Transcript Highlights:

• One, For redrawing the congressional plan now are twofold.
• District 5 and Congressional District 6.
• District 5 and Congressional District 6.
• Congressional District 5 and Congressional District 6.
• And that is the trust of this process with the people.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session with an opening prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then moved to the special order calendar to consider congressional redistricting legislation, beginning with Senate Bill 8D and then substituting the identical House Bill 1D. The bill would establish Florida’s congressional districts. Senator Gaetz, presenting the measure, said the Governor had proposed the map to address population growth and to draw race-neutral districts, and argued that mid-decade redistricting is legally permissible and has occurred before in Florida and other states. He repeatedly said the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend the proposal, but that the Governor had the prerogative to propose it. The floor debate focused heavily on the legality and timing of the map, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Louisiana redistricting decision was announced during the session. Several senators, including Rouson, Sharief, Smith, Polsky, Arrington, Bracy Davis, Bernard, Nathan, and Berman, questioned whether the map complied with the Florida Constitution’s Fair Districts Amendment, the Voting Rights Act, and equal protection principles. They raised concerns about the short notice, lack of statewide public hearings, the use of partisan data, the absence of sworn testimony from the Governor’s representatives, the claimed severability of the Fair Districts Amendment, and the impact on minority communities and communities of interest. Gaetz generally declined to offer legal opinions, saying those issues would ultimately be for the courts, but he relayed the Governor’s position that race-based provisions in the Fair Districts Amendment are unconstitutional and that the proposed map is race-neutral and compact. Members also debated whether the map’s population data and compactness scores justified the district lines, with critics arguing that the plan cracked and split communities in places such as Central Florida, Tampa Bay, and South Florida. Gaetz said the Governor’s office relied on 2020 census data plus updated population estimates from the Office of Economic and Demographic Research and the American Community Survey, and that the mapmaker said he drew the map himself without outside consultants. After questions concluded, the Senate adopted a motion to substitute HB 1D for SB 8D, read the bill a third time, and proceeded to debate the House bill. The transcript ends during debate, with no final vote on passage shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Let me ask a question about process.
• District 5 and Congressional District 6.
• Congressional District 5 and Congressional District 6.
• Equally troubling is the process by which this map has been Equally troubling is the process by which
• And that is the trust of this process with the people.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D / House Bill 1D, which would establish Florida’s congressional districts. The sponsor, Sen. Gates, explained that the Governor had transmitted a redistricting plan two days earlier and argued that mid-decade redistricting is legally permissible, citing population growth and the Governor’s view that race-based districting is unconstitutional. Much of the floor time was spent in extended questioning about the process, the lack of public hearings compared with prior redistricting cycles, the use of population estimates from the Census/EDR/ACS, compactness scores, and whether the Governor’s office used partisan data or outside consultants. Gates repeatedly said he was relaying the Governor’s proposal and legal theory rather than offering his own legal opinion, and he said any constitutional challenge would be for the courts. A major portion of the debate focused on the U.S. Supreme Court’s newly issued Calais decision and its implications for the Fair Districts Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Senators questioned whether the decision struck down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, whether it affected Florida’s constitutional ban on partisan gerrymandering, and whether the Legislature should postpone action to review the ruling. A motion to temporarily postpone the bill failed by voice vote and then by recorded vote, 12 yeas to 23 nays. Senators also raised concerns that the proposed map cracked minority communities, including Latino and Black populations in Central Florida and Tampa Bay, and that it would produce a heavily Republican-leaning map despite the state’s voter registration mix. After debate on the Senate bill, the chamber substituted the identical House companion bill, read it a third time, and proceeded to final debate. Opponents argued the map was an illegal partisan gerrymander, was based on assumptions rather than verified data, and would likely lead to litigation. Supporters maintained that the Governor had authority to propose a congressional map, that the plan was race-neutral, and that the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend it. The transcript ends during continued debate on House Bill 1D, with no final vote shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• to that process.
• subject to that process.
• HB 2187 by Howard relating to hospital staffing report processes and to the retaliation and mandatory
• HB 5238 by Lopez, relating to the criminal offense of disrupting a meeting or procession.
• This ensures fairness and transparency in the handgun license application process.

