House Redistricting met on October 4 to consider HB 1 (Hunter) relating to the composition of districts for the election of members of the Texas House of Representatives. The committee heard in person and virtual public testimony. The committee heard from non-members’ statements on the proposal. Finally, the committee considered and adopted amendments to the map proposal. HB 1 was left pending. Part one of the hearing can be found here and part two can be found here.


This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics taken up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the discussions but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.


Opening Comments

  • Hunter – Will hear in person and virtual public testimony
  • After that, will hear non-committee members make statements about their districts
  • Then will hear committee amendments; intends to vote this bill out after that


HB 1 (Hunter) Relating to the composition of districts for the election of members of the Texas House of Representatives

  • Hunter – Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) data is different than Voting Age Population (VAP) from the Census
  • CVAP are estimates; correct data to look at minority populations is the VAP
    • Evenwel v Abbott ruling is to not use CVAP
  • Plan creates new African American district and two new Hispanic districts in Fort Bend County
  • Plan allegedly loses 6 minority majority districts; this was a result of the CVAP estimates
    • One of which is HD32, however that district is historically Republican
    • Other five alleged lost districts will continue to strongly elect the Democrat candidate of choice
  • The allegedly lost African American district, HD22, proposed map is 39.5% Republican
    • HD110, 20.1% Republican
    • HD131, 22.6% Republican
  • Hispanic districts allegedly lost:
    • HD32, 60.3% Republican
    • HD76, 39.6% Republican
    • HD 103, 27.3% Republican
  • HD111, an African American district 54.4%, BVAP was brought up to 54.7%
  • Majority population growth was in the urban areas of the state; rural areas have lost population
    • 2010 ideal HD population 167,637
    • 2020 ideal HD population 194,303
  • Have worked with Jetton, Vo, Chen-Button, Wu to review the Asian American population growth
  • Created new minority coalition districts in Fort Bend and Hays; one is 33% Asian VAP
  • Rio Grande Valley, Cameron and Hidalgo County; all seven majority Hispanic districts remain with the same majority political preference
  • Coastal Bend and Nueces areas remain strong and pick up population; remain majority political preference
  • Harris County, HD131 becomes a majority Hispanic district; political performance of all 24 districts remain the same
  • East Texas districts remain strong, most experiencing county/population shifts; political performance remains the same
  • Denton and Collin County HD57 and HD60 are two new Republican districts; created due to population growth
  • Denton County, HD65 becomes a Republican performing district
  • Dallas County, HD114 is a new Hispanic majority district
  • HD111 is a new African American majority district; political performance remains the same
  • Tarrant County, HD92 becomes a new minority coalition district; political performance shifts to 7 Republicans and 4 Democrats
  • Growth in Central Texas allows Bell and Williamson Counties to gain 2 Republican and 2 Republican and 1 Democrat districts, respectively
  • Travis County, HD51 becomes a Hispanic majority district
    • All incumbent districts basically remain the same in terms of political performance
  • Hays County, HD45 is a new coalition district; performing Democrat
  • Bexar County, is the same but there is disagreement on a particular county; performance is basically the same
  • Permian Basin and Panhandle largely remain the same
  • El Paso, HD76 was a majority Hispanic district; transfers over to Fort Bend due to overall population loss in El Paso
    • Was drawn to accommodate significant minority growth; performing Democrat
  • Map contains 4 new minority majority districts
  • Map creates an 85 Republican and 65 Democrat split
  • Cannot remain the same; many members have to take new counties
  • Jetton, do you have any questions about the new district in Fort Bend?
    • Jetton – No
  • Turner – Asks about the process in which the maps were drawn
    • No one saw the map until I filed it
    • Asked members to submit into Red Apple
    • Me, staff, firm, and Butler-Snow helped draw the maps
  • Turner – Was a media report that Adam Foltz was involved?
    • Yes, is an employee through Legislative Council and assigned to me
  • Turner – His resume includes work in Wisconsin Redistricting?
    • Do not know what happened in Wisconsin, hired based on data credentials
  • Turner – Aware of a lawsuit in federal court which threw out drawn Wisconsin maps he was involved with?
    • No; do not know Wisconsin’s legislative process
  • Turner – Federal court noted Foltz’s deficiencies included that he did not work with any Democratic member
    • Met with Republicans and Democrats who did not agree with proposals; Foltz and staff have been in those meetings
  • Turner – Committee will not hear invited testimony from subject matter experts today?
    • Considering doing a separate hearing to look at invited testimony; have not decided
    • Have the portal system where anyone can submit information/documents/comments
  • Turner – Will be able to view those before voting on amendments?
    • Will get back to you on timing
  • Turner – Which House districts are protected under the Voting Rights Act?
    • Believes you are referencing majority minority districts HDs: 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 51, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 90, 103, 104, 110, 114, 116, 117, 118, 119, 123, 124, 125, 131, 137, 140, 143, 144, 145, 148, 109, 111
  • Turner – Are greater than 50% VAP minority?
    • Yes; includes newly created
  • Turner – Which existing districts are protected under the VRA?
    • Will get that to you
  • Landgraf – Would be 3 new majority minority districts?
    • Correct, in addition to the 3; HD111 was restored as a majority-minority district
  • Murr – Speak on incumbent core retention and avoiding pairings?
    • Only pairing occurred in HD76 from El Paso to Fort Bend
    • Is a weak pairing in Hays County; residents are paired but two partisan districts
  • Murr and Hunter discuss the attempts to limit split VTDs and that House has to abide by the county rule, not the Senate or the Congressional drawings
  • Murr – Newly drawn HD19 is indicative of Central Texas growth; worked with Travis County delegation how to deal with population shed?
    • Have met with Travis County members; they will possibly a constructive proposal for the Travis County today
  • Landgraf – West Texas area did not generally keep up with the state average in population growth; most districts had to gain counties to achieve population?
    • Not just West Texas; many members have to pick up new counties
  • Landgraf – West Texas delegation met and signed off on early in the process
  • Moody – Ideal population is 194,303, there was no reason to take Ft. Bliss out of the El Paso district


