CSPAN - Texas Senate Redistricting Committee Hearing

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 7, 2025 10:15-14:42 - CSPAN

04:26:57

Texas Senate Redistricting Committee Hearing

Participants

Main

phil king

r 01:11:20

Appearances

tammy thueringer

cspan 04:17

Clips

alex jones

infowars 00:01

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		That Republicans have all this area in the rural areas and exurbs in Texas, that they're trying to unpack some of that by cracking some of the Democratic support in some of the major metropolitan areas in Texas like Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Sean, we had a question come in on X from Aztec says, has there been any state that has redistricted without c-span.org.
unidentified		We're going to leave it to take you live to Austin, Texas, where a state Senate committee is holding a hearing on the Republican proposal to redraw the state's congressional districts.
		This is the committee's second hearing since Democrats have moved to block a vote on the floor by refusing to attend the special legislative session.
		The committee is expected to hear public testimony after invited witnesses were absent from yesterday's hearing.
		You're watching live coverage on C-SPAN.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		We're going to have to public testimony on that bill.
		If you intend to provide verbal testimony or would like to register a position on the bill, please register at one of the kiosks located behind the committee hearing room.
		We're going to, because of the number of witnesses today, we're going to limit testimony to two minutes, but you're likely to be asked questions by some of the senators.
		And if you are, that time certainly doesn't count against you and the senators can ask as many questions for as long a period as they wish.
		I'm going to close registration at, we'll do it an hour after the committee hearing begins, so let's call it, we'll close registration at the kiosks at 10.15 this morning.
		And members, just so you'll know, registration was opened at 8 a.m. today.
		To ensure that everyone will be heard in a timely manner, we will ask four witnesses to be seated at the witness table at a time.
		So I'll call your names and I may let you know ahead of time that you'll be in the next panel if I can pull that off.
		Any member of the public may also submit written comments and attachments to the committee via the public input portal.
		If necessary, we will take a five to ten minute break every few hours so that members can stretch their legs.
		And also just want to mention if you see a member get up and walk out, please know that it's not an indication that they aren't interested in what's going on.
		We have to take a quick break on occasion two.
		And if they have to go back to the back room and grab a cup of coffee or for the restroom, the audio plays back there as well, as well as the video, so they'll know everything that's going on when they step out.
		Members, I know that there's a number of you may have some comments today.
		I'm certainly available to answer any questions when we lay out the bill.
		I also will reserve some time.
		I'm hoping we can take the bill up for vote today.
		And if we can, I'll certainly reserve time at the end for you to make any closing remarks that you wish to make at that time.
		If we have no committee amendments on file for today's hearing, we also have some overflow room, and if we end up needing that, I'll announce where those are at.
		And with that, I'm going to pass the gavel to Vice Chair Creighton.
		And again, I want to thank everybody for being here today.
unidentified		Okay, thank you, members.
		At this time, the chair lays out Senate Bill 4 and recognizes its author.
		Chairman King.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
		And members, the layout's a little bit longer on this than we normally do in committees, but this is such an important issue.
		I'd like to, with your patience and grace, go into a little bit more detail.
		And I want to thank all the members of the committee who are in attendance today, and we're all taking time away from home and family and business and everything for this special session.
		The purpose of this layout is to provide an overview of the bill for the committee and for the public.
		And just a little context of the special session on July 9th, Governor Abbott called this special session, which began on July 21st, 2025.
		The duration of the special session is 30 days.
		All the topics of the special session are set by the governor, not the legislature.
		One of the topics for this special session is congressional redistricting, and of course, that's the subject matter that we have before us today.
		House Bill 4, HB4, was introduced in the House on Wednesday, July 30th and was passed out of the House committee on August 2nd, 2025.
		Note that today we are considering the Senate bill, which is a companion, which was filed by me on Monday, August 4th.
		So the House bill and the Senate bill are identical at this stage.
		It is the Chairman's prerogative to set a schedule for review of the bill under our Senate rules.
		The goal, my goal, is to complete redistricting within this 30-day window offered by the current special session.
		Now, there's been a lot of activity on the House side, but we today are focused at our job at hand for the Senate, which is to address the bill before us.
		Now, I want to take a moment to discuss the public input we've had on redistricting.
		I want to take us back to 2021 because all of the data that we will be using and are using for this redistricting process is from the 2020 census data.
		So, since 2021, the Senate has held 21 regional or public hearings, and the House itself has had many additional hearings.
		I think they had actually had some in 2019, I think 14 regional hearings in 2019.
		Now, these hearings have given the legislature an opportunity to hear the public's concerns about the 2020 census data and about redistricting in general.
		This plan, as I said, is based on the 2020 census data.
		Four Senate regional public hearings and one additional public hearing, specifically for invited testimony, have been held during this special session.
		And let me comment a minute on those regional hearings.
		We divided them up regionally.
		However, anyone was able to testify on any portion of the state at each hearing if they desired.
		But we had the South Texas and Central Texas hearing on July 25th, 2025.
		We had the North Texas hearing on July 26th, 2025.
		We had the East Texas hearing on July 28th and the West Texas, which included the El Paso area, on July 29th.
		Over the course of these four public hearings, regional hearings, we heard from 205 individual witnesses.
		We had 205 people individually testify before this committee.
		And as we were utilizing virtual testimony and live streaming, we had approximately 3,852 clicks to the Senate live stream that were recorded.
		In other words, at over 3,850 times, people entered in to watch the hearings online.
		Testimony included invited witnesses, the names of which had been given to us by the Senate Democrat caucus chair, and sitting members of Congress.
		Congressman Mark Veace testified, as well as Congresswoman Lizzie Fletcher, Sylvia Garcia, and Congressman Al Green.
		We provided the opportunity for the public to provide testimony by remote means, as I mentioned, and sessions were held on Saturday and after hours.
		We were aware that some people might be prevented from participating due to a long drive, the long distance obviously from Austin if we had the hearings here, or by work or family obligations.
		And so we did this in this virtual fashion so that as many people as possible could offer their input.
		And we had just that.
		We had people testify from all over the state.
		It was interesting how many people said, thank you for doing this.
		I'm down in the RGV today, or I'm some other place and I couldn't be there, or there's a House hearing that I wanted to attend and couldn't get to, or I went to the House hearing and wasn't able to testify, so I appreciate you all doing this today so I could do this without driving again to Austin.
		In addition, on August the 6th, the Senate held, this committee held a hearing for invited testimony, and we invited the following interested parties.
		Again, these were names that were given to us at our request by the Democrat caucus chair.
		And many of these testified during our teleconference hearings.
		Nina Parales with MALDEF, Gary Bledsoe with the Texas NAACP, Ellen Katz with the University of Michigan Law School, Michael Lee with the Brennan Center for Justice, Niyati Shaw with the American Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Leah Aden with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund,
		Luis Figueroa with every Texan, Ramon Olamares with Lulac, Teniyaz Chavez with La Union del Pueblo Entero, and also we invited the entire Democrat congressional delegation.
		Again, this was all for the August 6th invited testimony hearing.
		This hearing was held specifically because there were comments at the regional hearings earlier that a map was not available on which to testify, and so we wanted to give these interested parties and stakeholders a specific opportunity to come and testify before the committee on SB4 on the bill before us today.
		We held that public hearing yesterday with, as I said, over a dozen invited witnesses and all of the Democratic congressional delegation, but they all chose to either decline the invitation or not respond at all.
		So today we're here for the public to testify, which is another reason I wanted to bifurcate to separate these into two hearings, invited testimony and public testimony, is because I didn't want you to have to wait two or three hours until invited testimony would be over, as we had seen happen in the House, which wasn't their fault, but I just didn't want you to have to wait a long time.
		During this special session, we also reopened, actually I think before the session began, the public comment portal through which any member of the public may provide comments and present documents.
		As of noon yesterday, we have received 3,668 public comments through the public portal.
		All of these public comments are being and will be distributed to the committee members.
		And we are in the process of making these available to all senators and the public on this the Senate's website as soon as possible.
		We've been processing about 400 of these a day and my staff's not crazy happy about that, but it just takes a while to go through them.
		We have to redact personal information.
		We don't want to make it, if you've filed something with the portal, we don't want to make your personal email or phone number or home address or anything like that available to the public.
		So we're having to go through each one of those that comes in.
		We're doing about 400 a day and we're trying to redact, black marker out your personal information.
		But those are being made available to the committee and will soon be available to all the public and all the Senate members.
		Now, that brings us to where we are today in this laying out this bill.
		And I want to take just a moment, if I may, to discuss redistricting history and some principles and legal standards.
		I believe that I'm correct in saying that redistricting has been addressed during special sessions of the Texas legislature as far back as at least 1871 when they did school district redistricting.
		And then they did congressional redistricting in a special session in 1882.
	This also includes special sessions in the past six redistricting cycles.
	They did redistricting in special sessions in 1971, 1981, 1991, 1997.
	That was actually for the Education Again Board of Education.
	We did special session redistricting in 2003, 2011, 2013, and 2021.
	The 2021 was delayed because the census data did not come out until the Senate had adjourned in its regular 2021 session.
	And so we had to come back and do redistricting in the special session.
	My point is the legislature can choose and has chosen many times to redistrict during a special session.
	We can frankly, lawfully, and by precedent redistrict at any time the legislature so desires, including mid-decade, as we are today.
	And the states have have very broad authority.
	All states have very broad authority.
	This is recognized by the courts under the U.S. Constitution and its election clause to choose when to do redistricting.
	Now the U.S. Constitution requires that congressional districts be drawn with population as close to equal as possible to achieve the one-person, one-vote standard.
	We have some flexibility when we're doing House and Senate maps, but we do not with the congressional districts.
	This standard is from this one-person, one-vote standard is from the Supreme Court's 1964 decisions in Westbury v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims.
	It's also grounded in the 14th Amendment and Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
	So, for our purposes of this map that we're considering today, the ideal district size is 766,987 in population.
	SB4, I will tell you, meets the one-person, one-vote standard.
	Now, please also note for any of the senators on the committee or the remaining, the other senators in the body, please also note that any amendments that would be presented in this committee or on the floor must meet this same population criteria as well as all other legal criteria.
	Every proposed amendment here or on the floor, the proponent must be able to demonstrate that their proposed amendment meets these legal requirements.
	So please be prepared to discuss that if you have a, I think it'll be floor amendment because we don't have any amendments filed for the hearing today.
	Now a little bit about the legal basis for district design.
	The area of redistricting law is robust to say the least.
	I've consulted with our legal counsel and I am confident that SB4 complies with the law in all regard.
	The House came to the same conclusion with HB4, our companion.
	Therefore, starting with the position that our map is legal in all regard, I've tried to focus on two major issues.
	My first objective in adopting the House map and presenting this map today, my first objective is to create a plan that elects more Republicans to the U.S. Congress.
	In contrast to the complications involved with race-based redistricting, political performance, in this case, my objective of electing more Republicans to the U.S. Congress is a permissible basis for drawing electoral districts.
	This was recognized by the Supreme U.S. Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause and in, I guess it's pronounced VF v. Jubilee.
	Those were 2019 and 2024 cases respectively.
	My second objective, and the first was to elect more Republicans to the U.S. Congress.
	My second objective, and I'll admit, I wasn't initially intending to focus on this, but we, during the public testimony, heard repeated comments from citizens that districts weren't compact, meaning that there were so many districts that were irregularly shaped, oddly shaped.
	Now, districts that are drawn to be compact tend to aid in representation because they avoid the risk of distant communities being united when they may not have everything in common.
	And I'll mention my Senate district.
	I have urban Fort Worth and Arlington, and then I also have rural counties, one with only 4,000.
	And the districts are different and the needs are different.
	So you want to try to make districts as compact as possible.
	It also allows it a lot more ease for the, in this case, the congressional members to travel across those districts.
	Now, I will say this is a particular difficulty in Texas because we are so large.
	We are not New Jersey.
	We're a state of 254 counties and 31 million people.
	And particularly when you get into West Texas, so many of those counties have only 5,000 or 10,000 in population.
	So when you're trying to put a district together that has 766,987 people in it, you tend to have to reach in often and grab population from an urban area, but then add a lot of rural counties to it because that's simply the only way you can meet the one person, one vote requirements that we have in this very large county.
	It's not such an issue in the urban areas or in the areas closer to the urban areas because we can make those more compact.
	And what we heard from a lot of citizens is that there are a number of districts that could be more compact, but were not.
	And so that became a second objective in looking at this SB4.
	Now I will tell you that SB4 accomplishes both objectives.
	Even a quick look at the plan show, and we've put maps up, as you can see, we've got maps on easels at the back, both maps of the district, the current districts, the proposed districts under SB4, and then the regional areas.
	And there's also copies of maps available for the public in the back of the room.
	But this map accomplishes both the objectives.
	Even a quick look at the plan shows it is more compact in many ways.
	And we'll look at a couple of those in a minute.
	And it has better political performance from my perspective than the enacted plan, the current district map.
	Let's talk about the impact a little bit of this proposed map.
	Let's go through some of the high-level changes.
	SB4 redraws 37 of 38 congressional districts.
	But let me say most districts are changed in only very minor, Even non-substantive ways.
	The most significant changes, excuse me.
	Thank you.
	The most significant changes affect five districts, and those districts will now lean Republican in political performance.
	That would be CD 9 in Houston, CD 28 in the RGV, the Rio Grande Valley.
	CD 32 in Dallas, CD 34, coastal area in South Texas, and CD 35, which is primarily the San Antonio area.
	Now, by drawing race blind, which is what I did, I have not looked at nor considered racial data in drawing this map.
	By drawing race blind, SB4's districts are substantially more compact with more reasonable geographic configurations that provide a better basis for representation.
	I'd like to show you a couple examples.
	Let's start with, and again, if you picked up a map at the back, those of you in the audience or just looking at the large ones in the back, but members, with regard to District 32, you can't see this very well from here, I know, but if you look at District 32, it has 32.
	Yeah, right, good, sorry.
	If you look at District 32 as it's drawn today, it covers a very, it's over two counties, but it's very disjointed, and I know this area very well.
	It's just very disjointed in the communities it reaches into and the roads it follows and comes all the way here through South Dallas, up through Central, goes way up into Denton, and it curves down in odd structures and comes here.
	The way it is done under this map, it is very compact and combines counties in a very really, I think, appropriate way.
	Another example is District 35.
	This is probably the best example.
	It's one people often point to and pointed to often in testimony when they spoke of districts that were not compact.
	This district begins way down in Bexer County, and you can see it has some population down here.
	It gets very, very thin, exceptionally thin, as it curves through Guadalupe and Comel counties, up through Hayes, along Caldwell, and then all the way up into Travis, and then takes unique turns and bends in Travis.
	In the proposed map, SB4, you can see that CD 35 is now very compact, very clearly structured, and pulls together communities of similar interest with Carnes, Wilson, Bear, and Guadalupe counties.
	So it is much, much more compact.
	And I'll tell you that the existing district is, I would suggest, one of the most oddly drawn districts in the country today.
	So I believe the map is much more compact than what we have in the current map.
	Now, And again, as I mentioned, my understanding is that these five districts, 9, 28, 32, 34, and 35, should perform on a partisan basis now for the Republican Party.
	Again, I want to say I did not look at racial data, but for the committee members in your bill packets, there is census data in the bill packets produced by legislative council to which you can refer if you wish to.
	Again, that is public census data.
	It is not racial data.
	Now, in conclusion, I would say that SB4, which is before us today, is more compact than the enacted plan, the current plan, and it complies with all applicable law.
	We've had plenty of opportunity for testimony with regard to redistricting and census data, all the way back literally to 2021.
	And we've had a lot of discussion and five hearings thus far with almost 4,000 people participating and 205 witnesses just before the Senate.
	We've had ample opportunity and no one has presented data or a compelling case that this map violates any applicable laws.
	So it accomplishes what were my two objectives.
	First, that it performed better on a partisan basis for Republicans, but then second, that it be more compact as requested by so many of the witnesses.
	And with that, I would do my best to answer any questions, Mr. Chairman.
unidentified		Mr. Chairman.
		Thank you, Chairman.
		Senator Miles, questions.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the explanation you just gave.
		I'd like to start off by going back to July 21st when we had a joint caucus of the whole, meaning we had the Democratic caucus and the Republican caucus, and this was our initial conversation about this redistricting.
		Our initial conversation in private, just I want to make it very clear that, Mr. Chairman, when you made it clear that I would be on this committee and I accepted it, and as long as you and Lieutenant Governor, that my exact words to you were, I couldn't see the fight going any other way.
		If there was going to be a fight, I wanted to be in the room.
		So I appreciate you for allowing me to be here on this committee.
		But what I also said to all of my colleagues, to you, of all my colleagues, is I've looked at this process, and if we're going to do this, is what I said to you, if we're going to do this, Senator Hughes, I'm going to expose it for what it really is.
		If you recall me saying that, I said I would expose it for what it really is, and in turn, each one of you would be exposed for carrying out this racist process.
		That's what I said to you on the 21st in the Betty King room when we first got together and talked about this process.
		Does any of my colleagues remember that?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		I remember your comments.
unidentified		Okay.
		Thank you, sir.
		Going past the 21st.
		Mr. Chairman, you said we had 205 individual witnesses testify.
		You also said that we had 38 that clicked on and watched and don't know how long they clicked on, how long they watched, we don't have any records.
		They just clicked on and checked it out and checked it off, right?
		But we had 205.
		205 is the number that you use.
		People who had testified.
		Now, citizens, I want you to know, and colleagues, I want you to know, for something as important as redistricting, redistricting the entire state of Texas, I would believe that there are more than 205 people that would like to have some input.
		So if that is a point of success that you're speaking of there, sir, I would beg to differ, respectfully.
		Second, I'm glad, and I appreciate, and I'm sure all the citizens of Texas appreciate you telling the truth, being honest.
		When you looked at that map, you said it was your intention to pick up five more Republican seats.
		Thank you for being honest on that, sir.
		We appreciate that.
		But that was a, correct me if I'm wrong, that was the direct instructions from the DOJ letter from Washington, D.C. that was ordered by Trump.
		That's exactly what it said.
		They wanted to pick up five more.
		Isn't that correct?
		Same thing said in the letter, the same thing you're admitting to.
		It's the same instructions they had in the letter from the DOG.
		Is that correct?
		DOJ.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Did you agree?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Answer.
unidentified		Yes, sir.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		No, I would disagree.
		First off, I had nothing to do with the DOJ letter.
		I've had no communications with the DOJ.
unidentified		I'm sorry, sir.
		You're correct.
		The president said it, not the DOJ.
		Okay.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		I've had no communications with the president or the White House.
		But yes, you're correct.
		My objective was I, when I look at the policies and the harm done to the nation through those policies in the four previous years, everything from a 30 trillion plus deficit to what we saw at the border to the Venezuelan gangs to the fentanyl crisis, problems with Russia and China, on and on and on, that it compels me to try to help make sure that we have a Republican Congress going forward.
unidentified		So those are the direct orders.
unidentified		You would agree with me then, and those are the direct orders from Donald J. Trump to the DOJ that came to our governor, that came to our lieutenant governor, that came to our attorney general, that came to you as the chairman of this committee, correct?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		I've had no instructions.
unidentified		And you followed it?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		I've had no instructions.
unidentified		You've had no instructions, but that's what was, we do, we've gone through this once before, Senator King.
unidentified		Jim McKing, we agree that that was the order from the president.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		So I carried the congressional redistricting bill in 2003, and my objective then was to create more Republican seats, which we did.
		And that was my objective when I was asked if I would chair this committee this time.
		But I've received no directions from anybody in there.
unidentified		Well, the letter's out there, and we'll leave it at that.
		And you didn't receive any direct from the president.
		But you are admitting that one of your objectives was to increase the congressional districts by five.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Republicans.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		That was and is my chief objective.
unidentified		It was and is.
		Okay.
		You probably don't know this because I just heard it on the radio this morning on the way in that A.G. Dillon would not come to speak to us.
		She didn't respond to the letter that you wrote her, and we respectfully wrote that.
		I wasn't able to subpoena her per the vote for the committee.
		But she's out on radio talk shows.
		And this morning, she said that the reason the governor, that the reason that the governor gave the ability to call a special session and to put a redistricting on call was to get five more additional Republican seats.
		Now, she won't come to tell us that.
		She won't even respond to us in a letter, my brother.
		But yet she's on a national network television radio station all over the country saying exactly what she intended to do.
		And that was heard just this morning, sir.
		And it also said that King, but you said, Senator King, that you could do it in any time, which we understand that.
		I don't think we're questioning the rig district being done now.
		I think the big question for the citizens of Texas is, why is it being done?
		And all we want somebody, we know why it's being done.
		We just wanted somebody of leadership of this state to say why it's being done.
		Senator King, you know, you also stated that you were trying to give these congressional members a chance to testify.
		You also qualified the amount of communication this committee had with each of these offices in the way to make it seem though they were too scared or too damn good to testify before this committee.
		I heard you say that on yesterday when I was in Boston.
		But I also know at what time of day yesterday did you decide, because you and I communicated, at what time of day yesterday did you decide to let the congressional members come and testify?
		So we had, as I mentioned, I've got it right here when you communicated with me.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Senator King.
		So thank you, Chairman.
		I'm sorry.
		So at the regional hearings, as I mentioned, we had four of them testify.
		And then you and I spoke on the phone Monday night.
		You called to ask some questions about redistricting.
		And I told you that we were having the invited testimony hearing Wednesday.
