CSPAN - Texas House Hearing on Congressional Redistricting

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 25, 2025 23:49-02:19 - CSPAN

02:29:53

Texas House Hearing on Congressional Redistricting

Participants

Main

jolanda jones

d 07:38

sylvia garcia

rep/d 06:32

Appearances

greg casar

rep/d 00:37

Clips

bob vylan

00:05

cody vasut

00:02

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Funded by these television companies and more, including Cox.
		When connection is needed most, Cox is there to help.
		Bringing affordable internet to families in need, new tech to boys and girls clubs, and support to veterans.
		Whenever and wherever it matters most, we'll be there.
		Cox deports C-SBAM as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
		A Texas House Select Committee held a hearing on the legislature's plan to redraw the state's congressional district map.
		Members of the public expressed their concerns during the meeting, and multiple high-profile witnesses testified, including three Democratic members of Congress from Texas.
		The time is 2.14 p.m.
		The House Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting will come to order.
		The clerk will call the roll.
		Chair Vasuet? Here.
		Vice Chair Rosenthal? Here.
		Garcia? Here.
		Guerin? Here.
		Kirvin Hawkins?
		Guerra?
		Hefner? Here.
		Hunter? Here.
		Manuel? Here.
		McQueenie? Here.
		Metcalf? Here.
		Moody?
		Pearson? Here.
		Spiller? Here.
		Tepper? Here.
		Thompson? Here.
		Turner?
		Wilson? Here.
		Wu.
		Quorum is present.
		Chair recognizes the following members that are up on the dais today.
		Representative Jones, Representative Goodwin, Representative Schoffner, Representative Perez, Representative Trey Martinez-Fisher.
		I did not call.
		Can we get Guy?
		I did not call Mr. Representative Guinness.
		Chair will show Mr. Guin here.
		Chair of the Show Ms. Hicklin here.
		All right.
		We miss anybody?
		Appreciate you dealing with our technical issues as we get started here today.
		Members, it's an honor to get to serve with you on this committee.
		To start with some housekeeping, our committee clerk is Edward Jacks, who's up here with me.
		Our assistant committee clerk is Dylan Menard.
		It's right down there.
		They're here to help you with any logistics.
		We also have Kylie Hicks from my office here today if you need any help.
		Any documents relating to the committee will be emailed to you and your chiefs by Edward or Dylan, as has already been done for today's hearing.
		We have set up a drop box for the members of the committee where we will post materials for committee meetings.
		You have already received an invitation to join that drop box.
		If you have any issues, let us know.
		You should be able to find the materials for today's meeting on that drop box.
		We will endeavor to scan any documents handed to the committee and place them in that drop box for your access as soon as we can.
		There will be food or drinks in the back if you need them.
		As you're no doubt aware, please ensure that a quorum of the committee does not meet in the back to discuss any committee business.
		By way of background for the members of the public and the members here today, as you may be aware, on July 9th, 2025, Governor Greg Abbott issued a proclamation calling the 89th Legislature to convene in special session starting this past Monday, July 21st, 2025.
		Under the Constitution, the length of each special session is limited to 30 days.
		Governor Abbott has asked the 89th Legislature in his proclamation to take up legislation that provides a revised congressional redistricting plan in light of constitutional concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Justice.
		A copy of the governor's proclamation can be found in the drop box.
		The current congressional redistricting plan for the 119th Congress is Plan C2193.
		We have printed a copy of this current plan for you.
		A copy can also be found in the Dropbox and for the general public and everyone viewing at home, you can access the plan at dvr.capitalcapi tol.texas.gov.
		Click Congress and then click current districts.
		It is the chair's intention at this time to take up any revisions to the congressional redistricting plan in two phases.
		First, we have three public hearings to hear from anyone wishing to testify on revisions they would like to see or not see to the current congressional redistricting plan found in C-2193.
	These three public hearings include today's hearing in Austin, a hearing on Saturday, July 26, 2025 at 11 a.m. in Houston, and a hearing on Monday, July 28, 2025 at 5 o'clock p.m. in Arlington.
	Each of these hearing notices have been posted and copies can be found in the committee drop box.
	As the chair previously requested, all members of the committee, the legislature, the media, and the public are strongly encouraged to share the details for each of these hearings with the people of Texas.
	Second, after these public hearings are completed, the chair anticipates scheduling a public hearing on a bill if one is filed to revise the congressional redistricting plan.
	While the rules allow the chair to schedule public hearings and special sessions with as little as 24 hours notice, the chair intends to provide more notice than that of any public hearing or meeting to discuss any bill revising the congressional redistricting plan.
	Members, in addition to keeping your calendar clear during each week of the special session, please also keep your calendar clear the first weekend in August in case we need to schedule any committee business during that time.
	Before we take up any revision to the Congressional Redistricting Plan or discuss such a plan amongst ourselves, we are here today to hear from the public about what that revision should be, if any.
	As set out in the posting for today's hearing, we will take public testimony regarding a revised congressional redistricting plan pursuant to the governor's July 9, 2025 proclamation calling a special session for the 89th Legislature.
	Today's hearing will focus on those counties of the state lying wholly or partly within congressional districts 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 27, 28, 31, 34, 35, and 37 for the 119th Congress.
	But the committee will hear testimony about any region of the state.
	We'll hear any region of the state you want to talk about today.
	Today's hearing will feature both in-person and invited virtual public testimony.
	Pursuant to the posting, the deadline to register for virtual public testimony was yesterday, July 23rd, 2025 at 2 o'clock p.m.
	All individuals who have been invited to provide virtual public testimony have received instructions.
	Should you have any questions, please email us at the email provided to you with your instructions.
	For everyone in the audience and those in the overflow rooms, I believe we have two overflow rooms, thank you for being here today.
	In order to testify in person today, you must register at the kiosks outside the committee room.
	They're right over here.
	If you have any questions or encounter any difficulty, please confer with committee staff up here at the front.
	We'd be happy to assist you.
	We will be closing registration for in-person testimony today at 3.30 p.m., a little more than an hour.
	So please register at the kiosk before this deadline.
	I plan to alternate invited virtual testimony and in-person testimony.
	For everyone wishing to testify, testimony will be limited to two minutes in length.
	I will have a timer.
	I think we have it down here, and there is, I believe, one in front of the testifying witness right there.
	There will also be an audible bell that goes off.
	It'll be, I believe, two chirps at 15 seconds and then two chirps when you're done.
	And of course, when that time runs out, I'll tell you thank you for your time, and then we can take up any questions.
	So for our virtual witnesses, we'll take questions immediately after each witness testifies.
	Okay?
	And I just want to note that any questions you receive are not an opportunity to extend your time for testimony broadly.
	The reason why is we want to be fair to everyone here and generally provide the same amount of testimony for everyone, no matter who you are, no matter where you're from.
	In order to ensure a balance of public testimony across the three public hearings and to reasonably structure the committee's business, the public testimony for today's hearing will also be limited to five hours in length.
	The time right now does not count against that.
	We're only going to start that running while people are testifying and answering questions.
	This time, and I want to stress this, this time is not the only opportunity that you have to provide information for the committee to consider.
	This is just one of many ways.
	First, if you have more to say than the time allows, or we unfortunately do not reach you here today, as the hearing notice mentioned, we welcome you to bring up a written copy of your testimony.
	Please turn that in to Dylan at the end if we get to that point.
	If you had more to say, you couldn't get to or we run out of time, please turn in your written testimony to Dylan.
	He's going to scan that in so every member of this committee will be able to hear from you.
	Second, if you have any handouts with you today, as the notice mentions, please bring the handouts up front to Dylan before your testimony and they will be provided to members of the committee.
	We ask you to bring 22 copies.
	That's for our members here.
	For those on the dais that are not on the committee, we might not have a copy for you.
	I apologize for that.
	I didn't know the numbers, but for the members of the committee, we will.
	The Texas, third, anyone is welcome to submit an electronic comment without testifying online.
	The electronic portal is linked in today's hearing notice and it can be found at comments.house.texas.gov.
	Information can be uploaded to the portal for today's hearing through the end of today's hearing.
	You can also upload information to the portal for future hearings through the conclusion of those future hearings.
	The Texas Legislative Council also hosts a website for redistricting at redistricting.capital.texas.gov.
	On that website, you can find information about submitting proposed maps for consideration.
	Click 2020s at the top, then click public participation.
	There will be links on that page that will guide you.
	Finally, every member of the public is always welcome to email, contact, or call any member of the legislature at any time.
	And many of you have done that.
	We welcome you to continue to do so.
	So finally, logistics.
	For our virtual witnesses, again, we're going to take you one at a time.
	I'm going to announce the four that we will take just so that you know that your testimony is coming up.
	So if you're in those first four witnesses that I mentioned, just be ready.
	But we will take virtual witnesses one at a time.
	For our in-person witnesses, I'm going to bring you up in panels of four.
	We have four seats right up here.
	If you're in here, great.
	If you're in the overflow room, just be listening.
	What I plan to do is I'll call up our four virtual witnesses and I'll go ahead and tell you who the four on the next panel of in-person will be.
	If your name is called for the in-person panel, just make your way into the room up here to the front and you can be seated at those chairs.
	That way we can get to you expeditiously.
	Members, please hold questions for our in-person testimony until all four panelists have testified and then of course you can question the panel.
	Finally, since we have no bill before us today, and we've gotten some questions about this, so I want to make sure this is clear.
	Since we have no bill before us at any of these first three public hearings, all testimony will be neutral or on, which I will verify with each of you when you come up here to testify.
	With that, let's get started.
	Our first four witnesses for virtual testimony today are going to be Vice Chair for what purpose?
	And then click your.
	Just so the members are aware, since we're in the Appropriations Committee room, the technology is a little different.
	In order to be recognized by the chair, please press the button on your microphone.
	It'll pop up on here and then we'll recognize you.
	So Vice Chair Rosenthal, for what purpose?
	May I make an opening statement?
	The gentleman is recognized for such a purpose.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for being here today.
	For the people that don't know me, my name is John Rosenthal.
	I'll be your co-host for the afternoon and evening.
	I'm a career mechanical engineer.
	I believe in practical solutions.
	This, in my view, is far from anything resembling a practical solution.
	I also note that it's an incredible responsibility for me to be here serving as your vice chair today.
	Sometimes oil field engineers get to take on some really big things, and I have had the privilege and the opportunity to work on some major undertakings.
	Nothing in my life compares to serving as the vice chair on this committee today.
	So I feel the weight and the gravity of this proceeding because there's a real fight on our hands.
	Let's face it.
	I'm ready for it.
	I know my colleagues are as well.
	I'd like to ask the clerk to pass out this little packet.
	got the letter from the Department of Justice, the proclamation for the governor, and the committee hearing notice.
	If we could please make sure that every member of the committee has this.
	I want to ensure that we all understand what's happening here and what's brought us here today.
	So, members, I want you to pay special attention to the letter from the Department of Justice, which is what set this entire chain of events in motion.
	The congressional districts specifically mentioned by the Department of Justice are Congressional District 9, 18, 29, and 33.
	It's curious to me that none of these districts are mentioned among the dozen or so districts listed in our hearing notice.
	And I'll let you think about why that might be the case.
	Mid-decade redistricting is unusual.
	It's unnecessary.
	We are actually constitutionally required to redraw districts every 10 years following the census.
	Texas did its constitutional duty and redrew the districts following the 2020 census and 2021, and I was here for that proceeding.
	So that process is supposed to be about making things fair.
	As the population of the state grows and changes and moves around, we adjust district boundaries to make sure folks have fair representation.
	This process, in my view, has nothing to do with making things fair.
	If you look at the four districts in question that the Department of Justice listed on their letter, this process is aimed at removing black congressional representatives.
	Three of those four seats are black-held seats.
	That is an attempt to racially gerrymander our state under the guise of unracially gerrymandering.
	And then one Latino seat.
	The effort to change these districts at this time has nothing to do with representing people better.
	It's the opposite of that.
	It's a power grab at the expense of black and brown communities.
	So here's what's really at stake.
	Texas is growing.
	The vast majority of that growth is by people of color.
	So I live in a world of facts.
	Engineers make stuff happen in real life.
	We use a lot of math, so you'll hope you'll bear with me.
	This population growth measured from 2010 to 2020 was black and brown people.
	So the population during that period, according to the Census Bureau of the United States of America, grew by 3,999,994 people.
	That's six short of 4 million.
	Let's just call it 4 million.
	Of that growth, 187,252 were white, 557,887 were black, 1.98 million were Latino.
	So I have done the math for you already.
	4.6% of that 10-year growth was white.
	But the 4 million drove the need for this state to draw two new congressional districts, Congressional 37 and 38.
	And by some miracle of chance, this legislature drew both of those districts to be majority white.
	I live in one of them.
	Black and brown communities already don't have fair representation.
	So if our population is 60% communities of color, why is our congressional delegation 34% from communities of color?
	So if we have a proceeding aimed at taking away their seats, we're taking away their voices, plain and simple.
	So, and I know I'm talking about black and brown communities, and I don't know if you are aware of this, but I'm actually a white guy.
	And I do feel it's especially important for me, for people that look like me, to speak out about this kind of injustice.
	It was Desmond Tutu that said, if you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have toes on the side of the oppressor.
	We need to speak up and speak out.
	It's on us, especially those who benefit from these systems, to have our voice in these spaces.
	I'm just going to end with this.
	Mid-decade redistricting is pointless, unjust, and we won't let that happen quietly.
	I'm here to fight.
	We all need to raise our voices to protect democracy for every Texan.
	Thanks for your attention.
	Mr. Turner, for a purpose.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Before we move on to testimony, a couple of questions.
	If I may, in terms of, can you hear me now?
	Yes, I can.
	Please restate your inquiry.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Before we move on to testimony, I just wonder if you would allow me a couple of questions so I can better understand the process here.
