CSPAN - Texas House Hearing on Congressional Redistricting

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 1, 2025 11:03-13:13 - CSPAN

02:09:46

Texas House Hearing on Congressional Redistricting

Participants

Appearances

cody vasut

01:16

hakeem jeffries

rep/d 01:00

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		Big ugly bill that rips away health care from millions of people, including here in Texas.
		Ends Medicaid as we know it here in Texas, steals food from the mouths of children, veterans and seniors here in Texas.
		Makes it harder for the people of Texas to get a high quality education here in this great state.
		So all of these issues are at stake in fighting for a congressional map that gives the people of Texas the ability to choose their elected officials, as opposed to what's happening with this attempt to gerrymander the map and allow Texas politicians on the Republican side to choose their voters.
unidentified		Last question.
		Speaker, I'd like to press what John said a while ago.
		Did you want to talk about the fight?
		Exactly what are the ingredients of that fight?
		Did we want to talk about a walkout in favor of that?
		What are the options do you support?
		Wait.
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		You want to respond?
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		I'll respond as well.
unidentified		Yeah, go ahead.
		Man, Liz.
		Okay.
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		Well, I was just going to say.
unidentified		Yeah.
		Leader Jeffrey's all responsible.
		We're leaving this here to take you live now to Austin, Texas, where a state house committee is holding a hearing on plans to redraw congressional districts.
		This is live coverage on C-SPAN.
		Here.
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		Representative Guerin.
unidentified		Here.
		Representative Liberty Pocket.
		Here.
		Representative Garrett.
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		Representative Guin.
unidentified		Here.
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		Representative Keffner.
unidentified		Here.
		Representative Hickland.
		Here.
		Representative Schwarzer.
		Here.
		Representative Manuel.
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		Here.
unidentified		Representative McQueen.
		Here.
		Representative Metcalf.
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		Here.
unidentified		Representative Moody.
		Present.
		Representative Pearson.
		Representative Stiller.
		Here.
		Representative Pepper.
		Here.
		Dean Thompson.
		Here.
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		Representative Turner.
unidentified		Representative Wilson.
		Here.
		Representative Lou.
		A quorum is present.
		Chair, we'll recognize on the dais Representative Jolanda Jones.
		Are there any other members on the dais?
		Thank you, Mr. Cole Chair.
		Certainly, I'll come back to you.
		Dean Thompson.
		Okay, no more members on the daisy.
		Thank you all for being here today.
		I just want to remind our audience that we're glad that you're here today.
		The chair reminds everyone that signs, placards, and verbal expressions of support or disapproval are prohibited under the House rules.
		Thank you for being here today and for your cooperation in preserving order and decorum at today's hearing.
		And for everyone in the overflow rooms, we're glad you're here.
		Understand as we get into the public testimony portion of today's hearing, if I call your name, just make your way over here and we'll wait for you.
		I'm glad to have you.
		So at the start, I want to cover today's agenda.
		And after I am done, I'm happy to answer any procedural questions from the members of the committee.
cody vasut ▲ ● ▼		Today, we will be holding a public hearing on House Bill 4 by Representative Hunter.
unidentified		Now, I welcome, of course, Representative Jones onto the dais.
		Note, under Rule 4, Section 23A, the chair will limit recognition of non-members on the committee solely to ask questions of witnesses after members of the committee have completed their questioning because the committee is considering a bill today and because only members of the committee are permitted to deliberate or vote on any bill under the rules.
		As set out in the notice, I have set aside at least 90 minutes for these preliminary administrative matters and then for Representative Hunter to lay out his bill and answer any questions.
		I'd like for us to get to public testimony shortly after that because I don't want to keep the public waiting too, too long.
		And of course, I'll give the bill author a chance to close and for the committee to further question the bill author after public testimony.
cody vasut ▲ ● ▼		For the public, in order to testify today, you must register at the kiosks, which are out in these hallways.
unidentified		If you have any questions or encounter any difficulty, please confer with the clerk down front.
		Well, we have committee staff kind of throughout the room.
		Just let us know.
		We'd be happy to assist you.
		We will be closing registration for in-person 15 seconds.
		You'll hear a beep, and then when it turns red and you hear a beep, that's when we'll conclude your testimony.
		I'll let you endeavor to let you finish a sentence, but when I say, you know, thank you for your testimony, that'll be it.
		Now, you may receive questions from the members of the committee.
		They're welcome to do so.
		That's not an opportunity to extend your testimony broadly, but you may, of course, answer any specific questions from the members of the committee.
cody vasut ▲ ● ▼		Pursuant to the notice, public testimony today will be limited to a total of 10 hours of length, though.
unidentified		Based on the registrations, and I think with our efficiency, I'm hopeful we're going to be able to complete all of that before that deadline.
		Today's public hearings, of course, are not the only opportunity for the public to provide information to the committee to consider.
		As I've mentioned at the prior public hearings, if you have more to say than your time allows, or for some reason we do not reach you, as the hearing notice mentioned, we welcome you to submit a written copy of your testimony to the committee.
		This written testimony can be provided to all members of the committee.
		I'll give you an opportunity to bring that down front later on.
		We'll have an announcement for that.
cody vasut ▲ ● ▼		Second, if you have any handouts with you today, as the notice mentioned, please bring the handouts up front before your testimony and they will be provided to the members of the committee.
unidentified		I think we asked for 22 copies so that we can give one into the committee file and 21 for the members of the committee.
		Third, anyone is welcome to submit an electronic comment without testifying online.
		The electronic portal is linked in today's hearing notice.
		It can be found at comments.house.texas.gov.
		Again, that is comments.house.texas.gov.
		Information can be uploaded to the portal for today's hearing through the end of today's hearing.
		Finally, every member of the public is always welcome to email, contact, or call any member of the legislature at any time, and we welcome you to do so.
		And members, if we do not take action on HB4 today, please be prepared to do so tomorrow.
		This time, I believe, I think I heard from Dean Thompson first.
		You were wanting to make a motion.
		Let me ask Dean Thompson for what purpose?
		A motion to move that all written testimony from witnesses who have registered testify but were not called due to the committee's announcement time limits be included in the official records and minutes from all our hearings in this hearing as well.
		I will not recognize that motion at that time, but I think I get what you're getting at.
		Let me think about that.
		We have already intended to put those handouts online so that it's in the record in that basis.
		So that may already be addressed.
		Let me think about that.
		Dean Thompson, we'll come back to that.
		Thank you for that.
		Mr. Chairman, would you recognize me for another motion?
		What motion are you wishing to make, Dean Thompson?
		Mr. Chairman, I move that all public comments submitted through the committee's public comment portals prior to the close of this hearing be included in the official records and minutes of this meeting.
		I won't recognize you for that motion at this time, but I understand that the default position is all of the electronic comments are uploaded onto TLO and available for the public and the members of the committee.
		That has been done, I believe, for the first three hearings and will be done for this one.
		So you'll be able to see it on there.
		I will take the rest of your requests under advisement.
		Dean Thompson, what purpose?
		I just want to make sure that they are in the record.
		Yeah, my understanding, Dean Thompson, is that all of these electronic testimony and all the handouts, we're going to scan those.
		We're going to put those into the file.
		I don't know if under the rules that those items are technically a part of like the committee minutes, but they are part of the record in the sense that they'll be online and all members of the committee be able to access and for the public to be able to access.
		So thank you, Dean Thompson.
		Vice Chair Rosenthal, for what purpose?
		And just so we're clear, this room's got ghost microphones.
cody vasut ▲ ● ▼		And so members of the committee, just when you want to be recognized, if you'll push your mic button, it's going to alert me up here.
unidentified		And then I'm going to have to push some things and hopefully not screw it up.
		And then you'll be able to talk into the microphone.
		You might like to test it a little bit, make sure it comes through.
		And don't turn your microphone off once I've turned it on for you until you're done.
		Just because otherwise I'll have to go back through the process of clicking all the buttons.
		So just want to make sure we're in this room, we have that technical thing and make sure you know about it.
		Vice Chair Rosenthal, believe you wanted to make an opening statement.
		If so, the Vice Chair is recognized for that purpose.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		Am I on?
		Here we go.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me for this opening statement.
		And thank the people of Texas for showing up today.
		This is tough, y'all.
		So first I want to say we're here to discuss this bill that's finally been filed.
		We talk about a bill, a plan.
		This is nothing more than a rigged map after a set of sham hearings.
		So the field hearings, I contend, were a complete sham.
		The topic of the field hearings was revised redistricting plan.
		But since no plan was presented, no bill was filed, no map was shown to us, that was a way to basically game the system so that all the public's testimony is registered on the bill or neutral on this thing.
		And so 15 hours of testimony, hundreds and hundreds of people spoke in front of us, thousands registered, all had to be shown as neutral.
		And now, because the map, although I'm quite certain it existed, had not been shown to us.
		It was kept hidden to avoid scrutiny.
		The plan, as we call it, this rigged map that's been presented as a bill for us today, if y'all were truly interested in public input, we would have public hearings.
		Now that we have seen this map, we would have public hearings in every affected area.
		So while we're in Austin today, and certainly this map affects districts in this area, we would especially be interested in hearing from the people of Houston, of Dallas, of the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas, because this map, these proceedings today affect all of Texas.
		And really, this is going to create a ripple effect around the country.
		What we do here will affect what happens in the United States of America.
		And if we were interested in taking public input, we would go to where those people are and hear them, listen to their testimony.
		But we won't get a chance to do that.
		This entire proceeding is just a power grab by the Trump administration, assisted by a complicit GOP.
		And it comes at a time where we in this building should be keenly focused on the people of Texas, providing them disaster relief and putting in mitigation policies to help prevent this, the type of biblical epic disaster that we just had.
		We should pass that kind of legislation before we even take up these kind of political games.
		So it's been said repeatedly in this room, Mr. Chairman, that you did not know anything about the maps, have not seen maps, hadn't talked to anybody.
		While I'm quite certain that you are careful with words and deeds to ensure that your statements were factually accurate, the evidence, as the lawyers might say, is clear as day.
		Y'all, if you look at the package that was submitted online, and we're talking less than 48 hours after our last field hearing where it was asserted we didn't have a map, let me just show you this.
		Pages and pages and pages of documents.
		These are just the titles of the documents, y'all.
		District population analysis, incumbents by district, ACS citizen VAP special tabulation, map, map, map, map comparison package, ACS citizen VAP, special tabulation, special tabulation.
		There's about a half a dozen, 10 of those.
		Cities by CDPs and districts.
		District election analysis for numerous districts around the state.
		Election analysis with county subtotals.
