Justices David Medina and Don Willett are Conservatives on Texas Supreme Court - Election 2012

The Texas Republican Primary Election 2012 is FINALLY here.

There are many very important races all across the State of Texas. There are important local/county Republican races (like sheriff) all the way up to important national Republican races (like US Senate).

Many voters in Texas tend to get tunnel vision on the local races around them. I personally have been mostly focused on helping super conservative State Rep James White win re-election against a less conservative Mike Hamilton in southeast Texas HD19 and also helping super conservative David Bradley win re-election to State Board of Education against moderate Rita Ashley.

We MUST fight off the tunnel vision though because there are SEVERAL important races that many voters ignore or do not even know about.

The State Board of Education is one of the races that are very important but gets little attention compared to other races.

The Texas Supreme Court is also one of the races that are very important but many people don't really care about.

People should care though! This is the Supreme Court of Texas and very important decisions that affect all Texans are made there.

We currently have a conservative majority on the Texas Supreme Court. This is very good because we all know how bad liberal judges can be when they try to force their liberal agenda onto the people by legislating from the bench.

Justices David Medina and Don Willett both face challengers in this year's Republican Primary Election.

I do not hesitate to oppose an incumbent if I believe the incumbent is not a conservative or not acting like a conservative.

That being said, I have not heard any reasons as to why Medina or Willett should be replaced. They are part of the conservative majority on the court and no one has shown me where they have ruled using liberal values instead of ruling using conservative values. The only argument I have heard is that the current Texas Supreme Court might be too business friendly, but even that argument does not have any facts to back it up to show me how this court is not acting conservatively in specific rulings.

I Support David Medina and Don Willett for re-election to the Texas Supreme Court

I have had the opportunity to talk to Justice Don Willett and have reviewed his conservative credentials. He is a strong conservative and a strong Christian with good values. He is considered to be the most conservative member of the Texas Supreme Court. His re-election is has received the most attention of the supreme court races and just about every conservative and Christian organization has thrown their support behind Justice Willett, including Texas super-hero conservative Attorney General Greg Abbott. Even nationally known figures are speaking out in favor of Justice Willett like Christian leader James Dobson. You can read the full list of Don Willet's endorsements here: http://www.donwillett.com/endorsements

I have not had a chance to talk to Justice David Medina, but I have reviewed his credentials and my friend Adryana Boyne of Voces Action sat down and had a good interview with him for Texas GOP Vote. Something that really got my attention about David Medina is his strong stance against legislating from the bench and instead just following the law. This is what Justice Medina had to say to Adryana in his interview with him for Texas GOP Vote, "My judicial philosophy is one of a conservative. I have a very conservative judicial philosophy and that simply means that I am there to interpret the law, interpret the statutes as it’s given to us by the Legislature. I don't write the law, I'm not the author of the law. If the legislature gives us a statute we apply the strict meaning, give the words the simplest terms and apply that meaning, don’t try to create a meaning and shape a meaning the way I think it should turn out. I just want to interpret the statute, and sometimes the court doesn’t necessarily agree with the statute, but its the statute that's given to us, and if it has to be changed the Legislature can change it. Of course if there is a challenge to the Constitutionality of a statute, then we'll look at that as well, but I believe in stare decisions which means that we take these cases and if there is a history of the case being, the law being a certain way than we try to follow that law..."

One of Medina's challengers seems to be good guy. John Devine stood up for the Ten Commandments in his state courtroom. I think that is great and I am sure he is a good guy, but I believe David Medina would do the same if put in that position and David Medina has served us well from what I have seen and no one has shown me evidence to the contrary. Medina has been endorsed by several good guys like Texas Right to Life, Conservative State Senator Dan Patrick and Conservative Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson. You can read the full list of Don Willet's endorsements here: http://texansformedina.org/index-3.html

(Video) Re-Elect Don Willett - Conservative Texas Supreme Court Justice - May 29th, 2012 Texas Republican Primary Election

more info at http://donwillett.com

More Dewhurst Lies on Cruz -- Facts on Obama/Soros - Texas US Senate Election 2012

Come on David Dewhurst. I don't think you are a bad guy or a liberal (although I do think you could pick less liberal committee chairmen). I think there are many good candidates in the Texas US Senate race. I just think Ted Cruz is the best.

That being said, attacking Cruz because one of his co-workers is a liberal is just silly. Did Ted Cruz ever support Obama or Soros? Of course not! I work for an agency where there are a ton of liberals. By boss is a big one. Does that mean I am a liberal who supports Obama? NO. Should I quit my job and  find one where there are only conservatives? This is just silly.


From the Ted Cruz for US Senate Campaign:

Recently, we sent you a rebuttal on Dewhurst's lies aboutTed Cruz and China. Now, the Dewhurst Attack Machine (this time his Super PAC) is running false attack ads on Ted and Obama/Soros.

More ridiculous, desperate attacks on Ted Cruz in an attempt to distract voters from Dewhurst’s own record of pushing a statewide “wage tax” on Texans and increasing state spending $72 billion. To quote one of my favorite grassroots activists in our latest ad, "Give me a break!"

