Enlarge Bob Daemmrich

Campaign signs in a conference room at the Sheraton West Des Moines following Gov. Rick Perry's fifth-place finish in the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3, 2012.

Texas politics are on hold.

Gov. Rick Perry's presidential campaign is on life support in South Carolina, where he's trying to thrash his way out of last place.

He's still hoping to become the leading alternative to Mitt Romney. Meanwhile, that race is changing. What was a race to reduce the field to two now appears to be a race to reduce the field to one, and to protect that one candidate from the others. That's the impulse behind this week's spin that charges from Perry and others against Romney are hurting the GOP. It's only true if Romney is the nominee. Nobody's complaining about shots at Newt Gingrich, for instance, or the ones at Rick Santorum or Ron Paul.

The window for other candidates is closing. And even with that window open, the opportunities for Perry have disappeared. If there were such a thing as a Do Not Resuscitate form for a political campaign, his loved ones would be telling his consultants to make him as comfortable as possible and stop trying to rescue him.

The conversations now are about his return to Austin and not about what it would take to put him back in the presidential race. The South Carolina primary is a week from Saturday, on January 21.

Everybody else's politics are on hold, too, and not because of Perry.

It's because of the courts and the maps.

The next legal round starts Tuesday in Washington, D.C., where a panel of federal judges will hold hearings to decide whether congressional and legislative maps approved by the Legislature conform to the Voting Rights Act. Those proceedings will go through February 3.

The primary elections are set for April 3, but it's increasingly difficult to find people who think that date will hold. The U.S. Supreme Court held hearings this week (see below) and could rule by the end of the month. Election officials are hoping to find out what maps to use and when to conduct the voting.

While we're talking dates, here's something to chew on: The next legislative session starts about year from now.

Enlarge Bob Daemmrich

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and former Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert, right, at a U.S. Senate candidate debate on Jan. 12, 2012.

The major Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate knocked heads Thursday night in a debate that was a good deal livelier than the presidential forums that have become a TV mainstay.

It didn't change the layout of the race, but if it takes a while to actually hold primaries, several of the candidates could gain on the frontrunner, or at least make the race more entertaining.

They're certainly trying. Several candidates threw verbal punches at Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, while the guy in the back in the polls, Magnolia funeral home director Glenn Addison, turned out to be the evening's crowd pleaser. He might not have gained any votes, but his one-liners and funny stories had everyone talking.

None of the candidates had any immediately apparent campaign-altering gaffes. Most of the jabs were between Dewhurst, Ted Cruz and Tom Leppert, who've been in the race the longest and who were raising significant amounts of money in the last reports. Craig James, the fifth man on stage, hasn't yet reported his campaign finances.

Of the five, Dewhurst seemed least at ease on the stage. That said, he did well enough to hold his place. It's the other candidates who have to win people over — not the sitting Lite Guv.

At the top of the debate, Cruz, the state's former solicitor general, criticized Dewhurst for not coming to most of the other candidate forums up until now. Leppert, a former Dallas mayor, criticized the two of them as career political figures while touting himself as a businessman, and Dewhurst touted his record as lieutenant governor and his ability to cut budgets and taxes.

The responses were limited to just a few minutes each, and the pace was lively. The Texas Public Policy Foundation and Empower Texans sponsored the debate, which took place before a partisan Republican crowd of several hundred people.

Cruz was the crowd favorite, if applause and shouts are the measure, and James is a former TPPF board member.  

The question is whether anyone can catch on and pull together enough money to give Dewhurst a race. If the primaries are delayed, they'll have more time to try.

Enlarge Graphic by Todd Wiseman

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about Texas redistricting Monday and now must decide whether the state's primaries must be delayed to buy time for the courts to approve new maps.

It appears that they have to choose between waiting for the current round of lower court proceedings to play out, pushing back the primaries, or choosing an interim map to use now, keeping the primaries on schedule.

The high court took the case in December, after a panel of three federal judges in San Antonio adopted an interim map of its own making for the 2012 primary elections.

The Texas Legislature approved maps last year, but those haven't received pre-clearance — required by the federal Voting Rights Act — from another panel of three federal judges in Washington D.C.