Bills: HJR138 , HB42 , HB 104 , HB 129 , HB677 , HB426 , HB668 , HB1699 , HB2017 , HB2128 , HB2038 , HB3783 , HB3717 , HB2316 , HB3686 , HB2563 , HB3883 , HB4021 , HB2788 , HB2663 , HB3305 , HB3173 , HB3474 , HB 1105 , HB3531 , HB3490 , HB3597 , HB 1295 , HB3512 , HB3010 , HB3112 , HB4215 , HB3223 , HB3464 , HB3120 , HB4214 , HB4511 , HB3704 , HB4081 , HB4783 , HB4063 , HB2783 , HB4937 , HB5085 , HB2510 , HB3426 , HB4361 , HB 1169 , HB2516 , HB2347 , HB4034 , HB4700 , HB3560 , HB5150 , HB3860 , HB3146 , HB3924 , HCR98 , HCR92 , HB1520 , HB1545 , HB5265 , HB1887 , HB1914 , HB2402 , HB2306 , HB2350 , HB3000 , HB3237 , HB3326 , HB3211 , HB 1056 , HB2081 , HB2187 , HB3092 , HB3308 , HB3526 , HB3750 , HB4219 , HB4230 , HB4290 , HB5238 , HB4804 , HB4749 , HB245 , HB1465 , HB294 , HB793 , HB809 , HB3928 , HB334 , HB2037 , HB1973 , HB285 , HB4341 , HB 1043 , HB 1234 , HB 1193 , HB1729 , HB2498 , HB1314 , HB1353 , HB3960 , HB3923 , HB2221 , HB2517 , HB2518 , HB2213 , HB5092 , HB3748 , HB5246 , HB4344 , HB1482 , HB4044 , HB2702 , HB4264 , HB2807 , HB2898 , HB3181 , HB3250 , HB2091 , HB2115 , HB2542 , HB2768 , HB3349 , HB4406 , HB1593 , HB1899 , HB3133 , HB3133 , HB4960 , HB3214 , HB2145 , HB 1201 , HB5061 , SB29 , SB879 , SB65 , SB1745 , SB412 , SB412 , SB1746 , SB1238 , SB1341 , SB522 , SB1532 , SB1378 , SB1062 , SB2066 , SB1963 , SB2204 , SB1366 , SB2077 , SB1967 , SB1151 , HB1618 , HB2156 , HB2615 , HB2615 , HB2349 , HB1926 , HB569 , HB1762 , HB38 , HJR138 , HB42 , HB 104 , HB 104 , HB 129 , HB677 , HB426 , HB668 , HB1699 , HB2017 , HB2128 , HB2038 , HB3783 , HB3717 , HB2316 , HB3686 , HB2563 , HB3883 , HB4021 , HB2788 , HB2663 , HB2663 , HB3305 , HB3173 , HB3474 , HB 1105 , HB3531 , HB3531 , HB3490 , HB3490 , HB3597 , HB 1295 , HB3512 , HB3010 , HB3112 , HB4215 , HB3223 , HB3223 , HB3464 , HB3120 , HB4214 , HB4511 , HB3704 , HB4081 , HB4783 , HB4063 , HB2783 , HB4937 , HB5085 , HB2510 , HB3426 , HB4361 , HB 1169 , HB2516 , HB2347 , HB4034 , HB4700 , HB3560 , HB5150 , HB3860 , HB3146 , HB3924 , HCR98 , HCR92

Keywords: carbon tax, carbon emissions, greenhouse gas, climate policy, fuel tax, emissions tax, Texas Constitution, Article VIII, tax limitation, environmental tax, fossil fuels, energy policy, legislative taxing authority, ballot proposition, constitutional amendment, higher education, funding, financial allocation, state budget, Texas A&M University