David Dewhurst’s Obama and George Soros Lies – The Facts

http://www.tedcruz.org/facts/obama-soros/

Dewhurst Lie #1:

“Ted Cruz’s law firm has given over $200,000 to Barack Obama.”

Truth:

This deceptive claim is similar to calling you a liberal Democrat because some employees who happen to work at the same place you do may be Democrats. Dewhurst is trying to blame Ted for the conduct of others—over whom he has no control—in order to distract from Dewhurst’s own long record of supporting liberal Democrats.

Ted works for a large law firm, with over 1,200 lawyers all over the world. Ted doesn’t run the firm; over 3,000 employees work at the firm. Unsurprisingly, some of those 3,000 employees are Democrats, and some of them have contributed to Democrats. What Dewhurst deliberately omits:

● Ted has never once contributed to any Democrat in any election.

● In contrast, David Dewhurst has – twice. In 1989, Dewhurst contributed his personal funds to Lloyd Bentsen, just after Bentsen had run as Michael Dukakis’s vice presidential nominee against George H.W. Bush. In 1993, Dewhurst again personally contributed to Bentsen, right after he had been named Treasury Secretary by Bill Clinton.

● The law firm -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP -- does not make political contributions. So Dewhurst’s claim, on its face, is an outright lie.

● Although some other people who work at Morgan Lewis have individually supported both Democrats and Republicans, Ted has no control whatsoever -- zero -- over the political contributions of others who happen to work at the same firm where he works.

Dewhurst Lie #2:

“Ted Cruz’s law firm represents liberal billionaire George Soros and other shady clients.”

Truth:

The law firm where Ted works represents thousands of clients in tens of thousands of matters all over the world. Apparently, some financial firms related to Soros are among those thousands of clients. What Dewhurst deliberately omits:

● Ted has never worked for, met, or had any involvement whatsoever with Soros.

● Unlike Dewhurst, Ted has been an outspoken opponent of Soros’s leftist and socialist political agenda.

● Ted has no control whatsoever -- zero -- over what clients may hire other lawyers at the firm to work on unrelated matters.

Summary:

Both of Dewhurst’s lies employ the very same sleight of hand-- like a circus performer, Dewhurst wants to distract voters from comparing his own tax-and-spend record and Ted’s strong conservative record.

Dewhurst wants voters to blame Ted for the conduct of others, over whom Ted has no control whatsoever. That’s because he can’t criticize Ted’s own proven record, because Ted has spent a lifetime fighting for conservative principles and winning on a national level.

Dewhurst’s Record that He’s Trying to Hide

Instead of attacking, Dewhurst should examine his own behavior. While he was calling himself a conservative in Texas, Dewhurst held a Dewhurst for Senate campaign reception in a Washington, DC townhouse personally owned by Tony Podesta, a top Obama crony whose brother led the Obama White House Transition Team.

As Lt. Governor, Dewhurst has appointed 32 Democrats to committee chairmanships and worked with them to kill conservative legislation. Indeed, Dewhurst has consistently sided with Democrats more often than with conservative Republicans, according to a study by Dr. Mark Jones, the chairman of the Department of Political Science at Rice University:

Dewhurst frequently used his powers of agenda control to help pass legislation opposed by the most conservative members of the Republican delegation. [Dewhurst’s record] . . . is significantly less conservative than approximately one-third of the Republican delegation, particularly conservative outliers Brian Birdwell of Granbury and Dan Patrick of Houston.

. . . [Under David Dewhurst] [s]everal of the more conservative Democrats, however, had higher win rates than multiple Republicans. For example, [Democrats Carlos] Uresti, [John] Whitmire, [Chuy] Hinojosa and [Royce] West all possessed higher win rates than the seven most conservative Republicans [Dan Patrick, Brian Birdwell, Jane Nelson, Rob Nichols, Florence Shapiro, Chris Harris, and Troy Fraser].

[Voting analysis] reveals a Dewhurst-run Senate where the senators who enjoyed the most success were in the moderate and center wings of the Republican Party.

Indeed, Jones’s research demonstrates that Democrats Carlos Uresti, Royce West, John Whitmire, and Chuy Hinojosa were all roughly 20% more likely to have their legislation passed under David Dewhurst than were conservative Senators Dan Patrick and Brian Birdwell.

Here’s how Jones concluded:

Is Dewhurst a "moderate?" Yes, if by that one means that he would appear to be significantly less conservative than approximately one-third of the Republican delegation in the Texas Senate.

. . . In summary, for Republicans located on the rightward edge of the ideological spectrum, Dewhurst is probably too moderate. However, for Republicans located in the party's centrist and moderate conservative wings, Dewhurst is likely to be "just right."

Don’t be distracted by the Dewhurst LIES. He’s trying to blame Ted Cruz for the conduct of others who happen to work at the same law firm-- conduct over which Ted has utterly no control -- and it’s all an elaborate effort to distract the voters from what David Dewhurst himself has done(not somebody else who happened to work at the same place he did):

● Dewhurst himself proposed a statewide “wage tax” that the Wall Street Journal said was nothing more than “a fancy disguise for a personal income tax.”

● Dewhurst himself raised state tax revenue by 49%.

