CSPAN - Texas Senate Redistricting Committee Hearing

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 10, 2025 03:34-05:33 - CSPAN

01:58:43

Texas Senate Redistricting Committee Hearing

Participants

Main

phil king

r 49:43

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Online at c-span.org.
		Videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights.
		These points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos.
		This timeline tool makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in Washington.
		Scroll through and spend a few minutes on C-SPAN's points of interest.
		Texas House Democrats remained out of the state to block a vote in that chamber on the proposed map that will redraw congressional districts.
		Up next, the committee heard public testimony on the proposed map for several hours.
		Here's a portion of those proceedings.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Well, good morning.
		The Senate Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting will come to order.
		The clerk will please call the roll.
unidentified		Senator King?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Here.
unidentified		Senator Creighton? Here.
		Senator Alvarado.
		Senator Hinojosa?
		Present.
		Senator Hughes? Here.
		Senator Miles? Here.
		Senator Parker?
		Senator Paxon?
		Present.
		Senator Sparks?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Here.
unidentified		Sir.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		There being seven members present, a quorum has been established.
		The purpose of today's hearing is to lay out a bill and to hear 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, but if we end up needing that, I'll announce where those are at.
		And with that, I'm going to pass the gavel to last 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 the 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, I 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 Porales 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, Tenias 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'd 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.
	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 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 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 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 Bear County, and you can see it has some population down here.
	It gets very, very thin, exceptionally thin, as it traverses through Guadalupe and Comal 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.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Yes, sir.
unidentified		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, as well 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.
		Do 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 matter how long they clicked on, how long they watched, we don't have a record.
		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 letters, 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, Jeremy King.
unidentified		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 on my, when you communicated with me.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		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		At 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, Senator 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?
		Yes.
		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 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 state.
		Anyone they want it?
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
		Anyone that they want.
		Anyone that you wanted or any other member wanted to testify to?
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 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 age Texas.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		No, I've never been told that.
		Okay, thanks.
		I had a question.
		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, Senator Miles.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		Thank God that in this particular special session for rig districting, 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 rig districting.
		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 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 for 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		Okay.
		You know, 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.
		And I want you 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 told us to do.
		Senator Hughes.
		Senator Paxton.
		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 rigged districting is going to do to your communities, to the Democratic House members that broke quorum.
		Keep the faith and keep your fight.
		The 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 injustice 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 attacked 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 redigged, redistrict, or rigged district, but your state is next.
		Finally, for those of you who 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, Odago County is divided 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 our communities who have a common interest.
	In Oasis 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 agree 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, as 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.
phil king ▲ ● ▼		Senator King.
		I understand I was speaking with someone from Massachusetts this morning, and they have nine congressional members.
		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 the 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.
		We're going to have to keep it.
		Well, 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 if even at the end of this process.
		I think that context from a partisan standpoint is important.
		That's my point.
		I 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 Hughes.
		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 in other states.
		I just care about Texas.
		And this last time I checked, you represented the 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.
		When did who's on?
		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 Zuberveer.
		Is Janelle Zuberbeer 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'm 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.
	Thanks very much for your testimony.
	Please.
	Go ahead.
	You may begin.
	I'm Amanda McLaughlin.
	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 rig 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 Debra 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 sacred 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, 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 staged 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.
	It 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 Xcape, 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 could 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 neuromed search 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 CD10, CD11, and CD27, 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 southeastern Travis County community of Dell 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.
	I'm a deputized voter registrar, community advocate, and proud public servant for the people in 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 tire 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 said he's 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.
	Let me make this loud.
	I stand against HB4.
	I stand against gerrimanding.
	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 BRA districts, and then packs other minority groups into type-urten 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 with 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.
	If 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.
	Thank you very much.
	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 Lano, the people of San Angelo, 180 miles away, and Midland, 283 miles away.
	Pflugerville is 14 miles away from the capital.
	This map has Pflugerville 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 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 their table, that they're 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 our constituents and many in 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 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 appreciate you joining us.
	And you're recognized if you have a question for Mr. Little.
	I don't know if that is 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.
		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.
		10.5.
		205.
		And it would seem based on what I've gleaned, most of them have testified against this process and now and 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 our testimony taken into account, I think each senator represents their roughly a 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.
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?
		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.
		Out of 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 and 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 a 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 don't 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 districts 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 schools, and things like that, you don't need to take those out of a minority district in order to establish and to accomplish your goal of increasing partisanship in the state of Texas.
		But yet 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, decades decades, decades.
		Okay, if you're uh, if you're working on a uh, a companion bill, and the bill on the other side of the body begins to stall, then you, you will file it over here and try to get it moving as a companion and uh, that's exactly what I did.
		I decided I, that the House bill was a very good bill, that it accomplished the purposes that I had in 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, you know, 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 that's happening.
		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 Barron 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 Bear 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 issue, 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.
		And 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 talked 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 of interest?
		Let me finish, sir.
		Thank you.
		Sorry.
		And so the question is, is that communities of interest, I mean, do people have the same types of, I guess you could say, go to the same churches?
		What elements of communities of interest that's been recognized 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 Terry.
		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.
		Senator 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.
		C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington and across the country.
		Coming up this morning, we'll talk about the Trump administration and other political news of the day.
		First with the nation's executive editor, John Nichols.
		Then with Washington Examiner columnist Jeremiah Poff.
		C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
		Join in the conversation live at 7 Eastern this morning on C-SPAN.
		C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app or online at c-SPAN.org.
		And past precedent nomination.
		Why are you doing this?
		This is outrageous.
		This is a kangaroo quarter.
		This fall, C-SPAN presents a rare moment of unity, ceasefire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins.
		Join political playbook chief correspondent and White House Bureau Chief Dasha Burns as host of Ceasefire, bringing two leaders from opposite sides of the aisle into a dialogue to find common ground.
		ceasefire this fall on the network that doesn't take sides only on c-span c-span shop.org is c-span's online store Browse through our latest collection of C-SPAN products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories.
		There's something for every C-SPAN fan, and every purchase helps support our non-profit operations.
		Shop now or anytime at C-SPANShop.org.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		were funded by these television companies and more, including Comcast.
		The flag replacement program got started by a good friend of mine who, a Navy vet, saw the flag at the office that needed to be replaced, and said, wouldn't this be great if this was gonna be something that we did for anyone?
		Comcast has always been a community-driven company.
		This is one of those great examples of the way we're getting out there.

▲