Texas Republicans to approve new redistricting plan
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Democratic Resistance and Civil Rights Concerns
Legal and National Implications
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
FAQs:
Texas Republicans are preparing to approve a new congressional redistricting plan that could add five additional districts favoring GOP candidates in the U.S. House of Representatives . Endorsed by President Donald Trump, this mid-decade effort departs from the usual post-Census redistricting schedule and has sparked nationwide debate over its impact on both state and federal elections.Unlike the traditional ten-year redistricting, this plan focuses on many key urban areas, including Houston, Austin, Dallas, and parts of South Texas. Republicans argue that the changes reflect population and shifting demographics. Critics, however, contend that the plan is initially designed to focus Democratic voters into fewer districts, thereby fading their electoral influence and potentially undermining fair representation.The map has encountered strong opposition from Democratic lawmakers. In an attempt to delay the vote, they had a two-week walkout, temporarily halting legislative proceedings. Upon their return to Austin, some legislators faced strict monitoring within the House chamber, including police supervision to ensure a quorum. Despite these protests, Republicans remain confident the plan will pass, signifying their legislative majority.Civil rights organizations have also raised alarms, cautioning that the map could violate federal voting rights protections by minimizing the political power of minority communities. If approved, the proposal is anticipated to face legal difficulties that could extend beyond Texas and affect congressional elections nationally.The Texas redistricting strategy is already shaping broader political procedures. Democratic-led states, such as California, have mentioned plans to adjust their own congressional maps in response, focusing on safeguarding or expanding Democratic representation. Governor Gavin Newsom has suggested that California may adopt redistricting measures that increase additional Democratic-leaning districts, reflecting a growing trend of states counteracting partisan advantages gained elsewhere.Political analysts cite that the Texas plan could shift the balance of power in the U.S. House before the 2026 midterms. Adding five GOP-leaning districts, Republicans could fortify their majority, making it more challenging for Democrats to regain ground. However, ongoing legal issues may delay the implementation of the new districts, creating uncertainty for candidates and voters in affected districts.As the legislative vote draws near, attention remains concentrated on Texas. The outcome will restructure the state's congressional delegation and influence broader national strategies, making a lasting impact on the political scenario heading into the 2026 midterm elections A1. Redistricting is the procedure of redrawing boundaries for electoral districts.A2. Republicans are redrawing maps before the next Census to gain political benefit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
24 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Marred by disruptions over SIR, stormy monsoon session ends
One of the most eventful sessions of Parliament, which witnessed the unexpected exit of former Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, ended on Thursday, marred by disruption and the passage of some important pieces of legislation. Marred by disruptions over SIR, stormy monsoon session ends With several days washed out in protest over the special intensive revision of voter roll in Bihar and the aggressive protest against the 130th Constitution amendment bill, the Lok Sabha's productivity slipped to 30.6%. It worked for 37 hours and 7 minutes and wasted 84 hours and five minutes—highest in the 18th Lok Sabha—according to parliamentary data. The Upper House clocked 38.88% productivity as it worked for only 41 hours and 15 minutes. Less than 10% of questions could be answered orally in both Houses. Fourteen government bills were introduced in the Lok Sabha and a total of 15 bills were passed by both Houses during the session. House panels submitted 89 reports, the highest in the 18th Lok Sabha so far, during the session. A new Income Tax bill to simplify the tax law, the National Sports governance Bill that aims to reform sports administration, and The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill to ban online money games and its promotion were among the key pieces of legislation passed in the month-long session. Union home minister Amit Shah introduced the 130th Constitution amendment bill and two supplementary bills that aimed to remove chief ministers, ministers (and even the PM) if they are arrested or detained for 30 consecutive days for crimes with punishment of more than five years in jail. These three bills were referred to Joint Committees. The amendments to the Jan Vishwas law and the insolvency and bankruptcy code amendments were referred to Select Committees of the Lok Sabha. An angry Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla reminded lawmakers, 'The entire country watches our conduct and our functioning as public representatives. The public has great expectations from us that we have serious and meaningful discussions on their problems and issues of wider public interest, on important bills, in accordance with the decorum of Parliament.' 'Sloganeering, displaying placards and planned deadlock in the Lok Sabha or Parliament premises is against parliamentary decorum. The kind of language and conduct seen in this session is not in accordance with the dignity of Parliament. Our language in the House and the Parliament premises should always be restrained and decent,' Birla said, as he questioned the tactics of planned disruptions of the Opposition. 'Agreement and disagreement is a natural process of democracy, but our collective effort should be that the House runs with dignity, decorum and decency,' he said, asking parties and MPs to introspect on this issue. The session started on July 21. That evening, then Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar suddenly tendered his resignation citing health issues after acknowledging an Opposition-sponsored notice for the removal of justice Yashwant Varma, even as the government planned to bring the motion in the Lok Sabha. Many Opposition MPs alleged that Dhankhar was forced to leave. His incommunicado status since his exit continues to be a hot topic for the Opposition. The session also coincided with the preparations for the Vice President election. The NDA fielded former Maharashtra governor PC Radhakrishnan while the Opposition nominated former Supreme Court judge B Sudershan Reddy. Both Houses had a two-day-long, intense debate on Operation Sindoor in which Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union home minister Amit Shah, defence minister Rajnath Singh, external affairs minister S Jaishankar and BJP chief and health minister JP Nadda participated. The Opposition quickly shifted it's focus on SIR after the Pahalgam debate, and the two Houses suffered frequent disruptions and adjournments. The Opposition demanded a debate on the SIR but the government argued that no minister can reply on behalf of the Election Commission, leading to a stalemate during the session. The logjam worsened in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday when Shah tabled the 130th Constitution amendment and two supplementary bills.. Opposition MPs and government ministers nearly came to a scuffle as torn copies of the bill were thrown and Trinamool Congress MPs raised slogans from the Well. In the Rajya Sabha too, noisy protests greeted Shah on Thursday when he proposed that the three bills should be sent to a Joint Committee. During the session, the Lok Sabha started the process of impeachment of justice Varma and constituted a three-member committee to investigate the charges of keeping undisclosed sums of money at his residence. But no private members' business was held in either House during this session. According to PRS Legislative Research. 