● Dewhurst himself raised state spending by 62% -- and he calls a $72 billion increase a “spending cut.”

● Dewhurst himself held a campaign event for DC lobbyists at a house owned by top Obama crony Tony Podesta.

● Dewhurst himself appointed 32 Democrats to committee chairs and worked with them to kill conservative legislation.

● Dewhurst allied himself with moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans to kill the agenda of the seven most conservative Republicans in the Senate.

Don’t believe the lies; focus on each candidate’s actual record: Dewhurst’s moderate tax-and-spend record (from which he’s trying desperately to distract you) and Ted Cruz’s proven conservative record.

Official RPT Redistricting Update XI: It Is All Up To The Courts: June 26th Primary Election POSSIBLE

The following message is an official Texas Redistricting/Primary Election update from the Republican Party of Texas:

Redistricting Update XI: It Is All Up To The Courts

The fate of the redistricting maps now rests solely with the three-judge panel in San Antonio. As of the time of this update, a global agreement between all parties has not been reached relative to the Texas House and Texas Congressional districts. Therefore, the final decisions as to where the lines will be are in the hands of the three-judge panel. The panel set deadlines for parties to submit final briefs on various issues and that deadline has now passed. This now means that all the arguments are over and all we are waiting for now is for the Court to rule.

If the Court issues maps on or before March 3rd, then the May 29th primary date can be accomplished - assuming a re-opened filing period can be accomplished within a few days. If the Court issues new maps after March 3rd, then the next and final available primary date would be June 26th. To accomplish a June 26th primary, maps would still need to be issued by March 30th to meet the June 26th date.

Cruz vs. Dewhurst US Senate Runoff Election VERY LIKELY new Texas Tribune Poll Suggests

A new Texas Tribune/UT poll released today indicates that the Cruz Surge continues and he’s headed to a runoff with Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst.

Here’s a summary of the new independent, statewide poll:

• Dewhurst is at 38%, Cruz 27% and the next two candidates are 20 points behind at 7%.
• This means the race is headed for a runoff between Cruz and Dewhurst.
• Despite being in statewide office for 14 years and having universal name ID among GOP primary voters, the Lt. Governor is far from closing in on the 50% needed to avoid a runoff. AndCruz is in a solid second place, and surging strongly.
• A runoff would overwhelmingly favor Cruz, given that the most engaged and conservative voters would dominate a runoff – informed conservative voters are a nightmare for Dewhurst.
• Here’s how UT pollster Jim Henson summarizes the situation:“Cruz is in the advantageous position right now of, for the most part, defending his ideas against Dewhurst's record. In the last few cycles, that's been a good place to be, and not to be the person who's having to defend your actions in government.”
• Henson added these numbers are a “yellow flag” for Dewhurst. And the Texas Tribune noted that Cruz is looming in the rearview mirror of Dewhurst.

http://www.tedcruz.org/blog/2012/02/21/poll-cruz-surge-continues-headed-to-runoff-with-dewhurst/

TX SREC Emergency Meeting over New Delegate Selection Process Due to May 29th (or June) Texas Republican Primary Election

The San Antonio Federal Court over the redistricting lawsuit has declared that Texas will not have a Primary Election before May 29th, 2012. We have been told to plan for an election on May 29th but that we could also have it as late as June 26th, 2012.

The problem with this late election is that we have to have the Republican Party of Texas State Convention at the beginning of June. Typically, we have a Precinct Convention, then a County Convention, and then the State Convention. The Precinct Convention, by law, is on the night of the Primary Election. With a May 29th, Primary there will be no time for all of that.

The only option that we have is to not tie the convention process tied to the Primary Election night.

We will have to go ahead and have the Precinct and County Conventions (maybe even the State Convention) BEFORE we have the Primary Election.

the State Republican Executive Committee will be having an emergency meeting (via telephone) with the RPT Chairman, Steve Munisteri, sometime in the next couple of days. We will then have an emergency meeting in Austin to vote to approve a new process. We will be coming up with a new convention/delegate selection process and timeline. We then have to present what we come up with to the 3 Judge San Antonio Federal Panel.

As soon as we come up with something, this information will be pushed out to everyone.

If anyone has any comments or suggestions for the SREC regarding a new process, please email me with you idea and I will pass it along.

Thanks!

Sincerely,

David Bellow
State Republican Executive Committeeman
Senate District 3
mdbellow@gmail.com



Below is the latest update from the Republican Party of Texas:

Urgent Redistricting Update X: Primary Moved Again

This afternoon, the San Antonio three-judge panel indicated that the April unified primary election will be postponed and that it was probable (but not a certainty) that the new primary date will be May 29th. As previously reported, on Tuesday, county clerks and elections administrators testified that they need 88 days of lead time to prepare for a primary election from the date that new district maps are issued. Today at the hearing, the Texas Secretary of State's office indicated that this timeline could be shrunk to 77 days and reduced even further if military ballots were accepted for a short period of time after the primary.

Consequently, new maps need to be in place sometime between early and mid-March in order to maintain the May 29th primary date.