Spotlight on Public Testimony

  • 127 registered to speak on the bill; 6 in favor, 116 against, 5 neutral


Lucinda Capral, Self – Against

  • An active member of the League of Women voters of Hays County
  • Proposal does a poor job in protecting communities of interest
  • North portion of Hays County should not be separated from the rest
  • Proposal is intentionally racially discriminatory; most of the growth has been in communities of color and map does not reflect that
  • Do not understand how public input will be considered if the committee intends to vote the bill out today


Alexandra Anello, Self – Against

  • Resident of the El Paso area; will lose a representative under this bill
  • Proposed maps dilute our voices and do not offer fair representation
  • Moody and Anello discuss Ft. Bliss as being intertwined with El Paso
  • Moody – It is a driving force in the way the community develops our transportation infrastructure


Vanessa McDougall, Self – Against

  • The map doubles down on historic gerrymandering
  • Proposal increases majority white districts when Texas has seen overwhelming minority population growth


Angela Garza, Self – Against

  • Thanks Travis County delegation for their work
  • Representation matters, and we need our voices; legislature should be addressing COVID


Dave Jones, Self and Clean Elections Texas – Against

  • Map is clearly racially discriminatory; noted issues with comparing CVAP and VAP
  • Texas historically has disregarded the VRA
  • Public needs to be able to communicate with Mr. Foltz and should be a part of this process
  • Thompson – Asks about racial inequalities in the bill
    • Does not give any additional districts to the minority population
  • Thompson – How do you think minorities have fared in the drawing of these lines?
    • Not fared fairly


Larry Ringler, Self – For

  • Is important elected officials do their redistricting
  • Notes their district remains primarily the same


Georgia Neblett, Self – For

  • Resident of the Port Aransas area; it is unique
  • Current representative has worked on addressing the issues of this area particularly with TxDOT and storm evacuation


Bobby Warren, Mayor of Jersey Village – Against

  • City of Jersey Village is a tight-knit community of 8,000
  • Bill splits this community apart
  • Neighbors will not be represented by the same government officials


Karen Bryant, Self – Against

  • Resident of Nueces County; have voted for both parties
  • Bill reflects intentional racial discrimination; drowns out communities of color
  • Has not been enough time for public to review these maps
  • Minjarez and Bryant discussed that there has been limited time to review the map
  • Thompson and Bryant discuss the map drawing process
    • Bryant – Maps have been drawn secretively
  • Thompson – Asks about the constitutionality of these special sessions
    • Have not communicated with the Governor

Sean Flanigan, Self – For

  • Elected officials being involved in drawing the map allows for a fairer outcome
  • Notes the legislature is rushed because of the legislators who fled to D.C.


