Bills: SB 1, HCR 20, HR 131, HR 133, HR 135, HR 136, HR 137, HR 144, HR 145, HR 146, HR 149, HR 150, HR 151, HR 152, HR 158, HR 161, HR 162, HR 163, HR 165, HR 166, HR 168, HR 169, HR 170, HR 175, HR 178, HR 127, HR 129, HR 130, HR 132, HR 134, HR 138, HR 139, HR 140, HR 141, HR 142, HR 143, HR 153, HR 154, HR 155, HR 156, HR 159, HR 160, HR 164, HR 167, HR 172, HR 173, HR 176, SB 1, HB 8, HB 15, HB 27, SB 5

Keywords: campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, memorial, remembrance, legacy, condolences, community, higher education, university merger, research, public health, economic impact, healthcare, insurance, affordability, medical coverage, state regulations

Transcript Highlights:

• What school district is this? Is this private? Is this charter?
• Only, like with the district courts, the regular district courts, we only looked at New Orleans.
• District court judges, yes, sir.
• I mean, I have a lot of schools in my district.
• I mean, I have a lot of schools in my district, so.

Bills: SCR59, SCR70, HR275, HR279, HR282, HR289, HR307, HCR112, SCR61, SCR62, SCR64, SB121, HR310, HR314, HR316, HR317, HR321, HCR117, SCR5, SCR29, SCR33, SCR37, SCR63, SCR30, SCR40, SCR65, HCR3, HCR49, HCR66, HCR67, HB54, HB137, HB321, HB368, HB386, HB414, HB431, HB552, HB555, HB578, HB590, HB593, HB618, HB638, HB670, HB692, HB707, HB708, HB715, HB718, HB732, HB741, HB748, HB776, HB796, HB807, HB822, HB848, HB856, HB887, HB888, HB917, HB921, HB1082, HB1243, HB1246, HB1, HB2, HB42, HB45, HB71, HB79, HB126, HB133, HB159, HB213, HB218, HB222, HB289, HB291, HB312, HB313, HB324, HB352, HB383, HB398, HB403, HB429, HB457, HB459, HB549, HB571, HB579, HB591, HB608, HB616, HB624, HB766, HB769, HB783, HB804, HB864, HB874, HB909, HB951, HB971, HB983, HB1005, HB1017, HB1051, HB1056, HB1126, HB1186, HB1193, HB1223, HB1224, HB1235, HB1249, SB259, SB295, SB312, SB348, SB444, SB485, SB441, SB149, HB359, SB29, SB43, SB78, HB463, HB998, SB197, SB268, SB123, SB276, SB326, SB80, HB901, HR20, HR74, HCR65, HCR71, HCR98, HB284, HB306, HB341, HB366, HB393, HB458, HB577, HB603, HB605, HB614, HB625, HB646, HB733, HB752, HB773, HB798, HB911, HB955, HB996, HB1035, HB1069, HB1113, HB1140, HB1180, HB1191, HB1240, HB1255, SB82, SB89, SB97, SB479, HB74, HB119, HB134, HB210, HB258, HB468, HB784, HB870, HB953, HB956, HB1117, HB1236, SB42, SB208, SB217, SB274, SB300, SB341, SB379, SB382, SB387, SB401, SB449, SB487

Keywords: Major Richard Star Act, veterans, military retirement, disability compensation, VA benefits, combat-wounded, medically retired, military retirees, service members, veterans benefits, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense, concurrent receipt, retirement offset, combat-related disability, bipartisan support, memorial resolution, Congressional memorial, Louisiana delegation, Richard Star

Transcript Highlights:

• What school district is this? Is this private? Is this charter?
• And yes, there have been teachers in my district alone that want this.
• District court judges, yes, sir.
• I mean, I have a lot of schools in my district.
• I mean, I have a lot of schools in my district.