Chairman Munisteri discussed with the Court the problems a May 29th primary creates for the party's delegate selection process for the RPT State Convention. He reiterated that it is impossible to comply with the current Texas Election Code as it pertains to delegate selection, with the primary on May 29th and the State Convention in the first week of June. He strongly urged the Court to issue an order that would allow the State Republican Executive Committee to adopt a new delegate selection process which varies from the Election Code. He told the court that if there is sufficient time for planning, that in consultation with party leadership, he had several different options in mind which: would allow district conventions to still occur on schedule, allow for a May 29th primary, and still allow for a convention the next week. In general terms, he suggested different options which would completely de-couple the selection of delegates to the State Convention from the primary election.

The Court indicated it was very likely that they would grant such a request from the State Party, provided it received U.S. Department of Justice pre-clearance. Chairman Munisteri made the case that DOJ pre-clearance is not required in a case where the changes are made as a result of court order. However, the Court indicated that they thought it was a safer route to obtain pre-clearance. A Department of Justice attorney testified that his office would expedite such a request and anticipated that the approval time could be reduced from a couple of months to a couple of weeks, thereby allowing the change to occur.

The Court instructed both political parties to consult on a new schedule for a May 29th primary. It also invited the state parties to put forth separate proposals as to how they would select delegates and conduct their conventions. Chairman Munisteri is hoping to hold a telephone conference with members of the Republican Party of Texas Officials Committee tomorrow to go over various options. He plans within the next few days, to have a separate telephone conference with the entire SREC to go over recommendations from the Officials Committee. It is his hope that a consensus plan can be agreed upon by the SREC. If this is accomplished, he will distribute this plan to all County Chairmen to obtain their input, and then once a final plan is agreed upon - to propose the plan to the three-judge panel in San Antonio.

It is the Chairman's goal to develop a process around existing Senatorial and County conventions so as to minimize inconvenience and logistical problems. It remains his objective to keep the State Republican Convention scheduled as planned during the first week of June. We will provide further information over the next few days as to developments in this regard.

Also on Wednesday - Chairman Munisteri, RPT lawyers and staff spent another day in the courtroom listening to final arguments in the redistricting case. It appears as though there is an agreement between the Attorney General and the Democrats on a new Texas State Senate map. As soon as we have full details, we will provide them to you - but it is expected that the final lines will make it possible for a Republican to win the district in controversy, SD 10, although not a certainty.

At the time the hearing concluded, General Abbott's team had not reached agreement with all the plaintiffs on all districts pertaining to the Texas House map. With one set of plaintiffs, there is still a battle over Republican districts HD 144 (currently held by Ken Legler), HD 117 (currently held by John Garza) and HD 81 (currently held by Tryon Lewis). Another set of plaintiffs wanted to change the lines of another 30 districts on the State House map in an even larger grab for seats.

With regards to the Congressional districts (discussion of which took up most of the day) the prime battleground appears to be over CD 33, 25, 23, 35 and 27. Of particular concern to the Republican Party of Texas is CD23, which is represented by Congressman Quico Canseco. General Abbott's map is roughly equivalent to how that district was configured before redistricting, while the Democrats are pushing for an increase of Democrat voters there.

There was also a big argument with the Democrats over CD 25, currently represented by Lloyd Doggett. Travis County and other Democratic plaintiffs are arguing that the district should not be converted to a Republican district, since in their opinion the district is protected under the Voting Rights Act - General Abbott's team disputes this. There are also several different proposals regarding Congressional District 33 in Arlington. Additionally, Congressman Joe Barton's legal team (led by former State Representative Joe Nixon) argues that the configuration of that district in the Attorney General's compromise proposal is not allowable under current legal standard. At the end of the hearing today, there was also no agreement on the Texas Congressional map.

Chairman Munisteri issued the following statement regarding today's proceedings. "I am disappointed that the San Antonio three-judge panel again delayed the Texas Primary Election. The Secretary of State's witness today indicated that if the panel would issue maps within the next few days - that an April 24th primary could still be accomplished. However, now that it is apparent that April is out, the RPT will continue to fight to oppose any further slippage in the primary schedule. We will work hard with our Party leadership to come up with a plan to preserve our State convention."

At this juncture, it appears that there will not be an agreement between all parties regarding all districts. Therefore, at this time, it appears that the three-judge panel will have to decide where the final lines are for the Texas House and Congressional districts.

Special Advisory to all Republican county chairmen, precinct chairmen, and party activists from Chairman Munisteri - I am hopeful that the SREC will come up with a plan for the three-judge panel that will still allow district conventions on the date scheduled. Therefore it is our advice that you not cancel your plans to go forward with district conventions until otherwise instructed. I am hopeful that within the next week or so, that we will have a telephone conference with all county chairs to provide them more information on any proposed plans. The RPT is committed to working with each of you to come up with a workable solution to this unprecedented challenge. Thank you again for your patience and hard work.

IMPORTANT TX Redistricting Update: NO April Election. One May 29th Primary or Split April/May Elections

The San Antonio Federal Court had a Texas Redistricting hearing yesterday, 2/14/12. We had hoped for more clarity of when we will get to vote. After the hearing, things did not look so good…. Instead of clarity, we got chaos. A Unified April Election is OUT (won’t happen) and we still do not know when we will vote! We might even be forced to have our Precinct, County and State Conventions BEFORE we even have the primary election!

