Transcript Highlights:

• We want maps. We want real maps. We want access to the ballots.
• Because I've asked you about maps, and then a map shows up in the House.
• I think that the map is more compact than the existing map.
• Speaking of the map jurors, did you draw this map? Who drew the map? Senator King.
• map.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• legal challenges to maps?
• Sometimes I have a map that looked like we could have another possibility map as well.
• That's what this map says.
• drawing a 3-3 map.
• standpoint, a 4-2 map gets us much closer than a 5-1 map.

Summary: The Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee met on May 12, 2026, and focused primarily on Senate Bill 407, a congressional redistricting proposal, with Senate Bill 121 also scheduled for later. The chair explained the committee would first take up SB 407, consider amendments, then hear public testimony, and would not take up SB 116 or SB 130. Two amendment sets were adopted on SB 407: one technical set adjusting dates to align with the upcoming election cycle, and another updating the map in the bill. Committee members and the bill sponsor described the proposal as a 4-2 congressional map intended to comply with the Supreme Court’s CalA ruling, preserve traditional redistricting criteria, and avoid using race as the basis for district lines. Supporters of SB 407 argued the map was compact, contiguous, kept parishes and cities together, and created two opportunity districts without racial predominance. Several senators said the map better reflected Louisiana’s political and demographic realities and could withstand legal challenge under the Equal Protection Clause and First Amendment. Testimony in support also emphasized fairness, representation, and the idea that the state should not move to a 5-1 map. Some speakers, including former legislators and community advocates, said the state should maintain or preserve two districts where Black voters and Democratic voters could elect candidates of choice. Opponents of the broader redistricting effort criticized the process as rushed and confusing, especially because early voting had already begun and the Secretary of State was not present to answer questions. Some speakers said the legislature had not been properly involved in the election suspension process and raised concerns about whether votes already cast would count if maps changed. Others argued the proposed changes were an attempt to dilute political power and disenfranchise voters, particularly Black, poor, and queer communities. The committee heard extensive public testimony on both sides, but no final vote on the bill was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So that was a change, even under the previous map, not the 2021 map, but under the previous map...
• And this map, House Bill 4, the map before us today...
• Are you working with anybody on a map? Is there a map?"
• map does.
• look at the map.

Bills: HB4, HB 4

Keywords: district composition, congressional election, Texas, legislature, voting districts, 997, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I believe the map I voted for in 2021 was a legal map.
• It was to replace a court-drawn map with a legislative map.
• maps.
• the 2021 map?
• , that you voted for the map, congressional maps are not discriminatory, that you voted for the map,

Summary: The Senate Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting met virtually for its West Texas regional hearing, established a quorum, and explained that the hearing was part of a series of statewide information-gathering sessions before any map was filed. The chair outlined the Zoom procedures, the two-minute testimony limit, and the availability of written comments through the committee’s public portal. Senators also discussed the logistics and transparency of the process, including the expectation that any proposed map or amendment would be made public once filed and that additional hearings would follow. Senator Blanco, whose district includes West Texas and the border region, said the area’s communities of interest should be kept together and warned against repeating the loss of representation that followed the last redistricting cycle. Senators Alvarado, Hinojosa, Miles, and others debated the value of virtual hearings versus in-person hearings, the number of people who had testified, and whether the committee could subpoena witnesses after the regional hearings ended. The chair said he was awaiting legal guidance and would consider a subpoena motion at a formal meeting the next day. A lengthy exchange also occurred over the tone of public testimony and the chair’s view that some comments directed at Republicans and the president had been offensive or historically inaccurate. Invited witnesses and public commenters largely opposed mid-decade redistricting and argued that any new map should reflect population growth, especially among Latino and other minority communities, and comply with the Voting Rights Act. Nina Perales of MALDEF said the hearings were not meaningful without a draft map and testified that Texas has a long history of discriminatory redistricting; senators questioned her about litigation, DOJ’s July 7 letter, and the 2021 congressional map. Tania Chavez Camacho, Luis Figueroa, and several El Paso residents emphasized that maps should preserve communities of interest, avoid cracking and packing, and be transparent and participatory. A smaller number of witnesses supported redistricting, including one El Paso resident who said the current districting leaves the area underrepresented and another who argued that some communities want to return to a map closer to the earlier District 16 configuration. Several witnesses also criticized the DOJ letter as inconsistent with the state’s position that the 2021 maps were drawn race-blind, while others said the current process was too rushed and lacked sufficient public input.

Transcript Highlights:

• , map, map comparison package.
• When was this map submitted? I forgot when this map was submitted.
• This is not a Texas map; it is a Trump map.
• The maps or who should draw the maps today.
• the maps were.