Arnetta Murray, Self – Against

  • CD9 and other districts have faced losses
  • Hunter – This bill is about the House districts, not the congressional districts
    • Against manipulation and gerrymandering


Cheryl Desforges, Self – For

  • Resident of Jersey Villages; approves of the city being in two districts
  • Mayor is incorrect in being against this map


Non-Committee Member Statements

Rep. Erin Zwiener

  • Proposed map did exactly what I wanted for HD45 due to the population growth of Hays County
  • Grateful the community of San Marcos was kept whole; the Senate map does this as well
  • Supports Moody’s proposed amendment:
    • Moves Precinct 339 from HD45 to HD73; map currently divides the Wimberly community
    • Splits Precinct 449 and move a number into HD45; I live in that precinct, makes sure split follows natural boundaries
  • Anchia and Zwiener discuss the amendment splitting up precincts by major roadways and the building of new developments and schools in that area


Rep. Lina Ortega

  • The maps pair two Latinas against each other; there should be two more Latinos in the Texas Legislature
  • Anchia – Asks about the current makeup of her district
    • District is very poor; proposal cuts back representation for this area
  • Turner – Could be an undercount in the 2020 Census?
    • Know many who were afraid to be counted by the Census
    • El Paso is majority minority and deserves proper representation


Rep. Michelle Beckley

  • Was not included in any county discussions for Denton County
  • Democrats and Republicans in that county do not like the proposal
  • Cracking of the precincts is unfair to these voters
  • Will offer an amendment that would help people in these precincts
  • Minjarez – Which amendment?
    • Turner has the amendment


Rep. Nicole Collier

  • Need more time to review the map
  • Map does not have enough districts of people of color, but increases districts for Anglos
  • Supports Turner’s Amendment 21; it unpacks the packing
  • Turner – HD95 has no reason to be changed
  • Turner and Collier discuss difference between packing concerning Anglo and districts of color


Rep. Lynn Stucky

  • Apologizes to the Denton delegation if they felt left out
  • Speaks in favor of the Morrison amendment


Committee Amendments

  • Anchia – Would it be possible to recess to discuss amendments then vote?


Committee Amendment 1 (PLANH2112) (Jetton)

  • Jetton – Laying this out for Gates; concerns HD76 and HD28
  • Adds Census Blocks West of Hwy 6 and North of Alt 90
  • Adds Sugar Land Regional Airport to HD28
  • Has not been opposition by surrounding members
  • Turner – How many people will this amendment affect?
    • 6
  • Amendment 1 adopted


Committee Amendment 2 (PLANH2132) (Schofield)

  • Schofield – Fixes a drafting error from previous redistricting cycles which cuts off about 20 houses in HD132
  • Moves Precinct 803 from HD135 to HD132
  • Moves Precinct 618 from HD132 to HD135
  • Hunter – Are both you and Rosenthal in agreement?
    • Yes
  • Anchia – These are whole precincts?
    • Yes, except the 20 houses are a part of Precinct 875
    • Guess the county would redraw that into Precinct 143
  • Anchia – How many people are affected?
    • About 20,000 are in Precinct 875
    • Precinct 803 has around 6,000 and Precinct 618 has about 8,000
  • Amendment 2 adopted


Committee Amendment 3 (PLANH2118) (Guillen)

  • Guillen – Has been negotiated and approved by Morales and Fierro
  • Moves Ft. Bliss and the International Airport from HD74 to HD79
  • Amendment 3 adopted


Committee Amendment 4 (PLANH2115) (Goldman)