Summary: The House convened with a quorum, offered an invocation, led the pledges, and approved a series of routine motions, including excusing absent members and granting permission for several committees to meet while the House was in session. Members also adopted several memorial and recognition resolutions, including H.R. 1023 honoring Christian Beerbill, H.R. 1033 recognizing International Bereaved Mother’s Day, and H.R. 877 recognizing Urban League Advocates Day. The House also recommitted SB 17 and HB 4211 to committee and postponed SCR 27 and HB 2145 for later consideration. The chamber then took up a long third-reading calendar of bills covering a wide range of topics, including Sunset review measures, health care workforce and pricing, child custody and family law, Medicaid, rural ambulance grants, energy reporting, public information requests, trail development, virtual meeting disruptions, occupational licensing, protective orders, county leave pools, animal cruelty, infrastructure, and higher education. Most bills were explained briefly by their authors and passed with broad support, though several drew notable opposition, including HB 5265, HB 2402, HB 3000, HB 3237, HB 3326, HB 1056, HB 281, HB 3308, HB 1043, HB 1234, HB 1193, HB 294, HB 809, HB 334, HB 2037, HB 285, HB 1353, HB 3960, HB 4044, HB 4264, HB 2807, HB 3349, HB 4406, HB 1593, HB 1899, HB 1201, and others. Several bills prompted extended debate or amendments. HB 3237, extending public energy-use reporting for state and higher-education buildings, passed after questions about its public-sector-only scope and energy savings. HB 3326, addressing public service loan forgiveness credit for adjunct professors, initially failed on a 69-70 vote but later passed after verification and machine corrections. HB 3211, concerning optometrists in managed care plans, adopted a Buckley amendment before passing. HB 2213 on Texas Windstorm Insurance Association board composition adopted a Metcalf amendment requiring certain board members to be Texas residents. HB 412, dealing with harmful materials and sexual performance of a child, generated extensive questioning about its scope, existing legal standards, and effects on educators and medical professionals; the excerpt ends during that debate.

Transcript Highlights:

• Let me ask a question about process.
• District 5 and Congressional District 6.
• Congressional District 5 and Congressional District 6.
• Equally troubling is the process by which this map has been Equally troubling is the process by which
• And that is the trust of this process with the people.

Transcript Highlights:

• The House Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting will come to order.
• Congressional District 9 remains a Republican district.
• District 30 still in that congressional district now?
• When it comes to Congressional District 33, Chairman Hunter.
• I thought that when we... changed any congressional district, even by one voter, it changed every congressional

Transcript Highlights:

• Congressional term if and only if Texas or another state enacts a partisan gerrymander of its own congressional
• The 2025-2026 regular session shall not be a candidate for congressional office in any congressional
• To rig congressional maps.
• It's an ongoing process still. And specifically, did you start this process? Do you have a date?
• And that's the beauty of this process.

Committee: House Elections

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman, so questions need to be based on the map process or the map drawing process?
• However, the congressional process does contemplate the governor being involved.
• There is no express exclusion of the governor from the congressional redistricting process, as there
• There is no express exclusion of the governor from the congressional redistricting process, as there
• I live in Congressional District 9.

Summary: The Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting met to consider HB 1D, which would establish Florida’s congressional districts using the governor’s proposed map, EOG PCRP 26. Representative Persons-Mulicka briefly introduced the bill, and Jason Jazeel and Jason Pareda of the governor’s office presented the legal rationale and map details. Jazeel argued that mid-cycle congressional redistricting is not prohibited, that the governor’s position is to draw districts without considering race, and that federal equal-protection principles should control over state race-based redistricting provisions. Pareda said he drew the map alone using 2020 census data and census blocks, while also considering population growth estimates, traditional redistricting criteria, and county/city boundaries where feasible. Pareda described the map as race-neutral and said it keeps 48 counties whole, 382 cities whole, and has a boundary-analysis score of about 85.7%. He walked through regional changes, including major revisions in South Florida, adjustments in Central Florida, and changes in the Tampa Bay area, explaining that population shifts and the need for exact congressional population equality drove many of the district configurations. Members questioned the timing of the special session, the use of 2020 census data versus newer population estimates, the role of the legislature versus the governor, the legal basis for mid-decade redistricting, and whether the map complies with the Voting Rights Act and Fair Districts amendments. Motions to place witnesses under oath and to extend the committee meeting by 30 minutes both failed. During public testimony, every speaker who was heard opposed the map. Commenters argued that the proposal was a partisan power grab, would reduce Democratic and minority representation, and violated the Florida Constitution and voting rights protections. Several speakers criticized the short notice and lack of public input, while others said the map would confuse voters or split communities. The chair repeatedly reminded attendees to maintain decorum and limited each speaker to about one minute.