Bills: SCR59, SCR70, HR275, HR279, HR282, HR289, HR307, HCR112, SCR61, SCR62, SCR64, SB121, HR310, HR314, HR316, HR317, HR321, HCR117, SCR5, SCR29, SCR33, SCR37, SCR63, SCR30, SCR40, SCR65, HCR3, HCR49, HCR66, HCR67, HB54, HB137, HB321, HB368, HB386, HB414, HB431, HB552, HB555, HB578, HB590, HB593, HB618, HB638, HB670, HB692, HB707, HB708, HB715, HB718, HB732, HB741, HB748, HB776, HB796, HB807, HB822, HB848, HB856, HB887, HB888, HB917, HB921, HB1082, HB1243, HB1246, HB1, HB2, HB42, HB45, HB71, HB79, HB126, HB133, HB159, HB213, HB218, HB222, HB289, HB291, HB312, HB313, HB324, HB352, HB383, HB398, HB403, HB429, HB457, HB459, HB549, HB571, HB579, HB591, HB608, HB616, HB624, HB766, HB769, HB783, HB804, HB864, HB874, HB909, HB951, HB971, HB983, HB1005, HB1017, HB1051, HB1056, HB1126, HB1186, HB1193, HB1223, HB1224, HB1235, HB1249, SB259, SB295, SB312, SB348, SB444, SB485, SB441, SB149, HB359, SB29, SB43, SB78, HB463, HB998, SB197, SB268, SB123, SB276, SB326, SB80, HB901, HR20, HR74, HCR65, HCR71, HCR98, HB284, HB306, HB341, HB366, HB393, HB458, HB577, HB603, HB605, HB614, HB625, HB646, HB733, HB752, HB773, HB798, HB911, HB955, HB996, HB1035, HB1069, HB1113, HB1140, HB1180, HB1191, HB1240, HB1255, SB82, SB89, SB97, SB479, HB74, HB119, HB134, HB210, HB258, HB468, HB784, HB870, HB953, HB956, HB1117, HB1236, SB42, SB208, SB217, SB274, SB300, SB341, SB379, SB382, SB387, SB401, SB449, SB487

Keywords: Major Richard Star Act, veterans, military retirement, disability compensation, VA benefits, combat-wounded, medically retired, military retirees, service members, veterans benefits, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense, concurrent receipt, retirement offset, combat-related disability, bipartisan support, memorial resolution, Congressional memorial, Louisiana delegation, Richard Star

Summary: The House convened with a quorum and opened with prayer by Archbishop Checchio, the pledge, and the national anthem. Members also used personal privilege to recognize visiting officials, university leaders, grocers, Governor’s Fellows, and several special guests and honorees, including Grambling State University for its 125th anniversary, Tiger Athletics, and the Tiger Marching Band, as well as CASA volunteers and advocates. The chamber adopted a number of ceremonial resolutions and made several conference committee appointments and committee discharge motions. The floor then took up a series of Senate and House resolutions, many of which were adopted without objection or after brief debate. These included resolutions creating or studying task forces on topics such as homeowner catastrophe claims and insurance-related litigation, the Louisiana-Ireland Trade Commission, informed consent laws, fiscal note procedures, K-12 student success pathways, and military funding alignment. Members also adopted resolutions on domestic violence protective-order access, flood risk mapping, seismic activity in North Louisiana, illegal dumping enforcement, toll signage and customer service, and other local or commemorative matters. Several Senate resolutions were temporarily returned to the calendar, while others were adopted by recorded vote, including SCR 29, SCR 33, SCR 37, SCR 63, SCR 30, SCR 65, and SCR 40. The House then considered Senate Bill 259, which authorizes an online application process for civil protection orders and restraining orders for domestic violence victims; it passed 93-0. Senate Bill 312, dealing with public-sector labor organizations and dues/withdrawal procedures, prompted extended debate focused on whether the bill unfairly singled out teachers’ unions and whether teachers already have the ability to opt out; the bill ultimately passed 60-38. Senate Bill 348, allowing the City of St. George to contract for administrative assistance in motor-vehicle crash response, passed 84-9 after questions about citations, reports, and the role of third parties. Senate Bill 485, concerning St. George’s municipal fiscal authority and insurance premium taxes, passed 91-0 after an amendment removed new public facility charge authority. The House also debated Senate Bill 197, which would reduce the number of judges on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal from 12 to 10 based on a workload and population study by the National Center for State Courts. Supporters cited the circuit’s smaller population and lower per-judge workload, while questions focused on the study’s publication and whether it actually recommended a reduction. The transcript ends during that debate, before final disposition is shown.