		And then you said, well, have you invited the congressional members?
		And I said, no, I haven't.
		And based on that suggestion, the next morning, we invited all the congressional members.
unidentified		Next morning?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Tuesday morning.
unidentified		By what time?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Before 10 a.m.
unidentified		Before 10?
		Okay.
		And you expected them to be here.
		Congressional members, you invited right at 10 o'clock, 11, closer to 11, you invited them, and you expected for them to be here at what time?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		By 2 o'clock the next day.
unidentified		That's what I thought.
unidentified		Okay.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		And if I can finish answering that.
unidentified		Yes, sir.
unidentified		Senator King.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		That was similar to the notice that brought four congressional members to testify the day before, or the week before.
		It is also, they all know we're in the middle of this redistricting.
		They all know the process.
		One of them is even a former senator, Silver Garcia.
		Right.
		They know that there's going to be opportunities for testimony when the bill is laid out.
		And they know how this works.
		And so I don't know how to give them longer notice, but based on your suggestion, early the next morning, we started the process by 10 o'clock and notified all 12 of them.
		And we did follow-up reach outs to see if we could accommodate that.
unidentified		And I thank you for that, Senator King.
		Senator Malls.
		You know, although they may not have been here on yesterday, Senator King, you know that they did testify on House maps on the House map, which is the same map that you filed.
		You understand that, right?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		Last Friday at the House redistricting, re-rigged districting committee hearing, a large number of Texas congressional Democrats took their time to be here in person and testify against this map.
		I can specifically point to the following congresspeople, Greg Kazar, Jasmine Crockett, Lloyd Doggett, Sylvia Garcia, Al Green, and Mark BC were all here to testify on that same map.
		They testified to the constitutional issues of the BRA issues on this map.
		They told the committee that this was going to hurt the American people at large and their communities specifically.
		They embodied the most American of virtues, defiance in the face of oppression.
		They spoke up and they spoke out on that same map that you filed SB4.
		This is the same map that was filed in the House.
		There are no differences except for one has an S and one has an H. If they choose not to accept the invitation to appear yesterday, that does not take away from their outcry they have made regarding this map.
		They still feel the same way, Mr. Chairman.
		We as a committee need to be honest with ourselves.
		No matter what is done today or tomorrow regarding this map, this is all just a political theater at its finest.
		And we've been playing it very good in this redistricting.
		Political theater.
		Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm a little angered by the actions of this committee and its pretext.
		Let us stop pretending that this is about the will of the people.
		It clearly has been a demonstration of action of this committee and its leadership in the state that we really don't care.
		Not we.
		Y'all really don't care.
		Hundreds and hundreds of people have testified before the map came out and after the map came out.
		And it's done nothing to change the minds and directions of the leadership of this state, Mr. Chairman, members.
		Nothing.
		Hundreds of people have testified.
		When we began this hearing, Mr. Chairman, it was stated that your intention was to wait for a map to come over from the House.
		Correct?
		But when it made clear that this map would not pass the House representatives because of lack of quorum of members, Senate Bill 4 was referred.
		Now go think about that.
		It's exactly the same map, Mr. Chairman.
		The same copy of the congressional map put forth by the House Redistricting Committee.
		It is a exact map that breaks apart our minority communities and dilutes black and brown voting power, Mr. Chairman.
		It's as if the chambers were told, this is the map and this is what it's going to be, point blank, period.
		I have to ask, were we told that?
		Were you told that?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		And I'm sorry, could you restate that question?
unidentified		I would have to ask, somebody must have told you all that this is going to be the map, point-blank, period.
		The same map that's going to break up black and brown voting powers.
		Because it's the same map as the House.
		Senator King.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		And I want to correct one thing.
		My staff just corrected me, that when we posted for Wednesday's hearing, we posted that on Monday.
		And as soon as we did, my staff emailed the staff of every senator on this committee and asked them to be sure and invite anyone they wanted to come to the invited testimony hearing and to just let us know.
		So actually, we'd ask the Senate members to let us know of anyone they wanted to attend, congressional or otherwise, on Monday.
unidentified		Anyone they wanted, huh?
		That's what you stayed.
		Anyone they wanted?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
		Anyone that they wanted?
		Anyone that you wanted or any other member wanted to testify?
unidentified		Understood.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Let us know.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		And to go ahead and invite them.
unidentified		But the question at hand.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		The question at hand.
		So I think I'm correct in saying that anytime I've been asked about this, up until the time I decided to go ahead and file the bill, I had said that I was not sure if I would be drafting a bill or if I would wait on the House.
		As I watched along, as you did, the House hearings, as I learned about this map, no one ever handed me a stick drive with a map on it.
		No one emailed me anything and said, file this.
		Nobody did anything like that at all from inside this building or outside this building.
		But I made the decision to adopt, as it were, HB4 because I saw that it complied with the law and that it, from a partisan perspective, performed well and that it was more compact than in some regards than the existing map.
		And so I decided to file the companion bill.
		I did talk with the House author about that.
		And so, yes, but this bill is adopted from the House.
		I didn't adopt it because it's the House's bill.
		I adopted it because it achieved those objectives that I mentioned of improving compactness and most importantly, performing better from a partisan perspective.
unidentified		So a simple answer to the question, yes or no, is you were not told that this was going to be the map that we had to Texas.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		No, I've never been told that.
unidentified		Okay, thanks.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		I had to.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		I believe I, excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, I'm jumping in, but I believe I had full freedom to file any bill, any map.
unidentified		Yeah.
unidentified		So as I asked you on the floor many times, along with our other colleagues, so it's just coincidental that they just happen to be the same map.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Chairman.
unidentified		Senator King.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		No, it's not coincidental at all.
		I studied the House map, watched some of the hearings, had asked our legal counsel to review the House map to determine if they agreed that it was legal in all respects, and decided it was a good map, better for Texas, better for the nation.
		And that's why I decided to go ahead and file it.
unidentified		Well, thank God.
		Senator Tremal.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		Thank God that in this particular special session for redistricting, you know, it's not going to pass the House.
		It's going to be dead on arrival.
		And we'll be here again for the next special session for redistricting.
		But, Mr. Chairman, just a little bit more.
		Why are you further wasting taxpayers' time going through this motion?
		Are you just fast-tracking Trump's racist agenda to get his approval so that we can, you know, so that we can put it back on and say, so he can say to you, good job, Senator King, good job, Senator King?
		Because we all know that now that the House is gone, this Senate floor map, as we see it right now in this particular session, was going to die.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Chairman.
unidentified		Senator King.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		So I think your question is, knowing that the House has broken quorum, that the House Democrats have left the state, knowing that, why did I bother to go ahead and have this hearing now?
		I'll say that I thought about that a lot, but we don't know for sure.
		I think the last count I saw, they had 94 members present.
		They only needed six more to have a quorum.
		And so I thought if we went ahead and moved this bill forward, the House already has a bill on the floor.
		It's already through calendars for HB4.
		And if they come back, that they could expediate, and we have sent this bill to them, that the House could then simply, in the last days of the special session, pick up SB4 and substitute it for HB4 and pass it out.
		So I just use the same strategy for procedural strategy that you've used 100 times on 100 bills as looking for any possibility to get your bill passed.
		And that best possibility said, move this one forward so that if the House does reach a quorum and that they can, that the Senate bill would be over there for them to pick up and pass out.
unidentified		Senator Miles.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		You know, we as a Texas Senate, I remember back when we used to take pride, a lot of pride, colleagues.
		I want y'all to hear this.
		I remember when we used to take a lot of pride in standing against the federal government telling us what to do here in Texas.
		Those are some good old days.
		But here we stand today doing exactly what the president's orders the governor to put up, put us up through.
		You know, it's kind of like the president told Governor Abbott to jump and he asked how high.
		It's ridiculous because we had some rich days in being able to tell federal government what we weren't going to do that they've told us to do.
		Senator Hughes.
		Senator Paxman.
		And that's when we stood for something.
		We stood as Texans, independent, strong, free-minded, doing what's best for Texans instead of doing what's best for the President of the United States.
		You know, for those of you who are here waiting to testify, be not dismayed.
		Speak the truth.
		Please speak the truth.
		Tell this committee what rig districting is going to do to your communities, to the Democratic House members that broke quorum, keep the faith and keep your fight.
		This state needs your bravery and this country needs your bravery.
		I'm in full support of the House members and their quorum break.
		Yes, Mr. Chairman, I went to Boston to support them.
		I would have gone to Chicago, New York, wherever, but this hearing was called.
		If the citizens were going to come and testify, then damn it, I was going to be here to testify with them.
		Supporting their voices and making sure that they're heard, I'm here on this diocese for them and not for the President of the United States.
		The men and women of the House District Caucus decided to put the people of Texas first and leave the state by spreading the word of the injustices being done here and deny the legislation the ability to proceed with this racist map and these racist maps.
		And let me say this.
		Packing black folks into one district and reducing their ability to have representation from two to one and then hiding behind the premises, we are keeping Barbara Jordan's seat attack intact.
		And if you're doing this, doing us a favor, this is disrespectful, very much disingenuous, and point blank, low down.
		Think that minority communities can take, if you think that minority communities must take and what we can get is discriminatory, you do not have to call someone a racist slur to be a racist, Mr. Chairman and members.
		Sitting back, participating in an August process in an inherently discriminatory process, disenfranchising black and brown people is racist in all parts.
		For those of us watching this from out of state, just know, as Texas goes, the country's going to go.
		Texas may be the first to be redistricted or redistricted, but your state is next.
		Finally, for those of you who are watching, yes, the Republicans have stacked the deck.
		And the passage of this map may happen.
		But I want all of you to know who are watching, they want you to be discouraged.
		They want you to be dismayed.
		They want to give you a reason to stay at home on election, but don't let them do it.
		This is my call to arms for you.
		Your vote is your weapon.
		I repeat, your vote is your weapon.
		Show them how you get down.
		And you know how you get down.
		Make sure that these maps don't give them what they want.
		Take yourself, take your neighbor, take your friend, take your parents, take their family, take them all to the voting box.
		Show them who we are and let them understand that you are Texans.
		And Texans, we stand for something.
		Together, we keep the faith, we keep the fight, and together, we'll win.
		Okay, at this time, the chair would like to remind those watching and participating today that registration will close in a little less than 10 minutes.
		So if you have not registered yet and you plan to testify today, please get your registration accomplished at the kiosk just outside the hearing room.
		This room is getting full.
		We have overflow rooms as well for those participating.
		Audio and video should be playing live from that room.
		You'll hear if the chair calls you to testify.
		Our overflow rooms are E1016 and E1028.
		And if needed, E1036 for anyone that needs additional space or to take a seat.
		I also want to remind those participating and watching that any reactions from the audience is not allowed in our hearings.
		We have to make sure that everyone with us is respected.
		Everyone can see and participate and hear.
		And so there won't be any jeers or clapping or reactions or snapping from the audience.
		You'll hear some things today that you like.
		You'll hear some things today that are frustrating.
		But help us all and everyone that's here be respected and participate in the process without interruption.
		At this time, the chair will open up public testimony.
		Chairman.
		Senator Hinojosa.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	I couldn't say it better than our colleague, Senator Miles.
	But just a couple of points and questions for our chairman.
	Yes, you're recognized.
	One of the things that as I saw the map and I understand the goal of electing more Republicans, the reality is that the map, especially in South Texas, as you want to make more compact, you're really dividing communities that have a common interest.
	For example, Edago County is divided into in half, maybe in three parts.
	The valley is certainly divided into three parts.
	So those are divisions that are taking place in terms of communities who have a common interest.
	In Loasis County, the county has been split also in half.
	So that's dividing our communities of interest.
	And I also know that you didn't look at any racial data, but I don't think that really matters.
	What matters is the result of that, and the result of that is discrimination against minorities, people of color.
	And the other comment I will make is, I know you went and pointed out about President Biden's administration, inflation, and what have you.
	I don't think that's useful for discussion here.
	I think we ought to just stay focused on the map that's before us, Senate Bill 4, and I'll get into all these other side issues that maybe would disagree or disagree, agree or disagree what President Biden did or didn't do, or what President Trump is doing or not doing.
	It would just stay focused on the map.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	The chair would ask the clerk to show Senator Parker as being present.
	And Senator Hughes, you're recognized.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	And I thank each member.
	I think each witness.
	We look forward to hearing from everyone, regardless of your position.
	And so, Chairman King, you talked about the motivation behind the bill, and redistricting is, I don't think, surely no one would dispute that redistricting is a partisan process, always has been, always will be.
	We are a republic, a Democratic republic, and there are votes and there are majorities and those decisions are made.
	But let me ask you, Mr. King, Chairman King, you mentioned that there's a national discussion going on about this.
	Let me just ask you a couple of questions.
	Have you heard remarks by the governor of California and the governor of Illinois and the governor of New York criticizing this process and accusing us of being partisan and improper in what we're doing?
	Have you heard those comments?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Yes, a number of times.
unidentified		I have too.
		Did you know that the state of Illinois currently sends 17 members of the U.S. House?
		So of those U.S. House members, 17 of those are in Illinois.
		Now, you probably know that current numbers show us that 56% of the vote in Illinois is going to Democrats, 56%.
		Did you know that of those 17 congressional districts in Illinois, 14 are electing Democrats?
		So that means, though the vote is 56%, 82% of the seats are going to Democrats.
		Are you familiar with that?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		I wasn't until a couple of weeks ago when all this started popping up, and I've seen a number of reports on different states that their districts are drawn in an exceptionally or severe partisan manner.
unidentified		Senator, to your point, is you know that in the state of New York, where they have 26 members of the U.S. House, 26 in their delegation, Democrats get about 58% of the vote, but they have 19 of those 26 districts, 73%.
		And then perhaps the loudest critic and the one who's threatened to do more redistricting might be out in California.
		I can't recall the governor's name, but the governor of California.
		California, for now, has a larger congressional delegation than we do.
		Of course, their population is shrinking.
		Ours is going up, but we're going to catch up to them.
		We're going to catch up to them if there's a fair census, unlike the 2020 census that under-counted Texas and under-counted red states, but that's another topic.
		But in the state of California, where about 62 percent of the voters are voting for Democratic candidates, they have 52 members of Congress and 43 of those, 43 out of 52, 82 percent are drawn to elect and are electing Democrats.
		I would note that they claim to have a nonpartisan redistricting commission there.
		Doesn't sound very nonpartisan to me.
		So a little context, Mr. Chairman, as we think about the partisan approach to these maps.
		Senator King.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		I understand I was speaking with someone from Massachusetts this morning and they have nine congressional members.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		And although they have a pretty substantial Republican voting bloc there, all nine are drawn to be Democrat districts.
unidentified		So in Massachusetts, where President Trump got in the mid-30s, almost in mid-30s of the vote, there are zero Republican congressmen from Massachusetts?
		Zero.
		Zero.
		Thank you.
		So, Mr. Chairman.
		Senator Miles.
		So, Senator Hughes, what's your point?
		Senator, my point is that those.
		Let me ask you your question.
		We're going to have to keep it.
		It's not okay if I'm still talking.
		We're going to have to keep order in the hearing so that our audience and those watching can follow succinctly our discussions and our exchanges.
		We're going to have to be patient.
		We don't have a shot clock on this hearing, so everybody's going to have their say.
		Most importantly, you all that are here to testify.
		Senator Hughes.
		No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		And Senator Miles, thank you for your question.
		A lot of our discussion has been about the partisan nature of redistricting and how those lines are reflected.
		And there's been a lot of national criticism amplified by people in Texas from other states and other state leaders criticizing this process for being partisan and suggesting that they do it in a nonpartisan way.
		Yet, Senator Miles, the results of their nonpartisan process yield hyper-partisan results, much more than Texas has today, much more than Texas would have, even at the end of this process.
		I think that context from a partisan standpoint is important.
		That's my point.
		Hope I don't seem mad.
		I'm not mad.
		Senator Miles.
		So are you saying it's okay for Texas to do because other states are doing it, but they're doing it in reverse?
		I'm saying, Senator David.
		But the thing, Mr. Chairman, I'm saying that the national voices that are criticizing this process and are being repeated around the state here need a little context.
		Need a little context.
		There's something that's important.
		You know, I find it very interesting.
		Very interesting that you're now saying it's okay for Texas to do it because other states are doing it, but they're doing it in reverse.
		And I've been in this building for 20 years now, and we've always stood tall as Texans.
		We've never compared ourselves to any other state in this country.
		We've never risen because the federal government told us to rise.
		Damn it, this is Texas.
		Okay, we're Texans.
		I really don't give a shit what goes on in the other community of the state.
		I just care about Texas.
		And as last time I checked, you represented community in Texas, like I have.
		Mr. Chairman.
		Senator Hughes.
		Senator Miles, thank you.
		If national voices, if leaders in other states, whose voices are dutifully magnified by many in the national media, if they're going to criticize Texas and hypocritically, in the height of hypocrisy, criticize us for what we're doing, a little context is more than that.
		Ms. Senator, that's not directed at you.
		As you know, I didn't have anything to say about your remarks.
		That's about the national debate that we all find ourselves in.
		But when do we as Texans?
		Senator, we respond.
		We respond.
		Go ahead, Mr. Miles.
		When did we start responding and succumbing to criticism and peer pressure?
		Texas, we always applied the criticism and the peer pressure.
		That's who we are.
		I never knew that now we're so weak in Texas that we're succumbing to criticism.
		I'm done, Mr. Chairman.
		This time we'll open up public testimony.
		The chair will call Sarah West, Dedrick Wilmer, Amanda McLaughlin, and Janelle Zubereveer.
		It's Janelle Zubervier here with us today.
		Janelle, please come forward.
		We were giving you time.
		No problem.
		No hurry.
	Ms. West, you may begin.
	Click the button.
	There we go.
	You should be live now.
	And if you can, please state your name and if you represent any outside organizations or just yourself today and your position on the legislation.
	Thank you, sir.
	Thank you.
	My name is Sarah West, and I am representing myself.
	I live in northwest Austin in the current incredibly compact Congressional District 37.
	But under this new map, someone in the White House in Washington, not Texas, wants to move me into CD 10, which would be a district that stretches almost to Louisiana.
	That makes no sense.
	Austinites don't have the same concerns as people in East Texas.
	We deserve representation that represents and reflects our community.
	Meanwhile, my neighbor just down the road would get to remain in CD 37.
	So I called Representative Doggett's office to share my concerns.
	The woman who answered listened to me, and she even laughed when I told her to add exclamation points to my comments.
	The next day, I got a call from Madison.
	Yes, I'm still naming her, because she is doing the real work for Doggett's constituents.
	She made sure I knew about the House hearing last week because she wanted me to be able to use my voice while I still have it.
	But if this map goes through, I'll have to call Representative McCall's office, and they don't know me from anyone else.
	My voice will be lost in a district stretched far and wide by design.
	Last week, I submitted my testimony online.
	I watched hearings, and I testified here at the Capitol.
	Over and over again, you were told no. by Texans from across the state.
	On HB4 and SB4, we are united.
	We don't want this.
	I stand with the House Democrats.
	They are doing the will of Texans because they understand changing the rules in the middle of the decade is cheating.
	If you care about the Texans you are elected to represent, you'll vote no.
	Divorce yourself from the demands of the White House.
	They want five additional friendly seats in the House of Representatives to escape oversight.
	Ms. West, we'll have to stop there.
	Thank you very much for your testimony.
	Please.
	Go ahead.
	You may begin.
	I'm Amanda McLachlan.
	I'm speaking for myself.
	I've addressed many legislative hearings, and I've always tried to show respect even when I didn't agree.
	I will continue to show respect, and in fairness, I have gotten respect from like Senator Hughes and a lot of people, but I have also lost respect for many legislators.
	When did a legislator become about serving a destructive president and serving your own needs above that of your constituents?
	Everyone knows that this is to get the president five more seats.
	The cost for this is high.
	This cost is a cold heart that tries to silence many black and brown people and anyone that doesn't agree with the policy of fear, hate, and division.
	You will try to silence us, but you don't understand the depth of our resolve.
	I consider the representatives at BroQuorum heroes, and I support them.
	They are trying to defend a democracy you are so determined to destroy.
	Even if you win this redistricting, you will lose eventually.
	You can only suppress people so long.
	People like myself are tired of being bullied and have decided to confront the bullies, no matter how much you try to scare us and beat us down.
	I'm a transgender woman.
	I'm tired of hearing about my friends moving out of Texas because they are afraid.
	For many of you, that is a statement will bring you joy.
	The joy you feel speaks to how sick this government has become.
	Fear and hatred now control the actions of many here.
	What happened to loving your neighbor?
	What happened to legislators serving their constituents?
	It is now acceptable to disappear immigrants without due process.
	Are you so heartless that you don't feel the pain to people and families?
	You deny children lunches while passing laws that Ten Commandments have to be displayed in classrooms.
	I'm a Christian, and that is not Christian behavior.
	How can you justify hurting so many people because they don't look or think like you?
	Diversity is beautiful.
	Please replace the fear and hate with love.
	For Texas, the people of Texas, and yourself, please do not advance SB4.
	Thank you.
	Appreciate your testimony.
	We may begin.
	Thank you, Chairperson and members, for allowing testimony today.
	I am a proud union member of the Communication Workers of America, a single mother of biracial daughters, and a U.S. Army veteran.
	I'm also a Gen X woman who remembers walking in protests and rallies as a youth fighting for the rights of all and continuing the fight for my daughters and future generations to not be marginalized.
	To see that you are more worried about rig districting only because Trump told you to.
	If I could interrupt you, if you could state your name for the record.
	I apologize.
	Janelle Zuberbeer.
	To see that you are more worried about rig districting only because Trump told you to than you are about the things we have been through recently.
