anglo 03:04PM 24leadership in Texas, regardless of party affiliation -- used to 03:04PM 25


41 of 104 sheets to 41 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

41

be democrats doing it, now its republicans -- but the persistent 03:04PM 1efforts on the state to deny African-Americans and minority 03:04PM 2voters the ability to fully participate in the political process. 03:04PM 3

Congressional District 9 in the benchmark plan needed only 03:04PM 4minor changes to bring it within the equal population mandate. 03:04PM 5But Congressman Green testified about the surgical and major 03:04PM 6revisions done to his district to pull out his district office, 03:04PM 7to pull out important economic generators, like the Astrodome, 03:04PM 8the medical center and the rail line, and adding areas to the 03:04PM 9district that are very likely to see development of upper middle 03:04PM 10class Anglo populations over the next decade. 03:04PM 11

The loss of significant economic generators deprives 03:04PM 12minority voters in that district of the full ability to 03:04PM 13participate in the political process and to recognize the 03:04PM 14benefits of their vote, and it deprives the representative the 03:05PM 15ability to leverage those assets for the benefit of voters in the 03:05PM 16district. 03:05PM 17

Congressional District 18 fared no better. Again, this 03:05PM 18district was barely overpopulated and needed only minor changes. 03:05PM 19The downtown area, part of this district since its creation, and 03:05PM 20since held by Barbara Jordan, was removed from the district, 03:05PM 21again depriving voters in that district of the important economic 03:05PM 22benefits they gain from exercising their ability to elect 03:05PM 23candidates of choice. 03:05PM 24

Historic African-American communities, like the Third Ward 03:05PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 42 of 104 42 of 104 sheets

42

and the McGregor Area, were splintered. And this is what I find 03:05PM 1interesting. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee went to -- not 03:05PM 2only went to the committee chairs, but went to a public hearing 03:05PM 3before maps were introduced and begged decision makers to respect 03:05PM 4these communities of interest, what they meant to voters in that 03:05PM 5district. This wasn't the congresswoman going, Oh, gee, golly, 03:05PM 6I'd really like to have a country club in my district. This was 03:06PM 7her advocating for the communities that she represents. 03:06PM 8

This is evidence that these issues were raised in front of 03:06PM 9the decision makers, and these communities of interest were 03:06PM 10completely disregarded and fractured despite her efforts to see 03:06PM 11them protected. 03:06PM 12

When we look at Congressional District 30, the suspicious 03:06PM 13pattern continues. Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson had her 03:06PM 14district office and her home removed from the district. She had 03:06PM 15submitted a plan that created new minority electoral 03:06PM 16opportunities in the area and preserved her district, maintaining 03:06PM 17the district office, the economic generators, including Love 03:06PM 18Field, and her home within the office (sic), and that was 03:06PM 19rejected. The state packed minority voters into that district in 03:06PM 20order to avoid creating a new minority district in Dallas/Ft. 03:06PM 21Worth. 03:07PM 22

And the level of these economic generators is also 03:07PM 23interesting because it doesn't generally involve a lot of 03:07PM 24population. I mean, these are business areas, stadium areas, air 03:07PM 25


43 of 104 sheets to 43 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

43

fields, rail lines. So why are they being removed when there's 03:07PM 1no population there? And the state hasn't offered any 03:07PM 2explanations for this. 03:07PM 3

Mr. Interiano suggested that all of this was coincidence, 03:07PM 4that each African-American member of Congress and no one else had 03:07PM 5these economic generators and district offices removed, but no 03:07PM 6one else. And coincidence is the explanation of the man that 03:07PM 7Texas has pegged its entire case on his credibility. 03:07PM 8

Next, the destruction of Congressional District 25 in the 03:07PM 9state's enacted plan was motivated by discriminatory intent and 03:07PM 10had a retrogressive effect on minority voters in Travis County. 03:07PM 11I don't want to repeat what Mr. Devaney so eloquently said, but 03:07PM 12there is a substantial and historic African-American community in 03:07PM 13Travis County that has been working in coalition with other 03:08PM 14voters in that area for decades. And we've heard from Dawnna 03:08PM 15Dukes; we also designated testimony from the Section 2 trial and 03:08PM 16declarations from the Section 2 trial that we'll go over in 03:08PM 17detail. 03:08PM 18

JUDGE HOWELL: Ms. Riggs, just so I can understand the 03:08PM 19numbers, when the Department of Justice says to the Western 03:08PM 20District of Texas there were 11 ability districts -- or there 03:08PM 21should be at least 11 ability districts in any interim plan, 03:08PM 22they're talking -- the 11th is because of their proportionality 03:08PM 23analysis. 03:08PM 24

When you talk about the 11 districts in the benchmark 03:08PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 44 of 104 44 of 104 sheets

44

plan, you're including CD 25, by contrast to the Justice 03:08PM 1Department. Do I have that right? 03:08PM 2

THE WITNESS: Yes, yes. The NAACP believes that 03:08PM 3Congressman Doggett, who represents CD 25, is the candidate of 03:08PM 4choice of African-American and minority voters in that District. 03:08PM 5I point you to the NAACP report card, which is Defense 03:08PM 6Exhibit 572. Congressman Doggett consistently receives A's, and 03:09PM 7this is a rating that talks about the issues and how 03:09PM 8Congresspeople vote on those issues that are of concern to 03:09PM 9minority voters in the area. 03:09PM 10

But again, the loss of a responsive candidate of choice, 03:09PM 11the fracturing, intentional fracturing of this historic community 03:09PM 12that -- again, in post-trial briefing, I'll point you to these 03:09PM 13declarations and the designations from the Section 2 trial to 03:09PM 14really describe the vibrance of this community in East Austin 03:09PM 15that's been devastated, and the other ways in which they've 03:09PM 16worked together to elect candidates of choice of different racial 03:09PM 17and ethnic backgrounds. They care about who's responsive to 03:09PM 18their needs, not the race of the person elected. And again -- 03:09PM 19and intentionally deprived of that ability. 03:09PM 20

Finally, on the enacted Congressional plan, the decision 03:09PM 21by the state to create no new minority opportunity districts 03:10PM 22despite the allocation of four Congressional -- additional 03:10PM 23Congressional seats for the state is strong evidence of the 03:10PM 24state's discriminatory intent. Almost every minority voting 03:10PM 25


45 of 104 sheets to 45 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

45

rights group in Texas presented the state legislature with 03:10PM 1options for a Congressional map that created at least one, if not 03:10PM 2two new minority opportunity districts in Dallas/Ft. Worth. 03:10PM 3

Dallas and Tarrant County is a part of the state where the 03:10PM 4Anglo population dramatically decreased, but the African-American 03:10PM 5and Latino population in both counties dramatically increased. 03:10PM 6And so a number of us that are sitting at this table submitted to 03:10PM 7the court in San Antonio maps that created two additional 03:10PM 8minority opportunity districts in Dallas/Ft. Worth. 03:10PM 9

And even Congressman Lamar Smith urged insiders at the 03:10PM 10state legislature to put a new minority opportunity district in 03:10PM 11Dallas/Ft. Worth -- a republican Congressman. This is not a 03:10PM 12partisan issue. It's about keeping minority voters in their 03:11PM 13place, limiting the impact of their population growth and 03:11PM 14limiting their ability to give their voice in political affairs. 03:11PM 15Section 5 doesn't allow this. 03:11PM 16

In recognition of the limited amount of time I have to 03:11PM 17speak today, and since Mr. Tanner will be following and speaking 03:11PM 18almost entirely on House districts, I'm going to move very 03:11PM 19quickly through the House districts that the NAACP wants you all 03:11PM 20to look at. 03:11PM 21

What the state did to House Districts 26, 54 and 107 is 03:11PM 22indicative of the intentional and invidious discrimination -- 03:11PM 23discriminatory acts that the state took to prevent natural 03:11PM 24legally emerging majority minority population districts from 03:11PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 46 of 104 46 of 104 sheets

46

being able to elect their candidates of choice in the future. 03:11PM 1I urge this Court to look at the shape of House District 03:11PM 2

26 and how the minority community in that district was fractured. 03:11PM 3Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee testified that there's already a 03:12PM 4Vietnamese candidate who's announced intentions to run for HD 26. 03:12PM 5HD 26 -- a substantial Asian-American population, but again, much 03:12PM 6like House District 149, a very diverse coalition there. 03:12PM 7

JUDGE GRIFFITH: Are we permitted to look at emerging 03:12PM 8districts in a retrogression analysis? 03:12PM 9

MS. RIGGS: I think it's part of the purpose analysis 03:12PM 10rather than the retrogression. So if they have not yet elected a 03:12PM 11candidate of choice -- but carving apart the minority population 03:12PM 12so that they can't elect in the future, when they're poised to do 03:12PM 13so, surely raises concerns about intent to discriminate. 03:12PM 14

But again, Sheila Jackson Lee testified that she has 03:12PM 15already thrown her support behind this woman, Ms. Nguyen, a 03:12PM 16Vietnamese candidate for House District 26, and Congresswoman 03:12PM 17Jackson Lee is a significant African-American leader in the 03:12PM 18larger Houston area -- which House District 26 is in Fort Bend 03:12PM 19County, which is right adjacent to it -- before any primary. 03:12PM 20This is examples of the -- this is an example of the coalitions 03:13PM 21that are active and existing in that area. 03:13PM 22

HD 54, another example where the population growth over 03:13PM 23the last decade has been hugely minority population growth. It 03:13PM 24outpaced the Anglo population growth, and they're poised for 03:13PM 25


47 of 104 sheets to 47 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

47

success, to realize the results of this natural population 03:13PM 1growth, but the state seeks to prevent them from being able to do 03:13PM 2that. 03:13PM 3

And finally, plaintiffs in the Section 2 case demonstrated 03:13PM 4that it was possible to create an additional majority minority 03:13PM 5district in the Dallas County delegation, and that was HD107 in 03:13PM 6plan H2O2, which is Defense Exhibit 839, presented by the 03:13PM 7Legislative Black Caucus. 03:13PM 8

Again, the state refusing to allow population growth to be 03:13PM 9represented in the final result, keeping minority voters in their 03:13PM 10place despite population growth. And I think Congress was clear 03:14PM 11in renewing the Voting Rights Act that this was not what was 03:14PM 12intended to be allowed. 03:14PM 13

Finally, the removal of HD 149 from Harris County was 03:14PM 14retrogressive in effect and discriminatory in purpose. A 03:14PM 15coalition of African-American, Asian-American and Latino voters 03:14PM 16have demonstrated the ability to elect a candidate of their 03:14PM 17choice, and that's Hubert Vo. In the endogenous elections that 03:14PM 18are most probative of political cohesion and ability to elect, 03:14PM 19that success has been proven. 03:14PM 20

And Texas' position is that, because this is a diverse 03:14PM 21area of Houston, they're justified in carving up these minority 03:14PM 22groups and keeping them from exercising their political voice. 03:14PM 23That can't be right. 03:14PM 24

Finally, in the enacted Senate plan, the destruction of 03:14PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 48 of 104 48 of 104 sheets

48

Senate District 10 was done with discriminatory intent to deprive 03:14PM 1minority voters in Tarrant County from having the ability to 03:14PM 2elect their candidate of choice -- 03:15PM 3

JUDGE COLLYER: You have two minutes.03:15PM 4MS. RIGGS: Thank you, Your Honor. 03:15PM 5-- and that decision had its intended retrogressive 03:15PM 6

effect. African-American and Latino leaders in Tarrant County 03:15PM 7encouraged Senator Wendy Davis to run for election. They 03:15PM 8campaigned for her, they supported plans that kept that district 03:15PM 9intact and respected the coalition of minority voters that had 03:15PM 10been working to get her elected, and the loss of her voice in the 03:15PM 11state legislature is a loss of a voice that represents minority 03:15PM 12concerns. It's a loss of a candidate of their choice. 03:15PM 13

The NAACP defendant intervenors respectfully request that 03:15PM 14this Court hold Texas to its burden of proving a lack of 03:15PM 15retrogressive effect and discriminatory intent, and deny the 03:15PM 16state's enacted Congressional State House and State Senate 03:15PM 17redistricting plans preclearance under Section 5. 03:15PM 18

Thank you. 03:15PM 19JUDGE COLLYER: Thank you very much. 03:15PM 20All right. Do you want to take a break now or do you want 03:15PM 21

to go on? 03:16PM 22Go ahead, sir. We're just talking among ourselves about 03:16PM 23

when we should take a break. So I warn you, at some point, we're 03:16PM 24going to take a break, but we're most interested in hearing from 03:16PM 25


49 of 104 sheets to 49 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

49

you next. 03:16PM 1Mr. Tanner, right? 03:16PM 2MR. TANNER: Yes, ma'am. Yes, Your Honors. John Tanner 03:16PM 3

with the Texas Legislative Black Caucus. 03:16PM 4JUDGE COLLYER: And do you need all your time? I only 03:16PM 5

ask -- 03:16PM 6MR. TANNER: If I have any left, Mr. Hebert will be 03:16PM 7

welcome to it. 03:16PM 8JUDGE COLLYER: Okay. That's a deal. 03:16PM 9MR. TANNER: That's in large part up to you, Your Honor. 03:16PM 10JUDGE COLLYER: Okay. 03:16PM 11MR. TANNER: The continuing growth of the minority 03:16PM 12

population in Texas has resulted in naturally occurring 03:16PM 13districts, in the language of the Supreme Court in its recent 03:16PM 14decision, districts that simply reflected the population growth. 03:16PM 15And the state broke up those districts with a racial purpose and 03:16PM 16a racially discriminatory effect. 03:17PM 17

Judge Griffith just asked about the racial effect of 03:17PM 18emerging districts. And I would like to underline the fact that 03:17PM 19these districts, to one degree or another, have emerged. As you 03:17PM 20can see in the undisputed report of Dean Saenz of the University 03:17PM 21of Texas El Paso, the minority -- the Anglo citizen voting age 03:17PM 22population that the state has used is the population as of 2007. 03:17PM 23It's based on the ACS, which uses as a center date 2007, and, 03:17PM 24therefore, those data miss the three years of growth in that 03:17PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 50 of 104 50 of 104 sheets

50

population that occurred up to 2010. And it's actually now five 03:17PM 1years, now that we're in 2012, five years of minority growth. 03:17PM 2

From 2000 to the current time, District 26 has gone from 03:18PM 362 -- over 62 percent Anglo in voting age -- citizen voting age 03:18PM 4population to 46.8 percent. District 106 has gone from 03:18PM 563.6 percent to 43.4 percent Anglo in citizen voting age 03:18PM 6population. District 144 has gone from 65 percent Anglo in 03:18PM 7citizen voting age population to 41.2 percent. These are -- you 03:18PM 8know, there's a gradation here. District 101 is only expected to 03:18PM 9gain a minority citizen voting age majority in 2014, so there's a 03:18PM 10gradation, but certainly a district that has nearly 60 percent 03:18PM 11citizen voting age population of minorities does offer minority 03:18PM 12voters a present opportunity to elect representatives of their 03:19PM 13choice, and the election history in these districts shows that 03:19PM 14they are winnable. 03:19PM 15

One indication, a clear indication is the incumbent in 03:19PM 16District 106, as set forth in Defendants' Exhibits 24 and 25, 03:19PM 17switch from the republican to the democratic party after a close 03:19PM 18election in 2006. That is an oddity in the State of Texas. 03:19PM 19

Districts 101 and 106 had very close elections, even in 03:19PM 202010, the waive election. 101 was a 51 to 48 margin and 106, 03:19PM 21only 49 to 48. And the annual swing in population of each of 03:19PM 22these districts is over 6,000 people; that is, it's either 6,000 03:19PM 23minorities moving in and/or 1,000 -- that number of Anglos moving 03:19PM 24out. The net swing in population is 6,000 a year. So that's 03:20PM 25


51 of 104 sheets to 51 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

51

over -- up to 7,000 a year in District 106, so that number 03:20PM 1swamps, swamps the narrow margins in the 2010 elections, 03:20PM 2districts which were well under 1,000 votes in both elections, in 03:20PM 3Districts 106 and 144, which is the only one of these districts 03:20PM 4that defendants have mentioned at all in this case. In both of 03:20PM 5those, the democrat at the top of the ticket won in both 2008 and 03:20PM 62010 as set forth in Defendants' Exhibit 25 and 26. Each of 03:20PM 7these districts has an opportunity. 03:20PM 8

Under the benchmark plan no district with an Anglo CVAP 03:20PM 9below 47 percent has failed to elect a minority candidate of 03:20PM 10choice during the 2000 and 2010 decade. Other districts nearby, 03:20PM 11District 148 is 45.4 percent Anglo in citizen voting age 03:21PM 12population and it elects a Latino with the support of 03:21PM 13African-American voters. 03:21PM 14

District 149 of which we've heard much was only 03:21PM 1548.6 percent Anglo in 2000, and elected Hubert Vo in 2004, 03:21PM 16defeating not only an incumbent who enjoyed the advantages of 03:21PM 17incumbency, but the chairman of the House Appropriations 03:21PM 18Committee. And I believe the Court can take judicial notice that 03:21PM 19it is virtually impossible to defeat the chairman of a House 03:21PM 20Appropriations Committee anywhere. 03:21PM 21

The prospect of victory moreover, which is real here, has 03:21PM 22a galvanizing effect. Hubert Vo won after the Vietnamese 03:21PM 23Language Program was adopted and after a fairly close election in 03:21PM 242002. District 26 is right next door District 149 and has a 03:21PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 52 of 104 52 of 104 sheets

52

similar coalition as senator -- or Congresswoman Sheila Jackson 03:22PM 1Lee and others have testified about that's very active. 03:22PM 2

The example of Senate District 10, and there is in Tarrant 03:22PM 3County a naturally occurring district in which minority voters 03:22PM 4would be able to elect candidates of their choice, not only to 03:22PM 5the State Senate but to the United States Congress as well. 03:22PM 6We're talking about the Congressional District 33 area to which 03:22PM 7Mr. Garza referred. Senate District 10 shows how the possibility 03:22PM 8of winning can galvanize a community, and the community can go 03:22PM 9from zero to 60 very rapidly once people feel the possibility of 03:22PM 10victory and once they can gather together the wherewithal to 03:22PM 11achieve victory. 03:23PM 12

As a matter of law in the City of Rome V United States, 03:23PM 13the retrogression moreover is determined at the time of the 03:23PM 14decision of this Court. This Court is not locked in to the 03:23PM 15population as of 2010 or 2007. 03:23PM 16

JUDGE COLLYER: So, now this is an interesting point. 03:23PM 17Does the record contain information on the population in 2010? 03:23PM 18

MR. TANNER: The record in 2010 -- 03:23PM 19JUDGE COLLYER: I mean, everybody's talked about how the 03:23PM 20

census data was received by the State as I recall, on February 03:23PM 2117th, 2010, and it's from that they then began to work, but 03:23PM 22you're saying, well not actually because they used 2008 data. 03:23PM 23

MR. TANNER: Well, the census was taken on April 1st, 03:23PM 242010. It reflects who lived where as of that date. 03:24PM 25


53 of 104 sheets to 53 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

53

JUDGE COLLYER: Right. 03:24PM 1MR. TANNER: It got into 2011. The ACS data, however, 03:24PM 2

which showed the citizen voting age population, is based on a 03:24PM 3five year rolling average, 2005 to 2009. The data are the 03:24PM 4midpoint data for that survey, so the data that the State used 03:24PM 5was 2007 data, and this -- 03:24PM 6

JUDGE COLLYER: Well, wait a minute. Is it the midpoint 03:24PM 7as in an average of growth from 2005 to 2009 or is it just the 03:24PM 8year 2007 because that's halfway? 03:24PM 9

MR. TANNER: It's the rolling -- 03:24PM 10JUDGE COLLYER: It's the rolling average? 03:24PM 11MR. TANNER: -- average -- 03:24PM 12JUDGE COLLYER: Okay.03:24PM 13MR. TANNER: -- as I understand it. And as 03:24PM 14

Dr. Ansolabehere here testified -- 03:24PM 15JUDGE COLLYER: Right.03:24PM 16MR. TANNER: -- the 2008 data, as one would expect -- or 03:24PM 17

the 2006 to 2010 survey which produced 2008 data did show a 03:25PM 18substantial increase that Dr. Alford talked in terms of tens and 03:25PM 19tens of thousands of Latino citizens. Those numbers can be 03:25PM 20expected to rise, of course, because since 1990 or before a 03:25PM 21majority of the live births in the State of Texas have been 03:25PM 22minority children. 03:25PM 23

In the City of Rome, 472 F. Supp. 221, the Court held that 03:25PM 24this Court should respond to the realities of the situation as 03:25PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 54 of 104 54 of 104 sheets

54

they exist at the time of the decision and look to the most 03:25PM 1recent information as they did there, information which reflects 03:25PM 2an effect on black voting is considerably more pronounced than 03:25PM 3was the case when the annexations were initially implemented. 03:25PM 4That comports with the forward looking language of the statute 03:25PM 5itself. 03:25PM 6

These districts today, it is undisputed, have substantial 03:25PM 7or growing citizen voting age majority. There is no evidence on 03:26PM 8the record that they cannot elect representatives of their choice 03:26PM 9at this time or could not, had they not been dismantled, and the 03:26PM 10State did, in fact, dismantle each of these districts. Districts 03:26PM 11101 and 106 and, like, District 149 were completely destroyed and 03:26PM 12eliminated by the State's plan. 03:26PM 13

This is especially remarkable because there is no need at 03:26PM 14all to redraw Districts 101, 106, 144, 149, Senate District 10. 03:26PM 15District 26 simply needed to shed a little population and the 03:26PM 16Anglo population was at the periphery of House District 26. 03:26PM 17

And in each case, these districts, each of these districts 03:27PM 18was redrawn contrary to the State's criteria. And Senate 03:27PM 19District 10, as you'll hear more from Mr. Hebert about I'm 03:27PM 20confident, the State retained only 43 percent of the original 03:27PM 21district, about half of the average retention for Senate District 03:27PM 22statewide. 03:27PM 23

Alternatives were readily available. The State ran a fist 03:27PM 24up into the core of the minority community. If it had shifted 03:27PM 25


55 of 104 sheets to 55 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

55

that fist either to the east or to the west it would have taken 03:27PM 1out Anglo population and actually improved the performance of 03:27PM 2that district. 03:27PM 3

JUDGE COLLYER: Well, didn't you hear that the reason that 03:27PM 4it did that was to encompass Ft. Worth? That was the testimony, 03:27PM 5it was to bring in Ft. Worth. 03:27PM 6

MR. TANNER: I heard, Your Honor, but it occurred to me 03:28PM 7upon hearing that, that there are many parts of Ft. Worth that it 03:28PM 8could have gone to. If it had taken up the westward path it 03:28PM 9could have gone right into Ft. Worth and taken alike number of 03:28PM 10persons, but those persons would have been Anglos, and that sort 03:28PM 11of disparity exists throughout this plan. 03:28PM 12

District 26, as I say, needed to lose population but it 03:28PM 13actually added Anglo areas. The shape of the district was 03:28PM 14remarked on by the court in San Antonio. It has fingers going 03:28PM 15out to bring in Anglo population and to exclude minority areas, 03:28PM 16breaking up communities of interest, fragmenting city boundaries. 03:28PM 17

District 101, which was adequately populated, it was 03:28PM 18eliminated completely. The new lines there fragment numerous 03:28PM 19municipal boundaries, communities of interests and then elongated 03:28PM 20and oddly-shaped districts. 03:29PM 21

District 144 was underpopulated, as not only did they 03:29PM 22avoid minority populations in the eastward adjacent District 28, 03:29PM 23but they were underpopulated to avoid the inclusion of minority 03:29PM 24population from the systematically overpopulated districts like 03:29PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 56 of 104 56 of 104 sheets

56

148 of which the Court heard testimony. 03:29PM 1District 149 was eliminated, even though as early in the 03:29PM 2

process on February 17th, Mr. Hanna had that e-mail that 03:29PM 3identified 149 as a minority district that had to be retained. 03:29PM 4

District 54 is a specific compact community of interest in 03:29PM 5city limits. It -- the San Antonio court created a separate 03:29PM 6district consistent with this perception that this is a naturally 03:29PM 7occurring district, as these districts are. 03:30PM 8

Moreover, each of these districts, not only was adequate 03:30PM 9in and of itself -- thank you, Your Honor -- but it involved a 03:30PM 10minority concentration that will include District 107 and 03:30PM 11Congressional 33 and improvements to this, Senate District 10. 03:30PM 12And the State knew that it was forbidden by Section 2 from 03:30PM 13eliminating these opportunity districts. That's another standard 03:30PM 14that decision-makers normally consider important compliance with 03:30PM 15Section 2. In the course they split numerous voting precincts 03:30PM 16with financial costs of up to $900,000 for Travis County and for 03:30PM 17confusion to voters, and that confusion in all of these precinct 03:30PM 18splits, over 900 in the three State plans, would have a 03:30PM 19disproportionate effect on minority voters as the -- as the 03:31PM 20testimony of Mr. Korbel and others shows. 03:31PM 21

I will yield any balance of my time, several seconds, I am 03:31PM 22sure -- 03:31PM 23

JUDGE COLLYER: Several seconds. 03:31PM 24MR. TANNER. -- to Mr. Hebert. 03:31PM 25


