Federal court rejects state attorney general's proposed maps

"Even though this agreement did not receive the sign-off by some other Latino-based groups, we know from what they told us [that] this largely satisfies what they were really seeking," Abbott said.

MALC Chairman Trey Martinez Fischer issued his group's response.

"MALC worked in good faith with General Abbott in hopes of arriving at a compromise that reflected the changing diversity of our state in a manner acceptable to all parties," Martinez Fischer said. "Unfortunately, negotiations stalled when it became apparent some parties in these discussions had a narrow and at times unrealistic view of the evidence presented at trial."

"The maps proposed by the Attorney General today are a beginning point, not an end," Martinez Fischer added.

While the April 3 primary deadline passed, there is still chance for a primary in April.

Republican Party of Texas Chairman Steve Munisteri said that if a compromise is reached by Feb. 20, the primaries could be held either April 17 or April 24.

Abbott's plan would have made half of Texas' four new congressional seats Hispanic-controlled, including Congressional District 35, the old district of U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, which runs from Austin to San Antonio, as well as District 33, a Fort Worth-area district.

Results of the 2010 census indicating the state's population had earned Texas four more congressional seats sparked chaos in the already tricky redistricting process.

Federal lawsuits have since halted the enactment of new maps drawn by the Republican-dominated state Legislature, originally delaying the primaries from March 6 to April 3.

Texas is among the states that must get preclearance on redistricting maps by the U.S. Department of Justice under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, according to the Texas Legislative Council. However, the state did not submit the maps to the DOJ for preclearance and instead petitioned a U.S. District Court for a declaratory judgment validating the redistricting plans.

The Supreme Court denied the petition and held a trial Jan. 17–31. The court issued a statement saying a decision was not likely in February.

Meanwhile, separate lawsuits were filed in state and federal courts by opponents of the redistricting maps who claim the maps violate the U.S. Constitution as well as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting minority voting power.

Some of the lawsuits were consolidated and heard in September by a U.S. District Court in San Antonio. The three-judge panel redrew the state's maps and submitted them to the Supreme Court as proposed interim plans.

On Jan. 20, the Supreme Court rejected the San Antonio court's maps citing the insertion of the judges' own preferences. The court instructed them to redraw the maps to more closely resemble the state's plan but to not incorporate legal defects.

The San Antonio court has a status conference hearing scheduled for Feb. 15 to go over the interim maps and election schedule.