		Voter registration and turnout analysis.
		Pages and pages.
		Just are the titles of these documents.
		Split precincts in district by county, precincts by district, district population, district ACS, district Hispanic population profiles over and over and over again.
		Election analysis with county subtotals, voter registration and turnout for districts all over the state.
		In total, y'all, over 150 documents were filed.
		And we are supposed to believe that none of this was prepared or in place before we started the hearings when it was filed less than 48 hours later.
		So my question is, does the leadership of the state truly think that the constituents, the people of Texas, are that stupid?
		That's all.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		Thank you, Vice Chair.
		One moment.
		The chair will show Representative Wu is now present, and the chair will show Representative Rose on the dais.
		Ms. Barbara Governor Hawkins, for what purpose?
		I've got two questions for you, sir.
		The chair yields for questions.
		Getting back to Dean Thompson's question.
		One second, we want to make sure we got your microphone on.
		Okay.
		All right.
		Getting back to Dean Thompson's question about the record.
	Yes, ma'am.
	I want to be clear.
	My understanding, and you may need to go back to the transcript, you announced to the public that their testimony would be included.
	Yes, and so what we have done on that basis, Representative Governor Hawkins, and we were in process of doing that, if you go, and I'll just do it right now.
cody vasut ▲ ● ▼		If you go to capital.texas.gov and you go to our committee page and you go to our meetings, there is a tab on there, Representative Governor Hawkins, for handouts.
unidentified		And if you click handouts for the 724, you will see the scan and links to all of the written testimony that was provided to the members of the committee.
		And so it will be included in the record.
		Yes, in that sense, that it is a part of the record.
		It's online.
		And so the handouts are up there.
		I'm looking, verifying right now to answer your question, that the written handouts and testimony that we received are online right now for all three of those hearings.
		And then I believe Dean Thompson's second question was about the electronic comments, and those as well are online right now.
		So you're saying here today, I want to be clear.
		Yes, ma'am.
		That all of that testimony will be included in the formal record.
		In the sense that all I'm getting at is what is the definition of formal record.
		There's a difference between what is a committee report and what's in, quote unquote, the record.
		They're certainly in the record.
		They're online.
		They're in the files.
		They're archived on the state of Texas.
		Every member of the House has access to them.
		They're not appended to the committee report, Representative Governor Hawkins.
		You know how those committee reports are.
		We're not going to have a committee report that's banker boxes in length.
		The committee report under the rules only has certain items in it.
		And so I don't believe that handouts and electronic comments are appended to the committee report, but they are part of the record.
		So some of the testimony will be excluded.
		Is that what you're saying?
		No, not at all.
		Because the witnesses that register are put into the committee report.
		And so everyone that testified is linked there, and everyone that registered but did not testify is linked there.
		And so that is in the committee report.
		We'll have a list of everyone that testified.
		We, of course, don't have a transcript of all their testimony appended to the committee report because that's in the videotape.
		And likewise, we won't have the handouts or the electronic comments appended to the committee report.
		But just like the videotape, they're online.
		It's a part of the record that everyone can access.
		My second question is for the community.
		What is the plan timeline?
		So our goal today is to do what and what happens next.
		So our plan today is right after this, I'm going to lay out the bill and recognize Representative Hunter to open on that bill.
		And then, of course, as you know, he can answer questions to the members of the committee about the bill.
		And then we'll go into public testimony.
		And then when public testimony concludes, I'll recognize Representative Hunter to close on his bill, at which time the members of the committee can ask other questions.
		And then if we get to the point that we're going to take further action, what I'll do at that time is call up any amendments that may exist and then recognize members to speak on for or against House Bill 4 and take action.
		But if we don't do that, then we will do that tomorrow.
		And so your plan, your plan A, I'll say, is to get this to the floor early next week?
		I don't control that.
		I mean, I would envision it would, but the calendars committee is ultimately what's going to be responsible for setting it or not setting it.
		When do you anticipate it?
		I would anticipate it next week, early next week.
		I think that Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.
		Probably.
		Probably Tuesday.
		That's what I would anticipate.
		But again, it's up to the calendars committee when they set it.
		Thank you, Mr. Chair.
		Thank you, Ms. Gervin Hawkins.
		Dean Thompson, for what purpose?
		Question, please, Mr. Chair.
		Gentleman, yields for questions.
		Mr. Chairman, for simplification for the district, when this, if this are we able to hear you, Dean Thompson?
		For simplification for the public, when this case goes to the Roberts Court, will the testimonies that I mentioned previously in my motion be included in that record?
		The record online will be accessible to anyone that has an issue.
		Assuming that what you're mentioning, Dean Thompson, is litigation, they would have access to that and to be able to include that as part of the record.
		It's part of the record online, and so that would be an official record of the Texas House of Representatives, just like the videotape would, just like the minutes, just like the committee report.
		And my understanding, Dean Thompson, is that they would.
		Thank you.
	Thank you, Dean Thompson.
	If any other house member is in the room, you're welcome to come sit up on the dice.
	I just noticed we had some extra chairs.
	It's totally up to you.
	I mean, if you want to do that, that might free up some space for members of the public to come to the room, but it's up to you.
	I'm only going to recognize those in attendance that are on the dais.
	Mr. Chair?
	Mr. Emmanuel, for what purpose?
	Now, let's make sure this microphone works.
	Okay, thank you.
	I just have a quick question of the chair, if possible.
	Chair, useful question.
	I just, I think I know this has probably been answered.
	I just want to simplify it and get a question answered on this one.
	So we are not going to be having field hearings on the map that we currently have before us as we had before we had a map throughout the state or at least going to the same places that we went to before.
	Is that correct?
	It's the chair's intention that today's public hearing be the public hearing on the bill.
	So we won't have anything else for the community to put input on the maps before we vote on this in committee, correct?
	Only the actions that the chair mentioned earlier, which is testifying today, public comments online, emailing your representatives, et cetera.
	Okay, so just this hearing?
	This hearing is the chair's only public hearing.
	The only public hearing, and then whenever that date comes, whether it's today, tomorrow, or whenever, we will vote it out here and then it'll go to the floor, correct?
	Yes.
	Well, hypertechnically, if we were to vote it out here, then it goes to calendars, then it's set on a calendar, and then it comes to the floor, second and third reading.
	But there will be no field hearings for the community at large to be able to say how they feel about the maps like we did.
	If, sorry, there won't be any field hearings like we did before.
	We didn't have maps asking how people felt about redistricting versus how they feel about the proposition of what the new maps are, correct?
	Besides this public.
	Besides this hearing, that's correct.
	Okay, thank you.
	Thank you, Representative Emmanuel.
	Mr. Wu, for what purpose?
	Chair Yeos, for question.
	How long will the I'm sorry, I apologize for coming in late.
	No words.
	How long will the online statement submission stay open?
	Through the adjournment of the hearing today.
	I think that's what was previously put into the notice, and so we've got to keep it open for the length of the meeting.
	This is what I'm talking about, please.
	So I understand the limitations on in-person testimony, but given the short amount of time that the public has had access to this map, because again, I assume that this map could have been filed at the beginning of the special session, but it wasn't until, I guess, 48 hours ago.
	Would it not be more transparent for the legislature to provide the public with more time to view the map and to submit just written comments about their feelings about what is being done to their own communities?
	Should that not be the case?
	Well, the comment portal has been open since the notice was issued, I believe, on Wednesday morning.
	And so under the notice, the comment portal will be open through the conclusion of today's hearing.
	I believe to the point about opening the portal longer, the notice has already indicated when it will close, and so the chair is going to follow that notice.
	And the hearing today was not even set until, I guess, our Monday hearing.
	When did you set this hearing?
	The notice for this hearing went out Wednesday morning.
	I believe around 10 o'clock.
	10.03, I think, might have been the exact time.
	That's why I waited to start until 10.03.
	Was this map submitted?
	I forgot when this map was submitted.
	Was this map submitted before or after that notice was posted?
	The bill was filed on Wednesday morning, referred to committee, and then after that, the hearing was set.
	So you were well aware of the time limitations that that notice would impose.
	Like you, prior to you setting that notice, you knew that the bill had been filed just that morning, that the map had been submitted just that morning.
	And knowing that, you set the hearing for Friday from Wednesday.
	About 48 hours layout.
	The chair set the hearing, and as the chair previously promised, I believe the question might have been asked by Representative Jones of me at the, you may recall at the Houston hearing, that would we have a public hearing on the map?
	I said a thousand percent.
	And I said I would give at least 24 hours notice, and the chair has always been endeavoring to give as much notice.
	And so when I saw the map filed and referred, I said it as soon as I could.
	And I did the notice out at 10 a.m. and gave 48 hours notice of this hearing, which is, of course, twice as much as is required by the rules.
	Absolutely.
	And the difference between this and a regular bill, unfortunately, is that a regular bill, we know what's in the bill.
	That this process, because of the way that you have intentionally handled it, we, meaning the members of this body who are not a part of your secret society, did not get to see these maps at all until they were publicly filed.
	And the public did not have an opportunity to see these maps until Wednesday.
	And this is a process that you solely control, correct?
	The chair set the hearing, as he's indicated, as soon as the map was filed and gave 48, tried to endeavor to give 48 hours notice of this hearing.
	And so, yes, in that sense, it obviously sets the schedule.
	Absolutely.
	And it is reasonable for you and completely technically possible for you to have moved the online submission further back to give the public more time to submit their comments while this bill is proceeding through calendars and through other things so that the public can weigh in and so that members could see what their own constituents were saying before they headed to the floor.
	That is possible, correct?
	I don't think it's impossible.
	I don't know.
	I've never seen that done before, Representative Wu.
	I know usually the way that the public comment portals work for all bills is that that public comment remains open until the bill is heard.
	But as I mentioned, you know, the public comment portal is, of course, one option.
	Members of the public are free to reach out to members of the legislature at any time, all the way up until third reading.
	As you and I know, we get phone calls, we get emails from members of the public commenting on legislation all the time.
	Are those comments automatically submitted to the committee as comments on this legislation?
	They're not put into that comment portal in the sense that they're not on that PDF.
	I'm not aware of any rule that prohibits any member of the committee that receives a public comment some other way from sharing it with the members of the committee.
	No.
	Is it allowed that members of the legislature submit statements from their community to the committee file?
	To the court record?
	I'm not aware of that being done before.
	Is there any rule against it?
	Actually, chair is not advised.
	I don't know.
	I don't know the answer to that question.
	I figure you of all people would know that.
	Well, there are, as you know, Representative, I've got the rule book in front of me.
	There's like more than 350 pages in there, and you and I both try to memorize as much as that as possible, but we know that there's been limitations.