Election deadlines were approaching with no legal political districts in place, and the San Antonio court decided to draw a new map to be used until a permanent map could be approved.

The state went to the Supreme Court to block that move, saying the Legislature's map — though not pre-cleared as required by the Voting Rights Act — ought to be used for the 2012 elections.

The Supreme Court granted the state's stay, barring election officials from using the San Antonio map.

Monday's hearing is the first step in deciding how things should proceed from here.

Attorney General Greg Abbott, whose office is defending the Legislature's maps, started off with praise for the "sterling job" done by Paul Clement, the attorney he hired to argue before the justices. As for the hearing, he and others said it wasn't always easy to interpret.

"The justices on the court seemed to agree, at a minimum, that the three-judge court [in San Antonio] was wrong in the procedure that they followed and the conclusion that they reached," Abbott said.

Where they'll take that is anyone's guess. Abbott, who was a judge before becoming attorney general, said the justices spent some time working out the complexities of the cases and the timetable, asking, for instance, about the consequences of issuing their own ruling before a lower court decides whether or not to pre-clear the maps drawn by Texas legislators.

After watching the arguments, he wouldn't venture a guess about the likelihood of an April 3 primary. "It's very hard to read it," Abbott said.

"It's hard to know what the final verdict will be," said state Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Fort Worth, one of the plaintiffs in one of the lawsuits over Texas redistricting. He declared for Congress after the San Antonio court's map put a new district in Tarrant County.

"They seem to really want to make sure that when the election is held, that it's not hastily done," Veasey said of the justices. "They asked several times how far they could push the election back."

Veasey, like others, said it was impossible to read just what the court will do. "We're going to have an election, sooner or later," he said.

The state hasn't challenged the Voting Rights Act directly. But if the Supreme Court decides the state Legislature's map should be used even though it doesn't have the preclearance required by that federal law, it would weaken the federal government's control over political maps and procedures used in Texas and other states covered by the VRA.

The primaries have already be delayed, from March 6 to April 3. Holding them any later would put the state's political parties in peril since their biennial conventions, set for June, would have to be held before the runoff elections. That tangles up the selection of delegates for national conventions later in the summer.

The pre-clearance proceedings on the Texas Legislature's plans are still underway; the three federal judges hearing that case will open hearings next week (January 17) on the Legislature's maps and plan to hear closing arguments on February 3.

If the Supreme Court decides the Texas elections should wait for a ruling from the Washington panel, the April 3 primaries will probably be delayed. When the primaries were moved to April 3 from March 6, election officials from around the state told the courts they'd have to have maps and candidate lists by Feb. 1; if they don't, those already pressed election officials will argue they don't have time to put the elections together.

The State of Texas wants to use the Legislature's maps even if means using those without pre-clearance. The U.S. Solicitor General argued that that would undermine the Voting Rights Act, since those maps aren't legal until they've been pre-cleared. And the groups suing the state — a mix of Democrats, minority groups, and civil rights organizations — argued that the only legal maps are the ones drawn by the federal judges in San Antonio, since the state's maps haven't been pre-cleared.

The Supreme Court could move things along by picking a map for use in the primaries while letting the court fights on permanent maps proceed. Or it could let the Washington court finish its work and let the elections use whatever comes out of the litigation that's under way. Or it could tell the San Antonio judges to go back to the drawing board, drawing a new map starting from the Legislature's work.

The transcript of the oral arguments is available on the Supreme Court's website.

Enlarge Graphic by Todd Wiseman

It takes at least two months to put a primary election together once political maps are finally drawn, and if the federal courts don't spit out a final Texas map within the next three weeks, the state's primary elections probably can't be held on April 3.

During Monday's oral arguments in the Texas redistricting case, the justices on the high court asked about holding elections on time in April or as late as June. At one point, they were working backwards from the general election date next November as they tried to sort out the complexities of reworking political maps in the face of election deadlines.

"Texas has a very early primary," Justice Samuel Alito Jr. said at one point during the hearing. "Some states have them for congressional races in — in the fall, and the latest presidential primary I think is at the end of June. So why can't this all be pushed back, and wouldn't that eliminate a lot of the problems that we are grappling with in this case?"