	But no, you want to spend more time to create this crooked gerrymandered rig districting map that is even worse than the current one we have, and that still has current litigation ongoing.
	Instead of taking care of the issues that matter to Texans, this brazen move increases Republican representation by taking it away from communities of colors is shameful and racist.
	Texas has a long history of rigged districting against voters of color in the district maps.
	The racial gerrymandering in Texas has the aura of apartheid era, white minority rule.
	But in Texas, whites like me are approximately 40% of the population, but control approximately 70% of the congressional districts.
	And in Dallas-Fort Worth area, where whites are only approximately 20% of the population, but have approximately 80% of the seats.
	Why would you do this to the people of Texas?
	Government works best solving the problems of ordinary people like me.
	A living wage, good public schools, and accessible, affordable quality health care.
	We need to get politicians out of the map building process.
	Thank you.
	Thank you for your testimony.
	The chair would like to remind the committee that public registration is now closed.
	Mr. Wilmer, we'll begin with you at this time.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Appreciate it.
	Chairman King and Vice Chair Creighton and the members of the committee, my name is Debbie T. Wilmer.
	I'm a proud Texan, a father, community leader, serving currently Harris County Municipal Utility District 248 and candidate for the Congress in the 9th District.
	I come before you today not just as a candidate, but as a citizen deeply concerned about the direction of our state and this country.
	Senate Bill 4 and the redistricting process as a whole is not just about maps.
	It's about power, accountability, and the second right of voters to choose who represents them.
	Let me be clear.
	I support fair and constitutional redistricting, but I also believe the process has too often been hijacked not by policy, but by politics.
	When your colleagues fled the state to avoid voting on the issues critical Texans, they did not protect democracy.
	They protect the seats.
	They protect the feelings.
	In doing so, they turn their backs on the very people who elected them.
	People expect their leaders to show up when it's hard.
	Redistricting should never be driven by racial fear tactics, unfounded accusations of discrimination meant to shut down an honest debate, but that only delays our real progress.
	Texas is changing, yes, but that change should be embraced, not manipulated.
	Our voters are smart.
	They're engaged.
	They deserve the opportunity to decide what's best for themselves, not to those decisions shaped behind closed doors or void through walkouts or stage media moments with our out-of-state governors.
	To Senator Boris Miles, and as well as Senator Carol Olivarado, who's not here today, I say this with respect and conviction.
	This process isn't about you.
	Isn't about me.
	It's about the voters.
	Let's stop preserving political careers and preserving the people's voice.
	But let me speak from the heart, Brother Miles.
	I understand the fear.
	I understand the concern in real time.
	In 1992, my sophomore year in high school in Baton Rouge, you all here at Ann Richards, we had to side on David Duke.
	There's a talk that someone, maybe even a white nationalist or a Duke XG, might try to exploit this new district as a night to try to run it right now.
	I understand where you're coming from, but I trust these voters here in Texas.
	And I trust them.
	Mr. Wilmer, thank you.
	We'll have to stop there to make sure everybody has the same amount of time.
	Thank you.
	Members, any questions for this panel of witnesses?
	Thank you.
	Appreciate each of you.
	Thank you.
	At this time, the chair will call Monica Gonzalez, Daniel Segura-Kelly, Chloe Wilkinson, and Machia Money.
	And I probably did not pronounce that first name correctly if you could help the committee when you approach with the pronunciation.
	How do we properly pronounce your first name?
	Miyosha Money.
	Miyosha.
	Beautiful name.
	Thank you.
	Sorry, I mispronounced.
	It's okay.
	Thank you.
	We'll begin with you.
	Good morning.
	My name is Monica Gonzalez.
	I am a nurse and a proud member of National Nurses Organizing Committee and National Nurses United Texas.
	I live in Burnett County and I currently work at Ascension Seat Medical Center in Austin.
	I've been there for 21 years on their neuromedsurge unit.
	I'm here today to speak out against this racially discriminatory redrawing of our congressional maps.
	As a nurse, we value caring, compassion, and our community.
	We care for anyone and everyone who walks into our hospital, no matter their political affiliation, gender, immigration status, race, or class.
	What we are now witnessing in our state with redistricting is a stark contrast to these values.
	The governor should focus this special session on issues everyday Texans are experiencing.
	This time could be much better spent.
	For example, in July, Congress passed a budget reconciliation bill that will have devastating impacts on health care access for millions of our patients.
	Many states have been scrambling to figure out what to do with the same level of federal funding for programs like Medicaid.
	Governor Abbott, instead of showing concern for our patients who may soon lose their health care coverage, has called a special session to further Trump's agenda.
	I am furious at our state elected officials who are using this time to further consolidate power instead of putting forward solutions to our impending health care crisis.
	Additionally, Texas are still wondering when the legislator will address flood relief and disaster recovery.
	As nurses, we see the devastating impacts natural disasters can have on individuals' health and entire communities.
	Texans deserve to know that they can rebuild and recover.
	This is about taking power away from everyday Texans and preserving power for the wealthy.
	This is a direct attack on democracy and the political power of working people.
	Nurses are sick and tired of watching elected leaders prioritize their donors and their agendas over the needs of Texans.
	Greg Abbott is letting Trump take over Texas with this redistricting scheme, and they're trying to suppress the votes of black and brown folks across our state to further diminish our voice and power.
	Thank you so much.
	Go ahead.
	Hello, my name is Chloe Wilkinson.
	I am the Secretary of Texas Young Democrats.
	I'm going to repeat some points from my House committee hearing speech, but first let me just say to the Senate Democrats, thank you for your support.
	I am with House Democrats breaking quorum.
	We need them to know that they are supported up and down from across this state by everyone.
	But let me just talk about why this redistricting is especially bad for Austin.
	I have lived in Austin for four and a half years now, and I have seven years of campaign experience.
	So I do sort of know how this is going to affect us from a field and constituent service perspective.
	First off, there was mention that these maps are compact, but when you look at the districts that represent parts of the greater Austin area, like CD 10, CD 11, and CD 27, those are not compact districts.
	If you put them in a circle, they would not even constitute 25% compactness.
	Secondly, I really want to point out that we talk a lot about different racial groups are not monolithic.
	Why is it that the only congressional district that was majority white that voted Democrat is suddenly gone now?
	Also, CD 37, if you look at it, it is 50% Hispanic, but in reality, because West Austin is completely segregated and is rich white people with a 17% higher voter turnout rate, it is in reality a white district that looks like a Hispanic district.
	So I really want us to realize here that this map may have been drawn raceblind, but it is in fact going to hurt communities of color.
	Thank you, and I'm happy to take questions.
	Appreciate your testimony.
	Hi, good morning, committee.
	My name is Daniel Sewardakelli.
	I'm speaking for myself.
	Today, I'm conflicted because Texans experienced an enormous loss of life on July 4th due to a natural disaster that we could have been better prepared for.
	Now could be an excellent opportunity to bring Texans together and solve big problems.
	One of those problems is that Texans believe the congressional maps have been designed to break communities apart.
	And they're not wrong to think so.
	This proposed congressional map violates the principle of preserving communities of interest.
	And it tears through the southern, southeastern Travis County community of Dale Valley, my community.
	Texans don't believe that our congressional maps fairly represent our communities.
	And Texas Republicans are now acknowledging that there is a problem with our maps.
	So we agree, Texans agree, we can be using this time to pass legislation that many Texans want, legislation that would establish an independent redistricting committee.
	Instead, we're here fighting MAGA Republicans from establishing a one-party state.
	Many who have spoken have tried to appeal to the rationality of their Republican colleagues.
	I need to direct my words to Senate Democrats.
	My uncle was the general superintendent of the Church of Nazarene.
	In the Church of Nazarene, the general superintendent is essentially one of the six popes.
	Another uncle was president of the Nazarene Bible College.
	I share this to establish my credibility as a former Christian nationalist.
	I've been in the room with leaders in the Christian nationalist movement.
	Democrats, please look at your Republican colleagues.
	The eyes that are either looking back at you or avoiding your contact see you as soulless enemies.
	These are people capable of looking you in the eyes and telling you they love you and in the same breath will sentence you to hell.
	Get out.
	You must get out.
	You are not working with people who are here in good faith.
	I need you to know that these are people who have a depraved indifference to democracy.
	They intend to annihilate democracy and establish a theocracy.
	You are attempting to work with people who are fundamentally different from us.
	Thank you for that.
	When you and I watch the handmaids tell and recoil at the scenes, they salivate.
	This is the world they want to create.
	Sir, we have to stick with our allocated timeframe or it's disrespectful to the other witnesses.
	Thank you.
	Yes, please go ahead.
	Appreciate you being here.
	Thank you.
	Good morning.
	My name is Miyosha Money.
	Deputized Voter Registrar, community advocate, and public and proud public servant for the people in Houston, Houston, Texas, Harris County, especially in Congressional District 9 and 18.
	I stand for the people, the real ones.
	We want maps.
	We want real maps.
	We want access to the ballots.
	We want leadership.
	And we want to fight for what's righteous and not for against us, nothing for against us.
	HB4 has another, is just another chapter in the same tired playbook.
	We saw this similar back in 2021, where they rolled out the Senate Bill 1, SB1.
	That made it harder for the people to vote, especially the seniors with disabilities, the folks with language barriers, the black and brown communities, and the ones that are just trying to survive.
	As I spent so much time educating and informing individuals about the questioning, I see the concerns in their faces and their voices, and somehow they have some source of confusion and intimidation regards to this bill.
	But you guys want our votes all the time.
	Y'all say the asking for our votes.
	We're tired of knocking and asking to be let in.
	We're tired of begging.
	We're tired of this.
	Now, at this time, we're not asking.
	We're just going to go ahead and kick it down.
	Our neighborhoods, our kids, and everything are being affected.
	So let me make this clear and let me make this loud.
	I stand against HB4.
	I stand against gerrymanding.
	And I stand against voter suppression and intimidation.
	And let's make this clear.
	We're not backing down and we're just getting started.
	Thank you.
	Appreciate your testimony.
	Each of you members, any questions?
	thank you the chair will now call nicholas little Veronica Warms.
	Emily French.
	And Anthony Gutierrez.
	Anthony's on his way in.
	We'll give Mr. Gutierrez time, and we'll begin with you.
	Go ahead.
	My name is Veronica Warms, and I am a policy attorney representing the Texas Civil Rights Project against SB4.
	This map is a blatant attempt to rob Texans of color of their political power.
	Despite the fact that 95% of Texas's population growth was in communities of color, the 2021 maps did not produce additional opportunity districts for Texans of color.
	This proposal makes an already discriminatory map that is still being litigated even worse.
	If it were implemented, white Texans who comprise only 40% of the population would control 79% of the congressional delegation.
	Texans know an unfair system when they see one.
	The district lines here cannot be explained away on partisanship.
	As the Supreme Court noted in Bartlett v. Strickland, a state intentionally destroying effective crossover districts raises serious constitutional concerns.
	The DOJ's letter, while completely misstating the law, cited impermissible racial considerations in four-majority minority districts, not a quest for partisan advantage.
	What the legislature delivered with SB4 is a map that brazenly and intentionally cracks historic majority minority districts, including court-ordered VRA districts, and then packs other minority groups into type urban areas to dilute their political power.
	That is targeted racial discrimination, plain and simple.
	The lengths the state has gone to deny Texans fair representation in this redistricting farce are staggering.
	The Supreme Court has said that redistricting mid-decade to replace a court-ordered map is allowed, but that's not what's happening here.
	The House had only three regional hearings to encompass the 30-plus million Texans spread over more than 268,000 square miles.
	Only five hours of public testimony were allowed per hearing, so only a max of 150 Texans could speak.
	Less than 48 hours after the last regional hearing, this map appeared.
	The Senate had four virtual hearings where again, the vast majority of witnesses opposed this out-of-order redistricting, and the exact same map was filed.
	Its drafters clearly disregarded the public's testimony on the impact of redistricting on their communities and their overwhelming opposition to this rushed redraw.
	We urge the committee to focus on disaster relief rather than creating a new disaster in this destructive and discriminatory map.
	Thank you.
	You may begin.
	Hi, I'm Emily E.B. French.
	I represent Common Cause Texas.
	I'm far from the first to share my disappointment that this legislature is putting gerrymandering over disaster relief, but I also believe this legislature is making future disaster relief harder with gerrymandering.
	Right now, we're sitting in CD 37.
	Under a new map, we'd be sitting in CD 10.
	This Capitol complex would share a U.S. House rep with students at Texas AM, 87 miles away, the people of Centerville, 124 miles away, and the people of Segno, 183 miles away.
	But under this proposed map, if I walked a thousand feet to Texas Chili Parlor, I would be in CD 37 again.
	Imagine that you live at the Capitol, which I'm sure is not hard for many members of this committee, and a natural disaster strikes.
	Let's say that the power goes out, my phone has like 15%, I only have enough juice to call my congressional rep. I want to use this constituent services to find resources, locate warming or cooling centers, and connect with other folks who are helping out near me.
	If my friends at Texas Chili Parlor have to walk over, these maps would force them to get help from a different representative.
	By drawing our communities apart, you're making it harder for neighbors to help each other.
	If my cousins in Phlugerville need help, these maps would force them to call a different third representative in CD 11, who would also represent our uncle 65 miles away in Llano, the people of San Angelo, 180 miles away, and Midland, 283 miles away.
	Phlugerville is 14 miles away from the capital.
	This map has Phlugerville in with Midland and the Capitol in with Segno, and Midland is 430 miles away from Segno.
	That is 11 and a half Rhode Islands laid in to end.
	I believe the chair and I have different definitions of the word compact.
	I'm a lifelong Texan.
	I was born in Houston, where hurricanes constantly happen.
	I was raised in Tornado Alley.
	I now live amongst freezes and floods in central Texas.
	When natural disaster strikes, I lean on my neighbors and they lean on me.
	This map makes it harder for Texans to help each other.
	Please do not pass it.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Little.
	Good morning.
	First, giving my regards to the chair, Vice Chair, my state senator, Senator Boris Miles, over here.
	It's a pleasure, privilege, and a pleasure to be here.
	I'm here.
	I represent the Houston Branch NAACP.
	I am also a Navy combat veteran, a graduate of the United States Naval Academy, class of 2008.
	And I'm a Texan.
	And I'm here because I'm here advocating and speaking on behalf of the constituents and the people of Houston who feel like they are voiceless or feel as if, you know, if they're not at the table, that they are on the menu.
	And I think it's imperative that we take notice to realize that the constituents, the people, are the people that we're supposed to be listening to, not the federal government.
	Otherwise, we have no state sovereignty.
	And it concerns me, and it concerns many of my constituents in many of the room that we are currently at a point right now where we are willing to listen to what's going on from somewhere else versus doing what's good for Texas, as stated by members of the committee.
	So I'm just hoping that today and going forward that everyone here and everyone that's not in the chamber that are able to vote on this will make the right decision and do it based on the conscience of Texas and not on the conscience of anyone that considers themselves practically a king or anyone who is seemingly undermining our democracy.
	That is not why I served my country for 10 years.
	That's not why many people in our community fight to be elected to office to just bow down to any type of tyrannical force at any person's will.
	We are here all as Texans, but more importantly, we are Americans.
	And that's what makes our country great.
	That's what makes our state great is being able to realize and understand that this is who we are.
	So I just want to ask that everyone here just really take in consideration all the testimony that's being given, all the testimony that will be given, and just please keep in mind that as Texas, we've always stood strong and it is imperative that we maintain that stability.
	And we maintain that to represent that across the country as well.
	Thank you.
	We appreciate each of you and your testimony.
	Thank you for your service to our nation, Mr. Little.
	Senator West, we welcome you to the committee today and I appreciate you joining us and you're recognized if you have a question for Mr. Little.
	I don't know that it's for Mr. Little, it may very well be for the author of the bill based on the testimony of this panel.
	In terms of deliberating on exactly what's taken into consideration in recommending this bill or amendments thereto, how will the testimony received by the committee by people that have taken their time out to express their opinion on the bill be utilized?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Is that a question for me?
unidentified		Is that directed at me as currently or author of the bill?
		Senator King.
		Senator King.
		Okay.
		Did you understand the question?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		I think so.
unidentified		Let me make sure you understand.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Okay, please.
unidentified		We've had.
		And I've been listening to the testimony, and we've had hundreds of people testify on this particular bill.
		10.
		405.
		205.
		And it would seem based on what I've gleaned, most of them have testified against this process and now also on this particular bill.
		And my question is, in terms of what your recommendation is going to be on this particular bill or amendments requested, how will the testimony of citizens that have taken their time to testify be taken into consideration?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Certainly.
unidentified		Senator King.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
		And as to amendments, we'll just look at each amendment independently.
		And those decisions will ultimately be made by the, I guess it would be floor amendments and they'll be made by the 31 or 30 now senators on the floor.
		They'll make that decision in a vote on each amendment.
		I would say as to how his testimony taken into account, I think each senator represents their roughly million people in their district, but they also represent the state as a whole, and I think each senator will...
unidentified		In all due respect, that's not the question I asked about the other senators.
		Senator West, let him complete his thought because he may end up at that destination.
		He may end up.
		Okay.
		All right.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		I think I'm getting there.
		But I was just going to say each of us will take into account all the information put before us, our personal analysis of the bill, what we believe that our district wants, I think, and the testimony that was provided, both in the Senate and probably in the House, too.
		I watched some of the House hearings and contacts that we're getting from constituent calls and emails and letters.
		And I think we'll all take, I would expect we would all take all of that into account in making our decision on how to vote on any amendment or on the bill itself.
unidentified		Okay.
		Senator West.
		Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
		I was referring to you, not everybody else.
		I mean, as the author of the bill, you are going to have to make a determination as to what bill actually comes to the floor for consideration.
		And normally what we do in this process that I've been involved in for a long time now is that we listen to the testimony.
		And based on the testimony, we take the bill, end up having a substitute and things of that nature based on the testimony that we hear.
		And so I guess the question I'm asking is not as it relates to other senators, but more specifically as to you as the author of the bill.
		Are you going to take into consideration the hundreds of people that have testified showed up at these particular hearings in deciding what bill and or substitute that you will bring to the fore?
		And if so, how will you do that?
		Senator King.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Well, my intent is as chair to bring the bill up at the conclusion of testimony today for a vote before the committee and to recommend that the committee favorably report the bill to the Senate.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		And then I, if it passes out of the committee, then and if it's brought to the floor, then it would be my intent to recommend to the floor that we support the bill.
unidentified		Okay, so the testimony that you've heard over these few weeks has been loud and clear that this process is not favored by Texans, correct?
		And the testimony that I've heard so far today is that this map is not favored by Texans.
		You will not take that into consideration in terms of making a recommendation to the committee and or to the Senate.
		Is that correct?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Chairman.
unidentified		Senator King.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		So much of the testimony that I've heard, and I've taken it all into consideration, one of the things that pushed me toward this particular map, a great deal of the testimony has been that the existing map is not as compact as it could be.
		And I believe this map takes strong steps in that direction.
		We discussed earlier before you got here specifically with regard to districts 32 and 35 are very good examples of that.
		So I believe it reflects the testimony that we've seen in that regard.
		I also believe that most of the testimony that I've heard has been with regard to racial considerations.
		And I think it's totally inappropriate to take racial considerations into account when drawing a map.
		I think that that's not preferred by the law, to say the least.
		And I think it would be inappropriate.
		And so I think much of it, all the testimony that's been accusing, suggesting that this map was drawn on a racial basis is inaccurate and incorrect.
		And so I'm disregarding that part of the testimony because I didn't take race into account, and I don't see race in this map.
unidentified		Okay, and I understand that.
		Senator West.
		Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
		At all due respect, when you begin to look at the map itself and take into consideration not just the map, but the whole process, 2021, we had a map that the Attorney General of the State of Texas is defending in federal court right now.
		And then we get a letter.
		Trump says that he needs five seats from Texas.
		And then we get a letter from the Department of Justice.
		I think that's chronological order.
		Then all of a sudden, there's no map because I've asked you about maps.
		And then a map shows up In the House, then we have the quorum, the parliamentary use of quorum breaks in order to stymie the efforts.
		And then another map is filed over here.
		I think it's the order of events.
		People have testified against these maps, against the maps in the entire process.
		And the only districts that end up, frankly, for the most part, being cracked and packed are minority districts.
		More specifically, I'll give you an example, the district in Dallas.
		And I hadn't looked at the maps and wow, all the economic engines are being taken out of the district in Dallas for some strange reason.
		Can you help me understand that?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		I'd have to ask you.
		I'm sorry.
		Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
		I'd have to ask you to be more specific.
unidentified		As it relates to what district or what?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Well, what economic engines, what district, what congressional member.
unidentified		Sure, okay.
		Jasmine Crockett.
		Her district.
		As I understand it, and I stand to be corrected if necessary.
		The airport, downtown area, the medical center, law schools, and all that have been taken out for some reason.
		And if race is not a consideration, why would that happen?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Well, I know I represent Tarrant County, and even though Lockheed is across the street from my district, I still aggressively represent Lockheed.
		And I don't think because you've moved a hospital district or you've moved a district outside a hospital district, if it's still in her primary county, I assume she's going to continue to represent that as aggressively as she would otherwise.
		Downtown Fort Worth is not in my district, but I'm actively involved in representing and being supported by businesses and folks in the downtown area.
		So I don't think you can draw a line like that and say because the hospital district's no longer in her district that she's not going to be working for and representing that hospital district.
unidentified		So you agree with me that that should not be a partisan consideration, right?
		In terms of whether or not you move or don't move a hospital district or a downtown area.
		And so in drawing maps, you shouldn't take into consideration moving economic engines of a particular district to accomplish a partisan result.
		You would agree with that based on what you just said.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		I don't.
unidentified		Senator King.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		I don't think that's what I just said.
		I think what I said, you asked me specifically about her district.
		I think that, as I said earlier, that you should not take, that I did not take racial factors into consideration.
		I think that the map is more compact than the existing map.
		I think that it achieves the objective that at least I had of performing better from a partisan perspective for Republicans.