  • Goldman – Agreed to by the Collin County delegation; switches certain precincts
  • Creates a new district in Collin County
  • Anchia – Which is the new district?
    • HD60
  • Anchia – How does this effect the numbering of districts?
    • Does not change the current number of districts
  • Anchia – Where was HD60 prior to this?
    • Rogers
  • Anchia – Is Rogers in complete agreement with this?
    • Do not know if he knows about this; does not impact his district at all
  • Turner – What is the implication of this shift?
    • Is strictly members of Collin County wanting different districts
  • Turner – Does it change the racial or partisan makeup of these counties?
    • Do not know
  • Turner – Is there a report we could look at that data with?
    • Do not have a report on that
  • Turner – Asks about HD70?
    • HD70 is Sanford’s district
  • Amendment 4 adopted


Committee Amendment 5 (PLANH2166) (Jetton)

  • Jetton – Places HD55 in the middle of Bell County; takes on Temple, Parker Heights and Belton
  • HD54 will surround HD55
  • Murr – Who currently hold those districts? Both members approved this map?
    • Shine and Buckley; Shine would be HD55
    • Yes
  • Turner – Splits Killen in half; cracks predominantly minority communities
  • Anchia – Speaks against the amendment
  • Amendment 5 adopted (8-7)


Committee Amendment 6 (Morrison)

  • Amendment taken down


Committee Amendment 6 (PLANH2103) (Rose)

  • Rose – Amendment dedicated to Canales; concerns HD35 Longoria and HD41 Guerra
  • Both have agreed to this plan
  • Change of approximately 400 individuals between the two HDs in Hidalgo County
  • Amendment 6 adopted


Committee Amendment 7 (PLANH2162) (Landgraf)

  • Landgraf – New district in Collin County labeled HD61; Rogers in favor
  • Does not change any district boundaries, is a numerical designation
  • Amendment 7 adopted


Committee Amendment 8 (PLANH2169) (Minjarez)

  • Minjarez – Swaps Howard and Goodwin back into their districts by swapping 4 precincts and numerical designations
  • Precincts 362 and 366 move from HD48 to HD47
  • Precincts 302 and 315 move from HD47 to HD48
  • Places Barton Springs back into HD48
  • Scofield – Why is HD49 in the proposal?
    • Is no change to that district; no objection from representative of HD49
  • Amendment 8 adopted


Q: Thompson – Will the bill be voted out tonight? Would be a smoother process on the floor if we worked issues out during committee

  • Hunter – Will answer that after the amendment process is over


Committee Amendment 9 (PLANH2108) (Moody)

  • Moody – Could we postpone until the end of the amendment list so I can consult with Zwiener?
  • Hunter – Yes, will recall that later


Committee Amendment 10 (PLANH2109) (Rose)

  • Rose – Could we postpone until the end of the amendment list?
  • Hunter – Yes, will recall that later


Committee Amendment 11 (PLANH2110) (Turner)

  • Turner – Keeps Round Rock and Cedar Park whole; affects HDs: 52, 136, and 20
  • Murr – Objects to the amendment
  • Amendment 11 fails to adopt (7-8)


Committee Amendment 12 (PLANH2116) (Minjarez)

  • Amendment withdrawn without layout


Committee Amendment 13 (PLANH2119) (Turner)

  • Turner – Concerns Denton County; heard testimony that the plan splits communities of interest
  • Proposed map splits Carrollton and Farmers Branch ISD into three districts
  • Denton, Lewisville and Farmers Branch and Carrollton into multiple districts
  • Base bill decreases Black, Hispanic, and Asian populations
  • Schofield – Speaks against amendment
  • Anchia and Turner discuss the impacts of the base proposal
  • Amendment 13 fails to adopt (7-8)


Committee Amendment 14 (PLANH2121) (Turner)

  • Turner – Impacts Tarrant County, submitted on behalf on Reps. Romero, Collier, and myself as an agreed to map between us
  • Preserves and protects three minority opportunity districts in HD90, HD95, HD101
  • Restores HD95
  • HB 1 carves out some Hispanic neighborhoods in HD90 and raises concerns about its ability to continue to perform as a Hispanic opportunity district; plan resolves this issue
  • Turns HD92 into a coalition district and makes conforming changes to other districts
  • Amendment 14 fails (7-8)