57 of 104 sheets to 57 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

57

JUDGE COLLYER: Thank you, sir.03:31PM 1MR. TANNER: Thank you, Your Honor. 03:31PM 2JUDGE COLLYER: I hesitate to ask this question and it is 03:31PM 3

not intended in any way to be rude or inpatient. Mr. Hebert, by 03:31PM 4any chance are you the last of the intervenor counsels to speak? 03:31PM 5

MR. HEBERT: I am, Your Honor. 03:31PM 6JUDGE COLLYER: All right. Then, I will tell whoever is 03:31PM 7

representing the State of Texas in rebuttal here, we will take a 03:31PM 8break after Mr. Hebert finishes, but we will wait until he 03:31PM 9finishes in order to wrap up the intervenors, okay? 03:31PM 10

The font of all knowledge number two. 03:31PM 11MR. HEBERT: Thank you so much.03:31PM 12JUDGE COLLYER: There's still number one out there, you 03:32PM 13

know. 03:32PM 14MR. HEBERT: May I proceed, Your Honor? 03:32PM 15JUDGE COLLYER: Please do, sir. 03:32PM 16MR. HEBERT: For the record, I'm Gerald Hebert. I 03:32PM 17

represent the Davis intervenors. I want to start, though, before 03:32PM 18I get into the slides that I want to present, to answer a 03:32PM 19question that Judge Griffith posed earlier about effect in 03:32PM 20guiding the issue of intent and whether there's any cases out 03:32PM 21there, and I certainly agree with Ms. Perales that Arlington 03:32PM 22Heights says that the effect of a decision is the important 03:32PM 23starting point for measuring intent, but there's also a case that 03:32PM 24I tried back in this court back in 1982 called Busbee versus 03:32PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 58 of 104 58 of 104 sheets

58

Smith which was a Voting Rights Act case where the State of 03:32PM 1Georgia fragmented, and I'm going read a quote from that lower 03:32PM 2court, three judge court decision. It said:03:32PM 3

"In this case the State fragmented the large and 03:32PM 4contiguous black population that exists in the metropolitan area 03:32PM 5of Atlanta by splitting that population between two Congressional 03:32PM 6districts, thus minimizing the possibility of electing a black to 03:33PM 7Congress in the fifth Congressional district. The impact of this 03:33PM 8State action is probative of racial purpose." 03:33PM 9

So that's one example, and I think City of Port Arthur 03:33PM 10Texas, another case that we tried in this court, City of Port 03:33PM 11Arthur Texas versus United States, is another one where, again, 03:33PM 12the Court did look at a majority vote requirement in the City of 03:33PM 13Port Arthur, Texas and concluded that the impact of using the 03:33PM 14majority vote requirement in the method of electing the City of 03:33PM 15Port Arthur was itself an indication that racial purpose was 03:33PM 16still at work. And the District Court in that case, this Court, 03:33PM 17actually conditioned preclearance on removal of the majority vote 03:33PM 18requirement as a -- as a prerequisite. So, those came to mind 03:33PM 19after you asked that question. 03:33PM 20

Now, I have a lot of ground to cover and nobody seeded 03:33PM 21enough time to really get beyond 15, so I may talk a little too 03:33PM 22fast and my apologies in advance to our court reporter. 03:34PM 23

There's been a lot of testimony about Texas's claim that 03:34PM 24map drawers drew districts to comply with the Voting Rights Act 03:34PM 25


59 of 104 sheets to 59 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

59

but somehow they didn't use racial or ethnic data to do this. 03:34PM 1Now, it -- it simply lacks credibility and, in fact, is 03:34PM 2contradicted by their own testimony. Ryan Downton testified at 03:34PM 3the trial down in San Antonio -- and that's a part of the 03:34PM 4transcript here that we've introduced -- and if you look and it 03:34PM 5says, Judge Rodriguez there said, "At any point did you turn on 03:34PM 6the ethnicity or race feature to see whether or not you'd be in 03:34PM 7compliance with the Voting Rights Act?" The answer, "Yes." Then 03:34PM 8he said, "At what point did you turn it on?" And he said, "Well 03:34PM 9as far as the feature, we were always -- we were conscious of the 03:34PM 10numbers and so we would look at them throughout the process 03:34PM 11before moving forward with the map." 03:34PM 12

So because you have them right on the screen as you click 03:34PM 13the mouse and move things in and out, you can see the racial 03:34PM 14consequences. 03:34PM 15

Senator Seliger, when he was in this court, I asked him if 03:34PM 16he was aware of the fact that, notwithstanding, he and Doug Davis 03:35PM 17saying, Well, we were trying to move democrats out of Senator 03:35PM 18Davis's district and make it more republican. I said, "Well, you 03:35PM 19were told that it was largely African-American at some point?" 03:35PM 20He admits, "I was told that." During the session he was told 03:35PM 21that. "And you were aware that black communities like Everman 03:35PM 22and Forest Hills that we had a lot of testimony about were being 03:35PM 23moved out and you knew they were minority areas," and he says, 03:35PM 24"Well, I was told that they were." 03:35PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 60 of 104 60 of 104 sheets

60

And then I said further, "You knew that -- all that, but 03:35PM 1despite knowing all that and knowing Senate District 10 was going 03:35PM 2to be a focal point of the redistricting, you went ahead and put 03:35PM 3those minority voters in the district that goes past Waco more 03:35PM 4than 100 miles away," and he said, "Yes, sir." 03:35PM 5

Gerardo Interiano, when he testified in this court, "Did 03:35PM 6you ever use ethnic shading when you were drawing the map?" 03:35PM 7Ms. Perales covered this. "House map? No -- certainly, 03:35PM 8certainly. Well, yes, I did use ethnic shading." "What kind of 03:36PM 9ethnic shading information would you shade for," and he said, 03:36PM 10"SSVR, 95 to 97 percent of the time."03:36PM 11

And Doug Davis, the principle map drawer -- and I'm going 03:36PM 12to have all of these cites in my Findings of Fact when we submit 03:36PM 13them, but Doug Davis knew that he was cracking minority 03:36PM 14neighborhoods in Tarrant County when he drew the map. You may 03:36PM 15recall in his cross I put up a shaded area according to race of 03:36PM 16Senate District 10 and I said, "When you were moving people out 03:36PM 17of Senate District 10, I think you said you wanted to make it 03:36PM 18more republican." And then I asked him, "Those people who are in 03:36PM 19the shaded area, they're all predominantly minorities, aren't 03:36PM 20they?" And he said, "I believe so." "And when you moved 03:36PM 21democrats you knew you were moving African-Americans and Latinos, 03:36PM 22not just democrats," and his answer was, "Sure." So cavalier. 03:36PM 23

The map drawer further testified that he removed high 03:36PM 24performing minority areas out, and I cite that here, "And you 03:36PM 25


61 of 104 sheets to 61 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

61

knew that when you drew the map?" And I pointed out that that 03:36PM 1came from Defendants' Exhibit 657, the most intense support she 03:37PM 2was getting from these darkest blue democratic precincts. He 03:37PM 3admitted those were hardcore democratic precincts but he admitted 03:37PM 4those were the minority precincts. 03:37PM 5

Now, there was a question, I think it was Judge Griffith 03:37PM 6when Mr. Davis was testifying, and I'm going to get to that slide 03:37PM 7in a second, I'm pretty sure I have it right. But, you know, 03:37PM 8I -- he was asked in his direct testimony, "Well, when you were 03:37PM 9conducting these field hearings back in 2010, why did you -- you 03:37PM 10know, how did you select the locations?" And he said, "Well, we 03:37PM 11called them outreach hearings. We wanted to let people have 03:37PM 12input." And Judge Griffith said, "Well, I'm a little confused 03:37PM 13about the purpose of these public hearings, what did you expect 03:37PM 14to get from them? After all," -- the judge continued -- "you 03:37PM 15don't have census data and you know that these final decisions 03:37PM 16come down to very points of -- take into account all sorts of 03:37PM 17different factors, so what were you expecting to get?"03:37PM 18

Well, what he was expecting to get is what Senator Davis 03:37PM 19testified. But he didn't like what he heard at that meeting and 03:38PM 20neither did the senators because she said when she was testifying 03:38PM 21here, and this is Senator Davis's testimony, "Protect the members 03:38PM 22of the Latino and African-American communities of District 10, 03:38PM 23and respect their rights to continue to have the opportunity to 03:38PM 24elect a candidate of their choice." They didn't get that. The 03:38PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 62 of 104 62 of 104 sheets

62

only thing Senator Seliger could remember when he sat in that 03:38PM 1chair over there was the fact that, "All I remember is Senator 03:38PM 2Davis wanted her district in Tarrant County." Well, that was 03:38PM 3probably third or fourth on her list compared to protecting the 03:38PM 4communities that -- that she was representing. 03:38PM 5

Now, Senator Solomons testified -- and this goes to a 03:38PM 6point that Judge Howell asked about earlier and I'm going to get 03:38PM 7to that. Mr. Solomons said, "You know, I don't have any real 03:38PM 8background in redistricting." 03:38PM 9

Here's the chairman of the House Redistricting Committee 03:38PM 10who has no experience in redistricting. Not exactly a minor 03:38PM 11issue in the Texas legislature in 2011. Senator Seliger, I asked 03:38PM 12him in cross, "You've never had, prior to this round of 03:39PM 13redistricting, you had any experience?" "No, sir." And he's not 03:39PM 14an attorney. He wasn't even in the legislature in 2001 or '3. 03:39PM 15He was a businessman. So here we have a senator, head of the 03:39PM 16Senate Redistricting Committee, without any experience put in 03:39PM 17charge of a redistricting process that for five decades Texas has 03:39PM 18been in litigation over -- and by the way, has lost every time, 03:39PM 19so if we had a big loser program for redistricting, Texas would 03:39PM 20win and we would all not even participate. 03:39PM 21

Exhibit 151 shows what Senator Seliger's racial 03:39PM 22composition was of his district, and when I asked him on the 03:39PM 23stand, the head of the Redistricting Committee couldn't even tell 03:39PM 24me what percentage blacks or Latinos lived in his district. And 03:39PM 25


63 of 104 sheets to 63 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

63

he claimed -- 03:39PM 1JUDGE COLLYER: He didn't know who elected Senator Davis 03:39PM 2

either. 03:39PM 3MR. HEBERT: That's true, and I remember that exchange. 03:39PM 4So here we have somebody who claims that the Voting Rights 03:39PM 5

Act is an enumerable characteristic of their redistricting 03:40PM 6process and he can't even name -- he doesn't even -- he admitted 03:40PM 7not even looking into the minority community issue in Senate 03:40PM 8District 10, which he also said was a focus of the entire 03:40PM 9redistricting process as far as the Senate was concerned. 03:40PM 10

Now, here we get to the part that Judge Howell asked him, 03:40PM 11and you asked actually this question earlier today, too, and I 03:40PM 12decided to leave the slide up. 03:40PM 13

This was to Senator Seliger, you said, "So in your 03:40PM 14discussions, did you ever come to a number of minority ability to 03:40PM 15elect districts that was your target for compliance with the 03:40PM 16Congressional plan?" And he said he didn't. And he said -- I 03:40PM 17asked him if it was legal under the Voting Rights Act. "But you 03:40PM 18never got the actual numbers?" "No, ma'am." 03:40PM 19

Now, that to me is -- is incredible and preposterous that 03:40PM 20when you have retrogression, you're not going to look at how many 03:40PM 21ability to elect are in the benchmark and compare it to how many 03:40PM 22come out? You don't need Dr. Alford and Dr. Handley to do that. 03:40PM 23Lawyers advise clients of that every day; in fact, I do that 03:41PM 24every day as do a number of other lawyers in this courtroom. You 03:41PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 64 of 104 64 of 104 sheets

64

can measure how many districts perform under both plans, and it's 03:41PM 1a -- and it is a mathematical calculation. 03:41PM 2

Now, to show you how out of the loop, so to speak, Senator 03:41PM 3Seliger was, Interiano in Exhibit 788, he sends an e-mail quoting 03:41PM 4Doug Davis. Now, this Doug Davis is the guy Senator Seliger 03:41PM 5hired, right, in the redistricting to run his committee. And he 03:41PM 6says, "The other issue that Doug brought up is that we hadn't 03:41PM 7considered is that if we get a really bad panel up in Washington, 03:41PM 8D.C. and we have serious concerns about the way directions are 03:41PM 9going up there, we can always try to appeal to the governor, call 03:41PM 10another special and let's go ahead and redo the map." 03:41PM 11

Incredibly, I asked Senator Seliger, "Did you ever have 03:41PM 12any discussions with Mr. Doug Davis about the fact that, hey, if 03:41PM 13things are going bad up there in D.C. we can always get the 03:41PM 14governor to change our plan, come up with a new one?" "No." 03:42PM 15That's how out of the loop he was. They were so out of the loop 03:42PM 16and so out of sync that Mr. Davis said there was no interim 03:42PM 17redistricting hearing held in Tarrant County back in 2010, and 03:42PM 18Senator Seliger said that there was. Remember the confusion 03:42PM 19about Arlington? That's the only place they held one. They 03:42PM 20didn't hold one in Ft. Worth, the biggest city in Tarrant County 03:42PM 21and the third largest African-American population. They held it 03:42PM 22in Arlington and as Representative Veasey testified, Arlington is 03:42PM 23the largest is city in the country with no public bus or rail 03:42PM 24transportation and it was not a convenient site for people to go 03:42PM 25


65 of 104 sheets to 65 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

65

to. 03:42PM 1So even on a parochial issue like how many hearings did 03:42PM 2

you have and where did they hold them, Senator Seliger couldn't 03:42PM 3even remember or Senator -- or Mr. Davis couldn't remember. 03:42PM 4

So how did District 10 develop into a minority opportunity 03:42PM 5district over the decade? Well, back in 2001 the State predicted 03:42PM 6it would rain. They said District 10 is going to grow in its 03:42PM 7minority population and if the blacks and Latinos coalesce 03:43PM 8they'll ultimately elect the candidate of their choice in that 03:43PM 9district. They predicted rain. 03:43PM 10

In 2006, after looking at the DA race, Representative 03:43PM 11Veasey said, We thought we had it within our grasp. So they 03:43PM 12seeded the clouds in 2006 and '7, and by golly in 2008 it rained, 03:43PM 13Wendy Davis got elected. The State's position is, it never 03:43PM 14rained, what rain? They don't even recognize Wendy Davis as the 03:43PM 15candidate of choice but their expert did. 03:43PM 16

So, here we go with Marc Veasey saying -- and this is so 03:43PM 17critical because this, I think, goes to the heart of what's going 03:43PM 18on in the black and Latino community in Tarrant County. He said, 03:43PM 19We knew that because of Terry Moore's race, the woman who ran for 03:43PM 20DA, we were back in the game again. Back in the game again meant 03:43PM 21that they had dismantled the Martin Frost coalition district in 03:43PM 222003 and the delayed redistricting and, again, while the State 03:44PM 23keeps harping on this in the closing argument today saying, Well, 03:44PM 24we got away with that, we should get away with this. No, they 03:44PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 66 of 104 66 of 104 sheets

66

didn't get away with it. They only got away with it because we 03:44PM 1had to bring a lawsuit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 03:44PM 2to try to attack that dismantling. 03:44PM 3

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the entire DOJ 03:44PM 4staff, nine of them recommended that that was retrogressive to 03:44PM 5dismantle that coalition district but they got overruled by 03:44PM 6political appointees and that put the burden on us to have to 03:44PM 7take the case under Section 2. So -- and he says, Mr. Veasey, 03:44PM 8"That's exactly what we did. We could play a role and that's 03:44PM 9what we did." 03:44PM 10

Dr. Alford conceded in cross-examination that there was 03:44PM 11racial polarization in the district and, just like District 25, 03:44PM 12he recognized and admitted that it was an example of a district 03:44PM 13in which black and Latinos and some whites voted for the 03:44PM 14candidate of their choice. Now, here's the critical thing. I 03:45PM 15asked Dr. Alford and I asked it very carefully, I said, "It's 03:45PM 16also true, isn't it, that if you take that ability to elect away, 03:45PM 17that diminishes the voting strengths of blacks and Latinos in 03:45PM 18that District; isn't that true?" And his answer to me was, "You 03:45PM 19know, Gerry, you're a very pressing man. That's what I left out. 03:45PM 20I couldn't agree with you more. The State's expert has conceded, 03:45PM 21in effect, that they retrogressed the ability to elect in that 03:45PM 22district." 03:45PM 23

Now, Mr. Mellett -- and this goes to a question Judge 03:45PM 24Howell asked -- asked Mr. Mellett, "I have a figure here, 03:45PM 25


67 of 104 sheets to 67 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

67

Mr. Mellett's concessions about SD10 when he was up here. First 03:45PM 1of all, he said they've heard much more evidence of intent now 03:45PM 2than when they filed their answer last September, and that's 03:45PM 3certainly true. The evidence in the trial might even result in 03:45PM 4DOJ perhaps coming to a different conclusion if they looked at 03:45PM 5that evidence." 03:45PM 6

But what makes no sense is this. That someone can 03:45PM 7conclude that the very same people who discriminated on the basis 03:46PM 8of race in enacting a Congressional plan, and the very same 03:46PM 9people who engaged in discrimination on the House plan, somehow 03:46PM 10at the exact same time didn't act with racially discriminatory 03:46PM 11intent of the Senate. He also said endogenous elections are the 03:46PM 12most probative. Well, if that's the case, the last time I 03:46PM 13checked nothing is more emphatic than 100. The one election that 03:46PM 14we have in which we have a clearly identified minority candidate 03:46PM 15of choice, Senator Wendy Davis, the blacks elected her to office. 03:46PM 16

Now, that district emerged over time and there was 03:46PM 17racially polarized voting. Doctor -- and that was another point 03:46PM 18Mr. Mellett said. He said, Well, you know, Senate District, 03:46PM 19Congressional District 25 doesn't have as much racially polarized 03:46PM 20voting. Look at the numbers. 03:46PM 21

JUDGE HOWELL: I thought I remembered that correctly.03:46PM 22MR. HEBERT: Pardon me?03:46PM 23JUDGE HOWELL: I thought I remembered that. 03:46PM 24MR. HEBERT: Right. And yet, look at the numbers in 03:46PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 68 of 104 68 of 104 sheets

68

Senate District 10. 99 percent of the blacks -- and this is 03:46PM 1Dr. Alford's numbers by the way, I'm not -- this isn't my 03:46PM 2expert -- 85 percent of the Hispanics and only 25 percent of the 03:47PM 3Anglos voted for Senator Davis and yet she was elected in 2008, 03:47PM 4and she hasn't faced re-election until this year. 03:47PM 5

Now, here's a -- you don't find smoking guns very often 03:47PM 6but I'll say, if this wasn't smoking it's at least warm. David 03:47PM 7Hanna sends an e-mail to -- 03:47PM 8

JUDGE COLLYER: You have two minutes. 03:47PM 9MR. HEBERT: Okay -- to Katrina and Doug Davis, who 03:47PM 10

happened to be married. She's the parliamentary and he's the 03:47PM 11senator staffer, and he writes, "No bueno, you remember this, 03:47PM 12RedAppl timestamps everything when it assigns a plan." What this 03:47PM 13was about, and we went through this with Senator Seliger, is this 03:47PM 14was an effort to pre-write the committee report that was about to 03:47PM 15happen the next day, and he says, "Don't create a paper trail. 03:47PM 16It's not going to be helpful for preclearance and everything like 03:47PM 17that." The reason that this is probative, of course, of racial 03:47PM 18purpose -- and there's so much more evidence of racial purpose in 03:47PM 19this Senator Davis, herself, every time she wanted to get a map 03:47PM 20they just patted her on the head and told her to go away while 03:47PM 21they gave maps to Anglo senators like they were free candy at 03:48PM 22Halloween. However, on this particular situation, "Don't think 03:48PM 23this is a good idea for preclearance, best approach is to do it 03:48PM 24afterwards and then we'll go as fast as we can." What they were 03:48PM 25


69 of 104 sheets to 69 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

69

saying here is it didn't really matter what happened at the 03:48PM 1committee hearing. This was precooked. This deal was done. 03:48PM 2They had the votes and they knew it. 03:48PM 3

The only other thing, since I have so little time, I just 03:48PM 4want to make two points about Congressional. If you look at 03:48PM 5Texas 2010, and you look at the percentage of Anglos, blacks and 03:48PM 6Hispanics, under the plan that the State has come up, even though 03:48PM 7Anglos are 49.6 percent of the VAP, they get 72 percent of the 03:48PM 8districts that they control. Blacks are 11.4 of the State's VAP. 03:48PM 9They only get 8.3 percent of the districts where they can elect a 03:48PM 10candidate of their choice and have an ability. Latinos, 33.6 and 03:48PM 11they get 19.4. It's often overlooked in Texas, but blacks grew 03:48PM 12by 600,000 over the course of the decade, and Hispanics accounted 03:49PM 13for 65 percent of the growth, so that's why, as someone said 03:49PM 14earlier, Texas got the districts they got. 03:49PM 15

The last point I want to make is a point in response to 03:49PM 16Mr. Hughes about trinity vision -- Trinity River Vision. This 03:49PM 17little checkered area here that I -- this is the benchmark plan. 03:49PM 18District 26, you can see, is up there in Denton County and then 03:49PM 19it comes down to the east of that little hatched area. That 03:49PM 20hatched area is the Trinity River Vision. Now, the argument is 03:49PM 21that, Well, that lightning bolt, that's because they had to do 03:49PM 22something about the Trinity River Project. Well, first of all, 03:49PM 23the project is almost incontestably small, but here's what they 03:49PM 24did. There it is there. They moved it west of 35. I'll go back 03:49PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 70 of 104 70 of 104 sheets

70

just so you can see it. They moved the district that comes down 03:49PM 126 westward of that interstate and then they went around it and 03:49PM 2then all the way down. Now, maybe that little cutout explains 03:50PM 3Trinity River Project, but that doesn't explain the lightning 03:50PM 4bolt, and that lightning bolt remains the other smoking gun, I 03:50PM 5submit, as we see in these maps, which is a case study in racial 03:50PM 6gerrymandering and discrimination. 03:50PM 7

I thank you for the time and I appreciate the Court's 03:50PM 8courtesies throughout the case. 03:50PM 9

JUDGE COLLYER: Thank you. Are you going to submit your 03:50PM 10slides like others have or not? 03:50PM 11

MR. HEBERT: I am not -- I was not planning to do so, but 03:50PM 12I'm happy to do so. 03:50PM 13

JUDGE COLLYER: What is the Court's view of that? Some -- 03:50PM 14let me speak into the microphone. Some parties have submitted 03:50PM 15their slides and others have not. Does the Court -- do my 03:50PM 16colleagues have a view on that? Do you want them all or no? 03:50PM 17

JUDGE GRIFFITH: I think they would be helpful. 03:50PM 18JUDGE HOWELL: I would like them. 03:50PM 19JUDGE COLLYER: We would like them.03:50PM 20MR. HEBERT: Okay.03:50PM 21JUDGE COLLYER: We would like them all. 03:50PM 22MS. PERALES: Your Honor, if we may submit them by the end 03:50PM 23

of the day or tomorrow morning? 03:50PM 24JUDGE COLLYER: By tomorrow morning would actually be 03:51PM 25


71 of 104 sheets to 71 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

71

fine. 03:51PM 1MS. PERALES: Thank you, Your Honor. 03:51PM 2JUDGE COLLYER: We have other things to do at the end of 03:51PM 3

the day. 03:51PM 4MR. HEBERT: Do you want us to file them or submit them 03:51PM 5

via e-mail to the Court? 03:51PM 6JUDGE COLLYER: No, file them. File them so they're part 03:51PM 7

of the record. 03:51PM 8MR. HEBERT: Fine. Okay, we'll do it.03:51PM 9JUDGE COLLYER: Thank you, everybody. We're going to take 03:51PM 10

a break now. Mr. Hughes and Mr. Mortara, since I don't know 03:51PM 11who's going to speak for Texas next, we'll take a break and we'll 03:51PM 12be back at 4 and then you'll have 20 minutes. 03:51PM 13

(Thereupon, a break was had from 3:51 p.m. to 4:03 03:51PM 14p.m.) 04:03PM 15

JUDGE COLLYER: All right, sir. Go right ahead. 04:03PM 16MR. HUGHES: Thank you, Your Honor. I'll try to move 04:03PM 17

briefly through some of the issues and please don't take our 04:03PM 18failure to respond at this point as a concession on any of the 04:03PM 19issues. 04:03PM 20

I'd like to begin with -- there have been some questions 04:03PM 21about the source of certain population data and the ACS rolling 04:03PM 22average. The only thing I want to point out on that front is 04:03PM 23that Plaintiff's Exhibit 192 where we went through various 04:03PM 24population issues earlier in the day is based on the most recent 04:03PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 72 of 104 72 of 104 sheets

72

data available, the 2010 ACS data. That's all I wanted to point 04:03PM 1out on that front. 04:03PM 2