'Private member Bills have not been introduced or discussed for over a year in Lok Sabha.' 'No questions were answered orally on 12 days in Rajya Sabha and seven days in Lok Sabha. Ministers gave oral response to 8% of starred questions in Lok Sabha, and 5% of starred questions in Rajya Sabha,' added PRS. Parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju said the session was 'fruitful and successful' for the country and the government but 'unsuccessful and damaging' for the Opposition. He said the government, despite the Opposition's disruption, managed to get all its business transacted. 'The monsoon session has been very useful. However, it was a major loss for Opposition MPs, especially the newly elected ones, as they did not even get a chance to speak in the House... Opposition leaders are themselves responsible for this,' he said. In the Rajya Sabha, deputy chairman Harivansh said the proceedings were marred by disruptions and resulted in business being impacted. 'Despite the best efforts of the Chair to facilitate meaningful and disruption-free discussions on the listed business, this session was regrettably marred by repeated disruptions, leading to frequent adjournments. This not only resulted in the loss of precious parliamentary time but also deprived us of the opportunity to deliberate upon several matters of public importance,' he said. The Upper House, he said, functioned for only 41 hours and 15 minutes. 'The productivity of this session stood at a disappointing 38.88%, something that calls for serious introspection,' Harivansh said. 'We had the opportunity to raise 285 Questions, 285 Zero Hour submissions, and 285 Special Mentions. However, only 14 Questions, 7 Zero Hour submissions, and 61 Special Mentions could actually be taken up,' he added.
Time of India
36 minutes ago
- Time of India
SC greenlights Trump's NIH cuts: Impacts $783M in DEI grants; critics raise alarm
Supreme court (AP) The US Supreme Court has permitted the Trump administration to proceed with slashing $783 million in research grants awarded by the national institutes of health (NIH), lifting a lower court's block on the move. The grants were originally aligned with federal diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, reported news agency AP. The 5-4 decision marks a significant development in a broader legal battle over federal funding priorities. While allowing the past cuts to stand, the apex court has continued to block the administration's guidance on future research grants. The conservative majority, including Justice Neil Gorsuch, found that the dispute over the NIH cuts belonged in the federal claims court, in line with an earlier ruling on teacher-training programme funding. 'All these interventions should have been unnecessary,' Gorsuch noted in his opinion, as quoted by the agency. Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court's three liberal justices in dissent. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a detailed dissent, wrote: 'A half paragraph of reasoning (issued without full briefing or any oral argument) thus suffices here to partially sustain the government's abrupt cancellation of hundreds of millions of dollars allocated to support life-saving biomedical research.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Indonesia: New Container Houses (Prices May Surprise You) Container House | Search ads Search Now Undo The cuts are part of an estimated $12 billion worth of NIH research funding halted under the Trump administration's review of federal DEI spending. Sixteen Democratic attorneys general and several public-health advocacy groups, who challenged the move, argued that such cancellations disrupt scientific research and threaten public health. 'Halting studies midway can also ruin the data already collected and ultimately harm the country's potential for scientific breakthroughs by disrupting scientists' work in the middle of their careers,' the plaintiffs argued, according to the report. Earlier in June, US district judge William Young had blocked the funding cuts, calling them 'arbitrary and discriminatory.' At a hearing, he remarked: 'I've never seen government racial discrimination like this... Have we no shame.' The Trump administration, represented by solicitor general D John Sauer, maintained that funding decisions are executive functions and should not be 'subject to judicial second-guessing,' arguing that DEI programmes can 'conceal insidious racial discrimination.' The case continues to unfold in lower courts even as the Supreme Court's interim order enables the administration to move ahead with rolling back funding for multiple research programmes.
India Today
40 minutes ago
- India Today
Trump wins court battle to slash $783 million in Anti-DEI research cuts
The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the Trump administration to eliminate $783 million in federal research funding, siding with the government's push to roll back diversity, equity and inclusion a 5-4 decision, the justices lifted a lower court order that had blocked the National Institutes of Health from canceling hundreds of grants, though they left in place restrictions on new funding Justice John Roberts joined the court's three liberal members in dissent, warning against allowing the administration to move forward while lawsuits continue. The decision marks a significant victory for President Donald Trump, who has made dismantling DEI programs across federal agencies a cornerstone of his second cuts, part of a broader $12 billion rollback of NIH research projects, have sparked backlash from Democratic state attorneys general and public health groups. They argue the cancellations will cause 'incalculable losses in public health and human life,' disrupt ongoing studies and derail careers of scientists whose work is being abruptly Justice Department countered that funding choices should not be 'subject to judicial second-guessing' and said DEI-linked efforts can 'conceal insidious racial discrimination.'Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the justices to steer such disputes to federal claims court, pointing to an earlier ruling on teacher-training program cuts. But plaintiffs say research grants are fundamentally different and cannot simply be undone without severe damage to District Judge William Young, who initially blocked the cuts, blasted the administration's move as 'arbitrary and discriminatory.' Young, a Reagan appointee, said at a June hearing: 'I've never seen government racial discrimination like this. Have we no shame.'An appeals court had upheld his order, but the Supreme Court's ruling now gives the Trump administration the green light to proceed with the $783 million rollback while the legal fight continues.- EndsWith inputs from Associated PressTune InTrending Reel
