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:

• 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

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:

• Redistricting map.
• Now, most of this is about maps.
• Our maps must catch up.
• I would love to comment on a map, but I've seen no clear map for this hearing today.
• No maps, there's no census.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , a new congressional map.
• Produce a new map.
• I have not filed any map.
• How and why they drew the map.
• that map and file it.

Transcript Highlights:

• Adam Kincaid and the fact that he drew the maps in 2021, and from what I understand, drew the map that
• On that map.
• the actual map and saying why did you do this and how did you do that I would want to look at the map
• I just don't see the harm in inviting somebody who drew a map and asking, How and why they do the map
• I might, if we get a good report on the map from council, then I might take that map and file it.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , or no, it isn't on a map.
• on the map.
• map the map is we're trying to make the map the map is how<00:46:34.640><c> we</c><00:46:34.760><c>
• That updated map, current map, would be the controlling map in my reading of this.
• > would</c><00:48:19.240><c> be</c> updated map current map would would be updated map current map would

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, I have that map.
• So the map comes back from the House, and my understanding, from the proponents of the map, is that we
• "The map comes back from the House, and my understanding, from the proponents of the map, is that we
• So these maps have been amended since your map. Is that correct? Slightly.
• Even before SB 8, the redistricting maps that we passed in this legislature prior to SB 8, those maps

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

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum, received a prayer and pledge, adopted the journal, and heard messages from the House reporting final passage of several Senate bills and concurrence in SCR 86 and 87. The chamber also observed personal privileges honoring the lives of Edith K. Kirkpatrick and Susan Ann Traylor Bidick, with family members present and a moment of silence held for Bidick. The House later refused concurrence on Senate amendments to HB 42 and HB 159. The Senate then took up a series of resolutions, most of which were adopted without objection. These included studies on energy infrastructure and modernization (SR 174, amended to add an alternative energy industry representative and a consumer advocate), breast pump Medicaid reimbursement (SR 175), digital student IDs (SR 176), lethality assessment protocols in domestic violence cases (SR 177), problem gambling prevention (SR 178), community water system grading (SR 179), condolences for Sharon Courtney (SR 180), and expansion of the Louisiana Tumor Registry (SR 181). The chamber also adopted SCR 85 honoring the Sam Houston High School Broncos baseball team after a recorded vote of 36 yeas and 8 nays. On bills returned from the House, HB 1222 on grocery initiative grants failed on final passage by a vote of 18 yeas and 19 nays. SB 312 had House amendments rejected, SB 348 and SB 485 had House amendments concurred in, and SB 121 on congressional redistricting was the subject of extensive debate over racial gerrymandering, district configuration, and expected litigation before the Senate concurred in the House amendments by 28 yeas and 10 nays. The Senate also concurred in several House concurrent resolutions, including studies or reports on flooded corn and migratory waterfowl, deer hunting with dogs in Kisatchie National Forest, support for a Senator Kennedy letter to the Fish and Wildlife Service, boating safety reporting, and subsurface data review. Finally, HB 944 creating a Women’s Health Consortium within the Department of Health was amended to address funding concerns and convert it into a more task-force-like structure, then passed 37-0 with nine coauthors. The Senate then recessed until 1:30 p.m. to continue work, including conference committee reports.

Transcript Highlights:

• This would be the map under Plan C2333.
• So let's check off: You established a House map and that's what you filed when the House map stalled
• You established a house map and that's what you filed when the house map stalled in the house.
• Chairman, I find it awful, awful funny that you didn't draw a map; you just took the House map.
• I took the House map because it met the objectives that—that was the game that I had for a map, which

Summary: The Senate Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting met to lay out House Bill 4, the House companion to Senate Bill 4, and no public testimony was taken at this hearing. Senator King explained that HB 4 was based on the House’s revised congressional map, which he said made only minor changes from SB 4 while aiming to comply with law, improve Republican political performance, and keep districts compact. He noted changes affecting several districts, including moving Fort Bliss into CD 16, placing all of Navarro County into CD 6, and moving Liberty County into CD 9, and said counsel had reviewed the map and found it legally compliant. Several senators criticized the process and the substance of the map. Senators Alvarado, Miles, and Hinojosa objected that the House substitute had not been subject to a public hearing and argued that communities in Houston, El Paso, the Rio Grande Valley, and South Texas were being split or paired with unrelated areas. They also questioned the compactness of the districts and raised concerns about racial effects, including changes in Black voting-age population in CD 9 and CD 18. Senator King responded that the committee had already heard extensive testimony on redistricting, that the Senate was following its usual companion-bill process, and that he had not relied on racial data but on historical voting patterns and legal review. After debate, Senator Parker moved to report HB 4 favorably to the full Senate with the recommendation that it do pass and be ordered not printed. The committee approved the motion by a 5-3 vote, with one absent, and then recessed subject to the call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• Look at any map, to make comments on any map.
• So with all of that and all of y'all voting for those maps, what's wrong with the maps?
• Those were the maps that were voted on. They were legitimate and legal maps.
• You thought it was a legal map, not an illegal map, a legal map.
• Legal, L-E-G-A-L, map.

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

• , and our state senate map, especially for the congressional map, things that we agreed to.
• map that you're trying to go back to.
• , and our state senate map, especially for the congressional map, things that we agreed to.
• >> The Livingston map is the congressional map. >> So, what is the state Senate map?
• >> The Livingston map is the congressional map. >> So, what is the state Senate map?

Keywords: 1136, house, all