North Texas congressional districts dramatically changed in new redistricting plan
"Texas Republicans are going all out trying to fulfill Donald Trump's goal of flipping five Democratic held seats," said Mark Jones, a political science professor at Rice University.
If approved, the redrawn map would give the GOP a path to win up to 30 of the state's 38 congressional seats, which is five more than they currently hold.
To achieve that goal, Republican lawmakers propose significantly altering several districts in North Texas, targeting Democratic members of Congress and shifting boundaries to favor conservative-leaning areas.
District 33, currently represented by Democrat Marc Veasey, would be moved out of Tarrant County entirely, which would leave only a small portion of the county represented by a Democrat.
District 32, anchored in Dallas and represented by Democrat Julie Johnson, would be reshaped to pick up parts of Rockwall County, a shift expected to make it more favorable to Republicans.
The map would also pack more minority voters into District 30, a Democratic stronghold.
Jones says the changes could reduce the number of Democratic congressional representatives in North Texas from three to as few as one or two.
"They've extended some of the districts out into East Texas and into West Texas, where you have more reliable Republican voting bases, meaning that the overall weight of the Dallas-Fort Worth area will be lower," Jones said.
Both Johnson and Veasey have slammed the proposed map, with Johnson calling it a "corrupt, racist, power grab."
"This map is a disaster — crafted to divide neighborhoods and rig the game for Donald Trump," said Rep. Johnson in a statement. "It's a desperate move from a party losing its grip on a changing state. Thousands of Texans have overwhelmingly spoken up against this scheme across the state. The message is clear: We don't want this done in our name."
Marc Veasey released this statement:
"Let's be clear - this map is racist, it's illegal, and it's part of a long, ugly tradition of trying to keep Black and Brown Texas from having a voice. What Donald Trump and Greg Abbott are doing isn't about democracy - it's about consolidating power. Republicans are bending their knee to a wannabe king, drawing maps in backrooms to appease a man who tried to overthrow an election and now wants to overthrow the will of Texans."To Trump, Abbott, and the servile Republicans, I say this: Black people in this country fought, bled, and died for the right to vote, and we will never bend the knee again to any man. Not to Trump. Not Abbott. Not to anyone who thinks they can shut us out.Trump and the Republican cowards want to rig the system because they know they can't win when every voice counts and every vote matters. So instead of earning our votes, they are trying to erase us.But we are still here. We will fight in the courts, in the streets, and at the ballot box. No matter how hard they try, we aren't going anywhere."
The feedback at public hearings on redistricting has been overwhelmingly negative, with most people coming to speak against redrawing boundary lines.
However, not everyone agrees with the criticism. Republican political consultant William Busby believes the proposed map accurately reflects recent voting trends.
"We are seeing the trend of voters in the suburbs and in more rural areas - they are voting Republican, they are voting for Republican principles," Busby said. "These maps reflect the trend and the voting behavior of the voters in the state of Texas."
Texas House Democrats say they are prepared to do whatever it takes to fight the redistricting effort, including potentially leaving the state to break quorum, a tactic used during previous legislative battles.
"This map is so aggressive and changes African-American representation in the state so dramatically, it's very likely to trigger a negative reaction by Texas House Democrats," said Jones. "That could lead to another quorum break, ending the current special session and forcing a second one. Then it becomes a question of who can wait the longest."