	And it was possible.
	It is technically and practically possible for you to have given more than 48 hours for the public to be notice of this hearing, to travel, and to review the map.
	It is possible for you to have set this on Monday or next Tuesday or next Wednesday.
	Anything is possible, Representative.
	I'll concede that under the rules, the chair is the one responsible for scheduling the business of the committee.
	I don't dispute that.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, Representative.
	Members, any other questions for the chair?
	Representative Turner, for what purpose?
	Mr. Chairman, would the chairman yield for a few questions?
	I will yield.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	I'm sure you said it, and I just missed it.
	What is the deadline for a public testimony registration?
	Public registration will close at 11 o'clock a.m.
	I'm going to give a reminder about that right now, and I will endeavor.
	I put in my notes to try to give a reminder again at 11:45-ish.
	All right.
	10:45.
	Yeah, sorry about that.
	10:44.
	Yeah, which is only 15 minutes from now.
	Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you would consider extending that deadline.
	I know I'm told that traffic is exceptionally bad coming into Austin today, and I know that there are several buses of Texans coming to the Capitol to register to testify from Houston, from San Antonio, from the Dallas-Fort Worth region, perhaps from other regions as well.
	And I know there's when I walked in, there was a line at the kiosk saying, wait, wait, people waiting to register.
	So I wonder if we couldn't extend that registration to at least to noon today.
	I will certainly take that under advisement and think about that.
	We'll go check the kiosks as well and take a look at that.
	Okay.
	My concern is we have people traveling a great distance and taking time off work, and I want them to at least be able to register to testify.
	So I just appreciate the chair's consideration of that request.
	Secondly, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chair Rosenthal asked you Monday night in Arlington about obtaining from the Office of Attorney General the El Paso federal trial transcripts in full, including with experts' reports, that we obtain those, place those in the committee, the official committee record.
	Can you tell me if that has been done?
	I wasn't, I had heard the request for the transcript of the hearing.
	We reached out to the Attorney General's office, obtained a copy of that transcript, and emailed that to all members of the committee yesterday.
	Which, if you didn't receive it, let us know.
	Be happy to provide it.
	I did.
	And someone told me they thought it had been emailed.
	My staff checked.
	We did not have it.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	We will follow up to make sure that everyone has been emailed that.
	But we did reach out to the AG's office and follow up to that request to provide that to you, yes.
	Okay.
	Do you know if their response included the expert reports?
	We will look at that.
	I'm not sure.
	I did not, full transparent, I didn't look at it, so I'm not sure what the attachment was.
	Actually, I think it was a link to a Dropbox of theirs.
	And so I will take a look at that and happy to, if it doesn't, ask for those and then to provide those to the members of the committee.
	Yes, sir.
	Very good.
	Thank you.
	Third, you and I had a dialogue Monday night in Arlington about your letter of invitation to the Department of Justice, to Ms. Dillon, inviting her to come and testify before the committee in light of their July 7th letter to the governor and attorney general that really started this entire process, seemingly.
	Have you heard back further from the DOJ beyond that auto response out of office reply that you received Monday?
	I have searched my mailbox for that and I have not received anything else other than the auto out of office reply.
	Okay.
	So the Department of Justice has had five days to respond to your invitation and they are ignoring an invitation from the chairman of the Texas House Committee on Congressional Redistricting.
	I can't know what they know or what they've done, but I have not received a response.
	That's correct.
	Okay.
	Finally, following up on Representative Emanuel's questions with respect to field hearings, I understand it from your answers, not your intent to schedule field hearings.
	Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that the committee do hold field hearings on this specific bill so that Texans can testify on the bill now that there is an actual proposal.
	And I would move that the committee hold field hearings in the Rio Grande Valley, in Laredo, in Houston, in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, and in San Antonio.
	Thank you.
	The gentleman's not recognized for that motion at this time.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Thank you, Mr. Turner.
	Members, any other questions?
	Mr. Emmanuel, for what purpose?
	Question of the chair.
	Chair, you see for questions.
	Just have a very quick point of reference.
	I'm trying to understand why is it that the chair didn't file the maps and it was filed by another member of the committee?
	Yeah, Representative Hunter can also answer that.
	It was the chair's position that since Representative Hunter had carried the 21 maps that it would be, I thought he was eminently qualified to be able to carry this, and he's been through the process before, so that was why the chair made the decision.
	Completely understand.
	And I didn't think I would have a follow-up, and I promise I mean this with all due respect to you and Chairman Hunter.
	If we're here because the 2021 maps were deemed unconstitutional or problematic by the DOJ, that's why I was wondering why we're having the same thing happen.
	Not that I'm saying Chairman Hunter is incompetent, but just was wondering that one.
	So I appreciate that and thank you.
	Thank you, Mr. Emmanuel.
	Members, Chair will recognize Representative Curry on the dais.
	And any other, anyone else on the dais?
	I just want to make sure I got everybody here.
	Okay, Representative Gerbin Hawkins, for what purpose?
	You yield for a question?
	I yield for a question.
	Because there shouldn't be a sense of urgency, why wouldn't we wait to take any action until we can hear from the DOJ?
	Why would we not wait?
	They're the most, they wrote the letter.
	So they started the fire, right?
	So wouldn't it be common sense that they would come here and we could ask them questions because we've gotten conflicting information from our leadership here in the state of Texas who says these there was raceblind maps created already.
	Now we've got a letter from outside saying that there's a problem.
	We can't wait to hear from them so we can be clear on what that problem is for us to go through this process.
	The chair has invited them to testify.
	I haven't heard back from them.
	I think that it's the chair's position, as you may have seen in the Senate, they received and we have all received and have access to a memo from Ledge Counsel, which is a nonpartisan attorneys for the whole legislature, that we don't have authority to subpoena.
	And so the chair's position is if they wanted to come testify, they could.
	And if they're here today, they're welcome to.
	But the chair is not intending to wait to secure specific testimony before we move forward.
	We've had this hearing scheduled and willing to move forward with the public testimony today.
	So you're wanting us to believe that they're out, what is it, out of office?
	Well, and we're I can only tell you what the email said to me.
	I don't keep trab tabs on their calendar or where they're at.
	There's no powers to be that says we need you here so that we can ask questions to what prompted your decision for this letter.
	It was by Zoom.
	It was by Zoom.
	Oh, okay.
	Yeah, they can do it by itself.
	And what did they see we didn't see, but we're ready to move quickly on this?
	I'm just, Mr. Chair, and you know, as a as a young professional yourself, understanding that I think we'll do some answers.
	And I think that the powers to be in this great state of Texas can ask them to, via Zoom or whatever, get here and talk to us in person so that we can hear what's going on.
	I understand the member's position.
	I totally get it.
	And again, I haven't heard back from them.
	They're free to testify if they want to.
	But again, as of now, I mean, I haven't looked through the whole witness registration list to see if they somehow registered.
	But that invitation is there and open to them.
	And I don't have power to subpoena them, so it's up to them whether they come.
	And there's no way we can make that happen, you say?
	Not the way that I read the memo that was provided to it was provided to the Senate committee by Legislative Council and then shared publicly.
	Thank you, Mr. Chair.
	Thank you, Mr. Girvin Hawkins.
	Ms. Hicklin, for what purpose?
	I have a question for the chair, please.
	Chair, you some questions.
	Is it out of the ordinary for hearings to be held early in the process before maps are drawn?
	No, that's how we've always done it.
	Okay.
	What about once the maps are submitted, is it out of the ordinary to not have field hearings?
	The chair's understanding is it's not.
	I believe in the yeah, I mean, Chairman Hunter has more experience with the last time around and knows that the details perhaps better than I do, but we've had these, any bills on redistricting have been voted out here in Austin.
	Well, and one last thing.
	The special session requirements for notice of hearing is 24 hours.
	Is that correct?
	That's correct.
	Thank you.
	Yes.
	Hickman?
	Dean Thompson, I'll recognize you to ask me a question in such a way as to answer the question.
	Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
	Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
	I've been here for 53 years, and I've gone to several, through several of these hearings, redistricting.
	We always had public input on the maps.
	We have always allowed them to see those maps.
	We have always had field hearings where they can have input.
	Whether we consider their input or not, we gave them those opportunities.
	And I have never, never, never seen it done this way.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Understood, Dean Thompson.
	Members, any other questions?
	Okay.
cody vasut ▲ ● ▼		With that, the chair will lay out House Bill 4 and recognize Representative Hunter from the dais to explain his bill.
unidentified		Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members.
		And the chairman has asked me to give an overview of the bill.
		And I'm going to address this as addressing the committee and anybody that's watching or listening.
		Now, members, many of you have not been through redistricting that's on this committee.
		And many of you are unaware of the policies.
		That's understandable.
		So I'm going to outline information in my opening so that you're aware of some of the information.
		because I want you as the members that take action to have general information as best as you can.
		Now we are here today to take up a congressional plan and the plan that I'm laying out was introduced by myself on Wednesday, July 30th.
		We have a special session governor's proclamation and the Texas House takes up certain or all of those items and this item is the Texas congressional districts.
		Now, this is different than general session constitutionally and I want everybody to understand.
		This is not general session, this is special session and a special session has different requirements.
		Special sessions are 30 days only, can only be extended by the governor.
		The topics of a special session are assigned by the governor, not the legislature.
		So we are in a 30-day special session and we are dealing right now with the topic of congressional redistricting.
		The chairman set a time schedule and he has the prerogative.
		Whether you like or dislike, the rules allow him the prerogative and the chair set a time schedule that would enable the legislature to present and pass any proposal that redraws lines within the time limit of the special session.
		So members, whether you like or dislike, these are the rules.
		Three public hearings were scheduled and conducted, Austin, July 24th.
		Houston, July 26th.
		Arlington, July 28th.
		Now let me make sure members and everybody listening, he's not required to have those hearings.
		It's not required.
		He chose to do those hearings, so I want everybody to know he didn't have to and he did.
		Now we set up invitations.
		Anyone could register and testify.
		On the question of whether and what any congressional lines should be redrawn, and I disagree with many of our members.
		Everybody tells me they're surprised.
		Heck, I've been hearing about congressional redistricting since spring, so don't be surprised.
		The topic has been there.
		Now, arrangements were made for anyone to submit written comments to the committee, whether the witness chose also to testify.
		By the way, and we had a session similar to the Senate that allowed remote witness presentations.
		One session was held on Saturday, and one session was held after normal working hours.
		And see, they're already calling me about redistricting right here in the meeting.
		The chair will pause for just a moment just to announce that he's been advised that there's no lines at the kiosk, but to remind everyone that witness registration will close at 11 a.m.