The second issue I would like to cover is that Mr. Hebert 04:03PM 3suggested there had been some contradiction in testimony about 04:03PM 4the map drawers and whether they ever considered race in drawing 04:03PM 5the maps, and I just wanted to put on the screen testimony that 04:04PM 6the map drawers gave in this trial, which is perfectly consistent 04:04PM 7with the testimony Mr. Hebert showed, that they did consider race 04:04PM 8when it was necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act. So 04:04PM 9I'd like to put up first, I believe, testimony of Mr. Interiano 04:04PM 10showing that he testified here in court that when it was 04:04PM 11necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act he did use race, 04:04PM 12but in no other circumstances. And he explained later that the 04:04PM 13primary metric he looked at in RedAppl was SSVR because that, of 04:04PM 14course, was the demographic metric that was very important in the 04:04PM 15Department of Justice's letter and to Mr. Interiano and the other 04:04PM 16map drawers. And Ryan Downton, when he was here in court, gave 04:04PM 17similar testimony and I'll put that on the screen right now, that 04:04PM 18he likewise testified that when it was necessary to comply with 04:04PM 19the Voting Rights Act that he did on occasion consider race but 04:04PM 20did not consider it for any other purpose. That is the testimony 04:05PM 21of both Mr. Downton and Mr. Interiano. 04:05PM 22

The third issue I'd like to touch on briefly is there's 04:05PM 23been a lot of discussion about the law today and I believe some 04:05PM 24questions from the bench about when the dilutive or disparate 04:05PM 25


73 of 104 sheets to 73 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

73

impact of political gerrymandering can be considered and how it 04:05PM 1can be considered. And the only thing I'd like to add on that 04:05PM 2front is to direct the Court's attention to case called 04:05PM 3Bossier -- or Bossier, I'm not sure how to say it -- Parish won a 04:05PM 41997 Supreme Court opinion that holds that the dilutive impact of 04:05PM 5political gerrymandering is relevant but is alone, insufficient 04:05PM 6to establish a racially discriminatory purpose and I think that 04:05PM 7gets at some of the questions that Judge Griffith was asking me 04:05PM 8earlier, and I thought that that would provide a bit more of a 04:05PM 9precise answer on that legal issue. 04:05PM 10

The next area I'd like to look at was brought up by 04:05PM 11Mr. Garza in his discussion of Dr. Kousser and the issue of 04:06PM 12whether there was a systematic overpopulation of districts -- of 04:06PM 13minority districts, I think was what he said. And in this 04:06PM 14regard, I think you'll recall both Dr. Kousser and Dr. Arrington 04:06PM 15both testified about this, that the overpopulation of minority 04:06PM 16districts is evidence of racially discriminatory purpose, and 04:06PM 17I'll show -- they both prepared similar bar charts and I'll show 04:06PM 18you one of those now -- well, bear with me. And the idea was 04:06PM 19that -- oh, now see why, it's not in my machine -- but you can 04:06PM 20imagine Dr. Arrington's bar chart that showed a high bar on the 04:07PM 21right and a high bar on the left, and the high bar on the right 04:07PM 22stood for the overpopulated minority districts. And what we went 04:07PM 23through in cross-examination with Dr. Arrington and is equally 04:07PM 24relevant to Dr. Kousser's opinion is that all of that 04:07PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 74 of 104 74 of 104 sheets

74

disproportionality, all of the so-called systematic 04:07PM 1overpopulation is not a result of racial discrimination, but 04:07PM 2instead a result of application of the County Line Rule in two 04:07PM 3counties. The first is Harris County, and if you'll recall, 04:07PM 4Harris County did have 24 districts that went down -- or 25, and 04:07PM 5it went down to 24 districts in the enacted plan. It was 04:07PM 6entitled under the census data to, I believe, 24.41 districts, 04:08PM 7and the decision was made by Mr. Hanna and Mr. Interiano that in 04:08PM 8order to comply with the County Line Rule, it was necessary to 04:08PM 9bring that down to 24 and the consequence of that is that there 04:08PM 10were overpopulated districts within Harris County; so as a result 04:08PM 11of the application of the Texas Constitution and the County Line 04:08PM 12Rule, not as a result of any racially discriminatory intent. 04:08PM 13

JUDGE GRIFFITH: Do you agree that the principles that 04:08PM 14animate the VRA can overcome a County Line Rule if it gets in the 04:08PM 15way? How do we think about that issue? 04:08PM 16

MR. HUGHES: Yes, I believe that federal law is supreme to 04:08PM 17state law. I think that's -- that's correct. But the question 04:08PM 18is whether breaking the County Line Rule was necessary in order 04:08PM 19to comply with the Voting Rights Act, and the -- what we see here 04:08PM 20is that the belief of Mr. Hanna -- 04:08PM 21

JUDGE GRIFFITH: I'm also thinking in terms of the 04:09PM 22instruction that we've had from the Supreme Court in your 04:09PM 23San Antonio case and Northwest Austin, the deference we're 04:09PM 24supposed to pay to state law in this instance. 04:09PM 25


75 of 104 sheets to 75 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

75

MR. HUGHES: Well, I think -- 04:09PM 1JUDGE GRIFFITH: How do we think about all this? 04:09PM 2MR. HUGHES: I think that in terms of the Section 2 04:09PM 3

analysis, the County Line Rule could be considered a traditional 04:09PM 4redistricting principle and considered in that regard. 04:09PM 5

In terms of this case, I guess our position would be that 04:09PM 6the County Line Rule would need to yield if that was necessary of 04:09PM 7a requirement in order to prevent retrogression, which isn't the 04:09PM 8case here and that's why the County Line Rule did not yield. 04:09PM 9And, certainly, following the race neutral County Line Rule is 04:09PM 10not evidence of racially discriminatory intent. 04:09PM 11

And so as we turn back to the overpopulation issue, that 04:09PM 12explains the overpopulation in Harris County which accounts for 04:09PM 13five of the districts on the far side of the bar chart and 04:10PM 14application of the County Line Rule, likewise, explains in Bexar 04:10PM 15County which was entitled to, I believe, 10.23 or .24 districts 04:10PM 16under the census data which means that their districts would be 04:10PM 17overpopulated, and that explains another four or five of the most 04:10PM 18overpopulated districts in this analysis. And when we went 04:10PM 19through this with Dr. Arrington, he agreed that once you factor 04:10PM 20in the application of the County Line Rule, there is no 04:10PM 21systematic overpopulation of minority districts in Texas which 04:10PM 22shows that it's not evidence of a racially discriminatory 04:10PM 23purpose, it's just an outgrowth of the application of the County 04:10PM 24Line Rule. 04:10PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 76 of 104 76 of 104 sheets

76

JUDGE COLLYER: I remember very well when you elicited 04:10PM 1that conclusion from him. I think you were questioning him. 04:10PM 2

MR. HUGHES: It was actually Mr. Mortara. 04:10PM 3JUDGE COLLYER: Mr. Mortara, forgive me, sir. 04:11PM 4JUDGE GRIFFITH: They look alike. 04:11PM 5JUDGE COLLYER: You're right. They're both from Texas, I 04:11PM 6

think, right? No, but I remember eliciting that testimony and I 04:11PM 7just have a question for you because I don't remember the 04:11PM 8specifics well enough at the moment. Was it necessary that the 04:11PM 9overpopulation occur in the minority districts as opposed to 04:11PM 10being spread out more generally among all the districts in Harris 04:11PM 11and Bexar counties? 04:11PM 12

MR. HUGHES: Well, I think what the evidence will reflect, 04:11PM 13Your Honors, is that in Bexar County, of course, as we've talked 04:11PM 14about many times, that was drawn by Vice-Chairman Villarreal, and 04:11PM 15that delegation, I think, is primarily democratic so because of 04:11PM 16that there would be a skew toward overpopulation of the 04:11PM 17democratic districts and our position is that no matter what it 04:11PM 18is, because it was drawn by Latino democrats, it's not evidence 04:11PM 19of a racially discriminatory purpose. 04:11PM 20

On Harris County, I -- we can point to this in the record 04:11PM 21in our post-trial filings, there was a mix of, you know, both 04:12PM 22republican and democrat districts that were overpopulated. I 04:12PM 23think of the 24, something like 18 were overpopulated and there 04:12PM 24was a mix in-between and so it kind of fell on both parties. But 04:12PM 25


77 of 104 sheets to 77 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

77

again, because of how overpopulated -- it was right up to the 04:12PM 1border between 24 and 25, it essentially meant overpopulation was 04:12PM 2going to be a fact of life for everybody in that county, and 04:12PM 3that's another reason why we don't believe it's evidence of a 04:12PM 4racially discriminatory purpose. 04:12PM 5

The next area I'd like to talk about, this was touched on 04:12PM 6briefly by Mr. Garza in more detail this morning, is the issue of 04:12PM 7the splitting of VTDs. And before we get into whether that's 04:12PM 8evidence of a racially discriminatory purpose, I'd like to remind 04:12PM 9the Court that at least with respect to the House and the 04:12PM 10Congress maps, splitting of VTDs is just an inevitable fact of 04:13PM 11life. In the House there are 150 districts, all sorts of 04:13PM 12adjustments have to be made. There have to be VTD splits. There 04:13PM 13were, both in the enacted plan and in plans proposed by some of 04:13PM 14the intervenors, and I'd like to show a table from 04:13PM 15Dr. Arrington's report that establishes this. This is Table 8, 04:13PM 16and here you can see the enacted House plan had 412 split VTDs, 04:13PM 17while one of the MALC proposals had 343 split VTDs, this is in 04:13PM 18the House, and likewise in the Congress it's even more required 04:13PM 19because of the zeroing-out requirement for population deviation 04:13PM 20and, again, both the enacted Texas plan and the alternatives 04:13PM 21proposed by some of the intervenors include a number of VTD 04:13PM 22splits. And you can see this, again, from Table 19 even some of 04:13PM 23the alternative plans had more proposed VTD splits than were 04:13PM 24actually in the enacted plan. And I say that only to point out 04:14PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 78 of 104 78 of 104 sheets

78

that the mere fact of VTD splits is not evidence of a racially 04:14PM 1discriminatory purpose and also to point out that whatever voter 04:14PM 2inconvenience may result or arise out of the splitting of VTDs, 04:14PM 3it is an inevitable part of this process, not only because 04:14PM 4splitting of VTDs is a necessary part of redistricting, but also 04:14PM 5because even after this occurs the evidence in the record shows 04:14PM 6that some overpopulated precincts will have to be redrawn anyway 04:14PM 7just because of the growth of population in those districts. 04:14PM 8That's a requirement of Texas law. So the splitting of VTDs is 04:14PM 9inevitable and at least in terms of that point about voter 04:14PM 10inconvenience, both Representative Farias and I believe 04:14PM 11Representative Coleman testified that that impact on voter to 04:14PM 12voter inconvenience was de minimis, which we will certainly cite 04:14PM 13in our post-trial findings. 04:15PM 14

The reason VTD splits matter at all to this case is 04:15PM 15because there's a claim that they are kind of an objective 04:15PM 16indication of an impermissible use of race in redistricting. And 04:15PM 17in order to show that, both Dr. Kousser and Dr. Arrington 04:15PM 18performed a statistical analysis where they tried to tie together 04:15PM 19VTD splits with race, and there are two primary problems with the 04:15PM 20approach taken by both of those experts. The first is, if you'll 04:15PM 21recall -- and Judge Howell, I'm sorry if you can't see this, but 04:15PM 22when Mr. Downton was on the stand -- 04:15PM 23

JUDGE COLLYER: Is the font of all knowledge gone? 04:15PM 24MR. HUGHES: No, I told her I didn't need the easel 04:15PM 25


79 of 104 sheets to 79 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

79

falsely so... 04:15PM 1JUDGE COLLYER: Well, she was going to stand up and just, 04:15PM 2

you know -- okay, there you go. 04:15PM 3MR. HUGHES: And we don't have to hold this up too much 04:15PM 4

longer but... 04:15PM 5JUDGE COLLYER: Just lean it on the table. 04:15PM 6JUDGE GRIFFITH: You just love that exhibit. 04:15PM 7MR. HUGHES: It does have my handwriting on it, Your 04:15PM 8

Honor. 04:15PM 9But in all seriousness what it shows is a number of 04:15PM 10

different reasons why VTD splits were made during the 04:16PM 11redistricting process, and many of those, urban areas, city 04:16PM 12boundaries, roads, colleges, socioeconomic or donor issues -- 04:16PM 13

JUDGE COLLYER: Although we didn't have any testimony 04:16PM 14really about those. I mean, in Mr. Peña's new district, there 04:16PM 15were 14 splits. We had three that were described by 04:16PM 16Mr. Interiano and no description for the rest. There was 04:16PM 17clearly -- I don't know if you described the one about letting in 04:16PM 18Mr. Peña's home and excluding somebody else's home, a different 04:16PM 19representative, but there were a lot of splits that he just 04:16PM 20didn't address. Now, I'm not saying that he didn't have one of 04:16PM 21those reasons for those splits, but he surely didn't tell us 04:16PM 22those reasons. 04:16PM 23

MR. HUGHES: Well, let me say two things to that. In 04:16PM 24terms of the map drawer splitting VTDs, Mr. Downton was involved 04:16PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 80 of 104 80 of 104 sheets

80

in many of the urban areas in the House and then much more so 04:17PM 1with the Congress, and so he would have been a map drawer doing a 04:17PM 2number of those things, which is why we asked him about this list 04:17PM 3and his testimony is that every single item on this list is a 04:17PM 4reason that he actually split a VTD in the map. 04:17PM 5

Now, to answer your question directly about Hidalgo County 04:17PM 6and the VTD splits there, Mr. Interiano did testify -- and I'm 04:17PM 7showing what I can access easily here on the screen -- the area 04:17PM 8by Representative Peña's house that resulted in some VTD splits 04:17PM 9and if you'll recall, in a more south of here is Representative 04:17PM 10Gonzales's house and he testified that it was necessary to split 04:17PM 11those VTDs. Those each result in more than one VTD split and 04:17PM 12there's an area in the northern part, Precinct 105, that results 04:17PM 13in a number of precinct splits so I think we do actually have 04:17PM 14testimony about the majority of VTD splits that occurred in this 04:18PM 15area of the map. 04:18PM 16

JUDGE COLLYER: But you see, the problem -- one of the 04:18PM 17problems is that Mr. Interiano showed how easily he could 04:18PM 18accomplish this, and the degree of information that was available 04:18PM 19to him from either the software or persons around him, and yet 04:18PM 20when we look we end up with minority representatives, 04:18PM 21Congresspeople with the guts, the commercial guts, their offices, 04:18PM 22their homes and other things just torn out of their old 04:18PM 23districts. And I know that you've said, Well, but that doesn't 04:18PM 24show up on the map, how was he to know? I find that that's 04:18PM 25


81 of 104 sheets to 81 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

81

really hard. I mean, whether you're talking VTDs or careful line 04:18PM 1drawing, it's really hard to conclude that when he made all these 04:18PM 2adjustments for all the republicans, he didn't knowingly cut 04:18PM 3out -- who was it, Congressman Johnson's home -- Congresswoman 04:19PM 4Johnson's home, Congresswoman Johnson's office and the commercial 04:19PM 5guts of Congresswoman Johnson's old district. She's got a lot of 04:19PM 6people but she doesn't have a whole lot left to work with. I 04:19PM 7mean, I really am interested in what your response is because I 04:19PM 8hear this and then I run up against that sort of thing and I 04:19PM 9don't know how to handle that. 04:19PM 10

MR. HUGHES: Well, I think two responses. First of all, I 04:19PM 11believe the members of the Texas House, because they have so much 04:19PM 12more control over the actual process given that they get to vote 04:19PM 13on the map, had more involvement in the drawing of their own 04:19PM 14districts as compared to any Congressperson here in Washington, 04:19PM 15given that they're really at the mercy of the Texas legislature. 04:19PM 16

The second is on the question of whether the removal of 04:19PM 17certain district offices, the testimony is that the map drawers 04:19PM 18were not aware of the location of the -- 04:19PM 19

JUDGE COLLYER: I know what the testimony -- no, no, no. 04:20PM 20The testimony was it's not on the -- it's not on my software and 04:20PM 21I couldn't know that it was even there. 04:20PM 22

It doesn't mean that somebody else didn't say, draw along 04:20PM 23this or something. I mean, I grant you that that's -- you've got 04:20PM 24that testimony, but did Lamar Smith's office get cut out of his 04:20PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 82 of 104 82 of 104 sheets

82

district? I'll bet not. I'll bet not. Congresswoman Johnson 04:20PM 1went down to Texas to be in meetings. 04:20PM 2

I mean, you see, yes, I hear what you say but I can't 04:20PM 3quite squeeze it into the rest of the record. It's a real 04:20PM 4problem you should think about and address a little more in your 04:20PM 5brief because I -- I'm still very troubled by it. 04:20PM 6

JUDGE HOWELL: And if I could just follow-up just one 04:20PM 7second. It was my recollection that either Chairman Seliger or 04:20PM 8Solomons said that they were aware of the burdens on local 04:20PM 9districts from VTD splits and tried to minimize that. Is my 04:20PM 10recollection correct? 04:21PM 11

MR. HUGHES: There is certainly testimony to that effect 04:21PM 12that there was an effort to minimize as much as possible, but 04:21PM 13again, it's just not possible to draw a Congressional map or a 04:21PM 14map with 150 districts in Texas without splitting VTDs. That's 04:21PM 15why there are VTDs in the enacted plan, that's why there are VTD 04:21PM 16splits in the plans proposed by -- 04:21PM 17

JUDGE HOWELL: Well, I mean, I just bring that up because 04:21PM 18you said you're going to rely in your brief on Representative 04:21PM 19Farias and some other testimony that split VTDs, at least in 04:21PM 20their districts, didn't matter that much or weren't that 04:21PM 21burdensome. But I do think that there is evidence in the record 04:21PM 22from the chairman of the Redistricting Committees that they 04:21PM 23understood the administrative burdens, the burdens on the actual 04:21PM 24voters who have to figure out where to go to vote about splitting 04:21PM 25


83 of 104 sheets to 83 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

83

precincts and they did want to minimize it. It struck me from 04:21PM 1this record that there is just a staffer run amuck who didn't get 04:21PM 2the message. You know, when Mr. Interiano said -- and he never 04:22PM 3understood that there was any policy against split of VTDs. 04:22PM 4

MR. HUGHES: I think the evidence in the record points to 04:22PM 5the contrary just in terms of there weren't thousands and 04:22PM 6thousands of split VTDs. I mean, there are thousands upon 04:22PM 7thousands of split VTDs -- 04:22PM 8

JUDGE HOWELL: Almost a thousand amongst -- 04:22PM 9MR. HUGHES: Well, there were 400 split VTDs in the 04:22PM 10

enacted map. 04:22PM 11JUDGE HOWELL: But isn't there 900 -- almost a little over 04:22PM 12

900 across all the House and the Senate plans? 04:22PM 13MR. HUGHES: Oh, if you add them up?04:22PM 14JUDGE HOWELL: Right.04:22PM 15MR. HUGHES: Yes, that may be correct, Your Honor, but 04:22PM 16

again, it's just -- the testimony is that that's just part of 04:22PM 17this political process of crafting districts, and of course in 04:22PM 18the Congress map it's an absolute requirement of the zero 04:22PM 19population deviation. 04:22PM 20

JUDGE HOWELL: No, I understand that. 04:22PM 21MR. HUGHES: And it is inevitable in the Congress map and 04:22PM 22

it's part of this political process in the House map and, again, 04:22PM 23every alternative proposal, or virtually every that I've seen, 04:22PM 24the MALC plan, Representative Coleman's plan, all included split 04:22PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 84 of 104 84 of 104 sheets

84

VTDs so I think the notion that there would be little to none is 04:23PM 1not -- it just doesn't square with the political reality of 04:23PM 2redistricting. 04:23PM 3

JUDGE COLLYER: I don't -- I hate to tell you this, but 04:23PM 4you're basically out of time, but we cut you off so we'll give 04:23PM 5you another minute or two to just sort of -- 04:23PM 6

MR. HUGHES: Thank you, Your Honor. The last two things 04:23PM 7I'd like to say about VTDs is that neither statistical analysis 04:23PM 8takes into effect race neutral reasons for splitting VTDs that 04:23PM 9have, you know, racial consequences, nor did either a statistical 04:23PM 10analysis take into account the splitting of VTDs in order to 04:23PM 11comply with the Voting Rights Act. And when all that's taken 04:23PM 12into account, the splitting -- the statistical analysis doesn't 04:23PM 13really tell us anything. 04:23PM 14

And then with my remaining 45 seconds, I'd like to say 04:23PM 15that, of course, we'll rely on our briefs to address the Senate 04:23PM 16and Congressional District 25, but a few words about the Senate 04:23PM 17while I am standing up here. It's a 62-percent Anglo citizen 04:23PM 18voting age population district. Every single reconstituted 04:23PM 19election analysis in the benchmark did not -- it failed. It's a 04:24PM 20zero out of ten, it's a zero out of five. It's a republican 04:24PM 21district. Every single districtwide election in 2008 when 04:24PM 22Senator Davis was elected, the republican prevailed, every single 04:24PM 23one except Senator Davis who won by less than -- less votes than 04:24PM 24the libertarian candidate received against a supremely weak 04:24PM 25


85 of 104 sheets to 85 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

85

opponent who had scandals being reported in the press and so 04:24PM 1forth. And the fact that one democrat who runs unopposed in a 04:24PM 2primary can get elected one time in a district does not make the 04:24PM 3district protected by the Voting Rights Act. If that's the rule, 04:24PM 4every time a democrat gets elected in any district in Texas -- 04:24PM 5and we all know now that minority voters support democrats -- 04:24PM 6that means those districts will be protected by the Voting Rights 04:24PM 7Act, which just isn't the law, and we'll address the rest of the 04:24PM 8details in our brief. Thank you. 04:24PM 9

JUDGE COLLYER: Thank you, sir. Excellent summing up. 04:24PM 10All right. Thank you, everybody. Thank you for your patience, 04:25PM 11your help, your input, your papers, which we also look forward 04:25PM 12to. Your wisdom, your attention. 04:25PM 13

JUDGE GRIFFITH: Can I state the obvious, we're obviously 04:25PM 14going to make a decision as quickly as we can and the papers that 04:25PM 15you give us next Monday will have an impact on our ability to do 04:25PM 16that. The better your papers are, the quicker we can wrap up. 04:25PM 17

JUDGE COLLYER: Right. 04:25PM 18JUDGE GRIFFITH: So please. 04:25PM 19JUDGE COLLYER: So please. 04:25PM 20JUDGE GRIFFITH: One last... 04:25PM 21JUDGE HOWELL: And I just want to add my comments to join 04:25PM 22

in what Judge Collyer said, that it's been a real pleasure 04:25PM 23listening to such excellent counsel on all sides, and I thank 04:25PM 24you. 04:25PM 25


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 86 of 104 86 of 104 sheets

86

JUDGE COLLYER: Thank you, everybody. 04:25PM 1JUDGE GRIFFITH: Thank you. 04:25PM 2(Proceedings adjourned at 4:25 p.m.)04:25PM 3 4 C E R T I F I C A T E

5

I, Scott L. Wallace, RDR-CRR, certify that 6the foregoing is a correct transcript from the record of

proceedings in the above-entitled matter.7

8 ---------------------------- ----------------

Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR Date 9 Official Court Reporter

10111213141516171819202122232425


87 of 104 sheets to 87 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

$

$900,000 [1] - 56:17

'

'3 [1] - 62:15

1

1,000 [2] - 50:24; 51:3

10 [24] - 8:1; 28:2, 19; 36:18; 38:17-20,

24; 48:1; 52:3, 8; 54:15, 20; 56:12;

60:2, 17-18; 61:23; 63:9; 65:5, 7; 68:1

10.23 [1] - 75:16

100 [2] - 60:5; 67:14

101 [6] - 50:9, 20-21; 54:12, 15; 55:18

103 [1] - 5:13

104 [1] - 5:13

105 [1] - 80:13

106 [8] - 50:5, 17, 20-21; 51:1, 4;

54:12, 15

107 [2] - 45:22; 56:11

11 [7] - 28:2, 19; 36:18; 40:19; 43:21,

25

11.4 [1] - 69:9

117 [2] - 11:13; 15:14

11th [1] - 43:23

12 [1] - 5:20

13 [2] - 16:1; 39:7

14 [3] - 15:9; 16:1; 79:16

144 [4] - 50:7; 51:4; 54:15; 55:22

148 [3] - 11:18; 51:12; 56:1

149 [8] - 46:7; 47:14; 51:15, 25; 54:12,

15; 56:2, 4

15 [7] - 3:6, 13-14; 4:2; 40:7; 58:22

150 [2] - 77:12; 82:15

151 [1] - 62:22

17 [1] - 15:23

17th [2] - 52:22; 56:3

18 [4] - 31:8; 40:23; 41:18; 76:24

18,000 [1] - 29:4

19 [1] - 77:23

19.4 [1] - 69:12

192 [1] - 71:24

1965 [2] - 36:24; 37:4

1980s [1] - 18:12

1982 [1] - 57:25

1990 [1] - 53:21

1991 [1] - 12:7

1997 [1] - 73:5

1st [1] - 52:24

2

2 [16] - 14:14; 22:14; 24:15; 25:19, 23;

26:2; 43:16; 44:14; 47:4; 56:13, 16;

66:2, 8; 75:3

2.8 [1] - 28:9

20 [2] - 24:19; 71:13

2000 [4] - 28:8; 50:3; 51:11, 16

2001 [2] - 62:15; 65:6

2002 [1] - 51:25

2003 [1] - 65:23

2004 [1] - 51:16

2005 [2] - 53:4, 8

2006 [4] - 50:19; 53:18; 65:11, 13

2007 [6] - 29:10; 49:23; 52:16; 53:6, 9

2008 [8] - 29:12; 51:6; 52:23; 53:17;