	Chair recognizes Mr. Turner for his questions.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	So you have seen the letter from the Department of Justice objecting to the racial compositions of Districts 9, 18, 29, and 33.
	I have, and I have received a copy of it here, I believe, with all of you.
	Yes.
	And I think you said this in your opening, but just to clarify, it is that letter that Governor Abbott cited in his proclamation for the special session?
	He doesn't cite to a specific letter in his proclamation.
	He does reference concerns, I believe, raised by the U.S. Department of Justice.
	Okay.
	Are you aware of any other way that DOJ has raised concerns beyond that letter?
	That would have to be a question for the governor.
	I'm not aware of any other letter, though, personally myself.
	Okay, I'm not either.
	I think it refers back to the letter.
	So the letter that you've read and I've read as well basically is asking Texas to dismantle those four districts because of their racial makeup.
	And my question is, do you believe as the chair, does the committee believe that it is legal for us to intentionally dismantle majority minority districts because of their racial composition?
	I don't believe that the letter is a specific request for us to dismantle any district.
	However, it's the chair's intention at all times that we are going to follow the Voting Rights Act, and we're going to follow the law.
	And we have no plans at this moment to change any particular district.
	The purpose of today's hearing is, of course, to hear from the public before we go into that process.
	Well, Mr. Chairman, the letter specifically says that these are coalition districts, meaning that they're majority minority districts, and they say that they're unconstitutional.
	And we urge the state of Texas to rectify these race-based considerations from these specific districts.
	So it seems to me they're asking us to change the districts based on their racial makeup by virtue of the fact that they're majority minority districts.
	You'd have to refer specifically what Department of Justice wants to do or not wants to do to them.
	The chair obviously did not have this letter addressed to him.
	And as far as I'm concerned, the whole point of this process is solely to respond to the governor's call.
	And we're going to take up congressional redistricting in that two-phase process I mentioned earlier.
	And I'd love to get to this first phase of hearing from the public.
	No, I appreciate that.
	And I appreciate your point about the Department of Justice didn't address the letter to you or any member of the legislature.
	Will we be hearing from the Department of Justice today?
	I am not certain.
	Chair is not advised whether they have registered to testify.
	I believe that an open invitation was sent to everyone to register if they'd like to.
	And the Vice Chair has reached out to me and wanted to invite some individuals, and I've worked with him to do so.
	And we'll take any of his invited witnesses out of the regular order as a courtesy to the vice chair.
	Appreciate that.
	Would we be able to formally invite the Department of Justice to come and testify before this committee?
	If not today, then we'll be able to do that.
	I'd be happy to talk with you about that.
	I know the vice chair was thinking perhaps, but we can talk about that.
	I think it would be important to try to understand their legal basis for this exercise.
	Who are the, and just a couple more questions, Mr. Chairman.
	I appreciate we want to get to witnesses.
	Who are the legal advisors to our committee for this process?
	My understanding is the House has retained Butler Snow, and I believe that I'm not exactly certain of whether or not they represent the individual members of the committee, but I believe to respond to your inquiry would be Butler Snow.
	Okay.
	But they are, you're not sure if they're available to the entire committee?
	That is a legal question.
	I don't want to give you an incorrect answer, right?
	So I'd be happy to look at that and get you an answer to that.
	Okay.
	I appreciate that.
	Are there any other outside law firms that you're aware of that are involved in the process?
	Not to my knowledge.
	Okay.
	And have you had, as you've kind of undertaken this process, have you had any discussions about this process with our Attorney General's office, General Paxton's office?
	I received a I cannot waive the attorney client privilege of during the regular session as to the litigation.
	I did receive a briefing of the litigation, but no, I have not communicated with the Office of the Attorney General regarding this redistricting process.
	Okay, and I take it from your previous comment, you've not communicated with the Department of Justice?
	I have not.
	Okay.
	How about the White House?
	I have not.
	How about a gentleman named Adam Kincaid?
	I have, I honestly have no idea who that is.
	Okay.
	My understanding is he's the person who drew the maps in the last decade.
	Anyone with the National Republican Redistricting Trust?
	No.
	Okay.
	And lastly, have you seen any proposed maps that the White House has sent, President Trump's operatives have sent?
	No.
	I believe the only map that I have seen is the one that was posted to the public portal, which I reminded everyone.
	Anyone in the public is invited to submit a map.
	Just because a map is put onto that portal does not mean in any way that that is a map this committee was intended to take up or otherwise.
	The public is free to submit whatever the public wants.
	Okay.
	So you've seen, no one has sent you any maps for this committee to consider.
	No.
	Okay.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Thank you.
	Ms. Turner.
	Mr. Wu for what purpose?
	My questions.
	Yes.
	Chair recognized Mr. Wu for questions.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Chairman, I just want to follow up on Representative Turner's questions just a little bit.
	I'm personally very confused about why exactly we're here doing this.
	And from what I heard you say earlier, you've not been given any explanation or any notice from the governor of why he made the call.
	I have received the same proclamation that you have received.
	Okay.
	And this is not a process that you have personally asked for.
	This is redistricting.
	You've not personally asked for that.
	Does anyone really ask to be chair of redistricting?
	Well, yeah.
	But I am here.
	No, I have not asked.
	Just I just want to be clear that as a chair of this committee, as a chair of the redistricting committee, that you did not say, Governor Abbott, please.
	I did not.
	And as far as you know, nobody on this committee has made those requests either.
	Not to my knowledge.
	Do you know of any member of the legislature went to the governor and said we really could use this right now?
	Not to my knowledge.
	Okay.
	Again, I'm limited to what I've personally known.
	No, absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	And, you know, I only know what I know, you only know what you know.
	And between the two of us, I don't think we know anything of why we're here.
	I think the chair would say that the governor has put an item on the call.
	It is prudent and proper for the legislative committees to take up the items that the governor has designated.
	And what the legislature does with that is up to the legislature.
	But it's the chair's position that the governor has placed this item on the call, and we're going to take it up in a two-phase process.
	And you're, I mean, you, I know you keep up with this stuff, you're aware that we were recently, the state was recently involved in a trial, three-week trial in El Paso over the maps that we passed in 21.
	I have very general knowledge, not specific.
	I was not involved in that.
	Same here.
	Same here.
	But are you aware that members of our body testified under oath in that trial saying that there was absolutely no racial gerrymandering in the current maps that we're discussing?
	I'm generally aware of that.
	Thank you.
	And you've not seen anything that would speak to the contrary?
	No.
	I've certainly never seen any indication that any map that has been passed out of this legislature anytime I've been in the legislature that I voted on would violate in any way the Voting Rights Act.
	But again, I'm not a legal expert.
	I'm going to just tell you what I know.
	And of course, I voted on that.
	I had an opportunity to vote on the same maps that you did.
	Have you personally seen any demographic evidence or any data of any kind that would suggest that or would say that?
	That there needs to be a mid-cycle redistricting.
	Well, I think whether or not there needs to be mid-cycle redistricting is a matter of opinion.
	To your first question about whether I've seen evidence, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, I think your question was alluding: have I seen evidence of the current map engaged in some type of inappropriate violation of the VRA?
	And I have not.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Thank you very much.
	Thank you, Mr. Wu.
	Mr. Chairman.
	Dean Thompson, for what purpose?
	I happen to see the letter that the DOJ sent down here.
	But I want to say that the Attorney General of Texas answered them, and they said that the Texas legislature did not pass race-based electoral districts for any of those three political maps.
	The Texas State Senator John Joan Huffman, who chaired the Senate Redistricting Committee, testified on the oath that she drew Texas districts blind to race and sought to maximize Republican political advantage balance against traditional redistricting criteria.
	And he goes, he went on to say in his letter to the DOJ that the Texas legislature has led the nation in rejecting race-based decision-making in its redistricting process, and it has drawn its current maps in conformance with traditional non-racial redistricting criteria to ensure Texas continued to adopt policies that would truly make Texas great again.
	And Mr. Chairman, I resent the Texas Department, the United States Department of Justice, sitting down here accusing our state that we have drawn some race-based maps and actually putting scarn upon our elected officials because you and I know that Dan Patrick never would have passed a map out of the Senate and we never would have passed one out of the House that would have included this.
	And again, not trying to be dilatory in your getting to the witnesses.
	I just resent this and I just think that this is a waste of good taxpayers' dollars that we ought to be putting somewhere like if the flood victims and we flood in Harris County incidentally.
	We need some of this flood money too.
	Thank you.
	Understood Dean Thompson.
	Mr. Chair.
	Chair Sam Chair.
	Okay.
	Can you push a button?
	Very close.
	The microphone on.
	Well, yeah.
	Ms. Kirbin Hopkins, for what purpose?
	Your microphone on?
	It is, I believe so.
	Can you hear me?
	No.
	It's like a Verizon commercial.
	Let's try it again.
	Can you hear me now?
	I can hear you good.
	Ms. Kerbin Hawkins, for what purpose?
	I'd like to make a couple comments.
	Chair recognizes Ms. Gervais-Hawkins for some brief comments.
	I don't think it's on.
	Chair.
	Hold on.
	Ms. Gervais-Hawkins, I believe.
	I don't think it's on.
	Can you try that microphone one more time?
	Testing.
	I don't believe your microphone's on.
	We're going to work on that.
	Can you hear me with neighbors?
	How about now, Ms. Gerbert-Hawkins?
	Testing.
	There we go.
	Thank you.
	Ms. Kerbin Hawkins, you recognize the brief comments.
	Thank you, Mr. Chair.
	A couple questions and then a comment.
	Is it possible that the minority party also get access to an attorney?
	I'd be happy to evaluate that request.
	I have not received such a request.
	Okay.
	Will any of the senators who said that the maps weren't race-baited, will they come and testify?
	The chair is not advised.
	That would be of rather different kind of requests.
	I don't believe that members of each house testify at committee hearings, but the chair is happy to look at that.
	Chair is not advised.
	I know a lot of rules.
	Never heard that one.
	Let's be the first.
	Yeah, we're swimming through new waters.
	You know, let's add what we need.
	The other question is this.
	A couple more questions.
	Will you define for this group, as the chair, what you determine is a minority district versus a coalition district?
	That's a legal question.
	Chair is not going to engage in answering or attempting to answer legal questions, not the least of reasons I'm not an expert on redistricting law.
	Thank you, Mr. Chair.
	Will a recommendation from this committee be forthcoming to the governor?
	I'm not sure I understand your question.
	Are you referring to a bill or a resolution?
	I'm talking about the maps.
	Will any recommendation be coming from this committee to the governor's office?
	It's the chair's intention to complete these initial hearings that have been noticed before we take up, if we take up such a question.
	Okay.
	And my comment is this, Mr. Chair.
	You know, when I look at the districts that's listed on the Department of Justice letter, and I'm looking at our Congressperson Garcia, Congressman El Green, Congressman Mark Veacee, and the open seat, the historical seat of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee and Sylvester Turner.
	And so when I see these names mentioned, and I think of our historic and iconic members of our congressional group, I'm insulted, I'm concerned, and I'm wondering why must we do this.
	And what I'm hoping, and this is to the entire committee, let's not allow the White House to put its arms into Texas and divide our community.
	It's wrong.
	It should not happen.
	And we want to make sure that our legislator knows this is wrong, and we will not stand by and just let it occur.
	Thank you, Mr. Chair.
	Thank you, Mr. Governor Hawkins.
	Hearing no further matters before the committee?
	Speaker Moody, for what purpose?
	Questions of the Chair.
	Chair Yields for questions.
	Thank you, sir.
	I was reading the proclamation that you cited, and there's a number of items that are listed in the proclamation.
	The one you've referred to states legislation that provides a revised congressional redistricting plan in light of the constitutional concerns raised by the United States Department of Justice or U.S. Department of Justice, how it reads.
	It's within the power and the purview of the governor to convene the legislature in a special session and set the agenda for that session.
	Is that your understanding?
	Subject to the rules of the House and the Constitution, yes.
	Is there any obligation upon the, I'll stick with the Texas House because I don't think the Texas Senate has rules.
	Is it incumbent upon the Texas House to take up and pass legislation in furtherance of the governor's call?
	Is there any mandate that we must do so?
	All legislative power is vested in the legislature.
	It's up to the legislature at its discretion.
	It's the chair's intention to take up this process, if at all, in the two phases mentioned.
	Yeah, and I appreciate you lining that up because I think it allows for us to understand the process that we're going to undertake.
	But we don't have legislation before us today.
	There is no bill.
	And I know that your intent is to take public testimony at this hearing today, one in Houston and one in Arlington in the next several days.
	How is that public testimony going to inform proposed legislation?
	All information that flows to the committee is available to committee members to guide them in making any decision whether or not to file a bill, what the bill may look like, what amendments they may want to do to any type of bill.
	And so the first stage is to hear from the public to determine what they believe about whether they'd like to see revisions, and if so, what kind.
	And then that feedback can certainly be taken into account.
	And is it the chair's intent to hear that testimony and then as the chair engage in drafting the legislation to bring forward?
	I'm not sure what I'm going to do.
	I would say that we're going to hear from the public and then once we get through that hearing in Dallas on Monday, then we'll evaluate what next steps we take.
	So if that process was housed with the chair, how would the public testimony inform your drafting of that legislation?
	That would be a hypothetical.
	I wouldn't be able to answer that at this time.
	I think the general expectation and of which I've attempted to operate it the whole time I've been in the legislature is that everyone that comes to a public hearing and gives testimony, that that testimony is taken into account.
	Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time to ask questions.
	I know we want a number of members of the public here to testify.
	And to those members that are waiting to testify, members of the public waiting to testify, this is an opportunity, as the chair stated, to let your opinion be known and that this process should be and must be informed by your opinions about what we should or shouldn't be doing.
	There is no obligation for us to do this at all, at all.
	And I look forward to hearing from the public about whatever opinion they have on these maps.
	And my hope is that whoever engages in drawing these maps, because in the past, in the past, it's been the chair, but whoever engages in drawing these maps and proposing this legislation also listens intently to the testimony that we're going to gather over the next several weeks.
	So thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
	Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	Mr. Wu, for what purpose?
	I apologize.
	I have just a few follow-up questions.
	Chair Yields for questions.
	I apologize.