Transcript Highlights:

• As you go through the process with this bill, there may be—this is a long process, right?
• Congressional District 2: 25%. Congressional District 3: 26%. Congressional District 4: 25%.
• Congressional District 5: 23%. Congressional District 6: 27%.
• Yes, Congressional District 6, The current congressional maps.
• Go get me some congressional seats. Go get me some congressional seats.

Bills: SR122 , SR123 , SR124 , SCR12 , HB940 , HB221 , HCR109 , HCR58 , HB27 , HB143 , HB205 , HB259 , HB267 , HB288 , HB308 , HB403 , HB405 , HB414 , HB417 , HB478 , HB546 , HB548 , HB555 , HB557 , HB609 , HB670 , HB672 , HB740 , HB779 , HB786 , HB796 , HB812 , HB848 , HB909 , HB915 , HB917 , HB921 , HB930 , HB933 , HB938 , HB971 , HB1095 , HB1096 , HB1103 , HB1129 , HB1154 , HB1166 , HB1187 , HB1195 , HB1230 , SB121 , SCR22 , SCR24 , SB29 , SB30 , SB32 , SB41 , SB42 , SB43 , SB47 , SB84 , SB93 , SB113 , SB192 , SB199 , SB219 , SB220 , SB221 , SB222 , SB241 , SB253 , SB255 , SB289 , SB292 , SB306 , SB314 , SB351 , SB399 , SB404 , SB14 , SB102 , SB133 , SB151 , SB165 , SB169 , SB170 , SB200 , SB217 , SB280 , SB291 , SB300 , SB303 , SB330 , SB449 , SB489 , SB521 , SB45 , SB156 , SB181 , SB203 , SB274 , SB304 , SB379 , SB396 , SB410 , SB425 , SB427 , SB436 , SB424 , SCR61 , SCR9 , SB35 , SB65 , SB215 , SB246 , SB249 , SB269 , SB282 , SB296 , SB323 , SB363 , SB369 , SB474 , SB490 , SB492 , SB500 , HCR31 , HB296 , HB299 , HB322 , HB364 , HB519 , HB535 , HB538 , HB568 , HB571 , HB622 , HB635 , HB676 , HB772 , HB784 , HB1006 , HB1018 , HB1043 , HB1070 , HB1134 , HB1239 , HB62 , HB193 , HB203 , HB210 , HB220 , HB228 , HB246 , HB420 , HB475 , HB486 , HB574 , HB584 , HB750 , HB813 , HB815 , HB826 , HB870 , HB949 , HB953 , HB1045 , HB1092 , HB1151 , HB1162 , HB1176 , HB1177 , HB1196 , HB1214 , HB1241 , HB22 , HB28 , HB33 , HB41 , HB47 , HB87 , HB115 , HB162 , HB195 , HB214 , HB217 , HB233 , HB283 , HB290 , HB319 , HB324 , HB345 , HB362 , HB363 , HB368 , HB377 , HB380 , HB382 , HB386 , HB392 , HB406 , HB431 , HB441 , HB466 , HB503 , HB533 , HB559 , HB575 , HB590 , HB593 , HB618 , HB636 , HB655 , HB664 , HB685 , HB692 , HB707 , HB715 , HB732 , HB738 , HB741 , HB748 , HB776 , HB807 , HB822 , HB856 , HB860 , HB868 , HB887 , HB888 , HB905 , HB908 , HB961 , HB980 , HB990 , HB992 , HB999 , HB1000 , HB1010 , HB1146 , HB1157 , HB1233 , HB1236 , HB1243 , HB17 , HB36 , HB73 , HB119 , HB126 , HB129 , HB133 , HB140 , HB159 , HB166 , HB211 , HB226 , HB245 , HB271 , HB280 , HB337 , HB351 , HB354 , HB399 , HB677 , HB712 , HB723 , HB726 , HB728 , HB759 , HB789 , HB844 , HB850 , HB966 , HB1036 , SB149 , SB382 , SB441 , HB134 , HB258 , HB359 , HB782