The proposed map is still subject to change before lawmakers vote on it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
10 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Nvidia China Chip Payments, Tax Hike Hurts Jobs, Private Credit's Losers
Your morning briefing, the business news you need in just 15 minutes. On today's podcast: (1) Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices agreed to pay 15% of their revenues from Chinese AI chip sales to the US government in a deal to secure export licenses, an unusual arrangement that may unnerve both US companies and Beijing. (2) European nations are seeking to talk to Donald Trump ahead of the US president's planned meeting in Alaska with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, according to people familiar with the matter. (3) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defended his plan for a military sweep against the final Hamas strongholds in Gaza, calling it the best available option for recovering hostages while safeguarding his country's long-term security — an argument that's met vocal opposition at home and abroad. (4) It was a 'trailblazing' project - and for the two small pension funds that helped finance it, a chance to prop up the retirement savings of dentists and pharmacists in rural northern Germany. We look at Germany's biggest property crash since the financial crisis. (5) The UK jobs market weakened across the board in July as employers cut their payroll budgets in response to Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves' £26 billion ($34.9 billion) tax increase, according to a survey closely monitored by the Bank of England. (6) European Central Bank officials will wait until December to deliver their next interest-rate cut in what is likely to be the final move in the cycle, a Bloomberg survey showed.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The legal battle over Trump's use of the National Guard moves to a California courtroom
Lawyers for President Donald Trump and California Gov. Gavin Newsom are set to face off Monday to determine whether the president violated a 147-year-old law when he deployed the National Guard to quell protests over immigration raids in Los Angeles – against the wishes of the Democratic governor. In June, as hundreds of people gathered in Los Angeles to protest a string of immigration raids that targeted workplaces and left dozens of people detained or deported, the president federalized and deployed 4,000 National Guard members over the objection of Newsom and local officials, who said the deployment would only cause further chaos. Trump invoked a rarely used law that allows the president to federalize the National Guard during times of actual or threatened rebellion or invasion, or when regular forces can't enforce US laws. The president's lawyers said in a court filing that the duties of the National Guard troops and a handful of Marines also dispatched were narrowly circumscribed: They were dispatched only to protect federal property and personnel, and they didn't engage in any law enforcement activities. Newsom filed a lawsuit June 9 against Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, saying they violated the Posse Comitatus Act and the 10th Amendment. Trump's lawyers say the act, which prevents the use of the military for enforcing laws, doesn't provide a mechanism for a civil lawsuit. But Newsom's lawyers have argued the president illegally made an 'unprecedented power grab' – and even violated the Constitution – by overruling local authorities to send in the military. The president and Hegseth 'have overstepped the bounds of law and are intent on going as far as they can to use the military in unprecedented, unlawful ways,' Newsom's lawyers say in a complaint. The trial represents a crucial moment for determining how much power a US president can lawfully exercise over the military on domestic soil. During his first term, Trump had often speculated openly about the possibility of deploying the military on American soil, whether to suppress protests or combat crime. Now he's talking about deploying the National Guard to the nation's capital over recent high-profile crimes. The trial also represents an escalation of the feud between Trump and Newsom, which saw the president threaten to have the Democratic governor arrested during the Los Angeles protests. Newsom described the comment as 'an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.' The judge set to preside over the bench trial, Charles R. Breyer, previously granted a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration, ruling that the president unlawfully federalized the National Guard and that the protests didn't amount to an insurrection. But just hours later, an appeals court paused his ruling, allowing the deployment to continue. Here's more on what to know about the upcoming trial – and the three laws Newsom's team says Trump and Hegseth violated. The trial is taking place in San Francisco, presided over by Breyer, who sits on the US District Court for the Northern District of California, with proceedings scheduled from Monday to Wednesday. The Posse Comitatus Act At the center of the legal proceedings is the Posse Comitatus Act, which largely prevents the president from using the military as a domestic police force, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, an independent law and policy organization. 