		Before we continue.
		Mr. Wu, yield for a moment.
		allow a mr. hunter to to complete his opening mr. chairman listen we're members We have rules of decorum, Mr. Wu.
		And I am not going to cut you down.
		I am not going to be negative to any person.
		You may not like issues, but I am not going to degrade you or demean you.
		I would remind you we have rules of members, and we should treat each other that way.
		And you called a filibuster.
		I appreciate you elevating me to a senator.
		But we don't have filibusters here.
		And you may not like it, but I was asked to give an opening.
		So if you don't want an opening and do not want the members to question and you want to go straight to the public, Mr. Chairman, I will agree with that.
		So the Chairman of the Democratic Caucus doesn't want me to talk and wants to go straight to the public.
		I will grant that request.
		Mr. Hunter, I did not set the arbitrary time limit for your presentation.
		Most other bills that I've been a part of in this legislature, we do not set an arbitrary time limit for how long the author has to present his bill.
		All members have to question the bill author about his bill.
		Correct.
		We don't do that.
		We also don't drop bills out of the blue.
		Before the bill is heard and voted out in committee.
		Mr. Wu, do you have a question of the bill author?
		My presentation is not over.
		That's right.
		So on this time, Mr. Chair, I move that we extend registration time past 11 o'clock.
		Would you recognize me for that motion?
		The gentleman is not recognized at this time.
cody vasut ▲ ● ▼		The chair will recognize Mr. Hunter to continue his layout.
unidentified		Again, members, all sessions were live streamed and recorded for later viewing.
		Any written statements and other information filed with the committee are available for viewing, and the chairman is set at the front that he's checking to make sure the information is there.
		And as a reminder, Red Apple, which you've been explained, has been and is available for development and submission.
		At these hearings, we also heard from testimony of witnesses, including several sitting members of Congress.
		And today he has set a large amount of hours for the committee hearing on the bill itself.
		Now, members, especially those that haven't been through redistricting, and anybody that's listening, it's important to note that when you deal with redistricting such as this, it can be done at any time.
		It can be done at any point in time.
		It's not blocked.
		When drawing congressional districts, we have to look at them a little differently when it comes to population requirements.
		With congressional districts, members, we have to draw districts with population that is as nearly equal as possible to the ideal district size.
		This means that congressional districts must be so close in population that they are essentially equal in population per district.
		Now, the reason I'm telling you all this, this is different than for state legislative districts.
		The ideal district size for Congress district is 766,987.
		And that is what we try to get to.
		The plan before you meets the population requirements for one person, one vote under the U.S. Constitution.
		Any amendments that would be proposed to this plan will need to meet the same requirements.
		Now, we are allowed to draw congressional districts, and I want the members to know this and everybody listening, whether you agree or disagree.
		And by the way, this has been involved with both major parties.
		You can draw districts based on political performance, political partisanship that's recognized by the United States Supreme Court.
		These districts were drawn, these districts were drawn primarily using political performance.
		That criteria from the U.S. Supreme Court.
		That's why I'm explaining this to be open to everybody.
		Also, the law in the Fifth Circuit on coalition districts.
		Now, coalition districts you will hear about members.
		And they've been given some definitions, but it's generally when two different minority or language groups are combined.
		Under the Fifth Circuit, and this is a recent decision, they changed the law.
		And by the way, Representative Manuel, that was done since 2021.
		Coalition districts were held by the court that Section 2 no longer requires the drawing of coalition districts.
		Now, one of the things we've heard over and over is the word compactness.
		This is not the word packing.
		This is not the word cracking.
		Compactness is the configuration.
		But we heard that in these hearings.
		And this plan took that information and tried to make it better compact and contiguous.
		Now, and I want to be open to everybody, Given that political performance is an acceptable reason for drawing districts and clarification from the Fifth Circuit on coalition districts, we have redrawn the congressional map with those points.
		And I want to be real clear.
		There is completely transparent and it's lawful.
		Another important law that we have to follow, and you've heard in the hearings, members, is the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
		And although race cannot be a predominant factor in drawing maps, Section 2 of that Act prohibits enactment of any plan that restricts minority citizens from having an opportunity to elect their preferred candidate of choice if certain circumstances exist.
		Now this plan includes political considerations, the public testimony from the hearings, population growth, which has occurred, and recent changes in voter trends.
		The proposed plan redraws, and I want everybody to know this, 37 of the 38 congressional districts to some degree.
		The primary changes, though, are focused on five districts for partisan purposes.
		It is important to note that four of the five new districts are majority, minority, Hispanic, CVAP districts, citizens voting age population.
		How many?
		Four of the five new districts.
		Each of these newly drawn districts now trend Republican in political performance.
		Doesn't guarantee electoral success.
		Does not guarantee.
		That's up to the candidates.
		But it does allow Republican candidates the opportunity to compete in these districts.
		The five districts are, I haven't finished.
		I'm not going to cut you off.
		Yes, you are.
		And I didn't interrupt you.
		Not at this time, Mr. Turner.
		Could you pause, Mr. Hunter?
		I will pause.
		Representative Turner, for what purpose?
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		I'm not intending to interrupt Mr. Hunter.
		You said the witness registration concludes at 11 o'clock.
		I've been told that there are people in the building trying to register on their phones using the Capitol Wi-Fi, and there's an issue with the Wi-Fi network in the building.
		And so I would ask you again, would you, considering the volume of people here today and this deadline is now in four minutes, would you extend the witness registration time period to noon to accommodate the Texans who've shown up here today?
		My understanding is that witnesses have to register at the kiosks.
	But if they, is there a way to register on their phone?
	Okay.
	If they're on the Capitol Map.
	The Chair would note for the record that he's been handed some witnesses that he knows wants to testify.
	Congressman Green, I don't show you registered.
	If you will please go direct to the kiosk to register.
	And I believe Congressman Sylvia Garcia is not registered.
	If she will go direct to the Kiosk Register and Bishop James Dixon is not registered, he'll go direct to the Kiosk Register.
	Now, Representative Turner, what I will do to accommodate your request, given what you've flagged for me, I will extend witness registration to 1115.
	And we will revisit this if we have to.
	Witness registration will be extended to 1115 a.m.
	If we have to revisit it, we will.
	Thank you, Mr. Turner.
	Anything else, Ms. Turner?
	Thank you.
	Chair, we'll recognize Mr. Hunter to continue his layout.
	So there are five new districts: nine, which is Houston area, 28, which is the Valley South, Rio Grande Valley, 32, Dallas area, 34, coastal and south, and 35, San Antonio area.
	Congressional District 9, the new district, has a 50.5% Hispanic C VAP.
	CD 28, that's the Valley South, has an 86.7% Hispanic C VAP.
	CD 32 is a and remains a non-minority district.
	CD 34, 71.9%, is now a Hispanic CVAP.
	And CD 35, which is San Antonio, is now a 51.6% Hispanic CVAP.
	Now let me give you some information, data points, in comparison to the 2021 plan.
	Law has changed since 2021.
	Population has changed since 2021.
	Voting trends have changed since 2021.
	In the 2021 plan, there were nine, that's nine Hispanic majority voting age districts.
	In this plan, there are 10 Hispanic majority voting age districts.
	In the 2021 plan, there were seven Hispanic citizen voting age districts, and under this plan, there are eight.
	There were no majority black C VAP citizen voting age population districts under the 2021 plan.
	In the proposed plan today, there are two majority black CVAP districts.
	CD 18 is now 50.8% black CVAP.
	In 2021, it was 38.8.
	CD 30 is now 50.2% black CVAP.
	In 2021, it was 46%.
	Now, overall, these are the changes.
	They're primarily five.
	It does affect congressional districts, and I think my memory is pretty much everybody but one in the West Texas area.
	But I want to be clear whether we agree or don't agree.
	I want you to know the criteria, and I think I've been pretty open about it.
	And so, whether you agree or disagree with the plan, members, I want you to know how it was based.
	I think it's a good plan for Texas, and I urge its adoption.
	And I'm not filibustering.
	I end at this time.
	Members, questions for Mr. Hunter.
	Representative Spillers, recognized question witness.
	I mean, the bill author.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	And Chairman Hunter, I've questioned a witness or two before, but I've never done one behind me, so I'm going to try to do this efficiently.
	First of all, I want to say thank you for filing HB4.
	Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to join author HB4.
	I want to talk about for a minute, Chris, when we had these field hearings, there were questions of why are we here and why are we doing this?
	And you touched on that, that we're here because our governor issued a proclamation for us to go into special session, and one of those items was legislation that provides a revised congressional redistricting plan in light of constitutional concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Justice.
	Is that correct?
	Correct.
	Right.
	And in short, and you've touched on it, there was.
	Well, let me clarify that.
	All right.
	And then anybody can question me about it.
	I don't know if it was caused by the Department of Justice.
	I keep hearing that.
	I keep hearing about a letter.
	All I know is we're here by a proclamation of the governor.
	Now, what the letter has to do with it, I got no personal knowledge.
	I have no knowledge.
	And I will tell you, I don't know what that has to do with this.
	That wasn't part of me.
	All I know is we had a special session call, and this was a topic, and I agreed by the request of the chairman to file this bill.
	Great.
	And so, based on what you just said, in summary, in light of the governor's call, and I think you've always stated based on statutory and constitutional authority, do you agree that the legislature and this committee have the absolute right and authority to consider congressional redistricting at this time?
	Absolutely.
	And as I said, there's no requirement that you have to do it at a certain time.
	In fact, if you look historically, members, it's not always been at a certain time.
	The problem that we have is some people like it and some people don't.
	And that's the nature of redistricting.
	All right.
	And I want to talk about the legal side of this for a second and talk about the analysis and address it from that standpoint.
	And you are an attorney, correct?
	Now, let's get this clarified for the number one: I have experience in the process.
	You even heard the lady that said I had blonde hair when I first started this process.
	I understand the process, and I understand the general elements, and I understand some of the case law.
	I am not an expert on redistricting law, but I think this hearing has probably provided an annuity plan to a bunch of law firms across the nation.
	And I'm going to just tell you, I'm not an expert on redistricting law, but I'm going to believe people sitting at this dais are probably being communicated with by hourly rate lawyers, and my phone is turned off.
	And that's fair enough.
	I want to talk about that Fifth Circuit case that you referenced and referred to as the Pettaway versus Galverson County case.
	We'll call it the Pettaway case, which was ironically, the ruling came down.
	I don't know if you recall or no, it was one year ago today when the Fifth Circuit issued that opinion.
	Were you aware of that?
	I have a copy before me and it says August 1st, 2024.
	Here we go.