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum, heard a guest minister’s prayer and the pledge, and dispensed with reading the journal. The chamber then received Legislative Bureau reports on numerous House bills, many of which were reported favorably or without amendments and ordered to third reading or to the Legislative Bureau. The Senate also adopted a House concurrent resolution commending Special Olympics Louisiana by a 35-0 vote, and it took up several Senate resolutions, including one urging the Navy to use a transparent and competitive acquisition strategy to protect jobs at Conrad Shipyard, one commending Metairie Park Country Day School, one designating Early Ed Day, and one offering condolences for Carolyn Ann Cherry Moore. The main floor debate centered on Senate Bill 121, the congressional redistricting bill. Senator Morris presented the bill as a response to the federal court’s Calais decision, arguing the current map was unconstitutional and that the new plan should avoid race as the predominant factor while using partisan advantage, incumbency protection, compactness, contiguity, and communities of interest. Senators questioned whether the proposal effectively created a 5-1 Republican map, whether it diluted Black and Democratic voting strength, and whether it split too many parishes. Morris said the map was drawn from the 2022 plan, tweaked in committee and again on the floor, and that litigation was likely regardless of the final version. Two competing amendments drew extended debate. Senator Morris’s amendment, which further refined his map, was adopted 26-10. Senator Price then offered an alternative map based on an amicus brief and algorithmic criteria, arguing it would create two opportunity districts, split fewer parishes, avoid using race, and better reflect the state’s partisan balance; supporters said it was fairer and more compact, but it failed 10-27. After the amendments, the Senate returned to SB 121 for further questions, with members continuing to debate whether the bill’s 5-1 structure was a lawful partisan gerrymander or an impermissible racial dilution of voting strength.

Transcript Highlights:

• Positions and offices other than congressional, which are based on congressional districts.
• As you go through the process with this bill, there may be—this is a long process, right?
• Congressional District 2: 25%. Congressional District 3: 26%. Congressional District 4: 25%.
• Congressional District 5: 23%. Congressional District 6: 27%.
• Go get me some congressional seats. Go get me some congressional seats.

Bills: SR122 , SR123 , SR124 , SCR12 , HB940 , HB221 , HCR109 , HCR58 , HB27 , HB143 , HB205 , HB259 , HB267 , HB288 , HB308 , HB403 , HB405 , HB414 , HB417 , HB478 , HB546 , HB548 , HB555 , HB557 , HB609 , HB670 , HB672 , HB740 , HB779 , HB786 , HB796 , HB812 , HB848 , HB909 , HB915 , HB917 , HB921 , HB930 , HB933 , HB938 , HB971 , HB1095 , HB1096 , HB1103 , HB1129 , HB1154 , HB1166 , HB1187 , HB1195 , HB1230 , SB121 , SCR22 , SCR24 , SB29 , SB30 , SB32 , SB41 , SB42 , SB43 , SB47 , SB84 , SB93 , SB113 , SB192 , SB199 , SB219 , SB220 , SB221 , SB222 , SB241 , SB253 , SB255 , SB289 , SB292 , SB306 , SB314 , SB351 , SB399 , SB404 , SB14 , SB102 , SB133 , SB151 , SB165 , SB169 , SB170 , SB200 , SB217 , SB280 , SB291 , SB300 , SB303 , SB330 , SB449 , SB489 , SB521 , SB45 , SB156 , SB181 , SB203 , SB274 , SB304 , SB379 , SB396 , SB410 , SB425 , SB427 , SB436 , SB424 , SCR61 , SCR9 , SB35 , SB65 , SB215 , SB246 , SB249 , SB269 , SB282 , SB296 , SB323 , SB363 , SB369 , SB474 , SB490 , SB492 , SB500 , HCR31 , HB296 , HB299 , HB322 , HB364 , HB519 , HB535 , HB538 , HB568 , HB571 , HB622 , HB635 , HB676 , HB772 , HB784 , HB1006 , HB1018 , HB1043 , HB1070 , HB1134 , HB1239 , HB62 , HB193 , HB203 , HB210 , HB220 , HB228 , HB246 , HB420 , HB475 , HB486 , HB574 , HB584 , HB750 , HB813 , HB815 , HB826 , HB870 , HB949 , HB953 , HB1045 , HB1092 , HB1151 , HB1162 , HB1176 , HB1177 , HB1196 , HB1214 , HB1241 , HB22 , HB28 , HB33 , HB41 , HB47 , HB87 , HB115 , HB162 , HB195 , HB214 , HB217 , HB233 , HB283 , HB290 , HB319 , HB324 , HB345 , HB362 , HB363 , HB368 , HB377 , HB380 , HB382 , HB386 , HB392 , HB406 , HB431 , HB441 , HB466 , HB503 , HB533 , HB559 , HB575 , HB590 , HB593 , HB618 , HB636 , HB655 , HB664 , HB685 , HB692 , HB707 , HB715 , HB732 , HB738 , HB741 , HB748 , HB776 , HB807 , HB822 , HB856 , HB860 , HB868 , HB887 , HB888 , HB905 , HB908 , HB961 , HB980 , HB990 , HB992 , HB999 , HB1000 , HB1010 , HB1146 , HB1157 , HB1233 , HB1236 , HB1243 , HB17 , HB36 , HB73 , HB119 , HB126 , HB129 , HB133 , HB140 , HB159 , HB166 , HB211 , HB226 , HB245 , HB271 , HB280 , HB337 , HB351 , HB354 , HB399 , HB677 , HB712 , HB723 , HB726 , HB728 , HB759 , HB789 , HB844 , HB850 , HB966 , HB1036 , SB149 , SB382 , SB441 , HB134 , HB258 , HB359 , HB782