Bills: HB4

Keywords: district composition, congressional election, Texas, legislature, voting districts, 997, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I believe the the map I voted for in 2001 was a legal map.
• It was to replace a court-drawn map with a legislative map.
• or maps.
• Senate maps.
• I urge you to vote against that map, even though we don't have a map yet.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• For just a Republican map? Yeah. To call for a 5-1 Democratic map?
• drawing a 3-3 map.
• standpoint, a 4-2 map gets us much closer than a 5-1 map.
• map since Friday.
• No, this map is not an ideal... I stand with them. No, this map is not an ideal map.

Bills: SB116, SB121, SB130, SB407

Keywords: redistricting, congressional districts, Louisiana, 2020 census, elections, precincts, voting, election, political representation, 2026 precincts, demographics, Louisiana congressional map, U.S. House, election districts, precinct shapefiles, Voting Districts, VTD, 2020 Census, 2026 Precinct Shapefiles, apportionment

Transcript Highlights:

• that was then Map C-2308.
• a map.
• I am against the maps.
• those maps, correct?
• I went ahead and, having looked at the map, thought it was a good map.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The difference is that this map, this map is going to affect people's lives.
• map.
• Under this map, under the map that's being proposed for us to vote on right now.
• This map is disrespectful.
• This map seeks to bury it.

Bills: SB 2, SB 5, SB 9, SB 7, SB 17, SB 4, HB4, HB1, HB3, HB20, HB22, SB9, SB7, SB17, SB4, HB4, SB2, SB5

Keywords: disaster relief, flood preparedness, emergency funding, local government support, meteorological forecasting, school assessment, public education, accountability, transparency, education standards, STAAR, Texas Education Agency, TEA, public school accountability, school ratings, A-F ratings, assessment reform, student testing, benchmark tests, interim assessments

Transcript Highlights:

• And as people have said over and over again, 76% of that map is baked into this map.
• , we don't like these maps.
• Who specifically drew these maps? So these are the legislators' maps. The legislature's maps.
• So I'm asking who drew these maps, not general groups. The legislature drew the maps.
• Last week, you saw the maps.

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met on August 19, 2025, to consider ACA 8, SB 280, and an informational hearing on AB 604. The meeting began with several failed motions to adjourn, to read public comments into the record, and to recess so members could review the roughly 16,000 public comments submitted through the committee portal. The chair emphasized the hearing’s expedited format, transparency measures, and rules limiting witness testimony, and noted a letter from Speaker Rivas authorizing Assemblymember Berman to present ACA 8. ACA 8, described by supporters as the “Election Rigging Response Act,” would place before voters a temporary congressional redistricting plan tied to AB 604 and triggered only if another state, especially Texas, adopts a partisan mid-decade redistricting. Supporters, including Assemblymember Berman, labor groups, CTA, Planned Parenthood affiliates, SEIU, and other allied organizations, argued the measure was a response to partisan gerrymandering elsewhere and a defense of democracy, with voters having the final say in a November 4, 2025 special election. Opponents, including current and former redistricting commissioners, good-government groups, business and taxpayer organizations, and many members of the public, argued the proposal undermines California’s independent redistricting model, was rushed without adequate public review, could cost roughly $200 million or more, and would invite litigation and partisan manipulation. The committee also debated a proposed amendment that would bar legislators who voted for ACA 8 from later running for Congress in districts adopted under the measure. After extended procedural disputes, the committee voted to lay the amendment on the table. The hearing then continued with extensive public testimony, overwhelmingly divided between strong support and strong opposition, but the transcript provided does not show a final committee vote on ACA 8 or SB 280 before the excerpt ends.

Transcript Highlights:

• To rig congressional maps.
• , we don't like these maps.
• Who specifically drew these maps? So these are the legislator's maps. The legislator's maps.
• Bennett, so I'm asking, who drew these maps? The legislature drew the maps.
• Legislature drew the maps. This is transparency that we don't get to know who drew the maps.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And any map that is drawn...
• That is why those maps, the 2021 maps, went to trial in El Paso for three weeks.
• And that's not what these maps have done. Do we need new maps? We do. Do we need better maps? Yes.
• We don't have a map. After people and experts get the map, please...
• , and propose alternative maps.

Keywords: 997, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The CPUC is required to adopt maps, but it is also required to include data from the very faulty maps
• and the map requirements, the map-making process.
• So we're very concerned that that broadband map and that wireless map would be in there.
• wireless maps, that data, be included in the map that is produced by the CPUC.
• maps we have.

