Enlarge Illustration by Todd Wiseman

When is a filing deadline not a filing deadline? When you don't have maps.

The three-judge federal panel in San Antonio, trying to figure out what to do with the unraveling election schedule, extended the candidate filing deadline until Monday of next week. But they also said they'll have another filing period whenever there's a legal set of maps and that candidates will be allowed to file, to amend filings already made, or to withdraw and get their money back. They waived residency requirements for now, giving contestants a chance to move into their desired districts once those districts are drawn.

It'll be next month, at the earliest, before this is sorted out. Here's where things stand.

• The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the Texas case on January 9, after getting briefs from the various lawyers on December 21 and responses on January 3.

• A three-judge federal panel in Washington that is deciding whether to pre-clear the maps drawn by the Legislature will hold hearings January 17, with final arguments set for February 3. That's being done under Section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act; broadly speaking, they're looking to see whether those maps reduced minority communities' influence over elections.

• The San Antonio panel's work is being graded by the Supremes. Meanwhile, that court is deciding what to do with the primaries that are scheduled for March 6. They'll have a hearing on January 12.

Enlarge Caleb Bryant Miller

Voting signs in Austin during the 2010 election cycle.

If you can't hold congressional and legislative primaries on March 6 — because you don't have maps in time — what happens next?

Election administrators pull their hair out. The judges were empathetic, but didn't offer much relief. At one point, U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia told Bexar County Election Administrator Jacquelyn Callanen: "You're gonna be busy."

The courts can delay the primaries that don't have maps or that are dependent on those maps (like the elections for party precinct chairs), but there are questions over whether they can delay others.

Without dragging you through all of the details, it boils down to three choices: Hold all of the primaries, from president down to county commission, on the same date; split the primary and hold all of the unaffected elections on March 6 and everything else on a later date; or leave the presidential primary on March 6 and move everything else.

Option one is the cheapest, since it moves the election but doesn't add anything to the calendar. It has the disadvantage of taking Texas voters out of the presidential race at a time when that contest might still be undecided, and it could — depending on how late the primaries are held — wreak havoc on the state political conventions in early summer.

Option two is the most expensive because it creates two new elections — another primary, another runoff. The costs are borne by the counties and the state, so it amounts to an unfunded mandate. And it's hell on the calendars, since a lot of localities have elections already scheduled in May.

The third option creates one more election, since there are no runoffs in presidential primaries in Texas, and has that same possible impact on the parties.

None of these are great options. And the Republicans are squabbling among themselves over it. State GOP Chairman Steve Munisteri was in court this week arguing for a split primary, saying it would preserve voters' ability to influence the presidential race and was the least ugly option. (What he didn't say was that the March date could work to the advantage of the governor, if that's the inclination of the voters and if he's still in the race in March.) In that, the state party is at odds with many of its own officeholders; the court was treated to news that 15 of the state's 19 Republican senators and 28 of the 32 members of its congressional delegation (from both parties) don't want a split primary in 2012. That's also the position of the Texas Democratic Party, which argued that the judges can't practically split the primaries.

The main arguments seem to be that turnout will suffer, that costs will rise and that everyone will be confused. That's not a great environment for incumbents. And moderate voters in both parties, who are often less diligent about voting that the fire-breathers, might be less likely to show up. The split primary's lower turnout might favor small, organized groups, like the Tea Party.

If the state were to make these kinds of changes, they'd be subject to review under the Voting Rights Act, and court review.

It would be difficult to defend.

Enlarge Illustration by Todd Wiseman

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in federal court this week challenging that state’s voter ID bill, which attorneys say is less strict than Texas’ but could still potentially disenfranchise eligible voters there.

The Texas law requires voters present a valid, state-issued ID to cast a ballot, while the Wisconsin measure also allows voters to use passports and some college IDs. As is the case here, opponents of the Wisconsin law argue it’s a throwback to the era of poll taxes, specifically because it would force lower-income and elderly voters to pay fees to obtain the proper IDs required to vote.