The problems can be sorted into two piles. The state doesn't have maps to use for congressional and legislative elections, and it will take the courts a couple of months, at best, to come up with a set of maps that has jumped through all of the legal hoops, from trial courts to appeals. The Supreme Court, and two separate panels of federal judges in Washington and in Texas are sorting out which maps to use.

That second stack of troubles is all about the calendar and the practicalities of holding elections. Once they have political maps, local election officials in the state's 254 counties have to break them down into voting precincts, sorting voters into the smaller groupings that shows them everything from which races they'll be voting in to which places they'll be voting from. That tedious process can take four to five weeks in large counties, election officials say, and then those lines have to be approved by federal officials under the Voting Rights Act. The courts haven't approved a map for the April 3 election date.

"We've got to have those maps by the end of the month or we're not going to make those deadlines," said Steve Raborn, Tarrant County's election administrator.

Once the precinct lines are drawn, election administrators can send Texans the voter registration cards they'll need when they vote. At the same time, those officials can mail ballots to military and civilian voters overseas. That has to happen 45 days before Election Day, and can't happen until the precinct lines are drawn. The process has scads of other deadlines within it, but those two — the tedious drawing of precinct lines and the 45-day lead time for overseas voters — establish the time it takes to put an election together once the maps are approved.

If that was the end of it, Texas could hold its primaries anytime before November, but these are party primaries and are meant to start a process that continues through precinct conventions held on Election Day, county and senate district conventions usually held two or three weeks later, and state party conventions which by state law are held in June or July.

This year, both the Democrats and the Republicans are having their state conventions on June 7-9. When they picked those dates and started booking convention space and blocks of hotel rooms in Houston and Fort Worth, respectively, the primaries were supposed to be held on March 6. That would have given them almost three months to put together their convention delegations, and the runoffs on May 22 would have come before the conventions, too.

Those bookings can't be easily changed. The GOP convention, for instance, involves 18,000 people; that party booked its space six years ago.

When it became clear the maps weren't going to be ready, one proposal would have split the primaries, with the presidential election remaining in March and some or all of the rest of the elections moving to a later date. That would have taken care of the political parties, but would have doubled the number — and the costs — of this year's primary elections. Moving all of the primaries to April 3 (and the runoffs to June 5) was the compromise.

Several county organizations — the Conference of Urban Counties, the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas, and the Texas Association of Counties — jumped into the fray last month, asking a panel of federal judges in San Antonio to keep the logistics in mind. That was an early warning that the April 3 date was in trouble.

"We are concerned with trying to do it in May, with all of the municipal elections in May," said Donald Lee, executive director of the Conference of Urban Counties. "The best thing would be to get a map this week, and get it in gear."

Delaying the primaries again could revive the idea of a split primary. Any delay puts the political parties in a bind. The Democrats initially proposed a May primary; the Republicans contended that was too close to the conventions. Talk of a later date has the chairman of the state GOP, Steve Munisteri, saying a split primary might be the only solution. "From my point of view, there is no choice but to have two primaries if you do not have the new Congressional, State House and State Senate lines in time to have an early April primary," he said in a Tuesday email to fellow Republicans.

Delays could be expensive. If the primaries are held in June, after the school year is over, election administrators would have to pay to open schools as polling places. During the school year, when those buildings are open, that's free, Raborn said. "There's the availability of people, too," he said. "We might have a hard time finding election workers, or even voters. Everyone is on vacation. Their minds are on vacation."

The Supreme Court's hearing was Monday and it hasn't ruled (nor was it expected to, that quickly). A panel of federal judges in Washington, D.C., will begin hearings next week on whether the maps satisfy pre-clearance requirements in the Voting Rights Act. Final arguments in that proceeding are set for February 3 — well after the end-of-January deadline for getting a map in time for April 3 elections.

"I don't think the San Antonio court of even the Supreme Court understood the complexity of the election," said Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart. "Even voters — they show up to vote, and it just works. They have no idea what's going on behind the scenes."