	So in that case, in the Pettaway case, is it your understanding that the Fifth Circuit held that coalition claims, and we've talked about and you've already described what coalition districts are, but coalition claims do not comport with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
	Is that correct?
	In fact, reading the case so everybody hears, it says we conclude that coalition claims do not comport with Section 2's statutory language or with Supreme Court cases interpreting Section 2.
	Okay.
	And there are several, and I think you've already testified to this as well, there are several districts in the current map, not under HB4, but the current map that was for congressional redistricting that was adopted in 2021 that actually contain coalition districts and were created in that process, correct?
	The law was different then.
	Exactly.
	And those maps were created in 2021 when we did redistricting.
	I say we, you, led the charge and did redistricting in 21 because you were the chair of redistricting committee and I haven't checked, but I'm assuming that you're the one that carried the bill.
	Well, I just want to remind a lot of the people on this dais 21 that I got a pretty good memory.
	And I remember the vote in 2021.
	And I remember who came in and agreed with the amendments in 2021.
	So when I hear the 2021 map was faulty, why did I accept those amendments and agreements from both parties to put in 2021?
	So we're going to be transparent.
	Make sure that you tell everybody you didn't ask for something to be put in the 2021 maps, but you had coalition districts being interpreted differently in 2021.
	Today, you have a 2024 Fifth Circuit case absolutely changing the law.
	And in fact, great point.
	And in fact, at that time, the Fifth Circuit in Texas was controlled by the previous Fifth Circuit opinion of Compost v. City of Baytown, which was a 1988 case decided 37 years ago that said that these, what was the holding, said that district minority groups may aggregate their populations for purposes of vote dilution claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
	Is that correct, Correct?
	All right.
	And so here, the law that you and everyone else in the legislature and through this process that relied upon in 2021 when the current maps were drafted is different than the law now as it relates to coalition districts.
	And relates to coalition, correct.
	Correct.
	And so at the time when the 2021 Texas congressional map was drawn, did you believe that that map was at that time legal and complied with current federal law or with federal law as it existed in 2021?
	The answer is yes.
	We're under that plan.
	People sued, but nobody has thrown the plan out.
	It's pending in a federal jurisdiction.
	So when people say their errors, that hasn't been determined.
	The laws changed, populations changed, trends have changed.
	So I think we're drawing conclusions that haven't occurred, but coalition districts were defined and legally looked at differently three years before that decision.
	And that was your opinion then, and is your opinion the Pettaway case came down,
	and that law says, I mean, that ruling says that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not authorize separately protected minority groups to aggregate their population for purposes of a vote dilution claim.
	Correct?
	Correct.
	All right.
	And so, in fact, the opinion in the Pettaway case says several times that minority vote dilution coalitions are impermissible.
	So, you know, it overruled, and specifically, is it your recollection that the Pettaway case overruled that compost case that we previously referred to in 1988?
	That is correct.
	Okay.
	So the law changed.
	And to your knowledge, in simple terms, was the Pettaway case, to your knowledge, was it ever appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court?
	In connection to where it is in the process, I don't know.
	I know the Fifth Circuit ruled, but I do not know the legal process on where it stays today.
	To your knowledge, so far as you know, the Supreme Court has not considered.
	Right now, the Fifth Circuit case is what we're acting under.
	Right.
	And to your knowledge, because we're governed in Texas by what the Fifth Circuit covers the state of Texas, we're governed by Fifth Circuit opinions unless and to the extent that they're overruled or modified by U.S. Supreme Court.
	Is that a fair general statement?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	And is it your understanding that the U.S. Supreme Court, although given the opportunity at least on two occasions, has refused to weigh into the issue that is a subject of the Pettaway case?
	That I'm not aware of.
	I'm not aware of.
	All right.
	So, but the significance of this is Pettaway is now the law of the land in Texas and was not the law in 2021.
	All right.
	So I want to talk.
	You mentioned before about partisan performance and how HB4 is drafted in that manner.
	Is it fair to say that the map in HB4 is based on political performance or partisan performance?
	The answer is yes, and I want everybody to know that.
	Being transparent, that is correct.
	And it's based on Rucho, a United States Supreme Court case.
	So legally, there's absolutely nothing wrong with you doing what you've done in HB4?
	Absolutely not.
	And I'm going to elaborate because I want everybody to know this.
	If you read the Rucho case, they give two examples.
	A Republican group tried to redistrict to their favor.
	And then a Democrat group in a different jurisdiction tried to redistrict to their favor.
	Both using political per partisanship.
	What was the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court?
	Supreme Court does not involve itself in that political gerrymandering, political partisanship, and that is not prevented by the U.S. Supreme Court.
	And that's currently the law in the United States.
	Yes.
	All right.
	And we also know that some other states have taken advantage of that.
	Is that a fair statement?
	I don't know about taking advantage.
	Are people doing it or groups doing it or states that are following Rucho and following partisanship and political preference, yes?
	And when I meant taking advantage, I mean taking advantage of the opportunity to follow the law and do that.
	And for example, are you aware, for example, I'll give a couple of examples.
	Are you aware that, for example, the state of California is 62% Democrat.
	Their congressional delegation in D.C. is 43 Democrats and only nine Republicans, giving them an 82% advantage, and yet they only have a 62% advantage in the state.
	I'm not aware.
	I'm not aware.
	Are you aware of the state of New York, which is 58% Democrat?
	Their congressional delegation is 19 Democrats, 7 Republicans, and they have a 73% advantage, not aware.
	And likewise in the state of Illinois, I don't know if you're aware of this or not, that 56% Democrat.
	Their numbers are 14 Republicans and only three Democrat seats, giving them an 82% advantage.
	Not aware.
	You may be aware, though, that Texas currently is 58% Republican.
	Their seats are 25 currently, 25 Republican, 13 Democrat, although one of those Democrat seats is vacant, and which only gives Texas a 65% advantage.
	I'll follow your math.
	All right.
	You don't dispute it anyway.
	But as you mentioned, HB4 creates a total of five districts that is not guaranteed that they would be Republican, but they would have a better chance of electing Republicans than they did before.
	That is correct.
	Okay.
	And it's crafted, as you said, for the purposes of partisan performance.
	And you've already said there's nothing illegal about that.
	Is there anything wrong with doing that?
	There is nothing wrong with doing it.
	And I want everybody to understand, different from everybody else, I'm telling you, I'm not beating around the bush.
	I'm telling you that we have five new districts, and these five new districts are based on political performance, and we look at part of it on Rucho.
	And Chairman Hunter, is it fair to say that the majority of Texans would rather see more Republican congressional districts?
	Let's just put it this way.
	I can say the Republicans absolutely agree with that.
	And if I can't tell you on majority or percentages, but if you're the party, as Rucho says, and you have that position, certainly you are.
	And you'll base it on political performance, percentage, and whatever your party makeup is, they should be supporting it.
	Well, and I'm going to ask you, my district, House District 68, is 88% Republican.
	I'm going to, I don't want you to speculate.
	I don't want you to go too far out on a limb here, but would you assume that my district might support your map?
	Well, I do not speak for anybody but Todd Hunter.
	I support this.
	I'm going to be open to everybody, whether they like or dislike, but you would have to be the one talking on behalf of your district.
	But if you're trying to give me a softball, I bet your district supports this bill.
	Right, right.
	I think you're right.
	Let's talk for a second about, and I want, I know we've got a lot of time and I want to move through it.
	But we had a hearing in Harris County in Houston, and I want to talk to you about the districts that are affected in Harris County.
	And we heard some testimony on those last Saturday.
	First of all, we need to define a couple terms and redistricting in that process.
	You're familiar with the term CVAP, which my understanding is stands for citizen voting age population.
	Is that correct?
	That's correct.
	All right.
	And you looked at that, and also we sometimes hear the word VAP, which is referring to voting age population.
	That's correct.
	Similar.
	All right.
	So let's talk about District 18 in Harris County, what is referred to as the Barbara Jordan District.
	Is it your understanding that District 18 was, or currently is, a coalition district?
	Let me pull up some of the information that I have so I can give you what I have.
	I am not going to be able to tell you that I personally know it was a coalition type district, but I can tell you that under this plan that it becomes a real performing black C VAP district.
	Right.
	And I would submit to you that it is currently a coalition district.
	Under HB4, it would not be.
	The coalition districts are the type that are addressed in the Pettaway case.
	And so I would submit to you that it goes from a coalition district to a majority black CVAP district, being 50.81% black.
	That is correct.
	Okay.
	And previously, kind of redundant, but blacks did not have a majority in that district, and now they do under your plan.
	Is that correct?
	Again, previously, I can't recall, but the 50.81% is the data given to me that CD18 is now a black C VAP citizen voting aid population district.
	Okay.
	And is it also fair to say that we heard testimony about being compact and how some of these districts look, we talked about gerrymanders, how they look like a salamander, how they look bizarre and they wrapped around folks.
	And was there a conscious effort in your drafting of not just District 18, but in the drafting that went into this for the districts throughout the state to be more compact and more representative of a particular community?
	Well, let's get this clarified because we sometimes use the words packing and cracking and they're sometimes used.
	Compact is different.
	Compact is more of the reconfiguration of the district.
	And so we did hear through the hearings that people were bothered that certain went too long when they should be more concentrated.
	So we did try to use an effort to look at the compactness of the congressional.
	And I think we even heard testimony from one engineer that maybe said he would desire if they're all in a hexagon shape or something, but the idea is that they would be more cohesive than they were before.
	That's correct.
	All right.
	And certainly, do you think District 18 under HB4 meets that criteria and attempts to do that?
	It does.
	And 18 does have a history.
	And That does have different patterns throughout history.
	If you look at the original, I think in the 70s, to this, it's kind of changed back to the history, but it is probably more compact, and the percentage for black CVAP is better.
	All right.
	Let's talk about District 9.
	My understanding is District 9 was also a coalition district and under HB4 changes from a coalition district to a majority Hispanic CVAP district.
	Do you know whether that's correct or not?
	Well, what we're doing, it moves District 9 is basically in 2021, the Hispanic CVAP was 25.73.
	The black CVAP was 45.06.
	In this proposal, the Hispanic CVAP is 50.41.
	Okay.
	All right.
	So previously, Hispanics did not hold a majority in that district, and under this scenario, under HB4, they now do, correct?
	Well, according to the CVAP.
	Right.
	Right.
	According to the CVAP.
	All right.
	Let's talk about District 29.
	Under HB4, I think it went from a majority Hispanic CVAP to a majority Hispanic VAT district.
	I don't know if you know that if that's correct.
	I would purport to you that that is, it is now a 55% Hispanic district and should overwhelmingly perform Democrat.