65:13; 68:4; 84:22

2009 [2] - 53:4, 8

2010 [16] - 9:13; 50:1, 21; 51:2, 7, 11;

52:16, 18-19, 22, 25; 53:18; 61:10;

64:18; 69:6; 72:1

2011 [3] - 13:5; 53:2; 62:12

2012 [2] - 3:1; 50:2

2014 [1] - 50:10

221 [1] - 53:24

23 [10] - 16:21; 17:16, 24; 19:15; 22:23;

23:4, 6; 28:11; 31:23; 39:18

23rd [2] - 25:25; 26:4

24 [7] - 50:17; 74:5, 10; 75:16; 76:24;

77:2

24.41 [1] - 74:7

240,000 [1] - 32:5

25 [27] - 24:17; 27:23; 28:1; 30:16, 22;

32:10; 33:2, 10, 12, 16; 34:17; 35:1, 13,

18; 36:8; 39:17; 43:9; 44:1, 4; 50:17;

51:7; 66:12; 67:20; 68:3; 74:5; 77:2;

84:17

26 [22] - 5:21; 6:6, 9, 15, 17, 19, 21;

45:22; 46:3, 5-6, 17, 19; 50:3; 51:7, 25;

54:16; 55:13; 69:19; 70:2

27 [1] - 18:6

28 [3] - 28:21; 36:19; 55:23

2:01 [1] - 3:2

3

30 [3] - 13:17; 40:23; 42:13

31 [1] - 3:1

33 [12] - 6:2; 9:11-14; 11:10; 12:3, 20;

13:8, 15; 52:7; 56:12

33.6 [1] - 69:11

34 [3] - 13:15; 28:20; 36:19

343 [1] - 77:18

35 [1] - 69:25

37 [1] - 8:23

3:51 [1] - 71:14

4

4 [2] - 4:21; 71:13

4.1 [1] - 28:12

4.3 [1] - 28:8

87

40 [3] - 24:16; 25:2; 26:20

400 [1] - 83:10

41.2 [1] - 50:8

412 [1] - 77:17

42 [1] - 28:11

43 [1] - 54:21

43.4 [1] - 50:6

45 [2] - 8:14; 84:15

45.4 [1] - 51:12

457,000 [1] - 28:10

46.8 [1] - 50:5

47 [1] - 51:10

472 [1] - 53:24

48 [3] - 30:19; 50:21

48.6 [1] - 51:16

49 [1] - 50:22

49.6 [1] - 69:8

4:03 [1] - 71:14

4:25 [1] - 86:3

5

5 [10] - 22:14; 24:15; 33:4; 35:12; 36:7;

40:9; 45:16; 48:18; 66:4

50 [2] - 8:22; 15:7

51 [1] - 50:21

526,000 [1] - 28:9

54 [3] - 45:22; 46:23; 56:5

572 [1] - 44:7

58 [1] - 12:9

6

6 [1] - 5:23

6,000 [3] - 50:23, 25

60 [3] - 13:10; 50:11; 52:10

600,000 [1] - 69:13

61 [1] - 8:24

62 [2] - 50:4

62-percent [1] - 84:18

63.6 [1] - 50:6

65 [3] - 4:24; 50:7; 69:14

657 [1] - 61:2

7

7 [1] - 65:13

7,000 [1] - 51:1

72 [1] - 69:8

74 [3] - 12:3, 7

78 [1] - 15:6

780,000 [1] - 29:1

788 [1] - 64:4

8

8 [1] - 77:16


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 88 of 104 88 of 104 sheets

8,000 [1] - 8:23

8.3 [1] - 69:10

80 [1] - 15:8

800 [1] - 29:6

800,000 [4] - 28:22; 29:3, 15; 36:20

839 [1] - 47:7

85 [1] - 68:3

9

9 [3] - 39:6; 40:23; 41:4

90 [3] - 4:23; 11:17; 40:20

900 [3] - 56:19; 83:12

903 [1] - 20:6

95 [1] - 60:11

97 [1] - 60:11

99 [1] - 68:1

9O3 [1] - 20:6

A

A's [1] - 44:7

ability [41] - 11:9, 11, 14, 17, 19, 21,

24; 12:1, 5; 15:2; 17:19; 18:12; 19:7,

16; 21:12; 28:2, 16, 19-20, 23; 33:3;

39:18; 40:19, 22; 41:3, 13, 16, 23;

43:21; 44:20; 45:15; 47:17, 19; 48:2;

63:15, 22; 66:17, 22; 69:11; 85:16

ability-to-elect [10] - 11:9, 11, 14, 19,

21; 12:1, 5; 19:7, 16; 40:22

able [5] - 3:13; 18:13; 46:1; 47:2; 52:5

above-entitled [1] - 86:7

absolute [2] - 28:3; 83:19

absolutely [1] - 18:22

access [1] - 80:8

accomplish [1] - 80:19

according [1] - 60:16

account [3] - 61:17; 84:11, 13

accounted [1] - 69:13

accounts [1] - 75:13

achieve [2] - 21:10; 52:12

achieved [1] - 17:4

acknowledges [1] - 9:5

ACS [5] - 29:11; 49:24; 53:2; 71:22;

72:1

act [1] - 67:11

Act [27] - 12:18; 13:1, 6; 14:18, 23;

17:10; 24:16; 35:8; 36:24; 37:3; 40:9;

47:12; 58:1, 25; 59:8; 63:6, 18; 66:2, 4;

72:9, 12, 20; 74:20; 84:12; 85:4, 8

action [1] - 58:9

actions [1] - 9:6

active [2] - 46:22; 52:2

acts [1] - 45:24

actual [4] - 18:4; 63:19; 81:13; 82:24

add [4] - 13:20; 73:2; 83:14; 85:22

added [4] - 28:8; 30:22; 40:10; 55:14

adding [1] - 41:9

additional [5] - 13:22; 16:19; 44:23;

45:8; 47:5

additionally [1] - 9:1

address [11] - 11:7; 14:17; 20:8; 27:22;

32:2; 35:5; 40:17; 79:21; 82:5; 84:16;

85:8

addressed [1] - 30:21

addresses [1] - 21:10

addressing [1] - 27:18

adequate [1] - 56:9

adequately [1] - 55:18

adjacent [2] - 46:20; 55:23

adjourned [1] - 86:3

adjustments [2] - 77:13; 81:3

administrative [1] - 82:24

admits [2] - 17:18; 59:21

admitted [5] - 33:11; 61:4; 63:7; 66:13

admonition [1] - 37:25

adopted [5] - 4:15; 30:4, 15; 51:24

advance [1] - 58:23

advantages [1] - 51:17

adversely [1] - 9:10

advise [1] - 63:24

advocating [1] - 42:8

affairs [1] - 45:15

affected [1] - 9:10

affects [1] - 18:20

affiliation [1] - 40:25

African [23] - 10:15, 21; 19:22; 20:3;

24:22; 25:11, 22; 41:2, 25; 43:5, 13;

44:5; 45:5; 46:18; 47:16; 48:7; 51:14;

59:20; 60:22; 61:23; 64:22

African-American [17] - 10:15, 21;

24:22; 25:11, 22; 41:25; 43:5, 13; 44:5;

45:5; 46:18; 47:16; 48:7; 51:14; 59:20;

61:23; 64:22

African-Americans [5] - 19:22; 20:3;

41:2; 60:22

AFTERNOON [1] - 3:1

afternoon [5] - 3:3; 11:5; 15:3; 27:10;

40:3

afterwards [2] - 21:7; 68:25

age [14] - 13:11; 15:21; 19:13; 49:22;

50:4, 6, 8, 10, 12; 51:12; 53:3; 54:8;

84:19

agree [4] - 11:16; 57:22; 66:21; 74:14

agreed [2] - 3:23; 75:20

ahead [5] - 24:10; 48:23; 60:3; 64:11;

71:16

air [1] - 42:25

Alford [6] - 17:22; 33:11; 53:19; 63:23;

66:11, 16

Alford's [1] - 68:2

align [1] - 34:15

alike [2] - 55:10; 76:5

Allison [1] - 40:3

allocation [1] - 44:23

allow [2] - 45:16; 47:9

allowed [4] - 10:7, 12, 17; 47:13

88

almost [11] - 4:22; 6:12; 24:17; 26:5;

28:22; 34:22; 44:25; 45:19; 69:24; 83:9,

12

alone [3] - 4:24; 19:3; 73:6

alternative [2] - 77:24; 83:24

alternatives [2] - 54:24; 77:21

amendment [1] - 10:19

Amendment [1] - 22:15

amendments [1] - 10:18

American [21] - 3:9; 10:15, 21; 24:3,

22; 25:11, 22; 41:25; 43:5, 13; 44:5;

45:5; 46:6, 18; 47:16; 48:7; 51:14;

59:20; 61:23; 64:22

Americans [5] - 19:22; 20:3; 41:2;

60:22

amiss [1] - 29:25

amount [3] - 3:22; 38:2; 45:17

amuck [1] - 83:2

analyses [2] - 11:25; 17:14

analysis [20] - 4:10; 6:23; 15:4; 17:11,

13; 22:9; 27:23; 33:6, 15; 34:11; 43:24;

46:9; 75:4, 19; 78:19; 84:8, 11, 13, 20

analyze [1] - 15:1

Anglo [26] - 5:13, 17, 24; 9:15; 10:3;

16:11; 32:21, 25; 40:24; 41:11; 45:5;

46:25; 49:22; 50:4, 6-7; 51:9, 12, 16;

54:17; 55:2, 14, 16; 68:22; 84:18

Anglos [6] - 26:9; 50:24; 55:11; 68:4;

69:6, 8

animate [1] - 74:15

annexations [1] - 54:4

announced [1] - 46:5

annual [1] - 50:22

Ansolabehere [5] - 18:18; 29:9; 32:3;

33:15; 53:15

Ansolabehere's [1] - 34:11

answer [16] - 13:14; 24:4, 12, 24;

35:16; 38:23; 39:2, 4, 12; 57:19; 59:8;

60:23; 66:19; 67:3; 73:10; 80:6

answering [1] - 36:2

antlers [4] - 15:5, 8-9, 11

Antonio [9] - 15:18; 26:1, 3, 15; 45:8;

55:15; 56:6; 59:4; 74:24

anyway [5] - 22:3; 29:6, 24; 36:23;

78:7

apart [7] - 30:16; 32:17; 35:1; 37:21;

39:8, 17; 46:12

apologies [1] - 58:23

appeal [1] - 64:10

appear [1] - 23:8

application [5] - 74:3, 12; 75:15, 21,

24

appointees [1] - 66:7

appreciate [2] - 27:14; 70:8

approach [2] - 68:24; 78:21

appropriations [2] - 51:18, 21

approval [1] - 8:17

April [1] - 52:24

Area [1] - 42:1


89 of 104 sheets to 89 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

area [23] - 15:12; 16:2; 19:22; 25:20;

41:20; 42:17; 43:15; 44:10; 46:19, 22;

47:22; 52:7; 58:5; 60:16, 20; 69:18,

20-21; 73:11; 77:6; 80:8, 13, 16

areas [11] - 10:13; 38:3; 41:9; 42:25;

55:14, 16; 59:24; 60:25; 79:12; 80:1

argue [2] - 26:22

argues [1] - 6:5

argument [6] - 25:4, 7; 35:7; 37:24;

65:24; 69:21

arise [1] - 78:3

Arlington [8] - 9:5; 12:14; 13:24;

22:10; 57:22; 64:20, 23

Arrington [4] - 73:15, 24; 75:20; 78:18

Arrington's [2] - 73:21; 77:16

Arthur [4] - 58:10, 12, 14, 16

Asian [2] - 46:6; 47:16

Asian-American [2] - 46:6; 47:16

aspects [1] - 4:25

assets [1] - 41:16

assigns [1] - 68:13

assistance [1] - 11:3

assisted [1] - 18:25

assumed [1] - 33:5

assurances [1] - 14:25

assured [1] - 10:1

Astrodome [1] - 41:8

Atlanta [1] - 58:6

attack [1] - 66:3

attempt [1] - 18:1

attempting [2] - 17:17; 40:11

attempts [1] - 20:4

attention [3] - 17:12; 73:3; 85:13

attorney [1] - 62:15

Attorney [2] - 17:12; 34:13

Austin [9] - 26:14-16; 31:7; 34:19;

44:15; 74:24

authority [1] - 13:25

available [3] - 54:24; 72:1; 80:19

average [6] - 53:4, 8, 11-12; 54:22;

71:23

avoid [6] - 4:19; 5:15; 18:7; 42:21;

55:23

aware [6] - 8:6; 22:21; 59:17, 22;

81:19; 82:9

B

backdrop [2] - 28:6; 29:17

background [1] - 62:9

backgrounds [1] - 44:18

backs [1] - 25:23

bad [2] - 64:8, 14

bailout [1] - 35:11

balance [3] - 10:22, 25; 56:22

bar [6] - 73:18, 21-22; 75:14

Barbara [1] - 41:21

barely [1] - 41:19

Bartlett [1] - 14:11

based [5] - 9:9; 29:10; 49:24; 53:3;

71:25

basis [1] - 67:8

bear [1] - 73:19

beautiful [1] - 34:21

becomes [2] - 19:13; 39:7

began [1] - 52:22

begged [1] - 42:4

begin [6] - 3:4, 11; 27:10; 28:5; 29:23;

71:21

beginning [1] - 12:10

behalf [1] - 40:4

behavior [1] - 23:20

behind [2] - 21:19; 46:16

belief [1] - 74:21

believes [1] - 44:3

below [3] - 13:21; 22:20; 51:10

bench [2] - 33:22; 72:25

benchmark [17] - 11:20, 22, 24; 13:9,

15; 15:1; 16:4; 17:15; 33:8; 40:19; 41:4;

43:25; 51:9; 63:22; 69:18; 84:20

Bend [1] - 46:19

benefit [1] - 41:16

benefits [2] - 41:15, 23

Bernice [1] - 42:14

best [2] - 16:10; 68:24

bet [2] - 82:1

better [4] - 34:19; 38:11; 41:18; 85:17

between [12] - 7:7; 8:1; 15:20, 24;

16:1; 17:24; 22:2; 23:12; 29:21; 58:6;

76:25; 77:2

Bexar [5] - 11:13; 16:7; 75:15; 76:12,

14

beyond [2] - 23:11; 58:22

big [1] - 62:20

biggest [1] - 64:21

bin [1] - 31:1

binding [1] - 37:12

births [1] - 53:22

bit [5] - 16:20; 24:19; 28:7; 36:23; 73:9

Black [2] - 47:8; 49:4

black [11] - 8:22; 26:16; 28:9, 11;

35:24; 54:3; 58:5, 7; 59:22; 65:19;

66:14

blacks [16] - 25:9; 26:9; 28:23; 33:17;

34:14, 21; 36:10; 62:25; 65:8; 66:18;

67:16; 68:1; 69:6, 9, 12

block [2] - 15:12; 19:25

blue [1] - 61:3

board [1] - 28:7

bolt [6] - 19:18, 20; 20:5; 69:22; 70:5

border [2] - 18:1; 77:2

Bossier [2] - 73:4

boundaries [3] - 55:17, 20; 79:13

Boy [1] - 28:16

break [9] - 12:25; 13:18; 48:21, 24-25;

57:9; 71:11, 14

breaking [3] - 37:1; 55:17; 74:19

brief [5] - 18:16; 32:2; 82:6, 19; 85:9

89

briefing [1] - 44:13

briefly [3] - 71:18; 72:23; 77:7

briefs [1] - 84:16

bring [6] - 41:5; 55:6, 16; 66:2; 74:10;

82:18

brings [1] - 31:20

broad [2] - 27:20; 39:4

broke [1] - 49:16

brought [3] - 12:12; 64:7; 73:11

bueno [1] - 68:12

burden [4] - 4:15; 40:13; 48:15; 66:7

burdens [3] - 82:9, 24

burdensome [1] - 82:22

burgeoning [1] - 4:20

bus [1] - 64:24

Busbee [1] - 57:25

business [3] - 31:8, 13; 42:25

businessman [1] - 62:16

but.. [1] - 79:5

C

C100 [2] - 6:9, 17

C185 [4] - 4:16; 28:18; 33:9; 37:18

calculation [1] - 64:2

Cameron [1] - 13:23

campaigned [1] - 48:9

candidate [22] - 17:5; 18:12; 20:16;

21:12; 23:9; 33:17; 44:4, 11; 46:5, 12,

17; 47:17; 48:3, 13; 51:10; 61:25; 65:9,

16; 66:15; 67:15; 69:11; 84:25

candidates [15] - 12:7; 15:16; 16:23;

17:9; 21:3; 25:12; 28:23; 34:16, 23;

35:25; 36:11; 41:24; 44:17; 46:1; 52:5

candy [1] - 68:22

cannot [3] - 9:9; 21:3; 54:9

Canseco [1] - 17:4

capture [2] - 5:12, 22

captured [1] - 6:11

captures [1] - 5:12

capturing [1] - 5:24

card [1] - 44:6

care [1] - 44:18

careful [1] - 81:1

carefully [3] - 23:7; 38:9; 66:16

carving [2] - 46:12; 47:22

case [37] - 8:14; 14:13; 16:12; 17:23;

18:4; 19:8; 20:10, 21; 22:13, 15; 23:11;

27:17, 20; 28:6; 29:11; 33:5; 37:9;

40:13; 43:8; 47:4; 51:5; 54:4, 18; 57:24;

58:1, 4, 11, 17; 66:8; 67:13; 70:6, 9;

73:3; 74:24; 75:6, 9; 78:15

cases [9] - 24:13, 17; 25:5, 15-17;

27:14; 57:21

casting [1] - 17:16

Caucus [3] - 3:9; 47:8; 49:4

cavalier [1] - 60:23

caveat [1] - 38:9

CD [24] - 5:20, 23; 6:2; 17:24; 27:23;


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 90 of 104 90 of 104 sheets

28:1; 30:16, 22; 31:8, 23; 32:10; 33:2,

10, 12, 16; 35:1, 13, 18; 36:8; 39:17;

44:1, 4

ceaselessly [1] - 30:21

cede [3] - 3:15, 23; 10:22

ceded [1] - 3:24

census [6] - 4:22; 52:21, 24; 61:16;

74:7; 75:17

center [2] - 41:9; 49:24

certain [2] - 71:22; 81:18

certainly [11] - 16:16; 32:1; 38:13;

50:11; 57:22; 60:8; 67:4; 75:10; 78:13;

82:12

certify [1] - 86:6

chair [1] - 62:2

chairman [5] - 14:24; 51:18, 20; 62:10;

82:23

Chairman [10] - 7:22; 8:10; 12:24;

14:23, 25; 17:5, 7; 20:15; 76:15; 82:8

chairs [1] - 42:3

chance [2] - 31:2; 57:5

change [2] - 30:17; 64:15

changes [7] - 6:5; 17:19, 24; 18:3;

23:3; 41:5, 19

characteristic [1] - 63:6

charge [1] - 62:18

chart [2] - 73:21; 75:14

charts [1] - 73:18

checked [1] - 67:14

checkered [1] - 69:18

children [1] - 53:23

choice [29] - 7:15; 17:5; 18:13; 25:12;

28:24; 33:17; 34:16, 23; 35:25; 36:11;

41:24; 44:5, 11, 17; 46:1, 12; 47:18;

48:3, 13; 50:14; 51:11; 52:5; 54:9;

61:25; 65:9, 16; 66:15; 67:16; 69:11

choosing [1] - 16:25

chopped [3] - 26:11; 32:23; 35:4

chopping [1] - 26:16

Christi [1] - 13:10

Christmas [1] - 12:2

Christmastime [1] - 11:19

Circuit [3] - 34:6, 8

circumstances [1] - 72:13

circumstantial [1] - 22:12

cite [4] - 15:3; 22:10; 60:25; 78:13

cited [2] - 21:20

cites [1] - 60:13

citizen [13] - 13:10; 15:21; 19:12;

49:22; 50:4, 6, 8, 10, 12; 51:12; 53:3;

54:8; 84:18

Citizens [1] - 24:3

citizens [1] - 53:20

City [7] - 34:12; 52:13; 53:24; 58:10,

13, 15

city [7] - 16:6; 26:11; 55:17; 56:6;

64:21, 24; 79:12

claim [4] - 14:14; 58:24; 78:16

claimed [2] - 20:1; 63:1

claims [3] - 17:17; 18:7; 63:5

class [1] - 41:11

clause [1] - 12:17

clear [6] - 28:17; 29:1; 32:24; 33:4;

47:11; 50:16

clearly [5] - 5:12; 6:1; 28:2; 67:15;

79:18

click [1] - 59:13

clients [1] - 63:24

close [5] - 14:10; 21:25; 50:18, 20;

51:24

closing [1] - 65:24

clouds [1] - 65:13

club [1] - 42:7

clubs [1] - 32:12

CM/ECF [1] - 33:25

coalesce [1] - 65:8

coalition [13] - 33:3, 5, 7; 35:23; 36:7,

9; 43:14; 46:7; 47:16; 48:10; 52:1;

65:22; 66:6

coalitions [1] - 46:21

cohesion [1] - 47:19

coincidence [2] - 43:4, 7

Coleman [1] - 78:12

Coleman's [1] - 83:25

colleagues [2] - 3:19; 70:17

colleges [1] - 79:13

Collyer [1] - 85:23

COLLYER [74] - 3:3, 10, 16; 4:3, 6;

10:23, 25; 21:14; 22:14, 17; 23:24;

24:1, 5, 10; 26:25; 27:4, 7; 29:1, 4, 6;

33:25; 34:3; 36:14, 16; 37:24; 38:10;

39:1, 24; 40:1, 7; 48:4, 20; 49:5, 9, 11;

52:17, 20; 53:1, 7, 11, 13, 16; 55:4;

56:24; 57:1, 3, 7, 13, 16; 63:2; 68:9;

70:10, 14, 20, 22, 25; 71:3, 7, 10, 16;

76:1, 4, 6; 78:24; 79:2, 6, 14; 80:17;

81:20; 84:4; 85:10, 18, 20; 86:1

colorblind [1] - 34:22

coming [3] - 26:13; 27:1; 67:5

commenting [1] - 30:8

comments [1] - 85:22

commercial [2] - 80:22; 81:5

commitment [1] - 27:15

committee [6] - 42:3; 51:19, 21; 64:6;

68:15; 69:2

Committee [3] - 62:10, 17, 24

Committees [1] - 82:23

communities [12] - 16:8; 26:17; 32:23;

41:25; 42:5, 8, 10; 55:17, 20; 59:22;

61:23; 62:5

community [22] - 4:23; 9:11; 19:21;

24:21; 25:11, 22, 24; 43:13; 44:12, 15;

46:3; 52:9; 54:25; 56:5; 63:8; 65:19

compact [1] - 56:5

compare [1] - 63:22

compared [2] - 62:4; 81:15

compelling [2] - 30:10; 31:15

completely [3] - 42:11; 54:12; 55:19

90

compliance [5] - 12:18; 14:18; 56:15;

59:8; 63:16

comply [9] - 8:3; 13:1; 58:25; 72:9, 12,

19; 74:9, 20; 84:12

complying [1] - 14:23

comports [1] - 54:5

compose [1] - 8:23

composition [1] - 62:23

comprised [1] - 16:18

conceded [2] - 66:11, 21

concentration [3] - 6:20; 15:11; 56:11

concern [1] - 44:9

concerned [2] - 30:6; 63:10

concerns [6] - 8:18; 9:2; 30:22; 46:14;

48:13; 64:9

concession [1] - 71:19

concessions [1] - 67:1

conclude [3] - 32:9; 67:8; 81:2

concluded [1] - 58:14

conclusion [2] - 67:5; 76:2

conditioned [1] - 58:18

conducting [2] - 33:5; 61:10

confident [1] - 54:21

configuration [7] - 6:8, 11, 14; 7:19;

18:10; 19:3, 9

configured [1] - 6:19

conform [2] - 15:8, 11

confronted [1] - 14:4

confused [1] - 61:13

confusion [3] - 56:18; 64:19

Congress [13] - 4:16; 10:19; 16:13;

28:14; 43:5; 47:11; 52:6; 58:8; 77:11,

19; 80:2; 83:19, 22

Congressional [44] - 5:11, 18; 16:21;

17:6; 19:4, 15; 22:22; 23:4, 6; 26:1, 12;

27:18; 30:4; 31:14; 34:16; 37:6; 38:13;

39:3, 12, 21; 40:14, 18, 21, 23; 41:4,

18; 42:13; 43:9; 44:21, 23-24; 45:2;

48:17; 52:7; 56:12; 58:6, 8; 63:17; 67:9,

20; 69:5; 82:14; 84:17

Congressman [7] - 33:16; 41:6; 44:4,

7; 45:10, 12; 81:4

Congresspeople [2] - 44:9; 80:22

Congressperson [1] - 81:15

congresswoman [6] - 31:4; 42:2, 6,

14; 46:4; 82:1

Congresswoman [6] - 30:12; 46:17;

52:1; 81:4

conscious [1] - 59:10

consciousness [1] - 23:10

consequence [1] - 74:10

consequences [6] - 4:19; 5:15; 8:6;