Enlarge

With federal judges trying to settle disputes over the state's political maps, and the clock ticking, it seemed reasonable to ask the insiders this week when they think the primaries will be held (the short answer — later than April 3) and which maps ought to be used (38 percent would use those drawn by judges in San Antonio, while 29 percent prefer the maps drawn by the Legislature).

The insiders were split when asked how the delays affect the political players; maybe the safest read on that is "it depends." Challengers get more time to work, to raise money, and to chase incumbents. Incumbents hold their power longer, and the delays freeze the donors who might otherwise give to challengers. Among the insiders, those sentiments broke pretty evenly.

Finally, we asked whether the Voting Rights Act, with its limits on election and voting law changes in Texas and other states with histories of discrimination, ought to be continued. A majority of 57 percent would keep the law, but the 40 percent who think it's outlived its usefulness had plenty to say about it.

Their comments — and everyone else's — are attached, as usual. Here's a sampling:

Enlarge 

.

When do you think the Texas primaries will be held?

• "Possibly Presidential and statewide in April, with others in June."

• "SCOTUS seemed to be looking for an excuse to push the calendar."

• "Summer primary will mean low turnout."

• "Nobody has a clue. Anyone who says they know is selling something."

• "Supreme Court was apparently thinking about how much time they had, not how they could immediately resolve the imbroglio"

• "Presidential, Senate, and others not affected by redistricting challenges on April 3, the others in June."

• "Primaries used to be in August, the world won't come to an end."

Enlarge 

.

If you were in charge, which maps would you use for the 2012 elections?

• "This legislature has proven itself incapable of fairly addressing the growth in the minority population in our state."

• "A hybrid map of the Legislative and San Antonio Court map should suffice for the 2012 Election. Possibly the Dissenting map from the San Antonio Court."

• "They are the only representatives of the people at the table. They were elected by the people to do lots of things, including draw the maps."

• "The 2010 maps cannot legally be used, so the next best option is to use the State's maps with minor tweaks to districts that violate VRA Section 5."

• "Legislators, not courts, are supposed to draw the maps. That's the system that should be the default position."

• "It's too messed-up to use a map viewed by one side or the other as being biased. Have a do-over."

• "The Texas House map drawn by Judge Smith, the third judge in the three judge panel who dissented and presented his own map."

Enlarge 

.

Who is most harmed by later primaries? (choose one or more)

• "It depends on turnout... if turnout is low... challengers are the big winners... if turnout is high... incumbents are the winners."

• "Political donors and PACs will be most harmed as candidates have longer to fund raise and some candidates eventually may not run."

• "Anyone mounting a challenge will have more time to make their case against an incumbent's record. Of course, it will also cost more money to make the case over a longer period of time, but time is more valuable in a campaign than money. You can raise more money, but you usually can't get more time, so this is an important campaign anomaly."

• "All politics is local. The impact of the later primaries will vary race to race, district to district."

• "Any delay will negatively impact the relevance of Texas voters when picking presidential candidates. Less relevance equals lower voter turnout, most likely to the detriment of moderates, be they incumbents OR challengers."

• "Consultants who help low-dollar candidates. They'll starve before this is done."

• "Longer time for challenger to overcome incumbent advantages of name id, $"

Enlarge 

.

Who benefits most from delays in the primaries? (choose one or more)

• "More time to build that war chest."

• "They won't admit it, but incumbents benefit from a delay. They enjoy the power of the office and all that comes with it--franking, raising money, etc."

• "Political consultants will get extra paychecks"

• "Depends on districts"

• "If June then school is out and people are off doing other things"

• "Those candidates with the most campaign money"

Enlarge 

.

Should Texas and other (mostly Southern) states still have to subject their maps for federal review under the Voting Rights Act?

• "Sure. But this business of slapping people (voters) around by not having a more defined, time-certain process to settle squabbles is ludicrous."

• "Remember these are the states passing the MOST restrictive voting rules — photo ID, limited dates for early voting and consolidation of voting precincts (often at the last minute) especially those in minority neighborhoods."

• "Not just "No"... but "HELL NO!" Either all states go through the same process... or none should have to."