	I didn't hear your answer exactly.
	In terms of the law firm Butler Snow, you said that is the committee's representation or you don't know?
	I'm not fully advised on the full extent of their representation.
	Certainly they can and have would you let us know who the attorneys are so we can talk to them directly and say hey do you represent us or not?
	Chair would be happy to circle back with the member.
	Thank you.
	Just on a quick procedural question, I know you said earlier that witnesses are being asked to testify neutral, changing no matter what they put into their affirmation.
	The rules require that just because there's not a bill before the committee.
	Okay.
	And but member, but people, witnesses, even though that they're listed as neutral.
	They do not have to be neutral.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	Yes.
	That is a good question, Representative Wu.
	Under the rules, that's just required for purposes when you don't have a bill.
	It's always neutral testimony to reflect that into the minutes.
	But members of the public are, of course, free to give any testimony that they like.
	Any further questions for the chair?
	Chair is none.
	Chair, we'll move into invited public testimony.
	The first one we're going to do is virtual testimony.
	The first three that I would like to have, or first four I'd like to have on deck, so please be ready in the virtual panel.
	We're going to invite you in one at a time.
	Ellen Katz, Ali Flores, Eric Jacobson, Robin Peoples.
	Our first panel for in-person testimony, which if you would please make your way up to these chairs.
	I'm going to take three.
	And I apologize for pronunciations of any name.
	Nothing is intended.
	I'm from Southeast Texas.
	I like to say Southeast Texas.
	Maybe they don't claim us in Southeast Texas, but I like Southeast Texas, Brazori County.
	Greg Cesar, Joaquin Castro, and Sylvia Garcia.
	If you'll make your way up to the front.
	So I'll show you as Greg Kassar, Congressman Texas 35, here to testify on behalf of yourself on revisions of the congressional redistricting plan.
	Is that correct?
	That's correct.
	Please give us your testimony, sir.
	Chair, Vice Chair, Dean, Speaker, and members of the committee, I'm Greg Kassar.
	Currently, I represent Texas's 35th congressional district, and I'm here to speak to support the hundreds of thousands of Texans that I represent and their voting rights from urban to rural Texans, conservative, liberal Texans, from Bayer to Comal to Hayes to Travis County.
	Texas's 35th congressional district was drawn by this body coming after the 2010 census.
	It was constitutionally mandated to be drawn, and it was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and the conservative justices on that court as a promise to Latino communities in central Texas to make sure they had meaningful participation and the ability to elect the representative of their choice under the Voting Rights Act.
	Whether they chose a Democratic or Republican or Independent congressman should be up to them.
	But to fulfill the Voting Rights Act of 1965, this district was drawn and approved.
greg casar ▲ ● ▼		And what I am here to ask is that we continue to preserve and protect those voting rights that so many people fought and marched and bled for, including Dr. King, where we have a street right behind this Capitol named after him, who in 1965 helped a Texas president sign the Voting Rights Act into law.
unidentified		And I ask each of you to focus on protecting those rights.
unidentified		There's no need to redraw these maps and to violate those rights and to represent the values of Texas and to represent that critical federal law and not have somebody tell you from outside of the state, from Mar-a-Lago or from the White House to violate those basic rights of all Texans.
greg casar ▲ ● ▼		We should be focusing on rebuilding and relief for the people of the Texas Hill Country who have suffered from these floods, not on radical and ridiculous redistricting.
greg casar ▲ ● ▼		Thank you so much, Chairman.
unidentified		Thank you.
		Thank you.
		We'll come back for questions.
		Chair recognizes or calls on Silvia Garcia.
		Testify.
		I show you registered as Sylvia Garcia, testifying on behalf of yourself on revisions of the Congressional Redistricting Plan.
		Congresswoman, thank you for being here today.
		Is that correct?
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		Yes, sir, that's correct.
unidentified		Please give us your testimony.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Vice Chair and to Ms. T and to all the other members.
		We really should not even be here today.
		We should be working on legislation to support families in the Hill Country after the devastating flooding, working together to provide resources for the families who lost everything, for new warning systems to prevent future tragedies, and doing what is best for the well-being and safety of all Texans.
		Instead, we are here today playing political games to appease the felon in the White House in his lust for power.
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		We are pretending that the governor did not approve the very maps he's now insisting to be changed.
unidentified		This political theater will hurt communities in my district, and it's shameful.
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		And we do so with not even a map.
unidentified		Where's the map?
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		This is getting the cart before the horse.
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		We're talking about impact.
unidentified		Well, we haven't seen anything.
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		We know the Republicans in Congress are widely unpopular.
unidentified		We've all seen the polls that show that the vast majority of Americans oppose Trump's big ugly bill.
		But here we are.
		So let me tell you just a little bit about District 29, which is a targeted district on the Justice Department letter, which I'm honored to represent.
		Our shared values and culture far outnumber our differences.
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		We are a community that values faith, family, hard work, and service.
		From Lindale to Alding to Pasadena to Galena Park and Jacinto City, we are a community and we stick together.
		Ripping up the 29th district will silence the voice of this community, and that will be a travesty.
		The population growth in Texas has been because of the Latino population.
unidentified		The Voting Rights Act protects districts like the 29th with common interests, priorities, and background.
		Given this, I urge you to reject this partisan gerrymanding of Texas, reject the map that may come soon from the felon in the White House, and do what Texans want.
		End this charade and support the families who are grieving, build up our infrastructure, enhance our resiliency, and do what matters.
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		Let's stand up for Texas.
unidentified		With that, I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		Thank you, Congresswoman.
		Chair calls Joaquin Castro.
		I'll show you recognised as Joaquin Castro testifying on behalf of yourself on revisions to congressional redistricting plan.
		Congressman, thank you for being here.
		Is that correct?
		Yes.
		Please give us your testimony.
		Thank you, Chairman and members of the committee.
		I'm proud to represent my hometown of San Antonio, Texas, the 20th Congressional District.
		And I was a freshman in 2003 when, as Democrats, we left the state for Artemore, Oklahoma to stop mid-decade redistricting more than 20 years ago.
		It was wrong then, and it's wrong now.
		And you all are being used.
		You're being used by the White House and by Donald Trump.
		You're being used because he doesn't want Democrats to control a majority of the Congress so that there'll be no investigations.
		There has been no discussion in Congress about the floods that occurred in Kirk County and the loss of so many lives.
		There has been no discussion on the Epstein files, no discussions on the Iran leaks and all those messages by the Secretary of Defense and others.
		There literally is no accountability right now in Congress.
		And the people that are going to pay for this are the folks in black and brown communities in our cities.
		They're going to have their districts cracked and packed and unblacked because of this effort.
		That's what's at stake here.
		Whether you all are going to work for the people of Texas, as we used to do or try to do, or whether you're going to take your commandments from Donald Trump and the White House.
		I hope that you all will choose to do the business of the people of Texas as this body has a history of being independent from the federal government, not a stooge for it.
		I yield back.
		Thank you for your testimony.
		Mr. Manuel, for what purpose?
		No purpose.
		Mr. Wu, for what purpose?
		I have questions.
		Sorry, this is all on me because we've got this weird tablet up here and it has people's names and I'm pushing buttons.
		Ms. Garcia, for what purpose?
		Does the gentleman get some questions?
		Ms. Garcia, you recognize a question of witnesses.
		I'm sorry.
		There we go.
		Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
		Congressman Castro, and thank you all for being here.
		We represent Military City USA.
		That's right.
		I'm proud to serve as the first and only woman veteran in this legislature.
		But I would like to know, sir, what implications does this potential redistricting have on Military City USA?
		Because I think a lot of times when we're thinking about the lines that are being drawn, we only think about people who were born and raised here and what neighborhoods they come from.
		But there's a very true implication for Military City USA when people from all over the world and all over the United States are converging upon our city for its diversity, for its culture, for its availability to government.
		Can you express to us what this could possibly do to Military City USA?
		It could quite possibly be very harmful.
		In the last few rounds of redistricting, for example, Fort Sam Houston was moved from one district to another.
		The area that used to be Lackland Air Force Base was moved from one area to another, and the port was split up, those neighborhoods there.
		And as you know, in San Antonio, the military and Joint Base San Antonio is also an economic driver.
		Besides serving the military, it also serves our community.
		And those communities in the last rounds of redistricting have not fared well.
		And any kind of further splitting up of those communities would be harmful to the people of San Antonio.
		Thank you, sir.
		Mr. Wu, for what purpose?
		Chair recognizes Mr. Wood a question of witnesses.
		Thank you.
		I guess this question is for all three of y'all.
		I know that Mr. Congressman Kassar has a district in the current map that runs from the north side of Austin all the way to the south side of San Antonio, which is, at the best of times, about an hour and a half away on the freeway.
		Thanks for wishing me luck.
		Yeah.
		But I think I know we were joking about it, but this is kind of a serious matter in that, you know, our discussions about the only way to do what Donald Trump and the DOJ is suggesting that we do is to make everybody's maps look like that.
		Could you tell us, could y'all tell us how it's been, how difficult it's been representing essentially areas that are like 100 miles apart and what that would do to your communities if and Congressman Congressman Garcia and Castro, like if you had to, if your communities were paired with a community that's 100 miles away, that's an hour away, what would that turn, how would that affect your communities?
		Representative, thank you so much for your question.
		It's critical that these maps be drawn and that maps be drawn to have compactness and to have keep communities of interest together.
		We've done the very best we can, despite, like I said, representing rural areas, suburban areas, two different major metropolitan areas, to bring people together and have folks know that they can call us.
	Just like you all, we field thousands of calls from folks that don't have a partisan matter in mind, but are just want to make sure they get their back pay from the Army or they change their address and need to get their Social Security check or are looking to make sure they get the proper veterans' benefits.
	And all of a sudden, whether you are redrawing the districts for a Democrat or a Republican, if suddenly you are drawing a map that has somebody going hundreds of miles away to another area, that could really complicate things for our constituents.
	And that's why I echo the urging of my colleague Congresswoman Garcia, that I think not just the members of Congress, but the people of Texas deserve to see a map and be able to come and testify to you on a map because they want to be able to contact their member of Congress.
	Some of these things are make or break for a person and their bank account or their life or their job.
	And I think many of my Republican colleagues, I'll tell you, have told me privately that they are deeply concerned with a map being drawn without their input, without the input of legislators, without input of their constituents, because you could draw all sorts of crazy maps that ultimately disenfranchise those constituents because they may have no idea which congressional district they're in because the person across the street has a different member of Congress and the person up the block has a different member of Congress.
	And I would just really hope that you all recognize your responsibility as legislators just as we try our best to do to say you should use your independent judgment on whether the people of Texas are getting adequate representation or if you're just being handed a chat GPT map being handed over to you from somewhere else in the country.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		Damn.
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		If I may, Representative Wu, again, thank you for the question.
		It really is about communication and casework.
		It is more difficult when you've got to deal with hundreds of miles to be able to communicate appropriately and effectively with your constituents to do the casework.
		You know, people want to see their member of Congress out there at their events in their communities.
		You know, I've got four other cities, Kalina Park, Jacinto City, part of Pasadena.
		It's not just Houston.
unidentified		It takes some time to go to all those communities, to go to their events, to their church events or bazaars.
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		If you had to go from here all the way to San Antonio, that's about the only thing you're going to do one night.
		So it's about contact, it's about being effective and being there when you need it.
		And I know somebody's already thinking in their mind, well, they can do it by Zoom.
		No, there are many communities who don't have hotspots.
unidentified		They don't have computers.
unidentified		They don't know the first thing about Zoom.
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		Quite frankly, in some school districts, it didn't work for teaching our kids.
		It ain't going to work for telling our seniors what's happening to their Social Security or explaining to them why they're one of 17 million Americans who are losing their Medicaid.
		You know, people want to know.
		They want to see their members.
		They want to touch and feel us.
unidentified		One second.
		China.
		Hello?
		Thank you.
		So I'm sure you didn't watch the Senate's debate on there talking about the resolution for the redistricting last Friday.
		But during that debate, you know, the discussion came up that, well, we're only having three hearings in the Senate because members, the public will be allowed to testify by Zoom, right?
		And are you saying that even providing a Zoom option is not really providing an option for a lot of people?
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
		I think when I read that, I was frankly appalled that they would not allow any live testimony hearing in front of someone.
		I mean, we're Texans.
		We like to see people eyeball to eyeball and ask them the question.
		You know, you can't have any empathy for a senior who's losing their Medicare or Social Security because of the big ugly bill.
		If you're talking by Zoom, I mean, how are they going to feel that you really feel for them?
		So I think it's just awful.
unidentified		And I strongly urge you all to have committee hearings after a map.
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		I mean, where is the map?
unidentified		And not just have the hearings, but those committees should be held in the communities that are being affected, correct?
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, I think it's awful too that you all aren't having a hearing in the Rio Grande Valley.
		There's a million and a half people in that four or five county region that don't have a hearing.
		They're going to have to drive all the way here if there's anybody here from the Rio Grande Valley just to be able to have their say.
		We should be accommodating and many of our backwards to make sure we give people an opportunity to be heard.
unidentified		This process, like I called it earlier, it's a sham.
unidentified		And in fact, we, I mean, like for this initial hearings, we're only having three total hearings for a state of 30 million people.
