Main: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott holding executive order during a press conference in the Texas State Capitol on March 29, 2020 (Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News via AP). Inset: Robot chef from 2019 H-E-B commercial (YouTube).
In a legal battle over the constitutionality of Texas” newly gerrymandered U.S. House district map, Gov. Greg Abbott has discovered an unlikely ally as he seeks to push the state’s congressional delegation further to the right — a metaphorical robot chef.
In a 15-page motion filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, the state is seeking to strike a report submitted by an expert for the plaintiffs purporting to show that the map Texas adopted earlier this year “is an extreme outlier that relies heavily on race in drawing certain Hispanic and Black CVAP [Citizen Voting Age Population] majority districts.”
Plaintiffs in the case, which was first filed in 2021 and amended multiple times since the state legislature passed the new U.S. House district map, allege that the new districts “intentionally discriminate against Black voters and other voters of color” by diluting the vote of minority residents in the state. The complaint seeks an injunction based on the allegedly “racially discriminatory intent” of the redistricting maps.
The report from Dr. Matt Barreto, a tenured professor of political science at UCLA, includes an analysis of the map based on computer-simulated redistricting plans and “involves creating simulation maps using a robot,” according to the filing. But the state is asking the court to prohibit the plaintiffs from using the report, claiming they have “refused to provide critical pieces of data necessary to replicate and test his methodology.”
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
In arguing to have the report tossed, attorneys for the state of Texas likened the plaintiffs’ analysis to a robot preparing a meal.
A computer redistricting simulation analysis requires several kinds of information necessary to reproduce and test its results. First, there is the input code, which serves to instruct the robot how to process data—the recipe or instructions, if you will. Second, there are the data that are fed into the code for processing—these are the ingredients the robot chef uses in preparing the dish described by the recipe. Third, there are the outputs produced by running data through the input code—the piping-hot dish itself. Finally, there are reports the robot can run to ensure it followed the recipe—whether the robot processed all the data as the input code anticipated, or whether the robot properly measured the ingredients, added them at the correct time, and cooked them at the correct temperature for the appropriate time.
The motion returns to the theme several times throughout the filing, claiming that Barreto’s refusal to provide the state with reports demonstrating that “the robot successfully ran data through his input code” is akin to the professor having “refused to produce the dish he says he cooked.” Instead, the state claims the professor is insisting that the court rely solely “on his description of the dish.”
Barreto has made himself a sort of bizarre food critic. He has tasted the dish offered by the Texas Legislature, and formulated what he insists is a recipe that will reproduce the dish. But he will not disclose the ingredients he used or how his sous chef prepared them. He will not produce information showing he followed his recipe, and he refuses even to allow State Defendants — or the Court — to sample the dish he prepared. Instead, everyone except Barreto and his lawyers must simply take him at his word — his dish is everything the Texas Legislature’s dish hopes to be, but better.
The state also contrasts Barreto’s alleged failure to provide sufficient information with the state’s own expert witness, who provided “over 100 gigabytes of data supporting her simulations.”
The filing says Barreto provided “bare input code,” which the State calls “a mere recipe compared with the recipe, ingredients, progress pictures, and finished dish” provided by its expert.
A preliminary injunction hearing in the case is currently scheduled for Oct. 1.