Keywords: SR122, Senate Resolution 122, Metairie Park Country Day School, Country Day Cajuns, Cajuns basketball, LHSAA, Louisiana High School Athletic Association, Division III Select, boys basketball, state championship, high school sports, athletic commendation, sports resolution, Lake Charles, Marsh Madness, Mike McGuire, Brennan White, Kellen Brewer, Calvary Baptist Academy, school recognition

Transcript Highlights:

• Very fast-moving process.
• It's an ongoing process still. When specifically did you start this process? Do you have a date?
• And that’s the beauty of this process.
• only for congressional, And I could tell you that it felt good to be part of a process of what our districts
• It's a process to protect community.

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:

• I was also involved during litigation that proceeded after the 2012 process and after the 2022 process
• But proposing 24 out of 28 congressional maps would mean 86% of all congressional districts are actually
• But proposing 24 out of 28 congressional maps would mean 86% of all congressional districts are actually
• Congressional redistricting.
• This process has been moved forward by the same process that corrupted Hungary.

Committee: Senate Rules

Summary: The Committee on Rules met with a quorum and heard a Governor’s Office presentation on a proposed congressional reapportionment map. The governor’s counsel argued that mid-cycle congressional redistricting is legally permissible, that race should not be considered at all in drawing districts, and that the Florida Fair Districts provisions are inconsistent with federal equal protection law and should be treated as non-severable. The presentation also discussed the pending U.S. Supreme Court case Louisiana v. Callais and the Florida Supreme Court’s Black Voters Matter decision as part of the legal rationale for the map. Jason Parada, who said he drew the map alone, described the map as based on 2020 census block data, with county-level population estimates used only as a guide to identify faster-growing areas. He said the plan keeps 48 counties and 382 municipalities whole, has compactness scores similar to the current benchmark map, and uses traditional geographic and political boundaries such as roads, railways, county lines, and municipal lines. He walked through regional changes, emphasizing a race-neutral redesign that significantly altered South Florida, including changes to districts in Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and the Everglades, while leaving several northern districts largely unchanged. Members questioned the witnesses extensively about the legal theory, the use of partisan data, the role of race, population growth, and the timing and review of the map. The witnesses said partisan data was considered along with other traditional redistricting criteria, but race was not used. They also said they could not speak to who else reviewed the map beyond EOG staff and counsel. Several senators raised concerns about the map’s compactness, county and city splits, the apparent partisan effects, and the fact that the map was released shortly before the special session. No vote or final action on the map was taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 3148 modernizes our Oklahoma vehicle inspection process.
• that all of their members rolled off at the exact same time last year, which put the grant awarding process