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		I would urge you all to beef it up a little bit, make it a little more robust.
		Either do one in every district or one in every quadrant of the state.
		But just three.
		And I know that the districts that are being targeted are urban minority districts.
		But even at that, you're not going to all those districts.
unidentified		So that doesn't make sense to me.
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		You're not going to Fort Worth.
		You're going to Arlington.
		It's probably easier for them to get there.
		But I'm glad you're doing one in Houston because we've got three targeted in Houston.
		But it's going to impact all of us because, quite frankly, I think this is just a pretext to go in there and just change everything to get those five districts that the felon in the White House needs to maintain his power.
unidentified		Thank you.
		Speaker Moody, for what purpose?
		Questions, the witness.
		Gentlemen, Sergio, ask questions, witnesses.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		Congressman Castro, well, actually, I'm glad to have all the members of Congress here that have joined us.
		I had heard that your speaker gave you early recess for some other reason, but maybe it was say we'll release the Epstein files.
		But maybe.
		But maybe it was to make sure that you were able to raise your voices.
		Maybe it was that was I'm grateful that you have the opportunity to be here because it's important.
		And just a couple of questions for Congressman Krass.
		Well, actually for all three of you all, because we haven't seen maps up here.
		We continue to hear that they are coming from Washington, D.C. You all just came from Washington, D.C. Have you all seen any proposed maps?
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		No.
unidentified		I haven't.
		Nothing official.
		Okay.
		Let me ask you this, Congressman Castro.
		And I appreciate the fact that you've, for your entire career, has represented a majority Latino district, both in the House and now in the United States Congress, is that correct?
		That's right.
		And do you think it would make a difference to folks in your area if they could see a proposed map as to how it would impact or affect them and impact their representation?
		No, absolutely.
		I think people right now, we've gotten calls and emails, people wondering and asking, well, where is the map?
		Where is it coming from?
		Who's drawing it?
		Who's going to represent me?
		I think, and you all have constituents, people sometimes call you very frantically about different things.
		You know, we deal with people who are having trouble with the VA, for example, who are desperate to get IRS refunds, who call two days before because they're going out of town and they realize that their passport has expired.
		Different things that to them are very personal and sometimes frantic matters.
		And, you know, so knowing who their member of Congress is and having easy access to that office and that person or their staff is important.
		And when you change those maps mid-decade, you're going to leave a lot of people, first of all, very confused and disrupted, those communities.
		And it's very likely, at least from, look, I mean, all we know for sure, right, is that the President wants you guys to draw five more Republican seats out of the existing map.
		And bear in mind, the districts are already very gerrymandered.
		I realize that the state for about a generation has voted mostly Republican.
		If you look at the statewide races, there's about somewhere between a 10 and 13 point difference.
		But right now it's two to one.
		So now you're trying to make it three to one.
		And that's going to mean that you're cutting up a lot of communities, including Latino communities and African American communities, Asian American communities, and it's going to be incredibly harmful.
		Well, and that's what I want to kind of get down to, because obviously we can see the DOJ letter that highlights four specific districts.
		So we can look at those and we can understand, obviously, Representative Garcia, yours is on that list.
		We can understand the makeup of those.
		We can try to understand what should or shouldn't happen with those.
		But what input can your constituents have?
		Your district is not on that list, but if we're drawing new districts, this body could choose to adjust your district as well.
		No, that's absolutely right.
		I think it's important that it be said that there is going to be a domino effect on the other districts.
		It's not like you can discreetly go in there and redraw four districts or even five without having oftentimes a significant impact on the other congressional districts and the communities that are represented by those members of Congress.
		So there will be a terrible domino effect.
		And there's no hearing in San Antonio.
		You know, thank you all for going to Houston.
		Thank you for going to North Texas for your hearing today.
		But y'all, we live in a state of 30 million people.
		That's bigger than a lot of countries around the world.
		You should be having really about 10 in-person hearings in a state like Texas.
		And then the state Senate, I know, is having a bunch of virtual hearings.
		Let's be honest, most of our constituents, yours and ours, are not even going to know that those hearings are taking place.
		They're not going to know that there is a Zoom thing or whatever platform it's on where folks can come.
		And I would hate to see this legislature do that and be used in service of one person, really whoever that person is, but we know it's the person in the White House because they're trying to use Texas.
		And the last thing, Joe, from here, sorry, Representative Moody, that a lot of the, on our Republican colleagues who have privately said that they weren't for this, some of them, they and their public service will be affected too.
		If you redo the maps, you also realize that you're putting their public service in jeopardy as well, even though many of them, even though we have deep disagreements on policy, have tried earnestly to represent their constituents.
		And the White House is saying, we don't care about your service.
		We don't care which of you comes back to Washington to represent the people or not.
		Donald Trump wants five districts because he doesn't want any investigations or any accountability, including on the flooding in Texas, and that's why we're doing this.
		And would it be your position that if at some point during this process a bill comes forward, a piece of legislation comes forward that does impact your district or Representative Gassar's district or Representative Garcia's district, that it would be important for the members of the public in those impacted regions to have the ability to comment on something they can see?
		Yeah, absolutely.
		They need to be able to comment and give input on a live map once you have a live map and we know what it looks like.
		And I'll ask the simple question.
		Why?
		Why is it important for them to be able to do that?
		These are the people we represent.
		These are the communities that we represent.
		They're supposed to have public input.
		Just like when we file legislation and somebody comes here and presents their bill and you know that there's members of the public that are waiting to speak on that bill on something they can see and deal with, that's how it should be here as well.
		Thank you all so much.
		Remember, any other questions?
		Share Barron's.
		Mr. Turner, question of witnesses.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Just a brief question to the members of Congress.
	Thank you all for being here.
	As you've heard in this hearing already and probably knew before this hearing, apparently the only reason we are here is because the Department of Justice sent this letter to the governor earlier this month saying that four congressional districts, District 9, 18, 29, and 33 currently constitute unconstitutional coalition districts and urge the state of Texas to rectify.
	And they go on to say that they're unconstitutional.
	I think between the three of you, I'm guesstimating, but I think you've got about two and a half decades of experience in the Congress between the three of you across Democratic and Republican administrations in your dealings with the Department of Justice over all those years across different administrations.
	Have you ever heard the Department of Justice ever say that a district that is majority minority functioning as a coalition district has to be intentionally identified and dismantled in order to comply with the Constitution?
	Has anyone ever heard that until this DOJ letter earlier this month?
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		I've never seen anything like it.
		In fact, when I first, if I could say this, I mean, as a lawyer and former judge, when I first saw the letter, I thought they must have asked somebody up front, the front desk to write it.
		It's not even crafted in a lawyer, scholarly manner.
		But I think it was somebody who was just told write something to get the governor to do this, and they just typed something away.
		I've absolutely never seen anything like it before.
unidentified		Thank you.
		Congressman Kassar.
		No, I've never heard anything from Democratic or Republican Department of Justice to this effect.
		And to Speaker Moody's point, I think there would be grave concern if the map that eventually comes forward targets other parts of the state as well, as we are hearing it very well might.
		And to Congressman Castro's point, by changing two, three, four, or five districts that are majority people of color, in fact, you likely are drastically changing the districts around them.
		And so, you know, the requirements, as I understand them for redistricting, is to have real hearings, not to have show hearings, and then go do something completely different that the public is never allowed to comment on, including the public that votes for and supports their conservative or Republican members of Congress who may have their maps radically changed.
		And so the Department of Justice letter, in my view, is unprecedented.
		And what I'm hearing rumblings of is that whatever map gets handed down from the White House may target many districts, Democratic and Republican, that go far outside the scope of even that unprecedented letter.
		Thank you.
		Congressman Castro, have you ever seen anything like that?
		I never have.
		This is my 23rd year of public service.
		Like I said, I went through the 2003 round of redistricting, sitting where you all are sitting, and now my 13th year in Congress.
		And I think that the argument they're making is a perversion of the Voting Rights Act and who it was meant to protect.
		And that's what they're trying to get away with.
		They're trying to use you all to achieve that.
		Thank you.
		Well, I just would reemphasize.
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		I could add something.
unidentified		Sure.
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		My fear is that the short-term game is getting the five seats to retain the gavel of the House and get the agenda done.
		I mean, that's the power grab.
		But I think the long-term game is to repeal the Voting Rights Act, which could be devastating not just to Texas but so many other parts of the country where we rely on the Voting Rights Act to make sure that we ensure one person, one vote, fairness and representation for all, and the whole concept of our democracy of we the people represented by people we elect, not decided by some politician, a felon in the White House who just wants to have power.
		So I think this is more than just us.
unidentified		It's more than just Texas.
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		I think this is about the future of electing folks.
		If we're going to be doing this every five years, that is really disruptive at all levels of government.
		And I think that the representative is correct.
		If you do it in the Congress, then naturally you're going to have to go and look at the Senate districts, the House districts, even school boards.
unidentified		It could have very potential devastating effects.
		And also a domino effect across the country.
		If Texas does redistricting, it's likely that it's going to set off a domino with other states, whether it's California, New York, or others, that also start their own redistricting processes.
		Thank you.
		Members of the public, it's 3.41 p.m.
		Chair previously advised that the kiosk registration will close at 3.30.
		Is there anyone else wishing to register to testify on revisions to the congressional redistricting plan?
		Chair here is none.
		The chair will close registration at this time.
		Any member of the committee have any other questions for this panel of witnesses?
		Chair recognizes Ms. Garcia to question witnesses.
		Thank you, Mr. Chair.
		Bear with us one second.
		Thank you, Mr. Chair.
		Congressman Kassar, my question is for you.
		Can you kind of describe to us, because like we've mentioned, a lot of our constituents, especially where these areas are going to be redrawn, are rural.
		They don't have access to social media or Zoom.
		Can you kind of describe what the fiscal implications will be on our communities as we look at federal aid, benefits, even taxes?
		Can you kind of describe to us what that means?
		Because although I know we're talking about maps and lines and maps and lines, you know, a lot of our folks, especially in my community, don't really know what that means.
		So if we could kind of tell them nickel and dime what it means to their pockets for this redistricting to happen in the way that it is.
		Yes, thank you for the question, Representative.
		I mean, for the everyday person, and this is across party lines, members of Congress oftentimes deliver millions of dollars back to their individual constituents in IRS tax refunds, in making sure that their full disability is counted when they are dealing with their veterans issues and they develop a relationship with their member of Congress.
		The idea that suddenly you are no longer calling this congressman or that congressman for ongoing work simply because somebody in the White House is just demanding that Texas make changes for him could be really disruptive to an everyday person, regardless of whether they're calling a Democratic or Republican member of Congress.
		And then furthermore, many of us as members of Congress are regularly working on infrastructure projects, for example, through the Army Corps of Engineers or through FEMA.
		Here in Travis County, in the southeast part of a county, we have very significant flooding that, of course, has taken lives and property, but then also could take out critical infrastructure.
		For example, our power plants that are concentrated in southeast Travis County, we work with the federal government to eventually do that kind of work.
		If there is not sufficient time for testimony and for looking at these maps, you could cause all sorts of havoc because a new member of Congress, be they Republican or Democratic now, doesn't even know about that ongoing flooding issue or that infrastructure threat.
		So for the everyday person, this could seriously disrupt the federal services, be they Constituent services or infrastructure that every member of Congress, regardless of party and regardless of what you see on cable news, are working on.
		This could get screwed up for you, and I think it's something that nobody on this panel, from what I heard in the opening, is actually interested in doing.
		And when I go talk to my Republican colleagues in Congress, they say they're not interested in it either because they know it could screw that up too.
		So I'm having trouble finding a single person in the state of Texas that actually wants any of this to happen.
		And if this body moves forward with this, when there obviously is so much other important work to do, especially as it relates to flooding, you could be spending a bunch of time up here screwing something up on behalf of somebody that we don't even represent and messing up the lives of everyday people in rural parts of this state, suburban parts of the state, Republican and Democratic parts of the state.
		Somebody that the politics is not even their thing.
		They might be living next to that gas plant that could get flooded with sewage where we're working on a project and it just gets dropped because you draw a line right through there and y'all don't know it and we don't even know it because you're given a map last minute after the hearings and just ram it through.
greg casar ▲ ● ▼		That could really impact the lives of Texans and you just don't have to do it.
unidentified		And one more thing.
		Applications that are in the process.
		Let's talk about SSI, SSDI, disabilities, immigration.
		Let me just say what happens when those lines change is that we're supposed to service our constituents.
		So if they get a new member of Congress, you have to transfer those cases over based on where they live.
		So it becomes incredibly disruptive to folks because they've been working.
		Some of these, if you've dealt with the Social Security case, sometimes they go on for years, the appeals.
		And so people are calling our office every few months trying to find out about the status of their case.
		And it's going to be incredibly disruptive.
		And then also, Representative Garcia, I just want to say that I think it's also telling that there are no Republican members of Congress here today to testify in support of this effort.
		Unless I'm wrong, perhaps there's some that are coming later.