• "Are you kidding me? The Voting Rights Act continues to be very relevant in Texas and other Article 5 states - when pigs fly - that's when we will be ready to be out from under Article 5."

• "The Legislature consistently shows by its actions, even more so now, that it doesn't give a collective hoot about anything or anybody except how to get more seats for their respective parties."

• "The justification for this law is no longer there."

• "Emphasis on "others". If one state must have their maps pre-cleared them all should."

• "Because, to borrow from Voltaire, hawks will eat pigeons whenever they can find them"

• "The R's have made it clear that race is still an issue when they declined to draw any new minority districts despite the increase in Hispanics in the state."

• "The Legislature made the case itself for the Voting Rights Act, by ignoring Hispanic population growth."

Our thanks to this week's participants: Gene Acuna, Cathie Adams, Brandon Aghamalian, Jenny Aghamalian, Clyde Alexander, George Allen, Jay Arnold, Charles Bailey, Leland Beatty, Dave Beckwith, Luke Bellsnyder, Rebecca Bernhardt, Andrew Biar, Allen Blakemore, Tom Blanton, Steve Bresnen, Chris Britton, Andy Brown, Lydia Camarillo, Kerry Cammack, Thure Cannon, Mindy Carr, Corbin Casteel, William Chapman, Elna Christopher, George Cofer, Lawrence Collins, John Colyandro, Harold Cook, Randy Cubriel, Hector De Leon, June Deadrick, David Dunn, Richard Dyer, Jeff Eller, Jack Erskine, Alan Erwin, Gay Erwin, Jon Fisher, Rebecca Flores, Terry Frakes, Neftali Garcia, Bruce Gibson, Kinnan Golemon, Daniel Gonzalez, Thomas Graham, John Greytok, Bill Hammond, Sandy Haverlah, Jim Henson, Ken Hodges, Steve Holzheauser, Laura Huffman, Shanna Igo, Robert Jara, Cal Jillson, Jason Johnson, Mark Jones, Walt Jordan, Robert Kepple, Richard Khouri, Tom Kleinworth, Nick Lampson, Pete Laney, Dick Lavine, Donald Lee, Luke Legate, Ruben Longoria, Matt Mackowiak, Luke Marchant, J. McCartt, Dan McClung, Mike McKinney, Robert Miller, Bee Moorhead, Steve Murdock, Craig Murphy, Keats Norfleet, Pat Nugent, Sylvia Nugent, Nef Partida, Gardner Pate, Royce Poinsett, Kraege Polan, Jay Propes, Ted Melina Raab, Bill Ratliff, Tim Reeves, Kim Ross, Jason Sabo, Luis Saenz, Mark Sanders, Jim Sartwelle, Stan Schlueter, Bruce Scott, Bradford Shields, 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, Trent Townsend, Trey Trainor, Ware Wendell, Ken Whalen, Darren Whitehurst, Christopher Williston, Alex Winslow, Peck Young, Angelo Zottarelli.

The controversial abortion sonogram law passed in last year’s session is back in effect after an appeals court nullified an injunction by a lower court. The bill requires doctors to provide a sonogram for a woman 24 hours before being performing an abortion. When the Center for Reproductive Rights sued to stop enforcement of the law, U.S. District Court Judge Sam Sparks issued a restraining order, ruling that the legislation was vague and presented First Amendment issues. That ruling has now been set aside by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Texas can now compel doctors to follow its provisions.

A Federal Reserve economist told an audience that Texas can expect another year of above-average job growth. While job growth in U.S. is sluggish and predicted to improve only mildly, Texas has been able to add jobs at a rate just north of 2 percent, outperforming other states for the last two years. And while jobs in the public sector are tenuous, growth in parts of the private sector are offsetting losses in government and education.

Texas government jobs haven't vanished quite as dramatically as some feared. A report released this week by the state auditor’s office shows a net gain of 551 full-time positions in August, just before the state’s fiscal year ended. The gain is in listed full-time positions. Some of the positions may be empty, but state officials stressed that there were simply some employees who were required to run programs mandated by the Legislature. And Texas colleges and universities reported adding 1,900 new positions in a year that saw them laying off other employees.