9:6; 59:15; 84:10

conservative [1] - 40:24

consider [5] - 17:9; 56:15; 72:8, 20

considerably [1] - 54:3

consideration [1] - 9:6

considered [11] - 7:25; 11:21; 12:4;

20:18; 31:2; 64:8; 72:5; 73:1; 75:4


91 of 104 sheets to 91 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

consistent [2] - 56:7; 72:7

consistently [2] - 20:14; 44:7

constant [1] - 25:2

Constitution [1] - 74:12

contacted [1] - 31:10

contain [1] - 52:18

contest [2] - 36:10; 38:14

contested [1] - 38:16

context [1] - 27:20

contiguous [1] - 58:5

continue [1] - 61:24

continued [1] - 61:15

continues [1] - 42:14

continuing [1] - 49:12

continuously [1] - 20:20

contradicted [1] - 59:3

contradiction [1] - 72:4

contrary [3] - 36:9; 54:19; 83:6

contrast [3] - 32:16, 19; 44:1

control [2] - 69:9; 81:13

controlled [2] - 24:18

controls [1] - 24:20

convenient [1] - 64:25

copy [1] - 24:6

core [1] - 54:25

corny [2] - 36:23; 37:10

Corpus [1] - 13:10

correct [5] - 35:20; 74:18; 82:11;

83:16; 86:6

correctly [2] - 35:7; 67:22

costs [1] - 56:17

Council [1] - 13:4

counsel [2] - 27:12; 85:24

counsels [1] - 57:5

counted [1] - 4:22

Countians [1] - 34:18

Counties [1] - 13:23

counties [7] - 7:4; 12:22; 14:21; 26:5;

45:6; 74:4; 76:12

country [4] - 32:12; 37:16; 42:7; 64:24

county [9] - 7:17; 10:9; 13:18; 15:7;

18:1; 32:15, 22; 77:3

County [85] - 5:11, 16, 21, 23; 6:11,

18-19; 7:16, 18; 9:7, 18, 20; 11:10,

12-13; 12:25; 13:3, 5, 17; 14:1, 5, 7, 12;

15:13; 16:7; 18:9, 19; 19:1, 3, 9, 13, 17;

22:11; 25:25; 26:2, 10, 23; 30:24;

31:25; 32:5, 15, 18; 34:12, 16; 35:13;

39:17; 43:11, 14; 45:4; 46:20; 47:6, 14;

48:2, 7; 52:4; 56:17; 60:15; 62:3; 64:18,

21; 65:19; 69:19; 74:3-5, 9, 11-12, 15,

19; 75:4, 7, 9-10, 13, 15-16, 21, 24;

76:14, 21; 80:6

couple [1] - 3:12

course [14] - 11:24; 12:15; 13:13; 14:7,

25; 37:15; 53:21; 56:16; 68:18; 69:13;

72:15; 76:14; 83:18; 84:16

Court [48] - 4:8, 13, 21; 5:2, 8, 18; 9:7;

12:25; 14:4, 10, 14; 15:16, 19-20;

16:24; 20:23; 21:9, 23; 22:18, 20, 25;

29:17; 33:2, 22; 37:11, 13, 15; 38:1, 9;

40:5; 46:2; 48:15; 49:14; 51:19; 52:15;

53:24; 56:1; 58:13, 17; 70:16; 71:6;

73:5; 74:23; 77:10; 86:9

court [16] - 3:19; 16:8; 24:6; 38:5;

45:8; 55:15; 56:6; 57:25; 58:3, 11, 23;

59:16; 60:6; 72:11, 17

Court's [9] - 4:12; 13:14; 17:12; 22:19;

38:6; 70:8, 14; 73:3

courtesies [1] - 70:9

courtroom [2] - 25:18; 63:25

courts [3] - 37:14, 16

cover [4] - 12:15; 17:22; 58:21; 72:3

covered [3] - 21:9; 35:14; 60:8

covers [1] - 35:12

cracked [1] - 25:10

cracking [1] - 60:14

craft [1] - 25:13

crafting [1] - 83:18

create [10] - 12:18, 21; 15:6; 18:13;

19:6; 29:23; 32:6; 44:22; 47:5; 68:16

created [8] - 14:22; 15:24; 18:7; 37:17;

42:16; 45:2, 8; 56:6

creating [2] - 16:16; 42:21

creation [1] - 41:20

creatively [1] - 40:11

credibility [4] - 25:1; 26:18; 43:8; 59:2

credit [1] - 8:9

criteria [1] - 54:19

critical [3] - 10:9; 65:18; 66:15

Cromartie [3] - 9:7; 20:25; 21:4

cross [5] - 35:3; 60:16; 62:13; 66:11;

73:24

cross-examination [2] - 66:11; 73:24

crossover [1] - 35:24

CRR [2] - 86:6, 9

current [2] - 14:9; 50:3

cut [6] - 3:6; 17:25; 26:2; 81:3, 25; 84:5

cutout [1] - 70:3

CVAP [1] - 51:9

cynically [1] - 23:7

D

D.C [3] - 31:7; 64:9, 14

DA [2] - 65:11, 21

Dallas [5] - 5:16, 23; 26:14; 45:4; 47:6

Dallas/Ft [6] - 19:23; 30:23; 42:21;

45:3, 9, 12

darkest [1] - 61:3

data [21] - 29:10-13; 49:25; 52:21, 23;

53:2, 4-6, 17-18; 59:1; 61:16; 71:22;

72:1; 74:7; 75:17

Date [1] - 86:9

date [2] - 49:24; 52:25

David [2] - 34:12; 68:7

Davis [25] - 3:23; 26:7, 21-22; 48:8;

57:18; 59:17; 60:12, 14; 61:7, 19; 62:3;

91

63:2; 64:5, 13, 17; 65:14; 67:16; 68:4,

10, 20; 84:23

davis [1] - 65:4

Davis's [2] - 59:19; 61:22

Dawnna [6] - 30:10; 32:16; 34:14, 18;

35:2; 43:15

days [1] - 30:14

de [1] - 78:13

deal [7] - 5:9; 10:5, 7, 12; 19:5; 49:9;

69:2

Dean [1] - 49:21

debated [1] - 31:1

decade [6] - 40:19; 41:11; 46:24;

51:11; 65:6; 69:13

decades [2] - 43:15; 62:18

decided [2] - 3:5; 63:13

decision [18] - 14:11; 22:19; 33:3;

38:6, 9; 42:4, 10; 44:21; 48:6; 49:15;

52:15; 54:1; 56:15; 57:23; 58:3; 74:8;

85:15

decision-makers [1] - 56:15

decisions [3] - 9:8; 39:19; 61:16

declarations [2] - 43:17; 44:14

decreased [2] - 5:17; 45:5

decreases [2] - 28:18

defeat [3] - 25:7; 51:20

defeated [1] - 10:21

defeating [1] - 51:17

defendant [2] - 40:4; 48:14

defendants [1] - 51:5

Defendants' [3] - 50:17; 51:7; 61:2

Defense [3] - 20:6; 44:6; 47:7

deference [2] - 38:2; 74:24

degree [3] - 17:17; 49:20; 80:19

delayed [1] - 65:23

delegation [3] - 10:2; 47:6; 76:16

delegation's [1] - 10:9

delegations [1] - 14:22

democracy [1] - 34:24

democrat [7] - 10:3, 12; 20:12; 51:6;

76:23; 85:2, 5

democratic [11] - 7:9, 11; 20:1, 19;

24:18; 25:6; 50:18; 61:3; 76:16, 18

democrats [11] - 7:13; 20:11; 22:4;

25:8; 41:1; 59:18; 60:22; 76:19; 85:6

demographic [2] - 12:11; 72:15

demographics [1] - 12:8

demonstrate [1] - 27:24

demonstrated [3] - 27:25; 47:4, 17

demonstrates [3] - 19:1; 20:10; 40:24

Denton [2] - 11:12; 69:19

deny [2] - 41:2; 48:16

Department [3] - 43:20; 44:2; 72:16

Department's [2] - 35:6, 18

deposition [1] - 16:12

deprive [1] - 48:1

deprived [1] - 44:20

deprives [3] - 18:10; 41:12, 15

depriving [2] - 21:12; 41:22


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 92 of 104 92 of 104 sheets

describe [1] - 44:15

described [4] - 18:15; 30:17; 79:16, 18

describes [2] - 16:24; 20:4

description [2] - 34:19; 79:17

designated [1] - 43:16

designations [1] - 44:14

designed [1] - 40:10

despite [4] - 42:11; 44:23; 47:11; 60:2

destroyed [4] - 34:25; 35:1; 37:9;

54:12

destroying [1] - 37:1

destruction [2] - 43:9; 47:25

detail [3] - 6:3; 43:18; 77:7

detailed [1] - 33:15

details [1] - 85:9

determination [1] - 8:3

determine [1] - 39:6

determined [1] - 52:14

Devaney [3] - 26:23; 27:1; 43:12

DEVANEY [18] - 27:2, 9; 29:3, 5, 8;

34:2, 4, 9; 35:9, 16, 21; 36:6, 15, 17;

38:5, 23; 39:2, 25

devastated [1] - 44:16

develop [1] - 65:5

development [2] - 5:6; 41:10

deviation [2] - 77:20; 83:20

devised [1] - 36:25

difference [1] - 15:20

different [14] - 6:14, 21; 8:17; 21:2;

30:17; 34:20; 35:3; 37:2; 44:17; 61:18;

67:5; 79:11, 19

difficult [2] - 19:14; 32:6

dilutive [2] - 72:25; 73:5

diminishes [1] - 66:18

diminutions [1] - 11:9

direct [3] - 22:18; 61:9; 73:3

directed [1] - 8:12

directions [1] - 64:9

directly [2] - 14:4; 80:6

disadvantage [2] - 7:20; 8:5

disagree [1] - 38:10

disavows [1] - 8:16

discarded [1] - 37:22

discovers [1] - 31:12

discriminate [2] - 4:16; 46:14

discriminated [1] - 67:8

discrimination [11] - 4:13; 5:1; 7:1;

25:2; 26:20; 37:19; 45:23; 67:10; 70:7;

74:2

discriminatory [20] - 27:21; 29:19;

40:15; 43:10; 44:25; 45:24; 47:15; 48:1,

16; 49:17; 67:11; 73:7, 17; 74:13;

75:11, 23; 76:20; 77:5, 9; 78:2

discussed [1] - 40:18

discussing [1] - 17:14

discussion [3] - 8:20; 72:24; 73:12

discussions [2] - 63:15; 64:13

dismantle [2] - 54:11; 66:6

dismantled [3] - 22:22; 54:10; 65:22

dismantling [1] - 66:3

disparate [3] - 32:11, 24; 72:25

disparity [1] - 55:12

disproportionality [1] - 74:1

disproportionate [1] - 56:20

disregarded [1] - 42:11

distinction [1] - 22:1

distinguish [2] - 22:13; 29:21

distribution [1] - 7:6

district [113] - 3:19; 6:23; 9:2, 12, 17,

24; 10:3; 11:11, 14; 12:5, 21; 13:9, 16,

23; 15:6, 23; 16:5, 10, 17, 19, 22; 17:1,

6, 8; 18:11; 19:11, 16; 20:18; 23:7;

26:8, 13; 28:2; 30:7, 23; 31:9, 13, 15,

17-19; 32:7; 33:13; 35:3, 8, 10, 12, 22;

36:9, 12; 37:6; 39:18, 22; 40:19; 41:7,

10, 13, 17, 19-22; 42:6, 15, 17-18,

20-21; 43:6; 45:11; 46:3; 47:6; 48:9;

50:11; 51:9; 52:4; 54:22; 55:3, 14; 56:4,

7-8; 58:8; 59:19; 60:4; 62:3, 23, 25;

65:6, 10, 22; 66:6, 12-13, 23; 67:17;

70:1; 79:15; 81:6, 18; 82:1; 84:19, 22;

85:3

District [97] - 5:11; 6:2, 6-7, 9, 15, 17,

19, 21; 9:11-13; 11:10, 12; 12:3, 20, 24;

13:8, 17; 15:6, 14, 16, 23; 19:4, 15;

22:20, 23; 23:4, 6; 26:1; 31:10; 34:17;

38:17-20, 24; 39:6; 41:4, 18; 42:13;

43:9, 21; 44:5; 46:2, 7, 17, 19; 48:1;

50:3, 5, 7, 9, 17; 51:1, 12, 15, 25; 52:3,

7-8; 54:12, 15-17, 20, 22; 55:13, 18,

22-23; 56:2, 5, 11-12; 58:17; 60:2,

17-18; 61:23; 63:9; 65:5, 7; 66:12, 19;

67:19; 68:1; 69:19; 84:17

Districts [7] - 11:17; 13:15; 26:12;

40:23; 45:22; 51:4; 54:15

districts [123] - 5:3-5, 9, 13, 25; 6:1, 4;

7:3, 5, 8-9, 11, 14, 17, 20; 8:1, 10, 25;

10:8, 13; 11:9, 19-23, 25; 12:1, 19;

13:16; 15:1; 16:15, 18; 18:14, 20; 19:7;

20:21; 26:4, 15; 28:16, 19-20; 30:17;

31:19; 32:17, 24; 33:4, 6-7; 35:1; 36:7;

38:3, 12; 39:8; 40:22; 43:21, 25; 44:22;

45:3, 9, 19-20, 25; 46:9; 49:14-16,

19-20; 50:14, 20, 23; 51:3, 8, 11; 54:7,

11, 18; 55:21, 25; 56:8, 14; 58:7, 25;

63:16; 64:1; 69:9, 15; 73:13, 17, 23;

74:5-7, 11; 75:14, 16-17, 19, 22; 76:10,

18, 23; 77:12; 78:8; 80:24; 81:15;

82:10, 15, 21; 83:18; 85:7

districtwide [1] - 84:22

diverse [2] - 46:7; 47:21

dives [1] - 16:7

divided [2] - 7:6

doctor [1] - 67:18

Doggett [3] - 33:16; 44:4, 7

DOJ [4] - 24:15; 25:6; 66:4; 67:5

done [7] - 5:6; 6:2; 8:24; 13:14; 41:7;

48:1; 69:2

donor [1] - 79:13

92

door [2] - 32:23; 51:25

double [1] - 22:24

Doug [8] - 59:17; 60:12, 14; 64:5, 7,

13; 68:10

dove [1] - 5:21

down [16] - 14:3; 16:7; 21:14; 24:7;

31:7; 37:1, 18; 59:4; 61:17; 69:20; 70:1,

3; 74:5, 10; 82:2

Downton [9] - 17:2; 20:3; 23:2, 21;

59:3; 72:17, 22; 78:23; 79:25

downtown [4] - 26:14; 31:9, 13; 41:20

Dr [25] - 7:2; 8:20; 17:22; 29:9; 32:3;

33:11, 15; 34:11; 53:15, 19; 63:23;

66:11, 16; 68:2; 73:12, 15, 21, 24-25;

75:20; 77:16; 78:18

dramatic [1] - 12:11

dramatically [3] - 6:21; 45:5

draw [6] - 7:11; 10:2; 17:11; 20:17;

81:23; 82:14

drawer [6] - 7:25; 26:19; 60:12, 24;

79:25; 80:2

drawers [5] - 58:25; 72:5, 7, 17; 81:18

drawing [11] - 7:3; 10:9; 30:6; 32:12;

33:5; 38:5; 60:7; 72:5; 81:2, 14

drawn [7] - 5:5; 8:10, 15, 17; 10:8;

76:15, 19

drew [4] - 6:21; 58:25; 60:15; 61:1

drive [1] - 35:2

driven [1] - 10:6

drop [1] - 16:3

drop-off [1] - 16:3

dropped [1] - 14:21

Dukes [8] - 30:11, 13; 31:11; 32:16;

34:14, 18; 35:2; 43:16

duplicate [1] - 30:2

during [6] - 11:23; 12:4; 13:2; 51:11;

59:21; 79:11

déjà [1] - 17:23

E

e-mail [7] - 16:24; 20:3; 31:23; 56:3;

64:4; 68:8; 71:6

early [2] - 18:12; 56:2

easel [1] - 78:25

easily [2] - 80:8, 18

east [6] - 6:18, 21; 35:3; 55:1; 69:20

East [1] - 44:15

eastern [1] - 32:17

eastward [1] - 55:23

economic [6] - 41:8, 12, 22; 42:18, 23;

43:6

Eddie [1] - 42:14

effect [26] - 12:6; 18:18, 21; 21:21,

23-24; 27:23; 29:18; 32:2; 39:14; 40:16;

43:11; 47:15; 48:7, 16; 49:17; 51:23;

54:3; 56:20; 57:20, 23; 66:22; 82:12;

84:9

effects [3] - 32:8; 39:16, 23


93 of 104 sheets to 93 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

effort [2] - 68:15; 82:13

efforts [3] - 40:24; 41:2; 42:11

either [7] - 9:8; 50:23; 55:1; 63:3;

80:20; 82:8; 84:10

El [5] - 7:16, 18; 15:5, 12; 49:22

elect [41] - 11:9, 11, 14, 17, 19, 21, 24;

12:1, 5; 15:2; 16:23; 17:8; 18:12; 19:7,

16; 21:12; 23:9; 28:23; 34:15, 23;

35:25; 36:11; 40:22; 41:23; 44:17; 46:1,

13; 47:17, 19; 48:3; 50:13; 51:10; 52:5;

54:9; 61:25; 63:16, 22; 65:9; 66:17, 22;

69:10

elected [13] - 9:13; 12:7; 44:19; 46:11;

48:11; 51:16; 63:2; 65:14; 67:16; 68:4;

84:23; 85:3, 5

electing [3] - 25:11; 58:7, 15

election [16] - 11:25; 15:4; 17:21;

23:23; 33:13, 18; 34:11; 48:8; 50:14,

19, 21; 51:24; 67:14; 68:5; 84:20, 22

elections [11] - 17:16; 33:15, 18, 23;

34:10, 15; 47:18; 50:20; 51:2; 67:12

electoral [2] - 40:12; 42:16

elects [3] - 15:15; 40:19; 51:13

element [2] - 17:21; 22:12

elicited [1] - 76:1

eliciting [1] - 76:7

eligibility [2] - 15:20, 25

eliminated [5] - 9:14, 25; 54:13; 55:19;

56:2

eliminating [1] - 56:14

elimination [2] - 9:11; 12:20

elongated [1] - 55:20

eloquently [1] - 43:12

elsewhere [1] - 22:3

emerged [2] - 49:20; 67:17

emerging [3] - 45:25; 46:8; 49:19

emphatic [1] - 67:14

enacted [14] - 13:21; 40:14, 17; 43:10;

44:21; 47:25; 48:17; 74:6; 77:14, 17,

21, 25; 82:16; 83:11

enacting [1] - 67:9

enactment [1] - 40:13

encompass [1] - 55:5

encouraged [1] - 48:8

end [6] - 10:15; 19:18; 28:3; 70:23;

71:3; 80:21

endogenous [3] - 11:25; 47:18; 67:12

ends [1] - 21:11

engaged [3] - 15:17; 16:6; 67:10

engagement [1] - 16:2

enhance [1] - 10:18

enjoyed [1] - 51:17

enormous [2] - 39:23; 40:20

entered [1] - 8:2

entire [5] - 12:24; 38:15; 43:8; 63:9;

66:4

entirely [2] - 37:22; 45:19

entitled [3] - 74:7; 75:16; 86:7

enumerable [1] - 63:6

equal [2] - 37:17; 41:5

equalizing [1] - 8:1

equally [1] - 73:24

Escamilla [1] - 34:12

especially [1] - 54:14

essentially [4] - 4:10, 25; 7:5; 77:2

establish [3] - 6:1; 28:1; 73:7

established [2] - 33:21; 36:8

establishes [2] - 32:3; 77:16

estimates [1] - 17:14

ethnic [5] - 44:18; 59:1; 60:7, 9

ethnicity [1] - 59:7

evaluating [1] - 23:15

evaluation [1] - 7:2

eve [1] - 31:12

evenly [2] - 7:6

Everman [1] - 59:22

evidence [37] - 4:11, 18; 5:1, 9, 19, 25;

6:10, 12; 9:1, 9; 14:20; 23:14; 27:21,

24; 29:18; 30:2; 36:8; 42:9; 44:24; 54:8;

67:2, 4, 6; 68:19; 73:17; 75:11, 23;

76:13, 19; 77:4, 9; 78:1, 6; 82:22; 83:5

exact [1] - 67:11

exactly [4] - 13:14; 37:7; 62:11; 66:9

exaggerated [3] - 6:14; 7:13, 20

examination [2] - 66:11; 73:24

examine [1] - 6:8

examined [2] - 7:4; 8:20

examines [1] - 6:16

examining [1] - 6:3

example [11] - 10:10; 23:2; 30:3;

34:24; 39:1, 15; 46:21, 23; 52:3; 58:10;

66:13

examples [2] - 9:3; 46:21

excellent [2] - 85:10, 24

except [4] - 10:13; 17:5; 23:21; 84:24

exception [1] - 9:20

exchange [1] - 63:4

exclude [1] - 55:16

excluded [3] - 25:9; 30:8

excluding [1] - 79:19

exclusively [2] - 6:12; 24:17

excuse [3] - 21:7; 24:5; 33:25

exercising [2] - 41:23; 47:23

exhausting [1] - 27:17

exhibit [3] - 19:19, 24; 79:7

Exhibit [8] - 20:6; 44:7; 47:7; 51:7;

61:2; 62:22; 64:4; 71:24

Exhibits [1] - 50:17

exist [1] - 54:1

existing [3] - 16:15, 18; 46:22

exists [2] - 55:12; 58:5

exogenous [1] - 12:1

expect [5] - 3:17, 20; 28:16; 53:17;

61:14

expected [2] - 50:9; 53:21

expecting [2] - 61:18

expense [1] - 18:3

experience [3] - 62:11, 14, 17

93

expert [4] - 25:18; 65:16; 66:21; 68:3

experts [2] - 29:11; 78:21

explain [2] - 6:23; 70:4

explained [2] - 9:9; 72:13

explains [4] - 70:3; 75:13, 15, 18

explanation [1] - 43:7

explanations [1] - 43:3

explicitly [1] - 13:5

extra [3] - 27:4, 6

extraordinary [2] - 16:14; 27:11

F

facade [1] - 17:1

face [1] - 16:1

faced [1] - 68:5

Fact [1] - 60:13

fact [26] - 4:19; 5:16; 6:7, 13; 7:14;

8:13; 12:23; 14:14; 15:9; 16:17; 19:14,

24; 23:9, 14; 35:12; 49:19; 54:11; 59:2,

17; 62:2; 63:24; 64:13; 77:3, 11; 78:1;

85:2

factor [2] - 13:24; 75:20

factors [2] - 12:15; 61:18

facts [2] - 21:2; 23:1

factual [2] - 21:4; 27:20

failed [3] - 4:14; 51:10; 84:20

failure [2] - 13:20; 71:19

fairly [1] - 51:24

falls [1] - 14:2

falsely [1] - 79:1

far [3] - 59:10; 63:10; 75:14

fared [1] - 41:18

Farenthold [1] - 19:10

Farias [2] - 78:11; 82:20

fast [2] - 58:23; 68:25

faults [1] - 37:15

feature [2] - 59:7, 10

February [2] - 52:21; 56:3

federal [4] - 12:17; 13:3, 6; 74:17

Feeney [1] - 22:21

fell [1] - 76:25

few [2] - 38:12; 84:17

fewer [1] - 17:16

Field [1] - 42:19

field [1] - 61:10

fields [1] - 43:1

fifth [1] - 58:8

Fifth [3] - 6:2; 34:8

fight [1] - 24:23

figure [4] - 36:5; 38:21; 66:25; 82:25

file [3] - 71:5, 7

filed [4] - 10:1; 25:6; 33:25; 67:3

filings [1] - 76:22

final [3] - 36:22; 47:10; 61:16

finally [9] - 10:5; 19:18; 20:7, 23, 25;

44:21; 47:4, 14, 25

financial [1] - 56:17

findings [1] - 78:14


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 94 of 104 94 of 104 sheets

Findings [1] - 60:13

fine [4] - 23:11; 29:7; 71:1, 9

fingers [1] - 55:15

finishes [2] - 57:9

first [17] - 9:4; 11:7; 21:2; 24:17; 26:19;

27:10, 19; 34:5; 35:22; 38:24; 40:17;

67:1; 69:23; 72:10; 74:4; 78:21; 81:11

fist [2] - 54:24; 55:1

fit [1] - 12:23

five [16] - 3:23; 4:4; 7:14; 26:12; 30:17;

32:17, 24; 35:1; 50:1; 53:4; 62:18;

75:14, 18; 84:21

flat [2] - 7:5; 12:17

floor [1] - 8:4

focal [1] - 60:3

focus [4] - 4:9; 6:5; 37:14; 63:9

focused [1] - 31:24

follow [1] - 82:7

follow-up [1] - 82:7

following [2] - 45:18; 75:10

follows [1] - 21:15

font [2] - 57:11; 78:24

forbidden [1] - 56:13

Force [3] - 3:15; 10:22; 11:6

forefront [1] - 14:19

foregoing [1] - 86:6

Forest [1] - 59:23

forgive [5] - 3:18; 21:20; 22:24; 76:4

form [1] - 32:11

formal [1] - 35:11

Fort [2] - 26:15; 46:19

forth [4] - 32:10; 50:17; 51:7; 85:2

forward [3] - 54:5; 59:12; 85:12

four [7] - 4:25; 12:13; 15:22; 28:15;

