Transcript Highlights:

• No one is asking for illegal partisan gerrymandering.
• They did so for one simple reason: to end partisan gerrymandering.
• They did so for one simple reason to end partisan gerrymandering.
• This is exactly what an illegal, partisan gerrymander is.
• This is a blatant, illegal, partisan gerrymander. This is a blatant, illegal, partisan gerrymander.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You can gerrymander those maps, but you can't gerrymander our voice.
• You can't gerrymander our fight. And you won't silence us in any of this.
• Other states are going to gerrymander.
• Common interests and not partisan gerrymandering.
• It is evident that it is oriented around gerrymandering.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• No one is asking for illegal partisan gerrymandering.
• They did so for one simple reason: to end partisan gerrymandering.
• This isn't about partisan gerrymandering. This isn't about racial gerrymandering.
• This is exactly what an illegal, partisan gerrymander is.
• This is a blatant, illegal, partisan gerrymander. This is a blatant, illegal, partisan gerrymander.

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Gerrymandering would be a thing of the past.
• In the bill, it states that it's a gerrymandered map, and I'm asking about research done on gerrymandering
• But I believe that gerrymandering is pertinent to it, and there are multiple studies that deal with gerrymandering
• Well, it's the fact that gerrymandering happening. ...that gerrymandering happening anywhere else or
• It's a partisan gerrymander. That's what we're talking about here.

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:

• Not this political gerrymandering. Not this political posturing.
• Gerrymandering would be a thing of the past.
• You can tell him to call off these partisan gerrymandering in Texas.
• It's a partisan gerrymander. That's what we're talking about here.
• as a partisan gerrymander. Yeah, Texas started it.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I believe that that's a direct result of how this district has been gerrymandered.
• You silence our voices because it's easier to cheat and gerrymander.
• gerrymandered, then they should prepare themselves for a fight.
• We do not need gerrymandered. districts. We need investment in our communities.
• The gerrymandering is about supporting a...

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• No one is asking for illegal partisan gerrymandering.
• They did so for one simple reason: to end partisan gerrymandering.
• This isn't about partisan gerrymandering. This isn't about racial gerrymandering.
• This is exactly what an illegal, partisan gerrymander is.
• This is a blatant, illegal, partisan gerrymander. This is a blatant, illegal, partisan gerrymander.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D, later substituted with House Bill 1D, both establishing Florida’s congressional districts. The sponsor, Senator Gates, explained that the Governor had transmitted a proposed redistricting plan on short notice and argued that mid-decade congressional redistricting is legally permissible, citing population growth and the Governor’s view that race-based provisions in the Fair Districts Amendment are unconstitutional. He repeatedly said the Legislature was not being asked to prove the Governor’s legal theory, only to consider the proposal, and noted that no amendments were offered. A lengthy question-and-answer period followed, with senators raising concerns about the rushed process, lack of statewide public hearings, and the map’s effects on minority communities, compactness, communities of interest, and partisan fairness. Senators questioned whether the map cracked Latino and Black communities, whether partisan data was used, whether the Governor’s office had outside consultants, and whether the plan complied with the Florida Constitution, the Fair Districts Amendment, and the Voting Rights Act. Gates generally deferred on legal conclusions, said the Governor’s representatives had testified the map was race-neutral and used political data only as one factor, and emphasized that any constitutional challenge would be for the courts. After a motion to temporarily postpone failed by a recorded vote of 12 yeas to 23 nays, the Senate continued debate. Senators Rouson, Bernard, and others spoke in opposition, arguing the proposal was rushed, partisan, and harmful to communities of interest and minority voting power. Gates maintained that the Governor had a constitutional prerogative to propose the map and that the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend it. The House companion bill was then substituted for the Senate bill, read a third time, and the chamber moved into final debate on the congressional redistricting plan.

Transcript Highlights:

• No one is asking for illegal partisan gerrymandering.
• It explicitly prohibits partisan gerrymandering.
• This isn't about racial gerrymandering. This isn't about gaining more seats.
• This is exactly what an illegal, partisan gerrymander is.
• It's a blatant, illegal, partisan gerrymander.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D, later substituting identical House Bill 1D, to establish Florida’s congressional districts. The opening prayer and Pledge of Allegiance were followed by procedural remarks, then extensive floor discussion focused almost entirely on the redistricting proposal, its timing, and its legal basis. Senator Gaetz, explaining the bill, said the Governor had transmitted the map two days earlier, argued that mid-decade congressional redistricting is not prohibited by law, and said the Governor’s stated reasons were to address population growth and to draw race-neutral districts. He also said the legislature could accept, reject, or amend the proposal. Much of the debate centered on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Louisiana decision and whether it affected Florida’s Fair Districts Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Senators Smith, Rouson, Sharief, Polsky, Arrington, Bracey Davis, Bernard, Nathan, and others questioned the short notice, lack of public hearings, the use of partisan data, the absence of sworn testimony, and whether the map diluted minority voting strength or fragmented communities of interest. Gaetz repeatedly said he was not offering legal opinions, that the Governor’s counsel believed the Fair Districts race-based provisions were inconsistent with federal law, and that any legal challenge would be for the courts. He also said the Governor’s mapmaker reported using census and demographic data, along with political data as one of many inputs, and claimed the map’s compactness was comparable to the current map. A motion by Senator Smith to temporarily postpone consideration of the bill failed on a 12-23 vote. After the Senate returned from a 30-minute break to review the new Supreme Court decision, debate continued. The chamber then substituted HB 1D for SB 8D, read the House bill, and advanced it to third reading. The transcript ends during debate on final passage, with Senators Rouson and Bernard speaking in opposition and arguing the map was procedurally rushed, legally vulnerable, and politically motivated.