Summary: The Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee heard AB 470 by Assembly Member McKinnor, a bill to modernize California’s carrier-of-last-resort rules for voice telephone service and create a process for carriers to transition away from obsolete copper networks in favor of advanced telecommunications infrastructure. The author and supporters said the bill is aimed at preserving reliable voice and 911 access while encouraging private investment in fiber and other modern networks, and emphasized that it is not a broadband bill. Support came from AT&T, business groups, and a former Cal OES director, who argued the bill provides a careful, phased modernization with CPUC oversight and increased public-safety investment requirements. Opposition came from TURN, CWA District 9, digital equity organizations, labor groups, and several local governments and county representatives. Critics raised concerns about the adequacy of the mapping process, reliance on broadband and wireless coverage data, the lack of on-the-ground verification, the challenge process, possible loss of Lifeline protections, and the impact on workers and union jobs. They also argued the bill could allow carriers to reduce universal-service obligations without enough safeguards for rural and vulnerable customers. Committee members discussed those concerns at length, especially the map-making process, the challenge procedure, and whether the bill sufficiently protects workers and customers who could be left behind. The author said the bill includes a 10-year backstop if service is lost, a CPUC-led process, and a three-to-one fiber buildout requirement tied to relinquishment, and expressed willingness to continue working with labor on workforce language. The committee ultimately passed AB 470 on a 7-0 due pass vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• proposed maps.
• Have you seen these maps yet?
• Like everybody else, I have not seen a map. So if, indeed, a map was...
• I bet you anything there's maps that are there. Those maps...
• , there is no map.

Keywords: 997, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And y'all voted for these maps.
• We are pretending that the governor did not approve the very maps, the very maps he is now insisting
• And why don't we even have a map? Where are the maps?
• map did not violate the Voting Rights Act or the Constitution before they went forward with the map
• And once they had come up with the map, that map was reviewed by a team put together by the Attorney

Summary: The Senate Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting held its first regional hearing, focused on South and Central Texas, including Bexar County, Travis County, and the Rio Grande Valley. After establishing a quorum, the committee adopted its rules on a 6-3 roll-call vote, with Senators Alvarado and Miles voting no. Chair Phil King explained the regional-hearing format, the use of 2020 census data, the online testimony process, and the availability of written comments and future hearings. Several members then gave opening remarks, with Republicans emphasizing public input and Democrats arguing the special session and mid-decade redistricting were unnecessary and aimed at minority districts. A major procedural issue arose over whether the committee should invite or subpoena the DOJ attorney who authored the July 7 letter that prompted the redistricting discussion. Senator Miles moved to subpoena the attorney; the motion was seconded but then set aside after the chair said the committee could not take formal action on a non-procedural matter during a regional hearing under the adopted rules. The chair said he would consult legal counsel about issuing an invitation, and members discussed the August 7 deadline referenced in the DOJ letter. The committee then moved on to public testimony. Witnesses, including Congresswoman Sylvia Garcia, law professor Ellen Katz, and Texas NAACP president Gary Bledsoe, argued that the DOJ letter misread the law and that the targeted districts were lawful opportunity or coalition districts. They said the Fifth Circuit’s Pettway decision was limited to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and did not declare coalition districts unconstitutional, and they cited Bartlett v. Strickland as warning against intentionally dismantling effective minority districts. Garcia and Bledsoe said the hearing was politically motivated and would harm Black and Latino representation; Katz said Texas would act illegally if it followed the DOJ letter’s instructions. Members asked questions about the legal status of coalition districts, the 2021 map-drawing process, and the difference between opportunity, coalition, and crossover districts. The hearing continued with additional public witnesses, including labor representative Emily Amps, who said workers and communities of color were being harmed by the proposed redistricting effort.

Transcript Highlights:

• maps.
• maps.
• And let us look at these maps. Let's look at what these maps do.
• maps.
• the Commission's map.