		But otherwise, there's not a single Republican member of Congress who is here today from Texas to say this is a good thing and we should do it.
		Maybe they'll be on the virtual hearings that you have in different states, the Senate or you guys.
		Otherwise, I think that's very strange that none of them are saying that they'd like to do this.
		Members of the committee, any other questions?
		Not, I've had requests from two on the dais, and the chair will recognize Representative Raymond on the dais with us as well.
		Chair recognizes Ms. Jones to question witnesses.
		Thank you, Mr. Chair.
		I've got a question for each of you.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		Very simple.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		Are you asking this committee to keep the lines the same?
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		To keep it simple, yes.
unidentified		Yes.
unidentified		Yes.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		Second question.
		Are you asking this committee that when there is a map that there be hearings around the state so that the public can testify to the specific effects of those maps on them?
		In other words, so they have due process in the conversation about redistricting.
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		Yes, robust hearings three is good for New Jersey, but it ain't Texas.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		I stand around the state.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		So I agree.
unidentified		Yes, sir.
		Yes, ma'am.
		Yes, I think it's essential.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		No further question.
unidentified		Thank you, Ms. Jones.
		Mr. Perez is recognized by the chair to question witnesses.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the opportunity for allowing us to participate, even though we're not part of the committee.
		As was mentioned by the witnesses, I want to talk a little bit about, I guess, the current gerrymandering and the current makeup.
		Something that I have expressed my concern is that the current districts are incredibly segregated and that these are the most racially segregated maps that Texas has seen since the Civil War.
		To put it in context, Hispanics, blacks, and Asians make up 60% of Texas's population.
		But when you look at the 25 Republican colleagues that you all have, 90% of them are elected by an Anglo-majority electorate.
		And I think that speaks to the segregation that currently exists.
		So, my question is, Congresswoman Garcia, since your district was specifically in the letter, the only way that the President Trump can achieve his objective by saying that he wants to convert your district to a Republican district is by shifting out 200,000 black and Latino constituents and spreading them out amongst one of them would be District 36 to your east, District 7 to your southeast.
		One, what is that going to do to your constituency in terms of community cohesion?
		I'm hoping you can talk about the communities that would be broken up in this effort and how that would affect their representation being in a segregated district where they don't have the opportunity to make a difference in that district when come election time.
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		We really don't have time to fully answer that question.
		I'll try to make it brief.
		You know, as crazy as it sounds, I actually saw a map that someone said, well, this is what they could do.
		And it obviously doesn't come from the felon in the White House.
		This is somebody's idea.
		They actually had my district going all the way to Orange, Texas.
		And Orange, Texas has got probably very little community of interest with the north side of Houston where I live, which is predominantly Latino.
unidentified		But the only thing we do about with Orange is where Orange and Go Astro stays.
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		That's about the only affinity we might have.
unidentified		But you're absolutely right.
		They're really going to have to stretch it out there.
		It's like they're going to blow a bubble and then they'll see how the bubble is shaped.
		But it's going to tear us apart and it's going to leave a lot of people without representation.
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		Even as something as simple as being able to find someone who can speak your own language when we get Spanish-speaking callers, we get Spanish-speaking callers sometimes from all over the country because they see me on TV speaking Spanish about an issue and the calls start coming the next day.
unidentified		Or there will be calls.
unidentified		I've had calls from other members, especially from West Texas, that they'll tell us, we'll call Garcia in Houston.
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		But all we can do is take the call because by law, we cannot spend resources, personnel, or any type of funding outside our districts.
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		So it's going to tear people apart.
unidentified		They're going to have less representation, and their casework is just not going to happen, especially if there's language barriers involved, also.
		So thank you for the question.
		Members, any other questions?
		This panel chair recognizes Mr. Raymond to question witnesses.
		Chairman, thank you very, very much for allowing me to.
		I don't want to question the witnesses.
		I wanted to ask a couple of questions of the chair, if I could, just to clarify.
		Would that be okay?
		Chair, you have questions?
		Thank you.
		As I understand it, we've established before the hearing, but I think re-established during the hearing, I'm looking at the letter from the Justice Department, and it says, if stated below, congressional districts TXO 9, 18, 29, and 33 currently constitute unconstitutional, quote, coalition districts.
		And we urge the state of Texas to rectify these race-based considerations from these specific districts.
		And so this was sent to the governor.
		It moved the governor to put on the call that we needed to have a session that included, a special session that included responding to the Justice Department's request.
		Is that the way you see it as well?
		I think you've said you see it that way, so I'll tell you you see it that way.
		As the chair stated earlier, you'd have to ask the Department of Justice what they mean.
		Well, the letter pretty specifically says, I mean, you can read the second sentence in the first paragraph.
		So that's what it says.
		And it specifically says that these four districts, 9, 18, 29, and 33, currently constitute unconstitutional coalition districts.
		So the question I have for you, Chairman, is, then you, as Chairman, presumably, laid out the, put together the notice of public hearing.
		Is that right?
		That is correct.
		Okay.
		In it, and the reason I ask is because you cover the congressional district in which I live, which is District 28.
		And so you say in the notice, this hearing will focus on counties of the state lying wholly or partly within congressional districts.
		10.
		I'll start with this, 10.
		So is it the chair's position that 10 is also one of the districts in addition to the four that the Justice Department references?
		You're adding District 10 to that, is that right?
		The Chair noticed the hearings based off of a, since there were going to be three initial hearings on any revisions to the plan, which was in response to the governor's proclamation, I divided the state up into three.
		That is the sole reason why today's hearing, as is customary every time that we've done redistricting, to my knowledge, we have these types of pre-hearings.
		They sometimes refer to them colloquially as field hearings or informational gathering hearings.
		And there has to be some type of division of focus to encourage us to focus on something.
		And so I split the state up into three.
		The decision was made based off of the districts that were the closest to Austin, which is where we were going to be today.
		That's how that list came up for today's hearing.
		But as the notice indicates, any member of the public is free to testify on any district they wish.
		But Chairman, you did not list every single congressional district in the state.
		You very specifically, in your notice to the public, you said you would focus on districts 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 27, 28, which is where I live, 31, 34, and 35, and 37.
		You did not list all of them.
		I listed every single district when you add all three of the hearing notices up together.
		There's a bald statement in the notice.
		But the committee will take testimony about any region of the state.
		So my question to you then, and you can say, no, you don't believe that 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 27, 28, 31, et cetera, you don't believe that they currently constitute unconstitutional coalition districts.
		Is that the chair's position?
		Or do you think that they do?
		I think you need to ask the Department of Justice on the state.
		I'm asking you because you listed them in this particular district.
		My position is and always has been that any map that I have voted on as a member complies with the Voting Rights Act.
		Correct.
		But the reason that we have this hearing is directly because of this letter from the Justice Department, and they specifically point out Texas 9, 18, 29, and 33.
		They do not point out 10, 11, 15, and certainly don't put 28.
		So I'm asking you, why would you have put those specific numbers?
		And by the way, because the chair did not set this schedule based off of the letter from the Department of Justice, but from the governor's proclamation, which is not limited to particular districts.
		But the governor has said, he has said many times by now that this letter, this request by the Justice Department, is a reason that he has put it on the agenda.
		And because he has put it on the agenda, you are having a hearing today.
		You've said that.
		I have said that it is customary for the legislature when the governor places an item on the call to hold, to take up that item.
		And so that item that was listed was revisions to the congressional redistricting plan.
		I then set up these pre-hearings, these field hearings, we'll just call them field hearings, based on the prior precedent, which has always been followed by the redistricting committee, is to canvass every area of the state with hearings focused on particular regions.
		I then divided the state in three, aligning the regions closest to where the hearings were taking place.
		Chairman, I believe we're going to be taking up disaster because of the disaster on July the 4th.
		Would you agree with that?
	Whether or not, certainly a committee, a select committee has been appointed to take up the disaster items, and they've held a hearing already and they've got to do that.
	And would you agree that they're doing it because of the recent disaster?
	I would say that would probably be obvious.
	But I would say this.
	And so, Chairman, let's keep the questions limited to the business before the committee.
	But that was an example that just like the reason that we're taking up disasters because of July 4th, because of that storm, the reason we are taking this up, the governor has said it, and I just want to establish, the governor said that he is taking it up.
	He's asking us to take it up because of this letter from the Justice Department.
	And my question, you know, and I'll move on.
	But in this letter, which necessitated the governor, I guess, putting it on the agenda, necessitated you having this hearing, was because of these four districts, which the Justice Department says are unconstitutional coalition districts.
	And what bothers me, I have to tell you, because it includes my district, my area, is that then you expand that to all these other districts.
	You specifically put them in the announcement, Chairman.
	Now, if you don't want to answer it, that's okay.
	But you either believe or you don't believe that the districts that you have added to the agenda, because you've specifically pointed it out here, including mine, 28.
	You either believe that they are also, like the Justice Department believes, unconstitutional coalition districts, or you don't, or you don't want to answer it.
	I'm just curious.
	I would reject the gentleman's hypothetical.
	I think that the chair has succinctly answered already why the list is the way it is.
	It was chosen because the governor's call asked for revised congressional district plan.
	I then followed the practice of every redistricting that I'm aware of, which is to have hearings that go around the entire state in the sense of covering all the regions.
	We had three hearings.
	We divided the state in three, ipso facto, the list.
	Chairman.
	And yes, the chair will acknowledge the number distinction, but as the chair has already stated, I did not set these hearings based off of that July 7th letter.
	Well, Chairman, so I've answered your question.
	Chairman, you know, I love you.
	You've helped me on the floor.
	I appreciate you, brother.
	But when you put my district, 28, along with all these others, on your announcement here, it seems to me you're indicating that you believe it's an unconstitutional district.
	That is.
	It's not a honest conversation.
	The chair's position is that every map he's ever voted on complies with the Voting Rights Act.
	So gentlemen, you should not construe anything the chairman believes to indicate that he believes any particular district that's currently drawn or previously drawn violates the Voting Rights Act.
	Thank you.
	You've answered it.
	You said that all these districts, 10, 11, 15, 16, you believe are constitutional.
	Thank you.
	Any other questions?
	Thank you, panelists, for being here today.
	We appreciate your testimony.
	You are excused.
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		Thank you for your time.
unidentified		Thank you.
unidentified		Chair?
sylvia garcia ▲ ● ▼		All right.
unidentified		Chair calls Gary Bledsoe.
		Mr. Chairman, I have some written copies.
		Shall I hand them over to the Commission?
		You certainly may.
		Please hand them to the clerk right over here.
		Mr. Bledsoe, I have you registered as Gary Bledsoe on behalf of the Texas NAACP and yourself testifying on the revised congressional redistricting plan.
		Is that correct, sir?
		That is correct.
		Thank you, sir.
		Please give us your testimony.
		Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, members of the legislature.
		This highly unusual mid-decade redistricting, like everyone before it, reminds me of the long, unbroken history of efforts to silence and diminish the political power of black Texans.
		We need to remember that this is not just about political parties.
		It is about the systematic efforts to restrict the influence of people of color in this state.
		At this nation's founding, the Constitution enshrined the three-fifths compromise, counting black people as only three-fifths of a human being for the purpose of legislative representation.
		But while our bodies were counted to inflate the power of slaveholding states such as Texas, we had no vote, no real voice, and absolutely no ability to shape who represented us, even at that subhuman level.
		That compromise dehumanized my ancestors, turning them into tools to strengthen the political interests of those who would keep them in chains and set the foundation for centuries of racially discriminatory laws and practices.
		With this mid-decade redistricting, Texas is moving back to that era and that system.
		The DOJ letter to Governor Abbott specifically targets three of the four districts where African American voters are able to elect their candidate of choice directly in one Latino district where Latinos are able to elect their candidate of choice directly.
		Importantly, the fourth African American district has been possibly added for the hearing in Arlington next week, so it seems as though they are trying to wipe the state clean and reinstate the three-fifths compromise.
		The 9th, 18th, and 30th are not just any districts.
		These are opportunity seats protected under the law, as confirmed by both the DC Circuit and panels right here in Texas, as well as being admitted to by the state of Texas, even in the current litigation that is now pending.
		Thank you, Mr. Gary.
		Thank you for your testimony.
		We may come back for questions of the panel right at the end.
		Thank you, sir.
		And we have received your submission.
		I appreciate it.
		Chair, at this time, let me go ahead and note when we get to the next group, it's going to be virtual testimony.
		So if the following could be ready for the next virtual panel.
		Carol Teetelman, Heidi Bray, Frederick Wood, and Connor Rice.
		Chair calls Gabriel Rosales.
		I show you registered as Gabriel Rosales.
		Yes, I'm the state director for the League of United Latin American Citizens.
		I represent over 21 different districts here in the United States.
		You're here to testify on behalf of yourself and Texas State Lulac on congressional redistricting plan.
		Is that correct?
		Thank you.
		Please give us your testimony.
		Thank you.
		The Latino community has contributed to the majority of the population growth from the beginning.
		This is historic.
		I was actually a plaintiff on the redistricting lawsuits many years ago.
		So every 10 years we go through this and they continue to dilute our community.
		So what we know is that the history of Texas is to dilute the vote.