Committee Amendment 15 (PLANH2130) (Schofield)

  • Schofield – Withdrawing and going to try as a floor amendment
  • Amendment 15 withdrawn


Committee Amendment 16 (PLANH2133) (Anchia)

  • Anchia – Demonstrates just how far the proposed map fails to allow Latino representation of communities of interest in the state
  • Current proposal reduces on a CVAP basis 33 seats to 30, ACS estimates show that Latinos make up 30% of citizen voting population which would equate to 44 state house seats
  • State demographer noted that it is likely that Latinos will represent the largest plurality in this state, eclipsing the Anglo population
  • Map shows it is possible to increase number of Latino voting age districts by 12 to 42, also increases number of districts with Black CVAP by 2 and with at least 2 new Asian opportunity districts
  • In districts like El Paso, removing seat and drawing marginally performing district into the seat deprives voters of candidate of their choice
  • Committee offered only a limited time, so tried to draw according to Latino CVAP to the best of our ability
  • Moody – You referenced racially polarized voting in El Paso, how does this plan configure El Paso County
    • This plan keeps 77, 78, 79, and 76 wholly within El Paso County and brings in 75
  • White – Proposal attempts to show us what we could do? Any spectacular pairing that you use to achieve this?
    • This map was developed without regard to incumbency and without regard to partisanship across the board, singular focus on Latino communities and voters
    • If we used Latino CVAP you add 12 seats without regard to incumbency
  • White – Without regard to packing or cracking?
    • Standard was CVAP which allows drawing districts in excess of 50%
  • Turner – Is it possible to draw Hispanic districts of opportunities in areas we do not typically think about like West Texas?
    • You actually draw 2, not partisan, would imagine those districts in West Texas would elect Republicans
    • Highlights large increase in Latino population growth
    • Using strict standard used by federal courts to use Hispanic CVAP; even using the high standard you can draw 12 more than the base map
  • Amendment 16 fails (7-8)


Committee Amendment 17 (PLANH2135) (Schofield)

  • Schofield – Withdrawing, will look to do a floor amendment
  • Amendment 17 withdrawn


Committee Amendment 18 (PLANH2137) (Schofield)

  • Schofield – Withdrawing, will look to do a floor amendment
  • Amendment 18 withdrawn


Committee Amendment 19 (PLANH2142) (Thompson)

  • Thompson – Withdrawing to offer as a floor amendment, working with members finalizing their amendments
  • Amendment 19 withdrawn


Committee Amendment 20 (PLANH2150) (Guillen)