	Is there a fair statement?
	In connection with 29.
	It, under this plan, it becomes more heavily Democrat.
	I think the calculation is plus 70%.
	It moves from a Hispanic majority CVAP district to what they call a non-Hispanic majority CVAP district.
	For example, in 29, the black CVAP goes from 18.31% in 2021 to 32.79% under this proposal.
	All right.
	Let me, lastly, I want to talk about District 7.
	We heard some testimony in two different places, about at least two, if not three, talking about District 7 and how it was very diverse, and it was basically a predominantly white district, but under HB4, it remains a predominantly white district, but it is still a Democrat-performing district.
	Would you characterize it that way?
	The calculation that I have on District 7 is what you asked?
	Yes.
	Is that under this plan, it becomes more Democrat.
	Okay.
	And the racial factors are basically the same.
	Okay.
	All right.
	We've already talked about, you talked about overall statewide, the gain in CVAP black districts, the gain in CVAP Hispanic districts from what under your HB4 from what it is currently.
	And we've also talked about the appearance of districts.
	I want to talk for a second, and I am winding up here.
	I want to speak to Republican concerns about this process for a minute.
	And there's been, I don't know if you've heard discussion, speculation that somehow or other, if we take up redistricting at this time, then the Republican majorities in existing Republican districts are somehow going to be significantly reduced such that the margins would be very slim.
	Have you heard that?
	I've heard that slightly.
	Look, nobody knows the result of an election until you have the election.
	So do you show voting trends that under the five new seats prefer partisan Republican?
	The answer is yes.
	But you got to go vote.
	Right.
	And I don't think you're reducing, but I think folks have to engage and vote in these districts.
	And on those five new seats that you're talking about, in your opinion, do the Republican districts surrounding those five seats, do they still remain, continue to be Republican performing districts?
	The answer is yes.
	All right.
	And isn't it true, if you know that 25, the current Republican seats that are 25, that the average partisan loss on those remaining on all those seats is only about a 1.5% difference or less Republican than they currently are now.
	Are you aware of that?
	I'm not aware.
	Okay.
	So you wouldn't know that of the other two, the two lowest performing were 55%, 57%, but all the other 23 range from anywhere from 61% to 78%, which still provides a strong Republican performing districts.
	And that makes sense.
	And again, there's nothing wrong with that.
	Correct.
	Under the cases that you've referred.
	Correct.
	So in summary, is it your testimony here today that you believe that the map created under HB4 is in compliance with the Pettaway case and compliance with existing federal laws?
	Yes.
	All right.
	And do you believe that HB4 is a congressional map that the majority of Texans would approve and desire?
	I think they will approve, yes.
	Okay.
	And do you believe that HB4 is a congressional map that supports the majority of Texans that voted for President Trump's agenda for Texas and our nation?
	Now that I don't know because I'd have to go ask everybody.
	But I think the political trend, the answer would be yes.
	All right.
	And I would agree with you.
	I just want to, in closing, I just want to say I want to thank you for the work that you've done, the study and the expertise that you bring to this process.
	And I think the state of Texas owes you, Chair Vasude and Speaker Burroughs, a debt of gratitude for the excellent work that you've done.
	So thank you for answering my question.
	I think as in redistricting, people may disagree with you, but we appreciate what you say, Mr. Smiller.
	We'll see.
	Thank you.
	Members, the time has come to close registration.
	It's 1127 a.m.
	We've been watching the registrations, and I've seen we've refreshed it several times with no change.
	Congressman Green has been registered.
	And so on that basis, is there anyone here in this room who wishes to register testify on for against House Bill 4?
	Chair here is none.
	Witness registration is closed.
	Dean Thompson, for what purpose?
	Garcia come in on road?
	She has registered.
	Very good question.
	We verified that everyone that we had a, we got them, got them all registered.
	Okay.
	May I ask the question?
	Yes.
	Well, I want to make sure I take them in order, but you're the dean, everybody's going to yield to you.
	So, Dean Thompson, for what purpose?
	Hopefully, the chair will show Representative Caroline Harris Dobla on the dice.
	Did I miss anyone else?
	Okay.
	Dean Thompson, you recognize the questioning office.
	I want to apprise the audience and Chairman Hunter.
	Back in 2021, the Senate sent over a bill, a map consolidating the 18th, the 9th, and 18th.
	And Chairman Hunter worked with Representative Dutton and I, and we were able to offer some amendments and uncouple those two districts and put them separately.
	Chairman Hunter, at that particular time, if I recall, I think that each time we had an amendment, we submitted it to you all, and you all had some lawyers that were looking at the amendments and giving us either the red or the blue light to whether or not the amendments was okay.
	Do you remember that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And at that particular time, if I recall, we were drawing maps racial neutral.
	The map was supposed to have been racial neutral.
	I don't remember the terminology, but we're trying to follow whatever the law was.
	But race was not included in the drawing of the maps.
	So when you say race, race is in all maps.
	That's why we do COVID.
	I get that.
	But you know, the issue I'm talking about is the issue that the Department of Justice has raised.
	And we were trying to avoid that.
	Dean, I have a difference of opinion here on the Department of Justice.
	We all have a different opinion.
	And the Department of Justice letter is a letter.
	Yeah.
	That's not guiding me.
	I'm presenting a plan, and they can then review the plan.
	And if they have, they believe that I've addressed issues, good.
	If they believe I haven't, good.
	But whatever they've sent, I'm not ignoring, I'm not accepting.
	I'm doing this plan.
	So whatever their involvement is, they just sent a letter as far as I'm concerned.
	I'm not accusing anyone on the committee of being guided by the DOJ, but if I recall, the governor called a special session to address the flooding issue in Kerrville and the dead bodies that were up there at that particular time as a result of July the 4th.
	Subsequently, there was an amendment to the call, and I understand the Constitution give him the right, only him the right to call the special session and only him the right to set the agenda.
	And the call also included redistricting.
	And it raised the issue, according to the July the 7th letter, that the Department of Justice said that the maps of the 2021 maps evidently used racial in its drawings.
	We know that issue is also before the courts, and there has not been a resolution to that lawsuit.
	I do know the El Paso case has not been on, in spite of there not being a resolution, we're being asked by the governor to consider redistricting again.
	And I'm trying to figure out Whether or not the same person, Mr. Adam Kincaid, helped us in 2021.
	Was he the person who was kind enough to help us with the amendment?
	You were the chair, you were the chair.
	No, I did not deal with Adam Kincaid.
	Okay.
	So, to your knowledge, he was not a person who participated in the configuration of the redistricting then because we were operating on the census that we had just gotten that we're not operating on.
	We're operating on those same census that we had in 2021.
	Whatever Adam Kincaid's role was in 2021, I do not know.
	Okay.
	And did he help you draw this map?
	Adam Kincaid?
	Yeah.
	No.
	Okay.
	So you, so is it?
	So this is a result of your work only?
	No.
	Well, who's work?
	Who is it a result of?
	It's not this committee because I haven't had a thing, no input except.
	You're right.
	I worked and met with the law firm of Butler Snow, like I did in 2021, and they provided me the information and we gave it to the chairman of this committee for me to file.
	So I'm assuming that they had experts also working with them?
	I'm presuming they did.
	Do you know who they were?
	No.
	Okay, then.
	And in drawing this particular map, this is racial neutral?
	I don't know what you mean by racial neutral.
	We're all talking race and we talk neutral.
	These are all words.
	Give me a legal definition.
	We're talking about white folks, black folks, the people that make up the population of Texas.
	They deem they're in there, just like you and I did in 2021.
	Okay.
	And I want to add to what you said.
	Now, let's not make this a negative.
	I'm not trying to make it negative.
	I'm just asking racial demographics or using it.
	You keep bringing up the race.
	But I want to remind you and everybody on this who came to me in 2021 to make changes, do them favors.
	I don't want to be hearing that I and the Republicans were the only ones that did these maps.
	I had some of you come in and thank me for the maps.
	Now, am I going to disclose the representatives' names or senators here today?
	No.
	Because that's a private conversation.
	But when you knock me and the Republicans, I'm not knocking you out.
	I'm not knocking you.
	I'm talking about some of the comments made earlier.
	I want everybody to know that I worked with both sides and incorporated a lot of their information.
	So if there's a race issue, the Democrats were involved with the Republicans in putting that together.
	So that's all I'm saying.
	Let's be transparent.
	I work with both, was complimented by both, asked to do things by both, and we did things.
	And on this map, I use the same law firm, and I'm being very upfront that partisan is involved.
	So you don't know really what data that they used to create this map?
	I don't have the specifics.
	I've been given some information that we filed with the committee, and that's what I rely on.
	But no, you're absolutely right.
	It was generated from the law firm.
	They met with me and I filed it.
	And they've given me their opinion that it does comply with federal and all laws.
	So that also would be the same answer that you would give me if I asked you about Congressional District of 18.
	Correct?
	That's correct.
	That's correct.
	Okay.
	And if I asked you that same question about Congressional District 29, I will get the same information.
	Yes, ma'am.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	I'll come back to you.
	Sure.
	Thank you, Dean.
	I wanted to make an announcement real briefly here from the Committee Coordinator's Office.
	They have opened up E2010, E2012, E2014, and E2016 as overflow rooms if anyone needs to use those.
	I know the original overflow rooms were E1010, E1014, and E1026.
	I can't remember, Representative Rose, if I recognized you on the dais earlier, but if I didn't, Representative Rose is recognized on the dais.
	Not at this time, Representative Rose.
	Is it procedural?
	Not at this time, but I will recognize you to question the witnesses.
	To a question that the chair has taken the position since a bill is before the committee.
	Well, but on that basis, since only the members of the committee can debate the bill, I will allow any non-member on the dais to question the witnesses just fine.
	And maybe you can get that point through a witness.
	That's what I would suggest, Representative Rose.
	But I recognize you on the dais.
	Representative Pearson, for what purpose?
	Question the author.
	Chair, recognize Representative Pearson.
	Question author.
	Thank you, Chairman.
	Chairman Hunter, I just want to say thank you for bringing the bill.
	Proud to be a joint author.
	I'd like to address some of the concerns that we heard through the field hearings over the last week.
	And I really want to start with North Texas, which is where I'm from.
	District 32 has been redrawn.
	Is that correct?
	On the federal map, it has.
	That's correct.
	This has been redrawn, as you stated in your opening statement, to reflect political performance but also compactness.
	Is that right?
	Yes.
	And this specific district would now include a portion of northeast Dallas County and then moves east through Rockwall, Hunt, Rains, Wood Camp, and Upshur County.