40:21; 44:23; 75:18

Fourteenth [1] - 22:15

Fourth [2] - 31:9; 34:6

fourth [1] - 62:4

fractured [2] - 42:11; 46:3

fracturing [2] - 44:12

fragment [1] - 55:19

fragmented [2] - 58:2, 4

fragmenting [1] - 55:17

framed [1] - 38:11

frankly [3] - 20:17; 21:1; 31:6

free [1] - 68:22

Freedmen's [1] - 31:10

Friday [1] - 30:14

front [4] - 42:9; 71:23; 72:2; 73:3

Frost [1] - 65:22

Ft [5] - 55:5, 8, 10; 64:21

full [1] - 41:13

fully [1] - 41:3

function [1] - 19:16

fundamental [1] - 27:19

future [2] - 46:1, 13

G

gain [3] - 12:12; 41:23; 50:10

gaining [1] - 28:14

galvanize [1] - 52:9

galvanizing [1] - 51:23

game [2] - 65:21

gap [2] - 15:24

GARZA [5] - 3:8, 11; 4:8; 10:24; 11:2

Garza [10] - 3:9; 4:7; 9:7; 16:10; 22:11,

14; 25:16; 52:8; 73:12; 77:7

gather [1] - 52:11

gee [1] - 42:6

general [7] - 17:21; 20:17; 33:13, 18,

23; 34:10, 15

General's [1] - 17:12

generally [2] - 42:24; 76:11

generators [5] - 41:8, 12; 42:18, 23;

43:6

geography [1] - 38:19

George [1] - 25:17

Georgia [1] - 58:2

Gerald [1] - 57:17

Gerardo [1] - 60:6

Gerry [1] - 66:20

gerrymander [1] - 19:24

gerrymandering [3] - 70:7; 73:1, 6

given [2] - 81:13, 16

glaring [1] - 32:11

goal [1] - 23:12

golly [2] - 42:6; 65:13

Gonzales [1] - 3:25

Gonzales's [1] - 80:11

goodness [1] - 27:5

government [1] - 4:10

governor [2] - 64:10, 15

gradation [2] - 50:9, 11

grammar [1] - 32:13

Grand [1] - 5:14

grandbabies' [1] - 32:13

Grande [1] - 12:22

grant [2] - 38:18; 81:24

grappling [1] - 21:17

grasp [1] - 65:12

great [8] - 4:19; 5:9; 10:5, 7, 12; 16:18;

19:5; 37:16

greater [1] - 7:10

greatest [1] - 15:24

Green [1] - 41:6

grew [2] - 12:22; 69:12

GRIFFITH [13] - 13:25; 14:16; 46:8;

70:18; 74:14, 22; 75:2; 76:5; 79:7;

85:14, 19, 21; 86:2

Griffith [7] - 21:15, 22; 49:18; 57:20;

61:6, 13; 73:8

ground [1] - 58:21

group [1] - 45:1

groups [2] - 15:12; 47:23

94

grow [1] - 65:7

growing [1] - 54:8

grown [1] - 28:13

growth [23] - 4:21, 23; 5:15; 12:11;

16:14; 29:13; 40:20; 45:14; 46:23-25;

47:2, 9, 11; 49:12, 15, 25; 50:2; 53:8;

69:14; 78:8

guess [1] - 75:6

guiding [1] - 57:21

gun [1] - 70:5

guns [1] - 68:6

guts [3] - 80:22; 81:6

guy [1] - 64:5

H

H283 [1] - 4:15

H2O2 [1] - 47:7

half [5] - 19:4; 25:19; 26:3; 54:22

halfway [1] - 53:9

Halloween [1] - 68:23

handed [1] - 34:1

handle [1] - 81:10

Handley [1] - 63:23

handwriting [1] - 79:8

Hanna [8] - 8:12, 16; 56:3; 68:8; 74:8,

21

happy [1] - 70:13

hard [4] - 27:16; 28:7; 81:1

hardcore [1] - 61:4

harder [1] - 27:13

Harper [2] - 37:10, 12

harping [1] - 65:24

Harris [10] - 9:18, 20; 47:14; 74:4, 11;

75:13; 76:11, 21

hashed [1] - 21:1

hatched [2] - 69:20

hate [1] - 84:4

HD [5] - 12:7; 46:5, 23; 47:14

HD107 [1] - 47:6

head [3] - 62:16, 24; 68:21

healthy [1] - 19:12

hear [7] - 3:20; 31:6; 37:5; 54:20; 55:4;

81:9; 82:3

heard [16] - 4:21; 5:8, 18; 15:16, 20;

16:8, 24; 31:4; 36:1; 43:15; 51:15; 55:7;

56:1; 61:20; 67:2

hearing [6] - 32:2; 42:3; 48:25; 55:8;

64:18; 69:2

hearings [5] - 30:5; 61:10, 12, 14; 65:2

hears [1] - 31:11

heart [3] - 13:9; 27:5; 65:18

heavily [2] - 18:1; 23:14

Hebert [9] - 38:16; 49:7; 54:20; 56:25;

57:4, 9, 17; 72:3, 8

HEBERT [13] - 3:21; 57:6, 12, 15, 17;

63:4; 67:23, 25; 68:10; 70:12, 21; 71:5,

9

Heights [5] - 9:5; 12:14; 13:24; 22:11;


95 of 104 sheets to 95 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

57:23

held [5] - 41:21; 53:24; 64:18, 20, 22

help [1] - 85:12

helped [1] - 17:7

helpful [2] - 68:17; 70:18

herself [1] - 68:20

hesitate [1] - 57:3

Hidalgo [4] - 5:11; 13:23; 30:23; 80:6

Higginbotham [1] - 34:6

high [5] - 32:13; 60:24; 73:21

highest [1] - 26:4

highlight [1] - 15:19

Hilderbran [2] - 32:20

Hills [1] - 59:23

himself [1] - 34:6

hired [1] - 64:6

Hispanic [13] - 8:22; 9:17; 13:10; 15:8,

12, 21; 17:18; 20:21; 28:9; 29:13; 35:24

Hispanics [11] - 28:13, 23; 32:5;

33:17; 34:15, 22; 36:11; 39:17; 68:3;

69:7, 13

historic [3] - 41:25; 43:13; 44:12

historical [2] - 6:8, 23

history [1] - 50:14

Hochberg [3] - 9:21, 25; 10:3

Hochberg's [1] - 9:24

hold [5] - 22:6; 48:15; 64:21; 65:3;

79:4

holds [1] - 73:5

home [8] - 31:16; 37:6; 42:15, 19;

79:19; 81:4

homes [2] - 37:9; 80:23

Honor [27] - 3:21; 4:4; 18:22; 19:1;

22:10, 16; 23:1, 10, 16; 24:9; 27:2;

34:4; 35:10; 38:5; 48:5; 49:10; 55:7;

56:10; 57:2, 6, 15; 70:23; 71:2, 17;

79:9; 83:16; 84:7

Honors [8] - 24:2; 26:21; 27:10; 29:21;

40:6, 9; 49:3; 76:14

hope [1] - 27:24

hopefully [1] - 20:7

horror [1] - 31:12

hours [2] - 25:19; 30:19

house [2] - 80:9, 11

House [52] - 4:15; 5:10; 8:4, 21;

9:11-13, 23; 10:4, 16, 18; 11:8, 10, 12,

17; 12:3, 13, 20, 24; 13:8, 15, 17, 21;

15:14, 22; 38:13; 40:14; 45:19, 22;

46:2, 7, 17, 19; 48:17; 51:18, 20; 54:17;

60:8; 62:10; 67:10; 77:10, 12, 17, 19;

80:1; 81:12; 83:13, 23

Houston [3] - 26:14; 46:19; 47:22

HOWELL [18] - 18:16, 23; 23:13; 35:5,

15, 17; 36:4; 43:19; 67:22, 24; 70:19;

82:7, 18; 83:9, 12, 15, 21; 85:22

Howell [5] - 27:25; 62:7; 63:11; 66:25;

78:22

Howell's [2] - 32:1; 39:14

Hubert [3] - 47:18; 51:16, 23

hug [1] - 15:10

hugely [1] - 46:24

HUGHES [18] - 71:17; 74:17; 75:1, 3;

76:3, 13; 78:25; 79:4, 8, 24; 81:11;

82:12; 83:5, 10, 14, 16, 22; 84:7

Hughes [4] - 19:24; 21:18; 69:17;

71:11

human [1] - 37:16

Hunter [1] - 13:17

I

idea [2] - 68:24; 73:19

identified [2] - 56:4; 67:15

identify [4] - 33:7; 38:3, 20; 39:8

imagine [1] - 73:21

immediately [1] - 30:25

impact [11] - 17:19; 21:21; 22:12, 22;

45:14; 58:8, 14; 73:1, 5; 78:12; 85:16

impermissible [1] - 78:17

implemented [2] - 30:18; 54:4

importance [2] - 34:10; 37:6

important [12] - 4:12; 7:12; 12:16;

29:18; 31:7; 38:9; 41:8, 22; 56:15;

57:23; 72:15

impossible [2] - 39:10; 51:20

imprison [1] - 37:2

improper [1] - 29:18

improved [1] - 55:2

improvement [1] - 10:20

improvements [1] - 56:12

in-between [1] - 76:25

include [4] - 13:7; 28:1; 56:11; 77:22

included [3] - 7:16; 33:8; 83:25

including [3] - 17:25; 42:18; 44:1

inclusion [1] - 55:24

incontestably [1] - 69:24

inconvenience [3] - 78:3, 11, 13

increase [1] - 53:19

increased [2] - 28:10; 45:6

increasingly [1] - 17:25

incredible [1] - 63:20

incredibly [1] - 64:12

incumbency [2] - 21:11; 51:18

incumbent [4] - 16:10; 18:2; 50:16;

51:17

indicate [1] - 23:17

indicated [1] - 9:25

indicates [3] - 16:1; 23:19

indicating) [1] - 16:4

indication [4] - 50:16; 58:16; 78:17

indicative [1] - 45:23

indicator [2] - 12:16; 22:12

indicators [2] - 6:25; 12:14

indicia [1] - 15:5

individual [2] - 10:6, 11

inevitable [4] - 77:11; 78:4, 10; 83:22

infected [4] - 37:19, 22; 39:7, 9

infects [1] - 39:5

inferring [1] - 21:23

95

information [5] - 52:18; 54:2; 60:10;

80:19

initial [1] - 40:11

injustice [1] - 37:1

inpatient [1] - 57:4

input [3] - 11:22; 61:13; 85:12

insert [1] - 13:22

insiders [1] - 45:10

instance [3] - 6:6; 21:24; 74:25

instances [1] - 21:23

instead [4] - 20:24; 28:14, 18; 74:3

institution [1] - 37:16

instruction [1] - 74:23

instrument [1] - 36:25

insufficient [1] - 73:6

insulate [1] - 18:8

intact [1] - 48:10

intended [3] - 47:13; 48:6; 57:4

intense [1] - 61:2

intent [20] - 4:9, 16; 9:1; 21:23; 22:12;

25:1; 38:7; 40:15; 43:10; 44:25; 46:14;

48:1, 16; 57:21, 24; 67:2, 12; 74:13;

75:11

intentional [5] - 4:12; 5:1; 25:3; 44:12;

45:23

intentionally [1] - 44:20

intentions [1] - 46:5

interchangeably [1] - 20:22

interest [4] - 42:5, 10; 55:17; 56:5

interested [3] - 18:17; 48:25; 81:8

interesting [3] - 42:2, 24; 52:17

interests [1] - 55:20

Interiano [17] - 7:24; 8:11; 12:6; 14:21;

17:3; 24:25; 43:4; 60:6; 64:4; 72:10, 16,

22; 74:8; 79:17; 80:7, 18; 83:3

Interiano's [1] - 15:3

interim [2] - 43:22; 64:17

interstate [1] - 70:2

intervenor [2] - 3:20; 57:5

intervenors [11] - 3:5, 12, 15, 23, 25;

40:4; 48:14; 57:10, 18; 77:15, 22

introduced [3] - 10:17; 42:4; 59:5

intrusion [1] - 6:18

invidious [1] - 45:23

involve [1] - 42:24

involved [6] - 25:16; 26:8; 32:25;

38:25; 56:10; 79:25

involvement [1] - 81:14

Irving [1] - 5:14

issue [24] - 4:13; 11:7, 16; 14:10, 12;

20:25; 21:9, 17, 21; 29:20; 33:20;

45:13; 57:21; 62:12; 63:8; 64:7; 65:2;

72:3, 23; 73:10, 12; 74:16; 75:12; 77:7

issues [9] - 8:18; 20:11; 42:9; 44:8;

71:18, 20, 25; 79:13

item [1] - 80:4

itself [4] - 31:24; 54:6; 56:10; 58:16


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 96 of 104 96 of 104 sheets

J

Jackson [8] - 30:12; 31:4; 37:5; 42:2;

46:4, 15, 18; 52:1

JANUARY [1] - 3:1

John [1] - 49:3

Johnson [4] - 37:3, 8; 42:14; 82:1

Johnson's [4] - 81:4

join [3] - 35:24; 36:11; 85:22

joined [1] - 4:10

Jordan [1] - 41:21

Jose [2] - 3:9; 25:23

José [1] - 25:16

Judge [16] - 21:15, 22; 27:25; 32:1;

39:14; 49:18; 57:20; 59:6; 61:6, 13;

62:7; 63:11; 66:24; 73:8; 78:22; 85:23

JUDGE [105] - 3:3, 10, 16; 4:3, 6;

10:23, 25; 13:25; 14:16; 18:16, 23;

21:14; 22:14, 17; 23:13, 24; 24:1, 5, 10;

26:25; 27:4, 7; 29:1, 4, 6; 33:25; 34:3;

35:5, 15, 17; 36:4, 14, 16; 37:24; 38:10;

39:1, 24; 40:1, 7; 43:19; 46:8; 48:4, 20;

49:5, 9, 11; 52:17, 20; 53:1, 7, 11, 13,

16; 55:4; 56:24; 57:1, 3, 7, 13, 16; 63:2;

67:22, 24; 68:9; 70:10, 14, 18-20, 22,

25; 71:3, 7, 10, 16; 74:14, 22; 75:2;

76:1, 4-6; 78:24; 79:2, 6-7, 14; 80:17;

81:20; 82:7, 18; 83:9, 12, 15, 21; 84:4;

85:10, 14, 18-22; 86:1

judge [4] - 3:19; 34:6; 58:3; 61:15

judgment [2] - 32:10; 33:2

judicial [1] - 51:19

juggle [1] - 27:14

jurisdiction [1] - 35:14

jurisdictions [1] - 40:10

Justice [4] - 35:5, 17; 43:20; 44:1

Justice's [1] - 72:16

justification [4] - 7:24; 8:15; 19:21;

20:8

justified [3] - 6:8; 7:23; 47:22

K

Katrina [1] - 68:10

keep [6] - 17:1; 19:1, 4; 20:4; 25:10;

32:21

Keep [1] - 34:19

keeping [3] - 45:13; 47:10, 23

keeps [1] - 65:24

kept [2] - 32:16; 48:9

Kill [1] - 37:10

kind [6] - 16:3; 34:20, 23; 60:9; 76:25;

78:16

knowing [3] - 9:5; 60:2

knowingly [1] - 81:3

knowledge [2] - 57:11; 78:24

knows [1] - 34:7

Korbel [2] - 25:17; 56:21

Kousser [5] - 7:2; 8:20; 73:12, 15;

78:18

Kousser's [1] - 73:25

L

L.A [2] - 9:7; 22:11

lack [3] - 34:18; 35:6; 48:15

lacks [1] - 59:2

Lamar [2] - 45:10; 81:25

Language [1] - 51:24

language [2] - 49:14; 54:5

large [2] - 49:10; 58:4

largely [2] - 12:12; 59:20

larger [2] - 19:25; 46:19

largest [3] - 26:11; 64:22, 24

last [13] - 24:4, 11, 19; 29:9; 33:12, 18;

37:14; 46:24; 57:5; 67:3, 13; 69:16;

84:7

last.. [1] - 85:21

Latin [1] - 24:3

Latino [68] - 3:15; 4:20, 24; 5:3, 22;

6:16, 20; 7:13, 19-20; 8:5; 9:13; 10:14,

18, 20; 11:5, 8, 11; 12:7, 19, 21; 13:15;

15:15, 21; 16:2, 7, 15, 17, 23, 25; 17:8,

15-16; 18:1-4, 10-11, 14; 19:2, 6, 12,

20; 20:17; 21:11; 22:22; 23:8, 17, 19;

24:21; 25:10, 22, 24; 26:4, 17; 45:6;

47:16; 48:7; 51:13; 53:20; 61:23; 65:19;

76:19

Latino-preferred [1] - 12:7

Latinos [21] - 4:17; 16:14; 17:3; 19:15,

22; 20:2, 5, 10, 16; 21:3; 22:3; 25:9;

26:8; 60:22; 62:25; 65:8; 66:14, 18;

69:11

latitude [2] - 10:7, 13

law [15] - 12:17; 13:3; 21:19, 21; 33:22;

34:5; 35:13; 52:13; 72:24; 74:17, 25;

78:9; 85:8

lawful [1] - 38:8

lawsuit [1] - 66:2

lawyers [2] - 63:24

leader [1] - 46:18

leaders [1] - 48:7

leadership [2] - 8:12; 40:25

League [1] - 24:2

lean [1] - 79:6

learn [1] - 30:14

learned [1] - 30:15

least [7] - 12:3; 43:22; 45:2; 68:7;

77:10; 78:10; 82:20

leave [1] - 63:13

lecture [1] - 37:11

Lee [10] - 30:12; 31:4; 37:5, 10, 12;

42:2; 46:4, 15, 18; 52:2

left [5] - 16:5; 49:7; 66:20; 73:22; 81:7

legal [4] - 7:23; 35:11; 63:18; 73:10

legally [1] - 45:25

legislative [3] - 10:17; 30:25; 38:7

96

Legislative [4] - 3:9; 13:4; 47:8; 49:4

legislators [1] - 31:7

legislature [10] - 8:6; 38:3, 7-8; 45:1,

11; 48:12; 62:12, 15; 81:16

Legislature [1] - 30:9

lengths [1] - 4:19

less [5] - 3:14; 15:6; 24:19; 84:24

letter [2] - 11:22; 72:16

letting [1] - 79:18

level [1] - 42:23

levelers [1] - 37:17

leverage [1] - 41:16

libertarian [1] - 84:25

lies [1] - 13:23

life [4] - 28:22; 31:20; 77:3, 12

light [1] - 37:25

lightning [6] - 19:18, 20; 20:5; 69:22;

70:4

likely [1] - 41:10

likewise [3] - 72:19; 75:15; 77:19

limited [1] - 45:17

limiting [2] - 45:14

limits [1] - 56:6

line [7] - 7:5; 13:18; 23:12; 32:12; 41:9;

81:1

Line [19] - 13:1, 3, 5; 14:1, 5, 7, 13;

74:3, 9, 12, 15, 19; 75:4, 7, 9-10, 15,

21, 25

lines [5] - 8:15, 17; 35:3; 43:1; 55:19

list [5] - 24:12; 62:4; 80:3

Listen [1] - 22:2

listening [1] - 85:24

literally [2] - 30:16; 36:20

litigated [1] - 24:14

litigation [1] - 62:19

live [4] - 25:25; 26:1; 32:18; 53:22

lived [2] - 52:25; 62:25

Lloyd [1] - 33:16

local [1] - 82:9

location [1] - 81:19

locations [1] - 61:11

locked [1] - 52:15

logged [1] - 25:19

logically [1] - 28:15

look [28] - 6:17; 12:8; 25:5; 26:12;

30:1; 33:20, 23-24; 34:11; 38:2, 6;

42:13; 45:21; 46:2, 8; 54:1; 58:13; 59:5,

11; 63:21; 67:21, 25; 69:5; 73:11; 76:5;

80:21; 85:12

looked [4] - 7:5; 17:18; 67:5; 72:14

looking [4] - 23:2; 54:5; 63:8; 65:11

loop [3] - 64:3, 16

lose [2] - 25:24; 55:13

loser [1] - 62:20

losing [1] - 32:5

loss [7] - 11:17; 12:3; 41:12; 44:11;

48:11

lost [5] - 28:14, 23; 29:16; 36:20; 62:19

love [2] - 34:19; 79:7


97 of 104 sheets to 97 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

Love [1] - 42:18

low [2] - 16:2; 26:5

lower [2] - 17:3; 58:2

lowest [1] - 16:25

Luis [1] - 24:2

LULAC [9] - 3:22; 4:5; 17:25; 20:25;

21:5, 10; 22:19; 25:15, 17

lunch [1] - 13:8

M

ma'am [3] - 3:18; 49:3; 63:19

machine [1] - 73:20

magenta [1] - 16:5

mail [7] - 16:24; 20:3; 31:23; 56:3;

64:4; 68:8; 71:6

maintaining [1] - 42:17

major [1] - 41:6

majority [16] - 5:3, 24; 8:24; 12:21;

18:11; 19:2; 25:14; 45:25; 47:5; 50:10;

53:22; 54:8; 58:13, 15, 18; 80:15

makers [3] - 42:4, 10; 56:15

MALC [2] - 77:18; 83:25

MALDEF [1] - 25:15

man [3] - 37:1; 43:7; 66:20

mandate [1] - 41:5

manner [10] - 5:5, 20-21, 23; 7:2; 8:6,

10, 15-16; 10:7

map [43] - 6:22; 26:12, 16, 19; 30:4,

14-15, 19, 21; 31:11; 33:5; 39:11, 16,

20-21; 45:2; 58:25; 59:12; 60:7, 12, 15,

24; 61:1; 64:11; 68:20; 72:5, 7, 17;

79:25; 80:2, 5, 16, 25; 81:14, 18; 82:14;

83:11, 19, 22

maps [10] - 7:25; 13:7; 30:5, 8; 42:4;

45:8; 68:22; 70:6; 72:6; 77:11

Marc [1] - 65:17

March [1] - 13:5

margin [1] - 50:21

margins [1] - 51:2

married [1] - 68:11

Martin [1] - 65:22

materials [1] - 20:20

math [1] - 27:25

mathematical [1] - 64:2

matter [9] - 22:3; 34:5; 35:13; 52:13;

69:1; 76:18; 78:15; 82:21; 86:7

Maverick [2] - 25:25; 26:2

McGregor [1] - 42:1

mean [12] - 22:4; 35:17; 42:25; 52:20;

79:15; 81:1, 8, 23-24; 82:3, 18; 83:7

meaning [1] - 7:10

means [2] - 75:17; 85:7

meant [3] - 42:5; 65:21; 77:2

measure [1] - 64:1

measuring [1] - 57:24

medical [1] - 41:9

meet [2] - 4:14; 31:7

meeting [1] - 61:20

meetings [1] - 82:2

Mellett [5] - 6:3; 36:1; 66:24; 67:19

Mellett's [1] - 67:1

member [3] - 9:22; 10:6; 43:5

member-driven [1] - 10:6

members [7] - 10:1, 6, 12, 15; 61:22;

81:12

memo [1] - 33:22

men [3] - 37:2, 17

mentioned [2] - 8:14; 51:5

mercy [1] - 81:16

mere [1] - 78:1

message [1] - 83:3

met [3] - 25:18; 37:7; 40:12

method [2] - 16:25; 58:15

metric [2] - 72:14

metropolitan [1] - 58:5

Mexican [1] - 3:9

Mexican-American [1] - 3:9

microphone [1] - 70:15

middle [1] - 41:10

midpoint [2] - 53:5, 7

might [2] - 33:7; 67:4

miles [2] - 35:2; 60:5

million [3] - 4:21; 28:8

mind [1] - 58:19

minimis [1] - 78:13

minimize [3] - 82:10, 13; 83:1

minimizing [1] - 58:7

minor [3] - 41:5, 19; 62:11

minorities [6] - 4:17; 31:19; 32:18;

50:12, 24; 60:20

minorities' [1] - 35:25

minority [84] - 4:20, 23; 5:14, 20, 24;

6:1, 12; 8:24; 9:10, 12; 21:24; 28:2, 16,

18, 20; 30:5, 22; 32:23, 25; 33:3, 10,

13; 35:22; 36:8; 39:18; 40:12, 20; 41:2,

13; 42:16, 20-21; 43:11; 44:5, 10, 22,

25; 45:3, 9, 11, 13, 25; 46:3, 12, 24;

47:5, 10, 22; 48:2, 10, 12; 49:12, 22;

50:2, 10, 12; 51:10; 52:4; 53:23; 54:25;

55:16, 23-24; 56:4, 11, 20; 59:24; 60:4,

14, 25; 61:5; 63:8, 15; 65:5, 8; 67:15;