  • Guillen – Negotiated among RGV members, affects districts 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41
  • Rep. Murr objects
  • Turner – What is the nature of the objection if it is agreed to by members of the RGV delegation
    • Murr – Don’t believe I have to provide a reasoning or rationale for the objection
  • Turner – Agree, was curious if there was a rationale
  • Thompson – Not objecting to right to object, but would be good to know if there are other steps we need to go through
    • Hunter – I haven’t seen impact on other parts of the state, good that you’re getting recognition from those affected, but I can see the issue where if you get it today, we need some sort of analysis
    • Rep. Murr’s objection has been raised, maybe after review the amendment is great, but would be good to know how this impacts the rest of the state; maybe Rep. Turner knows since he asked the question
  • Thompson – This is the reason we asked for time on the amendment to have a chance to do this
    • Hunter – Agree, and this is why –
  • Thompson – I think we ought to recall all the amendments we’ve adopted tonight, let people do all the research and then we can vote, because you’re putting us at a disadvantage
    • Hunter – Giving an explanation, Rep. Murr doesn’t have to explain, if he wants a vote we’ll vote
    • You can do this as a floor amendment or a committee amendment
  • Thompson – Not objecting to the objection, just wondering if there is something he could’ve done that he did not do & if you needed time for the lawyer to look at it, why didn’t we take time to do that
    • Hunter – You’ve insinuated one thing when you said what might be the basis for Rep. Murr’s objection
  • Thompson – Interested in if there was something we could improve upon
    • Hunter – Agree, but we’re going to go forward as I’ve said
  • Thompson – I’m not saying he’s objecting for the sake of objecting, trying to learn from the opposition he may have had; how many days do we need to provide this to get that review?
    • Hunter – Can’t tell you that, just get me the information
  • Thompson – But if we’re going to come in here and run into the same problem –
    • Hunter – We’ve known each other a long time, we don’t agree on this, I encourage you to please work
  • Guillen – Map only impacts 3 counties, doesn’t touch anything else in the state, only touches districts 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41; makes sure everything is paired, doesn’t change minority makeup or partisanship or anything else, RGV members all in agreement
  • Anchia – you’re carrying this for the delegation, doesn’t impact you’re district at all; we were encouraged to get together as delegation
    • Guillen – Right, doesn’t touch my HD31, carrying this as the only RGV member on this committee
  • Anchia – Regarding the county line break, are there any additional breaks?
    • Guillen – Cameron County’s line is broken twice in the proposed base map
  • Anchia – So no change on that?
    • Guillen – Continues that Cameron County break
  • Turner – This amendment only impacts seven districts in Cameron and Hidalgo County, are all of those districts minority opportunity districts?
    • Guillen – Yes
  • Turner – And all of the members in those districts have agreed that this is beneficial to their constituency; this amendment affects no other parts of the state
    • Guillen – Correct
  • Turner – Don’t understand why there would be an objection given those facts
  • Thompson – Does it maintain community interest there?
    • Guillen – Addresses all requests
  • Thompson – And you’re not cracking any districts to be able to do this?
    • Guillen – No
  • Anchia – Trying to understand possible rationale to object to delegation map that is completely agreed to, doesn’t change the rest of the map, and preserves Hispanic CVPA, etc.; did anyone in the delegation raise a possible downside to doing any of this?
    • Guillen – Earlier today we adopted an amendment that dealt with HD35 and HD31, but the essence of what Rep. Longoria was doing is taken care of in this amendment
    • Guillen – Only difference is this addresses the rest of the delegation’s concerns
  • Anchia – All Hispanic voting age districts, delegation was encouraged to get together and do this; we adopted other amendments for other delegations without objection, but an all-Hispanic delegation in agreement gets objection; trying to understand rationale
    • Guillen – I can’t either
  • Amendment 20 fails (7-8)


Committee Amendment 21 (PLANH2153) (Morrison)

  • Morrison – Withdrawing for a floor amendment
  • Amendment 21 withdrawn


Committee Amendment 22 (PLANH2156) (Minjarez)

  • Minjarez – Represents work and cooperation of Bexar County delegation, held a meeting and Rep. Cortez and Rep. Larson were going to work out population
  • Concerns were raised for SSVR and CVAP and changes to the county’s African American district, after multiple rounds of edits, delegation came together to present a consensus map
  • Rep. Allison had concerns about HD118 and did not sign onto the map overall, but communicated to the delegation that he approved of his HD121
  • Map was submitted to the committee, but was not incorporated into HB 1, e.g. HD116 and 123 have SSVR stats below 50%, vital statistic for Latino majority districts
  • Anchia – This configuration doesn’t impact racial and ethnic makeup of any districts?
    • Minjarez – No
  • Anchia – Agreed to by all members of the delegation?
    • Minjarez – Majority, Rep. Allison was good with his district, but objected to HD118
  • Anchia – Anything notable about communities of interest? Able to keep all together
    • Minjarez – My district keeps its communities of interest together
  • Anchia – And you preserved ability of protected populations to elect a person of their choice?
    • Minjarez – Correct
  • Turner – 8 of the 10 districts are minority opportunity, 8 Reps. Who represent those agree?
    • Minjarez – On the consensus map, 9 signed, incl. Rep. Larson
  • Turner – Agreed to be 90% of Bexar County delegation, 80% represents minority opportunity districts; objected to similar to Rep. Guillen’s amendment
  • Turner – Republican consensus maps are not objected to, but Democratic and maps are objected to; nonminority maps are able to make it through this committee?
    • Minjarez – Correct?
  • Anchia – Any partisan change to HD118, the objection by Rep. Allison?
    • Minjarez – Can’t say for sure
  • Amendment 22 fails (7-8)