Remember last week the Court said they wanted a unified April Primary? I am not so gullible to believe every word that this liberal leaning court says and so for the past couple of months I have been adamant that the courts and the Democrats will keep pushing things back and we will either have a unified May primary or a split primary. Guess what, the court changed their mind yesterday about wanting to have a Unified April Primary (is anyone surprised?) and now there will be NO Unified April Primary! There is just no time.

Now it looks like we will have one unified Primary Election on May 29th or June 26th, OR we will have a split Primary (two elections) with the Presidential and Statewide elections in late April and all the other elections in May/June (or whenever the redistricting battle is settled).

Both the Democrats and the Republicans are OK with a split election now that there is no time for a unified April Primary, if there was a way for it to be funded. A split election would cost more money than one election, so unless the state comes up with the money, Texas will not have a split primary and instead we will have one unified Primary Election on May 29^th or even as late as June 26^th.

After the conclusion of the hearing today 2/15/12 (or whenever the court feels like it because we are apparently their puppets right now), the court will tell us whether or not we will have a split election or one unified election pushed back to May/June.

We are going to have some major problems if we do not have a split election and instead have one unified election in May/June. We have to have Precinct, County and a State Convention. This is required and we CANNOT move the date of our June 7^th Republican State Convention. The Precinct Conventions, by Law, are on the Primary Election Day. If the court dictates that Texas will have one unified Primary election in May or June, then it will be impossible to have our conventions on Primary election day. We will have to beg the court/judges/dictators/kings for Judicial Relief to allow us to have our Precinct and County Conventions BEFORE the Primary Election Day and NOT tied to the Primary Election in any way.

So that is basically what is going on. WHAT A MESS! How much longer will we just sit here on the sidelines waiting on the court instead of being more proactive and pulling everything out of our sleeves in order to fight the unconstitutional actions that are being taken against us?

Sincerely,

David Bellow

State Republican Executive Committee

Official Statement from the Republican Party of Texas

The Republican Party of Texas issued a statement about all the new developments after yesterday’s Redistricting Hearing in San Antonio. This statement is as follows:

Redistricting Update IX: Valentine's Day Hearing Update

Today in San Antonio, the three-judge panel began a full day of hearing final arguments in the Texas redistricting case, which affects the scheduling of the state primary and state convention. We can report that the Court appears to be backing off of its stated intention to have a unified April Primary Election. This comes after assorted county election officials stepped forward to testify that it would be impossible to hold a unified April Primary Election - even if they had maps today.

Although the Republican Party of Texas had Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart appear before the panel to testify that an April 24th primary election is still doable, our sense is the Court now believes that April is no longer viable for a single unified primary. From the Court's questioning, it seemed that at least one judge and possibly two would prefer to go ahead with a Presidential primary and statewide races in April and the other races at a date to be determined in the future. How the extra primary election would be funded appears problematic at this time. We won't know until the Court rules whether these conclusions are correct. Our best estimate right now is that there will be a single unified primary on May 29th, absent the state coming up with funds for a split primary.

Because the Texas Democratic Party's lawyers backed up Chairman Munisteri's testimony at the hearing that it is practically not possible to move the State Conventions at this late date, one thing we know for sure (and the Court is aware of this fact), is that you can't schedule the primary after the State Conventions unless (as the Democratic lawyer stated) the State Parties can find a field somewhere to hold their conventions and if we could guarantee good weather.

Chairman Munisteri testified to the Court that it would be impossible to select delegates in accordance with the process prescribed in the Election Code, if the primary was not held until May 29th and the state convention began on June 7th. However, the Court signaled that it would be open to judicial relief to allow the State Parties to select their delegates in a way that didn't require precinct conventions to be tied to the primary. The Texas Democratic Party lawyer went a step further and argued that even though the Election Code prescribes the process, that it is their position that the Election Code is unenforceable because the political parties are private organizations and thus they could change their rules without a court order. The RPT believes it would be risky to do so and prefers the route of obtaining judicial permission prior to such action. In the event the Court schedules a May primary, Chairman Munisteri plans to schedule an emergency teleconference with all SREC members and Republican County Chairs to discuss alternative processes for picking State Convention delegates, in the hopes of coming to a consensus as to what to suggest to the court for relief.

The court also heard presentations from several plaintiffs and the State of Texas as to their position relative to how maps should be drawn. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court directed the three-judge panel to issue new maps that were neither the legislative-drawn lines, nor the subsequent lines issued by the San Antonio three-judge panel in November. In issuing that directive, the Supreme Court set forth the criteria by which lines could be altered. Specifically, the Supreme Court said that if the San Antonio panel found there was a "not insubstantial" chance of violation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, that lines could be altered to comply with Section 5. A Washington, D.C. three-judge federal panel has had a trial on Section 5 so as to make a final determination as to violations, but the Supreme Court indicated that the San Antonio three-judge federal panel should issue interim maps which correct any deficiencies in districts in which the "not insubstantial" standard was met. Moreover, the San Antonio three-judge panel has jurisdiction over Section 2 violations of the Voting Rights Act and the Supreme Court indicated that if there were violations of this provision, that lines could be altered as well.