Summary: The Assembly met after a quorum call, recess, prayer, and the Pledge of Allegiance, then moved into a highly procedural and contentious floor session centered on redistricting measures. Members debated a point of order raised by Assembly Member DeMaio challenging the constitutionality of SB 280, ACA 8, and AB 604; the Speaker ruled the point not well taken, and the Assembly sustained that ruling on appeal. The body also took up consent-calendar and procedural motions, including suspending rules to adopt late amendments on ACA 8 and to bring the measure up without reference to file. Several motions to re-refer or suspend rules on related measures failed, while the motion to adopt the late amendments on ACA 8 carried. The main substantive item was ACA 8, the Assembly Constitutional Amendment related to redistricting, presented by Assembly Member Berman as a response to mid-decade redistricting efforts in other states, especially Texas. Supporters argued the measure was a temporary, voter-driven response to protect democracy, counter partisan gerrymandering, and address broader threats tied to the Trump administration, including immigration enforcement and health care cuts. Opponents argued ACA 8 would undermine California’s independent citizens redistricting commission, violate the state Constitution, and amount to partisan gerrymandering or a power grab. Members on both sides framed the issue as a defense of democracy, but disagreed sharply over whether the Legislature should act or leave redistricting to voters and the existing commission. No final vote on ACA 8 is shown in the transcript excerpt, but the Assembly did vote on several procedural matters: the appeal of the Speaker’s ruling was sustained 58-18; the motion to adopt late amendments on ACA 8 passed 58-19; a motion to re-refer ACA 8 and SB 280 to Judiciary failed 19-58; and a motion to take up A.J.R. 21 without reference to file failed 19-58. The session remained focused on ACA 8 and related redistricting questions, with extensive floor speeches from both supporters and opponents.

Transcript Highlights:

• Oh, you voted for the 2023 maps, right? The congressional maps? I did.
• Anyone in the state of Texas to look at any map to make comments on any map.
• Do you have a map? I do not have a map. Who is drawing the map? I'm not drawing a map.
• A map, if I did not think it was a legal map. You thought it was a legal map, not an...
• I have never voted for any map that I did not believe was a legal map.

Bills: SR5, SB5, SB11, SB12, SB25, SB26, SB28, SB35, SB5, SB11, SB12, SB25, SB26, SB28, SB35

Keywords: redistricting, Senate procedures, public input, Texas Legislature, amendments, Texas Senate, congressional districts, legislative procedures, legislative transparency, Senate rules, public hearings, committee procedures, hemp regulation, consumable products, cannabinoids, occupational licenses, criminal offenses, SB 11, Texas attorney general, election crimes

Summary: The meeting centered around the discussion of congressional redistricting, where the committee established the procedures to ensure a fair and transparent process. Led by Senator King, the session focused on adopting a resolution that authorized a special committee dedicated to congressional redistricting and allowed for regional hearings to gather public input via videoconferencing. Concerns were raised about ensuring adequate notice for public participation, especially from marginalized communities potentially affected by proposed changes. Disagreements emerged regarding the timeline for regional hearings and how to address the implications of the redistricting process on minority districts. Overall, participants acknowledged the complex nature of redistricting and the importance of engaging constituents in the legislative process.

Transcript Highlights:

• Where's the map?
• Because although I know we're talking about maps. ...lines and maps and lines.
• The maps—I don't know; you keep saying there are maps, but there are not maps.
• . map.
• interested in the map.

Keywords: 997, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We are pretending that the governor did not approve the very maps, the very maps he is now insisting
• And why don't we even have a map? Where are the maps?
• with the map in question.
• Once they had come up with a map, that map had to be approved.
• I promise ample time, if there's a map before the committee, to go into great detail over that map with

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, I'll have to pull out the map.
• Yes, I have that map.
• So these maps have been amended since your map. Is that correct? Slightly.
• Calais decision also said that this map, or the map—not this one in particular, but the... ...map of
• Even before SB 8, the maps, redistricting maps that we passed in this legislature prior to SB 8, those

Bills: SCR12, HB221, HB509, HCR58, HB75, HB1222, SB121, SB312, SB348, SB485, SCR9, SCR58, SB65, SB215, SB249, SB269, SB282, SB296, SB323, SB363, SB369, SB474, SB490, SB492, SB500, SB514, HCR54, HCR79, HCR87, HCR94, HCR104, HCR32, HB944, HB17, HB41, HB73, HB223, HB244, HB410, HB750, HB759, HB906, HB966, HB1006, HB1009, HB1086, HB1107, HB1112, HB1215, HB1242, SB208, SB217, SB283, SB387, SB389, SB401, SB408, SB469, HB74, HB119, HB368, HB414, HB552, HB732, HB776, HB848, HB870, HB953, HB956, HB1236, SB29, SB42, SB43, SB78, SB149, SB274, SB300, SB341, SB382, SB441, SB449, HB134, HB210, HB258, HB359, HB468, HB784, HB1117

Keywords: logging, recognition, John Keith, environment, safety, Mississippi River bridge, Trump Expressway, transportation, federal funding, Louisiana highways, injection wells, public hearing, geologic sequestration, environmental impact, public comment, Ascension Parish, state capitol, economic development, community partnership, celebration day