	And that would create a more compact district, eliminating some of those up-and-down squiggly lines we heard about complaining over the field hearings.
	Is that right?
	Correct.
	And then, Chairman Hunter, would you agree that this district, now as proposed, is a more straightforward, compact district, sufficiently addressing those concerns?
	Yes.
	Similarly, I want to look at CD 35, Bear County.
	We heard testimony in the field hearings from people who were expressing concerns that there's a long stretch going north, northeast, that was maybe a half mile wide.
	And there were complaints that some of the citizens in San Antonio felt like it was unreasonable to be represented by somebody in Austin.
	Do you recall that testimony?
	Yes.
	So in the proposed map that you've introduced, this district is now also more compact with those less intrusive boundaries and actually keeps counties whole.
	Is that accurate?
	To the best of my knowledge, correct.
	And this is one of the coalition districts that is one of the new majority Hispanic C VAP districts.
	Is that correct?
	Well again 51.57%.
	It's an increase of 5.71 change.
	And so given the testimony that we did hear in the field hearings from the citizens in San Antonio, the way that you've drawn this district today gives San Antonio its own district reconciling those concerns.
	Is that accurate?
	Correct.
	So since you've established that the lines were drawn through performance and compactness, I want to go back up to North Texas really quickly.
	In District 32, looks like the city of Richardson is now made whole, and the majority of those counties east of Dallas are now whole.
	Is that right?
	It looks it on, I don't have all the blow up of the map, but I think you're accurate.
	Okay.
	And I understand that District 32, along with the other four districts in question, improve Republican performance.
	And I think my colleague established that there are no significant material changes to the Republican performance around the surrounding areas.
	So that remains accurate in this as well, right?
	And just so everybody knows, the answer is yes.
	And this configuration provides a Republican political performance increase.
	And so I really want to focus on the public testimony during the field hearings, which I believe were helpful.
	And it looks like you've taken a lot of those concerns in consideration with this map.
	In all of those hearings, there were several black voters who were concerned that their voices were somehow going to be silenced in the process if the lines were redrawn.
	You recall that testimony, correct?
	Yes.
	Well, several people had also expressed concerns that there was a fear that if the lines were redrawn, that the new map would put in jeopardy the historic Barbara Jordan majority minority district in the Houston area.
	They felt like that might go away.
	Do you recall that testimony?
	Correct, yes.
	Well, there were also stakeholders who testified during those field hearings that felt like the population of black voters in the state did not have appropriate representation.
	Do you recall that testimony?
	Could you repeat that?
	I couldn't hear.
	Sure.
	The stakeholders who testified during the field hearings testified that the population of black voters in the state did not have proportionate representation.
	Oh, throughout the state, yes.
	Yes.
	Well, this current map that you have submitted actually shows where there's not just one, but two majority black CVAP districts drawn on this map.
	Is that true?
	That is correct.
	And let me give everybody the details.
	CD 18 is now 50.8% black CVAP.
	In 2021, it was only 38.8%.
	CD 30 is now 50.2% black CVAP.
	In 2021, it was 46%.
	So that's two black CVAP districts.
	How many black districts are there on the current map?
	I don't have all the count on that.
	The answer is zero.
	So, overall, black voters in the state of Texas go from zero to two majority black C VAP seats out of the 38 seats in Texas.
	Is that accurate?
	It's accurate, but I want to add: whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, under this plan, you can win.
	And whether you're Asian, African-American, Anglo, Latino, Latina, Hispanic, anybody can run and win.
	But you're correct on the calculation.
	Okay.
	So it would be fair to say that your proposed map directly resolves many of the concerns that were expressed during those field hearings in your proposed map and would, in fact, strengthen minority representation in our state.
	Would you agree?
	The answer is yes, but let me add for the members and those listening.
	The answer is yes.
	But we do create five new districts that lean partisan Republican.
	So I do want everybody to know, yes, we have done those things, and we've done the partisanship.
	Thank you, Chairman.
cody vasut ▲ ● ▼		I think we had Representative Manual for what purpose.
unidentified		We got your mic on.
		We're working.
		There we go.
		Yes.
		Just a few questions of Chairman Hunter, please.
		So recognize the question, the chair.
		So I'm going to pre-apologize, Chairman.
		I know, yes, I was here in 21, but I was staffed.
		So I will not say I was privy to those conversations and just have a few clarifying questions.
		I just kind of want to ask this.
		So you stated earlier, and I kind of was out of here.
		You said that CD18 is now a majority, minority African-American district.
		Is that what it is by voting age population or just by population?
		Let me give you the ads that I have, so you're going to have exactly the data that I have.
		Everybody can have it.
		So what it shows under Congressional District 18, which Representative Pearson just brought out, is in 2021, the black C VAP was 38.99%.
		Under this map, the data shows it's black CVAP 50.81%.
		It's an increase of 11.82%.
		Okay, online it's showing differently.
		I'm sorry.
		Because it's showing it's 45.5%.
		Under the C VAP or the difference between VAP.
		Okay, so this is.
		Okay, I get what you're saying.
		So I think you're talking about VAP.
		So the VAP is going to be different.
		So it's 51.89% for CD18.
		Okay.
		And again, I apologize also because I did step out of the room.
		You were saying that the current maps, are you, sorry, let me rephrase it like this.
		Is there anything in the maps that are illegal in part or in full?
		Is that why we're here trying to redraw these maps?
		I know you also said it, because I know you said it's not based upon census data, it's political data, but is there anything in these maps, the current maps that we're under, that's illegal in part or full?
		So just to clarify, the 2025, the one I have you, I've been told by counsel that it meets the legal criteria.
		On 2021, we were told it met the legal criteria.
		It was challenged in federal court.
		The Department of Justice withdrew from the 2021 litigation.
		So I think we're all presuming that there's been a decision by the federal court, but 2021 maps are what you're in right now.
		Correct.
		And that has not been determined.
		It's wrong.
		And there was a letter, but I don't, my view is I'm going to 2025, and they can then review the map, if passed, to tell me if it's okay or not.
		Okay.
		So, and I also want to just get something on the record.
		So Congressional District 9, 18, 30, and 35 are each between 50 and 52 percent for Hispanic and black voting age, depending on different for their data.
		So that's just a coincidence that that happened if we're not looking at race, or was that done intentionally?
		The reason I'm asking 9, 18.
		9, 18, 30, and 35, I'm not going to say packed or crack.
		What I'm going to say is Congressional District 9, 18, 30, and 35, they're We've increased the C VAP is what you're saying.
		Yes, it's between 50 and 52 percent.
		So is that just a coincidence that we're not supposed to be looking at race, but now they've been all increased in either Hispanic voting age population or black voting age population.
		If we're not supposed to be looking at race, I'm just I know some people say there are no coincidences, but we have four districts that now have been increased with black population, and I was wondering if that was taken into consideration when we added those to these current maps for 2025.
		No, some of those you mentioned were not black increased.
		They were Hispanic.
		Right, because separate, but I'm saying is it a coincidence that that requires?
		Nothing's a coincidence.
		It was increased, and probably part of the reason it was increased was to follow the compactness contiguous.
		And some of the districts were historic, and so there's been a growth, and you bring them back to the configuration, they're going to go back to the increase.
		Most of the ones that you have referenced were maybe what Representative Pearson said on the compact and the configuration.
		Okay.
		Do we know who at the law firm was the one whose hand was on the mouse making the maps?
		And if this was answered already, I apologize.
		No, no, I'm glad you asked it.
		I've been asked this for as long as I've been in the legislature.
	Let me just be honest with everybody.
	You got more lawyers working for everybody in this building today.
	I know which groups are working for who.
	And that's why everybody are going to law firms.
	You are on the ones you want to challenge.
	Yes, you are.
	Because I know the groups that are doing it.
	And you've done it historically.
	There is nothing wrong with any member, any group, to go to a law firm and get a bill prepared.
	And that is done regularly by Democrats, Republicans, and anybody else.
	So do I know who was the specific person in the law firm who drew it?
	No.
	Do I believe that it was a group inside a law firm with probably some consultants?
	Absolutely.
	Okay.
	Completely understand.
	that and everything else you said.
	I guess, and please again, forgive my nevite if I'm not as intelligent, I guess, as I should be.
	Is there anything told me?
	Well, my question is.
	And for all of you that know, we are firm with each other, but we are respectful colleagues.
	And I want you all to know we talk quite a bit.
	And so I respect your questions.
	Rafael, I appreciate it.
	This is my first time on redistricting staff, but that was always follow directions.
	My thing is, is there any way that we could find out who those consultants were when it comes to this?
	And the reason I'm asking, just want to give a short background, I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to say that anyone has any racial bias.
	I'm not trying, anyone on this diet, I'm not saying that.
	My thing is there has, it's just historic.
	It has happened in this country that there are sometimes people who are putting together plans that do either have racial or gender biases towards other people.
	And while you, Chairman Hunter, who I sit next to you on the floor, you've never said anything even remotely disrespectful to me or racial, my thing is there are people who do have these biases, who may have a history of it.
	It's happened in this administration currently.
	We've had it in other administrations.
	And I'm asking to see if maybe there's a way we can see who was behind putting this together.
	And it could be someone who has a bias against people who live in different areas.
	Because just in short, I'm looking at Congressional District 10.
	And I know Representative Pearson was bringing up, it seems like we fixed a lot of the squiggly lines.
	And please forgive me, I don't know what Travis County has in connection with San Jacinto County or Polk County.
	That's closer to me.
	I can get there faster than I could ever get to Austin.
	I can go to a barbecue there and be back home in the time that it would take me to go just to Austin.
	So I guess I'm just wondering why we're I'm wondering who could be that person or if there's a way we can find out who those that person or persons are to make sure that there hasn't been any historical bias against an area, an ethnicity, a culture of people, because there has been some very serious questions that have been brought up that some people do feel a little disenfranchised in this situation.
	And as they always say, it may not be true that's the case, but you can't discontinue or discount how a person or persons feel about something that's affecting them.
	So I'm wondering if we could.
	Sure, let me respond.
	First on District 10, since you brought it up, yes, it remains a Republican district, but the racial makeup of the district is largely unchanged, and it becomes slightly more Hispanic voter.
	Now, under the law, there's attorney-client privilege, there's legislative privilege, there is even work product privilege, and there's consulting privilege.
	I would have to ask the law firm if that violates any of the privileges.
	It would also set that then if you do one, let's get everybody's out here, that everybody gets to disclose them, especially everybody in those lawsuits.
	I mean, let's go both ways.
	But I will ask if there's not a violation of a privilege.
	Is it a violation for us to ask who you worked with or who you worked with at that law?