Houston got through its last budget shortfall relatively unscathed with the help of some clever accounting and advance billing on convention facilities. But this year is shaping up to be a challenge for newly re-elected Mayor Annise Parker as the city faces substantial pension costs for both its municipal employees and police officers. The budgetary year begins July 1, and the amount Houston will have to make up is estimated to be about $47 million and would require the city to make reductions if it wants to continue to avoid tax increases.

After agreeing to cooperate in a wide review of old arson cases, state Fire Marshal Paul Maldonado resigned his post in December. Questions raised about forensic procedures in the Cameron Todd Willingham investigation prompted the Texas Forensic Science Commission and the Innocence Project to undertake a broad inquiry into old arson cases to ensure that faulty science had not led to wrongful convictions. Maldonado’s resignation came in the form of a one-sentence hand-written letter. Officials with the forensic commission insist that it will not affect the inquiry and that they’ll continue with the review, which has already begun.

After appealing to the public for help in filling its budget shortfall, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department announced it has received not only $460,000 from that campaign but has been granted a $500,000 donation from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Foundation. The department is facing a $4.6 million gap in revenue and has seen its volume of visitors drop during the record drought and recent wildfires.

Natural gas companies are seeing a big increase in volume, and it’s leading to a corresponding drop in prices. Domestic companies have ramped up production but saw the price of natural gas drop 32 percent last year. This week, prices fell to their lowest levels in two years.

Department of Corrections: Bob Poage and Royal Furgeson's names were misspelled in an earlier version of the newsletter. Sorry, sorry, sorry.

U.S. District Judge Royal Furgeson Jr. will be the founding dean of the University of North Texas law school, starting in April 2013. Fergeson, appointed by President Bill Clinton, will remain on the bench until he takes that school job next year. UNT's Dallas law campus is supposed to open for students in Fall 2014.

Former U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards was named W.R. Pogue distinguished chair for public service at Baylor University, a part-time appointment that will have him teaching some classes and processing his official papers, which he donated to the school. Bob Poage was a congressman for the area, too; the library named for him includes the papers of a couple of dozen former public officials, including Bob Bullock.

McGuireWoods Consulting, the public affairs arm of the law firm with the same name, is opening an Austin office headed by Luis Saenz. He's a former campaign manager and aide to Gov. Rick Perry, and also worked for a number of Republicans in Washington and Austin including Phil Gramm, Kay Bailey Hutchison and Carole Keeton Strayhorn.

Cherie Townsend is the new executive director at the Texas Juvenile Justice Department; she's the former executive director at the Texas Youth Commission, one of TJJD's predecessor agencies.

Bryan Hebert, deputy general counsel to Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, is leaving the Pink Building to hang out his own shingle, lobbying and consulting.

Dewhurst appointed Hugh Akin to the Texas Ethics Commission. Akin is the executive director of the Hatton W. Sumners Foundation, a private charitable foundation.

Dewhurst also appointed three members of the Texas Senate to the Sunset Advisory Commission. Sen. Robert Nichols, R-Jacksonville, was appointed vice chairman of the commission. Also appointed were Sens. Brian Birdwell, R-Granbury, and Dan Patrick, R-Houston.

Dewhurst appointed four members to the Select Committee on Economic Development, including Sens. Mike Jackson, R-La Porte, and Florence Shapiro, R-Plano. He also appointed Drayton McLane, founder and former Chairman of McLane Grocery Co., and Brint Ryan, the founder and CEO of Ryan, a tax services firm.

Speaker Joe Straus, R-San Antonio, appointed Reps. Dee Margo, R-El Paso; Armando "Mando" Martinez, D-Weslaco; and Jim Murphy, R-Houston, to the Partnership Advisory Commission.

Straus also announced House appointments to the Joint Interim Committee to Study Human Trafficking. Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston, will co-chair the committee. The committee members will also include Reps. Cindy Burkett, R-Mesquite; Allen Fletcher, R-Tomball; John Frullo, R-Lubbock; Naomi Gonzalez, D-El Paso; Patricia Harless, R-Spring; and Todd Hunter, R-Corpus Christi.