Transcript Highlights:

• States across the country, minority parties will accuse majority parties of gerrymandering for political
• You're setting off a national gerrymandering.
• So, gerrymandering. A nationwide gerrymandering war is now in effect. Because of us, right?
• Protection era of gerrymandering. Yet he had to be careful.
• Of gerrymandering that has been done in blue states.

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:

• No one is asking for illegal partisan gerrymandering.
• It explicitly prohibits partisan gerrymandering.
• This isn't about racial gerrymandering. This isn't about gaining more seats.
• This is exactly what an illegal, partisan gerrymander is.
• This is a blatant, illegal, partisan gerrymander.

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:

• That is an attempt to racially gerrymander our state under the guise of unracially gerrymandering.
• Gerrymandering is a complicated term. Sure.
• Bear in mind, the districts are already very gerrymandered.
• Houston's already pretty gerrymandered.
• What's so good about purposely gerrymandering Texas districts?

Keywords: 997, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There's a difference being a factor in gerrymandering a state map.
• It's gerrymandered.
• You cannot do racial gerrymandering in order to get a partisan outcome.
• It was gerrymandered upon race, it appeared.
• It clearly constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

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:

• Texas is already gerrymandered in a very racist way.
• Gerrymandering as a whole is unfair to all voters.
• The Supreme Court decision has declared racial gerrymandering unconstitutional, but political gerrymandering
• If those principles are racist, then partisan gerrymandering is also racist.
• Racist gerrymandering should be rejected. Then there is integrity.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, Texas already has the most racially gerrymandered congressional map in the country, and it's important
• The effort to gerrymander in a way that also violates the Voting Rights Act, the Texas congressional
• And this is these two men teaming up to try to ram through this ridiculous and illegal gerrymandering
• And Texas Democrats understand that if Republicans are allowed to gerrymander this congressional map,
• To choose their elected officials as opposed to what's happening with this attempt to gerrymander the

Transcript Highlights:

• This map, though, SB4, doubles down on gerrymandering and says, "Hold my beer."
• The gerrymandering. Yeah.
• Gerrymander.
• All you have done is gerrymandered the already gerrymandered districts.
• We were already gerrymandered, and y'all came in and gerrymandered them even more. more, which is downright

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We didn't want to allow partisan gerrymandering.
• We didn't want to allow partisan gerrymandering.
• It is a partisan gerrymander. It is illegal. It is a partisan gerrymander.
• It is a partisan gerrymander. It is illegal. It is a partisan gerrymander.
• You're doing an illegal partisan gerrymander.

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, we have legal protections around certain types of gerrymandering.
• it amounts to being racially gerrymandered.
• It is a deliberate, intentional, racial gerrymander. And the numbers don't lie.
• Because in many parts of the state, the map eliminates gerrymandering.
• The reality is the opposition. is complaining that we are un-gerrymandering the gerrymander.

Bills: HB4, HB 4

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

Transcript Highlights:

• We didn't want to allow partisan gerrymandering.
• We didn't want to allow partisan gerrymandering.
• It is a partisan gerrymander. It is illegal. It is a partisan gerrymander.
• It is a partisan gerrymander. It is illegal. It is a partisan gerrymander.
• The two-tier data and testimony indicates partisan gerrymandering.

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:

• , but the history and the original gerrymandering was incumbent protection gerrymandering, and that is
• Thank you. original gerrymandering was incumbent original gerrymandering was incumbent protection<00:
• is<00:40:17.000> a protection gerrymandering and that is a protection gerrymandering and that
• is a bipartisan<00:40:17.880> gerrymandering<00:40:18.720> oftentimes bipartisan gerrymandering
• Fourth, we would urge that the bill include a partisan gerrymandering standard.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• that gerrymandering, I believe that gerrymandering, wherever<02:48:00.319> it<02:48:00.560>
• . gerrymandering. gerrymandering.
• <03:55:23.279> to because Texas hadn't gerrymandered to because Texas hadn't gerrymandered
• /c> gerrymandering to gain partisan gerrymandering to gain partisan advantage.
• gerrymandering gerrymandering uh<03:55:56.080> to<03:55:56.319> take<03:55:56.560>

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Thursday, September 4, 2025, 1012, house, all