		So even the current maps, we can argue, right, have diluted the vote of the Latino community for years.
		It has been our fight since the beginning of the conception of LULAC to fight for representation, to fight for representation at the local level, at the state, and at the federal.
		And what you're doing is completely unacceptable.
		We have a tremendous amount of community.
		We make up a large percentage of the population growth, and it just cannot continue in this direction.
		Our people have contributed to the success of this economy, and we continue.
		We continue to be successful academically within your institution, undocumented or otherwise.
		I'm very proud of our community for being as resilient as we have been.
		But we deserve representation.
		We deserve to have a larger representation that reflects our community.
		And the maps, I don't know, you keep saying there's maps, there's not maps.
		The maps that I think we're looking at definitely, definitely want to send an all-white delegation to Congress.
		Definitely want to help out the felon in the White House, as Ms. Garcia said so eloquently earlier.
		We're going to continue to want to be that.
		I think the Mexican American community, the Latino community, have served this country as veterans, have served this country and the school boards, and have served this country honorably.
		And we continue to serve this country.
		And so it is your responsibility to allow for diversity to be a part of the representation that we have going to Congress.
		Thank you.
		Thank you for your testimony.
	Chair calls Angela Valenzuela.
	Yes, thank you.
	I show you registered as Angela Valenzuela testifying on behalf of LULAC.
	Is that correct?
	That is correct.
	And it's on the revised Congressional Redistricting Plan.
	Is that correct?
	That is correct.
	Thank you for your testimony.
	Please give it.
	Yeah, thank you so much.
	I think we're all learning a lot today.
	This is very complicated work.
	It should be done with real thought and real care and democratic deliberation.
	The very process itself feels like a railroad that's coming down the track, and that's a terrible feeling because so many lives are at stake.
	And also doing this deflects from other things that we should really be focusing on as a state exclusively so that we're protected as citizens.
	This flood that happened should be front and center, and this just feels like a significant weapon of mass distraction.
	I mean, I think that it makes a lot of sense for us to be represented as black and brown people equitably in the state because we do contribute.
	We have a voice.
	We're professors.
	We're scholars.
	We're researchers.
	We're also just rank and file folks that need to be represented.
	They need to go to someone In Congress, and feel that, as we heard earlier, that they have a relationship with them and that they can count on them.
	And that's what's being jeopardized.
	This is a very reckless process.
	I feel very, very uncomfortable about the whole thing.
	I mean, I think you heard that you're being played.
	I never like being played.
	If there's anything I don't like in my life, it's being played.
	And y'all are being played big time.
	Yeah.
	And so, you know, have some self-respect here.
	That's what I would say.
	Have some self-respect.
	Thank you for your testimony.
	Chair calls Alicia Perez-Hodge.
	If you'll please come up to the front here, ma'am.
	And while you're coming to be seated, I'm going to come back to you.
	Mr. Rosales, actually, I had you registered only testifying on behalf of Texas State Lulac.
	That's correct.
	That's correct.
	Okay.
	Thank you for correcting the record.
	Ms. Perez-Hodge, I'll show you registered as Alicia Perez-Hodge, testifying on behalf of LULAC.
	Yes, sir.
	That is correct.
	And that's on revised congressional redistricting plan.
	That is correct.
	Please give us your testimony.
	Yes, sir.
	I am originally from Corpus Christi.
	I knew Todd Hunter when he had a full hair to beautiful blonde hair.
	Texas Lulac strongly asserts that fair representation is not up for debate.
	It's required by federal law, the U.S. Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, championed by a great Texan named Lyndon Baines Johnson.
	Please do not forget that great legacy of a man who lived among us, Mexican Americans who lived among blacks and remembered, remembered that they needed democracy as much as people with blonde and blue eye.
	And he stood up against the Dixiecrats.
	Please don't forget that as Texans, that we do not, we do not bend the knee to anyone in Washington.
	And Lyndon made sure that that never happened.
	So I please ask you to remember that.
	This includes a safeguarding of Latino majority districts, such as Congressional District 29, from being dismantled under false pretenses.
	Any attempts to redraw such districts as part of a partisan scheme must be rejected.
	Our communities will not be erased or sidelined.
	We demand maps that respect our numbers, our rights, and our rightful role in Texas' future.
	Texas Lulac demands redistricting plans honor the explosive growth of Latino populations by increasing, not diminishing, our political voice.
	The Voting Rights Act requires equal opportunity to elect candidates of our choice, yet Texas lawmakers have a long history of suppressing Latino voting strength.
	During the last redistricting cycles, maps were drawn that increased the number of majority white districts, ignoring the very communities that had driven the population surge.
	This cannot continue.
	Any map that reduces Latino representation is not only unjust, it's illegal and must be challenged.
	And Todd, don't forget, darling, you grew up among us.
	So please don't forget us.
	Thank you for your testimony.
	I'm trying to envision.
	Chairman Hunter, all the blonde hair.
	Wonderful blonde hair.
	Members.
	I remember.
	Members, questions for the panel.
	Chair recognizes Ms. Gurban-Hawkins, the question of the panel.
	Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
	Attorney Bladso, you know, you've been around a long time within the WACP working very closely in that arena.
	You know, one thing I think is so important, and could you just concisely share with this body the importance of not creating racial divide?
	Well, Madam Chair, that is such an incredible point, question, because what's occurring in our country, And particularly in our state, we see a rise of hate crimes and antagonism between our students.
	This morning, we had a news conference with K through 12 and college students talking about this being part of adding to the divide.
	You see the N-word being directed towards students in K-12 and school districts doing nothing about it to respond to that.
	You see students down at Texas State talking about the concerns that they have and the disrespect they're receiving on campus and how the campus is not responding.
	You know, ironically, I've met with the students and the Department of Justice to try to address some issues there, but then they fired the department individuals who were handling it three weeks after we met with them.
	So you understand it's a real problem.
	And what this says is that you don't matter.
	You have no rights because if right now, as we sit here now, the current map, Madam Chair, as 73% of the seats in Congress are controlled by white voters.
	73%.
	If this proposal goes through, if you just move the four districts that are in the letter, that means 84% would be controlled by white voters.
	And if you add five, as the President has indicated, that would mean 87%.
	So whites or 40% of the population already control 73% of the seats.
	And we're talking about moving it to 84, 87%.
	If that doesn't tell brown people and black people that they don't matter, that really kind of does.
	And so you just have to look at the numbers and see what that means if we go through with what we're doing.
	So Attorney Bladso, you can agree and tell this committee that creating a racial divide hurts us, weakens us as Texans.
	There's no question about that because people are empowered.
	We look at South Lake, we look at Lubbock, we look at Slayton, we look at Grand Prairie, we look even here in Austin where we've had incidents like that where people don't matter anymore.
	The rise of hate is really and truly there.
	So as leaders, you would agree that we should be the example and stand up to this and say we want fairness and accessibility to everyone.
	We as leaders should be the example to not only just Texans, but the greater America.
	Would you agree with that?
	I would 100% agree with that.
	And I think that dovetails into what Dr. Balenzoelo said earlier, because what's happening is people are coming into our house telling us to have division in our house and they're telling you how to run your house and make people angry and hate each other down here when they're somewhere else dealing with their issues and their people running the show.
	So it's gosh awful wrong, Madam Chair.
	I think you really hit the nail on the head.
	And would you agree that by the White House stepping its arms in our community, dividing our community, and then he goes off into the sunset while we're fighting each other and have created a divide that could be unrepairable?
	Would you agree with that?
	That's absolutely true.
	He doesn't have to deal with it.
	He doesn't have to see it.
	And all those people are going to be crying and they're going to be upset.
	And I think the acrimony, you know, one of the reasons that we've done in this country is we've tried to bring everybody in.
	Our country has become an example around the world of how a country should be run, but now that's being torn down.
	And so one of the reasons why that's done, all the experts will tell you, is so that all people buy into the government that you have, right?
	And so we want people to be supportive of the government.
	We don't want people to be antagonistic towards the government and potentially disruptive towards that government.
	And that buy-in will be lost because you're telling us we have no role.
	We don't have a vote.
	We don't have representation.
	So that means we're outsiders, and that can mean some very dangerous things.
	Thank you, sir.
	Mr. Emmanuel, for what purpose?
	To ask a few questions of Ms. Angela, please.
	Yes, recognized question.
	Witnesses.
	It's Dr. Ms. Venuscola.
	Thank you so much.
	I'm really asking this because I love your passion on this, and we both said the same word apartheid.
	What I want to know is: has there ever, and I know I'm going to ask some questions that might seem a little asinine, but I promise that's not the point of it.
	Has there ever been a time in just this state that Latinos or Hispanics have been represented by someone who was white and they did not have an option to be able to represent themselves?
	Who was right?
	Who was white?
	Oh, who was white and didn't have an opportunity?
	Like it was a majority Hispanic district, and somehow you weren't represented by someone who looked like you, who spoke like you, who was from the community.
	Because I know at one point in time for black people, we could only be represented by someone who was white.
	And so I know how.
	I think maybe Gary can answer that.
	Well, no, I'm really more asking it from the point of view where you were saying from LULAC, and you're saying people being played.
	Because I'm trying to see what is it that the Latino, from the Latino experience, the Hispanic experience of what it feels like to not have your voice heard in a room when you're talking.
	And if someone else wants to answer that, that's what I'm trying to get to.
	Yeah, no, I mean, we're talking about like sort of layers and systems of oppression.
	Right.
	And so, you know, one layer is that you're present, but you're not even heard, right?
	You testify and it just evaporates into the wind, right?
	It's dismissiveness is a very common word.
	And it feels like a lack of respect.
	We're not being treated respectfully.
	Those are the words that come up a lot in the community.
	Respect, dignity, a right to a life of dignity.
	It's at that level of social relationships, how we talk to each other and work together.
	And it's a complicated state because of a very deep history of racial discrimination against Latinos.
	And if I can be frank here, I want to mention the black-white binary.
	It's killing us.
	I mean, because it's like, you know, I mean, there's more to this country than black.
	I'm a professor in the area of race and ethnicity at UT Austin.
	And that's an issue that means that oftentimes people understand race as black and white when a more textured analysis is that, you know, race is a social construct in history.
	Right, it's all culture.
	Well, it's historical, right?
	And so even if you're not technically a race, which is itself like inaccurate, there's only ultimately one race, the human race, right?
	But these are words that come in with slavery, right?
	With the consolidation of slavery, with the U.S. Census is making race every day by Using these terms that then are just widely circulated and somehow interpreted, right?
	As complex as this is.
	Such that my point is that we're a race from a sociological perspective as Latinos in Mexican America.
	And we feel ourselves like a race.
	We are a race because we are treating, we are treated as other.
	But again, it's fluid.
	It doesn't have to be that way, right?
	It doesn't have to be that way anywhere.
	We can just sort of align as people that love each other.
	Why not?
	Why can't we have black and brown dialogues on policy?
	We formed an organization to promote that, right?
	And that's inclusive of Asians, Indigenous, queer, Latino.
	I mean, let me tell you, y'all are messing up big time by focusing on the wrong issues.
	Because in doing that, you have blind spots like infrastructure that you are not addressing.
	Y'all are screwing up big time.
	I'm sorry to say, not you individually.
	I'm not saying that.
	But I'm saying that when your attention is on these sets of issues that have to do ostensibly with culture, with trans youth, with gender-affirming care.
	I mean, God, we have an ecological crisis.
	Now we have an infrastructural crisis.
	It's hard not to understand that as, I mean, weapons of mass distraction.
	That's what they are, to keep us from focusing on other things.
	We get focused on immigration and education.
	I just kind of want to stick to that part.
	But if it's okay, I want to ask that same question, but for you, I want to add, because I know there's something else that I'm trying to also see, is what does, of course, the representation, not having it, but not having that representation, how has that been, How has it negatively affected the community and how other people have seen you all.
	If you are not able to have communities of interest or you're not able to have districts that look like yes, it's very demoralizing.
	I get phone calls on uh, you know a lot about different communities where we have a majority in a pocket in a community that have no representation on school board.
	That's going around Texas now and that's that's usually some of the most of the case that we take on when we go into places like Kerville, where we have Latinos in every part of the state but they absolutely have no representation so they're calling Lula.
	Because the first thing that I know, when you have issues in your community, go to your elected official right, go to your city council, go to your county.
	But how do you go there if it's a white person who doesn't care about you?
	If it's someone, I mean, we have little fights over in small towns in Texas where we're going over uh uh, someone getting uh when you, when you get the permission from the city to be able to rezone, and so a lot of discrimination is going on in a rezoning effort where you know a wealthy ranch owner can put as many campers on his land as he wants, but the Latino down the block cannot.
	So that's going on now, even with the way the state is set up as it is now.
	I get phone calls all the day about discrimination, Discrimination cases, and it has been an uptick since the election of that president across the state.
	So, what you're talking about, how it feels, that's what the Latino community is going through now, and it's demoralizing.
	You feel like you can't get anything done.
	You have no trust.
	And Comuncho Taco, they don't vote.
	Why are they not going to vote?
	Because why would they?
	If they have representation at the city council, it's been our fight for the single-member district lawsuits, you know, to empower our people in our communities to be able to have seats at this table.
	That fight hasn't ended.
	That fight still needs to happen in many of our communities across the state.
	So, the answer to your question is: it's very demoralizing that we can do as much as we can, contribute as much as this economy that we can, but we don't have representation on water boards, on school boards, and city councils across the state.
	And it shouldn't be that way.
	We need single-member districts in small rural areas, especially.
	It is.
	And like I said, we've got a history of voter suppression.
	When people ask people why Latinos don't vote, well, try voting, try voting in a little town called Uvalde.
	Try voting, try running for office in Frio County and see what happens to you.
	So, what's going on here is a complete attack against the Latino community.
	It's demoralizing.
	Even, you know, we feel like in San Antonio, you know, we have a congressional district.
	We're a little bit better off than most people across the state because at least we have Castro, at least we have Gina Ortiz Jones that we can go to.