'Posse Comitatus' is a Latin term used in American and British law to describe 'a group of people who are mobilized by the sheriff to suppress lawlessness in the county,' according to the Brennan Center. The act, signed into law by President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1878, consists of just one sentence: 'Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.' Newsom's lawyers say the deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles was a violation of the act since it bars 'the military from engaging in civil law enforcement unless explicitly authorized by law,' according to the complaint. But Trump's lawyers insist the National Guard and Marines didn't engage in any civil law enforcement – and therefore didn't violate the act. Moreover, they say the act itself doesn't provide any mechanisms for its enforcement in a private civil lawsuit. The 10th Amendment Newsom's lawyers also argue that by overriding California officials, Trump violated the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which governs the sharing of power between the federal government and the 50 states. The amendment says 'the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' Trump and Hegseth's move to call up the National Guard against the governor's wishes 'infringes on Governor Newsom's role as Commander-in-Chief of the California National Guard and violates the State's sovereign right to control and have available its National Guard in the absence of a lawful invocation of federal power,' Newsom's complaint says. Policing and crime control are some of the most crucial uses of state power, Newsom's lawyers say. The Administrative Procedure Act Additionally, Newsom's lawyers argue Trump and Hegseth violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which says a court must 'hold unlawful and set aside agency action' that is 'arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law,' that is 'contrary to constitutional right (or) power,' or that is 'in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.' Hegseth and the Department of Defense 'lack authority to federalize members of the California National Guard without issuing such orders through Governor Newsom, who has not consented to their actions or been afforded the opportunity to consult on any deployment. Such agency actions are unauthorized, unprecedented, and not entitled to deference by this Court,' reads the complaint. The obscure law Trump's lawyers cite Trump's lawyers, meanwhile, have focused in their filing on a little-used law they cited to federalize the National Guard. Section 12406(3) of the US Code says the president can federalize the National Guard of any state in three circumstances: if the US is being invaded or faces danger of invasion; if there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion; or if the president is unable 'with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' The law, however, stipulates the orders should be issued 'through the governors.' Newsom's lawyers say Trump didn't consult with the governor before issuing the order. Breyer previously pointed out Trump's memo directed Hegseth to consult the governor before federalizing the National Guard – but that he didn't. The Los Angeles deployment was only the second time in US history that a president has used the 'exclusive authority' of this law to federalize the National Guard, according to Newsom's lawyers. The first was when President Richard Nixon called on the National Guard to deliver the mail during the 1970 Postal Service strike. And it's the second time since 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators, that a president activated a state's national guard without a request from the governor – though he used a different law to do so. Trump's lawyers say the president was unable to enforce federal immigration law 'as well as laws forbidding interference with federal functions or assaults on federal officers and property' with 'the regular forces' – so the deployment falls within the limits of Section 12406(3). What do Newsom's lawyers want? With only 300 National Guard troops still deployed in Los Angeles, Newsom's lawyers are looking mostly for symbolic relief: a declaration the memorandum used to federalize the National Guard and Hegseth's orders were unauthorized and illegal. The remaining troops are stationed at Joint Forces Training Base – Los Alamitos, Newsom says, 'without a clear mission, direction, or a timeline for returning to their communities.' Newsom's team is also asking for 'injunctive relief' prohibiting Hegseth and the Department of Defense from federalizing and deploying the California National Guard and military without meeting legal requirements, including the cooperation of the governor. Finally, they ask to recoup the state of California's costs and attorneys' fees and 'such additional relief as the court deems proper and the interests of justice may require.' What witnesses will appear? Trump's lawyers indicated in a court filing they plan to call as a witness Maj. Gen. Scott M. Sherman, deputy commanding general of the National Guard. Sherman is expected to discuss the National Guard's deployment to Los Angeles and their compliance with the Posse Comitatus Act. Newsom's lawyers also plan to call Sherman, as well as US Army official William B. Harrington to testify about the activities of Task Force 51, the command post activated to coordinate deployment of National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles. Ernesto Santacruz Jr. of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement is also expected to testify about the federalized National Guard's activities in support of federal law enforcement officials during immigration enforcement operations.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Seething Over ‘South Park' Mockery On Eve Of Skydance-Paramount Deal Closure; White House Lashes Out At 'Desperate' Season 27 Premiere