Bills: HB3419 , HB4153 , HB3430 , HB3791 , HB3277 , HB4119 , HB4408 , HB3905 , HB3968 , HB3835 , HB3386 , HB2650 , HB3742 , HB3588 , HB3748 , HB4303 , HB4311 , HB3028 , HB4428 , HB4429 , HB4132 , HB1889 , HB3265 , HB1739 , HB4434 , HB3313 , HB3852 , HB4263 , HB3413 , HB3414 , HB3415 , HB3416 , HB3417 , HB3418 , HB3420 , HB2116 , HB2206 , HB3625 , HB2939 , HB3721 , HB1823 , HB2425 , HB4440 , HJR1087 , HB4003 , HJR1077 , HB1770 , HB1675 , HB3627 , HB3891 , HJR1067 , HB3462 , HJR1053 , HJR1054 , HJR1044 , HB3472 , HB1225 , HJR1019 , HB4145 , HJR1081 , HB1746 , HJR1069 , HJR1050 , HB1638 , HB3327 , HJR1055 , HB3127 , HB4488 , HB2955 , HB3781 , HB3783 , HB3802 , HB2471 , HB2937 , SCR16 , HB2960 , HB3466 , HB3262 , HB3269 , HB3152 , HB4140 , HB4142 , HB3148 , HB3378

Keywords: corruption, nonpublic information, government accountability, criminal law, public office, driver license, reading proficiency, minors, education requirements, alternative testing, attendance, remedial reading, public school, oath of enrollment, court financial obligations, cost hearing, payment plan, community service, court compliance program, debt relief

Transcript Highlights:

• through this process.
• Louisiana was drawing congressional districts...
• process?
• Upheld Florida's congressional districts and specifically the decision not to redraw Congressional District
• In the process of deciding that, the court articulated legal principles that had never been In the process

Summary: The Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting met for an informational presentation from outside counsel Andy Bartos on the legal standards governing congressional redistricting. He reviewed federal Equal Protection principles, Florida’s non-diminishment provision, and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, explaining how race can be considered in redistricting but generally cannot be the predominant factor. He also discussed the Florida Constitution’s tiered standards, including the prohibition on intentional political favoritism, compactness, and the requirement to use existing political and geographical boundaries where feasible. Bartos focused on two recent or pending cases: the Florida Supreme Court’s Black Voters Matter decision, which upheld the legislature’s 2022 congressional map and held that the non-diminishment clause does not justify making race predominant absent specific identifiable discrimination, and Louisiana v. Callais, pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, which may further clarify whether race may be used predominantly to comply with the Voting Rights Act or whether Section 2 remains constitutional as applied. He also explained how courts assess compactness and intent, and how data such as the 2020 census, voter registration, turnout, and election results are used for voting-rights analysis. Members asked about what triggers redistricting, whether the legislature must redraw maps now, what data is available in the mapping tool, how intent is measured, and whether public input opportunities will be provided. Bartos said redistricting timing is largely a legislative judgment unless a court requires changes, that the committee can consider whether BVM or the eventual Callais decision warrants revisions, and that the Callais ruling will bind Louisiana directly but serve as precedent for other courts. No votes or legislative actions were taken, and the meeting adjourned after the presentation and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm going to jump back to the process.
• We were cut out of this process. As a member of this House, I was cut out of this process.
• They will be cut out of this process. We know that Floridians expect and demand a fair process.
• This is a process breakdown for me, members.
• And we operated legally within a process.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, a moment of silence for former member Mark Weissman and local officials Donna Lou Fiala and Eric C. Brecknitz, and the Pledge of Allegiance. Members approved the journal and adopted the Rules and Ethics Committee’s special order report setting the calendar and debate times for the day. The chamber then took up House Bill 1D, establishing Florida’s congressional districts, as the main item on the special order calendar. During questioning and debate on HB 1D, sponsors and opponents focused heavily on the map’s process and legality. Supporters argued the plan was based on a viable legal theory, used the 2020 census data as required, and was within the Legislature’s discretion to consider mid-cycle redistricting. Opponents repeatedly argued the map was drawn by the governor’s office using partisan data, without meaningful legislative or public input, and that it violated the Fair Districts Amendment by favoring a party, splitting more counties and municipalities, and reducing compactness. Several members also raised concerns about taxpayer costs, the absence of a new census or court order, and the Legislature’s role versus the governor’s office. After structured debate, the House voted on final passage of HB 1D and passed it 83-28. A motion to recess for two hours to consider a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision failed. Following passage of the redistricting bill, the House adopted a motion to adjourn sine die, ending the session.