In recent orders, the San Antonio three-judge panel had directed the plaintiffs and the State of Texas (representing the legislative maps) to see if they could agree which districts fell under these criteria and suggest fixes. Last week, the Attorney General put forth a proposed set of maps which addressed potentially problematic districts while at the same time, tried to stay as close to the original legislative maps as possible. Some of the plaintiffs' groups agreed to some of the proposed lines. The hearing today flushed out the differences, with each party stating their differences and arguments thereof. The Attorney General's proposals put forth what it believes are 50 Texas State House districts which have an opportunity for minorities to elect their candidates of choice - a number which meets the benchmark (2010) plan's number of 50 such districts. Some of the plaintiffs' groups however, want 51 or more of these districts, and a much larger number of "coalition" districts, which would likely elect Democrats, but would not have a majority of their citizen voting age population be comprised of a single minority group. Another group of plaintiffs which opposes the suggested lines put forth by the Attorney General, was arguing for 67 majority-minority districts in the State House. In effect, their proposed maps would substantially reduce the number of Republican legislators.

The Latino Redistricting Task Force, which represents a number of the Latino groups, has indicated that they would not object to much of the proposed map, but they disagree over House District 144 (currently represented by Representative Ken Legler). The Attorney General's map draws that district with 48% registered voters with Spanish surnames. The Latino Redistricting Task Force would not accept any lines for HD 144 that do not have at least 50% of registration of Spanish surnames. That particular plaintiffs' group was also willing to accept the proposed Congressional maps which would split the four new Congressional districts into lines which would result in two new Republican districts - an improvement over the three-judge panel's maps but which is down one from the maps originally drawn by the Legislature. Many of the other plaintiffs' groups opposed the proposed Congressional map and wanted at least one more Democratic Congressional district in addition to the two new Democratic districts contained in the Attorney General's map. Congressman Joe Barton has intervened, and is arguing for one more Republican district.

The State Senate map has really only one district in dispute - that being Senate District 10, the district held by State Senator Wendy Davis. Apparently the Attorney General and the plaintiff Democrats are not that far apart in respect to their proposals. Under virtually every anticipated scenario, at the very least that senate district would be winnable by a Republican candidate. The final battle over the lines will determine whether it is a toss-up district, or one where the Republicans will have a slight advantage.

To complicate things further, the Department of Justice sent a lawyer who argued that there were five Texas House districts on the previously-drawn legislative map, which the Department of Justice is insisting be changed because of violations to the Voting Rights Act. The DOJ lawyer also stated emphatically that the federal court panel has limited authority to alter deadlines that were controlled by federal statute.

At this time, it seems more likely than not, that all the parties will not come to an agreement on the Congressional and Texas House maps. Therefore, we are assuming that once the hearing is concluded tomorrow (Wednesday, Feb. 15) that the final map lines will be decided by the three-judge panel as opposed to the parties in the lawsuit. To add another wrinkle, one of the judges suggested that if the primary will have to be delayed until May anyway - that the San Antonio three-judge panel may delay their decision for at least a while to see if they get a ruling out of the Washington D.C. three-judge panel regarding potential Section 5 violations so that they can incorporate the decision into their deliberations.

After attending in full and testifying at the hearing, Chairman Munisteri issued the following statement - "It is the Republican Party of Texas' position that a single unified primary is still possible for April. If the Court delays the primary further, it will be a great disappointment to Republicans who wish to have early participation in the Presidential primary process. I would like to applaud the work of General Abbott's Deputy Attorney General for Defense Litigation, David Mattax, who I thought did an excellent job refuting the Democrats' contention that Republicans intentionally discriminated against minorities, as well as providing excellent rebuttal district by district to the plaintiffs' attorneys contention that more districts needed to have their lines altered with the intent of creating additional Democratic districts."

The hearing will continue tomorrow, but is expected to conclude by 2:30pm. We should know tomorrow for certain, whether we have a split primary or a unified primary. We should also know whether April is definitely out. We hopefully will have some guidance as to what flexibility the parties will have in altering the delegate selection process. We will provide a further report after tomorrow's hearing.

Advisory to all Republican county chairmen, precinct chairmen, and party activists - In the event that the primary is pushed back further, the RPT will still seek court relief to allow district conventions to go forward on the dates you already have scheduled but with the different delegate selection process. Consequently, at this time - we urge you not to cancel your district conventions as they still may occur on the same day. We anticipate having a conference call with the SREC in the next week to discuss the situation and examine options together. Thank you for your understanding and patience in this difficult situation.

TX Redistricting Deal Rejected - NO Apr 3 Primary - Apr 17 Unlikely – Split Election Likely – TX Should Stand Up to Feds & RNC

Monday, February 6^th, was the deadline for a Texas Redistricting agreement to be made in order to have a one 2012 Primary Election in Texas on April 3^rd. There was an agreement made between Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and some of the minority groups who are plaintiffs in the Redistricting Lawsuit, but then a Federal US District Judge, Orlando Garcia, in San Antonio struck down the deal. Yep, this is the same Judge who is the brother in law of liberal Democrat State Senator Leticia Van De Putte. Van De Putte seems to have a history of unethically meddling in the affairs of courts and other departments like when she allegedly tried to influence a probation department’s decisions in order to help a family member. Orlando Garcia is also one of the judges whose radical redrawing of the Texas maps earned him a rejection and a scolding from the US Supreme Court.