		And I think that it is drawn in a manner that's going to continue to allow members of Congress to represent their districts and the areas surrounding their district like we all do.
		As I said, I'm Tarrant County and I try to represent, I only have about a third of Tarrant County, but I try to represent all of Tarrant County and help and the other senators in Tarrant County do the same thing.
		And I believe this map takes into consideration what is traditional redistricting criteria.
		And I think it's a very supportable map.
unidentified		Mr. West.
		Mr. Chairman, and I know this committee is laboring because I've been on this committee several times before myself.
		And I'll have extensive questions for you on the floor because you weren't really responsive to the question that I asked, to be honest with you.
		Because again, I asked about the partisan piece in terms of taking the economic engines out.
		And if it's not a partisan issue, then why were they taken out?
		I mean, just because you have economic engines like downtown Dallas, the medical district, law and schools, and things like that, you don't need to take those out of a minority district in order to establish, to accomplish your goal of increasing partisanship in the state of Texas.
		But then still, that's what was done by the map drawers.
		Speaking of the map drawers, did you draw this map?
		Who drew the map?
		Senator King.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Okay, I've adopted HB4.
		My understanding was it was driven, it was traditionally the way it's worked is the congressional delegation usually has someone draw a map.
		I believe, I think I'm correct in saying in 2021, the Redistricting Trust, which is an organization that's involved in redistricting across the country, they helped draw the map for the Congressional Republican congressional delegation in 2021.
		My understanding is that the Redistricting Trust drew this map as well as others.
		And this was the map that was adopted by the House.
unidentified		Okay, so the Redistricting Trust drew this map.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		I think they participated in drawing the map is my understanding.
unidentified		Did you have any input in drawing the map?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		None at all.
unidentified		Because it was given to you.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		No.
unidentified		Well, let me finish.
		It was given to you, and you were asked to carry this particular map without you having any input into what the impact of this map was.
		Senator King.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		No, not at all.
		As I've said repeatedly in the hearings and in caucus that I considered drawing a map.
		I had been considering waiting for the House map to come over.
		No one ever handed me a map.
		I was not given directions on whether or not on any map to take.
		But as I watched the House hearings, and I stated this earlier before you got here today, as I watched the House hearings and as I looked at this map and I thought it was more compact than the existing map, I asked our legal counsel to review it to see if they came to the same conclusion that the House Counsel had that the map was legal under all applicable law.
		They reported back to me that it was.
		And then I filed the bill on Monday.
		Rather than wait for the House bill to come over because things were stalling in the House, which is a procedural and way of pursuing passing legislation the same way you've done it a thousand times over your decades in the House and the Senate.
unidentified		Decades.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		If you're working on a companion bill and the bill on the other side of the body begins to stall, then you will file it over here and try to get it moving as a companion.
		And that's exactly what I did.
		I decided that the House bill was a very good bill, that it accomplished the purposes that I had in looking for a bill, looking for a map.
		And I went ahead and decided to file it when it stalled in the House because the Democrats left the state.
		And my opinion is When things stall, then you try to find a way to move forward.
		And that's what I did and why I filed this map.
unidentified		Senator West.
		In closing, all due respect, I think that listening to public testimony here is just checking the box.
		That's all the reality is that this testimony that is being given by citizens of the state of Texas is not really going to be taken into consideration given the fact that you've already said that whatever happens in terms of the testimony of citizens, you're going to make a motion today to approve this particular map and send it to the floor.
		That's what I heard you say.
		Is that correct?
		Senator King.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Well, I would take the testimony of one person who's on this panel before us.
		The way I understood her testimony was that a map should be drawn from a percentage basis that directly reflects the racial makeup of Texas.
		And I do not agree with drawing a map on that basis.
		So in that regard, that particular testimony, I would disregard because I think that's the wrong way to draw a map.
unidentified		What about, Mr. Chairman?
		Senator West.
		What about communities of interest?
		Senator King.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		I believe this map being more compact than the existing map improves communities of interest.
unidentified		How so?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'll use District 32 and District 35 as examples.
		And District 35, for example, now begins way south in Bear County, takes extremely difficult jigs and jags as it progresses all the way up into northern Travis.
		District 35, under this map, becomes very well-aligned communities of interest in the counties of Guadalupe, Wilson, Carnes, and what's a more rural area of Bear.
		And this is a much more compact district than the existing 35.
		And there's other examples throughout the map.
unidentified		Mr. Chairman.
		Senator West.
		And so let's stay with Bear because I don't know that much about that particular area other than I know San Antonio was there.
		And so you've taken urban communities, the urban communities of Bear County, and aligned them with rural communities in Wilson and also Carnes County.
		Is that correct?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Well, it's much like my Senate district that takes parts of Fort Worth and then aligns it with the suburban areas of Parker County, which would be that area of Bexar County, I guess, would be more of a suburban area, and then connects it with, and in my area, connects it with the rural counties that are to the west and south of that.
		And so that's just what you have to do in Texas because of the difference in population in our urban and rural counties.
		So you're always having to reach in and pick up some population.
		But what I'll tell you is just looking at the map, common sense tells you that a map that is compact, a district that is compact, as opposed to one that is long and thin and jiggled and jaggled, that that compact one is more compact.
		I don't know how.
unidentified		Again, I'm talking about communities of interest.
		So when you did your analysis for that particular area to make a determination as to whether those were communities of interest, what did you take into consideration?
		If anything.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, generally speaking, an inner city area is going to have a little bit different primary issues before it than a suburban district might have, which will have a little bit different ones than what a rural area might have, although they all have overlapping issues.
		And so I think when you're trying to draw a map and you're trying to get 766,000 people into 38 districts, you obviously have to, you're going to have to draw districts that are outside, that reach into urban areas, but also extend into rural areas.
		And I think when you compare, in this case, District 35 as an example, the existing 35 to the proposed 35, the proposed 35 in any common sense is more compact.
unidentified		Is that Senator West?
		Oh, okay.
		Members, I apologize.
		I'll save a lot of these questions for the floor.
		But again, out of all due respect, I asked about communities of interest.
		You talk about compactness.
		I understand what you're talking about with compactness.
		But the question is, what factors did you take into consideration to make a determination as to whether or not there were communities as well?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Communities of interest.
unidentified		Let me finish, sir.
unidentified		Thank you.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		I'm sorry.
unidentified		And so the question is, is that communities of interest, I mean, do people have the same types of, I guess you could say, they go to the same churches?
unidentified		What elements of communities of interest as we recognize by law did you take into consideration?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Well, it can be a lot of things.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		As you said, it can be the fact that there's a River Oaks neighborhood.
unidentified		In the 35?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		I'm just throwing out a name of a neighborhood.
unidentified		Well, I was talking about 35.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		We'll call it Meadowbrook.
unidentified		I'm talking about 35.
unidentified		Okay, I'll do respect.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		No, you're not.
		No, it's not being with due respect.
		I'm trying to answer the question.
		I'm trying to answer what you ask, what I mean by what I take into consideration in a community of interest, which is one of the traditional redistricting criteria.
unidentified		Exactly.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		It can be many things.
		It can be a historic neighborhood, okay?
		Or it can be the regional water areas.
		It can be the regional transportation areas, the text dot zones.
		It can be the economic development areas.
		And I'll use as another example, my home county of Parker, a large percentage of the folks in Parker County drive to Tarrant County for work.
		So in that regard, there's a community of interest in the commuting, in the jobs that are provided in Tarrant County, and the families that live in Parker.
		Now, as Tarrant moves into Parker and more of that business moves into Parker, we share that economic base.
		So communities of interest can be anything, and particularly in a county the size of Terre.
		Now, when you look at 35, you see those large rural counties, and you also see a larger population base in the more suburban area and less developed areas of Bear County.
		And they're going to be more aligned from a community of interest standpoint than they would if you had picked inner city San Antonio.
		And I think it's a very good district.
		And I'll also suggest that no one on this committee has offered amendments to change that district.
		And anybody is certainly available to, or has the option of offering amendment to change that district on the floor.
		But my point is, when I look at it, it is a much more compact district, and compactness takes into account geography and all the traditional redistricting criteria.
		And any common sense look at it says it's a more compact, better designed, easier to represent from a driving distance for the congressional member.
		And it's just a better district all around in its geography.
unidentified		Okay, it sounds like you've used the word compactness about 10 times.
		Mr. West.
		Mr. Chairman, it sounds like you used the word compactness several times in your response to me.
		I appreciate your response, but it seems like compactness was the number one element that you took into consideration in drafting or presenting this particular map.
		Thank you, sir.
		Members, any questions for this panel?
		If not, thank you each for your testimony.
		Senator Miles, you're recognized.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		Senator West, let me just answer your questions that you were trying to get answered as you exit.
		The gentleman's name is Adam Kincaid, who's out of Virginia, who wrote this map.
		And it's just coincidental that he runs the National Republican Redistricting Committee.
		Oh, yeah.
		Yeah.
		He's done so for a while now, and he lives out of Virginia.
		That's who actually drew this map.
		And for the numbers, Senator, we had 205 today, as of today.
		And I'd be generous in saying that five of those were for the map and the 200 were against.
		Now today, we've got 117 signed up against the map and three for the map.
		So now what the chairman's going to do with those numbers, that's up to him.
		You asked him that question.
		He's going to have to give you that answer.
		Thank you.
		Thank you.
		Thank you, Senator Miles.
		We'll proceed with our public testimony.
		The next panel we will call, the chair will call again Anthony Gutierrez, Andre Wagner, Nicolette Ardiente, Dylan Flaherty.
		You may begin, sir.
		Thank you, Chair, members of the committee.
		I appreciate your time and allowing us to be here.
		My name is Dylan Flaherty.
		I'm here to represent myself.
		I'm also a candidate for Congress in Texas' 37th district here in Austin.
		I find myself incredibly frustrated with the purpose of this.
		There are far more pressing needs in Texas.
		Flood relief, public school funding, making lives for Texans better.
		And yet we're bickering over partisan politics coming from the president.
		It's incredibly frustrating.
		I also want to find, I also want to call out something that I find incredibly disingenuous.
		The chair mentions that these maps are more compact, and he cites District 35 continuously.
		Yet, District 11 in the new map spans from Pflugerville to west of Midland.
		As I'm sure that Senator Sparks would understand, the needs of Midland and the needs of Phlugerville are far different.
		And so saying that they're more compact, allowing for easier drivability, is a joke.
		Because it's a six-hour drive from Philugerville to Midland.
		Again, this is all coming from the president of the United States.
		And I don't understand as Texans why we're all of a sudden bending the knee to the federal government.
		As a Texan, I believe that we're Texans, that we stand above that.
		And as we sit here right now, the FBI has accepted to hunt down House members of Texas.
		And no one seems to be crying afoul to that.
		Now, if the roles were reversed, if this was the Biden administration or the Obama administration, I know all of you would be screaming from the rooftops.
		So I look at all of you today, and I ask you to reject this measure.
		To imagine if the roles were reversed, what would you say?
		Because this isn't democracy.
		You're not allowing us to choose our representatives.
		choosing your voters.
		Oh, hello.
		Okay.
		Go ahead.
		Yes, you may begin.
		Thank you, Chair and committee members.
		Good morning.
		My name is Nicolette Ordiente.
		I am here representing myself and the state Democratic Executive Committee of Congressional District 23.
		I'm on the outskirts of San Antonio that goes all the way to El Paso right now.
	And like many of y'all, I do also have constituents that I report to that come to me regularly and ask me about like, hey, what are the issues that are happening, not only with the Democratic Party, or how can I get in contact with my representative?
	Their issues, again, from San Antonio to El Paso range so differently from Del Rio to Maverick County, Eagle Pass to Crystal City, Zavala.
	Like these are all rural towns.
	And I've heard so many folks on this dais talk about CD 35, Beer County.
	Respectfully, you do not live in Bexer County.
	You don't know the issues that impact us in Bex County.
	Yet you want to refuse to hear the public testimony of Texans who, like working class Texans, wish they could be here in front of y'all to talk about why redistricting, redistricting is so impactful to them, but they're not given that opportunity.
	They have to work.
	They have to make sure their kids are getting ready for school next week.
	But y'all are not giving every single Texan that opportunity.
	And as the gentleman mentioned, being frustrated is almost like, that's almost like we carry it with a pride as Texas now because we don't have the representation that we truly deserve.
	Again, from San Antonio to Del Rio to Eagle Pass, all over Southwest Texas, I have constituents who are constantly asking for help.
	If you want, you could split up Congressional District 23, but nobody wants to talk about that because that's a sobbly Republican district.
	I really want to see leadership that shows up for Texas, and I do commend all of the Texas Democrats that have fled the House, fled the Senate to do so.
	So thank you again for your time.
	Thank you.
	You may begin.
	Thank you.
	My name is Andre Wagner.
	I'm also representing the Houston Black American Democrats.
	I come here as a resident of Congressional District 18.
	I've lived in Congressional District 18 for over 20 years.
	My mother lives in Congressional District 18.
	My sister lives in Congressional District 18.
	Please do not split up our district.
	Do not pack and crack us like we did in Beaumont.
	Beaumont for over 30 years was a solid Democratic seat that was represented by a wonderful member built on communities of interest of Latinos and African Americans who voted together.
	But now Beaumont is split in half.
	But in Houston, there's too many of African Americans there.
	So instead, you pack us in one district.
	Now, how you, the only real thing I would ask is instead of voting on making new lines, perhaps put a law in place requiring our governor to call an election after our congressional representative has died.
	I currently reside in Congressional District 18 and I have no congressional representative and I have had not had so for over five months.
	In Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, all Republican states require their governor to have and hold a special election within either 60 or 100 days of a vacancy.
	All of them Republican states.
	Please, if you want to do something about elections, how about requiring our governor, like four other Republican states do, to have a special election when there's a vacancy that occurs?
	I am now without representation.
	You all are talking about effective representation, and my community does not have so because the governor has chosen not to call an election until November.
	That makes no sense to me.
	And so please, while we are talking about having effective representation, I think right now my family, my community is disserved by what's going on in Texas, by what's going on in Congressional District 18.
	So please implore for my family and yours for better representation.
	Thank you.
	Appreciate your testimony.
	Members, any questions?
	Senator Miles?
	Thank you.
	Andre, let me say thank you for being here today and thank you for the support your family's always given our community.
	Not just me, but our community.
	And I think your map's a little wrong.
	Brother Turner has passed for five months, but we've actually gone without representation in 18 almost a year now.
	Okay, it's been almost a year that we've gone without proper representation consistently in the 18th congressional district.
	You should also know that based on this map that is being presented to us today, we are overpacked.
	They have taken Senate District 9, Congressional District 9, which was an African-American district belonging to Congressman Al Green, put 70% of his district into the 18th congressional district, which is already an African-American district, which now makes Senate District 13 the largest African-American, the only African-American, and the largest African-American senatorial district in the country, damn near.
	Do y'all understand that?
	So that's packing.
	That's heavy packing.
	But they've taken away one of our voices.
	We had where we had two.
	We now only have one.
	That's some serious packing.
	Thank you for your testimony today.
	And to the gentleman who first spoke, it's absolutely correct.
	They're not allowing constituents to choose their electeds.
	This is allowing electeds to choose their constituents.
	Okay?
	And that's where we're wrong.
	And as far as my colleagues in the House who are being chased like runaway slaves, and the only pursuit they're trying to do is protect democracy, we have to stand with them because that's all they're doing is trying to protect democracy and they're being chased away and they're being tracked like runaway slaves.
	Thank you.
	Senator King.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Oh, thank you, Chairman.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Is it Flaherty?
unidentified		Flaherty, yes.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Flaherty, thank you.
		I just wanted to respond to what you said about District 11 and going from West.
		Texas from Midland actually goes from Ector County, which is one county to the west, into Travis County.
		In the current map, it goes from Ector County into Bell County.
		And so it's almost really the same footprint.
		It just instead of picking up some additional population in Bell, it dips in and picks some out of Travis.
		So the distance from east to west in the current map is really the same as the distance from east to west in the proposed map.
		And I just wanted to point that out.
unidentified		Do I have a chance to respond?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Certainly.
unidentified		I just find it hypocritical.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		The chair's discretion, but I'm sure.
unidentified		So you talk about this thin line that goes down I-35.
		But in District 11, that thin line follows along the Williamson County and Travis County border.
		So it's the same thing, and then it balloons out into West Texas.
		It's a five and a half, six-hour drive.
		And by saying that it already exists to some extent doesn't make it any better, especially when you're claiming that the 35th district.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		But you understand in West Texas, for you to be able to get 766,000 people together, you've got, so these numbers will be a little bit off, but I think they're still pretty close.
		So if you look at the I-35 corridor, even though you've got large cities like Amarilla, Lubbock, Wichita Falls, Midland, Odessa, San Antonio, west of I-35, even though Abilene, even though you've got all those cities, still only about 14.5% of Texans live west of the I-35 corridor.
		And if you look at the East Texas, the I-45 corridor, only about 8.5% of Texans live east of that.
		Most of the population is in the triangle.
		So if to comport with one person, one vote, which is very important, because if you live in a district that's got 100,000 people and I live in one that's got 50,000 people, my vote's worth twice as much as yours.
		And that's why the most fundamental thing in redistricting in congressional districts is equal population.
		So if you're going to put together a district into West Texas that's got 766,000 people in it, you've got to come east.
		And you're going to have to pick up population out of Williamson or Bell or wherever it is.
		And so my only point was that you had said it was wrong to come all the way from Ector County to Travis County in a new map.
		And I was just simply saying that the footprint really hasn't changed.
		It's just going from Ector County into Bell County, which is just one county north of, or two counties north of Travis County.
		So it's still that same spread, but you just don't have any other way to draw those West Texas districts and comply with the most fundamental purpose of redistricting.
unidentified		That is so intellectually lazy.
unidentified		Like, honestly, that is the most intellectually lazy thing.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		No, I've heard thus.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		It's just simple.
unidentified		We're not here to debate.
		We certainly had Senator King as the author choose to make some comments based on testimony and offered you the opportunity to respond.
		But we have to continue along or we're going to lose witnesses that are on time frames to have to get back home.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
unidentified		So thank you for your testimony as well.
		Very much appreciated.
		We're all listening very closely.
		Thank you both as well.
		We'll call the next panel.
		Dr. Craig Nasor, Robert Norris, Susan McNeill, Emily Amps.
		Please come forward and we'll begin with Dr. Nasor.
		Hello, my name is Dr. Naser.
		I'm the conservation chair of the state chapter of the Sierra Club.
		Cyrus Reed, our conservation director, has submitted some really good points here about how this redistricting negatively affects people's power to control the kind of environmental issues we have.
		One point I'd like to say is about this compactness.
		District 10 has not been compacted since it was first drawn.
		It looks like a python that swallowed an elephant, and it continues to look that way.
		It's highly unrepresentative.
		Another district that I'd like to talk about, it's in the valley, actually, it's a couple of them.
		It's about Corpus Christi.
		Corpus Christi Harbor is facing huge challenges with pollution and desalination plants and LNG plants, and there's an ethane cracker plant there now.
		And what's happened, even though some of the districts may look more compact, they divide Corpus Christi up now into three different areas.
		And one, 27, it reaches around like a little snake to bite off a little Republican area, a really Democrat area right there.
		And what happens in Texas is, for instance, the TCEQ is not allowed to control accumulative impacts of pollution, just individual places.
		So when they built that ethane cracker plant, the TCEQ told Exxon that, no, that's too much air pollution.
		Build two plants right next to each other and okay them each for half that amount and we can do it.
		That was just dumb and everybody saw through it.
		But now they're impacted with all this pollution and their communities of color, of minorities.
		And then you split them off into pieces, they can't even go to the EPA through their representative.
		This is wrong.
		This is wrong.
		Thank you for your testimony.
		Thanks for being here.
		Senator Danajosa, you're recognized.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		And one of the comments I made initially when we started this hearing, I was very concerned about Naisi County.
		Their ways being split, I think in three ways.
		And quite frankly, that's not being compact.
		And Naesis County, as you all know, besides we have the port, refineries, new interests coming in.
		We have a diesel plant being constructed that will be used as a template for the rest of the Gulf Coast.
		So all of that is sudden completely changed around, which I don't think is very good for the communities in Corpus Christi and in the Costa Bay area when you have that type of division within the county itself and the neighborhoods.
		But thank you for your testimony.
		And Sierra Club agrees with you there.
		Thank you.
		Thank you, Serger.
		Welcome.
		Pull that microphone close.
		Introduce yourself and give us your testimony.
		Thank you.
		Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Emily Amps and I'm the Director of Politics and Policy at the Texas AFL-CIO, the state's labor federation with over 250,000 affiliated members across the state, including in your districts.
		I'm here to testify on their behalf and for myself.
		When this weekends, there will have been four legislative hearings to discuss disaster response and how we can prevent more innocent lives from being swept away in the floods.
		And when this weekends, there will have been 13 legislative hearings to discuss congressional redistricting, something no Texan asked for and will further divide already fragile communities.
		That's time that should have been spent addressing what Texans do need, protection from damaging storms, wages that are enough to put food on tables and roofs overheads, access to health care and health insurance so our neighbors don't have to choose between their well-being and bankruptcy, shielding workers from wage theft and writing laws that protect workers from heat death.
		But instead, we're here because state leaders would rather bow to the pressure of a president that cares more about his political future than the future of our state.
