Skip to comments.Delayed Texas primary could be a setback for Perry campaign
Posted on 12/20/2011 8:31:22 AM PST by mylife
SAN ANTONIO (Reuters) - A panel of three federal judges late on Friday approved a plan to delay the Texas primary elections from March 6 to April 3, a move that could be a blow to Republican Governor Rick Perry's presidential hopes.
A likely victory in Texas on March 6 would have given Perry a surge of momentum on Super Tuesday, when 10 other states are holding primaries or caucuses. Now, Texas's primary will be toward the end of the calendar.
Related U.S. Republican Presidential candidate and Texas Governor Rick Perry steps off his bus on his way to a campaign stop in Storm Lake, Iowa Topics Elections Voting Rick Perry See more topics »
The delay came amid a series of legal challenges to the state's legislative and congressional redistricting maps. Groups representing minority voters have sued to block new districts drawn by the Republican majority in the legislature, saying the districts illegally dilute the voting strength of the state's growing Latino population.
The legal challenges have left candidates with no clear idea of the boundaries of the districts they would represent, making an early March primary impractical.
The proposal approved by the court in San Antonio was an agreement between the Texas Democratic Party and the Republican Party of Texas. The runoff election is set for June 5.
Separate primaries were also considered -- one on March 6 for the county-wide and statewide races not affected by redistricting, and a later one for state legislative and congressional races. But local officials protested the cost of two primaries.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hold a hearing in January on whether the same panel of three federal judges overstepped its authority by imposing congressional and legislative maps over the ones designed by the Legislature. A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., also in January, will consider whether the Republican redistricting plan violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Justice Department believes that it does.
Texas is one of a handful of states required to clear election changes with the Department of Justice, due to a pattern of minority vote suppression in the 1950s and 1960s.
"We are glad to have worked out an agreement which we feel works best for Texans," Texas Democratic Party Chairman Boyd Richie said. "Given the less than ideal circumstances, we think that this election schedule is a workable solution that will create the least confusion for the voters."
Republican Chairman Steve Munisteri agreed.
"We are hopeful that with both a timely ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court and subsequent finalized maps, that this agreement not only preserves the original structure of a unified primary, but provides us enough time to accomplish it in a fair and orderly fashion," Munisteri said.
What a load of crap!
Sorry to hear that but I thought Perry wasn’t winning Texas anyway. I think it would be better for him not to have the primary early especially if he doesn’t win.
I bet Mitt Bachmann’s fingerprints are all over this one.
It’s Obama, but Mitt Bachmann wont take Texas.
What the hell?
Our election system is broken.
Ironic isn’t it?
They are doing their best to ensure that the Texas primary has no sway in the process.
They want this wrapped up before we ever get to Texas.
I hope you buy aluminum foil in bulk...
They'll either vote for a candidate, or they won't. The date should be irrelevant.
This could help....
After seeing the long fight between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2008, Republicans decided longer contests could pay dividends — that ‘08 campaign left behind a lot of activated and newly registered voters.
So the GOP changed the way some of its primaries work - states that hold events prior to April 1 were asked to award their delegates more proportionally, instead of winner-take-all. In theory, that opens more chances for second- and third- place candidates to get delegates, and perhaps hang in the race.
But how much might the new rules impact things? There’s a difference between a nomination that’s really contested for a while, and one that just takes longer for the leader to clinch. The latter is more a political question. In terms of the allocation math for 2012, the Vince Lombardi rule still holds: winning matters. Here’s why:
First: Even though a state may allocate its delegates “proportionally,” that doesn’t guarantee its delegate count will be close
Many of the “proportional” states still give better opportunities to the overall winner.
For example: In Georgia on Super Tuesday, some of the delegates are awarded based on the vote within the congressional districts (This is the case in many states). The winner in each district gets a minimum of two out of three of the district’s delegates just for winning it, and captures all three if he or she crosses 50 percent of that district’s vote.
Specifically 3 federal judges.
Why don’t we have one national primary day? I suppose that would be much more difficult for the candidates in terms of campaigning, but it would avoid the “momentum” issue.
"Groups representingThe democrats are famous for gerrymandering districts to dilute Conservative participation.
minorityillegal alien insurgent criminal invading colonist voters have sued to block new districts drawn by the Republican majority in the legislature, saying the districts illegally dilute the voting strength of the state's growing Latinoillegal alien insurgent criminal invading colonist population.
But let Republicans do it?...not so much...That's illegal!
I find the entire process convoluted.
I agree. They have no business interfering. They either need to stop or step down from the bench and allow people who know how to do the job do it.
I does not matter. Perry would not win Texas anyway. I am from Texas and Perry would not beat Newt here, or any of the more conservative candidates either.
Poetic justice for La Raza Rick. I love it.
Yeah, the fed screwing with states is poetic justice.