Now, because this judge rejected the agreement, there will not be a unified April 3^rd Primary election, and the chances are very slim of coming up with a new agreement in time to have a unified April 17^th Primary. Right now it is most likely that Texas will have two primary elections.

Texas Will Likely Have Two Texas Primary Elections, One in mid-April and One After the Redistricting Battle

December 10^th, 2011, I wrote an article stating that Texas will likely have 2 Primary elections. In fact, I said that Texas SHOULD go ahead and have 2 Primary elections. One on March 3^rd and one at a later time after Redistricting is sorted out. This would allow Texas the ability to get some of the elections out of the way, have a State Republican Convention, and also have an early say in the Presidential Primary. Yes this would cost Texas some money, but getting to vote is something worth spending money on, and I knew that the Democrats and the Courts would drag this out longer than we ever expected. Turns out that they did drag things out and now we are back to square one again and we are looking at having to split the primary election up again. So we are going to have to still pay for a split primary election except now our vote in the Presidential Primary will be much later.

Texas Must Stand Up Against Unconstitutional Actions of Judges and Federal Government

This kind of mess is what happens when a couple of biased Judges think they have the ability to disregard the constitution and try to draw the maps themselves instead of the ELECTED officials in Texas drawing them.

This is also the kind of mess that happens when Republicans in Texas do not stand up together and fight back. Remember the TSA bill in Texas that would have made it illegal for TSA agents to molest people without cause? Remember how, instead of passing the TSA No-Groping bill, the Texas Legislature backed down when the DOJ told them to back down? That kind of playing nice is what got us into this mess where Texas just gets run over. We knew the Democrats were going to fight us in Redistricting no matter what we did. We knew they were going to sue in the name of minorities even though they do not care about minorities and only care about keeping Democrats in office. Democrats do not even represent the values of Minorities because most minorities are actually conservative and certainly not liberal. Instead of trying to play nice with the Democrats in Redistricting, only to have the Democrats still sue us, we should have really stuck it to the Democrats in Redistricting. From the beginning, we should have been the ones pulling out all the tricks from our hat because you know that if the Democrats were in power they would have done the SAME thing. Playing nice is good in general but it does not get us anywhere in these situations. We are in charge and we should do everything we can to pass our agenda items and stand up for our values. Things like requiring a 2/3rds majority in the State Senate in order to pass anything and Dewhurst and Straus putting so many Democrats or moderate Republicans into Chairmanship positions (to try to be proportional) prevents the Republican Majority from passing important bills because we want to play nice with the Democrats. At least put conservative Democrats in these Chairmanships that are given to the Democrats!

The people of Texas elected Republicans to pass Republican bills, not to compromise with the Dems. The Dems have a chance to vote against a bill when it gets to the floor for a vote and that should be it. We should be civil with them of course as people and we should work with them on issues we agree on, but we need to tell them “heck no” when it comes to compromising our Republican values in legislation on important issues. We are squandering away a majority. You know if the Democrats had the majority they would not think about playing nice at all. Remember when the Democrats left the State in order to keep a bill from getting passed? Right now they are not playing nice and they are intentionally pushing back this election so that Texas Republicans do not have a voice in the Republican Presidential race. Look at President Obama and the Democrats in Congress. They shoved liberalism, DADT repeal, ObamaCare, Etc. down our throats when they were in power, but when Republicans were in power we were too worried about compromise to get anything significant done. Don’t get me wrong, Texas has many great Republicans who stand up for Conservative Republican values, like Black East Texas State Representative James White, but not all Republicans stand together to promote conservative values. The Texas Legislature did pass many conservative bills last session, but given the super majority that Republicans had, there were not nearly as many conservative bills passed that should have and some important bills were killed. We might not have that super-majority ever again if the Democrats have their way in this redistricting battle.

Regardless of how the courts rule, Texas needs to take up Redistricting again in the next Legislative Session and fight back against this unconstitutional take-over of the right of Texas to draw maps within the State of Texas. The 2012 Republican Primary Election Ballot will actually have a proposition asking if Texas should take up redistricting again in 2013. I think the Republicans in Texas will vote overwhelmingly in favor of that proposition.

We also need to stand up against section 5 of the Voting Rights Act because it is unconstitutional. Instead of going to the Supreme Court with Section 5 on the back burner and simply hoping that they strike it down, we need to bring Section 5 to the front of the argument and be loud and fight against it. We need to rally with all the other states and get the Supreme Court to fast track a decision or at least try to write legislation that removed this unconstitutional section of the Voting Rights Act. We all know that it is unconstitutional to have one set of procedures for some states and a different set of procedure for other states. I mean seriously, the Department of Justice is telling Texas that they cannot pass a voter ID law even though the US Supreme Court already upheld a similar voter ID law in one of those other states who are special and do not need to get pre-clearance. That clearly shows why Section 5 is clearly unconstitutional. Section 5 says that an entire elected legislature might be biased so we are going to make all that state’s decisions pass though one person, a very biased and partisan Eric Holder. And isn't drawing the lines based solely on race inherently discriminatory and unconstitutional?