		Pressures that will result in silencing even more Texans, including many workers, adding to the many voices already muted by the current district lines.
		Communities that have already been severed and neighborhoods already divided by this current map, which could be used already as a study in gerrymandering.
		This map, though, SB4, this bill, doubles down on gerrymandering and says, hold my beer.
		For example, fast-growing suburban communities like mine in Buda, Texas, just south of Austin, currently in Congressional District 21, already sliced and diced and put into district with rural communities that we have little in common with.
		I thought it couldn't get worse.
		I was proven wrong.
		If this passes and is signed into law, my house will now be on the edge of Congressional District 27, a district that will go from Hayes and Travis counties to the Gulf of Mexico and Matagorda County.
		On a good day with no traffic, and those of us in Austin know there is no good days with no traffic, that's about a three-hour and 10-minute drive.
		It doesn't sound very compact to me.
		And please, someone explain to me why a fast-growing suburb of the 11th largest city in the United States has in common with Palacios, Texas.
		And of course, it's a rhetorical question because we all know the answer is very little.
		So I urge you as you move forward, please remember that your actions during this special session will have a real impact on real people.
		And there are real issues that need to be addressed.
	And also remember that you do not have to pass a map.
	Please don't forget that.
	And thanks for your testimony.
	Ms. Mondeo, welcome.
	Get close to that microphone and introduce yourself and go ahead.
	Okay, my name is Susan McNeil and I live in Pflugerville, District 17.
	I'm here representing myself.
	And you all have heard about the racial disparities and the legalities of this map.
	So I'm going to focus on what is actually transpiring with this map.
	It is an authoritarian attack on our democracy.
	Our democracy is already fractured with Congress shirking their responsibilities and not representing the American people and ceding their power to the Oval Office.
	If you approve this map, it will be one more nail in the coffin of democracy.
	The felon in the White House states that he deserves five more seats because he won Texas the largest majority percentage ever in the history of the United States.
	That is a lie.
	So he does not deserve the five seats.
	I, for one, will never, ever bow to tyranny.
	Like the old adage says, give me liberty or give me death.
	And you all can take that to the bank.
	I implore you, do not destroy our freedoms and democracy.
	And if you're fair, if you're scared of the felon, quit, leave.
	Vamoose.
	We do not want or need scared politicians.
	And lastly, do not force the American people into an armed revolution because I fear if you continue on the same path, this is where we are headed.
	Thank you for your speech.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Morris, welcome.
	Pull that microphone close, Mr. Norris.
	Introduce yourself and go ahead.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	I'm Robert Norris representing myself and opposed to Senate Bill 4.
	I want my grandkids and all others to benefit from a responsive government that promotes the best interests of our citizens.
	I want them to benefit from public schools that help develop intelligent and kind students.
	President Trump wants this legislature to adopt a new map that will allow him to continue favoring wealthy and powerful Republicans.
	These are the same people who want to privatize and undermine our public schools.
	My grandkids, like me, have lived most of their lives in Travis County.
	The map you're considering will redraw our local districts with the result that our excellent congressmen, Lloyd Doggett and Greg Kassar, are less likely to be elected in the future.
	These congressmen are working to promote democracy and fairness and oppose cuts to our legacy safety net programs like Medicaid and food stamps.
	Also, communities of color in other parts of Texas will lose vital representation if this map is adopted.
	As you've heard, Texas has a shameful history of disenfranchising blacks and Hispanics, which Senate Bill 4 will continue.
	The map before you will have an adverse impact on many of the state's grandkids and everyday citizens, so I definitely oppose it.
	And I applaud the House Democrats who are doing the heavy lifting to thwart the Trump and Abbott power grab by going to other states.
	I'm finished.
	Thanks for your testimony.
	Senators, any questions for any of our witnesses on this panel?
	Well, thank you.
	Your excuse.
	Thanks for your testimony.
	Call Anthony Gutierrez, Dr. Susanna Carranza, David Wheeler, Nick Mohlberg.
	Looking for Anthony Gutierrez.
	There's Dr. Susanna Carranza.
	David Wheeler.
	Nick Maulberg called Carrie King.
	Is Carrie here wishing to testify?
	Cary King.
	Just give me.
	Francesca Fragaleahy.
	Is Francesca here wishing to testify?
	Wow, come on now.
	welcome to each of you when you get situated We'll start over here.
	Francesca, pull the microphone close, introduce yourself, and give us your testimony.
	Good morning, Chairman King and Vice Chair Creighton and committee members.
	My name is Francesca Fraga Leahy, and I'm representing myself in opposition to SB4.
	Alongside the vast majority of Texans whom you all have heard from, and though from those whom you have not, I'm vehemently opposed to SB4 because the proposed map and this process are wrong from a moral, logical, and a Texan perspective.
	I'm proud to be here today as a lifelong Texan because three generations ago, my Mexican and Italian great-grandparents immigrated to America.
	Two generations ago, my grandparents raised their families on the west side of San Antonio and in South Waco.
	And my parents, small business owners, Chicano activists, and lifelong community advocates, raised me and my siblings in Waco, Texas.
	I went to college in Austin, taught middle school in the Rio Grande Valley, and now own a home with my husband and three kids in south central Austin and current Congressional District 37.
	I know Texas values.
	And as a former social studies teacher, I know that the Texas Constitution states all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit.
	This outrageous mid-district, mid-decade redistricting move by the governor and the current DOJ, enforced by the unpopular authoritarian in the White House to increase Republican representation in the U.S. House by taking existing districts away from communities of color, including my friends and neighbors in the current District 35 in East Austin, just a few miles away from where I live, is shameful.
	Sien verguenza, as my abuelita used to say.
	This process has laid bare the pitiful reality that today's statewide electeds, politicians part of a Republican party that has held power in this state for most of my life, are behaving as if our communities' voices and votes are for sale to out-of-state donors and corrupt interests.
	That my family's tax dollars are being wastefully mismanaged by incompetent state leadership that has chosen to kneel to a wannabe king.
	It's not a game, is it?
	I urge you to stop this undemocratic, ridiculous political maneuver.
	Do not pass SB4.
	Thank you for your testimony.
	Pull the microphone close.
	Welcome.
	Introduce yourself and go ahead.
	Thank you.
	Hello, my name is Carrie King, and I am testifying on behalf of myself and against this proposed redistricting.
	Fair and equal representation, the crown jewel of our democracy, that is what we are here to protect.
	However, as long as the ability to get away with racial gerrymandering remains, we will stay stuck in a loop, repeating a sad and shameful cycle of domination and oppression.
	Our country's racist legacy started with the colonization and near obliteration of Native peoples.
	Then came the saga of slavery, answered by the Civil War and Jim Crow.
	The civil rights movement exposed the pervasive racism that continues to plague our society to this day, but people of color finally secured the Voting Rights Act.
	Unfortunately, over the past 60 years to the day yesterday, the Voting Rights Act has been whittled down slowly but surely.
	And now today we see how brazen and out in the open white supremacy has become.
	With this, let's go, Brandon, stickers on trucks and neo-Nazis marching in New Hampshire.
	Not to mention ICE out there racially profiling and spreading doom and fear across our nation.
	We have to show up with the moral fiber it takes to meet this moment.
	We have to choose love and kindness.
	Members, it's up to you to steer our great experiment in representative democracy back towards equity and justice.
	Reject this DC-ordered redistricting plan and write our sinking ship.
	Turn away from fear of losing personal power.
	Look deeply into and open your hearts to the space where courage defeats intimidation.
	Our democracy is counting on all of you to choose integrity over corruption.
	Texas House Democrat representatives who've broken quorum, thank you so much from the bottom of our hearts.
	Thank you for honoring the nonviolent legacy of civil rights warriors who've come before you, the likes of Jordan, King, and Lewis who are smiling down upon you.
	Thank you for the good trouble.
	I'm here to add my voice to the powerful message we heard from Senator Miles here today and to demonstrate to my two sons who are present in this room that when we see injustice, we must stand up and fight back.
	When we do, love wins.
	Thank you.
	Thank you for your testimony.
	Welcome.
	Pull that microphone over, if you will, and introduce yourself and give us your testimony.
	Thank you.
	My name is David Wheeler.
	I'm representing myself.
	I'm speaking today in opposition of SB4.
	This is a bill that only serves to undercut our democracy and ratchet up the tensions between parties.
	It is a power grab, as has been acknowledged.
	Last week, more than 93% of the more than 500 people who testified or dropped cards concerning HB4 stated that they oppose this action.
	From Senator Miles' note today, the percentage is 98% against today in testimony.
	This is a call to try to manipulate the congressional map for party gain, not for the good of the people or for the state.
	The brave House members who broke quorum have offered you an opportunity to take a step back and reconsider this rash action.
	Have the courage, integrity, and will to vote no and keep this awful bill with respect from leaving your committee.
	Voting yes will only serve to undermine faith in our government and faith in you.
	If you will not hear my words, I can only ask that you heed this warning from George Washington in his farewell address.
	However, political parties may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of the government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
	The time that Washington warned us against is now.
	You have the power to step back from this precipice.
	Senators, please heed this warning from our first president.
	Serve democracy over party.
	Serve state over party, our state.
	This bill undercuts our great experiment.
	Vote against SB4.
	Thank you.
	And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your testimony.
	Dr. Carranja, welcome.
	You know how to do this?
	Get that microphone close.
	Introduce yourself and go ahead.
	I am Dr. Susanna Carranza, representing myself, and I oppose this horrible bill and this entire rush process.
	The chair, Mr. King, has claimed this was a wonderful process, citing the early MATLAB hearings.
	Well, being forced to mark neutral when so many of us said hell no does not sound like a fair process to me.
	Texas do not want this rush process or this map.
	Yet, you filed the same exact map that will illegally break communities of color, of interest, and gerrymander cities and receive overwhelming rejection last Friday at the House hearings.
	The chair also mentioned the horrors of the previous administration as a motivation for the new districts.
	You mean like ICE, pulling people out of cars because they look brown?
	Well, that was not the previous administration.
	This is happening right now.
	I'm a naturalized citizen who has called the U.S. home for more than half my life.
	I was born in Brazil during peak dictatorship when people were being disappeared.
	Kind of sounds similar.
	There's a movie I'm still here, and you might learn something from it.
	As a little kid, I went to pro-democracy rallies with my older siblings.
	I was lucky to see the transition out of dictatorship.
	Right now, you all with this map are handing down on a silver platter our democracy to Trump.
	It's not too late.
	I support House members who are breaking quorum to defend Texans.
	And if you really want to learn from history, you're going to withdraw this map right now and switch the focus to flood.
	Because if you say, well, maybe if they come back, we'll work on things.
	Well, work on flodge, all right?
	Do the right thing.
	Thanks for watching.
	You have time.
	Thanks, Dr. Crosser, for your testimony.
	Senator King, Chairman King, you're recognized.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Oh, thank you, Doctor, and thanks for being here today.
		Just wanted to make sure something.
		You said you were required to vote or to mark neutral when you registered.
unidentified		On the MATLAS hearings, like last.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		But today, you were able to register your opposition.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Okay, just want to make sure the registration process was working right.
unidentified		Yes, it is.
		Can I continue?
		I'm saying that you're using the previous hearings to say this was open and fair, but people could not officially say they opposed before while they clearly oppose during the Senate hearings, where their words clearly oppose.
		So, and today I understand what I marked against.
		I have been here a time where many, as some of you have known, but having to mark neutral last week felt really, really horrible because I was not neutral at all.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Just so everybody understands how that works, anytime there's not a bill, someone mentioned the flood hearings.
		In the flood hearings, if you registered to testify, you had to register neutral because there's no bill before the committee under consideration.
		So that's why you would mark neutral.
		The same thing was true in the redistricting hearings before there was a map.
		That's exactly why we're having public testimony today is because we have a map and we wanted people to be able to register that they're for it, neutral on it, or against it.
		So that's why that occurred earlier.
		But now that there is a map, a bill, that anyone who registers to testify can register their opposition to it.
		So just that's kind of how that works for the general public's knowledge.
		I know you know that, Doctor.
unidentified		I understand the process.
		Yes.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		Senator, is there any other questions for our witnesses on this panel?
		Thank you for being here.
		You're excused.
		And for the benefit of those listening who may not be familiar with the process, anyone who's watched knows that every witness was allowed and encouraged to fully express their opinion for or against anything.
		And no one, not even, no one has even suggested that a registration of neutral on the topic was a support or anything like that for the redistricting process.
		And again, folks familiar with the process know, but we sure wouldn't want someone listening in who doesn't know how that system works to be misled.
		So with that, thank you.
		Chair again calls Nick Mahlberg.
		Called Nick on the last panel.
		I want to make sure everybody has a chance.
		Also, I'll call again Anthony Gutierrez.
		Lauren Pena.
		Melody Tremalo.
		I know they're over.
		Come on down, have a seat.
		I know they're overflow rooms.
		We'll give folks time to get here.
		Also looking for Becky Bullard called Joe M. Good.
		I'll call Emily Yemmington, Courtney Benton, Call Courtney Benton.
		Sarah Beck.
		Sarah Beck.
		John McKiernan-Gonzalez.
		And if I, oh, please come on down.
		And if I called your name and you ended the room, come on down.
		We'll have a seat for you.
		And we'll continue to call witnesses whenever we want to have a chance.
		Call David Chinkanchan.
		David Chinkanchan.
		Tulsara Cinco.
		Sarah Cinco.
		Yes, Mr. Chairman.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Oh, hey, excuse me for interrupting.
		Please.
		But I just want to make sure everybody's comfortable out there.
		It's kind of freezing up here.
		Is there anybody freezing out there or too hot?
		Yeah, that's what I was afraid of.
		We'll see if we can't get them to crank it up a couple of degrees.
unidentified		I apologize for that.
		And if I called your name up, we have a seat for you.
		Please come on down.
		And I'm going to call a couple more names so that folks can be making their way into this room because we're going to have you on the next panel.
		So for the next panel, we'll be looking for Dr. Nancy Simmon, Anise Palacios, and of course, anyone who I called before will get you on the next one.
		So thank you for working with us.
		I want to make sure everyone gets to testify.
		And we'll start over here.
		So when you're ready, pull that microphone close, introduce yourself, and give us your testimony.
		Hi, all.
		My name is Emily Yemington, and I'm representing myself against redistricting.
		I was born and raised here in Austin, Texas.
		I'm a biomedical engineer, newly graduated from UT Austin, Hookum, and I'm just about to start my PhD.
		This bill is obviously a result of the DOJ asking for five more seats.
		This isn't an accidental, oops, I redistricted Texas and accidentally found exactly the number of seats Epstein's bestie asked for.
		And this is not just scrounging through the couch cushions for sublues votes.
		You're being obtuse if you think one vote before the redistricting is equal to one after.
		You're literally redrawing the map to dilute communities you disagree with.
		If this were truly a body of representatives, an independent third party would be redrawing these districts by community interest and need.
		Anything else is a blatant admission that your ideas and policies are not good enough to faithfully convert Texans, even with the currently gerrymandered map.
		But Epstein's best friend is clearly scared of what non-gerrymandered voters might think.
		Are you?
		Let's not pretend that you're not aware of the context of this redistricting or that there is any good faith redrawing on behalf of the people who testified at previous hearings.
		Saying that the map is race-blind does not change the fact that it will disproportionately suppress brown and black communities.
		The intent may not be racist, but it doesn't really matter because the effect is racist.
		Either way, it's clear that most Texans don't want this.
		I was taught growing up the Texas Capitol, this building, stands taller than the one in DC.
		We fly our state flag at the same height as our countries.
		We are the lone star state.
		For better or worse, I was taught that I am a Texan first and an American second.
		I ask you all to be Texans first, like the brave House representatives who are breaking quorum right now.
		Thank you for your time.
		And thank you for your testimony.
		Welcome.
		Introduce yourself and give us your testimony.
		Go ahead.
		Okay, good morning.
		My name is Courtney Benton, lawyer and community advocate.
		I'm a resident of Austin, Texas, and I stay in Congressional District 37.
		I stand here in opposition to the redistricting and the proposed Texas congressional map, SP4.
		So my question today is: what is democracy?
		And where did our democracy go?
		According to Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute, democracy is a system of government in which the right to govern lies with the people.
		Democracy is valued for promoting political stability, individual freedoms, and accountability and governance, allowing for peaceful transfers of power and providing mechanisms to redress grievances and injustices.
		As a black resident of Austin, I don't feel safe.
		I don't feel safe because of the results of what this map will do to suppress votes and voices of people whose votes and voice matters.
		With the proposed Texas congressional map, this race-based racial gerrymanding is in play and negatively impacts many people in many communities, especially our black and brown communities, something that has gone on for years.
		It was mentioned that two objectives were used in making this map, compactness and five Republican seats.
		Although there may have not been a racial intention, that is not the case, what will result from this map.
		So now that you know and have heard the testimonies and see that there will be less representation for people of color, specifically black and brown communities, what will you do next?
		Will you care?
		Will you do anything?
		When is enough enough?
		I always hated the word gerrymandering, but today I understand what it means more than ever.
		I am sick and tired of being sick and tired.
		One day I know the struggle will change.
		There's got to be a change, not only for Texas, not only for people in the United States, but people all over the world.
		However, the very right here that I'm sitting here fighting for a fundamental right as boundaries around me get manipulated at the cost of our citizens.
		The very right that had people who look like me sacrifice their lives through literal blood, sweat.
		Thank you for your testimony.
		There are many folks waiting in line, so we're trying to stay close to those time limits.
		Thank you for your testimony.
		Welcome.
		Get close to the mic, introduce yourself, and go ahead.
	Howdy, my name is Melody Tremalo, and here we are again talking about shit that doesn't matter, like SB 7 or redistricting.
	And yet again, I'm asking why we aren't talking.
	If you use profanity, you'll be excused.
	You may continue.
	Understood.
	I am yet again asking why we aren't talking about the flood or flood relief.
	I am currently without a car and have been since June.
	I am here because I am borrowing a car from a friend.
	On the 5th of July, I woke up to news that the floods were worse than anybody anticipated.
	On the 6th of July, I enjoyed with individuals and nonprofits to provide assistance to search and recovery and cleanup teams remotely.
	I acted as a central hub of information and coordination.
	Without any funding, training, or experience, I found a way to help my fellow Texans.
	All of you sitting here before me have far more money, influence, and power than myself.
	So, I ask which of you have spent 15 hours a day directing food and supplies?
	And are, and I understand that y'all are lawmakers, so I don't understand what kind of time commitment your job requires or entails, but y'all can certainly prioritize what gets heard.
	So, why are you spending so much time on redistricting instead of flood relief and prevention?
	Senator Miles was very right.
	Washington asked for five more seats, and y'all are more than happy to give it to them.
	I've never known Texas to bow down to the federal government, but the majority of y'all on this committee not only entertain that request, y'all are actively rolling out the red carpet for it.
	So, what changed?
	Y'all decided to fall in line with fascism.
	Call it what it is.
	This benefits the bottom line of the Republican Party.
	This move keeps you in power because you know that if you wait for the proper time to redistrict the next census, it is too long for y'all to retain control of Texas.
	I worked myself ragged for an entire month.
	I've watched hearings from victims of the flood from Kerrville to Sandy Creek.
	They still need help.
	They need debris cleanup.
	They need trash all the way.
	They need long-term housing.
	They need funerary services.
	They need grief counseling and trauma therapy.
	Quite frankly, they need help.
	And you insist on redistricting.
	Our neighbors don't need a new map.
	Thank you for your testimony.
	Thanks for being here.
	We want to make sure everybody gets to testify.
	Ms. Good, pull that microphone close, introduce yourself, and go ahead.
	I'm here to say this again because somehow the urgency still isn't being heard.
	Our communities are in crisis after flooding.
	Families are grieving and desperate for help.
	You know, the reason we had a special session.
	What are we doing?
	Redistricting.
	Again, in the middle of disaster recovery.
	And let's be honest, this isn't just bad timing.
	Don't whisper with your neighbor.
	It is morally wrong and fundamentally unjust because this redistricting process is not just bureaucratic, it's racist.
	These maps erase representation on purpose.
	They silence the voices of the communities who are hurting the most right now.
	Communities that are overrepresented in need, underrepresented in this building, and clearly not the priority of the moment.
	It's not leadership, it's abandonment.
	And it is rooted not only in political greed, but in racial injustice.
	This state should be mobilizing every resource to rebuild, not redraw.
	So I'll say it again, louder, clearer.
	Redistricting can wait.
	Racist redistricting should be stopped permanently.
	What cannot wait is flood relief and the people that need it.
	Do your job.
	Help the people.
	All of them.
	Ms. Good, thanks for your testimony.
	I recognize you.
	I'd used your name, but I didn't ask you to give us your name, just so it's on the record.
	Joe Good.
	Thank you very much.
	Senator King, you have the panel.
	Thank you.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		And I just, several people have mentioned the flood or other things that are issues, prominent issues before Texas.
		We always have prominent issues because we're a big, fast-growing state.
		As you know, the legislature always is working on multiple issues at a time whenever we're in session.
		And right now, I think there's 16 items that the governor has put on the call for consideration in this special session.
unidentified		What's the most important?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Ma'am, please let me.
unidentified		I'm sorry.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
		So the point I was trying to make is, or I want to make sure everybody understood, and the public as well, is that without any question, the flood response is the most important issue before this legislative session.
		That said, we have a committee working feverishly on that.
		And in fact, you will see bills on the floor of the Senate and if the Democrats return on the floor of the House very soon that try to address that.
		We've even had an on-site Senate hearing in Kerrville.
		I guess that was last week.
unidentified		Ma'am.
unidentified		Ma'am.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		We've already had a hearing on site in Kerrville to gather information directly.
		So that committee is moving forward aggressively.
		That legislation is prepared and being passed out in the Senate committee.
		It'll be on the floor before long at all.
		Hopefully the House Democrats will have returned and we can pass legislation on the flood as well out of the House and get it to where it needs to be.
		But we're also working on other issues while we're here, on reducing property taxes and a number of other matters.
		And so this committee is assigned specifically the responsibility of redistricting.
		It is the only issue that we can work on.
		But the other senators are working on flood and the other matters that have been brought up before.
		We're very good at multitasking.
		And that is the way we always operate, multiple issues at a time through our committees.
		So we're doing our job.
		The other committees are doing their job.
		And we'll have flood response bills on the floor of the Senate quite likely next week for consideration.
		So that is all moving forward.
		Just wanted to make sure everyone understood the process.
		So thank you.
unidentified		Thank you.
		Senator Miles, you have the panel.
		Thanks, sir.
		Ma'am, I want to thank all of you ladies for testifying.
		I'm sorry I didn't hear them all.
		But Ms. Good, did I hear you say racist rig, District E?
		Oh, hell yeah.
		Oh, okay.
		I'm sorry.
		Thank you.
		Senator Jenny, any other questions for our witnesses on this panel?
		We thank you each for being here.
		You're excused.