Bills: HR46, HR47, HR48, HR49, HR50, HR51, HR52, HR53, HR54, HR55, HR56, HR57, HCR31, HB20, HB21, HB166, HB494, HB710, HB795, HB985, HB986, HB987, HB988, HB989, HB990, HB991, HB992, HB993, HB994, HB995, HB996, HB997, HB998, HR42, HR43, HR44, HR45, HCR22, HCR23, HCR24, HCR25, HCR26, HCR27, HCR28, HCR29, HCR30, SCR13, HB894, HB983, HB984, SB19, SB23, SB26, SB30, SB39, SB45, SB46, SB50, SB51, SB55, SB69, SB71, SB73, SB84, SB85, SB89, SB96, SB98, SB101, SB110, SB148, SB150, SB160, SB164, SB303, SB340, HB28, HB36, HB50, HB52, HB56, HB62, HB68, HB92, HB110, HB117, HB119, HB124, HB140, HB147, HB160, HB171, HB174, HB182, HB193, HB196, HB198, HB203, HB228, HB234, HB237, HB260, HB268, HB271, HB285, HB289, HB316, HB351, HB393, HB400, HB413, HB446, HB469, HB486, HB534, HB551, HB552, HB574, HB576, HB634, HB649, HB677, HB735, HB739, HB779, HB784, HB796, HB807, HB842, HB850, HB919, HB474, HB487, HB503, HB606, HB633, HB707, HB720, HB728, HB733, HB846, HB852, HB856, HB868, HB875, HB129, HB130, HB287, HB489, HB545, HB553, HB555, HB570, HB854, HB952, HB221, HB148, HB331, HB149, HB901

Keywords: HR 46, House Resolution 46, water well drillers, water wells, well drilling, driller licensure, licensing requirements, Department of Conservation and Energy, R.S. 38:3098.1, LAC 46.LXXXIX.507, professional references, two years drilling experience, workforce development, barriers to entry, water infrastructure, natural resources, groundwater, public health, state water resources, occupational licensing

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, let me walk you through the map kind of district by district.
• because there was a district that came under, on top of District 27, which in the enacted map is District
• District 25, to proposed District 25 under your map?
• district to another single district in any map is sometimes hard to do, because especially as a map
• In this district, it's District 8, or in this map, it's District 8, that has one person fewer than that

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• because there was a district that came under on top of District 27, which in the enacted map is District
• of districts before finalizing the maps?
• 25, to proposed District 25 under your map?
• So every district in this map equals 769,221.
• In this district, it's District 8, or in this map, it's District 8, that has one person fewer than that

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:

• because there was a district that came under, on top of District 27, which in the enacted map is District
• Isn't current District 20 more compact than current District 25 in the proposed map?
• District 25, to proposed District 25 under your map?
• district to another single district in any map is sometimes hard to do, because especially as a map
• In this district, it's District 8, or in this map it's District 8, that has one person fewer than that

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 average score for the 28 districts in this map is 0.46, which is consistent with the benchmark map
• Furthermore, this map raises serious concern under the Fair Districts Amendment.
• It is now covered by no less than three districts: 12, 14, and 15 under this map.
• If you look at the map in District 9, which is my area, If you look at the map in District 9, which is
• In other words, there are counties with only one district. In the governor's map, it's 48.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• maps, ...taking into account partisan principles when redrawing these district maps, how can we ensure
• The average score for the 28 districts in this map is 0.46, which is consistent with the benchmark map
• Furthermore, this map raises serious concern under the Fair Districts Amendment.
• It is now covered by no less than three districts: 12, 14, and 15 under this map.
• It is now covered by no less than three districts, 12, 14, and 15 under this map.

