Wendy Davis Wins Legal Case Against Texas repugicans’ Racist Gerrymandering

by Randa Morris 

On Wednesday, September 4th, a San Antonio, Texas Federal District Court of three judges which has been hearing the case challenging Texas redistricting legislation, entered a final judgment in the law suit.  In its ruling, the Court determined that Wendy Davis and other plaintiffs won their case against  the new redistricting maps for Texas Senatorial elections . The decision will stop the racist redistricting plans laid out by Texas repugicans, which would have disenfranchised  thousands of eligible voters, mostly minorities, across the state.
The judges ruled that discriminatory intent was found in two of the three proposed plans for redistricting in the state of Texas. The redistricting plan, which cost the state’s tax payers millions of dollars to defend in Federal Court, were found to be in violation of the United States Voting Rights Act.
Greg Abbott, who has announced his bid for governor of the state of Texas in 2014, showed remarkable levels of incompetence and partisanship in the handling of the redistricting plans. Abbott, who originally advised the legislature on the drawing and adoption of the new Senate redistricting maps, also served as primary legal counsel to the State of Texas at the time that the legislature was considering adopting the new redistricting plans. Abbot went on to defend the plans in federal court, a move which drew negative attention from across the US and ultimately served to embarrass both himself and the entire Lone star state on the national stage.
According to the Judges ruling, the redistricting plans showed clear intent to deny voting rights to  the Lone star state’s Hispanic, African American and Democratic voting population. The complaint, filed by Senator Wendy Davis, Marc Veasey and several other Plaintiffs, alleged that the the state’s Senate redistricting plan was draw “with the purpose and has the intent of minimizing and reducing the voting strength of minority populations the Tarrant and Dallas County areas of North Texas.” Davis’s complaint went on to state that the “Intentional fracturing and dismantling of the coalition of minority voters in Senate District 10 constitutes unlawful vote dilution and discrimination” both of which are unlawful under the United States Constitution as well as the US Voting Rights Act.
“FINAL JUDGMENT This Court previously ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED: that Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief was granted to the extent that Senate plan S100, the benchmark plan, violates the one-person, one-vote requirements of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and will not be used for any further elections; that Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief was granted such that Senate plan S148, the 2011 enacted plan, has been permanently enjoined from implementation and no elections have been or will be held thereunder…”
The judges ruling also allows that the Plaintiffs in the case, Davis, Veasey and others who brought the suit, are to be reimbursed for their legal costs, as part of the final decision.
“…as prevailing parties, Plaintiffs are awarded their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(2) and W.D. Tex. Rule CV-7(j), Plaintiffs may file their applications for attorneys’ fees and costs no later than twenty days after entry of judgment. If the application is opposed in whole or in part, a response in opposition shall be filed no later than ten days after the filing of the application. SIGNED AND ENTERED this 4th day of September, 2013.”
Watch Richard Fowler explains Texas Redistricting plan designed to disenfranchise minorities and create additional funding sources for white candidates in Texas