		We'll continue to call names, and we're calling names multiple times so that folks have an opportunity as they may be stepped out for personal matters or maybe in an overflow room.
		So for the next panel, we're looking for Anthony Gutierrez, Nick Mohlberg, Lauren Pena, Becky Bullard, Sarah Beck, David Chincanchan, John McKiernan-Gonzalez, Sarah Cinco, Dr. Nancy Simmon.
		Seaman.
		Seaman, thank you.
		S-E-M-I-N, and Denise Palacios.
		Denise here Rocio Fierro Perez Rocio Fierro Perez, Daniela Silva.
		Daniela Silva, Amy Camp, Amy Camp with us wishing to testify.
		Welcome.
		I hope I'm not the first one to mispronounce your name, but I'll try to get it right next time.
		It's Dr. Nancy Seaman-Lingo.
		Thank you.
		I'm here to testify.
		I represent myself, and I came down as a citizen of the state to look you, mostly you gentlemen.
		I know Paxton conveniently cut out.
		I'm here to look you in the eyes and tell you, and you all can look back at me.
		Hello, Senator Hughes.
		This is a power grab.
		We see it for what it is.
		It's a power grab, pure and simple.
		You're not fooling anybody.
		And Mr. Hughes, I had to listen to you earlier make arguments that a high school debate student could quash.
		What about ism?
		What about ism?
		What about Indiana?
		What about California?
		I don't care about that.
		And Mr. King, I say the same thing to you.
		You had the audacity to bring up Baker v. Carr, although you didn't say it.
		One person, one vote, and yet you are stripping that away from me.
		And I'd like to say one final thing to you, gentlemen.
		I know that you guys sit back there and you're smug and you're self-confident and you don't really care what Democratic voters in this state have to say.
		You don't fear us.
		But I want to tell you something.
		I'm a student of history.
		I'm a professor of history.
		And what will swallow you whole is MAGA.
		This revolution will eat you and it'll put your neck under the guillotine.
		And I strongly advise you to stop now in the interest of democracy.
		You're not safe.
		You can't hide.
		You think you're doing Trump's bidding?
		You're not.
		I'm done.
		Thank you.
		Okay.
		Please proceed.
		Thank you.
		Good morning.
		My name is David Chinkanchen, and I serve as the policy director for Workers' Defense Action Fund.
		I'm here today to speak in opposition to the blatantly racist congressional map that you're proposing.
		Committee members, there's a National Historic Landmark in Selma, Alabama.
	You may have heard of it.
	It's called the Edmund Pettis Bridge.
	It's named after a pro-slavery white supremacist.
	60 years ago, it was the site of Bloody Sunday, an astonishing event where civil rights advocates, including the late Representative John Lewis, peacefully marched in support of voting rights.
	They were met with brutality and violence perpetrated by Alabama state troopers under the orders of Governor George Wallace.
	As bystanders disturbingly cheered on, the state troopers attacked the protesters with tear gas.
	And as children, men, and women ran gasping for air, state troopers on horseback chased them down, dragged them to the ground, beat them with billy clubs, nightsticks, and plastic tubes wrapped with barbed wire.
	That was the heavy cost Americans paid for our voting rights.
	People gave sweat, tears, blood, even their freedom or their lives to ensure that we were meeting the promise of democracy.
	Their courage galvanized Americans, forced our country to reckon with the soul-rotting disease of Jim Crow, segregation, poll taxes, literacy tests, and the other injustices aimed at suppressing the vote and voices of black Americans.
	This contributed significantly to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
	Now, by allowing Trump to take over Texas, by refusing to prioritize flood relief and disaster recovery, by dismissing the needs of working Texans and their families, and instead using this special session to advance maps that pack and crack communities of color to silence their voices, you are diminishing the history, struggle, and achievements of the civil rights movement and undermining our democracy.
	You are pulling and dragging us back into a shameful era of discrimination that we can no longer tolerate or abide by.
	Members, we need our leaders to put Texas first, not to play political games with our rights and our futures.
	Thank you.
	Appreciate your testimony.
	You can begin.
	Good afternoon.
	My name is Amy Camp.
	I'm the communications director for Ground Game Texas, and I'm here representing my organization and myself in opposition to SB4 and the proposed redistricting overall.
	Ground Game Texas works to engage and empower voters across Texas by putting popular policies up to a vote using the tool of municipal ballot initiatives.
	We've seen over and over in our work that when people feel like their vote counts, they turn out.
	Our ballot initiatives engage first-time and infrequent voters, including young voters and voters of color, because they know when they vote, their vote will be counted.
	This redistricting farce aims to do the opposite.
	It continues the dirty work Texas leadership has done for decades, innovating ways to suppress and erase our voting rights, especially the rights of black and Latino voters.
	As Texas goes, so goes the nation, indeed.
	I've heard loud and clear from Senator King that he fully intends to ignore the testimony offered here today if it contradicts his goal of passing the shameful map with all due speed.
	I don't understand why someone would choose to devote their one wild and precious life to ruling over an unwilling people by rigging the game.
	As many witnesses have testified today, we could be devoting the full force of our efforts this special session to preventing another unnecessary tragedy like the recent flood deaths and devastation, much of it due to government negligence and inconfidence.
	Instead, you choose to waste our time with this pathetic demonstration of servility to Donald Trump.
	If you pass this map, it will certainly make it harder for each Texan's vote to count.
	But to echo Senator Miles, we will not be cowed by this attempt to silence us.
	We will continue to organize, educate, and empower voters until we have a Texas that works for all Texans.
	Thank you.
	Appreciate your testimony.
	Ms. Pena.
	Hi, my name is Lauren Pena.
	I live in one of the first housing projects ever implemented in the United States.
	It just went through gentrification.
	I'm actually walking a distance across from the Capitol here.
	My community's civil rights are being severely violated, so much so that I am the pro se litigant for a class action lawsuit against the city of Austin and the Housing Authority of the City of Austin.
	I want to read five quotes that I took today from people speaking up here: Your vote is your weapon.
	We don't have the representation we deserve to have.
	Our taxpayer funds are being wastefully mismanaged.
	People of color finally have the right to vote.
	The effects have gone on for years.
	Erase representation on purpose.
	Silence their voices when we need them the most.
	These were all said by Democrats being represented by Democrats.
	So that's why I am a conservative running for United States Congress living inside federal housing projects because the gentrification of public housing is detrimental for society.
	And I'm sick and tired of hearing paid lobbyists sit up here and tell you how they need to vote when they don't know what it's like to live in the brown and black communities.
	I live there right now.
	Right now, I urge all of you to accept my request to let's go on a field trip.
	Let's go around to the projects here in Austin, Texas.
	I can probably guarantee your safety, no problem.
	We can do it in groups, however, you want to do it.
	I'd like to do it with the senators and the House of Representatives.
	Why don't you guys come see how these policies that you have made, implemented, and severely mismanaged on the Democrat side?
	Because again, these are all Democrat policies that are harming my community.
	Now, as far as this bill, I am completely all in for it.
	You know why?
	Because either way, it doesn't matter if I'm running in 37 or 35.
	I have so many eligible non-voters that haven't voted in 40 years that are going to vote for me.
	So you guys are screwed, okay?
	I'm going to take this seat.
	There's nothing you can do about it.
	Now, I would like to say that this new map is going to encompass all the housing projects all around the city of Austin.
	So that means I get to go into every brown and black community that is disproportionately affected and they're going to start voting for the first time in 40 years.
	Thank you.
	Hey, members, any questions?
	Senator King.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Oh, thank you.
		And it's not specifically for the panel.
		So more just to help me.
		I really appreciate all the testimony we've had this morning.
		And I know we've got quite a few people left to testify, but it would help all of us, I think.
		Most of the testimony, in fact, all of the testimony this morning has been very much in generalities.
		If you have a specific concern about a specific district that you live in or you're aware of, you believe it does something wrong, either in terms of splitting a community of interest or dividing a population or something else.
		It would help a lot more if I had specifics and you said, hey, I live in District 23, and when you move this in to this neighborhood or this county, it had the following impact.
		And we can look and respond to those type of things.
		But although I appreciate your testimony and I understand the generalities, where you can give specific testimony about districts, that's something we can work with a lot more.
		So thank you.
unidentified		Thank you, Senator King.
		Members, any other questions?
		Senator Miles.
		Mr. Chairman, Senator King, does that apply to people on the board on the panel as well?
		Can I give you my information on how it's affecting my district?
		And you're looking to change it?
		The same offer you just made to the witnesses.
		It doesn't matter what district I'm in.
		This is a power grab.
		We're not recognized at this time.
		But thank you very much for this panel.
		And we appreciate each and every one of you, Senator Miles.
		Thank you, ma'am.
		My question is: the same offer you just made to the witnesses, Senator King.
		Does that apply to us as well?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		So I, yes, of course, but I assume in your case that you would be preparing floor amendments or committee amendments with specific recommended changes for the committee to consider or for the Senate as a whole to consider.
unidentified		And I would love to, and so yes, I think something for the committee to consider.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		And I'd also say that, look, you're an exceptionally good person to work with, and I think we've always had a good working relationship.
		But my point was that if the witnesses want to testify saying, hey, here's what I need, would like changed in this bill, then the specifics help, and we can say, okay, I agree that that created a problem or I don't agree.
		But for the members, I think for us, it's probably more so preparing committee or floor amendments with recommended changes and all the stuff that goes with that.
		So I'm happy to consider anything.
		But at the end of the day, it's the committee members all will have to vote on this map coming out of this committee, whether it does or not.
		When it gets to the floor, any amendments that are proposed, all the members of the Senate will vote on that, on whether or not those amendments are adopted or not, and whether or not ultimately the map passes out.
		And so, yes, I'm happy to work with anybody.
unidentified		Yeah, I thought, my recollection is correct.
unidentified		I thought we were told as committee members not to provide any amendments.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		No, and I'm sorry if there's any confusion, but I mentioned that again at yesterday's hearing.
		I walked through the amendment process for the floor, and then, of course, the amendment process for the committee had been communicated earlier.
		And then, of course, it always follows the rules that were in the SR5 that we all passed to guide this committee.
		So obviously, even as chair, I don't have the authority to tell somebody they can't bring an amendment.
		And I'm sorry if there was confusion on that.
unidentified		Thank you.
		Thank you, members.
		Any other questions or comments?
		We'll excuse this panel.
		Appreciate your testimony.
		And at this time, the chair will call Nick Mahlberg, Anthony Gutierrez, Becky Bullard, and Sarah Beck.
		We'll call John McKiernan-Gonzalez.
		Is John still here with us?
		We'll give him a minute to come over if he is in an overflow room.
		Sarah Cinco.
		denis palacios rocio fierro perez Daniela Silva.
		Anthony Gutierrez will not be testifying today, sir.
		Thank you.
		Thank you for letting me know.
		We'll ask the clerk to please make adjustments to the witness list that Mr. Gutierrez has exited.
		We'll begin with you.
		Go ahead.
		Hi, my name is Denise Palacios.
		Don't be nervous at all.
		You all, as witnesses, are doing outstanding jobs, and we really appreciate your time here today.
		We're eager to hear from you.
		Okay.
		Thank you.
		Thank you.
		Hi, my name is Anise Palacios, and I'm the Texas state lead for climate cabinet, testifying against the revised redistricting map.
		Chairman, having the authority to do something does not make it morally correct or fair.
		In 2021, the Texas House, controlled by Republicans, the Texas Senate controlled by Republicans, and the Texas governor controlled by Republicans, a Republican, approved maps that diluted the political power of communities of color.
		And now we're in a politically motivated mid-decade redistricting effort after 30 years of Republican control in Texas because the president, a Republican, wants the U.S. House, currently controlled by Republicans, to retain and consolidate their power because Americans are suffering as a result of bad policy at the federal and state level.
		And I fear that the actions led by this governing body this special session will lead us into an era of tyranny where politicians select their voters instead of allowing voters to elect politicians, all because Republicans are afraid of losing power.
		Republican legislators have passed legislation at all levels to defund social programs helping hardworking Americans to sell public lands and to end programs that would curb ambitions to protect public health.
		And now you are shamelessly stretching our districts and further diluting the voices of every Texan who lives in the Mexican-American border community.
		I was born and raised in the Rio Grande Valley and I am a Texan just like you, but the climate disasters and pollution that we endure and the culture and experiences of our communities are vastly different than those of Texans who live 250 miles inland outside of the checkpoints.
		And yet we're in the same district.
		Sixth-generation families in central Texas face different issues and have different politics than binational first and second generation families in the valley along the U.S.-Mexico border.
		If the RGV is too far for Austin legislators to comfortably travel there for hearings, just imagine how much more difficult it is for my people to come here or for a member in DC to travel back to Texas and then 300 miles across their district.
		Congressional districts typically hold about 700,000 people and instead of dividing the valley into two, because we're 1.5 million people, our political power is spinned out into three districts, Texas 28, 15, and 34, because the reality is that this is a racist political power grab.
		Thank you for your testimony, and thank you for wrapping up as you heard the timer.
		Thank you so much for that.
		Yes, go ahead.
		Please provide your testimony.
		Welcome.
		Before I start, I'm going to be giving my testimony in Spanish, just so you know.
		Yo, mi nombre rocio fiero peres, y sola directora política de Texas Freedom Network, una organización de madres, padres, personas jovenes y leaderes defeque defenden en el derecho y voto y meres entener el poder te construit fuerza en las urnas.
		Estamos encundra de cualcar mapa que enter first las communidadas de color.
		Los leaders estado aniententado obligarnos atmer la nos vecinos trans genero aquedaros encilencio mentras familias y vecinos migrantes son sequestrados.
		Observar comosa de financian nuestas cuolas públicas y se convierta en nescuas religiosas y entregal control de nos cuerpos algo bierno.
		All the días nos estado, nos countries en nuestros valores una tales están vajotáque.
		This mapa is para silencer nos voes y nos votos.
		Mades 2 people seem to try to have this plan to mente racista.
		We defend our communities, our judes, our ancestors, our rights, our integrity, and our future.
		Yes, they are attention.
		The country is attention.
		Attejanos yen es yama este paíso gar les vigo esto.
		Thesos legisadores seniega naponera usted her electorado por níma de sucede poder.
		Eligen la vircia sore el justicia, eligen el miedo en lugar de la igaldad, lo incorrecto a lugar de lo correcto, la politicas or las personas y a trump sor los direchos de la personas de tejas.
		The map actual de Tejas ya es considerado el más manipulado por motivos raciales in all countries.
		Y a una si tiene ento mio nos repor que siente que están nes esperados por robara un más.
		No nos domos aquar callados.
		Personas de color, imigrantes, personas el ejete, indigenas, pobres, con escapesidades, y mujeres, enemos luchados de maciado poro derrecho devoto como para permitir que estos legisidores suprescan y robe nos das voces.
		No important cuantas luchas nos espéren no podran quebranos.
		Vamos a luchar, vamos avotar y damos aganar.
		No digan día no estemaparasista, que no nos representa.
		Gracias.
		Thank you for your testimony.
	And for the record, please state your name again.
	Rocio Piero Perez.
	Very good.
	Here in opposition to the bill.
	Yes.
	Thank you.
	Please proceed.
	My name is Daniela Silvan, the Austin Policy Coordinator at Workers' Defense Action Fund, and I'm strongly against this bill drawn up by unpopular Trump and his billionaire cronies.
	If a special session must be called, Texas wants you to focus solely on helping us recover from a devastating flood and preparing for future natural disasters that are a matter of when, not if they happen next.
	Instead, Abbott is using the special session to sell the people of Texas over to unpopular Trump's big business friends that use their money to pull the strings in D.C. Want to multitask?
	Why don't you focus on the real problems Texans face?
	Big banks and corporations are buying up homes so that regular families can no longer afford to become homeowners.
	Schools and hospitals are closing across rural communities.
	Roads and bridges are crumbling.
	Workers are having their wages stolen at unprecedented rates.
	Parents can't afford child care.
	These are the problems our state elected officials should be addressing.
	If you're a Texan who faces any of these challenges, I know I am.
	Abbott and unpopular Trump do not care about us.
	If they did, they would make the lives of working-class Americans better, just a little bit easier to live a decent life.
	But instead, they're wasting your taxpayer dollars to call a special session to draw new maps that make sure the most power-hungry politicians never have to give up their seats to continue their plan to completely destroy democracy.
	They're shaping a country where the only voices heard across all levels of government are the voices of the uber wealthy.
	For those who fear big government, I hate to break it to you.
	This is as big as it's ever been and it's at its very worst.
	Abbott and unpopular Trump are using this special legislative session to grab power by taking away our freedoms and avoiding accountability.
	This is part of a bigger plan.
	Their goal is to tell us how we live and who gets to participate in shaping their own state and country.
	It's not about freedom, it's about control.
	Texas Democrats and any Republicans with any sliver of a spine left, you have to break quorum and eventually vote no.
	This is a time for courage.
	This is a time to honor your duty to the Constitution and the people of Texas.
	This is a time to change the course of history and give us a fighting chance to save democracy.
	Members, any questions?
	Thank you.
	We'll excuse this panel.
	Appreciate your time and testimony today.
	At this time, the committee will stand at ease for five minutes for a brief break and for the members to be able to respond to personal emails or calls or family.
	And we'll come back in in five minutes to resume the hearing.
	Yes.
	You've been watching the second Texas State Senate committee hearing on the Republican proposal to redraw the state's congressional districts.
	Today's hearing is now taking a break.
	Stay tuned for more live coverage right here when they resume or watch the hearing in its entirety on our free C-SPAN Now video app or online at c-span.org.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Joining us now to discuss how congressional redistricting works, including the process and how political parties have used it over the year, is Sean Donahue, a political science professor from the University at Buffalo.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Sean, thank you so much for being with us this morning.
unidentified		Nice to join you this morning.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		We know we've seen the headlines recently.
		Texas is looking at redrawing its congressional districts.
		Other states may follow.
		Explain how often congressional districts are typically redrawn.
unidentified		Well, generally, congressional districts are redrawn in the year following the decennial census.
		This has been the case for about the last 60 years.
		And the reason I say that rather than, you know, kind of go back to the founding is that there was a period of time in the country where you didn't have as much redistricting because until the 1960s, there was not a requirement that the districts be of the same size as far as population.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And you mentioned the census data in there.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		What kind of information from the census is used and how important is that new information that comes out every 10 years?
unidentified		Well, the census provides quite a bit of important data for redistricting because it not only tracks how many people live in a state and where they live within the state, but it also has racial and ethnic data that gives us information to be able to draw, let's say, majority, minority districts or see if potentially things with the Voting Rights Act are violated,
unidentified		you know, and other information that would be relevant for drawing districts.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Normally, redistricting wouldn't make the kind of headlines that we're seeing right now.
		Why is it that Texas wanting to redraw its districts is getting the attention that it is?
		How common is it for adjustments to be made outside of that typical 10-year time gap?
unidentified		Well, it does happen, you know, outside of the year following the census.
		But usually, whenever you have redistricting that happens outside of that period of time, it often is more because you have some type of judicial ruling, let's say, that strikes down certain districts or maybe requires some type of redistricting.
		What's more unusual that we're seeing right now is that this is a redistricting that's going on in Texas that is more by choice Rather than something that's being required.
		And also, you know, what you're seeing in Texas is that Republicans are seeking to redraw districts that they actually drew themselves four years ago.
		So, you know, it's not that they're trying to replace, let's say, districts that were drawn by Democrats.
		I mean, they're trying to replace the districts that they drew themselves just a few years ago.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And as we look at the actual process, how these districts are determined, explain how that works and who can be involved in those.
unidentified		Well, it's something that is more determined at the state level.
		So the Constitution leaves this pretty well open because it says that states are going to be the ones that redraw districts.
		Now, some states have created commissions of some type.
		Sometimes you have independent commissions, bipartisan commissions, citizen commissions.
		But in most states in the country, it is the state legislature that redraws districts.
		And in addition to that, you have where governors have various veto thresholds.
		But what we're seeing in Texas is that this is a process that the legislature and the governor are in charge of right now.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		There can be, you mentioned some of them, but state legislatures can make the decision, advisory commissions, backup groups, or I'm sorry, backup commissions, political, politician commissions, and independent commissions.
		There is a possible push for more independent commissions to be drawing these and getting away from some of the bipartisanship.
		How has that shifted in recent years?
unidentified		Well, what you have seen is that in the past, you know, 10 to 15 years, you have seen at least mostly in states where you have the initiative and referendum process, where you have seen a move to take away some of this power from state legislatures to draw districts.
		For instance, you saw this in this decade with the redistricting in Michigan.
		But you've also seen states like Virginia and New York do this via the legislature and then where the constitutional amendment process requires that voters vote on these changes.
		So those are states where you saw that the power was taken away partially from the legislature.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Texas is a state where they are, the process would go through the legislature.
		This is something that they're trying to get done for midterm elections in 2026.
		How long does it typically take the beginning of the process to final implementation to put congressional district changes into effect?
unidentified		Well, it can be done pretty quickly.
		You know, you just, you know, in states where it's the legislature that does the drawing, you know, you have various committees and things that where you're going where you would see where you would see some of these things go through hearings and such.
		But basically what you just need in Texas is that, you know, to have the state house and the state senate pass identical versions and then send it to governor for his signature.
		And then upon that, you know, you would have, you definitely would have Democratic groups and other and other citizens in the state probably are going to file lawsuits.
		But that would go into effect for the 2026 midterm elections, which you would actually, you know, you would need to do it a little bit sooner than you might think, even though the election is in November for the general election, because Texas has fairly early primaries and you have to consider people signing up, filing deadlines and such.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Our guest is Sean Donahue.
		He is a political science professor at the University at Buffalo.
		He's joining us for our discussion, explaining how redistricting works, how the process works, and how political parties have used it over the years.
		If you have a question or comment for him, you can call in.
		Starting now, lines are broken down.
		Republicans, you can call in at 202-748-8001.
		Democrats, 202-748-8000.
		And Independents, 202-748-8002.
		Sean, I wanted to ask you about a commentary piece that is in the Washington Times today.
		The headline, I know you can't see it, but it's gerrymandering is destructive no matter who does it.
		But this is a quote from it.
		It says, Right now, 13 House Democrats represent districts.
		Mr. Trump won in 2024, while three House Republicans represent districts carried by former Vice President Kamala Harris.
		As recently as 2000, there were 86 districts where voters voted for one party for a president and a different one for one of their members of Congress.
		While split tickets and split districts make politics more challenging, they tend to make governing easier as those elected in such districts need to find a way to appeal to a broader constituency.
