(1) Constraints on the maps. The smallest unit of area shall be the voting precinct, as presently
established by law, which shall be of equal population within a county and not differ in population
from county to county by more than necessary to accommodate counties of low population.
(a) Equipopulous. The population of each district shall not differ from that of any of the
other districts by more than a factor of 0.0001 or the margin of error of the census count,
whichever is less.
(b) Aligned. Only counties with a population of more than a factor of between 0.1 and 1/3,
initially 1/3 unless or until amended by the State Legislature, of the average population of a
congressional district, may be split between districts, unless a larger number of counties must be
split to meet the specification (a) above, and a smaller number of counties shall be split if
specification (a) can be met.
(c) Contiguous. Districts must be contiguous, so that there is always at least one
continuous line of points connecting any two points within the district, and no connection between
parts consists only of a line or point.
(d) Simply connected. Districts must be simply connected, so that any continuous loop of
points within the district may be shrunk to a point within the district without crossing boundary
lines. This means no holes in districts, and no surrounding of one district by another.
(e) Compact. Districts shall be maximally compact, resulting from a running time of at
least 6 and not to exceed 24 hours, adjusted for improvements in processor speed, with
compactness defined by minimizing the value of p²/4πA, where p = perimeter and A = area of the
district, with all other values remaining constant or improving. For an area bounded by a circle the
value of this expression is 1.
(2) Procedures. District maps shall be generated and finally adopted mechanically with minimal
human intervention using a computer program.
(a) The software to be used initially shall be the TARGET software already developed, but
may be modified or replaced at the discretion of the State Legislature thereafter. But source code
for the production version of any computer redistricting software and the database shall be made
accessible for downloading from the web site of the State for public examination and comment,
and to be shared with other states and communities, at no cost other than storage media.
(b) The State shall establish and maintain adequate safeguards to insure that no
unauthorized alterations are made in the software or interventions made in the running of it that
might bias the output. As soon as feasible, a version of the present database containing only
information needed to satisfy the public constraints established herein or by act of the State
Legislature shall be prepared, and made the only database accessible to the redistricting program
during the generation of maps for official selection.
(c) A commission or jury, hereinafter called the “Commission”, consisting of at least
twelve and not more than 23 individuals, initially the Texas Legislative Council unless or until the
State Legislature shall provide otherwise, shall supervise the redistricting process.
(d) Initially, and thereafter during one month every two years prior to each Congressional
election, and after the most recent decenniel census results are available, the Commission shall
cause to be randomly generated at least twice as many maps as there are members of the
(e) Each Commission member shall have the right to reject or strike one map from among
the maps randomly generated during the current redistricting session.
(f) One map shall be selected at random from among the randomly generated maps that
remain after strikes, and that map shall become the district map for the next election without
amendment or debate.
(g) The biannual schedule of redistricting may revert to a decenniel schedule after 2010, if
the State Legislature so enacts.
The Court declares the following standard of proof:
A method of producing and adopting district maps will be deemed to violate Equal Protection
if the mean predicted outcome of the candidate pool from which a randomly selected candidate
map is drawn differs by one or more from a norm defined as follows:
1. A statistically large enough pool of maps, probably at least 20, is generated at random, to produce a
2. Using voting history data, a prediction is made of the outcome of the election for each map in the
standard pool and averaged to yield a pool mean, which is the norm.
I have read the above-and-foregoing pleadings, and do hereby declare and affirm that all
the allegations of fact contained therein are true and correct and within my personal knowledge.
Signed and executed July 12, 2006
JON ROLAND, Petitioner in Intervention
Jon Roland, a person known or lawfully identified to me, appeared before me in the County
of Travis, State of Texas, and stated in my presence his intention to verify the above and foregoing
pleadings, on this 12th day of July, 2006. Wherefore witness my hand and seal of office.
TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
Printed Name of Notary:__________________________
My Commission Expires:__________________________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this 12th day of July 2006, I served a copy of the foregoing Application for Leave
to file Petition in Intervention on all counsel of record by United States mail, first-class, postage
Nina PeralesRolando L. Rios
MALDEFTHE LAW OFFICES OF ROLANDO L. RIOS
140 E. Houston Street, Suite 300115 E. Travis, Suite 1645
San Antonio, TX 78205San Antonio, TX 78205
tel: (210) 224-5476tel: (210) 222-2102
Counsel for the GI Forum PlaintiffsCounsel for the LULAC Plaintiffs
Javier P. Guajardo, Jr.Anthony P. Griffin
GUAJARDO & GUAJARDO, PLLCANTHONY P. GRIFFIN, INC., LAWYERS
1502 West Avenue, Suite A1115 Moody
Austin, TX 78701Galveston, TX 77550
tel: (512) 474-9585tel: (409) 763-0386
Counsel for Plaintiff-IntervenorsCounsel for Plaintiff-Intervenors
Valdez-Cox et al.Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and
Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson
Gary L. BledsoeRenea Hicks
LAW OFFICES OF GARY L. BLEDSOE800 Norwood Tower
316 W. 12th Street, Suite 307114 W. 7th Street
Austin, TX 78701Austin, TX 78701
tel: (512) 322-9992tel: (512) 480-8231
Counsel for Plaintiff-Intervenor theCounsel for Plaintiff-Intervenors
Texas-NAACPTravis County and the City of Austin
Robert M. LongMorris L. Overstreet
HOUDYSHELL & LONG, L.L.PP. O. Box 8100
103 East Fifth Street, Suite 200Houston, Texas 77288
Austin, TX 78701tel: (512) 844-8357
tel: (512) 476-0845Counsel for Plaintiff-Intervenor the Texas
Counsel for DefendantCoalition of Black Democrats
Charles Soechting, Chairman,
Texas Democratic Party
Richard GladdenANDY TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
1602 East McKinney405 Main Street, Suite 200
Denton, Texas 76209Houston, TX 77002
tel: (940) 323-9307tel: (713) 222-1817
Counsel for the Cherokee County PlaintiffCounsel for State Defendants
Greg AbbotR. Ted Cruz
Attorney General of TexasSolicitor General
Barry R. McBeeCassandra Robertson
First Assistant Attorney GeneralAssistant Solicitor General
Edward D. BurbachDon Cruse
Deputy Attorney General for LitigationAssistant Solicitor General
Don R. Willett
Deputy Attorney General for Legal CounselOffice of the Attorney General
David MattaxP.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
Division Chief of Financial LitigationAustin, TX 78711
Jeff Grahamtel: (512) 463-2191
Assistant Attorney General
Otis W. CarrollJ. Gerald Hebert, P.C.
IRELAND, CARROLL & KELLEY, P.C.5019 Waple Lane
6101 South Broadway, Suite 500Alexandria, VA 22304
Tyler, Texas 75703
Franklin Jones, Jr.Paul M. Smith
JONES & JONES Sam Hirsch
201 West Houston StreetJENNER & BLOCK, LLP.
Marshall, Texas 75670601 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Jon Roland, Petitioner in Intervention
Example of TARGET-generated map
The attached map was generated using the TARGET program October 17, 2003, with the settings
that the map be constrained only to be equipopulous, aligned, contiguous, simply-connected, and
compact. It was run for only a few minutes. It is not offered as a proposed map, because any map
not blindly selected at random from a pool of randomly generated maps is suspect as having been
selected in an improper manner. The boundaries within split counties are a bit rough, especially
for Bexar County, but they would be smoothed by running the session longer. It would probably
not be be possible to find the file that was generated and run it through REDAPPL to produce a
legal description of the districts, since changes in the structure of the database and REDAPPL
have not been matched by revisions of TARGET to maintain compatibility. However, even in this
state, most persons can recognize it as looking more like a map should if no partisan
considerations are applied.
Video recording of interview with Texas Legislative Council staff and demonstration of the use of
the TARGET software, October 16, 2003. Offered with leave from the Court to defer distribution
until the Court and each party indicates the formats they can read. Also available online at