“This lawsuit is the opening act in what will be a long struggle to undo the damage done to the right to vote by strict photo ID laws and other voter suppression measures,” Jon Sherman, an attorney with the ACLU Voting Rights Project, said in a statement. “Across the nation, legislators are robbing countless American citizens of their fundamental right to vote, and in the process, undermining the very legitimacy of our democracy. We intend to redirect their attention to the Constitution.”

Sherman told The Texas Tribune that the Wisconsin case could guide what states can and cannot require their voters to obtain in order to cast a ballot.

But Texas still has another stand-alone hurdle aside from any pending litigation. Under Section Five of the Voting Rights Act, the U.S. Department of Justice has the right to review any election laws passed in more than a dozen U.S. states, including Texas, that have histories of racial discrimination. The approval, known as preclearance, hasn’t been granted on the Voter ID law because DOJ alleges Texas has not submitted substantial information that proves more than 600,000 minority voters will not be disenfranchised. Because the matter is still pending, it could mean that Texas’ voter ID law won’t be in effect by its scheduled January 1 start date.

This week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told a crowd at the University of Texas campus that the department is intent on reviewing Texas’ voter ID law and its decennial redistricting process to ensure they comply with the Voting Rights Act.

Enlarge Illustration by Todd Wiseman

By the end of the year, there will likely be four school finance lawsuits pending against the state. Here's a primer to keep them all straight. 

First off, it's important to remember that once in court, they'll all be consolidated into one case. The districts will share experts and discovery costs while maintaining their own lawyers. They are allies — they have a common opponent, the state — but their interests don't necessarily align in all instances. That's where the separate legal representation comes in.  

Districts typically use three different grounds sue the state: efficiency, adequacy and what’s called “meaningful discretion.” The Texas Constitution requires that the state provide efficient and adequate funding for its public schools. It also says that school districts must have discretion in how they spend the money they receive from property taxes.  

Chapter 41 schools, the property-wealthy districts that give local revenue back to the state under Robin Hood laws, are largely joining the lawsuit in a defensive position, to make sure that they don’t end up worse off than when they started. A broader coalition of schools, led by attorney David Thompson, will add to that an attack on the adequacy front. That group, which has not yet filed in court, will argue that not only has the state failed to dedicate enough money to public education for schools to meet increasingly rigorous accountability standards, but that in doing so, it has not given local districts enough choice in how to spend or whether to raise property taxes — in effect, instituting an unconstitutional statewide property tax. 

The two other lawsuits, which have both been filed, represent the interests of poorer districts. One, brought by the Equity Center, which is made up of suburban, rural and inner-city schools of varying sizes, attacks the target revenue system established in 2006, when lawmakers reduced the property tax rate and guaranteed that districts would get no less than the amount they received per student at that time. That stopgap has since become permanent, resulting in an arbitrary funding scheme in which neighboring school districts can have as much as a $7,000 difference in state spending per student; the Equity Center will argue it is wildly inefficient. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund argues in its lawsuit that the target revenue system disproportionately hurts school districts that serve large contingents of English-language learners. 

The plaintiffs all agree that current levels of state funding aren't adequate. What they don't agree on is the details — in particular, whether the "equity" concern should be a priority. But the looming question is how the court should go about meeting those requirements — will it bring all districts up to the same level by pouring more money into the system for poorer districts, or will it level the playing field by bringing the wealthier districts down?  

The litigants would prefer the former solution. But that may not be an option with the state's current budget.

Enlarge AAFL

Craig James, ESPN Analyst, SMU All American, one half of the Pony Express at SMU with Eric Dickerson, announces a Team Texas draft pick

Candidates can file through Monday of next week, but the federal courts have promised another round of filings after the judges decide what maps the state should use for legislative and congressional elections. Everybody's got the power to change their minds, in other words.

That means you'll see more announcements like the one from Salomon Torres, who told the Rio Grande Guardian that he'll be running for Congress, but hasn't said what district he'll run in. Torres, a Brownsville Democrat, is the district director for U.S. Rep. Ruben Hinojosa, D-Edinburg.

Former Edinburg City Manager Ramiro Garza filed for Congress, too. No district number in that announcement, either. "For my part, I’m certain that I’ll be running for U.S. Congress to represent the people of South Texas," he said in a press release.