		When we hear redistricting, we often also hear the word gerrymandering going along with it.
		Remind our audience about gerrymandering and the impact it can have, as well as if there are any upsides to it.
unidentified		Well, I mean, some critics of gerrymandering say that it's essentially that instead of the voters choosing their representatives, it's the representatives choosing their voters.
		Because, you know, if you just think about this, let's say you're doing redistricting during the 1980s.
		You know, I've heard stories where, you know, you would have rooms with large maps all over the floor.
		You know, you would have spreadsheets of data, which now the thing is, is that the average everyday person can do redistricting on their own laptop or probably even phone.
		So another thing that we have to consider, too, is that, you know, we're also wrapping things up with that we have an increasingly amount of polarization in the country.
		So, you know, we think about, let's say, the seven swing states from the 2024 election.
		Well, you know, outside of those seven swing states, you know, if you think of your red states and your blue states, there are no Democratic U.S. Senators now because Democrats lost their seats in West Virginia, Ohio, and Montana in the red states.
		And as far as Republicans in the blue states, the only person left there is Susan Collins in Maine.
		So I think that it's something where, yes, gerrymandering might be playing a role there, but we're also seeing the same thing within Senate races, which the thing is, is that you can't really gerrymander Senate races because it's a statewide election.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		We have callers waiting to talk with you.
		We will start with Evelyn, who's calling from Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, on the line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Evelyn.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Evelyn.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		I was wondering.
		Hearing on congressional redistricting.
		The chair will call Stephen Lawrence, Dan Chandler, Alan Primrose, and Tao Wang.
		Stephen Lawrence, Dan Chandler, Alan Primrose.
		And please help me pronounce your name.
		Tao Tao Huang.
		Tao Hong.
		Yes.
		Forgive me for my mispronunciation.
		Sir, we'll begin with you.
		Well, Shucks, good afternoon.
		Ayel.
		Good afternoon.
		Please state your name and your position on the bill.
		And if you represent any interest other than yourself, please help us get that in the record.
		My name is Alan Primrose.
		I represent myself.
		I'm here to speak against SB4.
		I'm here as a lifelong Texan and a working class of the working class.
		Yeah, to refrain from the profanity, what the frack.
		Just to heck with the map, to heck with the priorities for adding to that, to help to heck with giving any ounce of cooperation to the fascist Trump administration, calling it what it is, as Melody had referred to previously.
		I'm really in disagreement with just the districting methods as a whole in general.
		To have things, as Mr. King said, are very jig-jagged, as well as just kind of hard to see things locally represented as well.
		I don't have an answer for how districts should be drawn, but no, this really looks good.
		I won't be taking any questions, and I'll close with a haiku.
		Land is eternal, state is not, neither am I, and so I give thanks.
		Ms. Wong.
		Committee Chair, committee members, thank you very much for giving us this hearing opportunity.
		My name is Tao Huang.
		I live in District 37, represented by Congressman Lloyd Dodgett.
		I'm here today to defend the AAPI community that I'm part of, Asian American and Pacific Islander.
		We represent 8% of Austin's population, and many of us live along the border of Travis County and Williamson County.
		But if you look at that area, our community has been divided in the proposed map into five districts.
		That's District 10, 11, 17, 34, and 37.
		If being compact is a consideration, according to Chairman Ken, please, you know, putting us in one community and splitting us into five districts is the least compact example I can find.
		So I'm requesting and calling attention to fix this issue.
		I'm also here to defend the reason that I choose to be a Texan and an American, democracy.
		I spent almost 30 years in a country governed by a totalitarian regime.
		In that country, it didn't matter whether you vote or not.
		One party always won.
		The legislature existed only to rubber stamp the decisions that's already made by the top.
		And if a voting didn't go as expected, guess what happens?
		Sessions were dragged on until the result matched what was demanded at the top.
		And for people, if they have a very different opinion as from the top, guess what?
		The government will use the police forces and the military forces to chase them down.
		Does this sound familiar?
		That's not democracy.
		That's theater.
		And it is chilling for me to see some of it as happening in a state that I choose to live because of its freedom and because of its value.
		So please vote no to the Senate of Bill 4.
		Thank you for your testimony.
		Please begin, sir.
		Hi, my name is Stephen Lawrence.
		I speak on behalf of myself and my organization, Clear Rule of Law.
		I'm a lawyer.
		I'm a lifetime conservative.
		I moved here 24 years ago to attend the University of Texas School of Law.
		One of the first things I did was co-host one of Greg Abbott's first fundraisers when he was running for Attorney General.
		I always agreed with the principles of the Republican Party, and I've never voted against a Republican, sorry, I've never voted for a Democrat on a state or national basis.
		I'm here against the bill.
		Yes, I'm opposed to what it does to Fort Worth and Tarrant County and ripping part of my group away from their representative, Craig Goldman.
		But I'm here because this is the chance to look you guys in the eyes and say you have a choice to make here.
		You do not have to keep going down this path.
		You can do something and reject this map.
	We are here.
	I've never been a fan of the mid-decade process, but I've never spoke out against it.
	It's just political theater.
	You're here because the president wants five more seats.
	And instead of saying come and take it, you said here we go.
	That is not representative democracy.
	That's tyranny.
	And in the middle of the most radical change we've had in our, well, at least in my lifetime, you are ripping representatives away from their constituents and constituents against the representatives.
	And the Democrats are defending the Democratic Party, and you guys are defending the Republican Party.
	But there's the people, and that's what you're supposed to be representing.
	And for the first time, I'm happy the Democrats left the states.
	I thought it was theater before.
	There's still a bit of theater to it now.
	But at least they're defending the rule of law.
	And you, sir, are not.
	You are the redistrocan king.
	Your name is Kink.
	And I'll just quote from Malachi 3.5 about what God said to those that deprive the foreigners among you of justice.
	I will be quick to testify against those who deprive them.
	I will put you on trial.
	So you are voting against the Lord.
	You're voting against democracy and voting against the rule of law.
	And if you go to these rallies, these aren't radical bust-in people.
	They're people like me.
	That'll be our time, sir.
	And there are people through the process today.
	You were taking on the people.
	Thank you very much, sir.
	Mr. Lawrence, appreciate your testimony.
	All right, members, any questions?
	If not, we appreciate this panel very much.
	Ms. Wong, you had mentioned an organization in your introduction.
	Are you representing yourself or an organization as well?
	I'm representing myself.
	And so no organization.
	Thank you very much.
	I just want to make it clear for the record because we have to adjust the registration form.
	Oh, I'm representing myself.
	I am just part of, I'm a community member of the Asian America Pacific Islander.
	Just ethnically, that's the community.
	Understood.
	Thank you for the clarification.
	Okay, at this time, the chair will call Dan Chandler and Lori Jensen.
	also chrissy o'brien is levi king still with us Please come forward, Mr. King.
	Is Mr. Chandler still with us?
	Pastor Chandler.
	Hey, Dan Chandler.
	Yes, sir.
	Sorry, I'm listening on this.
	Oh, that's okay.
	Yeah, come forward, please, sir.
	No, God.
	Lori Jensen.
	I'm president.
	Chrissy O'Brien.
	Is Chrissy O'Brien still with us today?
	Hey, Blood.
	I'll get over here on the mute.
	Can you want me to pull that chair all the way, sir?
	Let me see.
	We can pull it back a little bit like that.
	Can I ask a thing?
	Just procedural that I know signs and things like that are not allowed, but there is a Confederate flag.
	That's a sign.
	This is not a sign.
	This is a flag.
	You want to stop my right to speak and you're not recognized?
	Yes, sir.
	Please, Mr. Chandler.
	Please allow the committee to handle the form and we'll proceed forward.
	We'll begin with you, sir.
	Okay.
	Thank you, Mary.
	You bet.
	Hello, committee.
	My name is Levi King, and I'm a rising junior in AISD.
	I am testifying on behalf of myself against this proposed redistricting.
	In a time where our very democracy is showing more and more patterns of a tyrannous society, it is alarming to see that Texas is bending its knee as well.
	Redistricting, an act that is supposed to occur solely after the taking of a census, should not take place to sway the majority of votes in favor of our president.
	Though it will not be acknowledged and will be denied continuously, this racist redistricting will disadvantage the minority population.
	Even though the Latino Hispanic population has become our state's majority, sorry, they, as well as other people of color, are still being underserved throughout all of Texas.
	Honestly, this map should not even be our top priority.
	Women have been losing rights to their own bodies, and our transgender friends are being discriminated against time and time again.
	Public schools are losing essential funding.
	Families are being separated due to deportation, and even health care is in a state of jeopardy.
	If I listed all of the alarming issues Texas citizens were facing at this time, my testimony would far expend past two minutes.
	The leaders of Texas must stop serving the desires of our president and focus on uplifting and benefiting the people residing in their own state.
	In all honesty, I was not expecting to testify today until hearing the strong words spoken by those in this room, especially Senator Miles, who inspired me to speak up and begin writing this testimony.
	Though I'm not old enough to utilize the important weapon of the vote, I will not let my First Amendment right go to waste.
	Thank you for your time.
	Appreciate your testimony.
	Please proceed.
	Hello, my name is Lori Jensen, and I'm here representing myself in opposition.
	I'm 65 years old as of this past March, and I am mad as hell, and I got that as clean as I could.
	And you know what?
	I'm far from alone, but you all know that.
	And what has brought this 65-year-old along with her husband, who has done for 40 plus years all the things you told us to do so we could enjoy our retirement?
	Here we are.
	And we're here because you aren't listening to your constituents.
	None of you are.
	We women are pissed off.
	I'm sorry, French.
	We're tired of the old white men mainly telling us what to do and how to do it.
	That is not the land of the free, and we are the people, and we want the land of the free.
	We also want the people in charge to do their jobs.
	They all, every one of them, took an oath.
	And we the people demand they honor their oaths.
	The gerrymandering, yeah, it's wrong.
	You all know it.
	But we the people, we outnumber you bigly, and you know it.
	There's one of your words.
	So, in conclusion, we the people, baby, led by our choice with integrity, and most importantly, liberty and justice for all.
	Remember those words, people?
	I'm done.
	Appreciate your testimony.
	Mr. Chandler, please proceed.
	Well, I'm the opposite.
	I think you guys bend over backwards listening to us.
	I'm in listening to stuff.
	You get yelled at by us out here, and it's wrong.
	I think you're doing the very best job you can.
	You're cordial as I can't even, I'm spending my time bragging on you, if you don't mind, because I think it's true.
	You're doing an excellent job.
	As far as me, I'm an evangelist.
	I'm retired.
	I could be fishing.
	I don't have to be doing this.
	But I got called to this effort first about abortion, and now I realize there's lots of stuff that are lies the devil tells.
	Repeat your name for the record, sir.
	Oh, I'm sorry, Dan Chandler.
	Yes.
	And I'm for the bill.
	I have this.
	This means don't tear down the flags, the statues, the monuments, Ten Commandments, the babies border, alamo, the cenotaph.
	Don't tear down America piece by piece, plank by plank, or we're not going to survive.
	They talk about the flood.
	Why don't you do something about the flood?
	You're doing something about the flood right here.
	Boy, I'm going to run out of time.
	It says, I will pour out my wrath on them like water, those that tear down the monuments.
	That's why I have that.
	Don't do it.
	But also, just to disregard the word of God and turn away from him.
	You know what?
	The best thing you can do for us is turn every district red.
	Do something for the black people, the white people, the brown people, all of them.
	Turn the districts red and take it away from these people.
	The only thing they do is scream race cards.
	Racist this, racist that, hater this, hater that.
	You don't like me because I'm black.
	That's all they've got.
	Pay me.
	You owe me.
	Go out there in Port Arthur or Houston or someplace and look and see what blunt, what blue has done for black.
	The very best thing you could do is take it away from her.
	Take this away.
	Excuse me.
	What color do I look like, people?
	Am I. Does that mean I'm done?
	That's your time.
	Thank you very much.
	I thank you very much.
	Yeah, thank you.
	Appreciate your testimony to each of you.
	Members, any questions?
	Everyone has those questions.
	These girls kicking me?
	You sir?
	Make their statement.
	Ms. O'Brien.
	Ms. O'Brien.
	Thank you for your testimony today.
	Despite what you would...
	Thank you, Ms. Brown.
	O'Brien.
	I'm a senior citizen.
	What you done kicking me?
	Ms. Jensen.
	Senator Miles.
	Brother Levi.
	Her name is not Ms. O'Brien.
	It's Ms. Jensen.
	Ms. Jensen, I'm sorry.
	We've cleared it up.
	See you guys for the record.
	Ms. Jensen.
	Hold a second.
	This panel is excused.
	You're excused.
	Thank you for your testimony.
	Members.
	Members, are there any questions?
	Senator Miles has a question.
	I believe he wants to visit with Witness King outside the hearing room.
	Thank you both.
	At this time, we'll call forward Nicholas Juan.
	Is Nicholas still with us?
	We're going to call additional witnesses.
	So please be prepared.
	If you're in an overflow room, please pay attention because we're moving quickly to make sure we can get to all of our witnesses as they have travel plans and certain accommodations.
	Gary Bledsoe, please come forward.
	Mr. Bledsoe.
	Sarah Cinco.
	The only way to beat the fascists is to laugh at them.
	Mr. Bledsoe.
	City Welcome.
	He may have left.
	That's right.
	He may have left.
	Is Miss Sarah Beck with us today?
	Please come forward.
	John McCarnan Gonzalez.
	Please come forward.
	Sir, can you tell us your name?
	Yes, my name is Nicholas Juan.
	And ma'am.
	Chrissy O'Brien.
	Chrissy O'Brien.
	Got it.
	Great.
	We'll begin with you, Ms. O'Brien.
	Thank you.
	Good afternoon, Chair, members of the committee.
	Thank you for the opportunity to speak in opposition to SB4 today.
	My name is Chrissy O'Brien.
	I'm representing myself and AFSME.
	The American Federation of State County Municipal Employees represent public employees around the state who provide critical services our communities depend on.
	I am speaking up for our members today, many of whom could not be here.
	They are at work.
	AFSME represents working members and retired state employees who reside in the areas that are being targeted in these maps.
	SB4 stands to weaken their voices and threatens their access to fair representation.
	I ask you to please consider their rights, the impact this redistricting will have on their communities.
	I urge this committee to oppose SB4 as these maps stand to weaken the voices of working people.
	Finally, I ask that you use this special session to prioritize more pressing needs facing Texans.
	Thank you.
	Appreciate that testimony.
	Sir, please begin.
	Hello, my name is Nicholas Juan.
	I want to thank you all for being here today.
	I am from Nassau Bay, part of the Houston area in the 36th congressional district.
	It is incredibly concerning that there's even talk of redrawing congressional district maps.
	No census was conducted, and 2020 maps are still being reviewed by federal courts, so why are we here today?
	The proposed maps are an insult to Texans across the state.
	You can easily say that the maps before today and in 2021 are not racial discrimination and colorblind, but effectively they are discriminatory and lawmakers must look at racial data to ensure minority communities are not negatively impacted by the redrawing lines.
	At some point, you can't deny reality any longer.
	What matters are the results of your actions collectively as a legislative body.
	If the maps are drawn to keep as many minority-majority communities without proper representation and give even more power to white majority communities, it is a major issue and the reason for the massive contention you see today.
	Which brings us to another issue.
	If the DOJ has directed the state of Texas to redraw the maps, under what purview is it done?
	Is it so-called racial gerrymandering the actual reason, or is it giving carte blanche to cut up in major cities to further diminish the representation of our black and brown districts?
	Why does my district span halfway across the state to the border of Louisiana?
	Citizens furthest east have very little in common with the residents of Nassau Bay.
	You have had the opportunity to fix this to properly represent the citizens of Beaumont, Jasper, and Cleveland, in turn, to properly represent me.
	It seems to me that the Republicans of the state of Texas are putting party before country.
	I have seen over the years gerrymandering to consistently favor Republicans and white voters who tend to vote more for Republicans.
	As legislators, it is imperative that you represent all Texans, regardless of what you, the governor, or the party think of them.
	But you all know that the rhetoric and the capitulation of the Republican Party of Texas to the federal government would make the likes of Saul and Kim Jong-un blush.
	The maps are inherently authoritarian and the exact opposite of small government.
	If you cannot win these districts on merit or policy, the only solution is to hold on to power is to cheat, lie, and push the boundaries of lawful and ethical behavior.
	I embarrassed that this special session is putting so much time and effort into redistricting and other trivial matters over focusing on actual, impactful, meaningful issues.
	Ultimately, districts need to represent the people living there, not split a community in half and include them with hundreds of thousands of other Texans halfway across the state.
	Let the federal court rule on the 2021 maps and try to have some decency and humility with how you conduct legislative business as to not harm and lessen the representation of some Texans you don't like and increase the voting powers of others.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, sir, for your testimony.
	Members, any questions?
	We have Mr. Bledsoe.
	Mr. Bledsoe, please come forward and we will proceed with your testimony, sir.
	Thank you for being here and your patience.
	Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.
	I submitted written testimony.
	I don't know if you have questions, but I think the point I want to make is it's very clear to me that this is a process that doesn't really have integrity because I think that the people have not been heard.
	The map does not reflect what the field hearings revealed.
	And with the timing of the map, it's very clear that the map had already been drawn.
	Yes, sir.
	Right there, would you restate your name for Gary Bledsoe, President of the Texas NAACP?
	Got it.
	Thank you.
	Please go ahead.
	Thanks, Senator.
	Appreciate it.
	So therefore, I think I'll stand on the statement, but I'm really saddened here as a Texan that I come in front of you today.
	And I see what I feel is an overtly racist map, a map that seems to take us back in time to time when people who look back me did not have representation, that our bodies were used to count for members of Congress.
	And you take away two or four congressional representatives for people of color or African American in the state.
	And you actually, the three people who would probably lose their positions here under this map are people of color, two African Americans and one Latino.
	It's really sad that we're here.
	So this is not about anything other than race and the continuation of what's occurred in our state.
	We do know that many years ago, white citizens in our state went to the United States Supreme Court five times in 26 years to stop black people from being able to have a vote in our state.
	And that's really tragic.
	And this is nothing but a continuation.
	And I will say this.
	It occurred under Democrats, and it continues to occur under Republicans.
	Thank you, sir.
	Members, any questions for these three witnesses?
	Senator Miles.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	I've got a question for Mr. Bledsoe.
	And so it's really a point of clarification, Mr. Bledsoe.
	Tell me, explain to me what a minority opportunity district is, and then second to that, tell me what the ability to elect district is.
	There's two different kinds.
	Okay.
	And I'm going to make sure I get a definition from you, and then I'm going to talk to my chairman about it.
	Senator, you asked one of the most important questions because in the litigation that we are involved in now and in the litigation from the last decade, it became very clear and the court rulings that actually exist now describe, for example, the 9th, 18th, and 30th as opportunity districts, our ability to elect districts.
	So those have a certain level of protection that others do not have.
	And the same with the 29th.
	And so that DOJ letter mischaracterized the nature of those districts.
	They are not coalition districts.
	And so as Professor Katz said the other day, if someone has submitted that as part of a project in her class, she would.
	Let me stop you right there.
	You helped with the litigation to make those, to create those districts, correct?
	That was litigation.
	You would know.
	Directly involved in the courts held that these are ability to elect districts, and the experts for the state acknowledged under oath that they were ability to elect districts.
	Right.
	And I might even say with the 33rd, the whole issue that was raised in the letter, the DOJ letter about the 33rd had already been answered.
	It was a court-drawn seat.
	So Congressman Veazey's seat was drawn by the court.
	And with Congressman Veaze's seat, they said this is not a coalition seat.
	This is a naturally occurring seat as allowed by Bartlett v. Strickland.
	And this is what this is.
	But people wanted a way to go after the black and brown seats, so they mischaracterized them.
	And so when you go forward today, you'll know and you'll understand you're destroying seats that have the highest level of protection, okay, under our true country.
	Yes.
	Correct?
	And you're stating today to this body that the DOJ letter obviously did not take that into consideration or they wrote it wrong.
	They clearly wrote it wrong.
	I don't think they understood it, to be very honest about it, and they completely mischaracterized the Pettaway case.
	Gotcha.
	Those coalition districts are just very different.
	Coalition districts are legal, though.
	That's the other thing that they got wrong.
	They're not illegal.
	You can't be obligated to draw one up under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in the Fifth Circuit now, though other circuits disagree, but the United States Supreme Court has never decided that particular issue.
	Okay.
	And the other, the ability to elect elect district.
	Okay.
	Same.
	And those are the same as the opportunity seats.
	And so those are the ones that are given the highest priority because you don't need to join with any other group that your group has the power to be able to elect people in that district.
	And so that's what's protected.
	People are mixing up the Jingles One standard in terms of trying to bring that into some constitutional standard about as if that black people can only have a seat if you have 50.1.
	But if 45% of whites can elect a candidate of choice, they can have a seat.
	But black people need 50.1, which is absurd.
	That's not true.
	And to your knowledge today, has there been any legislation or any laws changed in the federal government that would change the position or the protection of these two seats?
	No.
	No.
	Nothing has changed.
	They're clearly opportunity seats.
	And in the current litigation that we're now involved in, Senator, the state has acknowledged in the current litigation.
	So I don't know how the state's going to defend this map.
	In the litigation in El Paso, they said these are opportunity seats.
	Correct.
	And so now, all of a sudden, there's something different that can be just torn away and taken from the minority community.
	So our Voting Rights Act that's been watered down over the last couple of years, they didn't affect these two positions.
	They didn't affect these two, did they?
	No, the cases that I mentioned all come from Republican majority panels.
	So these weren't Democratic panels or what have you.
	These are three judge panels that had African American, excuse me, that had Republican majorities on them that held that these were opportunity seats.
	And I'm saying that Ken Paxton's office has acknowledged that in the litigation.
	Okay.
	And just last question, just for clarification, to your knowledge, there is nothing that has changed In any laws that you know of, the protection of these two of these seats?
	No, they still, none of the recent Supreme Court cases touch on that issue.
	And the DOJ letter addressing these, in your opinion, would be something, an illegal act.
	Oh, it's inviting you to do something that's illegal.
	So to the extent that you attempted to comply with the act, the act invites you to do something that's unconstitutional.
	Okay.
	So can I change my direction to the question to the chair, to the author of the bill?
	Senator Miles, you recognize.
	Thank you.
	Senator King.
	To question Senator Kimberley.
	Senator King, you've told us time and time again that you would, whenever you got a bill, that you would scrub the bill for its legality.
	Am I correct?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		You told us that multiple times.
		That you would scrub the bill for its legality and to make sure that it was right by all laws of the government.
		And did you do that before you submitted?
		I think you stated earlier today that you did that before you submitted SB4.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Yes, before I decided to file SB4 as a companion to HB4, I asked that it be reviewed thoroughly by our counsel.
		They reviewed it.
		And I understand the House counsel had also reviewed it and both concluded that the map was legal with regard to all applicable law.
unidentified		Do you know right there, sir?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		I'm polling.
unidentified		And you hear the statement from the author of the bill.
		What do you say to that?
		Well, a couple of things.
		One of the things that was very disturbing in the litigation was that, you know, in the past sessions of redistricting, Senator, the Legislative Council was much more involved.
		And the redistricting committee in 2021 did not avail themselves in the same ways of the assistance of the legislative council.
		And the legislative council in 2021 put out a guide, and it was a guide for redistricting.
		And in that document, it tells you the level of scrutiny that you must undertake and what you must do to avoid adopting maps that cause dilution of minority votes.
		That's in there.