Committee Amendment 23 (PLANH2161) (Anchia)

  • Anchia – Demonstrates that it is possible to increase number of Latino CVAP districts while staying within proposed parameters in the base map; does not go as far as other demonstration map drawing 12 districts, but demonstrates there are at least 6 districts of legal concern
  • HB 1 redraws HD148, PLANH2161 demonstrates it is possible to keep this HD intact while still drawing safe Republican seats, meaning retrogression cannot be explained by partisanship alone
  • HB 1 also redraws HD90 and reduces Latino population, subject to litigation previously and strange to take it away from being majority Latino CVAP
  • In HB 1 El Paso also loses a seat and HD74, 80, and 31 are drawn in a way were Latino populations would not be able to choose a candidate of their choice, this amendment fixes this
  • Draws two new Hispanic CVAP Republican seats as well
  • Other areas not touched due to deadline, but probably could draw more; map demonstrates there are legal concerns
  • Moody – This is a map based on Hispanic CVAP, is it to maximize those numbers?
    • Anchia – Reflects explosive growth of Latino population while trying to preserve basic framework of HB 1
  • Moody – I know you highlighted 6 major areas of concern, incl. El Paso County, not the same configuration as the previous map with the 5th anchor seat?
    • Anchia – Correct
  • Moody – This map offers a different configuration, but maintaining HD75 as a minority opportunity district?
    • Anchia – Correct
  • Amendment 23 fails (7-8)


Committee Amendment 24 (PLANH2163) (Morrison)

  • Morrison – Withdrawing for a floor amendment
  • Amendment 24 withdrawn


Committee Amendment 25 (PLANH2164) (Morrison)

  • Morrison – Withdrawing for a floor amendment
  • Amendment 25 withdrawn


Committee Amendment 26 (PLANH2167) (Turner)

  • Turner – Going to withdraw
  • Amendment 26 withdrawn


Committee Amendment 27 (PLANH2170) (Schofield)

  • Schofield – Withdrawing, will try to offer floor amendment
  • Amendment 27 withdrawn


Committee Amendment 9 laid out again

Committee Amendment 9 (PLANH2108) (Moody)

  • Moody – Planning to withdraw and take it to the floor because there are things that need to be resolved
  • Amendment is a precinct and a half, had multiple amendments adopted that are less consequential and had no one
  • Wimberly would be wholly contained in HD73, Wimberley ISD is also having a problem solved, Cypress Springs Elementary would keep attendance zones
  • Amendment 9 withdrawn


Committee Amendment 10 laid out again

Committee Amendment 10 (PLANH2109) (Rose)

  • Rose – Withdrawing and will pursue floor amendment
  • Amendment 10 withdrawn


Committee Amendment 28 (Turner)

  • Hunter – Not a Plan H amendment, an amendment to the bill itself
    • Turner – Non-plan amendment, submitted to comm. director before noon
  • Turner – Voting Rights Act requires protection of districts that perform for racial minorities and drawing of new districts as required for population growth
  • Ultimately when these plans are challenged in court, courts will review of how the legislature treated current racial minority and coalition districts
  • Last redistricting cycle when the state’s map was found to be intentionally discriminatory, court criticized not starting with list of protected districts; this amendment is designed with those that cannot be retrogressed
  • Because committee process has been rushed, haven’t been able to learn which were approached in this way
  • Committee should adopt this amendment as legislative findings that it is not the intent of the legislature to undermine Voting Rights Act and not disrupt a specific list of protected districts
  • Schofield – My district is one of the districts listed & I was elected, but nevertheless I object
    • Turner – Would need to do an election analysis, certainly minorities in your district have formed a coalition to elect candidates of their choice
  • Amendment 28 fails (6-8)


Closing Comments

  • Hunter – To ensure everyone has final geography and statistical data before voting, amendments will be incorporated into complete committee substitute and will be distributed to all members
  • Hunter – Recessing until noon October 5th; Thompson requested 1pm, motion to recess changed to 1pm, October 5th