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:

• The average score for the 28 districts in this map is 0.46, which is consistent with the benchmark map
• Furthermore, this map raises serious concern under the Fair Districts Amendment.
• It is now covered by no less than three districts: 12, 14, and 15 under this map.
• If you look at the map in District 9, which is my area, If you look at the map in District 9, which is
• In other words, there are counties with only one district. In the governor's map, it's 48.

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• maps, count partisan principles when redrawing these district maps, how can we ensure that all voters
• to the proposed Congressional District 9 in the map before us, I can... ...Congressional District 9
• The average score for the 28 districts in this map is 0.46, which is consistent with the benchmark map
• Furthermore, this map raises serious concern under the Fair Districts Amendment.
• If you look at the map in District 9, which is my area, And drawn 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:

• This district is very similar to that district that exists in the benchmark map.
• are both, just like District 21, largely almost identical to the districts that are in the enacted map
• And District 27 in the enacted map is one of the most compact districts that was in that map carried
• The map is one of the most compact districts that was in that map carried over to this map.
• If you look at the enacted map, there's actually a space in between District 27 and District 24, where

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:

• maps, count partisan principles when redrawing these district maps, how can we ensure that all voters
• The average score for the 28 districts in this map is 0.46, which is consistent with the benchmark map
• Furthermore, this map raises serious concern under the Fair Districts Amendment.
• It is now covered by no less than three districts: 12, 14, and 15 under this map.
• If you look at the map in District 9, which is my area, And drawn 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:

• maps, count partisan principles when redrawing these district maps, how can we ensure that all voters
• The average score for the 28 districts in this map is 0.46, which is consistent with the benchmark map
• Furthermore, this map raises serious concern under the Fair Districts Amendment.
• It is now covered by no less than three districts: 12, 14, and 15 under this map.
• If you look at the map in District 9, which is my area, And drawn 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:

• Do you believe that the Fair Districts Act applies to any map that would be before us?
• Or are you asking me whether this map complies with the Fair Districts Act?
• Do these maps comply with the Fair Districts Amendments that Florida voters approved?
• Did any legislator draw a single district line in the map we're about to vote on?
• There is no emergency in our district that this map solves.

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Do you believe that the Fair Districts Act applies to any map that would be before us?
• Or do you think, are you asking me whether this map that complies with the Fair Districts Act?
• Do these maps comply to the Fair District Amendments that Florida voters approved?
• Did any legislator draw a single district line in the map we're about to vote on?
• There is no emergency in our district that this map solves.

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:

• As you can see, we've got maps on easels at the back of both maps of the district.
• Chairman, the same copy of the congressional map put forward by the House. District Committee.
• maps, you shouldn't take into consideration moving... economic engines of a particular district.
• District 35 under this map becomes very well-aligned with communities of interest in the counties of
• The chair mentions that these maps are more compact, and he cites District 35 continuously.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• we have in Texas always in drawing maps, ...districts.
• They want to go back to the way the congressional map looked before, where they fell under District 16
• That's what happens when district maps don't reflect the people living in them.
• So I went back to Based decisions in the last drawing of district maps.
• And that choice matters because the districts targeted are not just lines on the map.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Based decisions in the last drawing of district maps. So I went back to the Senate archives.
• They drew the maps, they said they weren't racially discriminatory, and so I have no idea why my district
• And that choice matters, because the districts targeted are not just lines on a map; they are communities
• When maps are redrawn, they bury these both urban and veteran-heavy communities into rural districts.
• flaws in the last set of maps, we who live in the 16th Congressional District experience... ...relative

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In fact, the map has zero majority-minority districts.
• In fact, the map has zero majority-minority districts.
• The map does not pair any incumbents in the same district, and the districts are contiguous.
• That map had two congressional districts that reflected the picture of Louisiana, over 30 percent of
• This map gives us two opportunity districts, two opportunity districts.

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.