		But I think what's occurred is they've used outside counsel and with methodologies and things that we don't know, whatever they use, because they use attorney-client privilege and things of that nature to prevent us from knowing what they're actually doing.
		So we don't know what mechanisms they used, but the bottom line is that anyone that knows that these are protected seats would agree with us that you couldn't do this.
		And anyone who would agree with the DOJ letter must not understand the applicable law because the DOJ letter is fundamentally wrong.
		So there is no way that that would be legitimate advice.
		But the problem is, Senator, I don't know if they would reveal to you what methodologies they used, the private individuals or law firms that were put together, but they clearly have violated all, so many of the traditional redistricting principles and how the map was put together.
		I mean, for example, you take people away from their home districts.
		You eliminate, so three African-American congresspersons, all three were removed from their districts.
		That's one of the things that the D.C. courts held was problematic last time for the state when they did that.
		So they do the same thing again.
		And so you look on and on about the different things that they have done, and they should know better because of what's actually occurred.
		So these are clear examples of intentional discrimination and going forward with an agenda.
		And so you heard the terms packing and cracking.
		You look at the 9th, you look at the 18th, you look at the 29th, you look at the 33rd, you look at the 30th.
		It has been 32nd, they've been packed and cracked like nothing else.
		And the 35th is destroyed as well.
		And so, and they're done with the purpose of diluting minority votes, and you cannot do that.
		The United States Supreme Court is still upholding the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution.
		We've had the Milligan case recently.
		There was some success in the case out of Louisiana.
		So I think that we still have a viable Supreme Court on those issues.
		The laws have not been overturned, but we're using a different law in Texas.
		Kind of like one of the ironies, Senator, is if you go to the floor debate in 2021, and if you go to the floor debate in 2011, what you'll find is that the state said they weren't required to adhere to the cases in the Fifth Circuit that required coalition seats.
		Okay?
		They said we don't ascribe to that, so we don't do them.
		So if you go to the floor, and so for now, for people to come forward and say that Pettaway now frees us when you didn't follow the law prior to Pettaway anyway, they didn't create any coalition districts.
		They refused.
		We tendered districts like that for them to create, and they said because they're not one-race districts, we don't have to follow that, and that's documented part of the record.
		Gotcha.
		So these are the most protective classes there are.
		Yes.
		And Mr. Chairman, Senator King, I just want to put that on record that these are protected classes.
		And you've stated to this body multiple times that you would make sure before bringing the bill forward that you would make sure, sir, that the bill would be in all legal aspects to protect our body, this institution as well.
		And the man who fought these bills and designed these protective classes is here to say that they're not, these are protected to the, I mean, to the utmost, they have the ultimate protection.
		But yet we're still going to remove them.
		You understand what I'm saying, Mr. Chairman?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		I understand what you're saying.
unidentified		And lastly, and this is the last question.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Do you want me to respond to that?
unidentified		Yes, sir.
unidentified		Senator King.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
		And I do understand what you're saying.
		And I really appreciate Mr. Bledsoe.
		And you've always been so involved in the redistricting process for as long as I can remember.
		I also recognize that you're an attorney representing your client, and you're making the same arguments here that you made in the pleadings that you've had before the case in San Antonio, or I'm sorry, in El Paso.
		So I understand you're representing your client.
		I understand your statements.
		I don't agree with them.
		But I will say that as to the DOJ letter, which you mentioned several times, I don't agree with the substance of the DOJ letter.
		I've said that repeatedly throughout the process.
		I did not take that into consideration with this bill, with this map.
		In fact, that letter was not addressed to the legislature.
		It was addressed to the Attorney General, who responded directly to the DOJ, disagreeing with their conclusions.
		It was also responded by the litigation team for the Attorney General as they respond and they filed with the filings they made before the court three judge panel in El Paso regarding it, and the court has ruled on that.
		And then it was addressed to the governor as well.
		And I'm assuming the governor's response to it was in part calling the legislature and putting that on, putting congressional redistricting on the call.
		Although I can't speak for the governor, and I can't speak for the Attorney General either.
		But I don't agree with the conclusions that were reported in that letter of the DOJ, and that didn't, and their letter had nothing to do with my intent or to, or my desire to be on this committee or file this map.
		But I hope that answers.
unidentified		Last question.
		Senator Miles.
		Last question.
		In the 20 years that you've been fighting redistricting cases in the state of Texas, when it finally gets to the last court, have you ever lost one?
		We haven't lost yet, Senator.
		The sad thing is in redistricting, since the passage of the Voting Rights Act, the state has been found guilty of discrimination against Latinos, African Americans, every single decade.
		Every single decade.
		And so that's the issue here.
		And I would say, Senator King, one thing that's very clear is this bill does attempt to, so I don't know what your intention was, what you're saying, but you didn't draft, you didn't draw up the map.
		So the map clearly is a manifestation of the Trump letter.
		And I think what Senator Miles is getting at is there should be some unpacking that goes on by this committee, and there should be a process with integrity because we know that right now the process has no integrity because with all these public hearings and all the individuals who've talked and there has been a lot of specific testimony.
		I know that's been one of the things talked about today.
		There's been all kinds of testimony about how, you know, whether neighborhoods in Fort Worth are taken up, bottled up, and joined into districts in Dallas for the first time, or how districts in Dallas are cut out from the 30th district and put in another district the first time.
		You know, there's so much specific information that's actually in the record about what you do and how, for example, the 35th, when the state put together with one of the plaintiff's parties, the 35th district, put that forward as a minority opportunity district, got that upheld by the courts in the 2011 round, and now you destroy the 35th congressional district.
		So, you know, Senator, you know, one, it's got to be real serious.
		You know, one can say that one did not actually try to implement the DOJ letter, but then that seems to me that the stated purpose of this whole proceeding is to come up with these new seats and that that's what the map does.
		And the map drawers who drew it, I guess I think Mr. Ken Cade was involved this time again.
		So if Mr. Kincaid is involved, I think that indeed that you're talking about implementing the objectives of that letter.
		Senator Miles.
		But let's keep this in a question format.
		The last question I have, and this is the last question for you, Mr. Bezo.
		If we're getting the elephant out of the room, Would you agree with me when I say that every case that's been brought against the state of Texas for redistricting against black and brown, the state of Texas is lost?
		Yes or no?
		I don't know about every case, but they've lost every decade.
		Every decade.
		I don't know that every single case.
		But in this particular case, we all know, we all know the reasoning.
		Would you agree with me that if this map is pushed through, which is voted through, it will give Donald J. Trump the time that he needs to secure the House, U.S. House, before that case will ever see the highest court to be reversed.
		Do you understand what I'm asking you?
		Is that a true statement?
		Well, I think the distinct possibility because it takes time for cases to go to court.
		So people understand that.
		And so the likelihood of harm to the minority community is prescient.
		It will be done.
		And so that's a whole problem with this map.
		And so, Senator, I think what we know is this is a matter of racism, right?
		And I'm hoping— Say that again?
		This is a matter of racism.
		Thank you.
		And so I'm hoping that people understand that if you don't share the beliefs of our state from the past, you know, that at some point people have to stand up and say that I don't believe in that, that maybe that I'm going to stand up for one time for black and brown people.
		But, you know, we have a sordid history in our state in terms of not respecting black and brown votes, and we're moving back in the other direction.
		And it's so obvious with the numbers.
		And I just would reach out to you and say, look, you know, would you buy us put the skids on this?
		Because this process is not done in the light of day.
		And let us move forward with the litigation in El Paso.
		We don't know what the court's going to do.
		We may win.
		We may not win.
		I don't know.
		But let's at least allow that to happen instead of going through with this process for clearly wrongful reasons.
		Thank you, Mr. Blitz.
		So I appreciate your testimony.
		Thank you, Senator King.
		And thank you, Chairman.
		Members, any other questions?
		Senator King.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Oh, no, I'm sorry.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		I just had my light on.
unidentified		Okay, members, thank you.
		This panel's excused.
		We'll continue with our public testimony.
		At this time, there are no other witnesses registered to testify on the legislation on Senate Bill 4.
		We'll repeat some names that we have previously called just to be diligent in making sure that if they are here and miss the time that they were called, they have another opportunity, a final opportunity.
		Anthony Gutierrez, we were told, has already exited.
		Nick Mahlberg, Becky Bullard, Sarah Beck, John McKiernan Gonzalez, Sarah Cinco.
		Just one more additional opportunity beyond the several times these names have been called to make sure if you are still here, we show you as registered, but you have not yet testified.
		Members, we'll give them just a minute in case they're in an adjacent overflow room to join us.
		I think it concludes it.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
unidentified		Okay, members, at this time, it doesn't appear that we have any other witnesses here remaining to testify on Senate Bill 4, so public testimony will close.
		Members, I believe Senator Miles has an additional question or two for Senator King.
		Senator Miles, is that correct?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		Yes.
		Senator Miles, you're recognized.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator King, and thank you, Body, for participating and being patient.
		Senator King, I think some of these we may have answered around, but I'm going to ask some direct questions if you don't mind so we can get a clarification.
		And I hate to sound redundant, but this is what's necessary.
		Chairman King, what was your understanding of the DOJ's letter regarding redistricting?
		Senator King.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
		It made some assertions with regard to coalition districts, and it was, as I mentioned earlier, it was addressed to the governor and the lieutenant and the attorney general both have responded.
		It was not addressed to the legislature.
		The legislature has not responded, and I really don't have any response with regard to it either.
		I haven't talked to anybody at the DOJ.
		No one at the DOJ has attempted to talk to me.
		The letter says what it says.
		I disagree with it.
		I believe the map that the legislature passed in 2021, I believe, was legal.
		I don't believe it contained any of the violations or now contains any of the violations that the DOJ suggested.
		But, you know, attorneys have different opinions sometimes.
		I guess that's why there's trials and these are things that attorneys argue in court.
		But my position on the letter is that it's not a subject for the legislature to consider or take up.
unidentified		With that said, Senator King, what was your primary objective during this whole redistricting process, as I call it?
unidentified		What was your objective, sir?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		I hope I've been very clear from the beginning.
		My hope was that we would increase the number of Republican congressional members elected from Texas.
		A secondary objective, as we listened to testimony during our regional hearings, became that we could make the map more compact in some districts.
		And so, but the primary objective has been to increase partisan representation to increase Republican seats in the U.S. House.
unidentified		And was compliance with the DOJ letter one of your primary objectives during the process?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		I think the overriding thing is that, well, there's no use doing redistricting unless you're drawing a map that complies with the law because the map will not survive scrutiny.
		And so, obviously, as I've also said, I would not file a bill until I was convinced that it was legal in all respects.
		And before I filed it, I had the map reviewed by our legal counsel, who has a law, and they have a long history in this field.
		And I also checked with the House and asked what the, and tried to find out what their counsel had said.
		And I believe both the counsels representing the House and the Senate concluded that SB4 and HB4 in the House are legal under all applicable law.
unidentified		And were you concerned with failure to comply with the DOJ letter would result in a legal challenge?
unidentified		Was that any of your concern at all?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		No, I haven't been concerned about that.
		I mean, there's already a legal challenge going on to the existing map, and the DOJ, which was a party to that litigation, had withdrawn.
		No, that was of no concern.
unidentified		No concern.
unidentified		Did you consider at any time an alternative redistricting plan that did not comply with the DOJ letter?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		No, I considered drafting a map and I wondered if other senators might submit a map.
		But when I saw the House map, I'm obviously aware of its origin.
		When I saw the House map and we reviewed it, it seemed to meet my objectives of electing more Republicans and secondary objective of improving compactness within the map.
		And so I decided to adopt it, as it were, and filed it as a companion to HB4.
unidentified		And last question, I'm assuming you were reporting to the Lieutenant Governor on this, correct?
unidentified		That's who you got your.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Well, the Lieutenant Governor is the presiding officer of the Senate, and he asked me if I would be interested in chairing the committee.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		And so I've interacted with him in the same manner that every chair interacts with the presiding officer.
unidentified		Yeah.
		Did you express any concern about the potential of racial gerrymandering or intentional discrimination while attempting to comply with the DOJ letter to the Lieutenant Governor?
		Did y'all have any discussion in that matter?
		Gerrymandering.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		I think I mentioned to him that I thought the DOJ letter unnecessarily confused this process.
unidentified		You thought the DOJ letter confused the process?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		Do you express that with him?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		I think in discussing it with him, I've mentioned that the DOJ letter I thought unnecessarily confused the redistricting process.
unidentified		And can you share his response with us?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		To be honest, I don't recall.
unidentified		I recall.
		Okay.
		All right.
		That's all I've got except for closing.
		Members, any other questions?
		Senator King?
		Any questions?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Oh, I'm just going to say that I can tell you that he told me he wanted to, that One of the reasons he wanted me to chair it is because I had some background in redistricting, but also he wanted to make sure that every T was crossed and every I was dotted.
unidentified		Well, I think I can share this with you.
		I've already told you.
		If I had to pick anyone, he picked the right one to chair this committee.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you.
unidentified		Senator King.
		I've expressed that with you already.
		Okay, members, any other comments or feedback?
		If not, we'll call for a vote at this time.
		Senator Miles for his closing.
		Let me close.
		You're recognized.
		And then I'll let y'all vote.
		Let me thank each and every one of my colleagues for being patient with me throughout this process.
		As I stated before, this is having a serious impact on the district that I was born and raised in, and I have an honor and pleasure of representing three of them.
		Three districts.
		One of which still stands, which you packed pretty heavily, one of which you've done away with completely.
		And one on my east side that you've, the little small piece that I had that y'all moved completely out of my district.
		You know, so I'm truly saddened, but I guess at this point, I should not be shocked by the fact that my colleagues, you all, have openly embraced an invitation to engage in overt racism, mindful of our sorrow history of disenfranchising people who look like me, members.
		The Trump DOJ letter asked you to discriminate against black and brown people, not against Democrats.
		And we're sitting here because, unfortunately, sadly to me, painful to me, you agreed to do it.
		You, in drawing this map, eliminates two districts where people who look like me voted to elect people who look like me in the 9th and the 33rd.
		You took the 35th from a Latino community, which is a little pity sliver of mine.
		Let's be real.
		You cannot keep saying the process is race-blind when it affects black and brown communities so drastically.
		This is all about race.
		You have packed and cracked our districts so much that they look like Humpty Dumpty.
		These lines are not cohesive or straight.
		All you have done is gerrymandered the already gerrymandered districts.
		And that's what really happened.
		We were already gerrymandered, and y'all came in and gerrymandered them even more, which is downright just a shame and disrespectful.
		I want you to know, and I mean no personal harm to any one of you.
		I mean no personal hatred to any one of you, but I've got to say this.
		History will remember the people of Texas will remember how torn through communities of interest and disenfranchisement for black and brown voters.
		You have joined the night riders, the plantation owners, and seeking to make people of color lesser because we don't have a voice.
		I want you to think about that as you go home tonight.
		Let's say the quiet part out loud.
		President Trump is a racist, and the leadership of this state and the members of this community, of this community, are following the marching orders to get him five more seats.
		That was said publicly.
		That's unconstitutional and unconscionable.
		It really is, no matter how you feel about it.
		The state of Texas went to the U.S. Supreme Court five times in 26 years to stop people who look like me.
		Five times the state of Texas have gone in 26 years to stop people who look like me and Chairman Hinojosa, black and brown citizens, from voting in this rigged redistricting is simply a continuation of a bigoted mindset.
		I know y'all don't like what you're hearing, but it's clear that especially in sitting through this hearing, that you all do not care what the public says.
		You are just going along to get along for the good president of this United States.
		These seats don't belong to Donald J. Trump.
		He's not owning, he doesn't own anything.
		And we should not be auctioned off our votes to get him five more seats, Mr. Chairman.
		These seats belong to the people of Texas, the great state of Texas.
		This is a farce.
		This is racism.
		This is discriminatory.
		And I will not take part in it.
		I will not give any valid by voting on this, Mr. Chairman.
		So when you take your vote, clerk, please call Boris Miles' name, and there will be an empty, there will be silence, because I will not be voting on this.
		And I thank you all.
		Thank you, Senator Miles.
		Senator King.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		And Senator Miles, I really appreciate the fact when I called you to talk about serving on the committee.
		And, you know, you told me from day one that you would be strong in your opinions and that you would do what you believed was in the best interest of representing your district.
		And I have nothing but respect and friendship for you, even though we strongly disagree on this issue.
		I will say that time will tell whether this map elects more or less people of color.
		I actually have no idea which it will do.
		I will say that the reason I'm supporting this map is because I think the things that have occurred with the current Republican Congress and Republican Senate and Republican president, even just over the last seven months, have been historic.
		And I want those to continue.
		And if we lose the Republican House, it will not continue.
		Just look at the secure border we now have.
		Just look at the tremendous progress in stopping the flow of deadly fentanyl, something that's the leading killer of people, I think, 18 to 35 across our country.
		The historic tax cuts were continued.
		We're seeing an amazing reset of the world trade imbalance.
		Our military is back in the business of national security and not social experiments.
		We're standing up to Iran and to China and to Russia.
		We're seeing an end to men and boys in women and girls' sports.
		We're seeing a pushback against the rampant anti-Semitism that we saw on our college campuses.
		We're deporting dangerous criminal aliens, Venezuela gangs and people with child molesters and rapists and drug dealers that had come over within all the other immigrants over these last the previous four years.
		I tell you, I was in law enforcement when Castro opened the prisons in 1980 and we had an estimated 10,000 hardcore criminals that came across.
		And in law enforcement, it took us years.
		I've dealt with some of them in Fort Worth.
		It took us years to work those through the system and get them out of the public.
		And we have let hundreds of thousands of hardcore criminal aliens come across in the last four years.
		And my grandchildren will be dealing with the impact of that for public safety in our country.
		I could go on and on, but these are things that have occurred in just the last now eight months.
		And if we lose the U.S. House, we lose the continuation of those and the advancement of things like that.
		And so that's why I want to see Texas elect more Republicans to the U.S. House.
		I believe this map does that.
		And that's why I am asking the committee respectfully to vote for this map.
		With that, I also want to say I have really appreciate, I know everybody's worked really hard in the last few weeks and we've had a lot of hearings and a lot of discussions.
		And I just really appreciate everybody, Republican and Democrat, their courtesy, how we've shown respect to one another.
		And I know everybody has had to study hard because these are difficult issues.
		And I just really appreciate everyone on the committee, your participation and your effort.
unidentified		Okay, members, any other comments?
		Thank you, Senator King.
		Appreciate your comments, Senator Miles.
		Senator Sparks moves that Senate Bill 4 be reported favorably to the full Senate with the recommendation that it do pass and be printed.
		The clerk will call the roll.
		Senator Alvarado.
		Senator Henohosa.
		Senator Hughes?
		Yes.
		Senator Miles.
		Senator Parker?
		Aye.
		Senator Paxson?
		Aye.
		Senator Sparks?
		Aye.
		Senator Creighton?
		Aye.
		Senator King?
		Aye.
		And I would ask, as Chair, the clerk, would please recognize that Senator Henohosa has submitted a motion in writing to vote no on this legislation, but the official count in committee will be six ayes and one nay.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		One absent, one present not vote.
unidentified		absent and one present not voting.
		Chairman, I'll hand the gavel back to you to conclude the hearing.
		Thank you, sir.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Senator Creighton, for handling the hearing today.
		The practice in the Senate is if it's the chair's bill, then you turn the chairmanship over to the vice chair to conduct the hearing.
		Members, again, thank you, everybody, for your time today.
		Thanks to all the public who testified.
		Thanks to everyone who was watching online.
		I'm sure we had comments through the portal, and we thank you for each of those.
		Members, is there any other business to come before the committee?
		Hearing none, Senator Hughes moves that the committee stand in recess, subject to the call of the chair.
		Thank you, everyone.
unidentified		House and Senate lawmakers are currently in their August recess.
		Here's a look at what a few members are doing in their congressional districts and around the country.
		Democratic Congressman Shamari Figures of Alabama writes, yesterday marked the 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and its impact cannot be overstated.
		I joined the Southern Poverty Law Center last night to reflect on the battle for voting rights and discuss the urgent fight we're in now to ensure fair representation for all Americans.
		Republican Congresswoman Young Kim of California posts this on X. Skilled nursing facilities like Palm Terrace and Laguna Hills provide essential care for aging Americans and those recovering from illness.
		I am fighting to bolster our nursing workforce and adequately support the professionals caring for our most vulnerable.
		And Independent Senator Bernie Sanders shares this update.
		I'll be in West Virginia and North Carolina this weekend, Red State, Blue State, Purple State.
		The American people are clear.
		We cannot make massive cuts to Medicaid, nutrition, and public education in order to give billionaires a huge tax break.
		American History TV, Saturdays on C-SPAN 2, exploring the people and events that tell the American story.
		This weekend, as the nation begins to celebrate its semi-quincentennial, American History TV begins a year-long series, America 250, on the American Revolution and its impact on the country.
		At 6.45 p.m., Eastern will take a walking tour of historic sites in Philadelphia, hosted by the Museum of the American Revolution.
		And we'll continue exploring America's founding with a walking tour of Boston's Freedom Trail, featuring stops at the site of the Boston Massacre, the Old State House, Faniel Hall, and the Old North Church.
		Exploring the American story.
		Watch American History TV Saturdays on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org slash history.
		Democracy It isn't just an idea.
		It's a process.
		A process shaped by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted to a select few with guarding its basic principles.
		It's where debates unfold, decisions are made, and the nation's course is charted.
		Democracy in real time.
		This is your government at work.
		This is C-SPAN, giving you your democracy unfiltered.
		And past president nomination.
		Why are you doing this?
		This is outrageous.
		This is a kangaroo course.
		This fall, C-SPAN presents a rare moment of unity.

▲