Transcript Highlights:

• I was also involved during litigation that proceeded after the 2012 process and after the 2022 process
• But proposing 24 out of 28 congressional maps would mean 86% of all congressional districts are actually
• Congressional redistricting.
• We urge you to end this partisan process.
• This process has been moved forward by the same process that corrupted Hungary.

Summary: The Committee on Rules met with a quorum present and took up a presentation from the Governor’s office on proposed congressional reapportionment. Executive Office of the Governor counsel Mo Jazeel argued that mid-cycle congressional redistricting is legally permissible, that race should not be used in drawing districts, and that the Florida Fair Districts provisions are inconsistent with federal equal protection principles and, in the executive branch’s view, are inseverable. Jason Parada then presented the proposed map, explaining that it was drawn using 2020 census block data, with county growth estimates used only as a guide, and that the plan was designed to be race-neutral while also considering compactness, county and municipal boundaries, and other traditional redistricting criteria. He said the map keeps 48 counties and 382 municipalities whole, has compactness scores comparable to the current map, and makes the largest changes in South Florida, with some districts remaining unchanged and others reconfigured around population shifts and geographic boundaries. Members questioned both presenters extensively about the legal basis for disregarding the Fair Districts Amendment, the use of partisan data, the absence of racial analysis, and whether the map truly reflects population growth. Jazeel said the executive branch’s position is that race-based provisions in the state constitution cannot be used if they conflict with the U.S. Constitution, and that the forthcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision in Louisiana v. Calais could further clarify the law. Parada said he did not use race in drawing the map, did use partisan information as one of several traditional criteria, and relied on 2020 census data for population equality. Senators also pressed him on who reviewed the map, why the public and legislators had limited time to review it, and whether the plan was intended to favor Republicans; Parada denied partisan intent and said he was the only person who moved lines on the map, though he consulted with other Executive Office of the Governor staff and counsel. Several senators raised concerns that the map did not clearly reflect Florida’s recent population growth, that some districts remained highly irregular, and that the plan appeared to be based on a legal theory contingent on future court rulings. The presenters responded that congressional districts must be equal to the person, that growth estimates can only guide orientation rather than replace census data, and that the map was designed to preserve as much of the existing structure as possible while making the largest adjustments in South Florida. No vote or final action on the map was taken during the excerpted portion of the meeting, and the committee continued with questions and discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• I was also involved during litigation that proceeded after the 2012 process and after the 2022 process
• But proposing 24 out of 28 congressional maps would mean 86% of all congressional districts are actually
• We urge you to end this partisan process.
• This process has been moved forward by the same process that corrupted Hungary.
• So there's so much wrong with this process.

Committee: Senate Rules

Transcript Highlights:

• That seemed to be what the process is reacting to.
• Yes, sir, and the process. And the process. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Lawrence.
• So I'm against this process of you redrawing maps.
• Historically, when we're doing congressional redistricting, the congressional delegation Republicans
• So, in that process... Okay, all right.

Transcript Highlights:

• congressional district.
• >> Sir, that's a congressional case.
• >> Sir, that's a congressional case.
• >> Sir, that's a congressional case.
• >> A state or congressional?

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm going to jump back to the process.
• We were cut out of this process. As a member of this House, I was cut out of this process.
• They will be cut out of this process. We know that Floridians expect and demand a fair process.
• This is a process breakdown for me, members.
• And we operated legally within a process.

Transcript Highlights:

• You cheat, you rig, you kill democracy in the process.
• Under this process, politicians are Under this process, politicians are manipulating the lines.
• to have its independent commission process.
• congressional districts.
• This is the most transparent process in the country.

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.