EXCLUSIVE: The White House went on the offensive Thursday morning as an irate Donald Trump fumes over last night's South Park Season 27 premiere that depicted him as a Satan-canoodling and less than well-endowed pompous bully, to put it mildly. 'The President is seething over the childish attack by South Park,' an administration source tells Deadline this morning. However, as annoyed as POTUS is over Trey Parker and Matt Stone's cartoon depiction of him as a shamelessly unclothed Emperor and a mocking, AI-generated PSA during the episode titled 'Sermon on the 'Mount' that depicted the MAGA chief naked in the desert, the White House was not blindsided by the satire. More from Deadline 'South Park' Takes Aim At Trump & Paramount In Savage Season 27 Premiere Episode 'South Park' Creators Trey Parker & Matt Stone Ink New 5-Year Overall Deal; Paramount+ Becomes Show's Global Streaming Home 'South Park's Trey Parker Deadpans At Comic-Con In Response To Donald Trump's Reaction To Season 27 Premiere: "We're Terribly Sorry" Looking up the food chain of events, Skydance was warned of the episode's content earlier it seems. With FCC approval of Skydance's drawn-out merger with Paramount imminent, the administration was also given a heads up over the what was going to be in the South Park premiere, I'm told. Reps for the David Ellison-led Skydance did not respond to request for comment on the episode. Contacted by Deadline, Paramount had 'no comment' on the matter. On the other hand, with nothing yet from Trump himself on social media, the White House was more than eager to go on the record and on the counterattack. 'The Left's hypocrisy truly has no end – for years they have come after South Park for what they labeled as 'offense' content, but suddenly they are praising the show,' White House Assistant Press Secretary Taylor Rogers told Deadline this morning. 'Just like the creators of South Park, the Left has no authentic or original content, which is why their popularity continues to hit record lows,' Rogers added, in direct contrast to the $1.5 billion agreement Paramount and the South Park duo just inked this week. 'This show hasn't been relevant for over 20 years and is hanging on by a thread with uninspired ideas in a desperate attempt for attention. President Trump has delivered on more promises in just six months than any other president in our country's history – and no fourth-rate show can derail President Trump's hot streak.' Of note, Rogers did not mention the Skydance-Paramount merger in the remarks. The $8 billion merger is currently up for review by the FCC. The new South Park episode certainly mentions the deal, in addition to toggling between Stephen Colbert's recent late-night axing, efforts to kneecap diversity programs, and Trump's penchant for suing critical media outlets (like CBS, who settled with POTUS for $16 million earlier this month over what was called a 'meritless' 60 Minutes suit). A cowering 60 Minutes itself, Jesus in the school system, going to war with Canada (an old South Park trope) censorship and corporate kowtowing were also in the mix. Even the successful cutting of public broadcasting's funding got a cameo. 'Who the hell does the president think he is?' South Park's whining Cartman exclaims in the premiere about the blows against NPR. 'The government can't cancel a show. I mean, what show are they going to cancel next?' Of course, with a deft reference to Saddam Hussein and 1999's South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut movie in the cartoon affair between Trump and Satan, it was the 'pro-Trump messaging' at the end that really took last night's episode to a new level unmatched in the first six months of the heavy-handed former Celebrity Apprentice host's return to power. In a nod to Trump's assertion that there was a $16 million and more PSA side deal in his settlement with CBS, the scene comes as the town of South Park settles a fictional multibillion-dollar suit from POTUS for $3.5 million. 'Trump. His penis is teeny-tiny, but his love for us is large,' the fake PSA narrator concludes, leaving nothing to the imagination. The South Park team has put up a HeTrumpUs site to house the self-described 'synthetic media.' You can see what that messaging looked like here, but be warned, it is graphic and very NSFW: Just days after signing a hard-fought and lucrative five-year-deal with Paramount, South Park creators Parker and Stone are scheduled to appear at San Diego Comic-Con on Thursday. Can you guess what they might discuss? Ted Johnson contributed to this report. Best of Deadline 2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery 2025 TV Cancellations: Photo Gallery Everything We Know About Season 3 Of 'Euphoria' So Far Solve the daily Crossword