The last election under the current map went to John Raney, the founder of the Texas Aggieland Book Store in College Station. He got 57.9 percent of the vote against Bob Yancy in this week's special election runoff to replace Rep. Fred Brown, R-Bryan. Brown resigned earlier this year and moved to Salado. Yancy finished first, with 36.4 percent, in the special election last month, but stalled out. Both men are Republicans. After the election, Raney filed for reelection and he picked up a quick endorsement from the Texans for Lawsuit Reform PAC, which stayed quiet in the special election and runoff.

Comal County Commissioner Gregory Parker filed for Railroad Commission; he'll run in the Republican primary against Barry Smitherman, a Rick Perry appointee up for election for the first time.

Terri Leo, R-Spring, won't seek another term on the State Board of Education, and instead is endorsing Donna Bahorich for her seat.

U.S. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Dallas, endorsed state Rep. Eric Johnson, D-Dallas, for re-election. She's in a re-election race of her own, against state Rep. Barbara Mallory Caraway, D-Dallas.

Play it again: Former Rep. Al Edwards, D-Houston, filed against Rep. Borris Miles, D-Houston. Miles won it from Edwards, then lost to him, then beat him.

House Speaker Joe Straus, R-San Antonio, filed for re-election. He's got a primary opponent, too: Matt Beebe, a local businessman who started off his campaign calling on Attorney General Greg Abbott to challenge the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst picked up an endorsement from the Texas Poultry Association, capping last week's list of agricultural trade associations that are backing his race for U.S. Senate. This week, he's working the Austin business groups, including political action committees of the Texas Restaurant Association, Texas Medical Association and the Texas Oil & Gas Association.

Former Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert anted in with a pack of former Dallas Cowboys, including Roger Staubach, Troy Aikman, Cliff Harris, Daryl Johnston, Lee Roy Jordan, Bob Breunig and Chad Hennings.

Speaking of locker rooms and Senate races, The Dallas Morning News reported Craig James, the former football player turned ESPN analyst, plans to file for the U.S. Senate race.

Two candidates — Elizabeth Ames Jones and Ted Cruz — signed a U.S. Terms Limits pledge, saying they would co-sponsor and vote for constitutional limits of two terms for senators and three terms for House members. Jones is out of the U.S. Senate race now and into a race for state Senate; Cruz is still running. The limits would knock out almost all of the Texas delegation.

The confusion over filing deadlines and election dates hasn't slowed the endorsement business much. The TLR PAC is still cranking out its gold stars, saying it will back Reps. Kenneth Sheets, R-Dallas; Todd Hunter, R-Corpus Christi; and Dwayne Bohac, R-Houston. Hunter also picked up an endorsement from TEXPAC, the Texas Medical Association's political action committee. And the Texas Civil Justice League endorsed Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina for re-election.

Bracy Wilson, running for the Texas House in Collin County, says he got an endorsement from Bill Baker, Kaufman County's GOP chairman.

Our continually updated list of people who've filed for office can be found here.

[Editor's note: An earlier version of this story put Bracy Wilson in the wrong place; he's running in Collin County.]

Enlarge

The state doesn't have maps for its congressional and legislative districts, throwing the date what was going to be a March 6 primary into question. The courts are looking at options that include moving all of the primaries to a later date, moving just the legislative and congressional primaries, or moving everything except for the presidential primaries.

It seemed like a good time to ask the insiders about this. Most — 77 percent — say the primaries should all be done on the same date; only 21 percent think splitting the election is a good idea.

If the presidential primary is held, as scheduled on March 6, will it matter? Will that still be a race or will the Republicans have chosen their nominee before Super Tuesday? By a 2-to-1 margin, the insiders think it'll still be a race by then; in their comments, they split on whether Gov. Rick Perry will still be a real contestant then.

If the primary elections are split, who wins? Incumbents, Tea Party candidates, and Republicans, in that order, according to the insiders.

As always, we asked the insiders for their comments, and the full set of answers is attached. Here are some excerpts:

Enlarge 

Should the courts split the primaries, with legislative and congressional elections later in the spring and everything else on March 6?

• "Let us not punish the rest of down ballot candidates for our failure to draw lines. It's middle of December and we still do not know what lines are going to be used. Time to move forward with a May primary."

