• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 - 1 -IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXASSAN ANTONIO DIVISIONSHANNON PEREZ, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs
VS.STATE OF TEXAS, ET AL.,
 Defendants.
______________________________MEXICAN AMERICANLEGISLATIVE CAUCUS, (MALC)
Plaintiff 
,VS.STATE OF TEXAS, ET AL.,
 Defendants
.______________________________TEXAS LATINO REDISTRICTINGTASK FORCE, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs
,VS.RICK PERRY,
 Defendant 
.______________________________MARGARITA V. QUESADA, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs
,VS.RICK PERRY, ET AL.,
 Defendants.
______________________________§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§Civil Action No. 11-CV-360-OLG-JES-XR[Lead Case]Civil Action No. 11-CV-361 OLG-JES-XR[Consolidated Case]Civil Action No. 11-CV-490-OLG-JES-XR[Consolidated Case]Civil Action No. 11-CV-592-OLG-JES-XR[Consolidated Case]
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 596 Filed 02/01/12 Page 1 of 5
 
 - 2 -JOHN T. MORRIS,
Plaintiff,
VS.STATE OF TEXAS, ET AL.,
 Defendants.
______________________________EDDIE RODRIQUEZ, ET. AL.,
Plaintiffs,
VS.RICK PERRY, ET. AL.
 Defendants.
 §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§Civil Action No. 11-CV-615-OLG-JES-XR[Consolidated Case]Civil Action No. 11-CV-635-OLG-JES-XR[Consolidated Case]______________________________WENDY DAVIS, ET AL.,PlaintiffsVS.RICK PERRY, ET AL.,Defendants.______________________________§§§§§§§§§Civil Action No. 11-CV-788-OLG-JES-XR[Consolidated Case]
TEXAD DEMOCRATIC PARTY’S ADVISORY
TO THE COURTCONCERNING ELECTION TIMING
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:COMES NOW, the Texas Democratic Party, Boyd Richie in his capacity as Chairof the Texas Democratic Party, and files this Advisory concerning election timing, andwould respectfully show this Honorable Court the following:
 
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 596 Filed 02/01/12 Page 2 of 5
 
 - 3 -
I.
 
This afternoon, the three-judge United States District Court for the District of Columbia provided the docket entry attached as Exhibit A. In this entry the Court makesit clear that it will not be issuing its ruling within the next thirty days. In light of this, TheTexas Democratic Party
(hereinafter referred to as “TDP”)
no longer believes districtmaps can be available in time for an April election, unless a settlement is reached. In theevent a settlement is not reached, TDP is in favor of the Court abandoning the Aprilelection with a later election to be scheduled when more is known concerning districtmaps. While TDP continues to prefer a unified primary, TDP does not oppose holdingthe Presidential Election only in April in so far as the state agrees to cover the additionalcost. As long as the state continues to oppose reimbursing the cost of the split election,TDP opposes a split election.TDP appreciates the difficult issues facing this Court and the one in D.C. and isthankful for the Court's consideration of the above.
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 596 Filed 02/01/12 Page 3 of 5
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...