Texas Should Do like Florida and Stand Up to RNC

Texas also needs to stand up against the RNC. The Republican National Committee wants to control the candidates who become the Republican Nominee by allowing a few states to have their Primary elections before all the other states and penalizing any state who has their primary before these other states. The Media takes the front runner of these few states and basically declares who the winner will be even before most of the other states have voted. We need to have a more equal system in which All states can have a say in the Presidential race instead of a few states unfairly getting to go first. These few early states are not even good representations of America and certainly do not represent Texas. The Republican Party of each state does not even control when the Primary Date is anyways because the State Legislatures determine the election dates, at least in Texas that is how it works. Texas planned for a March 3 primary date. The Republican Party of Texas had no control over that date. The RNC was going to penalize the RPT because we have a winner take all and the Primary was going to be in March. We were forced to change from winner take all to proportional which diluted the voice of Texas and the ability of the entire state to be able to put all of our delegates behind one candidate who wins the majority of Texas.

Florida did it right! Florida told the RNC that they are having an early Primary and they don’t care about getting penalized. Florida had a HUGE say in the Presidential Primary Race this year because they decided to stand up against the unfair RNC rules. Sure, Florida will lose delegates, but they at least had a huge say in the Presidential Primary race! Texas should do the same.

Survey: What Propositions Should Be on the 2012 Texas Republican Primary Ballot? Personhood Amendment?

Below is a NEW survey. Every 2 years there is a Republican Primary Election in Texas. On the Republican Primary ballot are propositions that the ENTIRE State of Texas votes on when they vote in the Republican Primary. For instance, on the 2010 Primary election ballot there were propositions on the ballot regarding whether or not Texas should require voter id, and also whether or not Texas should require sonograms before abortions. The Republican voters in Texas approved both of those propositions and the Texas Legislature went on to pass laws similar to those propositions.

The State Republican Executive Committee will decide, on December 3^rd, 2011, what propositions should be placed on the 2012 Texas Republican Primary Ballot.

What Propositions do you think should be on the 2012 Republican Primary Ballot? Take this Survey:

I want to know what YOU think should be on the ballot. Obviously there cannot be too many propositions on the ballot, so I will take all of your suggestions and take the top 1 or 2 propositions and present them to the SREC for consideration for the 2012 Texas Republican Primary Election Ballot. Other SREC members will submit propositions too and the entire SREC will pick the top ones that will go on the ballot.

Click Here or click the Survey Button below to take this New Survey and let me know what Propositions yuo think should be on the Ballot:

For instance, one proposition that I like and think should be on the ballot is a question about when someone is considered a person. This proposition I will propose would read something like this:

Should the term 'person' or 'persons' be defined in the State of Texas as “every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof."

I think it is a great idea. You see, in Roe v. Wade, the opinion of the majority was that there was not enough information or a consensus about an unborn baby to know if it is a person. Therefore, the Court sided with an unborn baby not being a person until more science and consensus came out regarding what is inside a mother who is pregnant. Well, we now have the science and I would say we have the consensus. No one disagrees that a baby has a heartbeat and feelings and emotion at a very early stage in a pregnancy. No one disagrees that an unborn baby has its own DNA. It is a completely different entity from the mother. Is there really any difference if you kill the baby right before it comes out or if you wait 30 minutes when the baby is actually born? Dogs and cats have more rights from being tortured than unborn babies. It is time we define unborn babies as people instead of just defining them as something that can just be tossed in the trash.

By the way, I do not endorse cloning, but a baby is still a person even if, in the future, someone were to be cloned.

Below is a picture of my mother, Paula Bellow, questioning a Planned Parenthood Supporter at an Obama event in Arizona. My mother had 10 kids. She showed the Planned Parenthood supporter a picture of her 10 kids and my mother asked which kid the abortion supporter thinks my mom should have killed.

My mother passed away last year after a long battle with cancer, but she praised God through the entire struggle. You can see the video here

Ted Cruz for Senate gets Big Endorsement from Dr. James Dobson, Founder of National Pro Life and Pro Family Group "Focus on the Family"

National pro-life, family values leader Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, is endorsing Ted Cruz for Senate.

In his endorsement announcement, Dr. Dobson said: “I’m pleased to endorse Ted Cruz for U.S. Senate because he’s exactly the kind of candidate we need to turn this country around. Religious freedom is under assault every day. We need leaders with the courage to stand strong for conservative values in this battle. Ted Cruz is such a leader—one who will not only vote his convictions in the Senate, but will also lead the fight to defend life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty."

Dr. Dobson added: “Ted Cruz stands out among conservative leaders across the country today. He has a consistent record of standing up for faith, family, and freedom, and winning values battles on a national level....I urge all Texans who love life, family, faith, and freedom to not only vote for Ted Cruz, but to work hard for his campaign."