• "Keeping them all one date is really the only fair way to do it, for taxpayers and candidates."

• "The vast majority of the competitive races are below the state legislative level. Pulling the rug on these local campaigns that have been underway for months because the State can't take care of its responsibilities is wrong."

• "All in May"

• "The more you split, the less the turnout.  The less the turnout, the more the crazy."

• "Waste of money and kills turnout to split dates. The waste of money alone should decide this."

• "You'd have to be democrazy to want to split up the primaries. Sorry... There's just no way to defend the idea to spend more money to make it harder for people to vote."

• "Too few voters turn out as it is.  The more dates, the fewer voters."

Enlarge 

Will Texans, voting on March 6, have a say in who will be the Republican presidential nominee, or will the race be over by then?

• "It will still be wide open and that should be good news for the President."

• "The race may still be open but the governor may not be a major factor by that time."

• "With this field, the decision will be made at the last minute, probably by brokering between candidates or at the convention.  Only exception would be if Huntsman runs first or second in New Hampshire.  If that happens, he will capture the nomination."

• "You couldn't drag Ron Paul out of this race with a team of angry mules. He'll keep the race alive long beyond Texas."

• "Texans get their chance to loudly say who the Republicans nominate."

• "Perry will be long gone, but neither Gingrich or Romney will have the race wrapped up by March."

• "Iowa will not be conclusive and this makes New Hampshire less meaningful.  The fight in the South will take the race to Super Tuesday."

Enlarge 

Who would benefit most from a split primary?

• "Don't incumbents in Texas always have an advantage?"

• "Looking back at Republican primary data (we don't have generals in TX), close to 65% of primary voters never had a prior primary history. These are the same dissatisfied voters that want change. They may come out in a presidential, but majority will stay home in May."

• "Unfortunately, the extremes benefit most from split primary as they are the most likely to turn out.  Bad for the state!"

• "Incumbents should be very scared. Lower turnout = conservative clout."

• "Low turnout = Surprises."

• "Less turnout = More crazy."

• "Lower turnout in the primary should help the best organized interest groups in both parties.  That is always the case when turnout it low."

Our thanks to this week's participants: Gene Acuna, Brandon Aghamalian, James Aldrete, Clyde Alexander, George Allen, Jay Arnold, Louis Bacarisse, Charles Bailey, Reggie Bashur, Walt Baum, Dave Beckwith, Rebecca Bernhardt, Andrew Biar, Allen Blakemore, Tom Blanton, Steve Bresnen, Chris Britton, Lydia Camarillo, Kerry Cammack, Marc Campos, Snapper Carr, Tris Castaneda, William Chapman, George Cofer, Rick Cofer, John Colyandro, Harold Cook, Hector De Leon, Tom Duffy, David Dunn, Jeff Eller, Jack Erskine, Alan Erwin, John Esparza, Jon Fisher, Neftali Garcia, Bruce Gibson, Eric Glenn, Kinnan Golemon, Daniel Gonzalez, Thomas Graham, Michael Grimes, Bill Hammond, Sandy Haverlah, Adam Haynes, Susan Hays, Jim Henson, Ken Hodges, Laura Huffman, Shanna Igo, Deborah Ingersoll, Richie Jackson, Cal Jillson, Jason Johnson, Mark Jones, Richard Khouri, Tom Kleinworth, Sandy Kress, James LeBas, Donald Lee, Luke Legate, Leslie Lemon, Ruben Longoria, Homero Lucero, Vilma Luna, Matt Mackowiak, Luke Marchant, Dan McClung, Parker McCollough, Debra Medina, Robert Miller, Lynn Moak, Bee Moorhead, Craig Murphy, Keir Murray, Keats Norfleet, Pat Nugent, Sylvia Nugent, Todd Olsen, Nef Partida, Gardner Pate, Jerry Philips, Tom Phillips, Kraege Polan, Jay Propes, Ted Melina Raab, Bill Ratliff, Karen Reagan, Tim Reeves, Jason Sabo, Mark Sanders, Andy Sansom, Jim Sartwelle, Stan Schlueter, Bruce Scott, Steve Scurlock, Christopher Shields, Dee Simpson, Ed Small, Martha Smiley, Todd Smith, Larry Soward, Dennis Speight, Jason Stanford, Keith Strama, Bob Strauser, Colin Strother, Michael Quinn Sullivan, Sherry Sylvester, Russ Tidwell, Bruce Todd, Trent Townsend, Trey Trainor, John Weaver, Ken Whalen, Darren Whitehurst, Michael Wilt, Seth Winick, Lee Woods, Peck Young, Angelo Zottarelli.