	At least we have Tommy Coward that we can go and talk to and get some results.
	But what about all these other little counties across the state and even in some parts of South Texas where we don't have representation?
	It toddler.
	I mean, this has been historic.
	That's why LULAC was founded to begin with, was to continue to gain back that political power.
	Okay, thank you so much.
	And Leslie, to you, Mr. Blood.
	So we live in a state that has the highest percentage of black people, African Americans, in this country.
	And the representation doesn't show.
	And with you being with the NAACP, and what I don't think most people truly understand about the NAACP is it started because of mass lynchings of black people.
	The statistics were two black people would die every week from lynchings, which is why this organization was created to try to protect even when we didn't have voting rights.
	Can you explain how that is affecting our community at the thought of losing representation when we already are underrepresented?
	That's such an important statement and question.
	And let me just say that one of the ironies is that the national NAACP was made by lynchings in Texas.
	Many of those lynchings occurred in Texas.
	But there's a book called The Lynching of Jesse Washington and the Making of the NAACP that details a 1916 lynching and wake-up that occurred in real time.
	It was the first time there was live footage, and the New York Times wrote feature stories about it.
	And we had actually had a white member of the staff to actually be there in attendance.
	But that kind of feeling of alienation has dissipated some over the years, and now it's all coming back.
	What's occurring in recent times is really something that is designed and intended to make people feel like they're outsiders, that this is not yours.
	The whole idea that kind of started with the Tea Party thing before, take our country back as if others don't have a share in the country.
	And that when the Constitution, when Barbara Jordan said we the people didn't include me, well, that's a big concern.
	And so in our community, when we see attempts like this, it really generates some real animosity towards what's happening.
	And voters are very sophisticated.
	They understand exactly what's going on.
	You don't have to really explain it to them.
	And the level of, let's just say, the level of being upset within the African American community is huge.
	You look on social media.
	You know, it's kind of like when you develop those ideas of being able to have this system of communication where people communicate with each other.
	And you see it in Dallas, you see it in Houston, you see it in the rural areas.
	And so we've got people that are just upset, and they've been inundating us with calls.
	We've had town halls on this, and they've been in participation at the town halls.
	All the organizations, even some that are not really civil rights type organizations, but you find that the organizations in the black community are all upset because they understand what this means.
	Because see, when you look at the whole, what's actually intended with this and the rights that are going to be in jeopardy, and you look at what's actually going to occur if this is being able to be achieved, you have to be very frightened because right now, that representation of African Americans and Latinos is what is now saving this country.
	And so that is kind of a bulwark saving the country from itself.
	Because as you said, like Dr. Balzrello said, you know, people being played.
	And because there's no reason for us to even be here right now.
	There's no reason to be here.
	Can I interject?
	Because I just want to get to one other point because you said something and it brings me to something which is important, I guess, for my young mind.
	We don't have any maps right now, so we don't know what any of this is going to look like.
	And for me, and I want to know if this is your opinion of Will, is this seems a lot like redlining, where all of a sudden communities of interest were completely separated.
	And then all of a sudden you were like, I wonder why this poorest out of a black community is just poor and desolate, and then it gives you the right to call them ghetto or lazy, they don't do this, but you cut them off from every source of income that they traditionally have had.
	And I'm wondering if you see that as the same.
	I think that's actually a brilliant point because that's what it is.
	And that's pretty much what Professor Katz said in the beginning.
	Because that's what the letter is telling the legislature to do.
	Go and find where they are, and you have to move them.
	You have to move them so they can't elect their person of choice.
	So that's clearly redlining.
	And so you look at the map and see what seats you can take.
	You come up with this mythical idea calling opportunity districts coalition districts when like number one, coalition districts are legal.
	They're not illegal.
	But number two, all those districts in the letter, they are opportunity districts.
	9, 18, and 29 have been held by courts to be opportunity districts.
	And the 33rd was actually created by a court.
	Created by three judge panel of two Republicans and one Democrat that created the 33rd.
	Okay, and the other thing I want to say about that is everything is so ridiculous is that the process that Senator Huffman testified to about what occurred during the last process showed that what occurred was that they said they drew the maps race blind.
	And then they sent the maps to Ken Paxton to make sure they complied with the Voting Rights Act.
	So black people and brown people are nowhere to be found in that process and the legislative record shows that they had no impact on the actual outcome and changes in the map.
	So you're telling us that somehow that that map that was drawn without black or brown input or influence that was approved and supported by Ken Paxton's office during that process, that that map ended up with race-based seats?
	I don't think so.
	Ms. Turner, for what purpose?
	I'm sorry.
	That's a mistake.
	Okay.
	Understood.
	Mr. Perez, for what purpose?
	To ask the chair, recognize Ms. Perez, question the panel.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Blood, so I appreciate you putting it in a historical context, the origins of these types of tactics that have been used to segregate the population for political purposes.
	And you mentioned that during times of slavery, the policies enacted or empowered the slaveholding population while diminishing, obviously, slaves themselves.
	I was hoping you can talk about that a little bit more in the context of, again, so we have very racially segregated maps where you have a situation where you do have minority rule, right?
	You do have a circumstance where you have 40% of the population determining the outcome and 90% of the seats in Texas.
	You also have a circumstance where when it comes to apportionment, we have an undocumented population where that's equal to 1.7 million Texans, the equivalent of two congressional seats.
	Texas was happy to have those undocumented immigrants for political purposes to gain those seats, but when it came time to fairly represent the population, that's nowhere to be found.
	So I'm hoping you can kind of put some historical context to these strategies because these strategies do have origins dating back to times of slavery, dating back to the times before the Civil Rights Act.
	Virginia was the largest state that they had the largest House delegation because they had the largest slaveholding population.
	In Alabama, under Governor Wallace, they refused to grant apportionment for 60 years.
	If you can talk about how some of these strategies have led to very similar results that we're seeing here in Texas and why we should not go down this route.
	I think that's a great point because it's actually wicked to invite someone here so that you can use them for numbers and mistreat and abuse them.
	That's right.
	Which is actually what's happening.
	So when I made the comment, I know that historically the three-fifths rule is about African Americans, but I intended that to encompass our Latino brothers and sisters, because the whole idea there is the underrepresentation of Latinos as well.
	This last session, just to be very honest about it, 50% of the growth was due to Latino Texans.
	And you get two new seats, both given to white voters and none to Latinos.
	That's clearly discriminatory.
	So, and if we take a look at history, Texas suffered discrimination when it was done under Democratic rule.
	Latinos had no opportunity to have their elect first anyone in Congress.
	It was Henry B. Gonzalez, I think, what, late 50s or early 60s that finally was elected, even though you had a substantial Latino population for the whole time.
	And you didn't have an African American there until 1973 with Barbara Jordan.
	And so they were the only ones until early around the 1980 period.
	But in 1979, Texas had 24 congressional seats.
	And now we have 38.
	If you took the population of Texas in 1980 and you included the increased white population from 1980 until now, we would have lost seats.
	So all 14 of those new seats are due to African American, Latino, and Asian growth, 100%, and we would have lost.
	And so we're using minorities to gain the population, but we continue to come up with these really incredible ways of being able to gerrymander around them and not allow them to elect the candidates of their choice.
	That's why so many districts look so strange and unusual.
	You know, I'll call Congressman Green's district the chicken district because it looks like a chicken.
	And you just see all those things that occur and it's truly a problem.
	But that's historically been done to blacks and browns, but I intend that three-fifths rules, they're trying to apply that to Latinos as well right now.
	Also, do you talk about the packing and cracking of the districts?
	Well, I have it.
	Where we have 12 of the 13 Democratic seats are packed, where they have a racial makeup of, in some instances, 90% black or Latino population.
	And that's also designed to ensure that the population is freed up, where they're not in other districts that affect Republican turnout.
	And then you have the vast majority, I think 75% of the Republican seats that are cracked, where they are engineered, where they have less than a 50% Latino or black population.
	And it's no coincidence that you have, you know, that you have that on the Democratic side, these packed districts and the cracks.
	So if you could talk about the packing and cracking that also and how that impacts.
	Well, that's another great question.
	What occurred last time in 2011 was that the way to try to dilute the minority vote, there was the decision to use the suburbs and to dilute the black and brown vote in the urban areas by including the suburbs.
	But due to the growth being minority, Asian, African American, Latino, the suburbs have become increasingly diverse.
	And so since the suburbs are diverse, that's changing the demographics within the districts.
	And so that's why, for example, you saw in 2018, the 7th congressional district in Houston and the 32nd congressional district in Dallas both flipped.
	And so this time they did something a little bit different.
	What they did this time is they decided that they were going to use rural areas to anchor to suppress the vote in the urban areas.
	So I heard all the great discussion on the committee earlier about 100 miles and the questions to Congressman Khazar about having 100 miles difference.
	Well, Congressional District 13 and the northwest quadrant of the state, they're 413 miles from one point to Dumas up in the north, northern part of the district bordering Oklahoma.
	And you have 38 counties in one congressional district.
	And so the districts became elongated, so you get the rural areas in to do that.
	So what they did, they cracked the minority population.
	That's why, like you take the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, that Metroplex has enough population to have 10 self-contained districts within the Metroplex.
	But instead of having 10 self-contained, They packed everything into 30, 32, and 33 in that area, and then they cracked the rest of the community to go out into the rural areas to suppress the vote, to create 12 other seats.
	And so that's what happened.
	They did it with the 22nd in Harris County.
	So that was the idea.
	So like, for example, they crack populations, they crack population out of Tarrant County and put it into District 30 or what have you.
	So there are things like that that have occurred all throughout the map, the cracking and packing.
	But they just, they put as many as they could in the Metroplex in 30, 32, and 33 in order to do that.
	But they did more cracking this time than packing the map drawers.
	But with the big thing that they did, though, was joining the rural areas because the rural areas don't have much in common, as we've heard so many of you on the panel say already.
	But the rural areas are now dominating the urban votes by the way they've drawn the districts.
	Is I pre-focused on this?
	As I previously mentioned, you know, there's 11 million Anglo-Texans.
	Republicans represent 80% of them in Texas.
	Do you believe it's possible to achieve that 80% without racial considerations?
	There's zero chance of doing that with racial considerations.
	I think it's all a myth.
	And one of the things that's so ironic here that we talk about is like that some new thing like a new book in the Bible or something that you've got to, if you race blind is good.
	That's just not true.
	What even Chief Justice Roberts said in the Milligan case, that there are times when you should look at race in order to avoid discriminating against minority voters.
	I mean, I think to me, it's an act of discrimination in itself when you decide you're not going to look at race.
	Because, you know, ironically, if you look at the guidelines put forth by the legislative council, I think it's page four, page 10 of the 2021 guidelines, they talk about the depth that the legislature needs to go through to avoid discriminating against black and brown voters.
	And when you don't do that, that means you're going to be involved in discrimination.
	And I think the data and all that here really indicates that.
	And one of the points I like to make about that is that, for example, if you look at black and brown voters and the way they were moved, it's incredible because, you know, with the new population, you would think, well, each population will be moved about the same.
	But when we had folks take a look at the actual actual movement of voters in the 2021 map that was adopted, what they found was that black voters, brown voters, Asian voters were moved well beyond the numbers they should have been moved.
	And so what they did, they looked at standard deviations to see from the normal.
	And what the experts said is that, you know, if you have two standard deviations from what the norm should be, then we have to look at it.
	It might be something intentional.
	Well, for example, In Dallas County, the movement in Tarant County, the movement of black voters, was 52.5.
	He said that was just beyond imagination, that standard deviation.
	It was 46.7 in Harris County.
	And you had similar numbers for Latinos.
	So folks said, well, you had all that growth in the Metroplex.
	What was it like in the rest of the state?
	Well, it was 39.5, so it's still a lot higher than two.
	So there was clearly, in our opinion, some kind of race-conscious thing going on, but we have to take what was testified to.
	And the state took the position and they have sworn testimony from a number of witnesses saying we were race blind and how we drew the map.
	But I agree.
	I look at the map and say, I could do this kind of gerrymandering and it'd be race blind because it's clearly how do you how do you take care of such numbers of Latino growth?
	And you don't give Latinos the least one.
	Latinos probably deserve two more congressional districts and they got none.
	And so it's very clear that there was somebody with a mindset.
	But the other thing I want to just caution everyone about the way the rules were last time they prevented you from introducing maps that would have new opportunity districts because you had to drop in your map to the existing district and get the approval of all folks in the proposed congressional plan that would actually approve or allow you to go forward with your amendment.
	So the people who were engaged in drawing up the original map had to give you authorization.
	So when you wanted to put forth a new Latino opportunity district, you couldn't get it duly considered.
	Ms. Jones, for what purpose?
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		Ask a witness question.
unidentified		One second.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		You hear me?
unidentified		Okay.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I have questions for the witnesses.
unidentified		Ladies recognize the question of the panel.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
		All four of you testified that you were here to testify on the revised congressional plan.
		I'm sort of confused because have you guys seen a congressional plan?
		So you're not here to testify on a specific plan.
		You're here to testify on why either we shouldn't change what we have, if that's accurate, because I don't want anybody to think that you're here talking about something that you've seen in advance.
		Yeah, I would like, I guess, a verbal answer to that.
unidentified		No, ma'am.
