Transcript Highlights:

• So the map.
• benchmark map.
• good map.
• That map shown like yesterday was the correct map. They even said it was the correct map.
• That map shown like yesterday was the correct map. They even said it was the correct map.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• map.
• And that's what is proposed in these maps, this map.
• This map is illegal. This map is expected to increase one party’s This map is illegal.
• Vote on a map to decide within 24 hours. Don't support this map. No regard. Don't support this map.
• map.

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So the map...
• benchmark map.
• The biggest change from this map to the benchmark map that we have is that I drew this map in a race-neutral
• good map.
• That map shown like yesterday was the correct map. They even said it was the correct map.

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:

• So the map...
• map.
• The biggest change from this map to the benchmark map that we have is that I drew this map in a race-neutral
• good map.
• That map shown like yesterday was the correct map. They even said it was the correct map.

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:

• The map that I received is the same map that you received.
• map.
• compared to the map that is the underlying and existing map that we have now, and a map that does not
• This map is illegal. This map is expected to increase one party's This map is illegal.
• Vote on a map to decide within 24 hours. Don't support this map. No regard. Don't support this map.

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:

• of the map drawer.
• We are the ones considering the map. We are the ones voting on the map.
• I think this map before us is just as compact as the current map.
• 1D map.
• 1D map.

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:

• map.
• And that's what is proposed in these maps, this map.
• And that's what is proposed in these maps, this map.
• This map is illegal. This map is expected to increase one party's This map is illegal.
• map.

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:

• Are you referring to the 2021 MAP or HB4? Currently, the maps that are in place.
• Current 2021 maps.
• Map and the next map which you adopted, correct? I mean, it's self-evident.
• I can look at the map, and the map speaks for itself.
• I did not draw the map; I am not the map drawer.

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:

• The map that I received is the same map that you received.
• map.
• compared to the map that is the underlying and existing map that we have now, and a map that does not
• This map is illegal. This map is expected to increase one party's This map is illegal.
• Vote on a map to decide within 24 hours. Don't support this map. No regard. Don't support this map.

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:

• it's our state legislative maps or our congressional maps or our judicial maps.
• versus any other maps that was presented, which map would you say has the public...” “...other maps
• that is more compact, a map that is more contiguous, a map that passes the eyeball test, a map that
• This map doesn't do that. This map... ...of no party. This map doesn't do that.
• Members, I come to you, and as a lot of my colleagues said, this map is a very fair map, a map that would

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:

• it's our state legislative maps or our congressional maps or our judicial maps.
• Senator Price's map only splits seven parishes. Your map, your current map, splits 15 parishes.
• that is more compact, a map that is more contiguous, a map that passes the eyeball test, a map that
• This map doesn't do that. This map... ...of no party. This map doesn't do that.
• This map...

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

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:

• All I can tell you is that every map I have looked at, and I haven't drawn a single map.
• redistricting map legal?
• You're referring to the 2021 map that's the map for Texas today?
• Does Texas have under the 2031 map? Under the 2021 map, correct again?
• Would you agree that you did not draw the map? Do you know who drew the map?

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:

• the last map that you're drawing until you draw a new map or a new proposed map that you see here today
• The map is one of the most compact districts that was in that map carried over to this map.
• I guess my question was, you know, based on the current map in existence to this map, is this map an
• Entire map.
• We're not numbers on a map. We're not lines on a map.

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:

• 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:

• 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

Bills: SB1432, SB2024, SB2043, SB2060, SB2069, SB2153, SB2259, SB2319, SB2321, SB2338, SB2360, SB2396, SB2405, SB2407, SB2544, SB2550, SB2552, SB2578, SB2580, SB2607, SB2614, SB2671, SB2800, SB2805, SB2816, SB2835, SB2877, SB2892, SB2928, SB2934, SB3063, SB3199, SB3233, SB3325, HCR8, HCR10, HCR11, HCR13, HCR14, HCR18, HCR19, HCR22, HCR24, HCR31, HCR32, HCR33, HCR35, HCR54, HCR62, HCR63, HCR66, HCR67, HCR82, HCR83, HCR85, HCR91, HCR93, HCR94, HCR96, HCR98, HCR102, HCR104, HCR105, HCR106, HCR110, HCR111, HCR116, HCR117, HCR118, HCR121, HCR122, HCR123, HCR124, HCR125, HCR127, HCR128, HCR137, HCR139, HCR140, HCR141, HCR144, HCR146, HCR162, HCR165, HCR166, HCR173, HCR178, HCR179, HCR180, HCR181, HCR182, HCR185, HCR189, HCR191, HCR192, HCR193, HCR194, HCR200, HCR202, HCR6, HCR36, HCR42, HCR43, HCR44, HCR53, HCR57, HCR61, HCR64, HCR69, HCR84, HCR101, HCR103, HCR107, HCR112, HCR126, HCR136, HCR154, HCR161, HCR175, HCR186, HCR187, HCR188, HCR197, HCR203, HCR204, HCR206, HB1870, HB1588, HB2429, HB2386, HB2583, HB2361, HB2270, HB2137, HB1643, HB1682, HB1692, HB2078, HB1553, HB1667, HB1700, HB1728, HB2293, HB2096, HB1959, HB1511, HB1961, HB1858, HB1897, HB2088, HB2093, HB2279, HB2314, HB2505, HB2433, HB963, HB1705, HB1550, HB469, HB1334, HB1710, HB1737, HB1753, HB1881, HB2309, HB1713, HB1741, HB2062, HB463, HB1839, HB1664, HB2455, HB2417, HB1898, HB1573, HB1768, HB1962, HB2101, HB1782, HB2033, HB1518, HB1642, HB1752, HB2097, HB2282, HB1696, HB1823, HB1886, HB2152, HB2413, HB2503, HB1875, HB1519, HB1509, HB1628, HB1810, HB1990, HB2023, HB2540, HB1679, HB1888, HB2576, HB2592

Keywords: Kalaupapa, Kalawao, Molokai, Maui County, county consolidation, Hansen's disease, leprosy, Department of Health, DOH, patient residents, former patients, public health, transition planning, jurisdiction transfer, county governance, historical preservation, cultural preservation, environmental remediation, community input, Kalaupapa Settlement

Bills: SB1432, SB2024, SB2043, SB2060, SB2069, SB2153, SB2259, SB2319, SB2321, SB2338, SB2360, SB2396, SB2405, SB2407, SB2544, SB2550, SB2552, SB2578, SB2580, SB2607, SB2614, SB2671, SB2800, SB2805, SB2816, SB2835, SB2877, SB2892, SB2928, SB2934, SB3063, SB3199, SB3233, SB3325, HCR8, HCR10, HCR11, HCR13, HCR14, HCR18, HCR19, HCR22, HCR24, HCR31, HCR32, HCR33, HCR35, HCR54, HCR62, HCR63, HCR66, HCR67, HCR82, HCR83, HCR85, HCR91, HCR93, HCR94, HCR96, HCR98, HCR102, HCR104, HCR105, HCR106, HCR110, HCR111, HCR116, HCR117, HCR118, HCR121, HCR122, HCR123, HCR124, HCR125, HCR127, HCR128, HCR137, HCR139, HCR140, HCR141, HCR144, HCR146, HCR162, HCR165, HCR166, HCR173, HCR178, HCR179, HCR180, HCR181, HCR182, HCR185, HCR189, HCR191, HCR192, HCR193, HCR194, HCR200, HCR202, HCR6, HCR36, HCR42, HCR43, HCR44, HCR53, HCR57, HCR61, HCR64, HCR69, HCR84, HCR101, HCR103, HCR107, HCR112, HCR126, HCR136, HCR154, HCR161, HCR175, HCR186, HCR187, HCR188, HCR197, HCR203, HCR204, HCR206, HB1870, HB1588, HB2429, HB2386, HB2583, HB2361, HB2270, HB2137, HB1643, HB1682, HB1692, HB2078, HB1553, HB1667, HB1700, HB1728, HB2293, HB2096, HB1959, HB1511, HB1961, HB1858, HB1897, HB2088, HB2093, HB2279, HB2314, HB2505, HB2433, HB963, HB1705, HB1550, HB469, HB1334, HB1710, HB1737, HB1753, HB1881, HB2309, HB1713, HB1741, HB2062, HB463, HB1839, HB1664, HB2455, HB2417, HB1898, HB1573, HB1768, HB1962, HB2101, HB1782, HB2033, HB1518, HB1642, HB1752, HB2097, HB2282, HB1696, HB1823, HB1886, HB2152, HB2413, HB2503, HB1875, HB1519, HB1509, HB1628, HB1810, HB1990, HB2023, HB2540, HB1679, HB1888, HB2576, HB2592

Keywords: Kalaupapa, Kalawao, Molokai, Maui County, county consolidation, Hansen's disease, leprosy, Department of Health, DOH, patient residents, former patients, public health, transition planning, jurisdiction transfer, county governance, historical preservation, cultural preservation, environmental remediation, community input, Kalaupapa Settlement