73:14, 16, 23; 75:22; 76:10; 80:21; 85:6

minority's [1] - 34:23

minus [1] - 28:2

minute [6] - 27:3, 6-7; 53:7; 84:6

minutes [13] - 3:6, 13-14, 23-24; 4:2,

4; 11:1; 36:14; 40:7; 48:4; 68:9; 71:13

miss [1] - 49:25

mix [2] - 76:22, 25

mobilized [1] - 18:1

Mockingbird [1] - 37:10

moment [2] - 20:7; 76:9

Monday [2] - 30:24; 85:16

Moore's [1] - 65:20

morass [1] - 39:8

moreover [4] - 6:16; 51:22; 52:14; 56:9

morning [4] - 36:1; 70:24; 77:7

97

Mortara [5] - 22:4; 34:7; 71:11; 76:3

MORTARA [1] - 34:8

most [10] - 7:12; 19:9; 36:25; 47:19;

48:25; 54:1; 61:2; 67:13; 71:25; 75:18

motivated [1] - 43:10

mountain [1] - 15:10

mouse [1] - 59:14

move [6] - 32:10; 39:12; 45:19; 59:14,

18; 71:17

moved [4] - 59:24; 60:21; 69:25; 70:1

moves [1] - 23:11

moving [8] - 18:20; 32:5; 39:17; 50:24;

59:12; 60:17, 22

MR [74] - 3:8, 11, 21; 4:4, 8; 10:24;

11:2; 24:2, 9, 11; 27:2, 6, 9; 29:3, 5, 8;

34:2, 4, 8-9; 35:9, 16, 21; 36:6, 15, 17;

38:5, 23; 39:2, 25; 49:3, 7, 10, 12;

52:19, 24; 53:2, 10, 12, 14, 17; 55:7;

56:25; 57:2, 6, 12, 15, 17; 63:4; 67:23,

25; 68:10; 70:12, 21; 71:5, 9, 17; 74:17;

75:1, 3; 76:3, 13; 78:25; 79:4, 8, 24;

81:11; 82:12; 83:5, 10, 14, 16, 22; 84:7

MS [16] - 11:3; 14:4, 17; 18:22, 25;

22:10, 15, 18; 23:16, 25; 40:3, 8; 46:10;

48:5; 70:23; 71:2

multitude [1] - 13:22

municipal [1] - 55:20

N

NAACP [5] - 40:4; 44:3, 6; 45:20;

48:14

name [2] - 40:3; 63:7

narrow [1] - 51:2

natural [4] - 4:19; 5:15; 45:24; 47:1

naturally [3] - 49:13; 52:4; 56:7

nearby [1] - 51:11

nearly [4] - 29:3, 6, 15; 50:11

necessarily [1] - 18:23

necessary [10] - 17:21; 72:9, 12, 19;

74:9, 19; 75:7; 76:9; 78:5; 80:11

need [8] - 18:23; 21:2; 37:11; 49:5;

54:14; 63:23; 75:7; 78:25

needed [4] - 41:4, 19; 54:16; 55:13

needs [6] - 4:5; 31:17, 22; 37:7; 44:19

negative [1] - 22:24

neighborhoods [1] - 60:15

net [1] - 50:25

neutral [2] - 75:10; 84:9

never [10] - 14:4; 17:18; 19:21; 31:2,

10; 33:6; 62:13; 63:19; 65:14; 83:3

new [18] - 4:21; 6:15, 20; 12:21; 13:20;

17:16; 29:12; 40:21; 42:16, 21; 44:22;

45:3, 11; 55:19; 64:15; 79:15

next [16] - 8:8; 18:25; 24:1; 27:1;

32:23; 40:2; 41:11; 43:9; 49:1; 51:25;

68:16; 71:12; 73:11; 77:6; 85:16

Nguyen [1] - 46:16

Nina [1] - 11:5


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 98 of 104 98 of 104 sheets

nine [2] - 35:3; 66:5

nobody [3] - 8:9; 17:10; 58:21

nominated [1] - 17:20

non [2] - 15:12; 21:11

non-Hispanic [1] - 15:12

non-Latino [1] - 21:11

none [1] - 84:1

nonexistent [1] - 26:6

normally [1] - 56:15

north [3] - 16:20; 32:5; 39:17

northern [1] - 80:13

Northwest [1] - 74:24

nothing [4] - 8:2; 23:19; 67:14

notice [1] - 51:19

notion [2] - 10:5; 84:1

notwithstanding [1] - 59:17

Nueces [14] - 11:10; 13:17; 18:9, 19;

19:1, 3, 9, 13, 17; 31:25; 32:4; 39:14,

17

number [23] - 5:8; 7:10; 10:17; 18:4;

19:8; 25:16; 28:20; 33:10, 21; 39:6;

45:7; 50:24; 51:1; 55:10; 57:11, 13;

63:15, 25; 77:22; 79:10; 80:3, 14

numbers [12] - 16:11; 19:13; 28:3;

29:9; 36:18; 43:20; 53:20; 59:11; 63:19;

67:21, 25; 68:2

numerous [2] - 55:19; 56:16

O

objections [3] - 24:15; 25:5; 30:18

objective [4] - 5:1; 6:25; 9:1; 78:16

obvious [2] - 16:16; 85:14

obviously [1] - 85:14

occasion [1] - 72:20

occur [1] - 76:10

occurred [3] - 50:1; 55:7; 80:15

occurring [3] - 49:13; 52:4; 56:8

occurs [1] - 78:6

odd [2] - 5:9, 12

odd-shaped [1] - 5:9

oddity [1] - 50:19

oddly [1] - 55:21

oddly-shaped [1] - 55:21

offer [1] - 50:12

offered [3] - 10:20; 19:21; 43:2

office [9] - 31:14, 17; 41:7; 42:15,

18-19; 67:16; 81:5, 25

Office [1] - 17:12

offices [5] - 31:18; 43:6; 80:22; 81:18

Official [1] - 86:9

offset [5] - 11:15, 17-18; 12:2; 18:6

often [2] - 68:6; 69:12

old [3] - 24:16; 80:23; 81:6

once [5] - 7:4; 22:6; 52:10; 75:20

One [1] - 15:3

one [51] - 6:16; 7:4; 8:3; 9:19; 12:16;

13:22; 14:8; 15:19; 16:23; 17:8; 19:8,

14; 21:4; 23:12, 20; 24:13, 23; 26:16;

27:2; 28:15; 30:23; 32:7; 33:11, 21;

43:5, 7; 45:2; 49:20; 50:16; 51:4; 53:17;

57:13; 58:10, 12; 64:15, 20-21; 67:14;

73:19; 77:18; 79:18, 21; 80:12, 17;

82:7; 84:24; 85:2, 21

opening [1] - 22:4

Opiela [1] - 16:24

opinion [2] - 73:5, 25

opponent [1] - 85:1

opportunities [2] - 19:7; 42:17

opportunity [20] - 9:12; 10:14, 18;

12:19; 13:16; 16:17; 18:14; 20:17; 23:8;

30:7, 23; 44:22; 45:3, 9, 11; 50:13;

51:8; 56:14; 61:24; 65:5

opposed [2] - 7:1; 76:10

options [1] - 45:2

orange [1] - 13:9

order [9] - 5:12; 13:1; 42:21; 57:10;

74:9, 19; 75:8; 78:18; 84:11

original [1] - 54:21

originally [2] - 11:18; 15:10

otherwise [2] - 11:17; 19:12

ought [1] - 34:24

ourselves [1] - 48:23

outgrowth [1] - 75:24

outlines [1] - 19:20

outpaced [1] - 46:25

outreach [1] - 61:12

outside [1] - 26:14

overarching [2] - 3:16; 28:6

overcome [1] - 74:15

overlay [1] - 5:25

overlooked [1] - 69:12

overpopulated [12] - 7:7, 10; 41:19;

55:25; 73:23; 74:11; 75:18; 76:23; 77:1;

78:7

overpopulation [12] - 5:3; 7:19; 16:17;

73:13, 16; 74:2; 75:12, 22; 76:10, 17;

77:2

overrule [1] - 9:8

overruled [1] - 66:6

overwhelmingly [2] - 10:21; 33:17

own [3] - 30:11; 59:3; 81:14

P

p.m [4] - 3:2; 71:14; 86:3

packed [2] - 25:10; 42:20

page [1] - 24:12

pages [1] - 24:13

paired [5] - 9:15, 21, 23

pairings [1] - 9:19

panel [1] - 64:8

paper [1] - 68:16

papers [4] - 32:11; 85:12, 15, 17

pardon [1] - 67:23

Parish [1] - 73:4

parliamentary [1] - 68:11

parochial [1] - 65:2

98

part [15] - 19:17; 24:20; 37:14; 41:20;

45:4; 46:10; 49:10; 59:4; 63:11; 71:7;

78:4; 80:13; 83:17, 23

partial [2] - 24:12

participate [4] - 31:3; 41:3, 14; 62:21

particular [7] - 4:17, 20; 7:4, 14; 27:22;

29:13; 68:23

particularly [2] - 30:10; 39:20

parties [3] - 8:12; 70:15; 76:25

partisan [8] - 9:2; 19:21, 25; 20:8;

23:3, 12; 29:22; 45:13

partisanship [9] - 6:7; 7:1; 9:10; 20:9,

15, 24; 21:7, 24; 22:2

parts [4] - 37:21; 38:23; 55:8

party [8] - 20:22; 21:4; 24:18, 20, 23;

25:6; 40:25; 50:18

Paso [5] - 7:16, 18; 15:6, 13; 49:22

passage [1] - 40:11

passed [1] - 37:3

passion [1] - 27:8

past [1] - 60:4

path [1] - 55:9

patience [1] - 85:11

patted [1] - 68:21

pattern [1] - 42:14

patterns [1] - 19:25

pay [1] - 74:25

pegged [1] - 43:8

people [15] - 3:6; 5:8; 24:25; 28:8;

31:16, 21; 50:23; 52:10; 60:17, 19;

61:12; 64:25; 67:8, 10; 81:7

PERALES [12] - 11:3; 14:4, 17; 18:22,

25; 22:10, 15, 18; 23:16, 25; 70:23;

71:2

Perales [5] - 11:5; 18:16; 25:15; 57:22;

60:8

percent [39] - 4:23; 8:1, 22-24; 12:9;

13:10; 15:7; 23:18; 28:11, 20-21; 36:19;

40:20; 50:4-8, 11; 51:10, 12, 16; 54:21;

60:11; 68:1, 3; 69:8, 10, 14

percent-plus [1] - 8:22

percentage [3] - 16:1; 62:25; 69:6

percentages [1] - 36:19

perception [1] - 56:7

Perez [1] - 17:23

perfectly [2] - 29:7; 72:7

perform [1] - 64:1

performance [4] - 23:3, 23; 26:5; 55:2

performed [1] - 78:19

performing [8] - 26:4; 33:8, 10, 13;

35:22; 36:9; 60:25

perhaps [3] - 17:1, 5; 67:5

periphery [1] - 54:17

permitted [1] - 46:8

Perry [4] - 17:25; 21:1, 6; 22:19

persistent [2] - 40:24; 41:1

person [3] - 8:3; 14:8; 44:19

persons [3] - 55:11; 80:20

perspective [1] - 22:9


99 of 104 sheets to 99 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

Peña [2] - 8:13

Peña's [3] - 79:15, 19; 80:9

pick [1] - 39:6

picked [1] - 37:21

pictures [1] - 5:19

piece [2] - 13:3; 19:10

place [6] - 14:18; 34:21; 37:7; 45:14;

47:11; 64:20

placing [1] - 5:24

Plaintiff's [1] - 71:24

plaintiffs [1] - 47:4

Plan [2] - 33:9; 37:18

plan [52] - 4:15; 5:11; 6:9, 20; 8:21;

9:3, 14, 19; 10:6, 9; 11:8; 13:9, 11, 21;

14:9; 19:14; 27:18; 38:2, 6, 14-16, 25;

39:3; 40:18, 22; 41:4; 42:16; 43:10, 22;

44:1, 21; 47:7, 25; 51:9; 54:13; 55:12;

63:17; 64:15; 67:9; 68:13; 69:7, 18;

74:6; 77:14, 17, 21, 25; 82:16; 83:25

plan's [1] - 37:19

planning [2] - 18:24; 70:12

plans [14] - 5:7; 38:2, 13; 39:5; 40:14;

48:9, 18; 56:19; 64:1; 77:14, 24; 82:17;

83:13

play [1] - 66:9

pleasure [1] - 85:23

plenty [1] - 33:23

plus [1] - 8:22

point [30] - 5:1; 6:25; 9:11; 11:13;

16:14; 18:21; 29:8; 36:6, 10, 22; 44:6,

13; 48:24; 52:17; 57:24; 59:6, 9, 20;

60:3; 62:7; 67:18; 69:16; 71:19, 23;

72:1; 76:21; 77:25; 78:2, 10

pointed [2] - 11:18; 61:1

pointing [1] - 28:5

points [7] - 9:19; 15:22; 16:1; 27:19;

61:17; 69:5; 83:5

poised [2] - 46:13, 25

polarization [1] - 66:12

polarized [5] - 17:13; 35:6, 18; 67:18,

20

policy [1] - 83:4

political [14] - 23:20; 29:16; 32:6; 41:3,

14; 45:15; 47:19, 23; 66:7; 73:1, 6;

83:18, 23; 84:2

politically [2] - 15:17; 16:6

populated [1] - 55:18

population [74] - 4:20; 5:14, 17, 24;

6:1, 12, 16; 7:3, 6, 23; 8:1, 5, 7; 12:23;

13:11; 15:12, 21; 16:14; 19:3, 6;

28:10-12; 29:14; 40:20; 41:5; 42:25;

43:2; 45:5, 14, 25; 46:6, 12, 23-25;

47:1, 9, 11; 49:13, 15, 23; 50:1, 5, 7-8,

12, 22, 25; 51:13; 52:16, 18; 53:3;

54:16; 55:2, 13, 16, 25; 58:5; 64:22;

65:8; 71:22, 25; 77:20; 78:8; 83:20;

84:19

populations [4] - 5:21; 26:6; 41:11;

55:23

Port [4] - 58:10, 14, 16

posed [1] - 57:20

position [4] - 47:21; 65:14; 75:6; 76:18

possibility [4] - 16:16; 52:8, 10; 58:7

possible [4] - 13:18; 47:5; 82:13

possibly [1] - 5:22

post [4] - 32:2; 44:13; 76:22; 78:14

post-hearing [1] - 32:2

post-trial [3] - 44:13; 76:22; 78:14

poster [1] - 28:7

potentially [1] - 29:19

powerful [1] - 36:25

Prairie [1] - 5:14

pre [2] - 10:1; 68:15

pre-filed [1] - 10:1

pre-write [1] - 68:15

precinct [4] - 8:21; 23:18; 56:18; 80:14

Precinct [1] - 80:13

precincts [18] - 5:5; 8:19, 22-23; 15:9,

17; 16:7, 25; 17:2; 23:6; 56:16; 61:3-5;

78:7; 83:1

precise [1] - 73:10

preclearance [4] - 48:18; 58:18; 68:17,

24

precooked [1] - 69:2

predicted [2] - 65:6, 10

predominantly [1] - 60:20

preferred [7] - 12:7; 15:15; 16:23;

17:8; 18:2; 21:11; 23:9

prefiled [1] - 34:13

prepared [2] - 30:24; 73:18

preposterous [1] - 63:20

prerequisite [1] - 58:19

present [4] - 6:10; 13:8; 50:13; 57:19

presentation [3] - 4:1, 9; 13:4

presented [5] - 5:25; 30:5; 37:24; 45:1;

47:7

preserve [1] - 13:15

preserved [1] - 42:17

President [1] - 37:8

president [1] - 37:3

press [1] - 85:1

pressing [1] - 66:20

presumption [1] - 29:24

pretext [1] - 21:8

pretty [3] - 28:17; 29:24; 61:8

prevailed [1] - 84:23

prevent [4] - 40:10; 45:24; 47:2; 75:8

prevents [1] - 18:13

previous [1] - 20:23

pride [1] - 9:19

primaries [2] - 33:21; 34:15

primarily [1] - 76:16

primary [7] - 7:24; 17:20; 33:19; 46:20;

72:14; 78:20; 85:3

principle [3] - 3:16; 60:12; 75:5

principles [1] - 74:14

probative [4] - 47:19; 58:9; 67:13;

68:18

problem [3] - 38:20; 80:17; 82:5

99

problems [3] - 38:4; 78:20; 80:18

proceed [1] - 57:15

proceeding [1] - 35:11

proceedings [1] - 86:7

Proceedings [1] - 86:3

process [20] - 10:17; 11:23; 12:5; 13:2;

24:21; 30:3; 31:3; 33:1; 41:3, 14; 56:3;

59:11; 62:18; 63:7, 10; 78:4; 79:12;

81:13; 83:18, 23

produced [2] - 19:19; 53:18

Professor [1] - 18:18

Program [1] - 51:24

program [1] - 62:20

Project [2] - 69:23; 70:4

project [1] - 69:24

pronounced [1] - 54:3

properly [1] - 33:3

proportionality [1] - 43:23

proposal [1] - 83:24

proposals [2] - 19:8; 77:18

proposed [6] - 30:21; 33:9; 77:14, 22,

24; 82:17

proposition [2] - 14:1; 21:19

prospect [1] - 51:22

Protect [1] - 61:22

protect [6] - 17:18; 18:2; 32:12; 35:8,

10

protected [7] - 33:4, 6, 9; 36:7; 42:12;

85:4, 7

protecting [1] - 62:4

protection [1] - 21:11

proven [1] - 47:20

provide [3] - 27:19; 28:6; 73:9

provided [2] - 33:22; 34:12

provides [2] - 19:5; 33:15

proving [2] - 40:13; 48:15

proxy [2] - 20:9, 15

public [6] - 27:12; 30:5, 8; 42:3; 61:14;

64:24

pull [4] - 28:15; 39:8; 41:7

pulled [2] - 15:17; 16:6

purely [1] - 19:23

purpose [32] - 12:10; 15:5; 16:9; 18:8;

21:17; 23:15; 27:21; 29:19; 32:9; 37:20,

23; 39:4, 7, 9-10; 46:10; 47:15; 49:16;

58:9, 16; 61:14; 68:19; 72:21; 73:7, 17;

75:24; 76:20; 77:5, 9; 78:2

purposeful [1] - 37:19

pursuing [1] - 23:12

push [1] - 24:7

put [12] - 13:13; 18:16; 25:23; 30:22;

45:11; 60:3, 16; 62:17; 66:7; 72:6, 10,

18

Q

quarters [1] - 16:18

questioning [2] - 14:22; 76:2

questions [4] - 33:12; 71:21; 72:25;


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 100 of 104 100 of 104 sheets

73:8

quicker [1] - 85:17

quickly [3] - 24:7; 45:20; 85:15

quite [1] - 82:4

quote [3] - 37:10, 13; 58:2

quoting [1] - 64:4

R

race [25] - 6:6; 20:9, 14, 22, 24; 21:6;

23:4, 7, 10, 21; 44:19; 59:7; 60:16;

65:11, 20; 67:9; 72:5, 8, 12, 20; 75:10;

78:17, 20; 84:9

racial [25] - 7:1; 9:1; 12:10; 15:5; 16:9;

18:8; 19:23; 23:12; 25:2; 29:22; 39:4;

44:17; 49:16, 18; 58:9, 16; 59:1, 14;

62:22; 66:12; 68:18; 70:6; 74:2; 84:10

racially [18] - 17:13; 29:19; 35:6, 18;

40:15; 49:17; 67:11, 18, 20; 73:7, 17;

74:13; 75:11, 23; 76:20; 77:5, 9; 78:1

rail [3] - 41:9; 43:1; 64:24

rain [3] - 65:7, 10, 15

rained [2] - 65:13, 15

raise [2] - 14:12; 23:1

raised [2] - 8:18; 42:9

raises [1] - 46:14

ran [2] - 54:24; 65:20

rapidly [1] - 52:10

rate [1] - 28:13

rather [2] - 38:4; 46:11

rating [1] - 44:8

raw [1] - 36:18

RDR [2] - 86:6, 9

RDR-CRR [1] - 86:6

re [1] - 68:5

re-election [1] - 68:5

reached [1] - 3:13

read [3] - 28:7; 38:8; 58:2

readily [1] - 54:24

reading [1] - 9:4

real [6] - 28:22, 24; 51:22; 62:8; 82:4;

85:23

realities [1] - 53:25

reality [1] - 84:2

realize [1] - 47:1

really [24] - 10:11; 12:11; 14:20; 17:6;

27:14; 28:21; 29:10; 31:20, 22; 34:21,

23; 38:1, 15; 42:7; 44:15; 58:22; 64:8;

69:1; 79:15; 81:1, 8, 16; 84:14

reason [7] - 12:18; 39:11; 55:4; 68:18;

77:4; 78:15; 80:5

reasons [4] - 79:11, 22-23; 84:9

rebuttal [1] - 57:8

received [2] - 52:21; 84:25

receives [1] - 44:7

recent [4] - 14:11; 49:14; 54:2; 71:25

recently [3] - 29:12; 38:1

recognition [1] - 45:17

recognize [2] - 41:14; 65:15

recognized [2] - 29:17; 66:13

recognizes [1] - 33:3

recollection [2] - 82:8, 11

recommended [1] - 66:5

reconstituted [1] - 84:19

record [15] - 20:10; 29:1; 36:10; 52:18;

54:9; 57:17; 71:8; 76:21; 78:6; 82:4, 22;

83:2, 5; 86:6

RedAppl [2] - 68:13; 72:14

redistricters [9] - 13:2; 14:19; 15:1;

20:14, 20, 24; 21:6; 22:21

redistricters' [1] - 12:16

Redistricting [5] - 11:6; 62:10, 17, 24;

82:23

redistricting [20] - 12:5; 14:6; 17:6;

48:18; 60:3; 62:9, 11, 14, 18, 20; 63:6,

10; 64:6, 18; 65:23; 75:5; 78:5, 17;

79:12; 84:3

redo [3] - 38:18; 64:11

redraw [1] - 54:15

redrawn [2] - 54:19; 78:7

reduce [1] - 10:14

reduces [1] - 11:8

reducing [1] - 18:4

reduction [1] - 11:12

reference [1] - 19:19

referred [1] - 52:8

reflect [1] - 76:13

reflected [1] - 49:15

reflects [2] - 52:25; 54:2

refusal [2] - 12:21; 14:17

refusing [1] - 47:9

regard [8] - 3:8; 6:6; 7:9, 13; 9:18;

10:13; 73:15; 75:5

regarding [3] - 5:9; 16:24; 17:24

regardless [1] - 40:25

registered [1] - 23:19

registration [7] - 12:9; 15:7, 22, 25;

23:5, 17, 22

rejected [2] - 22:25; 42:20

rejection [1] - 12:17

relevant [3] - 9:6; 73:6, 25

reliance [1] - 23:14

relied [4] - 14:24; 21:6; 22:20

relocated [1] - 11:11

rely [3] - 23:15; 82:19; 84:16

remain [1] - 10:4

remaining [3] - 3:15; 20:7; 84:15

remains [1] - 70:5

remarkable [1] - 54:14

remarked [2] - 8:4; 55:15

remedial [1] - 38:6

remedy [1] - 11:15

remember [10] - 62:1; 63:4; 64:19;

65:4; 68:12; 76:1, 7

remembered [2] - 67:22, 24

remind [1] - 77:9

removal [4] - 18:19; 47:14; 58:18;

81:17

100

removals [1] - 35:12

remove [1] - 7:18

removed [11] - 11:10; 13:11; 26:3, 8;

31:14, 18; 41:21; 42:15; 43:1, 6; 60:24

removes [1] - 18:12

removing [1] - 18:9

renewing [1] - 47:12

repeat [1] - 43:12

repeatedly [1] - 34:14

replaced [1] - 26:4

report [4] - 44:6; 49:21; 68:15; 77:16

reported [1] - 85:1

Reporter [1] - 86:9

reporter [2] - 24:6; 58:23

represent [1] - 57:18

representation [1] - 10:21

representative [3] - 32:21; 41:15;

79:20

Representative [22] - 8:4; 9:21-25;

10:3, 8; 11:20; 16:9; 30:13; 31:11;

32:20; 64:23; 65:11; 78:11; 80:9; 82:19;

83:25

Representatives [5] - 9:23; 10:4, 16,

19; 12:13

representatives [5] - 30:9; 32:25;

50:13; 54:9; 80:21

represented [2] - 13:16; 47:10

representing [3] - 25:17; 57:8; 62:5

represents [3] - 42:8; 44:4; 48:12

republican [20] - 7:5; 9:13-15, 17;

10:12; 17:18, 20; 20:13, 16, 21; 24:20;

45:12; 50:18; 59:19; 60:19; 76:23;

84:21, 23

republicans [7] - 9:16, 20; 20:11; 25:7;

41:1; 81:3

request [2] - 32:20; 48:14

required [4] - 7:17; 13:19; 20:18; 77:19

requirement [7] - 58:13, 15, 19; 75:8;

77:20; 78:9; 83:19

requirements [1] - 14:6

resist [1] - 37:12

respect [12] - 12:10; 14:17; 15:14;

16:9, 13; 18:6; 31:25; 38:24; 39:20;

42:4; 61:24; 77:10

respected [1] - 48:10

respectfully [1] - 48:14

respects [1] - 37:19

respond [2] - 53:25; 71:19

response [5] - 32:1, 20; 33:11; 69:16;

81:8

responses [1] - 81:11

responsibility [3] - 5:4; 8:9, 16

responsible [1] - 12:12

responsive [2] - 44:11, 18

rest [5] - 26:21; 34:20; 79:17; 82:4;