	I can tell you the name of the lawyer.
	Okay.
	Is that what you're asking?
	I'm not sure if you can.
	Well, the lawyer, but also who, I mean, just in the time being, I was wondering who the lawyer was, but I was wondering if we could find out who the people were whose hands were actually on the mouse.
	The lead lawyer with the Butler Snow law firm is Mr. Tommy Curtin.
	Okay, and then you'll see if I'm going to ask him about the privilege issue relating to consultant or experts.
	Perfect.
	Okay, I think I am pretty much good for there right now.
	Thank you, Chairman.
	Dean Thompson?
	I'd like to ask you to manually have a question.
	How about, I don't know if we can cross that way.
	Well, I just want to ask.
	If you want to ask either Chairman Hunter or me, and then I can just say, I wonder what Representative Emmanuel would think about that.
	I was wondering whether or not the Representative Manual would think about whether or not Congressman Greene was black, Congressman, the late Congressman Sylvester Turner was black, Congressman BC is black, and so is Congresswom Jasma Crockett.
	And those are present congressional seats until this map changes them.
	Is that correct?
	And I don't see for the first time, you know, blacks are being given something for the first time.
	We already have four seats.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	I understand, Dean.
cody vasut ▲ ● ▼		In the future, let's just make sure let's keep all of our questions just directed to Bill Author or a procedural question to the chair.
unidentified		Now, we have been going for about two hours.
		I've promised our wonderful court reporter here right over here that we would give her a break every two hours.
		I wouldn't break until he finished.
		Let's do three, two minutes.
		Let me do that.
		We can end the opening so we can get to the public.
		Yeah, let me ask the members this.
		Why don't we go just a little bit longer on questions?
		And I'd like to get to the public testimony with the understanding that any questions you have of the author, we'll absolutely get to those on closing.
		Is that okay?
		Let me ask for, who did we have?
		If these are the only two, we can wait on that.
		Okay.
		I had Representative Garcia, you wanted to ask a question.
		I had one minute.
		One minute.
		Representative Hickler.
		One minute for Representative Garcia.
		Don't time her.
		Representative Garcia has recognized the question of the bill author.
		Mr. Chair, I was actually just going to sit here on my business and just listen.
		However, I was summons when Bear County was mentioned.
		So, Mr. I mean, Chairman Hunter, are you aware of the Supreme Court case in 2018 specifically addressing CD 35?
		I don't know.
		You'll have to tell me the case.
		Abbott versus Bettes.
		Is that the regular redistricting case?
		It was a case in which Texas argued at the Supreme Court that the I-35 corridor from San Antonio to Austin was required to be a Latino-majority district.
		Are you aware of that?
		I'm aware there was a lawsuit.
		I am not aware of the specifics.
		Well, we actually won that lawsuit, and that's how we were able to draw Congress District 35 from San Antonio to Austin.
		And I just wanted to point out for Bex County and the surrounding areas that the statement that was made earlier about our constituents saying that they don't want to go to Austin for their congressional representation is a little bit disingenuous when this was actually argued by Governor Abbott in 2018 that this was a requirement.
		Do you know how many districts now that CD 35 has been split into?
		I don't know about what you mean by split into districts, but I don't take the data that was asked is this plan increases Hispanic CVAT 5.71 plus.
		It is now 51.57% Hispanic CVAT.
		And in 2021, what you're referring, it was only 45.86.
		So we've actually had an increase under this plan.
		So I would think then you've gained on what you said.
		You said to preserve it, we've actually increased it.
		Actually, sir, what happened was 32% of the majority of our district was moved to CD 37, which is a white CVAT majority.
		So our district, as you said, was a 67% or something of that nature.
		But what really is going on here is that the Hispanic population in Bex County and Austin is enough to allow for two highly compacted districts with a sizable Latino CVAP.
		And instead, we just have one.
		Well, I'll respectfully disagree with you because the data that has been submitted is that 35 is now a new Hispanic C VAP majority district when it was not in 2021.
		Thank you, Mr. Hunter.
		Thank you.
		Next question.
		I had next on the list, Ms. Hicklin, do you have you wait?
		Okay.
		And then I had Representative Barbara Greer Hawkins.
		Did you have brief questions?
		Three questions?
		Or just brief questions.
		I'm trying to think if we've got some brief questions.
		You've got longer questions.
		Would you mind waiting for a close?
		Yeah.
		Okay.
		Yeah, go for one quick one.
		Representative Governor Hawkins recognized question to us.
		So, Representative Hunter, where did you get your population growth information from?
		Are you aware?
		Am I aware?
	The actual source, I do not.
	As I said earlier, the data came from the Butler Snow Law Firm to me.
	All right, my other question, and I just got one out of after that.
	Was it coincidental?
	I know you said that there's five seats.
	Was it coincidental at all or just something out of the sky that President Trump said he wanted to pick up five additional seats?
	You know, I've heard that all through the hearings.
	I have talked to.
	But you've never heard President Trump say that.
	I haven't heard anything but in the hearings about it, but it sure did help get to five.
	If you're going to keep talking about it, if we keep talking about it, maybe we'll go to six.
	Maybe we'll go to seven to eight.
	Eight?
	You just don't.
	Well, we're going to take that as an affirmation and an admission in the proposal.
	All right, let's work on it.
	Here's my final question.
	Here's my final question.
	As the law firm that you mentioned, and you don't quite know who all had their hand on it, was any of them African American as they were looking out for us?
	I don't know in the law firm, but they do have knowledge in redistricting, and they're very, very understanding of these issues.
	And I simply don't represent, you and I get along real well.
	We do.
	I am not going, and I wouldn't do this to you either.
	I am going to say the law firm I think is good.
	And I'm going to rely on that law firm to do the right thing.
	All lawyers are going to compete with each other.
	And there could be other lawyers on the other side that don't.
	Do I have personal knowledge of who has talked to?
	No.
	Do I know the law firm went through the data, proposed it to me?
	Yes.
	That's all I know.
	And I agree with you, Representative Hunter.
	We've got a great relationship and we want to maintain it.
	But we also want to understand that indeed people who look like me, walk like me, talk like me, should have a voice at the table.
	And so as we look at these maps that we're saying that there will be no more hearings.
	As we look at these maps, there will be no more amendments or participation.
	As we look at these maps, I want to make sure that people have the same interests as what I'm hearing from even Representative Spiller.
	Y'all have done us a great job.
	A great job.
	You've looked out for the Hispanics.
	You've looked out for the blacks, but we don't see it that way.
	So I'm concerned when I'm hearing that from my colleagues that we've been looked out for and we've increased percentages.
	But maybe what the public don't know is those percentages may have been increased because there's knowledge that the lack of participation.
	But I don't agree with that.
	This is law, and they've done their own, and they're looking at data, but I don't agree with you.
	This isn't Democrat-Republican unless you make it.
	These are five new seats that are Republican.
	Why can't all of everybody run?
	It doesn't say you can't win.
	And that's why I keep hearing we have five partisan Republican seats.
	That doesn't mean you can't win them.
	Maybe as a Republican, you can.
	Maybe as a Democrat, you can.
	But I have made, as you said to Mr. Manuel, that I'm going to ask the question to make sure we don't violate the privilege issues.
	And hopefully, I'll get you the information.
	Thank you, sir.
	Appreciate you.
	One minute.
	Mr. Manier, you have one more question.
	Yes, that is.
	All right.
	Chair recognizes Mr. Manuel with a question.
	This was to respond to the question that was asked to the chair, but before the attorney was Tommy was Tommy Cardin, Senior A-R-D-I-M.
	Thank you.
	But to reply to Dean Thompson's question.
	I will allow you to do so only in the form of a question to Representative Hunter.
	To Representative Hunter, if you're okay, can I reply to Mrs. If you ask it as a question?
	Dean T's question.
	What she said was about them.
	Participation.
	And many of them I've known for many years.
	Yes.
	And what I will say is this.
	The reason that I think this is a hard pill for many of us to swallow is at the very minimum, it looks like political retaliation.
	Congressman Al Green and we know President Trump have not been on any terms near where they are best friends.
	Is that a question?
	No, I'm just wanting to say it feels like you can only ask a question.
	Okay, well, Chairman Hunter, I would like to say asking you this, looking at these maps.
	Just close it with a question mark.
	Is this political retribution against congressional members, particularly those who have been outspoken and who, whether it's intentional or not, happen to be black African American,
	are they being removed from their congressional seats or having their congressional seats having more black representation are completely moved away because of the fact that they have tried to speak up in a government where I thought we were supposed to speak up?
	Or is this just all a coincidence that people who have tried to ask this current administration to be honest about some things and to not do harm to people who look like me and many other people and people who look like different people?
	Is this some kind of retaliation?
	Because that's what it feels like to someone who I get on people's nerves about consistently reading history.
	It feels a little 18700, 1870 with Reconstruction and getting back at people who don't do what you tell them to do or feels a little like McCarthyism, why we're here today.
	And is that the reason why these black congressional members are losing potentially, or should I say not losing, are their seats, are there positions to be able to speak out in jeopardy because they won't follow along with what the current administration is currently doing?
	Because it does feel like certain communities are being attacked because they won't submit.
	The answer, I can only speak for Todd Hunter is no.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	One question.
	Representative Turner, recognize the question author.
	One question.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	How about now?
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Chairman Hunter, you had said in response to Dean Thompson that Adam Kincaid was not involved.
	I want to make sure I understood your answer clearly.
	Was that your statement that Adam Kincaid was not involved in the drawing of this?
	Todd Hunter has no knowledge of Adam Kincaid involved in this.
	Okay.
	Because the reason I ask is in the Senate hearing earlier this week, Chairman Phil King said clearly on the record unequivocally, Adam Kincaid is drawing a map.
	And just so you know, so everybody knows, first time I talked to Phil King was yesterday, and he was just asking our procedural.
	So I haven't even talked to him prior to yesterday.
	And if the individual Adam Kincaid was involved on this side, I have no knowledge.
	Absolutely not.
	So you have no knowledge.
	Is it possible then that as you were working with Butler Snow that Adam Kincaid actually sent the map to Butler Snow to give to you?
	Is that what I have no idea on that?
	I do not know.
	Okay.
	So you didn't ask Butler Snow where they got the map?
	No, I sat down then with data like I've done in the past.
	I'm sorry, say that again.
	Sat down then with data like I've done in the past and gone in to that.
	I generally do not go in to the specific reporter.
	What I'd like to do is stand at ease for five minutes and then you take a little break.
	Dean Thomas want me to remind all of you to hydrate and also once we're done with that I like to go to public testimony at that time.

▲