		Like you, we have not seen a plan.
		What is of great concern is when President Trump demands of Governor Abbott five Republican congressional seats, that is premeditated gerrymandering, and that is of grave concern.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Ms. Professor Venezuela.
unidentified		Yeah, same deal.
		My colleague said it well.
		This is preemptive, right?
		And it's for his own personal gain.
		And again, that weapon of mass destruction agenda that he has, so he doesn't have to deal with the Epstein files and other matters of great importance to him.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		And Mr. Bledsoe?
unidentified		No, this is almost like an exercise in checking a box.
		What occurred, Senator West talked about how, since he'd been here since 1991, you could usually see a map and the public could come and comment and testify on a map.
		And so this is kind of new.
		It's like checking a box where people can talk.
		There's no real consequence to what they say.
		And no disrespect, but it has been disregarded in the past.
		It sure was in 2021 and it was in 2011.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		And Mr. Rosales?
unidentified		Yeah, I think it's concerning with the Department of Justice letter that it names Latino and African American seats that they're going after.
		They're not being overt, they're being very straightforward about who they're going after.
		It's reverse racial.
		It's right.
		So for me, it's we know what they're doing.
		For me, it's just outright racism is what's going on here.
		And so we're here to testify on their efforts to try and come in and tell the state how they should, Jerry Mander.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		So are you asking this committee and the House of Representatives to have public hearings around the state once a proposed map is filed?
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		Are you asking us to do that?
unidentified		Yes, ma'am.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		And I want and like a verbal answer from each of you.
unidentified		Ten places statewide.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Bledsoe?
unidentified		Please.
unidentified		I'm definitely requesting that.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		And Ms. Perez-Haj?
unidentified		Well, I'm a little confused because there's maps still in the courts, correct?
unidentified		So why don't we settle that before we go on and draw more maps?
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		So you're asking us not to do any redistricting.
unidentified		Right.
		Okay.
		Until the court decides on the previous maps.
		Why compound the problem?
		And that would be our position too.
		But if they're going forward with the map, we'd like to have it shown to the public.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		So I just want to reiterate: you don't want us to do anything until the current court case is determined.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		Is that accurate?
unidentified		Yes.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		But if we decide as a body to move forward, you want basically due process on these maps so that Texans get to see the maps in advance so that they can assess exactly how the maps will affect them and then be able to give testimony specifically.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		Is that accurate?
unidentified		Yes, yes, ma'am.
unidentified		Yes.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		Which would absolutely help in court if you can show that you warned us in advance of what the maps might do?
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		Is that accurate?
unidentified		We're warning you.
		Yes.
		That's no warning.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		No kings.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		And I've got a question.
		I need you to repeat something for me, Mr. Bledsoe.
		You said that basically 40% of the population of Texas, white Texans, control 73% of the Texas congressional districts.
		Did I hear you say that?
unidentified		That's an absolute fact.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		And then did I hear you say if the president successfully probably cracks the four, the three black and one Hispanic district, that that such that there would not be a critical mass of either blacks or Hispanics to be able to elect or choose the candidate of their choice,
		that if they were able to change those three black and one Hispanic seats, that what would the percentage be of the 40% of white Texans controlling whatever percent of Congress?
		What's that percentage?
unidentified		It would become 84.
unidentified		So the numbers are, we have 38 districts, 28 of the 38 are controlled by white voters.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		Right.
unidentified		And so then the number becomes 32 or 33.
unidentified		So now, so that's what I was getting to, you ahead of me.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		So if they're able to get the fifth seat, that we all, and let me be clear, everything in this building is like as the world turns, a search for tomorrow.
unidentified		If enough people are talking about it, it's going to happen, right?
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		Which just terrifies me, right?
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		So if they're able to get that fifth seat, What percentage of the congressional delegation of Texas with a 40% of white Texans control in the Texas delegation?
unidentified		87%.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		If that's not political welfare for white Texans, I don't know what it is, right?
		And that is actually DEI.
		Because you damn sure didn't earn it.
		Right?
		So I'm concerned.
		I'm glad I got a laugh out of you.
		Because if this wasn't so serious, it'd be funny, right?
		No one will believe it's happening.
		And then I guess the thing that concerns me is this.
		And I guess we'll see at the end of this process whether the people sitting around these dices are listening to us or whether this is a kangaroo court.
		Right?
		We're going to find out because the proof is in the pudding.
		But my concern is that this particular redistricting has the capacity to literally change politics in Texas and in this country.
		As you spoke about, people say, well, black people should vote more, Hispanic people should vote more.
		Fundamentally, people want to be treated fairly.
		And people will participate in a system if they understand that that system is fair.
		If the people don't have a belief that the system is fair, then they'll either be apathetic and they just won't care.
		So if Trump is successful here, it concerns me because if him and those like him maintain control of the House,
		because that's the only place he can be stopped, then I fear that they'll, we might be slaves again, right?
		Because we're moving backwards and it will literally undo the advances that black and brown people have made through the civil rights struggle.
		And we may not be able to overcome it.
		And I also fear that if we are successful here in Texas, it will be the roadmap to around the country to dismantle democracy and basically enslave us and make us indentured service again.
		So I just want to thank you for coming and educating people because I think that a lot of people didn't know what cracking and packing were, right?
		They didn't know that.
		And with the emphasis on invisibling, and I just made that word up, us by getting rid of our history so that we don't know what our history is, then we're absolutely doomed to repeat it.
		So thank you so very much for coming.
		I appreciate it and helping the public at large understand what will happen if we don't figure out a way to stop this.
unidentified		Thank you so much for what you've said.
		And you remember we had that slogan maybe 10, 20 years ago about one Texas.
		Somehow we need to get back to that.
		We're a long ways away from it.
		But thank you for those comments because I think that's where you want to head.
jolanda jones ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
unidentified		Members, any other questions for this panel?
		Hearing none, thank you all for your testimony.
		This panel is excused.
		Chair calls Isaiah Martin.
		I shall be registered as Isaiah Martin, testifying on behalf of yourself on the revised congressional redistricting plan.
		Is that correct?
		That's right.
		Please give us your testimony.
		Well, hello to the committee.
		I'm Isaiah Martin.
		And it's very apparent that no one seems to know why we're here.
		It just seems as if many are just sitting here going with the emotions.
		And it makes sense because the game is rigged.
		We already know this way the situation is going to be.
		Many of you that are Republicans that are looking at you, you guys understand the game.
		You got to get Trump's endorsement.
		That's the name of the game to be a Republican nowadays.
		And you know very clearly that Trump told every single one of you that he needs five seats is what he said.
		So why do we play this game where we come here to an empty chamber in which all of you pretend as if you don't know what's going on when you already know what the situation is?
		But the real conversation that we should be having that I want every single one of you to understand is that there will be a retaliation for that.
		You've seen states like California say that they will gerrymander Republicans out of their states.
		You see the same thing in Maryland.
		The same thing is going to happen in New York.
		While you were in here, Governor Kathy Hochul said that she will be gerrymandering Republicans out of their seats.
		The same thing is going to happen in New Jersey.
		So for all of the work that you guys see that you guys claim to be doing, when we should be talking about the fact that we live in a state that is unaffordable for people, our economy is wrecked, people cannot find good jobs, we literally have property taxes going up every single year, despite the fact that you Republicans have been in office for nearly 30 straight years.
		I mean, this is the game that we live in right here.
		And you choose, after we literally got after one of the worst mass casualty events in our state's history, to go and gerrymander people out of their seats.
		That's what you have chosen to do with your time because you're scared of Donald Trump.
		You are scared and terrified because you're seeking an endorsement when you understand the truth.
		And the funny part about it is, is that you all know it's true.
		You can't react to it.
		I see you guys' faces.
		You can't react to it, but you all know what the situation is.
		Because Donald Trump runs this body.
		He runs your vote.
		He runs your vote.
		Because you guys know that you cannot dare cross him.
		And ultimately, what we need in this state are people that have the cojones to actually go forward and call this stuff out.
		Because what you guys have done to this state is cataclysmically horrific.
		And I think that everybody across the nation should be able to go look at what you guys have done.
		So I look forward to Kathy Hochul getting rid of you guys as Republican friends.
		I look forward to Phil Murphy getting rid of your Republican friends.
		I look forward to Wes Moore doing the same thing.
		I think Andy Harris is a small congressional career.
		He's about to be done too.
		All of them will be done.
		And you can thank your failed, see-now, dilapidated Epstein partying with president for all of the work that we're about to do to every single one of you.
		Thank you for your testimony.
		You did this.
		You caused this.
		And this is the result of you and your work.
		No, we're not going to go.
		Witness, this time is expired.
		I'm not finished.
		Because ultimately, who doesn't have a say in this are the people of this state.
		The 40 million people that you guys just kicked off.
		Witness will come to order.
		The people of this statement.
		The witness is not recognized.
		As a result of what you guys have done, this is a result of your policies.
		And you have no shame.
		Okay.
		You have no shame.
	None of them.
	The witness.
	The witness.
	You have no shame for what you've done.
	And I think that we all should be standing up here.
	Just cut off his mic.
	They cut us, cut off his mic.
	Okay.
	The gentleman will come to order.
	We will maintain decorum.
	It's horrific.
	There's no decorum.
	The gentleman will be reminded one last time.
	The gentleman will come to order immediately.
	All right.
	The sergeants are directed to remove the gentleman from the room.
	History will not remember you kindly for what you have done.
	They will not.
	As a matter of fact, history might not remember you at all because of what you have done.
	A gentleman will be removed.
	You need to have shame.
	History will not remember you for what you have done.
	It is a shame.
	Members and members of the public.
	Let's let.
	For what you have done.
	You should all be ashamed.
bob vylan ▲ ● ▼		America will rise up against you.
unidentified		Okay.
		Members and members of the public, as the chair has exhibited throughout this hearing, the purpose of today is to hear your testimony.
		When individuals fail to maintain order or decorum, it's disrespectful to the other individuals that are here, you.
		So we're going to maintain order.
		We're going to go back to our testimony at this time.
		Members, the time for public testimony today's hearing has concluded.
		I want to thank you for all who testified.
		We had set out in the notice, and the intent is to treat every in-person hearing that we have here, both in Austin and in Houston and in Arlington, equally.
		And so that is the reason that we're ceasing public testimony today, pursuant to notice.
		The gallery will maintain decorum.
		The electronic portal for today's hearing will close right after we adjourn.
		Now, if you registered to testify, but we were not able to reach you today or you had more to say, please bring your written testimony that was set out in the notice.
		Please bring it up to the clerk.
		That will be scanned and given to the members of the committee who also have your contact information and can ask you any questions.
		So I welcome you at this time or at any time.
		We'll stick around for a little while.
cody vasut ▲ ● ▼		Please bring your written testimony up front.
unidentified		We would love to have that to you.
		Again, we're going to scan that and give that to all the members of the committee.
		I want to thank you all for being here.
		Thank all the members for being here.
		I appreciate the questions and the decorum.
		There being no further business before the committee, Mr. Rosenthal, for what purpose?
		I would like to move back to the market.
		Mr. Chairman, I'd like to formally move to extend time by at least one hour to allow more Texans.
		The gentleman is not recognized.
		Oh, maintain decorum.
		The gentleman is not recognized for that motion at this time.
		The chair moves that the chair moves that the House Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting stand adjourned subject to the call of the chair.
		Is there objection?
		Object.
		Objection has been made.
		The question occurs on whether the House Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting will stand adjourned subject to the call of the chair.
		This is not a debatable motion.
		The clerk.
		I don't want to debate, but I would like to say something right quick.
		We can't actually do that.
		We can't.
		Well, I've called for a vote and a motion is pending.
		We can't speak on anything.
		It's a non-debatable motion under Rule 7, Section 1A.
		We had requested to speak before you had.
		You are not recognized at this time.
		Thank you very much.
		I just want to make an announcement to the public.
		I don't want to actually debate the motion.
		I can't.
		The clerk will call the roll.
		So just so we're clear, the question before the body is a motion to adjourn.
		A vote yes is to adjourn.
		A vote no is not to adjourn.
		The corporal call to roll.
		Chair Fasut?
		Aye.
		Vice Chair Rosenthal?
		Aye.
		Representative Garcia?
		Nay.
		Representative Guerin?
		Representative Guerin?
		Representative Gervin Hawkins?
		Representative Guerra?
		Representative Guerra?
		Representative Guillain.
		Representative Hefner?
		Aye.
		Representative Hickland?
		Representative Hunter?
		Representative Manuel?
		Representative McQueenie.
		Representative Metcalf.
		Representative Moody.
		No.
		Representative Pearson.
		Representative Spiller.
		Aye.
		Representative Tepper.
		Aye.
		Representative Thompson.
		Representative Turner.
		No.
	Representative Wilson.
	Aye.
	Representative Wu.
	No.
	We will be meeting downstairs in the Legislative Conference Center for anyone else who wants to testify.
	It's on the first floor, one floor down.
	E2.002 is the room number.
	It's on the first floor.
	You can go downstairs and extension.
	Okay.
	There being 11 votes in favor, 7 votes against.
	The motion prevails, and the House Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting stands adjourned subject to the call of the chair.
	After the announcement of President Trump's proposed Texas redistricting plan, California Governor Gavin Newsom met with several Democratic members of the Texas state legislature Speaking with reporters after that meeting, Governor Newsom suggested that California might redraw its congressional line to favor Democrats in response to the actions taken by Texas.
	Here's a look at his remarks.

▲