85:8

restrict [1] - 21:7

result [11] - 4:22; 17:4; 31:22; 47:10;

67:4; 74:2, 11, 13; 78:3; 80:12


101 of 104 sheets to 101 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

resulted [2] - 49:13; 80:9

results [4] - 13:7; 34:12; 47:1; 80:13

retained [2] - 54:21; 56:4

retention [1] - 54:22

retrogressed [1] - 66:22

retrogression [15] - 4:11; 11:7, 15;

18:7; 27:22; 28:1, 4; 36:17; 46:9, 11;

52:14; 63:21; 75:8

retrogressive [7] - 37:20; 40:15;

43:11; 47:15; 48:6, 16; 66:5

review [1] - 4:12

revisions [1] - 41:7

Riggs [3] - 40:2, 4; 43:19

RIGGS [4] - 40:3, 8; 46:10; 48:5

rights [2] - 45:1; 61:24

Rights [27] - 12:18; 13:1, 6; 14:18, 23;

17:9; 24:16; 35:8; 36:24; 37:3; 40:9;

47:12; 58:1, 25; 59:8; 63:5, 18; 66:2, 4;

72:9, 12, 20; 74:20; 84:12; 85:4, 7

Rio [1] - 12:22

ripped [1] - 30:16

ripping [1] - 35:1

ripple [9] - 18:18, 21; 32:2, 7; 39:14,

16, 19, 22

rise [1] - 53:21

River [4] - 69:17, 21, 23; 70:4

roads [1] - 79:13

Rockwall [1] - 11:11

Rodriguez [1] - 59:6

role [2] - 37:11; 66:9

rolling [4] - 53:4, 10-11; 71:22

Rome [2] - 52:13; 53:24

room [1] - 31:5

room's [1] - 27:15

roughly [2] - 4:2; 24:16

round [1] - 62:13

rude [1] - 57:4

Rule [19] - 13:1, 3, 6; 14:1, 5, 7, 13;

74:3, 9, 13, 15, 19; 75:4, 7, 9-10, 15,

21, 25

rule [3] - 8:2; 30:17; 85:4

ruled [1] - 36:6

run [9] - 3:12; 15:4; 19:11; 46:5; 48:8;

64:6; 81:9; 83:2

running [1] - 17:21

runs [1] - 85:2

rural [2] - 32:16, 22

Ryan [2] - 59:3; 72:17

S

Saenz [1] - 49:21

San [9] - 15:18; 26:1, 3, 15; 45:8;

55:15; 56:6; 59:4; 74:24

sat [1] - 62:1

save [2] - 39:21

saved [1] - 37:21

saw [3] - 20:23; 30:15

scandals [1] - 85:1

school [2] - 32:13

Scott [2] - 86:6, 9

screen [4] - 59:13; 72:6, 18; 80:8

sculpt [1] - 23:7

SD10 [1] - 67:1

seal [1] - 8:17

seat [1] - 13:20

seats [5] - 12:13; 28:14; 40:21; 44:24

second [6] - 11:12; 27:20; 61:8; 72:3;

81:17; 82:8

seconds [3] - 56:22, 24; 84:15

Section [26] - 14:14; 22:14; 24:15;

25:19, 23; 26:2; 33:4; 35:12; 36:7; 40:9;

43:16; 44:14; 45:16; 47:4; 48:18; 56:13,

16; 66:2, 4, 8; 75:3

section [1] - 8:8

see [30] - 7:19; 12:8, 20; 15:1; 16:2, 5;

19:12; 20:2; 25:15; 26:13; 28:8, 16, 18;

34:14; 39:21; 41:10; 42:11; 49:21; 59:7,

14; 69:19; 70:1, 6; 73:20; 74:20; 77:17,

23; 78:22; 80:17; 82:3

seeded [2] - 58:21; 65:13

seeks [1] - 47:2

sees [1] - 19:14

select [1] - 61:11

Seliger [15] - 14:24; 17:5, 7; 20:15;

59:16; 62:1, 12; 63:14; 64:4, 12, 19;

65:3; 68:14; 82:8

Seliger's [1] - 62:22

Senate [32] - 38:14-20, 24-25; 40:14;

47:25; 48:1, 17; 52:3, 6, 8; 54:15, 19,

22; 56:12; 60:2, 17-18; 62:17; 63:8, 10;

67:12, 19; 68:1; 83:13; 84:16

senator [3] - 52:1; 62:16; 68:12

Senator [26] - 26:7, 22; 48:8; 59:16,

18; 61:19, 22; 62:1, 6, 12, 22; 63:2, 14;

64:3, 5, 12, 19; 65:3; 67:16; 68:4, 14,

20; 84:23

senators [2] - 61:21; 68:22

sends [2] - 64:4; 68:8

sense [2] - 17:23; 67:7

separate [1] - 56:6

separated [1] - 20:4

separating [1] - 19:22

separation [1] - 20:2

September [1] - 67:3

serious [1] - 64:9

seriously [2] - 31:1

seriousness [1] - 79:10

service [1] - 27:12

SESSION [1] - 3:1

session [1] - 59:21

set [3] - 32:10; 50:17; 51:7

seven [3] - 15:15; 18:14; 19:6

seventh [2] - 16:16; 26:11

several [3] - 35:2; 56:22, 24

shade [1] - 60:10

shaded [2] - 60:16, 20

shading [5] - 23:21; 60:7, 9

101

shape [3] - 5:12; 46:2; 55:14

shaped [3] - 5:2, 9; 55:21

share [1] - 3:6

shed [1] - 54:16

Sheila [7] - 30:12; 31:4; 37:5; 42:2;

46:4, 15; 52:1

shell [1] - 17:1

shifted [1] - 54:25

shining [1] - 34:24

short [2] - 4:1; 18:17

shove [1] - 24:7

show [12] - 12:1; 21:3; 29:13; 30:6;

33:16; 53:18; 64:3; 73:18; 77:15; 78:18;

80:25

showed [7] - 5:25; 19:24; 53:3; 72:8;

73:21; 80:18

showing [3] - 19:20; 72:11; 80:8

shows [12] - 4:18; 10:11; 17:14, 16;

36:10; 50:14; 52:8; 56:21; 62:22; 75:23;

78:6; 79:10

shunning [2] - 5:4; 8:9

sic [2] - 26:11; 42:19

side [5] - 5:18; 15:18; 26:3; 35:3; 75:14

sides [1] - 85:24

significant [3] - 29:13; 41:12; 46:18

similar [3] - 52:1; 72:18; 73:18

similarities [1] - 17:24

simple [1] - 27:25

simply [9] - 6:8; 16:19; 19:1, 15, 23;

23:2; 49:15; 54:16; 59:2

single [4] - 80:4; 84:19, 22

sit [1] - 21:14

site [1] - 64:25

sitting [2] - 31:5; 45:7

situated [1] - 27:3

situation [2] - 53:25; 68:23

six [2] - 7:14; 16:15

sixth [1] - 26:11

skates [1] - 14:11

skew [1] - 76:17

slashing [1] - 32:17

slide [4] - 20:23; 22:6; 61:7; 63:13

slides [4] - 18:25; 57:19; 70:11, 16

small [2] - 13:9; 69:24

Smith [2] - 45:10; 58:1

Smith's [1] - 81:25

smoking [3] - 68:6; 70:5

so-called [2] - 8:2; 74:1

so.. [1] - 79:1

socioeconomic [1] - 79:13

software [2] - 80:20; 81:21

Solomons [9] - 7:22; 8:10; 11:20;

12:24; 14:23, 25; 62:6, 8; 82:9

someone [3] - 37:5; 67:7; 69:14

Somerset [1] - 16:8

sometimes [2] - 20:12

somewhere [1] - 24:19

sorry [2] - 29:4; 78:22

sort [6] - 14:11, 18; 22:23; 55:11; 81:9;


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 102 of 104 102 of 104 sheets

84:6

sorts [2] - 61:17; 77:12

soul [1] - 27:8

source [1] - 71:22

South [6] - 16:15; 18:9, 14; 19:2; 26:1;

32:7

south [3] - 15:17; 26:3; 80:10

southern [1] - 16:7

Spanish [6] - 12:8; 15:7, 25; 23:5, 16,

22

spare [1] - 19:10

speaking [1] - 45:18

speaks [3] - 31:20, 24; 34:10

special [1] - 64:11

specific [2] - 10:13; 56:5

specifically [1] - 39:13

specifics [1] - 76:9

spite [1] - 22:24

splintered [1] - 42:1

split [16] - 5:6, 14; 14:8; 15:9; 56:16;

77:17; 80:5, 11-12; 82:20; 83:4, 7-8, 10,

25

splits [19] - 8:21, 24; 56:19; 77:13,

23-24; 78:1, 15, 20; 79:11, 16, 20, 22;

80:7, 9, 14-15; 82:10, 17

splitting [13] - 5:5; 58:6; 77:8, 11;

78:3, 5, 9; 79:25; 82:15, 25; 84:9, 11,

13

spot [1] - 25:14

spread [1] - 76:11

square [1] - 84:2

squarely [1] - 22:25

squeeze [1] - 82:4

SSVR [4] - 23:14, 18; 60:11; 72:14

stacked [1] - 25:10

stadium [1] - 42:25

staff [5] - 8:11; 14:24; 27:11, 15; 66:5

staffer [2] - 68:12; 83:2

stand [5] - 12:6; 24:25; 62:24; 78:23;

79:2

standard [1] - 56:14

standing [3] - 21:25; 25:14; 84:18

stands [1] - 15:23

start [1] - 57:18

starting [2] - 16:14; 57:24

state [42] - 6:5; 7:15; 9:18; 10:5, 14;

11:16, 18; 12:2, 4; 14:6, 19; 15:24;

17:17; 18:7, 13; 19:21; 21:10; 24:18;

38:3, 21; 41:2; 42:20; 43:2; 44:22, 24;

45:1, 4, 11, 22, 24; 47:2, 9; 48:12;

49:16, 23; 74:18, 25; 85:14

State [34] - 4:14, 18; 6:10; 8:21; 13:21;

15:10; 22:2; 24:19, 21; 25:3; 26:19;

38:12; 40:14, 23; 48:17; 50:19; 52:6,

21; 53:5, 22; 54:11, 21, 24; 56:13, 19;

57:8; 58:1, 4, 9; 65:6, 23; 69:7

State's [5] - 54:13, 19; 65:14; 66:21;

69:9

state's [12] - 9:14; 11:8; 13:11; 17:11,

15; 19:14; 23:13; 40:17; 43:10; 44:25;

48:17

state-controlled [1] - 24:18

statement [1] - 22:5

States [5] - 12:25; 16:13; 52:6, 13;

58:12

statewide [1] - 54:23

stating [1] - 13:5

statistical [4] - 78:19; 84:8, 10, 13

statistics [5] - 28:6, 25; 29:17, 23;

31:21

statute [1] - 54:5

still [6] - 3:25; 22:11; 39:2; 57:13;

58:17; 82:6

stood [1] - 73:23

story [1] - 28:3

straight [1] - 22:2

strange [1] - 5:2

strange-shaped [1] - 5:2

strengths [1] - 66:18

strike [2] - 14:2; 37:18

stripped [1] - 31:13

strong [2] - 29:24; 44:24

struck [1] - 83:1

study [1] - 70:6

stunned [1] - 31:6

subject [1] - 38:14

submit [7] - 6:13; 29:23; 60:13; 70:6,

10, 23; 71:5

submitted [4] - 4:11; 42:16; 45:7;

70:15

substantial [7] - 5:15, 19; 10:20;

43:13; 46:6; 53:19; 54:7

substantially [1] - 6:14

success [3] - 40:12; 47:1, 20

successfully [1] - 26:22

suggest [3] - 15:11; 22:1, 8

suggested [3] - 12:2; 43:4; 72:4

suggests [1] - 14:12

summarize [1] - 27:21

summary [2] - 32:10; 33:2

summing [1] - 85:10

Supp [1] - 53:24

support [5] - 20:16; 46:16; 51:13; 61:2;

85:6

supported [1] - 48:9

supposed [2] - 38:1; 74:25

Supremacy [1] - 12:17

Supreme [9] - 12:25; 22:19, 24; 37:25;

38:6, 8; 49:14; 73:5; 74:23

supreme [1] - 74:17

supremely [1] - 84:25

surely [2] - 46:14; 79:22

surgical [1] - 41:6

surname [6] - 12:8; 15:7, 25; 23:5, 16,

22

survey [2] - 53:5, 18

suspect [1] - 3:13

suspicious [1] - 42:13

swamps [2] - 51:2

102

swapping [2] - 17:2; 23:6

swing [2] - 50:22, 25

switch [1] - 50:18

sync [1] - 64:17

systematic [4] - 5:3; 73:13; 74:1; 75:22

systematically [1] - 55:25

T

table [3] - 45:7; 77:15; 79:6

Table [2] - 77:16, 23

tabled [1] - 30:25

talks [3] - 18:18; 26:2; 44:8

tanner [1] - 49:2

Tanner [2] - 45:18; 49:3

TANNER [14] - 49:3, 7, 10, 12; 52:19,

24; 53:2, 10, 12, 14, 17; 55:7; 56:25;

57:2

target [1] - 63:16

Tarrant [14] - 5:21, 23; 6:11, 17-18;

45:4; 48:2, 7; 52:3; 60:15; 62:3; 64:18,

21; 65:19

task [1] - 39:10

Task [3] - 3:15; 10:22; 11:6

tearing [1] - 39:16

technical [1] - 11:3

ten [6] - 16:23; 17:8; 24:12; 40:21;

84:21

ten-page [1] - 24:12

tens [2] - 53:19

terms [14] - 4:12; 5:4; 7:25; 31:15;

36:18-20; 53:19; 74:22; 75:3, 6; 78:10;

79:25; 83:6

terrible [1] - 37:1

Terry [1] - 65:20

testified [30] - 11:20; 12:6, 24; 14:21;

17:2, 23; 20:15; 23:4; 25:18; 29:9;

32:17; 34:18; 35:2; 41:6; 46:4, 15; 52:2;

53:15; 59:3; 60:6, 24; 61:20; 62:6;

64:23; 72:11, 19; 73:16; 78:12; 80:11

testify [2] - 37:5; 80:7

testifying [2] - 61:7, 21

testimony [37] - 10:1, 11; 15:3, 20;

25:19; 30:4, 10; 31:5; 32:3; 34:13;

43:16; 55:5; 56:1, 21; 58:24; 59:3, 23;

61:9, 22; 72:4, 6, 8, 10, 18, 21; 76:7;

79:14; 80:4, 15; 81:18, 20-21, 25;

82:12, 20; 83:17

Texans [1] - 4:22

Texas [73] - 4:14, 17-18; 5:10; 6:10;

7:22; 8:24; 9:22; 10:16, 18; 11:5, 8;

12:11, 13; 13:4; 14:7; 16:15; 18:9, 14;

19:2; 21:3, 6; 22:3, 5; 24:19, 21; 25:3;

26:11, 19; 28:8, 13; 30:9; 32:7; 33:4;

34:20; 35:13; 38:13; 40:10, 12, 25;

43:8, 21; 45:1; 48:15; 49:4, 13, 22;

50:19; 53:22; 57:8; 58:11, 14; 62:12,

18, 20; 69:6, 12, 15; 71:12; 74:12;

75:22; 76:6; 77:21; 78:9; 81:12, 16;


103 of 104 sheets to 103 of 104 02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM

82:2, 15; 85:5

Texas' [1] - 47:21

Texas's [1] - 58:24

thanking [1] - 27:11

therefore [2] - 33:8; 49:25

Thereupon [1] - 71:14

they've [3] - 3:24; 44:16; 67:2

thinking [1] - 74:22

Third [1] - 41:25

third [5] - 8:12; 27:22; 62:4; 64:22;

72:23

thousand [1] - 83:9

thousands [5] - 53:20; 83:6

three [11] - 15:15, 22; 16:18; 25:19;

27:19; 36:14; 39:5; 49:25; 56:19; 58:3;

79:16

three-quarters [1] - 16:18

throughout [4] - 39:20; 55:12; 59:11;

70:9

throw [1] - 38:15

thrown [3] - 31:1; 37:21; 46:16

Thursday [1] - 33:12

ticket [1] - 51:6

tie [1] - 78:19

timestamps [1] - 68:13

today [7] - 4:9; 17:25; 45:18; 54:7;

63:12; 65:24; 72:24

together [8] - 12:22; 30:22; 34:22;

35:24; 36:11; 44:17; 52:11; 78:19

toiled [1] - 30:20

tomorrow [2] - 70:24

took [3] - 12:6; 24:25; 45:24

top [1] - 51:6

topic [1] - 8:19

torn [1] - 80:23

totally [1] - 24:20

touch [1] - 72:23

touched [1] - 77:6

toward [1] - 76:17

trace [1] - 18:21

traces [1] - 19:20

traditional [1] - 75:4

tragedy [1] - 28:24

trail [1] - 68:16

transcript [3] - 8:14; 59:5; 86:6

transformed [1] - 16:22

transportation [1] - 64:25

trash [1] - 31:1

traveled [1] - 31:6

Travis [12] - 26:10, 23; 32:15, 18;

34:12, 16, 18; 35:13; 43:11, 14; 56:17

treated [1] - 33:9

treatment [3] - 32:4, 11, 24

trial [12] - 7:22; 25:23; 26:2; 43:16;

44:13; 59:4; 67:4; 72:7; 76:22; 78:14

tried [5] - 15:10; 57:25; 58:11; 78:19;

82:10

trinity [1] - 69:17

Trinity [4] - 69:17, 21, 23; 70:4

troubled [1] - 82:6

true [6] - 22:11; 33:12; 63:4; 66:17, 19;

67:4

truth [1] - 18:9

try [5] - 30:2; 39:8; 64:10; 66:3; 71:17

trying [3] - 25:7; 59:18

turn [5] - 3:20; 29:20; 59:6, 9; 75:12

turning [2] - 23:21; 33:2

turnout [3] - 16:25; 17:3, 15

turns [1] - 6:15

twice [1] - 22:6

twists [1] - 6:15

two [27] - 9:3, 16; 11:1, 9, 21, 25;

12:22; 26:3, 15; 30:14; 32:14; 33:18;

35:23; 38:23; 45:3, 8; 48:4; 57:11; 58:6;

68:9; 69:5; 74:3; 78:20; 79:24; 81:11;

84:6

type [1] - 29:18

types [1] - 14:5

typically [1] - 15:22

U

ultimately [1] - 65:9

unconstitutional [1] - 20:9

under [18] - 10:17; 12:14; 13:24;

26:15; 33:4; 36:7; 38:6; 48:18; 51:3, 9;

63:18; 64:1; 66:2, 4, 8; 69:7; 74:7;

75:17

underline [1] - 49:19

undermine [1] - 40:12

undermined [1] - 31:22

underpinning [1] - 21:4

underpopulated [5] - 7:7, 15, 18;

55:22, 24

understated [1] - 29:10

understood [3] - 35:17; 82:24; 83:4

undisputed [3] - 36:8; 49:21; 54:7

uniformly [1] - 21:3

United [6] - 12:25; 16:13; 24:3; 52:6,

13; 58:12

University [1] - 49:21

unless [1] - 18:24

unopposed [1] - 85:2

up [48] - 3:22; 11:19; 18:23; 20:25;

21:15; 26:12, 16; 30:6, 21; 32:23; 35:2,

4; 36:5; 39:17; 47:22; 49:10, 16; 50:1;

51:1; 54:25; 55:9, 17; 56:17; 57:10;

60:16; 63:13; 64:7, 10, 14-15; 67:1;

69:7, 19; 72:10; 73:11; 77:1; 79:2, 4;

80:21, 25; 81:9; 82:7, 18; 83:14; 84:18;

85:10, 17

upper [1] - 41:10

urban [3] - 7:4; 79:12; 80:1

urge [1] - 46:2

urged [1] - 45:10

uses [2] - 23:17; 49:24

103

V

Valley [2] - 12:22; 13:21

VAP [2] - 69:8

variance [1] - 7:12

variances [4] - 7:3, 23-24; 8:5

various [1] - 71:24

vast [1] - 25:14

Veasey [4] - 64:23; 65:12, 17; 66:8

venue [1] - 10:16

VERA [5] - 4:4; 24:2, 9, 11; 27:6

Vera [3] - 24:2; 27:5; 30:16

versus [11] - 9:7; 17:15, 25; 20:25;

21:5; 22:11, 19; 26:19; 32:25; 57:25;

58:12

via [1] - 71:6

vibrance [1] - 44:15

Vice [1] - 76:15

Vice-Chairman [1] - 76:15

victory [3] - 51:22; 52:11

Vietnamese [4] - 9:22; 46:5, 17; 51:23

view [6] - 29:24; 35:6, 18, 21; 70:14,

17

Village [1] - 9:5

Villarreal [2] - 10:8; 76:15

violation [1] - 17:9

virtually [2] - 51:20; 83:24

vision [1] - 69:17

Vision [2] - 69:17, 21

Vo [5] - 9:21; 47:18; 51:16, 23

Vo's [1] - 9:24

voice [6] - 29:16; 32:6; 45:15; 47:23;

48:11

volumes [1] - 31:20

vote [15] - 8:3; 14:8; 18:5; 20:10, 12;

21:3; 22:3; 36:25; 41:15; 44:9; 58:13,

15, 18; 81:13; 82:25

voted [3] - 31:12; 66:14; 68:4

voter [12] - 12:9; 15:7, 24-25; 16:2;

23:5, 16, 22; 78:2, 10, 12

voters [41] - 5:13, 22; 6:20; 7:21; 8:5;

15:21; 17:15; 18:2-4, 10; 21:12; 22:22;

23:17, 19; 35:24; 36:20; 41:3, 13, 16,

22; 42:5, 20; 43:11, 15; 44:5, 10; 45:13;

47:10, 16; 48:2, 10; 50:13; 51:14; 52:4;

56:18, 20; 60:4; 82:25; 85:6

votes [5] - 17:16; 20:1; 51:3; 69:3;

84:24

voting [29] - 8:19, 22-23; 13:10; 15:21;

17:13; 19:12, 25; 35:7, 19; 44:25;

49:22; 50:4, 6, 8, 10, 12; 51:12; 53:3;

54:3, 8; 56:16; 66:18; 67:18, 21; 84:19

Voting [27] - 12:18; 13:1, 6; 14:18, 23;

17:9; 24:16; 35:7, 9; 36:24; 37:3; 40:9;

47:12; 58:1, 25; 59:8; 63:5, 18; 66:2, 4;

72:9, 12, 20; 74:20; 84:12; 85:4, 7

VRA [1] - 74:15

VTD [14] - 77:13, 22, 24; 78:1, 15, 20;

79:11; 80:5, 7, 9, 12, 15; 82:10, 16


02/01/2012 09:39:42 AM to 104 of 104 104 of 104 sheets

VTDs [21] - 77:8, 11, 17-18; 78:3, 5, 9;

79:25; 80:12; 81:1; 82:15, 20; 83:4, 7-8,

10; 84:1, 8-9, 11

vu [1] - 17:23

W

Waco [1] - 60:4

wait [2] - 53:7; 57:9

waive [1] - 50:21

Wallace [2] - 86:6, 9

Walle [1] - 8:4

walls [1] - 37:1

wants [1] - 45:20

Ward [2] - 31:9; 41:25

warm [1] - 68:7

warn [1] - 48:24

Washington [2] - 64:8; 81:15

watching [1] - 23:22

ways [3] - 13:22; 25:13; 44:16

weak [1] - 84:25

weakened [2] - 11:13; 15:14

wealth [1] - 36:16

week [1] - 29:9

weekend [1] - 30:20

weird [2] - 34:19

welcome [1] - 49:8

Wendy [6] - 26:7, 22; 48:8; 65:14;

67:16

west [4] - 18:20; 32:15; 55:1; 69:25

Western [1] - 43:20

westward [2] - 55:9; 70:2

wherewithal [1] - 52:11

white [6] - 26:9; 28:10; 32:16, 21;

35:24

whites [3] - 28:13; 34:22; 66:14

who've [1] - 28:23

whole [8] - 14:21; 15:9; 23:5; 32:16,

22; 33:20; 38:4; 81:7

wholly [1] - 13:23

win [1] - 62:21

winnable [1] - 50:15

winning [1] - 52:9

wisdom [1] - 85:13

witness [1] - 30:11

WITNESS [1] - 44:3

woman [2] - 46:16; 65:20

won [4] - 51:6, 23; 73:4; 84:24

wonderful [1] - 37:13

words [1] - 84:17

worst [1] - 28:21

Worth [12] - 19:23; 26:15; 30:23;

42:22; 45:3, 9, 12; 55:5, 8, 10; 64:21

wrap [2] - 57:10; 85:17

write [1] - 68:15

writes [1] - 68:12

104

Y

year [5] - 50:25; 51:1; 53:4, 9; 68:5

years [8] - 24:16, 19; 25:2; 26:20;

49:25; 50:2

yield [8] - 13:3, 6; 14:6, 13; 26:21;

56:22; 75:7, 9

yields [1] - 14:7

younger [1] - 11:4

yourself [1] - 26:13

Z

zero [4] - 52:10; 83:19; 84:21

zeroing [1] - 77:20

zeroing-out [1] - 77:20


case 5:11-cv-00360-olg-jes-xr document 597-16 filed 02/02/12 … · 2012-02-02 · court reporter:...

Documents