This is our last issue of 2011. Texas Weekly will return in early January, after a two-week break. Happy holidays! See you in 2012!

Comptroller Susan Combs says the shortfall in the current budget might not be quite as severe as predicted. Tax revenue for the year is now projected to be $1.6 billion more than lawmakers counted on, and can be used to restore some of the deep cuts made based on lower projections. Combs’ predictions for revenue increases are conservative; she’s promised to revise the numbers in August if necessary.

Automatic, across-the-board budget cuts will force about 200 job losses at El Paso's Fort Bliss. The Defense Department announced that it would proceed with the cuts that were put in place by the Budget Control Act, which was passed when Congress was scrambling to raise the debt ceiling. Officials tried to downplay the impact of the cuts on the base, saying the effect on the local economy would be negligible.

Controversy at the University of Texas School of Law escalated this week, resulting in the resignation of the school’s dean, Larry Sager. Sager said that UT President Bill Powers asked him to step down after it was revealed that he was granted a $500,000 forgivable loan by the law school’s foundation, said to be a common practice at the law school. The faculty had grown dissatisfied with Sager’s leadership, and a rift had developed between the dean and the president, who claimed he was unaware of the payment to Sager. 

The fate of Texas’ Women’s Health Program is unclear after the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rejected the state’s request to operate the program while excluding certain service providers. The Texas Health and Human Services Commission was directed by lawmakers to ask that providers offering abortions be excluded, the largest being Planned Parenthood. But the federal agency wouldn’t agree, saying that it would violate the Social Security Act. Federal officials extended the current program for three more months to give themselves and state officials time to work out a compromise. Advocates of the services fear that Texas will cancel the program altogether, leaving thousands of women with no reproductive health care, including breast and cervical cancer screenings.

Consistently high ozone levels in North Texas prompted the Environmental Protection Agency to issue new rules in North Texas that expand the area monitored for smog-producing chemicals. The Dallas-Fort Worth area has violated federal air-quality standards 32 days so far this year, and the volatile organic compounds emitted in the natural gas drilling in the area are suspected to be one cause of the increase in ozone. State officials can add this to the list of disputes they currently have with EPA. Gov. Rick Perry wrote a letter requesting that no action be taken to expand the North Texas area from the current nine-county configuration but was overridden by the agency’s regional administrator, Al Armendariz.

License plates drew attention for the second time in recent months as the Department of Motor Vehicles approved one specialty plate and was sued for rejecting another. The department's governing board approved a specialty plate known as the Calvary Hill plate, featuring three crosses with the slogan “One State Under God.” Last month, the same board unanimously rejected a plate that featured the Confederate battle flag. Now the Sons of Confederate Veterans, the group that pushed for the plate, is suing the state in federal court, asking that the decision be overturned. The group has been successful in other states.

Speaker Joe Straus, R-San Antonio, announced Texas House appointments to the Joint Interim Committee to Study the Development of a Cruise Industry. Straus appointed Todd Hunter, R-Corpus Christi, as co-chair. Committee members include Rep. Gary Elkins, R-Houston; Ryan Guillen, D-Rio Grande City; Rep. Eddie Lucio III, D-Brownsville; and Rep. Connie Scott, R-Robstown.

UH System Chancellor Renu Khator named Eloise Dunn Stuhr to serve as vice president and vice chancellor for University Advancement at the University of Houston and UH System. Stuhr has worked for Vanderbilt and Penn State, and has served in leadership roles at health care organizations and as a fundraising consultant to major universities, including Ohio State University.

The Texas State Securities Board named John Morgan the new Texas Securities Commissioner, replacing Benette L. Zivley, who resigned last month. Morgan was deputy commissioner for 14 years before retiring from state employment in February.